WPC- >nH##C+3d? ^Lwcڎք`5VnD m[;Xxn_(СrL5S/#ȓoÄq*/+Lc1{9?_Jz-jY㩚-ץGX!4Nծ2@&ŕ?47MDlh>vke3ȈѧA&ZTN#R@㯑-Gc_[ui^)d!v!6 *s萦Zx䰒o kMU/2[oc6ټJ ✷\)OdMcg9G@OPzf|⼱V<ɮ& mYO[d{."cE/L8P@ugy/fjC[+qG#Φ׎~ :ǞRM ̏#$ [T8ʦA%iy,7jaEIۆPhn跱-r}̕qtuXa)>2on#'UN[* %* 0:*U N*U@7+^ w+w+4+++ m++N],],],],],],],],E_,_,_,_,_,_, a, i,i, q, y, , , ,,,, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, B,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,(, 2----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0N@-HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular( Z(Times New Roman S1 h_B0:i+003|xU TERRANCE Crimw]hereStrickland S.CtHellard t]hefianc)1245678Document1zzSDUNumber5 dDocument1zzFN_F0055Document1zzSDUNumber18(O$ !USUS.,  _XXXXXX88XXdd8  @KK#XX\#XXINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE#XX#XXԈ  #XX#XX #XX#XX%    %UTERRANCECROWDERv.%  %#XX6#XX STATEOFTENNESSEE #XX#XX#o=#o 0 b@*#XX>#XXԈ@ #XX# AppealfromtheCriminal%  Court%kfor%  % ԀDavidsonCounty  T @= = No.% ! %!% " %" Ԁ96C1282SethW.Norman,Judge  > @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈    @ No.% # %#M200300680CCAR3PCFiledOctober19,_2004_Ԉ   AV) ` dE<x` A y   #X8XXX#XXXX8ThePetitioner,TerranceCrowder,appealsthetrialcourt'sdenialofhispetitionforpost Z  convictionrelief.ThePetitionerfiledhispetitionoutsidethestatuteoflimitationsandtollingis C notapplicable.Additionally,petitionersineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimsmustfail ,| becausepetitionerdidnotprovethatcounselsrepresentationfellbelowtherequisitestandard. e Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed. N  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtAffirmedPursuanttoRule20,Rulesof   theCourtofCriminalAppeals    #X8XXX#XXXX8ROBERTW._WEDEMEYER_#X8XXX #XXXX8,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDAVIDH.  WELLES#X8XXXh #XXXX8,andJERRYL.SMITH#X8XXX #XXXX8,_J.J._,joined. v KimberlyHaas,fortheappellant. H PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;J.RossDyer,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,for j theappellee,StateofTennessee.  S @! MEMORANDUMOPINION  !%!   #X8XXXV #XXXX8@* #X8XXX #ԈXXXX8  PetitionerwasconvictedofrapeofachildonMarch5,1997.Thepetitionersconviction ## andsentencewereaffirmedonappeal.Statev.Crowder,No.01C019711CR00544(Tenn.Crim. $$ App.Feb.9,1999).ThepetitionersattorneydidnotfileaRule11applicationwiththeSupreme z% % Court,andthepetitionersattorneydidnotcommunicatewithhimregardingthiscourtsopinion. c&!& Sometimeintheyear2000,petitionercontactedtheCourtofCriminalAppealsandlearnedthatthe L'"' courtsopinionhadbeenreleasedinFebruary1999.OnFebruary23,2001,petitionerfiledamotion 5(#( requestingthatthiscourtvacateandreinstateitsopinionsothathecouldfileanapplicationfor )n$) permissiontoappealtotheSupremeCourt.OnMarch1,2001,thiscourtenteredanorderdenying *W%* therequestedrelief.Intheorder,thecourtnotedthat itappearsthestatuteoflimitationswould *@&+ preventtheappellantfromobtainingpostconvictionreliefinthiscase. +)',   OnFebruary28,2002,almostayearafterthiscourtsMarch1,2001order,petitionerfiled -(. _apetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Thecourtappointedcounselforpetitionerandahearingwas  held.Followingthehearing,thecourtdeniedpetitionerpostconvictionrelief.  #X8XXXd #XXXX8#X8XXX#XXXX8  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4030102(a)providesthatapetitionforpostconviction k reliefmustbefiledwithinoneyearfromfinaljudgment.Theappellantfiledhispetitionbeyondthe T timeallowedbythestatute,andnoneoftheenumeratedexceptionstothistimelimitapplyinthis =  case.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030102(b).#X8XXX#XXXX8UnderthePost-ConvictionProcedureAct,% ' exceptions & v tothestatuteoflimitationsareexplicitlysetforth,i.e.,(1)claimsbaseduponanewruleof  _ constitutionallawapplicabletoapetitioner'scase,(2)claimsbaseduponnewscientificevidence  H showinginnocence,and(3)claimsbaseduponsentencesthatwereenhancedbecauseofaprevious  1  convictionandthepreviousconvictionwassubsequentlyfoundtobeillegal.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.    #X8XXX#XXXX8#X8XXXw#XXXX84030102(b)(1)(3)(2003Repl.).Petitionerhasfailedtoassertoneoftheseexceptionsfortolling   thestatute.Hecitesnonewconstitutionalrule,referstononewscientificevidence,andmakesno   claimthatanearlierconvictionhasbeenoverturned.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.#X8XXX#XXXX8#X8XXXE#XXXX84030106(g)(2003   Repl.). n    Petitionerarguesthatthestatuteoflimitationsshouldbetolledbydueprocessconsiderations @ pursuanttoStatev.Williams,44S.W.3d464(Tenn.2001).InWilliamstheSupremeCourt )y explainedthat [w]herecircumstancesbeyondthepetitionerscontrolprecludehimfromactively b raisinghispostconvictionclaims,thestatuteoflimitationsshouldbetolled.Notwithstanding K petitionersattempttobringhiscaseundertheumbrellaofdueprocesstollingcontemplatedby 4 Williams,thefactsofthiscasesimplydonotwarranttolling.Thepetitioneradmitsthathelearned  thatthiscourthadfileditsopinionwhenhecontactedthecourtin2000.#X8XXX#XXXX8ԀInanyevent,thepetitioner  tooknoactionuntilFebruary23,2001,whenherequestedthatthiscourtvacateandreinstateits  opinion.ThiscourtdeniedtherequestedreliefonMarch1,2001.Althoughthecourtaddressedthe  factthatitappearedthatthestatuteoflimitationshadexpiredforpostconvictionpurposesinthe q March1,2001order,petitioneragaintooknoactionforalmostayear.ItwasnotuntilFebruary Z 28,2002,thatpetitionerfirstrequestedpostconvictionrelief.Basedonthefactsofthiscase,tolling C ofthestatuteoflimitationsisnotproper. ,|   Finally,thiscourthasreviewedthefindingsmadebythetrialcourtwithregardto N petitionersineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaims.Thiscourtdeterminesthatevenifthepetitioner  7 hadtimelyfiledhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief,hewouldnotbeentitledtoanyrelief.#X8XXXF#XXXX8When !   aclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselhasbeenraised,aconvicteddefendantmustprove,by " ! clearandconvincingevidence,4.nO  5  6#O#rrut  7.n#Ԁthat:(1)counsel'sperformancewasdeficient,and(2)thedeficient #" %  performanceprejudicedthedefense.SeeStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,104S.Ct.2052, $# 80L.Ed.2d674(1984);Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d453(Tenn.1999)."Unlessadefendantmakes t% $ bothshowings,itcannotbesaidthattheconviction...resultedfromabreakdownintheadversary ]&!% processthatrenderstheresultunreliable."Strickland,466U.S.at687,104S.Ct.at2064.Thetrial F'"& courtspecificallyfoundthatpetitionerfailedtoprovethatcounselsrepresentationfellbelowthe /(#' requisitestandard.Thiscourtagrees. )h$(   Thepetitionermadeseveralclaimsofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,including:counsel *:&* wasineffectiveinfailingtowithdrawascounselpursuanttoSupremeCourtRule14;counselwas +#'+ ineffectiveinfailingtorequestaninstructiononthelesserincludedoffenseofattemptedrape;  counselwasineffectiveinfailingtoattackthequestionofjurisdictionofthecourtoverhisperson;  counselwasineffectiveinfailingtopresentevidencethat,unlikethevictim,thepetitionerwasnot  infectedwithchlamydia;counselwasineffectiveinfailingtoobjecttotestimonyrelatingtochild k sexualabusesyndrome;andcounselwasineffectiveinadmittingapriorconsistentstatementofthe T victimattrial,becauseitopenedthedoorforthesubsequentadmissionofotherconsistent =  statementsofthevictim. & v   Asthetrialcourtexplainedinitsorder,petitionersinactivityinfilingapetitionforpost  H convictionreliefalmostoneyearafterthiscourtdeniedamotiontovacateandreinstateitsopinion  1   lendsnoweighttopetitionersclaimthathewasprejudicedbycounselsinactionwhilethe    petitionerhimselfappearedtolaginhisprotest.Althoughcounseladmittedlyfailedtoproperly   withdrawfromrepresentationpursuanttoSupremeCourtRule14,thepetitionerfailedtopresent   sufficientevidencethathewasprejudiced.Thelowercourtreviewedpetitionerspostconviction   claimsandfoundthateachfailed.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. n    Further,asthetrialcourtfound,counselmadeatacticaldecisioninnotaskingforan @ instructiononattemptedrapebecausethepetitionersdefensewasthatnosuchconducthadactually )y occurred.Counseltestifiedthatinhisview,thecasewas allornothing!eithertherapeoccurred b oritdidnot.Additionally,counselmadeatacticaldecisiontointroducetestimonyrelatingtochild K sexualabusesyndrome.Counseltestifiedthattheintroductionoftestimonyregardingchildsexual 4 abusewasdonetoconvincethejurythattherapedidnotoccur,asthevictimdidnotexhibitanyof  thesymptomsofchildsexualabusesyndrome.Itisasteadfastprinciplethatthiscourtmaynot  second-guessthetacticalandstrategicchoicesmadebytrialcounselunlessthosechoiceswere  uninformedbecauseofinadequatepreparation.Hellardv.State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982).#X8XXX"#XXXX8Ԁ  Theseissuesarewithoutmerit. q   Finally,astothepetitionersremainingclaims,thetrialcourtfoundthatpetitionerfailedto C presentsufficientevidencethathewasprejudicedbycounselsactions.Afterareviewoftherecord, ,| thiscourtmustagree.Wedeterminethatpetitionerfailedtopresentsufficientevidencethathewas e prejudicedincounselsactionsrelatingtofailuretoobjecttothejurisdictionoverthepetitioner,as N thecourthadjurisdictionoverpetitioner.Theevidenceattrialshowedthatpetitionerwaseighteen  7 yearsofage,andthusnotajuvenile,whentheactscomplainedofoccurred.Further,thepetitioner !   failedtopresentsufficientevidencethathewasprejudicedbycounselsfailuretointroducemedical " ! evidencethathewasnotinfectedwithchlamydia.Asthetrialcourtfound, [t]hedebateoverthe #" chlamydiaevidenceisnotconvincingofwhetherthepetitionerreceivedeffectiveassistanceof $# counsel.Testimonyofferedattheevidentiaryhearingwasofminimalassistanceandfew t% $ conclusions[as]tothenatureofthevirusweredetermined.Evidencewaspresentedattrialthat ]&!% petitionersfiancwithwhomhewassexuallyactivewasnotinfectedwithchlamydia.Ascounsel F'"& repeatedlytestifiedatthehearing,heattemptedtodemonstratethatpetitionerdidnothave /(#' chlamydia,butdidnotdosowithmedicalrecords.Ascounseltestified,itwashisopinionthatthis )h$( issuewasnotgermanetohisdefensestrategy.Asfortheintroductionofpriorconsistentstatements, *Q%) petitionerfailedtoshowthattheoutcomeofthetrialwouldhavebeendifferentwithoutthis *:&* evidence.Counselexplainedthatheintroducedthestatementsnottoshowconsistencies,butto +#'+ pointoutinconsistencies.Counseltestifiedthatthevictimmadeanexcellentwitness,andhewas  attemptingtoshowanyminorinconsistenciesthatshehadmadeinherstory.Ascounselexplained,  hehadtoattackthevictimscredibilityverysubtly.Petitionersineffectiveassistanceofcounsel  claimsmustfail. k   Petitionerspostconvictionpetitionisbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.#X8XXX2#XXXX8Moreover, =  petitionersineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimsarewithoutmerit.Thejudgmentisaffirmedin & v accordancewithRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.Becausetheappellantisindigent,  _ costsaretaxedtotheState.  H    `     h        `     h     ____________________________________ n     `     h     ROBERTW.WEDEMEYER,JUDGE W     `     h     #X8XXXh=#