# FILED December 8, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBE R SESSION, 1998
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9709- CR-00419 ) Appellee, ) ) JACKSON COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON. J.O. BOND, JUDGE CAROLYN STRI CKLAND, ) ) Appe llant. ) (POST- CONVICTI ON)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : COMER L. DONNELL JOHN KNOX WALKUP Distri ct Public

Defender Attorney General& Reporter HOWARD L. CHA MBERS TIMO THY F . BEHAN Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General 213 North Cumberland Str eet 2nd Floor, Cordel l Hull Bui lding P.O. Box 888 425 Fifth Avenue North Lebanon, TN 37087 Nashvill e, TN 37243 TOM P. THO MPS ON, JR . Distri ct Attor ney General JOHN D. WOOTTEN,JR. Assistant Distri ct Attor ney General P.O. Box 178 Hartsvil le, TN 37074

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION
The Petition er, Ca rolyn S tricklan d, app eals the order of the Jackson Coun ty Criminal Court dis missing her petition for post-co nviction relief. In her sol e issue on appe al, Petiti oner argues she was i ncompetent to stand trialdue to the medication she wa s taking d uring the trial and wa s, therefore , denied h er right to due process and a fair trial.

Petiti oner was convict ed of fir st degree murder

and rec eived a senten ce of life impris onm ent in th e Jac kson Coun ty Crim inal Co urt. Th e con victio n was affirm ed on app eal. State v. Carolyn Str ickland , No. 01C01-9212-CR-00390, Jackson County (Tenn. Cri m. App., at Nashvi lle, March 23, 1995), perm . to appeal denied , (Tenn. 1995). Following the denial of her permiss ion to appeal , she filed a petiti on for post-convi ction relief. In post -conviction proce edings, the pe titioner bears the burden of pr

oving the al legations

raised i n the petiti on by clear and convincing evidence. Tenn . Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f). Moreov er, the t rial cour

t’s fi ndings of fact a re con clusive on appeal unless t he evidence prepond erates against the judgm ent. Tidwe ll v. State , 922 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tenn . 1996); Cam pbell v. State , 904 S.W.2d 594, 59 6 (Ten n. 1995 ); Coop er v. State , 849 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Tenn. 1993). As the evidence does not preponder ate against

the findi ngs of the trialcourt, we affir m the trialcourt’s dismissal of the petit ion.

At the post-convicti on hearing, Petiti oner testif ied that s he was taking various medicines, includi ng pain, nerv e and sleep aid medi cations. She described t hat due to the effec

t of her medications, she was in cohe rent an d una ble to recall any aspect of her trial. Both Petitioner’s broth er and sister testified that the y observe d the-3-

Petiti oner taking various medicati ons during t he week and thatshe was so affected by the med ications that she w as not acting no rmally.

Petition er’s trialcounsel both testifi ed thatwhile Peti tioner i ndicated t hat she m ay have taken var ious medicati on during the course of t he trial , they di d no t perso nally witness her taking any medication dur ing t hat week. The attorneys described that Peti tioner spok e clearly , never sl urring her words, and was abl e t o comm unicate effectively wi th them. In r esponse to thei r questioni ng, she was always responsive. Petiti oner never indicat ed in any way t hat she was not underst anding what they were saying. W hile coun sel did no tice that Pe titioner was “stressed out” during the course o f the tri al, it was not to a n exten t that wa s abn orma l. Furthermore, couns el stated th at i f Pe titi oner had ever i ndicated any incomprehension regarding t he trialprocee dings or a ppeare d to be incoherent due to the medicati on, this would have immediat ely been brought to the attention of the trial court.

The trialcourt found that the c redibil ity of the witnesses for the Defendant was not good, and t hat there wasnot clear and convinci ng evidence she was taking so much medication t hat she co uld not hel p her attor neys in her def ense. The tri al court noted tha t her atto rne ys talked with her, worked with her directl y and did not see anything t hat would i ndicate she was i ncompeten t. Based on the se facts, we conclude that Peti tioner hasnot carri ed her burde n that s he wa s den ied a fa ir trial. Petiti oner has mad e no show ing that the post-co nviction court’s findings a re inconsistent with t he evidence.-4- According ly, we affir m the trialcourt’s dismissal of Petiti oner’s peti tion for post conviction relief.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R. WA DE, Presiding J udge

___________________________________ JAMES CURW OOD W ITT, JR., Judge