ÿWPCÉ ÷¦žÃ÷‰^SSc˜³¾ÈˆX½†ª;z­s(š² Õa?•_Ï¿Uãù¶6¬Šeyä{ß§†i>Ðm4Be¯×yc•²Žî(åÓf'ÐÏɪK¡¡'#›X’šØj{ŸAôå+é6ˆ½I‘™SÛ© Rr7 #˜YE0Õ̸¬õú†]NºF±Ö„²P:Žï6 î>PäRÿ^rùR±«ÆÏGwÉ¡ç]–bt£)°}ß»˜çq:µç»ºïÂŒ¢ºÙ€^6ÇÄxOtnúÌxÔËwJ3ÌØ•cìÔDŠ‘U¯]Ufûñ±æ7]îªJ-‘UÀ#¿z0q]ZõÌÙ9Ÿk‹SfpÀä¨ +Ð6ôv´<€¿ÄW4qÝç&óÍ+B&‹@/%A¨3#>'ëƒôòPáÙ{è·¸ÊÿakúÑ"å×ÎsTýè$ Â1ÿ†pÌÒý »­«1â‡JìAîæœ;AèÇw@$®i¶äzûêò#žëÙ•w:¾(\æ6tDöUðæ­ªRƒµŠ?¡tk`ˆ¤-¬2^ñ¿–žÚ–¶é\Z‘:hŸ£WÆãý`Ù…—7‹üº¢XV‘É]Bpþ,ÐÁ|½¹-ãeŸÊÿæ§P…UNF %” 0(š U: w@ü 4< P 0†_ °å 0D• U:Ù  T "o ç‘mxqåU:VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV B D3­­­ 0Dàààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà AO$Æss 0D9 D/} B¬(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular cDdefDghDijekDlÓ€uM%3|xu(6(2Ä:$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¦Ý ƒÄ:$ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€It€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€not€to€reveal€the€names€of€minor€victims.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular JÝ ƒÄ:$ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€it€was€established€that€defendantððs€fatherÐ ° Ðwas€actually€mistaken€as€to€defendantððs€whereabouts€on€these€days.€€In€fact,€defendantÏworked€eight€(8)€hours€on€both€days. Ý ƒÄ:$ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€As€an€occupation,€Lawson€provided€care€for€young€children.€€Maloney€was€one€ofÐ ° Ðthe€children€under€Lawsonððs€care€and€was€twelve€(12)€years€old€at€the€time€of€trial. ÝÔ€XÙíXXXÔÔ€z:XXÙíÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÙíXz:ÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€28,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó cÝ ƒÄ:$ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€This€Court€has€previously€ruled€that€raising€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ° Ðcounsel€on€direct€appeal€is€a€ð ðpractice€fraught€with€peril.ðð€€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ  ð Ð156,€161€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997). gÝ ƒÄ:$ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€Bloodworth€testified€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€thatÐ ° Ðdefendant€was€with€him€during€the€afternoon€of€May€5,€it€is€noteworthy€that€he€andÏdefendant€were€co„defendants€in€a€pending€criminal€prosecution€at€the€time€of€trial.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñjñ›ñjññjñ›ñjñÒ°ÒÔ€XÙíXXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñlñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` 8ttxP°ð  rß›ñlñà@˜ ˜ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌà@FF'àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌà@77%àJUNE€1998€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ  ` Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òNO.€01C01„9705„CR„00166ó óÐ ü L  Ðà ` àAppellee,à@÷÷-à)ˆÐ è 8  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òDAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÐ Î  Ðò òVS.ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ º  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òHON.€J.€RANDALL€WYATT,€JR.,Ð ¦ö  ÐCHARLES€B.€TREADWELL,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òJUDGEó óÐ ’â  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆÌà ` àAppellant.à@÷÷-à)ˆà p à(Aggravated€Assault,€SimpleÐ d´ Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àAssault€and€Stalking)Ð Jš ÐÌÌÌÒ(ä „¸ @(#(#(Òò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:Ð â2 ÐÌF.€THOMAS€GIAMBATTISTAÌ(At€Trial)ó óÐ ¦ö Ð1008€17th€Avenue,€S.ÌNashville,€TN€€37212ÌÌò òJOHN€T.€CONNERS,€IIIÐ D” Ð(On€Appeal)Ìó óP.O.€Box€1451Ð  l ÐFranklin,€TN€€37065„1451Ð !R Ðò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð â2 ÐÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÐ º ! ÐAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òDARYL€J.€BRANDó óÐ rÂ$ ÐAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIó óÐ Ü!,* ÐDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òSTEVE€R.€DOZIERó óÐ ”$ä- ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ì222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37201„1649Ð 2(‚#1 ÐÒ(ä „¸ @ìì(ÒÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ b/²*7 ÐÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÐ  ®7þ2@ Ðó óÓÓÑ7€¦ XXdìXXdì7Ñà@qq*àò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àThe€defendant,€Charles€B.€Treadwell,€was€convicted€by€a€Davidson€CountyÏjury€of€one€(1)€count€of€aggravated€assault,€one€(1)€count€of€simple€assault€and€oneÏ(1)€count€of€misdemeanor€stalking.€€He€was€sentenced€to€five€(5)€years€forÏaggravated€assault€and€eleven€(11)€months€and€twenty„nine€(29)€days€each€forÏsimple€assault€and€stalking.€€On€appeal,€he€brings€the€following€issues€for€thisÏCourtððs€review:ÌÓÓà ` à(1)à8 ¸ àwhether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€his€convictions;Ðl¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à(2)à8 ¸ àwhether€he€was€denied€his€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€onÐ è8 Ðthe€stalking€offense;€andÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à(3)à8 ¸ àwhether€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.Ðšê¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€before€this€Court,€we€find€no€error.€ÏAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà@ÎÎ+àò òòòFACTSó óóóˆÐ Ê ÐÌà ` àIn€late€1994,€S.L.,׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€who€was€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age,€met€the€defendant,Ð n"¾! Ðwho€was€thirty„one€(31)€years€of€age,€and€the€two€became€friends.€€According€toÏS.L.,€their€relationship€started€out€as€friendship,€but€eventually€turned€intoÏð ðsomething€more.ðð€€They€wrote€letters€to€each€other,€talked€on€the€telephone,€andÏS.L.€reported€that€they€kissed€and€ð ðheld€hands.ððÌà ` àIn€early€February€1995,€Linda€Lawson,€S.L.ððs€mother,€learned€of€herÏdaughterððs€relationship€with€the€defendant.€€Lawson€confronted€defendant€and€toldÏhim€to€stay€away€from€her€daughter.€€However,€defendant€and€S.L.€continued€theÏrelationship.Ìà ` àIn€March€1995,€while€S.L.€was€speaking€with€defendant€on€the€telephone,Ïshe€told€defendant€that€she€had€an€argument€with€her€mother€that€evening.€ÏDefendant€became€incensed€and€told€S.L.€that€he€would€kill€her€mother.€Ð 26‚17 ÐDefendantððs€anger€frightened€S.L.,€and€she€told€defendant€that€she€wanted€to€endÏtheir€relationship.Ìà ` àOn€April€4,€Lawson€was€driving€Mary€Maloney׃×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€to€school€when€she€noticedÐ P   Ðdefendant€following€her€very€closely€in€his€car.€€Lawson€pulled€into€a€gas€stationÏparking€lot,€and€defendant€pulled€in€behind€her.€€When€Lawson€exited€her€car€andÏwalked€to€the€pay€phone,€defendant€followed€her.€€Defendant€then€raised€up€hisÏshirt,€revealing€the€butt€of€a€gun€and€said,€ð ðbitch,€when€I€see€you€out€by€yourself,€IððllÏshoot€you.ðð€€Lawson€testified€at€trial€that€she€was€ð ðvery€scaredðð€and€thought€thatÏdefendant€might€shoot€her€ð ðright€then€and€there.ðð€€Defendant€then€returned€to€hisÏcar€and€drove€away.Ìà ` àOn€April€12,€Lawsonððs€sister,€Barbara€Smith,€took€S.L.€and€some€friends€toÏa€local€Taco€Bell.€€Smith€and€S.L.ððs€sister,€Amanda€Tenpenny,€were€waiting€outsideÏin€the€car€while€the€other€girls€were€ordering€their€food.€€Defendant€and€a€friendÏdrove€into€the€parking€lot,€and€Tenpenny€pointed€him€out€to€Smith.€€S.L.€and€theÏother€girls€testified€that€defendant€walked€into€the€restaurant€and€began€screaming,Ïcursing€and€wildly€waving€his€arms.€€Because€Smith€knew€about€defendantððsÏrelationship€with€her€niece,€she€walked€inside€the€restaurant€and€asked€defendantÏto€leave€S.L.€alone.€€Defendant€retorted,€ð ðI€want€[S.L.].€€If€you€donððt€get€out€of€myÏway,€Iððll€blow€your€fòò€€€óóing€brains€out.ðð€€Smith€testified€that€she€was€terribly€frightenedÐ P( #& Ðbecause€she€was€aware€of€defendantððs€previous€threats€to€kill€her€ñjñœñjñsister.€€Smith€andÏthe€young€girls€left€the€restaurant€soon€tñañhereafterñañ.ñjñ›ñjñÌà ` àOn€May€5,€S.L.€was€on€the€playground€at€her€school€when€she€noticedÏdefendantððs€car€parked€on€the€street€beside€her€school.€€Defendant€lowered€hisÏwindow€and€stared€at€S.L.€€When€defendant€began€talking€to€her,€she€jumped€ontoÏa€fence€to€get€away€from€defendant,€and€defendant€drove€away.€€S.L.€immediatelyÏreported€this€to€school€authorities,€and€the€police€were€summoned.Ð p5À04 Ðà ` àOn€May€23,€S.L.€went€to€Shelby€Park€after€school€with€her€cousin€and€someÏfriends.€€Once€again,€she€noticed€defendantððs€car€nearby.€€When€defendant€realizedÏthat€the€children€had€spotted€him,€he€sped€away€in€his€car.Ìà ` àOn€the€night€of€May€25,€defendant€repeatedly€drove€up€and€down€the€streetÏð ðall€nightðð€in€front€of€S.L.ððs€home.€€Although€S.L.€was€in€her€room€most€of€theÏevening,€she€recognized€the€car€from€her€window€and€identified€it€as€being€theÏdefendantððs.Ìà ` àAs€a€result€of€the€May€incidents,€S.L.€testified€that€she€suffered€fromÏnightmares,€fearing€that€defendant€was€in€her€house.€€S.L.€had€dreams€thatÏdefendant€was€trying€to€ð ðget€us.ðð€€S.L.€was€afraid€that€defendant€might€kill€her€or€herÏmother.Ìà ` àThe€defendantððs€father€(Treadwell)€testified€for€the€defense.€€He€stated€thatÏon€April€4,€defendant€was€at€his€home€all€day€assisting€him€paint€his€house.€ÏTreadwell€testified€that€defendantððs€car€was€not€working€on€that€day,€so€he€could€notÏhave€been€following€Lawson€in€his€car.Ìà ` àTreadwell€further€testified€that€on€May€5,€he€saw€the€defendant€at€the€postÏoffice€with€a€friend€around€the€same€time€defendant€was€alleged€to€have€beenÏwatching€S.L.€at€her€school.€€Treadwell€also€stated€that€defendant€was€at€home€allÏday€on€both€May€23€and€25.׃ ×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð p&À!$ Ðà ` àJim€Liner,€a€friend€of€the€defendant,€testified€for€the€defense€as€well.€€HeÏstated€that€he€waxed€defendantððs€car€on€May€23,€and€defendant€was€with€him€fromÏapproximately€5:00€p.m.€to€8:30€p.m.Ìà ` àThe€jury€returned€guilty€verdicts€for€the€aggravated€assault€of€Lawson€onÏApril€4,€the€simple€assault€of€Smith€on€April€12,€and€stalking€S.L.€as€a€result€of€theÏincidents€on€May€5,€May€23€and€May€25.€€Defendant€now€brings€this€appeal€as€ofÏright€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3.ÌÐ p5À04 Їà@ÖÖ àò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àIn€his€first€issue€defendant€contends€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€toÏsustain€the€juryððs€finding€of€guilt€on€all€three€offenses.€€The€crux€of€his€argument€isÏthat€the€predicate€acts€for€the€offenses,€while€arguably€offensive,€do€not€constitute€Ïcriminal€conduct.€€Therefore,€he€asserts€that€even€taking€the€stateððs€evidence€asÏtrue,€he€is€not€guilty€of€a€criminal€offense.Ìà@´´,àò òA.ó óˆÐ Ð  ÐÔ‡ X_XXX_Ôà ` àWhen€an€appellant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€standardÐ ° Ðof€review€is€whether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏstate,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crimeÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€318,€99€S.Ct.€2781,Ð P  Ð2789,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979);€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€190-91€(Tenn.Ð 0€ Ð1992);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€or€legitimate€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð Ð  ÐThis€Court€will€not€reweigh€the€evidence,€reevaluate€the€evidence,€nor€substitute€itsÏevidentiary€inferences€for€those€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Careyóó,€914€S.W.2dÐ $à" Ð93,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Furthermore,€in€a€criminal€trial,€great€weight€isÏgiven€to€the€result€reached€by€the€jury.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€910€S.W.2d€897,€899Ð P( #& Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ìà@´´,àÔ#†X_XX X_$#Ôò òB.ó óˆÐ ,`'* Ðà ` àIn€Count€One,€defendant€was€charged€with€the€aggravated€assault€uponÏLawson€by€the€use€or€display€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€Aggravated€assault€is€definedÏas€intentionally€or€knowingly€causing€ð ðanother€to€reasonably€fear€imminent€bodilyÏinjuryðð€while€using€or€displaying€a€deadly€weapon.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„¼101(a)(2)€(1991),€39„13„102(a)(1)(B)€(Supp.€1994).Ìà ` àOn€April€4,€Lawson€noticed€the€defendant€ð ðtailgatingðð€her€car.€€When€sheÏpulled€her€car€into€a€parking€lot,€defendant€followed€her.€€Defendant€got€out€of€hisÐ 09€48 Ðcar,€walked€to€the€pay€phone€where€Lawson€was€standing€and€began€ð ðyellingðð€atÏLawson.€€He€then€raised€his€shirt,€exposing€the€butt€of€a€gun,€and€threatened€to€killÏLawson.Ìà ` àDefendant€argues€that€his€words,€ð ðwhen€I€see€you€out€by€yourself,€Iððll€shootÏyouðð€was€a€threat€ð ðto€take€action€in€the€future.ðð€€Therefore,€it€would€have€beenÏunreasonable€for€Lawson€to€have€feared€òòimminentóó€bodily€injury.€€However,€LawsonÐ `  Ðtestified€that€she€was€ð ðvery€scaredðð€by€defendantððs€actions€and€thought€thatÏdefendant€might€shoot€her€ð ðright€then€and€there.ðð€€There€was€sufficient€evidence€forÏa€rational€trier€of€fact€to€conclude€that€defendant€caused€Lawson€to€ð ðreasonably€fearÏimminent€bodily€injuryðð€while€displaying€a€deadly€weapon.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@´´,àò òC.ó óˆÐ P  Ðà ` àDefendant€was€charged€in€Count€Two€with€the€simple€assault€of€Smith.€ÏAssault€is€defined€as€intentionally€or€knowingly€causing€another€ð ðto€reasonably€fearÏimminent€bodily€injury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„101(a)(2)€(1991).Ìà ` àThere€was€testimony€at€trial€that€on€April€12€defendant€walked€into€the€TacoÏBell€restaurant€screaming,€cursing€and€wildly€waving€his€arms.€€Smith€testified€thatÏwhen€she€attempted€to€ask€the€defendant€to€leave€her€niece€alone,€he€responded,Ïð ð[i]f€you€donððt€get€out€of€my€way,€Iððll€blow€your€fòò€€€óóing€brains€out.ððÐ p&À!$ Ðà ` àDefendant€claims€that€while€this€response€was€impolite,€this€does€notÏconstitute€an€assault.€€However,€defendant€was€screaming€and€cursing€loudly€in€theÏrestaurant,€and€Smith€was€aware€of€defendantððs€previous€threats€to€kill€her€sister.€ÏSmith€testified€that€she€was€ð ðjust€scared€he€would€do€something€to€some€of€us.€€IÏmean,€you€know,€heððs€acting€plum€crazy.ðð€€Smith€also€stated€that€defendant€wasÏacting€like€ð ða€wild€man.ðð€€The€evidence€was€sufficient€for€the€jury€to€find€thatÏdefendant€caused€Smith€to€ð ðreasonably€fear€imminent€bodily€injury.ððÌà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà@´´,àò òD.ó óˆÐ P7 26 Ðà ` àCount€Three€of€the€indictment€charged€the€defendant€with€stalking.€€Tenn.Ð 09€48 ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„17„315(a)€(Supp.€1994)€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` à(1)€[a]€person€commits€the€offense€of€stalking:Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à(A)€[w]ho€repeatedly€follows€or€harasses€another€person€withÏthe€intent€to€place€that€person€in€reasonable€fear€of€a€sexualÏoffense,€bodily€injury€or€death;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à(B)€[w]hose€actions€would€cause€a€reasonable€person€to€sufferÏsubstantial€emotional€distress;€andÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à(C)€[w]hose€acts€induce€emotional€distress€to€that€person.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à(2)€As€used€in€this€subsection:Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à(A)€ð ðFollowsðð€means€maintaining€a€visual€or€physical€proximityÏover€a€period€of€time€to€a€specific€person€in€such€a€manner€asÏwould€cause€a€reasonable€person€to€have€a€fear€of€a€sexualÏoffense,€bodily€injury€or€death;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à(B)€ð ðHarassesðð€means€a€course€of€conduct€directed€at€aÏspecific€person€which€would€cause€a€reasonable€person€to€fearÏœañkñnñkñ›€sexual€offense,€bodily€injury,€or€death,€including,€but€notÏlimited€to,€verbal€threats,€written€threats,€vandalism,€orÏunconsented-to€physical€contact;€andÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà8 ¸ à(C)€ð ðRepeatedlyðð€means€on€two€(2)€or€more€separateÏoccasions.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà ` àS.L.€testified€that€on€three€(3)€separate€occasions,€defendant€was€watchingÏher€at€school,€at€Shelby€Park€and€at€her€home.€€S.L.€was€thirteen€(13)€years€old,Ïand€defendant€was€thirty„one€(31)€years€of€age.€€S.L.€believed€that€defendant€wasÏcapable€of€violence€in€light€of€his€prior€threats€to€kill€her€mother€and€his€assault€uponÏher€aunt.€€S.L.€began€having€nightmares€that€defendant€was€in€her€house€andÏfeared€for€her€own€safety€as€well€as€that€of€her€mother.€€As€a€result€of€theseÏincidences,€S.L.€was€forced€to€undergo€counseling,€and€her€school€work€suffered.Ìà ` àWe€find€that€there€is€sufficient€evidence€that€the€defendant€ð ðfollowedðð€S.L.Ïrepeatedly€with€the€intent€to€place€her€in€ð ðreasonable€fear€of€a€sexual€offense,€bodilyÏinjury€or€death.ðð€€Furthermore,€we€also€find€that€defendantððs€actions€would€cause€aÏreasonable€person€to€suffer€emotional€distress,€and€S.L.€did€suffer€emotionalÏdistress€as€a€result€of€defendantððs€actions.€€The€evidence€is€sufficient€to€supportÏdefendantððs€conviction€for€stalking.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÐ  :p59 Ðà@¶¶"àòòò òUNANIMOUS€JURY€VERDICTó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àIn€his€next€issue,€defendant€contends€that€he€was€deprived€of€his€right€to€aÏunanimous€jury€verdict€on€the€offense€of€stalking.€€He€argues€that€because€theÏstalking€charge€involved€three€alleged€instances€of€conduct,€there€was€a€possibilityÏthat€the€jury€was€not€unanimous€as€to€the€occurrence€of€each€instance.€€He€claimsÏthat€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€to€ð ðspecifically€identify€eachÏ[stalking]€occasion€as€to€which€the€jury€was€unanimous€as€to€its€occurrence€andÏthen€used€by€the€jury€to€support€its€conclusion€of€the€Defendantððs€guilt€of€thisÏoffense.ððÌà ` àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€recently€decided€this€issue€in€the€case€ofÏòòState€v.€Hoxieóó,€963€S.W.2d€737€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€that€case,€the€defendant€claimedÐ P  Ðthat€he€was€denied€his€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€because€the€state€was€notÏrequired€to€elect€among€incidences€of€stalking€at€the€close€of€its€proof.€€TheÏSupreme€Court€disagreed,€finding€that€in€crimes€such€as€stalking€and€harassment,Ïthere€is€no€requirement€that€the€state€elect€which€incident€of€stalking€it€was€relyingÏupon€for€a€conviction.€€òòId.óó€at€743.Ð °"  Ðà ` àAlthough€defendant€frames€his€argument€in€terms€of€an€improper€juryÏinstruction,€we€are€not€persuaded€that€defendantððs€argument€is€distinguishable€fromÏthat€in€òòHoxieóó.€€Therefore,€in€accordance€with€òòHoxieóó,€we€find€no€error.Ð P( #& ÐÌà@@ @ àò òòòINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óóóˆÐ ,`'* ÐÌà ` àIn€his€final€issue,€defendant€contends€that€he€received€ineffective€assistanceÏof€trial€counsel.׃×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€making€this€argument,€defendant€alleges€several€instances€ofÐ °1-0 Ðineffective€assistance.€€While€arguing€that€each€error€prejudiced€his€case,€he€ñjñœñjñalsoñbñÌñbññjñ›œñjññbñÐ p5À04 Ðñbññcñ›€ñcñclaimsñjñ›ñjññjññjñ€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€these€errors€deprived€him€of€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.Ìà@||&àò òA.€Allegationsó óˆÐ pÀ Ðà ` àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€defendant,€represented€by€newly„¼appointed€counsel,€alleged€many€errors€committed€by€trial€counsel,€including€failureÏto€fully€develop€the€defense€theory,€failure€to€properly€question€defendantððs€fatherÏon€direct€examination,€denying€defendant€his€right€to€testify,€failure€to€secure€aÏphotographic€line„up€of€defendant€for€identification€purposes,€failure€to€call€alibiÏwitnesses,€and€failure€to€inspect€the€crime€scene.Ìà ` àIn€its€written€order€denying€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€found€thatÏdefendant€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Further,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€defendant€had€not€shown€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€any€of€the€allegedÏinstances€of€ineffective€assistance.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€forÏnew€trial€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.Ìà@öö#àò òB.€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ ð@ Ðà ` àThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€relative€to€an€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€claim€are€binding€upon€this€Court€unless€the€evidence€in€theÏrecord€preponderates€against€these€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€835€S.W.2dÐ $à" Ð600,€607€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€€1992).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€ofÏwitnesses,€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€factual€issues€raisedÏby€the€evidence€are€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€€òòId.óó€at€607.€€This€Court€must€notÐ 0*€%( Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€byÏthe€trial€court.€€òòId.óó€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€evidenceÐ ð-@), Ðcontained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€these€findings.€€òòId.óóò òÐ Ð/ +. Ðó óà ` àThis€Court€reviews€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€theÐ °1-0 Ðstandards€of€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€and€òòStrickland€v.Ð 3à.2 ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€The€petitionerÐ p5À04 Ðhas€the€burden€to€prove€that€(1)€the€attorneyððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€(2)Ïthe€deficient€performance€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€defendant€so€as€to€depriveÐ 09€48 Ðhim€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;Ð ° ÐòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996);€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2dÐ à Ð6,€11€(Tenn.€1994);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).Ð pÀ Ðà ` àThe€test€in€Tennessee€in€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effectiveÏassistance€is€whether€his€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€TheÐ `  Ðpetitioner€must€overcome€the€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€theÏwide€range€of€acceptable€professional€assistance.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466Ð Ð  ÐU.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065;€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€138,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ° ÐApp.€1997);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€389€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ð à Ðà@ee$àò òC.€Defense€Strategyó óˆÐ pÀ Ðà ` àIn€his€first€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€defendant€argues€thatÏtrial€counsel€did€not€fully€develop€the€defense€strategy€to€the€jury.€€DefendantÏagrees€with€trial€counselððs€overall€defense€strategy€that€(1)€the€alleged€conduct€didÏnot€constitute€a€criminal€defense,€and€(2)€defendant€had€an€alibi€for€many€of€theÏdates€in€question.€€However,€defendant€argues€that€the€stateððs€witnesses€wereÏfabricating€their€testimony€and€trial€counsel€should€have€provided€the€jury€with€theirÏmotivation€to€lie.Ìà ` àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€believed€that€the€witnessesðð€motivation€toÏfabricate€their€testimony€was€ð ðevident€to€any€reasonable€human€being,€that€theÏmotive€was€that€this€woman€and€her€family€did€not€like€the€idea€that€a€33„year€oldÏman€was€either€dating€or€having€a€romantic€relationship€with€a€13„year€old.€€I€meanÏthat€goes€without€saying.ðð€€He€stated€that€the€idea€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€lying€wasÏimplicit€in€the€defense,€and€he€alluded€to€that€fact€in€his€opening€and€closingÏremarks.Ìà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€trial€counsel€ð ðdiligently€prepared€for€trialðð€andÏperformed€ð ðmore€than€adequatelyðð€in€his€presentation€of€a€defense€to€the€jury.€ÏMoreover,€trial€counselððs€decision€as€to€how€the€defense€theory€is€presented€to€theÏjury€was€a€tactical€decision€and€is€entitled€to€great€deference.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,Ð 09€48 Ð938€S.W.2d€at€369.€€Defendant€has€not€proven€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€effective€representation.€€Nor€has€defendantÏestablished€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€this€alleged€error.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@DD&àò òD.€Key€Witnessó óˆÐ 0 € Ðà ` àDefendant€also€complains€that€trial€counsel€erroneously€treated€his€father€asÏthe€ð ðkey€witnessðð€for€the€defense.€€He€claims€that€he€himself€should€have€been€theÏð ðkey€witnessðð€as€to€his€alibis€on€the€questioned€dates,€and€his€father€should€haveÏtestified€to€corroborate€his€story.Ìà ` àHowever,€as€the€state€correctly€points€out,€Treadwellððs€testimony€was€crucialÏin€that€defendant€merely€testifying€that€he€was€not€present€on€the€dates€in€questionÏwould€have€carried€little€weight€with€the€jury.€€Furthermore,€this€was€a€strategicalÏdecision€made€by€trial€counsel.€€This€Court€is€not€at€liberty€to€measure€trial€counselððs€Ïdecisions€by€ð ð20„20€hindsight.ðð€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.Ð ` Ðà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà@#àò òE.€Fatherððs€Testimonyó óˆÐ Ð  Ðà ` àDefendant€further€argues€that€trial€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistance€inÏhis€direct€examination€of€Treadwell.€€Treadwell€testified€on€direct€examination€thatÏdefendant€was€at€home€all€day€on€both€May€23€and€May€25,€when€in€fact€defendantÏworked€on€both€days.€€This€testimony€was€contrary€to€Treadwellððs€testimony€at€theÏpreliminary€hearing€and€Treadwellððs€statements€to€counsel€prior€to€the€trial€whereÏTreadwell€stated€that€defendant€was€working€on€May€23€and€May€25.€€DefendantÏclaims€that€trial€counsel€should€have€attempted€to€refresh€Treadwellððs€memory€asÏto€his€prior€testimony€when€he€began€giving€erroneous€testimony.€€DefendantÏcontends€that,€as€a€result,€defendant€did€not€testify€for€fear€of€contradicting€hisÏfatherððs€testimony.Ìà ` àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€fullyÏprepared€Treadwell€for€his€testimony.€€He€reviewed€Treadwellððs€preliminary€hearingÏtestimony€with€him,€including€the€dates€of€the€offenses€and€the€facts€andÐ 09€48 Ðcircumstances€of€defendantððs€alibi.€€Although€Treadwell€erroneously€testified€as€toÏdefendantððs€whereabouts€on€May€23€and€May€25,€trial€counsel€felt€that€because€theÏjury€was€not€aware€of€defendantððs€actual€whereabouts,€there€was€no€reason€toÏattempt€to€correct€Treadwellððs€mistake€by€refreshing€his€memory.€€Trial€counsel€feltÏthat€refreshing€Treadwellððs€memory€would,€in€effect,€impeach€his€testimony.Ìà ` àThe€trial€court€found€no€ineffective€assistance€in€trial€counselððs€directÏexamination€of€defendantððs€father.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€trial€counsel€ð ðacted€inÏthe€manner€he€deemed€appropriate€and€in€the€petitionerððs€best€interest€under€theÏcircumstances€presented€to€him€at€the€time.ðð€€This€Court€will€not€second€guess€aÏstrategic€decision€made€by€trial€counsel€to€be€in€the€best€interest€of€his€client€at€theÏtime.€€Defendant€has€not€shown€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€of€effectiveness€on€this€issue,€nor€has€he€demonstrated€prejudice.Ìà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà@((àò òF.€Defendantððs€Failure€to€Testifyó óˆÐ ` Ðà ` àIn€a€related€issue,€defendant€asserts€that€he€was€effectively€denied€his€rightÏto€testify€due€to€the€foregoing€error.€€As€defendant€was€deciding€whether€to€testify,Ïtrial€counsel€warned€him€not€to€alter€his€testimony€to€ð ðmatchðð€his€fatherððs€testimonyÏas€to€the€erroneous€facts.€€Trial€counsel€explained€to€him€that,€as€an€officer€of€theÏcourt,€he€could€not€allow€defendant€to€offer€perjured€testimony.€€Defendant€arguesÏthat€trial€counselððs€warning€that€he€would€notify€the€court€of€defendantððs€perjuryÏð ðdestroyed€the€attorney„client€trust€or€bond€.€.€.€and€effectively€denied€the€DefendantÏhis€right€to€testify.ððÌà ` àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€did€not€believe€that€it€was€in€defendantððs€bestÏinterest€to€testify.€€Counsel€felt€that€the€major€points€of€the€defense€theory€had€beenÏbrought€before€the€jury€through€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€defendantððs€father.€€HeÏfelt€that€defendantððs€case€would€be€harmed€if€defendant€were€to€contradict€his€fatherÏon€the€witness€stand.€€Furthermore,€trial€counsel€was€concerned€that€defendantÏwould€simply€attempt€to€align€his€testimony€with€that€of€his€father.€€Counsel€testifiedÏthat€he€was€not€accusatory€in€his€warning,€but€merely€informed€defendant€ð ð[j]ust€soÐ 09€48 Ðhe€knew€that€if€he€was€thinking€about€doing€that,€that€there€are€repercussions.ððÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€trial€counsel€made€an€ð ðinformed€and€reasonableÏrecommendationðð€to€the€defendant€not€to€testify.€€Further,€because€defendantÏplaced€the€decision€of€whether€he€would€testify€in€his€attorneyððs€hands,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€defendant€was€not€denied€his€right€to€testify.Ìà ` àDefendant€has€not€shown€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€trial€counselððs€recommendation€to€defendant€not€to€testify€wasÏinformed€and€reasonable.€€Once€again,€this€was€a€strategic€decision€which€thisÏCourt€may€not€second€guess.Ìà ` àMoreover,€we€note€that€trial€counsel€was€under€an€ethical€duty€to€dissuadeÏhis€client€from€offering€perjured€testimony.€€ð ðIn€the€representation€of€a€client,€aÏlawyer€shall€not€.€.€€[k]nowingly€use€perjured€testimony€or€false€evidence.ðð€€Sup.€Ct.ÏRule€8,€DR€7„102(A)(4).€€ð ðA€lawyer€who€receives€information€clearly€establishing€thatÏ.€.€.€[t]he€client€has,€in€the€course€of€the€representation,€perpetrated€a€fraud€upon€aÏperson€or€tribunal,€shall€promptly€call€upon€the€client€to€rectify€the€same,€and€if€theÏclient€refuses€or€is€unable€to€do€so,€the€lawyer€shall€reveal€the€fraud€to€the€affectedÏperson€or€tribunal,€except€when€the€information€is€protected€as€a€privilegedÏcommunication.ðð€€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€8,€DR€7„102(B)(1).Ìà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€defendant€chose€not€to€testify€after€deferring€to€trialÏcounselððs€judgment.€€Moreover,€this€choice€was€not€tainted€by€trial€counselððs€caveatÏof€the€consequences€of€offering€perjured€testimony.Ìà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà@ˆˆ"àò òG.€Photographic€Line„upó óˆÐ ð-@), Ðà ` àDefendant€further€alleges€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏrequest€that€Mary€Maloney€be€required€to€view€a€photographic€line„up€to€determineÏwhether€she€could€identify€defendant€as€the€man€who€assaulted€Lawson€on€AprilÏ4.€€Defendant€contends€that€Maloneyððs€testimony€might€have€excluded€defendant€Ïas€the€man€who€assaulted€Lawson,€thus€bolstering€defendantððs€theory€that€LawsonÏwas€fabricating€her€testimony.Ð 09€48 Ðà ` àThere€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€as€to€whether€Maloney€would€haveÏidentified€defendant.€€Therefore,€defendant€cannot€demonstrate€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€this€alleged€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757„58Ð pÀ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ìà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà@, , àò òH.€Failure€to€Cross„Examine€ñjñœñjññdñMary€ñdñMaloneyó óñjñ›ñjñˆÐ `  Ðà ` àSimilarly,€defendant€argues€that€trial€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistanceÏfor€failing€to€cross„examine€ñjñœñjññeñMary€ñeñMaloneyñjñ›ñjññjññjñ€at€trial.€€He€claims€that€ð ð[t]he€potentialÏbenefit€[of€cross„examination]€could€have€been€significant€if€the€witness€hadÏidentified€someone€else€or€was€not€able€to€identify€the€Defendant.ððÌà ` àMaloney€was€not€called€to€testify€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,Ïand€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€as€to€what€ð ðbeneficialðð€testimony€trial€counselÏcould€have€elicited€on€cross„examination.€€This€Court€cannot€speculate€as€to€whatÏthe€witnessðð€testimony€would€have€been€on€cross„examination.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,Ð ` Ð794€S.W.2d€at€757„58.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@ýý#àò òI.€Witness€Bloodworthó óˆÐ °"  Ðà ` àDefendant€also€argues€that€trial€counsel€rendered€ineffective€assistance€byÏfailing€to€call€Robert€Bloodworth€as€a€witness€at€trial.€€Defendant€claims€thatÏBloodworth€could€support€his€alibi€for€May€5€and€could€additionally€support€theÏdefense€theory€on€Lawson€and€her€familyððs€motivation€to€fabricate€their€testimony.Ìà ` àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€attempted€to€locate€Bloodworth€on€manyÏoccasions.€€Defendant€did€not€provide€him€with€Bloodworthððs€phone€number€or€exactÏaddress,€but€merely€the€street€name.€€Trial€counsel€instructed€defendant€to€doÏwhatever€he€could€to€locate€Bloodworth€and€have€Bloodworth€call€trial€counsel.€ÏHowever,€Bloodworth€never€contacted€him.€€Furthermore,€Bloodworth€had€a€capiasÏout€on€him€during€the€time€of€trial€which€was€not€served€until€after€the€conclusion€ofÏtrial.Ìà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€trial€counsel€made€a€diligent€effort€to€locateÐ 09€48 ÐBloodworth,€but€to€no€avail.€€Therefore,€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€failingÏto€call€this€witness€at€trial.׃×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Defendant€has€not€shown€that€the€evidenceÐ à Ðpreponderates€otherwise.Ìà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà@¢¢#àò òJ.€Employment€Recordsó óˆÐ 0 € Ðà ` àDefendant€further€complains€of€trial€counselððs€failure€to€obtain€defendantððsÏemployment€records€for€May€23€and€May€25,€which€establish€that€defendant€workedÏon€both€days.€€He€claims€that€these€records€would€corroborate€his€alibi€that€he€wasÏnot€near€S.L.€on€those€dates.Ìà ` àTrial€counsel€stated€that€he€attempted€to€contact€the€defendantððs€supervisor,Ïbut€was€not€able€to€get€in€touch€with€her.€€He€also€testified€that€defendant€neverÏinformed€him€that€he€was€employed€through€a€temporary€service,€which€is€whereÏthe€records€were€obtained.Ìà ` àRegardless,€defendant€cannot€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€his€attorneyððsÏfailure€to€secure€his€employment€records.€€The€records€indicate€that€defendant€leftÏwork€at€3:30€p.m.€on€both€May€23€and€May€25.€€The€May€25th€incident€was€allegedÏto€have€taken€place€at€night.€€Therefore,€the€employment€records€would€not€serveÏas€alibi€evidence€on€May€25.€€Furthermore,€although€there€was€testimony€that€theÏMay€23€incident€occurred€around€3:00€p.m.,€S.L.€testified€that€it€was€dusk€when€sheÏsaw€the€defendant€lurking€nearby.€€Because€defendantððs€employment€records€doÏnot€affirmatively€establish€an€alibi€for€either€date,€defendant€cannot€prove€prejudice.Ìà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà@&àò òK.€Witness€Dukeó óˆÐ ð-@), Ðà ` àDefendant€also€maintains€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€call€Ïhis€auto€mechanic,€Russell€Duke,€to€testify€at€trial.€€Defendant€contends€that€DukeððsÏtestimony€would€show€that€defendantððs€car€was€inoperable€on€April€4,€thusÏsupporting€defendantððs€alibi€defense.Ð p5À04 Ðà ` àAttached€to€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€an€affidavit€signed€by€Duke€whichÏstated€that€defendantððs€automobile€was€in€extremely€poor€condition€on€April€3,€1995.€ÏDuke€further€attested€that€he€changed€the€transmission€fluid€in€defendantððs€car€onÏthat€day€and,€by€changing€the€fluid,€there€was€a€ð ðconcern€that€the€transmissionÏwould€shut€down€completely.ððÌà ` àHowever,€there€is€nothing€in€Dukeððs€affidavit€to€support€the€assertion€thatÏdefendantððs€automobile€was€completely€inoperable€on€April€ñjñœñjñ4ñfñ,›€but›€merely›€that›€it›€was›€possible›€that›€defendantððs›€transmission›€would›€ð ðshut›€down.ð𛀛€ñfññgñ.€€ñgñTherefore,ñjñ›ñjññjññjñ€defendantÏis€not€able€to€demonstrate€prejudice.Ìà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.Ìà@  &àò òL.€Crime€Scenesó óˆÐ à Ðà ` àIn€his€next€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€defendant€claimsÏthat€trial€counsel€erroneously€failed€to€inspect€the€crime€scenes.€€He€arguesÏgenerally€that€inspection€of€the€crime€scenes€would€have€assisted€trial€counsel€inÏhis€cross„examination€of€the€stateððs€witnesses.Ìà ` àHowever,€defendant€does€not€indicate€what€favorable€testimony€could€haveÏbeen€elicited€had€trial€counsel€inspected€the€crime€scenes.€€As€such,€he€cannotÏshow€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€this€alleged€failure.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@àò òM.€Cumulative€ñjñœñjñEñhñvidenceñhññiñrrorsñiñó óñjñ›ñjññjññjñˆÐ p&À!$ Ðà ` àFinally,€defendant€argues€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€foregoing€errorsÏeffectively€deprived€defendant€of€his€right€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏHowever,€because€we€find€no€error,€we€must€respectfully€disagree.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€that€trial€counselððs€representation€was€well€within€the€competence€mandatedÏby€òòBaxteróó€and€òòStricklandóó.€€This€Court€sees€no€reason€to€disturb€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ð/ +. Ðruling.Ìà ` àThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÌÐ 09€48 Ðà@xx(àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àThe€evidence€is€sufficient€to€sustain€the€juryððs€findings€of€guilt€for€defendantððsÏconvictions€for€aggravated€assault,€simple€assault€and€stalking.€€Furthermore,€theÏdefendant€was€not€denied€his€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€for€the€stalkingÏconviction.€€Moreover,€defendant€has€not€proven€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€he€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel€atÏtrial.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóò òÐ pÀ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ À! ÐCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ P( #& ÐLEE€MOORE,€SPECIAL€JUDGEó ó