WPC  #BJ#{t!+ڕ0Ð->B5gRK3DEL[qK1Sp!!:-*߲ vtddL(eϺJΒJ#a81.L,xn~8h&€ i ڽ8]5 !?֤~Va@fW1GSoT֎Q9oqY{O )Zj !bv**"6άہiq8{~Z=Yh)Ԡ) K<{5$79?Y(b<ޖ(EAAB.G"I܀?TU|vGO~hE# `z$:\n$Y) sH ω~b %\gb 0UNh UN ^  w z  0D` 4     U  mN#Eb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASJ 0c 0D Ab ] R $        1  x4  _Statev.William_Jett_,Jr.,No.01C019707CR00236,1998WL598524at*7(Tenn._Crim_.App.,Nashville,  Sept.10,1998).(w1$    ..8 dXXd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularM)  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.wpt(#$  0  J~' 3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60- -(G2 $ 1!    .8 dd8         0  x4 d(3\$ 1!    .8 dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3\$ 1!    .8 dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK 1!    .8 dd8     _   8tXXdd8@tt& INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$AT# &#NASHVILLE      @  @` September2000Session @ XtX  # XXt #WILLIAMH._JETT_Ԁv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXtX   4 @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtfor_DavidsonCounty_  ( @@No.96A221SteveDozier,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<o` A p  @@TTNo.M199901409CCAR3PCFiledOctober13,_2000_ e  AV) ` dE<0` A 1     TheDefendantfiledforpostconvictionrelieffromhisjuryconvictionforstalking,alleging &v  ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Afterahearing,thetrialcourtdeniedrelief.Weaffirmthetrial  \ court'sjudgment. B # XXt#XtX  Tenn.R.App.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed.     # Xt/#XtX. DavidH.Welles,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.RileyandNormaM.  Ogle,JJ.,joined. p LeslieA.Bruce,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,WilliamH._Jett_,Jr. < PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;DavidH._Findley_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; X VictorS.Johnson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andJon_Seaborg_,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral, > fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. $ @@OO& OPINION # XXt#XtX   # XXt #XtX     TheDefendantwasconvictedbyajuryoffelonystalking.Hisconvictionandsentencewere l!! affirmedondirectappeal.  #  1      ׀TheDefendantsubsequentlyfiledforpostconvictionrelief,whichwas R"" deniedafterahearing.Inthisappealasofright,theDefendantraisesonlyoneissue:whetherhis 8## trialcounselwasineffectivebyfailingtoproperlypreserveaportionofhistrialrecordandbyfailing $n$ tosubmitondirectappealatranscriptofthehearingonhismotionfornewtrial.Uponourreview %T % oftherecord,weaffirmthetrialcourt'sdenialofpostconvictionrelief. %:!&   '#( @(FACTS p     TheindictmentagainsttheDefendantmadereferencetohispriorconvictionofstalkingthe | victim.Upondefensecounsel'smotion,thatportionoftheindictmentwasorderedwithheldfrom b thejury.Duringdeliberations,thejuryapparentlyaskedthetrialcourtaquestionwhichindicated H thattheindictmentstillincludedtheforbiddeninformation.Accordingtodefensecounsel,he . ~ objectedandrequestedamistrialatthattime;however,theobjectionandrequestwerenotmadeon  d therecord.Thetrialcourtdeniedcounsel'srequestforamistrialandinsteadinstructedthejuryto  J disregardtheinformationregardingtheDefendant'spriorconviction.Neitheroftheseactionsby  0 thecourtwasmadeapartoftherecord.Thejurythereafterreturnedaverdictofguilty.      Defensecounselsubsequentlyraisedtheissueinamotionfornewtrialandalsoondirect   appeal.However,thisCourtfoundthattheissuehadbeenwaivedbecausetherecorddidnotsupport x  theclaimthatthejuryhadbecomeawareofthepriorconviction;becausetherecordcontainedno ^  objectionstotheallegedtrialerror;andbecausethetranscriptofthenewtrialhearinghadnotbeen D  includedintheappellaterecord.SeeWilliam_Jett_,Jr.,1998WL598524,at*6.TheDefendantnow *z  assertsthattheseerrorsonhislawyer'spartconstitutedineffectiveassistanceofcounselsuchasto ` requireanewtrial.Thecourtbelowdisagreed,andsodowe. F   ANALYSIS    XtXXXtTodeterminewhethercounselprovidedeffectiveassistanceattrial,thecourtmustdecide  whethercounselsperformancewaswithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysin t criminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Tosucceedonaclaimthathis Z counselwasineffectiveattrial,adefendantbearstheburdenofshowingthathiscounselmadeerrors @ soseriousthathewasnotfunctioningascounselasguaranteedundertheSixthAmendmentandthat &v thedeficientrepresentationprejudicedthedefendantresultinginafailuretoproduceareliableresult.  \ _Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668,687(1984);Cooperv.State,849S.W.2d744,747(Tenn. B 1993);Butlerv.State,789S.W.2d898,899(Tenn.1990).Tosatisfythesecondprong,the ( defendantmustshowareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselsunreasonableerror,thefact  finderwouldhavehadreasonabledoubtregardingtheDefendantsguilt._Strickland_,466U.S.at  695.Thisreasonableprobabilitymustbe sufficienttoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.   Harrisv.State,875S.W.2d662,665(Tenn.1994). p!    Whenreviewingtrialcounselsactions,thisCourtshouldnotusethebenefitofhindsightto <#" secondguesstrialstrategyandcriticizecounselstactics.Hellardv.State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn. "$r# 1982).Counselsallegederrorsshouldbejudgedatthetimetheyweremadeinlightofallfactsand %X $ circumstances._Strickland_,466U.S.at690;seeCooper849S.W.2dat746. %>!%   Ifaffordedapost-convictionevidentiaryhearingbythetrialcourt,adefendantmustdomore ' #' thanmerelypresentevidencetendingtoshowincompetentrepresentationandprejudice;heorshe (#( mustprovethefactualallegationsbyclearandconvincingevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn. )$) 40-30-210(f).Whenanevidentiaryhearingisheld,findingsoffactmadebythatcourtare l*%* conclusiveandbindingonthisCourtunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthem.Cooper,849 R+&+ S.W.2dat746(citingButler,789S.W.2dat899). 8,', Ї#XtXXXtN## XXtX #XtX   WhileweagreewiththecourtbelowthattheDefendant'sattorneyshouldhavepreservedthe  issueconcerningtheindictment,wedonotthinkthattheDefendanthascarriedhisburdenofproving  that,butforcounsel'smistakeinthisregard,thereisareasonableprobabilitythatthejurywould | havehadreasonabledoubtconcerninghisguilt.Asnotedbythecourtbelow,thisCourtconsidered b thesufficiencyoftheevidenceagainsttheDefendantonthedirectappealofthismatter.ThisCourt H foundthattheproofwassufficienttosustaintheDefendant'sconviction.Thatis,thejuryhadample . ~ evidenceuponwhichtoconvicttheDefendantbeforeitwasallegedlyexposedtotheinadmissible  d informationabouttheDefendant'spriorconviction.Accordingly,theDefendant'sargumentthatthe  J jurywouldotherwisehavehadreasonabledoubtabouthisguiltmustfail.  0   WithrespecttowhethertheDefendant'slawyerwasineffectiveondirectappeal,weagain    applythestandardssetforthin_Strickland_Ԁv.Washington:theDefendantmustshowthatappellate   counsel'sperformancewasdeficientandthathewasprejudicedbythisdeficiency.See_Porterfield_ x  v.State,897S.W.2d672,678(Tenn.1995).Becausethetranscriptofthemotionfornewtrialis ^  notcontainedintherecordbeforeus,thereisnowaytodeterminewhetherornotitwouldhave D  helpedtheDefendantonhisdirectappeal.Thus,theDefendanthasfailedtocarryhisburdenof *z  provingthathislawyer'sfailuretoincludethenewtrialhearinginthedirectappealwasdeficient. ` Moreover,thisallegederroronappellatecounsel'spartwasjustoneofthreereasonsthatthematter F wasdeemedwaivedondirectappeal.Evenifcounsel'sperformancewasdeficient,theDefendant , hasstillfailedtoshowareasonableprobabilitythattheresultoftheappealwouldhavebeen  differenthadthetranscriptbeenincluded.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.    TheDefendanthavingfailedtoprovebyclearandconvincingevidencethathislawyer's t allegederrorsweresogrievousastoentitlehimtoanewtrial,thecourtbelowcorrectlydenied Z relief.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisthereforeaffirmed. @ ̀   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE