ÿWPC! …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0lP 0D¼ 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh U,Ý 0d U,mU>™U*×B)DC* AMm,º D3æ Bµ6 0@ëv~+vÓ© AO|ÆË 0D‘ D/Õ B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- \]D^_`DabDcdDeÓ€ypÑ 3|xp((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJune€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó++++'ÿÿdxd d «Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÔ€%Ô€òòState€v.€Thomas€Eugene€GrahamóóÔ€$Ô,€No.€03C01„9112„CR„00391,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€à0 àApp.,ÏKnoxville,€filed€June€22,€1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€filed€Oct.€4,€1993).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€$ŠÔÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€FXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|` Å `€€Lß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœAPRIL›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœTHOMAS€EUGENE€GRAHAM,)›à àC.C.A.€NO.Ïœ03C01„9506„CR„00181›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àœAppellant,›à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHAMILTON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œSTEPHEN€M.€BEVILó ó›Ìò òœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœAppellee.›à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Post„Conviction)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œHAMILTON€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœRANDALL€L.€RUSSELL›à àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌSuite€300,€Flatiron€Buildingà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ707€Georgia€AvenueÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0495ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGARY€D.€GERBITZÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àREBECCA€STERN€andÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBARRY€A.€STEELMANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHamilton€County„Chattanooga€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCourts€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€%°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€%ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Petitioner,€Thomas€Eugene€Graham,€brings€this€appeal€as€of€rightÏpursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€TheÏDefendant€œfiled›€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel.€€After€conducting€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€relief.€ÏWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€was€convicted€by€jury€verdict€of€aggravated€kidnapping,Ïaggravated€rape,€and€aggravated€burglary,€and€he€was€sentenced€as€aÏRange€I€standard€offender€to€concurrent€terms€of€twenty„five€years€for€each€ofÏthe€first€two€convictions€and€six€years€for€the€aggravated€œburglary.›€€This€courtÏupheld€his€œconviction,€but›€reduced€the€length€of€the€sentence€for€aggravatedÏkidnapping€from€twenty„five€years€to€twelve€œyears.× ƒ, ××  ×›€€The€Tennessee€œSupreme›ÏCourt€denied€his€application€for€permission€to€œappeal.›€€œThe›€Petitioner€thenÏsought€post„conviction€relief,€arguing€that€his€constitutional€right€to€counsel€wasÏviolated€by€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà àAfter€conducting€an€evidentiary€œhearing,›€the€trial€court€rejected€theÏPetitionerððs€post„conviction€petition.€€The€Petitioner€now€brings€this€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€was€convicted€of€aggravated€burglary,€and€the€aggravatedÏkidnapping€and€aggravated€rape€of€a€six„year„old€girl.€€Attorney€Paul€BergmannÏof€the€Hamilton€County€Public€Defenders€Office€was€appointed€by€the€Court€toÏrepresent€the€œDefendant.€€Bergmann€served€as€the€Petitionerððs€attorney€duringÏthe€pre„trial€and€trial€proceedings€and€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.›ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€raised€several€issues€in€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ïincluding:€(1)€That€the€trial€court€denied€him€a€fair€trial€by€refusing€to€allow€him€toÏpresent€evidence€that€someone€other€than€the€Petitioner€committed€the€crime;€(2)Ïthat€the€trial€court€denied€him€a€fair€trial€in€that€it€charged€the€jury€on€ranges€ofÏpunishment€for€each€œoffense€with›€which€œthe€Petitioner›€was€charged;€(3)€that€theÏtrial€court€was€biased€against€him€œand€let›€the€attorneys€œput›€the€plea€offer€on€theÏrecord;€(4)€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€œby›€not€calling€three€relevantÏwitnesses,€by€failing€to€suppress€two€doctorððs€reports,€by€not€objecting€to€theÏadmissibility€of€certain€evidence,€by€not€objecting€to€a€witness€for€the€StateÏtestifying€without€being€under€oath,€œby›€failing€to€discuss€with€Petitioner€allÏpossible€œdefenses€and€strategies,›€by€failing€to€explore€settlement€possibilities,Íby€refusing€to€allow€the€Petitioner€to€testify€in€his€own€behalf,€and€by€not€callingÏa€crucial€witness€in€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€each€of€the€Petitionerððs€complaints€to€be€without€merit.€ÏœAfter€listening€to€their€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€he›€further€found€thatÏthe€testimony€of€the€Petitioner€and€the€witnesses€that€the€Petitioner€wanted€toÏcall€at€trial€to€be€lacking€in€reliability€and€credibility.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏPetitioner€failed€to€show€that€his€trial€counsel€was€deficient€€or€that€he€renderedÏservice€or€advice€œbelow›€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.€€ÌÌà àœOn€this€appeal,›€the€Petitioner€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissingÏhis€petition€and€asserts€that€his€trial€attorney€rendered€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€œby›€failing€to€interview€and€call€œdefense›€œwitnesses€to€testify,›€œby›€refusingÏto€allow€the€Petitioner€to€testify€in€his€defense,€œby›€not€properly€advising€theÏPetitioner€œconcerning›€trial€strategy€and€defenses,€and€œby›€not€assisting€theÏPetitioner€in€deciding€whether€to€accept€the€Stateððs€plea€offer.€€€ÌœÌ›à àœThe›€test€to€determine€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€atÏtrial€œis€whether€his€›performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demandedÏof€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€ÍUnder€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267Ï(1984),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€set€forth€a€two„prong€test€whichÏplaces€the€burden€on€the€appellant€to€show€that€(1)€the€representation€wasÏdeficient,€requiring€a€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€he€wasÏnot€functioning€as€ð ðcounselðð€as€guaranteed€a€defendant€by€the€SixthÏAmendment,€and€(2)€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€the€defense€to€theÏpoint€of€depriving€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial€with€a€reliable€result.€€466€U.S.€atÏ687.€€To€succeed€on€his€claim,€the€appellant€must€show€that€there€is€aÏð ðreasonable€probability,ðð€which€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidenceÏin€the€outcome€that,€but€for€the€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€results€of€theÏproceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòId.óó€at€694.€€The€burden€rests€on€theÏappellant€to€prove€his€allegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòLong€v.ÏStateóó,€510€S.W.2d€83,€86€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€We€also€do€not€use€theÏbenefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€œstrategy›€by€counsel€and€criticizeÏcounselððs€tactics.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€asserts€that€he€told€his€attorney€of€several€relevantÏwitnesses,€including€a€friend,€Nancy€Farris;€Farrisððs€mother,€Frances€Snyder;€anÏalibi€witness€by€the€name€of€ð ðJayðð;€a€neighbor€by€the€name€of€ð ðBadmanðð€orÏð ðBatmanðð;€and€the€Petitionerððs€mother,€€Shirley€Teets.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€Nancy€Farris€testified€that€the€attorney€neverÏœinterviewed›€œher€to€see€if€she€had€pertinent€information.›€œ€If›€she€had€been€called€atÏtrial,€she€said€that€she€would€have€testified€that€the€victimððs€grandparents€andÏaunt€were€so€angry€with€the€Petitioner€that€they€would€have€lied€about€his€guilt.€ÏœHowever,€attorney›€Bergman€testified€that€he€had€talked€with€Farris€by€telephoneÏon€numerous€occasions€and€decided€that,€despite€the€Petitionerððs€assertions,Ïshe€was€not€a€material€witness.ÌÌà àBergman€also€testified€at€the€sentencing€hearing€that€he€interviewed€theÏPetitionerððs€mother€and€the€man€called€ð ðBadman,ðð€and€also€determined€thatÏneither€could€offer€any€useful€information.€€The€Petitionerððs€mother€would€haveÏonly€testified€that€ð ðhe€could€not€have€done€this€because€he€is€a€good€boy.ðð€ÏBergman€testified€that€he€searched€for€the€alibi€witness,€Jay,€but€could€not€findÏhim.€€The€Petitioner€admitted€that€he€did€not€know€Jayððs€last€name,€but€that€heÏknew€his€address€and€gave€it€to€the€police€and€to€Bergman.€€Neither€BergmanÏnor€the€investigator€for€the€public€defenderððs€office€nor€the€Chattanooga€PoliceÏDepartment€could€find€Jay.€The€trial€court€found€that€the€Petitioner€had€failed€toÏshow€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€in€not€producing€this€witness€for€trial.€€€ÌÌà àFrances€Snyder€would€have€testified€that€she€saw€the€victim€and€theÏvictimððs€grandfather€walking€together€on€the€night€the€victim€was€attacked.€€TheÍPetitioner€asserts€that€this€testimony€was€crucial€because€one€of€their€theories€atÏtrial€was€to€show€that€the€grandfather€or€someone€else€raped€the€child.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€had€previously€prohibited€the€defense€from€using€thisÏœtheory€unless€there€was€some€evidence€against€the›€grandfather.€€Moreover,ÏFrances€Snyder€did€not€give€this€œinformation€to€anyone›€until€months€after€the€trialÏœhad€ended.›€€The€Petitioner€also€contends€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€in€notÏsubpoenaing€œFrances›€Snyder€to€testify€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€newÏtrial.€€The€attorney€testified€at€the€hearing€that€he€never€knew€that€œFrances›ÏSnyder€had€œany€relevant›€information.€€ÌÌà à€€The€trial€court€did€not€find€the€testimony€of€Nancy€Farris€or€œFrances›ÏSnyder€to€be€credible€or€to€have€sufficient€indicia€of€reliability.€€Furthermore,€theÏcourt€concluded€that€their€testimony€would€merely€have€contradicted€theÏtestimony€of€one€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€would€not€have€affected€theÏoutcome€of€the€trial.€€à àÌà àThe€Petitioner€also€œargues€that›€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€not€allowingÏhim€to€testify€at€trial.€€The€Petitioner€œsaid›€that€he€asked€to€testify,€but€his€counselÏrefused€œto€allow€it.›€€Bergman,€however,€testified€that€he€explained€theÏadvantages€and€disadvantages€of€taking€the€stand€to€the€Petitioner,€whoÏapparently€œunderstood;›€œin›€light€of€the€facts€and€evidence€in€the€case,€he€advisedÏthe€Petitioner€not€to€testify.€€The€Petitioner€decided€not€to€take€the€stand€andÍtestify€on€his€own€behalf.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€Petitionerððs€testimonyÏwas€lacking€in€credibility€and€that€he€did€not€adequately€meet€his€burden€ofÏproving€how€counsel€was€ineffective€on€this€issue.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€evidence€presented€by€the€PetitionerÏdoes€not€show€that€the€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€call€or€interviewÏwitnesses.̛̜à àThe€Petitioner€also€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€œby›€failingÏto€discuss€or€advise€him€on€trial€strategy€or€the€possibility€of€settling€the€case.€ÏAt€the€hearing€on€the€post„conviction€petition,€the€Petitioner€testified€that€hisÏcounsel€talked€to€him€only€twice€before€trial,€that€counsel€was€not€prepared€to€tryÏthe€case,€that€counsel€did€not€give€him€sufficient€information€upon€which€he€couldÏmake€an€informed€decision€of€whether€to€accept€the€Stateððs€plea€agreement,Ïand€that€had€he€known€these€things,€he€would€have€accepted€the€pleaÏagreement.Ì€€à àà àà àà àà àÌà àThe€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€had,€in€fact,€met€with€the€Petitioner€onÏmultiple€occasions€and€was€ready€to€go€to€trial.€€He€testified€that€he€hadÏcontacted€numerous€potential€witnesses€and€had€frequently€discussed€the€caseÏand€possible€strategies€with€the€Petitioner.€€The€œattorney›€also€testified€that€heÍhad€several€plea€negotiation€meetings€with€the€State€and€that€he€had€relatedÏthe€substance€of€those€discussions€to€the€Petitioner,€including€the€plea€offer.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€advised€the€Petitioner€that€the€State€had€made€a€good€offer,€butÏthat€the€Petitioner€insisted€on€his€innocence€and€wanted€to€go€to€trial€rather€thanÏaccept€the€plea€offer.€€Again,€the€trial€court€found€the€Petitionerððs€testimony€at€theÏhearing€not€to€be€credible€and€that€he€œhad€again€failed€to€demonstrate€that›€trialÏcounsel€had€been€ineffective.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€did€not€find€the€Petitioner€or€any€of€his€witnesses€to€beÏcredible.€€He€did,€however,€find€the€trial€counselððs€testimony€to€have€credibility.€ÏWe€cannot€conclude€that€the€Petitioner€has€met€his€burden€œof›€proving€hisÏallegations€by€a€preponderance€of€œthe€evidence.›€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏPetitionerððs€attorney€adequately€represented€the€Petitioner€and€fully€advised€himÏof€his€rights€and€options.€€The€record€supports€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€Ì€Ìà àWe€conclude€that€the€Petitioner€has€not€met€his€burden€of€showing€eitherÏthat€his€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€any€of€his€assertions,€œor›€that€the€œallegedÏdeficient›€representation€prejudiced€the€defense€to€the€point€of€depriving€theÏdefendant€of€a€fair€trial€with€a€reliable€result.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€inÏdismissing€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€is,€therefore,€affirmed.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE›