ÿWPCK' …#†VU:Ü % 0¸4Ô è 0ü÷ 0Dó 0D7 0J{ 0TÅ D3 0^L 0hª 0r 0|„ 0† 0† 1uU,‹ 0d·U,U*GB)qDCš AMÝb*´2ûæÒá-³v~à B^vÓ{ 0@N# 0DŽ# AOÒ#Æ!$ 0Ôç$ 0D»& D/ÿ& B.'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Ço1®`BÇŒ 4~ÈÇ>, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX( 7$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑU_A 3|x” (¬(3T6$¤¤Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` °ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó6 ÿÿ$Triangleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô****'ÿÿdxd2, 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ- ù- ªÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òFebruaryÏ5,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝCounsel€for€the€petitioner€relies€heavily€upon€the€statement€of€this€Court€inÏòòHarlen€[sic]€Benson€Calhoun€v.€State€of€Tennesseeóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9112„CR„0377€(filed€at€Knoxville,€August€8,€1992)€to€assert€counsel€was€incompetent.€€ThatÏstatement€by€the€author€of€that€opinion,€concurred€in€by€the€other€judges,€was€madeÏin€a€vacuum.€€In€other€words,€they€did€not€have€the€advantage€of€a€full„blown€airingÏof€the€claim€by€the€petitioner€as€we€now€have.Ì ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€might€note€the€deposition€does€not€contain€any€language€the€plaintiffÏsaid€he€used€towards€Mr.€Mashburn,€nor€does€it€show€any€interruptions€in€theÏdeposition.Ì #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€this€attack€is€occasioned€by€an€exhibit€with€which€the€judge€wasÏnot€confronted€when€he€was€a€witness.€€Perhaps€counsel€may€practice€longÏenough€to€understand€that€memories€can€be€deceptive€and€many€attorneys€cannotÏrecall€all€the€depositions€they€have€taken€over€the€years.€€At€any€rate,€counsel€canÏpursue€his€allegation€against€the€judge€in€another€forum€where€the€witness€whoseÏintegrity€is€questioned€can€be€confronted€by€the€evidence€and€be€given€anÏopportunity€to€respond€to€counsel's€charges.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò6ûb$Triangleððà0 à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(¬3ï¤$¢¢Ý ƒ 7!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ` ` ÑÓÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ€$ÑÑ7€âXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÙ€€ÙßL€#%";+'h|` à. `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌSEPTEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓHARLEY€BENSON€CALHOUN,à àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€€03C01„9411„CR„00421Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏSTEPHEN€M.€BEVILÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àPost„conviction€€Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àUnderlying€offense„„arsonÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóóà àà àà àà àòòFOR€THEÏAPPELLEEóóÌÌJohn€E.€Herbisonà àà àà àà àà àCharlesÏW.€BursonÌ2016€Eighth€Ave.€S.à àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporter€€ÌNashville,€TN€€37204€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChristinaÏS.€ShevalierÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€General€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0943Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJerry€N.€EstesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRebble€S.€Johnson€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à93€Ocoee€St.€N.,€Ste.€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1351Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCleveland,€TN€€37364„1351ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€ÌÌOPINION€FILED€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJOHN€K.€BYERSÌSENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€arson€in€a€jury€trial€on€May€18,€1989;€he€wasÏsentenced€to€serve€six€years.€€This€Court€affirmed€the€conviction,€and€the€SupremeÏCourt€denied€review.Ìà àThere€were€two€prior€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief€filed€in€this€case,Íwhich€were€dismissed.€€These€have€no€bearing€on€the€case€before€us,€which€is€aÏthird€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€filed€by€petitioner€which€seeks€to€have€theÏconviction€set€aside.Ìà àAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€this€petition,€and€the€trial€judgeÏdismissed€the€petition.Ìà àThe€petitioner€raised€the€following€grounds€upon€which€he€sought€to€haveÏthe€conviction€set€aside:ÌÓÓÌà0 àà àà0 àà àà0 àA.€€The€evidence€clearly€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€finding€thatÏthe€Petitioner€was€afforded€effective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà0 àà0 à1.€€The€instant€record€shows€that€trial€counsel's€decision€not€toÏpresent€evidence€known€to€defense€counsel€well€in€advance€of€trialÏand€highly€exculpatory€of€the€Petitioner€evinces€grossly€prejudicial,Ïineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà0 àà0 à2.€€The€record€shows€that€the€Petitioner's€desire€to€testify€in€his€ownÏdefense€was€overborne€by€trial€counsel.ÌÌà0 àà0 à3.€€Counsel€on€direct€appeal€failed€to€raise€potentially€meritoriousÏissues€as€to€the€excessive€length€of€the€sentence€imposed€and€as€toÏthe€trial€court's€basing€the€sentence€in€part€on€extraneous€mattersÏwhich€had€not€been€moved€into€evidence€by€the€State€but€insteadÏwas€[sic]€received€òòsua€sponteóó€as€an€exhibit€to€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà0 àà0 à4.€€The€record€shows€that€trial€counsel€inappropriately€failed€to€moveÏfor€recusal€of€the€trial€judge.ÌÌà0 àB.€€The€record€shows€the€Petitioner€was€denied€his€substantive€constitutionalÏright€to€testify€in€his€own€defense.ÌÓÓÌà àWe€find€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trialÏjudge,€and€we€affirm€the€judgment.Ìà àThe€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€the€allegations€raised€in€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€òòState€v.ÏKerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€and€on€appeal€the€findingsÏof€the€trial€judge€on€the€evidence€are€conclusive€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€verdict.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€If€a€petitioner€surmounts€these€hurdles€at€trial€and€on€appeal,€the€petitionerÏmust€then€show€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€was€so€serious€as€to€deprive€theÏpetitioner€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€686€(1984).€€€TheÏòòStricklandóó€rule€was€adopted€as€the€rule€to€apply€in€these€cases€in€Tennessee€byÏthe€holding€of€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€f.n.€2Ï(1989)€(citing€òòState€v.€Ashóó,€729€S.W.2d€275€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)).Ìà àWe€review€the€record€in€this€case€within€the€parameters€of€the€above€rules.Ìà àThe€only€issue€raised€by€the€petitioner€which€has€a€modicum€of€possibleÏprejudice€is€issue€A.1,€the€refusal€of€trial€counsel€to€put€on€evidence€which€wouldÏhave€been€exculpatory.Ìà àThe€indictment€charged€the€defendant€with€burning€property€owned€by€SamÏAiley.€€Prior€to€trial,€Sam€Ailey€made€an€affidavit,€in€defense€counsel's€office,€inÏwhich€he€swore€he€had€given€the€property€to€Calhoun.€€At€trial,€defense€counselÍelected€not€to€call€Ailey€as€a€witness.€€On€the€face€of€this,€it€appears€counsel€wasÏdeficient€in€making€this€decision.× ƒ& ××  ×€€However,€in€light€of€the€evidence€introduced€onÏthis€issue,€we€find€the€trial€judge€properly€denied€relief.Ìà àIt€is€true€that€Sam€Ailey€gave€an€affidavit€in€which€he€said€he€had€given€theÏproperty€to€the€defendant.€€This€record€shows€that,€at€the€time€of€the€original€trial,Ïand€now,€Sam€Ailey€was€an€older€man€whose€memory€was€seriously€deficient.€ÏÑ  ÑWhen€the€fire€occurred,€Sam€Ailey€made€remarks€to€the€police€which€indicated€heÏwas€the€owner€of€the€property€in€question.Ìà àBased€upon€this,€defendant's€counsel€feared€that€Sam€Ailey€would€notÏwithstand€the€rigor€of€cross„examination€on€trial€concerning€whether€he€had€givenÏthe€property€to€Calhoun.€€This€affidavit€was€made€by€Ailey€after€the€fire€and€beforeÏthe€trial.€€Counsel€did€not€put€much€faith€in€the€accuracy€of€the€affidavit,€which€wasÏgiven€in€the€presence€of€Calhoun.Ìà àObviously,€counsel€may€have€questions€about€the€veracity€of€a€witnessÏwhich€would€cause€reluctance€to€offer€the€evidence.€€Nevertheless,€whether€aÏwitness€is€to€be€believed€or€not€is€a€matter€to€be€determined€by€the€trier€of€fact€andÍwhen,€as€here,€the€evidence,€if€believed€by€the€trier€of€fact,€would€have€possibly€ledÏto€a€dismissal€of€the€indicted€charge€against€the€defendant,€the€failure€to€offer€itÏrequires€close€scrutiny.€€If€we€had€viewed€this€case€in€that€position€on€direct€appeal,Ïwe€likely€would€have€reversed€the€conviction.€€The€issue€of€ownership€of€theÏburned€property€was€raised€on€appeal.€€However,€as€we€pointed€out€in€the€originalÏopinion,€the€only€evidence€on€the€issue€of€ownership€showed€Sam€Ailey€to€be€theÏowner.€€òòState€of€Tennessee€v.€H.B.€Calhounóó,€C.C.A.€No.€278€{filed€at€Knoxville,ÏAugust€21,€1990).Ìà àWe€now€have€the€benefit€of€hindsight€on€the€decision€of€trial€counsel€not€toÏcall€Ailey.€€This€record€shows€that€Ailey€had€in€fact€transferred€the€property€to€a€Mr.ÏStafford€on€September€24,€1986,€well€before€the€fire.€€The€deed€was€not€of€record,Ïand€there€was€no€reason€for€counsel€to€discover€it.€€The€evidence€further€shows€Mr.ÏStafford€conveyed€the€property€back€to€Mr.€Ailey€on€April€9,€1990,€well€after€the€trialÏof€the€defendant.€€We€have€the€further€hind„sight€of€the€ruling€by€the€trial€judge€thatÏthe€petitioner€is€not€credible.€€We,€of€course,€are€not€in€as€good€a€position€to€makeÏan€assessment€of€the€petitioner's€credibility,€but€if€we€were€asked€to€pass€on€theÏcredibility€of€the€petitioner€from€reading€the€testimony,€we€would€certainly€concurÏwith€the€trial€judge„„in€short,€the€record€convinces€us€the€testimony€of€the€petitionerÏwas€not€credible.Ìà àWhat€original€trial€counsel€was€faced€with€at€trial€was€a€client€whoseÏcredibility€would€have€been€seriously€eroded€if€not€destroyed€at€trial,€and€an€affiantÏto€call€as€a€witness€whose€credibility,€because€of€age,€was€questionable.€€TheÏentire€theme€of€the€defense€was€to€convince€the€jury€that€the€building€which€wasÏburned€was€useless.€€The€evidence€does€show€the€building€was€falling€down€priorÏto€the€burning.€€Defense€counsel€characterized€the€defense€as€a€so„what€defense.Ìà àIf€counsel€had€called€Mr.€Ailey,€who€wept€and€lamented€the€loss€of€propertyÏin€the€burned€building,€and€the€defendant€whose€credibility€was€very€questionable,Ïhe€would€have€lost€the€substance€of€the€defense€raised.Ìà àWe€have€examined€this€in€the€context€of€the€rules€set€out€in€the€above€casesÏand€find€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€counsel€was€incompetent.Ìà àWe€have€examined€issue€number€A.2€raised€by€the€petitioner€and€find€theÏruling€by€the€trial€judge€that€counsel€did€not€unconstitutionally€deny€him€the€right€toÏtestify€is€supported€by€the€record.Ìà àWe€find€that€issue€A.3€raised€by€the€defendant€is€without€merit€because€thisÏrecord€does€not€show€a€reduction€in€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€judge€wouldÏhave€resulted€had€counsel€raised€the€issue€of€the€length€of€the€sentence€on€appeal.Ìà àWe€find€there€is€nothing€in€this€record€to€show€counsel€should€have€askedÏthe€original€trial€judge€to€recuse€himself€from€the€trial.Ìà àThe€petitioner€asserts€this€should€have€been€done€because€he€had€swornÏsome€very€vulgar€words€at€the€trial€judge€prior€to€his€becoming€a€judge.€€This€wasÏsaid€by€the€petitioner€to€have€occurred€on€the€occasion€of€the€taking€of€his€pre„trialÏdiscovery€deposition€by€Mr.€Mayo€L.€Mashburn€(now€Judge€Mashburn)€on€July€27,Ï1977€in€a€civil€case€filed€by€the€instant€petitioner.€€Conrad€Finnell,€counsel€for€theÏpetitioner€in€the€1977€discovery€deposition,€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearingÏthat€he€had€no€recollection€of€the€occurrence€(cursing€of€Mr.€Mashburn)€related€byÏthe€petitioner.Ìà àJudge€Mashburn€testified€in€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€had€neverÏhad€any€conversation€with€the€petitioner€to€his€recollection€and€further€testified€heÏwas€absolutely€certain€he€had€not€had€any€conversation€with€him€prior€to€the€trialÏon€the€arson.Ìà àAfter€the€post„conviction€case€had€been€ruled€on,€petitioner€filed€a€copy€of€aÏpre„trial€discovery€deposition€which€showed€Mr.€Mashburn€was€counsel€for€theÏdefendant€in€the€taking€of€the€discovery€deposition€in€1977.× ƒ' ××  ×Ìà àThe€petitioner,€through€his€current€counsel,€makes€a€very€strident€attackÏupon€the€integrity€of€the€trial€judge€based€upon€his€testimony€concerning€theÍdeposition,€a€condemnation€which€we€find€far€less€certain€than€counsel's€attackÏwarrants.× ƒ( ××  ×Ìà àAt€any€rate,€we€can€find€no€reason€to€grant€relief€to€the€petitioner€on€thisÏissue€because€there€is€no€showing€that€failure€of€counsel€to€have€the€trial€judgeÏrecused€denied€the€petitioner€a€fair€and€impartial€trial.€Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€to€theÏappellant,€Harley€Benson€Calhoun.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àÌà àòòà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:òòÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌF.€Lee€Russell,€Special€Judge€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì