ÿWPCþ é§CS1Ç4” )É{CFøA<ðûº´ 54­d–fŽÿºÞÅx¹P{Âe‰¸qaØZ®ý‰éÊz@,¥Ñ„¤Í=~¦FdÒ<‚YM»6êý€NB‹úrÎcîykg· (Ù¿:{ ©ÞMËÙ, Ÿ}ŽÕdÔ×L gŽÃÉ›­ºÒå˜+ «´“Re@¬¾B]#hƒcéûÒ½Ä/¿(ôºüpïKC=¡‰/‚Ëfê‹#e™þ§[~fbãk½wƒ´pi>)Lš·Z+²•+ ^kp`'Òê@£FÚBIzð5¢K@\§WÈ ED'0=  ¦ åòÛj.Ѥ¹.*¬¼³Ÿü¥ê´Ì¦i¥2J¨kð>çÐ[9RÚ2ØŠ‡÷]í ¶æ–YÏöQJ#¸i­ 2¬ÒÐ(ü)èyŠÙ!tÁ>„+2÷±ÛáLyþ ËiÍ3_b#Á\ % # 0ˆ+ UN³ ^  w z Ò‹ 4] q € m‚ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N± 0D³³÷EªªªE¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬bññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññ 0ëùùùù Bää 0¤ D5¥ D-Ú 0K ASRÆ¥ 0¤k 0D A«S˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0» (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularm¨‘-s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3j1,xe3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ©Ý ƒRF$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôì5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€claimed€that€the€officers€promised€that,€if€he€cooperated,€his€multipleÐ ° Ðsentences€could€be€served€concurrently.€€The€officers€denied€this€allegation.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€no€policeÐ tÄ Ðtrickery€or€misconduct. ;Ý ƒRF$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôì5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€proof€of€McClainððs€common€authority€over€the€residence€in€this€Washington€County€case€was€somewhatÐ ° Ðdifferent€from€that€relied€upon€by€the€state€in€the€present€case.€€Although€the€owner€of€the€rented€house€on€AndersonÐ tÄ ÐRoad€testified€about€the€joint€occupancy€of€the€petitioner€and€McClain,€McClain€herself€testified€at€the€suppressionÐ 8ˆ Ðhearing€that€she€had€no€key€to€the€house€and€could€only€enter€through€an€unlocked€window.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€5„6.€€She€alsoÐ üL Ðtestified€that€she€received€mail€at€the€Kingsport€apartment,€which€she€had€rented€a€few€weeks€prior€to€staying€with€theÐ À Ðpetitioner.€€òòId.óó€The€Carter€County€officers€who€executed€the€search€and€who€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€in€theÐ „Ô Ðpresent€case€apparently€testified€in€a€substantially€similar€manner€in€the€Washington€County€suppression€hearing.€€ò òó ó- ù-(|G2F$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôì5ò»»Ô d(|3u$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3u$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼M »»»ÔÑ8€ ÑXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îKÜM ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼M »îîKÜ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€20,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X ÑX»¼M ÔÌò òÔ#†¼M »XX Ñ #ÔòòóóJAMES€DARRELL€HORN€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X ÑX»¼M Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C44,651€€€€€€R.€Jerry€Beck,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02616„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€17,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€James€Darrell€Horn,€appeals€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Courtððs€denial€of€post„Ð xÈ  Ðconviction€relief.€€In€his€post„conviction€petition,€the€petitioner€challenged€his€jury€convictions€onÐ d´ Ðmore€than€30€aggravated€burglary€counts€and€nearly€as€many€theft€counts.€€As€a€result€of€his€manyÐ P  Ðconvictions,€the€petitioner€is€serving€an€effective€90„year€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€Ð <Œ ÐOn€direct€appeal,€his€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmed€by€this€court.€òò€See€State€v.€James€D.Ð (x ÐHornóó,€No.€03C01„9712„CR„00537€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jul.€20,€1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóóÐ d Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€The€petitioner€asserted€that€his€previous€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€becauseÐ P Ðshe€did€not€raise€on€direct€appeal€whether€the€trial€court€(1)€erred€in€not€suppressing€the€petitionerððsÐ ì< Ðpretrial€statements€and€(2)€in€not€suppressing€physical€evidence€seized€during€a€Ô_ÔwarrantlessÔ_Ô€searchÐ Ø( Ðof€his€residence.€€He€also€claimed€that€his€trial€and€appellate€counsel€were€ineffective€because€theyÐ Ä Ðdid€not€properly€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€three€or€four€specific€counts€of€theÐ ° Ðindictments.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€a€very€thorough€order€denying€post„Ð œì Ðconviction€relief.€€Upon€our€review,€we€affirm.Ô#†¼M »XX Ñš#ÔÔ‡X ÑX»¼M ÔÐ ˆØ ÐÓÅÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ `° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼M »àX Ñ #ÔÔ‡X ÑX.¼M ÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óóÐ 8!ˆ  Ðand€òòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð $"t! ÐÌLarry€S.€Ô_ÔWeddingtonÔ_Ô,€Bristol,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€James€Darrell€Horn.Ð ü#L# ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Ô_ÔAngeleÔ_Ô€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð Ô%$!% ÐH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Teresa€Murray€Smith€and€James€F.€Goodwin,Ð À&"& ÐAssistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÓ¼ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼M »XX Ñë #ÔÔ‡X ÑX»¼M ÔÐ „)Ô$) ÐÓ  ÓòòóóÔ#†¼M »XX Ñ‚#ÔÔ€X ÑX»¼M Ôà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àAccording€to€the€records€of€the€hearings€on€the€petitionerððs€pretrial€motions€toÐ \+¬&+ Ðsuppress,€which€were€admitted€as€evidence€in€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€he€movedÐ H,˜', Ðprior€to€his€1997€trial€to€suppress€his€custodial€pretrial€statements€and€evidence€of€stolen€propertyÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôdiscovered€in€his€residence€during€a€warrantless€search.€€The€motions€emanated€from€the€followingÐ ° Ðactivities€of€law€enforcement€personnel.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€May€31,€1995,€Carter€County€Sheriffððs€officers,€armed€with€a€fugitive€warrant€forÐ tÄ Ðthe€arrest€of€the€petitioner,€arrived€at€the€petitionerððs€residence€on€Anderson€Road€in€Carter€County.€Ð `° ÐAfter€they€received€no€response€to€their€knocking€on€the€door,€a€car€pulled€into€the€driveway.€€It€wasÐ L œ Ðdriven€by€a€woman,€Linda€McClain,€who€was€accompanied€by€a€child.€€McClain€stated€that€she€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€petitioner,€whom€she€knew€by€an€alias€name,€lived€in€the€house.€€McClain€did€not€know€whetherÐ $ t Ðthe€petitioner€was€in€the€house€at€the€time.€€She€signed€a€form€to€consent€to€the€officersðð€entering€andÐ  ` Ðsearching€the€house,€and€she€provided€a€key.€€The€officers€found€no€one€inside€the€house€butÐ ü L  Ðdiscovered€it€to€be€filled€with€ð ðmerchandise,ðð€including€weapons,€jewelry,€musical€instruments,€andÐ è 8  Ðelectronic€equipment€and€supplies.€€The€officers€noticed€that€some€of€the€items€they€saw€matchedÐ Ô$  Ðproperty€descriptions€from€Carter€County€burglary€reports.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€an€extensive€chase€and€manhunt€carried€out€during€the€night€of€May€31„JuneÐ ˜è  Ð1,€1995,€Carter€County€officers€apprehended€the€petitioner€in€the€early€morning€hours€of€June€1.€Ð „Ô  ÐThey€took€him€to€the€jail€and€read€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€to€him€from€a€written€form.€€òòSee€Miranda€v.Ð pÀ ÐArizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€86€S.€Ct.€1602€(1966).€€The€petitioner,€who€was€alert€and€sober,€signed€aÐ \¬ Ðwritten€waiver€of€his€rights.€€Later,€at€about€11:00€a.m.€on€June€1,€a€Washington€County€officer€whoÐ H˜ Ðwas€investigating€burglaries€in€that€county€came€to€the€Carter€County€jail€to€interview€the€petitioner.€Ð 4„ ÐHe€also€read€to€the€petitioner€the€òòMirandaóó€rights€from€a€written€form,€and€the€petitioner€signedÐ  p Ðanother€waiver.€€The€petitioner€did€not€ask€for€an€attorney€and€gave€a€statement€about€hisÐ  \ Ðinvolvement€in€a€series€of€Washington€County€burglaries.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€hearing€from€the€Carter€County€Sheriffððs€office€that€a€man€who€may€have€beenÐ Ð  Ðresponsible€for€burglaries€in€Sullivan€County€was€in€custody,€Sullivan€County€officers€arrived€inÐ ¼  ÐCarter€County€and€went€first€to€the€residence€on€Anderson€Road,€which€remained€under€the€controlÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€Carter€County€officers.€€Inside€the€house,€the€Sullivan€County€officers€identified€various€itemsÐ ”ä Ðthat€matched€items€on€burglary€reports€from€Sullivan€County.€€Afterward,€the€Sullivan€CountyÐ €Ð Ðofficers€went€to€the€jail€to€interview€the€petitioner.€€At€approximately€4:00€p.m.,€one€of€these€officersÐ l¼ Ðadministered€an€impromptu,€but€incomplete,€òòMirandaóó€warning€to€the€petitioner,€during€or€afterÐ X ¨ Ðwhich€the€petitioner€said€that€he€did€not€need€to€have€his€rights€explained€again€and€that€he€ð ðdidnððtÐ D!” Ðknow€how€many€times€that€dayðð€the€rights€had€been€read€to€him.€€The€petitioner€was€cooperative€andÐ 0"€  Ðdid€not€ask€to€consult€with€an€attorney.€€With€the€petitionerððs€consent€and€the€Carter€County€SheriffððsÐ #l! Ðapproval,€the€Sullivan€County€officers€took€the€petitioner€to€Sullivan€County.€€They€drove€around,Ð $X" Ðand€the€petitioner€pointed€out€22€residences€in€Sullivan€County€that€he€admitted€burglarizing.€Ð ô$D # ÐAfterward,€the€officers€took€the€petitioner€to€the€Sullivan€County€Jail,€where€they€òòMirandized€óó€himÐ à%0!$ Ðat€approximately€10:30€p.m.€and€obtained€a€written€statement€in€which€the€petitioner€discussed€inÐ Ì&"% Ðdetail€the€Sullivan€County€burglaries€and€thefts.€€On€June€2,€1995,€the€petitioner€made€an€initial€courtÐ ¸'#& Ðappearance€in€Carter€County,€and€counsel€was€appointed€to€represent€him€in€Carter€County.€Ð ¤(ô#' ЀÌà  àà ` àIn€the€Sullivan€County€suppression€hearings,€the€state€relied€upon€the€followingÐ |*Ì%) Ðevidence€to€support€its€claim€that€Linda€McClain€effectively€consented€to€the€May€31„June€1€searchÐ h+¸&* Ðof€the€Anderson€Road€house.€€The€officers€testified€that€she€acknowledged€that€she€and€her€childrenÐ ° Ðhad€lived€in€the€house€since€early€April,€1995.€€Utility€records€established€that€the€electric€serviceÐ œì Ðto€the€house€was€initiated€by€McClain€on€April€4,€and€the€electric€service€agreement€remained€in€herÐ ˆØ Ðname€through€the€end€of€May.€€McClain€had€a€key€to€the€house,€which€she€gave€to€the€Carter€CountyÐ tÄ Ðofficers€after€signing€the€consent„to„search€form.€€Inside€the€house,€officers€discovered€womenððs€andÐ `° Ðchildrenððs€clothing,€as€well€as€childrenððs€toys.€€On€June€1,€while€Sullivan€County€officers€wereÐ L œ Ðpresent€at€the€house,€McClain€came€with€a€pick„up€truck€to€claim€her€belongings,€which€includedÐ 8 ˆ Ðchildrenððs€bicycles€in€the€yard€and€a€cat€which€Ms.€McClain€retrieved€from€under€the€house.€€€TheÐ $ t Ðpetitioner€admitted€to€one€of€the€Sullivan€County€officers€that€McClain€lived€in€the€house,€and€in€aÐ  ` Ðstatement€given€to€police€on€June€16,€1995,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€he€and€McClain€had€movedÐ ü L  Ðinto€the€house€on€April€1.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€claimed€in€his€suppression€hearings€that€McClain€lived€elsewhere€onÐ À  ÐMay€31,€1995.€€The€Carter€County€officer€had€written€on€the€top€of€McClainððs€consent„to„searchÐ ¬ü  Ðform€an€apartment€address€in€Kingsport.€€He€said€that€McClain€provided€this€address,€which€she€saidÐ ˜è  Ðwas€her€motherððs€apartment,€as€a€place€where€she€could€be€reached.€€The€Sullivan€County€officerÐ „Ô  Ðtestified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that,€on€June€1,€McClain€gave€him€the€Kingsport€address€as€theÐ pÀ Ðaddress€she€was€ð ðmoving€to.ðð€Kingsport€officers€took€a€statement€from€McClain€on€June€2,€1995,Ð \¬ Ðin€which€she€listed€the€Kingsport€apartment€as€her€address.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€conducting€the€first€suppression€hearing,€the€trial€court€suppressed€theÐ  p Ðstatements€given€to€the€Sullivan€County€officers;€however,€after€allowing€the€state€to€re„open€theÐ  \ Ðsuppression€hearing€and€after€hearing€additional€evidence€about€òòMirandaóó€warnings€which€were€givenÐ øH Ðto€the€petitioner€prior€to€the€Sullivan€County€officersðð€arrival€at€the€Carter€County€Jail€on€June€1,€theÐ ä4 Ðtrial€court€vacated€its€ruling€and€denied€the€motion€to€suppress€the€pretrial€statements.€€€The€courtÐ Ð  Ðheld€that€the€petitionerððs€òòMirandaóó€interests€were€satisfied€by€the€prior€warnings.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€also€denied€the€motion€to€suppress€the€evidence€of€Sullivan€CountyÐ ”ä Ðstolen€property€being€discovered€at€the€Anderson€Road€house.€€The€court€found€that€McClain€gaveÐ €Ð Ða€valid,€effective€consent€to€search€the€house€on€May€31€and€that€she€did€not€move€to€the€KingsportÐ l¼ Ðapartment€until€June€1.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€trial€counsel,€who€was€a€member€of€the€Public€Defenderððs€staff,Ð 0"€  Ðtestified€at€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€preserved€both€suppression€issues€in€theÐ #l! Ðpetitionerððs€motion€for€new€trial.€€He€thought€that€the€two€suppression€issues€would€be€important€Ð $X" Ðappellate€issues.€€€The€Public€Defenderððs€office€contracted€through€the€Public€Defenderððs€ConferenceÐ ô$D # Ðfor€an€attorney€to€handle€the€direct€appeal.€€Trial€counsel€did€not€confer€with€appellate€counsel€butÐ à%0!$ Ðdid€note€the€suppression€issues€on€his€referral€form.€€Trial€counsel€learned€from€reading€this€courtððsÐ Ì&"% Ðopinion€in€the€petitionerððs€direct€appeal€that€appellate€counsel€did€not€raise€the€suppression€issues.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€counsel€on€direct€appeal€testified€that€she€received€and€reviewed€theÐ )à$( Ðreferral€form€that€trial€counsel€had€furnished€and€that€she€was€fully€aware€of€the€suppression€issues.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐShe€reviewed€the€appellate€record,€which€included€the€technical€record€of€filings€in€the€trial€courtÐ h+¸&* Ðclerkððs€office€and€the€extensive€transcript€of€evidence€from€the€trial.€€Upon€researching€the€applicableÐ ° Ðlaw,€appellate€counsel€determined€that€the€ð ðcase€law€was€entirely€against€Mr.€Hornððs€position€[onÐ œì Ðthe€suppression€of€pretrial€statements].ðð€€She€testified,€ð ðI€think€the€judge€did€rule€correctly.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐLikewise,€on€the€consent€search€issue,€she€determined€after€doing€legal€research€that€she€ð ðdid€notÐ tÄ Ðhave€any€good€faith€basis€for€attacking€[the€ruling€denying€suppression]€at€that€point€because€the€caseÐ `° Ðlaw€was€all€against€us€and€the€reason€[]€was€very€sound€and€cogent€in€those€cases€that€[she]€lookedÐ L œ Ðat.ðð€€She€testified€that,€based€upon€her€independent€judgment,€she€did€not€include€the€suppressionÐ 8 ˆ Ðissues€in€the€appeal,€raising€instead€the€issues€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€and€the€impropriety€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€sentences.€€She€admitted€that€she€was€compensated€for€her€contract€appellate€services€at€aÐ  ` Ðmonthly€rate€of€$1,500€and€was€not€compensated€by€the€hour.€€She€also€acknowledged€that€she€didÐ ü L  Ðnot€discuss€the€appeal€with€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àDuring€the€hearing,€post„conviction€counsel€argued€that,€with€respect€to€aggravatedÐ À  Ðburglary€counts€fourteen€and€fifteen€in€the€charging€instrument,€the€state€proved€only€burglary€atÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial;€the€buildings€burglarized€were€not€inhabited€at€the€time.€€òòCompare€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„Ð ˜è  Ð402(a)(1)€(1997)€(proscribing€burglary€as€the€unlawful€entry€into€ð ða€building€other€than€a€habitationððÐ „Ô  Ðwith€intent€to€commit€a€felony,€theft€or€assault)€òòwith€id.óó€ðð€39„14„403(a)€(1997)€(proscribingÐ pÀ Ðaggravated€burglary€as€burglary€of€a€habitation€as€defined€in€ðððð€39„14„401€and€39„14„402).€€Thus,Ð \¬ Ðpost„conviction€counsel€argued€that€trial€and€appellate€counsel€were€ineffective€in€not€raising€thisÐ H˜ Ðissue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€€Post„conviction€counsel€also€argued€that,€withÐ 4„ Ðrespect€to€a€burglary€and€theft€involving€a€victim€named€Willis€Faulkner,€the€serial€numbers€of€theÐ  p Ðvictimððs€stolen€pistol€did€not€match€the€pistol€recovered€by€officers€and€attributed€to€the€FaulknerÐ  \ Ðtheft.€€Counsel€again€posited€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€raise€this€issue.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àFollowing€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€an€extensiveÐ Ð  Ðorder€that€contained€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€court€held€that€its€pretrial€rulingsÐ ¼  Ðon€the€suppression€issues€were€correct€and€that€appellate€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€deciding€notÐ ¨ø Ðto€raise€the€issues€on€appeal.€€The€court€ruled€that€the€proof€on€counts€fourteen€and€fifteen€(caseÐ ”ä Ðnumber€S38,125)€showed€that€the€burglarized€buildings€met€the€applicable€statutory€definition€of€Ð €Ð Ðhabitation,€and€that,€accordingly,€the€petitioner€was€properly€convicted€of€aggravated€burglary€onÐ l¼ Ðthose€counts.€€As€to€the€Faulkner€pistol€issue,€the€court€found€that€the€petitioner€did€not€establish€aÐ X ¨ Ðdiscrepancy€in€the€serial€numbers.€€Accordingly,€the€court€denied€post„conviction€relief.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àPetitioners€seeking€post„conviction€relief€must€prove€their€allegations€by€"clear€andÐ #l! Ðconvincing€evidence."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€"Evidence€is€clear€and€convincingÐ $X" Ðwhen€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€the€correctness€of€the€conclusions€drawn€fromÐ ô$D # Ðthe€evidence."€€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998)€(citing€òòHodges€v.€S.C.Ð à%0!$ ÐToof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€n.3€(Tenn.€1992)).€€Furthermore,€an€appellate€court€is€bound€byÐ Ì&"% Ða€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€unless€the€facts€of€record€preponderate€against€those€findings.€€òòId.óó€òòóóatÐ ¸'#& Ð245.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€seeking€post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,Ð |*Ì%) Ða€petitioner€must€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€fell€below€"the€range€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1975).€€He€or€she€must€also€show€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counsel's€deficientÐ œì Ðperformance,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€òò€Strickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466Ð ˆØ ÐU.S.€668,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2067€(1984);€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð tÄ ÐBoth€of€the€above€prongs€must€be€established€for€a€petitioner€to€be€entitled€to€relief.€€òòGoadóó,€938Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€at€370.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àGenerally,€a€petitioner€may€not€criticize€a€sound,€though€unsuccessful,€tacticalÐ $ t Ðdecision€made€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.Ð  ` ÐCrim.€App.€1994).€€However,€this€deference€to€the€tactical€decisions€of€counsel€only€applies€to€thoseÐ ü L  Ðchoices€made€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.Ð è 8  ÐCrim.€App.€1992).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àThese€ð ðprinciples€apply€as€well€when€determining€the€effectiveness€of€appellateÐ ¬ü  Ðcounsel.ðð€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€596€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€reviewing€the€services€ofÐ ˜è  Ðappellate€counsel,€our€supreme€court€has€ð ðreiterate[d]€that€there€is€no€constitutional€requirement€thatÐ „Ô  Ðan€attorney€argue€every€issue€on€appeal.€€Generally,€the€determination€of€which€issues€to€present€onÐ pÀ Ðappeal€is€a€matter€which€addresses€itself€to€the€professional€judgment€and€sound€discretion€ofÐ \¬ Ðappellate€counsel.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€596„97€(citations€omitted).€When€the€selection€of€issues€to€be€raised€onÐ H˜ Ðappeal€can€be€characterized€as€tactical€or€strategic€choices,€appellate€counsel€should€not€be€ð ðsecondÐ 4„ Ðguessed,ðð€as€long€as€such€choices€are€based€upon€competent€preparation.€€òòId.óó€at€597.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àWith€these€governing€principles€in€mind,€we€now€examine€the€issue€of€ineffectiveÐ øH Ðassistance€of€counsel€with€respect€to€the€following€claims.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àI.€€òòMirandaóó€Issue.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€determined€that,€despite€the€Sullivan€County€officersððÐ ”ä Ðfailure€to€administer€a€complete€òòMirandaóó€warning€on€the€afternoon€of€June€1,€1995,€the€petitionerððsÐ €Ð Ðsubsequent€statements€relative€to€the€Sullivan€County€cases€were€admissible€because€the€òòMirandaÐ l¼ Ðóówarnings€administered€on€the€morning€of€June€1€by€Carter€County€officers€and€again€by€WashingtonÐ X ¨ ÐCounty€officers€sufficed€to€satisfy€the€òòMirandaóó€requirements€as€to€the€admissibility€of€statementsÐ D!” Ðlater€received€by€the€Sullivan€County€officers.€€In€essence,€the€post„conviction€court€held€that€theÐ 0"€  Ðpetitionerððs€appellate€counsel€did€not€deficiently€perform€when€she€exercised€her€professionalÐ #l! Ðjudgment€not€to€raise€the€issue€of€òòMirandaóó„poor€statements€on€appeal.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€supports€the€lower€courtððs€determination.€€This€court€has€previously€heldÐ à%0!$ Ðthat,€in€situations€similar€to€the€present€case,€a€prior€òòMirandaóó€warning€and€commensurate€waiverÐ Ì&"% Ðmay€pave€the€way€to€admit€later€statements€that€were€not€immediately€preceded€by€a€repeatedÐ ¸'#& ÐòòMiranda€óówarning.€€òòSee€State€v.€J.B.€McCord,€óóNo.€03C01„9403„CR„00110,€slip€op.€at€12„13€(Tenn.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.€3,€1997)€(defendantððs€second€statement€admissible,€despite€officersððÐ )à$( Ðfailure€to€repeat€earlier€òòMirandaóó€warnings,€when€record€showed€no€police€misconduct€and€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðdefendant€effectively€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€in€giving€the€second€statement€when€he€ð ðwas€awareÐ h+¸&* Ðof€the€nature€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€had€an€adequate€understanding€of€their€importanceðð);òòÐ ° ÐState€v.€Prideóó,€667€S.W.2d€102,€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(ð ðOur€law€recognizes€that€an€accusedÐ œì Ðneed€not€be€given€repeated€òòMirandaóó€warnings€once€he€has€been€advised€of€his€rights€and€has€waivedÐ ˆØ Ðthem.ðð);òò€State€v.€Hicksóó,€629€S.W.2d€908,€910€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(defendantððs€statement€givenÐ tÄ Ðthree€hours€after€òòMirandaóó€warnings€held€to€be€admissible);òòóó€òòReaves€v.€Stateóó,€523€S.W.2d€218,€220Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975)€(ð ðWhen€a€defendant€has€been€fully€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€it€is€notÐ L œ Ðnecessary€to€repeat€them€òòon€the€following€dayóó€before€interrogation.ðð)€(emphasis€added).€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€there€was€no€evidence€of€police€misconduct,€and€in€theÐ  ` Ðsuppression€hearings,€the€trial€court€found€no€misconduct.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€the€Sullivan€County€officersÐ ü L  Ðdid€not€completely€advise€the€petitioner€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€on€the€afternoon€of€June€1,€theirÐ è 8  Ðimperfect€rendition€served€to€remind€the€petitioner€of€his€rights;€the€reminder€evoked€a€declarationÐ Ô$  Ðby€the€petitioner€that€he€had€been€fully,€if€not€excessively,€advised€of€his€rights.€€Had€this€issue€beenÐ À  Ðraised€on€direct€appeal,€this€court€would€have€been€constrained€to€hold€that€the€petitionerððsÐ ¬ü  Ðstatements€given€to€the€Sullivan€County€officers€were€admissible€as€a€result€of€the€petitionerÐ ˜è  Ðreceiving€fully€effective€òòMirandaóó€warnings€and€formally€waiving€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€ð!ð€not€once,€butÐ „Ô  Ðtwice€ð!ð€a€few€hours€earlier.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àAccordingly,€it€is€clear€to€us€that€the€petitionerððs€appellate€counsel€acted€well€withinÐ H˜ Ðthe€ambit€of€her€professional€judgment€ð!ð€and€did€not€deficiently€perform€ð!ð€€when€she€omitted€theÐ 4„ ÐòòMirandaóó€issue€from€the€direct€appeal.€€Ð  p ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€II.€€Search€Issue.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àNow,€we€examine€the€claim€that€appellate€counsel€ineffectively€assisted€the€petitionerÐ Ð  Ðwhen€she€omitted€the€issue€of€the€search€of€the€Anderson€Road€house€from€the€appeal.€€The€post„Ð ¼  Ðconviction€court€found€that€Linda€McClain€was€a€resident€of€the€property€where€the€search€wasÐ ¨ø Ðconducted€and€held€that€under€the€facts€surrounding€Linda€McClainððs€consent€to€the€search€of€theÐ ”ä Ðhouse,€the€search€was€reasonable.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€agree.€€A€person€with€common€authority€over€a€residence€may€validly€consent€toÐ X ¨ Ðthe€search€of€that€residence,€effectively€supplying€reasonableness€to€the€officersðð€warrantless€entryÐ D!” Ðand€search.€€òò€See€McGee€v.€Stateóó,€451€S.W.2d€709,€712€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969).€€The€United€StatesÐ 0"€  ÐSupreme€Court€has€said,Ð #l! ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒThe€authority€which€justifies€the€third„party€consent€does€not€restÐ ô$D # Ðupon€the€law€of€property€.€.€.€but€rests€rather€on€mutual€use€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðproperty€by€persons€generally€having€joint€access€or€control€for€mostÐ Ì&"% Ðpurposes,€so€that€it€is€reasonable€to€recognize€that€any€of€the€co„Ð ¸'#& Ðinhabitants€has€the€right€to€permit€the€inspection€in€his€own€right€andÐ ° Ðthat€the€others€have€assumed€the€risk€that€one€of€their€number€mightÐ œì Ðpermit€the€common€area€to€be€searched.Ð ˆØ ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÌòòUnited€States€v.€Matlock,€óó415€U.S.€164,€172€n.7,€94€S.€Ct.€988,€993€n.7€(1974)òòóó.€€The€state€may€fulfillÐ `° Ðits€burden€of€proving€the€reasonableness€of€a€warrantless€search€by€showing€either€that€a€person€withÐ L œ Ðcommon€authority€consented€to€the€search€or€that€the€circumstances€warranted€a€person€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðreasonable€cautionðð€to€believe€that€the€consenting€party€in€fact€had€common€authority€over€theÐ $ t Ðpremises.€€òòState€v.€William€Donald€Ellisóó,€No.€M„1999„783„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  ` ÐApp.,€Nashville,€Oct.€13,€2000)€(citing€òòIllinois€v.€Rodriguezóó,€497€U.S.€177,€188„89,€110€S.€Ct.€2793,Ð ü L  Ð2801€(1990)),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€fact,€the€very€search€at€issue€in€the€present€case€has€been€the€subject€of€a€previousÐ À  Ðadjudication€by€this€court.€€€In€òòState€v.€James€Darrell€Hornóó,€No.€03C01„9810„CR„00363€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jan.€26,€2000),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2001),€this€court€reviewedÐ ˜è  ÐMcClainððs€consent€and€the€reasonableness€of€the€resulting€search€as€part€of€the€petitionerððs€directÐ „Ô  Ðappeal€from€Washington€County€convictions€of€aggravated€burglaries.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òò€Id.óó,€slip€op.€at€2.€€ò òó ó€In€òòóóthatÐ pÀ Ðcase€we€concluded€that€the€Washington€County€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€motion€toÐ \¬ Ðsuppress€the€evidence€gained€through€the€house€search.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€9.€€ð ðThe€evidence,ðð€this€courtÐ H˜ Ðsaid,€ð ðindicates€that€McClain€did€have€common€authority€over€the€premises€.€.€.€for€most€purposesÐ 4„ Ðsuch€that€other€co„inhabitants€.€.€.€assumed€the€risk€that€she€might€allow€the€premises€to€be€searched.ðð€Ð  p ÐòòId.€óó€If€not€conclusive€in€the€present€case,€this€ruling€in€the€petitionerððs€Washington€County€case€isÐ  \ Ðmost€persuasive.Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àOnce€again€the€result€is€that€the€petitionerððs€appellate€counsel€acted€within€the€ambitÐ Ð  Ðof€her€professional€judgment€when€she€declined€to€raise€the€search€issue€in€the€direct€appeal.€€HadÐ ¼  Ðshe€done€so,€the€appellate€court€would€have€been€constrained€to€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€toÐ ¨ø Ðdeny€suppression.€€Appellate€counsel,€therefore,€did€not€render€ineffective€assistance€in€this€instance.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àBefore€leaving€the€topic€of€the€house€search,€we€note€that,€in€his€brief,€the€petitionerÐ l¼ Ðargues€that€òòtrialóó€counsel€was€remiss€in€two€instances.€€First,€he€claims€that€trial€counsel€did€notÐ X ¨ Ðdevelop€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearings€that€Linda€McClain,€who€was€apparently€in€stateÐ D!” Ðcustody€and€did€not€testify€at€the€suppression€hearings,€had€no€authority€to€consent€to€the€search.€€TheÐ 0"€  Ðpetitioner€is€also€aggrieved€that€trial€counsel€did€not€advance€in€the€suppression€hearings€theÐ #l! Ðâ âargument€that€the€officers€exceeded€the€scope€of€their€search,€that€being€to€locate€the€petitioner€forÐ $X" Ðthe€purpose€of€serving€a€fugitive€warrant.€€Assuming€that€these€issues€were€adequately€raised€in€theÐ ° Ðpost„conviction€court,€we€discern€no€basis€for€post„conviction€relief.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àIn€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€failed€to€demonstrate€that€any€furtherÐ tÄ Ðdevelopment€of€McClainððs€authority€to€consent€to€the€search€would€have€yielded€a€different€resultÐ `° Ðon€the€suppression€issue.€€Indeed,€this€courtððs€opinion€in€òòóóthe€petitionerððs€Washington€County€directÐ L œ Ðappeal€shows€that€when€McClain€testified€in€the€suppression€hearing€in€that€case,€she€revealed€herÐ 8 ˆ Ðcommon€authority€over€the€premises,€even€though€she€denied€ever€having€a€key.€€Thus,€the€petitionerÐ $ t Ðdid€not€ð!ð€and€apparently€was€not€able€to€ð!ð€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€trial€counselððs€failureÐ  ` Ðto€further€develop€McClainððs€co„inhabitant€status€in€his€Sullivan€County€case.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€like€manner,€the€evidentiary€hearing€revealed€no€prejudice€to€the€petitioner€in€thatÐ Ô$  Ðhis€trial€counsel€did€not€raise€the€issue€in€the€suppression€hearing€that,€in€discovering€stolen€property,Ð À  Ðthe€officers€exceeded€the€scope€of€their€search€for€the€petitioner€himself.€€First,€we€find€no€suggestionÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€McClain€consented€to€only€a€search€of€limited€scope.€€Second,€the€proof€in€the€suppressionÐ ˜è  Ðhearings€showed€that€the€stolen€merchandise€was€stacked€and€piled€everywhere€and€literally€filledÐ „Ô  Ðthe€rooms€in€the€house.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€can€imagine€no€prejudice€to€the€petitionerÐ pÀ Ðresulting€from€counselððs€failure€to€mount€a€scope„of„the„search€attack.Ð \¬ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àIII.€€Pistol€Identification.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€we€review€the€claim€that€trial€counsel€deficiently€performed€when€he€failed€toÐ  \ Ðcheck€the€serial€number€on€a€.45€caliber€pistol€that€was€allegedly€stolen€from€the€home€of€WillisÐ øH ÐFaulkner.€€The€petitioner€alleged€in€his€post„conviction€petition€that€the€serial€number€of€FaulknerððsÐ ä4 Ðpistol€did€not€match€the€numbers€on€the€.45€discovered€in€the€petitionerððs€possession.€The€post„Ð Ð  Ðconviction€court€held€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€establish€this€claim€in€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€WeÐ ¼  Ðagree.€€The€petitioner€is€entitled€to€no€relief€on€this€issue.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àIV.€€Habitation€Issue.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€final€issue€is€whether€trial€and€appellate€counsel€were€ineffective€because€theyÐ X ¨ Ðrespectively€failed€to€raise€the€issue€whether€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€aggravated€burglary€inÐ D!” Ðcounts€fourteen€and€fifteen€(case€number€S38,125)€or€guilty€of€mere€burglary.€€The€petitioner€allegedÐ 0"€  Ðin€his€post„conviction€petition€that€the€buildings€he€burglarized€in€these€counts€were€not€used€asÐ #l! Ðhabitations€at€the€time€of€the€burglary,€defeating€the€enhancement€of€the€crime€to€aggravatedÐ $X" Ðburglary.€òò€Seeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„402,€„403€(1997).€€The€post„conviction€court€held€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðproscriptive€statutes€do€not€require€that€the€burglarized€structure€be€used€as€a€habitation€to€supportÐ à%0!$ Ðan€aggravated€burglary€conviction.€€The€court€further€held€that€the€proof€at€trial€establishedÐ Ì&"% Ðaggravated€burglary€in€these€counts.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àBurglary€is€aggravated€when€the€offender€enters€a€ð ðhabitation€as€defined€in€ðððð€39„14„Ð )à$( Ð401€and€39„14„402.ðð€€òòSee€id.€óóðð€39„14„403.€€In€pertinent€part,€Code€section€39„14„401(1)€provides:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òð ðHabitationðð:€€Ð ° ÐÌà ¸ à(A)€Means€any€structure,€including€buildings,€module€units,Ð ˆØ Ðmobile€homes,€trailers,€and€tents,€which€is€designed€or€adapted€for€theÐ tÄ Ðovernight€accommodation€of€persons;€.€.€.€.Ð `° ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÌòòIdóó.€ðð€39„14„401(1).€€This€court€has€previously€said,€ð ðThere€is€no€requirement€in€this€definition€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€structure€be€currently€occupied€to€be€a€habitation.ðð€€òòTheodore€Howard€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9806„Ð $ t ÐCR„00191,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€29,€1999).€€Indeed,€ð ðbased€on€commonÐ  ` Ðunderstanding€and€judicial€interpretation,€a€vacant€house€is€clearly€included€within€our€statutoryÐ ü L  Ðdefinition€of€ððhabitation€.€.€.€.ðððð€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€8;€òòsee€also€State€v.€James€Ford€IIIóó,€No.€02C01„9304„Ð è 8  ÐCR„00078€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€3,€1994).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€claims€that€the€ð ðmobile€home€on€a€commercial€lot€for€displayðð€that€Ð ¬ü  Ðhe€burglarized€is€not€a€habitation.€€The€post„conviction€court€held€that,€although€the€proof€in€countsÐ ˜è  Ðfourteen€and€fifteen€was€not€ð ðdetailed,ðð€it€showed€that€the€structure€burglarized€by€the€petitioner€wasÐ „Ô  Ðòòdesignedóó€for€the€overnight€accommodation€of€persons.€€We€agree€and€discern€no€ineffectiveÐ pÀ Ðassistance€of€trial€or€appellate€counsel€in€not€specifically€raising€this€issue.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€addressed€the€issues€presented€in€this€appeal,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÐ 4„ Ðpost„conviction€court.€à  àÐ  p ÐÌà  àà ` àÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¼  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE