Olesen v. Lee

pointed The he was counsel. record reflects entirely

еarning per month which was $600 ($250) minor by rent with food and

consumed totalling everyday living

supplies $350 for

per month. helps explain why September in both February 1993, Green could

of 1992 and $100,000 bond; (only) nor post a cash $10,000 post (only) bond or a

could he cash

surety because he not have cash or did bond post indigent on

assets to bond. He was indigent Sep If he occasions.

both again months and then less than six

tember

later, have been reason dictates he had to Nothing

indigent within time window.

suggests otherwise. This should fol Court mandate it in State v.

low the established

Lohnes, (S.D.1978):

Equal requires Protection credit ‍‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‍for Clause indigent person incar

time served when Thus, should be

cerated. sentence given credit

amended Green should be presentence all incarceration. State

for

Graycek, 335 N.W.2d 572

Liberty precious simply right. is a It is except all those

freedom from restraints justly imposed by law. Remem-

which school,

ber, grade reading debtor’s about

“gaols” England? OLESEN,

Jerry Appellant, Petitioner LEE, Da

Steven W. Warden of the South Penitentiary,

kota State and James

Smith, Superintendent Springfield Facility, and Mark Bar

Correctional

nett, Attorney General, of South State

Dakota, Appellees.

No. 18520.

Supreme Court of South Dakota. April 1994.

Considered Briefs on

Decided Nov. 1994. FACTS

' 1986, (Olеsen) Jerry Olesen was convict- following ed of the criminal offenses: two rape counts of degree; the second two counts of sexual contact with a child under years age; sixteen and one count of incest. The convictions arise from Olesen’s sexual L.Z., A.T., contact with his minor daughters. underlying facts of this case presented were appeal, Olesen’s direct Olesen, State v. 443 N.W.2d 8 Olesen was sentenced to five consecutive three-year for a sentences total of fifteen years. action, corpus

In this habeas Olesen con- tends he was denied effective assistance of guaranteed by counsel as the Sixth Amend- ment of the United States Constitution and VI, 7,§ Article of the South Dakota Consti- tution, (1) following respects: in the Trial properly prepare counsel failed to testify of or to reputation about L.S.’s for truth and veraci- (2) cross-examination, ty; trial coun- effectively exploit prior sel failed to L.S.’s (3) statements; inconsistent trial counsel object prosecution’s improper failed to question. OF

STANDARD REVIEW In order for a convicted defendant prevail corpus proceeding, in a habeas he representation must show counsel’s fell objective below standard of reasonable deficiency prejudiced and that such him. ness Washington, Strickland v. 687- L.Ed.2d 104 ‍‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‍S.Ct. (1984); Hopfinger 511 N.W.2d (S.D.1994). A will not set conviction simply aside because the outcome would have error. been different but for counsel’s Adam, May, B. Robert Anderson of Gerdes Fretwell, U.S. -, Lockhart v. Pierre, Thompson petitioner appel- & for (1993); Hopfinger, L.Ed.2d lant. at 847. Barnett, Gen., Atty. Meyer, Mark Ann C. ‘First, that coun- the defendant must show Gen., Pierre, Atty. appellees. for Asst. performance was deficient. This re- sel’s showing that counsel made errors quires AMUNDSON, Justice. functioning serious that counsel was not so guaranteed the defendant Jerry appeals the circuit court’s as the “counsel” Second, the corpus. by the Amendment. denying order him a writ of habeas Sixth the deficient defendant must show We affirm. therein and to conclude irregularities the defense. performance prejudiced losing judge and counsel the trial counsel’s errors both showing that requires job. might have done a better deprive the defen- well so serious as result is a trial whose fair dant of a State, High Elk reliable.’ omitted). 1984) (citations 868, Iron Shell v. evidence is no There Strickland, (S.D.1993) 466 U.S. at (quoting pretrial witness there was minimal showed 693)); 2064, 687, L.Ed.2d at at 104 S.Ct. dis by The record also preparation counsel. Lockhart, -, 113 S.Ct. also see at least five defense closes that 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180. for truth or reputation testified about L.S.’s highly deferential are Courts Although was not a textbook veracity.1 performance. scrutinizing trial counsel’s examination, of the issue example of direct 2065, 689, 104 Strickland, S.Ct. at 466 U.S. at presented for the credibility still L.S.’s necessary for us to at 694. It is L.Ed.2d the facts of this jury’s Under determination. challenged conduct judge the trial counsel’s case, preparation cannot be this lack case, particular viewеd as facts of the on the rising level of constitutional to the viewed 690, at conduct. Id. of the time of counsel’s deficiency. 2066, at 695. Olesen at 80 L.Ed.2d 104 S.Ct. opinion at witnesses stated their under These presumption must overcome and, considering the cumulative nature circumstances, challenged trial action ” “ evidence, has not shown strategy.’ of this Olesen sound trial ‘might be considered performance was so situation where counsel’s at 80 L.Ed.2d at at 104 S.Ct. Id. - Louisiana, of the trial is funda deficient that the result 350 U.S. (quoting Michel v. mentally unfair or unreliable. 91, 100-01, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). at 80 L.Ed.2d 466 U.S. at S.Ct. Upon of the habeas court review Lockhart, -, 693; decision, upset not factual this Court will The habeas court’s 122 L.Ed.2d 180. they clearly erroneous. findings unless adequately rep finding trial counsel had Ashker v. clearly erroneous. 1990). is not resented Olesen Statements Prior Inconsistent ANALYSIS separate irregularities, Due to three Preparation Witnesses juries Olesen was grand convened before testimony an in- Olesen claims L.S.’s grand jury’s brought to trial. After the first component of case. dispensable State’s and the sec indictment had been dismissed case, attempt to undermine State’s Olesen convened, grand jury L.S.’s ond opinion give their several witnesses called in explain not what changed. Olesen does veracity. reputation for truth but, of L.S.’s the record exist a review of consistencies argues now that his trial counsel jury, grand L.S. testified shows at the constitutionally he did not ineffective because vagina in rubbed her October that Olesen prior prepare these witnesses adequately intercourse with her 1979 and he had trial. grand jury During the second August, 1979. trial, proceeding, and at L.S. testified allegations the re- approach such only vagina in Octo rubbed her not difficult after con- Olesen

alization that it is ber, 1979, engaged in sexual intercourse. searching analysis but templation alleged Au- reference was made to imperfections find and No record of a trial to (2) is admissi- Evidence of truthful character provides: SDCL 19-14-9 1. only of the witness for ble after the character credibility may a witness be attacked by opinion opin- been attacked or by truthfulness has supported evidence in the form of or subject reputation, reputation to these limita- or otherwise. ion or but evidence tions: (1) may only refer to character The evidence untruthfulness, or for truthfulness tactics, gust, grand jury lawyer’s wrong poorly incident at the second but a or hearing. judgment advised exercise of is not alone enough support subsequent claim of Olesen ‍‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‍claims his trial counsel did not ade- ineffective counsel.” Id. quately about these in- cross-examine L.S. review, Upon consistencies. The record indicates trial this court concludes defense regarding counsel’s decision counsel did cross-examine about incon- the breadth of L.S. testimony.2 his cross-examination of prior sistencies in her At the habeas L.S. on her court “I inconsistencies trial counsel testified: tried to falls within the realm of trial subject pushed guеssing her as I and I tactics and is not best could second Therefore, dared, this court. thought jury.” as far as I this was not a decision which Tidal counsel also stated that at trial he would amount to ineffective prosecuting attorney’s believed the counsel under the direct ex- circumstances. Roden v. Solem, “pretty any amination of much 431 N.W.2d 667 L.S. took sting that I had in cross-examination of Object Failure to picture.” her out of the At the defense called numerous wit- Because of the difficulties inhеrent in mak- credibility. nesses to L.S.’s Wit- ing attorney’s perfor- the evaluation an [of length nesses testified at about L.S.’s suicidal trial], mance indulge a court must a tendencies, drug usage, family problems, strong presumption that counsel’s conduct maladies, physical mental and and her lack of range falls within the wide of reasonable rebuttal, veracity. Angini On State called assistance; is, professional the defen- Tapscott, psychologist, a symp- to describe that, presumption dant ovеrcome the must by toms suffered women who have been sex- circumstances, challenged under the ually abused as children and to rehabilitate ‘might action be considered sound trial credibility. L.S.’s bruised strategy.’ 689, 104 466 at at U.S. S.Ct. claims his counsel was con stitutionally (quoting 80 L.Ed.2d at 694-95 Michel v. Lou ineffective because he did not isiana, 168, 164, object prosecution Tapscott when the asked (1955)). following question: 100 L.Ed. trial Olesen’s coun pointed sel out L.S.’s inconsistencies but tes Now, education, Q your your based opinion tified that in his it would have been experience working in the area of with “pushed” detrimental if he L.S. too far be sexually people abused and all the time jury gain sympathy cause the would for her. you spent you have do tactics, errors, being argued.” “Trial opinion have an as to whether or not (S.D. Jenner v. 521 N.W.2d story involving L.S. would fabricate a 1994) (citation omitted). “It is not our func sexual abuse? guess experi tion to second the decisions of No, A she would not. attorneys regarding enced trial mattеrs of State, High ‘Generally, trial making tactics.” Elk v. 344 N.W.2d or failure to (S.D.1984) (citations omitted). objections “It is make motions and are trial deci- always easy hindsight to use to cast doubt on within sions the discretion of trial counsel. example Q 2. An of this cross-examination as fol- You took the same kind of oath in front of lows: grand jury you lady as did from this Now, [L.S.], (at grand Q at that time today? here jury), you story you told a different than Yes, A I did. today, you? told didn't truth, Q nothing You swore to tell the but the you A What do mean? truth? your your Q ev- About father sister and Yes, A I did. erything, you story a different on No- told that, you? Q you You didn’t do or did Did (sic) you today? 24th did vember tell the truth? Yes, A I did. Half-way. A grand jury you Q You told the and there were Q oath, thing half-way Is there such a you truth? under not? A I remember. A To me there is. (S.D. probability Anderson, but for counsel’s reasonable 387 N.W.2d

State v. Tchida, errors, pro 1986); unprofessional result of State ap A rea general ceeding rule will not different. This would have been however, probability trial actions ply, probability where counsel’s is a sufficient sonable аny strategic reasonably relate to cannot the outcome.” undermine confidence to clearly contrary the Strickland, 694, 104 to and are decision at at “ in similar cir competent actions of counsel L.Ed.2d at 698. ‘Some errors will cumstances.’ to be pervasive effect on inferences had evidence, altering the entire from the drawn Jenner, (quoting Ro at 425-26 ” evidentiary picture^]’ (quoting Id. Strick den land). This errors. 1988). is not one those prohibits from 19-14-9 SDCL litany was asked rebut testifying jury’s infringing upon function questioning credi L.S.’s of defense witnesses truthfully. has that another witness testified obviously bility. This not called witness rule, trial should have Based on this counsel Tapscott during the State’s case-in-chief. objected prosecution’s question be testify trial. the last called witness opinion for an cause did not ask objection perfect would have In a lack there reputation for truthfulness or the made, is not but a criminal defendant been “ credibility of. is hornbook law that the ‘[I]t trial, only one. perfect to a a fair entitled weight given his of a witness and the to be (S.D. 843, Bennis, 847 v. State ” exclusively jury.’ the rests with 1990) States, (citing 411 v. Brown United Azure, 336, v. 801 F.2d 340 United States 1565, 1570,36 L.Ed.2d U.S. 93 S.Ct. (8th Cir.1986) (quoting v. United States (1973)). 208, object single to a 215 Failure to (S.D.N.Y.1952), 798, Rosenberg, F.Supp. 806 108 not cast a question asked on rebuttal does (2d Cir.1952)). “An 'd, F.2d 666 200 aff it proceeding which renders doubt this ‘may usurp go so far the expert not as to fundamentally unfair or unreliable.3 jury weigh the function of the to exclusive ” decision is affirmed. The habeas court’s Azure, credibility.’ and determine evidence (quoting F.2d at States 801 340 Unitеd MILLER, C.J., and WUEST and Samara, (10th 701, Cir.), cert. F.2d 705 643 SABERS, JJ., concur. 122, denied, 829, 70 454 102 S.Ct. (1981) (quoting 104 States v. L.Ed.2d United HENDERSON, Justice, was Retired who (3d Cir.1948))). Ward, 169 462 F.2d a member of the at the time this action Court Therefore, find that has satisfied we submitted, was dissents. analysis by prong the first of Strickland J., KONENKAMP, having not a been showing performance defi trial counsel’s was of at the time this case member the Court cient. 466 U.S. at Court, partici- submitted to the did not was at 80 L.Ed.2d at 693. pate. must next determine if this deficient Olesen, performance prejudicial to caus- (dissent- HENDERSON, Retired Justice or ing result the trial unreliable of ing). Lockhart, fundamentally unfair. -, 122 at 191. case at L.Ed.2d It is obvious that the issues of this consideration, presented, must show that there is were not nor under “The defendant Tidball, during May to In and disabled mind” 3. The dissent cites Matter of (S.D.1993), presented the misdeeds Olesen would have such a claim in this N.W.2d 850 where court, Attorney proceeding. brought been Tidball before this If the alcoholism issue had which integral part presented trial of 1991. The the habeas court an occurred in claim, May guilty with a verdict on of the assistance of counsel it Olesen concluded ineffective accordingly in case does not been in this 1986. record this would addressed retrospect that Tidball's defense of Olesen decision. To conclude in that Tid- include claim in 1986. in assis- was deficient due to Tidball’s alcoholism ball's alcoholism resulted ineffective go saying is would without if Tidball tance speculative counsel at the time the 1986 trial It deadened, impotent, crippled unsupported by "operating with an the rеcord. counsel, appeal apparent, by first 443 N.W.2d as his in Olesen’s found at defense is us, totally reviewing pleadings We have before documents and all sub- nature, very legal proceeding, by pro- mitted in disciplinary different its as evidence his Court, present- ceeding issues that were never this with several before Tidball was practicing Court in intent an ed to this 1989. It is not absolute law—in the alcoholic— legal in indulge generosity many years, so soften state of Dakota for South includ- ing of Olesen or towards when he the criticism this author time-frame defended Olesen. counsel, quest his trial Keith Tidball. Our Amundson, Justice who writes deci standpoint legal from a review should be sion, wrote in Tidball that an Tidball was to achieve a result in this habeas attorney “... who operating corpus proceeding our which would buttress deadened, impotent, crippled, and disabled appeal, relieving Mr. holding in thus periods question.” mind in Tid inadequate representation Tidball of his of ball, (Amundson, dis J. proclaimed Cicerо once that “... Olesen. senting). special writing This tied was all nothing generous if it the same is not at period into Tidball’s alcoholism over a just.” justice in this time We should seek many years. By reading majority opin up costly not cover errors of case and action, disciplinary ion in the it becomes obvi attorney Tidball the trial of this case. ous that his alcoholism was existent in the spilled early latter over 1980s and into the my special wrote When I concurrence 1990s. appeal, I simply the first not aware of by attorney rep many failures Tidball to holding Cody, Under our State v. manner; competent in a resent Olesen nor (S.D.1982), judicial take notice other aware. were the members this Court Tidball, showing of the extensive made adjudicate only We can those issues in April, submitted Court Fur to this 1993.

which are briefed as issues. Graham ther is ‍‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‍made to reference two South Dakota State, 328 N.W.2d 254 statutes, 19-10-3 and SDCL SDCL 19-10-6 outcome Court should focus “on mere .* Numerous affidavits and documents determination,” expressed in v. Lockhart reflecting were filed Tidball’s behalf his Fretwell, U.S. -, -, alcoholism, practicing he was do while law. (1993). 842, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 er Tidball’s or think in In not have to vote a vacuum. rors, below, were that detailed so serious Cody, 322 N.W.2d at fn. 31 C.J.S. they For that deprived 50(2) (1964) Olesen of a fair trial. § the Evidence is sourced for reason, particu conclusive as set forth more may a take proposition generally that court herein, larly majority opin I dissent to the prior proceed notice of records or its own ion. ings. an July began this Court entered

On reflects Tidball’s affidavit that he opinion professional on the conduct using beverages extensive alcohol when he was a-small Tidball, attorney expressed, Tidball. regularly, of Matter “I child. He of suspended my the N.W.2d 850 He was the entire since admission to time Bar, whiskey had practice period from of law for a of three used and believed that it my my ability or do years. His serious ethical included no harmful effect to breaches Despite previous it is money, locking his work. such belief using up his clients’ consump- money my increasing in a his own now clear to me clients’ safe to avoid (he whiskey compounding my prob- was depositing was fearful of his tion of creditors bank), helping money eo-mingling in his me resolve them.” a lems rather than client’s mine.) Later, clients, ex- failing (Emphasis supplied those of to have he funds with his account, entirely dependent on wrongfully appropriating pressed, and “I was whis- a trust just irrationally settlement, converting key believed that if I money thеn it and within to ignored I would never have problems, use. tried to his own When Olesen was mine.) Dakota, (Emphasis supplied County, Haakon South with Tidball deal with them.” * may may provides: take "Judicial notice The statute recites: “A court latter statute former notice, stage proceeding." any of the judicial requested The taken at whether or not.” him or him. Had never talked to alcohol met with affidavit, he also admits to

In his testimony dis- and he been interviewed his himself on the threw dependence and and Tidball, he he would cussed with testified agreed, even before mercy this He of Court. have testify would prepared and been years, to down suspension three close of witness. been better library. A practice to sell his private his 7,1993, disciplinary filed report March in the habeas Tassler testified One Tom Psycholo- of proceedings, from the Chief Sandy. corpus as did his wife proceeding Affairs, Department of Veteran’s gy Service prog- criminal She testified Meade, Dakota, which Tidball at- South Ft. it for talked to her and was ress when Tidball affidavit, “A to his reflected: tached sworn only Tom he had minutes. testified few history alcohol abuse.” Tidball lengthy but opinion the lack of truthfulness adjustment “an disorder de- had with also never called Tidball never met with him and prob- secondary to a financial pressed mood witnesses, Two Irene him as a witness! “depression,” ac- He suffered from lem.” Olesen, Roy testified Oedekoven cording report. discharge sum- (before they them took Tidball nevеr told Administration, mary from the Veteran’s stand) asked of questions would be what to his affi- which Tidball also attached sworn them; furthermore, any preparation was davit, expresses: stated that he “[Tidball] lawyer very competent minimal. A defense 5Jpyear history sporadic alcohol has a neglect thoroughly interview his would not n (Em- and this first treatment.” abuse is his putting the witness before them on mine.) going supplied back and phasis When stand! proceedings, reading disciplinary over the objection made counsel No defense why to this writer becomes obvious following question of a social asked defense of Tidball misfired in his Olesen. (State’s expert) during trial: worker my opinion, trial is the result Now, education, Q. upon your your based example for reasons. An unreliable several working experience in the area of with inadequate preparation for of his trial was sexually people all the time abused interviewing defense witnesses the court [L.S.], spent you do you have house, time, during the trial. opinion as or not have an to whether for say reasonably re cannot action is involving such story would fabricate a [L.S.] Phyle strategic Leap to a lated decision. sexual abuse? Ro ley, 491 N.W.2d 429 Accord No, A. not. she would (S.D.1988). It den objectionable. highly Such a any good preposterous to assume is (8th Azure, F.2d 336 United States v. lawyer would until practicing defense wait Cir.1986). immediately should Tidball have trial to his for the the interview witnesses objected Attorney he did not. Assistant but falls preparation time! Such below an probably Campbell General testified he Note, objective standard of reasonableness. objected question; Tidball would have this recently expressed such a stan this Court why could he did not. not recollect dard Iron Shell v. You, jury, should inference was clear: the the social Tapscott, believe because L.S. alone, worker, Attorney Bar- her. this Olesen is entitled to believed State’s For reason question A A trial his nett he had alternative a new trial. fair trial. where testified objection question. the to ask if was made to the are interviewed advance of witnesses witnesses, alleged key Credibility ‍‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‍the of the victim was trial. One the defense Curtis Mills, testimony corpus hearing The social worker’s testified in this habeas case. key opinion regarding had an un- was elicited to bolster the witnesses’ that he L.S.’ truthfulness; usurped the testimony. the function of testified he was available She he jury Again, which is to determine the facts. but asked that trial was never rather, strategy; ineom- staying at a this is not trial it is Mills testified he was witness. (situs trial) petency. not condone Philip of the dur- This Court should motel room trial; Tidball, testified, practice. such he ing the entire probability was denied effective assistant of sonable but for ineffective counsel, fundamentally representation, resulting in a unfair the verdict would have been Lockhart, at -, proceeding. 113 different. Washington, Strickland v. Unfortunately, at 842-43. there was 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); costly error. another Luna v. 411 N.W.2d 656 1987). Finding In of Fact No. 8 of the emphasis Because of the State’s on the court, circuit expressed circuit court testimony credibility her lack of properly “... prepared defense counsel all important Jury to Olesen’s defense. Grand upon such witnesses for trial based their transcripts changed reveal that L.S. her knowledge pertinent petition facts in alleged concerning sworn sexu- Finding er’s clearly case.” This of Fact was attorney al contact. was well Olesen’s aware erroneous, under this record. Tidball even prior of thеse inconsistent statements. Nev- acknowledged hearing at the habeas that his ertheless, completely impeach he failed approach subject go on this did not as well credibility lacking her at trial. a case hoped he had for at the trial. If he had sat evidence, physical the failure of defense down, professionally before met impeach purported counsel to victim’s de- prepared witnesses, with and these it is devastating. A tailed inconsistenciеs is rea- opinion that the case for the defense would prudent lawyer sonable would not have gone better. Because of this erroneous winning avoided on a cross-examination (that Fact, Finding of the Conclusion of Law point, namely, prior inconsistent statement presentation anything Tidball’s other made under oath. Tidball knew about these adequate) simply unsupported than in fact. inconsistent statements as he had the tran- interesting It is to note that at the habeas script сonflicting and was aware sto- hearing, Attorney State’s Barnett testified During corpus hearing, ries. the habeas Tid- reluctantly agree that he had to that these important ball testified that his most unsophisticated unquestionably potentially strategy effective was to preparation. earnestly sug needed more made, oath, L.S. The statements she under gest disciplinary pro based Jury, to the Grand far different than ceeding reflecting that Tidball anwas alco jury the statements that she made tо the time, long period holic plus for a Yet, astoundingly, which convicted Olesen. corpus proceeding, record in the habeas she was never cross-examined on the incon- habeas court should reversed and this Why why—I sistencies. ask? Cross-exam- — case should be remanded for a new trial —a knife, sharp ination is like a for it cuts to the Thereby, fair trial. we would serve the best quick greatest weapon of the truth. It is the justice by promoting good quality interests of lawyer get that a defensе has to to the truth in its administration. veracity of the facts and the of the witness. Nothing gained by failing was to be Tidball Why this earnest dissent now? Remem- aspect critical law, cross-examine of the corpus ber: Dakota Under South habeas By majority defense. footnote writer proceedings, concerning claims of ineffective asserts that the life-time alcoholism of Tid- assistance, preferably heard therein —not ball is immaterial because it was not advocat- Fender, apрeal in chief. State v. below; representation vig- ed ineffective orously asserted below and this writer has now, As it stands the result cannot be background by Tidball’s furnished own described as reliable. why statement as to he was ineffec- sworn 2064; Hopfinger Leap S.Ct. at upon whiskey, dependence tive: His ley, 511 statements, By the law. his own he was an Here, a truth exists. have a manifest consuming alcoholic alcohol from the time he right. Only usurpation of a constitutional boy! was a little judicial can it. blinders obscure can no trial tactic This dissenter envision justified by neglect high- defense counsel’s

lighting damaging testimony weaknesses of

herein. Due to the nature of the inconsistent victim, alleged

details there is a rea-

Case Details

Case Name: Olesen v. Lee

Court Name: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 30, 1994

Citation: 524 N.W.2d 616

Docket Number: 18520

Court Abbreviation: S.D.