ÿWPCS …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÍv~êvÓh D3; 0@n AO®Æý 0Dà D/ B6˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- DEDEÓ€Úƒç"3|x*2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òDecember€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÜXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœOCTOBER›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSCOTTIE€RAY€LASTER,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01„9701„CR„00001›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àœAppellant,›à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHAWKINS›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJAMES€E.€BECKNERó ó›Ìò òœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœAppellee.›à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Post„Conviction)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œHAWKINS€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœRUSSELL€MATTOCKS›à àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ1609€College€Park€Drive,€Box€11ÌMorristown,€TN€37813„1618à àà àCLINTON€J.€MORGANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€BERKELEY€BELLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDOUG€GODBEEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMain€Street,€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRogersville,€TN€37857›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Petitioner,€Scottie€Ray€Laster,€appeals€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€He€argues€œ(1)€That›€œthe›€guilty€pleas€he€entered€wereÏunlawfully€induced€because€(a)€œcounsel›€for€the€Petitioner€accepted€a€pleaÏagreement€without€the€Petitionerððs€œconsent,›€and€(b)€œcounsel›€never€told€him€heÏhad€the€right€to€refuse€to€enter€the€guilty€pleas;€and€(2)€œthat€his›€convictions€wereÏbased€on€an€indictment€issued€by€a€grand€jury€that€was€unconstitutionallyÏselected€and€impaneled.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àOn€February€5,€1996,€the€Petitioner€was€indicted€by€the€Hawkins€CountyÏGrand€Jury€for€burglary€of€an€automobile,€possession€of€burglary€tools,€attemptÏto€commit€first€degree€murder,€and€vandalism€of€less€than€$500.€œòòSeeóó›€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€39„14„402(a)(4),€39„14„701,€39„12„101,€39„14„408.€€According€to€theÏrecord,€it€appears€that€the€Petitioner€agreed€to€waive€grand€jury€action€and€toÏproceed€by€information€on€a€fifth€count€for€aggravated€burglary.€€Pursuant€to€aÏnegotiated€plea€agreement,€the€Defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€the€offenses€after€aÏhearing€conducted€on€June€18,€1996.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€standard,ÏRange€I€offender€to€one€year€for€the€auto€burglary€conviction,€eleven€monthsÍand€twenty„nine€days€for€the€conviction€for€possession€of€burglary€tools,€fifteenÏyears€for€the€attempted€murder€conviction,€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€daysÏfor€the€vandalism€less€than€$500€conviction,€and€three€years€for€the€aggravatedÏburglary€conviction.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€run€concurrently,€for€anÏeffective€sentence€of€fifteen€years.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€August€2,Ï1996.€€Counsel€was€appointed€and€a€hearing€on€the€petition€was€held€onÏOctober€11,€1996.€€€The€trial€court€denied€the€petition.€œ€It€is€from€the€denial€ofÏpost„€conviction€relief€that€the€Petitioner€appeals.›ÌÌà àAs€his€first€issue,€the€Petitioner€argues€that€the€guilty€plea€he€entered€wasÏnot€voluntarily€or€knowingly€submitted.€€He€contends€that€the€plea€agreementÏwas€not€entered€with€his€consent€and€that€counsel€never€informed€him€that€heÏhad€the€right€to€withdraw€his€plea.€€We€note€that€the€Petitioner€has€notÏspecifically€enumerated€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€as€an€issue.€ÏHowever,€it€appears€that€the€competency€of€counselððs€representation€has€beenÏraised€as€an€issue€affecting€the€voluntariness€of€the€Petitionerððs€guilty€pleas.Ì€Ìà àIn€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€theÏcourt€must€decide€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€ofÍcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€wasÏineffective€at€trial,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counselÏmade€errors€so€serious€that€he€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteedÏunder€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€theÏpetitioner€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.ÏStateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899Ï(Tenn.€1990).€€To€satisfy€the€second€prong€the€petitioner€must€show€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finderÏwould€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regarding€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466ÏU.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermineÏconfidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€court€should€not€use€theÏbenefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€shouldÏbe€judged€at€the€time€they€were€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó€849€S.W.2d€at€746.ÌÌà àThis€two€part€standard€of€measuring€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏalso€applies€to€claims€arising€out€of€the€plea€process.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.Ï52€(1985).€€The€prejudice€requirement€is€modified€so€that€the€petitioner€ð ðmustÏshow€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors€heÏwould€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòId.óó€atÏ59.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€his€attorney,ÏBurkett€McInturff,€discussed€accepting€a€plea€at€fifteen€years.€€This€discussionÏoccurred€on€the€day€before€the€Petitioner€was€scheduled€for€trial.€€The€PetitionerÏtestified€that€he€refused€the€offer.€€He€signed€a€piece€of€notebook€paper€with€ð ðaÏbunch€of€writing€on€it.ðð€€He€also€signed€papers€when€he€entered€his€plea.€€TheÏPetitioner€stated€that€he€was€told€he€had€to€agree€with€what€the€judge€said.€€HeÏwas€not€sure€he€knew€what€statements€the€papers€contained.€€The€PetitionerÏadmitted€that€he€knew€what€he€was€charged€with,€but€not€the€elements€of€theÏcrimes.€€He€denied€reading€the€waiver€of€rights€form€before€he€signed€it,€althoughÏhe€stated€he€did€read€and€sign€the€form€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€The€PetitionerÏstated€that€on€the€day€of€the€trial€he€was€surprised€that€no€one€was€in€theÏcourtroom€and€counsel€explained€that€he€had€signed€a€plea.€€He€felt€like€counselÏthen€forced€him€to€take€the€plea.€€The€Petitioner€denied€that€he€understood€theÏquestions€asked€of€him€by€the€trial€judge,€although€he€had€answered€that€he€didÍunderstand.€€He€denied€that€he€understood€he€could€have€insisted€on€a€jury€trial.€ÏHe€stated€that€he€felt€pressured€to€take€the€plea€by€his€attorney,€but€not€that€heÏwas€threatened.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€Petitioner€admitted€that€he€had€pleaded€guiltyÏto€offenses€as€a€juvenile€and€in€general€sessions€court.€€The€PetitionerÏacknowledged€that€the€aggravated€burglary€charge€occurred€after€theÏindictments€for€the€other€offenses€and€that€counsel€œargued€for€the›€State€to€runÏthe€offense€concurrent€with€the€other€four€charges€as€part€of€the€plea€agreement.€ÏHe€verified€that€he€signed€a€waiver€of€rights€and€guilty€plea€forms.ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€counsel,€Burkett€McInturff,€testified€at€the€hearing€that€Ïseveral€persons€identified€the€Petitioner€as€the€one€who€shot€the€victim.€€TheÏPetitioner€maintained€a€position€of€œproceeding€to›€trial€until€the€last€minute.€ÏCounsel€met€with€the€Petitioner€several€times.€€After€a€meeting€with€him€on€theÏday€before€trial,€counsel€talked€with€the€district€attorneyððs€office€regarding€a€pleaÏagreement.€€General€Godbee€wrote€down€the€offer€on€a€piece€of€paper€forÏcounsel€to€present€to€the€Petitioner.€€Counsel€took€the€paper€and€discussed€withÏthe€Petitioner€the€evidence€in€the€cases€against€him.€€Counsel€discussed€takingÏan€òòAlfordóó€plea,€although€he€referred€to€it€as€a€ð ðNelsonðð€plea.€€Counsel€had€theÏPetitioner€sign€a€handwritten€version€of€the€plea€agreement€on€June€17,€1996.€ÍCounsel€stated€that€a€critical€witness€for€the€defense€was€ð ðon€the€runðð€at€theÏtime€of€trial.€€He€attempted€to€continue€the€case€but€the€trial€judge€insisted€that€heÏwanted€the€case€tried.ÌÌà àIn€denying€the€petition,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€counsel€fullyÏinvestigated€the€case.€€There€was€evidence€that€he€interviewed€and€attemptedÏto€locate€witnesses.€€Counsel€filed€motions€and€vigorously€argued€the€case€asÏwell€as€spent€considerable€time€explaining€the€case€to€the€Petitioner.€€CounselÏalso€made€an€effort€to€have€the€Petitioner€sign€papers€reflecting€that€heÏacknowledged€the€plea€agreement.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€credited€counselððsÏtestimony€and€rejected€that€of€the€Petitioner.€€We€note€that€under€the€provisionsÏof€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€the€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(Supp.€1996).€€In€reviewing€post„convictionÏproceedings,€"the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€such€findings."€€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2dÏ744,€746€(Tenn.1993);€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.1990).€€€FromÏthe€record€before€us,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€that€counselððs€performance€was€within€theÏrange€of€competency€expected€of€defense€counsel.€€Thus,€the€Petitioner€hasÏfailed€to€establish€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.ÌÌà àWe€now€address€in€general€the€Peititionerððs€claim€that€his€guilty€plea€wasÏnot€voluntarily€or€knowingly€entered.€€In€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238Ï(1969),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€record€must€show€that€aÏguilty€plea€was€made€voluntarily,€understandingly€and€knowingly.€€In€òòBoykinóó,€theÏCourt€held€that€an€entry€of€a€guilty€plea€effectively€constituted€a€waiver€of€theÏconstitutional€rights€against€compulsory€self„incrimination,€the€right€to€confrontÏone's€accusers,€and€the€right€to€trial€by€jury.€€òòId.óó€at€243.€€If€a€guilty€plea€is€notÏvoluntary€and€knowing,€it€has€been€entered€in€violation€of€due€process€and€is,Ïtherefore,€invalid.ÌÌà àA€voluntary€plea€cannot€be€found€from€a€silent€record.€€€òòBoykinóó,€395€U.S.Ïat€242.€€Pursuant€to€its€supervisory€power,€our€supreme€court€has€imposedÏmore€stringent€standards€for€trial€courts€to€employ€when€advising€defendantsÏduring€€guilty€pleas€to€provide€an€adequate€record€that€will€insure€constitutionalÏcompliance.€€€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.1977).€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ[T]he€court€must€address€the€defendant€personally€in€open€court€andÏinform€him€of,€and€determine€that€he€understands,€the€following:ÌÌ(1)€The€nature€of€the€charge€to€which€the€plea€is€offered,€and€theÏmandatory€minimum€penalty€provided€by€law,€if€any,€and€the€maximumÏpossible€penalty€provided€by€law;€and,€if€applicable,€that€a€different€orÏadditional€punishment€may€result€by€reason€of€his€prior€convictions€orÏother€factors€which€may€be€established€in€the€present€action€after€theÏentry€of€his€plea;€andÌÌ(2)€If€the€defendant€is€not€represented€by€an€attorney,€that€he€has€a€rightÏto€be€represented€by€an€attorney€at€every€stage€of€the€proceedingÏagainst€him,€and€if€necessary,€one€will€be€appointed€to€represent€him;ÏandÌÌ(3)€That€he€has€a€right€to€plead€not€guilty€or€to€persist€in€that€plea€if€it€hasÏalready€been€made,€and,€that€he€has€the€right€to€be€tried€by€a€jury€and€atÏthat€trial€has€the€right€to€the€assistance€of€counsel,€the€right€to€confrontÏand€cross„examine€witnesses€against€him,€and€the€right€not€to€beÏcompelled€to€incriminate€himself;€andÌÌ(4)€That€if€he€pleads€guilty,€there€will€not€be€a€further€trial€of€any€kindÏexcept€to€determine€the€sentence€so€that€by€pleading€guilty€he€waivesÏthe€right€to€a€trial;€andÌÌ(5)€That€if€he€pleads€guilty,€the€court€or€the€state€may€ask€him€questionsÏabout€the€offense€to€which€he€has€pleaded,€and€if€he€answers€theseÏquestions€under€oath,€on€the€record,€and€in€the€presence€of€counsel,€hisÏanswers€may€later€be€used€against€him€in€a€prosecution€for€perjury€orÏfalse€statement,€and,€further,€that,€upon€the€sentencing€hearing,€evidenceÏof€any€prior€convictions€may€be€presented€to€the€judge€or€jury€for€theirÏconsideration€in€determining€punishment.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòMackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€at€341.€€However,€post„conviction€relief€may€be€grantedÏonly€if€a€conviction€or€sentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€a€violation€of€aÏconstitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105€(repealed€1995).€€As€wasÏpointed€out€in€òòState€v.€Nealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131€(Tenn.€1991),€violation€of€theÏadvice€litany€required€by€either€òòMackeyóó€or€Tennessee€Rule€of€CriminalÏProcedure€11€which€is€not€linked€to€a€specified€constitutional€right€is€notÏcognizable€in€a€suit€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Princeóó,€781€S.W.2dÏ846€(Tenn.1989).€€Moreover,€€it€is€the€result,€not€the€process,€that€is€essential€toÏa€valid€plea.€€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€834€S.W.2d€922,€923„24€(Tenn.€1992).€€TheÍcritical€inquiry€is€whether€the€Petitioner€had€knowledge€of€certain€rights€andÏwaived€those€rights€knowingly€and€voluntarily,€not€whether€the€trial€court€wasÏthe€source€of€that€knowledge.ÌÌà àThe€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€the€guilty€plea€reveals€that€the€trial€courtÏfully€complied€with€the€requirements€enumerated€in€òòMackeyóó.€€In€the€hearing,€theÏPetitioner€denied€that€he€had€any€condition€that€would€impair€his€ability€toÏunderstand€the€proceedings.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€understood€the€chargesÏand€the€trial€court€comprehensively€explained€the€offenses€and€the€elementsÏthat€constituted€each€offense.€€The€Petitioner€stated€that€he€understood€theÏoffenses€as€well€as€the€sentencing€range,€range€of€punishment€and€releaseÏeligibility.€€The€Petitioner€agreed€that€he€signed€a€waiver€of€rights,€understoodÏwhat€he€was€signing€and€that€counsel€explained€it€to€him.€€The€Petitioner€wasÏagain€informed€in€open€court€that€he€had€the€right€to€plead€not€guilty,€but€choseÏnot€to€exercise€that€right.€€The€Petitioner€denied€that€any€threats€were€used€toÏsecure€a€guilty€plea€and€œstated€that›€he€was€satisfied€with€counselððsÏrepresentation.ÌÌà àIn€conjunction€with€the€testimony€received€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Ïwe€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€Petitioner€enteredÏhis€plea€voluntarily.€€The€trial€judge€recalled€the€Petitionerððs€demeanor€from€theÍguilty€plea€hearing,€and€stated€that€he€made€no€indication€that€he€did€notÏunderstand€the€proceedings.€€In€fact,€the€trial€court€suggested€that€the€PetitionerÏhad€offered€perjured€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€The€evidenceÏdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àIn€his€second€primary€issue,€the€Petitioner€claims€that€his€conviction€wasÏbased€on€action€of€a€grand€or€petit€jury€that€was€unconstitutionally€selected€andÏimpaneled.€€Specifically,€he€alleges€that€the€jury€panels€for€the€term€of€courtÏð ðduring€which€his€case€would€have€been€triedðð€were€predominantly€selectedÏfrom€towns€in€the€portion€of€Hawkins€County€where€the€victim€lived.€€The€StateÏargues€that€œthe›€Petitioner€has€not€cited€œany€authority›€and€has€therefore€waivedÏconsideration€of€the€issue€pursuant€to€Rule€10(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€We€agree.€€Beyond€this,€an€examination€of€theÏrecord€shows€that€the€Petitioner€has€not€provided€us€with€sufficient€evidence€toÏevaluate€this€issue€on€its€merits.€€The€Petitioner€has€submitted€statistics€thatÏshow€the€percentage€of€jurors€from€certain€towns.€€However,€he€has€presentedÏno€evidence€that€demonstrates€the€process€for€selecting€jurors€nor€anyÏirregularities€in€the€selection€process.€Therefore,€we€cannot€address€whether€anyÏœmatters€concerning€the€jury›€or€the€selection€from€the€venire€œwere€in€any€wayÏirregular€or€prejudiced›€the€œPetitioner€in€any€way.›ÌÌœà àAccordingly,›€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓÓà àœà à›à àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE›