ÿWPC§ 3UNÚ %( 0(.w@V4–ª 0†¹ 0D? 0@ƒÃËÓ 0JÛ 0T% 0^y 0h× 0r? 0|± 0†- 0³ 1uC 0d¸ AO Æk 0D1 Bu 0D’ D/Ö B D3" U>U U*“ B)½ DCæ AM) àv v~V vÓÔ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ABUCUDUEEFGEH[IJÓ€uM%øð 3|xS(6(2Ä:$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 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 #%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd .Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌAugust€5,€1998ÌÌCecil€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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÙ€ ÙÓ  ÓÔ€,ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€/0.A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àJUNE€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌTHOMAS€BRADEN,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€œ01C01›„9705„CC„00184ó óÌà àAppellant,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òMARSHALL€COUNTYó óÌò òœVS›.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHON.€CHARLES€LEE,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)à àò òJUDGEó óÌà@ à)Ìà àAppellee.à@ à)à à(Post„Conviction)ÌÌÌÌÒ†„èyÒò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ÌÌW.€RAY€œCULP›Ìó ó439€Battle€AvenueÌFranklin,€TN€€37064ÌÌò òœMICHAEL›€D.€œRANDLES›Ìó óAssistant€District€Public€DefenderÌP.O.€Box€1119ÌœFayetteville›,€TN€37334ÌÉò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òDARYL€J.€BRANDÌó óAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌœCordell›€Hull€Building,€œ2nd›€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òWILLIAM€MICHAELÏœMCCOWN›Ìó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òœWEAKLEY›€E.€BARNARDó óÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌMarshall€County€CourthouseÌRoom€407€ÌœLewisburg›,€TN€€37091ÉÒÒÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌLEE€MOORE,ÌSPECIAL€JUDGEÇó óÌÓÓÑ7€vXXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€Thomas€Braden,€appeals€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€Petitioner€was€convicted€of€three€(3)€counts€of€aggravatedÏrape€and€one€(1)€count€of€false€imprisonment€on€July€26,€1993.€€œOn€appeal,Ïpetitioner›€raises€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€as€follows:Ìà à1.à àFailure€of€trial€counsel€to€object€to€amendment€of€the€originalÏà àà àindictment.Ìà à2.à àFailure€of€trial€counsel€to€secure€a€complete€preliminary€hearingÏà àà àtranscript.€à àÌà à3.à àFailure€of€trial€counsel€to€investigate€the€background€of€the€victim.Ìà à4.à àFailure€of€trial€counsel€to€obtain€an€independent€serologist.Ìà à5.à àFailure€to€move€to€have€the€counts€of€the€subsequent€indictmentÏà àà àmerged.Ìà à6.à àFailure€of€trial€counsel€to€prepare€for€the€examination€of€witness,Ïà àà àJones.Ìà à7.à àFailure€of€trial€counsel€to€properly€œòòvoir€direóó›€jury.Ìà à8.à àFailure€of€trial€counsel€to€inform€petitioner€of€the€effects€of€œT.C.A.›€ððÏ39„à àà à13„523.ÌÌà àœAfter€a€review€of€the€post„conviction€record€on€appeal,€argument€ofÏcounsel,€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.›ÌÌà@ àòòò òPROCEDURAL€HISTORYÌó óóóà àÌà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€1993€of€three€(3)€counts€ofÏaggravated€rape€and€one€(1)€count€of€false€imprisonment.€€This€Court€affirmedÏthe€convictions€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Thomas€Bradenóó,€No.€œ01C01›„9403„CC„00098,€Marshall€County€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€Filed€December€15,€1995).€ÏœApplication€€ÌÌÌÌfor€permission€to€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€was€denied€April€8,Ï1996.€€Ì›à àœÌà àPetitioner›€filed€a€pro€œse›€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€SeptemberÏ20,€1996.€€The€petition€alleged€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€as€statedÏabove.€€The€Public€Defenderððs€office€was€later€appointed€to€represent€petitioner.€ÏThere€was€no€amended€petition€filed.€€On€February€26,€1997,€the€trial€court€heldÏan€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€matter.€€œThe€trial›€court€made€specific€findings€onÏthe€record€denying€the€petition.€€A€notice€of€appeal€was€timely€filed€on€March€12,Ï1997.€€A€written€order€denying€the€petition€was€filed€on€April€14,€1997.€€ÌÌà@ à€€€à@ àò òòòINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELóóó ó€€€€ÌÌà àPetitioner€alleges€the€assistance€rendered€by€trial€counsel€wasÏineffective€for€the€reasons€stated€above.ÌÌà àThe€Court€reviews€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€underÏthe€standards€of€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€œS.W.2d›€930€(Tenn.€1975),€and€òòœStrickland›€v.óóÏòòWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€œS.Ct.›€2052,€80€œ€L.›€Ed.œ2d›€674€(1984).€€TheÏpetitioner€has€the€burden€to€prove€that€(1)€the€attorneyððs€performance€wasÏdeficient,€and€(2)€the€deficient€performance€resulted€in€prejudice€to€theÏdefendant€so€as€to€deprive€him€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòœStrickland›€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ïat€687,€104€œS.Ct›.€at€2064;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€œS.W.2d›€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996);ÏòòœOverton›€v.€Stateóó,€874€œS.W.2d›€6,€11€(Tenn.€1994);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€œS.W.2d›Ï898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€€The€petition€must€contain€a€clear€and€specificÏstatement€of€all€grounds€upon€which€relief€is€sought.€€œT.C.A.›€ðð€40„30„206.€€ProofÏupon€petitionerððs€claims€for€relief€shall€be€limited€to€the€evidence€of€allegationsÏof€fact€in€the€petition.€€Petitioner€shall€have€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegationsÏof€fact€by€clear€and€convincing€œevidence€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„219€(f).›€œThe€trial€courtððsÏfindings€after€a€post„conviction€hearing€are€conclusive€unless€the€€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòButler€v.óó€òòStateóó,€789€S.W.2d€899.€€€There›€isÏa€rebuttable€presumption€that€a€ground€for€relief€not€raised€before€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€been€presented€isÏwaived.€€œT.C.A.›€ðð€40„30„210.ÌÌà àThe€test€in€Tennessee€in€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effectiveÏassistance€is€whether€his€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€œS.W.2d›€at€936.€ÏThe€petitioner€must€overcome€the€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€fallsÏwithin€the€wide€range€of€acceptable€professional€assistance.€€òòœStrickland›€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€œS.Ct.›€at€2065;€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€958€œS.W.2d›€138,Ï149€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1997);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€œS.W.2d›€385,€389€(Tenn.ÏœCrim›.€œApp›.€1996).ÌÌà àœThe›€various€issues€petitioner€alleges€as€constituting€€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€are€stated€above.€€They€will€be€addressed€in€the€sameÏorder€as€follows:Ìà à1.à àPetitioner€states€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failure€toÏobject€to€the€amendment€of€the€original€indictment.€€This€issue€was€raised€onÏdirect€appeal€in€this€Court.€€This€Court€ruled€that€the€nolle€prosequi€of€theÏoriginal€indictment€and€the€substitution€of€a€multi„count€indictment€wasÏappropriate.€€This€issue€has€been€previously€determined€by€this€œCourt.›€€Ìà à2.à àPetitionerððs€next€issue€is€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failingÏto€secure€a€complete€preliminary€hearing€transcript.€€œAlthough€there€was€briefÏtestimony€concering€this€issue,€there€was€no€showing€that€counsel€wasÏdeficient.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ì›à à3.à àPetitioner€states€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€toÏinvestigate€the€background€of€the€victim.€€This€issue€also€was€not€raised€in€theÍpost„conviction€petition€filed€or€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€This€issue€is,Ïtherefore,€waived.Ìà à4.à àPetitioner€next€alleges€that€trial€counsel€gave€ineffectiveÏassistance€œÌÌin€failing›€to€obtain€an€independent€serologist.€€This€issue€also€was€€not€raised€inÏthe€post„conviction€petition€or€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€and,€therefore,€theÏissue€is€waived.Ìà à5.à àPetitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€toÏmove€€to€have€the€counts€of€the€subsequent€indictment€merged.€€This€issue€wasÏnot€€raised€in€the€post„conviction€petition€nor€at€the€hearing.€€This€issue€was€notÏbriefed€on€appeal.€€This€issue€is,€therefore,€waived.€€Ìà à6.à àPetitionerððs€€next€issue€is€that€trial€counsel€gave€ineffectiveÏassistance€in€that€he€failed€to€prepare€for€the€examination€of€witness,€MikeÏJones.€€The€evidence€introduced€at€the€hearing€was€clear€that€Mike€Jones€wasÏone€of€four€or€five€individuals€who€were€present€at€the€time€the€victimÏapproached€petitioner.€€Trial€counselððs€testimony€shows€clearly€that€he€madeÏmany€attempts€to€locate€these€five€€prospective€witnesses.€€He€also€onÏnumerous€occasions€asked€petitioner€to€bring€these€prospective€witnesses€toÏhis€office.€€He€made€other€independent€efforts€to€locate€these€witnesses.€€HeÏwas€unable€to€locate€any€of€these€witnesses.€€œHowever,€petitioner›€broughtÏwitness,€Mike€Jones,€to€trial.€€Trial€counsel€conferred€with€this€witness€and€hadÏhim€testify.€€The€record€is€clear€that€Mr.€Jones€testified€as€expected€on€directÍexamination.€€Under€cross„examination,€however,€he€evidently€€seriously€hurtÏpetitionerððs€case.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€Jonesðð€testimony€ð ðcrucifiedððÏBraden.€€œDuring›€the€hearing€for€post„conviction€œrelief,€the€trial€court€›€concludedÏthat€trial€counsel€did,€in€fact,€search€for€€these€five€possible€witnesses,€but€theÏtrial€counsel€had€no€way€of€knowing€what€the€testimony€of€these€witnessesÏmight€be.€€The€court€concluded€that€petitioner€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proofÏwith€regard€to€this€issue.€€It€is€clear€that€€trial€counsel€did€€diligently€search€for€allÏof€these€prospective€witnesses.€€It€is€also€clear€that€he€conferred€with€witness,ÏMike€Jones,€on€the€second€day€of€trial€and€thereafter€called€him€as€a€witness.€ÏThe€proof€is€further€clear€that€Mr.€Jones€testified€favorably€under€directÏexamination,€but€did€not€hold€up€under€a€rigid€cross„examination.€€TrialÏcounselððs€conduct€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneysÏin€criminal€cases€in€Tennessee.€€œÌÌPetitioner›€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proof€on€this€issue.Ìà à7.à àPetitioner€next€alleges€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€that€trialÏcounsel€failed€to€properly€œvoire›€dire€the€jury.€€Petitioner€produced€no€evidenceÏof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€regarding€this€issue.€He€simply€stated€thatÏhe€did€not€feel€comfortable€with€the€jury.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€noÏevidence€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€œin€the›€jury€selection€and€dismissedÏthis€claim.€€œPetitioner€also€introduced€no€evidence€to€indicate€that€he€was€in€anyÏway€prejudiced€by€trial€counsel's€performance€during€voire€dire.€€This€issue€hasÏno€merit.›€Ìà à8.à àPetitioner€also€œalleges›€œthat€trial›€counsel€rendered€ineffectiveÏassistance€€in€failing€to€inform€petitioner€of€the€effects€of€œT.C.A.›€ðð€39„13„523Ïdealing€with€multiple€convictions€of€rape€and€serving€the€entire€sentenceÏwithout€credits€or€parole.€€This€issue€was€not€raised€in€the€post„convictionÏpetition€and€is€waived.€€There€also€was€no€evidence€introduced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€there€was€any€plea€bargain€offer€made€by€the€State.€ÏConsequently,€there€is€no€showing€that€defendant€was€prejudiced.Ì€òòÌà àóóOther€general€issues€raised€in€the€post„conviction€petition€were€notÏraised€at€the€hearing€nor€raised€or€briefed€on€appeal.€€They€are,€therefore,Ïwaived.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€ò òAFFIRMEDó ó.òòÌóóÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLEE€MOORE,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌœCURWOOD›€œWITT›,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌò òJOE€G.€œRILEY›,€JUDGEó óÌÌœÌÌÌÌÑ  Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE€ÌÌó óÌÌò òTHOMAS€BRADEN,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àC.C.A.€No.€œ01C01›„9705„CR„00184Ìà àAppellant,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àMarshall€County€No.€12966Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à@ à)Ìà@ à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òAFFIRMEDó óÌà àAppellee.à@ à)ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àò òJUDGMENTó óÌÌà àCame€the€appellant,€Thomas€Braden,€by€counsel,€and€the€state,€by€theÏAttorney€General,€and€this€case€was€heard€on€the€record€on€appeal€from€the€€ÏœCircuit›€€Court€€of€Marshall€County;€and€upon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€isÏof€the€opinion€that€there€is€no€reversible€error€in€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€and€adjudged€by€this€Court€that€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€ò òAFFIRMEDó ó,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€œCircuit›€Court€ofÏMarshall€County€for€execution€of€the€judgment€of€that€court€and€for€collection€ofÏcosts€accrued€below.ÌÌà àIt€appears€that€appellant€is€indigent.€€Costs€of€appeal€will€be€paid€by€theÏState€of€Tennessee.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPer€CuriamÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLee€Moore,€Special€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJoe€G.€œRiley›,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœCurwood›€œWitt›,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ