ÿWPC 0# °UN» %  0(w@7 Bwb”4œ°¿U@¿ 0Jÿ 0TI 0^ 0hû 0Dc 0r§ 0|Æ• 0†[ 0á AQq 0D 1u 0d{ U>ß 0@ U*] D3‡ B)º D/ã DC BU AMr e¿  À v~ËvÓI˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ?@AB¿CDDÀEUFDGÓ€H d- ù-äzz!"|xH ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d**'÷ÿ dxd''''7Border 1ddüÿP Pd$)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€%ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔó óÌò òÔ€%¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ, ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€%XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€ Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ ÂÔÔ€%ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ ÔÔ€ XÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#ŠÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÕFXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ€%ÔÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌJUNE€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÙ€ÙÙ€ÙÓ  ÓßR€+-)A1-j|¤Øâ `€€@ÿRßTAURUS€L.€GAINES,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9507„CR„00197Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOSEPH€B.€BROWNó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Post€Conviction,€First€Degree€Murder)ò òÌó óÌÌÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌWILLIAM€B.€SELIGSTEINà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌSuite€2003,€100€North€Mainà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCHRISTINA€S.€SHEVALIERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJ.€ROBERT€CARTER,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Complex,€3rd€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€%„ÔOPINIONóóó óÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€%ŠÔà àAppellant€Taurus€L.€Gaines€appeals€from€the€denial€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€In€October€1990,€a€jury€found€Appellant€guilty€of€firstÏdegree€murder€and€assault€with€intent€to€commit€second€degree€murder.€ÏBecause€Appellant€was€a€juvenile€when€he€committed€murder,€he€was€notÏeligible€to€receive€the€death€penalty.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€37„1„134(a)(1)Ï(1996).€€Instead,€Appellant€received€a€life€sentence€for€murder€to€run€concurrentlyÏwith€a€one€year€sentence€for€assault.€€On€January€15,€1992,€this€Court€affirmedÏAppellantððs€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€òòState€v.€Taurus€Ladell€Gainesóó,ÏNo.€02C01„9105„CR„00113,€1992€WL€4784€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€15,€1992),Ïòòperm.€to€app.€den.óó,€(Tenn.€1992).€€On€July€31,€1992,€Appellant€filed€a€òòpro€seóóÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏCounsel€was€appointed€on€September€9,€1992€and€after€several€continuances,Ïa€hearing€was€conducted€on€October€21,€1994.€€The€post„conviction€courtÏdenied€Appellantððs€petition,€finding€that€Appellantððs€claims€were€meritless.€€ForÏthe€reasons€discussed€below,€we€reject€Appellantððs€claims€and€affirm€theÏdecision€of€the€post„conviction€court.ÌÓ  ÓFactual€BackgroundÌÓ  Óà àIn€order€to€address€Appellantððs€claims,€a€short€review€of€the€factualÏbackground€leading€to€Appellantððs€convictions€is€necessary.€€On€August€14,Ï1989,€the€victim€and€his€brother,€Andre€Jerome€Claiborne,€were€seated€on€aÏbench€at€the€end€of€an€alley€near€the€intersection€of€Bond€and€Latham€StreetsÏin€Memphis.€€While€there,€Appellant€and€two€other€individuals€approached€theÏvictim.€€Appellant€accused€the€victim€of€ð ðmessingðð€with€his€girlfriend€and€struckÏthe€victim€in€the€head€with€a€stick.€€Then,€a€short€scuffle€occurred€after€which€theÏdefendant€and€his€friends€left€the€area.€€At€a€later€time€in€the€evening,€AppellantÏreturned€with€at€least€four€friends.€€When€they€got€within€approximately€twentyÏfeet€of€the€victim€and€his€brother,€shots€were€fired,€and€the€victim€was€mortallyÏwounded.€€Andre€Claiborne€was€also€shot.€€At€trial,€and€to€this€day,€AppellantÏclaims€that€he€did€not€have€a€gun€nor€did€he€shoot€the€victim€or€his€brother.€ÏAppellant€alleges€that€a€man€named€Anthony€Johnson,€who€Appellant€claimsÏwas€part€of€the€second€group€of€people€to€confront€the€victim€and€his€brother,Ïwas€the€triggerman.ÌÌà àAppellant€challenges€trial€counselððs€representation€in€five€respects.€€HeÏalleges€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€that€counsel€failed€:€(a)€to€procure€andÏpresent€crucial€defense€witnesses,€(b)€to€properly€cross„examine€AndreÏClaiborne,€(c)€to€interview€Anthony€Johnson€before€he€put€Johnson€on€theÍstand,€(d)€to€properly€investigate€the€case,€and€(e)€to€sufficiently€involveÏAppellant€in€the€defense€of€the€case.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€Appellant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€adviceÏgiven€or€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€fell€below€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€Under€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694€(1984),€thereÏis€a€two„prong€test€which€places€the€burden€on€the€appellant€to€show€that€(1)Ïthe€representation€was€deficient,€requiring€a€showing€that€counsel€made€errorsÏso€serious€that€he€or€she€was€not€functioning€as€ð ðcounselðð€as€guaranteed€aÏdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment,€and€(2)€the€deficient€representationÏprejudiced€the€defense€to€the€point€of€depriving€the€appellant€of€a€fair€trial€with€aÏreliable€result.€€Prejudice€is€shown€by€demonstrating€a€reasonable€probabilityÏthat,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€€the€result€of€the€proceeding€wouldÏhave€been€different.€€òòId.óó€at€694.€€Under€the€òòStricklandóó€test,€a€reviewing€courtððsÏscrutiny€ð ðmust€be€highly€deferential.€€It€is€all€too€tempting€for€a€defendant€toÏsecond„guess€counselððs€assistance€after€conviction€or€adverse€sentence.€.€.€.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€at€689.€€In€fact,€a€petitioner€challenging€his€counselððs€representation€faces€aÏð ðstrong€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€ofÏreasonable€professional€assistance.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€689.ÌÌà àBefore€addressing€the€substance€of€Appellantððs€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€we€recognize€that€our€scope€of€review€is€limited.€€In€aÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€must€establish€his€or€herÏallegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2dÏ191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(citing€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)).€€Furthermore,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€trial€judge€inÏpost„conviction€hearings€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€appellate€courtÏfinds€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,Ï789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€ÌÌà àAppellant€first€alleges€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€presentÏcrucial€defense€witnesses.€€Appellant€claims€that€he€gave€counsel€the€namesÏand€addresses€of€those€persons€who€accompanied€him€the€second€time€heÏconfronted€the€victim.€€He€further€claims€that€these€witnesses€would€haveÏtestified€that€Anthony€Johnson€was€the€triggerman.€€Counsel€testified€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing€that€he€subpoenaed€all€of€the€persons€Appellant€askedÏhim€to€find.€€All€of€these€subpoenas€were€returned€ð ðnot€to€be€found.ðð€€CounselÏeven€attempted€to€find€these€people€on€his€own.€€Counsel€went€to€the€housingÏcommunity€where€the€witnesses€supposedly€lived€and€knocked€on€doorsÏasking€about€their€whereabouts.€€The€only€person€he€could€find€was€AnthonyÍJohnson,€who€he€personally€served.€€Surely,€counsel€cannot€be€faulted€forÏfailing€to€procure€these€witnesses€since€he€pursued€every€avenue€possible€toÏobtain€their€testimony.€€This€Court€has€addressed€a€similar€situation€in€òòState€v.ÏOverbayóó,€806€S.W.2d€212€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€where€counsel€attemptedÏto€procure€the€testimony€of€a€defense€witness€but€was€unable€to€do€soÏbecause€the€person€could€not€be€found.€€In€that€case,€we€found€that€counselððsÏfailure€to€obtain€the€desired€testimony€did€not€constitute€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€òòId.óó€€€€€ÌÌà àAppellant€also€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€presentÏStephanie€Ruffin,€Johnsonððs€girlfriend.€€At€trial,€Johnson€claimed€that€he€did€notÏaccompany€Appellant€to€confront€the€victim€because€he€was€with€his€girlfriendÏRuffin€who€was€giving€birth€to€their€daughter€at€the€hospital.€€Appellant€faultsÏcounsel€for€not€calling€this€witness€because€he€says€that€Ruffin€would€haveÏtestified€that€Johnson€was€not€at€the€hospital€with€her€when€the€crime€tookÏplace.€€When€a€petitioner€claims€that€counsel€failed€to€procure€a€necessaryÏwitness,€such€a€witness€should€be€produced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€ÏòòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Otherwise,€thisÏCourt€can€only€speculate€as€to€how€such€a€witness€would€testify.€€AppellantÏfailed€to€produce€any€of€the€witnesses€at€his€post„conviction€hearing€heÏcomplains€were€not€called.€€In€addition,€we€add€that€counsel€heard€of€JohnsonððsÍalibi€for€the€first€time€in€the€middle€of€trial€when€Johnson€testified€that€he€hadÏbeen€at€the€hospital€at€the€time€of€the€crime.€€Before€that€point,€Johnson€hadÏrefused€to€talk€to€counsel.€€Moreover,€counsel€testified€that€he€was€able€throughÏother€witnesses€to€present€the€defense€theory,€that€Johnson€and€not€AppellantÏcommitted€the€crimes,€to€the€jury.€€Counsel€called€Velma€Givens,€Toni€Gaines,ÏAppellantððs€sister€and€the€mother€of€two€of€Johnsonððs€children,€RonaldÏHumphrey,€Appellantððs€cousin,€and€Ruby€Humphrey,€Appellantððs€grandmotherÏto€testify€on€behalf€of€Appellant.€€Velma€Givens€testified€that€Johnson€told€herÏthat€he€had€shot€the€victim,€and€threw€the€gun€which€he€used€to€shoot€the€victimÏin€the€Mississippi€River.€€Toni€Gaines€testified€that€Johnson€told€her€that€he€wasÏthe€triggerman,€and€that€Taurus€Gaines€did€not€shoot€the€victim.€€AppellantÏhimself€also€testified€at€trial€that€Johnson€was€the€triggerman.€€Apparently,€theÏjury€accredited€Andre€Claiborneððs€and€Johnsonððs€testimony€and€not€Appellantððs.€ÏWe€find€that€under€the€circumstances€the€failure€to€procure€the€above„mentionedÏwitnesses€did€not€fall€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.ÌÌà àNext€Appellant€maintains€that€counsel€erred€in€his€cross„examination€ofÏAndre€Claiborne,€the€Stateððs€chief€witness,€because€counsel€did€not€ask€himÏenough€questions€and€failed€to€investigate€his€background€prior€to€cross„examination.€€Counsel€discredited€Claiborneððs€testimony€in€several€ways.€ÍThrough€cross„examination,€counsel€pointed€out€that€it€was€very€dark€in€theÏalley€at€the€time€of€the€crime.€€He€also€exposed€the€fact€that€Claiborne€hadÏbeen€heavily€drinking€immediately€before€the€incident€and€that€Claiborne€hadÏbeen€mistaken€about€what€Appellant€was€wearing€the€night€of€the€incident.€€AllÏof€these€points€cast€doubt€on€the€ability€of€Claiborne€to€identify€Appellant€as€theÏgunman.€€Again,€we€find€that€counselððs€actions€did€not€fall€below€the€range€ofÏcompetence€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ÌÌà àNext€Appellant€maintains€that€counsel€erred€in€failing€to€interview€JohnsonÏbefore€he€put€him€on€the€stand.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€did€not€expectÏJohnson€to€take€the€stand€and€testify€to€committing€the€crime.€€He€expectedÏJohnson€to€offer€some€form€of€alibi€after€which,€counsel€planned€to€offer€theÏtestimony€of€Velma€Givens€and€Toni€Gaines€to€refute€that€testimony.€ÏObviously,€the€testimony€of€Velma€Givens€and€Toni€Gaines€was€hearsay,Ïnormally€prohibited€from€being€admitted€into€evidence.€€However,€with€JohnsonÏtestifying€that€he€did€not€tell€Givens€and€Gaines€that€he€shot€the€victim,€GivensððÏand€Gainesðð€testimony€became€admissible€to€impeach€Johnsonððs€testimony.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613(b).€€While€we€do€not€think€it€is€advisable€to€callÏwitnesses€without€first€speaking€to€them,€we€find€that€counselððs€actions€inÏputting€Johnson€on€the€stand€without€first€interviewing€him,€under€theseÏcircumstances€did€not€fall€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÍattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€Indeed,€without€Johnsonððs€having€testified€theÏtestimony€of€Givens€and€Toni€Gaines€may€very€well€have€been€inadmissible.ÌÌà àAppellant€also€argues€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€properlyÏinvestigate€the€case.€€Appellant€claims€that€counsel€did€not€visit€the€scene€of€theÏcrime,€and€only€visited€him€twice€in€jail.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€visited€theÏscene€of€the€crime€several€times€and€even€took€pictures€of€the€scene€whichÏwere€admitted€at€trial.€€He€also€testified€that€he€visited€Appellant€far€more€timesÏthan€the€two€times€claimed€by€Appellant.€€Counsel€took€discovery,€interviewedÏwitnesses,€and€obtained€evidence€the€State€expected€to€produce.€€We€find€thatÏcounselððs€actions€in€investigating€the€case€did€not€fall€below€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€criminal€attorneys.ÌÌà àFinally,€Appellant€claims€that€counsel€erred€in€failing€to€involve€Appellant€inÏthe€defense€of€the€case.€€Appellant€alleges€that€counsel€failed€to€discuss€theÏpossibility€of€a€plea€bargain€and€did€not€provide€him€with€copies€of€hisÏstatement.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€thought€he€remembered€discussing€a€pleaÏwith€the€State€and€Appellant€but€that€neither€party€would€seriously€consider€aÏplea.€€Appellant,€from€the€time€charges€were€brought€against€him,€until€this€day,Ïmaintains€his€innocence.€€Counsel€testified€that€Appellant€wanted€to€go€to€trial.€ÏCounsel€also€testified€that€he€did€provide€Appellant€with€a€copy€of€hisÍstatement.€€The€record€reveals€that€counsel€informed€Appellant€about€theÏStateððs€case€against€him,€about€the€fruitless€subpoenas€for€witnesses,€and€thatÏcounsel€looked€for€the€witnesses€himself.€€Counsel€also€discussed€AppellantððsÏdefense€with€Appellant.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€counselððs€actions€in€keepingÏAppellant€informed€of€his€case€did€not€fall€below€the€range€of€competencyÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€based€on€the€record€presented€Appellant€was€notÏdeprived€of€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€that€the€evidence€produced€byÏAppellant€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€post„convictionÏcourt.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ