ÿWPCè …# VUNa %¯ 0ñµU:¦ w@à 4 4 C 0JK 0T• 0^é 0hG 0r¯ 0|! 0† 0# 1u³ 0d(U>ŒU*ÊB)ôDC AM`µ­v~b BàvÓý D3Ð 0@ AOCÆ’ 0DX D/œ B˘HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular abDcdEefEghiDjÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xs2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ «Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌNovemberÏ8,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPt HHð@ÿìÿîRd(ühh° @d'ÿœÿ¦ š dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÑ7€öXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|` ´- `€€Lß›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌà@ àSEPTEMBER€1996ÏSESSIONÌÌJEFF€ARWOOD,à àà àà à*à àC.C.A.€#Ï01C01„9511„CC„00361€Ìà àà àAppellant,à àà à*à àLINCOLNÏCOUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHonorableÏCharles€Lee,€JudgeÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà à*ÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòForÏAppellee:óóÌÓÓCurtis€H.€Gannà àà àà àà àà àCharlesÏW.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporter€ÌSeventeenth€Judicial€District€ÌP.O.€Box€1119à àà àà àà àà àSarah€M.€Branch€ÌFayetteville,€TN€€37334à àà àà àà àCounsel€for€the€State€Ì(on€appeal)€à àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àRobert€H.€Marlowà àÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àWeakley€E.€Barnard€Ì218€North€Main€Street€à àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌShelbyville,€TN€€37160à àà àà àà àSeventeenth€Judicial€District€Ì(at€trial)à àà àà àà àà àà àLincoln€County€Courthouse€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFayetteville,€TN€€37334Ìà àÌÌà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÓÓò òòòOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner,€Jeff€Arwood,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€single€issue€presented€for€review€is€whetherÏthe€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€affirm€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€May€25,€1989,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€aggravated€sexualÏbattery,€for€which€he€received€a€Range€II€sentence€of€30€years;€crime€against€natureÏ(fellatio),€for€which€he€received€a€sentence€of€15€years;€and€rape,€for€which€heÏreceived€a€sentence€of€l5€years.€€The€convictions€were€based€primarily€upon€theÏtestimony€of€two€young€females,€who€were€seven€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€theÏoffenses,€and€the€testimony€of€various€medical€experts.€€This€court€affirmed€theÏconvictions€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Jeff€Arwoodóó,€No.€01C01„9204„CC„00132Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€December€31,€1992),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó.€€TheÏRange€II,€15„year€sentence€for€rape€was€upheld;€the€sentence€for€the€crime€againstÏnature€was€modified€to€12€years;€that€for€aggravated€sexual€battery€was€modified€toÏ25€years.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€7.€€All€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€œserved€concurrently.›€œ›ÏApplication€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€was€denied€on€May€10,Ï1993.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€October€1,€1993,€the€petitioner€filed€this€application€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€was€supported€byÏ62€asserted€instances€of€deficient€performance.€€The€petitioner€challenged€hisÏœattorney's›€effectiveness€not€only€at€trial€but€also€on€appeal.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÏevidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€an€opinion€and€order€denying€relief.€€TheÏruling€provided,€in€summary,€as€follows:Ìà àà à1.à àThat€the€petitioner€was€unable€to€prove€that€his€trial€counselÏhad€failed€to€properly€investigate€or€file€pretrial€motions;€Ìà àà à2.à àThat€the€petitioner€was€unable€to€demonstrate€how€trialÏcounsel€had€been€ineffective€by€failing€to€call€certain€witnesses€or€by€failing€toÏadequately€examine€those€witnesses€who€did€testify;Ìà àà à3.à àThat€the€petitioner's€complaints€about€trial€counsel's€strategy€orÏtrial€tactics€were€unfounded;€and€Ìà àà à4.à àThat€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€establish€how€any€deficiency€inÏthe€performance€of€his€trial€counsel€might€have€affected€the€results€of€the€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€summary,€the€trial€court€found€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€petitioner€was€ably€represented€at€trial€by€anÏexperienced,€seasoned€attorney€who€was€wellÏprepared.€€From€this€court's€view€of€this€six€volume€trialÏrecord,€this€court€finds€that€trial€counsel's€advice€andÍservices€rendered€were€well€within€the€range€ofÏcompetency€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€ÏNo€lawyer€is€likely€to€be€free€of€error€in€a€trial€asÏcontested€as€this€was€but€no€court€has€ever€placed€aÏstandard€of€perfection€on€any€lawyer.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€the€defendant€was€given€a€fair€trial.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€order€for€the€petitioner€to€be€granted€relief€on€grounds€of€ineffectiveÏcounsel,€he€must€establish€that€the€advice€given€or€the€services€rendered€were€notÏwithin€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€and€that,Ïbut€for€his€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€his€trial€would€have€beenÏdifferent.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693€(1984);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€theÏevidence€preponderated€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,Ï576€S.W.2d€12,€13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€441€U.S.€947€(1979).€ÏOtherwise,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€areÏconclusive€on€appeal.€€òòGraves€v.€Stateóó,€512€S.W.2d€603,€604€(1973).€€Moreover,Ïthis€court€cannot€second„guess€trial€counsel's€tactical€and€strategic€choices€unlessÏthose€choices€are€uninformed€due€to€inadequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629ÏS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counsel€should€not€be€deemed€to€have€been€ineffectiveÏmerely€because€a€different€procedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€differentÏresult.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,€278„79€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€testimony€established€that€the€petitioner's€trial€counsel€hadÏinvested€a€considerable€amount€of€time€in€preparation.€€An€associate€and€anÏinvestigator€were€extensively€involved€in€the€case.€€Trial€counsel€described€hisÏcommitment€as€having€involved€literally€hundreds€of€hours.€€He€had€ten€œyears€of€›Ïexperience€in€the€practice€of€law.€€ÌÌà àà àTrial€counsel€addressed€the€petitioner's€complaints€about€his€trialÏtactics.€€There€was€testimony€that€one€of€the€alleged€mistakes€resulted€from€theÏpetitioner's€failure€to€be€totally€candid€with€his€counsel.€€One€character€witness,Ïcalled€by€the€defense€to€testify€to€his€good€behavior€around€the€two€seven„year„oldÏstepdaughters,€acknowledged€during€cross„examination€that€the€petitioner€hadÏexposed€them€to€œthe€use€of€marijuana›œ.›€€Trial€counsel€was€unaware€of€that€fact€untilÏthe€testimony;€it€does€not€appear€that€his€lack€of€that€knowledge€was€due€to€anyÏlack€of€conscientiousness€on€his€part.€€Moreover,€it€does€not€appear€that€trialÏcounsel€would€have€had€a€valid€objection€to€the€evidence€had€he€made€one.€€TwoÏother€claims€of€deficiency€due€to€the€failure€to€object€were€explained€to€theÏsatisfaction€of€the€trial€court.€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àFurther,€medical€evidence€tended€to€corroborate€the€claims€of€the€twoÏminor€victims.€€The€petitioner€has€contended€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€forÏhaving€failed€to€object€to€the€admission€of€this€medical€testimony.€€Petitioner€hasÏbeen€unable,€however,€to€show€how€he€might€have€been€prejudiced€because€theÏevidence€appears€to€have€been€admissible.€€In€consequence,€whether€trial€counselÏraised€this€issue€on€appeal€made€no€difference.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€this€court€has€reviewed€each€of€the€petitioner's€claims.€€WeÏhave€found€neither€deficiency€in€performance€nor€prejudice€in€result.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌL.€T.€Lafferty,€Special€Judge€Ì