WPC6 vwk/a-Lmҋ9=|nJe쎧Ǎ;R5|h>*+a+*e `a؄aш18l*@A jÚhy&d$$ yrAD /:\ *t>;xRKL؝b!55X0.כ^Lu/Ǹ~@.芛 $ゑi >\0TC}  Q`U57PG)j0KM 8:U$+ azS!B]l#}C:\ГE4> lqb$I&Q%}]E-yY4_l[9Ti 0L 0D % = U: $ *?TiU: B AQ% 0D 0D/ 0Dss D/ B D3HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL,cAZ"Arial RegularX($X E  { E   D  Ӏ q$3|x          $X   2    EXXTheexistenceofa reasonableprobabilitycentersaroundwhetherthecourthasconfidencein  theverdictofthecasedespitenondisclosureoftheevidence.SeeBagley,473U.S.at678,105S.Ct.  at3381.Thecourtmustviewthesuppressedevidencecollectivelyinthecontextoftheentirerecordtodeterminewhethertheevidenceismaterial.SeeStatev.Edgin,902S.W.2d387,389(Tenn.1995) B : (citingUnitedStatesv.Agurs,427U.S.97,11213,96S.Ct.2392,2402,49L.Ed.2d342(1976)).(8(3$ !X     0  (#$  0    ""  X XXXkXX    Ad FILEDX Xk   July10,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.xXX AppellateCourtClerk    $X   4    EXXTheStricklandstandardhasbeenappliedtotherighttocounselunderArticleI,Section9ofthe  TennesseeConstitution.SeeStatev.Melson,772S.W.2d417,419n.2(Tenn.1989),cert.denied,493  U.S.874(1989).,cAZ"Arial Regular  ""  X XXXkXX    Ad FILEDX Xk   July9,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.xXX AppellateCourtClerk    $X   1    EXXThe1989convictionforresistingarrestarosefromanincidentinwhichMr.Bairdwasarrested  forpublicdrunkenness.TheconvictionrecordindicatesthatMr.Baird#XzXE_#EXXzkickedapoliceofficerandhadto  beforciblydetainedaftertheofficercitedhimforpublicdrunkenness.#XzXE]# J  $X   5    EXXWhenahomicideresultsfrommutualcombatortheexcitementandheatofpassiontherefrom,  thecriminaloffenseisvoluntarymanslaughter.SeeHuntv.State,303S.W.2d740,742(Tenn.1957)  (citing40C.J.S.Homicide48(b),p.912). Theremustbeamutualintentiontofight,and,ithasbeen | held,deadlyordangerousweaponsmustbeused.Seeid.󀀀,cAZ"Arial Regular  $X   3    EXXTenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f)(Supp.1996). d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd !X  ݛTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  7 XXdXXd7  [ P  r )<,(j 8` `@E  ` ttx$X r r )<,(j 8` `@E  ` ttx$X r     @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@*ATKNOXVILLE@&JANUARY1998SESSIONBILLYJOEBOURFF   8   ) 80   0      8   )   @ NO.03C019705CR00189    Appellant     8   )     0      8   )   @ CAMPBELLCOUNTY   v.  0      8   )     0      8   )   @ HON.LEEASBURY   STATEOFTENNESSEE   8   )     0      8   )   @ (PostConviction) z   Appellee     8   ) h`   0      8   )FortheAppellant:     8      @ FortheAppellee: H!  #   DouglasA.Trant,     8      @ JohnKnoxWalkup H!  #   900S.GayStreet     8      @ AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  Suite1502Knoxville,TN.37902   8      @ MarvinE.Clements,Jr. ~v (onpostconviction)     8      @ AssistantAttorneyGeneral d\   0      8      @ 425FifthAvenueNorth  0      8      @ 2dFloor,CordellHullBuilding  0      8      @ Nashville,TN.372430493  0      8      @ WilliamPaulPhillips  0      8      @ DistrictAttorneyGeneral  0      8      @ MichaelO.Ripley  0      8      @ AssistantDistrictAttorney  0      8      @ P.O.Box323  0      8      @ Jacksboro,TN.37757OPINIONFILED:_____________________AFFIRMED [  [     WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUDGE r8j17F [  [   @-OPINION Theappellant,BillyJoeBourff,appealsasofrighttheCampbellCountyCriminalCourtsdismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. In1991,theappellantwasconvictedbyajuryoffirstdegreemurderandwassentencedtolifeinprison.AppellantsconvictionandsentencewereaffirmedbythisCourtondirectappeal.SeeStatev.BillyJoeBourff,No.03C019305CR00162   (Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,June23,1994),perm.app.denied(Tenn.May8,   1995)(concurringinresultsonly). Thefactsofappellantscaseweresummarizedinthedirectappealasfollows:8  0 OnJuly17,1990,theappellant,accompaniedbyhisfatherinlaw,NealPerry,andhisbrotherinlaw,CharlesPerry,wenttoZensTaverntoshootpool.Alsopresentinthetavernwasthevictim,LeroyBaird.Accordingtothestateswitnesses,theappellantarrivedabout10:15p.m.andplayedpoolwithhiscompanions.Mr.Bairdwasseatedatthebareatingbeefstewandcornbread.TheappellantspilledMr.BairdsstewonthecounterandMr.Bairdmoveddownacoupleofstools.WitnessestestifiedthatwordswereexchangedbetweentheappellantandMr.Baird,butthatMr.Bairdapparentlydidnotconsideritaseriousmatter.  ! (# (# 8  0 Theappellantimmediatelyleftthetavernandreturnedshortlywithhispistol,whichhewascarryingbehindhisback.Heswungthegunaroundinfrontofhim,tellingZenHicks,theownerofthetavern,thathewantedtoshowhimsomething.InsodoinghepointedthegundirectlyatMr.Baird.AtthattimeMr.Hickstoldtheappellanttoleaveandhedidso.AboutaminutelaterMr.Bairdgotupandwalkedoutthedoorofthetavern.AtthattimeoneshotwasfiredbytheappellantintoMr.Bairdschest.Thebulletpassedthroughthe conductionpathwayoftheheartcausingaconditionthepathologistcalled instantwipeoutofthefunctionofthehumanheartandMr.Bairddiedimmediately.Accordingtotheappellantsproof,theappellantwasfeedingMr.Bairdthesoupwhenhespilledsome.Mr.Bairdaccusedhimofspillingthesouponpurposeandwordswereexchangedbetweentheappellantandthevictim.TheappellantandhiswitnessessaidthatMr.Bairdwaspullingoutaknifeinsidethetavernandthatwhenhecameoutside,hewasattackingtheappellantwiththeknife.Therefore,theappellantshothimtokeepfrombeingcut.Althoughtheappellantsfatherinlawandbrotherinlawsaidtheysawtheknifeinsidethetavern,theappellanttestifiedthatheneversawtheknifeuntil[thevictim]cameout cussingandraging.  3 ,1 (# (# 8  0 Anopenpocketknifewasfoundaboutoneandonehalfinchesabovethevictimshead.Inaddition,hehadapackofcigarettesinhis handandacigarettebetweenhisfingers.Theshotwasfiredfroma 5.4 distanceoflessthanfortyeightinchesfromthesurfaceofthevictimsshirt.  (# (#  jSeeid.slipop.at1.    OnFebruary8,1996,theappellantfiledapetitionforpostconvictionreliefallegingthattheprosecutionwithheldexculpatoryevidenceattrialinviolationofBrady V N v.Maryland,373U.S.83,83S.Ct.1194,10L.Ed.2d215(1963),andthathistrial "  counselwasineffectiveinfailingtodiscoverexculpatoryevidenceandinfailingtorequestajuryinstructiononmutualcombat.Appellanthadtheburdenofprovingthoseallegationsbyclearandconvincingevidence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030 ~  210(f)(Supp.1996). ThetrialcourtconductedanevidentiaryhearinganddismissedappellantspetitionuponfindingthattheinformationwithheldbytheprosecutionwasnotmaterialunderBradyandthatappellantstrialcounselprovidedeffectiveandcompetent  assistance.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsfindings. @HH/I.    NF  TheappellantfirstcontendsthattheprosecutionwithheldexculpatoryevidenceattrialinviolationofBradyv.Maryland.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. "  Attheevidentiaryhearing,theappellantintroduceddocumentsmarkedasexhibitsonethroughthreetodemonstrateaBradyviolation.Exhibitsoneandtwoare &# jailintakerecordsofthevictim,LeroyBaird,datedfrom1983untilhisdeathin1990.TherecordsreflectthatMr.Bairdwasarrestedfourteen(14)timesforvariouscriminaloffensesincludingeightchargesofpublicdrunkenness,sixchargesofdrivingonarevokedlicense,fivechargesofdrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant(D.U.I.),twochargesofresistingarrest,andtwochargesofpossessionofacontrolledsubstance.Insixofthefourteenarrests,Mr.Bairdwasinpossessionofaknife. ExhibitthreeisalistofMr.BairdsconvictionsintheGeneralSessionsCourtofCampbellCounty.TherecordsshowthatMr.BairdwasconvictedofD.U.I.anddrivingwithoutalicensein1988,andpublicdrunkennessinfourseparatecases,with 6/5 onecasein1989,alsoincludingaconvictionofresistingarrest  %  1      ׀andpossessionof  marijuana.Additionally,hewasindictedontwosubsequentchargesofD.U.I.anddrivingwithoutalicense;however,thosechargesweredismissedafterhisdeathin1990. Theappellantcontendsthathecouldhaveusedthatinformation,specificallytherecordsofpublicdrunkennessandresistingarrest,toshowthatMr.Bairdhadapropensitytodrinkandbecomeviolentwhenintoxicatedfromalcohol.HearguesthattheinformationwouldhavesupportedhistheorythatMr.Bairdwasthefirstaggressorwhoattackedhimwithaknife. TheappellantreliesuponthelandmarkcaseofBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83, 4, 83S.Ct.1194,10L.Ed.2d215(1963),toassertthattheStatesuppressedtheinformationinviolationofdueprocess.InBrady,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt  heldthattheprosecutionhasaconstitutionaldutytofurnishthedefendantwithanyexculpatoryevidenceconcerningthedefendantsguiltorinnocenceandpossiblepunishment.See373U.S.at8687,83    S.Ct   .at119697. 0 (  ToestablishaviolationunderBrady,thedefendantmustprovebya ! preponderanceoftheevidencethat:(1)herequestedtheinformation(unlesstheevidenceisobviouslyexculpatory,inwhichcasetheStatehasadutytoreleasetheevidencewhetherrequestedornot);(2)theStatesuppressedtheevidenceattrial;(3)theevidencewasfavorabletothedefendant;and(4)theevidencewasmaterial.See ,)$"& UnitedStatev.    Bagley   ,473U.S.667,67476,105S.Ct.3375,337980,87L.Ed.2d *#(  481(1985);Statev.    Edgin   ,902S.W.2d387,389390(Tenn.1995). ,%*  Evidenceismaterial ifthereisareasonableprobability   %  2      ׀that,hadtheevidence   beendisclosedtothedefense,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.See    Kyles   v.Whitley,514U.S.419,115S.Ct.1555,1566,131L.Ed.2d   490(1995).Additionally,ourstatesupremecourthasheldthatwhentherehasbeenageneralrequestornorequestforBradyinformation,theundisclosedevidenceis 80 М  material  ifit createsareasonabledoubtthatdidnototherwiseexist.SeeStatev.       Edgin   ,902S.W.2d387,389(Tenn.1995)(quotingUnitedStatesv.    Agurs   ,427U.S.   97,112,96S.Ct.2392,2402,49L.Ed.2d342(1976)). Inappellantscase,histrialcounselfiledapretrialrequestforanyinformationthatmightconstituteBradyevidence.AlthoughtheStateconcedesthatitnever 4, disclosedtheinformationinexhibitsonethroughthree,theStatearguesthattheevidenceisnotmaterialunderBrady.Weagree.   TherecordreflectsthattheappellantshotMr.BairdatcloserangeintheparkinglotofZensTavern.TheappellanthadreturnedtothetavernwithhispistolafteranearlieraltercationwithMr.Bairdinsidethebar.Attrial,theappellantpresentedevidencethrougheyewitnesstestimonythatMr.Bairdattackedhimwithaknifemomentsbeforetheshooting.ThisCourtreviewedthatevidenceinthedirectappealandconcludedthattherewasoverwhelmingprooffromwhicharationaletrieroffactcouldrejectthetheoryofselfdefenseandconvicttheappellantoffirstdegreemurder.SeeBourff,slipop.at2. ,)$"&  Theappellant,nevertheless,arguesthattheinformationinexhibitsone,two,andthreewouldhavestrengthenedhistheoryofselfdefense.Wefind,however,thateveniftheinformationwereadmissibletoshowMr.Bairdscriminalhistory,particularlyhisalcoholrelatedoffenses,it  has  littleprobativevalueastoappellantsguilt  or  innocenceinthepresentcase. ,2$+0  Thejailintakereports  reflect  that  Mr.  Baird   hadbeenarrestedmultipletimesfor  alcohol  relatedoffenses.AlthoughtherecordsshowthatMr.Bairdpossessedaknifeduringsixofhisfourteenarrests,andthathewascitedtwiceforresistingarrest,theevidencecarries  littleprobativevalue   whenweighedagainsteyewitness  testimonyfromthesceneoftheshooting.Moreover,wenotethatMr.Bairdsconvictionsinthegeneralsessionscourtareamatterofpublicrecord  andwere  notintheexclusivecontroloftheState.Therefore,theStatesfailuretodisclosetheconvictionrecordswasnotaBradyviolation.SeeStatev.    Edgin   ,902S.W.2dat389.    Inthecontextoftheentirerecord,theinformationinexhibitsonethroughthreewouldnothavecreatedareasonabledoubtconcerningwhethertheappellantcommittedfirstdegreemurder.Weareconfidentthattheverdictinthiscaseiscorrectandconcludethatthe  informationwas  notmaterialwithinthemeaningofBrady.   @,,/II.    Theappellantnextcontendsthathereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselbyhistrialcounselsfailuretoobtainexculpatoryevidenceandtorequestajuryinstructiononmutualcombat.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. Toprevailonaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselinthisproceeding,theappellantmustshowbyclearandconvincingevidence  %  3      ׀thattheadviceorservices %" providedbyhiscounselfellbelowtherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.SeeBaxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975). 8)0"& Furthermore,hemustdemonstrate  prejudice   byprovingthat,butforcounselsincompetence,theresultofhistrialwouldhavebeendifferent.See    Strickland   v. ,%* Washington,466U.S.668,68788,692,694,104S.Ct.2052,2064,206768,80 .',  L.Ed.674(1984);Bestv.State,708S.W.2d421,422(Tenn.Crim.App.1985).N  %  4       h0`).  Theappellantfirstarguesthathistrialcounselfailedtodiscoveralleged exculpatoryevidence.HecontendsthatiftheStatedidnotsuppresstheinformationinexhibitsonethroughthree,thenhiscounselwasineffectiveinfailingtoobtainit. Evidenceatthepostconvictionhearingconsistedofappellantstestimonyandthetestimonyofhistrialcounsel.Appellantscounseltestifiedthatheconductedapretrialinvestigationwhichincludedinterviewswiththeappellant,hisfamily,andofficersattheCampbellCountySheriffsDepartment.Therecordalsoreflectsthatcounselmadediscoverymotionsbeforetrial,includingarequestforanyinformationthatmightbeexculpatoryoftheappellant.Fromthatinvestigation,appellantscounselstatedthathelearnedaboutthevictimsfrequentconsumptionofalcohol.However,hetestifiedthathedidnotknowaboutthevictimscriminalhistoryuntilaftertrial. Baseduponinformationobtainedfromtheappellantandothereyewitnesses,appellantscounselestablishedacaseonthetheoryofselfdefense.Boththeappellantandhiscounseltestifiedthattheypursuedthatdefenseinlightofevidencethatthevictimapproachedappellantwithaknifebeforetheshooting.Thetrialcourtreviewedthetestimonyandfoundnothingincounselsinvestigationsthatrosetothelevelofineffectiveassistance.Thatdecisionisconclusiveinthisproceedingandwillnotbeoverturnedunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment.See `'X $ Statev.Buford,666S.W.2d473,475(Tenn.Crim.App.1983) ,  perm.  a   A   app.  d   D   denied   ,)$"& (Tenn.1984)     .Fromourreviewoftherecord,weaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingandconcludethatappellantscounselconductedathoroughinvestigationofthecase. Theappellantalsoallegesthathiscounselwasdeficientinfailingtorequestajuryinstructiononmutualcombat.  %  5      ׀Therecordreflectsthatappellantscounselnever `0X). discussedmutualcombatnorrequestedajuryinstructiononthatdefenseattrial. ,2$+0 However,theappellantadmittedthatthedefensestrategyfromthebeginningwastopursueatheoryofselfdefense.Counseltestifiedthattheselfdefensetheorywasbaseduponappellantsversionoftheeventsprecedingtheshooting.Theappellanttoldhiscounselthattherewasnomutualfightbetweenhimselfandthevictim,butinstead,thevictimfollowedhimoutsidethetavernandattackedhimwithaknife.Theappellantfurtherstatedthathisonlyfightwiththevictimwasthebriefexchangeofwordsinsidethebar.      Counselsdecisiontopursueatheoryofselfdefenseattrialmustbereviewedwithdeferenceandfromthecounselsperspectiveatthattime.SeeStrickland,466 h` U.S.at689,104S.Ct.at2065;Hellardv.State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982).Every 4, effortismadetoavoidjudgingcounselsperformancefromhindsight;however,wemustensurethattheappellantwasaffordedreasonablyeffectiveandcompetentassistanceattrial.SeeHellard,629S.W.2dat9.   Inthatrespect,weacknowledgethatappellantscounselinvestigatedthecaseandformulatedadefensestrategybaseduponthefactsandcircumstancessurroundingtheshooting.Theappellantspositionfromthefirstmeetingwithhiscounselwasthatheshotthevictimonlytoprotecthimselffromtheallegedknifeattack.Therecord,includingappellantsowntestimony,reflectsthattherewasnomutualfightbetweenappellantandthevictimatthetimeoftheshooting. Fromourreview,eveniftheevidencesomehowwarrantedajurychargeonmutualcombat,defensecounselsfailuretorequestitdoesnotrisetothelevelofineffectiveassistance.Weconcludethatthetacticaldecisionsandservicesprovidedbyappellantscounselwerewellwithinthestandarddemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Appellantscontentioniswithoutmerit. Basedupontheforegoing,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed . 񛀀  0      8     ___________________________  0      8     WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUDGE 706 ЇCONCUR:_________________________JOSEPHM.TIPTON,JUDGE_________________________̜CURWOODWITT,JUDGE 706  P       @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@*ATKNOXVILLE@&JANUARY1998SESSIONBILLYJOE  BOURFF     8   )     0      8   )   @ NO.  03C01  9705CR00189    Appellant     8   )     0      8   )   @ CampbellCountyNo.8815   v.  0      8   )     0      8   )   @ HON.LEE  ASBURY     STATEOFTENNESSEE   8   ) z    0      8   )   @ (PostConviction) h`  Appellee     8   ) NF   0      8   )   @ Affirmed 4,   0      8   )  @TT,JUDGMENT   Cametheappellant,BillyJoe  Bourff  ,byandthroughcounsel,andalsocametheattorneygeneralonbehalfoftheState,andthiscasewasheardontherecordonappealfromtheCriminalCourtofCampbellCounty;andinconsiderationthereof,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatthereisnoerrorinthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Inaccordancewiththeopinionfiledherein,itis,therefore,orderedandadjudgedthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthecaseisremandedtotheCriminalCourtofCampbellCountyfortheexecutionofthejudgmentofthatcourtandforthecollectionofthecostsaccruedbelow. CostsofappealwillpaidintothisCourtbytheappellantforwhichexecutionshallissueifnecessary.o]  0      8   WilliamM.Barker,Judge  0      8   JosephM.  Tipton  ,Judge  0      8     Curwood    Witt  ,Judge