WPC TnHu_,ZrPsci[hro${2 JyI4vx62` [I~Ҥ\~rclA"& #5L0~K퐞:WR " |S?rl)B{NOmg33 +p4Hҝh ݿ<(W@ cAϴ1rCg.k.x9:A|Z+b3H0 W|,] @_$ *|٬K`~cg d޲vcgyXJx3{UH1ִ}{6ԻվDx] a" +OԆ!= V6@20gi^JAD=Gb }˛||>zOۡjy FwIc}(zy2@#car6r{ʈ5TkʚGs;<I@]2{0mRH,b#\ % UN# 0q UN ^ G wS zW  4   m   k 11NEb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K ASZ 0s 0D A[HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular:y+  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptJ~'S3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G24$ !.8DUdd8         0    d(|3{$ !.8DUdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3{$ !.8DUdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Edd8     _   E89XXdd8@tt^4EINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#E^4 #Ԉ &    @  @` November14,2000Session L X9XE #EXX9#MICHAELCARLTONBAILEYv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX9XE  J @@ PostConvictionAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Dickson_ԀCounty  J @@No.CR3171RobertE.Burch,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199901065CCAR3PCFiledAugust17,2001   AV) ` dE<|` A }     X9XXX9Theappellant,MichaelCarltonBailey,appealsfromthetrialcourtsdenialofhispetitionforpost x  convictionrelief.Onappeal,theappellantchallengesthetrialcourtsdeterminationthat(1)he d receivedtheeffectiveassistanceofcounsel,and(2)thathewasnotdenieddueprocessbythealleged P violationofTennesseeRuleofEvidence615bytwoStatewitnesses.#X9XXX9##EXX9#X9XE <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.  d   #EX9#X9X.EJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidG.HayesandNorma < McGeeOgle,JJ,joined. ( GregoryD.Smith,Clarksville,Tennessee,forappellant,MichaelCarltonBailey.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;ClintonJ.Morgan,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;  Dan_Alsobrooks_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,forappellee,StateofTennessee. t @@OO& OPINION #EXX9#X9XE L  #EXX9E #X9XE  X9XXX9@(FACTS  $"t!   OnJuly29,1992,theappellantshotandkilledGaryGrantintheparkinglotofthecityhall #L# ofBurns,Tennessee.TheappellantfirstshotMr.Grantwhilebothmenweresittingintheir $8 $ respectivecars.TheappellantthenexitedhiscarandshotMr.GranttwicemoreasMr.Grantwas %$!% crawlingawayfromhisowncar. &"&   OnAugust13,1993,theappellantwasconvictedoffirstdegreemurderandsentencedtolife '"' withthepossibilityofparole.OnJuly20,1995,thiscourtaffirmedthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. (#( PermissiontoappealtotheTennesseeSupremeCourtwasdeniedonJanuary8,1996.  )$) ANALYSIS p*%*  #  UnderthePostConvictionProcedureAct,theappellantbearstheburdenofprovinghis \+&+ allegationbyclearandconvincingevidence.TennesseeCodeAnnotated4030210(f).The H,', findingsoffactofthetrialjudgeonpost-convictionhearingsareconclusiveonappealunlessthe 4-(- evidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment.Cooperv.State,849S.W.2d744,746(Tenn.  1993);_Vermilye_Ԁv.State,754S.W.2d82,84(_Tenn.Crim.App_.1987);Turnerv.State,698S.W.2d  90,91(_Tenn.Crim.App_.1985);_Janow_Ԁv.State,4_Tenn.Crim.App_.195,470S.W.2d19,21  (1971).Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofwitnessesandtheweightgiventhetestimonyof t witnessesareresolvedbythetrialcourt.Batesv.State,973S.W.2d615,613(_Tenn.Crim.App_. ` 1997). L    (1)IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel 8    ThestandardsbywhichineffectivenessofcounselisjudgedinTennesseearesetforthin $ t Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975),whichrequiresthattheadvicegiven,orthe  ` servicesrenderedbytheattorney,bewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysin  L  criminalcases.TheruledevisedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin_Strickland_Ԁv.  8  Washington,466U.S.668,687,104_S.Ct_.2052,2064,80_L.Ed_.2d674(1984),provides: $  8  First,thedefendantmustshowthatcounsel'sperformancewasdeficient.This   requiresshowingthatcounselmadeerrorssoseriousthatcounselwasnot   functioningasthe"counsel"guaranteedthedefendantbytheSixthAmendment.   Second,thedefendantmustshowthatthedeficientperformanceprejudicedthe   defense.Thisrequiresshowingthatcounsel'serrorsweresoseriousastodeprive p thedefendantofafairtrial,atrialwhoseresultisreliable.Unlessthedefendant \ makesbothshowings,itcannotbesaidthattheconvictionor...sentenceresulted H fromabreakdownintheadversaryprocessthatrenderstheresultunreliable.4   Furthermore,theTennesseeSupremeCourthasstatedthat itcannotbesaidthatincompetent  \ representationhasoccurredmerelybecauseotherlawyers,judgingfromhindsight,couldhave H madeabetterchoiceoftactics._Hellard_Ԁv.State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982);seealso,United 4 Statesexrel.Burtonv._Cuyler_,439_F.Supp_.1173,1187(_E.D.Pa_.1977).Areviewoftherecord   inthiscasedoesnotconvinceusthattheproofpreponderatesagainstthejudgmententeredbythe   trialcourtdenyingpost-convictionrelief.    a.FirstAggressorWitnesses  I  Theappellantsclaimsofineffectiveassistanceofcounselrestontwoseparategrounds.  First,theappellantclaimshewasdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounselbythefailureofhistrial l attorneytocallwitnessesthatwouldhavetestifiedtotheviolentnatureofthevictimthus X  supportinganinferencethatthevictimwasactuallythefirstaggressor. Theappellanthasfailed D! toestablishthattrialcounselwasineffectiveinthisregard.Hehasalsofailedtoestablishthathe 0"  wasprejudicedbytheactionsoftrialcounsel. #l!   Itisundisputedthatindividualswereavailabletotestifytothevictimstendencytowards $X" violenceandthattrialcounselwasawareofsuchwitnesses. However,thisCourtwillnot $D # secondguessmeretrialstrategiesofcounselindeterminingwhethertheassistancerenderedwas %0!$ ineffective._Hellard_,629S.W.2dat9.Theperformanceoftrialcounselmustbesoegregious &"% that,forpurposesoftheSixthAmendment,trialcounselisnotactingas counselatall. '#& _Strickland_,466U.S.at687,104_S.Ct_.at2064. (#'   Trialcounseltestifiedatthepostconvictionhearingthat,whileselfdefensewastheonly )$( plausibledefense,theeyewitnesstestimonyandotherevidencewassodamningastocompletely |*%) discreditthisdefense. Trialcounseltestifiedthathedidinfactcallwitnessesintendedto h+&* establishtheviolentnatureofthevictim(specifically,oneAndy_Jenette_),butthatthetrialcourt  disallowedsuchtestimony. Thisevidenceclearlysupportsthetrialcourtsfindingthattrial  counselwasnotineffective.    Additionally,asrequiredunderStatev.Black,794S.W.2d752,757(_Tenn.Crim.App_. t 1990),thedefendantfailedtoestablishprejudicebyproducingwitnessesatthehearingforpost ` convictionrelieftoshowthedefendantsufferedprejudice.Theevidenceclearlysupportsthe L  findingthattheappellantwasnotdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounselduetotrialcounsels 8  failuretopresent firstaggressortestimony. $ t   b.JurorBilly_Choate_  ` ?'  Second,theappellantcontendshewasdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounselbytrial  L  counselsfailuretoproperlyinvestigateJurorBilly_Choate_. Theappellantcontendsthatduring  8  voirdire,heinformedtrialcounselthatMr._Choate_Ԁshouldnotbeallowedtositonthejury.The $  appellanttestifiedthat,atthetime,hecouldnotrecalltheexactproblemthatexistedbetween   Mr._Choate_Ԁandhimself,butheknewaproblemexisted. Trialcounseltestifiedthathewasnot   informeduntilthelatterstagesofthetrialthattheappellanthadanyconcernsatallaboutMr.   _Choate_Ԁasajuror.      Thereisnoevidencetosuggestthattrialcounselcouldorshouldhaveactedany p differentlythathedidgiventhelatestageatwhichhewasinformedofaproblemwithMr. \ _Choate_.Additionally,Mr._Choate_Ԁwasnotcalledasawitness,andnoprejudicetothedefendant H wasestablishedatthehearingforpostconvictionrelief. 4   Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatthedefendant  p receivedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.  \   (2) TheRule H -  TennesseeRuleofEvidence615states,inpertinentpart,that [_a]t_Ԁtherequestofaparty 4 thecourtshallorderwitnesses,includingrebuttalwitnesses,excludedattrialorother   adjudicatoryhearing.Trialjudgeshavealwaysbeenaffordedwidediscretionindetermining   whethertoimposethesanctionofexcludingtheevidenceofthewitnesssuspectedofhaving  violatedtherule.Statev.Moffett,729S.W.2d679,681(_Tenn.Crim.App_.1986);seealsoState  v.Anthony,836S.W.2d600,604605(_Tenn.Crim.App_.1992).Additionally,adefendantmay  notbegrantedreliefonappellatereviewwhenhefailstotakesactionreasonablynecessaryto l preventornullifytheerror._Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ36(a);seealso,Meadev.State,484S.W.2d366 X  (_Tenn.Crim.App_.1972). D!   Theappellantpresentedseveralwitnessesatthepostconvictionhearingthattestifiedto 0"  seeingtwoStatewitnessestalkingaboutthesubjectmatterofthecaseduringthetrial.  #l! Specifically,theconversationoccurredinthestairwellofthecourthouseafteronewitnesshad $X" testifiedandpriortothetestimonyofthesecondwitness. Theappellantpresentednoevidenceof $D # theactualtestimonyofthetwo,violatingwitnesses,nordidhepresentthetwowitnessatthe %0!$ postconvictionhearing. &"%   Inthepresentcase,thereisnosuggestionthatthestateconnived,procured,orknewof '#& thewitnesssequestrationviolation.UnitedStatesv.Gibson,675F.2d825,836(6thCir.1982) (#' cert.denied,459U.S.972,103_S.Ct_.305,74_L.Ed_.2d285(1982)quotingUnitedStatesv. )$( _Kiliyan_,456F.2d555,560(8thCir.1972).Thereisnoindicationthatthedefendantwas |*%) prejudicedbytheviolationofthesequestrationorder.Thatis,thatoneormoreofthewitnesses h+&* changedorembellishedtheirtestimony.Statev._Chadwick_,750S.W.2d161,166  (_Tenn.Crim.App_.1987);Statev.Wicks,729S.W.2d283(_Tenn.Crim.App_.1987).Infact,thetrial  courtfoundthatnoharmcouldexistbecausethetwowitnessesinquestiontestifiedabouttwo  differentmatters. Underallofthesecircumstances,wethinkthewitnesseswereproperly t permittedtotestifyandthedefendantwasnotprejudicedbytheirtestimony. `   Itisalsoimportanttonote,thatwhileseveralmembersoftheappellantsfamilywere L  awareoftheviolation,theviolationwasneverbroughttotheattentionoftheappellants 8  attorneysorthecourt.Thefamilymemberswhowereawareoftheviolationwerepresentinthe $ t courtroomwhenthetrialjudgeorderedthesequestrationofthewitnesses.Thus,obviously,no  ` objectionwasmadeattrial.  L    Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthattheappellantwas  8  notdenieddue_process_ԀbytheallegedviolationofRule615oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence. $     CONCLUSION    q=   ` Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt.We   findthattheappellantreceivedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel,andthattheappellantwasnot   denieddueprocessoflaw.ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.#X9XXX9 ##EXX9 #X9XE      `       `     h     ___________________________________ 4    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE