ÿWPCU 7dËç{&€– niA‡y¹PIAï—øà£x›[;ôwòe–ë…};`G°1ßËÖAQŒáô¦$<ÛUÊW;br =Gè{gꞬَd•çW<<`‘Q[ÝtËÚÙç*5ެ¿ ¹p†o6t\Sy’–! 37¯W¯nöÎðÚžÃhjh<&ݨDÇñz°]p&d!'ê]áÌ/>€£‡õ¯Œ€H¨‡,‹å Ö;u|3庣ŒE<&N锘¹Ô«¦€ì·\Æ«Ç<‚¼ü3_#þÑ]þ睊oä+tçòIÛ'É\DÖ$V_w«˜ØNüªiÇ9$þZdÐÙ߈.|$4æY ÷¬4H–øò§Ý/{y»&ŸCs™Ê3ƒ+¾c‹>¬Ö‡ò5Z¡þ`¹©Ôär§æüëŸU¾Vy^Æ}{(pÇYc‘BZaXkls“FUjêI±DÅ%W²"†»Õb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ U@Ð 0D ÆT Æ Æà Ʀ #Ál N- 1‡/ 72¶Eèê 1uò 72g 0c™UNüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüübJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 0ëRRRR B== 0¤Z D3þ D-1 0K^^ AS©Æü 0¤Â 0Df A«ª»&{2)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularûr')¢Ø+003|x ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. 3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2P$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôkØò»»Ô d(|3ó$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ó$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€hôXXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î‹ÃÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼»îî‹Ã #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` à€April€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XÑŽX»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXÑŽ#ÔJAMES€WESLEY€STARNES€òòóóv.Ô‡XÑŽX»¼Ôó ó€ò òÔ#†¼»XXÑŽr#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó óÔ‡XÑŽX»¼ÔÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Henry€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€€12844€€€€€€Julian€P.€Guinn,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„01854„CCA„R3„PC€„€Decided€September€14,€2000Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€from€a€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€claiming€his€trial€counsel€renderedÐ xÈ  Ðineffective€assistance.€€We€conclude€the€record€is€insufficient€for€proper€appellate€review.€€Thus,€weÐ d´ Ðremand€to€the€trial€court€for€an€additional€hearing.€€€€Ð P  ÐÓÎÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Remanded€Ð (x ÐFor€Further€Proceedingsó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»àXÑŽÐ#ÔÔ‡XÑŽX.¼ÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòDavid€G.Ð ì< ÐHayesóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌJim€L.€Fields,€Paris,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€James€Wesley€Starnes.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Clinton€J.€MorganÔ#†¼»XXÑŽó#ÔÔ‡XÑŽX»¼Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ô#†¼»XXÑŽ~#ÔÔ‡XÑŽX»¼ÔÐ ˆØ ÐG.€Robert€Radford,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Steven€L.€Garrett,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ tÄ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð `° ÐÔ#†¼»XXÑŽÝ#ÔÔ‡XÑŽX»¼ÔÓÄÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXÑŽì #ÔÔ‡XÑŽX»¼ÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌÔ#†¼»XXÑŽ^ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÑŽX»¼Ôòòò òó óóóà  àPetitioner,€James€Wesley€Starnes,€appeals€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÐ #`" Ðafter€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€Petitioner€was€originally€convicted€of€possession€of€cocaine€andÐ ü#L# Ðmarijuana€with€the€intent€to€sell€and€received€an€effective€15„year€sentence€as€a€Range€II€offender.€Ð è$8 $ ÐThe€sole€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€he€was€deprived€of€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€BecauseÐ Ô%$!% Ðthe€record€is€inadequate€for€our€review,€we€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€an€additional€hearing.€€Ð À&"& ÐÌà@EE!ìàò òòòPROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóˆÐ ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àAs€a€result€of€an€automobile€stop€on€September€19,€1993,€the€petitioner€and€his€wife,Ð p*À%* ÐMichelle€Starnes,€were€indicted€for€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell€and€felony€possessionÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âof€marijuana€with€intent€to€sell.€€Trial€counsel€was€retained€to€represent€both€the€petitioner€and€hisÐ H,˜',ý Ðwife,€trial€counsel€agreeing€to€compensation€in€the€amount€of€$6,000€to€be€paid€from€funds€to€beÐ ° Ðreceived€in€a€personal€injury€suit€in€which€trial€counsel€represented€the€petitioner€and€his€wife.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€case€was€set€for€trial€by€jury;€however,€petitioner€deliberately€failed€to€appear.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðwifeððs€trial€proceeded,€and€she€was€convicted€of€the€lesser€offenses€of€simple€possession€of€drugs.€Ð `° ÐTrial€counsel€continued€to€represent€the€wife€during€her€appellate€process.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àPetitioner€returned€to€the€jurisdiction.€€On€October€7,€1994,€trial€counsel€filed€a€motion€toÐ $ t Ðwithdraw€from€his€representation€of€petitioner,€alleging€ð ða€conflict€.€.€.€to€represent€the€best€interestÐ  ` Ðof€the€defendant€James€Wesley€Starnes.ðð€€The€record€before€this€court€does€not€contain€the€transcriptÐ ü L  Ðof€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€withdraw,€nor€any€order€relating€to€the€disposition€of€the€motion.€Ð è 8  ÐTrial€counsel€testified€that€his€request€was€denied,€and€the€findings€of€the€post„conviction€judge€stateÐ Ô$  Ðthat€the€motion€was€denied.€€However,€the€post„conviction€judge€noted€that€there€was€no€orderÐ À  Ðregarding€this€motion€in€the€record.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€continued€to€represent€the€petitioner.€€Petitioner€was€tried€by€jury€and€convictedÐ „Ô  Ðin€December€1994.€€It€is€apparent€from€the€appellate€record€that€petitioner€contended€at€trial€that€theÐ pÀ Ðdrugs€belonged€to€his€wife.€€Although€the€record€of€the€original€proceedings€is€not€before€us,€it€isÐ \¬ Ðapparent€from€the€appellate€record€that€the€public€defender€represented€the€petitioner€in€his€directÐ H˜ Ðappeal.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àOriginal€trial€counsel€continued€to€represent€the€wife€in€her€direct€appeal,€alleging€the€trialÐ  \ Ðcourt€erred€in€denying€her€probation.€€This€court€modified€her€term€of€confinement€from€the€llÐ øH Ðmonths€and€29€days€ordered€by€the€trial€court€to€180€days€followed€by€supervised€probation.€€òòStateÐ ä4 Ðv.€Michelle€Starnesóó,€No.€02C01„9504„CC„00103,€1995€WL€764999€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Ð Ð  ÐDec.€28,€1995).€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€petitionerððs€direct€appeal,€the€only€issues€raised€were€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€denialÐ ”ä Ðof€the€motion€to€suppress,€and€excessive€sentencing.€€This€court€concluded€there€was€sufficientÐ €Ð Ðevidence€to€support€petitionerððs€convictions€in€spite€of€his€allegations€that€the€drugs€belonged€to€hisÐ l¼ Ðwife;€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€hear€the€motion€to€suppress€based€upon€trial€counselððs€failureÐ X ¨ Ðto€timely€file€the€same;€and€the€trial€court€properly€sentenced€the€petitioner.€€òòState€v.€James€WesleyÐ D!” ÐStarnesóó,€No.€02C01„9580„CC„00231,€1997€WL€370353€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€July€3,€1997),Ð 0"€  Ðòòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€2,€1998).€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àPetitioner€timely€filed€the€present€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€March€1,€1999.€Ð ô$D # ÐPursuant€to€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28€ðð€6(B)(3)(d),€the€trial€courtððs€preliminary€order€required€the€stateÐ à%0!$ Ðto€file€a€responsive€pleading€ð ðtogether€with€any€record€or€transcripts,€material€to€the€òòpro€seóó€petition.ðð€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€state€filed€a€written€response,€but€there€are€no€records€or€transcripts€from€the€original€proceedingÐ ¸'#& Ðin€the€record€before€this€court.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÐ  |*Ì%) Ðà@""ìàò òòòPETITIONERððS€CONTENTIONSó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€testimony€centered€around€three€allegations€of€ineffectiveÐ ˆØ Ðassistance€of€counsel;€namely:€(1)€trial€counselððs€failure€to€timely€file€the€motion€to€suppress;€(2)Ð tÄ Ðfailure€of€trial€counsel€to€move€for€a€mistrial€based€upon€the€alleged€comments€of€a€potential€jurorÐ `° Ðduring€òòvoir€direóó;€and€(3)€trial€counselððs€conflict€of€interest€in€representing€both€the€petitioner€and€hisÐ L œ Ðwife.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌò òòòà@dd!ìàSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWˆÐ  ` ÐÌóóÓ  ÓA.€€Post„ConvictionòòÐ è 8  ÐÓÍ ÓÌó óóóÔ‡ XhôXXXÑŽÔà  àThe€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€thisÐ À  Ðcourt€is€bound€by€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ªú  Ðpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997);€òòAlley€v.Ð ”ä  ÐStateóó,€958€S.W.2d€138,€147€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ ~Î  Ðevidence,€nor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€judge.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€578„Ð h¸ Ð79;€òòMassey€v.€Stateóó,€929€S.W.2d€399,€403€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Questions€concerning€theÐ R¢ Ðcredibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€to€their€testimony€are€resolved€by€theÐ <Œ Ðpost„conviction€court,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€The€burdenÐ &v Ðof€establishing€that€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise€is€on€the€petitioner.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2dÐ ` Ðat€579.€€Ð úJ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓB.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÐ Î ÐÓ¶%ÓÌÔ#†XÑŽXX Xhô!#ÔÔ‡ XhôXXXÑŽÔà  àThis€court€reviews€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€the€standards€of€òòBaxterÐ ¢ò Ðv.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€and€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.Ð ŒÜ Ð2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€The€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€(1)€the€attorneyððsÐ vÆ Ðperformance€was€deficient,€and€(2)€the€deficient€performance€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€petitionerÐ `° Ðso€as€to€deprive€him€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,Ð Jš Ð938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996);€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1994);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,Ð 4 „ Ð789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).Ð !n ÐÌà  àThe€test€in€Tennessee€to€determine€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€is€whetherÐ ò"B! Ðcounselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€Ð Ü#," ÐòòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€The€petitioner€must€overcome€the€presumption€that€counselððs€conductÐ Æ$ # Ðfalls€within€the€wide€range€of€acceptable€professional€assistance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104Ð °%!$ ÐS.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462.€€Therefore,€in€order€to€prove€a€deficiency,€a€petitioner€mustÐ š&ê!% Ðshow€ð ðthat€counselððs€acts€or€omissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€below€an€objective€standard€ofÐ „'Ô"& Ðreasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369€(citing€òòStricklandóó,Ð n(¾#' Ð466€U.S.€at€688,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065)òòóó.Ð X)¨$( ÐÌÐ  ,+|&* Ðà@Ø Ø ìàò òòòDISPOSITION€OF€PETITIONERððS€ALLEGATIONSˆÐ ° ÐÌóóÓ€ (н83ÓÓ  ÓA.€€Motion€to€Suppressó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ$.ÓÌà  àPetitioner€testified€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€timely€file€a€motion€toÐ X¨ Ðsuppress€the€evidence€seized€as€a€result€of€the€automobile€stop.€€Trial€counsel€testified€it€was€hisÐ B ’ Ðrecollection€that€the€motion€was€timely€filed€but€simply€overruled.€€This€courtððs€opinion€in€the€directÐ , | Ðappeal€indicates€that€the€motion€was€indeed€òòuntimely€filedóó€and,€therefore,€was€not€considered€on€itsÐ  f Ðmerits€in€this€court.€€òòState€v.€James€Wesley€Starnesóó,€òòsupraóó.€€Thus,€trial€counsel€was€deficient€inÐ  P Ðfailing€to€timely€file€the€motion.€€Ð ê :  ЀÌà  àNevertheless,€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.€€The€post„conviction€court€foundÐ ¾  Ðthat€petitioner€presented€no€grounds€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€would€support€suppressionÐ ¨ø  Ðif€the€motion€had€been€timely€filed.€€We€agree.€€Therefore,€he€has€failed€to€demonstrate€any€prejudiceÐ ’â  Ðas€a€result€of€the€alleged€untimely€filing.€€òòóó€Ô#†XÑŽXX Xhô3&#Ôò òòòóóó óÐ |Ì  Ðò òó óÌò òÓ  ÓB.€€€à0 @ àFailure€to€Request€Mistrialó óÐ R¢ ÐÓ3ÓÌà  àPetitioner€testified€that€during€òòvoir€direóó€one€of€the€potential€jurors€stated€she€could€not€beÐ *z Ðimpartial€since€she€had€previously€been€in€the€house€of€the€petitionerððs€father€and€ð ðsaw€too€manyÐ f Ðthings€in€the€house.ðð€€Trial€counsel€had€no€recollection€of€this€alleged€incident€during€òòvoir€direóó.€Ð R ÐPetitioner€contends€trial€counsel€should€have€moved€for€a€mistrial.€€Ð î> ÐÌà  àThe€record€of€òòvoir€direóó€proceedings€was€not€introduced€during€the€post„conviction€hearingÐ Æ Ðand€is€not€before€us.€€Petitioner€must€establish€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€seek€aÐ ² Ðmistrial€based€upon€this€alleged€comment€and€the€likelihood€of€the€trial€court€granting€a€mistrial€hadÐ žî Ðit€been€requested.€€We€conclude€the€case€should€be€remanded€so€the€post„conviction€court€can€makeÐ ŠÚ Ðthese€determinations€after€considering€the€transcript€of€the€òòvoir€direóó€proceedings.€€Ð vÆ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓC.€€Conflict€of€Interestó óÐ Nž ÐÓ¸7ÓÌà  àPetitioner€testified€that€he€informed€trial€counsel€from€the€beginning€that€the€drugs€belongedÐ &!v Ðto€his€wife.€€Petitioner,€therefore,€contends€trial€counsel€had€a€conflict€of€interest€in€representingÐ "b  Ðpetitioner€and€his€wife,€especially€by€representing€petitioner€at€his€trial€while€at€the€same€timeÐ þ"N! Ðrepresenting€the€wife€on€her€appeal€in€the€same€case.€€Ð ê#:" ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€no€conflict€until€after€the€wifeððs€jury€trial€at€which€theÐ Â%!$ Ðpetitioner€willfully€failed€to€appear.€€Trial€counsel€did€not€explain€the€theory€of€defense€to€be€usedÐ ®&þ!% Ðwhen€both€were€set€for€joint€trial,€nor€was€there€any€explanation€as€to€the€wifeððs€theory€of€defenseÐ š'ê"& Ðwhen€trial€counsel€represented€her€at€her€jury€trial.€€That€record€is€not€before€us,€and€the€only€issueÐ †(Ö#' Ðin€her€direct€appeal€was€the€denial€of€probation.€€òòState€v.€Michelle€Starnesóó,€òòsupraóó.€€However,€it€isÐ r)Â$( Ðapparent€that€trial€counsel€continued€to€represent€the€wife€in€her€appeal,€while€at€the€same€timeÐ ^*®%) Ðrepresenting€the€petitioner€at€his€jury€trial.€€Ð J+š&* ÐÐ 6,†'+ Ðà  àOn€its€face,€it€would€appear€that€trial€counsel€had€an€active€conflict€of€interest€in€representingÐ ° Ðpetitioner€at€his€trial€alleging€that€the€drugs€belonged€to€his€other€client,€the€wife.€€òòSeeóó€òòNetters€v.Ð œì ÐStateóó,€957€S.W.2d€844,€847€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€If€there€was€an€actual€conflict€of€interest,Ð ˆØ Ðthere€need€be€no€showing€of€prejudice€as€a€result€for€prejudice€is€presumed.€€òòStricklandóó,€467€U.S.Ð tÄ Ðat€692,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2067;€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W2.d€239,€245€(Tenn.€1989).€€However,€weÐ `° Ðare€reluctant€to€make€such€a€determination€based€upon€the€inadequate€record€before€us.€€Furthermore,Ð L œ Ðwe€are€not€in€a€position€to€determine€whether€or€not€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€his€actions€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðbringing€this€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€filed€a€motion€to€withdraw€in€October€1994€and€brought€thisÐ ü L  Ðto€the€attention€of€the€trial€court.€€The€motion,€made€an€exhibit€to€trial€counselððs€testimony,€allegesÐ è 8  Ða€ð ðconflictðð€but€is€not€specific€as€to€its€nature.€€There€is€no€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motionÐ Ô$  Ðand€no€order€relating€to€its€disposition.€€Thus,€we€are€unable€to€determine€whether€trial€counselÐ À  Ðappropriately€brought€the€nature€of€the€conflict€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€court.€€If€trial€counselÐ ¬ü  Ðtimely€and€properly€brought€this€to€the€attention€of€the€trial€court€and€the€request€was€denied,€itÐ ˜è  Ðwould€be€difficult€to€find€any€deficiency€by€trial€counsel.€€Otherwise,€counsel€may€have€beenÐ „Ô  Ðdeficient.€€A€remand€is€necessary€to€determine€this€issue,€and€a€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€theÐ pÀ Ðmotion€to€withdraw€should€be€presented.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIt€is€also€apparent€from€the€appellate€record€that€trial€counsel€did€not€represent€the€petitionerÐ 4„ Ðon€appeal,€but€rather€the€public€defender€was€appointed.€€It€is€further€apparent€from€this€courtððsÐ  p Ðopinion€in€the€direct€appeal€that€appellate€counsel€did€not€raise€the€issue€of€the€alleged€failure€of€theÐ  \ Ðtrial€court€to€grant€the€motion€to€withdraw.€€This€issue€was€not€addressed€in€the€post„conviction€courtÐ øH Ðand€should€be€addressed€upon€remand.€€Accordingly,€we€remand€for€the€following€determinationsÐ ä4 Ðto€be€made:Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à1.€€During€òòvoir€direóó€prior€to€the€trial€of€the€defendant,€was€a€statement€made,€as€alleged€inÐ ¨ø Ðthe€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€that€a€potential€juror€had€been€in€the€house€of€the€defendantððsÐ ”ä Ðfather€and€had€seen€ð ðtoo€many€things€in€the€house,ðð€and,€if€so,€was€it€likely€that€if€a€mistrial€had€beenÐ €Ð Ðrequested€because€of€this€statement€it€would€have€been€granted?Ð l¼ ÐÌà  à2.€€What€was€the€theory€of€the€defense€when€the€defendant€and€his€wife€were€to€be€triedÐ D!” Ðtogether?Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  à3.€€What€were€the€theories€of€the€defense€when€the€defendant€and€his€wife€were€triedÐ $X" Ðseparately?Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  à4.€€What€was€the€ð ðconflictðð€alleged€in€trial€counselððs€October€1994€motion€to€withdraw?Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  à5.€€Did€trial€counsel€allege,€prior€to€the€trial€of€the€defendant,€that€he€had€a€conflict€of€interestÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€continued€representation€of€the€defendant€and,€if€so,€did€he€raise€this€issue€in€an€adequate€fashion?Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  à6.€€Was€appellate€counsel€ineffective€for€not€raising,€on€appeal,€the€issue€of€whether€trialÐ ° Ðâ âcounsel€had€a€conflict€in€representing€both€the€defendant€and€his€wife?Ð œì ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE