ÿWPC! …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ U, 0d= U,¡ U*Í B)÷ DC  AMcë° B›v~¸vÓ6 D3  0@< AO|ÆË 0D‘ D/Õ B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ‘’D“”U•e– U—˜Ó€¤»{s 3|x¦2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ áÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òAugust€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑœIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|2` ¤ `€€Lß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓRONALD€HORACE€FREEMAN,€JR.,à à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„C„01„9510„CC„00300Ìà àà àAPPELLANT,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHenry€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJulian€P.€Guinn,€JudgeÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction€Relief)Ìà àà àAPPELLEE.€à àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌVictoria€L.€DiBonaventuraà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ209€West€Wood€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌParis,€TN€38242à àà àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àG.€Robert€RadfordÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TN€38344„0686ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àVicki€S.€œSnyderÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTodd€Rose€›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€œAttorneys›€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TN€38344„0686ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÑ7€¿•XXdæXXdæ7ÑØØÙ  Ùò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€petitioner,€Ronald€Horace€Freeman,€Jr.,€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€dismissing€his€suit€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏthe€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€guaranteed€by€the€UnitedÏStates€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€In€this€Court,€the€petitioner€contends€that€he€wasÏnot€afforded€his€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€becauseÏtrial€counsel€failed€to€request€a€jury€instruction€regarding€testimony€of€an€accomplice.€ÏAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€the€law€controllingÏthe€issue€presented€for€review,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€should€be€affirmed.Ìà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€burglary,€a€Class€D€felony,€theft€of€property,€aÏClass€A€misdemeanor,€and€public€intoxication,€a€Class€C€misdemeanor,€by€a€jury€ofÏhis€peers.€€Petitioner€burglarized€the€Sulfur€Wells€Church€of€Christ€and€stole€aÏkeyboard.€€Brian€Chadwick€Clayton,€the€son€of€one€of€the€police€investigators€in€thisÏcase,€testified€against€the€petitioner€at€trial.€€When€Mr.€Clayton€testified,€he€had€beenÏcharged€with€the€same€burglary.€€The€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€did€not€request€a€juryÏinstruction€regarding€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice.€€The€trial€court€did€not€includeÍsuch€an€instruction€in€the€charge€given€to€the€jury.Ìà àIt€is€an€elementary€principle€of€law€that€an€accused€cannot€be€convicted€of€aÏfelony€on€the€uncorroborated€testimony€of€an€accomplice.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2dÏ797,€803€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€òò€€€€óóÏU.S.€òò€€€€óó,€113€S.Ct.€1368,€122€L.Ed.2d€746€(1993);€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908,Ï913€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031,€110€S.Ct.€3291,€111€L.Ed.2d€800Ï(1990);€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2d€36,€47„48€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626,€643€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€ÏHowever,€this€issue€is€not€cognizable€in€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòPhillipÏGene€Debord€v.€Stateóó,€Knox€County€No.€03„C„01„9408„CR„00288€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€February€8,€1995),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).€€While€petitioner€doesÏproperly€phrase€his€post„conviction€issue€in€terms€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,Ïhe€does€not€argue€the€issue€as€such.€€The€petitioner€does€not€cite€the€properÏconstitutional€standard€for€determining€whether€an€accused€has€been€denied€hisÏconstitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Likewise,€he€does€notÏillustrate€how€this€standard€is€met€by€his€allegations€that€trial€counsel€did€not€requestÏand€the€trial€court€did€not€give€an€instruction€on€the€testimony€of€an€accomplice.Ìà àWhere,€as€here,€the€petitioner€seeks€to€vitiate€a€conviction€on€the€ground€thatÏthe€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€his€representation,€the€petitioner€must€establish€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€(a)€the€services€rendered€or€advice€given€by€counselÏfell€below€ð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases,ðð€òòBaxterÏv.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€and€(b)€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probabilityÏthat,€but€for€counsel's€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€haveÏbeen€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermineÍconfidence€in€the€outcome."€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694,€104€S.€Ct.Ï2052,€2068,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674,€698€(1984).€€€In€determining€whether€an€accused€hasÏbeen€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€an€appellateÏcourt€is€bound€by€certain€well„established€standards.€€First,€the€Constitution€does€notÏrequire€perfect€representation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€ÏSecond,€it€is€not€this€Courtððs€function€to€ð ðsecond€guessðð€trial€counselððs€tactical€andÏstrategic€choices€pertaining€to€matters€of€defense€unless€these€choices€are€madeÏwithout€knowledge€of€the€relevant€facts€or€the€law€applicable€to€the€issue.€€òòHellardóó,€629ÏS.W.2d€at€9;€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€490€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1984);€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€193€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1983).€€As€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€said€in€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó:€ð ðA€fair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requires€that€every€effort€beÏmade€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€ofÏcounselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððs€perspectiveÏat€the€time.ðð€€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065,€80€L.Ed.2d€at€694.€€Third,€an€accusedÏis€not€deprived€of€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€because€a€different€procedure€orÏstrategy€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,Ï279„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1980);€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€510€S.W.2dÏ83,€88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1974).Ìà àIn€the€present€case,€the€decision€not€to€ask€for€an€accomplice€instruction€was€aÏtactical€decision.€€The€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€elaborated€on€his€decision€not€to€ask€forÏthe€instruction:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€did€not€request€an€instruction€for€an€accomplice€juryÏinstruction€to€the€jury€for€[the]€simple€fact€I€tried€to€distanceÏMr.€Freeman€from€Mr.€Clayton.€€Mr.€Clayton€was€chargedÍwith€the€same€crime€some€two€months€after€Mr.€FreemanÏwas€charged.€€Mr.€Chad€Clayton€was€the€son€of€the€criminalÏinvestigator€for€the€sheriffððs€department€at€that€time.€€IÏquestioned€the€police€officers€at€the€preliminary€hearingÏand€at€the€trial€concerning€that€fact€and€tried€to€give€the€juryÏsomebody€else€that€was€responsible€for€this€crime€otherÏthan€Mr.€Freeman.€€So€no,€I€did€not€want€an€accompliceÏinstruction€made€to€those€folks.€.€.€.€€With€Mr.€Freeman€notÏtaking€the€stand,€thatððs€pretty€much€[the€only€defense]€I€had.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€this€was€a€valid€trial€strategy.€€If€the€instructionÏhad€been€requested€and€the€jury€found€Mr.€Clayton€to€be€an€accomplice,€it€would€haveÏcommitted€the€jury€to€finding€that€the€petitioner€participated€in€the€crime.€€On€the€otherÏhand,€this€strategy€allowed€trial€counsel€to€argue€that€Mr.€Clayton€was€the€only€oneÏinvolved€in€the€burglary€and€that€he€implicated€the€petitioner€in€order€to€help€his€ownÏcause.€€In€other€words,€the€petitioner€was€not€an€ð ðaccompliceðð€because€he€was€simplyÏnot€involved.€€€While€this€tactic€was€obviously€not€effective,€it€was€neverthelessÏreasonable.€€This€Court€may€not€second„guess€a€sound€tactical€decision€made€by€trialÏcounsel,€even€if€a€different€decision€would€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.ÏMatsonóó,€729€S.W.2d€281,€282€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987);ÏòòTolliver€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€913,€914„15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1982).€€Additionally,€if€the€trial€court€had€given€the€accomplice€instruction,€thereÏwas€clearly€sufficient€corroborating€evidence€to€support€a€conviction.€€The€stolenÏproperty€was€seen€in€the€appellantððs€car€and€was€later€found€in€the€appellantððsÏresidence.€€Ìà àPetitioner€has€also€failed€to€show€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€heÏwas€prejudiced€by€the€conduct€of€his€trial€counsel.€€The€trial€court€made€the€followingÏfinding€in€his€order€denying€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief:€ð ð[A]€review€of€the€trialÍtranscript€does€not€establish€[Mr.€Clayton]€as€an€accomplice.ðð€€Even€if€the€trial€judgeÏhad€given€the€accomplice€instruction€in€this€case,€it€does€not€appear€likely€that€the€juryÏwould€have€made€a€different€decision.€€Moreover,€this€Court€has€previouslyÏdetermined€that€the€evidence€adduced€during€the€trial€was€sufficient€to€sustain€hisÏconvictions.€€òòState€v.€Ronald€Horace€Freeman,€Jr.óó,€Henry€County€No.€02„C„01„9208„CC„00194€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€June€23,€1993),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ìà àThe€petitioner€failed€to€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€hadÏcounsel€requested€the€accomplice€instruction,€the€jury€would€have€found€the€evidenceÏinsufficient€to€prove€him€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ìà àGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€WILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE