ÿWPC”  leÛGK%ÎÏð™Íi{RÆÇQ0Ǽ¼é•R§ú(Ÿg›fð‚"ן»éI•Rk+=–‘j¦.gò^1p¸)©»`ϤÁ ¼ÜöÂh ìîf{Þ©Ä‹‹Æ÷YnGÚËÔý¹šƒÙî-:eø‹ä‘ nS4Ô„»/š÷¬;Îìg”Bzÿ:ÒýΊÜÈêå±<¼7“¸ù¦~h½—䨬KëfÃpŽ÷pNÁÂfì}/j¿†ÈcÍà \ê´èÒ}N`«‚eôìøÜÃ÷‰bn©Í¼]䘹—óʼnHé‚«f ¡VãšÂà6]ÜýZ%Š#L ‹Ò€ƒ¬úŽÂ^ Á xhßH½Ÿø–—Ņø ã phb+J瀊ú4ä1†\àÎÊÍD{üñ.l#²X2PLƒÒœ_(×Ù‡“ÞËðŸÓ )pÂ*½ ìu4J²5šZH²q!Ak+éDý2SÞÏC´B ê‚9„—Ã~¶z’Y"1¡¹…O½o[ÀYÑDZmE!ë9¸¡›{YËë b Máè샓)RÒØÁ\JÕ…kŽS·Ä.Dó U¯~r _²Á“ȤCî”úGøé,# hUNs %Á 0(ÇU:ïb) 0‚1U:³ 0ÔíU:Áw@û4;OM^(« U:Ó  B 0D2 D3v v v v AQ© Æú 0DÀ 0D D/H Bw ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLÜÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-(AE$Ô€X»ÙXXXÔÔ€ŠÒô ŠXX»ÙÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular(‚*2e–$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ X£SXXXÔÔ€ &ëç&X X£SÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€€, øð AZ"Arial Regular ³ E´ µ D¶ D· E¸ ¹ Dº » D¼ Ó€P9&3|xÇ  CÝ ƒ [$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ Xs`XXXÔÔ€ &ûí&X Xs`ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝWe€later€consider€the€argument€for€a€new€trial€based€upon€the€cumulative€effect€ofÐ `  Ðseveral€instances€of€ineffective€representation.€ Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X7 XXXÔÔ€(c  XX7 ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X7 X (cÔÐ  ÐÌò òJanuary€28,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôçÃô XX7 ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý 'ÿÿdxd'(!)*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ¼ ñ›ñ¼ ñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠŠXXÔÔ€Š£ZŠŠŠÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÑ7€ˆˆddÈ7Ññ¼ ñßr€&"<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` ttx$,` ð Úrß›ñ¼ ñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓAARON€JERMAINEà h àà À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9802„CR„00046Ð ` ÐWALKER,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ `  Ðà ` àAppellant,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHAMILTON€COUNTYÐ `  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€STEPHEN€M.€BEVILó óÐ ` Ðò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ ` Ðà ` àAppellee.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó ó(Post„Conviction)ò òÐ ` Ðó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÐ Pð ÐCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€HAMILTON€COUNTYó óÐ Pð ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð @!à ÐÌSTEPHEN€M.€GOLDSTEINà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ 0#Ð Ð314€Vine€Streetà  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ ($È ÐChattanooga,€TN€37403Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBILL€COXÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBATES€BRYAN,€JR.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCourts€BuildingÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à600€Market€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ  x901 ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°Ê{°ŠŠ£ZÔò òòòÑ7€â ˆ ˆdˆˆd7ÑOPINIONóóó óÔ€Š£Zа°Ê{ÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendant,€Aaron€Jermaine€Walker,€appeals€the€denial€of€his€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief€by€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€County.€€DefendantÏasserts€that€he€suffered€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€that€thisÏalleged€ineffective€assistance€prejudiced€him€in€several€respects.€ÌÌà ` àDefendant€was€indicted€by€the€Hamilton€County€Grand€Jury€forÏpremeditated€first€degree€murder€and€felony€murder€(in€perpetration€of€robbery)Ïin€connection€with€the€shooting€death€of€the€victim.€€According€to€DefendantððsÏtestimony€at€his€trial,€he€and€severed€co„defendant€Chandler€Fitch€planned€to€findÏa€person€addicted€to€crack€cocaine,€offer€to€sell€the€person€drugs,€and€then€takeÏthe€tendered€money€and€flee.€€Defendant€and€Fitch€undertook€to€execute€theirÏplan,€and€Defendant€shot€the€victim€in€the€process,€causing€his€death.€€A€juryÏconvicted€Defendant€of€felony€murder€and€sentenced€him€to€life€imprisonmentÏwith€the€possibility€of€parole.€€His€conviction€and€sentence€œwere›€affirmed€onÏappeal.€€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€893€S.W.2d€429€(Tenn.€1995).Ð >)Þ  ÐÌà ` àIn€this€appeal€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€post„conviction€petition,ÏDefendant€alleges€four€instances€of€ineffective€assistance€by€his€trial€counsel:€(1)Ïfailure€to€deliver€effective€opening€and€closing€statements;€(2)€failure€to€move€toÏsuppress€oral€statements€by€Defendant;€(3)€failure€to€ð ðconfer€frequentlyðð€withÏDefendant;€and€(4)€failure€to€request€a€jury€charge€on€voluntary€manslaughter,€orÏâ âœfailure›€to€object€to€the€trial€courtððs€decision€not€to€charge€voluntary€manslaughter.€Ð Î6n-. ÐWe€find€no€merit€in€Defendantððs€œcontentions,›€and€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denialÏof€relief.Ìâ âÌà ` àTo€be€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel,€Defendant€must€show€(1)€that€his€trial€counselððs€representation€wasÏð ðdeficient,ðð€and€(2)€that€ð ðthe€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.ðð€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€œU.S.€668,›€687€(1984).€€Under€the€first€prong,Ð 0  Ðcounselððs€performance€is€not€deficient€when€ð ðthe€advice€given,€or€the€servicesÏrendered€by€the€attorney,€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€Ð ¨H ÐThe€second€prong€requires€a€petitioner€to€show€a€reasonable€probability€that€theÏresult€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different€but€for€the€deficient€representation.€ÏœòòStricklandóó,›€466€U.S.€at€694.€€ð ðA€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficientÐ À!` Ðto€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð È#h ÐÌà ` àIf€afforded€a€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€by€the€trial€court,€aÏpetitioner€must€do€more€than€merely€present€evidence€tending€to€showÏincompetent€representation€and€prejudice;€the€petitioner€must€prove€factualÏallegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€ÏWhen€an€evidentiary€hearing€is€held,€findings€of€fact€made€by€that€court€areÏconclusive€and€binding€on€this€Court€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthem.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,Ð 4¨** Ð789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990)).€€Ìâ âÐ 8¸.. Ðà ` àFurthermore,€with€respect€to€decisions€of€tactic€or€strategy,€the€SupremeÏâ âCourt€stated€that€ð ð[a]€fair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requires€that€everyÏeffort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effect€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€theÏcircumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€œòòStricklandóó,›€466€U.S.€at€688.€€The€courts€of€thisÐ €  Ðstate€also€have€long€ð ðrecognized€that€it€is€not€our€function€to€ððsecond„guessððÏtactical€matters€and€strategical€choices€pertaining€to€defense€matters€or€measureÏa€defense€attorneyððs€representation€by€ðð20„20€hindsightðð€when€deciding€theÏeffectiveness€of€trial€counsel.ðð€€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746€(quoting€òòHellard€v.Ð  @ ÐStateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)).€€Ð ¨H ÐÌà@h h ®àI.€OPENING€AND€CLOSING€STATEMENTSˆÌà ` àThe€record€reflects€that€the€following€constitutes€the€entirety€of€the€openingÏstatement€delivered€by€Defendantððs€trial€counsel:€ð ðIððll€be€brief.€€You€said€that€youÏwill€listen€to€this€case€in€full€and€we€would€just€ask€that€you€wait€till€youððve€heardÏall€the€evidence€in€this€case€to€make€your€decision.ðð€€Defendant€complains€thatÏthis€cursory€opening€statement€and€trial€counselððs€allegedly€deficient€closingÏstatement€deprived€him€of€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€because€aÏcompetent€attorney€would€have€discussed€that€the€evidence€supported€lesserÏincluded€offenses,€that€the€State€maintained€the€burden€of€proof,€and€that€theÏState€must€œprove›€all€elements€of€the€offenses.€€In€addition,€Defendant€asserts€thatÏtrial€counsel€should€have€advised€the€jury€about€the€Defendantððs€theory€of€theÏcase€and€specific€evidence€for€which€jurors€should€watch.€€Finally,€DefendantÏâ âcomplains€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€ð ðguide€the€juryðð€by€distinguishing€theÐ 8¸.. Ðelements€of€lesser€included€offenses,€and€he€states€that€these€errors€prejudicedÏDefendantððs€ability€to€receive€a€fair€trial.€€€Ìâ âÌà ` àFollowing€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€post„conviction€petition€in€thisÏcase,€the€trial€court€found,€ð ðbased€on€the€evidence,€the€facts€known€to€[trialÏcounsel],€and€the€trial€strategy,€that€[trial€counselððs]€argument€to€the€jury€did€notÏamount€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€€To€support€his€conclusion,€the€post„¼conviction€judge€cited€trial€counselððs€post„conviction€hearing€testimony,€in€whichÏthe€attorney€stated€that€ð ðhis€plan€was€to€keep€the€proof€minimal,€and€try€to€showÏthe€jury€that€the€killing€was€an€accident€and€not€an€intentional€killing,€therebyÏhoping€to€reduce€the€charge€to€less€than€first€degree€murder.ðð€€In€addition,€theÏjudge€ð ðrecognize[d]€that€counselððs€arguments€are€not€as€persuasive€as€the€proofÏthatððs€presented€at€the€trial.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àThis€Court€finds€no€reason€to€disregard€the€post„conviction€trial€courtððsÏconclusion€on€this€issue.€€Waiver€of€opening€or€closing€argument€altogether€byÏtrial€counsel€may€be€considered€an€acceptable€tactic,€whether€or€not€ultimatelyÏsuccessful€or€even€wise€when€viewed€in€hindsight.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBacik€v.€Engleóó,€706Ð è+ˆ"" ÐF.2d€169,€171€(6th€Cir.€1983)€(waiver€of€opening€statement€not€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel);€òòCone€v.€Stateóó,€747€S.W.2d€353,€357€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ø/˜&& Ð1987)€(waiver€of€closing€statement€in€penalty€phase€not€ineffective€assistanceÏwhen€used€as€strategy€to€prevent€State€from€making€final€closing€statement);ÏòòState€v.€Mennóó,€668€S.W.2d€671,€673€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€(same);€òòState€v.Ð 6°,, ÐCasson€Marcel€McCoyóó,€No.€01C01„9603„CC„00109,€1997€WL€137422,€at€*3Ð 8¸.. Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Mar.€27,€1997)€(waiver€of€opening€statement€notÐ  :À00 Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel);€òòState€v.€Myer€Pettyjohnóó,€No.€01C01„9006„CC„Ð `  Ð00139,€1992€WL€50973,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Mar.€19,€1992)Ï(adoption€of€co„defendantððs€closing€statement€not€ineffective€assistance€whenÏused€as€strategy€to€save€closing€for€sentencing€phase€and€maintain€credibilityÏwith€jury),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ð €  ÐÌà ` àSimilarly,€this€Court€has€approved€the€waiver€of€a€closing€statement€evenÏwhen€trial€counsel€presented€no€tactical€or€strategic€explanation,€where€theÏrecord€revealed€such€strong€evidence€against€the€defendant€that€no€prejudiceÏexisted.€€òòSeeóó€òòJessie€S.€Tidwell€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9307„CR„00201,€1994€WLÐ ¨H Ð548708,€at€*10„*11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Oct.€6,€1994),€òòaffððd€in€part,€revððdÐ °P Ðin€partóó,€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ¸X ÐCourt,€though€reversing€in€part€on€other€grounds,€found€that€the€failure€to€give€aÏclosing€statement€did€not€constitute€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€that€case.€Ï922€S.W.2d€at€498€n.1.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà ` àBased€upon€trial€counselððs€testimony€at€Defendantððs€post„convictionÏhearingð"ðthat€he€focused€on€persuading€the€jury€that€Defendant€killed€the€victimÏby€accidentð"ðand€the€finding€made€by€the€post„conviction€judge€that€DefendantÏdid€not€receive€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€we€conclude€that€trial€counselððsÏscant€opening€statement€and€allegedly€inadequate€closing€statement€did€notÏamount€to€deficient€performance€as€conceived€by€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó€andÐ 4¨** ÐòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó.€€Further,€even€if€trial€counselððs€statements€had€fallen€below€theÐ 6°,, Ðâ âappropriate€standard€of€care,€we€conclude€that€Defendant€would€have€sufferedÐ 8¸.. Ðno€prejudice€due€to€the€strength€of€the€evidence€against€him,€including€his€ownÏdamning€testimony€at€trial.Ìâ âÌÐ  x Ðà@8 8 ®àII.€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESS€CONFESSIONSˆÌà ` àDefendant€also€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€to€his€prejudiceÏby€failing€to€move€the€trial€court€for€suppression€of€his€statements€to€police.€€AtÏthe€post„conviction€hearing,€Defendant€presented€an€attorney€experienced€inÏcriminal€trial€matters,€who€testified€that€failing€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€did€notÏð ðlive€up€to€a€reasonable€standard€of€representation.ðð€€In€support€of€this€allegation,ÏDefendant€argues€that€ð ðthere€was€an€indication€in€the€original€trial€that€an€offer€ofÏleniency€may€have€been€used€by€the€police.€€Also,€the€Petitioner€was€only€18€orÏ19€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€confession.ðð€€€ÌÌà ` àIn€his€first€statement€to€police,€Defendant€described€a€scene€in€which€theÏvictim€asked€him€if€he€wanted€to€buy€drugs.€€According€to€this€statement,€whenÏDefendant€replied€ð ðno,ðð€the€victim€reached€into€Defendantððs€pocket€for€money,Ïand€Defendant€noticed€a€gun€in€the€victimððs€other€hand.€€As€Defendant€grabbedÏthe€victimððs€hand€which€held€the€gun,€it€fired,€striking€the€victim.€€œLater,€Defendant›Ïgave€œanother›€version€œof€events,€which€was€virtually›€identical€to€his€testimony€atÏtrial.€€He€stated€that€he,€rather€than€the€victim,€possessed€the€gun;€and€heÏrecounted€the€preconceived€plan€to€find€a€crack€cocaine€addict€to€rob.€€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€this€matter,€Defendantððs€trial€counsel€testifiedÏextensively€and€emphatically€that€(1)€he€believed€no€potentially€meritoriousÏgrounds€for€filing€a€motion€to€suppress€existed,€and€(2)€he€believed€that€filing€aÏmotion€lacking€meritorious€potential€would€be€a€violation€of€his€ethical€obligationsÏas€an€attorney€and€officer€of€the€courts.€€We€agree.€€Furthermore,€the€recordÏreflects€that€trial€counsel€utilized€the€statements€at€trial€in€an€attempt€to€showÐ  :À00 ÐDefendantððs€remorse€and€intention€to€do€the€right€thing.€€Counsel€hoped€to€showÏthat€after€having€given€a€false€statement,€Defendant€felt€compelled€to€deliver€aÏtruthful€account€of€eventsð"ðthe€second€statement,€during€which€DefendantÏœemotionally€expressed›€a€great€deal€of€œremorse.›ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€Defendant€has€failed€to€bear€his€burden€to€show€deficientÏrepresentation€by€making€œñ» ña›€ñ» ñonly›€a€generalized€reference€that€ð ðan€offer€of€leniencyÏmay€have€been€used€by€the€policeðð€and€that€ð ðthe€Petitioner€was€only€18€or€19Ïyears€old€at€the€time€of€the€confession.ðð€€In€addition,€Defendant€has€conceded€hisÏinability€to€show€prejudice€by€stating,€ð ðBy€itself,€the€failure€to€file€a€Motion€toÏSuppress,€may€not€have€changed€the€outcome€of€the€case,€but€its€cumulativeÏeffect€would€be;€and€thereby€prejudicing€the€Petitioner€for€a€fair€trial.ðð׃×Ý ƒEÝÔ€ŠöMŠŠŠöMÔÔ€ŠöMŠŠŠöMÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issueÐ ¸X Ðlacks€merit.€ÌÌà@b b ®àIII.€ATTORNEY„CLIENT€COMMUNICATIONˆÌà ` àDefendant€contends€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏbecause€his€trial€counsel€conferred€with€him€on€only€two€occasions€prior€to€trialÏand€because€they€had€only€one€discussion€regarding€whether€he€would€testify€inÏhis€defense.€€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Defendantððs€trial€counsel€testified€that€heÏcommunicated€adequately€with€Defendant€and€that€he€strongly€advisedÏDefendant€to€exercise€his€privilege€not€to€testify€at€trial.€€Defendant€disregardedÐ 6°,, Ðthis€advice€and€€testified,€painting€a€vivid€scene€of€a€ð ðclassicðð€felony€murder.€€NotÏonly€do€we€find€no€deficient€performance,€we€find€no€prejudice:€As€the€StateÏindicates,€ð ð[Defendant]€has€shown€no€prejudice,€because€he€can€offer€no€basisÏon€how€his€defense€could€have€been€improved€and€his€verdict€affected€by€moreÏcommunication€between€he€and€[trial€counsel].ðð€ÌÌà@Ö Ö ®àIV.€VOLUNTARY€MANSLAUGHTER€INSTRUCTIONˆÌà ` àFor€his€final€issue,€Defendant€argues€that€he€suffered€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€because€his€attorney€(1)€failed€to€request€a€jury€instruction€onÏvoluntary€manslaughter,€or€(2)€failed€to€object€when€the€trial€court€declined€toÏinclude€a€voluntary€manslaughter€instruction€in€the€jury€charge.€€ÌÌà ` àThis€Court€recently€announced,€€ÌÓÓà8 ` àœñ° ñ[B]ñ° ññ² ññ± ñbñ± ññ² ññ³ ññ² ñBñ² ññ³ ññ´ ñbñ´ ñefore›€instructing€a€jury€on€a€lesser€offense,€the€trial€court€mustÏdetermine€whether€the€evidence,€when€viewed€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€defendantððs€theory€of€the€case,€would€justify€a€juryÏverdict€in€accord€with€the€defendantððs€theory,€and€would€permit€aÏrational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€the€lesser€offenseÏand€not€guilty€of€the€greater€offense.€ÓKCÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐòòState€v.€Thomas€Jerome€Elderóó,€No.€03C01„9702„CR„00053,€1998€WL€191445,Ð Ü(| Ðat€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€23,€1998).€€Furthermore,€ÌÓÓà8 ` àabsent€such€a€standard€regarding€the€quantum€of€proof€necessaryÏto€trigger€an€instruction€on€a€lesser€offense,€the€trial€judge€whoÏcharges€a€lesser€offense€based€upon€less€than€sufficient€evidenceÏwould€be€faced€with€the€absurd€necessity,€predicated€upon€its€ownÏinvited€error,€of€entering€a€judgment€of€acquittal€following€the€juryððsÏguilty€verdict€on€the€lesser€offense.ÓþEÓÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐòòId.óó€at€*5.€€Therefore,€the€inquiry€a€trial€court€must€make€to€determine€when€it€mustÐ 4¨** Ðcharge€a€lesser€included€or€lesser€grade€offense€is€much€the€same€as€the€inquiryÏthis€Court€makes€to€determine€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€aÏconviction€that€has€been€appealed.€€Ð  :À00 Їà ` àA€conviction€for€voluntary€manslaughter€requires€the€ð ðintentional€orÏknowing€killing€of€another€in€a€state€of€passion€produced€by€adequate€provocationÏsufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrational€manner.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„211.€€In€òòElderóó,€this€Court€found€that€no€evidence€existed€œñ¹ ñbyñ¹ ññº ñfromñº ñ›€whichÐ x Ðthe€jury€could€possibly€have€returned€a€verdict€of€attempted€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€when€(1)€the€defendant€threatened€to€kill€the€victim€and€attackedÏhim€from€behind,€and€(2)€the€only€evidence€of€provocation€presented€by€theÏdefendant€was€that€he€and€the€victim€engaged€in€an€argument€four€and€one„halfÏhours€prior€to€the€killing.€€òòJerome€Thomas€Elderóó,€1998€WL€191445,€at€*6.€€€€Ð  @ ÐÌà ` àLikewise,€in€this€case,€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€not€sufficient€toÏpermit€a€rational€jury€to€return€a€verdict€for€the€lesser€offense€and€not€the€greaterÏoffense.€€To€support€the€need€for€an€instruction€for€voluntary€manslaughter,ÏDefendant€can€point€to€only€two€identical€references€to€the€record€in€which€heÏstated€that€the€victim€ð ðcame€towardsðð€him€prior€to€the€shooting.€€According€toÏDefendant€himself,€he€hit€the€victim€with€the€intention€to€knock€him€unconsciousÏand€take€his€money.€€Only€then€did€the€victim€come€toward€Defendant,€who€wasÏarmed€and€accompanied€by€his€co„defendant.€€The€co„defendant€attempted€toÏð ðgrabðð€the€victim,€and€Defendant€began€to€pull€his€gun€from€his€coat€pocket.€€AsÏhe€did€so,€the€gun€fired,€striking€the€victim.€€Even€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÏDefendant,€the€evidence€was€not€sufficient€to€œñµ ñhave›€ñµ ñwarrantñ¶ ñedñ¶ ñ›€a€jury€instruction€onÏvoluntary€manslaughter.€€œÌÌà ` àFurthermore,€we€also€conclude€that€even€if€Defendantððs€trial€counsel€hadÏbeen€deficient€in€his€representation€on€this€matter,€Defendant€suffered€noÐ  :À00 Ðprejudice.€€The›€jury€œin€this€case€returned›€a€verdict€convicting€the€Defendant€ofÏmurder€in€the€first€degree€as€the€result€of€a€reckless€killing€in€the€perpetration€ofÏa€œrobbery,€not€premeditated€first€degree€murder.›€€We€are€unconvinced€that€theÏDefendant€could€have€been€in€any€way€prejudiced€by€the€failure€of€the€trial€judgeÏto€œchañ· ñnñ· ññ¸ ñrñ¸ ñge›€the€jury€concerning€the€elements€of€voluntary€manslaughter.ÌÌà ` àWe€therefore€conclude€that€the€œDefendat›€has€established€neither€thatÏcounselððs€representation€was€deficient€nor€that€Defendant€suffered€prejudiceÏconcerning€the€trial€judgeððs€failure€to€charge€voluntary€manslaughter.ÌÌà@ÎÎ%®àV.€CUMULATIVE€ERRORˆÌà ` àDefendant€argues€that€although€individual€instances€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€trial€counsel€may€not€have€prejudiced€him€in€violation€of€hisÏconstitutional€rights€to€due€process€and€a€fair€trial,€the€cumulative€effect€of€severalÏinstances€of€ineffective€assistance€created€prejudice€of€constitutional€proportions.€ÏWe€have€determined€that€Defendant€suffered€no€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel;€therefore,€there€can€be€no€cumulative€effect.ÌÌà ` àWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÐ  :À00 МCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€œPRESIDING€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE