ÿWPCø õbîy›^jðò ¤æðŠ3¦%pKˆˆÑîðb5Ii;ýñ}O•Šš†y‚:{M¯‡u7z‘f¢Cr™¡ß{P~¦4Nü¯ Bé7kfoŠÕyu<lôl39ßð¬l˜¦ê"V´Œa,ë_e:,`Í“›nÖ9,)3BuP«:`¿ñŽÃÖý@éÌÅf£T¯À!Åæ}¾Dâ@øp”ÿA7’¬ðþJ­»„®òÄÓÙL<:5ˆpkÈ€Í5_–JQÙáËšÔp¸Êà˜½pYðJEŽüµK.$íþÍÚ •ÃjGÐKXÄć fÕôkª³Úók0ÝŽCÅåŠËcsXr…€½!6sÖ]ïšEPôC¶gšÓá…,ÿ×à!ÍëßoŽ„-›²+tíÅ¢-´H· ñlœÖµÌçnê|د½òá5À——ÌÐB( à¿2¢\Ì¢æPö^¨4FŽ•|ž ¢ˆc ©Yn ÇÔíÃ6p·õvQÔ‰ûmýMø “û°“"#’«¬†ÈÐit†SÑûvG|ªžÎ!Í‚DªÖEúãîð…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0Ær 0D8 U@| ¼ U:Yê“U:}·············· B¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ D3ÜÜÜ 0D AOSÆ¢¢ 0Dh D/¬ BÛ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- SETUUVEWXDYZ[D\Ó€uM%3|xe(v(2*à$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XæãXXXÔÔ€ôÉ£ôXXæãÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó*Ͼ¦ `(CG TimesScalable “Ý ƒ ¦>$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XXXXÔÔ€ô‘ôXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€only€thing€remotely€resembling€some€sanction€for€a€failure€to€comply€with€Section€40„30„Ð `  Ð211(d)€is€an€annual€report€to€the€general€assembly€by€the€administrative€office€of€the€courts€as€to€theÏcompliance€by€the€trial€courts€with€the€prescribed€time€limits.€€Presumably€this€is€so€the€general€assemblyÏmight€enact€either€express€sanctions€for€the€trial€courts€or€a€remedy€for€post„conviction€litigants€shouldÏwidespread€or€routine€failure€to€comply€with€Sec.€40„30„211(d)€appear.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular àÔ€XæãXXXÔÔ€ØF XXæãÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XæãX ØFÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ\ñ›ñ\ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š2âŠXXÔÔ€Š“ŠŠŠ2âÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ\ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rß›ñ\ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓLARRY€T.€CARTER,à h àà À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9710„CR„00488Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àœAppellñVñeeñVññWñantñWñ,›à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€ANN€LACY€JOHNSó óÐ Xø  Ðò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àœAppellñXñantñXññYñeeñYñ.›à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Post„Conviction€Relief)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌLARRY€T.€CARTERà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ( È ÐPro€Seà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  !À ÐTDOC€#83297ÌMiddle€Tennessee€Correctionalà  àLISA€A.€NAYLORÐ #° ÐComplexà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ $¨ Ð7177€Cockrill€Bend„Industrial€Roadà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ %  ÐNashville,€TN€€37209„1005à À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð ø%˜ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROGER€MOOREÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWashington€Square€„€Ste.€500Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à222„2nd€Avenue€N.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  p6-. ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„ â„ŠŠ“ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š“Š„„ â #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€ ž‚ X XdðXXdì7Ñœò òòòñYñòòóóñYñóóó ó›à ` àAppellant€Larry€T.€Carter€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€his€petition€forÐ ´ T Ðpost„conviction€relief.€€He€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€consideration€onÏthis€appeal:€€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€denied€Appellant€a€full€and€fair€evidentiaryÏhearing€by€failing€to€timely€file€its€order€dismissing€his€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief;€(2)€whether€there€is€a€constitutional€and€statutory€right€to€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€in€post„conviction€proceedings;€and€(3)€whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€dismissing€Appellant's€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.Ìà ` àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@  #®àò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óˆÐ $Ä Ðà ` àAppellant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€CourtÏon€March€13,€1991€of€the€following€offenses:€€four€counts€of€aggravated€rape,€oneÏcount€of€aggravated€sexual€battery,€four€counts€of€rape,€and€one€count€of€sexualÏbattery.€€As€a€Range€II€multiple€offender,€Appellant€received€an€effectiveÏsentence€of€one€hundred€ninety„eight€years€incarceration€with€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€This€Court€affirmed€his€conviction€and€sentence.€ÏòòState€v.€Larry€T.€Carteróó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9110„CR„00308,€Davidson€CountyÐ Ä+d"# Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€October€29,€1992).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏdenied€permission€to€appeal€on€January€25,€1993.€€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð ¤/D&' Ð(Tenn.€1993).Ìà ` àOn€July€20,€1995,€Appellant€filed€his€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„convictionÐ „3$*+ Ðrelief€in€the€Davidson€County€criminal€Court,€alleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€his€trialÐ t5,- Ðcounsel€ineffectively€represented€him.€€The€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€theÏpetition€on€April€17,€1996.€€On€May€12,€1997,€the€trial€court€dismissed€Appellant'sÐ T9ô/1 Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€On€June€16,€1997,€Appellant€filed€an€untimelyÏnotice€of€appeal.Ìà ` àSpecifically,€Appellant€alleges€the€following€deficiencies€in€his€trialÏcounsel's€representation:ÓÓÌÌà8 ` àà0¸ ` ü!` ü!à(1)€failure€to€present€an€alibi€defense;Ð ¸ ü!¸ ü! Ðà8 ` àà0¸ ` ü!` ü!à(2)€failure€to€call€Reba€Carter,€Appellant's€wife€and€the€motherÏof€the€two€victims,€to€testify€as€anticipated€in€counsel'sÏopening€statement;€andÐ ¸ ü!¸ ü! Ðà8 ` àà0¸ ` ü!` ü!à(3)€failure€to€call€Appellant€to€testify.ÓÓÐ ¸ ü!¸ ü! ÐAs€stated€previously,€Appellant€also€complains€about€his€post„conviction€hearing.€ÏIt€is€these€claims€we€will€address€first.Ìà@ŠŠ!®àò òII.€€POST„CONVICTION€RELIEFó óˆÐ °P Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€raised€in€the€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€òòSee€also€Scott€v.€Stateóó,€936€S.W.2d€271,€272Ð È#h Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€areÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€ÏòòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996);€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904Ð à)€  ÐS.W.2d€594,€595„96€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.Ð è+ˆ"" Ð1993).ÌÌà@ÀÀ"®àò òA.€€FULL€AND€FAIR€HEARINGó óˆÐ 2 (( Ðà ` àAppellant's€first€contention€is€that€he€was€denied€a€full€and€fair€hearing€onÏhis€post„conviction€petition€because€the€trial€court€failed€to€issue€an€order€withinÏthe€time€constraints€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„211(d).€€We€disagree.Ìà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„211(d)€provides:ÓÓÐ  :À00 Їà8 ` àà0¸ ` ü!` ü!à(d)€The€court€shall€rule€within€sixty€(60)€days€of€conclusion€ofÏthe€proof.€€Such€deadline€shall€not€be€extended€byÏagreement,€and€such€deadline€may€be€extended€only€byÏorder€of€the€court€based€upon€a€finding€that€unforeseeableÏcircumstances€render€a€continuance€a€manifest€necessity.€ÏSuch€extension€shall€not€exceed€thirty€(30)€days.Ð ¸ ü!¸ ü! ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„211(d).ÓÓÌAppellant's€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€April€17,€1996.€€On€May€12,€1997,Ïmore€than€one€year€later,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€dismissing€Appellant'sÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€Ìà ` àNothing€in€the€post„conviction€procedure€act€prescribes€either€a€remedy€orÏa€sanction€for€a€trial€courtððs€failure€to€comply€with€the€time€limits€set€out€in€SectionÏ40„30„211(d).׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€we€do€not€condone€a€failure€to€comply€with€the€law€asÐ ¨H Ðstated€in€Section€40„30„112(d),€we€reject€the€notion€that€such€an€error€in€this€caseÏdeprived€Appellant€of€a€full€and€fair€hearing€of€his€post„conviction€claims.€€A€fullÏand€fair€hearing€of€post„conviction€claims€is€a€hearing€wherein€the€petitioner€isÏgiven€every€opportunity€to€present€evidence€and€argument€with€respect€to€hisÏclaims.€€See,€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€711€(Tenn.€1995).€€Appellant€wasÐ Ð%p Ðafforded€such€an€opportunity€in€this€case.€€The€fact€that€the€final€order€wasÏentered€in€an€untimely€fashion€does€not€detract€from€the€full€presentation€ofÏAppellantððs€claims€to€the€œcourts.›€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@0 0 ®àò òB.€€CONSTITUTIONAL€RIGHT€TO€EFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OFˆÐ 2 (( ÐCOUNSELó óÐ 4¨** Ðà@º º ®àò òDURING€POST„CONVICTION€PROCEEDINGSó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àAppellant€next€urges€this€Court€to€conclude€that€the€constitutional€right€toÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€should€be€broadened€to€apply€in€the€context€ofÏpost„conviction€proceedings.€€To€bolster€this€assertion,€he€alleges€that€the€Post„¼Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„201,€òòet€seq.óó,Ð €  Ðcreated€a€statutory€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€post„convictionÏproceedings.€€We€disagree.Ìà ` àBoth€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€and€this€Court€have€held€that€there€isÏno€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€post„conviction€counsel.€ÏòòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€712€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€904€S.W.2dÐ ¨H Ð123,€124€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€òòSee€also€Pennsylvania€v.€Finleyóó,€481€U.S.Ð °P Ð551,€554„55,€107€S.Ct.€1990,€1993,€95€L.Ed.2d€539€(1987)€(holding€that€thereÏexists€no€federal€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€post„convictionÏcounsel).€€Furthermore,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„201,€òòet€seq.óó,€contains€noÐ È#h Ðstatutory€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€the€post„conviction€setting.€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ð ð ®àò òIII.€€EFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ è+ˆ"" Ðà ` àAppellant's€final€claim€on€this€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÏhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€based€upon€Appellant's€allegation€that€heÏreceived€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€and€appellate€counsel.ÌÌà@    ®àò òA.€€EFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€TRIAL€COUNSELó óˆÐ 6°,, Ðà ` àThe€Sixth€Amendment€provides€in€part,€"In€all€criminal€prosecutions,€theÏaccused€shall€enjoy€the€right.€.€.€to€have€the€assistance€of€counsel€for€hisÐ  :À00 Ðdefense."€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€6.€€Similarly,€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏguarantees€an€accused€"the€right€to€be€heard€by€himself€and€his€counsel.€.€.€"€ÏTenn.€Const.€art.€I€ðð€9.€€In€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€the€United€States€SupremeÐ p  ÐCourt€articulated€a€two„prong€test€for€courts€to€employ€in€evaluating€claims€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674Ï(1984).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adopted€òòStricklandóó's€two„part€test€inÐ ˆ(  ÐòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€òòStricklandóó€Court€beganÐ 0  Ðits€analysis€by€noting€that€"The€benchmark€for€judging€any€claim€ofÏineffectiveness€must€be€whether€counsel's€conduct€so€undermined€the€properÏfunctioning€of€the€adversarial€process€that€the€trial€cannot€be€relied€on€as€havingÏproduced€a€just€result."€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064.€€When€a€convictedÐ °P Ðdefendant€challenges€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€post„convictionÏproceeding,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€€(1)€deficientÏrepresentation€of€counsel€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€that€deficiency.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2d€551,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ð%p ÐApp.€1996).€€Appellant€must€prove€that€counsel's€representation€fell€below€anÏobjective€standard€of€reasonableness.€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064.€€This€CourtÐ à)€  Ðis€not€required€to€consider€the€two€prongs€of€òòStricklandóó€in€any€particular€order.€Ð è+ˆ"" ÐòòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€156,€163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€"Moreover,€if€theÐ ð-$$ ÐAppellant€fails€to€establish€one€prong,€a€reviewing€court€need€not€consider€theÏother."€€òòId.óó€€With€regard€to€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€proper€measureÐ 2 (( Ðis€that€of€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.€€òòId.óó€(citingÐ 4¨** ÐòòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065).€€Put€differently,€counsel's€performance€is€requiredÐ 6°,, Ðto€be€"within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€ÏòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975);€òòHarrisóó,€947€S.W.2d€at€163.€Ð  :À00 ÐRespecting€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStricklandóó,€the€Appellant€must€establish€thatÐ `  Ð"there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel's€unprofessional€errors,€theÏresult€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€isÏa€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome."€€òòStricklandóó,€104Ð x ÐS.Ct.€at€2068.Ìà ` àThe€òòStricklandóó€Court€emphasized€that€"Judicial€scrutiny€of€counsel'sÐ ˆ(  Ðperformance€must€be€highly€deferential."€€òòId.óó€at€2065.€€"A€`fair€assessment€.€.€.Ð 0  Ðrequires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,Ïto€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€toÏevaluate€the€conduct€from€counsel's€perspective€at€the€time.'"€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938Ð ¨H ÐS.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065).€€The€mereÐ °P Ðfailure€of€a€particular€tactic€or€strategy€does€not€per€se€establish€unreasonableÏrepresentation.€€òòId.óó€at€369.€€However,€this€Court€will€defer€to€counsel's€tacticalÐ À!` Ðand€strategic€choices€only€where€those€choices€are€informed€ones€predicatedÏupon€adequate€preparation.€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629Ð Ð%p ÐS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).Ìà ` àRegarding€Appellant's€first€alleged€deficiency,€he€specifically€complainsÏthat€trial€counsel€performed€deficiently€at€trial€by€failing€to€present€an€alibiÏdefense.€€€€At€the€hearing€on€Appellant's€post„conviction€petition,€trial€counselÏtestified€that€he€and€Appellant€had€discussed€the€trial€strategy€of€discrediting€theÏtwo€victims€as€well€as€other€character€witnesses.€€The€attorney€testified€thatÏAppellant€understood€this€strategy.€€In€its€order€dismissing€Appellant's€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€because€the€victims€residedÏâ âwith€Appellant€and€because€the€"criminal€conduct€was€an€ongoing€part€of€[theÐ 8¸.. Ðvictims]€daily€existence.€.€.,€the€acts€simply€could€not€be€tied€to€calendar€dates€byÏthe€victims.€€Therefore,€a€defense€of€alibi€was€not€available€in€this€case.€Ìâ âà ` à€€We€œconclude›€œit€was€reasonable›€œnot›€œto€present›€œa›€defense€of€alibi,Ïespecially€given€that€the€victims€could€not€identify€specific€dates€on€which€theÏoffenses€occurred.€€The€trial€court€properly€concluded€that€the€attorney€hadÏdirected€his€efforts€in€a€more€appropriate€direction€by€focusing€on€discrediting€theÏtestimony€of€the€victims€rather€than€pursuing€a€rather€useless€alibi€defense.€€ThisÏalleged€deficiency€does€not€make€out€a€claim€of€ineffectiveness€of€counsel.Ìà ` àWe€find€no€merit€in€Appellant's€second€allegation€that€his€trial€attorneyÏrendered€deficient€representation€by€failing€to€call€Appellantððs€wife,€Reba€œCarter,›Ïas€a€witness€although€he€had€mentioned€her€name€during€his€opening€statement.€ÏCounsel€conceded€that€he€had€mentioned€Reba€Carter's€name€in€his€openingÏstatement.€€However,€after€the€first€day€of€the€trial,€Reba€Carter€purportedlyÏthreatened€one€of€her€daughters€(the€alleged€victims)€during€a€telephoneÏconversation.€€€As€a€result€of€some€of€the€comments€made€by€Mrs.€Carter€to€herÏdaughter€during€the€telephone€conversation,€trial€counsel€advised€Appellant€thatÏit€would€be€problematic€to€use€Mrs.€Carter's€testimony.€€Counsel€further€testifiedÏthat€Appellant€wanted€counsel€to€make€the€final€decision€as€to€whether€or€not€toÏcall€Reba€Carter.€€Finally,€although€counsel€gave€no€explanation€to€the€jury€as€toÏthe€reason€for€not€calling€Mrs.€Carter€as€a€œwitness,›€œñPñtñPñhe›€decision€not€to€call€RebaÏCarter€as€a€witness€was€a€reasonable€tactical€choice€under€the€circumstances.€ÏMoreover,€during€the€jury€selection€process,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€thatÏlawyers€commonly€added€or€deleted€people€from€their€list€of€potential€witnessesÏâ âas€the€trial€evolved€and€that€such€alterations€were€not€significant.€€In€light€of€theÐ 8¸.. Ðforegoing,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€outcome€of€Appellant's€trial€would€haveÏbeen€different€had€Reba€Carter€been€called€to€testify.Ìâ âà ` àFinally,€Appellant€erroneously€asserts€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€inÏfailing€to€present€Appellant's€testimony.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trialÏcounsel€explained€that€he€thought€that€it€would€be€detrimental€to€Appellant€toÏtestify€because€this€would€"open€the€door"€to€cross„examination€concerningÏAppellant's€prior€conviction€for€child€sexual€abuse.€See,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609.€€TrialÏcounsel€successfully€prevented€the€jury€from€becoming€aware€of€this€priorÏconviction,€and€given€the€nature€of€the€charges€we€conclude€this€was€a€prudentÏstrategic€decision.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@\ \ ®àò òB.€€EFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€APPELLATE€COUNSELó óˆÐ ¸X Ðà ` àAppellant€next€urges€this€Court€to€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erroneouslyÏdetermined€that€he€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel€on€appeal.€€However,ÏAppellant€does€not€specifically€enumerate€the€deficiencies€of€which€he€complains.Ìà ` àThe€same€two„prong€standard€that€is€used€in€considering€claims€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€is€also€employed€to€evaluate€allegations€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Porterfield€v.€Stateóó,€897Ð è+ˆ"" ÐS.W.2d€672,€677„78€(Tenn.€1995).€€Typically,€the€decision€about€which€issues€toÏraise€on€appeal€is€one€that€is€left€to€the€professional€judgment€and€soundÏdiscretion€of€appellate€counsel.€€òòPorterfieldóó,€897€S.W.2d€at€678;€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,Ð 2 (( Ð849€S.W.2d€at€747.Ìà ` àApproximately€one€month€after€Appellant's€trial,€trial€counsel€filed€a€motionÏto€withdraw.€€However,€according€to€counselððs€testimony€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing,€he€withdrew€the€motion€because€Appellant€wanted€counsel€to€continueÐ  :À00 Ðto€represent€him€on€appeal.€€€€œñZñCñZññ[ñcñ[ñounselððs›€time€sheet€reflects€that€he€spent€overÏ51.3€out„of„court€hours€preparing€Appellant's€case€for€appeal.€€€œTrial€›counselÏraised€ten€issues€on€appeal€to€this€Court.€€òòCarteróó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9110„CR„Ð p  Ð00308,€slip€op.€at€1„2.€€œThe€trial€attornñRñeyñRñ›€testified€that€after€this€Court€issued€itsÏdecision€in€Appellant's€case,€œñSñMr.€›WibkingñSññTñcounselñTñ›€again€filed€a€motion€to€withdraw.€€Given€theÏstate€of€this€record€we€can€discern€no€insufficiency€in€counselððs€performanceÏduring€the€direct€appeal€of€this€case.ÌœñUñÌñUññUñÌñUñ›Ìà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE