ÿWPC´ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 U.H v 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ U,[ 0d‡ U,ë U>B)UDC~ AMÁ B +v~KvÓÉ D3œ 0@Ï AOÆ^ 0D$ D/h B—˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- MNOPQRDSTUÓ€_Gav 3|x_%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌMay€9,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€!ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€v>XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌœFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓWAYNE€E.€€MITCHELL,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9507„CR„00227ÌÙ€€ÙßL€$&#;+'h|‘:` ç `€€Lßà àó óà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSONÏCOUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€SETHÏNORMANó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Post„Conviction)ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌTERRY€J.€CANADYà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ211€Printerððs€Alley€Bldg.à àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌSuite€400ÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àCLINTON€J.€MORGANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRENEE€ERBÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Petitioner€appeals€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure.€€After€conducting€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏdenied€the€Petitionerððs€request€for€post„conviction€relief€from€his€convictions€ofÏaggravated€burglary€and€aggravated€rape.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€argues€two€issues€in€support€of€his€argument€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€denying€his€request€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€first€asserts€thatÏhe€was€afforded€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€His€secondÏargument€is€that€the€trial€court€should€have€found€that€the€State€violated€Rule€16Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€and€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.Ï83€(1963),€because€the€State€failed€to€provide€a€Federal€Bureau€of€InvestigationÏ(FBI)€report€to€the€defense.€€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€aggravated€burglary€andÏaggravated€rape.€€He€unsuccessfully€appealed€his€conviction€to€this€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Wayne€E.€Mitchellóó,€No.€01„C„01„9209„CR„00295,€Davidson€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€filed€Mar.€11,€1993),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993).€ÍThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€the€Petitionerððs€request€for€an€appealÏfrom€this€court.€€ÌÌÇÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€first€issue€is€whether€he€was€afforded€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€He€contends€that€his€attorney€did€not€interviewÏwitnesses,€did€not€meet€with€the€Petitioner€sufficiently€prior€to€trial,€and€failed€toÏrequest€that€a€DNA€examination€be€performed.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€testified€at€his€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€gave€hisÏlawyer€a€list€of€witnesses.€€He€stated€at€the€hearing€that€these€witnessesÏwould€have€testified€that€he€lived€in€the€apartment€complex€where€the€incidentÏoccurred.€€The€Petitioner€could€not€name€these€witnesses€when€asked€at€theÏhearing,€but€stated€that€he€wanted€the€apartment€manager€and€a€neighbor€toÏtestify.€€He€also€admitted€at€the€hearing€that€his€mother€and€sister€testified€at€trialÏthat€the€Petitioner€lived€at€the€apartment€complex.€€Trial€counsel€testified€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing€that€he€and€his€investigator€spoke€with€everyone€thatÏthey€could€find€that€were€on€the€Petitionerððs€list.€€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€also€testified€at€the€hearing€concerning€his€meetings€with€hisÏtrial€counsel€prior€to€trial.€€The€Petitioner€was€incarcerated€at€the€penitentiary€priorÏto€trial.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€meet€with€his€trial€counsel€until€two€daysÏbefore€trial.€€He€stated€that€he€met€with€trial€counsel€three€times€at€the€mostÍbefore€trial.€€Petitioner€stated€that€he€did€receive€letters€from€counsel€in€reply€toÏhis€letters€while€he€was€incarcerated€before€trial.€€On€cross„examinationÏPetitioner€testified€that€there€were€ð ðquite€a€few€lettersðð€exchanged.€€Trial€counselÏtestified€that€he€spoke€with€the€Petitioner€twice€in€person€shortly€before€trial.ÏCounsel€also€stated€that€he€spoke€with€the€Petitioner€on€the€phone€a€few€timesÏand€that€they€exchanged€several€letters.€€Trial€counsel€also€testified€thatÏbecause€the€defense€being€used€was€that€of€an€alibi,€it€was€more€imperative€toÏspeak€with€the€Petitionerððs€alibi€witnesses,€his€mother€and€sister.ÌÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€also€challenges€the€effectiveness€of€his€representation€atÏtrial€because€his€counsel€did€not€request€a€DNA€test.€€Before€the€trial,€theÏTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(TBI)€performed€a€secretion€test€on€samplesÏgathered€after€the€incident.€€The€result€of€this€test€was€inconclusive€as€toÏwhether€the€Petitioner€was€the€perpetrator.€€Trial€counsel€testified€at€the€hearingÏthat€because€the€TBI€test€results€were€inconclusive,€he€did€not€wish€to€riskÏcreating€evidence€that€would€implicate€the€Petitioner.€€Therefore,€he€did€notÏrequest€a€DNA€test.ÌÌà àThe€test€to€determine€whether€or€not€counsel€provided€effective€assistanceÏat€trial€is€whether€or€not€his€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÍdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€Under€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€òòreh'góó€òòdeniedóó,€467ÏU.S.€1267€(1984),€there€is€a€two„prong€test€which€places€the€burden€on€theÏappellant€to€show€that€(1)€the€representation€was€deficient,€requiring€a€showingÏthat€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€he€was€not€functioning€as€"counsel"€asÏguaranteed€a€defendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment,€and€(2)€the€deficientÏrepresentation€prejudiced€the€defense€to€the€point€of€depriving€the€defendant€of€Ïa€fair€trial€with€a€reliable€result.€€466€U.S.€at€687.€€To€succeed€on€his€claim,€theÏappellant€must€show€that€there€is€a€"reasonable€probability,"€which€is€aÏprobability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome€that,€but€for€theÏcounsel's€unprofessional€errors,€the€results€of€the€proceeding€would€have€beenÏdifferent.€€òòIdóó.€at€694.€€The€burden€rests€on€the€appellant€to€prove€his€allegationsÏby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€510€S.W.2d€83,€86€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1974).€€We€also€do€not€use€the€benefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guessÏtrial€strategy€by€counsel€and€criticize€counsel's€tactics.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629ÏS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àWhen€this€test€is€applied€to€the€issues€brought€by€the€PetitionerÏconcerning€the€effectiveness€of€his€counsel€at€trial,€we€find€that€his€trial€counselÏwas€not€ineffective.€€He€spoke€with€all€the€witnesses€that€he€could€locate.€€It€isÏobvious€that€the€desired€testimony€of€the€witnesses€cited€by€the€Petitioner€wasÍpresented€in€the€trial€by€other€witnesses.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€trial€counselÏcommunicated€with€the€Petitioner€an€insufficient€amount€of€time.€€For€these€twoÏissues€the€Petitioner€did€not€show€that€counsel€was€so€deficient€that€he€failed€toÏperform€as€counsel€as€required€by€the€Constitution,€therefore,€he€failed€to€meetÏthe€first€prong€of€the€test.€€As€for€the€issue€concerning€the€DNA€test,€we€considerÏthis€decision€to€fall€under€the€category€of€trial€tactics.€€Counselððs€decision€not€toÏpursue€a€DNA€test€was€based€on€a€realistic€apprehension€of€creatingÏdetrimental€evidence€that€did€not€exist.€€As€stated€above€we€do€not€secondÏguess€the€trial€tactics€of€counsel.€€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€inÏhis€representation€of€the€Petitioner.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€second€argument€in€support€of€his€appeal€is€that€the€trialÏcourt€should€have€found€that€the€State€violated€Rule16€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Criminal€Procedure€and€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€€Before€theÏPetitionerððs€trial,€the€State€did€not€give€the€Petitioner€a€copy€of€DNA€test€resultsÏfrom€a€test€performed€by€the€FBI.€€The€test€results€were€inconclusive€becauseÏone€of€the€samples€tested€was€either€degraded€or€contained€insufficient€DNA.ÌÌà àPost„conviction€relief€can€only€be€granted€when€a€petitionerððs€ð ðconvictionÏor€sentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgment€of€any€rightÏguaranteed€by€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€or€the€Constitution€of€the€UnitedÏStates.ðð€€Therefore,€Rule€16€violations€cannot€be€used€as€a€basis€for€grantingÏpost„conviction€relief.€€However,€error€pursuant€to€òòBradyóó€may€be€a€valid€basisÏfor€relief.ÌÌà àIn€òòBradyóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ðthe€suppression€byÏthe€prosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violates€dueÏprocess€where€the€evidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€punishment,€irrespectiveÏof€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution.ðð€€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87.€€TheÏCourt€later€stated€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Agursóó,€427€U.S.€97€(1976),€that€if€theÏevidence€that€was€not€supplied€to€the€defense€would€not€deprive€the€defendantÏof€a€fair€trial,€then€there€is€no€constitutional€violation.€€òòId.óó€at€108.€€The€Court€thenÏheld€that€ð ðevidence€is€material€only€if€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€hadÏthe€evidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€wouldÏhave€been€different.€€A€ððreasonable€probabilityðð€is€a€probability€sufficient€toÏundermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,Ï682€(1985).ÌÌà àWe€cannot€conclude€that€outcome€of€the€Petitionerððs€trial€would€haveÏbeen€different€if€the€FBI€report€had€been€disclosed.€€The€inconclusive€results€ofÏthe€DNA€test€did€not€exclude€or€implicate€the€Petitioner.€€This€court€held€on€directÏappeal€that€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€uphold€the€Petitionerððs€conviction.€ÏòòState€v.€Wayne€E.€Mitchellóó,€No.€01„C„01„9209„CR„00295,€Davidson€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€filed€Mar.€11,€1993).€€We€cannot€conclude€that€theÏnondisclosure€of€an€inconclusive€DNA€test€undermines€confidence€in€theÏoutcome€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE