ÿWPCç …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ ˜ 0”  0D4 w@x ¸ ¸ 0J¾ 0T 0^\ 0hº 0r" 0|” 0† 0– 1u& 0d› BÿU6B)RDC{ D3¾ AMñ&> 0@dM¤v~ñvÓo AOBÆ‘ 0DW D/› BÊ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|XT «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ¡¨ (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó B C {D E DF DG DH I J DK Ó€H 2 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`(Courier New% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMarchÏ27,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ݛԀ'ôÔÔ€ÔThis€Court€cannot€discern€what€the€Stateððs€response€included.€€It€was€designated€ð ðExhibit€2ðð€toÏthe€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€but€no€ð ðExhibit€2ðð€has€been€provided€to€this€Court.€€It€is€theÏappellantððs€responsibility€to€create€an€adequate€record€on€appeal.€€T.R.A.P€24(b);€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874ÏS.W.2d€73,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€õXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àJANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9603„CC„00109ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àBEDFORD€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHARLES€LEE,ÌCASSON€MARCEL€MCCOY,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Sale€of€under€.5€grams€of€cocaine)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€NORTON,€IIIà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌó óP.O.€Drawer€37à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó óShelbyville,€TN€€€37160ò òÌó ó€€€€€(At€new€trial€motion€and€on€appeal)à àò òà àLISA€A.€NAYLORó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌò òTHOMAS€F.€BLOOMó óà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.à à€€Ï500€Church€St.,€5th€Fl.à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌNashville,€TN€€€37219à àà àà àà àÌ€€€€€(On€appeal)à àà àò òà àà àà àMIKE€MCCOWNó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌò òDAVID€VINCENTó óÌSte.€906,€Stahlman€Bldg.à àò òà àà àà àROBERT€G.€CRIGLERó óÌ211€Union€St.à àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TN€€€37201à àà àà àà àBedford€County€Courthouseà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï(At€trial)€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àShelbyville,€œTN€37160›à àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ  ÑÓ  Óà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€for€the€sale€of€less€than€.5€grams€ofÏcocaine.€A€jury€convicted€him€of€this€offense.€€He€subsequently€filed€a€motion€for€newÏtrial€alleging€several€grounds€in€support€thereof.€€At€the€hearing€on€this€motion,Ïhowever,€defense€counsel€waived€all€grounds€other€than€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€TheÏdefendant€now€appeals€as€of€right.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€below.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€convicted€of€selling€cocaine€to€a€police€officer€and€aÏconfidential€informant€who€were€working€together€on€an€undercover€operation.€€TheÏofficer€and€informant€went€to€an€apartment€in€Bedford€County€on€May€25,€1993.€€TheyÏwere€admitted€and€each€bought€a€fifty€œdollar›€($50)€rock€of€cocaine€from€theÏdefendant.€€Although€the€confidential€informant€did€not€testify,€the€police€officer€didÏand€positively€identified€the€defendant€as€the€seller.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendantððs€predominant€grounds€for€alleging€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€are€that€his€trial€counsel€did€not€interview€any€of€the€StateððsÏwitnesses€prior€to€trial€and€that€he€asked€questions€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€on€cross„examination€that€supported€the€Stateððs€case.€€The€defendant€also€complains€that€hisÏtrial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€failed€to€object€to€the€Stateððs€notice€ofÏimpeachment;€waived€opening€statement;€failed€to€subpoena€witnesses;€conductedÏpoor€cross„examination;€failed€to€develop€any€evidence€requiring€the€charge€ofÏcasual€exchange,€a€lesser„included€offense;€and€failed€to€object€to€portions€of€theÏStateððs€closing€argument.ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€a€defendant's€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€the€defendant€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððsÏrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ablenessðð€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚selððs€error(s)€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708ÏS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing€the€defendantððs€trial€counsel€admitted€that€heÍhad€not€interviewed€any€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses,€or€any€other€potential€witnessesÏother€than€the€defendant,€prior€to€trial.€€In€fact,€trial€counsel€admitted€that€he€did€notÏeven€attempt€to€interview€witnesses€due€to€his€inability€to€drive€and€the€defendantððsÏrefusal€to€pay€for€an€investigator.€€The€court€below€specifically€found€that€ð ðthe€failureÏto€interview€was€deficient.ðð€€However,€as€also€noted€by€the€court€below,€theÏdefendant€failed€utterly€to€show€that€he€was€thereby€prejudiced.€€None€of€the€personsÏwhom€the€defendant€alleges€should€have€been€interviewed€gave€testimony€at€theÏhearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€Therefore,€it€is€impossible€to€conclude€thatÏinterviews€„„€or€subpoenas€to€testify€at€trial€„„€would€have€helped€the€defendant.€€ThisÏallegation€of€ineffective€assistance€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àWe€are€more€troubled€by€the€defendantððs€allegation€that€his€trialÏcounsel€introduced€information€during€cross„examination€that€worked€only€to€theÏdefendantððs€detriment.€€At€the€trial,€the€undercover€officer€admitted€during€cross„examination€that€there€had€been€another€male€and€a€female€in€the€apartment€at€theÏtime€of€the€œbuy.›€€He€did€not€testify€„„€nor€did€anyone€else€„„€as€to€the€names€of€theseÏindividuals.€€The€officer€was€the€only€person€to€positively€identify€the€defendant€asÏthe€person€from€whom€he€and€the€confidential€informant€had€purchased€the€cocaine.€ÏHowever,€he€also€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€he€had€never€before€seen€theÍdefendant,€had€not€had€a€picture€of€him,€and€had€not€seen€him€since.€€Thus,€defenseÏcounsel€established€some€question€as€to€the€reliability€of€the€officerððs€identification.€ÏHowever,€following€this€helpful€cross„examination,€defense€counsel€then€asked€theÏquestions,€ð ðThis€woman,€her€name€was€Lisa€Rigney,€is€that€not€true?ðð€and€ð ð[theÏmanððs]€name€was€Anton€Sales,€is€that€not€true?ðð€€The€defendant€now€argues€that€theÏjury€drew€the€conclusion€from€these€questions€that€he€must€have€provided€theseÏnames€to€his€lawyer,€therefore€he€must€have€been€in€the€apartment€at€the€time€of€theÏsale,€therefore€he€made€the€sale.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€court€below€found€that€this€aspect€of€defense€counselððs€cross„examination€ð ðwas€not€a€good€trial€tactic,ðð€noting€ð ðhow€else€could€the€identity€of€theÏpeople€in€the€residence€on€Tate€Street€be€known€to€counsel€for€the€defense€butÏthrough€his€client€[thereby]€[e]stablishing€that€perhaps€he€may€have€been€presentÏduring€the€course€of€the€sale.ðð€€That€is,€defense€counselððs€questions€tended€toÏcorroborate€the€Stateððs€identification€testimony.ÌÌà àà àWhile€troubled€by€this€ð ðtactic,ðð€the€court€below€declined€to€find€prejudiceÏon€the€grounds€that€it€was€bound€to€presume€that€the€jury€followed€its€instructions.€€ÏOne€of€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€was€that€the€words€and€statements€of€counsel€areÍnot€evidence€in€a€proceeding.€€Thus,€the€court€below€concluded€that,€in€the€absenceÏof€evidence€to€the€contrary,€the€jury€did€not€attribute€any€weight€to€defense€counselððsÏuse€of€the€individualsðð€names.ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€agree€with€the€general€statement€of€law€that€juries€areÏpresumed€to€follow€their€instructions,€we€also€think€it€strains€credulity€to€believe€thatÏthe€jury€did€not€assume€that€defense€counsel€knew€whereof€he€spoke.€€However,Ïeven€if€the€jury€assumed€that€the€defendant€knew€who€had€been€œin€the€apartment›€onÏthat€date,€we€do€not€think€this€necessarily€led€it€to€the€conclusion€that€the€defendantÏhad€himself€been€there€at€the€time€of€the€sale.€€Therefore,€while€we€agree€with€theÏcourt€below€that€this€trial€tactic€was€not€a€good€one,€we€find€that€the€defendant€hasÏnot€carried€his€burden€of€establishing€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€thisÏð ðerror,ðð€he€would€have€been€acquitted.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€complains€about€his€trial€counselððs€failure€toÏdevelop€any€evidence€that€the€drug€sale€was€a€ð ðcasual€exchange.ðð€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„418(a).€€ð ðA€casual€exchange€occurs€when€the€transfer€of€the€controlled€substanceÏis€made€without€design.ðð€€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2d€93,€96€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€ÏThe€defendant€would€prefer€to€have€been€convicted€of€casual€exchange€because€it€isÍa€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„418(c).€€However,€the€defendant€œoffered›€noÏproof€of€any€evidence€that€his€trial€counsel€could€have€presented€which€would€haveÏrequired€a€ð ðcasual€exchangeðð€instruction.€€The€undercover€officer€testified€at€trial€thatÏhe€and€the€confidential€informant€had€chosen€their€cocaine€rocks€from€a€group€of€tenÏor€eleven€which€the€defendant€held€out€to€them,€the€remainder€of€which€theÏdefendant€returned€to€a€ð ðmedicine€bottleðð€after€the€two€were€removed.€€The€defendantÏdid€not€testify€at€the€hearing€that€either€the€police€officer€or€the€confidential€informantÏwere€friends€of€his€or€that€the€transaction€had€occurred€in€the€context€of€a€socialÏoccasion.€ÌÌà àà àOn€the€other€hand,€his€lawyer€testified€that€the€defendant€had€told€himÏprior€to€trial€that€he€had€ð ðsold€dope€out€of€this€apartment€for€three€or€four€months.€€HeÏcould€not€recollect€whether€or€not€he€had€quit€and€sent€somebody€else€down€in€hisÏplace€in€that€particular€month€or€not.€€But€he€explained€the€scheme€of€how€thingsÏoperated€to€me.€€He€had€no€alibi.€€He€could€not€say€whether€he€was€down€œ[there]Ïduring›€that€period€of€time€or€not.€€But€he€had€a€history€of€selling€dope€out€of€thatÏplace.ðð€€While€the€defendant€denied€having€told€his€trial€counsel€this,€the€court€belowÏmade€a€specific€finding€as€to€trial€counselððs€credibility€on€this€issue,€and€theÏdefendantððs€lack€thereof.€€We€will€not€disturb€these€findings€on€appeal.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÍòòSummerlin€v.€Stateóó,€607€S.W.2d€495,€497€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Therefore,€givenÏwhat€the€defendant€had€told€his€trial€counsel€about€his€past€drug€sales€from€530€TateÏStreet,€we€are€not€surprised€that€trial€counsel€saw€no€reason€to€pursue€this€line€ofÏdefense.€€And€the€defendant€has€made€no€showing€of€any€evidence€of€casualÏexchange€which€his€lawyer€could€have€developed€even€if€he€had€been€trying€to.€€NoÏprejudice€having€been€shown€by€defense€counselððs€failure€to€pursue€this€defense,Ïwe€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€remainder€of€the€defendantððs€allegations,€the€court€belowÏfound€that€defense€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€Stateððs€notice€of€impeachment,Ïhis€waiver€of€opening€statement,€his€decision€to€not€cross„examine€the€police€officerÏmore€closely€about€his€identification€of€the€defendant,€and€his€failure€to€object€toÏcertain€portions€of€the€Stateððs€closing€argument€were€all€valid€strategy€decisions.€€WeÏagree€with€the€court€below.€€Ìà àà à€€€Ìà àà àThe€defendant€argues€for€a€presumption€of€prejudice€on€the€groundsÏthat€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€do€òòanyóó€investigation€prior€to€trial,€was€completelyÏunprepared€for€trial,€and€offered€no€defense€to€the€jury.€€The€defendant€overstates€hisÏcase.€€Both€he€and€his€trial€counsel€testified€that€they€had€met€and€discussed€theÍcase€several€times.€€Discussions€with€oneððs€client€about€the€case€at€hand€certainlyÏqualify€as€investigation€and€preparation.€€Moreover,€defense€counsel€requested€andÏreceived€discovery€from€the€State.× ƒ. ××  ×€€According€to€counsel,€the€defendant€hadÏadmitted€to€him€that€he€had€sold€cocaine€at€530€Tate€œStreet,›€but€he€did€not€knowÏwhether€he€had€been€there€on€May€25,€1993.€€Thus,€an€alibi€defense€was€out€of€theÏquestion.€€Defense€counsel€testified€that€the€only€course€he€felt€he€had€open€to€himÏwas€to€test€the€Stateððs€case;€that€is,€argue€to€the€jury€that€guilt€had€not€been€provedÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€While€interviewing€the€Stateððs€witnesses€prior€to€trialÏmight€have€increased€defense€counselððs€ability€to€attack€the€State's€case€moreÏvigorously,€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€that€it€would€have.€€It€is,€of€course,Ïpossible€that€the€Stateððs€witnesses€would€have€refused€to€talk€to€defense€counsel.€€ItÏis€also€possible€that€they€would€not€have€said€anything€helpful.€€A€presumption€ofÏprejudice€is€simply€not€warranted€in€this€case.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€below€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœà à_________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àJOHN›€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌœ______________________________›ÌDAVID€H.€œWELLES›,€JudgeÌÌÌÌœ______________________________›ÌœJERRY›€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÔ% € Ô