ÿWPCÀ «Yà·‚°$aÅeöÕ©?-lW4t¶l*éAç%}IL® ta)ÊíA'³Ží<6Húñ ôó1'/H#u´hà(ÓGµö_¿eØÇAÇ×àO[ù Ø…\«!§ú–æïÝ" ¸=ÒŒfîÑ«ó ÞÒ=®ªZÊãVùÁ&t™ÇòWÚ¿{‡ºÅ>¾’E˜íìÁoèiú‡®i#S½&DÄ`¢åiÌ"1íáAòL\ž´¢—]¡s.éÄy¶ŒßóhྠëÄù]ú[êŠLS*©ï>ñ˜Ô«<¬vqà˜=¼ !B¦ z"߯£:¤ßOº/ÎkÈýÓŠ›V„W<¨|'˜dhñµ‚6áÄ)¶Âô ))Ñk(ñ3± Ç$ïíÄâ§amh{ñö^òS"«ùë»J,×;MƯ…´M̦QHÿþ€²tS¹=ì’€ˆ~ñÇ•É-Œ—U60_ï_QpÅÝykû¦Ín¯[g´´A?î[‚j‡ý½­à:1d±[έöFVO*Suïy"Mµ°ìq÷ùÐ:à(‡»õæžêM†Ur|éYtüÅ2)a[Í2uæšÒÈjkª”ö'E±ÑÅ÷KTÊcÚ"aÞÎUÙ/a7<¢€Òb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ë½½½½ B¨¨ 0¤Å D3i D-œ 0KÉÉ ASÆg 0¤- 0DÑ A«˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»X§) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'ð—Ÿ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2ê…$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X"|X»»Ô d(|3u$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3u$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€T»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼T»»»ÔÑ8€"|XXdæ»»d8Ñà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ ¾ Ðà@ÝÝ"ìàMAY€2000€SESSIONˆÐ Ì ÐÔ‡X"|X»¼TÔÌÔ#†¼T»XX"|£#ÔÓ  Óò òJACK€Ô_ÔLAYNEÔ_Ô€BENSON€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEE€ó óÐ À ÐÓæÓÌÔ€X"|X»¼TÔà@Q Q ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Bedford€CountyˆÐ Ü , Ðà@úúìàNo.€8081€€Charles€Lee,€Judge€ˆÐ   ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E< ` A߈Ð Ž Þ  ÐÌà@ð ð ìàNo.€M1999„01649„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€August€2,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_Ô€ˆÐ ƒÓ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<N` AßÐ OŸ  Ðó óÌThe€petitioner,€Jack€Ô_ÔLayneÔ_Ô€Benson,€appeals€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„Ð D”  Ðconviction€relief.€€Convicted€in€1996€of€first€degree€felony€murder€and€especially€aggravatedÐ *z  Ðrobbery,€and€sentenced€to€consecutive€terms€of€life€and€24€years,€the€petitioner€contended€that€he€wasÐ ` Ðentitled€to€post„conviction€relief€on€the€grounds€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counselÐ öF Ðat€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€€In€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€argues€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffectiveÐ Ü, Ðfor€failing€to€adequately€communicate,€for€failing€to€adequately€investigate,€and€for€failing€to€obtainÐ Â Ða€transcript€of€the€preliminary€hearing.€€The€petitioner€argues€that€his€appellate€counsel€wasÐ ¨ø Ðineffective€for€failing€to€present€additional€issues€on€direct€appeal.€€Because€the€petitioner€has€beenÐ ŽÞ Ðunable€to€establish€both€deficiency€in€the€performance€of€his€counsel€and€prejudice€in€consequenceÐ tÄ Ðthereof,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Ð Zª ÐÌò òà@! ! ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed.ó óˆÐ &v ÐÌòòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòNorma€McGeeÐ òB ÐOgleóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌN.€Andy€Ô_ÔMyrickÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Fayetteville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jack€Ô_ÔLayneÔ_Ô€Benson.€€Ð ¤ô ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€Marvin€E.€Clements,€Jr.,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ p!À! ÐGeneral,€and€Robert€G.€Ô_ÔCriglerÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€ofÐ V"¦" ÐTennessee.€€Ð <#Œ# ÐÌÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ î%>!& ÐÌà  àThe€pertinent€facts€in€this€case€appear€in€the€opinion€of€this€court€on€direct€appeal:Ð º' #( ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àOn€January€10,€1996,€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€Jody€Butts,Ð †)Ö$* Ðvisited€in€the€home€of€Mitchell€Ô_ÔSturdevantÔ_Ô.€€At€approximately€11:25Ð l*¼%+ ÐP.M.,€the€victim€announced€that€he€intended€to€leave€and€theÐ R+¢&, Ðdefendant€asked€for€a€ride.€€The€two€men€left€the€Ô_ÔSturdevantÔ_Ô€residenceÐ 8,ˆ'- Ðtogether€and,€only€a€few€minutes€later,€the€body€of€the€victim€wasÐ -n(.ýB ÐÔ_Ôfound€lying€in€the€street€in€front€of€the€defendant's€residence.а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAt€11:38€P.M.,€Officer€Don€Barber€.€.€.€was€responding€to€a€radioÐ |Ì Ðdispatch€when€he€discovered€the€body€in€the€street.€€MedicalÐ b² Ðtestimony€established€that€the€victim€died€as€a€result€of€three€stabÐ H˜ Ðwounds.€€Either€of€two€of€the€stab€wounds,€one€to€the€heart€and€oneÐ . ~ Ðthe€lung,€would€have€been€fatal.Ð d` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBetween€11:30€and€11:40€P.M.,€Donna€Addison€noticed€dark€spotsÐ à 0 Ðon€the€front€of€the€defendant's€jacket€and€saw€the€defendant€dropÐ Æ   Ðsome€money€which€appeared€to€be€stained€with€blood.€€He€alsoÐ ¬ ü  Ðinformed€her€that€he€could€not€give€her€a€ride€to€the€store€because€heÐ ’â  Ðwas€driving€someone€else's€vehicle.€€Ms.€Addison€described€theÐ xÈ  Ðvehicle€that€the€defendant€was€driving€as€a€cream€and€red€coloredÐ ^®  ÐChevrolet€Blazer€with€tinted€windows,€a€description€that€matched€thatÐ D”  Ðof€the€vehicle€the€victim€was€driving€at€the€time€he€left€the€SturdevantÐ *z  Ðresidence.€€Ð`` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àLess€than€thirty€minutes€later,€Calvin€Harris€observed€the€defendantÐ Ü, Ðdriving€the€Blazer,€a€car€he€had€never€seen€the€defendant€drive€atÐ Â Ðanytime€before.€€When€Harris€asked€where€the€defendant€hadÐ ¨ø Ðacquired€the€Blazer,€the€defendant€simply€laughed.€€The€defendantÐ ŽÞ Ðagreed€to€drive€Harris€to€a€motel,€where€police€made€the€arrest.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðvehicle€in€the€defendant's€possession€was€identified€as€that€owned€byÐ Zª Ðthe€victim.€€The€glove€compartment€and€the€center€console€had€beenÐ @ Ðransacked€and€part€of€the€console€had€been€broken.€€Police€foundÐ &v Ðblood€on€the€driver's€side€door€of€the€vehicle.€€Several€itemsÐ  \ Ðbelonging€to€the€victim,€including€items€of€identification,€were€foundÐ òB Ðscattered€in€the€rear€of€the€Chevrolet€Blazer.€€Police€found€theÐ Ø( Ðdefendant€in€possession€of€the€key€to€the€Blazer.€€A€piece€of€theÐ ¾ Ðbroken€console€and€$11.00€in€bills€and€coins,€splattered€with€humanÐ ¤ô Ðblood,€were€found€in€his€right€front€pocket.€€ÐŠ Ú` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Jack€Layne€Bensonóó,€No.€01C01„9707„CC„00283€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Aug.€25,Ð V"¦! Ð1998),€slip€op.€at€2„3.€€The€single€issue€presented€on€direct€appeal€was€whether€the€trial€court€hadÐ <#Œ" Ðerred€by€ordering€consecutive€sentences.€€This€court€found€no€error.€€òòId.óó€at€7.€€Our€supreme€courtÐ "$r# Ðdenied€application€for€permission€to€appeal€on€March€15,€1999.€€Ð %X $ ÐÌà  àThere€is€a€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€all€critical€stages€of€aÐ Ô&$"& Ðcriminal€prosecution.€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9;€òòPowell€v.€Alabamaóó,€287€U.S.€45€(1932).€€In€order€forÐ º' #' Ðthe€petitioner€to€be€granted€relief€on€grounds€of€ineffective€counsel,€he€must€establish€that€the€adviceÐ  (ð#( Ðgiven€or€the€services€rendered€were€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÐ †)Ö$) Ðcriminal€cases€and€that,€but€for€his€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€his€trial€would€haveÐ l*¼%* Ðbeen€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€(1984);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930Ð R+¢&+ Ð(Tenn.€1975).€Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àUnder€the€terms€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€ofÐ ° Ðproving€his€allegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€TheÐ –æ Ðcredibility€of€the€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€afforded€to€their€testimony€are€appropriatelyÐ |Ì Ðaddressed€in€the€trial€court.€€òòBates€v.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€615,€631€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€OnÐ b² Ðappeal,€the€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€establish€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€theÐ H˜ Ðfindings€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Otherwise,Ð . ~ Ðthe€findings€of€fact€made€in€the€trial€court€are€conclusive.€€òòGraves€v.€Stateóó,€512€S.W.2d€603€(Tenn.Ð  d ÐCrim.€App.€1973).€Ð ú J ÐÌà  àFurther,€this€court€may€not€second„guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€of€counsel€unlessÐ Æ   Ðthose€choices€are€uninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4Ð ¬ ü  Ð(Tenn.€1982).€€Counsel€may€not€be€deemed€to€have€been€ineffective€merely€because€a€differentÐ ’â  Ðprocedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276Ð xÈ  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€Ð ^®  Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àHere,€the€petitioner€first€complained€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€adequately€communicate€withÐ *z  Ðhim€prior€to€the€trial.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€agreed€that€trial€counsel€met€with€himÐ ` Ð"maybe€six€times€up€here€at€the€courthouse€plus€six€to€seven€times€at€the€jail."€€He€specificallyÐ öF Ðcomplained€that€his€trial€counsel€did€not€discuss€possible€defense€strategies.€€He€conceded€that€theirÐ Ü, Ðtotal€meeting€time€may€have€equaled€up€to€twelve€hours€but€contended€that€the€collective€durationÐ Â Ðof€their€communication€was€not€enough€under€the€circumstances.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€asserted€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€search€for,€locate,€or€interview€aÐ tÄ Ðpossible€witness,€Cathy€Chunn,€who€may€have€burned€some€bloody€clothes€and€who€might€haveÐ Zª Ðknown€the€identity€of€another€suspect.€€Ms.€Chunn€was€not€called€as€a€witness€at€the€evidentiaryÐ @ Ðhearing€on€the€claim€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Ð &v ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€complained€that€his€trial€counsel€was€not€present€during€his€preliminaryÐ òB Ðhearing€and€did€not€obtain€a€copy€of€the€transcript,€thereby€precluding€use€of€the€transcript€forÐ Ø( Ðimpeachment€purposes€at€the€trial.€€The€petitioner€acknowledged,€however,€that€he€did€not€have€aÐ ¾ Ðtranscript€of€the€preliminary€hearing€and€did€not€know€whether€one€existed€or€if€his€attorney€had€aÐ ¤ô Ðcopy.€€Ð Š Ú ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€further€contended€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€gain€access€to€an€expert€in€DNAÐ V"¦! Ðanalysis.€€He€submits€that€an€expert€could€have€provided€possible€defenses€to€the€charge.€€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€petitioner€claimed€that€his€appellate€counsel,€Gregory€D.€Smith,€had€only€oneÐ %X $ Ðdiscussion€lasting€approximately€20€minutes€with€him.€€The€petitioner€pointed€out€that€although€hisÐ î%>!% Ðtrial€counsel€had€presented€six€possible€grounds€for€relief€in€his€motion€for€new€trial,€his€appellateÐ Ô&$"& Ðcounsel€only€presented€the€issue€of€consecutive€sentencing€on€direct€appeal.€€Ð º' #' ÐÌà  àMike€Randalls,€trial€counsel€for€the€petitioner,€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€He€hadÐ †)Ö$) Ðdocumented€eleven€meetings€with€the€petitioner€at€the€local€jail€and€estimated€that€there€were€at€leastÐ l*¼%* Ðsix€other€occasions€where€he€counseled€with€the€petitioner€at€the€county€courthouse.€€Trial€counselÐ R+¢&+ Ðasserted€that€he€discussed€with€the€petitioner€the€facts€of€the€case,€the€petitioner's€prior€social€andÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcriminal€history,€the€nature€of€the€charges,€the€possible€range€of€punishment,€and€the€possibility€ofÐ ° Ða€negotiated€plea€agreement.€€Trial€counsel€also€testified€that€he€reviewed€with€the€petitioner€theÐ –æ Ðvarious€photographs€and€lab€reports€which€had€been€provided€by€the€state,€as€well€as€the€autopsyÐ |Ì Ðreport€and€the€state's€witness€list.€€Trial€counsel€also€discussed€with€the€petitioner€possible€DNAÐ b² Ðtesting€and€received€permission€from€the€trial€court€for€funds€to€be€utilized€for€expert€assistance€inÐ H˜ Ðevaluating€the€state's€DNA€evidence.€€In€fact,€a€defense€expert€determined€that€the€state€had€properlyÐ . ~ Ðconducted€the€DNA€analysis.€€Trial€counsel€also€testified€that€the€petitioner€supplied€the€name€ofÐ  d ÐCathy€Chunn€after€the€trial.€€He€explained€that€the€petitioner€was€represented€by€two€other€attorneysÐ ú J Ðat€the€preliminary€hearing,€for€which€there€was€no€transcript.€€Trial€counsel€could€not€remember€Ð à 0 Ðwhether€he€had€listened€to€a€tape€of€the€preliminary€hearing,€although€"normally€that€is€what€[heÐ Æ   Ðdoes]."€€It€was€trial€counsel's€recollection€that€"there€wasn't€a€tape€or€if€there€was€it€was€such€poorÐ ¬ ü  Ðquality€you€couldn't€listen€to€it."€€Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àAttorney€Smith,€the€petitioner's€counsel€on€direct€appeal,€testified€that€he€had€reviewed€sixÐ ^®  Ðvolumes€of€trial€testimony€which€included€approximately€1,000€pages.€€He€described€the€record€asÐ D”  Ð"one€of€the€cleanest€trials€I€had€ever€seen."€€Appellate€counsel€testified€that€he€did€not€challenge€theÐ *z  Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€due€to€the€limited€scope€of€review€and€the€overwhelming€nature€of€theÐ ` Ðcircumstantial€evidence.€€Appellate€counsel€testified€that€he€considered€raising€as€an€issue€the€trialÐ öF Ðcourt's€failure€to€charge€the€lesser€offense€of€negligent€homicide€but€after€research€concluded€thatÐ Ü, Ðthere€was€no€merit€to€such€a€claim:€€"Basically€it€was€an€up€or€down€in€this€case,€yes€or€no."€Ð  ÐAppellate€counsel€also€considered€and€declined€to€present€the€trial€court's€failure€to€grant€a€changeÐ ¨ø Ðof€venue€as€a€basis€for€appeal.€€He€concluded€that€there€was€nothing€in€the€record,€such€as€affidavitsÐ ŽÞ Ðin€support€of€the€possible€prejudice,€to€support€such€a€claim.€€Appellate€counsel€also€believed€thatÐ tÄ Ðthere€was€no€basis€for€a€complaint€about€the€failure€to€supply€more€expert€services€under€the€rulingÐ Zª Ðof€òòState€v.€Barnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€423,€427€(Tenn.€1995).€€Finally,€appellate€counsel€found€no€basisÐ @ Ðto€the€complaint€that€the€state€had€failed€to€provide€notice€of€exculpatory€evidence.€€Ð &v ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€found€trial€counsel's€preparation€"to€be€virtually€flawless."€€ItÐ òB Ðclassified€the€degree€of€communication€between€trial€counsel€and€the€petitioner,€the€trial€performanceÐ Ø( Ðof€defense€counsel,€and€the€strategy€during€trial€and€on€appeal€as€being€well€within€the€professionalÐ ¾ Ðguidelines.€€The€post„conviction€court€specifically€ruled€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€establish€anyÐ ¤ô Ðprejudice€due€to€the€various€deficiencies.€€We€agree.€€Ð Š Ú ÐÌà  àAny€factual€disputes€between€the€petitioner€and€his€trial€counsel€were€resolved€in€favor€ofÐ V"¦! Ðthe€state€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€The€accredited€proof€is€that€there€was€adequateÐ <#Œ" Ðcommunication.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€explain€how€he€might€have€been€prejudicedÐ "$r# Ðby€the€absence€of€witness€Chunn,€who€was€not€called€to€testify€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€or€by€theÐ %X $ Ðunavailability€of€a€transcript€of€the€preliminary€hearing.€€This€court€may€not€speculate€upon€whatÐ î%>!% Ðprejudices€might€have€occurred.€€The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€provide€proof.€€Additionally,€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðtrial€court€provided€an€expert€to€the€defense€to€review€the€DNA€evidence€the€state€proposed€toÐ º' #' Ðpresent.€€Because€the€defense€expert€found€no€deficiency€in€the€testing€performed€by€the€state,€thereÐ  (ð#( Ðwas€no€particularized€need€for€further€funding.€€òòSeeóóòòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€430.€€Finally,€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€how€the€presentation€of€additional€grounds€for€relief€on€direct€appealÐ l*¼%* Ðcould€have€caused€a€different,€more€favorable€result.€€Nothing€suggests€that€a€challenge€to€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence,€a€claim€that€the€state€failed€to€produce€exculpatory€evidence,€or€anÐ 8,ˆ', Ðappeal€of€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€change€venue€could€have€produced€any€possible€relief.€€BecauseÐ ° Ðthe€defense€at€trial€was€that€the€victim€was€alive€when€the€petitioner€left€her,€this€qualified€as€"an€allÐ –æ Ðor€nothing"€proposition€leaving€the€record€devoid€of€any€evidence€to€suggest€a€charge€of€a€lesserÐ |Ì Ðoffense.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Langfordóó,€994€S.W.2d€126€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€summary,€the€petitioner€hasÐ b² Ðfailed€to€establish€how€any€possible€deficiencies€in€the€performance€of€either€his€trial€counsel€or€hisÐ H˜ Ðappellate€counsel€might€have€caused€prejudice€to€his€defense.€€Ð . ~ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Ð ú J ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ’â  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€Ð xÈ  ÐÌÌÌ