Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville
Assigned on Briefs Date: January 24, 2018
from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos. 285646 &
285934 Tom Greenholtz, Judge
Petitioner, Timothy Evans, appeals from the Hamilton County
Criminal Court's denial of his petition for
post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that trial
counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to have the
Petitioner "evaluated in order to present an insanity or
diminished capacity defense"; (2) for failing to call
"a psychological expert" to support the
Petitioner's duress defense; (3) for failing to
"adequately prepare" the Petitioner to testify on
cross-examination; and (4) for "depriving [the]
Petitioner of a review of his duress [defense] by the
appellate courts" by failing to include portions of the
trial transcript in the appellate record. Discerning no
error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Miller, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Timothy
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Linda
D. Kirklen, Assistant Attorney General; M. Neal Pinkston,
District Attorney General; and Bates W. Bryan, Jr., Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
Kelly Thomas, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which James Curwood Witt, Jr., and Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.,
KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE
Petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree
premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first degree
premeditated murder, and "carrying a dangerous
weapon." State v. Timothy Evans & Michael
Daniels, No. E2009-01627-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 3667722, at
*1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 2011), perm. app.
denied (Tenn. Mar. 27, 2013). The trial court imposed a
total effective sentence of life imprisonment for the
Petitioner was tried along with his co-defendant, Michael
Daniels. Evans, 2011 WL 3667722, at *1. There was no
dispute that on June 13, 2006, the Petitioner shot and killed
the victim, Adrian "A.D." Patton, as there were
several eyewitnesses to the killing. Id. at *1-6.
The victim had been accused of shooting at the
co-defendant's sister's house. Id. at *2.
The co-defendant and the victim were discussing this when the
co-defendant walked away from the victim and spoke to the
Petitioner. Id. at *2, 4-5. One eyewitness overheard
the co-defendant, who was a leader in the Petitioner's
gang, tell the Petitioner to "handle that s--t"
just before the shooting. Id. at *3.
Petitioner then walked up to the victim, who was sitting in
the driver's seat of his truck, and fired eight or nine
shots at the victim. Evans, 2011 WL 3667722, at *2.
The victim said, "'[D]o you believe this mother
f--kin['] s--t, '" and attempted to drive away.
Id. at *6. Blood was "'shooting out [of the
victim's] chest . . . like somebody shooting a water
hose, '" and he drove only a short distance before
the truck crashed into an apartment building. Id.
The victim was dead before police were able to respond to the
Petitioner testified at trial that his co-defendant was the
leader of "the Skyline Bloods in Chattanooga."
Evans, 2011 WL 3667722, at *8. The Petitioner
explained that he had "'no choice'" and
that "he would be punished if he did not do" what
his co-defendant told him to do. Id. The Petitioner
testified that his co-defendant told him to kill the victim
and that when he hesitated, his co-defendant started
"walking toward [the Petitioner] and reaching for [his]
gun." Id. The Petitioner further testified that
"the victim's death was not planned" and that
after the shooting, "he could not eat, sleep, or stop
moving" because "his conscience was bothering him .
. . [for having] killed a man for no reason."
Id. at *8-9.
court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions on direct
appeal. Evans, 2011 WL 3667722, at *1. The
Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction
relief.Subsequent amended petitions were also
filed on the Petitioner's behalf. However, some of the
amended petitions and portions of the Petitioner's
original pro se petition were not included in the record on
appeal. The Petitioner was ultimately granted a
delayed appeal to our supreme court, and his other
post-conviction claims were held in abeyance. On March 27,
2013, our supreme court declined to review this court's
decision on direct appeal. As we are able to glean from the
post-conviction court's order denying relief and as is
pertinent to our review, the petitions alleged that trial
counsel was ineffective for failing "to request a
forensic mental evaluation, ...