WPCj F!8v9*oXۥ]PE08nRKK߹` 2 c1h[#,DUy RMCM[Hc¡xƷ Z_YVKGJi5}銫Wlf3nAOTQ۫ڑΌ¦i3ec` /!% itwashisnormalpracticetoinformallofhisclientsthattheburdenofproofwasonthestate,and &$"& that,ascriminaldefendants,theyhadarighttotestifybutalsohadarightnottotestify.Mr._Stepter_ ' #' feltcertainthatthedefendantwasnoexception.Thus,thedefendantstestimonyandMr._Stepter_s  testimonyconflicted.Thetrialcourtwasinabetterpositionthanthiscourttoevaluatethe  witnessescredibility,andapparentlyresolvedtheconflictintestimonyagainstthedefendant.We | willnotsecondguessthetrialcourtscredibilitydeterminationshere.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. b   #VXX## X#XVEffectiveAssistanceofAppellateCounsel#VXX#&#/ V  . ~   #V /c'#X#XV  Thedefendantalsoarguesthathisappellatecounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallenge  d thetrialcourtsapplicationatsentencingofastatutoryenhancementfactor.However,thisissuewas  J notraisedintheappellantspostconvictionpetitionoranyofitsamendments,norwasitarguedat  0 theevidentiaryhearing.Consequently,therewasnotestimonyattheevidentiaryhearing#X#XXX#"#X#XXX#Ԁaboutthe    adequacyofappellaterepresentationorwhythedecisionwasmadenottoraisetheissueonappeal.    Further,thetrialcourtmadenofindingsoffactregardingtheadequacyofrepresentationonappeal.   Wearethusprecludedfromconsideringthisissue.Tenn.R.App.P.36(a)._Marise_ԀE.Smithv. x  State,No.01C019708CR00342(Tenn._Crim_.App.,September2,1999,atNashville). ^    Moreover,giventheremainingunchallengedenhancementfactors,particularlythegravity D  oftheinjuriessustainedbythevictim,thesentenceisentirelyappropriateevendiscountingthe *z  factoraboutwhichthedefendantcomplains.Wearethereforeunabletogleananyprejudicefrom ` appellatecounselsactions.Thisissuehasnomerit. F   Consequently,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED. ,      `     h     _____________________________     `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE#X#XXX#)#X#XXX# x #X#XXX#d/#X#XXX# t #X#XXX#/##VXX#'#X#XV