ÿWPC{ fÎVÔdPÊù:†,Î3QÊu–¸PnÆ£nå„ÊP(šSöŽ­Â¸Ð1“Ÿ¿§0K³ÄcIl’­ó “M?/SÖÐ;6â@ØxÏÝÎÉaX(H!IX âˆ™<È-ä‰ÚúC`…ÈæOÜJ ‡„õºKÇ×Ï@V×zWߎªÆMóMæÜs:­ï‚f[)ú¹¾ÐE%Ì 5Ï×åN+·>ôB>訨Ú×åÔo9Õÿ<[J³.´mób S6YüÙ^æßÇøìêÍК"Ãà_©ˆÑ«Á OK͵ 9ã.˜øP9\@RÌ·Øÿï_b~Íë°‡Û°UíÈG4îl"ƒ(‘B±´Ê‘cœÝ]Å”#Õ®yÁÄTÙßÖµn9œ»€þ¶EëQ£-²Ïr¥yž„²b _ôd%â;€‡¢ð»Ó[?ŸÎoñ ÍãŒîÛĬu+ˆ $þEÌ€Oq¶¿¡f”}R̺uG”â›ÌêøÓÊ-]wÛ¶v_b«ä0^ì¾"åN_h-—&‡ Rçÿl ŽÊ$‹:q(ž‘¨KãT? ¦jTÀ—›2XÃ’PtxÃbú]æÃï5ŠîéBs‰.:¬¸²ÃÄäÚ”W§üY;0sŒb#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1‰÷N€ 0D‚˜ÆE^```hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 0ëxxxx Bcc 0¤€ D3$ D-W 0K„„ ASÏÆ" 0¤è 0DŒ A«Ð˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular§;-s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptüPH,opn0ô¥3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ý ƒRÆ¡$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€is€the€policy€of€this€court€to€refer€to€minor€victims€of€sexual€abuse€by€their€initials€only.€€Because€bothÐ ° Ðvictims€have€the€same€first€initial,€the€older€victim€will€be€referred€to€herein€as€ð ðJ1,ðð€and€the€younger€as€ð ðJ2.ðð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ŽÝ ƒRÆ¡$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôóòòôóÔPetitioner€contends€that€the€trial€judge€had€an€affirmative€obligation€to€see€that€any€potential€judicial€conflictÐ ° Ðof€interest€was€resolved€prior€to€trial.€€Waivers€of€an€unbiased€judge€may€be€possible,€but€require€a€ð ðclear€evidence€ofÐ tÄ Ðwaiver€or€consent.ðð€€Such€waiver€must€be€a€personal,€intentional,€and€knowing€waiver€of€this€right.€€òòÔ_ÔMomonÔ_Ô€v.€State,€óó18Ð 8ˆ ÐS.W.3d€152,€165„66€(Tenn.€1999).€€Further,€petitioner€contends€that€in€the€absence€of€a€waiver,€prejudice€is€presumed.€Ð üL ÐWe€agree€that€the€proper€procedure€for€determining€waiver€would€have€been€a€hearing€on€the€record€as€to€the€trial€judgeððsÐ À Ðqualifications.€€However,€as€we€have€stated,€a€review€of€the€entire€record€does€not€establish€any€prejudice€or€bias€on€theÐ „Ô Ðtrial€courtððs€ability€to€preside€at€a€fair€trial.€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.Ô#†ôóòòôó~#Ô  þÝ ƒRÆ¡$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòÔ‡ôóòòôóÔBrady€v.€Maryland,€óó373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.€1194€(1963).€€Ô#†ôóòòôó#Ô- ù-(|G2Æ¡$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P]»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôóò»»Ô d(|3Ç$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P]»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P]»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P]»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼P]»»»ÔÑ8€¡XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î_üP]ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼P]»îî_ü #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€22,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X¡X»¼P]ÔÌò òÔ#†¼P]»XX¡#ÔISAAC€EARL€EDGINòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X¡X»¼P]Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€36960€€€€€€John€H.€Gasaway,€III,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02667„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€September€23,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔÔ#†¼P]»XX¡#ÔÔ€X¡X»¼P]ÔPetitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€claiming:€€(1)€the€trial€judge,€at€petitionerððsÐ xÈ  Ðoriginal€trial,€should€have€recused€himself€from€hearing€the€trial€under€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ d´ ÐRule€10,€Canon€3(E);€and€(2)€the€public€defender,€at€the€original€trial,€rendered€ineffective€assistanceÐ P  Ðof€counsel€in€violation€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€1,Ð <Œ ÐSection€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€At€the€conclusion€of€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„Ð (x Ðconviction€court€denied€relief.€€Based€upon€our€review€of€the€entire€record€and€applicable€law,€weÐ d Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð P ÐÔ#†X¡XXX¡Ê#ÔÌÓ¾Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌÓ  ÓòòL.€Terry€Lafferty,€Sr.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJohn€K.€Byersóó€and€òòWilliamÐ ° ÐH.€Inman,€Sr.JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌGregory€D.€Smith,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Isaac€Earl€Edgin.Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€T.€Ryan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð L œ ÐJohn€Wesley€Carney,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Arthur€F.€Bieber,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ 8!ˆ  ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $"t! ÐÓßÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóò òÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓBACKGROUNDóóÐ Ô%$!% ÐÓ² ÓÌó óà  àThe€petitioner,€Isaac€Earl€Edgin,€is€presently€serving€two€concurrent€twenty„year€sentencesÐ ¬'ü"' Ðin€the€Department€of€Correction€for€his€convictions€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€rape€involving€hisÐ ˜(è#( Ðâ âtwo€sons,€ages€six€and€seven€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€On€June€5,€1992,€a€Montgomery€CountyÐ „)Ô$)ý8 Ðjury€found€the€petitioner€guilty€of€the€aggravated€rape€of€his€two€sons,€J1׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€J2.€€On€direct€appeal,Ð ° Ðâ âthis€court€affirmed€the€petitionerððs€conviction€involving€J2,€but€reversed€the€conviction€involvingÐ œì ÐJ1€for€a€ð ðòòBrady׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×óó€violation.ðð€€òòSee€State€v.€Isaac€Earl€Edgin,€óóNo.€01C01„9302„CC„00046,€1993€Tenn.Ð ˆØ ÐCrim.€App.€LEXIS€705,€at€*12„*13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Oct.€14,€1993).€€Our€supremeÐ tÄ Ðcourt€granted€both€the€Stateððs€and€petitionerððs€applications€for€permission€to€appeal€on€the€questionÐ `° Ðof€the€alleged€ð ðòòBradyóó€violation.ðð€€òòóóThe€supreme€court€reversed€this€courtððs€decision€in€the€convictionÐ L œ Ðof€J1,€finding€that€the€alleged€ð ðòòBradyóó€violationðð€was€not€material€and€did€not€create€a€reasonableÐ 8 ˆ Ðdoubt€as€to€petitionerððs€guilt€involving€J1,€thus€reinstating€petitionerððs€conviction.€€€òòState€v.€Edgin,Ð $ t Ðóó902€S.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€1995).€€Important€to€the€disposition€of€this€case€are€the€circumstancesÐ  ` Ðsurrounding€petitionerððs€convictions.€€The€opinion€of€the€supreme€court€sets€forth€the€salient€facts.Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€salient€facts€of€record€indicate€that€all€activity€hereÐ Ô$  Ðinvolved€occurred€in€the€course€of€three€days€in€March/April€1991Ð À  Ðwhen€the€minor€victims€were€visiting€with€Edgin€a€their€fosterÐ ¬ü  Ðgrandmotherððs€residence.€€The€sexual€penetration€was€accomplishedÐ ˜è  Ðupon€each€victim€in€the€presence€of€the€other€victim.€€UponÐ „Ô  Ðconcluding€the€sexual€activity,€Edgin€threatened€to€harm€them€if€theyÐ pÀ Ðwere€to€tell€anyone€what€had€happened.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€testimony€of€each€victim€was€essentially€consistent€in€allÐ 4„ Ðmaterial€aspects€with€the€testimony€of€the€other.€€After€each€victimÐ  p Ðhad€testified,€the€State€provided€the€defendantððs€counsel€with€thatÐ  \ Ðvictimððs€pretrial€statement€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€26.2(a).€€ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€victimsðð€statements€were€essentially€consistent€with€theirÐ Ð  Ðtestimony€except€in€one€particular:€€J1's€statement€mentioned€theÐ ¼  Ðpossibility€that€a€person€other€than€Edgin€had€abused€J1€sexually€priorÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€incident€here€involved.€€Ð”ä` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€388€(footnote€omitted).Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€other€person€was€a€ð ðShawn.ðð€€Counsel€insists€that€pursuant€to€his€discovery€requests,€theÐ D!” ÐState€should€have€furnished€the€statement€characterized€by€him€as€ð ðòòBradyóóðð€material,€prior€to€trial.€Ð 0"€  ÐHe€suggests€that€had€the€statement€been€provided€earlier,€he€could€have€attempted€to€locate€ð ðShawnððÐ #l! Ðand€interview€him.€€The€State€asserts€that€the€statement€in€question€is€not€ð ðòòBradyóóðð€material.Ð $X" Ðâ âà  àÐ ô$D # Ðà  àIn€February€1996,€petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€post„conviction€relief€petition€alleging,€amongÐ ° Ðother€things,€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Counsel€was€subsequently€appointed,€and€anÐ œì Ðamended€petition€was€filed€on€July€17,€1996.€€Petitioner€alleged€the€following€errors:Ð ˆØ Ðâ âÌÓ*°,XƒXŒ –X°œX*Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.à0Œ ` x` xàCounsel€failed€to€ask€the€trial€judge€to€recuse€himself.Ð`°Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.à0Œ ` x` xàCounsel€failed€to€appeal€the€admission€of€hearsay€statements.Ð8 ˆŒ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.à0Œ ` x` xàCounsel€failed€to€attack€the€sufficiency€of€the€indictments.Ð `Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à4.à0Œ ` x` xàCounsel€failed€to€effectively€cross„examine€a€medical€witness.Ðè 8 Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à5.à0Œ ` x` xàCounsel€failed€to€call€certain€witnesses.ÐÀ Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à6.à0Œ ` x` xàCounsel€failed€to€address€errors€concerning€election€of€offensesÐ ˜è  Ðat€trial.Ð„Ô Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à7.à0Œ ` x` xàThe€prosecution€was€malicious.€Ð\¬Œ xŒ x ÐÌIn€1999,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€denying€petitionerððs€petition.€€Ô#†X¡XXX¡„ #ÔÔ‡X¡XXX¡ÔÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àPetitioner€appealed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€to€this€court,€and€a€panelÐ  \ Ðof€this€court€remanded€this€cause€for€a€new€post„conviction€relief€hearing€for€failure€of€the€trial€courtÐ øH Ðto€enter€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€Furthermore,€the€new€hearing€was€ordered€to€beÐ ä4 Ðheld€before€a€new€judge.€€òòSee€Isaac€Earl€Edgin€v.€State,€óóNo.€M1999„01620„CCA„R3„PC,€2001€Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐCrim.€App.€LEXIS€91,€at€*8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Feb.€1,€2001).Ð ¼  ÐÌòòÓ  Óò òEVIDENTIARY€HEARINGóóÐ ”ä ÐÓo#ÓÌà  àó óAt€the€conclusion€of€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€a€terse€orderÐ l¼ Ðon€October€12,€2001,€finding€ð ðthere€is€no€significant€factual€dispute€as€to€then,€[trial€counselððs]Ð X ¨ Ðrepresentation€of€[the€petitioner]€.€.€.€[and]€that€òòState€vs.€Momonóó€is€not€retroactive,€and,€therefore€itsÐ D!” Ðrequirements€[d]o€not€apply€to€this€pre„Momon€case.ðð€€We€find€it€necessary€to€set€forth€the€salientÐ 0"€  Ðfacts€of€the€evidentiary€hearing€for€the€determination€of€the€issues€in€this€direct€appeal.€Ð #l! ÐÌò òÓ  ÓA.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselÐ ô$D # ÐÌ1.€€Recusal€Issueó óÐ Ì&"% ÐÓ.&Óà  àÌà  àIt€was€stipulated€by€both€the€petitioner€and€State€that€no€written€motion€for€the€trial€judge€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrecuse€himself€was€filed€with€the€court€papers,€nor€was€there€an€oral€motion€for€the€trial€judge€toÐ )à$( Ðrecuse€himself.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àPetitioner€testified€he€was€charged€with€child€abuse€and€neglect€and€ð ðpossession€toÐ ° Ðmanufacturing€for€resaleðð€in€1985.€€Petitioner€said€the€judge€who€presided€over€his€trial€for€theÐ œì Ðaggravated€rape€charges€was€ð ðback€in€ðð85€and€ðð86€.€.€.€my€lawyer€for€other€incidents,€which€happenedÐ ˆØ Ðto€do€with€my€ex„wife€too.ðð€€Petitioner€stated€the€child€abuse€involved€one€of€his€sons,€who€was€aÐ tÄ Ðvictim€in€the€aggravated€rape€charge.€€Petitioner€was€asked€what€had€prejudiced€the€trial€judge€fromÐ `° Ðhearing€the€aggravated€rape€charges€involving€the€same€children.€€The€petitioner€answered:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWell,€before€Mr.€Wedemeyer€became€my€attorney€he€had€anotherÐ $ t Ðassistant€in€his€office,€which€originally€took€over.€€You€know,€heÐ  ` Ðbought€him€as€his€attorney.€€Heððs€been€kicked€out€since€then.€€ButÐ ü L  Ðwhen€I€went€to€talk€to€the€original€attorney€he€says€well,€I€thinkÐ è 8  Ðyouððre€guilty€and€I€ainððt€going€to€do€nothing€for€you.€I€said€well,€justÐ Ô$  Ðhand€me€my€money€and€Iððll€just€go€find€somebody€else.€€ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àWell,€he€refused€to€do€that€so€I€went€to€the€Board€ofÐ ˜è  ÐResponsibilities€on€him.€So€Mr.€ð!ð€thatððs€how€Mr.€Wedemeyer€becomeÐ „Ô  Ðmy€lawyer€at€that€time.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà  àPetitioner€stated€he€told€his€trial€attorney,€Michael€Jones,€about€this€incident€and€theÐ H˜ Ðcomplaint€with€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility.€€According€to€petitioner,€Mr.€Jones€wasÐ 4„ Ðto€look€into€this€matter.€€Petitioner€requested€Mr.€Jones€to€have€the€trial€judge€excuse€himself€sinceÐ  p ÐMr.€Wedemeyer€knew€the€case€from€the€beginning.€€According€to€petitioner,€he€pled€guilty€to€theÐ  \ Ðdrug€charge€and€physical€assault€of€J1.€€Petitioner€testified€that€he€had€no€knowledge€whether€Mr.Ð øH ÐJones€filed€a€motion€for€the€trial€judge€to€recuse€himself.€€According€to€petitioner,€on€the€trial€date,Ð ä4 Ðhe€requested€his€counsel€to€have€the€judge€recuse€himself.€€Petitioner€believed€that€the€trial€judge€wasÐ Ð  Ðprejudiced€against€him€for€several€reasons:€€there€were€no€jury€instructions;€two€different€charges€andÐ ¼  Ðtwo€different€locations;€failure€to€make€children€accomplices;€medical€evidence;€and€numerous€otherÐ ¨ø Ðrulings.€€Petitioner€determined€these€issues€after€trial€and€by€reading€law€books.€€During€cross„Ð ”ä Ðexamination,€petitioner€stated€he€did€not€recall€if€Mr.€Jones€talked€to€him€about€not€having€JudgeÐ €Ð ÐWedemeyer€recuse€himself.€€Petitioner€stated€his€main€defense€was€that€he€never€sexually€assaultedÐ l¼ Ðhis€two€sons€and€ð ðit€didnððt€happen.ðð€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àMichael€Jones€testified€that€he€represented€petitioner€at€trial€and€on€direct€appeal€to€this€courtÐ 0"€  Ðand€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€At€this€hearing,€Mr.€Jones€stated€he€had€no€specific€recollectionÐ #l! Ðof€any€conversation€with€petitioner€about€Judge€Wedemeyer€recusing€himself.€€During€cross„Ð $X" Ðexamination,€Mr.€Jones€testified€as€follows:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Mr.€Jones,€having€read€those€pages€[petitionerððs€brief€from€priorÐ Ì&"% Ðpost„conviction€hearing]€do€you€have€any€recollection€at€this€time€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðwhether€or€not€the€fact€that€then€Judge€Wedemeyer€when€he€was€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlawyer€had€represented€Mr.€Edgin€on€an€aggravated€assault€chargeÐ )à$( Ðinvolving€one€of€the€boys?Ð|*Ì%)` x` x ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes.€€I€remember€there€was€a€prior€felony€conviction€involvingÐ ° Ðone€of€the€boys€and€Judge€Wedemeyer€had,€in€fact,€represented€him.Ð œì ÐAll€of€that€would€have€been€on€the€judgment€form.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Do€you€have€any€idea€when€you€became€aware€of€this€situationÐ `° Ðwith€respect€to€trial?ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Very€early€on€in€the€trial€preparation.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Did€you€seek€out€the€actual€court€file€to€verify€what€Mr.€EdginÐ ü L  Ðtold€you€on€the€aggravated€assault?Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€donððt€know€whether€I€would€have€looked€at€the€actual€court€file,Ð À  Ðbut€as€far€asð!ðsome€way€or€another€I€knew€what€the€actual€facts€were.Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€reasons€for€the€plea.Иè ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Mr.€Jones,€were€you€aware€of€whether€or€not€Mr.€Edgin€ever€putÐ H˜ Ðin€any€kind€of€ethical€complaint€against€a€Ray€Grimes,€who€was€at€theÐ 4„ Ðtime€of€now€Judge€Wedemeyer€representing€Mr.€Edgin,€his€lawÐ  p Ðpartner€or€an€associate?Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€have€no€memory€of€that.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€Is€it€possible€you€became€aware€of€that€complaint€against€Mr.Ð ¼  ÐGrimes?Шø` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€would€think€I€would€remember€that€had€I€known€that.ЀÐ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Can€you€state€now,€many€years€later,€what€you€would€have€doneÐ X ¨ Ðif€you€had€been€aware€that€Mr.€Edgin€made€some€kind€of€boardÐ D!” Ðcomplaint€against€Judge€Wedemeyerððs€partner?Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€hate€to€ask€you€a€question,€but€when€was€this€case€tried?€€In€theÐ $X" Ðyear.€€I€know€itððs€in€courtroom€two,€and€Iððm€thinking€ðð91€or€ðð92€whatÐ ô$D # Ðweððre€[sic].€Ðà%0!$` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Sir,€I€believe€the€record€reflects€almost€exactly€todayððs€date;€IÐ ¸'#& Ðthink€June€5,€1992.€Ð¤(ô#'` x` x Ðâ âÐ )à$( Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€That€length€of€time€between€Judge€Wedemeyer€taking€the€benchÐ ° Ðin€ðð89€and€1992,€I€donððt€believe€there€would€have€been€ð!ð€I€would€haveÐ œì Ðstill€wanted€Judge€Wedemeyer€on€the€bench.ЈØ` x` x Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Why€would€you€have€wanted€Judge€Wedemeyer€on€the€bench,€sir?Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Comfort€level,€I€guess.€€Confidence€level.€€Whatever€you€want€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðcall€it.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Can€you€explain€that€in€a€little€bit€more€detail€what€you€mean€byÐ ü L  Ðcomfort€and€confidence€level?Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Just€tried€a€lot€of€cases€in€front€of€him€by€that€time.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Youððre€referring€to€your€level€of€comfort€and€confidence€in€hisÐ ˜è  Ðrulings€and€ability€to€try€a€fair€case;€is€that€correct?Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€Do€you€recall€whether€you€ever€discussed€with€Mr.€Edgin€yourÐ 4„ Ðcomfort€and€confidence€level,€or€any€of€these€things€he€drew€to€yourÐ  p Ðattention€about€Judge€Wedemeyer€being€his€lawyer€several€yearsÐ  \ Ðbefore?ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€I€mean,€we€would€have€had€to€with€that€knowledge.€€JudgeÐ Ð  ÐWedemeyer€being€the€judge.м ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€Do€you€recall€whether€there€was€any€discussion€about€theÐ ”ä Ðpossibility€of€some€kind€of€spill€over€or€leak€over€from€a€personalÐ €Ð Ðrelationship,€some€potential,€at€least,€for€favorable€rulings€from€theÐ l¼ Ðcourt?ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€I€would€imagine€that€we€had€discussed€that.€As€far€as€actualÐ 0"€  Ðmemory€of€that,€no.Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€if€I€understand€your€correct€ð!ð€your€testimony€correctly,€sir,Ð ô$D # Ðyouððre€unable€to€say€when€you€became€aware€of€Judge€WedemeyerððsÐ à%0!$ Ðsituation€with€respect€to€the€trial€in€June€of€ðð92?ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€No.€€But€I€mean€that€type€of€thing€you€look€at€instantly.€€I€mean,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthat€would€be€one€of€the€first€matters€Iððd€be€looking€for€is€the€priorÐ )à$( Ðconviction€inð!ðyou€know,€talking€in€terms€of€whether€you€testify€orÐ |*Ì%) Ðdonððt€testify€in€those€situations.€Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà  àMr.€Jones€testified€the€thrust€of€his€defense€for€petitioner€was€ð ðit€never€happened.ðð€Ð ° ÐÌà  àBased€upon€Exhibit€1,€the€post„conviction€court€read€into€the€record€Judge€WedemeyerððsÐ ˆØ Ðrepresentation€of€petitioner€in€1986.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€a€warrant€for€aggravatedÐ tÄ Ðassault€was€filed€against€petitioner€for€the€excess€spanking€of€his€twenty„two„month„old€son,€inÐ `° ÐMarch€1986.€€The€defense€attorney€was€Ray€Grimes,€which€the€post„conviction€court€took€judicialÐ L œ Ðnotice€that€Robert€Wedemeyer€and€Ray€Grimes€were€law€partners.€€Petitioner€was€subsequentlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðindicted€for€aggravated€assault.€€In€April€1986,€the€public€defender€was€appointed,€but,€in€NovemberÐ $ t Ð1986,€the€court€files€indicated€that€Robert€Wedemeyer€was€defense€counsel.€€With€the€signature€ofÐ  ` ÐRobert€Wedemeyer,€petitioner€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€aggravated€assault€on€November€14,€1986.Ð ü L  ÐPetitioner€received€a€two„year€suspended€sentence,€Range€1,€and€probation€for€two€years€with€specialÐ è 8  Ðconditions€regarding€family€and€parenting€counseling.Ð Ô$  ÐÌò òÓ  Ó2.€€Sufficiency€of€Indictmentsó óÐ ¬ü  ÐÓŠQÓÌà  àIn€confusing€testimony,€petitioner€stated€a€conflict€arose€during€trial€over€whether€a€sexualÐ „Ô  Ðoffense,€involving€J2,€had€occurred€at€a€place€called€Dale€Terrace.€€Petitioner€stated€that€IndictmentÐ pÀ ÐNo.€30133,€involving€J2,€should€have€been€dismissed.€€Finally,€petitioner€stated€both€Indictment€Nos.Ð \¬ Ð30133€and€29849€and€the€amended€indictment€were€presented€to€the€jury,€which€became€an€electionÐ H˜ Ðof€offenses.€€Apparently,€No.€30133€alleged€that€one€act€of€molestation€occurred€at€a€certain€placeÐ 4„ Ðover€the€Easter€weekend,€when€the€victim€was€not€at€this€location.€€This€court€assumes€this€testimonyÐ  p Ðsupports€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€for€defense€counselððs€failure€to€explore€the€differencesÐ  \ Ðin€these€indictments.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€allegations€in€the€two€indictments,€Mr.€Jones,€defense€counsel,€stated€that€he€filedÐ Ð  Ða€bill€of€particulars€because€the€dates€or€locations€had€changed€three€times.€€This€necessitated€aÐ ¼  Ðchange€in€defense.€€A€primary€defense€was€that€one€of€the€victims€was€not€in€the€home€at€the€timeÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€alleged€offense.€€Prior€to€trial,€defense€counsel€learned€that€the€State€was€seeking€anÐ ”ä Ðamendment€to€an€indictment€alleging€a€sexual€assault€of€one€of€the€victims€over€the€Easter€weekend.€Ð €Ð ÐDefense€counsel€stated€he€had€sufficient€time€to€check€into€this€matter,€by€seeing€if€the€boys€wereÐ l¼ Ðin€school€on€the€Monday€following€Easter.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌò òÓ  Ó3.€€Failure€to€Call€Witnessesó óÐ 0"€  ÐÓrXÓÌà  àPetitioner€testified€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€call€Dr.€Pritchett,€as€well€as€Ms.€Glass€andÐ $X" ÐCarl€Harbor€of€the€Department€of€Human€Services€(ð ðDHSðð).€€According€to€petitioner,€Dr.€PritchettÐ ô$D # Ðsaw€J2€and€J1€on€April€16òòóó,€1991,€for€a€well€checkup,€a€few€days€after€the€alleged€offense.€€PetitionerÐ à%0!$ Ðlearned€of€this€matter€after€trial,€but€he€delivered€the€medical€records€to€defense€counsel€prior€to€trial.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àDefense€counsel€testified€that€he€had€spent€several€months€investigating€and€preparing€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtrial.€€He€met€with€petitioner€many€times,€which€included€discussions€of€which€witnesses€to€summonÐ )à$( Ðâ âfor€trial.€€A€review€of€Exhibit€7,€the€trial€transcript,€reflects€that€defense€counsel€called€four€witnessesÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€testify:€€William€Porter;€Bessie€Johnson,€petitionerððs€mother;€Billy€Edgin,€petitionerððs€brother;€andÐ ° Ðthe€petitioner.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌò òÓ  Ó4.€€Cross„Examination€of€Medical€Witnessó óÐ tÄ ÐÓö\ÓÌà  àPetitioner€testified€that€Dr.€William€R.€Moore€testified€at€trial€that€he€found€two€areas€of€Ð L œ Ðscarring€in€the€rectal€area€of€J2,€the€youngest€son.€€The€scarring€was€between€the€rectum€and€scrotum.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐPetitioner€stated€defense€counsel€failed€to€ask€Dr.€Moore€how€Dr.€Moore€found€scarring€tissue€onÐ $ t ÐNovember€14òòóó€or€November€4òòóó,€and€had€not€seen€the€scarring€on€April€16,€a€few€days€after€the€allegedÐ  ` Ðincident.€€Secondly,€petitioner€stated€defense€counsel€failed€to€ask€Dr.€Moore€what€had€caused€theÐ ü L  Ðscarring.€€Petitioner€learned€about€these€matters€after€trial.€€Petitioner€did€not€recall€if€defense€counselÐ è 8  Ðasked€Dr.€Moore€about€this€scarring.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àDefense€counsel€testified€that€he€obtained€the€medical€records€of€one€of€the€victims,€who€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðbeen€in€the€hospital.€€Counsel€stated€ð ðmy€memory€is€that€at€some€point€we€were€told€those€eventsÐ ˜è  Ð[scarring]€were€supposed€to€have€occurred€in€a€specific€year,€.€.€.€the€older€son€had€been€in€theÐ „Ô  Ðhospital€after€that€period,€would€have€been€examined€and€nothing€would€have€been€found.€€However,Ð pÀ Ðat€trial,€the€date€was€changed.ðð€€A€review€of€Exhibit€7,€trial€transcript,€reflects€that€defense€counselÐ \¬ Ðcross„examined€Dr.€Moore€about€three€examinations€of€J2.€€These€examinations€were€March€10,Ð H˜ Ð1991,€April€16òòóó,€1991,€and€June€17òòóó,€1991,€which€was€a€hospital€visit.€€According€to€Dr.€Moore,€theÐ 4„ Ðmedical€records€for€those€visits€did€not€reflect€a€rectal€examination,€and€there€was€no€mention€ofÐ  p Ðsexual€abuse.€€Ð  \ ÐÌò òÓ  Ó5.€€Failure€to€Appeal€ð ðHearsay€Admissionsððó óÐ ä4 ÐÓkdÓÌà  àPetitioner€testified€defense€counsel€failed€to€appeal€Dr.€Mooreððs€history,€Dr.€Harold€VannððsÐ ¼  Ðhistory,€and€his€ex„wifeððs€alleged€rape.€€Petitioner€stated€he€did€not€discuss€these€issues€with€defenseÐ ¨ø Ðcounsel,€although€petitioner€received€a€copy€of€defense€counselððs€appellate€brief.€€Defense€counselÐ ”ä Ðadvised€petitioner€that€he€could€win€the€appeal€on€ð ðòòBradyóó.ðð€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àDefense€counsel€testified€that€he€handled€his€own€appeals.€€Counsel€did€not€recall€anyÐ X ¨ Ðdiscussions€with€petitioner€about€the€appeal.€€Petitioner€was€present€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€forÐ D!” Ða€new€trial€and€knew€what€was€being€appealed.€€Counsel€had€no€recollection€of€petitioner€makingÐ 0"€  Ðany€requests€or€inclusions€for€the€appeal.€€A€review€of€Exhibit€7,€trial€transcript,€reflects€that€defenseÐ #l! Ðcounsel€cross„examined€Dr.€Vann€concerning€his€examination€of€J1€in€July€1991.€€Defense€counselÐ $X" Ðestablished€that€Dr.€Vann€found€no€evidence€of€sexual€abuse€of€J1,€although€J1€alleged€his€father€hadÐ ô$D # Ðpenetrated€his€rectum.€€Also,€Exhibit€7€reflects€that€defense€counsel€objected€to€Dr.€MooreððsÐ à%0!$ Ðtestimony€of€J2ððs€€history€of€the€allegation;€however,€the€trial€court€overruled€his€objection.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌò òÓ  Ó6.€€Stateððs€Malicious€Prosecutionó óÐ )à$( Ðâ âÓqjÓÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àPetitioner€complains€that€during€the€trial,€the€trial€judge,€the€district€attorney€general,€and€hisÐ ° Ðâ âtrial€attorney€argued€over€whether€J2€was€present€at€the€alleged€event€that€occurred€Easter€weekend,Ð œì Ðand€the€trial€judge€overruled€the€motion€for€acquittal.€€According€to€petitioner,€if€J2€was€not€there,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€case€should€not€have€gone€to€the€grand€jury,€and€Judge€Wedemeyer€should€have€declared€bothÐ tÄ Ðsons€accomplices.€€Although€petitioner€claims€Judge€Wedemeyer€failed€to€give€a€jury€instruction,Ð `° Ðpetitioner€does€not€state€or€identify€which€jury€instruction€is€at€issue.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àDefense€counsel,€at€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€submitted€a€special€request€for€juryÐ $ t Ðinstruction.€€Counsel€requested€that€the€trial€judge€charge€the€jury€that€the€testimony€of€Drs.€MooreÐ  ` Ðand€Vann€could€not€be€considered€as€substantive€evidence,€but€merely€to€corroborate€the€victimððsÐ ü L  Ðtestimony.€€This€request€was€denied€by€the€trial€judge.€Ð è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòLEGAL€ANALYSISóóÐ À  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àFor€a€petitioner€to€succeed€on€a€post„conviction€claim,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€ofÐ ˜è  Ðshowing,€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€the€allegations€set€forth€in€petition.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ð „Ô  Ððð€40„30„210(f)€(1997);€òòPannell€v.€State,€óó71€S.W.3d€720€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€When€this€courtÐ pÀ Ðundertakes€a€review€of€the€lower€courtððs€decision€on€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€lowerÐ \¬ Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact€are€given€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict€and€are€conclusive€on€appeal€absent€aÐ H˜ Ðfinding€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€the€judgment.€òò€Id.;€Black€v.€State,€óó794€S.W.2d€752,Ð 4„ Ð755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€or€substituteÐ  p Ðits€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€post„conviction€court.€òò€Id.€óó€Further,€questions€concerning€theÐ  \ Ðcredibility€of€a€witness€and€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony€are€resolved€by€the€post„convictionÐ øH Ðcourt.€€òòId.€Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ  Óóóò òA.€€Recusal€of€Trial€JudgeÐ ¼  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àPetitioner€contends,€in€his€brief,€that€the€trial€judge€at€the€original€trial€should€have€recusedÐ ”ä Ðhimself€from€the€hearing€under€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€10,€Canon€3E.€€Furthermore,Ð €Ð Ðpetitioner€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€relief€in€that€the€record€contains€no€judicial€conflict€waiver,Ð l¼ Ðwhich€must€be€a€personal,€intentional,€and€knowing€waiver€of€this€right.€€The€basis€for€this€recusalÐ X ¨ Ðis€the€trial€judge€represented€petitioner€as€his€attorney€in€a€criminal€matter€in€1986.€€Canon€3E(1)Ð D!” Ðreads,€in€pertinent€part:€€ð ðA€judge€shall€disqualify€himself€or€herself€in€€a€proceeding€in€which€theÐ 0"€  Ðjudgeððs€impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questioned.ððÐ #l! ÐÌà  àIt€was€stipulated€by€both€parties€that€a€written€motion€for€recusal€was€not€filed€in€the€originalÐ ô$D # Ðtrial,€nor€was€there€any€oral€motion€by€petitioner€on€the€record€for€the€trial€judge€to€recuse€himself.Ð à%0!$ ÐPetitioner€acknowledges€that€normally€questions€of€recusal€arise€via€motions,€but€since€such€aÐ Ì&"% Ðmotion€was€not€filed€in€this€cause,€it€was€obligatory€for€the€trial€judge€to€òòsua€sponteóó€raise€this€issue,Ð ¸'#& Ðciting€òòState€v.€Thornton,€óó10€S.W.3d€229,€237€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999),€and€òòAlley€v.€State,€óó882Ð ¤(ô#' ÐS.W.2d€810,€820€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€State€counters€that€petitioner€has€waived€this€issueÐ )à$( Ðof€recusal€for€his€failure€to€raise€it€on€direct€appeal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„30„206(g),€„210(f)Ð |*Ì%) Ð(ð ðThere€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€a€ground€for€relief€not€raised€before€a€court€of€competentÐ h+¸&* Ðjurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€been€presented€is€waived.ðð).€€Furthermore,€petitioner€hasÐ ° Ðfailed€to€meet€his€burden€of€establishing€the€trial€judgeððs€impartiality€could€be€reasonably€questioned.€Ð œì ЀÌÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€judge€was€not€per€se€disqualified€by€any€of€the€specific€sectionsÐ `° Ðof€Canon€3E(1).€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€10.€€The€plain€language€of€that€canon€provides,€however,€thatÐ L œ Ðdisqualification€is€not€limited€to€the€enumerated€circumstances€of€Section€3E(1),€(a),€(b),€(c),€and€(d).€Ð 8 ˆ Ðð ðUnder€this€rule,€a€judge€is€disqualified€whenever€the€judgeððs€impartiality€might€€reasonably€beÐ $ t Ðquestioned,€regardless€whether€any€of€the€specific€rules€in€Section€3E(1)€apply.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€this€case,Ð  ` Ðcould€the€fact€that€the€trial€judge€represented€petitioner,€as€defense€counsel€in€a€criminal€matter€inÐ ü L  Ð1986,€be€questioned?€€Under€these€facts,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€judgeððs€impartiality€might€haveÐ è 8  Ðbeen€reasonably€questioned.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€recusal€was€obligatory.€€òòSee€Pannellóó,€71€S.W.3dÐ Ô$  Ðat€725.Ð À  ÐÌà  àFinding€that€recusal€was€obligatory,€did€defense€counselððs€failure€to€seek€the€trial€judgeððsÐ ˜è  Ðrecusal€constitute€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel?€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€requested€defenseÐ „Ô  Ðcounsel€to€seek€the€trial€judgeððs€recusal€before€trial.€€Defense€counsel€testified€that€he€had€noÐ pÀ Ðrecollection€of€petitioner€making€such€a€request.€€Although€defense€counsel€did€not€state€when€heÐ \¬ Ðlearned€of€the€trial€judgeððs€previous€representation€of€petitioner,€he€was€aware€of€this€issue€prior€toÐ H˜ Ðtrial.€€Defense€counsel€was€certain€that€he€discussed€this€issue€with€petitioner€because€it€would€haveÐ 4„ Ðbeen€one€of€the€first€matters€he€addressed.€€The€evidence€of€a€prior€conviction€could€influence€aÐ  p Ðdecision€to€testify€or€not.€€Defense€counsel€stated€that€he€was€very€comfortable€with€the€trial€judgeððsÐ  \ Ðconduct€at€trial,€but€if€petitioner€had€insisted€that€counsel€have€the€trial€judge€recuse€himself,€heÐ øH Ðwould€have€done€so.€€In€oral€statements,€the€post„conviction€court€acknowledged€this€issue€to€be€oneÐ ä4 Ðof€credibility€between€petitioner€and€defense€counsel.€€It€is€obvious€the€post„conviction€courtÐ Ð  Ðresolved€this€issue€in€favor€of€defense€counsel€by€its€ruling€in€denying€relief.€€The€evidence€does€notÐ ¼  Ðpreponderate€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€ruling.€Ð ¨ø ЀÌà  àWe€agree€with€petitioner€that€the€better€practice€would€have€been€for€the€trial€judge€to€òòsuaÐ €Ð Ðsponte€óóreveal€his€past€representation€in€the€absence€of€a€motion€for€recusal.€€Therefore,€we€mustÐ l¼ Ðsearch€the€record€to€determine€if€the€trial€judgeððs€impartiality€can€be€reasonably€questioned.€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€establishes€that€the€trial€judge€represented€petitioner,€in€1986,€for€aggravated€assaultÐ D!” Ðinvolving€one€of€his€sons.€€The€trial€court€was€appointed€circuit€court€judge€in€May€1990€andÐ 0"€  Ðpresided€over€petitionerððs€trial€in€June€1992,€more€than€six€years€after€his€representation€of€theÐ #l! Ðpetitioner€in€1986.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€point€out€any€information€that€the€trial€court€learnedÐ $X" Ðduring€the€1986€representation€that€affected€the€outcome€of€petitionerððs€jury€trial€in€1992.€€AlthoughÐ ô$D # Ðthe€1991€offenses€involved€one€of€the€same€victims€as€in€1986,€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated€anyÐ à%0!$ Ðprejudice€or€bias€on€the€trial€judgeððs€part.€Likewise,€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€in€Exhibit€7,Ð Ì&"% Ðtrial€transcript,€any€action€by€the€trial€judge€before€or€during€the€trial€indicating€any€bias€orÐ ¸'#& Ðimpartiality,€other€than€his€belief€that€the€trial€court€ð ðleaned€against€him.ðð€€We€conclude€petitionerÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âhas€not€met€his€burden€of€proof€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€trial€courtððs€òòsua€sponteÐ )à$( Ðóónon„recusal€affected€his€trial.€€We€disagree€with€petitioner€that€the€trial€judgeððs׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€conflict€of€interestÐ ° Ðâ âwas€overwhelming€and€amounted€to€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.Ð œì ÐÌÓ  Óò òB.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselÐ tÄ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àPetitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€rendered€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€sixÐ L œ Ðspecific€areas:€€(1)€counsel€failed€to€appeal€the€admission€of€certain€ð ðhearsay€statementsðð;€(2)€counselÐ 8 ˆ Ðfailed€to€attack€the€sufficiency€of€the€indictments;€(3)€counsel€failed€to€effectively€cross„examine€Ð $ t Ða€medical€witness;€(4)€counsel€failed€to€call€certain€witnesses;€(5)€counsel€failed€to€address€errorsÐ  ` Ðconcerning€election€of€offenses€at€trial;€and€(6)€the€prosecution€was€malicious.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àTo€succeed€in€an€attack€for€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€petitioner€must€demonstrate€thatÐ Ô$  Ðcounselððs€representation€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€by€attorneys€in€criminalÐ À  Ðcases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Rose,€óó523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Under€òòStrickland€v.€Washington,€óó466Ð ¬ü  ÐU.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984),€the€petitioner€must€establish€(1)Ð ˜è  Ðdeficient€representation,€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€the€deficiency.€The€issues€of€deficientÐ „Ô  Ðperformance€by€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€are€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact.Ð pÀ ÐòòState€v.€Burns,€óó6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);€òòPannell€v.€State,€óó71€S.W.3d€720,€726„27€(Tenn.Ð \¬ ÐCrim.€App.€2001).€€ð ð[A]€trial€courtððs€òòfindings€of€factóó€underlying€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ H˜ Ðcounsel€are€reviewed€on€appeal€under€a€òòde€novo€óóstandard,€accompanied€with€a€presumption€thatÐ 4„ Ðthose€findings€are€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€òòFields€v.€State,Ð  p Ðóó40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).€€However,€conclusions€of€law€are€reviewed€under€a€purely€òòdeÐ  \ Ðnovo€óóstandard,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€òò€Id.óó€€Applying€the€foregoing€principles,€this€courtÐ øH Ðmust€determine€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€finding€thatÐ ä4 Ðpetitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€òò€Pannell,€óó71€S.W.3d€at€727.€Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óò ò1.€€Failure€to€Appeal€ð ðHearsay€Admissionsððó óÐ ¨ø ÐÌÓ  Óà  àPetitioner€complains€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€appeal€the€testimony€of€Drs.€Moore€andÐ €Ð ÐVann€concerning€the€medical€histories€obtained€from€the€victims€in€this€cause.€€However,€petitionerÐ l¼ Ðtestified€that€he€did€not€discuss€these€ð ðhearsay€admissionsðð€with€defense€counsel.€€The€record€reflectsÐ X ¨ Ðthat€Dr.€Moore€examined€J2€for€alleged€sexual€abuse€at€the€request€of€DHS€and€obtained€a€medicalÐ D!” Ðhistory€as€to€how€the€offense€occurred.€€Defense€counsel€objected€to€this€testimony,€but€the€trialÐ 0"€  Ðjudge€overruled€the€objection,€finding€that€the€medical€history€complied€with€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(4).€Ð #l! ÐDr.€Vann€testified€as€to€his€examination€of€J1€with€a€history€of€how€the€offense€was€allegedlyÐ $X" Ðcommitted.€€There€was€no€objection€to€this€testimony.€€Both€doctors€testified€such€history€wasÐ ô$D # Ðnecessary€for€treatment€as€well€as€diagnosis.€€Defense€counsel€stated€he€did€not€recall€any€discussionÐ ° Ðwith€petitioner€concerning€matters€addressed€on€appeal,€but€petitioner€had€a€copy€of€his€appellateÐ œì Ðbrief€and€petitioner€was€aware€of€the€grounds€alleged€as€error€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€Ð ˆØ ÐPetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€defense€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€appealing€these€ð ðhearsayÐ tÄ Ðadmissions.ðð€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.€Ð `° ÐÌÓ  Óò ò2.€€Sufficiency€of€IndictmentsÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌ5.€€Election€of€Offensesó óÐ  ` ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAs€best€can€be€determined€from€petitionerððs€confusing€testimony€on€these€issues,€petitioner€Ð è 8  Ðattacks€defense€counselððs€representation€for€failing€to€attack€the€sufficiency€of€the€allegations€in€theÐ Ô$  Ðindictments.€€Petitioner€contends€that€Indictment€No.€30133€should€have€been€dismissed€since€theÐ À  Ðallegation€of€J2ððs€charge€occurred€during€the€Easter€weekend€when€J2€was€not€there,€but€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðindictment,€J1ððs€indictment,€and€an€amended€indictment€went€to€the€jury,€which€amounted€toÐ ˜è  Ðelection€of€offenses.€€Apparently,€a€dispute€arose€over€when€and€where€the€allegation€involving€J2Ð „Ô  Ðoccurred.€€Defense€counsel€filed€a€bill€of€particulars€to€resolve€this€issue.€€Defense€counsel€called€theÐ pÀ Ðpetitionerððs€mother€and€petitioner€to€refute€that€J2€was€at€the€home€of€the€grandmother€over€theÐ \¬ ÐEaster€weekend.€€The€jury€resolved€this€issue€in€favor€of€the€State.€€Petitioner€has€failed€to€includeÐ H˜ Ðin€this€record€copies€of€the€indictments€or€amended€indictment,€which€he€claims€were€deficient.€€NorÐ 4„ Ðhas€petitioner€pointed€to€any€deficiency€in€defense€counselððs€representation€in€the€record€concerningÐ  p Ðthe€validity€of€the€indictments.€€Frankly,€this€court€is€at€a€loss€to€understand€petitionerððs€complaintÐ  \ Ðconcerning€election€of€offenses.€€There€is€no€merit€to€these€issues.Ð øH ÐÌÓ  Óò ò3.€€Cross„Examination€of€Medical€Witnessó óÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àPetitioner€complains€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€cross„examine€Dr.€Moore€concerning€theÐ ¨ø Ðscarring€tissue€found€on€J2€on€November€4òòóó€or€14òòóó,€1991,€when€prior€medical€examination€of€J2€onÐ ”ä ÐApril€16òòóó€indicated€no€scarring.€€Defense€counsel€obtained€J2ððs€hospital€records€concerning€this€issue.€Ð €Ð ÐThe€record€establishes€that€defense€counsel€cross„examined€Dr.€Moore€concerning€the€April€16Ð l¼ Ðexamination,€òòóóas€well€as€additional€medical€examinations€on€June€17òòóó,€J2ððs€hospital€visit.€€There€is€noÐ X ¨ Ðmerit€to€this€issue.Ð D!” ÐÌÓ  Óò ò4.€€Failure€to€Call€Certain€Witnessesó óÐ #l! ÐÌÓ  Óà  à€Petitioner€complains€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€call€Dr.€Pritchett,€Ms.€Glass€from€DHS,Ð ô$D # Ðand€Carl€Harbor€from€DHS.€€According€to€petitioner,€Dr.€Pritchett€saw€J2€and€J1€on€April€16òòóó,€a€fewÐ à%0!$ Ðdays€after€the€Easter€weekend€event.€€However,€petitioner€did€not€request€defense€counsel€to€summonÐ Ì&"% Ðthese€witnesses€since€he€did€not€learn€of€them€until€after€trial.€€Petitioner€does€not€explain€how€thenÐ ¸'#& Ðdefense€counsel€should€have€called€these€witnesses.€€Nor€did€petitioner€produce€these€witnesses€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtestify€as€to€what€they€would€have€said€at€trial.€€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€163€(Tenn.Ð )à$( ÐCrim.€App.€1997).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€record€reflects€that€defense€counsel€discussed€with€petitioner€which€and€how€manyÐ ° Ðwitnesses€would€be€called€in€his€behalf.€€Defense€counsel€met€with€petitionerððs€mother,€brother,€andÐ œì Ðfriend,€William€Porter,€and€attempted€to€interview€the€victims.€€Counsel€also€obtained€medicalÐ ˆØ Ðrecords€of€J2,€the€victimððs€school€records,€and€considerable€discovery.€€There€is€no€merit€to€thisÐ tÄ Ðissue.Ð `° ÐÌÓ  Óò ò6.€€Malicious€ProsecutionÐ 8 ˆ Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àPetitioner€contends€that€certain€actions€occurred€during€trial€which€led€him€to€believe€theÐ  ` ÐState€maliciously€prosecuted€him€for€these€offenses.€€These€alleged€actions€include:€€the€trial€judgeððsÐ ü L  Ðoverruling€of€defense€counselððs€motion€for€acquittal;€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€declare€his€sons€asÐ è 8  Ðaccomplices;€and€the€request€for€a€jury€instruction€to€the€trial€judge.€€Petitioner€has€totally€failed€toÐ Ô$  Ðpoint€out€where€in€the€record€such€allegations€affected€the€outcome€of€his€trial.€€These€allegationsÐ À  Ðare€merely€conclusions€on€petitionerððs€part€from€a€reading€of€Exhibit€7,€trial€transcript.€€There€is€noÐ ¬ü  Ðmerit€to€this€issue.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòCONCLUSIONóóÐ pÀ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€issues€raised€byÐ H˜ Ðpetitioner€are€without€merit.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€in€denying€theÐ 4„ Ðpetition€is€affirmed.€Ð  p ÐÌÔ#†X¡XXX¡è #ÔÌà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ä4 Ðà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  àL.€TERRY€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGE