 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blackwell v. State2/12/2003
lysis
To be successful in his claim for post-conviction relief, the petitioner must prove all factual allegations contained in his post-conviction petition by clear and convincing evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f) (1997). "`Clear and convincing evidence means evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.'" State v. Holder, 15 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (quoting Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 n.2 (Tenn. 1992)). Issues regarding the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be accorded their testimony, and the factual questions raised by the evidence adduced at trial are to be resolved by the post-conviction court as the trier of fact. Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 579 (Tenn. 1997). Therefore, we afford the post-conviction court's findings of fact the weight of a jury verdict, with such findings being conclusive on appeal absent a showing that the evidence in the record preponderates against those findings. Id. at 578.
The petitioner's complaints concern the ineffectiveness of his counsel at trial and on appeal. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999). In Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001) (citations omitted), our supreme court further explained the standard of review in cases of ineffective assistance of counsel:
[A post-conviction] court's findings of fact underlying a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed on appeal under a de novo standard, accompanied with a presumption that those findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. However, a [post-conviction] court's conclusions of law--such as whether counsel's performance was deficient or whether that deficiency was prejudicial--are reviewed under a purely de novo standard, with no presumption of correctness given to the [post-conviction] court's conclusions.
"To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner bears the burden of proving both that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense." Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)). Both prongs of the test must be met; accordingly, this court need not grant relief if the petitioner has made an inadequate showing of either deficiency or prejudice. Id. at 370. In evaluating whether the petitioner has met his burden, this court must determine whether counsel's performance was within the range of competence required of attorneys in criminal cases. Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). Additionally, this court should refrain from second-guessing tactical and strategic decisions by defense counsel at trial and on appeal. Henley, 960 S.W.2d at 579.
The petitioner first complains that trial counsel were ineffective for "letting the [Batson] issue drop." In other words, the petitioner alleges that counsel should have pursued the issue after the trial court ruled upon the issue and should have raised it in the motion for new trial in order to preserve the issue for appeal.
In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 1718 (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race." In order to prove a Batson violation, the petitioner must first establish a prima facie case that the juror is being challenged on the basis of race. State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689, 709 (Tenn. 2001) (appendix), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 998, 122 S. Ct
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|