ÿWPCö 0]¤R¶Æç´[ªdVöå·Ôú]¦…¾lšU°µG&+®ÔkéQ÷F9Ž8×ìe¹‹ý GÕvÇ|Bn)“V&ö öwßo!‹iœÓh/ç·0ö–ufWˆûe(OEÛ•Fõ°Þ–e¶_ËÇ9 ó¸ÚYE³½£ úcÉ¿¶iJ8ÃcÁ2}®¼Ê‡¾å¤-ïûeIŒƒûxË´B“©è‡Ð„jÏiÛåq·°áNÞ™ùÂÞÎÜY_t£På´³ç¯Swë7ö’"ƒS°Ú÷/ƒ‹c'.¸}cýA¼Ã$^¥éém§þ:CmyðªS4ìÝPŽ“ä˜„"óx{ÀÄmK RÞT7%{äÂ6̵^³ö·ÀŸÅ£ ÿ Omc\³ªå Ôr?œ,Ë5  |=wª(¨d:‰²ÞJ\lÛäýº͉6ª«°iËR‚ ‹5ÌúèAÿ¯XۄŲ絮#‚î{c’µß¦/½«œ$6Éûàèìö'e}㋟ã…`ÑG0³âS‰#Cóg’üÔÏG­l^ê^}ֹׯcc°³`û”Õå¥è;vƒ­Ù¾}_`̯/q`·X¶@.¯—© Ä-@9»cLb %\U>b 0ˆ UN(#Áv^ 7 wC zG ÒÁ 4“ § ¶ m¸ ÆÏ Æ• Æ[ Æ!!NçççEéééééééééééééééééééééééébëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëëë 0ëóóóó BÞÞ 0¤û D3Ÿ D-Ò 0Kÿÿ ASJÆ 0¤c 0D A«K»ô\  `‹&Times New Roman(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0=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.wptÖJ~'E.op$ަ3|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- ù-(|G2¨ $¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô£ò»»Ô d(|3ÿb$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿb$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼%»»»ÔÑ8€PùXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼%»îî #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMay€16,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XPùX»¼%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼%»XXPù#ÔSTEVE€EDWARD€HOUSTONòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XPùX»¼%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Giles€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€9082€€€€€€Robert€L.€Jones,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01087„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€September€7,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€Ð xÈ  ÐHe€claims€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel€on€direct€appeal.€€After€review,Ð d´ Ðwe€hold€that€appellate€counselððs€decision€on€direct€appeal€not€to€raise€potentially€improper€closingÐ P  Ðarguments€at€trial€by€the€prosecutor€was€neither€deficient€performance€nor€prejudicial€to€theÐ <Œ Ðpetitioner.€€We€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€the€petitionerððs€petition.€€Ð (x ÐÓ°ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼%»àXPùŽ#ÔÔ‡XPùX.¼%ÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€andÐ Ø( ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌLeslie€Curry„Johnson,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Steve€Edward€Houston.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Smith,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð tÄ Ðand€T.€Michel€Bottoms,€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð `° ÐÌÓ•ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼%»XXPùÄ#ÔÔ‡XPùX»¼%ÔÐ $"t! ÐÌÌòòóóÔ#†¼%»XXPù3 #ÔÔ‡XPùX»¼%ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XPùXXXPùÔÓ XÓThe€petitioner,€Steve€Edward€Houston,€was€convicted€by€a€Giles€County€jury€of€two€(2)Ð è$8 $ Ðcounts€of€casual€exchange€of€cocaine,€Class€A€misdemeanors,€and€two€counts€of€sale€of€cocaine,Ð Ô%$!% ÐClass€C€felonies.€€These€convictions€were€affirmed€by€a€panel€of€this€court€on€October€29,€1998.€€òòSeeóó€Ð À&"& ÐòòState€v.€Steve€Edward€Houstonóó,€No.€01C01„9711„CC„00510,€1998€WL€749414€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,Ð ¬'ü"' Ðfiled€Oct.€28,€1998,€at€Nashville).€Ð ˜(è#( ÐÓ XÜ ÓÌà  àOn€July€21,€1999,€the€petitioner€filed€a€pro€se€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€anÐ p*À%* Ðamended€petition€on€April€14,€2000.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€court€denied€the€petitionerÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âany€relief€and€later€entered€a€written€order€on€May€19,€2000.€€The€petitioner€has€filed€a€timely€appealÐ H,˜',ý2 ÐÔ_Ôand€asserts€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€denying€him€post„conviction€relief.€€Specifically,Ð ° Ðthe€petitioner€claims€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel€on€direct€appeal.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌÓ  Óò òòòFactsóóó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€casual€exchange€and€two€counts€of€sale€ofÐ L œ Ðcocaine.€€A€summary€of€the€underlying€facts€of€these€offenses€was€set€out€in€detail€on€direct€appeal.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Steve€Edward€Houstonóó,€No.€01C01„9711„CC„00510,€1998€WL€749414€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð $ t ÐApp.,€filed€Oct.€28,€1998,€at€Nashville).€Ô#†XPùXXXPù½ #ÔÔ‡XPùXXXPùÔ€Although€the€petitioner€raised€several€issues€for€review€inÐ  ` Ðhis€post„conviction€relief€petition€and€at€his€hearing,€he€raises€only€one€issue€in€this€appeal:€thatÐ ü L  Ðappellate€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€raise€on€appeal€an€issue€concerning€an€allegedÐ è 8  Ðimproper€argument€by€the€State€during€closing€arguments€of€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€specific€closing€arguments€that€petitioner€complains€of€are,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àSTATE:€Nine,€10,€12€rocks€of€crack€cocaine€that€Steve€Houston€has.€€And€do€youÐ „Ô  Ðthink€for€a€second€that€he€wouldnððt€sell€it€to€your€children,€or€your€grandchildren,€ifÐ pÀ Ðthe€situation€was€right?€€If€the€buy€was€set€up€just€right.Ð\¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àDEFENSE:€Your€Honor,€I€object€to€that€argument.€€I€do€not€think€that€is€proper.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àCOURT:€Overruled.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àSTATE:€Do€you€think€for€a€second€that€he€wouldnððt€sell€to€any€John€Doe€on€theÐ ä4 Ðstreet?€€And€I€suggest€to€you€that€the€answer€is€absolutely€not,€because€he€is€a€drugÐ Ð  Ðdealer€in€the€business€of€making€money€on€his€drug€sale.м Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à*€*€*Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àSTATE:€But€what€a€terrible€injustice€is€going€to€come€out€of€this€case€if€we€talkÐ l¼ Ðabout€and€convict€this€man€of€casual€exchange,€a€mere€transfer€of€drugs€betweenÐ X ¨ Ðfriends.€€That€is,€going€to€be€a€great€injustice€to€come€out€of€a€case€that€involves€fourÐ D!” Ðsales€of€crack€cocaine€by€a€drug€dealer€in€your€community€on€Sumpter€Street.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à*€*€*Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àSTATE:€Itððs€four€drug€sales€by€a€drug€dealer,€in€your€community,€to€a€confidentialÐ à%0!$ Ðinformant,€that€is€being€monitored€by€the€T.B.I.€€This€is€not€a€fly„by„night€operation.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThis€is€a€controlled€situation€of€four€deals€by€a€dealer€in€your€community.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à*€*€*Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àSTATE:€To€shift€this€from€drug€sale€to€casual€exchange,€and€what€a€terrible€injusticeÐ ° Ðâ âthat€is€to€this€community.€€ÐœìÐ Ð  ÐÌà  à*€*€*Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àSTATE:€You€go€back€there€and€you€talk€about€this€case,€ask€yourselves,€is€there€suchÐ L œ Ða€thing€as€a€relatively€small€amount,€when€you€are€dealing€with€a€drug€as€dangerousÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€as€addictive€and€devastating€to€your€community€as€cocaine€is?Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà  àÌà  à*€*€*Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àSTATE:€Donððt€let€a€terrible€injustice€occur€in€your€community€by€convicting€SteveÐ Ô$  ÐHouston€of€casual€exchange.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€State€called€the€petitionerððs€appellate€counsel€andÐ ˜è  Ðquestioned€him€about€his€performance€in€pursuing€the€petitionerððs€direct€appeal.€€Appellate€counselÐ „Ô  Ðexplained€that€the€way€he€typically€selects€issues€for€appeal€is€that€he€prepares€a€list€of€issuesÐ pÀ Ðthroughout€the€trial€that€might€be€appealable.€€He€stated,€ð ð[A]s€an€issue€comes€up€I€write€somethingÐ \¬ Ðdown€on€that€during€the€course€of€the€trial,€because€by€the€end€of€the€trial€I€will€forget€what€it€was.ðð€Ð H˜ ÐHe€then€testified€that€he€uses€the€list€that€he€compiled€in€preparing€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€appellate€counsel€raised€fourteen€(14)€issues€in€the€motion€for€new€trialÐ  \ Ðand€argued€all€fourteen€(14)€to€preserve€them€for€appellate€purposes.€€Upon€being€denied€relief€onÐ øH Ðall€fourteen€issues,€he€began€the€appellate€process.€€Appellate€counsel€testified€that€he€chose€toÐ ä4 Ðpursue€only€two€(2)€issues€on€direct€appeal:€a€suppression€issue€and€a€severance€issue.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€State€questioned€appellate€counsel€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€as€to€why€he€did€notÐ ¨ø Ðpursue€the€prosecutorððs€alleged€improper€closing€argument€on€appeal.€€He€testified€that€although€heÐ ”ä Ðraised€the€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€and€considered€raising€it€as€a€third€issue€on€appeal,€afterÐ €Ð Ðconducting€research€on€the€issue,€he€determined€that€it€was€unlikely€that€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ l¼ ÐAppeals€would€reverse€on€that€issue.€€Appellate€counsel€stated:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àMy€practice€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€and€they€have€written€plenty€ofÐ 0"€  Ðopinions€on€this€is,€you€pick€your€strong€points€and€go€with€those,€and€if€you€donððtÐ #l! Ðreally€have€what€I€think€is€substantial€standing,€then€the€Court€is€going€to€find€someÐ $X" Ðharmless€error,€and€I€donððt€waste€my€time€and€the€Courtððs€time€in€arguing€somethingÐ ô$D # Ðthat€I€donððt€think€has€got€any€merit€to€begin€with.€.€.€.€Quite€frankly,€[the€prosecutorððsÐ à%0!$ Ðargument]€kinda€flew€all€over€me.€€It€was€almost€a€personal€thing,€I€just€thought€itÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€totally€improper.€€I€still€feel€that€it€was€improper€argument.€€However,€when€IÐ ¸'#& Ðwas€working€on€the€appeal€and€deciding€whether€or€not€to€argue€that€issue€on€appeal,Ð ¤(ô#' ÐI€did€some€research,€and€quite€frankly,€the€research€I€found€didnððt€give€me€anyÐ )à$( Ðsubstantial€grounds€to€raise€that€issue€about€the€improper€closing€statement€by€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðprosecution€at€trial,€so€I€didnððt€raise€that€issue.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€appellate€counsel€ð ðmustÐ ° Ðexercise€some€discretion€[in€choosing€issues]€so€as€not€to€dilute€those€grounds€that€may€have€credibleÐ œì Ðmerit.ðð€€The€court€further€found€ð ðno€ineffectiveness€in€the€way€[appellate€counsel]€made€thoseÐ ˆØ Ðelections.ðð€€Essentially,€the€court€found€that€appellate€counsel€made€a€well„informed€strategicÐ tÄ Ðdecision€in€choosing€the€particular€issues€on€direct€appeal.€€The€court€also€agreed€with€appellateÐ `° Ðcounselððs€assessment€that€the€appellate€court€would€likely€not€have€granted€relief€on€the€issue;Ð L œ Ðtherefore,€even€if€appellate€counsel€was€deficient,€the€court€also€found€that€the€petitioner€failed€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðshow€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€any€such€deficient€performance.€€Ð $ t ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòAnalysisóóó óÐ ü L  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àPost„conviction€petitioners€bear€the€burden€of€proving€their€allegations€by€clear€andÐ Ô$  Ðconvincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€On€appeal,€the€appellate€court€accords€theÐ À  Ðtrial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€these€findings€are€conclusive€on€appealÐ ¬ü  Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578„79€(Tenn.Ð ˜è  Ð1997);€òòBates€v.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€615,€631€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€9€of€theÐ \¬ ÐTennessee€Constitution€both€require€that€a€defendant€in€a€criminal€case€receive€effective€assistanceÐ H˜ Ðof€counsel.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€When€a€defendant€claimsÐ 4„ Ðconstitutionally€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€standard€applied€by€the€courts€of€Tennessee€isÐ  p Ðð ðwhether€the€advice€given€or€the€service€rendered€by€the€attorney€is€within€the€range€of€competenceÐ  \ Ðdemanded€by€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòSummerlin€v.€Stateóó,€607€S.W.2d€495,€496€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð øH ÐApp.€1980).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€outlined€the€requirementsÐ ¼  Ðnecessary€to€demonstrate€a€violation€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€Ð ¨ø ÐòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052€(1984).€€First,€the€defendant€must€show€thatÐ ”ä Ðcounselððs€performance€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailingÐ €Ð Ðprofessional€norms€and€must€demonstrate€that€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€he€was€notÐ l¼ Ðfunctioning€as€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€by€the€Constitution.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€atÐ X ¨ Ð2064.€€Second,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€prejudiced€him€and€that€errorsÐ D!” Ðwere€so€serious€as€to€deprive€the€petitioner€of€a€fair€trial,€calling€into€question€the€reliability€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðoutcome.€€òòId.óó;€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àð ðWhen€addressing€an€attorneyððs€performance€it€is€not€our€function€to€ððsecond€guessðð€tacticalÐ ô$D # Ðand€strategic€choices€pertaining€to€defense€matters€or€to€measure€a€defense€attorneyððs€representationÐ à%0!$ Ðby€ðð20„20€hindsight.ðððð€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579€(quoting€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.Ð Ì&"% Ð1982)).€€Rather,€a€court€reviewing€counselððs€performance€should€ð ðeliminate€the€distorting€effects€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðhindsight€.€.€.€[and]€evaluate€the€conduct€from€the€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€atÐ ¤(ô#' Ð689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065.€€€ð ðThe€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense,€doesÐ )à$( Ðâ ânot,€standing€alone,€establish€unreasonable€representation.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369Ð |*Ì%) Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€On€the€other€hand,€ð ðdeference€to€matters€of€strategy€and€tactical€choices€applies€onlyÐ ° Ðif€the€choices€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.ðð€òòId.óó€€€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àTo€establish€prejudice,€a€party€claiming€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€must€show€aÐ tÄ Ðð ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÐ `° Ðwould€have€been€different.ðð€òòId.óó;€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068.€€A€reasonableÐ L œ Ðprobability€is€ð ða€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€òòId.óó€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€an€appellate€court€need€not€addressÐ  ` Ðboth€prongs€of€òòStricklandóó€if€it€determines€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€withÐ ü L  Ðrespect€to€either€prong.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€580.€€In€addition,€the€findings€that€a€post„conviction€Ð è 8  Ðcourt€makes€as€to€the€effectiveness€of€counsel€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidenceÐ Ô$  Ðpreponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenleyóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€578„79.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€crux€of€the€petitionerððs€argument€is€that€had€appellate€counsel€raised€the€issue€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðprosecutorððs€alleged€improper€closing€argument€on€appeal,€the€case€likely€would€have€beenÐ „Ô  Ðremanded€for€a€new€trial.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€the€petitioner€cited€the€post„conviction€courtÐ pÀ Ðto€the€case€of€òòKnight€v.€Stateóó,€229€S.W.2d€501€(Tenn.€1950).€€However,€the€post„conviction€courtÐ \¬ Ðagreed€with€appellate€counselððs€assessment€that€the€petitioner€would€not€have€succeeded€on€such€aÐ H˜ Ðclaim€and€that€asserting€such€a€claim€might€dilute€the€validity€of€the€stronger€issues€on€appeal.€€TheÐ 4„ Ðcourt€essentially€concluded€that€appellate€counselððs€strategic€decision€was€neither€deficientÐ  p Ðperformance€nor€prejudiced€the€petitioner.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€informed€decisions€based€upon€adequate€preparation,€courts€give€deference€toÐ ä4 Ðstrategic€and€tactical€choices.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369.€€Furthermore,€second€guessing€theseÐ Ð  Ðdecisions€is€not€a€function€of€the€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579.€Ô#†XPùXXXPù¯#ÔÔ‡XPùXXXPùÔ€Based€upon€appellateÐ ¼  Ðcounselððs€informed€decisions€and€strategic€choices€in€pursuing€the€direct€appeal,€the€post„convictionÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€found€that€the€petitioner€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€petitioner€in€this€caseÐ ”ä Ðhas€failed€to€show€how€the€record€preponderates€against€these€findings.€Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòConclusionóóó óÐ X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAfter€review,€we€hold€that€the€petitioner€received€effective€assistance€of€appellate€counselÐ 0"€  Ðand€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€the€petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.Ð #l! ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð )à$( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGEÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÌÔ#†XPùXXXPùND#ÔÔ#†¼%»XXPù’ #ÔÔ‡XPùX»¼%ÔÌ