ÿWPC2 ë¢ÉGë-w|²&á2doS|™eߢpW=õŒ½…Â冲Dž!M×$Á{™²•n»ç]@Œî_RõÞÖea”Z_ø2åCмÁµc´4„޼¤÷žr"Œ‚[¥ä¾}†P´h„?³Ôé®3ÞÛÔr,ð™ÆO&¹SÂOXI P»n ™Äß@7]̦+Xq~M DË Fæk;“ûoÀ4J¿~0~e£,D™VÌ3œC÷„õ™†ÍT‡¨Ã3†™Ù¾X@F¬%JéÄäƒéÔ³Õœ¾›¬û‘w˜V'·€`ÿ F†)WÒ‹¿7֭㊦S…9C¯‰¸LÃã…QxØß˜<¼/áJ&Á±ª &BPþô§ŠTèe@UÜo­]g|ÄÒ€¹³3x ÊXö’‘«SÝ I»·øjF_-¤«¾˜B~˜/‚ƒŽÂ÷0“æ;eqW(Ÿ†G2¥~~XˆJÊç¦ê«Æúq±¶6s ¬$«9„ÿíê{YëmÙâGm]qÔË›âBÊ’]ü˜ƒ¿ä¡G3~LJ`M+•qÞ  æ’Ehؼ-ÂvíP4ÅõN;ÄλøhÙ@SÏ®KÿÇÇ´ao©µ´eµóD®xp8ŒŸ`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µLÝU :) bc wk 4o ƒ UN’ Nà 0§â 0D‰ U,Í Æù 6¿ ¿ ^ õ  m ¾ 娽½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½ AQÅ B 0D3 0Dw 0D»» D3ÿ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-tpO'3|x(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(W(2^†$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ô•õXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹Arial ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ,Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X€XXXXÔÔ€èëçXX€XÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€sE çèëÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€27,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó 󀤛'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ´Ý ƒ }‚$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôޤòXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€Ô‡ôDšòòôޤÔAlthough€the€height€chart€is€visible€in€four€(4)€of€the€photographs,€the€actual€numbers€indicatingÐ `  Ðthe€respective€heights€of€the€individuals€are€apparent€in€only€two€(2)€of€those€photographs.Ô#†ôޤòòôDšŸ#Ô ÛÝ ƒ }‚$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ôޤòXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€Ô‡ôDšòòôޤÔBecause€we€conclude€that€the€photographic€array€was€not€improperly€suggestive,€it€isÐ `  Ðunnecessary€to€determine€if€the€eyewitness€identifications€were€nonetheless€reliable€under€òòNeil€v.€Ô_ÔBiggersÔ_Ôóó.Ô#†ôޤòòôDšŸ#Ô [\]_Cþÿ<<Cÿÿ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óZZZZ'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Š‚æ‹XXÔÔ€Šl/‹‹Š‚æÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€vtXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j: `€€@ÿEðf Žtt¨¦(` \vßÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌSEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓMICHAEL€GLEN€BRICE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9807„CR„00267Ð n Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð p Ðà ` àAppellant,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð l  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÐ p  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ r  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€JAMES€E.€Ô_ÔBECKNERÔ_Ô€ó óÐ t  Ðò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó ó€ò ò(By€Interchange)ó óÐ v Ðà ` àò òó óà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ x Ðà ` àAppellee.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Post„Conviction€Aggravated€Robbery)ó óÐ z ÐÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à À àà  àà p àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð l  ÐÌTERRY€L.€JORDANà0 h àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐd €%€% Ð2òòndóó€Judicial€Districtà h àà0 À àà0À€%À€%àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ`!€%€% ÐP.€O.€Box€839à0  àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àÐ\"üÀ€%À€% ÐÔ_ÔBlountvilleÔ_Ô,€TN€37617à h àà À àà  àELLEN€H.€POLLACKÐ X#ø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGREELEY€WELLSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGREG€NEWMANÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÔ_ÔBlountvilleÔ_Ô,€TN€37617ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  4´*+ ÐÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„3š „‹Šl/ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Šl/‹ „„3š@ #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ8€ r XXdìXXdì8ÑÔ‡ŠôˆˆŠôÔà ` àÌà ` àÔ#†ŠôˆˆŠôÿ#ÔÔ‡Xç˜ XˆŠôÔThe€petitioner,€Michael€Glen€Brice,€appeals€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€CourtððsÐ ¬ L Ðorder€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€In€1993,€the€petitioner€was€convictedÐ x Ðof€one€(1)€count€of€aggravated€robbery,€one€(1)€count€of€burglary€and€five€(5)€counts€ofÐ Dä Ðaggravated€assault.€€He€received€an€effective€sentence€of€twenty€(20)€years€as€a€RangeÐ °  ÐII€offender.€€He€filed€the€present€petition€in€1996,€claiming€that€he€received€ineffectiveÐ Ü|  Ðassistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€post„Ð ¨H  Ðconviction€relief.€€On€appeal,€the€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€ineffective€assistanceÐ t Ðof€counsel€at€trial€due€to€(1)€counselððs€failure€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€a€photographicÐ @à Ðlineup,€and€(2)€counselððs€failure€to€effectively€cross„examine€the€stateððs€eyewitnesses.€Ð  ¬ ÐAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€before€this€Court,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.Ð Øx ÐÌà@  .Dàò òI.ó óˆÐ p! ÐÌà@××+Dàò òA.€€Trialó óˆÐ %´ Ðà ` àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€in€1993€of€one€(1)€count€of€aggravated€robbery,€oneÐ ì&Œ  Ð(1)€count€of€burglary€and€five€(5)€counts€of€aggravated€assault.€€His€convictions€wereÐ ¸(X" Ðaffirmed€by€this€Court€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Michael€Glen€Briceóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„Ð „*$!$ Ð9311„CR„00385,€Sullivan€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€23,€1995,€at€Knoxville),Ð P,ð"& Ðòòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€April€1,€1996).€€To€place€the€petitionerððs€issues€in€the€properÐ .¼$( Ðperspective,€we€will€recite€the€relevant€facts€as€stated€by€this€Court€on€direct€appeal.Ð ì/Œ&* ÐÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€adduced€at€trial€revealed€that€two€black€men€entered€aÐ ¸1X(, ÐHardeeððs€in€Bristol€on€the€evening€of€Sunday,€September€8,€1991€aroundÐ ž2>)- Ð9:30€p.m.€€Both€of€the€menððs€faces€were€partially€covered€by€masks.€€SixÐ „3$*. Ðpeople--€four€employees€and€two€customers--€were€present€at€the€HardeeððsÐ j4 +/ Ðduring€the€commission€of€the€offense.€.€.€.€€Prior€to€trial,€each€witness€wasÐ P5ð+0 Ðshown€a€photographic€array€containing€six€photographs€including€theÐ 66Ö,1 Ðdefendantððs€photograph€and€that€of€Gerald€Thomas,€the€co-defendant€whoÐ 7¼-2 Ðentered€a€guilty€plea€to€the€robbery€and€testified€for€the€defense.€€TheÐ 8¢.3 Ðdefendant€was€pictured€in€photograph€number€two€and€Mr.€Thomas€was€inÐ è8ˆ/4 Ðphotograph€number€four.ÐÎ9n05` (#` (# Їà8 ` àà ¸ àRhonda€Denise€Smith,€one€of€the€customers,€identified€photographÐ `  Ðnumber€four€from€the€array,€but€said€if€she€had€to€choose€another€one,€itÐ F æ Ðwould€be€photograph€number€two.€€At€trial€she€pointed€to€the€defendant€asÐ , Ì Ðone€of€the€robbers,€but€wrongly€asserted€very€emphatically€that€he€was€theÐ  ² Ðone€in€photograph€number€four€that€she€had€previously€recognized.€€TheÐ ø ˜ Ðother€customer,€Melissa€Michelle€Radar,€identified€the€man€in€photographÐ Þ ~ Ðnumber€four€as€the€one€most€like€the€robber€who€held€a€gun€to€her€head.€Ð Äd ÐShe€pointed€to€the€man€in€photograph€number€two€as€the€other€one€at€whomÐ ªJ Ðshe€had€merely€glanced€from€fifteen€feet€away.€€At€trial,€she€testified€that€theÐ 0 Ðdefendant€was€one€of€the€two€robbers.€€Two€of€the€employees,€Walter€GlennÐ v  ÐDoan,€Jr.€and€Diona€Nicole€Glover,€were€unable€to€identify€the€defendant€atÐ \ü  Ðtrial.€€However,€both€had€picked€his€photograph€from€the€photo€array€aboutÐ Bâ  Ðtwo€months€after€the€robbery.€€Mr.€Doan€had€additionally€picked€photoÐ (È  Ðnumber€five€as€a€possibility.€€Another€employee,€Dottie€Ann€Snodgrass,Ð ®  Ðclaimed€that€she€only€got€a€glance€and€was€not€sure€if€the€robber€had€on€aÐ ô”  Ðmask€or€not€but,€she€was€sure€that€the€defendant€was€one€of€the€twoÐ Úz  Ðrobbers.€€She€had€also€identified€the€photographs€numbered€two€and€fourÐ À` Ðfrom€the€array€before€the€trial.€€The€final€employee,€Cheryl€Blevins,€identifiedÐ ¦F Ðonly€photo€number€two€from€the€array€and€was€absolutely€sure€that€theÐ Œ, Ðdefendant€was€one€of€the€men€who€robbed€the€Hardeeððs.Ðr` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àOn€the€other€hand,€the€defendant€presented€evidence€whichÐ >Þ Ðsuggested€he€was€not€involved€in€the€robbery€of€the€Hardeeððs.€€The€principalÐ $Ä Ðwitness€was€Gerald€Thomas€who€had€already€confessed€to€the€crime.€€HeÐ  ª Ðclaimed€to€have€been€high€on€cocaine€on€the€night€of€the€robbery.€€AlthoughÐ ð Ðhe€did€not€remember€committing€the€crime,€he€pleaded€guilty€because€heÐ Öv Ðhad€been€identified€by€several€of€the€witnesses.€€He€was€certain,€though,€thatÐ ¼ \ Ðthe€defendant€was€not€involved.€€They€were€apparently€old€friends€and€Mr.Ð ¢!B ÐThomasðð€testimony€was€that€he€had€not€seen€the€defendant€since€mid-1984.€Ð ˆ"( ÐThe€defendant€also€took€the€stand€denying€his€involvement€in€the€robbery.€Ð n# ÐOn€direct€examination,€he€responded€frankly€to€questions€regarding€his€priorÐ T$ô Ðconvictions€for€selling€cocaine.€€He€contradicted€Mr.€Thomasðð€testimony€byÐ :%Ú Ðsaying€he€ran€into€Mr.€Thomas€once€in€August€of€1991€and€talked€to€him€forÐ  &À  Ðabout€ten€minutes.€€The€defendant€was€unable€to€provide€an€alibi€for€theÐ '¦! Ðnight€of€the€robbery€as,€he€testified,€ð ðit€was€just€an€ordinary€dayðð€for€him.Ðì'Œ"` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓòòState€v.€Michael€Glen€Briceóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9311„CR„00385,€slip€op.€at€2„3.Ð ¸)X $ Ðà@"Dàò òB.€€Post„Conviction€Hearingó óˆÐ „+$"& Ðà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€and€his€attorney€metÐ \-ü#( Ðbriefly€a€few€times€prior€to€trial.€€ò òó óHe€stated€that€trial€counsel€did€not€discuss€trial€strategy€Ð (/È%* Ðwith€him.€€ò ò€ó óAlthough€counsel€provided€him€with€a€copy€of€the€eyewitnessesðð€statementsÐ ô0”', Ðprior€to€trial,€the€petitioner€and€trial€counsel€did€not€discuss€the€contents€of€the€witnessesððÐ Ì2l). Ðstatements.€ò òó ó€€The€petitioner€maintained€that€trial€counsel€did€nothing€during€trial€to€attackÐ ˜48+0 Ðthe€eyewitnessesðð€respective€identifications€of€him€as€one€of€the€perpetrators.€ò òÐ d6-2 Ðâ âó óÐ 08Ð.4 Ðà ` àThe€petitioner€called€attorney€Ann€Short€to€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€asÐ `  Ðâ âan€expert€with€regard€to€the€standard€of€competency€for€criminal€defense€attorneys.€€SheÐ , Ì Ðtestified€that€trial€counsel€had€a€ð ðsolid€legal€basisðð€for€challenging€the€photographic€lineupÐ ø ˜ Ðunder€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€93€S.Ct.€375,€34€L.Ed.2d€401€(1972).€ò òó ó€€Therefore,€sheÐ Äd Ðconcluded€that€trial€counselððs€performance€prior€to€trial€was€deficient€for€failing€to€file€aÐ 0 Ðmotion€to€suppress€the€photographic€lineup€and€resulting€identifications.€ò òó ó€Further,€ShortÐ \ü  Ðtestified€that€counselððs€cross„examination€of€the€eyewitnesses€was€inadequate;€thus,€sheÐ (È  Ðopined€that€trial€counselððs€performance€did€not€meet€the€standard€of€competency€requiredÐ ô”  Ðof€criminal€defense€attorneys.€ò òó óÐ À` Ðà ` àThe€petitionerððs€trial€counsel,€Frank€Miller,€was€deceased€at€the€time€of€the€post„Ð Œ, Ðconviction€hearing.€€ò òó óThe€trial€transcript€indicates€that€counsel€did€not€file€a€motion€toÐ Xø Ðsuppress€the€pretrial€photographic€lineup€and€ensuing€identifications.€ò òó óÐ $Ä Ðà ` àIn€a€written€order,€the€trial€court€determined€that,€even€though€trial€counsel€ð ðprobablyÐ ð Ðshould€haveðð€moved€to€suppress€the€photographic€lineup€identifications,€the€photographicÐ ¼ \ Ðarray€was€not€impermissibly€suggestive.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€theÐ ˆ"( Ðpetitioner€had€not€established€prejudice€as€a€result€of€trial€counselððs€alleged€deficiencies.€Ð T$ô ÐBecause€the€petitioner€did€not€establish€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€theÐ  &À  Ðproceedings€would€have€been€different,€the€trial€court€denied€the€petition€for€post„Ð ì'Œ" Ðconviction€relief.€€From€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€relief,€the€petitioner€now€brings€thisÐ ¸)X $ Ðappeal.Ð „+$"& ÐÌà@ðð.Dàò òII.ó óˆÐ /¼%* ÐÌà ` àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€HeÐ À2`). Ðclaims€that€the€pretrial€photographic€lineup€was€improperly€suggestive€and€the€witnessesððÐ Œ4,+0 Ðidentifications€were€not€reliable.€€He€argues€that€the€photographic€lineup€and€the€ensuingÐ X6ø,2 Ðidentifications€should€have€been€suppressed€at€trialòòóó;€therefore,€he€claims€that€trial€counselÐ $8Ä.4 Ðwas€ineffective€for€failing€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€the€photographic€lineup€and€theÐ ð906 Ðwitness€identifications.€€He€further€asserts€that€trial€counselððs€cross„examination€of€theÐ `  Ðeyewitnesses€was€inadequate€in€that€he€did€not€fully€point€out€the€inconsistencies€in€theirÐ , Ì Ðtestimony.€€He€insists€that,€because€identity€was€the€central€issue€at€trial,€the€result€at€trialÐ ø ˜ Ðwould€have€been€different,€but€for€counselððs€deficient€performance.Ð Äd Ðà@  $Dàò òA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ 0 Ðà ` àIn€post-conviction€proceedings,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€his€claimsÐ h  Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€Moreover,€the€trialÐ 4Ô  Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ    Ðagainst€the€judgment.€€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996);€òòCampbell€v.Ð Ìl ÐStateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€595-96€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746Ð ˜8 Ð(Tenn.€1993).Ð d Ðà@nnDàò òB.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óˆÐ 0Ð Ðà ` àThe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides,€in€part,€ð ð[i]n€allÐ ¨ Ðcriminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€shall€enjoy€the€right€.€.€.€to€have€the€assistance€ofÐ Ô t Ðcounsel€for€his€defense.ðð€€Similarly,€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€guaranteesÐ  "@ Ðan€accused€ð ðthe€right€to€be€heard€by€himself€and€his€counsel€.€.€.ðð€€Additionally,€Tenn.€CodeÐ l$  ÐAnn.€ðð€40-14-102€provides,€ð ð[e]very€person€accused€of€any€crime€or€misdemeanorÐ 8&Ø  Ðwhatsoever€is€entitled€to€counsel€in€all€matters€necessary€for€such€person's€defense,€asÐ (¤" Ðwell€to€facts€as€to€law.ððÐ Ð)p $ Ðà ` àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€articulated€a€two-prong€test€for€courts€to€employÐ œ+<"& Ðin€evaluating€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466Ð h-$( ÐU.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€€The€Court€began€its€analysis€by€notingÐ 4/Ô%* Ðthat€ð ð[t]he€benchmark€for€judging€any€claim€of€ineffectiveness€must€be€whether€counselððsÐ 1 ', Ðconduct€so€undermined€the€proper€functioning€of€the€adversarial€process€that€the€trialÐ Ì2l). Ðcannot€be€relied€on€as€having€produced€a€just€result.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€686,€104Ð ˜48+0 ÐS.Ct.€at€2064.€€When€challenging€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€post-convictionÐ d6-2 Ðproceeding,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€(1)€the€attorneyððs€representationÐ 08Ð.4 Ðwas€deficient;€and€(2)€the€deficient€performance€resulted€in€prejudice€so€as€to€deprive€theÐ ü9œ06 Ðdefendant€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,Ð `  Ð942€S.W.2d€551,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€This€Court€is€not€required€to€consider€theÐ , Ì Ðtwo€prongs€of€Strickland€in€any€particular€order.€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€156,€163Ð ø ˜ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€ð ðMoreover,€if€the€Appellant€fails€to€establish€one€prong,€aÐ Äd Ðreviewing€court€need€not€consider€the€other.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ 0 Ðà ` àThe€test€in€Tennessee€in€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistanceÐ \ü  Ðat€trial€is€whether€counselððs€performance€was€ð ðwithin€the€range€of€competence€demandedÐ (È  Ðof€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975);€òòseeÐ ô”  Ðalsoóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€at€163.€€In€order€to€demonstrate€that€counsel€wasÐ Äd Ðdeficient,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€representation€fell€below€an€objectiveÐ ”4 Ðstandard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€atÐ ` Ð688,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€at€163.Ð ,Ì Ðà ` àUnder€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStricklandóó,€the€petitioner€must€establish€that€ð ðthere€isÐ ø˜ Ða€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€theÐ Ä d Ðproceeding€would€have€been€different.€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficientÐ "0 Ðto€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068.Ð \$ü Ðà ` àIn€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment€.€.€.€requires€that€every€effort€beÐ (&È  Ðmade€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€ofÐ ô'”" Ðcounselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððs€perspective€atÐ À)` $ Ðthe€time.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065.€€The€mere€failure€of€a€particularÐ Œ+,"& Ðtactic€or€strategy€does€not€òòper€seóó€establish€unreasonable€representation.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,Ð X-ø#( Ð938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€this€Court€will€defer€to€counselððs€tactical€andÐ (/È%* Ðstrategic€choices€only€where€those€choices€are€informed€ones€predicated€upon€adequateÐ ô0”', Ðpreparation.€€òòId.óó;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).Ð À2`). Ðà@¿¿$Dàò òC.€€Photographic€Lineupó óˆÐ Œ4,+0 Ðà ` àThe€petitioner€claims€that€the€out„of„court€photographic€lineup€was€unnecessarilyÐ d6-2 Ðâ âsuggestive,€and€as€a€result,€the€photographic€array€and€the€resulting€eyewitnessÐ 08Ð.4 Ðidentifications€would€have€been€inadmissible€at€trial.€€Thus,€he€argues€that€trial€counsel€wasÐ `  Ðineffective€for€failing€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€the€photographic€array€and€identifications.Ð , Ì Ðâ âà ` àOut„of„court€eyewitness€identifications€as€well€as€in„court€identifications€may€beÐ ø ˜ Ðchallenged€on€constitutional€grounds.€€A€defendantððs€right€to€due€process€is€violated€if,Ð Äd Ðunder€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€ð ðthe€photographic€identification€procedure€was€soÐ 0 Ðimpermissibly€suggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€a€very€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparableÐ \ü  Ðmisidentification.ðð€€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€384,€88€S.Ct.€967,€971,€19Ð (È  ÐL.Ed.2d€1247€(1968);€òòStovall€v.€Dennoóó,€388€U.S.€293,€302,€87€S.Ct.€1967,€1972,€18Ð ô”  ÐL.Ed.2d€1199€(1967);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Stricklandóó,€885€S.W.2d€85,€88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð À` Ð1993).€€ð ðSuggestive€confrontations€are€disapproved€because€they€increase€the€likelihoodÐ 0 Ðof€misidentification,€and€unnecessarily€suggestive€ones€are€condemned€for€the€furtherÐ \ü Ðreason€that€the€increased€chance€of€misidentification€is€gratuitous.ðð€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409Ð (È ÐU.S.€188,€198,€93€S.Ct.€375,€382,€34€L.Ed.2d€401€(1972).€€Examples€of€impermissiblyÐ ô” Ðsuggestive€identification€procedures€include:Ð À ` ÐÓÓà8 ` àthat€all€in€the€lineup€but€the€suspect€were€known€to€the€identifying€witness,Ð Œ", Ðthat€the€other€participants€in€a€lineup€were€grossly€dissimilar€in€appearanceÐ r# Ðto€the€suspect,€that€only€the€suspect€was€required€to€wear€distinctive€clothingÐ X$ø Ðwhich€the€culprit€allegedly€wore,€that€the€witness€is€told€by€the€police€thatÐ >%Þ Ðthey€have€caught€the€culprit€after€which€the€defendant€is€brought€before€theÐ $&Ä  Ðwitness€alone€or€is€viewed€in€jail,€that€the€suspect€is€pointed€out€before€orÐ  'ª! Ðduring€a€lineup,€and€that€the€participants€in€the€lineup€are€asked€to€try€on€anÐ ð'" Ðarticle€of€clothing€which€fits€only€the€suspect.ÐÖ(v#` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓòòUnited€States€v.€Wadeóó,€388€U.S.€218,€233,€87€S.Ct.€1926,€1935„36,€18€L.Ed.2d€1149Ð ¢*B!% Ð(1967)€(footnotes€omitted).Ð n,#' Ðà ` àAlthough€an€identification€procedure€may€be€unnecessarily€suggestive,€theÐ :.Ú$) Ðidentification€arising€out€of€it€may€be€admissible€at€trial€if€the€identification€is€nonethelessÐ 0¦&+ Ðreliable.€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€at€199„201,€93€S.Ct.€at€382„83.€€The€factors€to€beÐ Ò1r(- Ðconsidered€in€determining€the€reliability€of€the€identification€include:Ð ž3>*/ ÐÓÓà8 ` àthe€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€the€criminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime,Ð j5 ,1 Ðthe€witnessðð€degree€of€attention,€the€accuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€descriptionÐ P6ð,2 Ðof€the€criminal,€the€level€of€certainty€demonstrated€by€the€witness€at€theÐ 67Ö-3 Ðconfrontation,€and€the€length€of€time€between€the€crime€and€theÐ 8¼.4 Ðconfrontation.ÓÓÐ9¢/5` (#` (# ÐòòId.óóat€199,€93€S.Ct€at€382;€òòseeóóòòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682,€695€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `  Ð1993).Ð 0 Ð Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€photographic€array€and€eyewitness€identificationsÐ ü œ Ðwould€not€have€been€suppressed€at€trial€because€the€photographic€array€was€notÐ Èh Ðimpermissibly€suggestive.€€We€agree.€€The€photographic€array€depicted€six€(6)€black€malesÐ ”4 Ðwith€similar€facial€characteristics,€hair€color€and€hair€length.€€In€addition,€there€is€noÐ `  Ðevidence€that€the€police€officers€conducting€the€photographic€lineup€suggested€that€theÐ ,Ì  Ðpetitioner€was€a€suspect.Ð ø˜  Ðà ` àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€lineup€was€suggestive€because€a€height€chart€isÐ Äd Ðvisible€in€four€(4)€of€the€photos.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€fact€is€significant€in€that€two€of€the€individualsÐ 0 Ðdepicted€in€the€photographic€array€are€six€(6)€feet€tall,€whereas€the€petitioner€is€merely€fiveÐ \ü Ð(5)€feet,€five€(5)€inches€in€height.€€ò òó óGenerally,€a€photographic€array€depicting€individuals€withÐ (È Ðdisproportionate€heights€would€give€rise€to€a€conclusion€that€such€identification€procedureÐ ô” Ðwas€impermissibly€suggestive.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Billy€Murrell€Meeksóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9308„Ð À ` ÐCC„00248,€1994€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€654,€at€*5,€Franklin€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð "0 Ðfiled€October€6,€1994,€at€Nashville).€€However,€two€witnesses€testified€at€trial€that€one€ofÐ \$ü Ðthe€perpetrators€walked€over€to€their€table€while€they€were€dining€at€Hardeeððs.€€BothÐ (&È  Ðwitnesses€described€this€man€as€somewhat€short€in€height.€ò òó ó€€Yet,€both€witnesses€identifiedÐ ô'”" Ðthis€man€as€the€man€shown€in€photo€number€four€(4),€which€indicates€that€the€individualÐ À)` $ Ðpictured€is€six€(6)€feet€tall.€€Clearly,€the€height€chart€did€not€render€the€photographic€arrayÐ Œ+,"& Ðunduly€suggestive€to€the€petitionerððs€detriment.Ð X-ø#( Ðà ` àThe€photographic€array€was€not€unnecessarily€suggestive€and,€therefore,€did€notÐ $/Ä%* Ðviolate€the€petitionerððs€right€to€due€process.€€The€photo€lineup€and€ensuing€eyewitnessÐ ð0', Ðidentifications€were€properly€admitted€into€evidence€at€trial.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€trial€counsel€was€notÐ ¼2\). Ðineffective€for€failing€to€move€to€suppress€the€photographic€array€and€identifications.Ð ˆ4(+0 Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð `  Ðà@„„Dàò òD.€€Cross€Examination€of€State€Witnessesó óˆÐ , Ì Ðà ` àIn€his€second€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€contendsÐ  ¤ Ðthat€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€properly€cross„examine€the€stateððsÐ Ðp Ðeyewitnesses.€€He€argues€that€counselððs€cross„examination€of€the€witnesses€wasÐ œ< Ðinadequate€because€counsel€failed€to€point€out€inconsistencies€in€the€witnessesðð€testimony.€Ð h  ÐWe€disagree.Ð 4Ô  Ðà ` àA€reading€of€the€trial€transcript€indicates€that€trial€counsel€effectively€cross„examinedÐ    Ðthe€stateððs€witnesses€at€trial.€€Counsel€attempted€to€discredit€the€witnesses€by€pointing€outÐ Ìl Ðvarious€discrepancies€in€their€testimony.€€Additionally,€counsel€attempted€to€cast€doubtÐ ˜8 Ðupon€the€reliability€of€the€witnessesðð€out„of„court€and€in„court€identifications.€€AfterÐ d Ðreviewing€the€record€before€this€Court,€we€conclude€that€counselððs€performance€in€thisÐ 0Ð Ðregard€was€not€constitutionally€deficient.Ð üœ Ðà ` àMoreover,€the€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated€that,€but€for€counselððs€alleged€error,Ð È h Ðthe€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€Although€the€petitioner€testifiedÐ ”"4 Ðthat€he€was€not€present€during€the€robbery,€every€eyewitness,€either€prior€to€trial€or€duringÐ `$ Ðtrial,€identified€the€petitioner€as€one€of€the€perpetrators€of€the€Hardeeððs€robbery.€€It€isÐ ,&Ì  Ðdoubtful€that€further€cross„examination€would€have€changed€the€result€at€trial.€€Thus,€theÐ ø'˜" Ðpetitioner€has€not€established€that€he€was€prejudiced€as€a€result€of€trial€counselððs€failureÐ Ä)d $ Ðto€conduct€a€more€thorough€cross„examination€of€these€witnesses.Ð +0"& Ðà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ð \-ü#( Ðà@ÔÔ-Dàò òIII.ó óˆÐ (/È%* ÐÌà ` àAfter€reviewing€the€record€before€this€Court,€we€conclude€that€trial€counsel€providedÐ Ì2l). Ðcompetent€representation€at€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€properly€denied€theÐ ˜48+0 Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ô#†Šôˆ XXç˜Z#ÔÐ d6-2 ÐÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ð (9È/5 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  :À06 ÐCONCUR:Ð `  ÐÌÌÌ___________________________________Ð @ à ÐGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ 8Ø ÐÌÌ___________________________________Ð  À ÐJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE