State v. James Hunt

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

OCTOBER 1998 SESSION FILED November 23, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appe llate Court C lerk JAMES CHARLES HUNT, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9805-CC-00150 Appellant, ) ) CROCKETT COUNTY V. S ) ) HON. DICK JERMAN, JR., STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (P onvic ost-C tion)

FORTHEAPPELLANT: F RT EA P L E : O H P EL E

MICHAEL V. THOMPSON JOHN KNOX WALKUP 2505HillsboroRd., Suite201 Attorney General &Reporter Nashville, TN37212 PETER M. COUGHLAN Asst. Attorney General JohnSevierBldg. 425FifthAve., North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

CLAYBURN L. PEEPLES District Attorney General

EDWARD L. HARDISTER Asst. District Attorney General 110CollegeSt., Suite200 Trenton, TN38382

OPINIONFILED:____________________

AFFIRMED

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge OPINION

Thepetitioner waschargedinthe indictm withfirst-degreem ent urder, felonymurder, especiallyaggravated

robbery, an e ec a rav db lary O F rua 4 19 ,heple g tofirst-de em andespeciallyaggravated d sp ially gg ate urg . n eb ry , 91 d uilty gre urder

robberyandreceivedlifeplusaconcurrenttwe veyearsentenceasaRangeIstandardoffender. OnF nty-fi ebruary2, 1994,the

petitioner filedhispetitionfor post-convictionrelief. Thepetitionwasinitiallydismissedfor failuretoprosecute, but uponmotion,

thepetitionwasreinstatedandanamendedpetitionwasfiled.

Intheamendedpetition, andlaterat thehearing, thepetitionerarguedhisdefenseattorney, M Fowler, was ark

ineffe byallowinghimtowaivehisright toaprelim hearingandfailingtopursueamotiontosuppressaconfessionwhen ctive inary

thepetitionerinsistedhewascoerced, beaten, anddeprivedof foodandwater until hesignedanincriminatingstatem The ent.

petitioner alsoarguedMr. Fowler failedtotreat thispotential deathpenaltycaseseriously, asevidencedbythesmall am of ount

tim (6.9 hours)he sp w himduring his re ntationand his fa to im ediate re e ent ith prese ilure m ly quest c unse The petitioner o-co l.

suggestedthat duetootherpendingcasesandpersonal concerns, M Fowler didnothaveadequatetim toeffectivelyhandle r. e

thisse us c . T tria court d re thepetitio position, fo that M F ler’srepresentationwasnotdeficient, and rio ase he l isc dited ner’s und r. ow

deniedthepetitionfor relief.

In r e v ie w i n g th e p e titio n e r ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t c la i m o f in e ff e c tiv e

a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l , t h i s C o u r t m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a d v ic e g iv e n o r s e r v ic e s

r e n d e r e d b y M r . F o w le r w e r e w it h in th e r a n g e o f c o m p e te n c e d e m a n d e d o f a tt o r n e y s in

c r im in a l c a s e s . B a x te r v . R o s e , 5 2 3 S . W .2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 6 ( T e n n . 1 9 7 5 ) . T h e p e t itio n e r “ m u s t

s h o w t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f e l l b e l o w a n o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s ”

a n d t h a t t h i s p e r f o r m a n c e p r e j u d i c e d t h e d e f e n s e , t h a t i s , t h e r e m u s t b e a r e a s o n a b le

p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t b u t f o r c o u n s e l ’ s e r r o r t h e r e s u lt o f t h e p r o c e e d in g w o u l d h a v e b e e n

d i f f e r e n t . S t r i c k l a n d v . W a s h in g t o n , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 - 8 8 , 6 9 2 , 6 9 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; B e s t v . S t a t e ,

7 0 8 S . W . 2 d 4 2 1 , 4 2 2 ( T e n n . C r im . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) . T o s a tis fy th e r e q u ir e m e n t o f p r e ju d ic e ,

2 h e m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , b u t f o r c o u n s e l ’ s e r r o r s , h e w o u l d n o t

h a v e p l e d g u i l t y a n d w o u l d h a v e in s is t e d o n g o i n g t o t r i a l . S e e H i l l v . L o c k h a r t , 4 7 4 U . S .

5 2 , 5 9 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; B a n k s to n v . S ta te , 8 1 5 S . W .2 d 2 1 3 , 2 1 5 ( T e n n . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) .

Here, eve ass ingthat the evid n um ence preponderates a t the trial co finding that M F ler’s gains urt’s r. ow

representation fell below the range of competence demanded of attorneys in crim cases, the petitioner has failed to show inal

prejudice. M ofthepetitioner’sbrief isdedicatedtoemphasizinghowlittletim hisattorney spent onhiscase. Inthem ost e eantime,

however, thepetitionerfailstoshow,forinstance, that butforhiscounsel’sperformance, hisinculpatory statem toauthorities ent

would havebeensuppressed, orthat hewould haveproceededtotrial, orthat theoutcom oftheproceedingswouldhavebeen e

different. In fact, because the record is devoid of any evidence suggesting that the State woud have be un e to prove l en abl

aggravatingfactors warrantingthedeathpenalty, it appears likelytousthat hadthe petitionerprocee totrialhemght nothave ded i

receivedasfavorableasentenceashedidbypleadingguilty. Inshort, without anyshowingofprejudice, thepetitioner’sclaims

m fail. Thetrial court’sdenial ofpost-convictionrelief isaffirmed. ust

_______________________________ J H H P A , J dg ON . EY u e

CNU: OCR

______________________________ DAV G HAY Judge ID . ES,

______________________________ L. T.LAFFERT SeniorJudge Y,