ÿWPCü& …U:V %–nX¦ 0 4þ42 F w@N 1mŽ 0cû 0D^ 0g¢ 0J 0TS 0^§ 0h 0rm 0|ß 0†[ 0á 1uq 0dæB)J BsDC AMÓU* ìJ D362iê› 0@…—ÅÜ\è8v~ vÓž 0wq 0Šè 0 r! 0´" 0ÇÆ" 0Û# 0ïh$ AOW%Ʀ% 0Dl& D/°& Bß&<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX3|x «<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT¼¼Œþ6X@ÉDQ¼@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó·‚^!ÿÿÿÿ  D D  D    V D Ó€ tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à($Ó$‘‘òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó((3•j$¥¥Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial âÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òDecember€4,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxd (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ %ÝÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ý  ÝA€person€who€is€engaged€in€discharging€the€duties€of€anÏinterpreter€is€a€witness€and€his€conduct€is€subject€to€carefulÏscrutiny.€€98€òòC.J.S.›óó€Witnesses€ðð326.Ì àÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ %ÝÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ý  ÝFailure€of€the€prosecution€to€provide€a€competent€and€qualifiedÏsign€interpreter€to€assist€two€witnesses€with€profound€hearing€andÏspeech€impairment€during€a€grand€jury€presentation€requiredÏdismissal€of€the€indictment,€since€the€defendantððs€due€processÏrights€may€have€been€violated,€where€no€advance€effort€was€made€toÏascertain€the€level€of€sign€language€communication€skillsÏpossessed€by€the€witnesses€or€whether€they€comprehended€the€oathÏadministered€to€them,€and€many€of€the€witnessesðð€answers€seemedÏunclear€and€unresponsive.€€òòPeople€v€Rodriguezóó€145€Misc.2d.105,€546ÏN.Y.S.769›€(1989).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ %ÝÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ý  ÝThe€Registry€of€Interpreters€for€the€Deaf€no€longer€offers€theÏComprehensive€Skills€Certificate.€€The€replacements€therefor€areÏthe€Certificate€of€Interpreting€and€the€Certificate€ofÏTransliteration.€€The€latter€certificates€are€not€as€yetÏrecognized€by€the€statute.Ì ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ %ÝÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ý  ÝIn€fact,€it€is€usual€and€proper€to€do€so.€98€òòC.J.S.›€óóWitnessesÏðð332.€€Ì ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ %ÝÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ý  ÝInterpreters€are€subject€to€impeachment.€òòPruitt›€v€Alabamaóó€168ÏSo.€149,€232€Ala.€421.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€F¨XXdÖdÈ7Ñà@ àÞ ÞÌÌÔ€¼ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€Ì̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßR€')&A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àDECEMBER€1994€SESSIONÌÔ€XÔÌó óÌÌÌÌÌÔˆˆÔð#ðÌÔˆˆÔðð€€€€Ìò òÔ€¼ÔTIM€DENTON,€€€€€€€ó ó€Ô$$ÔÔ€XÔà àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€Appellantà àà àà à)Ô((Ô€No.€03C01„9408„CR„00310ÔÐóÐóÔÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÔÀÀÔà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à€vs.ÔP P Ôà àà àà àà àà à)€€COCKE€COUNTYÌÔˆˆÔà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÔˆˆÔà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Hon.€J.€Kenneth€Porter,€JudgeÌò òÔ€¼ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à àó óÔ€XÔ)Ô  ÔÌ€€€€€€€€€€€AppelleeÔ  Ôà àà àà à)€€œ(Post„Conviction›€Relief)ÌÔˆˆÔà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:€€€€€€€œà àà àòòFOR›€THE€APPELLEEóó:€€ÌÌWilliam€Leibrock€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œCharles›€W.€BursonÌ339€Main€Street€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œAttorney›€General€&€ReporterÌNewport,€TN€œ€37821›Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œChristina›€S.€ShevalierÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àœAssistant›€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àœCriminal›€Justice€DivisionÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àœ450›€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœNashville,›€TN€œ€37243„0493›ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAlfred›€C.€Schmutzer,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœDistrict›€Attorney€GeneralÌœÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€James€B.€Dunn€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àand€›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœRichard›€Vance€Ìœà à›à àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst.›€Dist.€œAttorneys€General›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœ339A›€East€Main€Street€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœNewport,›€œTN›€œ€37821›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________ÌÌÌÌò òÔ€¼ÔAFFIRMED€Ô€XÔÌÌó óRobert€E.€Burchò òÌó óSpecial€œJudgeÇÑ7€F¨XXdÖXXdÖ7Ñ›à@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÓÓà àFollowing€a€jury€trial,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€the€crimesÏof€aggravated€rape,€aggravated€œkidnapping›€and€armed€robbery.€€Co„defendant€Wiley€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape€and€aggravatedÏœkidnapping.›€€Two€other€co„defendants€were€acquitted€of€allÏcharges.€€The€convictions€of€Appellant€and€Wiley€were€affirmed€onÏappeal.Ìà àAfter€exhausting€his€direct€appeals,€Appellant€filed€aÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€which€was€heard€by€the€trialÏjudge€in€due€course.€€The€basis€of€the€petition€was€that€hisÏcounsel€at€trial€had€been€ineffective.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÏhearing,€the€petition€was€denied.€€Appellant€appeals€the€denial€ofÏhis€petition€to€this€Court.Ìà@ àò òFACTSó óÌà àThe€facts€which€led€to€Appellantððs€conviction€were€that€aÏbartender€(the€victim)€requested€that€Appellant€and€Wiley,Ïcustomers€of€the€establishment,€give€her€a€ride€home.€€After€theÏthree€left€the€bar,€the€co„defendants€drove€the€victim,€againstÏher€will,€to€a€secluded€area€of€Cocke€County.€€There,€at€gunpoint,Ïthey€repeatedly€raped€her€and€forced€her€to€perform€oral€sex€uponÏeach€of€them.€€They€then€drove€to€a€local€truck€stop€whereÏAppellant€forced€the€victim€into€his€truck€and€Wiley€left.€ÏAppellant€then€drove€away€from€the€truck€stop,raped€the€victim€andÏforced€her€to€perform€oral€sex€upon€him.€€Appellant€then€returnedÏwith€the€victim€to€the€truck€stop€where€he€encountered€Wiley€withÏfive€or€six€other€men.€€Two€of€the€men€had€sex€with€the€victimÍwhile€the€other€men€stood€around€laughing€and€joking.€€AppellantÏand€Wiley€both€exhibited€pistols€during€this€incident.€€At€someÏpoint€during€this€portion€of€her€ordeal,€the€victim€was€able€toÏescape€and€flee€into€the€restaurant€at€the€truck€stop.€€The€policeÏwere€summoned€and€those€involved€were€arrested.Ìà àAt€a€pre„trial€hearing,€Officer€Robert€Caldwell€testifiedÏthat€he€had€lost€his€notes€and€the€pictorial€line„up€which€wasÏshown€to€the€victim.Ìà àAt€the€trial€the€victim€(a€deaf„mute)€testified€by€means€of€aÏsign€language€interpreter.€€Prior€to€the€trial,€all€fourÏdefendants€had€moved€the€trial€court€to€appoint€anotherÏinterpreter€for€their€use.€€This€was€denied,€but€leave€was€grantedÏto€use€a€second€interpreter€not€compensated€by€the€State.Ìà àA€statement€of€Appellant€to€one€Robert€Jacobson€was€sought€toÏbe€introduced€at€trial.€€The€original€statement€made€to€JacobsonÏwas€that€Appellant€had€held€a€gun€to€the€victimððs€head€while€sheÏperformed€fellatio€upon€Wiley€and€then€Wiley€had€held€a€gun€on€theÏvictim€while€she€performed€fellatio€upon€Appellant.€€In€order€toÏavoid€a€òòBrutonóó€problem€at€this€joint€trial€at€which€co„defendantÏWiley€did€not€testify,€the€statement€was€redacted€to€remove€anyÏreference€to€Wiley.€€The€statement€then€was€to€the€effect€thatÏAppellant€held€a€gun€to€the€victimððs€head€while€she€performedÏfellatio€upon€Appellant.€€Thus€redacted,€the€statement€wasÏadmitted.Ìà àThe€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€as€stated€above.€€HisÏconviction€was€affirmed€on€appeal.€€He€then€filed€this€petitionÍfor€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€ineffectiveness€of€counsel.Ìà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€petition,€the€trial€judge€found€counselÏto€have€been€effective€at€the€trial€and€denied€his€petition.ÏAppellant€appeals€this€decision€to€this€Court.€Ìà@ àò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óÌà àIn€order€to€secure€post„conviction€relief€in€Tennessee,€aÏdefendant€must€prove€an€abridgment€of€a€Federal€or€StateÏconstitutional€right.€T.€C.€A.€ðð€40„30„105€(repealed€and€replacedÏby€T.C.A.€ðð40„30„203€in€1995).€To€prevail€on€an€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€claim,€the€defendant€must€ultimately€showÏthat€the€adversarial€process€failed€to€produce€a€reliable€result.ÏòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993)€[citingÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674,€104€S.ÏCt.€2052€(1984)];€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.Ï1990)€[also€citing€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€supra].€Ìà àProving€failure€of€the€adversarial€process€because€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€requires€the€defendant€toÏsatisfy,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€both€prongs€of€aÏtwo„pronged€test.€Seeòò€Butleóór,€supra€at€899.€First,€the€defendantÏmust€prove€that€counsel's€performance€was€deficient€in€that€itÏfailed€to€meet€the€threshold€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneysÏin€criminal€cases.€òòButleróó,€supra€at€899.€Second,€the€defendantÏmust€prove€actual€prejudice€resulting€from€the€deficientÏperformance.€òòCooperóó,€supra€747€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€supra€at€687).€ÏActual€prejudice€is€established€by€demonstrating€that,€but€for€hisÏcounsel's€deficient€performance,€the€results€of€his€trial€wouldÍhave€been€different€and€,thus,€the€adversarial€process€failed€toÏproduce€a€reliable€result.€€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€Ìà àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€defendant€has€the€burdenÏof€proving€the€claims€raised€in€the€petition€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence.€òòWade€€v.€Stateóó,€914€S.W.2d€97,€101€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995);€òòBratton€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€754€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€herein€has€the€burden€of€showing€thatÏthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counsel's€error€theÏresult€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòBest€v.ÏStateóó,€supra.€€Findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏjudgment.€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€supra€at€746;€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€supra€atÏ899.€Accordingly,€we€are€bound€to€affirm€the€judgment€unless€theÏevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€court'sÏfindings.€See€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).Ìà àThe€court€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€counselððsÏconduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€of€reasonable€professionalÏassistance;€that€is,€the€defendant€must€overcome€the€presumptionÏthat,€under€the€circumstances,€the€challenged€action€ð ð€might€beÏconsidered€sound€trial€strategyðð.òòStrickland,€óósupra€at€466€œU.S.689›.€ÏWe€should€defer€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€areÏinformed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€òòHellard€v€Stateóó€629ÏS.W.2d€4,€9(Tenn.€1982).€€Additionally,€the€court€should€avoid€theÏð ðdistorting€effects€of€hindsightðð€and€ð ðjudge€the€reasonableness€ofÍcounselððs€challenged€conduct€on€the€facts€of€the€particular€case,Ïviewed€as€of€the€time€of€counselððs€conductðð€òòStrickland,€óósupra€atÏ466€U.S.€689„690.€€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€perfectÏrepresentation,€only€constitutionally€adequate€representation.€ÏòòState€vs.€Edward€Leroy€Harrisóó€(unreported)€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville€œ#03C01›„€9311„CR„00381,€opinion€filed€February€28,€1996.ÌÌà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌà àAppellant€submits€that€his€counsel€at€trial€was€ineffectiveÏand€cites€five€instances€which€allegedly€support€his€contention.ÌThese€instances€are€that€trial€counsel€failed€to:Ìà à1).€object€to€the€use€of€only€one€interpreter€for€the€victimÏ(who€was€a€deaf„mute);€failed€to€object€to€the€qualifications€ofÏthe€interpreter€used;€and€failed€to€obtain€an€interpreter€forÏAppellant;Ìà à2).€object€to€the€redacted€statement€used€against€AppellantÏat€trial;Ìà à3).€present€Debbie€Jones€as€a€witness€or€to€ask€for€aÏcontinuance€when€she€was€unavailable;Ìà à4).€move€for€a€continuance€when€the€witness€Ricky€HartsellÏwas€not€available€to€testify€even€though€a€subpoena€had€beenÏissued€for€him;Ìà à5).€obtain€a€certified€copy€of€the€preliminary€hearingÏtranscript€and€the€photo€line„up€made€before€the€preliminaryÏhearing.Ìà àWe€deal€with€each€issue€òòseriatim.óóÌà@ àò òInterpreteró óÌà àAppellant€submits€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€inÏthat€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€qualifications€of€theÏinterpreter€and€failed€to€obtain€a€second€interpreter€to€interpretÏindependently€for€Appellant.€€We€disagree.Ìà àAlthough€a€few€opinions€of€the€courts€of€this€state€haveÏdealt€with€the€question€of€the€use€of€an€interpreter,€none€haveÏdealt€with€the€question€of€the€basic€qualifications€of€anÏinterpreter€for€a€witness€who€is€deaf€or€deaf€and€mute.Ìà àRule€604,€T.R.E.€requires€that€all€interpreters€(language€andÏdeaf„mute)be€subject€to€the€rules€of€evidence€pertaining€to€theÏqualification€of€expert€witnesses€and€any€statute€applicable€toÏthat€particular€type€of€interpreter.€€The€rule€also€requires€thatÏthe€interpreter€take€an€oath€to€ð ðmake€a€true€translationðð.€€Ìà àRule€702,€T.R.E.€contains€the€qualification€requirements€ofÏexpert€witnesses€and,€therefore,€interpreters.€€This€rule€providesÏthat€ð ða€witness€qualified€as€an€expert€by€knowledge,€skill,Ïexperience,€training€or€education€may€testify€...ðð.€×ƒ+××  ×Ìà àOf€course,€the€trial€judge€has€wide€discretion€in€the€matterÏof€the€qualifications€of€expert€witnesses.€òòOtis€v.€CambridgeÏMutual€Fire€Ins.€Co.,€óó850€S.W.2d€439€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€same€logicÏwould€extend€to€interpreters€as€well.Ìà àIn€the€case€of€deaf„mute€interpreters,€a€specific€statuteÏgoverns€the€selection€and€qualification€of€a€deaf„muteÏinterpreter.€€This€statute,€T.C.A.ðð€24„1„103,€sets€out€theÏprocedure€to€be€followed€by€the€trial€court€in€dealing€with€aÍparty€or€witness€who€may€be€deaf€and/or€unable€to€speak.Ìà àIn€any€proceeding€before€the€court€(or€grand€jury׃,××  ×),€theÏstatute€requires€the€trial€court€to€appoint€a€ð ðqualifiedÏinterpreter€of€the€deaf€sign€languageðð€to:Ìà àà à1).€Interpret€the€proceedings€to€the€deaf€party€orÏà àà àà àwitness;€Ìà àà à2).€Interpret€the€deaf€personððs€testimony;€andÌà àà à3).€Assist€in€trial€preparation€with€counsel.ÌT.C.A.ðð€24„1„103(b)(1).Ìà àSection€(a)(3)€of€the€statute€defines€a€ð ðqualifiedÏinterpreterðð€as€an€interpreter€certified€by€the:Ìà àà à1).€National€Registry€of€Interpreters€for€the€Deaf;€orÌà àà à2).€Tennessee€Registry€of€Interpreters€for€the€Deaf.€ÌIf€an€interpreter€is€not€obtainable€with€one€of€the€aboveÏcertifications,€the€trial€court€must€select€an€interpreter€whoseÏqualifications€ð ðare€otherwise€determinedðð.€€In€such€case,€theÏtrial€court€would€use€the€same€procedure€used€to€qualify€anyÏexpert€witness.Ìà àIn€addition€to€the€certification€mentioned€above,€the€trialÏcourt€must€attempt€to€obtain€the€services€of€a€qualifiedÏinterpreter€(as€set€out€above)€with€a€Legal€Skills€Certificate€orÏa€Comprehensive€Skills€Certificate׃.××  ×€before€accepting€the€servicesÏof€an€interpreter€who€does€not€possess€such€certificate.€€T.C.A.ððÏ24„1„103(a)(3).Ìà àThe€request€for€a€deaf€interpreter€must€be€channeled€throughÍthe€following€agencies€in€order€of€preference:Ìà àà à1).€local€interpreter€referral€centers€for€the€deaf;Ìà àà à2).€Tennessee€Registry€of€Interpreters€for€the€Deaf;Ìà àà à3).€Tennessee€Council€for€the€Hearing€Impaired;€orÌà àà à4).€Department€of€Education,€Division€of€VocationalÏà àà àà àRehabilitation.ÌT.C.A.ðð€24„1„103(e).Ìà àAfter€a€qualified€interpreter€is€selected,€the€court€ò òand€theÏdeaf€person€ó óare€required€by€T.C.A.ðð€24„1„103(a)(3)€to€make€aÏpreliminary€determination€that€the€interpreter€is€able€to€readilyÏcommunicate€with€the€deaf€person€and€is€able€to€accuratelyÏinterpret€the€statements€of€the€deaf€person€and€interpret€theÏproceedings€in€which€the€deaf€person€may€be€involved.€€ThisÏprocedure€is€more€important€œthan›€it€may€seem€at€first€reading.€TheÏtrial€judge€should€be€aware€that,€although€the€statute€seems€toÏassume€that€there€is€only€one€deaf„mute€sign€language€(See€T.C.A.ððÏ24„1„103(b)(1)€ð ð...the€deaf€sign€language...ðð),€there€are€actuallyÏseveral€very€different€sign€languages€used€to€communicate€withÏdeaf€people.€€50€A.L.R.4th€1188,1194.€€The€trial€judge€should€notÏassume€that€a€qualified€interpreter€can€automatically€communicateÏwith€any€deaf€person.€€Allowance€should€be€made€for€this€fact€inÏorder€to€prevent€inconvenient€surprises€during€the€course€of€theÏtrial.Ìà àOnce€the€deaf€interpreter€is€determined€to€be€qualified€andÏable€to€communicate€with€the€deaf€person,€both€Rule€604€T.R.E.€andÏT.C.A.ðð€24„1„103(f)€require€the€interpreter€to€take€an€oath€toÍaccurately€translate€the€testimony€from€and€questions€to€the€deafÏperson.€€The€statute€sets€out€with€particularity€the€requirementsÏof€the€oath:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒSuch€interpreter€shall€make€an€oath€orÏaffirmation€that€such€interpreter€will€make€aÏtrue€interpretation€in€an€understandableÏmanner€to€the€deaf€person€for€whom€he€isÏappointed€and€that€such€interpreter€willÏinterpret€the€statements€of€the€deaf€personÏdesiring€that€statements€be€made,€in€theÏEnglish€language€to€the€best€of€suchÏinterpreterððs€skill€and€judgment.ÌÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àAfter€this€has€been€accomplished,€the€interpreter€mayÏdischarge€the€duties€of€an€interpreter€in€the€trial.€€It€is€usualÏto€require€the€interpreter€to€be€impersonal€and€to€require€theÏattorneys€to€direct€all€questions€to€the€witness€in€the€secondÏperson.€€These€questions€must€then€be€repeated€by€the€interpreterÏwith€any€remarks€of€his€own.€€The€answers€must€be€repeatedÏliterally€by€the€interpreter€in€the€first€person,€without€anyÏremarks€of€his€own.€€98€òòœC.J.S.›óó€Witnesses€ðð326.€€It€should€be€notedÏthat€T.C.A.ðð€24„1„103(f)€requires€the€trial€judge€to€recess€theÏproceedings€when€the€interpreter€so€requests.€€Although€it€may€notÏbe€immediately€apparent€to€the€observer,€deaf„mute€signing€is€anÏextremely€taxing€activity€both€upon€the€interpreter€and€theÏclient.€€The€trial€judge€should€be€aware€of€this€fact€and€shouldÏschedule€the€proceedings€in€such€a€manner€as€not€to€overly€exhaustÏthe€interpreter€and€client.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€shouldÏconsider€granting€greater€leeway€in€allowing€leading€questions,Ïnarratives€and€similar€devices€to€interrogate€the€witness€becauseÍof€the€difficulties€of€communication€inherent€in€a€situationÏinvolving€a€deaf„mute€witness.€€50€A.L.R.4th€1188,€1194.׃/××  ×Ìà àWe€now€apply€the€law€as€set€out€above€to€the€facts€ofÏAppellantððs€trial.Ìà àT.C.A.ðð€24„1„103€requires€the€trial€judge€to€channel€requestsÏfor€an€interpreter€through€the€agencies€listed€therein.€€TheÏrecord€shows€that€the€interpreter€came€from€the€Knoxville€AreaÏCommunication€Center€for€the€Deaf€(a€local€interpreter€referralÏcenter€as€listed€in€the€statute).Ìà àThe€interpreter€must€be€qualified€as€set€out€in€T.C.A.ðð€24„1„103(a)(3).€€Since€the€interpreter€came€from€the€local€interpreterÏreferral€center€as€listed€in€the€statute,€we€must€assume€that€theÏinterpreter€was€both€qualified€and€certified€as€required€by€theÏstatute.€€The€statutory€language€indicates€a€legislative€intentÏthat€certification€according€to€the€statute€constitutes€proof€ofÏthe€interpreterððs€ð ðknowledge,€skill,€training€or€educationðð.€€We,Ïtherefore,€hold€that€if€an€interpreter€is€certified€in€the€mannerÏrequired€by€the€statute,€a€rebuttable€presumption€arises€that€theÏinterpreter€is€qualified€to€interpret€in€trial€proceedings.€€TheÏattorney€for€the€co„defendant,€in€seeking€an€additionalÏinterpreter€for€all€defendants,€announced€to€the€trial€court€thatÏthe€Knoxville€Area€Communication€Center€for€the€Deaf€furnishedÏð ðqualified,€expert€interpreter(s)ðð.€€In€addition,€the€record€showsÏthat€the€trial€court€found€the€interpreter€to€be€a€ð ðcertifiedÏinterpreterðð€during€the€pre„trial€qualification€portion€of€theÏtrial.€€Finally,€in€the€appeal€of€the€original€trial€of€this€caseÍa€panel€of€this€court€found€the€interpreter€to€have€been€aÏð ðcertified€interpreterðð.€€òòState€v€Tim€Denton€and€Charles€WileyóóÏ(unreported)€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville€#168€Opinion€filedÏFebruary€12,€1992€at€page€2€of€the€slip€opinion.€€€€Ìà àT.C.A.ðð€24„1„103(b)(1)€requires€the€trial€judge€to€appoint€aÏð ðqualified€interpreterðð€to:Ìà àà à1).€interpret€to€the€witness;Ìà àà à2).€interpret€the€witnessðð€testimony;€andÌà àà à3).€assist€in€preparation€with€counsel.Ìà àAt€the€pre„trial€hearing,€the€trial€court€examined€theÏqualifications€of€the€interpreter€and€appointed€her€to€interpretÏfor€the€witness.€€In€the€pre„trial€hearing,€the€state€referred€toÏan€order€appointing€the€interpreter€which€does€not€appear€in€theÏrecord€before€us.€€There€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€theÏinterpreter€assisted€in€preparation€with€counsel€nor€is€there€anyÏindication€therein€that€this€assistance€was€requested.€€In€anyÏevent,€counsel€had€the€experience€of€the€witnessðð€testimony€at€theÏpreliminary€hearing€and€the€use€of€an€interpreter€to€interview€theÏwitness€would€have€been€of€little€value.€In€addition,€theÏtestimony€of€the€victim€at€trial€indicates€that€her€normal€methodÏof€communication€was€by€writing€notes.€€Counsel€could,€had€theyÏdesired,€interviewed€this€witness€without€the€need€of€anÏinterpreter.€€The€statute€was€complied€with€by€the€trial€court.Ìà àThe€trial€court€did€not€conduct€a€formal€preliminaryÏdetermination€that€the€interpreter€was€able€to€readily€communicateÏwith€the€witness€and€was€able€to€interpret€the€proceedings€to€theÍwitness€and€the€statements€of€the€witness€in€response€toÏquestions.€€This€determination€is€required€by€T.C.A.ðð€24„1„103(a)(3)€but€the€procedure€therefor€is€not€contained€therein.€ÏFailure€to€make€this€determination€outside€of€the€presence€of€theÏjury€may€amount€to€reversible€error.€€See€e.g.€òòKley€v€Abell€óó483ÏS.W.2d€625€(Mo.€App.€1972).€€During€the€pre„trial€motions€theÏrecord€reflects€that€the€trial€judge€closely€watched€theÏinteraction€between€interpreter€and€client.€€On€at€least€oneÏoccasion,€the€trial€judge€instructed€the€interpreter€and€theÏwitness€on€proper€trial€procedure.€€Although€not€the€recommendedÏprocedure,€we€hold€that€this€action€by€the€trial€judgeÏsubstantially€complied€with€the€requirements€of€the€statute.€ÏObviously,€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€qualified€interpreter€atÏthe€hearing€of€a€pre„trial€motion€as€well€as€at€the€trial.€€WeÏhave€reviewed€the€record€and€satisfied€ourselves€that€theÏinterpreter€communicated€effectively€with€the€witness€and€that€noÏprejudice€to€Appellant€occurred€by€the€use€of€this€procedure.€€InÏfact,€the€interpreter€translated€an€obviously€inaccurate€statementÏby€the€witness€concerning€the€shirt€which€Appellant€was€wearing.€ÏAppellant€used€this€testimony€both€in€the€hearing€and€at€theÏtrial.€€It€was€obvious€from€the€context€of€the€witnessðð€entireÏtestimony€that€the€inaccurate€statement€was€what€the€witnessÏintended€to€say.€€The€interpreter€demonstrated€her€qualificationsÏto€our€satisfaction.Ìà àBefore€beginning€the€hearing,€an€oath€was€administered€to€theÏinterpreter.€€The€record€shows€that€the€oath€administered€was€asÍfollows:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓDo€you€œsolemly›(sic)€swear€that€you€willÏjustly,€truly€and€impartially€œinterprete›(sic)Ïto€the€jury€and€the€court€and€the€attorneysÏand€the€public€the€oath€about€to€beÏadministered€to€you€and€the€questions€whichÏmay€be€asked€of€the€victim€and€the€answersÏthat€she€shall€give€to€such€questions€relativeÏto€the€cause€now€under€consideration€beforeÏthe€court,€so€help€you€God?€ÌÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àThe€statutory€oath€essentially€requires€the€interpreter€toÏswear€or€affirm€that€the€translation€of€the€questions€to€theÏwitness€and€the€responses€from€the€witness€shall€be€accurate€andÏunderstandable€to€the€best€of€the€interpreterððs€judgment€andÏskill.€€While€the€form€of€the€oath€administered€is€somewhatÏunfortunate,€we€hold€that€it€substantially€complies€with€theÏrequirements€of€the€T.C.A.ðð€24„1„103(f).Ìà àThus,€the€interpreter€was€qualified€and€the€procedure€used€byÏthe€trial€court€to€appoint,€qualify€and€swear€the€interpreter€wasÏin€accordance€with€the€statutory€procedure.€€Trial€counselððsÏperformance€cannot€be€held€to€be€deficient€for€declining€to€objectÏto€a€procedure€which€was€unquestionably€proper.€€See€òòState€v€CecilÏC.€Johnsonóó€(unreported)€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville€#€83„241„IIIÏopinion€filed€January€20,€1988.Ìà àThe€remaining€question€is€whether€trial€counselððs€performanceÏwas€deficient€for€failing€to€object€to€the€use€of€only€oneÏinterpreter€and€for€failing€to€obtain€an€interpreter€forÏAppellant.Ìà àTrial€counsel€did€move€the€court€prior€to€the€trial€toÏappoint€a€second€interpreter.€€This€written€motion€is€contained€inÍthe€record€before€us.€€In€the€argument€of€pre„trial€motions,€thisÏmotion€was€actually€argued€by€counsel€for€the€co„defendant€onÏbehalf€of€all€defendants.€€It€was€admitted€by€said€counsel€thatÏthe€interpreter€would€have€come€from€the€same€agency.€€The€trialÏjudge€declined€to€appoint€an€interpreter€for€the€defendants€atÏtrial€but€allowed€them€to€obtain€an€interpreter€using€their€ownÏfunds€if€they€so€desired.€€These€funds€were€available€through€theÏoffice€of€the€District€Public€Defender.€€The€trial€judge€notedÏthat€this€particular€interpreter€had€satisfactorily€worked€in€hisÏcourt€on€previous€occasions.Ìà àThe€motion€was€made€on€behalf€of€all€four€defendants€and€wasÏdenied.€Further€objections€were€unnecessary.€€No€more€can€beÏexpected€of€counsel.Ìà àAppellant€submits€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€object€to€theÏuse€of€only€one€interpreter.€€Counsel€moved€to€have€a€secondÏinterpreter€appointed€as€stated€above.€This€motion€has€the€sameÏeffect€as€an€objection€to€a€single€interpreter.€€Obviously,ÏAppellant€is€incorrect€in€his€assertion€and€the€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.Ìà àThe€only€remaining€question€was€whether€the€failure€ofÏcounsel€to€hire€a€second€interpreter€from€funds€available€throughÏthe€office€of€the€District€Public€Defender€constituted€ineffectiveÏrepresentation€of€Appellant.Ìà àLeo€Bearman,€Jr.,esq.€in€his€article€ð ðCompetency€andÏImpeachment€of€Witnessesðð€57€œTenn.L.Rev›.89(1985)€writes€concerningÏthe€use€of€a€second€interpreter:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€attorney€representing€each€party€in€a€caseÏwould€be€prudent€to€have€an€interpreterÏavailable€to€call€the€courtððs€attention€to€anyÏerrors€or€mistranslations€asserted€by€theÏinterpreter€who€is€translating€the€witnessððÏtestimony€for€the€jury.€€By€following€thisÏprocedure,€asserted€discrepancies€can€beÏtimely€presented€to€the€court€for€a€decision.€ÏAnother€alternative€would€be€to€have€theÏoriginal€testimony€recorded€and€make€theÏrecording€part€of€the€official€court€recordÏfor€review.€€With€this€alternative,€however,Ïthe€error€would€only€be€seen€upon€review€andÏnot€in€court€when€the€testimony€is€given.ÌÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ ` œXÓSupra€at€91.Ìà àAlthough€the€learned€Mr.€Bearman€was€obviously€referring€toÏlanguage€interpreters,€the€reasoning€holds€in€the€use€of€deafÏinterpreters€as€well.€€The€practice€of€having€a€second€interpreterÏis€obviously€prudent.׃0××  ×€€The€question€before€us,€however,€is€whetherÏthe€failure€to€have€a€second€interpreter€amounts€to€deficientÏperformance€by€trial€counsel.€€Given€the€facts€of€this€case,€weÏanswer€the€question€in€the€negative.Ìà àIn€considering€claims€of€defective€performance€by€trialÏcounsel,€the€court€must€ð ðaddress€not€what€is€prudent€orÏappropriate,€but€only€what€is€constitutionally€compelledðð.€òòBurgerÏv€Kempóó€483€U.S.€776,794,€107€S.Ct.3114,3126,€97€L.Ed.2d€638Ï(1987).€Ìà àAs€counsel€for€the€co„defendant€stated€in€the€pre„trialÏmotions,€a€second€interpreter€would€have€come€from€the€sameÏfacility€as€the€first.€€Presumably,€their€skills€would€be€veryÏsimilar.€€It€is€unlikely€that€any€discrepancies€in€translationÏwould€have€occurred.Ìà àWe€have€carefully€reviewed€the€record€of€Appellantððs€trialÏand€find€no€indication€that€the€interpreter€did€anything€otherÏthan€accurately€translate€for€the€witness.€€In€the€pre„trialÏmotion€to€suppress,€as€we€have€stated€above,€the€interpreterÏaccurately€translated€the€witnessðð€misidentification€of€the€shirtÏwhich€Appellant€was€wearing,€to€Appellantððs€potential€benefit.€ÏUpon€close€questioning,€the€witness€persisted€in€her€descriptionÏof€the€shirt.€€This€indicates€that€the€interpreter€was€accuratelyÏtranslating€even€that€which€the€interpreter€could€see€to€beÏincorrect.€€During€the€victimððs€testimony€at€trial,€theÏinterpreter€properly€interrupted€the€questioning€of€the€witness€toÏexplain€that€the€word€ð ðthreatðð€did€not€translate€accurately€intoÏsign€language€and€that€the€victim€was€not€indicating€anÏunderstanding€of€the€term.€€In€so€doing,€the€interpreter€preventedÏthe€possibility€of€a€misunderstanding.€€The€performance€of€thisÏinterpreter,€as€shown€in€the€record,€demonstrates€herÏqualifications€and€ability.€€There€is€certainly€no€indication€thatÏa€second€interpreter€would€have€benefited€Appellant€in€any€way.€ToÏfail€to€have€a€second€interpreter€present€simply€for€theÏunexpected€eventuality€that€some€mistranslation€may€possibly€occurÏcannot€be€said€to€be€an€omission€which€would€rise€to€the€level€ofÏa€constitutional€deprivation€of€the€right€to€counsel.Ìà àWe€find€no€deficiency€in€the€manner€in€which€trial€counselÏhandled€the€entire€matter€of€the€interpreter.ÌÌà@ àò òUse€of€Redacted€Statement€at€Trialó óÌà àAppellant€insists€that€the€failure€of€his€trial€counsel€toÏobject€to€the€admission€into€evidence€of€his€redacted€statement€toÏwitness€Robert€Jacobson€constituted€ineffectiveness€of€counsel.€ÏWe€disagree.Ìà àAt€the€hearing€of€the€post„conviction€relief€petition,€bothÏtrial€counsel€and€the€trial€judge€remembered€that€AppellantððsÏtrial€counsel€objected€to€the€statement.€€We€have€unsuccessfullyÏsearched€the€record€for€such€objection.€€Although€we€do€not€doubtÏtrial€counsel€and€the€learned€trial€judge,€if€the€objection€is€notÏcontained€in€the€record€we€must€assume€that€such€objection€wasÏnever€made.Ìà àThe€initial€question€is€whether€the€use€of€the€redactedÏstatement€made€by€Appellant€to€Robert€Jacobson,€a€private€citizen,Ïwas€error.Ìà àThe€vast€majority€of€the€cases€which€deal€with€this€subjectÏanalyze€the€issue€with€respect€to€the€ð ðRule€of€Completenessðð.€ÏThis€rule€is€now€contained€in€Rule€106,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ X ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓWhen€a€writing€or€recorded€statement€or€partÏthereof€is€introduced€by€any€party,€an€adverseÏparty€may€require€the€introduction€at€thatÏtime€of€any€other€part€or€any€other€writing€orÏrecorded€statement€which€ought€in€fairness€toÏbe€considered€contemporaneously€with€it.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ £ ÒÓÓà àSince€Appellantððs€statement€to€Mr.€Jacobson€was€an€oral€oneÏwhich€was€not€recorded,€it€does€not€fall€within€the€rule.€òòðð€106,ÏTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€œ3d›€Ed.€Cohen,€Paine€&€Sheppeard.€€ItÏshould€be€noted€also€that€this€rule€is€one€of€timing€rather€thanÏadmissibility.€€The€remainder€of€the€statement€or€writing€is€to€beÍadmitted€ò òat€the€timeó ó€that€the€portion€is€admitted.€€The€ruleÏassumes€that€the€remaining€portion€of€the€statement€would€beÏultimately€admissible.Ìà àNo€case€that€we€have€found€deals€with€the€admissibility€ofÏtestimony€concerning€a€portion€of€a€statement€which€was€notÏrecorded€or€written.€€It€is€not€necessary€to€address€thatÏdistinction€herein.€€Even€assuming€òòab€arguendoóó€that€oralÏstatements€are€to€be€treated€the€same€as€a€recorded€or€writtenÏstatement€in€this€respect,€there€was€no€error€on€this€issue€inÏAppellantððs€trial.Ìà àIt€is€true€that€when€the€state€introduces€only€part€of€aÏdefendantððs€confession€as€evidence,€the€defendant€is€normallyÏentitled€to€prove€the€whole€of€what€was€said€in€order€for€the€juryÏto€be€able€to€weigh€the€whole€statement.€òòCurry€v€Stateóó€397€S.W.2dÏ179€(Tenn.€1965).€€This€right,€however,€does€not€extend€toÏconfessions€involving€a€non„testifying€co„defendant.€òòState€v€BrettÏPattersonóó€(unreported)€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€at€Nashville€#88„245„III,€opinion€filed€August€8,€1989.€€To€hold€otherwise€would€beÏto€render€impossible€the€use€of€a€redacted€statement€in€jointÏtrials€involving€a€òòBrutonóó€situation.€Supra.Ìà àThis€does€not€end€the€inquiry,€however.€€On€numerousÏinstances€we€have€indicated€a€willingness€to€consider€a€situationÏin€which€the€use€of€a€redacted€confession€unfairly€prejudiced€aÏdefendant.€€See€e.g.€òòState€v.€Runako€Q.€Blair€óó(unreported)€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals€at€Jackson€#€œ02C01›„9411„CR„00249,€opinionÏfiled€November€11,€1995;€òòState€v.€Andre€œLenard›€œHolliday›€et€al.Íóó(unreported)€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€at€Jackson,€Shelby€CountyÏ#28,€opinion€filed€April€15,€1987;€and€òòState€v.€Anthony€D.€DavisÏet€al.óó€(unreported)€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€at€Knoxville€#€954,Ïopinion€filed€November€25,€1986.€€Obviously,€a€statement€cannot€beÏredacted€ð ðin€fairnessðð,€if€to€do€so€alters€its€substance€orÏdeletes€therefrom€substantially€exculpatory€information.€€òòState€v.ÏBlairóó,€supra.€€See€Rule€14(c)(1)(ii),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€Ìà àWe€have€reviewed€the€testimony€concerning€both€the€redactedÏand€œunredacted›€versions€of€Appellantððs€statement€to€Mr.€Jacobson.€ÏThe€œredaction›€cannot€be€viewed€as€deleting€substantiallyÏexculpatory€information.€€The€redacted€statement€implicatesÏAppellant€in€one€crime,€the€unredacted€statement€in€two€crimes.Ìà àAlthough€the€redaction€may€have€altered€the€facts€to€someÏdegree,€the€substance€of€the€statement€remains,€to€wit:€The€victimÏwas€forced€at€gunpoint€by€appellant€to€commit€fellatio.€€WhetherÏit€was€fellatio€upon€appellant€or€some€other€person€is€immaterialÏas€to€whether€appellant€committed€a€crime.€€Appellant€could€onlyÏhave€benefitted€from€the€redaction.€€At€an€individual€trial,€theÏentire€statement€would€have€been€admissible.€€This€would€certainlyÏnot€have€benefitted€the€appellant.€Ìà àThere€was€no€error€in€the€admission€of€this€statement.€€AnÏobjection€thereto€would€have€been€properly€overruled.€€AppellantÏdoes€not€demonstrate€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€thisÏrespect.Ì€€ò òÌÌà@ àFailure€to€Produce€Witnessesó óÌà àAppellant€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€when€sheÏfailed€to€present€Debbie€Jones€as€a€witness€or€to€ask€for€aÏcontinuance€when€she€was€unavailable.€€In€addition,€he€insistsÏthat€counsel€was€ineffective€because€she€failed€to€move€for€aÏcontinuance€when€the€witness€Ricky€Hartsell€was€not€available€toÏtestify€even€though€a€subpoena€had€been€issued€for€him.Ìà àAt€the€hearing€of€the€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÏwitness€Brenda€Grooms€Elliot,€the€mother€of€one€of€the€acquittedÏdefendants,€testified€that€Ricky€Hartsell€was€the€pimp€of€theÏvictim€and€that€he€attempted€to€extort€money€from€her€in€exchangeÏfor€dropping€of€the€charges€by€the€victim.€€She€also€testifiedÏthat€Hartsell€made€the€same€proposition€to€defendant€Wiley€in€theÏwitnessðð€presence.€€Ricky€Hartsell€himself€was€not€called€toÏtestify.Ìà àTrial€counsel€for€appellant€testified€that,€at€the€time€ofÏthe€trial,€a€capias€for€criminal€charges€against€Ricky€HartsellÏhad€been€pending€for€four€or€five€months.€€When€the€trial€beganÏHartsell€continued€to€be€at€large.€€As€luck€would€have€it,ÏHartsell€was€apprehended€ð ðas€the€trial€came€to€a€conclusionðð.Ìà àWe€initially€observe€that€a€request€for€continuance€at€theÏbeginning€of€the€trial€would€have€been€properly€denied.€€TrialÏcounsel€would€have€been€unable€to€demonstrate€that€the€requestedÏwitness€could€have€been€produced€within€a€reasonable€time.€€InÏaddition,€the€trial€judge€astutely€observed€that€all€of€thisÏactivity€by€Hartsell€was€not€connected€to€the€victim.€€There€wasÍno€showing€that€the€victim€knew€anything€about€Hartsellððs€actions.Ìà àProspective€witness€Debbie€Jones€was€the€clerk€at€the€PublixÏstation€at€which€some€of€the€activities€of€the€night€of€the€crimeÏoccurred.€€She€supposedly€observed€the€victim€sitting€alone€andÏð ðunattendedðð€in€a€car€in€the€parking€lot€for€about€forty„fiveÏminutes.Ìà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing€trial€counsel€testified€thatÏshe€had€been€unable€to€determine€the€witnessðð€whereabouts€or€evenÏher€last€name€in€spite€of€investigation.€€Counsel€determined€thatÏthe€witness€had€moved€to€Morristown€but€could€not€find€herÏlocation.€€Ìà àObviously,€to€issue€a€subpoena€without€a€last€name€would€haveÏbeen€an€exercise€in€futility.€€A€request€for€continuance€wouldÏhave€been€properly€denied.€€Counsel€could€not€have€demonstratedÏthat€the€witness€could€have€been€found€within€a€reasonable€time.Ìà àIn€short,€appellant€has€demonstrated€no€ineffectiveness€ofÏcounsel€with€respect€to€these€witnesses.Ìà àThe€determinative€issue€in€this€respect,€however,€is€the€factÏthat€neither€witness€was€produced€to€testify€at€the€hearing€of€theÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.Ìà à€To€succeed€on€his€claim,€the€appellant€must€establish€thatÏhe€was€prejudiced€by€counsel's€failure€to€subpoena€the€witnesses.ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674,€104€S.ÏCt.€2052€(1984).€To€establish€prejudice,€he€must:€(1)€produce€theÏwitness€at€his€post„conviction€hearing;€(2)€show€that€throughÏreasonable€investigation,€trial€counsel€could€have€located€theÍwitness;€and€(3)€elicit€both€favorable€and€material€testimony€fromÏthe€witness.€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990).€Ìà àThe€appellant€failed€to€produce€either€witness€at€hisÏpost„conviction€hearing.€He€is,€therefore,€unable€to€establishÏthat€he€suffered€prejudice€by€counsel's€failure€to€subpoena€thoseÏwitnesses.€Even€if€trial€counselððs€performance€had€been€deficientÏ(which€it€was€not),€the€appellant€has€failed€to€establish€that€heÏwas€prejudiced€thereby.€€For€this€reason€alone,€the€appellantÏcannot€prevail€in€his€claim€of€ineffective€counsel.€òòJones€v.ÏStateóó,€915€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€The€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€ÌÌà@ àò òFailure€to€Present€Evidenceó óÌà àAppellant€submits€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏbecause€she€failed€to€obtain€a€certified€copy€of€the€preliminaryÏhearing€transcript€for€use€at€the€trial.€€The€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€the€brief€are€both€silent€as€to€why€thisÏalleged€failure€of€trial€counsel€prejudiced€appellant.Ìà à€He€further€insists€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏbecause€she€failed€to€inquire€at€trial€about€the€loss€by€theÏofficer€of€his€notes€of€the€description€given€by€the€victim€to€theÏofficer€and€the€photographic€line„up€made€before€the€preliminaryÏhearing.€€Appellant€has€not€stated€in€his€brief€how€theÏintroduction€of€the€photographic€line„up€would€have€benefittedÏhim.€€He€has€failed€to€demonstrate€how€this€alleged€error€by€trialÍcounsel€would€have€influenced€the€outcome€of€the€case.Ìà àLikewise,€appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€the€prejudice€Ïof€failing€to€present€to€the€jury€the€fact€that€Officer€CaldwellÏhad€lost€his€notes€concerning€the€initial€description€of€appellantÏgiven€to€him€by€the€victim.Ìà àAppellant€has€the€burden€of€showing€that€there€is€aÏreasonable€probability€that€but€for€counsel's€error€the€result€ofÏthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€supra.€ÏHe€has€utterly€failed€in€this€regard.€€Other€than€the€bare€factsÏof€the€occurrence,€appellant€has€advanced€no€argument€concerningÏhow€these€imagined€deficiencies€by€trial€counsel€inured€to€hisÏdetriment.€€No€authority€has€been€cited€in€support€of€appellantððsÏposition.€€The€issue€is€waived.€Rule€10(b),€òòRules€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals.ÌóóÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌà àThe€trial€court€dismissed€appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€finding€that€he€had€not€carried€the€burden€ofÏproving€that€the€performance€of€trial€counsel€was€deficient.ÌOn€appeal,€appellant€has€failed€to€establish€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€so€holding.€€In€his€order€of€dismissal,€the€learned€trialÏjudge€found€that€trial€counselððs€performance€ð ðfar€exceeded€theÏstandards€set€forth€in€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó€and€related€casesðð.€€WeÏagree.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€E.€Burch,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSpecial€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÔ€¼ÔCONCUR:ó óÔ€XÔÌÌÌÌ_________________________Ì€Gary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ_________________________Ì€Joseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÓÓÌÌÌ