ÿWPCÊ Jk%5Hž^u'^«R…YÕ^„#4qXb°¯[fFÆïEf•^n'OJEë_ÓBí9%'ÍS­Æ¡–¬Õ×T|àf~ ™Æ ôðÎW¥ H@ýÔ³ÛàmÄ­1Œw…áüÖËL¯ñ¨P@ÿJ57‰µ”’íºBóÍ643`ªÈŽŽRiÔ´ÑûÆy!È´—c×fÔQ@!Û¶Ei1^­ºÐö/47 Ä÷fà†2ãUùŒú[†S€§?i¸t8.ß6 ðN¤sAÆØ³ÂÛzä£^"3«ÍŒjα%FöÐj.eûX½è¦Ç°8«lÒÕx¿ÃT²Ùëgl3f/âmàå&#‰wm*ü>–Å颙@“Ú½u?;€¥áú€QOá¬ZQâ?*¥ôÙ!ˆwÜP½ö^åEõ"7ò}ðSsÔFÈ–iÀÍ]ºe·È/ÂË·LñO¬È]ŠÄJŒ_¡(÷3‰oü7Ô7©”|‹•Ïg½³²ÓDH@ÍÁ„!u!î üsèµ­_Ã??cºýÐ;€Â®­¸êІ¾×…o‹EŽªÍÐXÂôrìf*ŘϾWY*éˆ3Ìuð À+‘D'¿<ÚÍW×™…2µ†9 _¬¡ml€†çç³%éâ„«½¯æqÄÞb#É\ %% + 0ˆ3 UN» ^ w z Ò“ 4e y ˆ mŠ Æ¡ Æg Æ-ÆóóN¹¹¹E»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»b½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½ 0ëÅÅÅÅ B°° 0¤Í D5q D-¦ 0KÓÓ ASÆq 0¤7 0DÛ A«˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0» (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular%„‹/Ï  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ~‰/ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2Æ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‚á»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¢äò»»Ô d(|3¶$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‚á»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¶$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‚á»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‚á»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼‚á»»»ÔÑ8€Â?XXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î|^‚áÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼‚á»îî|^#ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€June€3,€2003Ð öF ÐÔ‡XÂ?X»¼‚áÔÌò òÔ#†¼‚á»XXÂ?#ÔÔ_ÔDARROWÔ_Ô€LYNN€WILLIAMSòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XÂ?X»¼‚áÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€3739€€€€€€Joseph€H.€Walker,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2002„03150„CCA„R3„PC€€„€Filed€December€9,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Ô_ÔDarrowÔ_Ô€Lynn€Williams,€seeks€post„conviction€relief€from€his€2001€second€degreeÐ V¦  Ðmurder€conviction.€€The€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô€County€Circuit€Court€denied€post„conviction€relief,€and€now€onÐ ? Ðappeal,€the€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€prepare€and€devise€aÐ (x Ðtrial€strategy.€€Because€the€record€supports€the€lower€courtððs€decision,€we€affirm€the€dismissal€of€theÐ a Ðpost„conviction€petition.Ð úJ ÐÔ#†¼‚á»XXÂ?¯#ÔÔ‡XÂ?X»¼‚áÔÌÓìÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ µ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼‚á»àXÂ?i#ÔÔ‡XÂ?X.¼‚áÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€andÐ ˆØ ÐòòDavid€G.€Hayes,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð qÁ ÐÌJ.€Barney€Ô_ÔWitheringtonÔ_Ô,€IV,€Covington,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Ô_ÔDarrowÔ_Ô€Lynn€Williams.Ð C“ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð e ÐElizabeth€T.€Rice,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Walt€Ô_ÔFreelandÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ þN ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ç 7  ÐÓ÷ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼‚á»XXÂ?&#ÔÔ‡XÂ?X»¼‚áÔÐ ¹" " ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼‚á»XXÂ?± #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÂ?X»¼‚áÔà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€conviction€was€affirmed€by€this€court€on€November€29,€2001.€€òòSeeÐ Œ$Ü$ ÐState€v.€Ô_ÔDarrowÔ_Ô€Lynn€Williamsóó,€No.€W2001„01825„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Jackson,€Nov.Ð u%Å % Ð29,€2001),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2002).€€The€juryððs€second€degree€murder€verdict€€resulted€fromÐ ^&®!& Ðthe€defendantððs€1999€shooting€of€his€brother„in„law€during€a€party€at€the€victimððs€house.€€òòId.óó,€slipÐ G'—"' Ðop.€at€2.€€Following€the€verdict,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€serve€fifteen€years€in€theÐ 0(€#( ÐDepartment€of€Correction.Ð )i$) ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€petitioner€timely€filed€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€post„conviction€courtÐ ë*;&+ Ðappointed€counsel€and€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€November€22,€2002.€€With€respect€toÐ Ô+$', Ðthe€issues€on€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€testified€at€the€hearing€as€follows.€€He€met€with€counsel€onlyÐ ½, (- Ðonce€prior€to€trial,€and€the€30„to„60„minute€meeting€occurred€a€day€or€two€before€trial.€€TheÐ ¦-ö(.ý ÐÔ_Ôpetitioner€testified€that€counsel€informed€him€that€self„defense€was€not€a€viable€defense€theory€andÐ ° Ðthat€voluntary€intoxication€was€the€most€promising€defense.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€counselÐ ™é Ðfailed€to€challenge€the€testimony€of€trial€witnesses,€including€the€medical€examiner,€as€to€whetherÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€victim€was€shot€first€in€the€face€and€then€in€the€chest€or€òòvice€versaóó€and€that€counsel€failed€toÐ k» Ðobject€to€other€testimony€that€the€petitioner€thought€was€objectionable.€€€€On€cross„examination,€theÐ T¤ Ðpetitioner€gave€a€rambling€account€of€how€his€shooting€of€the€victim€was€accidental.€€€€€Ð =  ÐÌà  àà ` àTrial€counsel€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€had€been€engaged€in€theÐ  _ Ðpractice€of€criminal€law€since€1983.€€€He€had€taken€the€petitionerððs€case€over€from€the€publicÐ ø H Ðdefender€and€had€spent€a€ð ðgood€bit€of€timeðð€discussing€the€case€with€his€predecessor€counsel.€€Ð á 1  ÐCounsel€said€that€he€anticipated€the€evidence€that€was€presented€in€the€case,€and€there€were€noÐ Ê   Ðsignificant€surprises.€€Counsel€recalled€that€the€state€mounted€a€strong€case.€€Because€the€shootingÐ ³  Ðoccurred€during€a€family€gathering,€there€were€several€eyewitnesses€to€the€shooting.€€They€generallyÐ œì  Ðtestified€at€trial€that€the€petitioner€pulled€the€trigger€intentionally.€€There€was€no€issue€of€identity€ofÐ …Õ  Ðthe€shooter.€€Counsel€testified€that€much€was€accomplished€in€the€initial€stages€of€the€case;€counselÐ n¾  Ðwas€able€to€persuade€the€police€and€the€prosecutor€not€to€bring€a€first€degree€murder€charge.€Ð W§  ÐCounsel€testified€that€he€decided€not€to€employ€a€voluntary€intoxication€defense€because€he€did€notÐ @ Ðbelieve€it€would€have€militated€against€a€knowingòò€mens€reaóó,€especially€in€the€face€of€eyewitnessÐ )y Ðtestimony€that€the€petitioner€volitionally€pulled€the€trigger€twice.€€Ð b ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€cross„examination,€counsel€testified€that€the€public€defender,€who€served€as€theÐ ä4 Ðpetitionerððs€initial€counsel,€made€extensive€notes€which€were€available€to€trial€counsel.€€CounselÐ Í Ðcharacterized€the€defense€theory€as€ð ðtry[ing]€to€minimize€the€proof€and€obtain€the€most€minimalÐ ¶ Ðsentencing€factor€we€could.ðð€€Counsel€explained€that€the€defense€was€somewhat€hidebound;€theÐ Ÿï Ðpetitioner€had€admitted€to€counsel€that€he€had€shot€the€victim,€and€there€were€five€to€eightÐ ˆØ Ðeyewitnesses€to€the€shooting.€€The€state€did€not€utilize€all€its€available€witnesses€in€its€case„in„chiefÐ qÁ Ðbut€reserved€some€witnesses€for€possible€rebuttal€testimony.€€Counsel€knew,€and€explained€to€theÐ Zª Ðpetitioner,€that€only€the€petitioner,€by€testifying,€could€insert€the€claim€of€accidental€shooting.€Ð C“ ÐCounsel€testified€that€the€petitioner€opted€not€to€testify.€€Counsel€explained€that€counsel€wanted€toÐ ,| Ðtry€the€case€rather€than€plead€guilty€to€second€degree€murder€because€of€the€possibility€that€theÐ e Ðprosecution€might€falter€or€that€the€jury€might€return€a€verdict€of€a€lesser€offense.€€CounselÐ þN Ðdiscounted€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€the€order€in€which€the€shots€were€fired€was€a€critical€issue€inÐ ç 7 Ðthe€case.€€Ð Ð!   ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€petitioner€had€ð ðfailed€to€show€inadequateÐ ¢#ò" Ðtrial€preparation€or€bad€trial€tactics€[or€to€show€that€any]€deficient€performance€was€prejudicial.ðð€Ð ‹$Û# ÐThe€court€dismissed€the€post„conviction€relief€petition,€and€the€petitioner€timely€appealed.€€Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌà  àà ` àAlthough€a€number€of€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€trial€error€wereÐ F'–"& Ðraised€in€the€petition€and€alluded€to€in€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€on€appeal€only€raisesÐ /(#' Ðthe€issue€of€counselððs€ineffectiveness€in€failing€to€prepare€and€devise€a€strategy€for€trial.€€Ð )h$( ÐEssentially,€the€petitioner€posits€that€trial€counsel€was€so€relieved€that€the€charge€had€been€reducedÐ *Q%) Ðfrom€first€degree€to€second€degree€murder€that€he€basically€abdicated€his€duty€to€defend€theÐ ê*:&* Ðpetitioner€against€the€lesser€charge.€€Ð Ó+#'+ ЀÌà  àà ` àThe€Tennessee€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€authorizes€the€filing€of€a€singleÐ ™é Ðpetition,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102(c)€(2003),€to€seek€relief€from€a€conviction€or€sentenceÐ ‚Ò Ðthat€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgement€of€any€state€or€federal€constitutional€right,€òòid.óóÐ k» Ððð€40„30„103€(2003).€€The€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€ofÐ T¤ Ðfact€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„30„110(f)€(2003).€€On€appeal,€a€post„convictionÐ =  Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them,€and€theÐ & v Ðappellate€court€will€neither€re„weigh€the€evidence€nor€evaluate€the€credibility€of€witnessesòòóó.€€AnÐ  _ Ðappellate€court's€review€of€a€question€of€law€or€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact,€such€as€anÐ ø H Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,€however,€is€reviewed€òòde€novo€óówith€no€presumption€ofÐ á 1  Ðcorrectness.€€òòNichols€v.€Stateóó,€90€S.W.3d€576,€586€(Tenn.€2002)€€à È à€Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€establish€an€abridgement€of€the€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€asÐ œì  Ðguaranteed€by€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€9€of€theÐ …Õ  ÐTennessee€Constitution,€the€claimant€must€show€òòboth€óóthat€counsel's€performance€was€deficient€andÐ n¾  Ðthat€the€deficiency€prejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€692,€104€S.€Ct.Ð W§  Ð2052,€2067€(1984)òò;€Nicholsóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€586òòóó.€€Deficient€performance€of€counsel€equates€to€ð ðactsÐ @ Ðor€omissions€[that]€were€so€serious€that€they€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessÐ )y Ðunder€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€€òòNicholsóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€587.€€The€court€reviewing€counselððsÐ b Ðperformance€not€only€views€the€claimed€deficiency€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time€of€theÐ ûK Ðalleged€acts€or€omissions,€but€it€also€indulges€ð ða€heavy€measure€of€deference€to€counselððsÐ ä4 Ðjudgments.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€462€(Tenn.€1999).€€To€establish€that€deficientÐ Í Ðperformance€resulted€in€prejudice,€the€claimant€is€required€to€demonstrate€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonableÐ ¶ Ðprobability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€haveÐ Ÿï Ðbeen€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÐ ˆØ Ðoutcome.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€The€claimant€ð ðmust€establish€that€theÐ qÁ Ðdeficiency€of€counsel€was€of€such€a€degree€that€it€deprived€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial€and€calledÐ Zª Ðinto€question€the€reliability€of€the€outcome.ðð€€òòNicholsóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€587.€Ð C“ ÐÌ€à  àà ` àHaving€reviewed€the€facts€and€the€applicable€principles€of€law,€we€must€agree€withÐ e Ðthe€trial€court€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€establish€either€deficient€performance€of€counsel€or€thatÐ þN Ðhe€was€in€any€way€prejudiced€by€counselððs€assistance.€€The€state€had€a€very€strong€case,€and€theÐ ç 7 Ðstateððs€election€to€charge€the€petitioner€with€second€degree€and€not€first€degree€murder€effectivelyÐ Ð!   Ðdiminished€the€efficacy€of€a€meaningful€state„of„mind€defense.€€Because€there€was€no€issue€ofÐ ¹" ! Ðidentity,€the€defense€was€relegated€to€going€to€trial€with€nothing€to€lose€and€hoping€for€the€best.€Ð ¢#ò" ÐCounsel€performed€well€under€the€circumstances,€and€we€cannot€fault€his€actions€and€tactics€inÐ ‹$Û# Ðpursuing€a€trial€in€the€hopes€of€jury€dispensations.€€The€evidence€presented€at€the€evidentiary€hearingÐ t%Ä $ Ðdemonstrated€no€deficiency€of€performance€and€no€prejudice.Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€is€affirmed.Ð /(#' ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ê*:&* Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE