WPC# 1{{BB֑ _lb@x/FY>) fJ5M&:57a Uo 1u 72hhwb 1e 0 B   0& D5 D- 0K,, ASw 0 0D4 Ax\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular*GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   Ӹ1  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptb.3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  (#$  0  *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   \  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) m RO$      1     _Althoughthepetitionerinhispetitionraisedtheissueofallegedracialdiscriminationintheselectionofthe  juryandtrialcounselsallegedfailuretoobjecttoit,hedoesnotpursuethisargumentonappeal.  RO$      2     _Thepetitionerstrialoccurredin1998,priortothereleaseofthedecisionin_Momon_Ԁv.State,18S.W.3d152  (Tenn.1999),whichrequiresacolloquyontherecordbythedefendantregardinghisrightnottotestify.- - 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|G2O$ !.8Xdd8         0   d(|3G$ !.8Xdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Xdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\ dd8     _   \ 8XXdd8@tt@\ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#\ @ #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsOctober26,2004 L XX\  #\ XX #Ԁ_LACONIA_ԀLAMARBOWERSV.STATEOFTENNESSEEXX\   J @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.74942Richard_Baumgartner_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200400347CCAR3PCFiledDecember28,_2004_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XXXXThepetitioner,_Laconia_ԀLamarBowers,wasconvictedbyajuryofseconddegreemurder.The x  convictionwasaffirmedondirectappeal,seeStatev._Laconia_ԀLamarBowers,No.E199900170 d CCAR3CD,2000WL15020(Tenn._Crim_.App.atKnoxville,Jan.11,2000),andonappealtothe P SupremeCourtofTennessee.SeeStatev.Ely,48S.W.3d710(Tenn.2001).Thepetitionernow < seekspostconvictionreliefonthebasisofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Forthefollowing (x reasons,weaffirmthepostconvictioncourtsdismissalofthepostconvictionpetition. d #XXXX##\ XX#XX\  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtisAffirmed. <    #\ Xw#XX.\ JerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.GlennandJ.C._McLin_,  JJ.,joined.  J._Liddell_ԀKirk,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Laconia_ԀLamarBowers.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;MichelleChapman_McIntire_,AssistantAttorney ` General;RandallE._Nichols_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andPhilipH.Morton,AssistantDistrict L  AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. 8!     `     h #\ XXD #XX\  @@OO& OPINION #\ XX #XX\  #L# #\ XX #  \ \ @! @@!XX\ FactualBackground %$!%    `   OnApril21,1996,Peter_Whatmough_ԀandStacy_Yessler_ԀweretravelingthroughKnoxville )$) enroutefromFloridatoOhio._Whatmough_Ԁand_Yessler_Ԁvisitedthehousingprojectsandpurchased p*%* threerocksofcrackcocaine.Theysmokedtherocksattheirmotel,thenreturnedtothehousing \+&+ projecttopurchasemorecrackcocaine._Yessler_Ԁspotted_Artis_ԀBonner,thepersonfromwhomshe H,', hadboughtcrackcocaineearlierthatday._Whatmough_Ԁand_Yessler_ԀsummonedBonnertothevehicle 4-(- _todiscussanotherdrugtransaction.ApparentlyanagreementwasreachedandBonnerleftthe  vehicleandenteredanearbyapartmenttoprocurethedrugs.    Afewminuteslater,Bonnerreturnedtothevehicle,gotin,andtoldWhatmoughandYessler t to hurryupandgetonoutofthere.AsWhatmoughstartedthevehicleandplaceditindrive,he ` wasfatallyshotinthehead. L    Thepetitionerwaschargedinatwocountindictmentwithalternativecountsoffelony $ t murder,i.e.,murderintheperpetrationofarobberyandmurderintheperpetrationofatheft.  `   Bonnerinformedthepoliceduringtheinvestigationandattrialthatthepetitionerwasthe  8  personhesawshootWhatmough.However,Bonnerrecantedportionsofhistestimonyoncross $  examinationattrial,includingdenyingthathehadtoldthepolicethatthepetitionerwastheshooter.   BonneradmittedthathewasoriginallychargedwiththemurderofWhatmoughandexplainedthat   heimplicatedthepetitionerinordertogetoutofjail.     Anotherwitness,ReginaChatham,testifiedthatshesawthepetitionerintheareawhenthe p shootingoccurred.However,Chathamalsorecantedaportionofherstatementinwhichshetold \ thepolicethatshesawthepetitionerrunningawayfromthescenewithagun.Chathamclaimed H thatshewasmadatthepetitionerwhensheprovidedherinitialstatementtopolice. 4   Attheconclusionoftheproof,defensecounselmovedforajudgmentofacquittalonthe  \ basisthattheStateintroducednoproofoftheunderlyingfelonies.TheStateconcededandthetrial H courtgrantedthemotionforjudgmentofacquittal.Thetrialcourtinstructedthejuryonseveral 4 lesserincludedoffensesoffelonymurderandthejuryultimatelyconvictedthepetitionerofsecond   degreemurder.     Ondirectappeal,thepetitioneraskedthiscourttodetermine:(1)whetherseconddegree  murderisalesserincludedoffenseoralessergradeoffenseoffelonymurder;(2)thesufficiencyof  theevidence;and(3)thesentence.Bowers,2000WL15020,at*1.ThisCourtconcludedthat l seconddegreemurderisalesserincludedoffenseoffelonymurderandaffirmedthepetitioners X  convictionandsentence.Id.at*7.ThepetitionerthensoughtreviewfromtheTennesseeSupreme D! Court,whichgrantedpermissiontoappealonJuly10,2000.TheTennesseeSupremeCourt 0"  affirmedthepetitionersconviction,determiningthatseconddegreemurderwasindeedalesser #l! includedoffenseoffelonymurder.Ely,48S.W.3dat72122. $X"   Thepetitionerthensoughtpostconvictionreviewbyfilingaprosepetitionforpost %0!$ convictionreliefwhichalleged,interalia,ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Thepostconviction &"% courtappointedcounselforthepetitionerandanamendedpetitionwasfiled.Theamendedpetition '#& allegedthatthepetitionersconvictionwasvoidbecausehisconstitutionalrightswereviolatedat (#' trialwhenhewasdenieddueprocessandreceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Insupportof )$( hisclaim,thepetitionerallegedthattrialcounselwasineffectivebecausehe:(1) failedtofully |*%) investigatethecircumstancesofthecaseandtopresentavailableevidenceinrefutingthestates h+&* theoryofthecase,specificallybyintroducingthepetitionersversionoftheevents;and(2)failed  tochallengethejuryasimpartialwhenAfricanAmericanjurorswereimproperlyexcluded.! #  1          Atthepostconvictionhearing,thepetitionertestifiedthattrialcounseladvisedhimofhis t righttotestifyduringtrial.Herecalledthattrialcounseltoldhim, Itdbein...[his]bestinterest ` nottotestifyandthat,basedontrialcounselsadvice,heelectednottotestify.Thepetitioner L  testifiedthathe wouldhavelikedtotell...[his]sideofthestory.Thepetitionerclaimedhe 8  wouldhavetestifiedthathewaspresentonthedayoftheincident,butthathedidnothaveaweapon $ t anddidnotfireaweapon.Herememberedhearinggunshots,butclaimsthathe duck[ed]andran.  ` Thepetitionerdidnotclaimthattrialcounselforbadehimtotestify,butmerelythattrialcounsel  L  advisedhimnottotestify.Thepetitioneralsoadmittedthathedidnottelltrialcounselwhatthe  8  substanceofhistestimonywouldhavebeenifhewerecalledtothestand.Thepetitioneralsonoted $  thattrialcounselwastheonetoinformthecourtthatthepetitionerwaswaivinghisrighttotestify." #  2      ׀     Trialcounseltestifiedthathehadbeenpracticinglawsince1986,thatmostofhiscaseswere   criminal,andthathehadhandled severalfirstdegreemurdercases.Trialcounselrepresentedthe   petitionerattheinitialtrialandonappeal.Trialcounselcommentedonhisadvicetothepetitioner p asfollows: \ 8   ` Well,Ineverstopsomebodyfromtestifying.Infact,itstheirdecision.I 4 alwaystellthem, Itsuptoyouwhetheryoutestifyoryoudont.Ibelieveinthis  p caseIdidadvise...[thepetitioner]heIthinkwehadadiscussion.Hesaid,  \  Whatdoyouthink?AndIsaid, InmyopinionIdontthinkyoushouldtestify H becauseallyoucantestifytois, Ididntdoit.Itwasntme.Andwehadsome 4 evidenceorsomeaspectsofourinvestigationwewerealittleconcernedmight   comebackagainst...[thepetitioner].And,frankly,aftergettingthewitnesses   someofthestateswitnessestorecanttheirtestimonyandadmittheylied,frankly,  Ifeltlikeputting...[thepetitioner]onjusttogetupandsay, Ididntdoit,I  thoughtwedruntheriskofhavinghimgetupandsaysomethingthatthatwe  mightregrettothejurybecausewithcrossexaminationyouneverknowwhats l goingtocomeout....X    Trialcounselalsotestifiedthatheandthepetitionerdiscussedthepetitionersrighttotestifyboth 0"  priortotrialandonthedayoftrial.Hefurthernotedthatifhehadtotrythecaseagain,hewould #l! stillhaveadvisedthepetitionernottotestify. $X"   $D #   Attheconclusionofthehearing,thepostconvictioncourtdismissedthepetition.The  petitionerfiledatimelynoticeofappealchallengingthepostconvictioncourtsdismissalofthe  petitionforpostconvictionrelief.     PostConvictionStandardofReview ` a1#XXXX #XXXX  Tosustainapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,adefendantmustprovehisorherfactual 8  allegationsbyclearandconvincingevidenceatanevidentiaryhearing.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40 $ t 30110(f);#XXXX1#XXXXMomonv.State,18S.W.3d152,156(Tenn.1999)#XXXX'3#XXXX.Thepostconvictioncourtsfindings  ` offactareconclusiveonappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.SeeStatev.Burns,  L  6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999).Duringourreviewoftheissueraised,wewillaffordthose  8  findingsoffacttheweightofajuryverdict,andthiscourtisboundbythecourtsfindingsunlessthe $  evidenceintherecordpreponderatesagainstthosefindings.SeeHenleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,   578(Tenn.1997);Alleyv.State,958S.W.2d138,147(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).ThisCourtmay   notreweighorreevaluatetheevidence,norsubstituteitsinferencesforthosedrawnbythepost   convictioncourt.SeeStatev.Honeycutt,54S.W.3d762,766(Tenn.2001).Allquestions   concerningthecredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvaluetobegiventheirtestimony,andthe p factualissuesraisedbytheevidencearetoberesolvedbythetrialjudge,nottheappellatecourts. \ SeeMomon,18S.W.3dat156;Henley,960S.W.2dat57879.#XXXX3#XXXXHowever,thepostconviction H courtsconclusionsoflawarereviewedunderapurelydenovostandardwithnopresumptionof 4 correctness.SeeFieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,458(Tenn.2001).#XXXX8#XXXXԀ  p   IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel H B:  Thepetitionerarguesthathewasdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.BoththeSixth   AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,section9oftheTennesseeConstitution   guaranteeacriminaldefendanttherighttorepresentationbycounsel.SeeBurns,6S.W.3dat461;  Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Whenapetitionerseekspostconvictionrelief  onthebasisofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,thepetitionerbearstheburdenofshowingthat(a)  theservicesrenderedbytrialcounselweredeficientand(b)thatthedeficientperformancewas l prejudicial.SeePowersv.State,942S.W.2d551,558(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).Inorderto X  demonstratedeficientperformance,thepetitionermustshowthattheservicesrenderedortheadvice D! givenwasbelow therangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxter,523 0"  S.W.2dat936.Inordertodemonstrateprejudice,thepetitionermustshowthatthereisareasonable #l! probabilitythat,butforcounselsdeficientperformance,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhave $X" beendifferent.SeeStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,694(1984). Becauseapetitionermust $D # establishbothprongsofthetesttoprevailonaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,failureto %0!$ proveeitherdeficientperformanceorresultingprejudiceprovidesasufficientbasistodenyrelief &"% ontheclaim.Henley,960S.W.2dat580. '#&   Asnotedabove,thisCourtwillaffordthepostconvictioncourtsfactualfindingsa )$( presumptionofcorrectness,renderingthemconclusiveonappealunlesstherecordpreponderates |*%) againstthecourtsfindings.Seeid.at578.However,oursupremecourthas determinedthatissues h+&* ofdeficientperformancebycounselandpossibleprejudicetothedefensearemixedquestionsoflaw  andfact...;thus,[appellate]reviewof[theseissues]isdenovowithnopresumptionof  correctness.Burns,6S.W.3dat461.    Furthermore,onclaimsofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,thepetitionerisnotentitledto ` thebenefitofhindsight.SeeAdkinsv.State,911S.W.2d334,347(Tenn.1994).ThisCourtmay L  notsecondguessareasonablybasedtrialstrategy,andwecannotgrantreliefbasedonasound,but 8  unsuccessful,tacticaldecisionmadeduringthecourseoftheproceedings.Seeid.However,such $ t deferencetothetacticaldecisionsofcounselappliesonlyifcounselmakesthosedecisionsafter  ` adequatepreparationforthecase.SeeCooperv.State,847S.W.2d521,528(Tenn.Crim.App.  L  1992).  8    Inthecaseherein,thepetitionerclaimsthathereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel   becausetrialcounseladvisedhimnottotestifyonhisownbehalf.TheStatearguesthattheevidence   doesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt.Weagree.     Indismissingthepetitionforpostconvictionrelief,thetrialcourtstated: p 8   ` [Thepetitioner]ishereonapostconvictionreliefpetitionclaiming,in H essence,threegroundsforrelief,andthoseareallthathistrialcounselwas 4 ineffectiveinhisrepresentationofhimatthetrialofthiscase,firstofall,becausehe  p didnotfullyinvestigatethecaseanddevelopwitnesseswhowouldhavebeenuseful  \ to...[thepetitioner];second,...[thepetitioner]complainsthathedidnotcallhim H asawitnessinthiscaseandshouldhavedonesoandthatthatwasalsoineffective; 4 andlastly,thathefailedtocomplainwhentwoAfricanAmericanjurorswere   dismissedbythestatefromthiscaseandhewas,therefore,triedbyanallwhitejury.    8   ` ....   8   ` [W]ithregardtotheissueoftestifying,...[thepetitioner]himself l acknowledgesthattheyhadaconversationaboutit,thathewasadvisedhehadthe X  righttotestifyornottestify,andthat...[trialcounsel]advisedhimnottotestifyand D! hetookthatadvice.Hedidnotclaimthatthatwasthathiswillwasoverborneby 0"  that.Hejustclaimedthat thiswasmylawyer,andheadvisedmethatitwasbest, #l! inhisjudgment,thatInottestify,andIacceptedthatjudgment,anditsnowin $X" retrospectthathehasreconsideredwhetherornotheshouldhavedonethat.$D #   8   ` [Trialcounsel],ontheotherhand,testifiesagainthattheydidhavea &"% conversationaboutit,thathedidadvisehimthathefeltitwasbestforhimnotto '#& testify,thathehadbeen,inhisjudgment...[trialcounsels]judgment,successful (#' inweakeningthestatescasebyshowingthatthesewitnesseshadchangedtheir )$(  testimony,hadallegedlyliedtopolice,andthathedidnotfeelthat...[the |*%) petitioner]wasgoingtoaddanythingtoit,andhewantedtoavoidthepotentialthat  hewouldbesomehowincriminatehimselfinthematter.    8   ` Sotheresareasonableexplanationforthedecisionnottotestify.Theresan t acknowledgmentby...[thepetitioner]thatheagreedwiththatadvice,andIdonot ` believethatthatsagroundtofindineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.L      Wecannotconcludethattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindingsofthepost $ t convictioncourt.Therecordhereinestablishesthatthepetitionerwasadvisedbyboththetrialcourt  ` andtrialcounselthathehadtherighttotestifyandthattheultimatedecisionaboutwhethertotestify  L  washisown.Further,thepetitioneradmittedthattrialcounseldidnothingtopreventhimfrom  8  testifyingbutsimplyadvisedhimagainstdoingso.Thedecisiontoadvisethepetitionernotto $  testifywasclearlyatacticaldecision.Thepetitionerhaspresentednoproofthattheservices   renderedbytrialcounselweredeficientorthattrialcounselsdeficientperformancewasprejudicial.   Further,therecordsupportsthepostconvictioncourtsdismissalofthepetition.SeeAllenDale   Cutshawv.State,No.E200200438CCAR3PC,2003WL147025(Tenn.Crim.App.at   Knoxville,Jan.22,2003)(determiningthatthepetitionerwasnotentitledtopostconvictionrelief p wheretheevidenceshowedthattrialcounseladvisedhimagainst,butdidnotprohibitthepetitioner \ fromtestifyingattrial).Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourt. H   Conclusion  p Y  Fortheforegoingreasons,thejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtisaffirmed. H #XXXX:#XXXX   ` #XXXXZ#   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE