WPC  I6JLy/<)K!H2lxMEbgV;C\j/*Nw.KOٖG7r<Ƭ( [sT:vפF%pA|1I5o178ەeq(bؓ95|PBTaA<ŵy_""1=.ÛYz YlxVOG><$[U]1f~M.mgoOEvL`fMkUa(&QN#MoC-Y6_[(@?ֆw}4WSd,#ɕP9}2|H0{f4+IAmYovf4D +H$ףy_ 3j6շTP#8LJe1psMk*|ruæep#;IJWbLu'h^Z))# >UNI % 0(U:bw@4G[3j 0l 0D U:M*M w U: * U: AQ Bn 0D 0D 0D  D/W W B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,|AZ"Arial Regular- - EDEDVӀn~<$d("|x )  $    1     XxXXX & &X XxForadetailedsummaryofthefactsdevelopedattrial,seeStatev.Meade,942S.W.2d `  0  561,563564(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).((3$ !      0  (#$  0  ,  AZ"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  !"  XXXX 3XX   Ad FILEDXX 3   September16,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr. XXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  !"  XXXX 3XX   Ad FILEDXX 3   September11,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr. XXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"#%C<< C d(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxdP Pd 'dxd !  ` PXXEPTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T      7  dXXd7r(<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$,` rr(<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$,` rINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEt(>.*jx?(` `@E3 ` ttx$k` A tߛATJACKSONJUNESESSION,1998  ӜTYRONEG.MEADE, h   )  C.C.A.NO.02C019708CR00316 `  `     h   )  `  ` Appellant,   h   ) `   `     h   ) `     h   )  SHELBYCOUNTY `  VS. `     h   )   `   `     h   )  HON.JAMESC.BEASLEY,JR.  `  М STATEOFTENNESSEE, 󀀀  )  JUDGE  `  `     h   )  `  ` Appellee.   h   )  (PostConviction)  `    ONAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTOFTHE P CRIMINALCOURTOFSHELBYCOUNTY  P   FORTHEAPPELLANT: h     FORTHEAPPELLEE: @  RANDALLB.TOLLEY h     JOHNKNOXWALKUP 0" 242PoplarAvenue h     AttorneyGeneralandReporter (# Memphis,TN38103 `     h     DOUGLASD.HIMES `     h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral `     h     4255thAvenueNorth `     h     Nashville,TN37243 `     h     WILLIAMGIBBONS `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     JOHNCAMPBELL `     h     AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     CriminalJusticeComplex,Suite301 `     h     201PoplarStreet `     h     Memphis,TN38103OPINIONFILED________________________AFFIRMEDDAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE  x8/09   E OPINION E `     ` TheDefendantappealsthetrialcourtsdenialofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Hewasconvictedbyajuryverdictoftwocountsofseconddegreemurder.Hesoughtpostconvictionreliefassertingthathereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselattrial.Followinganevidentiaryhearing,thetrialcourtdeniedreliefandweaffirm. ` TheDefendantwasconvictedoftwocountsofseconddegreemurderforshootingandkillingCharlesMatthewsandLavesterJeffersoninMemphis,Tennessee.Heoriginallyreceivedaneffectivesentenceoffortyyears.Heappealedhisconvictionsandhissentenceandthiscourtaffirmedhisconvictionsbutremandedforresentencing.Statev.Meade,942S.W.2d561(Tenn.Crim. ~! App.1996).Therecordindicatesthatuponresentencinghereceivedtwoconcurrenttwentyyearsentences. ` Withtheassistanceofcounsel,theDefendantfiledapetitionforpostconvictionreliefonMarch18,1997.ThepetitionallegedthattrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtozealouslyrepresenttheDefendant,failingtofilepretrialmotions,failingtoobjecttotestimony,failingtoinvestigate,failingtocrossexaminewitnesses,failingtoproperlyadvisetheDefendantconcerninghisrighttotestify,failingtorequestamentalevaluation,failingtoraisetheissueofdiminishedcapacityandfailingtoadequatelypreparefortrial.  6n-.  ` First,wewillbrieflydiscusstheunderlyingfacts.TheDefendantgavethe policeastatement,whichwasintroducedathistrial,inwhichheadmittedthathehadshotandkilledbothvictims.Hesaidthatthevictimswere crazyand highonbothalcoholanddrugs.Themenwereinsultingbothhimandhisgirlfriendandhefeltthreatenedbythewaytheyweretalking.Hetoldthemtoleavebuttheywouldnot,soheshotthefirstvictim.Hesubsequentlygotintoanargumentwiththesecondvictimandshothimalso.Theautopsyreportindicatedthatbothvictimsdiedofmultiplegunshotwoundswithatleastonewoundtothebackofeachvictimsheadatcloserange.Bothvictimstestedpositiveforcocaineandalcohol.   %  1      כAtthepostconvictionhearing,theDefendanttestifiedandagain p admittedthathehadkilledbothvictims.Hesaidthathekilledoneofthevictimsinselfdefensebecausehewas threatenedorprovokedandthatthevictimhadagun.Hesaidthattheothervictimalsothreatenedhim,buthedidntknowifthatvictimhadagunornot.Hefurtherstatedthathehad overreactedwhenheshotthesecondvictimandthathisoverreactionmayhavebeenduetothefactthathehadconsumedalcoholthatevening. ` Inthisappeal,theDefendantarguesthathistrialcounselwasineffectivebecause(1)hefilednopretrialmotionstotestthestrengthoftheStatescase,(2)hefailedtofileamotiontosuppressthestatementsDefendanthadgiventopolice,(3)hefilednomotionsfordiscovery,(4)hefilednomotioninliminetoinquireastowhetherapriormanslaughterconvictioncouldbeusedagainsttheDefendantifhetestified,(5)heperformedaninadequateinvestigationofthefacts,(6)hefailedtoinvestigateorraisetheissueofdiminishedcapacityor 5,. requestapretrialmentalevaluation,(7)hemadeunprofessionalerrorsinjudgment,(8)hegaveimproperadviceconcerningthedecisionnottoofferanydefenseproof,includingproofofselfdefense,(9)hemisrepresentedtotheDefendantthathewouldprevailattrial,and(10)heexhibitedanoveralllackofeffortandzeal. ` Trialcounseltestifiedatgreatlengthconcerningthevariousallegationsofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Hetestifiedthathefilednopretrialmotionsbecausehethoughtnonewerenecessaryinviewofhistheoryofselfdefense.HesaidhesawnogroundsonwhichtofileamotiontosuppresstheDefendantsstatement.Hestatedthathefilednodiscoverymotionsbecausethedistrictattorneysofficegavehimfreeandopenaccesstotheirentirefile.TrialcounselstestimonywasunclearconcerninghisfailuretofileamotiontotesttheadmissibilityoftheDefendantspriormanslaughterconvictionascontemplatedbyRule609(a)(3)oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence.Itisclear,however,thatattrialthejudgeruledthattheDefendantstestimonycouldnotbeimpeachedbyreferencetothispriorconvictionandthattheDefendantneverthelessdecidednottotestify. ` TrialcounseltestifiedthatheadequatelyinvestigatedthiscaseandthathisinvestigatorcontactedelevenoftheeighteenwitnesseswhosenamesweregivenhimbytheDefendant.HeobtainedstatementsfromthesewitnessesandstatementsfromotherwitnesseswhotestifiedfortheState.TrialcounselfurthertestifiedthathesawnoindicationsthattheDefendantsufferedfromanymentaldefectsorthat diminishedcapacitywasalegitimateissueinthiscase.Counseltestifiedthatinhisview,theonlydefensetotheseconddegreemurdercharges 9p02 wasselfdefenseorprovocation,andhebelievedheraisedtheseissuesfullybycrossexaminationofwitnessesandthroughthestatementswhichtheDefendanthadmadetothepolice.TrialcounselfurthertestifiedthatheadvisedtheDefendantfullyconcerningthedecisionwhethertotestifyattrial.HestatedthattheDefendantdecidedhedidnotdesiretotestify.TrialcounselgenerallydeniedtheremainingfactualallegationspresentedinthepostconvictionpetitionasϜallegedbytheDefendantduringhistestimonyatthepostconvictionproceeding. ` OtherthantheDefendantandhistrialcounsel,theprimaryadditionalwitnessatthepostconvictionhearingwasaclinicalpsychologistwhotestifiedgenerallythattheDefendantshistoryofalcoholabusecouldpossiblyhaveaffectedhismentalcapacityanddecisionmakingprocessatthetimeofthekillings. ` Subsequenttotheevidentiaryhearing,thepostconvictioncourtfiledawrittenorderdenyingpostconvictionrelief.ThecourtfoundthatmanyofϜcounselsdecisionsandtheactionscomplainedofbytheDefendantfellclearlyinthecategoryoftrialstrategyandtrialtactics,andthecourtfoundnoshortcomingsincounselsactions.Concerningthelackofpretrialmotionsanddiscovery,thepostconvictioncourtaccreditedcounselsdecisionnottopursuesaidmotionsinviewoftheopenaccesscounselwasgiventotheStatesfileandhisjudgmentthatfurthermotionswereunnecessary.Thecourtfurtherfoundthattrialcounselhadthoroughlyinvestigatedthecasepriortoproceedingtotrial.TheϜpostconvictioncourtconcludedthatdefensecounselhadprovidedeffectiverepresentationtotheDefendantandhadrepresentedtheDefendanttothebestofhisability.Thecourtfurtherconcludedthatdefensecounselhadthe 9p02 experienceandabilitytoevaluateandproperlyprepareacriminalcasefortrialandhaddonesointhecaseatbar.ThecourtaccordinglydeterminedthattheDefendanthadnotestablishedhisclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselandthereforewasnotentitledtopostconvictionrelief. ` Indeterminingwhethercounselprovidedeffectiveassistanceattrial,thecourtmustdecidewhethercounselsperformancewaswithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523   S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Tosucceedonaclaimthathiscounselwasineffectiveattrial,apetitionerbearstheburdenofshowingthathiscounselmadeerrorssoseriousthathewasnotfunctioningascounselasguaranteedbytheSixthAmendmentandthatthedeficientrepresentationprejudicedthepetitionerresultinginafailuretoproduceareliableresult.Stricklandv.Washington,466  @ U.S.668,687(1984);Cooperv.State,849S.W.2d744,747(Tenn.1993);Butler "0 v.State,789S.W.2d898,899(Tenn.1990).Tosatisfythesecondprong,the $  petitionermustshowareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselsunreasonableerror,thefactfinderwouldhavehadreasonabledoubtregardingpetitionersguilt.Strickland,466U.S.at695.Thisreasonableprobabilitymust P* " be sufficienttoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.Harrisv.State,875 @,"$ S.W.2d662,665(Tenn.1994). ` Whenreviewingtrialcounselsactions,thiscourtshouldnotusethebenefitofhindsighttosecondguesstrialstrategyandcriticizecounselstactics.Hellard 4*, v.State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982).Counselsallegederrorsshouldbe 5,. judgedatthetimetheyweremadeinlightofallfactsandcircumstances.Strickland,466U.S.at690;seeCooper,849S.W.2dat746. x  9p02 Ї ` Inpostconvictionreliefproceedings,thepetitionerhastheburdenofprovingtheallegationsoffactinhisorherpetitionbyclearandconvincingevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f).Thefactualfindingsofthetrialcourtareconclusiveonappealunlesstheappellatecourtfindsthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment.Butler,789S.W.2d񛀜at899.Inthecaseat   bar,thetrialcourtfoundthatdefensecounselhadadequatelyinvestigatedthecaseagainsttheDefendantandhaddiligentlypreparedfortrialandzealouslyrepresentedthisDefendant.Thepostconvictioncourtfurtherdeterminedthatotheractionsoftrialcounselproperlyfellwithinthecategoryoftrialstrategyandtactics.tTHEThejJudgefurtherconcludedthattheDefendanthadnotestablishedhisclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Webelievetherecordsupportsthefindingsandconclusionsofthepostconvictionjudge.Fromourreviewofthisrecord,evenifwedeterminedthattrialcounselwasineffectiveinsomeway,wedonotbelievethattheDefendanthasestablishedprejudice.Hehasnotdemonstratedareasonableprobability,sufficienttoundermineourconfidenceintheoutcome,thatbutforcounselserror,thejurywouldhavehadareasonabledoubtregardingtheDefendantsguilt. ` Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtdenyingpostconvictionreliefisaffirmed. `     h     2(*           ____________________________________ `     h   DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE  6-/ CONCUR:___________________________________PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGE___________________________________JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE