FILED

December 8, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

SEPTEMBER SESSION, 1998

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9709-CR-00419

)

Appellee, )

) JACKSON COUNTY

V. ) 

)

) HON. J.O. BOND, JUDGE 

CAROLYN STRICKLAND, )

)

Appellant. ) (POST-CONVICTION)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

COMER L. DONNELL JOHN KNOX WALKUP 

District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter

HOWARD L. CHAMBERS TIMOTHY F. BEHAN

Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General

213 North Cumberland Street 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building

P.O. Box 888 425 Fifth Avenue North 

Lebanon, TN 37087 Nashville, TN 37243

TOM P. THOMPSON, JR. 

District Attorney General

JOHN D. WOOTTEN, JR.

Assistant District Attorney General

P.O. Box 178 

Hartsville, TN 37074

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-2-

OPINION

The Petitioner, Carolyn Strickland, appeals the order of the Jackson County

Criminal Court dismissing her petition for post-conviction relief. In her sole issue on

appeal, Petitioner argues she was incompetent to stand trial due to the medication

she was taking during the trial and was, therefore, denied her right to due process

and a fair trial.

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and received a sentence of

life imprisonment in the Jackson County Criminal Court. The conviction was

affirmed on appeal. State v. Carolyn Strickland, No. 01C01-9212-CR-00390,

Jackson County (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, March 23, 1995), perm. to appeal

denied, (Tenn. 1995). Following the denial of her permission to appeal, she filed a

petition for post-conviction relief. In post-conviction proceedings, the petitioner bears

the burden of proving the allegations raised in the petition by clear and convincing

evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f). Moreover, the trial court’s findings of

fact are conclusive on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against the

judgment. Tidwell v. State, 922 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tenn. 1996); Campbell v. State,

904 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tenn. 1995); Cooper v. State, 849 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Tenn.

1993). As the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court,

we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition.

At the post-conviction hearing, Petitioner testified that she was taking various

medicines, including pain, nerve and sleep aid medications. She described that due

to the effect of her medications, she was incoherent and unable to recall any aspect

of her trial. Both Petitioner’s brother and sister testified that they observed the
-3-

Petitioner taking various medications during the week and that she was so affected

by the medications that she was not acting normally.

Petitioner’s trial counsel both testified that while Petitioner indicated that she

may have taken various medication during the course of the trial, they did not

personally witness her taking any medication during that week. The attorneys

described that Petitioner spoke clearly, never slurring her words, and was able to

comm unicate effectively with them. In response to their questioning, she was always

responsive. Petitioner never indicated in any way that she was not understanding

what they were saying. W hile counsel did notice that Petitioner was “stressed out”

during the course of the trial, it was not to an extent that was abnormal.

Furthermore, counsel stated that if Petitioner had ever indicated any

incomprehension regarding the trial proceedings or appeared to be incoherent due

to the medication, this would have immediately been brought to the attention of the

trial court. 

The trial court found that the credibility of the witnesses for the Defendant was

not good, and that there was not clear and convincing evidence she was taking so

much medication that she could not help her attorneys in her defense. The trial

court noted that her attorneys talked with her, worked with her directly and did not

see anything that would indicate she was incompetent. Based on these facts, we

conclude that Petitioner has not carried her burden that she was denied a fair trial.

Petitioner has made no showing that the post-conviction court’s findings are

inconsistent with the evidence.
-4-

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s petition for postconviction relief.

____________________________________

THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________

GARY R. WADE, Presiding Judge

___________________________________

JAMES CURW OOD WITT, JR., Judge