WPCv ?kQcD#ȩLL_VFbD\vW*VBSzS_MN[WQ3P)FpQkA\l֙6޵xi U26s: ;hSi~+䅳9 l%*٬ulb* 7Ujw3wPd!;a2PQoLNӁs,/;b3N{\dT?kk8ڵ_<;,!K# F6cx6?\xX avCzU@ ~;"gI4{fܭSآ& @ʂMwX788S|Y^602W[g2vХgpmWk!fgI`ʾ@pb/ #O/ D~-vV_$b5W-vŰ rЫa Dx e2% J&yGY(/BD*b#\ % UN# 0q UN ^ G wS zW  4 ,  0D 6  NNP mRREiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiibkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 0ssss B^^ 0{ D3 D-R 0K AS 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular-s  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.wptPH,M%ZProgra " R$      1    _Thefactsunderlyingthepetitionersconvictionsandsentencesaresummarizedintheopinionondirectappeal  andwillnotberepeatedhere.3|x(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U- -(|G2$ !.8O]dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8O]dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8O]dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8O]dd8     _   O]8XXdd8@ttFO]INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#O]F #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsNovember27,2001 L XXO] #O]XX"#STEVENMURPHYv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXXO]  J @@ PostConvictionAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.95B856J.RandallWyatt,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200100886CCAR3PCFiledAugust29,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XXXXIn1996,thepetitioner,StevenMurphy,wasconvictedoffirstdegreemurder,especiallyaggravated x  robbery,andtheftover$1,000.Hereceivedasentenceoflifeimprisonmentforfirstdegreemurder, d 25yearsforespeciallyaggravatedrobberyandfouryearsforthetheft.Thetrialcourtorderedthe P petitionertoservehissentencesconsecutively,resultinginaneffectivesentenceoflifeplus29years. < FollowingadirectappealtothisCourtthepetitionersconvictionswereaffirmed,buthissentence (x foraggravatedrobberywasmodifiedto21years.Statev.Adrian_Wilkerson_ԀandStevenMurphy, d No.01C019610CR004191998Tenn._Crim_.App.LEXIS891,at*45(Tenn._Crim_.App.,at P NashvilleAug.26,1998).   #  1      ׀TheTennesseeSupremeCourtdeniedpermissiontoappealon < September18,2000.ThepetitionerfiledapostconvictionpetitiononOctober30,2000,which ( allegedthathistrialattorneyswereineffectivetherebydeprivinghimofhisrightsundertheSixth  AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.Followingappointmentofcounselandahearing,the  trialjudgeenteredanorderdenyingpostconvictionreliefonMarch12,2001,andtheinstantappeal  followed.Afterathoroughreviewoftherecordwefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdecision.The  judgmentofthelowercourtisthereforeaffirmed.#XXXX##O]XXї#XXO] t  Tenn.R.App.P.AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisAffirmed.  L    #O]X5 #XX.O]JerrySmith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.WellesandNormaMcGee $"t! Ogle,JJ.,joined. #`" F._Michie_ԀGibson,Jr.,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,StevenMurphy. $8 $ PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;J.RossDyer,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;Victor &"& S.Johnson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andDanHamm,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,forthe '"' appellee,StateofTennessee. (#(   p*%*G @@OO& OPINION #O]XX #XXO]  #O]XX#XXO]  XXXX@PostConvictionHearing     Duringthepostconvictionhearing,thepetitionerclaimedthatcounselfailedtovisithimin ` jailandfailedtokeephiminformedconcerninghiscase.Healsotestifiedthatcounselfailedto L  properlyinvestigatehiscase.Accordingtothepetitioner,counselfailedtovisitthecrimescene. 8    Thepetitioneralsoclaimedthatcounselfailedtoaddresscertainissues.Thepetitioner  ` testifiedthatcounselwasdeficientinfailingtochallengeawitnesssidentificationofhimthrough  L  atintedwindow.Accordingtothepetitioner,thewindowsinthecarhadadarktintandcounsel  8  shouldhavecalledanexperttotestifyaboutthedifficultyofseeingthroughsuchawindow. $    DavidBaker,thepetitionerstrialcounsel,testifiedthathemetwiththedefendanteightor   ninetimesinjail.AccordingtoMr.Baker,oneofthesemeetingslastedtwohours.Counselalso   statedthatduringthesemeetings,heandthepetitionerdiscussedthecaseandwhatwasbeingdone.   Mr.BakeralsoinformedthecourtthatheandMr.CarlDean,thepetitionersothertrialattorney,had p aninvestigatorlookingintothecase. \   Mr.BakerandMr.Deanstatedthattheirtrialstrategy,arrivedatinconsultationwiththe 4 petitioner,hadnothingtodowiththeidentificationofthepetitioner.Accordingtocounsel,their  p theorywasthatthepetitionerwaspresentbuttooknopartinthefelonymurder.Therefore,therewas  \ noreasontoquestionthetintofthewindowsorhaveanexperttestifyonthematter. H @! StandardofReview      Inpostconvictionproceedings,thepetitionerhastheburdenofprovingtheallegationsof  factbyclearandconvincingevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f).Theappropriatestandard  fordeterminingeffectivenessofcounseliswhethertheadvicegiven,orservicesrenderedbythe  attorney,arewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxterv. l Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1974).Inordertoestablishineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,the X  petitionermustprovethathiscounselsrepresentationwasbothdeficientandthathewasprejudiced D! asaresultofthatdeficiency._Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668,686,104S.Ct.2052,80L. 0"  Ed.2d674(1984). #l!   Counselsperformanceisconsidereddeficientifcounselcommittederrorsthatwereso $D # seriousthatthepetitionerwasdeprivedoftherepresentationguaranteedbytheSixthAmendment. %0!$ Coxv.State,880S.W.2d713,717(Tenn._Crim_.App.1994).Findingsoffactandconclusionsof &"% lawmadebythepostconvictioncourtaregiventheweightofajuryverdict,andthisCourtisbound '#& bythosefindingsunlesstheevidencecontainedintherecordpreponderatesotherwise.Owensv. (#' State,13S.W.3d742,748(Tenn._Crim_.App.1999). )$(    `     h      p  h+&* Ї@  CounselsPerformanceintheInstantCase     Thepetitionerclaimsthatcounselfailedtovisithimandkeephim_apprised_Ԁoftrialstrategy. ` Healsoclaimsthathisattorneysweredeficientbecausetheyfailedtoaddresstheissuenotedsupra L  concerningtintedautomobilewindows. 8    Incontrast,Mr.Bakertestifiedthathemetwiththepetitionereightorninetimesandthat  ` thesemeetingslasteduptotwohours.Bothofthepetitionersattorneystestifiedthattheymetwith  L  thepetitioneranddiddiscussanddeveloptrialstrategywithhim.Bothattorneystestifiedthatthey  8  visitedthecrimescene.Theybothstatedthattheirtrialstrategy,whichtheydiscussedwiththe $  petitioner,wastoadmitthepetitionerspresenceatthesceneofthecrime,butdenyhisparticipation   inthefelonymurder.Thus,theirstrategyhadnothingtodowithattackingtheidentificationofthe   petitioneraspresentatthecrimescene.     ThetrialjudgeimplicitlyaccreditedthetestimonyofMessrs.BakerandDeanandfoundthat p theyhadperformedtheirdutiesinan appropriateandcompetentmanner.Wefindnothinginthis \ recordthatwouldcauseustodisputethatfinding.Moreover,thedecisionnottocontestthe H identificationofthepetitionerattrial,buttoclaimthathewasnotaperpetratorisalegitimate 4 strategicdecisionthatwillnotbesecondguessedbythisCourt.See,_Hellard_Ԁv.State,629S.W.2d  p 4,9(Tenn.1982).  \    `     h     @FF% CONCLUSION        Inlightoftheforegoing,wefindthatthepetitionerdidreceivetheeffectiveassistanceof  counsel,andwethereforeaffirmthedecisionofthelowercourtdenyingthepetitionforpost  convictionrelief.  #XXXXz##O]XXI#XXO]@*   `     h     ___________________________________ #l!    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE