ÿWPC2  8#  U>+ %i 0íoUB\4ž²n­ÁU:n¨w@° 0Jð 01: 0Dk 0T¯ 0^ 0ha 0rÉ  ±; 0|ì 0†h 0î 1u~ 0dó BW AQtÆÅ 0D‹ 0@Ï 0D D/S B‚ D3ŸU6ÒU.U*6B)`DC‰ AMÌ…Ýžf{v~ávÓ_˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÑ<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 12pt10cpi¸LË$3|x«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular üýDþ[ÿÓ€e2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(á(3a”$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ ÚXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔWIc:\office\wpwin\wpdocs\opinions\bacon.opnE‡¡IN[‡¡THE[‡¡COURT[‡¡OF[‡¡CRIMINAL[‡¡APPEALS[‡¡OF[‡E ¡ TENNESSEE[‡¡AT[‡E ¡ KNOXVILLE[‡¡MAY[‡EEEEEE E E E E EEEEE‡‡EEEEEEEEEEEEEE E!E"E#E$E%E&E'E(E)E*E+E,E-E.E/E0E1E2E3E4E5E6E7E8E9E:‡E;E<E=E>E?E@EAEBEC‡EDEEEF‡EGEH‡EIEJEK‡ELEM‡ENEOEP‡2J 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 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd!#1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ {Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òAPRIL€23,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€/ÔÔ€/ôÔFor€post„conviction€petitions€filed€after€May€10,€1995,€petitioners€have€the€burden€of€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïproving€factual€allegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„210(f).Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€..Xd#ÑÑ#€..Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€/Ô›Ñ7€ ,ö XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ!ÙßR€231A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MAY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓWILLIE€BACON,€JR.,€à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€œ03C01„9605„CR„00203›Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHamilton€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à€€€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:ÌÌArdena€J.€Garth€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌDonna€Robinson€Millerà àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€ÏSuite€300,€701€Cherry€Streetà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Cox,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àC.€Leland€DavisÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€Willie€Bacon,€Jr.,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€HamiltonÏCounty€Criminal€Courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€after€an€evidentiary€hearing.€ÏHe€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€because€the€reasonable€doubtÏand€malice€instructions€given€at€his€trial€violated€his€due€process€and€equal€protectionÏrights€and€because€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€disagreeÏand€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àIn€1989,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€receivedÏa€sentence€of€life€imprisonment.€€This€court€affirmed€his€conviction.€€òòState€v.€WillieÍBacon,€Jr.óó,€No.€1164,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€4,€1992),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€Dec.€14,€1992).€€The€petitioner€filed€the€present€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÏon€May€13,€1994.ÌÌ€à àA€transcript€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€is€the€only€evidence€that€wasÏintroduced€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€his€post„conviction€petition.€€At€the€hearing,Ïthe€petitionerððs€attorney€argued€that€the€malice€and€reasonable€doubt€jury€instructionsÏgiven€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€violated€his€constitutional€rights.€€She€also€argued€that€theÏpetitioner€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€his€trial€counselÏfailed€to€object€to€the€stateððs€closing€argument,€failed€to€object€to€the€reasonable€doubtÏand€malice€jury€instructions,€and€failed€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence€on€appeal.€€ÌÌà àIn€its€order€denying€the€petition,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€reasonableÏdoubt€and€malice€jury€instructions€did€not€violate€the€petitionerððs€constitutional€rightsÏand€that€the€petitioner€did€not€receive€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏSpecifically,€the€court€found€that€the€petitionerððs€counsel€made€a€tactical€decision€notÏto€object€during€the€stateððs€closing€argument.€€The€court€also€stated€that€although€theÏpetitionerððs€counsel€did€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€thisÏcourt€examined€the€convicting€evidence€and€concluded€that€the€evidence€sustainedÏthe€conviction.ÌÌò òà@ àœI.€›€REASONABLE€DOUBT€JURY€INSTRUCTIONó óÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€post„conviction€reliefÏbecause€the€use€of€the€term€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€in€the€reasonable€doubt€jury€instructionÏgiven€at€his€trial€allowed€the€jury€to€convict€him€based€on€a€lower€standard€of€proofÏthan€is€constitutionally€required.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà àThe€following€instruction€was€given€at€the€petitionerððs€trial:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àReasonable€doubt€is€not€that€doubt€that€may€arise€œfrom›Ïpossibility,€but€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€an€investigationÏof€all€the€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability,€after€suchÏinvestigation,€to€let€the€mind€rest€easily€upon€certainty€ofÏguilt.€€Absolute€certainty€of€guilt€is€not€demanded€by€the€lawÏto€convict€of€a€criminal€charge,€but€moral€certainty€isÏrequired€as€to€every€proposition€of€proof€requisite€toÏconstitute€the€offense.€ÌÌÓÓThis€is€a€correct€statement€of€the€burden€of€proof€for€criminal€trials€in€Tennessee.€€òòSeeóóÏòòNichols€v.€Stateóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Sextonóó,€917€S.W.2d€263,Ï266€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,€885€S.W.2d€364,€366€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1994).€€Thus,€the€instruction€did€not€violate€the€petitionerððs€constitutional€rights.ÌÌà@ àœò òII.€›€MALICE€JURY€INSTRUCTIONÌÓ  Óà àó óNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court's€jury€instructionÏregarding€malice€violated€his€due€process€rights.€€œòòSeeóó›€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442ÍU.S.€510,€99€S.€Ct.€2450€(1979);€òòState€v.€Bolinóó,€678€S.W.2d€40,€45€(Tenn.€1984).€€TheÏtrial€court€gave€the€following€instruction€at€the€petitionerððs€trial:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àà àMalice€is€an€intent€to€do€injury€to€another,€a€designÏformed€in€the€mind€of€doing€mischief€to€another.Ìà8 àà àMalice€may€be€express€or€implied.€€Express€malice€isÏactual€malice€against€the€party€slain€and€exists€where€aÏperson€actually€contemplates€the€injury€or€wrong€he€inflicts.€ÏImplied€malice€is€malice€not€against€the€party€slain,€butÏmalice€in€general,€or€that€condition€of€the€œmind›€whichÏindicates€a€wicked,€depraved,€and€malignant€spirit,€and€aÏheart€regardless€of€social€duty€and€fatally€bent€on€mischief.€ÏImplied€malice€may€be€found€to€exist€where€the€wrongdoerÏdid€not€intend€to€slay€the€person€killed€but€death€resultedÏfrom€a€consciously€unlawful€act€done€intentionally€and€withÏœknowledge›€on€the€wrongdoerððs€part€that€the€act€was€directlyÏperilous€to€human€life.€€In€this€event,€there€is€implied€such€aÏhigh€degree€of€conscious€and€willful€recklessness€as€toÏamount€to€that€malignity€of€heart€constituting€malice.€€ÌÌà8 àà àAs€with€other€issues,€the€question€of€malice€may€beÏdecided€from€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence,€or€both.€€It€isÏfor€the€jury€to€decide€under€all€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏof€the€case€whether€malice€was€present€in€the€slaying.ÌÌà8 àà àIf€a€deadly€weapon€is€handled€in€a€manner€so€as€toÏmake€the€killing€a€natural€or€probable€result€of€suchÏconduct,€the€jury€may€infer€malice€sufficient€to€support€aÏconviction€of€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€But,€again,€thisÏinference€may€be€rebutted€by€either€direct€or€circumstantialÏevidence€or€by€both€regardless€of€whether€the€same€beÏoffered€by€the€defendant€or€exists€in€the€evidence€of€theÏœstate.›€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àMalice€cannot€be€inferred€from€deadly€intent€only,Ïbecause€the€deadly€intent€may€be€justifiable€under€the€law,Ïas€where€one€willfully€kills€another€to€save€his€own€life€or€toÏsave€himself€from€great€bodily€harm€and€the€danger€isÏimminent€and€immediate,€or€if€it€were€sudden€and€uponÍreasonable€provocation€the€killing€might€or€might€not€beÏmanslaughter,€but€it€would€not€be€murder.ÌÌà8 àà àYou€are€reminded€that€the€state€always€has€theÏburden€of€proving€every€element€of€the€crime€chargedÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€A€permissible€inference€mayÏor€may€not€be€drawn€from€an€elemental€fact€from€proof€byÏthe€state€of€a€basic€fact.€€However,€all€inferences€permittedÏto€be€drawn€may€be€rebutted.€€Such€permissive€inferenceÏdoes€not€place€any€burden€of€proof€of€any€kind€upon€theÏdefendant.€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àIn€òòSandstromóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€an€instruction€whichÏeffectively€tells€the€jury€that€they€are€to€presume€the€existence€of€malice,€when€such€isÏan€element€of€the€offense,€impermissibly€shifts€the€burden€of€proof€to€the€defendant.€ÏòòSandstromóó,€442€U.S.€at€524,€99€S.€Ct.€at€2459.€€However,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€didÏnot€instruct€the€jury€to€presume€the€existence€of€malice.€€Taken€as€a€whole,€theÏinstruction€created€a€permissive€inference.€€òòSeeóó€œòòBolinóó,€678€S.W.2d€at€42„45;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòState›€v.€James€Blantonóó,€No.€01C01„9307„CC„00218,€Cheatham€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€Apr.€30,€1996),€œòòappóó.›€òòpendingóó€(holding€that€a€similar€instruction€did€not€violateÏòòSandstromóó).€€Thus,€the€instruction€did€not€violate€the€petitionerððs€constitutional€rights.€ÌÌà@ àœò òIII.€€INEFFECTIVE›€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óÌà àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€post„conviction€reliefÏbecause€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€petitioner€contendsÏthat€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€the€stateððs€closing€argument,Ífailing€to€object€to€the€malice€and€reasonable€doubt€instructions€that€were€given€at€hisÏtrial,€and€failing€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€during€his€directÏappeal.€€€The€state€counters€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€hisÏcounsel€was€deficient€and€that€he€suffered€any€prejudice€from€the€alleged€deficiencies.€ÌÌà àThe€burden€was€on€the€petitioner€in€the€trial€court€to€prove€his€allegationsÏthat€would€entitle€him€to€relief€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,Ï756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€On€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€unless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€thoseÏfindings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€this€respect,Ïthe€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€how€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€judgment€entered.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€is€made,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counsel'sÏperformance€was€deficient€and€(2)€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,€687,€104ÏS.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€œ369„72,›€113€S.€Ct.Í838,€842„44€(1993).€€Our€supreme€court€has€also€applied€this€standard€to€the€right€toÏcounsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772ÏS.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.€1989),€and€to€the€right€to€appellate€counsel€under€theÏFourteenth€Amendment.€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€596€(Tenn.€1995);€òòseeóóÏòòEvitts€v.€Luceyóó,€469€U.S.€387,€105€S.€Ct.€830€(1985).ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€attorney€was€deficient€for€failing€to€objectÏto€the€following€remarks€the€prosecuting€attorney€made€during€the€stateððs€closingÏargument:ÌÓÓà8 àà àMr.€Bacon€would€have€you€believe€that€he€simplyÏforgot,€I€guess.€€I€guess€itððs€what€you€might€term€selectiveÏamnesia.€€ð ðOh,€yeah,€I€remember€when€he€assaulted€me.€ÏOh,€yeah,€I€remember€falling€through€the€door.€€Oh,€yeah,€IÏremember€dropping€the€knife.€€Oh,€yeah,€I€rememberÏrunning€away.€€Oh,€yeah,€I€remember€getting€in€the€car.ðð€ÏœWhoa,›€wait€a€œminute.›€€What€about€the€35€stab€wounds?€€Oh,Ïis€this€the€defense?€€Yes,€I€committed€first€degree€murder,Ïbut€now€Iððve€forgotten€about€it.€€Okay,€so€you€committed€firstÏdegree€murder€and€youððve€forgotten€about€it.€ÓÓÌThe€trial€court€found€that€the€petitionerððs€attorney€acted€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€defense€attorneys€when€he€made€a€tactical€decision€not€to€object€toÏthese€remarks.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€assessment.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€that€these€remarks€were€improper€or€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€them.ÌÌà àWe€also€disagree€with€the€petitionerððs€contentions€that€his€counsel€wasÏineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€the€reasonable€doubt€and€malice€jury€instructions€thatÏwere€given€at€his€trial.€€As€previously€discussed,€the€instructions€given€at€theÏpetitionerððs€trial€were€proper.Ñ€5ÑÇà àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failingÏto€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€during€his€direct€appeal.€€TheÏstate€counters€that€the€petitionerððs€counsel€acted€competently€when€he€made€a€tacticalÏdecision€not€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€The€state€also€argues€thatÏthe€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€his€counselððs€failure€toÏpresent€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€appeal.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€state€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€his€counselððs€failure€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence.€€When€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,Ï571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978),€the€proof€at€trial€showed€that€the€petitioner€asked€aÏfriend€to€drive€him€to€the€victimððs€home.€€Before€they€left€for€the€victimððs€house,€theÏpetitioner€changed€clothes.€€The€œpetitioner€ð ðtuckedðð›€his€clothes€in€a€manner€thatÏindicated€that€he€had€something€concealed€under€his€clothes.€€After€arriving€at€theÏvictimððs€house,€the€petitioner€entered€the€house,€where€he€stabbed€the€victim€during€aÏstruggle.€€The€petitioner€continued€to€stab€the€victim€after€the€victim€exited€the€house.€ÏThe€petitioner€stabbed€the€victim€a€total€of€thirty„five€times,€killing€him.€€The€proof€at€trialÏindicated€that€the€petitioner€killed€the€œvictim›€as€punishment€or€revenge€related€to€anÏunsuccessful€drug€transaction.€ÌÌà àBased€on€the€proof€presented€at€trial,€the€jury€was€justified€in€concludingÏthat€the€petitioner€was€guilty€of€first€degree€murder.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€that€his€attorney€was€deficient€for€failing€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€on€appeal€and€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€suffered€any€prejudice€fromÏhis€attorneyððs€decision€not€to€raise€the€issue.Ì̜Ǜà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.à àà àà àà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóCurwood€Witt,€Judge€Ì