ÿWPC'  ‡_.§vD׿ÚÖ¿V8`/“ᅧ &òŸ‹zuþF–n f§N&#Ž!ó&žûìïvÐv)ÒÖ+œó4ùÚŒ‚EM5vÔ.Æ–M"£÷ˆAÆ)©O¥Z ª):¸Ï…`o8 5IPu k×[ÜØÒKªt«ñdÆiÌ2h€ÄÞªÒóÊž õ†yýè ¼áŸO‚‚ÚãÕ×…-Õm‹/7ÐÔ§Pãõà@*ÇNpz¡š=ˆO·ð8—f‰Þž¥Ô¹oÂꔂÿ©â/8ƒi‰¬_ôq@k©µåºFƒ‰†¤“Ð9²®Ð@{+VUÙݸ¡ˆ94ƒ¿:(?µÖ·Ù%Ø“÷Ž)Ðæñ>Èëþ¿šÞrJXËS{bhÍvÿà®>õLê‹Q„iE8»›ÇS-¥]_/Åä -”KéöÆ™‘¤‚k¡™%…X8˜cô±³×Eø+uy1#¢0 ùon=+•´[nÊ2kl@%6…­Àbv|öÄ~“R~éÍå†ÿX3mr2]2ëg—_½D,",RÑJÖLv»”ýj½ñ©Ÿ›Tq´šïh0 N„Ë—Ž‰ËÇL…j¨-(Š:\•&ÕpIÙz´™.§Ù­ç4 ÛFÕõF ¼-b#Á\ % UU># 0ˆa UbNé ^ 7 wC zG ÒÁ 4“ § ¶ m¸ ÆÏ Æ• Æ[ Æ!çNýýýEÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÏ 0DÐÐÐÐÐbÁ.-ï 0ë B 0¤, D3Ð D- 0K00 AS{ÆÎ 0¤” 0D8 A«|˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ô\  `‹&Times New Roman(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular-­-s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptüPH,.bkÔcª3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ñ ø Ñ ÅÝ ƒRJá$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô‡ôéòòôéÔFurthermore,€despite€the€petitionerððs€assertion€that€he€was€denied€access€to€his€trial€record,€including€the€juryÐ ° Ðinstructions,€the€petitioner€quotes€portions€of€those€instructions€in€his€petition.€Ô_Ôò òó óÔ#†ôéòòôé€#ÔÔ_Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- Ý ƒRJá$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€representation€that€the€petitioner€had€worked€as€a€paralegal€was€later€determined€to€be€Ô_Ôfalse.ò òó óÔ_Ô ·Ý ƒRJá$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àThe€petitioner€also€refers€to€another€inconsistency€between€the€victimððs€trial€testimony€and€her€swornÐ ° Ðstatement€in€her€arrest€affidavit,€namely€that€in€her€affidavit€the€victim€states€that€the€ð ð[s]ubject]€was€leaving€whenÐ tÄ Ðaffiantððs€husband€drove€Ô_ÔupÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô,ððÔ_Ô€while€at€trial€the€victim€testified€that€the€petitioner€only€began€to€leave€when€her€husbandÐ 8ˆ Ðdrove€up.€€Again,€the€petitioner€admitted€at€trial€that€he€was€indeed€at€the€victimððs€home.€€Therefore,€although€theÐ üL Ðpetitioner€now€claims€that€if€he€had€impeached€the€victim€with€this€inconsistency,€he€would€have€been€able€toÐ À Ðdemonstrate€that€the€victim€had€fabricated€the€entire€incident,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€impeachment€value€of€theÐ „Ô Ðaffidavits€Ô_Ôis€so€significant€that€it€wouldÔ_Ô€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€€€ #Ý ƒRJá$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€assume€this€because€neither€the€technical€record€nor€the€transcripts€from€the€petitionerððs€trial€are€part€ofÐ ° Ðthe€record€filed€for€review.(|G2Já$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéò»»Ô þÝ ƒRJá$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€petitioner€also€raises€this€issue€as€a€deprivation€of€his€constitutional€right€to€effective€cross„examination,Ð ° Ðclaiming€that€because€he€was€denied€access€to€these€affidavits,€he€was€also€denied€an€opportunity€to€effectively€cross„Ð tÄ Ðexamine€the€witness.€Because€we€find€that€the€impeachment€value€of€these€affidavits€is€significantly€diminished€in€lightÐ 8ˆ Ðof€the€petitionerððs€admitted€presence€at€the€crime€scene,€we€find€that€he€was€not€denied€his€right€to€effective€cross„Ð üL Ðexamination€because€he€could€not€impeach€the€victim€with€her€affidavits.€€ò òó ó d(|3Gˆ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gˆ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J­»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼J­»»»ÔÑ8€ ÁXXdì»»d8ÑÑ€Oª Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î_ J­ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼J­»îî_ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€18,€2001€Ð üL ÐÔ‡X ÁX»¼J­ÔÌò òÔ#†¼J­»XX Á5#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JOHN€L.€GOODWIN,€IIIòòóóÔ‡X ÁX»¼J­Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òPost„Conviction€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€5718€€€€€€Tom€E.€Gray,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00044„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€August€2,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÌà  àThe€petitioner,€John€L.€Goodwin,€III,€was€convicted€of€attempted€rape€and€aggravatedÐ d´ Ðburglary.€€òòState€v.€John€L.€Goodwin,€IIIóó,€No.€01„C01„9108„CR„00242,€1992€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð P  ÐLEXIS€859,Ô#†X ÁXXX Áã#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€Nov.€12,€1992).€Ô#†X ÁXXX Á9#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔThe€petitioner€decided€to€waiveÐ <Œ Ðhis€right€to€a€direct€appeal€of€his€verdict€and€filed€a€post„conviction€petition€for€review.€€òòId.óó€€HisÐ (x Ðpetition€was€denied,€and€on€appeal€this€Court€found€that€the€petitioner€waived€his€right€to€a€directÐ d Ðappeal€based€on€erroneous€advice€of€counsel€and€thus€granted€him€an€opportunity€to€file€a€motionÐ P Ðfor€new€trial€and€bring€a€delayed€direct€appeal.€€òòId.óó€at€**3„4.€€The€petitioner€filed€a€motion€for€newÐ ì< Ðtrial,€which€the€trial€court€denied,€and€the€petitioner€brought€a€delayed€direct€appeal€before€thisÐ Ø( ÐCourt.€€òòState€v.€Goodwinóó,€909€S.W.2d€35,€37€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1995).Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁÒ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€€This€Court€affirmed€theÐ Ä Ðpetitionerððs€conviction,€but€remanded€the€petitionerððs€case€for€re„sentencing.€€òòId.óó€at€45„46.€€TheÐ ° Ðpetitioner€was€re„sentenced,€and€he€appealed€his€new€sentence€to€this€Court,€as€well€as€the€trialÐ œì Ðcourtððs€denial€of€his€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€€òòState€v.€John€L.€Goodwin,€IIIóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CR„Ð ˆØ Ð00013,€Ó SÓÔ#†X ÁXXX Á #ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÓÈÓ1997€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€679Ó SÓÓÈÓÔ#†X ÁXXX Á #ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€23,€1997).Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁÔ #ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁԀРtÄ ÐWe€reviewed€his€sentence€and€ultimately€found€that€the€trial€court€properly€imposed€the€petitionerððsÐ `° Ðnew€sentence.€€òòId.óó€€While€this€Court€was€reviewing€the€petitionerððs€appeal€of€his€new€sentence,€heÐ L œ Ðfiled€an€ð ðapplication€for€òòcoram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ôóó€and/or€in€the€alternative€to€re„open€post„conviction€petition.ðð€Ð 8!ˆ  ЀòòJohn€L.€Goodwin,€III€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M2000„0757„CCA„R28„CO,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€atÐ $"t! ÐNashville,€Sept.€19,€1997)€(no€electronic€database€citation€available).€€Ô#†X ÁXXX Ám #ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€The€trial€court€dismissed€thisÐ #`" Ðpleading,€and€we€affirmed€that€ruling.€€òòJohn€L.€Goodwin,€III€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9608„CR„00337Ð ü#L# Ð(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€Sept.€19,€1997)€(no€electronic€database€citation€available)Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁA#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ.Ô#†X ÁXXX Á«#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€€TheÐ è$8 $ Ðpetitioner€then€filed€a€motion€to€re„open€his€post„conviction€petition,€which€was€ultimately€dismissedÐ Ô%$!% Ðwithout€a€hearing.€€òòId.óó€€Thus,€we€remanded€his€case€for€a€hearing€to€determine€the€merits€of€whatÐ À&"& Ðwas,€essentially,€his€post„conviction€petition.€€The€petitioner€now€brings€the€instant€appeal€of€theÐ ¬'ü"' Ðdenial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€challenging:€the€fairness€of€his€post„convictionÐ ˜(è#( Ðhearing;€his€sentence;€his€notice€of€the€charges€against€him;€the€constitutionality€of€Tennessee€RuleÐ „)Ô$) Ðof€Criminal€Procedure€44(a);€the€alleged€conspiracy€between€various€court€officers€against€him;€theÐ p*À%* Ðeffectiveness€of€his€counsel;€and€the€jury€instructions.€€After€reviewing€the€petitionerððs€claims,€weÐ \+¬&+ Ðfind€that€they€are€either€waived,€previously€determined,€or€without€merit.Ô#†X ÁXXX Áî#ÔÔ#†¼J­»XX Á±#ÔÔ‡X ÁX»¼J­ÔÐ H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý÷ ÐÓ×ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼J­»àX Á#ÔÔ‡X ÁX.¼J­ÔJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó€and€òòDavid€G.Ð tÄ ÐHayes,€J.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌJohn€L.€Goodwin,€III,€òòóóÔ_ÔPikevilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€òòpro€seóó.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€David€H.Ð  ` ÐÔ_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Lawrence€Ray€Whitley,€District€Attorney€General;€and€DeeÐ ü L  ÐDavid€Gay,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è 8  ÐÓÚÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼J­»XX Á #ÔÔ‡X ÁX»¼J­ÔÐ À  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼J­»XX Á$#ÔÔ‡X ÁX»¼J­ÔÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔà@!ìàFactual€Backgroundó óóóˆÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€the€petitionerððs€delayed€direct€appeal,€this€Court€summarized€the€facts€of€his€case€asÐ pÀ Ðfollows:Ð \¬ Ðà8  àOn€August€3,€1989,€the€victim€returned€from€work€to€her€home,€in€Ô_ÔHendersonvilleÔ_Ô,Ð H˜ ÐTennessee,€between€3:30€and€4:00€in€the€afternoon.€She€went€back€to€her€bedroomÐ 4„ Ðto€lie€down.€While€she€was€lying€down,€she€heard€a€door€slam.€Thinking€it€was€herÐ  p Ðdaughter€or€husband,€whom€she€was€expecting,€the€victim€got€up€to€see€who€it€was.Ð  \ ÐUpon€opening€the€door€to€her€bedroom,€she€saw€the€Defendant€standing€in€herÐ øH Ðhallway.€She€told€him€to€get€out€of€her€house,€but€he€grabbed€her€by€the€arms€andÐ ä4 Ðpushed€her€into€the€adjacent€guest€bedroom.€The€victim€stated€at€trial€that€theÐ Ð  ÐDefendant€repeated,€ð ðYou€know€you€want€it,ðð€several€times.€The€victim€attemptedÐ ¼  Ðto€fight€the€Defendant€off.€He€pushed€her€onto€the€bed,€ripped€her€blouse,€tore€her€braÐ ¨ø Ðand€pulled€off€her€pantyhose.€Ð”äÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àAs€the€victim€and€Defendant€were€fighting,€they€heard€her€husband's€truck€in€theÐ l¼ Ðdriveway.€The€Defendant€got€up€and€attempted€to€leave€the€house,€but€the€victim'sÐ X ¨ Ðhusband€grabbed€him€as€he€was€trying€to€walk€out€the€door.€The€victim€called€theÐ D!” Ðpolice,€€and€the€victim's€husband€got€the€Defendant's€name€and€license€plate€numberÐ 0"€  Ðto€ð ðbuy€some€timeðð€until€the€police€could€get€there.€When€the€victim's€husbandÐ #l! Ðthought€the€police€should€almost€be€at€the€house,€he€let€the€Defendant€go.€An€officerÐ $X" Ðarrived,€radioed€the€license€plate€number€to€a€back„up€officer€and€the€back„up€officerÐ ô$D # Ðpicked€up€the€Defendant.€Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Defendant€was€arrested€and€arraigned€on€August€3,€1989.€On€August€16,€1989,Ð ¸'#& Ðthe€Defendant€filed€a€motion€for€self„representation.€He€was€indicted€by€the€GrandÐ ¤(ô#' ÐJury€of€Sumner€County€on€September€14,€1989.€The€trial€court€appointed€counselÐ )à$( ÐJohn€Ô_ÔPellegrinÔ_Ô€on€September€22,€1989.€The€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€Defendant'sÐ |*Ì%) Ðmotion€for€self„representation€on€October€27,€1989.€The€trial€court€granted€theÐ h+¸&* Ðmotion;€however,€because€of€certain€statements€made€by€the€Defendant,€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourt€decided€to€let€appointed€counsel€and€Defendant€decide€if€appointed€counselÐ œì Ðwould€represent€the€Defendant€or€act€in€an€advisory€capacity€only.€On€November€9,Ð ˆØ Ð1989,€the€Defendant€filed€a€motion€for€the€trial€court€to€enter€an€order€granting€theÐ tÄ ÐDefendant€the€right€to€represent€himself.€On€November€20,€1989,€the€court€enteredÐ `° Ðan€order€granting€the€Defendant's€motion€to€represent€himself.€The€order€also€statedÐ L œ Ðthat€Ô_ÔPellegrinÔ_Ô€would€be€Defendant's€advisory€counsel€only.€On€November€20,€1989,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€case€was€continued€until€December€12,€because€certain€of€the€Defendant'sÐ $ t Ðsubpoenas€had€not€been€served.€Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àOn€December€6,€1989€Ô_ÔPellegrinÔ_Ô€filed€a€motion€to€withdraw€as€advisory€counsel€dueÐ è 8  Ðto€a€conflict€of€interest.€The€trial€court€granted€this€motion€on€December€7.€The€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€appointed€Louis€Oliver€as€advisory€counsel€after€a€hearing€on€December€11.Ð À  ÐThe€Defendant€was€convicted€in€a€jury€trial€in€which€he€represented€himself€onÐ ¬ü  ÐDecember€12,€1989.€The€Defendant€filed€a€motion€for€the€appointment€of€counsel€onÐ ˜è  ÐDecember€19.€An€order€granting€the€motion€was€also€filed€December€19€appointingÐ „Ô  ÐKeith€Bell€to€represent€the€Defendant€at€his€sentencing€hearing.€The€Defendant€wasÐ pÀ Ðsentenced€to€eight€years€on€each€count€to€be€served€consecutively.€Bell€withdrew€asÐ \¬ Ðcounsel€before€the€appeals€process€began,€and€the€court€ordered€the€Defendant€to€beÐ H˜ Ðrepresented€by€the€Public€Defender's€Office.€Ð4„Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àDavid€Doyle€was€the€attorney€of€record€for€the€Defendant's€Motion€for€New€Trial.Ð  \ ÐThis€motion€was€denied.€Following€the€advice€of€Doyle,€the€Defendant€waived€hisÐ øH Ðright€to€appeal€€on€May€10,€1990.€He€filed€a€pro€se€Petition€for€Post„conviction€reliefÐ ä4 Ðthe€same€day.€Defendant€signed€a€waiver€and€was€allowed€to€proceed€pro€se.€HeÐ Ð  Ðmade€a€motion€for€the€appointment€of€advisory€counsel€on€September€17,€1990.Ð ¼  ÐDavid€Doyle€was€appointed.€Although€it€is€not€clear€when,€Doyle€subsequentlyÐ ¨ø Ðwithdrew€as€advisory€counsel.€Ð”äÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€Defendant€later€decided€to€be€represented€by€an€attorney,€and€Matt€Bastian€wasÐ l¼ Ðappointed€to€represent€the€Defendant€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€which€took€placeÐ X ¨ ÐApril€19,€1991.€The€trial€court€denied€the€post„conviction€petition€and€the€DefendantÐ D!” Ðappealed€to€this€court.€òòState€v.€John€L.€Goodwin,€IIIóó,€1992€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXISÐ 0"€  Ð859,€No.€01„C01„9108„CR„00242€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Nashville,€filed€Nov.€12,Ð #l! Ð1992).€This€court€ordered€that€the€Defendant€proceed€by€a€delayed€direct€appeal€andÐ $X" Ðordered€the€trial€court€to€allow€the€Defendant€to€file€another€motion€for€a€new€trial.Ð ô$D # ÐòòId.óó€The€motion€for€new€trial€was€denied.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐòòGoodwinóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€38„39.€€Through€Mr.€Bastian,€the€petitioner€brought€a€delayed€direct€appealÐ Ì&"% Ðof€his€denied€motion€for€new€trial,€and€this€Court€affirmed€the€petitionerððs€convictions,€but€vacatedÐ ¸'#& Ðhis€sentences€and€remanded€his€case€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing€because€the€trial€court€failed€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcompare€the€petitionerððs€potential€sentences€under€the€1982€and€1989€sentencing€acts€and€becauseÐ )à$( Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€adequately€articulate€either€a€basis€for€enhancing€the€petitionerððs€sentences€orÐ |*Ì%) Ðfor€sentencing€him€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€òòId.óó€at€45„46.€€The€trial€court€re„sentenced€the€petitioner,Ð h+¸&* Ðand€he€was€represented€by€attorney€John€R.€Phillips€at€the€re„sentencing€hearing.€ò òó ó€PhillipsÐ ° Ðrepresented€the€petitioner€on€appeal€of€his€new€sentence,€and€the€petitioner€appealed€the€trial€courtððsÐ œì Ðdenial€of€his€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus,€which€he€had€filed€òòpro€seóó.€€òòóóThis€Court€reviewed€bothÐ ˆØ Ðthe€petitionerððs€sentence€and€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€writ€and€accordingly€affirmed€the€lowerÐ tÄ Ðcourtððs€determinations.€€òòJohn€L.€Goodwin,€IIIóó,€Ó SÓÔ#†X ÁXXX Á³#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÓÈÓ1997€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€679Ó SÓÓÈÓÔ#†X ÁXXX Á8#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ,€at€*1.Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁÔ8#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÐ `° ÐÌà  àPrior€to€the€issuance€of€that€opinion,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€ð ðapplication€for€òòcoram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_ÔóóÐ 8 ˆ Ðand/or€in€the€alternative€to€re„open€original€post„conviction€petition.ðð€€òòJohn€L.€Goodwin,€III€v.€Stateóó,Ð $ t ÐNo.€M2000„0757„CCA„R28„CO,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€Sept.€19,€1997)€(noÐ  ` Ðelectronic€database€citation€available).€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€pleading€without€conductingÐ ü L  Ða€hearing.€€òòId.óó€€This€Court€reviewed€the€lower€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petitionerððs€pleading€andÐ è 8  Ðaffirmed€it,€finding€that€the€application€for€writ€of€coram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ô€was€time„barred€and€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðpetitioner€had€not€set€forth€sufficient€grounds€for€re„opening€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€Ð À  ÐòòJohn€L.€Goodwin,€III€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9608„CR„00337€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€Sept.€19,Ð ¬ü  Ð1997)€(no€electronic€database€citation€available)Ô#†X ÁXXX Á9#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€subsequently€filed€a€motion€to€reopen€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.Ð pÀ ÐJudge€Jane€Ô_ÔWheatcraftÔ_Ô€deemed€this€motion€to€be€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€ruled€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€petitioner€had€presented€a€Ô_ÔcolorableÔ_Ô€claim€for€relief.€€òòId.óó€€The€petition€was€dismissed€by€anotherÐ H˜ Ðtrial€judge€without€a€hearing,€and€thus€this€Court€remanded€the€petitionerððs€case€for€a€post„convictionÐ 4„ Ðhearing.€€òòId.óó€€The€post„conviction€court€held€a€hearing€and€found€that€the€petitionerððs€claims€did€notÐ  p Ðmerit€relief.€ò òó óÐ  \ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€now€brings€the€instant€appeal€of€his€denied€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ð ä4 Ðalleging€(1)€that€he€did€not€receive€a€full€and€fair€post„conviction€hearing;€(2)€that€he€was€incorrectlyÐ Ð  Ðsentenced;€(3)€that€the€state€withheld€exculpatory€information;€(4)€that€he€received€inadequate€noticeÐ ¼  Ðof€the€charges€against€him;€(5)€that€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€44(a)€is€unconstitutional;Ð ¨ø Ð(6)€that€the€assistant€district€attorney€and€defense€counsel€conspired€against€him;€(7)€that€the€trialÐ ”ä Ðjudge€acted€as€a€state€agent;€(8)€that€the€jury€instructions€were€erroneous;€and€(9)€that€he€receivedÐ €Ð Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€Ô#†X ÁXXX Á >#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€€After€reviewing€the€petitionerððs€claims,€we€find€that€none€of€themÐ l¼ Ðmerit€relief.Ð X ¨ Ðò òòòÓ  ÓÌPost„Conviction€Standard€of€Reviewó óóóÐ 0"€  ÐÓöDÓÌà  àAs€mentioned€òòsupraóó,€the€petitioner€is€currently€before€this€court€alleging€that€his€petition€forÐ $X" Ðpost„conviction€relief€was€wrongly€denied.€€When€analyzing€allegations€that€a€petitioner€is€entitledÐ ô$D # Ðto€post„conviction€relief,€we€first€note€that€a€petitioner€bringing€a€post„conviction€petition€for€reliefÐ à%0!$ Ðbears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€asserted€in€that€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€Ð Ì&"% ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f);€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1998).€Ð ¸'#& Ðð ðEvidence€is€clear€and€convincing€when€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€the€correctnessÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€the€conclusions€drawn€from€the€evidence.ðð€€òòHicksóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€245€(citing€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Ô_ÔToofÔ_ÔÐ )à$( Ð&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€n.3€(Tenn.€1992)).€€Furthermore,€the€appellate€court€is€bound€by€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðtrial€court's€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòId.óó€Ð h+¸&* ÐÓ  Óòòò òÌÌÌPost„Conviction€Hearingó óóóÐ tÄ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€petitioner€complains€that€he€did€not€receive€a€fair€post„conviction€hearing€because€he€wasÐ L œ Ðdenied€access€to€relevant€records€and€because€the€state€failed€to€issue€several€necessary€subpoenas.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐWe€will€address€both€of€these€allegations€below.Ð $ t ÐÓ  ÓòòÌ(a)€Petitionerððs€Access€to€Transcripts€of€Evidence€and€the€Technical€RecordóóÐ ü L  ÐÓ’KÓÌà  àThe€petitioner€complains€that€he€was€erroneously€denied€access€to€the€transcripts€of€evidenceÐ Ô$  Ðand€the€technical€record€for€his€case,€despite€his€numerous€requests€for€them.€€The€petitioner€claimsÐ À  Ðthat€these€records€were€necessary€in€order€for€him€to€properly€frame€and€support€his€allegations€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðerror.€€He€first€asserts€that€the€state€failed€to€file€the€record€for€review€by€the€post„conviction€court,Ð ˜è  Ðdespite€its€statutory€obligation€to€do€so.€€However,€the€petitioner€relied€on€a€repealed€law€to€supportÐ „Ô  Ðthis€proposition.€€Per€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„208(b),€a€€section€of€the€1995€Post„Ð pÀ ÐConviction€Act€that€was€the€law€in€1999€when€the€petitioner€filed€for€post„conviction€relief,€theÐ \¬ Ðdistrict€attorney€general€is€empowered€to€file€records€or€portions€thereof€for€post„conviction€orÐ H˜ Ðappellate€review€if€the€petitioner€fails€to€include€records€when€filing€his€petition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð 4„ Ððð€40„30„208(b).€€However,€the€language€of€the€statute€is€permissive€and€does€not€mandate€action.€Ð  p ÐòòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔMariseÔ_Ô€E.€Smith€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9708„CR„00342,€Ó SÓÔ#†X ÁXXX ÁSD#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÓÈÓ1999€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€906Ó SÓÓÈÓÔ#†X ÁXXX ÁwQ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ,€atÐ  \ Ð**9„10€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€Sept.€12,€1999).€€Thus,€the€state€has€no€obligation€to€file€suchÐ øH Ðrecords.€€ð ðÔ#†X ÁXXX Á.R#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€petitioner€has€the€obligation€of€ensuring€that€relevant€portions€of€the€record€fromÐ ä4 Ðthe€original€case€are€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.Ô#†X ÁXXX Á3S#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔðð€òòWoodruff€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M1998„00695„CCA„Ð Ð  ÐR3„CD,€2000€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€57,€at€*6€n.1€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€Jan.€25,€2000)Ð ¼  Ð(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24;€òòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03„C01„9611„CR„00404,Ô#†X ÁXXX Á:T#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€1999€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð ¨ø ÐLEXIS€51,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Jan.€15,€1999)Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁÄU#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ).׃'×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р”ä ÐÌà  àMoreover,€despite€the€petitionerððs€contention,€these€transcripts€were€made€available€to€himÐ l¼ Ðwhen€the€post„conviction€court€ordered€the€state€to€file€them€with€the€clerkððs€office€per€TennesseeÐ X ¨ ÐRule€of€Supreme€Court€28,€section€6.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€28,€ðð€6.€€As€stated€by€the€post„Ð D!” Ðconviction€court,€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  à[The€State]€complied€with€section€(6)€of€Rule€28€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€asÐ $X" Ðfar€as€section€(d)€that€orders€the€State€to€respond€in€an€appropriate€ð!ð€to€file€with€theÐ ô$D # Ðclerk€certain€transcripts,€exhibits,€or€records€from€the€prior€trial€or€hearing,€and€theyÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âhave€filed€those€records€with€the€clerk.€€That€is€where€they€are€to€be€filed.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThere€is€a€transcript€of€Evidence,€Volume€1€of€1,€from€the€trial€in€this€case.€Ð ° ÐThat€may€be€something€you€say€that€you€want€to€take€a€look€at.€€That€has€been€filed.€Ð œì ÐSo€they€complied€with€that.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌò òà  àó óAccordingly,€it€appears€that€the€state€complied€with€the€courtððs€orders€to€file€certainÐ `° Ðtranscripts€of€evidence€and€technical€records€that€the€court€deemed€crucial€to€the€case€and€thereforeÐ L œ Ðthese€records€were€made€available€to€the€petitioner.׃Q×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€petitioner€complains€that€he€was€erroneously€denied€access€to€certain€otherÐ  ` Ðrecords,€and€that€access€to€these€records€would€enable€him€to€establish€his€claims€that€the€juryÐ ü L  Ðinstructions€were€erroneous,€that€the€public€defenderððs€office€and€the€prosecutor€conspired€againstÐ è 8  Ðhim,€and€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective.€€However,€the€issues€regarding€the€alleged€conspiracy€andÐ Ô$  Ðalleged€erroneous€jury€instructions€are€issues€that€have€been€either€waived€or€previously€determined.€Ð À  ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€40„30„206(g)Ô#†X ÁXXX Á¯V#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ,€(h);€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€28,€ðð€2(D),€(E).€€€Therefore,€the€post„Ð ¬ü  Ðconviction€court€was€not€obligated€to€allow€the€petitioner€to€access€records€in€order€to€develop€issuesÐ ˜è  Ðthat€were€not€within€the€scope€of€its€review.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àRegarding€the€petitionerððs€complaint€that€he€was€denied€access€to€records€that€would€allowÐ \¬ Ðhim€to€develop€his€allegation€that€his€various€attorneys€ineffectively€represented€him,€the€petitionerÐ H˜ Ðdid€not€state€his€theory€of€how€his€attorneys€were€ineffective€with€sufficient€specificity€to€warrantÐ 4„ Ðgranting€his€request.€€Because€the€petitioner€did€not€allege€how€his€attorneys€were€ineffective,€weÐ  p Ðmust€assume€that€he€demanded€ð ðany€and€allðð€appellate€records€so€that€he€could€examine€them€andÐ  \ Ðdevelop€a€basis€for€alleging€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€However,€€this€CourtÐ øH Ðhas€held€that€an€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€receive€a€complete€trial€transcript€at€state€expense€whenÐ ä4 Ðthe€petitioner€has€not€sufficiently€articulated€what€he€hopes€to€prove€by€reviewing€the€transcript.Ð Ð  ÐÔ#†X ÁXXX Á`#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔà8  àA€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€a€complete€trial€transcript€at€state€expense€to€go€on€aÐ ¼  Ðfishing€expedition€to€see€what€he€can€find.€òòMcCracken€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€724Ð ¨ø Ð(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1975).€The€petitioner€must€demonstrate€to€the€satisfaction€of€theÐ ”ä Ðtrial€court,€after€filing€his€post[„]conviction€petition,€that€the€record€will€be€ofÐ €Ð Ðreasonable€assistance€to€him€in€establishing€his€right€to€the€relief€sought.€òòÔ_ÔDotsonÔ_Ô€v.Ð l¼ ÐStateóó,€477€S.W.2d€763€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1971).Ô#†¼J­»XX Á‚#ÔÔ‡ôéò»¼J­Ô€Ô#†¼J­»òôé'h#ÔÔ‡X ÁX»¼J­ÔÔ#†X ÁXXX Á4e#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐòòGivens€v.€Stateóó,€702€S.W.2d€578,€580€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1985).€€Because€the€petitionerððs€rationaleÐ D!” Ðfor€requesting€a€copy€of€the€entire€appellate€record€was€not€specific,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€didÐ 0"€  Ðnot€err€by€failing€to€order€the€state€to€comply€with€his€request.Ð #l! ÐÓ  ÓòòÌ(b)€Petitionerððs€Complaint€Regarding€the€Stateððs€Failure€to€Issue€A€SubpoenaóóÐ ô$D # ÐÓ\jÓÌà  àThe€petitioner€further€complains€that€the€state€erroneously€failed€to€issue€a€subpoena€forÐ Ì&"% ÐSusan€P.€Clayton,€who€would€testify€that€she€received€an€affidavit€from€the€victim€detailing€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcrime,€and€that€this€affidavit€contradicted€the€victimððs€sworn€trial€testimony€and€was€thereforeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðexculpatory€evidence.€€The€state€counters€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€set€forth€how€this€affidavitÐ ° Ðcontradicts€the€victimððs€sworn€testimony€and€that€even€if€the€petitionerððs€claim€does€have€merit,€heÐ œì Ðwaived€the€issue€by€failing€to€bring€this€error€to€the€post„conviction€courtððs€attention€in€order€toÐ ˆØ Ðallow€the€court€to€remedy€the€situation.Ð tÄ Ðà  àWe€agree€that€the€petitioner€does€not€describe€how€this€affidavit€would€have€beenÐ `° Ðinconsistent€with€the€victimððs€sworn€statement€and€therefore€has€not€met€his€burden€of€proving€hisÐ L œ Ðallegations€with€the€requisite€specificity.€€òòÔ#†X ÁXXX Á¬h#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f)€(1997);€òòHicksóó,€983Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€at€245.Ô#†X ÁXXX Á?o#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€€Moreover,€although€the€petitioner€did€bring€this€omission€to€the€courtððs€attentionÐ $ t Ðduring€trial,€during€his€latter€conversations€with€the€trial€court€about€procuring€the€testimony€ofÐ  ` Ðseveral€witnesses,€he€stressed€the€importance€of€procuring€his€former€counsel€and,€on€severalÐ ü L  Ðoccasions,€indicated€that€his€counsel€was€the€only€remaining€witness€that€he€intended€to€call.€Ð è 8  ÐAccordingly,€because€the€petitioner€did€not€inform€the€trial€court€of€the€importance€of€procuring€thisÐ Ô$  Ðwitness,€we€will€not€allow€him€to€now€claim€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€this€omission.Ð À  ÐÓ  Óò òòòÌSentencing€Challengeóóó óÐ ˜è  ÐÓ²rÓÌà  àThe€petitioner€challenges€his€current€sentence,€which€was€determined€at€his€re„sentencingÐ pÀ Ðhearing.€€Because€this€Court€determined€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€originally€sentenced€theÐ \¬ Ðpetitioner,€we€remanded€his€case€for€re„sentencing.€€At€the€re„sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ H˜ Ðsentenced€the€petitioner€as€a€Range€II€offenderÔ#†X ÁXXX Áåo#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€to€serve€an€18„year€sentence,€which€is€comprised€ofÐ 4„ Ðtwo€consecutive€9„year€sentencesÔ#†X ÁXXX ÁÀt#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ.€€The€petitioner€complains€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€classifiedÐ  p Ðhim€as€a€Range€II€offender€and€€ordered€him€to€serve€his€sentences€consecutively.€€However,€thisÐ  \ ÐCourt€has€previously€determined€that€the€trial€court€correctly€both€classified€the€petitioner€as€a€RangeÐ øH ÐII€offender€and€ordered€him€to€serve€his€sentences€consecutively.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohn€L.€Goodwinóó,€1997€Tenn.Ð ä4 ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€679Ô#†X ÁXXX Áku#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ,€at€**8„13.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€petitionerððs€sentencing€challengeÐ Ð  Ðlacks€merit.Ð ¼  ÐÓ  Óòòò òòòÌBradyóó€Violationó óóóÐ à ÐÓWxÓÌà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€the€state€withheld€several€pieces€of€exculpatoryÔ#†X ÁXXX Á²w#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€information,Ð h¸ Ðnamely€several€affidavits€supporting€his€arrest€warrants.€€These€affidavits€were€made€by€the€victim,Ð T ¤ Ðand€the€petitioner€states€that€he€was€entitled€to€receive€them€as€exculpatory€evidence€because€theÐ @! Ðvictimððs€affidavits€contradicted€her€sworn€trial€testimony.Ô#†X ÁXXX Á&y#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€€Ð ,"|  ÐÌà  àAt€the€outset€of€our€analysis,€we€note€that€the€petitioner€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€raiseÐ $T" Ðit€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).€€Regardless€of€whether€the€issue€has€beenÐ ð$@ # Ðwaived,€this€issue€lacks€merit.€€Ð Ü%,!$ ÐÌà  àAccording€to€€Ô#†X ÁXXX Á¸z#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔòòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€10€L.€Ed.€2d€215,€83€S.€Ct.€1194€(1963)Ô#†¼J­»XX Ájh#ÔÔ‡ôéò»¼J­Ô,Ð ´'#& ÐÔ#†¼J­»òôéô|#ÔÔ‡X ÁX»¼J­ÔÔ#†X ÁXXX Áe|#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔà8  àiÔ#†X ÁXXX ÁŽ}#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔn€order€to€establish€a€òòBradyóó€violation,€four€elements€must€be€shown€by€theÐ  (ð#' Ðâ âdefendant:ÐŒ)Ü$(Ð Ð  Ðà8  à1)€that€the€defendant€requested€the€information€(unless€the€evidence€is€obviouslyÐ ° Ðexculpatory,€in€which€case€the€State€is€bound€to€release€the€information€whetherÐ œì Ðrequested€or€not);€ÐˆØÐ Ð  Ðâ âà8  à2)€that€the€State€suppressed€the€information;€ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà8  à3)€that€the€information€was€favorable€to€the€accused;€and€Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  à4)€that€the€information€was€material.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌòòSeeóó€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€38€S.W.3d€52,€56€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔEdginÔ_Ôóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€390Ð $ t Ð(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€381,€389€(Tenn.€1995)).Ô#†¼J­»XX ÁL}#ÔÔ‡ôéò»¼J­ÔÐ  ` ÐÔ#†¼J­»òôéÆ#ÔÔ‡X ÁX»¼J­ÔÔ#†X ÁXXX ÁÝ}#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÌà  àHowever,€the€petitioner€has€not€met€the€third€and€forth€criteria€above,€namely€that€theÐ è 8  Ðevidence€is€favorable€to€the€accused€and€that€it€is€material.€€Ô#†X ÁXXX Á_‚#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔð ðEvidence€is€deemed€to€be€material€whenÐ Ô$  Ðððthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€result€ofÐ À  Ðthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different.ðððð€òòJohnsonóó,€38€S.W.2d€at€58€(quoting€òòÔ_ÔEdginÔ_Ôóó,€902€S.W.2dÐ ¬ü  Ðat€390);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòWalkeróó,€910€S.W.2d€at€389;€€òòState€v.€Copelandóó,€983€S.W.2d€703,€706€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð ˜è  ÐApp.€1998)Ô#†¼J­»XX Á‚#ÔÔ‡ôéò»¼J­Ô.€Ô#†¼J­»òôé°…#ÔÔ‡X ÁX»¼J­ÔÔ#†X ÁXXX ÁYƒ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€The€petitioner€claims€that€if€he€had€been€able€to€impeach€the€victim€with€her€affidavit,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€jury€would€have€learned€that€the€victimððs€affidavit€states€that€she€first€saw€the€petitioner€in€herÐ pÀ Ðroom,€while€she€testified€at€trial€that€she€first€saw€him€in€her€hallway.€€Presumably,€the€petitionerÐ \¬ Ðwould€have€used€this€inconsistency€to€impeach€the€victim€and€establish€that€her€recollection€of€hisÐ H˜ Ðwhereabouts€in€her€house€was€inconsistent€because€she€fabricated€the€story.€€However,€at€trial,€theÐ 4„ Ðpetitioner€testified€that,€on€the€day€of€the€alleged€crime,€he€followed€the€victim€and€entered€her€houseÐ  p Ðbecause€he€believed€that€she€was€in€need€of€aid.€€In€light€of€his€admitted€presence€at€the€crime€scene,Ð  \ Ðwe€cannot€say€that€the€impeachment€value€of€the€victimððs€affidavits€would€have€changed€theÐ øH Ðoutcome€of€his€trial.׃P×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ò òó óAccordingly,€we€find€that€this€issue€does€not€merit€relief.Ô#†X ÁXXX Á6†#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ׃Tì×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁåŠ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€Ô#†X ÁXXX Áz‹#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÐ ä4 ÐòòÓ  Óò òÌWhether€Petitioner€Was€Given€Proper€Notice€of€the€Charges€Against€Himó óóóÐ ¼  ÐÓô‹ÓÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€inform€him€of€the€charges€against€him€andÐ ”ä Ðthat€if€he€had€been€properly€informed€of€the€charges€and€their€severity,€he€would€not€have€requestedÐ €Ð Ðâ âto€represent€himself€at€his€trial.€€We€first€note€that€the€petitioner€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€raiseÐ l¼ Ðit€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).€€Regardless,€the€petitionerððs€allegation€isÐ ° Ðcontradicted€by€his€own€remarks€during€his€opening€statement.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà8  àà ` àI€know€a€lot€of€you€may€be€wondering€why€is€this€man€up€there€isÐ tÄ Ðrepresenting€himself,€why€doesnððt€he€have€this€man€right€over€here€represent€him€orÐ `° Ðwhy€didnððt€the€Judge€appoint€him€another€one.€€I€chose€that€my€own€self.€€I€feel€likeÐ L œ Ðthis€is€a€very€serious€charge.€€I€donððt€take€this€charge€very€lightly.€€On€the€street€IððmÐ 8 ˆ Ðwhat€ð!ð€Iððve€worked€in€the€area€of€paralegal.׃O×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Iððm€not€an€attorney,€but€I€do€know€myÐ $ t Ðrights.€€I€know€that€I€have€the€right€to€get€up€here€and€confront€witnesses.€€I€have€theÐ  ` Ðright€to€speak€to€each€one€of€you.€€And€I€have€the€right€to€put€on€my€own€set€ofÐ ü L  Ðwitnesses€to€prove€that€Iððm€not€guilty.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àYou€may€find€that€to€understand€why€a€man€would€not€want€an€attorney€toÐ Ô$  Ðrepresent€him.€€Because,€as€I€said,€somebody€says€that€I€raped€them.€€I€want€to€lookÐ À  Ðthem€dead€square€in€the€eye.€€I€want€to€be€able€to€ask€the€questions€my€own€self.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌò òà  àó óBased€on€the€above€statements,€the€petitioner€appears€to€have€fully€understood€the€severityÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€charges€against€him€at€the€time€of€his€trial€and€to€have€made€a€careful€decision€to€representÐ pÀ Ðhimself.€Moreover,€at€the€petitionerððs€motion€for€new€trialÔ#†X ÁXXX Á½‹#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€hearing,€his€counsel€acknowledged€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€petitioner€was€aware€of€the€charges€against€him€when€he€made€the€decision€to€represent€himself.€Ð H˜ ÐÔ#†X ÁXXX Á•#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔò òó óAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€petitionerððs€claim€lacks€merit.Ô#†X ÁXXX Á–#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÐ 4„ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òConstitutionality€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€44(a)ó óóóÐ  \ ÐÓЖÓÌà  àThe€petitioner€challenges€the€constitutionality€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€ProcedureÐ ä4 Ð44(a),€arguing€that€it€is€unconstitutional€because€it€does€not€require€that€a€trial€court€advise€a€pro€seÐ Ð  Ðdefendant€of€the€charges€against€him€or€her€before€accepting€that€defendantððs€request€to€representÐ ¼  Ðhim„€or€herself.€€Once€more,€the€petitioner€has€waived€this€contention€by€failing€to€raise€it€on€directÐ ¨ø Ðappeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).Ô#†X ÁXXX Á›–#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€Ô#†X ÁXXX Á’™#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÐ ”ä ÐÓ  Óòòò òÌImpartiality€of€Petitionerððs€Trial€Judgeó óóóÐ l¼ ÐÓ šÓÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€judge€who€presided€over€his€trial€became€prejudicedÐ D!” Ðagainst€him€and€acted€as€a€state€agent€during€his€trial.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€the€trial€judgeÐ 0"€  Ðbecame€impartial€once€she€learned€that€the€petitioner€had€sent€a€juror€a€letter€that€the€juror€foundÐ #l! Ðthreatening.€€However,€this€issue€has€been€waived€by€the€petitioner€because€he€did€not€raise€this€issueÐ $X" Ðin€his€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g);€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€28,€ðð€2(D).€Ð ô$D # ÐFurthermore,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€the€trial€judgeððs€impartiality€is€demonstrated€by€her€erroneousÐ à%0!$ Ðapplication€of€an€unsupportable€enhancement€factor€during€sentencing.€€However,€this€Court€hasÐ Ì&"% Ðpreviously€addressed€this€allegation€and€found€the€application€of€the€enhancement€factor€to€haveÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âbeen€the€result€of€a€proper€exercise€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoodwinóó,€1997€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€679Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁÕ™#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðat€**12„15;€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(h);€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€28,€ðð€2(E).€€Ô#†X ÁXXX Áúž#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€Accordingly,Ð ° Ðwe€find€that€this€issue€does€not€merit€post„conviction€relief.Ð œì Ðâ âÓ  Óòòò òÌEffectiveness€of€Assistance€of€Counseló óóóÔ#†X ÁXXX Á²Ÿ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÐ tÄ ÐÔ#†X ÁXXX Á² #ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÓP ÓÌà  àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ L œ Ðcounsel,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€(a)€the€services€rendered€by€trial€counselÐ 8 ˆ Ðwere€deficient€and€(b)€that€the€deficient€performance€was€prejudicial.€€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2dÐ $ t Ð551,€558€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1996).€€In€order€to€demonstrate€deficient€performance,€the€petitionerÐ  ` Ðmust€show€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€was€below€ð ðthe€range€of€competenceÐ ü L  Ðdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€InÐ è 8  Ðorder€to€demonstrate€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,Ð Ô$  Ðbut€for€counselððs€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòóóÐ À  Ðð ðBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test€to€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÐ ¬ü  Ðassistance€of€counsel,€failure€to€prove€either€deficient€performance€or€resulting€prejudice€providesÐ ˜è  Ða€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€claim.ðð€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€580€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð „Ô  Ðð ðMoreover,€on€appeal,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€and€will€not€beÐ pÀ Ðdisturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.ðð€€€òòÔ_ÔAdkinsÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,Ð \¬ Ð911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994).€€ð ðThe€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€theÐ H˜ Ðevidence€preponderated€against€those€findings.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àOn€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€ofÐ  \ Ðhindsight.€€òòÔ_ÔAdkinsÔ_Ôóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€347.€€This€Court€may€not€second-guess€a€reasonably€based€trialÐ øH Ðstrategy,€and€we€cannot€grant€relief€based€on€a€sound,€but€unsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€duringÐ ä4 Ðthe€course€of€the€proceedings.€òòId.óó€€However,€such€deference€to€the€tactical€decisions€of€counselÐ Ð  Ðapplies€only€if€counsel€makes€those€decisions€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.Ð ¼  ÐStateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1992).€Ô#†X ÁXXX Á ¡#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÐ ¨ø ÐÓ  ÓòòÌ(1)€Alleged€Conspiracy€Between€the€Assistant€District€Attorney€and€Petitionerððs€CounselóóÐ €Ð ÐÓÜ«Óà  àÌà  àThe€petitioner€claims€that€his€counsel€ineffectively€represented€him€at€trial€by€conspiring€withÐ X ¨ Ðthe€assistant€district€attorney€to€ensure€his€conviction.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€his€attorneyððsÐ D!” Ðbias€is€demonstrated€by€his€correspondence€with€the€assistant€district€attorney€and€his€volunteeringÐ 0"€  Ðto€testify€at€his€post„conviction€hearing.Ð #l! Ðà  àÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€complaints€are€regarding€the€February€27,€1992,€letter€from€his€formerÐ ô$D # Ðcounsel€for€new€trial€and€post„conviction€advisory€counsel€to€the€assistant€district€attorney.€ò òó ó€CounselÐ à%0!$ Ðwrote€this€letter€after€he€had€been€discharged€as€the€petitionerððs€counsel€on€January€7,€1991.€€TheÐ Ì&"% Ðletter€references€the€petitionerððs€complaints€about€the€calculation€of€his€sentence€and€was€apparentlyÐ ¸'#& Ðwritten€in€anticipation€of€the€post„conviction€hearing€in€which€counsel€was€to€be€called€as€a€witnessÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbecause€the€petitioner€alleged€that€counsel€had€rendered€ineffective€assistance.€Thus,€counsel€wasÐ )à$( Ðcorresponding€with€the€assistant€district€attorney€regarding€his€testimony€and€strategy€for€defendingÐ |*Ì%) Ðagainst€the€petitionerððs€allegation€that€counsel€had€rendered€ineffective€assistance.€€Ð h+¸&* ÐÑOª Ñâ âÑ øXÑâ âÑ  ÑÌà  àAs€counsel€was€not€representing€the€petitioner€at€the€time€that€he€wrote€to€the€assistantÐ œì Ðdistrict€attorney,€he€was€able€to€reveal€recent€statements€made€to€him€by€the€petitioner€because€thoseÐ ˆØ Ðstatements€were€not€made€in€the€context€of€the€attorney/client€relationship.€€òòSeeóó€Code€Prof.€Resp.Ð tÄ ÐR.€8€DR„4„101(A)€(explaining€that€ð ðsecretsðð€are€certain€information€that€an€attorney€gains€duringÐ `° Ðthe€course€of€the€attorney„client€relationship);€òòcf.óó€Code€Prof.€Resp.€R.€8€Ô_ÔECÔ_Ô€4„6Ô#†X ÁXXX Á¨«#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€(stating€that€anÐ L œ Ðattorney€should€preserve€the€confidences€and€secrets€of€clients€gained€during€the€attorney/clientÐ 8 ˆ Ðrelationship€after€the€termination€of€that€relationship).€Ð $ t Ðà  àAdditionally,€counsel€did€not€act€unethically€by€revealing€confidences€or€secrets€gainedÐ  ` Ðduring€the€attorney/client€relationship€if€those€confidences€were€necessary€to€formulate€his€defenseÐ ü L  Ðagainst€the€petitionerððs€accusation€that€counsel€provided€ineffective€representation.€òòSeeóó€Code€Prof.Ð è 8  ÐResp.€R.€8€DR„4„101(C)(4)€(allowing€attorneys€to€reveal€ð ð[Ô_Ôc]onfidencesÔ_Ô€or€secrets€necessary€to€.€.Ð Ô$  Ð.€defend€the€lawyer€.€.€.€against€an€accusation€of€wrongful€conductðð).Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁÝ´#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€€After€reviewing€the€content€ofÐ À  Ðthe€letter€at€issue,€we€find€that€the€letter€discussed€only€matters€relevant€to€the€petitionerððs€claim€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðhe€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€trial.€€Accordingly,€weÐ ˜è  Ðfind€that€the€post„conviction€court€correctly€determined€that€counsel€did€not€violate€his€ethicalÐ „Ô  Ðobligations€when€he€corresponded€with€the€assistant€district€attorney.Ð pÀ ÐÔ#†X ÁXXX Áa¸#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔòòÓ  ÓÌ(2)€Effectiveness€of€Counsel€Representing€Petitioner€Ð H˜ Ðat€Re„Sentencing€and€the€Post„Conviction€Hearingóó€Ð 4„ ÐÓǺÓÌà  àThe€petitioner€makes€similar€complaints€regarding€the€effectiveness€of€his€original€post„Ð  \ Ðconviction€counsel€and€counsel€on€direct€appeal,€as€well€as€his€counsel€at€the€re„sentencing€hearingÐ øH Ðand€on€appeal€of€the€new€sentence.€€He€claims€that€both€attorneys€failed€to:€(a)€investigate€theÐ ä4 Ðpetitionerððs€alibi€and€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€based€on€his€alibi€defense;€(b)Ð Ð  Ðinvestigate€the€factual€and€legal€claims€in€the€affidavits€supporting€his€arrest€warrants€and€challengeÐ ¼  Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€his€convictions€on€the€basis€of€the€contradictionsÐ ¨ø Ðcontained€within€those€affidavits;€(c)€investigate€the€pre„sentence€report;€(d)€contest€the€stateððs€noticeÐ ”ä Ðof€enhanced€punishment;€and€(e)€raise€the€issue€of€erroneous€jury€instructions.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€first€claim€that€both€attorneys€erroneously€failed€to€investigate€his€alibiÐ X ¨ Ðdefense€and€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€his€conviction€on€that€ground€isÐ D!” ÐÔ_ÔmeritlessÔ_Ô€because€the€petitioner€himself€failed€to€present€an€alibi€defense€at€trial.€€In€fact,€he€admittedÐ 0"€  Ðto€being€present€at€the€crime€scene€at€the€time€of€the€crime.€€Accordingly,€he€cannot€now€criticizeÐ #l! Ðhis€attorneys€for€failing€to€investigate€a€potential€alibi€and€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€Ð $X" Ðon€the€basis€of€an€alibi€defense€theory€that€the€petitioner€refuted€at€trial.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àRegarding€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€his€attorneys€erroneously€failed€to€investigate€theÐ Ì&"% Ðinconsistencies€in€the€affidavits€supporting€his€arrest€warrants,€appealing€his€conviction€on€the€basis€Ð ¸'#& Ðthose€inconsistencies€would€not€have€warranted€relief€because,€as€discussed€òòsupraóó,€thoseÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinconsistencies€would€not€have€changed€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€òòÔ#†X ÁXXX Á¥º#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€v.€Washingtonóó,€466Ð )à$( ÐU.S.€668,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2068,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁòÃ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔThus,€we€cannot€say€that€hisÐ |*Ì%) Ðattorneysðð€failure€to€raise€this€issue€on€appeal€constituted€deficient€performance.Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁÒÄ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÐ h+¸&* Їà  àMoreover,€the€crux€of€the€petitionerððs€complaint€regarding€his€attorneysðð€failure€to€properlyÐ ° Ðinvestigate€the€pre„sentence€report€is€similar€to€his€complaint€that€his€attorneys€did€not€properlyÐ œì Ðinvestigate€inconsistencies€among€various€statements€made€by€the€victim:€He€complains€that€pageÐ ˆØ Ðtwo€of€his€Ô_ÔpresentenceÔ_Ô€report€contains€a€description€of€the€crime€that€was€copied€from€one€of€theÐ tÄ Ðaffidavits€that€we€have€discussed€òòsupraóó.€€For€the€same€reasons€outlined€above,€the€petitioner€has€notÐ `° Ðdemonstrated€deficient€performanceÔ#†X ÁXXX Á›Å#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€based€upon€his€attorneysðð€failure€to€investigate€this€discrepancyÐ L œ Ðor€raise€it€as€a€basis€for€a€sufficiency€appeal.òòóóÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€his€attorneys€deficiently€represented€him€by€failing€toÐ $ t Ðinvestigate€potential€discrepancies€in€the€petitionerððs€employment,€military,€and€educational€records.€Ð  ` ÐThe€petitioner€questioned€both€of€his€attorneys,€counsel€who€represented€him€on€post„conviction€andÐ ü L  Ðcounsel€who€represented€him€at€re„sentencing,€about€the€inconsistencies€between€the€victimððsÐ è 8  Ðstatements€in€the€pre„sentence€report€and€her€testimony€at€trial€and€their€failure€to€challenge€theÐ Ô$  Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€that€basis.€ò òó ó€Both€attorneys€responded€that€they€had€not€appealed€theÐ À  Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€this€basis€because€they€felt€that€it€would€not€have€been€a€meritoriousÐ ¬ü  Ðissue.€ò òó ó€The€petitioner€then€went€on€to€ask€only€one€attorney,€his€counsel€who€represented€him€on€hisÐ ˜è  Ðoriginal€post„conviction€petition€and€on€his€delayed€direct€appeal,€if€he€had€investigated€several€otherÐ „Ô  Ðstatements€in€the€Ô_ÔpresentenceÔ_Ô€report,€namely€facts€regarding€his€educational€level,€his€military€record,Ð pÀ Ðand€his€employment€issue.€€Counsel€responded€that€he€had€discussed€the€pre„sentence€report€withÐ \¬ Ðthe€petitioner€and€that€the€petitioner€had€testified€regarding€several€of€these€subject€areas.ò òó ó€€TheÐ H˜ Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€prove€how€his€counsel€deficiently€represented€him€by€failing€to€further€verifyÐ 4„ Ðthe€facts€set€forth€in€the€Ô_ÔpresentenceÔ_Ô€report.€€He€does€not€allege€what€would€have€been€discoveredÐ  p Ðhad€counsel€done€further€investigation€nor€how€the€petitioner€was€prejudiced€by€this€omission.ò ò€Ð  \ Ðó óBecause€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€his€allegation€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€we€findÐ üL Ðthat€this€issue€lacks€merit.Ô#†X ÁXXX Á›È#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÐ è8 ÐòòóóÔ#†X ÁXXX Á„Ñ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÌà  àThe€petitioner€further€complains€that€both€of€his€attorneys€were€deficient€for€failing€toÐ À Ðchallenge€the€stateððs€notice€of€enhancement,€claiming€that€the€notice€was€ð ðnothing€more€than€anÐ ¬ü Ðempty€notice.ððÔ#†X ÁXXX ÁáÑ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€€While€the€petitionerððs€complaint€is€quite€vague,€after€reviewing€the€record€and€theÐ ˜è Ðwritten€notice€of€enhancement,€we€believe€that€he€is€complaining€that€the€notice€is€deficient€becauseÐ „Ô Ðit€fails€to€inform€the€petitioner€that€the€state€will€seek€to€have€him€classified€as€an€especiallyÐ pÀ Ðaggravated€offender€if€convicted.€€€The€petitioner€was€originally€convicted€in€1989,€the€year€of€theÐ \ ¬ Ðpassage€of€the€1989€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„101€to€504€(1997).€Ð H!˜ ÐAccordingly,€the€trial€court€that€sentenced€the€petitioner€was€required€to€determine€his€sentenceÐ 4"„  Ðunder€both€the€1982€Sentencing€Act€and€the€1989€Sentencing€Act€and€then€sentence€the€defendantÐ  #p! Ðunder€the€act€that€would€require€him€to€serve€the€least€amount€of€time.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858Ð  $\" ÐS.W.2d€879,€884€(Tenn.€1993).Ð ø$H # ÐÌà  àThe€structure€of€the€1982€Act€categorizes€defendants€into€two€sentencing€ranges,€Range€I€andÐ Ð& "% ÐRange€II.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„101€to€109€(Supp.€1986).€€Range€I€consisted€of€ð ðstandardÐ ¼' #& Ðoffenders,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„105€(Supp.€1986),€and€Range€II€consisted€of€ð ðpersistentÐ ¨(ø#' Ðoffendersðð€and€ð ðespecially€aggravated€offenders,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„106,€„107€(Supp.Ð ”)ä$( Ð1986).€€The€1989€Act€is€comprised€of€four€sentencing€ranges,€Range€I,€ð ðstandard€offenders,ðð€Tenn.Ð €*Ð%) ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„105€(1997),€Range€II,€ð ðmultiple€offenders,ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106Ð l+¼&* Ð(1997),Ô#†X ÁXXX Á)Ó#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€Range€III,€ð ðpersistent€offenders,ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107€(1997),Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁUÚ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€and€Range€IV,Ð ° Ðð ðcareer€offenders,ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„108€(1997).Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁèÚ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€€Additionally,€the€1989€Act€does€not€useÐ œì Ðthe€term€ð ðespecially€aggravated€offender.ððÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àWhen€the€state€filed€its€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment€in€November€of€1989,Ð `° Ðit€used€a€form€that€reflected€the€1982€Actððs€terminology,€but€altered€it€to€reflect€its€notice€of€intentÐ L œ Ðto€seek€to€classify€the€petitioner€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€under€the€new€1989€Act.ò ò€ó ó€The€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt€sentenced€the€petitioner€without€determining€the€petitionerððs€potential€sentence€under€both€acts,Ð ( x Ðand€thus€this€court€remanded€the€instant€case€for€re„sentencing.€òòSeeóó€òòGoodwinóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€45„46.€Ð  d ÐOn€remand,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€petitioner€under€the€1982€Act€as€a€Range€II€offender€afterÐ  P  Ðfinding€him€to€be€an€especially€aggravated€offender.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoodwinóó,€1997€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXISÐ ì <  Ð679Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁŽÛ#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ,€at€*16.€€When€reviewing€the€new€sentence,€this€Court€determined€that€the€trial€court€had€failedÐ Ø(  Ðto€properly€consider€the€petitionerððs€potential€sentence€under€both€acts€and€that€the€petitioner€shouldÐ Ä  Ðhave€been€sentenced€under€the€1989€Act€because€he€was€subject€to€a€lesser€sentencing€range€for€hisÐ °  Ðsecond„degree€burglary€conviction€under€the€1989€Act:€Under€the€1982€ActÔ#†X ÁXXX Áìß#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔ€he€faced€9„15€years,Ð œì  Ðwhile€his€range€was€6„10€years€under€the€1989€Act.€€òòId.óó€€However,€because€the€petitionerððs€9„yearÐ ˆØ  Ðsentence€for€this€conviction€was€within€the€1989€Actððs€range,€and€because€the€petitionerððs€sentenceÐ tÄ Ðwould€have€been€enhanced€by€several€applicable€enhancement€factors€under€the€1989€Act€that€wereÐ `° Ðnot€figured€into€his€sentence€under€the€1982€Act,€this€Court€determined€that€the€error€was€ultimatelyÐ Lœ Ðharmless.€€òòId.óó€Ô#†X ÁXXX Áâá#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€although€the€petitioner€was€not€properly€notified€of€the€stateððs€intent€to€classifyÐ ` Ðhim€as€an€especially€aggravated€offender€under€the€1982€Act,€we€do€not€believe€that€proper€noticeÐ üL Ðwould€have€affected€the€sentence€received.€€While€the€petitioner€was€sentenced€as€an€especiallyÐ è8 Ðaggravated€offender€under€the€1982€Act,€he€should€have€been€sentenced€as€a€multiple€offender€underÐ Ô$ Ðthe€1989€Act.€€The€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhancement€indicated€that€the€prosecutor€was€properlyÐ À Ðseeking€to€classify€the€petitioner€as€a€multiple€offender.€€Furthermore,€as€Ô#†X ÁXXX ÁNä#ÔÔ‡X ÁXXX ÁÔmentioned€òòsupraóó,€theÐ ¬ü Ðpetitioner€would€have€received€a€similar€sentence€if€sentenced€under€the€1989€Act.€€Because€properÐ ˜è Ðnotice€essentially€would€not€have€affected€the€sentencing€hearing,€we€find€that€the€petitionerððsÐ „Ô Ðcounsel€did€not€render€ineffective€assistance.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó,€466€U.S.€at€694.òòÐ pÀ ÐóóÌà  àFinally,€the€petitioner€complains€that€one€attorney,€the€attorney€who€represented€him€on€hisÐ H!˜ Ðoriginal€post„conviction€petition€and€on€his€delayed€direct€appeal,€erroneously€failed€to€challenge€theÐ 4"„  Ðjury€instructions.€€However,€those€instructions€have€not€been€filed€as€part€of€our€record€for€review.Ð  #p! ÐThe€petitioner€requested€the€instructions,€but€allegedly€never€received€them.€€As€discussed€òòsupraóó,€theÐ  $\" Ðtrial€court€was€not€required€to€comply€with€this€request€because€his€request€failed€to€state€what€heÐ ø$H # Ðhoped€to€prove€by€reviewing€the€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòGivensóó,€702€S.W.2d€at€580.€€We€cannot€determineÐ ä%4!$ Ðthe€merits€of€this€claim€without€reviewing€the€instructions.€€Therefore,òòóó€we€find€that€this€issue€doesÐ Ð& "% Ðnot€merit€relief.Ð ¼' #& Ðò òòòÓ  ÓÌConclusionóóó óÐ ”)ä$( Ðâ âÓ¿ìÓÐ €*Ð%) Ðà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€find€that€none€of€the€petitionerððs€allegations€merit€relief.€Ð ° Ðâ âAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ð œì ÐÔ#†X ÁXXX ÁNç#ÔÔ#†¼J­»XX Áô…#ÔÔ€X ÁX»¼J­ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE