 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Woods v. State2/18/2003
uld.
Q: And who would go with you all?
A: No one.
Q: No one ever went with you back to Camelot?
A: No.
As to the claims that trial counsel was ineffective by introducing testimony of the uncharged crime, the record supports the finding of the post-conviction court that the petitioner failed to establish this was other than permissible trial strategy or that he was prejudiced thereby.
B. Failure to Elicit Denials of Rape Allegations from Petitioner
In a related claim, the petitioner contends trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to elicit during his trial testimony denials of the charged and uncharged allegations of rape. He concedes trial counsel asked him about two of the alleged incidents on direct examination, but asserts he failed to elicit denials of all four of the allegations. The petitioner argues trial counsel's failure to elicit denials of all four incidents, including his failure to elicit a denial of the uncharged rape despite his testimony it was part of his trial strategy to do so, made his performance fall outside the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases and prejudiced the outcome of his case.
We conclude that the petitioner has failed to show that counsel's performance in this regard was deficient, or that he was prejudiced as a result of counsel's alleged deficiency in performance. As we have previously discussed, the petitioner's denial of the Roane County incident was implicit in his testimony that no one ever accompanied him on the trips to the treatment center. As for the three charged offenses, the evidence was that two occurred downstairs in the television room and one occurred upstairs in the victim's bedroom. The petitioner concedes counsel elicited denials of the upstairs incident and one of the downstairs incidents, but maintains that he failed to elicit a denial of the second incident downstairs. However, although trial counsel began his questioning by asking if there was ever a time "around midnight" when the victim came downstairs, the trial transcript, read in context, reveals that he elicited emphatic denials from the petitioner that neither the alleged upstairs incident nor either of the alleged downstairs incidents had occurred:
Q: In regard to the testimony of [the victim] about these incidents that occurred there in your home, was there ever any incident where she came down around midnight to that lower room and you had these contacts with her that she described?
A: No, sir.
Q: She described another incident up in her bedroom.
A: No, sir.
Q: Those things did not happen?
A: They did not happen.
Q: Do you love your son and your daughter?
A: Yes. I think my daughter's very mixed up at the moment. But I still love her, yes.
The record does not support the petitioner's claim that trial counsel did not elicit denials that the charged and uncharged offenses had occurred. We conclude that the post-conviction court was correct in determining that the petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's handling of these matters.
C. Form of Trial Counsel's Questions to Petitioner and Victim
The petitioner next contends trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by asking two questions during the petitioner's direct examination testimony and one question during cross-examination of the victim that implied the victim's allegations were true. During trial counsel's direct examination of the petitioner, he asked whether December 1995, which the petitioner had just testified was the date he
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|