ÿWPCÙ  ábÍ£ú-S†«ݯQ`•5JëÓÄ@ÒÔPp·M3H‹clí·†wTŽ qzÐjp(V hŽ ±¬'(¡†æÝ®™šõK /£ ›ƒA»úÌZNͽ¯Ú [YðH©ZMËüÙäþÏ3@쓵·÷Ö·ðlK}_q<ü¤©]Ò±óUÙÙ-I ›¤ŸŽ/v ûM%@Œ5¦ ábX7Û†Oœ¼#våŠ._þQTÇ“ÀGiÊîÚñãZmæliÅ©b>’•6ßÉü‹š.æ8À.–_iyÞv6­YýÈ篻LáÀâ 0=s½ôæíkZoÌÞ”rœ…Ol`\ãVó“¼ï!jâ²¢¤.¾m3о1Ù¬7Œ³^O*‘C3s”N¹ä›ÆÍS@ÔvÞø ¡ªÛsbG¯»bø¥{’!Ù¢† õ·ÌÉüèVŽŸzžW5ù¾J‘]7ç§×ÍJ#¸íŒ!œlÊxç[æÖL}( jÈãÇ &Cå)‚RÃOÄë.Ç'9¹¿Ä4À¼­±T_jþë‘U.Òq«LåÒrÃp'ƒÿ ¤4"GqѾCcSÒĘM¤ÿ>ßxn¸Õb>àFú9K莖Q7Ì*Îï)†xš›…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ w@Í 4 ! 0 0”8 U:Ì h 0Dn U:² ì -üq)üšR–è9ð)U:G 0D D3Å BøøøøU: 0DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO D3“ B7Æ B7ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý AO4ƃƒ 0DI D/ B¼˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÌDÍÎÏDÐDÑÒDÓDÔÕÓ€ýhµ&3|xà(D(2\u$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,ó‚ AZ"Arial Regular ^Ý ƒ \u$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ X%XXXÔIn€the€third€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€forty„year€sentence€as€aÐ ° ÐRange€III,€career€offender.€€There€was€no€direct€appeal€of€this€sentence.Ô#†XL˜XX X%k#Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,ó‚ AZ"Arial Regular Ý ƒ \u$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ X%XXXÔThese€allegations€are€the€same€as€outlined€in€the€petitionerððs€first€petition€for€post„Ð ° Ðconviction€relief€filed€in€1994.€The€petitioner€stated,€ð ðSince€the€original€petition€for€post„¼conviction€relief€was€dismissed€as€having€been€filed€prematurely,€I€am€resubmitting€theÏpetition€anew€after€entry€of€final€judgment.Ô#†XL˜XX X%k#Ôðð #Ý ƒ \u$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ X%XXXÔThe€record€reveals€that€the€petitioner€filed€a€disbarment€proceeding€for€malpracticeÐ ° Ðagainst€his€post„conviction€counsel.€€Counsel€moved€this€Court€to€withdraw€as€attorney€onÏdirect€appeal.€€This€Court€denied€the€counselððs€request€for€withdrawal€and€noted€theÏpetitionerððs€history€of€having€seven€different€attorneys€and€of€being€ð ðdifficult.ððÔ#†XL˜XX X%k#Ô gÝ ƒ \u$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ X%XXXÔThe€petitioner€testified€that€it€was€at€the€second€trial€when€Heck€gave€him€theÐ ° Ðrecords€obtained€from€Summers,€as€well€as€a€copy€of€the€transcript€of€the€first€trial.Ô#†XL˜XX X%k#Ô òÝ ƒ \u$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ X%XXXÔThe€petitioner€did€not€testify€during€his€trial.Ð ° ÐÔ#†XL˜XX X%k#Ô HÝ ƒ \u$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ X%XXXÔWhen€Heck€was€asked€how€he€would€rate€or€assess€the€petitioner€in€terms€of€otherÐ ° Ðclients€he€had€represented,€Heck€replied,€ð ðHeððs€I€guess€more€obstreperous€than€most€.€.€Ï.€[T]his€was€going€to€be€a€problem€client€in€the€sense€that€he€would€be€inclined€to€makeÏunreasonable€demands,€he€would€be€inclined€to€lie€.€.€.€and€as€I€got€to€know€him€more,€IÏrealized€.€.€.€he€has€no€honor,€he€has€no€integrity,€his€word€means€nothing€to€him,€honestyÏis€a€concept€that€is€totally€foreign€to€him.ðð€€The€petitioner€was€equally€candid€in€his€feelingsÏconcerning€Heck€and€stated,€ð ðThe€man€could€not€tell€you€the€truth€if€his€life€depended€onÏit.ðð€Ô#†XL˜XX X%k#Ô /Ý ƒ \u$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ X%XXXÔThe€record€indicates€the€jury,€at€the€first€trial,€was€eleven€for€a€guilty€verdict,€but€aÐ ° Ðlone€juror€would€not€agree.€In€questioning€the€petitioner,€the€trial€court€indicated€theÏpetitioner€was€quite€fortunate€in€that€this€particular€juror€had€caused€several€mistrials€inÏboth€criminal€and€civil€trials.€Apparently,€this€juror€had€difficulty€in€agreeing€with€anyone.Ô#†XL˜XX X%k#Ô Ô€XÑvXXXÔÔ€î—ÙîXXÑvÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€©ìîî—ÙÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€30,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôñÒ ô©ìÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý""""'ÿÿdxd d,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýghgh'öÿdxd3øÿ+0 ÿÿÿd ÿÿÿd d3÷ÿ+0 d d d€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñÕñ›ñÕñÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ XXXXÔÓ  ÓÑXÈÑñÕñßr€!<,(j 8 `€€@Eh± tt0" °¨Órß›ñÕñà @ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€1999€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓLUTHER€E.€FOWLER,€€€à h àà À à)Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9711„CR„00509Ð P  Ðà ` àAppellant,à  àà h àà À à)Ð ð@  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHamilton€CountyÐ à0  Ðv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àà p àÐ Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÐ À ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)Ð ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à(Post„Conviction)Ð  ð Ðà ` àAppellee.à  àà h àà À à)Ð à ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð  p ÐÌJohn€Allen€Brooksà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ P Ð736€Georgia€Avenueà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ð@ ÐSuite€600à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÐ à0 ÐChattanooga,€TN€€37402à h àà À àà  àTodd€R.€KelleyÐ Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue,€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWilliam€H.€Cox,€IIIÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDavid€Wayne€DennyÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à600€Market€Street,€Suite€310Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÐ  09€48 Ðò òòòÔ‡ ¼¡›¼X XÔÓ  ÓÑ7€l™XXdðXXdð7ÑO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#† XX¼ ¼¡›€ #Ôó óóóÐ ° ÐÓŸ ÓÌÌÓÓà ` àThe€appellant,€Luther€Fowler,€referred€herein€as€ð ðthe€petitioner,ðð€appeals€as€of€rightÏfrom€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€by€the€Hamilton€County€CriminalÏCourt.€€In€1992,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€in€a€jury€trial€of€the€offense€of€feloniousÏassault€to€commit€murder€first€degree.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposedÏa€sentence€of€forty€years€as€a€Range€III,€career€offender€in€the€Department€of€Correction.ÏThe€petitioner€presents€three€issues€for€appellate€review:ÌÓÓÓ'X„Xä h–X°œX'Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à1.à8ä ¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€adequatelyÐ æ6 Ðensure€that€the€petitionerððs€right€to€counsel,€at€trial,€wasÏadequately€waived.Ð ä ¤ä ¤ ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à2.à8ä ¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€have€theÐ ¦ö Ðpetitioner€sign€a€written€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel.Ð ä ¤ä ¤ ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à3.à8ä ¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€petitionerÐ vÆ Ðreceived€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€onÏappeal.Ð ä ¤ä ¤ ÐÓaÓÌà ` àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€entire€record,€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€appropriateÏlaw,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌÓ  Óò òPROCEDURAL€HISTORYÐ Æ#! ÐÌó óÓ  Óà ` àSince€1992,€the€petitioner€has€developed€a€litigious€reputation€in€his€quest€forÐ †'Ö"% Ðfreedom.€Therefore,€it€is€necessary€to€set€out€the€petitionerððs€attempts€to€reverse€hisÏconviction.€ÌÌà ` àThe€petitioner€was€indicted€for€felonious€assault€to€commit€murder€first€degree€inÏApril,€1989,€and€for€aggravated€assault€in€December,€1991.€€Before€the€trial,€the€petitionerÏdisappeared,€and€it€was€necessary€for€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€extradite€the€petitionerÏfrom€the€states€of€Florida,€North€Carolina,€and€Illinois.€€The€petitioner€proceeded€to€trial€onÏNovember€14,€1991,€for€the€offense€of€felonious€assault€to€commit€murder€first€degree,€withÏhis€counsel,€William€R.€Heck,€which€resulted€in€a€mistrial€due€to€the€juryððs€inability€to€reachÏa€verdict.€Ð F:–59 Ðà ` àAt€the€petitionerððs€second€trial€on€February€11,€1992€for€felonious€assault€with€intentÏto€commit€first€degree€murder,€aggravated€assault,€and€first€degree€burglary,€the€petitionerÏdeclined€and€ð ðfiredðð€his€court„appointed€attorney,€William€R.€Heck.€€The€petitioner€urgedÏthe€trial€court€to€permit€him€to€represent€himself€during€the€trial.€€After€a€colloquy€with€theÏtrial€court,€the€petitioner€was€permitted€to€represent€himself.€€After€jury€selection,€openingÏstatements,€and€cross„examination€of€certain€state€witnesses€by€the€petitioner,€theÏpetitioner€requested€assistance€of€counsel.€€Mr.€Heck€was€reappointed€and€representedÏthe€petitioner€during€the€rest€of€the€trial.€€On€February€12,€1992,€the€petitioner€was€foundÏguilty€on€the€felonious€assault€and€attempted€aggravated€assault€charges.€€The€jury€foundÏhim€not€guilty€of€the€burglary€charge.ÌÌà ` àOn€March€18,€1992,€at€the€conclusion€of€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏsentenced€the€petitioner,€as€a€career€offender,€to€sixty€years€for€the€felonious€assault€toÏcommit€murder€first€degree.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€twelve„year€sentence,€as€a€RangeÏIII,€career€offender,€for€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€CourtÏaffirmed€the€conviction€for€felonious€assault€to€commit€murder€first€degree,€but€remandedÏfor€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€This€Court€also€reversed€and€dismissed€the€petitionerððsÏconviction€for€attempted€aggravated€assault.€€In€this€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€did€notÏassign€as€error€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€adequately€insure€that€the€petitioner€waived€hisÏright€to€counsel.€òò€State€v.€Luther€E.€Fowler,€óóNo.€03C01„9207„CR„00249,€1993€WL€278468Ð P( #& Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€27,€1993).€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€resentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€refused€to€consider€any€prior€convictionsÏof€the€petitioner€for€the€purpose€of€establishing€his€sentencing€range€and€sentenced€theÏpetitioner€to€twenty„five€years€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender.€€On€direct€appeal€by€theÏstate,€this€Court€remanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€third€sentencing€hearing.€òòStateÐ 3à.2 Ðv.€Luther€E.€Fowler,€óóNo.€03C01„9409„CR„00334,€1995€WL€550921€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð p5À04 ÐKnoxville,€September€19,€1995).€ÌÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àHowever,€prior€to€the€third€sentencing€hearing,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„¼conviction€relief€with€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€on€May€2,€1994.€€In€his€petition,Ïthe€petitioner€alleged:€€(1)€the€petitioner€did€not€knowingly€and€intelligently€waive€hisÏconstitutional€right€to€counsel;€(2)€the€trial€court€failed€to€advise€the€petitioner€of€theÏdangers€of€going€to€trial€òòpro€seóó;€and€(3)€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€onÐ 0 € Ðappeal.€€The€trial€court€appointed€Mark€Biesack€to€represent€the€petitioner.€On€NovemberÏ23,€1994,€at€the€conclusion€of€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€petitionerÏany€relief.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€concluded€the€trial€court€was€in€error€forÏdetermining€that€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€right€to€counsel€had€been€previously€determinedÏand€was€not€cognizable€in€the€post„conviction€petition,€since€the€effectiveness€ofÏpetitionerððs€waiver€of€counsel€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal€nor€ruled€on€by€this€Court.€ÏThis€Court€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€and€granted€the€petitioner€a€new€trial.€òò€LutherÐ P  ÐE.€Fowler€v.€State,€óóNo.€03C01„9501„CR„00027,€1996€WL€10265€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð 0€ ÐKnoxville,€January€11,€1996).€€On€February€15,€1996,€this€Court€vacated€its€opinion€filedÏJanuary€11,€1996,€and€dismissed€the€petitionerððs€petition.€€It€had€come€to€this€CourtððsÏattention€that€a€third€sentencing€hearing€was€pending,€and€thus€the€petitionerððs€petition€wasÏpremature.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р°"  ÐÌà ` àOn€July€10,€1996,€the€petitioner€filed€a€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€withÏthe€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court.€€The€petitioner€alleged€that€he€was€entitled€to€reliefÏon€the€grounds€that:€€(1)€he€did€not€knowingly€and€intelligently€waive€his€constitutional€rightÏto€counsel;€(2)€the€trial€court€did€not€advise€him€of€the€dangers€of€going€to€trial€òòpro€seóó;€andÐ ,`'* Ð(3)€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal.׃p×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€courtÐ ð-@), Ðappointed€counsel€to€represent€the€petitioner.€ÌÐ °1-0 Ðà ` àOn€October€17,€1996,€the€petitioner€filed€an€amendment€to€his€petition.€€In€thisÏamendment,€the€petitioner€alleged:€€(1)€he€was€incorporating€the€ground€previously€setÏforth€in€his€petition€dealing€with€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel;€(2)€he€was€denied€dueÏprocess€and€a€fair€trial€due€to€the€stateððs€failure€to€produce€tangible€evidence,€to€wit,€aÏknife,€which€could€have€been€used€to€exculpate€the€petitioner;€and€(3)€the€jury€instructionsÏon€reasonable€doubt€were€unconstitutional€resulting€in€the€juryððs€confusion€as€toÏreasonable€doubt.€€The€state€filed€a€general€answer€of€denial€to€the€petitionerððs€allegations.ÌÌà ` àOn€March€21,€1997,€at€the€conclusion€of€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏdenied€the€petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€April€17,€1997,€the€petitionerÐ à Ðfiled€a€notice€of€the€appeal€that€is€the€subject€of€this€opinion.ÌÌÓ  Óò òEVIDENTIARY€HEARINGÐ 0€ ÐÌó óÓ  Óà ` àWilliam€R.€Heck€testified€he€was€appointed€to€represent€the€petitioner€at€the€first€trialÐ ð@ Ðin€1991,€which€resulted€in€a€mistrial.€€Heck€further€testified€that€he€has€been€a€licensedÏattorney€for€twenty„seven€years,€primarily€practicing€criminal€law.€€Heck€is€a€member€of€theÏTennessee€Association€of€Criminal€Defense€Lawyers€and€has€participated€in€over€ninetyÏtrials€and€fourteen€death€penalty€trials.€€Heck€described€his€representation€of€the€petitionerÏas€ð ðMr.€Fowler€and€I€didnððt€get€along.ðð€€During€the€first€trial,€the€petitioner€requested€HeckÏto€do€certain€things€that€Heck€felt€ethically€he€could€not€do.€€When€the€petitioner€informedÏHeck€that€he€had€given€Attorney€Jerry€Summers€a€list€of€witnesses€for€the€first€trial,€HeckÏattempted€to€obtain€this€list,€but€Summers€indicated€he€did€not€have€it.€€Heck€testified€theÏpetitioner€told€him€of€everyone€who€had€knowledge€of€or€had€any€bearing€on€his€case.€ÏHeck€interviewed€some€of€the€witnesses,€but€could€not€find€the€others.€€Heck€testified€heÏhad€some€problems€with€two€of€the€witnesses€for€the€petitioner€at€the€first€trial.€€OneÐ 3à.2 Ðwitness€informed€Heck€that€the€petitioner€wanted€him€to€lie€in€court,€and€there€wereÏindications€of€threats€by€the€petitioner€for€this€testimony.€€The€other€witness€was€TerryÏFowler,€the€petitionerððs€nephew,€who€informed€Heck€that€the€petitioner€wanted€him€to€testifyÏregarding€things€that€may€not€have€been€true.€ÌÌà ` àPrior€to€the€first€trial,€Heck€interviewed€the€petitionerððs€nephew,€all€police€officers,Ïthe€victim,€and€other€witnesses€listed€by€the€state.€€The€petitioner€presented€a€self„defenseÏtheory€to€the€jury.€€The€petitionerððs€girlfriend€disappeared€prior€to€both€trials€and€could€notÏbe€found.€€Heck€testified€he€and€the€petitioner€did€not€have€any€problems€during€the€firstÏtrial.€€Heck€recalled€that€either€the€alleged€victim€or€the€state€had€the€victimððs€knife€in€courtÏduring€the€first€trial.€€He€could€not€recall€if€the€knife€was€present€at€the€second€trial,€sinceÏhe€was€not€present€during€the€opening€hours€of€the€trial.ÌÌà ` àHeck€testified€that,€prior€to€the€second€trial,€the€petitioner€indicated€he€wanted€toÏrepresent€himself.€€Heck€advised€the€petitioner€that€self„representation€was€fraught€withÏhazard€for€many€reasons.€€Heck€was€aware€of€the€petitionerððs€limited€ability€to€read€andÏwrite.€€Heck€cautioned€the€petitioner€that,€if€he€represented€himself,€the€state€would€fileÏcertain€documents,€and€perhaps€it€would€be€advantageous€if€the€petitioner€could€properlyÏread€and€write.€€Heck€testified€the€petitioner€was€very€insistent€in€wanting€to€representÏhimself€and€urged€Heck€to€bring€this€matter€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention.€€Between€the€firstÏand€second€trial,€Heck€testified€there€was€always€a€problem€with€the€petitioner,€includingÏa€civil€lawsuit€in€federal€court,€which€was€summarily€dismissed.€€Heck€testified€that€theÏpetitioner€was€particularly€interested€in€legal€developments€and€trends€which€affected€hisÏcase.€€Heck€described€the€petitionerððs€grasp€of€courtroom€procedures€as€ð ðheððs€familiar,Ïmore€than€familiar€with€courtrooms,€and€he€knows€how€things€operate€and€heððs€constantly,Ïyou€know,€staying€in€touch€.€.€.€His€adequacy€in€trying€a€jury€case€.€.€.€I€really€donððt€know,Ïmaybe€he€would€do€an€excellent€job,€I€have€heard€heððs€done€it€before€or€since€orÏsomething€.€.€.€but€he€knows€how€the€courtroom€operates.ðð€€Heck€testified€he€did€not€assistÏthe€petitioner€in€signing€a€waiver€of€counsel.€€In€Heckððs€opinion,€the€trial€court€attemptedÐ 09€48 Ðto€help€the€petitioner.ÌÌà ` àAfter€the€trial,€Heck€testified€that€the€petitioner€wanted€him€ð ðto€have€nothing€to€doÏwith€the€case.ðð€€Heck€advised€the€petitioner€that€an€appeal€had€to€be€taken.€€The€petitionerÏadvised€Heck€that€he€would€take€care€of€the€appeal.€€Heck€represented€the€petitioner€atÏhis€first€sentencing€hearing,€which€was€remanded.€€Heck€testified€that€the€stateððs€proof€wasÏoverwhelming€as€to€the€petitionerððs€guilt.€ÌÌà ` àThe€petitioner,€age€60,€testified€that€William€R.€Heck€did€represent€him€at€the€firstÏtrial.€€Prior€to€the€first€trial,€the€petitioner€instructed€Heck€to€obtain€certain€records€ofÏwitnesses€who€would€testify€in€his€behalf€from€Attorney€Jerry€Summers.€€The€petitionerÏcontends€Heck€did€not€review€these€records.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€petitioner€testified€that,€between€the€firstÐ P  Ðand€second€trial,€Heck€only€saw€him€one€time€outside€the€courtroom.€€Heck€informed€theÏpetitioner€that€the€state€would€offer€him€sixty€years€to€settle€the€case.€€On€the€day€of€trial,Ïthe€state€reduced€the€offer€to€forty€years,€which€the€petitioner€rejected.€€The€petitionerÏtestified€that,€when€he€saw€Heck€for€the€first€time,€he€explained€how€he€shot€the€victim,€butÏHeck€did€not€take€any€notes.€€The€petitioner€testified€as€to€the€circumstances€surroundingÏthe€shooting€of€the€victim€and€why€it€was€self„defense.׃p×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð $à" ÐÌà ` àThe€petitioner€admitted€he€has€difficulty€reading€and€only€has€a€third€gradeÏeducation.€€Ô‡ X%XX X%ÔThe€petitioner€testified€he€ð ðfiredðð€Heck€before€the€second€trial.€€Ô#† X%XX X%œ@#ÔHe€also€testifiedÐ 0*€%( Ðthat€Heck€failed€to€obtain€his€witness,€ð ðCherokee,ðð€who€was€in€the€bar.€€Ô‡ X%XX X%ÔHowever,€Heck€didÐ ,`'* Ðsubpoena€Terry€Fowler,€the€petitionerððs€nephew.€€Ô#† X%XX X%œA#ÔThe€petitioner€denied€that€he€tried€toÐ ð-@), Ðcoerce€any€witness€into€lying€for€him.€€The€petitioner€admitted€the€trial€court€warned€himÏabout€the€difficulty€of€self„representation.€€After€the€trial€was€underway,€the€petitionerÏrequested€that€Heck€return€for€the€remainder€of€the€trial.€€The€petitioner€did€not€sign€aÐ 3à.2 Ðwritten€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel.€€The€petitioner€admitted€he€was€not€a€good€lawyer€inÏhis€own€behalf.€ÌÌà ` àDuring€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€had€been€convicted€of€fiveÏto€six€felonies,€some€of€which€he€had€entered€pleas€of€guilty.€€Also,€the€petitioner€had€beenÏthrough€prior€criminal€trials,€including€a€jury€trial€in€Alabama,€in€which€the€petitioner€hadÏrepresented€himself€and€won€an€acquittal.€€Regarding€the€Alabama€case,€the€petitionerÏtestified€he€believed€it€was€necessary€to€represent€himself,€because,€in€his€first€trial,€ð ðtheyÏwere€kangarooing€me€.€.€.€they€picked€all€bootleggers€for€juries.ðð€€The€petitionerððs€AlabamaÏconviction€was€overturned€in€federal€court,€which€led€the€petitioner€to€represent€himself€inÏhis€second€Alabama€trial.€€In€this€trial,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€selected€the€mostÏintelligent€people€he€could€pick.€€The€petitioner€could€not€recall€what€the€Alabama€judgeÏtold€him€about€his€right€to€an€attorney€and€the€consequences€of€self„representation,€but€theÏtrial€judge€offered€him€every€lawyer€in€that€county.€€He€rejected€the€judgeððs€offer€becauseÏhe€had€been€ð ðkangarooedðð€before€and€did€not€want€a€lawyer.€ÌÌà ` àAs€to€the€knife,€the€petitioner€testified€it€was€present€at€the€first€trial,€and€it€belongedÏto€the€victim,€who€had€pulled€it€and€pointed€it€at€the€petitioner.€€However,€the€knife€was€notÏproduced€at€the€second€trial.€€In€addition,€the€petitioner€and€Heck€revealed€someÏinteresting€thoughts€about€each€other.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð P( #& ÐÌà ` àThe€trial€court€denied€the€petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌÓ  Óò òÐ  Ð/ +. ÐLEGAL€ANALYSISÌA.€€ÌWAIVERó óÐ pÀ ÐÓ  Óò òÌó óÓ  Óà ` àThe€petitioner€contends€the€trial€court€in€1992€failed€to€adequately€insure€that€hisÐ 0 € Ðright€to€counsel€was€properly€waived€and€failed€to€have€the€petitioner€sign€a€written€waiverÏof€his€right€to€an€attorney€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„14„206€and€Rule€44(a)€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€The€state€concedes€the€petitionerððs€waiverÏwas€not€effective€but€argues€the€petitioner€has€waived€this€issue,€because€he€failed€to€raiseÏit€on€direct€appeal.€ÌÌà ` àIn€his€reply€brief,€the€petitioner€submits€that€the€stateððs€claim€of€waiver€wouldÏseriously€affect€the€fairness€and€integrity€of€any€judicial€proceedings€under€both€the€SixthÏAmendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€1,€Section€9€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€Further,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€presumed€waiver€under€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„30„206(g)€must€have€been€knowingly€and€understandingly€made€for€theÏpresumption€to€withstand€attack,€citing€òòSwanson€v.€State,€óó749€S.W.2d€731,€735€(Tenn.Ð °"  Ð1988).€€In€òòSwanson,€óóthe€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€question€of€whether€grounds€forÐ $à" Ðrelief€have€been€waived€within€the€meaning€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(RepealedÏ1995).€ÌÌà ` àSince€this€petition€was€filed€in€1996,€we€must€determine€the€validity€of€the€stateððsÏresponse€under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995.€€Relief€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ïðð€40„30„203€shall€be€granted€when€the€conviction€or€sentence€is€void€or€voidable€becauseÏof€the€abridgment€of€a€right€guaranteed€by€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€or€theÏConstitution€of€the€United€States.€€Once€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€has€beenÏproperly€filed,€the€trial€court€must€undertake€a€preliminary€consideration€of€the€petition.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206.€€In€its€examination€of€the€petition,€the€trial€court€shallÏexamine€the€allegations€of€fact€in€the€petition,€and€ð ð[i]f€the€facts€alleged,€taken€as€true,€failÐ 09€48 Ðto€show€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€relief€or€fail€to€show€that€the€claims€for€relief€haveÏnot€been€waived€or€previously€determined,€the€petition€shall€be€dismissed.€€The€order€ofÏdismissal€shall€set€forth€the€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(f).€ÌÌà ` àIn€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€shall€include€all€allegations€ofÏfact€supporting€each€claim€for€relief€set€forth€in€the€petition€and€allegations€of€factÏexplaining€why€each€ground€for€relief€was€not€previously€presented€in€any€earlierÏproceeding.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„204(e).€€In€this€case,€the€petitioner€relied€on€the€factÏthat€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€of€1994€had€been€dismissed€by€this€Court€inÏFebruary,€1996.€€The€trial€court€entered€a€preliminary€order,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„30„207,€finding€the€petition€filed€by€the€petitioner€presented€a€colorable€claim€for€relief.€ÏÌà ` àIn€construing€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995,€a€rebuttable€presumptionÏof€waiver€arises€if€a€ground€for€relief€was€not€raised€before€a€court€of€competent€jurisdictionÏin€which€it€could€have€been€raised.€€òòBlair€v.€Stateóó,€969€S.W.2d€423,€424€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ð@ Ð1997),€òòper.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€In€òòHouse€v.€State,Ð Ð  Ðóó911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995),€the€Supreme€Court€adopted€an€objective€standard€toÐ °"  Ðdetermine€waiver€in€the€context€of€a€collateral€attack€on€a€criminal€conviction€based€on€theÏfollowing€policy€concerns:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendants€to€criminal€prosecutions,€like€parties€to€civil€suits,Ïshould€be€bound€by€the€judgments€therein€entered.€When€theyÏfail€to€make€a€timely€objection€to€errors€of€the€courts€they€mustÏnot€be€allowed€at€later€times€of€their€own€choosing„„often,Ïperhaps,€after€witnesses€against€them€have€becomeÏunavailable„„to€assert€those€grounds€in€post„conviction€actions.€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌ(quoting€òòArthur€v.€State,€óó483€S.W.2d€95,€97€(Tenn.€1972).Ð à.0*- ÐÌÓùXÓÌòòà ` àóóThe€presumption€of€waiver€found€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g)€is€as€follows:Ð  2ð-1 ÐÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àA€ground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitioner€personally€orÏthrough€an€attorney€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€anyÏproceeding€before€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€whichÏthe€ground€could€have€been€presented€unless:€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àà8ä ¸ Ð ¸ Ð à(1)€The€claim€for€relief€is€based€upon€a€constitutionalÏright€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial€ifÐ  :p59 Ðeither€the€federal€or€state€constitution€requiresÏretroactive€application€of€that€right;€or€Ð ä ¤ä ¤ ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àà8ä ¸ Ð ¸ Ð à(2)€The€failure€to€present€the€ground€was€the€result€ofÏstate€action€in€violation€of€the€federal€or€stateÏconstitution.€Ð ä ¤ä ¤ ÐÓ˜[ÓÌThis€means€that€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€does€not€present€a€colorable€claim€forÏrelief€and€is€subject€to€dismissal€without€a€hearing,€unless€it€alleges€facts€showing€that€theÏgrounds€asserted€for€relief€were€not€previously€waived€in€a€prior€proceeding€in€which€theyÏcould€have€been€presented.€€òòSee€State€v.€Smith,€óó814€S.W.2d€45,€47€(Tenn.€1991).€Ð Ð  ÐFurther,€the€legislature€clearly€intended€to€restrict€convicted€criminals€from€collaterallyÏattacking€their€convictions.€€When€a€convicted€inmate€desires€to€contest€his€or€her€criminalÏconviction,€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€must€strictly€comply€with€the€statutoryÏrequirements.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„204(e)€requires:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€petitioner€shall€include€allegations€of€fact€supporting€eachÏclaim€for€relief€set€forth€in€the€petition€and€allegations€of€factÏexplaining€why€each€ground€for€relief€was€not€previouslyÏpresented€in€any€earlier€proceeding.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ¥aÓÌà ` àAfter€a€review€of€the€petition€for€relief€in€this€cause€and€the€amended€petition,€weÏfind€that€these€pleadings€fail€to€set€forth€the€facts€as€to€why€the€issue€alleging€that€theÏpetitioner€did€not€knowingly€and€intelligently€waive€his€constitutional€right€to€counsel€wasÏnot€presented€in€his€motion€for€a€new€trial€or€on€direct€appeal.€€Any€question€as€to€whetherÏthe€petitioner€waived€his€right€to€representation€by€counsel€was€ripe€for€consideration€onÏdirect€appeal.€€In€òòState€v.€Luther€E.€Fowler,€óóNo.€03C01„9207„CR„00249,€1993€WL€278468,Ð  +p&) Ðat€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€27,€1993),€Special€Judge€William€S.€Russell,€inÏaffirming€the€petitionerððs€direct€appeal,€commented€upon€the€petitionerððs€decision€toÏrepresent€himself€at€trial:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€defendant„appellantððs€choice€to,€in€substantial€part,Ïrepresent€himself€put€an€additional€burden€upon€the€trial€court;Ïand€has€resulted€in€the€clouding€of€some€of€the€issues€uponÏthis€appeal.€We€note€the€care€which€the€trial€judge€displayedÏin€advising€the€defendant€of€his€rights,€of€procedures,€rules€ofÏevidence,€etc.€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓûeÓÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àThe€record€establishes€that€the€state€raised€with€the€trial€court€the€question€of€theÏpetitionerððs€failure€to€raise€the€issue€of€waiver€of€counsel€on€direct€appeal.€€WeÏacknowledge€any€ground€for€relief,€except€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€could€haveÏbeen€raised€during€trial,€and€failure€to€do€so€will€be€deemed€a€waiver.€€òòBlair€v.€State,€óó969Ð P   ÐS.W.2d€423,€425€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€òòper.€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.€1998);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòDavidÐ 0 € ÐAllen€Brimmer€v.€State,€óóNo.€03C01„9703„CC„00083,€1998€WL€612888,€at€*33€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð `  ÐApp.,€Knoxville,€September€15,€1998).€€Since€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€present€a€factualÏexplanation€of€why€his€claim€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€failed€to€adequately€ensure€that€theÏpetitionerððs€right€to€counsel,€at€trial,€was€adequately€waivedðð€was€not€raised€on€directÏappeal,€the€trial€court€would€have€been€well€justified€in€dismissing€the€petition€without€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€òòBlairóó,€969€S.W.2d€at€425.Ð pÀ ÐÓ  Óò òB.Ð P  ÐWAIVER€OF€COUNSELÌÓ  ÓÌó óÓ  Óà ` àHowever,€we€elect€to€consider€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€he€did€not€effectively,Ð ð@ Ðknowingly,€and€intelligently€waive€his€right€to€counsel.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€evidentiaryÏhearing,€the€trial€court€conceded€that€it€did€not€follow€the€guidelines€as€set€out€in€the€òòBenchÐ °"  ÐBook€for€United€States€District€Judges€óó(3rd€ed.,€1986).€€However,€the€trial€court€concludedÐ $à" Ðthat€it€substantially€complied€with€the€mandates€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€inÏassuring€that€the€petitioner€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€his€right€to€the€assistanceÏof€counsel.€€Under€our€law,€a€post„conviction€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€hisÏallegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€OnÏappeal,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€and€will€not€be€disturbedÏunless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€òò€Brooks€v.€State,Ð Ð/ +. Ðóó756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòper.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1988).€The€burden€is€onÐ °1-0 Ðthe€petitioner€to€establish€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€òò€ClennyÐ 3à.2 Ðv.€State,€óó576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcert.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð p5À04 ÐÌà ` àIn€òòFaretta€v.€California,€óó422€U.S.€806,€95€S.Ct.€2525,€45€L.Ed.2d€562€(1975),€theÐ 09€48 ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€an€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution€has€aÏconstitutional€right€to€represent€himself€„„€proceed€ò òpro€se€ó ówithout€the€assistance€ofÐ à Ðcounsel.€€In€its€ruling,€the€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€language€and€spirit€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€contemplateÏthat€counsel,€like€the€other€defense€tools€guaranteed€by€theÏAmendment,€shall€be€an€aid€to€a€willing€defendant„„not€anÏorgan€of€the€State€interposed€between€an€unwilling€defendantÏand€his€right€to€defend€himself€personally.€To€thrust€counselÏupon€the€accused,€against€his€considered€wish,€thus€violatesÏthe€logic€of€the€Amendment.€In€such€a€case,€counsel€is€not€anÏassistant,€but€a€master;€and€the€right€to€make€a€defense€isÏstripped€of€the€personal€character€upon€which€the€AmendmentÏinsists.€.€.€.€€An€unwanted€counsel€ð ðrepresentsðð€the€defendantÏonly€through€a€tenuous€and€unacceptable€legal€fiction.€UnlessÏthe€accused€has€acquiesced€in€such€representation,€theÏdefense€presented€is€not€the€defense€guaranteed€him€by€theÏConstitution,€for,€in€a€very€real€sense,€it€is€not€òòhisóó€defense.€Ð€Ð¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌ422€U.S.€at€820„21,€95€S.Ct.€at€2533„34,€45€L.Ed.2d€at€573„74.ÌÌÓØrÓÌà ` àWhen€an€indigent€accused€desires€to€proceed€pro€se,€the€trial€court€is€obligated€toÏconduct€an€intensive€inquiry€as€to€the€accusedððs€ability€to€represent€himself.€òòState€v.Ð P ÐNorthington,€óó667€S.W.2d€57,€61€(Tenn.€1984).€The€waiver€of€the€right€to€counsel€must€beÐ à0 Ðknowingly€and€intelligently€made.€òò€State€v.€Armes,€óó673€S.W.2d€174,€177€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð À! ÐApp.),€òòper.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1984);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€44.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€CriminalÐ  #ð! ÐProcedure€44(a)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àEvery€indigent€defendant€shall€be€entitled€to€have€assignedÏcounsel€in€all€matters€necessary€to€the€defense€and€at€everyÏstage€of€the€proceedings,€unless€the€defendant€executes€aÏwritten€wavier.€Before€accepting€such€waiver€the€court€shallÏfirst€advise€the€accused€in€open€court€of€the€right€to€the€aid€ofÏcounsel€in€every€stage€of€the€proceedings.€The€court€shall,€atÏthe€same€time,€determine€whether€there€has€been€a€competentÏand€intelligent€waiver€of€such€right€by€inquiring€into€theÏbackground,€experience€and€conduct€of€the€accused€and€suchÏother€matters€as€the€court€may€deem€appropriate.€Any€waiverÏaccepted€shall€be€spread€upon€the€minutes€of€the€court€andÏmade€a€part€of€the€record€in€the€cause.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓyÓÌà ` àIn€òòState€v.€Goodwin,€óó909€S.W.2d€35€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€a€panel€of€this€CourtÐ p5À04 Ðruled€that€the€defendant,€Goodwin,€had€validly€waived€his€right€to€counsel.€€òòId.€óóat€41.€Ð P7 26 ÐThere,€the€trial€court€inquired€as€to€Goodwinððs€age€and€education€and€warned€him€thatÐ 09€48 Ðproceeding€pro€se€would€cause€confusion.€òò€Id.€óóat€40.€€Goodwin€was€informed€that€anÐ ° Ðattorney€would€be€provided€for€him€for€pretrial€proceedings€through€an€appeal,€if€needed.€òòÐ à ÐId.óó€€Goodwin€was€also€warned€that€he€would€not€have€access€to€a€law€library€and€that€hisÐ pÀ Ðadvisory€counsel€was€not€required€to€provide€him€with€photocopies€of€relevant€legalÏmaterials.€òò€Id.€óóat€41.€€The€trial€court€told€Goodwin€the€trial€would€proceed€at€the€same€paceÐ 0 € Ðas€it€would€if€he€had€appointed€counsel,€that€he€would€not€have€an€opportunity€to€conferÏwith€advisory€counsel€for€every€question,€and€that€he€was€responsible€for€understandingÏthe€rules€of€evidence€and€local€rules€of€court.€òò€Id.óó€€The€trial€court€informed€Goodwin€that,Ð Ð  Ðas€a€litigant,€he€would€have€ð ðno€greater€right€than€that€of€any€other€litigant,ðð€and€he€wouldÏbe€treated€the€same€as€if€he€were€represented€by€counsel.€€The€trial€court€would€not€beÏrequired€to€interrupt€the€trial€to€explain€procedural€rules,€legal€terms,€or€consequences€ofÏthe€litigantððs€actions.€òòId.óó€€This€Court€held€that€Goodwin€ð ðclearly€understood€the€hazards€ofÐ P  Ðrepresenting€himself.ðð€€òòId.€óóat€42.€Ð 0€ ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€the€following€exchange€was€had€between€the€trial€court€and€theÏpetitioner€relative€to€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€his€right€to€counsel€on€the€morning€of€trial:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àMr.€Heck:€€He€indicated€to€me,€Your€Honor,€that€he€wanted€toÏrepresent€himself,€that€I€was€a€lousy€lawyer€with€a€lot€ofÏdescriptions,€and€that€he€didnððt€want€to€have€anything€to€doÏwith€me,€have€me€in€the€courtroom€or€anything€else,€so€IÏbrought€it€to€the€Courtððs€attention.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€€You€know€why,€sir?€The€last€time€I€was€in€court,Ïsir,€we€talked€about€my€case.€He„„„I€saw€him€about€ten€minutesÏsince€you€hired€him.€I€been€up€there€over€four€months.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà ä àà h àà À à€à  à*€*€*€€€€Ð ,`'* ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€Are€you€telling€me€you€donððt€want€him€to€try€it?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€€I€donððt€want€him„„„no,€I€donððt€want€him,€period.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€Do€you€want€to€try€the€case€yourself?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€€If€I€have€to,€yeah.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€Well,€the€case€is€for€trial€today.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€Okay,€whatever.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€Of€course,€you€understand€if€you€represent€yourself,€IÏhave€to€hold€you€to€the€same€standards€I€would€a€lawyer€as€farÐ  :p59 Ðas€procedure€is€concerned.€You€understand€that?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€€Yes,€sir,€whatever.€I€donððt€know€what„„„Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€Youððve€got€two€choices.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà ä àà h àà À àà  à*€*€*ÌÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€Mr.€Fowler,€based€on€the€proof€I€heard€and€the€juryððsÏposition€last€time,€I€think€your€chances€really€are€slim€to€none,Ïand€less€than€that€if€you€represent€yourself.€You€do€have€aÏconstitutional€right€to€represent€yourself€though€if€you€fullyÏunderstand€that€youððre€waiving€your€right€to€be€represented€byÏan€attorney.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€€Yeah,€if€you€donððt€appoint€me€one€I€guess€Iððll€haveÏto.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€I€cannot€appoint€you€another€lawyer.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€€All€right€then,€Iððll„„„Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€This€case€is€set€for€trial€today.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€€Okay.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€Itððs€going€to€be€tried€today.€And€Mr.€Heck€is€a€very€able,Ïvery€competent€lawyer.€Heððs€tried€this€case„„„Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€€Not€to€me€heððs€not.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà ä àà h àà À àà  à*€*€*ÌÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€Heððs€not€gonna€represent€me.€If€I€have€to€representÏmyself€then€thatððs€what€Iððll€do.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€You€are€freely€waiving€your€right€to€be€represented€byÏan€attorney€then.€Thatððs€your€decision?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€€Yes,€sir.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓhƒÓà ` àA€jury€of€twelve€and€two€alternates€were€selected,€impaneled,€and€duly€accepted€byÏboth€the€state€and€the€defendant.€At€the€conclusion€of€which,€the€following€colloquyÏoccurred€between€the€trial€court€and€the€defendant€in€the€juryððs€absence.ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€Do€you€wish€to€reconsider€and€have€Mr.€Heck€sit€at€theÏtable€so€he€can€look€at€the€papers?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€No,€sir,€I€donððt€want€him.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€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.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÐ  :p59 Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€I€donððt€want€him€around€me.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àCourt:€€All€right.€€So€youððre€waiving€that€right.ÌÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à(Whereupon€Mr.€Heck€was€excused.)Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€At€this€point€what€we€are€going€to€do,€Mr.€Fowler,€weððllÏbring€the€jury€back.€The€attorney€general€will€read€theÏindictment.€I€will€ask€you€how€you€plead€to€the€threeÏindictments.€And€you€can€plead€not€guilty,€or€you€can€pleadÏguilty€to€those€charges.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€Can€I€plead€self„defense?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€Well,€your€plea€of€not€guilty€includes€the€plea€of€self„¼defense,€and€the€Court€will€charge€the€jury€at€the€conclusion€ofÏthe€proof€about€self„defense.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€All€right.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€So€you€donððt€plead€self„defense;€you€just€plead€notÏguilty.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€All€right,€sir.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€And€then€at€that€point,€after€you€plead,€Mr.€Bright€willÏhave€an€opportunity€to€make€an€opening€statement€to€the€juryÏoutlining€what€the€proof€will€be€about.€You€then€will€have€theÏright€to€stand€up€and€make€an€opening€statement€to€the€jury.ÏYouððre€supposed€to€outline€what€you€think€the€proof€will€show.ÏBut€Iððll€give€you€a€little€bit€of€leeway€on€that.€At€the€conclusionÏof€the€statements€then€Mr.€Bright€will€start€calling€his€witnessesÏto€the€stand.€And€after€they€testify,€you€have€the€right€to€cross„¼examine€them,€not€make€statements€yourself,€but€ask€themÏquestions.€And€then€at€the€conclusion€of€all€the€Stateððs€proof,Ïif€you€care€to,€you€can€then€call€witnesses€on€your€own€behalf;Ïyou€can€testify€in€your€own€behalf.€At€that€point€then€you€wouldÏtake€the€stand€and€testify€under€oath.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€Long€as€I€donððt€take€the€stand,€my€record€will€notÏbe€brought€up,€right?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€Thatððs€right.€If€you€do€not€take€the€stand,€then€I€willÏinstruct€the€jury€at€the€conclusion,€like€I€did€last€time,€that€theyÏcannot€consider€that€for€any€purpose€whatsoever€against€you.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€All€right,€sir.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€You€do€not€have€to€testify.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€All€right,€sir.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€€But€you€can€call€other€witnesses.€Now€you€cannotÏtestify€through€asking€questions.€You€can€ask€questions€of€theÏwitnesses€but€you„„„Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àDefendant:€€I€can€explain€to€the€jury€what€happened€though,€right?Ð ` (#` (# ÐÐ  :p59 Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€Yes,€in€your€opening€statement?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àDefendant:€Yeah.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àCourt:€All€right.€As€I€say,€Iððll€give€you€some€leeway.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓÓà ` àWhen€an€accused€asserts€his€right€to€represent€himself,€three€conditions€must€beÏmet€before€the€defendantððs€right€to€self„representation€becomes€valid.€€ð ðFirst,€the€accusedÏmust€assert€the€right€to€self„representation€timely.€€Second,€the€accusedððs€request€must€beÏclear€and€unequivocal.€€Third,€the€accused€must€knowingly€and€intelligently€waive€the€rightÏto€the€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€òò€State€v.€Herrod,€óó754€S.W.2d€627,€629„30€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ° ÐApp.),€òòper.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1988)€(citations€omitted).€€Clearly,€the€petitioner€assertedÐ à Ðhis€right€to€self„representation.€However,€we€believe€the€trial€court€would€have€beenÏjustified€in€denying€the€petitionerððs€request€for€self„representation€in€that€the€request€wasÏnot€timely.€€We€now€consider€whether€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€counsel€was€knowingly€andÏintelligently€made.ÌÌ€à ` àIn€its€brief,€the€state€concedes€œand€the€trial€court€admitted€that›€œñÓñitñÓññÔñthe€courtñÔñ€did€notÐ Ð  Ðcomply€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€44,€ñÎñTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.ñÎññÏñT.R.C.P.ñÏñ,€ñÑñnñÑññÒñnñÒñor€the€suggestionsñÐñ€ñÐñ›€outlinedÏin€òòHerrod,€óó754€S.W.2d€at€630.€€œHowever,€although›€the€trial€court€did€not€comply€with€theÐ $à" Ðprocedural€and€statutory€requirements€in€assuring€the€petitioner€knowingly€and€intelligentlyÏwaived€his€right€to€the€assistance€of€counsel,€we€hold€the€trial€court€did€substantiallyÏcomply€with€the€requirements€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏand€Article€1,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÌÌà ` àIn€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€987€S.W.2d€871€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998),€this€Court€consideredÐ Ð/ +. Ða€similar€question€as€to€the€effective€waiver€of€counsel€by€a€defendant.€€In€this€post„¼conviction€case,€this€Court€reversed€the€post„conviction€courtððs€finding€that€the€petitionerððsÏdecision€to€represent€himself€was€ð ðintelligently€made€with€full€knowledge€of€his€right€toÏcounsel.ðð€òòId.óó€at€875.€€This€Court€found€that,€under€the€existing€guidelines,€the€trial€courtððsÐ P7 26 Ðinquiry€should€have€been€more€extensive.€€The€failure€to€warn€of€the€specific€dangers€ofÐ 09€48 Ðself„representation€is€the€area€of€primary€concern.€€However,€we€find€the€facts€in€theÏpresent€case€are€distinguishable€from€the€situation€outlined€in€òòSmithóó.Ð à ÐÌà ` àœFirst,€we€note€that€the€record€in€this€case€materially€differs€from€the€one€in€theÏpreviously€aborted€appeal.€€The›€record€œestablishes€that€the€petitioner€hañÌññÊñdñÊññÌññÍñsñÍñ€a€long€history€ofÏcriminal€ñËñin›€this›€case›€clearly›€establishes›€the›€petitioner›€has›€a›€long›€history›€of›€criminal›€ñËñexperiences›€and€familiarity€with€both€federal€and€state€criminal€courts.€ThisÏfamiliarity€includes€the€petitionerððs€experiences€in€other€state€jurisdictions.€The€petitionerÏhas€entered€at€least€five€or€six€guilty€pleas€in€various€courts.€€The€petitioner€hasÏparticipated€in€a€number€of€criminal€trials,€including€one€in€the€State€of€Alabama,€in€whichÏthe€petitioner€represented€himself€and€won€a€jury€acquittal.€€The€petitioner€was€well€awareÏof€the€nature€of€the€charges€he€was€facing€in€this€cause.€€The€petitioner€had€already€goneÏthrough€a€jury€trial€which€resulted€in€a€mistrial€and€had€the€assistance€of€counsel.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РP  ÐAlthough€the€petitioner€is€limited€in€his€ability€to€read€and€write,€we€agree€with€Mr.€HeckððsÏassessment€that€the€petitioner€has€a€grasp€of€courtroom€procedures€and€knows€how€aÏcourtroom€operates.€€A€review€of€the€petitionerððs€direct€and€cross„examination€of€theÏwitnesses€at€the€trialððs€commencement€supports€the€Courtððs€conclusion.€€Although€the€trialÏcourt€had€to€restrict€the€petitioner€from€testifying€in€his€questions,€the€petitioner€adequatelyÏcovered€the€facts€which€surrounded€the€stabbing€of€the€victim.€€We€find€the€petitioner€failedÏto€carry€his€burden€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€adequatelyÏinsure€the€petitioner€knowingly€and€intelligently€waived€his€right€to€the€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.ÌÌÓ  Óà @ àò òC.Ð ð-@), ÐINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELÌÌó óÓ  Óà ` àThe€petitioner€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€the€petitioner€receivedÐ 3à.2 Ðeffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€The€state€disagrees.ÌÌà ` àWhen€reviewing€a€petitionerððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€or€services€given€by€the€attorneyÏare€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€òò€Baxter€v.Ð 0 € ÐRose,€óó523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÐ `  Ðof€counsel,€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððs€representation€fell€below€an€objectiveÏstandard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€this€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€ThereÏmust€be€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€error,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÏwould€have€been€different.€òò€Strickland€v.€Washington,€óó466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€104€S.Ct.Ð à Ð2052,€2064,€80€L.Ed.2d€674,€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòBest€v.€State,€óó708Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985),€òòper.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1986).Ð P  ÐÌà ` àThe€trial€court€found€that€Mr.€Heck€did€not€render€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÏThe€fact€that€Mr.€Heck€did€not€see€the€petitioner€between€trials,€as€he€should€have,€wasÏinconsequential.€€Mr.€Heck€had€already€tried€the€first€case€and€knew€everything€that€wouldÏcome€in€the€second€trial.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Heck€did€such€a€good€job€in€the€first€trial€thatÏsome€of€the€jurors€made€an€observation€that€Mr.€Heck€had€raised€some€questions€in€theirÏminds.€€The€petitioner€has€not€carried€his€burden€of€proof€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÏas€to€his€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€the€evidence€adduced€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€There€is€noÏmerit€to€this€issue.€Ìò òÓ  ÓD.Ð ð-@), ÐDUE€PROCESS€CLAIMó óÐ Ð/ +. ÐÓ—»ÓÌà ` àFurther,€in€his€amended€petition,€the€petitioner€complains€that€he€was€denied€aÏsecond€fair€trial€in€that€the€state€failed€to€produce€a€knife€which€could€exculpate€him,€andÏthe€jury€instructions€on€reasonable€doubt€were€unconstitutional.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,Ïthe€petitioner€testified€he€got€into€a€fight€with€the€victim,€he€knocked€the€victim€over€a€table,Ð 09€48 Ðand€the€victim€came€up€with€a€knife,€which€caused€the€petitioner€to€back€up,€pull€a€pistolÏout€of€his€pocket,€and€shoot€the€victim.€€The€testimony€at€trial€indicates€the€victim€had€aÏknife€in€a€scabbard,€which€was€still€in€the€scabbard€when€the€victim€was€treated€byÏparamedics€at€the€scene.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€as€to€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€stateððs€failure€to€produce€theÏknife.€€The€petitionerððs€theory€of€self„defense€was€placed€before€the€jury€as€evidenced€byÏthe€jury€instruction€on€self„defense.€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.€€Likewise,€we€find€noÏmerit€to€the€allegation€that€Tennesseeððs€jury€instruction€on€reasonable€doubt€isÏunconstitutional.€€òòCoe€v.€Bellóó,€161€F.3d€320€(6th€Cir.€1998);òò€State€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994).Ð à ÐÌà ` àWe€hold€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌÔ‡&XÞÙXX X_ Ôà ` àà ¸ àà ä àà h àà À àà  à________________________________________Ð P Ðà ` àà ¸ àà ä àà h àà À àà  àL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ô#† X_ XX&XÞÙuÁ#ÔÐ ®)þ$( ÐJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEà À àà  àà p àà È à