ÿWPCq …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 2H 0Jz 0TÄ 0^ 0hv 0rÞ 0|P 0†Ì 0R 1uâ 0dW U>» U*ù B)#DCL AMÜ Bëv~vÓ† D3Y 0@Œ AOÌÆ 0Dá D/% BT˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- EeHDÓ€%uM%3|x'BullardCantrell2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌAugust€18,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€%(XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓLARRY€JUNIOR€KEATON,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9704„CR„00146Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDEKALB€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€LEON€BURNS,€JR.,€JUDGE€ó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€à àà à)€€€€€€€ó óà àÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó óà àÌà àà àAppellee.à àà àò òà à)à à(POST„CONVICTION)€Ìó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òHENRY€D.€FINCHER€€à àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó ó15€South€Jefferson€Avenueà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌCookeville,€TN€38501Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKAREN€M.€YACUZZOÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€EDWARD€GIBSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€General€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òANTHONY€J.€CRAIGHEADÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à145€South€Jefferson€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCookeville,€TN€38501ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Petitioner,€Larry€Junior€Keaton,€appeals€the€order€of€the€Dekalb€CountyÏCriminal€Court€dismissing€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Petitioner€argues€theÏfollowing€four€(4)€issues€in€this€appeal:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€Whether€Petitionerððs€right€to€due€process€was€violated€Ïby€both€the€State€not€giving€notice€of€its€intent€to€dismissÏa€count€in€the€indictment€for€the€sale€of€a€certain€drug€andÏby€the€Stateððs€reference€to€that€certain€drug€during€trial;Ìà8 àà8 àÌà àà à2.€€Whether€the€Stateððs€closing€argument€at€trial€was€proper;Ìà8 àà àÌà àà à3.€€Whether€the€career€offender€statute€is€constitutional;Ìà8 àà8 àÌà àà à4.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€aÏà àà àlesser€included€offense;€and€Ìà8 àà8 àÌà àà à5.€€Whether€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€was€ineffective.€€ÌÓÓÌà àPetitioner€was€convicted€at€trial€of€one€count€of€selling€codeine,€a€Schedule€IIIÏcontrolled€substance.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€twelve€(12)€years€as€aÏcareer€offender.€€On€direct€appeal,€Petitioner€alleged€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failingÏto€charge€the€jury€on€simple€possession,€casual€exchange,€and€missingÏwitnesses.€€òòState€v.€Larry€Keatonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9308„CC„00265,€DekalbÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€30,€1994).€€This€Court€rejected€thoseÏclaims,€and€Petitioner€did€not€appeal€to€the€supreme€court.€€òòIdóó.€€Petitioner€filed€a€òòproóóÏòòseóó€post„conviction€petition€raising€numerous€issues,€and€subsequently€hisÍappointed€counsel€filed€an€amended€post„conviction€petition.€€Following€a€hearing,Ïthe€trial€court€denied€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.à àà àà àà àÌà àÌà àIn€its€Rule€20€affirmance€of€Petitionerððs€direct€appeal,€this€Court€briefly€relayedÏthe€facts€of€the€instant€case€as€follows:€ð ðA€state€trooper€purchased€twelve€(12)€pillsÏcontaining€codeine€and€sixty„three€(63)€counterfeit€pills€which€the€defendant€hadÏpresented€as€ððsomasðð€for€a€total€sale€in€the€amount€of€ninety„eight€dollars€($98).€€AÏconfidential€informant€was€present€during€these€transactions,€but€the€State€did€notÏcall€this€witness€to€testify€at€trial.ðð€€ÌÌà àPetitioner€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€and€Kathryn€BullardÏsaw€Terry€Skinner€when€they€went€to€buy€beer.€€According€to€Petitioner,€SkinnerÏasked€if€they€had€any€drugs€and€Petitioner€told€him€that€Bullard€had€some.€€SkinnerÏsaid€he€did€not€have€the€money€with€him€and€asked€if€they€would€meet€him€in€thirtyÏminutes€at€the€same€location.€€Thirty€minutes€later,€Skinner€returned.€€ð ðThe€bestÏ[Petitioner]€can€remember,ðð€Bullard€counted€out€the€pills€and€handed€them€to€him,Ïand€then€he€handed€them€to€Skinner.€€Skinner€then€gave€Petitioner€the€moneyÏwhich€he€then€passed€to€Bullard.ÌÌà àRegarding€his€trial€counselððs€alleged€ineffectiveness,€Petitioner€€testified€at€theÏhearing€that€he€met€with€his€attorney,€Chris€Cantrell,€several€times€prior€to€trial.€ÍThey€discussed€the€facts€of€the€case€and€the€elements€of€the€charged€crimes.€ÏThey€also€discussed€calling€both€Skinner€and€Bullard€as€witnesses.€€WhenÏPetitioner€asked€Cantrell€why€he€was€not€going€to€put€Bullard€on€the€stand,ÏCantrell€said€Bullard€would€do€more€harm€than€good.€€Petitioner€testified€that€heÏthought€Bullard€would€have€testified€that€she€received€the€proceeds€from€the€sales.€ÏHowever,€Petitioner€did€admit€that€Bullard€could€have€testified€that€the€entireÏtransaction€was€Petitionerððs€idea.€€ÌÌà àKathryn€Bullard€testified€at€the€hearing€that€she€and€Petitioner€were€chargedÏwith€selling€Tylenol€IIIððs€with€codeine.€€Prior€to€Petitionerððs€trial,€Bullard€pled€guilty€toÏsimple€possession.€€Bullard€claimed€at€the€hearing€that€Skinner€approached€herÏand€Petitioner€and€wanted€to€know€if€they€had€any€pills.€€Petitioner€told€Skinner€thatÏBullard€might€have€some€and€Skinner€asked€if€he€could€meet€them€back€in€thirtyÏminutes.€€According€to€Bullard,€when€the€transaction€took€place,€she€was€the€oneÏwho€took€the€money.ÌÌà àHowever,€Bullard€admitted€that€she€made€the€following€statement€in€herÏapplication€for€pretrial€diversion:€ð ðLarry€Keaton€was€driving€my€car€and€I€was€in€theÏcar€with€him.€€I€do€not€know€anything€about€the€incident€in€question.€€I€do€not€knowÏwhat€was€going€on.ðð€€She€later€met€with€a€probation€officer€regarding€aÏpresentence€report€and€provided€the€following€statement:€ð ðI€was€with€my€boyfriend,ÍLarry€Keaton,€in€my€car.€€I€didnððt€know€what€he€was€doing.€I€was€at€the€wrongÏplace€at€the€wrong€time.€€I€was€innocent€of€this€incident.€€I€have€never€been€in€anyÏtrouble€before€and€Iððve€always€tried€to€lead€a€decent€life.ððÌÌà àBullard€testified€that€she€met€with€Cantrell€prior€to€trial,€and€that€theyÏdiscussed€Petitionerððs€case.€€She€told€Cantrell€that€she€would€take€the€blame€if€sheÏtestified.€€Bullard€admitted€that€she€would€have€likely€been€impeached€at€trial€hadÏshe€testified.ÌÌà àChris€Cantrell,€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel,€testified€that€he€met€with€Petitioner€atÏleast€25€times€prior€to€trial.€€Petitioner€advised€him€that€Bullard€would€take€the€blameÏif€permitted€to€testify.€€Cantrell€asked€Petitioner€if€Bullard€would€be€testifying€truthfully,Ïand€Petitioner€said€that€she€would€not.€€Cantrell€stated€that€he€did€not€call€her€as€aÏwitness€because€he€did€not€wish€to€present€perjured€testimony.€€Cantrell€didÏattempt€to€use€Bullard€as€a€scapegoat€at€trial,€in€essence€blaming€her€for€the€entireÏtransaction.ÌÌà àCantrell,€Petitioner,€and€the€State€all€attempted€to€locate€Skinner,€but€he€couldÏnot€be€found€because€he€had€fled€the€county.€€Cantrell€did,€however,€obtain€aÏcopy€of€Skinnerððs€criminal€record€and€questioned€Trooper€œWilbanks,€›the€undercoverÏpolice€officer,€about€it€during€cross„examination.ÌÌà àCantrell€further€testified€that€Petitioner€was€originally€charged€with€two€crimes,Ïbut€that€the€count€regarding€the€sale€of€Somas€was€nolled€on€the€day€of€trial.€€AtÏthat€point,€he€had€already€submitted€his€proposed€jury€instructions€to€the€court.€ÏCantrell€agreed€that€the€State€periodically€referred€to€the€sale€of€Somas€during€theÏtrial.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€object€to€these€references€because€he€did€not€wantÏto€draw€any€unnecessary€attention€to€them.€€He€said€he€believed€the€references€toÏSomas€ð ðjust€went€right€over€everyoneððs€head.ððÌÌà@ àI.Ìà àÌòòA.€€Nolled€ChargeóóÌà àPetitioner€was€originally€charged€with€two€counts,€the€first€being€the€sale€ofÏCodeine,€a€Schedule€III€controlled€substance,€and€the€second€being€the€sale€ofÏSomas,€a€Schedule€IV€controlled€substance.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„17„417(a)(3);Ï39„17„423(a)(1).€€At€some€point€prior€to€trial,€the€State€notified€Petitionerððs€trialÏcounsel€that€it€had€nolled€the€second€count€as€to€the€sale€of€Somas.ÌÌà àPetitioner€argues€that€the€Stateððs€notice€was€untimely.€€However,€PetitionerÏdid€not€raise€this€issue€in€his€direct€appeal,€and€his€failure€to€do€so€constitutes€aÏwaiver€of€this€issue.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).€€Even€if€we€deem€this€issueÍas€not€waived,€it€is€still€without€merit.€€Petitioner€failed€to€present€any€proof€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing€of€how€his€trial€was€prejudiced€by€this€alleged€error.€ÏPetitioner€focused€on€the€ineffectiveness€claim€at€the€hearing,€so€the€courtððs€rulingÏonly€addressed€the€ineffectiveness€claim€and€a€few€others.€€The€trial€court€did€notÏeven€address€this€issue.€€In€fact,€when€the€court€asked€Petitionerððs€counsel€if€thereÏwere€any€other€issues€that€required€a€ruling,€counsel€replied€in€the€negative.€€InÏsupport€of€his€argument,€Petitioner€refers€to€Rule€45(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€œProcedure.€€That€rule€states›€that€a€person€who€files€a€motion€requiring€aÏhearing€must€serve€œthe›€motion€on€opposing€counsel€no€later€than€five€days€beforeÏthe€time€specified€for€the€hearing.€€This€rule€is€not€applicable€to€this€case.€€PetitionerÏfails€to€cite€any€other€authority€for€the€proposition€that€the€State€is€required€toÏdismiss€a€charge€by€a€certain€date.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àà àÌòòB.€€Stateððs€References€to€SomasóóÌà àDuring€the€trial,€the€State€referred€to€the€sale€of€Somas,€even€though€thatÏcount€had€actually€been€dismissed.€€Petitioner€now€complains€that€the€references€toÏSomas€during€trial€and€during€closing€argument€were€improper.€€However,€again,ÏPetitioner€did€not€raise€this€issue€on€direct€appeal,€and€therefore,€it€is€deemedÏwaived.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).ÌÌÌÌà@ àII.ÌÌà àPetitioner€argues€that€the€State€improperly€commented€on€his€failure€to€testifyÏwhen€during€closing€argument€the€State€referred€to€the€officerððs€ð ðunrebuttedÏtestimony.ðð€€The€State€asserts€in€its€brief€that€this€issue€has€been€previouslyÏdetermined€and€is€therefore€not€cognizable€in€this€petition.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„30„206(h).€€Specifically,€it€appears€that€Petitioner€raised€this€issue€in€his€motionÏfor€a€new€trial.€€We€can€resolve€this€issue€against€Petitioner€as€this€Court€hasÏconsistently€held€that€such€arguments€as€the€one€made€by€the€State€in€the€instantÏcase€are€not€improper.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòTune€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9412„CC„00423,€Marshall€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Oct.€31,€1995),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà@ àIII.ÌÌà àPetitioner€asserts€that€the€career€offender€statute€is€unconstitutional.€ÏPetitioner€did€not€raise€this€issue€at€trial,€on€direct€appeal,€or€even€at€the€post€„conviction€hearing.€€It€has€therefore€been€waived.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g)Ïand€„210(f).ÌÌà@ àIV.ÌÌà àPetitioner€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€onÏthe€charge€of€facilitation€of€a€felony.€€We€agree€with€the€courtððs€finding€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€this€is€not€an€issue€for€post„conviction€relief€since€it€is€not€anÏabridgment€of€any€constitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€12€(Tenn.€1994).€€Furthermore,€even€if€this€issueÏwas€proper,€Petitioner€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€raise€it€at€trial€or€on€directÏappeal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g)€and€„210(f).ÌÌà@ àV.ÌÌà àPetitioner€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€five€instances:€(1)€forÏfailing€to€discover€ð ðthe€supposed€informant€used€in€this€case;ðð€(2)€for€failing€to€locateÏKathryn€Bullard€in€time€for€trial;€(3)€for€failing€to€demand€an€instruction€on€the€lesser„included€offense€of€facilitation€of€a€felony;€(4)€for€failing€to€object€to€the€StateððsÏreferences€to€ð ðunrebutted€testimonyðð€during€its€closing€argument€and€for€failing€toÏargue€for€jury€nullification;€and€(5)€for€failing€to€object€to€testimony€regarding€Somas.ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€the€courtÏmust€decide€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÍdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936Ï(Tenn.€1975).€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€at€trial,€aÏpetitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€thatÏhe€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€andÏthat€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€the€petitioner€resulting€in€a€failure€toÏproduce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.€Ct.Ï2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849ÏS.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€ÏTo€satisfy€the€second€prong€the€petitioner€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that,Ïbut€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€have€had€reasonableÏdoubt€regarding€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonableÏprobability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.ÏStateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994)€(citation€omitted).€Ìà àÌà àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€Court€should€not€use€the€benefitÏof€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€òòHellard€v.ÏStateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€should€be€judged€atÏthe€time€they€were€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ïat€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746.ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€this€Petitioner€has€satisfied€these€requirements,€thisÏCourt€must€give€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€will€not€be€reversed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€theÏrecord€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.ÏBufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àWe€have€reviewed€Petitionerððs€various€claims€and€we€find€that€Petitioner€hasÏfailed€to€present€any€evidence€that€shows€that€his€attorney€represented€him€in€anyÏother€manner€than€competently.€€As€to€his€first€complaint,€Petitionerððs€counselÏtestified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he,€Petitioner,€and€the€State€searched€forÏthe€informant,€who€had€fled€the€county,€and€that€nobody€could€locate€him.€ÏPetitionerððs€counsel€nonetheless€used€the€informantððs€criminal€record€at€trial€toÏimpeach€the€officer€who€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State.€€Petitioner€did€not€call€thisÏinformant€as€a€witness€at€his€post„conviction€hearing,€so€there€is€no€record€of€hisÏexpected€testimony.€€Therefore,€Petitioner€cannot€prove€that€he€was€prejudiced€byÏthe€informantððs€absence€at€trial.ÌÌà àAs€to€his€next€claim€regarding€Kathryn€Bullard,€Petitionerððs€trial€counselÏtestified€that€he€did€not€call€her€as€a€witness€because€she€intended€to€perjureÏherself.€€Bullard€wanted€to€testify€at€Petitionerððs€trial€and€take€full€responsibility€forÏthe€drug€sale.€€However,€when€Petitionerððs€counsel€asked€Petitioner€if€BullardððsÍtestimony€would€be€truthful,€he€responded€negatively.€€In€fact,€in€the€presentenceÏreport€and€in€her€request€for€pretrial€diversion,€Bullard€denies€any€involvement€in€theÏsale.€€Petitionerððs€counsel€was€certainly€not€ineffective€for€failing€to€call€a€witnessÏwho€intended€to€perjure€herself.ÌÌà àIn€Petitionerððs€claim€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€demand€anÏinstruction€on€a€lesser„included€offense,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held,Ïas€mentioned€previously€in€this€opinion,€that€such€a€complaint€is€not€cognizable€inÏa€post„conviction€petition.€€òòSeeóó€òòOvertonóó,€874€S.W.2d€6.€€Moreover,€the€courtÏreasoned€that€ð ðto€allow€every€error€committed€by€the€trial€court€to€be€recast€in€a€postÏconviction€petition€as€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€allegation€would€be€toÏsubvert€the€limited€purposes€of€the€post€conviction€procedure.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€12.ÌÌà àPetitioner€also€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€theÏStateððs€references€to€ð ðunrebutted€testimonyðð€during€its€closing€argument€and€thatÏcounsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€argue€for€jury€nullification.€€Petitioner€did€notÏpresent€any€evidence€regarding€either€of€these€issues€at€the€post„conviction€hearingÏand€has,€therefore,€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€in€any€way€by€theseÏactions.ÌÌà àLastly,€Petitioner€claims€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€toÏtestimony€regarding€Somas.€€Petitionerððs€counsel€testified€at€the€post„€convictionÏhearing€that€he€made€a€tactical€decision€not€to€object€to€the€references€because€heÏdid€not€want€to€draw€attention€to€them.€€Even€if€this€was€a€poor€tactical€decision,ÏPetitioner€is€still€not€entitled€to€relief€because€he€has€failed€to€show€how€he€wasÏprejudiced.€€The€court€stated€at€the€post€conviction€hearing€that€ð ðhe€[PetitionerððsÏcounsel]€did€not€object€believing€that€it€was€part€of€the€transaction€and€that€it€did€notÏhave€any€impact€on€the€jury€and€it€was€part€of€the€strategy,€and€I€see€no€fault€inÏthat.€€It€was€a€pretty€clear€cut€kind€of€a€sale.€€There€wasnððt€any€question€that€aÏsale€transpired.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€further€stated€in€its€ruling€that€ð ðthereððs€[no]€showing€here€thatÏthereððs€any€deficiency€to€begin€with€and€any€judgment€calls€that€counsel€may€haveÏmade€in€this€Courtððs€opinion€did€not€prejudice€the€defendantððs€defense€in€the€caseÏand€I€believe€he€received€a€fair€trial.ðð€€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€TheÏevidence€contained€in€the€limited€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€Petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌòòÌóóà àBased€on€all€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€PetitionerððsÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€Special€Judge