ÿWPCç ¸lÉ—Újå6I%„§Ê^T/;om:ãXÔq·B Š7«E.‰·ß":7vSíõ`^ÚGCkvT)Å&n Q‘šfá}jñ{¢ÀÍ+c/?5 Kiº©Yúüf‡Eïq+;Ö iqö±/ ‹íWFãZ¨Ù HѸO YjŸì½QX±ÖR‰Ku©óÛ»¼^6Àóy h!ª‹-|¯J’C/3–ìh ~ƒ.‰Õú8é†os…+ÄG7¦³j÷xÉÝ–[µOžU¯•¬i­ðó«CjbÄ%à‡.ÃŽœ~äÜH²OrO&r‡0r§†<‰sƒõ³A Ìük_Ðc̸Í:E]Êü¸lbYΡ)LtC)íÌáŽ;€(>.Dêù.à=«q¶¸Ô@UbI;(9?ù=IÆr› ’È+Ex®´•¿4jŒ ‰h eÖÑL¿`;JÏ~†Gÿ¤Ï¶q9‚E vÀE¸Û'0×x±ÍqD9•®"KT¨¤Q½b#Á\ % à# 0ˆ UN‹ ^ Ù wå zé Òc 45 I X mZ Æq Æ7ÆýÆÃUN‰N× 1Ù 0DfEª 72¬ 1uÞ 72S 0c… 0wè 0Š_ 1é 72v 0 ¨ 1H 72Õ 1 72”ÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆbÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ 0ëääää BÏÏ 0¤ì D3 D-à 0Kðð AS;ÆŽ 0¤T 0Dø A«<˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0» €BIVENS wittBivensFaheyMcMinn T.J.BenjieMcCardleParrisFerbyArnwineWilkersonJorgensonBurlisonDakinGennoepresentenceSheltonAshbyHoxieT.C.A. TBIMcKnight W]ev.Troutman(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÈ’f)â  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUUb)ç 3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular0ÖýCEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(1)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(a)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à0¶ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à0÷ CEMU]emu}AutoList3(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a) (a)0ÖÙCEMU]emu}AutoList4(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)"(1) Ñ ° Ñ- ù-(|G2v$$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CÜ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X5lX»»Ô d(|3N $££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CÜ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3N $¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€CÜ»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€FL»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Ì@»»»ÔÑ8€(œXXdê»»d 8ÑÑ€$OYÑ€à@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@''%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÐ  ÐÓ  Óà@@ìì*ìàà @ àà @p àSeptember€12,€2000€SessionÐ Ô$ ÐÓ{ÓÔ‡X“œX»¼Ì@ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ì@»XX“œð#ÔÓ  ÓJIMMY€LEE€PIERCE€òòóóv.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X“œX»¼Ì@Ôó óÐ Ò" ÐÓ6ÓÌà@R R ìàò ò€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔFayetteÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ Ò " Ðà@t t ìàNos.€4514€and€4515€€€Jon€Kerry€Blackwood,€Judge€ˆÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` A߈Ð ‚Ò  ÐÌà@q q ìàNo.€W2000„00630„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€2,€2000ˆÐ }Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥  Ðó óà  àÌThe€petitioner,€Jimmy€Lee€Pierce,€was€convicted€of€aggravated€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô€and€was€sentenced€to€aÐ P   Ðterm€of€11€years.€€Because€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€andÐ <Œ Ðbecause€there€is€no€merit€to€his€claim€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€convict,€he€is€not€entitledÐ (x Ðto€post„conviction€relief.Ô#†¼Ì@»XX“œt#ÔÔ‡X“œX»¼Ì@ÔÐ d ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ ì< ÐÓÂÓÌòòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô#†¼Ì@»àX“œŠ#ÔÔ‡X“œX.¼Ì@ÔÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_ÔÔ#†¼Ì@»àX“œd#ÔÔ‡X“œX.¼Ì@Ô,€Ô#†¼Ì@»àX“œÊ#ÔÔ‡X“œX.¼Ì@Ôóó€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes€Ô#†¼Ì@»àX“œ#ÔÔ‡X“œX.¼Ì@Ôóóand€òòThomas€T.Ð Ä ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ôòòóó,Ô#†¼Ì@»àX“œ“#ÔÔ‡X“œX.¼Ì@Ô€JJÔ#†¼Ì@»àX“œ+ #ÔÔ‡X“œX.¼Ì@Ô.,óó€joined.òòóóÐ ° ÐÌWilliam€S.€Rhea,€Somerville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jimmy€Lee€Pierce.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Lucian€D.€Ô_ÔGeiseÔ_Ô,€€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð `° ÐElizabeth€Rice,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Lœ ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òOPINIONÔ#†¼Ì@»XX“œp #Ôó óÐ !`  ÐÓ ÓÔ€X“œX»¼Ì@ÔÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àÌà  àThe€petitioner,€Jimmy€Lee€Pierce,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„Ð è"8" Ðconviction€relief.€€The€issues€presented€for€review€are€whether€the€petitioner€was€denied€effectiveÐ Ô#$# Ðassistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€convict.€€The€judgment€isÐ À$ $ Ðaffirmed.Ð ¬%ü % ÐÌà  àOn€May€17,€1997,€the€victim,€Samuel€Richardson,€was€driving€his€gray€Ford€Ô_ÔLTDÔ_Ô€throughÐ „'Ô"' ÐÔ_ÔFayetteÔ_Ô€County.€€Lou€Ann€Ô_ÔVesterÔ_Ô€was€a€passenger.€€When€the€victim€saw€the€petitioner€and€two€otherÐ p(À#( Ðmen,€Ô_ÔJermaineÔ_Ô€Johnson€and€Ô_ÔTerranceÔ_Ô€Hunt,€he€offered€them€a€ride.€€Along€the€way,€Ms.€Ô_ÔVesterÔ_Ô€toldÐ \)¬$) Ðthe€victim€that€she€wanted€to€purchase€some€beer.€€The€victim,€who€did€not€want€to€go€drinking,Ð H*˜%* Ðdrove€to€Ms.€Ô_ÔVesterÔ_Ô's€house€and€gave€the€petitioner€his€car€keys.€€The€petitioner,€Johnson,€and€HuntÐ 4+„&+ Ðwere€supposed€to€buy€some€beer€and€then€return€with€the€victim's€car.€€When€they€failed€to€return,Ð  ,p', Ðthe€victim€began€to€search€for€them.€Ð  -\(-ý Їà  àThe€victim€testified€that€he€eventually€saw€the€petitioner€driving€his€car€and€signaled€him€toÐ ° ÐÔ_Ôstop.€€The€victim€then€asked€the€petitioner€why€he€had€not€returned€the€automobile.€When€theÐ œì Ðpetitioner€answered€that€he€had€to€"take€care€of€business,"€an€argument€ensued€and€the€petitionerÐ ˆØ Ðdrove€to€a€dead„end€street€and€stopped€the€vehicle.€€The€petitioner,€Johnson,€and€Hunt€then€assaultedÐ tÄ Ðthe€victim€and€forced€him€into€the€trunk€of€the€car.€€As€a€vehicle€passed€near€the€assailants,€however,Ð `° Ðthe€victim€was€able€to€escape.€€The€petitioner€and€his€friends€then€turned€the€car€around€and€seizedÐ L œ Ðthe€victim€a€second€time.€€They€were€attempting€to€shove€the€victim€into€the€trunk€when€the€policeÐ 8 ˆ Ðintervened.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€the€petitioner€claimed€that€the€only€reason€the€victim€offered€him€and€his€friends€aÐ ü L  Ðride€was€because€he€needed€drug€money.€€He€explained€that€the€victim€offered€to€let€him€use€the€carÐ è 8  Ðfor€five€hours€in€exchange€for€30€dollars.€€During€this€time,€the€petitioner€and€his€friends€damagedÐ Ô$  Ðthe€car€trunk€so€that€it€would€not€completely€close.€€The€petitioner€maintained€that€when€the€victimÐ À  Ðflagged€down€the€car€and€saw€the€damaged€trunk,€he€became€enraged.€€He€contended€that€the€victimÐ ¬ü  Ðswung€at€him€with€a€baseball€bat,€but€missed.€€The€petitioner,€claiming€self„defense,€testified€thatÐ ˜è  Ðhe€punched€the€victim€in€the€mouth,€knocking€him€down.€€He€then€asserted€that€he€helped€the€victimÐ „Ô  Ðto€his€feet.€€It€was€at€this€point€that€Officer€Chearis€arrived€on€scene.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€jury€returned€a€guilty€verdict€for€aggravated€kidnapping.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€courtÐ H˜ Ðaffirmed.€€òòState€v.€Pierceóó,€No.€02C01„9807„CC„00227€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€June€17,Ð 4„ Ð1999).€€Our€supreme€court€denied€permission€to€appeal€on€October€29,€1999.Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€asserted€that€trial€counsel€wasÐ øH Ðineffective€for€failing€to€adequately€communicate€with€him€or€otherwise€prepare€a€proper€defense;Ð ä4 Ðfor€failing€€to€investigate;€and€for€failing€to€interview€witnesses.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€evidentiaryÐ Ð  Ðhearing,€the€post„conviction€court€ruled€that€the€petitioner€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€Ð ¼  ÐIt€concluded€that€trial€counsel€adequately€communicated€with€the€petitioner€and€that€the€petitionerÐ ¨ø Ðwas€unable€to€establish€how€the€investigation€was€inadequate€or€how€Ms.€Vera€Anderson's€testimonyÐ ”ä Ðwould€have€been€beneficial€at€trial.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€altogether€the€attack€upon€theÐ €Ð Ðsufficiency€of€the€evidence.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  à€In€a€post-conviction€proceeding,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€factual€allegationsÐ D!” Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f).€€The€findings€of€fact€made€byÐ 0"€  Ðthe€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€petitioner€is€able€to€establish€that€the€evidenceÐ #l! Ðpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978);Ð $X" ÐòòGraves€v.€Stateóó,€512€S.W.2d€603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðcounsel,€he€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€was€below€"the€rangeÐ ¸'#& Ðof€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936Ð ¤(ô#' Ð(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€he€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€"actually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€theÐ )à$( Ðdefense."€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693€(1984).€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àOn€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€ofÐ ° Ðhindsight,€may€not€second„guess€a€reasonably€based€trial€strategy,€and€cannot€criticize€a€sound,€butÐ œì Ðunsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€course€of€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2dÐ ˆØ Ð334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Such€deference€to€the€tactical€decisions€of€counsel,€however,Ð tÄ Ðapplies€only€if€the€choices€are€made€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847Ð `° ÐS.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð L œ ÐÌà  à€In€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€first€argues€that€his€trial€attorney€failed€to€adequately€prepareÐ $ t Ðtwo€witnesses,€Jermaine€Johnson€and€Terrance€Hunt.€€He€claims€that€the€witnesses€could€have€hadÐ  ` Ða€greater€impact€on€the€jury€if€they€had€been€€more€"polished"€in€the€presentation€of€their€testimony.€Ð ü L  ÐAt€trial,€Johnson€testified€that€petitioner€was€acting€in€self„defense€after€the€victim€swung€at€himÐ è 8  Ðwith€a€baseball€bat.€€Hunt's€testimony€was€substantially€the€same.€€Each€witness€substantiated€theÐ Ô$  Ðpetitioner's€claim€of€self„defense.€€The€petitioner€alleges€no€particular€error€on€the€part€of€trialÐ À  Ðcounsel,€but€is€dissatisfied€that€the€jury€chose€to€believe€the€testimony€of€the€victim€and€otherÐ ¬ü  Ðwitnesses€for€the€state€over€that€provided€by€the€petitioner€and€his€witnesses.€€The€"weight€andÐ ˜è  Ðcredibility€of€testimony€of€a€witness,€and€the€reconciliation€of€conflicts€of€testimony,€are,€of€course,Ð „Ô  Ðmatters€entrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact."€€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€No.Ð pÀ Ð01C01-9109-CR-00281€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€November€24,€1996)€(quoting€òòByrge€v.Ð \¬ ÐStateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)).€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitionerÐ H˜ Ðwas€unable€to€demonstrate€how€his€trial€counsel€might€have€better€prepared€Johnson€and€Hunt€so€asÐ 4„ Ðto€enhance€their€credibility.€€Absent€that,€this€court€cannot€grant€relief.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€unprepared€to€call€a€witness€by€the€nameÐ øH Ðof€Vera€Anderson,€who,€he€claims,€could€have€rebutted€the€testimony€of€Natasha€Reed,€one€of€theÐ ä4 Ðstate's€witnesses.€€At€trial,€Ms.€Reed,€who€was€working€inside€the€salon,€testified€that€she€ran€outside,Ð Ð  Ðsaw€the€victim,€and€heard€him€yelling€for€help.€€Ms.€Reed€identified€the€petitioner€and€overheard€hisÐ ¼  Ðthreat€to€kill€the€victim.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Ms.€Anderson,€who€was€inside€the€sameÐ ¨ø Ðbeauty€salon€when€someone€ran€inside€with€news€of€a€fight,€testified€that€"[e]verybody€went€outside,Ð ”ä Ðand€.€.€.€€I€didn't€see€anything."€€She€said€that€she€heard€some€"commotion"€and€then€returned€to€theÐ €Ð Ðsalon.€€Ms.€Anderson€testified€that€she€never€saw€anyone€being€placed€in€an€automobile€€trunk.€€SheÐ l¼ Ðalso€opined€that€Ms.€Reed€could€not€have€seen€anyone€being€placed€in€a€trunk€either,€since€Ms.€ReedÐ X ¨ Ðhad€been€standing€near€her.€€The€record€of€the€trial,€however,€shows€that€Ms.€Reed€never€testifiedÐ D!” Ðthat€she€saw€the€victim€being€placed€into€the€trunk.€€In€fact,€the€"commotion"€that€Ms.€AndersonÐ 0"€  Ðdescribed€does€not€conflict€with€Ms.€Reed's€account€of€the€events.€€Under€these€circumstances,€trialÐ #l! Ðcounsel€cannot€be€held€to€have€performed€ineffectively.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€petitioner€claims€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€failed€to€adequatelyÐ à%0!$ Ðand€properly€interview€the€state's€witnesses.€€The€record,€however,€indicates€that€trial€counsel€didÐ Ì&"% Ðelicit€evidence€of€the€alleged€baseball€bat€attack€through€the€testimony€of€the€petitioner,€JermaineÐ ¸'#& ÐJohnson,€and€Terrance€Hunt.€€The€self„defense€claim€was€presented.€€Again,€the€weight€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcredibility€of€witnesses'€testimony€are€exclusively€within€the€province€of€the€jury€as€the€trier€of€fact.Ð )à$( ÐòòState€v.€Locustóó,€914€S.W.2d€554,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.€App€1995).€€The€petitioner€has€been€unable€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðdemonstrate€how€his€trial€counsel€might€have€better€prepared€for€the€cross„examination€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðwitnesses€for€the€state,€in€order€to€support€the€self„defense€theory.€€Thus,€there€is€no€basis€for€reliefÐ ° Ðon€this€claim.€Ð œì ÐÌà  àThird,€the€petitioner€claims€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€€failed€to€adequatelyÐ tÄ Ðcommunicate€with€him€and€otherwise€prepare€his€defense€for€trial.€€Attorney€Shana€McCoy„Johnson,Ð `° Ðwho€was€initially€appointed€as€counsel,€left€the€public€defender's€office€on€maternity€leave.€€GaryÐ L œ ÐAntrican€was€appointed€as€replacement€counsel.€€The€proof€presented€at€the€evidentiary€hearingÐ 8 ˆ Ðestablished€that€Attorney€Antrican€and/or€Attorney€McCoy„Johnson€met€with€the€petitioner€on€atÐ $ t Ðleast€three€occasions.€€They€discussed€various€defenses,€talked€about€trial€procedure,€addressed€theÐ  ` Ðcross„examination€of€state€witnesses,€and€discussed€possible€defense€witnesses.€€The€petitioner€gaveÐ ü L  ÐAttorney€Antrican€a€list€of€potential€witnesses,€including€Jermaine€Johnson,€Terrance€Hunt,€ShaquitaÐ è 8  ÐHolmes,€Jamie€Scott€and€Vera€Anderson.€€All€but€Ms.€Anderson€testified€at€the€trial.€€While€thereÐ Ô$  Ðcould€have€been€more€communication€between€the€petitioner€and€his€trial€attorneys,€the€petitionerÐ À  Ðis€unable€to€show€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€only€three€instances€of€direct€communication.€€EachÐ ¬ü  Ðdefense€witness€either€testified€at€the€trial€or€was€unable€to€provide€information€helpful€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðdefense.€€Certainly,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€post„conviction€court's€conclusionÐ „Ô  Ðthat€there€was€adequate€communication.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àFourth,€the€petitioner€claims€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€point€out€the€differences€betweenÐ H˜ ÐOfficer€Dennis€Chearis'€trial€testimony€and€the€information€he€provided€to€Officer€Clyde€Wilson.€AtÐ 4„ Ðtrial,€Officer€Chearis€testified€that€he€was€responding€to€a€call€when€he€saw€the€headlights€on€theÐ  p Ðvictim's€car€going€up€and€down.€€He€contended€that€he€saw€four€men€at€the€back€of€the€car;€the€trunkÐ  \ Ðwas€open.€€He€testified€that€he€saw€the€petitioner€holding€the€victim€and€that€when€he€turned€on€hisÐ øH Ðblue€lights,€the€petitioner€and€his€two€friends€hurriedly€entered€the€victim's€car€and€sped€away.€€OnÐ ä4 Ðcross„examination,€Officer€Chearis€acknowledged€that€he€never€saw€the€victim€in€the€trunk.€€In€theÐ Ð  Ðoffense€report€prepared€by€Officer€Wilson,€however,€Officer€Chearis€is€quoted€as€having€observedÐ ¼  Ðthree€black€males€trying€to€shut€the€trunk€lid€on€a€fourth€male.€€The€report€provided€that€when€theÐ ¨ø Ðthree€individuals€saw€him,€they€jumped€into€the€car€and€the€victim€escaped€from€the€trunk.€€In€thisÐ ”ä Ðappeal,€the€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€counsel's€failure€to€attack€Officer€Chearis'€credibilityÐ €Ð Ðconstituted€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€In€order€to€establish€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance,Ð l¼ Ðthe€petitioner€must€establish€that€trial€counsel's€failure€to€attack€his€credibility€fell€below€€the€rangeÐ X ¨ Ðof€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€and€that,€but€for€his€counsel's€deficientÐ D!” Ðperformance,€the€result€of€his€trial€would€have€been€different.€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€693;€òòBaxteróó,Ð 0"€  Ð523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€€In€this€instance,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€initial€burden.€€Because€theÐ #l! Ðcontent€of€the€report€was€more€incriminating€than€Officer€Chearis'€testimony,€there€could€have€beenÐ $X" Ðat€least€one€strategic€reason€not€to€attack€his€credibility.€€Trial€counsel€may€have€wanted€to€restrict,Ð ô$D # Ðas€much€as€possible,€any€reference€to€the€victim€being€placed€inside€the€trunk.€This€court€may€notÐ à%0!$ Ðsecond„guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€those€choices€areÐ Ì&"% Ðuninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð ¸'#& ÐTrial€counsel€may€not€be€deemed€ineffective€merely€because€a€different€procedure€or€strategy€mightÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhave€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,€281€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€Ð )à$( ÐThe€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€prove€his€allegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòMcGeeÐ |*Ì%) Ðv.€Stateóó,€739€S.W.2d€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€Even€if€trial€counsel's€performance€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðdeficient,€petitioner€has€not€shown€that€the€result€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different€if€his€trialÐ ° Ðcounsel€had€cross„examined€the€officer€on€the€inconsistent€statements.€€Without€such€a€showing,€noÐ œì Ðrelief€can€be€granted.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAs€his€final€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance,€the€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€counselÐ `° Ðfailed,€during€argument,€to€point€out€that€Johnson€and€Hunt€were€not€charged€in€the€incident;€failedÐ L œ Ðto€argue€that€the€victim's€bloody€nose€was€a€result€of€self„defense€on€the€part€of€the€petitioner;€failedÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€underscore€that€Ms.€Reed€never€saw€someone€in€the€trunk;€and€failed€to€argue€the€inconsistenciesÐ $ t Ðin€Officer€Chearis'€testimony.€€To€warrant€relief,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€there€is€a€"reasonableÐ  ` Ðprobability,"€which€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome,€that,€but€forÐ ü L  Ðcounsel's€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€òòSeeÐ è 8  ÐStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€693.€€In€our€view,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€any€of€the€allegedÐ Ô$  Ðerrors€would€have€changed€the€outcome€of€the€trial.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAs€a€separate€issue,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€a€judgment€of€acquittal€should€be€granted,Ð ˜è  Ðbecause€there€was€insufficient€evidence.€€On€direct€appeal,€however,€this€court€concluded€that€thereÐ „Ô  Ðwas€sufficient€evidence€to€convict€petitioner€for€aggravated€kidnapping.€€òòPierceóó,€No.€02C01„9807„Ð pÀ ÐCC„00227.€€Post„conviction€proceedings€may€not€be€employed€to€raise€and€relitigate€or€reviewÐ \¬ Ðquestions€decided€and€disposed€of€in€a€direct€appeal€from€a€conviction.€€òòMorgan€v.€Stateóó,€1€Tenn.Ð H˜ ÐCrim.€App.€454,€445€S.W.2d€477€(1969).€€This€issue€has€been€previously€determined.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(f).€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð  p Ðà  àÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.Ð øH ÐÌÌÌÓ© Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ ”ä Ð