### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 17, 200 4
FR EDE RIC K D . R ICE v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 243119 Stephen M. Bevil, Jud ge

No. E2004-01135-CC A-R3- P C - F iled Janu ary 10, 2005

The Appe llant, Fre derick D. Rice, appe als the judg ment of the Hamilton C ounty Criminal Court dismiss ing his petiti on for post-conviction relief

. On appeal, R ice raises t he sing le issue of whe ther he was denied the eff

ective assistance of counsel at trial. After revie w of the re cord, w e af firm the dismiss al of the pe tition.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
D AVI D G. H AYES , J

. , d el i v er ed the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.
Kevin T. B eck, Chattanoog a, Te nnessee , for the A ppellant, Fr ederick D. Rice.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Mic ha e l Mo or e , Soli cit or G e ne ra l; B re nt C

. Cherry , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; B ill C o x , Di s t ri ct Attorney Gene ral; and N eal Pinkston, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound
I n June of 20 00 , the Ap pe lla nt w a s c on vic te d o f f ir st d e g re e pr e me dit a te d mu rd e r andfi rs t deg ree felony

mur d er b y a Ha milton C ounty jury . The trial c ourt subsequently merg ed the two convictions and sentenc ed the Appellant to life in prison. On direc t a ppeal , t h e A p p ell ant’s conviction and se ntence wer e af firmed. State v. Frederic k D. Rice , N o. E2 00 0- 23 89 -C CA -R 3- CD (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knox ville, J une 17, 2002), pe rm. to appea l denied, (Te nn. 2002).
The re levant fa cts, as summarized by this court on direc t appea l, established:
This case relates to the murder of Anthony Way ne Sims

. Debr a F uqua testified that on October

26, 1998, she was walking to a friend’s house and saw the victim and the-2-

[Appellant] near

the intersec tion of C urtis and S herma n Streets i n Chattanoog a. She s ai d t h at s h e k n ew t h e [ Ap p el l an t ] as “J o h n n y Bo y ” a n d t h at s h e h ad p u rc h as ed d ru gs from him in the past. She said that the victim and the [ Appellant] were standing behind a g ray

car and that the v i ct i m was showing the [Appellant] something in a black c loth briefca se. She said that the two men w ere standing face- t o-fa ce and “having some words” when the [Appellant] shot the victim i n the head. She said that the victim fell from be hind the car an d t h at the [Appellant] l ooked at he r and sa id, “B itch, y ou’ll be next.” She said that when the police arrived, she did not tell them about what she had see n beca use she was afra id for he r life. She sa id there w as no do ub t in he r m indthat th e [Ap pe lla nt] s ho t th e vic tim

.

. . . Nathan Be n fo rd t es tified that he wa s a fe dera l prisoner serving a life sentenc e for conspirac y

to distribute crac k cocaine. He sai d t h at ab o ut October 1998, he wa s bein g h el d i n the Hamilton CountyJ ail and shar ed a c ell with [ the Appellant]. He said that [the Appe llant] told him the following : The victim drove a car full of g uns to the [the Ap pe llant’ s] ho us e . [T he Ap pe lla nt] w a nte d a g un that th e vic tim

ke pt i n a blac k case . [The Appellant] and the victim left in the vi ctim’s car and drove a fe w blocks. [The Appellant] got ou t o f t h e ca r and shot the victim in the hea d. [The Ap pe llant] go t th e g un s o ut o f the vic tim ’s c ar, ran a ro un d th e c orne r, a ndg ot i nto a mar oon Cadillac wit h two men inside. [The Appellant] buried the murder wea pon in the backy ard.
Id

. I n Fe bruary

of 2003, the Appe llant filed a pro s e petition f or post-convic tion relief, a lleg ing that he wa s d e nie d th e e ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l. F oll owin g th e app oin tme nt o f c ou ns e l, a me nd e d p e tit ion s w e re fi le d, a nda n e vid e nti ary he ari ng wa s he ld on Oc tob e r 15 , 20 03

. Th e po stconviction court denied re lief by written order of Nove mber 3, 2003, a nd enter ed an amended or der finalizing the de nial of the pe tition on J anuary 22, 2004. This timely

appea l followed.
Ana lys is
On a pp e a l , t h e A p p e l l a n ta s s e r t s t h a ttr i a l c o u n s e l ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w a s d e f i c i e n tb e c a us e counsel “ failed to c all an available witness tending to corrobor ate Appe llant’s al i b i

. ” To succee d on a c h a ll e n g e o f

in e f f e c ti v e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l, th e A p p e ll a n t b e ar s th e b u r d e n o f e s ta b li s h ing the alleg ations set forth in his petition byclea r and convincing evidenc e. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 1 1 0 (f ) ( 2 0 0 3 ). T h e Ap p el l an t m u s t d em o n s tra t e t h at co u n s el ’s re p re s en t at i o n fe l l b el o w t h e r an ge of compe tence demande d of attorne y s in criminal case s. Ba x te r v . R os e , 5 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 9 3 0 , 936 (Tenn. 1975). Under Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984), the Appellant must establish (1) de fi ci en t p er formanc e and ( 2) pre judice re sulting fr om the de fi c ie nc y . T he pe tit ion e r i s n ot e nti tle d to the be ne fi t of hin ds ig ht, ma yno t se c on d- g ue ss a-3-

rea sonably

based tria l strateg y , and cannot criticize a sound, but unsucce ssful, tactica l decision made during the cour se o f the proc eeding s. Ad k ins v . S tat e , 911 S.W .2d 334, 347 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). This de fer ence to the tactica l decisions of trial counse l is dependant upon a showing that the decisions wer e made afte r ade quate pr epar ation. Coo pe r v . S tat e , 8 47 S.W. 2d52 1, 52 8 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1992).
I t is unnecessa

ry for a court to addr ess def

iciency and pre judice in any

particula r orde r, or even to a ddress both if the pe titioner makes an insufficient showing on either. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. a t 69 7, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 2069 . In o rd e r t o e sta bli sh pr e jud ic e , th e pe tition e r mus t e sta bli sh a “ re a so na ble probability

that, but for counse l’s unprofe ssional error s, the result of the pr ocee ding w ou ld h ave be en differ ent. A re asonable probabil i t y is a probability

sufficie nt to undermine conf idence in the outcome.” State v. Burns , 6 S

. W

. 3 d 4 5 3 , 4 6 3 (T en n
. 1 9 9 9 ) ( q u o t i n g Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct . at 2068) (c itations omi tted).
The issues of de ficient pe rformance by couns el an d p o ssible prejudice to the defe nse ar e mix ed questions of law and fa ct. Id . at 46 1. “ [A] tria l c ou rt ’s findings of fact underlying a

claim of ineffe ctive assist ance of counsel are revie wed on a ppeal unde r a de novo stand ard , a c c omp a nie d w ith a pre sumption t hat those finding s are corr ect unless the prepondera nce of the evide nce is other wise.” Fi e lds v . S tat e , 4 0 S. W.3 d 4 50 , 4 58 (T e nn . 2 00 1) (c iti ng Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; He nle y v . S tate , 960 S.W .2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997) ). Howe ver, conclusions of law ar e r e v i e w e d u n d e r a p u r e l y de novo standard w ith no presumption that the post-conviction court’s f indings a re c orre ct. Id

. At the pos t-conviction hea ring , trial counsel testified that he had c ontacted Cha rles L ovelac e, the alleg ed alibi witness, at the Appe llant’s reque st in prepar ation for tria l. This contact wa s approximately

five mont hs prior to the s chedule d trial date. Counsel expl ained that L ovelac e wa s unable to identify

the spec ific date of the homicide and “ was somewhat evasive, he didn’t rec all what day it was or what the timeframe s wer e.” Ba sed upon this conver sation, trial counsel “ determined that the dates w ould n o t work, the times would not work and it would not be useful for [the Appellant] to put t hat on.” At the post-conviction hearing, Charles L ovelac e testified that he and the Ap pe lla nt w e re wo rking on L ov e la c e ’s c ar the day of the mur de r f

ro m 2: 45 p. m. t o 6 :00 or

7:0 0 p .m.
I n dismiss ing the petition, the post-conviction court c oncluded:
Be fore trial, the [Appellant] i nformed c oun s el o f t he ca r re pair a nd identified Mr. L ovelac e . . . as [a] possibl e alibi wit n es s [ ]

. Counsel questioned two persons . . . , tho ug h M r. L ov e la c e de nie d th a t c ou ns e l c on ta c te d h im.

. . . [ L ov e la c e ] wa s [no t] certain of the da y

or the time of the c ar r epair

. I n any event, Mr. L ovelac e’s testimony that, from 2:45 p.m. to 6:00 or 7:00 p. m. o n 2 6 O c t o b e r 1 9 9 8 , t h e d a y o f t h e m u r d e r , t h e [A p p e l l a n t ] w a s h e l p i n g him repa ir his car

does not g ive t he [ Appellant] an alibi for the time of the murder . Nor, by pla c ing the [Ap pe lla nt] in the ro le of Go od Sa mari ta n in the vic ini ty of the c ri me scene approximately two hours after the murder, does it rationalize an infer ence of innocenc e. . . . The Court theref ore f inds no clear

and convinc ing e vid ence that-4-

counsel’s pe rformance in this respec t wa s defic ient or that any defic iency

was prejudicia l.
We f indno thi ng in the re c or d to pr e po nd e rate a g a ins t th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s. Questions conce rning cre dibilit y of witnesses, the weig ht and value g iven to the ir testimony , and the fac tual issues raised by the evidenc e ar e to be r esolved by the trier of

fac t. Henley , 960 S.W .2d at 579. We will not rew eig h or reevaluate t he evidence or substitut e our infere nces f or those dra wn by the post-conviction court. Id . at 579-80. The rec ord establishes that the post-c on v i ct i o n court acc redited the testimony of t rial counsel, that counsel did contac t L ovelac e, and that “[L ovelac e] was [not ] certain of the day

or the time of the c ar r epair .” Notwithstanding , the fa ct t hat L ovelac e’s statements of the e vents have become more disce rning and spec ific with the passing of y ear s, any alleg ed deficienc y must be reviewe d in the context of counsel’s conte mporane ous assessment of the fac ts at the time of the alleg ed er ror. Loc k ha rt v. Fre twe ll , 506 U.S. 364, 372, 113 S. C t. 838, 844 (1993); Be c k

v . S tat e , No. 03C 01-9412-CR-00452 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, Aug . 29, 1995). Be cause the testimony

related by

L ovelac e at the e videntiary hearin g was not provided to c ounsel prior to trial, no def

iciency is shown.
Mo re ov e r, we a g re e wi th the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt ’s fi nd ing that th e Ap pe lla nt ha s f a ile d to de mon str a te pr e

jud ic e
. Th e pr oo f es ta

bli sh e d tha t the ho mic ide oc c ur re d at ap pr oximate ly 1:0 0 p .m. Ey e wi tne ss t e sti mon y

pla c e d th e Ap pe lla nt at th e sc e ne of the c ri me , an d th e Ap pe lla nt a dmi tte d to a c e llm a te that he ha d co mmi tte d the c ri me . E ve n if L ov e la c e ha d te sti fi e d at tria l th a t he wa s w ith the Ap pe lla nt f

ro m 2: 45 p. m. t o 6 :00 p. m., t hi s te sti mon y wo uldno t ha ve pr ov ide d a n a lib i. Acc ording ly , no prejudice has bee n shown.
CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon t he foreg oing, we affirm t he dis missal of the petition for post-convic tion relief by the Hamilton CountyCriminal Court.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE