ÿWPC_ jX\áÃf½ÑD.€¨w×8†ÛêR,L0â ævž(JEãìùÂŒ×V÷|øµ@¨gwÎ0ëIq:¼‚ë"ÜÛ´GNÏ _Õ³ŠyC°8ü¬ycª{ð™zM%¿Â×#%:?ˆ$wÐ@½¿Qb)™9–é:‰é÷²< N/‘“ÓåXÖñIÓ?ÔT«I:•V.O²Ï¤øÔ½KUUû/´*[2€ Zö ±¼¡õ±º ˆÐÈ)šfæQÄ%ïã;ÿníZ0NÀ»{ìÌÁ±–ÇìP( Þ,•O0"À!U ÞQ¶-„ôk  Ìï6·C ‰ÒוÁ®èU¹èf Òq>^¦œX%Å)GhlnØšO]Ç€?é쬸{ú³IÕÈÙ7cßñÿoþ>L SF¢!MvlÉÊÚxý殩ž¢K}ZX* –å ‰ð~7T")Éj–…UBF %ˆ U.Ž ¼ nXÌ 0P$ 4t ˆ 0Ò 0cb w@Å U: U:? U:y Ƴ ÆyÆ?ÆÆË 0K‘æÜU: Aü 0l™™™ D+ B000000 D3MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM AO€€€ 0DÏ D/ BB<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓuM%(‚(2Èç$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ô½ÔôXXÔÔ€ô4•ôôô½ÔÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ˆ$Ô€ X<=XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó o£pqUrDstuDvewDxÓ€g"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó ÜÔ€X!lXXXÔÔ€¾B XX!lÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X!lX ¾BÔÐ  ÐÌMarch€17,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular # I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(D3u$££Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd d$$$$'ÿÿdxd ‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñvñ›ñvññvñ›ñvñÑ` °ÑÑX°ÑÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€Xé XXXÔÑ7€ é  XXdðdÈ7Ññxñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eêf ` 8ttxP"` ð  rß›ñxñà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌà@uu:MàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÓ  Óà@””6MàJANUARY€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òLARRY€E.€DAVIS,à X àà ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)ó óà ¸ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9803„CR„00119ó óÐ À`  Ðà ¨ àà àAppellant,à ° àò ò€€€€€à  àà ` à)Ð °P  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àDAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHON.€J.€RANDALL€WYATT,€JR.,Ð €  ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àJUDGEÐ p Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó€ò òÐ ` Ðà ¨ àà àó óAppellee.ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó(Post„Conviction)ò òÐ Pð Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ° àà  àà ` à€€€€€òòà ¸ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ ° ÐÌÌò òLARRY€B.€HOOVERà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ à€ Ðó ó500€Church€St.,€Suite€500à ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ Ð p ÐNashville,€TN€37219Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àKIM€R.€HELPERó óÐ °"P Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌò òà ¨ àà àó óà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Sevier€Bldg.Ð $0 Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€Northà ! àà p# à€€€€€€Ð €%  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà ¨ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIó óÐ P(ð! Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àNICHOLAS€D.€BAILEYó óÐ  +À!$ Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€District€Attorney€Generalà p# àÐ ,°"% Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à222€Second€Ave.,€NorthÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àSuite€500Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ `6-0 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ 09Ð/3 ÐJudgeÌÐ  ;°15 ÐÑXÑñoñÓ  Óñoñà@™™:Màò òòòÔ‡¼7K¼XXé ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†Xé X¼¼7K!#ԈР`  ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà ¨ àà àIn€1993,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape,€aggravatedÏassault,€aggravated€burglary,€and€aggravated€robbery.€€This€Court€affirmed€theÏpetitionerððs€convictions€and€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gregory€Lamont€Turneróó,€No.€01C01„Ð ¦ Ð9402„CR„00068,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€November€15,€1995,€atÏNashville).€€Nine€months€later,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ïalleging€òòinter€aliaóó€that€his€trial€counsel€rendered€ineffective€assistance€and€that€the€StateÐ ¦F  Ðviolated€his€due€process€by€withholding€exculpatory€evidence.€€After€an€evidentiaryÏhearing,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€the€petitioner€relief.€€We€affirm€the€post„¼conviction€courtððs€order.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€offenses€underlying€the€petitionerððs€convictions€occurred€at€the€victimððsÏhouse.€€òòSeeóó€òòTurneróó,€No.€01C01„9402„CR„00068.€€According€to€the€trial€evidence,€theÐ æ!† Ðpetitioner€and€his€three€co„defendants€forced€their€way€into€the€victimððs€home.€€Each€ofÏthe€defendants€searched€and€ransacked€her€home,€repeatedly€struck€her,€and€demandedÏmoney€from€her.€€They€wielded€a€gun,€passing€it€among€themselves€and€holding€it€to€herÏhead€numerous€times.€€The€petitioner€and€two€of€his€co„defendants€repeatedly€raped€her,Ïand€when€they€left,€a€word€processor€and€a€television€were€missing€from€her€home.€€EvenÏthough€the€victim€did€not€positively€identify€the€petitioner€prior€to€trial,€she€positivelyÏidentified€him€during€trial€as€a€participant€in€the€crimes€committed€against€her.€€DNAÏevidence€linked€the€petitionerððs€co„defendants€to€the€crime€scene,€but€the€petitionerððsÏDNA€test€results€were€inconclusive.€€Moreover,€his€fingerprints€were€not€found€in€theÏvictimððs€home.€€ÌÐ †6&-0 Ðà ¨ àà àThe€defenseððs€trial€theory€was€one€of€misidentification.€€A€man€named€LarryÐ †6&-2 ÐBeddingfield€was€charged€in€a€separate€rape€case€with€one€of€the€petitionerððs€co„¼defendants€in€the€instant€case.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitionerððs€trialÏcounsel,€George€Duzane,€testified€that€he€could€not€recall€when€he€first€heard€the€nameÏð ðLarry€Beddingfield,ðð€although€he€indicated€it€might€have€been€prior€to€trial.€€He€alsoÏrecalled€cross„examining€a€police€officer€during€trial€about€what€was€done€to€investigateÏBeddingfield€as€a€suspect€in€the€instant€case.€€Mr.€Duzane€testified€he€did€not€pursue€theÏmatter€further€because€the€petitioner€had€told€him€he€had€been€at€the€crime€scene€withÏhis€three€co„defendants€and€had€watched€and€had€even€begun€to€participate€in€theÏvictimððs€rape,€but€stopped€short€of€actually€penetrating€the€victim.€€Shortly€after€his€arrest,Ïthe€petitioner€had€given€a€similar€statement,€which€was€videotaped,€to€the€police,€exceptÏhe€omitted€the€details€regarding€his€desire€to€participate€in€the€victimððs€rape.ÌÌà ¨ àà àKnowing€this,€and€knowing€that€the€State€knew€this,€Mr.€Duzane€testified€heÏcould€not€in€good€faith€argue€that€the€petitioner€had€not€been€at€the€crime€scene€and€thatÏBeddingfield€had€been€there€instead.€€Mr.€Duzane€also€testified€that€his€only€alternative,Ïthen,€was€to€have€argued€that€Beddingfield€ñvñœñvññrñwasñrññtñand€the€petitioner€ñtññsñhad€both€beenñsññvñ›ñvññvññvñ€at€the€crimeÏñvñœñvñsceneñuñ€ñuññvñ›ñvññvññvññvñœñvññuñas›€well›€as›€the›€petitionerñuñ,ñvñ›ñvññvññvñ€but€he€had€concluded€that€the€petitioner€would€not€have€benefitted€from€himÏarguing€that€five€people„„„the€petitioner,€his€three€co„defendants,€and€Beddingfield„„„hadÏbeen€at€the€crime€scene€instead€of€only€four,€as€the€victim€had€testified.€€Moreover,€Mr.ÏDuzane€testified€that€he€was€concerned€the€petitioner€would€be€found€guilty€as€an€aiderÏand€abettor€or€as€a€co„conspirator€if€it€was€revealed€that€the€petitioner€was€at€the€crimeÏscene€but€did€nothing€to€prevent€the€crime.€€In€order€to€prevent€his€videotaped€statementÏto€the€police€from€being€introduced€into€evidence€against€him,€the€petitioner€decided€notÏto€testify€at€trial.€ÌÌà ¨ àà àFurther,€Mr.€Duzane€testified€that€he€likely€met€with€the€petitioner€twice€atÐ L6ì,2 Ðthe€jail€and€every€time€he€came€to€court€in€order€to€discuss€the€issues,€update€him€on€theÏcase,€and€advise€him€what€the€other€co„defendants€were€doing€in€the€case.€€He€testifiedÏhe€frequently€spoke€with€the€petitioner€and€the€petitionerððs€mother€on€the€telephone.€€AÏtime€sheet€reflecting€almost€83€hours€of€work€spent€in€connection€with€the€case€wasÏentered€into€evidence,€and€Mr.€Duzane€testified€that€the€time€sheet€did€not€reflect€all€ofÏhis€work€on€the€case€nor€any€of€the€work€his€law€clerk€completed.€€The€petitioner€admittedÏMr.€Duzane€met€with€him€five€or€six€times€and€that€he€was€updated€on€his€case€duringÏthose€meetings.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€petitioner€first€argues€that€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€because€Mr.€Duzane€failed€to€adequately€advise€him€about€his€case€and€meetÏwith€him€prior€to€trial.€€Ô‡ XÏ~XXXÏ~ÔIn€reviewing€a€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ $Ä Ðcounsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€rendered€by€theÏattorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€ÏòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€In€order€to€prevail‚,€a€petitioner€ð ðmustÐ ˆ"( Ðshow€that€counselððs€representa‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ablenessððÏand€that€this€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonableÏprobability€that€but€for€coun‚selððs€error,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€beenÏdifferent.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.Ð ¸)X $ ÐStateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).Ð „+$"& ÐÔ#†XÏ~XX XÏ~$#ÔÌà ¨ àà àAccording€to€the€petitioner,€Mr.€Duzaneððs€failure€to€meet€with€him€moreÏfrequently€made€it€ð ðimpossibleðð€for€him€ð ðto€assist€in€the€preparation€of€his€trial.ðð€€EvenÏassuming€this€was€true,€the€petitioner€has€not€shown€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€but€forÏMr.€Duzaneððs€actions,€the€outcome€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different.€€Thus,€theÏpetitionerððs€ineffective€assistance€claim€must€fail.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687„88,Ð L6ì,2 Ð692,€694€(1984);€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.Ð `  ÐÌà ¨ àà àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€because€Mr.€Duzane€failed€to€adequately€investigate€and€prepare€for€trial.€ÏAccording€to€the€petitioner,€Mr.€Duzane€should€have€more€fully€investigated€the€theoryÏthat€Larry€Beddingfield€was€involved€in€the€instant€case€because€he€was€charged€in€aÏseparate€rape€case€with€one€of€the€petitionerððs€co„defendants€in€the€instant€case.€€TheÏpetitioner€claims€that€if€Mr.€Duzane€would€have€ð ðraised€the€issue€of€Larry€BeddingfieldÏbeing€a€co„defendant€with€one€of€the€Petitionerððs€co„defendants€in€the€instant€case,€itÏwould€have€certainly€required€at€least€a€partial€severance€of€this€matter.ððÌÌà ¨ àà àAlthough€it€is€a€little€unclear,€it€seems€the€petitioner€is€arguing,€at€least€inÏpart,€that€Mr.€Duzane€should€have€pursued€the€theory€that€the€petitioner€had€beenÏconfused€with€a€man€named€Larry€Beddingfield€and€that€Beddingfield,€not€the€petitioner,Ïactually€committed€the€crimes€at€issue.€€The€post„conviction€court€specifically€found€thatÏMr.€Duzane€ð ðperformed€well€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€criminalÏdefense€attorneys€in€his€handling€of€this€particular€case.ðð€€The€petitioner€has€notÏovercome€this€factual€finding€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,Ð ì'Œ" Ð666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Even€assuming€that€Mr.€Duzaneððs€actionsÏcan€be€faulted,€the€petitioner€is€still€not€entitled€to€relief€because€he€has€not€shown€aÏreasonable€likelihood€that€but€for€Mr.€Duzaneððs€actions,€the€result€of€his€trial€would€haveÏbeen€different.€€According€to€the€evidence€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€theÏpetitioner€had€told€police€he€had€been€at€the€scene€of€the€crime,€and€at€trial,€the€victimÏidentified€the€petitioner€as€one€of€the€men€who€entered€her€house,€destroyed€herÏbelongings,€held€a€gun€to€her€head,€and€raped€her.€€As€Mr.€Duzane€stated,€we€fail€toÏappreciate€what€benefit€could€have€been€derived€from€arguing€that€five€people€rather€thanÐ L6ì,2 Ðfour€were€present€at€the€crime€scene.€€Accordingly,€the€petitionerððs€argument€must€fail.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€petitioner€does€not€explain€why€he€believes€at€least€a€partial€severanceÏwould€have€been€required€if€Mr.€Duzane€had€argued€that€Beddingfield€participated€in€theÏcrimes.€€The€record€is€clear,€however,€that€a€severance€would€have€carried€severalÏdisadvantages.€€Mr.€Duzane€testified€that€had€the€petitionerððs€case€been€severed,€his€co„¼defendants,€whose€statements€all€implicated€the€petitionerððs€involvement€in€the€crimes,Ïwould€have€likely€testified€and€other€incriminating€evidence€to€which€the€State€had€accessÏwould€have€likely€been€admitted€into€evidence€against€him.€€Thus,€Mr.€Duzane€agreed,Ïjoinder€of€the€case€gave€the€petitioner€the€opportunity€to€pursue€the€misidentificationÏdefense€theory,€which€would€not€have€been€possible€with€a€severance.€€Because€thisÏCourt€will€not€second„guess€tactical€choices€unless€those€choices€were€uninformedÏbecause€of€inadequate€preparation,€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982),€andÐ ð Ðbecause€the€petitioner€has€not€shown€ñvñœñvñthñmñeñmññoñ›ñoññnñatñnññvñ›ñvññvññvñ€Mr.€Duzaneððs€choice€of€defense€strategy€wasÏuninformed,€the€petitionerððs€argument€fails.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€theÏStateððs€failure€to€disclose€information€concerning€Beddingfield€violated€his€due€processÏright€to€exculpatory€evidence€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€€In€order€toÐ ¸)X $ Ðestablish€a€due€process€violation€under€Brady,€the€State€must€have€suppressed€materialÏinformation€that€was€favorable€to€the€accused.€€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€390Ð P-ð#( Ð(Tenn.€1995)(as€amended€on€rehearing).€€Additionally,€the€defendant€must€haveÏrequested€the€information,€unless€the€information€was€obviously€exculpatory,€in€whichÏcase€the€State€is€bound€to€release€the€information€regardless€of€whether€the€defendantÏrequested€it.€€òòId.óóÐ €4 +0 ÐÐ L6ì,2 Ðà ¨ àà àHere,€Mr.€Duzane€testified€that€he€could€not€recall€when€he€first€heardÏBeddingfieldððs€name,€but€he€indicated€it€might€have€been€prior€to€trial.€€He€also€testifiedÏthat€he€did€not€believe€that€the€information€concerning€Beddingfield€was€exculpatory€inÏlight€of€the€fact€that€the€petitioner€had€admitted€being€at€the€crime€scene.€€The€post„¼conviction€court€found€that€the€State€did€not€suppress€any€information€concerningÏBeddingfieldñwñ,ñwñ€and€that€even€if€it€had,€the€petitioner€ð ðwould€not€have€been€prejudiced€by€anyÏlate€disclosure€of€the€challenged€information€at€trial.ðð€€The€post„conviction€court€furtherÏfound€that€ð ðbased€on€the€particular€facts€of€this€case€.€.€.€the€Beddingfield€information€wasÏnot€necessarily€favorable€to€the€petitioner€or€material€to€his€defense.ðð€€The€petitioner€hasÏnot€overcome€these€findings,€which€are€fully€supported€by€the€record.€€Accordingly,€theÏpetitionerððs€argument€must€fail.€òòSeeóó€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€389;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBufordóó,€666Ð Xø ÐS.W.2d€at€475€(factual€findings€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€overcome€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence).ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€sum,€the€petitioner€has€not€shown€entitlement€to€post„conviction€relief.€ÏAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€order€denying€his€petition.ÌÔ‡ XÏ~XXXÏ~ÔÌñpñÓÓñpñÌñvñœñvññpñÓÓñpññvñ›ñvñà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à_______________________________Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌñvñœñvññqñÌÌñqñCONCUR:ñvñ›ñvñÌÌÔ#†XÏ~XX XÏ~ˆ?#ÔÔ‡ XÏ~XXXÏ~ÔÌÌ______________________________ÌñvñœñvñJERRY€L.€SMITHÔ#†XÏ~XX XÏ~"A#ÔÔ‡ XÏ~XXXÏ~Ô,ñvñ›ñvñ€JudgeÐ Î1n(- ÐÌÌÌ______________________________ÌÔ#†XÏ~XX XÏ~žA#ÔÔ‡ XÏ~XXXÏ~ÔTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÔ#†XÏ~XX XÏ~)B#Ô