WPC6 FFPY ]sNqΤY9+m"}Ye7);%'uO, BPV涍_.s@ƖH:^aۚѯwb};OO/Ǵ߹G}ܴcy;?Z$Q7)6q1 .#][-h{2I % N 0 U0NT UN z j z<  N . 0D zv<N`NbbZd z8E N     zNZZZ z\N z$Nb zzNLLL zNN zN zdN666 z8N z !N!!! z!N"N # # # 0"# z $$NY% B[%[% 0x% D5& D-Q& 0K~&~& AS&' 0' 0D( A( zu))N*** z*=+N,,, z,,N]-]-]- z_--N... z.'/N/// z/u0NG1G1G1 zI11N222 z23^ 3w34344 m4#/4(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt 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.wpt $ R$      2     _ԀSincethepostconvictionhearingintheinstantcase,thisprovisionhasbeencodifiedatTennesseeCode  Annotatedsection4030110(f)(2003).(#$  0  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt P R$      1     _ԀԠ  Brannonwithdrewascounselforpetitionerpriortotrial.TrialcounselwasappointedfollowingBrannons  withdrawal.#  Ԡ#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.wptC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt$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.wpt*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.wpt- -0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt5C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt: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.wpt?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.wptDC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptIC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptNC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(|G2$ !.8dXXd8         0   TC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt d(|3$ !.8dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKcC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpthC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptmC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptrC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptwC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt|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.wptC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptC:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptqF0 ~/\P:i+003|xU\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0 !.8dd8     __   8SXXdd8@hh.2INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#.2#Ԉ #    @  @` AssignedonBriefsAugust5,2003 F XSX #XXS-#JAMESLARRYCONRAD,SR.v.STATEOFTENNESSEEXSX  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  9 @@No.P24789JamesC._Beasley_,Jr.,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200201678CCAR3PCFiledFebruary3,_2004_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     X{XXXSThepetitioner,JamesLarryConrad,Sr.,appealsfromthedenialofhispetitionforpostconviction V  relief.Followinganevidentiaryhearing,thepostconvictioncourtdismissedthepetition.The ? petitionertimelyappealed,allegingprosecutorialmisconduct,thatthetrialcourterredinan (x evidentiaryruling,andthattrialcounselwasineffective.Uponreviewoftherecordandtheparties a briefs,weaffirmthejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourt.#XSXXX{##XXS#XSX J  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisAffirmed.     #XSz#XSX.NormaMcGeeOgle,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichThomasT._Woodall_and  RobertW._Wedemeyer_,JJ.,joined.  MatthewJohn,Memphis,Tennessee(attrial),fortheappellant,andJamesLarryConrad,Sr., Z _Whiteville_,Tennessee(onappeal),Prose. C PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;JohnH._Bledsoe_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; e WilliamL.Gibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andPaul_Hagerman_,AssistantDistrictAttorney N General,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.  7  0@@OO& OPINION #XXS_#XSX " " #XXS #XSX  @((  I.FactualBackground #XXSY #XSXX{XXXSԈ $$   ThepetitionerwasconvictedbyaShelbyCountyjuryofextortion,aClassDfelony,andhe _&!& wassentencedtotwelveyearsinconfinement.Hisconvictionwasaffirmedondirectappeal.See H'"' Statev.JamesConrad,No.W199900650CCAR3CD,2000WL33288751,at*1(Tenn._Crim_. 1(#( App.atJackson#XSXXX{ #X{XXXS,June28,2000). )j$)     Thefollowingfactsaretakenfromthiscourtsopinioninthepetitionersdirectappeal: *<&+ 8  8`   [_O]n_ԀOctober1,1996[thepetitioner]cametotheresidenceof ,(- StanleyGrovetogetGrovetohelphimlocateandapprehendVincent -(. _Shelby.Grovecharacterizedhimselfand[thepetitioner]as free  lancebountyhunters.Shelby,twentynineyearsofage,hadbeen  releasedinMay1996ona$10,000bailbondtoanswertoacharge  ofmotorvehiclehabitualoffending.Grovetestifiedthat[the k petitioner]toldhimthatacapiashadbeenissuedforShelbys T apprehension,andasanaccommodationtohisfriendConrad,Grove =  accompanied[thepetitioner]toShelbysplaceofemployment.& v` x` x    ` 8  8`   AfterarrivingatShelbysjobsite,[thepetitioner],whowasarmed  H withaninemillimeterpistol,accostedShelbyandinformedhimthat  1  themenweretakinghimintocustodyonthecapias.Thebounty    huntershandcuffedShelbyandputhiminthebackseatof[the   petitioner]scar.Shelbytestifiedthat[thepetitioner]askedhimifhe   couldraiseanymoneyforthepurposeofpaying[thepetitioner]to   releasehim.Shelbyindicatedthathecouldaskhismother,Mary n  Wright,thevictiminthecase.ShelbytestifiedthatGroveand[the W  petitioner]lefthiminthecarwhiletheydinedataKrystals @ restaurantforaboutanhour.Then,theydroveShelbytohisandhis )y mothersresidence.b` x` x Ѐ8  8`   ....Ultimately,[thepetitioner],Grove,andShelby,whoremained 4 handcuffed,enteredtheresidencewhere[thepetitioner]andthe  victimfellintoaheateddiscussionafter[thepetitioner]proposedthat  hewouldreleaseShelbyifthevictimwouldpayhim$200forhis   expenses.Thevictimtestifiedthatshedidnotwishtopayany  moneytohaveShelbyreleasedbecause itwasntlikemysonwasnt q goingnowherehehadntbeenbefore....[Thevictim]succumbed Z tothedemandforpaymentof$200andwroteacheckinthatamount C payabletoJamesConrad....Atsomepoint,Grovegavethevictim ,| areceiptfor$200,uponwhichhesignedhisnamefictitiouslyas e StanleyGranderson....N` x` x 8  8`   At[thepetitioners]trial,thestateintroducedaletteraddressedto !   Grovewhich,byhandwritinganalysis,thestateprovedhadbeen " ! writtenby[thepetitioner].Init,[thepetitioner]pleadedwithGrove #" to exonerate[thepetitioner]fromthecharges.Grove,whoalsohad $# chargespendingagainsthimfromtheOctober1incident,testifiedas t% $ astatewitness.]&!%` x` x #XSXXX{#Id.X{XXXSԀat*1. /(#' @aa#PostConviction *:&*  +#'+   Afterthiscourtaffirmedhisconvictionondirectappeal,thepetitionertimelyfiledforpost  convictionrelief.Inhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief,thepetitionerallegedthat(1) [t]he  prosecutoractedinbadfaithbyuseoffalsetestimonyofcodefendant[StanleyGrove];(2) [t]he  trialcourterredbynotgranting[p]etitionersrequesttointroduceintoevidenceanaffidavitsigned k beforeanotarypublicforthestateofTennesseebythecodefendant,StanleyGrove;and(3)the T  [p]etitionerwasdeniedhisrighttoeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.#XSXXX{5#X{XXXSԀ =    Thepetitionerscomplaintsofprosecutorialmisconductcenteraroundtheaffidavitofaco  _ defendant,StanleyGrove.Atthepostconvictionhearing,thepetitionertestifiedthatpriorto  H Grovesarrestforhisinvolvementintheextortionofthevictim,Grovevoluntarilywenttotheoffice  1  ofthepetitionersthencounsel,RobertBrannon,andexecutedanaffidavit.  #  1      ׀Inhisaffidavit,Grove    statedthathewenttothevictimshomeonthedayoftheoffenseandattemptedtotakethevictims   sonintocustody.Grovefurtherstatedthatthepetitionerdidnotparticipateintheseevents.     ThepetitionerallegedthatfollowingGrovesarrestsometwoyearslater,Groveagreedto n  testifyfortheStateatthepetitionerstrial.ThepetitionerstatedthatGroverenegedonthe W  statementsintheaffidavitbytestifyingattrialthatthepetitioneraccompaniedhimtothevictims @ homeandparticipatedintheoffense.Thepetitionerclaimedthattheprosecutor,AssistantDistrict )y AttorneyGeneralLeeCoffee,wasawarethatGrovestrialtestimonywascontrarytothestatements b intheaffidavit.ThepetitionerfurtherclaimedthatCoffeeknewthatGrovestrialtestimonywas K falseanddidnothingtocorrectit. 4   Additionally,thepetitionercontendedthatGrovetoldthepetitionerthatGroveagreedto  testifyfortheStateinexchangefortheStateallowinghimtopleadtoamisdemeanor.The  petitionertestifiedthatGrovetoldhim, MantheStatewantsmetotestifyagainstyou,theydone  mademeadealforeleventwentynine.ThepetitionerinsistedthatCoffeesconductconstituted q prosecutorialmisconduct,and,therefore,heshouldbegrantedanewtrial. Z   Next,thepetitionerallegedthatthetrialcourterroneouslyruledthatifGrovesaffidavit ,| wereadmittedassubstantiveevidence,theStatewouldbeallowedtointroduceevidenceofthe e petitionerscriminalhistory.Thepetitionercontendedthatdespitethetrialcourtsruling,histrial N counselshouldhaveintroducedtheaffidavitassubstantiveevidence.Thepetitionerexplainedthat,  7  Asfarasmycriminalrecord,Mr.Coffeeexploredthatanyway.Hemaintainedthatiftrial !   counselhadintroducedtheaffidavit, Iwouldsayinmyopinion,thatitwouldhavebeenreasonable, " ! certainlytheoutcomewouldhavebeenverydifferent. #"   Thepetitioneracknowledgedthattrialcounselwasconcernedaboutthetrialcourtsruling t% $ regardingtheuseoftheaffidavit.Thepetitionertestifiedthattrialcounseladvisedhimthatifthe ]&!% affidavitwereusedassubstantiveevidenceandifhechosetotestifyattrial,hiscriminalhistory F'"& couldbeexposed.Thepetitioneradmittedthathehadfourpriorconvictionsofaggravated /(#' kidnapping,sixpriorconvictionsofaggravatedrobbery,a Federalconviction,anattempted )h$( burglaryconviction,andapetitlarcenyconviction.Thepetitioneralsoadmittedthattrialcounsel  usedtheaffidavittoimpeachGrove,showingGrovespriorinconsistentstatement    #XSXXX{ #X{XXXSFinally,thepetitionerallegedthattrialcounselwasineffectiveinfailingtofileseveral k pretrialmotions.ThepetitionertestifiedthatBrannon,whowithdrewpriortotrial,filedseveral T pretrialmotions.However,trialcounselfailedtofileadditionalmotions.Specifically,thepetitioner =  maintainedthattrialcounselshouldhavefiledamotiontosuppressaletterwrittenbythepetitioner & v toGrovewhilethepetitionerwasinjailawaitingtrial,amotionforproductionofpreliminary  _ hearingtapes,amotiontorequiretheStatetoprovidethepetitionerwiththeinvestigativenotesof  H theDistrictAttorneysoffice,andamotionforproductionofdocuments.Thepetitioneralso  1  complainedthattrialcounselshouldhavenotifiedtheStateofthepetitionersintenttorelyonan    affirmativedefenseandmorecarefullypreparedthewitnessestotestifyattrial.   #XSXXX{ 0#X{XXXS  Thepetitionerstrialcounseltestifiedatthepostconvictionhearingthatshewasappointed   torepresentthepetitionerafterhisformerattorney,RobertBrannon,withdrewduetoaconflict n  involvingtheaffidavit.Trialcounselmaintainedthatshefiledtwentyfivetothirtymotionsonthe W  petitionersbehalfandthatshefiledallmotionsthatshouldhavebeenfiled.Trialcounselfurther @ statedthatsheandthepetitionerdiscussedtheletterwrittenbythepetitionertoGrove#XSXXX{4#X{XXXS,butshedid )y notfileamotiontosuppresstheletterbecausetherewasnobasistosuppressit.#XSXXX{ 7#X{XXXS b   Additionally,trialcounselhadadiscussionwiththepetitionerregardingtheaffidavit 4 executedbyGrove.Trialcounselexplainedthatshedidnotintroducetheaffidavitassubstantive  evidenceattrialbecause JudgeDailey,basically,heldthatifIcouldusetheaffidavittoimpeach  Mr.Grove,thenMr.CoffeecouldgetintothemotivationforMr.ConradcoercingStanleyGrove  intogivingafalseaffidavit....Inotherwords,thatMr.Conradhadpriorcriminalconvictions.  Duetoherconcernthatshewould openthedoortoevidenceofthepetitionerspriorcriminal q history,trialcounselmadeastrategicdecisiontousetheaffidavitonlytoimpeachGrovewithhis Z priorinconsistentstatement.#XSXXX{7#X{XXXS C   Trialcounselstatedthatthepetitionernevertoldherthathewasawareofanyagreement e betweenGroveandtheState.Trialcounselassertedthatifshehadbeenawareofanagreement,she N wouldhavecrossexaminedGroveontheissue.#XSXXX{;#X{XXXSԀInfact,shewastoldthattheStatehadrefusedto  7 makeanydealswithGrove.#XSXXX{=#X{XXXSԀ !     TrialcounseltestifiedthattheStatehadopenfilediscoveryandthatshereviewedthefile. #" Shestatedthatshecontactedthepetitionerscommonlawwifeandhisaunt,bothofwhomthe $# petitionerclaimedwouldprovideanalibiforhim.Trialcounselmaintainedthatalthoughthese t% $ witnessestestifiedattrial,theywerenothelpfultothepetitionersalibiclaim. ]&!%     AssistantDistrictAttorneyLeeCoffeetestifiedatthepostconvictionhearingthathedid /(#' notmakeanyofferstoGrove.Specifically,hestated, Therewerenoformaldeals.Therewereno )h$( secretdeals.Therewerenoimplieddeals.AstotheallegationthatheallowedGrovetotestify *Q%)  falsely,CoffeeexplainedthatGrove hadanexplanationastowhyhesubmittedtheaffidavittoMr. *:&* Conrad.HisexplanationwasthathegavetheaffidavittoMr.ConradundersomeduressandMr.  Conradhadtoldhimtosaythosethingsinanaffidavit.     Attheconclusionofthehearing,thepostconvictioncourtdismissedthepetitioners k complaint,accreditingthetestimonyoftrialcounsel.Thepostconvictioncourtfoundthat,contrary T tothepetitionersclaim,thetrialcourtdidnotrulethattheaffidavitcouldnotbeintroducedas =  substantiveevidence.Thepostconvictioncourtstatedthattrialcounselwasadvisedthatshewould & v beallowedtoquestionGroveregardinghispriorinconsistentstatement,but ifshereferencedthe  _ factthatitwasaswornaffidavittheStatewouldbeallowedtogetintothefactthatthepetitioner  H hadcoercedthecodefendanttogivesuchanaffidavittopreventPetitionerfromgoingbacktojail  1  forparoleviolationsonnumerouscharges.Thepostconvictioncourtdeterminedthat [i]nlight    oftheparametersplacedontheuseoftheaffidavit...[trial]counseldidinfactmakeatrialstrategy   decisionaboutitsuseandshedidutilizeitthebestshecould.Accordingly,thepostconviction   courtfoundthattrialcounselsdecisiontousetheaffidavitsolelyforimpeachmentpurposeswas   astrategicdecision.#XSXXX{=#X{XXXS n    Thepostconvictioncourtfurtherfoundthattrialcounselwasgivenopenfilediscoveryby @ theStateandthatshemetwithpetitionernumeroustimes.Thepostconvictioncourtnotedthattrial )y counselarguedextensivemotionsand vigorouslypursuedthepetitionersdefenseAsto b petitionersclaimofprosecutorialmisconduct,thepostconvictioncourtfoundthattherewasno K basisfortheclaim.#XSXXX{0H#X{XXXSSpecifically,thepostconvictioncourtnotedthat thePetitionerbelievesthat 4 becausehesaidhewasnotguiltyandthecodefendanthadgivenanaffidavitthatexoneratedhim  theprosecutorwasunethicalingoingforwardwiththecase.Thecourtfindsnomerittothis  argument.  @$ II.Analysis  q   Inapostconvictionproceeding,thepetitionerbearstheburdenofprovingthegroundsraised D inthepetitionbyclearandconvincingevidence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. 4030210(f)(1997).   #  2      ׀ -}  Evidenceisclearandconvincingwhenthereisnoseriousorsubstantialdoubtaboutthecorrectness f oftheconclusionsdrawnfromtheevidence.Hicksv.State,983S.W.2d240,245(Tenn.Crim. O App.1998).Issuesregardingthecredibilityofwitnesses,theweightandvaluetobeaccordedtheir  8 testimony,andthefactualquestionsraisedbytheevidenceadducedattrialaretoberesolvedbythe !!  postconvictioncourtasthetrieroffact.SeeHenleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,579(Tenn.1997). " ! Therefore,weaffordthepostconvictioncourtsfindingsoffacttheweightofajuryverdict,with #" suchfindingsbeingconclusiveonappealabsentashowingthattheevidenceintherecord $# preponderatesagainstthosefindings.Id.at578. u% $   Onappeal,aclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselpresentsamixedquestionoflawand G'"& factsubjecttoadenovoreview.See#XSXXX{J#X{XXXSԀStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999).Assuch,the 0(#' postconvictioncourtsfindingsoffactareentitledtoapresumptionofcorrectnessunlessthe )i$( evidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings.See#XSXXX{ R#X{XXXSԀFieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,458(Tenn.  2001).However,apostconvictioncourtsconclusionsoflaw,suchaswhethercounsels  performancewasdeficientorwhetherthatdeficiencywasprejudicial,aresubjecttoapurelydenovo  reviewwithnopresumptionofcorrectness.Id. k   Whenapetitionerseekspostconvictionreliefonthebasisofineffectiveassistanceof =  counsel, thepetitionerbearstheburdenofprovingboththatcounselsperformancewasdeficient & v andthatthedeficiencyprejudicedthedefense.Goadv.State,938S.W.2d363,369(Tenn.1996)  _ (citingStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct.2052,2064(1984)).Becausea  H petitionermustestablishbothprongsofthetest,afailuretoproveeitherdeficiencyorprejudice  1  providesasufficientbasistodenyreliefontheineffectiveassistanceclaim.Indeed,acourtneed    notaddressthecomponentsinanyparticularorderorevenaddressbothifthepetitionermakesa   sufficientshowingofonecomponent.Id.at370.     Toestablishconstitutionallydeficientperformance,thepetitionermustdemonstratethat n  counselsrepresentationfellbelowanobjectivestandardofreasonableness.See#XSXXX{lS#X{XXXSԀStrickland,466 W  U.S.at687688,104S.Ct.at2064;Burns,6S.W.3dat462.Specifically,thepetitionermustshow @ thatcounselsperformancewasnotwithin therangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysin )y criminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Toestablishprejudice,the b petitionermustshowthat thereisareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselsunprofessional K errors,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Areasonableprobabilityisa 4 probabilitysufficienttoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.Strickland,466U.S.at694,104  S.Ct.at2068;seealsoDeanv.State,59S.W.3d663,667(Tenn.2001).    Aswehavenoted,thepostconvictioncourtaccreditedthetestimonyoftrialcounsel.The  postconvictioncourtfoundthat,contrarytothepetitionersclaim,thetrialcourtdidnotrulethat q theaffidavitwasinadmissible.Rather,trialcounselsdecisionregardingtheuseoftheaffidavitwas Z astrategicdecisionbasedpartiallyuponthetrialcourtsdecisionthatintroductionoftheaffidavit C could openthedoortoevidenceofthepetitionerscriminalhistory.Onappeal,thiscourtmay ,| notsecondguessthetacticalorstrategicchoicesofcounselunlessthosechoicesarebasedupon e inadequatepreparation,normaywemeasurecounselsbehaviorby 2020hindsight.SeeState N v.Hellard,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982).#XSXXX{Y#X{XXXSԀMoreover,#XSXXX{a#wenotethatthepetitionercouldhaveraised  7 thisissueondirectappeal.Hefailedtodoso,therebywaivingtheissue.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. !   4030206(g)(1997);Forrestv.State,535S.W.2d166,167(Tenn.Crim.App.1976).X{XXXSԀ " !   Additionally,thepostconvictioncourtcorrectlydeterminedthatthepetitionerhadfailedto $# showthatanagreementwasmadebetweenGroveandtheStateandthattherewasnoevidenceof t% $ prosecutorialmisconduct.Astheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthisfinding,wewillnot ]&!% overturnthepostconvictioncourtsdetermination.SeeFields,40S.W.3dat458#XSXXX{jb#X{XXXS. F'"&   Finally,weturntotheissuesthepetitionerraisesforthefirsttimeonappeal.First,the )h$( petitionerallegesthatthepostconvictioncourtfailedtoproperlystateitsfindingsoffactand *Q%) conclusionsoflaw.Wedisagree.Therecordreflectsthatthepostconvictioncourtentereda *:&* detailedordermakingspecificfindingsregardingthepetitionersclaims.Next,thepetitionerclaims +#'+ thattheevidenceatthepostconvictionhearingwas notsufficienttosupportadenialofrelief.  Again,wenotethatthepetitionerboretheburdenofestablishinghispostconvictionclaimsbyclear  andconvincingevidence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035210(f)#XSXXX{d#X{XXXS.Thepostconvictioncourt  determinedthatthepetitionerfailedtomeetthisburden.Weagree.Asweearlierobserved,the k evidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthepostconvictioncourt.Theseissuesare T withoutmerit. =  @NN" III.Conclusion   _   Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourt.  2      #XSXXX{h#   `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     NORMAMcGEEOGLE,JUDGE