’WPC& yœ!NPC”Ę$B9ö4Cِ³ ģ'‚WĢS ŒžĘ}°ą+ć+Š•h€^,w E·2Å0Q™}Õ Eør°“ϰӲļ E \Œ+N0Ā¼ ö|…ćŸJ‘ģXčī.[™ßbŪHo#Źxļźv»ÕMĆF&U§6xŹÅ¹a;f*Ś/%.S†ą".¦({/@äjœvNˆ“yża’ØÄցPpž ”pśd—é9 §2¦Ųų•­& ·Ķ’“qõÄÉ%kŅYż|ŗ[æFŠ_oQƒYć®b²%ė*®{¾Źčü!r­gO³X÷µ’3£a'± öՍ’XłŅ £¢“pU) õ-½ł|AZ-oø §s$‡¬iż…ø)įJmŗZęHóą7ƒ„y靁1Ļ&=ųTotRųō‰ä ³»’u¤»™4ģUąī±z$Q§įÕĢĶ:šé˜{Rįė»źåhpŻQUÉóÓ7[*kߚsųŗå»õķńb.±0ŖČ i£lb_X ĻÖ®RŪ¶u2²H{læˆT»‚rœcbp,Ļčs]EŁē®šĻ*źO§Mø¤ŗtNtˆōµg9¤ķ°½øƒn†°Nū,Xšg·Hb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkŅå· m¹ #ÉŠ UN™ Ęē Ę­ ĘsĘ99N’’RESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSbUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 0D]]]] 0ė”””‚Œ B 0¤+ D3Ļ D- 0K// ASzĘĶ 0¤“ 0D7 A«{»Pøt/Ļ (`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.ź:i¢Ų+003|x ˜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 ’U‹’ĄĄĄ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ŅV,,,,ŅV0(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  P.J.ColavecchioTorryWehby CrimLockhartAlfordStricklandSchmidPensingerCrittenden n]otd]uring s]hereviewableFinlawMcBee- ł-(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó(|G2·$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ӑ»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōäTņ»»Ō xŻ ƒR·$ŻÓ  Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōäTņ»»ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€Appellant€also€seems€to€contend€that€this€misinformation€affects€his€classification€status€in€prison.€€EvenŠ ° Šif€this€is€true,€this€is€an€administrative€issue€within€the€Department€of€Correction,€and€is€not€reviewable€within€anŠ qĮ Šineffective€assistance€claim.€€Generally,€once€a€prisoner€is€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction,€an€agencyŠ 2‚ Šof€the€state€government,€classification€status€is€addressable€only€through€the€avenues€of€the€Administrative€ProceduresŠ óC ŠAct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€4„5„10€to€„324€(1998).€€That€is€the€proper€avenue€for€relief.€€ņņSee€Finlaw€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„Š “ Š9212„CR„00448€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Aug.€13,€1993). d(|3÷ $££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ӑ»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3÷ $¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ӑ»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ӑ»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŃ  ŃŌ€¼ӑ»»»ŌŃ8€ž?XXdé»»d8Ńą@hhģąŌ‡ī4NӑŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@gg$ģąAT€NASHVILLEŌ#†¼ӑ»īī4N #ԈŠ Ó# ŠÓ  Óą @ ąą @` ąAssigned€on€Briefs€August€13,€2003Š öF ŠŌ‡Xž?X»¼ӑŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼ӑ»XXž? #ŌFRANK€CRITTENDEN€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEņņóóŌ‡Xž?X»¼ӑŌó óŠ ļ? ŠĢą@@½½ģąņ ņ€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyŠ é 9 Šą@@ųųģąNo.€94„B„1014€€€€€€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€JudgeŠ Ó # ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` Aߊ ‘į  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€M2002„01856„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€November€20,€Ō_Ō2003Ō_ŌŠ ŠŚ  ŠĢßA€V) °°` dE<]` Aߊ ^®  Šó óĢÓ  ÓŌ‡ X¤XXXž?ŌThe€Appellant,€Frank€Crittenden,€appeals€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Courtššs€dismissal€of€hisŠ V¦  Špetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Crittenden€pled€guilty€to€eight€counts€of€aggravated€rape€and,Š ? Šfollowing€a€sentencing€hearing,€received€an€effective€one„hundred„year€sentence€in€the€DepartmentŠ (x Šof€Correction.€€On€appeal,€the€single€issue€presented€for€our€review€is€whether€Crittenden€was€deniedŠ a Šthe€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Following€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theŠ śJ Špost„conviction€court€dismissing€the€petition.€€Š ć3 ŠŌ#†Xž?XX X¤É#ŌŌ#†¼ӑ»XXž?’#ŌŌ‡Xž?X»¼ӑŌÓ½ÓĢņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óŠ µ ŠĢņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼ӑ»ąXž?Ģ#ŌŌ‡Xž?X.¼ӑŌDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.,óó€and€ņņJerryŠ ˆŲ ŠL.€Smithóó,€J.,€joined.Š qĮ ŠĢMichael€A.€Colavecchio,€Easterly€&€Associates,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€FrankŠ C“ ŠCrittenden.Š ,| ŠĢPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€P.€RobinŠ žN ŠDixon,€Jr.,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Victor€S.€(Torry)€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;Š ē 7  Šand€Phil€Wehby,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Š Š! ! ŠŌ#†¼ӑ»XXž?†#ŌŌ‡Xž?X»¼ӑŌĢÓWÓĢą@@OO&ģąņ ņOPINIONó óŌ#†¼ӑ»XXž?] #ŌŌ‡Xž?X»¼ӑŌŠ ‹$Ū$ ŠĢņ ņFactual€Backgroundó óŠ ^&®!& ŠņņóóŌ#†¼ӑ»XXž?Š #ŌÓ  ÓŌ€Xž?X»¼ӑŌĢŌ‡ X¤XXXž?Ōą  ąThe€facts,€as€developed€on€direct€appeal,€established€that:€€Š 1(#( ŠĢą8  ąThe€[Appellant]€sexually€abused€his€daughter€from€the€time€she€was€four€years€oldŠ *S%* Šuntil€the€time€she€was€twelve€or€thirteen€years€old.€€The€[Appellant]€performedŠ ģ*<&+ Švarious€sex€acts€on€his€minor€daughter,€and€she€routinely€performed€oral€sex€on€him.€Š Õ+%', ŠIn€addition€to€this€pervasive€abuse,€the€victim€was€also€photographed€by€theŠ ¾,(- Š[Appellant].€€These€photographs€contained€shocking€depictions€of€sexual€actsŠ §-÷(.ż ŠŌ_Ōbetween€the€[Appellant]€and€the€victim,€and€displayed€the€minor€in€offensive€andŠ ° Šprovocative€nude€poses.€€The€[Appellant]€admitted€that€these€pictures€were€taken€forŠ ™é Špornographic€purposes.Š‚ŅŠ Š  ŠĢņņState€v.€Frank€Crittendenóó,€No.€M1998„00485„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Dec.Š T¤ Š17,€1999),€ņņperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2000).€€On€May€24,€1994,€a€Davidson€County€grand€juryŠ =  Šindicted€the€Appellant€for€twenty€counts€of€aggravated€rape,€eight€counts€of€aggravated€sexualŠ & v Šbattery,€two€counts€of€sexual€battery,€five€counts€of€rape,€and€one€count€of€sexual€exploitation€of€aŠ  _ Šminor.€€Pursuant€to€a€negotiated€plea€agreement,€the€Appellant€entered€an€š šopen€pleašš€to€eightŠ ų H Šcounts€of€aggravated€rape.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€AppellantŠ į 1  Što€one„hundred€years€in€prison.€€The€Appellantššs€sentence€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€ņņSee€id.€óóŠ Ź   ŠĢą  ąThe€Appellant€subsequently€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€and€a€hearing€was€held€Š œģ  Šon€May€8,€2002.€€The€post„conviction€court€dismissed€the€petition,€finding€that€the€Appellant€hadŠ …Õ  Šnot€met€his€burden€of€proof.€€It€is€from€this€determination€that€the€Appellant€now€appeals.€Š n¾  ŠĢņ ņÓ  ÓANALYSISó óŠ @ ŠÓ×ÓĢą  ąIn€order€to€succeed€on€a€post„conviction€claim,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€showing,Š c Šby€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€the€allegations€set€forth€in€his€petition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„30„Š üL Š210(f)€(1997).€€Once€a€guilty€plea€has€been€entered,€effectiveness€of€counsel€is€relevant€only€to€theŠ å5 Šextent€that€it€affects€the€voluntariness€of€the€plea.€€In€this€respect,€such€claims€of€ineffectiveŠ Ī Šassistance€necessarily€implicate€the€principle€that€guilty€pleas€be€voluntarily€and€intelligently€made.€Š · ŠņņHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€56,106€S.€Ct.€366,€369€(1985)€(citingņņ€North€Carolina€v.€Alfordóó,€400Š  š ŠU.S.€25,€31,€91€S.€Ct.€160,€164€(1970)).€€In€evaluating€the€knowing€and€voluntary€nature€of€a€guiltyŠ ‰Ł Šplea,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held,€"The€standard€was€and€remains€whether€the€pleaŠ rĀ Šrepresents€a€voluntary€and€intelligent€choice€among€the€alternative€courses€of€action€open€to€theŠ [« Šdefendant."€€ņņNorth€Carolina€v.€Alfordóó,€400€U.S.€at€31,€91€S.€Ct.€at€164.Š D” Š€Ģą  ąTo€succeed€in€a€challenge€for€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€Appellant€mustŠ f Šdemonstrate€that€counselššs€representation€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneysŠ ’O Šin€criminal€cases.€€ņņBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Under€ņņStrickland€v.Š č 8 ŠWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984),€the€Appellant€must€establish€(1)Š Ń!!  Šdeficient€representation€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€the€deficiency.€€In€the€context€of€a€guiltyŠ ŗ" ! Šplea,€to€satisfy€the€second€prong€of€ņņStricklandóó,€the€Appellant€must€show€that€š šthere€is€a€reasonableŠ £#ó" Šprobability€that,€but€for€counselššs€errors,€he€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insistedŠ Œ$Ü# Šon€going€to€trial.šš€€ņņHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€at€59,€106€S.€Ct.€at€370;€ņņsee€also€Walton€v.€Stateóó,€966Š u%Å $ ŠS.W.2d€54,€55€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Š ^&®!% Š€€ą  ąŠ G'—"& Šą  ąThe€issues€of€deficient€performance€by€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€areŠ 0(€#' Šmixed€questions€of€law€and€fact.€€ņņState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€š šA€trial€courtššsŠ )i$( Šņņfindings€of€factóó€underlying€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€reviewed€on€appeal€underŠ *R%) Ša€ņņde€novo€óóstandard,€accompanied€with€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correct€unless€theŠ ė*;&* Špreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.šš€€ņņFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001)Š Ō+$'+ Š(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d));€ņņHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997).€€However,Š ° Šņņconclusions€of€lawóó€are€reviewed€under€a€purely€ņņde€novoóó€standard,€with€no€presumption€ofŠ ™é Šcorrectness.€€ņņFieldsóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€458.€€Š ‚Ņ ŠĢą  ąThe€Appellantššs€claims€of€ineffectiveness€of€counsel,€as€set€forth€in€his€petition,€stem€from€Š T¤ Šthe€following€allegations:€Trial€counselŠ =  ŠĢą8  ą(1)€failed€to€explore€the€effects€to€judgment€of€two€(2)€incidents€of€trauma€sufferedŠ  _ Šby€the€Appellant€when€the€Appellant€was€young;Šų HŠ Š  ŠĢą8  ą(2)€failed€to€give€the€Appellant€copies€of€the€evidence€against€him;ŠŹ  Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(3)€inaccurately€advised€the€Appellant€that€the€Appellant€was€facing€ten€(10)€lifeŠ œģ  Šsentences€as€potential€punishment€in€this€case;Š…Õ Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(4)€failed€to€advise€the€Appellant€of€the€result€of€any€interview€conducted€with€anyŠ W§  Šwitness€the€trial€court€attorney€had€interviewed;Š@Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(5)€withheld€the€Appellantššs€glasses€from€the€Appellant€at€the€plea€hearing;ŠbŠ Š  ŠĢą8  ą(6)€failed€to€make€certain€the€Appellant€could€hear€all€of€the€questions€being€askedŠ ä4 Šof€him€at€the€plea€hearing,€and€hear€all€of€the€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing;ŠĶŠ Š  ŠĢą8  ą(7)€advised€the€Appellantššs€sister,€Ms.€Venda€Schmid,€that€her€presence€at€theŠ Ÿļ ŠAppellantššs€sentencing€hearing€would€not€be€of€any€benefit€to€the€Appellant;ŠˆŲŠ Š  ŠĢą8  ą(8)€failed€to€correct€the€incorrect€statements€in€the€pre„sentence€report€utilized€by€theŠ ZŖ Štrial€court€to€sentence€the€Appellant;ŠC“Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(9)€failed€to€file€a€ššNotice€of€Mitigating€Factorsšš€in€this€case;ŠeŠ Š  ŠĢą8  ą(10)€failed€to€object€to€irrelevant€testimony€presented€against€the€Appellant€at€theŠ ē 7 ŠAppellantššs€sentencing€hearing;ŠŠ!  Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(11)€failed€to€question€the€competency€of€Ms.€Kathy€Pensinger€as€an€expert€when€theŠ ¢#ņ" ŠState€failed€to€establish€her€credentials€as€an€expert€in€the€area€of€mental€health,€andŠ ‹$Ū# Šadditionally€failed€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€assertion€of€her€as€an€expert;Št%Ä $Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(12)€€presented€the€Appellant€with€documents€to€sign,€indicating€that€they€would€beŠ F'–"& Šfiled€with€the€trial€court,€after€he€had€withdrawn€from€the€Appellantššs€case;Š/(#'Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(13)€failed€to€sign€the€Appellantššs€ššWaiver€of€Appeal;šš€and€Š*Q%)Š Š  Šā āŠ ź*:&* Šą8  ą(14)€€failed€to€bring€to€the€Courtššs€attention€that€the€detective€who€had€arrested€theŠ ° Šā āAppellant€was€allowed€to€escort€the€Appellant€to€the€restroom€while€the€AppellantŠ ™é Šwas€in€custody€behind€the€court€room,€and€that€the€detective€told€the€Appellant€thatŠ ‚Ņ Šit€would€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€Appellant€to€accept€the€plea€agreement.€€Šk»Š Š  ŠĢWe€proceed€to€examine€the€Appellantššs€claims€in€turn.Š =  ŠĢą  ąFirst,€the€Appellant€contends€that€trial€counsel€š šfailed€to€explore€the€effects€to€judgment€ofŠ  _ Štwo€(2)€incidents€of€trauma€suffered€by€the€Appellant€when€the€Appellant€was€young.šš€€Further,€heŠ ų H Šsubmits€that€š šthe€effect€of€these€two€(2)€traumatic€childhood€accidents€caused€[him]€to€be€dischargedŠ į 1  Šfrom€the€military€for€mental€instabilities.šš€€The€record€indicates€that,€prior€to€the€plea€hearing,€trialŠ Ź   Šcounsel€filed€a€motion€for€a€competency€evaluation,€which€was€granted.€€After€completion€of€theŠ ³  Ševaluation,€it€was€determined€that€the€Appellant€was€competent€to€stand€trial,€could€defend€himselfŠ œģ  Šin€a€court€of€law,€understood€the€legal€process,€understood€the€charges€pending€against€him€and€theŠ …Õ  Šconsequences€that€could€follow,€could€advise€counsel,€and€participate€in€his€own€defense.€€TrialŠ n¾  Šcounsel€introduced€the€Appellantššs€military€records€at€the€sentencing€hearing€and€argued€that€theŠ W§  Štrial€court€should€mitigate€the€Appellantššs€sentence€based€upon€information€contained€in€the€records.€Š @ ŠAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€testified€that€nothing€in€the€mental€evaluations€or€otherŠ )y Šmental€records€supported€a€defense€based€upon€an€established€mental€disability.€€We€conclude€thatŠ b Šthe€Appellant€has€failed€to€prove€that€trial€counselššs€performance€was€deficient€in€this€regard.Š ūK ŠĢą  ąSecond,€the€Appellant€argues€that€trial€counsel€š šfailed€to€give€the€Appellant€evidence€againstŠ Ķ Šhim.šš€€It€is€unclear€from€the€Appellantššs€brief€as€to€what€evidence€he€contends€was€withheld.€€AfterŠ ¶ Ša€review€of€the€post„conviction€hearing,€it€appears€that€the€Appellant€is€referring€to€computer€disks,Š Ÿļ Ša€notebook,€and€VCR€tapes€taken€from€his€residence.€€The€Appellant€also€makes€the€broad€assertionŠ ˆŲ Šthat€trial€counsel€did€not€review€discovery€material€with€him.€€Trial€counsel€characterized€theŠ qĮ Šdiscovery€process€as€follows:Š ZŖ Š€Ģą8  ąą ` ąIt€was€open€discovery.€€I€went€down€a€couple€of€times€and€met€with€theŠ ,| ŠGeneral.€€I€went€to€Detective€Meekššs€office€twice€and€met€with€Detective€Meek.€Š e ŠTheir€discovery€was€totally€open.€€I€got€copies€of€photographs.€€I€presented€those€toŠ žN Šthe€[Appellant].€€We€discussed€lots€of€different€things.€€I€remember€the€meetings.€€IŠ ē 7 Šremember€certain€things€that€werenššt€introduced€at€the€hearings€that€were€worse€thanŠ Š!   Šsome€of€the€evidence€that€was€actually€admitted.€.€.€.й" !Š Š  ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ą.€.€.Š‹$Ū#` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą ` ąThey€had€š!š€they€had€a€few€more€things,€notes€that€[the€Appellant]€made€aboutŠ ]&­!% Špenetration€to€his€daughter,€the€amount€that€he€was€able€to€get€in€each€time,€that€sortŠ F'–"& Šof€thing.€.€.€.€€The€photos,€the€confession€and€those€sorts€of€things€were€enough,€butŠ /(#' Šthere€were€computer€notes€and€different€things.€[The€Appellant]€is€correct,€the€StateŠ )h$( Šdid€have€several€things€off€his€computer€that€one€of€the€specialists€.€.€.€that€I€met€withŠ *Q%) Šš!š€Bob€White[.]€.€.€.€€And€I€met€with€him€and€Harry€Meek€and€they€gave€me€fullŠ ź*:&* Šaccess€to€everything.€€€€ą h ąŠÓ+#'+Š Š  Š€€Š ° ŠTrial€counsel€stated€that€the€State€informed€him€that€it€did€not€intend€to€use€this€evidence€against€theŠ ™é ŠAppellant.€€Also,€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€reviewed€the€evidence€š šextensivelyšš€with€theŠ ‚Ņ ŠAppellant.€€The€post„conviction€court€obviously€credited€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel.€€Because€weŠ k» Šdo€not€revisit€the€issue€of€credibility€on€appeal,€we€defer€to€the€post„conviction€court's€ruling€in€thatŠ T¤ Šregard.€€ņņBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Moreover,€when€a€petitionerŠ =  Šcontends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€investigate€or€present€a€witness€in€support€of€his€defense,€theŠ & v ŠAppellant€should€present€that€evidence€or€witness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€ņņ€Id.óó€at€757.€€TheŠ  _ ŠAppellant€failed€to€produce€any€evidence€at€the€hearing.€€Absent€any€evidence€from€the€AppellantŠ ų H Što€preponderate€otherwise,€we€find€that€trial€counsel's€performance,€with€respect€to€this€claim,€wasŠ į 1  Šnot€deficient€and€did€not€affect€the€Appellant's€decision€to€plead€guilty.€Š Ź   ŠĢą  ąThird,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€trial€counsel€š šinaccurately€advised€[him]€that€[he]€wasŠ œģ  Šfacing€ten€(10)€life€sentences€as€potential€punishment€in€this€case.šš€€The€Appellant€signed€aŠ …Õ  Šdocument,€which€stated€that€he€refused€the€Stateššs€offer€of€one„hundred€years€in€exchange€for€hisŠ n¾  Šguilty€pleas.€€Within€this€document,€the€following€language€appeared,€š šThe€36€indictments€againstŠ W§  Šme€carry€at€least€10€life€sentences€and€a€total€of€around€300€years€for€the€other€charges.šš€€At€theŠ @ Špost„conviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€explained,€š šBasically,€I€guess,€the€š!š€the€range€that€would€beŠ )y Šavailable€to€the€Judge€when€he€sentenced€[the€Appellant]€was€the€equivalent€to€the€rest€of€his€life.šš€Š b ŠEven€assuming€for€argumentššs€sake€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient€by€inserting€this€language,€weŠ ūK Šfail€to€see€how,€but€for€this€failure€alone,€the€Appellant€š šwould€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€wouldŠ ä4 Šhave€insisted€on€going€to€trial.šš€€ņņHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€at€59,€106€S.€Ct.€at€370.ņņóóŠ Ķ ŠĢą  ąFourth,€the€Appellant€argues€that€trial€counsel€š šfailed€to€advise€[him]€of€the€result€of€anyŠ Ÿļ Šinterview€conducted€with€any€witness€the€trial€court€attorney€had€interviewed.šš€€At€the€post„Š ˆŲ Šconviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€testified€to€the€following:Š qĮ ŠĢą8  ąQ.€€Okay.€€Which€of€the€witnesses€in€this€case€had€you€interviewed€prior€to€„€priorŠ C“ Što€the€plea?Š,|Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą.€.€.ŠžNŠ Š  ŠĢą8  ąA.€€Well,€Harry€Meek,€I€talked€to€quite€a€bit.€€Janice€Crittenden,€I€talked€to€quite€aŠ Š!   Šbit.€€Mr.€Crittendenššs€sister,€I€talked€with.€€I€wrote€a€letter€to€Robin€asking€her€toŠ ¹" ! Šcome€forward€and€meet€with€me.Š¢#ņ"Š Š  ŠĢą8  ąQ.€€And€did€you€ever€talk€with€her?Št%Ä $Š Š  ŠĢą8  ąA.€€No,€I€didnššt.ŠF'–"&Š Š  ŠĢAgain,€we€note€that€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€reviewed€the€evidence€š šextensivelyšš€with€theŠ )h$( ŠAppellant.€€The€post„conviction€court€obviously€credited€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel.€€Because€weŠ *Q%) Šdo€not€revisit€the€issue€of€credibility€on€appeal,€we€defer€to€the€post„conviction€court's€ruling€in€thatŠ ź*:&* Šregard.€€ņņBlack,€óó794€S.W.2d€at€755.€€Furthermore,€it€is€the€Appellant's€duty€to€present€evidence€orŠ Ó+#'+ Šwitnesses€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€to€support€his€claim.€€ņņId.óó€at€757.€€The€Appellant€did€not€produceŠ ° Šany€witness€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€to€support€his€theories.€After€review€of€this€issue,€we€findŠ ™é Šthat€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€establishing€his€claim€of€deficient€representationŠ ‚Ņ Šor€prejudice€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.Š k» ŠĢą  ąFifth,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€trial€counsel€š šwithheld€[his]€glasses€from€[him]€at€the€pleaŠ =  Šhearing.šš€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€he€was€unable€to€read€the€plea€agreement€without€his€glassesŠ & v Šand€that€trial€counsel€did€not€sufficiently€review€the€plea€agreement€with€him;€therefore,€he€did€notŠ  _ Šunderstand€the€nature€of€his€plea.€€The€Appellantššs€wife€testified€that€she€gave€a€pair€of€theŠ ų H ŠAppellant's€glasses€to€trial€counsel€before€the€Appellant€pled€guilty,€but€trial€counsel€never€gaveŠ į 1  Šthem€to€the€Appellant.€€Trial€counsel€testified,€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€that€š š[n]ot€only€didŠ Ź   ŠI€go€over€it€with€him,€I€read€it€to€him,€word€for€word,€because€his€glasses€were€broken.šš€Š ³  ŠFurthermore,€the€record€reflects€that,€during€the€plea€hearing,€trial€counsel€informed€the€court€thatŠ œģ  Šthe€Appellant€had€broken€his€glasses.€€Trial€counsel€stated€that€he€read€š ševery€wordšš€to€theŠ …Õ  ŠAppellant.€€The€trial€court€asked€the€Appellant,€š šIs€that€true,€Mr.€Crittenden?,šš€to€which€theŠ n¾  ŠAppellant€responded€affirmatively.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€prove€thatŠ W§  Štrial€counselššs€performance€was€deficient€as€alleged.€Š @ ŠĢą  ąSixth,€the€Appellant€argues€that€trial€counsel€š šfailed€to€make€certain€the€Appellant€could€hearŠ b Šall€of€the€questions€being€asked€of€him€at€the€plea€hearing,€and€hear€all€of€the€testimony€at€theŠ ūK Šsentencing€hearing.šš€€In€his€brief,€the€Appellant€contends€that,€š š[d]uring€the€plea€hearing,€[he]€wasŠ ä4 Šunable€to€hear€everything€the€trial€judge€was€explaining€to,€and€asking€of,€[him],€due€to€theŠ Ķ Šcourtroom€being€under€some€renovations€which€were€being€conducted€while€the€plea€hearing€wasŠ ¶ Šactually€in€progress,€and€due€to€the€PA€system€being€inoperative€during€the€plea€hearing.šš€€However,Š Ÿļ Šthe€record€indicates€that€this€occurred€at€the€sentencing€hearing€not€the€plea€submission€hearing.€Š ˆŲ ŠThere€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€Appellant€could€not€hear€the€questions€posed€by€the€trialŠ qĮ Šcourt€during€the€plea€hearing.€€Additionally,€during€the€sentencing€hearing,€trial€counsel€informedŠ ZŖ Šthe€court€that€the€Appellant€was€unable€to€hear€the€witnessšš€testimony,€and€the€witness€wasŠ C“ Šrequested€to€speak€louder.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€trial€counselššs€performance€was€not€deficient.Š ,| Š€€Š e Šą  ąSeventh,€the€Appellant€contends€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€when€trial€counselŠ žN Šš šadvised€the€Appellantššs€sister,€Ms.€Venda€Schmid,€that€her€presence€at€the€Appellantššs€sentencingŠ ē 7 Šhearing€would€not€be€of€any€benefit€to€the€Appellant.šš€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€he€did€not€say€thatŠ Š!   Što€Ms.€Schmid€and€that€š š[s]he€was€always€welcome.€.€.€.€€I€never€told€her€not€to€come€back€here,Š ¹" ! Šever.šš€€Furthermore,€the€record€reflects€that€the€Appellant€requested€Ms.€Schmid€to€write€a€letter€toŠ ¢#ņ" Šthe€trial€court.€€Ms.€Schmid€complied,€and€the€letter€was€read€and€considered€by€the€trial€court€inŠ ‹$Ū# Šfashioning€the€Appellantššs€sentence.€€After€review€of€this€issue,€we€find€that€the€Appellant€has€failedŠ t%Ä $ Što€carry€his€burden€of€establishing€his€claim€of€deficient€representation€or€prejudice€by€clear€andŠ ]&­!% Šconvincing€evidence.Š F'–"& Šą  ąEighth,€the€Appellant€argues€that€trial€counsel€š šfailed€to€correct€the€incorrect€statements€inŠ /(#' Šthe€pre„sentence€report€utilized€by€the€trial€court€to€sentence€the€Appellant.šš€€Specifically,€theŠ )h$( ŠAppellant€contends,€š šThe€[his]€pre„sentence€report€indicated€that€[he]€was€not€working€at€the€timeŠ *Q%) Šhe€was€incarcerated,€yet€he€had€actually€worked€right€up€until€the€day€he€was€incarcerated.€.€.€.€€TheŠ ź*:&* Špre„sentence€report€also€incorrectly€indicated€that€the€Appellant€possessed€an€extensive€criminalŠ Ó+#'+ Šhistory.€.€.€.šš€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€Appellant€testified,€š šI€was€working€until€the€day€I€cameŠ ° Šin€here.šš€€Thus,€the€trial€court€was€aware€that€he€was€employed€immediately€prior€to€hisŠ ™é Šincarceration.׃Uׯ ƒN#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Also,€the€Appellant€argues€that€the€pre„sentence€report€š šindicated€that€the€AppellantŠ ‚Ņ Špossessed€an€extensive€criminal€history,šš€however,€the€trial€court€explicitly€found€that€the€AppellantŠ k» Šdid€not€have€a€previous€criminal€record.€€The€Appellant€also€appears€to€contend€that€he€was€notŠ T¤ Špermitted€to€make€a€statement€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€However,€the€Appellant€testifiedŠ =  Šextensively€at€the€hearing.€€We€conclude€that€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€prove€that€trial€counselššsŠ & v Šperformance,€regarding€these€allegations,€was€deficient.€Š  _ ŠĢą  ąNinth,€the€Appellant€submits€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€š šfile€a€ššNoticeŠ į 1  Šof€Mitigating€Factorsšš€in€this€case.šš€€While€this€notice€may€not€have€been€filed,€at€the€sentencingŠ Ź   Šhearing,€trial€counsel€argued€the€following€mitigating€factors:€€the€Appellant€did€not€have€a€criminalŠ ³  Šhistory,€the€victim€did€not€suffer€serious€bodily€injury,€the€victim€was€doing€well€in€school,€thereŠ œģ  Šwere€indications€of€child€abuse€suffered€by€the€Appellant,€and€there€were€indications€of€mentalŠ …Õ  Šillness.€€This€argument€was€presented€to€the€trial€court€despite€the€fact€that€a€notice€was€not€filed.€Š n¾  ŠWe€find€that€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€establishing€this€claim€of€deficientŠ W§  Šrepresentation€or€prejudice€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.Š @ ŠĢą  ąTenth,€the€Appellant€argues€that€trial€counsel€š šfailed€to€object€to€irrelevant€testimonyŠ b Špresented€against€the€Appellant€at€the€Appellantššs€sentencing€hearing.šš€€Trial€counsel€elicitedŠ ūK Štestimony€from€Detective€Meek€concerning€the€Appellantššs€knowledge€of€other€incidents€of€abuseŠ ä4 Šbetween€the€victim€and€other€individuals.€€Counsel€sought€this€information€in€effort€to€show€that€theŠ Ķ ŠAppellant€cooperated€with€the€police€during€their€investigation.€€While€the€trial€court,€justifiably,Š ¶ Šasked€additional€questions€concerning€these€incidents,€they€were€not€used€against€the€Appellant€inŠ Ÿļ Šfashioning€his€sentence.€€Counsel€has€some€discretion€in€conducting€the€defense€and€is€entitled€toŠ ˆŲ Šuse€his€best€judgment€in€matters€of€trial€strategy€or€tactics.€ņņTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€374,€378Š qĮ Š(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€ņņperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991)€(citing€ņņMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,Š ZŖ Š193€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)).€€Additionally,€because€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€show€that€he€wasŠ C“ Šprejudiced,€we€conclude€that€this€issue€is€without€merit.€Š ,| ŠĢą  ąEleventh,€the€Appellant€contends€that€trial€counsel€š šfailed€to€question€the€competency€of€Ms.Š žN ŠKathy€Pensinger€as€an€expert€when€the€State€failed€to€establish€her€credentials€as€an€expert€in€theŠ ē 7 Šarea€of€mental€health,€and€additionally€failed€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€assertion€of€her€as€an€expert.šš€Š Š!   ŠOn€direct€appeal,€the€following€facts€were€developed€concerning€this€witnessšš€testimony:€Š ¹" ! ŠĢą8  ąAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€presented€evidence€from€the€victim's€childŠ ‹$Ū# Špsychologist,€who€stated€that€the€victim€had€been€diagnosed€with€post„traumaticŠ t%Ä $ Šstress€disorder.€€The€witness€indicated€that€the€victim€was€having€difficulty€dealingŠ ° Šwith€the€legacy€of€the€extensive€and€unspeakable€abuse€inflicted€upon€her€by€theŠ ™é Šdefendant,€her€father.€€The€witness€indicated€that€the€victim€suffered€emotionalŠ ‚Ņ Šoutbursts€in€which€she€breaks€things,€hits€others€and€shouts€for€long€periods€of€time.€Š k» ŠIn€addition,€the€victim€suffers€from€anxiety€attacks€and€has€difficulty€formingŠ T¤ Šrelationships.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€her€psychologist€that€she€will€need€lifelongŠ =  Šcounseling.Š& vŠ Š  ŠĢņņFrank€Crittendenóó,€No.€M1998„00485„CCA„R3„CD.€€It€is€the€Appellantššs€obligation€to€establish€thatŠ ų H Šany€challenge€to€the€witnessšš€competency€to€testify€as€an€expert€would€have€been€meritorious.€€TheŠ į 1  ŠAppellant€has€failed€to€meet€this€obligation€and,€indeed,€the€qualifications€of€the€witness€wouldŠ Ź   Šindicate€to€the€contrary.€€Moreover,€even€assuming€for€argumentššs€sake€that€trial€counsel€wasŠ ³  Šdeficient€by€failing€to€object€when€the€witness€was€not€tendered€as€an€expert,€we€fail€to€see€how,€butŠ œģ  Šfor€this€failure€alone,€the€Appellant€š šwould€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€onŠ …Õ  Šgoing€to€trial.šš€€ņņHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€at€59,€106€S.€Ct.€at€370.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Š n¾  ŠĢą  ąTwelfth,€the€Appellant€argues€that€trial€counsel€š špresented€[him]€with€documents€to€sign,Š @ Šindicating€that€they€would€be€filed€with€the€trial€court,€after€[trial€counsel]€had€withdrawn€from€theŠ )y ŠAppellantššs€case.šš€€The€particular€document€to€which€the€Appellant€refers€is€the€ššWaiver€of€Appeal,ššŠ b Šwhich€states,€š šI€am€aware€that€I€can€Appeal€the€length,€range,€manner€of€service€and€consecutiveŠ ūK Šsentence€in€my€case€and€have€it€reviewed€by€the€appellate€court.€€I€hereby€waive€my€right€to€a€reviewŠ ä4 Šof€sentencing.šš€€The€Appellant€submits€that,€because€trial€counsel€withdrew€from€his€case€after€theŠ Ķ Šsentencing€hearing€was€concluded,€he€received€ineffective€assistance€when€trial€counsel€presentedŠ ¶ Šthis€document€to€him.€€However,€the€Appellant€was€subsequently€permitted€to€appeal€his€sentence.€Š Ÿļ ŠņņSee€Frank€Crittendenóó,€No.€M1998„00485„CCA„R3„CD.€Because€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€showŠ ˆŲ Šany€prejudice,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€Š qĮ ŠĢą  ąThirteenth,€trial€counsel€did€not€sign€the€ššWavier€of€Appeal,šš€and€the€Appellant€contends€thatŠ C“ Šthis€failure€also€resulted€in€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€While€trial€counsel€did€not€sign€theŠ ,| ŠššWaiver€of€Appeal,šš€we€fail€to€see€how,€but€for€this€failure€alone,€the€Appellant€š šwould€not€haveŠ e Špleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.šš€€ņņHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€at€59,€106€S.Š žN ŠCt.€at€370.€€Š ē 7 ŠĢą  ąFinally,€the€Appellant€contends€that€trial€counsel€š šfailed€to€bring€to€the€Courtššs€attention€thatŠ ¹" ! Šthe€detective€who€had€arrested€the€Appellant€was€allowed€to€escort€the€Appellant€to€the€restroomŠ ¢#ņ" Šwhile€the€Appellant€was€in€custody€behind€the€court€room,€and€that€the€detective€told€the€AppellantŠ ‹$Ū# Šthat€it€would€be€in€the€best€interest€of€the€Appellant€to€accept€the€plea€agreement.šš€€The€AppellantŠ t%Ä $ Šsubmits€that€he€informed€trial€counsel€of€this€incident;€however,€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trialŠ ]&­!% Šcounsel€testified€that€š štoday€was€the€first€I€heard€of€this.šš€€The€post„conviction€court€obviouslyŠ F'–"& Šcredited€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel.€€Because€we€do€not€revisit€the€issue€of€credibility€on€appeal,Š /(#' Šwe€defer€to€the€post„conviction€court's€ruling€in€that€regard.€€ņņBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€755.€€Also,€weŠ )h$( Šagain€note€that€we€€fail€to€see€how,€but€for€this€failure€alone,€the€Appellant€š šwould€not€have€pleadedŠ *Q%) Šguilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.šš€€ņņHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€at€59,€106€S.€Ct.€at€370.Š ź*:&* ŠŠ Ó+#'+ ŠÓ  Óņ ņCONCLUSIONó óŠ ° ŠĢÓ  Óą  ąBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€err€in€rulingŠ ƒÓ Šthat€the€Appellant€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theŠ l¼ Špost„conviction€court€is€affirmed.€Ō#†Xž?XX X¤‡ #ŌŠ U„ ŠĢĢĢĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą___________________________________€Š Ė   Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE