ÿWPCw …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ U>9U*wB)¡DCÊ B  AM*w‡‡v~vÓŒ D3_ 0@’ AOÒÆ! 0Dç D/+ BZ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- MNPOPEQRDSTDUÓ€_DÒ 3|x_((3üÝ$¤¤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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌOctober€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔÔ€!ÔConsistent€with€the€policy€of€this€Court,€we€will€not€identify€the€victim€by€her€name€as€she€was€aÏà0 àminor€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€offensesÔ€ ÔÔ€ XÔ.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€?XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓJOHNNY€EUGENE€JOHNSON,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9508„CC„00247Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMONTGOMERY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOHN€H.€GASAWAYó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àò òà à)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Post„Conviction€Relief)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌGREGORY€SMITHà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌOne€Public€Squareà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€321à àà àÌClarksville,€TN€€37040à àà àà àROBIN€L.€HARRISÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0943ÌÙ€€ÙßL€%&#;+'h|Èíw` ç `€€LßÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€CARNEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€AttorneyÏGeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCHARLESÏBUSHÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€DistrictÏAttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TN€€37041ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓòòÔ€!„Ôò òOPINIONóóó óÔ€!ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àAppellant,€Johnny€Eugene€Johnson,€appeals€from€the€dismissal€of€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Appellant€is€serving€an€effective€twenty€yearÏsentence€following€his€conviction€on€two€counts€of€aggravated€rape€and€twoÏcounts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€This€conviction€was€affirmed€on€directÏappeal.€€òòState€v.€Johnson,óó€No.€01C01„9107„CC„00194,€1992€WL€25006€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€Feb.€14,€1992),€òòperm.€to€app.€den.óó,€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€€this,€his€firstÏpost„conviction€petition,€filed€February€10,€1993,€Appellant€claims€his€trialÏattorney€rendered€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€He€also€asserts€that€hisÏcase€should€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€reconsideration€in€light€of€the€recentÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€case€of€òòTome€v.€United€Statesóó,€115€S.Ct.€696,Ï130€L.Ed.2d€574€(1995).€€For€the€reasons€discussed€below,€we€reject€theÏAppellantððs€contentions€and€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThis€case€arises€out€of€sexual€offenses€committed€against€the€eleven„year„old€sister× ƒ' ××  ×€of€Appellantððs€then€girlfriend,€Kathy€Williams.€€The€record€reflectsÏthat€the€convictions€were€for€two€separate€incidents„„€one€which€occurred€in€theÏsummer€of€1988€and€the€other€in€December€of€that€same€year.€€Along€with€theÍtrial€attorney,€Appellant€and€Ms.€Williams€were€the€only€witnesses€who€testifiedÏat€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Throughout€the€Appellantððs€testimony,€he€citedÏmany€instances€which€he€thought€were€examples€of€his€trial€counselððs€failure€toÏadequately€investigate€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€his€case€therebyÏpreventing€the€jury€from€hearing€potentially€exonerating€evidence.€€In€addition,ÏAppellant€asserted€that€this€trial€attorney€promised€the€jury€during€his€openingÏstatement€that€he€would€pursue€a€certain€line€of€defense.€€However,€AppellantÏtestified€that€his€attorney€failed€to€pursue€or€substantiate€that€defense€as€the€trialÏprogressed€thereby€rendering€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€summarily€denied€the€post„conviction€petition.€€In€doing€soÏthe€trial€judge€failed€to€state€any€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€as€isÏrequired€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„30„118(b)€(1990)€(repealedÏby€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„30„211(b)€(Supp.€1996).ÌÌà àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€trial€court,€not€the€appellate€court,€to€weigh€andÏevaluate€the€evidence€and€to€resolve€conflicts€in€the€testimony€concerning€theÏcredibility€of€the€witness.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990).€€Factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€must€be€resolved€by€the€trial€courtÏand€placed€in€appropriate€findings€of€fact.€€Absent€such€findings,€it€wouldÏordinarily€be€inappropriate€for€us€to€determine€contested€factual€issues€from€aÍprinted€record.€€òòTate€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9108„CR„00170,€1992€WL€105959,€atÏ*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€20,€1992),€òòperm.€to€app.€den.óó,€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àHowever,€this€Court€has€held€that€even€if€the€trial€court€fails€to€comply€withÏthis€duty,€a€reversal€is€not€warranted€if€the€record€sufficiently€reflects€theÏapparent€reasons€for€the€trial€courtððs€actions€so€as€to€allow€for€meaningfulÏappellant€review.€€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1984).€€A€review€of€this€record€convinces€us€that€the€reasons€for€the€trial€judgeððsÏdismissal€of€the€post„conviction€petition€are€apparent,€and€we€will€thereforeÏaddress€the€issues€on€the€merits.ÌÌà àThe€standard€of€review€for€a€claim€involving€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€toÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€was€set€out€in€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€which€requiredÏthis€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€rendered€by€theÏattorney€are€within€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975)€€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€his€or€her€counselððsÏrepresentation€fell€below€the€objective€standard€of€òòBaxteróó€and,€additionally,€thatÏthis€sub„standard€representation€prejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€€PrejudiceÏis€shown€by€demonstrating€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€theÍproceedings€would€have€been€different.€òòIdóó.€at€693.€€ð ðThe€probable€result€needÏnot€be€an€acquittal.€€A€reasonable€probability€of€being€found€guilty€of€a€lesserÏcharge,€or€a€shorter€sentence,€satisfies€the€second€prong€in€òòStricklandóó.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏZimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€220,€225€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(citing€òòChambers€v.ÏArmontroutóó,€907€F.2d€825,€832€(8th€Cir.€1990)).ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€this€case€with€one€of€Appellantððs€allegedÏincidents€of€ineffectiveness€which€may€be€dismissed€merely€by€reference€toÏother€evidence€in€the€record.€€Much€of€Appellantððs€testimony€involved€hisÏattorneyððs€failure€to€show€that€because€Appellant€was€at€work€and€not€atÏhome€on€the€night€of€July€4th,€he€could€not€have€committed€the€offenses€whichÏtook€place€in€the€summer€of€1988.€€He€asserted€that€Opryland€co„workers€asÏwell€as€time€cards€from€his€job€would€have€supported€this€defense.€ÏFurthermore,€Ms.€Kathy€Williams€testified€at€the€hearing€that€she€would€haveÏtestified€at€the€trial€that€she€telephoned€Appellant€at€work€on€the€night€of€JulyÏ4th,€proving€that€he€was€indeed€there.€€However,€the€trial€attorney€testified€thatÏthe€victim€never€gave€a€specific€date,€or€day€of€the€week,€or€month€for€theÏoffenses€occurring€in€the€summer€of€1988.€€Instead,€the€victim€testified€at€the€trialÏthat€the€offenses€occurred€some€time€between€the€time€she€got€out€of€schoolÏand€the€4th€of€July.€€Thus,€if€the€trial€attorneyððs€testimony€on€this€point€wasÏaccredited€by€the€trial€judge,€as€it€apparently€was,€an€alibi€for€the€specific€dateÍof€July€4th€would€have€been,€at€best,€only€marginally€helpful€to€the€defense.€ÏReconciliation€of€conflicting€testimony€is€the€exclusive€function€of€the€trial€court,Ïand€this€Court€will€not€disturb€that€determination€on€appeal.€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2dÏat€755.€€It€thus€appears€that€Appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€deficientÏperformance€of€counsel€or€prejudice€from€the€decision€not€to€present€this€weakÏalibi€defense.ÌÌà àNext€we€address€Appellantððs€claims€that€trial€counselððs€performance€wasÏconstitutionally€deficient€because€the€attorney€did€not€introduce€an€electric€billÏwhich€would€allegedly€have€shown€that€the€lights€had€been€turned€off€in€theÏmobile€home€where€the€rape€took€place.€€Apparently€Appellant€was€of€theÏopinion€rape€could€not€be€accomplished€in€the€dark.€€In€addition€AppellantÏcomplains€of€his€lawyerððs€decision€not€to€cross„examine€the€eleven„year„oldÏvictim€concerning€an€allegedly€unusual€scar€on€his€penis.€€Appellant€assertedÏthat€the€victimððs€inability€to€identify€the€scar€would€suggest€she€was€lying.€ÏThese€lines€of€argument€are€rather€inconsistent.€€Assuming€an€eleven„year„oldÏrape€victim€would€notice€a€penile€scar€is€doubtful€even€if€the€lights€were€onÏduring€the€rape.€€If€in€fact€the€lights€had€been€turned€off€and€the€sexual€assaultÏcarried€out€in€the€dark,€observation€of€this€alleged€scar€would€be€even€less€likely.€ÏGiven€the€inconsistent€nature€of€these€points€concerning€the€penile€scar€and€theÏdarkness€of€the€rape€scene€and€their€dubious€utility,€counselððs€decision€not€toÍpursue€these€matters€was€a€valid€tactical€choice.€€This€Court€will€not€second„guess€valid€strategic€and€tactical€choices€made€by€counsel,€and€counsel€will€notÏbe€deemed€ineffective€even€if€a€different€strategy€might€have€produced€a€differentÏresult.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,9€(Tenn.€1982)€citing€òòUnited€States€v.ÏDeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197€CD.C.Cir.€1973);€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,Ï280€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).ÌÌà àAnother€ground€of€alleged€ineffectiveness€relates€to€Appellantððs€claim€thatÏthe€victim€suffered€from€certain€diseases.€€It€was€Appellantððs€position€that€properÏinvestigation€could€have€proven€him€innocent€by€showing€that€he€did€not€haveÏthe€same€diseases.€€A€doctorððs€letter€indicating€that€the€victim€had€displayedÏherpes€on€her€lips€in€a€1985€medical€examination€was€the€only€record€evidenceÏof€these€diseases€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€The€trial€attorney€testified€thatÏdue€to€an€allegation€that€Appellant€forced€the€victim€to€perform€oral€sex,€theÏattorney€explored€the€idea€of€showing€Appellant€was€free€of€this€disease€inÏorder€to€exonerate€him.€€However,€the€trial€attorney€decided€not€to€pursue€thisÏline€of€defense€after€talking€to€a€doctor€who€opined€that€even€if€the€victim€hadÏoutward€manifestations€of€herpes€on€her€mouth€in€1985,€she€would€notÏnecessarily€be€highly€contagious€three€years€later€in€1988.€€On€appeal,ÏAppellant€asserts€that€the€attorney€should€have€sought€a€second€opinion,Ïhowever€the€attorney€testified€that€he€trusted€this€doctor.€€Appellant€hasÍpresented€no€evidence,€either€medical€or€otherwise,€in€support€of€his€theory€thatÏthe€victimððs€medical€condition€in€1988€was€a€basis€for€exonerating€him.€ÏAppellant€has€failed€to€show€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€on€this€pointÏand€that€he€suffered€any€prejudice€from€the€decision€not€to€present€the€victimððsÏmedical€condition.ÌÌà àTwo€of€Appellantððs€grounds€for€ineffective€assistance€arose€out€of€hisÏbelief€that€he€had€been€wronged€by€the€Department€of€Human€Services€(DHS).€ÏSpecifically,€he€referred€to€certain€tapes€which,€as€the€trial€attorney€explained,Ïwere€of€home€visits€that€DHS€had€with€Ms.€Williams€regarding€the€sexualÏmolestation€of€her€own€child€by€Appellant.€€It€was€Appellantððs€position€thatÏover„zealous€DHS€employees€had€put€ideas€into€the€child€victimððs€mind.€ÏHowever,€the€attorney€testified€that€after€listening€to€these€tapes,€he€found€themÏinsufficient€to€support€this€theory.€€These€tapes€were€not€made€a€part€of€thisÏrecord€and€there€was€no€other€evidence€imputing€such€behavior€to€DHS.€ÏTherefore,€Appellant€has€not€met€his€burden€of€proving€this€allegation.ÌÌà àAlso€with€regard€to€DHS,€there€was€testimony€from€both€Appellant€andÏMs.€Williams€that€DHS€workers€had€told€Ms.€Williams€that€if€she€testified,€sheÏwould€not€regain€custody€of€her€daughter.€€However,€further€testimony€revealedÏthat€the€reason€that€Ms.€Williamsðð€daughter€was€in€DHS€custody€in€the€firstÍplace€was€Appellantððs€alleged€molestation€of€that€child.€€When€Appellantððs€trialÏattorney€testified,€he€explained€that€although€DHS€did€attempt€to€make€Ms.ÏWilliams€understand€the€implications€of€aligning€herself€with€a€person€accused€ofÏmolesting€her€child,€DHS€workers€did€not€threaten€her.ÌÌà àWe€next€turn€to€Appellantððs€claim€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€whenÏhe€promised€the€jury€a€defense€in€opening€statement,€but€then€failed€toÏsubstantiate€the€defense€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€€Appellantððs€trial€attorneyÏacknowledged€that€in€opening€statements€he€had€stated€the€defense€wouldÏshow€through€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Williams€that€the€victim€had€recanted€herÏallegations€that€Appellant€had€raped€her.€€At€that€time€the€lawyer€was€under€theÏimpression€that€one€of€Appellantððs€former€attorneys€would€confirm€the€victim€hadÏrecanted€at€the€former€attorneyððs€office.€€However,€during€the€trial€AppellantððsÏlawyer€learned€from€the€previous€attorney€that€although€Ms.€Williams€hadÏbrought€the€victim€to€his€office€for€the€express€purpose€of€a€recantation,€noneÏhad€taken€place.€€Ms.€Williams€nevertheless€wanted€to€testify€that€she€hadÏtaken€the€victim€to€Appellantððs€former€attorney€for€a€recantation.€€Appellantððs€trialÏattorney€felt€Ms.€Williams€would€be€subject€to€intense€cross„examinationÏconcerning€her€relationship€with€Appellant,€and€thus€might€ultimately€hurtÏAppellantððs€case.ÌÌà àAppellant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Zimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€220,€225„26Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€in€which€this€Court€found€that€a€trial€lawyerððs€failure€toÏproduct€evidence€proffered€during€the€opening€statement€deprived€the€defendantÏof€a€meaningful€defense€when€it€occurred€along€with€other€incidents€of€deficientÏperformance.€€In€òòZimmermanóó,€trial€counsel€prepared€the€jury€during€his€openingÏstatement€for€a€defense€based€upon€the€battered€wife€syndrome.€€òòIdóó.€at€225.€ÏAfter€the€defendant€was€described€as€an€abused€woman,€the€jury€was€toldÏthat€they€would€hear€from€her€as€well€as€a€psychologist€who€had€treated€her.€ÏòòIdóó.€€However,€defense€counsel€suddenly€changed€strategy€with€no€apparentÏreason€and€never€presented€the€promised€course€of€defense.ÌÌà àAdmittedly,€it€is€rarely€wise€to€promise€a€jury€evidence€that€cannot€beÏdelivered.€€However,€òòZimmermanóó€does€not€mandate€that€every€unfulfilledÏpromise€of€defense€counsel€in€opening€statement€warrants€a€finding€ofÏineffectiveness.€€In€òòZimmermanóó€the€defense€attorney€made€an€arbitrary€decisionÏto€abandon€a€line€of€defense€which€the€proof€at€the€new€trial€hearingÏdemonstrated€could€have€been€amply€substantiated.€€In€addition,€the€finding€ofÏineffective€counsel€in€òòZimmermanóó€rested€upon€the€cumulative€effect€of€severalÏserious€errors€in€trial€counselððs€judgment.€€òòZimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€228.€€InÏthis€case,€Ms.€Williams€had€apparently€led€defense€counsel€to€believe€that€theÏvictim€had€recanted€her€allegations€in€front€of€Appellantððs€previous€attorney.€ÍSometime€prior€to€trial€defense€counsel€talked€with€the€former€attorney€about€theÏalleged€recantation€and€received€the€impression€that€the€former€attorney€couldÏcorroborate€that€in€fact€the€victim€had€recanted.€€It€was€only€after€the€formerÏattorney€told€the€defense€attorney€at€trial,€after€the€opening€statements,€that€theÏvictim€had€not€recanted€that€defense€counsel€elected€to€abandon€this€line€ofÏdefense.€€This€is€hardly€the€inexplicable€decision€to€abandon€a€supportableÏdefense€that€this€Court€encountered€in€òòZimmermanóó.€€Further,€for€the€reasonsÏstated€previously,€other€alleged€instances€of€deficient€representation€were€validÏstrategic€or€tactical€choices,€and€therefore€do€not€cumulate,€as€in€òòZimmermanóó,€toÏestablish€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà àFinally,€we€address€Appellantððs€claim€with€regard€to€òòTome€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€115€S.€Ct.€696€(1995).€€In€that€case,€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏdecided€a€question€regarding€Federal€Rule€of€Evidence€801(d)(1)(B)€whichÏprovides€that€prior€consistent€statements€are€non„hearsay€if€they€are€ð ðoffered€toÏrebut€an€express€or€implied€charge€against€the€declarant€of€recent€fabrication€orÏimproper€influence€or€motive.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€701.€€The€Court€held€that€such€out„of„courtÏconsistent€statements€are€admissible€only€if€they€are€made€before€the€allegedÏfabrication€or€before€the€improper€influence€or€motive€arises.€€òòId.óó€at€705.€€In€hisÏbrief,€Appellant€asserts€that€this€case€stands€for€the€proposition€that€convictionÏfor€child€sexual€abuse€cannot€stand€if€it€is€based€primarily€on€the€word€of€anÍalleged€victim€that€has€a€pre„accusation€motive€to€lie.€€In€our€opinion,€AppellantÏhas€misinterpreted€òòTomeóó€which€has€no€application€to€the€present€case.ÌÌà àð ðIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€orÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€[or€her]€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.ðð€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€citingÏòòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€After€a€review€ofÏthe€record,€we€find€that€Appellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden.€€Accordingly,€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGE