ÿWPC†! …# VUNa %¯ 0Dµbùw@ 4A U d 0ˆl 0Dô 0J8 0T‚ 0^Ö 0h4 0rœ 0| 0†Š 0 1u  0d D3y B¬ 0@ÉU > U *GB)qDCš AMÝ3*’]È覆/av~vÓ AOáÆ0 0Dö D/:! Bi!˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñþ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°Ò- ù- ?@{ABECDEE FGHÓ€Úƒç"3|xS(8(3I¸$¤¤Ý ƒñþ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ****'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd€-1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ23,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ˆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔÔ€/Ô€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Eddie€Curt€Davisóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9109„CR„00295,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€26,€1992),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1992).Ì ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔÔ€/Ô€The€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€also€included€an€issue€concerning€the€use€of€hearsay€testimony€at€trial.€ÏThe€Petitioner€chose€not€to€pursue€this€issue€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€As€such,€we€will€notÏaddress€it€in€this€opinion.Ì  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€.ôÔÔ€/Ô€It€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€not€to€identify€by€name€any€minor€victim€of€sexual€offenses.€ÏTherefore,€the€victims€in€this€case€will€be€referred€to€as€ð ðJ.M.,ðð€ð ðS.M.,ðð€or€ð ðthe€victims.ððÌ %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€.ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ôÔ€The€Petitioner€did€not€pursue€allegations€number€four€and€five,€that€counsel€refused€to€allowÏhim€to€testify€and€that€counsel€failed€to€raise€viable€issues€on€direct€appeal,€in€this€appeal€from€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€granting€his€petition€in€part€and€denying€it€in€part.€€Thus,€we€will€not€address€thoseÏallegations€in€this€opinion.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€.ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÔ€.ŠÔÔ€/ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€öQXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€231A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœOCTOBER›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœEDDIE€CURT€DAVIS,›à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01„9702„CR„00064›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àœAppellant,›à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHAMILTON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œSTEPHEN€M.€BEVILó ó›Ìò òœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Post„Conviction)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œHAMILTON€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœKENNETH€F.€IRVINE,€JR.›à àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ606€W.€Main€Street,€Suite€350à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€84ÌKnoxville,€TN€37901„0084à àà àPETER€M.€COUGHLANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBILL€COXÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBATES€BRYAN,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCourt€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€/°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€/ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Petitioner,€Eddie€Curt€Davis,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€On€November€30,€1990,€a€Hamilton€County€juryÏfound€the€Petitioner€guilty€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€rape€and€one€count€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€thirty€yearsÏimprisonment€for€each€aggravated€rape€and€fifteen€years€for€the€aggravatedÏsexual€battery.€€The€fifteen„year€sentence€was€ordered€to€run€consecutive€to€theÏconcurrent€aggravated€rape€sentences,€resulting€in€an€effective€term€ofÏimprisonment€of€forty„five€years.€€His€convictions€were€affirmed€by€this€Court€onÏAugust€26,€1992,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€permission€toÏappeal€on€December€28,€1992.œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›€€The€Petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€January€7,€1993,€which€was€amended€with€the€assistanceÏof€counsel€on€February€15,€1996.€€In€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€heÏargues€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€by€conviction€of€an€offense€forÏwhich€the€statute€of€limitations€had€expired€and€that€he€was€denied€effectiveÍassistance€of€counsel€at€trial.œ× ƒ5 ××  ×›€€The€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearingÏon€April€1€and€May€20,€1996.€€On€June€25,€1996,€the€trial€court€issued€an€orderÏdenying€the€petition€in€part€and€granting€it€in€part.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àTo€facilitate€our€discussion€of€the€issues,€we€begin€with€a€brief€summaryÏof€the€facts€surrounding€the€offenses.€€On€November€29,€1989,€the€PetitionerÏwas€indicted€by€presentment€on€five€counts€of€aggravated€rape.€€The€allegedÏvictims€were€the€minor€children€of€his€girlfriend,€Rebecca€Harris.œ× ƒ6 ××  ×›€€The€offensesÏwere€alleged€to€have€occurred€between€September€of€1983€and€January€ofÏ1989.€€J.M.,€a€young€male,€was€alleged€to€have€been€penetrated€anally€andÏforced€to€perform€oral€sex€on€the€Petitioner.€€S.M.,€a€young€female,€was€allegedÏto€have€been€penetrated€vaginally,€forced€to€perform€oral€sex€and€to€have€oralÏsex€performed€upon€her.ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€trial€was€held€from€November€28€to€November€30,€1990.€ÏAt€trial,€both€victims€testified€concerning€several€instances€of€sexual€abuse.€€TheÍoffenses€were€alleged€to€have€occurred€while€the€childrenððs€mother,€RebeccaÏHarris,€was€at€work.€€Given€the€young€age€of€the€victims,€they€were€not€able€toÏidentify€specific€dates€on€which€the€abuse€had€occurred.€€Instead,€they€identifiedÏthe€abuse€mainly€according€to€which€house€they€were€living€in€at€the€time€of€theÏabuse.€€At€the€close€of€proof,€the€State€elected€to€proceed€on€the€presentmentsÏas€charging€that€the€offenses€had€occurred€between€September,€1984€and€July,Ï1986€in€a€house€on€McCahill€Road€in€Red€Bank.ÌÌà àThe€State€also€presented€expert€medical€testimony€at€trial.€€Dr.€DavidÏTepper€examined€S.M.€in€August€of€1989.€€At€that€time,€S.M.ððs€hymen€was€notÏintact.€€The€examination€of€S.M.€revealed€evidence€of€repeated€penetration€ofÏher€vagina.€€Dr.€George€Winterer€examined€J.M.€in€April€of€1989.€€TheÏexamination€of€J.M.€revealed€nothing€remarkable€about€his€rectum€and€noÏevidence€of€penetration.€€Dr.€Winterer€testified,€however,€that€his€findings€wereÏnot€surprising€given€the€amount€of€time€which€had€passed€since€the€allegedÏpenetration.ÌÌà àThe€State€also€offered€testimony€from€medical€and€law€enforcementÏpersonnel€regarding€statements€made€to€them€by€the€victims.€€These€statementsÏechoed€the€victimsðð€testimony€at€trial€concerning€the€instances€of€sexual€abuse.€ÏIn€addition,€the€mother€of€the€victims,€Rebecca€Harris,€testified€about€statementsÍmade€to€her€by€her€children€concerning€the€sexual€abuse.€€Harris€also€testifiedÏthat€the€Petitioner€admitted€to€her€that€he€œhad€had›€sex€with€the€victims.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€Petitioner€did€not€testify€at€trial,€he€offered€testimony€fromÏseveral€witnesses,€all€of€whom€were€his€relatives.€€These€witnesses€testifiedÏthat€they€never€noticed€anything€unusual€about€the€Petitionerððs€relationship€withÏthe€victims.€€The€witnesses€also€indicated€that€they,€not€the€Petitioner,€babysatÏthe€victims€while€Rebecca€Harris€was€at€work.ÌÌà àAfter€considering€the€proof,€the€jury€acquitted€the€Petitioner€of€the€chargesÏinvolving€J.M.,€specifically€the€allegations€that€the€Petitioner€anally€raped€J.M.Ïand€forced€J.M.€to€perform€oral€sex€upon€him.€€The€jury€found€the€Petitioner€guiltyÏas€charged€of€vaginally€raping€S.M.€and€forcing€her€to€perform€oral€sex€uponÏhim.€€The€jury€found€the€Petitioner€guilty€of€the€lesser€included€offense€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery€with€regard€to€the€charge€that€he€performed€oral€sexÏupon€S.M.ÌÌà àOn€January€7,€1993,€the€Petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€arguing€that€his€conviction€for€aggravated€sexual€batteryÏviolated€his€due€process€rights€and€that€defense€counsel€was€ineffective.€ÏCounsel€was€appointed€and€amended€the€petition€on€February€15,€1996.€ÍThrough€the€amended€petition,€the€Petitioner€argued€that€his€trial€attorney,€HankÏHill,€rendered€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€number€of€ways:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€That€counsel€failed€to€investigate€the€case€fully€and€failed€toÏinterview€all€potential€defense€witnesses;Ì(2)€that€counsel€failed€to€present€expert€medical€evidence€to€rebut€theÏStateððs€medical€proof€concerning€the€physical€condition€of€S.M.;Ì(3)€that€counsel€failed€to€emphasize€the€inconsistencies€in€theÏtestimony€of€the€victims;Ì(4)€that€counsel€refused€to€allow€him€to€testify€at€jury„out€hearings;€and,Ì(5)€that€counsel€failed€to€raise€several€viable€issues€on€direct€appeal.œ× ƒ7 ××  ×›ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€Petitioner€also€argued€that€the€statute€of€limitations€for€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€had€expired€prior€to€his€being€charged.€€As€such,€he€contended€that€hisÏconviction€for€that€offense€violated€his€due€process€rights.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€April€1€and€May€20,€1996.€€On€May€20,€1996,€the€StateÏconceded€that€the€Petitioner€had€been€improperly€convicted€of€aggravated€sexualÏbattery€after€the€statute€of€limitations€had€expired.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€grantedÏthe€post„conviction€petition€in€that€regard€and€vacated€the€Petitionerððs€conviction€forÏthe€aggravated€sexual€battery€of€S.M.€€This€ruling€is€not€challenged€in€this€appealÏand,€therefore,€we€will€not€address€the€statute€of€limitations€issue€in€this€opinion.ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€Petitioner€testified€that€defense€counselÏconducted€plea€bargaining€negotiations€and€received€an€offer€of€thirty€years.€€TheÏPetitioner€declined€this€offer,€maintaining€that€he€was€innocent.€€He€stated€that€heÏwanted€to€testify€at€trial,€but€defense€counsel€advised€against€it€given€that€he€hadÏa€prior€criminal€record€which€would€have€been€admitted€for€impeachment€purposes.€ÏHad€he€testified€at€trial,€he€would€have€informed€the€jury€about€a€bicycle€accidentÏwhich€S.M.€had€that€caused€her€to€bleed€from€her€vaginal€area.€€He€would€alsoÏhave€testified€that€he€walked€in€on€J.M.,€S.M.,€and€their€half„brother€while€they€wereÏin€bed€together€wearing€only€their€underpants.€€In€addition,€he€would€have€testifiedÏthat€he€heard€Rebecca€Harris€screaming€one€time€that€she€had€caught€J.M.€andÏS.M.€doing€ð ð[s]tuff€they€donððt€supposed€to€be€doing€thatððs€sister€and€brother.ðð€€OnÏcross„examination,€the€Petitioner€admitted€that€although€defense€counsel€advisedÏagainst€his€testifying,€the€choice€as€to€whether€to€testify€was€his€to€make.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€also€offered€the€testimony€of€several€relatives.€€They€testifiedÏthat€defense€counsel€did€not€talk€with€them€prior€to€the€day€of€trial.€€Missy€Strickland,Ïthe€Petitionerððs€niece,€testified€that€S.M.€had€a€bicycle€accident€which€caused€her€toÏbleed€from€her€vaginal€area.€€Diane€Ellenbock€and€Robin€Webster,€the€PetitionerððsÏsiblings,€both€testified€to€suggestive€behavior€between€Rebecca€Harris€and€theÏvictims€which€they€deemed€inappropriate.€€Joann€Dunning,€the€Petitionerððs€mother,Ïechoed€the€testimony€of€Ellenbock€and€Webster.€€These€witnesses€and€otherÍrelatives€all€testified€that€they€witnessed€S.M.€masturbating€repeatedly.€€They€allÏalso€testified€that€they€never€witnessed€any€unusual€behavior€between€theÏPetitioner€and€the€victims.€€On€cross„examination,€Dunning€and€Webster€admittedÏthat€they€had€been€called€as€witnesses€at€the€Petitionerððs€trial.ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€defense€attorney€from€trial,€Hank€Hill,€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Hill€stated€that€he€began€practicing€law€in€1978€and€becameÏan€initial€member€of€the€public€defenderððs€office€in€Hamilton€County€when€it€wasÏestablished€in€1989.€€Hill€recalled€speaking€with€the€Petitioner€several€times€prior€toÏtrial.€€Hill€stated€that€either€he€or€his€investigator,€Alan€Miller,€interviewed€the€StateððsÏwitnesses€and€every€potential€witness€suggested€by€the€Petitioner.€€According€toÏHill,€Miller€visited€the€various€homes€lived€in€by€the€Petitioner€and€the€victims€overÏthe€years€alleged€in€the€presentments.€€Hill€spoke€with€the€medical€expert€who€hadÏconducted€the€examination€of€S.M.,€Dr.€Tepper,€and€asked€him€about€theÏpossibility€of€a€bicycle€accident€causing€the€tearing€of€S.M.ððs€hymen.€€Dr.€TepperÏresponded€that€the€state€of€S.M.ððs€hymen€was€not€consistent€with€a€bicycle€injury.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€maintained€his€innocence€and€Hill,€given€his€investigation€of€theÏcase,€decided€to€put€forward€a€defense€that€although€S.M.€may€have€beenÏpenetrated,€it€was€not€the€Petitioner€who€had€done€so.€€Hill€recalled€that€there€wereÏinsinuations€of€sexual€abuse€of€S.M.€by€her€half„brother€who€lived€in€Ohio.€€Thus,ÍHill€testified€that€he€did€not€feel€a€need€to€attempt€to€contradict€Dr.€TepperððsÏtestimony€about€the€condition€of€S.M.ððs€hymen€through€the€use€of€a€defense€expert.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Hill€freely€admitted€that€he€was€overburdened€withÏcases€during€the€time€that€he€investigated€and€tried€the€Petitionerððs€case.€€HillÏtestified€that€his€caseload€was€well€in€excess€of€the€American€Bar€AssociationÏguidelines.€€According€to€Hill,€the€newly„established€public€defenderððs€office€simplyÏdid€not€have€the€resources€with€which€to€hire€enough€staff€members€to€maintainÏreasonable€workloads.€€Hill€admitted€that€the€Petitioner€would€have€received€moreÏattention€from€a€retained€attorney€than€he€received€from€Hill.ÌÌà àIn€spite€of€his€excessive€caseload,€however,€Hill€testified€that€the€PetitionerÏreceived€quality€representation.€€Hill€did€not€believe€that€the€outcome€of€the€trialÏwould€have€been€different€had€he€not€been€overburdened€with€work.€€He€statedÏthat€he€spoke€with€the€Petitioner€as€much€as€he€needed€to€and€fully€investigatedÏthe€case.€€He€testified€that€he€was€able€to€develop€enough€evidence€to€put€forthÏthe€Petitionerððs€theory€at€trial,€namely€that€another€individual€had€been€responsibleÏfor€any€sexual€abuse€of€the€victims.ÌÌà àAfter€considering€the€evidence€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€theÏtrial€court€entered€detailed€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€short,€the€trialÍcourt€did€not€find€the€Petitionerððs€proof€to€be€persuasive€and€instead€accreditedÏHank€Hillððs€testimony€in€all€respects.€€With€respect€to€the€allegation€that€defenseÏcounsel€failed€to€investigate€the€case€adequately,€the€trial€court€found€that€either€HillÏor€his€investigator€had€interviewed€all€potential€witnesses,€that€Hill€had€conductedÏthorough€discovery,€and€that€Hill€was€prepared€for€trial.€€The€trial€court€found€furtherÏthat€the€defense€theory€that€someone€other€than€the€Petitioner€was€responsible€forÏany€sexual€abuse€of€the€victims€was€reasonable€and,€given€that€theory,€thereÏwas€no€need€to€present€expert€medical€testimony€to€contradict€the€Stateððs€medicalÏproof€of€penetration€of€S.M.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€accredited€Hillððs€testimony€thatÏthe€Petitioner€was€free€to€testify€if€he€wished€to€do€so.ÌÌà àFrom€the€evidence€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€and€a€review€ofÏthe€trial€transcript,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€Hillððs€representation€fell€within€theÏrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€The€trial€courtÏtherefore€denied€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€grounds.€€It€is€from€this€order€of€denial€that€the€Petitioner€now€appeals.€€OnÏappeal,€he€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€defense€counselÏadequately€investigated€the€case€and€presented€a€competent€defense.ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€or€not€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,Ïthe€court€must€decide€whether€œcounselððs›€performance€was€within€the€range€ofÍcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏat€trial,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counsel€made€errors€soÏserious€that€he€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€SixthÏAmendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€the€petitioner€resulting€inÏa€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,Ïòòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.Ï1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€To€satisfy€this€secondÏprong€the€petitioner€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððsÏunreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regardingÏpetitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probability€must€beÏð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2dÏ662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€court€should€not€use€the€benefitÏof€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€€òòHellard€v.ÏStateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€should€be€judged€atÏthe€time€it€was€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€atÏ690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€applicable€to€theÏpresent€case,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€in€his€or€herÏpetition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2dÏ191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Furthermore,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€courtÏin€post„conviction€hearings€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àApplying€the€òòStricklandóó€standard€to€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€believe€that€theÏPetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€defense€counselððs€representation€œwas›Ïconstitutionally€deficient.€€The€Petitioner€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€thatÏdefense€counsel€failed€to€interview€all€potential€defense€witnesses€and€failed€toÏinvestigate€the€case€fully.€€In€support€of€his€contentions,€the€Petitioner€offered€theÏtestimony€of€several€relatives€who€stated€that€they€were€not€interviewed€byÏdefense€counsel€until€the€day€of€trial.€€In€contrast,€defense€counsel€testified€thatÏeither€he€or€his€investigator€interviewed€all€witnesses€suggested€by€the€PetitionerÏand€that€he€investigated€all€relevant€aspects€of€the€case.ÌÌà àAfter€hearing€all€of€the€evidence€and€evaluating€credibility,€the€trial€courtÏaccredited€the€testimony€of€the€Petitionerððs€defense€counsel,€Hank€Hill.€€Thus,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€the€evidence€did€not€support€the€Petitionerððs€allegations€ofÍineffective€assistance€of€counsel€for€failure€to€investigate.€€The€trial€court€was€in€aÏmuch€better€position€to€evaluate€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€than€this€Court.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€Hank€Hillððs€testimony€to€be€persuasive€and€therefore€concluded€thatÏthe€Petitioner€had€not€established€that€Hillððs€representation€was€constitutionallyÏdeficient.€€From€the€record€before€us,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€Petitioner€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€thatÏdefense€counsel€presented€a€competent€defense.€€With€regard€to€the€allegation€inÏthe€post„conviction€petition€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€present€medical€evidenceÏto€rebut€the€Stateððs€medical€proof€concerning€the€physical€condition€of€S.M.,€weÏconclude€that€the€Petitioner€has€not€carried€his€burden€of€establishing€that€defenseÏcounselððs€representation€was€deficient.€€At€trial,€the€State€presented€expertÏtestimony€that€the€condition€of€S.M.ððs€hymen€indicated€that€she€had€beenÏrepeatedly€penetrated.€€Defense€counsel€testified€that€he€did€not€challenge€thisÏtestimony€because€the€defense€theory€was€not€that€S.M.€had€not€been€penetrated,Ïbut€rather€that€the€Petitioner€had€not€penetrated€her.€€Moreover,€the€PetitionerððsÏcomplaint€that€proof€of€a€bicycle€accident€causing€an€injury€to€S.M.ððs€vaginal€areaÏwas€not€brought€forth€at€trial€is€unfounded.€€Our€reading€of€the€trial€transcriptÏindicates€that€this€issue€was€raised€during€the€testimony€of€Dr.€David€Tepper.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€also€alleged€that€defense€counsel€presented€an€incompetentÏdefense€in€that€he€failed€to€emphasize€the€inconsistencies€in€the€testimony€of€theÏvictims€and€their€mother.€€The€trial€record,€however,€is€replete€with€examples€ofÏcross„examination€by€defense€counsel€focusing€on€inconsistencies€in€theirÏtestimony.€€For€example,€defense€counsel€repeatedly€questioned€S.M.€about€theÏnumber€of€instances€of€sexual€abuse,€often€resulting€in€conflicting€answers.€ÏFurthermore,€defense€counsel€effectively€emphasized€the€fact€that€the€mother€of€theÏvictims,€Rebecca€Harris,€gave€conflicting€answers€as€to€when€and€how€she€initiallyÏdiscovered€the€sexual€abuse.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€the€Petitioner€has€failedÏto€carry€his€burden€of€demonstrating€that€defense€counselððs€representation€wasÏconstitutionally€deficient€with€regard€to€the€presentation€of€a€competent€defense.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€on€appeal,€the€Petitioner€raises€an€issue€not€presented€in€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€improperly€restricted€his€examination€of€witnesses€andÏpresentation€of€evidence.€€In€particular,€he€complains€that€the€trial€court€restricted€hisÏcross„examination€of€Hank€Hill€with€regard€to€Hillððs€questioning€of€the€StateððsÏwitnesses€about€inconsistencies€in€their€testimony.€€Moreover,€he€complains€thatÏthe€trial€court€restricted€his€own€testimony€about€what€he€would€have€testified€to€atÏtrial€had€he€chosen€to€testify.€€Furthermore,€he€complains€that€the€trial€judgeÍimproperly€interjected€himself€in€the€post„conviction€hearing€by€questioning€theÏPetitionerððs€witnesses.ÌÌà àIt€is€well„established€that€rulings€on€the€admissibility€of€evidence€and€theÏpropriety€and€form€of€examination€of€witnesses€are€entrusted€to€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161,€172Ï(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€116€S.Ct.€137,€133€L.Ed.2d€84€(1995);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,Ï839€S.W.2d€54,€72€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€507€U.S.€954,€113€S.Ct.€1368,€122ÏL.Ed.2d€746€(1993).€€Such€rulings€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuseÏof€that€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€541€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€510€U.S.€579,€114€S.Ct.€475,€126€L.Ed.2d€426€(1993).ÌÌà àThe€record€from€the€post„conviction€hearing€reveals€that€at€one€point€whenÏthe€Petitioner€was€cross„examining€Hank€Hill€about€whether€he€had€emphasized€toÏthe€jury€certain€inconsistencies€in€Rebecca€Harrisðð€statements,€the€trial€court,€inÏresponse€to€an€objection€by€the€assistant€district€attorney€general,€commented€asÏfollows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àWell,€I€just€„„€I€donððt€„„€Iððm€not€going€to€let€you€go€into€this€entireÏcase€and€ask€him€[Hank€Hill]€about€everything€that€you€might€haveÏdone€differently€or€you€think€that€he€should€have€done.€€You€know,Ïweððll€be€here€for€the€rest€of€six€months€if€you€go€through€this€entireÏcase€and€say,€well,€when€you€asked€this€question,€shouldnððt€youÏhave€asked€a€different€question,€or€did€you€look€at€this,€and€go€throughÏevery€finite€detail€of€this€case.Ìà àThe€question€is€whether€or€not€„„€and€Mr.€Hill€has€amply€statedÏseveral€times€that€he€did€everything€he€felt€he€could€do€to€representÏthis€client€and€thought€he€got€a€fair€trial,€and€he€felt€like€even€if€he€œhadÏhad›€more€time€and€more€assistance,€it€wouldnððt€have€made€anyÏdifference,€and€whether€„„€the€test€as€to€whether€or€not€he€wasÏeffectively€representing€him€is€not€whether€he€would€have€doneÏeverything€the€way€some€other€lawyer€might€have€done€it,€but€wasÏwhether€or€not€he€rendered€assistance€that€was€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€by€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€at€this€particularÏtime,€and€thatððs€the€issue€before€the€Court.ÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€Petitioner€agreed€with€the€trial€courtððs€statements€and€then€continued€cross„examination€of€Hank€Hill€by€asking€him€about€inconsistencies€in€Dr.€TepperððsÏtestimony€at€trial.ÌÌà àFrom€these€circumstances,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€œjudge›€abusedÏœhis›€discretion€in€controlling€the€examination€of€Hank€Hill.€€The€Petitioner€was€allowedÏto€raise€as€an€issue€that€Hill€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€emphasize€theÏinconsistencies€in€Rebecca€Harrisðð€testimony.€€With€this€issue€in€mind,€the€trial€courtÏreviewed€the€trial€transcripts€containing€Harrisðð€testimony€prior€to€ruling€on€the€post„conviction€petition.€€Thus,€it€appears€that€the€Petitioner€was,€in€fact,€permitted€toÏraise€the€issue€and€that€the€trial€court€possessed€and€reviewed€the€evidenceÏnecessary€to€rule€upon€the€issue.ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€complaint€that€the€trial€court€improperly€restricted€theÏPetitionerððs€own€testimony€about€what€he€would€have€testified€to€at€trial€had€heÍchosen€to€testify,€we€conclude€that€the€issue€provides€no€basis€for€relief€for€theÏPetitioner.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€Petitioner€testified€that€he€heardÏRebecca€Harris€screaming€that€she€had€caught€S.M.€and€J.M.€doing€ð ð[œs]tuff›€theyÏdonððt€supposed€to€be€doing€thatððs€sister€and€brother.ðð€€At€that€point,€the€trial€courtÏcut€off€the€Petitionerððs€testimony,€noting€that€he€was€testifying€to€hearsay€evidenceÏwhich€would€not€have€been€admitted€at€trial.€€On€appeal,€the€Petitioner€challengesÏthe€trial€courtððs€restriction€of€his€testimony,€arguing€that€the€hearsay€evidence€wouldÏhave€been€admissible€pursuant€to€the€excited€utterance€exception.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏœEvid›.€803(2).ÌÌà àRegardless€of€the€propriety€of€the€trial€courtððs€restriction€of€the€PetitionerððsÏtestimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€we€do€not€believe€that€this€issue€providesÏrelief€for€the€Petitioner.€€The€testimony€at€issue€in€the€post„conviction€hearing€relatedÏto€what€the€Petitioner€would€have€testified€to€had€he€chosen€to€testify€at€trial.€€TheÏPetitioner€initially€claimed€in€his€post„conviction€petition€that€defense€counselÏpressured€him€not€to€testify.€€On€cross„examination€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,Ïhowever,€the€Petitioner€admitted€that€defense€counsel€merely€advised€him€not€toÏtestify€because€of€his€prior€record€and€that€the€decision€as€to€whether€to€testify€wasÏhis€to€make.€€The€Petitioner€chose€not€to€testify€at€trial.€€Thus,€the€substance€ofÏwhat€he€would€have€testified€to€at€trial€had€he€chosen€differently€does€not€supportÏhis€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€complaint€that€the€trial€judge€improperly€interjected€himself€inÏthe€post„conviction€hearing€by€questioning€the€Petitionerððs€witnesses,€we€concludeÏthat€the€trial€court€did€not€err.€€The€Petitioner€challenges€the€fact€that€the€trial€judgeÏasked€additional€questions€of€some€of€the€Petitionerððs€witnesses€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€The€Petitionerððs€argument€ignores€the€principle€that€the€trial€courtÏhas€discretion€to€interrogate€witnesses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€œEvid›.€614(b).€€Our€review€ofÏthe€record€indicates€that€the€trial€courtððs€questions€were€relevant€and€did€not€exhibitÏan€unfair€bias.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€œjudge›€did€not€abuse€œhis›€discretionÏby€posing€limited€questions€to€some€of€the€Petitionerððs€witnesses€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€in€the€discussion€above,€we€conclude€that€theÏPetitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€on€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€grounds.€€We€thereforeÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE