ÿWPC— …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ ¤ w@¬ U:ì 0J& 0Tp 0^Ä 0h" 0rŠ 0|ü 0†x 0þ 1uŽ 0dU6gU.U*Ë BõB)DC; AM~cË D3.v~avÓß 0@² AOòÆA 0D D/K Bz˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|x¨«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@ ”•D–D—˜D™DšD›JeœÓ€¦`"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌDecember€9,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó%%%%'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€##Xd#ÑÑ#€##Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€$Ô›Ñ7€©=XXdðXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€()'A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€FEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓTHOMAS€NEWSOME,€JR.,à à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9506„CR„00167Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€Ann€Lacy€Johns,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€à à)à à€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJ.€Timothy€Streetà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ136€Fourth€Avenue€Southà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌFranklin,€TN€37064à àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àClinton€J.€MorganÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àRoger€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àWashington€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€petitioner,€Thomas€Newsome,€Jr.,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€denialÏof€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€by€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court.€€TheÏpetitioner€complains€about€his€1988€convictions€for€aggravated€rape€and€aggravatedÏkidnapping€for€which€he€received€an€effective€sentence€of€fifty„five€years€in€the€custodyÏof€the€Department€of€Correction.€€His€sole€claim€in€this€appeal€is€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€when€it€determined€that€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€first€convictions€for€these€offenses€were€reversed€uponÏdirect€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Thomas€Newsomeóó,€No.€86„186„III,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€Dec.€12,€1986).€€He€was€convicted€in€a€second€trial,€and€the€judgments€ofÏconviction€were€affirmed€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Newsomeóó,€798€S.W.2d€542€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€It€is€from€these€convictions€that€he€seeks€relief.€€ÌÌà àThe€gist€of€the€petitionerððs€argument€is€that€there€are€inconsistencies€inÏthe€testimony€given€by€the€victim€in€the€first€and€second€trials€that€her€trial€attorney€inÏthe€second€trial€should€have€pursued.€€These€inconsistencies€relate€to€such€things€asÏwhat€the€victim€said€to€the€petitioner€at€the€scene€of€the€crime,€where€the€petitioner€hidÏhis€gun€on€his€person€at€the€time€of€the€kidnapping,€and€the€specific€timing€of€theÏoffenses.€ÌÌà àThe€basic€evidence€provided€by€the€victim€was€that€she€went€riding€withÏtwo€friends€and€as€she€got€into€the€car,€the€petitioner,€who€she€knew€by€name,€yelled€atÏher€not€to€get€into€the€car.€€The€victim€got€into€her€friendsðð€car,€but€the€petitionerÏfollowed€in€his€car.€€Subsequently,€both€cars€stopped,€and€the€petitioner€got€out,Ïsaying€that€she€should€get€out€of€the€car.€€She€refused,€but€the€petitioner€pulled€a€gun.€ÏThe€victim€then€got€into€his€car.€€According€to€her,€she€was€fearful€of€him€and€believedÏthat€she€had€no€choice.€€They€ended€up€in€a€parking€lot,€and€the€petitioner€told€her€toÏtake€off€her€clothes.€€After€having€intercourse€with€her,€the€petitioner€took€the€victim€toÍthe€neighborhood€where€she€lived€and€let€her€out€of€the€car.€€Medical€evidence€wasÏconsistent€with€rape.ÌÌà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€acknowledged€that€the€evidenceÏpresented€in€both€cases€was€basically€the€same.€€The€trial€attorney€testified€that€sheÏsaw€nothing€in€the€discrepancies€that€would€have€her€question€her€performance€at€theÏtrial.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€the€trial€attorneyððs€performance€was€not€deficientÏand€that,€in€any€event,€the€inconsistencies€would€not€have€affected€the€outcome€of€theÏtrial.€€We€agree.€ÌÌà àUnder€the€post„conviction€law€applicable€to€the€petitionerððs€case,€theÏburden€was€on€him€in€the€trial€court€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€theÏfactual€allegations€that€would€entitle€him€to€relief.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,Ï289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€On€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findingsÏunless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€thoseÏfindings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€this€respect,Ïthe€petitioner,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€how€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€judgment€entered.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€is€made,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counsel'sÍperformance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€ofÏrendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104ÏS.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€369„72,€113€S.€Ct.Ï838,€842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied,€as€well,€to€the€right€toÏcounsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772ÏS.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.€1989).€€€ÌÌà àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÏdecided€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€servicesÏrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€range€of€competence€was€to€be€measured€byÏthe€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,€491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.Ï1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202„04€(D.C.€Cir.€1973).€€Also,Ïin€reviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requiresÏthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstructÏthe€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounsel's€perspective€at€the€time."€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòseeóóÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(counsel's€conduct€will€not€beÏmeasured€by€"20„20€hindsight").€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failedÏor€even€hurt€the€defense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.€ÍDeference€is€made€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€basedÏupon€adequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9;€òòDeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€atÏ1201.€€ÌÌà àAlso,€we€note€that€the€approach€to€the€issue€of€the€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€does€not€have€to€start€with€an€analysis€of€an€attorney's€conduct.€€If€prejudiceÏis€not€shown,€we€need€not€seek€to€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegations€of€deficientÏperformance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€ÌÌà àWe€have€reviewed€the€transcripts€of€the€first€trial,€the€second€trial,€and€theÏpost„conviction€evidentiary€hearing.€€Although€the€discrepancies€cited€by€the€petitionerÏdo€exist,€we€see€nothing€presented€that€indicates€that€the€failure€to€raise€them€fellÏbelow€the€range€of€competency€demanded€of€counsel€in€criminal€cases.€€Likewise,€weÏview€Ñ7€ëÌXXdÈXXdð7Ñthe€discrepancies€as€matters€of€no€consequence€to€the€end€result€of€the€trial.€ÏUnder€these€circumstances,€the€evidence€in€the€record€on€appeal€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€and€conclusions.€€ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€ÌÌÌà à