WPC  4G7 ˜wP?qR_p`}>ݞFh #lnaVhJ6'ԥ{E!lT!us|wR/x+hBE@n,)9:"WB `sn.r/y@Qf/",Oku.:?.b26OY)HkUsPjaq@H;3%=n["L5 2*`>3_/! 0-xeI{M^ɺƶ" ZJ2Tt$CIMt \z_C@lo񠧷CHi__{bn|J'UNI % 0(w@4U:(-b)U:)U:# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # AQ]  0Dt 0D 0D D/@ Bo B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ EDeDEӀn~<$3|x,  AZ"Arial Regular ##d#  !"   XXXX X X   Ad FILED XX    December29,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr. ;X XAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  !"  XXXXXX   Ad FILEDXX   December28,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.;XXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !  8XXXX   jTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tr (<,(j 8` `@EF` ttx$~ rr (<,(j 8` `@EF` ttx$~ rt (>.*jx ` `@E` ttx$< tߛ@ T INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@(TATJACKSON@#TOCTOBER1998SESSIONSYLVESTERSMITH, @33-T)  ` @33-T) p NO.02C019801CR00018   L   ` Appellant,@33-T)  8  @33-T) p SHELBYCOUNTY     VS. @33-T)   @33-T) p HON.BERNIEWEINMAN,   STATEOFTENNESSEE, @33-T) p JUDGE    @33-T) ` Appellee.@33-T) p (PostConviction) d @ T OPINIONCONCURRINGINPART;DISSENTINGINPART  f  ` IagreeinmostrespectswiththewellwrittenmajorityopinionbyJudgeDavidG.Hayes.Iagree,asthestateconcedes,thatpetitionerwasdeprivedofeffectiveassistanceofcounselatthesentencingphaseduetocounselsfailuretorecognizethenecessityforandpresentappropriateproofof mentalretardationwhichwoulddisqualifypetitionerfromthedeathpenalty.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913203.Both N deficientperformanceandprejudicewereestablishedinthisregard,andpetitionerisclearlyentitledtoanewsentencinghearing.However,Idonotagreethatpetitionerisentitledtoanewtrialonthebasisofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.   STANDARDSINEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFCOUNSEL (N$(     *&&*    ` Themajorityopinioncorrectlynotesthat,inordertoestablishineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,apetitionerbearstheburdenofprovingnotonlythatcounselsperformancewasdeficient,butalsothatthedeficientperformanceprejudicedthedefense.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct. 2V-2 2052,2064,80L.Ed.2d674(1984).Toestablishtheprejudiceprong,theburdenisonthepetitionerto showthatthereisareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselsunprofessionalerrors,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Id.at694,104S.Ct.at2068.Areasonableprobabilityisonesufficientto 694: undermineconfidenceintheoutcomeoftheproceeding.Id. ;R6<  j7XdXXd7   ` Themajorityopinionfindsdeficientperformanceandprejudicewithregardto  competencytostandtrialandapossibleinsanitydefense;therefore,themajorityopinionsetsasidetheconvictionandremandsforanewtrial.Inlightofpetitionerspriorhistory,Iagreethatcounselwasdeficientinfailingtosecureafullmentalevaluationinthiscapitalcase.However,Idonotbelievethatpetitionermethisburdenofestablishingthat,butforthisdeficiency,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.   COMPETENCY `    ` Astocompetencytostandtrial,thesoletestimonywhichcouldarguablyestablishincompetencetostandtrialwasthatofDr.Bernet,whostated, thefactthathewasntonmedicationatthetime,thatwhenhesnotonmedication...heishallucinatingandpsychoticanddisorganized...itsmorelikelythannotthathewasnotcompetentatthetimeofthetrial.However,Iwouldnotethattrialcounseltestifiedtheyhadnoproblemscommunicatingwiththepetitionerbeforeorduringtrial.Dr.Hutsonpersonallyinterviewedthepetitionerbeforetrial,andalthoughheclaimedhewasnotaskedtodidnotperformacompetencyevaluation,interestingly,heapparentlydidnotnoticeanythingaboutthepetitionersallegedincompetence. ` Thetrialcourtmadethefollowingpertinentfindings:8 `  Therecordrevealsthatcounselwasabletodiscussthecasewiththedefendantandhispositionwasthathedidnotcommittheoffenseandwasnotpresentatthehomeofthevictimandknewnothingaboutthecrime.Anegotiatedpleawasdiscussedwiththedefendantwhichheturneddownandhemaintainedhisinnocence....Dr.Bernetopinedthatthedefendantwasnotcompetentatthetimeoftrial.ButaspreviouslystatedthereisnothingintherecordfromthepeoplethatweredealingwiththedefendantatornearthetimeoftrialthatwouldindicatethatMr.Smithwasnotcompetent.#XXXXM#XXXX0,1` H!` H!  ` Petitionerhasfailedtoestablishareasonableprobabilitythathe,infact,wasincompetentatthetimeoftrial.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt. 8(4: Ї  INSANITY      ` Astotheinsanitydefense,petitionersproofisevenweaker.Again,themajorityopinionappearstorelyuponthetestimonyofDr.Bernet.Dr.Bernetstestimonywasspeculativeatbest.Dr.Bernetopinedthatthepsychoticandretardedconditionofthedefendant mayhavepreventedhimfromunderstandingthe    wrongfulnessofhisactionsorconforminghisactionstotherequirementsofthelaw.(emphasisadded).However,Dr.Bernetconcededpetitionersmentalconditionfluctuatedandhisinabilitytounderstandthewrongfulnessofhisactionsortoconformhisconducttotherequirementsofthelawwouldoccurwhen heshavingabadday.Hefurtherconcededthatonecouldbepsychoticandnotmeettherequirementsoftheinsanitydefense.Thepetitionerhasnotshownareasonableprobabilitythatonthedateofthehomicidehewas havingabaddaysoastoqualifyfortheinsanitydefense. ` Thetrialcourtnoted:8 ` 8 ` H!` H!Thedoctorfurtherindicatedthatthedefendantmayhave  beeninsanewhenthecrimewascommitted.The   evidencetakeninthebestlightofthepetitionerwouldindicatethatattimesthedefendantwaspsychoticandatothertimeshewasinremission. Whentheaccusedsmentalillnessissubjecttoremission,theevidencemustestablishthattheaccusedsillnesswasnotinremissionwhenhecommittedtheoffenseinquestion.Forbesv. %J!% State,559S.W.2d318,325(Tenn.1977).(emphasis &0"& added)     ` Again,petitionerhasfailedtomeethisburdenofestablishingareasonableprobabilitythattheinsanitydefensewouldhavebeensuccessfulhaditbeenpursuedbytrialcounsel.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt.  FAILURETOESTABLISHPREJUDICE 2-3     ` Themajorityopinionstatesthatitis impossibletofathomthattheappellantwasnotprejudicedbytrialcounselsfailuretoexploretheappellantsmentalhistory.Theopinionthenstatesthat [t]hepsychiatricevidence,ifproperlyinvestigatedand 95; presented,couldhavetotallychangedtheevidentiarypictureinthepresentcase.  (emphasisadded).Theopinionalsostatesthat absentthedeficiencies,theoutcomeofthetrialmightwellhavebeendifferent.(emphasisadded). Couldhave H or mightwqellhaveSuchisnotthetestunderStrickland.Stricklandrequiresthepetitioner  d toshowareasonableprobabilitythattheresultoftheproceeding wouldhavebeen  0 different.#XXXX#XXXXStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.at694,104S.Ct.at2068(emphasis    added).IwouldalsoemphasizethatStricklandwasalsoacapitalcase. x   ` Themajorityopinionfurtherstatesthat [w]hendefensecounselentirelyfailstosubjecttheprosecutionscasetomeaningfuladversarialtesting,therehasbeenadenialofSixthAmendmentrightsthatmakestheadversaryprocessitselfpresumptivelyunreliable.UnitedStatesv.Cronic,466U.S.648,659,104S.Ct.  2039,2045,80L.Ed.2d657(1984).Ifailtoseethebasisforapplicationofthisprincipleunderthefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase. ` Insummary,Iwouldremandforanewsentencinghearing;however,Iwouldnotremandforanewtrialandwouldaffirmtheconviction. `     h      p ____________________________ `     h      p JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE  V"! #XXXXD"#