WPC # VU>a % 0UB 4  n U:  w@ 0J& 0Tp 0^ 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1u 0dU6gU.U*B)DC Ba AM~mv~8v D3 0@ AOK 0D D/U BHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl<( 9Z &Courier RegularX($  7'CXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiڃ"3|x$<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular DDӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Courier<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d-$C << G c !  #d#   #d#  ` X  ""   YYY FILED"X December9,1997CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .    #!!Xd##!!Xd#  ` X    X    \RA'\"ԛ7  XXdXXd7ќR&'$A1-j|`  `@Rߛ ̀8 @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@   JUNE1997SESSIONNAPOLEONMOMON,  ) ̀    ) Appellant,  ) No.03C019605CR00187    )    ) HamiltonCountyv.    )    ) HonorableStephenM.Bevil,Judge    )STATEOFTENNESSEE,  ) (PostConviction)    ) Appellee.  ) @ DISSENTINGOPINION  Iagreewithmostofthemajorityopinion.However,Irespectfullydisagreewiththestandarditusestoconcludethatnoprejudicewasshowntojustifyreliefonthegroundofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Also,Ibelievethatthecaseshouldberemandedforfurtherhearinganddetailedfindingsoffact. Withthemajorityopinionsdeterminationthatthepetitionersrighttotestifyisafundamentalandpersonalconstitutionalright,thenthelossofthatrightwouldviolatetheconstitutionregardlessofcounselsconduct.Intermsofacriminaltrial,errorofconstitutionaldimensionisordinarilyconsideredharmfulunlessthestate,asthebeneficiaryoftheerror,canshowbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheerrorwasharmless.SeeChapmanv.California,386U.S.18,2426,87S.Ct.824,82829(1967).Moreover,someviolationsareofaconstitutionalrightsobasictoafairtrialthattheirinfractionhasneverbeentreatedasharmless.SeeStatev.Bobo,814S.W.2d353,357(Tenn.1991)(listingexamples). Asfortheissueinthiscase,InotethattherighttotestifyhasbeenviewedasaconstitutionalrightwhoseviolationbringsintoplaytheChapmanharmlesserroranalysis.SeeCampbellv.State,469S.W.2d506,509(Tenn.Crim.App.1971);Wrightv.Estelle,549F.2d971,974(5thCir.1977),affdenbanc,572F.2d1071,1072Ϝ(1978).Idonotbelievethatthisstandardshouldchangejustbecausetheissueoftheineffectiveassistanceofcounselisinvolved.Rather,whenthedeficientperformancebycounselisproventoinvolveaviolationofaseparatefundamentalconstitutionaltrialright,thentheprejudiceprongofStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct.2052,2064(1984),shouldessentiallybepresumedtobemetsoastorequirethestatetoprovethattheviolationwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt. Asamatteroffact,theviolationofthefundamentalconstitutionalrighttotestifycanbeviewedasanindependentgroundforpostconvictionrelief.Undersuchaview,counselsdeficientconductisthemeansbywhichthepetitionerexplainswhythegroundforreliefwasnotwaivedforfailingtoraiseitinthedirectappealofhisconviction.Undereitherroute,though,thefactthatthereexistsaconstitutionalviolationotherthantheineffectiveassistanceofcounselcannotbeignored. Asfarasprejudiceisconcerned,Iacknowledgethatthemajorityopinionsanalysisoftherecordonappealpresentslogicalinferencesaboutthelackofimportanceofthedefendanttestifying.However,Iamfarfromconvincedbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantstestimonywouldaddnothingsignificanttohiscase.Thefactthathetestifiedinthefirsttrialthatresultedinanacquittaloffirstdegreemurderandahungjuryforseconddegreemurderissignificant.Moreover,thefactthattheonlywitnesstotheeventswasthedefendantrendershiscredibilityanimportantissueinthecase.Underthesecircumstances,itishardformetoseehowthedefendantstestimonybeforethejurycouldbedeemedcompletelyimmaterial.Infact,Ibelievethatunderthecircumstancesinthiscase,thattestimonycouldverywellbedecisive. Inanyevent,thetrialcourtmadenofindingsoffactexceptthoseinherentinitsconclusionthatthepetitionerstrialattorneyactedwithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofcounselinacriminalcase.Thus,whenweconcludethatthetrialattorneysactionsweredeficient,weareleftwithnofactualfindingsbythetrialcourt. Thismeansthatnofindinghasbeenmadethatwouldleadtoaconclusivedeterminationthatthepetitionersrighttotestifywas,infact,lostatthehandsofthetrialattorney.Iacknowledgethatifallofthetestimonyfromthepetitionerandthetrialattorneyaretakenastrue,onelegitimateinferencethatmaybedrawnisthatthepetitionersrighttotestifywasthwartedbycounsel.However,theissueofthecredibilityofthewitnessesisforthetrialcourttodecide,andIbelievethattheinferencesdrawninthemajorityopinionarenotconclusiveonesontherecordbeforeus.Forinstance,Ibelievethatitissignificantthatthepetitionerdidnottestifyaboutanyoptionsandrightsofwhichhewasaware,nordidhistrialattorneytestify,norwasheaskedtotestify,aboutwhetherthepetitionerwasawareofhisrighttotestifyandwhetherthepetitionersaidthathewantedtotestify. Underallofthecircumstances,Ibelievethatjusticewouldbebestservedbyaremandofthecaseandafurtherhearingconductedregardingtherighttotestifyissue.Also,thetrialcourtshouldmakefindingsoffactthataremateriallyrelevanttotheissuealongwithitsconclusionsoflaw.Fortheforegoingreasons,Irespectfullydissent.      ____________________________      JosephM.Tipton,Judge