ÿWPC– eIø «÷:7ç4ÉyŸj8ª¡mرå^9õ2%ÙÆ•éÈ挰Ë:4ðzõÊŒãPg ò™b畸•F ºo,æ†,hFE$:hÉRXIODĞțåljš³Äl^œÃ?Ýw ¸åÝöÓüVoK–¹£ëÿ[TÐÉ.#W­ìÙÍC¦/Þjñ?l,ìœÍ‰ÔÍCYå׿œFjÂ-#Òù½ )¼/*ïF¥-¬rö]èw …>Á@ÍòÆF¸Ê´§‡€¦†ÌÎ:ç[€s}a%×3gzߢ5ú¨ ¼ê·yã7.Ëy¿ÉÉLw0“£X©×(;6Uä¿OÙ ‡íÒ†}|7ל&øöÿyH?ƒ7wÑ¥>%0¹š…v6Þ=Š“+*=É*b¨ š•´âb`E)©Iìˆ.4~á’ GÔHÞÔ›¸oj¢ Ü~ZÙ3ïÍ®ž€.·ñ³æju¢˜wþTÐÞ-%€®âh(n©Ðí|è Ýçá³ëƠĬ\+[uHæ®»7K¦®¶sÝ`Å|PŠ£Ý7*K†ÿu‡ðyC„mâöøf 0TOzƧ¬ð”¹ÖHV×Z;xìüúnëζSý¡ŽÛÆ€+O…# F UNQ %Ÿ 05¥ U:Ú w@ 4T h w ç 0yf 0DßU:######################## B]]]]] D3zzz 0D­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ AOñÆ@@ 0D D/J By˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6HPBXLBÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX( Ú±$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑÑÑÜÜÑÔ€Xî)XXXÔÓÓÑ7€ôXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ÎDÏDÐDÑÒ£Ó£ÔÕÖ)e×Ó€uM%3|xà ÝÔ€ X—XXXÔÔ€ &·X X—ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X—X &·ÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€27,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó()(3:H$¤¤Ý ƒÚ±!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑѰÑÑܰÑÔ€X—XXXÔÓÓÑ7€2½XXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÚ±!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑѰÑÑܰÑÔ€X—XXXÔÓÓÑ7€2½XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  ÝñÖñ›ñÖññÖñ›ñÖñÓ'4„‚,4ä ˜X°œX'Óñ×ñœßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx0Xð árß›ñ×ñà@Ô Ô DàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@„„%DàAT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUNE€1999€SESSIONÌÌÓÓBILLY€WAYNE€LESLIE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellant,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9806„CR„00242Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDavidson€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Hon.€Seth€Norman,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€à À à)à  à€(Post„Conviction)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellee.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÌÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€ò òòòDISSENTING€OPINIONÐ ÌÄ Ðóóó óÓXÓÌÌÓÓà ¸ àI€respectfully€disagree€with€the€majority€opinionððs€conclusion€that€theÏpetitioner€was€no€longer€entitled€to€an€attorney€because€of€his€abuse€of€the€post„¼conviction€process.€€First,€I€do€not€believe€that€the€record€shows€the€petitionerððs€abuseÏof€process.€€Second,€I€do€not€believe€that€the€trial€court€provided€the€petitioner€with€anÏadequate€hearing€regarding€the€attorneysðð€motions€to€withdraw€or€an€adequate€post„¼conviction€hearing.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€initial€concern€I€have€relates€to€whether€or€not€there€was€a€fullÏunderstanding€by€the€participants€as€to€the€duties€and€authority€of€an€attorney€for€aÏpost„conviction€petitioner.€€Our€supreme€court€has€stated€the€basic€obligations€of€aÏpost„conviction€attorney€in€Rule€28,€ñÖñœñÖñððñÖñ›ñÖñ€6(c)(2),€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àAppointed€or€retained€counsel€shall€be€required€to€review€theÐ B1:*/ Ðòòproóó€òòseóó€petition,€file€an€amended€petition€asserting€other€claimsÐ (2 +0 Ðwhich€petitioner€òòarguably€hasóó€or€a€written€notice€that€noÐ 3,1 Ðamended€petition€will€be€filed,€òòinterview€relevant€witnessesóó,Ð ô3ì,2 Ðincluding€petitioner€and€prior€counsel,€and€òòdiligently€investigateÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðand€present€all€reasonable€claimsóó.ÐÀ5¸.4¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓñÖñœñÖñ(emphasisñÖñ›ñÖñ€added).€€Also,€counsel€should€file€a€certification€affirming€that€the€attorneyÏhas€discussed€the€possible€constitutional€violations€with€the€petitioner€and€has€raised€allÐ X9P28  Ðnon„frivolous€constitutional€grounds.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€28,€ðð€ñÖñœñÖñ6ñÖñ›ñÖñ€(C)(3),€Appendix€C.Ð   ˜ Ðâ âÌà ¸ àThese€provisions€in€support€of€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€ActÏfocus€upon€ensuring€that€all€potential€grounds€for€relief€that€a€petitioner€may€have€willÏbe€aired€fully€and€fairly€in€one€proceeding€and€decided€upon€their€merits.€€òòSeeóó€òòñÖñœñÖññÖñœñÖñMartucciñÖñ›ñÖññÖñ›ñÖñÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.€Stateóó,€872€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€ñÖñœñÖñ1993)€(notingñÖñ›ñÖññÖññÖñ€that€ð ð[ñÖñœñÖññÖñœñÖñt]heñÖñ›ñÖññÖñ›ñÖñ€conceptÐ œ”  Ðbehind€post„conviction€petitions.€.€.€is€that€all€claims€of€constitutional€rights€deprivationsÏin€the€conviction€or€sentencing€process€be€addressed€in€one€petition.ðð).€€The€Post„¼Conviction€Act€provides€counsel€within€this€context.€€That€is,€the€provision€of€counsel€isÏmeant€to€assist€in€ensuring€that€all€available€grounds€for€relief€are€fully€aired€at€one€timeÏand€not€to€obstruct€such€an€airing.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€the€other€hand,€when€a€petitioner€seeks€and€obtains€the€aid€of€counselÏthrough€court€appointment,€the€petitioner€needs€to€understand€that€the€right€to€make€theÏlarge€majority€of€the€decisions€relating€to€the€conduct€of€the€case€then€rests€with€theÏattorney.€€With€respect€to€the€role€of€counsel€at€post„conviction€proceedings,€theÏAmerican€Bar€Associationððs€Standards€for€Criminal€ñÖñœñÖñJusticeñÖñ›ñÖññÖññÖñ€provide€that€ð ðtheÏresponsibility€of€a€lawyer€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding€should€be€guided€generally€byÏthe€standards€governing€the€conduct€of€lawyers€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòABA€Standards€forÐ ø*ð#( ÐCriminal€Justice,€Defense€Functionóó,€Defense€Function€Standard€4„8.5€(3d€ed.€1993).€Ð Ä,¼%* ÐWith€respect€to€general€decisions€regarding€the€control€and€direction€of€criminal€cases,Ïthe€ABA€Standards€provide€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(a)€Certain€decisions€relating€to€the€conduct€of€the€case€areÏultimately€for€the€accused€and€others€are€ultimately€for€defenseÏcounsel.€€The€decisions€which€are€to€be€made€by€the€accusedÏafter€full€consultation€with€counsel€include:Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ¸ à(ñÖñœñÖññÖñœñÖñiñÖñ›ñÖññÖñ›ñÖñ)€what€pleas€to€enter;Ìà ¸ à(ii)€whether€to€accept€a€plea€agreement;Ìà ¸ à(iii)€whether€to€waive€jury€trial;Ð r8j17 Їà ¸ à(iv)€whether€to€testify€in€his€or€her€own€behalf;€andÌà ¸ à(v)€whether€to€appeal.ÌÌà8 ¸ à(b)€Strategic€and€tactical€decisions€should€be€made€by€defenseÏcounsel€after€consultation€with€the€client€where€feasible€andÏappropriate.€€Such€decisions€include€what€witnesses€to€call,Ïwhether€and€how€to€conduct€cross„examination,€what€jurors€toÏaccept€or€strike,€what€trial€motions€should€be€made,€and€whatÏevidence€should€be€introduced.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à(c)€If€a€disagreement€on€significant€matters€of€tactics€orÏstrategy€arises€between€defense€counsel€and€the€client,Ïdefense€counsel€should€make€a€record€of€the€circumstances,Ïcounselððs€advice€and€reasons,€and€the€conclusion€reached.€ÏThe€record€should€be€made€in€a€way€which€protects€theÏconfidentiality€of€the€lawyer„client€relationship.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌDefense€Function€Standard€4„5.2.ÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà ¸ àIn€other€words,€although€the€attorney€is€obligated€to€ensure€that€allÏarguable€grounds€for€relief€are€raised€and€investigated€and€that€all€reasonable€groundsÏare€ultimately€presented,€the€attorney€need€not€raise,€investigate,€or€present€frivolous€orÏgroundless€claims.€€ñÖñœñÖñAlsoñÍñ,ñÍññÖñ›ñÖññÖññÖñ€the€attorney€must€reasonably€consult€with€the€client,€but€theÏattorney€has€the€right€to€make€strategic€and€tactical€decisions.€€This€means€that€noÏmatter€how€strident€the€client€in€demanding€a€particular€investigation,€ñÖñœñÖññÎñor›€ñÎñdemandingñÖñ›ñÖññÖññÖñ€aÏparticular€claim€be€raised€at€the€hearing,€or€calling€for€certain€witnesses,€thoseÏdecisions€remain€with€the€attorney€in€his€or€her€professional€judgment.ÌÌà ¸ àWhen€I€consider€the€above€ñÖñœñÖñprinciplesñÐñ,ñÐññÑñ€ñÑññÏñ€ñÏñandñÖñ›ñÖññÖññÖñ€the€professional€obligations€ofÏattorneys,€I€do€not€believe€that€the€attorneysðð€motions€in€the€present€case€justify,€byÏthemselves,€the€right€to€withdraw.€€The€second€attorneyððs€only€assertion€was€thatÏð ðduring€the€course€of€my€representation,€the€client€has€insisted€that€I€pursue€or€presentÏclaims€that€cannot€be€supported€by€good€faith€argument.ðð€€However,€the€fact€that€theÏpetitioner€insists€in€such€a€manner€does€not€mean€that€the€attorney€had€to€do€anythingÏimproper.ÌÌñÖñœñÖñÐ r8j17 ÐñÖñ›ñÖññÖññÖñà ¸ àThe€third€attorney€sought€to€withdraw€because:ÌÓÓñÒñÓ  ÓñÒñà8 ¸ àthe€Petitioner€insists€upon€a€hearing€strategy€that€[counsel]€isÏunable€to€conduct€in€good€faith€and€that€Petitioner€repeatedlyÏmakes€unreasonable€demands€upon€appointed€counsel€as€toÏhow€his€case€should€be€presented.€€For€example,€theÏPetitioner€insists€that€appointed€counsel€subpoena€over€37Ïwitnesses,€introduce€about€a€dozen€affidavits,€conduct€aÏthorough€background€check€on€the€victim,€including€credit€andÏmilitary€history€and€telephone€records,€ask[]€for€funds€to€obtainÏexperts€for€blood€and€fiber€tests,€obtain€and€send€to€him€trialÏexhibits€and€prosecution€files,€obtain€blood€test€results€fromÏCalifornia,€as€well€as€other€investigative€and€legal€inquiries.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓñÓñÓ  ÓñÓñThe€attorney€also€asserts€that€the€petitioner€claimed€that€the€attorney€was€violating€theÏpetitionerððs€constitutional€rights€by€not€acting€upon€the€petitionerððs€demands.€€TheÏattorney€states€that€the€petitioner€will€not€be€satisfied€with€him€and€will€call€hisÏrepresentation€a€sham.€€Finally,€the€attorney€ð ðforesees€subsequent€complaints€againstÏhim€to€disciplinary€boards€or€the€Courts,€which,€although€frivolous,€will€require€time,Ïenergy,€and€anxiety€to€address.ðð€€Again,€within€the€context€of€the€attorneyððs€professionalÏobligations€and€duties€under€the€Post„Conviction€Act€and€Rules,€the€attorney€need€notÏaccede€to€the€petitionerððs€€demands€that€relate€to€how€the€case€should€be€conducted.€ÏThat€is,€the€fact€that€the€petitioner€is€making€demands€does€not€prevent€the€attorneyÏfrom€meeting€his€professional€responsibilities€in€representing€the€petitioner.ÌÌà ¸ àAttorneys€who€are€appointed€to€represent€€post„conviction€petitionersÏprovide€substantial€benefits€to€our€system€of€justice.€€This€is€partly€because€they€areÏburdened€with€special€obligations€that€result€from€appointment.€€They€cannot€pick€andÏchoose€their€appointed€clients€nor€can€they€freely€decide€to€cease€representation€of€aÏdifficult€client€as€retained€counsel€might€be€able€to€do€in€many€areas€of€the€law.€€TheÏsystem€needs€appointed€attorneys€to€deal€with€poorly€drafted€òòproóó€òòseóó€documents,Ð \0T). Ðinaccurate€allegations,€and€unhappy€petitioners€who€are€often€seeking€freedom€fromÏprison€by€whatever€means€€they€can€find.€€Moreover,€once€the€attorneys€are€appointed,Ïtheir€profession€requires€it€of€them.ÌÐ Œ7„06 Ðà ¸ àI€acknowledge€that€a€petitionerððs€conduct€can€result€in€a€loss€of€theÏstatutory€right€to€counsel€in€a€post„conviction€case.€€However,€I€do€not€believe€that€theÏrecord€in€the€€present€case€shows€such€conduct.€€In€this€respect,€the€present€case€isÏsubstantially€different€from€òòCazes€v.€Stateóó,€980€S.W.2d€364€(Tenn.€1998),€upon€whichÐ l d Ðthe€majority€opinion€relies€in€holding€that€the€petitioner€abused€the€process€so€as€toÏdeny€him€access€to€counsel.€€In€òòCazesóó,€the€petitioner€filed€successive€post„convictionÐ ü  Ðpetitions€which€the€trial€court€allowed€him€to€withdraw.€€When€the€petitioner€filed€a€thirdÏpetition€and€again€demanded€withdrawal,€the€trial€court€refused€and€dismissed€theÏpetition€with€prejudice.€€The€petitioner€filed€a€fourth€petition€which€was€also€dismissedÏupon€the€stateððs€motion.€€On€appeal,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€thoseÏð ðwho€abuse€the€process€cannot€be€heard€to€complain€when€access€to€the€remedy€isÏdenied.ðð€€980€S.W.2d€at€365.€€In€the€present€case,€the€record€does€not€reflect€that€theÏpetitioner€sought€the€removal€of€his€attorneys;€rather,€the€attorneys€sought€to€withdraw.€ÏNo€evidence€exists€in€the€record€to€show€that€the€petitioner€abused€the€judicial€process.ÌÌà ¸ àAlso,€I€believe€that€it€is€significant€that€none€of€the€attorneys€filed€anÏamendment€to€the€petitionerððs€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€nor€did€they€file€a€written€notice€that€noÐ È#À  Ðamended€petition€would€be€filed.€€The€trial€court€should€have€made€further€inquiryÏrelative€to€counselððs€actions€and€the€petitionerððs€demands€before€allowing€counsel€toÏwithdraw.ÌÌà ¸ àMoreover,€I€believe€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€required€theÏpetitioner€to€proceed€to€hearing€as€his€own€counsel€only€thirteen€days€after€the€thirdÏattorney€was€allowed€to€withdraw.€€The€record€indicates€that€little,€if€anything,€had€beenÏdone€by€counsel€on€the€petitionerððs€behalf.€€ñÖñœñÖñNeedlessñÔñ€ñÔñtoñÕñ€ñÕñsayñÖñ›ñÖññÖññÖñ,€the€imprisoned€petitionerÏhad€little€capability€in€such€short€time€to€prepare€for€the€hearing.€€In€this€respect,€I€do€notÏbelieve€that€the€petitioner€has€had€a€legitimate€opportunity€for€a€full€and€fair€hearing€onÏhis€post„conviction€claims.Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€I€dissent€from€the€majority€opinion.€€IÏwould€reverse€the€dismissal€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€with€the€appointmentÏof€counsel€for€the€petitionerððs€further€opportunity€to€pursue€his€post„conviction€claims.Ìà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€ÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€Ð 80 Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌ€€