WPC. j`Qd˜)鑯\Is^|;KY+DRLsXjUܷUXO59#=\_bubU(EhBZ0e:¯ima缻o\+F ?L.w G 4ÔMí}pcL ЂdpdcFc?{P.Ǖez Z'y䪠SU0饂LSU?МrTSrVcLl\Rw2^{CtiЀRMZL.Dr"*@IJDž!5gcd` @ؤ.>ZMa,Fk!s\[SWX/zʎEϬ[F ^Kk®4Jڡт3Dq P(^5a#Z,f\jBiVHkRDeCT6Jb1o77J<׈upcbQ,U.h %bm U:  n  0( U: w 4 U: 0 0DU:3U:U:&O D3uU: 0D B&&&& AQC 0DZ 0D D/ B<6X9`(CourierX  c 6d$XvXXX `   1    ݀Thepatternjuryinstructionreads: `   ` Reasonabledoubtisthatdoubtengenderedbyan @   investigationofalltheproofinthecaseandaninability,aftersuchinvestigation,toletthemindresteasilyastothecertaintyofguilt.Reasonabledoubtdoesnotmeanacaptious,possibleorimaginarydoubt.Absolutecertaintyofguiltisnotdemandedbythelawtoconvictofanycriminalcharge,butmoralcertaintyisrequired,andthiscertaintyisrequiredastoeverypropositionofproofrequisitetoconstitutetheoffense. ` XvXXXvT.P.I.Crim.2.03(4thed.1995)#XvXX Xv#Ԁ(emphasisadded).  6d$XvXXX `   1    ݀Thepatternjuryinstructionreads: `   ` Reasonabledoubtisthatdoubtengenderedbyan @   investigationofalltheproofinthecaseandaninability,aftersuchinvestigation,toletthemindresteasilyastothecertaintyofguilt.Reasonabledoubtdoesnotmeanacaptious,possibleorimaginarydoubt.Absolutecertaintyofguiltisnotdemandedbythelawtoconvictofanycriminalcharge,butmoral  certaintyisrequired,andthiscertaintyisrequiredas  toeverypropositionofproofrequisitetoconstitutetheoffense. `  XvXXXvT.P.I.Crim.2.03(4thed.1995)#XvXX Xv*#Ԁ(emphasisadded).,cAZ"Arial Regular3|x"<6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@($,  AZ"Arial Regularv"Dw"|"D}"~"E""E""E"""""{"E""D""D""{"E""D"E"e"D"""ӀV&,  AZ"Arial Regular(I(2)d$  !  XXXX `   0  (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular  6d$XvXXX `   1    ݀Thepatternjuryinstructionreads: `   ` Reasonabledoubtisthatdoubtengenderedbyan @  7 investigationofalltheproofinthecaseandaninability,aftersuchinvestigation,toletthemindresteasilyastothecertaintyofguilt.Reasonabledoubtdoesnotmeanacaptious,possibleorimaginarydoubt.Absolutecertaintyofguiltisnotdemandedbythelawtoconvictofanycriminalcharge,butmoral  certaintyisrequired,andthiscertaintyisrequiredas  toeverypropositionofproofrequisitetoconstitutetheoffense. ` XvXXXvT.P.I.Crim.2.03(4thed.1995)#XvXX Xv*#Ԁ(emphasisadded).,cAZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular  ("  XXXXPXX   Ad FILEDXXP   March24,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXAppellateCourtClerk """"'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular(3$  !   d'(!)*C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$  !  ($$   1  ++' dxdP Pd  !  """"`   TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T XXXX7  XXdd7  "r&<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$` rߛ" @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  ̀@::'ATKNOXVILLE 0  @__#JANUARY1999SESSION    MICKEYCRESONG,SR.    ) p   `     h     ) p  `   `  Appellant, h     ) p C.C.A.No.03C019801CR00003 P   `     h     )vs. `     h     ) p SullivanCounty x  0   `     h     ) STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     ) p Hon.ArdenL.Hill,Judge  p   `     h     ) `  `  Appellee. h     ) p (PostConviction) P  `     h     FORTHEAPPELLANT: h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE:   RAYMONDC.CONKIN,JR.     p JOHNKNOXWALKUP   AttorneyatLaw   h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  320CherokeeStreet,SuiteB     p   p Kingsport,TN37660  h      p ELIZABETHB.MARNEY  !`  `     h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral `     h      p 425FifthAve.N.,2dFloor  #@   `     h      p Nashville,TN372430493 $0  `     h      p H.GREELEYWELLS,JR. p&  `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral  `'   `     h      p BARRYSTAUBUSand `     h      p TERESAMURRAYSMITH `     h      p AssistantDistrictAttorneys  +!$  `     h      p SecondJudicialDistrict `     h      p P.O.Box526 `     h      p Blountville,TN37617 OPINIONFILED:________________AFFIRMEDJAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE  p5,/  <26 @qq* OPINION  `  XXX X `  Thepetitioner,MickeyCresong,Sr.,appealsfromtheSullivanCounty   CriminalCourtsorderdismissinghispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Ajuryconvictedthepetitionerofaggravatedrape,aClassAfelony,andthetrialcourtimposeda$30,000fineandasentenceofconfinementfor25yearsintheDepartmentofCorrection.Heappealedhisconviction,andthiscourtaffirmedon""April25,""""1995.Statev.MickeyCresong,Sr.,No.03C019406CR00230(Tenn.   Crim.App.,Knoxville","񛀜Apr"il""."25,1995).""On""April""15,1996,hefiledaprosepetition  forpostconvictionrelief.ThetrialcourtheldahearingonthepetitiononDecember18,1997.Thepetitionerallegesineffectiveassistanceofcounselinthe:(1)failuretosubpoenamaterialwitnessesforthedefense,(2)failuretoquestiontheDNAexpertwitnessregardingthepossibilitythattheperpetratorwasapersonofHispanicdescent,(3)failuretochallengetheconvictiononthegroundthatthejuryinstructiononreasonabledoubtwasdefective,and(4)failuretoobjecttoadefectiveindictment.Followingareviewoftherecordandthebriefsoftheparties,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdismissalofthepetition. ` $X` XX$ `  Thestandardfordeterminingeffectiveassistanceofcounselis whethertheadvicegiven,ortheservicesrenderedbytheattorney,arewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxterv.Rose, x-$( 523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Thecomplainingpartymustshowthatcounselsperformancewasdeficientandthatthedeficiencyprejudicedthedefense.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,686(1984).Theremustbea reasonable 2|). probabilitythat,butforcounselsunprofessionalerrors,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Strickland,466U.S.at693.Thereasonablenessofthe t6-2 attorneysactionsorinactionsmustbeassessedasofthetimeoftheconduct.Id. @8.4 at690.   :06 -X, XX` X- First,thepetitionercontendsthatcounselwasineffectivebecausehedidnotsubpoenacertainwitnessestotestifyforthedefenseattrial.Trialcounselorallymovedforacontinuanceonthefirstdayofthetrialinordertoinvestigatethepossibilityofwitnesses.Thetrialcourtdeniedthecontinuancebasedonthefindingthatthedefendanthadnotbeendiligentinnotifyinghisattorneyaboutmaterialwitnessesandbasedonthefindingthatthepurportedwitnessescouldnotestablishwhenorhowthedefendantreceivedinjuriestohisface.# Xr|XXXr|#Xr|XX Xr|ԀOndirectappeal,thiscourt ` heldthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingthecontinuance.# Xr|XXXr|#Xr|XX Xr| @ Statev.MickeyL.Cresong,Sr.,No.03C019406CR00230,slipop.at67(Tenn.   Crim.App.,Knoxville,Apr.25,1995)# Xr|XXXr|#Xr|XX Xr|.   Thestatecontendsthatthisissue, includingtheroleofpetitionerstrialcounselwasraisedondirectappeal.Thepostconvictioncourtheldthat,althoughtheissueofthecontinuancewaspreviouslydetermined,theissueofineffectiveassistanceofcounselwasnotdetermined.Ontheissueofassistanceofcounsel,thepostconvictioncourtheldthat [counsel]actedwithintheguidelines,andwaseffective.WehavereviewedouropinioninStatev.MickeyL.Cresong,  +!$ Sr.,No.03C019406CR00230(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Apr.25,1995)# Xr|XXXr|#Xr|XX Xr|,and -#& findthat""u"u"the""issueofineffectiveassistanceofcounselwasneitherraisednordeterminedondirectappeal.Thiscourtevaluatedcounsels""actionsv",v"""onlyinthecontextofreviewingthedenialofthecontinuance.# Xr|XXXr|B#Xr|XX Xr| 2@), -XX XX, X-    # Xr|XXXr| #Xr|XX Xr|Ԁ# Xr|XXXr|a!#Onappeal,weareboundbythetrialcourtsfindingsinthepost `6-0 convictionhearing,unlessweconcludethattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings.Butlerv.State,789S.W.2d898,899(Tenn.1990).Xr|XX Xr|Thepost  :04 convictioncourtheldthatcounselwaseffective.# XvXXXv"#XvXX XvThepetitionerdidnotpresentany `  witnessestotestifyathispostconvictionhearing.Therefore,exceptforpetitionerstestimony,wedonotknowwhatthepurportedwitnesseswouldhavesaid.# XvXXXvS##XvXX XvԀ Itis   elementarythatneitheratrialjudgenoranappellatecourtcanspeculateorguessonthequestionof...whatawitnessstestimonymighthavebeenifintroducedbydefensecounsel.Blackv.State,794S.W.2d752,757(Tenn.Crim.App.1990). `  Byfailingtopresentthesewitnessesatthepostconvictionhearing,thepetitionerfailedtoprovethathesufferedprejudicefromtrialcounselsfailuretosubpoenacertainwitnesses.Thisissuelacksmerit.# XvXXXvp$#XvXX XvԀ `  Second,thepetitionercontendsthatcounselwasineffectivebecausehefailedtoquestiontheDNAexpertwitnessregardingthepossibilitythattheperpetratorwasapersonofHispanicdescent.Thedefenseattrialwasconsensualsex.Thedefendantadmittedhavingsexwiththevictimonthenightinquestion# XvXXXv&#XvXX Xv. !` DecliningtoquestiontheDNAexpertwitnessregardingtheraceoftheperpetratorwasreasonableunderthesecircumstances.Wedefertocounselstrialstrategyortacticalchoicesifcounselmadeinformeddecisionsbaseduponadequatepreparation.Hellardv.State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982).Accordingly,weagree @)" withthepostconvictioncourtthatdefensecounselwasnotineffectiveinthisregard.π# XvXXXvb(# -#&  Third,thepetitionercontendsthattrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallengethejuryinstructiononreasonabledoubtattrial.Thepetitionercontendsthatthejuryheldthestatetoalowerstandardofproofthanbeyondareasonabledoubtbyfindinghimguiltyvia moralcertainty,notbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thepostconvictioncourtupheldthejuryinstruction.Thetrialcourtinstructedthejuryasfollows: ` Reasonabledoubtisthatdoubtengenderedbyan  :04 investigationofalltheproofinthecaseandaninability,aftersuchinvestigation,toletthemindresteasyastothecertaintyofguilt.Reasonabledoubtdoesnotmeanacaptious,possibleorimaginarydoubt.Absolutecertaintyofguiltisnotdemandedbythelawtoconvictofanycriminalcharge,butproofbeyondareasonabledoubtisrequiredastoeveryevidentiaryfactnecessarytoconstitutetheoffense. `   Mostchallengestojuryinstructionsonreasonabledoubtattacktheuseofthephrase moralcertainty.Thejuryinstructioninthiscasedidnotcontainthephrase moralcertainty.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtandthiscourthaveconsistentlyupheldtheconstitutionalityofsimilarjuryinstructions,evenwhenthejuryinstructionscontainedthephrase moralcertainty.See,e.g.,Statev.Bush, 0 942S.W.2d489,520521(Tenn.1997)(appendix),cert.denied,U.S.,118  S.Ct.376(1997);Statev.Nichols,877S.W.2d722,734(Tenn.1994),cert.denied,  513U.S.1114(1995);JeromeWilliamsv.State,No.01C019709CR00441(Tenn.  p Crim.App.,Nashville,Oct.23,1998);Statev.Sexton,917S.W.2d263,266(Tenn. "P Crim.App.1995).Additionally,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuitupheldtheconstitutionalityofasimilarreasonabledoubtjuryinstructionwhichincludedthephrase moralcertainty.SeeAustinv.Bell,126F.3d843,846 P(! 47(6thCir.1997),cert.denied,U.S.,118S.Ct.1526,1547(1998). 0* #  Todeterminewhetherajuryinstructionisdeficient,thereviewingcourtmustexaminethechargeasawholeandconsiderhowreasonablejurorscouldhaveunderstoodthechargeascorrectlyconveyingtheconceptofreasonabledoubt.Victorv.Nebraska,511U.S.1,6(1994).Thisparticularjurychargeis 30*- similartoTennesseePatternJuryInstruction2.03."w"w""w"""""w"w"w" #  1      ""SeeT.P.I.Crim.2.03(4thed. p5,/ 1995).Infact,themaindifferencebetweenthechargeinthiscaseandthepatternchargeisthatthepatternchargecontainsthephrase moralcertainty.Viewingthechargeasawhole,weconcludethatthejuryinstructiononreasonabledoubtwasconstitutional.Counselwasnotineffectivebecausehedidnotobjecttoaconstitutionallyappropriatedefinitionofreasonabledoubt. Finally,thepetitionercontendsthattrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoobjecttoadefectiveindictment.Specifically,thepetitionercontendsthattheindictmentfailedtoallege thattheAppellantactedintentionally,knowinglyorrecklessly.ThestatecontendsthattheindictmentsufficientlyallegedamentalstateaccordingtoStatev.Hill,954S.W.2d725(Tenn.1997).Likewise,thepost   convictioncourtstatedthatHillresolvedthisissueinfavorofthestate.Onappeal,  thepetitionerhaswaivedthisissuebyfailingtoplaceacopyoftheindictmentintherecord.Tenn.R.App.P.24. However,evenifthisissuewereproperlypreservedforreview,itiswithoutmerit.Accordingtothepetitionersbrief,theindictmentallegedthatthepetitioner didunlawfully,feloniouslyandbyforcesexuallypenetrateShirleyJones.Thejuryconvictedthepetitionerofaggravatedrape.InStatev.Hill,954S.W.2d  +!$ 725(Tenn.1997),theTennesseeSupremeCourtdecidedtheissueofwhetheran -#& indictmentchargingaggravatedrapewassufficientwithoutallegingaculpablementalstate.TheindictmentinHillstatedthatthedefendant didunlawfully @  sexuallypenetratethevictim.Statev.Hill,954S.W.2d725,727(Tenn.1997).   Thecourtstated: ` Thisstatutedoesnotspecifyamentalstate.Thus,pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.3911301(c),thementalelementissatisfiediftheindictmentallegesthatthedefendantcommittedtheproscribedactwithintent,knowledge,orrecklessness.Obviouslytheactforwhichthedefendantisindicted, unlawfullysexualpenetrat[ing]...iscommittableonlyiftheprincipalactorsmensreaisintentional,knowing,orreckless. p Thus,therequiredmentalstatemaybeinferredfromthenatureofthecriminalconductalleged.Clearly,thelanguageoftheindictmentprovidesadequatenoticetoboththedefendantandthetrialcourtoftheoffensealleged.... ` Id.at729(footnoteomitted)(emphasisinoriginal).TheTennesseeSupremeCourt  followedHillinRuffv.State,978S.W.2d95(Tenn.1998).InRuff,theindictment  allegedthatBillyJoeSmith didunlawfullysexuallypenetrate""|"KarenRios|"}"[the}"~"}"vi}"~"""vi"""vic"""itm"""tim]",""by""forc[e]."""Id""."""a""""A"""at99.""""""񛀛"The""courtupheldtheindictmentsandstatedthat theculpable #@ mentalstateisevenmoreeasilyinferablefromthepresentindictmentsbecauseofthereferencestoforceanduseofadeadlyweapon."""Id.""Ruffv.State"",978S.W.2d95,100"""""a""""A"""at100""(Tenn.1998)"."""" `'    Clearly,HillandRuffresolvethisissueagainstthepetitioner.The  +!$ indictmentagainstthepetitionerwassufficient.Counselwasnotineffectivebecausehedidnotobjecttoaconstitutionallysufficientindictmentagainstthepetitioner."""Thisissueiswithoutmerit."""""  Inconsiderationoftheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.    h      p      x    :04     h     ________________________________    h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________GARYR.WADE,PRESIDINGJUDGE_______________________________JOHNK.BYERS,SPECIALJUDGE