ÿWPCé> vkóÅò@YÛÂ[íºÙǫǹ#†ö—‡ëy$͘m”eCÖZƒ6P¡°»ª¦"‘À`ÌqD¬G¤c7P|+Ì´ø„–€Dέ4WÎRNÉÓ- mqPÕÕ ;ÜÔÿˆóf| '+ºL¹©{‘Úœ§­õætÀ”Ô¤H±Ó¦^f,hœzÿaØH^ðR‹sÞ#Q„áÿÞ_@»$© ‘ç–¹ÕJ²öôÑèw„}A´óf9Aø©¿6ÓDîÀ³Žè[^ØR/Ì7˼mö騫u¢‰ÖßÔ× ®¥:DYúʯ°}´r‡_+Š¡ý·`ô€–‘E_þ_†ýÅ#jºË‰3ŪJFÁc¼^w/«ë®Äÿ½â»‘LÚ±½-ÑÄ›÷§°Y€Ìª¶sP‚¡ô¿óe=õo=ò*ÿÑŠXš©v3çq×~Csr™ ðPEœcØž+°[=øBÝ›œQòi¨ëÛþkÝsMh|»Álr‹»êkð‘:]Ñ‘)Q@qÛºÊHjL!Q]™©å q™ÁOÓ¿¸npsãð_ˤø(Ó÷ÆÇÌZ‘O^‰l4ж¼–$kt:¯h+õéE²iäó¼é…Åßzà ‰¯y[ÿŒXó…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í L w@S 4“ § ¾¶ WtÝË%¨ýÍ AÊg2… 0K·ÝU:ßþ  "6!X"þi#Îg$5%üQ&Q&Q& 0DM'M'M' D+‘' B¼'ÆÙ'Ù'Ù'Ù'Ù' D3Ÿ(nÒ( @*@*FM-M-î“.“.“.“.“.“.“.½0¨>3>3>3>3>3>3>3¹æ4Ÿ6¢º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º:º: 0¤\< 0D================================== AOD=Æ“=“= 0DY> D/> BÌ>˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial RegularC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT  DDEDÓ€ýhµ&3|x! ´Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOn€direct€appeal,€this€court€noted€that€the€standard€of€admissibility€for€scientificÐ `  Ðevidence€was€governed€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€and€703,€and€not€by€the€test€set€forth€in€òòFrye€v.Ð P ð ÐUnited€Statesóó,€293€F.€1013€(D.C.Cir.€1923).€€Recently,€our€supreme€court€clarified€thisÐ @ à Ðstandard€in€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€263„265€(Tenn.€1997),Ð 0 Ð Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€118€S.Ct.€2296€(1998).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471,Ð  À Ð475€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€supreme€court€agreed€that€the€adoption€of€the€rules€of€evidence€hasÏsuperseded€the€general€acceptance€test€of€òòFryeóó,€although€the€general€acceptance€of€evidenceÐ   Ðin€the€scientific€community€remains€a€factor€to€be€considered.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Chapmanóó,Ð ð ÐNo.€03C01„9802„CC„00080,€1999€WL€274911,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€May€5,Ï1999)(the€admissibility€of€expert€testimony€concerning€DNA€analysis€is€governed€by€theÏstandards€set€forth€in€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702€and€703).€€The€RFLP€method€of€DNA€testingÏemployed€in€this€case€has€been€approved€both€under€the€òòFryeóó€test€and€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð °P  Ð702€and€703.€€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€866€S.W.2d€583,€586€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.Ð  @  ÐChapmanóó,€No.€01C01„9604„CC„00137,€1997€WL€602944,€at€**12„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ 0  ÐNashville,€September€30,€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1998). MÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€petitioner€has€also€filed€two€petitions€for€habeas€corpus€relief€in€Wayne€County.€Ð `  ÐIn€each€case,€this€court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€relief.€€òòSteele€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„Ð P ð Ð9708„CC„00105,€1998€WL€120308€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€March€18,€1998);€òòSteeleÐ @ à Ðv.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9512„CC„00409,€1997€WL€211265€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,Ð 0 Ð ÐApril€30,€1997). ÓÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝPursuant€to€this€Courtððs€policy,€the€victim€will€be€referred€to€only€by€her€initials. Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€courtððs€opinion€on€direct€appeal€seems€to€reflect€that€this€motion€was€notÐ `  Ðincluded€in€the€record€at€that€stage€of€the€proceedings. óÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€petitioner€also€alleges€in€his€brief€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€ofÐ `  Ðcounsel€and€due€process€of€law€by€his€counselððs€failure€on€direct€appeal€to€timely€submit€anÏapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court.€€As€noted€later€in€this€opinion,€thisÏcourt€has€already€addressed€this€complaint€and€provided€appropriate€relief.% # I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK Ô€XC*XXXÔÔ€îµáîXXC*ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€KŸîîµáÔÐ  ÐÌò òJuly€21,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô“à ôKŸÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó (Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€judgment€form€for€the€petitionerððs€aggravated€rape€conviction€inÐ `  Ðcase€No.€188333€reflects€an€original€sentence€of€eight€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€ÏHowever,€the€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€reflects€that€the€trial€court€imposed€aÏsentence€of€twenty„five€years.€€As€noted€above,€when€there€is€a€conflict€between€theÏjudgment€and€the€transcript,€the€transcript€controls.€€òòMooreóó,€814€S.W.2d€at€383;€òòCurrieóó,€No.Ð  À Ð02C01„9701„CC„00047,€1998€WL€32684,€at€*2.€€In€any€case,€on€direct€appeal,€this€courtÏreduced€the€petitionerððs€sentence€in€that€case€to€sixteen€years€incarceration€in€the€Department.( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó ÓÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝPursuant€to€this€Courtððs€policy,€the€victim€will€be€referred€to€only€by€her€initials.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ôÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAgain,€with€respect€to€PM,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€burglary€andÐ `  Ðaggravated€rape. Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€noted€above,€with€respect€to€CM,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degreeÐ `  Ðburglary,€armed€robbery,€and€aggravated€rape. Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€to€EP,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€burglary,€attempt€to€commitÐ `  Ðarmed€robbery,€and€assault€with€intent€to€commit€rape. Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAgain,€with€respect€to€DM,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€burglary,Ð `  Ðarmed€robbery,€and€aggravated€assault. ôÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€to€ES,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€burglary,€armed€robbery,€andÐ `  Ðaggravated€rape. ÄÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€the€aggravated€burglary€of€SBððs€home. Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€noted€earlier,€with€respect€to€SS,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€aggravatedÐ `  Ðburglary,€aggravated€robbery,€and€attempted€rape. òÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAgain,€as€to€JP,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€aggravated€burglary,€theft€ofÐ `  Ðproperty,€and€rape.(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5$$$$'ÿÿdxd dÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€judgment€form€in€case€No.€188342€does€not€name€the€offense€ofÐ `  Ðwhich€the€petitioner€was€convicted.€€The€trial€transcript€reflects€that€the€jury€found€theÏpetitioner€guilty€of€first€degree€burglary. Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€judgment€form€for€the€petitionerððs€conviction€of€rape€in€case€No.€188326€reflectsÐ `  Ðthat€the€date€of€the€offense€was€June€30,€1991.€€The€indictment,€however,€reflects€a€date€ofÏJune€30,€1990.€€Moreover,€the€victim€testified€during€trial€that€the€rape€occurred€on€June€30,Ï1990.€€When€there€is€a€conflict€between€the€judgment€and€the€transcript,€the€transcriptÏcontrols.€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€814€S.W.2d€381,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòCurrie€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ð  À Ð02C01„9701„CC„00047,€1998€WL€32684,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson),€òòperm.€toÐ ° Ðappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1998).€€ <Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€to€any€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€the€petitionerððsÐ `  Ðconvictions€for€robbery,€this€court€previously€determined€this€issue€on€direct€appeal. äÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€petitioner€cited€òòBarnettóó€in€his€application€for€permission€to€appealÐ `  Ðto€the€supreme€court€on€September€23,€1997.€€However,€an€issue€is€not€previously€determinedÏsolely€by€the€supreme€courtððs€denial€of€permission€to€appeal,€because€the€denial€is€not€aÏdetermination€on€the€merits.€€òòMeadowsóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€755. ³Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€submitted€the€motions€listed€above.€Ð `  ÐWe€note€that€the€motions€do€not€contain€a€stamp€by€the€Clerkððs€Office€of€the€HamiltonÏCounty€Criminal€Court,€reflecting€receipt€of€the€motions€in€that€office.€€The€motions€are€notÏincluded€in€the€technical€transcript€of€the€trial€court€proceedings.€€Nevertheless,€the€transcriptÏof€the€July€11,€1991,€pre„trial€hearing€reflects€that€the€prosecutor€received€the€motions.€ÏMoreover,€both€the€trial€court€and€the€parties€addressed€the€motions€at€this€hearing.€€€€ žÝ ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€we€already€observed,€òòBarnettóó€was€decided€after€the€petitionerððs€trial.€Ð `  ÐNevertheless,€to€the€extent€that€there€existed€a€right€to€expert€assistance€in€non„capital€casesÏprior€to€òòBarnettóó,€we€doubt€that€it€was€broader€than€the€right€defined€in€that€case. ¯Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Chapmanóó,€No.€01C01„9604„CC„00137,€1997€WL€602944,€at€**9„12Ð `  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€September€30,€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð P ð Ð1998)(this€court€provided€a€thorough€discussion€of€DNA€and€the€RFLP€method€of€DNAÏanalysis). Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝFollowing€the€petitionerððs€trial€and€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€petitionerððs€MotionÐ `  Ðfor€New€Trial,€the€petitioner€submitted€a€Motion€to€Reconsider.€€The€petitioner€attached€toÏhis€motion€additional€articles€concerning€the€reliability€of€DNA€testing.€€At€a€hearing€onÏApril€28,€1992,€the€trial€court€concluded:Ìà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[T]here›€is€merit€in€what€you€have€to€say€...€.€€And€you€raise€aÏvery€valid€issue€about€genetic€testing.€€And€not€only€in€theÏNational€Law€Journal€has€there€been€some€question€about€theÏtesting,€the€accuracy€of€it,€but€in€the€general€news€media.€€IÏthink€Newsweek€had€something€about€it€recently€...€.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIf€the€only€proof€against€Mr.€Steele€was€DNA,€I€would€grantÏyour€motion€to€reconsider.€€But€there€is€too€much€other€proofÏpointing€to€his€guilt€that€corroborates€the€genetic€testing. ˜Ý ƒ\Bó$ÝÑ@¬°ÑÑ@8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€asserting€this€due€process€claim,€the€petitioner€notes€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€toÐ `  Ðobject€to€the€introduction€of€this€testimony.€€However,€nowhere€in€the€petitionerððs€brief€doesÏhe€allege€that€this€omission€constituted€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.(T(2Bó$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝѬ°ÑÑ8°ÑÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€ ‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýññ›ññÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X<#XXXÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑò òòòÑ7€¼íXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñññßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@Ehf  tt0" ` ¨Ørß›ññà@Q Q ÚàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ `  ÐÌà@üü*ÚàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌóóÌà@!!&ÚàJANUARY€1999€SESSIONó óˆÐ  À ÐÌÌÌò òKENNETH€ALAN€STEELE,à ì àà D à*ó óà œ àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9701„CR„00012Ð à€ ÐÌà Œ àAppellant,à < àà ” àà ì àà D à*à œ àHAMILTON€COUNTYÐ À`  ÐÌvs.€à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à*à œ àHon.€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÐ  @  ÐÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì àà D à*ó óà œ à(Post„Conviction)Ð €  ÐÌà Œ àAppellee.à < àà ” àà ì àà D à*Ð ` ÐÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àòòFor€Appelleeóó:Ð  À ÐÌDonna€Robinson€Millerà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ   ÐAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà D àà œ àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ ð Ð701€Cherry€Street,€Suite€300à ì àà D àà œ à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ à€ ÐChattanooga,€TN€€37402à ” àà ì àà D àà œ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ð Ð p ÐÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àTodd€R.€KelleyÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àC.€Leland€DavisÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ à600€Market€Street,€Suite€300Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ à.€%( ÐÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌNORMA€MCGEE€OGLE,€JUDGEÐ  `6-0 ÐÓÓà@33-Úàò òòòOPINIONó óóóˆÐ `  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner,€Kenneth€Alan€Steele,€appeals€the€Hamilton€CountyÏCriminal€Courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€On€appeal,€the€petitioner€presentsÏthe€following€issues€for€our€consideration:ÌÓÓà8 Œ à1.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€petitioner€received€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ À`  Ðcounsel€at€trial€and€on€direct€appeal,€including€counselððsÏfailure€on€direct€appeal€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€supporting€all€of€the€petitionerððs€convictions;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à2.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€evidence€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€support€allÐ p Ðof€the€petitionerððs€convictions€and€whether€this€courtÏdenied€the€petitioner€due€process€by€failing€to€review€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€sua€sponte€on€direct€appeal;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à3.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€denied€the€petitioner€due€processÐ  À Ðof€law€by€refusing€to€provide€the€petitioner€a€DNA€expert;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à4.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€denied€the€petitioner€due€processÐ ð Ðof€law€by€admitting€DNA€and€fingerprint€evidence;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à5.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€denied€the€petitioner€due€processÐ À!` Ðof€law€by€admitting€testimony€concerning€the€show„upÏidentification€of€the€petitioner;€andÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à6.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€denied€the€petitioner€due€processÐ €%  Ðof€law€in€instructing€the€jury€on€reasonable€doubt.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓN ÓFollowing€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.׃×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0*Ð # ÐÌà@§§%Úàò òòòI.€€Factual€Backgroundóóó óˆÐ ð-$' Ðò òA.à Œ àTrial€Proceedingsó óÐ Ð/p&) Ðà Œ àà ä àOn€October€15,€1991,€the€petitionerððs€case€proceeded€to€trial€in€theÏHamilton€County€Criminal€Court€on€twenty„one€separate€indictments€involving€eight€œÐ 30*- Ðññdifferent›€incidents€with€eight€victims.€€The€offenses€spanned€a€period€of€time€fromÏ1987€until€1990.€€òòState€v.€Steeleóó,€No.€03C01„9207„CR„233,€1993€WL€415836,€at€*1Ð @ à Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€October€13,€1993).€€The€jury€returned€guilty€verdictsÏon€all€twenty„one€indictments,€and,€on€January€31,€1992,€the€petitioner€wasÏconvicted€of€the€following€œoffensesñ ñññÌñññ ññ ñ:Ìñ ñññ:ñññûñÌñûññüñ›Ìñüñ›ÓÓà8 Œ à1.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€cases€No.€188342€and€No.€188345,€first€degreeÐ  @  Ðburglary€and€aggravated€rape€of€œPMÛÛÜÜññ׃×ññññ׃ ×ññÝ ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€on€November€17,Ð 0  Ð1987.׃+€×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ѐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à2.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€cases€No.€188334,€No.€188332,€and€No.€188333,€firstÐ ` Ðdegree€burglary,€armed€robbery,€and€aggravated€rape€ofÏœCM›€on€January€3,€1988.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à3.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€cases€No.€188337,€No.€188336,€and€No.€188335,€firstÐ  À Ðdegree€burglary,€attempt€to€commit€armed€robbery,€andÏassault€with€intent€to€commit€rape€of€œEP€on€July€26,Ï1989.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à4.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€cases€No.€188340,€No.€188338,€and€No.€188339,€firstÐ Ð p Ðdegree€burglary,€armed€robbery,€and€aggravated€assaultÏof€DM€on€July€26,€1989.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à5.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€cases€No.€188330,€No.€188329,€and€No.€188331,€firstÐ $0 Ðdegree€burglary,€armed€robbery,€and€aggravated€rape€ofÏES€on€October€8,€1989.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à6.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€case€No.€188341,€aggravated€burglary€of€SBððs€homeÐ P(ð! Ðon€January€21,€1990.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à7.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€cases€No.€188343,€No.€188328,€and€No.€188344,Ð  +À!$ Ðaggravated€burglary,€aggravated€robbery,€and€attemptedÏrape€of€SS€on€June€24,€1990.ñýññúñÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌñúññýñññÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÐ  2@), ЇÌà8 Œ à8.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€cases€No.€188327,€No.€188325,€and€No.€188326,Ð P ð Ðaggravated€burglary,€theft€of€property,€and€rape€of€JP€onÏJune€30,€1990.׃,×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ó~ÓÐ0 Ðä Ð ä Ð  ЀThe€trial€court€imposed€an€effective€sentence€of€one€hundred€and€sixty„five€yearsÏ(165)€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.׃ ×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ð ÐÌà Œ àà ä àOn€direct€appeal,€this€court€briefly€summarized€the€facts€adduced€atÏtrial:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[T]he€record€reveals€that€the€appellantððs€various€offensesÏwere€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€to€burglarize,€robÏand€rape€single€women€who€lived€within€walking€distanceÏof€the€place€where€he€worked.€€The€offenses€had€severalÏdistinctive€characteristics.€€In€each€case,€the€victims€livedÏin€the€ground€floor€of€an€apartment€or€duplex€and€theÏappellant€entered€through€a€glass€window,€although€inÏone€case€he€entered€through€a€glass€patio€door.€€TheÏappellant€did€not€enter€any€residence€by€breaking€open€aÏfront€or€back€door.€€The€appellant€selected€victims€whoÏdid€not€have€a€man€or€other€adult€at€home.€€In€each€case,Ïthe€victims€lived€alone€or€with€their€children.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌññßV€$@ p0’ E¤'Yµ&SžVßññà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€appellant€committed€similar€crimes€against€eachÏvictim.€€He€was€convicted€of€burglary€of€every€victimððsÏhome.€€He€was€convicted€oñ ñrñ ñññfññ€robbery€oñ ñrñ ññññ ñfñ ñññññññfññññññrññ€armed€robbery€ofÏfive€victims.€€He€was€convicted€of€rape€or€a€derivativeÏoffense€such€as€attempted€rape€of€six€victims.€€Some€ofÏthe€offenses€had€additional€characteristics€which€madeÏthem€particularly€unusual.€€For€example,€most€of€theÐ @)à" Ðvictims€reported€that€the€appellant€used€a€towel€to€coverÏhis€face€or€that€of€his€victim€when€he€raped€them.Ó ÓÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐòòSteeleóó,€No.€03C01„9207„CR„233,€1993€WL€415836,€at€*1.€€Ð 0 Ð ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€transcript€of€the€trial€proceedings€includes€the€following€testimony.€ÏPM€testified€that€on€November€17,€1987,€she€was€living€with€her€son€in€a€duplex€inÏthe€Avondale€area€of€Chattanooga.€€She€had€locked€the€doors€and€gone€to€bedÏwhen€she€was€awakened€by€ð ðpatsðð€on€her€chest.€€The€room€was€very€dark,€but€sheÏwas€able€to€discern€a€man€standing€above€her.€€He€was€holding€a€knife€in€his€handÏand€threatened€to€cut€her€throat€if€she€did€not€remain€silent.€€He€then€ordered€her€toÏremove€her€clothing€and€proceeded€to€rape€her.€€PMððs€assailant€then€inquired€if€sheÏhad€a€gun€or€money.€€She€removed€money€from€her€purse€and€surrendered€it€to€theÏman.€€Despite€the€darkness,€PM€was€able€to€describe€the€man€as€black,€with€anÏaverage€build,€approximately€five€feet€and€ten€inches€tall,€wearing€pants,€a€shirt,€andÏa€towel€around€his€head€and€face.€€Despite€the€towel,€she€was€able€to€see€that€heÏhad€a€ð ðclose€haircut.ðð€€He€also€appeared€to€be€left„handed.€€Finally,€she€stated€thatÏhe€smelled€as€if€he€worked€in€a€gas€station.€€Following€the€assault,€the€intruder€leftÏthe€bedroom,€indicating€that€he€was€ð ðgoing€to€take€a€piss,ðð€and€would€return.€€PMÏremained€in€the€bedroom€until€she€was€reasonably€certain€that€he€had€departed€herÏhome.׃×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ,°"% ÐÌà Œ àà ä àCM€testified€that€on€January€3,€1988,€she€was€living€with€her€son€in€aÏduplex€in€Chattanooga.€€The€Stateððs€proof€revealed€that€CMððs€duplex€was€located€inÏan€area€in€which€the€police€were€investigating€activities€by€an€unknown€individualÏreferred€to€at€that€time€as€the€ð ðtowel€rapist.ðð€€On€the€night€in€question,€CM€wasÐ p5,/ Ðsleeping€with€her€son€when€she€was€awakened€by€a€man€placing€his€hand€over€herÏmouth€and€nose.€€The€man€threatened€to€hurt€her€son€if€she€did€not€get€up€from€theÏbed.€€Her€assailant€then€forced€her€down€the€hallway€into€the€living€room,€where€heÏraped€her.€€The€man€was€armed€with€a€knife€and€held€the€knife€to€her€throat€duringÏthe€assault.€€Her€house€was€dark,€but€CM€was€able€to€describe€her€assailant€asÏblack,€neither€fat€nor€thin,€with€very€little€hair€or€no€hair.€€CM€further€recalled€that,Ïwhen€standing,€her€head€was€at€the€same€level€as€his€chest.€€She€testified€that€sheÏis€five€feet€and€one€inch€tall.€€She€remembered€that€her€assailant€was€holding€theÏknife€in€his€left€hand.€€Finally,€CM€stated€that€the€assailant€left€grease€marks€with€hisÏhands€on€the€wall€of€her€apartment.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àFollowing€the€rape,€CMððs€assailant€threatened€to€hurt€her€or€her€son€ifÏshe€did€not€remain€still.€€He€then€left€the€living€room,€and€CM€heard€him€removingÏcoins€from€a€can€she€kept€in€another€room.€€She€subsequently€discovered€thatÏseveral€silver€coins€and€a€camera€were€missing€from€her€home.׃×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  #@ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àEP€testified€that€on€July€26,€1989,€she€was€living€with€her€daughter€in€aÏduplex€in€the€Avondale€area€of€Chattanooga.€€She€had€gone€to€bed€when€she€wasÏawakened€by€a€man€placing€his€hand€over€her€mouth.€€He€threatened€to€hurt€her€orÏher€child€if€she€screamed.€€She€felt€a€sharp€object€against€her€neck.€€He€told€her€heÏwas€going€to€ð ðf„„„ðð€her€and€then€inquired€if€she€had€any€money.€€When€she€told€himÏshe€did€not€have€money€and€showed€him€her€empty€purse,€he€began€to€touch€herÏand€remove€her€clothing.€€EP€informed€him€that€she€is€disabled€and€that€her€legsÏð ðwere€not€for€doing€anything€like€this.ðð€€When€the€man€felt€her€legs,€he€ceased€hisÐ €4 +. Ðassault,€apologized,€and€left.€€Although€the€house€was€very€dark,€EP€was€able€toÏtestify€that€the€man€was€approximately€five€feet€and€seven€or€nine€inches€tall,€hisÏbody€felt€heavy€on€top€of€hers,€and€he€was€wearing€ð ðcloth€or€somethingðð€on€hisÏhead.׃×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð   ÐÌà Œ àà ä àDM€testified€that,€on€July€26,€1989,€she€was€living€with€her€husbandÏand€three€children€in€a€duplex€in€the€Avondale€area€of€Chattanooga.€€Testimony€atÏtrial€revealed€that€her€residence€was€no€more€than€six€blocks€from€EPððs€home.€€DMððsÏhusband€was€a€truck€driver€and€was€away€from€home€for€long€periods€of€time.€€HeÏwas€away€from€home€on€the€night€in€question.€€DM€had€gone€to€sleep€when€she€wasÏawakened€by€a€man€standing€next€to€her€bed.€€He€immediately€ð ðstraddledðð€her€onÏthe€bed,€and€she€began€to€struggle.€€She€testified,€ð ðI€was€really€fighting€andÏscreaming€real€loud.€...€seems€like€they€had€something€over€my€face,€I€canððtÏremember,€I€donððt€know.€€But€whoever€it€was€hit€me€in€my€eye€and€then€they€ran.ðð€ÏDM€subsequently€discovered€a€butcher€knife€from€her€kitchen€in€her€bed.€€SheÏtestified€that,€when€she€had€gone€to€sleep€that€night,€the€knife€had€been€in€herÏkitchen.€€DM€also€discovered€that€a€rifle€was€missing€from€her€home.€€At€the€time€ofÏthe€assault,€DMððs€house€was€dark,€but€she€was€able€to€describe€her€assailant€as€fiveÏfeet€and€eight€inches€tall,€with€a€medium€build.€€According€to€DM,€he€ð ðdidnððt€haveÏthat€much€hair.ðð€€She€also€recalled€that€her€assailant€did€not€appear€to€be€wearing€aÏshirt.׃p×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à.€%( ÐÌà Œ àà ä àES€testified€that€on€October€8,€1989,€she€was€living€with€her€twoÐ  2@), Ðdaughters€in€a€duplex€in€Chattanooga.€€The€State€established€that€the€duplex€wasÏlocated€in€the€same€area€in€which€the€so€called€ð ðtowel€rapistðð€was€operating.€€ES€hadÏgone€to€bed€and€was€awakened€when€the€door€to€her€bedroom€opened.€€TheÏintruder€immediately€threatened€to€kill€her€if€she€did€not€remain€silent.€€He€orderedÏher€to€remove€her€clothes€and€then€raped€her.€€During€the€assault,€the€assailant€heldÏa€ð ðbox€cutterðð€to€her€throat.€€Afterwards,€he€asked€if€she€had€money.€€When€sheÏindicated€that€she€did€not,€he€left€the€bedroom.€€He€told€her€that€he€would€kill€her€ifÏshe€called€the€police.€€Although€her€house€was€dark,€DM€was€able€to€testify€that€herÏassailant€was€a€black€man€with€an€average€height€and€medium€build€and€wasÏwearing€a€towel€on€his€head.€€She€further€testified€that€the€assailant€had€ð ðaverageððÏhair,€similar€to€the€petitionerððs€hair€at€trial.€€Following€the€incident,€she€discoveredÏthat€her€childððs€piggy€bank,€filled€with€pennies,€had€been€removed€from€the€houseÏand€left€outside.׃×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à€ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àSB€testified€that€on€January€21,€1990,€she€was€living€by€herself€in€aÏduplex€in€Chattanooga.€€She€had€gone€to€her€bedroom€and€was€watching€theÏtelevision.€€She€had€locked€the€door€to€her€bedroom€and€had€placed€her€telephoneÏin€the€bed€with€her.€€At€some€point,€she€heard€a€noise€in€the€hallway.€€SheÏimmediately€called€the€police.€€The€police€arrived€in€approximately€five€minutes.€€AtÏthat€time,€she€noticed€that€a€ð ðceramic€dog€bank,ðð€filled€with€Canadian€money,€wasÏmissing€from€her€home.€€SB€never€saw€the€intruder.€€However,€she€testified€that€sheÏrecognized€the€petitioner€at€trial,€because€he€lived€in€the€same€neighborhood.׃p×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À0`'* ÐÐ  2@), Ðà Œ àà ä àSS€testified€that€on€June€24,€1990,€she€was€living€with€her€twoÏdaughters€in€a€duplex€in€the€Avondale€area€of€Chattanooga.€€She€had€gone€to€sleepÏwhen€she€was€awakened€by€a€man€holding€his€hand€over€her€mouth€and€pressing€aÏscrew€driver€to€her€neck.€€Her€assailant€told€her€that€he€would€not€harm€her€if€sheÏremained€silent.€He€asked€if€she€had€any€money.€€She€informed€him€that€she€hadÏ$75.00€in€another€room.€€At€that€point,€he€began€to€fondle€her€and€tried€to€removeÏher€pants.€€SS€grabbed€the€screw€driver€and€stabbed€him€twice€close€to€theÏcollarbone.€€She€did€not€observe€any€blood.€€She€stated,€ð ðI€felt€like€I€hit€him€enoughÏto,€you€know,€kinda›€hurt€him€a€little€but€not€too€much.ðð€€œSS€then€began€screaming,Ïand€her€assailant€ran€out€of€the€bedroom.€€Although€her€house€was€dark,€SS€wasÏable€to€describe€her€assailant€as€a€black€man€with€short€hair.€€He€was€wearingÏð ðsome€kind€of€cap€on€his€head.ðð€€He€was€taller€than€she€was€and€had€a€mediumÏbuild.€€He€was€wearing€pants€but€did€not€appear€to€be€wearing€a€shirt.€ÏSubsequently,€she€discovered€that€the€intruder€had€taken€approximately€fifteenÏdollars€and€some€jewelry€from€her€home.׃×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР #@ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àFinally,€œJP€testified€that€on€June€30,€1990,€she€lived€with€her€daughterÏin€a€home€in€the€Avondale€area€of€Chattanooga.€€She€had€gone€to€her€bedroom€toÏwatch€television€when€she€heard€a€noise.€€She€was€leaving€her€bedroom€toÏinvestigate€when€ð ðthis€thing€came€over€my€head.ðð€€A€man€pushed€her€back€into€herÏbedroom€and€told€her€that€he€would€ð ðcutðð€her€if€she€did€not€remain€silent.€€He€askedÏif€she€had€any€money,€and€she€gave€him€one€hundred€and€fifty€dollars.€€He€alsoÏretrieved€some€jewelry€from€her€dresser.€€The€intruder€warned€JP€not€to€remove€theÏcloth€from€her€head,€but€she€raised€the€cloth€a€small€amount€and€was€able€to€seeÐ €4 +. Ðhim.€€She€testified€that€there€was€enough€light€to€see€her€assailant.€€Her€assailant,Ïhowever,€was€not€aware€that€she€could€see€him€and€proceeded€to€rape€her.€€SheÏobserved€him€closely€for€approximately€five€minutes.€€She€described€her€assailantÏas€a€black€man€with€a€receding€hairline.€€He€was€wearing€a€dark€blue€or€black€workÏuniform€with€a€white€and€red€name€tag.€€However,€she€could€not€discern€the€nameÏon€the€tag.€€As€he€was€leaving€the€bedroom,€he€asked€her€if€she€had€a€gun.€€WhenÏshe€told€him€that€she€did€not,€he€ordered€her€to€remain€still€and€indicated€that€heÏwas€going€ð ðto€take€a€pee.ðð€€The€intruder€did€not€return.€€JP€testified€that€soon€afterÏthe€incident,€on€the€same€day,€she€positively€identified€the€petitioner€during€a€show„¼up€identification€procedure€at€the€hospital.€€She€also€positively€identified€theÏpetitioner€at€trial,€and€confirmed€that€the€clothing€removed€from€the€petitionerÏfollowing€his€arrest€was€the€same€clothing€worn€by€her€assailant.׃×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð   ÐÌà Œ àà ä àHarold€Jackson,€Jr.,€an€officer€with€the€Chattanooga€PoliceÏDepartment,€testified€that€he€was€en€route€to€JPððs€residence€on€June€30,€1990,Ïwhen€he€observed€the€petitioner€running€down€the€street€four€or€five€blocks€fromÏJPððs€home.€€The€police€subsequently€determined€that€the€petitioner€matched€JPððsÏdescription€of€her€assailant,€and€the€police€apprehended€the€petitioner€one€half€of€aÏmile€from€JPððs€home.€€The€petitioner€was€wearing€blue€work€clothes€with€a€name€tagÏtrimmed€in€red.€€The€Stateððs€proof€revealed€that,€at€the€time€of€his€arrest,€theÏpetitioner€worked€at€an€automobile€parts€business.€€The€police€determined€that€heÏboth€worked€and€lived€in€the€vicinity€of€all€eight€incidents.€€Moreover,€at€the€time€ofÏhis€arrest,€the€petitioner€had€two€small€scars€on€his€upper€torso€near€the€collar€bone.€ÏFinally,€Larry€Swafford,€an€officer€with€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department,€testifiedÐ €4 +. Ðthat€the€petitioner€is€left„handed.Ì€€Ìà Œ àà ä àWilliam€Van€Atta,€a€fingerprint€specialist€with€the€Federal€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€testified€that€latent€fingerprints€or€palm€prints€were€recovered€from€theÏscenes€of€all€eight€incidents.€€A€total€of€twenty„six€latent€fingerprints€and€four€latentÏpalm€prints€matched€those€of€the€petitioner.€€Agent€Van€Atta€opined€that€there€wasÏno€possibility€that€the€fingerprints€and€palm€prints€could€have€been€left€by€someoneÏother€than€the€petitioner.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àPattie€Choatie,€a€serologist€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation,€testified€that€she€was€able€to€analyze€semen€samples€recovered€fromÏPM,›€œES,›€and€œJP.›€€She€also€received€a€semen€sample€recovered€from€œCM.›€€However,Ïthe€sample€had€not€been€stored€properly€and€was€not€amenable€to€testing.€€AgentÏChoatie€determined€that€the€assailant€in€the€cases€pertaining€to€œPM,›€œES,›€and€œJP,›Ïwas€a€ð ðnon„secretor.ðð€€She€explained€that€eighty€percent€of€the€population€secreteÏan€ð ðantigenðð€corresponding€to€their€blood€type.€€This€antigen€is€found€in€bodily€fluids,Ïincluding€semen.€€In€contrast,€twenty€percent€of€the€population€do€not€secrete€theÏantigen.€€Accordingly,€the€antigen€will€not€be€present€in€semen€from€a€non„secretor.€ÏShe€confirmed€that€the€petitioner€is€a€non„secretor.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAgent€Choatie€also€testified€that,€after€conducting€her€tests,€sheÏforwarded€the€semen€samples€recovered€from€œPM€and€JP€to€the€Federal€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation€for€DNA€testing.€€She€did€not€forward€the€semen€sample€recoveredÏfrom€CM€due€to€its€improper€storage.€€Moreover,€Agent€Choatie€did€not€forward€theÏsemen€sample€recovered€from€ES,€because€she€was€unable€to€obtain€a€liquid€bloodÏsample€from€the€victim,€which€item€is€essential€to€DNA€testing.Ð @8à.2 Їà Œ àà ä àAudrey€Lynch,€a€special€agent€with€the€DNA€Analysis€Unit€of€theÏFederal€Bureau€of€Investigation,€testified€that€she€had€performed€a€procedure€knownÏas€Restriction€Fragment€Length€Polymorphism€(RFLP)€upon€semen€samplesÏobtained€in€the€cases€of€PM€and€JP.׃?×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Agent€Lynch€concluded€that€the€DNA€of€theÐ   Ðassailant€in€both€cases€ð ðmatchedðð€that€of€the€petitioner.€€She€stated€that€one€in€oneÏhundred€and€fifty€million€people€in€the€black€population€would€produce€the€sameÏresult.ÌÌò òB.à Œ àSubsequent€Procedural€Historyó óÐ ` Ðà Œ àà ä àAs€previously€noted,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€all€twenty„oneÏcharged€offenses€and€sentenced€to€one€hundred€and€sixty„five€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€On€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€raised€the€followingÏissues:ÌÓÓà8 Œ à1.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€theÐ À!` Ðpetitionerððs€cases€should€be€consolidated.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à2.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€admittingÐ $0 Ðevidence€of€DNA€test€results.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à3.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€correctly€refused€to€provide€a€DNAÐ `'  Ðexpert€at€the€Stateððs€expense.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à4.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€correctly€granted€the€StateððsÐ 0*Ð # Ðmotion€to€amend€the€indictments.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à5.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€support€theÐ - #& Ðpetitionerððs€five€robbery€convictions.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à6.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€indictments€charging€the€petitioner€with€firstÐ Ð/p&) Ðdegree€burglary€alleged€that€the€offenses€occurred€atÏnight.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à7.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€correctly€charged€the€jury€thatÐ 30*- Ðthey€should€not€draw€any€inference€from€the€appellantððsÏdecision€to€forego€testifying.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à8.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€that€theÐ 0 Ð Ðevidence€warranted€a€jury€instruction€on€commonÏscheme€or€plan.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à9.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€inÐ ð Ðdetermining€the€hours€for€the€trial.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à10.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€indictments€in€cases€No.€188343€andÐ À`  Ð188345€charged€the€appellant€with€first€degree€burglaryÏand€aggravated€rape€respectively.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à11.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€errors€deprived€theÐ €  Ðpetitioner€of€a€fair€trial.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à12.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWhether€the€trial€court€correctly€determined€the€length€ofÐ Pð Ðthe€petitionerððs€sentences€and€correctly€determined€thatÏthe€petitioner€should€serve€the€sentences€consecutively.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÚ]ÓThis€court€affirmed€the€petitionerððs€convictions,€but€modified€his€sentences,€reducingÏhis€effective€sentence€to€one€hundred€and€twenty„nine€(129)€years€incarceration€inÏthe€Department.€€òòSteeleóó,€No.€03C01„9207„CR„233,€1993€WL€415836,€at€**8„9.€€TheÐ Ð p Ðpetitioner€did€not€apply€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€at€that€time.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€September€18,€1995,€the€petitioner€filed€the€instant€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.׃ ×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€his€petition,€he€alleged€the€following€grounds€for€relief:Ð P(ð! ÐÓÓà8 Œ à1.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€petitioner€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ 0*Ð # Ðat€trial€and€on€direct€appeal€in€violation€of€his€rightsÏpursuant€to€the€Sixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à2.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àAt€trial,€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€theÐ Ð/p&) Ðpetitionerððs€convictions,€and€this€court€denied€theÏpetitioner€due€process€of€law€on€direct€appeal€by€failingÏto€review€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.Р2@),ä Ð ä Ð  Їà8 Œ à3.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€trial€courtððs€failure€to€provide€the€petitioner€fingerprintÐ `  Ðand€DNA€experts€denied€the€petitioner€his€right€to€a€fairÏtrial€as€guaranteed€by€the€Sixth€and€FourteenthÏAmendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏArticle€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à4.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€DNA€evidenceÐ   Ðobtained€from€the€petitioner€in€violation€of€his€rightsÏpursuant€to€the€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à5.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€trial€court€denied€the€petitioner€due€process€of€lawÐ  @  Ðby€admitting€fingerprint€and€DNA€evidence.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à6.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€trial€court€denied€the€petitioner€due€process€of€lawÐ p Ðby€admitting€testimony€concerning€the€show„upÏidentification€of€the€petitioner.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ à7.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThe€trial€courtððs€instruction€to€the€jury€concerningÐ 0Ð Ðreasonable€doubt€violated€the€petitionerððs€right€to€dueÏprocess€of€law€as€guaranteed€by€the€FourteenthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€ArticleÏI,€Section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓaiÓMoreover,€the€petitioner€contended€that€he€had€been€denied€the€opportunity€to€applyÏfor€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€in€violation€of€his€rights€to€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€and€due€process€of€law.€€Following€the€appointment€ofÏcounsel€and€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€dismissed€the€petition,Ïbut€recommended€that€the€petitioner€be€permitted€to€submit€a€delayed€application€toÏthe€supreme€court€for€permission€to€appeal.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€July€30,€1996,€the€petitioner€filed€a€Notice€of€Appeal.€€The€StateÏsubsequently€filed€a€motion€asking€this€court€to€grant€the€petitioner€a€delayed€appealÏand€to€hold€the€instant€petition€in€abeyance€pending€the€conclusion€of€proceedingsÏbefore€the€supreme€court.€€This€court€granted€the€Stateððs€motion€on€July€22,€1997.€ÏThe€petitioner€filed€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court,Ïwhich€was€denied€on€April€20,€1998.Ð P7ð-1 Ѐ€ÌÌò òC.à Œ àPost„Conviction€Evidentiary€Hearingó óÐ  À Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€post„conviction€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€in€theÏpetitionerððs€case€on€July€1,€1996.€€The€petitioner€testified€at€the€hearing.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€was€represented€at€trial€by€Lisa€Mack,€Paul€Sorrick,€and€Mark€Biesack,€andÏhe€reiterated€the€arguments€set€forth€in€his€petition.€€€During€cross„examination,€heÏconceded€that,€in€preparation€for€his€trial,€Lisa€Mack€visited€him€at€the€jail€ð ðveryÏmany€timesðð€in€order€to€discuss€his€case.€€Moreover,€he€did€not€dispute€ð ðthe€sincerityÏof€[his€attorneysðð]€effort[s›].ðð€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àLisa€Mack,€one€of€the€petitionerððs€attorneys,€also€testified€at€the€post„¼conviction€hearing.€€She€testified€that€she€was€appointed€to€represent€the€petitionerÏat€an€early€stage€in€the€trial€proceedings.€€At€some€point€during€discovery,€sheÏlearned€that€the€State€would€be€introducing€DNA€evidence€at€the€petitionerððs€trial.€ÏAccordingly,€she€conducted€a€considerable€amount€of€research€and,€at€trial,€cross„¼examined€the€Stateððs€DNA€expert€with€treatises€documenting€the€unreliability€of€DNAÏevidence.€€The€Stateððs€expert€testified€that€he€disagreed€with€the€treatises.€€Ms.ÏMack€stated€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€a€defense€expert€would€have€beenÏuseful€in€rebutting€the€testimony€by€the€Stateððs€expert.€€Yet,€she€conceded€that,Ïalthough€Mr.€Sorrick€orally€argued€a€motion€for€a€DNA€expert,€she€could€not€recallÏfiling€a€written€motion€for€a€DNA€expert€nor€any€affidavit€from€a€DNA€expertÏdemonstrating€the€necessity€for€an€expert.€€Ms.€Mack€also€could€not€recall€filing€aÏmotion€in€limine€asking€that€the€DNA€evidence€be€excluded€at€trial.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€cross„examination,€Ms.€Mack€stated€that€she€understood,€at€theÐ @8à.2 Ðtime€of€the€petitionerððs€trial,€that€the€State€was€not€required€to€provide€the€petitionerÏa€DNA€expert.€€Ms.€Mack€also€identified€several€pre„trial€motions,€signed€by€theÏpetitionerððs€attorneys.€€The€motions€included:€€Motion€for€Expert€Witness€at€StateÏExpense;€Motion€for€Pre„Trial€Hearing,€requesting€a€hearing€ð ðto€determine€whetherÏforensic€DNA€identification€is€admissible€based€on€...€òòFRYE€v.€USóó;ðð€Motion€for€NameÐ à€ Ðof€Procedure,€asking€the€State€to€furnish€the€name€of€the€procedure€used€in€theÏDNA€identification€of€the€[petitioner];ðð€and€Motion€for€Data,€requesting€informationÏconcerning€ð ðthe€raw€population€data€on€which€conclusions€about€allele€frequenciesÏwere€predicated,€thus€enabling€DNA€identification€of€[the€petitioner].ððÌÌà Œ àà ä àPaul€Sorrick€also€testified.€€He€conceded€that€he€did€not€request€aÏfingerprint€expert€in€the€petitionerððs€case.€€He€stated€that€he€reviewed€the€fingerprintÏevidence€and€concluded€that€an€expert€would€not€be€useful.€€However,€he€admittedÏthat€the€Stateððs€testimony€concerning€the€fingerprint€evidence€was,€at€times,Ïcontradictory.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMr.€Sorrick€further€recounted€that€the€petitionerððs€cases€wereÏconsolidated€for€trial€over€the€ð ðstrenuous€objectionsðð€of€defense€counsel.€€He€opinedÏthat,€had€the€petitioner€been€tried€separately€for€cases€relating€to€each€of€the€eightÏdifferent€incidents,€the€petitioner€would€have€been€convicted€in€one€or€two€series€ofÏcases€and€ð ðthere€was€a€reasonable€chance€of€acquittal€in€the€other€cases.ðð€€HeÏstated€that€he€thought€the€defense€team€had€submitted€a€memorandum€of€lawÏconcerning€the€consolidation€of€the€petitionerððs€cases€for€trial€and€again€observedÏthat€there€was€ð ðstrenuous€argumentðð€by€the€defense€team€against€consolidation.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMr.€Sorrick€also€testified€that€he€did€not€make€an€opening€statement€inÐ @8à.2 Ðthe€petitionerððs€case,€becauseÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àI€do€not€believe€you€properly€represent€a€defendant€byÏmaking€concessions€to€the€State€prior€to€theirÏintroduction€of€evidence€and€making€out€at€least€a€primaÏfacie€case.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àAnd€I€donððt€think€the€defendant€has€the€obligation€toÏmake€such€a€statement€and€make€such€concessions,Ïand€contrary€to€the€beliefs€of€some€of€my€colleagues,€IÏthink€that€probably€youððre€treading€on€dangerous€groundÏwhen€you€do€make€an€opening€statement€prior€to€theÏpresentation€of€the€Stateððs€proof.€...Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€an€opening€statement,€youððre€going€to€take€positions,Ïyouððre€going€to€make€some€concessions€even,€and€IÏdonððt€think€that€it€serves€the€defendant€to€do€that€until€theÏState€has€shown€its€proof€so€that€you€know€where€youÏstand.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÓMr.€Sorrick,€therefore,€requested€that€his€argument€be€reserved€until€the€conclusionÏof€the€Stateððs€proof.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àFinally,€the€petitioner€presented€the€testimony€of€Hallie€McFadden,€anÏattorney€employed€by€the€local€public€defenderððs€office.€€She€testified€that,€had€sheÏbeen€representing€the€petitioner,€she€would€have€filed€a€brief€in€response€to€theÏStateððs€motion€and€brief€concerning€the€consolidation€of€the€petitionerððs€cases.€€SheÏwould€have€argued€that€she€could€not€effectively€represent€the€petitioner€if€the€casesÏwere€consolidated,€and€she€would€have€argued€that€the€prejudicial€impact€ofÏconsolidating€the€cases€outweighed€any€interest€of€judicial€economy.€€She€opinedÏthat€the€State€can€more€easily€obtain€a€conviction€when€several€cases€areÏconsolidated€for€trial.€€However,€she€conceded€to€the€court€that€consolidation€ofÏcases€is€not€always€contrary€to€a€defendantððs€interests.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWith€respect€to€the€Stateððs€DNA€evidence,€Ms.€McFadden€testified€thatÏshe€would€have€filed€a€motion€seeking€the€appointment€of€a€DNA€expert.€€She€wouldÐ @8à.2 Ðhave€attached€to€the€motion€an€affidavit€attesting€to€her€lack€of€expertise€in€theÏscience€of€DNA.€€She€also€would€have€attempted€to€contact€a€DNA€expert€in€orderÏto€obtain€an€affidavit€concerning€the€expertððs€qualifications,€his€or€her€fee,€and€theÏamount€of€time€required€for€any€additional€testing€or€evaluation€of€the€StateððsÏevidence.€€She€stated€that€she€would€have€further€attached€literature€concerning€theÏunreliability€of€DNA€evidence.€€She€concluded€that€she€would€have€engaged€inÏsimilar€preparation€with€respect€to€any€fingerprint€evidence.ÌÌà@±±*Úàò òòòII.€€Analysisóóó óˆÐ ` Ðò òA.à Œ àIneffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÐ @à Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€first€challenges€the€performance€of€his€counsel€at€trialÏand€on€direct€appeal.€€We€initially€note€that€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€in€post„¼conviction€proceedings€of€proving€the€allegations€in€his€petition€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€In€other€words,€ifÏafforded€a€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€a€petitioner€must€do€more€thanÏmerely€present€evidence€tending€to€show€incompetent€representation.€€òòBilbrey€v.Ð €%  ÐStateóó,€No.€03C01„9711„CR„00498,€1998€WL€827080,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ `'  ÐKnoxville,€December€1,€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1999).€€Additionally,Ð @)à" Ðthe€findings€of€fact€of€the€post„conviction€court€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€juryÏverdict€and€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578„579Ð à.€%( Ð(Tenn.€1997),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€119€S.Ct.€82€(1998);€òòBates€v.€Stateóó,€973Ð À0`'* ÐS.W.2d€615,€631€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1997),€òòcert.Ð  2@), Ðdeniedóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€118€S.Ct.€2067€(1998).Ð €4 +. ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€post„conviction€court€in€this€case€concluded€that€the€petitioner€hadÐ @8à.2 Ðreceived€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Accordingly,€this€court€must€determineÏwhether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€(1)Ïthat€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases,€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€andÐ   Ð(2)€that€any€deficient€performance€did€not€prejudice€the€petitioner.€€òòStrickland€v.Ð à€ ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„697,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064„2069€(1984).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Ð À`  ÐòòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579„580;€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2d€551,€557€(Tenn.Ð  @  ÐCode.€Ann.€1996).€€Courts€need€not€address€these€components€in€any€particularÏorder€or€even€address€both€if€the€petitioner€fails€to€meet€his€burden€with€respect€toÏone.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€580.Ð @à ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€evaluating€counselððs€performance,€this€court€should€not€examineÏevery€allegedly€deficient€act€or€omission€in€isolation,€but€rather€in€the€context€of€theÏcase€as€a€whole.€€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€753€S.W.2d€148,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Ð À!` ÐThe€primary€concern€of€the€court€should€be€the€fundamental€fairness€of€theÏproceeding€whose€result€is€being€challenged.€€òòId.óó€(citation€omitted).€€Therefore,€thisÐ €%  Ðcourt€should€not€second„guess€tactical€and€strategic€decisions€by€defense€counsel.€ÏòòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579.€€Instead,€this€court€must€reconstruct€the€circumstancesÐ @)à" Ðof€counselððs€challenged€conduct€and€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððsÏperspective€at€the€time.€€òòIdòò.óó€€òòóóSee€alsoóó€òòIrick€v.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€643,€652€(Tenn.Ð - #& ÐCrim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€119€S.Ct.Ð à.€%( Ð219€(1998).€€Moreover,€the€fact€that€a€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defenseÏdoes€not€alone€support€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòThompson€v.Ð  2@), ÐStateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€165€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð €4 +. Ð1997);€òòDickerson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9710„CR„00472,€1998€WL€619110,€at€*1Ð `6-0 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€September€16,€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð @8à.2 Ð(Tenn.€1999).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€sum,€a€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€perfect€representation,€onlyÏconstitutionally€adequate€representation.€€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,€796Ð   Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Thus,€we€have€observed:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àIn€order€to€pass€constitutional€muster,€counsel€need€notÏdiscover€every€possible€item€of€information€before€trial,Ïmake€every€possible€objection€during€trial,€or€use€everyÏtrial€tactic€which€petitioner€would€in€retrospect,€nowÏrequire€...€.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓŸÓòòAllen€v.€Stateóó,€No.€960,€1991€WL€154520,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,Ð ` ÐAugust€14,€1991).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIf€the€petitioner€establishes€that€counselððs€performance€was€not€withinÏthe€requisite€range€of€competence,€his€task€is€not€complete.€€He€must€alsoÏdemonstrate€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€haveÏbeen€different€but€for€the€defective€performance€of€counsel.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€atÐ  #@ Ð580.ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àð ðA€court€must€consider€the€totality€of€the€evidence€beforeÏthe€judge€or€jury.€€Some€of€the€factual€findings€will€haveÏbeen€unaffected€by€the€errors,€and€factual€findings€thatÏwere€affected€will€have€been€affected€in€different€ways.€ÏSome€errors€will€have€had€a€pervasive€effect€on€theÏinferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,€altering€theÏentire€evidentiary€picture,€and€some€will€have€had€anÏisolated,€trivial€effect€...€.ððÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓF¢ÓòòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€With€these€general€principles€in€mind,€we€address€theÐ Ð/p&) Ðpetitionerððs€specific€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àò ò1.€€DNA€Evidenceó óÐ p5,/ Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€first€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€forÐ P7ð-1 Ðfailing€to€demonstrate€to€the€trial€court€a€particularized€need€for€a€DNA€expert.€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that,€on€July€9,€1991,€defense€counsel€sent€the€following€pre„trialÏmotions€to€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€prosecuting€the€petitionerððs€case:€aÏmotion€requesting€a€DNA€expert€at€the€Stateððs€expense;׃ ×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€a€motion€challenging€theÐ   Ðadmissibility€of€the€Stateððs€DNA€evidence;€a€motion€requesting€the€name€of€the€DNAÏtest€used€by€the€Stateððs€expert;€and€a€motion€requesting€ð ðthe€raw€population€data€onÏwhich€conclusions€about€allele€frequencies€were€predicated,€thus€enabling€DNAÏidentification€of€this€Defendant.ðð€€Subsequently,€at€a€hearing€on€July€11,€1991,€theÏpetitionerððs€counsel€orally€reiterated€their€request€for€the€appointment€of€a€DNAÏexpert.€€The€court€denied€the€petitionerððs€request,€stating€that€he€possessed€noÏauthority€to€provide€the€petitioner€such€an€expert€at€the€Stateððs€expense.€€TheÏprosecutor€then€observed€that€the€Stateððs€expert€was€going€to€conduct€a€seminarÏprior€to€trial€to€educate€both€the€prosecutor€and€defense€counsel€concerning€DNA.׃7p×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à€ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€court€observed€that€defenseÏcounsel€had€ð ðtried€their€best€to€get€me€to€have,€to€allow€them€to€have€an€expert,€too,Ïand€I€turned€them€down€on€that.ðð€€The€court€noted€that,€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððsÏtrial,€Tennessee€law€did€not€authorize€the€appointment€at€the€Stateððs€expense€of€aÏDNA€expert€in€criminal€trials,€and€that€œññheññññitññ›€had€denied€the€petitionerððs€motion€on€thisÏbasis.€€As€noted€earlier,€defense€attorney€Lisa€Mack€testified€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing€that€she€did€not€submit€to€the€trial€court€an€affidavit€from€a€DNA€expertÐ à.€%( Ðexplaining€the€need€for€a€defense€expert.€€She€understood€at€that€time€that€the€StateÏwas€not€required€to€provide€a€DNA€expert.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€direct€appeal,€this€court€addressed€whether€or€not€the€trial€courtÏcorrectly€denied€the€petitionerððs€motion€for€a€DNA€expert.€€This€court€concluded€that,Ïat€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€motion,€there€was€no€statutory€right€to€a€state„fundedÏexpert€in€non„capital€cases.€€òòSteeleóó,€No.€03C01„9207„CR„233,€1993€WL€415836,€atÐ  @  Ð*3.€€Moreover,€we€concluded€that€the€petitionerððs€counsel€had€not€demonstrated€thatÏthe€services€were€necessary€to€his€defense.€€òòId.óó€€Again,€the€question€now€before€thisÐ ` Ðcourt€is€whether€counselððs€failure€to€demonstrate€the€necessity€for€a€DNA€expert€wasÏconstitutionally€deficient€performance.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€relies€upon€òòAke€v.€Oklahomaóó,€470€U.S.€68,€105€S.Ct.Ð à€ Ð1087€(1985),€in€support€of€his€contention.€€In€òòAkeóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that,Ð À!` Ðwhen€an€indigent€defendant€demonstrates€to€a€trial€judge€that€his€sanity€will€be€aÏsignificant€issue€at€trial,€the€State€must€provide€the€defendant€access€to€a€competentÏpsychiatrist.€€470€U.S.€at€83,€105€S.Ct.€at€1096.€€However,€at€the€time€of€theÏpetitionerððs€trial€in€this€case,€it€was€unclear€that€the€Supreme€Courtððs€ruling€in€òòAkeóóÐ @)à" Ðshould€be€extended€to€the€provision€of€experts€other€than€a€psychiatrist€in€theÏcontext€of€a€defendantððs€claim€of€insanity,€and€it€was€unclear€whether€òòAkeóó€should€beÐ - #& Ðextended€to€non„capital€cases.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àPrior€to€òòAkeóó,€our€supreme€court€had€held€that€an€indigent€defendantÐ  2@), Ðdid€not€have€a€right,€under€either€the€federal€or€the€state€constitutions,€to€theÏservices€of€any€expert€at€the€Stateððs€expense.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,Ð `6-0 Ð411€(Tenn.€1983);€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531,€535„536€(Tenn.€1977).€€EvenÐ @8à.2 Ðfollowing€òòAkeóó,€this€court€upheld€in€a€non„capital€case€a€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€provideÐ `  Ða€ballistics€expert€to€the€defendant€at€the€Stateððs€expense.€€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€710Ð @ à ÐS.W.2d€530,€533„534€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€This€court€distinguished€òòAkeóó,€inÐ  À Ðpart,€because€the€defendant€in€òòAkeóó€was€confronted€with€a€rebuttable€presumption€ofÐ   Ðsanity€and€because€òòAkeóó€was€a€capital€case.€€òòId.óó€at€534.€€Subsequently,€in€òòState€v.Ð à€ ÐLambertóó,€741€S.W.2d€127,€131€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987),€this€court€declined€toÐ À`  Ðdecide€the€issue€of€òòAkeóóððs€application€in€non„capital€cases.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,Ð  @  Ð866€S.W.2d€583,€585€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)(this€court€cited€òòLambertóó,€noting€thatÐ €  Ðwe€had€previously€ð ðexpressed€concern€over€the€broadening€of€the€òòAkeóó€ruling€toÐ ` Ðinclude€non[„]capital€cases€such€as€the€present€oneðð).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àHowever,€following€òòAkeóó€and€prior€to€the€petitionerððs€trial,€this€courtÐ   Ðnoted€in€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€728€S.W.2d€21,€24„25€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€a€non„Ð à€ Ðcapital€case,€that€a€threshold€showing€of€a€denial€of€due€process€of€law€might€entitleÏthe€defendant€to€the€appointment€of€an€expert€at€the€Stateððs€expense.€€In€òòState€v.Ð  #@ ÐHannahóó,€No.€224,€1989€WL€16677,€at€**1„2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€FebruaryÐ €%  Ð28,€1989),€an€unpublished€case,€this€court€acknowledged€an€indigent€defendantððsÏright€in€a€non„capital€case€to€expert€assistance,€if€a€denial€of€assistance€would€resultÏin€a€constitutional€deprivation€under€the€doctrines€of€due€process€and€equalÏprotection.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àNevertheless,€only€in€1995,€in€òòState€v.€Barnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€423,€427Ð À0`'* Ð(Tenn.€1995),€did€our€supreme€court€determine€that€the€principles€set€forth€in€òòAkeóóÐ  2@), Ðwere€equally€applicable€in€non„capital€cases.€€Significantly€for€the€purposes€of€thisÏcase,€the€court€noted€that€it€had€never€previously€considered€this€issue€and€that€theÏcourt€of€criminal€appeals€had€also€never€been€required€to€definitively€reach€thisÐ @8à.2 Ðissue.€€òòId.óó€€Thus,€in€òòState€v.€Jacobsóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CC„00048,€1997€WL€576493,Ð `  Ðat€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€September€18,€1997),€this€court€observed€that,Ïas€late€as€1994,€Tennessee€law€did€not€provide€for€a€state„paid€DNA€expert€in€non„¼capital€cases,€concluding€that€òòBarnettóó€announced€a€new€constitutional€rule.€€òòSeeÐ   Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cageóó,€No.€01C01„9605„CC„00179,€1999€WL€30595,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à€ ÐApp.€at€Nashville,€January€26,€1999)(prior€to€òòBarnettóó,€Tennessee€law€did€not€provideÐ À`  Ðfor€the€appointment€of€a€DNA€expert€in€non„capital€cases);€òòState€v.€Murrayóó,€No.Ð  @  Ð01C01„9702„CR„00066,€1998€WL€934578,€at€*€22€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,ÏDecember€30,€1998)(prior€to€òòBarnettóó,€Tennessee€law€did€not€provide€for€expertÐ ` Ðassistance€in€non„capital€cases).€€This€court€further€clarified€that,€while€òòBarnettóó,€likeÐ @à ÐòòAkeóó,€dealt€with€a€psychiatric€expert,€the€new€constitutional€protections€announced€inÐ  À ÐòòBarnettóó€applied€to€other€forms€of€expert€assistance,€including€a€DNA€expert.€Ð   ÐòòJacobsóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CC„00048,€1997€WL€576493,€at€*2.Ð à€ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAgain,€it€is€important€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counselððsÏperformance€and€evaluate€that€performance€from€the€perspective€of€counsel€at€thatÏtime.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579.€In€light€of€the€uncertain€status€of€the€law€at€theÐ `'  Ðtime€of€the€petitionerððs€trial,€defense€counselððs€research€on€the€reliability€of€DNAÏtesting,€and€counselððs€extensive€cross„examination€of€the€Stateððs€expert,€this€courtÏhesitates€to€conclude€that€counselððs€failure€to€more€vigorously€pursue€theÏappointment€of€a€DNA€expert€constituted€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏCertainly,€Ms.€McFaddenððs€evaluation€of€defense€counselððs€performance€wasÏinfluenced€by€her€access€to€the€clear€guidelines€set€forth€in€òòBarnettóó,€an€advantageÐ  2@), Ðnot€shared€by€defense€counsel€at€the€petitionerððs€trial.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€any€case,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€anyÐ @8à.2 Ðdeficiency€of€performance€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€his€trial.€€The€petitionerððsÏattorney,€Lisa€Mack,€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€a€defense€expertÏwould€have€been€useful€in€rebutting€the€State€expertððs€testimony€concerning€theÏreliability€of€DNA€testing.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€furtherÏsubmitted€articles€concerning€potential€problems€of€reliability€in€DNA€testing.€ÏHowever,€even€assuming€that€the€law€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€provided€forÏthe€appointment€of€a€DNA€expert€in€non„capital€cases,€it€was€unclear€whatÏð ðthreshold€showingðð€would€entitle€a€defendant€to€the€services€of€an€expert.€€UnderÏòòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€430„431€(emphasis€added),€a€defendant€is€required€ð ðtoÐ ` Ðdemonstrate€òòby€reference€to€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€his€particular€case,óó€thatÐ @à Ðappointment€of€œa[n›]€...€expert€is€necessary€to€insure€a€fair€trial.ðð€€Thus,€in€òòJacobsóó,€No.Ð  À Ð01C01„9601„CC„00048,€1997€WL€576493,€at€*3,€this€court€concluded€that€a€mereÏassertion€that€a€defendant€needs€his€own€DNA€expert€to€verify€the€results€of€theÏStateððs€testing€is€insufficient.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€this€case,€the€petitioner€seems€to€argue€that,€because€there€isÏcontroversy€in€the€scientific€community€concerning€the€degree€of€reliability€of€DNAÏtesting,€he€was€entitled€to€a€DNA€expert€to€explain€to€the€jury€the€potential€problemsÏassociated€with€DNA€testing.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€did€notÏpoint€to€any€deficiency€in€the€testing€performed€in€òòhis€caseóó,€nor€does€he€cite€anyÐ - #& Ðdeficiency€in€his€brief€on€appeal.€€In€essence,€the€petitionerððs€argument€wouldÏrequire€the€appointment€of€a€DNA€expert€in€every€case€in€which€the€State€planned€toÏintroduce€DNA€test€results.€€The€petitioner€cites€no€authority€in€this€state€for€thisÏproposition,€nor€have€we€discovered€any.€€òòBut€see€generallyóó,€John€Devlin,€òòGeneticsÐ €4 +. Ðand€Justice:€An€Indigent€Defendantððs€Right€to€DNA€Expert€Assistanceóó,€1998€U.€Chi.Ð `6-0 ÐLegal€F.€395,€397€(arguing€that€an€indigent€defendant€charged€with€rape€or€murderÐ @8à.2 Ðshould€receive€DNA€expert€assistance€whenever€the€prosecution€plans€to€use€DNAÏevidence€against€him).€€Applying€the€principles€set€forth€in€òòBarnettóó,€the€petitioner€hasÐ @ à Ðfailed€to€demonstrate€in€these€proceedings€òòthe€particular€facts€and€circumstances€ofÐ  À Ðhis€caseóó€which€required€the€appointment€of€a€DNA€expert.€€In€other€words,€theÐ   Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that,€with€additional€effort,€his€attorneys€òòcouldóó€haveÐ à€ Ðshown€a€particularized€need€for€a€defense€expert.׃8×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À`  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àMoreover,€we€agree€with€the€post„conviction€courtððs€observation€thatÏthe€Stateððs€evidence€in€these€cases,€excluding€the€DNA€evidence,€wasÏoverwhelming.€€The€DNA€evidence€only€related€to€the€following€incidents:ÌÓÓà8 Œ à1.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àFirst€degree€burglary€and€aggravated€rape€of€œPM›€inÐ  À Ðcases€No.€188342€and€No.€188345.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ à2.à8ä Œ (#Œ (#àAggravated€burglary,€theft€of€property,€and€rape€of€œJP€inÐ   Ðcases€No.€188327,€No.€188325,€and€No.€188326.ÓƒÓÓÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐThe€State€introduced€testimony€that€fingerprints€matching€the€petitionerððs€had€beenÏrecovered€from€the€scenes€of€all€eight€incidents€underlying€the€petitionerððsÏindictments,€including€the€incidents€relating€to€PM€and€JP.€€Seven€victims,€includingÏPM€and€JP,€were€able€to€provide€descriptions€of€the€assailant.€€The€descriptionsÏwere€roughly€similar€to€one€another€and€matched€the€petitionerððs€appearance.€€WithÏrespect€to€the€incident€involving€JP,€the€petitioner€was€observed€immediatelyÏfollowing€the€incident€running€down€the€street€four€blocks€away€from€JPððs€residence.€ÏJP€positively€identified€the€petitioner€both€in€a€show„up€identification€procedureÏimmediately€following€the€incident€and€at€trial.€€Testimony€by€PM€and€another€victim,ÏCM,€suggested€that€the€assailant€was€left„handed.€€The€petitioner€is€left„handed.€ÏThe€petitioner€had€scars€in€a€location€where€one€of€the€victims€had€stabbed€herÐ 30*- Ðassailant€with€a€screw€driver.€€The€petitioner€lived€and€worked€in€close€proximity€toÏthe€locations€of€all€eight€incidents.€€An€expert€in€serology€with€the€TennesseeÏBureau€of€Investigation€testified€that,€with€respect€to€the€incidents€involving€PM,€JP,Ïand€another€victim,€ES,€she€was€able€to€establish€that€the€Petitioner€was€within€theÏtwenty€percent€of€the€population€who€could€have€committed€the€crimes.€€Moreover,Ïas€noted€earlier,€all€eight€incidents€possessed€similar€characteristics€stronglyÏsuggesting€a€common€perpetrator.€€Accordingly,€it€is€doubtful€that€the€provision€of€anÏexpert€to€testify€concerning€the€reliability€of€the€DNA€testing€would€have€changed€theÏresults€in€any€of€the€petitionerððs€cases.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àNevertheless,€the€petitioner€also€alleges€that€his€counsel€wereÏineffective€for€failing€to€file€pre„trial€motions€objecting€to€the€admission€of€the€DNAÏevidence.€€However,€the€record€suggests€that€defense€counsel€in€fact€filed€a€pre„trialÏmotion€challenging€the€admissibility€of€the€DNA€evidence.€€Moreover,€the€courtÏobserved€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€Ms.€Mack€and€Mr.€Sorrick€had€broughtÏto€his€attention€literature€concerning€the€unreliability€of€DNA€testing€and€ð ðwe€didÏhave€a€hearing€on€it€and€[Ms.€Mack]€did€try€to€convince€me€that€the€manner€and€theÏtest,€the€way€the€tests€were€conducted€was€unreliable.€€She€did€not€succeed€inÏconvincing€me.ðð׃@×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  +À!$ ÐòòÌà Œ àà ä àóóAccordingly,€the€record€that€is€before€this€court€does€not€support€theÐ @ à Ðpetitionerððs€allegation.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€include€in€the€recordÏbefore€this€court€the€transcript€of€the€trial€court€hearing€on€the€admissibility€of€theÏDNA€evidence.€€The€petitioner€carries€the€burden€of€ensuring€that€the€record€onÏappeal€conveys€a€fair,€accurate,€and€òòcompleteóó€account€of€what€has€transpired€withÐ À`  Ðrespect€to€those€issues€that€are€the€bases€of€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€òòSeeÐ  @  Ðalsoóó€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€172€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÐ €  Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€failure€to€do€so€results€in€a€waiver€of€such€issues.€€òòIdóó.Ð ` ÐÌà Œ àà ä àFinally,€this€court€on€direct€appeal€determined€that€the€DNA€evidenceÏwas€admissible€in€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€òòSteeleóó,€No.€03C01„9207„CR„233,€1993€WLÐ   Ð415836,€at€**2„3.€€Accordingly,€any€deficiency€of€counsel€in€this€respect€was€notÏprejudicial.€€In€effect,€this€issue€has€been€previously€determined€and€may€not€beÏrelitigated€in€these€proceedings,€even€if€in€the€guise€of€an€allegation€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(h)€(1997).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àò ò2.à < àFingerprint€Evidenceó óÐ @)à" Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€next€appears€to€argue€that€his€trial€counsel€wereÏineffective€for€failing€to€file€a€pre„trial€motion€requesting€the€appointment€of€aÏfingerprint€expert€and€for€failing€to€challenge€the€admission€of€fingerprint€evidence.€ÏBecause€the€petitionerððs€argument€consists€of€one€fragment€of€a€sentence€in€hisÏbrief,€we€regard€this€issue€as€waived€under€Ct.€of€Crim.€App.€Rule€10(b).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àMoreover,€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorney€testified€that€he€reviewed€theÏfingerprint€evidence€and€determined€that€a€defense€expert€would€not€be€useful.€Ð @8à.2 ÐAgain,€assuming€that€the€law€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€provided€for€theÏappointment€of€a€fingerprint€expert€in€non„capital€cases,€the€petitioner€has€utterlyÏfailed€to€demonstrate€that€his€attorneyððs€exercise€of€professional€judgment€wasÏerroneous.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€order€to€demonstrate€a€particularized€need€for€a€fingerprint€expert,Ïthe€petitioner€did€attempt€to€establish€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€the€StateððsÏfingerprint€expert€provided€contradictory€testimony.€€However,€the€record€reflectsÏthat€the€sole€contradiction€in€the€expertððs€testimony€was€between€his€initial€testimonyÏthat€he€generally€used€at€least€six€to€eight€points€of€comparison€in€comparing€latentÏand€ink€fingerprints€and€his€subsequent€testimony€that,€òòin€this€caseóó,€he€probablyÐ  À Ðused€at€least€ten€points€of€comparison€on€each€print.€€Both€the€Stateððs€fingerprintÏexpert€and€an€identification€technician€with€the€Chattanooga€Police€DepartmentÏtestified€that€there€is€no€standard€number€of€comparison€points€in€the€field€ofÏfingerprint€identification.€€Therefore,€it€is€unclear€from€the€record€before€this€courtÏwhat€testimony€or€assistance€an€expert€could€have€contributed€to€the€petitionerððsÏdefense.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIt€is€similarly€unclear€on€what€basis€defense€counsel€should€haveÏobjected€to€the€admission€at€trial€of€the€fingerprint€evidence.€€The€burden€is€upon€theÏpetitioner€in€post„conviction€proceedings€to€establish€the€allegations€in€his€petition.€ÏThis€issue€is€devoid€of€merit.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àò ò3.à < àConsolidation€of€the€Petitionerððs€Casesó óÐ €4 +. Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€alleges€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failingÏto€adequately€research€and€object€to€the€consolidation€of€the€petitionerððs€cases.€Ð @8à.2 ÐHowever,€on€direct€appeal,€this€court€determined€that€the€trial€court€correctlyÏconsolidated€the€petitionerððs€cases.€€òòSteeleóó,€No.€03C01„9207„CR„233,€1993€WLÐ @ à Ð415836,€at€**1„2.€€Thus,€any€deficiency€of€counsel€in€this€respect€was€not€prejudicial.€ÏOnce€again,€the€petitioner€is€attempting€to€assert€an€issue€that€has€been€previouslyÏdetermined€on€direct€appeal€by€characterizing€the€issue€as€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(h).€€This€issue€is€not€cognizable€in€theseÏproceedings.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àò ò4.à < àJury€Sequestrationó óÐ ` Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€next€alleges€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€forÏð ðwaiving€sequestration€of€the€jury€in€such€a€high€profile€case€which€was€widelyÏpublicized€in€the€media€both€prior€to€and€during€trial.ðð€€However,€other€than€thisÏsingle€sentence,€the€petitioner€offers€no€further€argument€nor€citations€to€relevantÏauthorities€or€even€the€record€in€this€case.€€The€petitionerððs€presentation€of€this€issueÏis€patently€inadequate€and€is€waived€pursuant€to€Ct.€of€Crim.€App.€Rule€10(b).€€InÏany€case,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€record€reflects€that€the€petitioner€waived€his€right€to€a€sequesteredÏjury€on€the€condition€that€the€trial€court€poll€the€jurors€each€morning€in€order€toÏdetermine€if€they€had€been€exposed€to€media€coverage.€€òòSeeóó€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€915Ð - #& ÐS.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)(a€defendant€may€waive€his€right€to€aÏsequestered€jury).€€The€record€reflects€that,€with€the€exception€of€the€final€day€ofÏtrial,€the€trial€court€complied€with€this€condition.€€With€respect€to€the€final€day€of€trial,Ïthe€record€does€not€contain€any€objection€by€defense€counsel€or€request€that€theÏjurors€be€polled.€€Nevertheless,€the€record€reveals€that,€throughout€the€trial,€theÏcourt€repeatedly€instructed€the€jurors€to€avoid€any€media€coverage€of€the€trial.€Ð @8à.2 ÐNothing€in€the€record€suggests€that€the€jurors€failed€to€comply€with€the€courtððsÏinstruction.€€The€record€contains€references€by€the€trial€court€to€newspaper€andÏtelevision€coverage€of€the€trial.€€However,€no€articles€or€recordings€are€included€inÏthe€record€in€this€appeal.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€his€attorneysÏdiscussed€with€him€sequestration€of€the€jury,€but€that€he€did€not€understand€theirÏadvice.€€In€contrast€to€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€his€brief€on€appeal,Ïthe€petitioner€orally€argued€to€the€trial€court€that€failure€to€sequester€the€jury€possiblyÏð ðrushedðð€their€decisions.€€He€offered€no€proof€to€support€this€assertion€or€toÏdemonstrate€the€exposure€of€any€juror€to€media€coverage€of€his€trial.€€Moreover,Ïneither€the€petitioner€nor€the€State€questioned€the€trial€attorneys€concerning€thisÏissue.€€In€light€of€the€lack€of€proof,€we€cannot€conclude€that€counselððs€waiver€of€aÏsequestered€jury€was€an€irrational€or€irresponsible€strategy€decision.€€òòWilliams€v.Ð À!` ÐStateóó,€Nos€155,€1988€WL€79770,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€August€1,Ð  #@ Ð1988).€€Additionally,€in€these€post„conviction€proceedings€the€petitioner€carried€theÏburden€of€demonstrating€prejudice€resulting€from€counselððs€recommendation€that€heÏwaive€his€right€to€a€sequestered€jury.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòState€v.€Tolbertóó,€No.€03C01„9707„Ð @)à" ÐCR„00325,€1998€WL€694931,€at€*12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€October€7,Ï1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1999).€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€satisfy€thisÐ - #& Ðburden.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àò ò5.à < àOpening€Statementó óÐ  2@), Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€his€counsel€failed€to€make€anÏopening€statement.€€However,€Mr.€Sorrick€testified€at€trial€that€his€decision€to€foregoÏan€opening€statement€was€a€tactical€decision€to€avoid€granting€concessions€to€theÐ @8à.2 ÐState€or€adopting€any€positions€prior€to€hearing€the€Stateððs€proof.€€We€haveÏpreviously€held€a€waiver€of€an€opening€statement€to€be€a€valid€strategy€decision.€ÏòòState€v.€McCoyóó,€No.€01C01„9603„CC„00109,€1997€WL€137422,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  À ÐApp.€at€Nashville,€March€27,€1997).€€Moreover,€this€court€has€previouslyÏacknowledged€the€potential€pitfalls€of€opening€statements:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àEither€overstatement€or€misstatement€during€thisÏpresentation,€despite€curative€efforts,€may€have€adverseÏeffects:Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àð ðThe€trial€attorney€should€only€inform€the€jury€of€theÏevidence€that€he€is€sure€he€can€prove€...€.€His€failure€toÏkeep€[a]€promise€[to€the€jury]€impairs€his€personalÏcredibility.€€The€jury€may€view€unsupported€claims€as€anÏoutright€attempt€at€misrepresentation.ððÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓ6ÿÓòòState€v.€Zimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€220,€225€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)(citationÐ  À Ðomitted).€€Thus,€a€decision€to€forego€argument€to€the€jury€until€after€the€presentationÏof€the€Stateððs€proof€will€not€dictate€a€finding€of€deficient€performance.€€Moreover,Ïcontrary€to€the€petitionerððs€assertion,€the€record€before€this€court€does€reflect€thatÏdefense€counsel€presented€a€closing€argument€to€the€jury.€€Accordingly,€theÏpetitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€any€prejudice€arising€from€counselððs€tacticalÏdecision.€€This€allegation€is€without€merit.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àò ò6.à < àJury€Instruction€on€Reasonable€Doubtó óÐ  +À!$ Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€next€asserts€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€in€failing€toÏobject€to€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€on€reasonable€doubt,€which€referred€to€the€needÏfor€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€of€the€petitionerððs€guilt.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury:ÌÓäÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àReasonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€anÏinvestigation€of€all€the€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability,Ïafter€such€investigation,€to€let€the€mind€rest€easily€as€toÏthe€certainty€of€guilt.€€Reasonable€doubt€does€not€mean€aÏcaptious,€possible€or€imaginary€doubt.€€Absolute€certaintyÏof€guilt€is€not€demanded€by€the€law€to€convict€of€anyÏcriminal€charge,€but€moral€certainty€is€required,€and€thisÐ @8à.2 Ðcertainty€is€required€as€to€every€proposition€of€proofÏrequisite€to€constitute€the€offense.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÓ ÓÌÌà Œ àà ä àThis€is€a€correct€statement€of€the€burden€of€proof€required€for€criminalÏtrials€in€Tennessee.€€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€976€S.W.2d€121,€159€(Tenn.€1998),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€Ð à€ Ѐóó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€òò€€€€óó€S.Ct.€òò€€€€óó€(1999);€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€520„521€(Tenn.),€òòcert.Ð À`  Ðdeniedóó,€òò€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€óó,€118€S.Ct.€376€(1997);€òòScott€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9709„CR„Ð  @  Ð00400,€1999€WL€233643,€at€**9„10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€April€20,€1999);ÏòòState€v.€Cowartóó,€No.€03C01„9512„CR„00402,€1999€WL€5174,€at€*23€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ` ÐApp.€at€Knoxville,€January€8,€1999);€òòLane€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9604„CC„00133,Ð @à Ð1998€WL€756746,€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€October€30,€1998),€òòperm.€toÐ  À Ðappeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1999).€€Accordingly,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€hisÐ   Ðallegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àò ò7.à < àSufficiency€of€the€Evidenceó óÐ  #@ Ðà Œ àà ä àFinally,€the€petitioner€argues€that€counsel€were€ineffective€on€directÏappeal€in€failing€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€all€of€theÏpetitionerððs€convictions.€€Counsel€chose€to€challenge€only€the€petitionerððs€fiveÏconvictions€for€robbery.€€However,€there€is€no€constitutional€requirement€that€anÏattorney€argue€every€issue€on€appeal.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747Ð - #& Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€The€determination€of€which€issues€to€present€on€appeal€is€a€matterÏwhich€addresses€itself€to€the€professional€judgment€and€sound€discretion€ofÏappellate€counsel.€€òòId.óó€€Ð  2@), ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àð ðLegal€contentions,€like€currency,€depreciate€throughÏover„issue€...€.€[E]xperience›€on€the€bench€convinces€...Ïthat€multiplying€assignments€of€error€will€dilute€andÏweaken€a€good€case€and€will€not€save€a€bad€one.ððÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÐ @8à.2 ÐÓiÓòòId.óó€(citation€omitted).€€Following€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€must€concludeÐ `  Ðthat€petitionerððs€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€on€appeal.€€Moreover,€weÏconclude€that€any€deficiency€of€performance€did€not€prejudice€the€petitioner.€€AsÏnoted€earlier,€the€evidence€at€trial€was€overwhelming.ÌÌò òB.à Œ àWaiver€and€Previous€Determinationó óÐ À`  Ðà Œ àà ä àPost„conviction€relief€is€generally€not€available€to€litigate€issues€thatÏhave€been€waived€or€previously€determined.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(f),€(g),Ïand€(h).€€We€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€waived€the€following€issues€by€failingÏto€raise€them€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€or€on€direct€appeal:€the€trial€court€denied€himÏdue€process€of€law€by€admitting€fingerprint€evidence;€the€trial€court€denied€him€dueÏprocess€of€law€by€admitting€testimony€concerning€the€show„up€identification€of€theÏpetitioner;׃A×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€trial€court€denied€him€due€process€of€law€in€instructing€the€jury€onÐ à€ Ðreasonable€doubt;€insufficient€evidence€supported€the€petitionerððs€convictions€of€theÏcharged€offenses.׃.`×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  #@ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àWith€respect€to€the€petitionerððs€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence,€the€petitioner€appears€to€further€argue€that€this€court€committed€error€onÏdirect€appeal€by€failing€to€address€sua€sponte€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÏsupporting€all€of€the€petitionerððs€convictions.€€Initially,€we€note€that,€in€non„capitalÏcases,€it€is€an€exercise€of€this€courtððs€discretion€to€recognize€plain€error€pursuant€toÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€€In€any€case,€we€again€agree€with€the€trial€courtððsÐ À0`'* Ðobservation€that€the€proof€in€the€petitionerððs€cases€was€overwhelming.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAdditionally,€the€petitionerððs€challenge€to€the€trial€courtððs€admission€ofÏDNA€evidence€was€previously€determined€on€direct€appeal€and€is€not€cognizable€inÏthese€proceedings.œ×ƒ ×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€With€respect€to€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€DNA€expert,€thisÐ à€ Ðcourt€addressed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€on€direct€appeal.€€However,€this€courtððsÏdecision€was€filed€prior€to€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòBarnettóó€and€prior€toÐ  @  Ðsubsequent€decisions€in€this€court€interpreting€òòBarnettóó€to€apply€to€experts€in€fieldsÐ €  Ðother€than€psychiatry.€€As€noted€earlier,€this€court€has€previously€held€that€theÏsupreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòBarnettóó€announced€a€new€constitutional€rule.€€Thus,Ð @à Ðarguably,€this€issue€was€neither€capable€of€previous€determination€nor€waived.€ÏTenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g)(1).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àYet,€it€is€unclear€that€the€rule€announced€in€òòBarnettóó€should€beÐ À!` Ðretroactively€applied€in€post„conviction€proceedings.€€In€òòBarnettóó,€our€supreme€courtÐ  #@ Ðrested€its€holding€upon€the€federal€constitution.€€òòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€431€(ð ð[œw]e›Ð €%  Ðconclude€that€when€a€defendant€in€a€non„capital€case€demonstrates€to€the€trial€courtÏin€an€ex€parte€proceeding€that€his€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense€is€to€be€aÐ @)à" Ðsignificant€factor€at€trial,€the€òòfederal€constitutionóó,€at€a€minimum,€requires€the€State€toÐ `  Ðprovide€the€defendant€access€to€a€...€psychiatristðð).€€Therefore,€we€must€applyÏfederal€retroactivity€analysis.€€òòMeadows€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.Ð  À Ð1993).€€A€new€rule€of€federal€constitutional€law€is€only€applied€retroactively€to€casesÏon€collateral€review€if€(1)€the€rule€places€certain€kinds€of€primary,€private,€individualÏconduct€beyond€the€power€of€the€state€to€proscribe,€or€(2)€the€rule€requires€theÏobservance€of€procedures€implicit€in€the€concept€of€ordered€liberty.€€òòTeague€v.€Laneóó,Ð  @  Ð489€U.S.€288,€307„310,€109€S.Ct.€1060,€1073„1075€(1989).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àFederal€courts€applying€the€òòTeagueóó€analysis€to€the€United€StatesÐ @à ÐSupreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòAkeóó€have€declined€to€require€retroactive€application€ofÐ  À Ðthe€rule€announced€therein.€€òòGretzler€v.€Stewartóó,€112€F.3d€992,€999„1000€(9th€Cir.Ð   Ð1997);€òòBassette€v.€Thompsonóó,€915€F.2d€932,€938„939€(4th€Cir.€1990).€€Logically,€ifÐ à€ Ðthe€rule€announced€in€òòAkeóó€does€not€require€the€observance€of€procedures€implicit€inÐ À!` Ðthe€concept€of€ordered€liberty,€then€application€of€the€rule€in€òòAkeóó€to€non„capitalÐ  #@ Ðcases€similarly€does€not€qualify€as€a€ð ðððwatershed€rule[]€of€criminal€procedure.ðððð€ÏòòGretzleróó,€112€F.3d€at€999.Ð `'  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àHowever,€we€need€not€resolve€this€issue€due€to€this€courtððs€OrderÏvacating€our€opinion€on€direct€appeal€and€re„entering€the€opinion€as€of€July€22,Ï1997.€€The€petitionerððs€convictions€did€not€become€final€until€the€supreme€courtÏdenied€the€petitioner€permission€to€appeal€on€April€20,€1998.׃0×Ý ƒ]#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€new€federal€rule€òòisóóÐ À0`'* Ðretroactively€applied€to€all€cases,€state€or€federal,€pending€on€direct€review€or€not€yetÐ  2@), Ðfinal€at€the€time€the€new€rule€is€adopted.€€òòMeadowsóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€**753„754.€€InÐ `  Ðany€case,€even€applying€òòBarnettóó€to€the€petitionerððs€case,€we€have€already€concludedÐ @ à Ðthat€the€petitioner€failed€both€during€the€trial€proceedings€and€during€the€post„¼conviction€proceedings€to€demonstrate€a€particularized€need€for€the€appointment€ofÏa€defense€expert.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòJacobsóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CC„00048,€1997€WL€576493,Ð à€ Ðat€*3.€€Moreover,€œassuming›€that€òòBarnettóó€required€the€appointment€of€a€DNA€expert€inÐ À`  Ðthis€case,€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€expert€assistance€was€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Once€again,€even€absent€the€DNA€evidence,€the€State€presentedÏoverwhelming€proof€of€the€petitionerððs€guilt.ÌÌà@(Úàò òòòIII.€€Conclusionó óóóˆÐ  À Ðà Œ àà ä àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„¼conviction€court.ÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ  #@ Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ,°"% ÐJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ À0`'* ÐJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge