ÿWPCL …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , 0l4 0D  0Jä 0T. 0^‚ 0hà 0rH 0|º 0†6 0¼ 1uL U,Á 0dí U,QU6}U*³B)Ý BDC# AMf D3³ÿæ1å 0@v~VvÓÔ AO§Æö 0D¼ D/ B/˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <Ô6X9`+"Courier 10cpiX($¡¡ –P— ˜U™EšU›aœggžgŸÓ€à~| 3|xª((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d&&&&7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ'''''ÿÿdxd õÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òApril€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àÔ€%ôÔò òIt€is€our€policy€in€sexual€offense€cases€to€identify€minors€involved€only€byÏinitials.à àó óÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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€-‚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 ` ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÔ€%Ô›Ñ7€—xXXdÈdÈ7ќـ€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àJUNE€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÓÓWILLARD€BILL€CARPENTER,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€0301„9411„CR„00425Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHamblen€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€James€E.€Beckner,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee.à àà à)à à(Underlying€Conviction:Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àAggravated€Sexual€Battery)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌWilliam€Ziererà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌP.O.€Box€1276à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMorristown,€TN€37816„1276à àà àà àandÌœà à›à àà àà àà àà àDavid€N.€SmithÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌœà àà à›à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌœà à›à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€F.€Dugger,€Jr.à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à510€Allison€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMorristown,€TN€37814ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌóóAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€S.€DanielÌSpecial€œJudgeòòà@ àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€—xXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÌà@ àOPINIONó óóóÌÓÓÌà àò òAfter€a€complete€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€Appellant's€PostÏConviction€Petition,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition.€€TheÏAppellant€seeks€a€review€of€the€trial€court's€action€and€claims€that€theÏtrial€court's€determination€is€in€error€and€should€be€reversed.€€We€haveÏconsidered€the€claims€of€the€Appellant€and€find€that€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€decided€the€issues€presented.ÌÌà àWillard€Bill€Carpenter,€the€Appellant,€was€convicted€by€way€of€aÏjury€trial€of€one€count€of€Aggravated€Sexual€Battery,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„504,€March€12,€1991.€€A€sentence€was€imposed€of€ten€(10)€yearsÍas€a€Range€I,€Standard€Offender€for€this€conviction.€€This€convictionÏwas€appealed€and€affirmed€by€this€court€in€the€case€of€òòState€ofÏTennessee€v.€Carpenteróó,€03C01„9108„CR„0026€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1992).€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àIn€this€Post„Conviction€Relief€Petition€the€Appellant€raises€twoÏissues€for€our€consideration.€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏfailing€to€grant€a€new€trial€in€his€case€based€on€the€recanting€of€theÏtrial€testimony€of€R.€H.× ƒ, ××  ×€and€that€he€had€ineffective€assistance€of€trialÏcounsel.ó ó€€ò òThe€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€investigate€and€discover€the€unreliability€of€R.€H.'s€testimonyÏbefore€the€trial€or€within€the€time€necessary€to€ask€for€a€new€trial;€thatÏtrial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€call€character€witnesses;€andÏfinally,€the€Appellant€contends€that€he€failed€to€have€the€opportunity€toÏparticipate€in€his€own€defense€in€a€meaningful€way€because€he€isÏhearing€impaired€and€€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€seekÏspecial€Ñ ° Ñconsideration€from€the€court€in€order€to€compensate€for€thatÏimpairment.ÌÌà àIt€is€important€to€evaluate€these€claims€in€light€of€the€trialÏtestimony€and€the€Post„Conviction€Petition€testimony.€€Two€witnessesÍtestified€as€to€the€assault,€C.M.€and€R.€H.€€€€C.€M.€was€a€child€of€elevenÏyears€old€and€was€the€ò òsubjectó ó€of€the€assault.€€She€testified€that€theÏAppellant€is€her€uncle€and€that€on€the€night€in€question€she€and€herÏcousin,€R.€H.,€spent€€the€night€at€the€Appellant's€home.€€During€theÏevening€the€Appellant€disrobed€and€they€watched€a€dirty€movie€onÏtelevision.€€Later€that€same€evening€the€appellant€took€C.€M.€back€toÏhis€bedroom€and€exposed€his€penis€to€her.€€He€then€undressed€her.€€C.ÏM.,€in€her€trial€testimony,€described€the€assault€in€these€words,€"AndÏthen€he€kissed€me€on€the€cheek€and€then€he€put€me€on€the€bed.€€AndÏthen€he€put€his€leg€across€me,€and€he€braced€himself€with€his€hand,Ïand€he€took€his€other€hand€and€he€rubbed€it€up€and€down€me.€€WhenÏhe€got€done,€I€saw€some€white€cream€come€out."€€Later€in€C.€M.ððs€crossÏexamination€she€clarifies€this€statement€and€explains€that€"it"€refers€toÏthe€Appellant's€private€part€that€was€rubbed€on€her€private€part.ÌÌà àAt€trial€R.€H.€testified€and€confirmed€that€on€the€night€in€questionÏhe€and€C.M.€had€spent€the€night€at€the€Appellant's€house.€€R.€H.Ïtestified€that€the€Appellant€wanted€to€buy€beer€and€rent€a€dirty€movieÏfor€a€party€but€had€no€money€and€that€they€instead€had€watched€a€dirtyÏmovie€on€Cinemax.€€During€the€evening€R.€H.€testified€that€he€observedÏthe€Appellant€undressed€and€heard€him€tell€C.€M.€that€he€wanted€toÏshow€her€something€in€his€bedroom.€€Thereafter,€when€C.€M.€and€theÏAppellant€were€in€the€bedroom,€R.€H.€got€up€from€his€seat€in€the€livingÍroom€and€went€to€the€bedroom€door€where€he€peeked€through€the€doorÏand€saw€the€Appellant€on€top€of€C.€M.€bracing€himself.€€On€thisÏoccasion€the€Appellant€was€unclothed€and€C.€M.€was€partially€disrobedÏwith€her€shirt€removed€but€with€her€panties€on.€€R.€H.€testified€that€theÏappellant€was€"rubbing€it€„„€trying€to€rub€it€up€in€her€private€spot€andÏshe€was€laying€down€on€her€back."Ìó óÌà àò òDuring€the€Post„Conviction€Petition€evidentiary€hearing€R.€H.Ïtestified€in€support€of€the€Appellantððs€petition€and€recanted€someÏportions€of€his€trial€testimony.€€At€€this€hearing€R.€H.€indicated€that€theyÏhad€watched€a€movie€on€television€but€it€was€not€dirty.€€R.€H.€recantedÏhis€prior€testimony€that€the€appellant€was€completely€unclothed€whenÏhe€was€observed€on€top€of€C.€M.€and€at€the€post„conviction€proceedingÏtestified€that€the€Appellant€had€his€underwear€on€when€this€occurredÏwith€the€Appellantððs€touching€of€C.€M.€being€limited€to€rubbing€herÏstomach€as€opposed€to€his€trial€testimony€of€rubbing€his€private€part€onÏthe€victimððs€private€area.€€In€the€conclusion€of€R.€H.'s€testimony€heÏasserts€that€the€only€contact€the€Appellant€had€with€C.€M.€when€he€wasÏcompletely€unclothed€was€with€her€breast.ÌÌà àòòState€v.€Herndonóó,€03C01„9303„CR00098€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)Ïstates€the€test€for€granting€a€new€trial€in€cases€involving€recantedÏtestimony.€€This€test€is€as€follows:€(1)€Is€the€trial€judge€reasonably€well„satisfied€that€the€testimony€given€by€a€material€witness€was€false€andÏthat€the€new€testimony€is€true;€(2)€Was€the€defendant€reasonablyÏdiligent€in€discovering€the€new€evidence,€or€surprised€by€falseÏtestimony,€or€unable€to€know€of€the€falsity€until€after€the€trial;€and€(3)ÏMight€the€jury€have€reached€a€different€conclusion€had€the€truth€beenÏtold.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€of€Tennessee€v.€Tommy€Ashbyóó,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏJackson,€November€27,€1985),€Tatum,€J.€dissenting€(noting€that€whileÏno€single€Tennessee€case€had€previously€set€out€the€completeÏstandard,€several€cases€led€to€the€conclusion€that€this€standard,€drawnÏfrom€òòLarrison€v€U.S.óó,€24€F.2d€82,€87„88€(7th€Cir.€1928),€is€applied€byÏthe€courts€of€Tennessee.)€Ì€€ó óÌà àò òConsidering€the€post„conviction€proceeding€testimony€of€R.€H.,Ïwe€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€was€in€error€in€finding€that€theÏabove€standard€was€not€met.€€This€testimony€does€not€appear€to€beÏmaterially€false€or€substantially€different€from€that€presented€at€trial.€ÏMore€importantly,€the€later€testimony€of€R.€H.€would€not€give€rise€to€aÏsignificant€probability€that€the€juryÌwould€have€reached€a€different€conclusion€in€the€Appellant's€caseÏconsidering€the€elements€of€the€offense.€€Aggravated€Sexual€Battery,ÏTenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504€(a),€is€defined€as€unlawful€sexual€contactÏwith€a€victim€.ó ó€.€.€ò òaccompanied€by€any€of€the€circumstances€listed€inÏTenn€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502(a),€one€of€those€circumstances€being€thatÍthe€victim€was€under€age€13.€€"Sexual€contact"€includes€the€intentionalÏtouching€of€the€victim's€intimate€parts€or€the€clothing€covering€theÏimmediate€area€of€the€victim's€intimate€parts,€if€the€purpose€is€forÏsexual€arousal€or€gratification.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501€(6).€Ï"Intimate€parts"€include€the€primary€genital€area,€groin,€inner€thigh,Ïbuttock€or€breast€of€a€human€being.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501€(2).€ÏUsing€these€definitions€it€is€clear€that€the€trial€and€the€post€convictionÏproceeding€testimony€of€R.€H.€would€make€out€the€offense€for€which€theÏAppellant€stands€convicted.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€claim€that€aÏnew€trial€should€be€granted€because€of€recanted€testimony€is€withoutÏmerit.Ìó óÌà àò òConsidering€the€Appellant's€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€the€trial€court€held€an€evidentiary€hearing€and€determined€thatÏtrial€counsel€had€made€a€thorough€investigation€of€the€case€and€hadÏspent€a€great€deal€of€time€in€the€preparation€of€the€case.€€Counsel€filedÏnumerous€motions€and€had€hearings€of€those€motions€in€advancing€theÏdefense€of€the€Appellant.€ó ó€ò òThe€trial€court€found€that€the€trial€counsel'sÏcross€examination€was€effective€and€impeached€the€testimony€of€R.€H.€ÏIn€reaching€that€conclusion€the€trial€court€observed€that€presentingÏfamily€character€witnesses€rarely€was€effective€or€persuasive.€ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€his€other€complaints,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€hisÍtrial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€have€the€trial€court€makeÏprovisions€for€his€hearing€impairment.€€The€Appellant€contends€that€heÏcould€not€hear€much€of€the€proceeding€and€that€this€deprived€him€ofÏany€reasonable€opportunity€to€participate€in€his€own€defense.€ÏUndoubtedly€if€the€proof€established€that€the€Appellant€had€such€aÏsubstantial€hearing€problem€as€to€not€be€able€to€understand€andÏparticipate€in€his€trial€and€his€impairment€was€not€addressed€afterÏbeing€brought€to€the€attention€of€trial€counsel€and/or€the€court,€suchÏaction€would€deprive€the€appellant€of€a€fundamental€constitutional€dueÏprocess€right.€€However,€in€this€case€the€record€reflects€no€action€onÏthe€part€of€the€Appellant€during€his€trial€that€would€have€indicated€toÏcounsel€or€the€court€that€he€was€not€able€to€hear€the€testimony€of€theÏwitnesses€appearing€even€after€being€admonished€to€inform€the€court€ifÏhe€could€not€hear€the€questions€asked.€€The€Appellant€testified€in€hisÏown€defense€without€the€record€reflecting€any€difficulty.€€The€probationÏreport€reflected€at€the€trial€level€that€the€Appellant€had€indicated€to€theÏprobation€officer€other€health„related€problems€but€failed€to€indicateÏthat€he€possessed€any€hearing€problems.Ìà àÌà àIn€reviewing€the€Appellant's€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€this€court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2dÍ930,€936(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel,€an€Appellant€"must€show€that€counsel's€representation€fellÏbelow€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness"€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonableÏprobability€that€but€for€counsel's€error€the€result€of€the€proceedingÏwould€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,Ï687„88,€692,€694,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);€òòBest€v.ÏStateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€ÌÌà àIn€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€Petitioner€must€prove€theÏallegations€contained€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);ÏòòOliphant€v.€Stateóó,€806€S.W.2d€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€On€appeal,Ïthe€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€and€will€not€be€disturbedÏunless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€againstÏthem.€€òòRhoden€v.€Stateóó,€816€S.W.2d€56€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòBrooksÏv.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌà àThe€record€in€this€case€supports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€thatÏthe€counsel€was€effective.€€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€overruled.€ÏAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€Appellant's€Post„ConvictionÏRelief€Petition.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJOSEPH€S.€DANIEL,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌòòÌÌÌÌÌÌNOT€PARTICIPATING€€€€€€óóó óÌò òJERRY€SCOTTó ó,€ò òJUDGEó ó›