ÿWPC> )˜oÅÅÂøÍÈa‡êÛª)Ÿ[%rݵŸU5ëC6KÊßÂic7²ÄP]À[Z1ÁuÀbÙK7ëæqÀi*$ Az«+ Çn‘ +¤‰»-#ü8`f/Lv®ZAãáÊ)Èšlÿ3ú Ÿkê´¿I»’ tÍd.oï%\°`K¥æž„ϽßßyEóA}€‘…bj5Ý /h lZ'0¦\(ò¯‚$­ÚˆÓÉ\S·Ä‰h ºy±¾Eøônç°ñ• Þ¹…LY›”$ª`qC„%:y:ÓÐ-½¸Æˆ±Èv† já HÙêMgòõ¢J<ÉgpY2ûç§SªE7w¶’iÿL4«º…ƒ@7Ë:+ä]î ;™âPQ:¢ð f\V!†“9.ÀšóIò® X8î-Á”2˜Ã[™J X ]h1K8öþ¥ô”¦@â%S;zWùd%zj×Ùypþ/Cuðš™ð÷¡„ø;ðÔ¨n[ÅÔ…†Kš¨›ÁŒXQÈ3zªNMåÐ$—Fc¸ir7ÉSSÛANô×>ÓÓvohñ/TlüŽ=WãéŽöx^¦Û§¯4,±÷=þ&•*~ ßé:ÅC„ÐÝ>}ƒèÉ¡'Ö„[ÝÎt‹ëžˆ…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U :Í w@ 4G [ jj 0ÆÔ 0cšUNýU:K…U:ŒU:ÆåU:åååååj'''U:‘‘‘‘‘‘U:ËËË B D3""" 0DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU AO™Æèè 0D® D/ò B!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ü*Hý*Pþ*Dÿ*++D++++D+Ó€uM%3|x+ `Ô€ ô,ZôXXÔÒX°ÒÔ€ ô)¾ôôô,ZÔÒ°Òà ` àÝ ƒ ÿݹÒÒÒXXÒÔ€ô)¾ôô!ô)¾ÔÔ€ô)¾ôôô)¾Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝBecause€the€petitioner€filed€his€petition€before€May€11,€1995,€it€is€governed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„Ð ÐÈ Ð101€et€seq.€(repealed€1995),€rather€than€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€Under€the€currentÏstatute,€the€standard€is€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).Ô€ô)¾ôôô)¾Ô(v(2Q5$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÐÆXXXÔÔ€ô/“ôXXÐÆÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("Š$Ô‡Xƒ¶XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular ýÝ ƒ  ÅÿÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÌXXXÔÔ€ôïŒôXXÌÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€the€investigator€stated€in€an€affidavit€dated€November€26,€1996,€that€she€had€notÐ  Ðcompleted€her€investigation,€the€hearing€in€this€matter€was€not€until€March€3,€1997,€and€April€30,€1997,Ïover€three€months€later.€€In€fact,€the€investigator€stated€that€she€was€initially€contacted€by€the€originalÏattorney€on€March€14,€1996.,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular ÛÔ€XÐÆXXXÔÔ€ºQXXÐÆÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÐÆXºQÔÐ  ÐÌApril€8,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular `Ô€ô,ZôXXÔÒX°ÒÔ€!ô)¾ôôô,ZÔÒ°Òà ` àÝ ƒ ÿݹÒÒÒXXÒÔ€ô)¾ôô!ô)¾ÔÔ€ô)¾ôôô)¾Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝBecause€the€petitioner€filed€his€petition€before€May€11,€1995,€it€is€governed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„Ð ÐÈ Ð101€et€seq.€(repealed€1995),€rather€than€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€Under€the€currentÏstatute,€the€standard€is€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).Ô€ô)¾ôôô)¾Ô+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ+ñ›ñ+ñѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÐÆXXXÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ7€ÐÆXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  Ññ+ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rß›ñ+ñà@x x DàIN€THE€TENNESSEE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSˆÐ  ÐÌà@)DàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌà@°°%DàAUGUST€SESSION,€1998ˆÌÌÌBYRON€LEWIS€BLACK,à h àà À àà  à)Ð R J Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àAppellant,€à  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€No.€01C01„9709„CR„00422Ð   Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìv.€€€à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€Davidson€CountyÐ êâ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€Honorable€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€JudgeÐ ¶®  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ò òÐ œ”  Ðà ` àó óAppellee.€€ò òà  àà h àà À àà  àó ó)ò ò€€€€€€ó ó(Post„Conviction€„€Death€Penalty)ò òÐ ‚z  ÐÌòòÌóóó óÌòòÌFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð   ÐÌœDonald€E.€Dawson›€€€à h àà À àà  àà p àœJohn›€Knox€WalkupÐ ÞÖ МPost„Conviction›€Defenderà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeРļ Ѐ€€€€€€€€à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€€Ð ª¢ МPaul€N.€Buchanan›à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àMichael€E.€Mooreà x àà Ð àà (# àÐ ˆ МPost€Conviction€Defender›€à h àà À àà  àà p àSolicitor€GeneralÐ vn Мñþ*ññõ*ñ1ñõ*ññþ*ññ+ñ1ñ+ññ+ññÿ*ñ3ñÿ*ññ+ñ320€Andrew€Jackson€Building›à À àà  àà p àÐ \T М500€Deaderick›€œStreet›€€€€€€€€€€à À àà  àà p àœKenneth›€W.€RuckerÐ B : МNashville,€TN€37243›à h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ (!  Мñý*ñà ` àà ¸ àà  àñý*ññü*ñNashville,›€TN›€37201„5066ñü*ñ›à h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJohn€ZimmermannÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWashington€Square,€222€2nd€Ave.€N.€€€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________€€€€€ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€Tipton€€€€€€€ÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ P:H39 ЇÓÓà@õõ)Dàò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌÓ'°,X°` ˜X°œX'Óà ¸ àThe€petitioner,€Byron€Lewis€Black,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€order€ofÏthe€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€denying€him€post„conviction€relief€for€three€firstÏdegree€murder€convictions€and€one€burglary€conviction€he€received€in€1989.€€TheÏpetitioner€was€sentenced€to€death€for€one€of€the€murders€with€the€jury€finding€sixÏaggravating€circumstances€to€be€applicable.€€He€received€consecutive€life€sentences€forÏthe€other€two€murders€and€a€fifteen„year€sentence€for€the€burglary.€€The€judgments€ofÏconviction€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.Ð tl Ð1991).€€The€petitioner€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€Did€the€trial€court€err€by€excluding€a€convicting€trial€jurorððsÏtestimony€proffered€for€the€purpose€of€showing€the€effect€of€theÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claimed€by€the€petitioner€toÏhave€occurred?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€Did€the€trial€court€err€by€concluding€that€the€petitionerÏreceived€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€onÏappeal?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€Did€the€trial€court€deny€the€petitioner€a€full€and€fair€post„¼conviction€hearing€by€refusing€the€petitioner€more€preparationÏtime€and€by€restricting€the€use€of€expert€services?€€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€Was€the€aggravating€circumstance€dealing€with€the€murderÏbeing€especially€heinous,€atrocious€and€cruel,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„¼203(i)(5),€applied€in€an€unconstitutional€fashion?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à(5)€Is€death€by€electrocution€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€inÏviolation€of€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ à(6)€Does€the€sentence€of€death€violate€the€Eighth€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏArticle€I,€Section€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà ¸ àò òÌà ¸ àó óThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€killing€his€girlfriend,€Angela€Clay,€and€herÐ &3,1 Ðtwo€minor€daughters,€Lakeisha€and€Latoya,€while€on€weekend€furlough€from€jail,€whereÏhe€was€serving€two€years€for€shooting€Ms.€Clayððs€estranged€husband.€€The€mostÏdamaging€evidence€against€the€petitioner€was€the€ballistic€evidence.€€The€bulletsÐ Š8‚17 Ðretrieved€from€the€victims€came€from€the€same€gun€the€petitioner€used€to€shoot€Ms.ÏClayððs€husband.€€The€facts€surrounding€the€slayings€are€described€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€in€its€opinion€on€direct€appeal€as€follows:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àThe€police€arrived€at€approximately€9:30€p.m.€onÏMonday€evening,€March€28,€1988,€and€found€no€signs€ofÏforced€entry€into€the€apartment;€the€door€was€locked.€€OfficerÏJames€was€able€to€open€a€window€after€prying€off€a€bedroomÏwindow€screen.€€All€the€lights€were€off.€€He€shined€a€flashlightÏinto€a€childððs€room€and€saw€a€pool€of€blood€on€the€bed€and€theÏbody€of€a€small€child€on€the€floor.€€He€exited€the€room,€andÏofficers€secured€the€scene.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àInvestigation€revealed€the€bodies€of€Angela€and€herÏnine€year€old€daughter,€Latoya,€in€the€master€bedroom.€ÏAngela,€who€was€lying€in€the€bed,€had€apparently€been€shotÏonce€in€the€top€of€the€head€as€she€slept€and€was€renderedÏunconscious€immediately€and€died€within€minutes.€€Dr.€CharlesÏHarlan,€Chief€Medical€Examiner€for€Davidson€County,€testifiedÏthat€she€was€probably€shot€from€a€distance€of€six€to€twelveÏinches€and€that€her€gunshot€wound€was€the€type€usuallyÏcaused€by€a€large€caliber€bullet.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àLatoyaððs€body€was€found€partially€on€the€bed€andÏpartially€off€the€bed,€wedged€between€the€bed€and€a€chest€ofÏdrawers.€€She€had€been€shot€once€through€the€neck€and€chest.€ÏBlood€on€her€pillow€and€a€bullet€hole€in€the€bedding€indicatedÏshe€had€been€lying€on€the€bed€when€shot.€€Dr.€Harlan€testifiedÏthat€she€was€shot€from€a€distance€of€greater€than€twenty„fourÏinches€from€the€skin€surface.€€The€bullet€path€and€type€of€shotÏindicated€that€death€was€not€instantaneous€but€likely€occurredÏwithin€three€to€ten€minutes€after€her€being€shot.€€BulletÏfragments€were€recovered€from€her€left€lung.€€Both€victimsÏwere€under€the€bedcovers€when€they€were€shot.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€body€of€Lakeisha,€age€six,€was€found€in€the€secondÏbedroom€lying€facedown€on€the€floor€next€to€her€bed.€€She€hadÏbeen€shot€twice,€once€in€the€chest,€once€in€the€pelvic€area.€€Dr.ÏHarlan€testified€that€she€had€died€from€bleeding€as€a€result€ofÏa€gunshot€wound€to€the€chest.€€She€was€shot€from€a€distanceÏof€six€to€twelve€inches€and€died€within€five€to€thirty€minutesÏafter€being€shot.€€Abrasions€on€her€arm€indicated€a€bullet€hadÏgrazed€her€as€she€sought€to€protect€herself€from€the€attacker.€ÏBullet€holes€and€blood€stains€on€the€bed€indicated€that€she€wasÏlying€in€bed€when€shot€and€had€moved€from€the€bed€to€theÏfloor€after€being€shot.€€There€were€bloody€finger€marks€downÏthe€rail€running€from€the€head€of€the€bed€to€the€foot€of€the€bed.€ÏThe€size€of€the€wounds€and€the€absence€of€bullet€casingsÐ ¸8°15 Ðindicated€that€a€large€caliber€revolver€had€been€used€to€kill€theÏvictims.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àOne€projectile€was€collected€from€the€pillow€whereÏLatoya€was€apparently€lying€at€the€time€she€was€shot.€ÏFragments€of€projectiles€were€collected€from€the€wall€aboveÏAngelaððs€head;€others€were€collected€from€the€mattress€whereÏLakeisha€was€found.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€receiver€from€the€kitchen€telephone€was€found€inÏthe€master€bedroom.€€The€telephone€from€the€master€bedroomÏwas€lying€in€the€hallway€between€the€two€bedrooms.€€TheÏDefendantððs€fingerprints€were€the€only€prints€recovered€fromÏthe€telephones.€€Two€of€his€fingerprints€were€found€on€theÏphone€in€the€hallway,€and€one€was€on€the€kitchen€telephoneÏreceiver€found€in€the€master€bedroom.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓòòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€171„72€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€petitioner€received€the€death€penaltyÐ øð Ðfor€the€murder€of€Lakeisha€Clay.ÌÌà@µµ$Dàò òPOST„CONVICTION€HEARINGó óˆÐ ˜ Ðà ¸ àRobert€Skinner€first€represented€the€petitioner€in€the€case€for€which€heÏwas€serving€time€when€he€committed€the€present€murders.€€The€petitioner€pled€guilty€toÏshooting€Bennie€Clay,€the€victimððs€husband,€and€received€two€years€in€the€workhouseÏwith€weekend€furloughs€for€work.€€Mr.€Skinner€testified€that€the€petitionerððs€story€and€theÏvictimððs€story€in€the€earlier€case€differed€in€several€respects:€the€petitioner€claimed€heÏshot€at€the€victim€twice,€the€victim€claimed€it€was€three€times;€the€petitioner€claimed€heÏshot€the€victim€while€the€victim€was€attempting€to€gain€entry€into€the€petitionerððsÏresidence,€whereas€the€victim€claimed€he€was€shot€as€he€was€being€chased€by€theÏpetitioner.€€The€court€below€allowed€post„conviction€counsel€to€inquire€into€this€materialÏonly€for€the€purpose€of€attempting€to€establish€the€petitionerððs€lack€of€memory.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Skinner€testified€that€he€received€a€telephone€call€from€the€policeÏinforming€him€that€the€petitioner€was€in€custody€for€the€three€homicides€in€the€presentÏcase€and€that€the€petitioner€wanted€to€talk€to€him.€€He€said€that€upon€hearing€about€theÏnature€of€the€case,€he€did€not€want€to€represent€the€petitioner.€€However,€the€assistantÐ ¸8°15 Ðdistrict€attorneys€persuaded€him€to€talk€to€the€petitioner€while€he€was€in€custody.€€UponÏarrival€at€the€police€station,€Mr.€Skinner€discovered€that€the€petitioner€had€already€givenÏthe€police€a€statement.€€He€then€talked€to€the€petitioner€and€told€him€that€if€he€wanted€toÏmake€another€statement€and€tell€the€truth,€Mr.€Skinner€would€make€sure€no€one€wouldÏtake€advantage€of€him.€€He€testified,€however,€that€he€did€not€review€the€initialÏstatement€the€petitioner€gave.€€The€petitioner€eventually€gave€another€statement€in€Mr.ÏSkinnerððs€presence.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Skinner€testified€that€he€had€only€been€associated€with€one€previousÏcase€that€involved€a€competency€issue.€€Regarding€the€petitionerððs€prior€guilty€plea,€heÏtestified€that€the€petitioner€understood€he€was€facing€more€serious€charges€and€knewÏthe€possible€consequences€of€a€trial€on€those€charges.€€Before€the€sentencing€hearingÏon€the€guilty€plea,€Mr.€Skinner€saw€the€petitioner€about€five€or€ten€times.€€He€testifiedÏthat€the€petitioner€thought€he€was€justified€in€shooting€Mr.€Clay€but€appreciated€the€riskÏof€going€to€trial€on€the€other€charges.€€Mr.€Skinner€stated€that€the€petitioner€neverÏseemed€mentally€abnormal€and€that€the€petitioner€understood€the€judicial€process,Ïincluding€the€roles€of€the€various€participants.€€He€said€that,€in€fact,€the€petitioner€filledÏout€the€presentence€report€himself.€€He€did€not€see€any€signs€indicating€the€petitionerÏwas€not€competent€to€stand€trial.€€He€said€that€the€petitioner€was€extremely€confidentÏabout€himself.ÌÌà ¸ àJeffrey€DeVasher,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€was€primarily€responsibleÏfor€preparing€the€appellate€brief€in€the€direct€appeal€of€this€matter.€€Mr.€DeVasher€hadÏbeen€with€the€public€defenderððs€office€since€1985.€€Although€this€was€his€first€deathÏpenalty€appeal,€he€had€been€associated€with€fifteen€jury€trials€and€hundreds€of€otherÏfelony€cases.€€He€testified€that€he€was€working€on€approximately€ten€other€appeals€atÏthe€same€time€as€this€one.€€He€testified€that€Patrick€McNally€and€Ross€Alderman,€theÐ È7À04 Ðtrial€attorneys,€may€have€worked€on€a€couple€of€the€appellate€issues.€€Mr.€DeVasherÏtestified€that€he€did€not€have€much€involvement€with€the€issues€assigned€to€the€otherÏattorneys€nor€did€he€have€any€involvement€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€DeVasher€testified€that€he€remembered€discussing€the€issue€of€theÏstateððs€remark€during€closing€that€not€imposing€the€death€penalty€for€the€killing€of€theÏchildren€would€be€rewarding€the€petitioner.€€He€did€not€recall€the€precise€reason€for€notÏraising€the€issue€on€appeal,€but€he€said€that€the€lack€of€a€contemporaneous€objection€toÏthe€argument€at€trial€may€have€been€a€factor€in€the€decision.€€He€also€did€not€recall€if€heÏconsidered€raising€this€as€part€of€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim.€€Mr.ÏDeVasher€testified€that,€based€upon€information€provided€by€the€petitionerððs€post„¼conviction€counsel,€he€now€would€probably€raise€the€issue€as€plain€error.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€DeVasher€testified€that€he€did€not€recall€any€particular€reason€why€theÏtranscript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€the€petitionerððs€statement€to€theÏpolice€was€not€included€in€the€record€on€direct€appeal.€€His€appellate€brief,€however,Ïraised€an€ineffective€assistance€issue€regarding€the€admission€of€the€petitionerððsÏstatement.€€Also,€he€did€not€address€the€petitionerððs€competency€to€waive€his€rightsÏregarding€this€statement.ÌÌà ¸ àRoss€Alderman€was€employed€by€the€Metropolitan€Public€DefenderððsÏOffice€and€represented€the€petitioner€at€trial.€€He€had€previously€represented€clientsÏcharged€with€first€degree€murder€but€had€never€before€been€involved€in€a€capital€case.€ÏHe€said€that€three€lawyers€in€the€office€had€some€capital€case€experience.€€He€statedÏthat€he€was€probably€involved€with€about€thirty€other€cases€at€the€time€he€was€assignedÏto€the€petitionerððs€case.€€Mr.€Alderman€testified€that€he€also€began€preliminary€work€onÏanother€capital€case€during€the€initial€stages€of€the€petitionerððs€case.Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àMr.€Alderman€testified€that€he€reviewed€the€two€statements€made€by€theÏpetitioner,€and€he€did€not€see€any€issue€regarding€the€petitionerððs€request€for€a€lawyerÏand€his€desire€to€keep€talking€to€the€police.€€Mr.€Alderman€said€that€the€petitionerÏprobably€should€not€have€continued€to€talk.€€At€trial,€however,€that€portion€of€theÏstatement€after€the€petitioner€made€the€request€for€his€attorney€was€not€admitted€intoÏevidence.€€Also,€the€defense€attorneys€were€able€to€have€the€trial€court€exclude€anÏeyewitness€statement€indicating€that€the€petitionerððs€car€was€at€the€victimððs€residenceÏpast€the€time€the€petitioner€said€he€was€there.€€The€petitionerððs€statement€made€whenÏMr.€Skinner€was€present€gave€details€about€the€crime€scene€and€was€admitted€intoÏevidence.€€Mr.€Alderman€testified€that€he€thought€this€statement€was€very€damaging€toÏthe€petitionerððs€case.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Alderman€testified€that€the€first€time€he€saw€the€petitioner,€theÏpetitioner€did€not€seem€too€concerned€about€being€charged€with€this€serious€offense.€ÏMr.€Alderman€said€he€did€not€consider€this€significant€at€the€time.€€He€stated€that€theÏpetitionerððs€demeanor€stayed€essentially€the€same€throughout€the€trial.€€He€stated€thatÏthe€petitionerððs€description€of€his€background€was€sometimes€inconsistent€with€what€theÏrecords€or€other€witnesses€disclosed.€€Mr.€Alderman€testified€that€he€and€the€petitionerÏdid€not€communicate€well.€€He€said€he€could€not€get€the€petitioner€to€understand€whatÏhe€was€saying.€€He€stated€that€the€petitioner€was€evaluated€early€in€the€process€forÏcompetency€and€sanity.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Alderman€testified€that€the€two€investigators€assigned€to€the€caseÏdiscovered€some€social€and€family€history€from€the€petitioner€and€his€family,€but€theÏinvestigators€were€unable€to€obtain€the€extent€of€information€counsel€wanted.€€TheÏâ âpetitioner€told€them€that€he€had€relationships€with€other€women€at€the€time€and€that€heÐ è5à.2 Ðwas€not€obsessed€with€the€victim.€€Mr.€Alderman€testified€that€the€investigators€neverÏlooked€for€these€other€women.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àThe€defense€team€decided€there€may€have€been€a€mental€health€issueÏbecause€a€report€from€Dr.€Kenneth€Anchor,€a€psychologist,€suggested€that€theÏpetitioner€may€not€have€been€competent,€and€the€defense€team€was€concerned€aboutÏthe€petitionerððs€refusal€to€discuss€the€issues€of€the€case.€€Mr.€Alderman€stated€thatÏalthough€he€was€aware€the€trial€court€did€not€always€agree€with€Dr.€Anchorððs€opinions,Ïthe€defense€team€did€not€consider€obtaining€the€services€of€another€expert.€€He€testifiedÏthat€there€was€no€particular€reason€why€they€did€not€use€both€a€psychologist€andÏpsychiatrist.€€He€stated€that€Dr.€Anchor€was€only€one€of€a€couple€of€mental€healthÏprofessionals€available€at€that€time.€€He€testified€that€they€did€not€explore€to€see€if€otherÏexperts€were€available.€€Mr.€Alderman€stated€that€they€provided€Dr.€Anchor€with€theÏbackground€information€they€had€on€the€petitioner.€€Although€he€testified€that€he€did€notÏremember,€Mr.€Alderman€admitted€that€it€was€possible€that€the€only€backgroundÏinformation€they€provided€came€from€the€petitioner€himself.€€Mr.€Alderman€testified€that€ÏMr.€McNally€had€more€contact€with€Dr.€Anchor€than€œhe€did.€€Mr.€Alderman›€testified€thatÏDr.€Anchorððs€testing€did€not€reveal€anything€that€would€have€warranted€furtherÏinvestigation€into€the€petitionerððs€mental€health€status.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Alderman€also€testified€that€he€thought€there€may€have€been€an€issueÏregarding€the€petitionerððs€competency,€in€part€because€whenever€he€discussed€theÏcase€with€the€petitioner,€the€petitioner€would€smile€and€state€that€ð ðGod€would€protectÏhim€from€the€evidence.ðð€€However,€they€were€not€certain€they€would€be€able€to€show€theÏjury€what€they€saw€in€the€petitioner.€€Mr.€Alderman€noted€that€the€petitioner€determinedÏduring€the€voir€dire€that€the€prosecutor€and€one€of€the€prospective€jurors€were€Masons;Ïapparently€that€particular€prosecutor€wore€Masonic€pins€on€his€jacket€lapel€and€tie.€€TheÐ È7À04 Ðpetitioner€consistently€maintained€his€innocence€throughout€the€trial.€€Mr.€AldermanÏtestified€that€despite€some€compelling€evidence,€such€as€the€matching€bullets,€theÏpetitioner€never€helped€explain€his€position€in€relation€to€the€evidence.€€Mr.€AldermanÏstated€that€the€petitioner€seemed€to€minimize€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€and€itsÏconsequences.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defense€ultimately€relied€upon€an€alibi.€€Mr.€Alderman€testified€theyÏwere€compelled€to€use€this€defense€because€the€petitioner€insisted€he€had€an€alibi€andÏbecause€he€refused€to€discuss€the€evidence€or€other€possible€defenses.€€They€knewÏthey€were€going€to€have€a€problem€with€the€alibi€because€of€inconsistent€statements.€ÏMr.€Alderman€testified€that€although€he€did€not€necessarily€think€this€was€the€bestÏpossible€defense,€they€decided€to€ð ðlet€[the€petitioner]€call€the€tune.€€Letððs€let€him€decideÏhow€he€wants€to€go€to€hell€in€a€hand€basket.ðð€€The€petitionerððs€insistence€on€the€alibiÏwas€one€reason€they€raised€the€competency€issue€pretrial.€€Mr.€Alderman€testified€thatÏthey€attempted€to€portray€the€victimððs€estranged€husband€as€a€suspect€and€tried€toÏshow€that€the€victim€was€obsessed€with€the€petitioner.€€He€said€that€they€raised€theÏcompetency€issue€again€during€voir€dire.ÌÌà ¸ àDuring€the€trial,€the€state€elicited€testimony€concerning€the€shooting€ofÏBenny€Clay.€€Mr.€Alderman€testified€that€the€parties€had€a€meeting€in€chambers€before€Ïtrial,€and€the€trial€court€ruled€this€information€was€inadmissible.€€Mr.€Alderman€statedÏthat€he€objected€as€soon€as€he€realized€the€state€was€asking€improper€questions€aboutÏthe€incident.€€He€also€stated€that€he€realized€he€should€have€filed€a€motion€in€limineÏdespite€the€in„chambers€conference€on€this€matter.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Alderman€testified€there€was€no€particular€reason€why€he€did€notÏobject€to€certain€information€contained€in€the€petitionerððs€statements€to€the€police€thatÐ È7À04 Ðwere€read€to€the€jury€during€trial,€despite€the€fact€that€he€agreed€that€the€form€of€someÏof€the€questions€contained€in€the€statements€would€not€have€been€proper€at€trial.€€HeÏdid€not€know€why€they€did€not€object€to€the€trial€courtððs€explanation€of€mental€conditionÏmitigation€as€ð ða€serious€mental€disorderðð€during€voir€dire.€€He€did€not€recall€conductingÏany€investigation€into€Benny€Clayððs€background€for€impeachment€purposes€or€speakingÏto€the€petitionerððs€employer€at€the€time.€€Mr.€Alderman€testified€that€he€could€not€think€ofÏa€reason€to€object€contemporaneously€to€the€prosecutorððs€closing€argument€regardingÏimposing€death€for€the€murder€of€the€children.€€He€said€that€they€did€not€raise€the€issueÏon€appeal€because€they€believed€they€had€waived€it€by€not€contemporaneouslyÏobjecting.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Alderman€testified€that€under€the€circumstances,€he€believed€they€hadÏsufficient€time€to€prepare€for€trial.€€He€acknowledged€that€his€subsequent€experienceÏwould€have€better€equipped€him€to€investigate€the€social€background€of€the€petitionerÏfor€mitigation€purposes.€€He€stated€they€did€not€proffer€any€bad€mitigation,€such€as€priorÏbad€acts€or€drug€use€and€abuse,€to€help€explain€why€the€murders€occurred.€€He€testifiedÏthat€they€met€about€five€or€six€times€with€members€of€the€petitionerððs€family.€€He€testifiedÏthat€they€discussed€the€circumstances€of€this€case€with€the€family€and€asked€if€theyÏcould€relate€any€of€the€petitionerððs€past€behavior€to€help€explain€this€case.€€Mr.ÏAlderman€said€that€they€also€talked€to€the€petitioner€about€his€past€relationships€withÏwomen,€but€neither€the€petitioner€nor€his€family€could€offer€any€historical€informationÏrelevant€to€the€present€case.ÌÌà ¸ àAssistant€Public€Defender€Patrick€McNally€served€as€co„counsel€in€theÏtrial€of€this€case.€€He€testified€that€he€was€probably€working€on€about€forty€or€fifty€casesÏper€month€and€averaged€about€three€trials€per€month€during€the€time€he€was€assignedÏto€this€case.€€However,€he€said€he€had€only€one€other€trial€in€the€two€months€before€theÐ È7À04 Ðtrial€in€this€case.€€He€testified€that€he€never€complained€to€his€supervisor€about€beingÏoverworked.€€He€said€he€was€assigned€to€the€petitionerððs€case€about€three€monthsÏbefore€the€trial€date.€€He€was€primarily€responsible€for€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€ÏThe€defense€had€two€investigators€on€this€case,€Charlsie€Johnson€and€Steve€Allen.€€Mr.ÏMcNally€remembered€that€the€investigators€complained€about€having€too€many€cases€toÏwork.€€However,€he€did€not€recall€any€time€when€the€investigators€could€not€perform€aÏcertain€task€for€him.€€He€testified€that€he€had€previously€tried€three€death€penalty€casesÏand€had€helped€prepare€for€about€three€more,€but€he€stated€that€this€was€the€first€deathÏpenalty€appeal€in€which€he€had€been€involved.€€Mr.€McNally€also€testified€that€he€hadÏattended€at€least€four€seminars€on€death€penalty€litigation.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€McNally€testified€that€he€first€met€with€Dr.€Anchor€concerning€possibleÏpsychological€issues€several€weeks€before€trial.€€Mr.€McNally€testified€that€he€did€notÏprovide€Dr.€Anchor€with€a€social€history€of€the€petitioner€prior€to€the€examination.€€HeÏstated€that€the€practice€at€that€time€was€for€the€expert€to€gather€his€or€her€own€socialÏhistory.€€Mr.€McNally€was€aware€that€the€information€the€petitioner€provided€to€theÏstateððs€psychologist€before€the€competency€hearing€and€the€information€he€gave€Dr.ÏAnchor€were€somewhat€different€in€that€he€told€one€that€he€had€children€and€told€theÏother€that€he€did€not.€€Mr.€McNally€testified€that€they€attempted€to€show€any€delusionsÏthe€petitioner€had€through€the€testimony€of€Pat€Jaros€during€the€penalty€phase.€€Mr.ÏMcNally€did€not€inform€the€experts€that€the€petitionerððs€grades€dropped€from€the€sixthÏgrade€to€the€twelfth€grade.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€McNally€testified€that€he€never€found€or€heard€anything€to€explain€œwhy›Ïthe€petitioner€committed€these€murders.€€He€talked€to€the€petitionerððs€ex„wifeÏconcerning€their€relationship€prior€to€trial,€but€he€did€not€talk€to€any€of€the€petitionerððsÏother€girlfriends.Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àMr.€McNally€testified€that€they€chose€Dr.€Anchor€because€he€wasÏsomeone€with€whom€they€previously€had€worked€and€he€was€one€of€a€few€expertsÏwilling€to€handle€criminal€trials.€€He€said€that€they€chose€a€psychologist€rather€than€aÏpsychiatrist€because€he€felt€that€psychologists€communicated€better€to€jurors.€€Dr.ÏAnchor€testified€at€the€competency€hearing€before€trial€but€was€unable€to€testify€at€trialÏdue€to€a€scheduling€conflict.€€As€a€result,€the€defense€asked€for€a€continuance,€whichÏwas€denied,€but€the€court€was€willing€to€authorize€funds€for€another€expert.€€Mr.€McNallyÏtestified€that€due€to€time€œconstraints,›€they€decided€to€allow€Pat€Jaros,€the€psychologicalÏexaminer€(not€a€licensed€psychologist),€to€testify€about€the€reports€prepared€by€Dr.ÏAnchor.€€They€attempted€to€have€her€explain€to€the€jury€during€sentencing€that€theÏpetitioner€would€be€a€good€inmate€on€a€long„term€basis.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€McNally€testified€that€in€an€attempt€to€establish€that€the€petitioner€andÏvictim€had€a€good€relationship,€he€argued€during€trial€that€the€petitioner€cleaned€theÏvictimððs€car€the€Saturday€before€the€murder.€€However,€he€testified€that€he€did€not€recallÏany€specific€attempt€to€verify€this€information,€such€as€calling€witnesses.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€McNally€testified€that€he€thought€the€petitioner€was€incompetent€toÏstand€trial.€€However,€after€expert€testimony,€the€defense€did€not€renew€their€motion€toÏsuppress€the€petitionerððs€statement€to€the€police.€€Mr.€McNally€testified€that€he€did€notÏlisten€carefully€to€the€stateððs€rebuttal€argument€during€closing€and€therefore€did€notÏobject€to€the€prosecutorððs€comment€about€giving€the€petitioner€a€ð ðfreebieðð€for€the€murderÏof€the€children.€€He€stated€that€because€this€trial€lasted€longer€than€normal,€he€had€toÏdevote€time€out€of€court€to€his€other€cases.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€McNally€testified€that€he€tried€the€penalty€phase€and€Mr.€AldermanÏtried€the€guilt€phase€in€an€effort€to€œpreserve€their›€credibility€with€the€jury.€€Mr.€McNallyÐ È7À04 Ðstated€that€he€and€Mr.€Alderman€believed€they€were€locked€into€the€alibi€defenseÏbecause€of€the€petitionerððs€insistence.€€He€testified€that€they€did€not€object€to€the€courtððsÏexplanation€of€mitigation€during€voir€dire,€but€he€stated€that€they€did€request€the€courtÏnot€to€instruct€the€jury€that€a€serious€mental€disorder€could€be€considered€mitigationÏbecause€they€did€not€think€they€had€proven€that.€€Mr.€McNally€also€commented€on€theÏfact€that€the€petitioner€made€the€connection€regarding€the€prosecutorððs€and€prospectiveÏjurorððs€membership€in€the€Mason€organization.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€McNally€testified€that€he€first€met€with€the€petitionerððs€family€in€earlyÏDecember.€€He€also€testified€to€the€number€of€contacts€he€had€before€trial€concerningÏmitigation€witnesses.€€He€said€that€the€state€never€made€an€offer€for€a€plea€agreementÏnor€did€the€defense€ever€initiate€plea€negotiations€with€the€state.€€He€said€the€petitionerÏwould€not€have€allowed€them€to€negotiate.ÌÌà ¸ àJames€Makin,€a€criminal€defense€attorney€from€Texas,€testified€on€behalfÏof€the€petitioner.€€Mr.€Makin€testified€that€in€1995,€the€State€of€Texas€implemented€aÏcertification€program€for€those€attorneys€interested€in€seeking€appointments€to€indigentÏcapital€defendants.€€He€said€he€had€been€involved€in€about€seven€capital€cases€sinceÏ1989€and€was€certified€under€the€Texas€program€since€1995.€€He€testified€that€theÏpursuit€of€a€defense€is€the€sole€responsibility€of€the€defense€counsel.€€He€furtherÏtestified€that€he€thought€counselððs€reliance€on€the€alibi€in€this€case€was€unreasonable,Ïand€they€lost€credibility€with€the€jury.€€Mr.€Makin€stated€that€he€disagreed€with€theÏsupreme€courtððs€opinion€on€the€direct€appeal€to€the€extent€it€found€Mr.€SkinnerððsÏrepresentation€effective.€€According€to€Mr.€Makin,€defense€counsel€were€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€file€a€petition€for€rehearing,€failing€to€request€a€hearing€on€the€motion€toÏsuppress,€failing€to€subpoena€Dr.€Anchor€to€testify€at€trial,€pursuing€an€alibi€when€theyÏknew€ahead€of€time€it€was€not€solid,€failing€to€object€during€the€stateððs€rebuttalÐ È7À04 Ðargument,€not€contacting€Dr.€Anchor€until€after€filing€the€motion€to€suppress€theÏpetitionerððs€statement,€and€failing€to€provide€Dr.€Anchor€with€the€petitionerððs€socialÏhistory.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Pamela€Auble,€a€clinical€neuropsychologist,€testified€on€behalf€of€theÏpetitioner€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€She€stated€that€based€upon€the€information€sheÏreceived€on€the€petitionerððs€history,€such€as€a€high€school€football€injury€to€the€chestÏand€the€possibility€that€his€mother€drank€during€pregnancy,€there€were€some€otherÏthings€that€needed€to€be€explored€in€the€petitionerððs€case.€€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€sheÏadministered€several€tests€to€the€petitioner,€including€an€I.Q.€test,€a€test€of€theÏpetitionerððs€ability€to€learn€and€remember,€a€test€to€determine€if€the€petitioner€wasÏmalingering,€a€test€of€mental€flexibility,€a€test€of€language€fluency,€a€naming€test,€testsÏof€motor€speed€and€dexterity,€a€complex€test€of€the€petitionerððs€ability€to€learn€a€wordÏlist,€a€geometric€test,€and€several€personality€and€emotional€functioning€tests.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Auble€testified€that€she€administered€the€tests€to€the€petitioner€with€aÏpreconceived€notion€that€the€petitioner€may€suffer€from€Ganzerððs€Syndrome,€which€is€aÏdissociative€syndrome€where€the€patient€detaches€himself€from€reality.€€She€wasÏinformed€that€the€petitioner€could€not€remember€the€events€surrounding€the€murdersÏand€gave€inconsistent€information€regarding€his€social€history.€€From€the€tests,€Dr.ÏAuble€determined€that€the€petitioner€was€not€malingering.€€The€petitionerððs€intelligenceÏwas€within€the€borderline€range€of€functioning,€in€the€fifth€percentile.€€Dr.€Auble€testifiedÏthat€the€petitioner€tended€to€minimize€his€problems€and€repress€negative€feelings.€€Dr.ÏAuble€also€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€an€idealized€attachment€to€his€ex„wife.€€Dr.ÏAuble€stated€that€the€petitioner€denied€ð ðanything€could€ever€be€wrong€with€him€in€hisÏlife.ððÌÐ È7À04 Ðà ¸ àDr.€Auble€testified€that€her€evaluation€of€patients€consists€of€reviewingÏtheir€test€scores,€conducting€an€interview€with€the€patient,€and€reviewing€informationÏabout€the€patient€obtained€from€outside€sources,€such€as€a€social€history€or€evaluationsÏfrom€other€professionals.€€Dr.€Auble€had€serious€concerns€about€the€petitionerððsÏcompetency€and€stated€further€testing€needed€to€be€done€in€this€case€before€she€couldÏreach€a€final€conclusion.€€She€stated€that€she€had€serious€reservations€about€theÏpetitionerððs€ability€to€assist€in€his€defense€and€to€reason€about€his€case,€but€sheÏacknowledged€that€the€petitioner€understood€the€roles€of€the€judge,€jury€and€counsel.€ÏThe€tests€she€conducted€revealed€that€the€petitionerððs€mental€capacities,€functioning,Ïmemory€and€reasoning€were€not€normal€and€needed€to€be€further€investigated€forÏpossible€brain€damage.€€Dr.€Auble€recommended€that€the€petitioner€undergo€an€œEEG›Ïand€œa›€œMRI.›€€If€the€œEEG›€and€œMRI›€came€out€negative,€she€stated€that€they€would€have€toÏlook€to€another€source€for€the€problem.€€Also,€she€stated€that€a€more€complete€socialÏhistory€would€be€necessary.€€She€testified,€however,€that€the€petitioner€did€not€sufferÏfrom€Ganzerððs€Syndrome.€€She€stated€that€the€petitioner€had€the€characteristics€of€aÏdissociative€disorder€and€that€he€repressed€or€denied€negative€feelings€or€actions.€€SheÏalso€believed€the€petitioner€had€a€cognitive€problem€(organic€disorder),€but€she€couldÏnot€specify€what€type€of€disorder.€€She€stated€nothing€in€the€record€indicated€theÏpetitioner€had€a€stroke.€€She€testified€that€amnesia€could€be€a€possibility.€€SheÏdisagreed€with€Dr.€Anchorððs€opinion€that€the€petitioner€suffered€from€a€delusionalÏdisorder.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Auble€started€working€on€this€case€on€February€17,€1997.€€She€did€notÏlisten€to€the€petitionerððs€tape„recorded€statement€to€the€police,€nor€did€she€read€theÏtranscript.€€She€testified€that€the€petitioner€did€not€know€why€he€was€in€prison,€otherÏthan€having€been€charged€with€murder.€€He€recalled€specific€circumstances€about€theÏBennie€Clay€shooting€but€could€not€recall€specific€details€about€the€murders.€€TheÐ È7À04 Ðpetitioner€told€Dr.€Auble€that€he€was€in€prison€when€the€murders€occurred.€€TheÏpetitioner€claimed€that€the€police€ð ðrailroadedðð€him€with€a€ð ðbunch€of€lies.ðð€€Dr.€AubleÏtestified€that€the€petitioner€told€her€he€did€not€think€he€had€any€mental€problems.€€HeÏtold€her€he€was€ð ðjust€waiting€on€the€truth.€€Good€things€come€to€those€who€wait.ðð€ÏAlthough€she€did€not€read€or€hear€them,€the€petitionerððs€counsel€informed€Dr.€Auble€ofÏthe€content€of€the€petitionerððs€statements€to€the€police€in€which€he€said€that€he€wasÏinside€the€victimððs€apartment€and€saw€the€bodies.€€She€testified€that€she€did€not€ask€theÏpetitioner€about€his€statements€to€the€police.€€She€indicated€that€the€petitionerððs€mentalÏcondition€was€such€that€he€had€repressed€the€events€over€the€years€and€thereforeÏcould€not€recall€the€specific€details€as€he€did€in€his€statements€to€the€police.€€Dr.€AubleÏdid€not€consider€the€conclusions€reached€by€the€experts€before€trial€to€be€incorrect,€butÏshe€would€have€liked€to€have€had€more€information€to€be€certain.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€William€Bernet,€a€licensed€forensic€psychiatrist,€first€interviewed€theÏpetitioner€in€1992,€and€then€again€in€1997.€€He€testified€that€he€also€reviewed€reportsÏfrom€other€experts€that€were€compiled€prior€to€trial,€as€well€as€the€police€records€andÏother€miscellaneous€records.€€He€stated€that€this€case€was€much€more€complicatedÏthan€most€forensic€evaluations€because€there€was€ð ðsome€kind€of€significant€limit€to€[theÏpetitionerððs]€understandingðð€that€required€additional€investigation.€€He€stated€that€heÏrelies€upon€the€attorneys€in€complicated€cases€such€as€this€to€assist€him€in€gathering€aÏsocial€history€of€the€patient.€€In€other€cases,€he€would€obtain€the€social€history€himself.€ÏDespite€his€initial€diagnosis,€he€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€not€suffering€fromÏGanzerððs€Syndrome.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Bernet€did€not€believe€the€petitioner€was€malingering€during€hisÏevaluations.€€According€to€Dr.€Bernet,€the€petitioner€repressed€his€past€bad€acts,Ïincluding€inconsequential€things,€and€the€only€way€Dr.€Bernet€became€aware€of€thisÐ È7À04 Ðwas€due€to€the€thorough€social€history€provided€by€the€petitionerððs€current€counsel.€€HeÏtestified€that€without€a€complete€history,€it€was€very€likely€another€expert€could€miss€thisÏdiagnosis.€€He€testified€that€there€was€a€reasonable€medical€probability€that€theÏpetitioner€suffered€from€a€mental€disorder€and€that€it€was€almost€certainly€a€form€ofÏamnesia.€€He€further€testified,€however,€that€the€amnesia€was€not€a€ð ðflat,€denseÏabsolute€amnesia,ðð€rather€ð ðit€has€holes€in€it.ðð€€In€other€words,€the€petitioner€couldÏremember€some€things€but€not€everything.€€According€to€Dr.€Bernet,€this€would€haveÏhampered€the€petitioner€in€assisting€with€his€defense.€€He€stated€that€there€should€haveÏbeen€a€much€more€detailed€evaluation€in€this€case€before€the€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Bernet€testified€that€he€wanted€to€obtain€a€more€sophisticated€socialÏhistory€and€conduct€additional€interviews€in€order€to€pinpoint€the€cause€of€the€defect.€ÏHe€testified€that€usually€the€doctor€would€determine€whether€more€information€wasÏneeded€with€regard€to€the€social€history.€€However,€he€also€testified€that€attorneysÏwould€sometimes€provide€the€additional€information,€depending€on€the€nature€of€theÏcase.€€Also,€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€an€EEG€and€MRI€would€be€helpful€in€the€diagnosis.€ÏAlthough€he€testified€that€certain€persons€diagnosed€with€amnesia€could€still€be€foundÏcompetent,€he€stated€that€the€petitionerððs€case€was€such€that€the€amnesia€couldÏinterfere€with€competence.€€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€due€to€his€condition,€the€petitionerÏwould€sometimes€give€contradictory€answers€to€œquestions›€and€that€the€petitioner€wouldÏsometimes€fabricate€answers€in€order€to€please€the€interviewer.ÌÌà ¸ àDuring€the€interview€with€the€petitioner,€Dr.€Bernet€asked€the€petitionerÏwhat€would€help€his€case,€and€the€petitioner€responded,€ð ðTake€the€death€sentence€off.ðð€ÏWhen€asked€why€he€gave€a€statement€to€the€police,€the€petitioner€answered€that€it€wasÏbecause€the€detective€acted€like€he€was€going€to€shoot€him.€€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€heÏbelieved€the€petitioner€made€up€a€lot€of€answers€as€he€went€along.€Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àLeon€Taylor€McLean€employed€the€petitioner€at€his€used€car€businessÏwhile€the€petitioner€was€in€the€prison€work€release€program.€€Mr.€McLean€testified€thatÏthe€petitioner€was€an€excellent€employee€who€never€complained€and€always€had€aÏsmile€on€his€face.€€He€testified€that€the€petitioner€never€seemed€confused€about€hisÏposition€or€who€the€boss€was,€and€he€never€appeared€to€lose€his€temper.€€Mr.€McLeanÏstated€that€he€saw€the€petitioner€on€a€television€news€report€after€his€arrest€for€theÏmurders€and€thought€it€was€very€odd€that€he€was€smiling.€€He€also€testified€that€on€theÏSaturday€before€the€murders,€he€saw€the€petitioner€talking€with€an€African„AmericanÏwoman€at€his€establishment€and€that€the€petitioner€was€cleaning€a€car€while€he€talkedÏto€the€woman.€€Mr.€McLean€said€that€there€did€not€appear€to€be€any€animosity€betweenÏthe€petitioner€and€the€woman.€€ÌÌà ¸ àCharlotte€Denise€Walden,€a€trial€witness,€testified€at€the€evidentiaryÏhearing€that€before€testifying€at€trial,€she€had€not€been€contacted€by€anyoneÏrepresenting€the€petitioner.€€She€testified€that€she€was€subpoenaed€to€appear€at€the€trialÏbut€she€did€not€remember€who€subpoenaed€her€or€which€attorney€called€her€to€theÏwitness€stand.€€She€stated€that€she€did€not€talk€to€anyone€before€she€walked€into€theÏcourtroom,€except€the€victimððs€sister.€€However,€upon€further€questioning,€Ms.€WaldenÏsaid€that€she€was€not€certain€whether€the€prosecutors€or€defense€counsel€spoke€withÏher€before€the€trial.€€She€testified€that€shortly€after€the€murders,€a€police€officer€andÏanother€gentleman€whom€she€could€not€identify€talked€to€her€on€two€separateÏoccasions.ÌÌà ¸ àLynette€Denise€Black,€the€petitionerððs€ex„wife,€testified€for€the€petitioner.€ÏShe€said€they€were€married€from€1979€until€1984€and€had€one€child€together.€€She€didÏnot€know€the€victim€in€this€case.€€Ms.€Black€testified€that€she€periodically€talked€to€theÏpetitioner€after€their€divorce€and€that€the€petitioner€continued€to€see€their€child.€€SheÐ È7À04 Ðsaid€that€the€petitioner€accepted€the€fact€that€they€were€divorced,€but€since€hisÏincarceration,€she€believed€the€petitioner€talked€as€if€they€were€still€married.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€talked€to€the€petitioner€several€days€after€the€murders,€and€theÏpetitioner€did€not€seem€like€himself.€€She€testified€that€she€thought€the€petitionerÏexpected€eventually€to€be€released€from€prison.€€The€petitioner€and€Ms.€Black€lived€withÏhis€parents€during€their€marriage.€€She€never€heard€the€petitionerððs€family€mention€thatÏthe€petitioner€suffered€a€head€injury€nor€did€she€ever€witness€the€petitioner€act€violently.€ÏMs.€Black€testified€that€the€petitioner€wanted€the€divorce.€€She€said€he€wanted€to€liveÏwith€his€parents,€but€she€wanted€a€place€of€her€own.€€She€stated€that€the€petitionerÏcalled€her€after€he€was€arrested€to€inquire€about€how€she€was€doing.€€She€asked€aboutÏthe€murders,€and€the€petitioner€said€that€he€did€not€commit€them.ÌÌà ¸ àFinas€C.€Black,€the€petitionerððs€maternal€uncle,€also€testified€at€theÏevidentiary€hearing.€€He€said€he€was€about€eight€or€nine€when€the€petitioner€was€born,Ïand€the€petitionerððs€mother€lived€with€their€parents€at€the€time.€€Mr.€Black€said€that€theÏpetitionerððs€mother€did€not€work€much€and€was€usually€at€home€with€the€children.€€HeÏsaid€that€his€parents€disciplined€the€petitioner.€€He€said€that€the€petitionerððs€motherÏdrank€scotch€on€the€weekends€and€drank€during€her€pregnancy€with€the€petitioner,€asÏwell€as€while€she€was€breast„feeding.€€He€also€testified€that€there€is€a€history€ofÏdiabetes€in€the€family.ÌÌà ¸ àMary€Black,€the€wife€of€Finas€Black,€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€aboutÏfour€or€five€when€she€and€Finas€married.€€She€testified€that€her€mother„in„law€was€the€Ïpetitionerððs€primary€œcaretaker.›€€She€testified€that€the€petitionerððs€mother€drank€scotch€onÏthe€weekends.€€She€had€never€known€the€petitionerððs€mother€to€have€full„timeÏemployment.€€Alberta€Black€Crawford,€the€petitionerððs€maternal€aunt,€also€testified€thatÏthe€petitionerððs€mother€drank€scotch€on€the€weekends€during€her€pregnancy.Ð È7À04 Ðà ¸ àà@DD/DàˆÌà ¸ à€ð ðIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€€òòMcBee€v.Ð È À ÐStateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ñ+ñ׃×ñ+ññ+ñ׃ ×ñ+ñÝ ƒ ŠÝÔ€X$XXX$ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Furthermore,€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¨   Ðfindings€of€fact€and€determinations€of€law€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€appellateÏcourt€determines€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,Ð h`  Ð789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌà ¸ àAfter€what€the€record€reflects€to€be€a€thorough€review€of€the€original€trialÏrecord,€as€well€as€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€petitioner€didÏnot€receive€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€found€that€there€were€no€otherÏerrors€of€constitutional€dimension.€€We€agree.Ìò òÌà@ŒŒDàI.€€EXCLUSION€OF€JURORððS€TESTIMONY€ó óˆÐ h` Ðà ¸ àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€attempted€to€introduce€testimonyÏfrom€Joseph€Preston€Saling,€who€served€as€one€of€the€jurors€during€the€convicting€trial.€ÏThe€trial€court€sustained€the€stateððs€objection€to€exclude€this€testimony€under€RuleÏ606(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€but€allowed€the€petitioner€to€make€an€offer€of€proof.€€On€appeal,Ïthe€petitioner€contends€that€this€testimony€should€have€been€allowed€to€support€hisÏclaim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Saling€testified€that€he€voted€to€impose€the€death€penalty€on€the€oneÏcount€in€this€case€because€he€believed€the€state€proved€that€the€petitioner€tortured€theÏvictim.€€However,€he€testified€that€he€was€not€certain€about€the€definition€of€the€heinous,Ïatrocious€or€cruel€aggravating€circumstance€and€asked€the€court€for€further€instruction.€Ð 4-0 ÐMr.€Saling€said€that€he€did€not€think€the€victim€was€tortured€under€his€own€definition€ofÏtorture,€but€he€believed€that€the€state€satisfied€the€legal€meaning€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance.€€He€believed€that€the€petitioner€did€not€deserve€the€death€penalty,€but€heÏvoted€for€it€because€he€felt€obligated€to€follow€the€mandates€of€the€law.€€Mr.€SalingÏtestified€that€he€would€have€given€the€same€answers€to€questions€asked€during€voir€direÏnow€as€he€did€back€then.€€He€stated€that€despite€his€own€beliefs,€he€would€still€followÏthe€law.€€He€testified€that€he€was€not€sure€that€the€other€aggravating€circumstancesÏwould€have€persuaded€him€to€vote€for€the€death€penalty€if€the€state€did€not€prove€theÏheinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€aggravator.ÌÌà ¸ àRule€606(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€precludes€a€juror€from€testifying€or€offering€anÏaffidavit€ð ðas€to€any€matter€or€statement€occurring€during€the€course€of€the€juryððsÏdeliberations€or€to€the€effect€of€anything€upon€any€jurorððs€mind€or€emotion€as€influencingÏthat€juror€to€assent€to€or€dissent€from€the€verdict.ðð€€In€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572Ð h` Ð(Tenn.€1997),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€this€very€issue.€€In€òòHenleyóó,€aÐ H!@ Ðcapital€post„conviction€case,€the€petitioner€sought€to€introduce€an€affidavit€from€one€ofÏthe€trial€jurors€in€support€of€his€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€affidavitÏrelated€to€the€juryððs€mindset€concerning€the€refusal€of€the€petitionerððs€mother€to€testifyÏduring€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€The€supreme€court€stated€that€ð ðthe€jurorððsÏaffidavit€related€to€the€precise€subject€matter€about€which€a€juror€is€strictly€forbiddenÏfrom€testifying€by€Rule€606(b).ðð€€òòId.óó€at€581.€€The€court€held€that€this€evidence€ð ðviolatesÐ ˆ,€%( Ðthe€express€terms€of€Rule€606(b)€and€should€not€have€been€consideredðð€in€the€post„¼conviction€proceeding.€€òòId.óó€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€considerÐ H0@), Ðthe€jurorððs€testimony€in€this€case.€€ò òÐ (2 +. ÐÌâ âà@à à DàII.€€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELˆÐ è5à.2 Ðó óà ¸ à€€€In€order€for€the€petitioner€to€be€granted€relief€on€the€ground€of€ineffectiveÏâ âassistance€of€counsel,€he€must€establish€that€the€advice€given€or€the€services€renderedÏwere€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€andÏthat,€but€for€his€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€his€trial€would€likely€have€Ïbeen€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064Ð ˆ€ Ð(1984);€œòòRoseóó,›€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€Furthermore,€we€may€not€second-guessÐ h`  Ðthe€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€those€choices€wereÏuninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9Ð (  Ð(Tenn.€1982).€€Trial€counsel€may€not€be€deemed€ineffective€merely€because€a€differentÏprocedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599Ð èà ÐS.W.2d€276€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€The€reviewing€courts€must€indulge€a€strongÏpresumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€falls€within€the€range€of€reasonableÏprofessional€assistance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066.Ð ˆ€ Ðò òÌà@ÚÚ#DàA.€ó ó€ò òPresentation€of€Alibió óˆÐ H!@ Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€claims€his€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigateÏthe€alibi€defense€thoroughly.€€He€asserts€that€further€investigation€would€have€revealedÏthe€futility€of€this€defense,€and€he€argues€that€more€suitable€defenses€could€have€beenÏadvanced.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€states€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€substantiate€the€petitionerððsÏstory€by€not€interviewing€Ms.€Walden€or€her€house€guests€from€the€night€of€the€murder.€ÏCounsel€for€the€petitioner€and€the€state€attack€each€otherððs€interpretation€of€theÏevidence€in€this€respect.€€The€petitioner€argues€that€defense€counsel€would€haveÏdiscovered€that€the€petitioner€did€not€visit€Ms.€Walden€after€10:00€p.m.€the€night€of€theÏmurder,€as€he€claimed,€if€they€had€merely€talked€to€her€and€her€house€guests€beforeÏtrial.€€The€state€contends€that€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€counsel€didÐ È7À04 Ðnot€interview€these€witnesses.€€The€petitioner€also€contends€that€counselððsÏshortcomings€regarding€these€witnesses€not€only€destroyed€the€alibi€defense€butÏaffected€the€petitionerððs€credibility€during€sentencing.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,Ïcounsel€testified€that€he€believed€Ms.€Walden€probably€was€interviewed€prior€to€trial,€butÏthat€he€did€not€know€specifically.€€Furthermore,€although€Ms.€Walden€initially€testifiedÏthat€she€spoke€to€no€one€before€taking€the€witness€stand,€she€later€testified€that€sheÏwas€uncertain€whether€she€talked€to€counsel.€€At€any€rate,€defense€counsel€specificallyÏtestified€that€the€investigator€assigned€to€this€case€would€have€been€responsible€forÏinterviewing€Ms.€Walden€prior€to€trial.€€Counsel€also€testified€that€this€investigator€wasÏstill€employed€with€the€public€defenderððs€office.€€Although€the€parties€differ€regarding€theÏsignificance€of€the€evidence€presented,€we€believe€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€elicit€thisÏinformation€from€an€apparently€available€witness,€the€investigator.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,Ð ¨  Ð794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€counselððs€failure€to€discover€that€theÏpetitionerððs€mother€previously€gave€the€police€a€contradictory€statement€significantlyÏhampered€their€defense.€€However,€the€petitioner€has€not€proven€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence€that€defense€counsel€inadequately€prepared€this€witness.€€CounselÏtestified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€they€were€unaware€of€this€tape„recordedÏstatement€until€after€the€witness€testified€at€trial.€€The€trial€transcript€suggests€counselÏœwere›€surprised€by€this€testimony.€€Moreover,€this€witness€testified€that€she€did€not€tellÏdefense€counsel€that€she€had€been€recorded.€€Counsel€testified€that€they€did€notÏknowingly€place€perjured€testimony€before€the€jury.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€showÏthat€counsel€œwere›€deficient€in€this€respect.€€As€the€state€suggests,€counsel€cannot€beÏheld€responsible€for€the€witnessððs€failure€to€reveal€relevant€information.€€CounselÏâ âtestified€that€they€met€with€the€petitionerððs€family€several€times€before€trial.€€Contrary€toÐ è5à.2 Ðthe€petitionerððs€claim,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€counsel€failed€to€ð ðgainÏ[their]€trust€and€secure€information€from€[them].ððÌâ âÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€argues€that€because€his€counsel€failed€to€investigate€theÏalibi€defense€adequately,€they€lost€the€opportunity€to€present€alternative€defenses.€€HeÏsuggests€that€attacking€the€stateððs€evidence€in€terms€of€establishing€a€reasonable€doubtÏor€even€advancing€an€admission„based€defense€would€have€been€superior€to€the€alibiÏdefense.€€Regarding€the€admission„based€defense,€the€petitioner€claims€that€counselÏcould€have€negated€the€requisite€òòmensóó€òòreaóó€for€first€degree€murder€if€they€hadÐ  Ðadequately€explored€the€petitionerððs€mental€condition.€€As€for€a€reasonable€doubtÏdefense,€defense€counsel€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€they€did€attempt€toÏportray€the€victimððs€estranged€husband€as€a€suspect€and€show€that€the€victim€wasÏobsessed€with€the€petitioner.€€As€for€an€admission„based€defense,€aside€from€the€factÏthat€the€petitioner€denied€committing€the€crimes,€there€is€essentially€no€evidence€thatÏthe€petitioner€was€rendered€incapable€of€forming€the€mental€state€required€for€firstÏdegree€murder.ÌÌà ¸ àCounsel€admitted€the€difficulties€in€pursuing€a€somewhat€weak€alibiÏdefense,€but€they€testified€that€they€felt€locked€into€this€strategy€because€of€theÏpetitionerððs€wishes.€€òòCf.óó€òòOscar€Franklin€Smith€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9702„CR„00048,Ð ¨* #& ÐDavidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€June€30,€1998)€œ(holding€that€although›€counselÏpursued€an€alibi€defense€as€requested€by€the€defendant,€despite€the€fact€that€counselÏwas€not€confident€in€the€defense,€counsel€was€not€ineffective).€€The€failure€of€aÏparticular€defense€does€not€equate€to€ineffective€assistance.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599Ð (2 +. ÐS.W.2d€276,€279„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€This€court€must€presume€counsel€actedÏreasonably,€and€it€cannot€review€counselððs€decisions€solely€through€the€benefit€ofÏhindsight.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996).€€At€the€evidentiaryÐ È7À04 Ðhearing,€Mr.€Alderman€testified€that€he€believed€that€the€defense€team€had€sufficientÏtime€to€prepare€for€trial€under€the€circumstances.€€Despite€the€petitionerððs€claimsÏregarding€counselððs€investigation,€given€the€convicting€evidence,€he€has€failed€to€showÏhow€the€outcome€of€the€trial€would€have€changed.€€Nothing€regarding€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€petitionerððs€presence€at€Ms.€Waldenððs€or€his€motherððsÏresidence€can€refute€the€ballistic€or€fingerprint€evidence€or€the€content€of€his€statementÏto€the€police.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€same€applies€to€the€petitionerððs€argument€that€counselððs€failure€to€Ïinvestigate€fully€the€petitionerððs€activities€on€the€Saturday€before€the€murders€prejudicedÏhis€defense.€€The€petitioner€had€stated€that€he€cleaned€the€victimððs€car€and€that€theyÏwere€friendly€to€one€another.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€elicited€fromÏhis€former€employer€the€fact€that€the€petitioner€cleaned€a€car€that€Saturday€and€thatÏthere€appeared€to€be€no€animosity€between€the€petitioner€and€the€woman€œin€the€car.›€ÏWe€note€that€the€witness€could€not€remember€the€make€of€the€car€or€identify€theÏwoman,€stating€only€that€she€was€African„American.€€However,€our€review€of€the€recordÏdoes€not€lead€us€to€conclude€that€this€testimony€would€have€had€any€bearing€on€theÏoutcome.€Ìò òÌà@DàB.€Investigation€of€Mental€Health€Issueó óˆÐ ¨* #& Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€claims€that€counselððs€failure€to€investigate€and€develop€fullyÏthe€petitionerððs€social€history€and€alleged€mental€defect€represents€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€inadequate€socialÏhistory€negatively€affected€the€competency€and€sufficiency€issues,€as€well€as€his€abilityÏto€present€mitigating€evidence.Ìâ âÐ è5à.2 Ðà ¸ àInitially,€we€note€that€the€issue€of€the€petitionerððs€competency€to€stand€trialÏâ âwas€determined€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€on€direct€appeal.€€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2dÐ èà Ðat€173„74.€€Also,€we€note€that€the€convicting€court€accepted€the€opinion€of€its€ownÏexpert,€as€well€as€the€stateððs,€in€deciding€that€the€petitioner€was€competent€to€standÏtrial,€despite€the€conflicting€opinion€of€the€defense€expert.€€It€is€highly€unlikely€that€aÏmore€detailed€social€history€would€have€altered€that€courtððs€finding.€€This€is€evident€fromÏthe€testimony€of€the€petitionerððs€post„conviction€experts€that€the€petitioner€understoodÏthe€various€roles€of€the€courtroom€players,€which€is€contrary€to€the€trial€expertððs€opinion.€Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àFirst,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€petitioner€proved€that€his€trial€counselÏperformed€deficiently€in€investigating€and€developing€evidence€regarding€the€petitionerððsÏmental€condition.€€Although€trial€counsel€testified€that€they€would€now€be€betterÏequipped€to€investigate€a€capital€defendantððs€background€for€mitigation€purposes,Ïcounsel€testified€that€they€interviewed€the€petitioner,€his€family,€and€his€acquaintances.€ÏCounsel€also€testified€that€it€was€their€understanding€that€mental€health€expertsÏgathered€their€own€social€histories€to€use€for€their€evaluations.€€In€fact,€the€experts€usedÏby€the€petitioner€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€testified€that€normally€they€would€obtainÏtheir€own€social€history.€€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€in€complex€cases,€he€would€rely€onÏcounsel€for€additional€information,€but€he€also€stated€that€it€was€usually€the€expert€whoÏwould€make€the€request.€€Trial€counsel€in€this€case€testified€that€their€expert€did€notÏrequest€any€further€background€information.€€Moreover,€counsel€testified€that€none€ofÏtheir€own€interviews€disclosed€any€relevant€information€concerning€the€petitionerððsÏmental€health.€€Counselððs€performance€in€this€case€did€not€fall€below€that€which€isÏrequired.€€The€petitioner€did€not€offer€testimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€from€the€trialÏexpert€regarding€the€need€for€a€more€detailed€social€history.€€Moreover,€merely€becauseÏcounsel€failed€to€discover€indications€of€partial€amnesia€does€not€mean€that€they€wereÏineffective.€€The€attorneys€are€not€guarantors€of€the€validity€of€an€expertððs€results.€€InÐ È7À04 Ðany€event,€the€petitionerððs€trial€expert€did€not€believe€the€petitioner€was€competent,€yetÏthe€convicting€court€twice€rejected€the€petitionerððs€claim.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€insisted€upon€pursuing€an€alibi€defense.€€€Neither€theÏpetitioner€nor€his€family€could€provide€counsel€with€any€information€relative€to€theÏpetitionerððs€mental€health€history.€€Despite€this,€counsel€presented€eight€characterÏwitnesses€along€with€the€testimony€of€Ms.€Jaros.€€Although€Dr.€Anchor€did€not€testify,ÏMs.€Jaros€was€able€to€convey€the€substance€of€Dr.€Anchorððs€evaluation.€€Ms.€JarosÏtestified€at€trial€that€she€thought€they€had€a€pretty€good€impression€of€the€petitionerÏbased€upon€the€information€they€had.€€In€fact,€she€informed€the€jury€that€the€petitionerÏhad€ð ðthese€ideas€which€are€falsely€held€beliefs€that€might€influence€his€actions€in€someÏway€.€.€.€.€€He€does€not€seem€to€have€a€conscious€recollection€of€what€happened€inÏMarch€[the€time€of€the€murders].ðð€€She€indicated€that€the€petitioner€exhibited€delusionalÏtraits.€€Thus,€counsel€did€pursue€and€present€evidence€regarding€the€petitionerððs€mentalÏcondition.€€We€believe€counsel€œwere›€not€deficient€with€respect€to€the€petitionerððs€mentalÏcondition€issues.ÌÌà ¸ àAlso,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€petitioner€has€shown€prejudice.€€In€òòGoadÐ è&à" Ðv.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€371€(Tenn.€œ1996),›€our€supreme€court€listed€several€factorsÐ È(À!$ Ðfor€courts€to€consider€when€examining€resulting€prejudice€in€the€sentencing€phase€of€aÏcapital€trial:€the€nature€and€extent€of€mitigating€evidence€that€was€available€but€notÏpresented,€whether€substantially€similar€mitigating€evidence€was€presented,€and€theÏeffective€strength€of€the€aggravators.€€In€the€present€case,€the€expert€evidenceÏproffered€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€was€similar€to€that€presented€to€the€jury€duringÏsentencing.€€Moreover,€given€the€quality€and€quantity€of€the€existing€aggravatingÏcircumstances€(T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(I)(1),€(2),€(5),€(6),€(7),€(12)€(1982)),€we€do€not€believeÏthat€such€evidence€could€have€altered€the€verdict.Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àThe€trial€court€in€the€present€case€found€as€follows:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àThe€Court€rejects€the€petitionerððs€conclusions.€€First,€theÏpetitioner€suggests€that€his€trial€lawyers€somehow€failed€himÏbecause€they€did€not€convince€the€trial€court€that€he€wasÏincompetent.€€Furthermore,€the€contention€now€is€thatÏsomehow€the€lack€of€a€more€detailed€social€history€was€theÏprimary€failing€of€defense€counsel.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àIt€is€true€that€the€petitionerððs€present€counsel€found€aÏpsychiatrist€and€psychologist€who€now€say€that€the€petitionerÏmay€not€have€been€competent€when€he€stood€trial€in€1989.€€ItÏis€certainly€not€the€test€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€thatÏtrial€counsel€did€not€find€an€expert€to€say€what€petitioner€wouldÏhave€liked€him/her€to€say.€€òòSeeóó€òòPyner€v.€Murrayóó,€964€S.W.2dÐ (  Ð1404,€1418„19€(4th€Cir.€1992)€(counsel€not€ineffective€forÏfailure€to€find€a€psychiatrist€that€agrees€with€a€certainÏdiagnosis).€€Trial€counsel€hired€an€independent€psychologistÏand€psychological€examiner.€€These€hired€experts€did€anÏevaluation€of€the€petitioner€which€included€a€social€history[,]Ïthey€reached€their€own€conclusions,€and€the€psychologistÏtestified€at€a€competency€hearing€and€gave€the€trial€judge€hisÏbest€opinion.€€That€opinion€was€at€least€sufficient€to€cause€theÏtrial€judge€to€appoint€a€psychiatrist€to€do€an€additionalÏevaluation.€€The€fact€that€the€trial€court€ultimately€made,€andÏthe€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€affirmed,€a€finding€that€theÏpetitioner€was€competent€to€stand€trial€was€not€the€result€of€theÏfailings€of€defense€counsel.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€petitioner€also€seems€to€suggest€that€perhaps€trialÏcounsel€should€have€tried€an€insanity€defense€or€at€least€putÏon€more€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€ð ðsocial€historyðð€andÏserious€mental€illness.€€The€petitioner€overlooks€the€testimonyÏof€Pat€Jaros€before€the€jury.€€She€was€able€to€not€only€give€herÏown€portrait€of€the€petitionerððs€mental€health,€but€essentiallyÏshe€repeated€Dr.€Anchor[ðð]s€analysis.€€Both€Dr.€Anchor€and€Ms.ÏJaros€found€no€support€for€an€insanity€defense.€€EvenÏpetitionerððs€present€experts€did€not€testify€that€he€had€anÏinsanity€defense.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€petitionerððs€present€counsel€emphasizes€andÏreemphasizes€the€failure€of€trial€counsel€to€provide€its€expertÏwitnesses€with€an€adequate€social€history.€€The€argumentÏseems€to€be€that€if€an€adequate€social€history€had€beenÏprovided€then€the€experts€testifying€in€1989€would€haveÏreached€a€different€conclusion€supportive€of€petitionerððsÏpresent€contention€that€he€was€not€competent€to€stand€trial€andÏhad€either€an€insanity€defense€or€serious€mental€illness€thatÏwould€have€mitigated€sentencing.€€The€petitioner€says€that€theÏsocial€history€is€the€responsibility€of€defense€counsel.€€TheÏCourt€notes€that€both€Dr.€Anchor€and€the€court€appointedÏevaluators€from€the€local€community€health€center€had€theirÏown€social€histories€prepared.€€These€histories€were€reliedÏupon€in€reaching€their€opinions.€€The€Court€believes€that€it€isÐ ¸8°15 Ðmore€a€function€of€the€mental€health€profession€to€determineÏthe€social€history€needed€than€it€is€the€function€of€the€defenseÏlawyers.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€neither€Dr.€Anchor€norÏMs.€Jaros€testified€at€all,€no€less€testified€that€the€social€historyÏprovided€them€was€inadequate€or€that€their€opinions€wouldÏhave€changed€if€provided€with€a€ð ðbetter€social€history.ððÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àEven€assuming€that€trial€counsel€could€have€painted€theÏpetitioner€as€more€severely€disturbed€than€they€did,€it€remainsÏto€be€seen€how€this€could€have€possibly€affected€the€outcomeÏof€the€trial.€€The€petitioner€was€found€to€have€six€(6)Ïaggravating€circumstances€including€a€prior€crime€of€violence,Ïand€including€his€killing€of€two€(2)€children.€€If€trial€counselÏmight€have€submitted€more€and€stronger€evidence€to€the€juryÏabout€the€petitionerððs€mental€health€background€and€historyÏthis€error€was€not€prejudicial.€€This€case€is€far€from€one€inÏwhich€defense€counsel€offered€no€mitigating€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÐ  ÐòòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€354„57€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð øð Ð1995).€€The€Court€concludes€that€if€there€was€error€at€the€trialÏsuch€error€was€not€of€a€nature€that€it€could€have€affected€theÏjuryððs€determination€given€the€strong€evidence€supporting€theÏsix€(6)€aggravating€factors€found€by€the€jury.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€ruled€correctly€and€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€showÏhow€the€proof€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ÌÌà ¸ àAs€a€collateral€argument,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€Robert€Skinner,€the€attorney€who€first€met€with€the€petitioner€at€the€policeÏstation,€adds€to€his€present€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€As€the€petitionerÏacknowledges,€however,€the€supreme€court€already€determined€on€direct€appeal€thatÏMr.€Skinnerððs€representation€was€not€ineffective.€€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€184„85€(Tenn.Ð ¸)°"% Ð1991).€€Therefore,€this€issue€has€been€previously€determined€under€the€applicable€post„¼conviction€statute.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995);€œòòseeóó›€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911Ð x-p&) ÐS.W.2d€705,€711€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà@))"Dàò òC.€€Argument€of€Prosecutoró óˆÐ 3,/ Ðà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€claims€that€counsel€œwere€ineffective›€for€failing€to€objectÏâ âto€the€following€statements€made€by€the€prosecutor€during€closing€arguments:Ð Ø6Ð/3 ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àAnd€what€Iððm€telling€you,€ladies€and€gentlemen,€is€this,€weððreÏâ âasking€for€the€death€penalty€for€all€three€of€these€deaths.€€ButÏyou€know€what,€if€you€donððt€give€him€the€death€penalty€forÏthose€two€little€girls,€for€what€he€did€to€them€„„€and€I€submit€toÏyou,€based€upon€the€facts€and€common€sense,€that€you€rewardÏhim.€.€.€.€€When€that€man€opened€the€door€to€that€apartmentÏand€walked€in€there,€and€he€walked€through€that€house,€andÏhe€walked€back€to€that€bedroom,€and€he€took€that€great€big€oldÏgun€and€he€killed€Angela€Clay,€as€soon€as€he€pulled€thatÏtrigger,€he€had€a€life€sentence€because€he€committed€murderÏin€the€first€degree.€€As€soon€as€he€pulled€that€trigger,€at€aÏminimum,€he€had€a€life€sentence.€€What€he€did€then€was€to€killÏthe€witnesses,€when€he€killed€the€two€little€girls.€€He€took€aÏchance.€€If€I€kill€them,€there€are€no€witnesses,€and€I€may€notÏget€caught.€€And€if€he€doesnððt€get€any€more€than€life,€then€heððsÏgotten€away€with€it.€€Youððve€rewarded€him€for€it.€€Heððs€killed€theÏwitnesses€to€the€case,€two€children,€for€no€reason,€and€heððsÏgoing€to€serve€a€life€anyway€he€says€when€heððs€standing€thereÏand€he€kills€her.€€€€Why€not€do€the€witnesses€in?€€Why€not€goÏahead,€just€go€ahead€and€just€do€them€in?€€Ladies€andÏgentlemen,€if€you€donððt€give€him€the€chair€on€that,€then€youððveÏrewarded€him.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌÓ€ÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€it€was€ineffective€for€counsel€not€to€raise€the€issue€onÏdirect€appeal.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€the€petitioner€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€755Ð ðè ÐS.W.2d€757€(Tenn.€1988),€and€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€theÐ Ð È Ðpost„conviction€court€found,€however,€these€cases€are€distinguishable€from€the€presentÏsituation.€€In€òòSmithóó€and€òòBigbeeóó,€the€defendants€had€previously€received€life€sentencesÐ $ˆ  Ðfor€unrelated€murders.€€The€court€found€prejudicial€prosecution€arguments€informing€theÏjury€of€the€previous€life€sentences€and€stating€that€the€jury€would,€in€essence,€rewardÏthe€defendants€by€not€imposing€the€death€penalty€for€the€subsequent€murders.€€In€theÏpresent€case,€the€petitioner€was€facing€the€death€penalty€in€the€same€trial€for€threeÏrelated€killings.€€Accordingly,€as€the€post„conviction€court€noted,€the€jury€could€not€helpÏbut€have€full€knowledge€of€all€three€sentences€it€was€considering€for€the€three€murders.€ÏThus,€the€concern€expressed€by€the€court€in€òòSmithóó€and€òòBigbeeóó€that€the€jury€should€notÐ °1¨*. Ðbase€its€decision€on€unrelated€sentences€is€not€present€in€this€case.Ìâ âÐ p5h.2 Ðà ¸ àTrial€counsel€acknowledged€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€the€above„¼â âquoted€argument€was€improper.€€Although€they€did€not€proffer€a€reasonable€explanationÏfor€not€voicing€an€objection,€counsel€stated€that€they€did€not€raise€the€issue€on€appealÏbecause€they€considered€it€to€be€waived.€€The€state€argues€that€counselððs€failure€toÏobject€to€the€argument€was€not€improper.€€According€to€the€state,€the€prosecutorððsÏstatements€were€made€to€support€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€murders€of€theÏchildren€were€ð ðcommitted€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€aÏlawful€arrest€or€prosecution.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(I)(6)€(1982).€€The€state€argues€thatÏthese€statements€merely€persuaded€the€jury€that€great€weight€should€be€given€to€thisÏparticular€aggravator.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àThis€Court€is€not€prepared€to€say€that€the€failure€toÏobject€to€this€argument€is€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏThe€Court,€however,€need€not€decide€that€issue.€€If€there€wasÏa€mistake,€it€was€not€prejudicial.€€The€jury€here€only€imposedÏthe€death€penalty€on€one€of€the€murders€and€a€life€sentence€onÏthe€other€two.€€Secondly,€in€light€of€the€juryððs€finding€of€six€(6)Ïaggravating€circumstances,€it€is€not€possible€to€conclude€thatÏthis€error€was€prejudicial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€910€S.W.2dÐ $ Ð381,€397€(Tenn.€1995)€(argument€in€death€penalty€case€thatÏimposition€of€a€life€sentence€means€for€defendant€that€ð ðhe€winsÏagainðð€was€found€not€proper€but€not€prejudicial).Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓÓÓ  ÓÌà ¸ àWe€believe€that€the€trial€court€made€the€proper€finding.€€Even€if€counselÏshould€have€objected€to€the€argument,€it€is€unlikely€that€the€objection€would€have€hadÏany€effect€on€the€juryððs€decision.€€The€state€was€arguing€for€three€death€sentences.€ÏMoreover,€in€the€statements,€the€state€was€talking€about€the€killing€of€òòbothóó€children.€Ð X/P(+ ÐHowever,€the€jury€returned€only€one€death€sentence.€€This€sentence€was€supported€byÏsix€aggravating€circumstances.€€The€juryððs€verdict€is€supported€by€the€evidence€in€theÏrecord.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏlower€courtððs€finding€in€this€respect.Ìò òÐ ¸8°15 Ðà@DàD.€Instruction€on€Parole€Eligibilityó óˆÐ  Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€toÏrequest€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€regarding€parole€eligibility.€€However,€we€noteÏthat€our€supreme€court€has€concluded€that€there€is€no€error€in€not€giving€such€anÏinstruction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€503„04€(Tenn.€1997).Ð ˆ€ ÐÌà@'')Dàò òE.€Voir€Direó óˆÐ H@  Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€argues€that€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€not€objecting€toÏthe€trial€courtððs€description€of€mitigating€evidence€during€voir€dire.€€In€attempting€toÏprovide€examples€of€mitigation,€the€judge€mentioned€ð ðserious€mental€disorderðð€andÏð ðthings€favorable€to€the€defendant.ðð€€As€the€state€asserts,€these€statements€were€notÏinstructions€to€the€jury.€€In€fact,€the€petitioner€does€not€contest€the€instructions€actuallyÏgiven€to€the€jury€before€deliberation.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏinstructed€the€jury€according€to€the€mandates€of€the€law.€€The€jury€is€presumed€to€followÏthe€courtððs€instructions.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Blackmonóó,€701€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.Ð H!@ ÐCrim.€App.€1985).€€No€prejudice€to€the€petitioner€has€been€shown.ÌÌà@"Dàò òF.€Admission€of€Statementsó óˆÐ è&à" Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€next€contends€that€trial€counsel€should€have€furtherÏinvestigated€the€possible€suppression€of€his€statements€to€the€police.€€Specifically,€heÏargues€that€counsel€should€have€considered€whether€the€petitioner€was€competent€toÏwaive€his€right€against€self„incrimination.€€The€admissibility€of€the€statement€provided€inÏthe€presence€of€Mr.€Skinner€was€addressed€on€direct€appeal,€œòòBlackóó,›€815€S.W.2d€atÐ H0@), Ð184„85,€and€has,€therefore,€been€previously€determined.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(1990).€ÏAlthough€counsel€challenged€the€admission€of€both€recorded€statements,€the€petitionerÏargues€that€their€failure€to€raise€the€competency€issue€in€this€respect€was€fatal€to€hisÏdefense.€€However,€as€discussed€above,€counsel€œwere›€not€ineffective€for€failing€toÐ È7À04 Ðinvestigate€the€petitionerððs€mental€health€further.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏpresent€any€evidence€that€would€support€suppression€of€the€statements.€€ÌÌà ¸ àSimilarly,€the€petitioner€contends€counsel€œwere›€ineffective€for€failing€toÏseek€redaction€of€portions€of€the€petitionerððs€statements€in€which€the€prosecutorÏquestioned€whether€the€petitioner€was€lying.€€As€the€state€notes,€these€isolated€remarksÏby€the€prosecutor€are€found€in€a€forty„three„page€statement.€€Further,€the€prosecutorÏand€detective€were€simply€asking€the€petitioner€why€he€was€changing€his€story.€€TheÏpetitioner€indicated€that€he€was€uncomfortable€earlier€talking€with€the€detectives€alone.€€ÏAlthough€the€prosecutor€used€the€word€ð ðlie,ðð€the€petitioner€was€able€to€explain€hisÏposition.€€Moreover,€at€one€point,€Mr.€Skinner€requested€the€prosecutor€to€retract€herÏaccusation.€€Accordingly,€we€cannot€find€any€prejudice.ÌÌà@uu%Dàò òG.€Plea€Negotiationsó óˆÐ h` Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€claims€that€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€initiateÏplea€negotiations€with€the€prosecutor.€€Whether€counsel€were€ineffective€in€this€respectÏis€irrelevant,€because€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€prejudice.€€Mr.€McNallyððsÏtestimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€suggests€that€Mr.€Alderman€may€have€discussedÏthis€matter€with€the€prosecution.€€However,€the€petitioner€neglected€to€ask€lead€counselÏwhether€he,€in€fact,€had€such€discussions.€€The€fact€that€Mr.€McNally€did€not€discuss€theÏmatter€does€not€prove,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€Mr.€Alderman€did€not.€ÏMoreover,€the€prosecutor€did€not€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Accordingly,€theÏpetitioner€has€not€shown€that€the€state€would€have€accepted€a€plea.€€No€prejudice€hasÏbeen€shown.€€ÌÌâ âñ+ñœñ+ñà@ðð'Dàò òH.€Expert€Witnessó óˆÐ è5à.2 Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€claims€that€counsel€should€have€subpoenaed€Dr.€Anchor€toÏâ âtestify€at€the€sentencing€phase€and€should€have€insisted€on€a€better€expert€witness€toÏrelay€the€mental€health€findings.€€Counsel€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€theyÏchose€the€services€of€Dr.€Anchor€because€they€used€him€œbefore,›€and€he€was€one€of€aÏfew€experts€they€knew€who€œwas›€willing€to€handle€criminal€cases.€€Moreover,€Mr.ÏMcNally€testified€that€they€chose€a€psychologist€rather€than€a€psychiatrist€because€itÏwas€his€experience€that€psychologists€communicated€better€to€juries.€€Dr.€AnchorÏtestified€at€the€competency€hearing€before€trial€and€was€the€only€expert€associated€withÏthis€case€who€believed€the€petitioner€was€incompetent.€€In€addition€to€Dr.€Anchor,€theÏdefense€relied€upon€the€services€of€Pat€Jaros,€a€psychological€examiner.€€Ms.€JarosÏand€Dr.€Anchor€had€a€working€relationship,€and€Ms.€Jaros€conducted€the€tests€uponÏwhich€Dr.€Anchor€relied€for€his€evaluations.ÌÌà ¸ àSometime€before€trial,€counsel€realized€Dr.€Anchor€would€be€unavailableÏto€testify€due€to€a€scheduling€conflict.€€Counsel€filed€a€motion€to€continue€based€uponÏthis,€but€the€court€denied€the€motion.€€Although€the€court€agreed€to€additional€funds€forÏanother€psychological€expert,€the€defense€decided€to€allow€Ms.€Jaros€to€testify€instead.€ÏWith€the€court€unwilling€to€grant€a€continuance,€counsel€believed€they€did€not€haveÏsufficient€time€to€replace€the€work€that€had€already€been€performed.€€And€given€the€factÏthat€Ms.€Jaros€worked€with€Dr.€Anchor€on€this€case,€counsel€believed€that€she€couldÏconvey€the€crux€of€Dr.€Anchorððs€findings.€€Counsel€œwere›€concerned€that€Dr.€AnchorÏwould€be€hostile€on€the€witness€stand€if€they€forced€him€away€from€his€professionalÏconference€in€Hawaii.€€The€trial€court€allowed€Ms.€Jaros€to€testify€as€an€expert€witness,Ïand€she€conveyed€to€the€jury€Dr.€Anchorððs€evaluation€concerning€the€petitionerððs€mentalÏhealth.Ìâ âÐ è5à.2 Ðà ¸ àCounselððs€performance€under€these€circumstances€was€not€deficient.€Ïâ âCounsel€œwere›€able€to€locate€an€expert€who€believed€the€petitioner€was€incompetent.€ÏThe€trial€court,€however,€ultimately€disagreed€with€this€opinion.€€We€believe€counselÏmade€a€reasonable€trial€decision.€€Although€Dr.€Anchor€did€not€testify,€the€defense€wasÏable€to€present€an€expert€witness€who€conveyed€to€the€jury€the€essential€findings€of€theÏexpert€evaluations.€ÌÌà@%Dàò òI.€Competency€Hearingó óˆÐ (  Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€callÏPalmer€Singleton,€a€trial€attorney,€to€testify€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner€at€the€pretrialÏcompetency€hearing.€€During€the€competency€hearing,€counsel€offered€SingletonððsÏaffidavit€which€stated,€in€effect,€that€he€believed€that€the€petitioner€was€unable€to€assistÏhis€attorneys.€€Mr.€Singleton€did€not€testify,€however,€and€the€trial€court€refused€toÏconsider€his€affidavit.€€Although€Mr.€Singleton€did€not€testify,€Mr.€Alderman,€anÏexperienced€attorney,€testified€at€the€hearing€to€the€same€effect.€€The€petitioner€arguesÏthat€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Singleton€may€have€produced€a€different€result€at€theÏcompetency€hearing.€€This€argument€does€not€satisfy€his€burden€in€this€case.€€It€isÏhighly€unlikely€that€the€trial€court€would€have€been€persuaded€by€cumulative€testimonyÏfrom€another€attorney€in€light€of€the€expert€opinions€available,€œincluding›€the€petitionerððsÏown€expert€œwho€believed›€the€petitioner€was€not€competent.€€The€petitioner€has€notÏshown€how€the€outcome€of€the€hearing€would€have€been€different€if€Mr.€Singleton€hadÏtestified.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€counsel€erred€to€his€detriment€in€failingÏto€introduce€notes€written€by€the€petitioner€during€voir€dire.€€The€petitioner€claims€theÏnotes€would€have€rebutted€some€of€the€trial€courtððs€comments€that€the€petitioner€wasÏalert€during€voir€dire,€conferred€with€counsel,€and€even€took€notes.€€Contrary€to€theÐ È7À04 Ðpetitionerððs€description,€the€notes€are€not€ð ðprimarily€meaningless€doodles€or€.€.€.Ïrelatively€meaningless€observations.ðð€€The€notes€contain€what€appears€to€be€theÏpetitionerððs€comments€on€each€prospective€juror€(the€last€page€of€the€eleven€containsÏwords€from€a€prayer).€€Some€examples€are:€ð ðputting€words€in€the€personððs€mouth,ðð€ð ðheððsÏa€mason€on€the€stand€and€the€DA€is€a€mason€also,ðð€ð ðthe€right€age€limit,€she€will€work€outÏgood€on€this€case,ðð€ð ðHeððs€a€pretty€good€example.€He€will€obey€the€law,ðð€and€ð ðhe€wasÏvery€truthful€by€going€by€the€law.ðð€€As€the€notes€reflect,€the€petitioner€actually€noticedÏthat€one€of€the€prosecutors€was€wearing€the€insignia€pin€for€an€organization€in€whichÏone€of€the€prospective€jurors€belonged.€€We€believe€that€introduction€of€these€notesÏwould€have€done€nothing€more€than€support€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion.€€Counsel€œwere›Ïnot€ineffective€in€this€respect.ÌÌà@cc"Dàò òJ.€Evidence€of€Prior€Crimeó óˆÐ ˆ€ Ðà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€claims€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€due€toÏcounselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€testimony€of€Bennie€Clay€detailing€the€factsÏsurrounding€the€petitionerððs€guilty€plea€œfor›€shooting€Clay.€€The€record€reflects€that€theÏtrial€judge€conducted€a€conference€in€his€chambers€prior€to€the€testimony€of€Clay.€€ItÏalso€indicates€that€the€trial€court€was€going€to€allow€Clay€to€testify€about€the€incident€butÏwas€not€going€to€allow€unnecessary€detailed€testimony€of€the€circumstances.€€ClayððsÏtestimony€apparently€goes€beyond€describing€the€nature€of€the€incident,€as€counselÏvoiced€an€objection€after€the€testimony€was€solicited.€€Counsel€also€moved€for€aÏmistrial,€but€to€no€avail.€€The€petitioner€now€alleges€counsel€erred€to€his€prejudice.ÌÌà ¸ àWhile€it€is€generally€true€that€facts€of€a€previous€unrelated€conviction€areÏinadmissible€in€a€later€trial,€it€is€also€true€that€this€type€of€evidence€may€be€relevant€toÏan€issue€on€trial.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Goadóó,€707€S.W.2d€846,€850€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.Ð è5à.2 ÐMcKayóó,€680€S.W.2d€447,€452€(Tenn.€1984).€€With€the€state€proving€that€the€same€gunÐ È7À04 Ðthat€was€used€to€kill€the€victims€in€the€case€at€hand€was€used€by€the€petitioner€to€shootÏClay,€certain€facts€of€the€petitionerððs€prior€conviction€were€certainly€relevant.€€TheÏpetitioner€admitted€to€shooting€Mr.€Clay,€and€the€bullets€removed€from€Mr.€Clayððs€bodyÏmatched€those€removed€from€the€victimððs€body€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€the€jury€wasÏwell€aware€of€the€petitionerððs€actions€toward€Clay.€€Although€Clayððs€portrayal€of€theseÏevents€on€the€witness€stand€may€have€been€somewhat€colorful,€counselððs€failure€toÏobject€at€the€time€of€the€testimony€did€not€result€in€the€admission€of€testimony€moreÏdetrimental€than€what€would€have€been€allowed€otherwise.€€Prejudice€has€not€beenÏshown.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€claims€counsel€œwere›€overworked€at€the€time€of€this€caseÏand€€could€not€adequately€prepare€and€present€the€issues€raised.€€Counsel,€however,Ïtestified€that€they€maintained€a€normal€caseload€at€the€time€of€this€trial.€€Moreover,€theÏtrial€court€appointed€the€office€of€the€public€defender€in€compliance€with€the€thenÏexisting€legal€standards.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€counsel€were€ineffectiveÏor€how€any€alleged€errors€on€counselððs€behalf€prejudiced€him.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€thatÏthe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€on€this€issue.ÌÌò òà@ññ DàIII.€€POST„CONVICTION€HEARING€ó óˆÐ È(À!$ Ðà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€claims€that€he€was€denied€a€full€and€fair€hearing€on€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€contends€the€trial€court€didÏnot€provide€the€petitioner€adequate€time€or€resources€to€prepare€for€the€evidentiaryÏhearing.€€ÌÌà ¸ àA€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€on€May€19,€1992.€€OnÐ 4-0 ÐMay€21,€1992,€counsel€was€appointed,€and€an€amended€petition€was€filed€onÏSeptember€22,€1992.€€Dr.€Bernet€initially€conducted€an€interview€of€the€petitioner€andÐ È7À04 Ðmade€written€conclusions€regarding€the€petitionerððs€mental€health€on€November€13,Ï1992.€€Counsel€filed€a€motion€for€support€services€on€February€11,€1993.€€In€thisÏmotion,€counsel€sought€funds€in€the€amount€of€$5,100€for€Dr.€Bernet,€$3,300€for€Dr.ÏGillian€Blair,€a€forensic€psychologist,€$12,900€for€a€professional€investigator,€and€$793Ïfor€a€jury€expert.€€On€February€18,€1993,€the€trial€court€found€the€total€amount€ofÏrequested€services€unreasonable,€but€authorized€$5,500€for€supportive€services€for€useÏas€allocated€by€the€petitioner.€€The€state€sought€and€was€granted€an€interlocutoryÏœappeal,€but€the€trial€courtððs€order€was€affirmed.€€òòState€v.€Byron€Lewis€Blackóó,€No.€01C01„Ð (  Ð9303„CR„00105,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€27,€1995).›ÌÌà ¸ àThe€evidentiary€hearing€was€scheduled€for€October€21,€1996.€€On€MarchÏ28,€1996,€the€court€amended€its€earlier€order€and€authorized€$4,960€to€be€used€for€theÏinvestigation€of€the€petitionerððs€background.€€The€petitioner€had€also€requested€$5,100Ïfor€Dr.€Bernet,€$4,375€for€a€clinical€psychologist,€and€$1,500€for€a€jury€expert.€€On€AprilÏ8,€1996,€the€court€authorized€another€$2,500€for€the€medical€expert€(Dr.€Bernet)€toÏevaluate€the€investigation€material€discovered.€€However,€on€May€14,€1996,€the€trialÏcourt€denied€the€petitionerððs€request€for€additional€funds€of€$2,500€for€the€medicalÏexpert.€€Another€motion€for€support€services€was€denied€on€June€4,€1996.€€On€July€25,Ï1996,€the€court€continued€the€hearing€from€October€until€January€21,€1997.€€Counsel€forÏthe€petitioner€filed€a€motion€to€withdraw€on€October,€9,€1996.€€In€support€of€the€motion,Ïcounsel€stated€that€he€suffered€a€heart€attack€in€July€and€was€thus€unable€to€prepareÏand€present€the€petitionerððs€case€effectively.€€The€court€granted€the€motion€on€OctoberÏ22,€1996,€and€appointed€the€post„conviction€defender€as€counsel€of€record€for€theÏpetitioner.€€ÌÌà ¸ àNew€counsel€filed€a€motion€to€continue€on€December€2,€œ199ñ+ñ6ñ+ññ+ñ7ñ+ñ.›€€The€courtÏgranted€the€motion€and€continued€the€hearing€until€March€3,€1997.€€The€petitioner€filedÐ È7À04 Ða€motion€for€further€support€funding€on€February€10,€1997.€€On€February€13,€1997,€theÏtrial€court€authorized€an€additional€$6,800€for€the€services€of€Dr.€Bernet,€$2,000€for€theÏservices€of€Dr.€Auble,€and€$167.50€for€plane€fare€for€Mr.€Makin,€the€expert€attorney.€€OnÏFebruary€23,€1997,€another€motion€to€continue€was€filed€by€counsel.€€This€motion€wasÏdenied€after€a€hearing€on€February€26,€1997.€€Another€motion€for€a€continuance€wasÏdenied€the€day€of€the€hearing.€€However,€the€trial€court€did€grant€the€petitioner€aÏcontinuance€until€April€30,€1997,€to€present€his€expert€proof.€€The€petitioner€soughtÏinterlocutory€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€March€3,€1997,€denying€the€motion€forÏcontinuance,€but€this€Court,€in€an€order€dated€March€4,€1997,€determined€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€denying€the€petitionerððs€renewed€motions€for€aÏcontinuance.€€On€April€27,€1997,€the€petitioner€filed€another€motion€to€continue€and€aÏmotion€for€more€support€services.€€The€trial€court€entered€the€following€order:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àThe€motion€for€a€continuance€is€DENIED.€€Counsel€forÏthe€petitioner€have€had€considerable€time€to€prepare€for€thisÏproceeding.€€The€petitionerððs€counsel€continues€to€say€that€thisÏis€a€death€penalty€case€and€that€therefore€he€should€be€givenÏeven€more€time.€€The€petitionerððs€counsel€have€had€adequateÏtime€to€prepare.€€The€Court€has€already€continued€this€matterÏnumerous€times,€including€a€continuance€from€a€JanuaryÏhearing€date€to€March€3,€1997,€and€then€after€hearing€part€ofÏthe€proof,€the€Court€continued€the€remainder€of€the€hearingÏuntil€April€30,€1997€to€allow€counsel€time€to€present€additionalÏtestimony.€€The€Court€has€also€considered€the€affidavit€of€Dr.ÏWilliam€Bernet€and€Dr.€Pamela€Auble€filed€in€support€of€theÏfifth€motion€for€support€services.€€These€affidavits€indicate€thatÏthese€expert€witnesses€could€testify€on€April€30,€1997Ïregarding€the€mental€health€issue€in€this€case.€€The€CourtÏfurther€notes€the€psychologist€that€did€not€testify€in€the€1989Ïtrial,€Dr.€Kenneth€Anchor€would€also€be€available€to€testify.€ÏPrejudice€to€the€petitioner,€if€it€exists,€is€the€choice€of€counsel,Ïnot€the€court.€€Courts€cannot€be€extorted€into€continuance€afterÏcontinuance€after€continuance€just€because€the€case€is€a€deathÏpenalty€case.€€At€some€point€a€hearing€must€be€had€and€aÏdecision€rendered.€€That€counsel€are€disinclined€to€presentÏwhat€they€have€is€not€a€reason€for€granting€of€a€continuance.€ÏThe€motion€for€a€continuance€is€DENIED.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€fifth€ex€parte€motion€for€support€services€is€alsoÏDENIED.€€The€Court€has€previously€granted€by€prior€ordersÏconsiderable€resources€to€the€petitioner.€€No€additionalÏresources€are€necessary€in€order€to€provide€the€petitioner€a€fullÏand€fair€hearing.и8°15¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ЇÓÓÓ  Óà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€correctly€notes€that€he€must€be€ð ðafforded€every€opportunityÏto€present€evidence€and€argumentðð€at€a€ð ðfull€and€fair€hearingðð€on€his€petition€for€post„¼conviction€relief.€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911,€S.W.2d€705,€711€(Tenn.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€T.C.A.€ððÐ ¦6ž/5 Ð40„30„112€(1990)€(repealed€1995).€€However,€after€reviewing€the€post„conviction€courtððsÐ r8j17 Ðfindings€in€light€of€the€entire€record€on€appeal,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€wasÏafforded€this€opportunity.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€1992,€original€post„conviction€counsel€obtained€the€services€of€Dr.ÏBernet,€who€interviewed€the€petitioner€and€reviewed€the€background€information€andÏrecords€pertaining€to€the€petitionerððs€case.€€Although€a€decision€on€the€initial€motion€forÏsupport€services€was€delayed,€the€court€finally€authorized€funding€on€March€28,€1996,Ïand€April€8,€1996.€€Original€counsel€did€not€file€a€motion€to€withdraw€until€October€9,Ï1996.€€Counsel€suffered€a€heart€attack€sometime€in€July,€but€this€was€over€threeÏmonths€after€the€initial€support€funds€were€granted.€€Furthermore,€after€original€counselÏwas€permitted€to€withdraw,€subsequent€counsel€œwñå*ñereñå*ññæ*ñasñæ*ñ›€appointed€and€given€the€workÏperformed€by€original€counsel€since€1992.€€In€addition,€new€counsel€obtained€aÏcontinuance€from€January€1997€to€March€1997.€€Although€new€counsel€œwñç*ñereñç*ññè*ñasñè*ñ›€appointedÏin€October€1996,€they€did€not€file€any€motion€for€additional€support€services€untilÏFebruary€10,€1997,€just€before€the€hearing€on€the€petition.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€claims,€in€part,€that€he€was€denied€the€ability€to€conduct€aÏthorough€background€investigation€to€support€his€post„conviction€claims.€€The€record€Ïdoes€not€support€this€claim.€€The€petitioner€was€granted€investigative€funds€almost€oneÏyear€before€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€petitionerððs€suggestion€that€original€counselððsÏhealth€problems€hindered€the€case€is€not€supported€by€the€record.€€Nothing€the€trialÏcourt€did€or€did€not€do€prevented€the€investigator€from€moving€forward€with€herÏinvestigation€before,€during,€or€after€counsel€suffered€the€heart€attack.׃×Ý ƒ ŠÝÔ€XÌXXXÌÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€funds€wereÐ .ˆ', Ðfor€the€work€of€the€investigator€and€medical€expert,€not€the€attorney.€Ìâ âÐ (2 +0 Ðà ¸ àThe€trial€court€continued€the€hearing€date€in€this€matter€almost€fiveÏâ âmonths€from€the€original€setting€and€authorized€additional€support€services€on€FebruaryÏ13,€1997.€€The€petitioner€filed€several€more€motions€to€continue€shortly€before€theÏscheduled€hearing,€but€the€trial€court€denied€these€after€hearing€arguments€on€theÏmerits€of€the€motions.€€The€trial€court€did,€however,€agree€to€continue€hearing€theÏtestimony€of€the€petitionerððs€expert€witnesses€until€April€30,€1997,€over€two€months€afterÏauthorizing€the€additional€funds.€€On€March€3,€1997,€the€first€day€of€the€evidentiaryÏhearing,€the€petitioner€sought€appellate€review€in€this€court€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÏthe€motions€to€continue.€€This€court€stated€that€the€trial€court€ð ðdid€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€by€denying€the€petitionerððs€renewed€motion€for€continuance.ðð€€This€courtÏfurther€noted€that€abuse€would€have€resulted€if€the€court€required€the€petitioner€toÏpresent€his€expert€proof€at€that€time.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€his€final€motion€for€support€services€and€a€continuance,€the€petitionerÏindicated€that€additional€time€was€needed€in€order€for€him€to€undergo€an€œEEG›€and€œ€ÏMRI.›€€According€to€Dr.€Bernet,€there€was€a€reasonable€medical€probability€that€theÏpetitioner€suffered€from€a€form€of€amnesia.€€Moreover,€Dr.€Bernet€testified€that€theÏpetitioner€would€have€had€problems€assisting€counsel€in€the€preparation€of€his€defense.€ÏDr.€Auble€also€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€characteristics€of€a€dissociative€disorder,Ïpossibly€amnesia.€€The€affidavits€of€Drs.€Bernet€and€Auble€attached€to€the€petitionerððsÏmotion€state€that€the€additional€time€and€money€for€the€EEG€and€MRI€were€necessaryÏto€document€the€source€of€the€petitionerððs€alleged€condition.€€Their€statements€suggestÏthat€the€results€from€the€EEG€and€MRI€would€either€substantiate€their€opinions€orÏdiscount€the€existence€of€an€organic€brain€injury€or€disease.€€Given€this€testimony,€weÏbelieve€that€the€petitioner€did€not€suffer€prejudice€from€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€grantÏeven€more€time€for€evaluation.€€The€petitioner€was€able€to€present€testimony€from€bothÏexperts€concerning€his€mental€condition.€€If€the€results€of€the€tests€were€negative€orÏinconclusive,€the€expert€testimony€would€have€been€suspect.€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àRegardless,€the€trial€court€did€not€believe€trial€counsel€œwñé*ñereñé*ññê*ñasñê*ñ›€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€pursue€the€mental€health€issue.€€As€discussed€earlier,€the€fact€that€post„¼conviction€counsel€could€possibly€reveal€undiscovered€medical€problems€does€notÏmean€that€trial€counsel€œwñë*ñereñë*ññì*ñasñì*ñ›€ineffective€for€failing€to€pursue€this.€€Additional€time€orÏfunding€would€not€have€influenced€the€outcome.ÌÌà ¸ àContrary€to€the€petitionerððs€claim,€the€petitioner€was€granted€substantialÏtime€and€money€to€pursue€his€post„conviction€petition,€and€nothing€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€in€this€respect.€€We€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€err€in€imposing€the€time€constraints€and€expert€service€limitations.€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that€the€petitioner€was€afforded€a€full€and€fair€hearing.ÌÌò òà@Ÿ Ÿ DàIV.€€CONSTITUTIONALITYó ó€ò òOF€THE€DEATH€PENALTYó óˆÐ ˜ Ðà@{{!Dàò òA.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5)ó óˆÐ ph Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€aggravating€circumstance€dealing€with€aÏheinous,€atrocious€and€cruel€killing,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„43„204(i)(5),€is€unconstitutional€asÏapplied€in€his€case.€€He€asserts€that€it€is€vague€and€overbroad,€is€contrary€to€federalÏprecedent,€and€resulted€in€ð ðdouble€countingðð€in€terms€of€the€same€acts€that€constituteÏthe€murders€being€used€to€prove€the€circumstanceððs€existence.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€the€direct€appeal,€our€supreme€court€found€this€aggravatingÏcircumstance€as€instructed€to€be€constitutional.€€œòòñí*ñState›€v.›€ñí*ñBlackóó,›€815€S.W.2d€at€181„82.€€Also,€theÐ Ü,Ô%* Ðcourt€stated:€€€€€€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€courtððs€definitions€of€the€termsÏð ðheinous,ðð€ð ðatrocious,ðð€ð ðcruel,ðð€ð ðdepravityðð€and€ð ðtortureððÏremoved€any€vagueness€and€narrowed€the€class€of€personsÏeligible€for€the€death€penalty€to€those€who€have€committedÏmore€aggravated€murder.€€Torture€was€defined€in€[òòState€v.Ð  4-2 ÐWilliamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985)],€and€the€jury€soÐ ò4ê-3 Ðinstructed,€as€ð ðthe€infliction€of€severe€physical€or€mental€painÏupon€the€victim€while€he€or€she€remains€alive€and€conscious.€ÏIn€proving€that€such€torture€occurred,€the€State,€necessarily,Ïalso€proves€that€the€murder€involved€depravity€of€mind€of€theÐ Š8‚17 Ðmurderer,€because€the€state€of€mind€of€one€who€willfully€inflictsÏsuch€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€on€the€victim€is€depraved.ððÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓòòId.óó€at€181.€€Also,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€facts€justified€the€application€of€thisÐ º ² Ðaggravating€circumstance.€€We€are€bound€by€our€supreme€courtððs€determinations€in€theÏdirect€appeal.€€Also,€no€federal€authority€exists€that€mandates€a€different€result€in€thisÏcase.ÌÌà@00'Dàò òB.€Death€Penaltyó óˆÐ ¶®  Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€the€death€penalty€in€the€present€case€isÏunreliable€and€violates€the€values€recognized€and€protected€by€the€Eighth€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€16€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution.€€However,€on€the€petitionerððs€direct€appeal,€our€supremeÏcourt€reaffirmed€its€holding€that€the€death€penalty€statute€in€Tennessee€does€not€violateÏeither€the€federal€or€state€constitution.€€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€185.€€Ð Š‚ ÐÌà@(('Dàò òC.€€Electrocutionó óˆÐ "! Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€electrocution€is€cruel€and€unusualÏpunishment€that€violates€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€ÏHowever,€on€his€direct€appeal,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ðelectrocution€isÏa€constitutionally€permissible€method€of€execution.ðð€€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€179.€€ThisÐ ^(V!% Ðissue€has€been€previously€determined,€and€we€are€bound€by€our€supreme€courtððsÏdecision.€€We€also€note€that€T.C.A.€ðð€40„23„114€(1998€Supp.)€gives€the€petitioner€theÏoption€of€lethal€injection.€€ÌÌà@ÖÖ!Dàò òD.€€Fundamental€Right€to€Lifeó óˆÐ Z1R*/ Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€death€sentence€unconstitutionallyÏimpinges€upon€his€fundamental€right€to€life,€secured€by€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏand€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Essentially,€this€is€a€due€process€argument.€€In€thisÏrespect,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€consistently€held€that€the€death€penaltyÐ –8Ž17 Ðdoes€not€violate€due€process€and€does€not€impermissibly€infringe€upon€the€right€to€life.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959€S.W.2d€503,€536€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð ÔÌ ÐÌà@¤¤*Dàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ l d Ðà ¸ àThe€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings€and€conclusions.€€InÏconsideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏis€affirmed.€ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È à__________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoe€G.€Riley,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌThomas€T.€Woodall,€Judge