ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ B)Ç DCð U*3 AM]ãªv~ B vÓ( D3û 0@. AOnƽ 0Dƒ D/Ç Bö˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ŸeEDDDÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x(2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌFebruary€20,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ®  dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° Òò òÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€"# A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌCHARLES€AUSTIN,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àNo.€œ01C01›„9603„CC„00093Ìà àAppellant,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌœVS›.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHon.€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€JudgeÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à à(Post„Conviction€„€Ìà àAppellee.à@ à)à àAggravated€Rape)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òKATHLEEN€G.€MORRISà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONó óÌP.O.€Box€128091à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌNashville,€TN€37212Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òELLEN€H.€POLLACKó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òNICHOLAS€D.€BAILEYó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue,€N.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEYÌJUDGEó óÇÓÓÑ7€µkXXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€Charles€Austin,€appeals€the€order€of€the€Criminal€Court€ofÏDavidson€County€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Petitioner€filedÏhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€that€petitioner€did€not€prove€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€under€the€standard€established€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€inÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó€and€dismissed€the€petition.€€We€affirm€the€judgment.€Ìà@ àIÌà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape€in€July€1991,€andÏreceived€a€sentence€of€eighteen€(18)€years.€€The€evidence€presented€at€trialÏrevealed€that€on€June€6,€1990,€the€petitioner€was€away€from€his€residence€mostÏof€the€day€while€he€was€painting€a€house.€€When€he€returned€home,€heÏdiscovered€that€his€daughterððs€nine„year€old€friend€was€sleeping€on€the€couch.€ÏThe€petitioner€digitally€raped€the€nine„year€old.€€After€the€child€returned€homeÏthe€next€day,€her€grandmother€discovered€that€a€pair€of€her€underpants€wereÏbloody.€€When€she€asked€the€child€about€the€blood,€the€child€told€herÏgrandmother€what€had€happened.€€The€child€was€examined€by€a€doctor,€andÏpetitioner€was€charged€with€aggravated€rape.Ìà àThe€petitioner€retained€Mark€Fishburn€to€represent€him€on€this€chargeÏand€a€drug€charge.€€Petitioner€met€with€Mr.€Fishburn€soon€after€he€was€releasedÏfrom€jail€to€discuss€the€rape€charge€and€the€other€criminal€charge.€€Mr.€FishburnÏtried€to€develop€several€defenses€to€the€rape€charge.€€He€investigated€whetherÍthe€child€might€be€lying€in€order€to€get€attention€because€of€a€troubled€familyÏenvironment.€€He€tried€to€review€counseling€records€pertaining€to€the€childððsÏmental€health€history.€€The€trial€court€viewed€them€òòinóó€òòœcamera›óó,€gave€counselÏrelevant€records€and€placed€the€balance€of€the€records€under€seal.€€Further,Ïcounsel€attempted€to€find€evidence€that€the€child€was€promiscuous€or€that€herÏfather€had€been€responsible€for€the€rape.€€Additionally,€he€investigated€theÏpotential€that€the€childððs€injuries€were€due€to€a€fall€on€a€trampoline€that€the€childÏpreviously€sustained€on€the€day€of€the€rape.Ìà àAround€two€weeks€prior€to€trial,€Mr.€Fishburn€visited€the€VanderbiltÏUniversity€Medical€Library€to€research€the€possibility€that€the€fall€on€theÏtrampoline€was€the€sole€reason€for€the€blood€and€other€physical€evidenceÏcorroborating€the€childððs€story.€€Mr.€Fishburn€made€copies€of€articles€in€medicalÏjournals€in€order€to€contradict€the€testimony€of€the€doctor€who€examined€œthe›Ïchild.€€Mr.€Fishburn€attempted,€but€was€not€able€to€speak€with€the€doctor€directly.Ìà àMr.€Fishburn€was€able€to€review€the€childððs€medical€records.€€He€alsoÏgave€those€records€to€a€former€crime€lab€supervisor€to€determine€anythingÏsuspect€that€would€aid€petitioner€in€his€defense.€€Additionally,€he€asked€a€friendÏwho€was€a€nurse€to€take€a€look€at€the€files.€€Neither€person€found€anything€in€theÏchildððs€files€which€would€be€significant€in€petitionerððs€defense.Ìà àMr.€Fishburn€received€little€cooperation€from€potential€stateððs€witnesses.€ÏThe€victimððs€family€refused€to€talk€with€him.€€When€he€attempted€to€interview€theÏcase€worker€at€the€Department€of€Human€Services,€he€was€told€to€speak€withÏthe€District€Attorneyððs€office.Ìà àAfter€petitioner€was€convicted,€he€appealed€his€conviction.€€TheÏconviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed.€€òòState€v.€Austinóó,€C.C.A.€No.€œ01C01„9204„CC„00120,€Davidson€County,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed›€December€31,€1992,Ïat€Nashville)€.€€Petitioner€then€filed€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.Ìà àAt€the€hearing,€petitioner€claimed€that€Mr.€Fishburn€(1)€did€not€investigateÏthe€case€properly€and€(2)€improperly€failed€to€hire€an€expert€to€rebut€the€stateððsÏmedical€evidence€and€provide€the€defense€with€an€alternate€theory€œof›€the€childððsÏinjuries.€€Petitioner,€however,€did€not€produce€an€expert€at€the€hearing€whoÏcould€testify€about€such€medical€findings.€€Petitioner€then€asked€for€aÏcontinuance€in€order€to€find€such€an€expert.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€theÏmotion€for€a€continuance€and€dismissed€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.Ìà@ àIIÌà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€attorney€did€not€conduct€a€properÏinvestigation€of€the€rape€charge€and€thus€was€prejudiced€by€his€attorneyððs€lackÏof€competence.€€He€alleges€that€his€attorney€did€not€make€a€thoroughÏinvestigation€of€all€possible€defenses€and€witnesses.€€Petitioner€argues€thatÏMike€Ensley€should€have€been€called€to€testify€that€petitioner€was€not€drunk€onÏthe€day€of€the€rape.€€He€further€claims€that€had€Mr.€Fishburn€interviewed€all€ofÏthe€relevant€witnesses,€namely€the€victim,€her€family,€and€the€doctor€whoÏexamined€the€victim,€he€would€have€been€more€prepared€for€trial.€€Additionally,Ïpetitioner€argues€that€Mr.€Fishburn€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€retain€an€expertÏto€contradict€the€stateððs€medical€evidence.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€claimsÍthat€Mr.€Fishburn€did€not€properly€develop€the€defense€that€the€childððs€injuriesÏwere€caused€by€the€fall€on€the€trampoline.€€Therefore,€petitioner€argues€that€ifÏMr.€Fishburn€had€investigated€and€prepared€properly,€the€evidence€wouldÏproduce€reasonable€doubt€as€to€guilt.Ìà@ àIIIÌà àòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€œL.Ed›.€2d€674Ï(1984),€provides€a€two„prong€analysis€when€a€petitioner€claims€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€The€petitioner€has€the€burden€to€prove€that€(1)€theÏattorneyððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€(2)€the€deficient€performance€resultedÏin€prejudice€to€the€defendant€so€as€to€deprive€him€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòIdóó.€at€687,€104ÏS.Ct.€at€2064.€€The€test€in€Tennessee€in€determining€whether€counsel€providedÏeffective€assistance€at€trial€is€whether€his€performance€was€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€The€petitioner€must€overcome€the€presumptionÏthat€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€of€acceptable€professionalÏassistance.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€òòsupraóó€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€At€2065;€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€389€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€petitioner€has€notÏmet€his€burden.Ìà àThe€petitioner€complains€that€Mr.€Fishburn€did€not€present€witnesses€atÏtrial€who€would€have€testified€that€petitioner€was€not€drunk€on€the€night€of€theÏrape.€€No€evidence€was€offered€at€trial€to€prove€otherwise.€€Mr.€Fishburn€testifiedÏat€the€hearing€that€he€did€not€believe€that€any€of€these€witnesses€could€give€anyÏsignificant€testimony.€€An€attorneyððs€strategic€and€tactical€decisions€are€notÍsubject€to€post„conviction€review.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.Ï1982).€€Similarly,€petitioner€has€not€presented€evidence€that€the€testimony€ofÏthese€witnesses€would€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.Ìà àFurthermore,€petitioner€alleges€that€Mr.€Fishburn€did€not€conduct€aÏsufficient€€investigation.€€Contrary€to€petitionerððs€allegations,€trial€counselÏconducted€an€adequate€investigation.€€He€interviewed€several€persons€inÏpreparation€for€trial€endeavoring€to€develop€an€appropriate€defense.€€AlthoughÏhe€was€not€able€to€speak€with€the€victim,€her€family€or€the€doctor€beforeÏtestifying€at€trial,€he€endeavored€to€do€so.€€Moreover,€he€conducted€medicalÏresearch€on€his€own€and€secured€the€assistance€of€a€nurse€and€a€former€crimeÏlab€supervisor€to€determine€the€significance€of€the€childððs€medical€records.€ÏCounselððs€performance€was€not€deficient€and€met€the€standard€set€forth€inÏòòBaxteróó.Ìà@ àIVÌà àPetitioner€has€also€failed€to€show€prejudice.€€òòStricklandóó€466€U.S.€at€687,Ï104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€„747€(Tenn.€1993).€€InÏorder€to€prove€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€show€a€probability€sufficient€toÏundermine€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€the€proceeding.€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.Ï1990).€€The€petitioner€has€not€shown€that€counsel€could€have€done€anything€toÏchange€the€trialððs€outcome.€€Petitioner€has€not€shown€that€an€expert€would€haveÏtestified€that€the€childððs€injuries€were€inconsistent€with€sexual€abuse.€ÏAdditionally,€there€is€no€evidence€that€an€expert€would€have€testified€that€theÍchildððs€injuries€were€more€likely€to€have€been€caused€by€the€accident€on€theÏtrampoline.Ìà àPetitioner€places€great€weight€on€the€fact€that€Mr.€Fishburn€did€not€hire€anÏexpert€who€could€testify€regarding€the€medical€evidence€and€the€childððs€mentalÏstate€as€well.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€however,€petitioner€did€notÏproduce€any€such€expert.€€ð ðWhen€a€petitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€failedÏto€discover,€interview,€or€present€witnesses€in€support€of€his€defense,€theseÏwitnesses€should€be€presented€by€the€petitioner€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.ðð€ÏòòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Without€suchÏevidence,€the€trial€judge€is€left€to€speculate€as€to€what€further€investigationÏwould€have€revealed.€€òòIdóó.€€Therefore,€we€are€unable€to€find€that€petitioner€wasÏprejudiced€because€of€the€lack€of€expert€testimony.Ìà@ àVÌà àIn€the€alternative,€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€judge€should€haveÏgranted€the€request€for€a€continuance€made€at€the€conclusion€of€the€evidenceÏso€that€petitioner€could€find€an€expert€to€testify.€€Granting€or€denying€a€€Ïð ð[œc]ontinuance›€is€a€matter€which€rests€within€the€sound€judicial€discretion€of€theÏtrial€judge€and€his€decision€on€the€matter€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€a€clearÏshowing€of€prejudice€to€the€appellant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€613€S.W.2d€229,€233Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€753€S.W.2d€148€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1988).€€Petitioner€has€made€no€such€showing€here.€€Mere€conclusoryÏallegations€or€opinions,€standing€alone,€are€insufficient€to€support€the€grantingÏof€a€continuance.€€òòState€v.€Bennettóó,€798€S.W.2d€783,€788€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Í1990).€€Whether€such€an€expert€could€be€found€is€speculative€at€best.€€We€findÏthat€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€the€late€hour€requestÏfor€a€continuance.Ìà@ àVIÌà àThe€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€the€burden€for€establishing€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€as€mandated€by€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó.€€He€has€notÏshown€that€counselððs€actions€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€Additionally,€he€has€not€demonstrated€prejudice.€ÏFurthermore,€the€trial€judge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€denying€a€motion€forÏa€continuance€in€order€that€petitioner€could€find€an€expert€to€testify.Ìà àThe€judgment€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEó ó