ÿWPCü kÏKX›lÇV²¤Dz¯š_=´}ƒVë¤ÙŽc]ä\Ý,±JCD¨¤†ƒsK]¨€û±|SÔQè ,|1õU)¹±É‹>w ˆ„™Ù|YøÈ9ÝàõÑöN¨­£ß}aé·E„`pçAs¹ñL¦’)3 ª«’xp[Pk1^«ºAÂÁ’g—'§ŽÀÇ lú=F]èý[#§˜~.Â:µg>Âñ)ZW¹|–Å}‚ƒÁ Ž„’éMд¸žYk?÷ o­Ç›Ê˜AàÏ`ñÆ U`ÏeKýs=®ª¹¢mÛ”üq…IsÖ室ò6Ý“L6‰çÅiËX ¬*<å®X{Pû#_5äÐÌ>kƒ×Þ3A"ªþÍà‡¨ÖƒÍýAÂZ 3¾´ÿÎ&AWH0æø1Sl™ 9TŒRÌ&þŸf'·ä¾ÈmG®†Ÿ‚¬˜$ú9Ø=—OÊ¢@²Ê(Ï¥(ß@gqkÌ2N‚ã«ùÏÁjvΞ­x:@_;ûû{”žh"–§‰€¾ºÏ>c_–²@& NúCyscæÔ÷éÍ@In'{»Qi‡kÇ?Õ´1}Q¸¢åÃ6$Æ›ó¥Òµícx£žSýµ›ÄIÒC›#V#É´UN} %Ë 0:Ñ U> @ I oS @ Ô oÞ ^ _ wk 4o ƒ ’ m” @ « oµ @ 6 o@ 0~Á 0D? UNƒ @ Ñ zÛ @ Uo_@ àoê@ kou@ öob@ ‰:“oÍ@ NoX@ Ùoã@ don@ ïoù@ z D+„o¯o0 A¡±@ Ro\NÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ Bߘ\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ôô\  `‹&Times New Roman ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ *  ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ *|6/Ï óbï.ê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ * ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ *(.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular0  Unicoi"post-convictionTiptonAslingerCrumley ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ * ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ * ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ *  ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ *- ù-$  0Ñ#€èñXÿÿd#ÑÑ €! ÑÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ *& ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ *( ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ ** ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ *, ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ */ 'dxdÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ *ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ *.›&Draw Object <<=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK3 ÿWPC°°È rª T51ÿÿÿ3%)+.- €*Œ * dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Xõ˜XXXÔÔ‡îS€îXXõ˜ÔÓ  ÓÑ€#VÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†Xõ˜XîîS€\#ÔÔ‡¼[‰»XXõ˜ÔÐ Ö& ÐReturned€to€Active€Status€February€3,€2003Ð üL ÐÔ#†Xõ˜X»¼[‰ #ÔÌÔ‡¼[‰»XXõ˜Ôò òROGER€HARRIS€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ#†Xõ˜X»¼[‰ #Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Unicoi€CountyÐ ú J ÐNo.€4280€€€€€€Lynn€W.€Brown,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÓ{ÓÌÔ-  Ôó óߣ€1o_[$â€~g Õª TpÀ°°@ÿ"0ª` d` ª TE“ª Tª TÌH@ ê£ßÔ-  Ôò òÌÌÓ  ÓNo.€E2001„00782„CCA„R3„PCÐ –æ  ÐÓzÓÔ-  Ôó óߣ€12o_[$â€~g Õª TpÀ°°@ÿ"0ª` d` ª TEWª Tª TÌ @ ê£ßÔ_ÔÔ-  Ôò òÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àÔ_Ôà  àà h àSeptember€22,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ‚Ò  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÌÔ#†Xõ˜XXXõ˜=#ÔÓXÓÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔThis€case€has€been€returned€to€active€status€for€consideration€of€the€post€conviction€issues,€after€theÐ F– Ðsupreme€court€denied€the€petitionerððs€delayed€appeal€under€òòóóTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule.€28€ððÐ 2‚ Ð(9)(D).€€The€petitioner€appeals€from€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€TheÐ n Ðpetitioner€contends€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€Ô#†Xõ˜XXXž˜#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔWe€affirmÐ  Z Ðthe€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€Ô#†Xõ˜XXXž¤#ÔÔ‡Xõ˜XXXõ˜ÔÐ öF ÐÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€AffirmedÐ Î Ðó óÓzÓÌòòJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó€andÐ ¦ö ÐòòAlan€E.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ’â ÐÌKenneth€F.€Irvine,€Jr.,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Roger€Harris.Ð jº ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kathy€D.€Aslinger,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Ð B’ ÐJoe€C.€Crumley,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Kenneth€C.€Baldwin,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ . ~ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð !j ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òOPINIONó óÐ Þ#.! ÐÔ#†Xõ˜XXXõ˜F#ÔÌÌà @ àà @ àÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€The€petitioner,€Roger€Harris,€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€reckless€endangermentÐ ¢&ò!$ Ðwith€a€deadly€weapon.€€His€convictions€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Roger€DaleÐ Ž'Þ"% ÐHarrisóó,€No.€03C01„9201„CR„19,€LEXIS€618€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€July€23,€1992,€at€Knoxville).€OnÐ z(Ê#& ÐMarch€15,€1995,€the€petitioner€filed€a€pro€se€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€was€appointedÐ f)¶$' Ðcounsel,€who€amended€the€petition.€€Ô#†Xõ˜XXXž± #ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€hisÐ R*¢%( Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Ô#†Xõ˜XXXž'#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔÐ >+Ž&) ÐÌà  àOn€December€21,€1990,€the€petitionerððs€girlfriend€left€him€and€moved€in€with€the€victim,€JeffÐ -f(+ ÐÑ#VÑâ #âÑ8€õ˜XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ€!Ñâ #âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔHiggins.€€€The€petitioner€spent€that€night€and€the€next€day€drinking,€consuming€drugs,€making€threatsÐ ° Ðagainst€the€victim,€and€shooting€at€his€own€home,€injuring€one€of€his€friends€in€the€process.€€AtÐ œì Ðapproximately€eight€oððclock€in€the€evening,€the€petitioner€went€to€the€victimððs€home€and€killed€him.€Ð ˆØ йÓÐ ÓÓ  Óà  àOn€August€19,€1996,€the€State€filed€an€answer€and€motion€to€dismiss€the€petitionerððs€requestÐ `° Ðfor€post„conviction€relief.€€On€September€22,€1997,€after€several€continuances,€the€defendantððs€family€Ð L œ Ðretained€a€private€attorney€who€filed€an€entry€of€appearance€in€the€case.€€The€trial€court€ordered€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpetitionerððs€family€to€pay€$500€to€the€public€defenderððs€office€before€allowing€substitution€ofÐ $ t Ðcounsel.€€The€petitioner€then€filed€an€interlocutory€appeal,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÐ  ` ÐProcedure€10.€€This€Court€reversed€the€order€and€remanded€for€substitution€of€private€counsel,Ð ü L  Ðwithout€the€payment€of€$500.€€òòSeeóó€òòRoger€Harris€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9712„CR„00516,€LEXIS€67Ð è 8  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€28,€1999,€at€Knoxville).€€à  àà p àà È àÐ Ô$  ÐÓáÓÌÓ  Óà  àFollowing€the€substitution€of€counsel,€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€filed€an€amended€petitionÐ ¬ü  Ðfor€post„conviction€relief€on€August€19,€1999,€alleging€that€the€petitioner€received€ineffectiveÐ ˜è  Ðassistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€Before€the€State€responded€to€the€petitionerððsÐ „Ô  Ðallegations,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€dismissing€the€petitionerððs€request€for€post„convictionÐ pÀ Ðrelief€for€failure€to€verify€the€petition€by€oath€or€affirmation.€€Again,€the€petitioner€appealed€theÐ \¬ Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court,€and€this€Court€reversed€the€dismissal€of€the€petitionerððs€request€for€relief.€Ð H˜ ÐòòSeeóó€òòRoger€Harris€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E1999„02056„CCA„R3„PC,€LEXIS€579€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€July€28,Ð 4„ Ð2000,€at€Knoxville).€€Ð  p ÐÓÄÓÌÓ  Óà  àOn€January€5,€2001,€following€this€Courtððs€remand,€the€State€filed€an€answer€to€theÐ øH Ðaforementioned€petition.€€The€trial€court€made€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€and€deniedÐ ä4 Ðthe€defendant€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petitioner€appealed€and€this€Court€granted€him€a€delayedÐ Ð  Ðappeal€to€the€supreme€court,€staying€consideration€of€the€case€pending€the€delayed€appeal.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðsupreme€court€denied€the€delayed€appeal€and€the€case€is€now€before€this€Court€for€decision.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¨ø ÐòòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Harrisóó,€No.€E1992„00014„SC„R11„CD,€LEXIS€81€(Tenn.,€Feb.€3,€2003,€atÐ ”ä ÐKnoxville).€€Ð €Ð ÐÓnÓÌò òÓ  Óà  àó óThe€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€consisted€of€the€petitioner,€the€petitionerððs€trialÐ X ¨ Ðcounsel,€Robert€Harris,€Deborah€Simmons,€and€Kent€Garland.€Ð D!” ÐÓ{ÓÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€was€represented€by€the€same€trial€counsel€at€his€preliminaryÐ #l! Ðhearing,€at€trial,€and€on€appeal.€€He€said€he€asked€his€lawyer€to€file€a€motion€for€him€to€be€releasedÐ $X" Ðon€bail,€but€his€lawyer€failed€to€do€so.€€The€State€showed€the€petitioner€an€exhibit,€which€was€aÐ ô$D # Ðmotion€for€the€court€to€set€bail€for€the€petitioner€prepared€by€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel.€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðpetitioner€admitted€that€the€motion€was€filed€in€his€case€by€his€trial€counsel,€but€said€he€was€not€toldÐ Ì&"% Ðwhy€his€motion€was€denied.€€He€said€he€asked€his€attorney€to€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€decisionÐ ¸'#& Ðdenying€him€bond,€and€his€attorney€said€the€trial€court€denied€his€appeal.€€He€said€he€wanted€to€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðreleased€from€€jail€so€he€could€work€to€help€his€family€pay€for€his€defense.€€He€also€said€that€beingÐ )à$( Ðreleased€from€jail€would€have€made€it€more€convenient€to€meet€with€his€attorney.€€He€said€that€heÐ |*Ì%) Ðnever€had€the€opportunity€to€meet€his€attorney€in€private€and€that€they€only€met€four€times€for€fiveÐ h+¸&* Ðto€fifteen€minutes€per€meeting.€€He€said€that€his€attorney€failed€to€show€him€any€police€reports,Ð ° Ðautopsy€reports,€lab€reports,€or€photographs€from€the€crime€scene€and€that€his€attorney€told€him€thatÐ œì Ðhe€had€talked€with€many€witnesses€and€had€done€a€thorough€investigation.€€He€said€that€he€and€hisÐ ˆØ Ðattorney€did€not€discuss€the€hiring€of€any€experts€in€his€case€and€that€his€attorney€told€him€that€he€hadÐ tÄ Ðhis€own€private€investigator.€€He€said€that€even€though€he€gave€his€attorney€the€names€of€severalÐ `° Ðpotential€witnesses,€his€attorney€failed€to€interview€any€of€them€and€the€petitioner€€was€the€onlyÐ L œ Ðdefense€witness.€€He€said€€his€attorney€told€him€that€nobody€wanted€to€get€involved€in€his€case€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestify€on€his€behalf.€€Ð $ t ÐÓoÓÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€said€that€the€word€ð ðintentionallyðð€had€been€added€to€his€indictment€withoutÐ ü L  Ðhis€knowledge.€€He€said€his€attorney€told€him€that€he€planned€to€represent€him€before€the€TennesseeÐ è 8  ÐSupreme€Court€and€never€indicated€that€he€did€not€plan€to€go€forward€on€the€petitionerððs€behalf.€€HeÐ Ô$  Ðsaid€he€told€his€attorney€that€he€knew€one€of€the€jurors€and€that€his€attorney€assured€him€ð ðitððll€beÐ À  Ðalright.ðð€€He€said€that€when€asked,€the€juror€denied€knowing€the€petitioner.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÓÀ%ÓÌÓ  Óà  àOn€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€went€to€school€with€the€juror€and€thatÐ „Ô  Ðshe€was€a€friend€of€the€victim.€€He€said€he€told€his€attorney€that€the€juror€was€a€friend€of€the€victim,Ð pÀ Ðand€his€attorney€responded€with,€ð ðIððve€got€that.ðð€€à  àÐ \¬ ÐÓ7(ÓÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€every€time€he€confronted€his€attorney€about€evidence€and€otherÐ 4„ Ðthings,€his€attorney€would€tell€him€that€ð ðyour€family€has€retained€me,€Mr.€Harris,€Iððve€got€this.ðð€€HeÐ  p Ðsaid€that€he€wanted€to€see€the€search€warrant€and€other€documents,€but€his€attorney€did€not€give€himÐ  \ Ða€copy.€€He€said€that€his€attorney€allowed€law€enforcement€officers€and€jailers€to€stand€within€earshotÐ øH Ðof€them€during€their€meetings.€€He€said€he€thought€some€of€the€jailers€had€ð ðsnitches,ðð€€because€theÐ ä4 ÐDistrict€Attorney€said€that€inmates€had€claimed€that€he€planned€to€plead€temporary€insanity.€€He€saidÐ Ð  Ðthat€no€informants€testified€before€the€court.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ¬)ÓÓ  Óà  àOn€redirect,€the€petitioner€testified€that€the€longest€meeting€he€had€with€his€trial€counselÐ ”ä Ðlasted€twenty€minutes€and€that€his€family€retained€counsel€for€him€because€he€was€unable€toÐ €Ð Ðfinancially€do€so€himself.€€He€said€that€on€several€occasions,€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€bring€theÐ l¼ Ðpetitionerððs€file€or€a€notebook€to€their€meetings.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÓü,ÓÌÓ  Óà  àRobert€L.€Harris,€brother€of€the€petitioner,€testified€that€he€was€not€on€the€scene€when€theÐ 0"€  Ðvictim€was€shot.€€He€said€that€on€the€night€of€the€incident,€he€was€called€to€come€to€the€scene€to€getÐ #l! Ðthe€petitioner€out€from€under€the€trailer.€€He€said€that€he€called€to€his€brother,€who€came€out€fromÐ $X" Ðunder€the€trailer€and€was€handcuffed€by€police.€€He€said€that€he€was€not€interviewed€by€theÐ ô$D # Ðpetitionerððs€attorney€and€would€have€been€able€to€remember€more€details€if€he€had€been€interviewedÐ à%0!$ Ðback€in€1990€or€1991.€€He€said€he€did€not€testify€at€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€On€cross„examination,€heÐ Ì&"% Ðtestified€that€he€had€little€contact€with€the€petitioner€after€he€was€taken€into€custody.€€He€said€he€didÐ ¸'#& Ðnot€contact€the€petitionerððs€attorney€to€tell€him€that€he€wished€to€testify€nor€did€he€attend€the€trial.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐHe€said€that€he€would€have€been€at€his€brotherððs€trial€if€he€had€been€subpoenaed€even€thoughÔ#†Xõ˜XXXž#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ô,€dueÐ )à$( Ðto€his€own€criminal€record,€he€was€advised€by€hisÔ#†Xõ˜XXXž13#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ô€own€attorney€not€to€attend.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÓË.ÓÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  Óà  àDeborah€Simmons,€the€petitionerððs€sister,€testified€that€she€was€at€her€motherððs€home€whenÐ ° Ðshe€learned€of€the€incident€involving€the€petitioner.€€She€said€Investigator€Don€Whitson€told€her€thatÐ œì Ðher€brother€shot€the€victim€and€that€all€of€the€witnesses€stated€that€the€petitioner€was€drunk€and€ð ðoutÐ ˆØ Ðof€his€mind.ðð€€She€said€that€she€was€involved€in€obtaining€counsel€for€the€petitioner€and€paid€aÐ tÄ Ðportion€€of€his€fees.€€She€said€the€petitionerððs€attorney€did€not€ask€her€what€she€knew€about€the€case.€Ð `° ÐShe€said€that€she€did€not€think€about€telling€him€about€her€conversation€with€Investigator€WhitsonÐ L œ Ðuntil€she€heard€him€testify€in€court€that€the€petitioner€was€ð ðstraightðð€and€ð ðknew€what€was€going€on.ðð€Ð 8 ˆ йÓ44ÓÓ  Óà  àOn€cross„examination,€Simmons€testified€that€she€asked€Investigator€Whitson€if€the€petitionerÐ  ` Ðhad€been€drinking€the€night€of€the€shooting€because€ð ðif€he€was€in€his€right€mind€he€wouldnððt€haveÐ ü L  Ðdone€something€like€that.ðð€€Ð è 8  ÐÓÂ7ÓÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€has€been€an€attorney€for€thirty„two€years€andÐ À  Ðthat€95%€of€his€practice€consists€of€criminal€work.€€He€said€that€he€was€contacted€by€the€petitionerððsÐ ¬ü  Ðsister€and€was€retained€to€represent€the€petitioner.€€He€said€he€does€not€routinely€give€defendantððsÐ ˜è  Ðcopies€of€motions€nor€does€he€remember€the€petitioner€asking€for€copies€of€anything.€€He€said€heÐ „Ô  Ðwould€not€allow€police€officers€to€be€within€earshot€of€a€conference€with€his€client.€€He€said€that€theÐ pÀ Ðprovision€for€attorney/client€conferences€ð ðwerenððt€the€best€in€the€worldðð€and€that€he€would€beÐ \¬ Ðmindful€of€security€during€any€conversation€with€his€client.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€remember€theÐ H˜ Ðnumber€of€times€he€met€with€the€petitioner,€but€the€gist€of€the€meetings€had€to€do€more€withÐ 4„ Ðmitigating€the€offense€than€with€an€absolute€defense.€€He€said€that€ð ðwithout€a€doubt€there€was€anÐ  p Ðextremely€high€level€of€intoxication€involved€in€the€entire€incident.ðð€€€He€said€his€strategy€was€ð ðtoÐ  \ Ðreduce€the€case€from€first€degree€murder€to€second€degree€murder€based€on€the€level€of€intoxication,Ð øH Ðattacking€the€element€of€premeditation.ðð€€He€said€the€petitionerððs€girlfriend€had€a€relationship€withÐ ä4 Ðthe€victim€and€had€stayed€with€the€victim€on€the€night€before€the€incident.€€He€said€that€during€theÐ Ð  Ðcourse€of€the€day€of€the€incident,€the€petitioner€searched€for€his€girlfriend,€made€threatsÔ#†Xõ˜XXXž¾3#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ô,€and€gotÐ ¼  Ðintoxicated.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€have€any€recollection€of€the€indictment€being€altered€to€includeÐ ¨ø Ðthe€word€ð ðintentionally.ðð€€He€said€he€was€fairly€confident€that€if€he€objected€to€the€amendment,€theÐ ”ä Ðð ðcourt€probably€wouldnððt€have€granted€the€motion,€and€weððd€wound€up€with€a€continuance,€and€theÐ €Ð Ðcase€would€have€been€resubmitted€to€the€Grand€Jury.ðð€€He€said€he€did€not€recall€telling€the€petitionerÐ l¼ Ðhe€would€file€a€Rule€11€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€but€he€would€have€filed€it€Ô#†Xõ˜XXXžÓ?#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ôhad€heÐ X ¨ Ðtold€the€petitioner€he€would€do€so.€€He€said€he€did€not€see€any€reason€for€a€mental€evaluation€of€theÐ D!” Ðpetitioner€and€could€not€recall€whether€he€used€his€own€private€investigator.€€He€said€that€if€theÐ 0"€  Ðpetitioner€had€said€he€knew€someone€on€the€jury,€he€would€have€seen€that€the€potential€juror€wasÐ #l! Ðexcused.€€He€said€the€only€issue€he€presented€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€was€that€the€trialÐ $X" Ðcourt€erred€in€giving€the€requested€jury€instructions€regarding€intoxication€and€premeditation.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÓ 9ÓÌÓ  Óà  àOn€cross„examination,€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€was€unable€to€locate€the€petitionerððs€fileÐ Ì&"% Ðand€that,€due€to€the€passage€of€time,€his€memory€about€the€case€was€vague.€€He€said€there€was€noÐ ¸'#& Ðissue€that€would€have€merited€securing€an€investigator,€and€he€did€not€seek€the€help€of€any€expertsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€the€preparation€of€this€case.€€He€said€he€remembered€talking€to€people€who€had€seen€the€petitionerÐ )à$( Ðon€the€day€of€the€incident.€He€said€the€trial€court€denied€his€request€for€bail,€and€he€did€not€appealÐ |*Ì%) Ðits€decision.€€He€said€he€did€not€have€any€recollection€about€submitting€€motions€in€this€case.€€He€saidÐ h+¸&* Ðhe€performs€his€own€mental€evaluation€and€relies€on€his€training€in€ð ðrepresenting€hundreds€orÐ ° Ðthousands€of€clients.ðð€€He€said€the€petitionerððs€mental€state€may€or€may€not€have€been€admissibleÐ œì Ðevidence,€but€he€was€aware€of€the€petitionerððs€long€history€of€drug€and€alcohol€abuse.€€He€said€heÐ ˆØ Ðdid€not€remember€sending€a€letter€advising€the€petitioner€that€he€would€be€responsible€for€filing€hisÐ tÄ Ðown€Rule€11€application.€€On€redirect„examination,€he€said€the€Stateððs€case€was€based€on€theÐ `° Ðassumption€that€the€petitioner€began€forming€the€intent€to€kill€many€hours€before€he€met€the€victimÐ L œ Ðat€about€eight€oððclock€on€the€day€of€the€incident.€€à  àÐ 8 ˆ ÐÓEÓÌÓ  ÓÓ XÓKent€Garland€testified€that€he€was€the€prosecutor€in€the€petitionerððs€case.€€He€said€that€theÐ  ` Ðpetitionerððs€trial€counsel€ð ðtook€a€miserable€set€of€facts€and€circumstances€as€far€as€the€evidence€thatÐ ü L  Ðhe€hadðð€to€deal€with€and€ð ðtried€to€wear€us€out€with€it€in€the€trial€process.ðð€€He€said€the€facts€in€theÐ è 8  Ðcase€were€overwhelming€and€he€ð ðcouldnððt€imagine€what€possible€defense€that€there€might€beÐ Ô$  Ðavailableðð€to€the€petitioner.€€He€said€there€was€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€consumption€of€alcoholÐ À  Ðand€marijuana€over€a€period€of€time,€which€was€an€issue€in€the€case.€€He€said€that€every€witnessÐ ¬ü  Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€had€been€consuming€alcohol€and€marijuana€during€the€day€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðshooting.€€He€said€that€Steven€Lewis€had€been€with€the€defendant€on€the€day€of€the€shooting€and€hadÐ „Ô  Ðtestified€to€the€defendantððs€consumption€of€alcohol.€€Garland€said€the€defendant€had€a€ð ðnine€shot€.22Ð pÀ Ðpistolðð€Ô#†Xõ˜XXXž‚B#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ôin€his€possession€prior€to€the€shooting€and€had€shot€Lewis€in€the€foot€after€firing€it€inside€hisÐ \¬ Ðown€trailer.€€He€said€Lewis€testified€that€the€defendant€hid€under€his€trailer.€€He€said€that€when€anÐ H˜ Ðindictment€includes€an€error€within€the€wording€of€first€degree€murder,€an€amendment€is€made€beforeÐ 4„ Ðan€indictment€is€read€to€a€jury,€and€a€change€in€the€wording€of€an€indictment€is€done€prior€to€theÐ  p Ðbeginning€of€trial.€€He€said€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€did€not€object€to€the€amendment.€€HeÐ  \ Ðsaid€the€State€did€not€offer€to€exclude€anyone€from€the€jury,€and€the€defense€used€seven€peremptoryÐ øH Ðchallenges,€while€the€court€used€eighteen€challenges.€€On€cross„examination,€he€said€€there€was€neverÐ ä4 Ða€death€penalty€notice€in€this€case.€€He€said€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€filed€two€pre„trial€motions.€Ð Ð  ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓÓ XÓAnalysisó óóóÐ ¨ø ÐÌò òI.€€Ineffectiveness€of€Trial€Counseló óÐ €Ð ÐÓÒSÓÓ XÞSÓÐ l¼ ÐThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€petition€for€post„convictionÐ X ¨ Ðrelief.€€Further,€he€contends€that€he€has€presented€sufficient€evidence€to€receive€a€new€trial€and/orÐ D!” Ða€new€appeal.€€The€petitioner€claims€he€is€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€because€he€was€deniedÐ 0"€  Ðeffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€The€record€reflects€the€trial€court€dismissedÐ #l! Ðthe€defendantððs€post„conviction€petition€due€to€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€prove€that€he€sufferedÐ $X" Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We,€therefore,€examine€whether€the€petitioner€received€ineffectiveÐ ô$D # Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% ÐÔ#†Xõ˜XXXžÜO#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ô€€The€judgeððs€findings€of€fact€on€post„conviction€hearings€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÐ ¸'#& Ðevidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1983).€Ð ¤(ô#' ЀThe€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€afforded€their€testimony€are€questionsÐ )à$( Ðto€be€resolved€by€the€post„conviction€court€and,€on€appeal,€the€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€proveÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2dÐ h+¸&* Ðat€579.€€Ô#†Xõ˜XXXžÃW#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔÐ ° ÐÐ œì ÐÔ#†Xõ˜XXXžpZ#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔTo€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€ofÐ ˆØ Ðproving€that€trial€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€and€that€the€deficiency€prejudiced€theÐ tÄ Ðpetitioner.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996).€€To€establish€that€trial€counselÐ `° Ðperformed€deficiently,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€was€below€the€range€ofÐ L œ Ðcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1975).€€The€petitioner€must€also€show€that€his€trial€counselððs€performance€prejudiced€the€defense,Ð $ t Ðresulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,104Ð  ` ÐS.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ô#†Xõ˜XXXžÜZ#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔÐ ü L  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌÔ#†Xõ˜XXXžÌ^#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔWhen€evaluating€an€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€claim,€the€reviewing€court€should€judge€theÐ Ô$  Ðattorneyððs€performance€within€the€context€of€the€case€as€a€whole,€taking€into€account€all€relevantÐ À  Ðcircumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€753€S.W.2d€148,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ¬ü  ÐApp.€1988).€€The€reviewing€court€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€fallsÐ ˜è  Ðwithin€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690.€€In€reviewingÐ „Ô  Ðthe€claims€of€the€petitioner,€this€Court€ð ðmust€be€highly€deferential€and€should€indulge€a€strongÐ pÀ Ðpresumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€of€reasonable€professionalÐ \¬ Ðassistance.ðð€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689).Ô#†Xõ˜XXXžH_#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔÐ H˜ ÐÐ 4„ ÐÔ#†Xõ˜XXXž,c#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔWe€may€not€second„guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€thoseÐ  p Ðchoices€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9Ð  \ Ð(Tenn.€1982).€€Trial€counsel€may€not€be€deemed€ineffective€merely€because€a€different€procedure€orÐ øH Ðstrategy€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ä4 ÐApp.€1980).€Ð Ð  Ѐ€Ô#†Xõ˜XXXž˜c#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ôà ` àÔ#†Xõ˜XXXžÙe#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔÐ ¼  ÐÔ#†Xõ˜XXXž'f#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜ÔÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€for€theÐ ¨ø Ðfollowing€reasons:Ð ”ä ÐÓfÓÓ$”,È’X°œX$ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓ(1)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€file€a€proper€motion€for€bond;Ð €Ð Ð(2)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€file€a€motion€to€reconsider€the€denial€of€bond;Ð l¼ Ðà0 4 àà  à(3)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€seek€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€bond€with€thisÐ X ¨ ÐCourt,€pursuant€to€T.R.A.P.€8;ÐD!”4Ð 4Ð  Ð(4)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€properly€consult€with€the€petitioner€in€preparation€for€trial;€Ð 0"€  Ð(5)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€provide€the€petitioner€with€copies€of€documents€he€Ð #l! Ðà0 4 àà  àà 4 àrequested€during€the€preparation€for€trial;Ð$X"4Ð 4Ð  Ðà0 4 àà  à(6)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€maintain€confidentiality€with€the€petitioner€during€hisÐ ô$D # Ðmeetings;€€Ðà%0!$4Ð 4Ð  Ð(7)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€file€proper€pre„trial€motions;Ð Ì&"% Ð(8)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€interview€crucial€witnesses;Ð ¸'#& Ð(9)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€call€crucial€witnesses€in€support€of€his€defense€theory;Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà0 4 àà  à(10)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€object€to€an€unconstitutional€amendment€of€theÐ )à$( Ðindictment;Ð|*Ì%)4Ð 4Ð  Ð(11)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€employ€expert€assistance;€and€€Ð h+¸&* Ð(12)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€understand€the€Stateððs€proof.Ð ° ÐÓ X‡gÓÓ XygÓÓ XkgÓÓ( °œX”,È’XGg(ÓÓ~ÓÐ œì ÐÓšmÓò òÓ XÓIssues€(1),€(2),€(3)ó ó,ò ò€(7)ó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌÓ XÒmÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€contends€in€issues€(1),€(2),€and€(3),€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€file€motionsÐ d´ Ðregarding€bond.€€The€petitioner€is€not€as€specific€in€issue€(7),€as€he€later€argues€that€his€trial€counselÐ P   Ðfailed€in€filing€proper€pretrial€motions.€€€He€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€should€have€filed€a€properÐ < Œ Ðmotion€for€bond.€Also,€he€contends€that,€after€the€trial€court€denied€his€motion€for€bond,€his€trialÐ ( x Ðcounsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€file€a€motion€to€reconsider€the€denial€and€later€failing€to€seekÐ  d Ðreview€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€bond€with€this€Court.€€Ð  P  ÐÐ ì <  ÐThere€exists€a€constitutional€right€to€bail€in€non„capital€cases.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€15;Ð Ø(  ÐòòState€ex€rel€Hemby€v.€OððSteenóó,€559€S.W.2d€340,€341€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).€€This€was€never€aÐ Ä  Ðcapital€caseÔ#†Xõ˜XXXž~f#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ô€because€the€State€never€sought€the€death€penalty.€€The€State€concedes€that€the€defendantÐ °  Ðwas€entitled€to€bail€and€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€erroneously€failed€to€seek€review€of€theÐ œì  Ðdenial€of€bail.€€The€petitioner€contends€that,€had€he€been€released€on€bond,€he€would€have€been€betterÐ ˆØ  Ðable€to€confer€with€his€attorney€and€helped€in€the€preparation€of€his€defense.€€However,€the€defendantÐ tÄ Ðfailed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€this€and€has€not€established€how€this€would€have€affectedÐ `° Ðthe€outcome€of€his€trial.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€ð ðthereððs€nothing€in€the€record€that€indicatesÐ Lœ Ðthat€had€he€been€released€on€bond€any€other€evidence€would€have€been€produced,€that€the€trial€wouldÐ 8ˆ Ðhave€been€in€any€way€different.ðð€òòò ò€ó óóóThe€petitioner€fails€to€specify€what€pretrial€motions,€other€than€theÐ $t Ðaforementioned,€his€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€filing.€€Therefore,€we€can€only€conclude€as€toÐ ` Ðissues€(1),€(2),(3),€and€(7)€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€his€trialÐ üL Ðcounselððs€performance.€€ò òòòó óóóÐ è8 ÐÐ Ô$ Ðò òÓ XÓIssues€(4),€(5)ó ó,€ò ò(6)ó ó,€ò ò(12)ó óÐ À ÐÌÓ XqwÓThe€petitioner€alleges€that€his€counsel€did€not€consult€with€him€in€preparation€for€trial€andÐ œì Ðfailed€to€provide€him€with€copies€of€documentation€that€he€requested€during€the€preparation€of€hisÐ ˆØ Ðcase.€€The€petitioner€argues€that€because€his€trial€counsel€did€not€consult€with€him€and€failed€toÐ tÄ Ðconduct€a€proper€investigation,€he€did€not€fully€understand€the€petitionerððs€case.€€Ð ` ° ÐÒe°ÒÐ L!œ ÐTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€would€not€refuse€a€client€the€right€to€obtain€copies€of€anyÐ 8"ˆ  Ðdocuments€if€a€client€wanted€them.€€The€petitioner€also€alleges€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€maintainÐ $#t! Ðconfidentiality€with€the€petitioner€during€his€meetings.€€Because€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€did€notÐ $`" Ðhave€a€memory€of€the€offense€due€to€€his€alleged€intoxication,€the€post„conviction€court€found€thatÐ ü$L # Ðð ðhe€didnððt€have€much€information€to€convey€to€counsel€not€having€any€memoryðð€of€the€incident.€Ð è%8!$ ÐTestimony€reveals€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€met€with€him€on€several€occasions€and€under€theÐ Ô&$"% Ðbest€of€circumstances€provided€in€a€confinement€situation.€€Trial€counsel€conceded€that€the€UnicoiÐ À'#& ÐCounty€Jail€attorney/client€facilities€were€not€optimal€for€meetings€but€testified€that€he€would€notÐ ¬(ü#' Ðallow€officers€or€inmates€to€be€within€earshot€of€a€meeting.€€The€petitioner€failed€to€present€anyÐ ˜)è$( Ðevidence€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€his€trial€counselððs€failure€to€provide€him€with€any€documentationÐ „*Ô%) Ðor€records.€€Furthermore,€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€testimony€by€fellow€inmates€or€guards€thatÐ p+À&* Ðcould€have€demonstrated€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€meeting€with€his€trial€counsel€in€confinement.Ð ° ÐLastly,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€how€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€understand€his€case.€ThisÐ œì Ðissue€is€without€merit.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÓnÓÐ tÄ Ðò òÓ XÓIssues€(8),€(9),€(11)ó óÐ `° ÐÌÓ€ÓÓ XC€ÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€interview€crucial€witnesses€and€to€call€Ð 8 ˆ Ðsuch€witnesses€in€support€of€his€defense€theory.€€€He€alleges€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€present€twoÐ $ t Ðcrucial€witnesses€at€trial:€€his€brother,€Robert€Harris;€and€his€sister,€Deborah€Simmons.€€He€allegesÐ  ` Ðthere€was€no€proof€presented€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€which€established€that€his€trial€counselÐ ü L  Ðconsidered€these€witnesses€and€then,€because€of€biasÔ#†Xõ˜XXXž/r#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ô,€decided€not€to€use€them.€€Moreover,€he€contendsÐ è 8  Ðthat€many€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€were€friends€or€family€of€the€victim€and€were€not€ignored€becauseÐ Ô$  Ðof€their€possible€bias.€€The€petitionerððs€brother€and€sister€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€and€theÐ À  Ðtrial€court€found€that€his€brotherððs€testimony€ð ðwould€have€been€relevant€at€trialðð€but€would€have€beenÐ ¬ü  Ðð ðsubject€to€attack€on€ð!ð€on€issue€of€bias.ðð€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€ð ðpetitioner€has€notÐ ˜è  Ðproven€that€failure€to€call€Robert€Harris€constitutes€ineffectiveness€of€counsel.ðð€€The€post„convictionÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€found€that€Deborah€SimmonsÐ pÀ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓheard€an€investigator€in€the€sheriffððs€department,€Mr.€Don€Whitson,€make€a€statementÐ \¬ Ðimmediately€afterwards€which€she€says€was€contrary€to€his€testimony€on€the€stand.€Ð H˜ ÐThat€he€made€the€statement€immediately€after€the€killing€that€Roger€was€drunk,Ð 4„ Ðmessed€up,€out€his€mind,€and€testified€on€the€witness€stand€that€he€was€straight.€€Ð  p ÐÓ X†ÓÓ X †ÓÓ X(†ÓÓ XÓHowever,€the€post„conviction€court€stated€that€ð ðthe€strange€thing€about€it€is€the€only€way€that€thisÐ  \ Ðwould€have€come€out€would€have€been€for€her€to€be€in€the€courtroom,€and€subject€to€the€Rule€ofÐ øH ÐExclusion.€€If€she€stayed€in€the€courtroom€she€couldnððt€have€testified.ðð€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ ä4 Ðfound€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€failing€to€interview€her€or€that€failureÐ Ð  Ðto€do€so€amounted€to€prejudice€in€the€case.€€The€post„conviction€court€stated€that€there€existedÐ ¼  Ðoverwhelming€proof€that€the€petitioner€was€ð ðnot€of€an€alcoholic€haze,ðð€but€was€capable€of€functioningÐ ¨ø Ðand€forming€the€requisite€mens€rea€to€commit€the€present€offense.€€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ”ä Ðrecord€supports€the€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court€and€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð €Ð ÐÓ¡€ÓÓ X ˆÓò òÓsÓó óÐ l¼ ÐThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€obtain€experts,€specifically€a€mentalÐ X ¨ Ðhealth€expert€or€a€private€investigator,€to€aid€in€his€defense.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€thatÐ D!” Ðalthough€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€did€not€have€him€evaluated€by€a€mental€health€expert,€there€isÐ 0"€  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓno€proof€that€he€has€any,€or€at€the€time€was€suffering€from€mental€disease€or€defectÐ #l! Ðwhich€would€have€either€rendered€incompetent,€not€knowing€what€was€going€on€in€theÐ $X" Ðproceedings,€or€unable€to€assist€counsel;€and€thereððs€just€nothing€in€the€record€that€heÐ ô$D # Ðhas€a€mental€disease€or€defect€that€would€have€diminished€his€ability€to€either€actÐ à%0!$ Ðintentionally€with€cool€purpose€or€premeditate.Ð Ì&"% ÐÓ X®ÓÓ X ÓÓ X¼ÓÓ XÓÔ#†Xõ˜XXXžè‚#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ôð ðWhen€a€petitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€discover,€interview,€or€present€witnesses€inÐ ¸'#& Ðsupport€of€his€defense,€these€witnesses€should€be€presented€by€the€petitioner€at€the€evidentiaryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhearing.ðð€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòScott€v.€Stateóó,€936Ð )à$( ÐS.W.2d€271,€273€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€As€a€general€rule,€this€is€the€only€way€the€petitioner€canÐ |*Ì%) Ðestablish€that€(1)€a€material€witness€existed€who€could€have€been€discovered€but€for€counselððsÐ h+¸&* Ðnegligent€investigation€of€the€case;€(2)€a€known€witness€was€not€interviewed;€(3)€the€failure€toÐ ° Ðdiscover€or€interview€the€witness€caused€him€prejudice;€or€(4)€the€failure€to€present€a€known€witnessÐ œì Ðresulted€in€the€denial€of€critical€evidence€which€caused€the€petitioner€prejudice.€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2dÐ ˆØ Ðat€757.€Ô#†Xõ˜XXXž#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ô€It€€is€of€the€utmost€importance€that€the€witnesses€testify€and€the€petitioner€offer€evidence€atÐ tÄ Ðthe€evidentiary€hearing€in€order€for€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€potential€merit€of€the€evidence.€Ð `° ÐòòId.óó€€€The€petitioner€did€not€present€any€testimony€from€a€mental€health€expert€or€a€private€investigatorÐ L œ Ðat€the€evidentiary€hearing;€thus,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€from€suchÐ 8 ˆ Ðdeficiency.€€Ð $ t ÐÓ XìÓÐ  ` Ðò òÓ XÓIssue€(10)€ó óÐ ü L  ÐÌÓ X–ÓThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€object€to€an€unconstitutional€amendmentÐ Ô$  Ðof€the€indictment.€€Prior€to€the€amendment,€the€indictment€charged€that€the€defendant€ð ðdid€unlawfully,Ð À  Ðdeliberately€and€with€premeditation€kill€Jeff€Higgins€in€violation€of€Section€39„13„202,€TennesseeÐ ¬ü  ÐCode€Annotated€and€against€the€peace€and€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€The€petitioner€allegesÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€word€ð ðintentionalðð€was€improperly€added€to€his€indictment€and€that€his€trial€counsel€failedÐ „Ô  Ðto€object€to€the€amendment€of€the€word.€€The€post„conviction€court€stated€that€the€petitionerððs€trialÐ pÀ Ðcounsel€testified€that€ð ðhe€did€not€object€to€the€amendmentðð€and€that€the€indictment€was€amendedÐ \¬ Ðbefore€the€trial€began,€with€the€consent€of€the€defendant.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€he€agreed€to€theÐ H˜ Ðamendment€because€he€knew€that€if€he€did€not€do€so,€the€indictment€would€not€be€amended€and€theÐ 4„ Ðcase€would€be€continued.€€Trial€counsel€also€stated€that€if€the€case€was€continued,€he€was€certain€theÐ  p ÐGrand€Jury€would€return€an€indictment€with€the€word€ð ðintentionallyðð€inserted.€€The€post„convictionÐ  \ Ðcourt€ruled€that€the€trial€counselððs€decision€not€to€object€to€the€amendment€did€not€constituteÐ øH Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€7(b)€permits€the€amendmentÐ ä4 Ðof€an€indictment€in€all€cases€with€the€defendantððs€consent€before€jeopardy€attaches,€if€no€additionalÐ Ð  Ðor€different€offense€is€charged€and€no€substantial€rights€of€the€defendant€are€prejudiced.€Additionally,Ð ¼  Ðwe€note€that€an€indictment€is€valid€if€it€provides€sufficient€information€to€enable€the€accused€to€knowÐ ¨ø Ðthe€accusation€to€be€answered,€to€furnish€the€court€with€an€adequate€basis€for€proper€entry€ofÐ ”ä Ðjudgment,€and€to€protect€the€accused€from€double€jeopardy.€€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€954€S.W.2d€725,€727Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€We€will€not€use€the€benefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€by€counsel€andÐ l¼ Ðcriticize€trial€counselððs€tactical€decision.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€In€light€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€overwhelming€evidence€against€the€petitioner,€he€has€failed€to€demonstrate€prejudice€caused€byÐ D!” Ðthe€wording€of€the€indictment.€€We€conclude€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€err€in€finding€that€theÐ 0"€  Ðpetitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Ð #l! ÐÓ ŒÓà ` àÌò òÓ XÓII.€€Ineffectiveness€of€Appellate€Counseló óÐ ô$D # ÐÌÓ XÚ¡ÓThe€petitioner€was€represented€by€the€same€counsel€at€trial€and€on€subsequent€appeals.€€HeÐ Ì&"% Ðcontends€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÓ  ÓIt€is€counselððs€responsibility€to€determine€the€issues€to€present€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Matsonóó,€729Ð )à$( ÐS.W.2d€281,€282€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€This€responsibility€addresses€itself€to€the€professionalÐ |*Ì%) Ðjudgment€and€sound€discretion€of€appellate€counsel.€€òòPorterfield€v.€Stateóó,€897€S.W.2d€672,€678€(Tenn.Ð h+¸&* Ð1995).€€There€is€no€constitutional€requirement€that€every€conceivable€issue€be€raised€on€appeal.€Ð ° ÐòòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€597€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€determination€of€which€issues€to€raiseÐ œì Ðis€a€tactical€or€strategic€choice.€€òòId.óó€€Ð ˆØ ÐÓ£ÓÐ tÄ Ðò òÓ XÓIssue€(1)€ó óÐ `° ÐÌÓ Xý¥ÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€file€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdecision€of€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992),€as€supplemental€authority€while€his€directÐ $ t Ðappeal€was€still€pending€before€this€Court.€€In€òòBrownóó,€decided€over€seven€weeks€before€this€CourtððsÐ  ` Ðdecision€in€the€petitionerððs€case,€the€supreme€court€concluded€that€juries€should€not€be€instructed€thatÐ ü L  Ðdeliberation€can€be€formed€in€an€instant.€€òòIdóó.€At€543.€€The€petitioner€argues€that€the€jury€instructionsÐ è 8  Ðgiven€in€his€case€violated€òòBrownóó,€because€they€informed€the€jury€that€premeditation€and€deliberationÐ Ô$  Ðcould€be€formed€in€an€instant.€He€contends€that€his€counsel€should€have€brought€this€to€the€attentionÐ À  Ðof€this€Court.€€However,€this€Court€concluded€that€the€jury€instructions€on€premeditation€andÐ ¬ü  Ðdeliberation€were€proper,€even€under€the€new€decision€of€òòBrownóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Harrisóó,€No.Ð ˜è  Ð03C01„9201„CR„19,€LEXIS€618€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€July€23,€1992,€at€Knoxville).€€The€post„Ð „Ô  Ðconviction€court€stated€that€ð ðthe€proof€in€the€case€was€overwhelming€that€Mr.€Harris€had€beenÐ pÀ Ðconsidering€killing€Mr.€Higgins€for€some€period€of€time;€and€actually,€and€strangely,€made€anÐ \¬ Ðappointment€to€do€so€at€8€oððclock;€said€he€was€going€to€do€that.ðð€€The€petitioner€argues€that€hisÐ H˜ Ðcounselððs€failure€to€file€a€petition€to€rehear€should€result€in€a€reversal€of€this€Courtððs€earlier€decision.€Ð 4„ ÐThe€petitioner€alleges€that€this€Court€did€not€fully€address€the€jury€instructions€in€its€earlier€reviewÐ  p Ðof€this€case,€as€it€did€not€properly€consider€òòBrownóó€because€this€Courtððs€opinion€stopped€one€sentenceÐ  \ Ðshort€of€the€sentence€that€offends€the€supreme€courtððs€analysis€in€òòBrownóó.€€Ð øH ÐÐ ä4 ÐFirst,€we€note€that€in€his€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ Ð  Ðpursuant€to€his€delayed€appeal,€the€petitioner€raised€as€his€only€issue€this€courtððs€ruling€regarding€theÐ ¼  Ðjury€instruction.€€As€previously€noted,€the€court€denied€his€application.€€Obviously,€our€supreme€courtÐ ¨ø Ðdid€not€believe€that€the€petitioner€was€entitled€to€relief.€€In€any€event,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€thatÐ ”ä Ðthe€evidence€regarding€his€threats€against€and€his€planning€to€kill€the€victim€were€strong.€€The€recordÐ €Ð Ðdoes€not€indicate€in€any€fashion€that€the€jury€could€have€hinged€its€finding€of€guilt€upon€the€trialÐ l¼ Ðcourtððs€instruction€that€premeditation€and€deliberation€could€be€formed€in€an€instant.€€We€concludeÐ X ¨ Ðthat€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð D!” ÐÓ@¦ÓÐ 0"€  Ðò òÓ XÓIII.€€Additional€Constitutional€Violationsó óà À àÐ #l! ÐÌÓ XG²ÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€contends€that€he€was€unconstitutionally€denied€bond€in€this€case€and€that€he€wasÐ ô$D # Ðalso€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€have€a€grand€jury€review€the€charge€against€him.€€He€contendsÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€the€improper€amendment€of€the€indictment€during€the€actual€trial€was€a€constitutional€deprivationÐ Ì&"% Ðof€this€right.€€€He€alleges€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€address€the€petitioner€on€the€record,€and€a€silentÐ ¸'#& Ðrecord€does€not€indicate€a€waiver.€€We€have€addressed€the€issue€of€bond,€the€amended€indictment,€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€overall€issue€of€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€in€the€aboveÔ#†Xõ˜XXXžE”#ÔÔ‡XžXXXõ˜Ô€analysis.€€The€petitioner€does€not€presentÐ )à$( Ðan€argument€that€these€issues€entitle€him€to€post„conviction€relief.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€theseÐ |*Ì%) Ðissues€are€deemed€waived€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€ò ò€ó óà  àà x àà Ð àÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ¶²ÓÐ ° Ðòòò òÓ  ÓÓ XÓConclusionó óóóÐ œì ÐÌÓ·ÓÓ X%·ÓFor€the€aforementioned€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€Ð tÄ ÐÔ#†Xõ˜XXXž…µ#ÔÐ `° ÐÐ L œ ÐÐ 8 ˆ ÐÐ $ t ÐÐ  ` ÐÐ ü L  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð è 8  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€JOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE