### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs Marc h 2, 201 0 KEN NET H L. AN DER SON v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r D y er C o u n ty N o. C 07- 83 R . L ee M oore, Judge

N o. W 2009- 02221- C C A - R 3- P C - F i l ed M arch 25, 2010

The pe t i t i one r , Ke nne th L. Ande r s on, a ppe a l s the de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on for pos t
- c onvi c t i on r e l i e f, a r gu i ng that

he r e c e i ve d the i ne ff

e c t i ve a ss is ta nce of

e l bo w c ou ns e l

. Af

t e r r e vi e w, we a ff i rm the po s t
- c on vi c t i on c ou rt ’ s de ni a l of po s t
- c on vi c t i on r e l i e f.
T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C i rcui t C ourt A f

f i rm ed A L AN E. G L ENN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch J OS EP H M. T I PT ON , P. J

. , and J OH N E VER ETT W I L L I AMS , J

. , j oi ned. D anny H

. G oodm an, J r . , T i pt onvi l l e, T ennes s ee, for t he appe l l ant , K ennet h L

. A nder s on. R ober t E

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; D avi d H

. Fi ndl ey, A s s i s t ant A t t or ney G ener al ; and C

. Phi l l i p B i vens , D i s t r i ct A t t or ney G ener al , for t he appe l l ee, S tat e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON FACTS The tr i a l tr ans c r i pt wa s not i nc l ude d i n the r e c or d on a ppe a l

. Howe ve r , the r e c i t a t i on of the c ir cum st ance s of th e off ense from

the pre se ntence re po rt

re veal that

the pet it ioner atte m pted to re turn a t el evis ion to Wal m art for a r efun d. St o re o ff ic ia ls dete rm ined that the r e wa s no r e c or d of the t e l e vi s i on ha vi ng be e n s ol d, and s e c ur i ty t a pe s s how ed the pe t i t i one r e nt e r i ng the s t or e wi thout at e l e vi s i on i n hi s pos s e s s i on. As a r e s ul t , the pe t i t i one r wa s i ndi c t e d and c onvi c t e d of the ft of pr ope rty ove r $500, a C la ss E felony

. Ap pare ntly , the peti ti on er re ac hed an agre em ent on an u nrel at ed ca se , a s part of wh ic h he waived his ri gh t to appeal in the theft ca se and w as se ntence d to three y ears-2-

in the Departm ent of Co rr ec ti on as a multi ple o ff ender. He then file d a p ro se pe t i t i on for pos t
- c onvi c t i on r e l i e f, and a ft e r the a ppoi ntm e nt of c ouns e l , an a m e nde d pe t i t i on wa s fi l e d. At the post- conv ic ti on evidenti ar y hear ing, the p et it ioner t es ti fied that he re pres ente d hi m s e l f o n the the ft

c a s e but wa s a ppoi nt e d e l bow c ouns e l t o a s s i s t hi m thr oughout

the proces s. He sa id that

he had to p re pare fo r tri al from jail beca use his bo nd was twice re vo ked d ue to his b ei ng ar re st ed on other c harges and h e c ou ld no t a ff ord to p ost ano ther bond. The pe t i t i one r s t a t e d tha t he di d not

ha ve a de qua t e a c c e s s t o r e s our c e s i n ja i l tha t he needed to defend him se lf. He a dm itte d that e lbow coun se l vis it ed him in jail bu t “ no t a s [he] n eed edh im .” H e talk edto elb o w co u n sel a to tal o f th ree tim es in elev en m o n th s. T h e p etitio n er testif

iedth at elb o w co u n sel to ldh im th at h e w as g o in g to b rin g h im videotapes from

the State concerni ng the theft, b ut el bo w cou nsel inst ea d sent the videotapes vi aan o f f i c e r a n dh e h a dt o w a t c h th e m a l o n e . T h e p e t i t i o n e r

s t a t e dth a t

h e c a l l e de l bow co u n sel at least f

if ty tim es an dlef

t m essag es, b u t co u n sel d idn o t retu rn h is calls an do n ly v isitedh im

af ter a h earin g d ate. Th e pe t i t i on e r t e s t i fi e d that the on l y l e ga l r e s e ar c h m a t e r i a l s he ha d a va i l abl e wer e an ou tdat ed Te nn e s s e e Co de An no t a t e d v ol um e 7A bo ok andan o ut dat e d R

ul e s of Co ur t book. He s a i d th a t h e a s k e d e l b o w c o u n s e l t o b r i n g h i m b o o k s t o a i d i n h i s r e s e ar c h , but co u n sel n ev er d id . H e saidh e w as u n ab le to S h ep ard ize cases o r p rep are an up d atedd ef en se du e to his la ck of re se ar ch m at er ia ls

. He st at ed that he part ic ular ly

needed up date d v olum es 7 and 7A books

. The pe t i t i one r s a i d tha t he a l s o a s ke d for

e nve l ope s , wr i t i ng pa

pe r , and stam p s f ro m th e j ail staf

f an dreq u estedto sp eakw ith th e d istrict atto rn ey g en eral, b u t h is req u ests w ere d en ied

. The pe t i t i one r

t e s t i fi e d tha t

e l bow c ouns e l s howe d hi m a pl e a offe r fr om the St a t e but sa id that it was not the s ame as the one he eventuall y re ce ived. The peti ti on er al so as ked e l bow c ouns e l for

a ny di s c ove ry

fr om the S tate , but

c ouns e l ga ve hi m

the s a m e pa c ka ge th ree tim es. T h e p etitio n er said th at h ad h e h ad th e req u estedresearch m aterials, h e w o u ld ha ve known how t o fi l e am ot i on r e que s t i ng W a l m ar t ’ s s urve i l l anc e t a

pe s whi c h woul d ha ve p ro v en h is in n o cen ce. O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , th e p etitio n e rtestif iedth at h e w an tedto rep resen t h im self b e c aus e “ nobody

[c an] pr e s e nt

y our c a s e be t t e r

than y ou c an. ” Howe ve r , he s a i d tha t he needed elbow counsel’ s as si st ance throug ho ut the proces s. Th e pet it ioner a ls o con te nd ed th at h e w as in d ictedo n th e th ef t o f p ro p erty b u t co n v ictedo f

th ef t o f m erch an d ise. R o b ert P arrish , A d m in istrato r o f th e D y er C o u n ty Jail, testif ied th at th e j ail’s sm all li brar y contai ned a few le gal m at er ia ls , including the Tenness ee Co de An no tate d v olum e 7-3-

book. Parr i s h s a i d tha t

the pe t i t i one r

ha d t urne d i n r e q u es t

form s whi c h we r e handl e d by Paul Fo rr es te r. Parr ish st ated that the jai l m akes ac comm od at ions fo r i nm at es to re view videotapes or audiotapes wh en prepari ng fo r a cas e. He sa id that ther e i s I nter

net a cc es s at the ja i l , but i nm a t e s ar e not a l l owe d a c c e s s t o i t
. Parr i s h e xpl a i ne d, howe ve r , tha t ha d the pe t i t i one r r e que s t e d as pe c i fi c form fr om the I nt e rne t , For

r e s t e r woul d ha ve pr i nt e d it

for h im

. P au l F o rrester, a v o lu n teer at th e D y er C o u n t y J a i l an dco o rd in ato r o f in m ate p ro g ram s f

o r th e D y er C o u n ty

S h erif f’s D ep artm en t, testif

iedth at h e h an d ledth e in m ate re qu es ts at

the jai l. Fo rr es te r r ec al le d that the peti ti on er file d m any

spec ia l r equest s for le gal m at er ia ls , and he answere d tho se re qu es ts the best he was able

. Fo rr es te r s ai d that the li brar y ha d vol um e s 7 and 7A of the Te nne s s e e Code Annot a t e d for the y e ar s 1990, 1993, and 1 9 9 7

. At the c on cl usion o f the heari ng , the po st -c on vict ion cou rt denied th e pe t i t i on e r

r e l i e f. Th e c ou rt re ca ll ed that

it adm on is hed the peti ti on er du ri ng his v ar ious court a pp earances that he shou ld be re pres ente d b y an attorney . The court noted th at th e peti ti on er did rai se a pr ope r obje c t i on t o the jury c har ge a t tr i a l , but he wa i ve d hi s r i ght t o a ppe a l and tha t

i s s ue h a dt o b e p u r s u e do n d i r e c t a p p e a l

. T h e c o u rt

f o u n dth a t e v e n t a k i n g th e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i ms ag ain st elb o w co u n sel as tru e, th e p etitio n er f ailedto estab lish p rej u d ice. A N A L Y S IS On a ppe a l , the pe t i t i one r ar gue s tha t he r e c e i ve d the i ne ffe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of e l bow coun se l. Th e post- conv ic ti on peti ti on er bear s the bu rden of

prov ing h is al le gati on s by cl ear and con vincing evidence. See Tenn . C o d e A n n. § 4 0-30 -110 (f) ( 20 06 ). When an e vi de nt i a ry

he ar i ng i s he l d i n the pos t
- c onvi c t i on s e t t i ng, the fi ndi ngs of fa c t m a de by the co u rt are co n clu siv e o n ap p eal u n less th e ev id en ce p rep o n d erates ag ain st th em . S ee T id w ell v. Stat e, 92 2 S .W .2d 4 97 , 500 (Tenn. 19 96 ). Wher e a pp el late re view invo lves pu re ly fact ual i s s ue s , the a

ppe l l a t e c ourt

s houl d not

r e we i gh or

r e e va l ua t e the e vi de nc e . Se e He nl e y v. St a t e , 960 S. W

. 2d 572, 578 ( Te nn. 1997)

. Howe ve r , r e vi e w of a tr i a l c ourt ’ s a ppl i c a t i on of th e law to th e f

acts o f th e case is de no vo , wi th no pr e s um pt i on of c orr e c tne s s . Se e Ruff v. S tate , 9 7 8 S

. W

. 2 d9 5 , 9 6 (T en n . 1 9 9 8 ). T h e issu e o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f

co u n sel, whi c h pr e s e nt s m i xe d que s t i ons of fa c t and l aw , is r e vi e we d de no vo , wi th apr e s um pt i on of corr ec tnes s given on ly to the p ost- conv ic ti on court’ s f inding s o f fact

. See F ie lds v . State , 40 S.W. 3d 45 0, 45 8 (Tenn . 200 1); Burns v. Stat e, 6 S .W .3d 4 53 , 461 (Tenn. 19 99 ). To es ta blis h a cl ai m

of ineffecti ve as si st ance of coun se l, the pet it ioner has the burden t o s how b o th th a t

tr i a l c ouns e l ’ s pe r form anc e wa s de fi c i e nt and tha t c ouns e l ’ s de fi c i e nt pe r form a nc e pr e

judi c e d the out c om e of the pr oc e e di ng. Str i c kl and v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U. S.-4-

668, 68 7 , 1 0 4 S

. C t
. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; s e e S t a t e v . T ayl o r , 9 6 8 S

. W

. 2 d9 0 0 , 9 0 5 ( T e nn. Cr i m . App. 1997) ( not i ng tha t s a m e s t andar d for

de t e rm i ni ng i ne ffe c t i ve ass i s t anc e of coun se l t hat is app li ed in federal ca se s a ls o app li es in Tenn es se e) . The Stri ckland st andard is a tw o -p ro n g test: F irst, th e d ef

en d an t m u st sh o w th at co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce w as d ef

icien t . T h is r e qui r e s s howi ng tha t

c ouns e l m a de e rr or s s o s e r i ous tha t c ouns e l wa s not f u n ctio n in g as th e “co u n sel” g u aran teedth e d ef en d an t b y th e S ix th Am endm ent. Second , the defend ant m us t s ho w that the defici ent per fo rm ance p rej u d icedth e d ef

en se. T h is req u ires sh o w in g th at co u n sel’s erro rs w ere so serio u s as to d ep riv e th e d ef en d an t o f a f

air trial, a trial w h o se resu l tis re li able

. 466 U. S. a t

687, 104 S. Ct

. a t

2064. Th e defic ie nt perform ance pron g o f the te st is sati sfie d b y

show ing that “ coun se l’ s acts o r o m issio n s w ere so serio u s as to f all b elo w an o b

j ectiv e stan d ardo f

reaso n ab len ess unde r pr e va i l i ng pr ofe s s i ona l norm s . ” G o ad v . S t a t e , 938 S. W

. 2d 363, 369 ( Te nn. 1996) ( c i t i ng Str i c kl and, 466 U. S. a t 688, 104 S. Ct

. a t 2065; Ba xt e r

v. Ros e , 523 S. W

. 2d 930, 936 (T en n . 1 9 7 5 )). T h e p rej u d ice p ro n g o f t h e test is satisf iedb y sh o w in g a reaso n ab le pr obabi l i ty , i

. e . , a“ pr obabi l i ty s uffi c i e nt t o unde rm i ne c onfi de nc e i n the out c om e , ” tha t “ but f o r co u n sel’s u n p ro f

essio n al erro rs, th e resu lt o f th e p ro ceed in g w o u ldh av e b een d if f eren t.” Str i c kl a nd, 466 U. S. a t

694, 104 S. Ct

. a t

2068. T he pet i t i oner cont ends t hat el bow couns el ’ s defi ci ent per for m ance pl us hi s l ack of ac ce ss to n ec es s a ry l e g al m aterial s resu lt ed in p rejud ice to h is case

. T h e p eti ti o n er’s ar gum ent t hat el bow couns el r ender ed def i ci ent per for m ance i s w i t hout m er i t
. H ow ever , as t o t hi s cl ai m , t he pos t
- convi ct i on found t hat t he pet i t i oner fai l ed to sh o w tha t he had be en pr ej udi ced byt he per for m ance of el bow couns el

. T he r ecor d s uppor t s t hi s det er m i nat i on. Th e pet it ioner has al so fail ed to prov e how his l ac k o f acce ss to up date d legal m aterials o r an y

d ef icien cy o n th e p art o f

elb o w co u n s el p rej u d icedh is case. T h e o n ly pr e ju di c e the pe t i t i on e r

e nu nc ia te d at

the po s t
- c on vi c t i on he ar i ng wa s that ha d h e kn ow n ho w to f il e a m otion f

or disc ov er

y , he wou ld have been able t o revie w Wal m art’s survei ll ance ta

pes which wo uld had prov en his i nn ocence. Ho wever, the pet it ioner t es ti fied at the evidentiary hear ing that coun se l sent him videotapes via an o ff

ic er and h e r evie wed th em . M o reo v er, th e p etitio n er d idn o t p resen t th o se tap es at th e ev id en tiary h earin g to i l l us tr a t e how the y

woul d ha ve pr ove n hi s i nnoc e nc e . Se e Bl a c k v. St a t e , 794 S. W

. 2d 752, 75 7 (Tenn

. Crim

. Ap p. 19 90 ). Fu rtherm ore, the tr ia l re cord was no t incl ud ed in the r ec ord befo r e us , m a ki ng i t i m

po s s i bl e t o de t e rm i ne wh e the r the ou t c om e of the pe t i t i on e r ’ s tr ia l-5-

co u ldh av e b een af

f ected

. CONCLUSI ON Ba s e d o n th e f

o r e g o i n g au th o r i t i e s an dr e a s o n i n g , w e a f f i rm th e p o s t
- c o n v i c t i on co u rt’s d en ial o f

p o st-co n v ictio n relief

.

_________________________________

AL AN E

. GL E NN, J UDGE