ÿWPCD …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe ² B¾v~ÛvÓY D3, 0@_ AOŸÆî 0D´ D/ø B'˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- zD{D|D}~U€UU‚UƒÓ€³†;$3|xŒ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJune€9,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€•}XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓWADE€JAMES€ODUM,€€à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9707„CC„00282Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLINCOLN€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHARLES€LEE,€JUDGEó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)€€€€€€€ó óà àÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó óà àÌà àà àAppellee.à àà àò òà à)à à(POST„CONVICTION)€Ìó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òN.€ANDY€MYRICK,€JR.€à àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó ó116€West€Market€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌFayetteville,€TN€37334Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTIMOTHY€F.€BEHANÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€MICHAEL€McCOWNÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWEAKLEY€E.€BARNARDÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà0 àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€904€Ì€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àFayetteville,€TN€37334€ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Petitioner,€Wade€James€Odum,€appeals€from€the€order€denying€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Petitioner€was€convicted€of€theft€and€wasÏsentenced€as€a€career€offender€to€serve€fifteen€(15)€years€in€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€After€the€conviction€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal,ÏPetitioner€timely€filed€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Following€an€evidentiaryÏhearing,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition.€€Petitioner€argues€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€him€relief€based€upon€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àð ðIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€provingÏthe€allegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,Ï655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Furthermore,€the€factual€findings€ofÏthe€trial€court€in€hearings€ð ðare€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€ÏCrim.€App.€1983).€€ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€the€courtÏmust€decide€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936Í(Tenn.€1975).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€at€trial,€aÏpetitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€thatÏhe€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€andÏthat€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€the€petitioner€resulting€in€a€failure€toÏproduce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€òòrehððgÏdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);ÏòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€To€satisfy€the€second€prongÏthe€petitioner€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððsÏunreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regardingÏpetitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probability€must€beÏð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2dÏ662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAs€Petitioner€is€incarcerated€in€the€Liberty€Correctional€Institution€in€Bristol,ÏFlorida,€he€was€deposed€by€telephone€on€the€subject€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€During€the€deposition,€Petitioner€stated€that€all€the€grounds€of€hisÏpetition€arose€out€of€the€ineffectiveness€of€trial€counsel.€€First,€Petitioner€claimed€thatÏhis€trial€counsel€failed€to€attempt€to€suppress€statements€given€to€three€(3)€differentÏpolice€officers.€€Petitioner€had€confessed€to€several€burglaries€committed€in€Florida,Ïbut€did€not€confess€to€any€crime€occurring€in€Tennessee.€€ÌÌà àNext,€Petitioner€stated€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€present€alibi€witnesses.€€InÏthe€original€indictment,€Petitioner€was€charged€with€theft€which€occurred€on€JanuaryÏ1,€1993.€€In€addition€to€the€fact€that€Petitioner€was€incarcerated€on€that€date,€the€carÏdealership€from€which€the€car€was€stolen€was€closed€that€day.€€At€trial,€theÏindictment€was€amended€to€reflect€the€date€of€the€offense€as€February€1,€1993.€ÏPetitioner€also€had€an€alibi€for€February€1,€1993,€claiming€he€spent€the€night€ofÏJanuary€31,€1993,€in€a€motel€on€Highway€231,€north€of€Dothan,€Alabama.€ÏPetitioner€arose€around€8:00€or€8:30€a.m.€on€February€1,€1993,€returned€an€alarmÏclock€to€the€front€desk€and€checked€out€of€the€motel.€€Petitioner€could€not€recall€theÏname€of€the€motel,€nor€could€he€recall€the€personððs€name€who€worked€at€the€frontÏdesk€of€the€motel.€€Petitioner€claimed€that€€he€provided€this€information€to€trialÏcounsel€who€failed€to€investigate€his€alibi.€€ÌÌà àPetitioner€also€alleged€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€properly€investigate€aÏphotographic€lineup€in€which€he€was€identified€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€theft.€ÏPetitioner€did€not€know€if€the€lineup€was€overly€suggestive.€€Then,€Petitioner€statedÏthat€trial€counsel€refused€to€allow€him€to€testify€in€his€own€defense€because€he€didÏnot€want€the€jury€to€hear€the€Petitionerððs€past€criminal€record.€€Petitioner€recalled€thatÏhe€repeatedly€requested€to€testify,€both€prior€to€and€during€the€trial.€€ÌÌà àPetitioner€further€claimed€that€trial€counsel€admitted€Petitionerððs€guilt€to€the€juryÏduring€the€trial.€€During€his€trial€counselððs€cross„examination€of€Officer€Hopson,€trialÏcounsel€asked€Hopson,€ð ðIsnððt€it€true€what€the€defendant€told€you€was€he€came€upÏthere€and€took€the€car€and€never€brought€it€back.ðð€€€€Petitioner€stated€that€trialÏcounsel€never€corrected€this€statement,€but€left€it€as€it€was€admitting€his€guilt.ÌÌà àAnother€area€of€ineffectiveness€Petitioner€claimed€was€trial€counselððs€failure€toÏprovide€him€with€civilian€clothing€during€the€trial.€€Petitioner€had€requested€that€trialÏcounsel€obtain€civilian€clothing€prior€to€trial,€and€trial€counsel€informed€him€that€€ChiefÏCampbell€at€the€prison€would€supply€civilian€clothes€to€wear€during€the€trial.€€ÌÌà àPetitioner€alleged€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€pursue€a€plea€bargain€on€theseÏoffenses.€€While€Petitioner€recalled€that€a€plea€agreement€was€offered€to€him€withÏthe€term€of€ten€(10)€years€of€incarceration,€he€was€advised€by€Tom€Bean,€anÏinvestigator€for€the€Public€Defenderððs€office,€that,€ð ðmaybe€we€can€do€better.ðð€ÏTherefore,€the€plea€agreement€was€not€accepted,€but€Petitioner€asked€trial€counselÏto€continue€to€pursue€a€plea€agreement.€€Petitioner€recalled€that€he€was€assured€aÏplea€agreement€would€be€reached€prior€to€trial.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€Petitioner€felt€that€mitigating€factors€were€present€in€his€case€that€wereÏnot€introduced€during€sentencing.€€He€stated€that€no€bodily€injury€was€done€toÍanyone€and€that€he€attempted€to€assist€the€authorities€involving€certain€offenses€inÏthe€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€for€the€Petitioner€testified€at€the€hearing€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Trial€counsel€stated€that€as€part€of€his€duties€as€an€assistantÏpublic€defender,€he€represented€Petitioner€through€trial€and€shortly€after€trial.€€He€didÏnot€represent€Petitioner€at€his€sentencing€hearing€or€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€CounselÏrecalled€that€prior€to€trial,€he€investigated€this€case€and€filed€various€discoveryÏmotions.€€Counsel€met€with€Petitioner€on€twelve€(12)€to€fifteen€(15)€separateÏoccasions.€€The€total€amount€of€time€counsel€spent€with€Petitioner€prior€to€trial€wasÏbetween€twenty„eight€(28)€to€thirty€(30)€hours.€€€€ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€motion€to€suppress,€counsel€stated€that€he€did€not€file€thisÏmotion€because€there€was€a€waiver€of€rights€signed€by€the€Petitioner.€€As€PetitionerÏhas€many€prior€criminal€offenses€on€his€record,€he€admitted€that€he€knew€his€rights,Ïthat€he€did€not€have€to€make€any€statements,€and€that€those€statements€he€madeÏcould€be€used€against€him.€€When€counsel€discussed€this€matter€with€Petitioner,ÏPetitioner€admitted€that€he€was€only€making€these€admissions€to€try€to€get€a€goodÏdeal€and€minimize€his€total€exposure€to€incarceration.€€Counsel€believed€there€wasÏno€way€to€mount€a€successful€suppression€of€those€statements€in€good€faith.ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€discussed€a€possible€alibi€defense€with€the€Petitioner€forÏFebruary€1,€1993.€€Counsel€noticed€the€defective€date€in€the€indictment€which€statedÏthat€Petitioner€committed€the€theft€on€January€1,€1993.€€Petitioner€did€have€an€alibiÏfor€the€incorrect€date€as€he€was€incarcerated€on€that€date€and€the€car€dealershipÏwas€closed€on€New€Yearððs€Day.€€€€As€the€error€was€not€in€any€way€caused€byÏthe€defense,€trial€counsel€did€not€believe€he€had€a€duty€to€correct€potentiallyÏreversible€error.€Trial€counsel€did€not€attempt€the€cure€the€defective€indictment€as€inÏhis€opinion€that€would€amount€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Upon€readingÏof€the€indictment€at€trial,€the€State€moved€to€amend€the€indictment€to€reflect€theÏaccurate€date€of€the€theft€as€February€1,€1993.€€Counsel€noted€this€as€possibleÏassignment€of€error€for€appellate€reasons,€but€he€did€not€want€to€object€at€that€timeÏby€arguing€that€the€defense€was€caught€by€surprise€by€a€substantial€change€ofÏthe€indictment.€€Because€counsel€could€not€in€good€faith€make€those€argumentsÏand€there€was€possible€reversible€error€on€appeal,€counsel€did€not€oppose€theÏamendment€of€the€indictment€by€the€State.€ÌÌà àPetitioner€told€counsel€that€he€spent€the€night€at€a€motel€near€Dothan,ÏAlabama€on€January€31,€1993.€€€Counsel€stated€that€he€had€been€in€that€areaÏmany€times€and€could€not€recall€a€motel€located€on€Highway€231€as€PetitionerÏdescribed,€but€he€asked€his€brother€who€lived€in€that€area€to€investigate.€ÏCounselððs€brother€could€not€find€any€motel€near€the€location€that€PetitionerÍdescribed.€€Petitioner€was€unable€to€provide€the€name€of€the€motel,€the€name€of€theÏmotel€clerk€who€assisted€him,€or€the€name€that€he€used€to€check„in€to€the€motel.€ÏCounsel€described€that€even€if€Petitioner€had€been€at€a€motel€on€the€evening€ofÏJanuary€31,€1993,€he€could€have€driven€the€next€morning€to€the€site€of€the€theft€andÏcould€have€been€present€at€the€location€of€the€theft€by€that€afternoon€when€theÏtheft€occurred.ÌÌà àWhen€questioned€regarding€possible€plea€bargains,€counsel€stated€that€theÏonly€indication€he€received€from€the€District€Attorneyððs€office€was€that€there€wouldÏnot€be€any€deals.€€The€only€deal€ever€offered€was€that€Petitioner€could€plead€as€aÏcareer€offender€or€plead€to€the€indictment€and€receive€a€sentencing€hearing.€€Prior€toÏtrial,€there€was€some€discussion€about€a€possible€ten€(10)€year€sentence,€but€theÏmain€issue€was€whether€or€not€that€sentence€would€run€concurrent€with€hisÏsentences€in€Florida€and€Georgia.€€No€agreement€was€reached€to€run€theÏsentences€concurrently,€and€Petitioner€refused€the€possibility€of€consecutiveÏsentences€despite€counselððs€advice€concerning€his€sentencing€status€as€a€careerÏoffender.€€ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€explained€that€the€photographic€lineup€during€which€theÏPetitioner€was€identified€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€theft€was€in€no€way€suggestive.€ÏHe€and€Investigator€Bean€saw€that€of€the€six€(6)€photographs€in€the€lineup,€allÍwere€white€males€who€were€ð ðheavy€set.ðð€€Also,€all€of€the€six€(6)€pictured€were€inÏthe€same€age€group€as€that€of€the€Petitioner.€€While€counsel€could€not€recall€ifÏPetitioner€was€given€the€opportunity€to€view€the€photographs,€he€did€discuss€theÏlineup€with€the€Petitioner.ÌÌà àTrial€counsel€advised€Petitioner€prior€to€trial€that€if€he€was€to€testify,€then€theÏState€would€have€the€right€to€impeach€him€based€upon€his€criminal€record.€ÏCounsel€also€told€Petitioner€that€since€there€was€a€videotape€which€showedÏPetitioner€operating€the€stolen€vehicle€in€Florida,€then€his€testimony€would€not€castÏdoubt€upon€that€video.€€While€counsel€did€not€advocate€Petitioner€testifying,€he€toldÏPetitioner€it€was€his€own€choice.€€At€the€end€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€trial€counsel€askedÏthe€trial€court€to€address€the€Petitioner€in€open€court€concerning€his€right€to€testify.€ÏPetitioner€stated€that€he€understood€his€rights€and€that€it€was€his€free€and€voluntaryÏchoice€not€to€testify.ÌÌà àCounsel€recalled€that€upon€cross„examination€of€Officer€Hopson,€he€asked€€ifÏPetitioner€ever€told€him€he€came€to€Fayetteville€to€steal€a€car.€€When€Officer€HopsonÏstated€that€Petitioner€did€not€outright€make€that€statement,€counsel€followed€up€withÏthis€question:ÌÓÓà8 àIsnððt€it€true€that€he€told€you€he€came€up€there;€the€salesman€asked€himÏif€he€wanted€to€try€the€car;€they€gave€him€the€keys;€and€he€took€theÏkeys€and€took€the€car€and€never€brought€it€back?ÌÌÓÓHopson€responded€that€this€statement€was€correct.€€By€eliciting€this€information,Ïcounsel€hoped€to€provide€the€necessary€proof€in€the€record€to€justify€a€juryÏinstruction€on€the€lesser€included€offense€of€joyriding.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„106.€ÏCounselððs€purpose€was€to€hopefully€convince€the€jury€to€return€a€verdict€of€guilt€to€aÏlesser€offense€than€theft.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€Petitionerððs€prison€uniform,€counsel€stated€that€Petitioner€woreÏa€Florida€correctional€uniform,€a€light€blue€cotton€shirt€and€pants.€€There€were€whiteÏtags€across€the€right€rear€pants€pocket€and€his€left€shirt€pocket€which€wereÏsomewhat€faded.€€Several€days€prior€to€trial,€counsel€discussed€with€Petitioner€theÏneed€to€wear€civilian€clothing€at€trial.€€Petitioner€assured€counsel€that€he€wouldÏhave€civilian€clothing,€which€would€be€provided€by€his€sister.€€When€counselÏchecked€with€the€jail€on€the€evening€prior€to€trial,€he€was€assured€that€Petitioner€hadÏcivilian€clothing.€€On€the€morning€of€trial,€counsel€walked€into€the€courtroom€andÏfound€Petitioner€wearing€his€prison€uniform.€€When€he€questioned€the€Petitioner,ÏPetitioner€responded€that€the€civilian€clothes€did€not€fit€him.€€As€thirty„five€(35)€to€fortyÏ(40)€potential€jurors€were€already€seated€in€the€courtroom,€counsel€did€not€want€toÏcall€attention€to€the€fact€that€Petitioner€was€wearing€a€prison€uniform.€€While€the€trialÏcourt€later€noticed€the€uniform€and€offered€to€remedy€the€situation€by€putting€tapeÏover€the€numbers,€counsel€believed€that€would€only€call€more€attention€toÍPetitionerððs€clothing.€€In€fact,€Petitioner€was€wearing€eyeglasses€and€had€a€largeÏeyeglass€case€which,€for€all€practical€purposes,€covered€the€white€tag€on€his€frontÏshirt€pocket.ÌÌà àCounsel€discussed€with€Petitioner€the€fact€that,€as€a€career€offender,€no€Ïmitigating€factors€apply€as€the€mandatory€sentence€for€a€career€offender€is€theÏmaximum€sentence€within€the€applicable€Range€III.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„108(c).€€Basically,€the€sentencing€hearing€was€only€to€determine€whether€theÏdefendant€had€a€sufficient€number€of€convictions€to€constitute€his€status€as€a€careerÏoffender.€€Petitioner€admitted€that€these€prior€felony€convictions€listed€on€the€StateððsÏenhancement€notice€were€his€during€a€meeting€with€trial€counsel€and€did€not€contestÏhis€status€as€a€career€offender.€€In€any€event,€trial€counsel€did€not€representÏPetitioner€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€trialÏcounsel€conducted€a€more€than€adequate€investigation€into€the€allegations€andÏdiscussed€all€possible€defenses€with€Petitioner.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€any€discussions€Petitioner€had€with€counsel€regarding€his€confessions€to€theÍpolice€led€counsel€to€determine€that€there€was€not€a€valid€basis€for€a€motion€toÏsuppress.€€ÌÌà àWhile€not€specifically€stated€within€its€findings€of€fact,€it€is€clear€that€the€trialÏcourt€accredited€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel€over€that€of€the€Petitioner€as€regardingÏhis€wearing€a€prison€uniform€at€trial.€€The€trial€court€found€that€in€all€instances€thatÏPetitionerððs€recollection€differed€from€the€recollection€of€trial€counsel,€it€accredited€theÏtestimony€of€trial€counsel.€€As€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€otherwise,€weÏagree€and€find€that€the€Petitionerððs€appearance€at€trial€in€a€prison€uniform€is€due€toÏhis€own€ineffectiveness,€and€not€that€of€trial€counsel.€€Counsel€made€severalÏattempts€to€secure€civilian€clothing€for€Petitioner,€and€Petitioner€insisted€that€he€couldÏlocate€his€own€clothing.ÌÌà àAny€complaints€Petitioner€has€regarding€counselððs€tactical€decisions€andÏstrategies€employed€during€the€trial€are€without€merit.€€œWhen›€reviewing€trialÏcounselððs€actions,€this€court€should€not€use€the€benefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guessÏtrial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.Ï1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€should€be€judged€at€the€time€they€were€made€inÏlight€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó,€849ÏS.W.2d€at€746.€€While€this€tactic€did€not€ultimately€succeed€in€Petitionerððs€favor,€trialÏcounselððs€strategy€was€not€so€unreasonable€under€these€facts€and€circumstances.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€noted,€and€we€agree,€that€the€record€is€clear€that€counselÏadvised€Petitioner€not€to€testify,€but€that€Petitioner€made€his€own€decision€afterÏhaving€his€rights€explained€to€him€by€the€trial€court.€€Petitioner€admitted€in€hisÏtestimony€that€he€was€counseled€not€to€testify,€but€that€he€made€his€own€decision.ÌÌà àPetitionerððs€complaints€regarding€the€sentencing€hearing€are€also€withoutÏmerit.€€As€Petitioner€freely€admits€to€committing€the€offenses€listed€in€theÏenhancement€notice,€any€argument€against€his€being€sentenced€as€a€careerÏoffender€is€moot.€€The€trial€court€found€him€to€be€a€career€offender€under€theÏstatutory€law,€and€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€he€was€not.€€ÌÓÓà àÌÓÓà àAs€the€trial€court€noted€within€its€findings€of€fact,€ð ð[H]e€[Petitioner],€has€beenÏunable€to€demonstrate€to€the€Court€how€even€if€those€things€should€have€beenÏdone,€it€would€have€had€a€different€result€on€the€court€or€on€the€trial€of€the€case.ðð€ÏPetitioner€has€also€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proof€to€this€court.€€Upon€review€ofÏthe€record€and€the€briefs€in€this€matter,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓӜ̛œÌ›à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge̛̜̜CONCUR:›Ìœ›ÌœÌ›Ì___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€Presiding€JudgeÌœÌÌ___________________________________›ÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€Special€Judge