WPCc ;KU>>i>瀸w3^Gq )J:uGmz4p+UF[[4nj& \a)yS9C"Cx1eV= QgScLVcZ"vJ f{%:v 8 0V0qHܳP,zPJsX_S> R&@S8'H:XsɉPb%A۳yMJ@q|Q@^֡X_lv>_sYEx_BW]|x}Rz\OAGQ.ƌ<g. +tg:c4\ǹǎMtm0%XmsXLni2j.划5inGzz0~W,!moxgBY^&HOtkIߞc"3K4*b(bUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1 0DN;==EVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVbXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 0```` BKK 0h D3  D-? 0Kll AS  0 0Dt A(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    Q-s PH,:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R"9$      1  |  _ThesewitnessesincludedboththeAppellants,theirsisterDarlene,Darlenesboyfriend,andAngelBrandons  boyfriend.- -(|G2"9$ !.8.dd8         0  | d(|3x$ !.8.dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3x$ !.8.dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8.dd8     _   .8gXXdd8@tt(.INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#.( #Ԉ &   August13,2002Session L XgX. #.XXg#STATEOFTENNESSEEv._RICKY_ԀBRANDONandJIMMYW.BRANDONXgX.  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforCoffeeCounty  J @@No.30,611L.CraigJohnson,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200200073CCAR3CDFiledOctober15,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }      XgXXXgTheAppellants,_Ricky_ԀBrandonandJimmyW.Brandon,wereconvictedbyaCoffeeCountyjury x  ofmisdemeanorassault.Inthisdirectappealoftheirconvictions,theAppellantsarguethatthey d receivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselattrialand,assuch,theirconvictionsshouldbevacated. P Afterreview,wefindnoerrorandaffirmthejudgment. < #XgXX Xg##.XXgȧ#XgX. Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  d   #.Xg#XgX..DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.RileyandNormaMcGee < Ogle,JJ.,joined. ( RobertL._Huskey_,Manchester,Tennessee,fortheAppellants,_Ricky_ԀBrandonandJimmyBrandon.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;KimR.  Helper,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;C.Michael_Layne_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andDougAaron, t AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. ` #.XXgȿ#XgX.@@OO& OPINION #.XXgȾ #XgX. $"t!  FactualBackground  #L# #.XXg1 #  XgX.  XgXXXg  TheAppellantsconvictionsstemfromanaltercationonApril5,2000,withtheirneighbor, %$!% FredNash.TheAppellants,whoarebrothers,wereinitiallyindictedforaggravatedassault,along &"& withtheirsister,DarleneBrandon,whowaschargedwithsimpleassault.Followingajurytrial,the '"' Appellantswerefoundguiltyofthelesseroffenseofassault,andDarlenewasacquittedofall (#( charges.IllwillbetweenNashandtheAppellantswasapparentlyfirmlyentrenched.Thislatest )$) incidentfollowedanepisodewhereadrunkenJimmyBrandonstruckNashintheeyeandNash p*%* reciprocatedbybreakingaglassoverBrandonshead.OnApril5th,thevictim,Nash,andhiswife \+&+ drovefromtheirdrivewaypasttheAppellants,whowereworkingon_Ricky_struck.Accordingto H,', _Ricky_ԀBrandon,asthevictimdrovebyhim, gravelswassprayingallovermytruck.Inresponse, 4-(- _Ricky_ԀBrandon flippedthebirdatthevictim.Nashstoppedhistruck,grabbedacanofmaceand  walkedbacktowardtheAppellant,_Ricky_ԀBrandon.Fromthispointforward,therearematerial  conflictsinthetestimonyoftheprosecutionanddefensewitnesses.    InthelightmostfavorabletotheState,theproofestablishedthat_Ricky_ԀBrandonrushed ` towardthevictim,hittinghimintheface.TheAppellant,JimmyBrandon,joinedinthefray, L  helpinghisbrother beatthesoupoutofthevictim.Asaresultofthebeating,thevictimlosttwo 8  teethandreceivedmultiplefacialabrasionsandcontusions,resultingintwohospitalizations. $ t   Attrial,theAppellant,_Ricky_ԀBrandon,admittedtostrikingthevictim;however,heargued  L  thathisconductwasjustifiedupongroundsofselfdefense.TheAppellant,JimmyBrandon,  8  presentedanalibidefense,whichincludedfivewitnesseswhotestifiedthathewasnotpresentwhen $  theassaultoccurred. #  1      ׀CoffeeCountyDeputySheriffDanny_Ferrell_Ԁtestifiedthatherespondedtothe   sceneandtookstatementsfromthosepresent.Healsoadmittedtakingpossessionofthemacecan   usedinthealtercation._Ferrell_Ԁfurthertestifiedthatthecanandonestatementweresubsequentlylost,   whenadepartmentsergeantlefttheforce.   @& Analysis \   TheAppellantssolegroundwithintheirmotionfornewtrialraisestheissueofineffective 4 assistanceofcounselattrial.Wehaverepeatedlyheldthat,  p 8  [_T]he_Ԁpracticeofraisingineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimsondirectappealis H fraughtwithperilsinceitisvirtuallyimpossibletodemonstrateprejudiceas 4 requiredwithoutanevidentiaryhearing.SeeKirbyGeorgeWallacev.State,No.   01C019308CC00275(Tenn._Crim_.App.atNashville,Sept.15,1994).Instead,   ineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimsshouldnormallyberaisedbypetitionfor  postconvictionrelief.Statev._Derenzy_ԀTurnerandVernonWest,No.02C019512  CR00390(Tenn._Crim_.App.atJackson,July11,1997)perm.toappealdenied,  (Tenn.1998).l   Statev.BobbyVincent_Blackmon_,No.M200003149CCAR3CD(Tenn._Crim_.App.atNashville, D! Nov.16,2001). 0"    Theinsertionofanineffectiveassistanceclaimwithinamotionfornewtrialessentially $X" transformsthehearingonthemotionintoapostconvictionproceeding.Statev.KathyJaneGiles, $D # No.W200101468CCAR3CD(Tenn._Crim_.App.atJackson,Apr.2,2002).Inapostconviction %0!$ proceeding,theAppellantbearstheburdenofestablishinghisclaimsbyclearandconvincing &"% evidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f)(1997).Toprevailonappeal,theAppellantisrequired '#& todemonstrateboththatcounselsperformancewasdeficientandthatprejudiceresultedfromthe (#' deficiency._Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct.2052,2064(1984).The  reviewingcourtneednotdeterminewhethercounselsperformancewasdeficientbeforeexamining  theprejudicesufferedbytheAppellantasaresultoftheallegeddeficiency.Id.at697.    Whenreviewingaclaimofineffectiveassistance,thecourtmustdecidewhethercounsels ` representationfellbelowtherangeofcompetencedemandedbyattorneysincriminalcases.Baxter L  v.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Theissuesofdeficientperformancebycounseland 8  possibleprejudicetothedefensearemixedquestionsoflawandfact;thus,ourreviewofthecase $ t isdenovo.Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999).  `   Withregardtotheirrespectiveclaims,theAppellantsargue:  8  8  1.WasDefendant,JimmyBrandon,deniedeffectiveassistanceofcounselby   counselfailingtopresenttothejuryhisemployerwhosetestimonywouldbeanalibi   fortheDefendantandshowthathewasnotpresentatthesceneofthecrimeandfor   failingtosubpoenaRichardSpencerwhowaspresentandcouldverifyJimmy   Brandonsabsence?p   8  2.Was_Ricky_ԀBrandondeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounselwhenhisattorney, H despitehisrequest,failedtosubmitintoevidencethemacecanthatprovedself 4 defenseandtheevidenceofthestatementstakenatthescenewhichwouldbringinto  p questionthecredibilityoftheallegedvictim? \     Atthemotionfornewtrial,theAppellantscallednowitnessestosupporteitheroftheir 4 claims.Instead,theyeachsubmittedaffidavits,withtheAppellantsasthe_affiants_,essentiallysetting   forthfactssupportingtheirineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaims.TheaffidavitoftheAppellant,   JimmyBrandon,insum,assertsthat hewasnotatthesceneoftheincidentoftheallegedassault  ofthevictimandthatherequestedthathisattorneysubpoenahisemployerandRichardSpenceras  alibiwitnessesathistrial.TheAppellant,_Ricky_ԀBrandon,assertsthatherequestedhisattorney  obtainstatementspreparedbytheinvestigatingdeputysheriffandthemacecanforproductionat l trial,whichwasnotdone. X    First,weareconstrainedtonotethefollowingestablishedprinciplesrelatingtothe 0"  admissibilityofaffidavitsasevidence: #l! 8  Anaffidavitisordinarilynotadmissibletoprovefactsinissueatanevidentiary $D # hearing,becauseitisnotsubjecttocrossexaminationandwouldimproperlyshiftthe %0!$ burdenofprooftotheadverseparty....Affidavitsaregenerallynotcompetent &"% evidenceunlessprovidedbystatute....Asageneralrule,apartyisnotpermittedto '#& createanissueoffactbysubmitting_a[n_]affidavitwhoseconclusionscontradicta (#' priordepositionorothersworntestimony.)$(     |*%) 3Am._Jur_.2dAffidavits19(2002).Moreover,affidavitsareincapableofcredibilityassessment,   whichisoftentimespivotalindeterminingineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaims.    Itisawellestablishedprinciplethatreliefundertheprejudiceprongiscontingentuponthe t Appellantproducingmaterialwitnessesatthepostconvictionhearingwhowouldhavetestified ` favorablyinsupportofhisdefenseifcalledattrial.Blackv.State,794S.W.2d752,757(Tenn. L  _Crim_.App.1990)(emphasisadded).Failuretopresentsuchwitnessesprecludessatisfactionofthe 8  _Strickland_standard.Id.at758. $ t   Inthecasebeforeus,theonlyproofpresentedatthemotionfornewtrialhearingwasthe  L  affidavitsoftheAppellants,whichthemselvescontainednonewinformation.Wefindthesefacts  8  insufficientandtheuseoftheaffidavitsinappropriateinestablishingtheAppellantsburdenofproof $  byclearandconvincingevidence.Thetrialcourtsdenialofpostconvictionreliefisaffirmed.   #XgXX Xg #   `     h     ___________________________________ H    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE