 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Millican v. State10/19/2005
of the events." We agree. Trial counsel could have done nothing to further investigate the statement as Winningham fully explained his version of the events at trial.
IV. Accident Reconstructionist
The Appellant also asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to secure an accident reconstructionist. At the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel testified, "in my experience with reconstructionists, . . . my personally looking at the scene, I just didn't see anything that a reconstructionist could do that would help." Again the Appellant fails to explain how the hiring of an accident reconstructionist would have been of benefit, especially in view of the fact that the Appellant defended upon the grounds, and continues to assert, that he was not the driver of the van. Moreover, the Appellant offers no suggestion as to how a reconstructionist would have been of benefit. Because no accident reconstructionist was called by the Appellant at the post-conviction hearing, we are not permitted to speculate that an accident reconstructionist's testimony would have been of benefit to the Appellant. Id. This claim is without merit.
V. Previous DUI Conviction
The jury in this case enhanced the Appellant's conviction from vehicular homicide to aggravated vehicular homicide based in part upon his prior DUI judgment of conviction. The Appellant contends, however, that because trial counsel did not personally go to Giles County to investigate the validity of this conviction, trial counsel's assistance in this case was ineffective. After review of the record, we conclude that this court has previously determined that the Appellant's previous judgment of conviction for DUI was facially valid. State v. Jimmy M. Millican, No. M2000-02298-CCA-R3-CD.
VI. Conveyance of Plea Agreement
Lastly, the Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to convey to him a seventeen-year plea agreement, which he claims that he would have accepted rather than going to trial. Trial counsel's testimony at the post-conviction hearing materially contradicted that of the Appellant. Trial counsel testified that he did communicate the plea offer to the Appellant, and the Appellant maintained his innocence. The post-conviction court accredited the testimony of trial counsel, and we will not reweigh or reevaluate the factual issues resolved by the trial court. The record does not preponderate against these findings. For these reasons, we find Appellant's allegation of deficient performance without merit.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|