ÿWPC– =JZM#¤óúPNøúKNQsÎ?’‘Œô<¹ &_hžáØ\é Pºà¿"ï½,$øVxb>·ïNWEèØüò{×/ð‚ˆÅã¬Z1¼– Ò¢††‰  Nþ€‰3Îíª‚”°÷3rY øLþ„˜©qCƒ{;῎SÔé8ûFv¹Æ ™*K.6êÿA¥ïsQ»c๢†@‹60~[î†Õà]…>â²â)x©¥¨|kpµÐ ¸ßÏŽñkGâ/릓x¹ckÃmêÒfà&ýOÃ<ŸþälNŠHŒptÕ$öà0­]±5œdÜní Iä¸su|bQáz†b¢ÍÊ([ÈÞÚ)û@c—:/×|/¿Ák>˜‚Ñ„|Üþ 'YèÁcB²“>}ÇPS*-’¤»ÍáÁÉ+B è_ìŠG˜–öø”†AÄè¶-xØ<áÚ¤®ŠÏk& æÆjZkF\2àCocÑÒÏoµ›¶aë™ÁÖ¶4t>.Ä[Ûö|ÕÍ/Â_' >L*)@‚6âëdsõk6dž°ÛÙGbLýÉü¦ýOÕ?(…?JÊé´×c—GL‰ªƒk]MnX æšW ]>ú±?ÜÉ7ŸBÅy–P]àîb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ Ð Æ™ Æ_ Æ%ÆëU@±Nñ”óóE‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡b‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰ 0ë‘‘‘‘ B|| 0¤™ D5= D-r 0KŸŸ ASêÆ= 0¤ 0D§ A«ë»ÕqF0Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ~‰/ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman   JuniGanguliColvilleColvillesHoneycutt JeriWilmouth- ù-(|G2g$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ò­»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôüXò»»Ô d(|3x½$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ò­»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3x½$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ò­»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ò­»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ò­»»»ÔÑ8€”sXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î,RҭÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Ò­»îî,R #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€7,€2003Ð öF ÐÔ‡X”sX»¼Ò­ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ò­»XX”s#ÔMICHAEL€P.€HEALYòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X”sX»¼Ò­Ôó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„26147€€€€€€Arthur€T.€Bennett,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2002„01962„CCA„R3„PC€€„€Filed€February€5,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€petitioner€received€effective€assistance€ofÐ V¦  Ðcounsel€both€before€and€during€trial.€€We€affirm€the€denial€of€the€post„conviction€relief.Ð ? ÐÓ¿ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ a ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ò­»àX”s–#ÔÔ‡X”sX.¼Ò­ÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Curwood€Witt,Ð ä4 ÐJr.,óó€and€òòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Í ÐÌJuni€Ganguli,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Michael€P.€Healy.Ð Ÿï ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Thomas€E.€Williams,€III,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ qÁ ÐGeneral;€William€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Lee€Coffee,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ Zª ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð C“ ÐÓ5ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ò­»XX”sd#ÔÔ‡X”sX»¼Ò­ÔÐ e ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Ò­»XX”s #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X”sX»¼Ò­ÔÓ XÓThe€petitioner,€Michael€P.€Healy,€was€convicted€of€the€indicted€charges€of€aggravatedÐ è 8  Ðrobbery€and€aggravated€assault.€€Sentences€of€thirty€years€for€aggravated€robbery€and€fifteen€yearsÐ Ñ!!! Ðfor€aggravated€assault,€to€be€served€consecutively,€were€imposed.€€The€convictions€were€affirmedÐ º" " Ðon€direct€appeal€to€this€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Michael€P.€Healyóó,€No.€W1999„01510„CCA„R3„CD,€2001Ð £#ó# ÐTenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€471€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€June€26,€2001).Ð Œ$Ü$ ÐÐ u%Å % ÐThe€petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€February€8,€2002.€€CounselÐ ^&®!& Ðwas€appointed,€and€an€amended€petition€was€filed.€€An€extensive€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€onÐ G'—"' ÐJuly€10,€2002,€and€the€petition€was€denied.Ð 0(€#( ÐÐ )i$) ÐThe€petitionerððs€claims€were€overlapping€in€some€instances,€but€the€alleged€deficiencies€ofÐ *R%* Ðcounsel€can€be€categorized€as:Ð ë*;&+ ÐÓ$°–, X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓà0 4 àà  à(1)€failure€to€properly€conduct€a€pre„trial€investigation€that€could€develop€possibleÐ Ô+$', Ðdefense€theories;€Ð½, (-4Ð 4Ð  Ð(2)€failure€to€file€timely€pre„trial€motions,€including€notice€of€an€alibi€defense;€Ð ¦-ö(.ý Ðà0 4 àà  à(3)€ineffective€representation€at€trial€in€cross„examination€and€the€failure€to€objectÐ ° Ðto€certain€testimony.€Ð™é4Ð 4Ð  ÐÓ X"ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ( °œX°–, Xâ (ÓÐ ‚Ò ÐThe€facts€supporting€the€petitionerððs€conviction€were€summarized€in€òòState€v.€Healyóó.€€TheÐ k» Ðpetitioner,€wearing€a€platinum€blonde€wig,€sunglasses,€and€facial€covering,€entered€a€store€ownedÐ T¤ Ðby€Sherrie€and€Benny€Colville.€€The€petitioner€pointed€a€gun€at€Mrs.€Colville€and€demanded€sheÐ =  Ðopen€the€cash€register.€€Instead,€she€called€for€her€husband,€who€observed€the€petitioner€from€behindÐ & v Ða€two„way€mirror.€€The€petitioner€took€Mrs.€Ô_ÔColvilleÔ_Ôððs€purse.€€As€the€petitioner€turned€to€leave,€heÐ  _ Ðsaw€Mr.€Colville€crouching€in€the€back€of€the€store€and€pointed€the€gun€at€Mr.€Colville.€€TheÐ ø H Ðpetitioner€fled,€pursued€by€Mr.€Colville,€who€saw€the€petitioner€remove€his€disguise€enabling€Ô_ÔMr.Ô_ÔÐ á 1  ÐColville€to€see€the€petitionerððs€face.€€A€witness€saw€the€petitioner€fleeing€the€store€and€obtained€theÐ Ê   Ðlicense€plate€number€on€the€vehicle€in€which€the€petitioner€escaped.€€The€petitioner€was€laterÐ ³  Ðapprehended,€and€the€Colvilles€independently€identified€the€petitioner€in€a€six„person€photographicÐ œì  Ðlineup€as€the€perpetrator.Ð …Õ  ÐÐ n¾  ÐÔ‡XyF XXX”sÔThis€Court€reviews€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€the€standards€of€òòBaxterÐ W§  Ðv.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€and€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.Ð @ Ð2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€The€petitioner€has€the€burden€to€prove€that€(1)€the€attorneyððsÐ )y Ðperformance€was€deficient,€and€(2)€the€deficient€performance€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€defendantÐ b Ðso€as€to€deprive€him€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,Ð ûK Ð938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€failureÐ ä4 Ðto€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€justifies€denial€of€relief;€therefore,€the€court€need€not€addressÐ Í Ðthe€components€in€any€particular€order€or€even€address€both€if€one€is€insufficient.€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2dÐ ¶ Ðat€370.€€In€order€to€establish€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€establish€a€ð ðreasonable€probability€that,Ð Ÿï Ðbut€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€AÐ ˆØ Ðreasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€Ð qÁ ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€Ð Zª ÐÐ C“ ÐThe€test€in€Tennessee€to€determine€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€is€whetherÐ ,| Ðhis€or€her€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€Ð e ÐòòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€The€petitioner€must€overcome€the€presumption€that€counselððs€conductÐ þN Ðfalls€within€the€wide€range€of€acceptable€professional€assistance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104Ð ç 7 ÐS.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòState€v.€Honeycuttóó,€54€S.W.3d€762,€769€(Tenn.€2001).€€Therefore,€in€order€to€proveÐ Ð!   Ða€deficiency,€a€petitioner€must€show€ð ðthat€counselððs€acts€or€omissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fallÐ ¹" ! Ðbelow€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòGoadóó,€938Ð ¢#ò" ÐS.W.2d€at€369€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€688,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065)òòóó.Ð ‹$Û# ÐÐ t%Ä $ ÐIn€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment€.€.€.€requires€that€every€effort€be€made€toÐ ]&­!% Ðeliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counselððs€challengedÐ F'–"& Ðconduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€òòNichols€v.€Stateóó,€90Ð /(#' ÐS.W.3d€576,€587€(Tenn.€2002)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065òòóó).€€The€fact€thatÐ )h$( Ða€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense€does€not,€standing€alone,€establishÐ *Q%) Ðâ âunreasonable€representation.€However,€deference€to€matters€of€strategy€and€tactical€choices€appliesÐ ê*:&* Ðonly€if€the€choices€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð572,€579€(Tenn.€1997);€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Ô#†X”sX XXyF¦#ÔÐ ™é Ðâ âÐ ‚Ò ÐThe€petitioner€was€initially€represented€by€Michael€Johnson€of€the€Shelby€County€PublicÐ k» ÐDefenderððs€Office€from€December€3,€1998,€until€April€27,€1999.€€The€petitioner€complained€that€hisÐ T¤ Ðcounsel€was€inaccessible,€did€not€spend€adequate€time€with€him,€failed€to€initiate€a€properÐ =  Ðinvestigation,€and€did€not€file€a€requested€speedy„trial€motion.Ð & v ÐÐ  _ ÐOn€April€27,€1999,€Gregory€Carman€was€substituted€as€counsel€for€the€petitioner.€€TheÐ ø H Ðpetitioner€claimed€that€Mr.€Carman€failed€to€move€to€suppress€the€disguise€items,€failed€to€properlyÐ á 1  Ðinvestigate€witnesses€or€the€possible€presence€of€surveillance€cameras,€and€failed€to€object€toÐ Ê   Ðprejudicial€statements€in€the€prosecutionððs€closing€argument.€€The€petitioner€also€alleged€that,€to€hisÐ ³  Ðdetriment,€Mr.€Carman€changed€defense€strategy€during€trial.Ð œì  ÐÐ …Õ  ÐMr.€Johnson€testified€that€during€his€representation€of€the€petitioner,€he€obtained€fullÐ n¾  Ðdiscovery€from€the€State€and€shared€its€contents€with€the€petitioner.€€He€also€initiated€anÐ W§  Ðinvestigation€through€his€office.€€He€stated€the€petitioner€did€not€wish€to€consider€acceptance€of€theÐ @ Ðplea€bargain€offer.€€Mr.€Johnson€stated€he€did€not€file€the€speedy€trial€motion€as,€in€his€opinion,€itÐ )y Ðwould€have€been€futile.€€As€it€was,€the€petitionerððs€arraignment€was€December€3,€1998,€and€the€trialÐ b Ðoccurred€on€March€4,€1999.€€Mr.€Johnson€stated€that€he€had€himself€removed€as€counsel€due€to€aÐ ûK Ðpersonal€conflict€with€the€petitioner.Ð ä4 ÐÐ Í ÐGregory€Carman€succeeded€Mr.€Johnson€as€counsel.€€His€time€logs€reflected€that€he€hadÐ ¶ Ðspent€a€total€of€55ðð€hours€on€the€case,€which€included€7ðð€hours€of€conferences€with€the€petitionerÐ Ÿï Ðand€15ðð€hours€in€court.€€The€remainder€of€time€was€devoted€to€investigation,€research,€review€ofÐ ˆØ Ðevidence,€and€general€preparation.€€Mr.€Carman€not€only€visited€the€crime€scene€but€initiated€twoÐ qÁ Ðother€investigations€with€his€staff.€€Witnesses€were€interviewed,€and€the€possibility€of€an€alibiÐ Zª Ðdefense€was€explored.€€This€defense€was€discarded€when€the€only€suggested€witness,€Jeri€Wilmouth,Ð C“ Ðthe€petitionerððs€girlfriend,€could€not€provide€a€location€or€time€that€would€support€an€alibi€defense.€Ð ,| ÐMr.€Carman€said€that€his€strategy,€which€was€discussed€with€and€approved€by€the€petitioner,€wasÐ e Ðto€attempt€to€prove€a€lesser€offense€than€charged.€€Consequently,€identity€was€not€contested,Ð þN Ðalthough€the€petitioner€attempted€to€resurrect€the€issue€during€trial.€€All€pre„trial€motions€were€filedÐ ç 7 Ðaccording€to€Mr.€Carmanððs€testimony.Ð Ð!   ÐÐ ¹" ! ÐThe€post„conviction€judge€issued€a€written€finding€and€concluded€that€the€petitionerððs€bareÐ ¢#ò" Ðallegations€of€ineffective€counsel€were€unsupported€by€evidence€adduced€at€the€hearing.€€The€post„Ð ‹$Û# Ðconviction€judge€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€in€the€denial€of€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðpetition.€€These€findings€of€fact€on€post„conviction€hearings€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÐ ]&­!% Ðevidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€HavingÐ F'–"& Ðconcluded€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€those€findings,€we€are€bound€by€them.€Ð /(#' ÐòòHenley,óó€960€S.W.2d€at€578.€€Ð )h$( ÐÐ *Q%) ÐHaving€concluded€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€prove€deficiency€of€counsel,€we€thereforeÐ ê*:&* Ðaffirm€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.Ð Ó+#'+ ÐòòóóÐ ° ÐÐ ™é ÐÐ ‚Ò ÐÐ k» ÐÐ T¤ Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#à___________________________________€Ð= (#(# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€JOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE