ÿWPCd Ê.l„ÐMJÜ»9} N¤½ªn>sƒß(Ëý e ¼KÜ7'g•K© )½áp¾ ¢Jãö4èÕuˆv$ñy ãì문—¬ðPÖšŸìÖ\åü@zMÞ£’³Oþ°œé‚‡E#{‡úX]Žêƒ2‡ºXÜoÖÁCŠŽØÕ¾9hWÀÀ…°PñÒ'#ÁÇHÅUþ;¤Yà7ç|¼ôq˜§ kã_e^‘ª‰ôm*è%ó äœbkOY\+·¯îdæ‘V2ÇD)µ“¶àg”Y‚æÕ (þ˜™„wd)˜_¬<®r˜ÍÚÄm8{,ps|‡>êSOëñú3–™Œ&¡&ð†ñŸûª¥u DðX“ºZ•5;KÚÜ«Aê«8@°OB1Öuvò²Öx£?ï…dh»|9eè_årAº ¨Õ$8ö%àÎÀ¡ó©Iˆ!ØÌ û±:¬×:(¿–lJzšÙnì³øé´IŠ×Ñ/îc^É0>]z=tT s–û—'̓€]‡@>᤻"0YÅc[H¯ÑT–]kHÁÉù\ñ1ŽAùp 2Îf^·§÷=)ò'­²”8vƒû†Uf9(Àɪ:&!Cà]{')ßœh”SÈwûž8o}ë©­¶]4;Ñõb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U#N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 0‘ ÆÁ ƇÆMÆ 0DÙNÓöòEè 1‡êU@qUN± 1uÿÿ 72t¦ 1‡®® 1‡55 1‡¼¼¼¼¼¼CCCCCCbYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 0ëaaaa BLL 0¤i D3  D-@ 0Kmm AS¸Æ  0¤Ñ 0Du A«¹˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¶e-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,¢Ø+00 ˜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 &Ý ƒR $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€tape€recording€of€Bakerððs€telephone€conversation€with€the€petitioner€was€played€before€the€jury.€AlthoughÐ ° Ðneither€the€tape€recording€nor€a€transcript€of€the€conversation€is€included€in€the€record€before€this€court,€it€is€apparentÐ tÄ Ðfrom€the€witnessesðð€testimony€that€the€petitioner€made€no€direct€admission€on€the€tape€that€the€money€was€payment€forÐ 8ˆ Ðdrugs.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÉÝ ƒR $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Again,€neither€the€tape€recordings€nor€the€transcripts€are€included€in€the€record€before€this€court.€€However,Ð ° Ðfrom€the€witnessesðð€cross„examination€testimony,€it€is€again€apparent€that€the€petitioner€did€not€directly€admit€that€theÐ tÄ Ð$400€he€received€from€Baker€was€in€payment€for€drugs.€ ìÝ ƒR $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€petitioner€was€also€absent€from€his€sentencing€hearing,€where€he€was€again€represented€by€trial€counsel.(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman (ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) (ª½CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(º½CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList5A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. Ý ƒR $ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòeò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€petitioner€and€his€wife,€Ms.€Pamela€Cox,€were€not€married€at€the€time€the€drug€transactions€in€this€caseÐ ° Ðtook€place.€- ù-(|G2 $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kí»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòeò»»Ô d(|3‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kí»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kí»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kí»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Kí»»»ÔÑ8€!XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îS<KíÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Kí»îîS< #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€19,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X!X»¼KíÔÌò òÔ#†¼Kí»XX!#ÔTONY€E.€BROWNòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X!X»¼KíÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Marshall€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€14432€€€€€€J.€B.€Cox,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„03067„CCA„R3„PC€€„€Filed€November€5,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€arguing€that€the€post„Ð xÈ  Ðconviction€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€received€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€We€concludeÐ d´ Ðthat€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€demonstrating€that€his€trial€counsel€providedÐ P  Ðineffective€assistance.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€denial€of€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€Ô#†¼Kí»XX!‚#ÔÔ‡X!X»¼KíÔÐ <Œ ÐÓ¢ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Kí»àX!£#ÔÔ‡X!X.¼KíÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòRobert€W.Ð ì< ÐÔ_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌCynthia€M.€Fort,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Tony€E.€Brown.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Christine€M.€Ô_ÔLappsÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ˆØ ÐWilliam€Michael€Ô_ÔMcCownÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Ô_ÔWeakleyÔ_Ô€E.€Barnard,€Assistant€DistrictÐ tÄ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð `° ÐÓTÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Kí»XX!ƒ#ÔÔ‡X!X»¼KíÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Kí»XX!² #ÔÔ€X!X»¼KíÔò òòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓFACTSÐ #`" Ðó óóóÌÓA Óòòóóà  àOn€June€23,€1999,€the€petitioner,€Tony€Brown,€was€charged€by€a€Marshall€County€Grand€JuryÐ è$8 $ Ðin€a€three„count€indictment€with€one€count€of€selling€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substance€(cocaine),Ð Ô%$!% Ða€Class€B€felony,€on€February€17,€1999;€one€count€of€delivering€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substanceÐ À&"& Ð(cocaine),€a€Class€B€felony,€on€February€17,€1999;€and€one€count€of€delivering€a€Schedule€IIÐ ¬'ü"' Ðcontrolled€substance€(cocaine),€a€Class€B€felony,€on€February€18,€1999.€€At€the€conclusion€of€his€Ð ˜(è#( ÐNovember€4,€2000,€trial,€a€Marshall€County€Circuit€Court€jury€found€the€defendant€not€guilty€of€theÐ „)Ô$) Ðfirst€two€counts€of€the€indictment,€which€charged€him€with€the€sale€and€delivery€of€cocaine€onÐ p*À%* ÐFebruary€17,€but€guilty€of€the€third€count,€which€charged€him€with€the€delivery€of€cocaine€onÐ \+¬&+ ÐFebruary€18.€€The€trial€court€subsequently€sentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offenderÐ H,˜', Ðto€twelve€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€The€trial€court€also€approved€a€$100,000Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôfine€that€was€assessed€by€the€jury€for€the€offense.€€No€direct€appeal€of€the€petitionerððs€conviction€orÐ ° Ðsentence€was€filed.€€€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àOn€December€14,€2000,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€allegingÐ tÄ Ðineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€An€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€June€25,€2001.€€OnÐ `° ÐNovember€2,€2001,€the€post„conviction€courtððs€order€denying€the€petition€was€filed.€€The€petitionerÐ L œ Ðfiled€a€notice€of€appeal€on€December€4,€2001.€€The€State€notes€that€the€petitionerððs€notice€of€appealÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€filed€one€day€beyond€the€thirty„day€time€limit€for€appealing€a€final€order.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð $ t Ð4(a).€€However,€this€court€may,€ð ðin€the€interest€of€justice,ððòòóó€waive€an€untimely€filing€of€a€notice€ofÐ  ` Ðappeal.€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€State€has€not€alleged€it€was€prejudiced€by€the€petitionerððs€untimely€filing,Ð ü L  Ðwe€will€address€the€merits€of€the€petition.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€petitioner€asserted€a€number€of€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€in€his€petitionÐ À  Ðand€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€he€confines€himself€on€appeal€to€arguing€that€trial€counselÐ ¬ü  Ðprovided€ineffective€assistance€by€failing€to€object€to€the€admission€of€irrelevant€and€highlyÐ ˜è  Ðprejudicial€evidence€at€trial;€failing€to€inform€him€of€the€recent€suspension€and€reinstatement€of€hisÐ „Ô  Ðlaw€license,€including€the€restrictions€under€which€he€was€required€to€practice;€and€practicing€lawÐ pÀ Ðin€violation€of€the€orders€suspending€and€reinstating€his€license.€€Four€witnesses€testified€at€theÐ \¬ Ðpetitionerððs€post„conviction€hearing:€the€petitioner,€trial€counsel,€disciplinary€counsel€for€theÐ H˜ ÐTennessee€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility,€and€the€attorney€who€was€appointed€to€superviseÐ 4„ Ðtrial€counsel€following€the€reinstatement€of€his€law€license.€€To€place€their€testimony€in€context,€weÐ  p Ðwill€first€briefly€summarize€the€evidence€at€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòò òTrialó óóóÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Stateððs€case€against€the€petitioner€was€presented€primarily€through€the€testimony€of€twoÐ ¼  Ðwitnesses:€€Special€Agent€Thomas€Biele€of€the€Seventeenth€Judicial€District€Drug€Task€Force€andÐ ¨ø ÐJames€Baker,€a€confidential€informant€who€was€working€for€the€Task€Force€at€the€time€the€drugÐ ”ä Ðtransactions€in€this€case€took€place.€€According€to€their€testimony,€€Baker€contacted€Agent€Biele€onÐ €Ð ÐFebruary€17,€1999,€to€inform€him€that€the€petitioner€had€just€ð ðfrontedðð€some€crack€cocaine€to€BakerÐ l¼ Ðto€sell,€with€the€agreement€that€Baker€would€pay€him€$400€for€the€cocaine€the€following€day.€€ShortlyÐ X ¨ Ðafter€receiving€the€call,€Agent€Biele€drove€to€Bakerððs€house€and€retrieved€2.8€grams€of€crack€cocaine.€Ð D!” ÐThe€next€day,€February€18,€1999,€Agent€Biele€and€other€Drug€Task€Force€officers€took€Baker€to€aÐ 0"€  Ðpay€phone,€where€they€recorded€him€arranging€with€the€petitioner€to€have€the€petitioner€come€to€hisÐ #l! Ðhome€to€receive€his€payment.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€agents€then€returned€Baker€to€his€home,€with€Agent€BieleÐ $X" Ðaccompanying€him€inside€to€search€him,€attach€a€recording€device,€and€give€him€$400€in€recordedÐ ô$D # Ðbills,€while€the€other€officers€set€up€a€surveillance€of€the€surrounding€area.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àFrom€his€position€inside€the€house,€Agent€Biele€watched€as€the€petitioner€pulled€up€in€frontÐ ° Ðof€Bakerððs€residence€in€a€brown,€1986€Pontiac€Bonneville,€and€Baker€handed€him€the€recorded€funds.€Ð œì ÐWhen€the€petitioner€left,€Baker€told€Agent€Biele€that€the€petitioner€would€soon€be€coming€back€toÐ ˆØ Ðfront€him€more€cocaine.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€petitioner€returned,€pulling€his€car€into€the€drivewayÐ tÄ Ðand€honking€his€horn.€€When€Baker€went€out€to€the€driveway,€the€petitioner€handed€him€3.3€gramsÐ `° Ðof€crack€cocaine€and€drove€away.€€Both€Agent€Biele€and€Baker€testified€that€Baker€was€searchedÐ L œ Ðbefore€each€encounter€to€ensure€that€he€had€no€contraband€on€his€person€when€he€went€to€meet€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpetitioner€at€his€car.€€Both€transactions€were€recorded,€and€the€tape€recordings€played€before€the€juryÐ $ t Ðat€trial.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€following€day,€February€19,€1999,€the€petitioner€was€stopped€and€arrested€by€Drug€TaskÐ è 8  ÐForce€Agents€as€he€was€driving€alone€in€the€same€brown€Pontiac€Bonneville€on€Highway€50€outsideÐ Ô$  Ðof€Lewisburg.€€Agents€found€$1181€in€cash€in€the€petitionerððs€wallet,€of€which€$250€consisted€of€theÐ À  Ðrecorded€funds€that€Baker€had€given€him€the€previous€day.€€No€drugs€were€found,€either€on€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpetitionerððs€person€or€in€his€car.€€However,€Agent€Biele€testified€that€he€found€a€set€of€digital€scales,Ð ˜è  Ðof€the€type€commonly€used€to€weigh€drugs,€on€the€front€seat€of€the€petitionerððs€vehicle.€€The€scalesÐ „Ô  Ðwere€admitted€into€evidence€with€no€objection€offered€by€trial€counsel.€€Drug€and€Violent€CrimeÐ pÀ ÐTask€Force€Director€Tim€Lane,€who€participated€in€the€drug€operation,€testified€that€the€petitionerÐ \¬ Ðadmitted€after€his€arrest€to€having€been€involved€in€the€distribution€of€crack€cocaine€in€MarshallÐ H˜ ÐCounty€for€the€preceding€four€or€five€months.€€Director€Lane€also€testified€that€a€set€of€digital€scalesÐ 4„ Ðwas€discovered€in€the€petitionerððs€vehicle,€but€no€drugs€were€found.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€State€rested€its€case€at€approximately€4:45€p.m.€€Informing€the€trial€court€that€he€badlyÐ øH Ðneeded€to€use€the€restroom,€the€petitioner€hurriedly€left€the€courtroom€and€subsequently€disappeared€Ð ä4 Ðfrom€the€courthouse.€€After€sending€court€officers€to€search€the€premises€and€granting€a€forty„minuteÐ Ð  Ðrecess€for€trial€counsel€to€attempt€to€locate€the€petitioner,€the€trial€court€continued€the€petitionerððsÐ ¼  Ðtrial€òòin€absentiaóó.׃Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Trial€counsel€rested€the€petitionerððs€case€without€the€presentation€of€any€proof,€andÐ ¨ø Ðthe€jury€returned€verdicts€of€not€guilty€on€the€first€two€counts€of€the€indictment€and€guilty€on€theÐ ”ä Ðthird€count.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òòòEvidentiary€Hearingóóó óÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€at€his€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€retained€trial€counsel€to€representÐ 0"€  Ðhim€sometime€after€his€preliminary€hearing.€€He€said€that€trial€counsel€did€not€tell€him€that€his€lawÐ #l! Ðlicense€had€been€suspended€and€reinstated,€or€that€he€was€required€to€practice€under€the€supervisionÐ $X" Ðof€another€attorney.€€Moreover,€trial€counselððs€supervising€attorney€was€never€present€during€any€ofÐ ô$D # Ðthe€petitionerððs€office€meetings€with€trial€counsel,€never€had€any€conversation€with€the€petitioner,Ð à%0!$ Ðand€never€appeared€in€court€with€the€petitioner€and€trial€counsel.€€Ð Ì&"% Їà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€was€surprised€when€the€State€introduced€the€drug€scales€at€hisÐ ° Ðtrial,€since€he€was€not€charged€with€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€He€said€that€he€urged€trialÐ œì Ðcounsel€several€times€to€object€to€the€introduction€of€the€evidence,€telling€him€that€the€scales€wereÐ ˆØ Ðnot€found€in€his€car€and€that€he€was€not€charged€with€their€possession,€but€that€trial€counsel€ð ðneverÐ tÄ Ðsaid€a€word.ðð€€Trial€counsel€also€failed€to€make€any€motions€to€exclude€the€scales€prior€to€trial,€orÐ `° Ðto€request€a€curative€jury€instruction€after€the€scales€had€been€introduced.€€The€petitioner€said€thatÐ L œ Ðwhen€he€realized€trial€counsel€was€not€going€to€do€anything€about€the€scales,€he€lost€confidence€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðwalked€out€of€the€trial.Ð $ t ÐÌÓ*°,XƒXŒ –X°œX*Óà  àThe€petitioner€denied€that€he€hurt€his€defense€by€leaving€before€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€Ð ü L  Ðtestifying€on€cross„examination€that€trial€counsel€had€already€decided€that€he€would€not€be€a€witnessÐ è 8  Ðin€the€case.€€He€said€he€thought€trial€counsel€could€have€put€his€wife׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€on€the€stand€to€explain€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðscales€were€found€in€her€car,€and€that€she,€rather€than€the€petitioner,€had€been€charged€with€theirÐ À  Ðpossession.€€The€petitioner€acknowledged€that€the€scales€did€not€hurt€him€on€counts€one€and€two€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€indictment.€€However,€he€thought€that€the€scales€must€have€prejudiced€the€jurors€against€him,Ð ˜è  Ðresulting€in€his€conviction€on€count€three.€€The€petitioner€explained€his€reasoning:€Ð „Ô  ÐÓ€ (н83ÓØ! !Øà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x ÐÓ€ (ª½88ÓØ! !Øà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à0Œ ` x` xàWith€all€of€that€proof,€how€did€the€scales€hurt€you?Ð\¬Œ xŒ x ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ (º½88Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à Œ àEvidently€it€must€have€been€showing€the€jury.€€You€know,Ð 4„ Ðevidently€they€werenððt€believing€nothing,€really,€of€what€thoseÐ  p Ðofficers€was€[sic]€testifying€to€because,€see,€all€of€the€charges€areÐ  \ Ðrelated,€you€know.€€On€the€time€limit€is€like€a€24€period€of€time€zone,Ð øH Ðand€all€of€those€charges€are€related.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àà Œ àDo€you€see€what€I€am€saying?Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à0Œ ` x` xàNo,€sir,€I€donððt.Ð”äŒ xŒ x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x ÐÓ€ "(ʽ88 ÓØ! !Øà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à Œ àAll€of€these€charges€are€related,€they€say.€€They€say€that€all€ofÐ l¼ Ðthem€are€related.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à0Œ ` x` xàYeah.Ð0"€ Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à0Œ ` x` xàIt€happened€within€a€24„hour€period€of€time€zone.Ð$X"Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à0Œ ` x` xàOkay.Ðà%0!$Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.à Œ àSo€the€jury€wasnððt€believing€nothing€they€were€saying,€evidentlyÐ ¸'#& Ðin€the€other€two€deliveries.€€You€know€what€Iððm€saying.€€So€here€theyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðgo€show€some€scales,€you€know,€that€could€have€prejudiced€meÐ ° Ðagainst€the€jury.Мì` x` x ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€was€a€licensed€attorney€in€the€State€of€Tennessee€at€the€timeÐ tÄ Ðhe€represented€the€petitioner.€€He€estimated€he€had,€at€that€time,€represented€seventy€to€one€hundredÐ `° Ðcriminal€defendants,€and€been€involved€in€thirty€to€thirty„five€criminal€trials,€in€both€state€and€federalÐ L œ Ðcourt.€€On€January€3,€1999,€some€six€months€prior€to€the€date€his€representation€of€the€petitionerÐ 8 ˆ Ðbegan,€his€law€license€was€temporarily€suspended.€€Subsequently,€on€March€30,€1999,€his€licenseÐ $ t Ðwas€reinstated,€subject€to€certain€practice€requirements,€including€that€he€practice€under€a€mentor,Ð  ` ÐRobert€Marlow.€€As€required,€he€discussed€the€petitionerððs€case€and€his€trial€strategy€with€Marlow.€Ð ü L  ÐHe€was€not€aware€of€any€requirement€that€Marlow€meet€with€his€clients€or€that€he€be€present€at€courtÐ è 8  Ðproceedings€with€them.€€There€was€also€no€requirement€that€he€notify€new€clients€of€the€temporaryÐ Ô$  Ðsuspension€and€subsequent€reinstatement€of€his€law€license,€or€that€he€inform€them€he€was€requiredÐ À  Ðto€practice€under€the€supervision€of€a€mentor.€€The€petitioner€did€not€ask€him€about€the€status€of€hisÐ ¬ü  Ðlicense,€but,€had€he€done€so,€trial€counsel€would€have€provided€him€that€information.€€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€his€defense€strategy€was€to€attack€the€credibility€of€the€confidentialÐ pÀ Ðinformant€by€attempting€to€show€that€he€was€cooperating€out€of€self„interest,€in€the€anticipation€ofÐ \¬ Ðreceiving€a€lighter€sentence€for€drug€charges€that€were€pending€against€him,€and€by€using€his€criminalÐ H˜ Ðhistory€to€impeach€his€testimony.€€In€addition,€he€attempted€to€show€the€jury€that€Agent€Biele€hadÐ 4„ Ðno€direct€knowledge€of€the€drug€transactions,€but€was€instead€relying€on€information€relayed€to€himÐ  p Ðby€the€confidential€informant.€€Trial€counsel€admitted€his€error€in€failing€to€object€to€the€admissionÐ  \ Ðof€the€scales,€testifying,€€ð ðThe€introduction€of€the€scales,€I€must€admit,€just€got€by€me.€€I€made€a€flat„Ð øH Ðout€mistake.ðð€€His€memory€was€that€the€petitioner€first€informed€him€that€the€scales€were€not€foundÐ ä4 Ðin€his€car€during€Director€Laneððs€testimony.€€However,€because€the€State€made€no€attempt€to€tie€theÐ Ð  Ðscales€to€the€petitionerððs€activities€on€February€17€or€18,€he€did€not€think€the€evidence€advanced€theÐ ¼  ÐStateððs€case€or€harmed€the€petitioner.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€the€petitioner€left€the€courthouse€before€he€had€the€opportunity€toÐ €Ð Ðdiscuss€the€Stateððs€case€with€him,€or€the€possibility€of€either€the€petitioner€or€his€wife€taking€theÐ l¼ Ðstand€in€the€petitionerððs€defense.€€He€said€that€his€decision€not€to€put€the€petitionerððs€wife€on€theÐ X ¨ Ðstand€was€based€in€part€on€his€prior€conversations€with€her,€and€in€part€on€the€fact€that€she€wasÐ D!” Ðarrested€with€the€petitioner€and€alleged€by€the€confidential€informant€to€have€accompanied€theÐ 0"€  Ðpetitioner€as€he€delivered€drugs.€€Trial€counsel€was€satisfied€that€he€thoroughly€investigated€andÐ #l! Ðprepared€the€case€for€trial.€€He€believed€his€trial€strategy€of€attacking€the€credibility€of€theÐ $X" Ðconfidential€informant€proved€successful,€as€evidenced€by€the€not€guilty€verdicts€on€the€first€twoÐ ô$D # Ðcounts€of€the€indictment.€à  àÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€on€cross„examination€that€his€law€license€was€suspended€for€his€failureÐ ¸'#& Ðto€respond€to€a€complaint€lodged€by€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility.€€He€acknowledged€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€order€reinstating€his€license€required€that€Marlow€co„sign€all€of€his€pleadings€and€court€filings,Ð )à$( Ðand€that€he€had€signed€Marlowððs€name,€ð ðby€permission,ðð€to€three€evidentiary€motions€he€filed€in€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðpetitionerððs€case€the€day€before€his€trial.€€He€testified,€however,€that€he€had€discussed€the€motionsÐ h+¸&* Ðwith€Marlow,€and€that€he€signed€the€documents€with€Marlowððs€full€knowledge€and€permission.€€InÐ ° Ðresponse€to€a€question€by€the€trial€court,€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€first€learned€of€the€existenceÐ œì Ðof€the€scales€prior€to€the€start€of€the€trial,€sometime€in€August.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àCharles€High,€disciplinary€counsel€for€the€Tennessee€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility,Ð `° Ðtestified€that€trial€counsel€was€under€no€duty,€under€either€the€March€30,€1999,€order€or€the€Rules€ofÐ L œ ÐProfessional€Responsibility,€to€inform€new€clients€of€the€previous€suspension€and€reinstatement€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðhis€law€license.€€Referring€to€the€order€of€reinstatement,€he€testified€that€he€ð ðwould€think€this€orderÐ $ t Ðsays€that€co„sign€means€co„sign.ðð€€However,€he€agreed€that€it€would€make€a€difference€if€trial€counselÐ  ` Ðhad€gone€over€the€motions€with€his€mentor€before€receiving€permission€to€sign€them€on€his€behalf.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àTrial€counselððs€mentor,€Robert€Lee€Marlow,€testified€that€he€had€been€licensed€to€practiceÐ Ô$  Ðlaw€since€1980,€and€that€the€main€focus€of€his€practice€was€criminal€law.€€Pursuant€to€the€March€30,Ð À  Ð1999,€order€reinstating€trial€counselððs€law€license,€he€acted€as€trial€counselððs€practicing€monitor€forÐ ¬ü  Ðone€year,€discussing€his€cases€with€him,€and€co„signing€all€pleadings€and€motions.€€During€that€time,Ð ˜è  Ðhe€and€trial€counsel€worked€out€of€the€same€office€and€shared€a€secretary€and€receptionist.€€He€wasÐ „Ô  Ðaware€of€trial€counselððs€representation€of€the€petitioner,€and€remembered€having€briefly€discussedÐ pÀ Ðthe€case€with€him.€€He€had€no€memory€of€the€specific€pleadings€filed€in€the€case.€€However,€heÐ \¬ Ðtestified€that€he€had€given€trial€counsel€permission€to€sign€his€name€to€routine€motions,€and€that€heÐ H˜ Ðbelieved€he€had€written€a€letter€to€that€effect€to€trial€counsel,€as€well€as€to€the€Board€of€ProfessionalÐ 4„ ÐResponsibility.€€Marlow€said€that€he€and€trial€counsel€usually€discussed€which€motions€would€beÐ  p Ðfiled€beforehand,€and€that€trial€counsel€signed€his€name€by€permission€only€to€those€motions€ofÐ  \ Ðwhich€he€had€previously€been€made€aware.Ð øH ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€the€petition,€concludingÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€petitioner€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€demonstrating€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€Ð ¼  ÐSpecifically,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€trial€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€scales€wasÐ ¨ø Ðòòóóð ðprobable€error,ðð€but€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€demonstrating€that€counselððsÐ ”ä Ðdeficiency€in€this€regard€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€his€trial.€€With€respect€to€all€other€allegations€ofÐ €Ð Ðineffective€assistance,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€trial€counselððs€performance€fell€withinÐ l¼ Ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@òò&ìàòòò òANALYSISˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌó óóóÔ‡X!XXX!Ôà  àThe€petitionerððs€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€finding€thatÐ $X" Ðhe€received€the€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€He€contends€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient€forÐ ô$D # Ðfailing€to€object€to€the€introduction€of€the€digital€scales,€on€the€basis€that€they€were€not€found€in€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðcar€and€were€not€relevant€to€the€charges€pending€against€him.€€He€asserts€that€trial€counselððs€failureÐ Ì&"% Ðto€object€to€the€scales€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€his€trial,€arguing€that€the€State€introduced€the€scalesÐ ¸'#& Ðin€an€attempt€to€show€that€he€was€a€dealer€and€packager€of€drugs,€and€that€ð ð[s]uch€evidence€shouldÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbe€deemed€prejudicial€in€a€trial€where€the€defendant€is€charged€with€delivering€a€controlledÐ )à$( Ðsubstance.ðð€€The€petitioner€additionally€asserts€that€the€evidence€shows€that€trial€counsel€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðpracticing€law€in€violation€of€the€January€and€March€orders€suspending€and€reinstating€his€license,Ð h+¸&* Ðand€that€he€deceived€the€petitioner€regarding€the€status€of€his€law€license.€€The€petitioner€argues€thatÐ ° Ðthe€post„conviction€court€should€have€considered€the€cumulative€effect€of€trial€counselððs€allegedÐ œì Ðtransgressions€to€determine€that€trial€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistance€at€his€trial.€€The€StateÐ ˆØ Ðresponds€by€arguing€that€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€err€in€finding€that€the€petitioner€failed€toÐ tÄ Ðmeet€his€burden€of€demonstrating€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€agree€with€the€State.€Ð `° ÐÌÔ#†X!XXX!Œ^#Ôà@i i ìàò òI.€€Post„Conviction€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clear€andÐ  ` Ðconvincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€When€an€evidentiary€hearing€is€held€Ð ü L  Ðin€the€post„conviction€setting,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unlessÐ è 8  Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);Ð Ô$  ÐòòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996).€€Where€appellate€review€involves€purely€factualÐ À  Ðissues,€the€appellate€court€should€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997).€€However,€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€the€factsÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€case€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€òòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,€96Ð „Ô  Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€The€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€which€€presents€mixed€questions€of€factÐ pÀ Ðand€law,€is€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€given€only€to€the€post„convictionÐ \¬ Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001);€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€atÐ H˜ Ð461.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà@Ý Ý ìàò òII.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselˆÐ  \ ÐÌó óà  àTo€establish€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€to€showÐ ä4 Ðboth€that€trial€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€that€counselððs€deficient€performanceÐ Ð  Ðprejudiced€the€outcome€of€the€proceeding.€€òòÔ‡X!XXX!ÔStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.Ð ¼  Ð2052,€2064,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¨ø ÐApp.€1997)òòóó€(noting€that€same€standard€for€determining€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€isÐ ”ä Ðapplied€in€federal€cases€also€applies€in€Tennessee).òòóó€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€is€a€two„prong€test:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFirst,€the€defendant€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€wasÐ X ¨ Ðdeficient.€€This€requires€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€seriousÐ D!” Ðthat€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Second,€the€defendant€mustÐ #l! Ðshow€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€ThisÐ $X" Ðrequires€showing€that€counselððs€errors€were€so€serious€as€to€depriveÐ ô$D # Ðthe€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€result€is€reliable.Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌòòóó466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€deficient€performance€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€that€ð ðcounselððs€acts€orÐ )à$( Ðomissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailingÐ |*Ì%) Ðprofessional€norms.ðð€òòóó€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð h+¸&* Ðat€688,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975)).€€The€prejudice€prongÐ ° Ðof€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€a€reasonable€probability,€òòi.eóó.,€a€ð ðprobability€sufficient€to€undermineÐ œì Ðconfidence€in€the€outcome,ðð€that€ð ðbut€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÐ ˆØ Ðwould€have€been€different.ðð€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€Ô#†X!XXX!ñl#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!ÔÐ tÄ ÐÌÔ#†X!XXX!6u#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ôà  àBecause€both€prongs€of€the€test€must€be€satisfied,€a€failure€to€show€either€deficientÐ L œ Ðperformance€or€resulting€prejudice€results€in€a€failure€to€establish€the€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ðat€€580.òòóó€€For€this€reason,€courts€need€not€approach€the€òòStricklandóó€test€in€a€specific€order€or€evenÐ $ t Ðð ðaddress€both€components€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€on€one.ðð€Ð  ` Ð466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370€(stating€that€ð ðfailure€to€proveÐ ü L  Ðeither€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffective€assistanceÐ è 8  Ðclaimðð).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@ä ä ìàò òA.€€Failure€to€Object€to€Drug€Scales€ó óˆà  àÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistance€by€failing€to€objectÐ „Ô  Ðto€the€introduction€of€the€scales,€which€he€asserts€were€irrelevant€to€any€issue€at€his€trial,€and€highlyÐ pÀ Ðprejudicial€to€his€case.€€In€considering€this€claim,€the€post„conviction€court€first€noted€that€theÐ \¬ Ðpetitionerððs€testimony€that€the€scales€were€not€found€in€his€car€was€not€corroborated€by€any€otherÐ H˜ Ðwitness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€court€then€made€the€following€findings€of€fact€andÐ 4„ Ðconclusions€of€law:€Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àFinally,€petitioner€complains€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€object€toÐ øH Ðthe€introduction€of€a€set€of€scales.€€These€scales€were€not€taken€fromÐ ä4 Ðthe€defendant,€but€from€his€girlfriend.€€The€introduction€of€thisÐ Ð  Ðevidence€presents€the€greatest€dilemma€for€the€Court.€€As€to€theÐ ¼  Ðdefendant,€the€scales€were€probably€inadmissible€and€came€intoÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€without€object.€€Trial€counsel€candidly€admitted€error.€Ð ”ä ÐHowever,€not€all€errors€equate€to€the€necessity€of€a€new€trial.€Ð €Ð ÐPetitioner€argues€that€the€introduction€of€these€scales€were€per€seÐ l¼ Ðprejudicial€so€as€to€convince€the€jury€that€he€was€a€dealer€in€narcotics.€Ð X ¨ ÐHowever,€the€results€of€this€trial€does€[sic]€not€attest€to€his€argument.€Ð D!” ÐSince€the€petitioner€was€acquitted€of€two€of€the€three€charges€by€theÐ 0"€  Ðjury,€it€is€apparent€that€gave€little,€if€any€weight,€to€the€theory€thatÐ #l! Ðpossession€of€scales€equates€ipso€facto€to€drug€dealing,€else€the€juryÐ $X" Ðwould€have€not€returned€verdicts€of€not€guilty€in€counts€one€and€twoÐ ô$D # Ðof€the€indictment.€€Viewed€in€the€light€of€the€stateððs€overwhelmingÐ à%0!$ Ðother€evidence,€any€prejudiced€[sic]€that€occurred€to€the€petitionerÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€harmless.и'#&` x` x ÐÌÔ#†X!XXX!Žu#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ôà  àThe€record€supports€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€and€conclusions€regarding€thisÐ )à$( Ðclaim.€€First,€the€petitioner€did€not€meet€his€burden€of€showing€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðtrial€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€by€virtue€of€his€failure€to€object€to€the€Stateððs€introductionÐ h+¸&* Ðof€the€scales.€€Ô#†X!XXX!È#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!ÔAs€the€post„conviction€court€noted,€the€petitionerððs€testimony€was€the€only€evidenceÐ ° Ðin€support€of€his€claim€that€the€scales€were€not€found€in€his€car.€€Agent€Biele€and€Director€Lane€bothÐ œì Ðtestified€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€that€the€scales€were€found€in€the€petitionerððs€vehicle€when€theyÐ ˆØ Ðarrested€him€outside€Lewisburg€on€February€19,€1999.€€Agent€Biele€specifically€testified€that€theÐ tÄ Ðpetitioner€was€alone€in€his€car€when€arrested,€and€neither€officer€mentioned€anything€about€theÐ `° Ðpetitionerððs€wife€having€been€stopped€at€the€same€time€in€another€car.€€The€petitioner€asserted€at€theÐ L œ Ðevidentiary€hearing€that€trial€counsel€sent€his€wife€out€during€the€trial€to€get€a€copy€of€her€arrestÐ 8 ˆ Ðwarrant,€which,€according€to€the€petitioner,€proved€that€the€scales€were€found€in€her€car.€€However,Ð $ t Ðthe€petitioner€did€not€introduce€the€arrest€warrant€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€and€trial€counsel,Ð  ` Ðalthough€conceding€he€erred€in€failing€to€object€to€the€scales,€did€not€explain€the€circumstancesÐ ü L  Ðsurrounding€the€arrest€of€the€petitionerððs€wife,€or€testify€that€he€had€any€information€that€the€scalesÐ è 8  Ðwere€not€found€in€the€petitionerððs€car,€other€than€that€which€was€verbally€communicated€to€him€atÐ Ô$  Ðtrial€by€the€petitioner.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àMoreover,€according€to€trial€counselððs€€testimony,€the€petitioner€did€not€inform€him€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðscales€were€not€found€in€his€car€until€Director€Lane€had€testified,€which€the€trial€transcript€revealsÐ „Ô  Ðoccurred€after€the€scales€had€already€been€introduced€and€made€an€exhibit€in€the€case.Ô#†X!XXX!“ƒ#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô€€Trial€counselÐ pÀ Ðsaid€that€the€State€did€not€attempt€to€link€the€scales€to€the€petitionerððs€transactions€on€February€17Ð \¬ Ðor€18,€and€he€did€not€think€the€scales€advanced€the€Stateððs€case.€€€He€explained€his€thought€processesÐ H˜ Ðat€the€time:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àThere€was€no€attempt€made€at€the€time€of€trial,€through€StateððsÐ  \ Ðwitnesses,€to€tie€the€scales€in€any€way€to€[the€petitionerððs]€activity€onÐ øH Ðeither€the€17th€of€February€or€the€18th€of€February.€€And,Ð ä4 Ðparenthetically,€he€was€not€even€charged€with€possession€of€the€scalesÐ Ð  Ðon€the€19th€of€February.м ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àWhen€[the€petitioner]€told€me€that€the€scales€did€not€come€fromÐ ”ä Ðhis€car,€this€was€at€a€time€when€[the€petitioner]€had€been€sitting€nextÐ €Ð Ðto€me€throughout€most€of€the€testimony,€all€of€it.€€And€he€would€sayÐ l¼ Ðthings,€and€he€would€essentially€interrupt€my€train€of€thought€and€myÐ X ¨ Ðconcentration.€€I€tried€to€keep€him€as€calm€as€possible.€€I€said,€ð ðLetÐ D!” Ðme€just€work€on€this.€€Just€settle€down.ðð€Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àSo€when€he€made€the€statement€that€the€scales€did€not€come€fromÐ $X" Ðhis€car,€I€literally€had€to€turn€to€him€for€a€second.€€And€I€looked€atÐ ô$D # Ðhim,€and€I€thought€back€to€how€the€State€had€tied€the€scales€in,€if€atÐ à%0!$ Ðall,€to€any€other€activity.€€And€I€didnððt€see€where€they€tied€it€in.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà  àWhen€assessing€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€court€must€indulge€in€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðstrong€presumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€fell€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professionalÐ )à$( Ðassistance,€òòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€not€second„guess€the€tacticalÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€they€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequateÐ h+¸&* Ðpreparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).Ô#†X!XXX!ýŠ#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ô€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€he€metÐ ° Ðwith€the€petitioner€six€or€seven€times€prior€to€trial,€reviewed€the€transcript€of€the€preliminary€hearing,Ð œì Ðand€met€with€the€assistant€district€attorney€to€receive€and€review€discovery€in€the€case,€including€theÐ ˆØ Ðaudiotapes€of€the€alleged€drug€transactions,€the€criminal€history€of€the€confidential€informant,€andÐ tÄ Ðthe€statements€of€the€arresting€officers.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€trial€counsel€adequatelyÐ `° Ðinvestigated€and€prepared€the€case,€and€the€record€supports€this€finding.€€We€conclude,€therefore,€that€Ð L œ Ðtrial€counselððs€failure€to€take€any€action€with€regard€to€the€scales€did€not€constitute€a€deficiency€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðperformance.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€even€if€the€petitioner€had€been€successful€in€showing€that€trial€counsel€wasÐ ü L  Ðdeficient€for€failing€to€object€to€the€scales,€he€still€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€showing€by€clear€andÐ è 8  Ðconvincing€evidence€that€he€was€prejudiced€as€a€result€of€the€admission€of€the€scales.€€As€the€post„Ð Ô$  Ðconviction€court€observed,€there€was€overwhelming€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€guilt€on€count€threeÐ À  Ðof€the€indictment,€including€testimony€by€Agent€Biele€that€he€observed€the€February€18€€transactionsÐ ¬ü  Ðbetween€the€petitioner€and€the€confidential€informant,€and€testimony€by€Director€Lane€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðpetitioner€admitted€after€his€arrest€that€he€had€been€involved€in€the€delivery€of€drugs€in€the€countyÐ „Ô  Ðfor€several€of€the€preceding€months.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€expressed€his€opinionÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€drug€scales€prejudiced€the€jury€against€him,€causing€them€to€believe€the€testimony€of€theÐ \¬ Ðofficers€on€count€three€of€the€indictment,€when€they€Ô#†X!XXX!R”#ÔÔ‡X!XXX!Ôdid€not€find€them€believable€on€counts€one€andÐ H˜ Ðtwo.€€The€petitionerððs€theory€ignores€the€fact€that€the€juryððs€deliberations€on€all€three€counts€occurredÐ 4„ Ðafter€the€introduction€of€the€scales.€€A€far€more€likely€scenario€is€that€trial€counselððs€attacks€on€theÐ  p Ðcredibility€of€the€confidential€informant€proved€successful,€causing€the€jury€to€find€that€hisÐ  \ Ðtestimony,€alone,€was€not€sufficient€to€convict€the€petitioner€on€counts€one€and€two€of€the€indictment,Ð øH Ðwhich€charged€the€petitioner€with€the€sale€and€delivery€of€cocaine€on€February€17.€€In€light€of€theÐ ä4 Ðstrong€evidence€against€the€petitioner€on€count€three,€it€is€unlikely€that€the€scales€affected€theÐ Ð  Ðoutcome€of€the€case.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌÔ#†X!XXX!Vœ#Ôò òà@… … ìàB.€€Failure€to€Inform€Petitioner€of€Status€of€Law€LicenseˆÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àó óAs€further€support€for€his€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€alleges€thatÐ l¼ Ðtrial€counselððs€cross„examination€testimony€made€it€ð ðapparent€[trial€counsel]€had€in€fact€beenÐ X ¨ Ðpracticing€law€in€violation€of€the€January€and€March€Orders€and€deceived€[the€petitioner]€about€theÐ D!” Ðstatus€of€his€license.ðð€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àDuring€the€portion€of€testimony€cited€by€the€petitioner€in€support€of€this€allegation,€trialÐ $X" Ðcounsel€testified€that€he€had€been€retained€by€a€defendant€in€a€federal€case€in€November€1998,€andÐ ô$D # Ðhe€completed€that€trial€approximately€three€weeks€before€the€petitionerððs€trial€began.€€He€said€heÐ à%0!$ Ðinformed€that€client€of€the€suspension€of€his€law€license€when€it€occurred,€and€of€its€subsequentÐ Ì&"% Ðreinstatement.€€During€the€period€of€his€suspension,€Marlow€represented€the€client,€and€trial€counselÐ ¸'#& Ðdid€not€practice€law.€€On€direct€examination,€trial€counsel€testified€that€the€petitioner€did€not€ask€himÐ ¤(ô#' Ðabout€the€status€of€his€law€license,€and€he€did€not€volunteer€the€information€about€his€priorÐ )à$( Ðsuspension€and€reinstatement€because€he€was€not€required€to€do€so.€€Charles€High,€disciplinaryÐ |*Ì%) Ðcounsel€for€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility,€confirmed€that€trial€counsel€was€under€no€dutyÐ h+¸&* Ðto€inform€new€clients€about€the€previous€suspension€of€his€law€license.€€Both€trial€counsel€andÐ ° ÐMarlow€testified€that€trial€counsel€discussed€his€cases€with€Marlow€in€accordance€with€theÐ œì Ðrequirements€of€the€order€reinstating€his€license,€and€that€he€received€Marlowððs€permission€beforeÐ ˆØ Ðsigning€Marlowððs€name€to€the€three€motions€he€signed€ð ðby€permissionðð€in€the€petitionerððs€case.€Ð tÄ ÐAlthough€Marlow€did€not€meet€with€the€petitioner€or€attend€his€court€proceedings,€such€attendanceÐ `° Ðwas€not€included€in€the€conditions€imposed€on€trial€counsel€in€the€March€30,€1999,€order€reinstatingÐ L œ Ðhis€license.€€Thus,€there€was€no€evidence€that€trial€counsel€either€deceived€the€petitioner€about€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðstatus€of€his€law€license,€or€that€he€practiced€law€in€violation€of€the€orders€suspending€and€reinstatingÐ $ t Ðhis€license.Ð  ` ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àóóó óHaving€reviewed€the€entire€record€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÐ À  Ðmeet€his€burden€of€demonstrating€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€Ð ¬ü  ÐAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE