ÿWPC  0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U *¹ B)ã DC AMO 2œ v~Î AQL Æ 0Dc 0D§ D/ë BvÓ7˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ÏEÐÑÒÓDÔÕÖD×Ó€ãäzz!3|xã2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òMarch€31,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€–XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1996ÌÌ̜ـ*ÙÓ  ÓßR€&'%A1-j|šS` Å `€€@ÿRß›SANDALOS€A.€BLAIR,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9508„CR„00224Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€BERNIE€WEINMANó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌSTEPHEN€R.€LEFFLER,€ESQ.à àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ50€North€Front€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€1075,€Morgan€Keegan€TowerÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àCHARLOTTE€H.€RAPPUHNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àREGINALD€R.€HENDERSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€3rd€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœVACATED€AND€REINSTATED›ÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€#„ÔOPINIONó óóóÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€#XÔà àAppellant€Sandalos€Arnez€Blair€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief.€€He€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:€€(1)€whetherÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€appoint€new€post„conviction€counsel;€(2)€whetherÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€trial€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial;Ïand€(3)€whether€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€file€an€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€or€in€failing€to€takeÏappropriate€steps€to€comply€with€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€14€regarding€the€withdrawal€ofÏcounsel€following€first€tier€review€of€Appellantððs€case€in€this€Court.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record€we€find€that€Appellantððs€first€two€issues€lack€merit,Ïhowever€we€grant€relief€with€respect€to€the€third€issue€presented.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  Óà àOn€March€31,€1989,€a€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€jury€found€AppellantÏguilty€of€assault€with€intent€to€commit€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon,€assault€withÏintent€to€commit€first€degree€murder,€felony€murder,€grand€larceny,€aggravatedÏassault,€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon,€larceny€from€the€person,€and€petit€larceny.€ÏHe€received€sentences€ranging€from€three€years€to€life€imprisonment.€€On€appeal,Íthis€Court€vacated€and€remanded€the€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€conviction€butÏaffirmed€all€other€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€€Blairóó,€No.€63,€1991€WL€61291€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€April€24,€1991).ÌÌà àOn€October€11,€1993,€Appellant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ïalleging€ineffective€assistance€of€his€appointed€trial€counsel.€€At€the€outset€of€theÏpost„conviction€hearing,€Appellant€requested€that€the€trial€court€appoint€new€post„conviction€counsel€because€his€current€post„conviction€counsel€was€working€onÏanother€case€with€his€allegedly„ineffective€trial€counsel.€€The€trial€court€deniedÏAppellantððs€request€.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€also€deniedÏAppellantððs€petition.Ìà àÌò òÓ  ÓÌII.€€POST„CONVICTION€RELIEFó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€both€in€refusing€to€appoint€newÏpost„conviction€counsel€and€in€finding€that€his€trial€counsel€rendered€effectiveÏassistance.€€In€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€claims€raised€in€the€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ÏòòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497Ô€#ŠÔ,€500€(Tenn.€1996);€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,€914€S.W.2dÏ97,€101€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€€Findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€areÍconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€ÏòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789ÏS.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.1990).Ìò òÓ  ÓÌA.€€APPOINTMENT€OF€POST„CONVICTION€COUNSELó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€appoint€newÏpost„conviction€counsel.€Appellant€contends€that,€because€of€the€professionalÏrelationship€between€his€post„conviction€counsel€and€his€trial€counsel,€theÏeffective€and€vigorous€cross„examination€of€€trial€counsel€was€compromised.€ÏAppellant€further€contends€that€this€conflict€of€interest€impinged€upon€hisÏconstitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing.€€However,€under€well„settled€Tennessee€law,€Appellant€has€noÏconstitutional€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€post„convictionÏproceeding.€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€712€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ï116€S.€Ct.€1685€(1996);€òòState€v.€Oatesóó,€698€S.W.2d€79,€80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1985).€€Therefore,€even€if€Appellant€could€prove€that€this€alleged€conflict€ofÏinterest€impaired€his€representation,€he€would€not€be€entitled€to€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Smithóó,€No.€03C01€„9501„CR„00010,€1995€WL€380083,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€June€22,€1995),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Nov.€6,€1995).ÌÌà àOnce€assured€by€post„conviction€counsel€that€he€could€effectively€cross„examine€trial€counsel€and€zealously€represent€Appellant€within€the€bounds€ofÏthe€law,€the€trial€court€determined€that€appointment€of€new€counsel€was€notÏwarranted.€€The€trial€court€pointed€out€that€post„conviction€counsel€and€trialÏcounsel€shared€no€financial€interest€in€the€other€case€in€which€they€wereÏinvolved.€€In€light€of€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuseÏhis€discretion€in€denying€Appellant's€request€for€the€appointment€of€new€counsel.€€€Ô€#ôÔÌò òÓ  ÓÔ€#ŠÔÌB.€€EFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSEL€AT€TRIALó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€his€trialÏcounsel€rendered€effective€assistance.€€Appellant€alleges€the€followingÏdeficiencies€in€his€trial€counselððs€representation:ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` Òà à(1)€failure€to€effectively€cross„examine€BrianÏLivingston,€a€co„defendant€and€witness€for€the€State;Ìà à(2)€failure€to€explain€the€difference€between€firstÏdegree€and€second€degree€murder€to€him;Ìà à(3)€failure€to€observe€the€murder€scene;Ìà à(4)€failure€to€obtain€a€transcript€of€the€juvenile€courtÏœproceeding;€and›Ìà à(5)€failure€to€conduct€a€photo€comparison€forÏidentification€œpurposes.›Ìà àÒ  ÒÒ „ Òà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,Ïthe€appellant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€(1)€deficient€representation€and€(2)Ïprejudice€resulting€from€that€deficiency.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,Ï686€(1984);€€òòBarr€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€462,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€ÏDeficient€representation€occurs€when€counsel€provides€assistance€that€fallsÏbelow€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€criminal€attorneys.€€òòBankston€v.ÏStateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1991).€€Prejudice€is€theÏreasonable€likelihood€that,€but€for€deficient€representation,€the€outcome€of€theÏproceedings€would€have€been€different.€€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€On€review,€there€is€a€strong€presumption€of€satisfactoryÏrepresentation.€òòBarróó,€910€S.W.2d€at€464.Ô€#ôÔÌÔ€#ŠÔÌà àWith€regard€to€the€first€alleged€deficiency,€Appellant€submits€thatÏLivingston,€as€ð ðthe€only€feasible€link€between€[Appellant]€and€the€variousÏallegations,ðð€was€the€most€damaging€State€witness.€€He€maintains€that€theÏallegedly€ineffective€cross„examination€of€Livingston€affected€the€outcome€of€hisÏcase.€€Appellant€complains€that€Livingstonððs€motivation€for€testifying€against€himÏwas€not€brought€out€during€cross€examination;€however,€the€record€reflectsÏpersistent€questioning€by€trial€counsel€that€clearly€reveals€Livingstonððs€bias€andÏcasts€doubt€on€his€credibility:€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àTRIAL€COUNSEL:€€ð ðNow€havenððt€you€made€aÏdeal€with€the€State€in€regard€[to]€your€testimony?ððÌà àÌà àLIVINGSTON:€ð ðNo,€maððam.ððÌà àÌà àTRIAL€COUNSEL:€ð ðEntering€a€plea€in€this€case?ððÌà àÌà àLIVINGSTON:€ð ðNo,€maððam.ððÌÌà àTRIAL€COUNSEL:€ð ðYou€have€no€offer?ððÌÌà àLIVINGSTON:€ð ðNo,€maððam.ððÌÌà àTRIAL€COUNSEL:€ð ðCome€on,€Mr.€Livingston.€ÏYouððre€up€there€and€you€could€be€given€the€deathÏpenalty€for€this€and€you€havenððt€been€promisedÏanything?ððÌÌà àLIVINGSTON:€ð ðNo,€maððam.ððÌÌà àTRIAL€COUNSEL:€ð ðAnd€youððre€just€sitting€up€thereÏtelling€these€stories€and€you€donððt€know€whatððs€going€toÏhappen€to€you.€€Is€that€what€youððre€saying?ððÌÌà àLIVINGSTON:€ð ðThatððs€right.ððÌÌà àTRIAL€COUNSEL:€ð ðIsnððt€it€youððre€understandingÏthat€youððre€going€to€enter€a€guilty€plea€and€get€a€deal?ððÌÌà àLIVINGSTON:€ð ðMy€understanding€is€that€Iððll€beÏable€to€cop€out.ððÌÌà àTRIAL€COUNSEL:€ð ðThat€is€youððre€understanding?ððÌÌà àLIVINGSTON:€ð ðYes,€maððam.ððÌÌà àTRIAL€COUNSEL:€ð ðAnd€avoid€the€death€penalty?ððÌÌà àLIVINGSTON:€ð ðI€would€think€so.ððÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€testified€that€she€had€no€recollectionÏof€any€additional€motivation€for€Livingston€to€fabricate€his€testimony.€€In€light€ofÏthe€trial€transcript€and€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel€during€the€post„convictionÏhearing,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€that€Appellantððs€co„defendant€was€effectively€cross„examined.€€òòSeeóó€òòButleróó,€789€S.W.2d€at€899.ÌÌà àAppellant€concedes€that€the€next€four€alleged€deficiencies,€standingÏindependent€of€one€another,€probably€fail€to€meet€the€standard€set€out€inÏòòStricklandóó;€however,€he€contends€that,€considered€in€the€aggregate,€theseÏdeficiencies€affected€the€outcome€of€his€case.€€As€to€the€failure€to€explain€theÏdifference€between€first€and€second€degree€murder€claim,€trial€counsel€testifiedÏthat,€while€she€had€no€specific€recollection€of€the€discussion,€distinguishingÏbetween€the€two€offenses€for€the€benefit€of€the€accused€is€routine€and€she€wasÏconfidant€that€she€had€done€so.€€She€further€testified€that€Appellant€neverÏseemed€confused€about€the€charges€against€him.€€As€to€the€failure€to€observeÏthe€murder€scene€claim,€Appellant€fails€to€demonstrate€how€this€allegedÏdeficiency€prejudiced€his€defense€or€how€the€outcome€of€his€trial€would€haveÏbeen€any€different€had€trial€counsel€observed€the€murder€scene.€€òòSeeóó€òòOvertonóó,Ï874€S.W.2d€at€11.€€As€to€the€failure€to€obtain€a€transcript€of€the€juvenile€courtÏproceeding,€trial€counsel€testified€that€she€received€and€relied€upon€notes€takenÍby€Appellantððs€attorney€at€the€proceeding.€€Again,€Appellant€fails€toÏdemonstrate€how€this€alleged€deficiency€prejudiced€his€defense€or€how€theÏoutcome€of€his€trial€would€have€been€any€different€had€trial€counsel€obtained€aÏverbatim€transcript€of€the€proceeding.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Finally,€as€to€the€failure€to€make€aÏphoto€comparison,€Appellant€points€out€that€one€of€the€witnesses€at€his€juvenileÏcourt€proceeding€misidentified€him.€€He€contends€that€trial€counsel,€in€an€effort€toÏimpeach€the€witnessðð€identification,€should€have€shown€the€witness€photos€ofÏAppellant€and€an€individual€named€Anthony€Rosser,€who€allegedly€looked€aÏgreat€deal€like€Appellant.€€However,€Appellant€fails€to€offer€any€proof€that€heÏand€Rosser€resembled€each€other€sufficiently€to€cast€doubt€on€the€identification.€ÏFurthermore,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that,€had€trial€counsel€shown€theÏwitness€a€photo€comparison,€she€Ñ H Ñwould€have€been€unable€to€identifyÏAppellant.€€In€sum,€we€do€not€believe€that€any€of€these€claims,€whether€viewedÏindependently€or€in€the€aggregate,€rise€to€the€level€of€deficient€representationÏanticipated€in€òòStricklandóó€and€òòBarróó,€nor€do€we€believe€that€Appellant€has€madeÏan€adequate€showing€of€prejudice.ÌÌÓ  Óà àò òC.€EFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSEL€ON€DIRECTÏAPPEALó óÌÓ  Óà àIn€his€last€issue€presented€for€review€Appellant€maintains€that€trialÏcounsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€file€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€toÏthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€following€the€affirmance€in€this€Court€ofÍAppellantððs€conviction.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that,€in€her€opinion,€there€was€noÏmerit€to€petitioning€the€Supreme€Court€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€and€that€she€notifiedÏAppellant€of€her€opinion€by€letter.€€Counsel€candidly€admitted€that€following€firstÏtier€review€in€this€Court€on€direct€appeal€she€never€filed€a€motion€to€withdrawÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€14.€€Rule€14€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àPermission€for€leave€to€withdraw€as€counsel€for€anÏindigent€defendant€after€an€adverse€final€decision€inÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€and€before€preparationÏand€filing€of€an€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal€toÏthe€Supreme€Court€must€be€obtained€from€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€by€filing€a€motion€with€the€clerk€ofÏthat€Court€not€later€than€seven€(7)€days€after€theÏCourtððs€entry€of€final€judgment.ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€motion€shall€state€that€written€notice€has€beenÏgiven€the€defendant€advising€that€(1)€counsel€does€notÏintend€to€file€an€Application€for€Permission€to€AppealÏand€leave€of€Court€is€being€sought€to€withdraw;€(2)Ïthat€defendant€may€file€a€pro€se€application€forÏPermission€to€Appeal€with€the€Clerk€of€the€SupremeÏCourt,€if€filed€within€thirty€(30)€days€after€entry€of€finalÏjudgment€in€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓà àRule€14€was€promulgated€in€an€attempt€to€remedy€the€situationÏpresented€in€the€instant€case.€€Compliance€with€Rule€14€ensures€that€anÏindigent€defendant€knows€of€counselððs€decision€to€not€file€an€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court,€and€of€the€time€deadlines€for€doingÏso€should€the€defendant€wish€to€proceed€òòproóó€œòòseóó.›€œ€Although›€trial€counsel€testifiedÏshe€notified€Appellant€of€her€decision€that€an€application€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€11€would€be€meritless,€she€did€not€file€a€motion€to€withdraw€pursuant€toÏRule€14.€€Thus,€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€proof€that€Appellant€knew€that€heÍcould€file€an€application€òòproóó€òòseóó,€or€that€he€knew€of€the€time€limits€for€doing€so.€ÏUnder€similar€circumstances€this€Court€has€vacated€its€œjudgments›€on€directÏappeal€and€re„entered€same€so€as€to€give€Appellants€an€opportunity€to€pursueÏtheir€direct€œappeals›€to€our€Supreme€Court.€€òòSee€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Harry€EugeneÏHolmesóó,€Davidson€Co.,€No.€89„139„III,€Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€February€9,1990;€òòseeÏalsoóó,€òòPinkston€v.€Stateóó,€668€S.W.2d€676,677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€We€areÏconstrained€to€grant€Appellant€this€same€relief.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€this€Courtððs€judgment€in€State€v.€Blair,€No.€63,€1991€WLÏ61292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€April€24,€1991)€is€vacated€and€re„entered€so€as€toÏbegin€anew€the€time€for€filing€an€application€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11.€€InÏall€other€respects€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE