ÿWPCé 2# Ì %× 0(Ýw@4EYhU:pU:ª 0lä 0DP D3” 0JÇ 0T 0^e 0hà 0r+ 0| 0† 0Ÿ 1u/ 0d¤ AM U U*W B) DCª AMí B: AOW Ʀ 0Dl 0X° 0Dv~L D/Ê BùvÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ X($¡¡ DDDUVD   Ó€Úƒç"3|x, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularÂ"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(((('ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ*,$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ øÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òJuly€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd*,$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d*,-/Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h00'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ië XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑœßR€ !$A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌ€JANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓALLEN€LLOYD€SMITH,à àà àà à)à àNO.€03C01„9511„CR„00351à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€WILLIAM€M.€DENDER,ÏJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)Ìà à€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóóÌÌA.€James€Andrewsà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ606€West€Main€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌKnoxville,€Tennessee€37902à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌœ(on€appeal)›à àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌœWilliam€Brown›à àà àà àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€œII›à àà àœÌ706€Walnut€Street›à àà àà àà àà àœAssistant›€Attorney€GeneralÌœSuite€902›à àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌœKnoxville,€TN€€37902›à àà àà àà àœNashville,›€Tennessee€37243„0493Ìœ(at€hearing)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRandall€E.€NicholsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1468Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€Tennessee€37901„1468ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àZane€M.€ScarlettÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1468Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€Tennessee€37901„1468ÌÌÌÌœÌOPINION›€œFILED:______________›ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌœÌWilliam›€M.€Barker,€œJudgeÇ›òòÓÓÓ  ÓOpinionóóÌÓ  Óà àThe€Appellant,€Allen€Lloyd€Smith,€appeals€as€of€right€the€Knox€CountyÏCriminal€Courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€argues€onÏappeal€that€his€indictment€was€defective€and€that€his€trial€attorney€providedÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€have€reviewed€the€record€on€appealÏand€find€no€merit€to€the€Appellantððs€contentions.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÏtrial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÓ  ÓI.€Factual€BackgroundÌÓ  Óà àThe€victim€and€her€daughter€had€accompanied€the€victimððs€father€toÏKnoxville,€Tennessee,€and€were€staying€in€a€hotel€room€while€the€father€visitedÏfriends.€€At€some€point,€the€victim€ordered€food€for€herself€and€her€daughterÏfrom€the€hotelððs€room€service€menu.€€Approximately€five€minutes€later,Ïsomebody€knocked€on€the€door.€€The€victim,€thinking€that€it€was€room€service,Ïopened€the€door€and€the€Appellant€forced€his€way€inside€the€room.€€TheÏAppellant€pulled€out€a€razor€blade€box€cutter€and€threatened€the€victim€withÏher€life,€robbed€her€of€her€money,€and€forced€her€to€take€off€her€pants€andÏpanties.Ìà àThe€Appellant€forced€the€victim€into€the€bathroom,€where€he€made€herÏsit€on€the€sink€exposing€her€genitals€to€him.€€He€digitally€penetrated€her,Ïperformed€cunnilingus€on€her,€and€finally€attempted€penile€penetration.€€TheÍAppellant€was€interrupted€by€hotel€room€service€delivering€the€victimððs€orderÏand€he€escaped€from€the€hotel€room.€€He€was€later€arrested€and€gave€aÏstatement€to€police€officers€where€he€admitted€to€his€sexual€acts,€but€claimedÏthat€they€were€consensual.€€Ìà àA€jury€of€his€peers€found€the€Appellant€guilty€as€charged,€and€he€wasÏlater€sentenced€to€twenty€years€imprisonment€for€the€aggravated€rape€andÏeight€years€for€the€attempted€aggravated€rape,€to€be€served€concurrently.€€HeÏappealed€his€convictions€and€sentence€and€this€Court€affirmed€his€convictions,Ïbut€reduced€his€sentence€for€aggravated€rape€to€seventeen€years.€€òòState€v.ÏAllen€Lloyd€Smithóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9203„CR„91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€Mar.€18,€1993).€€The€œTennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€his›€œpetition›Ïfor€permission€to€appeal€œon€July€6,€1993.€€The›€Appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction,€after€a€hearing,€was€dismissed€on€January€5,€1996.€€The€AppellantÏnow€appeals€the€dismissal€of€his€post„conviction€petition.ÌÓ  ÓII.€€The€IndictmentÌÓ  Óà àThe€Appellant€first€argues€that€his€indictment€was€fatally€defective€andÏdeprived€the€trial€court€of€subject„matter€jurisdiction€because€it€did€not€allegeÏthe€requisite€òòmens€reaóó€for€aggravated€rape.€€The€Appellantððs€argument€has€noÏmerit.€€Ìà àThe€indictment€alleged€that€the€Appellant€ð ðunlawfully€and€forcibly€andÏcoercively,€while€armed€with€a€deadly€weapon,€sexually€pentrate[d€the€victim].ðð€ÏEven€though€the€indictment€did€not€explicitly€state€the€requisite€òòmens€reaóó€forÏaggravated€rape,€it€nevertheless€stated€the€òòmens€reaóó€implicitly€by€alleging€thatÏthe€Appellant€committed€these€acts€ð ðunlawfully€and€forcibly€and€coercively.ðð€€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Code€defines€coercion€as€ð ðthreat€of€kidnapping,Ïextortion,€force€or€violence€to€be€performed€immediately€or€in€the€future€.€.€.ððÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(1)€(1991).€€Blackððs€Law€Dictionary€defines€forceÏas€ð ð[p]ower,€violence,€compulsion€or€constraint€exerted€upon€or€against€aÏperson€or€thing.€.€.€.€Commonly€the€word€occurs€in€such€connections€as€toÏshow€that€unlawful€or€wrongful€action€is€meant.ðð€€œBlackððs›€Law€Dictionary€644Ï(6th€ed.€1990).€€When€an€indictment€alleges€that€an€individual€has€unlawfully,Ïforcibly,€and€coercively€sexually€penetrated€his€victim€with€the€use€of€a€deadlyÏweapon,€that€indictment€necessarily€implies€that€those€acts€were€committed€atÏleast€recklessly,€if€not€knowingly€or€intentionally.€€òòState€v.€Burrellóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ï03C01„9404„CR„00157€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Feb.€11,€1997);€òòsee€alsoóóÏòòState€v.€John€Jamesóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9601„CR„00016€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€Mar.€27,€1997);€òòState€v.€Larry€Steve€Wilsonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00355€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.€27,€1997);€òòState€v.€MiltonÏS.€Jonesóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9503„CR„00061(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Mar.Í7,€1997).€€We€conclude€that€the€necessary€òòmens€reaóó€is€implicitly€included€inÏthe€charging€instrument,€and€therefore,€the€indictment€is€sufficient.€€€ÌÓ  ÓIII.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselÌÓ  Óà àThe€Appellant€also€contends€that€his€constitutional€right€to€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€was€violated.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àIn€reviewing€an€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competencyÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,Ï936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€counsel,€a€petitionerÏð ðmust€show€that€counselððs€representation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€orÏreasonablenessðð€and€that€this€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€ThereÏmust€be€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counselððs€error€the€result€of€theÏproceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ï668,€687„88,€692,€694,€104€S.Ct.€2053,€2064,€2067„68,€80€L.Ed.€674€(1984);ÏòòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).Ìà àIn€making€his€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€argument,€the€AppellantÏfirst€argues€that€his€attorney€failed€to€request€a€jury€instruction€on€the€consentÏdefense.€€The€Appellant€raised,€and€this€Court€decided,€this€issue€on€directÏappeal.€€A€panel€of€this€Court€found€that€it€was€error€for€the€Appellantððs€counselÍto€not€request€jury€instructions€on€the€consent€defense,€but€found€such€errorÏharmless€because€a€rape€conviction€could€not€have€been€sustained€if€theÏevidence€showed€that€the€victim€consented€to€sex.€€òòAllen€Lloyd€Smithóó,€C.C.A.ÏNo.€03C01„9203„CR„91.€Ìà àThe€Appellant€also€argues€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€because€heÏfailed€to€adequately€investigate€his€case€in€that€he€did€not€obtain€a€copy€of€theÏvictimððs€medical€report.€€According€to€the€Appellant,€the€evidence€at€trialÏsuggested€two€incidents€of€forcible€conduct€by€the€œAppellant›œ;›€œnamely,›€that€heÏheld€a€box€cutter€against€the€victimððs€throat€and€that€he€forcefully€digitallyÏpenetrated€the€victimððs€vagina.€€The€medical€report,€the€Appellant€claims,Ïwould€have€shown€that€the€victim€suffered€no€physical€injuries€and,€therefore,Ïit€would€have€corroborated€the€Appellantððs€contention€that€the€sexual€actsÏwere€consensual.€€The€Appellant€failed€to€introduce€a€copy€of€the€medicalÏreport€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Without€the€medical€report€in€the€record,Ïwe€cannot€speculate€as€to€its€contents.€€Therefore,€we€are€unable€to€review€theÏAppellantððs€claim€that€he€has€suffered€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,€914ÏS.W.2d€97,€102€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ìà àThe€Appellant€finally€argues€that€his€trial€attorney€provided€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€because€he€failed€to€request€exculpatory€materials€fromÍthe€State€prosecutors.€€This€allegation€mainly€pertains€to€the€victimððs€elusiveÏmedical€report.€€Again,€the€Appellantððs€trial€counsel€may€have€erred€in€notÏrequesting€the€State€prosecutors€to€provide€exculpatory€materials.€€However,Ïthe€Appellant€has€not€introduced€any€evidence€concerning€the€medical€reportÏor€any€other€exculpatory€evidence€and€has,€therefore,€failed€to€show€that€heÏwas€prejudiced€by€his€counselððs€actions.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Courtððs€dismissal€of€theÏAppellantððs€post„conviction€petition€is€affirmed.€ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ__________________________ÌCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGE