ÿWPCï$ …# VU>a %Ÿ 0ñ¥U:– w@Ð 4 $ 053 0Dh ¬ 0J´ 0Tþ 0^R 0h° 0r 0|Š 0† 0Œ 1uU,‘ 0d½U,! BMU6jU * B)ÊDCó AM6 D3ƒÑ¶x‡ 0@ÿº?v~ùvÓw AOJ#Æ™# 0D_$ D/£$ BÒ$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <@ˆÐ9Z &Courier RegularX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular CDDEDFGEHIDJUKÓ€W»{s 3|x[(å(3±–$¤¤Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€X­ÎXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ28,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó nÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€&ôÔFor€cases€filed€on€or€after€May€10,€1995,€T.C.A.€€ðððð€40„30„101€to€40„30„124€are€replaced€byÏT.C.A.€€ðððð€40„30„210€to€40„30„222.€€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€ch.€207.Ô€&XÔÌÓÓÌÓ` °‡Xùp”XÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò °Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€ÓÓÔ€&ôÔIn€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923€(Tenn.€1995),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reversedÏthe€lower€court€in€part€and€remanded,€holding€that€T.C.A.€€ðð€40„14„207(b)(which€authorizes€expertÏservices€if€necessary€for€the€protection€of€the€constitutional€rights€of€an€indigent€defendant)€applies€toÏpost„conviction€capital€cases€and€that€when€certain€procedural€criteria€are€satisfied,€an€indigentÏpetitioner€in€a€post„conviction€capital€case€is€entitled€to€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing€to€determine€the€necessityÏof€such€services.Ô€&XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ ° ÑÓ` °‚X˜XÓÑ7€õqXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|"ñ` à. `€€Lß›à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€SEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1994ÌÌÓÓœHUGH€MELSON,à à›à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœAppellant,›à àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9402„CR„00023Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àMadison€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€William€S.ÏRussell,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœAppellee.›à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌDonald€E.€Dawson€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌœFirst€American€Building,€#2075›à àà àœAttorney›€General€ofÏTennesseeÌœ315€Deaderick€Street›à àà àà àœ›à àandÌNashville,€TN€37219€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àGordon€W.€Smith€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àDeputy€AttorneyÏGeneral€of€TennesseeÌKenneth€H.€King,€Jr.à àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌ414€Union€Streetà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌP.O.€Box€198062ÌNashville,€TN€37219à àà àà àJames€G.€(Jerry)ÏWoodallÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€AttorneyÏGeneralà àÌà àà àà àà àà àState€Office€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€38302„2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àGordon€W.€SmithÌà àà àà àà àà àDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0485ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_______________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌ€€€€€€ÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌò òòòÌÌÌÌà@ àœÌà àà àà àà àO›€P€I€N€I€O€œNÌ›ÌÌÓÓà àóóó óThe€petitioner,€Hugh€Melson,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€MadisonÏCounty€Circuit€Courtððs€dismissal€of€his€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€withoutÏan€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€petitioner€raises€the€following€issues€on€appeal:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€the€conduct€of€the€court€evidences€a€predisposition€toÏdismiss€the€amended€petition€without€a€full€and€fairÏconsideration€of€its€merits;ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€trial€court€applied€an€erroneous€standard€of€waiver€inÏdismissing€fourteen€(14)€of€the€petitionerððs€claims;ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€trial€court€violated€the€petitionerððs€constitutionalÏrights€in€dismissing€fourteen€(14)€of€the€petitionerððs€claimsÏas€being€previously€determined;ÌÌà8 à(4)€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€claims€based€onÏthe€principles€enunciated€in€òòBrownóó;ÌÌà8 à(5)€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€warrant€the€trial€courtððsÏoriginal€charge€concerning€aggravating€circumstances€andÏthe€juryððs€subsequent€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€basedÏupon€the€application€of€these€circumstances;ÌÌà8 à(6)€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€aggravatingÏcircumstance€was€unconstitutionally€vague;€andÌÌà8 à(7)€the€petitionerððs€constitutional€rights€were€violated€whenÏhe€was€denied€funds€for€expert€investigative€services.ÌÌÓ  Óòòà@ àÌÌÓÓà@ àò òBACKGROUNDó óÌóóà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€sentenced€toÏdeath.€€The€conviction€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2dÏ342€(Tenn.€1982),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€459€U.S.€1137,€103€S.€Ct.€770€(1983).ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€filed€his€first€post„conviction€petition€on€May€31,€1985,Ïraising€some€fifteen€issues€concerning€the€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty,€juryÏbias,€improper€venue,€improper€jury€instructions,€misapplication€and€misinterpretationÏof€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances,€inadequate€appellate€review,€evidentiaryÏerrors,€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€procedural€errors,€and€the€illegality€of€theÏarrest€and€the€search.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€dismissed€all€claimsÍother€than€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€concluding€that€they€had€been€previouslyÏdetermined€or€waived.€€A€hearing€was€conducted€on€the€sole€issue€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€with€some€thirteen€witnesses,€including€trial€counsel€for€theÏpetitioner,€testifying.€€The€trial€court€then€determined€that€counselððs€performance€hadÏnot€been€deficient€and€that€the€services€rendered€by€counsel€had€been€within€theÏrange€of€competence€demanded€in€criminal€cases.€€On€appeal,€this€court€reversed€theÏtrial€court€in€part€and€remanded€the€case€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€òòState€v.€HughÏMelsonóó,€No.€8,€Madison€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€10,€1988),€òòappóó.€òògrantedóó€(Tenn.ÏDec.12,€1988).€€The€state€appealed,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reversed€thisÏcourt€and€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417Ï(Tenn.€1989),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€493€U.S.€874,€110€S.€Ct.€211(1989).ÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€proceeding€òòproóó€òòseóó,€filed€a€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€June€30,€1989.€€On€March€30,€1990,€the€trial€court€dismissed€theÏpetition€without€conducting€an€evidentiary€hearing,€finding€that€the€petition€had€beenÏcompetently€drafted€and€that€all€grounds€had€been€waived€by€the€petitionerððs€failure€toÏraise€them€in€his€first€petition.€This€court€reversed€and€remanded€this€case€for€theÏappointment€of€counsel€and€further€proceedings,€if€necessary.€€òòHugh€Melson€v.€Stateóó,ÏNo.€29,€Madison€County,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Dec.€5,€1990).€€The€state€appealed,€andÏthe€supreme€court€granted€review€principally€to€determine€what€constitutes€a€ð ðknowingÏand€understandingðð€waiver€under€T.C.A.€€ðð€40„30„111(b)(1)€of€the€Tennessee€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.× ƒ, ××  ×€€The€supreme€court€initially€reversed€this€courtððs€opinionÏand€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Appointed€counsel€filed€a€petition€toÏrehear,€and€the€supreme€court€withdrew€its€former€opinion€and€remanded€this€case€toÏthe€trial€court€for€the€appointment€of€counsel€and,€if€necessary,€amendment€of€theÏpetition€and€an€evidentiary€hearing.ÌÌà àThe€petition€was€amended€in€its€present€form€and€filed€on€June€10,€1993.€ÏIn€it€the€petitioner€raised€the€following€grounds€for€relief:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€insufficient€evidence€of€deliberation€or€premeditation;ÌÌà8 à(2)€jury€instruction€incorrectly€defined€the€deliberationÏelement€of€first€degree€murder;ÌÌà8 à(3)€desires€of€victimððs€family€for€death€sentence€improperlyÏcommunicated€to€jury;ÌÌà8 à(4)€improper€closing€argument€to€jury;ÌÌà8 à(5)€prejudicial€reliance€on€nonstatutory€aggravators;ÌÌà8 à(6)€prosecutorððs€closing€argument€diminished€juryððsÏresponsibility;ÌÌà8 à(7)€petitioner€denied€equal€protection€by€virtue€of€wealth€ofÏvictimððs€family;ÌÌà8 à(8)€trial€counselððs€failure€to€investigate€mitigation€issues;ÌÌà8 à(9)€trial€counselððs€failure€to€present€mitigation€preventedÏmeaningful€appellate€review;ÌÌà8 à(10)€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel;ÌÌà8 à(11)€trial€counsel€prejudicially€waived€voir€dire;ÌÌà8 à(12)€trial€counselððs€failure€to€rebut€suspect€conclusions€ofÏmedical€examiner;ÌÌà8 à(13)€trial€counsel€drew€attention€to€custodial€status€ofÏpetitioner;ÌÌà8 à(14)€trial€counsel€misinformed€the€jury€regarding€standardÏfor€presumption€of€innocence;ÌÌà8 à(15)€trial€counsel€argued€conflicting€defense€theories;ÌÌà8 à(16)€no€proof€to€support€ð ðavoiding€arrestðð€aggravator;ÌÌà8 à(17)€insufficient€proof€to€support€œð ðheinous,›€atrocious,€orÏœcruelðð›€aggravator;ÌÌà8 à(18)€misleading€charge€on€statutory€aggravators;ÌÌà8 à(19)€improper€jury€instructions;ÌÌà8 à(20)€prejudicial€judicial€remarks€transformed€mitigator€toÏaggravator;ÌÌà8 à(21)€erroneous€jury€charge€regarding€presumption€ofÏtruthfulness;ÌÌà8 à(22)€disparate€treatment€in€jury€selection€process;ÌÌà8 à(23)€trial€counsel€was€denied€the€opportunity€to€rehabilitateÏjurors;ÌÌà8 à(24)€erroneous€hearsay€ruling;ÌÌà8 à(25)€prejudicial€refusal€to€grant€time€to€trial€counsel€toÏprepare€for€penalty€phase;ÌÌà8 à(26)€ð ðExpertðð€erroneously€allowed€to€testify;ÌÌà8 à(27)€denial€of€fair€and€impartial€jury;ÌÌà8 à(28)€unconstitutionality€of€death€penalty€œstatute;€and›ÌÌà8 à(29)€ineffective€assistance€of€prior€counsel.€ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€petitioner€filed€a€motion€to€proceed€òòexóó€òòparteóó€and€under€seal€inÏseeking€funds€for€expert€and€investigative€services.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motionÏto€proceed€òòexóó€òòparteóó,€but€initially€denied€the€request€for€services.€The€state€filed€anÏanswer€to€the€petitionerððs€petition,€and€on€October€5,€1993,€a€prehearing€statusÏconference€was€held.€€At€the€conference,€the€trial€court€requested€that€the€petitionerÏfile,€under€seal,€a€more€detailed€request€for€investigative€and€expert€services.€€TheÏpetitioner€filed€a€request€which€specified€the€types€of€experts€that€would€be€neededÏand€why€their€services€would€be€necessary.€€On€January€5,€1994,€the€trial€court€issuedÏa€fifteen„page€memorandum€opinion€in€which€it€concluded€that€claims€(1),€(4),€(5),€(6),Ï(8),€(9),€(10),€(11),€(16),€(17),€(18),€(27),€(28),€and€(29)€had€been€previously€determined,Ïthat€all€other€claims€except€claim€(2)€had€been€waived,€and€that€in€claim€(2),€theÏinstruction€recommended€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992),€was€notÏmandated€by€either€the€state€or€federal€constitution€and€the€instruction€as€givenÏpresented€no€danger€of€unfairness€in€the€instant€case€in€light€of€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€offense.€ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òœPREDISPOSITION›€TO€DISMISSó óóóÌÓ  Óà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€petitioner€contends€that€when€viewed€in€their€entiretyÏand€collectively,€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€in€dismissing€the€amended€petitionÏevidences€a€predisposition€to€dismiss€without€a€full€and€fair€consideration€of€theÏpetitionððs€merits.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€claims€that€the€trial€court€mischaracterizedÏthe€nature€and€purpose€of€the€prehearing€conference€held€on€October€5,€1993,€gaveÏonly€ð ðlip€serviceðð€to€the€petitionerððs€request€for€funds€for€expert€and€investigativeÏservices,€and€provided€no€analysis,€merits€assessment,€or€attempt€at€individual€issueÏevaluation€in€its€œJanuary›€œ1994›€order€dismissing€the€petition.ÌÌà àThe€record€does€not€support€the€petitionerððs€claims.€€In€œa›€September€œ€€›Ïœ1993›€order,€the€trial€court€scheduled€the€œOctober›€œ1993›€prehearing€conference€for€theÏexplicit€purpose€of€ð ðdefining€the€issues,€if€any,€requiring€an€evidentiary€hearing.ðð€€TheÏconference€was€held,€and€counsel€for€the€petitioner€articulated€those€issues€which,€inÏcounselððs€opinion,€necessitated€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€In€response,€counsel€for€theÏstate€argued€that€all€of€the€issues€had€been€either€waived€or€previously€determinedÏand€did€not€merit€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing€and€at€theÏpetitionerððs€request,€the€trial€court€granted€the€petitioner€an€additional€fifteen€days€inÏwhich€to€file€an€additional€brief€in€reply€to€the€stateððs€answer€to€the€amended€petition.€ÌÌà àThe€record€reveals€that€the€trial€court€did€not€mischaracterize€the€natureÏof€the€œOctober›€œ1993›€conference.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€granted€the€petitionerÏadditional€time€to€answer€the€stateððs€answer.€€Though€the€opinion€collectively€groupedÏand€summarily€addressed€certain€issues,€the€court€provided€supporting€law€for€all€of€itsÏconclusions.ÌÌà àIn€regard€to€the€petitionerððs€request€for€investigative€and€expert€services,Ïthe€trial€court€did,€in€fact,€allow€the€petitioner€to€proceed€òòexóó€òòparteóó€and€submit€a€moreÏdetailed€request€for€these€services.€€We€note€that€the€law€at€the€time€of€the€courtððsÏruling€was€unsettled.€€In€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€915€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1989),€this€court€held€that€post„conviction€capital€case€petitionersÏare€not€entitled€to€expert€or€investigative€services€at€state€expense.€€€However,€in€aÏlater€unpublished€decision,€a€different€panel€of€this€court€concluded€that€trial€courtsÏhave€the€discretionary€power€to€provide€expert€services€when€necessary€to€ensure€theÏprotection€of€the€constitutional€rights€of€a€capital€case€petitioner.€€òòGaile€K.€Owens€andÏPervis€T.€Payne€v.€Stateóó,€œNos.›€02C01„9111„CR„00259€and€02C01„9204„CR„00094,ÏShelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€25,€1994),€òòappóó.€òògrantedóó€(Tenn.€Jul.€25,€1994).× ƒ. ××  ×à8 àà8 àÌÌà àAlthough€the€trial€court€only€summarily€addressed€the€petitionerððs€requestÏfor€services€in€its€order€and€memorandum€opinion,€we€conclude€that€the€result€isÏconsistent€with€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€all€issues€had€been€previouslyÏdetermined€or€waived€and€that€it€does€not€evidence€a€predisposition€to€dismiss€theÏpetition.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òISSUES€WAIVEDó óÌÓ  Óóóà àThe€petitioner€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€Ïclaims€(3),€(7),€(12),€(13),€(14),€(15),€(19),€(20),€(21),€(22),€(23),€(24),€(25)€and€(26)€hadÏbeen€waived.€€Specifically,€relying€on€unpublished€decisions€of€this€court,€theÏpetitioner€claims€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€used€an€objective€rather€thanÏsubjective€standard€in€holding€that€a€personal€and€knowing€waiver€is€not€requiredÏunder€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€and€that€counselððs€failure€to€raise€an€issueÏcan€be€imputed€to€the€petitioner.ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€resolved€this€issue€in€òòHouse€v.ÏStateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€court€held€as€follows:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àWe€conclude€that€a€ð ðfull€and€fair€hearingðð€sufficient€toÏsupport€a€finding€of€previous€determination€occurs€if€aÏpetitioner€is€given€the€opportunity€to€present€proof€andÏargument€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€WeÏfurther€conclude€that€the€rebuttable€presumption€of€waiver€isÏnot€overcome€by€an€allegation€that€the€petitioner€did€notÏpersonally€and€therefore,€ð ðknowingly€and€understandingly,ððÏwaive€a€ground€for€relief.€€Instead,€waiver€is€to€[be]Ídetermined€by€an€objective€standard€under€which€aÏpetitioner€is€bound€by€the€action€or€inaction€of€his€attorney.€ÏFinally,€we€conclude€that€there€is€no€right€to€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€in€post„conviction€proceedings,€andÏtherefore,€an€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€priorÏpost„conviction€counsel€does€not€preclude€application€ofÏthe€defenses€of€waiver€and€previous€determination.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ911€S.W.2d€at€714.€€Essentially,€the€court€determined€that€a€petitioner€is€bound€by€theÏaction€or€inaction€of€counsel,€or€his€own€ignorance,€unless€the€constitutional€right€atÏissue€is€a€fundamental€one€that€may€only€be€waived€personally€and€knowingly€by€aÏdefendant„petitioner.ÌÌà àUnder€òòHouseóó,€the€petitionerððs€allegations€that€he€did€not€knowingly€andÏunderstandingly€forgo€his€present€grounds€for€relief€in€the€previous€petition€or€directÏappeal€and€that€neither€his€trial€nor€post„conviction€attorneys€œconsulted›€with€him€aboutÏthose€grounds€or€about€the€decision€whether€to€raise€those€issues€in€any€of€the€earlierÏproceedings€are€for€naught€in€that€they€do€not€provide€justification€for€his€failure€toÏpresent€these€issues€in€his€previous€post„conviction€case.€€He€does€not€allege€theÏviolation€of€any€right€for€which€a€personal€waiver€is€required.€€Accordingly,€hisÏallegations€do€not€rebut€the€presumption€of€waiver€provided€by€T.€C.€A.€€ðð€40„30„112(b),€and€this€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÓ  ÓÌòòò òISSUES€PREVIOUSLY€DETERMINEDó óóóÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€next€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€concluding€that€certain€claims€had€been€previously€determined.€€The€trialÍcourt€concluded€that€fourteen€€claims€had€been€previously€determined,€and€theÏpetitioner€now€contests€this€ruling€as€to€eight€of€the€claims.€€Specifically,€he€contendsÏthat€claim€(1)€has€not€been€previously€determined€in€light€of€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992)€and€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144€(Tenn.€1992),€that€claimsÏ(8)€and€(9)€have€not€been€presented€in€that€they€address€the€ineffectiveness€of€counselÏas€related€to€trial€counselððs€failure€to€investigate,€that€claims€(10)€and€(11)€should€haveÏbeen€reviewed€in€that€they€relate€to€new€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€that€claims€(16)€and€(17)€concerning€aggravating€circumstances€should€haveÏbeen€reviewed€because€they€had€never€been€adequately€argued€or€considered,€andÏthat€claim€(29)€should€be€reviewed€in€that€it€relates€to€the€ineffectiveness€of€post„conviction€counsel.€€€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€claim€(1)€alleges€insufficiency€of€the€evidence€relating€toÏpremeditation€and€deliberation€under€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòBrownóó.€ÏHowever,€in€the€instant€case,€the€petitioner€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÏon€direct€appeal.€€òòMelsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€at€347„350.€€The€supreme€court€stated€that€itÏð ðhad€no€hesitancy€in€holding€that€the€evidence€against€Melson€was€sufficient€toÏsupport€the€first€degree€murder€conviction€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€350.€ÏThis€court€has€previously€concluded€that€òòBrownóó€does€not€present€a€new€constitutionalÏrule€or€new€right€relative€to€the€elements€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòTimothy€WayneÏPeters€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9409„CR„00331,€Sullivan€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€30,Ï1995),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Apr.€1,€1996).€€Thus,€no€basis€exists€for€revisiting€the€issueÍof€evidence€sufficiency.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€this€issue€hasÏbeen€previously€determined.€ÌÌà àPetitionerððs€claims€(8)€and€(9)€concern€ineffectiveness€of€trial€counsel€asÏit€relates€to€failure€to€investigate€mitigation€issues€and€thereby€results€in€a€lack€ofÏmeaningful€appellate€review.€€The€petitioner€now€contends€that€these€issues€shouldÏnot€have€been€held€to€have€been€previously€determined€as€they€are€separate€andÏdistinct€from€the€allegations€in€his€first€post„conviction€petition,€which€claimedÏineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€for€failure€to€produce€any€proof€in€the€sentencingÏhearing€and€failure€to€provide€a€proper€closing€argument€in€the€sentencing€phase.€€WeÏdo€not€agree.€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€first€post„conviction€petition€was€some€forty„two€pages€inÏlength€and€presented€all€of€the€issues€that€were€raised€at€the€original€trial€and€appealÏplus€some€additional€legal€questions.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€all€of€the€allegationsÏexcept€those€relating€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€held€a€hearing€on€theÏineffective€assistance€issue.€€Thirteen€witnesses,€including€both€of€petitionerððs€trialÏcounsel,€a€member€of€the€petit€jury€panel€who€was€not€selected€as€a€juror,€nine€Ïrelatives€and€acquaintances€of€the€petitioner,€and€one€expert€on€the€defense€of€capitalÏcases€testified.€€After€reviewing€the€trial€record€and€the€evidence€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€counselððs€performance€was€notÍdeficient€and€that€the€services€rendered€by€counsel€were€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€in€criminal€cases.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€however,€this€court€concluded€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderated€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€counselððs€decision€not€to€callÏwitnesses€at€the€sentencing€hearing€was€a€reasonable€exercise€of€trial€tactics.€€ThisÏcourt€affirmed€the€conviction€of€the€petitioner,€but€reversed€the€sentence€of€death€andÏremanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€HughÏMelsonóó,€No.€8,€Madison€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€10,€1988),€òòappóó.€òògrantedóó€(Tenn.ÏDec.€12,1988).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€disagreed€with€the€intermediateÏcourtððs€ruling€and€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772ÏS.W.2d€417€(Tenn.€1989).€€Referring€to€the€fact€that€the€petitioner€had€been€permittedÏto€call€eight€character€witnesses€who€testified,€ð ðwithout€contradiction€or€impeachment,Ïto€[the]€petitionerððs€reputation€for€peacefulness€and€quietude,ðð€the€court€concluded€thatÏnothing€concerning€mitigation€had€been€adduced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€whichÏcould€have€added€anything€to€that€which€had€already€been€placed€in€the€record€duringÏthe€guilt€phase.€€òòIdóó.€at€418.€€The€court€also€cited€to€its€original€opinion€on€direct€appealÏin€which€it€had€noted€that€ð ð[c]ounsel€explored€every€legal€question€and€every€factualÏissue€which€apparently€was€open€to€them€under€the€circumstances€of€the€case€.€.€.€.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€420.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€appeal,€the€petitioner€attempts€to€distinguish€the€claim€heÏraises€in€regard€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€by€asserting€that€he€is€nowÏreferring€to€counselððs€failure€to€investigate€and€prepare€for€the€presentation€of€anyÏmitigating€evidence€at€his€sentencing€hearing.€€We€decline€to€make€such€a€distinctionÏand€conclude€that€the€œtrial€›court€did€not€err€in€its€determination€that€the€issue€ofÏineffective€assistance€was€previously€determined.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohn€L.€Bates€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ï03C01„9208„CR„00279,€Hamilton€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€6,€1993),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€Nov.€1,€1993);€òòWilliam€Edward€Blake€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9212„CR„00444,ÏKnox€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€17,€1993).€€Even€if€this€court€were€to€recognize€newÏgrounds€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€though,€relief€would€still€not€beÏwarranted,€because€pursuant€to€the€supreme€courtððs€holding€in€òòHouseóó,€they€areÏdeemed€to€be€waived€for€not€being€raised€in€the€first€post„conviction€case.€à àà à€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€counselððs€failure€to€investigate€or€developÏmitigating€evidence€prevented€meaningful€appellate€review.€€€Again,€however,€weÏconclude€that€the€issue€of€effective€assistance€of€counsel€has€been€previouslyÏdetermined€in€that€the€supreme€court€previously€held€that€counsel€had€not€been€remissÏin€failing€to€present€cumulative€mitigation€evidence€that€had€already€been€presented€atÏthe€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€next€argues€œthat€the›€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€claims€(10)Ïand€œ(11),€regarding›€the€effective€assistance€of€trial€œcounsel,›€were€previouslyÍdetermined€was€erroneous.€€Claim€(10)€involved€allegations€of€specific€instances€ofÏineffective€representation€involving€counselððs€failure€to€secure€a€fair€and€impartial€jury,Ïfailure€to€successfully€attain€a€change€of€venue,€failure€to€object€to€jury€instructions,Ïfailure€to€make€a€proper€record€of€error,€failure€to€object€to€improper€closing€argumentÏby€the€state,€failure€to€include€all€trial€errors€in€the€petitionerððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,Ïfailure€to€offer€proof€about€the€discriminatory€impact€of€the€death€penalty,€and€failure€toÏretain€a€ð ðblood€splatter€expert.ðð€€In€claim€(11),€the€petitioner€complained€that€trialÏcounsel€prejudicially€waived€voir€dire€of€the€last€juror.€€As€previously€noted,€however,Ïeven€if€the€petitioner€could€successfully€argue€that€these€issues€have€not€beenÏpreviously€determined,€the€petitioner€has€waived€them€pursuant€to€the€supreme€courtððsÏholding€in€òòHouseóó€€and€T.€C.€A.€€ðð€40„30„112(b)€[repealed].ÌÌà àIn€claims€(16)€and€(17),€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€chargeÏconcerning€aggravating€circumstances€and€the€juryððs€application€of€the€circumstances,Ïthese€being€that€the€crime€was€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€and€that€it€was€committedÏfor€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€orÏœprosecution,›€was€a€violation€of€the€petitionerððs€rights€inasmuch€as€the€record€wasÏdevoid€of€any€proof€to€support€either€charge.€€òòSeeóó€T.€C.€A.€€ðððð€39„2404(i)(5),€œ39„2404(i)(6)€(1982).›€However,€the€record€reveals€that€both€of€these€claims€wereÏpresented€on€direct€appeal€and€in€the€first€post„conviction€petition.€€ÌÌà àOn€direct€appeal,€the€supreme€court€concluded€œthat›€the€heinous,Ïatrocious€or€cruel€instruction€was€not€unconstitutionally€vague€or€overbroad€and€thatÏthis€factor€was€definitely€applicable€in€that€ð ðthe€uncontradicted€proof€show[ed]€that€Mrs.ÏLawrence€had€defensive€injuries€to€her€arms€and€hands,€proving€that€there€was€timeÏfor€her€to€realize€what€was€happening,€to€feel€œfear,›€and€to€try€œto›€œprotect›€œherself.ðð€ÏòòMelsonóó,€638€S.W.€2d€at€367.›€€The€court€also€noted€that€ð ða€killing€wherein€the€victim€isÏstruck€up€to€thirty€times,€causing€an€entire€room€to€be€covered€with€a€spray€of€flyingÏblood,€and€causing€the€victimððs€brains€to€extrude€through€the€gaping€hole€in€her€skull,Ïœevidence[d]›€depravity€of€œmind.ðð€€òòIdóó.›ÌÌà àThe€court€further€concluded€that€the€evidence€supporting€the€applicationÏof€the€aggravating€circumstance€involving€the€prevention€of€arrest€or€prosecution€wasÏsufficient€in€that€ð ðMrs.€Lawrence€had€threatened€to€expose€[the€petitionerððs]€allegedÏtheft€of€gasolineðð€and€the€petitioner€had€told€two€people€on€the€day€of€the€murder€thatÏhe€was€ð ðin€a€heap€of€trouble,ðð€and€that€the€victim€œcould€not›€ð ðtell€Mr.€Jack€and€have€Mr.ÏJack€coming€back€there€raising€hell€with€him.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€We€conclude€that€this€issue€hasÏbeen€previously€litigated€and€determined.ÌÌà à€In€claim€(29),€the€petitioner€contends€that€post„conviction€counsel€in€theÏfirst€post„conviction€case€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€raise€issues€set€forth€in€thisÏsuccessor€post„conviction€petition.€€However,€in€òòHouseóó,€the€supreme€court€not€onlyÏheld€that€there€is€no€constitutional€or€statutory€right€to€the€effective€assistance€ofÍcounsel€in€post„conviction€proceedings,€but€specifically€rejected€the€holding€that€theÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€prior€post„conviction€proceeding€is€an€importantÏfactor€to€consider€when€determining€whether€a€claim€has€been€previously€determinedÏor€waived.€€911€S.W.2d€at€714.€€This€issue€is€also€without€merit.à àÌà àÌÓ  Óòòò òINSTRUCTION€ON€PREMEDITATION€AND€DELIBERATIONó óÌÓ  Óà àóóIn€claim€(2),€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissingÏthe€claim€due€to€the€principles€enunciated€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(1992).€ÏSpecifically,€he€claims€that€the€instruction€given€at€his€trial€that€intent€can€beÏð ðdeliberately€formed€in€an€instantðð€was€erroneous€and€that€the€courtððs€holding€in€òòBrownóóÏshould€be€considered€a€new€constitutional€rule€of€law€which€warrants€retrospectiveÏapplication.ÌÌà àAs€we€have€previously€discussed€in€the€ð ðissues€previously€determinedððÏportion€of€this€opinion,€this€court€has€consistently€held€that€òòBrownóó€merely€offeredÏguidance,€did€not€create€a€new€constitutional€rule€relative€to€jury€instructions,€andÏshould€not€be€retroactively€applied.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rayóó,€880€S.W.2d€700€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993),€òòState€v.€Jimmy€Sillsóó,€No.€03C01„9410„CR„00370,€Hamilton€Co.€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€May€10,€1995),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Sept.€11,€1995);€òòLarry€Cravens€v.€Stateóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9404„CR„00143,€Fentress€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€25,€1995).€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àòòò òUNCONSTITUTIONALLY€VAGUE€JURY€INSTRUCTIONó óóóÌà àThe€petitioner€next€asserts€in€claim€(19)€that€even€though€he€hasÏpreviously€raised€the€claim€that€the€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€aggravating€instructionÏis€constitutionally€vague,€the€development€of€new€case€law€since€the€issue€was€raisedÏcreates€a€need€for€this€issue€to€be€re„examined.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€citesÏsupreme€court€language€in€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€181€(Tenn.€1991),€for€theÏproposition€that€the€jury€should€be€properly€instructed€on€the€meaning€of€the€termsÏused€in€the€statute€in€accordance€with€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€521€(Tenn.Ï1985).€ÌÌ€à àWhile€it€is€true€that€in€òòWilliamsóó€the€supreme€court€expressed€a€preferenceÏthat€juries€be€fully€instructed€as€to€the€definitions€of€the€terms€heinous,€atrocious€orÏcruel,€the€court€has€consistently€held€that€the€œlanguage€as€expressed€in€the€statute›€isÏnot€unconstitutionally€vague€or€overbroad.€€òòSeeóó€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€106Ï(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908,€918€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€771ÏS.W.2d€387,€399€(Tenn.€1989).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌòòà àà àà àò òEXPERT€INVESTIGATIVE€SERVICESó óóóÌà àLastly,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€court€wrongly€failed€to€authorizeÏfunds€for€expert€investigative€services.€€However,€given€the€fact€that€the€petitioner€hasÏpresented€no€justiciable€grounds€for€relief,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€fundsÍfor€expert€investigative€services€to€explore€the€meritless€claims.€€Accordingly,€this€issueÏis€also€without€merit.€ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òCONCLUSIONó óÌÓ  Óóóà àAlthough€the€trial€court€summarily€denied€post„conviction€relief,€inÏconsideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€conclude€that€no€errorÏwas€committed.€€The€petitioner€has€not€overcome€the€presumption€that€the€claims€heÏraises€were€previously€determined€or€are€waived.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€œcourt€dismissing€the€petition€is›€affirmed.€œÌÌà àThis€court€previously€granted€a€stay€of€execution€pending€the€dispositionÏof€the€petitionerððs€petition€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€in€the€United€States€District€CourtÏfor€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee.€€The€petition€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€havingÏbeen€dismissed€by€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€TennesseeÏon€January€3,€1992,€and€the€denial€of€the€petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÏhaving€been€affirmed€by€this€court,€we€establish€a€new€execution€date€and€direct€thatÏthe€sentence€be€carried€out€as€provided€by€law€on€January€20,€1997,€unless€otherwiseÏstayed€or€modified€by€appropriate€authority.€€›Ìà àà à€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌœCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJoe€B.€Jones,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJohn€H.€Peay,€Judge€Ìà àà àÌà àà àÌà àà à€ÌÌÌÌÌà à€€€€ÌÌà àÌÌà à€€€€ÌÌÌÌ