Decision In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2D 493 (1967).
This text of Decision In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2D 493 (1967). (Decision In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2D 493 (1967).) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED July 23, 1997 JIMMY RAY POTTER, ) ) Cecil W. Crowson Appellant, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9702-CR-00039 Appellate Court Clerk ) (No. 7310 Below) VS. ) ) FENTRESS COUNTY STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) The Hon. Lee Asbury Appellee. ) ) (Dismissal of Post-Conviction ) Petition) )
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that the
judgment in the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals Rules. Finding that the trial court properly denied post-conviction relief,
we grant the state’s motion to affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 20.
In his sole issue, the petitioner contends that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that counsel was ineffective by failing to
raise any grounds to suppress the petitioner’s second statement given to authorities. An
Anders brief was submitted on this issue pursuant to the United States Supreme Court
decision in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
In seeking post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of
counsel, a petitioner must first establish that the services rendered or the advice given was
below "the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases." Baxter v.
Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). Second, the petitioner must show that the
deficiencies "actually had an adverse effect on the defense." Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 5067, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). There must be a
reasonable probability that but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding would have
been different. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. When determining whether counsel’s performance was deficient, “every effort
[must] be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the
circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from
counsel’s perspective at the time.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. “Thus, the fact that a
particular strategy or tactic failed or even hurt the defense does not, alone, support a claim
of ineffective assistance.” Cooper v. State, 847 S.W.2d 521, 528 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
We must defer to trial strategy and tactical choices when they are informed ones based
upon adequate preparation. Id.
On appeal, the findings of fact made by the post-conviction court are
conclusive and will not be disturbed unless the evidence contained in the record
preponderates against them. Rhoden v. State, 816 S.W.2d 56, 60 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1991). The burden is on the petitioner to show that the evidence preponderates against
those findings. Clenny v. State, 576 S.W.2d 12, 14 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978), cert. denied,
441 U.S. 947, 99 S.Ct. 2170, 60 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1979).
The petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge
the introduction of the petitioner’s second statement to authorities. In this statement, the
petitioner admitted to police that he had been in the victim’s house. Trial counsel testified
at the post-conviction hearing that this second statement was consistent with the version
of the facts relayed to him by the petitioner before trial. Moreover, trial counsel testified
that while the victim was unable to identify the petitioner’s face, her description of the
assailant’s clothing matched the petitioner’s clothing at the time he was arrested a short
distance from the victim’s house. As such, trial counsel indicated that the petitioner’s
statement, taken shortly after the offense and without counsel, was consistent with the
defense’s theory that the petitioner had been in the house but that he had been drunk and
had thought it was his friend’s house. Moreover, trial counsel testified that he was unaware
of any basis to successfully challenge the introduction of the petitioner’s statement. The
post-conviction court did not find the performance of defense counsel to be inadequate,
nor did it find any reason to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
-2- This Court has reviewed the record in this case, the petitioner’s brief, and the
state’s motion, and we conclude that this is an appropriate case for affirmance pursuant
to Rule 20.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules.
ENTER, this the ____ day of July, 1997.
_____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_____________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
_____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Decision In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2D 493 (1967)., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decision-in-anders-v-california-386-us-738-87-sct-1396-18-led2d-tenncrimapp-1997.