ÿWPCÈ !8¶ú!wÞò÷¶ã!„“N«²¿wq0ënÚ-ëÌAÁ}Þð÷/áZl՜ȢCÔd·û%’ æ¥K=¦y.ÚýÚ…hÕ0&øŠØ ¢m ,mS¿æíQù‡I|r‚ËóÇúzášù]Ýæÿ\N·wÑœ+¬ŒÊ“dŠè+^'ŸÑÒ{ÏE¯-ÙSi P ²”„žBi®ôüpü¿@ßBò²µS¢çž±(;ÍI_¶ló!‚…vaJÁ°‚_›Ú[F!D=ÜÞb[;Þ ÖÝõjÙj½ySëiÜ׉òàÙ|íé8N1qTÄòØKPœ}½JË Mi×å;Õ[ð² w¹ŽVwbÙ Þ3¢‘™Ç2¼¼R,õãÁ"U0ÒRù¹‡$öñ´\SéŠq e-$†¡G%ëÊ8¢u³ƒï[L¤±¬P,g»eŸ,õL5ë ¹Äš­‰~$ U°[[«ùrì[=Ń]ƒ¯U•tµ_µùN/«Ïbqï8¦\’JÑ‚`+YÔß¶ð„QÜ“™•Ý¿ #k4Ø“Ô.MŽÑ8û®Ï¿Øµ»>o]^$ÿOµdnÎD”?¦ì„Z ±‡ž"˜I„ûg¬d]°èx3àLÌdQ {jb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 U)N¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ U N™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9 0DÿNCÈEN EU@lQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQb½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½ 0ëÅÅÅÅ B°° 0¤Í D3q D-¤ 0KÑÑ ASÆo 0¤5 0DÙ A«˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0»T§51Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularh_B0˜Cê:i¢×+00 ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¾Ô_ÔòòÓ  Óà  à2óóÔ‡ô§<ò»»ÔWe€have€previously€expressed€our€concern€with€the€State€raising€the€statute€of€limitations€defense€for€the€firstÐ ° Ðtime€on€appeal.€€òòJohn€Parker€Roe€v.€Stateóó,€No.€W2000„02788„CCA„R3„PC,€2002€WL€31624850,€at€*12€n.2€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð qÁ ÐApp.,€Jackson,€Nov.€20,€2002),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Feb.€24,€2003).€€We€attribute€this€problem€to€the€fact€thatÐ 2‚ Ðthe€assistant€attorney€general€representing€the€State€on€appeal€is€usually€not€the€same€attorney€representing€the€State€atÐ óC Ðthe€post„conviction€hearing.Ô#†»ˆá»òô§&* Ðrules€for€counselððs€conduct€can€satisfactorily€take€account€of€theÐ ×+''+ Ðvariety€of€circumstances€faced€by€defense€counsel€or€the€range€ofÐ ° Ðlegitimate€decisions€regarding€how€best€to€represent€a€criminalÐ ™é Ðdefendant.ЂÒ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€688„89,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065.€€The€petitioner€must€establish€ð ðthat€counselððs€representation€fellÐ T¤ Ðbelow€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòHouse€v.Ð =  ÐStateóó,€44€S.W.3d€508,€515€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)).Ð & v ÐÌà  àAs€for€the€prejudice€prong€of€the€test,€the€òòStricklandóó€Court€stated:€ð ðThe€defendant€must€showÐ ø H Ðthat€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€theÐ á 1  Ðproceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€toÐ Ê   Ðundermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòóó466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòOverton€v.Ð ³  ÐStateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1994)€(concluding€that€petitioner€failed€to€establish€that€ð ðthere€is€aÐ œì  Ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€the€outcome€of€the€proceedings€would€haveÐ …Õ  Ðbeen€differentðð).Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àòòóóCourts€need€not€approach€the€òòStricklandóó€test€in€a€specific€order€or€even€ð ðaddress€bothÐ @ Ðcomponents€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€on€one.ðð€€466€U.S.€at€697,Ð )y Ð104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370€(stating€that€ð ðfailure€to€prove€either€deficiencyÐ b Ðor€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffective€assistance€claimðð).Ð ûK ÐÌà  àWe€note€that€the€reviewing€court€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€the€conduct€ofÐ Í Ðcounsel€falls€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance,€òòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,Ð ¶ Ð104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€not€second„guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counselÐ Ÿï Ðunless€those€choices€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629Ð ˆØ ÐS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€fact€that€a€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense€does€not€aloneÐ qÁ Ðsupport€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€165Ð Zª Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)òòóó.€€Finally,€a€person€charged€with€a€criminal€offense€is€not€entitled€to€perfectÐ C“ Ðrepresentation.€€òòSeeóó€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,€796€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€As€explainedÐ ,| Ðin€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462,€ð ð[c]onduct€that€is€unreasonable€under€the€facts€of€one€case€may€beÐ e Ðperfectly€reasonable€under€the€facts€of€another.ððÐ þN Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà  àAs€to€the€sole€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€pursued€at€the€post„convictionÐ Ð!   Ðhearing,€namely,€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€subpoena€a€supposedly€favorable€witness€who€couldÐ ¹" ! Ðrebut€the€victimððs€ð ðfalse€testimony,ðð€we€note€initially€that€the€post„conviction€court€did€notÐ ¢#ò" Ðspecifically€address€this€allegation€in€its€opinion,€although€stating€that,€in€addition€to€his€sentencingÐ ‹$Û# Ðclaims,€€ð ð[t]he€petitioner€alleged€other€grounds€for€relief€which€were€included€in€his€Petition€forÐ t%Ä $ ÐPost„Conviction€Relief,€but€no€proof€was€offered€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€in€support€of€such.€€TheÐ ]&­!% ÐCourt€accordingly€finds€no€merit€to€these€other€claims.ðð€€The€post„conviction€court€was€correct€inÐ F'–"& Ðthis€analysis,€for€the€only€ð ðproofðð€at€the€hearing€as€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€since€theÐ /(#' Ðpetitioner€did€not€testify,€was€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel€who€denied€that€he€had€been€ineffective,Ð )h$( Ðexplaining€efforts€he€had€made€to€locate€the€so„called€ð ðexculpatoryðð€witness€and€reasons€why€theÐ *Q%) Ðwitness€would€not€have€been€helpful,€as€well€as€the€testimony€of€the€prosecutor€at€trial,€who€opinedÐ ê*:&* Ðthat€the€witness€would€not€have€been€exculpatory.Ð Ó+#'+ Їà  àThis€claim€was€explained€in€the€second€amended€petition€as€ð ðpotentially€exculpatoryÐ ° Ðevidence€was€withheld€by€the€State€regarding€one€witnessðð€[sic]€boyfriend.ðð€€Apparently,€theÐ ™é Ðpetitionerððs€theory,€as€stated€by€his€attorney€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€was€that€the€testimonyÐ ‚Ò Ðof€this€boyfriend€ð ðwould€have€some€bearing€on€the€juryððs€opinion€of€whether€[the€petitioner]€couldÐ k» Ðhave€pulled€off€this€trickery.€€Whether€the€victimððs€[sic]€honestly€believed€that€this€caller€[theÐ T¤ Ðpetitioner]€was€that€boyfriend.ððÐ =  ÐÌÓ*°,XƒX× ¸ —X°œX*Óà  àAt€the€hearing,€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€was€questioned€as€to€his€knowledge€of€theÐ  _ Ðvictimsðð€boyfriends:Ð ø H ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà × àAnd€did€you€discover€any€of€the€identities€of€these€allegedÐ Ê   Ðboyfriends?г ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà × àI€think€sometime,€Iððll€answer€this€then€Iððd€like€to€give€theÐ …Õ  Ðbackground,€if€I€could.Ðn¾ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà0× ` x` xàAll€right.Ð@× x× x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà × àSometime€after€the€case€was€set€for€trial,€and€maybe€within€daysÐ b Ðof€it€going€to€trial,€I€think€you„all€have€my€file,€but€I€donððt€rememberÐ ûK Ðthe€note,€seeing€the€note€in€the€file.€€Someone€called€our€office€andÐ ä4 Ðsaid€we€have€a€name,€and€perhaps€gave€a€number.€€But€we€were€neverÐ Í Ðable€to€locate€that€person.€€And€this€would€have€been,€originally€theÐ ¶ Ðcase€was€set€for€trial€in€the€snow€and€it€was€put€off€a€week.€€So€IÐ Ÿï Ðdonððt€remember€the€time€frame,€but€I€know€it€was€a€very€short€timeÐ ˆØ Ðframe.à8¸ ` x` xàà8¸ ¸ àÐqÁÈÈ Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð Zª Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0× ` x` xàà ` àÐ × x× x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0× ` x` xàà ` àQà0× × x× xàWhat€efforts€did€you€take€to€find€this€person?Ð,|× x× x Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà × àWe€called€the€number.€€I€think€my€investigator€at€that€time,€triedÐ þN Ðto€locate€him.€€That€I€canððt€be€sure€of,€itððs€been€a€while.€€If€I€couldÐ ç 7 Ðexplain€something?ÐÐ!  ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà0× ` x` xàCertainly.Т#ò"× x× x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà × àThe€pre„trial€motions€in€this€case,€the€first€motions€that€wereÐ t%Ä $ Ðfiled€on€the€indictment€was€the€indictment€was€unconstitutional.€€ThatÐ ]&­!% Ðis€it€said€fraud,€without€defining€what€fraud€was.€€That€was€denied.ÐF'–"&` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × àThen€we€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictment€because€it€didÐ /(#' Ðnot€put€a€factual€allegation€as€required€by€the€statute.€€That€is,€if€theyÐ )h$( Ðare€going€to€say€fraud,€they€should€put€the€facts€in€the€indictment€thatÐ *Q%) Ðâ âsubstantiate€the€fraud.€€That€was€denied.Ðê*:&*` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × àThen€we€filed€another€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars.€€SayingÐ ° Ðâ âokay,€if€you€say€the€indictment€is€good,€Judge,€then€let€the€State€comeÐ ™é Ðforward€and€tell€us€talk€to€what€this€fraud€is€in€a€bill€of€particulars.€Ð ‚Ò ÐThe€Court€said€we€were€only€entitled€to€the€date,€time€and€place.Ðk»` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × àWe€took€that€issue€all€the€way€to€the€United€States€SupremeÐ T¤ ÐCourt.€€Then€I€argued€to€the€Judge,€well€Judge,€if€in€fact,€letððs€justÐ =  Ðassume€that€the€fraud€is€impersonation,€who€did€he€impersonate?€Ð & v ÐAnd€the€court€said,€youððre€not€entitled€to€that€information.Ð _` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × àSo€when€we€got€a€call€before€trial,€and€I€donððt€specificallyÐ ø H Ðactually€remember,€Iððve€talked€to€some€other€people€and€Iððm€sure€weÐ á 1  Ðgot€some€call€at€the€office,€but€I€donððt€recall€that€being€this€is€theÐ Ê   Ðperson.€€It€was,€this€is€something€we€could€look€into€and€this€is€aÐ ³  Ðphone€number.€€I€donððt€remember,€but€we€were€already€told€by€theÐ œì  ÐCourt€that€we€were€not€entitled€to€that€information.Ð…Õ ` x` x ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€as€to€efforts€to€locate€this€witness€and€his€opinion€that€the€testimonyÐ W§  Ðof€the€witness€could€have€ð ðkilledðð€the€defense:à8 @D àÐ @ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà × àDo€you€believe€that€the€identity€of€this€alleged,€this€John€DoeÐ b Ðboyfriend€would€help€you€in€a€defense€of€[the€petitioner]€in€this€case?ÐûK` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà × àSir,€the€phone€call€we€received,€I€think€was€very€very€close,Ð Í Ðmaybe€within€a€day,€two€days,€something€of€that€of€trial.€€And€I€donððtÐ ¶ Ðrecall€that€specifically.€€We€had€already€been€told€we€are€not€entitledÐ Ÿï Ðto€this€information.€€Prior€to€the€trial,€I€issued€a€subpoena€for€thisÐ ˆØ Ðwitness.€€I€issued€a€John€Doe€subpoena.€€In€fact,€John€Doe€subpoenaÐ qÁ Ðwas€served€on€the€investigator€for€the€case.€€We€served€him€with€theÐ Zª ÐJohn€Doe€subpoena.ÐC“` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × àWe€had€made€every€attempt€that€we€could€to€get€thatÐ ,| Ðinformation.€€And€he€was€not€a€witness€to€the€case.€€He€is€somebodyÐ e ÐI€would€have€liked€to€have€talked€to.€€He€is€somebody€I€would€like€toÐ þN Ðknow€if€he€existed.Ðç 7` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà × àDo€you€think€the€presence€of€this€person€in€front€of€a€jury€couldÐ ¹" ! Ðhave€presented€some€difference€in€characteristics€from€[theÐ ¢#ò" Ðpetitioner]?Ћ$Û#` x` x Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà0× ` x` xàCould€have€helped€us,€could€have€killed€us.Ð]&­!%× x× x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà0× ` x` xàAnd€ð!ðÐ/(#'× x× x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà × àI€mean,€you€donððt€know.€€I€would€say€heððs€better€friends€withÐ *Q%) Ð[the€victim]€then€[sic]€he€would€be€with€[the€petitioner]€or€with€us.€Ð ê*:&* ÐI€wouldnððt€expect€him€to€be€real€helpful,€just€from€past€experience.ÐÓ+#'+` x` x Їà  àAt€the€hearing,€post„conviction€counsel€were€asked€by€the€court€whether€this€ð ðJohn€DoeððÐ ° Ðwitness€would€be€testifying€and€advised€that€they,€themselves,€had€not€located€this€witness€and€didÐ ™é Ðnot€know€whether€he€even€existed:à8 h àà8ÀhphpàЂÒÀÀ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[COUNSEL]:€€Your€Honor,€we€believe€that€this€John€Doe€boyfriendÐ T¤ Ðwould€have€provided€exculpatory€„€„Ð= ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€€Where€is€the€John€Doe€boyfriend?Ð _` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[COUNSEL]:€€He€was€never€produced.Ðá 1 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€€Where€is€he€today?г ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[COUNSEL]:€€We€donððt€know€that€he€exists€or€does€not€exist.Ð…Õ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€€Well,€how€does€[trial€counsel]€know€whether€heÐ W§  Ðexists€or€not?Ð@` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[COUNSEL]:€€We€believe€[trial€counsel]€was€in€a€better€position€atÐ b Ðthe€time€that€he€represented€[the€petitioner]€at€the€trial€to€obtain€thisÐ ûK Ðinformation.Ðä4` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€€Why?€€Why€canððt€you€do€it€now?ж` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[COUNSEL]:€€Well€Your€Honor,€as,€I€guess€we€could.€€I€checked€theÐ ˆØ Ðtranscript,€I€donððt€see€„€„ÐqÁ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€COURT:€€The€only€way€I€can€determine€what€a€witness€wouldÐ C“ Ðhave€said€in€a€post€conviction€relief€petition€is€if€I€hear€that€witness.Ð,|` x` x ÐÌà  àTrial€counselððs€uncontradicted€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€was€that€he€issuedÐ þN Ða€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€subpoena€before€the€trial€and€attempted€to€ascertain€the€identity€of€this€witness€at€trial,Ð ç 7 Ðbut€was€refused€the€information€by€the€court.€€During€the€course€of€the€trial,€he€decided€not€to€pursueÐ Ð!   Ðthis€witness€any€further.€€Since€this€witness€was€not€produced€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€theÐ ¹" ! Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€counselððs€not€producing€this€witness€at€trial.€Ð ¢#ò" ÐòòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€(stating€that€ð ð[w]hen€a€petitionerÐ ‹$Û# Ðcontends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€discover,€interview,€or€present€witnesses€in€support€of€hisÐ t%Ä $ Ðdefense,€these€witnesses€should€be€presented€by€the€petitioner€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€As€aÐ ]&­!% Ðgeneral€rule,€this€is€the€only€way€the€petitioner€can€establish€that€.€.€.€the€failure€to€have€a€knownÐ F'–"& Ðwitness€present€or€call€the€witness€to€the€stand€resulted€in€the€denial€of€critical€evidence€whichÐ /(#' Ðinured€to€the€prejudice€of€the€petitioner.ðð).Ð )h$( ÐÔ#†XÐXXXÐjW#ÔÔ‡XÐXXXÐÔÌÔ#†XÐXXXÐTž#ÔÔ‡ X¢UXXXÐÔò òÓ  ÓIV.€€Prosecutorial€MisconductÐ ê*:&* ÐÐ Ô+$'+ ÐÓ¹žÓó óà  àIn€his€original€petition,€the€petitioner€alleged€that€his€convictions€were:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àbased€upon€false€testimony€and€the€state€prosecutor€willfully,Ð ‚Ò Ðdeliberately€and€knowingly€withheld€exculpatory€evidence€that€couldÐ k» Ðhave€proven€the€rape€victim€was€committing€perjury.€€The€victimÐ T¤ Ðclaimed€that€she€had€sexual€intercourse€with€Petitioner€because€sheÐ =  Ðthought€Petitioner€was€her€boyfriend.€€The€District€AttorneyÐ & v ÐGeneral[ððs]€Office€interviewed€the€alleged€John€Doe€and€learned€thatÐ  _ ÐJohn€Doe€was€not€the€victimððs€boyfriend€and€that€he€had€severed€theirÐ ø H Ðsexual€relationship€months€prior€to€the€alleged€rape€due€to€theÐ á 1  Ðvictimððs€promiscuous€behavior.€€The€prosecutors€suppressed€thisÐ Ê   Ðinformation,€refused€to€give€Petitioner€John€Doeððs€name€andÐ ³  Ðknowingly€allowed€false€testimony€to€be€presented€to€the€jury€which,Ð œì  Ðconsequently,€violated€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€FourteenthÐ …Õ  ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€and€Article€I€ðð€8,€ofÐ n¾  Ðthe€Tennessee€Constitution.ÐW§ ` x` x ÐÌIn€his€second€amended€petition,€the€petitioner€restated€the€issue€as€ð ð[w]hether€PetitionerððsÐ )y Ðconvictions€were€based€on€[the]€Stateððs€unconstitutional€failure€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence€inÐ b Ðthe€form€of€the€name€and€identity€of€a€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€alleged€boyfriend€of€one€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses.ðð€Ð ûK ÐAs€with€the€other€claims,€the€only€testimony€at€the€hearing€as€to€this€assertion€came€from€trialÐ ä4 Ðcounsel€and€the€prosecutor,€both€of€whom€denied€that€exculpatory€information€had€been€withheld.€Ð Í ÐNonetheless,€we€will€consider€the€claim.Ð ¶ ÐÔ#†XÐXX X¢U—ž#ÔÔ‡ X¢UXXXÐÔò òÌà  àó óIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€87,€83€S.€Ct.€1194,€1196-97,€10€L.€Ed.€2d€215,€218Ð ‰Ù Ð(1963),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€prosecution€has€a€duty€to€furnish€to€theÐ r Ðdefendant€exculpatory€evidence€pertaining€either€to€the€accused's€guilt€or€innocence€or€to€theÐ [« Ðpotential€punishment€that€may€be€imposed.€€The€Court€held€that€"suppression€by€the€prosecution€ofÐ D” Ðevidence€favorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€materialÐ -} Ðeither€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution."€€òòId.óó€Ð f ÐThe€duty€to€disclose€extends€to€all€information€favorable€to€the€accused€whether€the€evidence€isÐ ÿO Ðadmissible€or€inadmissible,€òòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€874€S.W.2d€602,€609€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€andÐ è 8 Ðto€information€"which€might€be€useful€to€the€defense[.]ðð€€òòBranch€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€164,Ð Ñ!!  Ð173,€469€S.W.2d€533,€536€(1969).€€However,€the€State's€duty€to€turn€over€evidence€under€Brady€doesÐ º" ! Ðnot€extend€to€information€that€the€defense€either€already€possesses€or€is€able€to€obtain€or€toÐ £#ó" Ðinformation€not€in€the€possession€or€control€of€the€prosecution.€€òòWooden€v.€Stateóó,€898€S.W.2d€752,Ð Œ$Ü# Ð755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(citing€òòBanks€v.€Stateóó,€556€S.W.2d€88,€90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977)).€Ð u%Å $ ÐFurther,€òòBradyóó€does€not€require€the€State€to€investigate€on€behalf€of€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.Ð ^&®!% ÐReynoldsóó,€671€S.W.2d€854,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).Ð G'—"& ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€establish€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBradyóó,€a€defendant€must€show€theÐ )i$( Ðfollowing:Ð *R%) Ðâ âÐ ë*;&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.€€The€defendant€must€have€requested€the€information€(unless€theÐ ° Ðâ âevidence€is€obviously€exculpatory,€in€which€case€the€State€is€boundÐ ™é Ðto€release€the€information€whether€requested€or€not);ЂÒ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.€€The€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;ÐT¤` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.€€The€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€andÐ& v` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à4.€€The€information€must€have€been€material.Ðø H` x` x ÐòòÌState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389€(Tenn.€1995)€(citations€omitted).Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€testified€as€to€hisÐ œì  Ðknowledge€of€the€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€witness:Ð …Õ  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà × àGeneral€[],€for€purposes€of€this€post€conviction€proceeding,Ð W§  Ðwould€you€like€to€make€a€statement€that€would€be€proof€as€evidence?Ð@` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà × àYes.€€As€far€as€this€witness,€Your€Honor,€as€far€as€[trial€counsel]Ð b Ðtestified€we€were€not€ordered€to€divulge€the€name€of€this€witness€byÐ ûK Ð[the€trial€judgeððs]€bill€of€particulars.€€Obviously€if€we€were€aware€ifÐ ä4 Ðthe€witness€had€potential€exculpatory€information,€we€would.€€WeÐ Í Ðwere€able€to€find€this€witness,€I€think€on€the€Friday€before€the€trialÐ ¶ Ðstarted€on€a€Monday.€€His€name€was€Jeff.€€I€donððt€recall€his€last€nameÐ Ÿï Ðright€off€the€top€of€my€head.€€But€he€was€now€living€out€of€state.€€WeÐ ˆØ Ðtalked€to€him€and€discussed€what€[the€victim]€was€going€to€testify€to.€Ð qÁ ÐHe€corroborated€it,€yes,€he€had€been€her€friend€and€had€gone€overÐ Zª Ðthere€at€various€times,€early€morning€hours,€had€called€her€andÐ C“ Ðwhispered€on€the€phone€and€things€of€that€nature.€€So€he€basicallyÐ ,| Ðcorroborated€the€witness.Ðe` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × à[Co„counsel]€and€I€determined€whether€we€should€give€thatÐ þN Ðname€or€not,€he€was€now€€married€and€didnððt€want€to€get€involved€inÐ ç 7 Ðthis€case.€€But€we€did€give€that€name€to€the€defense€when€we€foundÐ Ð!   Ðhim€and€what€the€phone€number€was.€€I€canððt€testify€whether€theyÐ ¹" ! Ðtalked€to€him€or€not,€but€in€interviewing€him€there€was€absolutelyÐ ¢#ò" Ðnothing€exculpatory€in€his€statement.€€But€we€did€provide€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðinformation€and€his€location.€Ðt%Ä $` x` x ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€explained€why€he€did€not€believeÐ F'–"& Ðthe€petitioner€would€have€benefitted€had€this€witness€appeared€at€the€trial:Ð /(#' Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà0× ` x` xàDid€you€hear€this€manððs€voice?Ð*Q%)× x× x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà0× ` x` xà€Yes,€I€normally€do€when€I€talk€to€people.ÐÓ+#'+× x× x Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà × àOkay.€€And€you€donððt€think€that€the€jury€could€have€heard€anyÐ ™é Ðdifferences€between€the€voice€of€this€witness€and€the€voice€of€[theÐ ‚Ò Ðpetitioner]?Ðk»` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà × àWell,€if€you€review€the€transcript,€she€talked€about€that€he€wasÐ =  Ðwhispering€and€voices€being€disguised.€€At€times€he€would€whisperÐ & v Ðand€he€would,€so€it€was€a€whispering€voice,€so€I€donððt€know.Ð _` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà × àWould€you€agree€that€were€the€jury€able€to€differentiate€betweenÐ á 1  Ðthis€man€and€[the€petitioner]€that€that€could€have€been€favorable€toÐ Ê   Ð[the€petitioner]?г ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà0× ` x` xàNo,€based€on€the€proof,€I€donððt.Ð…Õ × x× x ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€determined€that€it€could€not€make€a€determination€concerning€theÐ W§  Ðexculpatory€value€of€this€witness€without€having€the€witness€testify€at€the€hearing.€€òòóóSince€the€onlyÐ @ Ðwitness€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€on€this€issue€denied€the€various€allegations€in€thisÐ )y Ðregard,€it€is€clear€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€theÐ b Ðtestimony€of€this€ð ðJohn€Doeðð€boyfriend€was€obviously€exculpatory,€favorable€to€the€accused,€orÐ ûK Ðsuppressed€by€the€State.€€òòSeeóó€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€389.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àÔ#†XÐXX X¢U§#ÔÔ‡XÐXXXÐÔIn€addition,€this€allegation€has€been€waived€for€failure€to€present€it€on€direct€appeal.€€ð ðAÐ ¶ Ðground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitioner€personally€or€through€an€attorney€failed€to€present€it€forÐ Ÿï Ðdetermination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€couldÐ ˆØ Ðhave€been€presented€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„106(g)€(2003).€€TheÔ#†XÐXXXЇÄ#ÔÔ‡ X¢UXXXÐÔ€petitioner€failed€to€explainÐ qÁ Ðin€his€petition€or€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€why€this€issue€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal.€€ThisÐ Zª Ðis€an€elementary€part€of€any€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„104(e)Ð C“ Ð(2003).Ð ,| ÐÌò òÓ  ÓV.€€Percentage€of€Sentence€to€be€ServedÐ þN ÐÓðÇÓÌó óà  àThe€petitioner€argues€on€appeal,€as€we€understand€his€claim,€that€his€judgments€provide€thatÐ Ò!"  Ðhis€sentences€are€to€be€served€at€30%€and€do€not€classify€him€as€a€multiple€rapist€and€the€DOC€isÐ »" ! Ðbound€by€these.€€The€State€disagrees,€arguing€that€this€identical€claim€was€resolved€against€theÐ ¤#ô" Ðpetitioner€in€òòMitchell€v.€Campbellóó,€88€S.W.3d€561€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002).€€As€we€will€explain,€weÐ $Ý# Ðagree€with€the€State.Ð v%Æ $ ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€forms€are€included€in€the€record€on€appeal,€and,€on€all€four€documents,€the€boxÐ H'˜"& Ðfor€ð ðStandard€30%€Range€1ðð€is€checked€and€the€box€beside€ð ðmultiple€rapistðð€is€not€checked€on€anyÐ 1(#' Ðof€the€forms.€€In€òòMitchellóó,€88€S.W.3d€at€566,€the€Court€of€Appeals€rejected€this€same€claim€by€theÐ )j$( Ðpetitioner:Ð *S%) Ðâ âÐ ì*<&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„523(b)€.€.€.€was€part€of€his€sentence€whenÐ ° Ðâ âhe€was€tried€and€convicted€of€multiple€rapes€in€1996.€€TheÐ ™é ÐDepartment€had€no€discretion€regarding€the€application€of€Tenn.Ð ‚Ò ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„523(b)€to€[the€petitioner]€in€light€of€his€two€rapeÐ k» Ðconvictions.€€Accordingly,€the€Department€did€not€err€by€classifyingÐ T¤ Ð[the€petitioner]€as€a€ð ðmultiple€rapistðð€for€the€purpose€of€Tenn.€CodeÐ =  ÐAnn.€ðð€39„13„523(b)€and€by€determining€that€he€was€ineligible€toÐ & v Ðearn€sentence€reduction€credits.Ð _` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€(footnotes€omitted).Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€made€this€same€argument€in€òòMitchellóó,€whereÐ ³  Ðthe€court€determined€that€it€was€without€merit.€€Applying€the€law€of€the€case,€we€conclude€that€thisÐ œì  Ðissue€was€previously€resolved€against€the€petitioner€and€cannot€be€litigated€anew.€€òòSeeóó€òòMemphisÐ …Õ  ÐPublððg€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€Storage€Tank€Bd.óó,€975€S.W.2d€303,€306€(Tenn.Ð n¾  Ð1998).Ô#†XÐXX X¢U€Æ#ÔÔ‡ X¢UXXXÐÔÐ W§  ÐÌà@íí"ìàò òVI.€€Other€Claimsó óˆÐ )y ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€has€presented€a€number€of€additional€claims,€none€of€which€wasÐ üL Ðargued€or€even€acknowledged€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€and€most€of€which€were€last€recited€inÐ å5 Ðthe€first€amended€petition€but€not€the€second.€€No€explanation€is€given€as€to€why€these€longÐ Î Ðunpursued€issues€have€been€resurrected€on€appeal.€€We€now€will€review€the€claims€made€on€appeal,Ð · Ðobserving€first€that€we€have€the€same€problem€as€did€the€post„conviction€court€in€differentiatingÐ  ð Ðbetween€certain€of€the€claims,€which€appear€to€be€nearly€identical.Ð ‰Ù ÐÌà  àIn€his€appellate€brief,€the€petitioner€presents€the€additional€claims€that:€€òòIssue€Ióó€ð!ð€requiringÐ [« Ðhim€to€serve€100%€of€his€rape€sentences€violates,€òòinter€aliaóó,€his€Fourth€and€Fourteenth€AmendmentÐ D” Ðrights€(apparently€a€new€claim€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal);€òòIssue€IIóó€ð!ð€€the€State€failed€to€notifyÐ -} Ðhim€that€he€would€serve€100%€of€his€rape€sentences€if€convicted€(raised€in€the€second€amendedÐ f Ðpetition€and€determined€by€the€post„conviction€court€adversely€to€the€petitioner);€òòIssue€IIIóó€ð!ð€as€inÐ ÿO Ðthe€previous€issue,€the€petitioner€realleges€that€the€State€should€have€given€him€notice€that€ð ðhe€wouldÐ è 8 Ðbe€tried€as€a€multiple€rapist€and€if€convicted€would€have€to€serveðð€his€sentences€at€100%€(raised€inÐ Ñ!!  Ðsecond€amended€petition€and€determined€by€the€post„conviction€court€adversely€to€the€petitioner);Ð º" ! ÐòòIssue€IVóó€ð!ð€the€petitioner€should€serve€his€rape€sentences€at€30%,€as€provided€by€the€judgments,€andÐ £#ó" Ðnot€at€100%€(argued€at€the€hearing€and€determined€by€the€post„conviction€court€adversely€to€theÐ Œ$Ü# Ðpetitioner);€òòIssue€Vóó€ð!ð€the€petitioner€presents€five€separate€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ u%Å $ Ð(not€raised€in€the€second€amended€petition€or€at€the€hearing);€òòIssue€VIóó€ð!ð€trial€counsel€was€ineffectiveÐ ^&®!% Ðfor€failing€to€subpoena€a€former€boyfriend€of€the€victim€or€seek€a€continuance€of€the€trial€(pursuedÐ G'—"& Ðat€the€hearing€and€determined€by€the€post„conviction€court€adversely€to€the€petitioner);€òòIssue€VIIóóòò€ð!ð€óóÐ 0(€#' Ðthe€State€failed€to€disclose€the€name€and€identity€of€a€former€boyfriend€of€one€of€the€victimsÐ )i$( Ð(pursued€at€the€hearing€and€determined€by€the€post„conviction€court€adversely€to€the€petitioner);Ð *R%) Ðâ âòòIssue€VIIIóó€ð!ð€the€petitionerððs€multiple€rape€convictions€violate€his€double€jeopardy€and€due€processÐ ë*;&* Ðrights€(not€pursued€at€the€hearing);€òòIssue€XIóó€[sic]€ð!ð€faulty€jury€instructions€(apparently€raised€for€theÐ ° Ðfirst€time€on€appeal).Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àThus,€following€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€court€ruled€adversely€to€the€petitioner€as€toÐ k» ÐIssues€II,€III,€IV,€VI,€and€VII.€€As€to€Issues€II€and€III,€the€post„conviction€court€correctly€determinedÐ T¤ Ðthat€the€petitioner€ð ðhas€not€shown€.€.€.€prejudiceðð€by€lack€of€notice.€€Finally,€as€the€post„convictionÐ =  Ðcourt€noted,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€previously€held€that€the€ð ð[n]otice€such€as€that€ruleÐ & v Ð[Rule€12.3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure]€requires€is€not€constitutionally€mandated.ðð€Ð  _ ÐòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€919€S.W.2d€323,€331€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòState€v.€Berryóó,€592€S.W.2d€553,€562Ð ø H Ð(Tenn.€1980)).€€Ô#†XÐXX X¢U/Ñ#ÔÔ‡ X¢UXXXÐÔAs€we€have€previously€stated,€the€record€supports€these€determinations.€€The€post„Ð á 1  Ðconviction€court€found€as€to€the€numerous€claims€which€had€been€set€out€in€his€original,€first,€andÐ Ê   Ðsecond€amended€petitions€that€ð ðno€proof€was€offered€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€in€support€of€suchÐ ³  Ð[and]€[t]he€court€accordingly€finds€no€merit€to€these€other€claims.ððÐ œì  ÐÌà  àIn€òòBrimmeróó,€29€S.W.3d€at€530,€this€court€explained€that€a€post„conviction€claim€is€waivedÐ n¾  Ðwhen€no€proof€is€presented€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€as€to€the€claim:Ð W§  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThere€is€no€evidence€at€the€post-conviction€hearing€concerning€theseÐ )y Ðallegations€and€we€cannot€speculate€as€to€the€substance€of€the€claims.€Ð b Ð"We€[must]€decide€cases€.€.€.€on€the€basis€of€the€record€as€presentedÐ ûK Ðto€us€for€our€consideration."€€òòDearborne€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€259,Ð ä4 Ð264€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€burden€is€always€upon€the€appealing€party€toÐ Í Ðdevelop€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurate,€and€completeÐ ¶ Ðaccount€of€those€proceedings€which€form€the€basis€of€the€appeal.€€òòId.óóÐ Ÿï Ðà8× ` x` xàà8¸ × × àÐ ¸ ¸  Ðà  àThus,€appeal€claims€I,€V,€VIII,€and€XI€are€waived€because€no€proof€was€presented€in€supportÐ qÁ Ðof€them€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.Ô#†XÐXX X¢U˜à#ÔÔ‡ X¢UXXXÐÔÐ Zª ÐÓ  ÓÌò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÐ ,| ÐÌÓ  Óà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€authorities€and€reasoning,€we€affirm€the€order€denying€the€petitionÐ ÿO Ðfor€post„conviction€relief.€€We€remand€the€matter€for€entry€of€corrected€judgments€as€to€Counts€2Ð è 8 Ðand€3€of€Indictment€No.€95„B„1222€to€reflect€that,€as€to€each€count,€the€petitioner€is€a€ð ðmultipleÐ Ñ!!  Ðrapist,ðð€Ð º" ! ÐÌand€his€sentences€are€to€be€served€as€such.Ð Œ$Ü# ÐÔ#†XÐXX X¢Ußæ#ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà × àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð G'—"& Ðà  àà ` àà × àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE