ÿWPC.0 …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ{ 4ƒ — w@¦ 0 æ 0Dð 1m4 0c¡ 0J 0TN 0^¢ 0h 0rh 0|Ú 0†V 0Ü 1ul 0dá BEU>b D3 U *ÓB)ý 0@&DCf AM©µö«¼;[÷v~R"vÓÐ# 0w£) 0Š* 0 ¤* 0´D+ 0Çø+ 0Û¿, 0ïš- AO‰.ÆØ. 0Dž/ D/â/ B0˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ‹â 3|xž ŠD‹ŒEŽE‘e’U“Ó€(º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóótuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ «Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ2,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔÓÓThe€record€is€not€entirely€clear€on€the€number€of€convictions.€€This€opinion€follows€theÏaccount€appearing€in€òòState€v.€Darrell€D.€Hayesóó,€No.€88„219„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€June€29,Ï1989).€€Note€the€difference€in€spelling€for€the€name€"Darrel"€in€the€various€opinions.€€€€Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔÓÓòòPinkston€v.€Stateóó,€668€S.W.2d€676,€677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€has€traditionally€governedÏthe€procedure€for€obtaining€a€delayed€appeal€of€a€conviction€(to€be€distinguished€from€a€judgmentÏdenying€relief€in€a€post„conviction€case).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„120€(repealed€1995).€€ThatÏholding€required€the€trial€court€to€hold€an€evidentiary€hearing€and€make€findings€of€fact.€€TheÏdefendant€then€had€to€appeal€to€this€court€for€relief€in€the€form€of€vacating€and€re„entering€its€originalÏopinion.€€òòPinkstonóó,€668€S.W.2d€at€667.€€In€1995€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adopted€Rule€28,ÏTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.,€which€established€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Post„Conviction€Procedure.€€This€newÏrule€went€into€effect€November€17,€1995,€and€provided,€in€part,€as€follows:€€ÌÌÒ ä ÒÒ  Ò(D)€€If€the€court€finds€that€petitioner€was€deprived€of€the€right€toÏrequest€an€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€11,€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure,€the€court€shall€make€and€certify€such€a€findingÏand€shall€enter€an€order€granting€petitioner€thirty€(30)€days€to€seekÏRule€11€review.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28,€ðð€9€(D).€€Rule€28€was€amended€on€October€28,€1996,€to€provide€as€follows:ÌÌÒ ä ÒÒ  Ò(D)€€Grant€of€a€Delayed€Appeal„„Upon€determination€by€the€trial€courtÏor€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€petitioner€was€deprived€of€theÏright€to€request€an€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€11,€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure,€the€petitioner€shall€have€sixty€(60)€days€to€seekÏRule€11€review.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28,€ðð€9€(D).€€ÌÔ€)Ô QÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔBecause€the€evidence€clearly€supports€the€conclusions€by€the€trial€court,€this€court€will€notÏaddress€the€issue€of€waiver.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g)€(1996€Supp.);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€814ÏS.W.2d€45,€47€(Tenn.€1991).€€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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(Ok$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` à.à.à(bq0$¶¶à0  àà0` à.à.àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` à.` à.à(x?m$··à0  àà0` à.à.àà0¸ ` à.` à.àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ à.¸ à.à(Œ Ç$¸¸à0  àà0` à.à.àà0¸ ` à.` à.àà0¸ à.¸ à.àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0hà.à.à(Ÿ¨=$¹¹à0  àà0` à.à.àà0¸ ` à.` à.àà0¸ à.¸ à.àà0hà.à.àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àhà.hà.à(³é˜$ººà0  àà0` à.à.àà0¸ ` à.` à.àà0¸ à.¸ à.àà0hà.à.àà0Àhà.hà.àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àà.Àà.à(Ǥ$»»à0  àà0` à.à.àà0¸ ` à.` à.àà0¸ à.¸ à.àà0hà.à.àà0Àhà.hà.àà0Àà.Àà.àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0pà.à.à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€½ÛXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€+ÔÞ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóó̜ـ€ÙßR€/0.A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›à@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌà@ àAPRIL€1997€SESSIONÌœÌÌ›ÌDARREL€D.€HAYES,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€01C01„9604„CR„00163€Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà à*à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€Judge€ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà à*ÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓRobert€J.€Mendesà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌStanton,€Tidwell,€&€Mendes,€PLLCà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌCummins€Station€ÌSuite€507à àà àà àà àà àDaryl€J.€Brand€à àÌ209€Tenth€Avenue€South€à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TN€€37203à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBill€Reed€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓà@ àò òòòOPINIONóóó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner,€Darrel€D.€Hayes,€appeals€from€the€trial€court's€denial€ofÏpost„conviction€relief€from€three€counts€of€sexual€battery€and€one€count€ofÏaggravated€rape.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€the€petitioner€presents€the€following€issuesÏfor€our€consideration:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àœ(1)›€€whether€the€petitioner€was€entitled€to€a€delayedÏappeal€for€the€failure€of€his€counsel€in€his€second€post„conviction€petition€to€file€œan›€appeal€to€this€œcourt;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€whether€the€petitioner€was€denied€his€right€to€theÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€by€the€failure€of€hisÏcounsel€to€have€sought€an€examination€for€his€drugÏabuse.ÌÌÌ€›ÌÓÓà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€January€26,€1988,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€three€counts€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery,€for€which€he€received€thirty„year€sentences,€and€oneÏœcount€of›€aggravated€rape,€for€which€he€received€a€sentence€of€forty„five€years.œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›€ÏThe€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently.€€This€court€affirmed€onÏdirect€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Darrell€D.€Hayesóó,€No.€88„219„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÍNashville,€œJune›€29,€1989).€€There€was€no€application€for€permission€to€appeal€toÏthe€supreme€court.€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àOne€year€later,€the€petitioner€filed€his€first€application€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging€that€his€trial€counsel€had€unilaterally€abandoned€hisÏappeal€by€failing€to€make€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€courtÏunder€Rule€11,€Tenn.€€R.€App.€P.€€At€the€conclusion€of€an€evidentiary€hearing,€theÏtrial€court€found€favorably€for€the€petitioner€but,€because€it€had€no€jurisdiction€to€setÏaside€the€1989€opinion€of€this€court,€denied€the€petition€pursuant€to€the€procedureÏset€out€in€òòPinkston€v.€Stateóó,€668€S.W.2d€676€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€On€appeal,Ïthis€court€then€set€aside€and€re„entered€its€1989€opinion€so€as€to€permit€a€requestÏfor€review€by€the€supreme€court.€€òòDarrel€D.€Hayes€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9108„CR„00253€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Mar.€5,€1992).€€The€petitioner's€applicationÏfor€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€was€denied€May€26,€1992.€€ÌÌà àà àA€second€post„conviction€petition€was€filed€July€14,€1992.€€At€theÏconclusion€of€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€made€extensive€findings€of€factÏand€ultimately€denied€relief€on€April€6,€1993.€€There€was€no€appeal.€€On€June€28,Ï1995,€the€petitioner€filed€this€application€for€post„conviction€relief,€allegingÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€in€general€and,€in€particular,€the€failure€ofÍhis€post„conviction€counsel€to€file€an€appeal€of€the€1993€order.€€In€November€ofÏ1995,€the€trial€court€denied€relief.€€Within€thirty€days€thereafter,€the€petitioner€filedÏnotices€of€appeal€for€the€judgments€entered€on€both€the€second€and€third€petitions.€ÏLater,€on€March€16,€1996,€the€petitioner€filed€a€motion€to€re„open€his€second€post„conviction€petition;€the€trial€court€summarily€denied€relief€and€a€request€forÏpermission€to€appeal€to€this€court€was€denied€on€May€29,€1996.€€On€February€24,Ï1997,€another€panel€of€this€court€entered€an€order€denying€petitioner's€petition€forÏwrit€of€habeas€corpus€filed€in€1996.€€òòDarrel€D.€Hayes€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9610„CC„00335€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Feb.€24,€1997),€œòòperm.€to€app.›€filedóó€œApr.›€16,Ï1997.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€hearing€on€œthe€second›€post„conviction€petition,€theÏpetitioner€testified€that€he€was€addicted€to€cocaine€at€the€time€of€his€trial.€€HeÏclaimed€that€he€had€been€under€the€influence€of€drugs€when€he€testified€at€his€trialÏand€had€been€so€afflicted€during€several€of€the€meetings€he€had€with€his€counsel€inÏpreparation€for€the€trial.€€Acknowledging€that€he€had€not€been€helpful€to€his€counselÏduring€the€course€of€the€proceedings€that€led€to€his€conviction,€the€petitionerÏinsisted€that€his€counsel€should€have€required€an€evaluation€for€drug€abuse.€€UponÏfurther€examination,€however,€the€petitioner€conceded€that€he€was€not€on€drugsÏduring€plea€negotiations€or€on€the€first€day€of€his€trial€and€that€others€would€notÍnecessarily€be€able€to€detect€the€times€he€was€under€the€influence.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€trial€counsel,€who€had€been€aware€of€prior€drugÏusage,€testified€that€he€was€unaware€of€any€drug€abuse€on€the€part€of€his€clientÏduring€preparations€for€trial€except€for€when€a€polygraph€examiner€expressed€thatÏsuspicion.€€Trial€counsel€stated€that€he€did€not€detect€any€abnormalities,€even€afterÏthe€statement€by€the€examiner;€he€believed€that€any€drug€use€on€the€part€of€theÏœpetitioner›€was€minor.€€Trial€counsel€did€acknowledge€that€he€would€have€soughtÏtests€for€substance€abuse€had€he€known€the€extent€of€the€petitioner's€claims.€€€TheÏproof,€however,€also€showed€that€no€one€in€the€petitioner's€family€mentionedÏpossible€drug€abuse€during€the€trial€preparations.€€The€petitioner's€counsel€in€hisÏfirst€post„conviction€petition€then€testified€that€he€could€not€recall€the€petitioner€everÏhaving€made€complaints€about€being€on€drugs€during€the€course€of€his€trial.€€ÌÌœà àà àThe€petitioner€complains€that€he€was€denied€an€appeal€from€the€trialÏcourt's€denial€of€his€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€contends€that€hisÏpost„conviction€counsel€failed€to€communicate€his€decision€not€to€file€the€notice€ofÏappeal.€€He€asked€this€court€to€waive€the€thirty„day€notice€requirement€under€theÏrationale€set€out€in€òòState€v.€Scalesóó,€767€S.W.2d€157€(Tenn.€1989).€€He€relies€on€theÏruling€in€òòWarren€v.€Stateóó,€833€S.W.2d€101€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€wherein€thisÍcourt€allowed,€"in€the€interest€of€justice,"€the€appeal€of€a€denial€of€post„convictionÏrelief€when,€some€six€months€after€the€denial€of€relief,€the€petitioner€complainedÏabout€the€lack€of€an€appeal€by€his€post„conviction€counsel.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€Rule€4(a),€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€€This€court€then€considered€the€merits€of€his€claim€and€ruled€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€had€expired€at€the€time€of€his€initial€post„conviction€claim.€ÏòòWarrenóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€102;€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(repealed€1995).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€ruling€in€òòWarrenóó€can,€of€course,€be€distinguished€on€the€facts€inÍthis€case.€€Here,€over€two€years€had€passed€between€the€1993€order€dismissing€theÏsecond€petition€and€the€third€petition,€filed€in€1995,€asking€for€appellate€review.€ÏAfter€a€review€of€the€entire€record€in€this€cause,€including€the€disposition€by€the€trialÏcourt€at€the€conclusion€of€the€second€post„conviction€petition,€this€court€would€notÏordinarily€be€inclined€to€grant€an€appeal€"in€the€interest€of€justice."€€Rule€4(a),€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€€First,€a€delay€of€over€two€years€during€a€period€in€which€the€currentÏ›statute€of€limitations€in€post„conviction€cases€is€only€one€year,€would€appear€to€beÏcontrary€to€legislative€policy.€€Also,€the€petitioner€has€no€constitutional€entitlementÏto€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€€òòState€v.ÏHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€€705€(Tenn.€1995);€òòColeman€v.€Thompsonóó,€501€U.S.€722Ï(1991).€€Thus,€even€if€counsel€had€been€negligent€by€failing€to€file€a€direct€appeal€ofÏthe€1993€ruling,€the€petitioner€would€not€have€been€entitled€to€relief€based€upon€theÏdeficiency€in€the€performance€of€his€post„conviction€counsel.€€ÌÌà àà àIt€should€be€noted€that€a€delayed€appeal€is€reserved€for€the€directÏappeal€of€the€original€conviction.€€A€petitioner€receiving€a€favorable€judgment€underÏthe€statute€then€may€file€his€notice€of€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Cordellóó,€645€S.W.2d€763Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€The€procedure€is€not€available,€however,€for€thoseÏseeking€delayed€review€of€a€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð40„30„213(a)€(1996€Supp.)€(providing€for€a€delayed€appeal€from€the€"originalÍconviction").€€Rule€4(a),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.,€does€afford€a€possible€remedy€in€criminalÏcases€when€more€than€thirty€days€pass€from€the€entry€of€an€adverse€judgment;€butÏthat€is€so€only€when,€in€the€discretion€of€this€court,€the€circumstances€warrantÏwaiver€"in€the€interests€of€justice."€€òòScalesóó,€767€S.W.2d€€at€157.€ÌÌà àà àEven€if€our€court€had€granted€a€delayed€appeal€on€the€secondÏpetition,€we€would€have€affirmed€the€trial€court's€dismissal.€€The€petitioner€insistsÏthat€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€having€failed€to€secure€an€examination€forÏdrug€abuse.€€The€petitioner€insists€that€due€to€his€abuse€of€illegal€drugs,€he€wasÏunable€to€assist€his€trial€counsel€in€the€preparation€of€the€defense.€€Yet,€the€trialÏcourt€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€petitioner's€trial€counsel€and€ruled€that€thereÏhad€been€adequate€communication€regarding€trial€strategies.€€Moreover,€it€ruledÏthat€trial€counsel,€because€of€petitioner's€attendance€at€regularly€scheduledÏappointments€and€the€failure€on€the€part€of€any€family€member€to€suggest€possibleÏdrug€abuse,€"neither€knew€nor€had€reason€to€know€that€petitioner€was€under€theÏinfluence€of€narcotics€at€any€time"€during€their€meetings.€€Finally,€the€trial€courtÏfound€as€fact€that€trial€counsel€had€performed€within€professional€guidelines.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€order€to€be€granted€relief€on€grounds€of€ineffective€counsel,€aÏpetitioner€must€establish€that€the€advice€given€or€services€rendered€were€not€withinÍthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€and€that,€but€forÏhis€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€results€of€his€trial€would€have€beenÏdifferent.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€(1994);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€This€two„part€standard,€as€it€applies€to€guilty€pleas,€isÏmet€when€the€petitioner€establishes€that,€but€for€his€counsel's€errors,€he€would€notÏhave€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€trial.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52Ï(1985).€€œÌ›Ìà àà àThe€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderated€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2dÏ12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Otherwise,€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€areÏconclusive.€€òòGraves€v.€Stateóó,€512€S.W.2d€603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€It€cannot€beÏsaid€that€incompetent€representation€has€occurred€merely€because€other€lawyers,Ïjudging€from€hindsight,€could€have€made€a€better€choice€of€tactics.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,Ï629€S.W.2d€4€(Tenn.€1982).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€petitioner€acknowledged€that€others€were€unable€to€detectÏwhen€he€was€under€the€influence€of€drugs.€€His€family€did€not€suggest€to€his€trialÏcounsel€at€anytime€prior€to€trial€that€the€petitioner's€ability€to€assist€might€have€beenÏimpaired.€€The€only€indication€of€drug€usage€prior€to€trial€was€an€expression€ofÍsuspicion€on€the€part€of€a€polygraph€examiner€employed€by€the€defense.€€ThereÏwas€no€testimony€by€the€petitioner€about€how€trial€counsel€could€have€been€betterÏprepared€because€he€did€not€detect€any€problems€in€their€communications.€€Thus,Ïin€our€view,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€by€the€trialÏcourt.œ× ƒ3 ××  ×›ÌÌà àà à€Accordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge€