ÿWPCF …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ U>AU* B©B)ÆDCï AM2M D3Ýv~vÓŽ 0@a AO¡Æð 0D¶ D/ú B)˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ?D@EABCDEEFGHÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xQ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌFebruary€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€At€trial,€the€State€presented€the€testimony€of€undercover€agents€Kathleen€and€JosephÏà0 àDearmitt€who€testified€that€they€made€undercover€buys€of€cocaine€from€Appellant.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€†XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTEVE€MOSLEY,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9509„CC„00299Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àDICKSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€LEONARD€W.€MARTINó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Post„Conviction€Relief)Ìó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœD.€NATHANIEL€SPENCER›à àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌœP.€O.€Box€865,€28€S.€Washington›à àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌœBrownsville,€TN€€38012›à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDARIAN€B.€TAYLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDAN€ALSOBROOKSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSUZANNE€M.€LOCKERTÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à105€Sycamore€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAshland€City,€TN€€37015ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€#„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àAppellant€Steve€Mosley€appeals€from€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Appellant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€two€counts€of€sellingÏcocaine,€one€count€of€conspiracy€to€distribute€cocaine,€and€one€count€ofÏmisdemeanor€possession€of€cocaine.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€IIÏoffender€to€a€total€of€twenty„four€years€incarceration.€€On€September€9,€œ1993,›Ïthis€Court€affirmed€Appellantððs€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Mosleyóó,€No.€01C01„9211„CC„00345,€1993€WL€345542,€at€*8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€9,€1993),€òòperm.€toÏapp.€den.óó,€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€February€28,€1995,€Appellant€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€otherÏissues€not€raised€in€this€appeal.€€Counsel€was€appointed€and€an€evidentiaryÏhearing€held.€€The€post„conviction€court€dismissed€the€petition€on€May€23,€1995.€ÏFor€the€reasons€discussed€below,€we€reject€Appellantððs€claims€and€affirm€theÏdecision€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ìà àÌà àAppellant€challenges€trial€counselððs€representation€in€three€respects.€€HeÏasserts€that€counsel€was€ineffective€because€(1)€of€an€undisclosed€conflict€ofÏinterest€in€representing€Appellant€that€resulted€in€the€admission€of€prejudicialÏtestimony;€(2)€counsel€advised€Appellant€against€taking€the€stand;€and€(3)Ïcounsel€failed€to€call€defense€witnesses.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 àFirst,€Appellant€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€because€of€anÏundisclosed€conflict€of€interest.€€€The€basis€of€Appellantððs€claim€is€the€followingÏexchange€between€the€prosecution€and€one€of€its€witnesses,€Ted€Tarpley,€theÏDirector€of€the€Twenty„Third€Judicial€District€Drug€Task€Force:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà0 àQ:€Who€recommended€them€(the€undercover€agents)× ƒ) ××  ×€to€you?Ìà0 àA:€Steve€Lee,€who€is€an€undercover€investigator€with€the€DistrictÏAttorneyððs€office€in€Huntingdon,€Gus€Radfordððs.€€Gus€Radford€isÏthe€District€Attorney.€€(Counsel)€used€to€work€for€him.€Ì€ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓAccording€to€Appellant,€counselððs€previous€employment€with€the€DistrictÏAttorneyððs€office€which€was€prosecuting€Appellant€constituted€a€conflict€ofÏinterest.€€Appellant€also€believes€that€the€above€response€allowed€the€jury€toÍinfer€that€counsel€had€worked€with€the€agents€and€approved€of€them.€€Further,ÏAppellant€argues€that€because€of€the€conflict€of€interest,€counsel€could€notÏeffectively€present€Appellantððs€defense€of€entrapment.€€In€other€words,€AppellantÏmaintains€that€counsel€could€not€persuasively€argue€entrapment,€attacking€theÏcredibility€of€the€Stateððs€undercover€agents,€when€the€jury€believed€he€had€usedÏthem€in€his€work€as€a€prosecutor.ÌÌà àWhere€a€petitioner€establishes€an€actual€conflict€of€interest,€the€òòStricklandóóÏtest€is€altered€and€no€showing€of€prejudice€is€required.€€òòCuyler€v.€Sullivanóó,€100ÏS.Ct.€1708,€1719€(1980).€Instead,€prejudice€is€presumed.€€òòCuyleróó,€100€S.Ct.€atÏ1719.€€However,€an€actual€conflict€of€interest€must€be€demonstrated€beforeÏdeviation€from€the€òòStricklandóó€test€is€warranted.€€A€mere€possibility€of€a€conflict€ofÏinterest€will€not€suffice.ÌÌà àCounsel€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€believed€he€informedÏAppellant€before€trial€of€his€former€employment€by€the€District€Attorneyððs€officeÏand€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€undercover€agents.€€He€stated€that€it€was€hisÏpolicy€to€tell€all€his€clients€about€his€former€employment€with€the€DistrictÏAttorneyððs€office€in€order€to€demonstrate€his€experience€in€the€criminal€law€field.€ÏHe€also€remembers€telling€Appellant€that€he€thought€that€one€of€the€agentsÍwould€not€make€a€good€witness€at€trial.€€Therefore,€Appellant€has€not€carried€hisÏburden€of€establishing€that€any€possible€conflict€of€interest€was€undisclosed.€€ÌÌà àNeither€are€we€persuaded€by€Appellantððs€argument€that€counselððsÏprevious€employment€by€the€District€Attorneyððs€office€which€prosecutedÏAppellant€by€itself€constituted€a€conflict€of€interest.€€Appellant€has€not€allegedÏthat€counsel€worked€on€the€case€œagainst›€œAppellant.€€There€is€no€evidence€at€allÏthat€trial€counsel›€in€any€way€felt€some€form€of€continued€allegiance€to€his€formerÏemployer€that€would€hinder€his€representation€of€Appellant.€€In€fact,€theÏexperience€counsel€gained€from€working€with€the€District€Attorney€in€all€likelihoodÏhelped€rather€than€hindered€counselððs€representation.€€ÌÌà àIn€addition,€we€find€that€Appellantððs€argument€that€the€comment€by€TedÏTarpley€prevented€counsel€from€effectively€arguing€entrapment€is€meritless.€ÏAppellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€an€actual€conflict€of€interest.€€At€most,ÏAppellant€speculates€at€a€possible€conflict€of€interest€which€did€not€prejudiceÏhim.€€Appellant€admitted€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€Mr.€Tarpley€never€statedÏon€the€stand€that€counsel€knew€the€undercover€agents.€€This€Court€hasÏpreviously€found€that€Tarpleyððs€comments€had€no€effect€on€the€verdict.€€òòMosleyóó,Ï1993€WL€345542,€at€*7.ÌÌà àAppellant€also€argues€that€counsel€erred€in€advising€him€against€testifyingÏon€his€own€behalf€to€present€the€defense€of€entrapment.€€Appellant€testified€thatÏhe€wanted€to€testify€at€trial€that€the€undercover€agents€used€drugs€with€him€andÏlured€him€into€purchasing€cocaine€by€appealing€to€his€addiction€to€drugs.€ÏAppellant€further€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€counsel€advised€him€notÏto€testify€because€it€would€be€unwise€of€him€to€admit€to€being€a€drug€abuser.€ÏCounsel€testified€that€he€advised€Appellant€not€to€take€the€stand€because€heÏwas€concerned€that€Appellantððs€testifying€would€allow€the€prosecution€toÏintroduce€Appellantððs€prior€record€of€drug€convictions.€€Counsel€further€testifiedÏthat€Appellant€emphatically€did€not€want€to€testify.€€Appellant€claims€thatÏcounsel€never€advised€him€of€this€possibility€and€argues€that€his€priorÏconvictions€would€have€been€inadmissible€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€EvidenceÏ609€because€they€were€entered€more€than€ten€years€ago.€€First€of€all,ÏAppellantððs€failure€to€submit€any€proof€regarding€his€prior€convictions€preventsÏus€from€addressing€his€claim€that€his€prior€convictions€were€inadmissible.€ÏSecondly,€counselððs€œadvice›€to€Appellant€to€decline€taking€the€stand€was€aÏtactical€decision,€and€it€is€well„established€that€this€Court€will€not€second„guessÏthe€reasonable€strategic€and€tactical€decisions€of€counsel.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629ÏS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,Ï1202€(D.C.Cir.€1973)).€€ÌÌà àFinally,€Appellant€maintains€that€counsel€was€ineffective€because€heÏfailed€to€present€any€defense€witnesses.€€Appellant€claims€that€he€gaveÏcounsel€the€names€of€witnesses€who€would€discredit€the€Stateððs€witnesses€byÏtestifying€that€the€undercover€agents€were€taking€drugs€at€the€time€of€AppellantððsÏalleged€criminal€activity€and€that€the€audio€tape€submitted€at€trial€by€theÏprosecution€had€been€unfairly€edited.€€Specifically,€Appellant€wanted€DebraÏTidwell,€Tim€Brown,€Lisa€Brandt,€Kathleen€Dearmitt,€Fred€Nichols,€and€a€Ms.ÏDickinson€to€testify€on€his€behalf.€€At€the€time€of€trial,€Tidwell,€Dearmitt€andÏNichols€all€had€charges€pending€against€them€for€drug€related€crimes.€€CounselÏdid€not€think€that€it€was€advisable€to€call€persons€indicted€for€drug€charges€toÏœtestify€for›€Appellant.€€Tidwell,€a€co„defendant,€had€not€been€to€trial€nor€had€sheÏpresented€a€œplea›€by€the€time€Appellant€went€to€trial.€€In€fact,€counsel€spoke€withÏthe€Public€Defender€representing€Tidwell€who€told€counsel€that€he€would€notÏallow€Tidwell€to€testify.€€Counsel€interviewed€Brandt,€but€he€felt€that€she€wouldÏbe€a€poor€witness.€€Counsel€decided€not€to€call€Appellantððs€parole€officer,€Ms.ÏDickinson,€since€she€would€probably€be€forced€to€reveal€to€the€jury€thatÏAppellant€had€prior€drug€convictions.€€Counselððs€decision€to€call€or€not€to€callÏcertain€witnesses€was€a€strategic€decision,€which,€as€mentioned€previously,€willÏnot€be€second„guessed€by€this€Court.€€òòSee€Hellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.€€TheÏrecord€reveals€that€the€Stateððs€witness€Tim€Brown€testified€that€he€saw€theÏundercover€agents€using€drugs.€€Therefore,€even€if€counsel€erred€in€failing€to€callÍany€of€the€above€witnesses,€Appellant€has€not€shown€œthat›€this€fact€prejudicedÏhim.€€Moreover,€when€a€petitioner€claims€that€counsel€failed€to€procure€aÏnecessary€witness,€such€a€witness€should€be€produced€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€At€theÏevidentiary€hearing,€Appellant€failed€to€present€any€of€the€witnesses€who€heÏclaims€were€œnecessary€to€his€defense.›€ÌÌ€à àWe€conclude€that€Appellant€was€not€deprived€of€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€and€that€the€evidence€produced€by€Appellant€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÏpost„conviction€court€is€affirmed.Ìà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE