WPC Wym1U1K;\͍),bra=C>A%Gݮħ:HҮuJN턶t U(?݄o'fhm/wL8QbD3x꩑P=Q(VT~?[a71&Hgê:C)|DsH[Vo^ 4HcX !"}:ϭ3d>Sp\ߦX>(olp zSuT?doJhKxe-_!>lo KGvs/-_mui#b9m d^֠5Wn<5PoVz&e*nUBW4T2s⽌#(dUBx %U.nX 0PV 4  0 0DV w p  m U:' -a "BU:2U:HU:#!N^ U: B%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% D3BBBB 0luuu AQ2 0l 0Dd<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%2A`ArialTT3|X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  tpO' (D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0   f  $D     1    XOXXXXXOPetitionersfilingforpostconvictionreliefafterMay10,1995,mustprovetheirallegationsof `  factbyclearandconvincingevidence.T.C.A.4030210(f)(1997).U,rAZ"Arial Regular #  $D     2    XOXXXXXOStatev.Anthonyheldthat,whereanaccusedischargedwithkidnappingandan `  accompanyingfelony,suchasrobbery,dueprocessprohibitsaseparateconvictionforkidnapping   wheretherequisiteconfinement,movementordetentionis essentiallyincidentaltotheaccompanying  | felony.817S.W.2dat306.H`   `  8 bu"   _X)XXX9XX)   Ad FILEDX)X9  December10,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial Regular  X ,cAZ"Arial Regular"Arial RegularHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0}{' ,rAZ"Arial Regular d$$$$'dxd(D3u$ !D   ab]cYC<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(D3u$ !D   ($$   1  !D   _` X  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T  X)XXX8)XXdd8_  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  @ii:;ATNASHVILLE  x`YB2.jz5`  `@E ` 8ttxP? x@5;SEPTEMBER1999SESSION ROBERTROGERBREWINGTON, T )  j     L      T )   C.C.A.NO.M199800420CCAR3PC  V    Appellant,  򀀀   T ) B     L      T )  DAVIDSONCOUNTY  .  VS.   L      T )     L      T )  HON.SETHNORMAN,  STATEOFTENNESSEE,     T )  JUDGE     L      T )  Appellee.      T )  (Postconviction)  j  FORTHEAPPELLANT:     T   FORTHEAPPELLEE: h  JUSTINJOHNSON     T   PAULG.SUMMERS "  203SecondAve.N.     T   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter # P.O.Box190582Nashville,TN372190582    T   ELIZABETHB.MARNEY  $r    L      T   Asst.AttorneyGeneral0 0 2% 2%0L 2% 2%0L2%L2%02%2%0T2%2%0T2%T2% T   425FifthAve.N.   !  d#  @d#  @d#  @d#  @d#  @d#  &D  Nashville,TN37243 2%2%    L      L      T   VICTORS.JOHNSONIII  V)#    L      T   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   L      T   JOHNC.ZIMMERMAN  ,"&    L      T   Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral   L      T   WashingtonSquare,Suite500   L      T   222SecondAve.N.   L      T   Nashville,TN372011649   L      T        L      T      L   OPINIONFILED:____________________ AFFIRMED  8H/4  JOHNH.PEAY,  `;27 Judge  2=39  _X  gD/V@:;XXO OPINION `  #XOXȋ#     Petitionerwasconvictedbyajuryin1988offirstdegreemurder,   aggravatedkidnapping,andarmedrobbery.Hewassentencedtolifeimprisonmentfor  themurder,fortyyearsforthekidnapping,andthirtyfiveyearsfortherobbery,each V consecutivetotheothers.Petitioner'sconvictionsandsentenceswereaffirmedondirect "  appeal.Statev.RobertRogerBrewington,Jr.,C.C.A.No.89232III,DavidsonCounty N  (Tenn.Crim.App.filedJune20,1990,atNashville).Petitionerfiledforpostconviction   reliefinJune1992;ahearingwasheldinMay1998;andthetrialcourtdeniedreliefby  writtenorderinJuly1998.Inthisappealasofright,petitionerraisesthefollowingissues: R  8 1.Whetherhistrialcounselwasineffective;~   8 2.Whetheraninadequatepsychologicalevaluationpre J sentedathissentencinghearingviolatedhisconstitutional 0 rights;   8 3.Whetherthekidnappingconvictionmustbesetaside   underStatev.Anthony;!h   8 4.Whetherhewasunconstitutionallydeprivedofanaccep #4 tancehearingfollowinghistransferfromjuvenilecourtto z$ criminalcourt;and`%   8 5.WhethertheState'sfailuretofilearesponsivepleadingto ,'! hispetitionentitleshimtorelief.("  Uponourreviewoftherecord,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. )~ $   Theonlytestimonyatthehearingwaspetitioner'sandhistriallawyer's. v-$( Petitionertestifiedthathewassixteenyearsoldwhenhewasarrested,anddidnot B/%* understandhistransferhearing.Followinghistransferhearing,hedidnotseeorspeak 1', withalawyeruntilhisarraignment,whenhistriallawyerwasappointed.Becauseofthis, 2z). heclaims,hemissedhisopportunityforanacceptancehearing. 4F+0    Petitioneralsotestifiedthathistriallawyerfailedtofileamotionforchange >8.4 ofvenue;metwithhimaninadequatenumberoftimes;didnotdoenoughtopickan  :06 gD ` `    impartialjury;failedtocallanywitnessesorotherwisemountadefense;andfailedto `  representhimadequatelyathissentencinghearing.Petitioner'strialcounseltestified ,  thathedidnotfileamotionforchangeofvenuebecausehedidn'tthinktherewere   adequategroundsforit.Headmittedthathecallednowitnessesattrialbecausethere d werenonetocall.Petitionerhadvoluntarilyconfessedtohisparticipationinthecrimes 0 tothepolice,andtherewassimplyverylittlecounselcoulddointermsofadefense \  strategy. (    Withrespecttopetitioner'scontentionthathereceivedineffective ` assistanceofcounselattrial,thecourtbelowfoundthatpetitionerdidnotcarryhis , burdenofprovingthathistriallawyer'sperformancewasbelowthestandardrequired. X Weagree.XOXXXO Inpostconvictionreliefproceedingsthepetitionerhastheburdenofproving $ theallegationsinhispetitionbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.McBeev.State,655  S.W.2d191,195(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).   #  1      ׀  \   InreviewingthepetitionersSixthAmendmentclaimofineffective T$ assistanceofcounsel,thisCourtmustdeterminewhethertheadvicegivenorservices  &  renderedbytheattorneyarewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysin '" criminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Toprevailona )X $ claimofineffectivecounsel,apetitioner mustshowthatcounselsrepresentationfell +$"& belowanobjectivestandardofreasonablenessandthatthisperformanceprejudicedthe P-#( defense.Theremustbeareasonableprobabilitythatbutforcounselserrortheresult /%* oftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668, 0', 68788,692,694(1984);Bestv.State,708S.W.2d421,422(Tenn.Crim.App.1985). 2T). #XOXXXO # 4 +0   Petitioner'sprooffellfarbelowthestandardrequiredforprovingeitherthat `  hislawyer'sperformancefellbelowanobjectivestandardofreasonableness,orthathis ,  lawyer'sperformanceprejudicedhisdefense.XOXXXOPetitionerfailedtoproduceanywitnesses   whomighthavetestifiedfavorablyateitherhistrialorsentencinghearing,thus d precludingthisCourtfromfindingthattrialcounselerredbynotcallingthesepersons. 0 Moreover,petitionerdidnotprovethathistriallawyerfailedtoprepareadequately; \  indeed,thepreponderanceoftheproofisthathedidprepareadequately.ThisCourt (  shouldnotsecondguesstrialcounselstacticalandstrategicchoicesunlessthose   choiceswereuninformedbecauseofinadequatepreparation,Hellardv.State,629 ` S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982),andcounselshouldnotbedeemedtohavebeenineffective , merelybecauseadifferentprocedureorstrategymighthaveproducedadifferentresult. X Williamsv.State,599S.W.2d276,280(Tenn.Crim.App.1980).#XOXXXO'#ԀThisissueiswithout $ merit.    Petitionernextcontendsthathewasdeniedhisdueprocessandequal "( protectionrightsbecausethepsychologicalevaluationperformedforhissentencing T$ hearingwasinadequate.Apparently,hethinksthatamorecomprehensiveevaluation  &  wouldhaveresultedinlessersentences.However,petitionercitesustonolegal '" authorityforthepropositionthatthe inadequateevaluationconstitutedaviolationofhis )X $ constitutionalrights.Accordingly,thisissueiswaived.Ct.Crim.App.R.10(b). +$"& Moreover,petitioner'ssentenceswerereviewedondirectappealandaffirmed. P-#( Therefore,theissueoftheappropriatenessofhissentenceshasbeenpreviously /%* determined.T.C.A.4030112(a)(repealed1995).Finally,thereisnoproofinthe 0', recordtosupportpetitioner'sargument,becauseheofferednoevidenceofwhatan 2T).  adequateevaluationwouldhaveprovided,orhowitwouldhavemitigatedhis 4 +0 sentences.Thisissueisthereforewithoutmerit,andpetitionerisentitledtonoreliefon L6,2 thisground. `    Next,petitionercontendsthathiskidnappingconvictionmustbesetaside   underStatev.Anthony,817S.W.2d299(Tenn.1991),  #  2      ׀whichwasdecidedafter d petitioner'sdirectappeal.Howe%  ver,Statev.Anthonydidnotannounceanewruleof 0 constitutionallaw,andtheruleinthatcaseisnotappliedretroactively.Statev.Denton, \  938S.W.2d373,377(Tenn.1996).Norispetitionerentitledinthisproceedingto (  Anthonylikereliefongeneraldueprocessprinciples.Suchaclaimcouldhavebeen   raisedatanytimeduringthetrialorthedirectappealprocess.Denton,938S.W.2dat ` 377.Accordingly,ithasbeenwaivedforthepurposesofthisproceeding,T.C.A.4030 , 112(b)(repealed1995),andpetitioneristhereforenotentitledtopostconvictionreliefon X thisground. $   Petitioneralsoclaimsthathewasunconstitutionallydeprivedofan  \ acceptancehearingfollowinghistransferfromjuveniletocriminalcourt.Uponajuvenile "( court'sordertransferringajuveniletocriminalcourttobetriedasanadult,thejuvenile T$ hastendaystofileamotionincriminalcourtforanacceptancehearing.SeeT.C.A.  &  371159(d)(Supp.1987).Ifthemotionisnotfiledwithinthatperiod,thejuvenile'sright '" toanacceptancehearingiswaived.Id.Petitionerdidnotfiletherequisitemotionforan )X $ acceptancehearingafterthejuvenilecourttransferredhimtocriminalcourt,andhe +$"& therebywaivedhisrighttosame.Hearguesnowthathiswaiverresultedfromhislack P-#( ofunderstandinghisrighttoanacceptancehearing,andhislackofaccesstohisjuvenile /%* courtattorneyduringtherelevanttimeperiod.Inotherwords,hecontendsthathis 0', waiverwasneitherknowingnorvoluntary.However,thejuvenilecourt'sorderoftransfer 2T). /V X   recitesthatit explainedtothe[petitioner]hisrighttoanacceptancehearinginCriminal `  Court.Thisorderalsomakesclearthatpetitioner'sattorneywaspresentatthetime. ,  Uponcomparingthisorderwithpetitioner'sassertionstothecontraryatthepost   convictionhearing,thecourtbelowfoundthatpetitionerhad intelligentlywaivedhis d rights.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthisfinding,andwetherefore 0 declinetooverturnit.SeeXOXXXOStatev.Buford,666S.W.2d473,475(Tenn.Crim.App. \  1983)#XOXXXO%=#ԀXOXXXOԂ(thefactualfindingsofthetrialcourtinhearings areconclusiveonappealunless (  theevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment.).#XOXXXO=#Thisissueiswithoutmerit.     Finally,petitionercontendsthatheisentitledtopostconvictionrelief , becausetheStateneverfiledaresponsivepleadingtohispetition.Whileweagreewith X petitionerthattheStateisrequiredtofilearesponsivepleading,seeT.C.A.4030 $ 114(a)(repealed1995),wefailtoseehowpetitionerwasprejudicedbytheState'sfailure  inthisregard.TheStatewaspresentatthepostconvictionhearinganddefendedthe  \ petition.TheState'sdefenseofferednosurprises,andconsistedofcrossexaminingthe "( petitionerabouthiscontentions,andthencallinghistriallawyertotestify.Thepetitioner T$ isnotentitledtopostconvictionreliefonthisground.  &    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed. )X $    L      T ____________________________________ P-#(    L      T JOHNH.PEAY,Judge 6.$) CONCUR: 0', ______________________________ 4 +0 DAVIDH.WELLES,Judge f5,1 ______________________________ 8/5 JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,Judge