ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0ˆ bˆ  w˜ ´ 0J´ 0Tþ 0^R 0h° 0r 0|Š 0† 0Œ 1u U,‘ 0d½ U,! BMU>jU*¨B)ÒDCû D3> AMq+¾ 0@év~)vÓ§ AOzÆÉ 0D D/Ó B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡»{s @ d3|xè(8(2R$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-ÚÛDÜÓ€è2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd%%%%'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òMay€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚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 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€'ԛр ÑÑ7€aXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °‡XDp”XӜـ€ÙßL€+,);+'h|`Õ` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà ààQ àà àò òIN€THEÏCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓAT€JACKSONÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓAPRIL€1996€SESSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓGEORGE€GARY€PICKLE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9412„CR„00271€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellant,à à)Ìà àà à)€Shelby€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Hon.€Joseph€B.€Dailey,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà à)€(Post„Conviction)€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à)Ì€à àAppellee.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌLinda€Holmes€€€€€à àCharles€W.€BursonÌ100€North€Main,€Suite€2003à àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌMemphis,€TN€€€38103Ìà àHunt€S.€Brown€€€Ìà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àJohnny€McFarlandÌà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Third€FloorÌà àMemphis,€TN€€€38103ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ  ÑÔ  ÔÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌà àÌÌÓ ` °§XÓÓÓà àThe€petitioner,€George€Gary€Pickle,€was€convicted€following€a€jury€trial€ofÏrobbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€two€counts€of€grand€larceny.€€He€filed€a€òòproóóÏòòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€which,€following€the€appointment€of€counselÏand€a€hearing,€was€denied.€€In€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€raises€three€issues€forÏreview.€€First,€he€claims€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏSecondly,€œthe€appellant›€argues€that€the€actions€of€the€trial€judge€violated€hisÏrights€of€due€process€and€to€a€fair€trial.€€Finally,€he€asserts€that€the€post„conviction€court€failed€to€follow€the€mandates€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b).€€€We€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€petition.ÌÌà àBecause€œthe€petitionerððs›€third€issue€challenges€the€adequacy€of€theÏrecord,€we€will€address€it€first.€€Specifically,€he€claims€that€the€post„convictionÍcourt€failed€to€comply€with€the€mandates€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b).€ÏThis€section€provides€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àUpon€the€final€disposition€of€every€petition,€the€courtÏshall€enter€a€final€order,€and€...€shall€set€forth€in€theÏorder€or€a€written€memorandum€of€the€case€allÏgrounds€presented€and€shall€state€the€findings€of€factÏand€conclusions€of€law€with€regard€to€each€suchÏground.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b)€(1990)€(repealed).€€The€petitioner€claims€thatÏthe€courtððs€failure€has€denied€œhim€his›€due€process€rights€to€further€appellateÏreview.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€thisÏCourt€held€that€failure€to€abide€by€this€requirement€does€not€always€mandateÏreversal€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€The€underlying€intent€of€the€requirement€isÏto€facilitate€appellate€review.€€òòIdóó.€€As€in€òòSwansonóó,€we€are€able€to€glean€from€theÏpost„conviction€courtððs€order,€the€technical€record€and€the€transcript€of€theÏÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôhearing,€the€information€necessary€to€effectuate€meaningful€appellate€review.€ÏÔ  ÔThus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€œpetitionerððs›€first€issue€is€that€he€received€œineffective›€assistance€ofÏcounsel€at€trial.€€In€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€(1984),€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€established€a€œtwo„prong›€test€to€determine€whetherÏcounselððs€assistance€was€so€defective€as€to€require€reversal€of€a€conviction.€ÏThe€defendant€must€show€(1)€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient;€and€(2)Íthat€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€him€or€her€so€as€to€deprive€theÏdefendant€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€the€appropriate€test€is€whether€counselððs€performance€wasÏwithin€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€ÏòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1974).€€ÌÌà àIn€his€brief,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€counsel€was€ineffective€because€heÏwas€inexperienced€in€criminal€law.€€He€points€to€the€record€where€trial€counselÏsaid€that€although€he€had€practiced€law€for€several€years,€this€was€his€first€orÏsecond€criminal€case.€€Further,€he€claims€that€counsel€did€no€discovery€on€hisÏown€and€relied€completely€on€the€previous€counselððs€work.€€Additionally,€heÏargues€that€counsel€spent€a€limited€time€with€him€prior€to€trial,€making€itÏextremely€difficult€to€render€effective€representation.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€had€met€withÏtrial€counsel€on€only€two€or€three€occasions€prior€to€trial.€€He€said€that,€in€hisÏopinion,€counsel€failed€to€adequately€cross„examine€the€two€detectives€whoÏarrested€him€in€Nashville€and€recovered€the€stolen€automobile.€€œThe€petitioner›Ïalso€opined€that€trial€counsel€was€intimidated€by€the€court€and€was€notÏaggressive€enough€in€his€representation.€€ÌÌà àœThe€petitioner›€further€testified€that€counsel€failed€to€meet€with€petitionerððsÏex„wife.€€It€appears€from€the€testimony€that€petitionerððs€alibi€witnesses€wereÏimpeached€through€the€testimony€of€his€ex„wife.€€He€argues€that€counsel€shouldÏhave€called€the€alibi€witnesses€back€to€rebut€the€wifeððs€statement€that€they€hadÏsold€dope€to€her.€€On€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€he€hadÏgiven€counsel€a€witness€list€which€did€not€include€his€ex„wifeððs€name.€€Further,Ïhe€did€not€ask€counsel€to€interview€her.€€ÌÌà àœThe€petitioner›€also€claimed€that€during€closing€argument,€the€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€general€continually€referred€to€the€crime€œas›€done€byÏprofessionals.€€This,€he€argues,€alluded€to€his€prior€record€œrather€than›€theÏmanner€in€which€the€crime€was€œcommitted.€€Thus,€counsel›€should€haveÏobjected.€€œ›Ìà àTrial€counsel€œtestified›€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€He€indicated€that€heÏcame€into€the€case€after€the€previous€attorney€had€withdrawn.€€Counsel€usedÏthe€extensive€file€assembled€by€former€counsel€which€contained€interviews€withÏpotential€witnesses€and€their€statements.€€In€addition,€counsel€traveled€toÏNashville€to€interview€œother€potential›€witnesses.€€Further,€he€was€able€toÏpersuade€the€trial€judge€to€grant€a€continuance€so€that€a€previously€unavailableÏwitness€could€be€interviewed;€he€attempted€to€get€the€state€to€œreoffer›€its€earlierÏplea€agreement;€he€was€granted€a€psychiatric€evaluation€of€the€œappellant;›€andÏhe€sat€through€the€entire€trial€of€the€codefendant€so€as€to€apprise€the€appellantÏof€the€testimony€given.ÌÌà àCounsel€denied€that€he€had€met€with€the€appellant€only€two€or€threeÏtimes.€€He€stated€that€he€had€five€separate€meetings€with€the€appellant€toÏdiscuss€possible€defenses€and€trial€strategy.€€Counsel€also€had€a€telephoneÏconference€for€these€same€purposes.€€He€said€he€spent€95.2€hours€during€theÏtrial€phase€of€œthe€petitiÔ  Ôonerððs›€trial.€€ÌÌà àGlenn€Wright,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€assigned€œto€the›Ïpetitionerððs€case,€testified€that:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€remember€thinking€at€the€time€that€[trial€counsel]Ïtried€as€well€a€case€„„€I€think€I€put€him€in€the€top€twoÏwith€that€George€Pickle€case€as€I€had€seen€since€IÏhave€been€in€the€District€Attorneyððs€Office.€€I€was€thatÏimpressed€with€his€trial€performance,€quite€frankly,Ïand€his€ability€to€put€on€proof€...€So€I€thought€...€he€didÏa€very€fine€job€in€representing€Mr.€Pickle.ÌÌÓÓà àœThe€petitioner›€told€the€post„conviction€court€that€trial€counsel€did€the€bestÏhe€could€in€trying€the€case€before€an€antagonistic€court.€€He€summed€upÏcounselððs€performance€by€saying€that€counsel€was€timid€and€that€he€cringedÏwhen€the€trial€judge€jumped€on€him€about€anything.€€ÌÌà àIn€his€order€denying€the€relief,€the€trial€judge€found€specifically€thatÏpetitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€agree.€Nothing€inÏthe€record€establishes€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€in€any€way.€ÏFurther,€no€alleged€deficiency€resulted€in€prejudice€against€the€petitioner.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.Ìà@ àÌà àFinally,€in€his€second€issue,€œthe€petitioner›€claims€that€the€trial€judgeððsÏactions€and€comments€constituted€judicial€misconduct.€€He€makes€a€number€ofÏbald€assertions€none€of€which€contain€references€to€the€record.€€Further,€heÏcites€no€authority€to€support€his€claim€that€the€actions€of€the€trial€judgeÏconstituted€misconduct.€€These€failures€result€in€waiver€of€this€issue.€€T.R.A.P.Ï27(a)(7);€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€€Moreover,€although€we€did€not€haveÏappropriate€references€to€the€record,€our€review€failed€to€uncover€support€for€aÏjudicial€misconduct€claim.€€Instead,€we€agree€with€the€post„conviction€court€thatÏthe€trial€judgeððs€remarks€were€more€demonstrative€of€personality€and€styleÏrather€than€misconduct.ÌÌÌà àThe€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€on€appealÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,Ï899„900€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€establish€that€theÏevidence€so€preponderates.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€Here,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge