ÿWPC” …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ Þ w@æ 0J& 0Tp 0^Ä 0h" 0rŠ 0|ü 0†x 0þ 1uŽ 0dU6gU.U*ËB)õDC Ba AM~`Ëv~+vÓ© D3| 0@¯ AOïÆ> 0D D/H Bw˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|xê«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ØÙDÚÛÜÝÞDßàDáÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌJune€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€"ÔÑ7€ ¬è XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€&'$A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€AUGUST€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓRICKY€TRICE,€€€€€€€à àà àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9511„CR„00370Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€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:ÌÌMonte€D.€Watkinsà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ176€2nd€Avenue€Northà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àCyril€V.€FraserÌà àà àà àà àà àCounsel€for€theÏStateà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏParkwayà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€€€€à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌ€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àNicholas€Bailey€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àWashington€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà àSuite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÇà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÌÓÓà àóóó óThe€petitioner,€Ricky€Trice,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€Davidson€CountyÏCriminal€Courtððs€denying€him€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petitioner€is€presently€servingÏconcurrent€twenty„five€year€sentences€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€his€two€1990Ïconvictions€for€aggravated€rape€of€his€œpreschool„age›€daughter.€€He€contends€that€heÏreceived€the€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel€and€that€plain€error€occurredÏthrough€the€stateððs€proving,€without€objection,€collateral€bad€acts.€€We€affirm€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€claims€relate€to€questioning€and€evidence€in€his€trialÏabout€which€his€trial€attorney€did€not€object€and€to€his€appellate€attorneyððs€failure€toÏpresent€authority€on€appeal€to€support€the€claim€that€his€trial€attorney€was€ineffectiveÏfor€not€objecting.€€The€particulars€are€in€this€courtððs€opinion€in€the€defendantððs€directÏappeal€of€his€convictions:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà àIn€the€next€issue€the€appellant€contends€that€theÏprosecutor€was€guilty€of€misconduct€which€denied€him€a€fairÏtrial€and€due€process€of€law.€€Specifically€he€complains€thatÏthe€Assistant€District€Attorney€General€used€leadingÏquestions€in€examining€the€victim€and€that€he€probed€intoÏirrelevant€areas€such€as€the€appellantððs€acts€of€violenceÏtoward€his€former€wife,€his€adulterous€affairs€and€his€failureÏto€pay€his€child€support€in€a€timely€manner.ÌÌà8 àà àThere€was€no€objection€to€any€of€this€testimony.€ÏUnder€the€contemporaneous€objection€rule,€when€there€isÍno€objection,€errors€of€this€type€are€waived.ò ò€€òòó óState€v.€Suttonóó,Ï562€S.W.2d€820,€825€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€issue€was€waived.òòò òÌÌà8 àà àóóó óFinally,€the€œappellant›€contends€that€he€was€deniedÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€his€counsel€did€notÏobject€to€the€leading€questions€or€to€the€irrelevant€andÏprejudicial€questions€asked€by€the€prosecutor.€€He€alsoÏcontends€that€his€counsel€erred€by€failing€to€specifically€askÏhim€whether€he€raped€the€victim.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€appellant€has€not€cited€a€single€case€or€anyÏother€authority€to€support€his€contention€that€it€isÏineffectiveness€to€fail€to€object€to€questions€of€these€sorts€orÏto€specifically€ask€a€defendant€if€he€is€guilty€of€the€crime.€ÏBald€assertions€unaccompanied€by€citations€to€authorityÏamount€to€a€waiver€of€the€issues€asserted.€€Rule€27(a)(7),ò òÏó óTenn.€R.€App.€P.,€òòState€v.€Gallowayóó,€696€S.W.2d€364,€369Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€This€issue€was€waived.ÌÌÓÓòòÓ  ÓState€v.€Ricky€Triceóó,€No.€01„C„01„9105„CR„00143,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.ÏMar.€19,€œ1992),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó›€(Tenn.€July€œ29,›€1992).ÌÌà àRelevant€to€the€issues€on€appeal,€the€petitioner€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€the€prosecutor€had€mentioned€such€things€at€the€trial€as€himÏholding€a€knife€to€his€ex„wifeððs€throat€and€kicking€her€with€cowboy€boots.€€However,€heÏacknowledged€that€the€stateððs€position€at€trial€related€to€his€violent€acts€being€seen€byÏthe€victim,€the€inference€being€that€the€victim€did€not€immediately€disclose€his€sexualÏassaults€because€of€fear.€€In€any€œevent,›€he€was€upset€with€his€issues€being€waived€onÏappeal.ÌÌà àThe€appellate€attorney€testified€that€he€could€not€find€any€cases€directlyÏon€point€about€the€trial€attorneyððs€total€failure€to€object€constituting€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€or€about€the€prosecutorððs€actions€constituting€misconduct.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€found€a€federal€case€while€the€petitionerððs€case€was€pending€review€byÏthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€but€it€indicated€that€a€total€failure€to€object€did€not€riseÏto€the€level€of€ineffective€assistance.€€Also,€he€acknowledged€that€shortly€after€theÏpetitionerððs€case€ended,€he€learned€of€òòState€v.€John€Wesley€Hobbsóó,€No.€02„C„01„9104„CR„00056,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€27,€1991),€which€he€claimedÏð ðcondemned€a€lot€of€the€tacticsðð€similar€to€the€ones€used€by€the€prosecutor€in€theÏpetitionerððs€case.€€The€attorney€testified€that€he€did€not€believe€that€the€rules€governingÏappeals€in€the€court€of€criminal€appeals€called€for€waiver€just€because€no€authorityÏwas€cited.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€petitionerððs€appellate€attorney€was€diligent€inÏhis€research.€€Relative€to€this€courtððs€decision€in€òòHobbsóó,€the€trial€court€noted€that€it€wasÏdecided€before€the€appellate€argument€in€the€petitionerððs€case,€but€it€concluded€thatÏthe€attorneyððs€failure€to€discover€it€did€not€render€his€representation€ineffective.€€As€forÏthe€issue€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€the€failure€of€the€trial€attorney€to€object,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€the€issue€did€not€constitute€plain€error€and€that€the€claim€of€the€trialÏattorneyððs€ineffectiveness€was€previously€determined€in€the€direct€appeal.€€ÌÌà àTo€obtain€relief,€the€petitioner€had€to€show€that€his€appellate€attorneyððsÏperformance€was€deficient€and€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€him€in€theÏcontext€of€him€receiving€an€unfair€result€in€the€prosecution.€€òòSeeóó€òòRhoden€v.€Stateóó,€816ÏS.W.2d€56€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€686„87,Ï104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòEvitts€v.€Luceyóó,€469€U.S.€387,€105€S.€Ct.€830€(1985).€€InÏreviewing€the€issue,€the€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appealÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,Ï899€(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌà àAs€for€the€appellate€attorneyððs€conduct€in€the€direct€appeal,€the€recordÏsupports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€it€was€not€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€forÏthe€attorney€not€to€discover€the€òòHobbsóó€decision€earlier.€€However,€we€are€concernedÏabout€the€appellate€attorneyððs€apparent€lack€of€understanding€of€the€appellate€rulesÏand€apparent€limitation€on€the€use€of€his€research€to€cases€ð ðdirectly€on€point.ðð€€The€factÏthat€citing€no€authorities€in€an€appellate€brief€constitutes€a€waiver€of€the€issue,€as€notedÏin€this€courtððs€opinion€in€the€petitionerððs€direct€appeal,€is€no€new€revelation.€€AndÏlimiting€appellate€inquiry€to€cases€directly€on€point€would€leave€the€vast€majority€ofÏappellate€briefs€without€any€œauthority€to€cite.›€€In€this€vein,€œbeside€diligent€research,Ïanalogy›€œis€any›€competent€counselððs€œstock„in„trade€tool›€for€legal€arguments.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€appellate€counselððs€deficiencies€avail€the€petitioner€nothing€inÏthis€case.€€He€presents€no€authority€or€argument€in€his€brief€that€justifies€us€concludingÏthat€the€questions€and€evidence€presented€at€his€trial€constitute€reversible€error.€€As€toÏhis€substantive€issues,€the€petitioner€only€states€that€his€appellate€attorney€ð ðcould€haveÏshown€a€reasonable€possibility€that€the€allegations€of€violence€œcontributed›€to€theÏconviction,ðð€citing€òòHobbsóó.€€Moreover,€he€cites€neither€to€the€record€nor€to€authority€thatÏwould€show€that€the€prosecutorððs€conduct€constituted€plain€error.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòHobbsóó,€this€court€reversed€a€murder€conviction€because€the€stateÏintroduced€hearsay€divorce€records€that€alleged€violence€and€misconduct€by€theÏdefendant€against€the€victim.€€In€the€present€case,€the€petitioner€provides€us€noÏspecification€of€the€evidence€about€which€he€complains,€divulges€no€context€of€theÏevidence€that€would€focus€consideration€upon€the€relative€probative€value€and€dangerÏof€unfair€prejudice€of€that€evidence,€and€presents€almost€no€argument€as€to€why€theÏevidence€constitutes€trial€error,€much€less€plain€error.€€On€the€other€hand,€theÏprosecutorððs€stated€reason€for€using€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€violent€acts€againstÏhis€€wife€is,€on€its€face,€a€valid€one.€€Under€these€circumstances€and€our€independentÏreview€of€the€trial€record€contained€in€the€petitionerððs€direct€appeal€of€his€convictions,Ïwe€find€nothing€that€would€have€us€conclude€that€the€appellate€attorneyððs€deficienciesÏin€his€brief€constituted€prejudice€to€the€petitionerððs€cause.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€we€agree€with€the€stateððs€argument€in€this€appeal€that€the€claim€ofÏplain€error€in€the€convicting€trial€may€not€constitute€a€separate€ground€for€relief€in€thisÏpost„conviction€proceeding.€€œIt›€has€œno€evident›€independent€constitutional€basis€and€theÏpetitioner€has€not€divulged€one.€€To€the€extent€it€infers€the€ineffective€assistance€of€trialÏcounsel,€it€involves€an€issue€previously€determined€in€the€direct€appeal.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____________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judgeà àà àà àà àà àÌÌòòò òÌÌóóó ó