 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall v. State8/22/2005
ted by the post-conviction court, the expert testimony presented at the post-conviction hearing was substantially similar to Dr. Meyer's testimony at the Petitioner's trial. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has shown that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficient performance by Counsel in this regard.
5. Failure of Counsel to Cooperate With Co-counsel
The Petitioner asserts that Counsel was ineffective for failing to consult with Co-counsel. He points to the lack of scheduled meetings between the two and the discrepancy in the time records of Counsel and Co-counsel. The State counters that Counsel may have been inaccurate about the dates that meetings occurred, but there is no indication that his testimony that he spent over 1000 hours on this case was untruthful. The post-conviction court held:
counsel's choices were substantially influenced by the [Petitioner's] own statements and actions. According to [Counsel], the [Petitioner] himself changed details in his story several times. With regard to certain facts, the [Petitioner] testified differently at trial than in any of his pretrial statements and interviews. In addition, [Counsel] advised petitioner not to testify because he had come across as a very cold witness at the preliminary hearing. Clearly the petitioner contributed to any difficulties that counsel may have had both in preparation and at trial.
[Counsel] also testified that his time records were not always accurate and that he had met with the [Petitioner] more often than the records reflected. [Counsel] admitted that he did not have a great deal of contact with o-counsel but stated that as lead counsel he took control of the investigation and preparation of the case. It was established that there had been some problems in a prior case that [Counsel] had handled with the Public Defender's Office and that this was the basis for his caution in dealing with that office.
[Co-counsel]'s efforts were focused on mitigation and legal issues. [Co-counsel] filed an extremely large number of requested jury charges which related to mitigation. Several of these which the court found to be non-duplicitive of the existing charge were granted.
Although it did not work as evidenced by the verdict, the defense theory of not fighting the felony murder and arson charge in an attempt to take responsibility for the consequences and limit the state's proof was a viable tactic. After initial interviews, the [Petitioner] had never denied setting the fire and the victim clearly died as a result of her injuries. The defense attempted to show that the [Petitioner] was remorseful and that he had not acted with premeditation. This tactical decision will not now be judged by 20-20 hindsight. . . .
Both attorneys testified that portions of their files were missing.
The record establishes that members of the defense team met with the [Petitioner] and investigated both phases of the trial. [Counsel] testified credibly that he met a great deal with his client.
It is noted that [Co-counsel] essentially stated that she felt she had been ineffective. However, [Counsel] testified credibly to the extensive job he did for the [Petitioner] on a very difficult case. Even assuming that [Co-counsel] may have been derelict in her representation of the petitioner at times, no prejudice may be shown on the record based upon the petitioner's competent representation by [Counsel].
After a thorough review of the trial record of this case the court concludes that the petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to any relief on this issue.
We conclude t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|