ÿWPC> —d˜anÖœªÊkù~E¬ Øô}%¼‘Ãé?šý†Þ³W1ƒDÅË«;ë±÷± ´$ÿ2¿™¥€àr¡‘J)'›:ædžùflºH”9Ⱥá]îI®h R-ëÁ´"š.Šó¬Nð¬Ö€¶¹=×qh~d ‘øªrÖÍ34¨òêpKr·g%…ü.&9§ÄÅã­dµŒÆÓe©AßCß™nÄŸ;ЭzÔÈüïEÑ ŸÖ %BÈs›ÂQUCÁ¬]Ø$ô»ˆ´ íès)úÊݘ<1‘ ôA‡É}'±E«…ïV±Ž¡ÑÆÎ™íKë¬ T¼O-¢É Ï®T‘lÌ6µ–1|&ܰ®Â¢iš±O®€â™_OþÍÅkËdP“XH‘¬w£Üg\£\笗3͇½õrwm kî”–ó¾>Uj©‚àÎ67©èª÷£h•C¹¥çdy°Œa¶–9;*Fט÷ÛÑ#…E:´•ë–om¡œÁ“9ÈZ–Qî†[M ÀÕKpå°C’Üý矺…ö½P©²ŸMd¿Çì×’XQúA¡½¾þØ#ˆ©Z\‡z'ž9‹¹c¢S±„Ÿgí/ë6aki\œ.+4\ÆNTlx\pUN  %n 0ˆt^ üw 4  z/ Ò© { m} â” #Áv Æ7 Æý ÆÃƉUNONEŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸb¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ä©© 0Dmmm 0ë±±±± Bœœ 0¤¹ D3] D- 0K½½ ASÆ[ 0¤! 0DÅ A«              Š´(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó[~l-s Yo†),¾¬ðË 3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ McGinleyTiptonAngeleRadford Crim a]nStricklandHellardRobersonMcBee Odomrevd˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù- ºÝ ƒRIò$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô’Dò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNo€transcript€of€the€post„conviction€hearing€is€contained€in€the€record€because€it€was€destroyed€as€a€result€ofÐ ° Ða€fire€in€the€court€reporterððs€home.€€A€statement€of€evidence€was€submitted€by€the€parties€in€accordance€with€Rule€24(c),Ð tÄ ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(|G2Iò$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€+¬»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô’Dò»»Ô d(|3‰G$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€+¬»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰G$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€+¬»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK €Ý ƒRIò$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô’Dò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€acknowledge€that,€although€the€Appellant€may€not€argue€the€voluntariness€of€the€confession€to€the€jury,Ð ° Ðhe€may€challenge€its€€truthfulness.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔMontsÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€400€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1966)€(it€is€the€duty€of€the€judge€toÐ tÄ Ðdetermine€the€admissibility€of€a€confession€and€it€is€for€the€jury€to€determine€what€weight€should€be€given€theÐ 8ˆ Ðconfession).€€This,€however,€is€not€the€issue€presented€by€the€Appellant.€€Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€+¬»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼+¬»»»ÔÑ8€vXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î4ý+¬ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÔ#†¼+¬»îî4ý#Ôà@''%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ Ö& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€10,€2002Ð è8 ÐÔ‡XvX»¼+¬ÔÌò òÔ#†¼+¬»XXv1#ÔJERRY€JAMES€HAYESòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XvX»¼+¬Ôó óÐ æ6 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Carroll€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97cr„1159€PC€€€€€€C.€Creed€McGinley,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„00058„CCA„R3„PC€€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Filed€November€6,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡XvXXXvÔThe€Appellant,€Jerry€James€Hayes,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€judgment€of€the€Carroll€CountyÐ d´  ÐCircuit€Court€denying€his€petition€for€post-conviction€relief.€€On€appeal,€the€Appellant€argues€thatÐ P  Ðhe€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€After€review€of€the€record,׃M×Ý ƒO#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€dismissal€of€the€petitionÐ <Œ Ðis€affirmed.Ô#†XvXXXv#ÔÔ#†¼+¬»XXvª#ÔÔ‡XvX»¼+¬ÔÐ (x ÐÓøÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼+¬»àXv-#ÔÔ‡XvX.¼+¬ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó€and€òòJoe€G.Ð Ø( ÐRileyóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌBilly€R.€Roe,€Jr.,€Assistant€District€Public€Defender,€Camden,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€JerryÐ œì ÐJames€Hayes.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Angele€M.Ð `° ÐGregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Robert€Gus€Radford,€District€Attorney€General;€and€EleanorÐ Lœ ÐCahill,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÔ#†¼+¬»XXvû#ÔÔ‡XvX»¼+¬ÔÌÓÌÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼+¬»XXvÊ #ÔÔ‡XvX»¼+¬ÔÐ ü"L" ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ Ô$$ $ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼+¬»XXv= #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XvX»¼+¬ÔÌÔ‡XvXXXvÔà  àIn€1998,€the€Appellant€was€convicted€by€a€Carroll€County€jury€of€second€degree€murder,€andÐ ¬&ü!& Ðwas€sentenced€to€a€term€of€twenty„three€years€imprisonment.€€The€Appellantððs€conviction€andÐ ˜'è"' Ðsentence€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSee€State€v.€Jerry€James€Hayesóó,€No.€02C01„9810„CC„Ð „(Ô#( Ð00338€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Aug.€26,€1999)òòóó.€Ð p)À$)ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àOn€July€18,€2000,€the€Appellant€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€FollowingÐ ° Ðappointment€of€counsel,€the€petition€was€amended€to€reflect€three€grounds€for€which€relief€wasÐ œì Ðsought:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  à(1)€Trial€counsel€should€have€argued€at€trial€that€the€deceased€victim€would€not€haveÐ `° Ðdied€except€for€the€failure€to€wait€for€an€ambulance;€ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€Even€though€trial€counsel€did€object€to€the€admission€of€the€defendantððsÐ $ t Ðconfession€at€the€pre„trial€level,€trial€counsel€at€trial€did€not€argue€that€the€confessionÐ  ` Ðwas€involuntarily€given;€and€Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(3)€Trial€counsel€did€not€call,€at€trial,€Henry€Allen€as€a€witness.€€Petitioner€contendsÐ Ô$  Ðthat€Henry€Allen€would€have€testified€favorably€and€his€testimony€would€have€beenÐ À  Ðdetrimental€to€the€Stateððs€case.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€and,€on€December€1,€2000,€the€post-conviction€court€denied€theÐ „Ô  ÐAppellant€post-conviction€relief,€finding€that€he€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€ThisÐ pÀ Ðtimely€appeal€followed.€Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ 4„ ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€Appellant€raises€one€issue€for€our€review;€whether€trial€counsel€was€effective.€€DespiteÐ  \ Ðhis€assertions€of€ineffectiveness,€the€Appellant's€brief€contains€no€authority€or€arguments€in€supportÐ øH Ðof€his€position.€€The€Appellantððs€entire€argument,€as€set€forth€in€his€brief,€is€recited€as€follows:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àWas€trial€counselððs€strategy€of€relying€on€a€self„defense€argument€and€disregardingÐ ¼  Ðall€other€trial€strategies€reckless€to€the€point€of€rising€to€the€level€of€ineffectiveÐ ¨ø Ðassistance€of€counsel?€€Trial€counsel€should€have€not€put€all€hopes€on€a€single€trialÐ ”ä Ðstrategy,€but€should€have€attacked€the€Stateððs€case€in€a€multi„faceted€manner.€€TrialÐ €Ð Ðcounsel€should€have€attacked€the€Stateððs€case€in€the€following€manner:Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à1.€€By€arguing€an€intervening€cause€of€death€ð ðmoving€the€deceased.ððÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à2.€€By€calling€all€eyewitnesses€in€the€hope€that€by€virtue€of€their€many€differentÐ #l! Ðviews,€that€some€would€be€beneficial€to€the€defendant.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à3.€€By€arguing€to€the€jury€that€the€statements€of€the€defendant€that€were€not€consistentÐ à%0!$ Ðwith€the€self„defense€argument€were€coerced.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àIt€is€well€settled€law€that€a€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€a€perfect€defense.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐDefendant€asserts€that€his€defense€was€so€haphazard€and€so€badly€thought€throughÐ )à$( Ðthat€as€a€result,€he€did€not€receive€a€fair€trial,€and€that€in€all€fairness,€should€beÐ |*Ì%) Ðawarded€a€new€trial.€€Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  ЇRule€27€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides€in€relevant€part€that:€Ð ° ÐÐ Ðà8  àThe€brief€of€the€appellant€shall€contain€.€.€.€[a]n€argument,€which€may€be€precededÐ ˆØ Ðby€a€summary€of€argument,€setting€forth€the€contentions€of€the€appellant€with€respectÐ tÄ Ðto€the€issues€presented,€and€the€reasons€therefor,€including€the€reasons€why€theÐ `° Ðcontentions€require€appellate€relief,€with€citations€to€the€authorities€and€appropriateÐ L œ Ðreferences€to€the€record€(which€may€be€quoted€verbatim)€relied€on.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€€òòsee€also€Harvey€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€478,€479€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),Ð  ` Ðòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1988).€€"Issues€which€are€not€supported€by€argument,€citation€toÐ ü L  Ðauthorities,€or€appropriate€references€to€the€record€will€be€treated€as€waived€in€this€court."€Tenn.€Ct.Ð è 8  ÐCrim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€In€the€present€case,€the€Appellant€does€not€provide€this€court€with€any€legalÐ Ô$  Ðauthority€in€support€of€his€ineffective€claims€or€any€explanation€as€to€how€his€grounds€of€ineffectiveÐ À  Ðassistance€of€counsel€affected€the€verdict.€€Accordingly,€the€Appellant's€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðcounsel€claim€is€waived€because€of€his€failure€to€comply€with€Tennessee€Rule€of€AppellateÐ ˜è  ÐProcedure€27(a)(7).€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àNonetheless,€in€the€interests€of€justice,€we€elect€to€review€the€claims€presented.€€TheÐ \¬ ÐPost-Conviction€Procedure€Act,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðððð€40„30„201€to€„310€(1997),€providesÐ H˜ Ða€method€by€which€a€defendant€may€challenge€a€conviction€or€sentence€for€violation€of€a€state€orÐ 4„ Ðfederal€constitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-203€(1997).€€€In€order€to€succeed€on€a€post„Ð  p Ðconviction€claim,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€theÐ  \ Ðallegations€set€forth€in€his€petition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àTo€succeed€in€a€challenge€for€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€Appellant€must€establish,Ð Ð  Ðunder€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984):€(1)€deficientÐ ¼  Ðrepresentation,€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€the€deficiency.€€Thus,€the€Appellant€must€prove€thatÐ ¨ø Ðcounsel€"made€errors€so€serious€that€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€'counsel'€guaranteed€theÐ ”ä Ðdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment,"€and€the€Appellant€must€demonstrate€that€counselððs€errors€wereÐ €Ð Ðso€serious€as€to€deprive€the€Appellant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€result€is€reliable.€€òòIdóó.€Ð l¼ ÐÐ Ðà  àWith€respect€to€deficient€performance,€the€Appellant€must€demonstrate€that€counselððsÐ D!” Ðrepresentation€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxterÐ 0"€  Ðv.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€This€court€"must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€thatÐ #l! Ðcounselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance;€that€is,€theÐ $X" Ð[Appellant]€must€overcome€the€presumption€that,€under€the€circumstances,€the€challenged€actionÐ ô$D # Ðmight€be€considered€sound€trial€strategy."€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689€(citation€omitted).€We€shouldÐ à%0!$ Ðdefer€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€òòóóÐ Ì&"% ÐòòSee€Hellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Additionally,€this€court€should€avoid€theÐ ¸'#& Ð"distorting€effects€of€hindsight"€and€"judge€the€reasonableness€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct€onÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€facts€of€the€particular€case,€viewed€as€of€the€time€of€counselððs€conduct."€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð )à$( Ðat€689„90.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€issues€of€deficient€performance€by€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€areÐ ° Ðmixed€questions€of€law€and€fact.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€ð ðA€trial€courtððsÐ œì Ðòòfindings€of€factóó€underlying€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€reviewed€on€appeal€underÐ ˆØ Ða€òòde€novo€óóstandard,€accompanied€with€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correct€unless€theÐ tÄ Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001)Ð `° Ð(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d));€òòsee€Henley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997).€€However,Ð L œ Ðòòconclusions€of€lawóó€are€reviewed€under€a€purely€òòde€novoóó€standard,€with€no€presumption€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðcorrectness.€€òòFieldsóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€458.Ð $ t Ѐ€Ð  ` ÐÓ  Óò òI.€€Intervening€Causeó óÐ ü L  ÐÌÓä.Óà  àFirst,€the€Appellant€argues€that€ð ðtrial€counsel€should€have€presented€evidence€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðdeceased€victim€died€because€of€the€negligence€of€bystanders€in€failing€to€wait€for€an€ambulance.ðð€Ð À  ÐWith€regard€to€this€contention,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that:€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àThere€was€simply€no€basis€in€support€of€this€argument.€€The€evidence€presented€atÐ „Ô  Ðthe€trial€of€this€cause€indicated€that€co„workers€in€an€effort€to€save€the€life€of€theÐ pÀ Ðdeceased€rather€than€waiting€on€an€ambulance€had€loaded€the€victim€directly€in€to€aÐ \¬ Ðvehicle€and€taken€him€to€the€nearest€hospital.€€The€proof€does€not€support€that€theÐ H˜ Ðvictim€would€have€lived€if€the€parties€had€waited€at€the€crime€scene€for€emergencyÐ 4„ Ðpersonnel.€€Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€the€proof€established€that€the€Appellant€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder€forÐ øH Ðthe€shooting€death€of€a€co„worker.€€The€Appellant€and€the€victim,€both€roofers,€began€arguing€at€theÐ ä4 Ðwork€site€after€the€Appellant€threw€empty€beer€bottles€into€the€victimððs€truck.€€Following€a€heatedÐ Ð  Ðexchange,€the€Appellant,€who€had€armed€himself€with€a€pistol,€shot€the€victim€in€the€chest.€€òòJerryÐ ¼  ÐJames€Hayesóó,€No.€02C01„9810„CC„00338.€€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€testifiedÐ ¨ø Ðthat€he€did€not€pursue€an€intervening€cause€of€death€argument€because€it€would€not€have€beenÐ ”ä Ðeffective€and€would€have€taken€away€from€his€self„defense€argument.€€Furthermore,€no€medical€proofÐ €Ð Ðwas€offered€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€to€support€an€intervening€cause€of€death€theory.€Ð l¼ ÐMoreover,€this€court€has€held€that€in€order€to€convict€a€defendant€of€homicide,€it€is€not€necessary€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthe€defendant's€act€be€the€sole€cause€of€death€nor€the€most€immediate€cause€of€death.€òòState€v.Ð D!” ÐRobersonóó,€644€S.W.2d€696,€698€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€ð ðIt€is€only€necessary€that€the€defendantÐ 0"€  Ðunlawfully€contributed€to€the€death€of€the€deceased."€€òòId.óó€€Finally,€allegations€of€ineffectiveÐ #l! Ðassistance€of€counsel€relating€to€matters€of€trial€strategy€or€tactics€rarely€provide€a€basis€for€post„Ð $X" Ðconviction€relief.€€Counsel€is€afforded€discretion€in€conducting€the€defense€and€is€entitled€to€use€hisÐ ô$D # Ðor€her€best€judgment€in€matters€of€trial€strategy€or€tactics.€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€374,€378Ð à%0!$ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991)€(citing€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,Ð Ì&"% Ð193€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)).€€For€all€of€the€foregoing€reasons,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ  ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òII.€€Involuntary€Confessionó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌÓå:Óà  àThe€Appellant€next€contends€that€ð ðtrial€counsel€should€have€argued€to€the€jury€that€hisÐ `° Ðconfession€was€involuntary.ðð€€The€post„conviction€court€rejected€this€argument€because€ð ðthis€matterÐ L œ Ðwas€fully€and€thoroughly€explored€by€counsel€at€appropriate€pretrial€stages€of€the€proceeding€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðfailure€to€argue€the€involuntariness€to€the€jury€does€not€constitute€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€Ð $ t ÐWe€note€that€trial€counsel€did€challenge€the€voluntariness€of€the€Appellantððs€confession€through€theÐ  ` Ðappropriate€pretrial€proceedings.€€The€trial€court,€not€the€jury,€determines€whether€the€confession€wasÐ ü L  Ðillegally€obtained.€€òòState€v.€Richard€Odomóó,€No.€02C01„9305„CR„0080€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,Ð è 8  ÐOct.€19,€1994),€òòrevððd€in€partóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996).€€Because€the€trial€court€determined€thatÐ Ô$  Ðthe€confession€was€voluntary,€it€was€impermissible€to€argue€such€issue€to€the€jury.òò€€Id.óó׃o×Ý ƒO#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òò€€€óóTherefore,Ð À  Ðwe€find€that€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€prove€that€trial€counselððs€performance€was€deficient.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€Eyewitness€Testimonyó óÐ pÀ ÐÌÓn@Óà  àThird,€the€Appellant€argues€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€failed€to€call€anÐ H˜ Ðeyewitness,€Henry€or€Kenny€Allen,€who€would€have€given€testimony€favorable€to€the€defense.€€TheÐ 4„ Ðpost„conviction€court€made€the€following€relevant€findings:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àApparently€this€witness€was€under€subpoena€by€the€State,€but€was€not€called€by€eitherÐ øH Ðparty.€€At€the€trial€several€eye€witnesses€were€called€and€gave€testimony€concerningÐ ä4 Ðthe€criminal€acts€of€the€defendant.€€There€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€the€witness€notÐ Ð  Ðcalled€would€have€testified€any€differently€or€given€testimony€favorable€to€theÐ ¼  Ðdefendant.€€€€Ð¨øÐ Ð  ЀÌIÔ#†XvXXXvô #Ôf€the€claim€is€based€on€a€failure€to€properly€investigate,€then€the€evidence€or€witness€must€beÐ €Ð Ðproduced€so€that€the€post„conviction€court€judge€can€properly€evaluate€the€evidence€or€the€witness.€Ð l¼ ÐòòBlackóó€òòÔ‡XvXXXvÔv.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)òòóóÔ#†XvXXXvE#Ô.€€Ô‡XvXXXvÔThe€Appellant€Ô#†XvXXXv„E#Ôdid€not€produce€thisÐ X ¨ Ðwitness€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Ô‡XvXXXvÔThis€court€will€not€speculate€as€to€what€the€testimony€mightÐ D!” Ðhave€revealed.€€Accordingly,€we€find€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€establish€that€he€received€deficientÐ 0"€  Ðrepresentation€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€€Ð #l! ÐÐ  $X" ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ œì ÐÌÓqGÓÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€do€not€find€that€trial€counselððs€performance€wasÐ `° Ðdeficient€or€that€the€trial€produced€an€unreliable€or€unjust€result.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÐ L œ ÐCarroll€County€Circuit€Court€dismissing€the€Appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðaffirmed.€Ð $ t ÐÔ#†XvXXXv&F#ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE