WPCN 4ә0Zɘ0|upY]\fZp5jeۣѝ?XD]xM - ȣ*AaE:ht&Xw1Gr{QÎM\զrt2kkG,|ъm4IntGĪfΖq<xy-fcx,DK\Xۢ E櫐 n~l.uasb @[!=l}(x2R39[Ɋ$Lkp. !R ƹFtx`gףL !O>U6JVyYm&L[1nNy+WeAy94M%왮;[%9g?}gl}Rb8dʍ!l!u`eBza.#VJW.C-qm #v"bFF4u+Lm*=}b#\ % UN# 0q UN ^ G wS zW  4   m   k 1U@N799EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 0KKKK B66 0S D3 D-* 0KWW AS 0 0D_ AHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularM)  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.wptJ~'~12 3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z(Times New Roman  - -(|G2Y$ !.8Hdd8         0  > d(|3$ !.8Hdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Hdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Hdd8     _    H82\XXdd8@ttrHINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#Hr #Ԉ   X2\XH #HXX2\#  JIMMYDALESMITHv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX2\XH  &  @  CircuitCourtforCheathamCounty   @%%%No.10813   @*AV) ` dE<a ` A߈ b   @ No.M199900952CCAR3PCFiledOctober4,_2000_Ԉ W  AV) ` dE<"` A #s   #HXX2\I#X2\XH@( ORDER #HXX2\r#X2\XHԈ h  #HXX2\#X2\XH#HXX2\0#X2\XHX2\XXX2\  In1990,thepetitioner,JimmyDaleSmith,wasconvictedbyaCheathamCountyjuryoftwo  countsofaggravatedkidnapping.Ondirectappeal,thepetitionerargued,interalia,thathewas  deniedtheeffectiveassistanceofcounselattrial.ThisCourtaffirmedtheconvictionondirect  appeal.Statev.JimmyDaleSmith,No.01C019205CC00152,1995WL84021(Tenn.Crim. | App.March2,1995).Thepetitionerthenfiledapostconvictionpetitionallegingthathewasdenied b theeffectiveassistanceofappellatecounsel.Followingahearing,thepostconvictioncourtdenied H thedefendantspetition,andthepetitionerappealsthatrulinghere.Basedonourreviewofthe .~ briefsandoftherecord,weconcludethatthisisanappropriatecaseforaffirmanceunderRule20, d TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsRules. J   Onappeal,thepetitionerarguesthathisappellatecounselwasineffectivebecause,following 0 thepetitionerstrial,appellatecounselarguedinthemotionfornewtrialthattrialcounselwas  ineffective,butfailedtopresentanyevidencetoprovethepetitionersclaims.Thepetitioneralso  arguesthatappellatecounselsargumentinthemotionfornewtrialeffectivelyforeclosedanypost  convictionopportunitythepetitionerhadtolitigatehistrialcounselsineffectiveness,becausethe x issueofhistrialcounselsineffectivenesshadbeenthesubjectofapriorproceeding,i.e.,thenew ^   trialmotion,andthuscounselseffectivenesshadbeen previouslydeterminedtherebyforeclosing D!! reliefonthisissue.See,Tenn.CodeAnn.4030206(f). *"z" Ѐ  Thepetitioneriscorrectthathistrialcounselseffectivenesshasbeenpreviouslydetermined. #`# Apost-convictioncourtshalldismissanypetitionforpost-convictionreliefthatclaimsrelieffor #F$ issuesthathavebeenwaivedorpreviouslydetermined.Tenn.CodeAnn.40-30-206(f).Section $, % 40-30-206defines"previouslydetermined"asfollows: %!& 8  (h)Agroundforreliefispreviouslydeterminedifacourtofcompetentjurisdiction '"( hasruledonthemeritsafterafullandfairhearing.Afullandfairhearinghas t(#) occurredwherethepetitionerisaffordedtheopportunitytocallwitnessesand Z)$* otherwisepresentevidence,regardlessofwhetherthepetitioneractuallyintroduced @*%+ anyevidence.&+v&,   Tenn.CodeAnn.40-30-206(h).Thepetitionerpresentedthisclaiminhismotionfornewtrial. ,B(. Afterahearingatwhichthepetitionertestified,thetrialcourtdeniedthepetitionersmotion,and -()/b thisCourtaffirmedtheconviction.Thus,weagreewiththetrialcourtthattheissueoftrialcounsels  effectivenesshasbeenpreviouslydetermined.    Theissueofappellatecounselseffectiveness,however,hasnotbeenpreviouslydetermined, | becauseitwasraisedforthefirsttimeinthepetitionerspostconvictionpetition.Initially,wenote b thatthesameprinciplesapplyindeterminingtheeffectivenessofbothtrialandappellatecounsel. H Campbellv.State,904S.W.2d594,59697(Tenn.1995).Whenaclaimofineffectiveassistanceof . ~ counselismadeundertheSixthAmendment,theburdenisuponthepetitionertoshow(1)that  d counsel'sperformancewasdeficientand(2)thatthedeficiencywasprejudicialintermsofrendering  J areasonableprobabilitythattheresultofthetrialwasunreliableortheproceedingsfundamentally  0 unfair.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct.2052,2064,80L.Ed.2d674    (1984);Statev.Melson,772S.W.2d417,419n.2(Tenn.1989).Moreover,theapproachtothe    issueoftheineffectiveassistanceofcounseldoesnothavetostartwithananalysisofanattorney's   conduct.Ifprejudiceisnotshown,weneednotseektodeterminethevalidityoftheallegations x  aboutdeficientperformance.Strickland,466U.S.at697. ^    Atthepostconvictionhearing,thesubstanceofthe_petitioners_Ԁtestimonywasthat,on D  appeal,thepetitionerwishedtoproceedprose.Weagreewiththetrialcourtthat [i]nviewofthe *z  qualityofPetitionersprosepetitionforpostconvictionreliefandhisvariousamendmentsand ` motions,appellatecounselwouldhavebeenineffectivehadshepresentedPetitionersappealashe F desiredittobepresented.Furthermore,nothingpresentedinthepostconvictionpetitionor , adducedatthehearingindicatesthatthepetitionerwasprejudicedinanywaybyhisappellate  counselsperformance.    ITIS,THEREFORE,ORDEREDthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedpursuant  toRule20,TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsRules.Becauseitappearsthatthepetitioneris t indigent,costsofthisappealaretaxedtothestate. Z   #X2\XXX2\##HXX2\s#X2\XH  \    `     h     ____________________________________     `     h     X2\XXX2\JERRYSMITH,JUDGE      `     h     ____________________________________ <#"    `     h     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE "$r#    `     h     ____________________________________ &$"&    `     h     JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE#X2\XXX2\1#