ÿWPC< …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñb  w@ P mR i 0Jq 0T» 0^ 0hm 0rÕ 0|G 0†Ã 0I 1uÙ 0dN U>² Bð B) DC6U*y AM£ D3ðã#v~ 0@„vÓÄ AO—Ææ 0D¬ D/ð B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡Ô¡¨ @ d3|xB - ù- 0 E1 2 E3 4 D5 U6 7 E8 9 Ó€ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ%%%%'ÿÿdxd ÙÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌFebruary€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  Ý›Ò 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÔ€(ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€)+'A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ ` ܆XDp”X Óà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€à ààQ à€€€€€€€€€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€SEPTEMBER€1996€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓTOMMY€L.€KINGó óÓ ` ¸ cÓà à)Ìà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€€01C01„9512„CC„00415€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant,à à)Ìà àà à)€Maury€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Honorable€James€L.€Weatherford,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà à)€(Post„Conviction:€€Felony€Murder)à àà à)€€Ì€€€€€€€€à àAppellee.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌShara€Ann€Flacyà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌÌDaniel€J.€Rundeà àJohn€P.€CauleyÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€1208à à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌPulaski,€TN€38478à àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ìà àÌRobert€D.€Masseyà àT.€Michael€BottomsÌAttorney€at€Lawà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€409à àP.O.€Box€459ÌPulaski,€TN€38478à àLawrenceburg,€TN€38464à àÌÌà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òÔ  ÔÓ ` pÓÔ  ÔÌà ààQ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó ó€ÌÑ  ÑÑ7€v2XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÌÌÓ ` °§XÓÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Tommy€L.€King,€was€indicted€for€felony€murder,€firstÏdegree€murder,€and€armed€robbery.€€He€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€andÏsentenced€to€death.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€affirmed€his€convictionÏand€sentence.€€The€appellantððs€first€post„conviction€relief€petition€was€denied.€ÏThe€appellant€filed€a€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€courtÏdenied€relief€and€dismissed€the€petition.€€The€appellant€appeals€this€dismissalÏraising€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 à1.€€Whether€the€sentence€of€death€should€be€set€aside€because€ofÏthe€juryððs€consideration€of€an€improper€aggravating€circumstance;ÌÌÓÓÓÓà8 à2.€€Whether€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€on€reasonable€doubt€wereÏconstitutionally€infirm;ÌÌÓÓÓÓà8 à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€improperly€instructing€the€jury€onÏthe€meaning€of€a€life€sentence;ÌÌÓÓÓÓà8 à4.€€Whether€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€is€constitutionallyÏinfirm€due€to€the€prosecutorððs€improper€jury€argument;Ì€€€ÌÓÓà8 à5.€€Whether€Tennesseeððs€felony€murder€statute€is€unconstitutional;ÌÓÓà8 à6.€€Whether€the€death€penalty€violates€the€appellantððs€fundamentalÏright€to€life;ÌÌÓÓÓÓà8 à7.€€Whether€the€appellant's€conviction€is€infirm€due€to€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel;€and€ÌÌÓÓÓÓà8 à8.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€the€appellant€fundsÏfor€expert€assistance.ÌÓÓÌà àUpon€reviewing€the€record,€we€find€no€reversible€error.€€The€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌFACTSÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€May€1982,€the€appellant€and€an€accomplice€entered€a€ColumbiaÏtavern€armed€with€a€.357€caliber€handgun.€€The€appellant€fired€a€shot€into€theÏceiling€and€instructed€the€owner€and€three€patrons€to€lie€down€on€the€floor.€€HeÏand€his€accomplice€proceeded€to€rob€each€person.€€He€also€rifled€the€tavernððsÏcash€register€taking€cash€and€the€ownerððs€car€keys.€€ÌÌà àAt€some€point€during€the€robbery,€the€appellant€fatally€shot€the€owner€ofÏthe€tavern€in€the€neck.€€He€and€his€accomplice€made€their€escape€in€the€tavernÏownerððs€vehicle.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€was€apprehended€in€Chattanooga€the€following€day.€€TheÏvictimððs€car€and€the€.357€handgun€were€found€in€the€appellantððs€possession.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àIÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€one€of€the€three€aggravating€circumstancesÏrelied€upon€by€the€jury€in€imposing€the€death€sentence€was€constitutionallyÏimpermissible.€€The€aggravating€circumstances€found€by€the€jury€were:€€(1)€thatÏthe€murder€was€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€an€armed€robbery;€€(2)€theÏappellant€knowingly€created€a€great€risk€of€death€to€two€or€more€persons€otherÏthan€the€victim;€and€(3)€the€appellant€had€been€previously€convicted€of€crimesÏinvolving€violence€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€is€correct€in€his€contention€that€the€use€of€the€felony€murderÏaggravating€circumstance€duplicates€elements€of€the€charged€offense€and€is,Ïtherefore,€constitutionally€impermissible.€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2dÏ317€(Tenn.€1992).€€A€harmless€error€analysis€is€appropriate€for€this€CourtððsÏreview€of€a€penalty€phase's€use€of€an€invalid€aggravating€circumstance.€€òòStateÏv.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€925€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€order€for€this€Court€to€upholdÍthe€sentence,€we€must€conclude€that€the€result€would€have€been€the€same€hadÏno€weight€been€given€to€the€invalid€aggravating€factor.€€òòIdóó.€ÌÌà àIn€conducting€our€review,€we€must€examine€the€entire€record€for€theÏpresence€of€factors€which€potentially€influenced€the€sentence€ultimatelyÏimposed.€€òòIdóó.€These€factors€include€the€number€and€strength€of€remaining€validÏaggravating€circumstances;€the€prosecutorððs€argument€at€sentencing;€theÏevidence€admitted€to€establish€the€invalid€aggravator;€and€the€nature,€quality,Ïand€strength€of€mitigating€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case€two€valid€aggravating€factors€were€clearlyÏestablished.€€The€appellant€had€two€prior€felony€convictions€involving€the€use€ofÏor€threat€of€personal€violence.€€Also,€the€state€presented€proof€that€the€appellantÏcreated€great€risk€of€death€to€two€or€more€persons€other€than€the€victim€duringÏthe€course€of€the€homicide.€€The€proof€supporting€these€two€aggravating€factorsÏis€overwhelming.€€€€Very€little€evidence€of€mitigation€was€offered.€€During€theÏprosecutorððs€closing€argument€at€sentencing,€little€emphasis€was€placed€on€theÏinvalid€aggravator.€€Furthermore,€no€additional€evidence€was€introduced€toÏsupport€the€invalid€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€sentence€would€have€been€the€same€had€the€juryÏgiven€no€weight€to€the€invalid€felony€murder€aggravating€factor.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àIIÌÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€onÏreasonable€doubt€were€constitutionally€infirm.€€Specifically,€he€claims€that€theÏguilt€phase€instruction€lowered€the€state's€burden€of€proof.€€He€alleges€that€theÏpenalty€phase€instruction€was€too€unspecific€to€provide€meaningful€guidance€toÏthe€jury.€€The€appellant€raises€this€issue€for€the€first€time€in€this,€his€second€post„conviction€petition.€€Therefore,€this€issue€has€been€waived.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„30„112€(1990€Repl.)ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€waiver,€the€same€or€similar€instructions€have€been€foundÏconstitutional€and€upheld€on€many€occasions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877ÏS.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€McPhersonóó,€882€S.W.2d€365,€374„75Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€€1994);òò€State€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€294€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€We€conclude€that€both€instructions€sufficiently€described€theÏdegree€of€doubt€necessary€for€acquittal€and€did€not€lower€the€stateððs€burden€ofÏproof.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ò òÌÌÓÓó óà àà àà àà àà àà àIIIÌÌÓÓÌ€€€€à àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€jury€should€have€been€given€anÏinstruction€on€the€meaning€of€a€life€sentence.€€He€alleges€that€this€instructionÍwould€have€allowed€the€jury€to€clearly€focus€on€their€options,€i.e.,€a€life€sentenceÏor€the€death€penalty.€€€He€claims€that€without€a€clear€understanding€of€what€aÏð ðlife€sentenceðð€means,€the€jury€might€have€speculated€about€the€sentenceÏbecoming€subject€to€future€commutation.€€As€a€result,€he€argues€the€jury€wasÏmore€inclined€to€impose€a€harsher€sentence.€€The€appellant€raises€this€issue€forÏthe€first€time€in€this,€his€second€post„conviction€petition.€€Therefore,€the€issueÏhas€been€waived.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112€(1990€Repl.)€€€Ìà à€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àIVÌÌò òà àó óThe€appellant€next€contends€that€his€conviction€should€be€reversedÏbecause€of€improper€jury€argument€by€the€prosecutor.€€He€argues€that€theÏprosecutor€improperly€stated€that€he€was€on€probation€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€ÏHe€contends€that€this€created€the€inference€that€he€was€beyond€rehabilitationÏand€affected€the€juryððs€sentencing€determination.€€Ìà àÌà àThe€appellant€raises€this€issue€for€the€first€time€in€this,€his€second€post„conviction€relief€petition.€€Therefore,€this€issue€has€been€waived.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€€ðð€40„30„112€(1990€Repl.)€€€€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àV€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€Tennesseeððs€felony€murder€statuteÏviolates€due€process€and€equal€protection€by€failing€to€require€any€òòmensóó€òòreaóóÏwithin€the€definitional€elements€for€felony€murder.€€This€issue€has€beenÏpreviously€determined€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€694€S.W.2d€941€(Tenn.Ï1985).€€Notwithstanding€this€issueððs€previous€determination,€the€Supreme€CourtÏhas€consistently€held€our€felony€murder€statute€constitutional.€€òòSeeóó€€òòFarmer€v.ÏStateóó,€296€S.W.2d€879€(Tenn.€1956);€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317Ï(Tenn.€1992).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVIÌÌà àThe€appellant€next€challenges€the€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty.€ÏHe€asks€this€Court€to€ð ðcome€to€the€simple€conclusion€that€[the€death€penalty]Ïsmacks€of€an€inherent€constitutional€infirmity€since€it€violates€that€which€humanÏkind€holds€most€dear:€Life€itself.ðð€€The€appellant€raises€this€issue€for€the€first€timeÏin€this,€his€second€post„conviction€petition.€€Therefore,€the€issue€has€beenÏwaived.€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112€(1990€Repl.)ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€waiver,€we€note€that€one€of€the€stateððs€most€basicÏfunctions€is€to€enforce€the€penal€laws€as€established€by€the€legislature.€€WeÏquote€from€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€decision,€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428ÏU.S.€153,€183,€96€œS.€Ct.›€2909,€2930€(1976):ÌÓÓà0 à[C]apital€punishment€is€an€expression€of€societyððs€moral€outrage€atÏà àparticularly€offensive€conduct.€€This€function€may€be€unappealingÏto€many,€but€it€is€essential€in€an€ordered€society€that€asks€its€citizens€toÏrely€on€legal€processes€rather€than€self„help€to€vindicate€their€wrongs.€€ÌÓÓÌ€ò òà àó óFurthermore,€the€appellantððs€claim€is€contrary€to€well€settled€law.€€TheÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€stateððs€death€penalty€statute,€òòperÏseóó,€meets€due€process€requirements.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€190Ï(Tenn.€1991).€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVIIÌÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€he€was€deprived€of€due€process€of€lawÏby€his€prior€trial€counselððs€and€his€post„conviction€counselððs€ineffectiveÏassistance.€€Ó` ¸ pÓÔ  ÔThe€effectiveness€of€the€appellantððs€trial€counsel€has€beenÏpreviously€determined.€€The€effectiveness€of€the€appellantððs€post„convictionÏcounsel€is€not€a€cognizable€claim€under€Tennesseeððs€Post„Conviction€ReliefÏAct.€€òòState€v.€Oatesóó,€698€S.W.2d€79,€81€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€The€right€toÏappointed€counsel€extends€to€the€first€appeal€as€of€right€and€no€further.€€€òòId.óó;ÏòòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€711„12€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€appellant€has€noÏconstitutional€right€to€counsel€when€mounting€a€collateral€attack€on€hisÏconviction.€€òòIdóó.€at€712.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àà àVIIIÌÌà àThe€last€issue€raised€by€the€appellant€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€his€motion€for€funds€for€expert€assistance.€€He€claims€that€the€denialÏwas€improper€because€he€has€made€the€required€threshold€showing€that€thereÏwas€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€assistance€requested€would€haveÏmaterially€assisted€him€in€the€presentation€of€his€case.€€Ìà àOur€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€to€obtain€authorization€for€funds€forÏsupport€services€ð ðthe€defendant€must€show€that€a€substantial€need€existsÏrequiring€the€assistance€of€state€paid€supporting€services€and€that€his€defenseÏcannot€be€fully€developed€without€such€professional€assistance.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192€(Tenn.€1992).€€Likewise,€the€denial€of€a€request€forÏfunds€to€employ€an€expert€when€the€request€ð ðwas€accompanied€by€little€moreÏthan€undeveloped€assertions€that€the€services€were€needed€to€attempt€toÏcounter€the€stateððs€proofðð€was€appropriate.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,Ï261€(Tenn.€1994).€€€ÌÌà àThe€Supreme€Court€has€previously€announced€the€appropriate€standardÏto€be€applied€for€determining€when€support€services€are€appropriate€in€post„conviction€settings.€€òòOwens€and€Payne€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923€(Tenn.€1995).€€ÏA€petitioner€will€not€be€entitled€to€an€expert€or€investigator€solely€to€assist€inÏsearching€for€infringements.€€òòIdóó.€at€928.€€The€entitlement€arises€only€upon€aÏdemonstration€of€specific€factual€proof€that€the€services€of€an€expert€or€anÏinvestigator€are€necessary€to€establish€a€ground€for€post„conviction€relief€andÏthat€the€appellant€is€unable€to€establish€that€ground€by€available€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€€€ÌÌà àUpon€review€of€the€hearing€transcript€on€the€motion€for€expert€services,Ïwe€find€that€the€denial€of€the€appellantððs€request€was€proper.€€The€appellantÏfailed€to€establish€any€cognizable€need€for€expert€services.€€He€offered€no€proofÏthat€expert€assistance€was€necessary€to€establish€a€viable€ground€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€appellant€has€not€met€his€burden.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€CONCLUSIONÌÌà àUpon€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€error€of€law€mandating€reversal.€ÏThe€judgment€of€the€hearing€court€is€affirmed.€€This€Court€sets€an€execution€dateÏof€April€27,€1997.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà ààQ àà à______________________________Ìà àà ààQ àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌœòò(SEE€CONCURRING€OPINION)€€óóÌGARY€R.›€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌœ__________________________›œ_›ÌL.€T.€LAFFERTY,€Special€Judge