ÿWPCm  »V$ Ï~}yÜÍæû6r‡„˜y9a {9½mQ¡ÿ¬®mHåšÃæÞ²;Õ6¿«Å…Jq² ê.&]ô?åæ:.}.c 3zÉìš  5úŒeŸɃ}]*\.m©îlîséÒÁ Îém¯Î(^ûƼYÿ§ŸÍMf¡üWJ*£Š•þÎÜPÛ+g]¬Úk›,_n÷£ó³ut¼•7èÔ/ÿ'ååosSˆ®ÀÜ(ºÞ2«ŒÏ  ³ýáˆü³M N… Ñ"×\à„#;&‚ãBWó:ÏŠ¨Á¹ˆ¹¹ˆæê#åoÖ´c“¼fÜ]~½+*[úñ‘§:׫»­; >>»Pa6¨²cçßy%†3é®üÛ·Aõ{v‘N»nóO+0iiå;Ò‚J‘pYÎ×Ùßg>^Yú}Ë"£Ã°M6jïÍÑÿͧˆ‹;ß‚n÷é8a?¸(Ъ¢a²>×äìË¡A „®Ì¦Ô¢üº}²tV§SNŠÚæ…š€ò´Ù;+ædñvzƒëL3ü¿U<ò”âœÚòÐ>T.”¹ðdb…ã8 i”f4@/•õ{!…nÐrÅQ°Àâi–'ŠÆû¯ÌÔQÎh Õ²–ƒópW#ÁÂUNƒ %Ñ 0:××U @  ^ Q w] 4a u „ m†  N² Uj´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ E                       00 BP ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman e$+â òK+¬r¤3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ñ  Ñ+É:F ¾‹RTimes New Roman MT Extra Bold Regular0ÿÿ.Normal dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ‡XùÑXXXÔÔ‡î£ÜîXXùÑÔÓ  ÓÑ8€ùÑXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€P¸ÑÑ  ÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° Ðà@@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†XùÑXîî£ÜL#ÔÔ‡¼¿í»XXùÑÔÐ Ö& ÐAssigned€on€Briefs€June€20,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ#†XùÑX»¼¿í\#ÔÔ‡î£ÜîXXùÑÔÌò òÔ#†XùÑXîî£Üè#ÔÔ‡¼¿í»XXùÑÔGEORGE€D.€FITZPATRICK€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóó óÐ 4 „ ÐÔ#†XùÑX»¼¿í.#ÔÔ‡î£ÜîXXùÑÔÌò òÔ#†XùÑXîî£Ü¹#ÔAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ n ¾ Ðà@@ý ý ìàNo.€96„C„1593€€€€€€Cheryl€Blackburn,€JudgeÐ Z ª ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ n  ÐÌà@@e e ìàNo.€M2000„02566„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€August€31,€2001Ð i  ÐÔ‡î£ÜîXXùÑÔÌßA€V) °°` dE<(` AßÐ )y  Ðó óÓkÓÌÝ‚-ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÔS±^®ÔÓ SÓÓ  ÓÝ‚-ÿÿäÝÝ  ÝÔ#†XùÑXîî£ÜZ#ÔThe€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€the€Petitioner€for€one€count€of€rape€and€one€count€ofÐ ± Ðassault.€€The€Petitionerððs€first€trial€ended€with€a€hung€jury.€€Following€a€second€trial,€the€PetitionerÐ í Ðwas€convicted€of€rape€and€assault,€and€sentenced€to€an€effective€thirty€years€of€incarceration.€€HisÐ ‰Ù Ðconvictions€and€sentences€were€upheld€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€George€D.€Fitzpatrickóó,€No.Ð uÅ Ð01C01-9709-CR-00398,€1998€WL€775665€at€*1,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð a± ÐNov.€4,€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1999).€€Subsequently,€the€Petitioner€filed€a€timelyÐ M Ðpetition€for€post-conviction€relief€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€his€trial.€€After€aÐ 9‰ Ðhearing€the€court€below€dismissed€the€petition,€from€which€ruling€the€Petitioner€now€appeals.€€UponÐ %u Ðour€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post-conviction€court.Ó SÓ݃-ÿÿä6݌Рa ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓ*Óò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ é9 ÐÓî ÓÌòòÓ  ÓThomas€T.€Woodall,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes,óó€J.,€andÐ Á ÐòòTerry€Laffertyóó,€Sp.J.,€joined.Ð ­ý ÐÌR.€Kirkland€Moser,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€George€D.€Fitzpatrick.Ð …!Õ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Thomas€E.€Williams,€III,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ ]#­! ÐGeneral;€Victor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€Dan€Hamm,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ I$™" ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 5%… # ÐÓt ÓÌò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÐ  ']"% ÐÌÓØ ÓÓ  Óòòóóà  àOn€June€3,€1999,€Petitioner€filed€a€pro€se€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€post„Ð å(5$' Ðconviction€court€appointed€counsel€to€assist€the€Petitioner.€€Appointed€counsel€filed€an€amendedÐ Ñ)!%( Ðpetition€for€relief€on€September€20,€1999.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€theÐ ½* &) Ðpetition,€entering€its€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€on€September€18,€2000.€Ð ©+ù&* ÐSubsequently,€on€October€10,€2000,€Petitioner€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€to€this€Court.Ð •,å'+ ÐÐ -Ñ(, Ðò òÓ  ÓPOST„CONVICTION€HEARINGó óÐ ° ÐÓÓà  àÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€court€heard€testimony€from€the€Petitioner€and€his€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcounsel,€Carlton€Lewis.€€The€Petitioner€testified€that€his€trial€counsel€had€failed€to€fully€discuss€hisÐ tÄ Ðcase€with€him,€prior€to€both€his€first€and€second€trial.€€He€also€stated€that€his€trial€counsel€had€failedÐ `° Ðto€discuss€any€possible€plea€offers€made€by€the€State.€€The€Petitioner€claimed€that€his€counsel€didÐ L œ Ðnot€thoroughly€investigate€the€case€and€question€the€Stateððs€witnesses.€€The€Petitioner€told€the€post„Ð 8 ˆ Ðconviction€court€that€his€counsel€had€failed€to€properly€cross„examine€State€witnesses€and€failed€toÐ $ t Ðrequest€that€any€semen€test€used€to€convict€him€be€performed€again.€€He€further€testified€that€hisÐ  ` Ðcounsel€had€failed€to€raise€any€defenses€and€failed€to€investigate€potential€witnesses€to€testify€on€hisÐ ü L  Ðbehalf.€€Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àPetitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€talked€with€the€Petitioner€on€several€occasions€about€Ð À  Ðhis€case,€possible€trial€strategies€and€potential€plea€agreements.€€Counsel€stated€that€he€conveyed€anyÐ ¬ü  Ðand€all€plea€offers€to€the€Petitioner.€€Counsel€admitted€that€he€could€not€recall€the€exact€dates€of€hisÐ ˜è  Ðmeetings€with€the€Petitioner.€€He€testified€that€offers€from€the€State€ranged€from€twenty„five€yearsÐ „Ô  Ð(offered€prior€to€the€first€trial)€to€ten€years€at€thirty„five€percent€(offered€prior€to€the€second€trial).€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àCounsel€also€testified€that€he€had€investigated€the€Petitionerððs€case,€ð ðas€best€as€[he]€could,ððÐ H˜ Ðwith€the€help€of€Petitionerððs€wife€and€mother.€€He€told€the€court€that€he€had€trouble€locating€theÐ 4„ Ðvictim€prior€to€the€first€trial.€€He€photographed€the€vehicle,€in€which€the€victim€alleged€the€rape€andÐ  p Ðassault€had€occurred.€€Counsel€also€attempted€to€locate€a€man€named€ð ðWesley,ðð€who€the€PetitionerÐ  \ Ðclaimed€could€corroborate€his€defense€of€consent.€€However,€counsel€was€unable€to€locate€WesleyÐ øH Ðprior€to€the€first€trial,€but€later€learned€that€Wesley€had€pled€guilty€to€a€charge€related€to€this€incident.€Ð ä4 ÐAt€this€point,€counsel€determined€that€Wesley€would€not€be€a€good€witness€at€the€second€trial.€Ð Ð  ÐCounsel€also€issued€subpoenas€for€two€other€witnesses,€but€they€were€unable€to€be€located.€€HeÐ ¼  Ðtestified€that€he€did€not€have€the€funds€to€employ€an€investigator€to€assist€him€with€the€location€ofÐ ¨ø Ðwitnesses.€€Counsel€stated€that€he€was€able€to€interview€one€of€the€Stateððs€key€witnesses€prior€to€trial,Ð ”ä Ðbut€that€he€was€unable€to€interview€the€police€officers€involved€with€this€case,€prior€to€trial.€€€Ð €Ð ÐCounsel€further€acknowledged€that€he€may€have€failed€to€thoroughly€cross„examine€Detective€Shea,Ð l¼ Ðconcerning€the€photo€line„up€that€Shea€had€conducted€for€the€victim.€€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àPetitionerððs€counsel€also€testified€that€he€did€not€recall€stipulating€that€the€semen€collectedÐ 0"€  Ðfrom€the€victim€was€that€of€the€Petitionerððs.€€Yet,€he€stated€that,€if€he€did€make€such€a€stipulation,Ð #l! Ðthen€it€was€because€the€defenseððs€strategy€was€not€a€denial€of€any€sexual€contact,€but€that€any€sexualÐ $X" Ðcontact€was€consensual.€€Counsel€testified€that,€since€there€were€no€issues€with€the€identity€of€theÐ ô$D # ÐPetitioner,€he€felt€it€was€better€to€show€that€the€victim€consented€to€sexual€acts€with€the€Petitioner.€Ð à%0!$ ÐCounsel€further€explained€that€he€did€not€want€the€Petitioner€to€testify,€because€Petitioner€had€priorÐ Ì&"% Ðconvictions€that€could€be€used€against€him.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àUpon€review€of€Petitionerððs€case,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€the€petition€for€post„Ð )à$( Ðâ âconviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Petitionerððs€allegations€were€without€merit,€and€thatÐ |*Ì%) ÐPetitioner€had€failed€to€establish€that€counselððs€performance€was€either€deficient€or€caused€him€toÐ ° Ðsuffer€prejudice.Ð œì Ðâ âÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ tÄ ÐÓz!ÓÌà  àThe€1995€Post€Conviction€Procedure€Act€provides€that€a€petitioner€seeking€post„convictionÐ L œ Ðrelief€has€the€burden€of€establishing€his€allegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ 8 ˆ ÐAnn.€ðð€40-30-210(f)€(1997).€€The€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€post-conviction€hearing€areÐ $ t Ðafforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€may€not€be€re„weighed€or€re„evaluated€by€this€Court.€€òòBlackÐ  ` Ðv.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Thus,€a€trial€courtððs€findings€are€conclusiveÐ ü L  Ðon€appeal€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6Ð è 8  ÐS.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.1999).€€The€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts,€however,€is€reviewedÐ Ô$  Ðde€novo,€without€any€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòId.óó€€A€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ À  Ðraised€on€direct€appeal€is€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact,€and€is€also€subject€to€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review.€Ð ¬ü  ÐòòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòJehiel€Fields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001)Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance,€this€Court€must€decide€whetherÐ pÀ Ðcounselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€Ð \¬ ÐòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€wasÐ H˜ Ðineffective,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€(1)€his€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€andÐ 4„ Ð(2)€he€was€prejudiced€by€his€counselððs€deficient€performance.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð  p Ð668,€687€(1984);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993).€€To€prove€that€his€counselððsÐ  \ Ðperformance€was€deficient,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€ð ðthe€advice€given€or€the€service€renderedÐ øH Ðwas€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€.€.ðð€òòBankston€v.Ð ä4 ÐStateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€petitioner€must€establish€that€trialÐ Ð  Ðcounselððs€ð ðacts€or€omissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessÐ ¼  Ðunder€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).€€Under€thisÐ ¨ø Ðsecond€prong,€€the€petitioner€must€show€that€the€prejudice€was€such€that€there€is€a€reasonableÐ ”ä Ðprobability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€the€results€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€Ð €Ð ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694;€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€900€(Tenn.€1990).Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àWhen€reviewing€a€defense€attorneyððs€actions,€this€Court€may€not€use€ð ð20-20ðð€hindsight€toÐ D!” Ðsecond-guess€counsel's€decisions€regarding€trial€strategy€and€tactics.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2dÐ 0"€  Ð4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counsel's€alleged€errors€should€be€judged€at€the€time€they€were€made€in€light€ofÐ #l! Ðall€the€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746.Ð $X" ÐÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÌò òA.€Failure€to€Confer€with€Petitioneró óÐ à%0!$ Ðò òó óÌà  àThe€Petitioner€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€failed€to€confer€withÐ ¸'#& ÐPetitioner€about€his€case€prior€to€both€his€first€and€second€trial.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€Petitioner€testified€that€he€talked€with€his€counsel€for€only€one€hour€prior€to€his€first€trial.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐHe€claims€that€he€did€not€speak€with€trial€counsel,€until€the€day€of€his€second€trial.€€Petitioner€alsoÐ h+¸&* Ðtestified€that€his€counsel€failed€to€discuss€plea€offers€made€by€the€State.€€Trial€counsel€stated€that€heÐ ° Ðmet€with€Petitioner,€prior€to€the€preliminary€hearing,€for€one€and€one„half€hours.€€Counsel€stated€thatÐ œì Ðhe€met€with€Petitioner€several€times€before€the€start€of€his€first€trial€and€discussed€offers€made€byÐ ˆØ Ðthe€State.€€Petitionerððs€counsel€further€testified€that,€before€the€second€trial,€he€met€with€theÐ tÄ ÐPetitioner€three€to€four€times€to€discuss€the€trial€and€negotiated€plea€offers€from€the€State.€€€€In€rulingÐ `° Ðon€this€issue,€the€trial€court€accredited€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel€and€found€that€Petitioner€hadÐ L œ Ðfailed€to€meet€his€burden€of€establishing€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient.€We€find€the€evidence€in€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðrecord€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€trial€counsel€met€with€PetitionerÐ $ t Ðseveral€times€before€the€start€of€both€of€his€trials.€€Petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€trial€counselÐ  ` Ðwas€deficient€in€this€regard,and€is,€thus€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð ü L  ÐÌò òB.€Failure€to€Investigate€and€Prepare€for€TrialÐ Ô$  Ðó ó€Ð À  Ðà  àThe€Petitioner€next€alleges€that€counsel€failed€to€adequately€investigate€the€case€and€failedÐ ¬ü  Ðto€properly€prepare€the€case€for€trial.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Petitioner€testified€that€he€didÐ ˜è  Ðnot€know€whether€his€trial€counsel€had€investigated€or€prepared€for€trial.€€Trial€counsel€testified€thatÐ „Ô  Ðhe€worked€with€Petitionerððs€wife€and€mother€to€gain€access€to€potential€defense€witnesses€and€toÐ pÀ Ðacquire€information€about€State€witnesses.€€Counsel€further€testified€that€he€attempted€to€interviewÐ \¬ Ðthe€victim,€but€was€unable€to€locate€her.€€However,€he€did€not€feel€this€was€a€disadvantage,€since€heÐ H˜ Ðhad€cross„examined€the€victim€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€€Counsel€stated€that€he€did€not€haveÐ 4„ Ðsufficient€funds€to€hire€a€private€investigator€to€assist€with€the€investigation€of€the€case.€€TheÐ  p Ðpost-conviction€court€determined€that€counselððs€level€of€pretrial€investigation€and€preparation€forÐ  \ Ðtrial€was€ð ðwell€within€that€which€is€expected€of€a€criminal€attorney.ðð€€We€conclude€that€the€evidenceÐ øH Ðdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€Ð ä4 ЀÌò òC.€Failure€to€Properly€Cross„Examine€Witnessesó óÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€Petitioner€further€contends€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€properlyÐ ”ä Ðcross-examine€the€victim€and€Detective€Shea.€€Specifically,€he€asserts€that€counsel€failed€to€examineÐ €Ð Ðthe€credibility€and€truthfulness€of€the€victim.€€He€also€argues€that€counselððs€cross-examination€ofÐ l¼ ÐDetective€Shea€was€inadequate€because€counsel€failed€to€point€out€the€inconsistencies€in€theÐ X ¨ Ðnotations€Shea€made€on€the€photo€line„up.€€We€disagree.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àRegarding€cross„examination€of€the€victim,€counsel€testified€that€the€victim€was€the€defenseððsÐ #l! Ðbest€witness.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€was€able€to€cross„examine€the€victim€at€the€preliminaryÐ $X" Ðhearing€and€at€both€trials.€€Counsel€stated€that€he€made€every€attempt€to€discredit€the€victimððsÐ ô$D # Ðtestimony€and€enhance€the€defenseððs€theory€of€consent.€€€After€reviewing€the€record€before€us,€weÐ à%0!$ Ðconclude€that€counselððs€performance€in€this€regard€was€not€constitutionally€deficient.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àConcerning€counselððs€cross„examination€of€Detective€Shea,€counsel€acknowledged€that€heÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdid€not€question€the€detective€about€the€inconsistent€notations€he€made€on€the€photo€array.€€CounselÐ )à$( Ðalso€testified€that€the€trial€court€held€an€extensive€hearing€on€the€admissibility€and€suggestivenessÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€photo€line„up.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€counselððs€performance€was€not€deficientÐ h+¸&* Ðand€did€not€prejudice€the€Defendant.€€We€find€the€evidence€on€appeal€is€insufficient€to€preponderateÐ ° Ðagainst€this€finding.€€Thus,€even€if€we€assume,€arugendo,€that€counsel€rendered€deficientÐ œì Ðrepresentation,€Petitioner€has€not€established€that€he€was€prejudiced€as€a€result€of€trial€counselððsÐ ˆØ Ðfailure€to€conduct€a€more€thorough€cross-examination€of€these€witnesses.Ð tÄ ÐÌò òD.€Failure€to€Raise€Defensesó óÐ L œ Ðò òó óÌà  àIn€his€final€allegation,€Petitioner€claims€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€raiseÐ $ t Ðany€defenses.€€The€Petitioner€argues€that€counsel€failed€to€request€that€another€sperm€count€beÐ  ` Ðperformed,€which€could€have€exonerated€him.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€discussed€the€theory€ofÐ ü L  Ðconsent€with€the€Petitioner.€€Counsel€believed€that€this€would€be€Petitionerððs€best€line€of€defense.€Ð è 8  ÐThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€counsel€had€investigated€the€possible€defenses€available€to€theÐ Ô$  ÐPetitioner€and€ð ðconferred€with€the€Petitioner€several€times€before€the€trial€of€this€case€as€to€the€theoryÐ À  Ðthat€was€the€most€prudent€on€which€to€proceed.ðð€€We€agree€with€the€findings€of€the€post„convictionÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt,€and€also€find€that€the€Petitioner€has€failed€to€present€any€evidence€that€would€preponderateÐ ˜è  Ðagainst€the€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€Moreover,€this€Court€must€defer€to€trial€strategyÐ „Ô  Ðand€tactical€choices€when€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,Ð pÀ Ð847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€€The€Petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð \¬ ÐÓA/Óò òó óÓ  ÓÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ 4„ ÐÌÓÖIÓà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€that€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€provided€him€the€effectiveÐ  \ Ðassistance€of€counsel,€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÔ  ÔÔ& Ä Ôà  à___________________________________€Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ ¼  ÐÔ'ÄÐFKÔÔ#†X\XXXùÑ-#Ô