ÿWPCÜ 3# ÚÆå %« 0(±w@Ù4-<U:DU:~ 0l¸ 0D$ 0Jh 0T² 0^ 0hd 0rÌ 0|> 0†º 0@ 1uÐ 0dE D3© U*Ü B) DC/ AMr ¿ BÝ AQú ÆK 0D 0@U 0D•fÙ D/? Bnv~‹vÓ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nL(ÎLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 X($¡¡ EeeeÓ€&)Œƒ*#3|x), øð AZ‹"Arial RegularÂ"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ(((('ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd*,%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òOctober€1,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó d*+,-/Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ00'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ å XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ќـ*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|•þò` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à€APRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÓÓDAVID€FLOYD,à àà àà àà à)à àNO.€02C01„9604„CC„00123à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à àDYER€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)Ìà à€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóóÌÌWilliam€K.€Randolphà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌP.O.€Bo€611à àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌDyersburg,€Tennessee€38025„0611à àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJanis€L.ÏTurnerà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Phillip€BivensÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€EÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDyersburg,€Tennessee€38025ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:______ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÑ€.ÑÇÓÓà@ àòòOpinionóóÌà àThe€appellant,€David€Floyd,€appeals€as€of€right€the€judgment€of€the€DyerÏCounty€Circuit€Court€dismissing€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€argues€onÏappeal€that€he€was€unconstitutionally€denied€his€right€to€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€because€of€his€trial€counselððs€failure€to€interview€potential€defenseÏwitnesses,€failure€to€peremptorily€challenge€a€juror,€and€failure€to€provide€theÏappellant€with€a€copy€of€the€trial€transcript€for€appellate€purposes.€€We€have€reviewedÏthe€record€upon€appeal€and,€finding€no€reversible€error,€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÏdismissal€of€the€petition.€€Ìà àOn€May€4,€1993,€the€appellant€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€of€his€peers€of€theft€ofÏproperty€over€the€value€of€one€thousand€dollars€œ($1,000),›€a€Class€D€felony.€€He€wasÏsentenced€to€a€term€of€seven€years€and€six€months€incarceration€as€a€Range€IIÏmultiple€offender.€€His€sentence€was€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively€to€priorÏunrelated€sentences.€€The€appellant€thereafter€appealed€his€conviction€to€this€œCourt.›€ÏA€panel€of€this€œCourt›€affirmed€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€David€Floydóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9311„CC„00265€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.,›€Jackson,€May€4,€1994).€€No€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€was€filed€in€the€supreme€court.€€However,€on€September€5,Ï1995,€the€appellant€filed€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€After€the€appointmentÏof€counsel,€the€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€and,€by€order€enteredÏNovember€22,€1995,€dismissed€the€petition.€€Ìà àIn€reviewing€an€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€this€œCourt›€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€rendered€byÏthe€attorney€were€within€the€range€of€competency€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€ofÏineffective€counsel,€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððs€representation€fell€belowÏan€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€this€performance€prejudiced€theÏdefense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counselððs€error€theÏresult€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466ÏU.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€2053,€2064,€2067„68,€80€L.€Ed.€674€(1984);ÏòòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Ìà àThe€appellant€first€argues€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€because€he€failed€toÏexclude€a€potential€juror€who€was€a€prison€guard€at€the€penitentiary€where€theÏappellant€was€incarcerated.€€The€evidence€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearingÏrevealed€that€the€appellantððs€trial€counsel€had€planned€to€exclude€the€prison€œguard,›Ïusing€his€last€remaining€œ›peremptory€challenge.€€After€consulting€with€the€appellant,Ïhowever,€the€appellantððs€trial€counsel€allowed€the€prison€guard€to€remain€on€the€jury.€ÏAlthough€appellantððs€trial€counsel€had€no€specific€memory€of€his€conversation€withÏthe€appellant€regarding€the€prison€guard€as€a€juror,€he€testified€that€he€would€haveÏexcused€the€guard€if€his€client€had€wanted€him€excused.€€The€trial€court€correctly€heldÍthat€tactical€decisions,€such€as€this€one,€are€not€subject€to€post„conviction€challenges.€ÏòòœHellard›€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Ìà àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€that€he€failedÏto€adequately€prepare€for€trial€by€not€interviewing€all€potential€defense€witnesses.€ÏThe€appellant€testified€that€he€furnished€his€counsel€with€the€names€of€four€potentialÏdefense€witnesses€but€none€of€them€were€called€to€testify€on€his€behalf€at€trial.€ÏAppellantððs€counsel€interviewed€all€potential€witnesses€and€the€witnesses€who€wereÏnot€called€to€testify€provided€testimony€that€was€either€irrelevant€or€damaging€to€theÏappellantððs€case.€€œIn€fact,€one€of€the€witnesses€testified€for€the€State.€€Moreover,›€evenÏwere€we€to€assume€arguendo€that€appellantððs€counsel€failed€to€interview€all€potentialÏwitnesses,€the€appellant€did€not€introduce€those€witnessesðð€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Without€that€testimony€in€the€record,€we€cannot€determineÏwhether€the€appellant€was€prejudiced€by€their€failure€to€testify€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòWade€v.ÏStateóó,€914€S.W.2d€97,€102€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,Ï757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ìà àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€sendÏhim€the€trial€transcript€so€that€the€appellant€could€prepare€his€òòpro€seóó€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€For€the€same€reason,€theÏappellant€also€requests€a€delayed€appeal.€€After€the€appellantððs€counsel€wasÏpermitted€by€this€Court€to€withdraw€from€further€representation,€he€sent€a€package€toÍthe€appellant€which€included€the€brief€filed€in€this€Court€setting€forth€the€relevant€factsÏand€issues€raised€on€direct€appeal.€€Additionally,€counsel€furnished€the€appellantÏwith€a€œform€motion›€for€the€appellant€to€file€in€the€supreme€court,€if€he€chose,€seekingÏan€extension€of€time€within€which€to€file€his€application.€€Appellant,€however,€did€notÏfile€the€motion.€€The€appellantððs€counsel€did€not€send€the€appellant€a€copy€of€the€trialÏtranscript.€€Ìà àEven€though€the€appellantððs€counsel€may€have€erred€by€not€sending€theÏtranscript,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced.€€The€briefÏforwarded€to€the€appellant€contained€all€the€necessary€facts€and€legal€issues€that€theÏappellant€needed€in€order€to€file€a€petition€seeking€permission€to€appeal€to€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11(b).€€Moreover,€since€theÏappellant€never€filed€the€motion€requesting€an€extension€of€time€to€file€his€petition€forÏpermission€to€appeal,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced.€€ForÏthe€same€reason,€œwe€are€not€inclined€to€permit€the€appellant€to€proceed€underÏT.R.A.P.€11€by€withdrawing€our€previously€entered€opinion€of€May€4,€1994,€and€re„entering€it€as€of€the€date€of€this€opinion.›Ìà àAccordingly,€the€denial€of€the€appellantððs€post„conviction€petition€is€œaffirmed.Ì›ÌÓÓÌ̜ǛÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌ