ÿWPCP oSØ‘ù.GaÅïÎ)r¿¥@ô¨Ê•ãTVÜÖœ\ ë¨Ž%8n …°(¾?Ad!¥aã(üÖ@´O”€2ÉÂX§…ße©IggòN§|8–ˆËkްÿ_xpÍj†©UÖ[¡ê™7¶À»nOôLñIÑc5tyça%½ƒL5e§:„á"Hë©–®Æ86[ɤ N¥ÎiôgObñÁš[9*Ø!UãC[@Yf*[ E¨ Ê5x½÷Ôžß—5© Õ­ã°*…2|2ÎŽþžåd@·¸lƒCfz2FÏ<{‘Bé†Ò¤éªŽh“ßp'áÐÃ-ÛŽÒëJ.Ì×¾+‘a‰ê}p|%J¡`*rÍXœí6OœÇ» :׊p­5ˆžª0ˆŠÒ#ÖÞ@+å“ÕAÝ‘$*~vÐÀ äØVP [)e »aÚý韚‹ð:›jR]Ì~ãµ®AˆœÊÚ UËdÞ7è™ÜÇßðd?Ÿ¶6oMP̘Á4`´/3aêçœ3[¯rwSÂx3#wŸV}ß Uòl²dïµ )…™\>©x"ïBbdS8êR{ØÞ¬hE§VÞôTè>Aà‰#J<®Uis=b#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U N­ U @û ; zC Ò½ z Ò ^ Û wç Æë Ʊ ÆwÆ=4N(E* m,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,bCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 0ëKKKK B66 0¤S D5÷ D-, 0KYY AS¤Æ÷ 0¤½ 0Da A«¥˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman   ˜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 ˜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“tP+â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5yG*"‚x«3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2´Â$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó ò»»Ô d(|3|$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3|$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼]%»»»ÔÑ8€éXXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼]%»»¼]%Ôà@ttìàÔ‡î¬î»¼]%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼]%»îî¬+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€21,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XéX»¼]%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼]%»XXé?#ÔJEFFREY€E.€DUNLAP€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XéX»¼]%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€68159€€€€€€Ray€L.€Jenkins,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßÐ ¾   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„00189„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¹  ÐÔ_ÔOctober€16,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Jeffrey€Ô_ÔE.€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔDunlap,Ô_Ô€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€The€singleÐ ŒÜ  Ðissue€presented€for€review€is€whether€the€petitioner€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counselÐ xÈ  Ðat€trial.€€The€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Ð d´ ÐÓñÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed€€€€€€€€€€ó óÐ <Œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼]%»àXé¬#ÔÔ‡XéX.¼]%ÔGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJohn€Everett€Williamsóó€andÐ d ÐòòAlan€E.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð P ÐÌAlbert€Ô_ÔJ.€Newman,Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔJr.,€Knoxville,Ô_Ô€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jeffrey€E.€Dunlap.€€Ð Ø( ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ° ÐRandall€E.€Nichols,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Robert€L.€Jolley,€Jr.,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ œì ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ˆØ ÐÓáÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼]%»XXé#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼]%ÔÐ `° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼]%»XXé #ÔÓ  ÓÔ_ÔÔ€XéX»¼]%ÔÔ_Ôà  àOn€May€16,€1993,€Officer€Kenneth€Robertson€was€dispatched€to€the€Mugford€Pharmacy€inÐ 8!ˆ  ÐKnoxville.€€Upon€his€arrival,€Officer€Robertson€observed€the€Ô_Ôpetitioner€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔandÔ_Ô€one€other€man€standingÐ $"t! Ðinside€the€pharmacy€holding€boxes.€€A€window€was€broken.€€The€two€men€fled.€€Officer€RobertsonÐ #`" Ðpursued€and€eventually€arrested€the€defendant.€€The€other€man€got€away.€€Some€merchandise€hadÐ ü#L# Ðbeen€placed€in€the€boxes€and€some€was€found€outside€the€building.€€Officer€Robertson€never€lostÐ è$8 $ Ðsight€of€the€petitioner€from€the€time€he€arrived€at€the€pharmacy€until€the€time€Ô_ÔtheÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôpetitioner€wasÔ_ÔÐ Ô%$!% Ðplaced€under€arrest.€€Ð À&"& ÐÌà  àConvicted€of€burglary,€the€petitioner€was€sentenced€to€12€years€as€a€career€offender.€€ThisÐ ˜(è#( Ðcourt€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Jeffrey€Eugene€Dunlapóó,€No.€03C01„9607„CR„00251€(Tenn.Ð „)Ô$) ÐCrim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Aug.€21,€1997).€€Application€for€permission€to€appeal€was€denied€AprilÐ p*À%* Ð13,€1998.€€Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý Ðà  àOn€May€13,€1999,€the€petitioner€placed€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€the€prisonÐ ° Ðâ âmail€system.€€The€petition€was€marked€for€filing€on€May€18,€1999.€€The€petitioner€alleged€at€leastÐ œì Ð25€grounds€for€relief,€including€the€claim€that€his€trial€counsel€had€been€ineffective.€€After€theÐ ˆØ Ðappointment€of€post„conviction€counsel,€the€petitioner€filed€amendments,€including€the€allegationÐ tÄ Ðthat€his€conviction€was€based€in€part€upon€the€"untrue,€false,€and€misleading€testimony"€of€RonnieÐ `° ÐRidenour,€the€victim€of€the€crime,€who,€according€to€documents€in€the€record,€was€subsequentlyÐ L œ Ðinvolved€in€a€conspiracy€to€illegally€distribute€a€controlled€substance.€€The€petitioner€claimed€thatÐ 8 ˆ ÐRidenour€conducted€a€fencing€operation€at€the€pharmacy€and€that€there€was€no€robbery,€only€aÐ $ t Ð"voluntary€and€consensus€exchange€of€drugs€for€money€or€goods."€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€his€trial€counsel€met€with€him€only€fourÐ è 8  Ðor€five€times€before€the€trial,€Ô_Ôfor€a€total€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔofÔ_Ô€no€more€than€three€hours€all€together.€€According€to€theÐ Ô$  Ðpetitioner,€the€two€talked€approximately€three€more€times€by€telephone.€€He€complained€that€his€trialÐ À  Ðcounsel€never€informed€him€that€he€would€testify€at€his€trial€until€he€was€actually€called€as€a€witness.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€petitioner€claimed€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€call€at€least€five€witnesses€he€had€requested€beÐ ˜è  Ðpresent.€€He€also€contended€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€present€any€evidence€on€his€behalf€at€theÐ „Ô  Ðsentencing€hearing€and€argued€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€having€failed€to€object€to€theÐ pÀ Ðadmission€of€a€ring€into€evidence.€€The€petitioner€submitted€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€properlyÐ \¬ Ðinvestigate€the€victim,€who,€the€petitioner€claimed,€"was€running€illegal€activities€and€.€.€.€selling€theÐ H˜ Ðstuff€(stolen€goods€he€had€acquired€in€return€for€drugs)€through€a€flea€market€[o]n€Alcoa€Highway."€Ð 4„ ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€talked€to€his€client€many€times€in€preparation€for€the€trial.€Ð  \ ÐHe€described€€the€defense€as€"a€drug€deal€gone€bad."€€Trial€counsel€stated€that€only€the€victims,€theÐ øH ÐÔ_ÔÔ_Ôpetitioner,Ô_ÔÔ_Ô€and€a€co„defendant€named€McBee€were€at€the€pharmacy€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€WhileÐ ä4 Ðconceding€that€the€petitioner€provided€several€names€of€potential€witnesses,€trial€counsel,€whoÐ Ð  Ðclaimed€to€have€contacted€each€one€of€them€by€telephone€or€in€person,€concluded€that€"nothing€thatÐ ¼  Ðthey€had€to€say€served€to€benefit€the€defense."€€Trial€counsel€also€testified€that€he€was€aware€that€eachÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€Ridenours€(husband€and€wife)€who€had€testified€at€trial€had€extensive€criminal€records,€whichÐ ”ä Ð"we€brought€.€.€.€out€at€the€trial."€€Trial€counsel€estimated€that€the€amount€of€time€he€invested€in€theÐ €Ð Ðdefense€of€the€case€was€72.3€hours€out€of€court€and€25.1€hours€in€court.€€Trial€counsel€recalled€thatÐ l¼ ÐMr.€McBee€did€not€testify€at€the€trial.€€Trial€counsel€further€explained€the€theory€of€defense€asÐ X ¨ ÐÔ_Ôfollows:Ð D!” ÐÔ_ÔÌà8  àMr.€McBee€had€purchased€some€bad€cocaine€from€Mr.€Ridenour,€and€.€.€.€Mr.€DunlapÐ #l! Ðand€Mr.€McBee€went€over€to€the€Ridenours€.€.€.€[to]€get€it€straightened€out.€€AndÐ $X" Ðwhen€they€got€there€is€when€the€problem€occurred.€€There€was€all€sorts€of€jewelry€and€Ð ô$D # Ðclaims€of€.€.€.€a€purchase€by€Mr.€McBee€of€.€.€.€cocaine€from€Mr.€Ridenour€which€Mr.Ð à%0!$ ÐRidenour€denied,€flatly.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€accredited€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel€and€determined€that€the€petitioner€hadÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnot€clearly€and€convincingly€proved€his€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€RejectingÐ )à$( Ðaltogether€the€claims€of€the€petitioner,€the€trial€judge€denied€post„conviction€relief.€€€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àIn€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€acknowledges€that€the€proof€presented€at€the€evidentiary€hearingÐ ° Ðis€almost€in€direct€conflict.€€He€asserts€generally€that€the€facts€in€the€record€establish€ineffectiveÐ œì Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€For€the€first€time€on€appeal,€the€state€argues€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€timelyÐ ˆØ Ðfile€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€pointing€out€that€our€supreme€court€denied€application€forÐ tÄ Ðpermission€to€appeal€on€April€13,€1998,€and€that€the€petitioner€placed€the€petition€in€the€prison€mailÐ `° Ðsystem€one€year€and€30€days€later.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThis€court€will€first€address€the€procedural€issue.€€In€òòState€v.€Nixóó,€40€S.W.3d€459€(Tenn.Ð $ t Ð2001),€our€supreme€court€made€the€following€Ô_Ôobservation:Ð  ` ÐÔ_ÔÌà8  àAs€the€state€points€out,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(a)€declares€that€the€one„yearÐ è 8  Ðstatutory€period€is€an€element€of€the€right€to€file€a€post„conviction€petition€and€thatÐ Ô$  Ðit€is€not€an€affirmative€defense€that€must€be€asserted€by€the€state.€€Therefore,€it€isÐ À  Ðincumbent€upon€the€petitioner€to€include€allegations€of€fact€in€the€petitionÐ ¬ü  Ðestablishing€either€timely€filing€or€tolling€of€the€statutory€period.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ ˜è  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„30„204(e)€("the€petitioner€shall€include€allegations€of€fact€supporting€eachÐ „Ô  Ðclaim€for€relief€set€forth€in€the€petition€.€.€.").€€Failure€to€include€sufficient€factualÐ pÀ Ðallegations€of€either€compliance€with€the€statute€or€incompetence€requiring€tolling€Ð \¬ Ðwill€result€in€a€dismissal.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àPanels€of€our€court€have€held€that€the€statute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€on€the€date€ourÐ  p Ðsupreme€court€files€its€opinion.€€Ô_ÔòòSee,Ô_Ô€e.g.óó,€òòMonroe€Brown€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9112„CR„00367Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Aug.€6,€1992).€€Neither€the€petitioner€nor€the€state€makes€anyÐ øH Ðargument€as€to€whether€the€issuance€of€the€mandate,€30€days€after€the€opinion,€qualifies€as€"the€finalÐ ä4 Ðaction€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€an€appeal€is€taken.€.€.€."€€The€statute€furtherÐ Ð  Ðprovides€that€"if€no€appeal€is€taken,"€the€action€should€be€filed€"within€one€year€of€the€date€on€whichÐ ¼  Ðthe€judgment€becomes€final.€.€.€."€€Because€our€court€has€determined€that€the€final€action€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðsupreme€court€is€on€the€date€of€filing€of€either€their€opinion€or€their€denial€of€the€application€forÐ ”ä Ðpermission€to€appeal,€those€cases€serve€as€precedent€and€would€bar€consideration€of€the€substantiveÐ €Ð Ðissues.€€òòJohn€Haws€Burrell€Ô_Ôv.€Stateóó,Ô_Ô€No.€E1999„02762„CCA„R3„PC€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,Ð l¼ ÐJan.€8,€2001).€€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àNotwithstanding€our€determination€that€the€statute€of€limitations€precludes€consideration€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€issue€of€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€it€is€our€view€that€the€petitioner€would€not€haveÐ #l! Ðsucceeded€on€the€merits€of€his€claim.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðcounsel,€he€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€were€below€"the€rangeÐ Ì&"% Ðof€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936Ð ¸'#& Ð(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€he€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€"actually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefense."€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693€(1984).€€Should€the€petitioner€fail€toÐ )à$( Ðestablish€either€factor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€Our€supreme€court€described€the€standard€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðreview€as€follows:Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€a€failure€to€prove€eitherÐ ° Ðdeficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffectiveÐ œì Ðassistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€not€address€the€components€in€any€particularÐ ˆØ Ðorder€or€even€address€both€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€of€oneÐ tÄ Ðcomponent.€€Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€Ô_Ô1996).Ô_Ô€€On€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€of€hindsight,€may€not€second-guess€a€reasonably€based€trialÐ $ t Ðstrategy,€and€cannot€criticize€a€sound,€but€unsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€course€ofÐ  ` Ðthe€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Ô_Ô1994).Ô_Ô€€Such€deferenceÐ ü L  Ðto€the€tactical€decisions€of€counsel,€however,€applies€only€if€the€choices€are€made€after€adequateÐ è 8  Ðpreparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Ô_Ô1992).Ô_ÔÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àUnder€our€statutory€law,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clearÐ ¬ü  Ðand€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f).€€On€appeal,€the€findings€of€fact€madeÐ ˜è  Ðby€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÐ „Ô  Ðpreponderates€against€them.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Ô_Ô1988).Ô_Ô€€TheÐ pÀ Ðburden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€those€findings.€€òòClennyÐ \¬ Ðv.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Ô_Ô1978).Ô_ÔÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€record€demonstrates€that€the€trial€court€accredited€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel,Ð  p Ðconcluding€that€his€services€were€not€deficient.€€The€petitioner€was€unable€to€establish€any€prejudice,Ð  \ Ðwhether€or€not€his€counsel's€performance€met€professional€guidelines.€€For€example,€he€presentedÐ øH Ðno€witnesses€at€the€post„conviction€proceeding€that€might€have€shown€that€the€results€of€his€trialÐ ä4 Ðmight€have€been€different€had€they€been€able€to€give€testimony.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Ô_ÔÐ ¨ø ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌÔ_ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€Ô_ÔWADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE