ÿWPC‹ &ˆuïÃ%) ¶wrd½¹×Å–*㜋º')z[ˆ)‹nßD)» Û”x…-HÛøˢʿÿÚvÍlküäôÇ–$3Päð–Püw+èM×,€ÏPͶž9ªEaÀ‹F•Ñ*µOgƒÁÌÔá]/ú²R;Au†S€/*µÓÝ“ßc;A¡Ä‰O,ç~ ¶Vôf¬Nv_ø»(t(0Øžº1Ið>ÓehÍB¼§< Äã}AMy™A ?zÜ©†—küŠß;(ÑU †T2ËÄã J9O®Ò¿£`/{¬}áTZÿ3&ÇhíÞ$ÕÎOœÙ!¥”Ø~,Z*s&ŒÂLß%€¾RnQÌmæŠ3úFþ–òRÁµ»!ñðñb %\UNb 0ˆ°U#N8φjU ^ ¿ zËÒEw4/>Æ@ÆÆÌÆ’ mXNo#ÉqqE::::::::::::::::::: 0D<<<<<b€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ 0눈ˆˆ Bss 0¤ D34 D-g 0K”” ASßÆ2 0¤ø 0Dœ A«à»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ÅÝ ƒRB$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯µò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðAlthough€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€dangerÐ ° Ðof€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€of€time,Ð tÄ Ðor€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ðð `Ý ƒRB$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯µò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðEvidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€showÐ ° Ðaction€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€The€conditions€whichÐ tÄ Ðmust€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€Ô_ÔareÔ_Ô:€€(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearing€outside€the€juryððsÐ 8ˆ Ðpresence;€(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issue€exists€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€a€character€traitÐ üL Ðand€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€the€material€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admitting€the€evidence;€(3)Ð À ÐThe€court€must€find€proof€of€the€other€crime,€wrong,€or€act€to€be€clear€and€convincing;€Ô_Ôand€(Ô_Ô4)€The€court€must€excludeÐ „Ô Ðthe€evidence€if€its€probative€value€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.ðð®˜G1Þ  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptóbï.ê:i¢Ø+003|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2B$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€i»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯µò»»Ô d(|3¿m$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€i»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿m$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€i»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€i»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼i»»»ÔÑ8€K XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î tiÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼i»îî t #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€27,€2004Ð üL ÐÔ‡XK X»¼iÔÌò òÔ#†¼i»XXK #ÔÔ_ÔDEMETRIUSÔ_Ô€K.€HOLMES€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XK X»¼iÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€76368€€€€€€Richard€Ô_ÔBaumgartnerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„02306„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€October€7,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€Ô_ÔDemetriusÔ_Ô€K.€Holmes,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€first€degree€felony€murder€andÐ xÈ  Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€Defendantððs€convictions€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóóÐ d´ ÐòòState€v.€Ô_ÔDemetriusÔ_Ô€K.€Holmesóó,€No.€E2001„00660„CCA„R3CD,€2002€WL€1611565€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð P  ÐApp.,€Knoxville,€July€23,€2002).€€The€Defendant€subsequently€petitioned€for€post„conviction€relief,Ð <Œ Ðalleging€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial,€in€conjunction€with€his€motion€forÐ (x Ðnew€trial,€and€on€direct€appeal.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€relief.€€FindingÐ d Ðconstitutional€error€in€the€jury€instructions€provided€at€the€Defendantððs€trial€and€ineffectiveÐ P Ðassistance€of€appellate€counsel€in€failing€to€raise€the€error€on€direct€appeal,€we€vacate€theÐ ì< ÐDefendantððs€convictions€and€remand€this€matter€for€a€new€trial.€€Ð Ø( ÐÓòÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed;Ð ° ÐConviction€Vacated;€Remandedó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼i»àXK ­#ÔÔ‡XK X.¼iÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòJamesÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌÔ_ÔLiddellÔ_Ô€Kirk,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michelle€Chapman€Ô_ÔMcIntireÔ_Ô,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ #`" ÐGeneral;€Randall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Philip€Morton,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ ü#L# ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼i»XXK O #ÔÔ‡XK X»¼iÔÐ À&"& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼i»XXK ‡ #ÔÔ‡XK X»¼iÔÓ  Óà  àA€brief€review€of€the€facts€adduced€at€trial€will€be€helpful.€€The€victim,€Clarence€Arnold,€wasÐ ˜(è#( Ða€frequent€customer€of€Ô_ÔArethaÔ_Ô€Cross,€a€prostitute€and€crack€cocaine€addict.€€Ms.€Cross€had€alsoÐ „)Ô$) Ðknown€the€Defendant€for€several€years€and€had€often€bought€crack€cocaine€from€him.€€On€theÐ p*À%* Ðmorning€of€May€19,€1999,€Ms.€Cross€witnessed€the€victim€buy€some€crack€from€the€Defendant.€Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âLater,€the€victim€purchased€drugs€from€another€individual€and,€during€the€transaction,€the€DefendantÐ H,˜',ý ÐÔ_Ôarrived€unexpectedly€and€became€angry.€€Ms.€Cross€testified€that€the€Defendant€told€them,€ð ðDonððtÐ ° Ðthink€Iððm€playing€with€yaððll;€Iððm€going€to€get€a€gun.ððÐ œì Ðâ âÌà  àThat€afternoon,€Ms.€Cross€and€the€victim€were€in€an€apartment€that€Ms.€Cross€frequented.€Ð tÄ ÐShe€opened€the€door€and€found€the€Defendant€standing€in€the€doorway.€€The€Defendant€asked€themÐ `° Ðif€they€ð ðneed[ed]€any€crack,ðð€to€which€she€responded€in€the€negative.€€The€Defendant€then€pointedÐ L œ Ða€gun€at€the€victim€and€demanded€money.€€Ms.€Cross€panicked€and€told€the€victim€to€give€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐDefendant€the€money.€€As€the€victim€handed€money€to€the€Defendant,€Ms.€Cross€ran€out€of€theÐ $ t Ðapartment€and€hid€in€a€nearby€corner.€€She€then€heard€a€single€gunshot.€€As€the€Defendant€left€theÐ  ` Ðapartment,€he€pointed€the€gun€at€Ms.€Cross€and€said,€ð ðYou€the€only€one€know€.€.€.€what€I€done,€andÐ ü L  ÐI€will€kill€you.ððÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àMs.€Cross€ran€into€the€apartment€to€find€the€victim€bleeding€from€the€chest.€€She€called€911Ð À  Ðand€told€the€dispatcher€that€she€did€not€know€who€shot€the€victim.€€She€also€told€police€officersÐ ¬ü  Ðinitially€that€she€did€not€know€who€shot€the€victim.€€She€subsequently€identified€the€Defendant€toÐ ˜è  Ðthe€police€as€the€shooter,€and€identified€the€Defendant€from€a€photographic€line„up.€€She€maintainedÐ „Ô  Ðat€trial€that€the€Defendant€shot€the€victim.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€victim€died€from€a€single€gunshot€wound€to€the€chest.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àPolice€officer€Joe€Cox€testified€that€he€arrived€on€the€scene€of€the€shooting€at€ð ðalmost€5Ð  p Ðoððclock.ðð€€By€that€time,€medical€personnel€were€already€working€on€the€victim.€€There€was€noÐ  \ Ðphysical€evidence€connecting€the€Defendant€to€the€crime.€Ð øH ÐÔ#†¼i»XXK å #ÔÔ‡XK X»¼iÔÌà  àThe€Defendant€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€His€theory€of€defense€was€that€he€was€not€the€shooter.€Ð Ð  ÐDalandra€Porter,€a€friend€of€the€Defendantððs,€testified€that€the€Defendant€had€arrived€at€her€residenceÐ ¼  Ðbetween€3:00€and€3:30€on€the€afternoon€of€the€murder€and€ð ðstayed€till€about€5:30ðð€that€afternoon.€Ð ¨ø ÐDalandra€also€testified€that€it€would€take€fifteen€to€twenty€minutes€to€drive€from€her€residence€to€theÐ ”ä Ðcrime€scene.€€Sandy€Porter,€Ms.€Porterððs€mother,€testified€that€she€lived€with€her€daughter.€€SheÐ €Ð Ðexplained€that€the€Defendant€visited€them€twice€on€the€afternoon€of€May€19,€arriving€the€first€timeÐ l¼ Ðin€the€ð ðearly€afternoon,ðð€and€arriving€the€second€time€ð ðaround€5:00€or€a€little€after.ðð€€She€stated€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthe€Defendant€stayed€ð ðfor€a€whileðð€both€times.€€She€also€stated€that€it€would€take€ð ðabout€ten€minutesððÐ D!” Ðto€drive€from€their€apartment€to€the€crime€scene.€€Detective€Sam€Brown€testified€in€rebuttal€that€itÐ 0"€  Ðtook€ð ðless€than€five€minutesðð€to€drive€from€the€crime€scene€to€the€street€where€the€Porters€lived.€€€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIn€spite€of€the€defense€witnessesðð€testimony,€defense€counsel€did€not€request,€and€the€trialÐ ô$D # Ðcourt€did€not€give,€a€jury€instruction€on€alibi.€€After€the€trial,€the€Defendant€obtained€new€counselÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€his€motion€for€new€trial;€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€give€an€alibi€instruction€was€not,€however,Ð Ì&"% Ðraised.€€After€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€denied,€the€Defendant€obtained€yet€another€lawyer,€whoÐ ¸'#& Ðhandled€his€direct€appeal.€€Appellate€counsel€did€not€raise€as€an€issue€the€missing€alibi€instruction.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€his€claim€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€Defendant€alleges€that€his€trial€counsel,€new€trialÐ ° Ðâ âcounsel€and€direct€appeal€counsel€were€all€ineffective€in€failing€to€pursue€the€issue€of€the€trial€courtððsÐ œì Ðfailure€to€provide€the€jury€with€an€instruction€on€the€defense€of€alibi.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà@dd!ìàò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óˆÐ `° ÐÔ‡XK XXXK Ôà  àBoth€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€theÐ L œ ÐTennessee€Constitution€guarantee€a€criminal€defendant€the€right€to€representation€by€counsel.€€òòSeeóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐòòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€Ð $ t ÐBoth€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€have€recognized€that€theÐ  ` Ðright€to€such€representation€includes€the€right€to€ð ðreasonably€effectiveðð€assistance,€that€is,€within€theÐ ü L  Ðrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466Ð è 8  ÐU.S.€668,€687€(1984);€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461;€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àA€lawyerððs€assistance€to€his€or€her€client€is€ineffective€if€the€lawyerððs€conduct€ð ðsoÐ ¬ü  Ðundermined€the€proper€functioning€of€the€adversarial€process€that€the€trial€cannot€be€relied€on€asÐ ˜è  Ðhaving€produced€a€just€result.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€686.€€This€overall€standard€is€comprised€ofÐ „Ô  Ðtwo€components:€deficient€performance€by€the€defendantððs€lawyer,€and€actual€prejudice€to€theÐ pÀ Ðdefense€caused€by€the€deficient€performance.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€687;€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.€€The€defendantÐ \¬ Ðbears€the€burden€of€establishing€both€of€these€components€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÐ H˜ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„110(f);€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.€€The€defendantððs€failure€to€prove€eitherÐ 4„ Ðdeficiency€or€prejudice€is€a€sufficient€basis€upon€which€to€deny€relief€on€an€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ  p Ðcounsel€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€evaluating€a€lawyerððs€performance,€the€reviewing€court€uses€an€objective€standard€ofÐ ä4 Ðð ðreasonableness.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€688;€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462òòóó.€€The€reviewing€courtÐ Ð  Ðmust€be€highly€deferential€to€counselððs€choices€ð ðand€should€indulge€a€strong€presumption€thatÐ ¼  Ðcounselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance.ðð€€òòBurnsóó,€6Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.3d€at€462;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689.€€The€court€should€not€use€the€benefit€ofÐ ”ä Ðhindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€or€to€criticize€counselððs€tactics,€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982),€and€counselððs€alleged€errors€should€be€judged€in€light€of€all€the€facts€andÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances€as€of€the€time€they€were€made,€òòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€240,€246€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àA€trial€courtððs€determination€of€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim€presents€a€mixedÐ #l! Ðquestion€of€law€and€fact€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).€€ThisÐ $X" ÐCourt€reviews€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€with€regard€to€the€effectiveness€of€counsel€under€a€òòdeóóÐ ô$D # Ðòònovoóó€standard,€accompanied€with€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correct€unless€theÐ à%0!$ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€ð ðHowever,€a€trial€courtððs€òòconclusions€of€lawóó„„Ð Ì&"% Ðsuch€as€whether€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€or€whether€that€deficiency€was€prejudicial„„areÐ ¸'#& Ðreviewed€under€a€purely€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€standard,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€given€to€the€trialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcourtððs€conclusions.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ô#†XK XXXK "#Ô€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð )à$( ÐÔ#†¼i»XXK Á#ÔÔ‡XK X»¼iÔÌÐ h+¸&* Їà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àÔ#†¼i»XXK a2#ÔÔ‡XK X»¼iÔA€trial€court€has€the€affirmative€duty€to€instruct€the€jury€on€every€issue€raised€by€the€proof,Ð œì Ðincluding€the€defendantððs€theory€of€defense,€and€specifically€including€alibi.€€òòSeeóó€òòPoe€v.€Stateóó,€370Ð ˆØ ÐS.W.2d€488,€489€(Tenn.€1963).€€Our€pattern€jury€instruction€on€alibi€provides€as€follows:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€defendant€has€presented€evidence€of€an€alibi€in€this€case.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àAn€alibi€is€defined€as€evidence€which,€if€believed,€would€establish€that€theÐ $ t Ðdefendant€was€not€present€at€the€scene€of€the€alleged€crime€when€it€allegedlyÐ  ` Ðoccurred.€€If€the€defendant€was€not€present€when€the€crime€was€committed,€he€cannotÐ ü L  Ðbe€guilty.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€burden€is€on€the€state€to€prove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€theÐ À  Ðdefendant€was€at€the€scene€of€the€crime€when€it€was€committed.€€If€you€find€fromÐ ¬ü  Ðyour€consideration€of€all€the€evidence€that€the€state€has€failed€to€prove€beyond€aÐ ˜è  Ðreasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€was€at€the€scene€of€the€crime€when€it€wasÐ „Ô  Ðcommitted,€you€must€find€the€defendant€not€guilty.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌT.P.I.„„Crim.€42.13.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€must€instruct€the€jury€on€the€defense€of€alibi€when€it€is€ð ðfairly€raisedðð€by€theÐ  p Ðproof,€òòseeóó€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€500€S.W.2d€913,€915€(Tenn.€1973),€irrespective€of€whether€or€not€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€requests€the€instruction.€€òòSeeóó€òòPoeóó,€370€S.W.2d€at€491.€€Proof€of€an€alibi€sufficient€toÐ øH Ðrequire€an€instruction€exists€where€(1)€the€defendantððs€claim€that€he€was€not€at€the€scene€of€the€crimeÐ ä4 Ðis€corroborated€by€other€credible€witnesses;€(2)€the€victim€has€been€unable€to€identify€the€defendant;Ð Ð  Ðor€(3)€the€proof€against€the€defendant€is€wholly€circumstantial.€€òòSeeóó€òòManningóó,€500€S.W.2d€at€916.Ð ¼  ÐIn€this€case,€all€three€of€these€circumstances€exist:€€Dalandra€Porter€testified€that€the€Defendant€wasÐ ¨ø Ðin€her€presence€at€the€time€the€victim€was€shot;€the€victim€died€prior€to€identifying€his€shooter;€andÐ ”ä Ðthe€proof€against€the€Defendant€was€wholly€circumstantial.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€theÐ €Ð ÐDefendant€that€the€jury€should€have€received€an€instruction€on€the€defense€of€alibi.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€has€made€clear€that,€where€fairly€raised€by€the€proof,€the€trial€courtððs€dutyÐ D!” Ðto€instruct€the€jury€on€alibi€is€ð ðfundamentalðð€to€an€accusedððs€defense€and€ð ðessential€to€a€fair€trial.ðð€Ð 0"€  ÐòòPoeóó,€370€S.W.2d€at€489.€€A€trial€courtððs€error€in€this€regard€is,€therefore,€reversible€unless€theÐ #l! Ðreviewing€court€is€convinced€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€had€no€effect€on€the€outcomeÐ $X" Ðof€the€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòManningóó,€500€S.W.2d€at€916„17;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòMoffitt€v.€Stateóó,€29€S.W.3d€51,€55€(Tenn.Ð ô$D # ÐCrim.€App.€1999).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€determined€that€trial€counsel€had€not€been€ineffective€in€failing€toÐ ¸'#& Ðpursue€an€alibi€instruction€because,€according€to€her€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐDefendant€had€told€her€at€some€point€that€he€was€in€the€building€where€the€victim€was€killed€at€theÐ )à$( Ðtime€of€the€shot.€€Accordingly,€the€post„conviction€court€determined€that€it€would€have€beenÐ |*Ì%) Ðð ðunethicalðð€for€trial€counsel€to€have€requested€the€alibi€instruction,€even€thought€she€put€alibiÐ h+¸&* Ðwitnesses€on€the€stand.€€This€finding€does€not€address,€however,€the€trial€courtððs€independent€dutyÐ ° Ðto€have€given€the€alibi€instruction,€and€post„trial€counselððs€duty€to€have€questioned€the€fact€that€itÐ œì Ðwas€missing.€€The€post„conviction€court€did€not€make€any€findings€with€respect€to€whetherÐ ˆØ Ðsubsequent€counsel€had€been€ineffective€in€failing€to€pursue€this€issue.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àWe€are€cognizant,€of€course,€that€this€claim€comes€before€us€in€the€context€of€an€ineffectiveÐ L œ Ðassistance€of€counsel€claim.€€Had,€however,€this€issue€been€raised€on€direct€appeal,€we€are€confidentÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€this€Court€would€have€reversed€the€Defendantððs€convictions€and€remanded€the€matter€for€a€newÐ $ t Ðtrial.€€We€arrive€at€that€conclusion€because€the€sole€proof€of€the€Defendantððs€involvement€in€this€caseÐ  ` Ðcame€from€a€witness€with€serious€credibility€issues.€€The€Defendant€contested€this€proof€with€aÐ ü L  Ðwitness€of€his€own€who€testified€that€the€Defendant€was€with€her€at€the€time€the€crime€wasÐ è 8  Ðcommitted.€€The€jury€should€have€been€instructed€on€how€to€evaluate€these€two€competing€claims.€Ð Ô$  ÐBased€on€our€review€of€the€transcript€of€the€trial,€we€simply€cannot€conclude€beyond€a€reasonableÐ À  Ðdoubt€that€the€juryððs€verdict€would€have€been€the€same€had€it€been€given€an€appropriate€instructionÐ ¬ü  Ðon€how€to€evaluate€proof€of€an€alibi.€€€The€Defendant€has€therefore€established€that€he€wasÐ ˜è  Ðprejudiced€by€his€appellate€counselððs€failure€to€raise€this€matter€on€direct€appeal.€€We€must€thereforeÐ „Ô  Ðinquire€whether€appellate€counselððs€decision€to€not€raise€this€issue€fell€below€the€level€of€competentÐ pÀ Ðrepresentation€demanded€of€criminal€defense€attorneys.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€on€the€Defendantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€lawyer€who€handledÐ 4„ Ðthe€Defendantððs€direct€appeal,€Mr.€Kenneth€Francis€Irvine,€Jr.,€was€questioned€as€to€why€he€did€notÐ  p Ðraise€this€issue€in€the€direct€appeal.€€Mr.€Irvine€responded,€Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àThere€certainly€were€two€alibi€witnesses€that€testified,€and€quite€frankly,€I€canððt€tellÐ ä4 Ðyou€„„€I€donððt€believe€I€noticed€the€absence€of€an€alibi€instruction.€€So€[the€DefendantÐ Ð  Ðand€I]€didnððt€know€to€discuss€it.€€The€first€„„€I€think€the€first€time€that€I€even€hadÐ ¼  Ðlooked€was€today€when€[the€Defendantððs€post„conviction€counsel]€had€said€that€heÐ ¨ø Ðcouldnððt€find€it€in€the€instructions,€and€I€went€just€to€look€to€see.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌThis€testimony€makes€clear€that€appellate€counsel€did€not€make€a€strategic€decision€to€not€raise€theÐ l¼ Ðissue€of€the€missing€alibi€instruction:€€he€simply€failed€to€notice€this€particular€problem€with€theÐ X ¨ ÐDefendantððs€trial.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àGiven€that€appellate€counselððs€failure€to€raise€the€issue€of€the€missing€alibi€instruction€wasÐ #l! Ðnot€the€result€of€a€conscious,€strategic€decision,€and€given€that€the€Defendant€would€most€likely€haveÐ $X" Ðbeen€awarded€a€new€trial€had€the€issue€been€raised€on€direct€appeal,€we€are€forced€to€conclude€thatÐ ô$D # Ðappellate€counselððs€failure€in€this€regard€constituted€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€As€such,€theÐ à%0!$ ÐDefendant€is€entitled€to€relief.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€claims€that€his€direct€appeal€lawyer€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€raise€asÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âan€issue€whether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€in€allowing€Ms.€Cross€to€testify€about€theÐ )à$( ÐDefendantððs€involvement€in€selling€cocaine.€€The€Defendant€contends€that,€in€allowing€thisÐ ° Ðtestimony,€the€trial€court€violated€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€403׃×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€404(b).׃Ü×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€defense€counsel€objected€to€the€State€being€allowed€to€introduce€evidence€aboutÐ tÄ Ðthe€Defendantððs€drug€dealing.€€While€defense€counsel€acknowledged€that€Ms.€Cross€might€beÐ `° Ðallowed€to€testify€that€one€of€the€bases€for€her€relationship€with€the€Defendant€was€that€she€hadÐ L œ Ðpurchased€drugs€from€him,€defense€counsel€strenuously€objected€to€proof€that€went€beyond€this;€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðinstance,€testimony€about€where€he€ð ðpostedðð€as€a€drug€dealer.€€The€trial€court€ruled€as€follows:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àà ` àMs.€Cross€can€testify€as€to€her€basis€of€knowledge€of€[the€Defendant],Ð ü L  Ðincluding€the€fact€that€she€is€a€drug€addict,€and€she€has€purchased€drugs€from€[theÐ è 8  ÐDefendant]€and€the€location€which€he€sells€them,€because€it€is€relevant€to€the€case.€Ð Ô$  ÐNo€other€witness€can€testify€about€their€knowledge€of€[the€Defendantððs]€drug€dealingsÐ À  Ðunless€you€get€permission€from€me€prior€to€bringing€it€up€in€the€presence€of€the€jury.€Ð ¬ü  ÐYou€have€to€seek€and€get€permission€from€the€Court€in€a€jury„out€hearing€to€do€thatÐ ˜è  Ðbefore€you€are€allowed€to€do€it.€Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌMs.€Cross€subsequently€testified€that€she€had€bought€crack€cocaine€from€the€Defendant,€that€sheÐ \¬ Ðbrought€people€to€him€for€that€purpose€ð ðseveral€times,ðð€€and€that€she€had€seen€the€victim€ð ðtrying€toÐ H˜ Ðcop€some€crackðð€from€the€Defendant€on€the€morning€of€May€19.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€lawyer€who€assisted€the€Defendant€on€his€motion€for€new€trial€raised€this€issue.€€CounselÐ  \ Ðfor€the€Defendantððs€direct€appeal€chose€not€to€pursue€it€further.€€He€testified€at€the€post„convictionÐ øH Ðhearing€that€he€thought€the€trial€court€ð ðhad€made€the€correct€ruling.ðð€€Based€on€appellate€counselððsÐ ä4 Ðtestimony,€the€post„conviction€court€found€no€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€this€regard.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€post„conviction€court.€€Had€appellate€counsel€raised€this€issue€on€directÐ ¨ø Ðappeal,€we€believe€that€this€Court€would€have€found€the€admission€of€Ms.€Crossððs€testimony€eitherÐ ”ä Ðproper€or,€at€most,€harmless€error.€€Accordingly,€no€relief€would€have€been€granted€to€the€DefendantÐ €Ð Ðon€this€ground.€€The€Defendant€has€therefore€suffered€no€prejudice€by€his€appellate€counselððsÐ l¼ Ðdecision€to€not€pursue€this€issue.€€The€Defendant€having€failed€to€prove€that€his€appellate€lawyer€wasÐ X ¨ Ðineffective€in€this€regard,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð D!” ÐÐ 0"€  Ðà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€also€alleges€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€call€Mr.Ð ° ÐDonnell€Booker€as€a€defense€witnessÔ#†¼i»XXK ü2#ÔÔ‡XK X»¼iÔ.€€The€Defendant€initially€raised€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€newÐ œì Ðtrial.€€Accordingly,€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion,€Mr.€Booker€testified.€€The€gist€of€Mr.€BookerððsÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony€was€that€he€was€present€at€the€scene€of€the€shooting€and€that,€while€he€did€not€see€theÐ tÄ Ðactual€shooting,€he€heard€the€gunshot€and€then€saw€a€man€leave€the€building€with€a€gun€in€his€hand.€Ð `° ÐMr.€Booker€recognized€this€man€and€testified€that€the€man€was€not€the€Defendant,€whom€Mr.€BookerÐ L œ Ðalso€knew.€€The€Defendantððs€trial€counsel€then€testified€that€she€had€Mr.€Booker€under€subpoena€atÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€time€of€the€trial€and€was€prepared€to€call€him€to€testify€when€the€Defendant€demanded€that€sheÐ $ t Ðnot€put€him€on€the€stand.€€She€acquiesced€to€the€Defendantððs€decision€after€strongly€advising€himÐ  ` Ðthat€the€witness€should€be€called.€€The€Defendant€testified€at€the€motion€for€new€trial€hearing€thatÐ ü L  Ðhis€lawyer€did€not€call€Mr.€Booker€because€she€was€trying€to€sabotage€him.€€The€trial€court€creditedÐ è 8  Ðtrial€counselððs€testimony€and€found€that€she€had€not€been€ineffective€in€failing€to€call€a€witness€thatÐ Ô$  Ðher€client€demanded€she€not€call.€€The€court€came€to€the€same€conclusion€after€the€post„convictionÐ À  Ðhearing.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€find€no€error€in€the€lower€courtððs€determination€of€this€issue.€€While€we€agree€with€theÐ „Ô  ÐDefendant€that€the€decision€of€which€witnesses€to€call€is€normally€a€strategic€one€best€left€to€defenseÐ pÀ Ðcounselððs€informed€judgment,€we€will€not€fault€a€lawyer€who€declines€to€call€a€witness€after€his€orÐ \¬ Ðher€client€demands€at€trial€that€the€witness€not€be€called.€€Such€a€lawyer€is€faced€with€a€no„winÐ H˜ Ðdilemma:€€if€she€calls€the€witness€against€the€clientððs€directive,€and€the€witness€then€proves€damagingÐ 4„ Ðto€the€clientððs€case,€the€lawyer€will€be€subject€to€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.€€Similarly,€as€isÐ  p Ðthe€case€here,€if€she€acquiesces€to€the€clientððs€demand,€the€client€can€then€later€claim€that€the€witnessÐ  \ Ðwas€crucial€to€his€defense€and€that€it€was€the€lawyerððs€fault€that€the€witness€was€not€called.€Ð øH ÐDefendants€who€insist€on€being€their€own€co„counsel€often€must€suffer€their€decisions.€€TheÐ ä4 ÐDefendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€ground.€€€Ô#†¼i»XXK q_#ÔÔ‡XK X»¼iÔ€€€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ#†¼i»XXK ái#ÔÔ€XK X»¼iÔà  àIn€summary,€we€hold€that€the€Defendant€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€on€directÐ ¨ø Ðappeal€and€thus€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð ”ä ÐWe€vacate€the€Defendantððs€convictions€and€remand€this€matter€for€a€new€trial.Ð €Ð ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à___________________________________€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE