ÿWPCp (”C‘ת…ÖDÝë–WUv[Ö¡C­yÞÝ3¸Ò×|Sƒ¶3;öyqåØ' ‘EX·S5œL° ÕRºƒ©  ¨ø’ÒÀ Ü#ŸãÒZwÈ¡ž7ÞT¯»Nä ³H:uÏ~C™´¦'ïÇsùŒ™"!|—œFÊFzÌŽoö“çHR»éX{YÅe9,ê ¿áÍ%wëÀéĆí_šÑº'»G¢Y„ÚCíâsR©ßxN2£¢_¡|G¬Lrn>’ÇTHµ?~?ùé%éZÀ­ß¶\Ù|}ÞÒ6À3BÐFX®Ï¶Øñp!Cc\º½öòÄ×ó|?-²QÏ]]M5I8E7h _Šè%Î…Êc¬› Š¿‡\im»ÀÊŠç¤ÜáÚxÍòwµíl/ôu¤uÌC¸% m0 OÚ-yþÇ©ÅD̆ØV^¿Új?§DzÕŒa½õQ1•Â;Ý3Ó#ð½$ßÖ¯¦^äâ›x¼üëÞ?õxå-6¾zz«™sÜ&û…qŸKZœQÞá›Fwc‘ ÆÏ Æ• Æ[ Æ!äçNË 0DÍPEaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc 0ëkkkk BVV 0¤s D5 D-L 0Kyy ASÄÆ 0¤Ý 0D A«Å˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»Š•-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular3j1,tÅ¢bk¬\¤ ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀô\  `‹&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÚÝ ƒRóã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôðò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€State€requested€that€the€post„conviction€court€take€judicial€notice€of€the€certified€documents€from€theÐ ° ÐPetitionerððs€original€trial€which€indicate€an€offense€date€of€January€30,€1970€for€the€pharmacy€robbery€conviction,€andÐ tÄ Ðan€offense€date€of€February€9,€1970€for€the€post€office€robbery€conviction.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó FÝ ƒRóã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôðò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€In€his€brief€for€this€appeal,€the€Petitioner€raises€only€one€of€these€issues,€specifically,€that€his€counsel€failedÐ ° Ðto€thoroughly€investigate€his€claims€concerning€two€prior€convictions€used€to€render€him€an€habitual€criminal.€€However,Ð tÄ Ðat€the€instruction€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€we€will€briefly€consider€all€issues€raised€in€the€Petitionerððs€original,Ð 8ˆ Ðunamended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ‡ ôðòòôðÔÔ‡ X‘Xò ôðÔÔ#† ôðòX X‘„#ÔWestonóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€57Ô‡ X‘Xò ôðÔ.Ô#†X‘XX X‘e#ÔÔ#†ôðòXX‘à#Ô- ù-(|G2óã$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôðò»»Ô d(|3IZ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IZ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E}»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E}»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼E}»»»ÔÑ8€‘XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îMÌE}ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼E}»îîMÌ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€December€18,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X‘X»¼E}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼E}»XX‘"#ÔòòKENNETH€LEE€WESTONóó€v.€òòóóSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X‘X»¼E}Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€40398€and€45862€€€€€€Randall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½ ` AßÐ ¾   ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„01053„CCA„RM„PC€Ð ¹  ÐAugust€27,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€Knox€County€jury€convicted€Ô‡ X‘XXX‘Ôthe€Petitioner€of€robbery€by€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€trialÐ ŒÜ  Ðcourt€found€the€Petitioner€to€be€an€habitual€criminal€and€sentenced€him€to€life€imprisonment.€€ThisÐ xÈ  ÐCourt€affirmed€both€the€sentence€and€verdict€on€direct€appeal.€€The€PetitionerÔ#†X‘XX X‘#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÔ#† ¼E}»X X‘œ#ÔÔ‡ X‘X» ¼E}Ô€subsequently€filed€hisÐ d´ Ðfirst€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€his€trial.€€TheÐ P  Ðpost„conviction€court€denied€relief,€but€no€appeal€ensued.€€The€PetitionerÔ#† ¼E}»X X‘Á#ÔÔ‡ X‘X» ¼E}ÔÔ#†X‘XX X‘#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘Ô€then€filed€a€second€petitionÐ <Œ Ðfor€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€that€counsel€in€his€first€post„conviction€proceeding€was€ineffectiveÐ (x Ðfor€failing€to€file€an€appeal.€€After€a€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€dismissed€the€second€petitionÐ d Ðand€ruled€that€the€PetitionerÔ#†X‘XX X‘8#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÔ#† ¼E}»X X‘ö#ÔÔ‡ X‘X» ¼E}Ô€did€not€have€a€constitutional€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€inÐ P Ða€post„conviction€proceeding.€€This€Court€affirmed.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÔ#†X‘XX X‘Ä #ÔÔ#†¼E}»XX‘ #ÔÔ‡X‘X»¼E}Ô€Ô‡ X‘XXX‘Ôreversed€andÐ ì< Ðremanded€the€case€to€the€post„conviction€court€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€to€determine€whether€theÐ Ø( ÐPetitionerÔ#†X‘XX X‘: #ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÔ#† ¼E}»X X‘ #ÔÔ‡ X‘X» ¼E}Ô€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€his€first€post„conviction€proceeding€andÐ Ä Ðwhether,€as€a€result,€the€PetitionerÔ#† ¼E}»X X‘` #ÔÔ‡ X‘X» ¼E}ÔÔ#†X‘XX X‘ #ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘Ô€was€effectively€denied€a€first„tier€appeal€of€his€first€post„Ð ° Ðconviction€petition.€€òòóóBefore€the€hearing,€the€PetitionerÔ#†X‘XX X‘t #ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÔ#† ¼E}»X X‘2 #ÔÔ‡ X‘X» ¼E}Ô€filed€an€amended€petition€for€post„convictionÐ œì Ðrelief.€€The€post„conviction€court€heard€the€amended€petition,€but€found€that€the€issues€raised€wereÐ ˆØ Ðwithout€merit.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€the€post„conviction€courtððs€finding€that€the€PetitionerÔ#†X‘XX X‘G#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÔ#† ¼E}»X X‘‰#ÔÔ‡ X‘X» ¼E}ÔÐ tÄ Ðhad€been€effectively€denied€a€first„tier€appeal€in€the€original€post„conviction€proceedings,€but€heldÐ `° Ðthat€the€post„conviction€court€was€not€authorized€to€hear€the€amended€petition.€òòóóThe€supreme€courtÐ L œ Ðaffirmed€this€ruling€and€remanded€the€case€to€this€Court€for€a€first„tier€appeal€of€the€PetitionerÔ#† ¼E}»X X‘2#ÔÔ‡ X‘X» ¼E}ÔÔ#†X‘XX X‘ð#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔððsÐ 8!ˆ  Ðoriginal€and€unamended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòóóHaving€reviewed€the€record,€weÐ $"t! Ðconclude€that€the€PetitionerÔ#†X‘XX X‘##ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÔ#† ¼E}»X X‘á#ÔÔ‡ X‘X» ¼E}Ô€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€Therefore,€we€affirmÐ #`" Ðthe€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ô#†X‘XX X‘#ÔÔ#†¼E}»XX‘S#ÔÔ‡X‘X»¼E}ÔÐ ü#L# ÐÓöÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼E}»àX‘@#ÔÔ‡X‘X.¼E}ÔRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€andÐ ¬'ü"' ÐòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌMark€E.€Stephens,€District€Public€Defender;€Paula€R.€Voss,€Assistant€Public€Defender€(on€appeal);Ð p*À%* Ðand€Ô_ÔElleryÔ_Ô€Hill€(at€trial),€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Kenneth€Lee€Weston.Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý ÐPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Mark€A.€Ô_ÔFulksÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€andÐ ° Ðâ âRobert€L.€Ô_ÔJolleyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð œì ÐÌÓòÓà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼E}»XX‘!#ÔÔ‡X‘X»¼E}ÔÐ tÄ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼E}»XX‘#ÔÔ€X‘X»¼E}ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔI.€€PROCEDURAL€BACKGROUNDÐ L œ ÐÌA.€€Conviction€Ð $ t ÐÌÓŠÓÓ XÓThe€Petitioner,€Kenneth€Lee€Weston,€was€charged€in€a€six„count€indictment€with€crimesÐ ü L  Ðstemming€from€the€robbery€of€the€Valley€Fidelity€Bank€and€Trust€Company€in€Knoxville,€Tennessee.€Ð è 8  ÐA€Knox€County€jury€convicted€the€Defendant€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon.Ð Ô$  ÐÐ À  ÐPrior€to€the€bank€robbery,€the€Petitioner€had€been€convicted€of€three€separate€felonies.€€TheÐ ¬ü  ÐSuperior€Court€for€Fulton€County,€Georgia€convicted€the€Petitioner€of€robbing€an€Atlanta€pharmacyÐ ˜è  Ðon€January€30,€1970.€€Later,€the€Petitioner€pled€guilty€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€theÐ „Ô  ÐNorthern€District€of€Georgia€for€robbing€a€postal€worker€in€Atlanta€on€February€9,€1970.€€SeveralÐ pÀ Ðyears€later,€the€Petitioner€pled€guilty€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€ofÐ \¬ ÐTennessee€for€possession€of€an€unregistered€firearm€with€a€missing€serial€number.€€Based€on€theseÐ H˜ Ðprior€convictions,€the€jury€found€the€Defendant€to€be€an€habitual€criminal.€€Ð 4„ ÐÐ  p ÐBased€on€the€Defendantððs€classification€as€an€habitual€offender,€the€trial€court€imposed€aÐ  \ Ðmandatory€life€sentence€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„1„806€(repealed€1989).€€€ThisÐ øH ÐCourt€affirmed€the€conviction€and€the€sentence€on€direct€appeal,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Kenneth€Lee€Westonóó,Ð ä4 ÐNo.€1235,€1989€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€807€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€20,€1989),€andÐ Ð  Ðthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€permission€to€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kenneth€Lee€Westonóó,€No.Ð ¼  Ð1235,€1990€Tenn.€LEXIS€106€(Tenn.,€Knoxville,€Mar.€5,€1990).Ð ¨ø ÐÐ ”ä ÐÓ XÓÓ  Óà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àB.€€First€Petition€for€Post„Conviction€ReliefÐ €Ð ÐÌÓÉ!ÓÓ XÓThe€Petitioner€subsequently€filed€his€first€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€andÐ X ¨ Ðcounsel€was€appointed€to€represent€the€Petitioner€in€that€proceeding.€€The€Petitioner€alleged€that€hisÐ D!” Ðtrial€counsel€failed€to€provide€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Specifically,€he€claimed€that€counselÐ 0"€  Ð(1)€failed€to€thoroughly€investigate€his€assertion€that€two€of€the€prior€convictions€used€to€render€himÐ #l! Ðan€habitual€criminal€actually€arose€from€one€offense;€(2)€failed€to€object€to€jury€instructions€in€theÐ $X" Ðsentencing€phase€regarding€the€inference€of€identity€in€prior€convictionsÔ#†X‘XX X‘–#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘Ô;€(3)€failed€to€argue€hisÐ ô$D # Ðdisputed€identity€in€prior€crimes;€(4)€failed€to€advise€him€of€the€potential€use€of€prior€convictions€inÐ à%0!$ Ðdetermining€sentences;€and€(5)€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€violated€his€Fifth,€Sixth,€and€FourteenthÐ Ì&"% ÐAmendment€rights.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' ÐThe€Petitioner€alleged€that€two€prior€convictions€used€to€render€him€an€habitual€criminal,€aÐ )à$( Ðprior€federal€conviction€for€robbery€of€a€postal€worker€and€a€prior€state€conviction€for€robbery€of€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðpharmacy,€both€occurred€on€January€30,€1970€at€Woodland€Pharmacy€in€Atlanta€and€thereforeÐ h+¸&* ÐÔ_Ôconstituted€a€single€offense.€€The€Petitioner€claimed€that,€at€the€time,€Woodland€Pharmacy€wasÐ ° Ðoperating€as€a€United€States€Post€Office€contract€station.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€theÐ œì ÐPetitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€sent€a€clerk€to€Atlanta€to€investigate€the€PetitionerððsÐ ˆØ Ðallegations.€€The€clerk€testified€that€he€traveled€to€Atlanta,€examined€the€original€court€file,€andÐ tÄ Ðinterviewed€a€pharmacist€who€was€employed€at€Woodland€Pharmacy€at€the€time€of€the€robbery.€Ð `° ÐAccording€to€the€clerk,€the€pharmacist€stated€that€he€had€worked€for€Woodland€Pharmacy€for€twenty„Ð L œ Ðfive€years€and€that,€during€that€time,€there€was€no€post€office€inside€the€pharmacy.€€The€clerk€testifiedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€the€pharmacist€maintained€that€the€nearest€post€office€at€the€time€of€the€robbery€was€five€milesÐ $ t Ðaway.€€The€clerk€further€testified€that€he€was€unable€to€locate€a€post€office€in€the€vicinity€of€theÐ  ` Ðpharmacy.€€Trial€counsel€stated€that€the€clerk€returned€with€a€transcript€of€the€state€court€trial,€theÐ ü L  Ðfederal€court€record€of€conviction,€and€notes€from€the€interview€with€the€pharmacist.€€According€toÐ è 8  Ðcounsel,€the€records€and€interview€indicated€that€the€pharmacy€robbery€occurred€in€late€January€ofÐ Ô$  Ð1970€and€that€the€post€office€robbery€took€place€several€days€later,€in€early€February.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÀ  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€Petitioner€also€alleged€that€he€told€his€counsel€that,€provided€the€post€office€robbery€andÐ ˜è  Ðthe€Woodland€Pharmacy€robbery€were€separate€offenses,€he€was€not€the€individual€convicted€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðpost€office€robbery.€€The€Petitioner€claimed€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€argue€thisÐ pÀ Ðpoint€and€for€failing€to€object€to€jury€instructions€regarding€the€presumption€of€identity€in€priorÐ \¬ Ðconvictions.€€However,€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€Petitioner€testified€that€he€was€in€fact€theÐ H˜ Ðindividual€who€pled€guilty€in€federal€court€of€the€post€office€robbery.€€Based€on€this€testimony€andÐ 4„ Ðthe€testimony€of€the€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€and€clerk,€the€court€denied€the€petition€for€post„Ð  p Ðconviction€relief.Ð  \ ÐÐ øH ÐÓ XÓà@© © ìàC.€€Second€Petition€for€Post„Conviction€ReliefˆÐ ä4 ÐÓ XÓÐ Ð  ÐOn€November€25,€1991,€the€Petitioner€filed€a€second€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„convictionÐ ¼  Ðrelief,€alleging€that€his€post„conviction€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€file€an€appeal.€€TheÐ ¨ø ÐPetitioner€maintained€that€he€requested€that€his€post„conviction€counsel€appeal€the€denial€of€hisÐ ”ä Ðpetition,€but€no€appeal€was€filed.€€The€Petitioner€claimed€that€consequently,€he€was€effectivelyÐ €Ð Ðdenied€access€to€the€courts.€€The€Petitioner€also€claimed€that€his€post„conviction€counsel€failed€toÐ l¼ Ðredraft€his€first€petition€to€address€ð ðthe€duplicity€and€multiple€counts€within€his€indictment€alongÐ X ¨ Ðwith€legal€ramifications€of€charging€the€jury€regarding€the€facts€of€lesser€included€offense(s).ðð€€AfterÐ D!” Ða€hearing,€the€trial€court€summarily€dismissed€the€petition€and€ruled€that€the€Petitioner€did€not€haveÐ 0"€  Ða€constitutional€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€This€CourtÐ #l! Ðaffirmed€the€ruling.€€òòSeeóó€òòKenneth€Lee€Weston€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9209„CR„00308,€1993€Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCrim.€App.€LEXIS€348€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€27,€1993).Ô#†X‘XX X‘B%#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÐ ô$D # ÐÐ à%0!$ ÐThe€supreme€court€granted€review€and,€in€a€òòper€curiamóó€order,€reversed€the€judgment€of€thisÐ Ì&"% ÐCourt.€€In€its€remand€order,€the€supreme€court€stated:Ð ¸'#& ÐÓ XÓà8  àThe€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€issue€ofÐ ° Ðwhether€[the€Petitioner]€was€denied€a€first€tier€appeal€of€his€original€post„convictionÐ œì Ðpetition€as€a€result€of€inaction€on€the€part€of€appointed€counsel.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÓ$°,X™X°œX$Óà8  àIf€the€trial€court€finds€in€the€affirmative€on€this€issue€an€appeal€shall€be€granted€on€theÐ tÄ Ðoriginal€post„conviction€petition€or,€in€the€alternative,€a€new€hearing€on€the€petitionÐ `° Ðshall€be€granted,€from€which€petitioner€shall€be€entitled€to€a€first€tier€appeal.€€òòÐL œÐ Ð  ÐKenneth€Lee€Weston€v.€Stateóó,€1993€Tenn.€LEXIS€402€(Tenn.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€8,€1993).Ô#†X‘XX X‘Ý7#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÓH.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°,X™XHÓÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  ÓD.€€First€Post„Conviction€Petition,€AmendedÐ  ` ÐÓ«<ÓÌÓ XÓBefore€the€trial€court€could€conduct€a€hearing€on€the€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ð è 8  Ðthe€Petitioner€filed€an€amended€petition.€€In€the€amended€petition,€the€Petitioner€included€newÐ Ô$  Ðallegations:€(1)€that€trial€counsel€neglected€to€move€for€acquittal€on€the€armed€robbery€charge,Ð À  Ðalthough€the€proof€supported€only€the€charge€of€€bank€robbery€and€(2)€that€trial€counsel€failed€toÐ ¬ü  Ðð ðraise€the€variance€between€the€proof€and€the€conviction.ððÐ ˜è  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing,€found€that€the€Petitioner€was€denied€a€first„Ð pÀ Ðtier€appeal€due€to€the€inactions€of€appointed€counsel,€and€granted€the€Petitioner€an€appeal.€€The€trialÐ \¬ Ðcourt€also€allowed€the€Petitioner€to€amend€his€petition,€but€found€that€the€grounds€alleged€in€theÐ H˜ Ðamended€petition€were€without€merit€in€that€the€trial€court€properly€submitted€to€the€jury€both€theÐ 4„ Ðarmed€robbery€and€bank€robbery€counts.€€Therefore,€relief€based€upon€the€grounds€alleged€in€theÐ  p Ðamended€petition€was€denied.Ð  \ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓOn€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€Petitioner€had€been€deniedÐ ä4 Ða€first„tier€appeal€on€the€merits€of€his€original€post„conviction€petition.€€òòSeeóó€òòKenneth€Lee€WestonÐ Ð  Ðv.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9805„CR„00190,€1999€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€544,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð ¼  ÐKnoxville,€June€3,€1999).€€We€affirmed,€on€other€grounds,€the€dismissal€of€the€Petitionerððs€amendedÐ ¨ø Ðclaims€in€that€the€trial€court€was€not€authorized€to€hear€the€amendments.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€**7„8.òòóóÔ#†X‘XX X‘.<#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÐ ”ä ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€supreme€court€affirmed€our€ruling,€stating:Ð l¼ ÐÓ XÓÓB+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX(#BÓà8  àWe€granted€review€in€this€cause€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€exceeded€theÐ X ¨ Ðauthority€granted€upon€remand€when€it€permitted€Kenneth€Lee€Weston€to€amend€hisÐ D!” Ðpost„conviction€petition€and€when€it€ruled€on€the€amended€petition.€€Because€we€findÐ 0"€  Ðthat€the€trial€court€was€without€authority€to€allow€the€amendment,€we€vacate€allÐ #l! Ðorders€pertaining€to€the€amended€petition€and€remand€the€cause€to€the€Court€ofÐ $X" ÐCriminal€Appeals€for€a€first„tier€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€òòoriginalÐ ô$D # Ðunamended€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefóó.€€òòÐà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐWeston€v.€Stateóó,€60€S.W.3d€57,€57€(Tenn.€2001)€(emphasis€added).€€Ô#†X‘XX X‘sD#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#‹XEÓÌÔ#†X‘XX X‘‹H#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÓ  ÓII.€€ANALYSISÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌA.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓIn€the€original€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€Petitioner€first€argues€that€he€receivedÐ ° Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€Specifically,€the€Petitioner€complains€that€his€counsel€(1)Ð œì Ðfailed€to€thoroughly€investigate€his€assertion€that€two€of€the€prior€convictions€used€to€render€him€anÐ ˆØ Ðhabitual€criminal€actually€arose€from€one€offense;€(2)€failed€to€object€to€jury€instructions€in€theÐ tÄ Ðsentencing€phase€regarding€the€inference€of€identity€in€prior€convictionsÔ#†X‘XX X‘(I#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘Ô;€(3)€failed€to€argue€hisÐ `° Ðdisputed€identity€in€prior€crimes;€(4)€failed€to€advise€him€of€the€potential€use€of€prior€convictions€inÐ L œ Ðdetermining€sentences;€and€(5)€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€violated€his€Fifth,€Sixth,€and€FourteenthÐ 8 ˆ ÐAmendment€rights.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X‘XX X‘1L#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘ÔÐ $ t ÐÐ  ` ÐIn€order€to€obtain€post„conviction€relief,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€his€or€her€conviction€orÐ ü L  Ðsentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgment€of€a€constitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð è 8  Ððð€40„30„105€(1990).€€At€the€time€of€the€filing€of€the€Petitionerððs€original€petition,€the€Petitioner€hadÐ Ô$  Ðthe€burden€of€proving€the€grounds€raised€in€the€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòStateÐ À  Ðv.€Clarkóó,€800€S.W.2d€500,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü  ÐCrim.€App.€1976);€òòBratton€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€754€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€ò òó óA€post„convictionÐ ˜è  Ðcourtððs€factual€findings€are€subject€to€a€òòdeòòóó€óóòònovoóó€review€by€this€Court;€however,€we€must€accord€theseÐ „Ô  Ðfactual€findings€a€presumption€of€correctness,€which€is€overcome€only€when€a€preponderance€of€theÐ pÀ Ðevidence€is€contrary€to€the€post„conviction€courtððs€factual€findings.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,Ð \¬ Ð456€(Tenn.€2001).€€A€post„conviction€courtððs€conclusions€of€law€are€subject€to€a€purely€òòdeòòóó€óóòònovoóóÐ H˜ Ðreview€by€this€Court,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòId.óó€at€457.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ 4„ Ðhas€held€that€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact€and,Ð  p Ðas€such,€is€subject€to€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).ò ò€ó óÐ  \ ÐÐ üL ÐThe€right€of€a€criminally€accused€to€representation€is€guaranteed€by€both€the€SixthÐ è8 ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ð Ô$ ÐòòId.óó;€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€This€right€to€representation€includes€theÐ À Ðright€to€ð ðreasonably€effectiveðð€assistance.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.€€In€reviewing€a€claim€ofÐ ¬ü Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€servicesÐ ˜è Ðrendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€Ð „Ô ÐòòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€a€petitionerÐ pÀ Ðmust€show€that€ð ðcounselððs€representation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness,ððÐ \ ¬ ÐòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€688€(1984),€and€that€this€performance€prejudiced€theÐ H!˜ Ðdefense,€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòId.óó€at€687;€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2dÐ 4"„  Ð744,€747€(Tenn.1993).€€To€satisfy€the€requirement€of€prejudice,€a€petitioner€must€show€a€reasonableÐ  #p! Ðprobability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€have€had€reasonableÐ  $\" Ðdoubt€regarding€the€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probability€mustÐ ø$H # Ðbe€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€694;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875Ð ä%4!$ ÐS.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).Ð Ð& "% ЇWhen€evaluating€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,€the€reviewing€court€should€judgeÐ ° Ðthe€attorneyððs€performance€within€the€context€of€the€case€as€a€whole,€taking€into€account€all€relevantÐ œì Ðcircumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€753€S.W.2d€148,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ˆØ ÐApp.€1988).€€The€reviewing€court€must€evaluate€the€questionable€conduct€from€the€attorneyððsÐ tÄ Ðperspective€at€the€time.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,Ð `° Ð629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€€In€doing€so,€the€reviewing€court€must€be€highly€deferential€andÐ L œ Ðð ðshould€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonable€professional€assistance.ðð€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462.€€Counsel€should€not€be€deemed€to€haveÐ $ t Ðbeen€ineffective€merely€because€a€different€procedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€differentÐ  ` Ðresult.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,€279„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).à x àà Ð àÐ ü L  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIn€this€case,€the€original€post„conviction€court€held€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€petition€andÐ Ô$  Ðfound€that€the€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€provided€effective€assistance.€€Proof€was€presented€at€theÐ À  Ðhearing€that€the€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€sent€a€clerk€to€Atlanta€to€investigate€the€PetitionerððsÐ ¬ü  Ðallegations.€€At€the€hearing,€counsel€testified€that€his€clerk€returned€with€a€transcript€of€the€state€courtÐ ˜è  Ðtrial,€the€federal€court€record€of€conviction,€and€notes€from€an€interview€with€a€pharmacist€atÐ „Ô  ÐWoodland€Pharmacy.€€The€clerk€stated€that,€in€the€interview,€the€pharmacist€reported€that€there€wasÐ pÀ Ðnever€a€postal€facility€inside€the€pharmacy.€€According€to€counsel,€the€records€and€interviewÐ \¬ Ðindicated€that€the€offenses€occurred€several€days€apart€and€at€separate€locations.€€Ð H˜ ÐÐ 4„ ÐÓ XÓà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€counsel€ð ðthoroughlyðð€investigatedÐ  p Ðthe€case€and€effectively€prepared€to€defend€the€Petitioner€ð ðagainst€the€habitual€criminal€count€of€theÐ  \ Ðindictment.ðð€€The€trial€court€then€made€the€following€findings€of€fact:Ð øH Ðà8  àà ` à[The€Petitioner]€complains€that€.€.€.€counsel€was€ineffective€when€they€failedÐ ä4 Ðto€object€to€the€instruction€of€the€Court€and€that€he€had€informed€counsel€that€he€wasÐ Ð  Ðnot€the€same€defendant€that€was€connected€in€Federal€case€number€27363.м Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àHeððs€testified€today€that,€in€fact,€he€was€the€individual€that€was€convicted€inÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Federal€District€Court€of€the€post€office€robbery.€€The€allegation€necessarily€fails.ДäÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àHe€next€complains€that€he€was€not€properly€advised€as€to€the€use€of€theseÐ €Ð Ðconvictions€for€recidivous€purposes€either€in€the€District€Court,€the€Northern€DistrictÐ l¼ Ðof€Georgia,€or€in€Fulton€County,€Georgia.€€This€is€not€the€place€to€litigate€thoseÐ X ¨ Ðissues.€€It€is€not€of€constitutional€dimension€in€any€regard.€€Resultantly,€thatÐ D!” Ðallegation€is€not€well€taken.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àHe€next[]€alleges€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€violated€certain€guaranteesÐ #l! Ðunder€the€fifth,€sixth€and€fourteenth€amendments€to€the€Constitution€and€of€certainÐ $X" Ðsections€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€There€is€no€proof€in€this€record€supportingÐ ô$D # Ðthose€naked€allegations.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à[The€Petitioner]€was€given€full€and€complete€opportunity€to€litigate€the€matterÐ Ì&"% Ðon€direct€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€This€was€not€an€allegation€in€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðappeal.€€It€was€not€complained€of.€€The€opportunity€was€there.€€The€issue€was€waived.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐSubject€to€being€predetermined,€he€chose€not€to€do€so.€€But€over€and€above€that€theseÐ )à$( Ðallegations€.€.€.€made€by€[the€Petitioner]€are€not€supported€by€the€proof.€€AndÐ |*Ì%) Ðresultantly,€the€Petition€for€Post„Conviction€relief€is€denied.€€Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  ÐThe€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€these€findings€by€the€trial€court.€€Other€thanÐ ° Ðuncorroborated€testimony€by€the€Petitioner,€no€proof€was€offered€to€support€the€Petitionerððs€claims.€Ð œì ÐFurthermore,€the€only€evidence€presented€at€the€hearing€concerned€the€Petitionerððs€claim€that€hisÐ ˆØ Ðcounsel€failed€to€adequately€investigate€two€prior€convictions€which€were€used€to€render€him€anÐ tÄ Ðhabitual€criminal.€€Finally,òòóóÔ#†X‘XX X‘ýM#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘Ô€while€the€Petitioner€alleged€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÐ `° Ðargue€his€disputed€identity€in€the€prior€convictions€and€for€failing€to€object€to€jury€instructions€in€theÐ L œ Ðsentencing€phase€regarding€the€inference€of€identity€in€prior€convictionsÔ#†X‘XX X‘Sp#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘Ô,€the€Petitioner€himselfÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€was€in€fact€the€individual€convicted€in€federal€courtÐ $ t Ðof€the€post€office€robbery.Ô#†X‘XX X‘»q#ÔÔ‡ X‘XXX‘Ô€€The€Petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€his€counselððs€performanceÐ  ` Ðwas€deficient.€€Nor€has€the€Petitioner€shown€prejudice€resulting€from€any€alleged€failure€on€the€partÐ ü L  Ðof€his€attorney.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€the€Petitioner€received€effective€assistance€of€counselÐ è 8  Ðat€trial.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓ  ÓB.€Amended€Petition€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ XÓÓ  ÓThe€Petitioner€next€claims€that€the€additional€issues€raised€in€his€second€petition€for€post„Ð „Ô  Ðconviction€relief€are€ripe€for€review€and€should€be€considered€by€this€Court.€€However,€the€supremeÐ pÀ Ðcourt€has€remanded€this€case€ð ðfor€a€first„tier€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€òòoriginalÐ \¬ Ðunamended€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefóó.ðð€€òòWestonóó,€60€S.W.3d€at€57.€€An€order€of€theÐ H˜ ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€remanding€a€case€to€this€Court€for€a€limited€purpose€deprives€this€CourtÐ 4„ Ðof€authority€to€expand€its€review€of€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€59òòóó€(citing€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€906€S.W.2d€440,€443Ð  p Ð(Tenn.€1995)).€€The€Petitionerððs€additional€issues€are€not€within€the€scope€of€the€remand€order.€Ð  \ ÐTherefore,€this€Court€does€not€have€the€authority€to€consider€those€issues.Ð øH ÐÐ ä4 ÐAccordingly,€having€reviewed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€Petitionerððs€original,€unamendedÐ Ð  Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€having€found€no€error,€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trialÐ ¼  Ðcourt.Ð ¨ø ÐÓ XÓÔ#†X‘XX X‘Àr#ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE