ÿWPCµ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° U,% 0dQ U,µ U>á U*B)IDCr AMµ- B/v~LvÓÊ D3 0@Ð AOÆ_ 0D% D/i B˜˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- <=E>?D@AEBCDDÓ€P»{s 3|xP2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òApril€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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€†NXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|¤Ð` Å `€€LßÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓTONY€V.€CARRUTHERS,à àà à)à àC.C.A.ÏNO.€02C01„9505„CR„00130Ìà 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.€BERNIE€WEINMANó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó óà 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 óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌMR.€CRAIG€V.€MORTON,€IIà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONà àÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ212€Adams€Avenueà àÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àCLINTON€J.€MORGANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€Generalððs€OfficeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àREGINALD€R.€HENDERSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà à€à à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àThird€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓòòÔ€ „Ôò òOPINIONÔ€ ŠÔóóó óÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Appellant,€Tony€Von€Carruthers,€was€convicted€of€aggravatedÏassault€in€1990.€€He€was€sentenced€to€ten€years€imprisonment.€€In€SeptemberÏof€1992,€Appellant€€petitioned€for€post„conviction€relief€in€the€Shelby€CountyÏCriminal€Court€alleging€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€inÏviolation€of€his€rights€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution.€€Following€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€AppellantððsÏpetition.€€On€appeal,€Appellant€again€asserts€that€his€trial€attorney€inadequatelyÏprepared€and€presented€the€defense€at€trial€and€that€the€lower€court€erroneouslyÏconcluded€otherwise.€€Finding€no€error€in€this€record€with€regard€to€the€denial€ofÏthe€petition,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€criminal€court.ÌÌà àWhen€an€Appellant's€post€conviction€claim€involves€the€Sixth€AmendmentÏright€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€theÏadvice€given€or€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€his€or€her€counsel's€representation€fellÏbelow€the€objective€standard€of€òòBaxteróó€and,€additionally,€that€this€sub„standardÍrepresentation€actually€prejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466ÏU.S.€668€(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€theÏevidence."€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€ÏFurthermore,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€a€post„conviction€proceedingÏare€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€appellate€court€finds€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€findings.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€Ï(Tenn.€1990).€€In€reviewing€the€denial€of€collateral€relief,€this€Court€is€bound€byÏthe€following€€well€established€rules€of€appellate€review:€€ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€this€court€cannot€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€orÏsubstitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€judge,€(2)Ïquestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€weight€and€valueÏto€be€given€their€testimony,€and€factual€issues€raised€by€evidenceÏare€resolved€by€the€trial€judge,€and€(3)€on€appeal,€the€petitionerÍhas€the€burden€of€demonstrating€why€the€evidence€contained€in€theÏrecord€preponderates€against€the€judgment€entered€by€the€trialÏjudge.€€òòÌÌÓÓTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€684,€686€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòBlack€v.ÏStateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)).ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that,€prior€to€his€trial,€Appellant€was€appointed€fourÏsuccessive€attorneys.€€Due€to€continuing€dissatisfaction,€he€requested€theÏdismissal€of€each€of€the€first€three.€€The€Appellant's€last€attorney,€whoÏrepresented€him€at€trial,€was€appointed€less€than€a€month€prior€to€trial.€€ÌÌà àSeveral€of€the€specific€allegations€raised€by€Appellant€stem€from€theÏperiod€of€time€between€the€trial€attorneyððs€appointment€and€the€trial.€€AppellantÏclaims€that€his€attorney€only€interviewed€him€once€before€trial€and€then€met€withÏhim€a€few€times€briefly€in€the€court€room.€€Also,€Appellant€maintains€that€the€trialÏattorney€failed€to€engage€in€discovery€until€the€day€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àTo€the€contrary,€the€trial€attorney€testified€that,€once€he€took€over€the€case,Ïhe€immediately€assigned€an€investigator€from€the€public€defenderððs€office€to€theÏcase.€€Counselððs€notes,€to€which€he€constantly€referred€during€the€post„conviction€hearing,€reflected€an€adequate€knowledge€of€Appellant's€case.€€TheÏtrial€judge€found€that€ð ðthe€trial€attorney€had€adequately€discussed€the€case€withÍhis€client€prior€to€trial€and€proper€pre„trial€investigation€.€.€.€had€been€made.ðð€€WeÏare€unable€to€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€this€finding.ÌÌà àFurthermore,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€additional€timeÏbetween€trial€counselððs€appointment€and€trial€would€have€led€to€a€different€resultÏin€the€case.€€As€such,€Appellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proving€thatÏany€prejudice€resulted€from€the€attorneyððs€allegedly€dilatory€discovery€andÏinadequate€pretrial€investigation.ÌÌà àOnly€Appellant€and€his€trial€attorney€testified€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing.€€As€indicated€above,€there€was€some€discrepancy€in€their€versions€ofÏthe€conversation€and€preparation€which€preceded€the€trial.€€The€majority€ofÏAppellant's€testimony€related€to€his€attorneyððs€alleged€failure€to€call€certainÏwitnesses€whom€Appellant€€felt€would€have€been€crucial€to€his€defense.€ÏAppellant€testified€that,€though€he€told€his€attorney€about€these€witnesses,€theyÏwere€never€subpoenaed.€€He€later€admitted€that€two€of€the€witnesses€had€inÏfact€been€subpoenaed.ÌÌà àThe€trial€attorney€testified€that€he€attempted€to€locate€every€witnessÏmentioned€by€Appellant.€€One€of€these€potential€witnesses€was€present€at€trialÏhowever€he€was€not€called€as€a€witness€because€he€claimed€to€have€noÍpersonal€knowledge€of€the€events€surrounding€the€shooting.€€Another€potentialÏwitness,€listed€as€a€stateððs€witness,€had€given€a€statement€incriminatingÏAppellant.€€Therefore,€defense€counsel€did€not€call€him.€€As€for€the€third€possibleÏwitness,€the€€trial€attorney€had€noted€that€Appellant€had€told€him€that€he,ÏAppellant,€would€communicate€with€this€witness€because€contact€by€anÏattorney€might€offend€the€witness.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€trial€attorney€made€an€effort€to€locate€all€theÏwitnesses€of€which€he€had€knowledge.€€Appellant€has€presented€nakedÏallegations€to€the€contrary€without€even€a€trace€of€€evidence€whichÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€Moreover,€Appellant€has€againÏfailed€to€show€any€actual€prejudice€with€regard€to€this€point.€€There€is€noÏevidence€that€trial€testimony€of€these€witnesses€would€have€been€favorable€toÏthe€accused€had€it€been€a€part€of€the€Appellant's€defense.€€òòSeeóó€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€684,€687€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(no€prejudice€demonstratedÏwhere€post„conviction€petitioner€failed€to€show€that€potential€defense€witnesses,Ïwho€were€not€called€by€trial€counsel,€would€have€testified€favorably).€€€Indeed,Ïthe€testimony€of€the€trial€attorney€suggests€that€at€least€one€of€the€witnessesÏgave€a€statement€corroborating€the€Stateððs€version€of€the€shooting€while€anotherÏclaimed€to€know€nothing€about€the€crime.ÌÌà àFinally,€Appellant€insisted€that€certain€medical€records€reflecting€anÏinconsistency€in€the€victimððs€statement€with€regard€to€how€many€times€she€wasÏshot€should€have€been€admitted€at€trial.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trialÏattorney€testified€the€victim€had€stated€on€different€occasions€that€she€had€beenÏshot€three€and€five€times.€€The€trial€attorney€reviewed€the€medical€records€whichÏrevealed€that€the€witness€had€in€fact€been€shot€four€times.€€Concluding€that€thisÏinformation€did€not€add€significantly€to€the€cross„examination€of€the€victim,€the€trialÏattorney€made€a€tactical€decision€not€to€refer€to€it.€€A€reviewing€court€must€deferÏto€an€attorneyððs€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€so€long€as€they€are€informedÏand€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9Ï(Tenn.€1982);€€òòVermilye€v.€Stateóó,€754€S.W.2d€82,€85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€€€Ìà àÌà àBecause€we€find€that€Appellant€has€failed€to€present€evidence€thatÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€advice€given€and€theÏservices€rendered€by€the€trial€counsel€were€competent,€we€affirm€the€decision€ofÏthe€trial€court€.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌLYNN€W.€BROWN,€SPECIAL€JUDGE