ÿWPC Þ¡pýgÚ¨-ëY9‹2–ï7ÂnM!Ça¨äÁ„)¦pR¸33é×B zw |‹c)ŠêU88‘H½B4úµãUhp…IG!¶þßGŸoÌYß³ÛˆG¬ÂÔ¨&k|ÇBØ }8Oéà» åÓÄsc¥À&g´Àu}`ÑÑýmë¨5Ï*ÜÔ!G¬x´sÓûN¯}%flÐ7uT…¡éÔ¥n‹UéÖ¼fì𞣡[:ÄÉ…›ó‰Ë<±¢ôðÊ=Ót´Ð;[>°ÑÕÛsÅäõ.x5 ªæ2éš–n ‡ã°gøÙó-f…¢#×7’³P^îiц+®›ðÓ_ÀVÉ;®[ïáô‡€¬÷ n@¼)Î æ™?!äÄ(£{E“‹¬t³…ý#ïb€§X˜‹Û–‚¢AQ¯lé%Q‹å9|¹é:9‡,;/Ak‚« l§þü/ž¦á¿°°>ì;ȼ՞œ^l_¶‰RߟSM!#†L¤fµZ…+,Š_d]¡YpÅ£ý.»JÂI¢-1ûNŒãÙÊ&«…&ªÇú 8ƒ€õõí YmkN?‡Dm9ªÈê­"4ÏåðVfG±z½¢æóÀ³fvIzëÁ¨–‹…!£³€ÑHY¸U¼åh@b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNñÑó 0DÄEb                                     0ë Býý 0¤ D3¾ D-ñ 0K ASiƼ 0¤‚ 0D& A«j˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»¨*+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo†).bk1 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  ÇÝ ƒRƒã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFollowing€the€order€of€the€post„conviction€court€denying€relief,€the€petitioner€requested€that€his€appointed€post„Ð ° Ðconviction€counsel€be€dismissed€and€new€post„conviction€counsel€be€appointed€for€the€appeal.€€Counsel€made€the€sameÐ tÄ Ðrequest,€and€new€appellate€post„conviction€counsel€was€appointed.€€However,€the€petitioner€later€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€appellateÐ 8ˆ Ðbrief€in€this€matter,€which€preceded€by€two€weeks€the€filing€of€an€appellate€brief€by€his€new€counsel.€€In€view€of€the€factÐ üL Ðthat€he€is€represented€by€counsel,€we€consider€only€counselððs€appellate€brief,€and€not€that€prepared€and€filed€by€theÐ À Ðpetitioner€himself.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lyonsóó,€29€S.W.3d€48,€51€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2000).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2ƒã$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€BM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê%ò»»Ô d(|3Gz$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€BM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gz$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€BM»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€BM»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼BM»»»ÔÑ8€ñXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îJ¼î»¼BMÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼BM»îîJ¼ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€7,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XñX»¼BMÔÌò òÔ#†¼BM»XXñ#ÔGEORGE€CAMPBELL,€JR.òòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XñX»¼BMÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„19345€€€€€€Chris€Craft,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„00703„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€September€10,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€arguing€that€the€post„Ð xÈ  Ðconviction€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€had€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€After€a€carefulÐ d´ Ðreview€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proving€ineffectiveÐ P  Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petitionÐ <Œ Ðfor€post„conviction€relief.Ð (x ÐÔ#†¼BM»XXñ“#ÔÔ‡XñX»¼BMÔÓ·ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼BM»àXñ#ÔÔ‡XñX.¼BMÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòJoe€G.€Riley,Ð Ø( ÐJJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌMarty€McAfee€(on€appeal)€and€Michael€E.€Scholl€(at€trial),€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,Ð œì ÐGeorge€Campbell,€Jr.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€John€H.€Bledsoe,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð `° ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Elaine€Sanders,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ L œ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓŸÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼BM»XXñÎ#ÔÔ‡XñX»¼BMÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼BM»XXñ­ #ÔÔ€XñX»¼BMÔò òòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓDISCUSSIONóóó óÐ è$8 $ ÐÓ< Óòòóóà  àOn€April€22,€1991,€the€petitioner,€George€Campbell,€Jr.,€with€two€accomplices,€LontinaÐ Ô%$!% ÐMcGary€and€Vander€Moore,€participated€in€a€robbery€at€a€Memphis€residence€that€led€to€the€shootingÐ À&"& Ðdeath€of€one€of€the€houseððs€occupants.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€George€Campbell,€Jr.óó,€No.€02„C„01„9408„CR„Ð ¬'ü"' Ð00165,€1996€WL€368224,€at€*€1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€28,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð ˜(è#( ÐJan.€6,€1997).€The€petitioner,€who€planned€the€robbery,€supplied€his€accomplices€with€guns,€andÐ „)Ô$) Ðdrove€the€getaway€truck,€was€subsequently€convicted€by€a€jury€of€felony€murder€and€aggravatedÐ p*À%* Ðassault.€€òòId.óó€€He€was€sentenced€to€life€on€the€felony€murder€conviction,€and€ten€years€as€a€Range€II,Ð \+¬&+ Ðmultiple€offender€on€the€aggravated€assault€conviction,€with€the€sentences€to€be€servedÐ H,˜', Ðconsecutively.€€€His€conviction€was€affirmed€by€this€court€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ 4-„(-ý Їà  àOn€January€5,€1998,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€Ð ° Ðthat€his€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€contest€the€admissibility€of€a€photograph€of€hisÐ œì Ðtruck,€and€that€the€trial€court€issued€an€unconstitutional€reasonable€doubt€instruction€to€the€jury.€Ð ˆØ ÐPost„conviction€counsel€was€appointed,€and€on€March€23,€1998,€an€amended€petition€was€filed.€€InÐ tÄ Ðhis€amended€petition,€€the€petitioner€alleged€that€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€properlyÐ `° Ðprepare€and€investigate€the€case€against€him.€€Specifically,€he€alleged€that€counsel€failed€to€properlyÐ L œ Ðdiscuss€the€case€with€him,€failed€to€adequately€prepare€for€trial,€and€failed€to€adequately€defend€himÐ 8 ˆ Ðduring€trial.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€to€a€number€of€allegedÐ ü L  Ðdeficiencies€in€the€representation€provided€by€his€trial€counsel.€€€Among€other€things,€he€complainedÐ è 8  Ðthat€his€two€trial€counsel€ò òó ófailed€to€hire€an€investigator;€failed€to€hire€anyone€to€assist€in€the€mitigationÐ Ô$  Ðof€his€case;€failed€to€investigate€his€school€records€or€mental€history;€failed€to€file€a€pretrialÐ À  Ðsuppression€motion€or€argue€at€trial€against€the€Stateððs€introduction€of€a€photograph€of€his€truck;€andÐ ¬ü  Ðfailed€to€call€important€witnesses€in€his€case.€€He€also€complained€that€trial€counsel€opened€the€doorÐ ˜è  Ðto€testimony€by€his€alleged€accomplice€that€he€had€been€involved€in€similar€crimes€in€the€past,€andÐ „Ô  Ðthat€one€of€his€trial€counsel€slept€during€the€Stateððs€voir€dire€of€the€jury.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€first€met€Vander€Moore€when€they€were€cell€mates€in€jailÐ H˜ Ðawaiting€their€respective€trials.€At€that€time,€Moore€told€him€that€it€had€been€McGaryððs€idea€toÐ 4„ Ðimplicate€him€in€the€crime.€€The€petitioner€said€that€he€informed€trial€counsel€of€this€conversation,Ð  p Ðbut€that€they€failed€to€interview€Moore.€€He€also€told€trial€counsel€about€a€woman€who€could€provideÐ  \ Ðhim€with€an€alibi€for€the€time€of€the€robbery.€Trial€counsel€told€him€that€they€could€not€locate€theÐ øH Ðalibi€witness,€despite€his€having€provided€her€name€and€address.€The€petitioner€said€that€he€hadÐ ä4 Ðpointed€this€woman€out€to€one€of€his€trial€counsel€when€he€saw€her€sitting€in€the€courtroom€after€theÐ Ð  Ðverdict€was€read,€and€that€counsel€answered€only€that€he€would€ð ðget€to€her.ðð€€ò òó ó€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€one€of€his€trial€counselò ò€ó ótold€the€trial€court€that€he€was€ð ðnotÐ ”ä Ðpsychologically€readyðð€to€try€the€case€on€the€date€the€case€was€originally€set€for€trial,€causing€theÐ „Ô Ðmatter€to€be€postponed.€€€He€claimed€that€this€same€counsel€fell€asleep€twice€during€the€Stateððs€voirÐ pÀ Ðdire€of€the€jury.€€Trial€counsel€had€woken€himself€the€first€time;€during€the€second€episode,€whichÐ \ ¬ Ðlasted€about€eight€minutes,€the€petitioner€had€had€to€wake€him€by€tapping€him€on€the€shoulder.Ð H!˜ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€complained€that€trial€counsel€elicited€testimony€from€McGary€on€cross„Ð  #p! Ðexamination€to€the€effect€that€she€had€been€involved€in€prior€robberies€with€the€petitioner€ð!ðÐ  $\" Ðinformation€that€she€had€not€mentioned€during€the€Stateððs€direct€examination.€The€petitioner€furtherÐ ø$H # Ðcomplained€that€trial€counsel€had€not€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€photograph€of€his€pickup€truck,Ð ä%4!$ Ðon€the€grounds€that€the€police€should€have€placed€the€photograph€in€a€photographic€ð ðline„upðð€ofÐ Ð& "% Ðother€similar„looking€trucks€when€showing€it€to€the€witnesses.€€He€also€thought€that€trial€counselÐ ¼' #& Ðshould€have€objected€to€the€photograph€at€trial,€on€the€grounds€that€it€did€not€match€witnessesððÐ ¨(ø#' Ðdescriptions€of€the€vehicle€observed€at€the€crime€scene.Ð ”)ä$( Ðâ âÐ €*Ð%) Ðà  àThe€petitioner€thought€that€trial€counsel€should€have€investigated€his€mental€history€becauseÐ ° Ðâ âhe€had€received€counseling€in€the€past,€but€acknowledged€that€he€did€not€think€it€would€have€helpedÐ œì Ðhis€trial.€€He€also€thought€that€they€should€have€investigated€his€school€records.€€Such€anÐ ˆØ Ðinvestigation,€he€asserted,€would€have€revealed€that€he€had€been€a€ð ðpretty€good€studentðð€and€hadÐ tÄ Ðgraduated,€and€thus€was€not€the€type€of€person€to€commit€a€murder.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àOne€ò òó óof€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€was€deceased€at€the€time€of€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðother€ò òó ótestified€that€he€had€been€licensed€to€practice€law€in€Tennessee€since€1963,€and€that€his€practiceÐ $ t Ðconsisted€almost€exclusively€of€criminal€defense€work,€including€ð ða€lotðð€of€murder€cases.€€AlthoughÐ  ` Ðhis€records€of€the€petitionerððs€case€had€been€destroyed€in€a€fire,€trial€counsel€indicated€that€he€hadÐ ü L  Ða€fairly€good€recollection€of€the€petitionerððs€capital€murder€trial.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€said€that€he€had€done€his€own€investigation€in€the€case;€he€had€not€felt€that€itÐ À  Ðwas€necessary€to€hire€an€investigator.€€He€understood€the€petitionerððs€theory€that€McGary€was€aÐ ¬ü  Ðdeceitful€ð ðjilted€lover,ðð€and€had€known€which€witnesses€needed€to€be€interviewed.€€He€had€not€heardÐ ˜è  Ðthe€alleged€alibi€witnessððs€name€until€the€evidentiary€hearing,€and€could€say€with€ð ðninety„nine€andÐ „Ô  Ðnine€tenths€percent€assuranceðð€that€the€petitioner€had€never€mentioned€any€alibi€witness.€€He€said€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€petitioner€never€told€him€of€seeing€the€alibi€witness€in€the€courtroom€after€the€verdict€was€read,Ð \¬ Ðand€that€if€he€had,€he€would€have€immediately€approached€the€court€with€that€information.€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€acknowledged€that€he€had€not€hired€a€mitigation€expert€for€the€penalty€phaseÐ  p Ðof€the€trial.€€However,€he€had€put€together€his€own€mitigation€witnesses,€and€thought€that€the€juryððsÐ  \ Ðverdict,€in€giving€the€defendant€life€in€prison€instead€of€the€death€penalty,€indicated€the€effectivenessÐ øH Ðof€those€witnesses.€€He€had€not€objected€to€the€introduction€of€the€photograph€of€the€petitionerððsÐ ä4 Ðtruck,€because€he€had€thought€it€was€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€In€that€regard,€he€had€argued€toÐ Ð  Ðthe€jury€that€none€of€the€witnesses€had€been€able€to€identify€the€petitionerððs€truck€in€the€photographÐ ¼  Ðas€the€same€vehicle€they€observed€at€the€scene.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€had€no€independent€recollection€of€having€received€a€letter€from€the€petitionerÐ €Ð Ðtelling€him€that€Vander€Moore€would€testify€on€his€behalf,€and€said€that€if€the€petitioner€told€him€thatÐ l¼ ÐMoore€had€information€that€would€exculpate€him,€he€would€have€attempted€to€interview€Moore.Ð X ¨ ÐAlthough€he€could€not€remember€for€certain,€he€thought€it€likely€that€he€had€told€the€petitioner€thatÐ D!” ÐMoore,€who€was€awaiting€his€separate€trial,€ð ðwould€certainly€invoke€his€Fifth€Amendment€rightðð€ifÐ 0"€  Ðcalled€to€testify.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€McGary€brought€up€the€prior€robberies€for€the€first€time€duringÐ ô$D # Ðhis€cross„examination,€when€he€questioned€her€about€the€ð ðbusiness€dealsðð€that€she€said€she€had€beenÐ à%0!$ Ðinvolved€in€with€the€petitioner.€€He€indicated€that€she€had€never€mentioned€these€alleged€priorÐ Ì&"% Ðrobberies€to€the€prosecutor,€and€said€that€she€was€unable€to€provide€any€specific€details€when€heÐ ¸'#& Ðquestioned€her€about€them.€€He€therefore€had€considered€her€testimony€as€a€ð ðwindfall,ðð€and€hadÐ ¤(ô#' Ðargued€to€the€jury€that€it€lent€credence€to€his€theory€that€she€was€fabricating€the€petitionerððsÐ )à$( Ðinvolvement€in€the€crime€in€an€effort€to€gain€some€favorable€consideration€from€the€parole€boardÐ |*Ì%) Ðð ðdown€the€line.ðð€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àVander€Moore€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€McGary€had€approached€himÐ ° Ðabout€the€robbery,€telling€him€that€she€had€a€friend€who€had€planned€it.€€He€said€that€she€had€writtenÐ œì Ðhim€letters€before€their€scheduled€trial€in€which€she€told€him€that€they€ð ðneeded€to€bring€up€[theÐ ˆØ Ðpetitioner]ððs€nameðð€in€order€to€get€some€ð ðtime€off€of€[them]ðð€and€to€get€ð ða€break€in€the€case.ðð€€AtÐ tÄ ÐMooreððs€trial,€McGary€departed€from€the€scenario€that€they€had€discussed,€testifying€that€she€wasÐ `° Ðinnocent,€and€that€Moore€and€the€petitioner€had€planned€the€robbery.€€Moore€testified€that€theÐ L œ Ðpetitionerððs€counsel€had€come€to€talk€to€him€about€the€case€before€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€He€said€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€prosecutor€had€also€talked€with€him,€and€had€tried€to€get€him€to€testify€against€the€petitioner,€butÐ $ t Ðthat€he€had€refused.€He€had€never€identified€the€petitioner€as€an€accomplice,€but€had€also€neverÐ  ` Ðdenied€that€he€was€involved.€€He€explained€that€it€had€been€night€when€McGary€and€an€individualÐ ü L  Ðwhom€she€referred€to€as€ð ðGeorgeðð€came€to€pick€him€up€before€the€robbery,€and€that€he€had,Ð è 8  Ðtherefore,€never€gotten€a€good€look€at€the€man.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àOn€March€20,€2000,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€an€order€denying€the€petition€for€post„Ð ¬ü  Ðconviction€relief,€finding€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€showing€either€that€trialÐ ˜è  Ðcounsel€had€been€deficient€in€their€representation,€or€that€any€alleged€deficiencies€in€counselððsÐ „Ô  Ðperformance€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€his€trial.€€The€petitioner€filed€a€timely€appeal€to€this€court.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@ÙÙ&ìàò òòòANALYSISóóó ó€ˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€failed€to€meetÐ $t Ðhis€burden€of€showing€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Although€he€asserted€a€number€of€allegedÐ ` Ðinstances€of€ineffective€representation€in€his€petition€and€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€he€limits€himselfÐ üL Ðon€appeal€to€arguing€that€trial€counsel€were€ineffective:€€(1)€for€falling€asleep€at€voir€dire;€(2)€forÐ è8 Ðfailing€to€interview€or€subpoena€the€alibi€witness,€or€to€take€any€action€when€the€petitioner€informedÐ Ô$ Ðthem€of€her€presence€in€the€courtroom;€and€(3)€for€opening€the€door,€during€cross„examination€ofÐ À ÐMcGary,€to€testimony€that€the€petitioner€had€committed€several€similar,€uncharged€crimes€in€the€past.€Ð ¬ü ÐHe€also€argues,€for€the€first€time€on€appeal,€that€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€their€deficientÐ ˜è Ðrepresentation€during€the€direct€appeal€of€his€case.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð „Ô ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òòòà@ll ì` x` xàóó€€òòà@@  !ìàà@@  !ìàóóStandard€of€ReviewòòˆÐ \ ¬ ÐÌà  àóóó ó€The€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€is€governed€by€the€Post„Conviction€Act€of€1995,Ð 4"„  Ðwhich€provides€that€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clear€and€convincingÐ  #p! Ðevidence.€€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€The€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact€inÐ  $\" Ða€post„conviction€hearing€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderatesÐ ø$H # Ðagainst€those€findings.€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1991).€The€courtððs€conclusions€ofÐ ä%4!$ Ðlaw,€however,€are€reviewed€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòóóòòId.óó€€The€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ ° Ðpresents€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact€and€is€therefore€reviewed€òòóóòòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€ofÐ œì Ðcorrectness€given€to€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact,€and€the€post„conviction€courtððsÐ ˆØ Ðconclusions€of€law€reviewed€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€given€to€the€courtððsÐ tÄ Ðconclusions.€òòóó€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).€òòò òó óóóÐ `° ÐÌà  à€To€prove€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€bothÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€his€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€that€counselððs€deficient€performance€prejudicedÐ $ t Ðthe€outcome€of€his€case.€€òòSeeóóÔ‡ XñXXXñÔ€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064,Ð  ` Ð80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)òòóóÐ ü L  Ð(noting€that€the€same€standard€for€determining€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€is€applied€inÐ è 8  Ðfederal€cases€also€applies€in€Tennessee).Ô#†XñXX XñèD#ÔÔ‡ XñXXXñÔ€€This€is€a€two„pronged€test:€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFirst,€the€defendant€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðdeficient.€€This€requires€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€seriousÐ ˜è  Ðthat€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Second,€the€defendant€mustÐ pÀ Ðshow€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€ThisÐ \¬ Ðrequires€showing€that€counselððs€errors€were€so€serious€as€to€depriveÐ H˜ Ðthe€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€result€is€reliable.Ð4„` x` x ÐÌòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€òòóóat€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€deficient€performance€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€that€counselððs€actions€Ð ä4 Ðor€decisions€òòóóð ðf[e]ll€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professionalÐ Ð  Ðnorms.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€688,€104Ð ¼  ÐS.€Ct.€at€2065,€and€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975)).€€€The€prejudice€prong€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðtest€is€satisfied€by€showing€a€ð ðreasonable€probabilityðð€that€the€outcome€of€the€proceeding€would€haveÐ ”ä Ðbeen€different€had€it€not€been€for€counselððs€deficiencies€in€performance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,Ð €Ð Ð104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àÔ#†XñXX Xñ¶F#ÔÔ‡ XñXXXñÔBecause€both€prongs€of€the€test€must€be€satisfied,€a€failure€to€show€either€deficientÐ D!” Ðperformance€or€resulting€prejudice€results€in€a€failure€to€establish€the€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€572,€580€(Tenn.€1997).€€For€this€reason,€courts€need€not€approach€the€test€in€a€specific€order,Ð #l! Ðor€even€ð ðaddress€both€components€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€onÐ $X" Ðone.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370€(stating€thatÐ ô$D # Ðð ðfailure€to€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€theÐ à%0!$ Ðineffective€assistance€claimðð).Ô#†XñXX XñIM#ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÌò òó óÔ‡ XñXXXñÔà  à€When€analyzing€a€petitionerððs€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€reviewingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcourt€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€falls€within€the€range€ofÐ )à$( Ðreasonable€professional€assistance,€òòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðsecond„guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€those€choices€wereÐ h+¸&* Ðuninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð ° ÐThe€fact€that€a€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense€does€not€alone€support€the€claim€ofÐ œì Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€165€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð1997)òòóó.€€Finally,€a€person€charged€with€a€criminal€offense€is€not€entitled€to€perfect€representation.€€òòSeeóóÐ tÄ ÐòòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,€796€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).òòóó€Ð `° ÐÌà@s s ìàò òA.€€€Allegation€that€Trial€Counsel€òòóóSlept€During€Voir€Direó óˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€trial€counsel€twice€fell€asleep€duringÐ  ` Ðvoir€dire,€sitting€at€counsel€table€without€moving,€with€his€head€resting€on€his€hand,€and€with€his€eyesÐ ü L  Ðclosed.€€He€claimed€that€he€knew€that€counsel€had€been€asleep€because€after€he€tapped€him€on€theÐ è 8  Ðshoulder,€he€ð ðblink[ed]€his€eyesðð€and€looked€at€him€as€if€ð ðtrying€to€get€his€focus€after€he€was€beingÐ Ô$  Ð[sic]€asleep.ðð€€As€support€for€his€allegation,€the€petitioner€pointed€to€statements€by€a€member€of€theÐ À  Ðjury€pool€to€the€effect€that€he€had€observed€the€petitionerððs€counsel€sleeping€during€voir€dire.€Ð ¬ü  Ѐ€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àTrial€counsel,€on€the€other€hand,Ô#†XñXX XñÁP#Ô€adamantly€denied€that€he€had€been€asleep.€€He€testified€thatÐ „Ô  Ðhe€sometimes€closes€his€eyes€in€order€to€listen€and€concentrate€during€the€Stateððs€voir€dire€of€the€jury,Ð pÀ Ðthat€he€was€focusing€ð ðone€hundred€and€ten€percentðð€on€what€was€being€said,€and€that€it€wasÐ \¬ Ðð ðabsolutely€not€correctðð€that€he€had€fallen€asleep,€or€that€the€petitioner€had€had€to€wake€him.€€HeÐ H˜ Ðacknowledged€that€a€member€of€the€jury€pool€had€made€a€comment€indicating€that€he€thought€theÐ 4„ Ðpetitionerððs€counsel€were€asleep.€€However,€he€thought€that€it€was€obvious€from€the€jurorððs€lengthyÐ  p Ðdiatribe€against€the€justice€system€that€he€was€disgruntled,€and€attempting€to€get€out€of€jury€service.€Ð  \ ÐIf€he€had€thought€there€was€any€merit€in€the€request,€he€would€have€asked€for€a€curative€juryÐ øH Ðinstruction€from€the€trial€court.€€Under€the€circumstances,€however,€he€thought€that€it€would€haveÐ ä4 Ðbeen€frivolous€to€do€so.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€this€allegation,€the€post„conviction€court€made€the€following€findings€of€fact:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAfter€hearing€the€testimony€at€the€hearing€concerning€thisÐ €Ð Ðallegation,€this€Court€finds€as€a€matter€of€fact€that€petitionerððs€trialÐ l¼ Ðattorney€was€not€sleeping,€but€assuming€his€normal€trial€appearanceÐ X ¨ Ðduring€voir€dire,€which€is€leaning€forward€with€his€eyes€closed,Ð D!” Ðlistening.€€The€juror€in€question€was€obviously€dissatisfied€with€theÐ 0"€  Ðcriminal€justice€system,€and€bitter€about€jury€service€in€general,€andÐ #l! Ðmade€intemperate€remarks€during€jury€selection.€€That€juror€wasÐ $X" Ðexcused,€and€any€motion€to€strike€the€entire€jury€panel€would€haveÐ ô$D # Ðbeen€denied,€as€without€merit.€€Petitionerððs€attorney€is€under€no€dutyÐ à%0!$ Ðto€make€frivolous€motions.€€ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€these€findings.€€Other€than€his€own€testimonyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€the€potential€jurorððs€comments,€which€the€record€reveals€to€have€been€made€in€the€context€of€aÐ )à$( Ðdiatribe€against€what€he€considered€to€be€a€corrupt€system€of€justice€in€this€country,€the€petitionerÐ |*Ì%) Ðoffered€no€evidence€to€prove€that€trial€counsel€had€been€asleep,€as€he€claimed,€rather€than€simplyÐ h+¸&* Ðconcentrating€intently,€as€trial€counsel€testified.€€This€matter,€therefore,€essentially€amounted€to€anÐ ° Ðissue€of€credibility.€€We€defer€to€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€in€matters€pertaining€toÐ œì Ðthe€credibility€of€witnesses€or€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony.€€Ô‡ XñXXXñÔ€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40Ð ˆØ ÐS.W.3d€450,€456€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€579€(Tenn.€1997)).Ô#†XñXX Xñod#ԀРtÄ ÐAdditionally,€the€post„conviction€court€indicated€at€the€hearing€that€it€was€familiar€with€trial€counsel,Ð `° Ðand€knew€that€it€was€his€style€to€listen€to€voir€dire€with€his€eyes€closed.€€This€allegation€is€withoutÐ L œ Ðmerit.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@¯ ¯ ìàò òB.€€Failure€to€Interview€Alibi€WitnessˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àó óThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€interview€orÐ è 8  Ðsubpoena€an€alibi€witness.€€He€asserts€that€he€provided€trial€counsel€with€the€womanððs€name€andÐ Ô$  Ðaddress,€and€pointed€at€her€after€seeing€her€in€the€courtroom,€but€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€take€anyÐ À  Ðaction.€€Trial€counsel,€however,€testified€that€he€could€say€with€ð ðninety„nine€and€nine€tenths€percentÐ ¬ü  Ðassuranceðð€that€he€had€never€heard€the€womanððs€name€until€the€evidentiary€hearing,€and€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€had€never€mentioned€any€alibi€witness€to€him.€€He€was€confident€that,€had€the€petitionerÐ „Ô  Ðever€mentioned€any€alibi€witness,€he€would€have€immediately€issued€a€subpoena€for€her€appearance.€Ð pÀ ÐHe€was€equally€confident€that€had€the€petitioner€told€him€of€seeing€the€woman€in€the€courtroom€afterÐ \¬ Ðthe€verdict€was€read,€he€would€have€immediately€taken€steps€to€bring€it€to€the€courtððs€attention.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWe€first€note€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€the€alleged€alibi€witness€at€his€evidentiaryÐ  p Ðhearing,€although€post„conviction€counsel€advised€the€court€that€he€had€attempted€to€locate€theÐ  \ Ðwitness.€€ð ðWhen€a€petitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€discover,€interview,€or€presentÐ øH Ðwitnesses€in€support€of€his€defense,€these€witnesses€should€be€presented€by€the€petitioner€at€theÐ ä4 Ðevidentiary€hearing.ðð€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€the€absenceÐ Ð  Ðof€evidence€to€show€that€the€alleged€witness€actually€existed,€or€what€testimony€she€would€haveÐ ¼  Ðoffered€at€trial,€the€petitioner€cannot€establish€prejudice.€€òòId.óó€at€757.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€further€note€that€the€post„conviction€court€resolved€the€credibility€issue€involved€in€thisÐ €Ð Ðallegation€against€the€petitioner€and€in€favor€of€trial€counsel.€€Thus,€the€court€found€that€the€petitionerÐ l¼ Ðfailed€not€only€to€show€prejudice,€but€also€to€show€any€deficiency€in€counselððs€representation.€€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðrecord€supports€these€findings.€€This€allegation€is€without€merit.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà@ ìàò òC.€€Trial€Counselððs€Cross„Examination€of€AccompliceˆÐ #l! ÐÌà  àó óThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€opening€the€door,€duringÐ ô$D # Ðhis€cross„examination€of€McGary,€to€testimony€that€the€petitioner€had€been€involved€in€similarÐ à%0!$ Ðcrimes€in€the€past.€He€asserts€that€trial€counselððs€ð ðdeliberate€effort€to€elicit€testimony€of€similar,Ð Ì&"% Ðuncharged€robberiesðð€is€proof€that€his€representation€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€demandedÐ ¸'#& Ðof€an€attorney€in€a€criminal€case.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àWhen€trial€counsel€was€asked€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€whether€he€had€questioned€McGaryÐ |*Ì%) Ðdirectly€about€her€involvement€in€other€robberies€with€the€petitioner,€he€replied:Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àLet€me€answer€this€question.€€I€asked€her€about,€when€she€saidÐ ° Ðsomething€about€they€were€involved€in€business€deals,€then,€ofÐ œì Ðcourse,€just€listening€to€what€[the€prosecutor]€said€without€havingÐ ˆØ Ðread€the€record.€€Then,€as€I€recall,€because€I€argued€it€to€the€jury.Ð tÄ ÐWhen€she€said€that,€then€she€started€talking€about,€you€know,€aboutÐ `° Ðother€instances€where€they€were€involved€in€a€robbery.€€ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌAdmittedly,€trial€counselððs€testimony€on€this€matter€was€far€from€clear.€€What€is€clear,€however,€isÐ $ t Ðthat€he€did€not,€as€the€petitionerððs€brief€seems€to€imply,€admit€to€having€entered€into€his€cross„Ð  ` Ðexamination€of€McGary€with€the€deliberate€intent€to€elicit€information€about€prior€robberies.€€TrialÐ ü L  Ðcounsel€testified,€in€fact,€that€the€first€time€that€she€told€anyone€about€the€alleged€prior€robberies€wasÐ è 8  Ðduring€his€cross„examination.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€admitted€to€having€questioned€McGary€at€length€about€the€prior€robberies€afterÐ ¬ü  Ðshe€brought€them€up€on€cross„examination.€€He€explained€that€he€considered€her€testimony€about€theÐ ˜è  Ðprior€robberies,€due€to€her€failure€to€come€up€with€any€specific€details,€to€be€a€ð ðwindfall,ðð€showingÐ „Ô  Ðher€lack€of€credibility:€à  àÐ pÀ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBecause€when€I€started€asking€her€specifically,€you€know,€what€wasÐ H˜ Ðthe€time,€place,€circumstances€of€these€other€robberies€and,€all€of€aÐ 4„ Ðsudden,€just€like€[the€prosecutor]€suggested€in€the€record€when€sheÐ  p Ðwas€cross„examining€[the€petitioner],€why€she€never€told,€you€know,Ð  \ Ðthe€prosecutor€the€name€[of€the€petitioner]€until€the€day€of€the€trial.€Ð øH ÐI€personally€thought€it€was€a€windfall.€The€whole€theory€about€Ms.Ð ä4 ÐMcCrary€(sic)€whatever€her€name€was,€was€that€she€was€really€puttingÐ Ð  Ð[the€petitioner]€in€there€so€that€she€could€get€some€kind€of€favorableÐ ¼  Ðconsideration€from€the€Parole€Board€down€the€line.€€And,€that€was€herÐ ¨ø Ðmotive€for€testifying€and€putting€[the€petitioner]€in.€€And,€it€just€fellÐ ”ä Ðinto€place€so€to€speak,€that€low€[sic]€and€behold€all€these€real€bad€actsÐ €Ð Ðthat€she€exaggerated€on€she€just€decided,€the€first€time€she€tellsÐ l¼ Ðanybody€is€basically€when€she€testified€on€my€cross„examination.€€So,Ð X ¨ ÐI€thought€it€was€a€windfall,€I€argued€to€the€jury€but€not€successfully.€ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌÔ‡ XñXXXñÔà  àWhen€analyzing€a€petitionerððs€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€we€do€notÐ #l! Ðòòóósecond„guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€those€choices€wereÐ $X" Ðuninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð ô$D # ÐThe€petitioner€failed€to€present€any€evidence€to€show€that€trial€counsel€was€inadequately€preparedÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€his€cross„examination€of€McGary.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€had€extensive€conversationsÐ Ì&"% Ðwith€McGary€prior€to€trial,€and€that€he€had€reviewed€the€statement€she€gave€to€the€police.€€ThisÐ ¸'#& Ðallegation,€therefore,€is€without€merit.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà@‡ ‡ ìàò òD.€€Counselððs€Performance€on€Direct€Appealó óˆÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€petitioner€also€alleges€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€on€direct€appeal.€€As€proof,€heÐ ° Ðpoints€to€the€language€of€the€opinion€in€the€direct€appeal€of€his€case,€in€which€a€panel€of€this€courtÐ œì Ðcriticized€counselððs€failure€to€cite€adequately€to€the€record,€failure€to€provide€a€sufficient€record€forÐ ˆØ Ðreview,€and€use€of€ð ðdisjointedðð€and€ð ðincomprehensibleðð€argument.€€òòÔ#†XñXX Xñ¦~#ÔSeeóó€òòState€v.€George€Campbell,Ð tÄ ÐJr.óó,€No.€02„C„01„9408„CR„00165,€1996€WL€368224,€at€*€2„4€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€28,€1996),Ð `° Ðòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Jan.€6,€1997).€€€TheÔ‡ XñXXXñÔ€petitioner€failed€to€raise€counselððs€performanceÐ L œ Ðon€appeal€as€an€issue€in€his€post„conviction€petition,€however.€€He€also€failed€to€present€any€evidenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðat€the€post„conviction€hearing,€or€to€argue€it€as€an€issue€before€the€post„conviction€court.€€This€issue,Ð $ t Ðtherefore,€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€Ð  ` ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONˆÐ è 8  ÐÌóóó óà  àBased€upon€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€theÔ#†XñXX Xñ%…#Ô€petitioner€has€failed€to€meetÐ À  Ðhis€burden€of€proving€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€his€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€counsel.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition€for€post„Ð ˜è  Ðconviction€relief.Ð „Ô  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE