ÿWPCH …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÂv~ßvÓ] D30 0@c AO£Æò 0D¸ D/ü B+˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-  E  E  DVÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌNovember€4,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€}XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓMELVIN€LEE€BURKETT,à àà à)€€€€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9605„CC„00202à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellant,ò òà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€HUMPHREYS€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€HON.€ALLEN€W.€WALLACE,€ó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)€€€€€€€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó ó€€€€€€€Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àò òà à)€€€€€€€(POST„CONVICTION)€Ìó óÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òJANET€S.€KELLEYà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó ó106€East€Mainà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌWaverly,€TN€37185€Ìà àà àà àà àò òà àà àCLINTON€J.€MORGAN€Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òC.€PHILLIP€BIVENS€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òGEORGE€C.€SEXTONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHumphreys€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWaverly,€TN€37185ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€ °ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Petitioner,€Melvin€Burkett,€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief.€€On€February€21,€1991,€Petitioner€was€convicted€of€twoÏcounts€of€aggravated€rape€following€a€jury€trial€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€HumphreysÏCounty.€€He€was€sentenced€to€twenty€(20)€years€on€the€first€count€and€fifteenÏ(15)€years€on€the€second€count,€to€be€served€consecutively.€€This€court€affirmedÏthe€€convictions€and€sentences€following€direct€appeal€by€Petitioner.€œòòState€v.ÏMelvin€Burkettóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9110„CC„00303,€Humphreys€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Oct.€8,€1992)€(Rule€11€application€denied,€concurring€inÏresults€only,€Feb.€16,€1993).€€Petitioner€timely€filed€a€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief€and€following€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€Petition.€ÏIn€this€appeal,€Petitioner€argues€that€he€was€denied€the€Sixth€Amendment€rightÏto€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€In€addition,€Petitioner€asserts€that€theÏjudgment€is€void€as€the€indictment€failed€to€contain€the€proper€mens€rea€for€theÏoffense€of€aggravated€rape.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àð ðIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€ÏòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Furthermore,Íthe€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€hearings€ð ðare€conclusive€on€appeal€unlessÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666ÏS.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€The€trial€judge€found€that€there€wasÏð ðno€basisðð€for€Petitionerððs€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€by€his€trial€counsel€andÏthat€Petitionerððs€case€was€ð ðwell„tried.ðð€€ÌÌà àà@ àòòIneffective€assistance€of€counselóóÌÌà àIn€reviewing€the€Petitionerððs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€thisÏcourt€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€rendered€by€theÏattorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€aÏclaim€of€ineffective€counsel,€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððsÏrepresentation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probabilityÏthat€but€for€counselððs€error€the€result€of€the€proceedings€would€have€beenÏdifferent.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,Ï708€S.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Petitioner€testified€that€trial€counsel€failed€toÏkeep€him€informed€and€did€not€do€any€investigation€of€the€case.€€He€alleged€thatÍcounsel€failed€to€return€his€telephone€calls€and€directed€her€secretary€to€informÏPetitioner€that€she€did€not€need€to€speak€with€him.€€Petitioner€also€claimed€thatÏcounsel€failed€to€offer€into€evidence€certain€medical€records€which€PetitionerÏbelieved€to€be€exculpatory€evidence,€as€well€as€failed€to€object€to€hearsayÏtestimony€at€trial.€€Petitioner€claimed€that€his€consecutive€sentence€wasÏexcessive.€€Other€grounds€raised€by€the€Petitioner€in€his€pleadings€wereÏdismissed€by€Petitioner€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€also€testified€at€the€hearing,€and€she€stated€that€inÏpreparation€for€Petitionerððs€trial€she€filed€a€motion€for€discovery€from€the€StateÏand€received€all€discoverable€information.€€After€talking€with€Petitioner,€she€wasÏprepared€to€assert€an€alibi€defense,€therefore€she€interviewed€and€subpoenaedÏall€witnesses€that€she€was€made€aware€of€prior€to€trial.€€Regarding€PetitionerððsÏclaim€for€failure€to€confer€with€him,€counsel€had€problems€getting€Petitioner€toÏmeet€with€her.€€While€counsel€did€not€want€to€get€her€client€in€trouble,€PetitionerÏwas€not€cooperating€with€her€and€she€approached€the€trial€court€regarding€thisÏissue.€€A€show€cause€motion€was€issued€and€Petitioner€was€brought€into€courtÏshortly€before€trial.€€Petitioner€was€instructed€by€the€trial€court€to€cooperate€withÏcounsel€in€preparation€of€his€defense.€€Following€that€instruction,€counsel€wasÏable€to€meet€with€Petitioner€on€three€(3)€or€four€(4)€occasions€prior€to€trial.ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€testified€that€she€considered€the€medical€report,€whichÏPetitioner€claimed€to€be€exculpatory€evidence,€to€be€at€best€ð ðnegative€evidence.ðð€ÏThe€report€contained€the€findings€of€a€physician€who€examined€the€victim€€andÏfound€that€there€was€no€indication€of€any€trauma€to€the€vagina.€€While€counselÏadmitted€that€this€portion€of€the€physicianððs€report€was€not€detrimental€toÏPetitionerððs€case,€she€also€realized€that€the€report€would€not€help€the€PetitionerÏas€it€would€ð ðhave€given€the€jury€one€more€doctor€to€say€that€this€is€what€[theÏvictim]€told€me€and€it€would€have€given€the€State€one€more€doctor€saying€this€isÏwhat€I€found.ðð€€After€interviewing€the€physician€by€€telephone€and€reading€hisÏfindings,€counsel€believed€the€physician€would€also€have€testified€that€theÏvictimððs€hymen€was€not€intact.€€Trial€counsel€explained€that€the€issue€of€theÏsocial€workerððs€hearsay€testimony,€which€she€objected€to€at€trial,€€has€beenÏpreviously€determined€on€appeal€by€a€panel€of€this€court€which€affirmed€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision€to€admit€the€testimony€as€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€stated€in€his€findings€of€fact€that€the€petition€had€noÏsubstance,€and€he€did€not€know€ð ðmuch€else€that€[trial€counsel]€could€have€doneÏthat€she€did€not€doðð€regarding€investigation€of€Petitionerððs€case.€€Specifically,€theÏtrial€court€recalled€that€he€had€to€admonish€Petitioner€in€order€to€get€him€to€meetÏwith€trial€counsel.€€€€After€review€of€the€court€file€and€listening€to€the€evidence,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€there€was€no€exculpatory€evidence.€€The€remaining€issuesÍwere€found€to€be€previously€determined€by€a€panel€of€this€court€on€direct€appealÏfrom€the€convictions.€€ÌÌà àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€briefs€in€this€matter,€this€courtÏfinds€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ÏFrom€the€record,€it€is€apparent€that€trial€counsel€did€all€that€she€could€in€light€ofÏPetitionerððs€failure€to€cooperate€and€participate€in€his€own€defense.€€As€far€asÏcounselððs€defense€strategies,€this€court€should€not€second„guess€trial€counselððsÏtactical€and€strategic€choices€unless€those€choices€were€uninformed€because€ofÏinadequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€ÏCounsel€should€not€be€deemed€to€have€been€ineffective€merely€because€aÏdifferent€procedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliams€v.ÏStateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,€280€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€all€other€matters€raised€by€Petitioner€wereÏpreviously€determined,€and€he€properly€dismissed€such€claims.€€òòSeeóó€òòCaruthersÏv.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€69„70€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€This€issue€has€noÏmerit.ÌÌà@ àòòInsufficiency€of€indictmentóóÌÌà àPetitioner€argues€the€judgment€against€him€is€void€due€to€the€failure€toÏallege€a€particular€mens€rea€for€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape€in€his€indictment.€ÏHe€bases€his€argument€on€a€recent€case€of€this€court,€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Hillóó,ÏC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00267,€Wayne€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏNashville,€June€20,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€the€òòHillóóÏcase,€the€defendant€was€indicted€for€aggravated€rape€and€convicted€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery,€but€the€indictment€contained€no€allegation€of€aÏrequisite€mens€rea€as€he€was€charged€with€ð ðunlawful€sexual€penetration€of€aÏvictim.ðð€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Petitioner€was€indicted€and€convicted€ofÏaggravated€rape,€and€the€indictment€read€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àMelvin€Burkett€.€.€.€did€unlawfully€sexually€penetrate€.€.€.€a€femaleÏchild€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age,€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€€Ï39„13„502,€all€of€which€is€against€the€peace€and€dignity€of€theÏState€of€Tennessee.ÌÌÓÓPetitioner€alleges€that€the€failure€of€the€indictment€to€state€that€Petitioner€actedÏð ðintentionally,€knowingly€or€recklesslyðð€is€fatally€deficient,€and€PetitionerððsÏconviction€should€be€reversed€and€dismissed.€€The€aggravated€rape€statute€inÏforce€at€the€time€the€Petitioner€was€indicted€provided,€in€pertinent€part,€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àAggravated€rape€is€unlawful€sexual€penetration€of€a€victim€by€theÏdefendant€.€.€.€[where]€the€victim€is€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€ofÏage.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„502(a)(4)(1991€Repl.).Ìà àÌThis€court€has€held€that€nothing€in€our€criminal€code€requires€an€indictment€toÏallege€the€mens€rea€of€an€offense€unless€the€statute€specifically€states€theÏmens€rea€as€an€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€Disonóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ï03C01„9602„CC„00051,€slip€op.€at€17,€Sevier€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€Jan.€31,€1997)€(Rule€11€application€filed€March€14,€1997).€€AÏdefendant€must€be€provided€notice€of€the€elements€of€the€offense€€whichÏð ðsufficiently€apprise[€]€the€accused€of€the€offense€he€is€called€upon€to€defend.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Tateóó,€912€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Therefore,€theÏallegation€of€criminal€conduct€in€an€indictment€is€constitutionally€adequate€as€aÏform€of€notice€to€the€defendant€and€mens€rea€is€not€an€essential€element€of€theÏoffense.€€òòState€v.€James€Julian,€IIóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9511„CV„00371,€slip€op.Ïat€42,€Loudon€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€29,€1997);€òòcitingóó€òòDisonóó,Ïslip€op.€at€17;€òòState€v.€Phillip€Griffis€and€Melissa€Rogersóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9506„CC„00201,€slip€op.€at€16,€Maury€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏApr.€30,€1997).€€Upon€review,€we€find€the€indictment€for€aggravated€rape€asÏcharged€in€the€indictment€in€Petitionerððs€case€was€constitutionally€sufficient€andÏvalid.€€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌÓ  Óà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÇÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________Ì€JOE€G.€RILEY,€Judge