ÿWPC2- …U:V % 0 Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u© 0d B‚U*ŸB)ÉDCò AM5¦‚`( D3ˆ~»ï9 0@(Àh(v~<$vÓº% AO+ÆÜ+ 0D¢, D/æ, B-,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ KDLMENOPDQTUDVÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x_(Ð(3ª™$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÙéXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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 d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌJuneÏ6,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀÙéXXdædæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAll€four€of€the€appellant's€issues€relate€either€directly€or€indirectly€to€the€two€missingÏwitnesses€identified€as€"Dale"€and€"Wallace."Ì'ÿÿdxd tÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À@XXdðdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAt€trial,€the€victim's€mother€acknowledged€that€the€appellant€and€her€daughter€knew€eachÏother€and€that€the€appellant€previously€had€spent€the€night€in€her€apartment.Ì åÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À@XXdðdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAmong€other€reasons€we€note€that€Tenn.R.Evid.€412(c)(3)€permits€introduction€of€theÏvictim's€sexual€behavior€with€the€accused€only€when€the€defendant€relies€upon€consent.€€ConsentÏwas€not€relied€upon€by€the€appellant€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€€òòKingóó,€No.€01C01„9310„CR„00366.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7À@XXdðdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that€the€appellant's€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€a€denial€of€his€right€to€compulsoryÏprocess€is€misplaced.€€The€record€reflects€that€compulsory€process€to€obtain€witnesses€was€in€factÏissued€on€behalf€of€the€appellant€at€trial.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€$ôÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÓÓMS.€BLAIR:€€Now,€how€was€Mr.€Moore's€representation€not€up€to€par,€notÏà àeffective?€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àAPPELLANT:€€Well,€.€.€.€I€kept€repeating€myself€and€telling€him€that€these€twoÏwitnesses€was€key€to€my€defense€because€the€DA's€theory€was€that€theÏrelationship€between€me€and€the€victim€wasn't€the€way€I€said€it,€which€it€was€anÏintimate€relationship.€€So,€they€[sic]€theory€was€that€I€raped€her.€Ìà àà àà à€€€And€these€two€witnesses€could€show€that€the€night€Ìà8 àthat€I€met€this€victim,€we€had€sexual€intercourse,€willingly,€the€first€night.€€TheÏmother€also€had€sex€with€Dale€and€Wallace.€€Now,€being€that€I€can't€tell€you€theirÏlast€name,€I€don't€know€their€last€name.€€But€I€know€€where€they€lived€at.€€I€know€theÏkind€of€cars€they€drive.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà à€€€€They€could€have€told€the€Court€and€proved€the€DA's€theory€that€I€didn'tÏhave€to€rape€her.€€Do€you€understand?€That's€what€I'm€saying.ÌÌà8 àMS.€BLAIR:€€So,€let€me€just€reiterate€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àCOURT:€€Prior€sexual€intercourse€has€nothing€to€do€with€the€charge€of€rape,€Ms.ÏBlair.ÌÌà8 àÌPtPtHHÚ(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  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òÙ€€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|`   `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌà@ àFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1997Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òWENDELL€œKING,›€JR.ó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9603„CR„00086Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Seth€W.€Norman,€JudgeÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òPAULA€OGLE€BLAIRó óà àà àò òà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONó óÌ176€Second€Avenue,€Northà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€406à àÌNashville,€TN€€37201à àà àà àò òLISA€A.€NAYLORó óà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òVICTOR€S.€(TORRY)€JOHNSON€IIIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òRONALD€E.€MILLERó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222„2nd€Avenue,€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Wendell€King,€Jr.,€appeals€the€Davidson€County€CriminalÏCourt's€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€In€this€appeal,€heÏraises€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà8 àI.€€Whether€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€locate€twoÏwitnesses;ÌÌà8 àII.€€Whether€the€burden€of€producing€witnesses€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€is€"inherently€unfair"€to€an€incarceratedÏpetitioner;ÌÌà8 àIII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€appellant's€motionÏfor€a€continuance;€andÌÌà8 àIV.€€Whether€the€post„conviction€court€was€biased€against€theÏappellant.× ƒ) ××  ×ÌÓÓÌà àAfter€a€€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant's€contentionsÏare€without€merit.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Backgroundó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€convicted€of€the€felony€murder€and€aggravated€rape€ofÏJeannie€Barlow,€who€was€eighteen€years€old€at€the€time€of€her€death.€€AlthoughÍno€direct€evidence€connecting€the€appellant€to€the€crimes€was€presented€at€trial,Ïthe€scientific€evidence€was€overwhelming.€€His€hair,€his€semen,€and€his€salivaÏmatched€that€left€on€the€victim's€body€by€the€murderer.€€€€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ï01C01„9310„CR„00366€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Aug.€4,€1994),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Oct.€31,€1994).€€Moreover,€the€DNA€testing€completed€byÏan€FBI€technician€excluded€99.9999€percent€of€the€population€as€possibleÏsuspects.€€òòIdóó.€€As€a€result€of€these€convictions,€the€appellant€was€sentenced€toÏlife€imprisonment€plus€thirty€years.€€His€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmedÏon€direct€appeal€by€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€€òòKingóó,€No.€01C01„9310„CR„00366.€€OnÏMarch€21,€1995,€the€appellant€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€post„conviction€petition.€ÏSubsequently,€the€appellant€was€provided€appointed€counsel,€who€filed€anÏamendment€to€the€petition.ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that€his€trial€counselÏwas€ineffective€for€failing€to€locate€and€question€two€potentially€favorableÏwitnesses,€"Dale"€and€"Wallace."€€Although€he€did€not€know€the€surnames€ofÏthese€two€men,€the€appellant€did€know€where€they€lived€at€the€time€of€theÏmurder€and€the€type€of€cars€they€drove.€€The€appellant€argued€that€theseÏwitnesses€would€have€established€that€the€appellant€and€the€victim€hadÏpreviously€engaged€in€consensual€sexual€intercourse.€€In€addition,€heÏcontended€that€these€witnesses€would€have€also€discredited€the€testimony€ofÍthe€victim's€mother€who€testified€against€him€at€trial.œ× ƒ+ ××  ×›€€The€appellant€stated€thatÏtrial€counsel€was€aware€of€these€potential€witnesses,€but€failed€to€conduct€aÏproper€investigation€which€would€reveal€œtheir›€whereabouts.€€Moreover,€heÏaverred€that€the€trial€court€wrongfully€denied€him€a€continuance€on€the€first€dayÏof€his€trial€so€that€"Dale"€and€"Wallace"€could€be€located.€€Despite€hisÏallegations,€the€appellant€conceded€that€these€men€knew€nothing€about€hisÏactions€on€the€day€of€the€rape€and€murder€of€the€victim.ÌÌà àThe€appellant's€trial€counsel€testified€that€the€appellant€did€provide€himÏwith€the€names€of€the€two€potential€witnesses€identified€only€as€"Dale"€andÏ"Wallace,"€however,€all€efforts€to€locate€them€were€unsuccessful.€€Trial€counselÏindicated€that€two€investigators€with€the€Metro€Public€Defender's€OfficeÏœrepeatedly€attempted›€to€locate€the€men€during€the€pre„trial€investigation€of€thisÏcase€and€throughout€the€trial,€but€were€unable€to€œdo€so.›€€Counsel€furtherÏtestified€that€he€met€with€the€appellant€on€four€or€five€occasions€and€providedÏwritten€evidence€to€further€document€the€time€spent€on€the€appellant's€case.€ÏWith€regard€to€the€denial€of€the€appellant's€motion€for€continuance,€trial€counselÏstated€that€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€on€the€ground€that€the€appellant€hadÏalready€had€nineteen€months€to€locate€any€potentially€favorable€witnesses.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€court€dismissed€the€appellant'sÏœpetition›€finding€sufficient€grounds€existed€for€denying€the€appellant's€motion€forÏcontinuance€and€that€trial€counsel's€performance€was€not€deficient.ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Ineffective€Assistanceó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€first€alleges€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€because€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€locate€two€potentially€favorableÏwitnesses.€€To€succeed€in€such€a€challenge,€the€appellant€must€show,€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€684,€686€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994),€first,€that€counsel'sÏrepresentation€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases,€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€and,€second,Ïthat,€but€for€these€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2068€(1984);ÏòòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€493€U.S.€874,Ï110€S.Ct.€211€(1989).€€On€post„conviction€review,€there€is€a€strong€presumptionÏof€satisfactory€representation,€€òòBarr€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€462,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995),€and€the€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€684,€686€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€Moreover,€when€this€court€undertakes€review€of€a€lowerÍcourt's€decision€on€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€lower€court's€findingsÏof€fact€are€given€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict€and€are€conclusive€on€œappeal›Ïabsent€a€finding€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòClenny€v.ÏStateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€441€U.S.€947,Ï99€S.Ct.€2170€œ(1979);›€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€684,€686€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àWhen€an€appellant€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€locate€potentialÏwitnesses€in€support€of€his€defense,€he€bears€the€burden€of€òòpresentingóó€theseÏwitnesses€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990)(emphasis€added).€€Before€he€can€be€entitled€to€relief€on€thisÏground,€the€appellant€must€produce€a€material€witness(es)€who€(1)€could€haveÏbeen€found€by€a€reasonable€investigation€and€(2)€would€have€testified€favorablyÏin€support€of€his€defense€if€called.€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€753.€€If€€the€appellantÏfails€to€present€such€witnesses,€he€fails€to€establish€the€prejudice€prongÏmandated€by€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€òòsupraóó.€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€753.€€TheÏappellant,€in€the€case€before€us,€did€not€present€the€alleged€material€witnesses,Ïidentified€as€"Dale"€and€"Wallace."€€Moreover,€from€the€appellant's€testimony€atÏthe€hearing,€it€is€impossible€to€determine€how€the€testimony€of€these€witnessesÍwould€have€been€relevant€to€his€case.× ƒ, ××  ×€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àIn€a€related€issue€to€the€appellant's€claim€of€ineffectiveness,€he€contendsÏthat€production€of€the€two€witnesses€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€unfairly€shiftsÏthe€burden€of€proof€upon€him.€€The€appellant€acknowledges€that€he€bears€theÏburden€of€proving€his€claims,€however,€he€argues€that,€because€of€hisÏcontinuous€incarceration€following€arrest,€this€burden€is€inherently€unfair.€€It€isÏwell„settled€within€this€state€that€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€hisÏallegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€regardless€of€the€nature€of€theÏallegation€and€the€custodial€situation€of€the€defendant.€€òòTayloróó,€875€S.W.2d€atÏ686;€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€752.€€The€appellant,€in€the€present€case,€has€failed€toÏcarry€this€burden.€€This€contention€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.€€ó ó€ò òMotion€for€Continuanceó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€compulsoryÏprocess€by€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€grant€a€continuance€so€that€witnesses€forÍthe€defense€could€be€secured.× ƒ. ××  ל€€Specifically,›€he€asserts€that,€because€he€wasÏincarcerated€prior€to€his€trial,€he€needed€additional€time€to€secure€twoÏwitnesses,€"Dale"€and€"Wallace,"€whom€trial€counsel€had€been€unable€to€locate.€€ÌÌà à€€The€decision€whether€to€grant€a€continuance€"rests€within€the€discretionÏof€the€trial€court."€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€825€S.W.2d€113,€117€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1991).€€A€denial€of€a€continuance€will€not€be€disturbed€"unless€it€appears€uponÏthe€face€of€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€and€prejudiceÏenured€to€the€accused€as€a€direct€result€of€the€trial€judge's€ruling."€€òòState€v.ÏDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€257€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Moreover,€in€order€toÏgain€relief€in€the€post„conviction€context,€the€appellant€must€also€demonstrateÏthat€the€trial€court's€denial€abridged€his€constitutional€right€to€fundamentalÏfairness€in€the€conviction€process.€€òòConner€v.€Bowenóó,€842€F.2d€279,€283€(11thÏCir.€1988).€€The€granting€or€refusal€of€a€continuance€"rarely€reachesÏconstitutional€proportions."€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€No.€03C01„9311„CR„00381€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Feb.€28,€1996),òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Feb.€3,Ï1997)€(citing€òòKnighton€v.€Maggioóó,€740€F.2d€1344,€1350€(5th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ï469€U.S.€924,€105€S.Ct.€306€(1984).ÌÌà àAfter€considering€the€merits€of€this€issue,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt's€denial€of€the€appellant's€motion€for€additional€time€to€secure€theÏpresence€of€unlocated€witnesses€implicates€due€process.€€In€determiningÏwhether€the€trial€court's€action€rendered€the€appellant's€trial€fundamentallyÏunfair,€we€must€look€for€actual€prejudice€to€the€appellant.€€Continuances€may€beÏgranted€for€the€purpose€of€securing€the€presence€of€identifiable€witnesses€ifÏœtheir›€testimony€is€material€and€admissible.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€asÏwell€as€before€the€trial€court,€the€appellant€failed€to€demonstrate€that€theseÏwitnesses€œwere›€material€witnesses€or€that€their€presence€could€have€beenÏsecured€at€the€œtrial›€if€given€additional€time.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€by€denying€the€appellant's€motion€for€continuance.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò òV.€€Bias€of€Post„Conviction€Judgeó óÌÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€asserts€that€he€did€not€receive€a€full€andÏfair€hearing€on€all€the€grounds€raised€in€his€post„conviction€petition€because€theÏpost„conviction€judge€was€biased€against€him.€€He€avers€that€the€court€deniedÏhim€his€right€to€testify€as€to€the€importance€of€the€missing€witnesses.€ÏSpecifically,€he€complains€that€the€trial€court's€comment€that,€"prior€sexual€ÌÌÌintercourse€has€nothing€to€do€with€the€charge€of€rape,"€demonstrated€the€court'sÏbias€against€him.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€ÌÌà àDuring€the€hearing,€the€appellant€stated€that€the€missing€witnesses€wouldÏhave€testified€that,€prior€to€the€victim's€rape€and€murder,€he€and€the€victim€hadÏengaged€in€consensual€intercourse.€€This€fact€alone€does€not€make€theÏwitnesses€material,€or€that,€if€produced,€their€testimony€would€have€beenÏrelevant€and,€therefore,€admissible.€€The€standard€employed€in€determiningÏbias€is€an€objective€œone.€€òòAlley›€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2d€810,€820€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).€€Moreover,€adverse€rulings€by€a€court€are€not€usually€sufficient€groundsÍto€establish€bias.€€òòIdóó.€at€821.€€The€comment€made€by€the€post„conviction€courtÏdoes€not€indicate€bias€or€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€consider€the€appellant'sÏtestimony.€€€Accordingly,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€the€post„conviction€judge€was€biased€or€unfair.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òVI.€€Conclusionó óÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€issues€presented€by€the€appellant,Ïwe€conclude€that€the€post„conviction€court€properly€dismissed€the€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€The€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is,€therefore,Ïaffirmed.ÌÓÓÌÓÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJ.€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€Judge