### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs S ep te m be r 11, 200 7 PAUL HAY ES v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. P -27839 P aula S kahan , Judge

No. W2006-02344-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled Janu ary 23, 2008

Th e pe tit ion e r, Pa

ul H ay e s, a

pp e a ls the de nia l of his pe tit ion fo r pos t- c on vic tio n re lie f. On a pp e a l, he conte nds that the trial cour t erre d in d en y i n g h i s p etition for re lief but provides no proof of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. T he refo re, the jud g me nt f ro m th e po st- c on vic tio n c ourt is aff irmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, i n which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined. Wil liam Anderson, Jr., Memphis, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Paul Hayes. Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; L a cy W ilbe r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and A nita Spinetta, Assistant Dist ri ct Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION The pe titioner, P au l Hay es, wa s convicted of ag g rava ted burg lary

and two counts of a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

and recei ved

an e ff e c tiv e se ve nty -f

ive -ye ar s e nte nc e . H e a pp e a le d h is convictions, and they

wer e af firmed by this court. State v. Paul Hay es, No. W2001-02637-CCA-R3- CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 1043, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App. Dec. 6, 2002) . He f iled a petition fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f, a lle g ingtha t he re c e ive d in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l in nin e are a s. Followinga hea

ring , the post-conviction cour t found that counsel pr ovided ef fec tive assistance and that no relief

was wa rra nted. On appe al, the petitioner a rgues that t he post -convic tion court e rre d in concludinghe did not rec eive inef

fec tive assistance of counsel. How ever , in his brief, he doe s not provide any citations to the rec ord nor doe s he provide a ny au t h o ri t y t o bolster his conclusion. Our r eview of the petitioner’s brie f re flec ts that he has fa iled to adequa t el y brief the issues. A petitioner wa ives an-2-

issue when he fails to adequately brief the issue. State v. Schaller, 975 S.W.2d 313, 318 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Her e, the pe titioner has outlined case law that demons t ra t es how to show ineff ective a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l and

the n s tate s h is p os iti on

that th e tot a lity

of c ir c ums tanc e s in

thi s c a se ref lects that the level of represe ntation he rece ived was not sufficie nt. He doe s not cite to the rec ord o r t h e p ost-conviction proc eedingto give any example or argument as to how his counsel wa s ine ff e c tiv e . Q uit e sim

ply , th e pet it io ner has no t sh ow n h owthe po st- c onvic tio n c ourt e rr e d in denying his pe tition for post conviction relief. There fore , the petit ioner is not entitled to any relief

. Conclusion
B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g and the re c or d a s a

wh ole , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt f

ro m th e po stconviction cour

t.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI L L I AMS, J UDGE