WPC UBV %nX 0P 4V j 0p 0D w@H 0J 0T 0^& 0h 0r 0|^ 0 0` 1u 0deU6U*B))DCR B AM'v~&v D3w 0@ AO9 0D D/C Br<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|X <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  ԡ HM(D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0    E D  E b a  E Ӏ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d-#C << G  !  #d#  D    !!   YYY FILED!XOctober8,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva $$$$'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .   D    `  X 77XXdd7  \RA'\  !L%&#;+'h|` 81 `Lߛ  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE  @ AUGUST1996SESSION BILLYRAYALBERT,   )       )  C.C.A.NO.01C019510CR00332   Appellant, 򀀀  )      ) DAVIDSONCOUNTY VS.      )      ) HON.J.RANDALLWYATT,JR.,STATEOFTENNESSEE,   ) JUDGE      )  Appellee.    ) (Postconviction) FORTHEAPPELLANT:    FORTHEAPPELLEE: TERRYJ.ϜCANADY    CHARLESW.BURSON 211PrintersAlleyBldg.,Ste.400  AttorneyGeneral&Reporter Nashville,TN37201        EUGENEJ.HONEA        Asst.AttorneyGeneral̀       450JamesRobertsonPkwy.        Nashville,TN372430493           VICTORS.JOHNSON,III        DistrictAttorneyGeneral       PAULDEWITT        Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral       WashingtonSquare,Ste.500        222SecondAve.,N.       Nashville,TN37201                   OPINIONFILED:____________________ AFFIRMED JOHNH.PEAY, Judge  ќ@ OPINION       Thepetitionerwasconvictedbyajuryofseconddegreemurderandarmedrobbery.Hewassentencedtofortyyearsforthemurderandtwentyfiveyearsfortherobbery,consecutive,foraneffectivesentenceofsixtyfiveyears.Ondirectappeal,hisconvictionswereaffirmedandhissentenceontherobberyconvictionreducedtotwentyyears.  Inhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief,thepetitionerallegedthathehadreceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselatthetrialandappeallevels.Mr.JohnOlivarepresentedthepetitionerathisfirsttrial,whichresultedinahungjury,athissecondtrial,andonthedirectappeal.Afterahearingatwhichthepetitioner,Mr.ϜOliva,andtheprosecutingattorneytestified,thecourtbelowtookthematterunderadvisementandlaterissuedacomprehensiveorderdenyingrelief.Afterreviewingtherecord,weaffirmthejudgmentbelow.  "Inpostconvictionreliefproceedingsthepetitionerhastheburdenofprovingtheallegationsinhis[orher]petitionbyapreponderanceoftheevidence."McBeev.State,655S.W.2d191,195(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).Furthermore,thefactualfindingsofthetrialcourtinhearings"areconclusiveonappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment."Statev.Buford,666S.W.2d473,475(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).  Ӝ  Inreviewingthepetitioner'sSixthAmendmentclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,thisCourtmustdeterminewhethertheadvicegivenorservicesrenderedbytheattorneyarewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Toprevailonaclaimofineffectivecounsel,apetitioner"mustshowthatcounsel'srepresentationfellbelowanobjectivestandardofreasonableness"andthatthisperformanceprejudicedthedefense.Theremustbeareasonableprobabilitythatbutforcounsel'serrortheresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,68788,692,694(1984);Bestv.State,708S.W.2d421,422(Tenn.Crim.App.1985).  ThisCourtshouldnotsecondguesstrialcounsel'stacticalandstrategicchoicesunlessthosechoiceswereuninformedbecauseofinadequatepreparation,Hellardv.State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982),andcounselshouldnotbedeemedtohavebeenineffectivemerelybecauseadifferentprocedureorstrategymighthaveproducedadifferentresult.Williamsv.State,599S.W.2d276,280(Tenn.Crim.App.1980).  Inhisbrief,thepetitioneraversthat trialcounselmadenumerousmistakesanderrorsthroughoutthetrial.However,theonly mistakeaboutwhichthepetitioneroffersanylegalargumentisthatMr.OlivadidnotcallMaryJoEaton, amaterialdefensewitness,totestifyinthesecondtrial,afterhavingcalledherinthefirst.Issuesnotsupportedbyargumentaredeemedwaivedonappeal.ϐCt.Crim.App.R.10(b).Accordingly,wefindtheremainderofthe mistakeswhichthepetitionerraisedinhispostconvictionpetitiontobewaivedforthepurposesofthisappeal.  WithrespecttoMr.OlivasdecisionnottocallEatoninthesecondtrial,thecourtbelowmadethefollowingfindings: 8    TheCourthasheardthetestimonyofMr.OlivaatthehearingonthispetitionrelatingtohisreasonsfornotcallingMs.Eatonasawitnessatthesecondtrial.AmongthereasonscitedbyMr.OlivaasabasisforhisstrategicdecisionnottocallherasawitnessϜ[were]thathertestimonyplacedthedefendantinthevicinityoftheincident,herdescriptionofthedefendantsclothingwasconsistentwiththedescriptiongivenbytheStateswitnesses,andthattheStatecouldcallrebuttalwitnessestoattackhercredibilityandmakethedefendantspositionseemuntenable.Mr.Olivaalsotestifiedthatheexplainedthesereasonstothepetitioner.AfterconsideringMr.Olivastestimony,inconjunctionwithareviewofMs.Eatonstestimonyfromthefirsttrial,theCourtisoftheopinionthatpetitionerhasnotovercomethepresumptionthatcounselsdecision'mightbeconsideredsoundtrialstrategy.'Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,at694,80L.Ed.2nd674,104S.Ct.2052(1984).̜ D   Accordingly,thecourtbelowdeniedpostconvictionreliefonthisground.  Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthecourt'sfindingthatthepetitionerfailedtoovercomethepresumptionthatMr.Oliva'sdecisiontonotcallMs.Eatonmayhavebeensoundstrategy.Thus,thisfindingisconclusive.However,wenotethatMs.Eaton'sfirsttrialtestimonydescribingthepetitioner'sclothingwasnotinfactconsistentwiththedescriptiongivenbytheState'switnesses.TheState'switnessesatthefirsttrialtestifiedthatthemaninquestionhadbeenwearing"abrownleatherjacket,""atrenchcoat,long,comeuptotheknees,"and"alongleathertypecoat."Thesewitnessesalsoalltestifiedthatthemanhadbeenblack.Ms.Eatontestifiedatthefirsttrialthatthepetitionerhadbeeninherbarthatevening,wearinga"bluejeanjacket."However,shealsotestifiedthatanothermanknownas"BigMike,"whohadbeeninthebaratthesametimeasthepetitioner,hadbeenwearinga"brownleathercoat,belowhiswaist."Nevertheless,becausethepetitionerisablackmaleandBigMikeawhitemale,Mr.Olivaaffirmedthatthetwomen"wouldhavebeeneasilydistinguishableonthebasisofrace."Thus,inadditiontoouragreementwiththecourtbelowthatMr.Oliva'sdecisionwasnotprovedinappropriate,wecannotfindthatthereexistsareasonableprobabilitythattheresultofthetrialwouldhavebeendifferentevenifMs.Eaton'stestimonyhadbeenoffered%  atthesecondtrial.Accordingly,noprejudicehasbeendemonstratedonthispoint.   Thisissuebeingwithoutmerit,thejudgmentbelowisaffirmed.       _________________________________       JOHNH.PEAY,Judge̜CONCUR:̜______________________________JOSEPHM.TIPTON,Judge̛̜̜______________________________DAVIDH.WELLES,Judge