ÿWPCS& >U .t %¢b¨¬n­¼ 0 (iU:‘w¸Ë4ƒ 0J— 0¥á 0D†U:Ê 0T 0^X 0h¶ 0r 0| 0† 0’ 1u" 0@— D3× B ' 0d/ AQ“ Æä 0Dª 0Dî D/2 Ba U *~ B)¨ DCÑ AMafg‘Íö^bT³¶™iv~vÓ€ <þ6X9`(CourierX ù3|x•.«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regulark.Dl.Vm.Dn.Do.p.Vq.Dr.s.Dt.u.Ev.w.Dx.y.Dz.U{.D|.U}.D~.D.€.D.U‚.ƒ.D„.….D†.Ó€’.•.B\J#2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(U(2vÔ$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÔ€Xè XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd* 3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ üÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌò òDecember€4,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€1ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ‡Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€1Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝLocust€acknowledges€in€his€brief€this€issue€was€not€raised€at€theÏhearing;€however,€he€seeks€to€avoid€the€waiver€rule€applicable€to€issues€notÏraised€in€the€lower€court€in€a€post€conviction€proceeding€by€arguing€that€thisÏcourt's€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Hillóó,€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00267€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€20,€1996),€òòrev'dóó,€No.€01„S„01„9701„CC„00005,€„„„ÏS.W.2d€„„„€(Tenn.€1997),€was€released€only€a€few€days€before€the€evidentiaryÏhearing€in€this€case€and€was€not€publicized€in€òòTennessee€Attorney's€Memoóó€untilÏafter€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€€The€state€points€out€that€Locust€could€have€raisedÏthe€issue€at€trial€or€on€direct€appeal,€but€did€not,€and€his€failure€to€do€soÏconstitutes€waiver.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997)€("There€is€aÏrebuttable€presumption€that€a€ground€for€relief€not€raised€before€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€been€presented€isÏwaived.").€€Both€parties€have€given€thoughtful€consideration€to€the€issue€in€theirÏbriefs.€€Our€supreme€court€has€recently€reversed€this€court's€opinion€in€òòRogerÏDale€Hillóó.€€As€such,€we€elect€to€address€the€issue€on€the€merits.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€13(b).Ì ìÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€1Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝLocust€argues€the€court€did€not€instruct€the€jury€on€lesser€includedÏoffenses;€however,€we€perceive€his€argument€as€one€encompassing€the€allegedÏerror€both€as€to€lesser€grade€or€class€offenses€and€lesser€included€offenses.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€1996).Ì XÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€1Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€authorities€we€cite€for€this€proposition€predate€the€supremeÏcourt's€clarification€of€the€law€in€òòTrustyóó,€another€panel€of€this€court€has€agreedÏthat€the€"alibi€exception"€to€a€trial€court's€obligation€to€charge€a€jury€on€lesserÏoffenses€remains€viable.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Preston€Carteróó,€No.€02C01„9504„CR„00100,€slip€op.€at€6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€July€26,€1996).Ì ©Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€1Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBecause€the€law€did€not€entitle€Locust€to€inclusion€of€instructions€onÏlesser€offenses,€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€consider€whether€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€trial€would€have€otherwise€supported€a€finding€of€lesser€offenses.Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€1Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€the€record€in€this€case€bears€out,€the€petitioner€feels€strongly€aboutÏthis€issue.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòWillie€D.€Locust€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9512„CC„00356Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€July€23,€1997)€(issue€raised€in€another€case€whichÏwas€pending€at€time€the€alleged€conflict€arose€in€the€instant€matter);€òòLocust€v.ÏStateóó,€912€S.W.2d€716€(Tenn.€€App.)€(legal€malpractice€action€based€in€part€onÏpre„trial€public€defender€counsel's€change€of€employment€to€district€attorneyÏgeneral's€office),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòWillie€D.€Locust€v.€James€E.ÏLanieróó,€No.€02A01„9502„CV„00020€(Tenn.€€App.,€Jackson,€Apr.€28,€1995)€(legalÏmalpractice€action),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€1ÔÑ7€ ¢G XdðdÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌÌò òÑ€Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€*ÙœßR€453A1-j|Ýÿ.` Å `€€@ÿRߛ̀à@ àAT€JACKSONÌó óÌà@ àMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òWILLIE€DEMORRIS€LOCUST,à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€02C01„9611„CC„00392Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDyer€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó óà àà à)à àHon.€Joe€G.€Riley,€JudgeÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à à(Post€Conviction)Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 à)à0 àÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌLANCE€WEBBà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€26€ÌUnion€City,€TN€€38261à àà àà0 àà àLISA€A.€NAYLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€PHILLIP€BIVENSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKAREN€WINCHESTERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Drawer€EÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDyersburg,€TN€€38024ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÑ€6ÑÇÑ7€r6XXdð Xdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€ ¢G XXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÓÓÌà àà àThe€petitioner,€Willie€Demorris€Locust,€appeals€the€Dyer€CountyÏCircuit€Court's€denial€of€his€petition€for€post€conviction€relief.€€Locust€isÏincarcerated€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€his€convictions€of€aggravatedÏsexual€battery€and€aggravated€burglary,€for€which€he€received€an€effective€tenÏyear€sentence€that€he€is€serving€consecutively€to€a€twenty€year€sentence€forÏaggravated€rape€and€aggravated€burglary€and€an€assault€sentence€ofÏundisclosed€length.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Locustóó,€914€S.W.2d€554€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.)Ï(aggravated€sexual€battery€and€aggravated€burglary),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1995);€òòState€v.€Willie€Demorris€Locustóó,€No.€02„C„01„9404„CC„00075€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Jackson,€Oct.€5,€1994)€(aggravated€rape€and€aggravated€burglary),Ïòòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€this€appeal,€he€claims€the€lower€court€erredÏin€denying€him€relief€on€three€issues:ÌÓÓà8 à1.à0 àWhether€the€indictment€is€defective€and€his€conviction€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery€is€therefore€void.ÌÌà8 à2.à0 àWhether€the€trial€judge€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€on€lesserÏincluded€offenses,€thereby€depriving€him€of€hisÏconstitutional€right€to€a€trial€by€jury.ÌÌà8 à3.à0 àWhether€he€was€afforded€the€effective€assistance€of€counselÏat€his€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.ÌÌÓÓFollowing€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€lower€court's€dismissal€ofÏLocust's€petition.ÌÌà àà àLocust's€petition€was€filed€on€February€1,€1996.€€As€such,€the€PostÏConviction€Act€of€1995€controls.€€Accordingly,€Locust€has€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€he€is€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àFirst,€Locust€questions€whether€count€one€of€the€indictment€againstÏhim€sufficiently€alleges€the€crime€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€He€relies€onÏthis€court's€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Hillóó,€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00267Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€20,€1996),€òòperm.€app€grantedóó€(Tenn.,€Jan.€6,Ï1997).€€Since€the€time€of€the€defendant's€submission€of€the€òòHillóó€case€asÍcontrolling€authority,€our€supreme€court€has€reversed€this€court's€decision€inÏòòHillóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€„„„,€No.€01„S„01„9701„CC„00005€(Tenn.€Nov.Ï3,€1997).€€Nevertheless,€we€will€address€the€defendant's€claim€under€the€law€asÏit€has€been€announced€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€ÌÌà àà àThe€question€raised€in€òòHillóó€is€whether€a€charging€instrument€whichÏcharges€a€defendant€with€a€crime€that€by€its€statutory€terms€does€not€expresslyÏrequire€a€culpable€mental€state€is€legally€sufficient€under€the€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€1989,€where€the€instrument€does€not€allege€a€culpable€òòmens€reaóó.€ÏòòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€2.€€The€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€requiresÏa€culpable€mental€state€in€order€to€establish€an€offense€unless€the€statutoryÏdefinition€of€the€crime€"plainly€dispenses€with€a€mental€element."€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„11„301(b)€(1997).ÌÌà àà àThe€supreme€court€in€òòHillóó€said€that€a€charging€instrument€whichÏœdoes€€not›€allege€a€culpable€mental€œstate,›€the€statutory€definition€of€the€crime€notÏplainly€dispensing€with€a€mental€element,€is€nevertheless€sufficient€to€supportÏprosecution€whereÌÓÓà8 à(1)à àthe€language€of€the€indictment€is€sufficient€to€meet€theÏconstitutional€requirements€of€notice€to€the€accused€of€the€chargeÏagainst€which€the€accused€must€defend,€adequate€basis€for€entryÏof€a€proper€judgment,€and€protection€from€double€jeopardy;ÌÌà8 à(2)à àthe€form€of€the€indictment€meets€the€requirements€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„13„202;€andÌÌà8 à(3)à àthe€mental€state€can€be€logically€inferred€from€the€conductÏalleged.ÌÌÓÓòòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€3.€€The€supreme€court€scrutinized€the€òòHillóóÏindictment€under€the€three„part€inquiry€above€and€determined€the€indictmentÏwas€legally€sufficient€to€support€prosecution€of€the€accused,€notwithstanding€theÏabsence€of€an€explicit€allegation€of€a€òòmens€reaóó.€€€òòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€atÏ4„10.€€Specifically,€the€supreme€court€noted,€"[T]he€act€for€which€the€defendantÏis€indicted,€'unlawfully€sexually€penetrat[ing]'€a€person€under€the€age€of€thirteen,Ïis€committable€only€if€the€principal€actor's€òòmens€reaóó€is€intentional,€knowing€orÏreckless.€€Thus,€the€required€mental€state€may€be€inferred€from€the€nature€of€theÏcriminal€conduct€alleged."€€òòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€9.Ìà àà àÌà àà àWe€find€the€case€at€bar€very€similar€under€the€òòHillóó€analysis.€€TheÏaggravated€sexual€battery€count€of€the€indictment€in€this€case€alleges€theÏdefendant€"unlawfully,€with€force€or€coercion,€had€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€.Ï.€.€the€victim,€while€armed€with€a€weapon,€to€wit,€a€knife€and€a€tire€tool,€causingÏbodily€injury,€in€violation€of€T[ennessee]€C[ode]€A[nnotated€section]€39„13„504€.€.Ï.€."€€In€pertinent€œpart:›ÌÓÓà8 àAggravated€sexual€battery€is€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€a€victimÍby€the€defendant€or€the€defendant€by€a€victim€accompanied€by€anyÏof€the€following€circumstances:€€œÌÌ›à8 à(1)à0 àForce€or€coercion€is€used€to€accomplish€the€act€and€theÏdefendant€is€armed€with€a€weapon€or€any€article€used€orÏfashioned€in€a€manner€to€lead€the€victim€reasonably€toÏbelieve€it€to€be€a€weapon;€Ìà8 à(2)à0 àThe€defendant€causes€bodily€injury€to€the€victim;€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504(a)(1),€(a)(2)€(1997).€€"Sexual€contact"€is€definedÏelsewhere€in€the€statute€as€including€"the€intentional€touching€of€the€victim's€.€.€.Ïintimate€parts€.€.€.€if€that€intentional€touching€can€be€reasonably€construed€asÏbeing€for€the€purpose€of€sexual€arousal€or€gratification."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(7)€(1997).ÌÌà àà àThe€indictment€in€this€case€closely€follows€the€statutory€languageÏdescribing€the€crime,€and€it€complies€with€the€statutory€form€by€stating€the€"factsÏconstituting€the€offense€in€ordinary€and€concise€language,€without€prolixity€orÏrepetition,€in€such€a€manner€as€to€enable€a€person€of€common€understanding€toÏknow€what€is€intended,€and€with€that€degree€of€certainty€which€will€enable€theÏcourt,€on€conviction,€to€pronounce€the€proper€judgment€.€.€.€."€€òòSeeóó€òòHillóó,€„„„ÏS.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€3;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„13„202€(1997).€€Finally,€theÏmental€state€is€capable€of€logical€inference€from€the€conduct€alleged.€€òòSeeóó€òòHillóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€at€„„„,€slip€op.€at€3;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€537„38Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€the€present€case€there€are€two€bases€for€drawingÍsuch€an€inference.€€First,€use€of€the€statutory€terms€of€ð ðforce€and€coercionððÏimplies€that€ð ðððwrongful€action€is€meant.ðððð€òòAllen€Lloyd€Smith€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9511„CR„00351,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€29,€œ1997)›Ï(inferring€from€the€use€of€ð ðforcibly€and€coercivelyðð€that€the€acts€ð ðwere€committedÏat€least€recklessly,€if€now€knowingly€or€intentionallyðð),€òòappl.€for€perm.€app.€filedóóÏ(Tenn.€Nov.€7,€1997).€€In€our€view,€that€oneððs€acts€are€intentional€may€be€inferredÏfrom€use€of€the€terms€force€and€coercion.€€òòState€v.€Terry€Allen€Dominyóó,€No.Ï01C01„9512„CC„00404,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€30,Ï1997),€òòappl.€for€perm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.€July€30,€1997).€œÌSecond,›€this€court€has€held€that€use€of€the€phrase€ð ðsexual€contactðð€doesÏð ðnecessarily€imply€an€intentional€touchingðð€of€the€victim.€€òòState€v.€Milton€S.ÏJones,€Jr.óó,€No.€02C01„9503„CR„00061,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏMarch€œ7,€›€1997),€òòappl.€for€perm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.€May€6,€1997);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.ÏJohn€Jamesóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CR„00016,€slip€op.€at€19„20€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€March€27,€1997).ÌÌà àà àAs€pointed€out€above,€aggravated€sexual€battery€involves€unlawfulÏsexual€contact€with€a€victim.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„504(a)€(1997).€€ð ðððSexualÏcontactðð€includes€the€intentional€touching€of€the€victimððs€.€.€.€intimate€parts€.€.€.€ifÏthat€intentional€touching€can€be€reasonably€construed€as€being€for€the€purposeÍof€sexual€arousal€or€gratification.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„501(6)€(1997).€Ïð ðTherefore,€the€mental€element€of€ððintentionalðð€is€included€in€the€definition€ofÏððsexual€contactðð€and€is€impliedly€included€within€the€œindictment.ð𛀀òòJohn€Jamesóó,Ïslip€op.€at€19.€€Ìà àÌà àà àFurthermore,€this€court€has€previously€held€that,€when€theÏproscriptive€statute€fails€to€expressly€require€a€culpable€mental€state,€anÏindictment€passes€muster€when€it€alleges€the€crime€in€the€language€of€theÏstatute,€without€expressly€setting€forth€the€culpable€mental€state.€€òòState€v.€JamesÏDisonóó,€No.€03C01„9602„CC„00051,€slip€op.€at€17€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏJan.€31,€1997)€(Jones,€P.€J.,€and€Dender€œ€Sp.›€J.,€concurring),€òòappl.€for€perm.Ïapp.€filedóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€14,€1997);€òòMelvin€Lee€Burkett€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00202,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Nov.€4,€1997).€€ÌÌà àà àThus,€the€indictment€in€this€case€is€not€fatally€deficient€andÏproperly€supports€Locustððs€convictions.Ìœ›Ìà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àIn€his€second€issue,€Locust€claims€he€was€deprived€of€hisÏconstitutional€guarantee€to€a€trial€by€jury€because€the€trial€court€failed€to€instructÍœthe€€jury›€on€lesser€included€offenses.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€The€state€claims€the€court€did€not€err€inÏfailing€to€instruct€on€lesser€offenses€because€the€œrecord€clearly›€illustrated€LocustÏwas€guilty€of€the€greater€offenses€and€œwas€devoid›€of€any€evidence€permitting€anÏinference€of€guilt€of€the€lesser€offenses.ÌÌà àà àThe€general€rule€is€that€a€trial€court€has€the€duty,€òòsua€sponteóó,€toÏinstruct€the€jury€on€all€lesser€grade€or€class€offenses€and€lesser€includedÏoffenses,€provided€the€evidence€would€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesserÏoffenses.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110€(1997);€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919€S.W.2dÏ305,€310€(Tenn.€1996);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€31(c).€€€However,€"where€theÏevidence€in€a€record€clearly€shows€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€the€greaterÏoffense€and€is€devoid€of€any€evidence€permitting€an€inference€of€guilt€of€theÏlesser€offense,€the€trial€court's€failure€to€charge€on€a€lesser€offense€is€not€error."€ÏòòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€550€(Tenn.€1994)€(citation€omitted).€ÏAdditionally,€an€instruction€as€to€lesser€offenses€is€not€required€where€theÏdefendant€does€not€dispute€that€the€crime€occurred,€only€that€he€committed€it.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Barkeróó,€642€S.W.2d€735,€738€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòPriceÍv.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€929,€932€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).× ƒ9 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àA€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€at€Locust's€trial,€his€defenseÏwas€one€of€alibi.€€He€and€his€trial€counsel€admitted€as€much€in€his€testimony€atÏthe€œpost€€conviction›€hearing.€€As€such,€he€was€not€entitled€to€instructions€onÏlesser€offenses.× ƒ: ××  ×Ì€Locust€has€failed€to€establish€that€he€is€entitled€to€relief.ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àFinally,€Locust€complains€in€numerous€respects€he€was€notÏafforded€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€prior€to€trial,€at€trial€and€on€directÏappeal.€€The€state€agrees€with€the€lower€court,€which€found€all€of€the€petitioner'sÏallegations€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€ArticleÏI,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€both€require€that€a€defendant€in€a€criminalÏcase€receive€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€€When€a€defendant€claims€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€theÏstandard€applied€by€the€courts€of€Tennessee€is€"whether€the€advice€given€or€theÏservice€rendered€by€the€attorney€is€within€the€range€of€competence€demandedÏby€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€òòSummerlin€v.€Stateóó,€607€S.W.2d€495,€496Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏdefined€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€466€U.S.Ï668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052€(1984).€€First,€the€appellant€must€show€that€counsel'sÏperformance€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€underÏprevailing€professional€norms€and€must€demonstrate€that€counsel€made€errorsÏso€serious€that€he€was€not€functioning€as€"counsel"€guaranteed€by€theÏConstitution.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€€Second,€theÏpetitioner€must€show€that€counsel's€performance€prejudiced€him€and€that€errorsÏwere€so€serious€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€calling€into€questionÏthe€reliability€of€the€outcome.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€€ÌÌà àà à€€As€noted€above,€the€petitioner's€burden€of€proof€in€all€cases€filedÏafter€May€10,€1995€is€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€The€court€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€counsel'sÏconduct€falls€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance€and€mustÏevaluate€counsel's€performance€from€counsel's€perspective€at€the€time€of€theÏalleged€error€and€in€light€of€the€totality€of€the€evidence.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€atÏ690,€695,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€2069.€€The€petitioner€must€demonstrate€that€thereÏis€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counsel's€deficient€performance,€theÏresult€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695,Ï104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€A€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€following€a€post„convictionÏhearing€have€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€€òòBratton€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€754,€756Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€On€appeal,€those€findings€are€conclusive€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,Ï900€(Tenn.€1990).€€ÌÌà àà àLocust€attacks€his€previous€counsel's€effectiveness€in€six€respects.€ÌÌà àà àA.à0 àòòDirect€AppealóóÌà àà àFirst,€he€claims€counsel€failed€to€brief€important€issues€on€directÏappeal,€or€alternatively,€failed€to€adequately€explain€to€Locust€his€òòpro€seóó€briefingÍrights.€€As€Locust€correctly€acknowledges,€there€is€no€constitutional€requirementÏthat€an€attorney€argue€every€issue€on€appeal.€€òòJones€v.€Barnesóó,€463€U.S.€745,Ï750„51,€103€S.€Ct.€3308,€3314€(1983);€òòState€v.€Draperóó,€800€S.W.2d€489,€498Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Locust's€former€counsel€testified€he€recalledÏdiscussing€the€appeal€with€Locust€to€some€extent.€€€Counsel€acknowledged€thatÏin€selecting€the€appellate€issues€for€review,€he€knew€any€remaining€issuesÏwould€be€waived.€€Counsel€admitted€he€did€not€inform€Locust€he€could€submit€aÏbrief€on€any€other€such€issues;€however,€a€defendant€has€no€right€to€proceed€toÏsubmit€a€òòpro€seóó€brief€when€he€or€she€is€represented€by€counsel€in€the€appellateÏcourts.€€òòState€v.€Burkhartóó,€541€S.W.2d€365,€371€(Tenn.€1976);€òòWillie€D.€Locust€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€02C01„9512„CC„00356,€slip€op.€at€7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€JulyÏ23,€1997),€òòappl.€for€perm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.€Sept.€23,€1997);€òòBobby€Roberson€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€02C01„9203„CC„00069,€slip€op.€at€16€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏDec.€1,€1993),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€€In€any€event,€Locust€has€failedÏto€demonstrate€that€any€of€the€issues€were€meritorious,€and€absent€such€aÏshowing,€it€matters€not€whether€they€were€briefed€by€appellate€counsel€orÏLocust€himself€on€direct€appeal.€€Ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€on€this€issueÏhas€not€been€demonstrated.ÌÌB.à àòòCross„Examination€of€the€VictimóóÌà àà àIn€his€second€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance,€Locust€claimsÏtrial€counsel€was€deficient€in€cross„examination€of€the€victim.€€Prior€to€trial,€theÏvictim€gave€a€description€of€her€attacker€to€the€police€which€varied€somewhatÏfrom€the€description€she€gave€at€trial.€€In€her€initial€statement,€she€said€theÏassailant€was€wearing€"dark€possibly€green€overalls"€and€a€blue€toboggan.€€AtÏtrial,€she€claimed€he€wore€a€"brown,€short,€dark€looking€jacket"€and€dark€pants.€ÏWhile€Locust€characterizes€this€as€a€"glaring€inconsistency"€given€the€fact€thatÏidentification€was€the€key€issue€at€trial,€the€lower€court€found€the€varianceÏbetween€the€two€descriptions€"relatively€insignificant"€in€light€of€the€detailedÏphysical€description€the€victim€gave€prior€to€trial€and€her€positive€identification€ofÏhim€at€trial.€€Ultimately,€the€lower€court€concluded,€the€results€of€the€trial€wouldÏhave€been€the€same€even€if€the€victim€had€been€asked€about€her€priorÏstatement.€€We€cannot€say€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€lowerÏcourt's€finding.ÌÌC.à0 àòòPretrial€Motion€to€Suppress€Photographic€LineupóóÌà àà àThird,€Locust€claims€his€former€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€toÏmake€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppress€the€results€of€a€photographic€lineup€fromÏwhich€the€victim€picked€Locust€as€her€attacker.€€He€claims€the€procedure€was€soÏsuggestive€as€to€render€the€identification€unreliable€in€that€the€police€officer€whoÍconducted€the€lineup€told€the€victim€he€had€a€suspect,€thereby€implying€theÏsuspect€was€pictured€in€one€of€the€six€photographs€he€showed€the€victim.€ÏFurther,€all€six€photographs€were€"mug€shots"€in€which€the€subjects€wereÏholding€a€placard€with€the€date€they€were€photographed,€and€Locust€wasÏrecently€photographed,€increasing€the€chance€the€victim€would€pick€himÏbecause€of€the€date€on€his€placard.€€Locust€also€claims€the€lineup€undulyÏsuggested€he€was€the€suspect€because€he€was€wearing€a€dark€jacket€in€hisÏphotograph.€€The€officer€who€prepared€the€photo€array€testified€none€of€theÏphotographs€were€treated€differently€from€any€other.€€The€victim€picked€theÏdefendant€immediately€when€she€came€to€his€photograph.€€She€looked€backÏthrough€the€photographs€a€second€and€third€time€at€the€officer's€request€andÏcontinued€to€maintain€the€petitioner€was€her€attacker.€€The€officer€said€he€did€notÏknow€the€dates€on€the€other€subjects'€placards,€but€they€"possibly"€were€asÏrecent€as€the€date€on€Locust's.€€The€officer€chose€the€photographs€other€thanÏthe€petitioner's€by€pulling€file€photographs€which€matched€Locust's€generalÏdescription.€€The€photographic€lineup€was€not€offered€into€evidence€at€the€postÏconviction€hearing.€€In€finding€this€issue€without€merit,€the€lower€court€found€thatÏit€would€have€overruled€any€such€motion€made€by€the€defense€because€theÏprocedure€was€not€unduly€suggestive.€€On€appeal,€Locust€has€failed€to€showÏthat€the€evidence€preponderates€to€the€contrary.€€As€such,€he€has€failed€toÍestablish€prejudice€from€counsel's€alleged€ineffectiveness.ÌÌD.à0 àòòJury€Selection/Composition€of€VenireóóÌà àà àIn€his€fourth€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€LocustÏcomplains€that€trial€counsel€ineffectively€failed€to€quash€the€jury€venire,€orÏalternatively,€to€exercise€peremptory€challenges.€€The€essence€of€this€issue€isÏthat€Locust,€who€is€African„American,€is€aggrieved€that€he€was€tried€for€crimesÏagainst€a€white,€female€victim€by€what€he€described€in€his€testimony€as€an€all„white,€mostly€female€jury.€€The€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€the€jury€pool€included€blacks€and€that€he€believed€the€trialÏjury€included€blacks.€€The€lower€court€found€that€the€jurors€were€randomlyÏselected,€Locust€failed€to€show€any€systematic€exclusion€of€African„Americans,Ïand€had€trial€counsel€made€a€motion€to€quash€the€venire,€the€motion€wouldÏhave€been€overruled.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€begin€our€analysis€by€acknowledging€Supreme€CourtÏprecedent€which€would€have€prevented€trial€counsel€from€exercisingÏperemptory€challenges€in€such€as€way€as€to€purposefully€exclude€prospectiveÏjurors€based€solely€upon€race€or€gender.€€òòJ.E.B.€v.€Alabama€ex€rel.€T.B.óó,€511ÏU.S.€127,€114€S.€Ct.€1419€(1994)€(gender);€òòGeorgia€v.€McCollumóó,€502€U.S.€42,Í502€S.€Ct.€42€(1992)€(race).€€As€such,€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€failing€toÏexercise€peremptory€challenges€simply€because€prospective€jurors'€race€orÏgender€was€different€from€Locust's.ÌÌà àà àThe€remaining€issue,€then,€is€whether€counsel€should€have€movedÏto€quash€the€jury€venire€because€its€composition€denied€Locust€the€right€toÏselect€a€jury€from€a€fair€cross„section€of€the€community.€€òòSeeóó€òòDuren€v.ÏMississippióó,€439€U.S.€357,€99€S.€Ct.€664€(1979).€€Although€there€is€evidence€ofÏrecord€from€which€one€may€conclude€the€jury€pool€contained€few€African„Americans€and€a€significant€number€of€women,€there€is€no€evidence€of€that€theÏvenire€composition€was€not€fairly€representative€of€the€community€in€whichÏLocust's€trial€took€place€or€that€the€procedure€for€selecting€jurors€unfairlyÏexcluded€women€or€African„Americans.€€We€decline€to€speculate€in€this€regard.€ÏAs€such,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court'sÏdetermination€this€issue€lacked€merit.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrateÏeither€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€or,€in€the€event€such€assistanceÏoccurred,€that€he€was€prejudiced€thereby.ÌÌE.à0 àòòConflict€of€InterestóóÌà àà àFifth,€Locust€claims€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÍmove€for€the€disqualification€of€the€district€attorney's€office€based€upon€LocustÏbeing€previously€represented€in€pre„trial€proceedings€by€an€assistant€publicÏdefender€who€became€employed€with€the€district€attorney's€office€during€theÏpendency€of€the€proceedings.€€The€substantive€issue€of€the€conflict€of€interestÏwas€raised€on€direct€appeal,€and€this€court€held€first,€the€issue€was€waived€byÏcounsel's€failure€to€raise€it€prior€to€trial,€and€second,€any€factual€basis€for€theÏclaim€was€insufficiently€supported€by€the€record.€€While€this€issue€has€arguablyÏbeen€previously€determined€based€upon€this€court's€consideration€of€its€meritsÏon€direct€appeal€notwithstanding€a€finding€of€waiver,€we€address€it€in€the€contextÏof€trial€counsel's€alleged€ineffectiveness€œin€order›€to€bring€finality€to€the€issue.× ƒ; ××  ×€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€post€conviction€hearing,€Locust€alleged€he€discussed€theÏfacts€of€this€case€with€his€pre„trial€attorney€and€he€gave€him€confidentialÏinformation€which€the€district€attorney's€office€later€disclosed€to€a€defenseÏwitness,€the€nature€of€which€prevented€the€witness€from€testifying.€€The€pre„trialÍattorney€testified€he€never€discussed€the€specifics€of€this€case€with€theÏpetitioner;€their€only€conversation,€which€took€place€during€communicationsÏabout€other€matters€in€which€pre„trial€counsel€represented€the€petitioner,Ïpertained€to€the€fact€that€there€was€a€direct€indictment€looming.€€The€pre„trialÏattorney€was€unable€to€obtain€any€information€from€the€district€attorney's€office,Ïso€there€was€no€discussion€with€the€petitioner€of€the€merits€of€the€case.€€Further,Ïthe€pre„trial€attorney€informed€Locust€he€was€leaving€the€public€defender'sÏoffice,€and€once€the€attorney€began€work€with€the€district€attorney€general,€heÏhad€no€contact€with€this€prosecution.€€Pre„trial€counsel's€only€real€involvementÏwith€the€case€was€in€filing€an€early€motion.€€Locust's€trial€counsel€testified€heÏinvestigated€the€previous€involvement€of€this€former€assistant€public€defender,Ïby€then€an€assistant€district€attorney€general,€and€determined€that€the€facts€didÏnot€provide€a€good€faith€basis€for€the€trial€court€to€grant€disqualification.€€TheÏlower€court€accredited€trial€counsel's€testimony€and€agreed€with€his€conclusion.€ÏAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€find€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏotherwise.€€òòAccordóó€òòWillie€D.€Locust€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9512„CC„00356,€slipÏop.€at€4„5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€July€23,€1997).ÌÌF.à0 àòòPresence€of€Petitioner€at€Pre„Trial€HearingsÌà àà àóóFinally,€Locust€claims€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€toÍensure€Locust€was€present€at€his€arraignment€and€the€motion€to€dismiss€theÏindictment€or€alternatively€to€remand€for€preliminary€hearing.€€He€claims€hisÏabsence€from€these€important€proceedings€was€violative€of€due€process€suchÏthat€prejudice€should€be€presumed€and€he€should€be€afforded€a€new€trial.€€TheÏlower€court€found€the€evidence€of€record€failed€to€establish€Locust's€claims,€andÏin€any€event,€there€is€no€requirement€a€defendant€attend€arguments€on€Ïquestions€of€law.ÌÌà àà àLocust€testified€he€did€not€recall€being€present€at€the€arraignmentÏor€motion€hearing.€€Though€trial€counsel€apparently€could€not€remember€theÏspecifics€of€Locust's€arraignment,€he€testified€he€may€have€waived€formalÏreading€of€the€indictment€if€the€petitioner€consented.€€If€he€waived€the€reading€ofÏthe€indictment,€the€defendant€would€still€be€present.€€Unfortunately,€the€recordÏdoes€not€contain€the€transcript€of€the€arraignment.€€In€resolving€this€issueÏadversely€to€the€petitioner,€the€lower€court€discredited€Locust's€testimony€inÏfavor€of€trial€counsel's.€€Locust€has€not€established€on€appeal€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€to€the€contrary.ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€as€correctly€noted€by€the€lower€court,€a€criminalÏdefendant€is€not€afforded€the€right€to€be€present€at€argument€upon€a€question€ofÍlaw.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€43(c)(3).€€As€such,€the€issue€of€whether€Locust€wasÏpresent€at€the€motion€hearing€of€which€he€complains€need€not€be€resolvedÏfactually,€as€the€issue€is€substantively€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€summary,€we€find€no€basis€for€granting€relief€on€any€of€Locust'sÏœclaims,›€œand€we›€affirm€the€lower€court's€dismissal€of€his€petition.Ìà àà àÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE