WPC TIr|7߬Q9hTɤQSm~Vtvs-HWP#GL&-q݊T6S9޷33gVZ!.{W fHľ`B˂?䰱g/͠B_ɾ&`Vi =i <9NVtKEhv? LtpAńj~N&VA\=8[3_2}xoXϘlUTfYZ޵"s׵Uk/Ntxcp?S4N<dXXd8         0   d(|3H$ !.8><dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3H$ !.8><dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8><dd8     _   ><8} XXdd8@tt?m><INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#><?m #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsSeptember10,2002 L X} X>< #><XX} !# @ NORMANMATTHEWSv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX} X><  J @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.P24881Bernie_Weinman_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200102895CCAR3PC_Ԅ_ԀFiledOctober18,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     X} XXX} TheAppellant,NormanMatthews,  #  1      ׀appealsthedenialofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.In x  March2000,Matthewspledguiltytoburglaryofabuildingandreceivedaneightyearsentence. d Onappeal,Matthewsarguesthat:(1)itwaserrorforthepostconvictioncourttoallowtrialcounsel P toremaininthecourtroomduringtheevidentiaryhearing,despiteinvocationof theruleproviding < forsequestrationofwitnesses,and(2)hereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Afterreview, (x weaffirmthejudgmentoftheShelbyCountyCriminalCourt. d #X} XXX} ##><XX} #X} X>< Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed.  <   #><X} y#X} X.><DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_andJoeG.  Riley,JJ.,joined.  CliffordK._McGown_,Jr.,_Waverly_,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,NormanMatthews.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;BradenH. ` _Boucek_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;WilliamL.Gibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andCamille L  _McMullen_,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. 8!  #><XX} 3 #X} X>< @@OO& OPINION #><XX} q #X} X>< #L#  ProceduralHistory  %$!% #><XX} #  X} X>< X} XXX}   OnNovember8,1998,theAppellantwasapprehendedinsideMarineSupplyCo.bypolice '"' officersrespondingtoasilentalarm.Whenpolicearrivedatthescene,theyobservedthefront (#( windowbrokenoutandtheAppellantattemptingtoexitthebusinessthrougharearwindow.The )$) _officersorderedhimtoreturntothefrontofthebuildingand,uponcompliancewiththatorder,the  Appellantwastakenintocustody.PolicereportsindicatethattheAppellantstated hethrewabrick  throughthefrontglassandthathewasgoingtotaketheFAXmachineandhehadbustedopenthe  cokemachine. t   TheShelbyCountyGrandJuryreturnedanindictmentagainsttheAppellantonJune29, L  1999,forburglaryofabuilding,aclassDfelony.OnMarch22,2000,theAppellantpledguiltyto 8  theindictedoffenseand,underthetermsofanegotiatedpleaagreement,receivedaneightyear $ t sentenceasapersistentoffender.  `   OnMarch29,2001,  #  2      ׀theAppellantfiledaprosepetitionforpostconvictionrelief,which  8  waslateramendedfollowingappointmentofcounsel.Anevidentiaryhearingwasheldon $  September20,2001,atwhichtheAppellantandtheAppellantstrialcounselweretheonly   witnesses.TheAppellanttestifiedthathepledguiltyonlybecausetrialcounselhadnotadequately   preparedfortrialandhefeltcertainthathewouldgetthefulltwelveyearsintheDepartmentof   Correctionifhedidnotaccepttheplea.Specifically,theAppellantassertedthatifDetectiveDerek   DavishadbeencalledtosupporttheAppellantsassertion,thatatthetimehewasaninformantwith p theShelbyCountyNarcoticsUnit,hewouldhavegonetotrialratherthanaccepttheeightyear \ agreement.TheAppellantalsoallegedthattrialcounselfailedtointerviewandcallthevictimof H thecrimeasawitnessandthathefailedtoproperlyinvestigatehiscase. 4   Atthehearing,trialcounselacknowledgedthattheAppellanthadinformedhimthereason  \ hewasintheareathateveningwasbecausehewasworkingasapoliceinformant.Accordingtothe H Appellant,drugdealersspottedhimoutsidethebuildingandthreatenedtokillhimunlesshegave 4 themthreehundreddollars.TheAppellantclaimedthat,asarusetoescapethem,hetoldthedrug   dealershewouldgetthemfifteenhundreddollarsworthofnavigationequipmentfrominsidethe   store.TheAppellantexplainedthatheenteredMarineSupplyCo.onlytocall911,nottorobit.    Trialcounseltestifiedthathedidinfacttalktooneofthedetectiveswhosenamehereceived  fromtheAppellant,inordertotryandestablishthetruthoftheAppellantsassertions.However, l trialcounselmaintainedthatevenifitcouldbeestablishedthattheAppellantwasaninformant,that X  facthadnobearingonthedefenseinthiscase,astheAppellantdidnotcommitthecrimewhile D! actingwithinhis informantstatus. 0"    OnOctober15,2001,thepostconvictioncourtenteredanorderdenyingtheAppellants $X" petitionforpostconvictionrelief.Thepostconvictioncourtfoundthat theadvicegivenandthe $D # servicesrenderedbytheDefendantscounselwerewithintherangeofcompetencydemandedbyan %0!$ attorneyinacriminalcaseandthat[trialcounsels]representationoftheDefendant,hispreparation &"% fortrial,andattheguiltypleacompliedwiththerequirements.  '#& @& Analysis    Onappeal,theAppellantfirstassertsthatthepostconvictioncourterredbynotexcluding  trialcounselfromthecourtroomduringthecourseoftheevidentiaryhearing.  #  3      ׀TennesseeRuleof t Evidence615allowseitherpartytoexcludewitnesses.SeeTenn.R.Evid.615.However,therule ` containsanexceptionfor apersonwhosepresenceisshownbyapartytobeessentialtothe L  presentationofthepartyscause.Id.Thepartyseekingtoavoidsequestrationbearstheburdenof 8  provingthataRule615exemptionapplies.ElPasoPittsv.State,No.W200101563CCAR3PC $ t (Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Apr.17,2002)(citingUnitedStatesv.Ortiz,10F.Supp.2d1058,  ` 1060(N.D.Iowa1998)).Onappeal,thestandardofreviewisabuseofdiscretion.Statev.Harris,  L  839S.W.2d54,68(Tenn.1992).  8    Thiscourthaspreviouslyheldthat,under thespecialcircumstances...inapostconviction   proceedinginwhichapetitionerclaimsthathistrialattorneywasineffective,itisentirelyreasonable   toconcludethatthetrialattorneyspresencewouldbeessentialforthepresentationofthestates   case.Statev.JeromeBrown,No.03C019107CR00201(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Oct.6.   1992).Duringtheevidentiaryhearing,theattorneywouldneedtohearthetestimonyofferedagainst p himsothathecouldanswerthecharges.Id. \   Weconcludethatthepostconvictioncourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionbyrefusingtoexclude 4 thetrialattorneyfromthehearing.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  p   TheAppellantnextcontendsthatthequalityofrepresentationprovidedbyhistrialcounsel H constitutedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Inordertosucceedonapostconvictionclaim,the 4 Appellantbearstheburdenofestablishingtheallegationssetforthinhispetitionbyclearand   convincingevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f)(1997).     Tosucceedonachallengeforineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,theAppellantmust  demonstratethatcounselsrepresentationfellbelowtherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneys  incriminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).UnderStricklandv. l Washington,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct.2052,2064(1984),theAppellantmustestablish(1) X  deficientrepresentationand(2)prejudiceresultingfromthedeficiency.Inthecontextofaguilty D! plea,theprejudiceprongfocusesonwhethercounselsconstitutionallyineffectiveperformance 0"  affectedtheoutcomeofthepleaprocess.Hillv.Lockhart,474U.S.52,59,106S.Ct.366,370 #l! (1985).Tosatisfythisprong,theAppellantmustshowthat thereisareasonableprobabilitythat, $X" butforcounselserrors,hewouldnothavepleadedguiltyandwouldhaveinsistedongoingtotrial. $D # Id. %0!$  &"%   Theissuesofdeficientperformancebycounselandpossibleprejudicetothedefenseare  mixedquestionsoflawandfact.Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999). [A]trialcourts  findingsoffactunderlyingaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselarereviewedonappealunder  adenovostandard,accompaniedwithapresumptionthatthosefindingsarecorrectunlessthe t preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Fieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,458(Tenn.2001) ` (citingTenn.R.App.P.13(d);Henleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,578(Tenn.1997)).However, L  conclusionsoflawarereviewedunderapurelydenovostandard,withnopresumptionof 8  correctness.Fields,40S.W.3dat458.Upondenovoreview,accompaniedbyapresumptionthat $ t thepostconvictioncourtsfindingsarecorrect,thiscourtmustdeterminewhethertheAppellant  ` receivedtheeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.  L    TheAppellantcontendsthattrialcounselsfailuretoadequatelypreparefortrialbyensuring $  that necessarywitnessesweresubpoenaedledtohis bestinterestsguiltyplea.Althoughthe    necessarywitnessesarenotspecificallyidentifiedinhisbrief,atthepostconvictionhearing,the   AppellantmadereferencetoDetectiveDavisandthevictimoftheoffense.Neitherwitnesswas   calledatthepostconvictionhearing.     TheAppellantbearstheburdenofshowingthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrial \ courtsfindingthathereceivedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Initially,whenapetitionerclaims H thattrialcounselfailedtoinvestigateorpresentawitnessinsupportofhisdefense,thepetitioner 4 shouldpresentthatevidenceorthewitnessattheevidentiaryhearing.Blackv.State,794S.W.2d  p 752,757(Tenn.Crim.App.1990).BecausetheAppellantpresentednosuchevidenceor necessary  \ witnessesatthehearing,itwouldbespeculativetoconcludethattheirtestimonywouldhave H affectedtheoutcomeofthecase.Thus,theAppellanthasfailedtomeethisburdenbyclearand 4 convincingevidence.Thisissueisalsowithoutmerit.   @FF% CONCLUSION    Basedupontheforegoing,weconcludethatnoerrorwascommittedbythepostconviction  courtandthattheAppellantreceivedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Thepostconvictioncourt l properlydeniedtheAppellantspetitionforrelief.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheShelbyCounty X  CriminalCourtisaffirmed. D! #X} XXX} #   `     h     ___________________________________ &"%    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE