ÿWPCÍ …# VUNa %¯ 0ñµU:¦ w@à 4 4 C 05K 0D€ 0JÄ 0T 0^b 0hÀ 0r( 0|š 0† 0œ 1u,U,¡ 0dÍU,1U>] B›U*¸B)âDC  AMNÉ› D3dv~—vÓ 0@è AO(Æw 0D= D/ B°˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular M DN O P DQ DR S eT U eV Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x_ (å(3¯$¤¤Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€X äXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¿Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌAugustÏ22,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ ° ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÑ7€vVXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßL€()';+'h|` à. `€€Lß›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àóóJUNE€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌPATRICK€COLLIER,à àà à*à à#01C01„9509„CR„00314ÌÌà àà àAPPELLANT,à à*à àDAVIDSONÏCOUNTYÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Ann€LacyÏJohnsÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„Conviction)ÌÌà àà àAPPELLEE.à àà à*ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌAndrei€Ellen€Leeà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ961€Woodland€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€&ÏReporterÌSuite€100à àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€37206à àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRenee€F.ÏVidelefskyà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,ÏIIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€AttorneyÏGeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRoger€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à500€Washington€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Ave.,€N.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àà àThe€appellant,€Patrick€Collier,€appeals€from€the€Davidson€CountyÏCriminal€Courtððs€judgment€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€allegesÏthat€he€was€denied€his€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€The€trialÏcourt€denied€relief€after€conducting€two€evidentiary€hearings.€€We€find€no€error€andÏaffirm€the€judgment.ÌÌà àà àIn€September€of€1992,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murderÏand€attempted€first€degree€murder€for€shooting€two€of€his€cousins€with€a€.38€caliberÏpistol.€€One€of€the€victims,€Joseph€L.€Collier,€was€shot€in€the€head€from€close€rangeÍand€killed.€€The€second€victim,€Kenneth€D.€Collier,€was€shot€in€the€back€as€he€fled€fromÏthe€scene.€€The€appellant€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment€and€a€term€of€twenty„fiveÏyears,€to€be€served€consecutively.€€His€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmed€onÏdirect€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Patrick€N.€Collieróó,€No.€01„C„01„9303„CR„00093€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Aug.€19,€1993,€Nashville),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993).€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellantððs€post„conviction€petition€alleged€that€trial€counsel€wasÏineffective€for€failing€to€present€several€family€members€who€could€have€testified€atÏtrial.€€These€witnesses€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Thomas€Collier€Sr.,€theÏappellantððs€father,€testified€that€he€had€been€visiting€his€family€at€his€motherððs€house€inÏNashville€on€the€day€of€the€shooting.€€He€saw€his€son,€Melvin€Collier,€and€his€brother,ÏRolland€Collier,€walk€around€the€side€of€the€house€where€a€shot€was€fired.€€RollandÏCollier€returned€and€said€that€Melvin€had€been€ð ðtrying€to€set€the€house€on€fire.ðð€€MelvinÏCollier€went€to€the€hospital€to€be€treated€for€minor€gunshot€wounds.€€The€appellant€andÏThomas€Collier€Jr.€later€arrived€at€the€scene,€found€out€what€had€happened,€and€wentÏto€the€hospital€to€check€on€Melvin.€€Collier€Sr.€was€not€at€the€scene€when€the€appellantÏshot€the€victims.€€€ÌÌà àà àThomas€Collier€Jr.€also€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€He€saidÏthat€after€visiting€Melvin€Collier€in€the€hospital,€he€returned€to€the€scene€and€saw€oneÏof€the€victims,€Joseph€Collier,€ð ðmumbling€and€cryingðð€and€appearing€ð ðto€be€mad€aboutÏsomething.ðð€€Collier€Jr.€did€not€see€the€appellant€shoot€the€victims.€€Likewise,€MelvinÍCollier€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€was€not€at€the€scene€when€theÏappellant€shot€the€victims.€€He€was€still€at€the€hospital€being€treated€for€his€minorÏinjuries.€€€€ÌÌà àà àRolland€Collier,€the€appellantððs€uncle,€testified€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing€that€ð ðeverything€[was]€in€an€uproarðð€on€the€day€of€the€offenses€because€MelvinÏCollier€had€been€threatening€to€burn€the€house.€€When€the€problem€escalated,ÏRolland€Collier€shot€Melvin.€€The€appellant€later€showed€up€at€the€house€and€wantedÏto€know€who€shot€Melvin.€€The€appellant€then€shot€Joseph€Collier,€who€had€beenÏunarmed.€€According€to€Rolland€Collier,€there€had€been€no€altercation€between€theÏappellant€and€Joseph€prior€to€the€shooting.€€€€à àà à€€€ÌÌà àà àJohn€Wiethe€testified€that€he€was€retained€to€represent€the€appellantÏfollowing€the€preliminary€hearing.€€He€reviewed€the€assistant€public€defenderððs€file€andÏtapes€of€the€preliminary€hearing.€€He€interviewed€witnesses€and€visited€the€scene€ofÏthe€offenses.€€He€met€with€the€appellant€five€or€six€times;€he€described€the€appellant€asÏð ðhelpfulðð€and€ð ðcooperative.ðð€€They€discussed€witnesses€and€defenses;€they€decided€toÏraise€a€claim€of€self€defense.€€ÌÌà àà àCounsel€learned€about€the€incident€between€Rolland€Collier€and€MelvinÏCollier€that€preceded€the€appellantððs€offenses.€€Counsel€believed€that€Rolland€CollierððsÏtestimony€would€be€damaging€to€the€appellant.€€Counsel€was€unable€to€interviewÍMelvin€Collier,€who€lived€in€Kansas€City.€€He€asked€Thomas€Collier€Sr.,€who€alsoÏresided€in€Kansas€City,€to€contact€Melvin€Collier€on€his€behalf,€but€the€attempts€wereÏunsuccessful.€€Counsel€believed€that€Thomas€Collier€Sr.€could€have€helped€ð ðset€theÏbackgroundðð€for€the€defense.€€However,€according€to€counsel,€Collier€Sr.€becameÏevasive€and€said€he€was€too€busy€to€travel€to€Nashville€for€the€trial.€€Similarly,€counselÏwas€unable€to€find€Thomas€Collier€Jr.,€who€could€have€testified€about€the€appellantððsÏð ðframe€of€mind.ðð€ÌÌà àà àCounsel€testified€that€he€learned€through€pre„trial€discovery€motions€thatÏa€weapon€had€been€found€in€bushes€near€the€scene€of€the€crimes.€€He€tried€to€find€outÏwhether€the€weapon€had€been€handled€by€Rolland,€Kenneth,€or€Joseph€Collier.€€It€wasÏthe€defense€theory€that€one€of€the€victims€had€the€weapon€when€the€appellant€arrivedÏat€the€scene.€€However,€the€prosecution€told€counsel€that€no€fingerprints€had€beenÏfound€on€the€weapon.€€Counsel€conceded€that€the€appellant€was€the€sole€defenseÏwitness€at€trial.ÌÌà àà àIn€post„conviction€cases,€the€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€proveÏallegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,Ï289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1988);€òòVermilye€v.€Stateóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€82,€84€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1987).€€On€appeal,Ïwe€are€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóóòòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€how€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€judgmentÏentered.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àà àTo€establish€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€the€SixthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€a€petitioner€must€show€(a)€that€counselððsÏperformance€was€deficient€and€(b)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€ofÏrendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687Ï(1984).€€Appellate€review€of€such€an€issue€does€not€have€to€begin€with€the€attorneyððsÏconduct;€if€prejudice€is€not€shown,€we€need€not€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegationsÏabout€deficient€performance.€€òòIdóó.€at€697.€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied€asÏwell€to€the€right€to€counsel€under€Article€1,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÏòòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€493€U.S.€874€(1989).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÏdecided€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€servicesÏrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€In€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment€...€requires€that€every€effortÏbe€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€theÏcircumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÍòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Deference€is€made€to€trial€strategy€orÏtactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòHellardÏv.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€claims€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective,€primarily€for€failingÏto€substantiate€the€claim€of€self€defense.€€First,€he€argues€that€counsel€failed€toÏinterview€and€subpoena€the€appellantððs€family€members€who€could€have€testifiedÏabout€the€ð ðbackgroundðð€incident€betweeen€Rolland€and€Melvin€Collier.€€Second,€heÏargues€that€counsel€failed€to€subpoena€Rolland€Collier,€who€could€have€testified€thatÏthe€appellant€had€first€asked€who€shot€Melvin€Collier€before€he€shot€Joseph€Collier.€ÏFinally,€he€contends€that€counsel€failed€to€investigate€the€matter€of€who€was€inÏpossession€of€a€weapon€when€the€appellant€arrived€at€the€scene.ÌÌà àà àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€As€the€trial€court€noted,€the€evidence€showed€thatÏcounsel€met€with€the€appellant€on€numerous€occasions€to€discuss€witnesses€andÏpossible€defenses.€€He€visited€the€scene€and€tried€to€talk€to€all€of€the€witnesses.€ÏAlthough€he€had€difficulty€communicating€with€out€of€state€witnesses,€he€made€effortsÏto€contact€them€through€other€family€members.€€Moreover,€counsel€€reviewedÏstatements€taken€by€the€appellantððs€original€counsel,€and€he€also€reviewed€the€tapesÏof€the€preliminary€hearing.€€ÌÌà àà àWith€regard€to€specific€witnesses,€it€is€clear,€as€the€trial€court€found,€thatÏThomas€Collier€Sr.,€Thomas€Collier€Jr.,€and€Melvin€Collier€were€not€at€the€scene€whenÏthe€crimes€occurred.€€While€they€may€have€been€able€to€testify€about€the€incidentÏbetween€Rolland€and€Melvin€Collier,€it€is€not€clear€from€the€record€that€such€evidenceÏwould€have€bolstered€the€appellantððs€self€defense€claim€for€events€that€occurred€hoursÏlater.€€Moreover,€the€trial€transcript€reflects€that€evidence€regarding€the€incidentÏbetween€Rolland€and€Melvin€Collier€was€before€the€jury.€€Thus,€the€appellant€hasÏfailed€to€show€that€counsel€was€ineffective€and€he€has€failed€to€show€a€reasonableÏprobability€of€a€different€outcome.ÌÌà àà àSimilarly,€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€testimonyÏof€Rolland€Collier€may€have€been€damaging€to€the€appellantððs€defense.€€In€sum,ÏRolland€Collier€testified€that€the€victim,€Joseph€Collier,€was€unarmed€when€he€wasÏshot€by€the€appellant.€€Moreover,€Rolland€Collier€said€nothing€to€contradict€the€StateððsÏevidence€regarding€the€appellantððs€shooting€of€Kenneth€Collier.€€Similarly,€there€isÏnothing€in€the€record€to€show€what€else€counsel€could€have€learned€with€regard€to€theÏweapon€that€was€found€at€the€scene.€€The€trial€transcript€reveals€that€evidenceÏconcerning€the€weapon€and€its€location€was€elicited€at€trial€in€full€detail.€€Accordingly,Ïthe€appellant€has€not€shown€that€counsel€was€ineffective.€€The€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge