ÿWPCÒ …U:V %U.–ÄnÔ 04×  w@ 4S 0Jg 0T± 0^ 0hc 0rË 0|= 0†¹ 0? 1uÏ 0dDB)¨DCÑ AMëav~LvÓÊ B D3º 0@í AO-Æ| 0DB D/† Bµ<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|xz«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTTTXXXä2¼P±QXP%ä2¼A`ArialTTTT¼¼gä2¼P±Q¼P( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó fEg hEijekDlDmnDoÓ€©U! 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ áÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òOctober€9,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€Ô›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€ !;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJANUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌDAVID€BROOKS,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà à€€€€€€€APPELLANT,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03„C„01„9507„CR„00204Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHamilton€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRussell€C.€Hinson,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€Sitting€by€DesignationÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLEE.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌEdward€T.€Landisà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ744€McCallie€Avenue,€Suite€327à àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌChattanooga,€TN€37403à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€D.€GerbitzÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€Street,€Suite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€W.€DennyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€Street,€Suite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:______________________________ÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÑ7€/'XXdæXXdÖ7ÑÓ  ÓÔ€¼Ôò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€David€Brooks,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€dismissing€his€suit€for€post„conviction€relief€following€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€TheÏtrial€court€concluded€the€appellant€had€been€afforded€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€contemplated€by€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏArticle€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€In€this€Court,€the€appellant€contends€theÏevidence€adduced€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€preponderates€against€the€conclusionÏreached€by€the€trial€court€because€the€evidence€established€trial€counsel€wereÏineffective€because€they€failed€to€(a)€properly€research€important€issues€relevant€to€hisÏdefense,€(b)€introduce€the€victim's€prior€violent€conduct€to€establish€the€victim€was€theÏaggressor€in€the€confrontation,€and€(c)€introduce€two€tape€recordings€of€the€appellantÏmade€shortly€after€his€arrest€to€establish€the€degree€of€his€intoxication€at€the€time€heÏcommitted€the€offense.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€the€judgment€must€beÏreversed,€and€this€cause€remanded€to€the€trial€court€because€the€trial€court€did€notÍmake€findings€of€fact€as€mandated€by€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.Ìà àThere€are€no€written€findings€of€fact€contained€in€the€record.€€Also,€there€is€noÏwritten€order€adjudicating€this€matter€on€the€merits.€€When€ruling€upon€the€merits€of€theÏgrounds€raised€in€the€appellant's€amended€petition,€the€trial€court€alluded€to€theÏultimate€positions€of€the€parties.€€The€court€then€said:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒI€havenððt€expressed€it€in€terms€of€findings€of€fact.€€I€make€aÏbroad€finding€of€fact€that€the€defense€of€the€petitioner€metÏthe€requirements€of€the€Constitution€of€the€United€StatesÏand€State€of€Tennessee€and€standards€of€Baxter€versusÏRose€and€dismiss€the€petition.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àThis€case€was€tried€prior€to€the€recent€changes€in€the€Post„ConvictionÏProcedure€Act.€€The€relevant€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118€(b),€mandated€thatÏthe€trial€court€make€findings€of€fact€in€written€form.€€The€statute€stated:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒUpon€the€final€disposition€of€every€petition,€the€court€shallÏenter€a€final€order,€and€except€where€proceedings€forÏdelayed€appeal€are€allowed,€shall€set€forth€in€the€order€or€aÏwritten€memorandum€of€the€case€all€grounds€presented€andÏshall€state€the€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€withÏregard€to€each€such€ground.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€use€of€the€word€"shall"€clearly€indicates€the€Tennessee€General€AssemblyÏintended€that€the€duty€of€the€trial€court€to€make€findings€of€fact€is€mandatory.€€òòSykes€v.ÏStateóó,€477€S.W.2d€254,€260€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1972);ÏòòBlankenship€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€158,€163,€469€S.W.2d€530,€532,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1971);€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€1€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€462,€467,€445€S.W.2d€669,€671,€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1969).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gilleyóó,€517€S.W.2d€7,€9€(Tenn.€1974);€òòState€v.ÏCravenóó,€656€S.W.2d€872,€873€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòGarrett€v.€Stateóó,€530€S.W.2dÍ98,€100€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1975).Ìà àThe€purpose€of€this€statute€is€to€facilitate€appellate€review€of€the€issuesÏpresented€for€review.€€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1984);€òòGeorge€v.€Stateóó,€533€S.W.2d€322,€326€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1975).€€When€the€trial€court€fails€to€make€"a€clear€and€detailedÏfinding€of€fact,"€the€appellate€court€is€"at€a€complete€loss€to€know€the€basis€of€the€trialÏjudge's€decision€and€judgment;€€assignments€of€error€[now€issues]€and€appellateÏreview€are€seriously€frustrated€if€not€completely€thwarted€by€lack€of€a€definitive€findingÏof€fact€by€the€trial€judge."€€òòBrownóó,€1€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€467,€445€S.W.2d€at€671.€€à à€€Ìà àWhen€a€trial€court€fails€to€perform€its€mandatory€duty€of€making€findings€of€fact,Ïthe€remedy€is€reversal€of€the€trial€court's€judgment,€and€a€remand€of€the€cause€so€thatÏthe€trial€court€can€make€the€relevant€findings€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€1€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏ467,€€445€S.W.2d€at€671.€€In€this€Court,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€andÏremanded€so€the€trial€court€may€reconsider€the€grounds€raised€by€the€appellant,€theÏadmission€of€additional€evidence,€and,€thereafter,€œprepare›€a€proper€findings€of€fact.Ìà àThis€Court€parenthetically€notes€the€tape€recordings€of€the€petitioner's€voiceÏwould€be€admissible€at€a€new€trial.€€A€chemical€breath€test€revealed€the€appellant€hadÏan€ethyl€alcohol€content€of€.22%€shortly€after€the€shooting.€€The€tapes€illustrate€theÏappellant's€state€of€intoxication.€€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€803(3)€provides€thatÏevidence€showing€the€state€of€mind€of€a€party€is€admissible€as€an€exception€to€theÏhearsay€rule.Ìà àThis€evidence€was€relevant.€€It€is€an€elementary€principle€of€law€that€theÏintoxication€of€the€accused€may€be€sufficient€to€reduce€a€homicide€from€murder€firstÍdegree€to€murder€second€degree.€€The€fact€the€audio€tapes€were€made€approximatelyÏfour€hours€after€his€arrest€goes€to€the€weight€of€this€evidence,€not€its€admissibility.€ÏTherefore,€the€trial€court€should€consider€the€admissibility€and€relevance€of€the€audioÏtapes€as€evidence€when€determining€whether€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial.Ìà àThe€first€aggressor€rule€was€first€announced€in€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,Ï797€S.W.2d€631€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€€This€opinionÏwas€filed€on€the€10th€day€of€April,€1990.€€The€Supreme€Court€denied€the€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€on€July€23,€1990.€€This€case€was€not€tried€until€the€latter€part€ofÏJanuary€of€1991.€€On€remand,€the€trial€court€should€permit€the€petitioner€to€introduceÏevidence€of€the€victim's€prior€violent€acts€which€were€unknown€to€the€petitioner€and€fallÏwithin€the€purview€of€the€first€aggressor€rule.Ìà àFinally,€this€Court€questions€the€propriety€of€qualifying€an€attorney€accused€ofÏrendering€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€the€assistant€district€attorney€generalÏwho€tried€the€case€for€the€State€of€Tennessee€as€expert€witnesses,€and,€thereafter,Ïpermitting€them€to€testify€regarding€their€opinions€on€whether€counsel€was€ineffective.€ÏBoth€parties€have€a€vested€interest€in€the€outcome€of€the€proceeding.€€If€defenseÏcounsel€admitted€he€rendered€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€would€have€beenÏreported€to€the€Disciplinary€Counsel€for€the€Supreme€Court.€€Such€representationÏwould€constitute€a€violation€of€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility.€€However,Ïdefense€counsel€hedged€his€opinion€by€stating€he€essentially€met€the€low€threshold€ofÏòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€but€admitted€he€should€have€knownÏhow€to€introduce€the€audio€tapes.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€general€would€beÏfaced€with€retrying€the€petitioner€if€the€relief€was€granted.€€€In€short,€such€evidence€isÍentitled€to€very€little€weight€in€determining€the€proper€resolution€of€this€case.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________Ìà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ__________________________________Ìà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE