ÿWPC¡ +ª¸õ߀ñìG³Ì+ǧms¶ ªÿo ’×?úEæÕ ã“{5ÐN,ŠVü­Nm4ÃO…¨Øâá„Ø¶—µ267ð#¿ÀQÈãU¦ð})R¼ž¼=ó ôgT¯£l?&ü¦ßj©kÇÛkÉɾÔHI9ùYXÛ­šd­‹xñzug¨,4ú"÷åKWE4ÅíCýï5ÏãþZØ ÎƒÕ?bóR—²0/?GÓáñ3ä1¤ ÃÅYѨ}‰BDLqž 18[´uæûÉr¶;Ëh<^¸$Ý9„:Ý ‰ú°s‰YM°>ø«Sá<2@x#‚ìéÈÓ‹Áê†_;MëÉh÷ÅÊ“OÁŸËÀkMFŸ‚˜p¤ã-Hî…“”Ö+ ³ŸPV=³­=×Ц^óà')Ìá‡-à]á\ø7x^¿ÈÄä¡~±]Jߣ₳™œmÙ¥”:7/%¶Oi|2 ІÐNP*’>Dëk%ÏÝ=]>¼ü.±) <èˆ.©䨒Ò¼øú‹üÌ¡šáá¢KÝX¸“òKF'Y‚è£V<ñ”¥ÀM%TÙ[ZÿÙNä”R83ØÀƒT“u% °{nè.M˜õµ;¡åØ·ö û"}¹5÷ £è†…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U :Í b 0‚ U:‘ 0¸Ë U:ƒ U:½ w@÷ 47 K ÑZ Ø+Ýöà$ÖúäU:æH         Bhhhhhhhhhhh D3……… 0D¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸ AOüÆKK 0D D/U B„˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-(A¤$Ô€XÎXXXÔÔ€ŠcŠXXÎÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(f*2•$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ XâíXXXÔÔ€ &vx&X XâíÔà  àòò€€Ú  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularG"Arial Regular †D‡DˆE‰Š‹ŒDŽDÓ€uM%$Ôô½¾¿À3|x˜ ÇÝ ƒ  ×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ XbîXXXÔÔ€ &60&X XbîÔà  àòò€€Ú  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Lockridge€denied€ever€wearing€any€type€of€police€wire. ÎÝ ƒ  ×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ XbîXXXÔÔ€ &60&X XbîÔà  àòò€€Ú  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€spelling€of€Officer€Nealððs€name€has€been€approximated. ÓÝ ƒ  ×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ XbîXXXÔÔ€ &60&X XbîÔà  àòò€€Ú  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€order€granting€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€transcripts€and€records€and€appointing€an€Ð `  Ðà0  àattorney,€which€is€dated€one€day€after€the€technical€record€was€filed€with€this€Court,€is€notÏincluded€in€the€technical€record.€€However,€the€Defendant€has€attached€a€copy€of€the€orderÏto€his€brief. ìÝ ƒ •$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ XâíXXXÔÔ€ &vx&X XâíÔà  àòò€€Ú  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€address€the€issues€in€a€different€order€than€that€presented€in€the€Defendantððs€brief. Ý ƒ  ×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ XbîXXXÔÔ€ &60&X XbîÔà  àòò€€Ú  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€arguing€that€his€motion€for€new€trial€was€improperly€denied,€the€Defendant€cites€an€olderÐ `  Ðà0  àversion€of€the€rule,€which€states€that€the€motion€should€be€filed€within€thirty€days€of€theÏòòverdictóó.€€The€rule€was€amended€in€1985€to€conform€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„Ð    Ð401.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(b)€advisory€commission€comments.€ ÚÔ€XâíXXXÔÔ€®X XXâíÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XâíX ®XÔÐ  ÐÌJune€2,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular >Ý ƒ  ×$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ XbîXXXÔÔ€ &60&X XbîÔà  àòò€€Ú  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Because€there€is€no€written€transcript€of€the€trial,€but€rather€a€videotape€record,€the€Ð `  Ðà0  àspelling€of€Vicky€Howellððs€name€may€be€incorrect. d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠðJŠXXÔÔ€ŠC:ŠŠŠðJÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€|ÛXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òññßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rßññIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9806„CC„00266Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àWILLIAMSON€COUNTYÐ `  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€TIMOTHY€EASTERó óÐ `  Ðò òPERRY€SALEEM€LEE,ó óà h àà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó ó(Aggravated€Assault)ò òÐ ` Ðó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÐ Pð ÐCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYó óÐ Pð ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð @ à ÐÌPERRY€SALEEM€LEEà h àà À àà  àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ 0"Ð ÐPro€Seà ¸ àñ†ñà  àñ†ñà  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ (#È ÐSCCF/CCAÌP.O.€Box€279ñ‡ñññà  àà  àñññ‡ñà  àà h àà À àà  àKIM€R.€HELPERÐ %¸ ÐClifton,€TN€38425à  àà h àà À àà  àñˆñà p àà È àñˆñAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ &° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€BAUGHÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.O.€Box€937Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFranklin,€TN€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ  ˜48+, ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°J`°ŠŠC:Ôò òÑ7€ ¯& ˆ ˆdXXdð7ÑòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠC:а°J`ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ  Óà ` àThe€Defendant,€Perry€Saleem€Lee,€was€indicted€on€two€counts€ofÏaggravated€assault.€€Following€a€jury€trial€in€April€1998,€he€was€found€guilty€of€oneÏcount€of€simple€assault€against€victim€Charles€Steele€and€one€count€ofÏaggravated€assault€against€victim€Kenneth€Lockridge.€€The€Defendant€nowÏappeals€his€convictions€òòproóó€òòseóó,€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ æ†  ÐAppellate€Procedure.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€presents€eight€issues€on€appeal:€(1)€whether€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€support€his€convictions;€(2)€whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€denying€his€motion€for€a€new€trial;€(3)€whether€the€victimsðð€in„courtÏidentifications€of€him€violated€his€right€to€a€fair€trial;€(4)€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€proceeding€with€the€trial€despite€the€Defendantððs€reservations€about€hisÏtrial€counselððs€familiarity€with€the€case;€(5)€whether€he€received€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel;€(6)€whether€the€prosecutor€made€improper€statementsÏduring€closing€arguments;€(7)€whether€the€reasonable€doubt€instruction€wasÏinfirm;€and€(8)€whether€he€was€improperly€denied€records€from€his€trial€to€perfectÏhis€appeal.׃×Ý ƒ¤ÝÔ€ŠC:ŠŠŠC:ÔÔ€ŠC:ŠŠŠC:ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð &,Æ"# ÐÌà ` àAll€events€underlying€the€Defendantððs€present€convictions€occurred€in€theÏearly€morning€hours€of€August€29,€1997.€€Aside€from€officers€involved€in€theÏDefendantððs€arrest,€the€only€witnesses€to€testify€at€trial€were€the€two€victims€andÏthe€Defendant.€€The€Defendant€and€the€victims€differed€in€their€versions€of€whatÏtranspired€on€the€night€of€the€crimes.Ð Æ7f./ Їà ` àCharles€Steele,€the€first€victim,€testified€that€he€had€known€the€DefendantÏsince€childhood.€€He€stated€that€on€August€29,€1997,€around€two€or€three€oððclockÏa.m.,€he€was€ð ðjust€hanging€out€.€.€.€sipping€a€few€beersðð€on€Natchez€Street.€€HeÏreported€that€at€the€time,€he€was€standing€with€a€group€of€people€in€front€of€theÏhouse€next€to€the€Defendantððs€home;€part€of€the€group€had€moved€into€theÏdriveway€between€the€two€houses.€€Steele€testified€that€while€he€was€standing€onÏthe€sidewalk,€the€Defendant€emerged€from€his€home,€asked€everyone€to€leaveÏthe€premises,€and€then€said,€ð ðCarry€your€ass€back€to€Hard€Bargainðð€or€ð ðCarry€thatÏs__t€on€back€to€Hard€Bargain.ðð€€Steele€assumed€that€the€Defendant€wasÏaddressing€him€because€he€was€the€only€member€of€the€group€who€lived€at€HardÏBargain.€€Steele€testified,€ð ðSeemed€like€I€told€him€.€.€.€there€wasnððt€no€sense€in€allÏthis€or€I€was€going,€I€was€leaving,€or€something€to€that€effect€.€.€.€.ðð€€According€toÏSteele,€while€they€were€talking,€the€Defendant€pulled€a€machete€or€a€knife,€whichÏSteele€described€as€two€and€a€half€feet€to€three€feet€long€and€three€to€four€inchesÏwide,€from€either€the€leg€of€his€pants€or€a€scabbard€at€his€side€and€began€toÏswing€it.€€Steele€testified€that€he€backed€away€from€the€Defendant€for€about€thirtyÏfeet€while€the€Defendant€swung€the€knife€at€him,€then€stumbled€and€fell.€€SteeleÏmaintained€that€while€on€the€ground,€he€raised€his€hand€up€in€self„defense€as€theÏDefendant€continued€swinging€the€knife,€and€the€knife€cut€his€hand.€€SteeleÏrecalled€that€after€he€was€cut,€it€ð ðseemed€like€[the€Defendant]€swung€at€me€again,Ïand€I€heard€the€blade€hit€the€ground,€and€I€jumped€up€and€ran€.€.€.€toward€my€car.ðð€ÏÌà ` àSteele€testified€that€he€drove€himself€to€the€emergency€room€of€a€nearbyÏhospital,€stopping€along€the€way€at€a€gas€station€to€get€a€towel€to€clean€his€bloodyÏhand.€€He€stated€that€while€at€the€hospital,€he€identified€the€Defendant€as€hisÏattacker€to€police.€€He€further€testified€that€he€required€several€stitches€betweenÐ Ð9p02 Ðhis€first€finger€and€thumb€and€that€his€middle€finger€was€cut€to€the€bone,€requiringÏsurgery.€€He€stated€that€he€now€has€limited€use€of€his€middle€finger.€€ÌÌà ` à€On€cross„examination,€Steele€admitted€to€having€been€previously€chargedÏwith€the€sale€of€cocaine.€€He€also€reported€that€he€may€have€smoked€crackÏcocaine€on€the€evening€of€August€28,€1997,€during€the€time€immediately€prior€toÏhis€confrontation€with€the€Defendant.€€However,€he€denied€smoking€crack€cocaineÏat€or€near€the€Defendantððs€residence€that€night.€€He€also€denied€having€any€drugÏ›paraphernaliaœ€in€his€hand€at€the€time€of€his€confrontation€with€the€Defendant,€andÏhe€testified€that€he€did€not€notice€anyone€else€on€Natchez€Street€engaging€in€drugÏuse€at€that€time.€€Furthermore,€he€admitted€that€after€this€incident,€he€told€anÏacquaintance,€Vicky€Howell,׃×Ý ƒ¤ÝÔ€Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔÔ€Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€he€had€cut€his€hand€cleaning€a€turtle,€but€heÐ °P Ðexplained€that€he€had€lied€to€Howell€because€he€did€not€believe€it€was€herÏbusiness€to€know€how€he€had€been€injured.ÌÌà ` àKenneth€Lockridge,€the€second€victim,€encountered€the€Defendant,€whomÏhe€had€known€ð ðall€his€lifeðð€and€whom€he€helped€raise,€shortly€after€SteeleÏdeparted€for€the€hospital.€€Lockridge€testified€that€he€and€his€girlfriend€wereÏwalking€down€Natchez€Street€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€August€29,€1997€whenÏhe€saw€the€Defendant€across€the€street.€€Lockridge€testified€that€he€said€to€theÏDefendant,€ð ðWhatððs€up,€my€nigger?ðð€which€he€ð ðconsidered€.€.€.€being€friendly.ðð€€HeÏtestified€that€the€Defendant€responded,€ð ðHey,€fat€m____r„f____r,€you€got€yourÏ[police]€wire€on?ðð׃0×Ý ƒ¤ÝÔ€Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔÔ€Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€According€to€Lockridge,€the€Defendant€then€crossed€the€streetÐ 4 *, Ðand€hit€him.€€Lockridge€stated€that€he€said,€ð ðMan,€go€onðð€and€ð ðtried€to€walk€away.ðð€ÏHowever,€as€Lockridge€continued€walking,€the€Defendant€followed€him,€hittingÏhim€numerous€times€about€the€face€and€head€until€Lockridge€fell€down,€hopingÏthat€the€attack€would€cease.€€Lockridge€testified€that€while€he€was€on€the€ground,Ïthe€Defendant€ð ðput€[the€gun]€upside€[his]€head,ðð€and€he€feared€that€the€DefendantÏmight€fire€the€gun.€€He€recalled€that€at€this€point,€the€Defendantððs€girlfriendÏpleaded€for€the€Defendant€to€stop,€and€the€Defendant€ended€the€attack.€ÏLockridge€then€went€to€the€hospital,€where€he€identified€the€Defendant€as€hisÏattacker.€€An€officer€who€saw€Lockridge€at€the€hospital€stated€that€his€nose€wasÏswollen,€his€mouth€was€bleeding,€and€that€there€was€blood€on€his€clothes.€ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€presented€a€different€account€of€the€events€underlying€hisÏconvictions.€€He€testified€that€he€arrived€home€around€midnight€on€August€28,Ï1997€and€found€a€number€of€people€standing€in€front€of€his€house€and€in€theÏdriveway€next€to€his€home.€€This€disturbed€him,€he€testified,€because€of€the€highÏincidence€of€drug€use€at€night€on€his€street.€€He€claimed€to€have€previously€putÏup€ð ðNo€Loitering,ðð€ð ðNo€Trespassing,ðð€and€ð ðNo€Parkingðð€signs€on€his€property€in€anÏattempt€to€protect€his€children€from€the€drug€users€in€the€neighborhood.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€testified€that€on€August€28,€he€parked€his€car€and€wentÏinside€for€a€while€before€going€back€outside€to€the€sidewalk€to€confront€the€groupÏof€people€standing€in€front€of€his€home.€€He€recounted€that€he€approached€theÏgroup€and€asked€them€to€leave,€and€some€of€them€began€to€depart.€€He€statedÏthat€Charles€Steele,€however,€whom€he€claimed€held€a€ð ðstraightshooter,ðð€drugÏparaphernalia€used€for€smoking€crack€cocaine,€did€not€move€but€instead€startedÏto€light€the€straightshooter.€€According€to€the€Defendant,€he€started€towardÐ Ð9p02 ÐSteele,€again€asking€him€to€leave,€and€Steele€fell€down.€€He€then€turned€backÏtoward€his€house,€and€when€he€looked€back,€Steele€was€gone.€€The€DefendantÏdenied€carrying€any€type€of€weapon€during€this€confrontation€and€stated€that€heÏdid€not€even€own€a€knife€matching€that€described€by€Steele.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€went€back€inside€his€house,€told€hisÏgirlfriend€what€had€happened,€and€warned€her€that€he€was€going€back€onto€theÏporch.€€He€stated€that€he€had€once€been€threatened€with€a€ð ðdrive„byðð€shooting€byÏsome€teenagers,€and€he€feared€that€the€people€who€had€been€standing€outsideÏof€his€house€that€evening€might€return.€€While€on€the€porch,€he€saw€LockridgeÏwalking€down€the€street.€€He€stated€that€while€walking€toward€the€DefendantððsÏhome,€Lockridge€asked€him,€ð ðWhereððs€it€at?ðð€€He€stated€that€he€interpreted€thisÏto€mean€that€Lockridge€was€looking€for€drugs.€€The€Defendant€reported€that€whenÏhe€told€Lockridge€to€ð ð[g]o€on,ðð€Lockridge€reached€into€the€bib€of€his€overalls€as€heÏcontinued€to€walk€toward€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendant€then€hit€Lockridge,€andÏhe€stated€that€Lockridge€ð ðmight€have€swung€back.ðð€€The€Defendant€testified,€ð ðI€putÏa€left„right€on€him.€€Then€I€hit€him€with€a€left.€€Then€I€put€another€left€on€him.€ÏThen€he€fell,€and€I€kicked€him€in€the€face.ðð€€He€described€the€incident€as€ð ða€fightððÏand€claimed€that€Lockridge€would€not€admit€it€was€a€mutual€confrontation€onlyÏð ðbecause€he€got€whooped.ðð€€He€claimed€that€he€was€unarmed€during€theÏaltercation€and€that€he€feared€Lockridge€might€be€armed,€saying€ð ðLate€at€nightÏainððt€no€telling€what€a€junkie€got.ðð€€He€also€admitted€that€although€he€had€put€upÏsigns€on€his€property,€he€never€reported€to€police€any€of€the€drug„relatedÏincidents€in€his€neighborhood.€€He€explained€that€he€could€not€do€so€because€heÏdid€not€have€a€phone.ÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà ` àBoth€Steele€and€Lockridge€were€treated€for€their€injuries€at€the€WilliamsonÏCounty€Medical€Center.€€According€to€the€testimony€of€police€officers€whoÏinvestigated€this€incident,€Steele€and€Lockridge€each€reported€essentially€theÏsame€version€of€events€at€the€hospital€on€August€29€as€they€later€presented€inÏcourt.€€Based€on€information€provided€by€the€two€victims€at€the€hospital,€OfficerÏDavid€Neal׃×Ý ƒ¤ÝÔ€Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔÔ€Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€went€to€the€Defendantððs€home€to€investigate.€€Neal€testified€that€whenÐ °  Ðhe€arrived,€the€Defendant€refused€to€communicate€his€name€or€date€of€birth.€ÏNeal€therefore€transported€the€Defendant€to€the€hospital,€where€LockridgeÏidentified€him.€€Neal€testified€that€while€he€was€inside€the€Defendantððs€home,€heÏdid€not€notice€any€weapons.€€In€addition,€no€weapons€were€found€during€aÏsubsequent€search€of€the€Defendantððs€home€and€vehicle.ÌÌÓ5 ÓÓ  ÓI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÓG7ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendant€first€contends€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€isÏinsufficient€to€support€the€juryððs€findings€of€guilt.€€He€argues€that€it€ð ðshould€beÏabundantly€clear€that€had€the€Defendant€intented€[sic]€to€cause€serious€bodilyÏinjury€to€either€of€the€victims,€it€would€appear€that€he€was€surely€coupled€with€theÏability€to€do€so,€if€such€had€been€his€intent.€€Yet€the€Stateððs€case€in€chief,€clearlyÏshows€that€the€Defendant€was€the€person€whom€[sic]€received€serious€injuries,Ïas€a€result€of€the€alleged€criminal€episode.ðð€€He€argues€that€there€was€noÏcorroboration€of€the€victimsðð€claims€of€injury€and€maintains€that€ð ðthe€State€shouldÏhave€put€forth€evidence€of€the€injuries€receivedðð€beyond€testimony€offered€by€theÏvictims.€€He€also€points€out€the€fact€that€no€weapons€were€found€in€hisÏpossession.€€Furthermore,€he€claims€that€the€only€evidence€ð ðtending€to€connectÐ ð5,. Ðthe€Defendant€to€this€crime€is€that€it€was€alleged€to€had€[sic]€occurred€in€front€ofÏthe€Defendantððs€home.ððÌÌÔ‡Šó0ŠŠŠó0Ôà ` àTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indingsÐ 0Ð Ðof€guilt€in€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€In€addition,€because€conviction€byÏa€trier€of€fact€destroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€imposes€a€presumptionÏof€guilt,€a€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€theÏevidence€was€insufficient.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372€S.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1963);Ð Ðp Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð À` ÐGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1976),€and€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€551€S.W.2d€329,Ð °P Ð331€(Tenn.€1977));€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòHolt€v.Ð   @ ÐStateóó,€357€S.W.2d€57,€61€(Tenn.€1962).Ð "0 ÐÌà ` àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðtheÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÏinferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914€(citingÐ P*ð " ÐòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978)).€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„Ð @,à"$ Ðweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€atÐ 0.Ð$& Ð191€(citing€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€836).€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€courtÐ  0À&( Ðfind€particular€conflicts€in€the€trial€testimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favorÏof€the€jury€verdict€or€trial€court€judgment.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ð 4 *, ÐÌà ` àWe€find€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€is€sufficient€to€sustain€theÏDefendantððs€convictions.€€The€two€victims€in€this€case€testified€that€they€had€eachÐ Ð9p02 Ðbeen€involved€in€a€confrontation€with€the€Defendant€during€which€the€DefendantÏwielded€a€weapon.€€Each€claimed€that€the€Defendantððs€aggression€wasÏessentially€unprovoked€and€unreciprocated.€€Moreover,€each€victim€claimed€toÏhave€been€injured€by€the€Defendant,€and€both€were€treated€for€their€injuries€at€theÏhospital.€€Testimony€by€the€Defendant€to€the€contrary€presents€a€classic€questionÏof€fact€for€consideration€by€the€jury.€€Upon€review€of€the€testimony€presented€atÏtrial,€the€jury€evidently€credited€the€victimsðð€accounts€of€their€confrontations€withÏthe€Defendant.€€We€will€not€disturb€this€conclusion€on€appeal.€€Instead,€weÏresolve€the€conflicts€in€trial€testimony€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó,€andÐ à€ Ðconclude€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€presented€at€trial€to€support€theÏverdict.€€ÌÌÓƒ7ÓÓ  ÓII.€€MOTION€FOR€NEW€TRIALÌÓïFÓÓ5Óà ` àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motionÏfor€new€trial.€€The€State€responds€that€because€the€motion€was€premature,€it€isÏa€nullity€and€therefore€must€be€denied.€€Ô#†Šó0ŠŠŠó0¨;#ÔÔ‡Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔThe€Defendant€also€alleges€that€the€trialÐ p& Ðjudge€told€him€that€ð ðthe€law€does€not€apply€in€his€court€room€[sic].ðð€€Apparently,Ïhe€argues€that€the€trial€judge€maliciously€denied€his€motion€for€new€trial€ð ðtoÏprevent€the€Defendant€from€establishing€a€showing€of€Judicial€Misconduct.ððÌÌà ` àThe€jury€announced€the€verdict€in€this€case€on€April€3,€1998,€and€theÏDefendant€filed€his€motion€for€new€trial€on€April€21,€1998.€€The€sentencing€orderÏwas€later€filed€on€May€29,€1998.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€as€prematureÏbut€informed€the€Defendant€that€the€proper€time€for€filing€the€motion€was€withinÏâ âthirty€days€of€sentencing.€€In€his€brief,€the€Defendant€claims€to€have€filed€aÐ à7€.0 Ðsecond€motion€for€new€trial€ð ðon€or€aroundðð€May€28,1998,€but€the€record€does€notÏcontain€a€copy€of€a€second€motion.Ìâ âÌà ` àRule€33(b)€of€the€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€controls€the€time€for€filing€aÏmotion€for€new€trial.€€Rule€33(b)€states,€in€pertinent€part,€ð ðA€motion€for€a€new€trialÏshall€be€made€in€writing,€or€if€made€orally€in€open€court€shall€be€reduced€toÏwriting,€within€thirty€days€of€the€date€the€order€of€sentence€is€entered.ðð€€òòId.óó׃×Ý ƒ¤ÝÔ€Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔÔ€Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€WeÐ    Ðbelieve€that€one€of€the€reasons€for€this€rule€is€that€a€defendant€should€not€beÏrequired€to€decide€whether€to€pursue€a€new€trial€until€such€time€ñŠñas€ñŠññ‰ñknows€ñ‰ñthe€dispositionÏof€the€caseñ‹ñ€is€knownñ‹ñ.€€Only€after€ñŒñhisñŒñññtheññ€sentence€is€imposed€may€the€Defendant€fullyÏevaluate€whether€it€would€be€appropriate€or€beneficial€to€seek€a€new€trial.€ÌÌà ` àHere,€the€Defendant€did€not€file€his€motion€within€the€technical€limits€ofÏRule€33(b).€€However,€we€find€no€prejudice€to€the€State€from€the€premature€filingÏof€the€motion,€nor€any€reason€to€conclude€that€the€issues€raised€in€the€motion€forÏnew€trial€should€not€be€considered€on€appeal.€€We€will€therefore€address€theÏissue€raised€in€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€which€he€now€argues€onÏappeal.ÌÌà ` àWe€have€thoroughly€reviewed€the€record€in€this€trial€and€find€absolutely€noÏevidence€supporting€any€of€the€Defendantððs€allegations€of€judicial€misconduct.€ÏWe€are€unable€to€find€any€comment€made€by€the€trial€judge€that€ð ðthe€law€does€notÏapply€in€his€court€room€[sic],ðð€either€during€an€in„chamber€discussion,€when€theÐ 4 *, ÐDefendant€alleges€the€comment€was€made,€or€during€the€trial€itself.€€We€concludeÏthat€the€Defendantððs€accusations€of€judicial€misconduct€are€entirely€without€merit.ÌÌÓ%GÓÓ  ÓIII.€€IN„COURT€IDENTIFICATIONS€€ÌÓùRÓÓFÓà ` àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€in„court€identifications€made€of€him€by€theÏvictims€were€tainted€because€of€suggestive€pretrial€identification€procedures,Ïincluding€the€failure€of€police€to€conduct€a€pretrial€lineup.€€The€Defendant€hasÏfailed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Therefore,€this€issue€hasÏbeen€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Clintonóó,€754€S.W.2d€100,€103Ð à€ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌÓ6SÓÓ  ÓIV.€€SUBSTITUTION€OF€COUNSELÌÓ*UÓÓSÓà ` àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€proceeding€to€trialÏdespite€his€reservations€about€his€counselððs€familiarity€with€his€case,€and€heÏcomplains€that€his€counsel€failed€to€file€two€pretrial€motions€which€he€requested.€ÏThe€Defendant€failed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Therefore,Ïthis€issue€has€been€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòseeóó€òòStateóó€òòv.€Clintonóó,€754Ð `(  ÐS.W.2d€100,€103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌÓcUÓÓ  ÓV.€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELÌÓsWÓÓUÓà ` àThe€sole€issue€raised€by€the€Defendant€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€which€heÏalso€argues€on€appeal€concerns€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€He€contendsÏthat€his€representation€at€trial€was€deficient,€citing€a€plethora€of€alleged€errors€byÏhis€trial€counsel,€David€King,€which€includes€Mr.€Kingððs:€(1)€failure€to€properlyÏinvestigate€the€case,€including€the€ð ðvalidity€of€the€identification€procedures€usedÏto€identify€the€Defendantðð€and€ð ðthe€testimony€by€Ms.€Howellðð;€(2)€failure€to€requestÐ Ð9p02 Ða€continuance€for€further€preparation€because€of€his€late€involvement€in€the€case;Ï(3)€failure€to€spend€any€time€with€the€Defendant€in€preparation€for€the€case;€(4)Ïfailure€to€object€to€an€alleged€improper€statement€made€by€the€trial€judge€or€toÏmove€the€court€for€a€change€of€venue€following€the€alleged€statement;€(5)€failureÏto€adequately€cross„examine€the€Stateððs€witnesses;€(6)€failure€to€bring€ð ðto€theÏattention€of€the€jurorsðð€the€victimsðð€prior€criminal€records;€and€(7)€failure€to€revealÏto€the€jury€that€the€Defendant€received€a€ð ðsevere€woundðð€to€his€hand€which€heÏmaintains€was€caused€by€the€victims.€€ÌÔ#†Šó0ŠŠŠó0(H#ÔÔ‡Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔÌà ` àIn€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€theÏcourt€must€decide€whether€counselððs€performance€was€ð ðwithin€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523Ð °P ÐS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€wasÏineffective€at€trial,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counsel€madeÏerrors€so€serious€that€the€attorney€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteedÏunder€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€theÏpetitioner,€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.Ð `(  ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687€(1984);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747Ð P*ð " Ð(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€To€satisfy€theÐ @,à"$ Ðsecond€prong,€the€petitioner€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€forÏcounselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€have€had€reasonable€doubtÏregarding€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonableÐ 2°(* Ðprobability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarrisÐ 4 *, Ðv.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694).Ð ð5,. Ðâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€Court€should€not€use€theÏâ âbenefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€shouldÐ @ à Ðbe€judged€at€the€time€they€were€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746.Ô#†Šó0ŠŠŠó0z\#ÔÔ‡Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔÐ  À ÐÌà ` àThe€Defendant€first€argues€that€his€counsel€failed€to€adequately€investigateÏhis€case,€including€the€ð ðvalidity€of€the€identification€procedures€used€to€identify€theÏDefendant.ðð€€During€an€in„chambers€discussion€prior€to€the€start€of€the€trial,€theÏDefendant€complained€that€King€failed€to€file€a€motion,€which€he€had€requested,Ïto€suppress€identifications€made€of€him€by€the€victims.€€After€further€discussion,Ïduring€which€King€explained€that€he€believed€he€and€the€Defendant€had€reachedÏan€agreement€not€to€file€the€motion,€the€trial€judge€dismissed€the€matter,€agreeingÏwith€King€that€the€motion€did€not€have€merit.€€Evidently,€the€Defendant€nowÏargues€that€had€his€attorney€adequately€investigated€his€case,€he€would€haveÏdetermined€that€the€pretrial€identification€procedures€were€suggestive€and€thatÏthey€therefore€irreparably€tainted€the€identifications€of€the€Defendant€made€inÏcourt€by€the€victims.€€ÌÌà ` àSuggestive€pretrial€identification€procedures€are€prohibited€to€avoid€theÏð ðprimary€evil€.€.€.€[of]€a€very€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentificationððÏof€a€defendant€by€a€witness€in€court.€€òòNeil€v.€Biggersóó,€409€U.S.€188,€198€(1972)Ð 2°(* Ð(citing€òòSimmons€v.€United€Statesóó,€390€U.S.€377,€384€(1968)).€€Ð 4 *, ÐÌÓÓà8 ` à[T]he€factors€to€be€considered€in€evaluating€the€likelihood€ofÏmisidentification€include€the€opportunity€of€the€witness€to€view€theÏcriminal€at€the€time€of€the€crime,€the€witnessðð€degree€of€attention,€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðaccuracy€of€the€witnessðð€prior€description€of€the€criminal,€the€level€ofÏcertainty€demonstrated€by€the€witness€at€the€confrontation,€and€theÏlength€of€time€between€the€crime€and€the€confrontation.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐñŽñÌñŽñÌÓÓ€òòNeilóó,€409€U.S.€at€199„200.€€€The€central€question€is€whether€under€a€ð ðtotality€ofÐ @ à Ðthe€circumstances,ðð€the€identification€was€reliable,€even€though€the€procedureÏmay€have€been€suggestive.€€òòId.óó€at€199.€€à p àÐ  À ÐÌà ` àAlthough€one„person€showups€have€generally€been€criticized€andÏcondemned€as€being€overly€suggestive,€we€do€not€find€that€the€showupÏconducted€in€this€case€irreparably€tainted€the€victimsðð€in„court€identifications€ofÏthe€Defendant.€€Both€victims€unequivocally€identified€the€Defendant€as€theirÏassailant€to€police€on€the€night€of€the€crimes,€even€going€so€far€as€to€name€theÏstreet€where€he€lived.€€Moreover,€and€perhaps€most€importantly,€both€victimsÏtestified€that€they€had€known€the€Defendant€since€childhood.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€cannot€agree€that€the€showup€conducted€on€the€night€of€theÏcrimes€caused€ð ða€very€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparable€misidentificationðð€of€theÏDefendant€at€trial.€€òòSimmonsóó,€390€U.S.€at€384Ô#†Šó0ŠŠŠó0 d#ÔÔ‡Šó0ŠŠŠó0Ô.€€Thus,€we€find€no€error€on€the€partÐ p& Ðof€Mr.€King€in€not€ð ðinvestigatingðð€the€matter€further€or€in€failing€to€file€a€motion€toÏsuppress€the€identifications.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€had€King€fully€investigated€his€case,€heÏwould€have€discovered€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Howell.€€Again,€this€is€a€matter€thatÏwas€addressed€during€the€in„chambers€discussion€prior€to€the€start€of€the€trial.€ÏDuring€the€meeting,€King€stated€on€the€record€that€Vicky€Howell€had€beenÏsubpoenaed€as€a€witness€but€failed€to€show€up€on€the€morning€of€trial.€€KingÏstated€that€Howell€had€testified€at€the€preliminary€hearing€that€Charles€Steele€toldÏher€shortly€after€the€crime€he€had€cut€his€hand€on€a€knife€while€cleaning€a€turtle.€Ð Ð9p02 ÐKing€offered€to€seek€a€continuance€of€the€case€until€such€time€as€Howell€couldÏbe€procured€as€a€witness,€but€the€Defendant€elected€to€proceed€to€trial€withoutÏHowellððs€testimony.€€Moreover,€Steele€admitted€at€trial€that€he€told€Ms.€HowellÏthat€he€received€his€injury€while€cleaning€a€turtle.€€For€these€reasons,€theÏDefendantððs€allegation€that€his€counsel€failed€to€ð ðinvestigateðð€Ms.€HowellððsÏtestimony€is€meritless.€€Furthermore,€we€find€no€other€evidence€that€Mr.€KingÏfailed€to€adequately€investigate€the€Defendantððs€case.ÌÌà ` àWe€find€that€the€Defendantððs€second€and€third€claims€of€error€are€alsoÏwithout€merit.€€Much€of€the€Defendantððs€dissatisfaction€with€Kingððs€representationÏevidently€stems€from€the€fact€that€he€claims€to€have€hired€Kent€Brisby,€a€memberÏof€the€firm€in€which€King€practiced.€€The€Defendant€complains€that€he€was€notÏmade€aware€that€King€would€be€handling€his€trial€until€ð ðduring€the€date€of€theÏtrial.ðð€€He€contends€that€King€should€have€requested€a€continuance€to€furtherÏinvestigate€the€case,€and€he€claims€that€King€spent€ð ðabsolutely€NO€timeðð€with€himÏto€prepare€for€the€case.€ÌÔ#†Šó0ŠŠŠó0„o#ÔÔ‡Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔÌà ` à€During€the€in„chambers€discussion€before€trial,€the€trial€judge€entertainedÏdiscussion€concerning€the€adequacy€of€the€Defendantððs€representation.€€KingÏstated€that€he€had€discussed€the€case€with€Brisby€and€that€Brisby€believed€KingÏwas€in€a€better€position€to€try€the€case.€€He€also€stated€that€he€had€spoken€withÏthe€Defendant€for€two€hours€the€night€before€the€trial,€during€which€time€they€hadÏdiscussed€the€two€motions€requested€by€the€Defendant.€€King€maintained€that€heÏbelieved€they€were€ð ðclear€onðð€the€motions€and€ready€ð ðto€go€to€war€together.ðð€€TheÏDefendant€did€not€deny€the€truth€of€these€statements.€€Moreover,€the€DefendantÏadmits€in€his€brief€that€King€was€present€during€at€least€one€meeting€with€BrisbyÐ Ð9p02 Ðto€discuss€the€case.€€During€the€in„chambers€meeting,€the€Defendant€agreed€thatÏhe€did€not€want€to€continue€the€case,€despite€Kingððs€suggestion€that€he€beÏallowed€to€find€other€representation€if€necessary.€€The€trial€judge€concluded€thatÏin€his€experience,€King€was€a€competent€attorney€and€suggested€that€they€moveÏforward€with€the€trial.€€In€light€of€these€discussions,€we€find€the€DefendantððsÏsecond€and€third€allegations€of€error€to€be€meritless.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendant€next€contends€that€his€attorneyððs€representation€wasÏinadequate€because€his€counsel€failed€to€object€to€an€improper€comment€madeÏby€the€trial€judge,€ð ðthe€law€does€not€apply€in€[this]€court€room€[sic],ðð€or€request€aÏchange€of€venue€following€the€comment.€€We€have€addressed€the€issue€of€judicialÏmisconduct€above€and€conclude€that€because€we€find€no€such€improperÏcomment€in€the€record,€Mr.€King€did€not€err€by€failing€to€request€a€change€ofÏvenue.ÌÌà ` àThe€Defendantððs€fifth€and€sixth€contentions€of€error€concern€the€cross„¼examinations€of€the€victims.€€Despite€the€Defendantððs€assertions€to€the€contrary,ÏKing€cross„examined€both€victims€about€their€personal€and€criminal€histories.€€WeÏfind€no€deficiency€on€the€part€of€Mr.€King€with€regard€to€the€cross„examination€ofÏwitnesses.ÌÌà ` àFinally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€his€counsel€failed€to€reveal€the€fact€thatÏhe€received€a€ð ðserious€woundðð€to€his€hand€which€was€caused€by€the€victims€onÏthe€night€of€the€crimes.€€However,€the€Defendant€made€no€mention€of€any€suchÏwound€during€his€testimony,€nor€can€we€find€any€other€reference€to€the€wound€inÏthe€record.€€Had€the€Defendant€wished€to€reveal€this€fact,€he€could€have€done€soÐ Ð9p02 Ðhimself€when€he€took€the€stand€to€present€his€version€of€the€events€on€August€29,Ï1997.ÌÌà ` àAlthough€we€find€no€error€on€the€part€of€Mr.€King,€we€are€convinced€thatÏany€error€which€may€have€been€made€did€not€prejudice€the€Defendant.€€WeÏcannot€agree€that€had€Mr.€King€proceeded€differently,€the€jury€would€have€hadÏreasonable€doubt€regarding€the€Defendantððs€guilt.€€The€Defendant€points€to€noÏfurther€evidence€to€support€such€a€finding€and€has€shown€no€prejudice€resultingÏfrom€the€errors€that€he€alleges€King€made.€€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.€ÏÌÌÓ´WÓÓ  ÓVI.€€IMPROPER€STATEMENTS€DURING€CLOSING€ARGUMENTSÌÓrƒÓÓXÓà ` àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€prosecutor€made€improper€and€prejudicialÏremarks€during€his€closing€argument.€€However,€the€record€does€not€contain€aÏtranscript€of€closing€arguments.€€The€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€preparing€aÏcomplete€record€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€In€addition,€the€DefendantÏfailed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Therefore,€this€issue€hasÏbeen€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€ñŽñóóñŽññŽñòòñŽñClintonóó,€754€S.W.2d€100,€103Ð P*ð " Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌÓÀƒÓÓ  ÓVII.€€JURY€INSTRUCTIONÌÓ†ÓÓ‡Óà ` àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€jury€instruction€on€ð ðreasonable€doubtððÏwas€constitutionally€infirm,€and€he€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€readÏthe€instructions€aloud€to€the€jury,€merely€handing€them€a€copy€instead.€€Again,€theÏâ âDefendant€has€failed€to€include€this€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Therefore,Ð à7€.0 Ðthis€issue€has€been€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e);€òòsee€State€v.€Clintonóó,€754Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€100,€103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Ìâ âÌÓK†ÓÓ  ÓVIII.€€ACCESS€TO€RECORD€FOR€APPEALÌÓ}ˆÓÓŠÓà ` àThe€Defendant€complains€that€he€was€denied€access€to€trial€transcripts€andÏother€records€necessary€to€perfect€his€appeal.€€As€the€State€explains,Ïð ð[a]pparently,€the€problem€stems€from€Williamson€Countyððs€policy€of€preparingÏvideo€transcripts,€which€are€deemed€contraband€at€the€facility€where€[theÏDefendant]€is€being€housed.ðð€€In€response,€the€State€points€out€that€the€trial€courtÏnot€only€granted€the€Defendantððs€motion€for€transcripts€and€records€from€the€trial,Ïbut€also€appointed€an€attorney€to€assist€the€Defendant€with€his€appeal.׃×Ý ƒ¤ÝÔ€Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔÔ€Šó0ŠŠŠó0ÔòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ À` ÐState€maintains€that€the€attorney€ð ðcould€arguably€[have]€provide[d]€assistance€inÏviewing€the€videotapes€from€the€trial€in€order€to€provide€[the€Defendant]€withÏappropriate€citations€to€the€record.ððÌÌà ` àA€criminal€defendant€proceeding€òòproóó€òòseóó€on€appeal,€having€been€grantedÐ p& Ðpermission€to€do€so€by€the€trial€court,€certainly€must€not€be€denied€access€to€theÏfull€record€of€his€trial,€regardless€of€the€recordððs€format.€€However,€while€we€agreeÏthat€a€defendant€must€be€allowed€access€to€all€records€and€transcripts,€theÏDefendant€in€this€case€has€not€demonstrated€prejudice€resulting€from€havingÏbeen€denied€an€opportunity€to€personally€view€the€videotape€transcript€of€the€trial.€ÏHe€has€not€specified€what€information€he€was€denied.€€Thus,€in€light€of€theÏappointment€of€counsel€to€aid€the€Defendant€on€appeal€and€the€DefendantððsÐ 4 *, Ðfailure€to€show€prejudice€resulting€from€his€inability€to€view€the€tapes,€weÏconclude€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€€€¹Ó¼ˆÓÔ#†Šó0ŠŠŠó0Nw#ÔÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE