ÿWPC   ÐwÄ˨ݬB¤}g}Ù‡š»—|@ÄÒöÈÝ«ŠþŠi;bV¿Ü>㨠迾S ¬v•5hY¹€BíFÆHýœŸzUUìÂl!M‹Yðƒ¯´(~AT·Ù3D“wA«óg~ ™“—Fr;—Û‰^¹æš&Jðã%(D³ÇyDšd¨É,–ÒIe1 Ï«S¶¾e)!îcšK9 TóëÀ\õWWò¼(J_K[¤ñØ«ºg¦ªwò¡ÇÀr?GF[ÜîOè\ ú‡qÊ•1GâqH¤¯Ô|È4’šÔ ß¹-Ø_êxa)ìâ}@_§˜£–|õYÉ@1÷. ¨UxµN£‰=¨öÂ;îÔ@ÿt(BÉÏ2Šœ»Ïb·”yZG¼bSˆÓ#BÝêõ sÓe•‰‘/ýЌҢ«&\0èÕ#yäÑ §K<ž£$rÃzT¦Ì¬!¢×£/ÃŽcéüC覱/[Ä)’ø°ÐLvßÑ°Ï /d ~–Üo Õj4¥+ö’¯iA—ge×óïw™¡3Ï®K8ûb¸*<¥Qï¶B„jLÃÓ“Û¢«X5¯i˜/^;5±·_4àSЦõîtû)m]º+ÍðD[¿Å)# >UNI %— 0(LÅU:bKw@S4“§¶)¾U:çççççççççççççççççç AQ!Ær 0D8 0D| 0DÀ À D/ B3 BP D3m ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- GeHEIJKDLMNUOÓ€[n~<$3|x[ Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X¹XXXÔÔ€ åJX X¹ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X¹X åJÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€10,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ô*¼ôX X¹ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñOññGñ›ñGññOñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Š´ŠXXÔÔ€Šp ŠŠŠ´ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€&GXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ[ññOñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð ÚrßñOññOñ›ñOñ›ñ[ññ[ñ›ñ[ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌñ[ñœßt€ (>.*jxY` `€€@ELa ` ttx$„` ( Õtß›ñ[ñAT€JACKSONÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓDAVID€CLIFF,à  àà h àà À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9711„CC„00450Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellant,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  àDYER€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€JOE€G.€RILEYó 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 ` àAppellee.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 ÐÌWILLIAM€K.€RANDOLPHà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ( È Ð120€N.€Mill€St.,€Suite€303à À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  !À ÐP.€O.€Box€611à  àà h àà À àÐ "¸ ÐDyersburg,€TN€€38025„0611à À àà  àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTS,€JR.Ð #° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243Ìà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPHILLIP€BIVENSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.€O.€Drawer€EÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDyersburg,€TN€€38025ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  20)*¼ ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„섊Š0ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š0Š„„ìô #ÔÐ `  ÐÓ  ÓÓÓò òÌó óÌà ` àThis€matter€represents€an€appeal€by€Appellant,€œDavidñHñ,€ñHññIñ€ñIñCliff›€from€the€DyerÏCounty€Circuit€Courtððs€dismissal€of€his€òòpro€se€óópetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€Ð ¤D ÐAppellant€is€currently€serving€a€fourteen€(14)€year€sentence€for€a€conviction€ofÏaggravated€assault.€€On€appeal,€Appellant€raises€the€following€issue€for€review:Ïwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€Appellantððs€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€a€new€trialÐ t  Ðbased€upon€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà ` àAfter€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌò òI.€€Procedural€HistoryÐ $ Ä Ðó óà ` àIn€December€1994,€Appellant€was€convicted€of€aggravated€assault€by€aÐ $"Ä ÐDyer€County€jury,€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€fourteen€(14)€years.€ÏAppellant€was€represented€by€counsel€at€arraignment,€at€trial€and€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€Although€Appellant€was€represented€by€counsel€at€theÏhearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€he€also€filed€aòò€pro€seóó€motion€for€a€new€trial.€Ð ä)„ ! ÐIn€April€1995,€the€Dyer€County€Circuit€Court€conducted€a€hearing€on€theÏappellantððs€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€a€new€trial€in€which€the€appellant€alleged€ineffectiveÐ Ä-d$% Ðassistance€of€counsel€as€one€of€the€issues.€€The€transcript€of€Appellantððs€motionÏfor€new€trial€indicates€that€his€decision€to€represent€himself€on€theòò€pro€seóó€motionÐ ¤1D() Ðfor€new€trial€was€entered€after€an€extensive€examination€by€the€trial€court.€ÏSubsequently,€the€trial€court€found€that€he€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€hisÏright€to€counsel.ÌÐ d901 Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€overruled€the€appellantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€afterÏconsidering€each€claim€raised€in€his€motion.€€Respecting€the€claims€regardingÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€trial€court€found€that€Appellant€failed€toÏprove€that€counselððs€performance€was€not€in€accordance€with€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€who€practice€criminal€law.€€The€trial€courtÏfurther€determined€that€Appellant€failed€to€demonstrate€any€prejudice€as€a€resultÏof€any€alleged€deficient€performance.ÌÌà ` àOn€direct€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€Appellantððs€conviction.€€However,€theÏissue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€was€pretermitted€so€that€the€AppellantÏcould€raise€it€later€in€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€pretermission€of€theÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim€was€based€upon€the€absence€of€theÏtranscript€of€Appellantððs€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€òòState€v.€David€Cliffóó,€òòsupraóóÐ   @ Ðat€*4.€€We€quote€from€the€unpublished€opinion€of€this€Court:ÌÌñLñÓÓñLññLñÓÓñLñà8 ` àà ¸ àThis€Court€cannot€determine€whether€the€trial€court€conductedÏan€evidentiary€hearing€or€summarily€dismissed€the€òòpro€seóó€motion.€Ð h' ÐThe€record€is€silent.€€There€is€an€order€contained€in€the€record€whichÏsimply€states€that€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€found€to€be€ð ðwithoutÏmerit.ðð€€The€record€does€not€contain€a€verbatim€transcript€orÏstatement€of€the€evidence€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€œtrial.ñJñÏñJññKñ›Ð ` ü!` ü! ЛñKññLñÓ·ÓñLññKñÐ ` ü!` ü! Лà ¸ àñKñAs›€a€general€rule,€this€Court€would€conclusively€presume€that€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€However,€given€the€historyÏof€this€case,€this€Court€will€pretermit€this€issue€so€that€the€appellantÏcan€raise€it€in€a€post„conviction€hearing.€Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌòòñMñÓÓñMñState€v.€David€Cliffóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02„C„01„9509„CC„00262,1996€WL€551760€at€*4,Ð 1¸') ÐDyer€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€September€30,€1996,€at€Jackson).ÌœñNñÌñNññNñ›ñNññNñÌñNñ›Ð Ø8x/1 Ðà ` àPermission€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€was€denied€on€March€10,Ï1997.€€Subsequently,€Appellant€filed€the€present€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€ÏThe€post„conviction€court€determined€that€Appellant€raised€the€issue€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€at€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€the€petition€failed€to€raiseÏany€new€grounds€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€post„conviction€court€also€ruledÏthat€Appellantððs€petition€did€not€comply€with€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„30„217€which€allows€the€appellant€to€file€a€motion€to€reopen€the€first€post„¼conviction€petition€in€specific€situations.€€Therefore,€the€post„conviction€courtÏdismissed€the€petition€without€a€hearing.ò òÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àó óAppellant€is€again€before€this€Court,€challenging€the€trial€courtððs€dismissalÐ Ðp Ðof€his€òòpro€se€óópetition€for€post„conviction€relief€where€he€raised€the€issue€ofÐ À` Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòState€v.€David€Cliffóó,€òòsupra€óóat€*4.€€While€theÐ ° P Ðtranscript€of€the€hearing€on€Appellantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€included€for€thisÏCourtððs€review€in€this€appeal,€the€record€remained€incomplete€because€theÏtranscript€of€Appellantððs€jury€trial€was€absent€from€this€Courtððs€technical€record.ÌÌà ` àAs€a€general€rule,€in€the€absence€of€a€complete€record€of€what€transpiredÏin€the€trial€court,€this€Court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€wereÏsupported€by€sufficient€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.Ð @.à$& ÐCrim.€App.€1991)€(citing€òòVermilye€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€226,€230€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 00Ð&( ÐApp.€1979)).€€However,€the€courts€may€take€judicial€notice€of€the€court€records€inÏan€earlier€proceeding€of€the€same€case.€€òòDelbridge€v.€State€of€Tennesseeóó,€742Ð 4°*, ÐS.W.2d€266,€267€(Tenn.€1987).€€Accordingly,€this€Court€has€taken€judicial€noticeÏof€the€original€trial€record.€€Thus,€an€adequate€examination€of€Appellantððs€claimÏof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€can€now€be€undertaken.Ð à9€02 Їò òÓ  ÓII.€€Post„Conviction€Relief€Standard€of€ReviewÐ `  ÐÓj#Óó óà ` àAs€the€chronology€set€out€above€shows,€Appellant€contends€that€the€trialÐ `  Ðcourt€erred€in€denying€his€òòpro€se€óópetition€for€post„conviction€relief€based€upon€theÐ P ð Ðclaim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€In€post„conviction€proceedings,Ïthe€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€raised€in€the€petition€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210€(f).€€Additionally,Ïthe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899Ð    Ð(Tenn.€1990).€ÌÌÓ  Óà @ àò òIII.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÐ Ðp ÐÓ  Óà ` àA€two„prong€test€for€courts€to€employ€in€evaluating€claims€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€was€pronounced€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€inÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064,€80Ð °"P ÐL.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€€Under€the€first€prong,€the€defendant€must€show€thatÏcounselððs€performance€was€deficient€and€that€counsel€made€errors€so€seriousÏthat€he€was€not€functioning€as€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€the€defendant€by€theÏSixth€Amendment.€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€667.€Ð p*!" ÐÌà ` àUnder€the€second€prong,€the€defendant€must€show€that€the€deficientÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense€and€counselððs€errors€were€so€serious€asÏto€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€and€reliable€trial.€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€667.€Ð 02Ð(* ÐThe€appellant€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test€and€a€failure€to€proveÏeither€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€anÏineffective€assistance€claim.€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.Ð 8 .0 Ð1996).Ð ð902 Їà ` àThe€standard€by€which€effective€assistance€of€counsel€is€judged€inÏTennessee€requires€that€the€advice€given€or€the€services€rendered€by€theÏattorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.€€This€ð ðrange€of€competency€standardðð€was€articulated€by€theÏSupreme€Court€of€Tennessee€in€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.Ð  À Ð1975).€€Additionally,€the€Tennessee€Constitution€requires€a€showing€thatÏcounselððs€performance€was€deficient€and€that€deficiency€was€prejudicial€inÏterms€of€rendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€wasÏunreliable€or€that€the€proceedings€were€fundamentally€unfair.€€Tenn.ÏCons.Art.1€ðð€9.ÌÌà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar,€Appellant€raised€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€at€the€hearing€conducted€at€his€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€After€theÐ   @ Ðtrial€judge€carefully€advised€Appellant€as€to€what€he€was€required€to€showÏunder€both€the€òòStricklandóó€test€and€the€òòBaxteróó€standard,€he€presented€tenÐ €$  Ðgrounds€which€allegedly€supported€his€contention.€€The€trial€court€determinedÏthat€trial€counselððs€conduct€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€who€practice€criminal€law€and€concluded€that€Appellant€failed€toÏdemonstrate€any€prejudice€as€a€result€of€any€alleged€deficient€performance€byÏcounsel.€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€667;€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.Ð 0.Ð$& ÐÌà ` àFactual€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏappellate€court€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€ÏòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€at€899.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€in€theÐ ð5,. Ðâ âinstant€case€will€be€conclusive€unless€this€Court€finds€that€Appellant€has€metÐ à7€.0 Ðthe€burden€of€showing€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgmentÏentered.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.App.€1990).Ð P ð Ðâ âÌà ` àRegarding€Appellantððs€first€alleged€deficiency,€he€complains€that€trialÏcounsel€did€not€adequately€investigate€the€case€against€him.€€AppellantÏcomplains€that€counsel€failed€to€conduct€an€adequate€investigation€of€the€factsÏand€circumstances€surrounding€the€indictment€pending€against€the€appellantÏas€well€as€defenses€available€to€him.€€More€specifically,€Appellant€contendsÏthat€trial€counsel€only€interviewed€him€twice.€The€trial€court€found€no€proof€toÏsupport€Appellantððs€claim€that€there€was€an€inadequate€investigation€and€noÏshowing€of€prejudice€as€a€result€of€any€alleged€failure€to€conduct€any€particularÏtype€of€investigation.€Accordingly,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.€ÌÌà ` àIn€reference€to€Appellantððs€second€complaint,€he€complains€that€counselÏfailed€to€conduct€an€adequate€voir€dire€examination€and€therefore,€counselÏwas€not€in€a€position€to€intelligently€exercise€the€preemptory€challengesÏafforded€Appellant€by€law.€€More€specifically,€Appellant€complains€that€counselÏalienated€the€prospective€jurors€against€the€defendant€by€reason€of€counselððsÏbehavior€during€the€examination€of€the€prospective€jurors.Ìà ` àÌà ` àHowever,€the€trial€record€established€€that€counselððs€voir€direÏexamination€was€appropriate.€Our€review€of€the€record€indicates€that€counselÏproperly€explained€to€the€prospective€jurors€the€burden€of€proof€in€a€criminalÏtrial€and€the€requirement€that€a€fair€jury€hear€the€facts€of€the€case.€ò ò€ó óCounselÐ ð5,. Ðalso€questioned€jurors€who€demonstrated€a€potential€bias€in€the€case.€€Indeed,Ïthis€line€of€questioning€resulted€in€jurors€being€excused€from€the€jury.€€Also,Ð à9€02 Ðduring€the€course€of€the€voir€dire€examination,€counsel€used€six€peremptoryÏchallenges.€Therefore,€Appellant€has€not€overcome€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÏcounsel€conducted€an€adequate€voir€dire€examination.€Furthermore,€weÏcannot€see€how€Appellant€was€prejudiced€given€counselððs€apparently€thoroughÏexamination€of€the€prospective€jurors€and€the€lack€of€any€evidence€that€theÏjury,€as€seated,€was€biased.ÌÌà ` àRegarding€Appellantððs€third€alleged€deficiency,€the€appellant€contendsÏthat€the€cross„examination€of€the€witnesses€was€without€prior€preparation€andÏconsisted€of€continuous€repetition.€At€trial,€five€witnesses€were€cross„¼examined€by€counsel.€€When€cross„examining€one€witness,€the€prosecutionÏmade€only€one€objection€on€the€basis€that€the€question€had€been€asked€andÏanswered.€€Furthermore,€there€were€no€objections€made€by€the€prosecutionÏabout€counselððs€performance€during€the€cross„examination€of€three€additionalÏwitnesses.€€Additionally,€it€was€the€trial€court€and€not€the€prosecution€€thatÏdirected€counsel€to€repeat€a€question€during€the€course€of€counselððs€cross„¼examination.€ò ò€ó óAlso,€the€record€reflects€that€counsel€declined€to€cross„examineÐ `(  Ðtwo€of€the€trial€witnesses.ò òÐ `*!" ÐÌà ` àó óThe€trial€court€concluded€that€there€was€no€proof€that€counselððs€cross„Ð P.ð$& Ðexamination€was€continuously€repetitive.€ò ò€ó óThis€Court€has€noted€that€failure€toÐ @0à&( Ðeffectively€cross„examine€a€witness€does€not€necessarily€indicate€a€deficientÏperformance€unless€it€affects€the€outcome€of€the€case.€€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,Ð 04Ð*, Ð958€S.W.2d€156,€165€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€In€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,Ð  6À,. ÐAppellant€has€failed€to€show€that€counselððs€cross„examination€affected€theÏoutcome€of€his€case.€€Moreover,€even€if€counselððs€alleged€continuousÐ : 02 Ðrepetition€on€cross„examination€was€deemed€erroneous,€Appellant€has€failedÏto€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€as€a€result€of€trial€counselððs€actions.€€òòHartmanÐ P ð Ðv.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,105€(Tenn.€1995).Ð @ à ÐÌà ` àThe€appellantððs€fourth€argument€concerns€counselððs€failure€to€object€toÏquestions€asked€by€the€prosecution€relative€to€the€fears€of€children€after€theÏcommission€of€the€crime€in€question.€However,€a€review€of€the€recordÏindicates€that€there€were€no€children€involved€who€testified€in€the€trial.€ÏFurthermore,€at€the€hearing€conducted€at€Appellantððs€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€newÐ à€ Ðtrial,€Appellant€testified€that€there€were€no€children€who€testified€in€his€case.ÏTherefore,€the€trial€court€determined€this€claim€to€be€irrelevant.€€We€concurÏwith€the€trial€court€and€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àRegarding€Appellantððs€fifth€contention,€he€complains€that€counselÏineffectively€prepared€the€defense€witnesses€for€trial.€€Appellant€furtherÏcontends€that€as€a€result€of€counselððs€actions,€the€prosecution€was€able€toÏelicit€information€from€the€witnesses€which€was€in€direct€contradiction€to€theÏtestimony€of€the€defendant€and€the€position€taken€by€his€counsel.€€The€trialÏcourt€determined€that€Appellantððs€fifth€contention€was€factually€incorrect.ÏFurthermore,€our€review€of€the€record€does€not€show€that€additionalÏpreparation€time€with€the€witnesses€could€have€prevented€them€from€testifyingÏdifferently€or€prevent€the€state€from€effectively€cross„examining€the€witnesses.€ÏAccordingly,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.€€€Ìà ` àÌà ` àAppellantððs€sixth€claim€concerns€counselððs€failure€to€make€the€position€ofÏthe€appellant€clear€to€the€jury€and€the€trial€court.€€However,€after€a€thoroughÐ Ð9p02 Ðreview€of€the€record,€it€is€unclear€to€this€Court€what€particular€position€theÏdefendant€wanted€raised.€We€quote€from€the€transcript€of€Appellantððs€òòpro€seóóÐ P ð Ðmotion€for€new€trial,€where€the€appellant€testified€to€the€following:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ à[Counsel]€failed€to€make€the€position€of€the€defendant€clearÏto€the€jury€and€the€Court.€€And€the€Court€was€so€thoroughlyÏconfused€at€the€end€of€the€defendantððs€case€in€chief,€the€CourtÏwas€at€a€loss€to€know€what€should€be€charged€relative€to€theÏposition€or€defense€offered€on€behalf€of€the€defendant.€€€Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓIÓÌñ?ñÓÓñ?ññ@ñà ` àà ¸ àñ@ññBññAñà0 ` àà ¸ àñAññBññCñà8 ` àà ¸ àñCñ[The€prosecutor]€prosecuting€the€case€admitted€beingÏrattled,€and€he,€too,€ñ>ñà ¸ àà  àñ>ñobviously,€did€not€understand€the€defendantððsÏposition.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðñ?ñÓ•JÓñ?ñ€€ÌMotion€for€new€trial€transcript,€page€29„30.ÌÌà ` àPlainly,€counsel€made€the€appellantððs€position€clear€to€the€jury€and€theÏCourt.€€Counselððs€position€in€his€closing€argument€was€based€on€AppellantððsÏlack€of€motive€for€committing€the€crime,€the€stateððs€failure€to€prove€hisÏinvolvement€in€the€crime,€and€the€stateððs€failure€to€prove€Appellantððs€guiltÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€determined€that€counselððs€actions€did€not€constituteÏdeficient€performance.€We€concur€with€the€trial€court€and€believe€that€counselÏadequately€presented€the€defense.€€Thus,€we€find€this€issue€to€be€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà ` àRegarding€Appellantððs€seventh€alleged€deficiency,€he€contends€thatÏcounsel€failed€to€confer€and€give€advice€to€Appellant€before€calling€him€toÏtestify€at€trial.€€More€specifically,€Appellant€complains€that€he€had€executed€aÐ Ð9p02 Ðsworn€statement€before€the€trial€commenced€with€respect€to€his€decision€not€toÏtestify.€€However,€our€review€of€the€record€indicates€that€the€appellant€testifiedÏat€the€sentencing€hearing€and€not€at€trial.ò ò€ó óAppellant€testified€at€the€sentencingÐ @ à Ðhearing€that€he€and€counsel€had€discussed€his€presentence€report€and€recordÏprior€to€trial.€€Appellant€also€testified€that€he€and€counsel€had€reviewed€hisÏversion€of€the€statement€that€was€given€to€the€probation€officer€when€sheÏcompiled€the€presentence€report.€€Thus,€Appellantððs€testimony€€indicates€thatÏhe€conferred€with€counsel€prior€to€testifying€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÏAppellant€fails€to€prove€that€counsel€failed€to€confer€with€him€prior€to€testifyingÏat€the€sentencing€hearing.€Appellant€also€fails€to€reveal€what€would€have€beenÏdiscovered€through€further€advice€by€counsel€prior€to€trial.€€Therefore,€weÏconcur€with€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€this€alleged€deficiency€is€withoutÏmerit.€€€€ÌÌà ` àAppellantððs€eighth€claim€concerns€counselððs€failure€to€subpoenaÏwitnesses€that€Appellant€wanted€called€as€alibi€witnesses.€€At€the€hearingÏconducted€at€Appellantððs€òòpro€se€óómotion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€found€noÐ p(  Ðshowing€of€which€witnesses€counsel€failed€to€subpoena.€The€determinativeÏissue€however,€is€Appellantððs€failure€to€produce€witnesses€at€the€hearingÏconducted€at€his€òòpro€se€óómotion€for€new€trial.€€This€Court€cannot€speculateÐ @.à$& Ðupon€the€usefulness€of€these€witnesses€without€the€information€they€couldÏhave€provided.€€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€164€(citing€òòBlackóó,€794Ð  2À(* ÐS.W.2d€at€757).€€ÌÌà ` àFurthermore,€to€succeed€on€this€claim,€Appellant€must€establish€that€heÏwas€prejudiced€by€counselððs€failure€to€subpoena€the€witnesses.€€To€establishÐ à9€02 Ðprejudice,€Appellant€must:€1)€produce€the€witness€at€his€post„convictionÏhearing;€2)€show€that€through€reasonable€investigation,€trial€counsel€couldÏhave€located€the€witness;€and€3)€elicit€favorable€and€material€testimony€fromÏthe€witness.€€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,€802„803€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 0Ð Ð1996)€(citing€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€757).€€Appellantððs€failure€to€do€so€rendersÐ  À Ðthis€issue€meritless.€€€€€ÌÌà ` àRegarding€Appellantððs€ninth€alleged€deficiency,€the€Appellant€complainsÏthat€counsel€failed€to€ask€for€a€mistrial€after€his€failure€to€excuse€a€juror€whoÏwas€employed€as€a€deputy€jailer.€€The€prospective€juror€allegedly€hadÏpreconceived€ideas€about€Appellantððs€guilt€because€she€knew€the€appellant.€ÏHowever,€a€review€of€€the€record€does€not€reveal€a€prospective€€juror€whoÏindicated€any€knowledge€about€the€appellant€or€the€case€during€voir€direÏexamination.€€Clearly,€even€if€a€prospective€juror€had€indicated€knowledgeÏabout€the€appellant€in€the€instant€case,€these€comments€would€not€necessarilyÏbe€grounds€for€a€mistrial.€€This€Court€has€held:ÌÌñDñÓÓñDñà8 ` àComments€from€a€prospective€juror€in€response€to€questions€fromÏdefense€counsel€during€voir€dire€that€indicate€his€possession€ofÏinformation€inculpating€the€defendant€is€not€grounds€for€a€mistrialÏabsent€evidence€showing€that€the€jury€which€heard€the€case€wasÏprejudicial€or€biased€by€the€statement€of€the€prospective€juror.€€Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐñDñÓZ[ÓñDñÌòòState€v.€Brownóó,€795€S.W.2d€689€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð 1¸') ÐPorterfieldóó,€746€S.W.2d€441€(Tenn.€1988)).Ð 3¨)+ ÐÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€no€showing€that€counselððs€failure€to€ask€for€aÏmistrial€represented€deficient€performance.€€We€find€that€Appellant€failed€toÐ Ø8x/1 Ðshow€that€any€of€the€prospective€jurors€indicated€knowledge€about€him€or€theÏcase.€€We€further€determine€that€Appellant€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€juryÏwas€prejudicial€or€biased€by€any€comment€made€by€a€prospective€juror€duringÏvoir€dire€examination.€€Thus,€we€find€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà ` àAppellantððs€last€complaint€concerns€counselððs€opening€statement.€ÏAppellant€complains€that€counsel€mentioned€to€the€jury€that€Appellant€hadÏbeen€indicted€for€other€crimes€and€that€he€had€a€prior€criminal€record.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€determined€that€if€this€had€occurred,€it€would€haveÏbeen€based€on€trial€tactics.€However,€a€€review€of€the€trial€record€indicates€thisÏcomplaint€to€be€factually€incorrect.€€The€only€mention€of€an€indictment€madeÏby€counsel€in€his€opening€statement€was€his€reference€to€Appellantððs€plea€ofÏnot€guilty€after€he€was€arrested,€indicted,€and€arraigned€on€the€present€charge.ÏCounsel€followed€this€comment€by€stating€that€the€appellant€had€maintainedÏhis€innocence€from€the€inception€of€the€trial.ò ò€€ó óFurthermore,€the€record€does€notÐ €$  Ðreflect€that€either€counsel€or€the€prosecution€mentioned€Appellantððs€priorÏcriminal€record€during€opening€statement.€€Therefore,€the€record€amplyÏsupports€a€finding€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà ` àA€review€of€the€record€in€this€case€does€not€convince€this€Court€thatÏproof€preponderates€against€the€judgment€entered€by€the€trial€court€denyingÏAppellantððs€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim.€€The€post„conviction€courtÏdetermined€that€some€of€the€decisions€that€were€attacked€by€Appellant€wereÏtactical€decisions€generally€not€indicative€of€deficient€performance.€We€concurÏwith€the€post„conviction€court€and€find€that€it€is€not€this€Courtððs€function€toÏð ðsecond€guessðð€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€counsel.€€òòCampbell€v.Ð à9€02 ÐStateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,596€(Tenn.€1995)€(citing€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2dÐ `  Ðat€9).€€Ìà ` àÌà ` àFrom€our€examination€of€the€original€trial€record€and€the€transcript€of€theÏhearing€conducted€at€Appellantððs€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€a€new€trial,€we€do€notÐ  À Ðbelieve€that€Appellant€demonstrated€that€counselððs€representation€wasÏdeficient€or€that€he€was€prejudiced€as€a€result€of€any€alleged€deficiency.€€€ÏFurthermore,€the€appellant€did€not€establish€that€counselððs€performanceÏdeprived€him€of€a€fair€and€reliable€trial€or€that€services€rendered€by€this€trialÏcounsel€were€not€within€the€range€of€competency€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€Appellant€received€effective€assistance€of€trialÏcounsel.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€Appellantððs€claimÏof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€affirmed.€ÌñEñÌà ` àÌ€€Ì€€€€€€ÌÌÌà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌà ` àÌÌÌñEññFñÌñFñÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE