ÿWPC$ ©É««‹àáüÍéNý±l&KPÅèZºÛ+6XØàO`5-ÔEÜ0à„%üÿß‹LàXÀ'Ž• "½šTÓo˜8È% ½f­tyz9À÷Hw)gBÁu ¾BU QÔzk`ŒýÛgGÕkÔÏMyy˜“3á=›ßŸÑï4Ÿ4¹Áo$‰N^dJÝ{ׄµþôýËtÝñ»™Bsþ»ö™½s+ø´ô²Jïaˆ<> åBp é­ø7ùVSÅ5ǖؾ¶|±UÏÏä2Šj^ˆÜLXó¿/Ö\üÜðªú<¥$û¢‚¤¦¥X¬ ÜŽã@ãcÈöÅOÍÓÄÇ©OmhÞ-ûÖÔ Ô2Þª~9Q9Ûj¿A“E%²æë(«}ý„žŒg6ãÃ0×¢o¬¡«fÚë.†¸ôRW[ì8³$ZÄ f¸=î{£ÑKR‹ßÚ—"9›\ ¡u V‚a ;yErU¤»%¯Þ³ñIF'î£Ú§®µEM †éAäë"Bþ›F¹‘·O<á}Pô¾óVW7UkpVuaŸÀrˆM3d¢äljøÌÁåk½¿é7+oA|½f-èö <–·3³¼Öã°K–ñ‹š¾bb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U&N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz Ü‘ Æm Æ3ÆùÆ¿ 0D…NÉ¡ËþlEj$l!Y±                    b 0ë B  0¤" D5Æ D-û 0K(!(! ASs!ÆÆ! 0¤Œ" 0D0# A«t#˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»]-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,ø¦¢ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ÒÝ ƒRN$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôñò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÔ‡XáXòôñÔ€ó óÔ#†ôñòXXá#ÔThe€petitionerððs€trial€record€was€not€submitted€in€the€evidentiary€hearing;€however,€this€courtððs€opinion€inÐ ° ÐòòMichael€Brownóó€reveals€that€Ms.€Brownððs€affidavit€was€submitted€in€an€offer€of€proof€€ð ðat€the€motion€for€new€trial.ðð€€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó —Ý ƒRN$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôñò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔInÔ‡XáXòôñÔÔ#†ôñòXXá€#ÔÔ‡XáXòôñÔ€òòÔ#†ôñòXXáÂ#ÔMichael€Brownóó,€we€determined€that€the€prosecutorððs€comments€were€not€improper.€€òòMichael€Brownóó,€slipÐ ° Ðop.€at€8.€€ ôÝ ƒRN$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôñò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòóóWe€note€that€the€only€issue€that€was€actually€affected€by€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€the€òòJencksóó€issue.€€As€weÐ ° Ðmentioned€when€we€narrated€the€post„conviction€testimony€in€this€opinion,€post„conviction€counsel€cross„examined€trialÐ tÄ Ðcounsel€without€objection€about€the€other€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€contained€in€the€original€petition,Ð 8ˆ Ðand€without€belaboring€the€issue€further,€we€discern€that€trial€counsel€either€disputed€the€petitionerððs€claims€or€evincedÐ üL Ðsound€tactical€or€strategic€bases€for€the€actions€taken. Ý ƒRN$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôñò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTennesseeÔ‡XáXòôñÔ€Ô#†ôñòXXá‡#ÔRule€of€Evidence€609(d)€sets€forth€time€limits€for€the€use€of€prior€convictions€for€impeachmentÐ ° Ðpurposes.€€The€record€on€appeal€in€the€present€case€contains€insufficient€information€to€allow€us€to€discern€which€of€theÐ œì Ðdefendantððs€prior€felony€convictions€were€timely€offered€at€his€1996€trial. Ý ƒRN$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôñò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWeÔ‡XáXòôñÔ€Ô#†ôñòXXá€#Ôpoint€out€that€the€petitioner€identified€only€one€issue€in€his€appellate€brief,€whether€he€had€receivedÐ ° Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€He€did€not€€identify€the€trial€courtððs€alleged€error€in€limiting€the€post„conviction€issuesÐ œì Ðas€a€separate€appellate€issue,€as€we€believe€he€should€have.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(4).€€Nevertheless,€we€will€giveÐ `° Ðthe€petitioner€the€benefit€of€the€doubt€that€the€limitation€issue€could€loosely€be€construed€as€a€sub„issue€of€an€ineffectiveÐ $t Ðassistance€of€counsel€claim. OÝ ƒRN$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôñò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPetitionerððs€trial€also€predated€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð ° ÐòòMomonóó€held€that€the€right€to€testify€must€be€personally€waived€by€the€criminal€defendant,€and€the€supreme€courtÐ tÄ Ðarticulated€procedural€guidelines€to€ensure€personal€waiver€of€the€right.€€The€supreme€court€emphasized,€however,€ð ðthatÐ 8ˆ Ðneither€the€right€to€testify€.€.€.€nor€the€procedural€protections€adopted€to€preserve€that€right€are€new€constitutional€rulesÐ üL Ðwhich€must€be€retroactively€applied.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€162„63.€€The€supreme€court€added,€ð ðTrial€courts€should€adhere€to€theseÐ À Ðprocedural€guidelines€in€all€cases€tried€or€retried€after€the€date€of€this€decision.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€163.€€In€the€present€case,€theÐ „Ô Ðpetitioner€does€not€maintain€that€he€did€not€understand€his€right€to€testify€or€his€right€not€to€testify. - ù-(|G2N$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Cí»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôñò»»Ô d(|3‡Ž$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Cí»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡Ž$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Cí»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Cí»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Cí»»»ÔÑ8€áXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îU\CíÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Cí»îîU\ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€May€15,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XáX»¼CíÔÌò òÔ#†¼Cí»XXá#ÔMICHAEL€O.€BROWN€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€òòóóÔ‡XáX»¼CíÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Lincoln€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S0000009€€€€€Charles€Lee,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00917„CCA„MR3„CD€„€Filed€August€8,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Michael€O.€Brown,€appeals€the€Lincoln€County€Circuit€Courtððs€denial€of€post„Ð xÈ  Ðconviction€relief.€€In€his€post„conviction€petition,€he€challenged€his€1996€conviction€of€sellingÐ d´ Ðcocaine€by€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€Because€the€record€supports€the€trialÐ P  Ðcourtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€we€affirm.Ô#†¼Cí»XXá–#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼CíÔÐ <Œ ÐÓ°ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Cí»àXáx#ÔÔ‡XáX.¼CíÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Riley,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ì< ÐòòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.,€óófiled€a€concurring€opinion.Ð Ø( ÐÌÔ_ÔMerrilynÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔFeirmanÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€and€Andrew€Jackson€Ô_ÔDearingÔ_Ô,€III,€Ô_ÔShelbyvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,Ð ° Ðfor€the€Appellant,€Michael€O.€Brown.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð tÄ ÐW.€Michael€Ô_ÔMcCownÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Ô_ÔWeakleyÔ_Ô€E.€Barnard€and€Ann€Filer,€AssistantÐ `° ÐDistrict€Attorneys€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÓÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Cí»XXáF#ÔÔ‡XáX»¼CíÔÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Cí»XXá° #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XáX»¼CíÔà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€selling€cocaine€to€Patrick€Howell,€anÐ ü#L# Ðundercover€agent€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(Ô_ÔT.B.I.Ô_Ô).€€As€a€Range€II€offender,€theÐ è$8 $ Ðpetitioner€received€a€20„year€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€His€conviction€of€the€ClassÐ Ô%$!% ÐB€felony€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSee€State€v.€Michael€Brownóó,€No.€01C01„9711„CC„00518Ð À&"& Ð(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€24,€1999).€€Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€glean€our€knowledge€of€the€facts€of€the€cocaine€offense€from€our€opinion€inÐ „)Ô$) ÐòòMichael€Brownóó.€€In€response€to€the€request€of€Ô_ÔT.B.IÔ_Ô€and€Lincoln€County€officers,€Francine€Strong,Ð p*À%* Ða€confidential€informant,€set€up€a€ð ðdrug€buyðð€on€January€25,€1995€at€Sandra€Ô_ÔOdenÔ_Ôððs€apartment€inÐ \+¬&+ ÐFayetteville.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€2„3.€€Agent€Howell,€working€undercover€and€fitted€with€a€transmittingÐ H,˜', Ðð ðwire,ðð€went€to€the€apartment€with€Ô_ÔOdenÔ_Ô€and€Strong.€€Deputy€Sheriff€Robert€Ô_ÔBriscoÔ_Ô,€who€Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ômaintained€surveillance€outside€the€apartment,€testified€at€trial€that€the€petitioner€arrived€in€aÐ ° ÐCadillac€and€entered€Odenððs€apartment€in€the€company€of€a€woman€named€Beverly€Brown.€òò€Idóó.€Ð œì ÐAgent€Howell€and€Strong€testified€that,€inside€the€apartment,€the€petitioner€sold€cocaine€to€AgentÐ ˆØ ÐHowell€for€a€cash€payment€of€$175.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€3„4.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€post„conviction€petition€alleged€several€claims€of€ineffectiveÐ L œ Ðassistance€of€his€trial€counsel,€Lionel€Barrett,€including€that€counsel€failed€to€move€to€strike€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestimony€of€Deputy€Brisco€following€a€€òòJencksóó€violation€and€failed€to€alert€the€trial€court€that€AgentÐ $ t ÐHowell€had€recanted€his€testimony.€€Appointed€counsel€amended€the€òòpro€seóó€petition€to€allegeÐ  ` Ðadditional€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€the€post„conviction€court€limited€theÐ ü L  Ðpetitioner€to€the€issues€set€forth€in€his€amended€petition,€even€though€the€amended€petition€stated€thatÐ è 8  Ðthe€ð ðpetitioner€relies€upon€the€averments€in€his€original€pro„se€petition.ðð€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€was€not€the€person€whoÐ ¬ü  Ðsold€cocaine€to€Agent€Howell€in€Odenððs€apartment€on€January€25,€1995,€that€he€was€not€presentÐ ˜è  Ðwhen€the€transaction€occurred,€and€that€he€ð ðdidnððt€know€why€[he]€was€being€prosecutedðð€by€AgentÐ „Ô  ÐHowell.€€Although€the€case€was€set€for€trial€on€July€22,€1996,€he€thought€as€late€as€July€18,€1996,€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€charge€would€be€dismissed.€€He€met€with€his€trial€counsel€on€July€18€and€learned€that€the€stateÐ \¬ Ðwas€proceeding€to€trial€and€that€his€attorney€had€not€interviewed€the€witnesses€who€were€named€inÐ H˜ Ðthe€stateððs€responses€to€his€motions€for€discovery€and€a€bill€of€particulars.€€Mr.€Barrett€brought€theÐ 4„ Ðdrug€transaction€tape€and€played€it€for€the€petitioner,€who€told€Mr.€Barrett€that€he€wanted€it€checkedÐ  p Ðfor€ð ðvoice€prints.ðð€€The€petitioner€requested€that€his€attorney€seek€a€continuance€to€allow€time€toÐ  \ Ðhave€the€tape€checked.€€Although€the€petitioner€was€unsure€whether€his€counsel€moved€for€aÐ øH Ðcontinuance,€no€continuance€was€granted.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` à€The€petitioner€also€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€did€not€hear€untilÐ ¼  Ðtrial€about€the€presence€of€Beverly€Brown,€his€cousin,€at€Odenððs€apartment€on€January€25,€1995.Ð ¨ø ÐWhen€Agent€Howell€and€Ms.€Strong€testified€at€the€trial€that€the€petitioner€sold€cocaine€to€Howell,Ð ”ä Ðthe€petitioner€wanted€to€testify€so€he€could€deny€that€he€was€present.€€He€claimed€he€was€frustratedÐ €Ð Ðin€his€bid€to€testify€by€his€counsel,€who€did€not€confer€with€him€about€testifying.€€He€asserted€thatÐ l¼ Ðcounsel€did€not€advise€him€about€testifying€€and€did€not€tell€him€that€it€was€his€decision;€however,Ð X ¨ Ðhe€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€he€knew€that€he€had€the€right€to€testify€and€to€decline€to€testifyÐ D!” Ðand€that€he€did€not€tell€Mr.€Barrett€that€he€wished€to€testify.€€The€petitioner€testified€at€the€post„Ð 0"€  Ðconviction€hearing€that,€at€trial,€Mr.€Barrett€failed€to€advise€him€that€some,€if€not€all,€of€the€priorÐ #l! Ðconvictions€were€inadmissible€for€impeachment€purposes.€€He€asserted€that€the€prior€convictionsÐ $X" Ðwould€ð ðtaint€the€whole€trial€[and€he]€would€have€been€found€guilty€based€on€something€[he]€wasÐ ô$D # Ðallegedly€.€.€.€convicted€of€years€ago.ððÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€further€testified€that,€following€the€trial€but€before€the€motion€for€newÐ ¸'#& Ðtrial€was€heard,€Mr.€Barrett€told€him€that€Agent€Howell€had€stated€to€Barrett€that€Howell€mistakenlyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðidentified€the€petitioner€as€the€person€who€sold€him€drugs€on€January€25,€1995.€€The€petitionerÐ )à$( Ðclaimed€that€Barrett€refused€to€present€this€development€to€the€trial€court.€€The€petitioner€alsoÐ |*Ì%) Ðtestified€that,€before€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€heard,€he€obtained€affidavits€from€Strong€andÐ h+¸&* ÐBeverly€Brown€that€the€petitioner€was€not€the€man€who€sold€drugs€to€Howell€on€January€25,€1995.€Ð ° ÐBeverly€Brown€did€not€testify€at€trial,€but€Strongððs€affidavit€indicated€that€she€committed€perjuryÐ œì Ðwhen€she€testified€that€the€petitioner€sold€the€drugs€to€Howell.€Copies€of€the€affidavits€wereÐ ˆØ Ðpresented€to€the€post„conviction€court.€€The€petitioner€claims€to€have€relayed€the€affidavits€to€Mr.Ð tÄ ÐBarrett€through€another€attorney€but€that€they€were€never€presented€to€the€court.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó ó€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àFrancine€Strong€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€she€did€not€testifyÐ 8 ˆ Ðtruthfully€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€when€she€identified€the€petitioner€as€the€man€who€sold€cocaine€toÐ $ t ÐHowell€in€Odenððs€apartment.€€She€stated€that€she€was€not€questioned€by€Mr.€Barrett€prior€to€trial,€thatÐ  ` Ðshe€was€pressured€into€testifying€against€the€petitioner€by€members€of€the€drug€task€force,€and€that,Ð ü L  Ðhad€she€been€interviewed€by€defense€counsel€prior€to€trial,€she€would€not€have€identified€theÐ è 8  Ðpetitioner€as€the€offender.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Barrett€testified€for€the€state€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€has€33€years€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðexperience€as€a€criminal€defense€lawyer,€including€his€service€in€fifteen€death€penalty€cases.€€HeÐ ˜è  Ðstated€that,€pursuant€to€his€motions€for€discovery€and€a€bill€of€particulars,€he€was€informed€of€all€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€witnessesðð€names€except€Beverly€Brown.€With€the€exception€of€the€emergence€of€Ms.€BrownððsÐ pÀ Ðname€during€trial,€the€stateððs€proof€unfolded€as€anticipated.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Barrett€was€ð ðcertainðð€that€both€prior€to€and€during€the€trial€he€discussed€the€issueÐ 4„ Ðof€testifying€with€the€petitioner.€€Mr.€Barrett€advised€the€petitioner€that,€although€it€was€theÐ  p Ðpetitionerððs€decision,€he€should€not€testify.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€€Mr.€Barrett€opined€that€notÐ  \ Ðtestifying€was€the€proper€decision€regardless€whether€the€petitionerððs€prior€drug€convictions€couldÐ øH Ðbe€used€to€impeach€him.€€Mr.€Barrett€believed€that€the€petitionerððs€demeanor€while€testifying€wouldÐ ä4 Ðhave€alienated€the€jury.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Barrett€ð ðabsolutelyðð€denied€that€Agent€Howell€told€him€that€Howell€had€testifiedÐ ¨ø Ðfalsely€or€had€mistakenly€identified€the€petitioner€as€the€man€who€sold€drugs€to€Howell.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Barrett€was€unable€to€locate€Francine€Strong€at€her€workplace€prior€to€trial€butÐ l¼ Ðinterviewed€Ms.€Oden€on€the€day€of€trial,€prior€to€her€testimony.€He€believed€he€interviewed€AgentÐ X ¨ ÐHowell€before€trial.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Barrett€opined€that€a€scientific€analysis€of€the€drug€transaction€tape€would€haveÐ #l! Ðbeen€a€waste€of€time€because€of€the€poor€quality€of€the€tape€and€the€lack€of€any€indicia€of€tampering.€Ð $X" ÐIn€short,€he€discerned€neither€a€basis€for€having€the€tape€tested€nor€a€basis€for€suppressing€the€tapeÐ ô$D # Ðas€evidence.€€He€did€not€recall€whether€he€moved€the€trial€court€for€a€continuance,€but€he€recalledÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€the€reason€the€petitioner€wanted€the€continuance€was€to€have€the€tape€checked,€not€to€investigateÐ Ì&"% ÐBeverly€Brown,€whose€name€did€not€surface€until€the€trial.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àMr.€Barrett€defended€his€failure€to€move€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€at€the€close€ofÐ ° Ðthe€stateððs€proof€on€the€grounds€that€no€credible€basis€for€such€a€motion€existed.€€He€also€disagreedÐ œì Ðthat€the€prosecutor€presented€any€objectionable€closing€argument€and€opined€that€otherwise€he€didÐ ˆØ Ðnot€object€to€a€portion€of€the€argument€that€the€petitioner€now€characterizes€as€vouching€for€a€stateÐ tÄ Ðwitness€because€to€have€done€so€would€have€only€exacerbated€any€prejudice€by€calling€attention€toÐ `° Ðthe€alleged€vouching.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€ò òó óFinally,€Mr.€Barrett€testified€that,€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€he€establishedÐ L œ Ðthat€the€defendant€on€two€reported€Rutherford€County€convictions€was€a€Michael€A.€Brown,€not€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpetitioner,€who€is€Michael€O.€Brown.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àAgent€Patrick€Howell€testified€that€he€ð ðabsolutelyðð€did€not€tell€Mr.€Barrett€that€he€hadÐ ü L  Ðfalsely€or€mistakenly€identified€the€petitioner€as€the€man€who€sold€cocaine€to€him€in€OdenððsÐ è 8  Ðapartment€on€January€25,€1995.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€hearing€the€above€evidence,€the€court€denied€post„conviction€relief.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àBefore€beginning€our€discussion€of€the€issues€on€appeal,€we€review€a€few€basicÐ „Ô  Ðprinciples€of€law.€€The€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€or€her€allegationsÐ pÀ Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€On€appeal,€the€appellateÐ \¬ Ðcourt€accords€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€these€findings€areÐ H˜ Ðconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ð572,€578„89€(Tenn.€1997);€òòBates€v.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€615,€631€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àAll€of€the€petitionerððs€post„conviction€issues€are€grounded€upon€claims€that€heÐ øH Ðreceived€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€The€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÐ ä4 Ðand€Article€I,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€both€require€that€a€defendant€in€a€criminal€caseÐ Ð  Ðreceive€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€When€aÐ ¼  Ðdefendant€claims€constitutionally€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€standard€applied€by€the€courtsÐ ¨ø Ðof€Tennessee€to€determine€the€adequacy€of€counselððs€performance€is€ð ð[w]hether€the€advice€given€orÐ ”ä Ðthe€service€rendered€by€the€attorney€[is]€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€[of]€attorneys€inÐ €Ð Ðcriminal€cases.ðð€€òòSummerlin€v.€Stateóó,€607€S.W.2d€495,€496€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€outlined€theÐ D!” Ðrequirements€necessary€to€demonstrate€a€violation€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€effectiveÐ 0"€  Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052€(1984).€€First,€theÐ #l! Ðpetitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessÐ $X" Ðunder€prevailing€professional€norms€and€must€demonstrate€that€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€thatÐ ô$D # Ðhe€was€not€functioning€as€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€by€the€Constitution.€€òòId.óó€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€Ð à%0!$ ÐSecond,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€prejudiced€him€and€that€the€errors€wereÐ Ì&"% Ðso€serious€as€to€deprive€the€petitioner€of€a€fair€trial,€calling€into€question€the€reliability€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðoutcome.€€òòId.óó,òò€óó104€S.€Ct.€at€2064;€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579.Ð ¤(ô#' Їà  àà ` àð ðWhen€addressing€an€attorneyððs€performance€it€is€not€our€function€to€ððsecond€guessððÐ ° Ðtactical€and€strategic€choices€pertaining€to€defense€matters€or€to€measure€a€defense€attorneyððsÐ œì Ðrepresentation€by€ðð20„20€hindsight.ðððð€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579€(quoting€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629Ð ˆØ ÐS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)).€€Rather,€a€court€reviewing€counselððs€performance€should€ð ðeliminate€theÐ tÄ Ðdistorting€effects€of€hindsight€.€.€.€[and]€evaluate€the€conduct€from€the€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€Ð `° ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065.€€ð ðThe€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failedÐ L œ Ðor€hurt€the€defense,€does€not,€standing€alone,€establish€unreasonable€representation.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996).€€On€the€other€hand,€ð ðdeference€to€matters€of€strategy€and€tacticalÐ $ t Ðchoices€applies€only€if€the€choices€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.ðð€€òòId.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àóóTo€establish€prejudice,€a€party€claiming€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€must€showÐ è 8  Ða€ð ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÐ Ô$  Ðwould€have€been€different.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€A€reasonableÐ À  Ðprobability€is€ð ða€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€reviewing€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€an€appellate€court€need€notÐ „Ô  Ðaddress€both€prongs€of€òòStricklandóó€if€it€determines€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€carry€his€burdenÐ pÀ Ðwith€respect€to€either€prong.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€580.ò òÐ \¬ Ðó óÌà  àà ` àWe€divide€our€analysis€into€two€parts.€€First,€we€will€consider€the€trial€courtððsÐ 4„ Ðlimitation€of€post„conviction€issues€to€those€contained€in€the€ð ðAmended€Petition€for€Post„convictionÐ  p ÐRelief.ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Second,€we€will€consider€the€post„conviction€claims€that€òòwereóó€adjudicated€by€the€lowerÐ  \ Ðcourt€and€that€have€been€presented€on€appeal.Ð øH ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àI.€€The€Lower€Courtððs€Rejection€of€Claims€Contained€inÐ Ð  Ðà @ àà @` à€€€€€à0 @¸ àà0@¸ (#¸ (#àà0@h(#(#àthe€Original€Petition.Ð ¼  ÐÓëLÓÌà  àà ` àIn€his€original,€òòpro€seóó€petition,€the€petitioner€raised€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistanceÐ ”ä Ðof€counsel,€claiming€that€trial€counsel€failed:Ð €Ð ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌ1.€€To€seek€suppression€of€the€tape€of€the€drug€transaction;Ð X ¨ ÐÌ2.€€To€seek€a€continuance€to€allow€time€to€interview€Beverly€Brown;Ð 0"€  ÐÌ3.€€To€seek€to€have€Robert€Briscoððs€testimony€stricken€on€the€groundsÐ $X" Ðof€a€òòJencksóó€violation;Ð ô$D # ÐÐ à%0!$ Ð4.€€To€move€for€a€judgment€of€acquittal€at€the€close€of€the€stateððsÐ ° Ðproof;Ð œì ÐÌ5.€€To€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€vouching€for€a€state€witness€duringÐ tÄ Ðfinal€argument;Ð `° ÐÌ6.€€To€alert€the€court€of€Agent€Howellððs€false€testimony;€andÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌ7.€To€object€to€the€prosecutionððs€use€of€certain€prior€convictions€forÐ  ` Ðsentence€enhancement€purposes.Ð ü L  ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒAfter€the€petition€was€filed,€counsel€was€appointed,€and€counsel€filed€an€amended€petition,€whichÐ Ô$  Ðalleged€that€trial€counsel€ineffectively€assisted€the€petitioner€by€failing:Ð À  ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò1.€€To€interview€the€stateððs€witnesses;Ð ˜è  ÐÌ2.€€To€interview€and/or€subpoena€defense€witnesses;Ð pÀ ÐÌ3.€€To€adequately€advise€the€petitioner€of€his€rights€to€testify€and€toÐ H˜ Ðdecline€to€testify;Ð 4„ ÐÌ4.€€To€adequately€communicate€with€the€petitioner€during€the€courseÐ  \ Ðof€the€trial;Ð øH ÐÌ5.€€To€advise€the€petitioner€of€rights€of€appeal;Ð Ð  ÐÌ6.€€To€perfect€the€petitionerððs€application€for€discretionary€appeal€toÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court;€andÐ ”ä ÐÌ7.€€To€take€action€to€utilize€the€information€supplied€by€BeverlyÐ l¼ ÐBrown€and€Francine€Strong€in€their€respective€affidavits.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitionerððs€counsel€prefaced€his€opening€remarksÐ 0"€  Ðby€stating€that€ð ðthe€issues€that€we€have€planned€to€travel€on€.€.€.€deal€specifically€with€.€.€.€ineffectiveÐ #l! Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€If€I€can€go€down€through€my€amended€petition€and€possibly€cover€those.ðð€€Ð $X" ÐThereafter,€he€highlighted€the€issues€raised€in€the€amended€petition€and€said€that€those€issues€wouldÐ ô$D # Ðbe€the€ones€he€would€raise€during€the€hearing.€€When€the€petitionerððs€counsel€began€to€cross„examineÐ à%0!$ Ðtrial€counsel€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€about€the€òòJencksóó€issue€with€respect€to€Deputy€Brisco,€the€stateÐ Ì&"% Ðobjected€on€the€ground€that€the€òòJencksóó€issue€was€derived€from€the€original€petition,€not€the€amendedÐ ¸'#& Ðpetition.€The€lower€court€sustained€the€objection.€€The€court€remarked€that,€although€counsel€ð ðveryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcleverly€said€[in€the€amended€petition€he€was]€relying€upon€[the]€amendments€plus€everything€elseÐ )à$( Ðthat€is€in€the€òòpro€seóó€petition,ðð€the€court€seeks€to€refine€ð ðkitchen€sinkðð€òòpro€seóó€petitions€by€askingÐ |*Ì%) Ðcounsel€to€file€amended€petitions.€€Evidently€the€court€then€views€the€amendment€to€be€theÐ h+¸&* Ðequivalent€of€a€restated€petition.€€When€the€post„conviction€judge€saw€that€the€amended€petition€inÐ ° Ðthis€case€recited€the€petitionerððs€reliance€upon€the€allegations€in€the€original€petition,€he€askedÐ œì Ðcounsel€to€ð ðtell€[him]€what€we€are€here€on€today.ðð€€The€judge€then€excluded€any€testimony€about€theÐ ˆØ Ðalleged€òòJencksóó€violation€because€it€was€not€included€in€the€amended€petition€and€was€not€mentionedÐ tÄ Ðin€counselððs€opening€statement;€accordingly,€the€state,€the€court€ruled,€was€not€on€notice€that€theÐ `° ÐòòJencksóó€issue€would€be€presented.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€takes€the€view€that€the€amended€petition€was€an€amendmentÐ $ t Ðto€the€òòpro€seóó€petition,€essentially€equivalent€to€a€supplement.€€We€believe€that€this€view€of€anÐ  ` Ðamended€petition€has€support€in€our€law.€€When€a€òòpro€seóó€post„conviction€petition€is€filed€and€counselÐ ü L  Ðis€appointed€or€retained,€counsel€ð ðshall€be€required€to€review€the€pro€se€petition,€file€an€amendedÐ è 8  Ðpetition€asserting€òòotheróó€claims€which€petitioner€arguably€has€or€a€written€notice€that€no€amendedÐ Ô$  Ðpetition€will€be€filed.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€28,€ðð€6(C)(2)€(emphasis€added).€€After€the€state€respondsÐ À  Ðto€the€petition,€the€post„conviction€court€is€directed€to€conduct€a€colorable€claim€review€by€reviewingÐ ¬ü  Ðòòbothóó€the€petition€and€the€amended€petition.€€òòId.óó€ðð€6(B)(6).€At€the€hearing,€the€post„conviction€courtÐ ˜è  Ðmust€freely€allow€amendments€to€the€petition€ð ðwhen€the€presentation€of€the€merits€of€the€cause€willÐ „Ô  Ðotherwise€be€subserved.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€8(D)(5).€€Our€Code€provides€that€amendments€to€the€petition€ð ðshallÐ pÀ Ðconform€substantially€to€the€form€for€original€petitions,€except€that€òòmatters€alleged€in€the€originalÐ \¬ Ðpetition€need€not€be€repeatedóó.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„204(g)(1997)€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,Ð H˜ Ðthe€scheme€of€the€post„conviction€law€is€to€have€counsel€amend€the€petition€ð ðso€that€when€theÐ 4„ Ðpetition€is€heard€all€grounds€on€which€the€petitioner€may€rely€will€be€before€the€court.ðð€òòState€v.Ð  p ÐSmithóó,€814€S.W.2d€45,€47€(Tenn.€1991);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòDavid€Honey€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9512„CC„00400,Ð  \ Ðslip€op.€at€€3„5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.€18,€1997)€(construing€provisions€of€prior€post„Ð øH Ðconviction€relief€law).€The€Post„Conviction€Procedures€Act€contemplates€the€filing€of€only€oneÐ ä4 Ðpetition;€thus,€all€potential€claims€a€petitioner€has€must€be€determined€at€the€time€of€adjudication€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€petition€if€they€are€to€be€ventilated€in€the€post„conviction€arena.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„Ð ¼  Ð202(c)€(1997)€(filing€of€a€single€petition€is€contemplated,€and€subsequent€post„conviction€petitionsÐ ¨ø Ðshall€be€summarily€dismissed).€€Thus,€appointed€counsel€may€well€file€additional€allegations€withoutÐ ”ä Ðchanging€the€original€allegations.€€Furthermore,€counsel€must€be€circumspect€in€limiting€the€claimsÐ €Ð Ðthat€are€presented€to€the€post„conviction€court.€€Although€counsel€may€suggest€that€some€assertedÐ l¼ Ðgrounds€are€meritless€and€might€urge€that€those€grounds€be€limited€or€modified,€counsel€in€a€post„Ð X ¨ Ðconviction€case€has€a€duty€to€assert€those€claims€that€the€petitioner€ð ðarguably€hasðð€and€counsel€mustÐ D!” Ðð ðdiligently€investigate€and€present€all€reasonable€claims.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€28€ðð6(C)(2).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€essentially€supplemented,€rather€than€restated,Ð $X" Ðthe€petition€when€he€amended€the€petition.€€This€interpretation€is€buttressed€by€counselððs€includingÐ ô$D # Ðin€the€amended€petition€a€statement€that€the€petitioner€relies€upon€the€allegations€in€the€originalÐ à%0!$ Ðpetition€and€by€the€fact€that€most€of€the€amended€petitionððs€issues€were€in€fact€supplemental€to€andÐ Ì&"% Ðnot€duplicitous€of€€the€original€petitionððs€issues.€€Based€upon€this€view€of€the€amended€petition,€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpetitioner€was€empowered€to€present€all€issues€raised€in€both€documents,€at€least€up€to€the€point€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcounsel€identified€the€issues€at€the€commencement€of€the€hearing.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àWe€conclude€that€when€counsel€framed€the€issues€at€the€commencement€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âhearing,€he€effectively€abandoned€the€issues€not€mentioned,€as€the€post„conviction€court€essentiallyÐ œì Ðruled.€òòSee€Michael€Joseph€Spadafina€v.€Stateóó,€No.€W1999„00268„CCA„R3„PC,€slip€op.€at€7€n.3Ð ˆØ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Oct.€23,€2000);òò€Jeff€Leon€Walker€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9408„CC„00161Ð tÄ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Apr.€26,€1995).€€Based€upon€the€lower€courtððs€request€that€counselÐ `° Ðdefine€the€issues€in€contention,€post„conviction€counselððs€response,€and€the€stateððs€objection€andÐ L œ Ðcomplaint€of€lack€of€notice,€the€trial€court,€which€was€entrusted€with€the€discretion€to€admitÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence,€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€743€(Tenn.€1998),€did€not€€abuse€that€discretion€whenÐ $ t Ðit€sustained€the€stateððs€objection.ò ò׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ó ó€Ð  ` ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àII.€€Issues€of€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselÐ è 8  Ðà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ à€€€Addressed€by€Lower€Court.Ð Ô$  ÐÓ¼rÓÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€has€limited€the€issues€to€whether€trial€counsel€performedÐ ¬ü  Ðineffectively€when€he€failed€to€inform€and€advise€the€petitioner€about€his€rights€with€respect€toÐ ˜è  Ðtestifying€at€trial€and€failed€to€interview€witnesses€and€to€adequately€consult€with€the€petitioner€priorÐ „Ô  Ðto€trial.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` à(1)€òòTrialóó€òòCounselððsóó€òòFailureóó€òòtoóóòòInformòòóó€òòóóandòòóóóó€òòAdviseóó€òòtheóó€òòPetitioner.óóÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€does€not€argue€on€appeal€that€he€did€not€understand€his€rights€to€testifyÐ  p Ðand€to€avoid€testifying.€€Indeed,€the€petitioner€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€knew€he€hadÐ  \ Ða€right€to€testify€and€a€right€not€to€testify.€€Rather,€he€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€opine€forÐ øH Ðthe€petitionerððs€benefit,€or€otherwise€to€seek€a€trial€court€ruling€to€determine,€which€of€his€priorÐ ä4 Ðconvictions€would€be€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes€should€he€testify.€€He€claims€that,€atÐ Ð  Ðbest,€the€lack€of€information€and€advice€hampered€him€from€making€a€knowing,€intelligent€waiverÐ ¼  Ðof€the€right€to€testify€at€trial,€and€at€worst,€he€posits€that€counsel€led€him€to€erroneously€believe€theÐ ¨ø Ðprior€drug€convictions€would€have€been€admissible,€causing€him€to€eschew€testifying€when€otherwiseÐ ”ä Ðhe€would€have€taken€the€stand€to€refute€Strongððs€and€Howellððs€testimony.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€about€several€prior€convictions.€Ð X ¨ ÐHe€admitted€that€he€was€convicted€of€possession€of€marijuana€in€Franklin€County€in€1982.€€HeÐ D!” Ðdenied€being€convicted€in€Rutherford€County€in€January€1983€and€again€in€January1988€of€casuallyÐ 0"€  Ðexchanging€a€controlled€substance€and€in€March€1987€of€felony€marijuana€possession.€€He€admittedÐ #l! Ðthat€he€was€convicted€in€Rutherford€County€in€August€1983€of€selling€cocaine€and€of€sellingÐ $X" Ðmarijuana,€but€he€claimed€to€be€innocent€of€the€latter€offense.€€He€further€claimed€he€was€tricked€intoÐ ô$D # Ðâ âpleading€guilty€to€unlawful€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€in€November€1989€in€LincolnÐ à%0!$ ÐCounty€and€claimed€that€ð ðtwo€drug€dealers€.€.€.€came€into€court€and€lied€and€got€[him]€convicted€forÐ ° Ðselling€drugs,ðð€resulting€in€a€February,€1991€Lincoln€County€conviction€of€selling€cocaine.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€and€the€petitioner€discussed€the€possibility€of€theÐ tÄ Ðpetitioner€testifying,€that€he€told€the€petitioner€that€at€least€a€couple€of€the€prior€convictions€wouldÐ `° Ðbe€used€against€him,€that€the€petitioner€did€not€indicate€that€he€wished€to€testify,€and€that€counselÐ L œ Ðð ðstrongly€advised€him€not€to€testify.ðð€€Counsel€testified€that€his€recommendation€against€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpetitionerððs€testifying€was€not€grounded€upon€the€admissibility€of€prior€convictions;€rather,€heÐ $ t Ðthought€that€the€petitioner€would€not€make€a€good€witness€and€would€adversely€impress€the€jury.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€denying€the€petitioner€relief€on€this€issue,€the€post„conviction€court€ð ðtook€judicialÐ è 8  Ðnotice€of€its€practice€[at€the€time]€this€case€was€tried,€and€before€the€Supreme€Court€clarified€the€lawððÐ Ô$  Ðand€determined€that€at€trial€it€would€have€allowed€ð ðgeneric€felony€convictions€to€impeach€theÐ À  Ðdefendant.ððò òó ó€Presumably,€the€post„conviction€judge€was€referring€to€our€supreme€courtððs€decisionsÐ ¬ü  Ðin€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€993€S.W.2d€33€(Tenn.€1999)€and€òòState€v.€Galmoreóó,€994€S.W.2d€120€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð ˜è  ÐIn€these€cases,€the€supreme€court€disapproved€of€impeaching€defendants€via€prior€convictions€ofÐ „Ô  Ðunnamed€felonies.€€òòTayloróó,€993€S.W.2d€at€35;€òòGalmoreóó,€994€S.W.2d€at€122;òò€see€also€€State€v.€Mixonóó,Ð pÀ Ð983€S.W.2d€661,€674„75€(Tenn.€1999)€(where€defendantòòóó€was€charged€with€various€sex€offenses€and,Ð \¬ Ðafter€testifying€at€trial,€was€impeached€via€a€prior€conviction€of€sexual€battery,€€high€court€held€that,Ð H˜ Ðpursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€609,€€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€impeachment€via€aÐ 4„ Ðprior€conviction€that€was€ð ðidentical€to€one€of€the€crimes€for€which€Mixon€was€tried€and€substantiallyÐ  p Ðsimilar€to€the€other€charged€offenses,ðð€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€outweighing€the€probative€valueÐ  \ Ðon€credibility).€òòò òó óóóÐ øH ЀÌà  àà ` àWe€note€in€the€present€case€that€the€post„conviction€court€lent€credence€to€trialÐ Ð  Ðcounselððs€advice€that€a€couple€of€the€prior€convictions€would€have€been€admissible€when€it€opinedÐ ¼  Ðthat,€at€the€1996€trial,€it€would€have€allowed€evidence€of€ð ðgenericðð€felonies€for€impeachmentÐ ¨ø Ðpurposes.€€€òòóóIn€òòState€v.€Ross€Jonesóó,€No.€01C01„9405„CR„00175,€slip€op.€at€8„9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð ”ä ÐNashville,€Feb.€9,€1995),€this€court€approved€the€use€of€generic€or€unnamed€felony€convictions€toÐ €Ð Ðimpeach€the€defendantòòóó.€€òòBut€see€State€v.€Summerallóó,€926€S.W.3d€272,€277€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)Ð l¼ Ð(criticizing€òòRoss€Jonesóó;€decided€in€1995€but€not€published€until€1997).€€€The€1996€trial€in€the€presentÐ X ¨ Ðcase€occurred€before€òòTayloróó€and€òòGalmoreóó€were€filed.€€We€believe€that€the€post„conviction€courtÐ D!” Ðconcluded€that€it€would€have€admitted€the€prior€felony€convictions€as€ð ðgenericðð€convictions€had€theÐ 0"€  Ðpetitioner€testified€at€his€1996€trial.€€Thus,€we€believe€that€counselððs€1996€advice€was€reasonablyÐ #l! Ðbased€upon€existing€law€and€explains€the€lack€of€a€Rule€609€challenge.€€At€any€rate,€had€counselÐ $X" Ðchallenged€the€prior€felony€convictions€pursuant€to€Rule€609,€we€believe€that€the€trial€court€wouldÐ ô$D # Ðhave€indeed€admitted€evidence€of€the€timely€felony€convictions€as€ð ðgenericðð€felonies.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òòòòòóóóóó óÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àà ` àFurthermore,€counsel€strongly€recommended€that€the€petitioner€not€testify€and€wouldÐ ° Ðâ âhave€so€recommended€even€if€the€prior€convictions€were€excluded.€€The€petitioner€did€not€requestÐ œì Ðto€testify€despite€knowing€his€rights,€and€we€surmise€that€he€would€have€followed€counselððs€advice,Ð ˆØ Ðregardless€of€the€admissibility€of€prior€convictions.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€any€rate,€the€petitioner€cannot€establish€prejudice€by€merely€showing€that€he€wouldÐ L œ Ðhave€testified€had€counselððs€advice€been€somehow€prescient€about€the€use€of€prior€convictions.€ToÐ 8 ˆ Ðestablish€prejudice,€he€must€demonstrate€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€any€errors€of€counsel,Ð $ t Ðthe€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€We€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÐ  ` Ðclearly€and€convincingly€establish€such€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÐ ü L  Ðverdict.€€Counselððs€opinion€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€testimony€would€have€alienated€the€jury€isÐ è 8  Ðsomewhat€borne€out€by€the€tenor€of€the€petitionerððs€post„conviction€testimony€that€revealed€aÐ Ô$  Ðpenchant€for€blaming€others€for€his€criminal€behavior.€At€any€rate,€the€evidence€against€him€at€trialÐ À  Ðwas€strong,€and€in€his€post„conviction€bid,€he€has€not€shown€that€his€testifying€at€trial€wouldÐ ¬ü  Ðprobably€have€produced€a€different€result.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€we€discern€no€validity€to€this€claim.Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àà @` à€€€€(2)€òòTrialòòóóóó€òòCounselððsóó€òòFailureóó€òòtoóó€òòInterviewóó€òòaóó€òòWitnessóóÐ H˜ ÐÓ"•ÓÓ  Ó€€€€€€òòandóó€òòConferóó€òòwithóó€òòtheóó€òòPetitioneróó.Ð 4„ ÐÓÔ•ÓÌà  àà ` àIn€this€issue,€the€petitioner€claims€that€counsel€ineffectively€assisted€him€when€heÐ  \ Ðfailed€to€interview€Francine€Strong€and€failed€to€confer€adequately€with€the€petitioner€in€preparationÐ øH Ðfor€trial.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€appellate€complaint€about€counselððs€failure€to€interview€witnessesÐ ¼  Ðis€that€Francine€Strong€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that,€had€defense€counsel€interviewedÐ ¨ø Ðher€prior€to€trial,€she€would€not€have€yielded€to€the€pressure€that€law€enforcement€officers€broughtÐ ”ä Ðto€bear€on€her€to€identify€the€petitioner€as€the€man€who€sold€drugs€to€Agent€Howell.€€The€flaw€in€thisÐ €Ð Ðclaim€is€that,€following€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€judge€specifically€found€thatÐ l¼ ÐFrancine€Strong€was€not€a€credible€person.€€We€defer€to€that€credibility€assessment.€€Moreover,€theÐ X ¨ Ðpetitioner€was€identified€not€only€by€Strong€but€also€by€Agent€Howell,€whose€identification€of€theÐ D!” Ðpetitioner€was€reaffirmed€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€Thus,€even€if€trial€counsel€was€remiss€in€notÐ 0"€  Ðinterviewing€Ms.€Strong€before€the€day€of€trial,€the€petitioner€has€demonstrated€no€prejudice.Ð #l! Ðâ âÐ $X" Ðà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€last€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€that€Mr.€BarrettÐ ° Ðâ âfailed€to€adequately€meet€with€him€prior€to€trial,€keeping€him€in€the€dark€about€the€stateððs€prospectiveÐ œì Ðproof€until€four€days€prior€to€trial.€€Mr.€Barrett€testified€that€he€had€between€five€and€ten€pretrialÐ ˆØ Ðconversations€with€the€petitioner,€including€an€extensive€meeting€on€Thursday€before€the€MondayÐ tÄ Ðtrial.€€At€this€meeting,€€counsel€played€the€drug€transaction€tape€for€the€petitioner€and€reviewed€withÐ `° Ðhim€information€about€the€stateððs€case€which€he€had€gleaned€from€responses€to€his€discovery€andÐ L œ Ðbill„of„particulars€motions.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€and€the€petitioner€ð ðhad€a€meeting€of€the€mindsÐ 8 ˆ Ðas€to€probably€what€the€general€nature€of€the€testimony€would€be.ðð€€Counsel€testified€that€the€pretrialÐ $ t Ðassessment€of€the€prospective€evidence€turned€out€to€be€generally€accurate.€€Counsel€told€theÐ  ` Ðpetitioner€what€ð ðthe€strengths€and€weaknesses€of€our€case€[were].ðð€€He€testified€that€the€petitionerÐ ü L  Ðis€ð ðintelligent[,]€.€.€.€pretty€knowledgeable€.€.€.€[,€and]€we€had€a€meaningful€conversation.ðð€€€Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€accredited€Mr.€Barrettððs€testimony€and€said,€ð ð[T]he€longÐ Ô$  Ðand€short€of€it€is€that€Mr.€Barrett€was€prepared€for€trialðð€and€ð ðhis€consultation€with€his€client€wasÐ À  Ðadequate€and€falls€within€the€range€of€competence€as€demanded€by€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó.ðð€€The€evidenceÐ ¬ü  Ðin€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€courtððs€factual€findings,€and€we€agree€that,€basedÐ ˜è  Ðupon€the€facts€as€found,€trial€counselððs€performance€met€the€applicable€standard€for€effectiveÐ „Ô  Ðassistance.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àTherefore,€finding€that€the€lower€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€is€supportedÐ H˜ Ðby€the€record,€we€affirm.Ð 4„ ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ ¼  ÐÌ