ÿWPC6 €„é“”t'p׿Ž6ª²Ô4ê!™ÿÃu'üÎ`;Eks0¦ÛPl+þÞ>GW#N\ê/U¢ïx^­³(·®j­®èœ)–w}ªÙZ Œ=¹•UeŸ“hž·À/6l»ˆ˜žŽª`»×Bj'TzÛˆ1.y=97*”%bí„nÚ¹aöª( ì£.`h?Mú2[QFt<î‹Å¢d¬è×rffì8ösPE¾Åx®[«Òú€ZÕÅ86GÚ¤áy^˜ªD½Ty -&¿™_† ¡õÄ7™RKÒ\$óì÷zÎÈ>ê 1kAƒí˜EVûË®évâiCËŸWDÕOcuÛQÝ•-½!·Ñ}ºo}ù³÷£–«5¿óA'șߔ‹#®a³þ#‘X/°˜e Aš¶êC'}ˆùÉûEY+Ìø5/ˆ)›“ŸÉí×ñ$_¸ C_ZPŠZqÓèζ¦S¦\¤*¶h©ÞGÅ <)Ä·“+¢˜®óP‘a(†þG·æRÒ©ÉJM“B iË?SÚd¼¡ ¶a¶ÑmºÐ†¾bûþÒ§ÓX"Y˜óHßK† g,”j>4Ó9z³ìƬd%2T(Û\õ¤6Xøe.\GËNb#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1U@÷N7¤9ÝEå 0Dçççççççççççççççççççççççb++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 0ë3333 B 0¤; D3ß D- 0K?? ASŠÆÝ 0¤£ 0DG A«‹˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularJ¦&-s  ˜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.wptüPH,@“£3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman  šÝ ƒRLð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôñ}ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial,€upon€which€these€allegations€are€based,€occurred€in€1996,€before€our€supreme€court€had€set€out€inÐ ° ÐòòÔ_ÔMomonÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€162€(Tenn.€1999),€the€procedure€to€be€followed€when€a€defendant€elects€not€to€testify. (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2Lð$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôñ}ò»»Ô d(|3GŒ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3GŒ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vµ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vµ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Vµ»»»ÔÑ8€ YXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îNTVµÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Vµ»îîNT #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€June€19,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X YX»¼VµÔÌò òÔ#†¼Vµ»XX Y#ÔEDDIE€L.€COLEY,€JR.€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X YX»¼VµÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€201„63€€€€€€€Donald€P.€Harris,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„03130„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€September€4,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X YXXX YÔThe€petitioner,€Eddie€L.€Coley,€Jr.,€was€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery€in€1996€and€sentenced€toÐ xÈ  Ðconfinement€for€twelve€years.€€Following€an€unsuccessful€appeal€of€his€conviction,€he€filed€a€petitionÐ d´ Ðfor€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€filing€a€motion€toÐ P  Ðsuppress€a€photographic€lineup€and€not€allowing€him€to€testify€at€his€trial.€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ <Œ Ðdenied€the€petition;€and,€following€our€review,€we€affirm€that€denial.Ô#†X YXXX YÊ#ÔÔ#†¼Vµ»XX Y“#ÔÔ‡X YX»¼VµÔÐ (x ÐÓ¾ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Vµ»àX Y]#ÔÔ‡X YX.¼VµÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòRobert€W.Ð Ø( ÐWedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌJ.€Britt€Phillips,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Eddie€L.€Coley,€Jr.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Helena€Walton€Yarbrough,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ tÄ ÐGeneral;€Ronald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Derek€K.€Smith,€Assistant€DistrictÐ `° ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÓÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Vµ»XX Y=#ÔÔ‡X YX»¼VµÔÐ $"t! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Vµ»XX Yì #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X YX»¼VµÔÔ‡X YXXX YÔà  àThe€petitioner€was€indicted€for€the€July€15,€1995,€aggravated€robbery€of€two€Baskin„RobbinsÐ ü#L# Ðice€cream€shop€employees€in€Brentwood.€€His€first€trial€resulted€in€a€mistrial.€€However,€he€wasÐ è$8 $ Ðconvicted€in€the€second,€the€facts€of€which€were€set€out€in€òòState€v.€Coleyóó,€32€S.W.3d€831,€832„33Ð Ô%$!% Ð(Tenn.€2000):Ð À&"& ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àColey€does€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€uponÐ ˜(è#( Ðwhich€he€was€convicted;€thus,€only€those€facts€necessary€to€thisÐ „)Ô$) Ðappeal€are€provided.€€On€July€15,€1995,€Sarah€Blumberg€and€JenniferÐ p*À%* ÐMcMillen€were€working€at€an€ice€cream€shop€in€Brentwood.€€AtÐ \+¬&+ Ðapproximately€1€p.m.,€a€male€entered€the€store.€€After€placing€anÐ H,˜', Ðorder,€the€male€brandished€a€gun€and€instructed€one€of€the€employeesÐ 4-„(-ý Ðto€put€the€store's€money€into€a€bag.€€The€male€then€forced€bothÐ ° Ðemployees€into€the€store's€walk-in€freezer€where€they€remained€untilÐ œì Ðthey€heard€a€customer€enter€the€store.€€After€exiting€the€freezer,€theyÐ ˆØ Ðcalled€the€police.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€police€uncovered€no€physical€evidence€at€the€crime€scene.€Ð L œ ÐBoth€employees,€however,€separately€described€the€robber€as€an€obeseÐ 8 ˆ Ð"Black"€man€around€5'€9"€tall€and€about€twenty€years€old.€€TheÐ $ t Ðemployees€then€helped€the€police€prepare€separate€composite€picturesÐ  ` Ðof€the€robber.€€Nine€days€after€the€robbery,€Blumberg€observed€aÐ ü L  Ðphotographic€line-up€which€included€Coley's€picture.€€She€identifiedÐ è 8  Ðhim€as€the€robber.€€Five€months€after€the€robbery,€McMillen€saw€theÐ Ô$  Ðsame€photographic€line-up.€€She€too€identified€Coley.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAt€trial,€the€critical€issue€was€identification.€€The€State's€caseÐ ˜è  Ðrelied€heavily€on€Blumberg's€and€McMillen's€pre-trial€and€in-courtÐ „Ô  Ðidentifications€of€Coley.€€Coley,€on€the€other€hand,€offered€an€alibiÐ pÀ Ðdefense,€maintaining€that€another€person€had€committed€the€robbery.€Ð \¬ ÐColey€desired€to€adduce€the€testimony€of€Michael€G.€Johnson,€Ph.D.,Ð H˜ ÐJ.D.,€an€expert€in€the€field€of€eyewitness€identification.€€The€StateÐ 4„ Ðobjected€to€Johnson's€testimony€on€the€ground€that€it€would€not€assistÐ  p Ðthe€jury€in€deciding€the€identification€issue.€€The€trial€court€agreedÐ  \ Ðand€refused€to€admit€Johnson's€testimony.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€trial€court,€nevertheless,€allowed€Johnson€to€make€aÐ Ð  Ðproffer€of€his€testimony€for€the€record.€€The€proffered€testimonyÐ ¼  Ðincluded€information€covering€the€following€topics:Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à1.€the€process€of€eyewitness€identification;ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à2.€the€relationship€between€stress€and€memory€of€an€event;ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à3.€cross-racial€identification;Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à4.€the€confidence€the€witnesses€have€in€the€accuracy€of€theirÐ $X" Ðidentifications€and€the€actual€accuracy€of€their€identifications;Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à5.€the€effect€of€time€on€the€accuracy€of€memory;€€andÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à6.€the€suggestibility€of€the€photographic€line-up€used€in€thisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcase.Ð)à$(` x` x ÐÌÐ h+¸&* Їà  àFollowing€his€unsuccessful€appeal,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ð ° Ðpresenting€a€number€of€claims€as€to€ineffectiveness€of€trial€counsel.€€After€the€appointment€ofÐ œì Ðcounsel,€and€the€filing€of€amended€petitions,€the€post„conviction€court€limited€the€hearing€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðclaims€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€not€filing€a€motion€to€suppress€the€photographic€lineupÐ tÄ Ðand€not€allowing€the€petitioner€to€testify€at€his€trial.€€The€hearing€subsequently€was€held€onÐ `° ÐNovember€21,€2001.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing,€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorney€testified€that€he€had€been€licensed€to€practice€lawÐ $ t Ðsince€1976,€including€as€an€assistant€district€attorney€for€six€years€and€as€an€assistant€public€defenderÐ  ` Ðfor€ten€years,€and€had€participated€in€seventy€to€seventy„five€trials.€€He€said€that€the€hearing€exhibitÐ ü L  Ðfrom€which€the€two€victims€identified€the€petitioner€had€the€petitionerððs€photograph€placed€in€theÐ è 8  Ðmiddle€of€the€top€row.€€We€note€that€this€exhibit€consists€of€six€photographs€of€young€men€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðsame€race,€and€of€approximately€the€same€age€and€facial€shape.€€Three€of€the€men,€including€theÐ À  Ðpetitioner,€were€wearing€black,€or€very€dark,€T„shirts.€€The€petitionerððs€T„shirt€bears€a€design€of€someÐ ¬ü  Ðsort,€only€the€upper€portion€of€which€is€shown€in€the€photograph,€consisting€of€a€blue€backgroundÐ ˜è  Ðwith€lighter€blue€vertical€random€stripes€and€small€patches€of€yellow,€reddish„orange,€and€black.€€NoÐ „Ô  Ðwriting€appears€on€the€visible€portion€of€the€petitionerððs€shirt.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€the€victimsÐ pÀ Ðhad€said,€both€at€the€preliminary€hearing€and€at€the€trial,€that€the€robber€wore€a€black€T„shirt€bearingÐ \¬ Ðthe€slogan€ð ðsight€for€sore€eyes,ðð€and€that€the€shirt€did€not€have€a€design.€€Trial€counsel€said€that€heÐ H˜ Ðhad€considered€filing€a€motion€to€suppress€the€photo€lineup€as€being€overly€suggestive€and€had€sentÐ 4„ Ðletters€to€five€to€ten€psychologists€soliciting€their€opinions€as€to€the€fairness€of€the€lineup.€€He€madeÐ  p Ðseveral€trips€to€Knoxville€to€meet€with€Dr.€Michael€G.€Johnson,€a€clinical€psychologist,€who€said€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€lineup€was€not€as€suggestive€as€others€he€had€seen.€€Because€of€Dr.€Johnsonððs€opinion€and€trialÐ øH Ðcounselððs€recognition€of€the€similarities€of€the€men€in€the€photo€lineup,€he€concluded€that€he€did€notÐ ä4 Ðhave€a€basis€for€seeking€to€suppress€it.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€petitionerððs€not€testifying€at€the€trial,€counsel€said€that€the€petitioner€had€previousÐ ¨ø Ðarmed€robbery€convictions€and€had€not€asked€to€testify,€telling€counsel€that€he€would€do€whateverÐ ”ä Ðthey€thought€in€that€regard.€€Counsel€said€he€told€the€petitioner€that€he€had€to€make€the€decision€asÐ €Ð Ðto€whether€to€testify,€but€counselððs€recommendation€was€that€he€not€do€so.€€He€said€that€certain€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€petitionerððs€robbery€convictions€involved€his€using€ð ðvery€similarðð€techniques€to€that€for€whichÐ X ¨ Ðhe€was€being€tried,€resulting€in€danger€in€the€petitionerððs€testifying.€€Trial€counsel€said€that€he€hadÐ D!” Ðalibi€witnesses€whom€he€thought€would€be€convincing€and€did€not€see€how€the€petitionerððs€testimonyÐ 0"€  Ðwould€help€the€defense.€€Also,€he€was€concerned€that€the€petitioner€might€say€something€during€hisÐ #l! Ðtestimony€which€would€harm€the€case.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€said€he€told€counsel€that€he€wanted€to€testify€and€that€counsel€then€moved€toÐ à%0!$ Ðprevent€the€prior€convictions€from€being€utilized€at€the€trial,€but€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€Ð Ì&"% ÐHe€wanted€a€motion€to€suppress€filed€ð ðto€let€[the€judge]€make€the€decisionðð€as€to€it.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@òò&ìàò òòòANALYSISó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIneffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÐ ˆØ ÐÓ,,ÓÌà  àÔ#†X YXXX Yu #ÔÔ‡X YXXX YÔò òòòóóó óIn€order€to€determine€the€competence€of€counsel,€Tennessee€courts€have€applied€standardsÐ `° Ðdeveloped€in€federal€case€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)òòóóÐ L œ Ð(noting€that€the€same€standard€for€determining€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€is€applied€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðfederal€cases€also€applies€in€Tennessee).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€articulated€the€standardÐ $ t Ðin€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984),€which€isÐ  ` Ðwidely€accepted€as€the€appropriate€standard€for€all€claims€of€a€convicted€petitioner€that€counselððsÐ ü L  Ðassistance€was€defective.€€The€standard€is€firmly€grounded€in€the€belief€that€counsel€plays€a€role€thatÐ è 8  Ðis€ð ðcritical€to€the€ability€of€the€adversarial€system€to€produce€just€results.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€685,€104€S.€Ct.€atÐ Ô$  Ð2063.€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€is€a€two„prong€test:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFirst,€the€defendant€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€wasÐ ˜è  Ðdeficient.€€This€requires€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€seriousÐ „Ô  Ðthat€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Second,€the€defendant€mustÐ \¬ Ðshow€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€ThisÐ H˜ Ðrequires€showing€that€counselððs€errors€were€so€serious€as€to€depriveÐ 4„ Ðthe€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€result€is€reliable.Ð p` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€€The€òòStricklandóó€Court€further€explained€the€meaning€of€ð ðdeficientÐ øH Ðperformanceðð€in€the€first€prong€of€the€test€in€the€following€way:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€any€case€presenting€an€ineffectiveness€claim,€the€performanceÐ ¼  Ðinquiry€must€be€whether€counselððs€assistance€was€reasonableÐ ¨ø Ðconsidering€all€the€circumstances.€.€.€.€€No€particular€set€of€detailedÐ ”ä Ðrules€for€counselððs€conduct€can€satisfactorily€take€account€of€theÐ €Ð Ðvariety€of€circumstances€faced€by€defense€counsel€or€the€range€ofÐ l¼ Ðlegitimate€decisions€regarding€how€best€to€represent€a€criminalÐ X ¨ Ðdefendant.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€688„89,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065.€€The€petitioner€must€establish€ð ðthat€counselððs€representation€fellÐ #l! Ðbelow€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,Ð $X" Ð44€S.W.3d€508,€515€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  à€As€for€the€prejudice€prong€of€the€test,€the€òòStricklandóó€Court€stated:€ð ðThe€defendant€must€showÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðproceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðundermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòóó466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòOverton€v.Ð )à$( Ðâ âStateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1994)€(concluding€that€petitioner€failed€to€establish€that€ð ðthere€is€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€the€outcome€of€the€proceedings€would€have€beenÐ ° Ðdifferentðð).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àòòóóCourts€need€not€approach€the€òòStricklandóó€test€in€a€specific€order€or€even€ð ðaddress€bothÐ tÄ Ðcomponents€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€on€one.ðð€€466€U.S.€at€697,Ð `° Ð104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370€(stating€that€ð ðfailure€to€prove€either€deficiencyÐ L œ Ðor€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffective€assistance€claimðð).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àBy€statute€in€Tennessee,€the€petitioner€at€a€post„conviction€relief€hearing€has€the€burden€ofÐ  ` Ðproving€the€allegations€of€fact€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„Ð ü L  Ð210(f)€(1997).€€A€petition€based€on€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€a€single€ground€for€relief,Ð è 8  Ðtherefore€all€factual€allegations€must€be€presented€in€one€claim.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„Ð Ô$  Ð206(d)€(1997).€Ð À  ÐÌà  àWe€note€that€when€post„conviction€proceedings€have€included€a€full€evidentiary€hearing,€asÐ ˜è  Ðin€this€case,€the€trial€judgeððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€given€the€effect€and€weightÐ „Ô  Ðof€a€jury€verdict,€and€this€court€is€ð ðbound€by€the€trial€judgeððs€findings€of€fact€unless€we€conclude€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€judgment€entered€in€the€cause.ðð€€òòBlackÐ \¬ Ðv.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)òòóó.€€The€reviewing€court€must€indulge€a€strongÐ H˜ Ðpresumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€falls€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance,Ð 4„ Ðòòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€not€second„guess€the€tactical€andÐ  p Ðstrategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€those€choices€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequateÐ  \ Ðpreparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€fact€that€a€strategy€or€tacticÐ øH Ðfailed€or€hurt€the€defense€does€not€alone€support€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóóÐ ä4 ÐòòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€165€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)òòóó.€€Finally,€a€person€charged€withÐ Ð  Ða€criminal€offense€is€not€entitled€to€perfect€representation.€€òòSeeóó€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,€796Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€As€explained€in€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€462€(Tenn.€1999),Ð ¨ø Ðð ð[c]onduct€that€is€unreasonable€under€the€facts€of€one€case€may€be€perfectly€reasonable€under€theÐ ”ä Ðfacts€of€another.ððÔ#†X YXXX Y±,#ÔÔ‡X YXXX YÔÐ €Ð ÐÔ#†X YXXX Y´F#ÔÔ‡X YXXX YÔÌà  àWe€now€will€consider€the€two€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€for€which€proof€wasÐ X ¨ Ðpresented€at€the€hearing.Ð D!” ÐÌà@ý ý ìàò òA.€€Failure€to€File€Motion€to€Suppress€Photographic€Lineupó óˆÐ #l! ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€on€appeal€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€filing€a€motionÐ ô$D # Ðto€suppress€the€photographic€lineup€identification.€€The€State€responds€that€counsel€was€notÐ à%0!$ Ðineffective€in€declining€to€file€a€Ô_ÔmeritlessÔ_Ô€motion.€€As€to€this€issue,€we€agree€with€the€State.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€note€that,€according€to€the€opinion€of€our€supreme€court€in€this€matter,€the€twoÐ ¤(ô#' Ðvictims€identified€the€petitioner€as€the€robber,€both€upon€viewing€the€photographic€lineup€and€at€theÐ )à$( Ðsecond€€trial.€€Additionally,€during€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€testified€that€the€victimsÐ |*Ì%) Ðalso€had€identified€the€petitioner€at€the€preliminary€hearing€and€at€the€first€trial€of€the€matter,€whichÐ h+¸&* Ðhad€resulted€in€a€hung€jury.€€It€was€following€that€first€trial€that€the€petitioner€had€written€trialÐ ° Ðcounsel€requesting€the€filing€of€a€motion€to€suppress.€Given€this€array€of€identifications€of€theÐ œì Ðpetitioner€by€the€victims,€we€have€difficulty€in€concluding€that€the€defense€would€have€beenÐ ˆØ Ðstrengthened€by€suppression€of€the€photographic€lineup€unless€the€defense€also€could€haveÐ tÄ Ðestablished€that€the€victimsðð€subsequent€identifications€of€the€petitioner€were€so€tainted€by€theirÐ `° Ðviewing€the€photographs€that€those€identifications,€too,€must€be€suppressed.€€In€his€testimony,€theÐ L œ Ðpetitioner€did€not€recognize€this€additional€requirement€before€the€victimsðð€in„court€identificationsÐ 8 ˆ Ðalso€could€be€suppressed.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àIn€his€letter€to€the€petitioner€of€January€2,€1996,€explaining€why€he€was€not€pursuing€a€motionÐ ü L  Ðto€suppress,€trial€defense€counsel€demonstrated€that€he€had€given€substantial€thought€as€to€how€toÐ è 8  Ðbest€deal€with€the€victimsðð€identification€of€the€petitioner.€Explaining€the€holdings€of€a€number€ofÐ Ô$  Ðlineup€identification€cases,€including€òòBolton€v.€Stateóó,€617€S.W.2d€909€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),€andÐ À  ÐòòState€v.€Bealóó,€614€S.W.2d€77€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),€counsel€opined€in€his€letter€that€ð ðthere€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðnothing€done€by€the€Brentwood€Police€Department€which€remotely€[could]€be€defined€as€somethingÐ ˜è  Ðthat€would€be€so€suggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€a€very€substantial€likelihood€of€irreparableÐ „Ô  Ðmisidentification.ðð€€Having€viewed€the€photographs€comprising€the€lineup€shown€to€the€victims,€weÐ pÀ Ðagree€with€counselððs€assessment€that€the€photographs€are€not€so€suggestive€as€to€give€rise€to€aÐ \¬ Ðsuccessful€suppression€motion.€€There€is€no€basis€for€our€concluding€that€simply€because€the€robberÐ H˜ Ðwas€wearing€a€black€T„shirt€with€a€slogan,€the€victims€both€then€identified€the€petitioner€because,Ð 4„ Ðin€his€photograph,€he€was€wearing€a€black€T„shirt€with€some€sort€of€design.Ð  p ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€decided€to€deal€with€the€victimsðð€identifications€of€the€petitioner€by€attemptingÐ øH Ðto€present€expert€testimony€as€to€unreliability€of€eyewitness€€identifications.€€The€reasonableness€ofÐ ä4 Ðthis€effort€is€demonstrated€by€the€fact€that,€in€the€opinions€of€this€court€and€of€our€supreme€court€Ð Ð  Ðaffirming€the€conviction,€one€member€of€our€panel€and€two€members€of€the€supreme€court€concludedÐ ¼  Ðthat€the€trial€court€should€have€conducted€a€hearing,€pursuant€to€the€holding€of€our€supreme€courtÐ ¨ø Ðin€€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€Incóó.,€955€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.1997),€as€to€whether€Dr.€JohnsonÐ ”ä Ðshould€have€been€allowed€to€testify€as€to€eyewitness€identification.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Coleyóó,€32€S.W.3dÐ €Ð Ð831,€839„40€(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Eddie€L.€Coley,€Jr.óó,€No.€01C01-9707-CC-00270,€1998€Tenn.Ð l¼ ÐCrim.€App.€LEXIS€1082,€at€*21„*24€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€13,€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóóÐ X ¨ Ð(Tenn.€Apr.€19,€1999).€Ð D!” ÐÌÔ#†X YXXX Y G#ÔÔ‡X YXXX YÔà  àAs€to€this€issue,€the€post„conviction€court€found€as€follows:Ð #l! ÐÌÓ*°,XƒXŒ –X°œX*Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.à0Œ ` x` xà[Petitionerððs]€attorney€at€trial€.€.€.€was€not€ineffective€for€failing€toÐ ô$D # Ðfile€a€motion€to€suppress€a€photographic€lineup€that€includedÐ à%0!$ Ð[petitioner],€as€there€was€no€basis€for€such€motion.€€Moreover,Ð Ì&"% Ð[petitioner]€showed€no€prejudice€with€respect€to€the€issue.€€TheÐ ¸'#& ÐCourt€would€not€have€granted€the€motion€to€suppress,€had€it€beenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfiled.Ð)à$(Œ xŒ x ÐÌÐ h+¸&* Їà  àThe€record€fully€supports€this€finding.€€€€€€€€Ð ° ÐÔ#†X YXXX YYY#ÔÔ‡X YXXX YÔÌà@f f ìàò òB.€€Denying€the€Petitioner€His€Right€to€Testify€at€Trialó ó€€€€€ˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àAs€his€second€issue,€the€petitioner€argues€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€testify€at€the€trial.Ð d´ ÐThe€State€responds€that,€trial€defense€counsel€having€testified€that€it€was€the€petitionerððs€decision€notÐ P   Ðto€testify,€this€issue€is€as€to€credibility,€which€the€trial€court€resolved€in€favor€of€trial€defenseÐ < Œ Ðcounsel.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ( x ÐÌà  àAs€we€have€previously€stated,€the€record€reflects€that,€at€the€time€of€this€trial,€the€petitionerÐ  P  Ðhad€other€aggravated€robbery€convictions,€which€the€trial€court€had€determined€could€be€utilized€ifÐ ì <  Ðthe€petitioner€testified.€€Additionally,€trial€defense€counsel€testified€that€there€were€sufficientÐ Ø(  Ðsimilarities€in€certain€of€the€other€robberies€with€the€instant€offense€that€counsel€was€concerned€otherÐ Ä  Ðconvictions€could€be€utilized€not€only€for€impeachment€as€to€credibility€but€also€to€establish€theÐ °  Ðidentity€of€the€petitioner€as€the€robber€of€the€Ô_ÔBaskinÔ_Ô„Robbins.€€Trial€defense€counsel€also€said€thatÐ œì  Ðhe€believed€his€alibi€witnesses€who€testified€at€the€second€trial€were€credible,€as€evidenced€by€theÐ ˆØ  Ðhung€jury€at€the€first€trial€during€which€they€had€testified.€Although€the€petitioner€honestly€mayÐ tÄ Ðbelieve€that€his€testimony€at€the€second€trial,€professing€that€he€was€elsewhere€at€the€time€of€theÐ `° Ðaggravated€robbery,€would€have€underscored€the€similar€testimony€of€his€alibi€witnesses,€we€believeÐ Lœ Ðthat€there€would€be€virtual€unanimity€among€defense€lawyers€that€his€credibility€would€have€beenÐ 8ˆ Ðsubstantially€blunted€by€his€prior€aggravated€robbery€convictions,€and€even€more€so€if€theÐ $t Ðprosecution€had€presented€proof€as€to€the€similarities€between€the€previous€robberies€and€that€forÐ ` Ðwhich€the€petitioner€was€being€tried.Ð üL ÐÌà  àAs€to€this€claim,€the€post„conviction€court€determined€both€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorneyÐ Ô$ Ðwould€have€allowed€him€to€testify,€had€he€advised€counsel€that€he€wished€to€do€so,€and€that€he€failedÐ À Ðto€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€not€testifying.€€The€record€fully€supports€these€conclusions€as€well.Ð ¬ü ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ „Ô ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€authorities€and€reasoning,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failedÐ \ ¬ Ðto€establish€either€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€or€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€counselððs€allegedÐ H!˜ Ðinactions.€€We€affirm€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€Ð 4"„  ÐÔ#†X YXXX Y—\#ÔÔ‡X YXXX YÔÌÔ#†X YXXX Y°h#ÔÌà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ø$H # Ðà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE