ÿWPCt …U:V %–n­¦ 04S‡w ‡4‘ 0J¥ 0Tï 0^C 0h¡ 0r 0|{ 0†÷ 0} 1u 0d‚ U6æ B) DCE AMˆ U*Õ ïÿ v~îvÓl B? D3\ 0@ AOÏÆ 0Dä D/( BW<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX3|x «<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXÂxþ6X@Éõ X@( ¤U$¡¡Ó  ÓÓ€Ô¡¨ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial åÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌSeptember€19,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ Ð ÒÙ€€ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßL€!;+'h|` ç `€€Lßà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEÌóóÌà@ àòòMARCH€SESSION,€1996ÌóóÌÌÌÌÌÌLARRY€VAN€DAVIS,€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€C.C.A.€NO.€01„C„01„9509„CC„00312Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€Ì€€€€€€€€Appellant,€€€€€€€€€)€€€CANNON€COUNTYÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€HON.€J.S.€DANIEL,€JUDGE€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€(Post€Conviction€Relief)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€€€€)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Appellee.€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òòFOR€THE€APPELLEE€(STATE)óó:ÌÌDALE€W.€PETERSON€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€CHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€at€Law€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌ410€West€Main€Street€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌWoodbury,€Tennessee€37190€€€€€€€CHARLOTTE€H.€RAPPUHN€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General's€Office€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€Tennessee€37243Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€LISA€A.€NAYLORÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Legal€AssistantÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Attorney€General's€OfficeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€DAVID€L.€PUCKETTÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Assistant€District€AttorneyÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Rutherford€County€JudicialÏBldg.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee€37130ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó.ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÑ7€7éXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÌÌ€€€€€€€€€ÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONÌÌà àóóThe€appellant,€Larry€Van€Davis,€appeals€the€trial€court'sÏdenial€of€his€motion€to€compel€discovery€in€conjunction€with€hisÏPetition€for€Post€Conviction€Relief,€and€the€subsequent€denial€ofÏthe€relief€requested€in€the€Post€Conviction€Petition.€€We€affirmÏthe€action€of€the€trial€court€in€both€respects.ÌÌà àDavis€was€convicted€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Cannon€County€onÏMay€17,€1991,€by€jury€verdict,€and€the€judgments€of€convictionÏwere€duly€entered.€€Those€convictions€were€for€burglary€of€a€non„habitation;€theft€of€property€valued€at€over€one€thousand€dollarsÏbut€less€than€ten€thousand€dollars;€driving€under€the€influence,Ïthird€offense;€driving€on€a€revoked€license;€reckless€driving;Ïand€evading€arrest.€€There€was€an€additional€charge€of€aggravatedÏassault,€but€judgment€of€acquittal€was€granted€as€to€it.ÌÌà àThe€convictions€derive€from€the€November€29,€1990,€nighttimeÏburglary€of€a€service€station€in€which€a€window€was€broken€outÏand€the€cash€register€and€its€contents€were€taken.€€The€burglaryÏand€theft€were€followed€almost€immediately€by€a€high€speed€policeÍchase€ending€in€apprehension€of€the€appellant.€€Cash€registerÏreceipts€from€the€service€station€were€found€inside€the€car.€ÏParts€of€the€cash€register,€along€with€additional€receipts,€wereÏfound€along€the€roadway€where€they€had€been€seen€being€thrownÏfrom€the€vehicle€during€the€police€pursuit.ÌÌà àDavis€was€sentenced€on€July€19,€1991,€receiving€eight€yearsÏfor€the€burglary;€four€years€for€the€theft;€eleven€months€andÏtwenty„nine€days€and€a€two€thousand€dollar€fine€for€both€DUI€andÏevading€arrest;€and€six€months€and€a€fifty€dollar€fine€forÏdriving€on€a€revoked€license€and€for€the€reckless€driving.€€TheÏfelony€Ìsentences€were€ordered€served€consecutively€to€each€other,€with€Ìthe€misdemeanor€sentences€concurrent,€for€a€total€effective€Ìsentence€of€twelve€years€to€serve€in€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏCorrection€as€a€Range€II,€persistent€offender.ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€which€stems€from€Davis's€collateral€attackÏupon€these€convictions,€he€contends€that€a€post€convictionÏproceeding€is€a€civil€matter€governed€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure€and€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€declining€toÏgrant€his€motion€to€compel€discovery.€€We€affirm€the€ruling€ofÏthe€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€originally€filed€his€post€conviction€petitionÏòòproóó€òòseóó€and€with€it€he€filed€a€request€for€discovery.€ÍSubsequently,€counsel€was€appointed€and€filed€a€second€requestÏfor€discovery,€requesting€that€the€matters€contained€in€theÏinitial€request€be€answered€and€also€requesting€additionalÏinformation.€€The€requested€items€included:€the€trial€attorney'sÏtime€and/or€billing€records;€press€releases;€forensic€laboratoryÏreports;€police€reports;€any€exculpatory€information€obtainedÏpost„trial;€all€other€physical€evidence;€and,€a€witness€list€forÏthe€post€conviction€hearing.ÌÌà àA€motion€to€compel€a€response€to€the€discovery€request€wasÏfiled€and€heard.€€The€State€noted€that€post€conviction€counselÏhad€a€copy€of€the€trial€transcript;€that€the€trial€exhibits€wereÏavailable€in€the€local€clerk's€office;€and€that€the€office€of€theÏdistrict€attorney€did€not€have€possession€of€the€defenseÏattorney's€time€or€billing€records.€€Additionally,€the€State'sÏattorney€identified€its€only€potential€witness.€€FollowingÏargument,€the€trial€judge€denied€the€motion€to€compel€and€advisedÏappellant's€counsel€that€items€such€as€the€billing€records€couldÏbe€obtained€by€subpoena.ÌÌà àWe€find€no€error€in€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€motionÏto€compel€discovery.€€The€appellant€was€not€entitled€to€discoveryÏin€Ìconjunction€with€his€post€conviction€petition.€€òòTroletti€v.ÏStateóó,€483€S.W.€2d€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€€Furthermore,€theÏitems€he€requested€were€available€to€him€prior€to€the€hearing,Íwith€the€possible€exception€of€the€billing€records.€€Those€wereÏreceived€at€the€hearing€on€the€petition€and€appellant's€counselÏgave€no€indication€then€that€he€needed€additional€time€orÏotherwise€lacked€a€sufficient€opportunity€to€review€thoseÏdocuments.€€Additionally,€the€record€demonstrates€that€he€wasÏable€to€conduct€a€thorough€examination€of€trial€counsel€regardingÏtheir€contents.€€Thus,€there€is€no€indication€of€any€prejudice€toÏthe€appellant.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àDavis'€second€issue€on€appeal€is€his€contention€that€theÏtrial€judge€erred€in€denying€his€Petition€for€Post€ConvictionÏRelief.ÌÌà àIn€his€petition,€appellant€attacks€his€convictions€on€theÏground€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏFollowing€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏAppellant€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proving€that€hisÏattorney's€performance€was€deficient.€€We€affirm€the€ruling€ofÏthe€court€below.ÌÌà àIt€is€well„settled€that€the€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€toÏprove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€the€allegations€in€aÏPetition€for€Post€Conviction€Relief.€€On€appeal,€the€reviewingÏcourt€is€bound€by€any€factual€determination€made€by€the€trialÏjudge€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€lower€court'sÏfindings€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.€2d€753,Í755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(d).ÌÌà àIt€is€further€well„settled€that€for€the€appellant€toÏsuccessfully€attack€the€effectiveness€of€his€trial€attorney'sÏrepresentation,€he€must€establish€a€Sixth€Amendment€violation,€Ìproving€that€the€services€of€his€lawyer€were€below€the€range€ofÏcompetency€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases,€and€alsoÏproving€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€hisÏcounsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€the€trial€wouldÏhave€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104ÏS.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€€In€Tennessee,€it€isÏrequired€that€"the€advice€given,€or€the€services€rendered,€[be]Ïwithin€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases."€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.€2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).òòÌóóÌà àAt€the€trial€level,€appellant€sought€to€rely€on€fourÏallegations€of€ineffective€assistance.€€On€appeal,€three€of€thoseÏhave€been€abandoned€and€the€appellant€raises€only€one€of€hisÏoriginally€pleaded€allegations,€plus€another€that€was€addedÏwithout€objection€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€below.ÌÌà àFirst,€Davis€claims€that€his€trial€attorney€was€ineffectiveÏfor€not€exhausting€his€peremptory€challenges€on€jurors€with€aÏpotential€bias€against€appellant€and€then,€if€necessary,Ïchallenging€the€entire€panel€on€the€ground€of€bias.ÌÌà àAppellant€testified€that€he€conveyed€concerns€about€severalÏpotential€jurors€to€his€attorney.€€€Those€concerns€purportedlyÏincluded€a€long€ago€social€relationship€with€one€femaleÏprospective€juror,€and€the€knowledge€that€another€panel€memberÏwas€a€distant€kinsman€of€a€law€enforcement€officer€in€no€wayÏinvolved€in€appellant's€case.ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€testified€that€it€was€both€his€standard€trialÏprocedure€and€his€practice€in€Davis'€case€to€maintain€a€chart€of€Ìthe€jurors€on€which€he€noted€their€responses€to€questions.€€Using€Ìthat€diagram,€he€consulted€with€Davis€and€all€clients€throughoutÏjury€selection,€discussing€whether€the€client€had€concerns€aboutÏeach€particular€juror€and€whether€the€client€concurred€in€Ìcounsel's€recommendation€as€to€keeping€or€challenging€each€juror.€ÏNo€concerns€were€articulated€by€Davis€and€he€expressed€agreementÏwith€his€attorney's€recommendations.ÌÌà àFinally,€when€the€point€was€reached€where€it€appeared€thatÏthose€people€seated€in€the€jury€box€were€about€to€be€accepted€byÏboth€sides,€trial€counsel's€procedure€with€Davis€and€all€clientsÏwas€to€give€them€a€final€opportunity€to€direct€that€someone€beÏremoved,€for€whatever€reason.€€Counsel€testified€that€both€he€andÏthe€appellant€were€satisfied€with€the€jury€as€seated.€€Therefore,Ïthere€was€no€need€for€any€further€challenges€or€for€an€issueÏregarding€the€jury€panel€to€have€been€pursued€in€the€motion€forÏnew€trial€or€on€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€trialÏattorney€regarding€his€communications€with€Davis€during€juryÏselection.€€The€record€certainly€supports€the€trial€judge'sÏconclusion.ÌÌà àAdditionally,€the€trial€court€noted€that€in€a€county€whereÏthe€population€is€less€than€eleven€thousand,€it€is€a€rarity€toÏconduct€voir€dire€and€not€find€prospective€jurors€who€areÏacquainted€with€or€related€to€one€another€and€who€have€hadÏprevious€contact€with€the€person€on€trial.€€He€noted,€and€theÏrecord€substantiates,€that€in€those€instances€in€which€jurors€inÏthe€Davis€trial€indicated€that€they€had€knowledge€of€the€accused,Ïhad€been€the€previous€victim€of€a€burglary,€or€were€distantlyÏrelated€to€a€law€enforcement€officer€not€involved€in€the€case,Ïtrial€counsel€asked€the€appropriate€questions€and€ascertained€to€Ìthe€court's€satisfaction€that€the€jurors€could€be€fair€andÏimpartial.ÌÌà àThe€record€amply€supports€the€trial€court's€conclusion€thatÏthe€performance€of€Davis'€trial€attorney€in€the€jury€selection€Ìprocess€was€in€no€respect€substandard.ÌÌà àAppellant's€second€contention€of€ineffective€representationsÏis€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient€for€failing€to€make€an€offerÏof€proof€to€preserve€the€appellant's€testimony€in€conjunctionÍwith€the€Rule€609€hearing€at€which€the€trial€court€determined€theÏadmissibility€of€Davis'€prior€convictions€for€impeachment€in€theÏevent€he€took€the€stand€and€testified.ÌÌà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€post€conviction€petition,Ïappellant€explained€that,€if€he€had€testified,€he€would€haveÏ"testified€to€a€whole€lot€that€they€didn't€know€about,€thatÏdidn't€come€out."€€Nowhere€in€appellant's€proof€or€even€in€hisÏargument€does€he€enlighten€us€as€to€what€those€unknown€facts€wereÏor€how€they€might€have€impacted€the€outcome€of€his€trial.ÌÌà àWhat€is€established€in€the€record€is€that€appellant€told€hisÏtrial€attorney€that€he€had€no€alibi€and€that€his€only€potentialÏwitness€was€his€charge€partner.€€Trial€counsel€testified€thatÏbased€on€what€his€client€had€told€him€his€[Davis']€testimonyÏwould€have€been,€counsel€did€not€feel€that€the€reviewing€courtÏneeded€the€testimony€to€evaluate€the€balancing€test€conducted€byÏthe€trial€court€pursuant€to€Rule€609.ÌÌà àEven€if€trial€counsel€could€be€faulted€for€not€seeking€toÏmake€an€offer€of€proof€of€his€client's€testimony,€appellant€hasÏfailed€to€establish€that€such€a€request€would€have€been€grantedÏor€that€it€would€have€had€any€effect€whatsoever€on€the€outcome€ofÏthe€trial.€€This€contention€is€meritless.ÌÌà àIn€light€of€the€foregoing,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€CourtÍthat€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€be€and€hereby€is,Ïò òAFFIRMEDó ó.ÌÌÓÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌòòÌóóCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòòÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDAVID€G.€HAYES,€PANEL€PRESIDINGÌJUDGEÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÌà@ àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌóóLARRY€VAN€DAVIS€€€€€€€€€)€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)Ìv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)€€€No.€01„C„01„9509„CC„00312Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€€€€€€)Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó)ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòJUDGMENTÌÌóóÌÓÓÌà àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€on€upon€the€briefs€andÏwritten€arguments€of€the€parties€and€the€entire€record,€whereuponÏa€decision€was€taken€under€advisement.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€in€an€opinion€filed€contemporaneouslyÏherewith,€it€is€the€judgment€of€this€Court€that€the€judgments€of€Ïthe€trial€Court€are€in€all€respects€ò òAFFIRMED.ó óÌÌà àCosts€are€adjudged€against€the€appellant,€for€whichÏexecution€may,€if€necessary,€be€issued.ÌÌà àEntered€this€òò€€€€€€€óó€day€of€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó,€1996.ÌÌà@ àPER€CURIAMÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÓÓHAYES,€J.Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€SMITH,€J.€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€RUSSELL,€Sp.€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€