ÿWPC» åx=ÃÖx$wÁ€çøš3µ€¶¸m†z sv±–Œ£?+\ ç©ü!ª ‹â\ݲçíüiœp¸yZ†¡XL[MܶbgûO»÷–º¹üƒ’ùSÙåg-A`îlÁ P÷#¼ÿŸ¿ÖëŸ~û¤ÞýÞ‘¸ŠEìõÊz D»‡Æýb8…Xºå™`‰ì4浂TNÑÅóê-©µ-ºŠº…¸ÆÞ_AÅÑËì¿ÞÖb¿qP-ŒL½  qûìÒhŠ’]à]HV·òÈlKÆö¸'?ë©\›%˜[®»s)¢º ~3ø¤éÆó5T ñ=xî, 5{Þ쨴P5|óõ.?H$-éÕãFù€†=ŸjS;{6vƒc€"Zî\y¤jAŸ™¾ïTE¹¤4ŠuþPçß]‡Ø¹¿«ÀÁ|šÖ»b*±8˜-zìëœXü*ù•-×ï'mR‹&Cmÿž@°{ô1÷±•ˆkòÅ-î?ÝÒ9h†¼ É™à`Ÿ€Ùx{ó^éœ!ÛV@³¹zC¦ÌM‰47êž&ÑTîè‚ ˆÕeM'(„Äz™´¼ *oÒ+óèúL_åìUÔ r\'!)tå&eqÁB¬á[R¡Ûn5bkLdOb#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 1‡÷N~~ 72€E² 1u´ 72) 0c[ 1‡¾ 72E 1‡w 72þ 1‡0 72· 1‡é 72p¢ ªªªªªªªªªªªb°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° 0븸¸¸ B££ 0¤À D3d D-— 0KÄÄ ASÆb 0¤( 0DÌ A«˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular•+â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptJr†*€X©k3T  3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ª½CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(º½CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList5A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. A. H- ù-(|G2Æï$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûeò»»Ô d(|3G€$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G€$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ZM»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ZM»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î^<ZMÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ZM»îî^< #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€June€20,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼ZMÔÌò òÔ#†¼ZM»XX#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€QUINTON€A.€CAGEòòóóÔ‡XX»¼ZMÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€40000140€€€€€€James€E.€Walton,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01989„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€August€7,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXXÔÔ#†¼ZM»XX•#ÔÔ€XX»¼ZMÔAt€the€conclusion€of€a€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Petitioner,Ð xÈ  ÐQuinton€Cageððs,€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€Petitioner€presents€one€appellate€issue:Ð d´ ÐWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€Petitioner€received€effective€assistance€of€counselÐ P  Ðat€trial?€€After€a€review€of€the€entire€record,€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€applicable€law,€we€affirm€theÐ <Œ Ðtrial€courtððs€judgment.€Ô#†XXXXÃ#ÔÐ (x ÐÓ·ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓL.€Terry€Lafferty,€Sr.€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.,óó€andÐ Ø( ÐòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌGregory€D.€Smith,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Quinton€A.€Cage.Ð œì ÐÌMichael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Jennifer€L.€Smith,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€and€ArthurÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔBieberÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð `° ÐÓÍÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ 8!ˆ  ÐòòóóÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXXÔÓ€ÓÌÓ€Óà  àOn€December€2,€1994,€a€Montgomery€County€jury€convicted€the€Petitioner€of€aggravatedÐ †#Ö# Ðrape,€especially€aggravated€kidnaping,€aggravated€robbery,€attempted€aggravated€robbery,€andÐ r$Â$ Ðreckless€endangerment€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€At€the€conclusion€of€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trialÐ ^%® % Ðcourt€imposed€sentences€of€25€years€for€aggravated€rape,€20€years€for€especially€aggravatedÐ J&š!& Ðkidnaping,€8€years€for€aggravated€robbery,€3€years€for€attempted€aggravated€robbery,€and€2€years€forÐ 6'†"' Ðreckless€endangerment.€€All€sentences€were€to€be€served€consecutively€except€for€the€attemptedÐ "(r#( Ðaggravated€robbery.€€Upon€direct€appeal,€these€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmed€by€thisÐ )^$) ÐCourt.€€òòState€v.€Quinton€Cage,€óóNo.€01C01„9605„CC„00179€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999),€òòperm.€app.Ð ú)J%* Ðdenied,€óó(Tenn.€1999).€Ð æ*6&+ ÐÌà  àFrom€this€opinion,€we€set€forth€the€salient€facts€surrounding€the€Petitionerððs€convictions.€Ð ¾,(- ÐÐ ª-ú(.ý Ðà  àOn€April€1,€1994,€the€victim€left€a€retail€store€and€as€she€approached€her€1993€Ford€Explorer,Ð ° Ðshe€was€accosted€by€the€Petitioner.€€The€Petitioner€pointed€a€gun€at€her€and€ordered€her€into€the€car.Ð œì ÐThe€Petitioner€made€her€drive€to€a€bank€where€he€forced€her€to€write€a€check€for€$500€and€presentÐ ˆØ Ðit€for€cash.€€The€victim€wrote€ð ðhelpðð€on€the€bottom€of€the€check.€€Before€the€check€could€be€cashed,Ð tÄ Ðthe€Petitioner€had€the€victim€drive€to€an€isolated€spot€behind€a€building€where€the€PetitionerÐ `° Ðthreatened€to€shoot€the€victim€in€the€leg.€€The€Petitioner€ordered€the€victim€into€the€back€seat,€whereÐ L œ Ðhe€raped€her€and€then€ejaculated.€€The€Petitioner€ordered€the€victim€to€give€him€$350€and€the€keysÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€her€car.€€The€victim€was€able€to€get€out€of€the€car€and€hid€behind€the€barbeque€pit€until€theÐ $ t ÐPetitioner€drove€away€in€her€car.€€The€Petitioner€picked€up€a€friend,€Robert€Ô_ÔTurleyÔ_Ô,€and€proceededÐ  ` Ðto€Interstate€24€where€they€were€seen€by€a€Montgomery€County€Sheriff€deputy.€€During€a€high€speedÐ ü L  Ðchase,€the€Petitioner€obtained€speeds€of€over€100€miles€per€hour.€€The€Petitioner€eventually€struckÐ è 8  Ða€guardrail€and€ð ðflippedðð€the€car.€€€Petitioner€told€the€deputy€that€Turley€had€kidnaped€him.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àJoe€Minor€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€testified€that€he€examined€the€rape€kitÐ ¬ü  Ðobtained€from€the€victim€and€compared€the€same€with€a€blood€sample€from€the€Petitioner.€€It€wasÐ ˜è  ÐMinorððs€opinion€that€the€Petitionerððs€DNA€matched€the€rape€kit.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àOn€his€own€behalf,€the€Petitioner€testified€that€he€met€the€victim€in€the€parking€lot€and€sheÐ \¬ Ðinvited€him€into€her€car.€€The€victim€agreed€to€go€with€him€to€their€ð ðlittle€secret€place€in€theÐ H˜ Ðcountryððand€had€consensual€sex€with€him.€€The€Petitioner€testified€that€he€and€the€victim€had€seenÐ 4„ Ðeach€other€approximately€ten€times€prior€this€event.€€The€Petitioner€took€her€car€because€she€slappedÐ  p Ðhim,€but€denied€taking€her€money.€Ô_ÔÐ  \ ÐÔ_ÔÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ  ÓFACTSÐ ä4 ÐÌÓ  Óà  àOn€February€4,€2000,€Petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€the€single€groundÐ ¼  Ðthat€the€trial€court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€try€his€case€in€violation€of€the€United€States€Constitution.Ð ¨ø ÐThe€trial€court€appointed€counsel€to€represent€the€Petitioner€and€set€an€evidentiary€hearing€for€JulyÐ ”ä Ð27,€2000.€€At€the€hearing,€it€was€agreed€between€the€State€and€the€Petitioner,€that€the€petition€forÐ €Ð Ðpost„€conviction€relief€be€orally€amended€to€reflect€an€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ l¼ Ðon€the€sole€issue€of€a€denial€of€an€expert€and€or€funds,€citing€òòState€v.€Barnett,€óó909€S.W.2d€423€(Tenn.Ð X ¨ Ð1993)€violation.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€Petitioner€testified€that€he€and€his€attorney€discussed€obtainingÐ #l! Ðan€expert€for€the€Petitioner€so€that€he€could€have€a€proper€and€fair€trial€because€the€State€had€so€manyÐ $X" Ðexperts€and€he€had€none.€€When€asked€what€a€DNA€test€would€show,€the€Petitioner€responded,€ð ðIÐ ô$D # Ðcouldnððt€tell€you.€€I€donððt€know.ðð€€The€Petitioner,€in€follow„up€questions€on€the€DNA€tests€testified:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àQ.€à0 ` àOkay.€€So,€there€was€a€DNA€test€that€you€were€requesting€that€would€have€shownÐ ¸'#& Ðwhat€sort€of€Ô_ÔspermiasÔ_Ô€was€found,€etc.?Ф(ô#'` (#` (# ÐÌà  àA.€à0 ` àYeah.Ð|*Ì%)` (#` (# ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ€ (н83ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£ÄÝÔ2нÔÚ  ÚQÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝOkay.€€And€do€you€think€that€if€more€detail€had€been€given€as€to€why€that€was€neededÐ ° Ðthat€that€may€have€changed€this€Courtððs€mind€or€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€benefittedÐ œì Ðyour€cases?݃3£Äý݌ЈØ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àA.€à0 ` àNo.€It€wasnððt€needed.Ð`°` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.€à0 ` àOkay.€€Why€do€you€say€it€was€not€needed?Ð8 ˆ` (#` (# ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ (š½88ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£Ñ"ÝÔ2š½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝBecause€I€said€I€had€sex,€but€the€sex€was€consensual.݃3£Ñ" #݌Р`` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àÌÌà  àThe€Petitioner€stated€that€his€counsel€met€with€him€four€to€five€times€prior€to€trial.€€He€wasÐ Ô$  Ðable€to€discuss€with€counsel€any€defenses,€including€the€Barnett€issue.€€When€asked€was€thereÐ À  Ðanything€else€that€he€felt€Mr.€Ô_ÔGoodlettÔ_Ô€either€did€or€didnððt€do€that€handcuffed€him€at€trial,€theÐ ¬ü  ÐPetitioner€testified,€ð ðWell,€he€„„€no.€€I€can't€really€say€he€did.ðð€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àDuring€cross„examination,€the€Petitioner€described€his€encounter€with€the€victim€as€a€loverððsÐ pÀ Ðquarrel.€€As€to€the€necessity€for€a€DNA€test,€the€Petitioner€stated:Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ€ (ª½88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àÝ‚3£P'ÝÔ2ª½ÔÚ  ÚQÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝCould€you€think€of€any€way€that€a€DNA€expert€could€have€helped€you€being€as€thatÐ 4„ Ðwas€the€situation?݃3£P'©'݌Рp` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àA.€à0 ` àThere€was€no€need€for€a€DNA€expert.€€It€was€irrelevant.€ÐøH` (#` (# ÐÌà  àQ.€à0 ` àAnd€why€was€it€irrelevant,€sir?ÐÐ ` (#` (# ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ (º½88ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£,*ÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  Ý€Because€I€testified€that€I€had€sex.€Ýƒ3£,*e*݌Шø` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àMr.€Collier€Ô_ÔGoodlettÔ_Ô,€a€public€defender,€testified€that€he€was€trial€counsel€for€the€Petitioner.Ð €Ð ÐAs€part€of€the€Petitionerððs€defense,€Mr.€Goodlett€filed€a€motion€in€the€trial€court€for€a€DNA€expert.Ð l¼ ÐAfter€a€hearing,€the€motion€was€denied.€€Mr.€Goodlett€was€asked€what€he€hoped€to€accomplish€withÐ X ¨ Ða€DNA€expert?€€He€replied:Ð D!” ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ (ʽ88ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà0  àÝ‚3£¸-ÝÔ2ʽÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝWell,€what€I€had€hoped€was€that€he€would€not€have€testified.€€But€as€I€recall€duringÐ #l! Ðthe€process€of€jury€selection€that€„„€the€time€at€which€that€happened€may€be€wrong,Ð $X" Ðbut€in€any€event€„„€he€slipped€me€a€note€during€the€early€part€of€the€trial€that€heÐ ô$D # Ðwanted€to€testify.€€And€after€that€point€when€he€testified€that€it€was€consensual,€thenÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€fight€was,€essentially,€useless.݃3£¸-.ÝŒÐÌ&"%` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àà0 ` àHad€he€not€testified€then€I€would€have,€one,€at€least€gotten€some€proof€to€the€juryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfrom€our€expert€as€to€how€the€test€was€conducted;€whether€my€expert€might€haveÐ )à$( Ðfound€some€fault€with€the€Ô_ÔTBIÔ_Ôððs€method,€and€particularly€their€statistical€analysis.€Ð|*Ì%)` (#` (# ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.à0 ¸ àа¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àThe€fact€that€he€testified€I€felt€„„€and€one€of€things€I€tried€to€do€in€this€case,€given€theÐ ˆØ Ðfacts€that€were€involved,€was€to€try,€quite€candidly,€and€find€as€many€places€toÐ tÄ Ðhopefully€put€the€Court€of€the€State€in€error.€€Once€he€testified€that€avenue€wasÐ `° Ðeffectively€closed€in€my€view.ÐL œ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àMr.€Goodlett€agreed€that€sometimes€counsel€can€render€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€forÐ $ t Ðreasons€totally€beyond€their€control.€€Candidly,€Mr€Goodlett€stated€that€if€he€had€an€expert€theÐ  ` Ðdirection€of€the€case€would€be€no€different.€€The€facts€were€against€them€and€any€doors€that€mightÐ ü L  Ðhave€opened€were€effectively€shut€when€the€Petitioner€chose€to€testify.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àFrom€the€bench,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€its€decision€to€deny€the€motion€for€a€defense€expertÐ À  Ðas€to€a€DNA€analysis€was€upheld€by€the€appellate€court€and,€thus,€this€matter€has€been€determinedÐ ¬ü  Ðon€appeal.€€Further,€the€trial€court€found€there€was€no€proof€that€Mr.€Goodlettððs€representation€wasÐ ˜è  Ðineffective,€notwithstanding€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€pre„trial€motion€for€a€defense€expert.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌÓ  ÓANALYSISÐ \¬ ÐSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWÐ H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Petitioner€asserts€that€his€trial€counsel€prejudiced€the€Petitionerððs€trial.€€Further,€theÐ  p ÐPetitioner€contends€that€had€he€had€the€benefit€of€an€expert€for€DNA€analysis,€the€whole€focus€of€theÐ  \ Ðcase€could€have€changed€but€for€the€denial€of€the€Petitionerððs€motion€of€an€expert.€€The€StateÐ øH Ðcounters€that€the€Petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€any€deficiency€in€trial€counselððs€performance€andÐ ä4 Ðthis€Court€has€previously€found€that€the€Petitioner€was€not€entitled€to€the€services€of€an€expert€forÐ Ð  ÐDNA€analysis.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€Petitioner€acknowledged€that€he€had€the€burden€of€proof€in€his€complaint,€weÐ ”ä Ðdisagree€that€this€burden€is€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€The€Petitioner€filed€this€petition€forÐ €Ð Ðrelief€in€February€2000,€thus,€this€petition€is€governed€by€the€Post„Conviction€Act€of€1995€whichÐ l¼ Ðprovides€that€the€Petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegation€by€clear€and€convincingÐ X ¨ Ðevidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)(1997).€€Ordinarily,€the€post„conviction€trial€courtððsÐ D!” Ðfindings€of€fact€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€againstÐ 0"€  Ðthose€findings.€€òòState€v.€Burns,€óó6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€did€notÐ #l! Ðfile€a€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€but€orally€ruled€from€the€bench€as€to€itsÐ $X" Ðdecision.€€A€trial€court€is€required€to€set€forth€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€for€eachÐ ô$D # Ðclaim€raised€in€a€post„conviction€petition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„211(b).€€Trial€courts€areÐ à%0!$ Ðencouraged€to€file€such€findings€as€the€legislature€indicated€this€statute€is€to€aid€an€appellate€courtÐ Ì&"% Ðin€the€review€of€post„conviction€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòSwanson€v.€Stateóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.Ð ¸'#& ÐCrim.€App.€1984).€€However,€the€conclusions€of€law€in€post„conviction€proceedings,€such€as€whetherÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcounselððs€performance€was€deficient€or€whether€that€deficiency€was€prejudicial€„„€are€reviewed€underÐ )à$( Ðâ âa€purely€òòde€novoóó€standard,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€given€to€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions.Ð |*Ì%) ÐòòSeeóó€òòFields€v.€State,€óó40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Burns,€óó6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1999).€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€standard€for€establishing€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€well€established.€€To€proveÐ tÄ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial,€the€Petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€both€that€hisÐ `° Ðcounselððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€that€counselððs€deficient€performance€prejudiced€theÐ L œ Ðoutcome€of€his€case.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washington,€óó466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064,€80€L.Ed.Ð 8 ˆ Ð2d€674€(1984);€òòState€v.€Taylor,€óó968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€òòStrickland€óórequiresÐ $ t Ða€two€pronged€test:Ð  ` ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà0  àFirst,€the€defendant€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient.€€This€requiresÐ è 8  Ðshowing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€theÐ Ô$  Ðð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€the€defendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Second,€the€defendant€mustÐ À  Ðshow€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€This€requires€showing€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðcounselððs€errors€were€so€serious€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€resultÐ ˜è  Ðis€reliable.Ð„Ô (#(# ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÔ_ÔòòStricklandÔ_ÔÔ_Ôóó,€Ô% €# Ô466Ô_Ô€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.Ð \¬ ÐÌThe€prejudice€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€a€ð ðreasonable€probabilityðð€that€the€outcomeÐ 4„ Ðof€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different€had€it€not€been€for€counselððs€deficiencies€inÐ  p Ðperformance.€€òòStrickland,€óó466€U.€S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àBecause€both€prongs€of€the€test€must€be€satisfied,€a€failure€to€show€either€deficientÐ ä4 Ðperformance€or€resulting€prejudice€results€in€a€failure€to€establish€the€claim.€€òòHenley€v.€State,€óó960Ð Ð  ÐS.W.2d€572,€580€(Tenn.€1997).€€Courts,€therefore,€need€not€approach€the€test€in€a€specific€order,€orÐ ¼  Ðeven€ð ðaddress€both€components€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€onÐ ¨ø Ðone.ðð€€òòStrickland,€óó466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòGoad€v.€State,€óó938€S.W.2d€at€370€(stating€thatÐ ”ä Ðð ðfailure€to€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€theÐ €Ð Ðineffective€assistance€claim.€Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà  à€When€analyzing€a€Petitionerððs€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€reviewingÐ D!” Ðcourt€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€falls€within€the€range€ofÐ 0"€  Ðreasonable€professional€assistance,€òòStrickland,€óó466€U.S.€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€not€second„Ð #l! Ðguess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€those€choices€were€uninformedÐ $X" Ðbecause€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòÔ_ÔHellardÔ_Ô€v.€State,€óó629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€fact€thatÐ ô$D # Ða€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÐ à%0!$ Ðof€counsel.€€òòThompson€v.€State,€óó958€S.W.2d€156,€165€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Finally,€a€personÐ Ì&"% Ðcharged€with€a€criminal€offense€is€not€entitled€to€a€perfect€presentation.€€òòDenton€v.€State,€óó945€S.W.2dÐ ¸'#& Ð793,€796€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€òòperm.€app.€denied,óó€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà  àAs€stated,€the€Petitioner€believes€that€had€he€the€benefit€of€an€expert€in€DNA€analysis,€theÐ ° Ðwhole€focus€of€the€trial€òòcould€have€changed€óó(emphasis€added)€but€for€the€denial€of€the€motion€by€theÐ œì Ðtrial€court.€Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌà  àFirst,€we€recognize€that€the€Petitioner€has€not€€factually€nor€legally€met€his€burden€in€provingÐ `° Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€counselððs€representation.€€TheÐ L œ Ðfacts€in€the€record€established€that€defense€counsel€anticipated€DNA€testimony,€thus,€a€motion€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðfiled€for€a€defense€expert€to€examine€and,€if€necessary,€contest€the€Stateððs€expert€evidence.€€ThisÐ $ t Ðmatter€was€discussed€with€the€Petitioner,€but€unfortunately€the€Petitioner€elected€to€testify€on€his€ownÐ  ` Ðbehalf€and€informed€the€jury€that€the€alleged€rape€was€in€fact,€a€consensual€act.€€As€defense€counselÐ ü L  Ðstated,€ð ðif€he€had€an€expert€the€direction€of€the€case€would€have€made€no€difference.€€The€facts€wereÐ è 8  Ðagainst€them,€and€if€any€doors€had€opened,€were€effectively€shut€when€the€defendant€elected€toÐ Ô$  Ðtestify.ðð€€We€agree€with€the€State€that€the€Petitioner€has€wholly€failed€to€establish€the€deficiencyÐ À  Ðprong€under€òòStrickland,€óó466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€2069.€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€was€correctÐ ¬ü  Ðin€determining€that€the€Petitioner€failed€to€establish€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€question€of€the€denial€of€an€expert€in€DNA€analysis€by€the€trial€court€wasÐ pÀ Ðaddressed€upon€direct€appeal€by€this€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Quinton€Cage,€óóNo.€01C01„9605„CC„00179,Ð \¬ Ð1999€WL€30595,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999),òò€perm.€app.€denied,€óó(Tenn.€1999).€€This€Court€foundÐ H˜ Ðthe€Petitioner€failed€to€explain€why€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€his€particular€case€required€theÐ 4„ Ðappointment€of€an€expert€to€ensure€a€fair€trial,€citing€òòState€v.€Barnett,€óó909€S.W.2d€423,€431€(Tenn.Ð  p Ð1995).€€The€issue€of€the€denial€of€an€expert€for€DNA€analysis€by€the€trial€court€has€been€previously€Ð  \ Ðdetermined.€€However,€the€question€of€defense€counsel's€ineffectiveness€in€presenting€the€motion€wasÐ øH Ðnot€previously€Ô_Ôdetermined.Ô_Ô€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€(1997).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€any€facts€that€would€have€resulted€in€ineffectiveÐ ¼  Ðassistance€of€counsel,€even€for€reasons€totally€beyond€counselððs€control.€€We€agree€with€the€State€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthe€facts€in€this€case€do€not€fall€within€the€narrow€range€of€cases€in€which€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ”ä Ðcounsel€may€be€presumed.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔCronicÔ_Ô,€óó466€U.S.€648,€104€S.€Ct.€2039,€80€L.Ed.2dÐ €Ð Ð657€(1984).€€We€find€that€the€Petitionerððs€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€whollyÐ l¼ Ðwithout€merit.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€conclusion,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Ô#†XXXXd #ÔÐ 0"€  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð à%0!$ ÐÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àL.€TERRY€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGE