ÿWPC¡# …U .V %„bŠ 0JŽØn­è• 0 (U:Åw¸ÿ4· 0TË 0™ 0D¸ U:ü 0^6 0h” 0rü 0|n 0†ê 0p 1u 0duU *Ù BB) DCI AMŒÙïµ D3º„íäq 0@U2•äÇv~«vÓ) AOü!ÆK" 0D# D/U# B„#<þ6X9`(CourierX ù2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|xP «<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular  D! " U# % D& ' D( D) D* + D, D- . D/ 0 D1 2 ; D< = D> D? U@ A {B C 1eD E Ó€U”$2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(I(2/$$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XÉ–XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2, 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`(Arial d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òMay€19,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„101€to€„124€(1990€and€Supp.€1994)€(repealedÏ1995).Ì «Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€take€this€opportunity€to€admonish€parties€and€their€attorneysÏappearing€in€this€court€that€their€briefs€"òòshall€containóó"€argument€on€the€issuesÏpresented,€citation€to€authorities,€and€references€to€the€record.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï27(a),€(b);€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€€This€court€is€empowered€to€strike€aÏdeficient€brief€and€direct€the€offending€party€or€attorney€to€file€a€new€brief€and€toÏimpose€costs€on€the€offending€party€or€attorney.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.Ï10(a).Ì""""'ÿÿdxd zÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€petition€raises€several€issues€in€addition€to€ineffective€assistance;Ïhowever,€in€his€brief€Lawson€concedes€that€only€the€issue€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€is€properly€before€this€court€in€light€of€our€opinion€in€the€previousÏappeal€of€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòErnest€Lawson€IIóó,€slip€op.€at€3„4€(issue€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€was€not€previously€determined€or€waived,€therefore,€itÏwas€proper€basis€for€post€conviction€claim).Ì ÚÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòsupraóó,€n.2.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò (Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€decline€to€address€those€issues€raised€in€the€petition€which€have€notÏbeen€challenged€in€this€appeal.ÌÌ ÚÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€!Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòsupraóó,€n.2.ÌPtPtHHØ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€!Ô›Ñ7€ ²* XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌò òÑ€Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àJANUARY€1998€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌò òERNEST€LAWSON,à à€à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9608„CR„00286Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMcMinn€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àà à)à àHonorable€R.€StevenÏBebb,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à à(Post€Conviction)ÌÌÌÌò òFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌCHARLES€M.€CORNà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌó óPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€1453à àà àà àà àà àÌCleveland,€TN€€37364„1453à àà àà àò òMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Second€Ave.€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSecond€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€Bldg.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0494Ìò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€N.€ESTESó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òAMY€F.€ARMSTRONGó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€647Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAthens,€TN€€37371„0647ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:ó ó___________________ÌÌò òÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEó óÇà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner,€Ernest€Lawson,€appeals€the€McMinn€CountyÏCriminal€Court's€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post€conviction€relief.€€Lawson€wasÏconvicted€of€possession€of€marijuana€and€possession€of€cocaine€for€resaleÏfollowing€a€jury€trial€and€received€an€effective€twelve€year€sentence.€€On€directÏappeal€to€this€court,€his€convictions€were€affirmed€and€his€effective€sentenceÏmodified€to€ten€years.€€òòState€v.€Ernest€Lawsonóó,€No.€185€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€June€18,€1991),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1992)€("Ernest€Lawson€I").€ÏThe€supreme€court€denied€review€of€his€case€on€May€4,€1992.€€Thereafter,ÏLawson€filed€his€òòpro€seóó€post„conviction€petition€on€July€19,€1993.€€The€petitionÏwas€summarily€dismissed€by€the€court€below.€€On€appeal,€this€court€found€errorÏin€that€dismissal€and€reversed€and€remanded€the€case€for€appointment€ofÏcounsel€and€further€proceedings€under€the€Post€Conviction€Procedure€Act€ofÏ1967.× ƒ( ××  ×€€òòErnest€Lawson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9401„CR„00037€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€July€7,€1994)€("Ernest€Lawson€II").€€The€court€below€appointedÏcounsel€and€allowed€the€petitioner€an€opportunity€for€a€hearing.€€Lawson€choseÏnot€to€present€evidence€at€the€time€allotted€for€his€hearing€and€asked€the€courtÏto€consider€his€allegations€based€solely€upon€review€of€the€record€of€trial.€€TheÍlower€court€found€his€allegations€without€merit€and€dismissed€the€petition.€€InÏthis€appeal€of€that€adverse€determination,€Lawson€claims€the€trial€court€erred€inÏfinding€he€was€afforded€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€in€failingÏto€state€its€specific€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€as€to€each€allegationÏof€the€petition€on€the€record€or€in€an€order.€€Following€a€review€of€the€record,€weÏaffirm€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€Lawson's€petition.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àFirst,€we€take€up€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€recite€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€as€to€each€allegation€of€theÏpetition.€€Lawson€claims€the€"order€dismissing€the€petition€should€be€set€asideÏand/or€the€case€should€be€remanded"€with€instructions€for€the€trial€court€toÏprovide€its€findings€and€conclusions.€€The€state€has€chosen€not€to€respond€toÏthis€issue€in€its€brief.× ƒ) ××  ×ÌÌà àà àFormer€Code€section€40„30„118€requires€thatÌÓÓà8 àUpon€the€final€disposition€of€every€petition,€the€court€shall€enter€aÏfinal€order,€and€except€where€proceedings€for€a€delayed€appealÏare€allowed,€shall€set€forth€in€the€order€or€a€written€memorandumÏof€the€case€all€grounds€presented€and€shall€state€the€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law€with€regard€to€each€such€ground.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b)€(1990)€(repealed€1995).€€The€record€clearlyÏreflects€the€trial€court's€failure€to€meet€the€statutory€requirements€in€either€its€oralÏor€written€orders.€€Thus,€the€question€becomes€whether€this€failure€requiresÏreversal.ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€interpreted€the€language€of€section€40„30„118(b)€toÏbe€mandatory.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€1€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€462,€467,€445ÏS.W.2d€669,€671€(1969).€€To€be€sure,€the€requirement€is€in€place€to€facilitateÏappellate€review€of€the€trial€court's€determinations.€€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680ÏS.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€Nevertheless,€the€trial€court's€failureÏto€comply€with€the€section's€requirement€that€it€specifically€state€its€findings€andÏconclusions€does€not€necessarily€mandate€reversal.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Higginsóó,Ï729€S.W.2d€288,€290„91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòSwansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€atÏ489.€€The€rule€that€reversal€is€not€always€required€is€generally€relied€upon€inÏcases€where€the€trial€court's€findings€and€conclusions€are€found€in€the€recordÏ(such€as€in€the€court's€oral€pronouncements€at€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing)Íbut€not€in€the€written€order€of€dismissal.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòHigginsóó,€729€S.W.2d€at€290„91.€€Additionally,€the€rule€has€been€applied€where€the€facts€are€undisputed.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòWebb€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€723,€743,€475€S.W.2d€228,€236€(1971)Ï(Galbreath,€J.,€dissenting).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€trial€court€was€asked€to€review€the€recordÏof€trial€and€determine€whether€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€Specific€complaints€were€lodged€against€counsel's€performance.€€NoÏtestimonial€evidence€of€the€petitioner,€his€trial€counsel,€or€the€witnesses€heÏclaimed€should€have€been€called€was€offered€in€support€of€his€claims.€€Thus,€weÏperceive€this€situation€to€be€one€where€the€facts€are€undisputed,€and€the€realÏissue€is€what€conclusions€should€be€drawn€from€those€facts.€€The€conclusionÏdrawn€from€the€facts€was€stated€collectively€„„€the€petitioner€was€not€entitled€toÏrelief€on€any€of€the€claims.€€In€this€situation,€we€find€harmless€the€trial€court'sÏfailure€to€make€specific€findings€and€conclusions€as€to€each€allegation.€ReversalÏis€not€required.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àIn€the€remaining€issue,€Lawson€claims€he€was€denied€the€effectiveÍassistance€of€counsel€in€numerous€respects.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€On€appeal,€he€has€challengedÏthe€dismissal€of€several€of€those€claims.€€The€state€claims€the€trial€court's€resultÏwas€correct€as€to€all€of€the€specific€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance,€saveÏone€allegation€in€which€the€state€failed€to€respond€in€its€brief.× ƒ, ××  ×€€ÌÌà àà àIn€evaluating€claims€of€ineffective€assistance,€the€finder€of€factÏmust€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€counsel's€conduct€falls€within€the€rangeÏof€reasonable€professional€assistance€and€must€evaluate€counsel'sÏperformance€from€counsel's€perspective€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€error€and€inÏlight€of€the€totality€of€the€evidence.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€690,€695,Ï104€S.€Ct.€2066,€2069€(1984).€€The€petitioner€must€demonstrate€that€there€is€aÏreasonable€probability€that€but€for€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€ofÏthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695,€104€S.ÏCt.€at€2069.€€A€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€following€a€post„conviction€hearingÏhave€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€€òòBratton€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€754,€756€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.€1971).€€On€appeal,€those€findings€are€conclusive€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,Ï900€(Tenn.€1990).€€ÌÌà àà àAs€discussed€in€section€I€above,€the€trial€court€failed€to€fulfill€itsÏobligations€under€Code€section€40„30„118(b).€€As€a€result,€there€are€no€findingsÏof€fact€to€be€afforded€"the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict."€€However,€the€record€of€trialÏamply€supports€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€each€allegation€challenged€onÏappeal.€€In€light€of€the€trial€court's€deficient€order,€we€briefly€summarize€theÏrelevant€facts€which€support€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€each€allegation€ofÏineffectiveness€raised€on€appeal.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àà àA€very€brief€summary€of€the€facts€underlying€Lawson's€convictionÏis€of€assistance€in€understanding€the€ineffective€assistance€allegationsÏpresented.€€Lawson€was€stopped€for€speeding€on€Interstate€75€in€McMinnÏCounty.€€A€state€trooper€and€an€assistant€district€attorney€general€who€was€withÏthe€trooper€at€the€time€of€the€stop€observed€marijuana€in€the€car€Lawson€wasÏdriving.€€The€passenger€compartment€of€the€car€was€searched,€and€a€small€bagÍof€marijuana€was€discovered€underneath€an€arm€rest.€€A€further€search€of€theÏtrunk€revealed€a€package€wrapped€in€duct€tape€inside€a€shaving€kit.€€TheÏtrooper€opened€the€package€and€found€140€grams€of€cocaine.ÌÌòòMotion€to€SuppressóóÌà àà àLawson€contends€his€trial€attorney€was€ineffective€in€fourÏparticulars€in€his€representation€at€the€motion€to€suppress€the€fruits€of€theÏwarrantless€search€of€the€vehicle.ÌÌà àà àFirst,€he€claims€trial€counsel€failed€to€exploit€the€inconsistentÏtestimony€and€attack€the€credibility€of€the€trooper€and€assistant€district€attorneyÏgeneral€who€apprehended€him.€€Contrary€to€his€assertions,€we€find€noÏinconsistency€in€the€testimony€about€where€marijuana€was€observed€in€theÏvehicle.€€Both€the€trooper€and€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€testified€theyÏsaw€marijuana€and€marijuana€residue€in€the€seat€and€floorboard€of€the€vehicleÏand€a€bag€of€marijuana€underneath€an€arm€rest.€€There€was€no€inconsistencyÏfor€trial€counsel€to€exploit.€€Likewise,€we€find€no€merit€in€Lawson's€claim€counselÏshould€have€attacked€the€officer's€and€assistant€district€attorney€general'sÏcredibility€because€the€marijuana€on€the€seat€and€floorboard€was€not€tested€andÏthe€marijuana€was€not€introduced€at€trial.€€The€record€reveals€that€the€marijuanaÍfound€under€the€arm€rest€was€tested€and€confirmed€to€be€marijuana.€€An€expertÏwitness€testified€about€the€test€results.€€A€portion€of€the€substance€observed€onÏthe€seat€and€floorboard€included€a€marijuana€leaf€and€marijuana€seeds,€whichÏwere€recognized€as€such€by€the€witnesses.€€We€fail€to€see€that€counsel€couldÏhave€mounted€a€successful€credibility€attack€in€light€of€these€facts€of€record.ÌÌà àà àSecond,€Lawson€claims€trial€counsel€should€have€attacked€theÏtrial€court's€finding€at€the€motion€to€suppress€that€the€defendant€was€trying€toÏhide€something€after€the€trooper€and€assistant€district€attorney€general€initiatedÏpursuit€of€him.€€The€record€reveals€testimony€which€clearly€supports€the€trialÏcourt's€finding€in€this€regard€at€the€motion€to€suppress.€€The€merits€of€the€motionÏto€suppress€itself€have€been€previously€determined€by€this€court€on€directÏappeal.€€òòErnest€Lawson€Ióó,€slip€op.€at€3„19.€€Moreover,€we€fail€to€see€that€counselÏshould€have€performed€differently€or€that€a€different€performance€would€haveÏyielded€a€favorable€result.ÌÌà àà àThird,€Lawson€claims€the€testimony€is€confusing€regarding€theÏlocation€where€the€trooper€and€assistant€DA€were€sitting€on€the€interstate€priorÏto€his€apprehension.€€We€find€no€inconsistency€in€the€record.€€Therefore,€thisÏallegation€must€fail.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€final€issue€related€to€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€defendantÏattacks€trial€counsel's€choice€of€legal€argument€and€reliance€on€decisionalÏauthority.€€This€court€engaged€in€a€thorough€review€of€the€motion€to€suppress€onÏdirect€appeal€and€found€the€trial€court's€determination€proper.€€òòErnest€Lawson€Ióó,Ïslip€op.€at€3„17.€Thus,€we€are€constrained€to€find€that€Lawson€did€not€have€aÏvalid€legal€basis€for€challenging€the€search€results€he€sought€to€haveÏsuppressed.€€In€other€words,€a€different€tactic€would€not€have€produced€aÏdifferent€result.ÌÌòòMotion€for€ContinuanceóóÌà àà àLawson€finds€fault€with€the€level€of€vigor€employed€by€counsel€inÏseeking€a€continuance€based€upon€then„President€Bush's€"War€on€Drugs"ÏSpeech€given€the€evening€before€jury€selection€commenced.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€counsel€ably€argued€the€motion.€€Moreover,€the€propriety€of€the€trialÏcourt's€determination€was€considered€by€this€court€on€direct€appeal.€€òòErnestÏLawson€Ióó,€slip€op.€at€18.€€We€fail€to€see€how€a€different€tactic€would€haveÏproduced€a€different€result.ÌÌòòDenial€of€Witnesses€and€EvidenceóóÌà àà àLawson€asks€us€to€find€fault€with€trial€counsel's€effectiveness€(1)€inÏarguing€for€a€continuance€based€upon€the€absence€of€two€witnesses€whoÏallegedly€would€support€his€defense,€€(2)€in€failing€to€subpoena€theseÏwitnesses,€and€(3)€in€failing€to€subpoena€one€of€the€witnesses'€court€records.€ÏHowever,€Lawson€has€not€provided€us€with€the€testimony€these€witnessesÏwould€have€offered€had€they€been€subpoenaed€and/or€the€continuance€beenÏgranted€to€obtain€their€presence.€€Moreover,€he€has€failed€in€this€proceeding€toÏproduce€the€court€records€which€allegedly€would€have€assisted€his€defense.€€AsÏsuch,€we€can€find€no€prejudice€that€has€befallen€him€as€a€result€of€counsel'sÏalleged€shortcomings.ÌÌòòFingerprint€Evidenceò òÌà àà àó óóóIn€his€next€issue,€Lawson€attacks€counsel's€performance€relative€toÏtrial€testimony€that€fingerprint€evidence€was€not€collected€from€the€vehicleÏLawson€was€driving€and€its€contents.€€The€assistant€DA€testified€that€fingerprintÏevidence€was€not€collected€because€the€materials€found€in€the€vehicle€were€notÏconducive€to€fingerprint€collection,€and€further,€Lawson€was€the€only€occupantÏof€the€car€"so€we€knew€his€fingerprints€are€going€to€be€all€over€the€car."€€LawsonÏclaims€counsel€should€have€objected€to€this€testimony€and€should€have€pointedÏout€that€Lawson's€fingerprints€were€not€found€all€over€the€car.€€First,€the€recordÍreflects€that€counsel€requested€a€ruling€about€the€admissibility€of€this€evidenceÏand€obtained€an€adverse€ruling.€€Second,€the€evidence€òòdoesóó€reflect€that€none€ofÏLawson's€fingerprints€were€found;€the€assistant€DA€testified€that€no€fingerprintÏevidence€was€collected€and€the€trooper€testified€he€was€unaware€of€anyÏcollection€of€fingerprint€evidence.€€The€record€fails€to€support€any€deficientÏperformance€of€counsel.ÌÌòòWithdrawn€QuestionóóÌà àà àNext,€Lawson€takes€issue€with€counsel's€withdrawal€of€a€questionÏasked€of€a€state€trooper€about€the€identity€of€the€individuals€present€during€aÏdiscussion€with€Lawson€about€helping€law€enforcement€catch€other€individualsÏinvolved€in€drug€trafficking.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€trooper€had€testifiedÏinconsistently€on€the€issue,€and€counsel€effectively€brought€that€out€throughÏcross„examination.€€The€question€was€withdrawn€after€the€court€ruled€it€hadÏbeen€asked€and€answered.€€Additionally,€we€see€no€way€a€different€result€couldÏhave€been€obtained€had€counsel€handled€his€cross„examination€of€this€witnessÏdifferently€on€this€point.ÌÌòòInventory€Formò òÌà àà àó óóóLawson's€next€grievance€is€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€obtainÍthe€vehicle€inventory€form€prior€to€trial€and€that€counsel's€failure€to€do€soÏresulted€in€unpreparedness.€€He€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€counsel€couldÏhave€or€would€have€proceeded€differently€had€he€known€the€contents€of€theÏvehicle€inventory€form€€prior€to€trial,€and€the€record€fails€to€reveal€that€theÏinventory€form€provided€any€information€which€would€have€brought€about€aÏdifferent€result€had€counsel€been€aware€of€it€before€trial.ÌÌòòStipulated€Chain€of€CustodyóóÌà àà àLawson€finds€fault€with€trial€counsel's€stipulation€to€the€chain€ofÏcustody€of€the€cocaine.€€He€claims€counsel€should€have€required€strict€proof;Ïhowever,€he€offered€no€evidence€of€any€deficiency€in€the€chain€of€custody,€andÏthe€record€fails€to€demonstrate€any€shortcoming.€€Thus,€we€find€no€fault€inÏcounsel's€stipulation€nor€any€resulting€prejudice.ÌÌòòRebuttal€Witness€TestimonyóóÌà àà àLawson's€next€complaint€is€with€trial€counsel's€failure€to€renew€aÏmotion€to€strike€the€testimony€of€a€rebuttal€witness€and€in€his€failure€to€requestÏan€instruction€that€the€evidence€of€a€drug€transaction€between€Lawson€and€theÏwitness€was€for€purposes€of€rebuttal€of€Lawson's€testimony€and€not€evidence€ofÏthe€transaction€itself.€€At€trial,€Lawson€testified€he€had€never€sold€cocaine€norÍdealt€with€individuals€who€sold€cocaine.€€He€was€cross„examined€thoroughlyÏand€maintained€his€position.€€In€rebuttal,€an€undercover€narcotics€agent€from€theÏState€of€Ohio€testified€she€had€purchased€cocaine€from€Lawson€on€twoÏoccasions.€€First,€we€see€no€benefit€from€renewing€a€motion€to€strike€after€it€hadÏbeen€overruled.€€We€upheld€the€admissibility€of€this€evidence€in€Lawson's€directÏappeal.€€òòErnest€Lawson€Ióó,€slip€op.€at€19.€€Second,€we€are€unable€to€determineÏthe€œmerits€of›€counsel's€effectiveness€on€the€jury€instruction€issue.€€The€chargeÏhas€not€been€made€a€part€of€the€post€conviction€record,€and€it€is€not€contained€inÏthe€record€of€Lawson's€direct€appeal.€€Further,€Lawson€has€failed€to€cite€anyÏauthority€compelling€the€necessity€of€this€instruction.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.ÏApp.€10(b).ÌÌÌòòCumulative€Effect€of€ErrorsóóÌà àà àFinally,€Lawson€claims€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€aforementionedÏactions€and€inactions€of€counsel€amounted€to€ineffective€assistance€at€trial.€ÏBecause€we€have€found€no€merit€in€any€of€these€allegations,€we€concludeÏLawson€was€not€deprived€of€effective€counsel€based€on€cumulativeÏshortcomings.ÌÌà àà àIn€summary,€the€record€before€us€fails€to€demonstrate€any€errorÏrequiring€reversal.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ