ÿWPC a»Þ€°ýý¼xø"rÿ”£ÔUµ[üƒ#a{mo«UDUª½ úPd ÞÞ1EK~ °ß(ü)[}NW%´d}ñÙ2ÑÒuÒ¯óW¼Ðî‘™dP©!+oÆ|1ß|%I]\"Wø…˜Ô‹qFÔÉDû#¡zKýTÝÃõc¦P©ªÂfgö.Ó€.°&Ȧý–x"™ë/ÖŸßú“ÕT&¶Ù )ÿý"A}oøCî¢Øj@³lK¶´ÓLžv gu ~ÄéoY¤.±brÆÇóîÓŸ›R)s²@rÜg}nt¬h& ²ìà!gX*,¾LtPÃÃÉ^Ùò‹Ϧö]Æ–Q±N/êeó°íÎTð’ âï:™ÄÝ¿êï\&~•%é ÈÖ,QßÙrf‘»¿|_’Öfb³T¦Çç{ €XÓ‹üHpbŸàõí{»ÿ"PÏ{£ kXæÞ³Xò ° <àîÕç§²¿ç™~×ðrÔåú´C!\vÜ3$Òg½k:lŸ=;‘œ³Ýiïk†‰"𼵇BÙ‚©*§t``µ 3çÈ^¨d¤<Þ[]w” M²émפªöd „Íêó+âf*ûa5¹}*6¾b#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1÷NÿÿÿEb 0ë     Böö 0¤ D3· D-ê 0K ASbƵ 0¤{ 0D A«c˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular”Š~+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.wptyG* ¡bkäЩ3|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 - ù-(|G2± $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëmò»»Ô d(|3‡|$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡|$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€W5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼W5»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î^DW5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼W5»îî^D #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€March€20,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼W5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼W5»XX#ÔROGER€M.€GARDNERòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XX»¼W5Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òPost„Conviction€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C43,548€€€€€€Phyllis€H.€Miller,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„02270„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐNovember€30,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXXÔThe€petitioner,€Roger€M.€Gardner,€appeals€the€order€of€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court€denyingÐ xÈ  Ðhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€A€Sullivan€County€jury€found€the€petitioner€guilty€ofÐ d´ Ðattempted€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,€and€the€trial€court€subsequently€sentenced€him€to€serve€eight€yearsÐ P  Ðas€a€Range€II€multiple€offender.€€The€petitioner€challenged€his€conviction€on€direct€appeal,€and€thisÐ <Œ ÐCourt€affirmed€his€conviction.€òòState€v.€Roger€Morris€Gardneróó,€No.€03C01-9712-CR-00524,€1999€WLÐ (x Ð486847,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Knoxville€July€13,€1999).€Subsequently,€the€petitioner€filed€forÐ d Ðpost„conviction€relief,€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€prosecutorial€misconduct,€judicialÐ P Ðmisconduct,€the€trial€courtððs€lack€of€jurisdiction,€and€denial€of€statutory€rights.€€€The€post„convictionÐ ì< Ðcourt€denied€the€petition,€ò òó óand€the€petitioner€now€brings€this€appeal€alleging€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ Ø( Ðcounsel.€€For€the€following€reasons,€we€find€that€none€of€these€allegations€merit€relief€and€thereforeÐ Ä Ðaffirm€the€decision€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ô#†XXXXâ#ÔÔ#†¼W5»XX—#ÔÔ‡XX»¼W5ÔÐ ° ÐÓÖÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼W5»àX #ÔÔ‡XX.¼W5ÔJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòAlan€E.€Glenn,Ð `° ÐJJ.óó,€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌRoger€M.€Gardner,òòóó€Mountain€City,€Tennessee,€òòPro€SeóóÔ#†¼W5»XXd #ÔÔ‡XX»¼W5Ô.Ð $"t! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Mark€A.€Ô_ÔFulksÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ü#L# ÐGreeley€Wells,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Barry€P.€Ô_ÔStaubusÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney,€forÐ è$8 $ Ðappellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÓ5 ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼W5»XXŠ #ÔÔ‡XX»¼W5ÔÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼W5»XXg#ÔÔ‡XX»¼W5ÔÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡XXXXÔà@!ìàFactual€Backgroundóóó óˆà È àÐ „)Ô$) ÐÌOn€direct€appeal,€this€Court€summarized€the€facts€of€the€case€as€follows:Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý ÐÔ_Ôà8  àà ` àBeth€Davidson€testified€that€on€December€5,€1996,€she€was€working€as€a€deskÐ ° Ðâ âclerk€at€the€Westside€Inn€in€Kingsport,€Tennessee.€€Shortly€after€12:30€a.m.,Ð œì ÐAppellant€came€in€the€front€door€and€asked€to€use€the€telephone€to€call€for€a€rideÐ ˆØ Ðhome.€€Appellant€then€used€the€telephone€and€sat€down€on€a€couch€when€he€wasÐ tÄ Ðfinished.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àDavidson€testified€that€after€Appellant€sat€down€on€the€couch,€she€went€intoÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€bathroom€to€hang€up€a€broom.€€When€Davidson€attempted€to€leave€the€bathroom,Ð $ t ÐAppellant€approached€the€doorway€and€put€up€his€hands€to€block€Davidson's€way€out.€Ð  ` ÐWhen€Davidson€tried€to€go€past€Appellant,€he€grabbed€both€of€her€arms€and€heldÐ ü L  Ðthem€in€a€tight€grip.€€After€a€brief€struggle,€Davidson€fell€to€her€knees,€and€AppellantÐ è 8  Ðfell€on€top€of€her.€€Appellant€then€grabbed€one€of€Davidson's€arms€and€placed€one€ofÐ Ô$  Ðhis€hands€over€Davidson's€mouth€and€pressed€"very€hard."€€Davidson€then€"kickedÐ À  Ðand€fought"€and€managed€to€crawl€out€from€under€Appellant€after€a€struggle€whichÐ ¬ü  Ðlasted€between€three€and€four€minutes.€€Davidson€testified€that€during€this€struggleÐ ˜è  Ðin€the€bathroom,€she€sustained€a€cut€to€her€hand,€bruises€to€her€knees,€and€muscleÐ „Ô  Ðsprains€in€her€neck€and€back.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àDavidson€testified€that€after€she€crawled€out€from€under€Appellant,€she€wentÐ H˜ Ðto€the€telephone€by€the€front€counter€and€called€9-1-1.€€Appellant€then€picked€up€hisÐ 4„ Ðhat€and€jacket€from€off€the€couch€and€left€through€a€side€door.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àDavidson€testified€that€sometime€later€that€night,€the€police€brought€AppellantÐ øH Ðto€the€scene,€and€she€identified€him€as€the€man€who€had€attacked€her.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOfficer€Joe€Graham€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€testified€that€atÐ ¼  Ðapproximately€1:44€a.m.€on€December€5,€1996,€he€responded€to€a€call€at€the€WestsideÐ ¨ø ÐInn.€€After€Davidson€related€the€events€that€had€just€occurred,€Graham€went€to€theÐ ”ä Ðphone€registry€that€recorded€outgoing€calls€in€order€to€determine€who€Davidson'sÐ €Ð Ðassailant€had€called.€€Graham€then€called€the€last€recorded€phone€number€andÐ l¼ Ðreceived€information€that€Appellant€had€dialed€that€number.€€Graham€then€put€out€aÐ X ¨ ÐBOLO€(be€on€the€lookout)€for€Appellant.€€Graham€testified€that€shortly€thereafter,€heÐ D!” Ðshowed€Davidson€a€photographic€line-up,€and€she€immediately€identified€theÐ 0"€  Ðphotograph€of€Appellant€as€the€man€who€had€attacked€her.Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌÌà8  àà ` àGraham€testified€that€Appellant€was€subsequently€apprehended€and€broughtÐ à%0!$ Ðto€the€Westside€Inn.€€The€police€officers€then€asked€Appellant€to€get€out€and€standÐ Ì&"% Ðby€the€side€of€the€police€car.€€Davidson€then€identified€Appellant€as€her€attacker.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOfficer€David€Samples€of€the€Kingsport€Police€Department€testified€that€afterÐ )à$( Ðreceiving€information€from€Officer€Graham€on€December€5,€1996,€he€locatedÐ |*Ì%) ÐAppellant€at€a€house€in€Kingsport.€€When€Samples€asked€Appellant€if€he€had€beenÐ h+¸&* Ðto€the€Westside€Inn€on€that€date,€Appellant€initially€denied€being€there.€€WhenÐ ° ÐSamples€told€Appellant€that€he€matched€the€description€of€a€subject€who€had€beenÐ œì Ðat€that€location,€Appellant€admitted€that€he€had€been€at€the€Westside€Inn€to€use€theÐ ˆØ Ðtelephone.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€*1„*2.Ð L œ Ðà  àThe€petitioner€appealed€his€conviction€to€this€Court,€and€we€affirmed€his€conviction,€findingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€the€trial€courtððs€flight€instruction€constituted€harmless€error€and€that€all€other€grounds€of€appealÐ $ t Ðlacked€merit.€òòId.óó€at€*5„*8.€€The€petitioner€then€filed€for€post„conviction€relief€on€the€followingÐ  ` Ðgrounds,€as€summarized€by€the€post„conviction€court:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àA.€€Errors€committed€by€the€trial€court:ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à1.€€The€trial€court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€convict/sentence€the€petitioner,€as€theÐ ¬ü  Ðelements€of€the€crime€were€not€proven;€the€court€should€have€granted€a€judgment€ofÐ ˜è  Ðacquittal;Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à2.€€The€trial€court€failed€to€properly€charge€the€jury€as€to€circumstantial€evidence;Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à3.€€The€trial€court€failed€to€follow€statutory€sentencing€guidelines;Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à4.€€€The€state€committed€prosecutorial€misconduct€primarily€in€closing€argument,€andÐ  \ Ðthe€court€committed€judicial€misconduct€by€allowing€the€state€actions;€andà x àÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à5.€€The€trial€court€committed€judicial€misconduct€by:ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#àa.€€allowing€an€ð ðadmission€against€interest,ðð€knowing€that€such€ð ðadmissionððÐ ¼  Ðwas€clearly€inadmissible€hearsay;Шø` Ð ` Ð  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#àb.€€giving€an€instruction€on€flight€that€was€clearly€improper€and€bolstered€theÐ ”ä Ðstateððs€case;ЀÐ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#àc.€€giving€an€instruction€on€admission€against€interest€because€the€petitionerÐ l¼ Ðasked€for€an€instruction€on€identification;ÐX ¨` Ð ` Ð  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#àd.€€improperly€charging€the€jury€as€to€lesser€included€offenses€and€lesserÐ D!” Ðgrades€of€the€offense€charged;€andÐ0"€ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà0  àà8` (#(#àe.€€improperly€charging€the€jury€as€to€possible€length€of€sentence€for€each€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€lesser€included€offenses€and€as€to€the€minimum€amount€of€time€aÐ $X" Ðconvicted€person€would€have€to€serve€before€becoming€eligible€for€release.Ðô$D #` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8  àB.€€Ineffective€assistance€of€counsel:ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à1.€Trial€counsel€failed€to€recognize€and/or€preserve€for€appeal€all€grounds€listed€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðparagraphs€1€through€5€above;Ð)à$(Ð Ð  Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  à2.€€Trial€counsel€failed€to€argue€(presumably€before€the€trial€court)€why€the€flightÐ ° Ðâ âinstruction€was€improper,€which€allowed€the€court€to€bolster€the€stateððs€case;МìÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à3.€€Trial€counsel€failed€to€object€when€the€court€was€apparently€assisting€the€stateððsÐ tÄ Ðcase€by€deciding€€to€give€the€instruction€on€admission€against€interest;Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à4.€€Trial€counsel€did€not€cross„examine€Officer€Graham€on€the€inconsistentÐ 8 ˆ Ðstatements€as€to€ð ðthe€pretrial€evidence€where€he€was€clearly€not€stating€the€truth;ððÐ$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à5.€€Trial€counsel€did€not€cross„examine€the€victim€at€trial€regarding€her€previousÐ ü L  Ðtestimony€at€the€preliminary€hearing€that€she€pushed€the€petitioner,€then€she€fell,€andÐ è 8  Ðhe€fell€also;ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à6.€€Trial€counsel€requested€that€the€court€charge€the€jury€as€to€lesser€offenses,€contraryÐ ¬ü  Ðto€the€petitionerððs€written€request€that€lesser€offenses€not€be€charged;Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à7.€€Trial€counsel€did€not€interview€defense€witnesses,€stated€that€their€testimony€wasÐ pÀ Ðnot€beneficial€to€the€petitioner,€and€asked€questions€repeatedly€that€he€did€not€knowÐ \¬ Ðthe€answer€to;€andÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à8.€€Trial€counsel€did€not€move€to€suppress€the€victimððs€identification€of€the€petitionerÐ  p Ðand€did€not€challenge€Officer€Graham€and€the€victim€as€to€whether€the€ð ðshow„upððÐ  \ Ðpreceded€the€photo€lineup.€ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌò òó óFor€the€following€reasons,€we€find€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proving€theseÐ Ð  Ðallegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€and€therefore€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denialÐ ¼  Ðof€the€petition.Ð ¨ø ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓPost„Conviction€Standard€of€Reviewó óóóÐ €Ð ÐÌÓ¶2Óà  àIn€analyzing€the€issue€raised,€we€first€note€that€a€petitioner€bringing€a€post„conviction€petitionÐ X ¨ Ðfor€relief€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€asserted€in€the€petition€by€clear€and€convincingÐ D!” Ðevidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f)€(1997);€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.Ð 0"€  ÐCrim.€App.€1998).€€ð ðEvidence€is€clear€and€convincing€when€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubtÐ #l! Ðabout€the€correctness€of€the€conclusions€drawn€from€the€evidence."€€òòHicksóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€245€(citingÐ $X" ÐòòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€n.3€(Tenn.€1992)).€€Furthermore,€the€appellateÐ ô$D # Ðcourt€is€bound€by€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€record€preponderates€against€thoseÐ à%0!$ Ðfindings.€€òòId.óó€at€245.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓEffectiveness€of€Assistance€of€Counselóóó óÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌÓ´6Óà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€several€errors€were€committed€at€the€trial€level€and€that€his€counselÐ |*Ì%) Ðwas€ineffective€for€failing€to€raise€these€issues.€€However,€all€of€these€issues€have€been€waived,Ð h+¸&* Ðbecause€they€were€not€presented€to€this€Court€on€direct€appeal,€or€previously€determined,€becauseÐ ° Ðthey€were€presented€to€this€Court€on€direct€appeal€and€deemed€harmless€error€or€meritless.€€òòSeeóóÐ œì ÐòòGardneróó,€1999€WL€486847;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g),€(h)€(1997).€€Nevertheless,€since€theÐ ˆØ Ðpetitioner€claims€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€raise€these€issues€on€direct€appeal,€Ð tÄ Ðwe€must€consider€the€merits€of€the€waived€issues€to€determine€whether€those€issues€would€haveÐ `° Ðwarranted€relief€if€brought€on€direct€appeal,€and€therefore€whether€his€counselððs€failure€to€raise€theseÐ L œ Ðissues€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€petitioner.€€òòSeeóó€òòFred€Edmond€Dean€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E1998„00135„SC„Ð 8 ˆ ÐR11„PC,€2001€WL€1328491€(Tenn.€Oct.€30,€2001).€€After€discussing€the€issues€that€were€eitherÐ $ t Ðwaived€or€previously€determined€on€direct€appeal€and€counselððs€alleged€failure€to€raise€these€issuesÐ  ` Ðon€appeal€(the€allegations€in€paragraphs€A.1€though€B.2€above),€we€will€then€discuss€the€petitionerððsÐ ü L  Ðclaims€that€deal€with€instances€of€alleged€ineffective€representation€at€trial€(the€allegations€inÐ è 8  Ðparagraphs€B.2€through€B.8€above).Ð Ô$  Ðà  àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ À  Ðcounsel,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€(a)€the€services€rendered€by€trial€counselÐ ¬ü  Ðwere€deficient€and€(b)€that€the€deficient€performance€was€prejudicial.€€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2dÐ ˜è  Ð551,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€order€to€demonstrate€deficient€performance,€the€petitionerÐ „Ô  Ðmust€show€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€was€below€"the€range€of€competenceÐ pÀ Ðdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€InÐ \¬ Ðorder€to€demonstrate€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,Ð H˜ Ðbut€for€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€Ð 4„ ÐòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2068,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€Ð  p Ð"Because€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test€to€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÐ  \ Ðassistance€of€counsel,€failure€to€prove€either€deficient€performance€or€resulting€prejudice€providesÐ øH Ða€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€claim."€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€580€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð ä4 Ð"Moreover,€on€appeal,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€and€will€not€beÐ Ð  Ðdisturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them."€€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,Ð ¼  Ð911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€"The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€preponderated€against€those€findings."€€òòId.óóÐ ”ä ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òÓ  ÓWhether€the€Trial€Court€Had€Jurisdiction€to€Sentence€the€Petitioneróóó óÐ X ¨ ÐÌÓòDÓÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€the€trial€court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€convict€or€sentence€himÐ 0"€  Ðbecause€the€state€did€not€prove€the€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€However,€trialÐ #l! Ðcounsel€did€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€direct€appeal,€alleging€that€the€evidence€wasÐ $X" Ðnot€sufficient€to€prove€the€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€òòGardneróó,€1999€WLÐ ô$D # Ð486847,€at€*2„*3.€€This€Court€determined€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€petitionerððsÐ à%0!$ Ðconvictions.€€òòId.óó.€€Therefore,€because€this€issue€was€presented€to€this€Court€by€counsel€and€the€CourtÐ Ì&"% Ðdetermined€on€direct€appeal€that€the€issue€is€meritless,€the€petitioner€has€suffered€no€prejudice.€Ð ¸'#& ÐAccordingly,€we€find€no€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€here.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓWhether€The€Trial€Courtððs€Instruction€Regarding€Circumstantial€Evidence€Was€Properóóó óÐ h+¸&* ЇÓ2IÓà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€the€trial€court€improperly€instructed€the€jury€regardingÐ ° Ðcircumstantial€evidence€because€the€court€gave€an€instruction€on€both€direct€and€circumstantialÐ œì Ðevidence€and€€the€only€evidence€against€the€petitioner€was€circumstantial€in€nature.€€However,€as€theÐ ˆØ Ðpost„conviction€court€correctly€found,€the€trial€court€gave€proper€instructions,€as€the€jury€instructionsÐ tÄ Ðwere€very€similar€to€the€instructions€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Criminal€Instruction€42.03,Ð `° Ðwhich€outlines€the€definitions€of€and€differences€between€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€€ThisÐ L œ Ðinstruction€was€proper€because€the€evidence€against€the€petitioner€included€direct€evidence,€as€well,Ð 8 ˆ Ðas€the€victim€identified€the€petitioner€as€her€assailant€and€testified€against€him€at€trial.ò òó ó€Therefore,Ð $ t Ðbecause€this€issue€would€not€have€warranted€relief€if€presented€on€direct€appeal,€we€find€that€theÐ  ` Ðpetitioner€was€not€prejudiced€by€his€counselððs€failure€to€do€so.€Accordingly,€we€find€that€this€issueÐ ü L  Ðlacks€merit.Ð è 8  ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓWhether€the€Trial€Court€Followed€the€Statutory€Sentencing€Guidelinesóóó óÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÓ«NÓà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€follow€statutory€sentencing€guidelines,€andÐ „Ô  Ðthat€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€raise€this€issue€on€direct€appeal.€€However,€theÐ pÀ Ðpetitioner€fails€to€make€any€specific€allegations€as€to€how€the€trial€court€failed€to€follow€theseÐ \¬ Ðsentencing€guidelines.€€First,€we€find€that€there€is€an€affirmative€showing€on€the€record€that€the€trialÐ H˜ Ðcourt€properly€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances€per€òòStateÐ 4„ Ðv.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€followedÐ  p Ðthe€statutory€sentencing€guidelines.€€Although€the€trial€court€did€not€consider€whether€the€petitionerÐ  \ Ðwas€a€suitable€candidate€for€probation€or€alternative€sentencing,€we€find€that€the€courtððs€action€wasÐ øH Ðproper€because€the€petitioner€clearly€informed€the€trial€court€that€he€was€waiving€his€right€to€beÐ ä4 Ðconsidered€for€probation.ò òó ó€Because€the€trial€court€properly€followed€the€sentencing€guidelines,€thisÐ Ð  Ðissue€would€not€have€warranted€relief€if€presented€on€direct€appeal.€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€wasÐ ¼  Ðnot€prejudiced€by€his€counselððs€failure€to€do€so.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€counsel€was€notÐ ¨ø Ðineffective€in€failing€to€present€this€issue€on€direct€appeal.ò òòòÐ ”ä ÐÌÌÓ  ÓWhether€the€State€Engaged€in€Prosecutorial€Misconductó óóóÐ X ¨ ÐÌÓBUÓà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€state€exceeded€the€permissible€scope€of€its€closing€argumentÐ 0"€  Ðby€including€in€its€closing€arguments€subjects€that€were€neither€part€of€its€opening€statement€or€inÐ #l! Ðthe€defenseððs€closing€argument€and€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€raise€this€issue€onÐ $X" Ðdirect€appeal.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€complains€that€the€state€should€not€have€included€theÐ ô$D # Ðstatement€that€ð ðflight€was€not€explained,ðð€as€this€statement€improperly€shifted€the€burden€of€proofÐ à%0!$ Ðfrom€the€state€to€the€petitioner,€nor€the€reference€to€whether€the€petitioner€had€intent€to€make€a€sexualÐ Ì&"% Ðassault€by€asking€ð ðwhen€was€he€going€to€grab€her€private€parts?ððÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€29.1(b)€provides€that:Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà8  àà ` àThe€Stateððs€opening€argument€shall€cover€the€entire€scope€of€the€StateððsÐ )à$( Ðtheory,€and€the€Stateððs€closing€argument€shall€be€limited€to€the€subject€matter€coveredÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€the€Stateððs€opening€argument€and€the€defendantððs€intervening€argument.€Ð h+¸&* ÐDefendantððs€argument€is€not€limited€to€the€matters€actually€argued€by€the€State[,]€butÐ ° Ðmay€address€any€relevant€and€proper€subject.МìÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€29.1(b).€€After€reviewing€the€record,€for€the€following€reasons€we€find€that€trialÐ tÄ Ðcounsel€was€not€deficient€in€his€representation€of€the€petitioner€by€failing€to€object€to€these€remarksÐ `° Ðor€raise€this€issue€on€direct€appeal.€€Ð L œ Ðà  àThe€stateððs€remarks€regarding€whether€the€petitioner€was€attempting€a€sexual€assault€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðproper€because€they€were€made€in€the€stateððs€rebuttal€to€the€defenseððs€closing€argument.€€In€thisÐ $ t Ðrebuttal€argument,€the€state€addressed€defense€counselððs€argument€that€the€petitioner€lacked€intentÐ  ` Ðto€commit€a€sexual€assault€by€countering€that€the€petitioner€was€too€preoccupied€with€trying€to€gainÐ ü L  Ðcontrol€over€the€victim€to€have€the€opportunity€to€attempt€a€sexual€assault.€€Furthermore,€the€stateððsÐ è 8  Ðremarks€regarding€the€petitionerððs€flight€were€predicated€on€the€fact€that€the€trial€court€was€going€toÐ Ô$  Ðinstruct€the€jury€on€flight.€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€found€the€flight€instruction€to€be€erroneous,Ð À  Ðbut€deemed€it€harmless€error,€as€€the€petitionerððs€guilt€was€overwhelming€and€the€€trial€courtÐ ¬ü  Ðinstructed€the€jury€that€they€need€not€infer€flight€and€that€flight€alone€is€insufficient€to€prove€guilt.Ð ˜è  ÐòòGardneróó,€1999€WL€486847,€at€*5.€€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€stateððs€references€to€the€petitionerððsÐ „Ô  Ðflight€and€the€flight€instruction€were,€even€if€considered€erroneous,€harmless€as€well.€Because€thisÐ pÀ Ðissue€would€not€have€warranted€relief€on€direct€appeal,€we€find€that€the€petitioner€was€not€prejudicedÐ \¬ Ðby€his€counselððs€failure€to€raise€this€issue€on€direct€appeal.€€This€issue€lacks€merit.Ð H˜ ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òWhether€the€Trial€Court€Committed€Judicial€Misconductó óóóÐ  \ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€committing€several€instances€of€ð ðjudicialÐ ä4 Ðmisconduct.ðð€€First,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€an€admissionÐ Ð  Ðagainst€interest,€despite€the€fact€that€it€was€inadmissible€testimony,€and€that€his€trial€counsel€wasÐ ¼  Ðdeficient€by€failing€to€raise€this€issue€on€appeal.€€However,€trial€counsel€did€raise€this€issue€on€directÐ ¨ø Ðappeal,€and€this€Court€deemed€it€meritless.€€òòId.óó€at€*6.€€Counsel€cannot€be€said€to€be€ineffective€withÐ ”ä Ðrespect€to€this€issue.Ð €Ð Ðà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€flight€improperly€bolstered€theÐ l¼ Ðstateððs€case€and€that€his€trial€counsel€provided€ineffective€representation€by€failing€to€raise€this€issueÐ X ¨ Ðon€appeal.€€However,€trial€counsel€did€raise€this€issue€an€appeal,€and,€as€noted€above,€this€CourtÐ D!” Ðpreviously€found€the€flight€instruction€to€be€harmless€error.€€òòId.óó€at€*5.€€Therefore,€once€again,€counselÐ 0"€  Ðwas€not€ineffective€with€respect€to€this€issue.Ð #l! Ðà  àThe€petitioner€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€because€it€gave€the€instruction€on€admissionÐ $X" Ðagainst€interest€solely€because€the€petitioner€requested€an€instruction€on€identity.€€However,€the€post„Ð ô$D # Ðconviction€court€concluded€that€although€the€stateððs€attorney€suggested€that€an€instruction€on€identityÐ à%0!$ Ðshould€not€be€given€unless€an€instruction€on€statements€against€interest€was€also€given,€the€trial€courtÐ Ì&"% Ðdid€not€make€its€decision€on€this€basis.€€Furthermore,€this€Court€previously€decided€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðinstruction€on€statements€against€interest€was€proper.€€Therefore,€counselððs€actions€on€appealÐ ¤(ô#' Ðregarding€this€issue€do€not€constitute€ineffective€assistance.Ð )à$( Ðà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€(1)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€instructing€the€jury€on€the€lesserÐ |*Ì%) Ðincluded€offenses€of€his€indicted€offense,€aggravated€kidnapping,€despite€his€objection€to€suchÐ h+¸&* Ðinstructions,€(2)€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€instructed€the€jury€on€assault€causing€bodilyÐ ° Ðinjury€and€assault€by€offensive€touching,€and€(3)€that€his€trial€counsel€deficiently€represented€himÐ œì Ðby€not€raising€these€issues€on€appeal.€€First,€we€note€that€a€trial€courtððs€obligation€to€instruct€the€juryÐ ˆØ Ðon€lesser„included€offenses€of€the€indicted€crime€is€mandatory€if€the€facts€would€support€a€convictionÐ tÄ Ðfor€the€lesser€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110(a)€(1997);€òòState€v.€Boldenóó,€979€S.W.2d€587Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€€Furthermore,€we€find€that€there€was€evidence€from€which€the€jury€could€have€foundÐ L œ Ðthe€petitioner€guilty€of€the€lesser€offenses€of€assault.€€€The€petitioner€touched€the€victim€in€anÐ 8 ˆ Ðoffensive€manner€when€he€restrained€her€and€caused€her€bodily€injury,€as€evidenced€by€her€testimonyÐ $ t Ðand€photographs€of€her€injuries.€€Therefore,€€these€instructions€were€both€proper€and€mandatory,€theÐ  ` Ðpetitioner€was€not€prejudiced€by€them.€€Therefore€his€attorney€acted€appropriately€in€not€raising€thisÐ ü L  Ðissue€on€appeal.Ð è 8  Ðà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€the€trial€court€improperly€instructed€the€jury€on€(1)€the€possibleÐ Ô$  Ðlength€of€the€sentences€for€each€lesser„included€offense€and€(2)€the€minimum€amount€of€time€thatÐ À  Ðhe€would€have€to€serve€before€becoming€eligible€for€release.€€The€post„conviction€court€reviewedÐ ¬ü  Ðthis€issue€and€correctly€determined€that€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€on€the€ranges€of€punishmentÐ ˜è  Ðwere€proper,€as€they€were€in€accordance€with€those€ranges€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ „Ô  ÐSections€40„35„111(e)€and€40„35„112(b).€€Furthermore,€the€post„conviction€court€also€properlyÐ pÀ Ðconcluded€that€the€€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€regarding€release€eligibility€for€the€felony€offensesÐ \¬ Ðin€accord€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„201(b)(2)(B)€and€that€the€misdemeanorÐ H˜ Ðoffenses€required€no€instruction€on€the€minimum€release€eligibility,€as€the€minimum€sentence€for€theÐ 4„ Ðmisdemeanors€was€zero€years.€€Because€this€issue€lacks€merit,€trial€counsel€was€not€deficient€inÐ  p Ðfailing€to€raise€this€issue€on€direct€appeal.€€Ð  \ Ðà  àWhen€reviewing€the€petition,€the€post„conviction€court€also€considered€the€impact€of€the€trialÐ øH Ðcourtððs€failure€to€give€the€mandatory€instruction€informing€the€jury€that€a€defendant€may€not€beÐ ä4 Ðreleased€when€he€or€she€first€becomes€eligible€for€release€and€may€be€required€to€serve€his€or€her€fullÐ Ð  Ðterm.€€While€this€issue€was€not€included€in€the€petition€itself,€it€was€included€in€a€memorandum€ofÐ ¼  Ðlaw€attached€to€the€petition.€€ò òó óThe€post„conviction€court€considered€the€error€because€the€petitionerÐ ¨ø Ðclaimed€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€the€lack€of€a€release€eligibilityÐ ”ä Ðinstruction€at€trial€or€raise€the€issue€on€appeal.ò òó ó€€Admitting€error,€the€post„conviction€court€ultimatelyÐ €Ð Ðdeemed€the€error€to€be€harmless€in€light€of€the€overwhelming€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€guilt.€ò òó ó€WeÐ l¼ Ðagree€with€the€post„conviction€court€that€the€trial€court€did€err€by€omitting€the€statutorily€mandatedÐ X ¨ Ðsentencing€instruction€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„35„201(b)(2)(A)(ii).€€We€also€agreeÐ D!” Ðthat€the€omission€constituted€error€that€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€in€light€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðfollowing€discussion€of€relevant€legal€principles€and€€the€overwhelming€proof€of€the€petitionerððsÐ #l! Ðguilt.Ð $X" Ðà  àA€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€a€complete€and€accurate€charge€of€the€law.€€òòStateÐ ô$D # Ðv.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€€236€,€249€(Tenn.€1990).€€When€reviewing€the€charge€given€by€the€lower€court,Ð à%0!$ Ðthis€Court€must€review€the€entire€charge€and€only€invalidate€it€if,€when€read€as€a€whole,€it€fails€toÐ Ì&"% Ðfairly€submit€the€legal€issues€or€mislead€the€jury€as€to€the€applicable€law.€€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àWe€find€that€in€the€instant€case,€the€jury€was€not€mislead€as€to€the€applicable€law;€the€juryÐ )à$( Ðinstruction€was€merely€incompleteÔ#†XXXXö#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔÔ#†¼W5»XXÅ#ÔÔ‡XX»¼W5Ô.€€òòóóAdditionally,€it€seems€unlikely€that€the€jury€based€its€verdict€onÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€petitionerððs€release€eligibility,€as€they€convicted€him€of€attempted€aggravated€kidnapping,€whichÐ h+¸&* Ðcarries€a€six€(6)€to€ten€(10)€year€sentence,€instead€of€convicting€him€of€kidnapping,€which€carries€theÐ ° Ðsame€sentence€range€and€release€eligibility€date€as€attempted€aggravated€kidnapping,€or€of€aggravatedÐ œì Ðkidnapping,€which€carries€a€twelve€(12)€to€twenty€(20)€year€sentence€and€a€minimum€releaseÐ ˆØ Ðeligibility€date€of€10.2€years.€€Furthermore,€we€find€that€the€petitioner€has€not€been€prejudiced€by€thisÐ tÄ Ðomission.€€As€this€Court€noted€on€direct€appeal,€the€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€guilt€wasÐ `° Ðoverwhelming.€€òòGardneróó,€1999€WL€486847,€at€*5.€€Ô#†¼W5»XX4#ÔÔ‡XX»¼W5ÔÔ#†XXXXò~#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€Therefore,€the€petitioner€has€not€been€prejudiced,Ð L œ Ðand€his€counsel€cannot€be€faulted€in€failing€to€present€this€issue€on€appeal.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòWhether€Trial€Counsel€Was€Ineffective€by€Failing€to€Argue€Ð ü L  ÐWhy€the€Flight€Instruction€Was€Improperóóó óÐ è 8  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àTh€petitioner€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€should€have€argued€at€trial€that€the€flight€instructionÐ À  Ðwas€improper.€€However,€when€the€propriety€of€the€flight€instruction€was€raised€on€direct€appeal,€thisÐ ¬ü  ÐCourt€found€that€the€instruction€was€harmless€error.€€òòId.óó€€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€was€not€prejudicedÐ ˜è  Ðby€the€instruction€and,€accordingly,€he€was€not€prejudiced€by€his€trial€counselððs€failure€to€argue€thisÐ „Ô  Ðissue€before€the€trial€court.Ð pÀ ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓWhether€Trial€Counsel€Was€Ineffective€by€Failing€to€Object€Ð 4„ ÐWhen€the€Trial€Court€Decided€to€Give€the€Instruction€on€Admissions€Against€Interest€ó óóóÐ  p ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€object€when€the€trialÐ øH Ðcourt€decided€to€give€an€instruction€on€admission€against€interest,€which€was€objectionable€becauseÐ ä4 Ðthe€trial€court€was€assisting€the€stateððs€case.€€However,€this€Court€ruled€on€direct€appeal€that€theÐ Ð  Ðadmission€against€interest€instruction€was€proper.€€òòId.óó€at€*6.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€the€petitionerÐ ¼  Ðcould€not€have€been€prejudiced€by€his€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€this€instruction€and€accordinglyÐ ¨ø Ðfind€that€this€issue€lacks€merit.€Ð ”ä ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòWhether€Trial€Counsel€Was€Ineffective€by€Failing€to€Impeach€a€Stateððs€Witness€Ð X ¨ ÐThrough€Use€of€Prior€Inconsistent€Statementsóóó óÐ D!” ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€the€officer€failed€to€cross„Ð #l! Ðexamine€Officer€Joe€Graham,€who€investigated€the€victimððs€complaint,€on€the€grounds€that€at€trialÐ $X" Ðhe€testified€that€he€called€the€number€that€the€petitioner€had€previously€called€while€using€the€hotelððsÐ ô$D # Ðtelephone,€while€in€the€officerððs€affidavit€of€complaint,€the€officer€stated€that€ð ðCentralðð€called€thisÐ à%0!$ Ðnumber.€€However,€this€issue€was€not€material,€as€the€telephone€callððs€significance€was€that€itÐ Ì&"% Ðallowed€the€police€to€locate€the€petitioner,€who€admitted€to€having€been€in€the€motel€lobby€and€toÐ ¸'#& Ðhaving€made€a€telephone€call€from€it.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€trial€counselððs€cross„Ð ¤(ô#' Ðexamination€of€the€petitioner€was€exhaustive€and€that€trial€counsel€could€have€detracted€from€theÐ )à$( Ðpetitionerððs€case€if€counsel€had€taken€additional€time€to€cross„examine€the€officer€regarding€thisÐ |*Ì%) Ðinsignificant€issue.€€ò òó óWe€agree€with€the€post„conviction€court€and€find€that€the€petitioner€has€notÐ h+¸&* Ðdemonstrated€that€he€has€suffered€any€prejudice€by€trial€counselððs€failure€to€cross„examine€theÐ ° Ðwitness€on€this€subject.€€This€issue€lacks€merit.Ð œì ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓWhether€Trial€Counsel€Was€Ineffective€by€Failing€to€Impeach€the€Victim€with€Ð `° ÐHer€Previous€Testimony€from€the€Preliminary€Hearingó óóóÐ L œ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€failed€to€cross„examineÐ $ t Ðthe€victim€regarding€her€version€of€the€events€of€the€crime,€as€the€victimsðð€testimony€at€trial€wasÐ  ` Ðinconsistent€with€her€testimony€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€€However,€after€reviewing€the€record,€weÐ ü L  Ðfind€that€the€victimððs€testimony€at€trial€was€consistent€with€her€earlier€testimony,€and€therefore€anyÐ è 8  Ðcross„examination€of€the€victim€regarding€these€facts€would€have€only€served€to€bolster€the€victimððsÐ Ô$  Ðtestimony.€€ò òó óTherefore,€trial€counselððs€performance€was€not€deficient€in€failing€to€cross„examine€theÐ À  Ðvictim€on€this€subject.€€This€issue€lacks€merit.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòWhether€Trial€Counsel€Was€Ineffective€for€Requesting€that€the€Trial€Court€Ð pÀ ÐCharge€the€Jury€on€Lesser„Included€Offensesóóó óÐ \¬ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€filed€a€request€with€theÐ 4„ Ðcourt€asking€for€an€instruction€on€lesser€included€offenses€after€the€petitioner€asked€his€counsel,€inÐ  p Ðwriting,€not€to€file€such€a€request.€€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€counsel€testified€that€while€theÐ  \ Ðpetitioner€did€ask,€in€writing,€that€the€request€not€be€filed,€the€petitioner€must€have€later€agreed€toÐ øH Ðthe€submission€of€the€request€regarding€lesser„included€offenses,€or€counsel€would€not€have€filed€theÐ ä4 Ðrequest.€ò òó ó€€The€post„conviction€court€accredited€the€testimony€of€counsel,€ò òó óand€accordingly,€we€findÐ Ð  Ðthat€trial€counsel€was€not€deficient€by€making€this€request.€€Moreover,€we€also€note€that€because€theÐ ¼  Ðtrial€court€was€required,€pursuant€to€òòState€v.€Boldenóó,€979€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€1998)€and€TennesseeÐ ¨ø ÐCode€Annotated€Section€40-18-110(a)€(1997),€to€instruct€the€jury€on€all€lesser„included€offenses€Ð ”ä Ðwhose€elements€are€supported€by€the€facts€of€the€case,€the€petitionerððs€objection€to€such€anÐ €Ð Ðinstruction€is€immaterial.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€petitioner€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€filingÐ l¼ Ðof€this€request,€and€therefore€this€issue€lacks€merit.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òWhether€Trial€Counsel€Was€Ineffective€in€His€Preparation€and€Ð 0"€  ÐDirect€Examination€of€Defense€Witnessesó óóóÐ #l! ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€when€handling€the€defense€witnesses,Ð ô$D # Ðas€he€did€not€interview€them,€stated€that€their€testimony€was€not€beneficial€to€the€petitioner,€or€askedÐ à%0!$ Ðquestions€of€them€during€direct€examination€to€which€he€did€not€know€the€answer.€€However,Ð Ì&"% Ðbecause€the€petitioner€alleged€that€his€counsel€failed€to€interview€witnesses,€he€had€a€duty€to€present€Ð ¸'#& Ðthese€witnesses€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€so€that€this€court€might€determine€whether€theirÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtestimony€might€have€altered€the€results€of€the€trial.€€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.Ð )à$( Ðâ âCrim.€App.€1990).€€The€petitioner€failed€to€do€so.€€Furthermore,€the€petitioner€also€failed€to€presentÐ |*Ì%) Ðany€proof€that€counsel€asked€questions€of€witnesses€at€trial€to€which€he€did€not€know€the€answer.€Ð ° ÐAccordingly,€the€petitioner€has€not€met€his€burden,€and€therefore€we€find€that€this€issue€lacks€merit.Ð œì Ðâ âÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òWhether€Trial€Counsel€was€Ineffective€By€Failing€to€Ð L œ ÐChallenge€the€Identification€of€the€Petitioner€as€the€Assailantó óóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€question€the€investigatingÐ  ` Ðofficer€regarding€whether€the€ð ðshow„up,ðð€at€which€the€victim€identified€the€petitioner,€preceded€theÐ ü L  Ðphoto€identification,€at€which€she€also€identified€the€petitioner,€and€for€failing€to€move€to€suppressÐ è 8  Ðthe€victimððs€identification€of€the€petitioner€as€her€assailant€on€the€basis€that€it€was€illegally€obtained.€Ð Ô$  ÐHowever,€after€reviewing€the€record,€we€find€that€€the€photo€identification€preceded€the€show„up,Ð À  Ðnot€vice€versa,ò òó ó€and€therefore€counsel€was€not€deficient€for€failing€to€question€the€officer€regardingÐ ¬ü  Ðthis€fact€or€moving€to€suppress€the€identification€on€the€basis€that€it€was€illegally€obtained.€€ThisÐ ˜è  Ðissue€lacks€merit.Ð „Ô  ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓConclusionóóó óÐ H˜ ÐÌÓ”¤Óà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€that€none€of€the€petitionerððs€allegations€merit€relief.€Ð  p ÐAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ô#†XXXX!ƒ#ÔÔ#†¼W5»XXß‚#ÔÔ€XX»¼W5ÔÐ  \ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¼  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ ¨ø ÐÌ