ÿWPC! xü]ü@ßa¢XÿÀXM>sÅ«iF§í%³êSVP±$Ò>žò‹L#Á凜pJPXµ{GŸIHÈÀÕ8{çÂÉú~I¨UÊøùªzÜß ŽõàžÿŒŠÍ£™"W³%áòoøŒõc§Õ:TY0®µºŽðÎM[²îà(ã_3èÒžz“2TæöÔ¤ØÚkØè ÆxúyÖ&Þ²S‹>Ä@ã å%`¤.Ô"s3 0Ø ±¼œK¢¿kòóErüUP™½ÐúÄêûY-+CŸÖXLþûMä…ÿÏØ4ð9èYHoFo#Ôç…³—áæÌa¿±Ý2ÖÛ.5Îs…tÎfàŠB€=—!U#‹ßvÏÎ'톌JâåÅl†˜…èÃc¯wzs%*ël†„ $Néá5ΖA´$|Á¢i‚/4nŸS5îRùµ?º½@ÑçÎÏ>4¶ÒöÈÚ+ø‚J° Iá@Ò@ÌoK„ÑŠÉYxB0ýÔÑâF÷ ø\⻘ë¤ß²CûŽèÙ¾ä< ¥¨°MŠ¿|,+‡hb½Y`»¨¢»PoNR^zÕÈ^&n+‚–µ#)@Šmræ¾yWÂoãŠ%zïéÿÈ =!ûçX’úT$‰¿‡$…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í w@ 4G [ j r U. U:¾ 1mø 0ce U:È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È B D3 0DRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR 0w– 0Š  0 — 0´7 0Çë 0Û² 0ï AO|ÆËË 0D‘ D/Õ B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MSÈðððÈð0nLÐ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular J+DK+L+DM+N+O+DP+Q+DR+ºeS+Ó€ýhµ&3|x^+ Ô€X0öXXXÔÔ€îžîXX0öÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ ²îîžÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€25,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô8øô ²ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó%ä2¼A`ArialTT"Arial Regulartuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ñ›ñR+ñÒ°ÒÒX°ÒØØÔ€X0öXXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ êð XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑñS+ñœßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@Eh± tt0" °¨Órß›ñS+ñà@k k Dàò òIN€THE€TENNESSEE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ii)DàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌà@ DàSPECIAL€SEPTEMBER€SESSION,€1998ˆÌÌÓ'X‡XDp“X°œX'ÓÌNICHOLAS€TODD€SUTTON,à À àà D à)à p àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9702„CR„00067Ð $ t Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D à)ó óÐ  ` Ðà ` àAppellant,à  àà h àà À àà D àò ò)à p àMORGAN€COUNTYÐ ü L  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D à)à p à(No.€7555€Below)ó óÐ è 8  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àò ò)Ð Ô$  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D à)à p àHON.€GARY€R.€WADE,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÐ À  ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àà D à)Ð ¬ü  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D à)Ð ˜è  Ðó óà ` àAppellee,€à  àà h àà À àà D àò ò)ó óà p à(Post„Conviction,€Death€Penalty)ò òÐ „Ô  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D à)ó óÐ pÀ ÐÌÌà@è è Dàò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THE€ˆÐ (x Ðà@˜˜ DàCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€MORGAN€COUNTYó óˆÐ d ÐÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà D àà p àà È àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð ² ÐÌJOHN€E.€ELDRIDGEà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àñR+ñœñR+ñJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPñR+ñ›ñR+ñÐ ~Î ÐELDRIDGE,€IRVINE€&€HENDRICKSà D àà p àà È àñR+ñœñR+ñAttorney€General€&€ReporterñR+ñ›ñR+ñÐ d´ ÐSuite€350,€Main€Placeà h àà À àñR+ñœñR+ñà D àà p àà È àñR+ñ›ñR+ñÐ Jš Ð606€Main€Streetà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àñR+ñœñR+ñMICHAEL€E.€MOOREñR+ñ›ñR+ñÐ 0€ ÐP.O.€Box€84à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àñR+ñœñR+ñSolicitor€GeneralñR+ñ›ñR+ñÐ  f ÐKnoxville,€TN€37901„0084à h àà À àà D àà p àà È àÐ ü L Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àñR+ñœñR+ñJOHN€P.€CAULEY€ñR+ñ›ñR+ñÐ â!2  ÐMICHAEL€J.€ñR+ñœñR+ñPASSINOà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralñR+ñ›ñR+ñÐ È"! ÐLASSITER,€TIDWELL€&€HILDEBRANDà D àà p àà È àñR+ñœñR+ñ425€5th€Avenue€NorthÐ ®#þ" Ð213€Fifth€Avenue,€Northà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð ”$ä# ÐNashville,€TN€37219„1901à h àà À àà D àà p àà È àñR+ñ›ñR+ñÐ z%Ê $ ÐñR+ñœñR+ñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àCHARLES€E.€HAWKÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌñR+ñ›ñR+ñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àD.€ROGER€DELPÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àFRANK€A.€HARVEYÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àP.O.€BOX€703Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àà È àKingston,€TN€37763„0703ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€__________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÐ ð;@7=S ÐñR+ñœñR+ñ‡ñR+ñ›ñR+ñÓÓà@õõ)Dàò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€capital€case,€the€petitioner,€Nicholas€Todd€Sutton,€appeals€as€of€rightÏfrom€the€judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€of€Morgan€County€denying€his€post„convictionÏpetition.€€In€1986,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first„degree€murder€and€sentenced€toÏdeath€by€electrocution.€€The€petitionerððs€conviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed€on€directÏappeal€by€the€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€761€S.W.2d€763€ñR+ñœñR+ñ(Tenn.€1988),ñR+ñ›ñR+ñ€òòrehððg€óóÐ „Ô  Ðòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1988),€and€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031,€110€S.Ct.€3287,€111€L.Ed.2d€796Ð P   Ð(1990).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€December€14,€1990,€the€petitioner,€through€counsel,€filed€a€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€and€an€amended€petition€was€filed€on€January€2,€1992.€€Thereafter,ÏSenior€Judge€William€H.€Inman€was€appointed€to€hear€the€petition€on€November€18,€1994.€ÏIn€March€1996,€Judge€Inman€granted€the€petitionerððs€motion€requesting€that€he€recuseÏhimself,€and€Judge€Gary€R.€Wade€was€appointed€to€hear€the€petition.€€The€post„convictionÏhearing€was€held€over€a€period€of€five€days€from€October€9€to€October€14,€1996.€€OnÏOctober€23,€1996,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€post„conviction€relief.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€raises€the€following€issues:ÌÌÓÓà ` à1.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€state€abused€the€discovery€process,€mislead€andÐ ¬(ü#( Ðmisdirected€the€energies€of€petitionerððs€attorney,€and€concealed€theÏstateððs€major€witnesses,€and€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erredÏin€concluding€that€the€issue€had€been€previously€determined.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à2.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€trial€court€failed€to€regulate€the€discovery€process,€andÐ *-z(- Ðwhether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€concluding€that€the€issueÏhad€been€waived€or€previously€determined.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à3.à8 ¸ àWhether€excessive€courtroom€security€denied€the€petitioner€his€rightÐ Â0,1 Ðto€a€fair€trial,€and€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€inÏconcluding€that€the€issue€had€been€waived€or€previously€determined.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à4.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€petitioner€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counselÐ Z4ª/5 Ðat€the€guilt€and€penalty€phases€of€his€trial.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à5.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€state€falsely€portrayed€inmate€safety€and€security€at€theÐ  7\28 Ðprison.€Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à6.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€state€manufactured€a€prior€statement€by€inmate€LumbertÐ ¾95; Ðfor€the€post„conviction€hearing,€and€whether€the€post„conviction€courtÏerred€by€failing€to€address€the€issue.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à7.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€state€failed€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence€in€violationÐ b² Ðof€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194,€10€L.Ed.2d€215Ð H˜ Ð(1963)€and€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€92€S.Ct.€763,€31Ð . ~ ÐL.Ed.2d€104€(1972).Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à8.à8 ¸ àWhether€the€death€penalty€statutes€are€unconstitutional.Ðà 0¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà ` à9.à8 ¸ àWhether€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€this€case€would€beÐ ¬ ü  Ðarbitrary€and€capricious.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àHaving€reviewed€the€record,€including€the€record€from€the€petitionerððs€directÏappeal,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.ÌÌò òà@üü*DàBackgroundó óˆÐ ŽÞ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€proof,€as€set€forth€in€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision,€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€761Ð 2‚ ÐS.W.2d€763,€765„66,€established€that€the€petitioner€and€co-defendants€Charles€A.ÏFreeman€and€Thomas€A.€Street€were€residents€of€Guild€6€at€the€Morgan€County€RegionalÏCorrectional€Facility€(ð ðMCRCFðð)€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€€The€victim,€Carl€Estep,€was€aÏresident€of€Guild€5.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€January€15,€1985,€when€Estep€was€murdered,€there€was€no€correctionalÏofficer€in€Guild€5€between€9:30€and€10:00€a.m.€€During€a€routine€"shakedown"€after€10:00Ïa.m.,€correctional€officers€found€the€body€of€Estep€lying€on€the€lower€bunk€of€his€cell.€ÏThere€were€signs€of€a€struggle€and€blood€was€observed€on€the€wall,€the€bed€covers,€andÏon€Estep's€body.€€Attempts€to€revive€Estep€were€unsuccessful.€€The€entire€facility€was€thenÏ"locked€down,"€and€all€inmates€in€Guild€5€were€interviewed.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àEstep,€who€had€been€serving€a€sentence€for€child€molesting,€had€beenÏstabbed€thirty-eight€times€in€the€chest€and€neck.€€Most€of€the€wounds€were€superficial,€butÏnine€were€potentially€fatal,€having€penetrated€Estep's€lungs,€vena€cava,€and€carotid€artery.€ÏThe€examining€pathologist€testified€that€this€latter€wound€would€have€caused€death€in€aÏmatter€of€minutes.€€There€were€seven€defensive€wounds€on€Estep's€hands€and€right€armÐ ¾95; Ðand€a€wound€to€the€back€of€his€head€caused€by€a€blow.€€It€was€the€opinion€of€theÏpathologist€that€from€the€size€of€the€wounds,€two€knives€had€been€used€by€Estep'sÏattackers.€€On€the€bottom€bunk,€investigating€officers€found€two€homemade€knives,€whichÏmatched€the€wounds€on€Estep's€body.€€A€later€investigation€of€the€cell€uncovered€a€thirdÏknife€hidden€under€a€lamp€beside€Estep's€bed.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€testimony€of€four€inmates,€sometimes€contradictory€and€evasive,€linkedÏthe€petitioner€to€the€murder.€€The€first€to€testify€was€Harold€Meadows,€a€resident€of€GuildÏ5.€€He€testified€that€he€was€sitting€in€the€day€room€area€when€he€saw€the€petitioner€andÏStreet€enter€the€guild€and€go€straight€to€Estep's€cell.€€He€stated€that€each€day€between€9:30Ïa.m.€and€shortly€after€10:00€a.m.€there€was€a€period€of€five€to€ten€minutes€when€no€guardsÏwere€in€Guild€5€due€to€a€duty€change.€€It€was€during€this€time€on€January€15,€that€heÏobserved€the€petitioner€and€Street€enter€the€guild.€€When€they€entered€Estep's€cell,€hisÏroommate€immediately€came€out€and€shortly€thereafter€the€volume€of€the€tv€or€radioÏincreased,€and€Meadows€heard€a€scream,€and€the€petitioner€and€Street€came€out.€€WhenÏquestioned€by€correctional€officers€immediately€after€the€incident,€Meadows€told€them€whatÏhe€had€seen€and€identified€the€petitioner€and€Street€from€a€photographic€line-up.€€MeadowsÏfurther€testified€that€on€Sunday,€January€13,€he€had€seen€Estep€having€a€"physicalÏdiscussion"€with€the€petitioner€and€Street,€during€which€the€petitioner€held€a€knife€to€Estep'sÏthroat.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAnother€resident€of€Guild€5,€Estel€Green,€testified€that€he€was€standing€inÏfront€of€the€door€to€his€cell,€right€next€to€Estep's€cell,€when€he€saw€the€petitioner€andÏanother€inmate€go€inside€Estep's€cell.€€Green€then€went€into€his€cell.€€When€he€came€backÏout,€he€saw€the€other€men€in€the€guild€moving€toward€the€back€away€from€Estep's€cell.€ÏGreen€moved€away€with€them€and€heard€Estep€"holler€out.€€He€said,€'Don't€do€that;€€pleaseÏdon't€do€that.'€and€then€he€hollered€louder,€he€hollered,€'Somebody€help€me;€€somebodyÏplease€help€me.'€and€that€was€all€I€heard."€€Green€was€not€able€to€see€who€left€Estep's€cell.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àRalph€Edward€Scates€was€a€resident€of€Guild€3,€but€he€worked€as€a€laundryÐ Ì84: Ðman€in€Guild€1.€€Scates€testified€that€he€had€a€casual€conversation€with€Street€while€StreetÏwas€confined€to€Guild€1€for€investigative€purposes€after€the€killing.€€Street€admitted€toÏScates€that€"he€[Street]€cut€him€...€he€stuck€him,€cut€his€throat."€€Street€said€that€homemadeÏknives€had€been€used€and€that€he€had€tried€to€flush€his€down€the€commode€in€his€cell€inÏGuild€6.€€Scates€stated€that€the€petitioner€had€told€him,€"The€SB€got€exactly€what€heÏdeserved."ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€last€inmate€to€testify€for€the€state€was€Cary€Scoggins.€€He€testified€thatÏEstep€was€a€marijuana€dealer€at€the€facility€and€had€sold€the€defendants€some€"badÏmerchandise"€and€had€refused€to€refund€the€defendants'€money.€€He€testified€that€after€theÏdefendants€took€Estep's€watch€and€some€other€articles,€Estep€had€threatened€to€kill€theÏpetitioner.€€Scoggins,€a€resident€of€Guild€6,€happened€to€be€in€Guild€5€on€the€morning€ofÏJanuary€15€between€9:30€a.m.€and€10:30€a.m.€€He€stated€that€he€saw€the€petitioner,€Street,Ïand€Freeman€come€into€the€guild€and€enter€Estep's€cell.€€He€looked€through€the€windowÏin€the€door€of€Estep's€cell,€a€vertical€window€four€inches€by€thirteen€inches€and€saw€allÏthree€defendants€standing€in€front€of€the€bunk€bed€with€their€backs€to€the€window.€€He€sawÏEstep€try€to€get€up€from€the€bottom€bunk€and€the€petitioner€and€Freeman€pulled€knives.€ÏThe€petitioner€started€to€stab€Estep,€who€screamed.€€€Scoggins€stated€that€the€petitionerÏ"just€kept€on€stabbing"€about€sixteen€times.€€The€three€defendants€then€washed€their€handsÏin€the€sink.€€Scoggins€then€moved€away€from€the€door€and€left€the€guild€before€theÏdefendants€did.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€order€to€contradict€Scoggins'€testimony,€co„defendant€Freeman€presentedÏthe€testimony€of€Gary€Lumbert,€Scoggins'€cellmate.€€Lumbert€testified€that€Scoggins€wasÏworking€with€him€in€the€prison€library€at€the€time€Estep€was€murdered.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€state€recalled€James€Worthington,€the€administrative€assistant€to€theÏwarden€at€the€time€of€the€killing,€and€he€testified€that€he€had€investigated€the€murder.€€HeÏstated€that€Lumbert€had€told€him€that€he€was€present€in€Guild€6€immediately€after€EstepÏhad€been€killed,€and€that€he€observed€the€petitioner€and€Street€enter€the€guild,€removeÐ Ì84: Ðtheir€clothes,€and€place€their€clothes€in€the€laundry.€€Lumbert€also€told€Worthington€that€theÏpetitioner€bragged€"about€stabbing€Carl€Estep€twenty-some€times."ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€January€15,€two€garbage€bags€found€outside€Guild€8€were€brought€toÏWorthington,€one€containing€trash€and€the€other€prison€clothing.€€A€telephone€pass€for€ÏFreeman€was€found€in€one€pair€of€the€pants.€€F.B.I.€analysis€of€the€debris€from€the€clothingÏin€the€garbage€bag€revealed€a€hair€consistent€with€that€of€the€victim€on€a€pair€of€button-flyÏjeans€and€a€hair€consistent€with€that€of€Freeman€on€one€of€the€jackets.€€A€forensicÏserologist€employed€by€the€T.B.I.€testified€that€she€was€able€to€identify€a€human€blood€stainÏmatching€the€victim's€blood€type€on€the€sleeve€of€one€of€the€jackets,€one€of€the€knives,€andÏa€work€shirt.€€She€also€found€human€blood€on€one€of€the€jackets,€a€pair€of€zipper-fly€blueÏjeans€and€an€elastic€bandage.€€Tests€were€inconclusive€as€to€whether€human€blood€wasÏon€the€other€knife.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBased€on€this€proof,€the€jury€found€the€petitioner€guilty€of€first„degree€murder.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€state€presented€proof€that€the€petitioner€hadÏpreviously€been€convicted€of€first„degree€murder.€€The€defense€presented€the€testimonyÏof€Charles€Burchett,€the€Director€of€Student€Conduct€at€the€University€of€Tennessee,€hisÏwife,€a€semi„retired€school€teacher,€and€their€son,€Charles€Burchett,€Jr.,€who€was€a€realÏestate€agent.€€The€Burchetts€testified€that€they€had€known€the€petitioner€since€he€was€inÏhigh€school€and€that€they€visited€him€in€prison€regularly.€€The€defense€also€presented€theÏtestimony€of€two€inmates.€€Eddie€OððDonnell,€the€petitionerððs€cellmate€in€Guild€6,€testifiedÏthat€on€January€14,€while€they€were€eating€in€the€dining€hall,€the€petitioner€asked€OððDonnellÏto€tell€him€if€Estep€came€toward€him.€€When€Estep€came€in,€OððDonnell€nodded€at€theÏpetitioner,€who€stood€up.€€Estep€then€walked€the€other€way.€€James€ð ðBuddyðð€Williams,€alsoÏan€inmate,€testified€that€he€did€not€have€any€conversations€with€the€petitioner€about€thisÏmatter,€despite€having€previously€told€defense€counsel€that€he€had€in€fact€hadÏconversations€with€the€petitioner.€€Williams€refused€to€answer€any€further€questions.€€ÌÐ Ì84: Ðà ` àà ¸ àThe€jury€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€death€by€electrocution€based€on€itsÏfinding€that€there€were€no€mitigating€circumstances€sufficient€to€outweigh€the€threeÏaggravating€circumstances:€(1)€prior€conviction€of€a€violent€felony,€(2)€the€murder€wasÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,€and€(3)€the€murder€was€committed€while€the€petitioner€was€inÏa€place€of€lawful€confinement.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2),€(5),€(8)€(repealed€1989).ÌÌà@¢¢&Dàò òStandard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ xÈ  Ðò òÌà ` àà ¸ àó óIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€petitioner€must€prove€the€allegationsÐ (x Ðcontained€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòOliphant€v.€Stateóó,€806Ð ôD ÐS.W.2d€215,€218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€madeÏby€the€trial€court€are€given€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€this€Court€is€bound€by€thoseÏfindings€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòButler€v.Ð X¨ ÐStateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€This€Court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ $t Ðevidence€or€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€court.€€QuestionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony€areÏfor€resolution€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ˆ!Ø  Ð1990).ÌÌà@  !Dàò òI.€€Prosecutorial€Misconductó óˆÐ ì&<"& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€first€issue,€the€petitioner€contends€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trialÏbecause€the€state€abused€the€discovery€process,€mislead€and€misdirected€the€energies€ofÏpetitionerððs€attorney,€and€concealed€its€major€witnesses.€€The€petitioner€submits€that€theÏpost„conviction€court€erred€in€finding€this€issue€to€be€previously€determined.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àSpecifically,€the€petitioner€argues€that€he€was€unable€to€establish€hisÏprosecutorial€misconduct€claim€on€direct€appeal€because€he€was€denied€access€to€materialÏdocuments€which€would€have€demonstrated€an€intentional€decision€by€the€state€toÏmisdirect€defense€counsel.€€Second,€the€petitioner€argues€that€he€was€unable€to€show€inÐ ð8@4: Ðthe€prior€proceedings€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€intentional€wrongdoing€of€the€stateÏbecause€his€attorney€could€not€challenge€his€own€ineffectiveness€without€creating€a€conflictÏof€interest.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àUnder€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€governing€this€petition,€a€petitionerÏcould€raise€all€constitutional€claims€except€those€which€had€been€previously€determined,Ïwaived,€or€barred€by€the€statute€of€ñR+ñœñR+ñlimitations.€€TheñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€statutory€definitions€under€theÏapplicable€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€for€previous€determination€and€waiver€were€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à(a)€A€ground€for€relief€is€ð ðpreviously€determinedðð€if€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€andÏfair€hearing.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à(b)(1)€A€ground€for€relief€is€ð ðwaivedðð€if€the€petitioner€knowinglyÏand€understandingly€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€anyÏproceeding€before€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€whichÏthe€ground€could€have€been€presented.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à(2)€There€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€a€ground€for€reliefÏnot€raised€in€any€such€proceeding€which€was€held€was€waived.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓÌT.C.A.€ðð€40„30„112€(1990).€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705€(Tenn.€1995),€our€Supreme€Court€heldÐ Ô&$"& Ðthat€ð ða€ððfull€and€fair€hearingðð€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€previous€determination€occursÏif€a€petitioner€is€given€the€opportunity€to€present€proof€and€argument.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€706.€€TheÐ l*¼%* Ðburden€is€on€the€post„conviction€petitioner€to€allege€facts€to€overcome€the€application€ofÏprocedural€barriers.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€45,€49€€(Tenn.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€T.C.A.€ððÐ .T). Ð40„30„104(10)(1990).€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€post„conviction€court€concluded€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€rebut€theÏfinding€that€the€issue€had€been€previously€determined€on€direct€appeal,€where€ourÏSupreme€Court€held:ÌÐ Ì84: ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€defendant€Sutton€next€alleges€that€he€was€denied€the€right€to€a€fair€trialÏbecause€of€the€conduct€of€the€State€in€not€supplying€him€sufficient€notice€ofÏthe€witnesses€which€would€be€used€against€him.€€He€argues€that€by€providingÏlists€of€numerous€prospective€witnesses,€ranging€from€80€to€47€names,€manyÏof€whom€were€inmates€scattered€throughout€the€State€correctional€systemÏand€most€of€whom€the€State,€defendant€alleges,€had€no€intention€of€calling,Ïdenied€him€his€right€to€effective€counsel€because€defense€counsel€wasÏunable€to€interview€all€these€witnesses€and€investigate€the€case€fully.€ÏNothing€in€the€record€supports€this€allegation.€€When€defense€counselÏpointed€out€the€problems€he€was€having€in€reaching€all€the€witnesses,€theÏcourt€granted€a€continuance.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓCSÓÌòòSuttonóó,€761€S.W.2d€763,€769.Ð D”  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àDespite€the€petitionerððs€claims,€a€full€review€of€the€record€does€not€establishÏintentional€wrongdoing€on€the€part€of€the€state.€€Worthington€testified€that€he€wasÏresponsible€for€the€prisonððs€internal€investigation€into€the€murder€of€Estep.€€On€the€day€ofÏthe€murder,€Worthington€and€Clarence€Robbins,€the€investigator€for€the€district€attorneyÏgeneralððs€office,€conducted€intensive€interviews€of€everyone€in€Guild€5.€€Worthington€wasÏresponsible€for€transcribing€and€cataloging€all€of€the€statements.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€course€of€the€investigation,€Worthington€submitted€to€the€districtÏattorney€generalððs€office€a€list€of€possible€witnesses€and€a€summary€of€each€witnessððÏpotential€testimony.€€Worthington€kept€a€notebook€which€included€summaries,€statements,Ïand€documents€regarding€each€person€who€was€interviewed.€€In€addition,€he€keptÏmiscellaneous€files€that€included€rap€sheets,€different€information,€institutional€fileÏdocuments€on€each€of€the€defendants€and€some€of€the€witnesses,€and€notes€he€had€madeÏduring€the€investigation€and€interviews.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àñR+ñœñR+ñTheñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€list€of€potential€witnesses€was€typed€and€sent€to€the€district€attorneyÏgeneralððs€office€around€June€3,€1985.€€Worthington€testified€that€the€entire€list€was€givenÏto€the€defense€as€a€good€faith€effort€so€the€defense€would€have€a€complete€list€of€theÏinmates€who€had€been€interviewed.€€A€shorter€list€was€given€in€August€1985,€and€anotherÏwas€given€in€September€1985.€€Worthington€kept€inmates€on€the€witness€list€because€heÏthought€that€once€some€of€ñR+ñœñR+ñthemñR+ñ›ñR+ñ€were€released€from€prison€they€might€be€willing€to€talk.€Ð Ì84: ÐHe€also€believed€that€the€defense€attorneys€should€be€given€an€opportunity€to€speak€withÏthese€inmates€because€they€might€tell€defense€counsel€more€than€they€would€tell€theÏprison€officials.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àRoger€Delp,€an€assistant€district€attorney€general€who€prosecuted€the€case,Ïtestified€that€the€long€list€of€potential€witnesses€was€given€to€defense€counsel€to€ensureÏthat€the€trial€judge€would€not€refuse€to€allow€a€witness€to€testify€because€the€name€had€notÏbeen€given€to€the€defense.€€The€state€was€concerned€that€some€inmates€who€had€been€inÏa€position€to€have€information€about€the€homicide€but€were€not€talking€might€be€willing€toÏtalk€to€defense€counsel€or€might€decide€to€talk€to€the€state€at€a€later€date.€€The€state€wasÏalso€trying€to€protect€inmates€from€potential€retaliation.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€was€represented€at€trial€by€John€Appman.€€Because€the€stateððsÏlist€of€potential€witnesses€was€long€and€because€the€inmates€were€constantly€beingÏtransferred€to€other€facilities,€Appman€spent€unnecessary€time€and€trouble€investigatingÏthe€case.€€Bruce€Fox,€appointed€counsel€for€co„defendant€Street,€confirmed€that€it€wasÏdifficult€to€prepare€for€trial€because€the€stateððs€witness€list€was€so€extensive.€€He€and€ÏAppman€did€most€of€the€preparation€for€trial,€traveling€in€Appmanððs€private€plane€toÏinterview€witnesses€who€were€incarcerated€at€various€correctional€facilities€across€theÏstate.€€They€were€also€assisted€by€Appmanððs€paralegal.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€order€to€tell€which€witnesses€the€state€was€going€to€call€and€to€have€anÏunderstanding€of€the€stateððs€case,€Appman€believed€he€needed€to€review€WorthingtonððsÏinvestigative€records.€€However,€even€if€he€had€been€able€to€obtain€a€shorter€list€ofÏpotential€witnesses,€Appman€testified€that€he€still€would€have€attempted€to€talk€to€anyoneÏwho€might€have€benefitted€the€case.€€He€and€Herb€Moncier€filed€a€motion€with€the€trialÏcourt€in€an€attempt€to€get€Worthingtonððs€notebook,€however,€the€motion€was€denied.€ÏThereafter,€they€filed€a€lawsuit€in€the€chancery€court€of€Davidson€County€seeking€to€forceÏWorthington€to€turn€over€his€investigative€records€under€the€Public€Records€Act.€€Relief€wasÏdenied€by€the€chancery€court€and€by€the€Supreme€Court€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòAppman€v.Ð Ì84: ÐWorthingtonóó,€746€S.W.2d€165€(Tenn.€1987).€Ð ° ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWithout€Worthingtonððs€notebook,€Appman€testified€that€he€was€unable€to€fullyÏadvise€the€petitioner€regarding€the€strength€of€the€stateððs€case.€€Although€the€petitionerÏtestified€that€he€would€not€have€accepted€the€stateððs€offer€of€a€life€sentence€because€it€wasÏconditional€on€offers€to€the€co„defendants,€Appman€believed€that€the€information€inÏWorthingtonððs€notebook€would€have€assisted€him€in€his€attempt€to€convince€the€petitionerÏto€accept€the€offer.€€Despite€the€foreclosure€of€reviewing€Worthingtonððs€notebook,€AppmanÏwas€able€to€interview€all€the€inmates€who€eventually€testified€at€trial€on€behalf€of€the€state.€ÏHe€was€also€able€to€review€each€of€these€witnessesðð€statement€to€Worthington€as€òòJencksóóÐ Ü, Ðmaterial€prior€to€cross„examination.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€review€of€the€testimony€and€of€Worthingtonððs€notebook€does€not€reveal€thatÏthe€state€intentionally€misdirected€defense€counsel,€and€this€argument€fails€to€rebut€theÏstatutory€presumption€that€this€issue€has€been€previously€determined.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€issue€should€not€be€barred€asÏpreviously€determined€because€counsel€could€not€have€raised€his€own€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€However,€the€issue€of€whether€the€stateððs€actions€denied€theÏpetitioner€the€right€to€effective€counsel€was€raised€and€addressed€by€the€Supreme€Court.€ÏòòSuttonóó,€761€S.W.2d€763,€769.€€Moreover,€the€record€reflects€that€Appman€took€every€actionÐ  (ð#( Ðpossible€to€obtain€Worthingtonððs€notebook,€including€the€filing€of€a€civil€law€suit.€ÏAccordingly,€even€if€the€issue€was€not€previously€determined,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏshow€that€counselððs€actions€were€deficient.€€òòSeeóó€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936Ð .T). Ð(Tenn.€1975).€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà0 ` àà  àà@ŸŸD` €%` €%àò òII.€€Regulation€of€Discovery€Processó óˆÐ h3¸.4 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€finding€that€theÏissue€of€whether€the€trial€court€failed€to€regulate€the€discovery€process€was€previouslyÐ Ø8(4: Ðdetermined,€waived,€or€without€merit.€€As€to€a€finding€of€waiver,€the€petitioner€contends€thatÏit€was€not€raised€due€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€that€the€material€factsÏsupporting€his€claim€were€not€available€despite€efforts€to€obtain€access€to€the€information.€ÏFurthermore,€the€petitioner€contends€that€if€the€trial€court€had€at€a€minimum€reviewedÏWorthingtonððs€notebook€or€included€it€in€the€record,€it€would€have€shown€that€the€state€hadÏin€fact€prepared€a€shorter,€detailed€witness€list€which€set€forth€the€anticipated€witnesses€atÏtrial€and€their€anticipated€testimony.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€noted€in€the€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion,€ð ð[t]he€evidence€in€the€record€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€trial€court's€finding€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€that€there€wasÏno€bad€faith€on€the€State's€part€in€responding€to€the€discovery€requests,€that€the€defendantÏwas€not€damaged€by€any€of€the€delays€in€this€case,€and€that€under€the€circumstances€allÏmatters€were€addressed€within€a€reasonable€time.ðð€€òòSuttonóó,€761€S.W.2d€763,€768.€Ð @ ÐAccordingly,€this€issue€has€been€previously€determined.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„112(a)(1990).Ð  \ ÐFurthermore,€the€petitioner€cannot€succeed€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏbecause€the€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€matters€of€discovery€were€handled€appropriately.€ÏThus,€the€petitioner€has€not€shown€prejudice.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,Ð p!À  Ð693,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2067,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).ÌÌà@óó#Dàò òIII.€€Courtroom€Securityó óˆÐ Ô&$"& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€inÏconcluding€that€the€issue€of€excessive€security€in€the€courtroom€was€previously€determined,Ïwaived,€or€without€merit.€€In€his€post„conviction€petition,€the€petitioner€claimed€that€the€stateÏused€the€extraordinary€courtroom€security€as€a€prop,€that€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€as€aÏresult€of€the€excessive€courtroom€security,€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€regulate€theÏexcessive€courtroom€security,€and€that€defense€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€limit€theÏexcessive€security,€object€to€its€use€as€a€prop,€or€properly€present€the€issue€in€the€motionÏfor€new€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.ÌÐ Ø8(4: Ðà ` àà ¸ àRegarding€this€issue,€Charles€E.€Jones,€now€warden€at€MCRCF,€testified€thatÏhe€was€in€charge€of€courtroom€security€during€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€According€to€Jones,€theÏgoal€was€to€provide€security€during€the€trial€and€to€ensure€that€inmates€were€transportedÏin€a€timely€manner,€however,€there€was€no€written€plan€or€order.€€Uniformed€officers€armedÏwith€shotguns€were€stationed€at€each€corner€of€the€courthouse.€€Two€officers€with€a€handÏheld€metal€detector€were€stationed€outside€the€door€to€the€courtroom.€€Inside€theÏcourtroom,€officers€were€stationed€at€each€door.€€Three€more€officers€were€stationed€in€theÏfront€row€directly€behind€the€defendants.€€One€officer€was€positioned€to€backup€the€threeÏofficers€by€the€defendants,€one€was€next€to€the€jury,€and€two€were€in€the€balcony.€€SomeÏof€the€officers€were€in€uniform,€and€all€the€officers€were€armed€with€the€exception€of€theÏthree€officers€directly€behind€the€defendants.€€One€street€by€the€courthouse€was€blockedÏoff,€and€the€officers€used€it€for€parking€and€unloading€inmates.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àJudge€Eugene€Eblen,€who€presided€over€the€trial,€testified€that€the€officersÏin€the€courtroom€were€not€overly€conspicuous.€€Considering€that€there€were€three€inmatesÏon€trial€and€that€many€of€the€witnesses€were€also€inmates,€Judge€Eblen€believed€that€theÏsecurity€was€appropriate.€€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àContrary€to€this€testimony,€Fox,€counsel€for€co„defendant€Street,€testified€thatÏthe€courthouse€was€an€ð ðarmed€fortress.ðð€€Charles€Burchett,€who€attended€the€trial€andÏtestified€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€testified€that€he€was€amazedÏat€the€number€of€armed€officers.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€the€general€issue€of€courtroom€security,€the€post„conviction€court€madeÏthese€findings:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àEven€if€the€issue€had€not€been€previously€determined€or€waived,€the€proof€atÏthe€evidentiary€hearing€simply€did€not€establish€this€as€a€ground€for€relief.€ÏObviously€courtroom€security€is€necessary€when€three€prison€inmates€are€onÏtrial.€€All€of€the€key€witnesses€were€inmates€as€well.€€The€environment€at€theÏtrial,€due€to€all€this,€was€certainly€not€ideal.€€Nonetheless,€the€trial€court€tookÏmeasures€to€reduce€any€prejudicial€effect.€€The€defendants€wore€certainÏclothes,€their€hands€were€free,€and€measures€were€taken€to€hide€from€theÏjury€the€shackles€on€their€feet.€€Moreover,€Morgan€County,€with€two€stateÐ ²95; Ðprison€facilities€in€1986,€is€more€likely€than€other€counties€to€be€desensitizedÏto€a€possibly€coercive€atmosphere.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓÓÌà ` àà ¸ àBefore€introducing€the€homemade€knives€into€evidence,€General€HarveyÏplaced€them€on€the€defense€table€so€that€defense€counsel€would€have€an€opportunity€toÏexamine€the€knives.€€This€was€done€even€though€defense€counsel€had€been€instructed€toÏonly€use€felt€tip€pens,€not€pencils,€so€that€the€defendants€could€not€use€the€pencils€asÏweapons€in€taking€hostages.€€Appman€testified€that€he€reacted€by€jerking€away€from€theÏtable€because€he€was€afraid€of€becoming€a€hostage.€€According€to€Appman,€it€was€a€tenseÏmoment€in€the€courtroom.€€Being€startled,€Appman€did€not€make€a€motion€for€a€mistrial€orÏraise€the€issue€at€that€time.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àJudge€Eblen€testified€that€it€is€common€practice€for€lawyers€to€approachÏopposing€counsel€and€present€an€exhibit€before€it€is€introduced€into€evidence.€€When€theÏprosecutor€placed€the€homemade€knives€on€the€defense€table,€Judge€Eblen€saw€AppmanÏjump,€and€he€heard€an€officer€pull€a€gun,€although€he€did€not€see€any€guns€drawn.€ÏAccording€to€Judge€Eblen,€the€courtroom€quickly€quieted€down,€and€the€jury€seemed€to€getÏa€ð ðsmileðð€out€of€the€incident.€€Judge€Eblen€believed€that€he€told€the€prosecutor€not€to€do€itÏagain.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€post„conviction€court€accredited€the€testimony€of€Judge€Eblen€on€thisÏissue:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àMoreover,€Judge€Eblen€testified€that€this€was€really€ð ðnot€a€big€event€inÏMorgan€Countyðð€and€that€the€ð ðofficers€were€not€overly€conspicuous.ðð€€WhileÏJudge€Eblen€expressed€some€concern€about€the€incident€wherein€anÏassistant€district€attorney€general€placed€several€knives€at€the€table€occupiedÏby€the€defendants€and€their€counsel,€John€Appman€reacted€with€someÏsurprise.€€The€record€demonstrates,€however,€that€there€were€curativeÏinstructions.€€It€was€Judge€Eblenððs€opinion€that€the€incident€did€not€affect€theÏresults€of€the€trial.€€This€court€accredits€that€account.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ%ˆÓÌà ` àà ¸ àRegarding€the€placing€of€knives€on€defense€table,€the€post„conviction€courtÏproperly€held€that€the€issue€has€been€previously€determined.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„112(a)Ð Ì84: Ð(1990).€€In€fact,€Jones€was€called€to€testify€about€the€courtroom€security€at€the€hearing€onÏthe€motions€for€new€trial.€€Jones,€who€was€in€charge€of€courtroom€security,€testified€thatÏthere€were€ten€to€fourteen€guards€in€the€courtroom,€some€of€whom€were€in€civilian€clothes.ÏWhile€some€of€the€guards€had€pistols,€no€one€in€the€courtroom€had€a€shotgun.€€When€theÏknives€were€placed€on€the€ñR+ñœñR+ñtable,ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€the€officers€ñR+ñœñR+ñin€the€courtroom€reachedñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€for€their€guns,Ïhowever,€no€pistols€were€ñR+ñœñR+ñdrawn.ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€€On€direct€appeal,€the€Supreme€Court€ruled:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€defendant€also€alleges€prosecutorial€misconduct€by€the€Assistant€DistrictÏAttorney€General.€€A€knife,€identified€by€State's€witness€James€WorthingtonÏas€a€weapon€found€in€Estep's€cell€after€the€murder,€was€placed€on€theÏdefense€table€for€inspection€by€counsel€before€passing€it€to€the€jury.€€SeeingÏthe€knife€within€reach€of€the€defendants,€a€number€of€the€correctional€officersÏin€the€courtroom€responded€by€reaching€for€their€weapons.€€Defendant€insistsÏthat€the€reactions€by€the€guards€prejudiced€him€and€deprived€him€of€theÏ"physical€indicia€of€innocence."€€After€the€incident,€the€court€instructed€theÏState€to€have€defense€counsel€examine€the€weapons€at€the€State's€table.€ÏThe€jury€knew€that€the€defendants€were€inmates€and€it€probably€came€as€noÏsurprise€to€the€jurors€that€they€would€be€closely€watched€and€guarded.€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that€only€one€such€incident€occurred.€€We€do€not€find€that€thisÏincident€could€have€so€prejudiced€the€defendant€as€to€deny€him€a€fair€trial.€ÏWe€find€no€reversible€error.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓöÓÌòòState€v.€Suttonóó,€761€S.W.2d€763,€769.Ð Š Ú ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àFurthermore,€as€held€by€the€post„conviction€court,€all€other€claims€regardingÏexcessive€security€in€the€courtroom€were€waived€by€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€raise€themÏpreviously.€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1)€(1990).€€ñR+ñœñR+ñFinally,ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€hisÏburden€to€show€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€regarding€this€issue.€€As€stated€earlier,Ïon€appeal€from€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€the€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€made€by€the€trial€court€are€given€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€this€Court€is€boundÏby€those€findings€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€otherwise.€ÏòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899.€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnessesÐ ¶0,1 Ðand€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony€are€for€resolution€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBlackÐ ‚2Ò-3 Ðv.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755.Ð N4ž/5 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€post„conviction€court€accredited€the€testimony€ofÏJudge€Eblen€regarding€whether€the€security€was€excessive€or€prejudicial€at€the€petitionerððsÐ ²95; Ðtrial.€€Having€reviewed€the€record,€we€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthis€finding,€and€thus,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€prejudice.€€òòStrickland€v.Ð |Ì ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2067.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð H˜ ÐÌà@WWDàò òIV.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óˆÐ à 0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€raises€several€issues€regarding€the€effectiveness€of€defenseÏcounsel€pre„trial,€at€trial,€post„trial,€and€on€direct€appeal.ò ò€€ó óWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post„Ð P   Ðconviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€must€first€establishÏthat€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€was€below€"the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936.€€Second,Ð À Ðhe€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€"actually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€the€defense."€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2067€(1984).€€There€mustÐ X¨ Ðbe€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counselððs€error,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€wouldÏhave€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068;€òòBestÐ ð@ Ðv.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Should€the€petitioner€fail€toÐ ¼  Ðestablish€either€factor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€ÌÌà@DàñR+ñœñR+ñò ò(A)ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€€ñR+ñœñR+ñFailure€to€FileñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€ñR+ñœñR+ña€MotionñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€to€Strike€ð ðLawful€Custodyðð€Aggravating€Circumstanceó óˆÐ  %p $ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€research,Ïinvestigate,€and/or€file€a€motion€seeking€to€strike€the€aggravating€circumstance€that€theÏpetitioner€was€in€lawful€custody€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Despite€defense€counselððs€self„¼defense€theory€that€the€victimððs€death€threats€had€to€be€taken€seriously€because€the€prisonÏwas€so€dangerous€and€there€was€no€place€where€inmates€were€safe,€counsel€failed€toÏinvestigate€or€challenge€the€stateððs€use€of€this€aggravating€circumstance.€€The€petitionerÏfurther€argues€that€evidence€of€prison€conditions€could€have€been€used€to€mitigate€theÏcircumstances€of€the€crime€at€both€the€guilt€and€sentencing€phases.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€denying€relief,€the€post„conviction€court€held:Ð ð8@4: ЇÓÓà8 ` àThis€ground€does€not€serve€as€a€basis€for€post„conviction€relief.€€That€theÏprison€was€less€safe€than€most€other€places€would€not€have€excused€theÏmurder.€€There€was€some€proof€at€trial€that€the€prison€had€a€dangerousÏatmosphere,€requiring€vigilance€on€the€part€of€the€inmates.€€This€court€doesÏnot€disagree.€€But€that€would€not€have€warranted€striking€this€particularÏaggravating€circumstance.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(8)(1982).€Ð . ~ ÐThus,€there€is€neither€deficiency€in€performance€on€the€part€of€trial€counselÏnor€prejudice€in€result.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ¡ÓÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€find€that€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€ÏInitially,€counsel€for€the€petitioner€investigated€the€conditions€at€the€prison.€€Every€inmateÏwho€testified€at€the€guilt€and€sentencing€phases€was€asked€questions€regarding€safety€andÏthe€meaning€of€a€threat€in€prison.€€Moreover,€defense€counsel€presented€the€testimony€ofÏCarl€Crafton,€a€long„term€inmate,€who€was€qualified€as€an€expert€on€prison€life.€€CraftonÏexplained€the€seriousness€of€a€death€threat€in€prison.€€However,€Appman€was€not€awareÏthat€the€state€of€Tennessee€had€hired€Frank€Wood€in€1985€to€perform€an€evaluation€of€theÏprison€system.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€presented€Woodððs€testimonyÏregarding€his€findings.€€As€part€of€his€evaluation,€Wood€visited€nine€institutions,€includingÏMCRCF.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBased€on€his€inspection,€Wood€found€serious€deficiencies€in€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction€(ð ðTDOCðð),€especially€regarding€overcrowding.€€Wood€found€thatÏthe€number€of€inmates€was€beyond€the€design€capacity€of€the€facilities.€€Moreover,€theÏclassification€systems€were€nonfunctional.€€Inmates€were€not€assigned€to€appropriateÏinstitutions,€and€exceptions€were€made€constantly.€€As€part€of€this€problem,€institutionsÏwere€being€used€to€house€inmates€who€were€beyond€the€classification€for€which€theÏinstitution€was€designed.€€There€was€also€an€unusually€high€volume€of€inmate€movementÏand€transfers€between€institutions.€The€violence€at€the€prisons€was€systemic,€with€a€highÏfrequency€of€assaults€on€staff€and€on€other€inmates.€€There€was€also€an€extremely€highÏturnover€among€uniformed€staff.€€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWood€noted€that€an€unusual€number€of€inmates€in€the€system€wereÏrequesting€voluntary€protective€custody.€€Because€of€the€punitive€segregation€status€andÏbecause€an€inmate€could€end€up€being€in€protective€custody€for€years,€Wood€opined€thatÐ ²95; Ðit€would€take€a€high€level€of€motivation€for€an€inmate€to€commit€himself€to€voluntaryÏsegregation€as€the€only€option€for€protecting€himself.€€Such€a€person€might€become€preyedÏupon€as€a€victim€personality€or€as€someone€who€may€not€be€able€to€handle€prison€lifeÏwithout€resorting€to€protective€custody.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€MCRCF,€Wood€found€overcrowding€and€staff€shortages.€€The€physicalÏplant€was€not€designed€to€keep€the€classification€of€inmates€that€were€there.€€Units€wereÏleft€unattended€at€different€times€during€the€day.€€In€Woodððs€opinion,€MCRCF€was€heldÏtogether€at€the€time€because€of€the€commitment€and€hard€work€of€the€warden€and€staff€toÏmaintain€a€rapport€with€the€inmate€population.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€reviewing€the€petitionerððs€files€from€TDOC,€it€was€Woodððs€opinion€that€theÏpetitioner€had€been€inappropriately€classified€based€on€his€history€of€violent€behavior.€€TheÏpetitioner€should€have€been€in€a€situation€where€there€was€adequate€staffing,€supervision,Ïcontrol,€and€accountability€for€his€behavior.€€In€Woodððs€opinion,€a€person€serving€a€lifeÏwithout€parole€sentence€should€not€be€housed€in€a€medium€security€facility.€€While€WoodÏdid€not€think€that€the€conditions€at€MCRCF€mitigated€the€petitionerððs€actions,€he€did€thinkÏthat€the€system€had€a€responsibility€to€control€inmates€like€the€petitioner€and€that€the€stateÏshould€hold€some€culpability€for€the€way€the€institution€was€managed.€€The€poorÏmanagement€put€other€inmates€in€danger€and€also€failed€to€provide€the€petitioner€with€theÏappropriate€level€of€control.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAppmanððs€theory€at€trial€was€based€on€reasonable€doubt,€but€that€if€theÏpetitioner€did€commit€the€homicide,€it€was€self„defense.€€He€testified€that€if€he€had€receivedÏWoodððs€report€on€prison€conditions,€he€could€have€shown€the€jury€that€the€tension€in€prisonÏwas€enormous€and€that€the€petitionerððs€reaction€was€normal€under€the€circumstances.€ÏMoreover,€he€could€have€shown€that€the€violence€was€not€directed€toward€the€officers,Ïwhich€would€have€been€important€because€of€the€high€number€of€people€in€Morgan€CountyÏwho€were€employed€by€TDOC.ÌÐ Ì84: Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€addition€to€Woodððs€report,€Appman€did€not€know€about€òòGrubbs€v.€Bradleyóó,Ð ° Ð552€F.Supp.€1052€(M.D.€Tenn.€1982),€in€which€the€federal€court€addressed€the€issue€ofÏprison€conditions,€including€overcrowding€and€violence,€in€TDOC.€€At€the€post„convictionÏhearing,€the€petitioner€presented€considerable€proof€on€the€conditions€in€TDOC,€however,Ïin€preparing€for€trial,€Appman€had€not€reviewed€these€materials.€€He€admitted€at€theÏhearing€that€this€information€would€have€assisted€in€the€defense€of€the€petitioner€in€that€itÏwould€have€further€explained€the€environment€in€which€the€homicide€occurred.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhile€this€additional€information€regarding€prison€conditions€would€haveÏsupported€Craftonððs€testimony,€it€would€not€have€provided€a€basis€for€striking€theÏaggravating€circumstance.€€The€petitioner€has€not€shown€that€proof€of€dangerous€prisonÏconditions€would€warrant€a€ruling€that€the€murder€did€not€occur€while€the€petitioner€was€inÏlawful€custody,€and€he€has€failed€to€show€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€or€thatÏhe€was€prejudiced.€€ÌÌà@‹‹ DàñR+ñœñR+ñò ò(B)ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€Failure€to€Prepare€for€and€Present€Evidence€at€the€Sentencing€ñR+ñœñR+ñHearingñQ+ñ.ñQ+ñó óñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñˆÐ ¤ô ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€counselððs€failure€to€conduct€any€investigation€ofÏthe€petitionerððs€medical,€family,€social,€educational,€juvenile,€military,€institutional,€or€priorÏcriminal€history,€and€defense€counselððs€decision€not€to€present€such€evidence€at€theÏsentencing€hearing€was€not€an€informed€decision,€was€facially€deficient,€and€prejudiced€theÏpetitioner.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€death€penalty€cases,€the€sentencer€may€not€be€precluded€from€consideringÏany€aspect€of€a€defendantððs€character€or€record€as€a€basis€for€a€sentence€less€than€death.€ÏòòLockett€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€604„05,€98€S.Ct.€2954,€2964„65,€57€L.Ed.2d€973€(1978)Ð ¨1ø,2 Ð(plurality€opinion);€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJohnson€v.€Texasóó,€509€U.S.€350,€361,€113€S.Ct.€2658,€2666,Ð t3Ä.4 Ð125€L.Ed.2d€290€(1993).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€mitigatingÏevidence€is€relevant€to€sentencing€hearings€and€should€be€heard.€€òòSeeóó€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,Ð  7\28 Ð479€U.S.€538,€541,€107€S.Ct.€837,€839,€93€L.Ed.2d€934€(1987);€òòEddings€v.€Oklahomaóó,€455Ð Ø8(4: ÐU.S.€104,€113„15,€102€S.Ct.€869,€876„77,€71€L.Ed.2d€1€(1982).€€ð ðEvidence€about€theÏdefendantððs€background€and€character€is€relevant€because€of€the€belief€.€.€.€that€defendantsÏwho€commit€criminal€acts€that€are€attributable€to€a€disadvantaged€background,€or€toÏemotional€and€mental€problems€may€be€less€culpable€than€defendants€who€have€no€suchÏexcuse.ðððð€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,Ð à 0 Ð479€U.S.€538,€544,€107€S.Ct.€at€841).€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThere€is€no€legal€requirement€and€no€established€practice€that€the€accusedÏmust€offer€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2dÐ ` Ð417,€421€(Tenn.€1989).€€In€fact,€in€many€death€penalty€cases,€counsel€has€properly€seenÏfit€not€to€offer€any€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase.€€òòIdóó.€at€421€(citations€omitted).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àHowever,€ð ð[a]€strategy€of€silence€may€be€adopted€only€after€a€reasonableÏinvestigation€for€mitigating€evidence€or€a€reasonable€decision€that€an€investigation€wouldÏbe€fruitless."€€òòTafero€v.€Wainwrightóó,€796€F.2d€1314,€1320€(11th€Cir.1986).€€Courts€haveÐ Ø( Ðheld€counsel's€representation€beneath€professionally€competent€standards€whenÏsentencing€counsel€did€not€conduct€enough€investigation€to€formulate€an€"accurate€lifeÏprofile"€of€a€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Herringóó,€42€F.3d€1350,€1367€(11th€Cir.€1995).Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€the€Supreme€Court€set€forth€the€followingÐ Ô&$"& Ðfactors€to€consider€in€determining€whether€the€petitioner€was€prejudiced€by€counselððsÏdeficiencies:€€(1)€the€nature€and€extent€of€available€mitigating€proof€that€was€not€presented,Ï(2)€whether€substantially€similar€mitigating€proof€was€otherwise€presented€to€the€jury,€andÏ(3)€whether€there€was€strong€evidence€of€aggravating€factors€so€that€ð ðthe€mitigatingÏevidence€would€not€have€affected€the€juryððs€determination.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€371.€€Ð Ð/ +0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThese€factors€were€applied€in€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572€(Tenn.€1997),Ð h3¸.4 Ðòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€119€S.Ct.€82,€142€L.Ed.2d€64€(1998),€where€the€defendant€wasÐ 45„06 Ðconvicted€of€aggravated€arson€and€two€counts€of€premeditated€murder.€€ð ðAt€trial€HenleyÏmaintained€his€innocence€and€attempted€to€discredit€the€prosecutionððs€evidence.ðð€€òòHenleyóó,Ð Ì84: Ð960€S.W.2d€at€574.€€At€the€penalty€phase,€the€defense€called€the€defendantððs€mother€toÏthe€stand.€€In€the€presence€of€the€jury,€she€disrupted€her€own€testimony€by€announcing€thatÏshe€wanted€ð ðto€talk€toðð€defense€counsel.€€A€recess€was€had,€followed€by€the€defenseÏresuming€its€proof€by€calling€the€defendantððs€grandmother,€without€explaining€the€failureÏof€the€defendantððs€mother€to€return€to€the€stand.€€The€grandmother€testified€to€variousÏattributes€of€the€defendant,€and€the€defendant€himself€testified€about€a€financial€reversalÏthat€caused€him€to€lose€his€grandfatherððs€farm.€€òòIdóó.€at€575„76.€€The€jury€sentenced€theÐ xÈ  Ðdefendant€to€death,€based€upon€finding€one€aggravating€factor€in€each€homicide,€that€eachÏmurder€was€ð ðððespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravityÏof€mind.ðððð€òòIdóó.€at€576;€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€ñR+ñœñR+ñ39„2„203(ñR+ñiñR+ññR+ñIñR+ñ)(5)€(repealed€1989).ñR+ñ›ñR+ñ€€In€his€post„convictionÐ Ü, Ðproceeding,€Henley€alleged€his€counsel€failed€to€investigate€and€prepare€for€the€sentencingÏhearing,€including€the€claims€that€counsel€failed€to€investigate€his€mental€condition€andÏrequest€an€appropriate€evaluation.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àHenley€presented€two€expert€witnesses€at€the€post„conviction€hearing:€(1)€anÏattorney,€who€testified€that€trial€counsel€should€have€used€a€psychologist€to€assist€inÏdetermining€if€mitigating€proof€might€be€feasible;€and€(2)€a€psychiatrist,€who€interviewedÏHenley€and€testified€that,€at€the€time€of€the€offenses,€he€suffered€from€depression€and€mayÏhave€been€ð ðððself„medicatingðð€by€using€alcohol€and€drugs.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€577.€€This€latter€witnessÐ %X $ Ðalso€found€that€Henley€may€have€had€a€learning€disability€which€may€have€beenÏresponsible€for€his€failure€at€farming€which,€in€turn,€caused€his€depression.€€òòIdóó.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€addressing€the€prejudice€issue€first,€òòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€668,€697,€104Ð 8,ˆ', ÐS.Ct.€2052,€2069,€the€Supreme€Court€found€that€any€failure€of€counsel€to€call€as€witnessesÏfamily€members,€some€of€whom€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€about€the€positiveÏattributes€of€the€defendant,€was€not€prejudicial.€€Utilizing€the€first€and€second€prongs€of€theÏthree„prong€test€provided€in€òòGoadóó,€the€Court€noted€that€the€proposed€evidence€not€onlyÐ h3¸.4 Ðduplicated€but€perhaps,€due€to€its€nature,€would€have€diminished€the€poignant€testimonyÏof€Henleyððs€grandmother.€€Further,€regarding€the€nature€of€the€proposed€testimony,€theÏCourt€acknowledged€the€principle€of€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€544,€107€S.Ct.€837,Ð Ì84: Ð841,€that€a€disadvantaged€background€is€often€a€proper€source€of€mitigating€evidence€butÏexpressed€concern€about€the€quality€of€witnesses€having€a€limited€relationship€with€HenleyÏor€having€personal€knowledge€about€his€drug€use€at€the€time€of€the€crimes.€€At€thisÏjuncture,€the€Court€declared€that€ð ð[a]ppellate€courts€must€consider€the€quality€of€theÏproposed€testimony€rather€than€the€quantity€of€witnesses€when€determining€whetherÏprejudice€has€been€established.ðð€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€582.€€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€to€the€third€prong,€the€òòHenleyóó€court€observed€that€the€proof€of€theÐ D”  Ðaggravating€circumstance€was€strong.€€òòIdóó.€€The€defendant€killed€an€elderly€couple.€€He€shotÐ ` Ðthem€several€times€and€then€burned€them€by€setting€fire€to€their€house.€€The€Court€foundÏample€support€for€the€single€aggravating€circumstance€that€the€crime€was€especiallyÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,€involving€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€òòIdóó.€€€€€€€€€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àLike€in€òòHenleyóó,€this€Court€has€addressed€the€prejudice€issue€first,€òòseeóóÐ  \ ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€663,€697,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2069,€and€we€find€that€the€petitioner€hasÐ Ø( Ðfailed€to€show€prejudice.€€Thus,€there€is€no€need€to€evaluate€whether€counselððsÏperformance€was€deficient.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð p!À  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Appman€testified€that€he€presented€all€theÏmitigating€proof€available€to€him€at€the€time.€€In€preparing€for€the€sentencing€hearing,€heÏobtained€Estepððs€prison€file€and€spoke€with€either€Estepððs€mother€or€wife,€as€well€as€theÏattorney€representing€them€in€a€victim€compensation€law€suit.€€He€also€spoke€with€Dr.€DougÏYoung€with€the€York€Institute,€who€had€previously€been€in€charge€of€the€educationalÏprograms€at€Lake€County€Correctional€facility.€€Based€on€his€review€of€the€petitionerððsÏvisitor€records€at€the€prison,€Appman€interviewed€the€Burchett€family€and€had€them€testifyÏto€show€that€the€petitioner€could€relate€to€credible€people€in€a€meaningful€way.€€In€addition,ÏAppman€presented€proof€that€the€victim€had€been€a€child€molester,€and€ñR+ñœñR+ñCraftonñR+ñ›ñR+ñ€ñR+ñœñR+ñhadÏtestified€at€trial€thatñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€the€environment€within€the€prison€was€different€from€the€free€world€andÏthat€when€a€threat€was€made,€an€inmate€could€not€move€out€or€call€on€law€enforcement€toÏprotect€him.€Ð Ì84: Їà ` àà ¸ àAppman€obtained€the€petitionerððs€TDOC€records,€but€he€did€not€attempt€toÏget€school€or€juvenile€records€or€the€transcript€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€for€killing€hisÏgrandmother.€€While€Appman€might€have€discussed€with€the€petitioner€his€military€record,Ïhe€did€not€attempt€to€obtain€it.€€Appman€filed€a€motion€requesting€the€services€of€aÏpsychiatrist,€but€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€The€trial€court€offered€to€have€theÏpetitioner€evaluated€by€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Mental€Health,€however,€counselÏdeclined€this€invitation.€€He€did€not€seek€funds€for€a€mitigation€or€sentencing€expert.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àUnder€the€three€factors€set€forth€in€òòGoadóó,€we€must€first€look€at€the€ð ðnatureÐ ` Ðand€extent€of€the€mitigating€evidence€that€was€available€but€not€presented.ðð€€òòGoadóó,€938Ð Ü, ÐS.W.2d€363,€371.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€presented€testimony€of€twoÏfriends€who€knew€him€in€middle€school€and€high€school.€€Both€would€have€been€availableÏand€willing€to€testify€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€He€also€presented€the€testimony€of€aÏdeputy€at€the€Hamblen€County€Jail€who€indicated€that€the€petitioner€probably€saved€his€lifeÏin€1978€when€he€was€trying€to€break€up€a€fight€between€two€other€inmates.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDr.€Gillian€Blair,€a€licensed€clinical€psychologist,€testified€on€behalf€of€theÏpetitioner€regarding€the€existence€of€factors€which€might€have€been€presented€as€mitigatingÏevidence€at€the€sentencing€phase.€€Blair€concluded€that€the€petitioner€was€raised€in€anÏunstable,€often€violent€and€threatening€home€life€where€the€supervision€and€structure€wereÏinadequate.€€He€was€exposed€as€a€child€to€intermittent€explosive€violence€from€his€father,Ïwho€was€seriously€mentally€ill€and€was€hospitalized€extensively€at€a€psychiatric€hospitalÏbetween€1969€to€1976.€€In€1973,€there€was€a€restraining€order€against€the€father€after€heÏheld€his€mother€and€the€petitioner€at€gun€point€and€had€a€standoff€with€the€police.€€InÏcontrast,€when€the€petitionerððs€father€was€not€being€violent,€he€would€be€overindulgent€andÏencourage€inappropriate€behavior.€€In€1977,€the€petitionerððs€father€died€of€hypothermia€andÏexposure.€€The€death€certificate€indicated€that€alcohol€abuse€was€a€contributing€factor€inÏhis€death.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFrom€the€time€of€his€incarceration€at€age€18,€the€threatening€environment€thatÐ Ì84: Ðthe€petitioner€had€endured€as€a€child€was€present€in€TDOC.€€The€prison€offered€littleÏstructure€or€predictability.€€The€petitioner€had€to€be€hyper„vigilant,€and€this€was€exacerbatedÏby€the€fact€that€a€number€of€inmates€had€access€to€weapons€and€that€there€were€a€numberÏof€assaults€in€prison.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€a€child,€the€petitioner€suffered€multiple€abandonments€and€losses.€ÏSpecifically,€his€mother€abandoned€him€before€the€age€of€one,€he€essentially€lost€his€fatherÏto€mental€illness,€and€ultimately€he€suffered€the€death€of€his€father.€€Moreover,€theÏcircumstances€of€his€fatherððs€death€were€never€explained€to€him.€€The€petitioner€alsoÏsuffered€the€loss€of€his€grandfather€at€the€age€of€7€or€8,€and€the€separation€from€hisÏmaternal€grandparents€at€the€age€of€2.€€He€was€essentially€raised€by€his€paternalÏgrandmother,€who€was€a€school€teacher.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€has€an€extensive€drug€history.€€By€the€time€he€was€anÏadolescent,€ñR+ñœñR+ñheñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€was€using€a€wide€variety€of€drugs.€€The€petitioner€admitted€the€he€had€dealtÏdrugs€extensively€as€well,€to€provide€a€means€of€obtaining€his€own€drugs€and€to€provideÏhimself€some€money.€€ñR+ñœñR+ñHisñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€lack€of€internal€controls€was€exacerbated€by€ñR+ñœñR+ñhisñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€ñR+ñœñR+ñdrugñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€ñR+ñœñR+ñuse.ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñÌÌà ` àà ¸ àEventually,€the€petitionerððs€juvenile€problems€and€drug€abuse€led€to€him€beingÏsent€to€Knoxville€to€live€with€his€aunt€and€attend€high€school.€€While€he€failed€someÏclasses,€he€did€not€fail€a€grade.€€He€eventually€dropped€out€of€high€school€during€theÏeleventh€grade.€€In€1978,€the€petitioner€received€his€GED€at€a€community€college.€€At€ageÏ17,€the€petitioner€joined€the€Navy€from€November€to€December€of€1978.€€He€received€anÏhonorable€discharge,€however,€the€records€indicate€that€he€was€unable€to€adjust€to€militaryÏlife.€€The€petitioner€was€described€as€being€overwhelmed€by€the€training€and€unable€toÏadjust€to€the€emotional€pressure.€€According€to€the€records,€the€petitionerððs€attitude€towardÏauthority€was€respectful.€€Thereafter,€the€petitioner€was€incarcerated€at€the€age€of€18€andÏhas€been€incarcerated€continually€since€that€time.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€medical€records€were€limited.€€He€was€shot€in€the€eye€at€theÐ Ì84: Ðage€of€9.€€He€had€several€head€injuries€which€lead€to€a€loss€of€consciousness.€€One€suchÏincident€involved€a€motorcycle€accident€when€the€petitioner€was€12.€€The€petitioner€alsoÏsuffered€sporting€accidents€at€age€13€and€15.€€In€addition,€the€petitioner€was€shot€in€theÏknee€at€the€age€of€16.€€There€is€no€record€of€the€petitioner€having€any€psychiatric€historyÏor€treatment€before€entering€TDOC.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAccording€to€Blair,€the€TDOC€records€indicated€that€if€kept€in€a€safe€andÏstructured€environment,€the€petitioner€is€well„adjusted,€presents€no€management€problems,Ïand€is€not€violent.€€Blair€admitted€that€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€her€profession€felt€that€it€wasÏdifficult€to€predict€future€dangerousness€and€that€the€key€indicator€was€a€past€history€ofÏviolence.€€She€further€admitted€that€this€factor€would€not€have€weighed€in€favor€of€theÏpetitioner.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBlair€concluded€that€the€cumulative€data,€social€history,€interview,€and€testÏresults€supported€personality€traits€that€would€have€rendered€the€petitioner€vulnerable€toÏprevailing€conditions€in€TDOC€during€the€early€1980s.€€Those€conditions€included€anÏunstable,€violent,€and€threatening€environment,€where€supervision€and€structure€wereÏinadequate€to€the€ñR+ñœñR+ñnumberñR+ñ›ñR+ñ€of€inmates.€€She€did€not€find€any€sign€of€cognitive€impairmentÏor€organic€process.€€Nor€did€Blair€find€any€suggestion€of€thought€disorder€or€any€type€ofÏpsychosis.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBlairððs€primary€diagnosis€was€that€the€petitioner€has€an€Axis€II€personalityÏdisorder.€€Tension€consistent€with€an€underlying€anxiety€disorder€was€also€evident.€ÏAccording€to€Blair,€individuals€with€these€profiles€tend€to€be€blunt,€self„critical,€and€haveÏinadequate€defense€mechanisms.€€The€observed€clinical€profile€was€consistent€with€aÏpattern€of€chronic€maladjustment.€€These€individuals€tend€to€be€suspicious,€alienated,€self„¼indulgent,€and€narcissistic,€with€immature,€manipulative,€and€somewhat€aggressiveÏbehaviors.€€Blair€agreed€with€a€previous€diagnosis€of€antisocial€personality€disorder.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€rebuttal,€the€state€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Theodore€H.€Blau,€aÐ Ì84: Ðclinical€psychologist€from€Tampa,€Florida.€€Rather€than€conduct€his€own€mental€tests€orÏevaluations€on€the€petitioner,€Blau€based€his€opinion€on€the€psychological€evaluationÏperformed€by€Blair,€which€he€described€as€excellent.€€Although€he€admitted€that€it€wasÏdifficult€to€evaluate€someoneððs€mental€ñR+ñœñR+ñstatusñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€from€11€years€earlier,€Blau€made€four€basicÏconclusions€based€on€his€review€and€evaluation€of€the€petitioner.€€First,€Blau€found€noÏindications€that€the€petitioner,€in€January€1985,€suffered€a€mental€disease€or€defect€whichÏwould€cause€him€to€lack€an€understanding€of€the€wrongfulness€of€his€act€or€to€prevent€himÏfrom€conforming€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€Second,€Blau€found€no€indications€thatÏthe€petitioner,€in€January€1985,€suffered€a€mental€disease€or€defect€which€substantiallyÏaffected€his€intellect€or€judgment.€€Third,€Blau€found€no€indications€that€the€prisonÏconditions€in€January€1985€caused€or€exacerbated€a€mental€disease€or€defect€in€theÏpetitioner.€€Finally,€Blau€found€nothing€in€the€record€or€in€the€research€reviewed€to€suggestÏthat€prison€conditions€gave€the€petitioner€no€alternative€other€than€to€protect€himself€withÏa€ð ðpreemptive€strikeðð€by€murdering€the€victim.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€the€petitioner€testified€on€his€own€behalf€at€the€hearing.€€He€wantedÏto€testify€at€the€trial€and€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€however,€Appman€convinced€him€thatÏtestifying€would€not€be€in€his€best€ñR+ñœñR+ñinterestñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€based€on€his€past€convictions.€€In€addition€to€theÏinformation€given€by€Blair€about€his€personal€history,€the€petitioner€testified€at€the€hearingÏthat€he€loved€his€father,€although€his€fatherððs€mental€illness€made€him€unreliable€at€times.€Ï€His€father€would€sometimes€make€the€petitioner€believe€that€his€birth€was€a€factor€in€hisÏparentsðð€divorce.€€In€attempting€to€get€his€fatherððs€attention,€the€petitioner€tried€to€excel€inÏsports,€however,€his€father€did€not€attend€many€sporting€events.€€When€his€father€wouldÏreturn€home€from€the€psychiatric€hospital,€the€petitioner€would€see€an€improvement.€ÏHowever,€soon€the€pattern€of€behavior€would€repeat€itself,€and€his€father€would€return€toÏthe€hospital.€€Because€of€his€fatherððs€inconsistent€presence€in€his€life,€the€petitioner€feltÏinsecure.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€paternal€grandmother€was€the€only€stable€individual€in€his€life.€ÏHe€knew€that€his€grandmother€would€provide€for€him.€€When€he€was€young,€the€petitionerÐ Ì84: Ðfelt€like€a€burden€to€his€grandmother.€€She€did€not€display€emotion€or€physical€affection,Ïand€he€felt€unloved.€€As€a€teenager,€the€petitioner€had€no€supervision.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€age€of€15,€the€petitioner€was€deeply€impacted€by€the€death€of€hisÏfather.€€All€hope€that€his€father€would€become€well€and€share€a€normal€relationship€with€himÏwas€taken€away.€€His€grandmother€gave€him€a€car€at€the€age€of€16,€and€this€increased€hisÏaccess€to€drugs€and€to€people€with€similar€interests.€€The€petitioner€turned€heavily€to€drugsÏand€alcohol€to€deal€with€the€hurt€over€his€fatherððs€death,€and€he€lost€interest€in€school€andÏsports.€€His€drug€use€became€heavier,€and€he€started€selling€drugs.€€Drug€dealingÏdominated€his€life€and€pulled€him€away€from€his€old€friends.€€By€the€time€he€was€18,€theÏpetitioner€had€a€cocaine€habit.€€In€the€Fall€of€1979,€the€petitioner€moved€back€to€MorristownÏto€live€with€his€grandmother.€€He€admitted€that€during€this€time,€he€was€doing€more€drugsÏthan€any€other€time€in€his€life.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€he€killed€hisÏgrandmother€and€that€he€had€lied€about€it€at€the€trial.€€At€the€time,€lying€made€it€easier€toÏaccept€his€grandmotherððs€death€and€his€involvement.€€Moreover,€he€had€not€wanted€toÏaccept€punishment.€€When€interviewed€by€Blair,€the€petitioner€lied€about€killing€hisÏgrandmother.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€to€the€circumstances€of€Estepððs€murder,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€andÏFreeman€bought€a€$50€bag€of€marijuana€from€Estep.€€The€marijuana€was€low€quality,€soÏthe€petitioner€took€it€back€and€demanded€his€money.€€Estep,€who€was€insulting,€would€notÏreturn€the€money.€€At€a€later€time,€Freeman€and€the€petitioner€went€to€Estepððs€room€toÏdemand€the€money.€€The€petitioner€threw€the€marijuana€on€Estepððs€bed€and€asked€for€theÏmoney.€€There€was€a€fight,€and€the€petitioner€took€Estepððs€watch,€saying€that€he€would€getÏit€back€when€he€gave€them€the€$50.€€Later€that€day,€the€petitioner€received€word€that€EstepÏwas€intending€to€kill€him€and€was€making€open€threats.€€While€the€petitioner€sent€EstepÏseveral€messages€saying€that€he€wanted€to€drop€the€matter,€it€was€to€no€avail.€€In€order€toÏprotect€himself,€the€petitioner€obtained€a€knife.€€In€the€dining€hall,€the€petitioner€saw€thatÐ Ì84: ÐEstep€had€a€knife€in€his€hands€under€his€dinner€tray.€€The€petitioner€stood€up€and€EstepÏwalked€to€the€opposite€side€of€the€room.€€This€incident€lead€the€petitioner€to€believe€thatÏEstep€was€serious€about€killing€him,€however,€he€did€not€check€himself€into€protectiveÏcustody€because€he€would€have€lost€his€privileges€and€it€would€have€given€him€a€reputationÏas€someone€who€could€not€handle€his€own€problems.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€the€day€of€the€murder,€the€petitioner€and€Freeman€entered€Guild€5€asÏsoon€as€the€officer€left.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€Street€was€not€involved.€€Only€two€orÏthree€inmates€were€sitting€at€a€table€in€the€back€of€the€guild.€€The€petitioner€went€intoÏEstepððs€room,€and€Freeman€kept€watch€outside€the€cell.€€The€petitioner€had€placed€aÏmagazine€underneath€his€shirt€with€an€ace€bandage€wrapped€around€it€as€body€armor,€andÏhis€knife€was€in€his€waistband.€€The€petitioner€made€one€last€attempt€at€making€peace,€butÏEstep€threw€coffee€in€his€face.€€After€that,€there€was€a€struggle.€€When€the€petitioner€wasÏable€to€free€himself,€he€got€out€the€knife€and€began€stabbing€Estep.€€Eventually,€theÏpetitioner€called€Freeman€for€help.€€Freeman€came€into€the€cell€and€helped€the€petitionerÏstab€Estep.€€When€Estep€finally€quit€struggling,€the€petitioner€washed€the€knives€in€the€toiletÏand€put€them€under€the€bed.€€He€then€washed€his€face,€and€the€two€left.€€The€petitionerÏwent€to€his€room,€took€off€his€clothes,€and€placed€them€in€a€garbage€bag,€which€he€placedÏnear€the€front€door€for€pick€up.€€He€then€took€a€shower€to€wash€off€the€blood.€€TheÏpetitioner€claimed€that€he€killed€Estep€in€self€defense.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€reviewing€the€ð ðquality€of€the€proposed€testimony,ðð€òòseeóó€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2dÐ l*¼%* Ð572,€582,€it€would€have€been€proper€proof€at€a€sentencing€hearing.€€As€in€òòHenleyóó,€however,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðthe€evidence€does€not€reveal€a€ð ðdisadvantaged€background,ðð€nor€does€it€suggestÏð ðemotional€and€mental€problems€[that€make€the€defendant]€less€culpable€than€defendantsÏwho€have€no€such€excuse.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€479€U.S.€at€544,€107€S.€Ct.€at€841.€€As€notedÐ œ1ì,2 Ðabove,€the€asserted€mitigating€factor€in€òòGoadóó€was€a€recognized€mental€illness,€whereasÐ h3¸.4 Ðin€the€present€case,€the€clinical€psychologist€diagnosed€the€petitioner€with€a€personalityÏdisorder.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Alvin€Robinson,€Jr.óó,€No.€02C01„9608„CR„00280,€slip€op.€at€9€(Tenn.Ð 7P28 ÐCrim.€App.,€filed€at€Jackson,€Dec.€3,€1997)€(For€purposes€of€defeating€premeditation€andÐ Ì84: Ðreducing€first„degree€murder€to€a€lesser€grade,€ð ð[t]estimony€that€a€defendant€suffers€fromÏa€personality€disorder,€rather€than€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€fails€to€establish€diminishedÏcapacity.ðð),€òòremandedóó€òòonóó€òòotheróó€òògroundsóó,€(Tenn.€Nov.€9,€1998);€òòseeóó€òòalso€Stricklandóó,€466Ð H˜ ÐU.S.€668,€700,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2071€(ð ðconsiderable€emotional€stress€that€did€not€rise€to€theÏlevel€of€extreme€disturbanceðð€not€sufficient€in€the€face€of€strong€aggravating€factors€toÏdemonstrate€a€probability€that€the€use€of€the€evidence€would€have€changed€the€outcome).€ÏÌà ` àà ¸ àIndeed,€the€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€showed€little€positive€orÏredeeming€evidence,€with€the€exception€of€the€deputy€with€the€Hamblen€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment€who€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€probably€saved€his€life.€€òòSeeóó€òòGrosecloseÐ Ü, Ðv.€Bellóó,€130€F.3d€1161,€1170„71€(6th€Cir.€1997)(At€capital€sentencing€hearing,€counselÐ ¨ø Ðfailed€to€use€proof€that€defendant€had€no€criminal€record,€was€active€in€church,€€had€aÏpositive€record€of€military€service,€and€had€plethora€of€family€members€willing€to€testify€onÏhis€behalf),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€___€U.S.€___,€118€S.Ct.€1826,€140€L.Ed.2d€962€(1998).Ð  \ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àMoreover,€some€of€the€proposed€testimony€would€have€been€damaging€toÏthe€defense.€€Specifically,€by€delving€into€the€petitionerððs€background,€defense€counselÏwould€have€necessarily€had€to€consider€the€daunting€prospect€that€such€proposedÏevidence€would€have€invited€cross„examination€or€rebuttal€to€show€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€two€murders€committed€in€North€Carolina€and€the€murder€of€hisÏgrandmother.€€The€petitionerððs€grandmother,€who€was€a€school€teacher,€had€adopted€andÏraised€the€petitioner,€provided€for€his€material€needs,€and€protected€him€from€his€fatherððsÏpsychotic€outbursts€of€violence.€€It€was€when€the€grandmother€discovered€the€prior€murdersÏthat€the€petitioner€beat€her€to€death.€€òòSeeóó€òòRickman€v.€Bellóó,€131€F.3d€1150,€1157€(6th€Cir.Ð .T). Ð1997)€(finding€deficient€counselððs€performance€where€he€ð ðsucceeded€in€creating€aÏloathsome€image€for€Rickman€„„€one€that€would€make€a€juror€feel€compelled€to€rid€the€worldÏof€himðð).€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€to€the€second€factor€offered€in€òòGoadóó,€whether€evidence€similar€to€theÐ 7P28 Ðproposed€evidence€had€already€been€heard€by€the€jury,€Appman€presented€proof€of€theÐ Ì84: Ðprison€conditions€throughout€the€trial€and€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Also,€proof€of€theÏpetitioner€having€a€relationship€with€normal,€law„abiding€citizens€was€shown€through€theÏtestimony€of€the€Burchetts.€€However,€no€proof€regarding€the€petitionerððs€personal€andÏfamily€background€or€history€was€presented€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Again,€asÏpreviously€stated,€such€proof€would€have€potentially€opened€the€door€to€quite€damagingÏtestimony.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€third€òòGoadóó€factor,€the€competing€strength€of€the€aggravating€factors,Ð D”  Ðfurther€illustrates€that€any€deficient€performance€was€not€prejudicial.€€òòSeeóóòòHenleyóó,€960Ð ` ÐS.W.2d€572,€582.€€Here,€the€jury€found€three€aggravating€circumstances€which€wereÏsupported€by€the€proof.€€Specifically,€the€jury€found€that€the€petitioner€had€a€prior€convictionÏfor€a€felony€involving€violence,€T.C.A.€ðð€ñR+ñœñR+ñ39„2„203(ñR+ñiñR+ññR+ñIñR+ñ)(2)€(repealedñR+ñ›ñR+ñ€1989),€which€is€anÏaggravating€circumstance€that€is€ð ðmore€qualitatively€persuasive€and€objectively€reliable€thanÏothers.ðð€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€261€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€the€present€case,€theÐ  \ Ðstate€chose€to€only€present€proof€of€one€of€the€petitionerððs€three€prior€murder€convictionsÏto€support€this€aggravating€circumstance.€€Moreover,€the€other€two€aggravatingÏcircumstances,€the€murder€was€committed€while€the€petitioner€was€in€lawful€custody€andÏthe€murder€was€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€and€ñR+ñœñR+ñ(8)€(repealedñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñÏ1989),€are€supported€by€the€proof.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€761€S.W.2d€763,€767.Ð %X $ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àBased€on€the€application€of€the€factors€set€forth€in€òòGoadóó,€the€Court€finds€thatÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€prejudicial€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€in€preparingÏfor€and€conducting€further€mitigation€defense€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€ÌÌà@ DàñR+ñœñR+ñò òñR+ñ(C)›ñR+ññR+ñððñR+ñ€€Failure€to€Support€Motion€for€Psychological€Evaluationó óˆÐ Ð/ +0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€argues€that€counselððs€failure€to€support€his€motion€for€aÏpsychological€evaluation,€to€pursue€the€psychological€evaluation,€or€to€present€evidenceÏat€sentencing€relating€to€an€evaluation€were€all€facially€deficient€actions€that€prejudiced€ñR+ñœñR+ñhim.ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€ÌÐ Ø8(4: Ðà ` àà ¸ àAgain,€we€find€that€the€post„conviction€court€properly€denied€relief€on€thisÏissue.€€As€pointed€out€by€the€post„conviction€court,€the€proof€showed€that€the€petitionerÏrefused€to€assert€ð ðmental€disease€or€defect€or€any€diminished€capacity€as€either€a€defenseÏor€in€mitigation€of€the€crime€or€the€punishment.ðð€€The€petitioner€testified€at€the€post„¼conviction€hearing€that€he€told€Appman€he€did€not€want€to€pursue€a€mental€defense.€ÏMoreover,€the€testimony€of€both€clinical€psychologists€confirmed€that€the€petitioner€was€notÏsuffering€from€a€mental€disease€or€defect€at€the€time€of€the€offense€or€the€trial.€€Further,€asÏpointed€out€by€the€post„conviction€court,€if€a€psychiatrist€or€clinical€psychologist€hadÏtestified,€there€would€have€been€a€distinct€probability€that€the€expert€would€have€beenÏcross„examined€about€the€details€of€the€petitionerððs€prior€episodes€of€violence,€consistingÏof€at€least€three€prior€homicides,€including€the€murder€of€his€grandmother.€€Counsel€wasÏgiven€the€opportunity€to€have€his€client€€evaluated€by€the€state€facility,€however,€he€declinedÏthis€invitation€because€of€fear€that€the€state€would€use€the€unfavorable€informationÏregarding€the€petitionerððs€past.€€Based€on€these€facts,€we€cannot€find€that€the€petitionerÏwas€prejudiced€by€counselððs€failure€to€pursue€a€psychological€evaluation.€€òòStrickland€v.Ð Ø( ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2067.Ð ¤ô ÐÌà@Î Î DàñR+ñœñR+ñò ò(D)ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€Opening€and€Closing€Argument€at€the€Sentencing€Hearingó óˆÐ <#Œ" ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€counselððs€failure€to€prepare€or€present€anÏopening€argument€at€sentencing,€or€to€prepare€and€present€a€coherent€closing€argumentÏat€sentencing€on€why€the€petitioner€should€not€be€ñR+ñœñR+ñsentenced€toñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€death€was€prejudicial.€€TheÏpetitioner€contends€that€if€counsel€had€done€the€necessary€investigation,€preparation,€andÏpresentation€of€a€coherent€mitigation€case,€he€would€have€been€able€to€present€an€openingÏargument€and€a€coherent€closing€argument.€€Initially,€this€Court€notes€that€a€review€of€theÏrecord€reveals€that€defense€counsel€did€in€fact€present€an€opening€statement€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àRegarding€counselððs€opening€argument€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€post„¼conviction€court€held:Ð Ø8(4: ЇÓÓà8 ` àThe€petitioner€suggests€that€the€opening€statement,€consisting€of€only€twoÏpages,€was€insufficient€and€he€speculates€that€a€more€adequate€statementÏmay€have€produced€a€different€result.€€There€is€simply€inadequate€proof€ofÏthat€proposition.€€By€this€time,€the€jury€had€heard€a€great€deal€of€evidenceÏabout€the€crime.€€The€defense€theory€was€evident.€€The€petitionerððs€socialÏhistory€and€criminal€record,€in€only€18€years€outside€of€incarceration,€wasÏatrocious.€€There€were€some€very€favorable€character€witnesses€for€theÏpetitioner.€€It€was€a€reasonable€tactic€to€limit€the€damaging€effect€of€theÏunfavorable€circumstances.€€Much€of€the€favorable€evidence€today,€as€shownÏin€the€evidentiary€hearing,€shows€the€petitioner€has€matured€since€the€timeÏof€trial.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ\2ÓÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€to€the€quality€of€the€closing€argument€at€sentencing,€the€post„convictionÏcourt€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€petitioner€makes€this€claim€with€the€view€that€his€trial€counsel€could€haveÏmade€a€more€cogent,€compelling€argument€had€he€conducted€more€legalÏand€factual€research.€€The€evidentiary€hearing€did€not,€however,€produceÏevidence€that€supports€that€claim.€€There€is€no€indication€that€the€resultÏwould€have€been€different.€€Simply€too€much€emphasis€has€been€placedÏupon€trial€counselððs€role€in€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€problem€for€theÏpetitioner€in€this€stage€of€the€trial€was€his€prior€criminal€record€which€includedÏthree€prior€murder€convictions€in€addition€to€that€of€Carl€Estep,€andÏconfessions€for€two€other,€unresolved€claims€of€murder.€€Even€with€additionalÏexpert€and€mitigating€witnesses,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€what€couldÏhave€been€said€by€his€counsel€to€the€jury€that€might€have€caused€a€differentÏsentence.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ6ÓÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€Court€finds€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€post„¼conviction€courtððs€ñR+ñœñR+ñfindings€on€this€claim.ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€€òòSeeóó€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌà@!!"DàñR+ñœñR+ñò ò(E)ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€€Absence€of€Co„Counseló óˆÐ †)Ö$) ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€request€theÏappointment€of€co„counsel.€€ñR+ñœñR+ñHeñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€points€to€the€extraordinary€burdens€imposed€on€counselÏduring€the€pre„trial€discovery€process€and€the€fact€that€counsel€virtually€conducted€noÏfactual€or€legal€investigation€of€possible€mitigation.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Appman€stated€that€although€the€trial€courtÏoffered€to€appoint€co„counsel,€he€deliberately€refused€the€offer.€€A€paralegal€with€his€officeÏdid€extensive€investigation€on€this€case.€€Appman€also€testified€that€he€worked€with€theÐ ¾95; Ðattorneys€representing€the€co„defendants.€€In€denying€relief€on€this€claim,€the€post„¼conviction€court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€petitioner€had€experienced€trial€counsel€who€demonstrated€a€doggedÏwork€ethic€in€the€preparations€for€this€trial.€€That€each€of€the€codefendantsÏhad€two€lawyers,€all€of€whom€cooperated€with€the€petitionerððs€counsel,€isÏfurther€evidence€that€the€petitioner€was€not€prejudiced€in€any€way.€€AllÏtestimony€suggested€the€efforts€of€trial€counsel€for€the€petitioner€commandedÏthe€respect€of€his€colleagues,€who€looked€upon€him€for€guidance€andÏleadership.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ>ÓÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏrequest€co„counsel€or€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€that€decision.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial,ÏAppman€had€practiced€law€for€several€years,€trying€his€first€major€murder€case€more€thanÏ10€years€prior€to€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€Appman€had€also€tried€several€cases€in€MorganÏCounty€and€was€familiar€with€the€area.€€In€addition,€Appman€was€assisted€by€his€paralegal,Ïand€he€worked€with€the€attorneys€representing€the€co„defendants.€€Judge€Eblen,€whoÏpresided€over€the€trial,€testified€that€Appman€did€not€seem€hindered€by€the€lack€of€co„¼counsel,€nor€did€his€defense€strategy€appear€disjointed€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€ÏAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€on€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà@··DàñR+ñœñR+ñò ò(F)ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€€Failure€to€Object€to€Jury€Instructionsó óˆÐ Ô&$"& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€counselððs€failure€to€research,€object€to,€file€a€newÏtrial€motion€on,€or€raise€on€appeal,€a€number€of€improper€instructions€constituted€faciallyÏdeficient€performance€that€was€prejudicial.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€research€and€toÏobject€at€trial,€post„trial,€and€on€appeal€to€the€courtððs€preliminary€instruction€to€the€effectÏthat€ð ðThe€law€with€regard€to€First€Degree€murder€in€the€State€of€Tennessee€says€that€thoseÏpersons€convicted€of€that€offense€shall€receive€the€death€penalty€or,€if€the€jury€decides€thatÏit€is€appropriate,€then€the€jury€will€fix€a€life€sentence.ððÐ Ø8(4: Їà ` àà ¸ àInitially,€the€Court€notes€that€no€such€instruction€is€found€at€the€citation€to€theÏrecord€included€in€the€petitionerððs€brief.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€10(b),€Tennessee€Court€of€CriminalÐ |Ì ÐAppeals€Rules.€€Regardless,€the€argument€that€these€jury€instructions€shift€the€burden€ofÏproof€to€the€defendant€to€show€that€a€life€sentence€should€be€imposed€has€been€rejectedÏby€our€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€478€(Tenn.€1993);€òòStateÐ à 0 Ðv.€Baneóó,€853€S.W.2d€483,€488€(Tenn.€1993).€€Accordingly,€counsel€cannot€be€held€deficientÐ ¬ ü  Ðfor€failing€to€raise€the€issue.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€research€and€toÏobject€at€trial,€post„trial,€and€on€appeal€to€the€repeated€references€in€the€charge€atÏsentencing€and€the€sentencing€verdict€form€to€the€requirements€of€unanimity.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAgain,€arguments€regarding€these€jury€instructions€have€been€repeatedlyÏrejected€by€our€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€87;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,Ð  \ Ð857€S.W.2d€1,€22„23€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,€670„71€(Tenn.€1988).€Ð Ø( ÐThus,€counsel€was€not€ineffective€by€failing€to€object.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€research€and€toÏobject€at€sentencing,€post„trial,€and€on€appeal€to€allowing€the€aggravating€circumstanceÏthat€the€petitioner€was€in€custody€at€the€time€of€the€offense€to€go€to€the€jury€when€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€charge€the€jury€on€this€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€review€of€the€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€toÏconsider€whether€ð ðthe€murder€was€committed€by€the€Defendants€while€they€were€in€lawfulÏcustody€or€in€a€place€of€lawful€confinement€or€during€their€escape€from€lawful€custody€orÏfrom€a€place€of€lawful€confinement.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€jury€was€properly€instructed,€andÏcounsel€had€no€reason€to€object€to€an€uninstructed€jury.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€was€deficient€because€heÏfailed€to€research€and€to€object€pre„trial,€post„trial,€and€on€appeal€to€the€ambiguity€of€theÐ Ì84: Ðjury€instruction€on€the€heinous,€atrocious,€and€cruel€aggravating€circumstance.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€this€issue,€despite€our€Supreme€Courtððs€conclusions€to€the€contrary,€theÏpost„conviction€court€acknowledged€that€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€has€held€thatÏthe€ð ðespecially€heinousðð€instruction€as€well€as€the€term€ð ðdepravity€of€mindðð€does€not€meetÏconstitutional€safeguards.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouston€v.€Duttonóó,€50€F.3d€381€(6th€Cir.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€ñR+ñœñR+ñ516ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñÐ ¬ ü  ÐñR+ñœñR+ñU.S.€905,ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€116€S.Ct.€272,€133€L.Ed.2d€193€(1995).€€However,€the€post„conviction€court€wentÏon€to€perform€a€harmless€error€analysis€pursuant€to€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€andÐ D”  Ðconcluded€that€application€of€the€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravating€circumstance€wasÏharmless€beyond€any€reasonable€doubt.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517€(Tenn.€1985),€our€Supreme€CourtÐ tÄ Ðreversed€a€sentence€of€death€and€remanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing€after€findingÏ"that€the€court€did€not€instruct€the€jury€concerning€the€legal€significance€of€the€wordsÏ'heinous,'€'atrocious,'€'cruel,'€'torture,'€or€'depravity€of€mind'€as€those€terms€are€used€in€theÏaggravating€circumstance€defined€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39-2-203(i)(5)."€€òòIdóó.€at€532.€€The€Court€foundÐ ¤ô Ðthe€statute€to€be€constitutional€"so€long€as€the€abstract€terms€employed€therein€areÏconstrued€and€interpreted€as€we€have€done€in€this€opinion€and€other€opinions€of€thisÏCourt."€€òòIdóó.€at€533.€€Jury€instructions€on€the€definitions€are€necessary€to€preclude€"aÐ %X $ Ðbasically€uninstructed€jury"€that€"cannot€lawfully€impose€the€death€penalty,"€€òòIdóó.€(citingÐ Ô&$"& ÐòòGodfrey€v.€Georgiaóó,€446€U.S.€420,€429,€100€S.Ct.€1759,€1765,€64€L.Ed.2d€398€(1980)).€€AÐ  (ð#( Ðreview€of€the€jury€instructions€given€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€ñR+ñœñR+ñreflectsñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€that€the€jury€was€properlyÏinstructed€on€the€necessary€definitions.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhereas,€in€òòHoustonóó,€the€trial€court€did€not€instruct€the€jury€on€the€definitionsÐ Ð/ +0 Ðof€any€of€the€terms€set€forth€in€the€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€aggravating€circumstance.€Ï50€F.3d€381,€387.€€In€òòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€854€F.€Supp.€1305,€1309„10€(M.D.€Tenn.€1994),Ð h3¸.4 Ðthe€trial€court€defined€the€terms€"heinous,"€"atrocious,"€and€"cruel"€for€the€jury€but€did€notÏdefine€the€terms€"torture"€or€"depravity€of€mind."€€854€F.Supp.€1305,€1309-10.€€In€reviewingÏthe€instruction,€the€district€court€held€that€the€"especially€heinous"€instruction,€even€asÐ Ì84: Ðlimited€by€the€definition€of€heinous€as€"extremely€wicked€or€shockingly€evil,"€wasÏunconstitutionally€vague.€€òòIdóó.€at€1310.€€The€district€court€also€held€that€the€instruction€wasÐ |Ì Ðvague€despite€the€inclusion€of€the€term€"depravity€of€mind,"€which€it€also€found€to€beÏunconstitutionally€vague.€€òòIdóó.€€In€contrast,€the€trial€court€in€the€present€case€instructed€theÐ  d Ðjury€on€all€the€definitions€required€under€òòWilliamsóó,€and€counselððs€performance€was€notÐ à 0 Ðdeficient€in€failing€to€raise€this€issue.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€research€andÏinvestigate,€and€to€prepare€proposed€instructions€at€the€guilt€and€sentencing€phases€basedÏon€the€federal€findings€and€admitted€conclusions€of€the€stateððs€own€experts€on€factualÏissues€bearing€directly€on€the€petitionerððs€assertion€of€self„defense,€on€statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€and€on€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€noted€by€the€post„conviction€court,€a€more€extensive€case€could€haveÏbeen€presented,€however,€this€is€not€the€standard€in€reviewing€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Previously€in€this€opinion,€the€Court€found€that€the€petitioner€hadÏnot€met€his€burden€of€proving€ineffective€assistance€based€on€counselððs€failure€to€presentÏproof€of€prior€federal€proceedings€on€the€issue€of€prison€conditions.€€The€same€holds€trueÏfor€counselððs€failure€to€request€ñR+ñœñR+ñthese€juryñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€instructions.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@  DàñR+ñœñR+ñò ò(G)ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€€Failure€to€Object€to€Prosecutorial€Misconductó óˆÐ  (ð#( ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€raises€several€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€toÏobject€to€misconduct€by€the€prosecution.€€The€post„conviction€court€held€that€the€petitionerÏfailed€to€show€any€misconduct,€and€therefore,€his€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€was€heldÏto€be€without€merit.€€While€in€some€instances,€the€arguments€made€by€the€prosecutionÏwere€improper,€we€find€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€byÏcounselððs€failure€to€object€to€these€remarks.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFirst,€the€petitioner€submits€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€investigate€orÐ Ø8(4: Ðresearch,€or€to€object€at€trial,€post„trial,€or€on€appeal€to€the€prosecutionððs€repeatedÏmisstatements€in€voir€dire€that€the€conditions€at€MCRCF€had€no€bearing€on€how€the€lawÏshould€be€applied.€€While€the€petitioner€cites€to€the€record€for€the€specific€instancesÏcomplained€of,€he€has€failed€to€cite€to€any€authority€supporting€relief€on€this€issue,€andÏtherefore,€the€issue€is€deemed€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€10,€Tennessee€Court€of€CriminalÐ à 0 ÐAppeals€Rules.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€research€or€toÏobject€at€trial,€post„trial,€or€on€appeal€to€the€prosecutionððs€statements€about€CraftonððsÏcredibility,€not€only€because€such€practice€was€improper€generally,€but€because€theÏprosecutionððs€argument€was€misleading€to€the€extent€that€it€implied€that€inmate€CraftonððsÏtestimony€about€the€dangerous€conditions€in€TDOC€was€untrue.€€Specifically,€the€petitionerÏcomplains€of€two€comments€made€by€the€prosecutor€during€closing€argument€at€the€guiltÏphase:€€ð ð[Crafton]€thinks€he€is€a€cut€above€the€other€prisoners,€that€he€is€a€man€ofÏcharacter,€a€man€of€principle€a€man€who€wants€to€live€decently€and€rightlyðð€and€ð ð[a]re€youÏgoing€to€buy€the€goods€he€is€trying€to€sell€to€you?ðð€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€prosecutor's€argument€must€be€supported€by€evidence€introduced€at€trialÏand€the€reasonable€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Beasleyóó,€536Ð %X $ ÐS.W.2d€328,€330€(Tenn.1976).€€Moreover,€a€lawyer's€personal€opinion€as€to€the€credibilityÏof€witnesses€should€not€be€injected€into€the€closing€argument.€€òòIdóó.€€While€a€prosecutor€isÐ  (ð#( Ðan€advocate,€entitled€to€pursue€his€role€with€thoroughness€and€vigor,€he€must€also€act€asÏthe€representative€of€a€sovereignty€who€has€an€obligation€to€govern€impartially.€€òòJudge€v.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐStateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Therefore,€"improper€suggestions,Ð .T). Ðinsinuations,€and,€especially,€assertions€of€personal€knowledge€are€apt€to€carry€muchÏweight€against€the€accused€when€they€should€properly€carry€none."€òòBerger€v.€UnitedÐ œ1ì,2 ÐStatesóó,€295€U.S.€78,€88,€55€S.Ct.€629,€633,€79€L.Ed.2d€1314€(1935).Ð h3¸.4 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€order€to€determine€whether€any€improper€conduct€was€prejudicial,€thisÏCourt€has€set€forth€five€factors€to€consider:Ð Ì84: ЇÓÓà8 ` à(1)€the€conduct€complained€of€viewed€in€the€context€and€in€light€of€the€factsÏand€circumstances€of€the€case,€(2)€any€curative€measures€undertaken€by€theÏcourt€and€the€prosecution,€(3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€theÏimproper€statement,€(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€andÏany€other€errors€in€the€record,€and€(5)€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€ofÏthe€case.€€Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ®mÓÌòòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344.€€€Ð Æ   ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€prosecuting€attorney's€remarks€about€Crafton€wereÏsupported€by€the€record.€€Crafton€testified€during€cross„examination€that€he€had€never€metÏanother€inmate€with€his€principles€or€character.€€As€to€the€prosecutorððs€question€to€the€juryÏwhether€it€was€going€to€ð ðbuy€the€goods€he€is€trying€to€sell€you,ðð€the€state€also€made€clearÏthat€it€was€the€juryððs€responsibility€to€judge€the€credibility€of€witnesses:€ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ à[Crafton]€was€here€to€give€his€viewpoints€and€his€expert€opinion€onÏprison€life.€€The€first€thing€I€would€like€you€to€consider€is€was€he€credible€toÏyou?€€Listen€carefully€when€the€Judge€charges€as€to€how€to€determineÏsomeoneððs€credibility€and€the€things€that€you€are€entitled€to€consider,€suchÏas€respectability,€possible€bias,€whether€they€really€know€what€they€areÏtalking€about€in€the€first€place.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ–qÓÌFurthermore,€the€jury€was€charged€by€the€trial€court€regarding€the€weight€and€credibility€asÏto€all€ñR+ñœñR+ñwitnesses.ñI+ñ€€Even€if€ñI+ññJ+ñ›€›€Assuming›€that›€ñJ+ñtheñR+ñ›ñR+ñ€closing€remarks€of€the€prosecutor€were€ñR+ñœñR+ñimproperñK+ñ,€which€weÏdo€not€findñK+ñ,ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€we€find€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€resulting€prejudice.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€a€similar€complaint,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€toÏobject€at€trial,€post„trial,€or€on€appeal€to€the€prosecutionððs€argument€ð ðAre€you€willing€for€theÏcitizens€of€Morgan€County€to€accept€the€kind€of€prison€system€that€[Crafton]€seems€to€thinkÏyou€ought€to€have,ðð€implying€that€the€petitioner€and€Crafton€were€responsible€for€theÏsystem„wide€violence.€€While€the€prosecutorððs€argument€was€not€supported€by€the€proof,Ïin€that€Crafton€testified€as€to€his€impressions€of€actual€prison€conditions€and€not€whatÏprison€conditions€should€be,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€this€argument€wasÏprejudicial.€€òòSeeóó€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344.Ð 7P28 ÐÐ Ì84: Ðà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€object€at€trial,Ïpost„trial,€or€on€appeal€to€the€prosecutionððs€argument€that€the€defendants€must€be€guiltyÏbecause€they€were€the€persons€whom€Worthington€immediately€placed€in€administrativeÏsegregation.€€Specifically,€the€prosecutor€argued€to€the€jury:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àNow,€use€your€common€sense€here€for€a€moment.€€Who€was€lockedÏup€immediately€after€this€body€was€found€and€the€very€first€informationÏreceived?€€They€are€sitting€right€over€there.€€Do€you€think€Mr.€WorthingtonÏsaid,€ð ðOh,€letððs€see,€we€got€a€dead€man€here,€lock€up€Street,€Sutton€andÏFreeman.ðð€€Do€any€of€you€all€believe€that?Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓIyÓÌà ` àà ¸ àThis€argument€was€clearly€inappropriate.€€A€prosecutor€should€not€imply€thatÏa€defendant€is€guilty€because€he€is€the€one€who€was€arrested.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€618Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€510,€516€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(Improper€for€prosecutor€to€argue€that€becauseÏgrand€jury€charged€defendant,€he€must€be€presumed€guilty).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòUnited€States€v.Ð @ ÐBessóó,€593€F.2d€749,€753„54€(6th€Cir.€1979)€(Improper€for€prosecutor€to€suggest€thatÐ  \ Ðdefendant€is€guilty€because€he€is€being€prosecuted€or€has€been€indicted).€€However,€afterÏreviewing€this€comment€in€light€of€the€record,€we€do€not€find€that€it€affected€the€verdict.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344.€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€has€not€shownÐ p!À  Ðprejudice€due€to€counselððs€failure€to€object.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€object€at€trial,Ïpost„trial,€or€on€appeal€to€the€prosecutionððs€argument€that€ð ðI€have€not€heard€one€word€ofÏNick€Sutton€or€Thomas€Street€ever€being€touched€by€Carl€Estep.€€I€heard€a€lot€ofÏsuggestion,€but€that€is€all€it€has€been.ðð€€The€petitioner€contends€that€this€argumentÏconstituted€an€impermissible€comment€on€his€failure€to€testify.€€We€disagree.€€TheÏargument€did€not€comment€on€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€testify.€€It€was€merely€a€commentÏon€the€proof.€€There€was€testimony€regarding€possible€threats€made€by€the€victim,€but€thereÏwas€no€proof€of€the€victim€physically€attacking€or€hurting€the€petitioner.€€This€argumentÏdoes€not€constitute€misconduct,€òòState€v.€Beasleyóó,€536€S.W.2d€328,€330,€and€therefore,Ð 45„06 Ðcounsel€was€not€ineffective€by€failing€to€object.ÌÐ Ì84: Ðà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€should€have€objected€atÏtrial,€post„trial,€or€on€appeal€to€the€prosecutionððs€arguments€regarding€futureÏdangerousness.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€argues€that€an€objection€should€have€beenÏmade€to€the€following€arguments€made€by€the€prosecution:€€ð ðWhat€are€you€going€to€do€toÏNicholas€Sutton,€Give€him€a€life€sentence?€€Will€that€prevent€there€being€another€CarlÏEstep?,ðð€ð ðSociety€has€certain€rights€and€the€State€simply€asks€that€you€exercise€societyððsÏright€to€self„defense.€€These€men€are€already€locked€up.€€Mr.€Nicholas€Sutton€is€alreadyÏserving€a€life€sentence,ðð€€ð ð[Sutton]€was€conditioned€on€the€street€to€kill€people.€€Ladies€andÏgentlemen,€we€suggest€to€you€that€persons€who€are€armed€robbers€and€first€degreeÏmurderers€are€already€conditioned€to€kill€people,ðð€and€ð ðWhen€we€get€to€the€point€that€weÏhave€done€everything€possible€to€protect€ourselves€and€there€is€nothing€else€we€canÏreasonably€do€that€would€protect€ourselves€from€people€like€Nicholas€Todd€Sutton...thenÏwe€have€the€right€of€self„defense€and€this€is€where€capital€punishment€comes€in.ððÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€capital€sentencing€jury€is€not€precluded€from€consideration€of€the€futureÏdangerousness€of€a€particular€defendant€where€such€is€a€relevant€factor€under€a€state'sÏcapital€sentencing€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòJurek€v.€Texasóó,€428€U.S.€262,€96€S.Ct.€2950,€49€L.Ed.2d€929Ð p!À  Ð(1976).€€Generally,€however,€our€Courts€have€held€that€the€issue€of€specific€or€generalÏdeterrence€should€be€avoided€by€the€prosecution€in€closing€argument€at€a€capitalÏsentencing€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868,€881-82€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.Ð Ô&$"& ÐIrickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€131€(Tenn.1988).€€Specifically,€the€deterrence€argument€is€usuallyÐ  (ð#( Ðirrelevant€to€the€aggravating€circumstances€listed€in€Tennessee's€statute.€€òòState€v.€Batesóó,Ð l*¼%* Ð804€S.W.2d€at€882.€€Thus,€"unless€relevant€to€some€theory€raised€by€the€State[']s€proof,Ïor€the€defense,€it€interjects€an€element€into€the€jury's€considerations€not€provided€for€by€theÏlaw."€€òòIdóó.€€In€reviewing€the€propriety€of€argument€in€a€capital€sentencing€proceeding,€theÐ Ð/ +0 Ðreviewing€court€must€determine€whether€the€prosecutor's€comments€affected€theÏsentencing€decision.€€òòState€v.€Irickóó,€762€S.W.2d€121,€131.€€"If€the€Court€cannot€say€theÐ h3¸.4 Ðcomments€had€no€effect€on€the€sentencing,€then€the€jury's€decision€does€not€meet€theÏstandard€of€reliability€required€by€the€Eighth€Amendment."€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòCaldwell€v.€Mississippióó,Ð 7P28 Ð472€U.S.€320,€105€S.Ct.€2633,€2646,€86€L.Ed.2d€231€(1985)).€€Ð Ì84: Їà ` àà ¸ àWhile€these€comments€by€the€prosecution€were€obviously€inappropriate,Ïbased€on€a€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€do€not€find€that€the€juryððs€decision€was€affected.€ÏAccordingly,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€prejudice€based€on€counselððs€failure€to€object.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€move€to€strikeÏor€to€dismiss€the€death€notice€because€given€the€stateððs€longstanding€indifference€toÏviolence€in€TDOC€and€ñR+ñœñR+ñitñL+ñððñL+ñsñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€causes,€given€the€1985€findings€of€Mr.€Wood,€and€given€theÏundisputed€fact€that€the€victim€had€repeatedly€threatened€the€petitioner€and€refused€offersÏof€peace,€the€petitioner€submits€that€a€death€notice€in€this€case€ñR+ñœñR+ñviolatedñM+ñ€theñM+ññR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€due€processÏñR+ñœñR+ñandñN+ñ€theñN+ññR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€cruel€and€ñR+ñœñR+ññO+ñthe›€ñO+ñunusualñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€punishment€guarantees€of€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏconstitutions.€€The€underlying€issue€regarding€prison€conditions€has€been€addressed€in€thisÏopinion,€and€we€do€not€find€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€move€to€strike€or€toÏdismiss€the€death€ñR+ñœñR+ñnotice.ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñÌÌà@  DàñR+ñœñR+ñò ò(H)ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€€Failure€to€Raise€Issues€on€Direct€Appealó óˆÐ Ø( ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counsel€was€ineffective€on€appealÏbecause€he€failed€to€research€the€law,€investigate€the€facts,€perfect€the€record,€and€raiseÏimportant€issues€on€ñR+ñœñR+ñappeal.ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€€ñR+ñœñR+ñHeñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€points€to€each€of€the€issues€raised€in€his€brief€and€in€theÏamended€post„conviction€petition,€and€as€to€each€fact€and€legal€argument€raised.€€BecauseÏwe€have€held€that€the€petitionerððs€claims€are€without€merit,€we€find€that€his€claim€ofÏineffective€assistance€based€on€counselððs€failure€to€raise€these€issues€on€direct€appeal€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà@bb$DàñR+ñœñR+ñò ò(I)ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€€Cumulative€Effectó óˆÐ Ü/,+0 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€counselððsÏrepeated,€deficient€failures€rendered€his€trial€and€sentencing€fundamentally€unfair.€€BasedÏon€our€review€of€the€issues€raised€regarding€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€we€reject€theÏpetitionerððs€contention€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€any€errors€found€would€require€reversal.Ð ä844: ЇÓÓà@½ ½ Dàò òV.€€False€Testimony€and€Misleading€ArgumentˆÐ ° Ðà@66!DàRegarding€Conditions€at€MCRCFó óˆÐ œì ÐÌÓ°–ÓÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€during€the€trial,€the€state€falsely€portrayed€inmateÏsafety€and€security€at€MCRCF.€€On€this€issue,€the€post„conviction€court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proof.€€There€is€insufficientÏevidence€to€establish€that€the€state€misrepresented€the€level€of€safety€andÏsecurity€for€inmates€at€the€Morgan€County€Regional€Correctional€Facility€atÏthe€time€of€the€offense.€€There€is€no€indication€that€the€witness,€JamesÏWorthington,€inappropriately€misled€the€petitioner€or€his€counsel€in€thisÏregard.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€was€in€a€position€to€have€known€of€theseÏcircumstances,€divulge€them€to€his€counsel,€and€supply€possible€witnessesÏin€support€of€his€claims.€€For€example,€the€petitioner€presented€a€witness€atÏtrial,€Carl€Crafton,€who€testified€at€length€about€prison€life€and€the€conditionsÏthat€existed€in€the€Department€of€Corrections€at€the€time€of€this€offense.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ1˜ÓÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€trial,€Worthington€testified€regarding€his€perceptions€of€the€prisonÏenvironment€at€MCRCF.€€Proof€that€Worthington€was€aware€of€Woodððs€report€does€notÏmake€his€testimony€regarding€his€own€perceptions€of€the€prison€conditions€false.€€òòCfóó.€Ð ä4 ÐòòBrotherton€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€522,€523„24€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971)(doctorððs€opinionÐ ° Ðtestimony€regarding€whether€defendant€appeared€sober€is€not€made€out€to€be€perjury€byÏresults€of€blood€test€reflecting€alcohol€content€of€.014€in€defendant's€blood).ÌÌà@ì ì Dàò òVI.€€False€Testimony€Regarding€Prior€Statement€of€Inmate€Lumbertó óˆÐ à&0"& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€a€handwritten€memo€regarding€inmate€GaryÏLumbertððs€statement€taken€by€Worthington€was€not€included€in€the€stateððs€files€and€wasÏonly€produced€a€few€days€prior€to€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€The€petitioner€submits€thatÏthe€statement€was€manufactured,€that€it€constituted€false€testimony,€and€that€the€testimonyÏwas€material€to€the€proceedings.€€The€petitioner€further€contends€that€the€post„convictionÏcourt€erred€by€failing€to€address€this€issue.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhile€it€does€not€appear€that€the€post„conviction€court€addressed€this€specificÏissue,€we€find€that€it€is€without€merit.€€Worthingtonððs€notebook€contained€notes€from€all€theÐ ä844: Ðinterviews€conducted€during€the€investigation€of€the€murder,€however,€a€memo€regardingÏan€interview€of€Lumbert€on€March€13,€1985,€was€not€included€in€the€notebook,€nor€wasÏLumbertððs€name€included€on€the€lists€provided€to€defense€counsel.€€Lumbert€eventuallyÏtestified€at€trial€on€behalf€of€co„defendant€Street.€€Before€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€Ïmemo€regarding€the€interview€with€Lumbert€was€found€in€Worthingtonððs€miscellaneous€file.ÏWorthington€testified€that€the€statement€was€not€in€his€notebook€because€it€had€beenÏmisplaced.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIncluded€in€the€stateððs€file€were€notes€written€by€General€Harvey€duringÏLumbertððs€testimony€at€trial.€€According€to€General€Harvey,€Worthington€was€telling€theÏprosecutors€that€Lumbert€had€given€different€answers€during€his€interview€that€wereÏcontrary€to€his€testimony.€€General€Harvey€took€notes€so€they€could€look€into€the€matter.€ÏThe€notes€indicated€that€Lumbert€had€told€Worthington€that€Freeman€and€Street€wereÏbragging€about€the€murder,€however,€the€memo€regarding€an€interview€of€LumbertÏindicated€that€Lumbert€had€stated€that€the€petitioner€and€Street€were€the€ones€braggingÏabout€the€murder.€€General€Harvey€did€not€know€if€he€had€misinterpreted€what€WorthingtonÏwas€saying€or€if€Worthington€had€ñR+ñœñR+ñmisspokeñP+ñnñP+ññR+ñ›ñR+ñ€at€the€time.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àA€review€of€the€trial€transcript€also€refutes€the€petitionerððs€claim.€€WhenÏWorthington€was€cross„examined€by€defense€counsel,€he€indicated€that€inmate€LumbertððsÏstatement€had€been€recorded€and€the€trial€court€ordered€the€state€to€produce€thatÏstatement€for€the€purposes€of€cross„examination.€€Accordingly,€defense€counsel€was€givenÏan€opportunity€to€review€the€statement€at€the€time€of€the€trial.€€This€supports€a€finding€thatÏthe€statement€was€available€and€reviewed€at€the€time€of€trial€and€was€not€falselyÏñR+ñœñR+ñmanufacturedñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€for€purposes€of€the€post„conviction€hearing.ÌÌà@ññ!Dàò òVII.€€òòBradyóó€and€òòGiglioóó€Claimsó óˆÐ h3¸.4 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€finding€that€heÏhad€failed€to€establish€claims€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194,€andÐ Ø8(4: ÐòòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€92€S.Ct.€763.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€submits€thatÐ ° Ðthe€proof€showed€that€prior€to€trial,€the€state€was€in€possession€of€inconsistent€statementsÏof€the€four€inmate€witnesses€who€testified€for€the€state€and€the€statements€of€those€fourÏinmates€that€conflicted€directly.€€The€petitioner€further€submits€that€the€proof€showed€thatÏthe€state€was€aware€of€the€findings€ñR+ñœñR+ñin€Woodððs€reportñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€on€MCRCF,€that€the€information€wasÏnot€provided€to€defense€counsel,€and€that€Worthingtonððs€testimony€at€trial€directly€conflictedÏwith€Woodððs€findings€and€conclusions.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€the€petitionerððs€òòBradyóó€claims,€the€post„conviction€court€held€that€theÐ ` Ðpetitioner€failed€to€rebut€the€statutory€presumption€of€waiver€and,€in€the€alternative,€failedÏto€meet€his€burden€of€proof€to€establish€that€the€state€violated€any€of€the€discoveryÏguidelines€which€would€qualify€him€for€relief.€€As€to€the€petitionerððs€òòGiglioóó€claim,€the€post„Ð tÄ Ðconviction€court€held€that€he€ð ðfailed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proof€to€establish€any€violationÏof€the€òòGiglioóó€rule.€€The€proof€simply€does€not€establish€that€the€state€made€any€promisesÐ  \ Ðof€immunity€or€leniency€to€the€witnesses€in€exchange€for€testimony.€€There€was€noÏevidence€that€the€prosecution€withheld€any€documents€or€information€of€any€kind€thatÏwould€tend€to€impeach€the€credibility€of€the€stateððs€witnesses.ððÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€anyÐ %X $ Ð"suppression€by€the€prosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violatesÏdue€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,€irrespectiveÏof€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution."€€373€U.S.€83,€87,€83€S.Ct.€1194,€1196-97.ÏThe€duty€to€disclose€extends€to€all€"favorable€information"€regardless€of€whether€theÏevidence€is€admissible€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232„33€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð .T). ÐApp.€1992).€€In€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€154„55,€92€S.Ct.€763,€766,€theÐ Ð/ +0 ÐSupreme€Court€held€that€both€exculpatory€and€impeachment€evidence€fall€under€the€òòBradyóóÐ œ1ì,2 Ðrule.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€676,€105€S.Ct.€3375,€3380,€87Ð h3¸.4 ÐL.Ed.2d€481€(1985).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBefore€an€accused€is€entitled€to€relief€under€this€theory,€he€must€establishÐ Ì84: Ðseveral€prerequisites:€(a)€the€prosecution€must€have€suppressed€the€evidence;€(b)€theÏevidence€suppressed€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€and€(c)€the€evidence€mustÏhave€been€material.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€at€674-75,€105€S.€Ct.€atÐ H˜ Ð3379-80;€€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196-97;€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902Ð  d ÐS.W.2d€387,€390€(Tenn.€1995);€òòWorkman€v.€Stateóó,€868€S.W.2d€705,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð à 0 Ð1993);€òòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€755€S.W.2d€819,€828€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Evidence€isÐ ¬ ü  Ðconsidered€material€only€if€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€the€evidence€beenÏdisclosed€to€the€defense,€the€results€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòUnitedÐ D”  ÐStates€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€at€682,€105€S.Ct.€at€3383.€€Ð ` ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€order€to€prove€a€òòBradyóó€violation,€a€defendant€must€show€that€"the€favorableÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€could€reasonably€be€taken€to€put€the€whole€case€in€such€a€different€light€as€toÏundermine€confidence€in€the€verdict."€€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€435,€115€S.Ct.€1555,Ð @ Ð1566,€131€L.Ed.2d€490€(1995).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€390.€€There€must€be€aÐ  \ Ð"reasonable€probability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€result€ofÏthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different."€òòIdóó.€(quoting€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,Ð ¤ô Ð435,€115€S.Ct.€1555,€1566).€€The€Court€in€òòKylesóó€urged€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€theÐ p!À  Ðsuppressed€evidence€be€considered€to€determine€materiality.€€514€U.S.€at€436,€115€S.Ct.Ïat€1567.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€state€is€not€required€to€disclose€information€that€the€accused€alreadyÏpossesses€or€is€able€to€obtain,€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€233,€or€informationÐ l*¼%* Ðwhich€is€not€possessed€by€or€under€the€control€of€the€prosecution€or€another€governmentalÏagency.€€òòIdóó.€Ð .T). ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€makes€no€specific€claim€that€the€state€suppressedÏinformation€regarding€favors€or€immunity€offered€to€witnesses.€€However,€a€review€of€theÏrecord€confirms€the€post„conviction€courtððs€finding€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€show€that€anyÏfavors€or€immunity€were€given€to€any€of€the€witnesses€in€exchange€for€their€testimony.€ÏWorthington€and€the€assistant€district€attorney€generals€who€prosecuted€the€petitionerððsÐ Ì84: Ðcase€testified€that€at€the€beginning,€they€agreed€that€there€would€be€no€promises€toÏinmates€in€exchange€for€testimony.€€Worthington€believed€that€all€the€inmates€who€testifiedÏhad€already€been€paroled€at€the€time€of€the€trial€with€the€exception€of€Scates.€€After€theÏtrial,€as€a€courtesy,€he€wrote€Scates€a€letter€of€appreciation€for€his€testimony.€€At€best,€theÏproof€showed€that€the€state€offered€to€protect€any€inmates€willing€to€testify€from€possibleÏretaliation.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€submits€that€the€state€should€have€provided€the€statements€ofÏthe€four€inmates€who€testified€at€trial€because€the€statements€were€inconsistent.€€TheÏstatements€of€the€four€inmates€were€suppressed€by€the€state€before€trial,€however,€theÏdefense€received€the€statements€as€òòJencksóó€material€after€each€inmate€testified€and€beforeÐ ¨ø Ðcross„examination.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526€(Tenn.€1993),€our€Supreme€Court€heldÐ  \ Ðthat€ð ðdelayed€disclosure€requires€an€inquiry€into€whether€the€delay€prevented€the€defenseÏfrom€using€the€disclosed€material€effectively€in€preparing€and€presenting€the€defendant'sÏcase.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€548.€€In€òòUnited€States€v.€Ingraldióó,€793€F.2d€408,€413€(1st€Cir.1986),€the€CourtÐ p!À  Ðheld€that€defense€counsel€cured€a€potential€òòBradyóó€violation€by€failing€to€move€for€aÐ <#Œ" Ðcontinuance€and€then€thoroughly€cross-examining€the€witness.€€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€present€ñR+ñœñR+ñcase,ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€the€state€provided€defense€counsel€with€copies€of€theÏinmatesðð€statements€after€each€inmate€testified.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€gave€defenseÏcounsel€ample€opportunity€to€review€the€statements€before€cross„examining€each€witness.€ÏThereafter,€defense€counsel€was€given€an€opportunity€to€cross„examine€the€witnesses€andÏpoint€out€any€inconsistencies€in€their€statements€and€testimony.€€Accordingly,€underÏòòCaughronóó,€we€find€that€defense€counsel€eliminated€any€òòBradyóó€violation€with€regard€to€priorÐ œ1ì,2 Ðstatements€of€the€inmates€who€testified€on€behalf€of€the€state.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€state€was€required€to€disclose€WoodððsÏreport€regarding€prison€conditions€at€MCRCF.€€As€previously€stated,€the€state€is€notÐ Ì84: Ðrequired€to€disclose€information€that€the€accused€is€able€to€obtain.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€228,€233.€€Here,€the€petitioner€failed€to€show€that€the€evaluation€and€reportÏprepared€by€Wood,€òòReport€on€conditions€at€selected€Adult€Correctional€Facilities€in€theÐ H˜ ÐTennessee€Department€of€Correctionsóó€(June€1985),€was€unavailable€to€defense€counsel.€Ð  d ÐÌà@Ä Ä Dàò òVIII.€€Constitutionality€of€the€Death€Penalty€Statutesó óˆÐ ¬ ü  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€raises€several€constitutional€challenges€to€Ô‡ XнXXXнÔT.C.A.€ðððð€39„2„204Ð P   Ðand€„206€(repealed€1989)Ô#†XнXX XнÊ#Ô.€€To€the€extent€that€the€petitioner€challenged€the€constitutionalityÐ l Ðof€the€death€penalty€statutes€on€direct€appeal,€òòSuttonóó,€761€S.W.2d€763,€768,€these€claimsÐ è8 Ðhave€been€previously€determined.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(1990).€€Otherwise,€theÐ ´ Ðissues€have€been€waived.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1)€(1990).€€Regardless,€ourÐ €Ð ÐSupreme€Court€has€held€repeatedly€that€the€death€penalty€statutes€are€constitutional.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àInitially,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€death€penalty€statutes€fail€toÏmeaningfully€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€defendants.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€theÏaggravating€circumstance€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„204(i)(5)€(repealed€1989),€that€theÏmurder€was€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel,€is€vague€and€overbroad.€€Acknowledging€that€thisÏissue€has€been€addressed€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,Ð %d $ ÐñR+ñœñR+ñ526„30,ñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€the€petitioner€submits€that€the€opinion€was€in€error.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAs€an€intermediate€appellate€court,€it€is€our€duty€to€apply€the€law€asÏpromulgated€by€the€Legislature€or€as€announced€by€our€Supreme€Court.€€It€is€beyond€ourÏstatutory€function€to€overrule€a€holding€of€our€Supreme€Court,€and€we€are€bound€to€followÏthe€holding€in€òòWilliamsóó€under€the€doctrine€of€stare€decisis.€€òòSeeóó€òòReimann€v.€Huddlestonóó,Ð Ü/,+0 Ð883€S.W.2d€135,€137€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€Moreover,€our€Supreme€Court€has€repeatedlyÏupheld€its€decision€in€òòWilliamsóó,€rejecting€the€argument€that€this€aggravating€circumstanceÐ t3Ä.4 Ðwas€unconstitutionally€vague€or€overbroad.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€181„82Ð @506 Ð(Tenn.€1991);€€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,€670€(Tenn.€1988).Ð  7\28 ÐÐ Ø8(4: Ðà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€in€a€capriciousÏand€arbitrary€manner.€€Specifically,€he€contends€that€the€death€penalty€statute€isÏunconstitutional€because€it€requires€that€the€jury€be€instructed€that€it€must€agreeÏunanimously€in€order€to€impose€a€life€sentence€and€is€prohibited€from€being€told€the€effectÏof€a€non„unanimous€verdict.€€While€admitting€that€this€jury€instruction€has€been€upheld€byÏour€Supreme€Court€on€numerous€occasions,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€SupremeÏCourt€has€never€considered€the€possibility€that€juries€may€act€arbitrarily€because€ofÏconfusion€regarding€the€consequences€of€a€deadlock.€€Again,€our€Supreme€Court€has€heldÏthis€portion€of€the€statute€to€be€constitutional,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€87,Ð ` ÐòòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€22„23€(Tenn.€1993),€and€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,Ð Ü, Ð670„71,€and€this€Court€declines€the€petitionerððs€invitation€to€reconsider€its€constitutionality.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€jury€instructions€imply€that€jurors€areÏrequired€to€agree€unanimously€to€a€life€verdict€and€to€the€existence€of€mitigatingÏcircumstances€in€violation€of€òòMills€v.€Marylandóó,€486€U.S.€367,€108€S.Ct.€1860,€100€L.Ed.2dÐ Ø( Ð384€(1988),€and€òòMcKoy€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€494€U.S.€433,€110€S.Ct.€1227,€1233,€108Ð ¤ô ÐL.Ed.2d€369€(1990).€€These€arguments€have€been€rejected€by€our€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóóÐ p!À  ÐòòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€87;€Ô‡ XнXXXнÔòòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239,€251„52€(Tenn.Ð <#Œ" Ð1989);€òòState€v.€Batesóó,€804€S.W.2d€868,€883.Ô#†XнXX XнwØ#ÔÐ %X $ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€appellate€review€process€isÏconstitutionally€inadequate€in€its€application.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€contends€that€theÏappellate€review€process€is€not€constitutionally€meaningful€because€the€appellate€courtsÏcannot€reweigh€proof€due€to€the€absence€of€written€findings€concerning€mitigatingÏcircumstances,€because€the€information€relied€upon€by€the€appellate€courts€is€inadequateÏand€incomplete,€and€because€the€appellate€courtsðð€methodology€is€flawed.€€TheseÏarguments€have€all€been€rejected.€€òòSeeÔ‡ XнXXXнÔóó€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€87„88;€òòState€v.Ð h3¸.4 ÐCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€270„71€(Tenn.€1994).Ô#†XнXX Xн†Û#ÔÐ 45„06 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€statutorily€mandated€proportionalityÐ Ì84: Ðreview€is€conducted€in€violation€of€due€process.€€Ô‡ XнXXXнÔOur€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€theÐ ° Ðappellate€review€provided€for€in€the€statute€affords€a€meaningful€proportionality€review.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€87„88;€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€270„71.€Ð H˜ ÐMoreover,€ñR+ñœñR+ñtheñR+ñ›ñR+ññR+ññR+ñ€petitionerððs€claim€that€our€Supreme€Court€has€never€found€a€death€sentenceÏto€be€imposed€in€a€disproportionate€manner€is€untrue.€€In€òòState€v.€Branamóó,€855€S.W.2d€563Ð à 0 Ð(Tenn.€1993),€the€Supreme€Court€found€the€death€penalty€to€be€disproportionate€andÏreduced€the€defendant's€sentence€to€life.€€òòIdóó.€at€570„71.€€The€petitionerððs€claims€regardingÐ xÈ  Ðthe€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€statutes€are€waived,€previously€determined,€andÏwithout€merit.Ô#†XнXX Xн Ý#ÔÐ ` ÐÌà@À À Dàò òIX.€€Imposition€of€Death€Penalty€Arbitrary€and€Capriciousó óˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€because€the€state€failed€to€provide€safeÏand€constitutional€conditions€in€prison€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€imposition€of€the€deathÏpenalty€would€be€arbitrary,€capricious,€and€fundamentally€unfair.€€This€issue€was€previouslyÏdetermined€by€our€Supreme€Court€on€direct€appeal.€€The€Court€held€that€ð ðimposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty€by€the€jury€was€neither€arbitrary€nor€excessive€or€disproportionate€to€theÏpenalty€imposed€for€similar€crimes.ðð€€òòState€v.€Suttonóó,€761€S.W.2d€763,€768.Ð H#˜" ÐÌò òà@ŒŒ(DàX.€€Conclusionó óˆÐ à&0"& ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àAfter€thoroughly€reviewing€the€record€and€the€law€applicable€to€the€issuesÏraised€in€this€appeal,€we€find€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€his€allegations€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð .l). Ð1991).€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€sentence€of€death€by€electrocution€shall€be€carried€out€on€€ÏAugust€31,€1999,€unless€otherwise€stayed€by€an€appropriate€order.ÌÌÐ ä844: ÐÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p à_________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà D àà p àJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOE€D.€DUNCAN,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌTERRY€L.€LAFFERTY,€SENIOR€JUDGE