ÿWPCK …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DC AM]ªv~Å BCvÓ` D33 0@f AO¦Æõ 0D» D/ÿ B.˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- YEZ[[\]D^P_E`[aÓ€mz!3|xm2 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€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òNovember€12,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPt HHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ®  dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€–BXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓRONNIE€BARBER,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9411„CC„00245Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)ÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|š` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àDYER€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àó óà àò òà àà à)à àHON.€CREEDÏMCGINLEYó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€€€€€€€€)à àPRESIDING€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Post„ConvictionÏRelief)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌTIMOTHY€C.€NAIFEHà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ110€S.€Court€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌTiptonville,€TN€€38079à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSARAH€M.€BRANCHÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPHILLIP€BIVENSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€E.€LANIERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDyer€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDyersburg,€TN€€38024ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óòòò òÔ€„ÔOPINIONó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓóóà àAppellant€Ronnie€Dale€Barber€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€Dyer€CountyÏCircuit€Court€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€On€September€12,Ï1986,€a€jury€found€Appellant€guilty€of€second€degree€burglary,€robbery€by€use€ofÏa€deadly€weapon,€and€first€degree€murder€during€the€perpetration€of€a€larceny.€ÏAs€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€Appellant€received€consecutive€sentences€ofÏeight€years€for€the€burglary€conviction,€twenty€years€for€the€robbery€conviction,Ïand€life€imprisonment€for€the€murder€conviction.€€On€January€6,€1988,€this€CourtÏaffirmed€the€convictions€and€the€sentences€of€the€trial€court.€€On€February€24,Ï1989,€Appellant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€the€Dyer€County€CircuitÏCourt.€€Following€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€petition.€€In€thisÏappeal€of€that€decision,€Appellant€alleges€that€his€trial€counsel€providedÏconstitutionally€ineffective€assistance.€€In€support€of€this€allegation,€AppellantÏargues€that€his€trial€counsel€(1)€failed€to€call€certain€defense€witnesses,€(2)Ïimproperly€moved€for€a€change€of€venue€and€employed€delaying€tactics,€(3)Ïfailed€to€request€that€the€trial€judge€recuse€himself,€and€(4)€failed€to€raise€certainÏmeritorious€issues€on€direct€appeal.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà à€In€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€must€establish€his€orÏher€allegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655ÏS.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Furthermore,€the€factual€findings€ofÏthe€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€those€findings.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€€(Tenn.€1990).€€InÏreviewing€a€denial€of€collateral€relief,€this€Court€is€bound€by€the€following€well„established€rules€of€appellate€review:€ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€this€court€cannot€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€orÏsubstitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€judge,€(2)Ïquestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€their€testimony,€and€factual€issues€raised€by€evidenceÏare€resolved€by€the€trial€judge,€and€(3)€on€appeal,€the€petitionerÏhas€the€burden€of€demonstrating€why€the€evidence€contained€in€theÏrecord€preponderates€against€the€judgment€entered€by€the€trialÏjudge.€€òòÌÓÓÌTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€684,€686€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòBlack€v.ÏStateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)).ÌÌà àWhen€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€alleges€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€establishing€(1)€deficient€representationÏand€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€that€deficiency.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466ÏU.S.€668,€686€(1984);€€òòBarr€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€462,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€Deficient€representation€occurs€when€counsel€provides€assistance€thatÏfalls€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€criminal€attorneys.€€òòBankstonÍv.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1991).€€Prejudice€is€theÏreasonable€likelihood€that,€but€for€deficient€representation,€the€outcome€of€theÏproceedings€would€have€been€different.€€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11Ï(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€first€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€callÏcertain€defense€witnesses,€most€particularly€Appellantððs€sister€Diane€Barber.€ÏAppellant€maintains€that€his€trial€counsel€was€informed€of€potential€witnessesÏsuch€as€Ms.€Barber€who€would€have€impeached€the€testimony€of€StateÏwitness€Steve€Lybarger€and€who€would€have€suggested€that€Lybarger,€ratherÏthan€Appellant,€committed€the€offenses.€€The€trial€attorney€testified€that€he€fullyÏinvestigated€the€case€to€the€best€of€his€ability€and€that€he€spoke€to€everyÏsignificant€State€witness€and€to€every€person€suggested€by€Appellant.€ÏFollowing€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€trial€counsel€wasÏð ðextremely€thoroughðð€and€ð ðzealously€pursued€all€legal€and€practical€avenuesÏopen€to€the€defendant.ððÌÌà àThe€decision€to€call€or€not€to€call€a€witness€is€a€tactical€decision€entrustedÏto€the€discretion€of€the€trial€counsel.€€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,€756€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1991).€€€Here,€the€trial€counsel€testified€that,€after€interviewing€Ms.ÍBarber€as€well€as€other€potential€witnesses€suggested€by€Appellant,€heÏconcluded€that€their€testimony€would€actually€damage€Appellantððs€case.€€As€aÏresult,€he€made€the€tactical€decision€not€to€call€them€as€witnesses.€€A€tacticalÏdecision€made€at€trial€will€not€be€judged€by€hindsight€unless€there€is€no€rationalÏbasis€for€the€decision.€€òòId.óó€€The€fact€that€the€testimony€of€these€potentialÏwitnesses€was,€according€to€the€trial€attorney,€inculpatory€of€Appellant€qualifiesÏas€a€rational€basis€for€the€decision€not€to€call€them.€€Furthermore,€no€prejudice€isÏdemonstrated€where€a€post„conviction€petitioner€fails€to€show€that€potentialÏdefense€witnesses,€who€were€not€called€by€trial€counsel,€would€have€testifiedÏfavorably.€€òòSeeóó€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€684,€687€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€ÏAppellant€has€failed€to€make€such€a€showing€here.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€argues€that€his€trial€lawyer€rendered€ineffective€representationÏby€moving€for€a€change€of€venue€from€Lake€County,€where€the€offensesÏoccurred,€to€Dyer€County.€€He€contends€that€he€did€not€consent€to€such€aÏchange€of€venue€and€that€his€trial€counsel€was€coerced€to€do€so€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€According€to€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€venue€isÏdetermined€by€the€location€of€the€offense.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€18(a).€€However,€inÏcriminal€prosecutions,€venue€may€be€changed€if,€ð ðdue€to€undue€excitementÍagainst€the€defendant€in€the€county€where€the€offense€was€committed€or€anyÏother€cause,€a€fair€trial€could€not€be€had.ðð€€òòId.óó€21(a).ÌÌà àAppellant€and€his€brother€were€both€charged€with€the€brutal€murder€of€aÏð ðreasonably€well„knownðð€Lake€City€woman.€€Prior€to€Appellantððs€case€comingÏto€trial,€a€Lake€County€jury€tried,€convicted,€and€sentenced€the€brother€to€death.€ÏAt€the€outset€of€Appellantððs€trial,€the€trial€court€expressed€concern€over€theÏpretrial€publicity€surrounding€the€case€and€the€potential€difficulty€in€impaneling€anÏimpartial€jury€in€Lake€County.€€However,€it€was€Appellantððs€belief€that€a€LakeÏCounty€jury€would€be€more€familiar€with€the€killing€and€his€brotherððs€convictionÏand,€as€a€result,€would€be€more€likely€to€find€him€not€guilty€because,€asÏAppellant€maintained,€ð ðtwo€people€canððt€kill€one€person.ðð€€Essentially,€AppellantÏbelieved€that€the€pretrial€publicity€would€help€exonerate€him.€€Despite€thisÏquestionable€premise,€the€trial€counsel,€in€an€effort€to€delay€conviction,€initiallyÏsupported€Appellantððs€wish€to€remain€in€Lake€County.€€When€it€becameÏapparent€that€an€impartial€jury€could€not€be€impaneled€in€Lake€County,€the€trialÏcourt€admonished€counsel€for€the€delaying€tactics€and€suggested€a€change€ofÏvenue.€€The€trial€attorney€testified€that,€at€this€point,€he€ð ðencouraged€[Appellant]Ïto€accept€[the€change€of€venue],€which€is€what€we€did,€and€we€moved€theÏcase.ðð€€The€trial€counsel€further€testified€that€he€was€neither€coerced€norÏintimidated€by€the€trial€court€to€move€for€a€change€of€venue.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that,€after€full€consultation€with€his€attorney,€AppellantÏconceded€that€the€change€of€venue€was€proper€and€the€only€way€to€select€aÏfair€and€impartial€jury.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€present€evidence€thatÏpreponderates€against€this€finding.€€Furthermore,€Appellant€has€failed€to€showÏthat€he€was€prejudiced€in€any€way€by€this€change€of€venue.ÌÌà à€€Appellant€also€argues€that€his€defense€was€prejudiced€by€his€lawyerððsÏdelaying€tactics.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€length€of€time€from€commission€ofÏthe€crime€to€conviction€was€less€than€seven€months.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏthis€length€of€time€did€not€reflect€an€unreasonable€delay,€and€we€agree.€ÏFurthermore,€the€record€shows€that€any€delay€was€due€to€AppellantððsÏmisguided€wish€to€remain€in€Lake€County€for€trial.€€Once€Appellant€agreed€to€aÏchange€of€venue,€the€trial€proceeded€without€further€delay.€€This€allegation€doesÏnot€reflect€deficient€representation€on€the€part€of€Appellantððs€trial€counsel,€nor€is€itÏaccompanied€by€a€showing€of€prejudice.€€€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€next€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€rendered€ineffectiveÏassistance€by€failing€to€request€that€the€trial€judge€recuse€himself.€€Prior€to€trial,Ïthe€trial€judge€informed€Appellant€and€his€trial€counsel€that€he€had€representedÍthe€victim€in€an€uncontested€divorce€several€years€before.€€Appellant€testifiedÏthat€his€attorney€made€the€decision€to€not€seek€recusal€of€the€trial€judge€withoutÏdiscussing€the€matter€with€him.€€However,€trial€counsel€testified€that,€after€fullÏconsultation,€Appellant€made€the€decision€to€accept€the€trial€judge.€€The€trialÏattorney€further€testified€that€the€trial€judge€was€ð ðeminently€fairðð€in€presiding€overÏthe€pre„trial€and€trial€proceedings.€€Having€heard€the€evidence€on€this€issue,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€counsel€properly€discussed€the€matter€with€Appellant€andÏthat€Appellant€waived€this€issue€when€he€made€the€decision€to€accept€the€trialÏjudge.€€Appellant€has€presented€no€evidence€that€preponderates€against€thisÏfinding.€€Furthermore,€Appellant€has€demonstrated€absolutely€no€prejudice€fromÏthe€performance€of€€the€trial€judge.€€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òIV.ó óÌÓ  Óà àFinally,€Appellant€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€raise€certainÏmeritorious€issues€on€appeal.€€Appellant€maintains€that€his€inculpatoryÏstatement€regarding€the€offenses€was€taken€in€violation€of€his€Fifth€AmendmentÏright€against€self„incrimination€and€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€and€thatÏhis€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€raise€these€issues€on€appeal.€€TheÏrecord€reveals€that,€when€Appellant€was€arrested,€he€was€taken€to€a€holdingÏcell€at€the€Lake€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€During€his€first€interview€withÏauthorities,€Appellant€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€chose€to€eitherÍremain€silent€or€to€make€a€non„inculpatory€statement.€€During€his€secondÏinterview,€Appellant€was€again€advised€of€his€rights€and,€at€this€point,Ïrequested€an€attorney.€€Appellant€was€then€returned€to€his€cell.€€Soon€thereafter,Ïhe€became€agitated€and€requested€an€opportunity€to€make€a€statement.€€HeÏwas€again€advised€of€his€rights€but,€in€a€tape„recorded€statement,€chose€toÏwaive€those€rights€and€discuss€his€involvement€in€the€crimes.€€Appellant€arguesÏthat,€because€he€was€held€in€a€cell€without€light,€fresh€air,€or€food,€the€waiver€ofÏhis€òòMirandaóó€rights€was€not€made€ð ðvoluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently.ðð€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€834€S.W.2d€915,€918€(Tenn.€1992).€€Appellant€further€arguesÏthat,€having€requested€an€attorney,€he€could€not€properly€waive€his€rightsÏwithout€first€having€consulted€with€an€attorney.€ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€a€claim€that€has€beenÏpreviously€determined€must€be€dismissed.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(f)Ï(Supp.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€69„70€(Tenn.€Crim€App.Ï1991).€€The€Act€also€provides€the€following:ÌÓÓà àA€ground€for€relief€is€previously€determined€if€a€court€of€competentÏjurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing.€€A€full€and€fairÏhearing€has€occurred€where€the€petitioner€is€afforded€the€opportunity€to€callÏwitnesses€and€otherwise€present€evidence,€regardless€of€whether€the€petitionerÏactually€introduced€any€evidence.ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€ðð€40„30„206(h).€€While€not€specifically€argued€on€direct€appeal,€this€CourtÏaddressed€the€constitutionality€of€Appellantððs€statement€in€affirming€hisÏconviction.€€This€Court€found€that€ð ð[t]he€record€amply€demonstrates€thatÏ[Appellant]€voluntarily€reinitiated€communication€with€the€police€after€asking€for€anÏattorney€.€.€.€[and]€that€[Appellant]€understood€his€rights€and,€nevertheless,Ïintelligently€and€knowingly€chose€to€admit€his€involvement€in€the€crime.ðð€€òòState€vÏBarberóó,€No.€9,€1988€WL€620,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€8,€1988)€(citationsÏomitted).€€In€its€order€denying€post„conviction€relief,€the€trial€court€concluded€that,Ïin€light€of€this€Courtððs€finding€on€direct€appeal,€these€constitutional€claims€wereÏpreviously€determined€and€therefore€subject€to€dismissal.€€We€agree€andÏtherefore€decline€to€re„examine€Appellantððs€claims€regarding€his€inculpatoryÏstatement.€€€€ÌÌà àWe€now€turn€to€Appellantððs€ineffective€assistance€allegation€that€theÏclaims€regarding€his€inculpatory€statement€should€have€been€argued€on€directÏappeal.€€The€determination€of€which€issues€to€present€on€appeal€is€ð ða€matterÏwhich€addresses€itself€to€the€professional€judgment€and€sound€discretion€of€theÏappellate€counsel.ðð€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993).€€Here,Ïthe€trial€counsel€testified€that,€in€an€effort€to€enhance€his€credibility€with€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals,€he€only€argued€his€strongest€issues€on€appeal.€€The€trialÏcounsel€further€testified€that€he€could€find€no€authority€to€support€the€propositionÍthat€Appellant€could€not€change€his€mind,€uninvoke€his€rights,€and€make€aÏstatement€to€authorities.€€Indeed,€once€an€accused€invokes€the€right€to€counsel,Ïfurther€interrogation€is€only€proper€where€the€accused€initiates€the€communication,Ïwhich€appears€to€be€the€case€here.€€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868,€874Ï(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€502€U.S.€841€(1991)€(citing€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.Ï477,€484„485€(1981)).€€Given€the€lack€of€any€authority€supporting€AppellantððsÏposition€and€the€fact€that€the€issues€were€ð ðvigorously€litigatedðð€at€trial,€the€trialÏcounsel€was€acting€within€his€discretion€in€deciding€not€to€argue€these€issues€onÏappeal.€€Furthermore,€in€light€of€this€Courtððs€decision€to€address€the€issues€onÏdirect€appeal,€Appellant€was€not€prejudiced€in€any€way.€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÔ€XÔÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGE