ÿWPCÚ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ 0d U*u B)Ÿ DCÈ AM üXv~T BÒvÓï D3 0@õ AO5Æ„ 0DJ D/Ž B½˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ xyezE{|E} ~ €Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xŠ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌDecember€30,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€™XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßR€"#!A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌÌà@ à€JULY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌJAMES€KELLY€CAULEY,à àà àà à)à àNo.€01„C„01„9512„CC„00421€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€ROBERTSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌGregory€D.€Smithà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌOne€Public€Squareà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€321à àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Wesley€Carney,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àB.€Dent€MorrissÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à500€Main€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSpringfield,€TN€37172ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€from€the€Robertson€County€Circuit€Courtððs€denialÏof€appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„30„101€et€seq.€(1990).€€Finding€no€merit€in€appellantððs€issues,Ïwe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petition.€€Ìà àAppellant,€James€Kelly€Cauley,€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€first€degreeÏmurder€in€October€of€1989€and€received€consecutive€life€sentences.€€This€CourtÏupheld€his€convictions€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Cauleyóó,€No.€01„C„01„9004„CC„00100€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€April€16,€1992).€€On€appeal€to€the€supremeÏcourt,€appellantððs€convictions€and€sentences€were€again€affirmed.€€òòState€v.€Cauleyóó,Ï863€S.W.2d€411€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€only€issue€addressed€in€that€opinion€was€theÏvalidity€of€a€search€warrant;€the€court€stated€that€all€other€issues€raised€by€appellantÏwere€adequately€addressed€in€the€intermediate€appeal.€€òòIdóó€at€418.€€Appellantððs€pro€seÏpost„conviction€petition€was€filed€January€14,€1994;€the€record€does€not€reflect€thatÏan€amended€petition€was€filed€after€the€appointment€of€counsel.Ìà àOn€appeal,€appellant€argues€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏin€that€the€public€defender€failed€to€warn€him€against€discussing€his€case€with€others.€ÏThe€second€facet€to€the€claim€is€that€the€cumulative€errors€committed€at€trial€and€atÏthe€appellate€level€were€sufficient€to€violate€his€constitutional€right€to€effectiveÍcounsel.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€post„conviction€petition,€the€trial€court€found€thatÏappellant€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel€and€dismissed€the€petition.€€In€itsÏruling,€the€trial€court€specifically€made€a€finding€that€appellantððs€trial€counsel€did€inÏfact€warn€him€about€discussing€his€case€with€others.Ìà àIn€reviewing€the€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€renderedÏby€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€aÏclaim€of€ineffective€counsel,€an€appellant€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððs€representationÏfell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€this€performanceÏprejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694,Ï104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064,€2067„68,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2dÏ421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€The€most€difficult€burden€on€an€appellant€isÏdemonstrating€the€prejudice€he€has€suffered€by€the€alleged€error.€€In€order€to€prevailÏon€that€ground,€the€appellant€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€forÏcounselððs€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòId.óó€€€Ìà àIn€order€to€sustain€his€post„conviction€petition,€the€appellant€must€prove€theÏallegations€of€ineffective€assistance€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÏòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Furthermore,€theÏfactual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€hearings€ð ðare€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÍevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,Ï475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Appellant€fails€to€carry€this€burden.Ìà àHe€first€attacks€his€counsel€as€ineffective€for€failing€to€instruct€him€not€toÏdiscuss€his€case€with€other€persons€while€incarcerated.€€The€trial€court€specificallyÏfound€that€counsel€did€instruct€appellant€in€this€respect.€€Finding€that€the€evidenceÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€this€finding,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€Ìà àAppellant€was€sixteen€years€of€age€when€he€was€arrested€on€murder€chargesÏand€incarcerated.€€After€being€transferred€from€juvenile€court€to€criminal€court€to€beÏtried€as€an€adult,€he€was€incarcerated€in€the€Robertson€County€Jail.€€Upon€hisÏrequest€and€that€of€his€parents,€appellant€was€placed€with€the€general€adultÏpopulation€at€the€jail.€€He€remained€there€until€his€trial.€€During€his€incarceration,Ïappellant€bragged€to€his€cellmate€that€he€had€participated€in€the€murders€and€that€aÏjury€would€never€convict€him.€€That€cellmate€was€called€by€the€State€as€a€witness€atÏtrial€and€testified€to€appellantððs€admissions.€€Appellant€maintains€on€appeal€that€thisÏtestimony€was€false.€€His€claim€is€that€his€attorney€never€advised€him€not€to€talk€toÏothers€while€incarcerated.€€He€alleges€the€failure€to€do€so€is€tantamount€to€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.Ìà àThis€issue€was€addressed€at€the€hearing€on€the€post„conviction€petition.€€AfterÏhearing€the€testimony€of€the€public€defender€and€of€appellant,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€the€public€defender€had€indeed€warned€appellant€not€to€talk€while€in€jail.€€TheÍtranscript€from€that€hearing€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€€When€testifying,€theÏpublic€defender€stated€that€he€always€advises€his€clients€not€to€talk€to€anyone€whileÏin€jail.€€He€now€uses€appellantððs€case€as€an€example€of€the€consequences.€€TheÏpublic€defenderððs€statement€that€it€was€his€standard€practice€to€give€such€warnings€toÏclients€supports€the€trial€courtððs€factual€finding.Ìà àFurthermore,€appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€suffered€prejudiceÏfrom€the€alleged€failure€to€warn.€€Although€appellant€stated€that€counsel€neverÏadvised€him€to€keep€quiet,€he€stated€that€during€this€time€he€was€aware€of€hisÏMiranda€rights.€€He€stated€that€he€understood€he€did€not€have€to€talk€to€anyone€and,Ïthat€if€he€did,€it€could€be€used€against€him.€€He€also€stated€that€he€knew€this€appliedÏto€all€individuals,€not€just€police€officers.€€In€addition,€appellant€stated€that€he€knewÏnot€to€talk€to€anyone€in€jail€and€that€was€just€common€sense.€€From€appellantððsÏstatements,€it€appears€that€whether€the€attorney€advised€him€in€such€a€way€wasÏirrelevant;€appellant€knew€he€was€supposed€to€keep€quiet.€€He€suffered€no€prejudiceÏfrom€counselððs€alleged€failure€to€warn.Ìà àWe€are€somewhat€perplexed€by€appellantððs€position€on€this€issue.€€WhileÏmaintaining€that€the€cellmateððs€testimony€was€false€and€that€he€never€made€theÏstatements,€appellant€still€argues€that€he€suffered€prejudice€from€his€counselððsÏalleged€failure€to€warn€against€talking€to€other€inmates.€€This€is€an€untenableÏcontention;€appellant€is€arguing€two€sides€of€the€coin.€€He€either:€€(1)€made€theÍstatements€to€the€cellmate€and€alleges€that€his€counsel€failed€to€warn€him€aboutÏtalking€to€others,€the€result€of€which€he€suffered€prejudice;€or€(2)€appellant€did€notÏmake€the€statements,€as€he€contends,€and€counselððs€failure€to€warn€him€wasÏirrelevant.€€Appellant€cannot€have€it€both€ways.€€If€scenario€(1)€is€correct,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€counsel€did€give€appellant€the€proper€warnings.€€This€is€supported€by€theÏevidence.€€On€the€other€hand,€if€scenario€(2)€is€correct,€appellant€suffered€noÏprejudice€from€counselððs€alleged€failure€to€warn.€€If€appellant€never€made€anyÏstatements€and€the€cellmate€fabricated€the€entire€story,€this€is€no€fault€of€counsel.€ÏAny€prejudice€suffered€by€a€cellmateððs€dishonesty€cannot€be€imputed€to€appellantððsÏcounsel€as€ineffective€assistance.€€Neither€option€supports€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance.€€€€Ìà àMoreover,€the€record€indicates€that€counselððs€handling€of€the€cellmateððsÏunexpected€testimony€was€more€than€adequate.€€After€finding€out€on€the€eve€of€trial€Ïthat€the€cellmate,€Michael€Vincent€would€testify,€counsel€sought€to€suppress€hisÏtestimony.€€After€a€lengthy€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€Counsel€thenÏprepared€to€rebut€the€testimony.€€He€interviewed€several€inmates€who€said€thatÏappellant€never€made€any€statements.€€One€such€inmate€testified€at€trial.€€In€addition,Ïcounsel€verified€that€Vincentððs€fingerprints€were€on€hearing€transcripts€that€appellantÏhad€in€his€cell.€€This€evidence€tended€to€substantiate€appellantððs€theory€that€VincentÏread€the€transcripts€and€fabricated€the€statements€to€obtain€a€favorable€deal€with€theÍState.€€Also,€counsel€investigated€Vincentððs€criminal€background€to€prepare€for€hisÏcross„examination.€€His€performance€simply€cannot€be€characterized€as€ineffective.Ìà àAppellantððs€second€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€premisedÏon€the€cumulative€effect€of€errors€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€Appellant€does€not€contendÏthat€any€one€error€would€have€constituted€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Rather,Ïhe€argues€that€the€effect€of€the€errors€coupled€with€the€failure€to€warn€appellant€wasÏsufficient€to€constitute€a€denial€of€constitutionally„mandated€legal€assistance.€€We€willÏaddress€the€allegations€in€turn,€but€find€them€to€be€without€merit.€€Ìà àAppellant€attacks€the€waiver€of€certain€issues€on€appeal€due€to€counselððsÏfailure€to€object€to€them€at€trial.€€Notwithstanding€the€fact€that€these€were€waived,€thisÏCourt€on€direct€appeal€chose€to€review€the€issues.€€òòState€v.€Cauleyóó,€No.€01„C„01„9004„CC„00100€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€April€16,€1992).€€On€each€issue,€theÏCourt€held€that€the€appellant€suffered€no€prejudice€from€the€error.€€Appellant€fails€toÏsatisfy€one€of€the€elements€of€ineffective€assistance€and€no€further€inquiry€isÏwarranted.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€697,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2069,Ï80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984)€(if€prejudice€is€not€shown,€it€is€unnecessary€to€determine€theÏvalidity€of€the€allegations€regarding€deficient€performance).Ìà àAppellant€also€contends€that€counsel€failed€to€adequately€investigate€certainÏStateððs€witnesses€to€reveal€agreements€made€with€these€witnesses.€€AlthoughÏappellant€does€not€specify€which€witnesses,€the€transcript€reflects€that€counsel€didÍinvestigate€the€possibility€of€such€agreements€with€Vincent€and€also€Stateððs€witnessÏDonna€Regan.€€He€stated€that€at€the€time€of€trial,€no€deals€had€been€made€with€either.€ÏBoth€were€cross„examined€on€this€point.€€Although€appellant€testified€at€the€hearingÏthat€he€believed€Vincent€did€receive€a€deal€with€the€State€after€his€trial,€he€offeredÏnothing€to€corroborate€these€beliefs.€€The€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àAppellant€also€contends€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€not€obtaining€theÏpresence€of€Joey€Holland,€a€witness€who€presumably€would€have€rebutted€VincentððsÏtestimony€about€appellantððs€admissions.€€Despite€counselððs€attempts€to€locateÏHolland,€he€could€not€be€found€at€the€time€of€trial.€€Appellant€asserts€that€counsel€hadÏrepresented€Holland€in€the€past,€implying€that€this€increases€counselððs€ability€toÏproduce€the€witness.€€An€attorney€cannot€produce€witnesses€who€cannot€be€found;Ïprior€representation€is€irrelevant.€€In€addition,€appellant€did€not€present€this€witness€atÏthe€post„conviction€hearing€to€demonstrate€what€his€testimony€at€trial€would€haveÏbeen.€€Therefore,€he€has€not€demonstrated€any€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794ÏS.W.2d€752,€767€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€(when€petitioner€contends€that€counselÏfailed€to€discover€or€present€witnesses€in€support€of€his€defense,€these€witnessesÏmust€be€presented€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€to€demonstrate€that€appellant€sufferedÏprejudice).Ìà àAppellant€also€alleges€that€a€conflict€of€interest€existed€between€his€counselÏand€Larry€Poole,€a€witness€who€could€have€been€a€potential€suspect€in€the€murders.€ÍAppellant€testified€to€his€belief€that€the€public€defender€represented€him€and€Mr.ÏPoole€contemporaneously,€but€stated€that€he€never€asked€counsel€about€this.€ÏCounsel€stated€that€he€had€represented€Mr.€Poole€on€criminal€and€civil€matters€priorÏto€appellantððs€trial,€but€not€at€any€time€in€close€proximity€to€appellantððs€representation.€ÏCounsel€also€stated€that€he€was€not€ethically€restrained€in€any€way€by€his€previousÏrepresentation€of€Mr.€Poole€and€performed€a€complete€cross„examination€of€him,Ïincluding€information€about€his€prior€criminal€history.€€Counselððs€performance€wasÏnot€deficient€in€this€respect.Ìà àAppellant€also€attacks€counselððs€failure€to€anticipate€a€òòTelfaireóó€issue€forÏidentification€purposes.€€He€contends€that€counsel€should€have€requested€aÏparticular€jury€instruction€on€identity.€€However,€counsel€stated€that€he€did€not€believeÏidentity€was€an€issue€in€appellantððs€case€and€that€no€request€was€warranted.€€WeÏmust€give€deference€to€tactical€decisions€if€they€are€informed€ones€that€are€the€resultÏof€adequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(citationsÏomitted).€€Other€evidence€besides€eyewitness€identification€incriminated€appellant€inÏthe€crime€and€counselððs€evaluation€of€identification€as€a€non„issue€does€not€appearÏto€be€error.€€The€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àAppellant€has€failed€to€satisfy€the€requirements€for€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€dismissal€of€the€post„convictionÏpetition.€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌœPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge