ÿWPC‘ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0DH 0„Œ 0J 0TZ ® 0^¶ 0h 0r| 0|î 0†j 0ð 1u€ 0dõ BYU >vU *´B)ÞDC AMJ—w± D3(v~[vÓÙ 0@¬ AOìÆ; 0D D/E Bt˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- MNOEPQRDSTUUVÓ€Úƒç" 3|xa(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;!2{æ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òJanuary€21,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô€#ôÔÔ€$ÔCalvin€Johnson,€Appellant's€co„defendant,€was€also€Ms.€Davis'€boyfriend€and€the€father€ofÏher€child.Ô€#ÔÔ€#XÔÌ'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€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€#ŠÔÔ€$ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€fsXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓDERRICK€RICHARDSON,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9605„CR„00186Ìà àà àà àà àà àó ó)Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYERó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌARDENA€J.€GARTHà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ11th€Judicial€DistrictÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBIN€L.€HARRISÌDONNA€ROBINSON€MILLERà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€300€„€701€Cherry€St.à àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌChattanooga,€TN€37402Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBILL€COXÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLELAND€DAVISÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity€and€County€Courts€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óò òòòÔ€$„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€$ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àAppellant€Derrick€Richardson€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€his€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief.€€He€presents€the€following€issue€for€review:€€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€finding€that€Appellant's€counsel€rendered€effective€assistanceÏboth€at€trial€and€on€appeal.Ìà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àOn€December€10,€1992,€a€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€jury€convictedÏAppellant€of€first„degree€murder.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€life€sentence.€€OnÏappeal,€this€court€affirmed€Appellant's€conviction.€€òòSee€State€v.€DerrickÏRichardsonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9305„CR„00165,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Knoxville,€June€9,€1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).Ìà àOn€July€20,€1995,€Appellant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ïalleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÏhearing,€the€trial€court€denied€Appellant's€petition.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€POST„CONVICTION€RELIEFó óÌà àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€based€upon€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€both€at€trialÏand€on€appeal.Ìà àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€provingÏthe€allegations€raised€in€the€petition€by€œclear€and€convincing€evidence.›€€œTenn.ÏCode€Ann.€Ô€#ÔÔ€#XÔððÔ€$ÔÔ€$ŠÔ€40„30„210€(f)(1997).€€Moreover,€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€areÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€ÏòòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996);€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904ÏS.W.2d€594,€595„96€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746Ï(Tenn.€1993).›ÌœÌ›Ìà@ àò òA.€€EFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€TRIAL€COUNSELó óÌà àAppellant's€only€contention€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€his€trialÏcounsel€rendered€effective€assistance.€€Specifically,€Appellant€alleges€theÏfollowing€deficiencies€in€his€trial€counsel's€representation:ÓÓÌÌà8 àà0 à(1)€failure€to€meet€and€talk€with€Appellant€for€a€sufficientÏamount€of€time€prior€to€trial;Ìà8 àà0 à(2)€failure€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€both€atÏthe€motion€for€new€trial€and€on€appeal€to€this€Court;Ìà0 àà0 à(3)€failure€to€inform€Appellant€of€the€minimum€and€maximumÏpotential€sentences€which€Appellant€would€face€by€going€to€trial€toÏenable€Appellant€to€intelligently€decide€whether€to€accept€or€rejectÏthe€State's€plea€offer€of€twenty€years;Ìà8 àà0 à(4)€failure€to€interview€certain€witnesses€and€to€callÏAppellant's€mother€and€brother€as€trial€witnesses;€andÌà8 àà0 à(5)€failure€to€consult€with€Appellant€before€deciding€to€appealÏappellant's€conviction.ÓÓÌà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€provides€in€part,€"In€all€criminal€prosecutions,€theÏaccused€shall€enjoy€the€right.€.€.€to€have€the€assistance€of€counsel€for€hisÏdefense."€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€6.€€Similarly,€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏguarantees€an€accused€"the€right€to€be€heard€by€himself€and€his€counsel.€.€.€"€ÏTenn.€Const.€art.€I€ðð€9.€€In€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€articulated€a€two„prong€test€for€courts€to€employ€in€evaluating€claims€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2dÏ674€(1984).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adopted€œòòStricklandóó's€›€two„part€testÏin€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€òòStricklandóó€CourtÏbegan€its€analysis€by€noting€that€"The€benchmark€for€judging€any€claim€ofÏineffectiveness€must€be€whether€counsel's€conduct€so€undermined€the€properÏfunctioning€of€the€adversarial€process€that€the€trial€cannot€be€relied€on€as€havingÏproduced€a€just€result."€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064.€€When€a€convictedÏdefendant€challenges€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€post„convictionÏproceeding,€the€Appellant€carries€the€burden€of€establishing€€(1)€deficientÏrepresentation€of€counsel€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€that€deficiency.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064;€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2d€551,€558€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1996).€€Appellant€must€prove€that€counsel's€representation€fell€belowÍan€objective€standard€of€reasonableness.€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064.€ÏThis€Court€is€not€required€to€consider€the€two€prongs€of€òòStricklandóó€in€anyÏparticular€order.€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€156,€163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ï"Moreover,€if€the€Appellant€fails€to€establish€one€prong,€a€reviewing€court€needÏnot€consider€the€other."€€òòId.óó€€With€regard€to€counsel's€deficient€performance,€theÏproper€measure€is€that€of€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.€ÏòòId.óó€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065).€€Put€differently,€counsel's€performance€isÏrequired€to€be€"within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975);€òòHarrisóó,€947ÏS.W.2d€156,€163.€€Respecting€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStricklandóó,€the€AppellantÏmust€establish€that€"there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel'sÏunprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€AÏreasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÏoutcome."€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2068.Ìà àThe€òòStricklandóó€Court€emphasized€that€"Judicial€scrutiny€of€counsel'sÏperformance€must€be€highly€deferential."€€òòId.óó€at€2065.€€"A€`fair€assessment€.€.€.Ïrequires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,Ïto€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€toÏevaluate€the€conduct€from€counsel's€perspective€at€the€time.'"€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,Ï938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065).€€TheÏmere€failure€of€a€particular€tactic€or€strategy€does€not€per€se€establishÍunreasonable€representation.€€òòId.óó€at€369.€€However,€this€Court€will€defer€toÏcounsel's€tactical€and€strategic€choices€only€where€those€choices€are€informedÏones€predicated€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369;ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).Ìà àWith€respect€to€Appellant's€first€alleged€deficiency,€Appellant€submits€thatÏprior€to€trial,€Attorney€Charles€Wright€met€with€Appellant€only€three€times€for€aÏtotal€of€one€hour€and€thirty€minutes.€€However,€at€the€hearing€on€Appellant'sÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief,€Mr.€Wright's€records€reflected€that€he€had€spentÏ9.6€hours€discussing€Appellant's€case€with€Appellant.€€€Moreover,€Mr.€WrightÏfurther€testified€that€he€had€devoted€a€total€of€61€hours€of€time€out€of€court€andÏ36.1€hours€of€time€in€court€to€investigating€and€preparing€Appellant's€case.€€We,Ïtherefore,€conclude€that€Appellant€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proving€eitherÏprong€of€òòStricklandóó.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€Mr.€WrightÏperformed€below€the€range€of€competence€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€andÏthat€Appellant€was€prejudiced€by€his€counsel's€allegedly€deficient€performance.Ìà àTo€bolster€his€second€allegation€of€deficient€representation,€AppellantÏcomplains€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€because€counsel€determined€not€toÏcontest€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€either€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€or€onÏappeal€to€this€Court.€€In€his€brief,€however,€Appellant€does€not€raise€any€issuesÏthat€would€have€buttressed€a€sufficiency€argument€on€appeal.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Mr.€Wright€explained€that€he€did€not€contest€the€sufficiency€ofÍthe€evidence€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€or€in€the€appeal€to€this€Court€because€heÏbelieved€such€a€contention€to€have€no€merit€and€because€he€believed€thatÏ"there€was€obviously€evidence€enough€to€sustain€a€jury€verdict."€€In€his€directÏappeal,€the€only€issue€presented€was€whether€the€trial€court€improperlyÏinstructed€the€jury€regarding€criminal€responsibility.€€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,€CCAÏNo.€03C01„9305„CR„00165,€slip€op.€at€1.€€This€Court€held€that€the€juryÏinstruction€was€proper.€€òòId.óó€at€4.Ìà àTypically,€the€decision€about€which€issues€to€raise€on€appeal€is€one€thatÏis€left€to€the€professional€judgment€and€sound€discretion€of€appellate€counsel.€ÏòòPorterfieldóó,€897€S.W.2d€672,€678;€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747.€ÏAdditionally,€Wright€appears€to€have€made€a€well„informed€strategic€decisionÏthat€it€would€not€be€in€Appellant's€best€interest€to€contest€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence.€€Review€of€the€record€evidence€in€Appellant's€case€demonstrates€thatÏthe€evidence€was€more€than€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€€In€light€of€theÏtestimony€of€trial€counsel€during€the€post„conviction€hearing,€we€do€not€believeÏthat€Appellant€received€ineffective€assistance€because€of€his€attorney's€decisionÏto€refrain€from€raising€a€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€argument,€nor€are€we€of€theÏopinion€that€the€outcome€would€have€been€different€had€this€issue€beenÏpresented€to€this€Court.Ìà àAppellant's€brief€is€wholly€devoid€of€any€argument€to€buttress€his€thirdÏallegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Indeed,€Appellant€merelyÍasserts,€"By€failing€to€advise€petitioner€of€the€potential€sentences€he€was€facingÏso€that€he€might€make€an€intelligent€decision€about€whether€to€accept€or€rejectÏthe€plea€offered€by€the€State,€Wright€deficiently€represented€petitioner."€€TheÏState€made€a€plea€offer€of€twenty€years€incarceration€in€exchange€for€theÏState's€agreement€to€lower€the€charge€to€second„degree€murder.€€€However,€Mr.ÏWright€stated€that€after€discussing€the€felony€murder€rule€and€the€State's€pleaÏoffer€with€Appellant,€Appellant€still€insisted€upon€proceeding€to€trial.€€Appellant'sÏown€admission€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€indicates€he€does€not€regretÏrejecting€the€State's€plea€offer.€€Nothing€in€this€record€indicates€Mr.€Wright'sÏadvice€was€deficient.€€In€addition,€since€Appellant€has€indicated€he€would€stillÏreject€the€plea€offer,€he€has€not€demonstrated€that€he€was€prejudiced€as€a€resultÏof€this€alleged€deficiency.Ìà àWith€regard€to€his€fourth€allegation€of€inadequate€representation,€AppellantÏasserts€that€his€brother,€Tony€Richardson,€and€his€mother€Ernestine€RichardsonÏshould€have€been€called€as€witnesses.€€Appellant€also€complains€that€hisÏattorney€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€interview€four€witnesses€named€by€a€co„defendant€in€a€statement€given€to€police€by€that€co„defendant,€Calvin€Johnson.Ìà àAppellant€contends€that€Tony€Richardson€could€have€rebutted€theÏtestimony€of€Lakeysha€Davis,€a€crucial€prosecution€witness.€€At€Appellant's€trial,ÏMs.€Davis€testified€that€she€observed€from€her€front€porch€the€eventsÏsurrounding€the€robbery€and€subsequent€murder€of€the€victim.€€Tony€RichardsonÍwas€prepared€to€testify€that,€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€he€was€standing€in€theÏdoorway€of€Lakeysha€Davis'€apartment€and€that€she€was€upstairs€in€herÏbedroom€rather€than€on€her€front€porch.€€€However,€Richardson€also€testified€thatÏhe€could€not€see€the€events€surrounding€the€murder€because€his€view€wasÏobstructed€by€a€van€which€was€parked€between€himself€and€the€location€of€theÏrobbery€and€murder.€€Mr.€Wright€explained€that€he€opted€not€to€call€TonyÏRichardson€because€Richardson€had€not€observed€the€murder.€€€Moreover,ÏWright€claimed€that€no€one€had€informed€him€that€Tony€Richardson€wasÏprepared€to€refute€Lakeysha€Davis'€statement€that€she€witnessed€the€murderÏfrom€her€front€porch.€€€Finally,€Mr.€Wright€emphatically€stated€that€had€TonyÏRichardson€been€able€to€clearly€observe€the€robbery€and€the€shooting€of€theÏvictim,€Wright€definitely€would€have€called€Richardson€as€a€witness.€€Ìà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Ms.€Richardson€stated€that€had€she€beenÏpermitted€to€testify€at€her€son's€trial,€she€would€have€recounted€a€conversationÏbetween€herself€and€Lakeysha€Davis€which€occurred€approximately€three€daysÏbefore€the€commencement€of€the€trial.€€According€to€Ms.€Richardson,€LakeyshaÏDavis€told€her,€"Mrs.€Richardson,€wait€a€minute,€I€have€something€to€tell€you.€ÏI'm€sorry,€I€didn't€see€nothing,€I€don't€know€nothing.€€Calvin× ƒ) ××  ×€told€me€to€get€upÏthere€and€lie€like€that,€said€if€I€didn't,€he€would€have€no€more€use€for€me€and€myÍbaby."€€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€however,€both€Mr.€Wright€and€Mrs.ÏRichardson€testified€that€Mrs.€Richardson€never€disclosed€this€information€to€Mr.ÏWright€at€any€time€prior€to€Appellant's€trial.€€Ìà àWith€regard€to€the€four€witnesses€mentioned€above,€Mr.€Wright€explainedÏthat€he€had€not€interviewed€them€because€they€could€not€be€located€andÏbecause€he€"had€no€leads€about€finding€any€of€them."€€€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€find€no€deficient€representation.€€Again,€Appellant€has€alsoÏfailed€to€show€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€his€trial€would€haveÏbeen€different€had€these€witnesses€been€called.Ìà àLastly,€Appellant€asserts€that€Mr.€Wright€rendered€ineffective€assistanceÏby€neglecting€to€consult€Appellant€before€filing€an€appeal€with€this€Court.€€Mr.ÏWright€stated€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€Appellant€"never€purported€toÏadd€anything€to€the€appeals€process."€€€€The€trial€court€held€that€although€Mr.ÏWright€should€have€consulted€with€Appellant€prior€to€filing€an€appeal,€it€was€notÏnecessary€that€Mr.€Wright€do€so.€€The€fact€that€Mr.€Wright€failed€to€confer€withÏAppellant€before€perfecting€an€appeal€to€this€Court€is€insufficient€to€render€hisÏrepresentation€deficient.€€Mr.€Wright€appealed€Appellant's€conviction€on€what€heÏbelieved€to€be€the€only€meritorious€claim„„the€possible€impropriety€of€the€trialÏcourt's€jury€instruction€on€criminal€responsibility.€€Furthermore,€Appellant€has€failedÏto€demonstrate€what€he€could€have€added€to€the€appeals€process€had€heÏbeen€contacted.Ìà àBecause€we€find€that€Appellant's€attorney€rendered€adequateÏrepresentation€both€at€trial€and€on€appeal,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌCHRIS€CRAFT,€SPECIAL€JUDGE