WPC ^Y,рMQdDO1)VGOdWV.a//Bo?6Jo|n34*AM O8kdrJN\'l`)rjA0- :4x} 0DXVNy=UF87/cPl=ٴQV+m5@~YvX_@nz7!@YMx2Z F>)99ϸkTKZlD|JFO9.`ZD2x2^s&EGcx%$C8Y&7D̷=V(pmLn/RY 5S|skG<鞀]ݣ5^K"WY 9_)tA%Z]^v!?Y^9qT/6 iD6lb %\UNb 0UN8 UN z5   ^ ;wG4K_%wN mEI# 0Db 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASP 0i 0D  AQ(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular v R2$      2    ContrarytotherequirementofourPostConvictionAct,theDefendantspetitiondoesnotcontainallegations  offactexplainingwhythisgroundforreliefwasnotpresentedinhisdirectappeal.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030204(e).  R2$      3    _TheDefendantmakesnoargumentthatthisissueisexemptfromthewaiverrulebecauseitisbasedonanew  constitutionalrightrequiringretroactiveapplicationorthathisfailuretopresenttheissueistheresultofunconstitutional t stateaction.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030206(g)(1),(2).(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt R2$      4    Thevictiminthiscasewaskilledbyagunshotwoundtohishead.Y* J~'xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xU ? R2$      1    _SeeStatev.Cyrus_Deville_ԀWilson,No.01C019408CR00266,1995WL676398,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.,  Nashville,Nov.15,1995).HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(#$  0  - -(|G22$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3w$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _   8UIXXdd8@ttINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE# #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsApril25,2001 L XUIX #XXUI#CYRUSD.WILSONv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXUIX  J @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.93A176SethNorman,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200001237CCAR3PCFiledMay14,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     TheDefendant,CyrusD.Wilson,wasconvictedbyajuryoffirstdegreemurderandsentencedto x  lifeinprison.Hisconvictionwasaffirmedondirectappeal. *#  1      ׀TheDefendantsubsequentlyfiledfor d postconvictionreliefallegingthathehadreceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselattrialandthat P histrialwastaintedbydueprocessviolations.Afteranevidentiaryhearingthepostconvictioncourt < deniedrelief.TheDefendantnowappealsasofright.Thejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourt (x isaffirmed.#XXUI#XUIX d  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed  <   #XUI#XUIX.DavidH.Welles,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichNormaMcGeeOgleandAlan  E.Glenn,JJ.,joined.  WilliamA.Lane,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,fortheappellant,CyrusD.Wilson.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;ElizabethT.Ryan,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; ` VictorS.Johnson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;and_Kymberly_ԀL.A.Haas,AssistantDistrictAttorney L  General,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. 8!  B@@OO& OPINION #XXUIq#XUIX #`" #XXUI= #  XUIX  TheDefendantcontendsthathereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselattrialbecausehis $8 $ attorneywas undergoing[an]emotional,psychologicaland/oralcoholdrugdependencyevaluation %$!% by[a]mentalhealthandtreatmentcenterduringthetrial;becausehisattorneydidnotobjecttothe &"& trialcourtsjuryinstructiononreasonabledoubt;andbecausehislawyerdidnotproducecertainalibi '"' witnessesattrial.TheDefendantfurthercontendsthatheisentitledtoanewtrialbecausehisdue (#( processrightswereviolatedathisfirsttrial.Specifically,heallegesthatthejurysinstructionon )$) reasonabledoubtwasunconstitutional;thattheStatewrongfullysuppressedcertainoralstatements p*%* hemade;thattheStatewrongfullyfailedtodisclosecertainwitnesses;andthattheStatewrongfully  characterizedproofinsupportofitscaseinchiefasrebuttalproof.Thepostconvictioncourtdenied  reliefonalloftheDefendantsgroundsfindingthathefailedtocarryhisburdenofproof.    XUIXXXUITosustainapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,adefendantmustprovehisorherfactual ` allegationsbyclearandconvincingevidenceatanevidentiaryhearing.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030 L  210(f);Momonv.State,18S.W.3d152,156(Tenn.1999).Uponreview,thisCourtwillnot 8  reweighorreevaluatetheevidencebelow;allquestionsconcerningthecredibilityofwitnesses,the $ t weightandvaluetobegiventheirtestimony,andthefactualissuesraisedbytheevidencearetobe  ` resolvedbythetrialjudge,nottheappellatecourts.Momon,18S.W.3dat156;Henleyv.State,960  L  S.W.2d572,57879(Tenn.1997).Thetrialjudgesfindingsoffactonapetitionforpostconviction  8  reliefareaffordedtheweightofajuryverdictandareconclusiveonappealunlesstheevidence $  preponderatesagainstthosefindings._Momon_,18S.W.3dat156;Henley,960S.W.2dat57879.#XUIXXXUI#     WewillfirstaddresstheDefendantsallegationsofdueprocessviolations.Withthe   exceptionofthereasonabledoubtjuryinstruction,eachofthesecontentionswasraisedinthedirect   appealofthismatter.SeeStatev.Cyrus_Deville_ԀWilson,No.01C019408CR00266,1995WL p 676398,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Nov.15,1995).Accordingly,theseissueshavebeen \ previouslydeterminedandwillnotnowberevisitedbythisCourt.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030 H 206(h);seealsoKendricksv.State,13S.W.3d401,404(Tenn.Crim.App.1999).Withrespectto 4 theissueregardingthereasonabledoubtinstruction,thisissuecouldhavebeenraisedondirect  p appeal. *#  2      ׀Accordingly,itisnowdeemedwaived.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030206(g). *#  3      ׀Moreover,  \ therecorddoesnotcontaintheinstructioncomplainedof,andtheDefendantoffersusneither H argumentnorauthorityinsupportofthiscontention. Issueswhicharenotsupportedbyargument, 4 citationtoauthorities,orappropriatereferencestotherecordwillbetreatedaswaivedinthiscourt.   Tenn.Ct.Crim.App.R.10(b).     WeturnnowtotheDefendantsallegationsthathereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel  attrial.XUIXXXUIBoththeSixthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,9ofthe  TennesseeConstitutionguaranteeadefendanttherighttorepresentationbycounsel.SeeStatev. l Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999);Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).This X  righttocounselincludestherighttoeffectivecounsel.SeeBurns,6S.W.3dat461;Baxter,523 D! S.W.2dat936;_Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668,686(1984). 0"    Todeterminewhethercounselprovidedeffectiveassistanceattrial,thecourtmustdecide $X" whethercounselsperformancewaswithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysin $D # criminalcases.Baxter,523S.W.2dat936;Hicksv.State,983S.W.2d240,245(Tenn.Crim.App. %0!$ 1998).Tosucceedonaclaimthathisorhercounselwasineffectiveattrial,adefendantbearsthe  burdenofshowingthatcounselmadeerrorssoseriousthatheorshewasnotfunctioningascounsel  asguaranteedundertheSixthAmendmentandthatthedeficientrepresentationprejudicedthe  defendantresultinginafailuretoproduceareliableresult.Strickland,466U.S.at687;Burns,6 t S.W.3dat461;Hicks,983S.W.2dat245.Tosatisfythesecondprong,thedefendantmustshow ` areasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselsunreasonableerror,thefactfinderwouldhavehad L  reasonabledoubtregardingthedefendantsguilt.SeeStrickland,466U.S.at69495.This 8  reasonableprobabilitymustbe sufficienttoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.Id.at694;see $ t alsoHarrisv.State,875S.W.2d662,665(Tenn.1994);Owensv.State,13S.W.3d742,750(Tenn.  ` Crim.App.1999).  L    Whenreviewingtrialcounselsactions,thisCourtshouldnotusethebenefitofhindsightto $  secondguesstrialstrategyandcriticizecounselstactics.SeeHellardv.State,629S.W.2d4,9   (Tenn.1982);Owens,13S.W.3dat749.Counselsallegederrorsshouldbejudgedatthetimethey   weremadeinlightofallfactsandcircumstances.SeeStrickland,466U.S.at690;Hicks,983   S.W.2dat246.   #XUIXXXUI/#  WithrespecttotheDefendantscontentionthathislawyerwasundergoingsomeformof \ mentalhealthevaluationatthetimeofhistrial,theDefendantofferednoproofinsupportofthis H allegationathishearing.TheDefendantstriallawyertestifiedthatheunderwentanevaluationafter 4 theDefendantstrialandthattherewerenofindingsortreatmentasaresult.Thepostconviction  p courtmadenoerror,therefore,infindingthattheDefendantfailedtocarryhisburdenofproofwith  \ respecttothisallegation,andthisissueiswithoutmerit. H   AstotheDefendantscontentionregardinghislawyersfailuretoobjecttothereasonable   doubtinstruction,thepostconvictioncourtfoundthattheDefendantpresented noproofonthis   issue.Trialcounseltestifiedthathedidnotrecalltheinstructionthatwasgiventothejuryanddid  notremembertheDefendantrequestinghimtoobjecttoit.TheDefendanttestifiedthathedidnot  becomeawareofthisissueuntilaftertrial.Aswehavepreviouslynoted,therecordbeforeusdoes  notcontainthechallengedinstruction.WeagreewiththepostconvictioncourtthattheDefendant l hasfailedtocarryhisburdenofproofonthisissue,anditisthereforewithoutmerit. X    TheDefendantalsocontendsthathistriallawyerwasineffectivebecausehedidnotproduce 0"  certainalibiwitnessesattrial.InsupportofhiscontentionstheDefendantproducedtwoalibi #l! witnessesathispostconvictionhearing.DawoneMatthewstestifiedthatheandtheDefendantwere $X" bothonabasketballcourtwhenheheardtwogunshots.  *#  4      ׀MatthewsranintotheDefendants $D # mothershouse;theDefendant,hetestified,ranin rightbehindhim.Theonlypersonhetoldabout %0!$ thiswashisgirlfriend,oneoftheDefendantssisters. &"%   '#&   BrandiChriswell,afriendoftheDefendantstwosisters,alsotestifiedthatshesawthe  Defendantonthebasketballcourtatthetimetheshotswerefired.Shedidnotrelatethisinformation  toanyone,however.     ValerieWilsonEhinlaiye,theDefendantsmother,testifiedonbehalfoftheStatethat ` Matthewsranintoherhousefirst,andtheDefendantdidnotcomeinuntilfiveortenminutesafter L  theshotswerefired.TheDefendantcameinnotwithMatthews,shetestified,butsomeminutes 8  later,withtheDefendantsgirlfriend. $ t Ѐ  `   TheDefendantstrialcounseltestifiedthattheDefendantgavehimseveralnicknamesof  L  allegedalibiwitnessesbutnofullnamesoraddresses.Hetestifiedthathe canvassedtheareawhere  8  theyweresupposedtobelocatedfourtimes.He talkedtomanydifferentpeopleinthe $  neighborhoodtryingtolocatethewitnesses.Hetestifiedthathe spentmanyhours...tryingto   findthem,butwasunsuccessful.Hestatedthathehadnotpreviouslyheardthenames Dawone   Matthewsor BrandiChriswell. h      TheDefendanttestifiedthathegavehislawyerthenicknamesofseveralalibiwitnessesand p toldhimwherehecouldfindthem.Heexplainedthathecouldnotgivehislawyerthewitnesses \ fullnamesbecausehedidnotknowthem;norcouldhegivehislawyerthewitnessessphone H numbersoraddresses.However,hecontendedthat thesearethenamesthattheygobyeveryday, 4 soif[hislawyer]weretogototheneighborhoodandinquireaboutthem,[hewas]surethatthose  p peoplewouldhavebeeneasilyfound.  \   Thepostconvictioncourtfoundthatit [could]notconcludethatcounselwasineffective, 4 becausehecouldnotlocateawitness,withonlyavaguereferenceastothelocationornameofthe   individual.ThecourtfurtherfoundthatMatthewstestimonywassubjectto serious   discrepanciesandconcludedthattheDefendanthadfailedtoprovebyclearandconvincing  evidencethat,hadhislawyercalledMatthewsandChriswell,therewasareasonableprobabilitythat  thejurywouldhavehadareasonabledoubtregardingtheDefendantsguilt.SeeStrickland,466  U.S.at695.Accordingly,thepostconvictioncourtdeniedrelief. l   Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindings.TheDefendantfailed D! toprovebyclearandconvincingevidencethathislawyersperformancefellbelowtherequired 0"  standard.Moreover,evenifhislawyersfailuretofindtheallegedalibiwitnesseswasdeficient,we #l! canneitherreevaluatethecredibilityofthewitnessestestimonynorreweightheevidenceonbehalf $X" oftheDefendant.Accordingly,becausetheDefendantfailedtoprovehisallegationsbyclearand $D # convincingevidence,weaffirmthejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourt. %0!$    `     h   ___________________________________ )$(    `     h   DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE