ÿWPC‹% …# VUNa %¯ 0ñµU:¦ w@à 4 4 05C 0Dx ¼ 0JÄ 0T 0^b 0hÀ 0r( 0|š 0† 0œ 1u,U,¡ 0dÍU,1 B]U>zU*¸B)âDC  AMN D3›ÑÎLŸ 0@ëB+(mv~•vÓ AOæ#Æ5$ 0Dû$ D/?% Bn%˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular éDêëDìíDîïDðñDòÓ€ypÑ 3|xý(å(3tÏ$¤¤Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€X XXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ25,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ  Ó€€à àà àThe€statement€was€made€in€the€spring€of€1984.€€The€immediatelyÏpreceding€offense€charged€in€the€presentment€occurred€in€December€of€1982.€€€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àà àÓÓThe€doctrine€was€recently€abolished€as€applied€in€child€sexualÏabuse€cases.€€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€392€(Tenn.€1995).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àà àIn€fact,€the€record€reveals€that€counselððs€two€objections€to€leadingÏwere€sustained€by€the€trial€judge.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ° ÑÓÓÑ7€ XXdædÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|` à. `€€Lß›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àóóSEPTEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#03C01„9502„CR„00030ÌÌà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à*à àSULLIVANÏCOUNTYÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€W.€Fred€AxleyÏ(By€Designation)ÌÌMICHAEL€RICHARD€TRINKLE,à à*à à(Post„Conviction)ÌÌà àà àAPPELLANT.à à*ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€AppelleeóóÌÌBob€McDaniel€Greenà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ600€North€Roan€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€&ÏReporterÌP.O.€Box€28à àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌJohnson€City,€TN€37605à àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAmy€L.€Tarkingtonà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPhyllis€MillerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617„0526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àà àThe€appellant,€Michael€Richard€Trinkle,€appeals€as€of€right€from€theÏSullivan€County€Criminal€Courtððs€judgment€denying€his€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€(a)Ïfailing€to€object€to€hearsay€testimony,€(b)€failing€to€object€to€leading€questions,€(c)Ïfailing€to€subpoena€and€present€key€defense€witnesses,€(d)€failing€to€object€to€theÏamended€indictment,€(e)€failing€to€obtain€a€transcript€of€the€preliminary€hearing,€(f)Ïfailing€to€raise€the€statute€of€limitations€defense,€and€(g)€failing€to€move€for€judgmentsÍof€acquittal€at€the€conclusion€of€the€trial.€€The€appellant€also€lists€as€an€issue,€but€doesÏnot€argue,€the€propriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€WeÏfind€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àIn€June€of€1987,€the€appellant€was€charged€with€eight€counts€ofÏaggravated€rape€and€one€count€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€offenses€wereÏallegedly€committed€against€the€appellantððs€step€daughter,€G.S.,€a€female€who€wasÏless€than€thirteen€years€of€age.€€A€trial€was€held€in€September€of€1987.€€This€courtÏsummarized€the€evidence€on€direct€appeal:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAppellantððs€defense,€and€his€testimony,€was€that€he€did€notÏcommit€the€acts€charged.€€His€trial€strategy€was€to€discreditÏthe€testimony€of€the€victim€and€suggest€that€the€accusationÏemanated€from€an€acrimonious€divorce€between€AppellantÏand€the€victimððs€mother.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€victim,€who€was€14€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€trial,€gaveÏa€detailed€narrative€account€of€each€offense.€€She€testifiedÏthat€she€was€sexually€abused€over€a€period€of€several€yearsÏbeginning€soon€after€the€death€of€her€father€and€endingÏprior€to€her€motherððs€divorce€from€the€appellant.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€submitted€to€the€acts€because€she€wasÏafraid€of€the€appellant.€€She€described€violent€attacks€uponÏher,€her€brother,€and€her€mother,€including€an€incidentÏwhen€he€hit€her€brother€in€the€face,€broke€her€motherððs€wrist,Ïand€knocked€the€victim€down.€€She€related€each€offense€toÏthe€place€where€the€family,€which€moved€frequently,€wasÏliving€at€the€time,€where€she€was€attending€school,€herÏgrade€in€school€and€significant€events€such€as€her€birthday.€ÏHer€testimony€with€regard€to€the€month€and€year€of€eachÏoffense€was€consistent€with€the€dates€charged€in€theÏpresentment.ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Michael€Trinkleóó,€No.€824€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€13,€1989),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóóÏòòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.,€Oct.€2,€1989).€€The€appellant€was€convicted€of€seven€counts€ofÏaggravated€rape€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€He€was€sentenced€toÏforty€years€for€each€aggravated€rape€and€to€twenty€years€for€each€aggravated€sexualÏbattery;€the€sentences€were€to€run€concurrently.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€retained€present€counsel€to€represent€him€at€the€hearingÏon€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€and€on€appeal.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€newÏtrial,€the€trial€court€dismissed€both€convictions€for€aggravated€sexual€battery€becauseÏthe€statute€of€limitations€had€expired.€€The€trial€court€also€œgranted€judgments€ofÏacquittal€for€two›€of€the€aggravated€rape€convictions€because€there€was€insufficientÏevidence€to€prove€the€offenses.€€The€remaining€judgments€were€affirmed€on€directÏappeal,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€permission€to€appeal.€€òòIdóó.€€ThisÏpost„conviction€suit,€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel,€was€litigated€in€twoÏevidentiary€hearings€before€then€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court€Judge€George€H.ÏGarrett.€€Following€the€hearings,€and€Judge€Garrettððs€death,€Judge€W.€Fred€Axley€wasÏdesignated€to€complete€the€proceedings.€€On€July€29,€1994,€Judge€Axley€enteredÏwritten€findings€and€conclusions,€denying€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€€ThisÏappeal€followed.ÌÌà àà àIn€post„conviction€cases,€the€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€proveÏallegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,Í289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1988);€òòVermilye€v.€Stateóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€82,€84€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1987).€€On€appeal,Ïwe€are€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€how€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment€entered.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àTo€establish€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€the€SixthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€a€petitioner€must€show€(a)€that€counselððsÏperformance€was€deficient€and€(b)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€ofÏrendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687Ï(1984).€€Appellate€review€of€such€an€issue€does€not€have€to€begin€with€the€attorneyððsÏconduct;€if€prejudice€is€not€shown,€we€need€not€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegationsÏregarding€deficient€performance.€€òòIdóó.€at€697.€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€beenÏapplied€as€well€to€the€right€to€counsel€under€Article€1,€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 àà àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÏdecided€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€servicesÍrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€In€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment€of€attorney€performanceÏrequires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€toÏreconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€theÏconduct€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€atÏ689;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Deference€is€made€to€trialÏstrategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequateÏpreparation.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà@ àò òAó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€toÏhearsay€statements€elicited€from€the€victimððs€school€teacher.€€The€trial€transcriptÏreveals€that€Sharon€Hill€Tabor€was€the€victimððs€third€and€fourth€grade€teacher.€€In€theÏspring€of€1984,€the€victim€told€Tabor€that€she€had€been€ð ðabusedðð€by€the€appellant.€ÏTabor€testified€that€she€ð ðmost€definitelyðð€believed€the€victim.€€No€objection€was€made€atÏtrial.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€now€argues€that€the€statement€was€inadmissible€becauseÏit€had€been€made€over€a€year€after€the€most€recent€offense€charged€in€theÏpresentment.× ƒ, ××  ×€€The€State€contends€that€the€statement€satisfied€the€ð ðfresh€complaintððÍdoctrine,€which€was€then€applicable€to€child€sexual€abuse€cases.€€During€the€post„conviction€hearings,€counsel€gave€two,€somewhat€conflicting€explanations€for€failing€toÏobject.€€First,€he€believed€that€the€statement€satisfied€the€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€doctrine.€ÏSecond,€he€believed€that€even€if€the€victimððs€statements€were€inadmissible,€theÏteacherððs€failure€to€report€the€allegations€reflected€adversely€on€the€credibility€of€theÏvictim.€€The€appellant€testified€that€counsel€never€discussed€either€of€these€rationalesÏwith€him.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€this€trial,€the€fresh€complaint€doctrine€in€Tennessee€allowedÏa€victimððs€complaint€of€rape€or€sexual€assault,€including€the€details,€made€to€anotherÏperson€soon€after€the€event€to€be€admitted€in€the€Stateððs€case€in€chief.€€òòPhillips€v.ÏStateóó,€28€Tenn.€246,€247€(1848).× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€purpose€was€to€corroborate€the€victimððs€in€courtÏtestimony€about€the€offense€in€anticipation€of€an€impeaching€attack€against€the€truth€orÏaccuracy€of€the€victimððs€testimony.€€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€210€Tenn.€150,€357€S.W.2d€42,€45„46Ï(1962);€òòState€v.€Diesóó,€829€S.W.2d€706,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€question€ofÏwhether€a€victimððs€statement€qualified€as€fresh€complaint€depended€on€theÏsurrounding€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòIdóó.€at€709;€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€803€S.W.2d€260,€264Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Relevant€factors€included€the€amount€of€time€between€theÏevent€and€the€statement,€the€spontaneity€of€the€statement,€the€age€and€maturity€of€theÏvictim,€the€use€of€threats€or€means€of€intimidation€by€the€offender,€the€victimððsÍopportunity€and€capacity€to€explain,€and€the€relationship€between€the€victim€and€theÏoffender.€€òòIdóó.€at€264;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€891€S.W.2d€597,€606€(Tenn.Ï1994)(Reid€J.,€concurring).€€In€child€sexual€abuse€cases,€a€specific€fear€of€the€offenderÏoften€justified€a€delay€in€the€victimððs€statement.€€òòHill€v.€Stateóó,€73€Tenn.€725,€732€(1880);ÏòòCurtis€v.€Stateóó,€167€Tenn.€430,€70€S.W.2d€364,€366€(1934).ÌÌà àà àThus,€upon€a€timely€objection€at€trial,€the€trial€court€would€have€had€toÏdetermine€the€admissibility€of€the€victimððs€statement€to€Tabor€based€on€all€of€the€aboveÏfactors.€€At€this€stage€of€the€proceedings,€however,€we€need€not€do€so,€nor€do€we€needÏto€address€counselððs€alleged€deficiency€for€failing€to€object.€€On€direct€appeal,€ourÏcourt€held€that€the€teacherððs€testimony€did€not€amount€to€reversible€error.€€òòState€v.ÏMichael€Trinkleóó,€òòsupraóó,€slip€op.€at€2„3.€€We€believe€that€this€conclusion€applies€as€wellÏto€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€òòsupraóó.€€€The€victim€gave€a€detailed,Ïnarrative€account€of€the€sexual€abuse.€€The€admission€of€her€brief€statement€to€TaborÏdid€not€result€in€a€reasonable€probability€of€a€different€outcome€nor€did€it€render€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏobject€to€the€testimony€of€the€examining€physician.€€Dr.€E.C.€Goulding€testified€that€heÏexamined€the€victim€in€November€of€1985,€which€was€more€than€one€year€after€the€lastÏoffense€charged€in€the€indictment.€€He€related€statements€made€by€the€victim:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[S]he€reported€sexual€abuse€from€1980€until€the€summer€ofÏ1984,€including€ððPatient€states€that€she€œhad€had›€sodomy,Ïand€had€been€forced€to€have€oral€intercourse€with€thisÏman...,ðð€and€also€it€says,€ððattempted€vaginal€intercourse,ððÏand€the€patient€reported€that€he€had€ððnever€put€it€all€the€wayÏinðð€at€that€time.€€She€also€has€stated€some€history€of€beingÏforced€to€have€sex€with€her€smaller€brother.€€She€wasÏunsure€the€date€œthat€that›€happened€because€it€was€two€(2)Ïor€three€(3)€years€before€the€exam,€and€there€had€beenÏsome€reports,€patient€[had]€possibly€been€beaten€with€aÏbelt.ÌÌÓÓOn€cross€examination,€the€appellantððs€trial€counsel€elicited€the€following€history€told€toÏthe€physician€by€the€victimððs€younger€brother:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[œH]e›€stated€that€[the€appellant]€beat€him€at€times€with€a€belt,Ïand€with€his€fists,€and€forced€him€to€have€sexual€encountersÏwith€his€older€sister.€€He€denied€any€sexual€abuse€orÏadvances€by€[the€appellant]€at€that€time,€or€any€previousÏtime.ÌÌà8 àà8 à[œT]he›€patient€reports€that€the€[appellant]€forced€them€to€haveÏboth€oral,€vaginal,€and€anal€sex€with€his€sister€at€that€time.€ÏHe€denied€having€any€anal€pain€at€that€time.Ì€€ÌÓÓà àà àThe€appellant€asserts€that€his€trial€counsel€should€have€objected€to€thisÏmaterial€because€it€was€not€ð ðreasonably€pertinent€to€medical€diagnosis€and€treatment.ðð€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€œEvid›.€803(4).€€œIn€the€initial€evidentiary€hearing,€counsel€testified€that€heÏthought€the€doctorððs€findings€were€ð ðfavorableðð€to€the€appellant,€and€that€he€believedÏthe€victimððs€history€was€admissible.€€In€the€second€hearing,›€counsel€testified€that€heÏœbelieved€the€victimððs€statements€were€òònotóó€for€treatment€and€diagnosis;€however,€he€did›Ïnot€object€to€the€œstatements›€because€he€believed€they€were€inconsistent€with€œtheÏvictimððs€trial›€testimony€and€œthe›€doctorððs€œfindings.€›€Similarly,€because€certain€chargesÍinvolved€the€victimððs€brother,€counsel€elicited€the€victimððs€brotherððs€statements€to€showÏinconsistencies€with€the€victimððs€testimony.€€Counsel€noted€that€the€victimððs€brotherððsÏstatements€mentioned€anal€penetration€whereas€the€victimððs€testimony€did€not.€ÏMoreover,€the€doctorððs€findings€did€not€reflect€any€information€with€regard€to€potentialÏharm€caused€by€anal€penetration.€€Counsel€reiterated€that€his€strategy€was€to€show€asÏmany€inconsistencies€as€possible.€€The€appellant€testified€that€counsel€neverÏdiscussed€these€tactics€with€him.ÌÌà àà àAs€the€appellant€notes,€for€the€statements€to€have€been€admissible,€theyÏmust€have€been€ð ðreasonably€pertinent€to€medical€diagnosis€and€treatment.ðð€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€803(4).€€Although€there€is€a€question€as€to€whether€such€a€foundationÏwas€present,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€ground.€ÏCounselððs€decision€to€use€the€statements€as€examples€of€the€victimððs€inconsistenciesÏwas,€arguably,€a€tactical€one.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó.€€Moreover,€as€noted€by€theÏState,€our€court€said€on€direct€appeal€that€the€physicianððs€testimony€did€not€amount€toÏreversible€error.€€In€sum,€even€if€the€evidence€had€been€objectionable,€the€appellantÏhas€not€met€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€òòsupraóó.€€€€Ì̛̜à@ àò òBó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€also€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failingÏto€object€to€leading€questions€asked€by€the€State€in€its€direct€examination€of€the€victim.€ÍThe€appellant€argues€that€the€State€used€the€leading€questions€to€provide€specificÏdates€of€the€offenses€because€the€victim€was€unable€to€do€so€on€her€own.€€During€theÏevidentiary€hearing,€counsel€testified€that€he€was€aware€the€questions€were€leading;Ïhowever,€he€believed€that€the€jury€would€notice€that€the€State,€and€not€the€victim,€wasÏsupplying€the€dates.€Counsel€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[It€was]€very€consistent€with€the€whole€scenario€that€theÏindictment€was€general€in€that€way.€€The€testimony€wasÏgeneral,€and€had€to€be€given,€dates€had€to€necessarily€beÏelicited€from€them€in€this€way.€€I€thought€it€was€veryÏconsistent,€and€was€obvious€to€the€jury€that€these€childrenÏdid€not€know€the€specific€dates.ÌÌÓÓœCounsel€also€testified€that€he€was€concerned€that€objections€to€the€prosecutorððsÏquestions€may€have€allowed€the€victim€to€testify€about€uncharged€conduct,€as€she€hadÏpreviously€made€allegations€that€the€abuse€had€been€ð ðcontinual.ðð€€The›€appellantÏtestified€that€counsel€never€discussed€with€him€the€reasons€for€failing€to€object€to€theÏStateððs€questions.ÌÌà àà àAs€noted€by€our€court€on€direct€appeal,€the€transcript€reveals€that€theÏvictim€gave€a€ð ðdetailed€narrative€descriptionðð€and€ð ðrelated€each€offense€to€the€placeÏwhere€the€family,€which€moved€frequently,€was€living€at€the€time,€where€she€wasÏattending€school,€her€grade€in€school€and€significant€events€such€as€her€birthday.ðð€ÏThe€prosecutor€followed€up€on€several€of€the€victimððs€responses€with€questions€thatÏdirected€the€victim€to€a€specific€month€and€year.€€For€example,€the€following€colloquyÍoccurred€after€the€victim€described€in€detail€the€offenses€that€occurred€in€August€ofÏ1981:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ„„€€Now,€these€things€you€described,€that€was€in€August€ofÏ1981?Ìà8 àà8 àA„„€€Yes.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ„„€When€you€lived€in€the€Arnold€house?Ìà8 àà8 àA„„€Yes.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ„„€If€we€could€now€go€to€December€of€ðð82,€the€œEmmet›ÏRoad„„where€did€you€live€in€December€of€1982?Ìà8 àà8 àA„„€On€œEmmet›€road.ÌÌÓÓAfter€the€victim€detailed€the€incidents€that€occurred€on€œEmmet›€Road,€the€prosecutorÏasked:€ð ðThis€was€December€of€1982?ðð€€Thereafter,€the€prosecutor€asked,€ð ðNow,€if€weÏcould€go€to€July€of€ðð84,€I€think€in€the€Sinking€Springs€area.€€Where€did€you€live€in€JulyÏof€ðð84?ðð€€The€victim€then€related€where€she€lived€at€that€time€and€described€theÏoffenses€that€occurred€at€that€residence.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€an€objection€to€the€leading€nature€of€such€questions€may€haveÏbeen€well€founded,× ƒ/ ××  ×€we€note€that€the€victimððs€testimony€was€much€like€that€describedÏby€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€739€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€òòByrdóó,€the€courtÏnoted€that€in€child€sexual€abuse€cases,€the€State€may€have€to€rely€on€descriptiveÏinformation€such€as€references€to€ð ðbirthdays,€seasonal€celebrations€and€holidays,€theÏbeginning€or€end€of€the€school€year,€or€visitations€by€relatives.ðð€€òòIdóó.€At€740„741.€€In€thisÍregard,€the€victimððs€detailed€testimony€related€the€offenses€to€the€time€frames€chargedÏin€the€œpresentment.›€€As€our€court€noted€on€direct€appeal,€the€record€did€not€revealÏreversible€error€in€the€victimððs€testimony.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€appellantÏhas€not€shown€that€counselððs€failure€to€object€resulted€in€a€reasonable€probability€of€aÏdifferent€outcome.€€ÌÌà@ àò òCó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€call€twoÏdefense€witnesses€who€could€have€testified€that€the€appellant€and€the€victim€had€aÏgood€relationship€and€that€the€victimððs€mother€had€a€motive€to€fabricate€chargesÏagainst€the€appellant.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€counsel€testified€that€he€thought€theÏwitnesses€were€ð ðcritical,ðð€but€that€he€had€difficulty€locating€them€and€gaining€theirÏcooperation.€€Counsel€recalled€ð ðscrambling€at€the€last€minuteðð€to€issue€subpoenas€atÏan€address€he€had€learned€immediately€before€the€trial€was€to€begin.€€Counsel€alsoÏsought€a€continuance€on€the€morning€of€the€trial€in€an€effort€to€secure€the€witnesses.€ÏThe€motion€was€denied.€€€The€appellant€testified€that€he€had€expected€the€witnesses€toÏtestify€and€that€he€thought€the€trial€would€be€continued€so€the€witnesses€could€beÏlocated.€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€755,€our€court€noted€that€ð ðwhen€aÏpetitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€discover,€interview€or€present€witnessesÏin€support€of€his€defense,€these€witnesses€should€be€presented€by€the€petitioner€at€theÍevidentiary€hearing.ðð€€There€is€no€other€way€for€this€court€to€determine€the€materiality€ofÏthe€witnessððs€testimony€and€to€consider€what,€if€any,€prejudice€enured€to€the€petitioner.€ÏòòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àà àAs€the€appellant€concedes€on€appeal,€the€witnesses€did€not€testify€duringÏthe€post„conviction€hearings.€€Instead,€the€appellant€purports€to€rely€on€the€affidavitÏfiled€by€trial€counsel€when€the€continuance€was€requested€before€trial.€€The€affidavitÏasserted€œthat›€the€witnesses€were€ð ðcrucialðð€to€the€preparation€of€the€defense.€€TheÏaffidavit€did€not,€however,€set€forth€the€specific€testimony€that€the€witnesses€wouldÏhave€presented.€€Thus,€we€cannot€determine€whether€the€appellant€was€prejudiced€œbyÏcounselððs€inability€to€secure€the€attendance€of€these€witnesses.›€€Moreover,€we€noteÏthat€trial€counsel€presented€five€witnesses€at€trial€who€testified€that€the€appellant€andÏthe€victim€appeared€to€have€a€good€relationship€and€that€the€victim€never€reported€orÏshowed€signs€of€abuse.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€failed€toÏshow€that€he€was€prejudiced€in€this€regard.ÌÌà@ àò òDó óÌà àà àAccording€to€the€appellant,€the€ð ðoriginal€1986€indictmentðð€alleged€that€theÏoffenses€œcharged€in€case›€numbers€20,521,€€21,131,€21,132,€and€21,133,€wereÏcommitted€in€1980,€and€that€the€offense€œcharged€in›€case€number€21,135€€wasÏcommitted€in€1983.€€In€May€of€1987,€the€State€moved€to€amend€the€1980€offenses€toÏ1981,€and€to€amend€the€1983€offense€to€1984.€€The€appellant€argues€that€counsel€wasÍineffective€for€failing€to€oppose€the€amendments€to€the€indictment€and€for€failing€toÏseek€the€dismissal€of€the€indictment€for€its€lack€of€specific€dates.€€We€initially€note€that€aÏpresentment€returned€by€the€grand€jury€in€June€of€1987€contained€the€followingÏcharges€and€alleged€dates:ÌÓÓà àà à#20,521à àà àAggravated€Rapeà àà àJuly,€1981Ìà àà à#21,131à àà àAggravated€Rapeà àà àAugust€1981Ìà àà à#21,132à àà àAggravated€Rapeà àà àAugust€1981Ìà àà à#21,133à àà àœAgg›.€Sexual€Batteryà àAugust€1981Ìà àà à#21,134à àà àAggravated€Rapeà àà àDecember€1982Ìà àà à#21,135à àà àAggravated€Rapeà àà àJuly€1984Ìà àà à#21,136à àà àAggravated€Rapeà àà àAugust€1984Ìà àà à#21,137à àà àAggravated€Rapeà àà àAugust€1984Ìà àà à#21,138à àà àAggravated€Rapeà àà àAugust€1984ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àCounsel€testified€that€he€discussed€the€charges€at€length€with€theÏprosecuting€attorney€and€the€investigative€detective,€Terry€Hazard.€€In€May€of€1987,€theÏState€moved€to€amend€the€indictment.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€knew€the€State€couldÏgo€back€to€the€grand€jury€if€it€chose€to€do€so;€thus,€in€return€for€a€continuance,€he€didÏnot€oppose€amending€the€charging€instrument.€€According€to€counsel,€the€appellantÏhad€retained€a€private€investigator€around€the€same€time,€and€the€continuanceÏœassisted›€the€defense€by€providing€additional€time€in€which€to€locate€and€interviewÏprospective€defense€witnesses.€€Moreover,€counsel€testified€that€the€additional€timeÏœallowed›€œhim›€to€prepare€the€defenses€for€the€new€alleged€dates.ÌÌà àà àDetective€Terry€Hazard€testified€that€he€began€investigating€theÏallegations€of€sexual€abuse€in€May€of€1985.€€An€affidavit€of€complaint€was€sworn€inÍJune€of€1986.€€Hazard€conceded€that€the€affidavit€alleged€incidents€occurring€fromÏ1977€to€1984,€a€time€span€that€differed€from€that€in€the€œindictment›œ€or€presentment.›€ÏHazard€noted€that€there€had€been€a€typographical€error€in€the€affidavit€and€that€theÏvictim€related€many€more€incidents€than€those€charged.€€As€the€investigationÏprogressed,€the€victim€was€able€to€relate€the€specific€offenses€to€places€she€had€livedÏand€her€grade€in€school.€€Hazard€testified€that€the€victimððs€allegations€never€waveredÏand€that€the€victim€was€never€œð ðcoachedðð›€to€relate€the€offenses€to€certain€events.€ÌÌà àà àœIt›€is€well€established€that€the€exact€date€of€the€offense€need€not€be€statedÏin€an€indictment€or€presentment€unless€the€date€or€time€ð ðis€a€material€ingredient€in€theÏoffense.ðð€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€›€40„13„207.€€A€charging€instrument€need€only€state€thatÏthe€offense€was€committed€before€the€return€of€the€indictment€or€the€presentment.€€òòIdóó.€ÏMoreover,€to€satisfy€constitutional€safeguards,€the€charging€instrument€must€provideÏthe€accused€with€notice€of€the€charged€offense,€provide€the€accused€with€protectionÏagainst€double€jeopardy,€and€provide€the€court€with€an€adequate€ground€upon€whichÏto€enter€a€judgment.€€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€720€S.W.2d€76,€82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€appellant€has€not€shown€that€he€was€harmed€by€counselððsÏfailure€to€oppose€the€amendments€to€the€indictment.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€hadÏdiscussed€the€charges€at€length€with€the€prosecuting€attorney€and€investigating€officer.€ÏCounsel€also€noted€that€he€obtained€a€continuance€so€as€to€prepare€the€defense€forÏthe€Stateððs€proposed€amendments.€€In€any€event,€it€appears€that€the€original€indictmentÍwas€essentially€superseded€by€the€grand€juryððs€presentment€of€the€charges.€ÏAdditionally,€as€noted€above,€the€presentment€was€legally€sufficient€notwithstandingÏthe€lack€of€specific€dates.€€Thus,€counsel€was€not€deficient€for€failing€to€seek€itsÏdismissal€on€that€ground.€€€€€Ìà@ àò òEó óÌà àà àThe€appellant€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€obtain€aÏtranscript€of€the€preliminary€hearing€and€failing€to€cross€examine€the€victim€with€herÏstatement€that€the€appellant€did€not€penetrate€her.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€did€notÏrepresent€the€appellant€at€the€preliminary€hearing€and€that€he€could€not€recall€why€heÏdid€not€obtain€a€transcript€of€the€hearing.€€He€admitted€that€his€strategy€was€to€show€asÏmany€inconsistencies€as€possible€in€the€victimððs€allegations.ÌÌà àà àCounsel€in€a€criminal€case€has€an€obligation€to€investigate€all€factual€andÏlegal€defenses.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€at€933.€€The€duty€includes€interviewingÏwitnesses€and€securing€discoverable€information€from€the€prosecution€and€lawÏenforcement€agencies.€€òòIdóó.€€Although€counsel€conceded€that€he€did€not€secure€aÏtranscript€of€the€preliminary€hearing€œas›€part€of€his€preparation€for€trial,€the€appellantÏhas€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced.€€The€appellantððs€only€claim„„€that€the€victimÏtestified€during€the€preliminary€hearing€that€she€was€never€penetrated€by€theÏappellant„„€is€taken€out€of€context.€€A€review€of€the€preliminary€hearing€transcriptÏreveals€that€the€victim€testified€that€the€appellant€tried€to€penetrate€her€vagina€with€hisÏpenis€in€August€of€1984,€but€was€unsuccessful.€€She€gave€the€same€testimony€aboutÍthis€offense€at€trial.€€Moreover,€her€preliminary€hearing€testimony,€and€her€trialÏtestimony,€was€replete€with€instances€of€digital€and€oral€penetration€to€support€theÏremaining€charges.€€In€sum,€the€appellant€has€not€shown€that€trial€counselððs€failure€toÏuse€a€transcript€of€the€preliminary€hearing€resulted€in€a€reasonable€probability€of€aÏdifferent€outcome.ÌÌà@ àœò òF€&€Gó ó›Ìà àà àFinally,€the€appellant€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏraise€the€statute€of€limitations€defense€to€the€charge€for€aggravated€sexual€battery,€andÏfor€failing€to€move€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€on€the€convictions€following€the€trial.€€HeÏacknowledges€that€convictions€were€dismissed€on€these€grounds€post„trial,€but€insistsÏthat€counselððs€failures€were€indicative€of€his€overall€ineffectiveness.ÌÌà àà àThe€presentment€contained€one€charge€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,Ïwhich€was€alleged€to€have€been€committed€in€August€of€1981.€€The€affidavit€ofÏcomplaint€was€not€sworn€until€June€of€1986.€€At€the€time€of€these€offenses,€the€statuteÏof€limitations€for€œaggravated€sexual€battery›€was€four€years.€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„203›Ï(Supp.€1981);€òòseeóó€òòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€538,€540€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€ÏCounsel€testified€that€he€did€not€move€to€dismiss€the€aggravated€sexual€battery€chargeÏbecause€he€believed€the€trial€court€would€œhave€then›€œrefused›€to€charge€any€lesserÏincluded€offenses€on€the€remaining€aggravated€rape€charges.€€According€to€counsel,Ïhe€did€not€want€such€an€ð ðall€or€nothingðð€situation.€€The€court€subsequently€charged€allÍlesser€included€offenses,€and€the€jury€convicted€the€appellant€of€seven€counts€ofÏaggravated€rape€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€appellant,€with€newÏcounsel,€moved€to€dismiss€both€aggravated€sexual€battery€convictions€on€the€basis€ofÏthe€statute€of€limitations.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€convictions.€€On€motion€of€theÏappellant,€the€court€also€œgranted€judgments€of€acquittal€as€to›€two€of€the€aggravatedÏrape€convictions€for€insufficient€evidence.€€The€remaining€aggravated€rape€convictionsÏwere€sustained€and€affirmed€on€appeal.€€As€a€result,€even€if€trial€counsel€was€deficientÏin€this€regard,€the€dismissal€of€the€convictions€in€question€removed€any€prejudiceÏsuffered€by€the€appellant.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àIn€his€statement€of€the€issues,€the€appellant€questions€whether€it€isÏð ðconstitutionally€and€procedurally€prohibited€for€a€judge€not€conducting€a€[post„conviction]€hearing€to€render€an€initial€decision€upon€a€transcript€of€the€evidence.ðð€€TheÏissue€is€an€apparent€reference€to€the€designation€of€Judge€Axley€following€the€death€ofÏJudge€Garrett,€who€had€presided€over€the€appellantððs€trial€and€the€two€post„convictionÏhearings.€€Judge€Axley€entered€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€before€denyingÏthe€petition.ÌÌà àà àœThe›€appellant€œdid›€not€register€any€objections€to€the€proceedings€beforeÏthe€trial€court.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€More€importantly,€the€issue€is€not€supported€byÏargument,€citations€to€the€record,€or€citations€to€authority€in€his€brief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€27(a)(7).€€€€All€of€the€foregoing€result€in€a€waiver€of€the€issue€at€this€stage€of€theÏproceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dickersonóó,€885€S.W.2d€90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòTaylorÏv.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€684€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌF.€Lee€Russell,€Special€Judge