ÿWPCc ;# JU>U %“ 0í™UB†4ÈÜn­ëU:˜Òw@Ú 01 0DK 0  0@˜ ÆØ 0Jž 0Tè AO< 0D‹ 0^Ï 0h- U@• 0rÕ 0|G 0†Ã 0I 1uÙ BNU,k D3— 0dÊ D/. B]U,zU6¦U.ÜU* B)4DC] AM PíÕ=v~vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi¨vÙ 3|xZ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular MN{OP{QR{SDTUV(á(3ÕÖ$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ßéXXdðdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(á36~$¢¢Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ßéXXdðdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô É¸·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !" ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) d< Œ 9p`(Modern$$$$'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ€3ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€3XÔó óÌò òÔ€3¼ÔAugust€2,€1996ó óÔ€3XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€3ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ ËÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€3ÔÔ€3ôÔFor€post„conviction€claims€filed€on€or€after€May€10,€1995,€the€burden€of€proof€is€by€clear€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïand€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„210(f).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÓ&€00X„d&ÓÑ#€00Xd#ÑÔ€1ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€22Xd#ÑÑ#€22Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€3Ô›Ñ7€ js XXdðXXdð7ќـÙßL€675;+'h|@â `€€L߀›€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€œ€€€€June›€1996€œSESSION€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€›Ìœ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€›ÌÓÓKENNETH€M.€SCOTT,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9508„CR„00217Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àShelby€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Hon.€W.€Fred€Axley,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€à à)à à€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌChristopher€L.€Nearnà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ100€North€Main€Buildingà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€Pierotti,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àJudson€W.€PhillipsÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103„1947ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€Kenneth€M.€Scott,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€ShelbyÏCounty€Criminal€Courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petitioner€was€convictedÏin€1991€of€theft€of€a€motor€vehicle€valued€at€more€than€ten€thousand€dollars€andÏreceived€a€Range€III,€persistent€offender€sentence€of€thirteen€years€in€the€DepartmentÏof€Correction.€€The€conviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.ÏKenneth€Scottóó,€No.€02C01„9202„CR„00048,€Shelby€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Dec.€16,Ï1992),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€22,€1993).€€In€the€present€appeal,€the€petitionerÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€(1)€by€finding€that€he€failed€to€show€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€his€trial€attorney€rendered€ineffective€assistanceÏand€(2)€by€having€the€petitioner€removed€from€the€proceeding€after€his€testimony,€butÏbefore€his€trial€attorney€testified€as€a€witness€for€the€state.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€and€his€trial€attorney€were€the€only€witnesses€to€testify€atÏthe€evidentiary€hearing.€€Basically,€the€petitioner€complained€that€the€attorney€did€notÏmeet€with€him,€did€not€investigate€properly,€did€not€file€any€motions,€did€not€call€certainÏwitnesses€that€the€petitioner€requested€to€be€used,€and€failed€to€introduce€a€footballÏgame€ticket€stub€in€support€of€the€petitionerððs€alibi.€€In€response,€his€trial€attorneyÏtestified€that€he€talked€with€the€petitioner€four€times,€filed€various€motions,€and€tookÏadvantage€of€the€stateððs€open€file€policy€in€preparing€for€the€trial.€€He€said€that€hisÏinvestigator€interviewed€people€as€requested€by€the€petitioner,€but€that€some€of€themÏwere€not€helpful€to€the€defense€and,€thus,€were€not€used.€€As€for€the€ticket€stub,€theÏattorney€stated€that€the€petitioner€did€not€mention€this€item€until€after€trial€and€that,€inÏany€event,€without€another€witness€to€the€petitionerððs€presence,€the€stub€was€of€littleÏvalue.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€trial€attorneyððs€conduct€and€trial€strategy€wereÏwithin€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€andÏconcluded€that€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€post„conviction€case,€the€burden€was€on€the€petitioner€in€the€trialÏcourt€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€the€factual€allegations€that€wouldÏentitle€him€to€relief.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).× ƒ8 ××  ×€ÍOn€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€we€conclude€thatÏthe€evidence€and€the€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794ÏS.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Thus,€the€petitioner€now€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€how€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment€entered.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àIn€this€respect,€with€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€theÏpetitioner€must€show€(1)€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€theÏdeficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€of€rendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€resultÏof€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.ÏFretwellóó,€___€U.S.€___,€113€S.€Ct.€838,€842„44€(1993).€€This€standard€has€beenÏapplied,€as€well,€to€the€right€to€counsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€493€U.S.Ï874€(1989).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€we€believe€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€showÏeither€deficient€performance€or€prejudice.€€The€record€supports€the€trial€courtððsÏdetermination€that€the€failure€to€call€certain€witnesses€was€a€legitimate€trial€tactic,€thatÏthe€attorneyððs€use€of€an€investigator€was€proper,€and€that€the€attorney€met€with€theÏpetitioner€sufficiently€for€trial€preparation.€€Moreover,€and€of€equal€importance,€theÏrecord€reflects€that€the€petitioner€completely€failed€to€show€any€prejudice€resulting€fromÍany€claimed€deficiency€in€counsel.€€He€did€not€present€the€testimony€of€any€uncalledÏwitnesses€or€otherwise€present€any€evidence€that€would€have€made€a€difference€ifÏpresented€differently.€€ÌÌà àNext,€the€petitioner€complains€about€the€trial€court€improperly€removingÏhim€from€the€courtroom€before€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€was€concluded.€ÏAfter€the€petitioner€had€testified€in€his€own€behalf,€the€following€exchange€occurred:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€Bring€in€Mr.€Scott.€€€As€to€Mr.€Scott,€Mr.ÏScottððs€testimony€is€concluded.€€He€is€to€be€sent€back€today,Ïnow,€to€wherever€he€was€brought€from.€€ÌÌà8 àà àMR.€NEARN:€Your€Honor,€I€would€like€to€move€theÏCourt€to€allow€him€to€stay€and€assist€me€while€[the€trialÏattorney]€is€being€examined€and€cross„examined.€€I€believeÏthat€would€be€for€Mr.€Scottððs€benefit,€if€he€would€be€allowedÏto€stay.ÌÌà8 àà àTHE€COURT:€Your€petition€is€denied.€€It€is€a€civilÏmatter€in€nature,€and€he€is€not€required€to€be€here€duringÏthe€hearing.€€So€he€can€step€out.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€removal€from€the€hearing€prevented€his€counsel€fromÏbeing€fully€able€to€cross„examine€the€trial€attorney.€€He€also€claims€that€his€removalÏð ðchilled€his€ability€to€have€a€full€and€fair€evidentiary€hearingðð€under€the€Post„ConvictionÏProcedure€Act€then€existing.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€this€court€has€previously€criticized€this€same€trial€court€forÏthe€practice€of€removing€post„conviction€petitioners€before€evidentiary€hearings€areÍcompleted.€€òòSeeóó€òòMarilyn€Jean€Jones€v.€Stateóó,€No.€34,€Shelby€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.ÏMay€2,€1990).€€In€òòTurner€v.€Stateóó,€580€S.W.2d€797,€799€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979),€thisÏcourt€stated€that€there€was€no€inherent€constitutional€or€statutory€right€to€be€present€atÏall€stages€of€a€post„conviction€hearing,€but€we€recognized€that€under€certainÏcircumstances,€removing€the€petitioner€ð ðcould€run€afoul€of€a€convictððs€right€to€dueÏprocess€in€the€post„conviction€setting.ðð€€Also,€in€òòState€ex€rel.€Barnes€v.€Roseóó,€637ÏS.W.2d€459,€460€(Tenn.€1982),€while€concluding€that€an€out„of„state€prisoner€has€noÏright€to€appear€in€Tennessee€in€a€post„conviction€case,€our€supreme€court€stated€thatÏthe€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€provides€that€ð ðthe€right€to€appear€and€testify€appliesÏonly€to€a€petitioner€who€is€in€the€actual€custody€of€Tennessee€authorities€and€subject€toÏthe€orders€of€Tennessee€courts.ðð€€Similarly,€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€ActÏprovides€that€a€ð ðpetitioner€shall€appear€and€give€testimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€ifÏsuch€petition€raises€substantial€questions€of€fact€as€to€events€in€which€the€petitionerÏparticipated,€unless€the€petitioner€is€incarcerated€out€of€state€.€.€.€.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„210(a).ÌÌà àGiven€the€fact€that€a€post„conviction€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proof,Ïthe€right€to€appear€and€testify€when€disputed€facts€are€at€issue€may€well€include€theÏneed€for€rebuttal€testimony€to€respond€to€unexpected€details€of€evidence€presentedÏthrough€the€testimony€of€others.€€Thus,€absent€some€appropriate€justification€forÏremoval,€a€petitioner€appearing€at€the€evidentiary€pursuant€to€the€Post„ConvictionÍProcedure€Act€should€be€allowed€to€remain€present€through€the€remainder€of€theÏpresentation€of€evidence.€€In€the€present€case,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€petitionerÏwas€disruptive,€that€there€was€a€special€security€risk,€or€that€there€was€a€detrimentalÏimpact€on€available€facilities€created€by€the€petitioner€remaining€in€the€courtroomÏduring€the€trial€attorneyððs€testimony.€€The€mere€fact€that€the€petitioner€may€not€haveÏhad€a€constitutional€right€to€be€present€œdid›€not€justify€his€removal€once€he€œwas›€inÏattendance€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€the€petitioner€does€not€give€any€indication€as€to€any€specificÏfailure,€weakness€or€other€prejudice€to€his€case€occurring€from€his€removal,€nor€doesÏour€review€of€the€record€uncover€any€œevidence›€of€harm.€€With€the€record€being€devoidÏof€any€œevidence€of›€prejudice,€any€error€in€the€petitionerððs€removal€will€be€deemedÏharmless.€€œWe€add,€though,€that›€the€œfact€that›€we€hold€the€error€to€be€harmless€in€thisÏcase€should€not€be€taken€as€precedent€for€similar€trial€court€action€in€the€future.€€As€ourÏsupreme€court€has€stated,€ð ðit€is€inappropriate€for€the€appellate€œcourts›€to€preside€overÏthe€creation€of€a€body€of€ððharmless€error€lawðððð€arising€from€œthe€continued›€failure€œof›€aÏtrial€court€to€meet€some€procedural€requirement.€€òòState€v.€Gormanóó,€628€S.W.2d€739,Ï740€(Tenn.€1982).€€At€some€point,€the€administration€of€justice€will€require€œthat€the›Ïcontinued€œfailure›€not€be€subject€to€the€harmless€error€rule.€€ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€JudgeÌ