WPC qJQhmim P{%{]- >4[/%(g pՅ$SoaV(Qir+*`wA+X`j.ꈑ]:{ E9 ]2 ТJ/P^LF|U~b枹gX!Yq ᶯ) U $h KcaM+SwBҨ+/E׈# v+dӷ-aR3}͹)qQ㦿ሀ*%Y׹bV rOrBU!͓ ӎ5& xۨmBЅOX: %hGdZ2җ[MU/E(Oű,Hg}Tf?nU?p}Zp"=$?<v*3Zb#\ % ^ # 0/ U!N w 4 z  i x mz   S  0DNU@U>+EiUNkkkBb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K ASZ 0s 0D A[HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularPH,:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU RN$      1  U  _SeeBenson,2000WL19535,at**15,foramoredetailedversionofthefactsoftheshootingandtrial.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  (hH  Z(Times New Roman \  `&Times New Roman(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular WedemeyerBledsoeCriglerJenineRankinsPeaseClantonCambellRandlesTidwellStrickland TCARusso S.CtTrishia o]ne t]he- -(|G2N$ !.8E-dd8         0  U d(|3w$ !.8E-dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$ !.8E-dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8E-dd8     _   E-8!XXdd8@ttV<E-INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#E-V< #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsJune19,2002 L X!XE- #E-XX!#JOHNROBERTBENSONv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX!XE-  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforBedfordCounty  J @@No.8659CharlesLee,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200102510CCAR3PCFiledDecember12,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thepetitionerwasconvictedoftwocountsofattemptedfirstdegreemurderandthreecountsof x  recklessendangermentandreceivedaneffectivesentenceofthirtyyears.Ondirectappeal,thiscourt d affirmedthepetitionersconvictionsandsentence.Thepetitionernowcontendsthathistrialcounsel P providedineffectiverepresentation.Afterreviewingtherecord,weconcludethatthepetitionerhas < failedtomeethisburdenofdemonstratingthathistrialcounselprovidedineffectiveassistance. (x Accordingly,weaffirmthedenialofthepetitionforpostconvictionrelief. d  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  <   #E-X!#X!X.E-AlanE.Glenn,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidG.HayesandRobertW.  Wedemeyer,JJ.,joined.  LarryF.Wallace,Jr.,_Shelbyville_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JohnRobertBenson.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;JohnH.Bledsoe,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; ` WilliamMichael_McCown_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andRobertCrigler,AssistantDistrict L  AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.#E-XX!3#X!XE-Ԁ 8!  @@OO& OPINION #E-XX! #X!XE- #`" #E-XX!k #X!XE-     FACTS  $8 $    OnMarch7,1998,thepetitioner,JohnRobertBenson,wasconvictedbyajuryoftwocounts &"& ofattemptedfirstdegreemurderandthreecountsofrecklessendangerment.OnApril20,1998,the '"' trialcourtsentencedhimasaRangeIoffendertoconcurrentsentencesoftwentytwoyearsforthe (#( attemptedfirstdegreemurderconvictions,andasaRangeII,multipleoffendertofouryearsforeach )$) recklessendangermentconviction.Thepetitionerreceivedconcurrenttermsfortwoofthethree p*%* recklessendangermentconvictions,andwasorderedtoservetherecklessendangermentsentences \+&+ consecutivelytotheattemptedfirstdegreemurdersentences,foraneffectivesentenceofthirtyyears. H,', Ondirectappealtothiscourt,hechallengedthesufficiencyoftheevidencetosustainhisconvictions 4-(- _andthelengthofhissentence.Thiscourtdeniedrelief.SeeStatev.JohnRobertBenson,No.  01C019806CC00239,2000WL19535,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.Jan.13,2000),perm.toappeal  denied(Tenn.Oct.16,2000).     Thepetitionerthenfiledaprosepetitionforpostconvictionrelief,allegingineffective ` assistanceoftrialcounsel.Counselwasappointed,andanamendedpetitionwasfiled.Afteran L  evidentiaryhearing,thepostconvictioncourtdeniedthepetition.Atimelynoticeofappealwas 8  filed.Althoughanumberofclaimsofineffectiveassistancewereassertedinhisprosepetition, $ t amendedpetition,andatthepostconvictionhearing,thepetitionerconfineshimselfonappealto  ` arguingthattrialcounselprovidedineffectiveassistancebyfailingtomoveforamistrialbasedon  L  anincidentofpretrial misidentificationofthepetitioner.  8     Trial      Thefactssurroundingthepetitionersconvictionsinvolveashootingthatoccurredatthe   Shelbyville,Tennessee,apartmentofJenineMcBrideintheearlymorninghoursofAugust17,   1997.  #  1      ׀PresentattheapartmentwereJenineMcBride,JamesMcBride,AndrewRankins,Trishia p Pease,andAshleyBenson.AshleyBenson,whowastwentymonthsoldatthetime,isthedaughter \ ofthepetitionerandTrishiaPease.Therelationshipbetweenthetwoendedaboutamonthbefore H theshooting,andPeasehadsincebecomeromanticallyinvolvedwithRankins. 4   Attrial,Rankinstestifiedthat,sometimebeforesunrise,heheardgunshotscomingfromthe  \ frontoftheapartment.Rankinsthenproceededtothelivingroomwhereheobservedamanarmed H witharifleandwearingastockingtocoverhisface.Afterunsuccessfullyattemptingtostopthe 4 intruderfromenteringthehouse,Rankinsgrabbedthebarreloftherifleandbothmenfelltothe   floor.Duringtheensuingstruggle,theintrudersfacewasexposed.Rankinstestifiedthat,despite   thedarknessoftheroom,hewasabletoobservetheintrudersface clearlyforabouttwominutes  beforehefledtheapartment.Accordingtohistestimony,Rankinsrecognizedtheintruderasthe  petitionerandtoldhimduringthestruggle, Youcouldhavekilledyourbaby.Id.at*1.Although  unabletopositivelyidentifytheintruder,JamesMcBridetestifiedthatthepetitioners stockybuild l matchedthatoftheintruder.Id.at*3. X    MembersoftheShelbyvillePoliceDepartmentarrivedshortlythereafterandinterviewedthe 0"  witnessesattheapartment.Someofthosequestionedstatedthattheremayhavebeentwointruders. #l! Rankinsindicatedthathebelievedthegunmantobethepetitioner,andPeasegavethepolicea $X" descriptionofthepetitionerscar. $D #   Approximatelyfifteenminuteslater,thepoliceapprehendedTimmyReese,thepetitioners &"% cousin,andbroughthimtotheapartmentfora showupidentification.Thetestimonydiffersas '#& towhatoccurrednext.Rankinstestifiedthat,althoughhewasinitiallyunsurewhetherReesewas (#' theintruder,hestated, No,thatsnottheguyafterPeaseexplainedthatReesewasthepetitioners )$( cousin.Id.at*2.OfficerTreyClantonwaspresentduringtheidentificationandtestifiedthat  RankinslookedatReeseandsaid, Imnotsureifthisishimandthen, No,itsnothim.Id.at  *4.Peasetestified,however,thatRankinsaffirmativelyidentifiedReeseastheintruderbefore  learningthatthesuspectsnamewasTimmyReese.Itwasonlythen,Peasetestified,thatRankins t claimedthatReesewas nottheguy.Itisthis misidentificationthatformsthefactualbasisof ` thepetitionersappeal. L    Approximatelytenminuteslater,thepetitioner,wholivedinFayetteville,wasapprehended $ t inShelbyvilleinhiscarafewblocksawayfromthesceneoftheshooting.RankinsandPeasewere  ` broughttothesiteofthearrestand,accordingtoOfficerClanton,Rankinsimmediatelyidentified  L  thepetitionerastheshooterexclaiming, Thisisthemanthatwasinsidethehouse.Id.Attrial,  8  Rankinsagainidentifiedthepetitionerasthegunman,testifyingthathewas positiveand certain $  oftheidentification.Id.at*2.     Attrial,thepetitionerdeniedanyparticipationintheshooting,andhissistertestifiedthathe   waswithherthenightbeforetheshooting.Accordingtohertestimony,theyreturnedtoher   apartment,shewenttobedby4:00a.m.,and,sometimebetween6:00and6:30a.m.,thepetitioner p wokehertosaythathewasleaving. \   EvidentiaryHearing  4 @'  Threewitnessestestifiedattheevidentiaryhearing:twoinvestigatorsforthepublic  \ defendersofficeandtheassistantdistrictpublicdefenderwhorepresentedthepetitionerattrial. H Onlytrialcounselstestimonyisrelevanttotheissueraisedonappeal.Thepetitionerdidnottestify 4 onhisbehalfattheevidentiaryhearing.     Intheopinionoftrialcounsel,therewas,infact,amisidentification.Hetestifiedthatthe  Statefailedtogivenoticeofanymisidentificationalthoughitwasexculpatoryevidencewhich  shouldhavebeenproduced.Apparently,thetrialjudgehadaskedtrialcounselifhewasgoingto  moveforamistrialinlightoftheStatesfailuretoproduceevidenceofthemisidentification. l Explainingwhyhedidnotmoveforamistrial,trialcounseltestified: X  8  8`   IthinktheJudgemadethatoffertome.ButIthinkhealsosaid 0"  somethingtotheeffectyoucanthaveyourcakeandeatit,too.He #l! wasaskingthatbecausetheStatehadtechnicallyfailedtocomply $X" withdiscoveryonthemisidentificationbyAndrewRankins.That $D # wassomethingIwasfullyinformedofthroughinterviewswithTricia %0!$ [sic]Pease.Iknewfullwellwhathadhappenedorwhathewas &"% goingtosayhappened.Soitwouldhavebeenalittlehardtosay '#& Judge,hereissomeexculpatoryevidence.Wewouldlikean (#' opportunitytoexplorethatwhenIwasbetterinformedaboutitthan )$( probablytheStatewas.SoIguessifIhadmovedforamistrialand |*%) theJudgehadgrantedit,thatwouldhavegiventheStateagreater h+&* periodoftimetododamagecontrolonthatmisidentificationthan  forgingaheadattrial.Ididntthinkitwaswiseatthattime[tomove  foramistrial]becauseIthinkIthoughtwehadtheupperhand.We  hadknowledgeofmisidentification.Idontthink[theState]did.t` x` x   Trialcounselhasbeenlicensedtopracticelawsince1991,andmostofhispracticehas L  consistedofcriminaldefensework.Explainingthattheelementofsurpriseis [o]neofthefew 8  advantagesthedefensehas,hetestifiedthatthiswasacalculatedtacticaldecisionaimedat $ t precludingtheStatefromusingtheiridentificationevidence.Additionally,hetestifiedthathis  ` strategyfortrialwastohighlightthedeficiencieswithregardtothepolicedepartmentsinvestigation  L  oftheshooting.  8    Attheconclusionofthehearing,thepostconvictioncourtdeniedthepetition,findingthat   thepetitionerhadfailedtocarryhisburdenofdemonstratingineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.   Specifically,thepostconvictioncourtfoundthattrialcounsel exercisedmorethanadequate   judgmentinhispresentationofthe[petitioners]proofandperformedbetter thananyonecould   haveexpectedinlightoftheStates overwhelmingcaseagainstthe[petitioner]. p Ѐ \    ANALYSIS  H 5  Thesoleissueraisedonappealiswhethertheconductofthepetitionerstrialcounselwas  p withinthestandarddemandedofcompetentdefensecounsel.Specifically,thepetitionerassertsthat  \ histrialcounselsperformancewasdeficientbecausehechosenottomoveforamistrialbasedon H thepretrialincidentof misidentification. 4   I.PostConvictionStandardofReview    7      Thepostconvictionpetitionerbearstheburdenofprovinghisallegationsbyclearand  convincingevidence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f).Whenanevidentiaryhearingisheld  inthepostconvictionsetting,thefindingsoffactmadebythecourtareconclusiveonappealunless l theevidencepreponderatesagainstthem.SeeTidwellv.State,922S.W.2d497,500(Tenn.1996). X  Whereappellatereviewinvolvespurelyfactualissues,theappellatecourtshouldnotreweighor D! reevaluatetheevidence.SeeHenleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,578(Tenn.1997).However,review 0"  ofatrialcourtsapplicationofthelawtothefactsofthecaseisdenovo,withnopresumptionof #l! correctness.SeeRuffv.State,978S.W.2d95,96(Tenn.1998).Theissuesofdeficientperformance $X" ofcounselandpossibleprejudicetothedefensearemixedquestionsoflawandfactand,thus, $D # subjecttodenovoreviewbytheappellatecourt.SeeStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn. %0!$ 1999). &"%    @ II.IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel  (#' h=  Toestablishaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,thepetitionerhastheburdentoshow |*%) boththattrialcounselsperformancewasdeficient,andthatcounselsdeficientperformance h+&* prejudicedtheoutcomeoftheproceeding.X!XXX!Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct.  2052,2064,80L.Ed.2d674(1984);seealsoStatev.Taylor,968S.W.2d900,905(Tenn.Crim.  App.1997)(notingthatsamestandardfordeterminingineffectiveassistanceofcounselthatis  appliedinfederalcasesalsoappliesinTennessee).TheStricklandstandardisatwoprongtest: t 8  8`   First,thedefendantmustshowthatcounselsperformancewas L  deficient.Thisrequiresshowingthatcounselmadeerrorssoserious 8  thatcounselwasnotfunctioningasthe counselguaranteedthe $ t defendantbytheSixthAmendment.Second,thedefendantmust  ` showthatthedeficientperformanceprejudicedthedefense.This  L  requiresshowingthatcounselserrorsweresoseriousastodeprive  8  thedefendantofafairtrial,atrialwhoseresultisreliable.$ ` x` x 466U.S.at687,104S.Ct.at2064.     Thedeficientperformanceprongofthetestissatisfiedbyshowingthat counselsactsor   omissionsweresoseriousastofallbelowanobjectivestandardofreasonablenessunderprevailing p professionalnorms.Goadv.State,938S.W.2d363,369(Tenn.1996)(citingStrickland,466U.S. \ at688,104S.Ct.at2065;Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975)).Theprejudiceprong H ofthetestissatisfiedbyshowingareasonableprobability,i.e.,a probabilitysufficienttoundermine 4 confidenceintheoutcome,that butforcounselsunprofessionalerrors,theresultoftheproceeding  p wouldhavebeendifferent.Strickland,466U.S.at694,104S.Ct.at2068.#X!XXX!>#  \ X!XXX!  Becausebothprongsofthetestmustbesatisfied,afailuretoshoweitherdeficient 4 performanceorresultingprejudiceresultsinafailuretoestablishtheclaim.SeeHenley,960S.W.2d   at580.Forthisreason,courtsneednotapproachtheStricklandtestinaspecificorderoreven    addressbothcomponentsoftheinquiryifthedefendantmakesaninsufficientshowingonone.  466U.S.at697,104S.Ct.at2069;seealsoGoad,938S.W.2dat370(statingthat failuretoprove  eitherdeficiencyorprejudiceprovidesasufficientbasistodenyreliefontheineffectiveassistance  claim). l #X!XXX!TG#  Onappeal,theonlyissueraisediswhethertrialcounselprovidedineffectiveassistanceby D! failingtomoveforamistrial.Attheevidentiaryhearing,however,thepetitionerdidnottestifyor 0"  offeraninstanceoftrialcounselsallegedinadequateperformanceoranyresultingprejudice.Post #l! convictionpetitionsandhearingsaregovernedbythePostConvictionProcedureActof1995which $X" mandatesthat [t]hepetitionershallappearandgivetestimonyattheevidentiaryhearingifsuch $D # petitionraisessubstantialquestionsoffactastoeventsinwhichthepetitionerparticipatedandthat %0!$  [t]hepetitionershallhavetheburdenofprovingtheallegationsoffactbyclearandconvincing &"% evidence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40-30-210(a),(f). '#&   Duringthehearing,thepetitionermerelyquestionedhisdefenseteamabouttheeventsofthe )$( trialandpretrialinvestigation.X!XXX!Inmattersofthecredibilityofwitnesses,wedefertothejudgment |*%) ofthepostconvictioncourt.MichaelRussov.State,No.M200000919CCAR3PC,2001WL h+&* 605156,at*8(Tenn.Crim.App.June5,2001)#X!XXX!O#X!XXX!.#X!XXX!PP#ԀTrialcounseldefendedhisstrategicaldecisionto  notmoveforamistrial,andthepetitionerpresentednoprooftothecontrarytodemonstratedeficient  performanceorprejudice.Forthepetitionerspetitiontosucceed,wewouldhavetoassumethat  bothtrialcounselsperformancewasdeficientandthatcounselsdeficientperformanceprejudiced t theoutcomeoftheproceeding.SeeStrickland,X!XXX!466U.S.at687,104S.Ct.at2064.#X!XXX!R#ԀNeither ` assumptionisjustifiedinanyway. L  X!XXX!  ApplyingtheStricklandholdingthatwemust evaluatetheconductfromcounsels $ t perspectiveatthetimethedecisionshadtobemade,thatwemust indulgeastrongpresumption  ` thatcounselsconductfallswithinthewiderangeofreasonableprofessionalassistance,466U.S.  L  at689,104S.Ct.at2065#X!XXX!IS#X!XXX!,andthatinchallengingcounselsconductapetitionermustshowthat no  8  competentcounselwouldhavetakentheaction,Chandlerv.UnitedStates,218F.3d1305,1315 $  (11thCir.2000),cert.denied,#X!XXX!U#X!XXX!531U.S.1204,121S.Ct.1217#X!XXX!mV#X!XXX!,149L.Ed.2d129(2001)#X!XXX!V#X!XXX!,we   concludethatthepetitionerhasfailedtoshowthathistrialcounseldidnotperformwithintherange   ofcompetencerequiredofattorneysincriminalcases.#X!XXX!)W#      CONCLUSION  p LX  Havingreviewedtheentirerecordinthiscase,weconcludethatthepetitionerhasfailedto H meethisburdenofdemonstratingthathewasdeniedtheeffectiveassistanceofcounsel. 4 Accordingly,weaffirmthepostconvictioncourtsdenialofthepetition.  p    `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     ALANE.GLENN,JUDGE