ÿWPCÉ ÀdÜ< Œ‘[ ÆZ(…ÜLf\‹§ö;ÚRøTÊdíà-ÚW$CìîAoQàÚeÏ®ÓÍø¹w“ËŽ}@Uo¬ùEyŽfúÊšºâù¹Ž&þ)ÃÆzþbFò6Òèã&Í·g±ºa¦‡” P‡Bë\ »M«Y&÷ô}EL9ñ`Ïùðm§u¾;Ì‹kAáÄ€)É× ¬šhÔÙèŽHÅ?øÚ¦½?R Ý(ð`%ÿ{ñA±Ó¡™š?{—]ËQ¸”@AÒµÍ!0 ä|SÀmFiì@=3ÛÔ ú@öt â’gÑ8l\¬…dH­«’ Ô%#ØÅ5D ®ìã/ÈÛf"¢eâ¯à¸’ì°À ZÊcŠzCM·jÕ«n ûÅsæ;ž’Ëž+7Ú‰qûÞáZæ6“1´÷_AØšr6^_Æ>ÚUyÍ*•²Öo5Ö)Þ_vP‚jÖÛ§Jx:¹v…Ï!Éý£]›é½ôú+íb¯ðò@ àËçqÔ±û$”É|±bÈç-»zUâ,áä.Aö Í[°‚äò9«z¼K°±É.Hù8w]3íÚULÜí!‡–œÁ–Žk8$¹dë9­»ÂLÂáªc*äÿôv½ˆFïæ3®Wb %\Nb 0ˆdUNì1: zk Òå z· Ò1 N 0D  zI ÆÃ ƉÆOÆÒÛN­^ ¯w»E¿4ÁÕä mææ#Áýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýb¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾ 0ëÆÆÆÆ B±± 0¤Î D3r D-¥ 0KÒÒ ASÆp 0¤6 0DÚ A«»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular 'Ý ƒRÃÂ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„501(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1)€provides€that€there€shall€be€no€release€eligibilityÐ ° Ðfor€a€person€committing€certain€violent€offenses,€such€as€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€ð ðSuch€person€shall€serve€oneÐ tÄ Ðhundred€percent€(100%)€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€court€less€sentence€credits€earned€and€retained.ðð€€òòId.óó€˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÝž„-s 3j1,ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0- ù-(|G2ÃÂ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿•ò»»Ô d(|3¿z$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿z$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Í»»»ÔÑ8€[ÑXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îœî»¼ÍÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Í»îîœ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€June€19,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X[ÑX»¼ÍÔÌò òÔ#†¼Í»XX[Ñ#ÔòòÔ_ÔRICKYÔ_Ô€LEE€Ô_ÔNETHERTONÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòóóSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X[ÑX»¼ÍÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Cumberland€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€5321€€€€€€Ô_ÔLillieÔ_Ô€Ann€Sells,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„02989„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€4,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Ricky€Lee€Netherton,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€Criminal€Court€of€CumberlandÐ xÈ  ÐCounty€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€a€Class€A€felony.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€petitionerÐ d´ Ðas€a€violent€offender€to€twenty„four€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€CorrectionÐ P  Ðto€be€served€at€one€hundred€percent€(100%).€€Following€an€unsuccessful€appeal€of€his€conviction,Ð <Œ Ðthe€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging,€among€other€grounds,€ineffectiveÐ (x Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€The€petitioner€now€brings€this€appeal€challenging€the€post„conviction€courtððsÐ d Ðdenial€of€his€petition.€€After€reviewing€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÐ P Ðthe€post„conviction€court.Ð ì< ÐÓ,ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Í»àX[ÑÙ#ÔÔ‡X[ÑX.¼ÍÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.,óó€andÐ œì ÐòòDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌC.€Douglas€Fields,€Crossville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ricky€Lee€Netherton.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Renee€W.€Turner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐWilliam€E.€Gibson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Anthony€J.€Craighead,€Assistant€District€Attorney€Ð $"t! ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÓ9 ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Í»XX[Ñh #ÔÔ‡X[ÑX»¼ÍÔÐ è$8 $ Ðòòò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundó óóóÐ Ô%$!% ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Í»XX[Ñ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X[ÑX»¼ÍÔà  àà ` àThe€Stateððs€proof€at€trial€showed€that,€on€September€28,€1998,€the€petitioner€enteredÐ À&"& Ða€bar€owned€by€the€victim.€€The€petitioner€approached€the€victim€and€inquired€about€several€gunsÐ ¬'ü"' Ðthe€victim€had€previously€obtained€from€the€petitioner.€€After€the€victim€claimed€that€he€no€longerÐ ˜(è#( Ðhad€the€guns,€the€petitioner€pointed€a€gun€at€the€victimððs€head,€saying,€ð ðYouððre€killing€my€brother.€Ð „)Ô$) ÐIððve€got€to€kill€you.ðð€€The€victim€attempted€to€knock€the€gun€away,€but€in€doing€so€caused€the€gunÐ p*À%* Ðto€discharge€sending€the€bullet€through€the€victimððs€hand€and€into€his€leg.€€The€petitioner€pointed€theÐ \+¬&+ Ðgun€at€the€victim€a€second€time€and€again€the€victim€attempted€to€knock€the€gun€away.€€This€timeÐ H,˜', Ðthe€gun€discharged€sending€the€bullet€into€the€floor.€€The€petitioner€then€demanded€the€money€from€Ð 4-„(-ýà ÐÔ_Ôthe€cash€register€and€out€of€a€back€room.€€The€victimððs€wife€gave€the€petitioner€the€money€and€theÐ ° Ðpetitioner€left€the€bar.€€The€Cumberland€County€Sheriffððs€Department€later€arrested€the€petitioner,Ð œì Ðfinding€two€hundred€ninety€dollars€in€his€pocket.€€A€search€of€the€petitionerððs€vehicle€revealed€twoÐ ˆØ Ðhundred€sixty„two€dollars€in€the€console€and€a€.22€caliber€revolver€under€the€driverððs€seat.€€An€agentÐ tÄ Ðwith€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€testified€at€trial€that€the€bullet€recovered€from€theÐ `° Ðvictimððs€leg€was€fired€from€the€revolver€found€in€the€petitionerððs€vehicle.òòóóÐ L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€jury€convicted€the€petitioner€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€and€the€trial€courtÐ $ t Ðinitially€sentenced€the€petitioner€as€a€standard€Range€I€offender€to€twenty„four€years€incarcerationÐ  ` Ðto€be€served€at€thirty€percent€(30%).€€However,€the€trial€court€later€amended€the€petitionerððsÐ ü L  Ðjudgment€form€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„501(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1)€(Supp.€2002)€byÐ è 8  Ðreclassifying€the€petitioner€as€a€violent€offender€required€to€serve€one€hundred€percent€(100%)€of€hisÐ Ô$  Ðsentence.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€challenged€the€validity€of€the€indictment€and€the€lengthÐ À  Ðof€his€sentence.€€This€court€found€no€error€and€affirmed€the€petitionerððs€conviction€and€sentence.€òòóóÐ ¬ü  ÐòòState€v.€Ô_ÔRickyÔ_Ô€Lee€Ô_ÔNethertonÔ_Ôóó,€No.€E2000„01016„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€928Ð ˜è  Ð(Knoxville,€Dec.€6,€2000).Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€timely€filed€a€pro€se€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging,€amongÐ \¬ Ðother€grounds,€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€post„conviction€court€appointed€counsel€and€Ð H˜ Ðon€August€29,€2001,€held€a€hearing€at€which€neither€the€petitioner€nor€the€State€presented€testimony.€Ð 4„ ÐThe€petitioner€argued€that€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€a€conviction€forÐ  p Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery€because€the€evidence€failed€to€show€that€the€victim€had€sustainedÐ  \ Ðð ðserious€bodily€injuryðð€or€that€the€injury€occurred€as€a€result€of€the€robbery.€€The€petitioner€furtherÐ øH Ðasserted€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€raise€these€issues€at€trial€and€on€appealòòóó€and€thatÐ ä4 Ðthis€ineffectiveness€prejudiced€the€petitioner€because€the€petitionerððs€conviction€of€especiallyÐ Ð  Ðaggravated€robbery€increased€his€range€of€punishment€and€eliminated€his€release€eligibility.€Ð ¼  ÐAdditionally,€the€petitioner€alleged€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€the€testimonyÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€Stateððs€expert€witness€regarding€the€victimððs€injury.€€In€response,€the€State€argued€that€theÐ ”ä Ðpetitionerððs€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€were€actually€claims€challenging€theÐ €Ð Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€and,€therefore,€the€claims€were€inappropriate€for€post„conviction€review.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` à€€The€post„conviction€court€denied€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€finding€thatÐ D!” Ðthe€petitioner€did€not€prove€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective.€Ð 0"€  ÐSpecifically,€the€post„conviction€court€determined€that€the€petitionerððs€claims€challenging€theÐ #l! Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€were€issues€properly€presented€to€and€decided€by€the€jury€and€did€notÐ $X" Ðð ðraise€a€claim€of€Ô_Ôconstitution[alÔ_Ô]€dimension€as€required€by€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.ðð€Ð ô$D # ÐMoreover,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€show€how€counselððs€failureÐ à%0!$ Ðto€raise€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€issues€on€appeal€prejudiced€the€petitioner.€€Finally,€the€post„Ð Ì&"% Ðconviction€court€concluded€that€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€expertÐ ¸'#& Ðwitness,€whether€trial€strategy€or€an€oversight,€did€not€ð ðrise€to€the€level€necessary€to€prove€thatÐ ° ÐÔ_Ô[counselððs]€representation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness,€nor€has€[the€petitioner]Ð œì Ðproven€any€prejudice€therefrom.ððÐ ˆØ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òII.€€Analysisó óóóÐ `° ÐÓ  Óà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€the€post„conviction€court,€by€finding€that€theÐ L œ Ðpetitioner€was€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€ð ðmisinterpretedðð€the€petitionerððs€claimÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petitioner€maintains€that€his€claim€for€post„conviction€relief€is€oneÐ $ t Ðof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€argues€that€counsel€was€ineffectiveÐ  ` Ðin€failing€to€challenge,€at€trial€and€on€appeal,€both€ð ðthe€sufficiency€of€proof€to€support€the€allegationÐ ü L  Ðthat€serious€bodily€injury€occurredðð€and€ð ðthe€sufficiency€of€proof€of€a€knowing€or€intentional€act€ofÐ è 8  Ðrobbery€coupled€with€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€resulting€in€serious€[b]odily€injury€to€support€theÐ Ô$  Ðindicted€charge€of€Especially€Aggravated€Robbery.ððÐ À  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€theÐ ˜è  Ðgrounds€raised€in€the€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)Ð „Ô  Ð(1997).€€ð ðEvidence€is€clear€and€convincing€when€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€theÐ pÀ Ðcorrectness€of€the€conclusions€drawn€from€the€evidence.ðð€€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€On€appeal,€a€òòóóclaim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€presents€a€mixedÐ H˜ Ðquestion€of€law€and€fact€subject€to€de€novo€review.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð 4„ ÐòòóóAs€such,€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€correctnessÐ  p Ðunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.Ð  \ Ð2001).€€However,€a€post„conviction€courtððs€conclusions€of€law,€such€as€whether€counselððsÐ øH Ðperformance€was€deficient€or€whether€that€deficiency€was€prejudicial,€are€subject€to€a€purely€de€novoÐ ä4 Ðreview€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòId.óóÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistanceÐ ¨ø Ðof€counsel,€ð ðthe€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€both€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficientÐ ”ä Ðand€that€the€deficiency€prejudiced€the€defense.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)Ð €Ð Ð(citing€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984)).€€Ð l¼ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€a€failureÐ X ¨ Ðto€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€toÐ D!” Ðdeny€relief€on€the€ineffective€assistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€needÐ 0"€  Ðnot€address€the€components€in€any€particular€order€or€even€addressÐ #l! Ðboth€if€the€[petitioner]€makes€an€insufficient€showing€of€oneÐ $X" Ðcomponent.Ðô$D #` x` x ÐòòId.óó€at€370òòóó.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€establish€constitutionally€deficient€performance,€the€petitioner€must€demonstrateÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€counselððs€representation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness.€€òòStricklandóó,€466Ð ¤(ô#' ÐU.S.€at€687„88,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064;€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€must€showÐ )à$( Ðthat€counselððs€performance€was€not€within€ð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðcriminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€On€appeal,€this€court€will€notÐ h+¸&* Ðð ðsecond€guessðð€the€tactical€and€strategical€decisions€of€defense€counsel,€nor€measure€theÐ ° Ðrepresentation€by€ð ð20„20€hindsight.ðð€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993).€€ToÐ œì Ðestablish€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€forÐ ˆØ Ðcounselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€AÐ tÄ Ðreasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ÓÓðð€Ð `° ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068;€òòDean€v.€Stateóó,€59€S.W.3d€663,€667€(Tenn.€2001).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àAlthough€the€petitioner€contends€that€counsel€failed€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€evidence,€our€review€of€the€record€reveals€otherwise.€€While€counsel€did€not€move€for€a€judgmentÐ  ` Ðof€acquittal€before€the€jury€returned€its€verdict€of€guilty,€he€did€file€a€motion€for€judgment€ofÐ ü L  Ðacquittal€and/or€new€trial€within€thirty€days€of€sentencing€in€accordance€with€Rule€29(c)€of€theÐ è 8  ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€arguing€ð ð[t]he€evidence€contained€in€the€record€isÐ Ô$  Ðinsufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€sustain€a€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.ðð€Ð À  ÐFurthermore,€counsel€argued€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€that€the€proof€did€not€ð ðriseÐ ¬ü  Ðto€the€level€of€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Clearly,€counsel€did€challenge€the€sufficiency€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€evidence€prior€to€direct€appeal.€€We€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€thatÐ „Ô  Ðcounselððs€performance€was€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€criminal€defenseÐ pÀ Ðattorneys.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€assuming€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÐ 4„ Ðshow€any€prejudice€resulting€from€the€deficiency.€€The€petitioner€asserts€that,€if€he€had€beenÐ  p Ðconvicted€of€the€lesser€charge€of€aggravated€robbery,€he€would€have€received€a€lesser€sentence€andÐ  \ Ðwould€have€been€eligible€for€release€after€serving€thirty€percent€(30%)€of€his€sentence.€€However,Ð øH Ðthe€petitioner€has€not€shown€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€error,€the€petitionerÐ ä4 Ðwould€have€been€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery.€€The€Stateððs€proof€showed€that€the€victim€in€thisÐ Ð  Ðcase€was€shot€and€his€money€was€taken.€€Moreover,€the€jury€was€instructed€as€to€the€Stateððs€burdenÐ ¼  Ðof€proof,€the€elements€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€aggravated€robbery,€and€the€definitionÐ ¨ø Ðof€what€constitutes€ð ðserious€bodily€injury.ðð€€Based€on€the€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€petitionerÐ ”ä Ðguilty€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€and€the€trial€court€accepted€the€juryððs€verdict,€stating€at€theÐ €Ð Ðhearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€that€ð ðthe€Court€does€believe€and€adopts€the€juryððs€verdict,€andÐ l¼ Ð.€.€.€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict.ðð€€The€petitioner€has€not€shown€that€the€juryÐ X ¨ Ðwould€have€reached€a€different€conclusion€but€for€counselððs€failure€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€ofÐ D!” Ðthe€evidence.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€challenge€theÐ $X" Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€appeal.€€However,€the€petitioner€presented€no€evidence€at€the€post„Ð ô$D # Ðconviction€hearing€to€show€that€counselððs€decision€to€forego€challenging€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðevidence€on€appeal€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness.€€The€petitioner€merely€arguedÐ Ì&"% Ðthat,€on€appeal,€ð ð[t]esting€of€the€proof€and€application€of€the€corresponding€law€is€fundamental€toÐ ¸'#& Ðeffective€assistance€[of€counsel].€€This€is€ððthe€stuffðð€the€lawyers€are€supposed€to€know€that€others€doÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnot,€and€is€one€reason€they€are€needed.ðð€€Contrary€to€the€petitionerððs€argument,€ð ðthere€is€noÐ )à$( Ðconstitutional€requirement€that€an€attorney€argue€every€issue€on€appeal.€.€.€.€Generally,€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðdetermination€of€which€issues€to€present€on€appeal€is€a€matter€which€addresses€itself€to€theÐ h+¸&* Ðprofessional€judgment€and€sound€discretion€of€appellate€counsel.ðð€€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€747Ð ° Ð(citing€òòJones€v.€Barnesóó,€463€U.S.€745,€750„51,€103€S.€Ct.€3308,€3312€(1983)).€€The€petitioner€assertsÐ œì Ðthat€he€ð ðcan€not€(sic)€imagine€what€strategy€was€in€[counselððs]€mind€that€would€lead€counsel€not€toÐ ˆØ Ðraise€these€issues.ðð€€As€previously€noted,€this€court€will€not€ð ðsecond€guessðð€the€tactical€andÐ tÄ Ðstrategical€decisions€of€counsel,€particularly€where€there€has€been€no€evidence€presented,€such€as€theÐ `° Ðtestimony€of€trial€or€appellate€counsel€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€to€show€that€such€a€decisionÐ L œ Ðamounted€to€deficient€representation.òòóó€€Because€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€deficientÐ 8 ˆ Ðperformance€on€the€part€of€counsel,€we€need€not€address€the€prejudice€prong.€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ $ t Ðmerit.Ð  ` ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òIII.€€Conclusionó óóóÐ è 8  ÐÓ  Óà  àà ` àBased€on€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGEÐ \¬ ÐÌà  à