ÿWPC Jxñ¾#lþ³¨ wüÃøá:.;05ª89ž‚?1ÛiýIÕÝ6Еà~¼ñ÷SGíG#Ïrf€Ë0BrÙ&óË"—*–tdèw°*Áä!äuˆëèrŒ²Í)PDœ’%„¤3£ff‚]})È`e<”‡Œ¼Nïž,1/ /.ÛPOØ uúeÙm$àO]$GóYÕ¬ˆÐÅ-›Ž¬÷ÒË!Œ¥b¸7Åee]˜¥¾±kƒ›÷÷ÓÁ±Ùk:«Ì›sÏS03€Ø#æE21  Ç:R1}’F#˜¥1" Q‹0™7u(éí(šx Ë4ÏMùp3Þ_‡Þà‚)îóC}C!XÎ:˾Øüfïˆyi«vNcˆ¹½„õqZîïÇ}N($­$BvÐ?EÊ2™]tÏÁWó˜ø¿b³]»tj#˜üæE(7á¼€ZÄÁÝ58cmž>?§"ƒhí³a+,dǸ…"l¶Ó ¼(oY.ÏMú™ŽÊÍ*<~ßu…®ôÀ’’˜ Hqe+3u·¾6í ¼¬Ç¾VʬÌÚNHÂm*ßp“KOó ìb7éÜýñXAR°á /$»Íx*‚ƒÖ@ ¥„#ƒÇ¡“…# F U>Q % 0í• UB‚ 4Ä Ø n­ç U:” fÎ 4 "< w@^ 0Mž 0DëU :/åiU:N 1mˆˆ 0dõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ D3YYY 0DŒŒŒŒŒ BÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ 0í 0Š| 0  0´¦ 0ÇZ 0Û! 0ïüüüüü AOëÆ:: 0D D/D Bs˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|xç«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ ÕÖEרEÙÚDÛÜÝDÞÓ€(ý(2ö—$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ËÅXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°Òà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÛÔ€XÌ“XXXÔÔ€ >XXÌ“ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÌ“X >ÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€21,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regulartuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à2222'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€kÏXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XÌ“XXXÔÑ7€ Ì“ XXdæXXdÈ7ÑñÞñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rß›ñÞñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@#Dà€€€€AT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€OCTOBER€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓRICHARD€C.€TAYLOR,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àœAppellee,›à h àà À à)à  àNo.€œ01C01„970ñÜñ9ñÜññÝñ7ñÝñ„CC„00384›Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Williamson€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Honorable€William€S.€Russell,€Special€Judge€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h à€€€à À à)à  à€(Post„Conviction)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àœAppellñÕñantñÕñ.›à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€œAppellñÖñeeñÖññ×ñañ×ññØññ×ñmtñ×ññØññÙñntñÙñóó:›à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€œAppellñÚñantñÚññÛñeeñÛñóó:›Ð æÞ ÐÌJohn€Knox€Walkupà  àà h àà À àà  àBradley€A.€MacLeanà x àà Ð àÐ ²ª ÐAttorney€General€of€Tennesseeà À àà  àSunTrust€Center,€Suite€1900Ð ˜ Ðà ¸ àandà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37219Ð ~v ÐGlenn€R.€PrudenÌAssistant€Attorney€Generalà À àà  àSabin€R.€ThompsonÐ JB Ѐ€of€Tennessee€€€€€€€à  àà h àà À àà  à401€Church€Street,€Suite€2600Ð 0 ( Ð425€Fifth€Avenue€Northà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37210Ð ! ÐNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌJoseph€D.€Baugh,€Jr.ÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌWilliamson€County€CourthouseÌP.O.€Box€937ÌFranklin,€TN€37065„0937Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÐ >:639 ЇÌÌÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ ÔÌ ÐÌÔ‡X™2XX XÌ“Ôà ¸ àThe€state€of€Tennessee€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€Williamson€CountyÐ x p ÐCircuit€Courtððs€grant€of€post„conviction€relief€to€the€petitioner€and€the€setting€aside€of€hisÏfirst€degree€murder€conviction€and€death€sentence€due€to€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€The€petitioner€presents€additional€claims€in€support€of€post„conviction€relief€inÏthe€event€that€this€court€reverses€the€trial€courtððs€rulings.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€in€1984€for€the€first€degree€murder€ofÏcorrectional€officer€Ronald€Wayne€Moore€and€received€the€death€penalty.€€TheÏconvictions€and€sentences€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt.€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€771€S.W.2d€387€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031,Ð XP Ð1110€S.Ct.€3291€(1989).€€The€petitioner€filed€his€post„conviction€petition,€and€the€trialÏcourt€conducted€several€evidentiary€hearings€in€1994€and€1995.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏthe€petitioner€relief€on€February€27,€1997,€concluding€that€counsel€had€been€ineffectiveÏat€both€the€guilt€and€sentencing€phases€of€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€petitioner€fullÏrelief,€generally€claiming€as€follows:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€the€trial€court€applied€the€wrong€legal€standard€forÏdetermining€the€existence€of€prejudice€when€decidingÏthe€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing,€when€considered€with€the€evidence€presentedÏat€trial,€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findingÏthat€trial€counsel€rendered€ineffective€assistance€at€theÏguilt€and€sentencing€phases€of€the€petitionerððs€firstÏdegree€murder€trial.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà8¸ x¸ xàÐ    ÐÓÓÐ ˜704 Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€asserts€the€following€additional€grounds:ÌÓÓà8 ¸ àà8¸ x¸ xàÐ    Ðà8 ¸ à(1)€the€petitioner€was€not€competent€to€stand€trial€and€Ïthe€original€trial€court€never€made€a€properÏdetermination€of€the€petitionerððs€competency;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€the€stateððs€withdrawal€of€medication€from€theÏpetitioner€on€the€eve€of€trial€without€any€stated€medicalÏreason€and€without€notice€to€the€defense€or€to€the€courtÏviolated€the€petitionerððs€constitutional€rights;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€prison€guards€violated€his€constitutional€rights€byÏtorturing€and€abusing€him€before,€during€and€after€hisÏtrial;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€onÏthe€bases€of€other€claims,€viewed€separately€andÏcumulatively,€which€the€petitioner€asserted€at€differentÏstages€in€this€case.€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÌÓ  Óà€xx€%àà @¸ àFirst,€we€must€deal€with€the€petitionerððs€request€that€the€stateððs€appeal€be€dismissedˆÏbecause€of€noncompliance€with€rules€of€appellate€procedure€and€trial€court€ordersÏrelative€to€the€appeal.€€The€petitionerððs€claims€include€the€stateððs€failure€to€serve€himÏwith€its€notice€of€appeal,€failure€to€file€a€complete€transcript€timely,€filing€of€a€notice€ofÏfiling€when€the€transcript€was€not€actually€filed€with€the€trial€court€clerk,€and€failure€toÏprovide€missing€exhibits€and€to€include€them€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€As€the€stateÏnotes,€the€petitioner€made€most€of€these€claims€in€previous€motions€to€dismiss€thatÏwere€denied€by€this€court.€€It€also€asserts€that€most€of€the€claims€do€not€lead€toÏdismissal€under€the€appellate€rules.€€As€for€service€of€the€notice€of€appeal,€it€states€thatÏservice€was€made€upon€the€petitionerððs€attorney,€and€it€asserts€that€the€petitioner€hasÏshown€no€prejudice€accruing€from€the€claimed€deficiencies.€€We€see€nothing€in€thisÏcase€indicating€any€act€or€omission€by€the€state€that€would€warrant€our€dismissing€theÏappeal.Ô#† X,–XXX™[ #ÔÔ‡X™XX X,–Ô€€We€will€proceed€to€the€merits.Ð 3,/ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€supreme€courtððs€direct€appeal€opinion€provides€the€following€synopsisÏof€the€evidence€presented€at€the€petitionerððs€trial:€Ô#† X,–XXX™V#ÔÐ ¸8°15 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àÔ‡X™XX X,–ÔCorrections€Officer€Moore€was€stabbed€to€deathÐ  Ðon€the€Ô#† X,–XXX™á#ÔÔ‡X™XX X,–Ônight€of€August€28,€1981.€€It€is€undisputed€thatÐ øð Ðthe€killer€was€the€defendant,€Richard€C.€Taylor.€€TheÏissue€raised€in€defense€of€the€murder€charge€was€thatÏdefendant€was€insane€at€the€time€of€the€homicide.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€record€shows€that€Mr.€Taylor€believed€thatÏhe€had€been€treated€unfairly€by€Officer€Moore€onÏseveral€occasions.€€Defendant€blamed€Moore€forÏpreventing€defendant€from€receiving€a€stereo€andÏtelevision€set€left€to€him€by€an€inmate€who€had€beenÏtransferred€from€the€Turney€Center.€€On€the€day€of€theÏkilling,€Moore€reprimanded€the€defendant€for€failing€toÏproperly€clean€the€hall.€€The€incident€that€"set€off"€theÏdefendant,€however,€occurred€an€hour€or€two€before€theÏkilling€when€Moore€removed€a€towel€that€anotherÏinmate,€Tony€Bedwell,€had€hung€over€the€window€in€aÏcell€door€to€dry€and€pushed€the€towel€under€the€door.€ÏWhen€Bedwell€asked€Moore€what€was€going€on,€MooreÏexplained€the€regulations€against€covering€the€windowÏin€the€cell€door.€€To€Bedwell,€the€incident€was€"nothingÏbig,"€but€defendant,€who€had€seen€what€happened,Ïadvised€Bedwell€to€"kick€[Moore]€up€the€side€of€hisÏhead."€€Bedwell€next€saw€the€defendant€when€he€andÏWayne€Patterson€came€to€Bedwellððs€cell€to€ask€ifÏBedwell€had€a€knife.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àAround€9:00„9:30€p.m.,€the€defendantÏapproached€Moore€as€he€stood€talking€to€someÏinmates,€cursed€and€asked€Moore,€"Now€what€are€youÏgoing€to€do,€S.O.B.?"€€Defendant€then€grabbed€MooreÏand€began€to€stab€him€repeatedly€with€a€prison„madeÏknife.€€Pleading€with€defendant€to€stop,€Moore€retreatedÏdown€the€hall.€€Defendant€continued€to€hold€Moore€andÏcontinued€to€stab€him.€€Other€inmates€protested€andÏtried€to€come€to€the€aid€of€Moore,€but€were€warned€offÏby€defendant€brandishing€his€knife.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àAfter€the€stabbing,€defendant€returned€to€his€cellÏblock,€where€he€concealed€the€knife€in€a€closet€andÏchanged€his€clothing.€€Officer€Moore€died€about€fortyÏminutes€later€in€the€prison€infirmary€from€internalÏbleeding€caused€by€a€wound€that€had€penetrated€hisÏinferior€vena€cava.€€He€also€had€suffered€potentiallyÏfatal€stab€wounds€to€the€pancreas€and€the€spleen.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àSeveral€inmates€described€defendantððsÏappearance€and€actions.€€According€to€inmateÏPatterson,€the€defendant€was€"hyper"€and€nervous.€ÏAfter€the€killing€the€defendant€walked€around€theÏhallway€"in€shock,"€disoriented,€bumping€into€peopleÏand€the€wall.€€Patterson€said€defendant€was€shakingÏand€trembling,€with€an€"expression€on€his€face€like€aÏwild€horse."€€The€officers€who€apprehended€defendantÐ ¸8°15 Ðafter€the€killing,€however,€while€remarking€that€he€wasÏshaking€and€stuttering€and€appeared€nervous,€said€thatÏdefendant€was€not€confused,€was€responsive,€coherentÏand€understood€their€questions.€€Defendant€indicatedÏhe€understood€his€rights€and€signed€a€waiver€butÏrefused€to€sign€a€confession€or€allow€his€confession€toÏbe€written€down.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓTayloróó,€771€S.W.2d€at€389„90.Ð ˆ€ ÐÌà ¸ àThe€jury€found€that€the€following€aggravating€circumstances€warranted€theÏdeath€penalty:€€(1)€the€defendant€previously€had€been€convicted€of€a€felony€thatÏinvolved€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€to€a€person;€(2)€the€murder€was€especiallyÏheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind;€(3)€the€murderÏwas€committed€by€the€defendant€while€he€was€in€lawful€custody€or€in€a€place€of€lawfulÏconfinement;€and€(4)€the€murder€was€committed€against€a€corrections€employee€whoÏwas€engaged€in€the€performance€of€his€duties,€and€defendant€knew€that€the€victim€wasÏa€corrections€employee€who€was€engaged€in€the€performance€of€his€duties.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2),(5),€(8)€and€(9)€(1982).€€In€reviewing€the€case,€our€supremeÏcourt€concluded€that€the€evidence€sustained€the€verdict€and€the€sentence.€€771€S.W.2dÏat€389.à ¸ àà  àÐ %  ÐÌÓ  Óò òPOST„CONVICTION€EVIDENTIARY€HEARINGÐ È(À!$ Ðó óÔ#† X,–XXX™m#ÔÓ  Óà ¸ àÔ‡X™XX X,–ÔMarlindo€Bruno,€a€paralegal,€testified€that€she€had€worked€with€theÐ ¨* #& Ðpetitionerððs€post„conviction€attorney€on€this€case€since€1990€or€1991€and€that€she€wasÏresponsible€for€the€custody€of€the€documents€obtained€by€petitionerððs€counsel.€€ThroughÏher,€petitionerððs€counsel€introduced€as€exhibits€copies€of€the€trial€transcript;€the€juryÏinstructions€requested€and€those€read€at€trial;€the€defenseððs€òòBradyóó€and€òòJencksóó€requestsÐ (2 +. Ðat€trial;€the€petitionerððs€medical€records€obtained€in€the€previous€trial€from€the€districtÏattorneyððs€files€and€from€the€Department€of€Correction;€a€chart€of€the€petitionerððsÏinstitutional€history;€pleadings€to€unseal€adoption€records€and€the€adoption€recordsÐ È7À04 Ðthemselves;€court€records€of€the€petitionerððs€father€and€grandfather;€a€report€by€Dr.ÏGlenn€Watson€obtained€from€the€district€attorneyððs€files;€a€tape€of€the€stateððs€interviewÏof€Dr.€John€Filley,€the€psychiatrist€who€testified€for€the€state€at€the€original€trial€regardingÏthe€petitionerððs€competency€and€sanity;€an€enhanced€tape€of€the€Filley€tape;€a€transcriptÏof€the€enhanced€tape;€copies€of€Dr.€Filleyððs€notes;€letters€written€by€the€petitioner€shortlyÏafter€the€murder;€Officer€Greenleeððs€statement;€an€anonymous€statement€taken€fromÏthe€district€attorneyððs€files;€a€statement€and€tape€recording€of€interviews€with€severalÏprison€inmates€and€the€petitioner;€an€enhanced€tape€of€the€interview€tape;€aÏtranscription€of€the€enhanced€tape;€the€victimððs€personnel€records;€and€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Motor€Vehicle€records€of€the€victim.Ì€à ¸ àà  àÐ ÈÀ Ðà ¸ àEric€G.€Prestidge,€a€recording€engineer,€testified€that€he€had€enhancedÏthe€tapes€introduced€at€the€hearing€to€make€them€more€intelligible.€€He€explained€theÏprocess€of€enhancement€and€stated€that€the€two€tapes€were€labeled€the€Filley€tape€andÏthe€confession€tape.€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€William€H.€Tragle,€III,€a€psychiatrist€employed€part„time€at€theÏForensics€Division€of€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute,€testified€that€whileÏemployed€by€the€Dede€Wallace€Mental€Health€Center,€he€consulted€with€and€treatedÏthe€petitioner€from€1981€to€1985.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€consult€with€any€state€orÏdefense€experts€before€they€testified€at€trial€about€the€petitionerððs€competence€andÏsanity.€€He€also€stated€that€petitionerððs€counsel€did€not€contact€him.€€ÌÌà ¸ àAfter€reviewing€his€notes€from€the€treatment€period,€Dr.€Tragle€testifiedÏthat€in€November€1981,€he€had€recommended€that€the€petitioner€be€placed€in€DeBerryÏCorrectional€Institute,€a€facility€that€housed€€prisoners€in€need€of€mental€healthÏtreatment.€€He€stated€that€at€that€time,€he€did€not€think€that€an€adequate€evaluationÐ È7À04 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÝñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÝñcould€be€done€at€the€prison€and€that€he€prescribed€Haldol€and€Thorazine,€twoÐ  Ðpsychotropic€medications,€for€the€petitioner.€€He€stated€that€he€prescribed€theÏmedications€because€he€believed€that€the€petitioner€suffered€from€an€anti„socialÏpersonality€disorder.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Tragle€testified€that€in€February€1982,€he€again€visited€the€petitionerÏand€considered€him€to€be€suicidal.€€He€said€that€he€put€him€on€a€suicide€watch,€orderingÏthat€he€be€observed€every€thirty€minutes.€€He€said€in€June€1983,€he€observed€that€theÏpetitioner€appeared€to€be€psychotic€but€that€the€symptoms€abated€when€treatmentÏbegan.€€He€concluded€that€the€petitioner€had€a€propensity€for€assaultive€behavior€whichÏcould€be€reduced€with€medication.€€He€stated€that€in€November€1984,€he€met€with€theÏpetitioner,€and€he€noted€that€the€petitioner€appeared€suspicious,€telling€him€that€he€didÏnot€want€anyone€to€know€what€was€on€his€mind.€€Dr.€Tragle€stated€that€he€felt€that€theÏdiagnosis€of€an€anti„social€personality€might€not€be€correct€and€that€the€petitionerððsÏillness€might€be€more€serious.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Tragle€testified€that€on€November€2,€1984,€Ô#† X,–XXX™æ/#ÔÔ‡X™XX X,–Ôhe€discontinuedÐ %  Ðmedications€at€the€petitionerððs€request.€€€He€said€that€on€December€7,€1984,€Haldol,ÏThorazine,€and€Cogentin€were€again€prescribed€for€the€petitioner.€€He€said€that€onÏJanuary€7,€1985,€he€examined€the€petitioner€and€concluded€that€he€could€not€properlyÏassess€the€petitioner€while€he€was€housed€at€the€Tennessee€State€Penitentiary€andÏcould€not€specifically€make€a€diagnosis.€€He€stated€that€in€his€last€memo€to€WardenÏDutton,€he€urgently€recommended€that€the€petitioner€be€transferred€to€DeBerryÏCorrectional€Institute€due€to€his€psychotic€behavior.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Tragle€testified€that€he€had€reviewed€two€boxes€of€the€petitionerððsÏmedical€history.€€He€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€been€abandoned€by€his€parents€andÐ È7À04 Ðplaced€in€a€foster€home.€€He€said€the€petitioner€was€subsequently€adopted€and€his€half„¼sister€was€later€adopted€by€the€same€family.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Tragle€testified€that€these€records€revealed€the€petitionerððs€use€ofÏÔ#† X,–XXX™œB#Ômorphine,€cocaine,€phencyclidine,€glue,€marijuana,€quaaludes,€amphetamines€andÐ ˆ€ Ðalcohol€at€a€very€early€age.€€He€said€the€petitioner€was€placed€in€institutions€aroundÏNashville€and€in€Tullahoma,€Tennessee.€€He€said€the€documents€showed€that€theÏpetitioner€had€numerous€conflicts€with€his€adoptive€parents.€He€said€that€in€oneÏinterview,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€he€had€committed€one€hundred€and€six€illegalÏacts,€and€in€another€interview,€he€admitted€to€one€hundred€and€forty„six€acts.€€Dr.ÏTragle€stated€that€the€history€revealed€that€the€petitioner€exhibited€mistrust,€narcissism,Ïdepression,€grandiosity,€photophobia,€hallucinogenic€occurrences,€and€a€lack€ofÏempathy.€€In€summary,€Dr.€Tragle€testified€that€throughout€the€petitionerððs€medicalÏhistory,€the€petitioner€exhibited€symptoms€of€psychosis.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€questioned€Dr.€Tragle€concerning€the€testimony€of€Dr.ÏFilley,€the€psychiatrist€who€testified€at€the€petitionerððs€original€trial.€€Dr.€TragleÏresponded€that€he€did€not€understand€why€Dr.€Filley€had€not€seen€the€possibility€of€theÏpreviously€mentioned€disorders.€€He€said€he€felt€that€Dr.€Filley€should€have€consideredÏthe€petitionerððs€consistent€drug€abuse€and€his€early€childhood€experiences.€€He€statedÏthat€any€examining€psychiatrist€should€have€considered€a€borderline€personalityÏdisorder,€paranoia,€hypermania,€and€depression.€€He€testified€that,€in€his€opinion,€theÏtwo€sessions€Dr.€Filley€had€with€the€petitioner,€lasting€a€total€of€three€hours,€and€the€oneÏpsychological€written€test€administered€to€the€petitioner€did€not€constitute€a€properÏevaluation.€€He€said€he€felt€that€Dr.€Filley€should€have€evaluated€the€petitioner€on€anÏinpatient€basis€over€time.€€He€characterized€the€level€of€the€petitionerððs€disorders€asÏsevere€to€extreme.€€He€stated€that€the€petitionerððs€statement€that€he€had€killed€theÏvictim€because€he€thought€the€victim€was€his€father€was€a€plausible€explanation.€€HeÐ Ü7Ô06 Ðalso€stated€that€the€letters€the€petitioner€wrote€shortly€after€the€killing€that€wereÏintroduced€by€the€state€at€the€original€trial€should€have€been€used€by€defense€counselÏto€show€clear€indications€of€his€severe€mental€condition.€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Tragle€admitted€that€he€had€never€seen€theÏpetitioner€in€a€delusional€or€hallucinogenic€state€and€that€the€petitioner€was€psychotic€inÏan€atypical€way.€€He€admitted€that€the€letters€the€petitioner€wrote€shortly€after€the€killingÏindicated€that€the€petitioner€understood€the€charges€against€him,€that€he€realized€thatÏhe€could€potentially€face€the€death€penalty,€and€that€he€exhibited€the€thought€processÏthat€he€could€put€on€a€"crazy€act."€€Dr.€Tragle€also€stated€that€although€he€had€not€beenÏcontacted€by€defense€counsel,€Dr.€Filley,€or€Dr.€Ragheb,€he€had€been€in€contact€withÏDr.€Chip€Burson€and€Dr.€Mitch€Stein,€who€also€testified€at€the€petitionerððs€original€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€redirect€examination,€Dr.€Tragle€reiterated€that€in€his€opinion,€theÏpetitioner€should€have€received€an€inpatient€evaluation€at€DeBerry€CorrectionalÏInstitute.€€He€said€the€records€revealed€that€the€petitioner€was€sent€to€DeBerry€but€wasÏreturned€shortly€thereafter€without€an€in„patient€review.€€He€also€refuted€Dr.€FilleyððsÏstatement€at€the€original€trial€that€none€of€the€statements€in€the€petitionerððs€prisonÏrecord€which€concluded€that€the€petitioner€was€psychotic€were€made€by€a€psychiatrist€orÏpsychologist.€€Dr.€Tragle€then€noted€numerous€indications€in€the€petitionerððs€prisonÏrecord€that€show€certain€professionals€had,€indeed,€considered€him€psychotic.€€A€tapeÏrecording€of€a€conversation€with€Dr.€Filley€and€state€counsel€was€then€played€for€theÏcourt.€€It€was€noted€that€the€tape€was€never€turned€over€to€defense€counsel€at€trial.€ÌÌà ¸ àGordon€Bonnyman,€Jr.,€an€attorney€with€Legal€Services€of€MiddleÏTennessee,€Inc.,€testified€that€he€had€been€lead€counsel€in€two€cases€related€toÏwhether€conditions€in€the€Tennessee€prison€system€violated€the€Eighth€AmendmentÏand€due€process€rights€of€inmates.€€He€said€that€this€litigation€resulted€in€the€courtððsÐ Œ7„06 Ðdetermination€that€conditions€on€death€row€at€the€former€Tennessee€State€PenitentiaryÏwere€unconstitutional.€€He€testified€that€during€the€òòGrubbsóó€litigation,€informationÐ ÔÌ Ðconcerning€mental€health€services€at€the€Tennessee€State€Penitentiary,€particularly€theÏWest„100,€was€provided€to€the€court.€€òòSeeóó€€òòGrubbs€v.€Bradleyóó,€552€F.€Supp.€1053€(Ð l d ÐM.D.€Tenn.€1982).Ô‡X™XX X,–Ô€The€West„100€was€the€first€floor€wing€on€the€west€side€of€the€prisonÐ 80 Ðhospital€and€housed€a€mixture€of€acutely€disturbed€psychiatric€patients.€The€districtÏcourtððs€findings€of€fact€in€òòGrubbsóó€concerning€the€conditions€of€West„100€were€enteredÐ üô  Ðas€an€exhibit.€€Essentially,€the€district€court€concluded€that€"the€little€treatment€thatÏpatients€caged€in€West„100€could€formerly€have€hoped€to€obtain€is€no€longer€available."€Ï552€F.€Supp.€at€1087.€€The€court€noted€that€the€lead€staff€member€had€warned€theÏwarden€that€changes€in€the€unit€had€rendered€it€"dangerous€and€unfit€for€housingÏmentally€disturbed€inmates,"€and€that€the€hospital€administrator€considered€this€unit€toÏbe€bordering€on€"inhumane."€€552€F.€Supp.€at€1087.ÌÌà ¸ àFrank€€D.€Atkinson,€sheriff€of€Hickman€County,€testified€that€heÏinterviewed€the€petitioner€on€the€night€of€the€killing.€€He€said€that€when€a€guard€broughtÏthe€petitioner€to€him€for€interrogation,€the€guard€told€him€that€the€petitioner€was€"subjectÏto€go€off€at€anytime."€€A€tape€recording€of€the€interview€was€played€for€the€court.€€SheriffÏAtkinson€also€said€that€the€petitioner€told€him€that€at€the€time€of€the€killing,€the€victimÏhad€been€"standing,€talking,€talking€to€him,€and€he€was€telling€about€the€drugs€out€in€hisÏtruck."€€Sheriff€Atkinson€reviewed€the€victimððs€employment€records,€and€the€recordsÏrevealed€that€the€victim€was€on€probation€for€insufficient€performance€and€poorÏattendance€at€the€time€of€the€killing.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€lead€attorney€at€trial€testified€that€he€had€been€practicingÏlaw€for€two€years€when€he€became€involved€in€the€petitionerððs€case€and€that€he€hadÏworked€on€two€capital€cases€prior€to€that€time€but€not€as€lead€counsel.€€He€stated€thatÐ |7t04 Ðthis€case€was€his€first€criminal€case€as€lead€counsel,€his€first€capital€case€as€leadÏcounsel,€and€his€first€case€in€which€the€defense€was€the€defendantððs€mental€state.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€identified€an€exhibit€which€was€an€affidavit€he€had€submittedÏto€appellate€counsel€in€this€case.€€In€the€affidavit,€he€stated€that€he€had€met€with€theÏpetitioner€for€the€first€time€in€November€of€1981€at€the€DeBerry€Correctional€InstituteÏand€that€the€petitioner€had€appeared€very€agitated€and€intense.€€The€affidavit€revealedÏthat€the€petitioner€shook,€displayed€inappropriate€behavior€and€made€inappropriateÏresponses.€€The€affidavit€revealed€that€the€petitioner€mistakenly€thought€that€co„counselÏhad€been€the€prosecutor€in€the€case€that€initially€brought€the€petitioner€to€prison.€€TheÏaffidavit€revealed€that€the€petitionerððs€speech€pattern€was€rapid,€halting€and€staccato,Ïand€that€his€facial€mannerisms€could€be€characterized€as€contortions.€€The€affidavitÏdescribed€his€personal€appearance€as€unkempt€and€disheveled.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€the€affidavit,€the€attorney€stated€that€he€represented€the€petitioner€fromÏ1981€until€late€1985€or€early€1986€and€that€during€this€time,€the€petitionerððs€behaviorÏhad€vacillated€dramatically.€€His€ability€to€communicate€with€counsel€had€deteriorated,Ïand€it€had€become€apparent€that€his€condition€was€better€or€worse€depending€onÏmedication.€€As€the€trial€date€approached,€the€petitioner€was€unable€to€assist€in€theÏpreparation€of€his€defense.€€He€was€uncooperative€as€to€how€he€should€dress€and€actÏat€trial.€€During€the€trial,€he€made€faces€and€gestures€toward€jurors€and€witnesses.€€HeÏrefused€to€remove€his€sunglasses.€€Other€than€personal€interviews,€counsel€spoke€withÏthe€petitioner€in€excess€of€one€hundred€times€on€the€telephone,€but€the€calls€wereÏconsistently€unproductive€in€that€the€content€of€the€conversations€had€ranged€fromÏbeing€totally€meaningless€and€absurd€to€idle€chatter.€€The€petitioner€believed€he€was€inÏcontact€with€a€universal€computer€network€that€would€allow€him€to€perform€any€task€heÏwished.€€He€also€told€counsel€that€he€had€bubonic€plague.€€The€petitioner€made€oneÐ È7À04 Ðlegitimate€suicide€attempt.€€After€he€was€sentenced€to€death,€he€repeatedly€attemptedÏto€persuade€counsel€to€assist€him€in€suicide€by€smuggling€weapons€and€poisons€to€himÏso€that€he€could€take€his€own€life.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€he€had€first€met€with€the€petitioner€four€monthsÏafter€the€killing€and€that€as€far€as€he€knew,€the€petitioner€had€not€seen€anybody€in€thatÏperiod€of€time€except€for€his€custodians.€€He€stated€that€the€petitionerððs€ability€toÏcooperate€or€assist€in€his€defense€was€"very,€very€limited."€€He€testified€that€he€hadÏnever€represented€a€defendant€who€was€as€seriously€mentally€disturbed€as€theÏpetitioner.€€He€reiterated€much€of€what€was€stated€in€his€affidavit€and€said€that€on€theÏfirst€day€of€trial,€the€petitionerððs€behavior€was€so€bizarre€that€he€requested€that€theÏpetitioner€be€kept€out€of€the€courtroom€during€jury€selection.€€He€said€that€the€petitionerÏrejected€this€request€and€was€brought€into€the€courtroom.€€The€attorney€testified€that€atÏthat€time,€he€stated€on€the€record€that€he€did€not€think€the€petitioner€was€competent€toÏstand€trial.€€He€said€the€trial€court€then€made€arrangements€for€Dr.€Mitch€Stein€toÏevaluate€the€petitionerððs€competency,€but€the€petitioner€refused€to€talk€to€Dr.€Stein.€€TheÏattorney€testified€that€because€the€petitioner€had€been€previously€evaluated€by€the€stateÏand€declared€competent,€he€felt€that€he€could€do€nothing.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€then€identified€a€letter€that€he€had€written€to€Mrs.€MelissaÏPatey,€administrator€at€the€Middle€Tennessee€Health€Center,€who€eventually€signed€aÏletter€to€the€trial€court€stating€that€the€petitioner€was€competent€and€sane.€€He€said€theÏletter€was€written€in€response€to€a€request€for€information€to€be€used€in€the€petitionerððsÏevaluation.€€He€said€the€letter€contained€names€and€statements€from€ten€people€fromÏthe€State€Department€of€Correction€and€the€inmate€population€who€had€contact€with€theÏpetitioner€since€the€killing.€€He€said€each€of€the€ten€related€in€some€fashion€that€theÏpetitioner€was€not€competent.€Ð È7À04 Ї€à ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€he€encouraged€the€Middle€Tennessee€HealthÐ  ÐCenter€personnel€to€conduct€an€intense€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€over€a€period€ofÏtime€without€medication.€€However,€according€to€counsel,€the€petitioner€was€evaluatedÏfor€a€period€of€only€two€hours€in€two€visits.€€The€attorney€then€admitted€that€he€had€notÏdemanded€a€competency€hearing€before€trial€because€he€was€afraid€that€he€wouldÏreveal€his€trial€cross„examination€to€the€state.€€He€admitted€that€it€never€occurred€to€himÏto€present€lay€testimony€on€the€issue€of€competency.€€He€then€stated€that€it€was€hisÏopinion€that€his€performance€in€this€case€failed€to€reach€the€level€of€assistanceÏdemanded€in€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€although€he€said€he€did€not€consciously€violate€anyÐ  Ðstandard.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€interview€any€of€the€people€who€had€madeÏnotations€in€the€petitionerððs€medical€and€institutional€records€from€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€concerning€his€psychotic€mental€state€but€that€he€had€read€the€records€andÏhad€given€them€to€Dr.€Stein.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€admitted€that€he€did€not€contact€Dr.€Tragle.€€He€admitted€thatÏhe€did€not€try€to€get€the€adoption€records€of€the€petitioner€although€he€felt€the€recordsÏwere€extremely€important.€€He€stated€that€in€attempting€to€portray€the€petitioner€as€aÏhuman€being€rather€than€a€monster,€the€records€would€have€been€invaluable€becauseÏhis€adoptive€parents€were€totally€alienated€from€him€at€the€time€of€trial.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€although€he€had€filed€òòBradyóó€and€òòJencksóóÐ ˆ,€%( Ðmotions,€he€had€never€received€the€tape€of€the€stateððs€interview€with€Dr.€Filley.€€HeÏstated€that€the€tape€was€important€because€Dr.€Filley€indicated€that€an€assessmentÏshould€have€been€made€of€the€petitioner€on€and€off€medication€and€that€the€petitionerÏexhibited€a€sign€of€psychosis€when€the€petitioner€stated€that€he€thought€the€victim€wasÏhis€father.€€The€attorney€stated€that€he€had€never€been€given€copies€of€letters€written€byÏinmates€to€the€district€attorney€indicating€that€the€petitioner€had€been€set€up€to€commitÐ È7À04 Ðthe€murder€by€other€inmates.€€He€admitted€that€he€did€not€have€the€petitioner€assessedÏto€determine€whether€the€petitioner€had€organic€brain€problems.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€then€ordered€that€the€petitioner€be€evaluated€by€a€court„¼appointed€psychiatrist.€€The€post„conviction€hearing€resumed€on€September€18,€1995,Ïat€which€time€Nancy€Van€Sant€Palmer,€an€attorney,€testified€that€she€began€working€onÏthis€case€in€October€of€1992.€€She€stated€that€she€spent€more€than€two€hundred€hoursÏwith€the€petitioner.€€She€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€lived€in€solitary€confinement€onÏdeath€row€since€1981.€€The€petitionerððs€institutional€and€adoption€records;€affidavitsÏfrom€biological€relatives,€adoptive€relatives,€employers,€and€a€social€worker;€and€theÏpetitionerððs€childhood€medical€records€and€school€records€were€introduced€intoÏevidence.€€The€petitionerððs€older€sisterððs€psychiatric€records€were€introduced€intoÏevidence,€revealing€that€the€sister€had€a€long€mental€health€history,€including€aÏdiagnosis€of€schizophrenia.€€An€interview€with€Troy€Roscendo€Collins,€the€half€brother€ofÏthe€petitioner,€revealed€that€he€had€experienced€a€serious€drug€and€alcohol€problem.€€AÏchart€of€the€petitionerððs€family€tree€showed€significant€drug€and€alcohol€abuse€problemsÏand€psychiatric€problems€throughout€the€family.€ÌÌà ¸ àMs.€Palmer€testified€that€the€childhood€medical€records€of€the€petitionerÏrevealed€that€he€had€been€taken€to€the€doctor€twenty„seven€times€before€he€was€ageÏthree.€€She€stated€that€the€records€also€showed€that€the€petitioner€was€frequentlyÏinaccurate€in€what€he€said€about€his€life€compared€to€what€the€records€revealed.€€NotesÏfrom€Dr.€Ragheb,€an€expert€for€the€state€who€testified€at€the€original€trial,€wereÏintroduced€into€evidence,€and€Ms.€Palmer€testified€that€many€of€the€notes€were€notÏaccurate.€€For€instance,€the€notes€indicated€that€the€petitioner€had€a€history€of€abusingÏanimals,€but€no€evidence€supported€this€determination.€€Ms€Palmer€testified€that€theÏrecords€explained€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€events€of€the€crimes€for€which€theÐ È7À04 Ðpetitioner€was€in€prison€at€the€time€of€the€killing.€€Ms.€Palmer€introduced€into€evidence€aÏrecord€on€mitigation€that€could€have€been€presented€at€the€time€of€trial.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMs.€Palmer€then€testified€as€to€what€the€petitioner€had€told€her€during€theÏtwo€hundred€hours€she€spent€with€him.€€She€said€the€petitioner€felt€that€she€was€not€hisÏsavior€but€that€the€trial€court€was€and€that€the€state€was€his€family.€€She€stated€that€itÏtook€a€long€time€to€talk€to€the€petitioner€because€his€speech€was€incoherent.€€SheÏtestified€that€the€petitioner€could€not€give€a€coherent€explanation€of€events€surroundingÏthe€killing.€€She€said€that€when€questioned€concerning€his€family,€the€closer€theÏquestion€was€to€his€emotional€attachment€to€his€family€or€his€experiences€with€hisÏfamily,€the€less€reliable€and€coherent€the€information€was.€€It€was€Ms.€Palmerððs€opinionÏthat€the€petitioner€could€not€consult€with€counsel€and€assist€in€preparing€his€defenseÏand€that€he€was€not€competent€to€stand€trial€at€the€time€of€the€post„conviction€hearing.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Pamela€Mary€Auble,€a€psychologist€with€a€specialization€inÏneuropsychology,€testified€that€she€had€been€asked€to€assess€the€competency€of€theÏpetitioner€and€had€reviewed€many€of€the€records€pertaining€to€the€petitionerððs€history.€ÏShe€described€many€of€the€tests€that€she€had€administered,€and€she€introduced€intoÏevidence€the€report€she€had€submitted€to€the€court.€€She€said€that€in€the€report,€sheÏconcluded€that€the€results€evidenced€extensive€psychopathology.€€She€stated€that€inÏaddition€to€antisocial€traits,€the€petitioner€exhibited€evidence€of€paranoia€and€psychosis.€ÏÌÌà ¸ àIn€reviewing€previous€test€results€of€the€petitioner,€Dr.€Auble€stated€thatÏthese€results€were€consistent€with€her€findings.€€Although€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€theÏpetitionerððs€results€on€the€Minnesota€Multiphasic€Personality€Inventory€(MMPI)€she€hadÏadministered€were€not€valid€because€he€had€over„endorsed€pathology,€she€reviewedÐ È7À04 Ðthe€results€from€a€previously€administered€MMPI€and€concluded€that€the€resultsÏindicated€that€the€petitioner€had€significantly€high€scores€on€the€schizophrenia€scaleÏand€the€hypomania€scale.€€Dr.€Aubleððs€diagnosis€was€that€the€petitioner€suffered€from€aÏborderline€personality€disorder.€€She€described€the€petitioner€as€immature,€unable€toÏtrust€people,€unable€to€relate€to€others,€mentally€rigid,€and€unable€to€adapt€to€newÏsituations.€€She€stated€that€he€reacts€impulsively,€especially€when€he€is€under€stress.€ÏWhen€questioned€concerning€the€petitionerððs€malingering,€Dr.€Auble€stated€that€it€wasÏher€opinion€that€he€engages€in€the€type€of€malingering€associated€with€a€borderlineÏpersonality€disorder.€€ÌÌà ¸ àReferring€to€a€report€submitted€by€the€court„appointed€psychiatrist,€Dr.ÏRappeport,€Dr.€Auble€stated€that€Dr.€Rappeport€had€not€examined€important€factorsÏconcerning€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€killing.€€She€said€that€instead,€he€hadÏquestioned€the€petitioner€about€what€his€perceptions€were€at€the€time€of€the€killing.€€Dr.ÏAuble€testified€that€upon€reviewing€other€inmatesðð€statements,€it€appeared€the€petitionerÏwas€in€a€state€of€shock€after€the€killing€and€was€not€malingering€when€he€told€officersÏthat€he€thought€the€victim€was€his€father.€€She€also€stated€that€the€letters€the€petitionerÏwrote€following€the€killing€were€not€reliable€because€the€petitioner€had€not€been€reliableÏconcerning€any€other€part€of€his€history.€€On€cross„examination,€Dr.€Auble€testified€thatÏshe€agreed€with€Dr.€Rappeportððs€report€in€part€but€disagreed€that€at€the€time€of€theÏkilling,€the€petitioner€had€exhibited€no€sign€of€psychosis.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€John€Kirby€Pate,€a€psychiatrist,€testified€that€he€had€reviewed€allÏrelevant€medical€and€prison€records€of€the€petitioner,€the€social€history€developedÏduring€the€case,€Dr.€Aubleððs€report,€and€Dr.€Rappeportððs€report.€€He€testified€that€heÏagreed€with€Dr.€Rappeportððs€diagnosis€that€the€petitioner€suffered€from€an€antisocialÏpersonality€disorder€and€borderline€personality€disorder€but€that€he€disagreed€that€theÐ È7À04 Ðpetitioner€was€not€psychotic€and€was€competent.€€According€to€Dr.€Pate,€personsÏsuffering€from€a€borderline€personality€disorder€cannot€cope€with€stress€and€oftenÏbecome€psychotic.€€He€said€they€become€confused,€irrational,€and€impulsive.€€He€statedÏthat€when€such€a€person€experiences€a€psychotic€episode,€the€person€becomes€unableÏto€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Pate€testified€that€he€had€interviewed€the€petitioner€on€three€occasionsÏover€a€total€of€six€hours€and€had€diagnosed€the€petitioner€as€suffering€from€a€borderlineÏpersonality€disorder.€€He€disagreed€with€Dr.€Rappeport€that€the€petitioner€wasÏmalingering€after€the€killing.€€After€reading€the€statements€of€other€inmates€who€hadÏwitnessed€the€killing,€Dr.€Pate€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€suffering€from€a€psychoticÏepisode€at€the€time€of€the€killing€and€that€it€was€entirely€possible€that€the€petitionerÏthought€the€victim€was€his€father.€€Dr.€Pate€also€stated€that€the€fact€that€the€petitionerÏhad€been€placed€on€psychotic€medication€before€trial€but€at€the€time€of€trial€was€takenÏoff€the€medication€would€have€caused€him€to€be€more€anxious,€impulsive,€andÏcognitively€disorganized€at€the€time€of€trial.€€Dr.€Pate€also€believed€that€at€the€time€ofÏthe€hearing,€the€petitioner€was€not€competent€to€stand€trial.€€On€cross„examination,€Dr.ÏPate€admitted€that€he€was€opposed€to€the€death€penalty.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€attorney€on€direct€appeal€testified€that€on€his€first€meetingÏwith€the€petitioner,€the€petitioner€struck€him€as€being€"one€of€the€most€out€of€touchÏpeople€[he€had]€ever€been€around."€€He€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€not€been€able€toÏfocus€on€anything€having€to€do€with€his€case.€€He€described€incidents€during€hisÏrepresentation€when€the€petitioner€referred€to€himself€as€Carlos,€a€Central€AmericanÏterrorist,€and€often€used€a€South€American€accent€when€being€interviewed.€€He€testifiedÏthat€at€no€time€during€his€representation€of€the€petitioner€did€the€petitioner€assist€him€inÏhis€defense.€€He€stated€that€the€petitioner,€however,€always€took€the€position€that€heÐ È7À04 Ðwas€competent€and€filed€motions€with€such€titles€as€"Best€of€Ability€Motion."€€WhenÏquestioned€concerning€whether€the€petitioner€had€exhibited€signs€of€malingering,Ïcounsel€testified€that€he€never€perceived€that€the€petitioner€was€trying€consciously€toÏmislead€anyone€concerning€his€mental€condition.ÌÌà ¸ àAppellate€counsel€testified€that€he€had€filed€a€post„conviction€relief€petitionÏchallenging€prior€convictions€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner€but€that€when€he€had€attemptedÏto€discuss€the€petition€with€the€petitioner,€the€petitioner€became€agitated€and€would€notÏcooperate.€€On€cross„examination,€counsel€admitted€that€he€was€personally€opposed€toÏthe€death€penalty.€€On€redirect,€counsel€acknowledged€that€the€petitionerððs€prior€offenseÏof€robbery€involved€stealing€a€pack€of€cigarettes.ÌÌà ¸ àLead€trial€counsel€for€the€petitioner€was€recalled€to€testify.€€He€recalledÏthat€on€the€first€day€of€jury€selection€at€the€petitionerððs€original€trial,€the€petitioner€was€soÏagitated€that€counsel€attempted€to€talk€him€into€waiving€his€presence€in€the€courtroom,Ïand€when€the€petitioner€would€not€waive€the€right,€counsel€participated€in€an€in„¼chambers€conference€with€the€judge€concerning€his€competency.€€He€said€that€Dr.€SteinÏwas€called€to€conduct€a€competency€hearing€on€the€spot,€but€the€petitioner€refused€toÏcooperate€with€him.€€Counsel€admitted€that€he€had€not€recalled€Dr.€Stein€to€attemptÏanother€evaluation.€€The€original€trial€court€had€then€ruled€that€the€petitioner€wasÏcompetent€to€stand€trial.€€Counsel€testified€that€although€he€was€convinced€that€theÏpetitioner€was€not€in€any€shape€to€go€to€trial,€the€defense€had€no€way€to€show€that€theÏpetitioner€was€not€competent€because€the€stateððs€expert€had€found€him€competent,€andÏthe€petitioner€would€not€respond€to€defense€experts.€ÌÌà ¸ àCounsel€admitted€that€he€did€not€present€any€evidence€regarding€theÏpetitionerððs€prior€convictions€for€robbery€and€joyriding€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€HeÐ È7À04 Ðstated€that€if€he€had€known€that€the€petitioner€had€been€taken€off€his€medicine€shortlyÏbefore€trial,€he€would€have€brought€that€to€the€attention€of€the€court.€€He€also€stated€thatÏbecause€he€had€been€denied€funds€for€a€defense€expert€until€eleven€or€twelve€daysÏbefore€trial,€he€had€not€been€ready€for€trial€at€the€time€it€commenced€but€had€notÏrequested€a€continuance.à h àà À àÐ ˆ€ ÐÌà ¸ àCo„counsel€for€the€petitioner€at€the€original€trial€testified€that€he€had€beenÏappointed€to€the€case€approximately€two€months€before€the€trial.€€He€stated€that€heÏcould€not€recall€conducting€any€field€investigation€in€the€case.€€Co„counsel€corroboratedÏlead€counselððs€testimony€concerning€their€concern€about€the€petitionerððs€competency€onÏthe€first€day€of€trial.€€He€recalled€that€funds€for€expert€services€had€been€denied€by€theÏtrial€court€until€shortly€before€trial€and€that€at€that€time,€the€defense€was€committed€toÏwitnesses€that€had€already€volunteered€their€services.€€He€confirmed€lead€counselððsÏtestimony€that€any€conversations€between€counsel€and€the€petitioner€at€trial€had€beenÏmeaningless.€€He€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€misbehaved€during€the€trialÏrepeatedly,€especially€with€regard€to€his€appearance.€€He€stated€that€upon€reflection€ofÏthe€petitionerððs€behavior€throughout€co„counselððs€representation,€it€was€his€opinion€thatÏthe€petitioner€never€fully€appreciated€what€was€happening€to€him€in€the€legal€systemÏand€that€he€fought€counsel€throughout€the€trial.€€He€testified€that€he€never€thought€theÏpetitioner€was€faking€his€symptoms.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€testified€that€the€victim€had€not€been€stabbed€in€the€back,Ïthat€he€had€not€said€that€he€hoped€"the€son€of€a€b„„„„"€died,€that€other€prisoners€hadÏhidden€the€knife,€that€prisoner€Patterson€had€control€of€the€knife€that€killed€the€victim,Ïthat€he€had€been€offered€five€hundred€dollars€to€kill€the€victim€but€that€he€had€initiallyÏrefused€because€he€was€an€orphan€of€the€state€and€it€was€his€duty€to€protect€an€agentÏof€the€institution,€and€that€he€had€not€intended€to€kill€the€victim€but€that€the€victim€hadÐ È7À04 Ðmade€another€inmate€think€the€petitioner€had€called€him€"nigger"€when€it€was€actuallyÏthe€victim€who€called€the€inmate€"nigger."€€He€also€stated€that€he€had€tried€to€leaveÏbefore€stabbing€the€victim,€but€a€force€had€prevented€him€from€leaving.ÌÌà ¸ àAppellate€co„counsel€for€the€petitioner€testified€that€in€his€first€meeting€withÏthe€petitioner,€the€petitioner€would€not€talk€with€him€and€staged€a€"one„man€play€inÏwhich€he€reached€under€a€chair€and€said,€ððwhat€if€I€had€hidden€a€gun€here€and€thenÏproceeded€to€go€through€a€prison€escape.€.€.€.ðð"€€€Counsel€stated€that€at€no€time€duringÏhis€representation€of€the€petitioner€did€the€petitioner€appear€to€be€interested€in€his€case.€ÏHe€said€the€petitioner€would€assume€foreign€identities€and€talk€nonsense.€€He€said€heÏbelieved€that€the€petitioner€was€interested€in€dying.€€He€recalled€the€petitioner€becomingÏfixated€on€lead€counselððs€fiancee€at€a€hearing€and€telling€the€trial€court€that€she€was€aÏContra.€€On€cross„examination,€counsel€stated€that€it€was€his€opinion€that€the€petitionerÏwas€not€responsible€for€his€actions€and€that€the€petitioner€was€not€malingering,€either€atÏthe€original€trial€or€at€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing.ÌÌà ¸ àDavid€Raybin,€a€practicing€attorney,€testified€as€an€expert€for€the€defenseÏthat€he€had€worked€for€the€Attorney€General€when€Tennesseeððs€death€penalty€statuteÏhad€been€declared€unconstitutional€and€that€he€had€drafted€the€current€death€penaltyÏstatute.€€He€stated€that€he€had€reviewed€materials€in€this€case€but€had€never€spokenÏwith€the€petitioner€or€with€any€of€the€attorneys€associated€with€the€original€trial.€€HeÏtestified€that€in€the€present€case,€there€was€no€Sixth€Amendment€violation€regardingÏpremeditation€or€deliberation€or€the€guilt€or€innocence€phase€involving€insanity,€butÏthere€was€a€Sixth€Amendment€violation€in€regard€to€mitigation€during€the€sentencingÏphase€and€to€the€issue€of€competency.€€In€concluding€that€counsel€was€ineffective€withÏregard€to€mitigation,€he€noted€that€lead€counsel€had€not€interviewed€Dr.€Tragle€and€hadÏnot€obtained€adoption€records.€€He€also€noted€that€the€Filley€tape€would€have€beenÐ È7À04 Ðimportant€to€the€defense.€€He€concluded€that€because€the€jury€had€not€been€adequatelyÏinformed,€a€reasonable€probability€existed€that€it€would€have€reached€a€different€result€ifÏthe€information€had€been€provided.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Jonas€R.€Rappeport,€a€psychiatrist,€testified€that€the€post„convictionÏcourt€asked€him€to€evaluate€the€petitioner€and€to€render€an€opinion€as€to€the€petitionerððsÏsanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€a€diagnosis€of€his€mental€illness€at€the€time€of€theÏoffense,€and€a€determination€of€his€competence€at€the€time€of€the€post„convictionÏhearing.€€Dr.€Rappeport€stated€that€he€reviewed€all€materials€sent€to€him€and€that€heÏsecured€the€services€of€Dr.€Diana€McCoy€to€conduct€a€social€background€investigationÏof€the€petitioner.€€Dr.€Rappeport€testified€that€he€also€consulted€with€others€who€hadÏreviewed€the€petitionerððs€records,€with€a€psychiatrist€who€specialized€in€genetics,€with€aÏneurologist€concerning€the€petitionerððs€tremors,€with€Dr.€Auble,€and€with€Dr.€Pate.€€HeÏthen€opined€that€the€petitioner€suffered€from€an€antisocial€personality€disorder€and€aÏborderline€personality€disorder.€€He€testified,€however,€that€he€had€not€seen€evidence€ofÏpsychosis€in€the€petitioner.€€He€concluded€that€the€petitionerððs€belief€that€he€was€anÏorphan€of€the€state€did€not€qualify€as€a€delusion.€€He€stated€that€he€found€evidence€ofÏmalingering€by€the€petitioner€when€he€told€officers€that€he€thought€the€victim€was€hisÏfather€and€that€a€special€force€had€caused€him€to€commit€the€offense.€€He€also€statedÏthat€it€was€his€opinion€that€the€petitioner€was€competent€in€1984€to€stand€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Rappeport€admitted€that€the€bill€for€his€servicesÏwas€over€twenty€thousand€dollars,€that€Dr.€McCoy€billed€over€twenty„six€thousandÏdollars€and€that€Dr.€Shapiro€billed€six€hundred€dollars.€€Dr.€Rappeport€stated€that€heÏhad€met€with€the€petitioner€for€approximately€five€hours€and€then€with€Ms.€Palmer€andÏpost„conviction€counsel.€€He€said€he€told€post„conviction€counsel€that€this€was€a€difficultÏcase.€€He€said€he€then€met€with€Dr.€Auble€and€then€with€the€petitioner€again€forÐ È7À04 Ðapproximately€three€and€one„half€hours.€€He€said€he€told€post„conviction€counsel€thatÏhe€needed€a€social€history€of€the€petitioner€and€an€examination€by€a€neurologist.€€HeÏsaid€that€when€he€returned€to€Baltimore,€he€wrote€to€Dr.€McCoy€and€informed€her€thatÏhe€had€major€concerns€about€the€petitionerððs€prenatal€care€and€early€childhood.€€HeÏsaid€he€then€wrote€the€trial€court€and€requested€permission€for€the€services€of€Dr.ÏMcCoy€and€Dr.€Shapiro.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Rappeport€admitted€that€persons€suffering€from€a€borderlineÏpersonality€disorder€may€experience€transient€psychotic€episodes€and€can€lose€controlÏof€their€anger€and€rage.€€He€also€admitted€that€he€had€written€Dr.€McCoy€to€inform€herÏthat€he€did€not€want€her€to€look€into€the€conditions€of€the€prison€at€the€time€of€the€killingÏor€at€the€time€of€trial€or€to€interview€anyone€who€had€examined€the€petitioner.€€Dr.ÏRappeport€admitted€that€although€he€had€informed€Dr.€McCoy€that€he€had€spoken€withÏall€of€the€individuals€who€evaluated€the€petitioner€at€the€time€of€the€original€trial€orÏimmediately€after€the€murder,€he€had€not€actually€interviewed€anyone.€€He€furtherÏadmitted€that€no€person€had€evaluated€the€petitioner€immediately€after€the€murder.€€Dr.ÏRappeport€admitted€that€his€report€did€not€mention€any€witnessððs€observations€of€theÏpetitioner€around€the€time€of€the€killing€or€any€of€the€stresses€that€might€have€existed€inÏthe€petitionerððs€life€at€this€time.€€He€said€his€report€did€not€mention€that€the€petitionerÏhad€been€taken€off€his€medication€prior€to€the€killing€or€that€the€prison€to€which€theÏpetitioner€had€been€transferred€was€considered€a€"death€trap"€by€a€prison€expert€whoÏhad€visited€it€within€three€weeks€of€the€killing.€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Rappeport€acknowledged€that€in€1980,€the€petitioner€was€twiceÏdiagnosed€with€paranoid€schizophrenia€at€Multi„County€Comprehensive€Mental€HealthÏCenter€and€that€Dr.€Tragle,€in€1984,€had€diagnosed€the€petitioner€as€having€anÏexplosive€personality€disorder.€€He€admitted€that€in€his€report€he€had€not€included€theÐ È7À04 Ðfact€that€the€petitioner€had€been€taken€off€his€medication€shortly€before€his€trial.€€HeÏadmitted€that€he€had€not€reviewed€all€the€materials€that€were€sent€to€him€but€stated€thatÏhis€associates€had€reviewed€them€and€that€he€had€reviewed€their€notes.€€He€admittedÏthat€he€had€not€contacted€co„counsel€in€the€original€trial€even€though€post„convictionÏcounsel€had€encouraged€him€to€do€so.€€€He€admitted€that€there€had€been€severalÏinstances€in€the€petitionerððs€background€in€which€psychiatrists€and€psychologistsÏnoticed€psychotic€symptoms€and€did€not€suspect€malingering.€€Post„conviction€counselÏthen€referred€to€numerous€errors€or€misstatements€in€Dr.€Rappeportððs€report€concerningÏthe€petitionerððs€family€history€of€mental€illness,€the€statement€that€the€petitioner€hadÏbeen€transferred€from€Turney€Center€to€DeBerry€Correctional€Institute€for€drugÏtreatment€in€1981€when€he€had€actually€been€transferred€for€psychiatric€treatment,€andÏinaccuracies€concerning€names,€dates,€and€the€like.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Patricia€Corey,€a€psychiatrist€at€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€HealthÏInstitute€(MTMHI)€testified€as€a€rebuttal€witness.€€She€said€that€she€had€been€theÏadmitting€doctor€for€the€petitioner€in€1979€and€had€diagnosed€him€as€suffering€fromÏpsychosis€associated€with€drug€intoxication.€€She€stated€that€she€had€seen€no€signs€ofÏmalingering€at€that€time.€€She€said€that€after€the€petitioner€was€admitted€to€MTMHI,€€Dr.ÏRagheb€had€treated€him,€and€his€diagnosis€had€been€an€antisocial€personality€disorderÏwith€drug€abuse€and€drug„induced€psychosis.€€Dr.€Corey€stated€that€she€testified€at€theÏpetitionerððs€original€trial€and€that€she€witnessed€the€petitioner€acting€in€a€very€bizarreÏmanner€at€the€trial.€€She€stated€that€based€upon€her€observation€of€the€petitioner,€asÏwell€as€her€communications€with€counsel€at€the€original€trial,€it€was€her€opinion€that€atÏthe€time€of€trial,€the€petitioner€was€not€capable€of€assisting€counsel€in€his€defense.€Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àIn€its€"Findings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law,"€the€trial€court€concludedÏthat€although€numerous€issues€had€been€previously€determined€or€waived,€theÐ È7À04 Ðpetitionerððs€trial€counselsðð€performance€was€not€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€and€that€counsel€had€not€adequately€preparedÏthe€case€for€trial€at€both€the€guilt€phase€and€the€sentencing€phase.€€The€court€furtherÏfound€that€the€petitioner€was€prejudiced€by€the€inadequacy€of€trial€counselsððÏperformance.€€The€trial€court€set€aside€both€the€conviction€and€sentence€of€death€andÏremanded€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€However,€the€court€also€found€that€the€petitionerÏwas€not€competent€to€stand€trial€and€ordered€that€he€be€held€without€bond€pendingÏmental€competence€to€standÔ#† X,–XXX™©X#Ô€trial.Ð (  ÐÌÔ‡X™XX X,–Ôà ¸ àIn€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€determinations,€we€are€guided€by€certain€well„Ð ØÐ Ðestablished€principles.€€The€burden€was€on€the€petitioner€at€the€hearing€to€prove€hisÏcase€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€On€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€areÏconclusive€unless€the€record€preponderates€against€its€determinations.€€òòTurner€v.€Stateóó,Ð xp Ð698€S.W.2d€90,€91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Further,€the€burden€now€rests€on€theÏappealing€party€to€illustrate€why€the€record€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòBlackÐ 8!0 Ðv.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð # ÐÌà ¸ àInitially,€we€are€confronted€with€the€stateððs€contention€that€our€review€is€òòdeóóÐ Ø&Ð" Ðòònovoóó€relative€to€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€resolution€of€the€issueÐ ¸(°!$ Ðinvolves€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact.€€The€state€argues€that€mixed€questions€doÏnot€limit€a€reviewing€court€in€making€its€own€conclusions€from€the€evidence€of€record.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àWe€acknowledge€that€Tennessee€courts€have€previously€noted€that€inÏcertain€circumstances,€a€trial€courtððs€findings€are€not€binding€on€appeal€when€a€mixedÏquestion€of€fact€and€law€is€involved.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSullivan€v.€Greenóó,€206€Tenn.€421,€457,Ð ø3ð,0 Ð331€S.W.2d€686,€692„93€(1959)€(holding€that€the€material€evidence€rule€in€workmenððsÏcompensation€cases€does€not€apply€to€a€mixed€question€of€fact€and€law);€òòHarries€v.Ð ¸7°04 ÐStateóó,€958€S.W.2d€799,€802€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(relying€upon€federal€cases€toÐ  Ðconclude€that€the€question€of€harmlessness€of€a€constitutional€error€is€reviewed€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÐ èà Ðas€a€mixed€question);€òòCoates€v.€Thompsonóó,€713€S.W.2d€83,€84€(Tenn.€Court€App.Ð È À Ð1986)€(stating€that€a€chancellorððs€findings€on€mixed€questions€are€not€entitled€to€aÏpresumption€of€correctness).€€However,€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€in€a€post„¼conviction€case€have€not€been€similarly€reviewed€relative€to€the€question€of€theÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578„79€(Tenn.€1997),€our€supremeÐ  Ðcourt€stated€the€following€relative€to€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€post„convictionÏdeterminations€based€upon€an€evidentiary€hearing:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àThe€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€judge€on€a€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€juryÏverdict€and€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€thoseÏfindings.€[òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.Ð h` Ð1996)];€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.Ð X P Ð1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.Ð H!@ Ð1990).€In€evaluating€whether€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€we€areÏguided€by€longstanding€rules€of€appellate€procedure.€ÏAppellate€courts€in€this€State€do€not€reweigh€orÏreevaluate€the€evidence.€€We€can€not€substitute€ourÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€judge.€€Moreover,Ïquestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,Ïthe€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony,€andÏthe€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€to€beÏresolved€by€the€trial€judge.€€Finally,€the€party€seeking€toÏoverturn€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge€bears€the€burdenÏon€appeal€of€demonstrating€why€the€evidence€containedÏin€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€theÏtrial€judge.€€òòBolin€v.€Stateóó,€219€Tenn.€4,€11,€405€S.W.2dÐ h.`'* Ð768,€771€(1966);€òòCooperóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€527;€òòBlack€v.Ð X/P(+ ÐStateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð H0@), ÐIt€is€with€these€principles€in€mind€that€we€evaluate€theÏfindings€of€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeal€with€respect€to€the€petitionerððs€claim€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€sentencing.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€court€stated€that€the€issue€before€it€was€ð ðwhether€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€establish€thatÐ È7À04 Ðhe€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€€960€S.W.€2dÏat€580.€€As€the€court€indicates,€giving€the€trial€courtððs€decision€the€weight€of€a€juryÏverdict€in€a€post„conviction€case€is€not€novel.€€òòSeeóó€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14Ð È À Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978);€òòBratten€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€754,€756€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¨   Ð1971).€€In€fact,€a€jury€verdict€is€inherently€the€juryððs€answer€to€a€mixed€question€of€factÏand€law.€€Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àThe€trial€courtððs€decision€also€necessarily€involves€inferences€reasonablyÏdrawn€from€the€facts€and€law,€if€correctly€instructed,€that€are€binding€upon€us€even€if€weÏsee€other€inferences€that€could€reasonably€be€drawn.€€òòSeeóó€òòBolinóó,€219€Tenn.€at€11,€405Ð èà ÐS.W.2d€at€771.€€In€any€event,€òòHenleyóó€controls.€€We€conclude€that€our€standard€of€reviewÐ ÈÀ Ðin€this€case€is€whether€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€theÏfindings€of€the€trial€court,€giving€due€deference€to€those€findings€under€the€well„settledÏrules€noted€in€òòHenleyóó.Ð h` Ѐ€ÌÓ  Óò òÓÓI.€STANDARD€FOR€DETERMINING€PREJUDICE€REGARDING€THE€INEFFECTIVEÐ (#  ÐASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óÐ $ ÐÓ  ÓÌÓÓà ¸ àThe€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€applied€the€wrong€standard€inÏconcluding€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counselsðð€deficiencies€were€prejudicial€so€as€toÏrender€their€representation€constitutionally€ineffective.€€Under€the€Sixth€Amendment€toÏthe€United€States€Constitution,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€isÏmade,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counselððs€performance€wasÏdeficient€and€(2)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€of€rendering€a€reasonableÏprobability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€fundamentallyÏunfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);Ð 3,/ ÐòòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€369„72,€113€S.€Ct.€838,€842„44€(1993).€€That€is,Ð ø4ð-1 Ðthere€must€be€ð ða€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€theÏresult€of€the€proceeding€would€be€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probabilityÐ ¸8°15 Ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ð  ÐCt.€at€2068.€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied,€as€well,€to€the€right€to€counselÐ èà Ðunder€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2dÐ È À Ð417,€419€n.€2€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€493€U.S.€874€(1989).€€Ð ¨   ÐÌà ¸ àThe€state€notes€that€the€trial€court,€in€its€written€findings,€stated€that€but€forÏcounselsðð€deficiencies,€ð ðthe€fact€finder€òòcould€have€madeóó€a€contrary€finding.ðð€(emphasisÐ H@  Ðadded).€€It€asserts€that€this€is€a€different€and€lower€standard€than€required€underÏòòStricklandóó.€€The€petitioner€responds€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€are€not€encapsulatedÐ  Ðin€the€part€upon€which€the€state€relies.€€He€notes€that€the€trial€judge€was€a€respectedÏjurist€who€had€been€called€upon€many€times€to€apply€the€òòStricklandóó€standard€to€claimsÐ ÈÀ Ðof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€he€asserts€that€we€should€recognize€that€theÏstandard€was€applied€in€this€case.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€relevant€portion€of€the€trial€courtððs€Findings€of€Fact€and€ConclusionsÏof€Law€is€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à€€€€In€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effectiveÏassistance€at€trial,€the€court€must€decide€whetherÏcounselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.Ð Ø'Ð # ÐòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÐ È(À!$ Ðsucceed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€atÏtrial,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€hisÏcounsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€he€was€notÏfunctioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€SixthÏAmendment€and€that€the€deficient€representationÏprejudiced€the€petitioner€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produceÏa€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð X/P(+ Ð668,€687,€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooperÐ H0@), Ðv.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.Ð 810*- ÐStateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€To€satisfyÐ (2 +. Ðthe€second€prong,€the€petitioner€must€show€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððsÏunreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€have€hadÏreasonable€doubt€regarding€petitionerððs€guilt.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probabilityÐ Ø6Ð/3 Ðâ âmust€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÐ È7À04 Ðoutcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.Ð  Ð1994).Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÌà8 ¸ à€€€€€The€court€finds€that€trial€counselorsðð€performanceÏwas€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€Based€on€the€factualÏevidence€adduced€during€the€post„conviction€hearingÏand€other€submitted€information,€the€court€finds€thatÏcounsel€failed€to€adequately€prepare€Taylorððs€case€forÏtrial€at€both€the€guilt€phase€[and€sentencing].€ÏCounselors€did€not€fully€seek€exploration€of€the€mentalÏcompetency€at€trial€despite€the€evidence€which€showedÏa€background€replete€with€mental€problems.€ÏCounselors€failed€to€explore€this€issue€for€mitigation€orÏto€put€forth€evidence€concerning€his€background,Ïmedications,€and€social€history.€€The€attorneys€admitÏthat€they€failed€to€put€forth€evidence,€to€call€witnessesÏand€to€fully€flesh€out€the€competence€issue.€€In€fact€theÏrecord€has€been€filled€with€evidence€that€was€left€out€ofÏthe€trial,€and€especially€the€sentencing€hearingÏregarding€petitionerððs€mental€illnesses.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àð ðIt€is€well€established€that€the€issue€of€mentalÏcondition€takes€on€an€especially€significant€role€for€theÏpenalty€phase€of€capital€cases,€and€there€is€aÏheightened€need€in€such€cases€for€trial€counsel€toÏinvestigate€and€to€present€evidence€of€the€defendantððsÏmental€health€and€history,€particularly€in€the€form€ofÏexpert€testimony,€even€if€that€evidence€does€not€renderÏthe€defendant€insane€or€incompetent€to€stand€trial.ðð€òòSeeóóÐ 8"0 Ðòòe.g.,óó€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€529„32€(Tenn.Ð (#  ÐCrim.€App.€1992).Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€court€further€finds€trial€counselors€did€notÏcomport€with€the€requirements€of€òòBaxteróó€and€that€as€aÐ è&à" Ðresult,€petitioner€was€prejudiced€by€the€inadequacy€ofÏperformance.€€Furthermore,€that€but€for€these€errors,Ïthe€fact„finder€could€have€made€a€contrary€finding.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  Ó€These€determinations€came€after€detailed€factual€findings€relating€to€the€petitionerððsÏmental€history€that€was€neither€sought€nor€discovered€by€trial€counsel,€the€seriousnessÏof€the€petitionerððs€mental€condition,€and€the€failure€of€trial€counsel€to€presentÏappropriate€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€mental€condition€at€appropriate€times€in€the€trial.Ô#† X,–XXX™Î#ÔÐ 810*- ÐÌà ¸ àWe€believe€that€the€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€scrutinized€theÏevidence€and€carefully€contemplated€its€ultimate€decisions.€€We€are€well€aware€of€theÏtrial€judgeððs€long€and€respected€career€as€a€trial€and€appellate€judge€with€muchÐ |8t15 Ðexperience€in€post„conviction€cases€that€were€analyzed€and€decided€under€theÏappropriate€standard€for€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Given€the€record€beforeÏus€and€the€full€statement€of€the€analysis€in€the€ð ðFindings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€ofÏLaw,ðð€we€seriously€doubt€that€the€extent€of€the€trial€courtððs€findings€and€conclusionsÏregarding€prejudice€is€confined€only€to€the€one€sentence€questioned€by€the€state.€€InÏany€event,€the€trial€court€made€findings€from€which€one€can€only€conclude€that€theÏevidence€regarding€the€petitionerððs€severe€mental€health€problems€that€was€neitherÏsought,€found,€nor€presented€by€his€trial€counsel€would€probably€have€altered€theÏconvicting€courtððs€determination€that€the€petitioner€was€competent€to€stand€trial,€theÏjuryððs€conclusion€that€he€was€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€beyond€reasonable€doubt,Ïand€the€juryððs€conclusion€that€the€death€penalty€was€appropriate.€€Thus,€we€view€theÏstandard€of€prejudice€to€be€met€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€and€conclusions.Ô‡X™XX X,–ÔÐ ÌÄ ÐÌÓ  Óò òll.€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óÐ xp ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€state€contends€that€the€petitioner€received€constitutionally€adequateÏcounsel€at€his€trial.€€It€states€that€counsel€did€raise€and€present€evidence€on€the€issuesÏof€the€petitionerððs€competency€and€mental€condition€at€the€trial.€€It€questions€theÏcredibility€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorneys€and€touts€the€strength€of€its€expert€witnessesððÏtestimony€regarding€the€petitionerððs€mental€condition.€€It€also€asserts€that€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€the€convicting€trial€was€such€that€the€evidence€developed€at€the€post„¼conviction€hearing€would€not€have€made€any€difference€relative€to€the€competencyÏdetermination,€guilt€finding,€and€sentencing€that€occurred€in€the€convicting€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àFirst,€we€believe€that€the€stateððs€position€regarding€the€trial€attorneysððÏtestimony€and€the€expert€testimony€would€have€us€reassess€witness€credibility€andÏreweigh€the€evidence.€€As€we€previously€noted,€our€supreme€court€has€stated€that€weÏmay€neither€reassess€witness€credibility€nor€reweigh€their€testimony€or€the€evidenceÏgenerally.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€578„89.€€Moreover,€we€cannot€substitute€ourÐ ¸8°16 Ðinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€court.€€òòId.óó€at€79.€€The€trial€courtððs€findingsÐ  Ðimplicitly€accredit€the€attorneysðð€testimony€and€doubt€the€validity€of€the€stateððs€expertÏtestimony.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€state€notes€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€raised€the€issue€of€hisÏcompetency€before€trial€and€on€the€day€that€the€trial€began€and€that€they€presentedÏconsiderable€lay€and€expert€evidence€regarding€the€petitionerððs€history€of€mentalÏproblems.€€It€asserts€that€both€were€done€adequately€for€purposes€of€the€constitutionalÏright€to€counsel.€€The€state€refers€us€to€the€supreme€courtððs€opinion€in€the€direct€appealÏrelative€to€both€assertions.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€the€issue€of€competency,€the€supreme€courtððs€opinion€provides:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àDefendant€first€requested€a€mental€evaluationÏhearing€in€March€1982;€and€on€April€12,€1982,€the€trialÏcourt€ordered€his€transfer€to€Middle€Tennessee€MentalÏHealth€Institute€(MTMHI).€€Because€the€indictmentÏagainst€the€defendant€was€dismissed,€the€defendantððsÏevaluation€was€suspended€apparently€pursuant€toÏregulations€that€charges€must€be€pending€for€suchÏevaluations.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„301.Ð$¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àFinally,€in€November€1983,€after€defendant€hadÏbeen€reindicted,€the€trial€court€again€orderedÏdefendantððs€transfer€to€MTMHI€for€a€mental€competencyÏevaluation.€€Dr.€Filley€interviewed€defendant€at€MTMHIÏon€December€7,€1983,€and€again€on€January€25,€1984,Ïfor€approximately€an€hour€and€a€half€each€time.€€HeÏinvestigated€defendantððs€responses€ð ðabout€his€presentÏcircumstances,€about€the€time€of€his€charges€in€theÏpresent€case,ðð€and€observed€the€mental€status€ofÏdefendant€whom€he€found€to€be€nervous€but€capable€ofÏresponding€coherently€and€rationally.€€Dr.€FilleyÏdiscussed€ð ðtrial€circumstancesðð€with€the€defendant€butÏleft€the€investigation€regarding€competence€primarily€upÏto€Dr.€Glen€Watson,€a€clinical€psychologist,€whoÏconducted€one€test€with€the€defendant€before€theÏdefendant€refused€to€allow€any€further€tests.€€Dr.€FilleyÏreviewed€Dr.€Watsonððs€conclusion€that€the€defendantÏwas€competent€to€stand€trial€and€talked€with€theÏdefendant€ð ðabout€his€understanding€of€his€situation€atÏsome€length.ðð€€He€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€needÏfor€immediate€gratification€might€cause€some€difficultyÐ ¸8°15 Ðin€his€conferring€with€his€attorneys,€but€gave€anÏunqualified€opinion€in€his€report€to€the€court€thatÏdefendant€was€competent€to€stand€trial,€that€heÏunderstood€the€charges€against€him€and€theirÏconsequences€and€that€he€was€able€to€advise€hisÏcounsel€and€participate€in€his€defense.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àAt€a€hearing€on€February€22,€1984,€theÏdefendant€challenged€the€adequacy€of€the€evaluationÏand€requested€additional€evaluation€as€to€sanity€at€theÏtime€of€the€offense.€€Counsel,€however,€did€notÏspecifically€argue€that€defendant€was€not€competent,Ïhis€major€concern€at€that€time€being€the€appointment€ofÏa€psychiatric€expert€to€assist€in€the€defense.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€competency€issue€was€raised€again€on€theÏfirst€day€of€the€trial.€€Counsel€for€defendant€stated€thatÏhe€had€serious€doubts€about€defendantððs€competencyÏbased€on€his€ð ðtotal€experience€with€[defendant]€andÏwhatððs€happened€the€last€couple€of€days€and€whatððsÏgoing€on€this€morning.ðð€€Counsel€never€gave€anyÏspecific€reason€for€his€doubts€but€the€problem€appearsÏto€be€defendantððs€general€uncooperativeness€and€hisÏdisagreement€with€counsel€ð ðabout€pretty€muchÏeverything.ðð€€The€trial€court€gave€Dr.€Stein,€defendantððsÏpsychologist,€time€to€examine€the€defendant.€€When€theÏcourt€inquired€about€the€progress€of€the€evaluation,Ïcounsel€stated€that€defendant€refused€to€talk€with€Dr.ÏStein€and€offered€nothing€further.€€The€judge€thenÏaddressed€the€defendant€who€asserted€that€he€wasÏmentally€sound,€but€refused€to€answer€when€asked€if€heÏunderstood€the€charge€against€him.€€The€defendant,Ïhowever,€was€able€to€discuss€his€wearing€shackles€andÏwanting€to€dress€in€ð ðcivilianðð€clothes.€€Based€on€hisÏobservations€of€defendant€and€the€previous€evaluationÏof€defendantððs€competency,€the€trial€court€did€not€orderÏa€reevaluation€of€competency,€but€permitted€the€trial€toÏcontinue.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓ771€S.W.2d€at€395„96.¹Óü ÓÌà ¸ àRelative€to€the€petitionerððs€mental€condition,€the€supreme€courtððs€opinionÏprovides:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àTaylor,€who€was€twenty„one,€had€a€history€ofÏjuvenile€problems€and€mental€and€emotional€difficultiesÏthat€had€led€to€several€mental€evaluations€before€theÏkilling€of€Officer€Moore.€€He€had€been€in€the€drug€andÏalcohol€abuse€program€at€the€DeBerry€CorrectionalÏInstitute,€a€state€facility€for€prisoners€with€psychiatricÏproblems,€before€coming€to€the€Turney€Center.€€As€aÐ ¸8°15 Ðresult€of€his€having€swallowed€broken€glass,€defendantÏwas€incarcerated€in€West„100,€the€section€of€the€mainÏpenitentiary€in€Nashville€for€prisoners€with€mentalÏproblems,€from€late€May€1981,€until€July€2,€1981,€whenÏhe€was€returned€to€the€Turney€Center.€€Defendant€hadÏbeen€on€several€anti„psychotic€drugs€over€this€periodÏbut€there€was€no€record€of€his€receiving€any€medicationÏon€the€date€of€the€killing.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àDefendantððs€fellow€inmates€described€him€as€aÏloner,€moody,€and€strange.€€He€was€characterized€asÏð ðhyper€all€the€time.ðð€€One€inmate€stated,€ð ðRichard€is€aÏnice€guy€when€heððs€.€.€.€got€his€medicine.€€When€he€ainððtÏgot€his€medicine,€you€donððt€want€to€mess€with€him.ðð€€HeÏhad€been€involved€in€several€incidents€of€violenceÏtoward€fellow€inmates€and€the€prison€staff.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àTwo€attorneys€described€the€defendantððs€excitedÏand€disoriented€manner€when€they€had€met€him€threeÏor€more€months€after€the€killing.€€He€told€them€aÏð ðbreathing€voiceðð€(he€described€as€his€fatherððs)€had€toldÏhim€to€stab€Moore.€€He€claimed€to€have€a€difficult€timeÏremembering€what€occurred€on€August€19.€€ChipÏBurson,€coordinator€of€psychological€services€at€theÏmaximum€security€ward€at€the€main€prison€whileÏdefendant€was€there€in€June€1981,€testified€thatÏdefendant€had€been€reclusive,€agitated,€disoriented,Ïand€shaky.€€He€was€seen€talking€to€himself€in€his€cell,Ïand€Burson€had€felt€he€should€have€been€transferred€toÏDeBerry.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àAfter€reviewing€the€defendantððs€history€andÏinstitutional€record,€defense€expert€Dr.€Michael€Stein,€aÏpsychologist€who€had€conducted€a€six„hour€clinicalÏinterview€of€and€administered€two€tests€to€the€defendantÏon€March€30,€1984,€diagnosed€defendant€as€sufferingÏfrom€borderline€personality€disorder,€paranoidÏpersonality€disorder€and€brief€reactive€psychosis.€€HeÏopined€that€at€the€time€of€the€killing€defendant€wasÏsuffering€from€a€psychotic€episode€as€the€result€of€aÏmental€disease€or€defect€and€could€not€thereforeÏappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€acts€or€conform€hisÏconduct€to€legal€norms.€€Dr.€Stein€explained€that€theÏletters€were€the€defendantððs€attempt€to€establish€anÏidentity€as€a€ð ðmacho€convict€criminal€typeðð€toÏcompensate€for€the€weak€sense€of€identity€common€toÏborderline€personalities.€€On€cross€examination,Ïhowever,€Dr.€Stein€admitted€that€defendant€also€metÏmost€of€the€diagnostic€criteria€for€an€anti„socialÏpersonality.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àA€second€defense€expert,€Jonathan€Lipman,€aÏdoctor€of€pharmacology€with€a€specialty€inÏneuropharmacology€(the€study€of€the€effect€of€drugs€onÐ ¸8°15 Ðthe€brain),€testified€about€the€effect€of€anti„psychotic€orÏneuroleptic€drugs€like€those€taken€by€the€defendant€onÏthe€brain€and€about€these€drugsðð€side€effects,€such€asÏshaking€and€grimacing,€indicative€of€tardive€dyskinesia.ÏDr.€Lipman€also€testified€about€supersensitivityÏpsychosis,€a€psychosis€caused€by€the€withdrawal€ofÏanti„psychotic€drugs€from€someone€who€had€beenÏtaking€them€for€some€time,€and€noted€that€defendantððsÏhistory€indicated€he€could€have€been€suffering€fromÏsuch€a€psychosis€at€the€time€of€the€killing.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€state€presented€the€testimony€of€twoÏexperts,€Dr.€John€Filley,€a€psychiatrist€at€the€MiddleÏTennessee€Mental€Health€Institute,€[MTMHI]€who€hadÏexamined€defendant€on€two€occasions,€and€Dr.ÏMohammad€Rahib,€a€psychiatrist€who€had€examinedÏdefendant€in€late€1979€and€early€1980.€€Both€menÏdiagnosed€defendant€as€having€an€antisocialÏpersonality€disorder,€and€Dr.€Rahib€stated€there€wasÏlittle€substantiation€for€the€theory€of€supersensitivityÏpsychosis.€€Neither€believed€the€defendant€wasÏsuffering€from€a€mental€disease€or€defect€that€met€theÏstandards€of€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531€(Tenn.Ð ¨  Ð1977).Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àIn€surrebuttal,€defendant€presented€Dr.€JanÏMayer,€a€psychiatrist,€who€testified€that€the€concept€ofÏsupersensitivity€psychosis€was€accepted€by€someÏmembers€of€the€medical„scientific€community€and€notÏby€others.€€Dr.€Patricia€Corey,€a€psychiatrist€who€hadÏexamined€defendant€at€MTMHI€in€late€1979,€recountedÏdefendantððs€bizarre€behavior€at€that€time€and€her€initialÏdiagnosis€of€psychosis€associated€with€drugÏ(amphetamines)€intoxication.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  à.€.€.€.€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€state€presented€no€further€proof€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€The€defendant€presented€threeÏwitnesses„„Dorothy€Greer,€Assistant€Commissioner€forÏAdult€Services€in€the€Department€of€Corrections,€whoÏwas€questioned€about€her€remark€at€a€legislativeÏhearing€that€in€the€defendantððs€case€ð ðI€think€we€did€fail;ððÏJeff€Blum,€a€staff€member€of€the€Southern€PrisonÏMinistry,€who€testified€about€the€circumstances€ofÏconfinement€that€put€the€defendant€under€pressure€onÏAugust€29,€1981;€and€Josie€Pruett,€the€defendantððsÏaunt,€who€testified€about€the€defendantððs€childhood.€ÏFrom€Mrs.€Pruettððs€testimony,€the€jury€was€informed€thatÏthe€defendant€was€an€adopted€child,€who€had€shownÏsigns€of€hyperactivity€from€infancy.€€His€parents€had€Ïbeen€inconsistent€in€disciplining€him€and€had€notÏâ âsupported€him€when€he€became€involved€in€more€andÐ È7À04 Ðmore€difficulties€as€he€grew€up.€€Defendant€had€noÏcontact€with€his€parents€after€he€went€to€prison.Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÌÓ°Ó711€S.W.2d€at€390„92.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€assessing€the€actions€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorneys€regardingÏcompetency,€the€state€asserts€that€it€was€the€attorneysðð€duty€to€raise€the€issue€but€that€itÏwas€the€trial€courtððs€obligation€to€determine€whether€the€petitioner€was€competent,€theÏimplication€being€that€the€attorneys€were€not€responsible€for€the€competency€determination.€ÏWe€view€the€attorneysðð€obligations€to€encompass€more€than€merely€raising€the€issue€ofÏcompetency€before€the€trial€court.€€Counsel€is€ð ðrequired€to€exert€every€reasonable€effort€onÏbehalf€of€a€client€both€in€the€investigation€and€the€trial€of€a€case.ðð€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772Ð ØÐ ÐS.W.2d€at€€421.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€this€respect,€the€matters€of€concern€which€were€addressed€in€the€post„¼conviction€hearing€dealt€with€the€fact€that€there€was€an€abundance€of€evidence€availableÏto€the€petitionerððs€attorney,€but€not€discovered€or€used.€€As€we€have€previously€quoted,€the€Ïtrial€court€determined€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 ¸ àBased€on€the€factual€evidence€adduced€at€the€post„¼conviction€hearing€and€other€submitted€information,€theÏcourt€finds€that€counsel€failed€to€adequately€prepareÏTaylorððs€case€for€trial€at€both€the€guilt€phase€[andÏsentencing].€€Counselors€did€not€fully€seek€explorationÏof€the€mental€competency€at€trial€despite€the€evidenceÏwhich€showed€a€background€replete€with€mentalÏproblems.€€Counselors€failed€to€explore€this€issue€forÏmitigation€or€to€put€forth€evidence€concerning€hisÏbackground,€medications,€and€social€history.€€TheÏattorneys€admit€that€they€failed€to€put€forth€evidence,€toÏcall€witnesses€and€to€fully€flesh€out€the€competenceÏissue.€€In€fact€the€record€has€been€filled€with€evidenceÏthat€was€left€out€of€the€trial,€and€especially€theÏsentencing€hearing€regarding€petitionerððs€mentalÏillnesses.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓThe€record€supports€these€determinations.€€ÌÐ È7À04 ÐÓÂÓÔ#† X,–XXX™Í#ÔÔ‡X™XX X,–Ôà ¸ àFor€example,€the€pretrial€evaluations€performed€by€€Doctors€Filley€andÐ  ÐWatson€were€shown€to€consist€of€only€one€psychological€test€and€two€interviewÏsessions€totaling€only€two€hours,€substantially€less€involvement€than€standardÏprocedures€required€at€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute.€€Also,€the€fact€thatÏthe€petitioner€was€on€antipsychotic€medication€at€the€times€of€the€evaluations€justifiedÏan€extended€evaluation€that€was€never€undertaken.€€These€circumstances€wouldÏgreatly€reduce€the€validity€of€the€instituteððs€ð ðopinionðð€that€the€petitioner€was€competentÏto€stand€trial€and€was€sane.€ÌÌà ¸ àAlso,€prison€records€reflected€that€Dr.€William€Tragle,€a€psychiatrist€underÏcontract€with€the€state,€saw€and€treated€the€petitioner€from€September€1981€throughÏJanuary€1985.€€He€was€never€interviewed€by€the€petitionerððs€attorneys€although€he€hadÏbeen€prescribing€antipsychotic€medication€to€the€petitioner,€had€recommended€that€theÏpetitioner€receive€an€extensive€mental€evaluation,€and€had€taken€notes€about€hisÏobservations.€€Dr.€Tragle€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€Dr.€FilleyððsÏevaluation€was€inadequate€and€that€at€least€a€thirty„day€inpatient€evaluation€wasÏrequired.€€He€said€that€the€petitionerððs€record,€along€with€his€observations,€indicated€thatÏthe€petitioner€suffered€from€multiple€ð ðsevere€to€extremeðð€personality€disorders€that€couldÏlead€to€psychosis,€delusional€thinking,€and€loss€of€control.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Tragle€was€in€a€position€to€verify€that€the€petitionerððs€behavior€while€on€Ïmedication€was€substantially€different€than€when€he€was€not€on€medication.€€This€isÏsignificant€in€the€context€of€both€the€petitionerððs€competency€at€the€time€of€trial€and€hisÏdefense€theory.€€The€defense€contended€that€the€killing€occurred€when€the€petitionerÏwas€delusional€following€the€withdrawal€of€his€medication€weeks€before.€€Relative€toÏcompetence,€the€petitionerððs€medication€had€been€withdrawn€shortly€before€the€trial.€ÏConsidering€the€fact€that€the€petitionerððs€competency€in€a€nonmedicated€state€wasÐ È7À04 Ðnever€evaluated,€Dr.€Tragleððs€involvement€by€the€defense€probably€would€have€led€to€aÏdifferent€result€regarding€the€issue€of€the€petitionerððs€competency.ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€it€could€only€have€made€a€difference€if€the€petitionerððs€attorneysÏhad€requested€a€competency€hearing,€presented€the€expert€evidence,€and€placed€onÏthe€record€the€details€of€their€continued€difficulty€in€talking€with€the€petitioner€and€gettingÏhis€assistance€for€the€trial.€€This€the€attorneys€failed€to€do.€€In€sum,€if€the€attorneys€hadÏtaken€the€opportunity€to€interview€Dr.€Tragle,€the€only€psychiatrist€who€was€regularlyÏobserving€and€treating€the€petitioner€between€the€time€of€the€offense€and€the€time€of€theÏtrial,€a€substantially€different€picture€of€the€petitionerððs€competence€would€have€beenÏavailable€to€present€to€the€judge€at€the€trial.€€However,€the€attorneys€utterly€failed€toÏpresent€anything€that€would€aid€the€judge€in€obtaining€a€true€picture€of€the€petitionerððsÏcompetence.€€Contrary€to€the€stateððs€assertion,€the€fact€that€the€petitionerððs€competenceÏwas€considered€by€the€convicting€court€at€his€attorneysðð€request€means€nothing€if€theÏattorneys€did€not€ensure€that€the€available€evidence€bearing€on€the€issue€wasÏpresented.€€In€this€respect,€substantial€evidence€exists€in€the€record€before€us€thatÏwould€support€a€conclusion€that€the€petitioner€was€incompetent€at€the€time€of€his€trial.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€same€is€true€regarding€the€issue€of€the€petitionerððs€guilt€and€hisÏsentencing.€€In€addition€to€the€evidence€not€used€relative€to€the€issue€of€competency,Ïthe€record€reflects€that€the€petitionerððs€attorneys€failed€to€investigate€adequately€theÏpetitionerððs€background€and€medical€history,€which€reflected€a€family€history€of€mentalÏproblems,€a€difficult€upbringing,€and€a€long€history€of€diagnosed€mental€problems.€ÏAlong€with€what€was€ultimately€developed€and€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,Ïevidence€that€could€have€been€available€at€the€trial,€a€substantially€different€mentalÏdefense€would€have€been€available.€€Also,€a€complete€picture€of€the€petitionerððs€familyÏhistory,€background,€and€mental€history,€which€was€neither€discovered€nor€presented€byÐ È7À04 Ðthe€attorneys,€would€have€lent€personal€substance€to€mitigating€the€punishment€to€beÏimposed.€€We€conclude€that€the€evidence€of€record€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€findings€and€determinations€and€that€the€record€supports€the€conclusion€thatÏthe€petitioner€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÔ#† X,–XXX™!8#ÔÔ‡X™XX X,–ÔÌà@XX#Dàò òIII.€€PETITIONERððS€ISSUESó óˆÐ h`  Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€raises€issues€he€desires€resolved€if€we€reverse€the€trialÏcourt.€€Although€we€affirm€the€trial€court,€we€have€reviewed€his€claims€to€avoid€pending,Ïunresolved€issuesÔ#† X,–XXX™´J#ÔÔ‡X™XX X,–Ô.Ð  ÐÌà ¸ àA.à  àRelative€to€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€his€conviction€and€sentenceÐ ÈÀ Ðshould€be€set€aside€because€he€was€not€competent€to€stand€trial,€we€agree€with€theÏstate€that€this€issue€was€addressed€on€the€direct€appeal€of€the€petitionerððs€conviction.€ÏThus,€as€an€independent€ground€of€relief,€the€petitionerððs€claim€has€been€previouslyÏdetermined€and€cannot€constitute€a€cognizable€ground€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóóÐ H!@ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„111,€„112(a)(1990€repealed).ÌÌà ¸ àB.à  àAs€for€the€claim€that€the€stateððs€withdrawal€of€his€medication€beforeÐ è&à" Ðand€during€his€trial€constituted€a€violation€of€the€petitionerððs€due€process€rights,€weÏquestion€whether€the€petitioner€properly€raised€the€issue€in€the€trial€court€as€anÏadditional,€independent€ground€for€relief.€€As€the€state€contends,€the€petitioner€did€notÏpresent€this€claim€in€his€petition€nor€did€he€seek€to€amend€his€petition€to€include€it.€€AsÏan€ð ðissue,ðð€the€petitioner€first€raised€it€in€his€post„trial€brief.€€However,€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings€and€conclusions€do€not€address€the€claim.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€record€reflects€that€the€significance€of€and€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€withdrawal€of€the€medication€were€primarily€considered€in€the€context€ofÐ È7À04 Ðevidence€relevant€to€the€issue€of€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€As€a€generalÏrule,€post„conviction€relief€is€not€available€for€grounds€not€raised€in€the€petition.€€òòSeeóóÐ èà ÐòòState€v.€Milleróó,€508€S.W.2d€804,€806€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973);€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€510Ð È À ÐS.W.2d€83,€85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€Although€we€do€not€necessarily€believe€that€aÏnew€ground€for€relief€must€be€ignored€on€appeal€when€it€has€been€fully€litigated€at€theÏevidentiary€hearing€and€treated€by€the€parties€and€the€trial€court€as€an€issue€forÏdetermination,€such€is€not€the€present€case.€€Under€the€existing€circumstances,€we€doÏnot€believe€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€assert€this€ground€for€relief€as€an€appealableÏissue.ÌÌà ¸ àC.à  àRelative€to€the€claim€that€the€petitionerððs€conviction€and€sentenceÐ ÈÀ Ðmust€be€set€aside€because€the€petitioner€suffered€torture€and€abuse€inflicted€by€prisonÏguards,€we€are€unable€to€consider€this€ground€on€the€record€before€us.€€The€petitionerÏdid€not€raise€this€claim€until€well€after€his€petition€was€heard.€€Although€he€sought€toÏreopen€the€proof,€the€trial€court€pretermitted€the€issue.€€Under€these€circumstances,€weÏhave€nothing€before€us€upon€which€we€could€base€a€decision€on€the€merits.€€AlthoughÏthe€trial€court€should€have€determined€whether€the€petitionerððs€claim€merited€reopeningÏthe€proof€and,€if€so,€then€determined€the€merits€of€the€issue,€the€present€appealÏpresents€nothing€for€our€review.ÌÌà ¸ àD.à  àFinally,€as€to€the€petitionerððs€contention€that€he€is€entitled€to€reliefÐ ˆ,€%( Ðð ðon€the€basis€of€other€claims,€viewed€separately€and€cumulativelyðð€which€he€hasÏasserted€ð ðat€the€different€stages€in€this€case,ðð€we€conclude€that€no€such€ground€of€reliefÏhas€actually€been€preserved€for€appellate€review€in€this€case.€€Petitioner€presents€noÏauthority€and€makes€no€reference€to€the€record,€only€referring€the€court€to€a€list€ofÏseventy„four€claims€the€petitioner€presents€in€Appendix€A€to€his€brief.€€Failure€to€makeÏappropriate€references€to€the€record€in€the€argument€portion€of€the€brief€and€to€citeÐ È7À04 Ðrelevant€authority€as€required€by€Rule€27(g)€and€(h),€T.R.A.P.,€will€constitute€waiver.€ÏòòState€v.€Schalleróó,€975€S.W.2d€313,€318€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€It€is€not€our€functionÐ èà Ðto€search€the€entire€record€for€support,€or€lack€thereof,€for€the€petitionerððs€myriad€bareÏclaims.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€none€of€the€claims€to€which€the€petitioner€refersÏare€preserved€for€appellate€review€in€this€appeal.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€concludeÏthat€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€determinations.€ÏAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€à Ð àà (# àÐ ¸° Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àóó€Ð ¨  ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€(not€participating)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ (#  ÐPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Ø'Ð # ÐóóJoe€G.€Riley,€JudgeÔ#† X,–XXX™L#Ô