ÿWPC  ðN‚òŒÒ!ÄBv TEü0l^¶ïM{R†ºôpLÁ„5Œ½vÒ “/±‹ŸÉº^´Ô–¶i¨Náfº“eÚÅõÀ8öbŒoëw‰Vd+A×1zÔ¢Tð¬¼î•ØÇI®.ƒ@ ÈžÛv!ð‹²«@!ߟ9)ù¸S``Qä Râ¢;زd’‘Ù?Uïô¬2žã<Cgø‘Xï« ‡Ü_J|{힥›¿O¡êQ”\·é/ó ñ:r+ªŠ”„£ƒiIfËl<ž´x3ì§®ÌЦôáYؼuû»C¡‰~Û`Ö4}azv¥´"8iïv»Aj8`L. €ù@$ÇïeOx*ä€.ÔQ~³F²,‘­ ~™] IÙÏMgEÒ´`ýüL=v¹¶_%ý˜I(ºc\“ËuB/¼O¦\Ãõ²|B€—MÛ4EIÐ>‡³P=žŒì3÷™Aâ”—kH• Üû ½¢¥e/=óÓ`ž7ƒË¾Q€óÑDJX =3¦]b©Zð¬‘ß "¢Ñ d&°%ŠÇ…„ÀYW@ åÁ:×°ùkþéö¨…UBF %ˆ U.Ž ¼ nXÌ 0P$ 4t ˆ 0Ò 0cb w@Å U: U:? U:y ä³ U:———————————————————— BÑÑÑÑÑÑ D3îîî 0D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AOeÆ´´ 0Dz D/¾ Bí<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|XÉ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓuM%(‚(2§§$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ôìôXXÔÔ€ôD¯ôôôìÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ˆ$Ô€ X<=XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ·D¸£¹Uº»¼D½D¾¿DÀÓ€g"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ÚÔ€X]XXXÔÔ€Øe XX]ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X]X ØeÔÐ  ÐÌMay€13,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝñÀñ›ñÀñÑ` °ÑÑX°ÑÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€XÉÆXXXÔÑ7€ ÉÆ XXdðdÈ7ÑñÀñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eêf ` 8ttxP"` ð  rß›ñÀñà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌà@uu:MàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÓ  Óà@KK7MàAPRIL€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òEDWARD€D.€COKER,à ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)ó óà ¸ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9805„CC„00210ó óÐ À`  Ðà ¨ àà àAppellant,à ° àò ò€€€€€à  àà ` à)Ð °P  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àWILLLIAMSON€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHON.€DONALD€P.€HARRIS,Ð €  ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àJUDGEÐ p Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó€ò òÐ ` Ðà ¨ àà àó óAppellee.ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó(Post„Conviction)ò òÐ Pð Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ° àà  àà ` à€€€€€òòà ¸ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ ° ÐÌÌò òJOHN€HENDERSONà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ à€ Ðó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ Ð p ÐÌò òEUGENE€J.€HONEAó óà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTS,€JR.ó óÐ °"P ÐAsst.€District€Public€Defenderà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÐ  #@ ÐP.O.€Box€68à àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Sevier€Bldg.Ð $0 ÐFranklin,€TN€œñºñ€ñºñ37065„0068›à ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€Northà ! àà p# à€€€€€€Ð €%  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà ¨ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àò òRON€DAVISó óÐ P(ð! Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àDEREK€SMITHó óÐ  +À!$ Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€District€Attorney€Generalà p# àÐ ,°"% Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àP.O.€Box€937Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àFranklin,€TN€œñ»ñ€ñ»ñ37065„0937›Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌœñ¹ñÌñ¹ññ¹ñÌñ¹ññ¹ñÌñ¹ñ›à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ P7ð-1 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ  :À04 ÐJudgeÌÐ  < 26Ï ÐÑXÑñ¸ñÓ  Óñ¸ñà@™™:Màò òòòÔ‡¼W(¼XXÉÆÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†XÉÆX¼¼W(˜#ԈР`  ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà ¨ àà àThe€petitioner,€who€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€theft€of€services€andÏreceived€an€effective€sentence€of€six€years,€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ïalleging€ineffective€assistance€of€œcounselñ¼ñ€after€a€hearingñ¼ñ.›€€œñ½ñTñ½ññ¾ñAfter€a€hearing,€tñ¾ñhe›€trial€court€dismissed€theÏpetition,€and€the€petitioner€now€appeals.€€Finding€no€merit€to€the€petitionerððs€arguments,Ïwe€affirm.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€underlying€charges€in€this€case,€theft€of€services€over€one€thousandÏdollars€($1000)€and€theft€of€services€over€five€hundred€dollars€($500),€stem€from€unpaidÏhotel€bills€in€late€1993€and€early€1994.€€The€petitioner€asked€Tony€Vick,€a€life„long€familyÏfriend€who€had€represented€him€in€other€criminal€matters,€to€represent€him€in€this€case.€ÏAfter€plea€negotiations,€the€State€offered€to€recommend€a€suspended€sentence€afterÏservice€of€œforty„five›€days€in€jail€in€exchange€for€guilty€pleas.€€Not€wanting€jail€time,€theÏpetitioner€rejected€the€Stateððs€offer€and€entered€an€open€plea€of€guilty.ÌÌà ¨ àà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€in€1981,€he€sufferedÏa€brain€injury€in€an€automobile€accident.€€He€also€testified€that€before€he€checked€into€theÏfirst€hotel,€he€had€been€injured€in€a€work„related€accident€when€watermelons€fell€on€hisÏhead.€€When€he€attempted€to€testify€about€what€a€treating€physician€had€told€him,€theÏState€lodged€a€hearsay€objection,€which€was€sustained.€€The€petitioner€then€testified€thatÏas€a€result€of€his€injuries,€when€he€experiences€stress€and€pressure,€he€does€whateverÏis€necessary€for€relief.€€He€also€explained€that€at€the€time€of€the€crimes,€he€wasÏexperiencing€stress€because€his€motherððs€husband€had€kicked€him€out€of€the€house.ÌÐ †6&-0 Ðà ¨ àà àBased€on€its€finding€of€a€lengthy€criminal€history,€the€trial€court€gave€theÐ †6&-2 Ðpetitioner€the€maximum€sentences€for€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€that€is,€four€years€forÏthe€theft€of€services€over€one€thousand€dollars€($1000)€and€two€years€for€the€theft€ofÏservices€over€five€hundred€dollars€($500),€to€be€served€consecutively€in€prison.€€TheÏpetitioner€appealed,€arguing€that€his€sentence€was€excessive.€€On€appeal,€this€CourtÏagreed€that€the€trial€court€should€have€applied€two€mitigating€factors,€that€the€petitionerððsÏconduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury€and€that€the€crimes€wereÏmotivated€by€his€desire€to€provide€necessities€for€himself.€€òòState€v.€Edward€D.€Cokeróó,€No.Ð (È  Ð01C01„9507„CC„00240,€Williamson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€September€19,€1996,Ïat€Nashville).€€This€Court€disagreed,€however,€with€the€petitionerððs€contention€that€itÏshould€apply€mitigating€factor€(8),€that€he€was€suffering€from€a€mental€or€physicalÏcondition€that€significantly€reduced€his€culpability,€because€there€was€no€proof€his€injuriesÏreduced€his€culpability.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„113(8).€€Even€applying€two€mitigating€factors,Ð $Ä Ðthis€Court€determined€that€maximum€sentencing€was€justified€given€the€petitionerððsÏlengthy€criminal€history€and€that€consecutive€sentencing€was€also€appropriate.ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€September€1997,€the€petitioner€filed€a€pro€se€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief,€asserting€he€was€denied€œeffective›€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€hearingÏand€on€appeal.€€His€appointed€counsel€moved€for€an€order€of€mental€evaluation,€claimingÏthat€a€mental€examination€was€necessary€in€order€to€amend€the€post„conviction€petition.€ÏIn€support€of€this€motion,€an€œaffidavit›€and€a€1989€report€from€Dr.€Donald€Nassr,€a€licensedÏphysician€who€had€previously€treated€the€petitioner,€was€attached.€€According€to€Dr.ÏNassrððs€1989€report,€the€petitionerððs€injuries€from€his€automobile€accident€were€of€the€typeÏthat€ð ðcan€be€very€far€reaching€on€the€personalityðð€and€the€ð ðeffects€on€the€personality€canÏbe€wide€ranging€and€completely€unpredictable€and€unknown€to€the€patient.ðð€€In€hisÏaffidavit,€Dr.€Nassr€attested€he€had€not€examined€the€petitioner€since€1990€and€believedÏthat€ð ðan€up„to„date€psychiatric€reevaluationðð€of€the€petitioner€would€be€necessary€toÐ L6ì,2 Ðprovide€the€court€with€ð ðdefinitive€informationðð€on€his€ð ðpresent€condition€or€as€to€hisÏcondition€at€the€time€of€the€incidents€at€issue€in€this€case.ðð€€In€a€written€order,€the€trialÏcourt€summarily€denied€the€petitionerððs€motion€for€a€mental€examination.€€Although€theÏtrial€courtððs€order€refers€to€a€hearing€that€was€held€on€the€motion€and€the€petitionerÏacknowledges€that€such€a€hearing€was€held,€the€transcript€is€not€in€the€record.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€petitionerððs€counsel€amended€the€post„conviction€petition,€alleging€òòinterÐ (È  Ðaliaóó,€that€Mr.€Vick€was€ineffective€for€not€presenting€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€brainÐ ô”  Ðinjuries€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€amended€petition€also€alleged€that€the€petitionerððsÏappellate€counsel,€œTim›€Street,€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€œargue€on€appeal›€that€theÏpetitioner€received€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€and€for€failing€to€presentÏevidence€of€the€petitionerððs€brain€injuries€on€appeal€in€order€to€facilitate€this€Courtððs€deÏnovo€review€of€the€sentencing€orders.ÌÌà ¨ àà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Mr.€Vick€testified€he€was€aware€of€theÏpetitionerððs€injuries€and€had€employed€Dr.€Nassr€to€testify€on€the€petitionerððs€behalf€in€aÏprior€criminal€case.€€He€testified€he€had€discussed€with€the€petitioner€his€problems€inÏjudgment€and€had€intended€to€develop€this€point€through€the€petitionerððs€testimony€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€He€did€not,€however,€believe€that€Dr.€Nassr€would€examine€theÏpetitioner€prior€to€the€sentencing€hearing€or€testify€at€the€hearing€because€he€knew€theÏpetitioner€could€not€pay€for€Dr.€Nassrððs€services€and€in€fact€had€not€paid€him€forÏpreviously€rendered€services.€€He€also€testified€that€Dr.€Nassr€never€concluded€that€theÏpetitioner€was€either€insane€or€incompetent€and€that€there€was€no€additional€informationÏDr.€Nassr€would€have€or€could€have€provided€if€called€to€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà ¨ àà àMr.€Street,€the€petitionerððs€appellate€counsel,€testified€he€had€discussed€theÐ L6ì,2 Ðpetitionerððs€injury€with€both€the€petitioner€and€Mr.€Vick€before€filing€the€appellate€brief.€ÏEven€though€he€argued€on€appeal€that€mitigating€factor€(8)€should€have€applied,€he€wasÏaware€that€the€record€did€not€contain€proof€to€support€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€theÏresidual€effects€of€his€brain€injury€negated€his€culpability.€€He€testified€he€asked€theÏpetitioner€and€Mr.€Vick€to€provide€medical€proof€to€support€this€argument,€but€neither€did.€ÏAs€a€result,€and€because€he€believed€that€this€medical€proof€should€have€been€introducedÏat€the€sentencing€hearing,€Mr.€Street€made€a€tactical€decision€not€to€raise€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€in€his€direct€appeal.ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€denying€the€petitioner€relief,€the€trial€court€judge€found€òòinter€aliaóó€that€thereÐ Œ, Ðwas€no€evidence€the€petitioner€was€suffering€from€any€psychological€deficiency€at€theÏtime€he€committed€the€crimes€and€that€his€counsel€did€not€have€access€to€any€evidenceÏthat,€if€submitted,€would€have€affected€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€Moreover,Ïhe€determined€that€Mr.€Street€was€not€ineffective€for€arguing€that€mitigating€factor€(8)Ïshould€have€been€applied€even€though€there€was€no€evidence€to€support€this€argumentÏbecause€Mr.€Street,€as€appellate€counsel,€did€not€have€an€opportunity€to€present€newÏevidence€to€the€appellate€court.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€now€argues€that€because€of€his€counselsðð€failures€toÏintroduce€proof€of€his€mental€condition,€it€is€reasonably€probable€that€he€received€aÏlengthier€sentence€than€he€would€have€otherwise.€€He€also€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏplaced€him€in€an€impossible€legal€situation€by€denying€his€motion€for€a€mental€evaluationÏand€then€denying€his€post„conviction€relief€petition€because€the€record€lacked€medicalÏproof€of€a€mental€defect€that€affected€his€culpability.€€He€urges€this€Court€either€toÏð ðassume,ðð€based€on€Dr.€Nassrððs€1989€report,€that€he€was€suffering€from€a€mentalÏcondition€that€significantly€reduced€his€culpability€or€to€remand€this€case€for€a€mentalÐ L6ì,2 Ðevaluation€to€be€conducted€at€the€Stateððs€expense€to€determine€whether€he€was€sufferingÏfrom€a€mental€condition€that€significantly€reduced€his€culpability.ÌÌà ¨ àà àDespite€the€petitionerððs€suggestion€we€rely€upon€Dr.€Nassrððs€1989€report,Ïthe€record€contains€no€evidence€upon€which€to€conclude€that€the€defendant€was€sufferingÏfrom€a€mental€condition€that€significantly€reduced€his€culpability.€€Dr.€Nassrððs€1989€reportÏdoes€nothing€more€than€suggest€that€the€petitionerððs€injury€might€have€affected€hisÏpersonality€in€some€unspecified€way.€€Even€assuming€that€Dr.€Nassr€had€concluded€thatÏthe€petitionerððs€personality€was€somehow€affected€by€his€injury,€the€report,€under€anyÏreasonable€reading,€does€not€even€imply€that€this€had€significantly€reduced€theÏpetitionerððs€culpability.ÌÌà ¨ àà àMoreover,€the€petitioner€has€not€shown€how€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€denying€his€motion€for€mental€evaluation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€689€S.W.2dÐ ¼ \ Ð202,€204€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)(decision€to€deny€psychiatric€evaluation€is€reversibleÏonly€when€trial€court€abuses€its€discretion).€€Although€a€hearing€on€the€motion€wasÏapparently€held,€the€record€does€not€contain€an€account€of€the€evidence€presented€to€theÏtrial€court.€€The€record€contains€only€the€trial€courtððs€written€order€summarily€denying€theÏpetitionerððs€motion,€which€itself€does€not€show€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€Accordingly,€noÏgrounds€exist€to€remand€this€case€for€a€mental€evaluation.ÌÌà ¨ àà àFurther,€the€record€contains€nothing€to€even€suggest€that€the€petitionerÏcould€ever€provide€proof€he€was€suffering€from€a€mental€condition€that€significantlyÏreduced€his€culpability.€€Even€assuming€that€such€proof€could€have€been€presented,€€theÏpetitioner€has€not€shown€a€reasonable€probability€that€applying€mitigating€factor€(8)€wouldÏhave€reduced€the€petitionerððs€sentence,€given€the€tremendous€weight€placed€upon€hisÐ L6ì,2 Ðcriminal€history€at€the€sentencing€hearing€and€on€direct€appeal.€€In€short,€the€petitionerÏhas€not€shown€how€he€has€been€prejudiced€by€his€counselsðð€actions€in€failing€to€œintroduceñ¿ñdñ¿ñ›Ïmedical€proof€that€might€not€even€exist.€€Accordingly,€he€has€not€shown€entitlement€toÏpost„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694Ð Äd Ð(1984)(petitioner€must€shown€a€reasonable€probability€that€his€defense€was€prejudicedÏin€order€to€receive€relief).ÌÌà ¨ àà àFinding€no€merit€to€the€petitionerððs€argument,€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„¼conviction€relief€is€affirmed.ÌÌÔ‡ XXXXÔÓÓœñ¸ñ›ñ¸ñ›à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à_______________________________Ð Xø Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌœñ¶ñÌÌñ¶ñCONCUR:›ÌÌÔ#†XXX X ;#ÔÔ‡ XXXXÔÌÌœñ·ñÌñ·ñÔ#†XXX Xs<#Ô______________________________›Ð n# ÐDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJ.€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€Judge