ÿWPC¨ e³Î=|i_µ‰Q»þ?R&i0´Ñ1îxäÿ¾êé‹ïÞÄ/^G#‰1€½(étõ((ék>D#ñã@-‰\åÙwKëЭNÌ"ðÜ9´,bó Eä;îügc®ŸI®ñ.AîŠÄh\½NÏ‚n€"ÞbN\ %^ 0ˆdUNì z:Ò´^ † z’ Ò wÞ 4â ö  Æ ÆÍ Æ“ ÆY mN6 1u8 72­Eß 0cá#ÁDU @EUNMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMb›››››››››››››››››››››››››››››››››››› 0룣££ BŽŽ 0¤« D5O D-„ 0K±± ASüÆO 0¤ 0D¹ A«ý»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptyhI)â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptl;)t1ªl€©3|x Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  (ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2‘$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ Ä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô`(ò»»Ô d(|3õ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ Ä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3õ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ Ä»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ ”»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼á"»»»ÔÑ8€wXXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îî+á"ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼á"»îîî+ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€28,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X¬6X»¼á"ÔÌò òÔ#†¼á"»XX¬6#ÔMICHAEL€TODD€Ô_ÔDRINNONÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X¬6X»¼á"Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€as€of€Right€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔHamblenÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J ÐNo.€96„CR„037€(Trial)€à0 @ à€€€€€€€€James€Edward€Ô_ÔBecknerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„CR„037€(Post„Conviction)€€€€€€Ben€K.€Ô_ÔWexlerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌNo.€E1999„2001„CCA„R3„PC€(Post„Conviction)Ð ‘á  ÐOctober€6,€2000Ð }Í  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Michael€Todd€Ô_ÔDrinnonÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€in€the€Ô_ÔHamblenÔ_Ô€County€Criminal€Court€on€twoÐ d´ Ðcounts€of€evading€arrest,€a€class€E€felony,€and€two€counts€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€thirdÐ P  Ðoffense,€a€class€A€misdemeanor.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€eleven€months€andÐ <Œ Ðtwenty„nine€days€incarceration€in€the€county€jail€for€the€driving€on€a€revoked€license€convictions.€Ð (x ÐThe€trial€court€also€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€two€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€DepartmentÐ d Ðof€Correction€for€the€evading€arrest€convictions.€€The€trial€court€further€ordered€that€the€petitionerððsÐ P Ðsentences€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€be€served€concurrently€with€the€sentences€for€evadingÐ ì< Ðarrest,€which€were€to€be€served€consecutively,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€four€years.€€Initially,€theÐ Ø( Ðpetitioner€appealed€his€conviction€on€the€basis€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€However,€the€trialÐ Ä Ðexhibits€were€not€included€in€the€record€on€direct€appeal.€€As€a€result,€this€court€was€precluded€fromÐ ° Ðdeciding€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€Subsequently,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„Ð œì Ðconviction€relief,€claiming€that,€through€no€fault€of€the€petitioner,€the€Ô_ÔHamblenÔ_Ô€County€Court€ClerkÐ ˆØ Ðfailed€to€include€the€exhibits€in€his€first€appeal;€therefore,€he€should€receive€a€delayed€appeal€on€theÐ tÄ Ðissue€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€The€petitioner€also€argued€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffectiveÐ `° Ðin€his€representation€of€the€petitioner.€€The€post„conviction€court€dismissed€the€petitionerððs€petitionÐ L œ Ðfor€post„conviction€relief,€finding€that€the€petitioner€had€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€Ð 8!ˆ  ÐHowever,€the€post„conviction€court€did€grant€the€petitioner€a€delayed€appeal€on€the€issue€ofÐ $"t! Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:Ð #`" Ð(1)€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€petitionerððs€original€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€a€verdictÐ ü#L# Ðof€guilt,€and€(2)€whether€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€was€effective€in€his€representation€of€the€petitioner.€Ð è$8 $ ÐUpon€review€of€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„convictionÐ Ô%$!% Ðcourt.Ð À&"& ÐÓ‰ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ˜(è#( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼á"»àX¬6©#ÔÔ‡X¬6X.¼á"ÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,óó€and€òòJamesÐ p*À%* ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó,€Ô_ÔJ.J.Ô_Ô,€joined.Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ýÿ ÐÔ_ÔJ.€Russell€Pryor,€Greenville,€Tennessee,€D.€Clifton€Barnes,€Morristown,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,Ð ° Ðâ âMichael€Todd€Drinnon.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€John€Knox€Walkup,€Attorney€General€andÐ tÄ ÐReporter,€Clinton€J.€Morgan,€Counsel€for€the€State,€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ `° ÐGeneral,€John€Dugger,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€Victor€Vaughn,€Assistant€DistrictÐ L œ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼á"»XX¬6¾#ÔÔ‡X¬6X»¼á"ÔÐ  ` Ðà0 @ àà0 @ àà0 @ àòòóóÔ#†¼á"»XX¬6¿#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¬6X»¼á"Ôà@(( ìàòòò òI.€Factual€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ ü L  Ðà@——&ìàA.€€TrialˆÐ è 8  Ðà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€convictions€arose€out€of€two€separate€incidents.€€On€June€16,€1996,Ð Ô$  ÐOfficer€Bob€Ellis€observed€an€individual,€driving€a€white€Suzuki€motorcycle€with€a€bent€left€tailÐ À  Ðlight,€run€a€stop€sign.€€The€driver€had€long€brownish„blond€hair€showing€from€beneath€a€stripedÐ ¬ü  Ðhelmet€and€he€was€wearing€a€purple€tank€top€and€blue€jean€cut„off€shorts.€Officer€Ellis€pursued€theÐ ˜è  Ðindividual€and€attempted€to€stop€him.€€The€motorcyclist€made€several€turns€in€traffic€and€the€officerÐ „Ô  Ðdiscontinued€pursuit.€€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àOn€June€22,€1996,€Officer€Ellis€again€observed€an€individual,€sitting€at€a€red€lightÐ \¬ Ðriding€the€same€style€motorcycle€with€a€bent€tail€light,€wearing€the€same€style€helmet,€and€having€theÐ H˜ Ðsame€style€hair€and€build€as€the€June€16th€perpetrator.€€The€driver€of€the€motorcycle€was€wearing€cut„Ð 4„ Ðoff€blue€jean€shorts,€with€a€pepper€spray€canister€attached€at€the€belt,€and€sandals.€€The€driver€wasÐ  p Ðnot€wearing€a€shirt,€and€Officer€Ellis€observed€three€tattoos€on€the€driverððs€back.€€The€driver€had€aÐ  \ Ðtattoo€near€his€right€shoulder,€a€tattoo€of€an€eagle€near€the€center€of€his€back,€and€a€small€tattoo€onÐ øH Ðthe€left€side€of€his€lower€back.€€Officer€Ellis€turned€on€his€blue€lights€in€an€attempt€to€stop€theÐ ä4 Ðindividual€for€questioning€about€the€June€16th€episode.€€The€motorcyclist€once€again€made€severalÐ Ð  Ðturns€to€evade€the€police,€passing€a€vehicle€on€a€double€yellow€line.€€Officer€Ellis€discontinuedÐ ¼  Ðpursuit€because€of€safety€concerns.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àOfficer€Ellis€made€a€videotape€of€the€June€22nd€chase.€€Hamblen€police€officers€Ð €Ð Ðwatched€the€tape€and€were€told€to€be€on€the€lookout€for€the€driver€of€the€motorcycle.€€On€June€26,Ð l¼ Ð1996,€Officer€Lynn€Bales€spotted€the€petitioner€in€the€parking€lot€of€Hawkððs€Pool€Hall.€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðpetitioner€was€working€on€a€motorcycle€that€was€the€same€color€and€make€as€the€one€the€police€wereÐ D!” Ðseeking,€and€it€also€had€a€bent€tail€light.€€Officer€Bales€asked€the€petitioner€who€owned€theÐ 0"€  Ðmotorcycle.€€The€petitioner€responded€that€the€motorcycle€was€his.€€Subsequently,€Officer€BalesÐ #l! Ðnotified€Officer€Ellis€of€the€petitionerððs€location.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àShortly€thereafter,€Officer€Ellis€came€to€Hawkððs€to€talk€to€the€petitioner.€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðpetitioner€was€wearing€a€cut„off€orange€shirt,€blue€jean€shorts€with€a€canister€of€pepper€spray€on€theÐ Ì&"% Ðbelt,€and€sandals.€€Additionally,€the€petitioner€had€long€brownish„blond€hair€and€was€the€same€sizeÐ ¸'#& Ðand€build€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€June€16th€and€June€22nd€offenses.€€Officer€Ellis€noticed€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhelmet€near€the€motorcycle€had€been€spray€painted€white.€€Nevertheless,€Officer€Ellis€could€still€seeÐ )à$( Ðthe€outline€of€stripes€underneath€the€paint€on€the€helmet€and€noted€that€they€were€similar€to€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðstripes€he€had€previously€observed€on€the€perpetratorððs€helmet.€€Officer€Ellis€asked€the€petitioner€toÐ h+¸&* Ðshow€the€officers€his€back.€€The€petitioner€complied.€€On€the€petitionerððs€back€were€three€tattoos:Ð ° Ða€wizard€tattoo€near€his€right€shoulder,€a€large€eagle€tattoo€in€the€center€of€his€back,€and€a€smallÐ œì Ðmouse€tattoo€on€the€left€side€of€his€lower€back.€€Based€upon€the€foregoing,€Officer€Ellis€arrested€theÐ ˆØ Ðpetitioner€for€evading€arrest.€€After€investigating€the€petitionerððs€driving€history,€the€State€alsoÐ tÄ Ðcharged€the€petitioner€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€trial,€the€State€produced€the€testimony€of€Officer€Ellis€regarding€his€identificationÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€petitioner€as€the€driver€of€the€motorcycle€on€June€16th€and€June€22nd.€However,€the€petitionerÐ $ t Ðproduced€evidence€to€suggest€that€he€was€not€the€driver€of€the€motorcycle€on€the€days€in€question.€Ð  ` ÐTony€Kitts€testified€for€the€petitioner€that€he€had€driven€the€motorcycle€some€time€in€late€June,€butÐ ü L  Ðhe€was€unsure€of€the€date.€€Kitts€also€admitted€to€having€eagle€and€mouse€tattoos,€known€as€theÐ è 8  Ðð ðultimate€act€of€defiance,ðð€in€roughly€the€same€locations€on€his€back.€€However,€Kitts€did€not€haveÐ Ô$  Ða€third€tattoo€near€his€right€shoulder.€€Moreover,€when€Kitts€was€asked€at€trial€if€he€had€evaded€theÐ À  Ðpolice€while€riding€the€motorcycle,€Kitts€responded€that€he€had€not.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àAdditionally,€the€petitionerððs€brother,€Chad€Franklin€Seals,€testified€for€the€defenseÐ „Ô  Ðat€trial.€€Seals€claimed€that€he€owned€the€motorcycle.€€Furthermore,€Seals€stated€that,€since€he€hadÐ pÀ Ðbought€the€motorcycle,€he€had€not€allowed€his€brother€to€drive€it.€Seals€maintained€that€the€onlyÐ \¬ Ðreason€the€petitioner€was€in€possession€of€the€motorcycle€on€June€26th€was€because€it€had€quitÐ H˜ Ðrunning€at€Hawkððs€and€Seals€asked€the€petitioner€to€fix€it.€€Seals€testified€that€Kitts€had€been€ridingÐ 4„ Ðhis€motorcycle€on€the€22nd€of€June;€however,€he€did€not€claim€that€Kitts€had€ridden€the€motorcycleÐ  p Ðon€June€16th.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€jury€convicted€the€petitioner€of€two€counts€of€evading€arrest,€a€class€E€felony,€andÐ ä4 Ðtwo€counts€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€third€offense,€a€class€A€misdemeanor.€€The€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðsentenced€the€petitioner€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€incarceration€in€the€county€jail€forÐ ¼  Ðthe€driving€on€a€revoked€license€convictions.€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€petitionerÐ ¨ø Ðto€two€years€incarceration€for€the€evading€arrest€convictions.€€The€trial€court€further€ordered€that€theÐ ”ä Ðpetitionerððs€sentences€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€be€served€concurrently€with€the€evading€arrestÐ €Ð Ðconvictions,€which€were€to€be€served€consecutively,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€four€years.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà@íí!ìàB.€Post„ConvictionˆÐ D!” Ðà  àà ` àInitially,€the€petitioner€appealed€his€conviction€to€this€court€on€direct€appeal€averringÐ 0"€  Ðthat€the€State€produced€insufficient€evidence€to€convict€him€at€trial.€€However,€the€trial€exhibits€wereÐ #l! Ðnot€transferred€to€this€court€on€appeal.€€Therefore,€this€court€was€precluded€from€deciding€this€issue.€Ð $X" ÐòòState€v.€Drinnonóó,€No.€03C01„9708„CR„00347,€1998€WL€473896,€at€*1(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ ô$D # ÐKnoxville,€August€14,€1998).Ð à%0!$ ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àSubsequently,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€claiming€that,Ð ¸'#& Ðthrough€no€fault€of€the€petitioner,€the€Hamblen€County€Court€Clerk€failed€to€include€the€exhibits€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhis€first€appeal;€therefore€he€deserved€a€delayed€appeal€on€the€issue€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÐ )à$( Ðused€to€convict€him€at€trial.€€The€petitioner€further€claimed€that€his€trial€counsel€had€been€ineffectiveÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€his€representation€of€the€petitioner.€€The€petitioner€alleged€that€his€trial€counsel€did€not€callÐ h+¸&* Ðpotential€alibi€witnesses,€did€not€call€a€tattoo€expert€who€would€have€testified€that€the€petitioner€wasÐ ° Ðnot€the€driver€shown€on€the€police€videotape,€and€did€not€ask€Seals€to€testify€concerning€drive„outÐ œì Ðtags€which€would€have€proved€Sealsðð€ownership€of€the€motorcycle.€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ ˆØ Ðgranted€the€petitioner€a€delayed€appeal€to€this€court€on€the€issue€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.Ð tÄ ÐHowever,€the€post„conviction€court€dismissed€the€remainder€of€petitionerððs€claims,€finding€that€theÐ `° Ðpetitioner€had€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð L œ ÐÌà@$ìàòòò òII.€Analysisó óóóˆÐ $ t Ðà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€claims€that€he€should€be€granted€post„conviction€relief€in€the€form€ofÐ  ` Ða€new€trial,€because€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€also€relief€in€the€form€of€a€delayedÐ ü L  Ðappeal,€on€the€issue€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€The€petitionerððs€delayed€appeal,€which€wasÐ è 8  Ðgranted€by€the€post„conviction€court,€takes€the€place€of€his€direct€appeal,€with€the€same€rightsÐ Ô$  Ðattaching.€€òòCole€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9509„CC„00294,€1998€WL€240336,€at€*2,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð À  Ðat€Nashville,€May€14,€1998)€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€Furthermore,€ð ða€petition€for€post„Ð ¬ü  Ðconviction€relief,€complaining€of€the€original€conviction€and€sentence,€may€not€be€maintained€whileÐ ˜è  Ða€direct€appeal€of€the€same€conviction€and€sentence€is€being€prosecuted.ðð€òòGibson€v.€Stateóó,€7€S.W.3dÐ „Ô  Ð47,€49€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€all€of€the€petitionerððs€potential€claims€for€post„conviction€reliefÐ H˜ Ðwill€not€be€apparent€until€the€conclusion€of€his€delayed€appeal.€€Therefore,€ð ð[b]ecause€a€post„Ð 4„ Ðconviction€petition€may€not€be€filed€until€the€final€judgment€of€the€highest€court€has€been€entered,Ð  p Ðthe€instant€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€prematurely€and€should€have€been€dismissedÐ  \ Ðaccordingly.ðð€€òòId.óó(citations€omitted).€Otherwise,€the€trial€court€and€intermediate€appellate€court€mayÐ øH Ðpotentially€waste€their€time€and€effort€on€an€issue€which€is€rendered€moot€by€the€ruling€of€a€higherÐ ä4 Ðcourt.€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThis€court€has€found€that€the€proper€procedure€to€be€employed€by€the€trial€court,€whenÐ ¨ø Ða€petitioner€seeks€both€a€delayed€appeal€and€additional€post„conviction€relief,€€is€ð ðto€grant€theÐ ”ä Ðdelayed€appeal,€when€warranted,€and€to€dismiss€the€collateral€attack€upon€the€conviction€withoutÐ €Ð Ðprejudice.ðð€òòId.óó€at€50;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòCameron€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M1998„00005„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WLÐ l¼ Ð1209450,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€August€18,€2000).€€Such€a€€procedure€would€permitÐ X ¨ Ða€petitioner€to€pursue€post„conviction€relief€after€the€completion€of€delayed€appellate€review.€€òòId.óó€€Ð D!” ÐThe€statute€of€limitations€on€the€filing€of€the€petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€will€notÐ 0"€  Ðbegin€to€run€until€a€final€judgment€on€the€petitionerððs€delayed€appeal€is€entered.€€òòSeeóó€òòColeóó,€1998€WLÐ #l! Ð240336,€at€*2.€€Furthermore,€this€court€acknowledges€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(c)(1997)Ð $X" Ðintends€that€only€one€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€be€filed€as€the€result€of€a€single€judgement;Ð ô$D # Ðtherefore,€if€a€petition€has€been€decided€on€its€merits,€then€a€subsequent€petition€should€be€dismissed.Ð à%0!$ Ðòòóó€òòGibsonóó,€7€S.W.3d€at€50.€€òòóóAccordingly,€ð ðthose€petitions€not€resolved€ððon€their€meritsðð€are€not€subjectÐ Ì&"% Ðto€dismissal.ðð€€òòId.óó€€However,€because€the€post„conviction€court€incorrectly€proceeded€to€hear€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpost„conviction€petition€on€the€effectiveness€of€trial€counsel,€we€have€elected€to€address€both€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpetitionerððs€claims€in€turn.€òòId.óó€€Ð )à$( ÐÌà@ìàA.€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceˆÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àÔ‡X¬6XXX¬6ÔOn€delayed€appeal,€the€petitioner€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€used€toÐ ° Ðsupport€his€convictions€for€two€counts€of€evading€arrest€and€two€counts€of€driving€on€a€revokedÐ œì Ðlicense.€In€Tennessee,€a€jury€conviction€removes€the€presumption€of€the€petitionerððs€innocence€and,Ð ˆØ Ðon€appeal,€€replaces€it€with€a€presumption€of€the€petitionerððs€guilt.€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,Ð tÄ Ð914€(Tenn.€1982).Ô#†X¬6XXX¬61F#ÔÔ‡X¬6XXX¬6Ôòòóó€Accordingly,€the€petitioner€carries€the€burden€of€demonstrating€to€this€court€whyÐ `° Ðthe€evidence€adduced€at€trial€will€not€support€his€conviction.€òòóó€òòÔ#†X¬6XXX¬6`H#ÔId.óóÔ‡X¬6XXX¬6Ô€€Furthermore,€the€petitioner€mustÐ L œ Ðestablish€that€no€ð ðreasonable€trier€of€factðð€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offenseÐ 8 ˆ Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979);Ð $ t ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€on€appeal,€the€State€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÐ è 8  Ðevidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571Ð Ô$  ÐS.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€a€verdict€of€guilt,€determined€by€a€jury€and€approved€byÐ À  Ðthe€trial€court,€accredits€the€Stateððs€evidence€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State.€€òòState€v.Ð ¬ü  ÐWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€other€words,€questions€concerning€witnessÐ ˜è  Ðcredibility€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€byÐ „Ô  Ðthe€evidence,€are€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€and€not€the€appellate€courts.€òòState€v.€Pruettóó,788€S.W.2dÐ pÀ Ð559,€561€(Tenn.€1990).Ô#†X¬6XXX¬6^I#Ô€€As€a€result,€this€court€may€not€re„weigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€orÐ \¬ Ðsubstitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€836.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€justify€convicting€the€petitioner€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€the€State€mustÐ  p Ðprove€that€the€petitioner€drove€a€motor€vehicle€on€a€public€road€in€Tennessee€while€the€petitionerððsÐ  \ Ðprivilege€to€drive€was€revoked.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55-50-504(a)(1)(1998).€€In€order€to€sustain€theÐ øH Ðpetitionerððs€conviction€for€evading€arrest,€the€State€must€establish€that€the€petitioner,€while€operatingÐ ä4 Ða€motor€vehicle€on€a€€road€in€Tennessee,€intentionally€fled€or€attempted€to€elude€a€law€enforcementÐ Ð  Ðofficer€after€having€received€any€signal€from€the€officer€to€bring€the€vehicle€to€a€stop.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ ¼  ÐAnn.€ðð€39„16„603(b)(1)(1997).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àProof€presented€at€trial€established€that€the€driver€of€the€motorcycle€was€operating€aÐ €Ð Ðmotor€vehicle€on€a€road€in€Tennessee€on€June€16th€and€June€22nd.€€Additionally,€there€is€littleÐ l¼ Ðdispute€in€the€record€that,€at€the€time€of€the€offenses,€the€petitionerððs€driverððs€license€had€beenÐ X ¨ Ðrevoked.€€Moreover,€there€is€ample€evidence€to€show€that€the€driver€of€the€motorcycle€fled€from€orÐ D!” Ðattempted€to€elude€Officer€Ellis€after€the€officer€indicated€with€his€blue€lights€for€the€individual€toÐ 0"€  Ðstop.€€The€petitionerððs€sole€contention€is€that€the€evidence€produced€by€the€State€was€insufficient€toÐ #l! Ðestablish€his€identity€as€the€driver€of€the€motorcycle€on€these€two€occasions.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€evidence€produced€by€the€State€at€trial€to€establish€the€petitionerððs€guilt€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðentirely€circumstantial.€Ô‡X¬6XXX¬6ÔWhen€the€evidence€used€to€prove€guilt€is€wholly€circumstantial,€the€evidenceÔ#†X¬6XXX¬6QV#ÔÔ‡X¬6XXX¬6ԀРÌ&"% Ðà8  àððmust€be€not€only€consistent€with€the€guilt€of€the€accused€but€it€must€also€beÐ ¸'#& Ðinconsistent€with€his€innocence€and€must€exclude€every€other€reasonable€theory€orÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhypothesis€except€that€of€guiltðð€and€it€must€establish€such€a€certainty€of€guilt€of€theÐ )à$( Ðaccused€as€to€convince€the€mind€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€[the€petitioner]€is€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðone€who€committed€the€crime.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†X¬6XXX¬6ßV#ÔòòState€v.€Tharpeóó,€726€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Tenn.€1987)(quoting€òòPruitt€v.€Stateóó,€460€S.W.2d€385,€390Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970)).€€Moreover,€the€jury,€as€the€finder€of€fact,€must€determine€the€weight€toÐ œì Ðbe€given€to€the€circumstantial€evidence.€€òòPrice€v.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€929,€931€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð1979).€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àOfficer€Ellis€testified€that,€on€June€26,€1996,€after€being€called€by€Officer€Bales,€heÐ L œ Ðapproached€the€petitioner€in€the€parking€lot€of€Hawkððs€Pool€Hall.€€Officer€Ellis€maintained€that€heÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecognized€the€motorcycle€the€petitioner€was€working€on€as€being€the€one€he€pursued€on€June€16thÐ $ t Ðand€June€22nd.€€Furthermore,€Officer€Ellis€indicated€that€the€color€and€make€of€the€motorcycle€andÐ  ` Ðthe€bent€left€tail€light€were€the€same€as€the€motorcycle€driven€by€the€perpetrator.€€In€fact,€theÐ ü L  Ðpetitioner€never€contended€that€the€motorcycle€he€was€working€on€the€day€he€was€arrested€was€notÐ è 8  Ðthe€motorcycle€that€twice€eluded€the€police.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àOfficer€Ellis€further€testified€that€the€helmet€that€was€on€or€near€the€motorcycle€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€same€style€of€helmet€that€he€had€seen€on€the€previous€two€occasions.€€Officer€Ellis€asserted€that,Ð ˜è  Ðalthough€on€the€day€of€the€petitionerððs€arrest€the€helmet€was€spray€painted€white,€he€couldÐ „Ô  Ðnevertheless€discern€an€outline€beneath€the€paint€that€suggested€that€the€helmet€had€once€had€stripesÐ pÀ Ðlike€those€on€the€helmet€worn€by€the€perpetrator.€€Additionally,€Officer€Ellis€averred€that€theÐ \¬ Ðpetitioner€had€the€same€size,€build,€and€hair€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€June€16th€and€June€22ndÐ H˜ Ðoffenses.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€strongest€evidence€the€State€produced€against€the€petitioner,€especially€for€theÐ  \ ÐJune€22nd€offense,€was€the€tattoos€on€his€back.€€The€petitioner€argues€that,€because€Kitts€had€testifiedÐ øH Ðthat€he€had€a€similar€ð ðultimate€act€of€defianceðð€tattoo€on€his€back€and€Kitts€also€admitted€that€he€hadÐ ä4 Ðaccess€to€the€motorcycle€at€the€end€of€June,€Kitts€could€easily€be€the€perpetrator€of€the€offenses.€Ð Ð  ÐHowever,€Officer€Ellis€repeatedly€testified€that€the€driver€of€the€motorcycle€on€June€22nd€had€threeÐ ¼  Ðtattoos,€one€on€the€right€shoulder,€one€in€the€center€of€his€back,€and€one€on€the€left€side€of€his€lowerÐ ¨ø Ðback.€€It€was€proven€that,€while€Kitts€has€the€center€and€lower€left€tattoos,€he€does€not€have€a€thirdÐ ”ä Ðtattoo€on€his€right€shoulder.€€However,€photos€introduced€at€trial€showed€that€the€petitioner€does€haveÐ €Ð Ðthree€tattoos€in€the€same€locations€as€the€perpetrator.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€Officer€Ellis€testified€that,€on€June€26th,€the€petitioner€was€similarlyÐ D!” Ðdressed€to€the€perpetrator€of€the€June€22nd€incident.€€The€petitioner€wore€the€same€type€of€shorts€andÐ 0"€  Ðsandals€as€the€driver€of€the€motorcycle,€and€there€was€a€similar€canister€of€pepper€spray€attached€toÐ #l! Ðhis€belt.€€Furthermore,€Kitts€testified€that€he€does€not€carry€pepper€spray.€€Together€with€theÐ $X" Ðdescription€of€the€same€body€type,€same€hair€and€same€tattoos,€this€evidence€is€more€than€sufficientÐ ô$D # Ðto€support€the€convictions.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àAlthough€there€is€less€evidence€to€tie€the€petitioner€to€the€June€16th€incident,€thereÐ ¸'#& Ðis€nevertheless€sufficient€evidence€to€uphold€the€petitionerððs€convictions.€€Officer€Ellis€testified€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðon€June€16th,€a€perpetrator€wearing€a€striped€helmet,€with€the€same€hair€and€body€type€of€theÐ )à$( Ðpetitioner,€was€driving€a€white€motorcycle€with€a€bent€tail€light.€€The€petitioner€argues€that€KittsÐ |*Ì%) Ðcould€have€been€the€driver€on€June€16th.€€However,€Kitts€testified€that€he€drove€the€motorcycle€atÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€end€of€June,€but€he€could€not€remember€specific€dates€or€times.€€Moreover,€Seals€testified€thatÐ ° ÐKitts€drove€the€motorcycle€on€the€22nd€and€borrowed€the€motorcycle€another€time,€but€he€could€notÐ œì Ðidentify€the€date€as€June€16th.€€Furthermore,€Kitts€testified€at€trial€that€he€never€evaded€the€policeÐ ˆØ Ðwhen€he€was€driving€the€motorcycle.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àAdditionally,€the€petitioner€was€in€possession€of€the€motorcycle€on€the€day€he€wasÐ L œ Ðarrested,€and€had€access€to€the€motorcycle€during€the€entire€month€of€June.€€Also,€testimony€at€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðindicated€that€the€motorcycle€had€belonged€to€the€petitioner€and€was€owned€by€the€petitionerððsÐ $ t Ðbrother€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€why€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ  ` Ðagainst€the€juryððs€verdict.Ð ü L  ÐÌà@_ _ ìàB.€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Trial€CounselˆÐ Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àThis€court€reviews€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€a€mixed€question€ofÐ À  Ðlaw€and€fact,€de€novo.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ô‡X¬6XXX¬6ÔTo€prove€a€claim€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€must€demonstrate€that€counsel'sÔ#†X¬6XXX¬6Ín#Ô€Ô‡X¬6XXX¬6Ôperformance€wasÐ ˜è  Ðdeficient€and€that€the€deficiency€prejudiced€the€petitioner€by€creating€a€reasonable€probability€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€result€of€the€trial€is€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€were€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.Ð pÀ ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984).Ô#†X¬6XXX¬6‰o#ÔÔ‡X¬6XXX¬6Ô€€In€order€to€determine€Ô#†X¬6XXX¬6!q#ÔÔ‡X¬6XXX¬6Ôwhether€or€notÐ \¬ Ðcounselððs€performance€was€deficientÔ#†X¬6XXX¬6{q#ÔÔ‡X¬6XXX¬6Ô,€this€court€must€decide€whether€counselððs€performance€wasÐ H˜ Ðwithin€the€range€of€competence€required€of€attorneys€in€criminal€casesÔ#†X¬6XXX¬6r#ÔÔ‡X¬6XXX¬6Ô.€€òòBaxter€v.Ô#†X¬6XXX¬6àr#ÔÔ‡X¬6XXX¬6Ô€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ð930€(Ô#†X¬6XXX¬61s#ÔÔ‡X¬6XXX¬6ÔTenn.€1975).Ô#†X¬6XXX¬6¡s#ÔÐ  p ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€several€differentÐ øH Ðrespects.€€First,€the€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€never€tried€to€introduce€into€evidence€atÐ ä4 Ðtrial€the€helmet€that€was€with€the€motorcycle€the€petitioner€was€repairing€when€he€was€arrested.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðpetitioner€gave€his€trial€counsel,€at€some€point€prior€to€trial,€a€spray€painted€helmet€the€petitionerÐ ¼  Ðcontends€was€with€him€when€he€was€arrested.€The€petitioner€argues€that,€because€the€spray€paintedÐ ¨ø Ðhelmet€did€not€match€the€striped€helmet€worn€by€the€perpetrator,€introduction€of€the€helmet€intoÐ ”ä Ðevidence€would€have€ð ðnegated€an€essential€factor€of€the€Stateððs€identification€of€the€[petitioner]€asÐ €Ð Ðthe€perpetrator€of€the€crimes€for€which€he€was€convicted.ðð€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` à€The€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€admitted€that€the€spray€painted€helmet€presented€at€theÐ D!” Ðpost„conviction€hearing€did€not€match€Officer€Ellisðð€description€of€the€striped€helmet€worn€by€theÐ 0"€  Ðperpetrator.€€However,€Officer€Ellis€testified€at€trial€that€the€helmet€that€was€with€the€petitioner€whenÐ #l! Ðhe€was€arrested€was€spray€painted€white,€but€underneath€he€saw€an€outline€that€indicated€that€theÐ $X" Ðhelmet€once€had€a€stripe€similar€to€the€perpetratorððs€helmet.€€Furthermore,€Officer€Ellis€could€notÐ ô$D # Ðidentify€the€spray€painted€helmet€the€petitioner€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€as€the€oneÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€was€in€the€petitionerððs€possession€the€day€he€was€arrested.€€Trial€counsel€testified€at€the€post„Ð Ì&"% Ðconviction€hearing€that€he€did€not€introduce€the€helmet€at€trial€because€it€would€have€been€difficultÐ ¸'#& Ðto€identify€the€helmet€without€the€petitionerððs€testimony€and€the€petitioner€did€not€testify.€€NotÐ ¤(ô#' Ðintroducing€the€helmet€at€trial€was€a€tactical€decision€made€by€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel.€€As€thisÐ )à$( Ðâ âcourt€has€previously€stated,€ð ðWe€should€defer€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informedÐ |*Ì%) Ðones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.ðð€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€13€S.W.3d€742,€749€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ° Ð1999).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àSecondly,€the€petitioner€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€should€have€introduced€ð ðdrive„Ð tÄ Ðoutðð€tags,€or€temporary€tags,€which€would€demonstrate€that€Seals€was€the€owner€of€the€motorcycleÐ `° Ðduring€the€month€of€June.€€The€petitioner€asserts€that,€because€Seals€testified€that€he€had€not€allowedÐ L œ Ðthe€petitioner€to€drive€the€motorcycle€after€his€purchase€of€the€motorcycle,€evidence€of€SealsððÐ 8 ˆ Ðownership€would€weaken€the€Stateððs€identification€of€the€petitioner€as€the€perpetrator€at€trial.€Ð $ t ÐAdditionally,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€his€trial€counsel€never€questioned€Seals€as€to€why€theÐ  ` Ðpetitioner€was€in€possession€of€€the€motorcycle€when€he€was€arrested.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àHowever,€the€State€did€not€have€to€prove€that€the€petitioner€owned€the€motorcycle€asÐ Ô$  Ðan€element€of€the€offenses€with€which€the€petitioner€was€charged.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€55„55„Ð À  Ð504(a)(1),€39„16„603(b)(1).€€Moreover,€trial€counsel€did€question€Seals€about€why€the€petitioner€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðin€possession€of€the€motorcycle€when€he€was€arrested.€€Seals€testified€that€the€motorcycle€quitÐ ˜è  Ðrunning€while€someone€named€Phillip€was€test€driving€it.€€Subsequently,€the€petitionerððs€trial€counselÐ „Ô  Ðasked,€ð ðWho€did€you€send€after€the€motorcycle?ðð€€Seals€replied,€ð ðI€sent€my€brother,€[the€petitioner].ðð€Ð pÀ ÐFurthermore,€trial€counsel€repeatedly€asked€Seals€to€confirm€his€ownership€of€the€motorcycle€at€theÐ \¬ Ðtime€of€the€offenses.€€As€a€result,€evidence€about€the€drive„out€tags€would€have€been€€cumulative€andÐ H˜ Ðwould€not€have€added€anything€to€the€petitionerððs€defense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,Ð 4„ Ð421€(Tenn.€1989).Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€during€a€lengthy€discussion€at€trial€about€the€tags€that€were€on€theÐ øH Ðmotorcycle,€Seals€never€mentioned€that€he€possessed€drive„out€tags€for€the€motorcycle.€However,Ð ä4 ÐSeals€did€testify€at€trial€that,€ð ðThere€was€an€old€tag€on€the€motorcycle€when€I€bought€it€from€JimmyÐ Ð  ÐGoans.ðð€€Additionally,€Seals€testified€that€he€moved€tags€to€the€Suzuki€motorcycle€from€otherÐ ¼  Ðmotorcycles€he€owned.€€Furthermore,€there€was€evidence€introduced€at€trial€that€the€tags€that€wereÐ ¨ø Ðon€the€motorcycle€when€the€petitioner€was€arrested€were€registered€to€the€petitioner.€€The€petitionerððsÐ ”ä Ðuse€of€conflicting€evidence€would€have€damaged€the€credibility€of€his€witnesses€at€trial.€€Even€if€trialÐ €Ð Ðcounsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€question€Seals€about€the€drive„out€tags,€the€petitioner€has€failedÐ l¼ Ðto€show€why€trial€counselððs€failure€to€mention€the€drive„out€tags€would€be€prejudicial€to€his€case.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€the€petitioner€maintains€that€his€trial€counsel€knew€of€an€expert€in€tattoo€artistry,Ð 0"€  ÐHawk€Matthews,€who€would€have€testified€at€trial€that€the€eagle€tattoo€on€the€back€of€the€perpetratorÐ #l! Ðshown€in€the€police€video€was€not€the€same€as€the€eagle€tattoo€on€the€back€of€the€petitioner.€Ð $X" ÐHowever,€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€did€not€callÐ ô$D # ÐMatthews€as€a€witness€because€he€was€afraid€that,€on€cross„examination,€Matthews€would€beÐ à%0!$ Ðcompelled€to€testify€about€the€other€tattoos€on€the€perpetrator€that€matched€those€of€the€petitioner.€Ð Ì&"% ÐTrial€counselððs€decision€not€to€call€Matthews€to€the€stand€at€trial€was€strategic.€€As€we€stated€earlier,Ð ¸'#& Ðthis€court€will€defer€to€the€informed€trial€strategy€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð796€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)(citing€òòHellard€v.óó€òòStateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)).€€This€issue€isÐ )à$( Ðwithout€merit.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àFinally,€the€petitioner€avers€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€callÐ ° ÐJimmy€and€Michael€Dickerson€as€alibi€witnesses.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€the€Dickersons€wouldÐ œì Ðhave€testified€that€he€was€helping€them€bury€Michael€Dickersonððs€dog€on€June€22,1996.€€However,Ð ˆØ Ðtrial€counsel€testified€at€he€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€did€not€call€the€Dickersons€as€defenseÐ tÄ Ðwitnesses€for€two€reasons.€€First,€Michael€Dickerson€had€an€extensive€criminal€record€that€the€StateÐ `° Ðcould€have€used€to€impeach€his€credibility€as€a€witness.€€Trial€counsel€believed€that€having€MichaelÐ L œ ÐDickerson€on€the€stand€could€have€hurt€the€petitioner€more€than€it€could€have€helped€him.€€Second,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€memory€of€both€Dickersons€about€the€dates€and€times€in€question€was€sketchy€when€trial€counselÐ $ t Ðquestioned€them€about€it€before€trial.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àHowever,€the€Dickersons€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€theyÐ è 8  Ðremembered€the€date€well,€even€though€more€than€a€year€had€passed€since€the€incident,€becauseÐ Ô$  ÐMichael€Dickerson€had€marked€the€day€his€dog€died€on€the€calendar.€€Yet,€the€Dickersons€wereÐ À  Ðunable€to€produce€this€calendar€for€trial€or€for€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Deciding€whether€or€notÐ ¬ü  Ðto€call€witnesses€is€another€legitimate€exercise€of€counselððs€trial€tactics.€€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€627€S.W.2dÐ ˜è  Ð139,141€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€An€attorney€who€does€not€believe€that€a€witness€will€help€theÐ „Ô  Ðdefense,€or€believes€that€a€witness€is€not€credible,€may€conclude€that€the€best€strategy€is€to€not€putÐ pÀ Ðthat€witness€on€the€stand.€€òòSeeóó€òòHindman€v.€Stateóó,€672€S.W.2d€223,€224€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð \¬ Ð1984)(finding€no€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€where€counsel€chose€not€to€place€unreliableÐ H˜ Ðwitness€on€the€stand);€òòbut€seeóó€òòState€v.€McGeeóó,€605€S.W.2d€840,€841€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)(statingÐ 4„ Ðthat€the€age€and€€faulty€memory€of€a€witness€only€affected€the€weight€and€credibility€of€her€testimonyÐ  p Ðand€did€not€make€her€incompetent€witness).€€Once€again,€this€court€will€not€use€hindsight€to€second„Ð  \ Ðguess€or€criticize€trial€counselððs€strategy€or€tactics.€€òòTurner€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9310„CR„00236,Ð øH Ð1994€WL€456337,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€August€24,€1994).€€The€petitionerððs€trialÐ ä4 Ðcounsel€was€not€deficient€in€failing€to€call€either€of€the€Dickersons€to€the€stand€at€trial.Ð Ð  ÐÌà@ff#ìàòòò òIII.€Conclusionó óóóˆÐ ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€post„Ð ”ä Ðconviction€relief€relative€to€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€We€further€conclude€thatÐ €Ð Ðthere€was€sufficient€evidence€to€convict€the€petitioner€of€two€counts€of€driving€on€a€revoked€licenseÐ l¼ Ðand€two€counts€of€evading€arrest,€and€we€therefore€affirm€the€judgement€of€the€trial€court.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ô$D # Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE