ÿWPCû qj²ïeNz“‚Ð ¶»°Ÿÿž~b¸x@•T:º©ì…–S`ÏßöÉÒÒ6n³Ö³|dSLƒ¼.QQ:4¥™Û·d Œ„€~—éÖ °ñXúõBÖ4ÄÃuf»»äR~ï45ÿÔÊn6B¤I]=Ôk½‘—YÛ—áçÒ´GpZ¤ñYurÇëí>^@soS¼Ü¯[²”Y¼§.è o’½ßngkÏ!é|2àÇåù"vG«T‰§Éá{t&lU±‡Dq:‡²¾²²Õ/²YЮéá<‘Ïd½Ï*È;xðA¥3¼m:y^×À»Ef*È} $~÷*¡f煉¹žGÃpAKt4Â¥õG¿~A‘ _óT=’¬Àò|HRj/X°ù*Ürپ꺶%"_Ò¨j•ú;ú\—ÙDqNifvÝ ís]Ñ ¶À%ç¦ÍJðù¢sdZzÐÔ=‡ ¼hØ­ï~ƒ¦ ø ·öX°Q‰â¾çÓ$êŠÖh®ªâWuÙ3{‹›w»E‡KÇgµ-7 x›´ P-,%0©Š+óÌRØ÷0Ö肘ÌhÜn©…-dÔö¹ä8 ÇR8&kn9ö¨Ùuª¨UL,Q9 #ZH§7WUÆø…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í w@ 4G [ 1mj U:×  U: 0ˆS 0DÛ   U:? 0cyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy BÜÜÜÜ D3ùùù 0D,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 0wp 0Šç 0 q 0´ 0ÇÅ 0ÛŒ 0ïggggg AOVÆ¥¥ 0Dk D/¯ BÞ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular ºD»D¼V½D¾D¿ÀEÁÂÃÓ€ƒƒ '3|xÎtuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a), øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(8(2¨$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ô€X„¥XXXÔÔ€îñŽîXX„¥ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€O±îîñŽÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€23,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô—íôO±ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à d&&&&'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñÃñ›ñÃñÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ X„¥XXXÔñÃñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@Ehf  tt0" ` ¨Ørß›ñÃñà@g g ÚàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóˆÐ `  ÐÌà@*ÚàòòAT€KNOXVILLEóóˆÐ , Ì ÐÌà@22&ÚàJANUARY€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌJAMES€FRANKLIN€WAMPLER,à ì à*à D àC.C.A.€#€¢03C01£„9712„CR„00542Ð 0 ЀÌà Œ àà ä àAppellant,à ” àà ì à*à D àKNOX€COUNTYÐ \ü  ÐÌ¢VS£.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àHon.€Richard€Baumgartner,€JudgeÐ (È  ÐÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D à(¢Post„Conviction)£Ð ô”  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAppellee.à ” àà ì à*à D àÐ À` Ðà Œ àÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà < àà ” àà ì àà D àòòFor€Appellee:óóÐ >Þ Т£ÌMark€E.€Stephensà < àà ” àà ì àà D ࢣJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ  ª ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà ” àà ì àà D àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ð ТSixth€Judicial€DistrictÌ£à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D ࢣElizabeth€B.€MarneyÌPaula€R.€Vossà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ¢!B Ð(on€appeal)à ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ ˆ"( ÐJohn€Halsteadà < àà ” àà ì àà D àCordell€Hull€Building,€Second€FloorÐ n# Ð(at€trial)à ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37243à ¤ àÐ T$ô ÐAssistant€Public€Defendersà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àÐ :%Ú Ð1209€Euclid€Avenueà ” àà ì àà D àRandall€E.€NicholsÐ  &À  ÐKnoxville,€TN€€37921à ” àà ì àà D àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ '¦! Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àMarsha€SelecmanÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àCity„County€BuildingÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àKnoxville,€TN€€37902ÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” à¢à ì àà D à£Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ  ä9„06 ÐÓÓòòò òÓ  ÓÑ7€„¥XXdæXXdì7ÑOPINIONó óóóÐ `  ÐÓJ Óà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner,€James€Franklin€Wampler,€appeals€the€trial€court'sÏdenial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€claims€he€received€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€because€his€attorney€failed€to€raise€the€following€issues€onÏappeal:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(1)€€that€the€state€may€have€learned€about€the€existenceÏof€one€of€its€witnesses€from€notes€stolen€from€defenseÏcounsel;€ÌÌ(2)€€that€one€of€the€jurors€should€have€been€disqualified;€€ÌÌ(3)€€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€firstÏdegree€murder€conviction;€andÌÌ(4)€€that€the€trial€court€provided€erroneous€juryÏinstructions€on€the€issue€of€passion.€€€€ÌÌÒ4ä Ø ÒÒXÊ ÒÓæ ÓÌà Œ àà ä àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€for€the€robbery€and€murder€of€forty„nine„¼year„old€George€Ashe,€the€manager€of€an€AAMCO€Transmission€Service€Center.€ÏOn€August€18,€1987,€Donald€Lines,€the€owner€of€the€business,€had€wired€$2,400.00Ïfrom€Pensacola,€Florida,€to€the€victim€in€Knoxville€via€Western€Union.€€That€evening,Ïthe€petitioner€and€the€victim€were€seen€together€at€a€Darryl's€Restaurant.€€On€theÏfollowing€day,€the€defendant€was€seen€in€possession€of€some€of€the€sameÏdenomination€of€bills€the€victim€had€received€at€Western€Union€and€a€money€clipÏand€two€gold€necklaces€which€belonged€to€the€victim.€€Other€circumstantialÏevidence,€including€the€testimony€of€Jessie€Hurst€who€confirmed€that€the€petitionerÏhad€purchased€a€.38€pistol€from€him€a€few€weeks€before€the€murder,€led€to€theÏconvictions.€€The€murder€weapon€was€a€.38.€€Prior€to€his€arrest,€the€petitionerÏevaded€authorities,€first€by€taking€a€job€in€Nashville€and€then€by€leaving€that€cityÏwhen€he€learned€he€was€wanted€by€authorities.€€There€was€proof€that€the€petitionerÐ $8Ä.4 Ðmade€incriminating€statements€to€the€victim's€brother,€Malcolm€Ashe;€that€heÏconfessed€to€a€jail€inmate€that€he€shot€the€victim€and€had€stolen€his€money€andÏmoney€clip;€and€that€he€made€conflicting€statements€to€the€police€during€his€pretrialÏincarceration.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€robbery€by€aÏdeadly€weapon.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€life€plus€ninety„nine€years.€ÏOn€direct€appeal,€this€court€affirmed€the€convictions€and€the€supreme€court€deniedÏreview.€€òòState€v.€James€Franklin€Wampleróó,€No.€03C01„9101„CR„21€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð À` ÐApp.,€at€Knoxville,€Sept.€6,€1991),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€Feb.€24,€1992).€€Initially,€theÐ Œ, Ðpetitioner€was€represented€by€Attorney€Leslie€Jeffress.€€At€trial,€he€was€representedÏby€Attorney€Ronald€Smith.€€Attorney€James€A.H.€Bell€represented€the€petitioner€atÏhis€motion€for€new€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€thatÏat€his€first€meeting€with€Attorney€Jeffress,€he€gave€Jeffress€a€list€of€names€ofÏindividuals€who€might€have€information€that€would€be€harmful€to€his€case€if€called€asÏwitnesses.€€He€stated€that€one€of€the€names€on€the€list€was€that€of€Hurst,€who€laterÏtestified€at€trial€that€he€had€sold€the€petitioner€a€.38€caliber€weapon.€€Because€HurstÏwas€not€listed€on€the€indictment,€Attorney€Smith€was€surprised€when€the€stateÏamended€the€indictment€after€the€beginning€of€the€trial€and€called€Hurst€as€aÏwitness.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€having€failedÏto€seek€a€suppression€of€Hurst's€testimony€who,€he€contends,€would€not€have€beenÏdiscovered€by€the€state€absent€the€theft€of€Jeffress'€notes.€€He€also€argues€that€hisÏappellate€counsel€should€have€raised€the€issue€on€direct€appeal.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€record€indicates€that€the€notes€were€discovered€in€the€possessionÐ 8¸.4 Ðof€Malcolm€Ashe€and€filed€under€seal€in€the€trial€court.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,ÏDavid€Jennings,€a€Knox€County€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€testified€thatÏneither€the€law€enforcement€officials€nor€the€staff€of€the€district€attorney€saw€theÏnotes.€€He€asserted€that€the€state€learned€of€Hurst€from€an€independent€source.€ÏThe€trial€court€accredited€Jennings'€testimony€and€further€concluded€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[T]his€issue€was€fully€and€completely€dealt€with€in€theÏMotion€for€New€Trial.€€Indeed€the€trial€judge€spentÏconsiderable€time€considering€this€issue€and€evenÏcontinued€the€Motion€for€New€Trial€to€give€defendant'sÏappellate€attorney€an€opportunity€to€fully€investigate€theÏmatter.€€Mr.€Bell€did€indeed€investigate€the€matterÏthoroughly€and€reported€his€findings€to€the€Court.€€ThatÏinvestigation€revealed€that€the€prosecution€did€not€reviewÏthe€information€that€the€victim[']s€brother€attempted€toÏprovide€to€them,€and€that€the€defendant€had€not€beenÏprejudiced€by€Mr.€Ashe's€actions.€€This€issue€has€beenÏfully€and€completely€examined,€and€this€Court€finds€noÏmerit€in€this€claim.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€must€first€establish€that€the€services€renderedÏor€the€advice€given€was€below€"the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€heÐ  &À  Ðmust€show€that€the€deficiencies€"actually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€the€defense."€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693€(1984).€€Should€the€petitioner€fail€toÐ ¸)X $ Ðestablish€either€factor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€Recently,€our€supreme€courtÏdescribed€the€standard€of€review€as€follows:ÌÓÓÒXÒÒä 4ÒBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€theÏtest,€a€failure€to€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudiceÏprovides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€not€address€theÏcomponents€in€any€particular€order€or€even€address€bothÏif€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€of€oneÏcomponent.ÌÌÒ4ä Ç"ÒÒX¹"ÒòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).Ð L6ì,2 ÐÌÓÓÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àOn€claims€of€ineffective€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€theÏbenefit€of€hindsight,€may€not€second„guess€a€reasonably€based€trial€strategy,€andÏcannot€criticize€a€sound,€but€unsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€courseÏof€the€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€Ð Äd ÐSuch€deference€to€the€tactical€decisions€of€counsel,€however,€applies€only€if€theÏchoices€are€made€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847Ð \ü  ÐS.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€On€appeal,€any€findings€of€fact€made€byÏthe€trial€court€are€conclusive€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€containedÏin€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289Ð À` Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.Ð Xø ÐCrim.€App.€1978).€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€orÏsubstitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€QuestionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theirÏtestimony€are€for€resolution€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2dÐ ˆ"( Ð752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àInitially,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€issue€of€the€stolen€notes€hadÏbeen€previously€determined€on€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€Additionally,€the€petitionerÏwas€unable€to€prove€any€link€between€the€state's€identification€of€Hurst€as€a€witnessÏand€the€stolen€notes.€€Moreover,€the€opinion€on€direct€appeal€documents€the€factÏthat€the€petitioner€complained€of€his€trial€counsel's€ineffectiveness€on€a€number€ofÏgrounds,€including€the€failure€to€file€pretrial€motions€under€Rule€12,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€€òòWampleróó,€slip.€op.€at€10.€€Most€importantly,€however,€the€evidentiary€hearingÐ ´2T). Ðsupports€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€that€the€petitioner€was€effectivelyÏrepresented€both€at€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€œñ¶ñ€ñ¶ññµñ€ñµññ¶ñ›ñ¶ññµñThe›€petitioner€was€simply€unable€toÏprove€any€link€between€the€stolen€notes€and€the€state's€identification€of€Hurst€as€a€witness.€€ñµñThus,€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.Ð 8¸.4 Їà Œ àà ä àNext,€the€petitioner€argues€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€havingÏfailed€to€raise€the€issue€of€juror€misconduct.€€After€one€and€one„half€hours€ofÏdeliberations,€the€foreman€of€the€jury€sent€the€following€note€to€the€trial€judge:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àOne€of€the€jurors€possibly€knows€one€of€the€witnesses.€ÏHe€says€it€probably€will€affect€his€decision.€€The€witnessÏis€Christine€Gregory.€€The€juror€is€Robert€Ellison.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÓThe€petitioner€contends€that€by€allowing€juror€Ellison€to€continue,€the€trial€courtÏdeprived€him€of€a€fair€and€impartial€jury€and€ñ·ñpermitted€ñ·ña€ñ¸ñnon„ñ¸ñunanimous€verdict.€ÏU.S.€Const.€amend.€XIV;€Tenn.€Const.,€art.€I,€ðð€8;€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€31.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€found€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àWhen€the€Trial€Court€received€the€note[,]€theÏJudge€apprised€both€the€prosecution€and€defenseÏlawyers€of€its[]€contents.€€Mr.€Smith,€defendant's€trialÏcounsel,€moved€the€Court€for€a€mistrial€at€that€point.€€TheÏTrial€Court€denied€defense€counsel's€request€for€aÏmistrial€and€re„instructed€the€jury€on€the€standard€closingÏinstruction€in€which€he€told€them€that€nothing€but€the€lawÏand€the€evidence€could€have€any€influence€on€theirÏverdict.€€The€jury€continued€deliberations€and€shortlyÏreturned€a€verdict€of€guilty.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àFollowing€the€jury€verdict€Mr.€Jennings,€theÏprosecutor,€and€Mr.€Smith€interviewed€the€jury€foremanÏand€the€juror€who€had€raised€the€possibility€that€he€knewÏone€of€the€witnesses.€€Both€of€those€individuals€assuredÏMr.€Smith€and€Mr.€Jennings€that€the€jury€verdict€had€notÏbeen€tainted€ñ¾ñby€ñ¾ññ¹ñ....€€ñ¹ññºñthe€jurors[']€concern.€€ñºñThose€interviews€were€tape€recordedÏand€transcribed€and€are€part€of€the€record€in€this€case.€ÏThis€Court€is€convinced€that€trial€counsel€actedÏappropriately€under€the€circumstances,€and€that€noÏprejudice€was€suffered€by€the€defendant.€€Therefore€thisÏCourt€finds€no€merit€to€this€issue.€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌ€ÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àAfter€the€trial,€juror€Ellison€testified€that€his€decision€was€based€solelyÏon€the€facts€presented€at€trial€and€that€he€was€not€influenced€by€his€connectionÏbetween€the€witness,€Christine€Gregory€(who€testified€she€saw€the€petitioner€inÏpossession€of€about€$1,000.00€in€cash€and€two€gold€chains€on€the€night€after€theÏmurder),€and€a€cousin€of€the€juror's€wife€by€the€same€name.€€The€jury€foreman,Ð þ8ž/5 ÐMarshall€Conner,€confirmed€the€veracity€of€juror€Ellison's€testimony.€€At€theÏevidentiary€hearing,€Attorney€Bell€testified€that€he€considered€the€question€a€non„¼issue€and€without€merit€as€a€possible€ground€on€appeal.€€ÌÔ‡XtÞXX XtÞÔÌà Œ àà ä àJuror€disqualifications€are€based€upon€either€(1)€propter€defectum€orÏ(2)€propter€affectum.€€òòPartin€v.€Hendersonóó,€686€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€Ð \ü  ÐObjections€based€on€general€disqualifications,€such€as€familial€relationship,€areÏwithin€the€propter€defectum€class€and€as€such,€must€be€challenged€before€a€verdict.€ÏòòId.óó€at€589.€€In€contrast,€disqualification€based€on€propter€affectum€exists€due€toÐ À` Ðsome€bias€or€partiality€toward€one€party€in€the€litigation.€€òòId.óó;€òòToombs€v.€Stateóó,€270Ð Œ, ÐS.W.2d€649,€651€(Tenn.€1954).€€Propter€affectum€objections€may€be€made€after€theÏreturn€of€the€jury€verdict.€€òòId.óó;€òòDurham€v.€Stateóó,€188€S.W.2d€555,€557€(Tenn.€1945).€Ð $Ä ÐBecause€the€defendant€claims€bias€or€partiality€in€favor€of€the€state,€this€is€a€case€ofÏpropter€affectum.€€òòState€v.€Furloughóó,€797€S.W.2d€631,€652€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Ð ¼ \ ÐÔ#† XtÞXXXtÞq9#ÔÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€found€as€a€matter€of€fact€that€juror€Ellison€had€not€beenÏaffected€during€the€deliberation€by€his€knowledge€of€Ms.€Gregory.€€There€is€nothingÏin€the€record€to€indicate€that€the€alleged€bias€affected€the€verdict€in€any€way.€ÏBecause€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€that€conclusion,€we€find€noÏmerit€to€the€claim.€€ÌÌÔ‡ XtÞXX XtÞÔà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€juror€Ellison's€bias€toward€witnessÐ /¼%* ÐGregory€denied€him€a€unanimous€verdict.€€The€circumstances€here,€however,€areÏvastly€different€from€those€in€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134€(Tenn.€1993),€whereÐ ´2T). Ðproof€of€multiple€offenses€was€presented€to€the€jury€from€which€the€jurors€were€leftÏto€choose€independently€upon€which€offenses€to€convict.€€Juror€Ellison€testified€thatÏhis€verdict€of€guilty€was€based€on€the€facts€and€not€any€opinion€he€held€toward€oneÐ 8¸.4 Ðof€the€witnesses.€€The€state€offered€proof€of€one€murder€and€one€robbery.€€ThereÏwas€no€requirement€that€the€state€make€an€election€and,€therefore,€no€lack€ofÏunanimity.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòSchad€v.€Arizonaóó,€501€U.S.€624€(1991)€(a€jury€need€not€agreeÐ ø ˜ Ðon€which€overt€act,€among€several€possible€alternatives,€was€the€means€by€which€aÏcrime€was€committed).Ô#† XtÞXX XtÞ?#ÔÐ 0 ÐÌà Œ àà ä àFinally,€the€petitioner€complains€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€at€trialÏand€on€appeal€for€failing€to€argue€that€the€proof€was€insufficient€to€support€firstÏdegree€murder€in€the€context€of€the€jury€charges€on€premeditation€and€deliberation.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2d€144€(Tenn.€1992).€€He€argues€that€the€circumstantialÐ Œ, Ðevidence€could€have€been€just€as€easily€interpreted€as€a€killing€"in€the€heat€ofÏpassion"€and,€therefore,€a€lesser€degree€of€homicide.€€The€petitioner€also€suggestsÏthat€the€jury€instructions,€which€provided€that€"passion€does€not€always€reduce€theÏcrime€below€first€degree"€were€improper€and€should€have€been€challenged€at€trialÏand€on€appeal.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€instructions€as€to€premeditation€andÏdeliberation,€given€prior€to€the€decision€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.Ð ì'Œ" Ð1992),€accurately€reflected€the€law€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòLofton€v.€Stateóó,Ð ¸)X $ Ð898€S.W.2d€246€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€In€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€does€notÏdispute€that€ruling.€€Instead,€he€argues€that€the€jury€instruction€on€passion€wasÏimproper,€claiming€that€"the€jury€must€have€been€able€to€find€that€the€[petitioner]Ïacted€òòwithoutóó€passion."€€òòState€v.€Bullingtonóó,€532€S.W.2d€556€(Tenn.€1976).€€Ð è0ˆ', ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€instructions,€in€pertinent€part,€included€the€following:€€Ìñ»ñÌñ»ñÔ‡ XtÞXX XtÞÔÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àThe€mental€state€of€the€accused€at€the€time€heÐ L6ì,2 Ðallegedly€instigated€the€act,€which€resulted€in€the€allegedÏdeath€of€the€deceased€must€be€carefully€considered,€inÏorder€to€determine€whether€the€accused€was€sufficientlyÐ þ8ž/5 Ðfree€from€excitement€and€passion€to€be€capab[le]€ofÏpremeditation.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àPassion€does€not€always€reduce€the€crime€belowÏmurder€in€the€first€degree,€since€a€person€may€deliberate,Ïmay€premeditate,€and€may€intend€to€kill,€afterÏpremeditation€and€deliberation,€although€prompted€and,Ïto€a€large€extent,€controlled€by€passion€at€the€time.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àIf€the€design€to€kill€was€formed€with€deliberationÏand€premeditation,€it€is€immaterial€that€the€accused€mayÏhave€been€in€a€passion€or€excited€state€when€the€designÏwas€carried€into€effect.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àThe€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€may€be€inferred€fromÏthe€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€€òòMcGill€v.€Stateóó,€475€S.W.2d€223€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð À` Ð1971).€€The€act€must€have€been€formed€with€a€cool€purpose,€deliberately€conceivedÏin€the€mind€of€the€accused,€in€order€to€rise€to€the€level€of€murder€in€the€first€degree.€ÏòòBullingtonóó,€532€S.W.2d€at€559.€€If,€however,€the€purpose€was€conceived€"in€the€heatÐ $Ä Ðof€passion,€the€accused,€to€be€guilty€of€first€degree€murder,€must€have€committedÏthe€act€after€the€passion€subsided."€€òòId.óó€€In€our€view,€the€jury€instructions,€as€aÐ ¼ \ Ðwhole,€providñÀññ¿ñdñ¿ññÀñeñÁñdñÁñ€the€proper€standardñÂñ€at€the€time€of€trialñÂñ.€€The€instructions€explainÏthat,€so€long€as€the€mind€was€free€of€passion€when€the€intent€to€kill€was€formed,Ïpassion€during€the€act€does€not€reduce€the€murder€from€first€degree.€Ô#† XtÞXX XtÞöH#Ô€Moreover,Ð  &À  Ðappellate€counsel€did€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€as€an€issue€on€directÏappeal.€€In€the€opinion€on€direct€appeal,€this€court€specifically€addressed€theÏquestion€and€concluded€that€the€proof€met€the€requirement€of€Rule€13(e),€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€ÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à__________________________________Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€Judgeñ¼ñÐ  f5,1 Ðñ¼ññ½ñÌÌñ½ñCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge€Ì