ÿWPC 9_7g;×®Y„ݺӨ¨™Äœ\vSlÖ_Ù–•ç˜å¦*JÖÖú¡)¹æ²?žvZB£˜ý„Ê  ¢Kµ_ç”Äb|×I¯³Ž@*òó?æãV9[»‹†õ™âœ»Î+íîeÁxÞ§B`õ‡ÑÖ–оòO‘G¢cÿ®õ¦÷gItáX{z.9g¢ŸÆ×*ƒÍFh1ÿjªži3rÖçC[*s߃Šôå“IbR8…‰Œ®]¡i”.ÕXþmêsá^˺c­{°#ŒÅQ7ø©i>@Ëè¡Q /-_»«M‘¶ì:‚Ñ`>ŒbOdT™ ½†pÕ +é+mÏÑü÷.4»vê± !a´i"c°‰0Ü4ø±Cè Àk"AÀa>Ô: ÇÙ,`5+¼+|ýhnu%®@ã5)[è¡‚o\oöeN@UcÎÓ$<&Ægvz²ÉJ}™Ì€ß Õ‘ËõËé좲ôê­Çj=IB R+ï±0œÚ(8ìª2r%$Z0Xào´z?[Šê³§X€NÚÛmýÎ ìCi¶*ùyšÐá9¶„õö¦yHëü…;wœ…ì>û 6§Ý¼½¸›if@‹§¿ÌV´ñõ.¤b+Ðbÿ½Çåb#Á\ % 0D# 0ˆg UNï N= = z? Ò¹ ¹ z‹ Ò ^ × Æã Æ© ÆoÆ5wûNÿ4E$& m((((((((((((((((((((((b???????????????????????????????????? 0ëGGGG B22 0¤O D5ó D-( 0KUU AS Æó 0¤¹¹ A«]˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptC°?.s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5¡I0.· 3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2&Ò$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôýmò»»Ô d(|3 `$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_XYEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 `$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H¥»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€H¥»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼H¥»»»ÔÑ8€¹XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î[ÔH¥ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼H¥»îî[Ô #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€6,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X¹X»¼H¥ÔÌò òÔ#†¼H¥»XX¹#ÔÔ_ÔBUFORDÔ_Ô€BARRETT€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X¹X»¼H¥Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔMcNairyÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€1057€€€€€€Jon€Kerry€Blackwood,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„02862„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€January€30,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Ô_ÔBufordÔ_Ô€Barrett,€appeals€the€Ô_ÔMcNairyÔ_Ô€County€Circuit€Courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€forÐ xÈ  Ðpost„conviction€relief€from€his€conviction€for€rape€of€a€child€and€resulting€twenty„year€sentence.€€HeÐ d´ Ðclaims€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€his€trial€attorney€(1)€refused€toÐ P  Ðlet€him€testify€at€trial;€(2)€failed€to€subpoena€his€cousin,€who€could€have€testified€that€the€petitionerÐ <Œ Ðwas€not€present€when€the€alleged€crime€occurred;€(3)€failed€to€request€a€DNA€test€for€the€victim;€andÐ (x Ð(4)€failed€to€investigate€the€facts€surrounding€a€statement€that€his€wife€gave€to€the€police€in€whichÐ d Ðshe€admitted€that€she€had€sexually€abused€the€victim.€€In€addition,€the€petitioner€contends€that€theÐ P Ðcumulative€effect€of€his€attorneyððs€deficiencies€prevented€him€from€receiving€a€fair€trial.€€We€affirmÐ ì< Ðthe€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition.Ð Ø( ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Courtó ó€ò òAffirmedó óÐ ° ÐÓV ÓÌòòÔ#†¼H¥»àX¹§#ÔÔ‡X¹X.¼H¥ÔJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ôóó€and€òòJohnÐ ŒÜ ÐEverett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð xÈ ÐÌPaul€Simpson,€Ô_ÔSelmerÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔBufordÔ_Ô€Barrett.Ð P   ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Thomas€E.€Williams,€III,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ ("x! ÐGeneral;€Elizabeth€T.€Rice,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Jerry€W.€Norwood,€Assistant€DistrictÐ #d" ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $P# ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼H¥»XX¹ #ÔÔ‡X¹X»¼H¥ÔˆÐ Ø%(!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼H¥»XX¹$ #ÔÔ€X¹X»¼H¥Ôà  àThis€case€relates€to€the€rape€of€the€petitionerððs€two„year„old€daughter€in€May€1997.€€A€juryÐ °'#' Ðconvicted€the€petitioner,€and€this€court€affirmed€the€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBufordÔ_Ô€Will€Barrettóó,Ð œ(ì#( ÐNo.€02C01„9901„CC„00023,€Ô_ÔMcNairyÔ_Ô€County€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€Oct.€21,€1999),€òòapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð ˆ)Ø$) ÐMay€22,€2000).€€On€appeal,€this€court€stated€the€following€facts:€On€May€16,€1997,€the€petitionerððsÐ t*Ä%* Ðwife,€Jeanette€Barrett,€was€in€the€bathroom,€and€the€victim€was€asleep€on€a€bed.€€When€Ms.€BarrettÐ `+°&+ Ðcame€out€of€the€bathroom,€she€saw€the€defendant€with€his€penis€inside€the€victimððs€vagina.€€TheÐ L,œ', Ðpetitioner€immediately€pulled€up€his€pants€and€went€into€the€kitchen.€€Ms.€Barrett€cleaned€up€theÐ 8-ˆ(-ý ÐÔ_Ôvictim,€and€the€petitioner€threatened€to€hurt€Ms.€Barrett€if€she€told€anyone€about€the€rape.€€On€JulyÐ ° Ð19,€1997,€a€doctor€examined€the€victim,€and€Ms.€Barrett€told€the€doctor€that€the€victim€had€beenÐ œì Ðsexually€abused.€€Between€July€24€and€July€29,€1997,€three€doctors€examined€the€victim€and€foundÐ ˆØ Ðinjuries€to€the€victimððs€genitalia.€€One€of€the€doctors€stated€that€the€victim€had€an€abnormally€largeÐ tÄ Ðvagina,€which€had€been€caused€by€an€object€being€repeatedly€inserted€into€it.€€A€second€doctor€alsoÐ `° Ðbelieved€that€an€object€had€been€inserted€into€the€victim€and€concluded€that€the€object€was€largerÐ L œ Ðthan€a€finger.€€òòBuford€Will€Barrettóó,€slip€op.€at€2„5.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorney,€an€assistant€public€defender,Ð  ` Ðtestified€that€he€was€appointed€to€represent€the€petitioner€and€that€he€talked€with€the€petitioner€eightÐ ü L  Ðto€ten€times.€€He€said€that€the€petitioner€had€been€charged€with€rape€and€aggravated€sexual€batteryÐ è 8  Ðagainst€the€victim€and€that€the€petitioner€denied€committing€the€crimes.€€He€said€that€he€did€notÐ Ô$  Ðinterview€Jeanette€Barrett€and€that€Ms.€Barrett€testified€as€an€eyewitness€against€the€petitioner€at€trial.€Ð À  ÐHe€said€that€during€her€testimony,€he€learned€for€the€first€time€that€Ms.€Barrett€had€given€a€writtenÐ ¬ü  Ðstatement€to€the€police€in€which€she€admitted€digitally€penetrating€the€victim€on€several€occasions.€Ð ˜è  ÐHe€said€that€Ms.€Barrett€had€been€charged€with€committing€a€sexual€crime€against€the€victim€but€thatÐ „Ô  Ðshe€was€not€a€codefendant.€€He€said€that€he€was€allowed€to€see€Ms.€Barrettððs€statement€at€trial,€thatÐ pÀ Ðhe€questioned€her€about€it,€and€that€she€asserted€her€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€against€self„Ð \¬ Ðincrimination.€€He€said€that€Ms.€Barrettððs€testimony€contained€contradictions€and€that€he€pointed€outÐ H˜ Ðthe€contradictions€to€the€jury€in€his€closing€argument.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€attorney€testified€that€he€did€not€request€DNA€testing€for€the€victim€because€a€doctor€didÐ  \ Ðnot€examine€the€victim€until€July€1997,€two€months€after€the€alleged€rape.€€He€said€that€the€petitionerÐ øH Ðwanted€to€take€a€polygraph€test€but€that€he€advised€the€petitioner€against€it€because€the€test€resultsÐ ä4 Ðwere€inadmissible€and€because€he€was€afraid€the€results€would€incriminate€the€petitioner.€€He€saidÐ Ð  Ðthat€although€the€petitioner€had€some€mental€short„comings€and€could€not€read€or€write,€theÐ ¼  Ðpetitioner€understood€everything€he€explained€to€the€petitioner.€€He€said€that€at€one€point,€theÐ ¨ø Ðpetitioner€said€he€wanted€to€testify€at€trial.€€He€said€that€he€advised€the€petitioner€not€to€testifyÐ ”ä Ðbecause€the€petitioner€would€be€ð ðbadgered€and€possibly€.€.€.€contradicted€by€the€DA.ðð€€He€said€thatÐ €Ð Ðhe€had€thought€the€petitionerððs€testimony€would€be€unnecessary€because€he€expected€Ms.€BarrettððsÐ l¼ Ðtestimony€to€create€reasonable€doubt€for€the€jury.€€He€said€that€he€never€told€the€petitioner€that€theÐ X ¨ Ðpetitioner€could€not€testify€and€that€in€hindsight,€he€still€would€have€advised€the€petitioner€not€to€takeÐ D!” Ðthe€stand.€€He€said€the€petitioner€told€him€that€the€petitionerððs€cousin€could€prove€the€petitioner€wasÐ 0"€  Ðnot€with€the€victim€when€the€rape€allegedly€occurred.€€He€said€that€he€thought€he€talked€to€theÐ #l! Ðpetitionerððs€cousin€and€that€the€cousin€would€not€have€helped€the€defense.€€He€said€that€he€wasÐ $X" Ðprepared€for€trial€and€that€he€did€not€believe€the€jury€heard€enough€evidence€to€convict€the€petitioner.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àInvestigator€Frank€Levasseur€of€the€McNairy€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testified€that€heÐ Ì&"% Ðinvestigated€the€petitionerððs€case€and€that€the€petitioner€and€the€petitionerððs€wife€each€gave€aÐ ¸'#& Ðstatement€to€the€police.€€He€said€that€after€he€finished€investigating€the€petitionerððs€case,€JeanetteÐ ¤(ô#' ÐBarrett€gave€a€second€statement€in€which€she€admitted€penetrating€the€victim€with€her€finger.€€HeÐ )à$( Ðsaid€that€as€a€result€of€that€statement,€he€charged€Ms.€Barrett€with€aggravated€sexual€battery€and€thatÐ |*Ì%) ÐMs.€Barrettððs€case€was€separate€from€the€petitionerððs€case.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€was€born€in€1974€and€had€never€gone€to€school€or€obtainedÐ ° Ða€GED.€€He€said€he€could€not€read€or€write€but€could€write€his€name.€€He€acknowledged€that€notÐ œì Ðbeing€able€to€read€or€write€had€impaired€his€ability€to€understand€things€and€that€he€did€notÐ ˆØ Ðunderstand€the€ð ðbasicsðð€of€the€crimes€alleged€in€his€indictment.€€He€said€that€he€and€Jeanette€BarrettÐ tÄ Ðwere€no€longer€married€and€that€she€lied€when€she€testified€at€trial€that€she€saw€him€rape€the€victim.€Ð `° ÐHe€said€that€other€than€receiving€a€traffic€ticket,€he€had€never€been€charged€with€a€crime.€€HeÐ L œ Ðacknowledged€that€he€talked€with€his€trial€attorney€several€times€and€that€he€told€his€attorney€he€didÐ 8 ˆ Ðnot€rape€the€victim.€€He€said€that€he€told€his€attorney€he€wanted€to€testify€and€that€his€attorneyÐ $ t Ðexplained€some€of€the€reasons€why€he€should€not€take€the€stand.€€He€said€that€his€attorney€advisedÐ  ` Ðhim€not€to€testify€and€that€he€took€his€attorneyððs€advice.€€He€said€he€had€wanted€to€tell€the€jury€thatÐ ü L  Ðhe€never€touched€his€daughter.€€à h àÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€its€order€denying€post„conviction€relief,€the€trial€court€only€addressed€the€petitionerððs€claimÐ À  Ðthat€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€refusing€to€allow€him€to€testify€at€trial.€€The€trial€court€believedÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€attorneyððs€testimony€that€he€had€advised€the€petitioner€not€to€testify€because€he€thought€theÐ ˜è  Ðpetitioner€ð ðmight€damage€himself€on€cross„examination.ðð€€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€petitionerÐ „Ô  Ðnever€claimed€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€his€trial€attorney€refused€to€let€him€testify€and€ruled€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€Ð \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€petitioner€claims€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€for€variousÐ 4„ Ðreasons.€€In€addition€to€his€claim€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€refusing€to€let€him€testify€atÐ  p Ðtrial,€he€contends€that€his€attorney€should€have€subpoenaed€his€cousin,€who€could€have€testified€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€petitioner€was€not€at€home€with€the€victim€when€the€alleged€rape€occurred.€€He€also€claims€thatÐ øH Ðhis€attorney€should€have€requested€a€DNA€test€for€the€victim€because€the€test€would€have€exoneratedÐ ä4 Ðhim.€€Finally,€he€contends€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigate€the€factsÐ Ð  Ðsurrounding€Jeanette€Barrettððs€incriminating€statement€to€police€because€the€statement€affected€herÐ ¼  Ðcredibility.€€In€addition,€the€petitioner€claims€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€his€attorneyððs€deficienciesÐ ¨ø Ðdenied€him€the€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€The€state€argues€that€the€petitioner€received€the€effectiveÐ ”ä Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€We€agree€with€the€state.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€made,€theÐ X ¨ Ðburden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€theÐ D!” Ðdeficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€of€rendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trialÐ 0"€  Ðwas€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,Ð #l! Ð687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€368„72,€113€S.€Ct.€838,Ð $X" Ð842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied€to€the€right€to€counsel€under€article€I,Ð ô$D # Ðsection€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.€1989).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€court€decided€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðattorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€services€rendered€were€within€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€rangeÐ )à$( Ðof€competence€was€to€be€measured€by€the€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð |*Ì%) Ð491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.€1974),€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202-04€(D.C.€Cir.Ð h+¸&* Ð1973).€€Also,€in€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requiresÐ ° Ðthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€theÐ œì Ðcircumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððsÐ ˆØ Ðperspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€even€hurt€theÐ `° Ðdefense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.€€Deference€is€made€to€trial€strategyÐ L œ Ðor€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€at€9;€òòDeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€at€1201.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€a€post-conviction€case,€the€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€prove€by€clear€and€convincingÐ ü L  Ðevidence€his€grounds€for€relief.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f).€€On€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€theÐ è 8  Ðtrial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€againstÐ Ô$  Ðthose€findings.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€456€(Tenn.€2001).€€Because€they€relate€to€mixedÐ À  Ðquestions€of€law€and€fact,€we€review€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€as€to€whether€counselððsÐ ¬ü  Ðperformance€was€deficient€and€whether€that€deficiency€was€prejudicial€under€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€standard€withÐ ˜è  Ðno€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòId.óó€at€457.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€hisÐ \¬ Ðtrial€attorney€refused€to€let€him€testify,€the€petitioner€stated€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€did€notÐ H˜ Ðtake€the€stand€because€his€attorney€advised€against€it.€€As€the€trial€court€noted,€the€petitioner€neverÐ 4„ Ðsaid€that€his€attorney€refused€to€let€him€testify.€€As€to€his€claim€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€forÐ  p Ðnot€subpoenaing€his€cousin,€the€petitioner€did€not€present€the€cousinððs€testimony€at€the€hearing.€Ð  \ ÐWithout€testimony€from€his€cousin,€the€petitioner€cannot€demonstrate€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€hisÐ øH Ðattorneyððs€failure€to€call€the€witness€on€his€behalf.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€753,€757€(Tenn.Ð ä4 ÐCrim.€App.€1990).€€Next,€the€petitioner€claims€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€requestÐ Ð  ÐDNA€testing.€€However,€the€petitionerððs€attorney€testified€that€DNA€testing€was€unnecessary€in€thisÐ ¼  Ðcase€because€the€petitioner€allegedly€raped€the€victim€two€months€before€a€doctor€examined€her,€andÐ ¨ø Ðthe€petitioner€has€presented€no€proof€as€to€how€scientific€testing€months€after€the€crime€could€haveÐ ”ä Ðexonerated€him.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ €Ð Ðcounsel.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigate€the€factsÐ D!” Ðsurrounding€his€wifeððs€second€statement€to€Investigator€Lavessuer€in€which€she€admitted€digitallyÐ 0"€  Ðpenetrating€the€victim,€we€believe€that€the€petitioner€again€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€isÐ #l! Ðentitled€to€relief.€€Our€review€of€the€trial€transcript€reveals€that€after€Ms.€Barrettððs€direct€testimony,Ð $X" Ðthe€petitionerððs€attorney€asked€to€see€her€second€statement,€and€the€trial€court€granted€the€defenseððsÐ ô$D # Ðrequest.€€On€cross„examination,€the€petitionerððs€attorney€asked€Ms.€Barrett€if€she€had€sexually€abusedÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€victim.€€Ms.€Barrett€said€no€and€invoked€her€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€against€self„Ð Ì&"% Ðincrimination.€€Later,€Investigator€Levassuer€testified€for€the€defense€that€on€December€12,€1997,€Ms.Ð ¸'#& ÐBarrett€stated€that€she€had€digitally€penetrated€the€victim.€€Thus,€the€petitionerððs€attorney€used€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðstatement€to€impeach€Ms.€Barrettððs€testimony€and€attack€her€credibility.€€The€petitioner€has€failedÐ )à$( Ðto€explain€what€more€his€attorney€should€have€done€regarding€the€statement€or€how€he€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðprejudiced€by€any€deficiency.€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ° ÐÌÌÌà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà  à___________________________________€Ð`°À(#À(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE