WPC 6} eeo IS )W2MAJϷ#4ծm Z+cy/ ![a GT}Nȥ{]PK^3|N2D%ѐ{k;SH٪4SŶtX-Nw!1JUvm˻Q6vL*Sr؍ ڴG5 :ƓT-^o%-tΧw<)3SźJdCǃt l$*ǻ/%K<`_8d0)k( aDv|KHC`+"mCa5R%qWW^avCjgͶvhD8lD< ` A+|YFV#e:;a?@j @{R(6^^qَt&5mSn@7RnsO_sh, *;[[N TaDk3|4-CrUBF % U.  nX 0P$ 4t  0 0cb w@ U: U:? U:y  4nUB]U:U:U:xxxxxxxxxxxx B D3 0D AOF 0D[ D/ B<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%2A`ArialTT3|X+<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  uM%((2w$ !D   XX$   0  ("$ X<=XXX  0   DDDDӀ)g"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular   $D  o>XXto>   3    Thepetitionersargumentonthispointincludesonelastsentence,inwhichhestatesthathis `  trialcounseldidnotobjecttothetrialcourtsfailuretochargethejuryonthelesserincludedoffensesandthat theDistrictAttorneyGeneraltooknostepstoprotectthedefendantsconstitutionalrights.Fromthislanguage,wecannotdiscernthesignificancethepetitionerattachestotheseevents(assuming,ofcourse,thepetitionersunsupportedstatementiseventrue). *  $D  o>XXto>   2    Thisattorneytestifiedbecausethepetitionerstrialcounseldiedpriortothepostconviction `  hearing.   $D  ~XX~   3    Thepetitionersargumentonthispointincludesonelastsentence,inwhichhestatesthathis `  trialcounseldidnotobjecttothetrialcourtsfailuretochargethejuryonthelesserincludedoffensesandthat theDistrictAttorneyGeneraltooknostepstoprotectthedefendantsconstitutionalrights.Fromthislanguage,wecannotdiscernthesignificancethepetitionerattachestotheseevents(assuming,ofcourse,thepetitionersunsupportedstatementiseventrue).<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi,rAZ"Arial Regular XpXXXN XXp   Ad FILEDXpX N  October27,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular XpXXXN XXp   Ad FILEDXpX N  October23,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM    $D  o>XXto>   1    Thepetitionerevenappearstoadmitasmuchinhisappellatebriefbyarguingthattheportion `  ofthisCourtsopinioninMeeksIIthataddressesthesearchwarrantargumentsraisedhereiswrong.,cAZ"Arial Regular d$$$$'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !D   ` XPD  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T  X)XXX7 ) XXdd7)r*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP"`  r))r*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP"`  r)  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@uu:MATNASHVILLE  @7MAUGUST1998SESSION DANNYRAYMEEKS,     ` )  p     X      ` )   C.C.A.NO.01C019709CC00387  `    Appellant,  򀀀   ` ) P     X      ` )  GRUNDYCOUNTY  @  VS.   X      ` ) 0     X      ` )  HON.J.CURTISSMITH,   STATEOFTENNESSEE,     ` )  JUDGE p    X      ` )  Appellee.      ` )  (PostConviction)  P  FORTHEAPPELLANT:     `   FORTHEAPPELLEE:   EDWARDL.BORING     `   JOHNKNOXWALKUP   P.O.Box381 X      `   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  p Pikeville,TN37367̀(OnAppeal) X      `   TIMOTHYF.BEHAN  "P    X      `   Asst.AttorneyGeneral MARIONC.FORDYCE      `   JohnSevierBldg. $0 WashingtonSquare,Suite500   `   425FifthAve.,North !  p#  %  222SecondAve.,North     `   Nashville,TN372430493 p& Nashville,TN37201̀(AtHearing) X      `   J.MICHAELTAYLOR 󀀀 P(!    X      `   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   X      `   THOMASD.HEMBREE  +!$    X      `     and  ,"%    X      `   STEVENBLOUNT  -#&    X      `   Asst.DistrictAttorneysGeneral   X      `   265ThirdAve.,Suite300   X      `   Dayton,TN37321   X      `      X      `      X   OPINIONFILED:____________________ AFFIRMED  @8.2  JOHNH.PEAY,  ;15 Judge  <26 X  @:M XX)OPINION#X)Xr#Ԉ `     InAugust1990,ajuryconvictedthepetitionerofaggravatedkidnapping,especiallyaggravatedrobbery,aggravatedburglary,andextortion.ThepetitionerreceivedaneffectivesentenceoffortyeightyearsintheDepartmentofCorrection.Thepetitionerappealed,andthisCourtaffirmedthepetitionersconvictionsandsentenceinAugust1993.SeeStatev.Meeks,867S.W.2d361(Tenn.Crim.App.1993)(permission f  toappealdeniedNov.1,1993).ThepetitionerfiledhispetitionforpostconvictionreliefonOctober6,1994,allegingthirtytwogroundsforrelief.Thepetitionertwiceamendedhispetitiontoallegeanadditionaltwentyfivegroundsforrelief.Afterhearingevidenceontheissuesraisedbythepetition,thetrialcourtfiledamemorandumopiniondismissingthepetitioninAugust1997.Onemonthlater,thetrialcourtfiledanaddendumtoitsopinion.Thepetitionernowappeals,raisingthefollowingissuesforreview:8 I.Whethertrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallengethearrestwarrantforlackofprobablecausebecauseitdidnotcontainapropersignaturebytheissuingmagistrate?  " " 8 II.Whethertrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallengethesearchandseizureofthepetitionersautomobile?  " " 8 III.Whethertrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallengetheissuanceofthesearchwarrantofthepetitionersresidence?  " " 8 IV.Whethertrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallengeforcauseajurorwhoknewthevictimofthecrime?  " " 8 V.Whethertrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoactasan activeadvocatebynotproperlyinvestigateingthecaseanddecidingnottocallacertaindefensewitness?  " " 8 VI.Whethertrialcounselwasineffectiveforengaginginanintimaterelationshipwiththepetitionerswife,whowasalsoacodefendantinthecase?  " " 8 VI.Whethertrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallengevariancesbetweentheproofandtheindictment?  " "  v7.1 8 VII.Whetherthetrialcourtimproperlyconcludedthatthevictimsuffered seriousbodilyinjurywhenconsideringthepetitionersmotionforjudgment l7 .3 ofacquittal,whichdeprivedthepetitionerofafairtrial?  " " 8 VIII.Whetherthetrialcourtsinstructiontothejuryonthedefinitionof reasonabledoubtdeprivedthepetitionerofafairtrialinviolationoftheEighthandFourteenthAmendments?  " " 8 IX.Whetherthetrialcourtsfailuretoinstructthejuryonalllesserincludedoffensesdeprivedthepetitionerofafairtrial?  " " 8 X.Whetherthetrialcourtdeprivedthepetitionerofafairtrialbyfailingtoproperlyapplyandenumeratetheenhancementfactorsandfailingtoindicateitwasfollowingtheguidelinesofthesentencingact?  " " Afterconsideringthepartiesappellatebriefs,thefactscontainedintherecord,andtheapplicablelaw,weaffirm.  Thepetitionercitessixreasonswhyhistrialcounselwasineffective.InreviewingthepetitionersSixthAmendmentclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,thisCourtmustdeterminewhethertheadvicegivenorservicesrenderedbytheattorneyarewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxterv. v Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Toprevailonaclaimofineffectivecounsel, !B apetitioner mustshowthatcounselsrepresentationfellbelowanobjectivestandardofreasonablenessandthatthisperformanceprejudicedthedefense.Theremustbeareasonableprobabilitythatbutforcounselserror,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,68788,692,694(1984);Best (r# v.State,708S.W.2d421,422(Tenn.Crim.App.1985). *>!%   First,thepetitionerarguesthathistrialcounselwasineffectivebecausehefailedtochallengethearrestwarrant.Thepetitionercitesseveralreasonswhythearrestwarrantwasvoidandwhyprobablecausedidnotexisttoissuethearrestwarrant,butourdispositionofthisissueneednotconcerntheintricaciesofthepetitionersargument.Evenassumingthatthepetitionersallegationsweretrueandthearrestwarrantwasvoid,thepetitionerhasnotshownhowhewasprejudicedbecauseoncetheStatesecuresan 27-3 indictmentorpresentment,anydefectsemanatingfromtheoriginalarrestwarrantarecured.See,e.g.,Statev.Campbell,641S.W.2d890,893(Tenn.1982).Thepetitioner ,  doesnotchallengetheindictmentinthiscase.Thus,thepetitionerisnotentitledtoreliefonthisground.SeeStrickland,466U.S.at68788. d   Next,thepetitionerarguesthathistrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallengethesearchandseizureofthepetitioners familyvehicleafterthepetitionerandhiswifehadbeenarrested.Evenassuminghistrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallengethesearchandseizureoftheautomobile,thepetitionerhasnotshownprejudice.Inotherwords,thepetitionerhasnotshownthatbutforhistrialcounselsfailuretochallengethesearchandseizureoftheautomobile,theresultofhistrialinthiscasewouldhavebeendifferent.Withoutsuchashowing,thepetitionerisnotentitledtoreliefonthisground.SeeStrickland,466U.S.at68788.    Thepetitioneralsoarguesthattrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallengetheissuanceofthesearchwarrantofthepetitionersresidence.Thepetitionerclaimsthesearchwarrantisvoidbecausetheissuingpartyfailedtoretainacopyofthewarrant.Noevidenceintherecordsupportsthisconclusorystatement.Thepetitioneralsoclaimsthattheofficerwhoobtainedthesearchwarrantdidsobyknowinglymakingfalsestatementsinhisaffidavit.Thisissuehasbeenpreviouslydeterminedondirectappealinthiscase.SeeMeeks,867S.W.2dat364.Moreover,thepetitionerclaimsthat P-#( thelapseoftimebetweenthecrimeandtheapplicationforasearchwarrantdirectlyimpacted theprobabilitythatincriminatingevidencemaybefound.Thepetitionerfurtherclaimsthatthesearchwarrantisvoidbecausetheywerenotissuedbya neutralanddetachedpartyandthattheissuingpartyfailedtoreadtheentireaffidavitwordforword.Thesearetheexactissuesraisedinoneofpetitionersothercases,Statev. L6,2 Meeks,876S.W.2d121(Tenn.Crim.App.1993)(hereinafterMeeksII).InMeeksII,this `  Courtdeterminedthatthepetitionersargumentslackedmerit.FromourreviewwhichisadmittedlylimitedbecausetherecorddoesnotcontainacopyofthesearchwarrantitappearsthatthesearchwarrantchallengedinMeeksIIisthesamesearchwarrantthe d Мpetitionerisnowclaimingsisvoid.   X_sXXX_s  1      ׀Ifthatistrue,thentheissuesthepetitionerraiseshere 0 havebeenpreviouslydetermined.T.C.A.4030112(a)(1990).However,evenifthesearchwarrantchallengedinMeeksIIisdifferentfromthesearchwarrantthepetitioner (  nowarguesisvoid,thepetitionerhasfailedtoshowhowhewasprejudicedandhowtheresultofhistrialinthiscasewouldhavebeendifferentwithouttheevidenceseizedfromhisresidence.Assuch,thepetitionerisnotentitledtoreliefonthisground.See , Strickland,466U.S.at68788. X   Next,thepetitionercontendshistrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtochallengeforcauseajuror,MichaelJ.Perry,whoknewthevictimofthecrime.ThepetitionercontendsthatMr.Perrymisrepresentedduringvoirdiretheextenttowhichheknewthevictimandthathewasabiasedjuror.ThetranscriptofthevoirdireproceedingsshowsthatMr.Perryadmittedheknewallofthepartiesinvolvedona casualbasis,andherepeatedlyindicatedthatheknewnothingaboutthiscase,didnothaveapreconceivedopinionofthepetitionersguiltorinnocence,andwouldhaveanopenmindifselectedtobeajuror.Basedonthisevidence,thepostconvictioncourtfoundthatMr.Perryrevealedduringvoirdirethatheknewthedefendantsandthevictimandthatthepetitionerfailedtopresentevidenceofjurormisconductorineffectiveassistanceofcounselinregardtojuryselection.  Onappeal,however,thepetitionerreliesuponmorethanthetranscriptto 4 +0 supporthisargument.Infact,hHereliesuponaletterwrittenbyhissisterthatheclaimsconflictswiththetranscript.Intheletter,thepetitionerssisterallegesthatMr.Perryknewthepartiesbetterthanheintimatedduringvoirdire.Thisletterwasnotfiledintherecorduntilafterthepostconvictioncourtentereditsorder,whichdeprivedthepostconvictioncourtoftheopportunitytoconsiderit.BecausethisCourtisnotafactfindingcourt,theletterisnotproperlyconsideredas evidenceonappeal.Further,becausetheevidenceproperlypresentedtothetrialcourtfailstoreflectjurormisconduct,ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,orresultingprejudicetothepetitioner,thisgroundwillnotaffordthepetitionerrelief.SeeStrickland,466U.S.at68788. `   Next,thepetitionerargueshistrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoactasan activeadvocate.Assupportforthisargument,thepetitionerclaimshisattorneyfailedtoproperlyinvestigatethiscasebecausehewas actingasanadvocatefortheStateandworkinginconjunctionwiththeStatetosuppressfactsandsecretwitnessesfromthedefendantandthetechnicalrecord.Thereisnoevidenceintherecordtosupportthepetitionersnotionthathistrialcounselwasworking inconjunctionwiththeStatetothepetitionersdetriment.Tothecontrary,anattorneyassociatedwiththepetitionerstrialcounselandwhoalsoworkedonthepetitionerscase   X_sXX X_s  2      ׀testifiedthatthe '" petitionerstrialcounselkeptavoluminousfileonthiscaseandloggedalmost260hoursonthecasefromDecember1990toMarch1994,notcountingasixteenmonthperiodforwhichthetimesheetsweremissingfromtherecord.Duringthatsixteenmonthperiod,thepetitionerstrialcounselinvestigatedandworkedonthepetitionerscaseonatleastfortysixseparatedays.Thetrialcounselsfilealsoindicatedthathekeptmeticulousandorganizedrecordsdocumentinghisconversationswithandinformationabouteachpotentialwitnessdiscoveredduringthecourseofhisinvestigations. 4 +0 Ї  Thepetitioneralsoclaimshistrialcounselwasnotan activeadvocatebecausehedecidednottocallapotentialalibiwitness,CharlesAnderson.Tothisargument,thepostconvictioncourtfoundthattheattorneysdecisionnottocallMr.AndersonasawitnesswasamatteroftrialstrategybecauseMr.Andersonscredibilitywasquestionableandhistestimonywouldhaveconflictedwiththetestimonyofthepetitionerandotherwitnessesinseveralimportantregards,totheextentthatitcouldhaveunderminedthepetitionersalibidefense.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthesefindings.SeeCooperv.State,849S.W.2d744,746(Tenn.1993)(stating   thatthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactareconclusiveonappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment).Moreover,thereisnoevidenceintherecordtosupportthedefendantsimplicationthathisattorneysdecisionnottocallMr.Andersontothewitnessstandwasanuninformeddecision.SeeHellardv.State,629S.W.2d4, $ 9(Tenn.1982)(statingthatthecourtshouldnotsecondguesstrialcounselstacticalandstrategicchoicesunlessthosechoiceswereuninformedbecauseofinadequatepreparation).Thus,thisargumentwillnotaffordthepetitionerrelief.  Next,thepetitionercontendshistrialcounselwasineffectivebecauseheengagedinanintimaterelationshipwiththepetitionerswife,whowasalsoacodefendantattrial.Thepetitioneralsoimpliesthattheprosecutingattorneyactedinappropriatelybyfailingto revealpromptlytotheCourtimproperconductofmembersofthebar.Contrarytothepetitionersclaims,therecordfailstoreflectthathistrialcounselengagedinanintimaterelationshipwiththepetitionerswife.Moreover,thisargumentisnotacognizableconstitutionalclaimforwhichpostconvictionreliefmaybegranted.SeeT.C.A.4030105(1990). 2T).   Finally,thepetitionerclaimshistrialcounselwasineffectivebecausehe L6,2 failedtoX_sXX X_schallengevariancesbetweentheproofandtheindictment,whichisachallenge `  tothesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence.Thisargumentwillnotaffordthepetitionerrelief,however,becausethesufficiencyoftheevidencecannotbereviewedortestedinapostconvictionproceeding.Gantv.State,507S.W.2d133(Tenn.Crim.App.1973).# X_sXXX_sI# d   Inthepetitionersremainingissues,heallegesseveraltrialcourterrorsthatheclaimsdeprivedhimofa constitutionalfairtrial.First,thepetitionerarguesthatthetrialcourtdeprivedhimofafairtrialby substitut[ing]its[sic]owndefinitionofwhatconstitutesseriousbodilyinjuryonthequestionofadirectedverdictofacquittalonallindictedcounts.Itiswellsettledthatajudgmentofacquittaltestsonlythelegalsufficiencyoftheevidence.Statev.Campbell,904S.W.2d608,611(Tenn.Crim.App. X 1995).Thus,althoughthepetitionerhasattemptedtocouchthisissueintermsofthetrialcourtsactions,itisnothingmorethananattempttotestthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence.Thatbeingso,thepetitionerisnotentitledtoreliefbecausepostconvictionproceedingsmaynotbeemployedtoquestion,review,ortestthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence,seeGant,507S.W.2dat136,andbecausetheconvicting T$ evidencehasalreadybeentestedondirectappeal,barringthisissueas previouslydetermined,seeT.C.A.4030112(a)(1990);seealsoMeeks,867S.W.2dat369 '" (concludingthattheevidencewassufficienttosupportallconvictions).  Next,thepetitionercontendsthatthetrialcourtsinstructiontothejuryonthedefinitionof reasonabledoubtdeprivedhimofafairtrial.Thepetitionerscomplaintregardingthe reasonabledoubtinstructionispresumedwaivedbecauseitcouldhavebeenraisedondirectappealofthiscaseandwasnot.SeeT.C.A.4030112(b)(1) 2T). (1990).Thepetitionerdoesnotrebutthispresumptionbyclaimingthathedidnotknowinglyandunderstandablyagreetowaivethisissuebynotraisingitondirectappeal. L6,2 SeeT.C.A.4030112(b)(2)(1990).Evenso,thepetitionerwouldnotbeentitledtorelief `  becausetheinstructionusedinthiscasehasbeenapprovedasproperlyconveying thejurysresponsibilitytodecidetheverdictbasedonthefactsandthelaw.Statev.   Nichols,877S.W.2d722,734(Tenn.1994). d   Next,thepetitionerarguesthatthetrialcourt denied[him]afairtrialwhenitrefusedtochargealllesserincludedoffenseswhenthenecessaryproofwasnotofferedattrialtoestablishthegreateroftheindictedoffenses.Thepetitionercontinues, ItgoeswithoutsayingthattheindictedoffenseswerenotprovenattrialandtheTrialCourtchargedthejurywithonlytheindictedoffensesbecauseitfeltthattherewassufficientprooftoconvictthedefendant.Thisistheextentofthepetitionersargumentonthisissue,   X_sXX X_s  3      whichrevealsthatthisissueisnothingmorethananattempttochallenge $ thesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence.Thus,thepetitionersargumentmustfail.See  Gant,507S.W.2dat137(statingthatpostconvictionproceedingsmaynotbeemployed  \ toquestion,review,ortestthesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence).  Inhislastissue,thepetitionercontendsthatthetrialcourtdeprivedthepetitionerofafairtrialbyfailingtoproperlyapplyandenumeratetheenhancementfactorsandbyfailingtoindicateitwasfollowingtheguidelinesofthesentencingact.Thepetitionerhasnotrebuttedthepresumptionthathehaswaivedthisissuebyknowinglyfailingtoraiseitondirectappeal.SeeT.C.A.4030112(b)(1990).Evenso,the P-#( petitionerfailstoallegethatthejudgmentisvoidorvoidableduetoaconstitutionalviolation,thusprecludingconsiderationofthisissueinapostconvictionpetition.See 0', T.C.A.4030105(1990);Overtonv.State,874S.W.2d6(Tenn.1994). 2T). Ї  Tackedontotheendofhisbrief,thepetitionerrequeststhisCourttosuasponte consider...thefactthattheStatehaswithheldexculpatoryevidence.ItisunclearwhatremedythepetitionerseeksfromthisCourtonthisgroundandwhatimpactthisrequestwouldhaveonthepetitionerspostconvictionreliefpetition.Evenso,therecordcontainsnoevidencetosupportthepetitionersclaimthattheStatehaswithheldexculpatoryevidence.  Findingnomerittothepetitionerscontentions,thetrialcourtsdismissalofthepetitionforpostconvictionreliefisaffirmed.   X      `   _______________________________   X      `   JOHNH.PEAY,JudgeCONCUR:______________________________THOMAST.WOODALL,Judge______________________________L.TERRYLAFFERTY,SpecialJudge