WPCM >X~Qs.FUPy;HX (l#*>Z=kq B]0]׽>->lXS6w(P+2{-Ii\kԤ66 /y1z 6(楗pDv(E\1{Ӄ7T* x(բiwՅ9I]KNg7a.J0STɢWGqA-aj@H@"!iN/FJ힔?1fizIwᤶH40{B?kпԸ|ʄڂ']Y><& 1)ܷ!:9Ȯ?LJgN{)ܧٺwӈL ZM $ J+J6K⤯NWF$3"$]p\I4gV_96|H74/MR;587if,&'jID3+<aUNN % 0(U:w4+-3#`N! ^ # / m1 1 pH U: AS E 0V 0Va 0D D5 B0(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,  AZ"Arial Regularsp'3|x ##XXd#HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 604'L U f ["USUS.,  _XXXXXX   Ad FILEDXX  November23,1999  Cecil_Crowson_,Jr. dd AppellateCourtClerkdA ,  AZ"Arial RegularZ[\]_E<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  (.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1  ````)!dxdx d !  _XXXX  TR[A' LegalX3' Letter A' Legal3'T_xY_B2.jz  `@EW tt0) x___@  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  __@(ATJACKSON | @"SEPTEMBER1999SESSION H BOBBYBAKER, @-)  0 @-) p NO.W199901196CCAR3PC      ` Appellant,@-)    @-) p _TIPTON_ԀCOUNTY     VS. @-) x  @-) p HON.JOSEPHH.WALKER, ^  STATEOFTENNESSEE, @-) p JUDGE  D  @-) *z   ` Appellee.@-) p (PostConviction) ` (  @(#(#( FORTHEAPPELLANT:  GARYF._ANTRICAN_ t  DistrictPublicDefender Z 118E.Market @ P.O.Box700 &v Somerville,TN380680700  \  (  FORTHEAPPELLEE:  PAULG.SUMMERS  t AttorneyGeneralandReporter Z  PATRICIAC._KUSSMAN_  &v! AssistantAttorneyGeneral  \" _Cordell_ԀHullBuilding,2ndFloor B# 425FifthAvenueNorth ($ Nashville,TN372430493 %  ELIZABETHT.RICE   ' DistrictAttorneyGeneral p!(  HENRYWILLIAMS  <#* AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral "$r+ 302MarketStreet %X , Somerville,TN38068 %>!- (  @( ' #-  OPINIONFILED:򀀀 -n(3 AFFIRMED 0,7 JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE  N4/; _   8XXdd8OPINION     ` Petitioner,BobbyBaker,appealsthedenialofhispetitionforpostconviction H reliefbytheCircuitCourtofTiptonCounty.Petitionerwasconvictedofaggravated  d burglaryandaggravatedrape.Hereceivedconsecutivesentencesoftwelveyears  0 andthirtyfiveyears,respectively.Thesoleissuepresentedforourreviewis    whetherpetitionerwasdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Afteracareful x  reviewoftherecord,we AFFIRM thejudgmentofthetrialcourt. D    I.PROCEDURALHISTORY      ` OnMarch17,1995,petitionerwasconvictedofaggravatedburglaryand @ aggravatedrape.Hewassentencedtoconsecutivetermsoftwelveyearsat45%  \ asaRangeIIIpersistentoffenderforaggravatedburglary,andthirtyfiveyearsat ( 35%asaRangeIImultipleoffenderforaggravatedrape.Ondirectappeal,this  Courtaffirmedtheconvictionsandsentences.SeeStatev.Baker,956S.W.2d8 p!  (Tenn.Crim.App.1997). <#"  ` OnMarch10,1998,petitionertimelyfiledapetitionforpostconvictionrelief &$"& allegingineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Thepostconvictioncourtconductedan (#( evidentiaryhearing,foundtheallegationstobewithoutmerit,andenteredanorder l*%* denyingpostconvictionrelief.Thisappealfollowed. 8,',    II.STANDARDSOFREVIEW  1,2  A.PostConviction  h3.4    ` Thejudge'sfindingsoffactonpostconvictionhearingsareconclusiveon 7P28 appealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Butlerv.State,789S.W.2d 84:    8XXdXXd8    898,899(Tenn.1990);Adkinsv.State,911S.W.2d334,341(Tenn.Crim.App.  1995).Thepostconvictioncourtsfindingsoffactareaffordedtheweightofajury | verdict,andthisCourtisboundbythetrialcourtsfindingsunlesstheevidencein H therecordpreponderatesagainstthosefindings.Henleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,  d 578(Tenn.1997);Alleyv.State,958S.W.2d138,147(Tenn.Crim.App.1997);  0 Dixonv.State,934S.W.2d69,72(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).ThisCourtmaynot    reweighorreevaluatetheevidence,norsubstituteitsinferencesforthosedrawnby x  thetrialjudge.Henley,960S.W.2dat57879;Masseyv.State,929S.W.2d399, D  403(Tenn.Crim.App.1996);Blackv.State,794S.W.2d752,755(Tenn.Crim. ` App.1990).Questionsconcerningthecredibilityofwitnessesandtheweightand , valuetobegiventotheirtestimonyareresolvedbythetrialcourt,notthiscourt.  Henley,960S.W.2dat579;Black,794S.W.2dat755.Theburdenofestablishing t thattheevidencepreponderatesotherwiseisonpetitioner.Henley,960S.W.2dat @ 579;Black,794S.W.2dat755.  \ @==  B.IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel  Ԉ   ` ThisCourtreviewsaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselunderthe <#" standardsofBaxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930(Tenn.1975),andStricklandv. %X $ Washington,466U.S.668,104S.Ct.2052,80L.Ed.2d674(1984).Thepetitioner &$"& hastheburdentoprovethat(1)theattorneysperformancewasdeficient,and(2) (#( thedeficientperformanceresultedinprejudicetothedefendantsoastodeprive l*%* himofafairtrial.Strickland,466U.S.at687,104S.Ct.at2064;Goadv.State,938 8,', S.W.2d363,369(Tenn.1996);Overtonv.State,874S.W.2d6,11(Tenn.1994); .T). Butlerv.State,789S.W.2dat899. / +0  `  ` ThetestinTennesseeindeterminingwhethercounselprovidedeffective h3.4 assistanceiswhetherhisperformancewaswithintherangeofcompetence 4506 demandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxter,523S.W.2dat936.The 7P28 petitionermustovercomethepresumptionthatcounselsconductfallswithinthe 84: widerangeofacceptableprofessionalassistance.Strickland,466U.S.at689,104  S.Ct.at2065;Alleyv.State,958S.W.2dat149;Hicksv.State,983S.W.2d240, | 246(Tenn.Crim.App.1998).Therefore,inordertoproveadeficiency,apetitioner H mustshowthatcounselsactsoromissionsweresoseriousastofallbelowan  d objectivestandardofreasonablenessunderprevailingprofessionalnorms.  0 Strickland,466U.S.at688,104S.Ct.at2065;Henley,960S.W.2dat579;Goad,    938S.W.2dat369. x   `  ` Inreviewingcounsel'sconduct,a"fairassessment...requiresthatevery ` effortbemadetoeliminatethedistortingeffectsofhindsight,toreconstructthe , circumstancesofcounsel'schallengedconduct,andtoevaluatetheconductfrom  counsel'sperspectiveatthetime."Strickland,466U.S.at689,104S.Ct.at2065. t Thefactthataparticularstrategyortacticfailedorhurtthedefense,doesnot, @ standingalone,establishunreasonablerepresentation.However,deferenceto  \ mattersofstrategyandtacticalchoicesappliesonlyifthechoicesareinformed ( onesbaseduponadequatepreparation.Goad,938S.W.2dat369;Hellardv.  State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982);Alley,958S.W.2dat149;Cooperv.State, p!  847S.W.2d521,528(Tenn.Crim.App.1992). <#"   III.DISPOSITIONOFPETITIONERSCONTENTIONS  (#(  (1) 8,',    ` Petitionerallegestheprosecutorimproperlyinformedthejurythathewasin .T). custodybyaskingpetitionerifhetold guardswithintheTennesseeDepartmentof / +0 Correction,oranybodyelseaboutthesexualactsbetweenhimselfandthevictim. 1,2 Hecomplainsthathisattorneywasdeficientinnotobjectingtothisquestion. h3.4  ` Thepostconvictioncourtnotedthat,atthetimeofthisquestion,the 7P28 petitionerhadalreadytestifiedaboutbeingtransferredfrominstitutiontoinstitution 84: andhavingaparoleofficer.Inlightofthatevidence,trialcounseltestifiedhedidnot  believeanobjectionwasappropriateandwouldonlydrawattentiontothe | petitionersincarceration.Thedecisionnottoobjectwasatacticaldecision. H  `  ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.SeeGoad,938S.W.2dat369.  0   (2) x     ` Petitionerarguestrialcounselcouldnothearandunderstandthetestimony D  presentedattrial.Hetestifiedthatcounseltoldthejuryduringhisopening ` statementthathisearwas stoppedup,andhewashavingtroublehearing. , Petitionerclaimscounselmisunderstoodtestimonythroughoutthetrial.Petitioners  trialcounseltestifiedthatheinformedthejurythathewas stoppedupontheday t ofthetrial,butmaintainedheheardandunderstoodeverythingthattranspired. @  `  ` Thepostconvictioncourtfoundtrialcounselsperformancewasneither ( deficientnorprejudicialtopetitioner.Initswrittenfindings,thecourtstatedthat  althoughcounseldidindicatehewashavingtroublehearing, itwasclearthathe p!  understoodthequestionsaskedandtheresponsesmade. <#"  `  ` Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthepost &$"& convictioncourt.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. (#(   (3) 8,',     ` Petitioneralsocontendscounselwasdeficientinfailingtopointout / +0 inconsistenciesinthetestimonyofthestateswitnesses,particularlyinthevictims 1,2 testimony. h3.4  ` Thepostconvictioncourtnotedthattrialcounselconducteda vigorous 7P28 crossexaminationofseveralwitnesses,andheldthat itisatacticaldecisionhow 84: fartopushawitnesswithregardtoinconsistentstatements.Inaddition,thepost  convictioncourtheldthatthepetitionerfailedtoshowthattheactionsofcounsel | weredeficientorthathewasprejudicedbycounselsfailuretocrossexamineon H allpossibleinconsistencies.  d  ` Theevidencesupportsthefindingsofthepostconvictioncourt.Thisissue    iswithoutmerit.   x     @` (4) `  F3 ` Next,petitionercontendscounselwasdeficientinfailingtoobjecttothe , chainofcustodyoftherapekit.Trialcounseltestifiedthathedidnotobjecttothe  chainofcustodyoftherapekitbecausehedidnotbelieveitwasanappropriate t objection.Sincethedefensetheorywasconsent,counseldidnotbelieveitwas @ necessarytocontesttherapekitevidence.Thepetitionertestifiedattrialthathe  \ engagedinnumeroussexualactivitieswiththevictimsconsent.Furthermore,the ( postconvictioncourtexaminedtherecordandconcludedtherewasnothing  objectionableaboutthechainofcustody. p!   ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  %X $   (5) (#(    ` Petitionercomplainscounselfailedtotestthevictimssalivasampleforthe l*%* presenceofsemen.Heclaimsthetestwouldhaveproventhatthevictimperformed 8,', oralsexonhimandwouldshowtheencounterwasconsensual. .T).  ` Trialcounseltestifiedthatinhisjudgmentsuchtestimonywasnotthetype 1,2 ofevidenceonewantedto hammeroverandoveragainduringarapetrial.Trial h3.4 counselsrefusaltopursuethisevidencewasatacticaldecision.Furthermore,such 4506 evidencewouldnotnecessarilyestablishconsent.Petitionerhasnotshownhewas 7P28 prejudiced. 84: Ї ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.     `     (6)  H s:F ` Petitionercontendscounselwasdeficientinfailingtocallwitnesseswho  d couldhavecorroboratedhisclaimthathedrovetothevictimshome;had  0 consensualsexwithher;andthenleftthehouseinthecar.Atthepostconviction    hearing,onewitnesstestifiedthatpetitionerborrowedhercarfromapproximately x  8:00p.m.toapproximately3:00a.m.thenightoftherape,andanotherwitness D  testifiedthathesawpetitionerreturnthecararound3:00a.m.Thepetitioner ` arguesthatsincethepolicetestifiedthattheassailantfledonfoot,thewitnesses , testimonyprovedhewasnotthemanseenrunningfromthevictimshome.   ` Trialcounseltestifiedthathespokewiththetwowitnessesanddetermined @ theywouldnotbehelpfultothedefendantscase.Thepostconvictioncourt  \ concludedthatthedecisionastowhichwitnessestocallattrialwasatactical ( decision.  : ` Weagainnotethattheonlyissueattrialwaswhetherthevictim <#" consented.Thepetitioneradmittedtosexualactswiththevictim.Deference %X $ shouldbegiventrialstrategyortacticalchoicesiftheyareinformedonesbased &$"& uponadequatepreparation.Hellard,629S.W.2dat9.Thepetitionerhasnot (#( shownthathesufferedanyprejudicefromthefailuretocallthesewitnesses. l*%*  ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  .T).   (7) h3.4    ` Petitionercontendscounselwasdeficientinfailingtoobjecttothestatesuse 4506 ofhispreviouslysuppressedstatementforimpeachmentpurposes.Trialcounsel 7P28 testifiedthatthestatementwasintroducedwhilepetitionerwastestifyingandwas 84: properlyusedbythedistrictattorneyforimpeachmentpurposes.SeeUnitedStates  v.Havens,446U.S.620,627(1980);Harrisv.NewYork,401U.S.222,226(1971). | Weagree. H  ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.   0   KD  (8) x     ` Finally,petitionerattackscounselsfailuretoestablishjurormisconduct.On ` directappealthisCourtfoundnomerittopetitionersargumentthatthesubjectjuror , wasbiasedorprejudicedbaseduponherpriorknowledgeofpetitioner.Baker,956  S.W.2dat1516.Petitionerhasfailedtoestablishthattrialcounselcouldhave t doneanythingdifferentlythatwouldhaveresultedinanewtrial. @  ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  (   CONCLUSION p!  F ` Weconcludetheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthe %X $ postconvictioncourt.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtis &$"&  AFFIRMED .  (#(  `     h     ________________________________ 1,2  `     h     JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE 2-3 CONCUR: 4506 ___________________________ 84: DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE 95; Ї___________________________ H THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE