WPC EJd2da>r"ԧCe@w$}w2)!q,="JW ['q}*_߬yp4OŕZ܃KyJ59EPpܔ= );0 #6}1U#(M*:^KOAgHqEY"=T!:دXߟx% s&J~}-R:3)թbxd| /-Y|cָdzʵVφNi0c&VIwZ tEșTNQW30=0l)F>;7VVA98pS QfPc(i{ӑ=6)v)Xء@ϓZUh\izSO 0\i;;P[Oyc7־zkV4c5YDUăIubUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1 0DN;==Eb 0     B 0 D3 D- 0K ASd 0} 0D! Ae(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular (`$.8dd8    b+ HE*(F3|x 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.wptUHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R2$      1   ɗ    _WerejectAppellantsrelianceuponMaineauthorityandtheannouncedstandardofthatstate, Thetestis  whetherornottrialcounselsperformancewasmeasurablybelowthatofanordinaryfallibleattorney.Whitemorev. t State,670A.2d394(Me.1996). - -(|G22$ !.8&d d 8         0  A d(|3 p$ !.8&d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 p$ !.8&d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.80d d8     _    oW 8_XXdd 8@tt ` oWINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# oW ` #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsAugust7,2001 L  X*{X oW # oWX X*{#QUENTINLEWISv.STATEOFTENNESSEE X*{X oW  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  J @@No.P21869ChrisCraft,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200001773CCAR3PC_Ԅ_ԀFiledAugust21,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     TheAppellant,QuentinLewis,appealsfromthedismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief x  followinganevidentiaryhearingintheShelbyCountyCriminalCourt.Inhispetition,Lewis d collaterallyattackshisconvictionforaggravatedrobberyupongroundsthathistrialcounselwas P ineffective.Afterreviewofthisissueonappeal,thejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtis < affirmed.# oWX X*{# X*{X oW (x  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisAffirmed.  P   # oW X*{# X*{X. oWDavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.RileyandAlanE.Glenn, ( JJ.,joined.  GeraldStanleyGreen,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,QuentinLewis.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;JohnH. t Bledsoe,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;WilliamL.Gibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andScott ` Gordon,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. L  # oWX X*{# X*{X oW@@OO& OPINION # oWX X*{> # X*{X oW #`"  FactualBackground  $8 $ # oWX X*{ #   X*{X oW  OnJanuary26,1998,theAppellant,afteratrialbyjury,wasfoundguiltyofAggravated &"& Robbery,aclassBfelonyandwassentencedasaCareerOffenderto30yearsintheDepartmentof '"' Correction.Thefactsattrialestablished: (#( 8  OnOctober28,1995,JacquelineGreenwasworkingasthemanagerofPaylessShoe p*%* StoreinMemphis.Shewasstandingatthecashregisterwhenshenoticedaman \+&+ enterthestore.Themanwasidentifiedattrialasthedefendant.Defendantlooked H,', aroundthestoreforapproximately20minutesandapproachedtheregisterarea 4-(- carryingsomehikingboots.Hethenwalkedtothesideofthecounter,displayeda   hookbilledknifeanddemandedthatGreenemptythecontentsofthecashregister.      8  ...Shegavethedefendantone(1)$5bill,two(2)$1billsandseven(7)quarters. t Intheprocessofemptyingtheregisterdrawer,Greenwasabletotriggertwosilent ` alarmsalertingthepolicethatarobberywasinprogress....L    8  ...Thepolicearrivedshortlythereafter,andGreengavethemadescriptionofthe $ t perpetrator. `   8  Withinminutes,OfficersJohnHughesandReginaSmithoftheMemphisPolice  8  Departmentheardaradiobroadcastdescribingthesuspectoftherobbery.... $  Approximatelyfiveminuteslater,theyspottedthedefendant,whofitthedescription   oftherobberysuspect....    8  HughesandSmithtookdefendantintocustody.Pursuanttoasearch,theydiscovered   aknifewithacurvedbladeinhispocket.Theyfurtherfound$8.75onhisperson, p whichconsistedofone(1)$5bill,two(2)$1billsandseven(7)quarters....While \ defendantwassittinginthebackofthe[patrol]car,Greenpositivelyidentifiedhim H asthemanwhorobbedthestore.4   Statev.QuentinLewis,No.02C019702CR00052(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Jan.26,1998),  \ perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1998). H   OnSeptember2,1999,theAppellantfiledaprosepetitionforpostconvictionrelief,   allegingineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Anamendedpetitionwasfiledbyappointedcounselon   October12,1999,allegingadditionalfactualgroundsofdeficientperformance.Ahearingwasheld  onNovember11,1999,withtheAppellantandAppellantstrialcounselbeingcalledastheonly  witnesses.Thepostconvictioncourtdeniedreliefastoallissues.    ANALYSIS  X      TheissueasframedbytheAppellantonappealisasfollows: Whetherornotthetrial 0"  courtcommittedreversibleerrorwhenitdeniedtheAppellantspetitionforpostconviction #l! relief?The TennesseeRulesofAppellateProceduredonotcontemplatethatanappellantmay $X" submitoneblanketissueastothecorrectnessofajudgmentandtherebyopenthedoorto $D # argumentuponvariousissueswhichmightaffectthecorrectnessofthejudgment.Statev. %0!$ Lewis,No.2(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Dec.23,1987),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn. &"% 1988)(Jones,J.concurring)(quotingLessonv.Chernau,734S.W.2d634,637(Tenn.App.), '#& cert.denied,(Tenn.1987));seealsoTenn.R.App.P.27(a).Generally,afailuretocomplywith (#' therequirementsofRule27oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedurewillresultinthe )$( issuesbeingwaived.Statev.Dykes,803S.W.2d250(Tenn.Crim.App.1990);Statev.Gray, |*%) 960S.W.2d598(Tenn.Crim.App.1997). h+&* Ї  AfurtherexaminationoftheAppellantsbriefreflectsthat,withinthe statementof  facts,aretwoissuesrelatingtoineffectiveness,alsoidentifiedintheAppellantspetition:  (1) [T]rialcounseldidnotlocateandsubpoenaalibiwitnesseswhichtheAppellantprovided;  and(2)trialcounsel didnotobjecttothepoliceofficersuseofapolicereporttorefreshhis t memory....Unfortunately,appellatecounselfailedtoprovidethiscourtwithanyargument ` pertainingtothe alibidefenseraisedinissueI;therefore,weareunabletoaddressthemeritsof L  thisissueasitiswaived.SeeTenn.R.App.P.27(a)(7).Accordingly,weproceedtoaddressthe 8  Appellantsremainingissuerelatingtotrialcounselsfailuretoobjectattrialtoapoliceofficers $ t useofapolicereportduringhistestimony.  `   Toestablishanineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim,theAppellant bearstheburden  8  ofprovingboththatcounselsperformancewasdeficientandthatthedeficiencyprejudicedthe $  defense.Henleyv.State,906S.W.2d572,579(Tenn.1997)(citingGoadv.State,938S.W.2d   363,369(Tenn.1996);Stricklandv,Washington,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct.2052,2054   (1984)).Theburdenofproofstandardisthatof clearandconvincingevidence.Tenn.Code   Ann.4030210(f)(1997).Inreviewingaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselthiscourt   mustdecidewhethertheservicesrenderedarewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedof p attorneysincriminalcases. #  1      ׀Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1976). Atrialcourts \ findingsoffactunderlyingaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselarereviewedonappeal H underadenovostandard,accompaniedwithapresumptionthatthosefindingsarecorrectunless 4 thepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Fieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,458(Tenn.  p 2001)(citingTenn.R.App.P.13(d);Henley,960S.W.2dat572.However,conclusionsoflaw  \ arereviewedunderapurelydenovostandard,withnopresumptionofcorrectness.Fields,40 H S.W.3dat458. 4 Ѐ  Applyingtheforegoingineffectivenessstandard,thiscourtmustdeterminewhetherthe   Appellantreceivedeffectiveassistanceofcounselapplyingdenovoreview.Fields,40S.W.3dat  458.TheAppellantarguesthattrialcounselwasdeficientforfailing toobjecttotheuseofthe  policereporttorefreshthetestifyingofficersmemoryinviolationofRule612,Tennessee  RulesofEvidence.Atthepostconvictionhearing,trialcounseldidnotrecallthespecific l testimonyofthe testifyingofficerattrial.Alengthyrecesswasheldtopermittrialcounselto X  reviewthetestifyingofficerstestimonyandtheofficersuseofthepolicereporttorefreshhis D! memory.Unfortunately,notranscribedportionofthe testifyingofficerstestimonyattrialwas 0"  admittedintoevidenceatthepostconvictionhearing.Moreover,weareunabletodiscernfrom #l! therecordthemannerorcontextinwhichthepolicereportwasutilizedbythetestifyingofficer. $X" Assuch,nofoundationhasbeenestablishedwhichpermitsustodeterminewhetheraviolation $D # ofRule612has,infact,occurred.Ifindeedavalidobjectioncouldhavebeenmadetothe %0!$ testifyingofficersimproperuseofhispolicereport,theresultingconsequencewouldsimply &"% havepermittedtrialcounselto inspectthereport, crossexaminethewitnessaboutthereport, '#& andto introduceinevidencethoseportionswhichrelatetothetestimonyofthewitness.Tenn.  R.Evid.612.Nodisputeismadethatthecontentsofthereportwereerroneous.Thus,even  assumingforargumentssakethatcounselwasdeficientinnotobjecting,wefailtoseehow,but  forthisfailurealone,thejurycouldhavehadreasonabledoubtregardingtheAppellantsguilt. t Strickland,466U.S.at695. `   C0 @ ONCLUSION  $ t     Weagreewiththepostconvictioncourtthattheprooffailstoestablishbyclearand  L  convincingevidencethattrialcounselsperformancewasdeficient.Iftherepresentationisnot  8  foundtobedeficientthentheinquiryends,sinceapetitionermustdemonstratebothdeficient $  performanceandactualprejudiceunderthestandardsofStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.at   668;Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d.453,461(Tenn.1999).Fortheforegoingreasons,thejudgment   oftheShelbyCountyCriminalCourtisaffirmed.      `     h     ___________________________________ 4    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE