ÿWPCî …UNV %¤ 0(ª4Òæ 0Jõ 0T? 0^“ 0hñ 0rY 0|Ë 0†G 0Í 1u] U,Ò 0dþ U,b U>Ž U6Ì B) DC+ AMn U*» ?å B$v~AvÓ¿ D3’ 0@Å AOÆT 0D 0D^ D/¢ BÑ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡o„pÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÔ3|x#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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌJanuary€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑòòÑ7€FXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€"$!;+'h|` ç `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóà@ àòòÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌRAYMOND€LEWIS€COVINGTON,€*à àC.C.A.€#€01C01„9408„CC„00286Ì€€Ìà àà àAPPELLANT,à à*à àMAURY€COUNTY€ÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Jim€T.€Hamilton,€JudgeÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€à à*à à(Post„Conviction)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€Ìà àà àAPPELLEE.à àà à*ÌÌÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà à€€òòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌShara€Flacy€à àà à€€€€à àà à€€Charles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà à€€à à€€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€1208à àà àà à€€€€€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌPulaski,€TN€€37813„1618à à€€à à€€Nashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì€ÌJohn€P.€Damron€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Clinton€J.€MorganÌAssistant€Public€Defender€€€€€€€Counsel€for€the€StateÌ209€West€Madison€Streetà àà à€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌP.O.€Box€1208à àà àà àà à€€Nashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌPulaski,€TN€€38478€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Robert€C.€Sanders€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏAssistant€District€Attorney€Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€Maury€County€Courthouse€AnnexÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Columbia,€TN€€38478€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÇÓÓ€à@ àòòò òOPINIONÌó óóóà àà àThe€petitioner,€Raymond€Lewis€Covington,€appeals€fromÏthe€trial€court's€order€dismissing€his€petition€for€post„Ïconviction€relief.€€The€single€issue€presented€for€review€isÏwhether€the€petitioner€had€been€denied€the€effective€assistanceÏof€counsel€at€trial.€€€€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àA€brief€procedural€history€is€necessary€to€put€theÏclaim€in€context.€€On€February€27,€1991,€the€petitioner€wasÏconvicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€armed€robbery.€€This€courtÏaffirmed€the€convictions€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€RaymondÏL.€Covingtonóó,€No.€01C01„9109„CC„00267€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏNashville,€May€13,€1992).€€Our€opinion€contained€a€factualÏsummary:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThis€case€concerns€the€killing€ofÏErnie€Anglin€on€April€14,€1979.€BonnieÏParker,€the€mother€of€Mr.€Anglin'sÏdaughter,€was€living€with€Mr.€Anglin€on€theÏdate€of€his€death.€According€to€herÏtestimony,€two€masked€men€entered€theirÏhouse€at€approximately€9:30€p.m.ÏBrandishing€weapons,€they€took€aÏsubstantial€amount€of€cash€from€Anglin'sÏpants€pocket€and€then€led€him€out€of€theÏhouse€while€pointing€a€gun€at€his€back.€TheÏvictim's€four„year„old€daughter€was€aÏwitness€to€this€robbery€and€abduction.€TheÏlittle€girl€was€crying€hysterically€whileÏher€mother,€Ms.€Parker,€desperately€soughtÍhelp.€She€called€a€friend;€but€beforeÏanyone€arrived,€Ms.€Parker€heard€twoÏgunshots€from€across€the€street.€ShortlyÏthereafter,€Ernie€Anglin€was€found€dead€onÏthe€ground€with€two€gunshots€to€his€body.€Ìà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àSheriff's€investigations€led€to€Greg€HillÏas€a€possible€suspect.€Hill€made€aÏstatement€to€law€enforcement€officersÏimplicating€himself,€the€appellant,€and€aÏman€named€Ronnie€Brown.€Hill€agreed€toÏallow€himself€to€be€wired€and€to€engage€inÏa€conversation€with€the€appellant.€TheÏconversation€was€videotaped€and€recorded.ÏDuring€the€taped€conversation,€theÏappellant€admitted€robbing€and€shootingÏAnglin.€The€court€reporter€had€difficultyÏhearing€every€word€of€the€tape€and€would€ÌÌà8 àà8 àcertify€the€transcript€of€the€recording€asÏa€"best€effort"€only.€ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àOn€September€3,€1992,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóóÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging€that€his€trialÏcounsel€had€been€ineffective€in€several€ways.€€Later,€theÏpetitioner€was€appointed€post„conviction€counsel€and€an€amendedÏpetition€was€filed.€€A€hearing€ensued€and€the€trial€court€deniedÏrelief.€ÌÌà àà àIn€order€for€the€petitioner€to€be€granted€relief€onÏgrounds€of€ineffective€counsel,€he€must€establish€that€theÍadvice€given€or€the€services€rendered€were€not€within€the€rangeÏof€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€and€that,Ïbut€for€his€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€results€of€hisÏtrial€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466ÏU.S.€668€(1984);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€ÏThe€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderated€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòClennyÏv.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978);€otherwise,€theÏfindings€of€facts€by€the€trial€court€are€conclusive.€€òòGraves€v.ÏStateóó,€512€S.W.2d€603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€à àà àÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€testified€that€his€counsel€wasÏineffective€as€follows:€€(1)€by€rarely€contacting€the€petitionerÏand€by€meeting€with€him€only€twice,€for€a€total€of€approximatelyÏforty„five€minutes;€(2)€by€failing€to€have€the€tape„recordedÏconversation€between€the€petitioner€and€state€witness€Greg€HillÏprofessionally€enhanced,€because€portions€of€the€tape€wereÏunclear;€(3)€by€failing€to€conduct€a€follow„up€investigation€ofÏa€letter€written€by€Pete€Bondurant€to€his€brother,€Pat,Ïconcerning€Hill;€and€(4)€by€failing€to€call€three€witnesses€whoÏwould€have€testified€favorably€for€the€petitioner.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€trial€counsel,€appearing€as€a€stateÏwitness,€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€hadÏexpended€a€great€deal€of€time€preparing€the€petitioner's€case.€ÏHe€remembered€filing€a€motion€to€suppress€the€statement€ofÏcodefendant€Hill,€consulting€with€a€gun€expert,€viewing€theÏcrime€scene,€and€interviewing€most€of€the€state's€witnesses.€€HeÏacquired€helpful€information€from€counsel€representing€Hill.€ÏTrial€counsel€recalled€that€he€had€been€readily€accessible€toÏthe€petitioner€and€denied€that€he€had€met€with€him€for€onlyÏforty„five€minutes€before€the€trial.€€He€estimated€that€he€hadÏcounseled€with€the€petitioner€for€at€least€four€hours,€aÏcontention€supported€by€office€time€records.€€At€the€conclusionÏof€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€took€the€matterÏunder€advisement€and€ultimately€ruled€that€the€petitioner€hadÏbeen€effectively€represented.€€These€findings€of€fact€must€beÏconsidered€as€conclusive€for€purposes€of€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòGraves€v.€Stateóó,€512ÏS.W.2d€at€604.€€In€our€view,€the€record€fully€supports€theÏdeterminations€of€the€trial€court.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àTrial€counsel€explained€that€he€chose€not€to€hire€anÏexpert€to€enhance€the€quality€of€the€taped€conversation€betweenÍHill€and€the€petitioner€as€a€matter€of€strategy.€€He€believedÏthat€a€more€accurate€transcript€might€have€further€incriminatedÏthe€petitioner.€€The€poor€quality€of€the€tape€offered€theÏpetitioner€an€opportunity€to€impeach€Hill€about€the€tape.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àTrial€counsel€also€explained€his€decision€not€to€callÏPete€Bondurant€as€a€witness.€€Bondurant€had€written€a€letter€toÏhis€brother,€Pat,€in€which€he€claimed€that€Hill€had€said€thatÏ"he€wasn't€going€to€take€no€fall€so€long€as€the€D.A.€was€aÏsucker."€€While€this€statement€would€have€cast€doubt€upon€theÏtruthfulness€of€Hill's€testimony,€trial€counsel€was€concernedÏabout€the€credibility€of€the€Bondurants;€both€were€in€jail€onÏsecond€degree€murder€charges€at€the€time€of€the€communication.€ÏPete€Bondurant€would€have€been€fair€game€for€impeachment€by€hisÏprior€criminal€record.€€Trial€counsel€believed€that€any€possibleÏsuccess€in€the€trial€hinged€upon€the€credibility€of€the€defenseÏand€that€the€Bondurant€participation€presented€a€risk€to€thatÏstrategy.€€ÌÌà àà àAn€informed€decision€by€counsel€may€not€be€the€basisÏfor€relief,€even€if€the€strategy€does€not€work.€€òòRhoden€v.ÏStateóó,€816€S.W.2d€56,€60€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1991).€€In€each€ofÍthese€instances,€trial€counsel€made€a€sound€tactical€choice.€ÏThus,€we€may€not€second„guess€that€strategy.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àTrial€counsel€could€not€remember€why€he€chose€not€toÏcall€Fred€Alexander,€a€witness€subpoenaed€by€the€defense.€€Thus,Ïcounsel€may€have€been€deficient€in€performance.€€Alexander,Ïhowever,€was€not€called€as€a€witness€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing.€€Thus,€petitioner€failed€to€establish€who€Alexander€wasÏor€what€his€testimony€would€have€been;€no€prejudice€has€beenÏshown.€€ÌÌà àà àCounsel€also€testified€that,€as€best€he€couldÏremember,€Officer€Hall€would€have€been€unable€to€provide€helpfulÏinformation.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€also€failed€to€callÏOfficer€Hall€as€a€witness€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Thus,Ïwe€are€unable€to€determine€how€the€omission€affected€the€resultsÏof€the€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€girlfriend,€Amena€Comings,€was€notÏcalled€because€trial€counsel€concluded€that€much€of€herÏtestimony€would€have€been€inadmissible.€€Because€he€believed€theÏpetitioner€had€made€a€very€good€witness,€counsel€chose,€again€asÍa€matter€of€strategy,€not€to€call€Ms.€Comings.€€While€Ms.ÏComings€attended€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€she€did€not€testify.€€Thus,€theÏpetitioner€has€again€failed€to€establish€how€he€might€have€beenÏprejudiced.€€As€a€practical€matter,€the€failure€to€callÏwitnesses€may€be€a€basis€for€post„conviction€relief€only€whenÏthose€witnesses€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€andÏestablish€that€the€results€of€the€trial€may€have€been€differentÏhad€they€participated.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Since€none€of€the€witnesses€inÏquestion€testified,€no€prejudice€has€been€shown.€€€€€€Ìà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.Ì€€€ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌRex€H.€Ogle,€Special€JudgeÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòò òà àà àó óóóÌÌÌ