ÿWPC kqIÆürH|¯PõCÂñ€%I|#,ð HÀ¸@ÉJÁd•qG©g°+,ÐÝb0jNqy%Ò!öG×±œ\—ÀçE”NmÊÆ÷¾³0Ìò:íHÞ#ùp~0«ÌˆË錌nÉÍa­(œ7üSÆêbÒ¯JCÂI]òD¹éùt$$³&mQ×ê¾ocÊåmÉÁåöýÄÍ‘”dlu‹T3‘&¤./»¡k²óðà í'ï´@ÑȤ¸è ZðÁtæÍòÂÌ˪¡â„)A×OÄʹ©FNžq µÄâìê{Ts|ÐP±2FrÖº”blsL‰5šl T&ʇ3êêU]m§ I(dب7[.owô¹ ýH"nÐãðq›ÄBéŸììoK+$«e^Ÿ¡Ï“ ™æ¿§\Âd2}¤øuQ~bb>}/þYr9 ­ÆÖÕ$•$} -uð Õþù8²@Óõ”ÓÄ逋ý”g{X”Œ$·%Ü<M?Åð™TÃ\aïÆNp¿ž½/÷$ó™þ Þ¼FÜÄÑv\¼)4$àó—«(MP—Œ ŸÓÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€record€in€this€case€reflects€that€the€petitioner€did€not€offer€at€the€post„convictionÐ Ì&"% Ðhearing€the€witnesses€that€he€claimed€would€have€testified€favorably€at€trial.€€The€court,Ð ¸'#& Ðconsequently,€had€no€basis€to€evaluate€whether€the€absence€of€testimony€from€these€witnessesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðresulted€in€prejudice€to€the€petitionerððs€cause.€€Ô#†X XX X u>#ÔÔ‡ X XXX ÔIt€is€well€settled€that€a€petitioner€is€not€entitled€toÐ )à$( Ðrelief€on€a€claim€that€counsel€failed€to€call€or€use€a€witness€at€trial€unless€he€or€she€produces€theÐ ° Ðwitness€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€and€establishes€that€the€witness€ð ðwould€have€testifiedÐ œì Ðfavorably€in€support€of€his€defense€if€called.ðð€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€758€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ˆØ ÐApp.€1990).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€attempts€to€recast€this€issue€on€appeal€in€terms€of€his€failure€toÐ L œ Ðunderstand€the€theory€of€defense€and€not€being€adequately€advised€on€which€witnesses€to€use.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðpetitionerððs€trial€counsel,€however,€explained€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€the€particularÐ $ t Ðwitnesses€would€not€have€advanced€the€defense€theory€or€been€permitted€to€testify€about€one€of€theÐ  ` Ðvictimððs€violent€propensities.€€Therefore,€even€had€the€petitioner€ð ðunderstoodðð€the€defense€theory,Ð ü L  Ðthese€witnesses€still€would€not€have€been€appropriate.€€Moreover,€if€the€petitioner€is€arguing€that€hadÐ è 8  Ðhe€understood€the€defense€theory,€he€would€have€insisted€on€using€other,€unnamed€witnesses,€thatÐ Ô$  Ðargument€has€no€factual€support€in€the€record€and€will€not€be€considered€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€Ð À  ÐThis€claim,€we€conclude,€was€properly€rejected.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àAlso€properly€rejected€was€the€petitionerððs€argument€about€attorney€Selvaððs€adviceÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€petitioner€should€testify.€€We€discern€that€Mr.€Selvaððs€advice€was€a€reasonable€tacticalÐ pÀ Ðsuggestion.€€Mr.€Reed€disagreed€with€that€tactic,€and€as€a€result€it€appears€that€the€petitioner€was€fullyÐ \¬ Ðadvised€about€both€the€advantages€and€disadvantages€of€testifying.€€Based€on€the€information€he€wasÐ H˜ Ðprovided€by€counsel,€the€petitioner€has€admitted€that€he€ð ðtestified€of€[his]€own€free€willðð€and€that€heÐ 4„ Ðð ðwasnððt€forced€to€or€anything.ðð€€One€of€his€attorneys€testified€that€he€was€ð ðadamantðð€about€testifying.€Ð  p ÐWe€further€note€that€the€petitioner€has€offered€nothing€more€than€vague€assertions€that€the€outcomeÐ  \ Ðof€his€trial€would€have€been€different€had€he€not€testifiedÔ#†X XX X rC#ÔÔ‡ X XXX Ô.€€In€light€of€the€evidence€presented€at€theÐ øH Ðhearing,€including€the€petitionerððs€own€testimony,€we€fail€to€see€how€the€petitionerððs€argument€couldÐ ä4 ÐÔ#†X XX X \M#ÔÔ‡ X XXX Ôever€support€a€claim€of€deficient€representation€and€prejudice€rising€to€the€level€of€unconstitutionalÐ Ð  Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð ¼  ÐÌÔ#†X XX X _N#ÔÔ‡ X XXX Ôà  àà ` àFinally,€the€petitionerððs€decision€to€forego€appellate€review€of€issues€other€thanÐ ”ä Ðconsecutive€sentencing€does€not€provide€a€basis€for€post„conviction€reliefÔ#†X XX X TO#Ô.€€Merely€because€theÐ €Ð Ðpetitioner€does€not€recall€signing€a€waiver€regarding€appellate€issues€is€not€persuasive€on€this€claim.€Ð l¼ ÐHe€does€not,€we€note,€insist€that€the€signature€on€the€waiver€is€a€forgery€or€that€the€document€wasÐ X ¨ Ðfraudulently€manufactured.€€He€admits€that€he€could€have€signed€such€a€document.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àIt€is€counsel's€responsibility€to€determine€the€issues€to€present€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.óóÐ #l! ÐòòMatsonóó,€729€S.W.2d€281,€282€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1986).€€This€responsibility€addresses€itself€to€theÐ $X" Ðprofessional€judgment€and€sound€discretion€of€appellate€counsel.€€òòPorterfield€v.€Stateóó,€897€S.W.2dÐ ô$D # Ð672,€678€(Tenn.€1995).€€There€is€no€constitutional€requirement€that€every€conceivable€issue€be€raisedÐ à%0!$ Ðon€appeal.€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€597€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€determination€of€whichÐ Ì&"% Ðissues€to€raise€is€a€tactical€or€strategic€choice.€€òòId.óó€€Mr.€Selva€explained€his€assessment€that€it€was€aÐ ¸'#& Ðð ðcleanðð€trial€for€purposes€of€appellate€review,€and€after€a€review€of€his€trial€notes€he€detected€noÐ ¤(ô#' Ðerrors€sufficiently€€egregious€to€warrant€a€new€trial.€€The€petitioner€certainly€has€not€enlightened€usÐ )à$( Ðas€to€the€nature€of€the€issues€that€he€wanted€pursued€on€appeal.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ¨AÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àIn€summary,€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€post„Ð ° Ðconviction€court's€ruling€that€the€petitioner€received€effective€assistance€of€trial€and€appellateÐ œì Ðcounsel.€€We€find€no€reason€to€disagree€with€the€court's€assessment€of€this€issue,€and€we€affirm€theÐ ˆØ Ðpost„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.Ð tÄ ÐÓRVÓÓÓÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE