WPC ;# JUNU % 0 (w@4%UH4 0D|b 0l 0D< AQ 0J 0T 0^o 0h 0r5 0| 0# 0 1u9 0d B / 0D 0@9 0Dy D/ B D3 U>< Vz U6 U*B)0DCY AMU*+>v~[vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DUEEӀ_#3|x<09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular(3$ !  - -((3$ !      0  (#$  0  !"#$&C<< C2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd 'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman L !.   )  <  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd!#3C << G<  9p`(Arial ! !  #d#.  ""  55   YYY FILED5XDecember15,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#.  $       00Inthepetitionersofferofproofatthepostconvictionhearing,onejurorwasquotedassaying, Ifamansownmotherwonttestifyonhisbehalfthenweknowwhatwevegottodo.  !#d#.  $       00&UnlikeStatev.Melson,772S.W.2d417(Tenn.1989),thiswasnotacasewheretheavailablemitigationevidencehadalreadybeenpresentedduringtheguiltphaseofthepetitionerstrial.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . .     /   0ԛ 7b6XXdd7\RA'\ &11Xd&Ӝ          FORPUBLICATION!ٜR463A1-j|Hf`  `@Rߛ@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@ (HEARDATCOLUMBIA)̜̀STEVEHENLEY,    (       (  Appellee,   (      (JacksonCriminal      (v.      (Hon.J.O.Bond,Judge      (   ,       (S.Ct.No.01S019703CC00056STATEOFTENNESSEE,   (       (  Appellant.  (    &11Xd&@  DISSENTINGOPINION   Idissentfromthemajoritysdecisionthatthepetitionerinthiscasereceivedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.  Eventhoughthetrialcourtdeniedthepetitionforrelief,thatcourtobviouslywasnotpleasedwithcounselsperformanceandattributedcounselsfailuretocallanywitnessesotherthanpetitionersgrandmotherto trialstrategy.Inannouncinghisdecision,thecourtstated: Iwouldhavelikedtohavehadanotherwitnessmaybetohavebeenputon.Iwouldhavelikedforthemothertohavetestifiedwhensherefused.Andagain: Iwouldhavelikedtohaveseenanotherwitnessortwo,butthatstrialstrategy.  TheCourtofCriminalAppealsfoundthatcounselsperformanceatthesentencingphaseofthetrialwasdeficientandalsoprejudicial,andthecasewasremandedbythatcourttothetrialcourtforanewsentencinghearing.Insupportofmydissent,IrelyuponthefollowingportionsoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsopinion,whichwaswrittenbyJudgeJohnH.Peay,withPresidingJudgeJoeB.JonesandSpecialJudgeJosephH.Walkerconcurring: ` X8   Withrespecttothesentencingphaseofthetrial,however,wefindthatMr.Reneausinvestigationandpreparationwereconstitutionallydeficient.OurCourthasrecognizedthat8 8 8 [a]lawyeralsohasasubstantialandimportantroletoperforminraisingmitigatingfactorsbothtotheprosecutorinitiallyandtothecourtatsentencing.Thiscannoteffectivelybedoneonthebasisofbroadgeneralemotionalappealsoronthestrengthofstatementsmadetothelawyerbythedefendant.Informationconcerningthedefendantsbackground,education,employmentrecord,mentalandemotionalstability,familyrelationships,andthelike,willberelevant,aswillmitigatingcircumstancessurroundingthecommissionoftheoffenseitself.Investigationisessentialtofulfillmentofthesefunctions.8 Adkinsv.State,No.03C0l9l06CR00164,pp.423,WashingtonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedDecember2,1994,atKnoxville)(citationomitted).Personalbackgroundandcharacterinformationarehighlyrelevantatacapitalsentencinghearing becauseofthebelief,longheldbythissociety,thatdefendantswhocommitcriminalactsthatareattributabletoadisadvantagedbackground,ortoemotionalandmentalproblems,maybelessculpablethandefendantswhohavenosuchexcuse.Californiav.Brown,479U.S.538,545(1987)(OConnor,J.,concurring).` XhX8  AlthoughmanyofHenleysfamilymembers,includinghismother,testifiedatthepostconvictionhearingthattheywouldhavebeenwillingtotestifyonHenleysbehalfhadtheybeenasked,Mr.Reneauspoketononeofthempriortothesentencinghearing.Mr.Reneaucalledthepetitionersmothertothestandatthesentencinghearingwithouteverhavingspokentoherabouttestifying.Notunderstandingwhatwasexpectedofher,sherefusedinfrontofthejurytotestify.Wedonotthinkitisassumingtoomuchtoconcludethatajuryisgoingtobeprejudicedagainstadefendantuponthatpersonsownmotherrefusingtotestifyonhisorherbehalf. 7   ׀8  Hadtheybeenpreparedandcalledatthesentencinghearing,Henleysfamilymemberswouldhavetestifiedthattheylovedthepetitioner;thathewasagoodandlovingman;thathewasnotaviolentman;thattheoffensesofwhichhewasconvictedweretotallyoutofcharacterforhim;andthattheywereshockedbyhisarrest.Theywouldhavepledforhislife.Additionally,thepetitionerproducedevidenceatthepostconvictionhearingthatotherpotentiallymitigatingevidenceexistedthatwouldhavebeendiscoveredhadMr.Reneauconductedamorethoroughinvestigation.ExperttestimonyindicatedthepossibilitythatHenleyhadsufferedfromdepression,alcoholanddrugabuse,andlearningdisabilities.Ingradeschool,HenleysI.Q.testedat89.Hedroppedoutofhighschoolafterthetenthgrade.Notlongbeforethemurders,Henleysufferedseverefinanciallosses,wasforcedtofilebankruptcy,andlostthefamilyfarm.Allofthiswouldhavebeenpropertestimonyformitigation.Eddingsv.Oklahoma,455U.S.104,117(1982)(theConstitutionrequiresthesentencerto considerandweighallofthemitigatingevidenceconcerningthepetitionersfamilybackgroundandpersonalhistory.)(OConnor,J.,concurring);Lockettv.Ohio,438U.S.586(1978).8  Inspiteofallthemitigatingevidenceavailable,onlytwopeopletestifiedonHenleysbehalfatthesentencinghearing:Henleyhimselfandhisgrandmother.ThejuryhadalreadyindicatedthatitdidnotbelieveHenleywhenitconvictedhim.Accordingly,itisreasonabletopresumethatHenleystestimonyathissentencinghearingwouldnothavebeenparticularlypersuasive.Itisalsopossible,ifnotlikely,thatHenleysgrandmotherwasviewedwithacertainamountofhostilitybecauseFlatttestifiedthatitwasonherbehalfthatHenleyhadfeltcompelledtoattacktheStaffords.Thus,ofallthepeoplethatMr.Reneauhadavailabletohim,theonlytwothattestifiedwerearguablythetwoleasthelpful.8  Whentherecordshowsasubstantialdeficiencyininvestigation,thenormaldeferenceaffordedtrialcounselsstrategiesisparticularlyinappropriate....[This]Courtwillnotcreditastrategicchoicebycounselwhencounseldidnotevenknowwhatevidencewasavailable.Cooperv.State,847S.W.2dat530(citationomitted).Therecordinthiscaseshowssuchasubstantialdeficiency.NopsychologicalorpsychiatricevaluationwasdoneonHenley.OtherthanHenleysgrandmother,Mr.ReneaudidnotspeakwithHenleysfamilymemberspriortothesentencinghearing.ThereisnoevidencefromMr.ReneausfileorotherwisethatheinvestigatedHenleyseducationalbackground,employmenthistory,orthathespokewithmembersofthecommunityfamiliarwithHenley.He shouldhaveinvestigatedhisbackground,checkedhisschoolrecords,...hismedicalhistory,triedtofindwitnessestodemonstrateallaspectsofhischaracter.[He]shouldhaverequestedapsychologicalevaluation.Bellv.State,No.03C019210CR00364,p.42,HamiltonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedMarch15,1995,atKnoxville),cert.denied,(quotingthecourtbelow).8  WhilewehaveheldthatMr.Reneausfailuretoinvestigatehisclientsmentalhealthwasnotineffectiveassistanceofcounselwithrespecttotheguiltphaseofthistrial,wedofindthatitwasineffectivewithrespecttothesentencingphase.8 8 [T]hereisaqualitativedifferencebetweenobtainingpsychologicalinformationforthepurposeofpreparingadefensetothechargesandusingsuchevidenceforthepurposeofmitigatingthepunishment.Thus,itisnotincompatibletopresentevidenceofpsychologicalormentalimpairmentduringsentencing,evenwhereadefenseoffactualinnocencehasbeeninterposedattheguiltphase.8 Bellv.State,supraat46(citationomitted).CombinedwithMr.ReneausfailuretoinvestigateHenleysfamilysavailabilityandwillingnesstotestify,andhisfailuretoinvestigateotheraspectsofHenleyspast,Mr.Reneaufailedtomeetthelevelorcompetencerequiredbyattorneysrepresentingclientsatthesentencingphasewhoarefacedwiththedeathpenalty.SeeStatev.Terry,813S.W.2d420,425(Tenn.1991)(thequalitativedifferencebetweenthedeathpenaltyandallotherpunishmentsrequiresgreaterreliabilityinthesentencingdetermination).8  WealsofindthatMr.Reneausdeficientperformanceatthesentencingphaseprejudicedthepetitioner.ThepetitionermadeanofferofproofatthepostconvictionhearingthatthejuryconsideredthefactthatHenleysmotherrefusedtotestifyonhersonsbehalf.Evenwithoutthisofferofproof,weholdthatthedearthoffavorabletestimonyofferedatthesentencinghearing,whensignificantamountsoffavorabletestimonywereavailable,establishesareasonableprobabilitythat,butforMr.ReneausdeficientperformancewithrespecttothesentencingphaseofHenleystrial,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent. 8   ` XX  ThiswellreasonedopinionbytheCourtofCriminalAppealscompelstheconclusionthatthepetitionerwasdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounselguaranteedbythestateandfederalconstitutionsandthereforeisentitledtoanewsentencinghearing.̛̛  IamauthorizedtostatethatJusticeBirchjoinsinthisDissentingOpinion.      _________________________      Reid,J.