 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reid v. State3/29/2004
ay have provided some basis for the jury to assign less credibility to [the Petitioner] than the others, simply because he didn't give his story to them at that time." Counsel explained that he "wanted to focus on the issue of credibility" as opposed to arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict the Petitioner because he was concerned that arguing the sufficiency of the convicting evidence claim would deflect from the credibility argument.
Counsel adequately considered potential issues to raise on appeal and concluded that the issue of the sufficiency of the convicting evidence lacked merit and may have even had an adverse effect on the credibility argument. We must evaluate the questionable conduct from Counsel's perspective at the time of his conduct with "a strong presumption that conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 462; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690; Cooper, 849 S.W.2d at 746; Hellard, 629 S.W.2d at 9. Furthermore, Counsel should not be deemed to have been ineffective merely because a different procedure or strategy might have produced a different result. Williams, 599 S.W.2d at 279-80. Moreover, this Court has held that " counsel is not constitutionally required to argue every issue on appeal, or to present issues chosen by his client . . . . The determination of which issues to present on appeal is a matter of counsel's discretion." Swanson, 680 S.W.2d at 491.
While Counsel failed to raise the issue of the sufficiency of the convicting evidence on appeal, his conduct at the time fell "within the wide range of reasonable assistance." Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 462. Counsel made a tactical decision to focus this Court's attention on the issue of the State's attacking the Petitioner's credibility and, while he was unsuccessful, Counsel should not be deemed to have been ineffective merely because a different strategy might have produced a different result. Williams, 599 S.W.2d at 279-80.
Even if we were to find that Counsel erred by failing to raise the issue of the sufficiency of the convicting evidence on appeal, the Petitioner has presented no evidence of prejudice or that the outcome would have been different. In fact, this Court addressed the issue of the sufficiency of the convicting evidence on the direct appeal. This Court commented that the State made a strong case against the Petitioner, "presenting substantial proof from which the jury could determine that [Petitioner] was guilty of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt." Reid, 2001 WL 818205, at *11. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that he was prejudiced by Counsel's failure to raise the issue of the sufficiency of the convicting evidence on appeal. The Petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for Counsel's failure to raise the issue of the sufficiency of the convicting evidence on appeal, this Court would have found that the evidence was insufficient to "undermine confidence in the outcome." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; see also Harris, 875 S.W.2d at 665. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction relief on this issue.
Finally, based upon the foregoing, we respectfully decline the Petitioner's invitation to hold that "in all criminal appeals as of right that if the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence is not presented to the appellate court, it is per se ineffective assistance of counsel." As previously stated, the determination of what issues to present on appeal is a matter of counsel's discretion.
III. Conclusion
Thus, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly found that the Petitioner
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|