WPC Aj[+j-)_3!h&lI+/5 8{n&%F(0)'R؁kǮµa7H.#4ҬԭMȾ 7̃O)D\/c/"ut248-V5SUv5'D䩞3Ȏi}B+-nBj hyGMٺ+ k99/DxGX[q+yگ25V9!U;&䤘;E xXoY>F]bBB =R6,k ŗOXB"D6;im1_".ٵMX)26`(# F UNQ % 0( U: b 0 U: 0 U: w@ 4 - < D U:*dU:JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ B D3 0D AOgg 0D- D/q BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,|AZ"Arial Regular- -(A8$X;XXX XX;  0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular(*2A$ !   X#XXXX &&X X#X   `   0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular [[E[ӀuM%3|x Xw> XXXh  XXw>   Ad FILEDXw> X h  March31,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular Xw> XXXh  XXw>   Ad FILEDXw> X h  March30,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ` _XX&_TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7\XXdd7      r*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP,`  rr*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP,`  rINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLEJANUARYSESSION,1999  RICKYJ.SUMMERS, h   )  C.C.A.NO.01C019708CC00323 `  `     h   )  `  ` Appellant,   h   ) `   `     h   ) `     h   )  FRANKLINCOUNTY `  VS. `     h   )   `   `     h   )  HON.J.CURTISSMITH,  `   STATEOFTENNESSEE,   )  JUDGE  `  `     h   )  `  ` Appellee.   h   )  (PostConviction)  `    ONAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTOFTHECRIMINALCOURTOFFRANKLINCOUNTY  FORTHEAPPELLANT: h     FORTHEAPPELLEE: 0  ̜RICKYSUMMERS h     JOHNKNOXWALKUP  " ProSe    h     AttorneyGeneralandReporter # MCRCFWartburg,TN37887 h     CLINTONJ.MORGAN %  `     h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral `     h     425FifthAvenueNorth `     h     Nashville,TN37243 `     h     J.MICHAELTAYLOR x  ) !  `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     STEVENM.BLOUNT `     h     AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     324DinahShoreBoulevard `     h     Winchester,TN37398OPINIONFILED________________________AFFIRMEDDAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE  p7./   & 7b dXXd7OPINION & `     ` TheDefendant,RickyJ.Summers,appealsthetrialcourtsorderdismissinghispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.OnAugust23,1985,theCircuitCourtforFranklinCountyfoundDefendantguiltyoffirstdegreepremeditatedmurderfollowingajurytrial.ThisCourtaffirmedhisconviction,Statev.Ricky   Summers,No.85328III,1987WL16398(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Sept.4, ~  1987),andtheTennesseeSupremeCourtdeniedpermissiontoappeal.DefendantfiledatimelypetitionforpostconvictionreliefonAugust28,1990,whichwasnotheardbythetrialcourtuntilMarch26,1997.Thetrialcourtdeniedrelief,adecisionthatDefendantnowappeals. ` Byaddendumtohisoriginalpetition,Defendantarguesfifteenassignmentsoferror.Thesepointsmaybeclassifiedaseithererrorsbythetrialcourtorerrorsbytrialcounsel.Wefindthattheallegederrorsbythetrialcourt"thefirstϜnine"havebeenwaivedinthisCourtbecauseofDefendantsfailuretobringthemondirectappeal.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030111,112(repealedandreplacedby4030206(g)). ` ThelastfiveassignmentsoferrorchargeDefendantstrialattorneyswithineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Specifically,Defendantcontendsthathistrialcounselperformedbelowthestandardofcompetentcriminaldefenseattorneysby:(1)failingtosubpoenawitnessesandensuretheirpresenceincourtfortrial,(2)failingtoraisethedefenseofintoxication,(3)failingtoraisetheissueofmentaldefectortoseekacompetencyhearingastoDefendantscapabilityto 8^/0 formnecessaryelementsoftheoffense,(4)failingtoobjecttounconstitutionaljuryinstructions,and(5)failingtomoveforjudgmentofacquittalatthecloseoftheStatesproof. ` Tobeentitledtopostconvictionreliefonthebasisofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,Defendantmustshowthathiscounselsrepresentationwas deficientandthat thedeficientperformanceprejudicedthedefense.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,687(1984).Underthefirstprong,   counselsperformanceisnotdeficientwhen theadvicegiven,ortheservicesrenderedbytheattorney,arewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975). ` ThesecondprongrequiresDefendanttoshowareasonableprobabilitythattheresultofthetrialwouldhavebeendifferentbutforthedeficientrepresentation.Strickland,466U.S.at694. Areasonableprobabilityisaprobabilitysufficient "0 toundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.Id.󀀀 $   ` Withrespecttorationalizationofattorneyconductinanineffectiveassistanceofcounselcase,theStricklandCourtinstructed, P* " 8 ` Judicialscrutinyofcounselsperformancemustbehighlydeferential.Itisalltootemptingforadefendanttosecondguesscounselsassistanceafterconvictionoradversesentence....Afairassessmentofattorneyperformancerequiresthateveryeffortbemadetoeliminatethedistortingeffectsofhindsight,toreconstructthecircumstancesofcounselschallengedconduct,andtoevaluatetheconductfromcounselsperspectiveatthetime. ` !` ! МId.Strickland,466U.S.at688. 4*,  9p02 @ I.FAILINGTOSUBPOENAWITNESSES ` Defendantfirstallegesthathewas forcedtotrialwithouthavinghiswitnessespresentinviolationofhisrighttodueprocess.Accordingtotherecordoftheevidentiaryhearing,Defendantinformedhistrialcounselpriortotrialaboutseveralwitnesseswhoheclaimswereeyewitnessestothecrime.Hetestifiedthatherequestedthepresenceofthosewitnessesattrialandthatthewitnesseswerepresentononedate.However,thetrialapparentlydidnotbeginonthatdayandwasinsteadrescheduled.Althoughsubpoenaswerereissued,theyapparentlywereneverserved,andtrialcommencedasrescheduled. ` Ifaffordedapostconvictionevidentiaryhearingbythetrialcourt,apetitionermustdomorethanmerelypresentevidencetendingtoshowincompetentrepresentationandprejudice;thepetitionermustprovefactualallegationsbytheapreponderanceoftheevidence.Clennyv.State,576S.W.2d12, "0 14(Tenn.Crim.App.1974)(supersededby4030210(f)(requiringclearandconvincingevidence)).Whenanevidentiaryhearingisheld,findingsoffactmadebythatcourtareconclusiveandbindingonthisCourtunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthem.Cooperv.State,849S.W.2d744,746(Tenn. P* " 1993)(citingButlerv.State,789S.W.2d898,899(Tenn.1990)). @,"$  ` AsnotedbythisCourtinBlackv.State,794S.W.2d752(Tenn.Crim.App.  0&( 1990),8 `  W[w]henapetitionercontendsthattrialcounselfailedtodiscover,interview,orpresentwitnessesinsupportofthedefense,thesewitnessesshouldbepresentedbythepetitionerattheevidentiaryhearing.Asageneralrule,thisistheonlywaythe 6-/ petitionercanestablishthat...aknownwitnesswasnotinterviewed,...or...thefailuretohaveaknownwitnesspresentorcallthewitnesstothestandresultedinthedenialofcritical 9p02 evidencewhichinuredtotheprejudiceofthepetitioner.Itis `  elementarythatneitheratrialcourtnoranappellatecourtcanspeculateorguessonthequestionof...whatawitnessstestimonymighthavebeenifintroducedbydefensecounsel.The H  sameistrueregardingthefailuretocallaknownwitness.Inshort, @  ifapetitionerisabletoestablishthatdefensecounselwasdeficientintheinvestigationofthefactsorcallingaknownwitness,the 0 petitionerisnotentitledtorelieffromhisconvictiononthisgroundunlesshecanproduceamaterialwitnesswho(a)couldhavebeenfoundbyreasonableinvestigationand(b)wouldhavetestifiedfavorablyinsupportofthedefenseifcalled." ` !` ! Id.at75758(emphasisadded)(footnoteomitted)(emphasisadded).Defendantfailedtopresent   athisevidentiaryhearingthewitnesseshecontendsshouldhavetestifiedathistrial,andhetestifiedthathecannotnowrecallthenamesofthesewitnesses.Underthesecircumstances,thisCourtisconstrainedtodenyrelief.@ II.FAILINGTORAISEDEFENSEOFINTOXICATION ` Defendantprovidesnoargumentonthisissueinhisbrief.However,aportionofthepostconvictionevidentiaryhearingwasdedicatedtothesubject,andthetrialcourtfoundasfollows:8 ` Itisapparentfromthetrialtranscriptandthetestimonyofcounselatthehearing,adeliberatestrategicdecisionwasmadeattrialnottostressintoxicationofthedefendant.Thedefensewasthatthepetitionerdidnotcommitthecrime,notthathecouldnotremembertheeventsbecauseofintoxicationorthathecouldnotformaculpablementalstatebecauseofintoxication.Giventhestrategyofthedefense,amplifyingtheissueofintoxicationlikelycouldhavebeencounterproductivebydamagingthecredibilityofthedefendant.Thetacticsadoptedattrialshouldnotnowbesecondguessedbyhindsight.* ` !` ! Weagree.Thecourtsofthisstatehavelong recognizedthatitisnotourfunctiontosecondguesstacticalandstrategicalchoicespertainingtodefensemattersormeasureadefenseattorneysrepresentationby2020hindsightwhendecidingtheeffectivenessoftrialcounsel.Cooperv.State,849S.W.2d 6-/ 744,746(Tenn.1993)(quotingHellardv.State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982)). 8x/1 Therecordofthepostconvictionhearingdoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindings.@ III.FAILURETORAISEISSUEOFMENTALDEFECT@ ORTOSEEKCOMPETENCYHEARINGӀ x  (  ` Defendantagainfailedtosupportthiscontentioninhisbrief;neverthelesswewilladdresstheargumentasitischaracterizedinthetranscriptoftheevidentiaryhearing.Onthisissue,thetrialcourtfound,8 ` Both[ofDefendantstrialcounsel]testifiedatthehearingthatpetitionercooperatedwiththemfullyintrialpreparationandwascompetent.Thetrialtranscriptdoesnotreflectanyinabilityonpetitionersparttounderstandquestionsorcommunicate.Apparently,petitionerbaseshisneedforamentalevaluationonhisclaimhewasaddictedtodrugsandalcoholformanymonthspriortotheincident.PetitionerwasinjailfromhisarrestinMarchuntilthetrialinAugust.Eventhoughnocredibletestimonywaspresentedatthehearingpetitionerwasabusingsubstancesbeforeincarcerationtotheextenthewasincompetentduringhisjailstayorattrial,hecertainlyhadampletimeto dryoutduringhisincarceration. h      p   y1"0` !` ! Defendantdidnotpresentanytestimony,expertorotherwise,atthepostconvictionhearingtendingtoprovebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethathewasnotmentallycompetenttostandtrial.ThetypicalstatementbyDefendantinsupportofthisclaimisasfollows: Itshardformetotalkandtokeepthingsonmymind.IfImtellingyouajoke,Illgetrightinthemiddleofitandforget.ThatsthereasontheresnowaythatIcouldcommitafirstdegreemurder.Thepostconvictiontranscriptsupportsthefindingofthepostconvictioncourt;therefore,thisissuelacksmerit. 9p02 @ IV.FAILURETOOBJECTTOJURYINSTRUCTIONS ` Defendantarguesthathistrialcounselwereineffectiveforfailingtoobjecttothosejuryinstructionsthat,inthefirstpart,hecontendedwereerrorbythetrialcourt.WefindnoineffectiveassistancebyDefendantstrialcounsel.@#A.DefinitionofMalice    ` Defendantarguesthatcounselwereineffectiveforfailingtoobjectwhenthetrialcourtomittedadefinitionof malicefromwithinthejuryinstructionsforfirstdegreemurder.Onpage1094ofthejurycharge,whichDefendanthasappendedtohisresponsebrief,wefind, Foryoutofindthedefendantguiltyofmurderinthefirstdegreeaschargedinthefirstcountoftheindictment,theStatemusthaveprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt...thatthekillingwasmalicious,thatis,thatthedefendantwasofthestateofmindtodotheallegedwrongfulactwithoutlegaljustificationorexcuse.Inaddition,Defendantconcedesthatthecourtdefined maliceinitsinstructionforseconddegreemurder.Wethereforefindnodeficiencyorprejudice.@!B.DefinitionofDeliberate P* "  ` Defendantnextarguesthatcounselshouldhaveobjectedtotheallegedlyincompletedefinitionof deliberategivenbythetrialcourt.AccordingtoDefendant,thetrialcourtchargedonlythatdeliberatemeans withacoolpurpose.Defendantdoesnot,however,presentanalternatedefinition,statereasonswhythechargedinstructedwasdeficient,orprovideanylawholdingthisinstructionerroneous.ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthisdefinitiontobesufficient.Statev.GregBaine,No.03C019202CR00043,1992WL151403, 7.0 at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,July2,1992)( Nospecialrequestwasmade 9p02 attemptingtohavethetrialcourtdefinetheterm coolnessofpurpose,andwe `  areunabletofindanyerrorwiththetrialcourtsfailuretodoso.)@"C.PresumptionofMalice 0  ` Inthisargument,Defendantassertsthathiscounselshouldhaveobjectedtotwojuryinstructionsthatallegedlyshiftedtheburdenofproofbycreatingapresumptionofmalice.Thefirstchallengedinstructionreads,8 ` [I]fadeadlyweaponishandledinamannersoastomakethekillinganaturalorprobableresultofsuchconduct,thenthereisraisedaninferenceofmalicesufficienttosupportaconvictionformurderintheseconddegreeunlessitisrebuttedbyotherfactsandcircumstances.Adeadlyweaponisanyweaponorinstrumentwhichfromthemannerinwhichitisusedorattemptedtobeusedislikelytoproducedeathorgreatbodilyharm.~A ` !` ! BecausethejuryconvictedDefendantoffirstdegreemurder,ratherthanseconddegreemurder,wefindnoprejudiceeveniffailuretoobjectconstituteddeficientϜperformanceofcounsel. `  ` Thenextinstructionallegedlyreadasfollows,8 ` [T]heuseofadeadlyweaponbyapartywhoassaultsanotherwithintenttocommitmurderinthefirstdegreeraisesapresumptionofmalice,unlessrebuttedbyotherfactsandcircumstancestothecontrary.D ` !` ! WefindthisinstructiontobeconstitutionalunderStatev.Bolin,678S.W.2d40 8-#% (Tenn.1984).InBolin,thesupremecourtheldthatthisinstructiondidnot (/%' unconstitutionallyrelievetheStateofitsburdentoprovebeyondareasonabledoubteachelementoftheoffense.Id.at44.Thatcourtstated, Thewordsof 3)+ thepresumption,theimmediatecontextinwhichtheyappear,andtheoverallcontextofthejuryinstructions,removethiscasefromthedueprocesstrapadjudicatedinSandstrom[v.Montana,442U.S.510(1979)],inouropinion.Id. 8x/1 at42.FromasurveyofthejuryinstructionsprovidedbyDefendantinthiscase,wesimilarlyfindthattheinstructionasgivendidnotoffenddueprocess. ` Furthermore,wefindthateveniftheinstructionswereerrorneous,theydidnothave substantialandinjuriouseffectorinfluenceindeterminingthejurysϜverdict.Brechtv.Abrahamson,507U.S.619,637(1993)(quotingKotteakos   v.UnitedStates,328U.S.750,776(1946)).Therefore,Defendantstrialcounsel   didnotprovideineffectiveassistancebyfailingtoobjecttotheinstructions.@%D.ReasonableDoubt p  ` Defendantsfinaljuryinstructionargumentcomplainsthatthe moralcertaintychargegivenbythetrialcourtpermittedthejurytofindguiltonaquantumofevidencelessthantheconstitutionallyrequiredbeyondareasonabledoubtstandard.Hecontendsthathesufferedineffectiveassistanceofcounselbyhisattorneysfailuretoobjecttothisinstruction. ` Thecourtsofthisstatehaveconsistentlyheldthisparticularjuryinstructiontobeconstitutionallypermissible;hence,thefailuretoobjectisnotineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.SeeCarterv.State,958S.W.2d620(Tenn.1997);State @,"$ v.Nichols,877S.W.2d722,734(Tenn.1994);Statev.Sexton,917S.W.2d263, 0.$& 266(Tenn.Crim.App.1995);Pettyjohnv.State,885S.W.2d364,365(Tenn.  0&( Crim.App.1994);Statev.Hallock,875S.W.2d285,294(Tenn.Crim.App. 2(* 1993);Statev.RodneyCorley,No.01C01-9608-CR-00336,1997WL535315, 4*, at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Sept.2,1997),perm.toappealdenied(Tenn. 5,. 1998);KennethCulpv.State,No.02C01-9608-CC-00268,1997WL414397,at 7.0 *2*3(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,July24,1997);TerryShannonKimeryv.State, 9p02 No.03C01-9512-CC-00412,1997WL31143,at*4*5(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Jan.28,1997),perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.1997). P  @"V.JUDGMENTOFACQUITTAL ` Finally,DefendantarguesthathiscounselwereineffectiveforfailingtomoveforajudgmentofacquittalatthecloseoftheStatesproof.Thepostconvictioncourtfoundthat [i]nlightoftheevidenceattrial,petitionersufferednoprejudicebycounselsaction.Inaddition,thecourtstated, Therewasampleevidencetosupportafindingpetitionerkilledthevictiminamalicious,premeditated,anddeliberatefashion. ` InordertoconcludethatDefendantsufferedineffectiveassistanceofcounselduetoafailurebycounseltomoveforjudgmentofacquittal,thisCourtmustfindthattheevidencewasnotsufficienttosupportthejurysverdict.Thiswedeclinetodo,becausetheissuehasbeenpreviouslydetermined.See0State $  v.RickySummers,No.85328III,1987WL16398,at*4*7(Tenn.Crim.App., p& Nashville,Sept.4,1987).Thisissuelacksmerit. ` BecauseweconcludethatnoneofDefendantsissuesrequirereversalofhisconviction,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissinghispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.̀ `     h   ____________________________________ `     h   DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE 9p02 CONCUR:___________________________________̜JOHNH.PEAY,JUDGE___________________________________̜THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE