ÿWPC¼ ©©›(“úèCÄÙlxí_¯¬¿ÆÀ’0^©ø¥†Ylá ¹dCÈ'èïd /YµÔ-ýo0‹y¦nƒÉ5ÔSõ*ÇÅ¿=@W!*ÊŠ…ªì¾U’"ô.ÛÖÈ~ 'k>;‘Ñò Z>€[;(aŽ÷Öó  =Dæùw%ŽÔÖùqš†Où~³Óà/œâ6¤Ù¬ÉÃô?fÐ;8Æ£ÀÚz¡ß/9˜Á#ˆCá-!y…dG:QNç™õV³,‰ôJ‰!{峨7nªÝš€J­@€÷Χ¹Yÿ¦¡)äÆa³z+hf=öž}œbn…FMÚéâ Ͻ`~‹ƒó&“ÒƒmµJì#lì:r”羺LGþf£X+Óã¬@¬áòЃ+Ö¶£ˆß¯¾cAGíÅÙ¨Æ"&4fšn½ÅÕŽÎDC ú£ÜVâµÖ€ì:˜kйiåÀ+•vø§5Œð‡*¼Šé9ñ_hcäÃ·Ž®Ó“\÷”A3²ÚZ„–ø\ ”[ù¸òP-þ`±ßq)‘¹Og¨÷Zˆ‹LµÕŸL?Ó•' FR¾ðöCî!øä‚º¥œÃlf6ÝF$¶ÌÜDjİl¢…/\ðÖ7€™º=7ÇjΛ8áZyJ;…# F U>Q % 0í• UB‚ 4Ä Ø n­ç U:” fÎ 4 "< w@^ Åž 01c 0D”ÅØU: 0 ×U :à-äGU:+äeU:IIIIII Bƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ D3    0DÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ AOÆff 0D, D/p BŸ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|xú «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ æ Dç è é Dê ë Dì í ªeî Ó€ø  »Ý ƒ­4)ÝÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝÔ€X½nXXXÔÓ  Ó(á(3,D$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€»¡XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó »Ý ƒ­4)ÝÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝÔ€X½nXXXÔÓ  Ó, øð AZ"Arial Regular(á3£Ô$©©Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€»¡XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ý, øð AZ"Arial Regular #Ñ#€iXÿÿd#Ñ ÚÔ€XܬXXXÔÔ€OIXXܬÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XܬXOIÔÐ  ÐÌMay€27,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÚÔ€XܬXXXÔÔ€OIXXܬÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XܬXOIÔÐ  ÐÌMay€26,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€»¡XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýñí ñ›ñí ññí ñ›ñí ñѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XܬXXXÔÑ7€ ܬ XXdæXXdÈ7Ññí ñœñí ñÑ€ýr Ññí ñ›ñí ññî ñœñî ññø ññî ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rßñî ññø ññø ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rßñø ññî ñ›ñî ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@#Dà€€€€AT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€DECEMBER€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓJAMES€E.€KENNER,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellant,à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9709„CR„00424Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Davidson€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Honorable€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€Judge€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  à€(Post„Conviction)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellee.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌRobert€J.€Mendesà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkupà  àà x àÐ ²ª ÐCummins€Station,€Ste€507à h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ Ð209€Tenth€Avenue€Southà h àà À àà  àà p àandà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ ~v ÐNashville,€TN€37203à h àà À àà  àTimothy€Behan€Ð d\ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€Northà x àà Ð àÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNick€BaileyÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWashington€Square,€222€2nd€Ave.€N.Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37201„1649Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639g ЇÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner,€James€E.€Kenner,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€DavidsonÏCounty€Criminal€Courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petitionerÏseeks€relief€from€his€1994€convictions€for€five€counts€of€aggravated€burglary€and€fiveÏcounts€of€theft.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€career€offender€to€fifteen€years€confinement€inÏthe€Department€of€Correction€for€each€aggravated€burglary€conviction€and€twelve€yearsÏfor€each€theft€conviction.€€The€aggravated€burglary€sentences€were€ordered€to€beÏserved€consecutively€to€each€other€but€concurrently€with€the€corresponding€sentencesÏfor€theft,€for€a€total€sentence€of€seventy„five€years.€€This€court€affirmed€the€convictionsÏin€òòState€v.€James€E.€Kenneróó,€No.€01C01„9503„CR„00052,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.Ð   ÐCrim.€App.€Feb.€13,€1996).€€The€petitioner€now€raises€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€whether€his€attorney€was€ineffective€on€direct€appealÏfor€failing€to€contest€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€theÏpetitionerððs€motion€to€sever€the€offenses;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€whether€his€attorney€was€ineffective€on€direct€appealÏfor€failing€to€raise€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€whether€the€prosecutorððs€comments€during€closingÏargument€violated€his€constitutional€rights;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€whether€the€failure€of€the€indictments€to€state€theÏapplicable€òòmensóó€òòreaóó€violated€his€constitutional€rightsÐ †&~# Ðand€whether€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏraise€the€issue€on€appeal;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(5)€whether€the€reasonable€doubt€jury€instructionÏviolated€his€constitutional€rights;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(6)€whether€his€convictions€are€unconstitutional€becauseÏthe€jury€did€not€sign€the€verdict€form.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€David€Baker€testified€that€he€represented€theÏpetitioner€before€trial€until€the€petitioner€requested€that€the€trial€court€appoint€himÏanother€attorney.€€He€said€he€did€not€specifically€remember€discussing€the€sufficiency€ofÏthe€indictment€with€the€petitioner,€but€he€was€sure€that€he€did.€€He€said€he€conductedÐ ~8v17 Ðdiscovery€and€filed€a€motion€to€sever€the€offenses€based€upon€the€stateððs€inability€toÏdemonstrate€that€the€offenses€were€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€€He€said€that€atÏthe€motion€hearing,€he€did€not€remember€the€state€calling€any€witnesses;€rather,€theÏstate€relied€on€legal€argument.€€He€said€he€believed€that€the€petitioner€would€beÏprejudiced€if€the€cases€were€not€severed.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Baker€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€charged€with€five€burglaries.€€HeÏsaid€ñí ñœñí ñthatñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€the€petitioner€was€caught€at€the€crime€ñí ñœñí ñscene€of€one€of€the€burglaries,ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€but€in€theÏother€four,€the€only€evidence€was€the€petitionerððs€fingerprints€found€at€the€ñí ñœñí ñscene.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€€HeÏtestified€that€the€fingerprint€evidence€was€more€damaging€because€there€were€four€setsÏof€ñí ñœñí ñfingerprintsñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€in€four€of€the€ñí ñœñí ñoffensesñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€as€opposed€to€ñí ñœñí ñonlyñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€one€set€of€ñí ñœñí ñfingerprints€in€theÏremaining€offense.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€€He€stated€that€if€he€had€remained€on€the€case,€he€would€haveÏappealed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€motion€to€sever.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Baker€testified€that€the€petitioner€fired€himÏbecause€he€could€not€negotiate€a€better€plea€bargain€and€possibly€because€theÏpetitioner€felt€Mr.€Baker€did€not€communicate€with€him.€€He€stated€that€the€plea€bargainÏthat€was€offered€by€the€state€involved€a€lesser€sentence€than€ñí ñœñí ñtheñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€petitioner€received€atÏthe€sentencing€hearing.€€He€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€prior€felony€convictions,€andÏhe€agreed€that€the€petitioner€probably€knew€he€was€facing€a€long€sentence€and€wantedÏan€attorney€to€tell€him€he€would€not€spend€a€long€time€in€jail.€€He€said€that€based€on€theÏpetitionerððs€record,€he€knew€ñí ñœñí ñtheñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€petitioner€would€ñí ñœñí ñlikely€receiveñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€multiple€consecutiveÏsentences.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Baker€testified€that€he€knew€the€burglaries€occurred€in€the€same€areaÏof€town,€possibly€within€one€mile€of€each€other,€and€that€they€occurred€in€March,€AprilÏand€May€of€1993.€€He€said€the€methods€of€entry€for€each€burglary€ñí ñœñí ñdifferedñí ñ›ñí ñ€becauseÏalthough€a€door€was€always€kicked€open,€sometimes€it€was€a€front€door€and€sometimesÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññí ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññí ñit€was€a€back€door.€€He€said€that€in€all€five€burglaries,€a€television€was€taken,€and€in€fourÏof€the€burglaries,€a€stereo€and€VCR€were€taken.€€He€testified€that€the€petitionerððsÏfingerprints€were€found€at€the€scene€of€every€burglary.€€He€said€that€Allen€Barrett,€anÏattorney€and€former€FBI€fingerprint€analyst,€examined€the€fingerprints€and€concludedÏthat€the€police€correctly€matched€the€fingerprints€ñí ñœñí ñfound€at€the€crime€scenes€withñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€ñí ñœñí ñthoseÏof€the€petitioner.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€€ÌÌà ¸ àMonte€Watkins€testified€that€he€was€appointed€to€represent€the€petitionerÏon€July€20,€1996.€€He€said€he€copied€Mr.€Bakerððs€file€and€discussed€the€case€with€Mr.ÏBaker.€€He€said€he€thought€the€fingerprint€evidence€was€the€most€critical€issue,€and€heÏmet€with€Allen€Barrett€and€reviewed€criminal€defense€techniques€regarding€fingerprints.€ÏHe€said€he€concluded€that€the€petitioner€did€not€have€a€good€chance€of€prevailing€atÏtrial.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Watkins€testified€that€he€did€not€discuss€the€sufficiency€of€theÏindictment€with€the€petitioner.€€He€said€he€read€Mr.€Bakerððs€motion€to€sever,€the€stateððsÏresponse,€and€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€motion.€€He€said€he€knew€the€motion€wasÏdenied€because€ñí ñœñí ñañí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€common€scheme€or€plan€ñí ñœñí ñwasñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€evidenced€by€the€closeness€in€locationÏand€time€of€the€burglaries.€€He€said€the€stateððs€response€to€the€motion€set€forth€theÏñí ñœñí ñaddresses€and€the€distancesñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€between€the€ñí ñœñí ñburglaries.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€€He€said€he€did€not€considerÏappealing€the€denial€of€the€motion€to€sever€because€he€did€not€think€it€was€anÏappropriate€issue.€€He€said€he€had€reviewed€ñí ñœñí ñhundredsñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€of€cases€on€this€issue,€and€theÏpetitionerððs€case€fit€squarely€with€the€cases€he€had€reviewed.€€He€said€the€petitionerÏsent€three€letters€to€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility€complaining€about€his€lackÏof€communication€with€the€petitioner.€€He€said€he€sent€the€petitioner€copies€ofÏeverything€and€tried€to€communicate€with€the€petitioner€throughout€the€trial€and€appeal.€€Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àMr.€Watkins€testified€that€he€did€not€know€what€he€would€have€doneÏâ âdifferently€had€the€cases€been€severed.€€He€said€he€did€not€recall€a€police€reportÏindicating€that€in€one€of€the€burglaries,€ñí ñœñí ñnone€of€theñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€fingerprints€found€ñí ñœñí ñmatchedñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€theÏpetitionerððs€ñí ñœñí ñfingerprints.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€€He€said€he€was€not€aware€of€police€reports€indicating€ñí ñœñí ñthat€Ïthere€had€beenñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€another€suspect€in€the€burglaries.€€He€said€that€if€he€had€been€trying€theÏñí ñœñí ñoffensesñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€separately,€he€would€have€tried€to€raise€the€possibility€of€another€suspect,€andÏhe€would€have€argued€more€vigorously€that€the€fingerprints€ñí ñœñí ñfrom€one€of€the€crimeÏscenesñä ñ€ñä ñwereñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€initially€unidentifiable.€€He€said,€however,€that€he€did€not€believe€anÏextensive€cross„examination€on€the€fingerprints€would€have€been€very€helpful€becauseÏthe€petitionerððs€fingerprints€had€a€high€number€of€matching€points€to€the€ñí ñœñí ñfingerprintsñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñÏfound€at€the€burglaries.€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Watkins€testified€that€he€did€not€have€anyÏproblems€ñí ñœñí ñwithñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€the€petitioner€until€after€the€trial.€€He€said€that€during€trial,€the€petitionerÏñí ñœñí ñhad€no€requests€or€objections€regarding€his€performance.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€€Mr.€Watkins€testified€that€heÏdiscussed€with€the€petitioner€the€possible€sentences€and€the€fact€that€the€petitionerÏqualified€as€a€career€offender.€€He€said€the€petitioner€told€him€he€would€rather€be€triedÏby€a€jury€than€plead€guilty€and€receive€thirty€years€in€jail.€€He€said€ñí ñœñí ñhe€could€not€haveÏgotten€the€offenses€tried€separately€becauseñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€the€ñí ñœñí ñtrial€court€ñå ñhad€ñå ñalready€denied€theÏmotionñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€to€ñí ñœñí ñsever.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€€He€said€that€if,€during€the€course€of€the€trial,€the€proof€had€shown€noÏcommon€scheme€or€plan,€he€would€have€asked€for€a€severance,€but€he€said€the€proofÏwas€exactly€as€the€state€said€it€would€be.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMr.€Watkins€testified€that€he€spoke€with€Allen€Barrett€about€the€fingerprintsÏand€that€Mr.€Barrett€said€the€petitionerððs€fingerprints€matched€ñí ñœñí ñthoseñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€found€at€theÏscenes.€€Mr.€Watkins€said€the€only€thing€he€would€do€differently€at€trial€would€be€toÏadvise€the€petitioner€more€strongly€that€a€plea€agreement€was€in€the€petitionerððs€bestÏinterest,€but€he€said€the€petitioner€would€not€have€accepted€a€plea€agreement.Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€did€not€recall€having€any€conversations€withÏMr.€Watkins€between€ñí ñœñí ñthe€trialñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€and€his€sentencing€hearing.€€He€said€they€neverÏdiscussed€whether€evidence€would€be€presented€at€the€hearing,€and€he€said€he€neverÏspoke€with€Mr.€Watkins€about€his€appeal.€€He€said€he€did€not€find€out€that€ñí ñœñí ñMr.€WatkinsÏhad€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€untilñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€he€wrote€to€the€Board€of€Professional€ResponsibilityÏñí ñœñí ñrequestingñí ñ›ñí ñ€that€Mr.€Watkins€send€him€a€copy€of€his€file.€€He€said€he€never€discussed€theÏsufficiency€of€the€indictment,€severance,€fingerprint€issues,€or€prosecutorial€misconductÏduring€closing€argument€with€either€Mr.€Watkins€or€Mr.€Baker.€ÌÌñí ñœñí ñÓ  Óà ¸ àOnñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€could€not€recall€what€Mr.ÏWatkins€should€have€done€but€did€not€do€between€trial€and€sentencing.€€He€said€he€wantedÏMr.€Watkins€to€consult€with€him€about€appellate€issues,€but€he€could€not€recall€what€issuesÏhe€wanted€to€raise,€other€than€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€He€said€he€complained€to€theÏBoard€of€Professional€Responsibility€because€Mr.€Watkins€was€not€representing€himÏproperly.€€He€said€he€did€not€know€if€the€complaints€were€dismissed.€€He€said€he€did€notÏknow€of€anything€Mr.€Baker€could€have€done€that€he€did€not€do€regarding€a€severance.€€HeÏsaid€he€did€not€know€of€any€mitigating€evidence€that€could€have€been€presented€at€theÏsentencing€hearing€that€was€not€presented.€€He€said€he€was€never€offered€a€twenty„fiveÏyear€plea€agreement€by€either€attorney,€but€he€could€not€say€that€he€would€have€taken€theÏoffer.€€He€said€he€did€not€know€that€he€was€a€strong€candidate€for€consecutive€sentencing.€ÌÌà ¸ àBased€on€the€foregoing€evidence,€the€trial€court€issued€a€detailed€orderÏdenying€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ¸ àThe€court€.€.€.€observes€that€counsel€addressed€theÏmost€significant€and€realistic€issue€on€appeal,€theÏalleged€excessiveness€of€petitionerððs€sentence.€ÏCounselððs€actions€in€this€regard€were€certainlyÏappropriate€.€.€.€.€€Obviously,€counsel€could€haveÏattempted€to€raise€any€of€the€issues€now€suggested€byÏthe€petitioner.€€However,€the€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏan€appellate€challenge€to€those€issues€was€notÏadequately€supported€by€the€trial€record€or€by€theÏapplicable€law.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€cannot€say€thatÐ r8j17 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññí ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññí ññå ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññå ñcounselððs€decision€not€to€pursue€the€issues€now€allegedÐ  Ðby€petitioner€is€an€indication€of€deficient€performance.€ÏÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àWith€regard€to€the€severance€motion€.€.€.€the€CourtÏobserves€that€prior€counsel€.€.€.€diligently€pursued€theÏissue.€€After€a€hearing€on€the€matter,€the€Court€deniedÏthe€severance€.€.€.€.€[Appellate]€Counsel€reviewed€theÏseverance€issue€closely€and€concluded€that€joinder€ofÏthe€offenses€was€appropriate.€€In€the€Courtððs€judgment,ÏCounsel€Watkins,€based€on€years€of€experience€as€aÏcriminal€defense€attorney€and€his€understanding€of€theÏlaw€and€the€particular€facts€of€this€case,€made€anÏinformed€and€reasoned€decision€not€to€pursue€the€issueÏon€appeal,€a€decision€that€does€not€warrant€second„¼guessing€by€this€Court.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àAccordingly,€the€Court€observes€that€the€petitioner€hasÏproduced€no€credible€evidence€that€counselððsÏrepresentation€on€the€appeal€was€deficient€or€that€heÏsuffered€any€prejudice€from€any€alleged€errors€byÏcounsel.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àñí ñœñí ñ.€.€.€.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àNext,€the€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€districtÏattorneyððs€remarks€during€closing€arguments€regardingÏwitness€credibility€and€the€presumption€of€innocence,Ïalthough€not€completely€appropriate,€when€consideredÏin€the€context€of€the€district€attorneyððs€entire€argument,Ïwere€not€in€any€way€prejudicial€to€the€outcome€of€theÏtrial.€€òòSeeóó€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€343€(Tenn.Ð â"Ú ÐCrim.€App.€1976).Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àñí ñœñí ñ.€.€.€.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àNext,€the€Court€recognizes€that€the€use€of€the€termÏð ðmoral€certaintyðð€in€conjunction€with€the€term€ð ðlet€theÏmind€rest€easilyðð€in€defining€reasonable€doubt€comportsÏwith€state€and€federal€constitutional€due€processÏrequirements.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,Ð ø*ð#( Ð734€(Tenn.€1994).Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àñí ñœñí ñ.€.€.€.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àNext,€with€regard€to€petitionerððs€challenge€of€theÏsufficiency€of€the€indictment,€the€Court€observes€thatÏthis€issue€is€without€merit€.€.€.€.€The€indictment€at€issue,Ïwhich€tracks€the€language€of€the€respective€statute,€is,Ïin€this€Courtððs€judgment,€consistent€with€theÏrequirements€of€the€law.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óñí ñœñí ñò òÐ Œ7„06 ÐI.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELÌó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€not€appealingÐ àØ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€petitionerððs€motion€to€sever€and€for€not€raising€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€The€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€correctly€concludedÏthat€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€agree.ÌÌà ¸ àUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€is€made,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counsel'sÏperformance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€ofÏrendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.Ð   ÐCt.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€368„72,€113€S.€Ct.€838,Ð ØÐ Ð842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied,€as€well,€to€the€right€toÐ ¤œ Ðcounsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772Ð ph ÐS.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€493€U.S.€874€(1989).€€Ð < 4 ÐÌà ¸ àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÐ Ô#Ì  Ðdecided€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€servicesÏrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€range€of€competence€was€to€be€measured€byÏthe€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,€491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.Ð +ü#( Ð1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202„04€(D.C.€Cir.€1973),€òòcert.óóÐ Ð,È%* Ðòòdeniedóó,€444€U.S.€944€(1979).€€Also,€in€reviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessmentÐ œ.”', Ðof€attorney€performance€requires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distortingÏeffects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,Ïand€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counsel's€perspective€at€the€time."€€òòStricklandóó,€466Ð 4ø,2 ÐU.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)Ð Ì5Ä.4 Ð(counsel's€conduct€will€not€be€measured€by€"20„20€hindsight").€€Thus,€the€fact€that€aÐ ˜706 Ðparticular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€even€hurt€the€defense€does€not,€alone,€support€aÏclaim€of€ineffective€assistance.€€Deference€is€made€to€trial€strategy€or€ñí ñœñí ñtacticalñí ñ›ñí ñ€choices€ifÏthey€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€atÐ   ˜ Ð9;€òòDeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€at€1201.€€Ð l d ÐÌà ¸ àAlso,€we€note€that€the€approach€to€the€issue€of€the€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€does€not€have€to€start€with€an€analysis€of€an€attorney's€conduct.€€If€prejudiceÏis€not€shown,€we€need€not€seek€to€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegations€aboutÏdeficient€performance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€Ð h` ÐÌà ¸ à€€The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€in€the€trial€court€to€prove€the€factualÏallegations€that€would€entitle€him€to€relief€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1995).€€On€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findingsÏof€fact€unless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€thoseÏfindings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€this€respect,Ð 0 ( Ðthe€petitioner,€as€the€appellant,€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€how€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€judgment€entered.€€òòId.óóÐ È#À  ÐÌÓ  Óò òA.€€SEVERANCEÐ `'X $ Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àFirst,€the€ñí ñœñí ññæ ñdefendantñæ ññç ñpetitionerñç ññí ñ›ñí ñ€contends€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÐ 8)0"& Ðchallenge€on€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€motion€to€sever.€€Specifically,€heÏargues€that€at€the€motion€hearing,€the€state€did€not€demonstrate€a€common€scheme€orÏplan;€thus,€his€attorney€should€have€raised€the€issue€on€appeal.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€There€is€no€constitutional€requirement€that€anÏattorney€argue€every€issue€on€appeal.€€òòJones€v.€Barnesóó,€463€U.S.€745,€750„51,€103€S.Ð Ì5Ä.4 ÐCt.€3308,€3312€(1983);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993).€€AttorneysÐ ˜706 ÐÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññí ñÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññí ññç ñÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññç ññæ ñÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑýr ÑÑ7€½nXXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññæ ññå ñÑýr ÑÑ7€-*XXdð XXdæ7ÑÑ  Ññå ñÛÛñí ñœñí ññí ñÖ€ÿÿÖñí ññí ñÖ€ÿÿÖ›ñí ñhave€discretion€to€make€tactical€decisions€regarding€what€issues€to€raise€on€appeal,€andÐ  Ðtheir€decisions€should€not€be€second„guessed€by€the€appellate€courts.€€òòCooperóó,€849Ð ÔÌ ÐS.W.2d€at€747.€ñí ñœñí ññè ñ€ñè ñTheñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€petitionerððs€attorney€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€heÏbelieved€the€state€demonstrated€a€common€scheme€or€plan€by€showing€that€theÏburglaries€occurred€over€a€twelve„week€period,€that€they€occurred€within€one€mile€ofÏeach€other€and€within€one€mile€of€the€petitionerððs€residence,€that€the€petitioner€used€theÏsame€method€of€entry€for€all€of€the€burglaries,€and€that€the€petitioner€stole€the€sameÏtype€of€items.€€The€attorney€testified€that€he€reviewed€hundreds€of€cases€on€this€issueÏand€that€he€concluded€that€the€motion€to€sever€was€properly€denied.€€The€attorneyððsÏdecision€not€to€appeal€what€he€viewed€to€be€a€meritless€issue€represents€a€tacticalÏdecision€that€will€not€be€second„guessed€by€this€court.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€showÏthat€the€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€effective€assistance.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÐ d\ Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÐ < 4 Ðchallenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€appeal.€€He€argues€that€his€convictionsÏwere€based€upon€circumstantial€fingerprint€evidence€that€did€not€exclude€all€otherÏreasonable€hypotheses€ñí ñœñí ñexcept€that€ofñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€guilt.€€The€state€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€concluded€that€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€WeÏagree.€€The€attorney€made€a€tactical€decision€on€appeal€not€to€raise€the€sufficiency€ofÏthe€evidence€with€respect€to€the€aggravated€burglary€convictions.€€ñí ñœñí ññé ñNeverthelessñé ññê ñIn€any€eventñê ñ,ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñÏaccording€to€the€evidence€presented€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€wasÏcaught€at€the€scene€of€one€of€the€burglaries,€and€his€fingerprints€were€found€at€all€of€theÏburglaries.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€the€record€preponderates€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌÓ  Óò òÐ  Ì5Ä.4 ÐII.€€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTÌó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€he€should€be€granted€post„conviction€reliefÐ àØ Ðbecause€ñí ñœñí ñof€prosecutorialñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€misconduct€during€ñí ñœñí ñthe€stateððs€closingñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€argument.€€He€arguesÏthat€the€prosecutor€told€the€jury€that€the€petitioner€no€longer€had€a€presumption€ofÏinnocence,€that€the€stateððs€witnesses€were€telling€the€truth,€that€eyewitnesses€were€notÏrelevant,€and€ñí ñœñí ññë ñthat€the€prosecutor€told€the€jury€ñë ñinformationñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€that€was€not€in€evidence€relating€to€how€most€burglariesÏoccur.€€We€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€prosecutorððs€statementsÏdid€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial€to€the€petitionerððs€detriment.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarrington€v.Ð tl ÐStateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,€340,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965).€€Ð @8 Ѐà ¸ àÐ   Ðà ¸ àAlthough€a€transcript€of€the€closing€argument€was€not€made€a€part€of€theÏrecord€on€appeal,€the€portions€of€the€closing€argument€relative€to€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence€and€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€were€read€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€ÏWith€respect€to€the€prosecutorððs€argument€regarding€the€presumption€of€innocence,€theÏrecord€from€the€evidentiary€hearing€reflects€that€the€prosecutor€stated€as€follows€at€trial:ÌÓÓà8 ¸ àJames€Kenner€was€entitled€and€is€entitled€to€a€fairÏtrial.€€Heððs€entitled€to€all€the€Constitutional€guaranteesÏthat€we€all€have,€including€[the]€presumption€ofÏinnocence€that€he€had€at€the€beginning€of€this€trial.€ÏThatððs€gone.€€He€no€longer€has€[the]€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€Weððve€proved€that€heððs€guilty€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÌÌÓÓà ¸ àAlthough€we€believe€the€prosecutorððs€statement€was€misleading€becauseÏthe€presumption€of€innocence€remained€with€the€petitioner€until€the€jury€found€himÏguilty,€the€petitioner€has€not€shown€that€the€argument€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€ÏConsidering€the€context€of€the€statement,€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€and€the€trialÏcourtððs€instruction€to€the€jury€that€the€petitioner€still€carried€the€presumption€ofÏâ âinnocence,€the€trial€court€correctly€concluded€that€the€argument€was€not€prejudicial€toÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðthe€outcome€of€the€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  Ð1976).Ìâ âÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€prosecutorððs€statements€about€the€credibility€ofÏwitnesses,€the€record€from€the€evidentiary€hearing€reflects€that€the€prosecutor€statedÏthe€following€at€trial:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àWell,€you€saw€these€„„€all€five€of€these€witnessesÏtestified€about€what€was€taken,€about€what€they€thoughtÏit€was€worth.€€And€thereððs€absolutely€nothing€put€beforeÏyou€during€this€trial€to€contradict€anything€that€they€said.€ÏI€guess€itððs€like€most€crimes,€you€bring€the€victim€in,€andÏyou€try€to€focus€on€them€instead€of€the€person€whoððsÏcharged€with€the€crime,€so€you€can€forget€about€the€oneÏwho€actually€caused€the€problem.€€These€people€cameÏin,€and€they€told€you€what€was€taken€and€what€theyÏthought€it€was€worth.€€Some€of€them€even€told€you€thatÏthey€initially€had€an€item€they€thought€was€taken,€and€itÏwas€in€the€repair€shop.€€And€they€called€the€police€backÏand€told€them€that.€€Ms.€Warren€told€you€her€jewelryÏwas€worth€more€than€she€thought€it€was.€€These€peopleÏtried€to€be€honest.€€Theyððre€not€in€here€to€lie€or€to€tellÏanybody€anything€thatððs€not€true.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€ñí ñœñí ñpetitionerñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€contends€that€he€should€have€been€granted€post„convictionÏrelief€because€of€the€prosecutorððs€statement€that€the€stateððs€witnesses€tried€to€beÏhonest€and€were€not€at€trial€to€lie.€€A€prosecutor€may€properly€base€his€or€her€argumentÏupon€inferences€supported€by€evidence€in€the€record,€including€argument€pertaining€toÏthe€veracity€of€a€witnessððs€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€552€(Tenn.Ð ,)$"& Ð1992);€òòState€v.€Beasleyóó,€536€S.W.2d€328,€330€(Tenn.€1976).€€Although€a€prosecutor€isÐ ø*ð#( Ðprohibited€from€expressing€a€personal€opinion€on€a€witnessððs€credibility,€he€or€she€mayÏargue€based€upon€an€analysis€of€the€evidence€and€the€conclusion€supported€by€theÏevidence.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8.€€We€do€not€believe€that€the€statements€in€the€presentÏcase,€when€viewed€in€context,€amount€to€an€improper€argument.€€The€statements€doÏnot€reflect€that€the€prosecutor€vouched€for€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses;€rather,€theyÏâ âreflect€the€prosecutorððs€attempt€to€explain€apparent€inconsistencies€in€witnessÐ À5¸.4 Ðtestimony.€€The€petitioner€has€not€shown€that€the€record€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€judgment.€Ìâ âÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€he€should€be€granted€post„convictionÏrelief€because€(1)€the€prosecutor€stated€that€eyewitnesses€were€not€relevant,€and€(2)Ïthe€prosecutor€discussed€in€closing€argument€information€that€was€not€in€evidenceÏabout€how€ñí ñœñí ñmostñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€burglaries€ñí ñœñí ñoccur.ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€€These€portions€of€the€closing€argument€were€notÏaddressed€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€and€were€not€made€a€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.€ÏThe€petitioner€has€the€duty€to€ensure€that€the€record€on€appeal€contains€all€informationÏneeded€to€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€relative€toÏthe€issues€being€appealed.€€T.R.A.P.€24.€€Absent€the€material€portions€of€the€closingÏargument,€we€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€and€findings€of€fact€areÏsupported.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€779€S.W.2d€394,€397€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Ð ˜ ÐÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€INDICTMENTSÐ 0 ( Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€constitutional€rights€were€violatedÐ " Ðbecause€the€indictments€for€aggravated€burglary€did€not€allege€a€culpable€mental€state,Ïand€he€contends€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€raise€this€issue€onÏappeal.€€The€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€correctly€concluded€that€the€indictmentsÏwere€sufficient.€€We€agree.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€indictments€allege€that€the€petitioner€ð ðdid€enter€the€habitation€of€[theÏvictims]€with€the€intent€to€commit€theft€in€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„403,€andÏagainst€the€peace€and€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€The€indictments€track€theÏwording€of€the€statute.€€We€believe€that€alleging€that€the€entry€was€with€the€intent€toÏcommit€theft€inherently€implies€the€òòmensóó€òòreaóó€needed€for€aggravated€burglary.€ñí ñœñí ññì ñ€ñì ññì ñ›ñì ñBecauseÐ 4ø,2 Ðthe€indictments€are€sufficient,ñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€heÏwas€prejudiced€by€his€attorneyððs€failure€to€raise€the€issue€on€direct€appeal.Ð ˜706 ЇÓ  Óò òIV.€€REASONABLE€DOUBT€JURY€INSTRUCTIONÐ  Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€reasonableÐ àØ Ðdoubt€violated€his€constitutional€rights.€€Specifically,€he€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððsÏuse€of€the€phrase€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€in€conjunction€with€ð ðlet€the€mind€rest€easily.ðð€€BothÏthis€court€and€our€supreme€court€have€held€that€ñí ñœñí ñthisñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€instruction€is€a€correct€statement€ofÏthe€burden€of€proof€ñí ñœñí ñinñí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€criminal€trials€in€Tennessee.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2dÐ   Ð722,€734€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Sextonóó,€917€S.W.2d€263,€266€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);Ð ÜÔ  ÐòòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,€885€S.W.2d€364,€366€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ ¨   Ðmerit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òV.€€VERDICT€FORMSÐ   Ðó óÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€judgment€of€conviction€is€unconstitutionalÐ äÜ Ðbecause€the€jury€did€not€sign€the€verdict€forms.€€However,€the€petitioner€did€not€includeÏthis€issue€in€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€It€is€well„settled€that€a€post„convictionÏpetitioner€may€not€raise€grounds€on€appeal€that€were€not€alleged€in€the€petition€for€post„¼conviction€relief.€€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€510€S.W.2d€83,€85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€BecauseÐ "  Ðthis€issue€was€not€raised€in€the€post„conviction€petition,€it€is€not€properly€before€thisÏcourt€on€appeal,€and€we€will€not€review€the€merits€of€the€allegation.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€theÏtrial€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È à__________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌñí ñœ›ñí ññí ññí ñÌCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌñí ñœñí ñ________________________ÌNormañí ñ›ñí ññí ññí ñ€McGee€Ogle,€Judge