ÿWPC¨  ÏVí¼ñ̆¤E€·ßö¿“@Ø ‹ˆV5•„SnÂB ÀF,LÒlG11Æ8â!œì$¶|jX3­>™‚2£W@j–‹±/Zƒg‚P¹¸­¾ò¢êî0m9ú,F´yª[~$”ý€‹éÑ2ê,6RÓêPNRíÉIm™ý{HÅ•õ2Ο¸ÅÐx¬¸¸}@òsA¥_óã¹ÄO‰ †‘À’Ódȶ°•êø¾Y­`E<û0C% V}Jª•’‹p¥‹kÙQ*D¾¯ð›Þ¡ß¬VIˆzô¬¬>f¡™ñÌ‘ÐñSPßéo¢K;…ÄKû¢Ë5Úc…­5‡{ȳÖ;pYÀQ ú‚QQxûJqƒÅ«¯Ví ÝÁdìɸéâC5·–dO"ÁÈÂf;W”Ó 43j0ö‘X@¬sÿ i·„ˆss¡êœŸÑ¥®ýzùMC°»„¯ÂzÆP½õ†¤ —¤qOƪA<šA*t+¢<m0|Éâ+œ{ä|qé Góìò@öDXK¥û¼$WÐ)TkEkxÿ|ŸÎ–]Á%,$V{Ÿ µÚÁÀˆÛ6 ƒÖ&‰W„_äýîû*/D,‹ªÉ‰ö3¯§æŠŸçâ­:/1Ý¥£ *# LUNW %¥ 0(«U:Ób w@4Ui 0Dx 0мU@ŒºÌU:† 'À U:ç ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! B) AQF Æ— 0D] 0D¡ 0Då å D/) ) BX D3u ˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- efghijkDlDmUnÓ€Ìqæ$3|xy(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(‡!2J£$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XFXXXÔÔ€ô9ØôXXFÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó*Ͼ¦ `(CG TimesScalable °Ý ƒ qß$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XæÐ XXXÔÔ€ôYž ô XXæÐÔÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€For€post„conviction€claims€filed€after€May€10,€1995,€the€burden€of€proof€is€by€clear€and€convincingÐ `  Ðevidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f);€òòScott€v.€Stateóó,€936€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  ¾ Ð1996).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XFXXXÔÔ€¸gXXFÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XFX¸gÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€31,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô9ØôXXFÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñnñ›ñnñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ¤°ÒÔ€ŠÂñŠXXÔÔ€Š£3ŠŠŠÂñÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€6LXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñnñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@EÔf ` ttx$ `   Úrß›ñnñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓGREGORY€SCOTT€œSPOONER€)›à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9608„CR„00283Ð ` Ðà ` àœà ¸ àà  à›à h àà À àœó ó€)›Ð ` ÐÒ”¤Òà ` àAppellant,à  àà h àà À àœò ò€)›Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àœ€)›Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àœñeñ€ñeñ)›à  àHANCOCK€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àœñfñ€ñfñ)›à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àœñgñ€ñgñ)›à  àHON.€JAMES€E.€BECKNERó óÐ Xø  Ðò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà À àœò òñhñ€ñhñ)›à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àœò òñiñ€ñiñ)ó ó›Ð Xø Ðà ` àAppellee.à  àà h àà À àœò òñjñ€ñjñ)›à  à(Post„Conviction€Relief)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌHERBERT€HOLCOMBà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ( È Ð101€Church€Streetà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  !À ÐRogersville,€TN€€37857à h àÐ "¸ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPETER€M.€COUGHLANÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àC.€BERKELEY€BELLÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFLOYD€W.€RHEAÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNorth€Court€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSneedville,€TN€€37869ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x5,-S ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°Ê °ŠŠ£3Ôò òòòÔ‡„Pµ „°°Ê ÔOPINIONÔ#†°Ê ° „„Pµ #Ôóóó óÔ€Š£3а°Ê ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€ ¾÷ X XdðXXdì7Ñœñjñòòñjñòòñjñóóñjñóó›à ` àAppellant€Gregory€Scott€Spooner€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€his€petitionÐ ´ T Ðfor€post„conviction€relief.€€He€presents€the€following€issue€for€review:€€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€denying€Appellant's€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€based€uponÏthe€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.Ìà ` àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ƒƒ$&àò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óˆÐ Tô Ðà ` àThe€trial€court€appointed€Attorney€John€Anderson€to€represent€Appellant€atÏtrial.€€On€April€28,€1993,€Appellant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€Hancock€CountyÏCriminal€Court€of€six€counts€of€rape€and€one€count€of€exhibiting€material€harmful€toÏa€minor.€€Appellant€was€sentenced€as€a€multiple€rapist€to€an€effective€sentence€ofÏforty„eight€years€incarceration€with€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€ÏAppellant's€appeal€of€his€conviction€to€this€Court€was€dismissed€because€he€hadÏescaped€from€custody.Ìà ` àOn€November€13,€1995,€Appellant€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„convictionÐ ä'„ Ðrelief,€alleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€Following€a€hearing,Ð Ô)t ! Ðthe€trial€court€denied€Appellant's€application€for€post„conviction€relief€on€DecemberÏ8,€1995.€€In€so€doing,€the€court€concluded€that€Attorney€John€Anderson€performedÏwell€within€the€range€of€competence€and€that€Appellant€had€not€demonstrated€theÏmanner€in€which€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€alleged€deficiencies€in€counsel'sÏrepresentation.Ìà ` àSpecifically,€Appellant€alleges€the€following€deficiencies€in€his€trial€counsel'sÏrepresentation:ÓÓÌÌà8 ` àà0¸ ` ì"` ì"à(1)€failure€to€adequately€consult€with€Appellant€prior€to€trial;ÐT9ô/1¸ ì"¸ ì" Ðà8 ` àà0¸ ` ì"` ì"à(2)€failure€to€prepare€Appellant€to€testify€at€trial;Ð ¸ ì"¸ ì" Ðà8 ` àà0¸ ` ì"` ì"à(3)€failure€to€investigate€Appellant's€claim€that€law€enforcementÏofficials€illegally€obtained€statements€from€him;Ð ¸ ì"¸ ì" Ðà0 ` àà0¸ ` D%` D%à(4)€failure€to€consult€sufficiently€with€Appellant€during€the€jury€selectionÏprocess;Ð ¸ D%¸ D% Ðà8 ` àà0¸ ` ì"` ì"à(5)€failure€to€discuss€the€State's€evidence€with€Appellant;Ð ¸ ì"¸ ì" Ðà8 ` àà0¸ ` ì"` ì"à(6)€failure€to€interview€any€of€the€prosecution's€witnesses€priorÏto€trial;€andÐ ¸ ì"¸ ì" Ðà8 ` àà0¸ ` ì"` ì"à(7)€failure€to€ask€the€questions€that€Appellant€desired.ÓÓÐ ¸ ì"¸ ì" ÐÌà@"&àò òII.€€POST„CONVICTION€RELIEFó óˆÐ    Ðà ` àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€petition€for€post„¼conviction€relief€based€upon€the€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.Ìà ` àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€proving€theÏallegations€raised€in€the€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.׃ ×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòTidwell€v.Ð Ðp ÐStateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996);€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,€914€S.W.2d€97,€101Ð À` Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Moreover,€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€are€conclusiveÏon€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòTidwellóó,€922Ð  "@ ÐS.W.2d€at€500;€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€595„96€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCooperÐ $0 Ðv.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993).Ð €&  ÐÌà@} } &àò òA.€€EFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ `*!" Ðà ` àAppellant's€only€claim€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€based€upon€the€allegation€that€he€received€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€trial€counsel.Ìà ` àThe€Sixth€Amendment€provides€in€part,€"In€all€criminal€prosecutions,€theÏaccused€shall€enjoy€the€right.€.€.€to€have€the€assistance€of€counsel€for€his€defense."€ÏU.S.€Const.€amend.€6.€€Similarly,€the€Tennessee€Constitution€guarantees€anÐ 6°,. Ðaccused€"the€right€to€be€heard€by€himself€and€his€counsel.€.€.€"€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€IÏðð€9.€€Additionally,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„102€provides:€€"Every€person€accusedÏof€any€crime€or€misdemeanor€whatsoever€is€entitled€to€counsel€in€all€mattersÏnecessary€for€such€person's€defense,€as€well€to€facts€as€to€law."Ìà ` àIn€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€articulated€aÐ  À Ðtwo„prong€test€for€courts€to€employ€in€evaluating€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€€The€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€adopted€òòStricklandóó's€two„part€test€in€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2dÐ ð  Ð898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€òòStricklandóó€Court€began€its€analysis€by€noting€that€"TheÐ à€ Ðbenchmark€for€judging€any€claim€of€ineffectiveness€must€be€whether€counsel'sÏconduct€so€undermined€the€proper€functioning€of€the€adversarial€process€that€theÏtrial€cannot€be€relied€on€as€having€produced€a€just€result."€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€atÐ °P Ð2064.€€When€a€convicted€defendant€challenges€the€effective€assistance€of€counselÏin€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€€(1)Ïdeficient€representation€of€counsel€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€that€deficiency.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2d€551,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð p& ÐApp.€1996).€€Appellant€must€prove€that€counsel's€representation€fell€below€anÏobjective€standard€of€reasonableness.€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064.€€This€Court€isÐ P*ð " Ðnot€required€to€consider€the€two€prongs€of€òòStricklandóó€in€any€particular€order.€€òòHarrisÐ @,à"$ Ðv.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€156,€163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€"Moreover,€if€the€AppellantÐ 0.Ð$& Ðfails€to€establish€one€prong,€a€reviewing€court€need€not€consider€the€other."€€òòId.óó€Ð  0À&( ÐWith€regard€to€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€proper€measure€is€that€ofÏreasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€104Ð 4 *, ÐS.Ct.€at€2065.€€Put€differently,€counsel's€performance€is€required€to€be€"within€theÏrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,Ð à7€.0 Ð523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975);€òòHarrisóó,€947€S.W.2d€at€163.€€Respecting€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðprejudice€prong€of€òòStricklandóó,€the€Appellant€must€establish€that€"there€is€aÐ `  Ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel's€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€theÏproceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probabilityÏsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome."€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068.Ð 0Ð Ðà ` àThe€òòStricklandóó€Court€emphasized€that€"Judicial€scrutiny€of€counsel'sÐ  À Ðperformance€must€be€highly€deferential."€€òòId.óó€at€2065.€€"A€`fair€assessment€.€.€.Ð °  Ðrequires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€toÏreconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€theÏconduct€from€counsel's€perspective€at€the€time.'"€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,Ð à€ Ð369€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065).€€The€mere€failure€of€aÐ Ðp Ðparticular€tactic€or€strategy€does€not€per€se€establish€unreasonable€representation.€ÏòòId.óó€at€369.€€However,€this€Court€will€defer€to€counsel's€tactical€and€strategic€choicesÐ °P Ðonly€where€those€choices€are€informed€ones€predicated€upon€adequate€preparation.€ÏòòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).Ð "0 Ðà ` àRegarding€Appellant's€first€alleged€deficiency,€he€specifically€complains€thatÏMr.€Anderson€consulted€with€him€only€two€or€three€times€prior€to€trial.€€However,€atÏthe€post„conviction€hearing,€Attorney€Anderson€testified€that€he€met€with€AppellantÏto€discuss€the€case€eight€or€nine€times€prior€to€trial.€€Moreover,€counsel€brought€withÏhim€to€the€hearing€fifteen€to€twenty€pages€of€notes€taken€by€him€during€several€visitsÏwith€Appellant.€€Mr.€Anderson's€copious€notes€belie€Appellant's€assertion€that€heÏhad€little€or€no€contact€with€his€attorney€prior€to€the€commencement€of€the€trial.€ÏCounselððs€pretrial€contacts€with€Appellant€appear€to€have€afforded€him€adequateÏopportunity€to€prepare€Appellantððs€case.€€Moreover,€Appellant€has€failed€to€evenÏallege€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€counselððs€number€of€visits.Ìà ` àAppellant's€second€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€that€AttorneyÏAnderson€inadequately€prepared€Appellant€to€testify€at€trial.€€At€the€hearing€on€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief,€Attorney€Anderson€stated€that€he€reviewed€withÏAppellant€all€of€the€evidence€which€the€prosecution€had€against€him.€€Additionally,ÏMr.€Anderson€testified€that€during€one€meeting€with€Appellant,€he€inquired€aboutÏAppellant's€background,€the€circumstances€leading€up€to€the€offense,€and€theÏparticulars€of€the€case.€€To€buttress€this€testimony,€Anderson€produced€ten€pagesÏof€handwritten€notes€taken€during€this€conference€with€Appellant.€€AttorneyÏAnderson€testified€that€he€attempted€to€prepare€Appellant€for€the€questions€that€Mr.ÏAnderson€believed€would€be€posed€to€Appellant€on€cross„examination€so€thatÏAppellant€would€have€suitable€responses.€€As€support€for€this€testimony,€Mr.ÏAnderson€produced€approximately€ten€pages€of€his€handwritten€notes€taken€duringÏthis€conference€with€Appellant.€€The€trial€court€properly€concluded€that€"Mr.ÏAnderson€spent€a€great€deal€of€time€preparing€the€case€and€discussing€the€caseÏwith€the€petitioner.€€He€prepared€for€trial,€leaving€no€stone€unturned."€€Thus,€we€findÏthat€Appellant€has€not€carried€his€burden€of€proving€that€Mr.€Anderson€inadequatelyÏprepared€him€œto›€œtestify›€at€trial€and€that€the€outcome€of€Appellant's€trial€wasÏprejudiced€by€any€alleged€lack€of€preparedness.Ìà ` àRespecting€Appellant's€third€alleged€deficiency,€he€asserts€that€Mr.€AndersonÏnever€conducted€any€investigation€of€Appellant's€œclaim›€that€law€enforcement€officialsÏillegally€obtained€Appellant's€statement.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Mr.ÏAnderson€explained€that€he€did€not€file€a€motion€to€suppress€the€statement€takenÏfrom€Appellant€because€œAppellant,€before€trial,›€never€indicated€that€he€gave€theÏstatement€unwillingly€and€because€Appellant€signed€waiver€of€rights€and€waiver€ofÏcounsel€forms.€Furthermore,€Mr.€Anderson€stated€that€Appellant€stated€that€he€hadÏ"tried€to€cooperate"€with€the€police€and€"had€nothing€to€hide"€because€he€had€notÏdone€anything.€€The€decision€not€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€Appellant's€statementÏappears€to€have€been€a€strategic€choice€predicated€upon€adequate€investigation.€Ð Ð9p02 ÐòòSee€Goad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€263,€269€(Tenn.€1996).€€€Nothing€requires€counselÐ `  Ðto€file€what€he€believes€to€be€a€frivolous€motion€to€suppress.€€Because€we€find€thatÏAppellant€has€not€demonstrated€that€Mr.€Anderson€performed€below€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€an€attorney€in€a€criminal€case€or€that€he€was€prejudicedÏby€that€performance,€the€third€alleged€deficiency€is€without€merit.Ìà ` àAppellant's€fourth€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€is€that€Mr.€Anderson€failedÏto€consult€sufficiently€with€Appellant€during€the€jury€selection€process.€€AppellantÏtestified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€Mr.€Anderson€did€not€question€theÏprospective€jurors€about€their€background.€€However,€the€trial€court€stated,€"ThisÏcourt€even€remembers€the€case€well€enough€to€recall€the€petitioner€personallyÏconsulting€with€his€lawyer€during€voir€dire€and,€in€fact,€the€record€will€show€that€allÏeight€peremptory€challenges€were€used€during€the€course€of€voir€dire."€€Thus,ÏAppellant€has€œnot€overcome€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Appellant€participated€fullyÏin€the€òòvoiróó€òòdireóó.€›€€Moreover,€we€cannot€see€how€Appellant€was€prejudiced€given€Mr.Ð "0 ÐAnderson's€apparently€thorough€examination€of€the€prospective€œjurors.›Ìà ` àAppellant's€fifth€complaint€is€that€Attorney€Anderson€failed€to€discuss€theÏevidence€which€the€State€had€against€him.€€Teddy€Collingsworth,€a€criminalÏinvestigator€for€the€District€Attorney,€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€that€heÏmet€with€Mr.€Anderson€and€"showed€him€all€the€evidence€that€we€had,€all€theÏstatements,€all€the€evidence€that€was€taken€from€the€home€when€the€search€warrantÏwas€executed.€.€.€."€€Moreover,€as€mentioned€above,€Mr.€Anderson€averred€that€heÏand€Appellant€together€reviewed€all€the€evidence€against€Appellant.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€Ìà ` àRegarding€Appellant's€sixth€alleged€deficiency,€he€contends€that€Mr.ÏAnderson€failed€to€interview€any€of€the€prosecution's€witnesses.€€Attorney€AndersonÏtestified€that€he€personally€conducted€interviews€with€all€three€of€the€victim's€specialÐ Ð9p02 Ðeducation€teachers,€a€Department€of€Human€Services€worker€and€her€supervisor,Ïand€one€of€the€victim's€"foster€parents."€€Attorney€Anderson€stated€that€heÏinterviewed€witnesses€for€Appellant's€case€each€time€he€traveled€to€Sneedville„„theÏplace€where€the€alleged€offense€was€committed.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€Mr.ÏAnderson€"talked€to€all€possible€witnesses."€€The€record€amply€supports€this€findingÏand€we€will€not€second€guess€it.€€There€is€no€ineffectiveness€on€œthe€›part€of€counselÏproven€here.Ìà ` àFinally,€Appellant€complains€that€Mr.€Anderson€failed€to€question€theÏwitnesses€as€Appellant€desired.€€At€the€hearing€on€his€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief,€Appellant€testified€that€Mr.€Anderson€declined€to€ask€the€questions€given€toÏhim€by€Appellant,€explaining€that€those€questions€would€cause€the€witnesses€toÏbecome€angry.€€Mr.€Anderson€testified€that€he€recalled€asking€all€of€the€questionsÏthat€Appellant€directed€him€to€ask€and€that€he€could€not€remember€refusing€to€askÏany€of€Appellant's€questions.€The€trial€court€opined€that€Attorney€AndersonÏthoroughly€cross„examined€witnesses.€€In€any€event,€the€cross„examination€ofÏwitnesses€is€a€matter€entrusted€to€the€professional€judgment€of€the€attorney.€€WeÏwill€not€second€guess€his€tactical€decisions.Ìà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìœñlñà ` àñlñ›à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌœñkñ̛̛Ìñkññlñ›ñlñÓ  Óñkñà ` à›Ì›Ìñkñ›ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœñmñÌÌÌÌÌÐ Ð9p02 ÐñmñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€ACREE,€SPECIAL€JUDGE