ÿWPCÀ Ìuë¶!˜t¢Ta|o*õ¯îNu .ÊÝgD¯P`i[Û?–.×ÍŠW,ªÊ1}f}®ý¾ãõNÄ|¤ëÜ Ì<<A¶ZÀÓ'G‚ËÁIˆí˜Ðv:~VéÊ&@Ê6-í]÷Õul×ÌdW©ª±CNI³wÃQ/Qéqžé^YJ0²ò{áJÁɆǰš?Ã…ÿð>£x¬²š¾„qtqî¬Av"æ…ojÔÛ¨%ñuoa¯Y:ÌŒ¬“Ø¡wXÜ m{Ðh‘úüúC~#x¿dLàó:#¶q é£á )ª¹ÉlÞÐÅBÆ—HÀf¶/ú+±qÍ>ȥ̫a÷{˜Ü±ÀLöÈvÔ×mê#œö*—ÑÏèHBK€lÙ™>Ì,Á®¶\uc,’,‘êŒJË!Ûç‹:N[ó¤ê8CÒ(³~üÆ*県ÑM£±vìÆ6íP`MßârHùhMØ…3dš=8¤ÆH†¼y ¯P¿+ñÔZM„[.K‹>j){1ªEyÎDgÐ8üí-c-à=`C®æ;‘é[àžÿAòPØ×½7©C,&æ-hа_úics*6é ‡©å’6ÿF bQ ÙªÁ¯ UŽþÇùmçˆ>"hâ)ï9vÅTÉëŠÔ]2”/¨¶b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ë½½½½ B¨¨ 0¤Å D3i D-œ 0KÉÉ ASÆg 0¤- 0DÑ A«˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»-±z+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'}.bkp—¨ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2¯o$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿ]ò»»Ô d(|3Gq$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gq$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€B»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼B»»»ÔÑ8€ ™XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îF”BÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼B»îîF” #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€February€6,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X ™X»¼BÔÌò òÔ#†¼B»XX ™!#ÔTHOMAS€ANDERSON,€JR.òòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X ™X»¼BÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1299„441€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01737„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€November€21,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€from€his€conviction€for€theft€of€propertyÐ xÈ  Ðvalued€less€than€$1000€but€greater€than€$500,€a€Class€E€felony,€arguing€that€the€post„conviction€courtÐ d´ Ðerred€in€finding€that€he€received€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€After€a€careful€review€of€theÐ P  Ðrecord,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€demonstrating€ineffectiveÐ <Œ Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.€Ô#†¼B»XX ™#ÔÔ‡X ™X»¼BÔÐ (x ÐÓÊÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓJerry€L.€SmithÔ#†¼B»àX ™7#ÔÔ‡X ™X.¼BÔ,€€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó€and€òòJoe€G.Ð Ø( ÐRiley,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌJudy€A.€Oxford,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Thomas€Anderson,€Jr.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€T.€Ryan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð tÄ ÐRonald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Derek€K.€Smith,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ `° ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÓèÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼B»XX ™%#ÔÔ‡X ™X»¼BÔÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼B»XX ™» #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X ™X»¼BÔà@!ìàò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDˆÐ ü#L# Ðó óÓÓÌÓÓà  àThe€petitioner,€Thomas€Anderson,€Jr.,€was€indicted€with€a€codefendant,€John€NicholasÐ À&"& ÐPatton,€on€one€count€of€automobile€burglary€and€two€counts€of€theft€over€$1000€for€stealing€twoÐ ¬'ü"' Ðcameras,€cash,€and€a€leather€jacket€from€the€automobile.€€As€part€of€a€plea€agreement,€Patton€testifiedÐ ˜(è#( Ðon€behalf€of€the€State€at€the€petitionerððs€trial,€relating€that€the€petitioner€had€given€him€the€camerasÐ „)Ô$) Ðto€sell€at€a€camera€shop,€and€that€he€had€given€the€petitioner€$100€of€the€proceeds€from€the€sale.€€OnÐ p*À%* ÐJuly€28,€1994,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€Williamson€County€Circuit€Court€jury€of€the€lesser„Ð \+¬&+ Ðincluded€offense€of€theft€less€than€$1000€but€over€$500,€a€Class€E€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentencedÐ H,˜', Ðhim€as€a€Range€III,€persistent€offender€to€six€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction,€imposed€an€$800Ð 4-„(-ý Ðfine,€and€ordered€that€he€pay€$850€in€restitution.€€The€petitionerððs€conviction€and€sentence€wereÐ ° Ðaffirmed€on€direct€appeal€to€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thomas€Andersonóó,€No.€01C01„9504„CC„00103,Ð œì Ð1997€WL€781887€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Dec.€18,€1997),òòóó€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Dec.€14,€1998).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àOn€December€14,€1999,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ð `° Ðalleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€On€January€26,€2000,Ð L œ Ðfollowing€the€appointment€of€post„conviction€counsel,€the€petitioner€filed€an€amended€petition,Ð 8 ˆ Ðalleging€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€three€areas:€(1)€for€failing€to€adequately€investigateÐ $ t Ðand€present€a€theory€of€defense;€(2)€for€failing€to€effectively€cross„examine€Patton€at€trial;€and€(3)Ð  ` Ðfor€failing€to€make€an€effective€closing€argument.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€alleged€that€trialÐ ü L  Ðcounsel€should€have€investigated€and€presented€evidence€to€show,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€Patton€had€soldÐ è 8  Ðcameras€to€the€same€camera€store€in€the€past,€that€he€owed€the€petitioner€money€from€their€jointlyÐ Ô$  Ðowned€disc€jockey€business,€and€that€the€money€the€petitioner€received€from€him€was€in€partialÐ À  Ðpayment€of€that€business€debt.€€The€petitioner€further€alleged€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€cross„Ð ¬ü  Ðexamine€Patton€regarding€his€prior€transactions€with€the€camera€shop,€his€conflicting€stories€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðpolice,€promises€made€in€exchange€for€his€testimony,€and€whether€he€had€been€coerced€by€the€policeÐ „Ô  Ðto€implicate€the€petitioner€in€the€crime.€€Finally,€the€petitioner€alleged€that€trial€counsel€wasÐ pÀ Ðineffective€for€failing€to€argue€Pattonððs€lack€of€credibility€and€the€lack€of€evidence€to€support€theÐ \¬ Ðconviction€in€his€closing€arguments€to€the€jury.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€June€1,€2000.€€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€wasÐ  p Ðinitially€represented€by€another€lawyer.€€Trial€counsel€took€over€after€he€rejected€the€plea€offer€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€first€lawyer€brought€him€from€the€State.€€He€said€that€trial€counsel€met€with€him€only€twice€toÐ øH Ðdiscuss€his€case,€and€that€on€the€several€other€occasions€he€attempted€to€talk€with€counsel,€counselÐ ä4 Ðfailed€to€return€his€phone€calls.€€€He€estimated€the€total€time€he€spent€with€trial€counsel€as€less€thanÐ Ð  Ðone€hour.€€He€acknowledged€on€cross„examination,€however,€that€he€had€been€able€to€tell€trialÐ ¼  Ðcounsel€everything€about€his€case€that€he€thought€he€needed€to€tell€him.€€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€expressed€his€dissatisfaction€at€trial€counselððs€failure€to€expose€Patton€at€trialÐ €Ð Ðas€a€liar.€€He€acknowledged€that€trial€counsel€had€done€a€ð ðgood€jobðð€of€attacking€Pattonððs€credibility,Ð l¼ Ðbut€faulted€him€for€failing€to€use€ð ðall€the€outletsðð€at€his€disposal€to€show€that€Patton€was€not€aÐ X ¨ Ðcredible€witness.€€The€petitionerððs€primary€complaint€was€that€trial€counsel€had€not€explained€at€trialÐ D!” Ðthe€petitionerððs€reason€for€accepting€money€from€Patton.€€He€said€that€he€had€informed€trial€counselÐ 0"€  Ðthat€Patton€told€him€that€he€had€inherited€some€cameras€from€his€grandfather€and€had€asked€that€heÐ #l! Ðdrive€him€to€Nashville€to€sell€them.€€The€petitioner€said€that€he€explained€that€Patton€owed€himÐ $X" Ðmoney€from€their€disc€jockey€business€and€had€agreed€to€share€the€camera€€proceeds€with€him€inÐ ô$D # Ðexchange€for€the€ride€and€as€partial€payment€of€the€business€debt.€€He€testified€that€€trial€counsel€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðsuggested€that€he€attempt€to€get€Patton€to€admit€to€these€facts€in€conversation€and€that€he€tape„recordÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€conversation€but€that€he€had€been€unable€to€do€so.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€complained€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€investigate€Pattonððs€prior€dealings€withÐ )à$( Ðthe€camera€shop€and€failed€to€cross„examine€him€regarding€the€money€he€owed€the€petitioner,€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðpromises€he€had€been€made€for€his€testimony,€and€whether€he€had€been€coerced€by€the€police€toÐ h+¸&* Ðimplicate€the€petitioner€in€the€crimes.€€€On€cross„examination,€however,€the€petitioner€testified€thatÐ ° Ðhe€was€not€sure€that€he€had€told€trial€counsel€that€Patton€owed€him€money.€€He€also€acknowledgedÐ œì Ðthat€trial€counsel€had€been€able€to€bring€out€Pattonððs€conflicting€accounts€of€the€incident,€and€the€factÐ ˆØ Ðthat€his€burglary€charge€had€been€dismissed€as€part€of€his€plea€agreement.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àBrenda€Jenkins,€the€petitionerððs€long„time€girlfriend,€testified€that€she€had€accompanied€theÐ L œ Ðpetitioner€and€Patton€to€the€camera€shop€in€Nashville,€where€she€and€the€petitioner€had€waited€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcar€while€Patton€conducted€his€business€in€the€shop.€€She€said€she€had€earlier€heard€Patton€mentionÐ $ t Ðthat€he€owed€money€to€the€petitioner€and€had€also€heard€him€say€that€he€would€pay€the€petitionerÐ  ` Ðwhen€he€went€to€Nashville.€€On€cross„examination,€she€testified€that€she€had€not€heard€PattonÐ ü L  Ðmention€any€specific€amount€of€money€that€he€owed.€€She€had€not€seen€Patton€with€any€cameras,Ð è 8  Ðneither€when€he€got€into€the€car€as€they€picked€him€up,€nor€when€he€got€out€to€go€inside€the€cameraÐ Ô$  Ðshop.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€was€employed€with€the€Twenty„First€Judicial€District€PublicÐ ˜è  ÐDefenderððs€Office€and€that€he€had€been€licensed€to€practice€law€since€1976.€€€After€graduation€fromÐ „Ô  Ðlaw€school,€he€had€worked€in€private€practice€for€a€year€and€a€half€before€becoming€an€assistantÐ pÀ Ðdistrict€attorney.€€After€four€and€a€half€years€as€an€assistant€district€attorney,€he€had€again€been€inÐ \¬ Ðprivate€practice€from€1984€until€1992,€when€he€joined€the€public€defenderððs€office.€€Trial€counselÐ H˜ Ðsaid€that€his€main€focus€had€been€criminal€law€and€that€he€had€handled€over€10,000€criminal€casesÐ 4„ Ðin€his€career.Ð  p ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€explained€that€the€petitionerððs€case€was€originally€assigned€to€another€lawyerÐ øH Ðwith€the€public€defenderððs€office,€who€handled€the€initial€review€date€and€conducted€two€extensiveÐ ä4 Ðinterviews€with€the€petitioner.€€After€the€petitioner€rejected€the€plea€offered€by€the€State,€trial€counselÐ Ð  Ðwas€assigned€to€the€case.€€He€€reviewed€with€his€colleague€her€notes€of€the€case€and€met€with€theÐ ¼  Ðpetitioner€in€person€three€or€four€times,€€including€ð ðat€least€an€hourðð€right€before€trial,€for€a€total€timeÐ ¨ø Ðof€over€two€hours.€€He€also€talked€with€the€petitioner€by€phone€once€or€twice.€€€The€fact€situation,Ð ”ä Ðhe€said,€was€fairly€simple€and€did€not€require€much€time.€€He€could€not€recall€any€time€that€theÐ €Ð Ðpetitioner€asked€to€speak€with€him€that€he€had€refused.€€He€said€that€he€and€the€petitioner€had€neverÐ l¼ Ðhad€any€difficulty€in€communicating€with€each€other€and€that€the€petitioner€had€appeared€happy€withÐ X ¨ Ðhis€representation.€€The€petitioner€had€not€made€any€complaints€to€him€and€had,€in€fact,€later€soughtÐ D!” Ðhis€representation€on€another€matter.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€advised€the€petitioner€against€testifying€at€trial€because€ofÐ $X" Ðhis€lengthy€criminal€record.€€€He€said€that€the€petitioner€did€not€want€to€testify€and€agreed€with€hisÐ ô$D # Ðdefense€strategy€in€the€case,€which€consisted€of€using€Jenkins€as€a€witness€on€the€petitionerððs€behalf,Ð à%0!$ Ðand€attempting€to€attack€Pattonððs€credibility.€€Trial€counsel€believed€that€the€first€time€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðpetitioner€mentioned€that€Patton€owed€him€money€was€after€Patton€testified,€during€a€break€in€theÐ ¸'#& Ðtrial.€€On€cross„examination,€he€admitted€that€the€petitioner€might€have€mentioned€earlier€that€PattonÐ ¤(ô#' Ðowed€him€money.€He€was€sure,€however,€that€he€had€not€heard€any€of€the€details€about€the€debt€or€Ð )à$( Ðthe€disc€jockey€business€until€that€day.€€Trial€counsel€said€that€he€had€not€thought€it€particularlyÐ |*Ì%) Ðrelevant€that€Patton€owed€the€petitioner€money.€€His€belief€was€that€the€jury€convicted€the€petitionerÐ h+¸&* Ðbecause€of€the€evidence€that€he€had€driven€Patton€to€the€camera€store€and€shared€in€the€proceedsÐ ° Ðfrom€the€sale,€as€well€as€testimony€from€Patton€that€he€had€seen€the€petitioner€wearing€a€brownÐ œì Ðjacket€similar€to€the€one€that€had€been€stolen€from€the€victimððs€automobile.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that,€in€an€attempt€to€discredit€Pattonððs€testimony,€he€had€brought€outÐ `° ÐPattonððs€prior€worthless€check€convictions,€as€crimes€of€dishonesty,€on€cross„examination.€€He€hadÐ L œ Ðalso€attempted€to€show€that€the€petitioner€was€not€involved€by€pointing€out€€that€€it€was€Patton€whoÐ 8 ˆ Ðwent€into€the€camera€store€and€negotiated€the€entire€sale,€while€the€petitioner€waited€outside.€€TrialÐ $ t Ðcounsel€did€not€remember€the€petitioner€having€told€him€that€Patton€had€gone€to€the€camera€storeÐ  ` Ðon€prior€occasions€and€said€that€even€if€he€had,€he€would€not€have€found€that€fact€particularlyÐ ü L  Ðrelevant€to€the€defense.€€He€said€that€the€petitioner€never€told€him€of€having€heard€a€police€officerÐ è 8  Ðsay€that€Patton€had€been€coerced€into€implicating€the€petitioner€in€the€crime€and€that€if€he€had,€heÐ Ô$  Ðwould€have€pursued€it€at€trial.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àOn€June€16,€2000,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€an€order€denying€the€petition€for€post„Ð ˜è  Ðconviction€relief.€€With€regard€to€the€petitionerððs€first€claim€of€ineffective€assistance,€the€post„Ð „Ô  Ðconviction€court€found€that€trial€counsel€adequately€communicated€and€met€with€the€petitioner€priorÐ pÀ Ðto€trial€and€sufficiently€investigated€the€case€to€formulate€a€defense.€€€The€court€further€found€thatÐ \¬ Ðevidence€that€Patton€owed€money€to€the€petitioner,€even€if€established,€would€not€have€altered€theÐ H˜ Ðoutcome€of€the€case.€€€On€the€petitionerððs€second€claim€of€ineffective€assistance,€the€court€found€thatÐ 4„ Ðtrial€counsel€ð ðaggressively€pursued€the€credibility€issues€weighing€against€Mr.€Patton€during€cross„Ð  p Ðexamination,ðð€ð ðstudiously€exposedðð€his€prior€criminal€history,€ð ðattacked€the€inconsistencies€inÐ  \ Ðstatementsðð€he€had€given€the€police,€and€in€general€ð ðhammeredðð€him€regarding€his€inconsistentÐ øH Ðstatements€and€ð ðpotential€coercions€by€police€to€implicate€the€Petitioner.ðð€Finally,€the€post„Ð ä4 Ðconviction€court€found€that€there€was€no€evidence€to€support€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€trial€counselÐ Ð  Ðwas€ineffective€for€making€an€inadequate€closing€argument.€€The€court€found€that€trial€counselððsÐ ¼  Ðclosing€argument,€contrary€to€the€petitionerððs€allegations,€was€ð ðlaced€with€referencesðð€to€PattonððsÐ ¨ø Ðlack€of€credibility.€€The€court€further€found€that€trial€counsel€effectively€argued€the€juryððs€role€as€theÐ ”ä Ðsole€judges€of€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€ð ðadequately€attacked€the€investigationðð€of€the€policeÐ €Ð Ðdepartment€and€ð ðthe€Stateððs€agreement€it€had€made€with€Mr.€Patton€in€exchange€for€his€testimony.ðð€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€relief,€the€€petitioner€filed€a€timely€appeal€toÐ D!” Ðthis€court,€raising€the€sole€issue€of€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€receivedÐ 0"€  Ðthe€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà@ç ç ìà€POST„CONVICTION€STANDARD€OF€REVIEWˆÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€bringing€a€post„conviction€petition€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegationsÐ Ì&"% Ðasserted€in€the€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€Ð ¸'#& ÐMoreover,€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidenceÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpreponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996);€òòCampbellÐ )à$( Ðv.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€596€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà@o o ìà€à@@  ìàINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELˆÐ ° Ðà@@@ìàA.€€Standard€of€Reviewˆà0 È àМìÈ(#È(# Ðà  àWe€are€required€to€observe€the€following€standard€of€review€in€cases€alleging€ineffectiveÐ ˆØ Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€When€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffectiveÐ tÄ Ðassistance,€the€petitioner€must€prove€ð ðthat€(a)€the€services€rendered€by€trial€counsel€were€deficientÐ `° Ðand€(b)€the€deficient€performance€was€prejudicial.ðð€€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2d€551,€558€(Tenn.Ð L œ ÐCrim.€App.€1996).€€To€satisfy€the€deficient€performance€prong€of€this€test,€the€petitioner€mustÐ 8 ˆ Ðestablish€that€the€service€rendered€or€the€advice€given€was€below€ð ðthe€range€of€competenceÐ $ t Ðdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€€523€S.W.2d€€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€Ð  ` ÐFurthermore,€to€demonstrate€the€prejudice€required,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€there€is€aÐ ü L  Ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÐ è 8  Ðwould€have€been€different.€€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2068,Ð Ô$  Ð80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€€ð ðBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test€to€prevail€onÐ À  Ða€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€failure€to€prove€either€deficient€performance€or€resultingÐ ¬ü  Ðprejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€claim.ðð€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,Ð ˜è  Ð580€(Tenn.€1997).€€As€a€matter€of€fact,€ð ða€court€need€not€address€the€components€in€any€particularÐ „Ô  Ðorder€or€even€address€both€if€the€[petitioner]€makes€an€insufficient€showing€of€one€component.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ pÀ ÐÌà@33ìàB.€€Specific€AllegationsˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€on€appeal€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigate€andÐ  p Ðdevelop€the€defense€that€would€have€explained€why€he€accepted€money€from€Patton,€namely,€that€Ð  \ ÐPatton€owed€him€money€from€their€disc€jockey€business.€€He€contends€that€trial€counsel€wasÐ øH Ðdeficient€for€failing€to€investigate€and€pursue€this€defense,€failing€to€question€Patton€about€the€debtÐ ä4 Ðon€cross„examination,€and€failing€to€argue€the€defense€in€closing.€€The€petitioner€argues€that€wereÐ Ð  Ðit€not€for€these€alleged€deficiencies€in€counselððs€performance,€the€outcome€of€the€trial€might€haveÐ ¼  Ðbeen€different.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àHaving€reviewed€the€entire€record€in€this€case,€including€the€videotapes€of€the€post„Ð €Ð Ðconviction€evidentiary€hearing€and€the€petitionerððs€trial,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€notÐ l¼ Ðsupport€the€petitionerððs€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€Trial€counsel€testified€at€theÐ X ¨ Ðevidentiary€hearing€that€he€met€with€the€petitioner€at€least€three€times€prior€to€trial€and€spoke€withÐ D!” Ðhim€by€telephone€at€least€once€or€twice.€€In€addition,€he€reviewed€with€his€colleague€the€notes€of€herÐ 0"€  Ðearlier€interviews€with€the€petitioner€and€received€and€reviewed€discovery€from€the€State.€€He€saidÐ #l! Ðthat€the€facts€were€not€complicated€and€that€the€petitioner€agreed€with€his€defense€strategy€ofÐ $X" Ðattacking€Pattonððs€credibility.€€The€videotape€of€the€trial€reveals€that€trial€counsel€cross„examinedÐ ô$D # ÐPatton€at€length€regarding€the€promises€he€had€been€made€for€his€testimony,€his€prior€inconsistentÐ à%0!$ Ðstatements€to€the€police,€and€his€prior€convictions.€€The€tape€further€reveals€that€trial€counsel€arguedÐ Ì&"% ÐPattonððs€lack€of€credibility,€and€the€lack€of€evidence€supporting€the€petitionerððs€role€in€the€crime,€toÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€jury.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àAs€for€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€trial€counsel€should€have€presented€evidence€that€PattonÐ |*Ì%) Ðowed€him€money€in€order€to€explain€why€he€shared€in€the€proceeds€of€the€camera,€neither€trialÐ h+¸&* Ðcounsel€nor€the€petitioner€was€able€to€testify€with€certainty€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€theÐ ° Ðpetitioner€informed€trial€counsel€of€the€debt€prior€to€trial.€€Moreover,€trial€counsel€testified€that€evenÐ œì Ðif€the€petitioner€had€told€him€that€Patton€owed€him€money,€he€was€certain€that€the€petitioner€had€notÐ ˆØ Ðgiven€him€any€of€the€details€that€he€provided€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€Trial€counsel€also€said€that€Ð tÄ Ðhe€would€not€have€found€the€mere€fact€that€Patton€owed€the€petitioner€money€particularly€relevantÐ `° Ðfor€his€defense.€€This€court€does€not€second„guess€the€strategic€and€tactical€choices€made€by€trialÐ L œ Ðcounsel€relating€to€the€defense€unless€those€choices€are€shown€to€be€due€to€inadequate€preparation.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòSeeóó€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Here,€the€evidenceÐ $ t Ðdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€finding€that€trial€counsel€adequatelyÐ  ` Ðinvestigated€the€case,€formulated€an€appropriate€defense,€effectively€cross„examined€Patton,€andÐ ü L  Ðpresented€an€effective€closing€argument€to€the€jury.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€the€petitioner€failed€to€demonstrate€that,€were€it€not€for€counselððs€allegedÐ À  Ðdeficiencies€in€performance,€the€outcome€of€his€trial€would€have€been€different.€€As€the€post„Ð ¬ü  Ðconviction€court€observed€in€its€order€denying€relief,€the€jury€in€this€case€obviously€accreditedÐ ˜è  ÐPattonððs€testimony,€in€spite€of€trial€counselððs€demonstration€of€the€inconsistencies€in€his€priorÐ „Ô  Ðstatements€to€police,€his€prior€convictions€for€crimes€of€dishonesty,€and€the€details€of€his€plea€bargainÐ pÀ Ðagreement€with€the€State.€€It€is€unlikely€that€evidence€that€Patton€owed€the€petitioner€money€for€aÐ \¬ Ðprior€debt€would€have€changed€the€juryððs€verdict€in€this€case.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€petitionerÐ H˜ Ðnot€only€failed€to€demonstrate€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€but€also€failed€to€show€howÐ 4„ Ðany€alleged€deficiency€in€counselððs€performance€prejudiced€his€case.€Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ ä4 ÐÌó óà  àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€entire€record,€€we€conclude€that€trial€counsel€provided€competentÐ ¼  Ðrepresentation€in€this€case,€and€that€the€post„conviction€court€therefore€properly€dismissed€theÐ ¨ø Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.€Ð ”ä ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE