ÿWPC»@ …U:V % 0Ü–4r † • 0 « 0DË 0J 0TY 0^­ 0h  0rs 0|å 0†a 0ç 1uwU,ì 0dU,|U*¨B)ÒDCû AM>å‹/p BŸÞ¼'š%Áñæ ×" D3Û$í%Vû' 0@Q+˜‘+¯).—Ø0^o2v~Í5vÓK7 AO=Æm= 0ø3> 0D+@ D/o@ Bž@, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ3x23|x¢ÿMcCARTIEÿÿMcIntyreÿÿMika'eelÿÿAbdullahÿÿAbdusÿÿSamadÿÿHippenÿÿRaifordÿÿRenitaÿÿLenoirÿÿAykesÿÿBoyceÿÿRyderÿÿLanoreÿÿSykesÿÿA.C.ÿÿPettigrewÿÿDaughtreyÿÿclaimesÿÿConnerÿÿ11thÿÿKnightonÿÿMaggioÿÿGaileÿÿPervisÿÿPayneÿÿGribbleÿÿaggravatorsÿÿaggravatorÿÿPritchettÿÿHartmanÿÿanalogizedÿ ÿWLÿ ÿKerleyÿÿBeverlyÿÿSakyiÿÿBeasleyÿ(Ð(3F˜$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€LŸXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òFeb…ruaryÏ21,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€appellant€presented€over€oneÏhundred€alleged€errors€through€his€òòpro€se€óópetition€and€his€amended€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€These€errors€can€be€categorized€into€six€cognizableÏareas:€€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel;€improper€jury€instructions;Ïconstitutional€errors€by€the€trial€court;€improper€conduct€by€the€State;€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€appellate€counsel;€and€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€Ì d ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAdditionally,€issue€#8€has€been€previously€determined€by€the€supremeÏcourt€on€direct€appeal.€€òòBoydóó,€797€S.W.2d€at€595„96.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIssue€#11€is€without€merit.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€post„convictionÏcourt€did€òònotóó€prevent€the€appellant€from€presenting€evidence€on€issues€that€isÏfound€to€be€previously€determined.€€Rather,€when€the€State€requested€thatÏnumerous€issues€be€dismissed€because€they€had€previously€been€determinedÏon€direct€appeal,€the€post„conviction€court€allowed€the€petitioner€to€argue€whyÏthose€issues€were€not€previously€determined€and€to€present€his€proof.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€entire€case€file,€which€included€the€transcript€of€the€proceedings,Ïexhibits,€and€the€technical€record,€remained€with€the€Supreme€Court€at€JacksonÏfollowing€that€court's€review€on€direct€appeal.Ì çÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€does€not€reflect€whether€the€post„conviction€court€found€thatÏa€copy€of€the€transcript€was€"necessary€to€further€meritorious€claims."€€Ì úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellant's€issues€(a)€through€(s)€relate€to€his€ineffectiveness€of€trialÏcounsel€claim;€issues€(t)€and€(u)€relate€to€his€ineffectiveness€of€appellateÏcounsel€claim.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€At€the€hearing,€in€response€to€this€manner€of€questioning,€the€post„conviction€court€stated,€"This€court€will€not€regard€the€mere€recitation€ofÏlanguage€found€in€the€petition€as€an€offer€of€proof€sufficient€to€meet€burden€ofÏproof€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòKerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€at€757."€ÏAccordingly,€the€court€found€that€numerous€issues,€not€presented€in€this€appeal,Ïwere€waived.€Ì LÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€had€notÏintended€to€kill€anyone.€€He€further€stated€that,€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€he€wasÏnot€in€possession€of€a€gun.€€The€appellant€asserted€that€the€victim€pulled€a€gunÏon€him,€and€that€the€appellant€was€"just€fighting€for€his€life."€€He€concluded€thatÏthe€victim€died€during€a€struggle.€€The€appellant€also€very€briefly€told€the€juryÏabout€his€second€degree€murder€conviction,€implying€that€the€crime€occurredÏduring€a€fight€over€a€woman.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ŽÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that,€since€the€filing€of€appellant's€brief,€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€has€held€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„207(b)€(1995€Supp.),Ïauthorizing€special€support€services€to€indigent€defendants,€applies€to€post„conviction€capital€cases.€€òòOwens€and€Payne€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€928Ï(Tenn.€1995).€Ì ¥Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€time€of€the€appellant's€trial,€[four€years€before€the€release€of€theÏsupreme€court's€decision€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó],€a€jury€could€consider€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€factor€in€imposing€the€death€penalty€upon€a€defendantÏfound€guilty€of€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Pritchettóó,€621€S.W.2d€127,€140„41Ï(Tenn.€1981).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€This€aggravating€circumstance€was€rejected€by€the€jury.Ì TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Assistant€District€Attorney€General€Hughes€remarked€in€closing,Ï"There's€no€question€that€we've€proven€two€of€the€aggravating€circumstances:ÏMurder€in€the€Perpetration€of€a€€Robbery,€and€the€fact€that€Mr.€Boyd€has€killedÏbefore."€€In€rebuttal€to€the€appellant's€closing€statement,€Assistant€DistrictÏAttorney€General€Beasley€stated,€"You've€already€found€that€it€was€a€murder€inÏthe€perpetration€of€a€robbery,€that€Michael€Boyd€wanted€to€rob€these€people€ofÏtheir€money€and€he€killed€one€of€them€in€the€act."€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Ð3™õ$¢¢Ý ƒ`!ÝÑÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€LŸXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÙ€€ÙßL€!" ;+'h|i` e `€€Lßà@ àMAY€SESSION,€1995Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òMICHAEL€J.€BOYDó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9406„CR„00131Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€ò òJOSEPH€B.ÏMcCARTIEó ó,€JudgeÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à à(Capital€Murder)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òDaniel€A.€Sewardà àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonó óÌPillow„McIntyre€Houseà àà àà àAttorney€GeneralÏand€ReporterÌ707€Adamsà àÌMemphis,€TN€€38105à àà àà àò òRebecca€L.€Gundtó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà àJohn€W.€Pierottió óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà àTerry€Harrisó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà à3rd€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓò òòòà@ àOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Michael€Joe€Boyd,€whose€legal€name€is€now€Mika'eelÏAbdullah€Abdus€Samad,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€by€the€Criminal€Court€of€Shelby€County.€€On€March€10,Ï1988,€the€appellant€was€convicted€by€a€Shelby€County€jury€of€felony€murderÏand€two€counts€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€appellant€was€sentencedÏto€death€by€electrocution€for€the€murder€conviction€and€to€life€imprisonment€forÏeach€of€the€two€counts€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€trial€court€orderedÏthat€the€sentences€be€served€consecutively.€€On€September€24,€1990,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€appellant's€convictions€and€sentences,ÏòòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990),€and€on€January€22,€1991,€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€deniedòò€certiorari€óó,€òòBoyd€v.€Tennesseeóó,€498€U.S.Ï1074,€111€S.Ct.€800€(1991).ÌÌà àOn€April€1,€1991,€the€appellant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.× ƒ# ××  ×€€ÏOn€May€6,€1993,€the€court€appointed€Dan€Seward€to€represent€the€appellant€forÏpost„conviction€purposes.€€On€January€21,€1994,€the€post„conviction€courtÍconducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€and,€on€March€21,€1994,€entered€its€findingsÏof€facts€and€conclusions€of€law,€denying€the€appellant's€petition.€€The€appellantÏimmediately€filed€his€notice€of€appeal.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€presents€the€following€eleven€issues€for€our€review:ÌÒ p ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€€Whether€the€post„conviction€court€committed€error€during€theÏpost„conviction€hearing€by€denying€the€appellant's€motion€andÏrequest€for€a€copy€of€the€trial€transcript;ÌÌ(2)€€€Whether€the€post„conviction€court€committed€error€by€denyingÏthe€appellant's€request€for€a€continuance€of€the€post„convictionÏhearing;ÌÌ(3)€€€Whether€the€appellant's€trial€counsel€provided€ineffectiveÏassistance;ÌÌ(4)€€€Whether€the€appellant's€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective;Ì€Ì(5)€€€Whether€the€due€process€rights€of€the€appellant€were€violatedÏwhen€the€appellant€was€not€appointed€an€attorney€until€more€thanÏtwo€years€after€the€filing€of€the€petition;ÌÌ(6)€€€Whether€the€trial€court€committed€error€by€giving€improper€juryÏinstructions;ÌÌ(7)€€€Whether€the€trial€court€committed€error€at€the€trial€level;ÌÌ(8)€€€Whether€the€appellant€should€have€received€the€death€penaltyÏand€whether€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€is€constitutional;ÌÌ(9)€€€Whether€the€appellant€was€entitled€to€expert€services€at€hisÏcapital€post„conviction€hearing;ÌÌ(10)€€Whether€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€collaterallyÏattack€the€appellant's€prior€conviction€for€second€degree€murder€asÏthis€conviction€was€used€as€an€aggravator€at€the€penalty€phase€of€theÍtrial;€andÌÌ(11)€€Whether€the€post„conviction€court€properly€denied€theÏappellant's€right€to€a€full€hearing€by€ruling€allegations€in€the€petitionÏto€be€previously€determined€without€allowing€any€evidence€from€theÏappellant€as€to€why€the€grounds€raised€have€not€been€previouslyÏlitigated.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓAfter€reviewing€the€record€before€us,€we€conclude€that€the€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court€are€correct,€and€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€appellant's€post„conviction€petition.ÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌÌà àThis€proceeding€arises€from€the€appellant's€collateral€attack€on€hisÏconvictions€for€the€November€8,€1986,€armed€robbery€of€William€Price€andÏDavid€Hippen,€which€resulted€in€the€murder€of€William€Price.€€The€evidence€atÏtrial€established€that€Price€and€Hippen€drove€into€downtown€Memphis€for€theÏpurpose€of€soliciting€female€companionship.€€òòBoydóó,€797€S.W.2d€at€592.€€AnÏunknown€individual€directed€them€to€Raiford's€Lounge,€where€two€women,ÏBarbara€Lee€and€Renita€Tate,€agreed€to€accompany€them.€€òòIdóó.€€The€foursomeÏdrove€to€the€Lorraine€Motel,€where€Price€gave€one€of€the€women€a€$100€bill€toÏrent€two€rooms.€€òòIdóó.€€The€women€began€to€argue€about€which€one€of€them€wouldÏgo€to€the€office€to€pay€for€the€rooms.€€òòIdóó.€€While€the€women€were€arguing,€theÍappellant€(Lee's€boyfriend)€and€two€other€men€drove€up€alongside€Price's€van.€ÏòòIdóó.€€The€appellant€got€out€of€his€car,€stepped€up€to€the€van,€pointed€a€pistolÏtowards€Hippen's€face€and€demanded€money.€€òòIdóó.€€The€appellant€robbed€PriceÏand€Hippen€of€approximately€$130€dollars.€€òòIdóó.€€Price€then€grabbed€theÏappellant's€arm,€the€appellant€fired€the€gun,€and€the€three€men€began€toÏstruggle€over€the€gun.€€As€Price€started€the€van€and€attempted€to€drive€away,€theÏappellant€"emptied"€his€gun€at€him.€€òòIdóó.€€Five€to€six€bullets€struck€Price's€bodyÏresulting€in€his€death.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àà àÌà@ àò òII.€€€ANALYSISÌó óÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€following€issues€have€been€waived€since€theÏappellant€has€failed€to€cite€any€authority€in€support€of€his€arguments€as€requiredÏby€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7)€and€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€R.€App.€10(b):€€(1)€Issue€#€5,Ï"Due€Process€Rights€violated€by€failure€to€appoint€counsel€until€two€years€afterÏfiling€of€pro€se€petition;"€€(2)€€Issue€#7,€"Errors€committed€by€the€trial€court;"€€(3)ÏIssue€#8,€"Constitutionality€of€the€Tennessee€Death€Penalty;"× ƒ% ××  ×€(4)€Issue€#10,€"AÏcollateral€attack€should€have€been€presented€challenging€the€appellant'sÏsecond€degree€murder€conviction€prior€to€the€death€penalty€post„conviction;"Íand€(5)€Issue€#11,€"The€post„conviction€court€erred€in€prohibiting€evidence€as€toÏpreviously€determined€issues."× ƒ& ××  ×€€€Because€the€appellant€has€waived€theseÏissues,€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€address€these€contentions€in€our€analysis.€ÌÌ€ò òà@ àà@ à1.€€MOTION€AND€REQUEST€FOR€COPY€OF€TRANSCRIPTó óà àÌÌà àOn€December€13,€1993,€post„conviction€counsel€filed€a€"motion€to€haveÏthe€clerk€of€court€copy€record€and€to€deliver€copy€to€petitioner."€€On€DecemberÏ14,€1993,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€the€motion.€€The€appellant€arguesÏthat€this€ruling€is€in€error.€€We€disagree€and€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà àThere€is€no€dispute€that€"an€indigent€defendant€has€a€constitutional€andÏstatutory€right€.€.€.€to€a€free€transcript€in€order€to€prosecute€a€claim€for€post„conviction€relief€where€that€is€essential€in€order€for€him€to€demonstrate€his€rightÏto€such€relief."€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€457€S.W.2d€869,€870€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1970);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòCauley€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9310„CR„00367Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Mar.€2,€1995);€òòPettigrew€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9203„CC„0065€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Aug.€25,€1993).€€In€order€toÍestablish€entitlement€to€a€"free€transcript,"€a€defendant€must€allege€aÏconstitutional€ground€for€relief.€€The€trial€court,€in€turn,€must€determine€whetherÏthe€transcript€is€necessary€to€further€meritorious€claims.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€appellant€had€access€to€a€"free€transcript."€€InÏfact,€the€appellant€conceded€this€point€in€a€contemporaneous€motion.€€InÏconjunction€with€the€appellant's€"motion€to€have€the€clerk€of€court€copy€record,"Ïthe€appellant€filed€a€"motion€to€transcribe€record€of€opening€statement."€€In€thatÏmotion,€which€was€granted€by€the€post„conviction€court,€the€appellant€stated€".€.€.Ïall€parts€of€the€relevant€record.€.€.€have€been€transcribed€and€are€available€toÏPetitioner's€attorney"€with€the€exception€of€the€opening€statements.€€Additionally,Ïwe€note€that,€on€November€19,€1993,€post„conviction€counsel€filed€a€motion€withÏthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€at€Jackson€"to€have€trial€transcript€andÏevidentiary€hearings€returned€to€original€court€of€jurisdiction€for€sixty€days."× ƒ' ××  ×€€OnÏNovember€23,€1993,€Justice€Daughtrey€granted€this€motion.€€The€orderÏspecified€that€the€original€trial€transcript€and€any€transcript€regarding€evidentiaryÏhearings,€including€all€exhibits,€were€to€be€sent€to€the€Clerk€of€the€CriminalÏCourt€for€the€Thirtieth€Judicial€District€of€Shelby€County.€€ÌÌà àClearly,€the€appellant€through€his€post„conviction€counsel€had€access€toÏall€relevant€parts€of€the€transcript€"necessary€to€further€meritorious€claims."× ƒ( ××  ×€ÏThus,€even€if€counsel€was€inconvenienced€by€not€having€a€personal€copy€of€theÏtranscript,€the€appellant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€post„conviction€court's€denialÏof€this€request.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.à àÌÌà@ àò ò2.€€MOTION€FOR€CONTINUANCEó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€denyingÏhis€motions€for€a€continuance,€which€were€filed€and€argued€on€the€morning€ofÏthe€evidentiary€hearing.€€ÌÌà àImmediately€preceding€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€appellant€movedÏfor€a€continuance.€€The€appellant€argued€that€a€continuance€of€about€fourÏmonths€was€necessary€in€order€for€Inquisitor,€Inc.,€a€private€investigation€firm,€toÏcomplete€research€of€the€appellant's€educational€records€and€former€prisonÏrecord.€€This€motion€was€denied.€€The€appellant€contends€that€the€informationÏfrom€this€investigation€"would€[have€been]€useful€potentially€at€the€hearing."€€ÌÌà àAfter€this€denial,€the€appellant€requested€a€continuance€in€order€to€obtainÍwitnesses€for€the€hearing.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€argued€that€certainÏwitnesses€either€could€not€be€found€or€did€not€respond€to€their€subpoenas.€€ThisÏmotion€was€likewise€denied€by€the€post„conviction€court€as€there€was€little€or€noÏevidence€of€the€materiality€or€relevance€of€these€witnesses'€testimony.€ÌÌà àA€decision€whether€to€grant€a€continuance€"rests€within€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€court."€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€825€S.W.2d€113,€117€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏMoreover,€a€denial€of€a€continuance€will€not€be€disturbed€"unless€it€appearsÏupon€the€face€of€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€andÏprejudice€enured€to€the€accused€as€a€direct€result€of€the€trial€judge's€ruling."€ÏòòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€257€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Additionally,€inÏthe€context€of€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€denial€of€a€motion€forÏcontinuance€must€implicate€a€constitutional€right.€€"It€is€settled€law€that€a€habeasÏpetitioner€who€claims€that€the€state€trial€court's€refusal€to€grant€a€continuanceÏdenied€him€due€process€of€law€must€demonstrate,€first€that€the€trial€court€abusedÏits€discretion,€and€second,€that€its€action€rendered€the€petitioner's€trialÏfundamentally€unfair."€€òòConner€v.€Bowenóó,€842€F.2d€279,€283€(11th€Cir.€1988).€€"AÏruling€involving€the€grant€or€refusal€of€a€continuance€is€addressed€to€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€and€rarely€reaches€constitutional€proportions."€ÏòòKnighton€v.€Maggioóó,€740€F.2d€1344,€1351€(1984).ÌÌà àWe€are€not€persuaded€by€the€facts€presented,€that€the€post„convictionÍcourt's€denial€of€the€appellant's€motion€for€additional€time€to€investigate€or€toÏsecure€the€presence€of€subpoenaed€witnesses€implicates€due€process.€€InÏdetermining€whether€the€post„conviction€court's€action€rendered€the€appellant'sÏhearing€fundamentally€unfair,€we€must€look€for€actual€prejudice€to€the€appellant.€Ì€However,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€identify€any€prejudice€affecting€hisÏconviction€or€sentence.€Continuances€may€be€granted€for€the€purpose€ofÏsecuring€the€presence€of€identifiable€witnesses€if€those€witnesses'€testimony€isÏmaterial€and€admissible.€€In€this€case,€the€appellant€sought€a€continuance,Ïhoping€to€secure€witnesses,€whose€testimony€was€unknown,€and€to€gatherÏuseful€information€which,€at€the€time€of€the€motion,€was€also€largely€unknown.€ÏAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€by€denying€the€appellant's€motion€for€continuance.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.à àÌÌà@ àò ò3.€€INEFFECTIVENESS€OF€COUNSELó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistanceÏof€counsel€as€guaranteed€by€the€Sixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€of€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€counsel€wasÏineffective€for€the€following€reasons:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ p ÒÓÓ(a)€Counsel€failed€to€investigate€the€personal€background€andÍmedical€history€of€the€appellant€for€the€existence€of€mitigatingÏevidence€and/or€to€present€such€evidence€during€the€penaltyÏphase€of€the€trial;ÌÌ(b)€€Counsel€failed€to€request€and€obtain€adequate€expert€andÏinvestigative€assistance;ÌÌ(c)€€Counsel€failed€to€develop€a€reasonable€trial€strategy€orÏdefense€for€the€appellant;ÌÌ(d)€€Counsel€failed€to€investigate€and€present€all€availableÏevidence€that€would€support€the€appellant's€claims€ofÏinnocence€regarding€all€charges€including,€but€not€limited€to,Ïthe€first€degree€murder€charge;ÌÌ(e)€€€Counsel€failed€to€properly€rebut€the€State's€case€at€eitherÏthe€guilt/innocence€phase€or€the€sentencing€phase€of€trial;ÌÌ(f)€€Counsel€failed€to€investigate€for€witnesses€and/or€prepareÏand€present€them€during€the€penalty€phase€of€trial€toÏdemonstrate€all€aspects€of€the€appellant's€character€andÏbackground€that€would€support€a€sentence€less€than€death;ÌÌ(g)€€Counsel€failed€to€adequately€prepare€for€either€the€guiltÏphase€or€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial€and€to€develop€andÏpresent€to€the€jury€a€coherent€theory€of€defense€at€eitherÏphase;ÌÌ(h)€€Counsel€lacked€the€experience€and€knowledge€necessaryÏfor€effective€representation€of€the€appellant€in€a€death€penaltyÏcase;ÌÌ(i)€€Counsel€failed€to€properly€voir€dire€jurors;ÌÌ(j)€€Counsel€failed€to€properly€voir€dire€jurors€for€racial€bias;ÌÌ(k)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€exclusion€of€jurors€becauseÏof€their€general€opposition€to€the€death€penalty;ÌÌ(l)€€Counsel€failed€to€file€necessary€motions€before,€during,Ïand€after€trial,€on€direct€appeal,€or€at€post„conviction;ÌÌ(m)€€Counsel€failed€to€present€evidence€at€the€sentencingÏhearing,€other€than€the€testimony€of€the€appellant,€andÏdefense€witnesses,€who€were€not€under€subpoena,€left€or€didÏnot€come€to€court,€leaving€the€appellant€with€no€availableÏremedy€as€the€court€ordered€the€case€to€proceed.ÌÌ(n)€€Counsel€failed€to€raise€and/or€properly€brief€claims€nowÏraised€in€this€petition€for€post„conviction€relief;ÌÌ(o)€€Counsel€failed€to€adequately€investigate€and€prepare€theÏcases€for€trial€and/or€appeal;ÌÌ(p)€€Counsel€failed€to€investigate€all€witnesses€for€the€defenseÏand€to€properly€impeach€the€witnesses€for€the€State€at€trial;ÌÌ(q)€€Counsel€failed€to€present€mitigating€evidence,€on€behalf€ofÏthe€defendant,€by€not€issuing€subpoenas,€resulting€in€loss€ofÏall€evidence€of€mitigation;ÌÌ(r)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€certain€irrelevant€andÏinflammatory€evidence€during€the€appellant's€trial;ÌÌ(s)€€Counsel€failed€to€present€a€consistent€theory€throughoutÏthe€guilt€phase€and€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial;€ÌÌ(t)€€The€appellant€€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€on€his€direct€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt;€andÌÌ(u)€€Counsel€failed€to€raise€the€above€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€claims€on€motion€for€new€trial,€€on€appeal,€or€in€priorÏpost„conviction€proceedings;× ƒ) ××  ×ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌà àIn€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€provingÍthe€grounds€raised€in€the€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÏClarkóó,€800€S.W.2d€500,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Furthermore,€the€factualÏfindings€of€the€post„conviction€court€are€conclusive€unless€the€appellate€courtÏfinds€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2dÏ752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.Ï1990);€€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€490€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€ÏMoreover,€the€uncorroborated€statements€of€the€petitioner€do€not€suffice€toÏestablish€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,Ï757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991).€€ÌÌà àWhen€the€appellant's€post„conviction€claim€involves€the€SixthÏAmendment€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€court€must€determineÏwhether€the€performance€of€counsel€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€In€order€to€obtain€a€reversal€on€these€grounds,€the€appellant€mustÏshow€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€684Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994),€that€counsel'sÏrepresentation€was€deficient€and€that€there€was€prejudice€resulting€from€thatÏdeficiency.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€686,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064Ï(1984).€€Counsel's€representation€is€deficient€if€the€errors€were€so€serious€as€toÏdeprive€the€appellant€of€representation€guaranteed€him€by€the€SixthÏAmendment.€€òòCox€v.€Stateóó,€880€S.W.2d€713,€717€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€TheÍdeficient€representation€becomes€prejudicial€when€the€appellant€is€deprived€ofÏa€fair€trial€with€a€reliable€result.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€this€court€may€first€look€at€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStricklandóó.€€IfÏthe€court€finds€that€the€defendant€suffered€no€prejudice,€a€deficiency€if€any,€isÏconsidered€harmless.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€693,€104€S.Ct.€at€2067.€ÏTherefore,€even€if€there€are€attorney€errors,€the€appellant€must€show€that€"€thereÏis€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for,€counsel's€unprofessional€errors,€theÏresult€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different"€in€order€to€succeed€on€anÏineffectiveness€claim.€€òòIdóó.€at€693,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068.€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òA.€€Ineffectiveness€of€Trial€Counseló óÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€appellant€was€the€only€witness€calledÏby€the€defense.€€We€note€that€the€majority€of€the€appellant's€direct€examinationÏconsisted€of€the€appellant's€post„conviction€counsel€reading€the€specific€claimsÏfor€post„conviction€relief€and€the€appellant€responding€that€he€had€no€commentÏand/or€was€relying€on€the€allegations€as€described€in€the€petition€itself.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€In€anyÍevent,€in€support€of€his€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€appellantÏtestified€that€Robert€Jones€and€Ed€Thompson,€both€Shelby€County€PublicÏDefenders,€represented€him€at€the€trial€level.€€The€appellant€observed€thatÏcounsel€"didn't€appear€to€me€as€being€able€to€handle€such€a€case€because€ofÏthe€magnitude€of€the€case.€€He€[Mr.€Jones]€didn't€have€the€time,€you€know,€to€doÏthe€work€that€he€needed€because€he€was€involved€in€a€lot€more€cases,€youÏknow."€€Moreover,€the€appellant€stated€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€properlyÏinvestigate€his€case€"because€they€didn't€have€no€witnesses€to€come€in€andÏtestify€in€my€behalf,€you€know."ÌÌà àSpecifically,€the€appellant€testified€that,€in€preparation€for€the€sentencingÏhearing,€his€trial€attorneys€did€not€properly€investigate€his€personal€backgroundÏand€medical€history€for€the€existence€of€mitigating€evidence.€€The€appellantÏremarked€that,€at€his€sentencing€hearing,€he€had€wanted€trial€counsel€to€callÏpeople€that€knew€him,€e.g.,€Lenoir€Patties,€Sally€Sykes,€Ms.€Wallace.€€TheÏappellant€added€that€he€had€given€the€names€of€Lenoir€Patties€and€Sally€SykesÏto€the€investigator.€€He€admitted€that€he€did€not€know€the€addresses€of€theseÏpeople.€€Nevertheless,€according€to€the€appellant,€both€of€these€individualsÏwould€have€testified€on€the€appellant's€behalf.€€They€were€not€called.€€TheÏappellant€also€stated€that€his€mother€was€willing€to€testify€at€the€sentencingÏhearing,€but€she€was€not€called.€€The€appellant€met€with€a€psychologist,€orÏ"some€fellow€at€the€jail,"€but€no€witnesses€were€called€regarding€a€mentalÍevaluation.€€In€fact,€the€only€witness€called€at€the€sentencing€hearing€wasÏAnthony€Boyce,€who€voluntarily€left€the€courtroom€during€the€proceeding€andÏwas€not€heard€because€the€court€ordered€the€trial€to€proceed.€€As€a€result,€theÏappellant€was€the€only€witness€to€testify€at€his€sentencing€hearing.× ƒ, ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€further€complained€that,€although€he€had€been€"locked€upÏmost€of€[his]€life,"€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€inquire€about€his€criminal€record.€€HeÏalso€noted€errors€in€the€pre„sentence€report,€including€the€information€that€hisÏfather€was€deceased.€€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€the€appellant€expressed€hisÏopinion€that,€"We€didn't€have€no€strategy€in€this€courtroom."€€He€added€thatÏ"Barbara€Lee€.€.€.€gave€a€statement€.€.€.€in€regard€to€the€fact€that€I€never€had€a€gunÏand€Bruce€Ryder€alleged€that€I€had€a€gun,€so€by€them€not€bringing€Barbara€LeeÏin€to€testify€to€the€fact€that€I€never€had€a€gun,€that€is€what€I€was€talking€aboutÏhere."€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€added€that€his€attorneys€did€not€conduct€a€proper€jury€voirÏdire.€€He€claimed€that€he€had€wanted€his€attorneys€to€file€a€motion€for€individualÏvoir€dire€and€a€motion€for€expert€services,€but€neither€motion€was€filed.€€TheÏappellant€further€alleged€that€counsel€failed€to€adequately€advise€him€regardingÏhis€decision€to€testify€and€failed€to€object€to€the€prosecutor's€improperÏstatements€during€the€trial.€€Counsel€also€failed€to€object€to€the€State'sÏdiscriminatory€exercise€of€peremptory€challenges€and€to€improper€juryÏinstructions.€ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€State€called€Robert€Jones€as€its€firstÏwitness.€€Jones€testified€that€he€is€a€member€of€the€capital€defense€team€inÏShelby€County€and€has€worked€in€that€capacity€for€thirteen€of€his€sixteen€yearsÏwith€the€Public€Defender's€Office.€€He€added€that€he€has€handled€"somewhereÏbetween€five€and€six€hundred€[capital€murder]€cases."€€ÌÌà àJones€was€appointed€to€represent€the€appellant€at€the€preliminaryÏhearing,€where€he€replaced€the€appellant's€private€counsel,€A.C.€Wharton.€ÏEdward€Thompson,€who€had€twenty€years€capital€case€experience,€wasÏsubsequently€appointed€co„counsel.€€Jones€testified€that€he€met€personally€withÏthe€appellant€over€twenty€times€prior€to€trial,€and€that,€during€these€meetings,€heÏobtained€information€from€the€appellant€about€the€criminal€charges.€€JonesÏfurther€stated€that€the€case€was€investigated€by€the€Public€Defender's€Office.€ÍBecause€two€investigators€worked€on€the€case,€trial€counsel€concluded€thatÏexpert€services€were€not€required€for€the€appellant's€defense.€€ÌÌà àJones€added€that,€based€upon€the€appellant's€statements,€they€reliedÏupon€the€theory€of€self„defense.€€He€explained€that,€at€trial,€they€"tried€toÏestablish€who€had€the€guns.€€And€to€discredit€witnesses€that€contradicted€ourÏdefense."€€Jones€noted€that€Barbara€Lee€was€not€cooperative,€and€that€trialÏcounsel€decided€not€to€use€her€because€her€statement€kept€"going€backwardÏand€forward."€€He€observed€that€Lee€would€have€been€impeachable€due€to€herÏprior€inconsistent€statement.€€ÌÌà àJones€also€testified€that,€although€he€could€not€remember€the€racialÏmakeup€of€the€jury,€neither€could€he€recall€the€systematic€exclusion€of€anyÏparticular€race.€€Moreover,€he€could€not€recall€failing€to€comply€with€any€requestÏof€the€appellant€during€the€trial.€€Finally,€Jones€concluded€that€he€filed€allÏnecessary€motions,€numbering€between€twenty„five€and€thirty.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€penalty€stage,€Jones€testified€that€he€investigated€theÏappellant's€background€through€interviews€with€family,€friends€and€neighbors.€ÏThe€appellant's€mother€and€brother€were€serving€sentences€in€federalÏcorrectional€facilities€at€the€time€of€the€appellant's€trial.€€However,€Jones€did€talkÏwith€the€appellant's€grandfather€and€a€cousin,€who€is€an€attorney€and€whomÍthey€planned€to€call€at€the€penalty€stage.€€Indeed,€Jones€testified€that,€at€theÏpenalty€stage,€the€defense€team€had€Jean€Withers,€Randy€Withers,€and€AnthonyÏBoyce€ready€to€testify,€but€all€three€witnesses€left€the€courtroom€before€theyÏwere€called.€€After€the€trial,€Jones€confronted€Boyce,€who€claimed€that€theÏappellant's€brother,€Mitchell€Boyce,€told€the€witnesses€to€leave€the€courtroom.€ÏThus,€only€the€appellant€testified€at€the€penalty€stage.€€Additionally,€Jones€statedÏthat€he€"was€not€aware€of€any€medical€information€that€would€have€been€ofÏbenefit€to€[the€appellant]€in€the€trial."€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Jones€stated€that€he€could€not€recall€any€mentalÏevaluation€of€the€appellant,€since€it€was€not€relevant€to€the€theory€of€selfÏdefense.€€Jones€further€conceded€that€he€unsuccessfully€attempted€to€impeachÏtwo€State€witnesses,€Hippen€and€Wright,€but€had€no€basis€or€real€evidenceÏupon€which€to€impeach.ÌÌà àThe€post„conviction€court,€in€its€thorough€and€detailed€"Findings€of€FactÏand€Conclusions€of€Law,"€found€that€the€appellant€"failed€to€meet€a€single€prongÏof€the€òòStricklandóó€test,€much€less€both."€€Specifically,€the€post„conviction€courtÏnoted:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓTrial€counsel€has€discretion€in€conducting€the€defense€andÏmust€employ€his€or€her€best€judgment€in€determining€trialÏstrategy;€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏrelating€to€matters€of€trial€strategy€or€tactics€do€not€ordinarilyÍprovide€a€basis€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€€òòTaylor€v.ÏStateóó,€814€S.W.2d€374,€378€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€thisÏcase,€it€is€evident€that€the€Petitioner€was€represented€byÏcounsel€experienced€in€the€representation€of€murderÏsuspects€and€well€aware€of€the€strategies€and€tacticsÏnecessary€to€mount€a€defense.€€This€court€will€not€useÏhindsight€when€reviewing€every€tactic€used€by€the€trialÏattorney.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€627€S.W.2d€139,€142€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1981).ÌÌÌThe€Petitioner€also€contends€that€his€trial€attorney€failed€toÏcall€witnesses€that€would€have€been€beneficial€at€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€The€Petitioner€seems€toÏargue€that€their€presence€would€have€helped€him€establishÏmitigating€circumstances.€€However,€the€only€proof€offeredÏby€the€Petitioner€at€the€Evidentiary€Hearing€was€that€theseÏ"witnesses"€would€have€testified€that€they€"knew"€theÏPetitioner.€€The€Petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€there€[sic]Ïtestimony€would€provide€evidence€of€statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances.ÌÌA€petitioner€.€.€.€who€asserts€that€the€attorney€failed€to€useÏcertain€evidence€must€produce€that€evidence,€not€only€toÏshow€the€evidence€is€producible,€but€also€to€show€that€itÏwould€have€been€helpful€to€the€case.€€òòState€of€Tennessee€v.ÏWalkeróó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9203„CC„00068€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€Feb.€24,€1993).€€The€Court€finds€these€averments€to€beÏtotally€baseless.€€.€.€.€counsel€testified€.€.€.€that€the€decisionÏnot€to€call€certain€witnesses€was€intentional,€made€becauseÏcounsel€feared€that€the€witnesses€in€question€would€causeÏmore€harm€to€the€Petitioner's€case€than€any€possible€benefitÏthey€could€confer.€€The€conduct€of€the€trial€attorney€inÏrelationship€to€witness€issues€has€not€been€proven€to€beÏanything€other€than€an€attorney's€judgment€of€proper€trialÏstrategy€and€tactics.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€court€then€stated€that€"[t]he€Petition's€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€are€not€supported€by€the€proof,"€and,€accordingly,€dismissed€all€claimsÍrelating€to€this€issue.ÌÌà àHaving€reviewed€the€record,€we€also€conclude€that€the€appellant€hasÏfailed€to€demonstrate€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€trial€level.€ÏAccordingly,€we€must€uphold€the€decision€of€the€post„conviction€court.ÌÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Ineffectiveness€of€Appellate€Counseló óÌÌà àIn€support€of€his€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel,€theÏappellant€alleges€that€appellate€counsel€failed€to€raise€the€following€issues:€theÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial;€whether€the€jury€should€have€beenÏpermitted€to€find€the€appellant€guilty€of€both€first€degree€murder€and€felonyÏmurder;€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€sufficiently€instruct€the€jury€thatÏdeliberation€and€premeditation€are€separate€essential€elements€of€first€degreeÏmurder,€and€by€instructing€the€jury€that€premeditation€can€be€formed€in€anÏinstant.€€The€appellant€further€argues€that€all€of€his€attorneys€were€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€raise€the€issue€that€the€felony€murder€aggravating€factor€is€invalid,€asÏannounced€in€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992).€€HeÏcontends€that€all€of€his€attorneys€were€ineffective€for€not€attacking€theÏappellant's€prior€conviction€for€second€degree€murder,€since€it€is€the€only€otherÏaggravating€factor€supporting€the€death€sentence€of€the€appellant.ÌÌà àMark€Ward,€appellate€counsel,€testified€for€the€State€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€He€stated€that€he€was€a€private€attorney€in€Memphis,€butÏwas€under€contract€with€the€Public€Defender's€Office.€€He€further€testified€that,Ïduring€his€eleven€years€as€a€contract€attorney€with€the€Public€Defender's€Office,Ïhe€had€prepared€sixteen€capital€appeal€cases.€€The€appellant's€case€was€hisÏtenth€capital€appeal.€€Ward€explained€his€procedure€in€preparing€appeals,Ïwhich€includes€reading€the€entire€record€and€formulating€a€list€of€issues.€€HeÏthen€reviewed€the€issues€raised€in€the€appellant's€appeal.€€Ward€stated€that,€ifÏhe€failed€to€raise€an€issue,€he€did€so€because€the€issue€was€without€merit€or€notÏviable€at€that€time.€€However,€he€agreed€that,€under€the€subsequent€supremeÏcourt€holding€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€the€appellant€would€have€an€issue€regarding€theÏjury's€consideration€of€the€felony€murder€aggravator.ÌÌà àThe€post„conviction€court,€citing€òòFisher€v.€Stateóó,€No.€88„226„III€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Sept.€29,€1989),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1990),€Ïfound€no€merit€to€the€appellant's€assertion€that€appellate€counsel€wasÏineffective€for€failing€to€"submit€a€voluminous€list€of€alleged€errors€on€appeal."€ÏMoreover,€the€post„conviction€court€remarked€that€"It€was€sound€judgment€forÏthe€appellate€counsel€to€limit€to€scope€of€the€appeal€and€to€have€done€otherwiseÏwould€have€called€into€question€the€competence€of€counsel."€€The€post„conviction€court€then€dismissed€all€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÍcounsel€on€appeal.ÌÌÓ „ Óà àAgain,€the€evidence€presented€by€the€appellant€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€Therefore,€thisÏissue€is€likewise€without€merit.ÌÌÌò òà@ à4.€€EXPERT€SERVICES€AT€POST„CONVICTION€HEARINGó óÌÌThe€appellant€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€an€opportunity€toÏdemonstrate€his€need€for€expert€services.€€The€appellant€cites€the€case€of€òòGaileÏK.€Owens€&€Pervis€Tyrone€Payne€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9111„CR„00259Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€March€25,€1994),€as€authority€for€his€position.× ƒ. ××  ×€ÏThe€appellant€is€correct€in€his€assertion€that€a€petitioner€convicted€of€a€capitalÏoffense€is€entitled€to€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing€in€order€to€establish€a€need€for€expertÏservices€at€the€post„conviction€level.€€òòSeeóó€€òòOwens€and€Payneóó,€908€S.W.2d€atÏ923.€€However,€the€supreme€court,€in€òòOwens€and€Payneóó,€held€that,€in€order€toÏobtain€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing,€a€post„conviction€petitioner€must€comply€with€theÍprocedural€guidelines€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€13€(2)(B)(10).€€òòIdóó.€at€928.€ÏMoreover,€"the€trial€court€should€grant€the€motion€if,€at€the€hearing,€the€petitionerÏdemonstrates€that€investigative€or€expert€services€are€necessary€to€ensure€theÏprotection€of€the€petitioner's€constitutional€rights."€€òòIdóó.€€Specifically,€"theÏpetitioner€must€demonstrate€by€specific€factual€proof€that€the€services€of€anÏexpert€or€investigator€are€necessary€to€establish€a€ground€for€post„convictionÏrelief,€and€that€the€petitioner€is€unable€to€establish€that€ground€for€post„conviction€relief€by€other€available€evidence."€€òòIdóó.ÌÌThe€record€before€us€is€devoid€of€any€reference€to€a€"particularized"Ïneed€for€expert€services€at€the€post„conviction€level.€€In€fact,€the€appellant€didÏnot€submit€a€motion€for€expert€services€to€the€post„conviction€court,€nor€did€heÏrequest€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€has€not€complied€with€theÏprocedural€requirements€of€Rule€13(2)(B)(10);€he€has€not€stated€what€expertÏservices€are€necessary;€and€he€has€not€asserted€what€constitutional€rightsÏwould€be€protected€by€obtaining€such€services.ÌÌÓ` ` ¸ ‚„•XÓFurthermore,€since€this€issue€is€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal€andÏwas€not€raised€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€it€is€presumed€waived.€€òòButleróó,Ï789€S.W.2d€at€902;€€òòCone€v.€Stateóó,€747€S.W.2d€353,€356€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1987);€€òòGribble€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9303„CC„00039€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏJackson,€Feb.€8,€1995).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌà@ àò ò5.€€IMPROPER€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSó óÌÌThe€appellant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€byÏsubmitting€improper€instructions€to€the€jury€during€the€penalty€phase€of€his€trial,Ïin€violation€of€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€at€317.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€During€the€penaltyÏphase€of€the€trial,€the€jury€unanimously€found€two€statutory€aggravating€factors:Ï(1)€"the€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies€.€.€.€whichÏinvolve€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person;"€and€(2)€"the€murder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing,€.€.€.€any€first€degreeÏmurder,€arson,€rape,€burglary,€larceny,€kidnapping,€.€.€."€€€The€appellant,€citingÏòòMiddlebrooksóó,€contests€the€use€of€this€second€aggravating€factor€to€support€hisÏdeath€sentence.ÌÌAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€court€accepted€the€appellant'sÏargument€that€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstanceÏis€not€valid,€noting:Ò ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓÓ  ÓIn€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€held€that€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution,ÍArticle€I,€ðð16,€it€was€unconstitutional€to€use€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€circumstance€to€support€the€impositionÏof€the€death€penalty€for€a€conviction€of€felony€murder.€€TheÏcourt€held€that€the€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravatorÏserved€to€duplicate€the€elements€of€€the€underlying€crime,Ïthus€failing€to€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligible€murderersÏas€required€by€both€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€theÏUnited€States€Constitution.€€Ì€€Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓHowever,€the€post„conviction€court€noted€that€"the€Court€cannot€agree€with€theÏPetitioner's€argument€that€this€serves€to€invalidate€the€sentence€of€death."ÌÌÓ ` ‘ŒXŸ$€%ŽX Óà àThe€court€compared€the€appellant's€case€to€that€of€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993),€and€found€that,€pursuant€to€the€test€set€forth€inÏòòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€260,€the€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravator€in€theÏappellant's€case€was€harmless€error.€€Since€(1)€the€jury€did€not€find€anyÏmitigating€factors;€(2)€the€appellant€had€a€prior€conviction€for€second€degreeÏmurder;€and€(3)€the€invalidating€aggravator€did€not€"taint€the€jury€because€it€wasÏmerely€a€consequence€of€the€underlying€felony,€requiring€no€additionalÏevidence€above€that€used€to€convict€the€Petitioner€of€the€murder,"€€the€post„conviction€court€found€the€death€sentence€to€be€valid.€€ÌÌÌà àNeither€the€United€States€Constitution€nor€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏprohibit€a€reviewing€court€from€upholding€a€death€sentence€that€is€based,€inÏpart,€upon€an€invalid€aggravating€factor.€€òòState€v.€Hartmanóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€103Í(Tenn.€1995).€€However,€in€order€to€guarantee€the€appellant€an€individualizedÏsentence,€€the€reviewing€court€must€either€reweigh€the€mitigating€andÏaggravating€evidence€or€conduct€a€harmless€error€review.€€òòIdóó.€€(citationsÏomitted).ÌÌà àBefore€a€jury's€consideration€of€an€invalid€aggravating€factor€may€beÏdeclared€harmless€error,€"an€appellate€court€must€conclude,€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt,€that€the€sentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€theÏsentencing€authority€given€no€weight€to€the€aggravating€factor."€€òòBarber€v.€Stateóó,Ï889€S.W.2d€185,€187€(Tenn.€1994)€(citation€omitted).€€The€procedure€to€beÏfollowed€was€announced€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2dÏ238,€260„61€(Tenn.€1993):Ò ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓIn€order€to€guarantee€theÏprecision€that€individualized€sentencing€considerationsÏdemand€and€provide€a€principled€explanation€for€ourÏconclusion€in€each€case,€it€is€important,€when€conductingÏharmless€error€review,€to€completely€examine€the€record€forÏthe€presence€of€factors€which€potentially€influence€theÏsentence€ultimately€imposed.€€These€include,€but€are€notÏlimited€to,€the€number€and€strength€of€the€remaining€validÏaggravating€circumstances,€the€prosecutor's€argument€atÏsentencing,€the€evidence€admitted€to€establish€the€invalidÏaggravator,€and€the€nature,€quality€and€strength€ofÏmitigating€evidence.Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌThus,€even€when€an€aggravating€circumstance€is€invalidated,€leaving€only€aÏsingle€valid€aggravating€circumstance,€the€sentence€of€death€can€still€stand€inÏcertain€cases.à àÌÓ K ÓÌà àAt€the€appellant's€trial,€the€jury€found€one€remaining€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€that€"the€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€moreÏfelonies€which€involve€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person."€€To€reach€thisÏfinding,€the€jury€relied€upon€the€State's€proof€at€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€ÏThis€proof€consisted€of€the€testimony€of€Gloria€Low,€an€employee€of€the€ShelbyÏCounty€Criminal€Court€Clerk's€Office.€€Ms.€Low€testified,€in€conjunction€with€theÏintroduction€of€a€certified€copy€of€the€judgment€entered€on€indictment€numberÏ95310,€€that€the€appellant€was€convicted€on€October€17,€1983,€of€secondÏdegree€murder.€€Beverly€Sakyi,€an€employee€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€ParoleÏBoard,€identified€the€appellant€as€being€the€Michael€Joe€Boyd€who€wasÏconvicted€of€second€degree€murder€on€October€17,€1983.€€We€conclude€that€theÏevidence€overwhelmingly€supports€the€jury's€finding€that€the€appellant€has€aÏprevious€conviction€for€a€violent€offense.ÌÌà àWe€next€consider€the€extent€to€which€the€prosecutor€emphasized€theÏfelony€murder€aggravator€during€argument€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€theÏappellant's€trial.€€During€its€opening€statement,€when€listing€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances€supporting€a€penalty€of€death,€the€State€only€briefly€mentionedÏthe€felony€murder€aggravator.€€A€review€of€the€prosecutors'€closing€statementsÏreveal€that€the€State€focused€primarily€on€the€aggravator€that€"the€appellantÏcreated€a€great€risk€of€death€to€two€or€more€persons,€other€than€the€victim,Íduring€his€act€of€murder"× ƒ0 ××  ×€and€the€aggravator€involving€the€second€degreeÏmurder€conviction.€€Again,€the€prosecution€made€only€cursory€reference€to€theÏfelony€murder€aggravator,€relying€upon€the€finding€of€the€jury€at€the€guilt€phaseÏof€the€trial.× ƒ1 ××  ×ÌÌÌà àIn€òòHowellóó,€the€supreme€court€stated€that€"an€aggravating€factor€whichÏduplicates€the€elements€of€the€underlying€crime€has€less€relative€tendency€toÏprejudicially€affect€the€sentence€imposed€than€invalid€aggravating€factors€whichÏinterject€inadmissible€evidence€into€the€sentencing€calculus,€or€which€requireÏthe€sentencing€jury€to€draw€additional€conclusions€from€the€guilt€phaseÏevidence."€€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2d€at€261.€€In€the€instant€case,€the€State€did€notÏpresent€any€evidence€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€but€relied€upon€the€proofÏpresented€during€the€guilt€phase€to€establish€the€felony€murder€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€Thus,€no€inadmissible€evidence€was€"thrust€into€the€sentencingÏcalculus,"€and€the€jury€was€not€required€to€draw€additional€conclusions€from€theÍguilt€phase€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBarberóó,€889€S.W.2d€at€189.€€Finally,€the€jury€wasÏunable€to€find€any€statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€After€a€review€of€theÏrecord,€we€agree€with€the€jury's€finding.€ÌÌà à€Based€upon€our€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€after€a€carefulÏanalysis€in€conformity€with€òòHowellóó,€we€conclude,€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,Ïthat€the€sentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€to€theÏinvalid€felony€murder€aggravator.€€Therefore,€since€the€invalid€aggravatingÏcircumstance€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€we€affirm€the€sentence€ofÏdeath.ÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€CONCLUSIONó óÌÌà àThe€record€fully€supports€the€post„conviction€court's€findings€andÏconclusions.€€The€appellant€has€clearly€not€met€his€burden€of€proof.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€properly€denied.ÌÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€we€have€stated,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€courtÏis€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge