ÿWPC>! …UBV %˜U .žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ 0”˜ 0D, 0Jp 0Tº 0^ 0hl 0rÔ 0|F 0†Â 0H 1uØ U,M 0dy BÝU,úU6&B)\DC… D3È AMûaH 0@©ÆéF¯çõv~ÜvÓZ AO-Æ| 0lB 0D® D/ò B!!<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X™«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óc`…(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJanuaryÏ11,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÔ€ÔMr.€Heck€testified€that€one€of€the€reasons€it€was€difficult€to€find€the€witnesses€was€because€theò òÏó ópetitionerò ò€ó óhad€"skipped€a€number€of€bonds,"€causing€a€lengthy€delay€between€his€arrest€and€his€trial.Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔThe€only€allegations€made€by€the€petitioner€about€the€appeal€were,€"I€would€like€to€know€whyÏhe€didn't€bring€up€no€issues€in€my€appeal€when€he€appealed€my€case€about€anything€in€my€transcript€ofÏmy€trial,€the€only€thing€he€brought€up€was€on€that€presentencing€hearing€for€a€new€trial€about€illegalÏsentence€on€my€„„€on€illegal€sentencing."Ì ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ôÔÔ€ÔThis€Court€recognizes€that€the€petitioner€claimed€he€was€illiterate.€€A€written€waiver€bearing€theÏpetitioner's€mark€should€still€have€been€obtained,€however,€after€a€reading€of€the€waiver€to€the€petitionerÏon€the€record.€€Ô€'ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(D3u$¢¢Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€'ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€·®XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓßL€+,);+'h|` 81 `€€Lßà@ àOCTOBER€1995ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òLUTHER€E.€FOWLER,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€03C01„9501„CR„00027ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏDOUGLAS€A.€MEYER€,ÌSTATE€OFÏTENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellee.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Post„conviction)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òMARK€C.ÏBIESACKà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó ó615€Walnut€St.,€Suite€206à àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óChattanooga,€TN€€€37402ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àAMY€L.ÏTARKINGTONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÍRobertson€Pkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àGARY€D.€GERBITZó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€St.,€Suite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àSTANLEY€J.€LANZOó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCity€and€County€Courts€Bldg.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€€37402ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner€was€indicted€and€convicted€by€a€jury€of€felonious€assaultÏwith€a€firearm€with€the€intent€to€commit€first„degree€murder.€€His€conviction€wasÏaffirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€He€then€petitioned€for€post„conviction€relief,€allegingÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal,€and€no€effective€waiver€of€hisÏconstitutional€right€to€counsel€at€trial.à àà àÌÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€lower€court€held€an€evidentiary€hearing€and€heard€testimony€fromÏthe€petitioner€and€William€R.€Heck,€his€appointed€counsel€at€trial€and€on€directÏappeal.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€lower€court€dismissed€the€petition.€€TheÏpetitioner€now€appeals.ÌÌà àà àWhile€at€a€bar,€the€petitioner€shot€and€seriously€injured€the€victim.€€HeÏclaims€that€he€shot€the€victim€in€self„defense€after€the€victim€pulled€a€knife€on€him.€ÏThe€petitioner's€first€trial,€with€Mr.€Heck€as€his€appointed€counsel,€resulted€in€a€hungÏjury.€€Mr.€Heck€also€represented€the€petitioner€in€preparation€for€the€retrial,€but€theÏpetitioner€fired€Mr.€Heck€on€the€morning€of€his€second€trial.€The€trial€proceeded€withÏthe€petitioner€òòproóó€òòseóó.€€After€lunch,€however,€Mr.€Heck€was€reappointed€at€theÍpetitioner's€request€and€represented€him€for€the€remainder€of€the€trial.€€The€secondÏjury€convicted€the€petitioner.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€claim€that€Mr.€Heck€ineffectively€represented€him€at€trialÏrests€on€Mr.€Heck's€"failure"€to€subpoena€certain€witnesses.€€The€petitioner€testifiedÏduring€his€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€had€given€Mr.€Heck€the€names€ofÏnumerous€witnesses€who€would€testify€that€he€had€shot€the€victim€in€self„defense.€ÏMr.€Heck€testified€that€"[i]n€efforts€to€contact€those€people€I€found€telephonesÏdisconnected€or€the€people€themselves€were€simply€nonexistent€and€there€was€noÏway€to€locate€them."× ƒ. ××  ×€€Of€the€names€supplied€by€the€petitioner,€Mr.€Heck€was€able€toÏfind€three:€€two€of€these€related€accounts€that€were€not€favorable€to€the€petitioner.€ÏThe€third€person€was€the€petitioner's€nephew€and€Mr.€Heck€did€put€him€on€to€testify.€ÏMr.€Heck€also€found€other€potential€witnesses€during€his€investigation€of€the€case€butÏnone€that€were€helpful€to€the€petitioner.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€testified€that€the€witnesses€whose€names€he€hadÏgiven€to€Mr.€Heck€had€spoken€with€Mr.€Jerry€Summers,€another€lawyer,€and€thatÍthese€witnesses€had€given€favorable€accounts€of€the€petitioner's€conduct€to€Mr.ÏSummers.€€Mr.€Heck€testified€that€he€had€spoken€with€Mr.€Summers€about€theseÏwitnesses,€and€that€Mr.€Summers€had€denied€ever€speaking€with€any€of€them.€ÌÌà àà à"In€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€peti‚tioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€[or€her]€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€ÏòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Fur‚thermore,€theÏfactual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€hearings€"are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment."€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,Ï475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€petitioner's€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€a€petitioner€"must€show€that€counsel'sÏrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ableness"€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚sel's€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÍòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708ÏS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àà àThe€lower€court€found€that€"Mr.€Heck€did€the€best€he€could€in€locatingÏthe€witnesses€.€.€.€.€€I€don't€see€how€he€could€have€found€any€witness€that€would€haveÏtestified€differently€than€the€way€that€the€witnesses€€.€.€.€did€testify€to€in€court."€€€€TheÏcourt€further€found€that€"Mr.€Heck€did€far€more€than€required€under€the€standard€ofÏeffectiveness€of€counsel."€€The€petitioner€has€not€carried€his€burden€of€€proving€hisÏallegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,Ïand€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€lower€court's€ruling.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€Mr.€Heck€was€ineffective€in€hisÏrepresentation€of€him€on€his€direct€appeal.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€toÏsupport€this€contention;€indeed,€the€petitioner€was€granted€a€new€sentencing€hearingÏon€appeal,€and€his€conviction€for€attempted€aggravated€assault€was€dismissed.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€advising€himÏof€the€dangers€of€proceeding€òòproóó€òòseóó€upon€his€request€to€discharge€Mr.€Heck,€and€thatÏhis€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel€was€not€effective.ÌÌà àà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€grants€criminalÏdefendants€the€right€to€represent€themselves.€€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806Ï(1975).€€There€are€three€preconditions€which€must€be€satisfied€before€a€defendant'sÏright€to€self„representation€becomes€absolute.€€"First,€the€accused€must€assert€theÏright€to€self„representation€timely.€€Second,€the€accused's€request€must€be€clear€andÏunequivocal.€€Third,€the€accused€must€knowingly€and€intelligently€waive€the€right€toÏthe€assistance€of€counsel."€€òòState€v.€Herrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€627,€629„30€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1988)€(citations€omitted).€€In€òòState€v.€Northingtonóó,€our€Supreme€Court€reiteratedÏthe€guidelines€set€out€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€to€be€used€by€trial€judgesÏbefore€determining€that€a€defendant€has€waived€his€constitutional€right€to€counsel:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ  Ò[A]€judge€must€investigate€as€long€and€as€thoroughly€as€theÏcircumstances€of€the€case€before€him€[or€her]€demand.€€TheÏfact€that€an€accused€may€tell€him€[or€her]€that€he€is€informedÏof€his€right€to€counsel€and€desires€to€waive€this€right€doesÍnot€automatically€end€the€judge's€responsibility.€€To€beÏvalid€such€waiver€must€be€made€with€an€apprehension€ofÏthe€nature€of€the€charges,€the€statutory€offenses€includedÏwithin€them,€the€range€of€allowable€punishmentsÏthereunder,€possible€defenses€to€the€charges€andÏcircumstances€in€mitigation€thereof,€and€all€other€factsÏessential€to€a€broad€understanding€of€the€whole€matter.€€AÏjudge€can€make€certain€that€an€accused's€professedÏwaiver€of€counsel€is€understandingly€and€wisely€made€onlyÏfrom€a€penetrating€and€comprehensive€examination€of€allÏthe€circumstances€under€which€such€a€plea€is€tendered.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓ667€S.W.2d€57,€60€(Tenn.€1984)€(quoting€òòVon€Moltke€v.€Gilliesóó,€332€U.S.€708,€723„24Ï(1948))€(alterations€added).€€Additionally,€our€state€code€has€provided€since€1989Ïthat:ÌÓ€Óà àà8 àÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(a)€No€person€in€this€state€shall€be€allowed€to€enter€a€pleaÏin€any€criminal€prosecution€.€.€.€when€not€represented€byÏcounsel,€unless€such€person€has€òòin€writingóó€waived€the€rightÏto€the€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌ(b)€€Before€a€court€shall€accept€a€written€waiver€of€the€rightÏto€counsel,€the€court€shall€first€advise€the€person€in€openÏcourt€concerning€the€right€to€the€aid€of€counsel€in€everyÏstage€of€the€proceedings.€€The€court€shall€at€the€same€timeÏdetermine€whether€or€not€there€has€been€a€competent€andÏintelligent€waiver€of€such€right,€by€inquiring€into€theÏbackground,€experience€and€conduct€of€the€person€andÏsuch€other€matters€as€the€court€may€deem€appropriate.€€If€aÏwaiver€is€accepted,€the€court€shall€approve€andÏauthenticate€it€and€file€it€with€the€papers€of€the€cause,€and€ifÏthe€court€is€one€of€record,€the€waiver€shall€also€be€enteredÍupon€its€official€minutes.ÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€8„14„206€(emphasis€added).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€44(a)€("EveryÏindigent€defendant€shall€be€entitled€to€have€assigned€counsel€in€all€mattersÏnecessary€to€the€defense€and€at€every€stage€of€the€proceedings,€unless€theÏdefendant€executes€a€written€waiver.€€Before€accepting€such€waiver€the€court€shallÏfirst€advise€the€accused€in€open€court€of€the€right€to€the€aid€of€counsel€in€every€stageÏof€the€proceedings.€€The€court€shall,€at€the€same€time,€determine€whether€there€hasÏbeen€a€competent€and€intelligent€waiver€of€such€right€by€inquiring€into€theÏbackground,€experience€and€conduct€of€the€accused€and€such€other€matters€as€theÏcourt€may€deem€appropriate.€€Any€waiver€accepted€shall€be€spread€upon€the€minutesÏof€the€court€and€made€a€part€of€the€record€of€the€cause.")ÌÌà àà à€€In€order€to€adequately€cover€the€issues€raised€by€a€potential€waiver€ofÏthe€right€to€counsel,€this€Court€has€recommended€that€the€trial€judge€use€theÏquestions€contained€in€1€òòBench€Book€for€United€States€District€Judgesóó€1.02„2€to€„5Ï(3d€ed.€1986).€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòHerrodóó,€754€S.W.2d€at€630.€€These€questions€can€also€beÏfound€in€the€appendix€to€òòUnited€States€v.€McDowellóó,€814€F.2d€245,€251„252€(6th€Cir.Ï1987).à àÌà àÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€following€exchange€was€had€between€the€trial€judgeÏand€the€petitioner€relative€to€the€petitioner's€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel€on€theÏmorning€of€his€trial:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒJudge:€€Are€you€telling€me€you€don't€want€[your€appointedÏcounsel]€to€try€it?ÌÌDefendant:€€I€don't€want€him€„„„€no,€I€don't€want€him,€period.ÌÌJudge:€€Do€you€want€to€try€the€case€yourself?ÌÌDefendant:€€If€I€have€to,€yeah.ÌÌJudge:€€Well,€the€case€is€for€trial€today.ÌÌDefendant:€€Okay,€whatever.ÌÌJudge:€€Of€course,€you€understand€if€you€representÏyourself,€I€have€to€hold€you€to€the€same€standards€I€would€aÏlawyer€as€far€as€procedure€is€concerned.€€You€understandÏthat?ÌÌDefendant:€€Yes,€sir,€whatever.€€I€don't€know€what€„„„ÌÌJudge:€€You've€got€two€choices.ÌÌ.€.€.Ìà àÌJudge:€€Mr.€Fowler,€based€on€the€proof€I€heard€and€theÏjury's€position€last€time,€I€think€your€chances€really€are€slimÏto€none,€and€less€than€that€if€you€represent€yourself.€€YouÍdo€have€a€constitutional€right€to€represent€yourself€though€ifÏyou€fully€understand€that€you're€waiving€your€right€to€beÏrepresented€by€an€attorney.ÌÌDefendant:€€Yeah,€if€you€don't€appoint€me€one€I€guess€I'llÏhave€to.ÌÌJudge:€€I€cannot€appoint€you€another€lawyer.ÌÌDefendant:€€All€right€then,€I'll€„„„ÌÌJudge:€€This€case€is€set€for€trial€today.ÌÌDefendant:€€Okay.ÌÌJudge:€€It's€going€to€be€tried€today.€€And€Mr.€Heck€is€a€veryÏable,€very€competent€lawyer.€€He's€tried€this€case€„„„ÌÌDefendant:€€Not€to€me€he's€not.ÌÌJudge:€€Well,€whether€you€think€so€or€not,€he's€a€veryÏcompetent€lawyer,€and€I€don't€think€you're€„„„ÌÌDefendant:€€He€hasn't€done€one€thing€to€try€to€help€meÏsince€I€been€in€this€courtroom.ÌÌJudge:€€Well,€he€doesn't€have€a€magic€wand.€€He€can'tÏchange€the€facts.€€The€facts€are€pretty€clear.ÌÌ.€.€.€ÌÌÓ` °†Xp”XÓDefendant:€€He's€not€gonna€represent€me.€€If€I€have€toÏrepresent€myself€then€that's€what€I'll€do.ÌÓ ` °œXÓÌJudge:€€You€are€freely€waiving€your€right€to€be€representedÏby€an€attorney€then.€€That's€your€decision?ÌÌDefendant:€€Yes,€sir.ÌÌJudge:€€Okay.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓAfter€the€jury€had€been€selected,€impaneled€and€accepted,€the€following€additionalÏcolloquy€occurred€out€of€the€jury's€presence:ÌÓÓÌÒ ô ÒÒ  ÒJudge:€€I€don't€want€to€embarrass€you€when€I€ask€you€thisÏquestions€[sic],€but€I€must€put€it€on€the€record.€€The€officerÏtells€me€that€you€cannot€read€or€write,€is€that€correct?ÌÌDefendant:ò ò€€ó óYes,€sir.ÌÌJudge:€€So€you€are€at€a€handicap€that€way.ÌÌDefendant:ò ò€€ó óOn€reading,€yeah.ÌÌJudge:€€Do€you€wish€to€reconsider€and€have€Mr.€Heck€sit€atÏthe€table€so€he€can€look€at€the€papers?ÌÌDefendant:€€No,€sir,€I€don't€want€him.ÌÌJudge:€€You€do€not€wish€to€have€Mr.€Heck€sit€with€you?ÌÌDefendant:€€No,€sir.ÌÌJudge:€€You€can€still€represent€yourself€and€he€can€be€ofÏcounsel,€just€sit€there€to€advise€with€you€and€to€look€at€anyÏexhibit€and€explain€it€to€you.ÌÌDefendant:€€I€don't€want€him€around€me.ÌÌJudge:€€All€right.€€So€you're€waiving€that€right.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓAt€that€point,€Mr.€Heck€was€excused€and€left€the€courtroom,€and€the€trial€proceeded.ÏThe€petitioner€represented€himself€during€the€reading€of€the€indictments;€entered€aÏplea€of€not€guilty;€made€opening€argument;€and€cross„examined€several€witnesses.€ÏAfter€the€lunch€break,€the€petitioner€requested€assistance€of€counsel€for€theÏremainder€of€his€case.€€The€court€called€Mr.€Heck€back,€and€Mr.€Heck€proceeded€toÏrepresent€the€petitioner€through€the€remainder€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àà àThus,€the€petitioner€clearly€and€unequivocally€asserted€his€right€toÏproceed€òòproóó€òòseóó,€satisfying€one€of€the€three€preconditions€to€self„representation.€ÏHowever,€this€Court€is€concerned€that€the€petitioner€did€not€assert€his€right€timely.ÌÌà àà àBecause€Mr.€Heck€had€represented€him€at€his€first€trial,€the€petitionerÏknew€full€well€the€quality€of€the€representation€he€would€be€receiving€at€his€secondÏtrial.€€Yet,€the€petitioner€waited€until€the€last€possible€moment€to€try€and€discharge€hisÏattorney.€€This€smacks€of€the€same€sort€of€disruptive€tactics€attempted€to€be€used€byÏthe€defendant€in€òòState€v.€Chadwickóó,€450€S.W.2d€568€(Tenn.€1970).€€There,€theÏdefendant€discharged€his€lawyer€after€jury€selection,€stating€that€he€wanted€anotherÍattorney.€€The€court€denied€the€lawyer's€motion€to€withdraw€and€required€him€toÏremain€at€the€trial€and€be€available€to€the€defendant.€€After€his€conviction,€theÏdefendant€appealed,€complaining€that€the€trial€court€had€denied€him€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Our€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€trial€court's€action€stating,€€"Ï'The€court€may€deny€[the]€accused's€application€to€discharge€his€counsel€where€itÏappears€that€such€application€is€not€made€in€good€faith€but€is€made€for€[the]€purposeÏof€delay.'€"€€òòState€v.€Chadwickóó,€450€S.W.2d€at€570€(citation€omitted).€€In€the€case€òòsubóóÏòòjudiceóó,€the€trial€court€would€have€been€correct€in€denying€the€petitioner's€request€toÏrepresent€himself€on€the€basis€that€his€request€was€not€made€timely.ÌÌà àà àWe€are€further€concerned€in€this€matter€that€the€trial€judge€did€notÏexamine€the€petitioner€as€thoroughly€as€our€Supreme€Court€and€the€StateÏLegislature€intend.€€For€instance,€the€trial€court€did€not€explore€the€petitioner'sÏcomprehension€of€the€nature€of€the€charges€against€him;€the€statutory€offensesÏincluded€within€the€charged€crimes;€the€range€of€allowable€punishments;€andÏpossible€defenses€and€mitigating€circumstances.€€Nor€did€the€trial€court€obtainÏanything€in€writing€from€the€petitioner€concerning€his€waiver.× ƒ0 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àAlthough€we€previously€recognized€in€our€opinion€on€the€direct€appealÏof€this€matter€that€"[t]he€trial€judge€carefully€and€patiently€dealt€with"€the€petitioner'sÏdesire€to€represent€himself,€€òòState€v.€Fowleróó,€No.€03C01„9207„CR„00249€at€pp.€2„3,ÏHamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€July€27,€1993,€at€Knoxville),€the€issue€of€theÏeffectiveness€of€the€petitioner's€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel€was€not€raised€on€thatÏappeal.€€Accordingly,€the€court€below€erred€in€concluding€that€this€issue€had€beenÏpreviously€determined€and€was€therefore€not€cognizable€in€this€post„convictionÏproceeding.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€clear€from€the€records€of€both€the€post„conviction€hearing€and€theÏpetitioner's€second€trial€that€the€petitioner€is€a€difficult€individual€to€deal€with€and€thatÏhe€has€some€aptitude€for€manipulating€the€legal€system€to€his€benefit.€€As€wasteful€asÏit€may€appear€to€try€the€petitioner€a€third€time,€however,€the€Sixth€AmendmentÏrequires€it.€€If€the€petitioner€again€requests€to€represent€himself,€the€trial€court€shallÏdetermine€whether€his€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel€is€effective€pursuant€to€theÏguidelines€set€forth€in€this€opinion.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€lower€court€is€reversed,€the€petitioner's€convictionÍfor€felonious€assault€with€a€firearm€with€the€intent€to€commit€first„degree€murder€isÏvacated,€and€this€matter€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌ