ÿWPC S …U:V % 0Ü–4r † 0 • 0Dµ 0Jù 0TC 0^— 0hõ 0r] 0|Ï 0†K 0Ñ 1uaU,Ö 0dU,fU*’B)¼ D3åDC AM[娾K¦Oõõ êXô BL!si!XÜ# 0@4&ét&]*:],E—.QÜ0n-4„›6ú9H;Ta=U6µ?Ië?ˆ4Bf¼D"Ev~²HvÓ0J AOPÆRP 0øQ 0DS D/TS BƒS, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑU_A 3|x>!(Ð(34™$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€,½XXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d****'ÿÿdxd7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òFeb…ruaryÏ28,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ´Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€prior€convictions€were€for€the€offenses€of€rape,€aggravated€robbery,Ïand€aggravated€sodomy.Ì úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2),€(5),€and€(7)€€provide€as€follows:Ìà8 àà à(2)€The€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€moreÏfelonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€which€involve€the€use€orÏthreat€of€violence€to€the€person;Ìà8 àà à(5)€The€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelÏin€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind;€andÌà8 àà à(7)€The€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€wasÏengaged€in€committing,€or€was€an€accomplice€in€the€commissionÏof,€or€was€attempting€to€commit,€or€was€fleeing€after€committing€orÏattempting€to€commit,€any€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,Ïrobbery,€burglary,€larceny,€....Ì œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€appellant€was€arrested€on€December€16,€1987,€in€Atlanta,ÏGeorgia.Ì ëÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€record€indicates€that€the€case€before€us€is€the€first€capital€case€toÏculminate€in€a€jury€verdict€of€death€in€Sevier€County€during€this€century.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Goddard€did€not€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€as€he€was€killedÏin€an€automobile€accident€approximately€eight€days€after€the€completion€of€theÏappellant's€trial.Ì NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€also€alleges€that€counsel€failed€to€adequately€investigateÏthe€appellant's€mental€condition€at€the€guilt,€penalty,€and€direct€appellate€stagesÏof€these€proceedings.€€We€fully€address€this€issue€in€our€discussion€of€theÏpenalty€phase.€Ì d iÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€mentions€in€his€brief€that€DeModica€exploded€and€struckÏat€his€counsel€during€his€sentencing€hearing.€€The€record€before€us€does€notÏreveal€whether€this€incident€in€fact€occurred,€or€whether€defense€counsel€wereÏaware€of€the€incident,€assuming€that€it€occurred.Ì NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€òòonlyóó€feasible€mitigating€factors€available€to€the€appellant€wereÏmental€disease€or€defect,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(j)(8)(1982),Ïand€his€troubled€background,€pursuant,€generally,€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(j)(1982).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€appellant€filed€as€an€exhibit€medicalÏrecords€from€the€Sevier€County€jail€which€show€that,€prior€to€trial,€the€appellantÏwas€given€Haldol€and€Xanax,€because€he€was€suffering€some€anxiety€andÏdepression€and€was€experiencing€difficulty€sleeping.€€A€"Statement€of€GeneralÏHealth€Condition"€noted€that€the€appellant€is€allergic€to€Thorazine.€€Arguably,Ïthese€records€would€not€have€alerted€defense€counsel€that€the€appellant€wasÏsuffering€any€psychological€difficulties€other€than€those€understandablyÏexperienced€by€one€awaiting€trial€for€the€murders€of€two€individuals€where€theÏState€was€seeking€the€death€penalty.Ì öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€note€that,€other€than€Steele's€testimony,€there€is€no€proof€in€thisÏrecord€that€the€Western€Carolina€Center€is€a€state€institution€for€the€mentallyÏretarded.Ì 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€admission€and€progress€notes€were€prepared€by€social€workers.€ÏThey€frequently€fail€to€cite€the€source€of€information€included€in€the€notes€andÏprovide€no€documentation€to€establish€the€accuracy€of€the€information.Ì ;Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€post„conviction€court's€ruling€preceded€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt's€decision€in€the€consolidated€cases€of€òòOwens€and€Payne€v.€Stateóó,€908ÏS.W.2d€923,€928€(Tenn.€1995),€which€expressly€overruled€the€dicta€of€òòTeagueóó.Ì GÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„207(b)€provides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` Ò[I]n€capital€cases€where€the€defendant€has€been€found€to€beÏindigent€by€the€court€of€record€having€jurisdiction€of€theÏcase,€such€court€in€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing€may€in€its€discretionÏdetermine€that€investigative€or€expert€services€or€otherÏsimilar€services€are€necessary€to€ensure€that€the€Ìòòconstitutional€rights€of€the€defendant€are€properly€Ìprotected€óó€...ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Ò(Emphasis€added).Ì dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€At€the€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€trial€judge€remarked,€"TheÏJudges€asked€me€to€hear€it.€€I€thought€well€we€don't€want€anything€for€someoneÏto€grasp€at€on€these€proceedings€...€let€us€do€it€by€the€numbers,€...€and€so€theÏsupreme€court€appointed€me€to€hear€it€...€."Ì zÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€also€challenged€the€impartiality€of€this€judge€on€directÏappeal.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€found,€"An€examination€of€the€entireÏrecord€establishes€that€the€trial€court€did€not€conduct€the€trial€in€a€mannerÏshowing€bias€in€favor€of€the€State."€€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€66.Ì ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€appellant€was€indicted€on€two€counts€of€premeditated€first€degreeÏmurder€and€two€counts€of€felony€murder.€€All€four€counts€were€submitted€to€theÏjury.Ì >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Similarly,€in€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876€S.W.2d€57,€69„70€(Tenn.€1993),Ïwhere€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€both€felony€murder€and€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder€of€one€victim,€the€supreme€court€dismissed€the€felony€murderÏcount.Ì JÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2)(1982)€sets€forth€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€that€"[t]he€defendant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€moreÏfelonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€which€involve€the€use€or€threat€ofÏviolence€to€the€person."Ì< Œ 9p`(Courier New ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)(1982)€sets€forth€the€aggravatingÏfactor€that€"[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind."Ô€8ÔÔ€8ôÔÌ ~Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„2„203(i)(6)(1982)€sets€forth€the€aggravatingÏfactor€that€"[t]he€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interferingÏwith,€or€preventing€the€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant€or€another."à àà àÔ€8ÔÔ€8ôÔÌ \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ€;ÑÌÑ7À XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„2„203(i)(7)(1982)€sets€forth€the€aggravatingÏfactor€that€"[t]he€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€inÏcommitting,€or€was€an€accomplice€in€the€commission€of,€or€was€attempting€toÏcommit,€or€was€fleeing€after€committing€or€attempting€to€commit,€any€first€degreeÏmurder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,€larceny,€kidnapping,€aircraft€piracy,€orÏunlawful€throwing,€placing€or€discharging€of€a€destructive€device€or€bomb."Ô€8ÔÔ€8ôÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Ð3[+$¢¢Ý ƒ`!ÝÑÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€,½XXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|` e `€€Lßà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àFEBRUARYÏSESSION,€1995Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9311„CR„00381Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSEVIERÏCOUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€J.ÏKENNETH€PORTER,€JudgeÌò òEDWARD€LEROY€HARRISó ó,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€theÏAppelleeóó:ÌÌò òPaul€J.€Morrow,€Jr.€à àà àà àCharles€W.€Bursonó óÌ€€€€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌò òBrock€Mehleró óà àÌ704€18th€Ave.€Southà àà àà àò òChristian€S.€Chevalieró óÌNashville,€TN€€37203à àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà àAl€C.€Schmutzer,€Jr.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà àRichard€Vanceó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à125€Court€Ave.,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€€37862ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Edward€Leroy€Harris,€alias€"Tattoo€Eddie,"€seeks€post„conviction€relief€from€his€convictions€of€one€count€of€armed€robbery€and€twoÏcounts€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€entered€by€the€Circuit€Court€ofÏSevier€County€in€May,€1988,€and€the€consequent€imposition€of€one€sentence€ofÏlife€imprisonment€and€two€sentences€of€death€by€electrocution.€€The€convictionsÏand€sentences€were€affirmed€on€appeal€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€ÏòòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€„„€U.S.€„„,€113€S.€Ct.Ï1368€(1993).ÌÌà àOn€August€10,€1993,€the€appellant€filed€a€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief.€€On€November€29,€1993,€the€post„conviction€court€conducted€a€hearingÏon€the€merits€of€the€appellant's€petition.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€theÏpost„conviction€court€denied€the€petition.€€A€written€judgment€of€dismissal€wasÏfiled€on€December€6,€1993.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€raises€the€following€eight€issues€on€appeal:ÌÓÓà à(1)à8 àWhether€the€appellant€received€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal;ÌÌà à(2)à8 àWhether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€by€denyingÏthe€appellant's€motion€for€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing€andÏsupport€services;€ÌÌà à(3)à8 àWhether€the€post„conviction€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€denying€the€appellant's€motion€toÏrecuse;ÌÌà à(4)à8 àWhether€the€post„conviction€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€denying€the€appellant's€motion€for€aÏcontinuance;ÌÌà à(5)à8 àWhether€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€wasÏsufficient€to€establish€the€elements€of€premeditationÏand€deliberation€and€whether€the€instructions€to€theÏjury€on€premeditation€and€deliberation€misled€theÏjury;ÌÌÌÌà à(6)à8 àWhether€the€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravatingÏcircumstance€violated€the€holding€in€òòState€v.ÏMiddlebrooksóó;ÌÌà à(7)à8 àWhether€the€jury€was€prevented€from€consideringÏlesser€included€offenses€by€the€use€of€a€sequentialÏjury€instruction;€andÌÌà à(8)à8 àWhether€Tennessee's€death€penalty€statute€isÏconstitutional.ÌÓÓÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„convictionÏcourt.ÌÌòòà@ àò òBACKGROUND€FACTSó óóóÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€convicted€of€the€September€13,€1986,€murders€of€twoÏemployees€of€the€Rocky€Top€Village€Inn€in€Gatlinburg.€€Also€charged€in€theÍmurders€were€Kimberly€Pelley,€the€appellant's€girlfriend;€Joseph€DeModica,€aÏGeorgia€state€penitentiary€acquaintance€of€the€appellant;€and€transvestite,ÏRufus€Doby,€also€known€as€Ashley€Silvers.€€At€trial,€two€key€sources€of€evidenceÏfor€the€State€were€the€testimony€of€the€co„defendant,€DeModica,€whichÏimplicated€the€appellant€in€the€murders,€and€a€letter€describing€the€murders,Ïrecovered€in€a€phone€booth€near€the€police€station€in€Maggie€Valley,€NorthÏCarolina.ÌÌà àAt€trial,€Joseph€DeModica€testified€that,€on€the€day€of€the€murders,€he,ÏDoby,€Pelley,€and€the€appellant€drove€to€Gatlinburg.€€Following€a€visit€to€theÏGreat€Smoky€Mountains€National€Park,€the€group€drove€to€the€Rocky€TopÏVillage€Inn.€€DeModica€observed€the€appellant,€Pelley,€and€one€of€the€victims,ÏMelissa€Hill,€enter€the€motel€room€in€which€Hill's€body€was€subsequentlyÏdiscovered.€€Pelley€carried€a€knife€in€her€hand.€€DeModica€remained€in€theÏparking€lot.€€He€€heard€several€screams.€€A€security€guard,€Troy€Valentine,Ïarrived,€but€encountered€the€appellant,€who€had€come€out€of€the€motel€room.€ÏValentine€and€the€appellant€began€to€fight.€€Pelley€also€came€out€of€the€motelÏroom,€took€the€guard's€flashlight,€and€struck€him€over€the€head€with€it.€€TheÏappellant€and€Pelley€then€dragged€Valentine€into€the€motel€room.€€DeModicaÏheard€two€gunshots.€€He€testified€that,€when€the€appellant€and€Pelley€againÏcame€out€of€the€motel€room,€they€looked€as€if€someone€had€sprayed€them€withÏred€paint.€€ÌÌà àThe€State€presented€evidence€to€corroborate€various€aspects€ofÏDeModica's€testimony.€€For€example,€with€respect€to€the€knife€that€DeModicaÏobserved€in€Pelley's€hand,€an€acquaintance€testified€that€the€appellant€carried€aÏlock„blade€knife€and€a€hunting€knife€with€a€serrated€edge.€Moreover,€each€victimÏsuffered€a€deep€neck€wound€from€a€serrated€knife.€€Each€victim€had€also€beenÏshot€in€the€head.€€The€massive€amount€of€blood€at€the€crime€scene€and€theÏnumber€of€injuries€inflicted€upon€each€victim€were€consistent€with€DeModica'sÏdescription€of€the€appellant€and€Pelley€following€the€murders.€€Finally,ÏDeModica€knew€that€Valentine€had€been€clubbed€with€his€flashlight.€€ThisÏinformation€was€not€released€to€the€media€and€would€have€been€known€only€toÏthe€killers.ÌÌà àThe€Maggie€Valley€letter,€which€was€found€three€days€after€the€murders,Ïalso€contained€information€which€only€the€killers€would€have€known.€€TheÏState's€document€examiner€excluded€DeModica,€Pelley,€and€Silvers€as€theÏwriter€of€the€letter.€€Expert€testimony€further€established€strong€indications€thatÏthe€appellant€wrote€this€letter.€€A€former€girlfriend€of€the€appellant,€AntoniaÏJones,€identified€the€handwriting€in€the€Maggie€Valley€letter€as€being€that€of€theÏappellant.ÌÌà àFollowing€his€arrest,€the€appellant€made€a€series€of€statements€toÍTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€agents€and€Georgia€law€enforcementÏofficers.€€Initially,€the€appellant€denied€going€to€Gatlinburg.€€However,€heÏsubsequently€stated€that€he€and€his€companions€had€eaten€in€a€restaurant€inÏPigeon€Forge,€and€that,€while€he€and€Pelley€were€in€Gatlinburg€with€DeModicaÏand€Silvers,€he€had€purchased€a€chain€for€Pelley.€€He€denied€participating€inÏthe€killings€and€implied€that€DeModica€and€Silvers€were€the€murderers.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€did€not€testify€at€the€guilt€phase€of€his€trial.€€Essentially,€hisÏdefense,€as€advanced€through€the€appellant's€statements€to€the€police€followingÏhis€arrest,€was€a€denial€of€any€participation€in€the€crime.€€However,€reviewingÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€direct€appeal,€the€supreme€court€remarkedÏthat€"the€overwhelming€evidence€supported€the€verdict€of€the€jury€...€."€€òòHarrisóó,Ï839€S.W.2d€at€76.€€Similarly,€the€post„conviction€court€observed,€"And€the€proofÏcame€in.€€The€proof€continued€to€come€in€...€.€€This€evidence€as€it€rolled€in,€wasÏoverwhelming."ÌÌà àAt€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial,€the€State€introduced€the€appellant's€priorÏconvictions€involving€violence€to€the€person€and€otherwise€relied€upon€the€proofÏintroduced€during€the€guilt€phase.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€Defense€counsel€initially€indicated€that€theyÏwould€offer€no€proof€during€the€penalty€phase.€€However,€following€aÍconference€with€the€trial€judge€in€chambers,€the€appellant€testified€on€his€ownÏbehalf.€€The€appellant€stated€that€he€was€32€years€old€and€grew€up€in€NorthÏCarolina.€€He€informed€the€jury€that€he€had€only€completed€the€third€grade€inÏschool€and€could€neither€read€nor€write.€€He€admitted€that€his€difficulties€inÏschool€stemmed€largely€from€a€lack€of€motivation.€€€The€appellant€furtherÏtestified€that,€during€his€youth,€his€relationship€with€his€parents€was€troubled,Ïand€that€he€left€home€at€the€age€of€14.€€The€appellant€admitted€that,€when€heÏwas€18,€he€pled€guilty€to€several€offenses€in€Georgia€and€spent€10€years€in€theÏGeorgia€penitentiary.€€While€at€the€penitentiary,€the€appellant€became€involvedÏin€the€Golden€Gloves€boxing€program€and€won€several€trophies.€€The€appellantÏtestified€that€he€has€two€children€by€a€prior€marriage,€whom€he€visited€onÏoccasion.€€In€conclusion,€he€asked€that€the€jury€spare€his€life.ÌÌà àThe€jury€imposed€the€punishment€of€death,€finding€that€three€aggravatingÏcircumstances,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2),€(5),€and€(7)€(1982),× ƒ% ××  ×€outweighÍany€mitigating€circumstances.Ìòòò òÌÌà@ àINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óóóÌÌà àWhen€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€raised,€the€burden€isÏupon€the€appellant€to€show€(1)€that€counsel's€performance€was€deficient€and€(2)Ïthat€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984).€€Thus,€theÏappellant€must€prove€that€counsel€"made€errors€so€serious€that€counsel€was€notÏfunctioning€as€the€'counsel'€guaranteed€the€defendant€by€the€SixthÏAmendment,"€òòandóó€the€appellant€must€demonstrate€that€counsel's€errors€"wereÏso€serious€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€result€isÏreliable."€€òòIdóó.€€The€appellant€must€establish€òòbothóó€deficient€performance€òòandóóÏprejudice€in€order€to€prevail.€€òòIdóó.€€A€reviewing€court€need€not€consider€the€twoÏprongs€of€òòStricklandóó€in€any€particular€order.€€òòIdóó.€at€697,€2069.€€Moreover,€if€theÏappellant€fails€to€establish€one€prong,€a€reviewing€court€need€not€consider€theÏother.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€deficient€performance,€the€proper€measure€of€attorneyÏperformance€is€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ688,€2065.€€In€other€words,€the€attorney's€performance€must€be€within€the€rangeÍof€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975);€€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9105„CR„00149Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€1129€(1995).€€This€court€"must€indulge€a€strongÏpresumption€that€counsel's€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€of€reasonableÏprofessional€assistance;€that€is,€the€defendant€must€overcome€the€presumptionÏthat,€under€the€circumstances,€the€challenged€action€'might€be€consideredÏsound€trial€strategy.'"€€òòStricklandóó,€€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065.€€WeÏshould€defer€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€basedÏupon€adequate€preparation.€€òòWrightóó,€No.€01C01„9105„CR„00149€(citing€òòHellardÏv.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)).€€Additionally,€this€court€should€avoid€theÏ"distorting€effects€of€hindsight"€and€€"judge€the€reasonableness€of€counsel'sÏchallenged€conduct€on€the€facts€of€the€particular€case,€viewed€as€of€the€time€ofÏcounsel's€conduct."€€òòStricklandóó,€€466€U.S.€at€689„690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065„2066.€ÏFinally,€we€note€that€defendants€are€not€entitled€to€perfect€representation,€onlyÏconstitutionally€adequate€representation.€€òòHarries€v.€Stateóó,€No.€833€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€at€Knoxville,€August€29,€1990),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌÌà àIn€order€to€establish€prejudice,€the€appellant€must€show€that€there€is€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€ofÏthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104ÍS.Ct.€at€2068.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€one€sufficient€to€undermineÏconfidence€in€the€outcome.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing€in€this€case,€the€post„conviction€courtÏentered€the€following€findings€of€fact:ÌÓÓà à(1)à8 àMr.€Sexton,€Mr.€Goddard,€and€Mr.€Strand€(appointedÏappellate€counsel)€€had€supporting€staff€andÏresources,€including€the€Capital€Case€ResourceÏCenter,€to€utilize€in€the€preparation€for€trial€and€theÏanticipated€appeal.ÌÌà à(2)à8 àDefense€counsel€utilized€every€advantage€availableÏto€them€under€the€law€and€the€facts€as€they€foundÏthem.€€Defense€counsel€investigated€every€factÏrelated€to€them€by€the€petitioner,€pursued€every€leadÏand€prepared€as€best€as€they€were€enabled€by€theÏdefendant.ÌÌà à(3)à8 àThe€defendant/petitioner€did€not€at€any€time€furnishÏinformation€to€defense€counsel€that€would€haveÏjustified€seeking€special€support€services,€and€theyÏwere€diligent€in€not€pursuing€a€mental€investigation.ÌÌà à(4)à8 àDefense€counsel€did€all€they€could€to€prevent€theÏintroduction€of€incriminating€evidence€and€toÏdiscredit€it€to€the€extent€they€could€when€it€wasÏintroduced€over€timely€objection.ÌÌÌÓÓIn€denying€the€appellant's€petition,€the€post„conviction€court€describedÏcounsel's€trial€performance€in€the€following€manner:€€"€...€[W]ell€tried.€€Ably€tried.€ÏDiligently€tried.€€Conscientiously€tried€...€."€€ÌÌà àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€appellant€has€the€burden€of€provingÏthe€allegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòMcBee€v.ÏStateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,Ï666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ï1984).€€Moreover,€"[t]he€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict;€€thisÏcourt€will€not€set€aside€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€unless€the€evidenceÏcontained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€its€findings."€€òòState€v.€Dickóó,€872ÏS.W.2d€938,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòseeÏalsoóó€òòHarriesóó,€No.€833.€€The€appellant€contends€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€judgment€entered€by€the€post„conviction€court€that€the€appellant€wasÏafforded€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€appellant€called€Charles€Sexton,€oneÏof€the€appellant's€trial€attorneys.€€Sexton€was€appointed€to€represent€theÏappellant€immediately€following€the€appellant's€arraignment€in€December,Ï1987.× ƒ& ××  ×€€Sexton€has€been€licensed€to€practice€law€in€this€state€since€1979.€€At€theÏtime€of€his€appointment,€he€was€serving€as€the€attorney€for€a€local€indigentÏdefender€program€created€by€private€act€for€Sevier€County.€€Additionally,ÏSexton€remained€active€in€the€private€practice€of€law€as€a€partner€in€a€local€lawÍfirm.€€He€had€an€extensive€criminal€trial€practice,€and,€in€1987,€was€averagingÏtwenty€to€twenty„five€felony€cases€each€term€of€court.€€Before€his€appointment€toÏthis€case,€Sexton€had€represented€ten€or€more€defendants€charged€with€someÏdegree€of€homicide,€including€several€charged€with€capital€first€degree€murder.× ƒ' ××  ×€ÏShortly€after€the€appointment€of€Sexton€to€represent€the€appellant,€the€StateÏannounced€its€intention€to€seek€the€death€penalty,€and€the€trial€court€appointedÏWilliam€Goddard€as€co„counsel.€€The€record€reflects€that€Goddard€was€anÏexperienced€trial€lawyer€in€both€the€civil€and€criminal€areas€of€the€law.× ƒ( ××  ×€€BothÏSexton€and€Goddard€utilized€various€members€of€their€respective€law€firms,Ïprimarily€in€the€area€of€legal€research,€throughout€the€course€of€the€appellant'sÏtrial.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€Guilt€PhaseòòÌÌóóó óà àSexton€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that,€in€preparation€for€theÍguilt€phase€of€the€trial,€he€visited€the€crime€scene,€interviewed€potentialÏwitnesses,€and€obtained€and€reviewed€discovery€information€concerningÏhandwriting€exemplars€and€autopsy€reports.€€€Additionally,€proof€at€the€hearingÏestablished€that€trial€counsel€conducted€pre„trial€interviews€with€all€of€theÏState's€material€witnesses€on€at€least€one€occasion.€€€Finally,€Sexton€testifiedÏthat€he€spent€a€great€deal€of€time€on€the€case,€and€that,€between€January€andÏMay€of€1988,€"there€were€very€few€days€that€went€by€that€at€least€some€portion€ofÏthe€day€wasn't€spent€dealing€with€some€issue€on€the€case."€€Benjamin€Strand,ÏGoddard's€former€law€partner,€who€assisted€in€the€appeal€after€Goddard'sÏdeath,€testified€that€Goddard€also€spent€a€great€deal€of€time€on€the€appellant'sÏcase€and,€in€fact,€devoted€the€two€weeks€prior€to€trial€exclusively€to€trialÏpreparation.ÌÌà àNevertheless,€the€appellant€argues€that€trial€counsel's€performance€at€theÏguilt€phase€of€the€trial€was€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€reasonablyÏinvestigate€the€authorship€of€the€Maggie€Valley€note€and€failed€to€properlyÏadvise€the€appellant€of€the€consequences€of€his€refusal€to€provide€additionalÏhandwriting€exemplars.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€asserts€that€counsel€failed€toÏadequately€investigate€the€co„defendant€DeModica's€background€and€theÏautopsy€and€crime€scene€evidence.€€Finally,€he€contends€that€defense€counsel'sÏperformance€was€deficient€in€that€counsel€failed€to€object€to€Dr.€Blake'sÍtestimony€concerning€the€victims'€wounds€and€failed€to€move€to€suppress€theÏappellant's€statements€to€the€police.× ƒ) ××  ×€€We€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€failedÏto€carry€his€burden€of€proof,€and€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderatesÏin€favor€of€the€post„conviction€court's€judgment.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€counsel's€investigation€of€the€Maggie€Valley€letter,€weÏinitially€note€that€the€appellant€was€afforded,€at€the€trial€level,€the€opportunity€toÏexonerate€himself€as€the€author€of€the€Maggie€Valley€letter,€which€opportunityÏhe€rejected.€€Indeed,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€on€direct€appeal,Ïobserved:ÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€clear€from€the€record€that€from€at€least€late€February€1988,Ïthree€months€before€trial,€the€defendant€knew€that€the€State€wasÏseeking€handwriting€samples€and€was€consulting€an€expert.€€TheÏDefendant€was€aware€of€...€the€significance€of€the€handwritingÏissue.€€When€the€court€ordered€additional€samples,€the€DefendantÏrefused€to€comply.ÌÌÓÓòòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€67.€€Thus,€the€appellant€cannot€now€attribute€to€counsel'sÏperformance€a€situation€which€he,€himself,€created.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€€òòseeÏalsoóó€òòWaterhouse€v.€Perryóó,€260€S.W.2d€176,€178€(Tenn.€1953).ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€record€reveals€that€counsel's€investigation€wasÍconstitutionally€adequate.€€Prior€to€trial€in€this€case,€defense€counsel€contactedÏa€handwriting€expert,€James€Kelly,€an€agent€with€the€Georgia€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€and€filed€a€motion€for€a€certificate€of€need€for€Kelly.€€However,€theÏinformation€that€they€obtained€from€Kelly€was€ultimately€no€more€conclusiveÏthan€the€opinion€of€the€State's€expert,€Thomas€Vastrick,€a€document€examinerÏwith€the€United€States€Postal€Service.€€The€record€reflects€that€defense€counselÏreviewed€Vastrick's€reports,€and€that€Goddard€interviewed€Vastrick€on€at€leastÏone€occasion.€€With€respect€to€Vastrick's€opinion,€Sexton€testified€that€defenseÏcounsel€"felt€very€comfortable€in€what€Mr.€Vastrick's€position€was.€€That€heÏcouldn't€say€that€Mr.€Harris€was€the€author€of€that€note."€€Faced€with€twoÏinconclusive€opinions,€counsel€could€reasonably€determine€that€the€possibilityÏof€obtaining€a€favorable€expert€opinion€was€outweighed€by€the€risk€that€counselÏwould€merely€provide€the€State€an€adverse€expert€opinion.€€òòSeeóó€òòDees€v.ÏCaspirióó,€904€F.2d€452,€455€(8th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€498€U.S.€970,€111€S.Ct.€436Ï(1990).òòÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓóó[S]trategic€choices€made€after€thorough€investigation€of€lawÏand€facts€relevant€to€plausible€options€are€virtuallyÏunchallengeable;€€and€strategic€choices€made€after€lessÏthan€complete€investigation€are€reasonable€precisely€to€theÏextent€that€reasonable€professional€judgments€support€theÏlimitations€on€investigation.€€In€other€words,€counsel€has€aÏduty€to€make€reasonable€investigations€or€to€make€aÏreasonable€decision€that€makes€particular€investigationsÏunnecessary.€€In€any€ineffectiveness€case,€a€particularÏdecision€not€to€investigate€must€be€directly€assessed€forÏreasonableness€in€all€circumstances,€applying€a€heavyÏmeasure€of€deference€to€counsel's€judgments.òòÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓBurger€v.€Kempóó,€483€U.S.€776,€794,€107€S.Ct.€3114,€3126€(1987).€€DefenseÏcounsel€made€a€reasonable€strategic€decision€to€forgo€further€investigation€andÏrely€at€trial€upon€the€cross„examination€of€the€State's€expert€witness.ÌÌà àUnfortunately,€defense€counsel€was€informed€only€a€few€days€prior€to€trialÏof€another€witness,€Antonia€Jones,€who€was€familiar€with€the€appellant'sÏhandwriting.€€When,€on€the€first€day€of€trial,€defense€counsel€learned€that€bothÏAntonia€Jones€and€Vastrick€were€to€testify,€counsel€requested€an€opportunity€toÏhave€an€independent€expert€examine€the€Maggie€Valley€letter€and€theÏappellant's€handwriting.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€request,€holding€that€theÏrequest€came€too€late.€€In€any€event,€defense€counsel€vigorously€cross„examined€Jones.€€Moreover,€counsel€was€able€to€locate€and€interview€Jones'Ïmother,€Julia€Jones.€€Mrs.€Jones€testified€for€the€defense€in€an€attempt€toÏdiscredit€her€daughter's€testimony.€€Based€upon€the€foregoing,€we€cannotÏconclude€that€counsel's€performance€was€deficient.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€claims€that€counsel€failed€to€properly€advise€him€ofÏthe€consequences€of€his€refusal€to€comply€with€the€trial€court's€order€to€provideÏadditional€handwriting€exemplars.€€This€issue,€the€appellant€contends,€isÏsignificant€in€view€of€the€trial€court's€ruling€that€his€refusal€could€be€consideredÏby€the€jury€as€an€inference€of€guilt.€€However,€the€post„conviction€court€foundÍthat€the€appellant€was€advised€of€the€consequences€of€his€refusal€"repeatedly,Ïand€intently."€€The€record€supports€the€finding€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€AtÏthe€post„conviction€hearing,€Sexton€was€asked€whether€he€recalled€informingÏthe€appellant€of€the€inferences€that€could€be€drawn€at€trial€from€the€appellant'sÏfailure€to€submit€additional€samples.€€Trial€counsel€responded,€"I€believe€weÏtalked€about€it€at€the€bench€on€the€11th.€€I€believe€that€it€was€probably€talkedÏabout€at€the€hearing€in€Dandridge.€€€...€€We€talked€with€Mr.€Harris€about€it.€€And€IÏknow€it€was€brought€up€on€this€occasion.€€And€I€believe€probably€at€one€or€twoÏother€occasions€in€the€proceedings."€€This€contention€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€next€complains€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€reasonablyÏinvestigate€the€background€of€co„defendant,€Joe€DeModica.€€Counsel€testifiedÏat€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€examined€DeModica's€criminal€record.€ÏThe€appellant€contends€that€defense€counsel€should€have€further€investigatedÏDeModica's€past€in€order€to€determine€whether€DeModica€has€a€propensity€forÏviolence.€€The€appellant€argues€that€such€information€would€have€rebuttedÏDeModica's€claim€that€he€was€afraid€of€the€appellant€and€was€"forced"€to€remainÏwith€the€appellant€throughout€this€criminal€episode.€€Sexton€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€did€not€investigate€DeModica's€background€moreÏthoroughly€"because€Mr.€Demodica€had€been€around€many€parts€of€the€country,Ïand€had€lived€in€many€areas,€and€had€a€record€from€many€areas€of€this€country."€ÏNevertheless,€the€appellant€asserts€that€defense€counsel€should€haveÍrequested€funds€for€an€investigator.€€Initially,€"in€considering€claims€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€'[w]e€address€not€what€is€prudent€or€appropriate,€but€onlyÏwhat€is€constitutionally€compelled.'"€€òòBurgeróó,€483€U.S.€at€794,€107€S.Ct.€at€3126Ï(citation€omitted).€€Moreover,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€that€would€haveÏtriggered€further€investigation€by€defense€counsel€of€DeModica's€background.× ƒ+ ××  ×€ÏThus,€we€cannot€conclude€that€further€investigation€was€constitutionallyÏcompelled.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€requestÏfunds€for€an€expert€to€review€the€findings€of€Dr.€Blake,€the€State's€expert€inÏforensic€pathology.€€However,€the€appellant€does€not€state€what,€if€anything,€inÏDr.€Blake's€report€is€erroneous€or€explain€why€his€findings€are€suspect.€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that,€prior€to€trial,€defense€counsel€examined€Dr.€Blake's€reportsÏand€interviewed€Dr.€Blake.€€Again,€we€cannot€conclude€that€counsel'sÏperformance€was€deficient.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€claims€that€counsel€erroneously€failed€to€object€to€Dr.ÏBlake's€testimony€at€trial€that€two€of€the€victims'€wounds€had€"serrated€margins."€ÏThe€record€reveals€that€defense€counsel€did,€in€fact,€object€to€the€introduction€ofÍDr.€Blake's€testimony,€citing€the€State's€failure€to€comply€with€discovery€rules.€ÏPrior€to€trial,€defense€counsel€had€repeatedly€requested€any€additional€reportsÏby€Dr.€Blake,€yet€no€additional€reports€were€furnished€until€trial.€€At€trial,€theÏState€delivered€to€defense€counsel€for€the€first€time€a€report€by€Dr.€Blake,Ïdescribing€Dr.€Blake's€observations€at€the€crime€scene.€€The€trial€judgeÏoverruled€defense€counsel's€objection€to€Dr.€Blake's€testimony,€concluding€thatÏDr.€Blake€was€an€ordinary€witness€with€respect€to€the€matters€contained€in€theÏreport.€€However,€the€judge€invited€the€defense€to€renew€their€objection€if€Dr.ÏBlake's€testimony€touched€on€an€area€of€expertise€of€which€the€defense€had€notÏreceived€notice.€€At€trial,€Dr.€Blake€did,€in€fact,€testify€concerning€wound€analysis,Ïconducted€only€a€few€days€prior€to€trial,€and€the€"sharp,€sawtoothed€markings"Ïsurrounding€two€of€the€wounds.€€The€defense€failed€to€make€aÏcontemporaneous€objection.€€However,€counsel€vigorously€cross„examined€Dr.ÏBlake,€who€conceded€that€he€had€not€compared€the€victim's€wounds€to€anyÏknife€involved€in€the€investigation.€Thus,€even€if€defense€counsel's€failure€toÏcontemporaneously€object€constituted€deficient€performance,€we€conclude€thatÏsuch€error€did€not€unduly€prejudice€the€defense.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€the€appellant€complains€that€counsel€did€not€attempt€to€suppressÏstatements€made€by€the€appellant€to€law€enforcement€officers.€€However,€theÏrecord€reveals€that€the€statements€were€not€inculpatory,€but€rather€exculpatory.€ÏThe€statements€were€general€denials€of€participation€in€the€killings€and€were€inÍconformity€with€the€appellant's€position€at€trial€that€he€was€not€present€duringÏthe€criminal€episode.€€Counsel€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that,€at€theÏtime€of€trial,€he€"didn't€feel€[that€the€statements]€would€become€relevant€...€but€ifÏthey€did,€[h]e€didn't€mind€...€the€exculpat[ory]€part€getting€in."€€The€appellant€hasÏnot€demonstrated€that€this€strategic€decision€of€counsel€was€deficientÏperformance.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€failed€to€establish€his€allegations€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Penalty€Phaseòòó óÌÌà àóóThe€appellant€also€contends€that€he€was€afforded€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€Again,€in€imposing€two€deathÏpenalties,€the€jury€found€that€the€appellant€had€previously€been€convicted€ofÏone€or€more€felonies€involving€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person,€thatÏthe€murders€were€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,€and€that€the€murdersÏwere€committed€while€the€appellant€was€engaged€in€a€robbery.€€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2),€(5),€and€(7).€€The€jury€further€found€that€these€aggravatingÏcircumstances€outweigh€any€mitigating€factors.€€The€appellant€argues€thatÏdefense€counsel€failed€to€adequately€prepare€for€the€sentencing€phase€of€theÏtrial.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€asserts€that€counsel€failed€to€adequatelyÏinvestigate€and€obtain€available€evidence€regarding€the€appellant'sÏbackground€and€mental€condition.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àAt€the€penalty€phase,€defense€counsel€offered€no€proof,€other€than€theÏappellant's€testimony,€in€support€of€mitigation.€€Our€supreme€court€has€observedÏthat€there€is€no€legal€requirement€and€no€established€practice€that€the€accusedÏmust€offer€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772ÏS.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€493€U.S.€874,€110€S.Ct.€211€(1989).€ÏHowever,€"[a]€strategy€of€silence€may€be€adopted€only€after€a€reasonableÏinvestigation€for€mitigating€evidence€or€a€reasonable€decision€that€anÏinvestigation€would€be€fruitless."€€òòTafero€v.€Wainwrightóó,€796€F.2d€1314,€1320Ï(11th€Cir.€1986),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€483€U.S.€1033,€107€S.Ct.€3277€(1987).€€CourtsÏhave€held€counsel's€representation€beneath€professionally€competentÏstandards€when€sentencing€counsel€did€not€conduct€enough€investigation€toÏformulate€an€"accurate€life€profile"€of€a€defendant.€€òòJackson€v.€Herringóó,€42€F.3dÍ1350,€1367€(11th€Cir.),€òòcert.€dismissedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€116€S.Ct.€38€(1995).€€We€noteÏthat€the€extent€of€investigation€required€depends€critically€upon€informationÏsupplied€by€the€defendant.€€òòBurgeróó,€483€U.S.€at€795,€107€S.Ct.€at€3126.€€òòSeeÏalsoóó€òòWhitmore€v.€Lockhartóó,€8€F.3d€614,€621€(8th€Cir.€1993).€€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[W]hen€the€facts€that€support€a€certain€line€of€defense€areÏgenerally€known€to€counsel€because€of€what€the€defendantÏhas€said,€the€need€for€further€investigation€may€beÏconsiderably€diminished€or€eliminated€altogether.€€AndÏwhen€a€defendant€has€given€counsel€reason€to€believe€thatÏpursuing€certain€investigations€would€be€fruitless€or€evenÏharmful,€counsel's€failure€to€pursue€those€investigationsÏmay€not€later€be€challenged€as€unreasonable.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌòòBurgeróó,€483€U.S.€at€795,€107€S.Ct.€at€3126.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€defense€counsel€did€not€act€"in€a€factual€void€in€anÏunjustified€manner."€€òòKnighton€v.€Maggioóó,€740€F.2d€1344,€1350€(5th€Cir.),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€469€U.S.€924,€105€S.Ct.€306€(1984).€€With€respect€to€the€appellant'sÏbackground,€Sexton€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€spoke€withÏthe€appellant€"many,€many€times."€€Moreover,€during€an€early€interview,€SextonÏutilized€a€standardized€eight€to€ten€page€form€to€gather€background€informationÏfrom€the€appellant.€€Trial€counsel€acknowledged€that€he€was€familiar€with€theÏappellant's€limited€educational€background€and€the€fact€that€he€had€resided€inÏinstitutions€in€North€Carolina€as€a€juvenile€and€in€penal€institutions€as€an€adult.€ÏSexton€testified€that€the€appellant€was€"able€to€outline€where€he€had€been€andÍ...€why€he€was€there."€€Sexton€also€contacted€the€appellant's€mother€in€GeorgiaÏon€two€occasions.€€Defense€counsel€asked€the€appellant's€mother€to€testify€atÏthe€sentencing€hearing.€€She€refused€to€participate.ÌÌÌà àSexton€attempted€to€contact€other€individuals€whose€names€wereÏsupplied€by€his€client,€but€to€no€avail€as€they€could€not€be€found.€€SextonÏtestified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€"it€was€hard€to€find€somebody€thatÏwould€take€an€interest€in€this€man,€and€would€make€an€effort€to€come€up€hereÏand€...€and€show€some€concern€for€him.€€And€it€got€down€to€the€point€where€itÏlooked€like€it€was€just€me€and€Bill€Goddard,€and€nobody€else€was€going€to€giveÏa€hoot€about€what€happened€to€this€man."€ÌÌà àThus,€the€appellant€and€his€mother€were€the€primary€sources€ofÏbackground€information€relevant€to€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€appellant's€trial.€ÏSexton€indicated€that€the€information€obtained€from€the€appellant€and€hisÏmother€suggested€that€further€investigation€would€be€unproductive.€€SextonÏstated€that€if€he€"had€thought€anything€would€have€helped€this€man,€[he]€wouldÏhave€had€it€[at€the€sentencing€hearing]."€€ÌÌà àSexton€admitted€that€defense€counsel€did€not€request€funds€forÏinvestigative€services.€€However,€"[u]nder€certain€circumstances,€trial€counsel'sÍdecision€not€to€investigate€family€childhood€background€may€legitimately€be€theÏproduct€of€a€reasoned€tactical€choice.€€Given€the€particular€circumstances€of€[a]Ïcase€including,€among€other€things,€the€fact€that€[a€defendant]€[is]€thirty„oneÏyears€old€when€he€murder[s]€[the€victim],€evidence€of€a€deprived€and€abusiveÏchildhood€is€entitled€to€little,€if€any,€mitigating€weight."€€òòFrancis€v.€Duggeróó,€908ÏF.2d€696,€703€(11th€Cir.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€500€U.S.€910,€111€S.Ct.€1696Ï(1991).€€The€appellant€in€this€case€was€approximately€thirty€years€of€age€at€theÏtime€of€the€murders.€€ÌÌà à€€With€respect€to€the€appellant's€mental€health,€Sexton€testified€that€heÏand€Goddard€discussed€the€possibility€of€requesting€a€psychological€evaluationÏof€the€appellant,€but€concluded€that€there€was€no€evidence€that€any€suchÏevaluation€was€warranted.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Sexton€testified:€ÌÓÓà8 àBut€at€no€point€in€time,€during€this€proceeding€did€I€ever€feel€likeÏMr.€Harris€was€less€than€competent.€€He€always€communicatedÏwith€us.€€He€was€always€very€cooperative€with€us.€€He€alwaysÏtalked€very€freely€with€us.€€€Was€able€to€understand€the€questionsÏwhen€we€would€ask€them,€was€able€to€give€us€answers.€€And,Ïfrankly,€was€...€was€as€cooperative€as€you€could€ask€him€to€be.€€InÏmost€areas.€€Now€there€were€some€things€we€had€some€difficultiesÏwith.€€But€as€far€as€him€understanding,€and€having€any€mentalÏdeficiencies,€I€was€never€...€it€really€never€became€an€issue.€.€withÏme.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌÌÓÓWe€note€that€the€post„conviction€court€also€observed,€"This€court€has€noticedÏnothing€to€indicate€anything€to€raise€a€question€about€this€defendant's€ability€toÏunderstand€these€proceedings€and€defend€himself,€participate€in€them."€€Finally,Ïtrial€counsel€testified€that€at€no€time€during€any€pre„trial€interview€did€theÏappellant€mention€a€learning€disability.€€Furthermore,€the€appellant€neverÏalluded€to€any€psychological€problems€or€any€past€treatment€orÏinstitutionalization€for€psychological€disorders.ÌÌà àThus,€we€conclude€that€defense€counsel's€performance€wasÏconstitutionally€adequate€at€the€penalty€phase.€€Moreover,€the€appellantÏsuffered€no€prejudice€as€a€result€of€counsel's€performance.€€We€base€ourÏconclusion€upon€the€findings€of€Robert€Steele,€an€investigator€for€the€CapitalÏCase€Resource€Center.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Steele€testified€that,Ïafter€the€appointment€of€Brock€Mehler€and€Paul€Morrow,€attorneys€for€theÏCapital€Case€Resource€Center,€he€began€interviewing€and€collecting€records€inÏan€attempt€to€identify€mitigating€themes.€€In€addition€to€interviewing€theÏappellant€and€his€mother,€the€investigator€contacted€one€hundred€and€fortyÏindividuals€by€phone€or€letter€and€received€twenty„three€responses.€€Steele'sÍconclusions€are€summarized€in€his€affidavit,€submitted€in€support€of€theÏappellant's€motion€for€support€services.ÌÌà àSteele€states€in€his€affidavit€that€the€appellant's€father,€Artie€Harris,€diedÏin€an€automobile€accident€when€the€appellant€was€four€years€old.€€Following€hisÏfather's€death,€the€appellant's€mother,€Merlene€Harris,€lived€with€a€man,€BobÏTurner,€who€physically€abused€both€the€appellant€and€his€mother.€€TheÏappellant€and€his€brother€were€then€placed€in€foster€homes,€where€theyÏremained€until€Mrs.€Harris€married€a€man€named€Melvin€Nelms.€€The€familyÏmoved€to€North€Carolina.€€At€this€time,€the€appellant€began€running€away€fromÏhome,€and€was€placed€in€various€foster€homes€and€institutions,€including€theÏWestern€Carolina€Center.× ƒ/ ××  ×€ÌÌà àConcerning€the€appellant's€mental€health,€the€affidavit€reflects€that€hisÏmother€was€hospitalized€for€measles€and€pneumonia€while€pregnant€with€theÏappellant.€€Furthermore,€at€the€age€of€two,€the€appellant€was€struck€by€a€car€andÏsuffered€a€severe€head€injury.€€While€attending€school,€the€appellant€wasÏplaced€in€special€education€classes.€€As€an€adult,€the€appellant€used€drugs.€ÏWhile€incarcerated€at€the€Georgia€penitentiary,€the€appellant€was€"stabbed€inÍthe€head."€€While€incarcerated€at€the€DeKalb€County€Jail€in€Georgia,€theÏappellant€attempted€to€commit€suicide.€€Finally,€the€appellant€contends€that€theÏWestern€Carolina€Center€records€indicate€that€he€is€"mentally€defective"€andÏhas€an€I.Q.€of€65;€that,€in€1966€and€1967,€the€appellant€was€diagnosed€as€"brainÏdamage[d];"€and€that,€in€1969,€the€Western€Carolina€Center€diagnosed€him€asÏmentally€retarded.ÌÌà àAssuming€the€accuracy€of€Steele's€findings,€we€conclude€that€neitherÏthese€findings€nor€the€Western€Carolina€Center€records€are€uniformly€helpful€toÏthe€appellant.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòWhitmoreóó,€8€F.3d€at€623.€€While€many€people€haveÏunhappy€childhoods,€few€brutally€murder€two€people.€€òòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€755ÏS.W.2d€819,€827€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Moreover,€the€Western€CarolinaÏCenter€records€document€the€appellant's€propensity€to€engage€in€violent€or€anti„social€behavior€and€may€well€have€alienated€the€jury€had€they€been€introducedÏat€the€penalty€phase€of€the€appellant's€trial.€€Finally,€contrary€to€the€appellant'sÏassertion,€the€record€before€us€establishes€that€further€investigation€by€trialÏcounsel€of€the€appellant's€mental€condition€would€not€have€changed€the€jury'sÏsentencing€determination.€€In€other€words,€further€investigation€would€not€haveÏproduced€facts€sufficient€to€tip€the€scales€in€favor€of€a€sentence€other€than€death.ÌÌà àÌà àThe€information€contained€in€the€Western€Carolina€Center€admission€andÍprogress€notes€is€ambiguous.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€The€initial€admission€interview€with€theÏWestern€Carolina€Center,€dated€March€17,€1969,€consisted€of€an€interview€withÏthe€appellant's€mother,€who€was€attempting€to€place€her€son€at€the€Center.€€AtÏthe€time€of€the€interview,€the€appellant€had€completed€two€one„yearÏcommitments€with€the€Juvenile€Evaluation€Center€and€was€eligible€for€release.€ÏThe€records€do€not€identify€the€particular€state€agency€under€which€either€centerÏis€operated€i.e.€mental€health,€education,€social€services,€or€correction.€€TheÏrecords€do€reflect€that€the€appellant's€placement€in€the€Juvenile€EvaluationÏCenter,€pursuant€to€a€juvenile€court€order,€resulted€from€the€appellant's€frequentÏattempts€to€run€away€from€home.€€€ÌÌà àAn€initial€report€notes€that€the€appellant€is€"an€ambulatory,€fully€verbal,Ï11„year€old€boy€with€a€serious€behavior€problem."€€€€The€social€services€workerÏfurther€observed,€"Mrs.€Nelms€[the€appellant's€mother]€told€me€that€Eddie€hasÏ'brain€damage'€and€is€'disturbed.'€...€€I€feel€that€the€unstable€home€situation€hasÏplayed€a€very€large€role€in€Eddie's€behavior.€...€'òòBrain€damage'€is€the€alibi€sheÏprefers€to€use€to€cover€up€her€own€inadequacies€as€a€motheróó."€€(EmphasisÏadded).ÌÌà àThe€same€report€recites€the€following,€"Dr.€Nale€at€the€Evaluation€CenterÏat€Western€Carolina€University,€has€told€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Nelms€[the€appellant'sÏparents]€that€Eddie's€I.Q.€was€'approximately€average.'€"€€In€the€onlyÏdocumented€examination€of€the€appellant€by€a€physician,€the€physicianÏconcluded€that€the€appellant€suffered€"[m]ild€mental€retardation€òòon€a€[s]ocio„cultural€basisóó."€€(Emphasis€added).€€ÌÌÌà àOnly€one€psychological€report€is€contained€in€the€Center's€records.€€AÏschool€psychologist€prepared€this€report,€dated€July€14,€1970.€€The€psychologistÏconducted€a€personal€interview€with€the€appellant.€€Additionally,€theÏpsychologist€administered€a€number€of€psychological€tests€to€determine€theÏappellant's€level€of€functioning.€€The€psychologist€concluded:€€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓEddie€has€assumed€a€style€of€aggression,€retaliation,€andÏlack€of€patience€with€others€and€himself,€which€wouldÏindicate€little€toleration€for€formal€school€structure€and€anyÏother€formal€environment.€€Rules€and€regulations€and€goodÏbehavior€frustrate€him.€.€.€.€€òòI€have€no€facts€or€reasons€toÏsuspect€that€he€is€mentally€retardedóó.€€His€social€behavior€isÏso€immature€that€it€seems€he€is€functioning€as€a€poorlyÏadjusted€six€year€old.€.€.€.€He€also€shows€indications€that€heÏcan€grasp€a€good€deal€of€academically€related€material€onÏa€concrete€level€and€that€he€could€learn€to€developÏmoderate€academic€skills.ÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ° Ò(Emphasis€added).ÌÌÌà àThe€"Admission€Summary"€from€the€Western€Carolina€Center€does€reflectÏthat€"[a]t€one€time€[the€appellant€was]€on€Prolixin€and€had€reaction€to€this€withÏhis€eyes€rolling€back€and€getting€stiff."€€However,€contrary€to€Steele's€affidavit,Ïthere€is€nothing€in€the€Center's€records€to€indicate€that€the€appellant€was€everÏadministered€Thorazine,€much€less€"medicated€with€thorazine€the€entire€time."ÌÌà àThe€above€conclusions€contradict€the€following€undocumentedÏobservation€in€the€Western€Carolina€clinical€record:€"Eddie€has€been€quiteÏhealthy€in€general.€€His€diagnosis€by€Dr.€Nale€at€Cullowhee€was€brain€damageÏ2„1/2€years€ago."€€€€€They€similarly€contradict€the€following€comment,€included€inÏan€additional€report€of€the€Western€Carolina€admission€interview:€€"TheÏpsychological€report€from€the€Juvenile€Evaluation€Center€indicated€that€Eddie€isÏ'mentally€defective,€mild€with€behavior€disorder.'€€He€achieved€an€I.Q.€of€65."€€ÌÌà àThe€last€report€from€the€Western€Carolina€Center,€prepared€by€theÏappellant's€social€worker€on€May€3,€1971,€reveals€the€following:€€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓPresently,€Eddie€is€not€on€campus.€€He€recently€went€homeÏwith€his€mother€on€a€30€day€trial€visit,€contrary€to€the€staff'sÏrecommendations.€€This€occurred€after€Eddie's€most€recentÏAWOL€episode.€€.€.€.€Since€Eddie's€admission€to€the€Center,Ïhe€has€presented€many€problems.€€He€refuses€to€follow€hisÏscheduled€routine€and€frequently€wanders€about€doing€asÏhe€pleases.€€He€has€a€problem€taking€orders€from€andÏrelating€to€people€in€authority.€€Running€away€has€alsoÏproved€to€be€a€great€problem€with€Eddie.€€.€.€.€€[T]he€family€isÏvery€unstable€and€the€prognosis€for€Eddie's€getting€alongÍwell€at€home€on€this€30€day€trial€visit€is€very€poor.€€I€haveÏseen€little€progress€in€my€work€with€this€family€and€feel€thatÏhere,€too,€the€prognosis€for€much€improvement€in€thisÏfamily's€pattern€of€relationships€and€the€mother'sÏfunctioning€in€her€role€as€wife€and€mother€is€poor.Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓò òÌà àó óFinally,€assuming€once€again€the€accuracy€of€information€contained€inÏSteele's€affidavit€and€considering€the€aggravating€circumstances€of€this€case,Ïwe€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€under€òòStricklandóó,Ï466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064.€€"It€cannot€be€gainsaid€that€the€cruelty€of€theÏ[murders]€made€it€more€difficult€for€[the€appellant]€to€alter€the€final€sentence€byÏadducing€mitigating€circumstances."€€òòElledge€v.€Duggeróó,€823€F.2d€1439,€1447Ï(11th€Cir.€1987).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ò òÌÌÌÓÓà@ àMOTION€FOR€òòEX€PARTEóó€HEARINGÌà@ àAND€SUPPORT€SERVICESÌÓÓó óÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€by€denyingÏhis€motion€for€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing€and€for€support€services.€€The€basis€of€theÏappellant's€motion€is€that€his€"claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€involvesÏa€number€of€areas€where€the€service€of€an€expert€is€'the€single€means€ofÏestablishing€prejudice.'"€€Specifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€theÏappointment€of€a€document€examiner,€a€forensic€pathologist,€a€criminalÏinvestigator,€and€a€psychologist€are€necessary€to€protect€his€Sixth€AmendmentÍright€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌÌà àThe€post„conviction€court€denied€the€appellant's€motion.€€Relying€uponÏthis€court's€decision€in€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€915,€927€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€493€U.S.€874,€110€S.Ct.Ï210€(1989),€the€post„conviction€court€ruled€that€"Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„407(b)€does€not€authorize€special€support€services€in€a€post„convictionÏproceeding€...€."× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€court€added€that€"[t]he€constitutional€issue€raised€isÏwhether€joint€trial€counsel€effectively€represented€petitioner€according€toÏconstitutional€standards.€€What€trial€counsel€did€or€failed€to€do€is€of€record."ÌÌà àIn€òòOwens€and€Payneóó,€908€S.W.2d€at€928,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏheld€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„207(b)€(1995€Supp.)€applies€to€post„conviction€capital€cases.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€court€further€held€that,€in€order€to€obtain€an€òòexÍparteóó€hearing,€a€post„conviction€petitioner€must€comply€with€the€proceduralÏguidelines€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€13€(2)(B)(10).€€òòIdóó.€€Moreover,€at€theÏhearing,€"a€petitioner€must€demonstrate€by€specific€factual€proof€that€theÏservices€of€an€expert€or€an€investigator€are€necessary€to€establish€a€ground€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€and€that€the€petitioner€is€unable€to€establish€that€groundÏfor€post„conviction€relief€by€other€available€evidence."€€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€"[t]he€trial€courtÏshould€grant€the€motion€if€...€the€petitioner€demonstrates€that€investigative€orÏexpert€services€are€necessary€to€ensure€the€òòprotection€of€the€petitioner'sÏconstitutional€rightsóó."€€òòIdóó.€(emphasis€added).€€In€other€words,€within€the€post„conviction€context,€the€support€services€sought€must€implicate€a€constitutionalÏright.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€appellant€seeks€support€services€to€ensure€theÏprotection€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏHowever,€based€upon€the€record€before€us,€we€have€already€determined€thatÏthe€appellant's€claim€of€ineffectiveness€is€without€merit.€€We€agree€with€the€post„conviction€court's€judgment€that€the€record€is€adequate€to€the€task.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ò òÌÌÌà@ àMOTION€TO€RECUSEÌÌà àó óThe€appellant€contends€that€the€post„conviction€judge€abused€hisÏdiscretion€in€failing€to€recuse€himself€from€these€proceedings€because€(1)€theÏjudge,€at€the€time€of€his€designation,€was€seeking€the€office€of€United€StatesÏSenator,€(2)€the€judge€was€a€material€witness€with€respect€to€the€issues€raisedÏin€the€post„conviction€proceeding,€and€(3)€the€impartiality€of€the€trial€judge€mightÏreasonably€be€questioned.€€ò òÌÌà àó óFirst,€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€10,€Cannon€7€(A)(3),€in€pertinent€part,€requiresÏa€judge€to€resign€his€office€"when€he€becomes€a€candidate€in€a€party€primary€orÏin€a€general€election€for€a€non„judicial€office."€€The€appellant€correctly€arguesÏthat€it€would€be€inappropriate€for€one€seeking€national€office€to€preside€over€aÏhighly€publicized€death€penalty€post„conviction€proceeding.ò ò€€ó óHowever,€absentÏthe€bald€allegation€by€the€appellant,€nothing€in€the€record€suggests€that€theÏpost„conviction€judge€was€a€candidate€in€the€primary€or€general€election€for€theÏposition€of€United€States€Senator€at€the€time€of€his€designation€as€a€specialÏjudge.€€Rather,€the€record€contains€the€following€facts€relevant€to€this€issue:€€OnÏAugust€31,€1993,€the€judge€resigned€his€office€as€Circuit€Judge€for€the€FourthÏJudicial€District€of€Tennessee€in€anticipation€of€his€candidacy€for€the€UnitedÏStates€Senate.€€However,€the€judge€subsequently€reconsidered€his€positionÍand€chose€not€to€seek€elective€office.€€Therefore,€on€September€29,€1993,€whenÏthe€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€designated€him€as€a€special€judge€to€presideÏover€the€post„conviction€proceeding€in€this€case,€the€judge€was€not€running€forÏthe€United€States€Senate.€€This€contention€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€alleges€that€the€trial€judge€had€personal€knowledge€ofÏdisputed€facts€relevant€to€issues€raised€at€the€post„conviction€proceeding.€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€judge€was€aware€of€theÏfollowing€facts:€€the€significance€of€Vastrick's€and€Jones'€testimony€concerningÏthe€Maggie€Valley€letter;€€when€defense€counsel€became€aware€that€VastrickÏand€Jones€would€testify;€€whether€and€when€defense€counsel€were€led€toÏbelieve€that€the€State€was€no€longer€seeking€handwriting€exemplars€from€theÏappellant;€€and€whether€the€appellant€was€advised€of€the€consequences€of€hisÏrefusal€to€provide€additional€exemplars.ò òÌÌà àó óA€motion€to€recuse€is€addressed€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€ÏòòState€v.€Partonóó,€817€S.W.2d€28,€30€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Generally,€"[w]henÏa€trial€judge€has€no€doubt€of€his€ability€to€preside€fairly€over€the€mattersÏpresented,€there€is€no€need€to€grant€a€motion€for€recusal."€€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ï83„241„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€January€20,€1988),€òòaff'd€in€part,€rev'dÏin€partóó,€797€S.W.2d€578€(Tenn.€1990).€€However,€the€standard€is€ultimately€anÏobjective€one.€€Thus,€recusal€is€warranted€"when€a€person€of€ordinary€prudenceÍin€the€judge's€position,€knowing€all€of€the€facts€known€to€the€judge,€would€find€aÏreasonable€basis€for€questioning€the€judge's€impartiality."€€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882ÏS.W.2d€810,€820€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€standard€of€review€on€appeal€isÏwhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€denying€the€motion.€€òòState€v.ÏCashóó,€867€S.W.2d€741,€749€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€10,€Cannon€3(C)€provides,€"A€judge€shouldÏdisqualify€himself€in€a€proceeding€in€which€his€impartiality€might€reasonably€beÏquestioned,€including€but€not€limited€to€instances€where:€€He€has€a€personalÏbias€or€prejudice€concerning€a€party,€or€personal€knowledge€of€disputedÏevidentiary€facts€concerning€the€proceeding."€€However,€prior€knowledge€ofÏfacts€about€the€case€is€not€sufficient€in€and€of€itself€to€require€disqualification.€ÏòòAlleyóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€822.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€a€judge€is€in€no€wayÏdisqualified€merely€because€he€has€participated€in€other€legal€proceedingsÏagainst€the€same€person.€€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€391€S.W.2d€637,€642€(Tenn.€1965).€ÏòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€DeModicaóó,€No.€99€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€supreme€court€has€observed€that€"[j]udicialÏknowledge€upon€which€a€decision€may€be€based€is€...€the€cognizance€of€certainÏfacts€the€judge€becomes€aware€of€by€virtue€of€the€legal€procedures€in€which€heÏplays€a€neutral€role."€€òòVaughn€v.€Shelby€Williams€of€Tennessee,€Inc.óó,€813ÏS.W.2d€132,€133€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€court€of€appeals€in€òòEmbry€v.€Chimentióó,€No.Ï02A01„9305„CV„00116€(Tenn.€App.€March€15,€1994),€citing€òòVaughnóó,Ídistinguished€between€a€judge's€knowledge€obtained€by€virtue€of€his€position€inÏan€earlier,€related€proceeding€and€knowledge€obtained€outside€the€courtroom.€ÏThus,€to€disqualify,€prejudice€"'must€stem€from€an€òòextrajudicialóó€source€and€resultÏin€an€opinion€on€the€merits€on€some€basis€other€than€what€the€judge€learnedÏfrom€...€participation€in€the€case.'"€€òòAlleyóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€821€(citationÏomitted)(emphasis€added).€€€€€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„103€(1994€Supp.),€theÏjudge€who€presided€at€the€trial€in€which€a€conviction€occurred€is€permitted,Ïalthough€not€required,€to€preside€over€post„conviction€proceedings€when€theÏcompetency€of€trial€counsel€has€been€challenged€by€the€appellant.€€ThisÏpractice€is€pervasive.€€Indeed,€in€this€case,€upon€request€of€the€Supreme€Court,Ïthe€trial€judge€suspended€his€retirement€in€order€to€preside€over€the€post„conviction€proceedings.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€As€suggested€by€the€State,€to€require€recusalÏwhenever€a€trial€judge€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding€has€knowledge€ofÏdisputed€facts€would€wreak€havoc€in€the€criminal€justice€system.ÌÌà àIt€is€true€that€a€trial€judge€cannot€both€preside€at€a€post„convictionÏproceeding€and€serve€as€a€witness€in€that€proceeding.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€605;€ÍCohen,€Paine,€and€Sheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€(1990)€ðð€605.1,Ïpp.€247„248.€€However,€having€reviewed€the€record€of€the€post„convictionÏproceedings,€we€conclude€that€the€judge€was€not€a€significant€source€ofÏinformation€at€the€hearing,€nor€was€the€judge's€decision€ultimately€influenced€byÏthat€information.€€òòVaughnóó,€813€S.W.2d€at€134.€€Moreover,€the€record€reflects€thatÏother€witnesses€were€available€to€address€the€factual€issues.ÌÌÌà àThe€appellant€nevertheless€complains€that€the€trial€judge's€conduct€of€theÏpost„conviction€hearing,€including€his€findings€at€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,Ïrender€his€impartiality€suspect.€€Initially,€we€note€that€adverse€rulings€by€a€courtÏare€not€usually€sufficient€grounds€to€establish€bias.€€òòAlleyóó,€882€S.W.2d€at€821.€€ÏMoreover,€"[t]he€issue€to€be€determined€is€not€the€propriety€of€the€judicialÏconduct€of€the€judge,€but€whether€he€committed€an€error€which€resulted€in€anÏunjust€disposition€...€."€€òòState€v.€Hawkóó,€688€S.W.2d€467,€472€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1985).€€We€conclude€that€the€judge's€remarks€and€actions€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing,€albeit€on€occasion€ill„advised,€did€not€diminish€the€overall€fairness€ofÏthe€proceeding,€even€applying€the€heightened€standards€of€due€processÏapplicable€in€a€capital€case.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€260€(Tenn.Í1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€743€(1995).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òMOTION€FOR€CONTINUANCEó óÌÌà àOn€November€9,€1993,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€to€continue€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing.€€In€support€of€his€motion,€the€appellant€allegedÏthat€he€had€not€completed€the€investigation€of€his€claims.€€€On€November€23,Ï1993,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€the€appellant's€motion.ÌÌà àOn€November€29,€1993,€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€appellantÏrenewed€his€motion€for€a€continuance€and€made€an€offer€of€proof€in€the€form€ofÏRobert€Steele's€testimony.€€Steele€is€an€investigator€and€litigation€specialist€withÏthe€Capital€Case€Resource€Center.€€As€mentioned€earlier,€Steele€testified€thatÏhe€had€been€coordinating€the€penalty€phase€investigation€of€this€case€sinceÏAugust,€and€that€he€had€contacted€140€individuals€in€order€to€collect€recordsÏrelating€to€the€appellant.€€He€stated€that€he€had€received€23€responses,Ïincluding€the€report€from€the€Western€Carolina€Center.€€Steele€stated€that€itÏwould€take€approximately€6€to€9€months€to€complete€the€penalty€phaseÏinvestigation€of€this€case.€€The€court€denied€the€renewed€motion.ÌÌà àAdditionally,€on€the€morning€of€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€appellantÏamended€his€petition,€alleging€in€part€that€the€grand€and€petit€juries€in€this€caseÏwere€not€representative€of€the€community.€€The€defense€argued€that€they€wouldÏrequire€at€least€sixty€days€in€order€to€investigate€the€systematic€exclusion€ofÏcertain€cognizable€groups€from€the€Sevier€County€jury€system.€€This€motion€for€aÏcontinuance€was€also€denied.ÌÌà àIt€is€well€established€that€the€decision€whether€to€grant€a€continuanceÏ"rests€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court."€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€825€S.W.2d€113,Ï117€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992).€€Moreover,Ïthe€denial€of€a€continuance€will€not€be€disturbed€"unless€it€appears€upon€theÏface€of€the€record€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€and€prejudiceÏenured€to€the€accused€as€a€direct€result€of€the€trial€judge's€ruling."€€òòState€v.ÏDykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€257€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Additionally,€in€order€toÏtrigger€post„conviction€relief,€the€denial€of€a€motion€for€continuance€mustÏimplicate€a€constitutional€right.€€Thus,€the€habeas€petitioner€"must€demonstrate,Ïfirst,€that€the€...€court€abused€its€discretion€and,€second,€that€its€action€renderedÏthe€[proceeding]€fundamentally€unfair."€€òòConner€v.€Bowenóó,€842€F.2d€279,€283Ï(11th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€488€U.S.€840,€109€S.Ct.€107,€òòand€cert.€deniedóó,€488€U.S.Ï864,€109€S.Ct.€164€(1988).€€We€note€that€the€grant€or€refusal€of€a€continuanceÏ"rarely€reaches€constitutional€proportions."€€òòKnightonóó,€740€F.2d€at€1351.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€his€discretion.€€The€proofÏindicates€that€the€Capital€Case€Resource€Center€first€became€involved€in€thisÏcase€when€its€attorney,€Brock€Mehler,€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€to€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court.€€In€February,€1993,€the€Supreme€Court€deniedÏthe€petition.€€In€June,€1993,€the€Capital€Case€Resource€Center€was€appointed€toÏrepresent€the€appellant€in€his€post„conviction€proceedings.€€At€this€time,€post„conviction€counsel€withdrew€the€record,€and,€in€July,€1993,€reviewed€the€record.€ÏOn€August€10,€1993,€counsel€filed€a€petition.€€As€previously€noted,€the€ÌÌÌevidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€November€29,€1993.€€Thus,€the€appellant'sÏcounsel€had€access€to€the€records€in€this€case€for€at€least€five€months€prior€toÏthe€post„conviction€hearing,€including€three€months€following€the€filing€of€theÏappellant's€petition.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€identify€any€prejudice€affecting€hisÏconviction€or€sentence.€€It€is€undisputed€that€a€continuance€may€be€granted€forÏthe€purpose€of€securing€the€presence€of€identifiable€witnesses€if€the€witnesses'Ïtestimony€is€material€and€admissible.€€However,€in€this€case,€the€appellantÏsought€a€continuance€in€order€to€gather€information€which,€at€the€time€of€theÏmotion,€was€largely€unknown€and€of€entirely€speculative€value.€€ÌÌà àThus,€while€we€do€not€wish€to€douse€the€flames€of€post„convictionÏcounsel's€zealous€representation,€a€continuance€of€six€to€nine€months€under€theÏfacts€presented€is€not€warranted.€€Moreover,€for€the€reasons€already€discussed,Ïthe€post„conviction€court's€denial€of€the€appellant's€motions€does€not€implicateÏhis€due€process€rights.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòò òPREMEDITATION€AND€DELIBERATIONó óÌÌÓ  Óóóà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that,€in€light€of€the€Supreme€Court'sÏdecision€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€534€(Tenn.€1992),€the€evidenceÏintroduced€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€premeditation€and€deliberation.€ÏMoreover,€the€appellant€argues€that,€pursuant€to€òòBrownóó,€the€trial€court'sÏinstruction€to€the€jury,€that€premeditation€may€be€formed€in€an€instant,€wasÏimproper.ÌÌà àIn€òòBrownóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€"it€is€prudent€to€abandon€anÏinstruction€that€tells€the€jury€that€'premeditation€may€be€formed€in€an€instant.'"€ÏòòIdóó.€at€543.€€However,€the€òòBrownóó€case€was€decided€on€June€1,€1992.€€TheÏappellant's€trial€occurred€in€1988.€€We€have€held€that€òòBrownóó€is€not€to€be€appliedÏretroactively.€€òòLofton€v.€Stateóó,€898€S.W.2d€246,€249„250€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòPeters€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9409„CR„00331€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€October€30,€1995).€Moreover,€theÏsupreme€court's€holding€in€òòBrownóó€does€not€implicate€a€constitutional€right€orÏnew€rule€of€law.€€Accordingly,€this€court€has€repeatedly€held€that€òòBrownóó€may€notÏbe€used€as€a€basis€for€relief€within€the€post„conviction€context.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€ÏòòLoftonóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€249„250;€òòPetersóó,€No.€03C01„9409„CR„00331;€òòState€v.ÏSlateóó,€No.€03C01„9201„CR„00014€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€May€23,Ï1994).ÌÌà àThis€court€in€òòSlateóó,€No.€03C01„9201„CR„00014,€held€that€sufficiency€ofÏthe€evidence,€generally,€may€implicate€the€due€process€rights€of€the€appellantÏand€is€therefore€a€cognizable€claim€in€post„conviction€proceedings€pursuant€toÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105€(1990).€€However,€issues€that€have€beenÏpreviously€determined€on€direct€appeal€cannot€support€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„111,€„112€(1990).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏHarveyóó,€749€S.W.2d€478,€479€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€€òòGribble€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ï02C01„9303„CC„00039€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1995);€€òòRandolph€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9309„CR„00309€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ïat€Knoxville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115ÏS.Ct.€1699€(1995).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€directÏappeal.€€òòHarrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€75„76.€€As€noted€earlier,€the€Supreme€CourtÍfound€that€"€[s]ince€the€overwhelming€evidence€supported€the€verdict€of€the€jury,Ïthe€judgment€of€conviction€must€be€affirmed."€€òòIdóó.€at€76.€€The€appellant€contendsÏthat,€in€evaluating€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€the€supreme€courtÏconcentrated€upon€the€evidence€implicating€the€appellant€in€the€crime€and€didÏnot€directly€address€the€issues€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€The€appellantÏcites€this€court's€decision€in€òòSlateóó,€No.€03C01„9201„CR„00014,€in€support€of€hisÏargument.€€However,€on€direct€appeal€in€òòSlateóó,€the€appellate€court,€withoutÏdiscussing€the€merits,€held€that€the€issue€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€wasÏentirely€waived.€€Therefore,€the€post„conviction€appellate€court€found€that€theÏissue€had€not€been€previously€determined.€€In€contrast,€in€the€instant€case,€theÏsupreme€court€addressed€the€merits€of€the€appellant's€challenge€to€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€Thus,€this€issue€has€been€previously€determinedÏand€is€not€subject€to€review€in€this€proceeding.ÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòò òMIDDLEBROOKS€ISSUEó óÌÓ  ÓóóÌà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€because€he€was€convicted€of€felonyÏmurder,€the€supreme€court's€decision€in€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317Ï(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€dismissedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€651€(1993),€should€beÏapplied€to€invalidate€the€aggravating€circumstance€of€felony€murder.€€The€recordÏreveals€that€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€both€felony€murder€andÍpremeditated€first€degree€murder,€as€to€each€victim.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Prior€to€the€sentencingÏphase€of€the€trial,€the€trial€court€"merged"€the€felony€murder€and€premeditatedÏmurder€verdicts,€in€effect€dismissing€the€felony€murder€verdicts.× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€state€isÏprecluded€from€using€felony€murder€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€when€theÏunderlying€conviction€is€felony€murder.€€òòIdóó.€at€346.€€In€so€holding,€the€courtÏstated€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[W]hen€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€first„degreeÏmurder€solely€on€the€basis€of€felony€murder,€theÏaggravating€circumstance€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ïðð€39„13„203(i)(7)€(1982)€and€39„13„204(i)(7)€(1991),Ïdoes€not€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligibleÏmurderers€sufficiently€under€the€Eighth€AmendmentÏto€the€U.S.€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€16€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€because€it€duplicates€theÏelements€of€the€offense.ÌÓÓòòIdóó.ÌÌà àAs€the€state€correctly€asserts,€the€appellant€was€not€convicted€"solely€onÏthe€basis€of€felony€murder."€€The€jury€returned€guilty€verdicts€on€counts€of€both€Ípremeditated€and€felony€murder.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòò òSEQUENTIAL€JURY€INSTRUCTIONSóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€"the€jury's€deliberative€process€wasÏunfairly€skewed€by€the€Court's€instruction."€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€guilt€phaseÏof€the€trial,€the€judge€instructed€the€jury€on€the€elements€of€first€degree€murder.€ÏThe€judge€then€instructed€the€jury€that€it€could€only€consider€the€lesser€includedÏoffense€of€second€degree€murder€if€it€first€acquitted€the€appellant€of€the€greaterÏoffense.ÌÌà àThis€court€has€repeatedly€upheld€the€giving€of€so„called€"acquittal€first"Ïinstructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rainesóó,€882€S.W.2d€376,€381„82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,Ï375„76€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€vÏRutherfordóó,€876€S.W.€2d€118,€119„20€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Beckhamóó,€No.€02C01„9406„CR„00107€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Jackson,€September€27,€1995).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòTHE€TENNESSEE€DEATH€PENALTY€STATUTEóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant€raises€numerous€constitutional€challenges€to€Tennessee'sÏdeath€penalty€statute.€€Although€he€acknowledges€that€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€has€rejected€each€of€these€arguments€in€the€past,€he€nevertheless€raisesÏthem€in€order€to€preserve€the€issues€for€later€review€by€the€federal€appellateÏcourts.Ì€€Ìà àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€Tennessee's€death€penalty€statute€failsÏto€meaningfully€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€defendants.€€Specifically,€theÏappellant€maintains€that,€in€combination,€aggravating€circumstances€(i)(2),× ƒ7 ××  ×Í(5),× ƒ9 ××  ×€(6),× ƒ: ××  ×€and€(7)× ƒ< ××  ×€apply€to€a€majority€of€the€homicides€committed€inÏTennessee.€€He€submits€that,€if€he€possessed€the€resources€to€investigate€andÏobtain€statistical€evidence,€he€could€show€that€"it€is€the€exception€rather€than€theÏrule€that€a€homicide€does€not€involve€a€collateral€felony€(i)(7)€and,Ïconsequently,€the€killing€of€the€victim/witness€to€that€felony€(i)(6),€or€does€notÏinvolve€the€infliction€of€severe€mental€or€physical€pain€(i)(5),€or€that€the€personÏwho€commits€the€homicide€does€not€have€a€prior€conviction€for€€assault€or€anyÏfelony€'whose€statutory€elements€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person'Ï(i)(2)."€€This€argument€was€rejected€by€this€court€€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€No.€02C01„9305„CR„00080€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€October€19,€1994),€òòperm.€toÏappeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,Ï582€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€417€(1994);€€òòState€v.ÍCauthernóó,€778€S.W.2d€39,€47€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€495€U.S.€904,€110ÏS.Ct.€1922€(1990).€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€claims€that€the€(i)(5)€aggravating€circumstance€isÏvague€and€overbroad.€€Again,€our€supreme€court€has€held€that€this€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstance€is€constitutional.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2dÏ166,€181„182€(Tenn.€1991).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€(i)(6)€aggravating€circumstance€hasÏbeen€construed€and€applied€in€such€a€manner€as€to€be€duplicative€of€the€(i)(7)Ïaggravating€circumstance.€We€conclude,€however,€that€this€issue€need€not€beÏaddressed,€since€the€jury€did€not€find€that€the€(i)(6)€aggravating€circumstance€isÏapplicable€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€following€arguments€raised€by€the€appellant€were€rejected€in€òòState€v.ÏSmithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€561€(1993),€òòandÏcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€682€(1994):ÌÓÓà8 àà à(1)€€the€statute€is€unconstitutional€because€the€deathÏpenalty€has€been€imposed€in€a€discriminatory€manner€based€uponÏeconomics,€race,€geography,€and€gender,€òòIdóó.€at€23;€ÌÌà0 àà à(2)€€the€lack€of€uniform€procedures€mandating€individualÏsequestered€voir€dire€during€jury€selection€renders€the€imposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty€arbitrary€and€capricious,€òòIdóó.€at€20;ÌÌÌà8 àà à(3)€€the€death€penalty€statute€is€unconstitutional€because€itÏlimits€the€consideration€of€mitigating€evidence€by€requiring€the€juryÏto€unanimously€agree€on€a€life€sentence,€òòIdóó.€at€18;€andÌÌà0 àà à(4)€€the€death€penalty€statute€is€unconstitutional€because€the€jury€isÏnot€required€to€make€the€ultimate€determination€that€the€death€penalty€isÏappropriate,€òòIdóó.€at€22.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€following€arguments€raised€by€the€appellant€were€rejected€by€theÏsupreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526,€542€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óóÏU.S.€òò€€€óó,€114€S.Ct.€475€(1993):ÌÓÓà8 àà à(1)€€by€excluding€jurors€who€have€scruples€against€theÏdeath€penalty,€the€jury€selection€process€skews€the€make„up€of€theÏjury€to€make€it€prosecution„prone€and€thereby€violates€theÏdefendant's€constitutional€rights;€andÌà à€€€€€€Ìà8 àà à(2)€€the€death€penalty€is€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€imposedÏbecause€the€State€has€the€right€of€final€closing€argument€at€theÏpenalty€phase.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€following€arguments€raised€by€the€appellant€were€rejected€by€theÏsupreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€86„87€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óóÏU.S.€òò€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€585€(1994):ÌÓÓà8 àà à(1)€€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€andÏcapricious€manner€because€the€defendant€is€not€allowed€toÏaddress€issues€such€as€parole€eligibility,€cost€of€incarcerationÏversus€cost€of€execution,€deterrence,€and€method€of€execution;ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€€the€death€sentence€is€imposed€in€an€arbitrary€andÏcapricious€manner€because€the€jury€is€not€instructed€as€to€theÏeffect€of€a€non„unanimous€verdict;ÌÌà8 àà à(3)€€the€death€penalty€is€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€imposedÍbecause€the€prosecutor€is€allowed€discretion€in€deciding€whetherÏto€seek€the€death€penalty;€andÌÌà8 àà à(4)€€the€death€penalty€statute€is€unconstitutional€becauseÏthere€is€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€Tennessee€Pattern€JuryÏInstructions€lead€the€jurors€to€believe€that€they€are€required€toÏunanimously€agree€as€to€the€existence€of€mitigatingÏcircumstances.ÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€electrocution€is€a€cruel€and€unusualÏpunishment,€thereby€violating€the€appellant's€constitutional€rights.€€ThisÏargument€was€specifically€rejected€in€òòBlackóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€178„179.ÌÌÌà àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€appellate€review€process€inÏTennessee€is€constitutionally€inadequate.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€appellateÏreview€in€Tennessee€is€not€meaningful€for€the€following€reasons:€€there€is€noÏuniform,€state„wide€procedure€for€collecting€and€evaluating€data€concerning€theÏdisposition€of€homicide€cases;€€the€cases€of€defendants€convicted€of€someÏdegree€of€homicide€less€than€first€degree€murder€and/or€the€cases€ofÏdefendants€who€received€a€sentence€of€less€than€life€imprisonment€are€notÏreported€to€the€supreme€court;€€the€information€collected€by€the€trial€judges€inÏthe€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€Rule€12€form€is€inadequate;€€the€jury€verdict€form€mandatedÏby€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(f)(1982)€did€not€require€the€jury€to€reportÏmitigating€circumstances€and€thereby€renders€appellate€review€of€theseÍcircumstances€impossible;€€and€no€published€standard€for€review€ofÏproportionality€is€available.€€€€In€short,€the€appellant€asserts€that€"there€is€noÏmeaningful€body€of€collected€data€to€which€the€defendant€can€refer€and€noÏstandard€upon€which€the€defendant€can€rely€to€plead€his€case."€€This€argumentÏwas€specifically€rejected€by€this€court€in€òòOdomóó,€€No.€02C01„9305„CR„00080.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€270„71.Ó  ÓÌÌòòò òÌCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€record€fully€supports€the€post„conviction€court's€findings€andÏconclusions.€€The€appellant€has€clearly€not€met€his€burden€of€proof.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€properly€denied.€€For€theÏreasons€we€have€stated,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌ€ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge€Ìà àÌ€€€€€Ì