ÿWPCÏ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0JH 0T’ 0^æ D 0hT  ¼ 0rÈ 0|: 0†¶ 0< 1uÌ U,A 0dm U,Ñ U>ý U *;B)e BŽDC« AMî+;v~f D3ävÓ 0@ê AO*Æy 0D? D/ƒ B²˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- zD{|D}~D€D‚ƒ»{s 3|xƒ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôalibi26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôiac2@ 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òMay€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€aXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|µˆ` Å `€€LßÌAT€JACKSONÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓFRANKLIN€WAYNE€BARNETTà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€02C01„9507„CR„00202Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€W.€FRED€AXLEYó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,€à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Post„Conviction€Relief)Ìó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌRichard€F.€Vaughnà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ1928€„€100€N.€Mainà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJerry€KitchenÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue€„€3rd€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óòòò òÔ€#„ÔOPINIONÔ€#ŠÔó óóóÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€#XÔÌà àIn€December€of€1990,€a€jury€convicted€Appellant€Franklin€Wayne€Barnett€ofÏarmed€robbery,€resulting€in€a€sentence€of€€ten€years€imprisonment.ÏContemporaneously,€Appellant€pleaded€guilty€on€a€separate€indictment€for€theÏpossession€of€a€controlled€substance€and€received€a€three€year€sentence€to€beÏserved€concurrently€to€the€robbery€sentence.€€€After€his€conviction€was€affirmed€onÏdirect€appeal,€òòState€v.€Barnettóó,€No.€02C01„9103„CR„00035,€1992€WL€44921€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€March€11,€1992),€òòperm.€to€appeal€denied,óó€(Tenn.€1992),€€AppellantÏpetitioned€for€post„conviction€relief€in€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court,€allegingÏthat€he€failed€to€receive€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€violation€of€the€SixthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€€ÌÌà àIn€this€action,€Appellant€appeals€the€denial€of€this,€his€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Finding€no€error€in€this€record€with€regard€to€the€denial€of€theÏpost„conviction€petition,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€criminal€court.€ÌÌà àInitially,€we€are€guided€by€certain€well„established€principles€of€law.€€WhenÏan€appellant's€post„conviction€claim€involves€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€effectiveÍassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€a€petitioner€must€show€thatÏhis€or€her€counsel's€representation€fell€below€the€objective€standard€of€òòBaxteróó€and,Ïadditionally,€that€this€sub„standard€representation€actually€prejudiced€the€defense.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€692€(1984).€€ÌÌà àOur€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€ð ð[t]o€establish€actual€prejudice,€theÏdefendant€must€demonstrate€that€ððthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€forÏcounselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€beenÏdifferent.€.€.€.€A€probability€is€ððreasonableðð€if€it€is€ððsufficient€to€undermine€confidenceÏin€the€outcomeðð€of€the€proceeding.ðð€€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.Ï1994)€(quoting€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694).€€ÌÌà à"In€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€[or€her]€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€ÏòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Unless€theÏappellate€court€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€factual€findings€ofÏthe€trial€court,€these€findings€are€conclusive€on€appeal.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2dÍ898,€899€€(Tenn.€1990).€€In€reviewing€the€trial€judgeððs€decision,€we€are€bound€byÏthe€following€rules€of€appellate€review:€€Ìð ðÔ% € Ô(1)€this€court€cannot€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€its€inferencesÏfor€those€drawn€by€the€trial€judge€[and]€(2)€questions€concerning€the€credibility€ofÏwitnesses,€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€factual€issues€raisedÏby€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trial€judge€.€.€.€.ððòòÌTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€684,€686€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,Ï794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)).ÌÌà àAppellant€has€raised€numerous€incidents€as€proof€of€the€allegedly€ineffectiveÏtrial€representation€.€€We€will€address€each€of€these€in€turn.€€The€trial€judge€foundÏthat€Appellant's€petition€centered€upon€(1)€trial€counselððs€failure€to€adequatelyÏprepare€for€trial€including€the€filing€of€various€discovery€motions;€(2)€trial€counselððsÏfailure€to€call€character€witnesses€and€alibi€witnesses;€and€€(3)€trial€counselððs€failureÏto€adequately€cross„examine€the€Stateððs€main€witness,€the€victim.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àWe€turn€first€to€Appellant's€claim€that€the€trial€attorney€failed€to€prepareÏadequately€for€Appellant's€defense.€€Appellant€relies€heavily€upon€the€undisputedÍfact€that€the€trial€attorney€met€with€Appellant€only€once€in€jail,€while€all€otherÏmeetings€were€scheduled€at€the€courthouse€to€coincide€with€days€that€AppellantÏhad€court€appearances.€€Appellant€testified€that€there€were€five€or€six€of€theseÏcourthouse€meetings„„€all€of€which€were€very€brief,€averaging€four€or€five€minutes.€ÏFurthermore,€Appellant€claims€that€there€were€numerous€times€that€he€attempted€toÏcontact€the€trial€attorney€and€was€unable€to€do€so.€ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€attorney€testified€that€he€had€spentÏaround€twenty„two€in„court€hours€and€twenty„six€out„of„court€hours€on€Appellant'sÏcase€and€that€he€felt€adequately€prepared.€€The€trial€attorney€said€that€he€first€metÏwith€Appellant€in€May€of€1990€after€being€assigned€the€case€the€preceding€April.€ÏReferring€to€his€notes,€he€chronicled€the€subsequent€meetings,€testifying€as€to€theÏmatters€discussed€at€each€meeting.€€Though€he€conceded€that€some€of€theÏmeetings€may€have€been€as€short€as€five€minutes,€others€were€much€longer.€€TheÏtrial€attorney€readily€admitted€to€scheduling€courthouse€meetings€with€all€of€hisÏclients€as€he€found€this€the€most€efficient€way€to€meet€with€incarcerated€clients€inÏlight€of€the€public€defenderððs€tremendous€caseload.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€found€the€preparation€and€discovery€in€this€case€to€beÏð ðnothing€short€of€complete.ðð€€We€agree.€€A€quiet€conference€room€in€a€courthouseÍserves€the€same€purpose€as€a€similar€room€at€the€jailhouse.€€The€trial€attorney€metÏwith€Appellant€approximately€once€a€month€for€the€seven€months€preceding€theÏtrial.€€While€Appellant€complains€about€the€brevity€of€these€meetings,€the€trialÏattorneyððs€testimony€reveals€thorough€discussion€regarding€the€progress€ofÏAppellant's€case.€€Furthermore,€Appellant€does€not€suggest€other€matters€which€heÏwould€have€discussed€or€about€which€he€would€have€inquired€had€these€meetingsÏbeen€longer€or€more€numerous.ÌÌà àIn€his€attack€on€the€trial€attorneyððs€preparation,€Appellant€also€insists€that€theÏtrial€attorney€should€have€filed€a€motion€for€discovery.€€However,€the€proof€showedÏthat€the€trial€attorney€enjoyed€an€open„file€policy€with€the€District€Attorneyððs€office,Ïeliminating€the€need€for€such€a€motion.€€Moreover,€Appellant€does€not€refer€to€anyÏspecific€beneficial€evidence€in€the€Stateððs€files€of€which€his€attorney€was€unaware.€ÌÌÓ  ÓII.Ó  ÓÌà àAppellant€next€complains€about€the€trial€attorneyððs€decision€not€to€call€certainÏwitnesses€on€Appellant's€behalf.€€Where€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€basedÏupon€the€trial€attorneyððs€failure€to€present€potential€defense€witnesses,€theÏwitnesses€should€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Generally,€this€is€the€onlyÏway€Appellant€can€establish€that€€(a)€a€material€witness€existed€and€could€haveÍbeen€discovered€but€for€counsel's€neglect,€(b)€a€known€witness€was€notÏinterviewed€by€counsel,€(c)€the€failure€to€discover€or€interview€a€witness€prejudicedÏthe€petitioner,€or€(d)€the€failure€to€call€certain€witnesses€denied€critical€evidence€toÏthe€prejudice€of€the€petitioner.€€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990).€ÌÌà àThe€only€potential€trial€witnesses€called€by€Appellant€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing€were€his€brother,€Mr.€Charles€Barnett,€and€Mr.€Larry€Darbison.€€Mr.ÏDarbison€testified€that€he€was€the€bartender€at€a€bar€owned€by€Appellant€and€Mr.ÏCharles€Barnett€at€the€time€of€the€robbery,€which€occurred€at€5:55€a.m.€on€FebruaryÏ18,€1987.€€Mr.€Darbison€started€work€at€11:00€p.m.€on€February€17€and€worked€untilÏ6:00€a.m.€the€next€morning.€€He€testified€that€Appellant€was€present€all€night€longÏand€that€he€saw€him€periodically€throughout€the€night.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Darbison€disagreed€that€he€had€told€the€trialÏattorney€that€Appellant€could€have€left€for€twenty€or€thirty€minutes€without€himÏknowing€about€it„„€he€would€have€known€as€the€only€door€into€the€bar€was€visible€toÏhim.€€He€stated€that€it€would€take€ð ðevery€bit€of€twenty„five,€thirty„„€maybe€fortyÏminutesðð€€to€walk€to€the€Burger€King€from€the€bar.€€He€admitted€telling€the€attorneyÏthat€he€was€not€really€sure€what€Appellant€was€doing€at€5:55€a.m.€€However,€heÍwas€fairly€certain€of€Appellant's€presence€because€he€saw€Appellant€at€the€bar€fiveÏminutes€later€when€they€got€off€work.Ì€Ìà àAppellant's€brother,€Mr.€Charles€Barnett,€was€also€a€witness€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Corroborating€the€testimony€of€Appellant€and€Mr.€Darbison,€Mr.ÏBarnett€testified€that€the€three€of€them€had€gone€together€to€meet€with€an€attorneyÏaround€8:00€or€8:30€the€morning€following€the€robbery.€€Mr.€Barnett€rememberedÏthe€morning€because€of€the€pre„scheduled€meeting€with€the€attorney€and€laterÏverified€the€exact€date€with€the€attorneyððs€office.€€After€conveying€this€information€toÏthe€trial€attorney,€Mr.€Barnett€anticipated€being€able€to€communicate€it€to€a€jury.€€HeÏalso€planned€to€verify€Appellant's€employment€and€€to€tell€the€jury€that€AppellantÏhad€no€need€to€rob€the€Burger€King€as€his€own€business€was€profitable€and€he€hadÏaccess€to€money€at€all€times.€ÌÌà àBoth€men€testified€that€they€communicated€this€information€to€the€trialÏattorney.€Though€they€were€present€at€the€courthouse€during€Appellant's€trial,€theyÏwere€told€they€were€not€needed€to€testify.Ìà àÌà àThe€trial€attorney€determined€that€Appellant's€brother€could€not€provide€anÏalibi.€€With€regard€to€Mr.€Darbison,€the€trial€attorney€remembered€a€very€differentÍconversation.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€he€testified€that€Mr.€Darbison€was€notÏonly€unable€to€recall€where€Appellant€was€at€5:55€am.€but€even€told€him€thatÏAppellant€left€for€twenty€or€thirty€minutes.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Darbison€said€that€theÏBurger€King€was€only€a€ten€minute€walk€from€the€bar.€€Concluding€that€suchÏtestimony,€by€placing€Appellant€near€the€crime€scene,€actually€served€to€implicateÏAppellant,€the€attorney€consulted€Appellant€who€agreed€that€his€brother€and€Mr.ÏDarbison€should€not€testify.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€attorneyÏtestified€that,€had€Appellant€insisted€that€they€testify,€he€would€have€put€them€on€theÏstand.€€Ì€Ìà àThe€trial€judge€found€that€Appellant€failed€to€show€that€the€alibi€witnessesÏwould€have€been€helpful€to€the€defense.€€He€stated€that€€ð ð[b]y€not€calling€the€so„called€ððalibiðð€witnesses,€defense€counsel€prevented€potentially€damaging€testimonyÏ[from]€being€presented€on€[Appellant's]€behalf.ðð€€Ô% € ÔObviously,€the€trial€judge€found€theÏattorneyððs€version€of€the€pre„trial€discussion€of€the€case€to€be€more€credible€thanÏthat€of€the€two€witnesses.€€In€light€of€the€trial€attorneyððs€testimony,€the€strategy€not€toÏcall€these€two€witnesses€was€a€sound€tactical€choice.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629ÏS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€ÌÌà àThe€Appellant€also€complains€that€the€attorney€exerted€no€effort€to€obtainÏcharacter€witnesses€at€the€trial.€€While€Appellant€testified€that€his€attorney€neverÏdiscussed€character€proof€with€him,€the€trial€attorney€testified€to€the€contrary.ÏThough€the€attorney€recommended€that€there€not€be€character€witnesses,ÏAppellant€was€determined€to€talk€with€possible€witnesses€and€make€his€ownÏdecision.€€However,€Appellant€never€followed€through€and€no€character€witnessesÏwere€called.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€accredited€the€trial€attorneyððs€account€of€facts€with€regard€toÏcharacter€proof€and€concluded€that€this€decision€of€trial€strategy€was€for€theÏattorney€to€determine.€€€From€the€trial€attorneyððs€testimony,€it€is€apparent€that€hisÏdecision€not€to€pursue€a€character€line€of€defense€was€the€product€of€informedÏchoice.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,€756€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)Ï(counselððs€conscious€decision€not€to€call€character€witnesses€was€no€basis€for€anÏineffective€assistance€claim).€€We€refuse€to€second€guess€the€trial€courtððs€decisionsÏwith€regard€to€these€witnesses.€€Furthermore,€as€no€character€witnesses€wereÏpresented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€€we€cannot€speculate€as€to€the€substanceÏof€their€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€757.ÌÌÓ  ÓIII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àAppellant's€next€issue€involved€the€cross„examination€of€the€victim,€Ms.ÏJaqueline€Smith.€€Appellant's€position€is€that€the€Stateððs€entire€case€rested€uponÏthe€victimððs€testimony€and,€as€such,€the€trial€attorney€should€have€used€everyÏavailable€method€of€discrediting€this€testimony.ÌÌà àIn€support€of€his€contention,€Appellant€pointed€to€certain€uncontrovertedÏfacts.€€Ms.€Smith€gave€a€description€of€the€robbers€in€both€the€police€report€and€aÏsubsequent€statement€made€to€the€police€which,€when€compared€to€her€trialÏtestimony,€revealed€several€discrepancies.€€For€example,€in€her€statement,€theÏvictim€remarked€that,€in€the€lineup,€€Appellant€merely€ð ðlooked€like€he€was€theÏ[robber]€with€the€mustache.ðð€€However,€she€was€much€more€certain€of€Appellant'sÏidentity€at€trial.€€In€addition,€there€were€other€minor€inconsistencies,€including€oneÏwith€regard€to€the€hair€color€of€the€other€man€who€assisted€in€the€robbery.Ìà àÌà àWhen€asked€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€attorney€said€that€heÏwas€aware€of€these€discrepancies.€€However,€Ms.€Smith€stated€that€she€hadÏbecome€more€certain€of€€Appellant's€identity€upon€seeing€his€face€in€a€vision€thatÏshe€had€when€she€looked€into€a€mirror.€€Additionally,€the€victim€identified€a€skiÏmask,€a€jacket,€a€pair€of€gloves,€and€a€pistol€which€were€taken€from€Appellant€whenÍhe€was€arrested€a€couple€of€weeks€after€the€robbery.€€As€Ms.€Smith€testified€thatÏshe€was€able€to€identify€these€items€after€having€seen€them€in€a€dream,€the€trialÏattorney€made€the€decision€that€he€would€focus€his€cross„examination€on€theÏvictim's€concession€that€her€testimony€was€based€on€a€vision€and€a€dream.ÌÌà àOnce€the€trial€attorney€successfully€elicited€this€testimony€from€Ms.Smith,€heÏfelt€that€he€ð ðhad€hit€everything€that€[he]€needed€and€hit€it€well,€and€thereððs€a€time€toÏquit.€€That€.€.€.€[by]€going€further€[he]€ran€the€risk€of€allowing€her€to€rehabilitateÏherself.ðð€€In€making€this€determination,€he€considered€that€the€victim€ð ðwas€the€kindÏof€person€.€.€.€who€if€you€just€let€her€go€on,€sheððs€going€to€start€thinking€of€facts€andÏbuilding€things€and€that€kind€of€thing.ððÌÌà àAs€we€have€noted€above,€a€reviewing€court€must€defer€to€an€attorneyððs€trialÏstrategy€or€tactical€choices€so€long€as€they€are€informed€and€based€upon€adequateÏpreparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982);€òòVermilye€v.€Stateóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€82,€85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€From€the€trial€attorneyððs€testimony,€it€isÏapparent€that€he€considered€the€potential€methods€of€impeaching€the€credibility€ofÏthis€particular€witness€and€made€a€competent€decision€about€which€avenue€wasÏmost€appropriate.€ÌÌÌà àÓ  ÓIV.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àFinally,€there€were€several€matters€mentioned€at€the€post„conviction€hearingÏto€which€Appellant€summarily€alludes€in€his€brief.€€The€trial€court€did€not€addressÏthese€matters€in€its€Findings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law.€€Included€wereÏallegations€involving€the€constitutional€validity€of€the€lineup€from€which€the€victimÏfirst€identified€Appellant,€the€trial€attorneyððs€alleged€last„minute€effort€to€haveÏAppellant€dressed€in€street€clothes,€and€the€trial€attorneyððs€failure€to€object€toÏallegedly€improper€prosecutorial€argument.€€ÌÌà àAppellant€has€presented€neither€authority€nor€any€substantial€argument€toÏsupport€these€claims.€€Therefore,€in€accordance€with€the€rules€governing€this€Court,Ïthese€issues€are€waived.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b);€Ïòòseeóó€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€875€S.W.2d€278,€284€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àFinding€that€Appellant€has€failed€to€present€any€evidence€that€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€Appellant€received€effective€and€competentÏtrial€representation,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€€€€ÌÔ€#ŠÔÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌ___________________________________ÌLYNN€BROWN,€SPECIAL€JUDGE