ÿWPC ³W^ƒªÝî’ë˜DÞ”K÷Ûb ‚þ¼ú¶Šïck·bˆrå™äàD-ÑèÈE÷ÈËÃ×i½Óßbg$°3µ ÙÀxõô´ ¯— !©"OÝŒàTnågŽ.—ÜÓFÕ‡²Ÿ˜™tkýEwù<ë3®¿Z"È÷j`Ŧ×Þ„ùåalCò!‚PºþvSft]và5ýý¯ôøFkB1iëLhÌ77ýuUóFÄæ°úU«±(“ìïÎ…§ÙŽíàÆ=¹UÇ ¶‰òÎØÿÿ!56Ñ4qíè1Lh‹n²xšùúZ^ê}0Xh§BÝñCAx~ ¬û4}ü28R@XÜ0ôª;%zP æ¤Ö|à/Ê£·‰Èa݈Bã‚ì5´Rd#9 (ã•ÝßÂ8æ3˜Îb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U N­ U @û …; zÀ Ò: z Ò† ^ XwdÆhÆ.Æôƺ4€N”–¥E§ m© 0DÀÀÀÀb                                     0ë Bÿÿ 0¤ D3À D-ó 0K   ASkƾ 0¤„ 0D( A«l˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman  {Ý ƒRû¸$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôàÝò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôàÝòòôàÝÔThe€petitioner€was€indicted€under€the€name€"Poaso€Pitts,"€but€the€name€El€Paso€Pitts€was€used€interchangeablyÐ ° Ðat€trial.€€The€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€in€the€name€of€El€Paso€Pitts.€€ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt|n–,s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Yo†)ä¢k18J¦3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó - ù-(|G2û¸$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Oå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôàÝò»»Ô d(|3Éi$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Oå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Éi$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Oå»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Oå»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Oå»»»ÔÑ8€YXXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼Oå»»¼OåÔà@ttìàÔ‡î¼î»¼OåÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Oå»îî¼;#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€December€5,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XYX»¼OåÔÌò òÔ#†¼Oå»XXYN#ÔEL€PASO€Ô_ÔPITTSÔ_Ô€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XYX»¼OåÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„23499€€€€€€€Chris€Craft,€Judge€Ð æ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßÐ ¾   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01563„CCA„R3„PC€€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Filed€April€17,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€El€Paso€Ô_ÔPittsÔ_Ô,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€In€this€appealÐ ŒÜ  Ðof€right,€the€petitioner€contends€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€and€argues€thatÐ xÈ  Ðthe€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€his€trial€counsel€to€be€present€during€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€TheÐ d´ Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€Ô#†¼Oå»XXY×#ÔÐ P  ÐÓÓÌò òÔ€XYX»¼OåÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Nž ÐÌòòÓ  ÓGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòDavid€G.Ð &v ÐHayes,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð b ÐÌRobert€Little,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€El€Paso€Ô_ÔPittsÔ_Ô.Ð ê: ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€andÐ Â ÐKatrina€Ô_ÔEarleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ®þ ÐÓðÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ †Ö ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óà  àOn€October€23,€1996,€the€petitioner€fired€several€shots€in€the€direction€of€the€victim,€Ô_ÔRickyÔ_ÔÐ ^!®  ÐGreen,€who€was€hiding€behind€a€chair€located€inside€his€residence.€€Clifford€Roy€was€also€in€theÐ J"š! Ðroom€when€the€shots€were€fired.€€The€petitioner€was€convicted€of€attempted€first€degree€murder€andÐ 6#†" Ðaggravated€assault€and€received€concurrent,€Range€I€sentences€of€23€years€and€three€years,Ð "$r# Ðrespectively.€€The€judgment€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔPoasoÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔPittsÔ_Ôóó,€No.€02C01„9803„Ð %^ $ ÐCR„00091€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Jan.€22,€1999).€€Application€for€permission€to€appeal€toÐ ú%J!% Ðthe€supreme€court€was€denied€on€June€14,€1999.€€Ð æ&6"& ÐÌà  àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€was€dissatisfied€with€his€trialÐ ¾($( Ðcounsel,€Dianne€Ô_ÔThackeryÔ_Ô,€because€she€had€failed€to€adequately€investigate€the€circumstances€of€theÐ ª)ú$) Ðoffense€and€to€establish€through€available€witnesses€that€the€victim,€Ô_ÔRickyÔ_Ô€Green,€was€not€inside€theÐ –*æ%*ý ÐÔ_Ôresidence€at€the€time€the€shots€were€fired.€€The€petitioner€acknowledged€that€he€had€argued€with€theÐ ° Ðvictim,€threatened€him,€and€entered€his€residence€while€armed€with€a€pistol.€€He€contended,€however,Ð œì Ðthat€the€victim€Green€had€left€the€residence€by€the€time€the€shots€were€fired€and€that€his€trial€counselÐ ˆØ Ðcould€have€utilized€independent€witnesses€to€establish€that.€€He€was€especially€critical€of€the€fact€thatÐ tÄ ÐRenaldo€Gatewood€and€his€first€cousin,€David€Gatewood,€were€neither€interviewed€by€his€counsel,Ð `° Ðwho€had€their€addresses€and€phone€numbers,€nor€subpoenaed€as€witnesses€for€the€trial.€€TheÐ L œ Ðpetitioner€also€expressed€his€displeasure€at€his€trial€counsel's€suggestion€that€he€not€testify€on€his€ownÐ 8 ˆ Ðbehalf€due€to€prior€theft€convictions.€€When€asked€specifically€whether€he€wanted€to€testify€at€hisÐ $ t Ðtrial,€however,€the€petitioner€answered,€"I€told€her€I€did€but€I€didn't."€€The€petitioner€also€complainedÐ  ` Ðthat€his€trial€counsel€did€not€adequately€establish€that€at€the€time€of€the€shooting,€the€victim€and€theÐ ü L  Ðothers€"were€all€drinking€together."€€He€pointed€out€that€the€witnesses,€if€called€to€testify,€could€haveÐ è 8  Ðbeen€helpful€in€establishing€that€alcohol€was€a€significant€factor€in€the€incident.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àWhen€produced€as€a€witness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€David€Gatewood€testified€that€heÐ ¬ü  Ðarrived€at€the€scene€of€the€crime€"at€the€last€tip€end€of€it."€€He€recalled€seeing€the€victim€Green€fleeÐ ˜è  Ðfrom€the€back€door€along€with€the€other€victim€when€he€heard€two€shots,€explaining€that€that€wasÐ „Ô  Ðall€he€had€seen.€€Gatewood€testified€that€he€would€have€appeared€had€he€been€subpoenaed€for€trialÐ pÀ Ðand€contended€that€at€the€time,€the€petitioner€"had€two€numbers"€for€him€and€he€was€staying€at€hisÐ \¬ Ðparents'€at€the€trailer€park€where€the€shots€were€fired.€€He€stated€he€was€never€interviewed€by€police.€Ð H˜ ÐDuring€cross„examination,€Gatewood€clarified€his€testimony,€acknowledging€that€he€saw€GreenÐ 4„ Ð"coming€out€the€back€door,€after€the€shots."€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€she€attempted€to€subpoena€a€David€Gatewood€or€a€David€Moss,Ð øH Ðwhose€address€was€listed€as€the€Pleasant€Ridge€Trailer€Park€on€Noleview,€but€learned€that€theÐ ä4 Ðoperators€of€the€trailer€park€had€no€information€on€either€name.€€When€she€reviewed€the€"half€aÐ Ð  Ðdozen€or€so€letters"€from€the€petitioner€in€the€file,€she€found€no€mention€of€a€Renaldo€Gatewood.€Ð ¼  ÐWhile€stating€that€she€had€no€specific€recollection€of€the€issue,€trial€counsel€testified€that€she€wouldÐ ¨ø Ðhave€likely€advised€the€petitioner,€who€had€a€prior€criminal€record,€not€to€testify,€even€though€heÐ ”ä Ðwould€make€the€ultimate€decision.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€relief,€concluding€that€the€testimony€of€David€Gatewood€would€notÐ X ¨ Ðhave€been€helpful€to€the€petitioner.€€It€first€observed€that€Gatewood€testified€at€the€evidentiaryÐ D!” Ðhearing€that€he€had€just€arrived€at€the€trailer€park€from€work€when€he€saw€the€victims€flee€from€theÐ 0"€  Ðresidence€and€thus€was€unable€to€assist€the€petitioner's€claim€that€the€shooting€occurred€as€a€resultÐ #l! Ðof€over„consumption€of€alcohol€by€each€of€the€individuals€involved.€€Secondly,€the€trial€courtÐ $X" Ðdetermined€that€Gatewood€actually€contradicted€the€petitioner's€defense€theory€by€stating€that€he€sawÐ ô$D # Ðthe€victims€coming€out€the€back€door€after€the€shots€were€fired.€€Because€the€petitioner€was€unableÐ à%0!$ Ðto€produce€Renaldo€Gatewood€as€a€witness,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€petitioner€had€failedÐ Ì&"% Ðto€substantiate€his€claim€that€the€testimony€would€have€been€helpful.€€It€held€that€the€investigationÐ ¸'#& Ðand€preparation€on€the€part€of€trial€counsel€were€adequate.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrecord€of€the€trial€contradicted€the€petitioner's€claim€that€he€wished€to€testify.Ð  )à$( Ðà@ÍÍ*ìàIˆÐ ° Ðà  àAs€his€first€issue€on€appeal,€the€petitioner€complains€generally€about€his€trial€counsel's€lackÐ œì Ðof€investigation.€€More€specifically,€he€contends€that€the€failure€to€subpoena€Renaldo€and€DavidÐ ˆØ ÐGatewood€adversely€affected€his€defense,€particularly€with€regard€to€the€attempted€first€degreeÐ tÄ Ðmurder€charge.€€He€hints€that€his€trial€counsel€prevented€him€from€testifying.€€Ð `° ÐÌÔ‡XYXXXYÔà  àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðcounsel,€he€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€were€below€"the€rangeÐ $ t Ðof€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936Ð  ` Ð(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€he€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€"actually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€theÐ ü L  Ðdefense."€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693€(1984).€€Should€the€petitioner€fail€toÐ è 8  Ðestablish€either€factor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€Our€supreme€court€described€the€standard€ofÐ Ô$  Ðreview€as€follows:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€a€failure€to€prove€eitherÐ ˜è  Ðdeficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffectiveÐ „Ô  Ðassistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€not€address€the€components€in€any€particularÐ pÀ Ðorder€or€even€address€both€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€of€oneÐ \¬ Ðcomponent.€€ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).€€On€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,Ð  p Ðthe€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€of€hindsight,€may€not€second-guess€a€reasonably€based€trialÐ  \ Ðstrategy,€and€cannot€criticize€a€sound,€but€unsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€course€ofÐ øH Ðthe€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Such€deferenceÐ ä4 Ðto€the€tactical€decisions€of€counsel,€however,€applies€only€if€the€choices€are€made€after€adequateÐ Ð  Ðpreparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àUnder€our€statutory€law,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clearÐ ”ä Ðand€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f).€€On€appeal,€the€findings€of€fact€madeÐ €Ð Ðby€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÐ l¼ Ðpreponderates€against€them.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðburden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€those€findings.€€òòClennyÐ D!” Ðv.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).Ð 0"€  ÐÔ#†XYXXXY3##ÔÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court's€finding€that€theÐ $X" Ðpetitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€Initially,€when€a€petitioner€claims€thatÐ ô$D # Ðtrial€counsel€failed€to€discover,€interview,€or€present€a€witness€in€support€of€his€defense,€he€shouldÐ à%0!$ Ðpresent€that€witness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ì&"% ÐApp.€1990).€€Because€Renaldo€Gatewood€did€not€testify€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€it€would€beÐ ¸'#& Ðspeculative€to€conclude€that€his€testimony€would€have€made€a€difference€in€the€result.€€Moreover,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthe€record€establishes€that€the€testimony€of€David€Gatewood€would€not€have€supported€the€defenseÐ )à$( Ðtheory€that€either€or€both€of€the€victims€were€not€in€the€trailer€at€the€time€the€shots€were€fired.€€Thus,Ð |*Ì%) Ðany€failure€on€the€part€of€trial€counsel€to€ensure€his€presence€at€trial€would€not€have€affected€theÐ h+¸&* Ðresults.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court's€conclusion€that€trial€counsel€hadÐ ° Ðconducted€an€adequate€investigation€and€properly€prepared€for€trial.€€Certainly,€no€prejudice€resultedÐ œì Ðfrom€any€perceived€deficiency.€€Finally,€the€equivocal€claim€by€the€petitioner€that€he€was€denied€theÐ ˆØ Ðopportunity€to€testify€at€his€trial€is€simply€not€supported€by€the€record.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@®®)ìàIIˆÐ L œ Ðà  àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€trial€counsel€to€remain€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€courtroom€during€the€course€of€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€Rule€615€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ $ t ÐEvidence€allows€either€party€to€exclude€witnesses.€€An€exception€exists,€however,€for€those€witnessesÐ  ` Ð"essential€to€the€presentation€of€the€party's€cause."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€615.€€The€party€seeking€to€avoidÐ ü L  Ðsequestration€bears€the€burden€of€proving€that€a€Rule€615€exemption€applies.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Ortizóó,Ð è 8  Ð10€F.€Supp.€2d€1058,€1060€(N.D.€Iowa€1998).€€In€this€instance,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðpetitioner's€trial€counsel€was€essential€to€the€state's€case.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€standard€of€review€is€one€of€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2dÐ ˜è  Ð54,€68€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808,€815€(Tenn.€1985).€€In€òòState€v.€JeromeÐ „Ô  ÐBrownóó,€No.€03C01„9107„CR„00201,€slip€op.€at€15„16€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Oct.€6,Ð pÀ Ð1992),€this€court€ruled€as€follows€on€an€identical€issue:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  à[Rule€615]€specifically€allows€the€presence€of€"a€person€whose€presence€is€shown€byÐ 4„ Ða€party€to€be€essential€to€the€presentation€of€the€party's€cause."€€In€this€post„convictionÐ  p Ðcase,€the€central€issue€dealt€with€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€theÐ  \ Ðtrial€court€denied€the€trial€attorney's€exclusion€during€the€testimony€of€other€witnessesÐ øH Ðbecause€the€attorney€would€need€to€hear€what€testimony€was€against€him€in€order€thatÐ ä4 Ðhe€could€answer.€.€.€.€€Given€the€special€circumstances€which€arise€in€a€post„Ð Ð  Ðconviction€proceeding€in€which€a€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€attorney€wasÐ ¼  Ðineffective,€it€is€entirely€reasonable€to€conclude€that€the€trial€attorney's€presenceÐ ¨ø Ðwould€be€essential€for€the€presentation€of€the€state's€case.€€The€trial€court€did€notÐ ”ä Ðabuse€its€discretion€in€excluding€the€trial€attorney€from€the€operation€of€The€Rule.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àEven€if€it€qualified€as€an€abuse€of€discretion,€it€is€difficult€to€ascertain€how€that€may€haveÐ X ¨ Ðaffected€the€results€of€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€It€is€apparent€from€our€review€of€this€record€that€the€Ð D!” Ðpetitioner€did€not€establish€any€prejudice€through€his€own€testimony€or€that€of€his€single€witness,Ð 0"€  Ðeven€if€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel€had€not€been€considered€at€all.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE