ÿWPCÒ !# ÞUNé %7 0(=bew@m4­ÁÐØ 0JØ 0T" 0^v 0hÔ 0r< 0|® 0†* 0° 1u@ 0dµU>U*Wv~vÓÿ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- † ‡ ˆ D‰ Š D‹ Œ { EŽ  äzz!3|x 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(ArialPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€vuXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œJACKSON›ÌÌœSEPTEMBER›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœLOUIS€FRANCIS€GIANNINI,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ02C01„9603„CR„00091›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àœAppellant,›à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSHELBY›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJOHN€P.€COLTONó ó›Ìœò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœAppellee.›à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Post„Conviction)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œSHELBY€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœROBERT€M.€FRIEDMAN›à àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌLAWRENCE€W.€WHITEà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€3400Ì100€North€Main€Buildingà àà àà àDEBORAH€A.€TULLISÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€SHAPIROÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Complex,€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€PoplarÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Defendant,€Louis€Giannini,€appeals€as€of€right€the€trial€courtððs€denialÏof€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€writ€of€error€coram€nobis.€€€HeÏpresents€the€following€issues€for€review:€(1)€That€the€trial€court€erred€by€denyingÏhim€a€new€trial€from€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€because€of€newly€discoveredÏevidence;€(2)€that€the€Defendantððs€due€process€rights€were€violated€because€heÏwas€force€medicated€when€he€appeared€at€trial;€and€(3)€that€defense€counselÏrendered€ineffective€assistance.ÌÌà à€The€Defendant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€verdict€of€two€counts€of€first„degree€murder,€one€count€of€assault€with€the€intent€to€commit€first„degree€murder,Ïaccompanied€by€bodily€injury,€and€one€count€of€assault€with€intent€to€commitÏfirst„degree€murder.€€The€jury€sentenced€him€to€life€imprisonment€for€œeach€of€the›Ïfirst„degree€murder€œconvictions,›€to€be€served€consecutively.€€The€trial€courtÏsentenced€the€Defendant€as€a€Range€II€offender€œto›€fifty€(50)€years€for€theÏassault€with€bodily€injury€and€thirty„five€(35)€years€for€the€assault€without€bodilyÏinjury.€€These€sentences€are€to€be€served€concurrently€with€the€two€lifeÏsentences.€€A€panel€of€this€Court€affirmed€the€Defendantððs€convictions€andÍsentences.€òòState€v.€Louis€Francis€Gianninióó,€No.€36,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Jackson,€Nov.€12,€1991),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€July€15,€1992,Ïand€subsequently€filed€an€amended€petition€on€October€27,€1992,€including€aÏmotion€for€new€trial€based€on€newly€discovered€evidence.€€The€State€objected€toÏthe€motion€for€new€trial,€asserting€that€it€was€filed€beyond€the€thirty€(30)€dayÏperiod€for€such€a€motion€pursuant€to€Rule€33(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure.€€The€State€also€asserted€that€the€Defendantððs€motion€wasÏpresented€improperly€as€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€and€should€not€œhave€beenÏconsidered.›€€Defense€counsel€œresponded€that›€the€gravamen€of€the€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence€claim€supported€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€and€attachedÏan€affidavit€of€œa›€witnessðð€recantation.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€Stateððs€motion€toÏdismiss€the€petition€and€conducted€evidentiary€hearings€on€both€the€post„conviction€relief€claims€and€the€coram€nobis€claim.€€The€trial€court€denied€theÏDefendantððs€petition€and€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€on€September€8,€1995.€€œTheÏDefendant›€now€brings€this€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€3(b)€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€facts€œwere€fully›€developed€in€the€Defendantððs€opinion€onÏœappeal€from€his€conviction,›€we€will€briefly€summarize€them€for€clarity€in€thisÍœappeal.›€€The€Defendant€€married€Terri€Giannini€in€1982€and€they€have€one€childÏfrom€that€marriage.€In€late€1987,€Mrs.€Giannini€filed€for€a€divorce.€€The€coupleÏseparated€and€Mrs.€Giannini€started€dating€one€of€her€co„workers,€DerekÏCheshier.€€She€also€frequently€visited€the€home€of€Bill€Bailey,€another€co„workerÏœwhom›€she€transported€to€work,€and€his€girlfriend,€Donna€Etheridge.€€After€theÏbreakup,€the€Defendant€became€depressed,€œa€condition€which›€worsened€duringÏthe€1987€holiday€season.€€He€erroneously€believed€that€Mrs.€Giannini€wasÏdating€Mr.€Bailey€and€went€to€the€Bailey/Etheridge€residence€on€New€YearððsÏEve€to€see€his€wife.€€Bailey€said€she€was€not€at€the€œapartment,€but€›€theÏDefendant€noticed€her€œin›€the€hallway,€wearing€a€towel.€€The€DefendantÏattempted€to€grab€the€towel€from€Mrs.€Giannini,€who€struggled€until€Mr.€BaileyÏœintervened.€€Mrs.€Giannini€was€allegedly€choked€and€knocked€to€the€floor.›ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€left€the€apartment€and€returned€later€with€a€rifle.€€HeÏentered€the€home€and€shot€and€killed€Bailey€and€Etheridge.€€He€found€Mrs.ÏGiannini€and€Cheshier€in€a€bedroom€and€shot€through€the€door,€injuringÏCheshier.€€Upon€entering€the€bedroom,€he€pointed€the€rifle€at€Mrs.€Giannini,€butÏdid€not€fire.€€He€left€the€apartment€and€later€surrendered€to€the€police.€€Mrs.ÏGiannini€divorced€the€Defendant€and€married€œDerek›€Cheshier.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓI.€Writ€of€Error€Coram€Nobisó óÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€Defendant€œargues€as›€his€first€issue€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏdenying€his€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€for€a€new€trial€because€of€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence.€€At€his€trial,€the€Defendantððs€ex„wife,€Terri€Cheshier,Ïtestified€as€to€the€facial€expression€and€demeanor€of€the€Defendant€at€the€timeÏof€the€killings.€€After€trial,€she€recanted€œpart›€of€her€testimony,€the€relevant€portionsÏand€changes€appearing€in€an€affidavit€submitted€with€the€amended€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€filed€on€July€15,€1993.€€ÌÌà àA€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€is€available€to€a€defendant€in€a€criminalÏprosecution.€€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„26„105.€€€However,€the€remedy€is€limited€toÏ"errors€dehors€the€record€and€to€matters€that€were€not€or€could€not€have€beenÏlitigated€on€the€trial€of€œthe›€case,€on€a€motion€for€a€new€trial,€on€appeal€in€theÏnature€of€a€writ€of€error,€on€writ€of€error,€œor€in›€a€habeas€corpus€œproceeding."›€œÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„26„105.€€This€includes€post„conviction€proceedings.€€òòSeeóóÏòòRowe€v.€Stateóó,€498€S.W.2d€322,€325€(Tenn.€1973).€€A€writ€of€error€coram€nobisÏalso€lies€ð ðfor›€subsequently€or€newly€discovered€evidence€relating€to€mattersÏwhich€were€litigated€at€the€trial"€when€the€trial€court€"determines€that€suchÏevidence€may€have€resulted€in€a€different€judgment,€had€it€been€presented€atÏthe€trial."€€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„26„105;€€€òòCole€v.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€941Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1979).€€€The€purpose€of€this€remedy€"is€to€bring€to€the€attentionÍof€the€[trial]€court€some€fact€unknown€to€the€court,€which€if€known€would€haveÏresulted€in€a€different€judgment."€€€òòState€ex€rel.€Carlson€v.€Stateóó,€219€Tenn.€80,Ï85„86,€407€S.W.2d€165,€167€(1966).ÌÌà à€A€petition€for€the€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€in€a€criminal€case,€which€seeksÏrelief€on€the€ground€of€subsequently€or€newly€discovered€evidence,€should€recite:€Ï(a)€the€grounds€and€the€nature€of€the€newly€discovered€evidence,€òòCrawford€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€31€Tenn.€341,€342€(1851),€(b)€why€the€admissibility€of€the€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence€may€have€resulted€in€a€different€judgment€if€the€evidenceÏhad€been€admitted€at€the€previous€trial,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„26„105,€(c)€œthatÏthe›€petitioner€"was€without€fault€in€failing€to€present"€the€newly€discoveredÏevidence€at€the€appropriate€time,€òòseeóó€òòState€ex€rel.€Carlsonóó,€219€Tenn.€at€87,Ï407€S.W.2d€at€168,€€œòòJohnson€v.€Russellóó,›€218€Tenn.€at€448,€404€œS.W.2d›œ,€471,Ï473,›€and€(d)€the€relief€sought€by€the€petitioner.€€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€47.€€€AffidavitsÏshould€be€filed€in€support€of€the€petition€or€at€some€point€in€time€prior€to€theÏhearing.€€€òòSeeóó€òòRoss€v.€Stateóó,€130€Tenn.€387,€390„394,€170€S.W.€1026,€1027„28Ï(1914);€€òòState€v.€Toddóó,€631€S.W.2d€464,€466„467€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1981),€òòperm.Ïto€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.1982).ÌÌà àThe€decision€to€grant€or€deny€a€petition€for€the€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€onÏthe€ground€of€subsequently€or€newly€discovered€evidence€rests€within€the€soundÍdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„26„105;€€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772ÏS.W.2d€915€921€(Tenn.€Crim.€App€1988),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.Ïœ1989),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€493€U.S.€874,€110€S.Ct.€210,€107€L.Ed.2d€163€(1989);€òòJones›Ïv.€Stateóó,€519€S.W.2d€398,€400€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1974).€€€Before€the€petitioner€isÏentitled€to€relief,€it€must€be€established,€and€the€trial€court€must€find,€that€aÏdefendant€ð ðwas€without€fault€in€failing€to€present€certain€evidence€at€the€properÏtimeðð€and€that€the€subsequently€or€newly€discovered€evidence€relating€to€mattersÏlitigated€at€trial€€"may€have€resulted€in€a€different€judgment€had€it€been€presentedÏat€the€trial."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„26„105.€€ÌÌà àAs€a€general€rule,€subsequently€or€newly€discovered€evidence€which€isÏsimply€cumulative€to€other€evidence€in€the€record,€òòseeóó€òòScruggs€v.€Stateóó,€218ÏTenn.€477,€479„80,€404€S.W.2d€485,€486€(1966),€or€serves€no€other€purposeÏthan€to€contradict€or€impeach€the€evidence€adduced€during€the€course€of€the€trial,Ïòòseeóó€€òòHawkins€v.€Stateóó,€220€Tenn.€383,€392,€417€S.W.2d€774,€778€(1967),€œwill›Ïnot€justify€the€granting€of€a€petition€for€the€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€when€theÏevidence,€if€introduced,€would€not€have€resulted€in€a€different€judgment.ÌÌà àIn€exercising€its€discretion,€the€trial€court€must€determine€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses€who€testify€in€support€of€the€accused's€error€coram€nobis€application.€€ÏIf€the€trial€court€does€not€believe€that€the€witnesses€presented€by€the€accusedÍare€credible,€the€court€should€deny€the€application.€€€Conversely,€if€theÏwitnesses€are€credible,€and€the€evidence€presented€would€result€in€a€differentÏjudgment,€the€trial€court€should€grant€the€relief€sought.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€full€evidentiary€hearingÏon€the€Defendantððs€claim€of€newly€discovered€evidence.€€Terri€(Giannini)ÏCheshier€stated€in€her€affidavit€and€at€the€hearing€that,€although€she€hadÏtestified€at€trial€that€the€Defendant€tried€to€choke€her,€she€would€change€theÏstatement€to€reflect€that€he€merely€knocked€her€down.€€She€also€changed€herÏtestimony€describing€the€Defendantððs€expression€and€demeanor€at€the€time€ofÏthe€œmurders€from€his€being›€angry€to€his€being€distant,€totally€blank€and€realÏconfused.€€€The€Defendant€argues€that€Mrs.€Cheshierððs€recanted€testimonyÏconstitutes€newly€discovered€evidence€œthat,€if€offered,€might€have›€changed€theÏoutcome€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€set€out€extensive€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€toÏsupport€its€denial€of€the€Defendantððs€writ.€The€court€determined€that€theÏDefendant€was€not€at€fault€in€failing€to€present€the€recanted€testimony€within€theÏproper€time.€However,€the€court€found€that€the€evidence€was€œnot€material,€butÏthat€it€was€merely€cumulative€of€the€testimony€of€other€witnesses€and€unlikely€to›Ïchange€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€asserts€that€because€Mrs.€Cheshier€was€the€onlyÏeyewitness€to€the€killings,€her€changed€testimony€is€œprobative€of€the›€issue€œof›€hisÏœinsanity›€at€the€time€the€crime€was€committed.€€He€claims€that€the€StateÏimproperly€elicited€Mrs.€Cheshierððs€testimony€by€the€use€of€leading€questions.€ÏOne€of€the€jurors€from€the€original€trial€testified€at€the€hearing€that€if€Mrs.ÏCheshierððs€testimony€had€been€presented€at€the€trial€as€she€asserted€in€herÏaffidavit,€that€juror€would€have€been€influenced€favorably€towards€theÏDefendant€in€determining€his€guilt€or€innocence€in€relation€to€his€insanity€defense.€ÏHowever,€the€juror€stated€that€Mrs.€Cheshierððs€testimony€alone€would€not€œhave›Ïchanged€his€mind€about€the€verdict€in€the€case.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€noted€that€the€Defendantððs€assertion€that€the€changedÏtestimony€would€œalter€the›€results€of€the€original€trial€raised€a€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€issue.€€The€court€examined€in€detail€the€evidence€considered€at€the€trialÏand€determined€that€the€Defendant€called€six€character€witnesses€who€testifiedÏthat€he€was€exhibiting€symptoms€of€mental€distress€at€the€time€of€the€murders.€ÏHe€also€offered€three€expert€witnesses€who€testified€regarding€his€legal€insanity.€ÏThe€State€offered€six€witnesses€other€than€Mrs.€Cheshier€who€testified€that€theÏDefendant€was€sane.ÌÌà àIn€light€œof€this€evidence,›€the€trial€court€found€that€the€changed€testimonyÏwas€œnot€likely€to€change›€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€Absent€œthis›€œeffect,›€the€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence€is€merely€cumulative€testimony€that€serves€only€to€impeachÏthe€credibility€of€the€Stateððs€œwitness,€Mrs.€Cheshier.›€€€In€reviewing€the€record,€weÏœconclude€that›€the€trial€court€was€in€the€best€position€to€review€the€evidence€andÏto€determine€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€We€œconclude›€that€the€trial€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€finding€that€the€newly€discovered€evidence€wasÏneither€material€nor€would€it€have€changed€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€The€writ€ofÏerror€coram€nobis€was€properly€denied.ÌÌà àThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.€Post„Conviction€PetitionÌœA.›ÌÓ  Óà àó óIn€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€Defendant€contends€that€hisÏdue€process€rights€were€violated€when€he€was€forced€to€take€psychotropicÏmedication€for€his€mental€condition€while€he€appeared€at€trial.€€He€cites€òòRigginsÏv.€Nevadaóó,€504€U.S.€127,€112€S.Ct.€1810,€118€L.Ed.2d€479€(1992),€for€theÏproposition€that€he€had€a€right€to€show€his€true€mental€state€to€the€jurors€duringÏhis€trial.€€€The€State€argues€that€œthis€issue€is€waived›€because€œit€was›€not€raisedÏduring€his€direct€appeal,€citing€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„112(b)(1).€€However,€the€post„conviction€procedure€statutes€provide€grounds€forÏrelief€ð ðwhen€the€conviction€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgement€in€anyÏway€of€any€right€guaranteed€by€the€constitution€of€this€state€or€the€ConstitutionÏof€the€United€States,€including€a€right€that€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€theÏtime€of€the€trial€if€either€constitution€requires€retrospective€application€of€that€right.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105.€€The€Defendant€bases€his€claim€on€a€dueÏprocess€issue€posed€in€òòRigginsóó,€which€was€decided€after€his€direct€appealÏprocess€was€concluded€and€necessarily€unavailable€when€issues€were€raisedÏin€his€appeal.€œÌÌà àWe€must€first€determine€whether€òòRigginsóó€has€established€a€new€rightÏand,€if€so,€whether€such€right€should€be€applied€retroactively.›€œ€Generally,€a€newÏrule€of€law€is€that€which€ð ðbreaks€new€ground€or€imposes€a€new€obligation€onÏthe€States€or€the€Federal€Government€.€.€.€[or]€if€the€result€was€not€òòdictatedóó€byÏprecedent€existing€at€the€time€the€defendantððs€conviction€became€final.ðð€€òòTeagueÏv.€Laneóó,€489€U.S.€288,€301,€109€S.Ct.€1060,€1070,€103€L.Ed.€334,€349€(1989);ÏòòMeadows€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€751€(1993)(emphasis€in€original).€€A€newÏrule€of€federal€constitutional€law€€is€retroactively€applied€to€all€cases,€state€orÏfederal,€pending€on€direct€review€or€not€yet€final,€regardless€of€whether€the€newÏrule€constitutes€a€"clear€break"€with€the€past.€€òòGriffith€v.€Kentuckyóó,€479€U.S.€314,Ï107€S.Ct.€708,€93€L.Ed.2d€649€(1987).€€€However,€a€new€rule€will€not€be€givenÍretroactive€application€to€cases€on€collateral€review€unless€(1)€the€rule€placesÏcertain€kinds€of€primary,€private€individual€conduct€beyond€the€power€of€the€stateÏto€proscribe,€or€(2)€the€rule€requires€the€observance€of€procedures€implicit€in€theÏconcept€of€ordered€liberty.€€€òòTeague€v.€Laneóó,€489€U.S.€288,€109€S.Ct.€1060,€103ÏL.Ed.2d€334€(1989).€ÌÌà àThe€United€State€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€that€persons€have€aÏliberty€interest€under€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€toÏavoid›€the€involuntary€administration€of€antipsychotic€medications.€€òòSeeóóÏòòWashington€v.€Harperóó,€494€U.S.€210,€221€,€110€S.Ct.€1028,€1036,€108€L.Ed.2dÏ178€(1990).€€€However,€the€State€may€involuntarily€administer€such€drugs€whenÏthere€is€a€finding€œof›€(1)€œan€overriding›€justification;€and€(2)€a€determination€ofÏmedical€appropriateness.€€òòRigginsóó,€504€U.S.€at€135,€112€S.Ct.€at€1815.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòRigginsóó,€the€petitioner€claimed€that€the€involuntary€administration€ofÏMellaril,€an€antipsychotic€drug,€prevented€him€from€receiving€a€fair€trial€œbecause€it›Ïaffected€his€attitude,€appearance,€and€demeanor€while€attending€his€trial.€€504ÏU.S.€at€131„32,€112€S.Ct.€at€1813.€€The€Court€found€that€ð ðonce€Riggins€movedÏto€terminate€administration€of€antipsychotic€medication,ðð€it€became€necessary€forÏthe€State€to€demonstrate€its€justification€and€the€medical€need€for€the€drugs.€€504ÏU.S.€at€135,€112€S.Ct.€at€1815.€€Thus,€the€involuntary€administration€of€theÍMellaril€began€after€Riggins€instituted€a€proceeding€to€terminate€the€drugððs€useÏand€the€trial€court€ordered€it€to€continue.€€504€U.S.€at€130„31,€112€S.Ct€at€1812„13.€€The€Court€also€found€that€the€State€offered€no€justification€for€its€decision,Ïbut€suggested€that€a€possible€justification€might€be€that€the€State€ð ðcould€notÏobtain€an€adjudication€of€Rigginððs€guilt€or€innocence€by€using€less€intrusiveÏmeans.ðð€€504€U.S.€at€135„36,€112€S.Ct.€at€1815.€€The€Court€specifically€notedÏthat€it€did€not€decide€whether€a€defendant€had€a€right€to€discontinue€medication€ifÏit€would€render€him€or€her€incompetent€to€stand€trial.€€œòòId.óóÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€under€òòRigginsóó,€the€Stateððs€need€to€justify€the€involuntaryÏadministration€of€medication€to€an€accused€appears€to€impose€a€procedureÏneeded€for€ð ðordered€libertyðð€and€that€it€ð ðimplicat[es]€the€fundamental€fairness€ofÏthe€trial.ðð€€òòTeagueóó,€489€U.S.€at€311„312,€109€S.Ct.€at€1076.€€We,€therefore,€willÏaddress€this€issue€on€its€merits.Ì›Ìà àWe€now€turn€to€the€œfacts€of€the€case›€at€bar.€€After€his€arrest,€theÏDefendant€was€held€in€jail€in€the€ð ðK„podðð€for€suicidal€inmates.€€The€jailÏpsychiatrist,€Dr.€Kington,€found€that€the€Defendant€was€depressed€withÏpsychotic€features€and€was€at€risk€for€suicide.€€He€prescribed€Navane,€anÏantipsychotic€drug,€Norpramine,€for€depression,€and€Cogentin,€a€drug€used€toÏcounteract€side€effects€of€the€Navane.€€These€medications€have€a€number€ofÍside€effects,€including€sedation€and€emotional€detachment.€€Dr.€KingtonÏmaintained€the€Defendant€on€high€doses€of€these€medications€from€January,Ï1988,€through€his€trial€in€November,€1988,€and€he€continued€this€regimen€untilÏ1990.€€The€Defendantððs€need€for€drug€therapy€was€used€as€part€of€his€insanityÏdefense€at€trial.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€contends€that€he€complained€of€feeling€ð ðwiped„outðð€andÏð ðzombie„likeðð€before€and€at€trial.€€He€œstated›€that€he€asked€the€jail€medics€and€hisÏcounsel€to€be€taken€off€the€medication.€€He€reports€that€jail€staff€watched€himÏswallow€his€medication,€but€that€he€never€tried€to€avoid€taking€the€drugs.€€At€noÏtime€did€the€Defendant€request€his€counsel€to€institute€any€action€to€prevent€theÏadministration€of€the€medication.€€Defense€counsel€described€the€DefendantððsÏsymptoms€as€having€improved€while€he€was€on€the€prescribed€drugs.€€œTheÏDefendant€was€able€to€move€from€the€restrictive€ð ðK„podðð€in€the€jail€to€anotherÏunit€because€he€was€no€longer€suicidal.€€The›€Defendantððs€expert€witness,€Dr.ÏCrupie,€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€the€Defendant€was€on€a€highÏdosage€of€Norpramine€and€Navane.€€He€also€stated€that€administeringÏmedication€to€prevent€suicide€would€take€priority€over€avoiding€side€effects€thatÏmight€impair€a€defendantððs€ability€to€participate€in€his€defense.€€The€DefendantððsÏcounsel€testified€that€he€discussed€the€case€with€the€Defendant,€who€answeredÏquestions€appropriately.€€He€also€specifically€recalled€discussing€jury€selectionÍwith€the€Defendant.€€Defense€counsel,€when€asked€about€any€changes€heÏobserved€in€the€Defendant,€stated€that€he€became€less€emotional,€but€notedÏthat€he€cried€less€and€became€easier€to€communicate€with.ÌÌà àThe€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€is€distinguishable€from€òòRigginsóó€on€its€facts.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€Defendant€did€not€invoke€his€rights€because€he€did€notÏrequest€to€discontinue€treatment€and€that€there€was€no€court€order€forcingÏinvoluntary€administration€of€his€medications.€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€aÏState€employee€demonstrated€that€the€medication€regimen€was€medicallyÏappropriate,€essential€for€the€Defendantððs€safety€and€œa€reasonable›€alternativeÏœto€more€restictive›€incarceration.€€We€agree€that€the€necessary€predicate€toÏinvoking€due€process€rights€and€requiring€an€evaluation€using€the€two„prongedÏtest€in€òòRigginsóó€is€that€there€must€be€an€involuntary€administration€of€medication.€ÏIn€òòRigginsóó,€that€occurred€only€after€a€formal€proceeding€was€conducted€in€whichÏthe€court€ordered€the€petitioner€to€continue€taking€the€medications.€€504€U.S.€atÏ1815,€112€S.Ct.€at€135.€€€€òòBut€seeóó€òòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€864€F.€Supp.€686,€713„14€(M.D.€Tenn.€1994)€(administering€sedative€to€defendant,€€initiated€by€theÏState,€one€day€before€and€during€his€trial€without€any€medical€necessity€shownÏheld€violative€of€due€process).€Here,€the€Defendant€instituted€no€such€action€toÏterminate€drug€treatment.€€In€fact,€his€need€for€the€medications€was€an€importantÍfacet€of€his€insanity€defense€at€the€original€trial.€€Therefore,€we€cannot€concludeÏthat€he€was€given€those€medications€involuntarily.ÌÌà àAssuming€òòarguendoóó€that€an€involuntary€administration€of€the€medicationsÏhas€occurred,€the€State€has€shown€an€overriding€justification€to€prescribe€theÏdrugs€for€the€Defendantððs€safety€to€prevent€him€from€committing€suicide€and€toÏstabilize€his€mental€illness.€€Also,€although€the€Defendant€was€on€high€doses€ofÏmedications,€no€evidence€has€been€presented€that€the€course€of€treatment€wasÏnot€medically€appropriate.€ÌÌà àIn€a€post„conviction€relief€proceeding,€the€burden€is€generally€on€theÏpetitioner€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€the€allegations€in€theÏpetition.€€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,€755€œ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1991).›€€€InÏreviewing€post„conviction€proceedings,€"the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€areÏconclusive€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€such€findings."€€€òòCooperÏv.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.1993);€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,Ï899€(Tenn.1990).€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings€œwhich€led€him€to€conclude€that›€the€Defendantððs€due€process€rights€wereÏnot€violated.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€on€this€issue.ÌÓ  ÓœÌB.›à à€à àÌÓ  Óà àFinally,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€he€was€afforded€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€for€the€following€reasons:€(1)€That€counsel€failed€to€request€aÏcontinuance€when€the€Defendant€was€on€sedating€medications,€(2)€thatÏcounsel€failed€to€adequately€prepare€an€expert€witness,€(3)€that€counsel€failedÏto€object€to€the€Stateððs€witnessðð€testimony€regarding€the€Defendantððs€demeanorÏat€the€time€of€the€killings,€œand€(4)›€that€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€StateððsÏreference€to€an€unreported€œcourt€decision›€during€closing€arguments.ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€theÏcourt€must€decide€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€wasÏineffective€at€trial,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counselÏmade€errors€so€serious€that€he€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteedÏunder€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€theÏpetitioner€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.ÏStateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899Ï(Tenn.€1990).€€To€satisfy€the€second€prong€the€petitioner€must€show€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finderÏwould€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regarding€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466ÍU.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermineÏconfidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€court€should€not€use€theÏbenefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€shouldÏbe€judged€at€the€time€they€were€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó€849€S.W.2d€at€746.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€first€contends€that€he€was€provided€ineffective€assistanceÏœwhen€defense›€counsel€did€not€demand€a€continuance€because€of€the€effects€ofÏthe€psychotropic€medications€on€the€Defendantððs€appearance.€€He€asserts€thatÏdefense€counsel€knew€he€was€on€these€medications€and€that€his€ability€toÏparticipate€in€his€defense€was€impaired.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€was€unableÏto€communicate€with€defense€counsel.€€His€defense€counsel€testified€that€heÏnoted€an€improvement€in€the€Defendantððs€ability€to€control€himself€emotionallyÏand€this€improved€his€ability€to€communicate.€€Defense€counsel€also€stated€thatÏhe€recalls€discussing€the€case€with€the€Defendant,€who€gave€appropriateÍanswers€to€his€questions.€€He€also€specifically€remembers€discussing€juryÏselection€with€the€Defendant.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€claims€that€the€effect€of€the€medications€on€hisÏdemeanor,€making€him€unemotional,€prejudiced€him€because€the€jury€saw€himÏas€unfeeling€or€uncaring.€€Although€he€may€have€appeared€unemotional€to€theÏjury,€defense€counsel€used€the€fact€that€the€Defendant€was€on€medication€toÏsupport€his€insanity€defense.€€One€juror€testified€that€he€thought€that€theÏDefendantððs€unemotional€state€was€ð ðunusualðð€and€that€he€ð ðseemed€to€show€noÏinterest.ðð€€However,€there€is€no€evidence€that€this€had€an€effect€prejudicial€to€theÏDefendant.€€It€is€equally€as€plausible€that€his€unemotional€state€bolstered€hisÏappearance€as€being€a€person€who€was€insane€at€the€time€of€the€murders.ÏWe€will€not€second„guess€defense€counselððs€choice€of€trial€tactics.€€There€is€noÏevidence€that€defense€counsel€fell€below€the€expected€standard€of€performance.€ÏThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà àNext,€the€Defendant€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€adequatelyÏprepare€before€trial€and€to€properly€examine€an€expert€witness€called€by€theÏdefense.€€€He€claims€that€the€meeting€with€and€examination€of€Dr.€Crupie€wasÏconducted€without€the€depth€necessary€for€adequate€representation.€There€isÏevidence€that€defense€counsel€met€with€Dr.€Crupie€before€the€trial€to€discuss€hisÍtestimony€and€that€the€testimony€was€consistent€with€that€pretrial€meeting.€€InÏaddition,€defense€counsel€presented€two€other€expert€witnesses€to€testify€at€trialÏregarding€the€Defendantððs€mental€condition.€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€depthÏand€substance€of€the€other€expertsðð€testimony€was€inadequate.€€€The€evidenceÏdoes€not€œshow›€that€defense€counselððs€actions€were€below€the€range€ofÏcompetence€expected€under€the€circumstances.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€Defendant€contends€that€defense€counsel€made€errors€ofÏprejudicial€dimension€when€he€failed€to€object€to€Mrs.€Giannini€CheshierððsÏtestimony€regarding€the€Defendantððs€demeanor€at€the€time€of€the€œkillings,›€œandÏwhen€defense›€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€Stateððs€citation€during€closingÏarguments€to€an€unpublished€decision€of€this€Court.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€failure€to€object€to€Mrs.€Cheshierððs€testimony€at€trial,€theÏDefendant€contends€that€defense€counsel€improperly€allowed€her€to€testifyÏabout€the€mental€state€of€the€Defendant.€€As€previously€discussed,€Mrs.ÏCheshier€later€recanted€that€testimony.€€Although€her€testimony€at€trial€about€theÏDefendantððs€mental€state€was€objectionable,€we€do€not€agree€that€theÏDefendant€suffered€any€prejudice€as€a€result€of€œthe€testimony›€in€question.€€WeÏaddressed€this€issue€regarding€the€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€and€agree€with€theÏtrial€court€that€the€substance€of€the€testimony€was€not€material€nor€would€theÍchanged€testimony€alter€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€Defense€counsel€presentedÏseveral€other€œlay€witnesses›€and€expert€witnesses€who€described€theÏDefendantððs€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€murders.€€Therefore,€even€assumingÏthat€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€object,€we€find€no€prejudice.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€claims€that€defense€counsel€was€ineffective€becauseÏhe€failed€to€object€to€the€Stateððs€use€of€obsolete€law€from€an€unpublished€caseÏwhile€presenting€the€rebuttal€argument€at€closing.€On€appeal,€a€panel€of€thisÏCourt€determined€that€the€issue€was€waived€because€counsel€did€not€timelyÏobject.€€€òòState€v.€Louis€Francis€Gianninióó,€No.€36,€Shelby€County,€slip€op.€at€15Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Nov.€12,€1991),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.Ï1991).€Rather,€counsel€chose€to€raise€the€objection€after€the€State€hadÏconcluded€the€argument.€€Although€this€Court€noted€that€defense€counselððsÏfailure€to€object€was€error,€we€must€evaluate€counselððs€actions€to€determineÏwhether€effective€assistance€has€been€rendered.€€Defense€counselððs€strategicÏdecision€not€to€object€during€the€Stateððs€rebuttal€argument€was€a€legitimate€trialÏtactic,€the€use€of€which€does€not€œnecessarily€indicate€that›€counselððsÏrepresentation€was€deficient.€€òòSeeóó€òòCone€v.€Stateóó,€747€S.W.2d€353,€356€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.1987),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1988).ÌÌà àWe€do€not€feel€that€counselððs€failure€to€object€was€indicative€of€deficientÏrepresentation,€nor€do€we€find€prejudice.€€Although€the€cited€case€contained€anÏinapplicable€standard€of€law€to€determine€an€insanity€defense,€the€passageÏquoted€by€the€State€referred€only€generally€to€determinations€of€sanity€and€theÏuse€of€expert€opinions.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€jury€received€anyÏinformation€about€an€obsolete€rule€of€law.€€The€trial€court€found€that€no€prejudiceÏwas€shown,€and€we€agree.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà àœWe›€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌœÓÓà à›à àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________›ÌœJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE›