ÿWPCv! b#Ál %-^ 3 0ˆ?UNÇw4 z-Ò§y ˆ mŠ Æ¡ Æg Æ- Æó ¹ NÁ 0Dà E 0J 0TS 0^§ 0h 0rm 0|ß 0†[ 0á 1uq 0dæU >JU*ˆÀ²Ürv~NvÓÌbŸ 0ë§ B’ 0p¯ D3 D-R 0K ASÊÆ 0¤ã 0D‡ A«Ë ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»¸©+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo†)  k1¬£ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (#Ã$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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times ¶Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€(ôÔÔ_ÔThe€police€officer€apparently€inadvertently€taped€the€second€drug€transaction€over€a€portion€of€the€first€drugÏtransaction.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔGoinsÔ_Ôóó,€2000€WL€527763,€at€*1.€Ì ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€(ôÔÔ_ÔTrial€counsel€apparently€stated€in€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€had€been€aware€that€there€was€someÏproblem€with€the€tape€several€days€prior€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔGoinsÔ_Ôóó,€2000€WL€527763,€at€*5.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò- ù-(|G2ÿš$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôôÍò»»Ô d(H"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡q$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÔ€(¼ÔÑ#€))¼d#ÑÑ#€))¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€™XXdì»»d8Ñà@ àÔ€(îÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÔ€(¼ÔÌÓ  Óà àà àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€11,€2001ÌÔ€(XÔÌò òÔ€(¼ÔLEON€GOINS€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ€(XÔó óÌÌò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Dyer€CountyÌNo.€C98„204€€€€€€Lee€Moore,€JudgeÌÌÌà@ àßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÌÌNo.€W2000„02608„CCA„R3„PC€€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Filed€August€3,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÌó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€on€his€conviction€for€the€sale€of€.5€gramsÏof€cocaine,€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substance.€€In€his€òòpro€se€óópetition€for€post„conviction€relief,€theÏpetitioner€alleged€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€thoroughly€investigate€and€keepÏhim€informed€of€vital€information€regarding€his€case.€€After€the€appointment€of€post„convictionÏcounsel€and€a€hearing€on€the€petition,€the€court€denied€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€TheÏpetitioner€filed€a€timely€appeal€to€this€court,€raising€the€sole€issue€of€whether€the€post„convictionÏcourt€erred€in€finding€that€he€had€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€Based€upon€a€careful€reviewÏof€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.€ÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòJerry€L.ÏSmith,€JJ.óó,€joined.ÌÌThomas€E.€Weakley,€Dyersburg,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Leon€Goins.ÌÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Laura€McMullen€Ford,€Assistant€AttorneyÏGeneral;€and€C.€Phillip€Bivens,€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÌÌò òòòFACTSó óóóÓ  Óà àOn€August€10,€1998,€the€petitioner,€Leon€Goins,€was€indicted€by€the€Dyer€CountyÏGrand€Jury€on€two€counts€of€the€sale€of€.5€grams€of€cocaine.€€He€was€subsequently€convicted€onÏone€count€of€the€sale€of€.5€grams€of€cocaine,€a€Class€B€felony,€and€sentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multipleÏoffender€to€fifteen€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction,€with€the€sentence€to€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€a€seven„year€sentence€on€a€prior€burglary€conviction.€€The€petitionerððs€convictionÏand€sentence€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal€to€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Leon€Goinsóó,€No.€W1999„00157„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€527763,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€2,€2000).€ÌÌà àOn€May€22,€2000,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€allegingÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€petitioner€alleged€that€trial€counsel€had€been€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€assist€him€in€filing€motions€and€in€not€obtaining€copies€of€motions€filed€by€him.€€He€Ïfurther€alleged€that€trial€counsel€had€been€aware€several€days€prior€to€trial€that€the€videotape€copyÏprepared€by€the€State€of€the€drug€transaction€had€been€partially€taped€over,€and€that€a€full,€moreÏincriminating€version€existed€but€failed€to€copy€the€full€version€to€show€to€him,€or€to€inform€himÏthat€the€tape€the€petitioner€had€viewed€was€incomplete.€€Post„conviction€counsel€was€appointed€and,Ïon€August€8,€2000,€filed€a€notice€that€no€amendment€to€the€petition€would€be€filed.€ÌÌà àAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€August€24,€2000.€€The€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testifiedÏthat€he€was€employed€by€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office,€and€that€he€had€been€appointed€to€representÏthe€petitioner€in€August€1998.€€He€said€that€he€had€discussed€the€case€with€the€petitioner€onÏð ðnumerous€occasions,ðð€and€that€he€had€filed€discovery€motions€on€the€petitionerððs€behalf.€€TheÏpetitioner,€he€said,€ð ðshould€have€been€awareðð€that€he€was€filing€motions€for€him.€€As€he€recalled,Ïhowever,€the€petitioner€had€filed€motions€on€his€own,€consisting€of€requests€for€a€speedy€trial€andÏthat€he€receive€copies€of€all€discovery€materials.€ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€requested€from€the€State€a€copy€of€the€videotape€of€theÏpetitionerððs€alleged€drug€transaction.€€Approximately€three€or€four€weeks€prior€to€trial,€he€hadÏreceived€a€copy€that€had€been€prepared€by€the€law€enforcement€investigator€involved€in€the€case.€€HeÏhad€viewed€the€tape€ð ðnumerous€timesðð€and€had€shown€it€to€the€petitioner,€taking€a€videocassette€Ïrecorder€to€the€jail€where€the€petitioner€was€housed.€€At€that€time,€he€had€not€known€that€a€portion€ofÏthe€videotape€had€been€recorded€over.× ƒ* ××  ×€€Trial€counsel€said€that€the€petitioner€had€decided€to€goÏforward€to€trial€before€viewing€the€tape,€and€that€there€was€ð ðno€changeðð€after€assessing€the€tape.€ÏThe€petitioner€had€never€indicated€any€desire€other€than€to€go€to€trial.€€The€State€had€offered€him€aÏplea€bargain€of€ten€years€on€each€count,€to€be€served€concurrently,€but€he€had€refused.€ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€not€discovered€that€the€videotape€had€been€partially€tapedÏover€until€the€morning€of€the€trial.€€When€viewing€the€tape,€he€had€noticed€that€it€contained€a€sectionÏat€the€beginning€in€which€the€scene€being€filmed€had€ð ðclick[ed]€over€to€another€viewing,€anotherÏthing.ðð€€He€had€come€in€at€about€5€a.m.€on€the€morning€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€and€reviewed€theÏtape€three€times,€paying€careful€attention€to€that€scene.€€After€studying€the€tape,€he€had€come€to€theÏconclusion€that€a€portion€of€it€had€been€taped€over,€and€ð ðstarted€to€try€to€think€about€things€that€[he]Ïcould€do€in€regards€to€that[.]ðð€ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€said€that€he€had€requested€that€the€trial€court€suppress€the€tape,€but€his€requestÏhad€been€denied.€€He€could€not€recall€whether€he€had€asked€the€trial€court€for€a€continuance€in€orderÏto€obtain€and€review€a€proper€copy€of€the€tape.€€He€indicated,€however,€that€he€had€thought€that€theÏpetitioner€stood€a€better€chance€of€avoiding€a€conviction€without€the€tape,€and€had€considered€it€to€beÏa€better€trial€tactic€to€ask€that€the€tape€be€suppressed,€rather€than€request€a€continuance,€in€the€hopesÏthat€they€could€proceed€to€trial€without€the€videotape€evidence.ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€thought€that€he€had€mentioned€to€the€petitioner€on€the€morning€of€the€trial€thatÏhe€had€discovered€a€problem€with€the€videotape€and€that€he€was€going€to€try€to€have€it€suppressed.€ÏHe€could€not€remember,€however,€if€he€had€talked€about€it€in€detail.€€He€had€not€told€the€petitionerÏthat€there€was€another€version€of€the€tape€because€he€had€not€known,€at€that€time,€that€anotherÏversion€existed.€€He€subsequently€learned€at€trial€that€there€was€a€copy€of€the€full€drug€transaction.ÏThe€Stateððs€request€to€have€that€copy€admitted€into€evidence€had€been€granted,€so€that€ultimatelyÏboth€tapes€were€admitted€at€trial.€€Trial€counsel€acknowledged€that€the€full€tape€was€much€moreÏdamaging€to€the€petitioner€than€the€copy€that€the€petitioner€had€viewed,€and€that€the€petitionerððsÏchances€of€avoiding€a€conviction€would€have€been€greater€if€only€the€ð ðbadðð€tape€had€been€shown.€ÏBefore€he€had€known€of€the€existence€of€the€full€tape,€he€had€urged€the€petitioner€to€consider€theÏplea€bargain€that€had€been€offered€by€the€State€prior€to€trial.€€Had€he€known€of€the€full€tape,€he€said,Ïhe€would€have€ð ðtried€to€have€been€much€more€forcefulðð€in€urging€the€petitioner€to€accept€theÏStateððs€offer.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€complained€that€trial€counsel€had€not€come€to€talk€to€him€in€the€jail€ð ðasÏquickly€and€as€oftenðð€as€he€had€wanted.€€He€said€that€trial€counsel€had€not€informed€him€about€theÏmotions€he€was€filing€on€the€petitionerððs€behalf,€and€had€not€talked€to€him€about€the€motions€thatÏthe€petitioner€was€filing.€€He€had€not€known€that€trial€counsel€had€filed€a€discovery€motion€for€him.€ÏHe€also€had€not€known€that€he€was€not€supposed€to€file€motions€on€his€own€until€the€judge€calledÏhim€and€trial€counsel€to€court€and€told€him€that€he€could€not€file€motions€without€his€lawyer€presentÏto€help€him.€€Trial€counsel,€he€said,€had€told€him€to€send€any€future€motions€directly€to€his€office.€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€testified€that€trial€counselððs€secretary€had€brought€a€copy€of€the€ð ðbadðð€tapeÏto€him€in€jail€ð ðsome€time€priorðð€to€the€trial,€and€that€he€had€viewed€it€twice.€€The€tape€was€short,€andÏit€was€difficult€to€see€who€was€on€it.€€Citing€trial€counselððs€statements€at€the€suppression€hearing,Ïthe€petitioner€claimed€that€trial€counsel€had€known€that€there€was€a€problem€with€the€tape€severalÏdays€before€trial,€but€had€not€told€him€about€the€problem.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€petitioner€said€that€he€had€notÏlearned€of€the€existence€of€the€full€version€of€the€tape€until€trial.€€He€had€first€seen€the€full€tape€onÏthe€morning€of€trial,€just€before€the€trial€began.€€The€full€tape€was€very€incriminating,€and€he€wouldÏhave€wanted€to€plead€guilty€if€he€had€seen€that€version€before€trial.€€If€he€could€have€accepted€theÏStateððs€plea€bargain€offer€at€that€point,€he€would€have,€but€he€had€understood€that€the€offer€had€beenÏgood€for€only€ten€days€and€his€time€for€accepting€it€had€expired.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€had€wanted€the€case€postponed€so€thatÏhe€and€his€lawyer€could€at€least€discuss€the€full€tape€and€determine€ð ðexactly€what€was€going€on€onÏthis€thing.ðð€€He€had€not€known€at€that€time€if€he€wanted€to€enter€a€guilty€plea.€€However,€he€hadÏthought€it€might€be€a€good€idea,€given€the€incriminating€nature€of€the€tape.€€He€thought€that€trialÏcounsel€should€have€shown€him€the€full€tape€several€days€before€trial,€when€counsel€first€learned€ofÏthe€problem,€so€that€he€could€have€been€fully€informed€and€the€trial€would€have€been€fair.€€However,Ïhe€could€not€explain€how€counselððs€failure€to€show€him€the€full€version€of€the€tape€had€prejudicedÏthe€outcome€of€his€case:ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€€€€Okay.€€I€guess,€again,€my€question,€Mr.€Goins,€is,€how€did€thatÏadversely€affect€you,€the€fact€that€he€knew€there€was€another€tapeÏthere,€and€you€didnððt€know€it€until€the€day€of€trial?€€What€did€youÏwant€done€that€wasnððt€done?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€€€€I€wanted€a€fair€trial,€and€I€donððt€feel€like€I€got€that.€€I€feel€like€IÏwas€ambushed,€because€I€didnððt€know€about€the€tape.ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€€€€You€donððt€think€the€trial€was€fair€because€the€judge€let€the€tapeÏin?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€€€€Yes.€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€petitioner€hadÏfailed€to€meet€his€burden€of€showing€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€denied€the€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.ÌÌà@ àò òòòANALYSISÌÌà àó óóóThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€evidence€showed€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failingÏto€communicate€and€keep€him€informed€of€the€progress€of€his€case,€and€for€failing€to€obtain€aÏcorrected€copy€of€the€videotape€to€show€him€before€trial.€€He€argues€that€if€trial€counsel€had€beenÏproviding€zealous€representation,€he€would€have€recognized€the€problem€with€the€tape€prior€to€theÏday€of€trial€and€obtained€a€corrected€version€to€show€to€the€petitioner€while€the€plea€bargain€offerÏwas€still€on€the€table.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€if€he€had€known€of€the€existence€of€the€full€tape,€heÏwould€have€accepted€the€Stateððs€plea€offer€of€ten€years.ÌÌà àThe€State€contends€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€show€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€hisÏrepresentation,€or€that€any€alleged€deficiency€in€representation€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€his€case.€ÏIn€particular,€the€State€argues€that€even€if€the€petitionerððs€allegations€that€trial€counsel€knew€of€theÏproblem€with€the€tape€several€days€prior€to€trial€were€true,€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€anyÏevidence€to€show€that€the€plea€bargain€offer€was€still€open€at€that€time,€and,€thus,€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€counselððs€failure€to€obtain€a€corrected€version€of€the€tape.ÌÌÇà@ àò òI.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óà@ àÌÌà à€The€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏby€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€The€post„convictionÏcourtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€post„conviction€hearing€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€inÏthe€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).ÏThe€courtððs€conclusions€of€law,€however,€are€reviewed€purely€òòde€novoóó.€€òòId.óó€€The€issue€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€presents€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact€and€is€therefore€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,Ïwith€a€presumption€of€correctness€given€to€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact.€€òòFields€v.ÏStateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).€€òòò òà àó óóóÌÌà àTo€succeed€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€ofÏshowing€both€that€his€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€that€counselððs€deficientÏperformance€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€the€proceeding,€in€that€the€result€of€his€trial€was€unreliableÏor€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.ÏCt.€2052,€2064,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1997)€(noting€that€the€same€standard€for€determining€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏthat€is€applied€in€federal€cases€also€applies€in€Tennessee).ÌÌà àThe€deficient€performance€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€that€ð ðcounselððs€acts€orÏomissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailingÏprofessional€norms.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466ÏU.S.€at€688,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065,€and€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975)).€€TheÏprejudice€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€a€ð ðreasonable€probabilityðð€that€the€outcome€ofÏthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different€had€it€not€been€for€counselððs€deficiencies€in€performance.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€When€analyzing€a€petitionerððs€allegations€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€reviewing€court€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€theÏconduct€of€counsel€falls€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance,€òòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466ÏU.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€not€second„guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€madeÏby€trial€counsel€unless€those€choices€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóóÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àBecause€both€prongs€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test€must€be€satisfied€before€a€petitioner€can€succeedÏon€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€a€failure€to€show€either€deficient€performance€orÏresulting€prejudice€results€in€a€failure€to€establish€the€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,Ï580€(Tenn.€1997).€€Courts,€therefore,€need€not€€approach€the€test€in€a€specific€order,€or€evenÏð ðaddress€both€components€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€on€one.ðð€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370€(stating€thatÏð ðfailure€to€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€theÏineffective€assistance€claimðð).ÌÌÇà@ àò òII.€€Motionsó óÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€first€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€concern€trial€counselððs€failure€to€Ïð ðmeet€with€him€as€requestedðð€regarding€the€motions€he€was€filing€in€the€case.€€At€the€hearing,€theÏpetitioner€initially€testified€that€trial€counsel€would€not€meet€with€him€to€discuss€and€assist€in€theÏmotions€the€petitioner€was€filing,€and€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€tell€him€that€he€had€filed€a€discoveryÏmotion€on€his€behalf.€€He€admitted,€however,€that€trial€counsel€had€met€with€him€at€the€jail€on€aÏnumber€of€occasions,€and€indicated€that,€on€at€least€one€occasion,€they€had€discussed€the€motions:ÌÌà8 àà8 àQ.€€€€€Okay.€€But€he€didnððt€talk€to€you€in€particular€about€theseÏmotions;€is€that€correct?ÌÌà8 àà8 àA.€€€€€No.€€I€brought€ððem€up,€and€I€asked€him€had€he€did€anything€onÏthe€motions€that€Iððd€filed,€ððcause€I€wanted€to€know€more€about€theÏpolice€officer€and€other€things,€.€.€.€and€he€said€he€was€gonna€takeÏcare€of€it€and€heððll€get€back€with€me.€€But€everything€that€I€filed,€heÏbasically€never€did€anything.€ÌÌThe€petitioner€also€testified€that€trial€counsel€had€told€him,€after€their€meeting€with€the€judge,€to€sendÏany€future€motions€that€he€wanted€to€file€directly€to€counselððs€office.€€ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€€met€with€the€petitioner€numerous€times€to€discuss€theÏcase€and€that€he€had€filed€discovery€motions,€including€a€request€for€the€videotape€of€the€drugÏtransaction€from€the€State.€€No€evidence€was€presented€to€show€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€requestÏany€relevant€discovery€material€from€the€State,€or€that€the€petitioner€was€prejudiced€by€counselððsÏalleged€failure€to€discuss€with€him€the€motions€that€the€petitioner€was€filing.€€ÌÌà àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€trial€counsel€had€filed€all€necessary€discovery€motionsÏin€the€case.€€The€court€found€that€counsel€had€not€been€deficient€with€regard€to€the€motions,€and€thatÏthe€petitioner€had€failed€to€demonstrate€how€he€had€been€prejudiced€by€counselððs€alleged€failures.€ÏThe€record€supports€these€findings.€€The€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€on€thisÏclaim.€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Videotape€Evidence€ó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner€also€alleges€that€trial€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistance€by€his€failure€toÏð ðreasonably€and€competently€scrutinize€the€copy€of€the€video€tapeðð€that€had€been€given€to€him€byÏthe€State,€contending€that€counsel€should€have€recognized€the€problem€with€the€tape€earlier,€andÏrequested€a€corrected€copy€to€show€to€the€petitioner€before€trial.€€Asserting€that€he€would€haveÏaccepted€the€Stateððs€plea€offer€if€he€had€known€of€the€full€version€of€the€tape,€he€argues€thatÏcounselððs€failure€to€obtain€the€corrected€copy€ð ðhad€the€very€prejudicial€result€of€not€allowing€[him]Ïto€take€the€plea€offer€of€10€years[.]ðð€€The€post„conviction€court€found,€however,€that€the€petitionerÏhad€failed€to€show€that€trial€counselððs€acts€or€omissions€with€regard€to€the€videotape€evidenceÏconstituted€a€deficiency€in€performance,€or€that€any€alleged€deficiency€in€performance€had€resultedÏin€prejudice€to€the€petitioner.€€Again,€the€evidence€supports€these€findings.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€if€trial€counsel€had€competently€scrutinized€the€videotape€copyÏhe€received€from€the€State,€he€would€have€recognized€the€tape„over€problem€earlier.€€However,€theÏpetitioner€himself€viewed€the€tape€twice,€apparently€without€noting€anything€amiss.€€Trial€counselÏtestified€that€he€had€watched€the€videotape€on€ð ðnumerous€occasions,ðð€and€indicated€that€it€had€beenÏvery€difficult€to€detect€that€a€portion€of€it€had€been€taped€over.€€No€evidence€was€offered€to€showÍthat€€trial€counsel,€in€failing€to€recognize€the€problem€earlier,€ð ðf[e]ll€below€an€objective€standard€ofÏreasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.Ï1996)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€688,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065,€and€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó€523€S.W.2d€930,Ï936€(Tenn.€1975)).€€The€petitioner,€therefore,€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€showing€a€deficiency€inÏcounselððs€performance.ÌÌà àFurthermore,€the€petitioner€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€as€a€result€of€counselððsÏfailure€to€recognize€the€videotape€problem€and€obtain€a€corrected€copy€of€the€tape€prior€to€trial.€€TheÏpetitionerððs€claims€of€prejudice€are€based€on€his€assertion€that€he€would€have€accepted€the€StateððsÏoffer€of€ten€years,€to€be€served€concurrently€to€the€seven„year€sentence€on€his€prior€burglaryÏconviction,€had€he€viewed€the€videotape€of€the€full€transaction€before€trial.€€He€failed€to€offer€anyÏproof,€however,€to€show€that€the€Stateððs€offer€had€still€been€open€when€counsel€allegedly€firstÏlearned€of€the€problem€with€the€videotape.€€The€State€indicated€in€closing€argument€that€the€pleaÏoffer€had€been€made€in€August,€several€months€before€the€trial€began.€€The€petitioner€testified€thatÏhis€understanding,€ð ðaccording€to€the€papers€that€[he€had]€read,ðð€was€that€the€plea€offer€had€beenÏgood€for€only€ten€days.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€received€his€copy€of€the€videotape€fromÏthe€State€approximately€three€or€four€weeks€before€trial.€€If€such€was€the€case,€the€Stateððs€plea€offerÏhad€already€expired€not€only€by€the€time€that€counsel€allegedly€first€learned€of€the€problems€withÏthe€tape,€but€also€by€the€time€that€counsel€received€his€copy€from€the€State.€€Therefore,€even€ifÏcounsel€was€deficient€for€failing€to€obtain€a€corrected€version€of€the€videotape€prior€to€trial,€noÏprejudice€to€the€petitioner€could€have€occurred.€€The€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€post„convictionÏrelief€on€this€claim.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONÌÌóóó óà àWe€conclude€that€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€post„conviction€courtððsÏfinding€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€demonstrating€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.€à àà àÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE