WPC91 Ɋ]yѐǵ2wg̵HF#Aī*뢅*DzH+YE\4 Ź}10'@ug6W2ѕ+Zy'soqCg>Y X7 !zeX;rAX2E8D= u'۝H]ZK3$ $(A3mzWfi%oWf<6\P46Czeԅ^"-]pwNy@݉xdؐ7/}^!U]G3UPeV/z >WtK٥,6#}f;7SGѥo2:5X\ mQt@B}v/mD6fZъqy%IJz㢺i/rxw=3c ?o F:ɱc>j sFX`Җi 4W#U N % 0: ^  w% 4) = L mN 0Ue 0 0 0 0l 0L 0) 0 0 0CE 0 0 0 0o 0= 0 0 0 0@U 0 0i 0: 0 0 0 0` 0" 00 0< 0K 0> 0vG 0` 0`! 0`}! 0`! 0`=" 08" 0" 02# 0# 0:$ 0Y% 0_h% 0 % 0j& 0;( B*) D/) D+* 0C* D/+ 0+ 06, 0, 0:. 0^<. 0<. 1e. 0N;/U6/U>/U*/// 1u'0 720b0F00000 B1\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,z;1 ~/:i+003|xU*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKI<6X9`(Courier NewKSJ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KI<6X9`(Courier NewKSJ\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KI<6X9`(Courier NewKSJ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7=(X7  ?K%2A`Arial?  SJ\  `&Times New RomanS7>(X7&  d d<)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7@(X7  ?K%2A`Arial?  SJ\  `&Times New RomanS7>(X7<)2dxd0KS.SampleKI<6X9`(Courier NewKSJ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKI<6X9`(Courier NewKSJ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ni)- - <##Xd# P    d !USUS.,  _XX  @hhQ4INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#XlX=#)XXlԈ # @ AssignedonBriefsAugust3,2004 F @0 0  TONY_MABRY_Ԁv.STATEOFTENNESSEE   f #XlX) #XXl@, ,  #XlX#DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty 7  @K K No.P24164CarolynWade_Blackett_,Judge ! q @*AV) ` dE<` A߈ /  @  No.W200302197CCAR3PCFiledSeptember24,_2004_Ԉ (  AV) ` dE<` A      Petitioner,Tony_Mabry_,appealsthetrialcourtsdismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.   Petitionerarguesthathistrialcounselrenderedineffectiveassistanceofcounselbecauseshe(1)  failedtorequestapretrialvoicelineup;(2)failedtocrossexaminethevictimabouthisprior v statementstothepolice;and(3)failedtosubpoenathepoliceofficerwhotookthevictimsinitial _ statementtotestifyattrial.Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtis H affirmed. 1 @ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtAffirmed  S ThomasT.Woodall,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,_P.J._,and & NormaMcGeeOgle,J.,joined.  ScottHall,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Tony_Mabry_.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;SethP._Kestner_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; c WilliamL.Gibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andGail_Vermaas_,AssistantDistrictAttorney L  General,fortheappellee,theStateofTennessee. 5!    @55' OPINION  #W"   Followingajurytrial,Petitionerwasconvictedofespeciallyaggravatedrobberyand $* $ sentencedtothirtynineyearsintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.Uponappeal,Petitioners %!% convictionwasupheld,buthissentencewasmodifiedtotwentynineyearsbecausethetrialcourt &!& misappliedfourenhancementfactorsindeterminingthelengthofPetitionerssentence.Statev. '"' Tony_Mabry_,No.W199901438CCAR3CD,2000WL33288754,*4(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson, ~(#( June28,2000),noperm.toappealfiled.ThefactssurroundingPetitionersconvictionwere g)$) summarizedbythisCourtinPetitionersdirectappealasfollows: P*%* 8   ` LateinthenightofMarch9,1997,CurtisSanders,afiftyfiveyearoldman, ",r', stoppedattheapartmentofMaryBrown.Arepairman,hewastoperformsome  -[(- workforher.Whenheknockedatherdoor,hereceivednoanswerfromthe -D). Q4 Q8lXXdd8P Q  apartment.Butknockingagain,heheardaman,thedefendant,fromupstairs,  outsidetheapartment,saying,"Notathome!"Sanders,familiarwiththedefendant's  face,knewthemanas"Tony."Sandersbegantowalkaway.   8   ` Whileleaving,Sanderswasapproachedbythisman,"Tony,"andanother T unidentifiedman.Sanders,surroundedandafraid,wasunabletoreturntohis =  vehicle,andthereforehereturnedquicklytoBrown'sdoor.Atthisdoor,hewas & v attackedfrombehind,hitwithabottle,andkickedintosubmissionbythetwomen.  _ Heattemptedtofightbackbut,intheend,tonoavail.ThemenstoleSanders'  H money,watch,andbeeperandthenfled. 1    8   ` ThedefendantwasarrestedidentifiedfromaphotoarraybySanders,and   identifiedbyvoicebyMaryBrown.    _Mabry_,2000WL33288754,at*1. n   I.PostConvictionHearing  @   Petitionerfiledaprosepetitionforpostconvictionreliefwhichwassubsequentlyamended c allegingthathiscounselrenderedineffectiveassistanceattrial.Petitionertestifiedatthepost L convictionhearingthathiscounselhadnotinterviewedhismotherorherfriend,AnnPerry,until 5 thedayoftrial.Asaresult,trialcounseldidnotlearnthatthereweretwootheralibiwitnesseswho  livedoutofstate.Petitionersaidthatheelectedtoproceedtotrialanyway.    Petitionertestifiedthatthevictimsaidthathedidnotknowwhorobbedhiminhisinitial  statementtothepolice,butidentifiedPetitionerbynamewhenhetestifiedattrial.Petitionersaid r thathistrialcounselfailedtopointouttheinconsistenciesbetweenMr.Sanderstrialtestimonyand [ hispriorstatements.Inaddition,Petitionersaidthathistrialcounseldidnotsubpoenathepolice D officerwhotookMr.Sandersstatement.Later,Petitionerconcededthathistrialcounselquestioned -} Mr.Sandersabouthisearlierdescriptionoftheperpetratorasfivefeetnineinchestallwhen f PetitionerwasoversixfeettallandprovidedMr.Sanderswithacopyofhispriorstatement. O   PetitionertestifiedthathistrialcounselneverinterviewedMs.Brownandneverrequested !!  avoiceidentificationlineuppriortotrial.Instead,Petitionerwasrequiredtostandupattrialand " ! repeatthewords, Shutup,sucker,duringMs.Brownstestimony.Ms.BrownidentifiedPetitioner #" attrialastheperpetratorbasedonherrecognitionofhisvoice. $#   Petitionerinitiallytestifiedthathiscounseldidnotrequestatranscriptofthepreliminary ^&!% hearingbutlaterconcededoncrossexaminationthatheonlyknewthathedidnotreceiveacopy G'"& ofthetranscript.Petitionersaidthathistrialcounseldidnotexploreanydefensesandurgedhim 0(#' totaketheStatesofferofapleaagreementwhichcarriedasentenceoftwentyfiveyears. )i$( Petitionersaidthathedidnottakethepleaagreementbecausehewasinnocent. *R%)   *;&*   Petitionertestifiedthathistrialcounselfailedtotakehisadviceduringvoirdireastowhich   potentialjurorsshouldberejected.Petitioneralsopointedoutthathiscounselfailedtocallan  expertwitnesstorebuttheStatesevidencethatMr.Sanderswasheavilysedatedwhenhegavehis  initialstatement.PetitionersaidthathismedicalexpertwouldhavetestifiedthatMr.Sanderswas k notonanydrugsatthetimehegavehisstatementtothepolice. T   Oncrossexamination,Petitionerconcededthathiscounselmetwithhimthreeorfourtimes & v priortotrialandkepthimapprizedofhiscasesdevelopment.Headmittedhedidnotpersonally  _ knowwhetherornotcounselinterviewedhismotherpriortotrialorwhethercounselreviewedthe  H preliminaryhearingtranscript.  1    CounseltestifiedthatshehadworkedforthepublicdefendersofficeinShelbyCountyfor   overtenyearswiththemajorityoftimespentwithcasesinvolvingviolentcrimes.Counselsaidthat   shemetwithPetitionerthirteentimespriortotrialandspokewithPetitionersmotheratleastthree   timesbeforethetrialbegan.Eithersheorherinvestigatorinterviewedallofthewitnesseson n  Petitionerslist,butshedidnotknowaboutthetwooutofstatewitnessesuntilthedayoftrial. W  CounselsaidthatPetitionerdecidedtoproceedtotrialwithoutthesewitnesses. @   CounseltestifiedthatshereviewedthetranscriptofPetitionerspreliminaryhearingand b madenotesinthemarginsofhertypedcopy.Counselhadnoindependentrecollectionofthe K conversationsthatoccurredduringvoirdirebutstatedthatitwasherusualpracticetoconsultwith 4 herclientsduringtheprocess.CounselassumedthatshedidsoinPetitionerscase.Counsel  advisedPetitionertoaccepttheStatesofferofapleaagreementbecausethesentenceextendedby  theagreementwastheminimumapplicabletoaRangeIIoffender.    CounselsaidthatMr.Sanders,inhisinitialstatement,saidthatheknewPetitionerwhenhe q sawhimbutconcededthatMr.SandersdidnotcallPetitionerbynameinhisstatementashedidat Z trial.Counselsaid,however,thatMr.Sandersstatementwasnottoodifferentfromthesubstance C ofhistrialtestimony.Petitionerwasoftenattheapartmentcomplexwheretheincidentoccurred ,| becausehisgirlfriendlivedthere.CounselsaidthatshedidcrossexamineMr.Sandersaboutthe e discrepanciesbetweenthedescriptionoftheperpetratorthathegavethepoliceandPetitioners N actualappearanceattrial.CounselsaidthatshedidnottalktoMr.Sanderspriortotrialbecausehe  7 wouldnotreturnhertelephonecalls.CounselsaidthatherinvestigatorinterviewedMs.Brown !   twice. " !  II.FindingsofFact  $#   Petitionerinitiallyarguesthatthepostconvictioncourtdidnotmakespecificfindingsoffact ^&!% astohisallegationsthatcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtorequestavoiceidentificationlineup G'"& priortotrialandforfailingtoeffectivelyimpeachMr.Sanders.Thepostconvictioncourtis 0(#' requiredtosetforthallofthegroundspresentedbythepetitioneranditsfindingsoffactand )i$( conclusionsoflawastoeachgroundinawrittenorderormemorandumattheconclusionofthe *R%) postconvictionhearing.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030211(b).Thepurposeofthisrequirement, *;&* however,istofacilitateappellatereview,andthisCourthaspreviouslyconcludedthatreversalis +$'+ notrequirediftherecordisotherwiseadequateforreview.Statev.Swanson,680S.W.2d487,489  (Tenn.Crim.App.1984);RandyCaldwellandStevieW.Caldwellv.State,No.M200100334CCA  R3PC,2002WL31730875,*13(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Dec.4,2002),perm.toappeal  denied(Tenn.2003);Statev.William_Makransky_,No.E200000048CCAR3CD,2001WL k 725303,*12(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,June28),perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.2001). T   Basedontheevidencepresentedatthepostconvictionhearing,thetrialcourtaccreditedthe & v testimonyofPetitionerscounselandfoundthatsherenderedassistancetoPetitionerwithinthe  _ rangeofcompetenceexpectedfromacriminallawyerasoutlinedinBaxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d  H 930,936(Tenn.1974),astoallissuesraisedbyPetitioner.Thetrialcourtfurtherfoundthat  1  Petitionerhadnotprovenanyofhisfactualallegationsofineffectiveassistanceofcounselbyclear    andconvincingevidence.Thepostconvictioncourtsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaware   sufficienttoallowforproperappellatereview.    III.StandardofReview  n    Apetitionerseekingpostconvictionreliefmustestablishhisallegationsbyclearand A convincingevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f)(1997).However,thetrialcourts *z applicationofthelawtothefactsisrevieweddenovo,withoutapresumptionofcorrectness.Fields c v.State,40S.W.3d450,458(Tenn.2001).Aclaimthatcounselrenderedineffectiveassistanceis L amixedquestionoffactandlawandthereforealsosubjecttodenovoreview.Id.;Statev.Burns, 5 6S.W.3d,453,461(Tenn.1999).    Whenapetitionerseekspostconvictionreliefonthebasisofineffectiveassistanceof  counsel,hemustestablishthatcounselsperformancefellbelow therangeofcompetence  demandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxter,523S.W.2dat936.Inaddition,hemustshow r thatcounselsineffectiveperformanceactuallyadverselyimpactedhisdefense.Stricklandv. [ Washington,466U.S.668,693,104S.Ct.2052,2067,80L.Ed.2d674(1984).Inreviewing D counselsperformance,thedistortionsofhindsightmustbeavoided,andthisCourtwillnotsecond -} guesscounselsdecisionsregardingtrialstrategiesandtactics._Hellard_Ԁv.State,629S.W.2d4,9 f (Tenn.1982).Thereviewingcourt,therefore,shouldnotconcludethataparticularactoromission O bycounselisunreasonablemerelybecausethestrategywasunsuccessful.Strickland,466U.S.at  8 689,104S.Ct.at2065.Rather,counselsallegederrorsshouldbejudgedfromcounsels !!  perspectiveatthepointoftimetheyweremadeinlightofallthefactsandcircumstancesatthat " ! time.Strickland,466U.S.at690,104S.Ct.at2066. #"   ApetitionermustsatisfybothprongsoftheStricklandtestbeforeheorshemayprevailon u% $ aclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.SeeHenleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,580(Tenn.1997). ^&!% Thatis,apetitionermustnotonlyshowthathiscounselsperformancefellbelowacceptable G'"& standards,butthatsuchperformancewasprejudicialtothepetitioner.Id.Failuretosatisfyeither 0(#' prongwillresultinthedenialofrelief.Id.Accordingly,thisCourtneednotaddressoneofthe )i$( componentsifthepetitionerfailstoestablishtheother.Strickland,466U.S.at697,104S.Ct.at *R%) 2069. *;&*  +$'+  IV.Analysis     Petitionerarguesthathistrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtorequestapretrialvoice  identificationlineupforMs.Brown.PetitionercontendsthatthefactthatPetitionerwasrequired l tostandupincourtandrepeatthewords, Shutup,sucker,whichwerespokenbytheperpetrator U duringthecommissionofthecrime,washighlyprejudicial.Petitioneralsocontendsthatthein >  courtidentificationpreventedPetitionerscounselfromeffectivelychallengingMs.Browns ' w credibility.  `   Attrial,Ms.BrowntestifiedthatshewasfamiliarwithPetitionersvoicebecauseher  2  apartmentandPetitionersgirlfriendsapartmentsharedacommonwall.Ms.Brownsaidthat    Petitionerhada heavyvoice,andshehadheardhimspeakthroughthewalleverydayfortheprior   sixmonths.PetitionerscounselobjectedwhentheStateaskedPetitionertospeakincourt,butthe   objectionwasoverruled.Adefendantmaybecompelledtogiveevidenceincourtwhichisnot   testimonial.Statev._Meeks_,867S.W.2d361,376(Tenn.Crim.App.1993)(citationsomitted). o   [_T]he_Ԁprivilegeagainstselfincrimination[is]notviolatedbycompellingadefendanttospeakand X  toutterwordspurportedlyutteredbytheassailantinorderforwitnessestoconsidertheutterances A foridentificationpurposes.Id.(citingUnitedStatesv.Wade,388U.S.218,222223,87S.Ct. *z 1926,18L.Ed.2d1149(1967)). c   WhiletheeffectmayhavebeenlessdramaticifMs.BrownsidentificationofPetitioners 5 voicehadoccurredduringapretriallineupasopposedtoanincourtidentification,Petitionerhas  failedtoshowthathewasprejudicedbycounselsfailuretorequestsuchalineup.Ms.Brownwas  nottheonlywitnesswhoidentifiedPetitionerastheperpetrator.Mr.SandersidentifiedPetitioner  fromapretrialphotographiclineupandattrial.BothMs.BrownandMr.Sandersknewwho  Petitionerwasbecausehefrequentlyvisitedhisgirlfriendattheapartmentswheretheincident r occurred.PetitionerhasnotshownthattheresultofhistrialwouldhavebeenanydifferenthadMs. [ BrownidentifiedPetitionersvoicebeforethetrialinsteadofduringthetrial.Petitionerisnot D entitledtoreliefonthisissue. -}   Petitionerarguesthathistrialcounselwasineffectivebecauseshefailedtoeffectively O impeachthevictimbyintroducinghispriorinconsistentstatements.PetitionersaidthatMr.Sanders  8 initiallysaidthathedidnotknowwhotheperpetratorswere.Attrial,however,Mr.Sanders !!  referredtotheperpetratorbythename TonyandimpliedthatheknewPetitionerverywell. " ! Petitionerconceded,however,thathiscounselcrossexaminedMr.Sandersaboutthediscrepancies #" betweenthephysicaldescriptionoftheperpetratorwhichhegavethepoliceofficersandPetitioners $# actualappearanceattrial.PetitionerscounselsaidthatMr.SandersidentifiedPetitioneratthe u% $ preliminaryhearing. ^&!%   Mr.SandersstatementwastakeneightdaysaftertheincidentfollowingMr.Sanders 0(#' releasefromthehospital.Inhisstatement,Mr.Sandersstatedthathecouldidentifyoneofthe )i$( perpetratorsandhadidentifiedthatindividualasPetitionerfromaphotographiclineuppriortohis *R%) statement.WhenaskedwhetherhehadseenPetitionerbefore,Mr.Sandersrepliedthathe may *;&* have.Attrial,Mr.SanderssaidthathehadseenPetitioneratMs.Brownsapartmentcomplex +$'+ beforetheincident.Petitionerarguesthatthevictimsevasivenessaboutwhathesaidinhisearlier  policestatementduringcrossexaminationshouldhavepromptedcounseltocallthepoliceofficer  whorecordedMr.Sandersstatementasawitness.    Baseduponourreviewoftherecord,wecannotconcludethatPetitionerhasshownbyclear T andconvincingevidencethathistrialcounselsassistancefellbelowthelevelofcompetence =  requiredofcriminaldefenselawyers.PetitionerscounselthoroughlyandablycrossexaminedMr. & v Sandersabouthispriorinconsistentstatements.Petitionersclaimsofineffectivenessareaddressed  _ forthemostparttocounselschoiceoftrialstrategyortacticswhichthisCourtwillnotsecond  H guess,armedwiththebenefitofhindsight._Hellerd_,629S.W.2dat9.Moreover,Petitionerdidnot  1  producethepoliceofficerwhotookMr.Sandersstatementatthepostconvictionhearing.Without    anyproofatthepostconvictionhearingastothetestimonythatawitnesswouldhaveoffered,the   petitionercannotdemonstratethathewasprejudicedbythefailureofthewitnesstobeinterviewed   orcalledonhisbehalf.SeeBlack,794S.W.2dat757.Petitionerisnotentitledtoreliefonthisissue.   @GG% CONCLUSION  W    Thejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtisaffirmed. *z    `     h     ___________________________________ L    `     h     THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE