 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reid v. State3/29/2004
as uncooperative. Counsel testified that, if the Petitioner's credibility was damaged by Detective Bennett's testimony, he did not see how the Court of Criminal Appeals could find the error to be harmless because of the damage to the Petitioner's defense.
Counsel recalled that, prior to the trial, he and the Petitioner spoke extensively about trial preparation and trial strategy, including who to call as witnesses. Counsel explained that he raised several issues at the Petitioner's request including the character of the jury, but that he "didn't really see a whole lot of substance to that issue." Counsel was shown a document in which the Petitioner requested an interlocutory appeal from the denial of the motion for a change of venue, and he explained that the reason he did not file the appeal was that the trial court told them that the case was going to be tried and he felt the issue was "not substantial."
Counsel testified that, while he spoke with the Petitioner regarding his appeal, he did not specifically remember discussing whether or not to raise the sufficiency of the convicting evidence issue on appeal. He explained, "I would not contradict anything [the Petitioner] said about us having conversations about that. I feel confident though . . . that if and when we did have those conversations, I would have explained to him my thought processes about why that wasn't raised." Counsel reiterated that he wanted the appellate court to focus on the issue of Detective Bennett's statements attacking the Petitioner's credibility. Counsel stated that, while the appeal was not successful, it was a deliberate strategy to focus on the issue of credibility rather than to raise the issue of witnesses' testimony that was inconsistent as to minor issues.
The post-conviction court reviewed the verdict forms and stated that the jury found the Petitioner guilty of first degree murder in the perpetration of aggravated robbery. Counsel agreed and stated that "that was another . . . strong issue on dealing with this consideration of raising sufficiency of the evidence, because all [the jury] had to do was find that he . . . participated in it, whether he pulled the trigger or not . . . ."
Following the presentation of the evidence, the post-conviction court found that the Petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel and dismissed the petition, holding the following:
Petitioner was represented at the original trial in this case by [Counsel]. Trial counsel testified at the hearing on Post Conviction Relief that he had expended a great deal of time in preparation for this trial. Counsel vigorously argued pretrial motions in this case, and, after conviction at trial, argued the issues he felt to be relevant on appeal.
Petitioner made allegations that he wanted trial counsel to raise the issue of `sufficiency of evidence' at the appeal in this matter, and that it was not done. Counsel testified that his decision not to raise the `sufficiency of evidence' issue on appeal was a conscious decision on his part. Trial counsel stated that he thought his better chances on appeal consisted of those issues with some merit, especially the issue concerning one of the state's officer witnesses at trial testifying that the [Petitioner] `did not cooperate with' him when he tried to get a statement from him upon his apprehension after the Interstate chase.
While the issue of `sufficiency of evidence' was not specifically dealt with at the appellate level, the court there made rather significant comments on the evidence when they held that any reference to the Petitioner's refusal to gi
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.
|
|