ÿWPC ™n`M³Hô¿ómå}¦Ïr‰Ï£ç}ÍÐnéThÜ2^<‹ñë&+Ç»0*6«6>O©j†ÐÝf們&ì*†) bè›á\¸¯ÜöJ‡¼EÙªr®fh ÿP¥¾_^‰¾x@‘¿õK§ã|†4‘m0ÝL ›`Q_B%Ë|Ýå}¸wžN¬c›®š;T\UF) [ !òìv'9ïí›L­¿RÃ!(+R ©îVÉöKêà¸YÓžÓ´ürÚm€+RÓu`øn;oÇÝeŠâÇðjE90úÈ$ôPJßTã™EщC3ÇÍ»m «HßWøŽ(rŠA(_õÃ_´_¿ þ„˜‰ö¿ûÁ´ M ŠGìû¯¡üN!) ?ƒ˜EÆw?EzKͤ¬`E±)?2Ö ÛÄN‰ðžÿ!>µ2šA ˜è€LéÎØ¬¬VÒŸY·4Ïò°¿±µy&† ‹†Ú¿:siQl ÆŠúdùcáF^%æ‚$Ñ/dvP݇.ÚIrŽð>j·e½å92œ}¾z×Ë âùõÊ«+ˆ ˜€çe¶Q‚"þn–ó6g$hO DR¾öLbPK•^\KXÙãB? e´V=”„k3yݽ ~æ‹ÒŸ¿èŒb#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ11N÷÷÷Eùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùbûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûû 0ë Bîî 0¤  D3¯ D-â 0K ASZÆ­ 0¤s 0D A«[˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularáz_+â  ˜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.wptòK+.bk1¸†Ÿ3|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-(|G2Œñ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M »»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô(ò»»Ô d(|3Íô$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M »»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Íô$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M »»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]T»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼þ»»»ÔÑ8€3ÔXXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îòÕþÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼þ»îîòÕ#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€2,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X³hX»¼þÔÌò òÔ#†¼þ»XX³h.#ÔòòWALTER€L.€JOHNSONóó€v.€òòóóSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X³hX»¼þÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„23418€€€€€€Chris€Craft,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„00382„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€October€26,€2001Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Petitioner€was€convicted€of€especially€aggravated€€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€and€sentenced€to€twenty„fiveÐ xÈ  Ðyears€incarceration.€€The€conviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€Subsequently,€theÐ d´ ÐPetitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€that€his€attorney€at€trial€was€ineffective.€Ð P  ÐThe€post„conviction€court€denied€relief.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð <Œ ÐÓ©ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼þ»àX³h§#ÔÔ‡X³hX.¼þÔRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óóÐ ì< Ðjoined.€€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.,óó€concurred€in€the€result€only.Ð Ø( ÐÌRobert€Little,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Walter€L.€Johnson.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Laura€Ô_ÔMcMullenÔ_Ô€Ford,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ ˆØ ÐGeneral;€William€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Katrina€Ô_ÔEarleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€DistrictÐ tÄ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð `° ÐÓ4ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼þ»XX³hc#ÔÔ‡X³hX»¼þÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼þ»XX³hÍ #ÔÔ‡X³hX»¼þÔÓ  Óà@ii#ìàò òI.€€òòBackgroundóóó óˆÐ #`" ÐÌà  àThe€Petitioner,€Walter€L.€Johnson,€is€presently€serving€a€twenty„five„year€sentence€in€theÐ è$8 $ ÐTennessee€Department€of€Correction€for€especially€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô.€€On€direct€appeal,€thisÐ Ô%$!% ÐCourt€summarized€the€facts€of€the€underlying€conviction€as€follows:Ð À&"& Ðà8  àà ` àOn€January€27,€1994,€between€noon€and€one€oððclock€p.m.,€the€victim€in€thisÐ ¬'ü"' Ðcase,€Joyce€Davis,€stopped€on€her€way€home€to€use€a€pay€phone€on€Ô_ÔMcLemoreÔ_Ô€StreetÐ ˜(è#( Ðin€Memphis.€€While€she€was€using€the€phone,€the€Defendant,€whom€she€did€notÐ „)Ô$) Ðknow,€pulled€up€in€a€red€pick„up€truck€and€asked€how€she€was€doing.€€She€respondedÐ p*À%* Ðthat€she€was€fine.€€The€Defendant€then€got€out€of€the€truck,€walked€over€to€her,Ð \+¬&+ Ðtouched€her€with€a€knife,€and€told€her,€ð ðI€think€you€need€to€get€in€my€truck.ðð€€Fearful,Ð H,˜', Ðthe€victim€followed€his€commands.Ð#4-„(-Ð Ð ý¦ #ÐÔ_Ô‡à8  àà ` àThe€Defendant€escorted€the€victim€to€the€passenger€side€of€his€truck,€andÐ ° Ðbefore€he€shut€the€door,€he€tore€the€knob€from€the€window€lever€and€threw€it€on€theÐ œì Ðfloorboard.€€Once€inside€the€truck,€the€victim€noticed€that€the€passenger€side€doorÐ ˆØ Ðhandle€had€also€been€removed.€€The€Defendant€proceeded€to€drive€the€truck€acrossÐ tÄ Ða€bridge€to€Arkansas.€€During€the€drive,€the€Defendant€asked€the€victim€to€raise€upÐ `° Ðher€skirt€so€that€he€could€see€her€legs.€€In€Arkansas,€they€drove€on€a€dirt€road€to€aÐ L œ Ðsecluded€spot,€where€they€stopped.€€The€Defendant€turned€to€the€victim€and€said,Ð 8 ˆ Ðð ðBitch,€Iððm€going€to€kill€you.ðð€€The€victim€began€to€cry,€and€the€Defendant€told€herÐ $ t Ðto€stop€crying€so€that€she€would€not€arouse€the€suspicions€of€the€police€should€theyÐ  ` Ðdrive€by€or€stop.Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€Defendant€had€the€victim€place€one€leg€on€the€floorboard€and€the€otherÐ Ô$  Ðon€the€seat€of€the€truck,€and€he€tore€her€pantyhose.€€His€penis€was€outside€of€hisÐ À  Ðpants;€and€as€he€tore€the€victimððs€pantyhose,€he€was€ejaculating.€€He€stated,€ð ðWhatÐ ¬ü  Ðis€a€piece€of€p____y€compared€to€your€life.ðð€€He€performed€cunnilingus€on€the€victimÐ ˜è  Ðand€then€penetrated€her,€holding€to€the€back€of€her€neck€a€knife,€which€the€victimÐ „Ô  Ðdescribed€at€trial€as€having€a€black€handle€and€a€long€blade.ÐpÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€Defendant€penetrated€the€victim€for€approximately€thirty€minutes€butÐ H˜ Ðstopped€the€rape€when€he€heard€another€car€approaching.€€The€Defendant€emergedÐ 4„ Ðfrom€the€truck€to€relieve€himself,€leaving€the€knife€on€the€dash€of€the€truck.€€WhenÐ  p Ðhe€got€back€into€the€truck,€he€drove€to€another€location.€€At€the€second€location,Ð  \ Ðevidently€the€truck€almost€got€stuck,€and€the€Defendant€decided€to€take€the€victimÐ øH Ðhome.€€At€that€time,€the€Defendant€placed€the€knife€in€the€sun€visor€above€his€head.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àDuring€the€abduction€and€rape,€the€Defendant€referred€to€himself€severalÐ ¼  Ðtimes€as€ð ðWillie.ðð€€Several€times€he€told€the€victim,€ð ðCall€me€Mr.€Willie.ðð€€One€itemÐ ¨ø Ðof€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€a€piece€of€paper€taken€from€the€DefendantððsÐ ”ä Ðresidence€on€which€the€words€ð ðWillie€call€meðð€were€written.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOn€the€way€back€to€Memphis,€the€Defendant€apologized€for€raping€the€victimÐ X ¨ Ðand€asked€if€she€had€been€raped€before.€€Although€the€Defendant€believed€that€he€wasÐ D!” Ðtaking€the€victim€to€her€own€home,€the€victim€had€the€Defendant€drop€her€off€at€aÐ 0"€  Ðneighborððs€house€instead.€€The€Defendant€ordered€her€not€to€call€the€police€and€thenÐ #l! Ðbacked€the€truck€down€the€street.€€The€victim€was€able€to€see€three€of€the€digits€onÐ $X" Ðthe€truckððs€license€plate€as€he€backed€down€the€street.€€She€testified€at€trial€that€sheÐ ô$D # Ðhad€seen€the€numbers€ð ð363,ðð€although€she€also€admitted€that€she€was€not€entirely€sureÐ à%0!$ Ðshe€remembered€the€correct€numbers.€€After€the€Defendant€left,€the€victim€wentÐ Ì&"% Ðinside,€called€the€police,€and€was€taken€to€the€Rape€Crisis€Center,€where€sheÐ ¸'#& Ðsubmitted€to€medical€testing.Ф(ô#'Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€victim€told€police€that€the€Defendantððs€truck€had€the€word€ð ðFordðð€on€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðoutside€and€the€word€ð ðRangerðð€on€the€inside.€€She€described€it€as€having€a€redÐ h+¸&* Ðexterior€and€some€white€trim,€a€darker€panel€on€the€driverððs€front€side€near€the€fender,Ð ° Ðand€torn€seats€in€the€interior.€€She€described€her€perpetrator€as€ð ða€male€black,Ð œì Ðapproximately€200€pounds€with€a€heavy€build,€a€full€gray€beard,€a€blue€flannel€shirt,Ð ˆØ Ðblue€jeans,€and€some€type€of€green€shoes.ððÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA€few€days€after€the€abduction€and€rape,€the€victim€saw€the€Defendant€drivingÐ L œ Ðin€the€same€truck,€and€she€went€into€a€nearby€store€to€call€the€police.€€On€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðoccasion,€she€was€able€to€take€down€the€full€license€tag€number,€ð ðYHN„633,ðð€whichÐ $ t Ðshe€relayed€to€the€police.€€However,€evidently€the€victim€was€mistaken€about€the€tag,Ð  ` Ðbecause€the€license€numbers€that€she€provided€belonged€to€a€1985€Ford€pick„upÐ ü L  Ðwhich€was€not€red€and€which€was€registered€to€a€man€named€Victor€McGee.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOn€August€18,€1994,€a€Memphis€police€officer€who€was€working€on€theÐ À  Ðinvestigation€in€this€case€received€information€that€he€could€find€the€Defendant€nearÐ ¬ü  ÐVance€and€Orleans€streets€around€six€oððclock€a.m.€€The€officer€went€to€the€area€atÐ ˜è  Ðthat€hour€but€had€no€luck€finding€the€Defendant.€€He€returned€the€following€morningÐ „Ô  Ðat€the€same€time€and€saw€a€red€pick„up€truck€with€ladder€racks€on€the€top€driven€byÐ pÀ Ða€man€who€matched€the€description€of€the€victimððs€assailant.€€The€license€plate€on€theÐ \¬ Ðvehicle€was€ð ðYHW„363.ðð€€When€he€stopped€the€vehicle,€the€officer€noted€andÐ H˜ Ðphotographed€a€knife€which€was€stuck€in€the€sun€visor€above€the€driverððs€seat.€€HeÐ 4„ Ðthen€arrested€the€driver,€whom€he€identified€as€the€Defendant,€Walter€Johnson.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€police€conducted€two€separate€lineups€in€which€the€DefendantÐ øH Ðparticipated.€€Ms.€Davis€was€present€at€the€second€lineup€and€picked€the€DefendantÐ ä4 Ðout€of€the€lineup€as€her€assailant.€€At€the€police€station,€she€also€identified€theÐ Ð  ÐDefendantððs€truck€as€the€vehicle€driven€by€her€assailant.€€òòм Ð Ð  ÐState€v.€Walter€Johnsonóó,€No.€02C01„9801„CR„00007,€1998€WL€779610,€at€*1„2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð ¨ø ÐJackson,€Nov.€10,€1998).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThis€Court€affirmed€the€Petitionerððs€conviction€and€sentence,€and€permission€to€appeal€to€theÐ l¼ ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€was€denied.€€òòIdóó.€at€*1.€€The€Petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„Ð X ¨ Ðconviction€relief,€counsel€was€appointed€to€represent€the€Petitioner,€and€an€amended€petition€forÐ D!” Ðpost„conviction€relief€was€filed.€€Following€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€deniedÐ 0"€  Ðrelief.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€Petitioner€alleged€that€his€attorney€at€trial€was€ineffective€forÐ ô$D # Ðthe€following€reasons:€(1)€that€counsel€failed€to€request€jury€instructions€on€the€lesser„includedÐ à%0!$ Ðoffenses€of€aggravated€kidnapping€and€kidnapping;€(2)€that€counsel€agreed€to€stipulate€to€certainÐ Ì&"% Ðfacts€without€the€Petitionerððs€consent;€(3)€that€counsel€failed€to€argue€that€a€prior€nolo€contendereÐ ¸'#& Ðplea€by€the€Petitioner€in€Mississippi€should€not€be€used€to€enhance€the€Petitionerððs€sentence;€(4)€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcounsel€failed€to€properly€investigate€the€case;€(5)€that€counsel€failed€to€request€a€continuance€of€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âtrial€when€the€Petitionerððs€ð ðcivilian€clothesðð€were€misplaced;€and€(6)€that€counsel€failed€to€object€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€victimððs€testimony€concerning€a€lineup€identification€of€the€Petitioner,€at€which€the€PetitionerÐ ° Ðalleges€the€victim€was€not€present.€€The€Petitioner€does€not€raise€issue€(6)€in€this€appeal.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€a€detailed€order€containing€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€the€trial€courtÐ tÄ Ðdetermined€that€the€Petitioner€had€failed€to€prove€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€his€trialÐ `° Ðcounsel€represented€him€ineffectively.Ð L œ ÐÌà@éé$ìàò òII.€€òòAnalysisóóó óˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€obtain€post„conviction€relief,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€his€or€her€conviction€orÐ ü L  Ðsentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgment€of€a€constitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð è 8  Ððð€40„30„203.€€The€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€factual€allegations€in€the€petition€for€post„Ð Ô$  Ðconviction€relief€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€A€post„conviction€courtððsÐ À  Ðfactual€findings€are€subject€to€a€òòdeòòóó€òòóónovoóó€review€by€this€Court;€however,€we€must€accord€these€factualÐ ¬ü  Ðfindings€a€presumption€of€correctness,€which€is€overcome€only€when€a€preponderance€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€is€contrary€to€the€post„conviction€courtððs€factual€findings.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,Ð „Ô  Ð456€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997)).€€A€post„convictionÐ pÀ Ðcourtððs€conclusions€of€law,€such€as€whether€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€or€whether€thatÐ \¬ Ðdeficiency€was€prejudicial,€are€subject€to€a€purely€òòdeòòóó€òòóónovoóó€review€by€this€Court,€with€no€presumptionÐ H˜ Ðof€correctness.€€òòId.óó€at€457.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€right€of€a€criminally€accused€to€representation€is€guaranteed€by€both€the€SixthÐ  \ ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ð øH ÐòòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€Ð ä4 ÐThis€right€to€representation€includes€the€right€to€ð ðreasonably€effectiveðð€assistance.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3dÐ Ð  Ðat€461.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whetherÐ ”ä Ðthe€advice€given€or€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demandedÐ €Ð Ðof€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÐ l¼ Ðassistance€of€counsel,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€ð ðcounselððs€representation€fell€below€an€objectiveÐ X ¨ Ðstandard€of€reasonableness,ðð€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€688€(1984),€and€that€thisÐ D!” Ðperformance€prejudiced€the€defense,€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result,€òòid.óó€at€687òòóó;Ð 0"€  ÐòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993).€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àWhen€evaluating€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,€the€reviewing€court€should€judgeÐ ô$D # Ðthe€attorneyððs€performance€within€the€context€of€the€case€as€a€whole,€taking€into€account€all€relevantÐ à%0!$ Ðcircumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690òòóó;€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€753€S.W.2d€148,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ì&"% ÐApp.€1988).€€The€reviewing€court€must€evaluate€the€questionable€conduct€from€the€attorneyððsÐ ¸'#& Ðperspective€at€the€time.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€€In€doing€so,€the€reviewing€court€must€be€highly€deferential€andÐ )à$( Ðð ðshould€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðreasonable€professional€assistance.ðð€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462.€€Counsel€should€not€be€deemed€to€haveÐ h+¸&* Ðbeen€ineffective€merely€because€a€different€procedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€differentÐ ° Ðresult.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,€279„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).à x àÔ#†¼þ»XX³h+ #ÔÔ‡X³hX»¼þÔÐ œì ÐÌà@ÀÀ ìàA.€€òòJury€InstructionsóóˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€Petitionerððs€trial€attorney€was€not€ineffective€forÐ L œ Ðfailing€to€request€a€jury€charge€on€lesser„included€offenses.€€The€post„conviction€court€correctlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðpointed€out€that€the€Petitionerððs€defense€at€trial€was€one€of€ð ðidentification.ðð€€The€post„convictionÐ $ t Ðcourt€determined€thatÐ  ` Ðà8  à[t]here€never€was€any€question€that€the€crime€occurred€or€that€a€knife€was€used,€butÐ ü L  Ðonly€whether€or€not€Petitioner€was€the€perpetrator.€€Failure€to€instruct€on€a€lesserÐ è 8  Ðoffense€is€not€error€where€the€record€clearly€shows€that€the€Defendant€was€guilty€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€greater€offense,€and€the€record€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€permitting€an€inferenceÐ À  Ðof€guilt€of€the€lesser€offenses.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€as€the€State€points€out€in€its€brief,€the€trial€court€was€obligated€to€instruct€theÐ „Ô  Ðjury€on€any€appropriate€lesser„included€offenses,€with€or€without€a€request€from€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð pÀ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110€(amended€2001).€€We€conclude€that€the€post„conviction€courtððs€factualÐ \¬ Ðfindings€and€conclusions€of€law€are€correct.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð H˜ ÐÌà@§§#ìàB.€€òòStipulationóóˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àIn€his€amended€petition€and€in€his€brief,€the€Petitioner€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€wasÐ øH Ðineffective€because€counsel€stipulated,€without€Petitionerððs€consent,€that€the€DNA€evidence€obtainedÐ ä4 Ðfrom€the€victim€was€insufficient€to€conclusively€identify€the€Petitioner€as€the€rapist.€€At€the€post„Ð Ð  Ðconviction€hearing,€no€evidence€was€presented€by€the€Petitioner€to€prove€this€allegation.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€Petitioner€relied€on€his€trial€attorneyððs€judgment€inÐ ”ä Ðnot€objecting€to€a€stipulation€concerning€the€fact€that€insufficient€genetic€material€was€available€toÐ €Ð Ðobtain€a€DNA€match.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€Petitioner€showed€no€prejudice€byÐ l¼ Ðthe€introduction€of€the€stipulation€at€trial.€€We€agree.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@ÀÀ ìàC.€€òòPrior€ConvictionóóˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àPetitioner€argues€that€his€1993€manslaughter€conviction€from€the€state€of€Mississippi€shouldÐ $X" Ðnot€have€been€admissible€evidence€at€his€sentencing€hearing€in€this€case.€€He€alleges€that€in€1993,Ð ô$D # Ðhe€entered€a€ð ðno€contestðð€plea€to€manslaughter€in€Mississippi,€but€complains€that€the€plea€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðentered€in€the€judgeððs€chambers€and€that€his€attorney€was€absent.€€He€faults€his€trial€counsel€forÐ Ì&"% Ðfailing€to€argue€for€the€exclusion€of€this€conviction€at€the€sentencing€hearing€in€this€case.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€determined€that€the€Petitionerððs€1993€manslaughter€conviction€wasÐ )à$( Ðproperly€considered€during€sentencing€in€this€case.€€It€follows€that€the€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðnot€ineffective€for€failing€to€argue€that€the€manslaughter€conviction€could€not€be€used€to€enhance€theÐ h+¸&* ÐPetitionerððs€sentence.€€Again,€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€withÐ ° Ðregard€to€this€issue€are€supported€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð œì ÐÌà@RR"ìàD.€€òòInvestigationò òóóó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€Petitioner€complains€that€his€trial€attorney€should€have€talked€to€the€Petitionerððs€brotherÐ L œ Ðand€a€ð ðMr.€Wootenðð€as€a€basis€for€his€claim€that€trial€counsel€did€not€properly€investigate€the€case.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐHowever,€these€witnesses€did€not€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€nor€was€any€offer€of€proofÐ $ t Ðmade€to€show€how€the€testimony€of€these€witnesses€might€have€affected€the€outcome€of€theÐ  ` ÐPetitionerððs€trial.€€We€agree€with€the€post„conviction€court€that€the€Petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€thatÐ ü L  Ðtrial€counselððs€investigation€was€inadequate.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð è 8  ÐÌà@"ìàE.€€òòJail€ClothesóóˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àThe€Petitioner€alleges€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€obtain€a€continuanceÐ ˜è  Ðwhen€the€Petitionerððs€ð ðcivilian€clothesðð€were€apparently€misplaced€during€the€multi„day€trial.€€TheÐ „Ô  Ðpost„conviction€court€determined€that€ð ðin€this€case,€however,€Petitioner€appeared€in€different€clothesÐ pÀ Ðeach€day€of€trial,€and€the€trial€judge€found€that€there€was€nothing€about€his€clothing€that€the€averageÐ \¬ Ðperson€would€equate€with€ððprison€garb.ðð€ðð€€The€post„conviction€court€determined€that€although€atÐ H˜ Ðsome€point€during€the€trial€the€Petitionerððs€ð ðcivilianðð€clothes€were€misplaced,€the€Petitioner€was€notÐ 4„ Ðprejudiced€by€the€original€trial€courtððs€decision€to€proceed€with€the€trial.€€Although€the€PetitionerÐ  p Ðcomplained€that€his€attorney€ð ðcould€have€did€something€a€little€more,€you€know,€or€asked€them€toÐ  \ Ðtry€and€locate€my€clothes,ðð€the€post„conviction€court€determined€that€the€Petitioner€suffered€noÐ øH Ðprejudice€that€ð ðmight€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ðð€€We€agree.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àHaving€thoroughly€reviewed€Petitionerððs€claim€that€he€was€ineffectively€represented€at€trial,Ð ¼  Ðand€finding€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€to€the€contrary,€weÐ ¨ø Ðconclude€that€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àÔ#†¼þ»XX³hÚ@#ÔÔ€X³hX»¼þÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE