ÿWPCø4 …U.V %„bŠ 0JŽØn­è 0T• 0(éU: w@K 4‹ 0^Ÿ 0™ý 0D– U:Ú 0h 0r| U*î 0| 0†” 0 1uª 0d D3ƒ B¶B)ÓDCü AM?áŒfm 0@Ó3MF¦“19j§lyŒ!Ž"R$˜o&2(m9)v~¦+vÓ$- 0T÷2K3 AOS3Æ¢3 0Dh4 D/¬4 BÛ4<þ6X9`(CourierX ù2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular ýVþDÿVDDDUÓ€Ô¡¨ 2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(I(2&ô$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€X›0XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔAArial2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ""""'ÿÿdxd d% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ×Ý ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌAugust€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò )Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€petitioner€has€made€no€allegation€of€ineffectiveness€with€respect€toÏthe€services€provided€by€Hornsby.Ì CÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€is€clear€from€the€context,€however,€the€petitioner's€allegation€is€one€ofÏerroneous€admission€of€the€evidence€by€the€trial€court.Ì œÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝCounsel€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€made€the€following€statement€onÏthe€record:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒòòThe€petition,€your€Honor,€being€all„inclusive,€covers€several€areas.€ÏOne€is€that€it€covers€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€issue.€€ItÏcovers€the€search€and€seizure€issue€of€the€physical€evidence.óó€€ItÏalso€covers€the€sentencing€of€the€Court.€€It€also€covers€it.Ì.€.€.ÌYour€Honor,€there€is€the€issue€that€he€covered€in€his€petition€as€toÏhis€statements€given€to€Detective€Peel.€€His€position€is€that€thoseÏstatements€were€taken€under€some€type€of€trickery€or€coercion€orÏcertainly€without€his€understanding€that€they€would€be€usedÏagainst€him€in€a€court€of€law.€€òòThe€petition€also€covers€certainÏthings€that€he€calls€inappropriate€conduct€of€the€trial€judge,€yourÏHonor.€óó€It€also€covers€the€inappropriate€or€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€of€the€District€Attorney.€€And€that's€basically€the€thingsÏthat€he's€covered€in€the€petition,€and€we€would€like,€your€Honor,€toÏcover€as€many€of€those€issues€as€the€Court€would€allow.€Ï(emphasis€added)ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒAdditionally,€post„conviction€counsel's€summation€at€the€hearing€treats€theÏsearch€and€seizure€issue€as€a€free„standing€deprivation€of€constitutional€rights,Ïseparate€from€the€constitutional€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€It€isÏapparent€from€counsel's€statements€that€the€search€and€seizure€issue€wasÏraised€as€a€separate€allegation€and€not€as€part€of€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏtrial€counsel€claim.Ì 'Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€evidence€is€conflicting€on€this€point.€€Which€version€is€correct€isÏimmaterial€to€our€determination.Ì øÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€òòLeveyeóó€holding€is€not€limited€to€contraband;€it€extends€to€other€typesÏof€evidence€that€may€otherwise€be€obtained€by€search€warrant,€as€well.€€òòState€v.ÏRonald€Edward€Parrishóó,€No.€01C01„9309„CC„00292,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€Nov.€16,€1995),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996).Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBecause€òòLeveyeóó€supports€the€warrantless€search€of€the€petitioner'sÏtruck,€we€express€no€opinion€regarding€the€applicability€of€the€search€incident€toÏarrest€and€inventory€search€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement.Ì oÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝNo€physical€evidence€supported€this€theory€at€trial.€€The€victims€deniedÏCooper€was€armed.€€No€gun€was€ever€recovered€from€the€area€where€theÏpetitioner€alleged€he€saw€Cooper€throw€the€gun.€€The€petitioner€claimed€heÏsustained€property€damage€to€his€truck€as€a€result€of€the€alleged€shot,€but€one€ofÏthe€police€officers€testified€the€dent€in€question€could€not€have€been€caused€byÏa€recently€fired€bullet€because€the€dent€was€rusty.Ì ùÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAccording€to€trial€counsel,€Cooper€refused€to€talk€to€him.Ì „Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€is€not€necessary€for€us€to€determine€at€this€stage€whether€theÏsubsequent€statement€should€have€been€suppressed€if€the€facts€are€as€theÏpetitioner€alleges.€€We€express€no€opinion€in€that€regard.Ì HÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIf€anything,€the€petitioner's€statement€that€was€part€of€the€state'sÏevidence€lends€support€to€the€self„defense€theory€he€alleges€should€have€beenÏmore€vigorously€pursued.€€Had€counsel€successfully€challenged€the€admissionÏof€the€statement,€the€petitioner€would€likely€be€before€us€complaining€counselÏshould€have€allowed€the€statement€into€evidence€because€it€supported€a€self„defense€theory.Ì ŽÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€an€aside,€we€note€that€trial€counsel€effectively€dealt€with€anyÏarguably€objectionable€expression€of€personal€opinion€by€addressing€it€onÏredirect€examination€of€Mrs.€Makoka€and€in€his€closing€argument.€€Ì (Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRobinson's€testimony€was,€at€best,€marginally€relevant€to€the€mattersÏbefore€the€post„conviction€court.€€Ì cÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòButóó€òòseeóó€òòInóó€òòReóó€òòEllisóó,€822€S.W.2d€602,€605„06€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€In€òòEllisóó,Ïa€civil€case,€the€court€applied€a€standard€of€review€found€in€Rule€13(d),€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.,€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€In€the€case€nowÏbefore€us,€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€disqualification€issue€would€be€approvedÏeven€under€the€less€deferential€scope€of€Rule€13(d).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔßR€*+)A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌó óÌà@ àAPRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òTONY€A.€MAKOKA,à àà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9603„CC„00124Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRutherford€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àó óà à)à àHonorable€J.S.€Daniel,ÏJudge€à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 à)à0 àÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌRUSS€EAGLE€(Appeal)à àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ401€W.€Main€St.ÌMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130à àà àà àà àDARYL€J.€BRANDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌJACK€G.€HEFFINGTON€(Hearing)à àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ520€S.€Church€St.à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€WHITESELL,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àRutherford€Co.€Judicial€Bldg.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÌÑ€,ÑÇÑ7€‚XXdðXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑØØÑ7€ ›0 XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ€€€à@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner,€Tony€A.€Makoka,€appeals€the€Rutherford€CountyÏCircuit€Court's€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petitioner€was€convicted€by€aÏjury€of€his€peers€of€attempted€first€degree€murder€of€his€paramour,€Jane€Rhodes,Ïand€attempted€second€degree€murder€of€her€friend,€Dwight€Cooper,€following€aÏcar€chase€and€shooting€incident€which€ended€on€the€steps€of€the€MurfreesboroÏPolice€Department.€€The€petitioner€is€serving€concurrent€20€year€and€10€yearÏsentences€for€these€convictions.€€òòState€v.€Makokaóó,€885€S.W.2d€366€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1994).€€In€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€raises€four€issues€pertaining€toÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€„„€(1)€failure€to€move€for€suppression€ofÏevidence€obtained€pursuant€to€a€warrantless€search,€(2)€failure€to€adequatelyÏinvestigate,€(3)€failure€to€object€to€the€prosecution's€characterizations€of€theÏpetitioner's€wife€as€untruthful,€and€(4)€that€counsel€prevented€the€petitioner€fromÏtestifying€in€support€of€his€defense.€€In€addition,€the€petitioner€contends€the€trialÏcourt€should€have€disqualified€the€district€attorney's€office€from€representing€theÏstate€in€post„conviction€proceedings€because€one€of€the€police€officers€whoÏtestified€for€the€state€at€trial€is€now€a€member€of€the€district€attorney's€office€andÏwas€called€to€testify€for€the€defense€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€On€review,Ïwe€affirm.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner,€married€and€a€father,€was€involved€in€anÏextramarital€relationship€with€one€of€the€victims,€Jane€Rhodes.€€ThisÏrelationship,€tempestuous€at€times,€apparently€ended€in€late€1991,€although€theÏpetitioner€and€Ms.€Rhodes€attempted€to€maintain€a€platonic€friendship.€€InÏDecember€1991,€the€petitioner€and€Ms.€Rhodes€attended€a€Christmas€partyÏtogether€and€exchanged€gifts.€€However,€they€quarreled€on€at€least€twoÏoccasions€prior€to€January€3,€1992.€€On€that€date,€the€petitioner€shot€Ms.€RhodesÏand€Dwight€Cooper,€and€as€a€result€he€faced€trial€for€two€counts€of€attemptedÏfirst€degree€murder.€€The€petitioner€was€represented€at€trial€by€attorney€RichardÏMcGee€of€Nashville.€€He€was€convicted€of€the€attempted€first€degree€murder€ofÏRhodes€and€attempted€second€degree€murder€of€Cooper.€€That€judgment€wasÏaffirmed€by€this€court,€and€the€sentence€was€modified.€€The€petitioner'sÏappellate€counsel€in€this€court€was€Karen€Hornsby€of€Murfreesboro.× ƒ. ××  ×€€TheÏsupreme€court€denied€the€petitioner's€òòpro€seóó€request€for€permission€to€appeal.€ÏThe€petitioner€has€now€brought€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€which€wasÏdenied€by€the€court€below.€€The€matter€is€before€us€for€appellate€review.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€ArticleÏI,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€both€require€that€a€defendant€in€a€criminalÏcase€receive€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€€When€a€defendant€claims€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€theÏstandard€applied€by€the€courts€of€Tennessee€is€"whether€the€advice€given€or€theÏservice€rendered€by€the€attorney€is€within€the€range€of€competence€demandedÏby€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€òòSummerlin€v.€Stateóó,€607€S.W.2d€495,€496Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏdefined€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€466€U.S.Ï668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052€(1984).€€First,€the€appellant€must€show€that€counsel'sÏperformance€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€underÏprevailing€professional€norms€and€must€demonstrate€that€counsel€made€errorsÏso€serious€that€he€was€not€functioning€as€"counsel"€guaranteed€by€theÏConstitution.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€€Second,€theÏpetitioner€must€show€that€counsel's€performance€prejudiced€him€and€that€errorsÏwere€so€serious€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€calling€into€questionÏthe€reliability€of€the€outcome.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€€ÌÌà àà à€€The€petitioner's€burden€of€proof€in€all€cases€filed€after€May€10,Ï1995€is€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)Ï(Supp.€1996).€€The€court€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€counsel'sÏconduct€falls€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance€and€mustÏevaluate€counsel's€performance€from€counsel's€perspective€at€the€time€of€theÏalleged€error€and€in€light€of€the€totality€of€the€evidence.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€atÏ690,€695,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€2069.€€The€petitioner€must€demonstrate€that€thereÏis€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counsel's€deficient€performance,€theÏresult€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695,Ï104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€A€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€following€a€post„convictionÏhearing€have€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€€òòBratton€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€754,€756Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1971).€€On€appeal,€those€findings€are€conclusive€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,Ï900€(Tenn.€1990).€€Ì€ò òÌó óà@ àò òAó óÌà àà àIn€his€first€argument,€the€petitioner€contends€his€trial€counsel€wasÏineffective€because€he€failed€to€move€for€suppression€or€otherwise€object€toÏintroduction€of€evidence€obtained€pursuant€to€a€warrantless€search.€€ThisÏallegation€pertains€to€a€search€of€the€petitioner's€truck€which€took€place€shortlyÍafter€the€shootings€outside€the€Murfreesboro€Police€Department.€€In€the€petitionÏand€at€the€hearing€below,€this€issue€was€not€raised€as€an€ineffective€assistanceÏclaim.€€The€òòpro€seóó€petition€raises€the€introduction€of€the€evidence€as€"judicialÏmisconduct."× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Counsel€in€the€proceedings€below€did€not€amend€the€petition€toÏinclude€error€of€trial€counsel€in€failing€to€pursue€suppression€of€the€evidenceÏobtained€in€the€search.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€The€post„conviction€court€found€"no€reasonable€basisÍto€claim€.€.€.€the€defendant€was€convicted€as€a€result€of€some€constitutional€rightÏthat€he€would€have€had€as€regards€to€evidence€within€the€vehicle."€€The€courtÏwent€on€to€find€the€search€was€justified€as€a€search€incident€to€arrest.€€BecauseÏthis€issue€was€not€raised€below,€it€is€not€a€proper€ground€for€relief€in€this€court.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòAlonzo€Williams€v.€Stateóó,€No.€1100,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.€4,€1987)€(in€post„conviction€proceedings,€"the€rule€isÏthat€questions€not€raised€by€the€pleadings€and€then€litigated€in€the€trial€court€areÏnot€reviewable€on€appeal")€(citation€omitted),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€ÏThus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àEven€though€the€petitioner€failed€to€preserve€this€issue€for€ourÏreview€by€first€presenting€it€to€the€trial€court,€we€would€nevertheless€decline€toÏgrant€the€requested€relief€if€the€issue€was€properly€before€us.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€record€reflects€that€within€moments€of€the€shootings,€theÏappellant€was€detained€in€handcuffs,€first€in€a€police€cruiser€and€then€in€theÏbasement€of€the€police€station,€until€a€detective€arrived€to€question€him.€ÏAccording€to€both€the€detective€and€the€petitioner,€the€petitioner€was€notÍformally€advised€he€was€under€arrest€until€after€he€was€questioned,€although€heÏclearly€was€not€free€to€leave.€€At€some€time€during€these€events,€in€all€likelihoodÏbefore€the€petitioner€was€formally€placed€under€arrest,€the€passengerÏcompartment€of€his€truck€was€searched.€€This€search€yielded€ammunitionÏmatching€that€used€in€the€shootings€and€a€receipt€for€ammunition€datedÏapproximately€two€weeks€prior€to€the€shootings.€€The€petitioner€contends€thisÏsearch€was€improper€either€(1)€because€it€was€not€a€search€incident€to€arrest,€orÏalternatively,€(2)€even€if€it€was€a€search€incident€to€arrest,€no€exigentÏcircumstances€existed.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€state€argues€the€search€wasÏproper€(1)€as€an€inventory€search,€or€(2)€as€a€search€incident€to€arrest.€€In€ourÏview,€the€record€supports€a€finding€that€the€warrantless€search€was€justified,Ïalthough€not€on€either€ground€advanced€by€the€state.ÌÌà àà àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏArticle€I,€section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€guarantee€individuals€the€rightÏto€be€free€of€unreasonable€governmental€searches€and€seizures.€€A€warrantlessÏsearch€is€òòper€seóó€an€unreasonable€search,€unless€one€of€the€well„definedÏexceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement€applies.€€òòKatz€v.€United€Statesóó,€389€U.S.Ï347,€357,€88€S.€Ct.€507,€514€(1967);€òòState€v.€Tyleróó,€598€S.W.2d€798,€801€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1980).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€petitioner's€vehicle€was€parked€in€a€public€place,€aÏpublic€street€immediately€in€front€of€the€Murfreesboro€police€station,€within€theÏarea€in€which€the€shooting€had€just€taken€place.€€Two€individuals€were€presentÏat€the€scene€with€obvious€gunshot€wounds,€and€at€least€one€police€officer€sawÏthe€petitioner€standing€in€the€area€either€holding€a€gun€or€near€a€gun€that€wasÏon€the€ground.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€A€less€than€full€box€of€ammunition€could€be€seen€on€the€seat€ofÏthe€petitioner's€truck.€€As€our€supreme€court€has€recently€recognized,€aÏwarrantless€search€of€a€vehicle€in€a€public€place,€in€the€aftermath€of€a€crime€andÏwhen€there€is€probable€cause€to€believe€the€vehicle€contains€items€œthat›€areÏsubject€to€seizure× ƒ2 ××  ×,€is€entitled€to€a€conclusive€presumption€of€exigency,Ïpermitting€the€warrantless€search,€even€absent€actual€likelihood€of€risk€of€delayÏin€obtaining€a€warrant.€€òòState€v.€Leveyeóó,€796€S.W.2d€948€(Tenn.€1990)Ï(adopting€the€rule€of€òòCalifornia€v.€Carneyóó,€471€U.S.€386,€105€S.€Ct.€2066Ï(1985)).€€In€this€case,€probable€cause€clearly€existed€because€the€crime€wasÍcommitted€in€the€immediate€area€and€the€box€of€ammunition€was€in€plain€view,Ïand€the€òòLeveye/Carneyóó€exception€applies€to€authorize€a€warrantless€searchÏunder€the€vehicle„search€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarroll€v.ÏU.S.óó,€267€U.S.€132,€45€S.Ct.€280€(1925).× ƒ3 ××  ×€€Accordingly,€there€is€no€basis€for€anÏineffective€assistance€claim€premised€upon€counsel's€failure€to€challenge€thisÏwarrantless€search.€€If€this€issue€were€properly€before€us,€we€would€find€itÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òBó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€next€claim€is€that€his€attorney€failed€to€conduct€anÏadequate€investigation.€€First,€he€complains€of€trial€counsel's€alleged€failure€toÏinvestigate€victim€Cooper's€criminal€history€and€possible€gun€ownership.€€HadÏsuch€evidence€been€uncovered,€it€presumably€could€have€(1)€been€used€forÏimpeachment€purposes,€and/or€(2)€would€have€supported€the€petitioner's€claimÏCooper€shot€at€him€during€the€car€chase.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€Second,€the€petitioner€takes€issueÍwith€trial€counsel's€alleged€failure€to€investigate€and€bring€to€the€court'sÏattention€his€claim€he€told€a€police€officer€he€did€not€want€to€make€a€statementÏshortly€before€he€was€interrogated€by€a€detective.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€hearing,€trial€counsel€testified€he€investigated€Cooper€€byÏtalking€with€people€who€knew€him,€obtaining€a€"rap"€sheet,€attempting€to€talkÏwith€him€personally× ƒ5 ××  ×€and€examining€him€at€the€preliminary€hearing.€€TheÏpetitioner€did€not€directly€contradict€his€former€attorney's€testimony;€he€merelyÏalleged€counsel€never€advised€him€of€the€results€of€the€investigation.€€Moreover,Ïthe€petitioner€failed€to€present€any€evidence€at€his€post„conviction€hearingÏregarding€Cooper€which€would€have€supported€his€defense,€had€his€attorneyÏdiscovered€it€and€presented€it€at€trial.€€The€post„conviction€court€found,€"Mr.ÏMcGee€performed€a€very€thorough€and€effective€investigation€in€this€cause€andÏwas€very€effective€in€representing€[the€petitioner]."€€We€cannot€say€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€this€finding.€€Not€only€has€the€petitioner€failed€toÏestablish€his€attorney's€ineffective€assistance,€he€has€failed€to€demonstrate€anyÏprejudice€therefrom.€€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€complains€his€attorney€failed€to€investigate€andÏbring€to€the€court's€attention€an€invocation€of€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€theÏpetitioner€allegedly€made€when€he€was€detained€outside€the€police€station€andÏplaced€in€a€police€cruiser.€€The€petitioner€does€not€deny€he€later€waived€hisÏrights€and€gave€a€statement€after€he€was€inside€the€police€station.€€At€theÏhearing,€the€petitioner€alleged€he€had€signed€a€written€statement€invoking€hisÏrights€while€in€the€police€cruiser€and€that€he€had€asked€his€trial€attorney€to€lookÏinto€this€matter.€€Trial€counsel€was€not€asked€by€either€party€whether€he€hadÏinvestigated€the€existence€of€such€a€written€or€oral€statement,€although€heÏtestified€he€was€given€"the€total€open€file"€by€the€state€months€prior€to€trial.€ÏDetective€Eddie€Peel,€who€interrogated€the€petitioner€inside€the€police€station,Ïtestified€he€did€not€recall€seeing€a€document€signed€by€the€petitioner€stating€heÏdid€not€want€to€give€a€statement€and€he€had€never€heard€of€the€existence€of€anyÏstatement€by€the€petitioner€asserting€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€prior€to€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€ofÏthe€trial€court€that€counsel€conducted€a€thorough€investigation.€€The€petitionerÏhas€brought€forward€no€evidence€that€his€counsel€did€not€investigate€theÏalleged€invocation€of€privilege,€at€least€in€the€"open€file"€provided€by€the€state.€ÏFurther,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€suppression€of€hisÍsubsequent€statement€would€have€resulted€in€a€different€outcome.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€TheÏevidence€against€the€petitioner€was€overwhelming.€€Both€victims€testified€inÏgreat€detail€about€the€petitioner's€actions.€€Police€officers€and€a€policeÏdepartment€employee€provided€further€corroboration€of€the€petitioner's€guilt.€ÏThe€physical€evidence€points€to€the€petitioner.€€The€petitioner's€statement€wasÏessentially€cumulative€of€the€overwhelming€evidence€of€his€guilt.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Accordingly,Ïneither€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test€has€been€satisfied.€€This€issue€lacks€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òCó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€next€appellate€argument€is€with€his€trial€counsel'sÏfailure€to€object€to€the€prosecutor's€alleged€characterizations€of€the€petitioner'sÏwife€as€a€liar.€€This€issue€was€not€raised€below€as€one€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel.€€Rather,€the€òòpro€seóó€petition€raised€it€as€an€issue€of€"judicialÏmisconduct"€of€the€prosecutor.€€The€petitioner's€counsel€made€no€comment€onÍthe€record€in€the€court€below€indicating€a€desire€that€this€issue€be€considered€asÏone€of€ineffectiveness€€of€counsel.€€The€post„conviction€court€treated€the€issueÏas€one€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€found€"no€basis€for€a€finding€that€[theÏdistrict€attorney]€engaged€in€any€act€of€prosecutorial€misconduct"€and€that€theÏprosecutor's€"representation,€statements€and€argument€appear€and€are€found€toÏbe€well€within€the€grounds€of€propriety€in€the€prosecution€of€this€case€and€in€theÏarguing€of€facts€and€issued€raised€by€the€proof€to€the€jury."€€Because€theÏpetitioner€did€not€raise€this€€issue€as€one€of€ineffective€assistance€in€the€courtÏbelow,€that€court€did€not€have€the€opportunity€to€make€findings€of€fact€and€ruleÏon€it€accordingly.€€As€a€court€of€appellate€review,€we€are€precluded€fromÏcontravening€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)€(party€whoÏcaused€error€or€failed€to€take€action€to€prevent€error€is€not€entitled€to€appellateÏrelief);€€òòAlonzo€Williamsóó,€slip€op.€at€2.€€Thus,€this€issue€is€not€properly€before€us.ÌÌà àà àNotwithstanding€the€petitioner's€failure€to€properly€present€thisÏissue€in€the€court€below,€we€would€find€it€without€merit€if€it€was€properly€beforeÏus.€€The€trial€record€reveals€that€one€of€the€petitioner's€strongest€witnesses€wasÏhis€wife,€Wendy€Makoka,€and€she€was€subject€to€vigorous€cross„examination€byÏthe€district€attorney.€€That€questioning€includes€the€following€by€the€prosecutor:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ.à0 àNow,€I€don't€mean€to€be€ugly,€but€you€don't€have€troubleÏremembering€the€answers€to€Mr.€McGee's€questions.€€WhyÍdon't€you€remember€the€answer€to€that€one?ÌÌA.à0 àIt€all€depends€with,€you€know,€what€type€of€question.ÌÌQ.à0 àYes,€ma'am.ÌÌA.à0 àOr€how€it's€asked.ÌÌQ.à0 àIsn't€it€true€it€all€depends€on€whether€it€helps€your€husbandÏor€hurts€him?ÌÌA.à0 àNo,€that's€not€true.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓImmediately€thereafter,€on€redirect€examination,€defense€counsel€questionedÏMrs.€Makoka.ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓQ.à0 àWould€you€lie€under€oath,€Ms.€Makoka?€€That's€just€whatÏhe's€accused€you€of€doing,€ma'am.ÌÌDistrict€Attorney:€€Your€Honor,€I€haven't€accused€her€of€that.ÌÌDefense€Counsel:€€That's€exactly€what€that€question€was€designedÏtoÌà0 àdo.ÌÌQ.à0 àWould€you€lie€under€oath?ÌÌA.à0 àI'm€not€here€to€lie.€€I'm€not€lying.€€I'm€not€here€to€lie.€€IÏwouldn't€be€here€if€I€was€going€to€tell€you€all€lies.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓDuring€closing€argument,€the€district€attorney€said,€"And,€ladies€and€gentlemen,Ïcontrary€to€what€Mr.€McGee€says,€I€am€not€calling€Wendy€Makoka€a€liar,€but€I€doÏnot€understand€her€testimony€„„€maybe€you€do€.€.€.€."€€Later,€he€said,€"If€I€haveÏinsinuated€she's€a€liar,€I€apologize€to€her,€but€I€do€not€and€am€not€ashamed€toÍœtell€you›€that€I€believe€the€proof€shows€she€is€a€biased€witness.€€And€if€you€showÏme€a€wife€that's€not€biased€in€favor€of€her€husband,€then€I'll€show€you€a€wifeÏthat's€not€worth€having."€€Defense€counsel€later€addressed€the€issue€in€hisÏsummation,€acknowledging,€"[Y]esterday€.€.€.€I€got€angry€when€I€felt€WendyÏMakoka€was€being€called€a€liar."€€He€went€on€to€argue€the€veracity€of€Mrs.ÏMakoka's€testimony€and€why€the€jury€should€accept€it€as€reliable.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€issue€the€petitioner€presents€is€whether€counsel€wasÏineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€these€statements.€€Whether€there€wasÏprosecutorial€misconduct€is€determinative€of€whether€a€valid€objection€could€beÏinterposed.€€The€supreme€court€has€said€a€prosecutor€is€within€the€properÏbounds€where€his€argument€is€based€upon€inferences€supported€by€theÏevidence€of€record,€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€552€(Tenn.€1992),Ïincluding€argument€pertaining€to€the€veracity€of€a€witness's€testimony.€€òòState€v.ÏBeasleyóó,€536€S.W.2d€328,€330€(Tenn.€1976).€€Although€an€attorney€may€notÏexpress€his€personal€opinion€of€a€œwitness's›€credibility,€he€may€argue€basedÏupon€his€analysis€of€the€evidence€and€the€conclusion€supported€by€theÏevidence.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8€(Code€of€Prof'l€Responsibility),€DR€7„106(C)(4);ÏòòLackey€v.€Stateóó,€578€S.W.2d€101,€107€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€€The€trial€courtÏfound€there€was€no€prosecutorial€misconduct,€and€we€cannot€say€the€evidenceÍpreponderates€against€this€finding.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€Absent€prosecutorial€misconduct,€whichÏwould€have€formed€the€basis€for€a€proper€objection,€there€can€be€no€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€The€petitioner€would€not€be€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issueÏif€it€was€properly€before€œus.̛̜›à@ àò òDó óÌà àà àIn€his€final€argument€relating€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,Ïthe€petitioner€contends€his€trial€counsel€prevented€him€from€testifying€in€his€ownÏdefense.€€The€petitioner€does€not€contend€counsel€refused€to€let€him€testify;Ïrather,€he€says€counsel€convinced€him€not€to€take€the€stand€and€only€gave€himÏthe€option€of€testifying€less€than€24€hours€before€trial,€at€which€time€it€was€tooÏlate€for€him€to€prepare€his€testimony.€€Trial€counsel€testified€he€discussed€thisÏissue€with€the€petitioner€at€great€length.€€Counsel€was€concerned€the€petitionerÏmight€fail€to€connect€with€the€jury,€which€would€destroy€the€positive€impact€ofÏMrs.€Makoka's€testimony,€as€well€as€that€of€the€petitioner's€treating€psychiatrist.€ÏCounsel€considered€the€testimony€of€Mrs.€Makoka€and€the€psychiatrist€to€beÏparticularly€strong€for€the€petitioner's€case.€€According€to€counsel,€the€ultimateÏdecision€whether€to€testify€was€petitioner's.€€The€post„conviction€court€found,Í"[D]efendant€was€clearly€made€aware€of€his€decision€to€testify€or€not€to€testifyÏand€made€a€wise€decision€in€not€testifying."€€Although€neither€party€discussed€itÏin€the€briefs€to€this€court,€the€record€of€trial€memorializes€that€the€petitioner€wasÏexamined€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury€regarding€this€issue.€€HeÏacknowledged€consulting€his€attorney€and€expressed€satisfaction€with€hisÏelection€not€to€testify.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏdetermination€of€the€post„conviction€court€that€the€petitioner€made€an€informedÏdecision€not€to€testify.€€Counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€this€regard.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€petitioner€contends€the€post„conviction€courtÏshould€have€disqualified€the€Rutherford€County€District€Attorney€General's€officeÏfrom€representing€the€state€in€this€post„conviction€proceeding.€€A€currentÏmember€of€the€district€attorney's€office,€Jack€Robinson,€was€formerly€a€policeÏofficer€with€the€Murfreesboro€Police€Department.€€In€the€latter€capacity,ÏRobinson€had€some€contact€with€the€case.ÌÌà àà àImmediately€following€the€offenses,€Robinson€responded€to€theÏscene€outside€the€police€station€and€collected€the€petitioner's€revolver€andÏsome€ammunition€shells€from€the€ground€near€where€the€victim€Rhodes€wasÍlying.€€The€petitioner€called€Robinson€to€testify€about€these€facts€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Robinson€was€also€questioned€about€the€search€of€theÏpetitioner's€truck,€but€he€was€unable€to€relay€any€facts€to€the€trial€court€which€areÏpertinent€to€resolution€of€issue€IA€above.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€Robinson€was€not€cross„examinedÏby€the€state€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Prior€to€the€post„conviction€hearing,Ïthe€court€ruled€against€the€petitioner's€motion€for€disqualification€of€the€districtÏattorney's€office,€reasoningÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓWell,€I€think€that€the€way€this€is€written,€DR€5„102€envisions€aÏlawyer€acting€as€a€witness€in€their€[sic]€own€cause.€€And€in€thisÏparticular€case,€the€lawyer€is€not€being€presented€as€a€witness€inÏtheir€[sic]€cause.€€You€may€be€calling€them€but€not€by€[sic]€theÏState.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌà àà àThe€petitioner€cites€Disciplinary€Rules€5„101€and€5„102(A)€inÏsupport€of€his€argument.€€Those€rules€provide€in€pertinent€partÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓA€lawyer€shall€not€accept€employment€in€contemplated€or€pendingÏlitigation€if€the€lawyer€knows€or€it€is€obvious€that€the€lawyer€or€aÏlawyer€in€the€lawyer's€firm€ought€to€be€called€as€a€witness,€exceptÏthat€the€lawyer€may€undertake€the€employment€and€the€lawyer€or€aÏlawyer€in€the€lawyer's€firm€may€testify:Ì€Ì(1)€If€the€testimony€will€relate€solely€to€an€uncontested€matter.Ì€Ì(2)€If€the€testimony€will€relate€solely€to€a€matter€of€formality€andÏthere€is€no€reason€to€believe€that€substantial€evidence€will€beÍoffered€in€opposition€to€the€testimony.Ì€Ì[other€exceptions€omitted].€Ì.€.€.€ÌÌIf,€after€undertaking€employment€in€contemplated€or€pendingÏlitigation,€a€lawyer€learns€or€it€is€obvious€that€the€lawyer€or€aÏlawyer€in€the€lawyer's€firm€ought€to€be€called€as€a€witness€onÏbehalf€of€the€client,€the€lawyer€shall€withdraw€from€the€conduct€ofÏthe€trial€and€the€firm,€if€any,€shall€not€continue€representation€in€theÏtrial,€except€that€the€lawyer€may€continue€the€representation€andÏthe€lawyer€or€a€lawyer€in€the€lawyer's€firm€may€testify€in€theÏcircumstances€enumerated€[above].ÌÌIf,€after€undertaking€employment€in€contemplated€or€pendingÏlitigation,€a€lawyer€learns€or€it€is€obvious€that€the€lawyer€or€aÏlawyer€in€the€lawyer's€firm€may€be€called€as€a€witness€other€thanÏon€behalf€of€the€client,€the€lawyer€may€continue€the€representationÏuntil€it€is€apparent€that€the€testimony€is€or€may€be€prejudicial€to€theÏclient.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8€(Code€of€Prof'l€Responsibility),€DR€5„101€and€5„102.€€TheÏpurpose€of€the€rules€on€attorney€and€law€firm€disqualification€is€not€to€protect€aÏlitigant€from€opposing€counsel,€but€to€protect€the€attorney's€own€client.€€òòCoakleyÏv.€Danielsóó,€840€S.W.2d€367,€371€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€An€attorney€who€isÏcalled€to€the€witness€stand€by€his€client's€adversary€has€no€obligation€toÏwithdraw€from€representation€until€his€testimony€is€or€may€be€prejudicial€to€hisÏclient.€€òòState€v.€Browningóó,€666€S.W.2d€80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòseeÏgenerallyóó€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€931€S.W.2d€232€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€òòperm.€app.Ïdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€trial€court's€determination€with€respect€toÍdisqualification€of€an€attorney€based€upon€undisputed€facts€and€conduct€notÏtaking€place€in€court€is€a€matter€within€the€trial€courtððs€sound€discretion,€and€it€isÏnot€to€be€disturbed€on€appeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.× ƒ: ××  ×€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,Ï931€S.W.2d€232,€238€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€òòperm.óó€€òòapp.óó€denied€(Tenn.€1996),€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€Robinson,€a€state's€witness€at€the€trial,€was€called€toÏtestify€by€the€petitioner€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€His€testimony€wasÏconsistent€with€that€which€he€had€given€previously,€and€it€was€in€no€wayÏprejudicial€to€the€district€attorney€general's€client,€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€ItÏwas€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€to€rule€that€the€district€attorney's€officeÏshould€not€be€disqualified€from€representing€the€state€in€the€petitioner's€case.ÌÌà àà àIn€summary,€we€find€all€of€the€petitioner's€issues€inappropriate€forÏappellate€relief.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE