ÿWPCÑ 9j¯Ã?>Ç•‹lŠÅ^<Úü^“ààÑ”gˆÙ¾ÞÖ‹-ßBÞïÿ–z”‘¸‹ÉBùè4„ä´¿4ù¹–­ñ¦ ZO62&-ˆtϤ KÞæ™þ8–!h€>„¨‘uÎ+Oš˜°f6X²*ÕM-ø÷”Ûhª–ÃH;ÑÂeåYN ÂŽï›UQãí7oø dùµO~—e5šˆ,Š<ÐÙ àô•xÓx<*€$P¤sÔ¢¶pæ;àU̸u‰?Í”×®Ù—±¿1ãàV±²KfüvD ±|Ç6!0G×ÒŠ½or-jïùdv‚8ÆÝ.q:d²Ž¿°ÿnl q„8´ò³HÅŽ‹i˜6O?Á:žAý37!În£š¼Œ£µÈ„×ï×ÜKáÅ.ÅèÔëyò!ØX¥ï[¯z?œ#ÜçCËh# uê-ÐËÊj–ÍΊæœXCV!©$fm'á!y|_{NÖëP…T fÄÒTb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N± 0D³Í÷EÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄbÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆ 0ëÎÎÎÎ B¹¹ 0¤Ö D3z D-­ 0KÚÚ AS%Æx 0¤> 0Dâ A«&˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»5¦ù(L (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¬sp'¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÃÝ ƒR14$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X/ôX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€stateððs€brief€gives€the€petitionerððs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€as€the€onlyÐ ° Ðissue€on€appeal.€€Its€statute€of€limitations€claim€appears€only€in€the€argument€portion€of€the€brief.Ð –æ ÐCounsel€is€reminded€that€the€stateððs€right€to€raise€issues€upon€the€petitionerððs€appeal€ð ðdoes€not€endÐ |Ì Ðits€obligations€under€the€appellate€rules€to€delineate€the€issue€as€a€separate€issue€for€appellate€reviewÐ b² Ð.€.€.€.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hayesóó,€894€S.W.2d€298,€300€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)- ù-(|G214$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]X»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X/ôX»»Ô d(|3V‚$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]X»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3V‚$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]X»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]X»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ€¼]X»»»ÔÑ8€/ôXXdæ»»d8Ñà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@''%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ ¾ ÐÔ‡X/ôX»¼]XÔÌò òÔ#†¼]X»XX/ôy#ÔÓ  ÓBARRY€L.€SPECK€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X/ôX»¼]XÔó óÐ ² ÐÓ¿ÓÌà@9 9 ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyˆÐ ¦ ö Ðà@ú ú ìàNo.€P„19938€€€€€€John€P.€Ô_ÔColtonÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JudgeˆÐ Œ Ü ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<= ` A߈Ð > Ž  ÐÌà@Ì Ì ìàNo.€W1999„00436„CCA„R3„PC€„€Decided€July€19,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР3ƒ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<þ` AßÐ ÿO  Ðó óÌThe€petitioner,€Barry€L.€Speck,€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„convictionÐ ôD  Ðrelief.€€The€state€contends€that€the€petition€should€have€been€dismissed€because€of€the€statute€ofÐ Ú*  Ðlimitations.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€becauseÐ À Ðhis€attorney€failed€to€use€documents€provided€by€the€petitioner€to€impeach€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€Ð ¦ö Ðto€provide€an€alibi€for€dates€listed€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€We€hold€that€the€petition€was€properlyÐ ŒÜ Ðconsidered€on€its€merits,€but€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.Ð r ÐÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€ó óÐ >Ž ÐÌòòÔ_ÔTiptonÔ_ÔÔ#†¼]X»àX/ôï#ÔÔ‡X/ôX.¼]XÔóó,€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòRileyóó€and€òòGlenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð  Z ÐÌRobert€B.€Gaia,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€appellant,€Barry€L.€Speck.Ð Ö& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Mark€E.€Davidson,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ¢ò ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Paul€Thomas€Hoover,€Jr.,€Assistant€DistrictÐ ˆØ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð n¾ ÐÌÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼]X»XX/ô×#ԈР !p! ÐÔ€X/ôX»¼]XÔÌà  àThe€petitioner,€Barry€L.€Speck,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€CourtððsÐ ì"<# Ðdenying€him€post„conviction€relief€from€his€1994€conviction€for€aggravated€rape€and€the€resultingÐ Ò#"$ Ðfifteen„year€sentence.€€The€conviction€was€affirmed€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Speckóó,€944€S.W.2d€598Ð ¸$ % Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€The€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€received€theÐ ž%î & Ðeffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð „&Ô!' ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà@©©ìàò òSTATUTE€OF€LIMITATIONSó óˆÐ Î,(. ÐÐ ´-)/ý' ÐÔ_Ôà  àFirst,€we€address€the€stateððs€claim€on€appeal€that€the€petition€should€have€been€dismissed€asÐ ° Ðbarred€by€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(a).€€The€recordÐ –æ Ðreflects€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€judgment€affirming€the€defendantððs€conviction€was€filedÐ |Ì Ðon€April€28,€1997,€and€that€the€post„conviction€petition€was€stamped€filed€in€the€trial€court€clerkððsÐ b² Ðoffice€on€May€19,€1998.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€trial€court€found€the€petition€to€be€timely€filed€butÐ H˜ Ðdid€so€without€explanation€and€proof€in€the€record€to€support€such€a€finding.€€However,€we€believeÐ . ~ Ðthe€record€reflects€that€the€state€has€waived€this€issue€in€the€context€of€this€appeal€because€it€failedÐ  d Ðto€prevent€the€error€it€now€claims€occurred.€€Ð ú J ÐÌà  àWhen€the€question€of€the€timeliness€of€the€petition€was€addressed€in€the€trial€court,€theÐ Æ   Ðpetitionerððs€attorney€stated€that€he€intended€to€prove€through€the€petitionerððs€testimony€that€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðpetitioner€had€the€petition€ready€to€deliver€to€the€prison€officials€in€a€timely€fashion€but€that€becauseÐ ’â  Ðof€procedures€requiring€money€in€his€account,€presumably€for€postage€purposes,€the€officialsðð€receiptÐ xÈ  Ðof€the€petition€was€delayed.€€We€note€that€the€petition€states€that€it€was€being€given€to€prisonÐ ^®  Ðauthorities€for€mailing€on€April€26,€1998,€and€reflects€that€it€was€notarized€on€April€27,€1998.€€TheÐ D”  Ðpetitionerððs€attorney€argued€that€the€petitioner€acted€in€good€faith€and€effectively€filed€his€petitionÐ *z  Ðtimely.Ð ` ÐÌà  àAt€the€beginning€of€the€petitionerððs€testimony,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€record€containedÐ Ü, Ða€discrepancy€about€the€filing€but€that€it€was€going€to€rule€that€the€petition€was€properly€filed.€€TheÐ Â Ðstate€did€not€question€this€determination€and€offered€no€objection€against€the€trial€court€proceedingÐ ¨ø Ðwith€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€Obviously,€if€the€state€had€put€the€petitioner€to€his€proof,€the€recordÐ ŽÞ Ðwould€contain€the€petitionerððs€testimony€relevant€to€this€issue.€€In€this€respect,€we€do€not€€fault€theÐ tÄ Ðtrial€court€or€the€petitioner€for€the€status€of€the€record.€€Ð Zª ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€Rule€49(c),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€and€Rule€28,€ðð€2(G),€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.,€in€effect€atÐ &v Ðthe€time€the€petition€was€filed,€an€incarcerated€post„conviction€petitionerððs€petition€was€deemed€filedÐ  \ Ðupon€delivery€to€or€receipt€by€the€appropriate€prison€authorities€for€mailing.€€It€is€obvious€that€theÐ òB Ðtrial€court€based€its€conclusion€that€the€petition€was€timely€filed€upon€these€rules.€€Under€theseÐ Ø( Ðcircumstances,€we€will€not€hold€the€trial€court€in€error€for€proceeding€with€an€evidentiary€hearingÐ ¾ Ðon€the€merits€of€the€petitionerððs€claims.Ð ¤ô ÐÌÌÌà@%ìàò òBACKGROUNDó óˆÐ <#Œ" ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€was€prosecuted€for€the€sexual€penetration€of€a€child€under€thirteen€years€ofÐ %X $ Ðage.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion€summarizes€the€proof€at€trial€as€follows:Ð î%>!% Їà8  àThe€victim€was€in€the€second€grade€when€he€met€the€defendant,€Barry€Speck.€€WithÐ ° Ðthe€permission€of€his€mother,€he€began€spending€time€with€Speck€watching€movies,Ð –æ Ðplaying€baseball€and€putt„putt€golf,€and€attending€scouting€events.€€During€the€thirdÐ |Ì Ðand€fourth€grades,€the€victim€occasionally€spent€the€night€with€the€defendant€andÐ b² Ðslept€with€him€on€a€couch.€€€€ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àNear€the€end€of€the€victimððs€fourth€grade€school€years,€and€during€the€summerÐ . ~ Ðof€1991,€Speck€started€touching€the€victimððs€penis.€€The€behavior€escalated€to€mutualÐ  d Ðtouching,€and€Speck€and€the€victim€masturbated€one€another.€€Although€the€victimÐ ú J Ðwas€ð ðconfusedðð€by€the€sexual€acts,€Speck€told€him€not€to€tell€anyone€what€wasÐ à 0 Ðoccurring€because€he€would€be€ð ðlocked€up€in€prison.ððÐÆ  Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àDuring€the€fifth€grade,€and€the€summer€of€1992,€the€victim€stayed€with€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðdefendant€three€or€four€nights€per€week.€€Speck€began€committing€acts€of€fellatio€onÐ ’â  Ðthe€victim,€and€eventually,€he€asked€the€victim€to€perform€fellatio€on€him.€€AlthoughÐ xÈ  Ðhe€ð ðdidnððt€feel€right€about€it,ðð€the€victim€complied€because€Speck€acted€ð ðreal€coldÐ ^®  Ðand€meanðð€if€he€refused.€€The€victimððs€mother€became€concerned€about€the€time€theÐ D”  Ðvictim€was€spending€with€Speck€and€initially€placed€limits.€€Speckððs€response€wasÐ *z  Ðanger€and€hurt.€€Later,€in€August€of€1992,€the€mother€told€the€victim€he€could€noÐ ` Ðlonger€see€the€defendant.€€The€victim€responded€by€telling€his€mother€about€theÐ öF Ðsexual€acts€committed€by€Speck.ÐÜ,Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àTamara€Carly,€a€friend€of€the€victimððs€mother,€testified€that€she€initiallyÐ Â Ðthought€Speck€was€like€a€ð ðbig€brotherðð€to€the€victim.€€After€observing€Speck€and€theÐ ¨ø Ðvictim€in€the€summer€of€1992,€she€began€to€think€that€the€defendantððs€public€behaviorÐ ŽÞ Ðin€touching€and€hugging€the€victim€was€excessive€and€inappropriate.€€After€SpeckÐ tÄ Ðwas€arrested,€he€left€several€taped€telephone€messages€on€Carlyððs€answering€machineÐ Zª Ðin€which€he€professed€his€love€for€the€victim€and€his€distress€over€the€charges.€Ð @ ÐAccording€to€Carly,€he€also€left€several€audio€tapes€containing€messages€for€theÐ &v Ðvictim.€€In€one€message,€Speck€stated€that€the€love€between€him€and€the€victim€wasÐ  \ Ðnot€ð ðpervertedðð€and€that€ð ðhad€[he]€known€[he]€was€going€to€be€accused€of€beingÐ òB Ðperverted,€[he]€would€have€found€another€kid.ðð€€In€another€tape,€Speck€described€howÐ Ø( Ðhe€would€spread€his€legs€while€urinating€to€allow€the€victim€to€urinate€from€behindÐ ¾ Ðhim€at€the€same€time.€€Finally,€Speck€also€said€that€he€ð ðwas€the€only€person€whoÐ ¤ô Ðknew€how€many€hairs€the€victim€had€on€his€testicles.ððЊ ÚÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€defendant,€Barry€Speck,€testified€and€admitted€a€close€relationship€withÐ p!À  Ðthe€victim,€but€denied€that€he€had€committed€sexual€acts.€€He€acknowledged€that€theÐ V"¦! Ðvictim€often€stayed€overnight€at€his€apartment,€but€denied€that€any€sexual€acts€were€Ð<#Œ"Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÌà8  àcommitted.€€The€defendant€admitted€leaving€the€phone€messages€and€tape€recordingsÐ Ô&$"& Ðwith€Tamara€Carly.к' #'Ð Ð  ÐÌòòSpeckóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€599.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌà@..!ìàò òEVIDENTIARY€HEARINGˆÐ R+¢&+ Ðó óÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà  àThe€petitionerððs€essential€complaint€against€his€trial€attorney€relates€to€the€attorneyððs€failureÐ ° Ðto€use€various€documents€that€the€petitioner€provided€to€the€attorney€for€the€purpose€of€impeachingÐ –æ Ðthe€victim€and€Ms.€Carly€and€also€of€showing€that€he€had€an€alibi€for€offense€dates€provided€in€theÐ |Ì Ðstateððs€bill€of€particulars.€€The€petitioner€and€the€trial€attorney€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.Ð b² ÐÌà  àRelative€to€the€claims€in€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€provided€his€attorneyÐ . ~ Ðcopies€of€the€victimððs€school€report€cards,€documents€regarding€certain€Boy€Scout€activities,€andÐ  d Ðrecords€of€telephone€answering€machine€messages.€€He€said€that€while€the€trial€court€was€questioningÐ ú J Ðthe€victim€to€determine€his€competency€as€a€witness,€the€victim€told€the€trial€court€that€he€receivedÐ à 0 ÐAððs,€Bððs,€and€a€few€Cððs€as€grades.€€However,€the€report€cards€showed€that€the€victim€had€two€DððsÐ Æ   Ðand€an€F.€€The€petitioner€said€that€the€Boy€Scout€documents€would€have€shown€that€any€claimedÐ ¬ ü  Ðassault€on€certain€dates€provided€in€the€bill€of€particulars€could€not€have€occurred.€€As€for€theÐ ’â  Ðtelephone€records,€the€petitioner€testified€that€they€showed€that€the€victim€called€him€several€timesÐ xÈ  Ðafter€the€allegations€came€to€light€and€that€Ms.€Carlyððs€relationship€with€him€was€much€more€thanÐ ^®  Ðshe€presented€to€the€jury€at€the€time€of€her€testimony.Ð D”  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€attorney€testified€that€he€saw€more€detriment€than€benefit€to€cross„examining€theÐ ` Ðvictim€before€the€jury€regarding€his€grades.€€He€reasoned€that€the€jury€would€sympathize€with€theÐ öF Ðnervous,€twelve„year„old€victim€if€the€defense€attacked€him€about€something€that€the€attorney€didÐ Ü, Ðnot€believe€to€be€very€material.€€The€attorney€noted€that€the€school€records€reflected€that€the€victimððsÐ Â Ðgrades€had€dropped€only€after€the€prosecution€had€begun,€a€circumstance€that€could€explain€theÐ ¨ø Ðchange€in€grades€without€helping€the€petitioner.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àRelative€to€the€Boy€Scout€documents,€the€attorney€acknowledged€that€they€could€provide€aÐ Zª Ðdefense€to€certain€dates€presented€by€the€state€in€its€bill€of€particulars.€€However,€he€noted€that€theÐ @ Ðdate€of€the€offense€upon€which€the€state€relied€at€trial€was€not€one€of€the€dates€presented€in€the€billÐ &v Ðof€particulars.€€He€indicated€that€the€documents€then€lost€much€of€their€relevance,€noting€that€theÐ  \ Ðstate€alleged€ongoing€episodes€over€a€period€of€years.Ð òB ÐÌà  à€The€attorney€testified€that€the€telephone€records€showed€that€the€victim€continued€to€call€theÐ ¾ Ðpetitioner€but€that€the€victim€admitted€to€the€calls€at€trial.€€As€for€showing€a€more€extensiveÐ ¤ô Ðrelationship€between€the€petitioner€and€Ms.€Carly,€the€attorney€stated€that€her€demeanor€as€a€witnessÐ Š Ú Ðappeared€hostile€and€that€he€believed€that€she€showed€more€motivation€for€detrimental€testimonyÐ p!À  Ðagainst€the€petitioner€than€just€concern€for€the€victim.€€The€attorney€stated€that€he€thought€thisÐ V"¦! Ðattitude€came€across€to€the€jury€and€that€the€telephone€records€contained€little€pertinent€information.€Ð <#Œ" ÐAlso,€he€said€he€did€not€believe€that€her€testimony€was€of€great€importance.Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€even€if€it€took€the€petitionerððs€testimony€as€true,€his€attorneyððsÐ î%>!% Ðconduct€did€not€amount€to€a€violation€of€the€petitionerððs€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐIt€found€that€the€attorneyððs€reasons€for€not€acting€upon€the€various€documents€that€were€provided€toÐ º' #' Ðhim€constituted€reasonable€bases€for€his€tactical€decisions.€€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà@  ìàò òINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ l*¼%* ÐÌà  àUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€made,€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðburden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counsel's€performance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€theÐ ° Ðdeficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€of€rendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trialÐ –æ Ðwas€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,Ð |Ì Ð687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€369„72,€113€S.€Ct.€838,Ð b² Ð842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied,€as€well,€to€the€right€to€counsel€underÐ H˜ ÐArticle€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.Ð . ~ Ð1989).€òòóó€€Ð  d ÐÌà  àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€court€decided€thatÐ à 0 Ðattorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€services€rendered€were€within€theÐ Æ   Ðrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðrange€of€competence€was€to€be€measured€by€the€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€UnitedÐ ’â  ÐStatesóó,€491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.€1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202„04Ð xÈ  Ð(D.C.€Cir.€1973).òòóó€€Also,€in€reviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessment€of€attorney€performanceÐ ^®  Ðrequires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€theÐ D”  Ðcircumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counsel'sÐ *z  Ðperspective€at€the€time."€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629Ð ` ÐS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(holding€that€counsel's€conduct€will€not€be€measured€by€"20„20Ð öF Ðhindsight").€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€even€hurt€the€defense€does€not,Ð Ü, Ðalone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.€€Deference€is€made€to€trial€strategy€or€tacticalÐ Â Ðchoices€if€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9;Ð ¨ø ÐòòDeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€at€1201.€€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àAlso,€we€note€that€the€approach€to€the€issue€of€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€does€notÐ Zª Ðhave€to€start€with€an€analysis€of€an€attorney's€conduct.€€If€prejudice€is€not€shown,€we€need€not€seekÐ @ Ðto€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegations€of€deficient€performance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,Ð &v Ð104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€burden€was€on€the€petitioner€in€the€trial€court€to€prove€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÐ Ø( Ðthe€factual€allegations€that€would€entitle€him€to€relief.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€On€appeal,Ð ¾ Ðwe€are€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ¤ô Ðpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Š Ú Ð1990).€€In€this€respect,€the€petitioner,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€how€the€evidenceÐ p!À  Ðpreponderates€against€the€judgment€entered.€€òòId.óó€€òòòòóóóó€However,€we€review€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€Ð V"¦! ÐÌregarding€the€effectiveness€of€counsel€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€because€it€involves€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact.€Ð "$r# ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€SW€3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).Ð %X $ ÐÌò òà  àó óThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€attorney€had€no€reasonable€basis€for€failing€to€use€any€of€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðdocuments.€€He€asserts€that€ð ðthe€jury€may€have€been€swayed€by€the€attack€upon€the€credibility€of€theÐ º' #' Ðstateððs€witnessesðð€if€the€attorney€had€impeached€the€witnesses€with€the€documents€available€to€him.€Ð  (ð#( ÐWe€view€this€argument€to€be€speculative€given€the€record€on€appeal.€€The€record€supports€aÐ †)Ö$) Ðconclusion€that€the€attorneyððs€decisions€were€based€upon€professional€judgment,€and€the€petitionerÐ l*¼%* Ðhas€offered€no€proof€that€the€impeaching€documents€would€have€materially€affected€the€outcome€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€trial.Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àAlso,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€attorney€should€have€presented€the€documents€supportingÐ ° Ðan€alibi€for€dates€presented€in€the€bill€of€particulars€even€though€the€state€relied€upon€a€different€dateÐ –æ Ðfor€the€offense.€€He€notes€that€the€supreme€court€mentioned€the€lack€of€alibi€proof€at€the€trialÐ |Ì Ðregarding€the€bill€of€particular€dates€when€it€held€that€he€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€stateððs€changeÐ b² Ðof€date€for€the€offense.€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€supreme€courtððs€holding€of€no€prejudice€hingedÐ H˜ Ðupon€the€lack€of€alibi€proof€at€trial.€€Also,€the€fact€that€certain€dates€originally€asserted€by€the€stateÐ . ~ Ðcould€be€shown€to€be€incorrect€would€not€necessarily€affect€a€juryððs€view€of€the€validity€of€the€stateððsÐ  d Ðproof€regarding€the€offense€it€elected€to€pursue.€€Thus,€even€if€we€assume€that€the€attorney€shouldÐ ú J Ðhave€presented€the€alibi€evidence€for€the€other€dates,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€record€justifies€aÐ à 0 Ðconclusion€that€the€failure€to€present€such€evidence€probably€affected€the€result€of€the€trial€or€theÐ Æ   Ðappeal€to€the€petitionerððs€detriment.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÐ xÈ  Ðis€affirmed.ò òó ó