WPC> 5<C3m:Gi7|+z.ag`" acN`쓸`־㒍Ѓ!5JДSd;?FHUwb53s6 +KF]#$= ڴ`^}0w C>YBAKNQ}T6CRSMszIꑼ]dflNi 9>3On9ZԿR I Z}e cn'$T>G RއH#y+h5]T/S&~;_ ܳwDWkFBW^b̙ O2$2x(nFbK$BPNcD+kl7$AHё̒:M UeM`ԗoMR$5?6aֶ)QiM2 b %\^ b 0nU*NwD4H\ zk m U@ #   ] ##N 0DE////////////////////////b111111111111111111111111111111111111 09999 B$$ 0A D5 D- 0KGG AS 0 0DO Aq*+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJ~'\%k2 3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU(9 Z(Times New Roman HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  - -(|G2$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3x$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3x$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8GiXXdd8  @tt$INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#$ #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsAugust15,2001 L XGiX #XXGi#JOANELIZABETHHALLv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXGiX  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforLincolnCounty  J @@No.S0000008CharlesLee,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002707CCAR3PCSeptember7,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     ThepetitionerwasoriginallyconvictedbyaLincolnCountyjuryofcriminalresponsibilityforfirst x  degreemurderandsentencedtolifeimprisonment.Thepetitioner'sconvictionwasaffirmedon d directappeal.Thepetitionersoughtpostconvictionrelief,whichwasdeniedbythepostconviction P court.Inthisappeal,thepetitionercontendshertrialcounselprovidedineffectiveassistanceof < counsel.Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,weconcludethatthepostconvictioncourtcorrectly (x deniedpostconvictionrelief.#XXGi}#XGiX d #XXGiK#XGiX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed  < #XXGi#XGiX   #XXGi^#XGiXJoeG.Riley,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.Welles#XXGi#XGiXandJames  _Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,JJ.,joined.#XXGiP #XGiX  T.LanceCarter(athearingandonappeal)andDeborahR._Kidd_Ԁ(athearing),Fayetteville,  Tennessee,fortheappellant,JoanElizabethHall.   p  t PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;JenniferL.Smith,#XXGi #XGiXԀAssistantAttorneyGeneral;#XXGi #XGiX L  WilliamMichael_McCown_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;_Weakley_ԀE.BarnardandAnnL.Filer, 8!  AssistantDistrictAttorneysGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.#XXGi #XGiXԀ $"t!  OPINION #XXGiJ #XGiX $8 $ #XXGi #  XGiX  OnthenightbeforestatewitnessNatalie_Romine_Ԁwastotestifyatthepetitionersoriginal &"& trial, thestateproducedfordefensecounsela69pagestatementofthewitness.Inthisappeal,the '"' petitionercontendshertrialattorneyswereineffectiveforfailingtomoveforacontinuancesothey (#( wouldhaveadequatetimetoanalyzethestatementsinconsistencies.Werespectfullydisagree. )$)  4-(-G _@   INEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFCOUNSEL    A.PostConvictionHearingTestimony     Atthepostconvictionhearing,thepetitionerstrialcounsel,RaymondFraley,testifiedthat ` heandcocounselRichardMcGeereceivedthewitnessspriorstatementthenightbeforeher L  testimony.FraleystatedMcGeespentmuchofthenightreadingthestatement,andtheydiscussed 8  itthenextmorningpriortoRominestestimony.HefurtherstateditwasMcGeewhoactuallycross $ t examinedthewitness.Fraleytestifiedtheyneitheraskedforacontinuancenorarecesstofurther  ` reviewthedocument.Furthermore,Fraleyfelttheavailabletimewasinsufficienttoadequately  L  reviewthestatement,andthatinconsistenciescouldhavebeenexposedifthestatementhadbeen  8  providedearlier. $    McGeetestifiedhereadthedocumentinitsentiretyonthenightpriortothewitnesss   testimonyandusedinformationcontainedinittoprepareforcrossexamination.McGeefurther   testifiedhehadampletimetoreadand dissectthedocument.McGeeconcededhewouldhave   preferredtohavehadthestatementpriortotrial,butassertedhehadsufficienttimetopreparefor p thecrossexamination. \   XGiXXXGiB.PostConvictionCourtsFindings  4    `   Thepostconvictioncourtfoundtherepresentationbytrialcounsel farexceed[ed]the  \ requirementsthatonewouldexpectunderthestandardsofBaxterv.Rose.Inaddition,thepost H convictioncourtfoundthateveniftrialcounselweredeficientforfailingtorequestacontinuance, 4 itdidnotprejudicepetitioner.Morespecifically,thecourtstatedtherewasnoshowingthatabetter   preparedcrossexaminationofthewitnesswouldhavemadeanydifferenceinthetrialsoutcome.   #XGiXX XGi# C.StandardofReview    XGiXXXGi  ThiscourtreviewsaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselunderthestandardsofBaxter l v.Rose,523S.W.2d930(Tenn.1975),andStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,104S.Ct. X  2052,80L.Ed.2d674(1984).Thepetitionerhastheburdentoprovethat(1)theattorneys D! performancewasdeficient,and(2)thedeficientperformanceresultedinprejudicetothedefendant 0"  soastodeprivehimofafairtrial.Strickland,466U.S.at687,104S.Ct.at2064;Goadv.State, #l! 938S.W.2d363,369(Tenn.1996).Inordertoestablishprejudice,thepetitionermustestablisha $X"  reasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselsunprofessionalerrors,theresultoftheproceeding $D # wouldhavebeendifferent.Areasonableprobabilityisaprobabilitysufficienttoundermine %0!$ confidenceintheoutcome.Strickland,466U.S.at694,104S.Ct.at2068.#XGiXX XGi# &"%  XGiXXXGi  Thetrialjudge'sfindingsoffactonpostconvictionhearingsareconclusiveonappealunless (#' theevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999).Thetrial )$( courtsfindingsoffactareaffordedtheweightofajuryverdict,andthisCourtisboundbythetrial |*%) courtsfindingsunlesstheevidenceintherecordpreponderatesagainstthosefindings.Henleyv. h+&* State,960S.W.2d572,578(Tenn.1997);Alleyv.State,958S.W.2d138,147(Tenn.Crim.App.  1997).Theburdenofestablishingthattheevidencepreponderatesotherwiseisonpetitioner.  Henley,960S.W.2dat579.#XGiXX XGih# XGiXXXGi  #XGiXX XGi!# XGiXXXGi  D.Analysis  ` #XGiXX XGi"#  RichardMcGee,whoactuallyperformedthecrossexamination,testifiedhehadampletime 8  toreadthestatementandprepareforthecrossexamination.Thetrialcourtfoundcounsels $ t performanceexceededtheBaxterstandard. XGiXXXGiQuestionsconcerningtheweightandvaluetobegiven  ` tothetestimonyofwitnessesaretoberesolvedbythetrialcourt,notthiscourt.Burns,6S.W.3d  L  at461.#XGiXX XGi##ԀThepostconvictioncourtfurtherfoundthatpetitionerhadfailedtoestablishareasonable  8  probabilitythattheresultwouldhavebeenanydifferenthadcounseltakenmoretimetopreparefor $  thecrossexamination.     Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthepostconvictioncourt.   Petitionerhasnotestablisheddeficientperformanceorprejudice.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthe   postconvictioncourtisaffirmed. p    `     h     ___________________________________  \    `     h     JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE