ÿWPC{ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° U,% 0dQ U,µ U>á U*B)IDCr AMµ Bóv~vÓ D3c 0@– AOÖÆ% 0Dë D// B^˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ “a”b•U–U—D˜E™DšD›DœÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x¥2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d éÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌJuly€5,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ Œ ÒÒ à ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€$&#;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÌOCTOBER€1993€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€No.€01C01„9306„CC„00190Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Appellee,€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Maury€CountyÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Hon.€James€L.€WeatherfordÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌBOBBY€LOVE,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(Aggravated€Assault)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Appellant.€€€€€€€€)ÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJerry€C.€Colley€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œCharles›€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Law€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œAttorney›€General€&€ReporterÌPost€Office€Box€1476ÌColumbia,€Tennessee€38402„1476€€€€€€€€€€€œJohn›€B.€Nisbet,€IIIÌ(Appeal€Only)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œAssistant›€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œCriminal›€Justice€DivisionÌGary€Howell€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œ450›€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌAttorney€at€Law€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œNashville,›€Tennessee€37243„0493Ì710€North€Main€Street€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌPost€Office€Box€442€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œ€T.€Michael€BottomsÌColumbia,€Tennessee€38402€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€District€Attorney€General€€€Ì(Trial€Only)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Robert€C.€SandersÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Kymberly€HattawayÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Assistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Post€Office€Box€1619ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ  Ò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Columbia,€Tennessee€384021619ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€______________________ÌÌREVERSED€&€REMANDEDÌÌC.€Creed€McGinleyÌSpecial€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÑ „ ÑÑ „ ÑÌÌÒ Ø ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ7€%oXXdìXXdì7ÑOPINIONÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àAppellant,€Bobby€Love,€was€convicted€in€Maury€County€Circuit€CourtÏof€the€crime€of€aggravated€assault,€a€Class€C€felony,€by€a€jury.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€appellant€was€a€standard€offender€and€imposed€a€Range€IÏsentence€of€confinement€for€six€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€andÏordered€restitution€to€the€victim.Ìà àAppellant€presents€two€issues€for€review.€€He€contends€that:ÌÒ @ ÒÒ  Ò1.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€for€new€trialÏbased€on€the€grounds€of€newly€discovered€evidence.Ì2.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€his€motion€for€new€trialÏbased€on€the€grounds€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÒ Ø ÒÒ „ Òà àAfter€a€careful€review€of€all€records,€we€reject€the€appellantððs€firstÏissue€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€on€the€grounds€of€newly€discoveredÏevidence.€€However,€this€court€holds€that€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÍdenied€appellant€his€constitutional€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€AppellantððsÏconviction€must€be€reversed€and€the€case€remanded€for€a€new€trial.ÌÓ  ÓFactsÌÓ  Óà àBobby€Love€is€charged€with€aggravated€assault€resulting€from€anÏincident€which€occurred€at€Partnerððs€Lounge€in€Columbia,€Tennessee,€onÏJune€19,€1989.€€The€prosecuting€witness,€John€Marks,€claims€that€theÏdefendant€approached€him€inside€the€bar€and€asked€if€he€wanted€to€fight.€ÏMarks€claims€that€he€had€no€reason€to€fight€the€defendant.€€He€also€claimsÏthat€the€defendant€then€followed€him€outside€to€the€parking€lot€and€cut€himÏwith€a€knife.€€Marks€states€that€at€this€point€he€pulled€a€knife€and€theÏdefendant€returned€to€the€bar.€€Marks€further€states€that€several€patrons€ofÏthe€bar€came€outside€to€restrain€him€from€reentering€the€bar€with€a€hatchet.€ÏThe€police€were€called€to€the€scene€to€investigate€the€incident€and€theÏarrest€of€Bobby€Love€followed.ÌÌà àThe€defendantððs€testimony€contradicts€that€of€John€Marks.€€TheÏdefendant,€Bobby€Love,€testifies€that€Marks€approached€him€inside€the€barÏand€wanted€to€fight.€€He€testifies€that€he€left€the€bar€and€a€fight€ensued€inÏthe€parking€lot.€€The€defendant€alleges€that€Marks€pulled€a€knife€andÏattacked€him€first.€€He€claims€that€he€pulled€his€knife€in€order€to€defendÏhimself.Ìà àDuring€the€course€of€the€trial,€the€state€called€three€witnesses.€ÏThese€included:€John€Marks,€Officer€Lonnie€Lyles€of€the€Columbia€PoliceÏDepartment,€and€Sgt.€Jay€Hooks€of€the€Columbia€Police€Department.€€TheÍdefense€called€three€witnesses€as€well.€€These€included:€Steve€Morton,€aÏwitness€to€the€altercation,€Bobby€Love,€the€defendant,€and€Officer€LonnieÏLyles€of€the€Columbia€Police€Department.€€A€jury€in€Maury€County€CircuitÏCourt€found€Bobby€Love€guilty€of€aggravated€assault.ÌÓ  ÓDiscussionÌà àA.€€Newly€Found€EvidenceÌÓ  Óà àOne€basis€of€appellantððs€appeal€is€the€existence€of€newly€foundÏevidence.€€Appellant€submits€that€after€his€conviction,€his€trial€attorneyÏinadvertently€found€out€about€a€new€witness.€€This€witness€was€an€impartialÏobserver€of€the€altercation€who€would€corroborate€the€testimony€of€theÏdefendant.€€In€order€to€warrant€a€new€trial€based€upon€newly€discoveredÏevidence€several€requirements€must€be€satisfied.€€In€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€2ÏTenn.€Crim.€App.€160,€165,€452,€S.W.2d€365,€367€(1970),€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€of€Tennessee€found:ÌÒ @ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓAn€accused€seeking€a€new€trial€on€the€ground€of€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence€must€file€an€affidavit€setting€forth€factsÏshowing€that€he€and€his€counsel€exercised€reasonableÏdiligence€and€were€not€negligent€in€the€search€for€evidenceÏin€preparation€for€the€trial€of€the€case,€that€he€and€his€counselÏhad€no€pre„trial€knowledge€of€the€alleged€newly€discoveredÏevidence,€and€it€must€be€supported€by€the€affidavit€of€the€newÏwitness€showing€the€materiality€of€the€testimony€and€that€itÏhad€not€been€communicated€to€the€accused€prior€to€the€trial.ÌÒ è ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌÒ Ø ÒÒ „ ÒFurthermore,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€ruled€in€òòClarke€v.€Stateóó,€218ÏTenn.€259,€278,€402€S.W.2d€863€(1966),€that€evidence€which€wasÏcumulative€ÌÌor€which€attempted€to€impeach€a€witness€did€not€entitle€a€defendant€to€aÍnew€trial.Ìà àIt€is€the€job€of€this€court€to€determine€whether€(A)€the€defendant€andÏhis€counsel€exercised€reasonable€diligence€and€were€not€negligent€in€theÏsearch€for€evidence€and€(B)€whether€the€new€evidence€is€cumulative€orÏattempts€to€impeach€a€witness.Ì›à àReasonable€diligence€is€defined€as€a€fair,€proper,€and€due€degree€ofÏcare€and€activity,€measured€with€reference€to€the€particular€circumstances.ÏBLACKððS€LAW€DICTIONARY€412€(5th€ed.€1979).€€It€is€the€opinion€of€thisÏcourt€that€reasonable€diligence€was€not€exercised.€€The€defendant€makesÏno€mention€of€his€attempt€to€locate€and€question€this€new€witness.€€Further,Ïthe€attorney€for€the€defendant€never€attempted€to€locate€other€patrons€ofÏthe€bar€who€might€have€witnessed€the€altercation.€€Therefore,€we€see€noÏdegree€of€reasonable€diligence.Ìà àœThis›€court€finds€that€the€newly€discovered€evidence€in€this€case€doesÏnot€warrant€a€new€trial,€due€œto›€the€lack€of€due€diligence€by€the€defendantÏand€counsel.ÌÓ  ÓB.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€submits€that€the€ineffectiveness€of€his€trial€counselÏdeprived€him€of€his€constitutional€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€In€order€to€award€aÏnew€trial€on€this€basis,€it€is€the€responsibility€of€the€appellant€to€show€thatÏhis€attorney€was€ineffective.€€The€standards€for€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€inÏTennessee€are€set€forth€in€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€ÏThis€standard€requires€that€the€advice€given€or€services€rendered€by€theÏattorney€be€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÍcriminal€cases.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€further€clarified€theÏineffective€counsel€issue€in€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104ÏS.Ct.€2052,€2064,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€€The€Supreme€Court,€in€thisÏcase,€set€forth€a€two„prong€test€for€ineffective€counsel.€€First,€the€defendantÏmust€show€that€the€counselððs€performance€was€deficient.€€Second,€theÏdefendant€must€show€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€theÏdefense.€€This€includes€showing€that€counselððs€deficient€performanceÏdeprived€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial.Ìà àThe€trial€court€in€this€case€found€ð ðthat€retained€trial€counsel€wasÏcompetent,€effective€and€exercised€due€diligence€under€the€circumstancesÏin€the€preparation€and€conduct€of€the€trial.ðð€€The€findings€of€fact€areÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏjudgment.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.€œ2d,›€898€(Tenn.€1990).€€A€review€of€theÏrecord€in€this€case€convinces€this€court€that€the€proof€preponderatesÏagainst€the€finding€by€the€trial€court€that€the€defendant€had€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.Ìà àOn€the€first€issue€this€court€finds€that€the€defendant€has€proven€thatÏthe€performance€of€his€trial€counsel€was€deficient.€€Secondly,€it€is€theÏopinion€of€this€court€that€the€deficiency€of€counsel€prejudiced€the€defense.€ÏA€number€of€prejudicial€deficiencies€of€defense€counsel€can€beÏascertained€from€the€records.ÌÒ @ ÒÒ  ÒA.€€Absence€of€defendant€at€Preliminary€Hearing€„€TheÏdefendant€asserts€and€defense€counsel€admits€that€theÏdefendant€was€not€correctly€notified€of€the€date€of€hisÍpreliminary€hearing.€€Defense€counsel€further€concedes€thatÏhe€told€his€client€the€wrong€day€of€the€hearing,€and€heÏcontinued€with€the€hearing€despite€the€absence€of€his€client.€ÏWhile€this€in€itself€is€not€conclusive,€it€is€the€first€in€a€line€ofÏdeficiencies.ÌB.€€Absence€of€an€effective€defense€strategy€„€The€affidavits€ofÏthe€defendant,€defense€attorney,€and€Tommy€Tucker,€as€wellÏas€the€record€itself,€indicate€that€defense€counsel€wasÏdeficient€in€his€preparation€for€the€trial.€€The€defendantÏalleges€that€he€gave€€his€attorney€the€names€and€addressesÏor€places€of€work€of€three€witnesses€to€the€alleged€assault.€ÏThese€witnesses€were€impartial€observers€to€the€incidentÏwho€could€corroborate€the€story€of€the€defendant.€€Of€theseÏthree€witnesses,€only€one€appeared€and€testified€at€trial.€€TheÏwitness€who€did€testify,€Steve€Morton,€was€found€by€theÏdefendantððs€wife€and€brought€to€court€by€her€on€the€day€ofÏtrial.€€Counsel€for€the€defense€did€not€talk€to€any€of€theseÏwitnesses€before€trial,€did€not€issue€subpoenas,€and€did€notÏinsure€that€the€witnesses€would€be€present€for€trial.€€TommyÏTucker,€one€of€the€uncalled€witnesses,€states€in€his€affidavitÏthat€Bobby€Love€acted€in€self€defense.€€The€trial€attorney,€inÏhis€testimony€during€the€hearing€for€a€new€trial€wasÏquestioned€about€the€uncalled€witnesses.€€When€askedÏwhether€the€credibility€of€the€testimony€of€these€witnessesÍwould€have€been€such€that€it€could€have€changed€theÏoutcome€of€the€trial,€the€trial€attorney€answered:€ð ðFrom€myÏexperience,€yes€.€.€.It€would€have€given€you€the€opportunity€toÏargue€to€the€jury€that€these€people€donððt€have€a€horse€in€theÏrace,€and€that€therefore€thereððs€no€reason€to€doubt€whatÏtheyððre€saying.ðð€Ò Ø ÒÒ „ Òà àIt€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€performance€ofÏdefense€counsel€was€deficient€and€that€this€deficiency€directly€prejudicedÏthe€defense,€as€set€forth€in€òòStrickland€v,€Washington,óó€òòsupraóó.€€It€is€theÏopinion€of€this€court€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€forÏcounselððs€deficient€representation,€the€verdict€in€this€case€would€have€beenÏdifferent.€€Therefore,€counselððs€ineffectiveness€deprived€the€appellant€of€aÏfair€trial.Ìœ›à àBobby€Loveððs€conviction€is€reversed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ____________________________ÌC.€Creed€McGinley,€Special€JudgeÌÓ  ÓÌœCONCUR:›Ìœ›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌœ›ÌÌ___________________________ÌJoseph€M.€œTipton,€Judge›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ