ÿWPCW/ …# VU:a %› 0 ¡w@¥ 4å ù 0H 0DP ” 0Jœ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dy BÝU*úB)$DCM AM D3ÝÊåÚ 0@¿³ÿ›²óMr@?²!pñ#v~a&vÓß' AO²-Æ. 0DÇ. D/ / B:/˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ é Dê ì Dí î Eï Lð ñ ò /ó Ó€Úƒç"3|xþ (ø(3`‚$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÿÎXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ16,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔAppellant€was€indicted€on€two€counts€of€aggravated€kidnapping.€€One€count€alleged€seriousÏbodily€injury€as€the€aggravating€circumstance€of€the€offense.€€The€other€count€alleged€commission€of€aÏfelony€during€the€kidnapping€as€the€aggravating€circumstance.€€When€reading€the€indictment€to€the€jury,Ïthe€prosecutor€referred€to€these€as€ð ðalternate,€not€two€counts.ððÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ©Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔThe€supreme€court€denied€permission€to€appeal€on€May€4,€1992.Ì ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔThe€petition€as€contained€in€the€technical€record€is€not€file„stamped€by€the€clerk€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€This€approximate€date€is€based€upon€the€appellantððs€signature€on€the€petition,€which€wasÏaccompanied€by€the€date€of€May€28,€1993.€€We€rely€upon€this€date€for€chronological€purposes€only.Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔA€letter€from€counsel€to€appellant€dated€May€8,€1992,€was€also€introduced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€With€respect€to€the€aggravated€assault€conviction,€it€advised€appellant€of€his€right€toÏpursue€a€post„conviction€petition€based€on€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€ð ðto€the€extent€that€you€didÏnot€authorize€any€agreed€amendment€upon€the€aggravated€assault€conviction.ððÌ hÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔThe€transcript€from€the€preliminary€hearing€is€not€included€in€the€record€before€us.€€Apart€fromÏhis€own€testimony,€appellant€presented€no€other€evidence€of€such€a€statement.€€Therefore,€we€areÏunable€to€address€the€veracity€of€this€hearsay€allegation.Ì 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔProof€at€trial,€including€the€appellantððs€testimony,€reflected€that€when€police€came€to€his€houseÏinquiring€about€the€victim,€he€immediately€told€them€she€was€there€and€invited€them€in€to€see€her.€€Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔThe€Stateððs€medical€expert€suggested€that€the€protection€cup€may€have€been€placed€over€theÏvictimððs€nose€and€mouth€during€the€assault.€€However,€the€cup€apparently€had€holes€throughout€andÏwould€have€been€difficult€to€facilitate€asphyxiation.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌÌà@ à€€JANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌBUD€CASH,€JR.,à àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9607„CC„00271€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àBRADLEY€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€R.€STEVEN€BEBB,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌDouglas€A.€Trantà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ900€S.€Gay€Streetà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€1502à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌKnoxville,€TN€37902à àà àà àà àSandy€R.€Copousà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJerry€N.€EstesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àG.€Scott€KanavosÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à93€N.€Ocoee€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCleveland,€TN€37364ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Bud€Cash,€Jr.,€appeals€as€of€right€the€dismissal€by€the€BradleyÏCounty€œCriminal›€Court€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€On€appeal,€heÏcontends€that:€ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€permitting€the€State€to€amend€theÏindictment€without€the€appellantððs€consent;€ÌÌà8 à(2)€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€seeking€to€suppress€theÏappellantððs€statement;€ÌÌà8 à(3)€two€searches€conducted€of€his€residence€were€unconstitutional€andÏhis€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€move€for€suppression€of€theÏevidence€obtained€from€them;€and€ÌÌà8 à(4)€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€irrelevant€andÏprejudicial€evidence.€€ÌÌÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€including€the€records€from€appellantððs€previousÏtwo€appeals,€we€conclude€that€appellant€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.Ìà@ àò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àAppellant€was€convicted€in€1990€by€a€Bradley€County€jury€of€assault€withÏintent€to€commit€voluntary€manslaughter,€aggravated€assault,€and€aggravatedÏkidnapping.€€The€victim€was€appellantððs€then„girlfriend,€Linda€Hall.€€The€StateððsÏtheory€was€that€appellant€severely€beat€the€victim€and€then€confined€her€in€his€homeÏfor€five€days€without€seeking€medical€attention.€€The€victim€suffered€a€skull€fracture,€aÍstroke€as€a€result€of€asphyxiation,€permanent€brain€damage,€blunt€trauma€to€the€headÏand€extensive€bruising€over€her€entire€body.€€Due€to€the€nature€of€her€head€injuries,Ïshe€was€unable€to€remember€the€incident€and€required€prolonged€rehabilitation.€€Ìà àAppellant€denied€the€allegations,€explaining€that€the€victim€fell€out€of€his€vanÏon€a€Saturday€night€after€she€had€been€drinking.€€He€testified€that€she€hit€her€headÏand€also€fell€on€two€other€occasions€once€inside€his€home.€€Appellant€furtherÏdescribed€a€disagreement€between€him€and€the€victim€later€that€evening€duringÏwhich€she€threatened€him€with€a€gun.€€A€struggle€ensued€and€he€admitted€that€heÏmay€have€inflicted€some€of€the€bruises€while€acting€in€self„defense.€€He€testified€thatÏshe€repeatedly€refused€medical€treatment€so€he€cared€for€her€those€five€days.€€TheÏdefense€strategy€was€to€portray€appellant€as€a€loving€man€who€had€thoughtfullyÏcared€for€the€victimððs€injuries€and€that€he€had€nothing€to€hide.€€€Ìà àOn€direct€appeal,€this€Court€found€that€the€two€assault€convictions€violatedÏdouble€jeopardy.€€òòState€v.€Bud€Cash,€Jr.óó,€No.€286€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,ÏJanuary€30,€1992).€€There€was€insufficient€evidence€that€two€separate€assaults€hadÏoccurred.€€Therefore,€this€Court€merged€the€assault€with€intent€to€commit€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€conviction€into€the€aggravated€assault€conviction.€€Slip€op.€at€22.€€ThisÏCourt€further€found€that€it€was€unclear€as€to€which€count€of€aggravated€kidnapping× ƒ, ××  ×Íthe€State€had€elected€and€whether€the€trial€court€had€properly€instructed€the€jury€inÏthat€regard.€€Slip€op.€at€17.€€The€case€was€remanded€to€the€trial€court€to€determine€theÏStateððs€election€and€also€to€hold€a€new€sentencing€hearing€on€the€consecutiveÏnature€of€the€sentences.€€Slip€op.€at€26.Ìà àOn€February€14,€1992,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€intended€to€be€inÏaccordance€with€the€remand€ordered€by€this€Court.€€The€trial€court€ascertained€thatÏthe€State€had€elected€aggravated€kidnapping€with€serious€bodily€injury€and€furtherÏconcluded€that€the€jury€was€properly€instructed€on€this€offense.€€It€reinstated€theÏaggravated€kidnapping€conviction€and€a€new€sentencing€date€was€set.€€AfterÏresentencing,€appellant€appealed€the€order€of€the€trial€court€and€the€consecutiveÏnature€of€the€sentences.€€Ìà àOn€appeal€for€the€second€time,€this€Court€held€that€the€trial€court€issued€theÏorder€reinstating€the€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction€prematurely.€€òòState€v.€Cashóó,Ï867€S.W.2d€741,€747€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€The€order,€dated€only€two€weeks€afterÏthe€appellate€opinion€was€released,€was€entered€while€the€appellant€was€pursuingÏcertiorari€to€the€state€supreme€court.× ƒ. ××  ×€€œTherefore,›€the€trial€court€was€withoutÏjurisdiction€to€act.€€òòId.óó€€Contrary€to€the€trial€courtððs€order,€this€Court€also€determinedÍthat€the€State€had€elected€aggravated€kidnapping€in€the€commission€of€a€felony€andÏthe€jury€charge€did€not€instruct€on€the€elements€of€this€offense.€€òòIdóó€at€748.€€As€a€result,Ïthe€aggravated€kidnapping€conviction€was€reversed.€€òòId.óó€€Only€the€aggravated€assaultÏconviction€remained€against€the€appellant.€€He€was€sentenced€to€six€years€for€thatÏoffense.Ìà àIn€May€of€1993,€while€serving€his€sentence,€appellant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€attacking€the€aggravated€assault€conviction.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€petition€œalleged›Ïineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€After€the€appointment€of€counsel€and€anÏevidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€determined€that€appellantððs€trial€counsel€was€notÏineffective,€finding€that€in€each€œinstance›€the€actions€of€counsel€were€informed€tacticalÏdecisions.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€œstated,›€ð ðMr.€Logan€has€employed€his€method€inÏthis€court€for€many€years€and€has€always€been€effective€as€counsel€and€extremelyÏsuccessful€in€his€methods.ðð€€Ìà@ àò òII.€€ANALYSISó ó€€Ìà àIn€reviewing€the€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€renderedÏby€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€aÍclaim€of€ineffective€counsel,€an€appellant€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððs€representationÏfell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€this€performanceÏprejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694,Ï104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064,€2067„68,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2dÏ421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€€Ìà àThe€allegations€within€a€petition€must€be€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€TheÏmost€difficult€burden€on€an€appellant€is€demonstrating€the€prejudice€he€has€sufferedÏby€the€alleged€error.€€In€order€to€prevail€on€that€ground,€the€appellant€must€show€aÏreasonable€probability€that€but€for€counselððs€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€wouldÏhave€been€different.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687„88.€€The€inability€to€prove€eitherÏprong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test€results€in€failure€of€the€claim.€€òòIdóó€at€697.Ìò òA.€Amendment€to€Indictmentó ó€€Ìà àAppellant€first€contends€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€permitting€the€StateÏto€amend€Count€2€of€the€indictment€on€the€day€of€trial€without€his€consent.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€Count€2€charged€appellant€with€the€aggravated€assault€of€Linda€Hall€byÏcausing€serious€bodily€injury.€€That€count€of€the€indictment€originally€did€not€allegeÏthat€the€offense€was€committed€ð ðwillfully,€knowingly,€or€recklessly,€underÏcircumstances€manifesting€extreme€indifference€to€the€value€of€human€life,ðð€asÏrequired€by€the€statute.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„2„101€(Supp.€1988).€€AppellantððsÍcounsel€filed€a€pretrial€motion€to€dismiss€the€count,€alleging€it€did€not€state€anÏoffense.€€Although€the€trial€court€overruled€the€defense€motion,€the€StateÏacknowledged€that€the€necessary€language€was€missing€from€the€indictment.€€After€aÏrecess,€the€assistant€district€attorney€read€the€indictment€to€the€jury€with€theÏnecessary€language€in€Count€2.€€Ìà àLater€in€the€trial€transcript,€the€assistant€district€attorney€clarified€for€the€recordÏthat€appellantððs€counsel€had€agreed€to€allow€the€State€to€amend€the€indictmentÏduring€the€recess€and€present€it€to€the€jury€in€its€amended€form.€€The€record€containsÏno€written€agreed€order€on€the€amendment,€nor€was€the€discussion€between€theÏattorneys€documented€in€the€transcript.€€€€Ìà àThe€amendment€to€the€indictment€was€challenged€in€the€first€appeal.€€WhileÏstating€that€the€record€was€unclear,€this€Court€nevertheless€found€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€amendment€were€sufficient€to€indicate€the€appellantððs€consent.€ÏòòState€v.€Bud€Cash,€Jr.óó,€No.€286,€slip€op.€at€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€JanuaryÏ30,€1992).€€There€was€no€objection€to€the€assistant€district€attorneyððs€reading€theÏamended€indictment€to€the€jury,€no€objection€to€the€prosecutorððs€characterization€ofÏthe€discussion€during€the€recess,€nor€an€objection€to€the€jury€charge€which€instructedÏthe€jury€on€the€elements€of€the€offense€as€amended€in€the€indictment.€€Thus,Ïappellantððs€consent€was€implicit.€€Slip€op.€at€12.€Ìà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€appellant€testified€that€he€never€consented€toÏthe€amendment€of€the€indictment,€that€counsel€never€asked€him€if€he€consented,€norÏdid€counsel€tell€him€his€consent€was€required.œ× ƒ0 ××  ×›€€Similarly,€trial€counsel€testified€thatÏappellant€did€not€consent€to€the€amendment.€€However,€he€stated€that€he€discussedÏthe€amendment€with€appellant€and€explained€the€likelihood€of€the€indictment€beingÏresubmitted€to€the€grand€jury€if€no€consent€was€given.€€Ìà àCounsel€admitted€discussing€the€amendment€with€the€assistant€districtÏattorney€during€a€recess,€but€denied€that€he€gave€any€affirmative€consent€to€theÏamendment.€€He€believed€that€the€trial€court€œcommitted›€œreversible›€error€in€overrulingÏhis€motion€to€dismiss€and€that€the€prosecutorððs€method€of€amending€the€indictmentÏwas€inadequate.€Trial€counsel€explained€his€earlier€silence€by€expressing€his€beliefÏthat€the€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€required€a€defendantððs€affirmative€consent,€suchÏas€an€agreed€order,€before€an€amendment€would€be€valid.€€Without€providing€suchÏconsent,€he€was€certain€appellant€would€prevail€on€appeal€of€this€issue.€€TrialÏcounsel€acknowledged€that€his€strategy€worked€against€appellant€on€appeal,€butÏremained€steadfast€in€his€belief.€€Ìà àIt€is€clear€from€trial€counselððs€testimony€that€this€tactical€decision€was€anÏexercise€of€judgment€based€upon€his€interpretation€of€the€rules€of€procedure.€ÏTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€7(b)€permits€the€amendment€of€an€indictmentÏat€any€time€with€the€consent€of€the€defendant.€€Without€consent,€however,€the€courtÏmay€permit€amendment€before€jeopardy€attaches€only€if€no€additional€offense€isÏthereby€charged€and€no€substantial€rights€of€the€defendant€are€prejudiced.€€òòId.óóÓÓ€€ÓÓItÏdoes€not€appear€that€counsel€made€the€decision€on€a€whim€or€because€he€wasÏuninformed€about€the€applicable€procedural€rules.€€We€must€give€deference€toÏtactical€decisions€if€they€are€informed€ones€that€are€the€result€of€adequateÏpreparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(citations€omitted).€€òòSeeóóÏòòalso€Cooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€mere€fact€that€inÏhindsight€the€tactic€was€detrimental€to€the€appellant€is€not€sufficient€to€substantiateÏineffectiveness.€€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.€€Ìœò òB.›€Suppression€of€Statementó óÌà àSecondly,€appellant€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏmove€for€suppression€of€the€statement€he€gave€to€law€enforcement€officials.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€was€not€advised€of€his€rights€before€œgiving›€his€statement€and€he€alsoÏstated€that€trial€counsel€did€not€discuss€these€matters€with€him.€€He€further€testifiedÏthat€immediately€prior€to€being€questioned,€a€detective€picked€up€an€ice€pick,€rolled€itÏin€his€hands,€and€told€appellant€he€was€facing€thirty€years.€€He€was€then€given€aÍwaiver€of€rights€form€to€sign.€€Additionally,€appellant€claimed€one€law€enforcementÏofficer€testified€at€the€preliminary€hearing€that€he€could€not€remember€whether€heÏread€appellant€his€rights€before€taking€the€statement.œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›Ìà àTrial€counselððs€testimony€on€this€issue€directly€conflicts€with€appellantððs.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€and€appellant€discussed€in€great€detail€everything€that€happenedÏafter€law€enforcement€became€involved.€€Appellant€never€informed€him€of€anyÏcoercion€by€authorities.€€Counsel€summed€up€his€belief€by€saying€ð ðMr.€Cash€couldÏnot€sustain€by€his€own€testimony€a€position€that€was€consistent€with€a€suppression€ofÏthose€statements.ðð€€Furthermore,€appellantððs€position€all€along€was€that€he€hadÏnothing€to€hide€and€that€he€was€cooperative€with€law€enforcement.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€CounselÏbelieved€a€motion€to€suppress€would€undermine€such€a€theory.€€€€€Ìà àThe€trial€record€indicates€that€after€the€victim€was€discovered€at€the€appellantððsÏhome,€appellant€was€arrested,€taken€to€the€police€station,€and€read€his€rights.€€HeÏexecuted€a€written€waiver€of€his€rights€and€gave€his€statement€to€officers.€€At€trial,Ïappellant€testified€consistently€with€this€statement.€€Appellantððs€constitutional€rightsÏwere€not€violated€in€this€regard.€€The€statement€was€given€voluntarily€after€appellantÍhad€been€read€his€rights.€€Counsel€cannot€be€faulted€for€failing€to€seek€suppressionÏwhere€there€œwere›€clearly€no€grounds€upon€which€to€pursue€such€a€motion.€€òòSeeóóÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€10€(Tenn.€1982)€(finding€it€was€a€justifiable€decisionÏto€not€seek€suppression€of€alibi€statement€where€it€was€clearly€œadmissable).›€€€Ìà àAlthough€the€appellant€testified€to€different€circumstances€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€implicitly€accredits€counselððs€testimony.€ÏUpon€review,€this€Court€cannot€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€We€giveÏdeference€to€questions€about€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€their€testimony,€and€the€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€as€they€areÏresolved€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990).€€Appellant€has€failed€to€prove€this€allegation€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.Ìò òC.€Suppression€of€Evidenceó óÌà àNext,€appellant€contends€that€two€searches€of€his€residence€wereÏunconstitutional€and€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€seek€suppression€ofÏthe€evidence€obtained€during€the€searches.€€He€alleges€that€a€flashlight€and€œa€cash›Ïregister€receipt€were€outside€the€scope€of€the€search€warrant€and€were€not€evidenceÏof€a€crime.€€In€addition,€appellant€contends€the€information€in€the€affidavit€supportingÏthe€second€search€warrant€was€stale€and€failed€to€constitute€probable€cause.€ÍAccording€to€appellant,€there€was€no€tactical€reason€for€failing€to€move€forÏsuppression.€€Ìà àSeveral€hours€after€discovering€the€victim€in€serious€medical€condition€in€theÏappellantððs€home,€authorities€sought€a€search€warrant€for€the€residence.€€TheyÏobtained€a€warrant€authorizing€a€search€of€the€premises€for€ð ðevidence€of€a€crime.ðð€ÏThe€evidence€seized€during€this€search€and€admitted€at€trial€included€a€œflashlight,›Ïblouse,€pants,€bra€and€panties€belonging€to€the€œvictim,›€and€a€cash€register€receiptÏfrom€a€Red€Food€Store.€Ìà àThe€second€search€warrant€was€obtained€almost€three€weeks€later.€€OnÏœJune15,›€1989,€officials€went€to€appellantððs€residence€with€a€warrant€seeking€onlyÏone€item:€an€athleteððs€ð ðprotection€cup.ðð€€The€record€reflects€that€appellant€was€homeÏwhen€officers€arrived.€€Upon€informing€appellant€of€their€purpose,€he€retrieved€theÏitem€and€voluntarily€turned€it€over€to€the€officials.Ìà àIt€is€important€to€note€that€the€validity€of€the€search€warrants€and€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€searches€are€not€issues€before€us.€€These€issues€were€notÏraised€on€direct€appeal€and€must€be€considered€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„112(b)(1)€(repealed€1995);€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995),Ïòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó€___€U.S.€___,€116€S.Ct.€1685,134€L.Ed.2d€787€(1996).€€Appellant€hasÏnot€alleged€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€raise€these€issues€on€appeal.€ÍAs€a€result,€we€determine€only€the€issue€of€counselððs€ineffectiveness€in€failing€to€seekÏsuppression€of€the€evidence.€€Ìà àTrial€counsel€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€felt€a€motion€toÏsuppress€the€evidence€was€inappropriate.€€After€he€and€appellant€discussed€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€searches,€counsel€believed€appellant€had€basicallyÏconsented€in€each€instance.€€Once€again,€he€emphasized€that€appellantððsÏcooperation€was€in€keeping€with€the€defense€theory.€€This€was€further€exemplified€byÏappellantððs€voluntary€relinquishment€of€the€only€item€sought€in€the€second€warrant.Ìà àConsidering€this€testimony€and€the€trial€record,€it€appears€that€the€decision€notÏto€contest€either€search€was€an€informed€decision.€€Counsel€discussed€theÏcircumstances€of€each€search€with€the€appellant€and€concluded€that€appellant€hadÏconsented€to€each.€€Moreover,€counsel€was€convinced€that€appellantððs€defenseÏwould€be€bolstered€if€the€jury€believed€he€had€cooperated€fully€with€the€investigation.€ÏA€motion€to€suppress€the€evidence€would€have€been€inconsistent€with€that€defense.€ÏStrategic€choices€made€after€thorough€investigation€of€law€and€facts€relevant€toÏplausible€options€are€virtually€unchallengeable.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ï668,€690,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€€Hence,€we€grant€deference€toÏcounselððs€tactical€decision.€€œMoreover,›€appellant€failed€to€show€that€any€of€theÏevidence€introduced€from€either€search€was€prejudicial€in€the€sense€that€the€outcomeÏof€the€trial€would€have€been€different.€€òòIdóó€at€694.Ìà àAppellant€also€alleges€that€the€second€search€warrant€contained€a€falseÏstatement€by€law€enforcement€which€provided€sufficient€grounds€for€counsel€to€seekÏsuppression€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòFranks€v.€Delawareóó,€438€U.S.€154,€98€S.Ct.€2674,Ï57€L.Ed.2d€667€(1978).€€The€affidavit€supporting€the€second€warrant€stated€that€theÏprotection€cup€had€been€observed€during€the€first€search,€but€it€ð ðwas€of€no€interest€atÏthat€time.ðð€€Appellant€alleges€that€this€is€a€false€statement€and€that€counsel€wasÏineffective€for€failing€to€pursue€suppression€on€this€ground.Ìà àCounsel€testified€that€he€recognized€the€potential€òòFranksóó€issue€in€the€affidavit.€ÏHowever,€he€disagreed€that€this€singular€issue€was€sufficient€to€support€a€motion€toÏsuppress.€€Moreover,€he€stated€that€he€decided€not€to€pursue€suppression€of€the€cupÏbecause€it€was€not€credible€evidence€of€a€crimeœ× ƒ3 ××  ×›€and€that€it€was€indicative€of€theÏweaknesses€in€the€Stateððs€case€against€appellant,€which€was€primarilyÏcircumstantial.€€We€do€not€question€counselððs€strategical€decision.Ìò òD.€Failure€to€Objectó óÌà àAppellantððs€final€argument€is€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€toÏprejudicial€and€irrelevant€evidence.€€He€lists€eighteen€specific€instances€whichÏoccurred€during€the€trial.€€After€considering€each€one,€we€conclude€that€appellant€isÏunable€to€satisfy€both€prongs€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test€on€any€of€the€alleged€errors.Ìà àWe€first€note€that€in€appellantððs€brief,€he€fails€to€explain€the€basis€for€theÏobjection€in€each€instance.€€He€merely€lists€the€evidence€or€testimony€to€which€anÏobjection€should€have€been€lodged,€but€neglects€to€œsay€why€the€evidence€wasÏinadmissible.›€€Such€conclusory€statements€without€articulated€reasons€in€supportÏgenerally€waives€our€consideration€of€an€issue.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(6);€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€27(a)(7).€€Nevertheless,€we€will€address€each€one€briefly.Ìà àCounsel€did€not€object€to€the€introduction€of€the€protection€cup€or€an€oxygenÏmask€which€the€State€used€during€trial.€€He€stated€that€the€Stateððs€inability€toÏconclusively€demonstrate€that€these€items€were€used€to€commit€the€offense€indicatedÏthe€weakness€of€the€Stateððs€theory€and€was€not€prejudicial€to€appellant.€€We€grantÏdeference€to€this€tactical€decision.€€Similarly,€the€Stateððs€questioning€of€one€expertÏwitness€about€the€oxygen€mask€was€not€prejudicial.€€Neither€do€we€find€the€failure€toÏobject€to€a€flashlight€or€the€clothing€of€the€victim,€both€found€in€appellantððs€residenceÏand€legally€seized,€œineffective.›€€The€clothing€was€not€prejudicial€because€appellantÏnever€disputed€that€the€victim€was€at€his€home.€€As€to€the€flashlight,€the€State€wasÏunable€to€connect€it€to€the€assault.€€Therefore,€it€was€not€prejudicial€to€appellant.Ìà àPictures€of€a€garbage€can€containing€beer€cans€found€inside€the€appellantððsÏhome€œwere›€also€introduced€without€objection.€€Counsel€stated€that€no€objection€wasÏwarranted.€€The€proof€at€trial,€including€the€appellantððs€testimony,€reflected€that€œon€the›Ínight€of€the€alleged€incident€both€appellant€and€the€victim€had€been€drinking.€€In€thisÏcontext,€we€do€not€believe€the€picture€was€prejudicial.€€Ìà àNo€prejudice€arose€from€the€failure€to€object€to€alleged€hearsay€testimonyÏabout€what€the€victim€was€wearing€on€the€night€of€the€incident€and€her€failure€toÏreport€to€work.€€Appellant€did€not€dispute€what€the€victim€was€wearing€and€heÏadmitted€calling€the€victimððs€workplace€to€report€that€she€would€be€unable€to€work.€€Ìà àAn€objection€to€the€introduction€of€a€picture€of€the€victim€and€appellant€takenÏthe€night€of€the€incident€was€unnecessary.€€Appellant€testified€that€he€and€the€victimÏvisited€the€VFW€club€that€night€where€the€picture€was€taken.€€Two€brief€commentsÏmade€by€the€district€attorney€during€examination€of€the€witnesses€were€notÏprejudicial.Ìà àTestimony€that€appellantððs€telephone€was€unplugged€when€officers€arrived€atÏhis€home€presented€no€basis€for€objection.€€It€was€not€hearsay€as€the€witnessÏobserved€this€firsthand.€€Neither€do€we€understand€how€it€was€prejudicial€toÏappellant.€€Merely€because€appellant€vouched€a€contrary€position€did€not€make€theÏmatter€objectionable.€€Testimony€about€the€victimððs€personal€life,€including€herÏprevious€marriage,€custody€of€children,€and€her€personal€habits€was€not€prejudicialÏbecause€it€did€not€implicate€appellant.€€Ìà àSome€expert€testimony€reflected€that€the€victim€may€have€been€asphyxiated€orÏstrangled.€€It€appears€that€such€testimony€was€improper€because€the€State€dismissedÍthe€count€of€the€indictment€alleging€aggravated€assault€by€strangulation.€ÏNevertheless,€we€cannot€say€that€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€one€aspect€ofÏtestimony€throughout€the€course€of€a€two€day€trial€rose€to€the€level€of€ineffectiveness.€ÏThe€standards€employed€for€determining€ineffectiveness€do€not€require€perfectÏrepresentation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€Ìà àFinally,€the€State€questioned€one€witness€about€appellantððs€drinking€habitsÏand€whether€he€became€violent€when€drinking.€€The€record€reflects€that€this€witnessÏwas€called€by€the€defense€to€attest€to€appellantððs€reputation€for€truthfulness€andÏhonesty€in€the€community.€€It€appears€that€the€Stateððs€question€was€improper€underÏthe€Rules€of€Evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404€and€608.€€Regardless,€the€informationÏwas€not€prejudicial€to€appellant.€€The€witness€responded€that€she€had€never€seenÏappellant€violent€when€he€drank€alcohol.€€Ìà àAppellant€also€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€request€aÏhearing€on€the€admissibility€of€photographs€of€the€victim€offered€by€the€State.€€HeÏstated€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€counsel€never€discussed€this€issue€with€himÏand€counsel€did€not€object€to€the€introduction€of€any€photographs€of€the€victim.Ìà àCounsel€testified€that€he€had€a€meeting€ð ðoff€the€recordðð€with€the€trial€courtÏregarding€the€pictures.€€He€characterized€this€as€a€ð ðmini€Banks€hearing.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978).€€He€remembered€that€the€trial€court€excludedÏtwo€pictures.€€Counsel€admitted€that€he€should€have€ensured€the€òòBanksóó€discussionÍwas€on€the€record.€€However,€counsel€did€not€believe€this€prejudiced€appellant.€ÏAlthough€the€pictures€were€prejudicial€to€the€defense,€counsel€said€that€exclusionÏwas€unlikely€because€their€probative€value€was€too€great.Ìà àWe€agree€with€counselððs€evaluation€of€the€photos.€€Our€review€of€the€photosÏindicates€the€high€probative€value€of€the€pictures.€€They€were€indeed€essential€to€theÏStateððs€case,€especially€since€the€victim€had€no€recollection€of€the€events€and€couldÏnot€testify€about€her€injuries.€€Although€it€would€have€been€preferable€for€counsel€toÏensure€the€record€reflected€that€he€took€the€necessary€measures€to€preventÏadmissibility,€we€cannot€say€this€would€have€altered€the€outcome€of€the€trial.Ìà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó ó€Ìà àThe€record€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€counsel€was€notÏineffective.€€Our€review€indicates€that€trial€counsel€made€many€difficult€tacticalÏdecisions€in€appellantððs€case€and€we€conclude€that€his€performance€was€well€withinÏthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€We€are€mindfulÏthat€ÌÓÓà8 àno€two€lawyers€will€make€the€same€tactical€decisions;€each€will€utilizeÏhis€own€traits€of€personality,€knowledge,€and€experience€to€convinceÏthe€jury.€Though€all€lawyers€will€try€a€lawsuit€in€a€different€way,€this€doesÏnot€necessarily€mean€that€any€of€them€would€try€it€the€wrong€way.€ÏThere€are€no€standard€procedures€for€trial€lawyers.Ì€€ÌÓÓòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€12€(Tenn.€1982).€€Appellant€is€not€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge