ÿWPC±, …UNV %¤U:ªä 0 ôþ w@ 4F 0NZ 0D¨ 0Jì 0T6 0^Š 0hè 0rP 0| 0†> 0Ä 1uT 0dÉU>-U *kB)•DC¾ AMšNûè=ã D3 Sðn 0@^# Bž#v~»#vÓ9% AO +Æ[+ 0D!, D/e, B”,(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular3|x(â,A$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€Xå6XXXÔÔ€XÛÃXXXå6ÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTRY 3Ø'Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  Ó yUzU{U|D}~D[€U‚Ó€Úƒç"(þ(3q~$¤¤Ý ƒ,A!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€XETXXXÔÔ€X;°XXXETÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑTRY3Ø'Letter3Ø' 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÝ  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€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òSeptember€5,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àAt€time€of€trial,€Ms.€Ballew€had€not€yet€married.€Her€name€at€thatÏtime€was€Lu€Ann€Hatcher.Ì 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€petitioner€implies€that€the€sheriff€manufactured€the€rapeÏcharges€because€he€believed€that€the€petitionerððs€sentence€in€a€prior€case€wasÏtoo€lenient.€Ì....'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€nineteen„year€old€victim€was€transferred€from€the€GraingerÏCounty€Jail€to€the€jail€in€Union€County€on€November€13,€1989.€€AfterÏcomplaining€of€bruises€and€a€bumped€head,€he€was€taken€to€Knox€CountyÏwhere€he€was€examined€at€St.€Maryððs€Hospital.€€The€victim€did€not€report€anyÏsexual€abuse€to€the€examining€doctors€at€that€time.€€He€admitted€being€rapedÏseveral€weeks€later€when€a€Grainger€County€detective€questioned€him€aboutÏallegations€made€by€other€inmates.€€In€his€testimony,€he€said€that€at€first€he€wasÏembarrassed€to€talk€about€the€rapes€and€that€he€didnððt€want€his€family€andÏfriends€to€know€what€had€happened€to€him.Ì æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ @ ÑÑ\R3Ø'\Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àOn€March€15,€1996,€the€trial€judge€entered€the€following€writtenÏorder:€Ìà8 àà àThis€cause€came€to€be€heard€on€the€23rd€day€of€OctoberÏ1995€before€the€Honorable€Rex€Henry€Ogle,€Circuit€Court€JudgeÏupon€the€Petition€for€Post„Conviction€relief€file€(sic)€by€theÏpetitioner.€€Upon€appearance€of€counsel€for€the€parties,€testimonyÏof€witness,€statements€of€counsel€for€the€parties€and€the€record€asÏa€whole,€the€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€petition€is€without€meritÏand€the€same€should€be€dismissed.Ìà àÌà àWe€note€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b)€requires€that€the€trial€courtÏð ðshall€set€forth€in€the€order€or€a€written€memorandum€of€the€case€all€groundsÏpresented€and€shall€state€the€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€with€regardÏto€each€such€ground.ðð€€Failure€to€comply€with€this€directive€does€not€necessarilyÏrequire€that€the€case€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€if€the€trial€court€orallyÏpronounced€its€findings€from€the€bench.€€òòState€v.€Higginsóó,€729€S.W.2d€288,€290„291€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€this€case,€since€the€record€contains€theÏreasons€the€trial€judge€dismissed€the€petition€and€the€record€on€appeal€isÏsufficient€to€allow€for€meaningful€review,€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€remand€thisÏcase€for€further€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòSwanson€v.€Stateóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1984).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò dPtPtHHÚ(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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÔ€#ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ\R3Ø'\ÑÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° Òò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ETXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRߛ̀à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌó óÌò òà@ àMAY,€1997€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌò òGEORGE€F.€JONES,€JR.,à àà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9606„CR„00227Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà à)à àGrainger€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€ó óà àà à)à àHonorable€Rex€Henry€Ogle,Ïà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudge€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppellee.à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌDAVID€B.€HILLà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ301€E.€Broadwayà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌNewport,€TN€37821à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àALFRED€C.€SCHMUTZERÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à125€Court€Ave.€Rm.€301„EÌà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€37864„4245ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àRichard€R.€VanceÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à339„A€E.€Main€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àNewport,€TN€37821ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÇÓ  Óà@ àOPINIONÓÓÓ` °‚X˜XÓÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€petitioner,€George€F.€œJones,€Jr.,›€appeals€pursuant€to€Rule€3,ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€from€the€Grainger€County€œCircuit›ÏCourtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petitioner€was€convicted€in€1991€ofÏfour€counts€of€aggravated€rape€and€received€an€effective€twenty„year€sentence.€ÏHis€conviction€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal€to€this€court.€òòState€v.€Jackie€RayÏCoffman€and€George€Jonesóó,€No.€€03C01„9203„CR„65€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€Jan.€7,€1993).€€Jones€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€Jan.Ï21,€œ1994,›€alleging€various€violations€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€The€trial€courtÏappointed€counsel€and€held€a€hearing€on€October€23,€1994.€€At€the€hearing,€theÏpetitioner€relied€solely€on€his€claim€that€he€had€been€denied€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€petition€at€the€close€of€theÏœhearing,›€finding€that€defense€counsel€had€not€been€ineffective.€€ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà àThe€charges€in€this€case€arose€out€of€a€series€of€rapes€committedÏby€the€petitioner€and€several€co„defendants€when€they€were€incarcerated€in€theÏGrainger€County€Jail.€€Teddy€Bryant,€one€of€the€co„defendants,€had€accused€theÍvictim€of€being€a€snitch.€€The€rapes,€which€included€both€anal€and€oralÏintercourse,€continued€over€a€period€of€at€least€four€days€and€wereÏaccompanied€by€other€physical€and€emotional€abuse.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÏtrial,€the€jury€found€the€petitioner€and€the€co„defendant,€Jackie€Coffman,€guilty€ofÏfour€counts€of€aggravated€rape.€€Teddy€Bryant€was€convicted€of€two€counts€ofÏaggravated€assault.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€contended€that€hisÏtrial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€she€failed€to€have€any€DNA€testing€done,Ïthat€she€failed€to€take€appropriate€actions€that€would€have€resulted€in€the€trialÏcourtððs€granting€a€motion€to€change€venue€and€a€motion€to€sever,€that€by€givingÏthe€petitioner€faulty€advice€she€denied€him€his€right€to€testify€at€trial,€and€that€sheÏdid€not€interview€or€call€witnesses€who€would€have€testified€favorably€on€hisÏbehalf.€€ÌÌà àTrial€counsel,€Lu€Ann€Ballew,€also€testified€at€the€hearing.× ƒ( ××  ×€€In€herÏtestimony,€she€admitted€she€had€failed€to€attach€affidavits€to€the€motions€toÏchange€venue€and€to€sever.€€She€also€testified€that€she€knew€of€only€oneÍnewspaper€article€that€mentioned€the€crime€and€that€her€attempts€to€interviewÏthe€Grainger€County€sheriff€had€come€to€naught€because€the€sheriff€refused€toÏspeak€to€her.× ƒ) ××  ×€€Her€file€indicated€that€either€she€or€an€investigator€hadÏinterviewed€approximately€thirty€potential€witnesses.€€However,€she€had€neverÏspoken€to€either€Coffman€or€Bryant€because€they€were€represented€by€counselÏand,€like€the€petitioner,€denied€that€they€had€either€harassed,€beaten€or€rapedÏthe€victim.€€She€denied€she€told€the€petitioner€that€he€need€not€€testify€becauseÏthere€was€no€corroboration€for€the€victimððs€statements.€€She€said€that€after€theÏstate€rested,€she,€the€petitioner,€Coffman€and€his€counsel€conferred€in€the€hall.€ÏAt€that€time,€both€defendants€admitted€to€having€sex€with€the€victim€but€claimedÏthat€it€was€consensual.€€Since€this€was€a€complete€reversal€of€their€previousÏstory€and€tended€to€discredit€the€position€the€defense€had€taken€throughout€theÏstateððs€proof,€she€advised€the€petitioner€not€to€testify€but€told€him€that€it€was€hisÏdecision€to€make.€€She€had€never€considered€DNA€testing€because€the€longÍtime€period€between€the€events€and€the€physical€examination€of€the€victimÏmade€the€existence€of€such€evidence€unlikely.œ× ƒ+ ××  ×›€€€ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€trial€counsel€wasÏineffective€for€failing€to€file€affidavits€in€support€of€her€motions€to€change€venueÏand€to€sever€and€that€she€did€not€conduct€an€adequate€investigation€orÏinterview€favorable€witnesses.€€Although€not€raised€below,€the€petitioner€alsoÏcontends€that€the€indictments€in€this€cause€were€fatally€defective€because€theyÏfailed€to€allege€a€specific€mens€rea€for€the€crime€of€aggravated€rape.€€Before€weÏaddress€the€issues€related€to€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€we€mustÏresolve€the€second€issue.Ìò òÌà@ àSufficiency€of€the€Indictmentó óÌÌà àIn€his€brief,€the€petitioner€contends€that,€based€on€this€courtððsÏdecision€in€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Hillóó,€No.€01CO1„9508„CC„00267€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€June€20,€œ1996),›€òòperm.€app.€grantedóó€(Tenn.€1997),€theÏindictments€in€this€cause€were€fatally€defective.€€Although€defense€counselÏraised€the€issue€of€insufficient€indictments€prior€to€trial€and€in€the€motion€for€newÏtrial,€the€matter€was€not€pursued€on€direct€appeal€nor€did€the€petitioner€raise€itÏbefore€the€post„conviction€court.€€However,€since€the€issue€raised€isÏjurisdictional,€œwe€will›€consider€the€issue.€€œÌTenn.›€R.€App.€P.€13(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b);€òòState€v.€Phillip€Ray€Griffis€andÏMelissa€Faith€Rogersóó,€No.€01CO1„9506„CC„00201€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏApr.€30,€œ1997),›€òòGriffisðð€perm.€app.€œfiledó󛀀(Tenn.€1997).€€ÌÌà àThe€grand€jury€issued€indictments€which€charged€that€theÏpetitioner€on€a€certain€date€€ð ðdid€unlawfully,€sexually€penetrate€Jerold€Lowe€byÏforce€or€coercion€while€aided€and€abetted€by€one€or€more€persons,€in€violationÏof€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„502.ðð€€€€The€petitioner€alleges€that€these€indictments€are€fatallyÏdefective€because€they€fail€to€allege€a€specific€òòmensóó€òòreaóó€for€the€crime€ofÏaggravated€rape.€€€€We€find€that€the€indictment€sufficiently€apprised€theÏpetitioner€of€the€offense€charged€and€is€valid.ÌÌà àTennessee€law€requires€that€an€indictment€ð ðstate€the€factsÏconstituting€the€offense€in€ordinary€and€concise€language.€.€.€in€such€a€mannerÏas€to€enable€a€person€of€common€understanding€to€know€what€is€intended.€.€.€.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€œ532,€537›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(quoting€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„13„202).€€An€indictment€is€sufficient€even€though€an€element€isÏnot€specifically€alleged€if€the€language€œis›€such€that€the€defendant€cannot€fail€toÏbe€apprised€of€its€elements.€€òòState€v.€John€Haws€Burrellóó,€No.€€œ03C01„9404„CR„00157,›€slip€op.€at€27„28€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Feb.€11,€œ1997),›€òòperm.€app.Ïfiledóó€April€12,€1997.€€ÌÌà àSexual€penetration€by€coercion€necessarily€implies€the€actÏoccurred€intentionally€or€knowingly.€€òòJohn€Haws€Burrellóó,€slip€op.€at€31.€Ïœððð ðCoercionðð›€means€threat€of€kidnapping,€extortion,€force€or€violence€to€beÏperformed€immediately€or€in€the€future.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ39„13„501(1)(1991).›€€A€person€of€common€understanding€would€recognize€that€if€aÏperson€uses€threats€in€order€to€sexually€penetrate€another,€the€penetration€mustÏbe€intentional.€€òòState€v.€John€Haws€Burrellóó,€slip€op.€at€31.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€wording€of€the€indictments€in€this€instance€satisfies€theÏconstitutional€requirement€that€an€indictment€state€ð ðthe€nature€and€cause€of€theÍaccusation,ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€Art€1,€ðð€9,€and€the€culpable€mental€state€is€sufficientlyÏalleged€in€the€language€of€the€indictment.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIneffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÌÌà àà àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€petitioner€has€theÏburden€of€proving€the€grounds€raised€in€the€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€òòClark€v.€Stateóó,€800€S.W.2d€500,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€WhenÏreviewing€the€dismissal€of€a€post„conviction€petition,€this€court€must€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderatesÏagainst€the€courtððs€findings.€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.1993).€€€ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€the€accused€has€a€constitutional€right€to€theÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€all€critical€stages€of€a€criminal€prosecution.€ÏTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€9;€òòPowell€v.€Alabamaóó,€287€U.S.€45€(1932);€òòMcKeldin€v.ÏStateóó,€516€S.W.2d€82,€86€(Tenn.1974).€€In€order€to€establish€ineffectivenessÏunder€the€standard€established€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€inÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€,€104€S.Ct.€2052€(1984),€a€criminalÏdefendant€must€show€both€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€and€thatÏthe€deficiency€is€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€theÍproceeding.€€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064.€€In€Tennessee,€the€appropriateÏtest€for€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€is€whetherÏhis€advice€and€services€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€trialÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.1975).€€òòÌÌóóà àThe€rules€of€appellate€review€are€well„established.€€First,€this€courtÏcannot€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence;€nor€can€it€substitute€its€inferencesÏfor€those€drawn€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€75€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€Second,€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weightÏand€value€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€factual€issues€raised€by€theÏevidence€are€matters€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2dÏ405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€€Third,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€establishing€thatÏthe€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€ÏòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€900€(Tenn.€1990).€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€judge€dismissed€theÏpetition€finding€œthat€counsel›€had€advised€the€defendant€appropriately€regardingÏhis€right€to€testify€or€not€testify€at€œtrial;€that€the›€motions€for€change€of€venue€andÏfor€severance€€had€been€considered€and€appropriately€denied€despiteÏcounselððs€failure€to€file€an€œaffidavit;€that€counsel€had€exhaustively€investigatedÍthe€case;€that€various€witnesses€corroborated€the€victimððs€statements;€and€thatÏthe€evidence€against€the€petitioner€was€overwhelming.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.€€CounselððsÏtestimony€was€rebutted€only€by€the€petitioner€himself.€€Questions€concerning€theÏcredibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony,€andÏthe€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€matters€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€€ÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.1983).€€Trial€counsel€testified€thatÍher€advice€regarding€the€petitionerððs€testimony€was€based€on€the€petitionerððsÏsudden€change€of€story,€and€that€she€and€an€investigator€had€conducted€anÏintensive€investigation€in€which€they€interviewed€numerous€witnesses.€€The€trialÏjudge€specifically€accredited€the€attorneyððs€testimony.€€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€Jackie€Coffman€would€have€testifiedÏthat€the€petitioner€had€not€participated€in€the€assaults.€€The€attorney€testified€thatÏshe€was€never€made€aware€of€this€possibility.€€The€petitioner€bears€the€burdenÏof€presenting€such€a€witness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794ÏS.W.2d€752,€753€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Unless€the€witness€testifies,€theÏpetitioner€fails€to€establish€the€prejudice€prong€mandated€by€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó.€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€753.€€Neither€Coffman€nor€any€otherÏpotential€witness€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Absent€proof€of€anyÏprejudice,€we€cannot€conclude€that€Coffmanððs€failure€to€testify€at€trialÏundermines€confidence€in€the€trialððs€outcome.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466ÏU.S.€668,€690,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984).Ìà àÌà àMoreover,€the€petitioner€in€this€instance€has€failed€to€demonstrateÏthat€he€was€prejudiced€by€counselððs€failure€to€attach€affidavits€to€motionsÏpresented€to€the€trial€court.€€Even€if€trial€counsel€had€attached€an€affidavit€to€theÍmotion€for€change€of€venue,€€the€trial€court€found€that€it€would€not€have€grantedÏthe€motion€based€on€the€existence€of€a€single€newspaper€article.€€Nothing€in€theÏrecord€indicates€that€pre„trial€publicity€or€public€attitudes€were€such€that€theÏpetitioner€was€denied€a€fair€trial€in€Grainger€County.€€€Both€the€motion€to€severÏand€the€motion€to€change€venue€were€considered€by€the€trial€court€and€wereÏdenied.€€This€court€affirmed€the€denials€on€appeal€finding€that€the€victimððs€jailÏuniform€would€have€been€equally€admissible€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€and€that€theÏtrial€court€had€not€abused€its€discretion€in€denying€either€motion.€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€has€not€met€his€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€inÏhis€post„conviction€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€Based€uponÏour€review€of€the€record€before€us,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€notÏdemonstrated€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€or€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€in€any€way€by€the€alleged€deficiencies.€€Therefore,€we€affirm€theÏpost„conviction€courtððs€dismissal€of€appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à__________________________à àÌà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌ