ÿWPCÑ  …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 1mH 0dµ 0l 0D… 0JÉ 0T 0^g 0hÅ 0r- 0|Ÿ 0† 0¡ 1u1 0d¦ B U>'B)eDCŽU *Ñ D3û AM.Þ{ 0@Y™U6§v~ÝvÓ[ 0. 0н 0 G 0´ç 0Ç› 0Ûb 0ï= AO,Æ{ 0DA D/… B´ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ E {  E  EDÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial""""'ÿÿdxd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÔÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌJune€6,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  Ýà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€reason€for€the€long€delay€between€the€filing€of€the€petition€and€the€actualÏà àhearing€is€not€apparent€from€the€record.Ì< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(gfi$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 ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ À ÒÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€)ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€+,(A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌEDMUND€GEORGE€ZAGORSKI,à à)à àC.C.A.€No.€€01C01„9609„CC„00397Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àROBERTSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVSà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JANE€W.€WHEATCRAFT,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction€„€Death€Penalty)Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òSAMUEL€L.€FELKER€à àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌJOSEPH€F.€WELBORN,€IIIà àà àà àó óAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ2700€First€American€CenterÌNashville,€TN€37238„2700à àà àà àà àò òAMY€L.€TARKINGTONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ò òÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGLENN€R.€PRUDENÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òLAWRENCE€RAY€WHITLEYó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òDEE€DAVID€GAYÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à202€McClellan€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGallatin,€TN€37066ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€€ó óòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌò òóóAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÌÑ7€¬•XXdðXXdð7Ñó óà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÓÓó óà àPetitioner,€Edmund€George€Zagorski,€appeals€from€the€dismissal€of€hisÏpost„conviction€relief€petition.€He€was€previously€convicted€of€two€(2)€counts€of€firstÏdegree€murder€and€sentenced€to€death€by€electrocution.€Zagorski€contends€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€dismissing€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€presents€toÏthis€Court€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€whether€the€jury€charge€on€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruelððÏaggravating€circumstance€was€unconstitutional;Ìà àÌà8 à(2)€whether€he€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel€regarding€theÏmotion€to€suppress€his€statements;ÌÌà8 à(3)€whether€he€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel€due€to€theÏfailure€of€counsel€to€present€mitigating€evidence€at€his€sentencingÏhearing;ÌÌà8 à(4)€whether€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€certain€expert€services€and€theÏfailure€of€trial€counsel€to€request€other€expert€services€violated€hisÏconstitutional€rights;€andÌÌà8 à(5)€whether€the€state€withheld€exculpatory€evidence€from€trialÏcounsel.ÌÌÓÓFinding€that€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€properly€dismissed,€we€ÏAFFIRM€€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPROCEDURAL€HISTORYóóó óÌÌà àIn€1984,€petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€Robertson€County€of€two€(2)Ïcounts€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€€He€was€sentenced€in€both€cases€toÏdeath€by€electrocution.€€His€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmed€on€directÏappeal€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808Ï(Tenn.€1985).€€His€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€to€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏwas€denied€on€June€30,€1986.€€Ìà àPetitionerððs€original€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€in€1987.€€AnÏamended€petition€was€filed€in€1989.€€The€actual€hearing€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€in€November€1995€and€January€1996.× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€petition€wasÏdismissed€by€order€entered€April€19,€1996.€€Notice€of€appeal€was€timely€filed,€andÏthe€case€was€orally€argued€in€this€Court€on€March€19,€1997.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSóóó óÌÌà àIt€is€appropriate€to€recite€the€facts€as€set€forth€by€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€on€direct€appeal:ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€evidence€shows€that€on€April€5,€1983,€the€defendant€firstÏappeared€at€the€Lakeland€Trout€farm€in€Bucksnort€in€HickmanÏCounty,€Tennessee.€€The€Trout€Farm€was€managed€by€defendant'sÏfriend,€Jimmy€Blackwell.€€The€defendant,€calling€himself€"Jesse€LeeÏHardin,"€claimed€to€have€been€working€as€a€mercenary€in€HondurasÏand€El€Salvador.€€He€was€wearing€camouflage€clothing€and€wasÏcarrying€a€survival€knife,€an€HK€91€.308€semi„automatic€rifle€andÏother€weapons€and€survival€gear.€€Although€he€claimed€to€haveÏmade€as€much€as€$100.00€a€day€as€a€mercenary,€defendant€did€notÏseem€to€have€any€money.ÌÌà8 àà àDuring€his€stay€at€the€trout€farm,€defendant€met€John€DaleÏDotson€and€his€wife€Marsha.€€Dotson€and€defendant€arranged€aÏmarijuana€purchase€involving€them€and€a€third€man,€Jimmy€Porter,Ïwho€lived€in€nearby€Dickson,€Tennessee.€€According€to€MarshaÏDotson,€Porter€was€to€pay€$23,000.00€for€one€hundred€pounds€ofÏmarijuana€defendant€would€arrange€to€have€dropped€from€anÏairplane€into€the€woods.€€Dotson€was€to€receive€$10,000.00€fromÏPorter€for€his€part€of€the€deal.€€(Zagorski€in€a€statement€toÏinvestigating€officers€stated€that€the€sale€was€to€be€of€200€pounds€ofÏmarijuana€at€$150.00€per€pound).€€The€date€of€the€transaction€was€toÏbe€April€23,€1983.ÌÌà8 àà àAt€about€midnight,€on€April€21,€1983,€an€airplane€flew€very€lowÏover€the€Trout€Farm.€€Zagorski,€who€was€with€Blackwell,€commentedÏ"It's€here,"€and€left.€€Zagorski€later€told€Dotson€the€marijuana€hadÏarrived€and€was€in€the€woods€with€a€man€called€Dave;€€that€DotsonÏand€no€more€than€two€other€men€were€to€meet€Zagorski,€who€wouldÏbe€on€foot,€at€6:00€p.m.€at€Spot,€Tennessee,€which€was€withinÏwalking€distance€of€the€Trout€Farm.€€Zagorski€also€told€Dotson€toÏcome€armed.ÌÌà8 àà àOn€the€afternoon€of€April€23,€1983,€Porter€and€Dotson€wereÏtogether€at€the€Eastside€Tavern€in€Dickson,€Tennessee.€€There€PorterÏshowed€the€tavern€operator€a€bank€bag€containing€cash€and€a€.357ÏMagnum€pistol.€€Dotson€and€Porter€left€the€tavern€in€Porter's€redÏDatsun€pick„up€at€about€4:30€p.m.€€They€were€never€seen€aliveÏagain.ÌÌà8 àà àAlso€on€April€23,€1983,€Zagorski€left€the€trout€farm,€taking€hisÏgear.€€He€had€been€heard€to€tell€Dotson€that€he€would€meet€him€atÏ6:00€p.m.€on€the€road€"up€behind€Spot."€€At€around€5:30€p.m.,ÏBlackwell€and€his€girlfriend€heard€gunshots€from€the€general€areaÏwhere€the€defendant€had€walked€into€the€woods.€€According€toÍBlackwell,€it€was€not€unusual€to€hear€gunshots€on€a€daily€basis€in€thatÏpart€of€Hickman€County€because€of€the€frequency€of€deer€hunting€inÏthe€area.ÌÌÌà8 àà àOn€May€6,€1983,€the€badly€decomposed€bodies€of€Porter€andÏDotson€were€discovered€in€a€secluded,€wooded€area€near€I„65€inÏRobertson€County.€€The€men€had€been€shot€in€the€chest€andÏabdomen€and€their€throats€had€been€cut.ÌÌà8 àà àA€search€of€the€area€turned€up€a€military€snake„bite€kit,€a€knifeÏscabbard€(later€identified€as€Zagorski's),€a€case€for€"Red€Specs"Ïglasses€(the€type€worn€by€Zagorski),€six€flares,€three€size€"C"€DuracelÏflashlight€batteries€and€an€ink€pen.€€Officers€also€€found€a€.308Ïcartridge€on€the€ground€between€the€bodies€of€the€victims.€€BallisticÏtests€showed€that€the€cartridge€had€been€fired€from€Zagorski's€HK€91Ïsemi„automatic€rifle.ÌÌà8 àà àAn€autopsy€was€performed€on€the€bodies€of€the€victims,€butÏdue€to€the€advanced€stage€of€decomposition,€the€time€of€death€of€theÏvictims€could€not€be€fixed€with€any€degree€of€certitude.€€TheÏpathologist€stated€that€the€time€of€death€could€be€any€time€from€aÏweek€to€a€month€prior€to€the€time€the€autopsies€were€performed.€€TheÏpathologist€also€testified€that€he€could€not€determine€whether€theÏvictims€were€shot€or€cut€first,€but€that€the€actual€cause€of€death€ofÏeach€of€the€victims€was€the€gunshot€€wounds.€€According€to€theÏpathologist,€neither€Porter€nor€Dotson€would€have€died€immediatelyÏupon€being€shot,€but€they€would€have€lived€five€to€seven€minutes.€€ÏThe€record€further€shows€that€at€the€timeò ò€ó óof€death,€Porter€had€a€bloodÏalcohol€level€of€.10€and€Dotson€had€a€blood€alcohol€level€of€.25.ÌÌà8 àà àJohnny€Baggett,€who€found€the€bodies,€testified€that€a€week€to€Ïten€days€before€at€around€7:00€or€8:00€p.m.,€he€had€heard€gunshotsÏin€the€area.€€When€questioned€closer€about€the€gunshots,€he€fixedÏthe€time€at€around€April€25€or€26,€1983.ÌÌà8 àà àAt€about€that€time,€Zagorski€showed€up€at€the€home€of€RodneyÏBruce€in€Ironton,€Ohio,€driving€Porter's€Datson€[sic]€truck.€€He€alsoÏhad€with€him€the€deceased€men's€coveralls€and€Porter's€.357ÏMagnum€pistol.€€While€in€Ironton,€Zagorski€spent€large€sums€of€cashÏon€survival€gear,€weapons,€horses,€a€four„wheel€drive€pick„up,€and€aÏmotorcycle.€€€At€one€point€he€showed€Bruce€what€he€said€wasÏ$25,000.00€in€cash.€€He€first€claimed€he€had€earned€the€moneyÏworking€off„shore€and€later€said€he€had€earned€it€working€as€aÍmercenary€in€South€America.€€He€also€said€he€had€made€a€"quick"Ï$10,000.00€in€Nashville.€€Zagorski€also€told€Bruce€and€an€armyÏsurplus€dealer€that€he€had€lost€his€knife€scabbard.ÌÌà8 àà àOn€May€26,€1983,€Zagorski,€armed€and€wearing€a€bullet„proofÏvest,€was€apprehended€by€Ohio€law€enforcement€officers€after€aÏshoot„out€in€which€Zagorski€rammed€a€police€car€and€shot€a€specialÏdeputy€five€times.€€Over€$9,000.00€in€cash€was€found€in€Zagorski'sÏfatigue€jacket€and€suit.ÌÌà8 àà àZagorski€gave€different€versions€of€his€role€in€the€killings€ofÏDotson€and€Porter.€€€When€he€spoke€with€police€on€June€1,€1983,€heÏtold€them€that€he€and€another€mercenary€in€their€own€vehicle€hadÏmet€Dotson€and€Porter€near€Spot.€€Two€other€mercenaries€in€a€thirdÏvehicle€had€joined€them€as€they€drove€up€I„40.€€When€they€stoppedÏon€I„65€in€Robertson€County,€the€other€mercenaries€took€Zagorski'sÏrifle,€silencer€and€gear€and€went€into€the€woods€with€Dotson€andÏPorter.€€Zagorski€was€instructed€to€drive€Porter's€pick„up€to€aÏWelcome€Center€at€the€Kentucky€border€and€watch€for€lawÏenforcement€officers.€€Thirty€to€forty„five€minutes€later€the€otherÏmercenaries€met€him,€gave€him€$5,000.00€and€Porter's€.357ÏMagnum€and€returned€his€rifle€and€gear.€€€Zagorski€then€left€inÏPorter's€pick„up€since,€he€said,€it€was€not€unusual€to€trade€cars€in€aÏdrug€deal.ÌÌà8 àà àIn€statements€made€on€July€27€and€August€1,€1983,€ZagorskiÏclaimed€he€was€hired€to€kill€Porter€but€that€Dotson's€death€was€aÏmistake.€€€He€also€said€that€two€other€men€had€been€hired€to€killÏPorter,€that€the€deaths€occurred€in€Humphreys€County€and€that€theÏbodies€were€put€in€plastic€bags€and€carried€to€Robertson€County.€ÏZagorski€never€admitted€killing€the€men€and€refused€to€tell€theÏidentities€of€the€other€men€he€claimed€were€involved.€€€Zagorski€toldÏsome€visitors€at€the€jail€that€he€had€only€been€at€the€killings€to€"blowÏaway"€FBI€agents.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€defense€proof€was€directed€toward€showing€that€theÏkillings€did€not€occur€in€Robertson€County.€€One€witness,€RubyÏWinters,€testified€that€at€about€4:00€p.m.€on€April€23,€1983,€she€hadÏheard€loud€music€and€four€shots€coming€in€a€wooded€area€nearÏSpot.€€Another€witness€testified€as€to€how€the€HK€91€rifle€fired€andÏhow€far€cartridges€were€expelled€from€the€gun.€€€This€was€inÏcontradiction€to€testimony€of€state€witnesses€on€the€issue.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€jury€found€from€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€guiltyÍof€murder€in€the€first€degree€in€killing€John€Dotson€and€Jimmy€Porter.€€ÏImplicit€in€the€verdicts€was€a€finding€by€the€jury€that€the€killingsÏoccurred€in€Robertson€County,€Tennessee.€€€In€a€separateÏproceeding,€and€based€upon€the€testimony€introduced€during€theÏguilt€phase€of€the€trial,€the€jury€imposed€the€sentence€of€death€on€theÏdefendant€for€each€killing€on€its€finding€(1)€that€the€murders€wereÏcommitted€by€the€defendant€while€he€was€engaged€in€committingÏrobbery€of€the€victims,€(2)€that€the€murders€were€especially€heinous,Ïatrocious€or€cruel€in€that€they€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind,Ïand€(3)€that€there€was€no€mitigating€circumstance€sufficientlyÏsubstantial€toò ò€ó óoutweigh€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstancesÏfound€by€the€jury.ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€at€810„812.€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòTESTIMONY€AT€POST„CONVICTION€HEARINGóóó óÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€relief€hearing,€testimony€was€presented€by€Jeff€Blum,Ïan€investigator;€James€E.€Walton,€one€of€Zagorskiððs€trial€attorneys;€Larry€D.€Wilks,Ïthe€other€trial€attorney;€Ted€Emery,€Sheriff€of€Robertson€County;€and€Ronnie€Perry,Ïa€detective€with€the€Robertson€County€Sheriffððs€Department.Ìà àBlum€was€an€investigator€in€this€post„conviction€case.€€He€conducted€anÏinvestigation€of€petitionerððs€background.€€This€included€petitionerððs€early€years€andÏhis€relationship€with€his€family.€€In€substance,€Blum€found€that€petitioner€had€anÏunhappy€childhood.€€ÌÌà àBlum€also€discovered€that€€the€petitioner€had€a€prior€conviction€for€receivingÏand€concealing€stolen€property€and€prior€drug€convictions.€€In€1981,€the€petitionerÏhad€federal€drug€charges€involving€the€transportation€of€drugs€across€state€lines.€ÍThe€petitioner€jumped€bond€on€these€charges.€€The€petitioner€had€not€beenÏconvicted€of€any€violent€crimes.€€à àÌà àJames€E.€Walton,€who€was€trial€counsel€for€the€petitioner,€testified€that€heÏwas€appointed€to€this€case.€€Up€until€1982€or€early€1983,€he€was€active€in€criminalÏwork,€but€had€never€handled€a€capital€case€before€this€one.€€At€the€time,€WaltonÏhad€been€involved€in€15€or€16€first€degree€murder€trials€and€about€20„25%€of€hisÏlegal€practice€was€related€to€criminal€law.Ìà àLarry€D.€Wilks,€co„counsel€at€trial,€had€very€little€criminal€law€experience.€ÏBecause€of€his€lack€of€experience,€Wilks€played€a€support€role€in€the€petitionerððsÏcase.€€Wilks€had€worked€on€one€prior€murder€case.€€Ìà àCounsel€requested€that€the€trial€court€grant€funds€for€a€ballistics€expert,€butÏthe€motion€was€denied.€€Walton€testified€that€a€ballistics€expert€was€soughtÏbecause€counsel€did€not€think€the€location€of€the€spent€shells€on€the€ground€wasÏconsistent€with€the€theory€that€the€murders€occurred€where€the€bodies€were€found.€ÏThe€request€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€Counsel€did€secure€the€services€of€anÏArmy€€officer€who€subsequently€testified€regarding€the€trajectory€of€the€spentÏcartridges.€€Ìà àCounsel€also€asked€for€funds€to€hire€an€investigator€because€the€eventsÏcovered€several€states.€€This€motion€was€also€denied.€€This€required€counsel€toÏinvestigate€on€their€own.€€Counselsðð€investigation€involved€tracking€downÏwitnesses€the€state€had€given€them.€€Counsel€traveled€to€Centerville€and€the€troutÏfarm€to€interview€witnesses.€€They€also€went€to€Ohio,€Kentucky,€and€West€Virginia,Ïwhere€the€borders€of€the€three€states€meet,€to€ascertain€information€about€theÍpetitionerððs€capture.€€à àÌà àTrial€counsel€were€granted€funds€for€a€psychiatrist.€€Trial€counsel€usedÏthese€funds€to€hire€Dr.€Ben€Bursten,€a€forensic€psychiatrist.€€Dr.€Bursten€examinedÏpetitioner€approximately€one€week€before€trial.€€After€a€phone€conversation€withÏDr.€Bursten,€counsel€decided€not€to€call€him€as€a€witness.€€Dr.€Bursten€advised€thatÏthere€was€nothing€he€could€say€on€the€stand€that€would€help€petitioner.€€Dr.ÏBursten€indicated€that€he€would€have€to€testify€that€the€petitioner€could€be€a€ð ðmeanÏperson.ðð€€The€forensic€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€by€Middle€Tennessee€MentalÏHealth€Institute€also€found€the€petitioner€competent€to€stand€trial.€€à àÌà àCounselsðð€primary€trial€objective€was€to€undercut€the€stateððs€theory€andÏcreate€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Venue€was€one€of€the€important€issues.€€At€trial,Ïcounsel€for€the€petitioner€called€three€witnesses€relating€to€venue.€€€€Ìà àThe€petitioner€was€adamant€that€his€attorneys€not€talk€to€nor€involve€hisÏfamily.€€The€petitioner€insisted€he€was€not€the€triggerman€and€did€not€want€to€beÏconvicted€of€first€degree€murder.€€If€he€were€convicted€of€first€degree€murder,Ïhowever,€the€petitioner€wanted€the€death€penalty€and€not€a€life€sentence.€€For€thisÏreason€counselsðð€focus€was€aimed€primarily€at€trying€to€prevent€a€first€degreeÏmurder€conviction.€€Petitioner€emphatically€instructed€counsel€not€to€involve€hisÏfamily,€investigate€his€past,€nor€present€any€mitigating€proof€in€the€event€of€a€Ïsentencing€hearing.Ìà àBecause€of€their€ethical€concerns,€counsel€sought€advice€from€the€Board€ofÏProfessional€Responsibility.€€An€advisory€opinion€was€received€by€counsel€whichÏsuggested€that€the€client€be€fully€advised€that€his€desires€are€in€conflict€withÍcounselððs€ethical€responsibilities.€€It€was€further€suggested€that€counsel€seek€aÏruling€as€to€the€clientððs€competency€to€represent€himself€during€that€portion€of€theÏtrial€in€which€the€conflict€was€imminent,€and€counsel€should€seek€to€withdrawÏduring€that€portion€of€the€trial.€€Ìà àIn€the€end€counsel€determined€that€petitionerððs€wishes€were€paramount,Ïand€they€should€abide€by€his€instructions.€€Accordingly,€they€did€not€developÏextensive€proof€to€present€at€a€sentencing€hearing€in€the€event€of€a€first€degreeÏmurder€conviction.€€Ìà àAfter€the€petitioner€was€convicted,€counsel€talked€with€the€petitioner.€ÏAlthough€the€petitioner€had€told€counsel€not€to€argue€or€put€on€any€mitigatingÏproof,€trial€counsel€convinced€the€petitioner€to€let€them€at€least€make€an€argument.€€ÌÌà àBefore€the€sentencing€hearing,€there€was€a€bench€conference€concerningÏrequests€for€jury€instructions.€€Counsel€believed€the€trial€court€placed€limitations€onÏthe€mitigating€factors€that€counsel€was€allowed€to€discuss€during€closing€argumentÏbecause€the€trial€court€denied€their€requests€for€jury€instructions€on€specificÏmitigating€factors.€€Consequently,€counsel€begged€for€mercy€during€closingÏarguments€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Ìà àBoth€attorneys€testified€that€they€had€good€relationships€with€the€petitionerÏand€met€on€a€regular€basis.€€Neither€had€any€communication€problems€with€theÏpetitioner.€€The€attorneys€believed€petitioner€was€competent€and€fully€understoodÏthe€ramifications€of€his€decision€in€desiring€the€death€penalty€if€convicted€of€firstÏdegree€murder.€€Ìà àSheriff€Emery€testified€that€as€part€of€his€investigation,€he€went€to€Louisiana,ÏMichigan,€Kentucky,€Ohio€and€West€Virginia.€€Defense€counsel€had€access€to€theÏresults€of€Sheriff€Emeryððs€investigation.€€€€Ìà àSheriff€Emery€obtained€a€statement€from€the€petitioner€when€petitioner€wasÏin€a€West€Virginia€hospital.€€Sheriff€Emery€found€that€the€petitioner€was€alert€andÏseemed€to€have€no€problem€communicating€with€him.€€When€the€petitioner€rodeÏback€to€Tennessee€with€Sheriff€Emery,€petitioner€did€not€complain€about€hisÏhealth.€€When€Sheriff€Emery€took€a€second€statement€on€June€1,€1983,€theÏpetitioner€was€alert,€he€appeared€normal,€and€his€speech€was€not€slurred.€€SheriffÏEmery€testified€that,€according€to€his€investigation,€no€one€else€was€involved€in€theÏmurders.€€Ìà àDetective€Perry€testified€that€when€the€petitioner€made€a€statement€to€him€inÏthe€jail€on€July€27,€1983,€the€petitioner€was€coherent,€spoke€well,€and€couldÏunderstand€him.€€The€petitioner€did€not€appear€to€be€under€the€influence€of€drugsÏor€alcohol€at€the€time.€€Nor€did€the€petitioner€make€any€complaints€about€his€healthÏat€that€time.Ìà àDetective€Perry€also€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€alert,€able€to€speak€andÏable€to€understand€when€he€gave€the€statement€on€August€1,€1983.€€The€petitionerÏdid€not€appear€to€be€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€and€never€complainedÏabout€his€health€or€medical€condition€on€that€occasion.€€The€petitioner€onlyÏcomplained€about€being€in€jail.ÌÌà@ àò òòòTRIAL€COURTððS€FINDINGS€DENYING€POST„CONVICTION€RELIEFÌÌóóó óà àThe€trial€court€filed€a€comprehensive€Memorandum€Opinion€denying€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€courtððs€rulings€may€be€summarized€as€follows:ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àThe€court€found€that€the€jury€charge€on€ð ðheinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€hadÏbeen€litigated€on€direct€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€The€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€re„weighed€the€evidence€and€found€noÏconstitutional€infirmity.€€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808,€814€(Tenn.€1985).€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àThe€court€found€that€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€the€handling€of€theÏmotion€to€suppress€petitionerððs€statements.€€The€court€further€noted€that€the€issueÏwas€raised€on€direct€appeal€and€decided€adversely€to€petitioner.€€òòState€v.ÏZagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€at€812.€€ÌÌà@ àò òC.Ìó óÌà àThe€court€further€concluded€that€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€theirÏrepresentation€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€trial.€€The€court€found€that€petitioner€wasÏcompetent€to€aid€in€his€own€defense€and€have€input€into€trial€determinations.€€TheÍcourt€found€that€counsel€followed€the€dictates€of€their€clientððs€wishes.€€The€courtÏfurther€found€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€failing€to€argue€the€criminal€activityÏof€the€victims,€the€petitionerððs€youth,€or€the€petitionerððs€lack€of€a€violent€criminalÏhistory.€€€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òD.ó óÌÌà àThe€court€ruled€that€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€appoint€various€experts€Ïdid€not€prejudice€the€petitioner.€€The€court€concluded€that€although€a€privateÏinvestigator€was€not€appointed€to€assist€counsel,€counsel€conducted€an€extensiveÏand€appropriate€investigation€on€their€own.€€The€court€found€no€deficiency€withÏregard€to€the€investigation.€€Ìà àÌà@ àò òE.ÌÌó óà àThe€court€found€that€certain€information€relating€to€the€homicides€wasÏdeveloped€in€other€judicial€districts€and€not€turned€over€to€the€prosecuting€DistrictÏAttorney€General.€€Although€the€court€noted€the€need€for€the€sharing€of€suchÏinformation€in€multiple„jurisdiction€cases,€the€court€found€that€this€informationÏwould€not€have€altered€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òSCOPE€OF€REVIEWóóó óÌÌà àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€petitioner€must€prove€the€allegationsÏcontained€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912ÏS.W.2d€689,€697€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1991);€òòOliphant€v.€Stateóó,€806€S.W.2d€215,€218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏFindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€trial€court€are€given€the€weightÏof€a€jury€verdict;€this€Court€is€bound€by€those€findings€unless€the€evidenceÏcontained€in€the€record€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,Ï899€(Tenn.€1990);€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€932,€934€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€ÏThis€Court€may€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€its€inferencesÏfor€those€drawn€by€the€trial€court.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€341€€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€weightÏand€value€to€be€given€their€testimony€are€for€resolution€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBlack€v.ÏStateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà@ àò òòòHEINOUS,€ATROCIOUS€OR€CRUELóóÌÌà@ àA.€€Contentions€of€the€PartiesÌó óÌà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€jury€instruction€on€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious,€orÏcruelðð€aggravating€factor€was€unconstitutionally€vague€because€the€trial€courtÏfailed€to€include€the€definitions€of€the€terms€heinous,€atrocious,€cruel,€torture,€andÏdepravity€of€mind.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€the€jury€instruction€failed€to€narrowÍthe€class€of€death„eligible€defendants€as€required€by€òòGodfrey€v.€Georgiaóó,€446€U.S.Ï420,€100€S.Ct.€1759,€64€L.Ed.€2d€398€(1980).Ìà àIn€response,€the€state€contends€that€because€our€Supreme€Court€on€directÏappeal€construed€and€interpreted€this€aggravating€circumstance€in€accordanceÏwith€the€definitions€set€forth€in€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529„30€(Tenn.Ï1985),€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelðð€aggravating€factor€was€notÏunconstitutionally€vague€as€applied€to€the€petitionerððs€case.€€The€state€furtherÏasserts€that€the€Supreme€Courtððs€construction€cured€any€constitutional€defect€thatÏmay€have€arisen€from€the€fact€that€the€jury€was€instructed€only€in€the€plain€words€ofÏthe€statute.€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Compliance€with€Williamsó óÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€our€Supreme€Court€noted€ð ðthat€the€court€did€not€instructÏthe€jury€concerning€the€legal€significance€of€the€words€ððheinous,ðð€ððatrocious,ððÏððcruel,ðð€ððtorture,ðð€or€ððdepravity€of€mindðð€as€those€terms€are€used€in€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€defined€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(I)(5)(1982).€€òòWilliamsóó,€690ÏS.W.2d€at€532.€€After€discussion€of€the€legal€meanings€of€these€terms,€the€CourtÏfound€insufficient€evidence€of€ð ðtortureðð€(the€victim€had€been€killed€first,€mutilatedÏsecond),€but€possible€evidence€of€ð ðdepravity€of€mindðð€and€left€the€finalÏdetermination€to€the€jury€on€remand.€€òòIdóó.€at€525„532.€€The€Court€found€the€statute€toÏbe€constitutional€ð ðso€long€as€the€abstract€terms€employed€therein€are€construedÏand€interpreted€as€we€have€done€in€this€opinion€and€other€opinions€of€this€Court.ðð€ÍòòIdóó.€at€533.Ìà àIn€charging€the€jury€in€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€did€not€define€any€ofÏthe€terms€in€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelðð€aggravating€circumstance.€€Instead,Ïthe€trial€court€gave€the€following€instruction:ÌÓÓà8 àà àNo€death€penalty€shall€be€imposed€unless€you€findÏunanimously€that€one€or€more€of€the€following€specified€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances€has€been€proven€on€the€trial€and/or€in€theÏsentencing€hearing€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ÌÌà8 àà àThe€aggravating€circumstances€relied€upon€in€this€case€are:Ïthe€murders€were€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind;€the€murders€were€committedÏwhile€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€committing€robbery€of€theÏvictims.ÌÌÌÓÓà àòòState€v.€Williamsóó€was€released€on€May€20,€1985.€€Although€the€petitionerððsÏtrial€was€held€before€òòWilliamsóó€was€decided,€the€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion€in€hisÏdirect€appeal€was€released€six€months€after€òòWilliamsóó.€€In€finding€that€thisÏaggravating€factor€was€properly€applied,€the€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà àOn€considering€the€evidence€properly€before€the€jury€in€thisÏcase,€we€are€convinced€that€it€is€sufficient€for€a€rational€trial€[sic]€ofÏfact€to€find€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€killed€JohnÏDotson€and€Jimmy€Porter€in€Robertson€County€during€the€course€of€aÏrobbery.€€We€are€also€of€the€opinion€that€the€finding€by€the€jury€thatÏthe€murders€were€ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€is€in€accordÏwith€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529„30Ï(Tenn.€1985).€€Although€the€victims€died€from€gunshot€wounds,€theÏdefendant€also€slit€their€throats,€leaving€them€to€bleed€to€death€in€theÏwoods.€€This€evidences€depravity€of€mind€and€is€a€form€of€torture.€ÏDefendantððs€actions€were€an€infliction€of€gratuitous€violence,€andÏneedless€mutilation€of€victims€who€were€already€helpless€from€fatalÏwounds€which€indicate€a€depraved€state€of€mind€at€the€time€of€theÏkillings.€We€are€also€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidence€justifies€theÏjuryððs€finding€that€there€was€no€mitigating€circumstance€which€wouldÏoutweigh€the€statutory€aggravating€circumstances€found€by€the€jury.ÌÌòòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€at€814.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€decided€many€cases€after€òòWilliamsóó€inÏwhich€the€definitions€of€these€terms€were€not€included€in€the€instructions€to€theÏjury.€€In€these€cases,€the€Court€upheld€the€use€of€this€aggravator.€€Significantly,Ïseveral€of€these€cases,€including€the€present€case,€were€tried€before€òòWilliamsóó,€butÏdecided€after.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Barberóó,€753€S.W.2d€659,€668„69€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€488€U.S.€900,€109€S.Ct.€248,€102€L.Ed.2d€236€(1988);€òòState€v.€Duncanóó,Ï698€S.W.2d€63,€70„71€(Tenn.€1985),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€475€U.S.€1031,€106€S.Ct.€1240,Ï89€L.Ed.2d€348€(1986).€€It€is€also€significant€that€the€Supreme€Court€held€inÏòòWilliamsóó€that€this€aggravator€was€not€unconstitutionally€vague€or€overbroad.€€òòStateÏv.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€at€533;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€251Ï(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€1007,€111€S.Ct.€571,€112€L.Ed.2d€577€(1990);€òòStateÏv.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239,€252€(Tenn.€1989)€(holding€that€the€languageÏð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruelðð€requires,€in€addition,€a€finding€of€ð ðtorture€orÏdepravity€of€mind.ðð),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031,€110€S.Ct.€3288,€111€L.Ed.2d€796Ï(1990).Ìà àIn€òòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€755€S.W.2d€819€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€this€CourtÏcited€the€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion€in€the€petitionerððs€direct€appeal€for€theÏproposition€that€òòWilliamsóó€was€not€to€be€applied€retroactively:ÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€808€(Tenn.1985),€decided€sixÏmonths€after€òòWilliamsóó,€the€defendant€appealed€the€imposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty€based€on€the€same€two€aggravating€circumstances€asÏin€the€instant€case.€€Citing€òòWilliamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€at€529„530,€but€withÏno€comment€on€the€jury€instructions,€the€Court€agreed€with€the€juryÏfinding€that€the€murders€had€been€ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious€orÍcruel.ðð€€The€defendant€had€slit€the€victimsðð€throats€after€shooting€them,Ïand€left€them€ð ðto€bleed€to€death€in€the€woods.€€This€evidence[d]Ïdepravity€of€mind€and€[was]€a€form€of€torture[,]...an€infliction€ofÏgratuitous€violence,€and€needless€mutilation€of€victims€who€wereÏalready€helpless.ðð€€701€S.W.2d€at€814.€€The€Court€also€rejected€theÏdefendantððs€contention€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5)€wasÏunconstitutionally€vague.€€òòIdóó.€701€S.W.2d€at€816.ÌÌòòÓÓIdóó.€at€831.€€The€Court€found€that€if€the€Supreme€Court€ð ðfound€it€unnecessary€to€giveÏretroactive€application€of€the€òòWilliamsóó€definitional€jury€instruction€requirement€inÏòòZagorskióó,€òòsupraóó,€we€conclude€that€it€is€likewise€unnecessary€to€do€so€in€this€case.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.Ìà àFurthermore,€the€defective€jury€instruction€was€cured€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€in€the€direct€appeal.€€If€confronted€by€an€improperly€definedÏaggravating€circumstance,€the€state€appellate€court€may€itself€determine€whetherÏthe€evidence€supports€the€existence€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€as€properlyÏdefined.€€òòWalton€v.€Arizonaóó,€497€U.S.€639,€110€S.Ct.€3047,€111€L.Ed.2d€511Ï(1990).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€utilized€this€method€of€review.€€òòStateÏv.€Duncanóó,€698€S.W.2d€at€71.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€also€foundÏharmless€error€when€the€trial€court€erroneously€omitted€ð ðdepravity€of€mindðð€as€aÏpart€of€this€aggravating€circumstance.€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.Ï1997).€€The€court€concluded€that€had€the€jury€been€properly€instructed,€it€wouldÏhave€found€ð ðdepravity€of€mind.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Petitionerððs€contention€that€his€ð ðliberty€interestÏin€jury€sentencingðð€precludes€a€Tennessee€appellate€court€reweighing€anÏaggravating€circumstance€is€without€merit.Ìà àBecause€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€reviewed€the€petitionerððs€directÏappeal€after€the€release€of€its€opinion€in€òòWilliamsóó,€and€because€the€Court€citedÍòòWilliamsóó€in€approving€the€juryððs€finding€that€the€murders€were€heinous,€atrocious,Ïor€cruel,€this€Court€is€bound€by€our€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€on€this€issue.€òòSeeóóÏòòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€70€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòHarvey€v.€Stateóó,Ï749€S.W.2d€478,€479€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)(1982)(ð ð[a]€ground€for€relief€is€considered€ððpreviously€determinedðð€if€a€courtÏof€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing.ðð).ÌÌà@ àò òC.€€Houston€Distinguishableó óÌÌà àIn€òòHouston€v.€Duttonóó,€50€F.3d€381,€387€(6th€Cir.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€116€S.Ct.€272Ï(1995),€the€federal€appellate€court€held€that€the€same€jury€instruction€as€given€inÏthis€case€was€constitutionally€infirm.€€The€case€is€distinguishable.€€Our€SupremeÏCourt€decided€òòHouston€v.€Stateóó,€593€S.W.2d€267€(Tenn.)€,€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€449€U.S.Ï891,€101€S.Ct.€251,€66€L.Ed.2d€117€(1980),€prior€to€its€decision€in€òòWilliamsóó.€ÏTherefore,€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€apply€the€subsequent€limiting€constructionÏof€the€ð ðheinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelðð€aggravating€circumstance€as€it€did€in€theÏpetitionerððs€direct€appeal.€€à àIn€summary,€while€the€jury€instruction€on€thisÏaggravating€circumstance€was€deficient€without€the€limiting€definitions€of€theÏrelevant€terms,€this€Court€must€presume€that€our€Supreme€Court€cured€anyÏconstitutional€defect€by€applying€a€narrowing€construction€pursuant€to€òòWilliamsóó,Ïwhich€was€cited€in€the€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701ÏS.W.2d€at€814.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌò òà@ àòòINEFFECTIVE€COUNSEL€„€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESS€STATEMENTSóóÌÌà@ àA.€€Contentions€of€the€PartiesÌÌó óà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€adequately€investigate€Ïfacts€relating€to€the€statements€he€made€to€the€police€and€failed€to€presentÏimportant€evidence€regarding€the€circumstances€of€the€petitionerððs€statements.€ÏSpecifically,€the€petitioner€argues€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€present€proofÏregarding€his€state€of€mind,€his€medical€condition,€the€medications€he€was€taking,Ïthe€effect€of€his€medical€conditions€and€taking€of€medications,€and€theÏcircumstances€of€his€incarceration.€€If€trial€counsel€had€presented€this€proof€at€theÏsuppression€hearing,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€the€trial€court€would€have€foundÏthat€the€petitionerððs€statements€were€involuntary€and€subject€to€suppression.€€Ìà àIn€response,€the€state€argues€the€post„conviction€court€properly€held€thatÏtrial€counsel€litigated€the€jail€conditions,€the€petitionerððs€mental€and€physical€state,Ïand€the€voluntariness€of€the€petitionerððs€statements.€€The€state€further€argues€thatÏthe€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€any€prejudice€from€the€introduction€ofÏthese€statements€because€the€Supreme€Court€held€on€direct€appeal€that€if€theÏstatements€were€admitted€in€error,€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€in€view€of€the€overwhelming€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€guilt.ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€Standards€of€ReviewÌó óÌÔ€/Ôà àÔ€)ÔWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€he€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€theÏadvice€given€were€below€"the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€heÏmust€show€that€the€deficiencies€"actually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€the€defense."€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2067,€80€L.Ed.2dÏ674€(1984).€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€error,Ïthe€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòIdóó.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.€atÏ2068;€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Should€theÏpetitioner€fail€to€establish€either€factor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€Ìà àWhen€determining€whether€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€ð ðeveryÏeffort€[must]€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstructÏthe€circumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conductÏfrom€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,Ï104€S.Ct.€2065.€€ð ðThus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€even€hurtÏthe€defense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.ðð€€òòCooper€v.ÏStateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€We€must€defer€to€trialÏstrategy€and€tactical€choices€when€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequateÏpreparation.€€òòIdóó.Ìà àMoreover,€on€appeal,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€post„conviction€courtÏare€conclusive€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€theÏrecord€preponderates€against€them.€€òòRhoden€v.€Stateóó,€816€S.W.2d€56,€60€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1991);€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€ÍThe€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthose€findings.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€441€U.S.€947,€99€S.Ct.€2170,€60€L.Ed.2d€1050€(1979).€ÌÌà@ àò òC.€€Our€Determinationsó óÌÌà àA€pre„trial€hearing€was€held€on€the€motion€to€suppress€the€petitionerððsÏstatements€given€on€May€28,€June€1,€July€27,€and€August€1,€1983.€€At€the€hearing,Ïthe€state€indicated€that€it€would€not€attempt€to€introduce€the€first€statement€in€itsÏcase„in„chief.€€Ìà àThe€last€three€statements€were€taken€after€the€petitioner€had€been€moved€toÏthe€Robertson€County€Jail.€€Although€trial€counsel€argued€and€cross„examined€theÏstateððs€witnesses€concerning€the€petitionerððs€medical€condition,€his€mentalÏcondition,€and€the€conditions€of€his€jail€cell,€trial€counsel€did€not€present€anyÏmedical€records€or€other€proof.€€€At€the€end€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€theÏmotion€to€suppress€the€petitionerððs€statements.€€Ìà àAs€argued€by€the€petitioner,€the€mental€condition€of€a€defendant€is€aÏsignificant€factor€in€determining€whether€a€statement€was€given€voluntarily.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€79€(Tenn.€1994).€€Whether€trial€counsel€wasÏdeficient€in€not€introducing€medical€records€need€not€be€decided€since€petitioner€isÏunable€to€show€prejudice.€€Our€Supreme€Court€determined€on€direct€appeal€thatÏany€error€in€admitting€the€statements€was€harmless€error€in€view€of€theÏoverwhelming€evidence€of€guilt.€€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2d€at€812.€€In€order€forÍthe€petitioner€to€succeed€on€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,€there€mustÏbe€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€error,€the€result€of€theÏproceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,Ï104€S.Ct.€at€2068;€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2d€at€422.€€This€question€has€beenÏanswered€by€our€Supreme€Court.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ò òòòÌà@ àINEFFECTIVE€COUNSEL€„€SENTENCING€HEARINGó óóóÌÌà@ àò òA.ó ó€€ò òContentions€of€the€Partiesó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€(1)€failing€toÏinvestigate€and€present€mitigating€proof€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€trial,€(2)€failingÏto€fully€inform€the€petitioner€of€possible€mitigating€factors€and€the€consequences€ofÏhis€decision€not€to€introduce€mitigating€evidence€at€sentencing,€(3)€failing€to€seek€aÏcompetency€hearing€because€of€the€petitionerððs€clouded€judgment,€(4)€failing€toÏfollow€the€guidelines€specified€in€the€Advisory€Ethics€Opinion€which€counselÏsolicited,€and€(5)€failing€to€make€an€argument€of€available€mitigating€factors.Ìà àIn€response,€the€state€argues€that€the€post„conviction€court€properly€foundÏthat€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€abiding€by€the€petitionerððs€request€that€counselÏnot€investigate€or€present€mitigating€proof€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Moreover,Ïthe€state€submits€that€counsel€was€not€bound€to€follow€the€recommendations€in€theÏAdvisory€Ethics€Opinion.€€Finally,€the€state€argues€that€even€if€counsel€wasÏineffective€by€failing€to€investigate€and€present€mitigating€proof,€the€petitioner€hasÏfailed€to€show€prejudice.€ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€General€Duties€of€Counseló óÌÌà àIn€death€penalty€cases,€the€sentencer€may€not€be€precluded€fromÏconsidering€any€aspect€of€a€defendantððs€character€or€record€as€a€basis€for€aÏsentence€less€than€death.€€òòLockett€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€604„05,€98€S.Ct.€2954,Ï2964„65,€57€L.Ed.2d€973€(1978)€(plurality€opinion);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJohnson€v.€Texasóó,Ï509€U.S.€350,€361,€113€S.Ct.€2658,€2666,€125€L.Ed.2d€290,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€509€U.S.Ï941,€114€S.Ct.€15,€125€L.Ed.2d€767€(1993).€€The€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏhas€held€that€mitigating€evidence€is€relevant€to€sentencing€hearings€and€should€beÏheard.€€òòSeeóó€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€541,€107€S.Ct.€837,€839,€93ÏL.Ed.2d€934€(1987);€òòEddings€v.€Oklahomaóó,€455€U.S.€104,€113„15,€102€S.Ct.€869,Ï876„77,€71€L.Ed.2d€1€(1982).€€However,€there€is€no€legal€requirement€and€noÏestablished€practice€that€the€accused€must€offer€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase€of€aÏcapital€trial.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€493€U.S.Ï874,€110€S.Ct.€211,€107€L.Ed.2d€164€(1989);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòDarden€v.€Wainwrightóó,€477ÏU.S.€168,€184„85,€106€S.Ct.€2464,€2473,€91€L.Ed.2d€144€(1986).€In€fact,€counselÏhas€properly€seen€fit€not€to€offer€any€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase€in€many€deathÏpenalty€cases.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€at€421€(citing€sixteen€cases€heard€byÏthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€including€petitionerððs€case).Ìà àThe€extent€of€investigation€required€depends€critically€upon€informationÏsupplied€by€the€defendant.€€òòBurger€v.€Kempóó,€483€U.S.€776,€795,€107€S.Ct.€3114,Ï3126,€97€L.Ed.2d€638€(1987);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWhitmore€v.€Lockhartóó,€8€F.3d€614,€621€(8thÍCir.1993).€€When€a€defendant€has€given€counsel€reason€to€believe€that€pursuingÏcertain€investigations€would€be€fruitless€or€even€harmful,€counsel's€failure€toÏpursue€those€investigations€may€not€later€be€challenged€as€unreasonable.€ÏòòBurgeróó,€483€U.S.€at€795,€107€S.Ct.€at€3126.Ìà àOur€Supreme€Court€recently€addressed€the€duty€of€counsel€to€investigateÏand€present€mitigating€evidence€in€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363€(Tenn.€1996).€ÏIn€òòGoadóó,€the€Court€found€trial€counsel€ineffective€for€failing€to€present€mitigatingÏevidence€relative€to€Goadððs€symptoms€of€post„traumatic€stress€disorder.€€The€Court€Ïfurther€found€that€Goad€was€prejudiced€by€counselððs€failure€to€present€such€proof.€ÏIn€determining€whether€Goad€was€prejudiced€by€counselððs€deficientÏrepresentation,€the€Court€set€forth€several€factors€to€consider:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àWhere€the€alleged€prejudice€under€òòStricklandóó€involvesÏcounselððs€failure€to€present€mitigating€evidence€in€the€penalty€phaseÏof€a€capital€trial,€several€factors€are€significant.€€First,€courts€haveÏanalyzed€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€mitigating€evidence€that€wasÏavailable€but€not€presented.€€òòDeutscher€v.€Whitleyóó,€946€F.2d€1443Ï(9th€Cir.€1991);€òòStephens€v.€Kempóó,€846€F.2d€642€(11th€Cir.€1988);ÏòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€532;€òòAtkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Second,€courts€have€considered€whetherÏsubstantially€similar€mitigating€evidence€was€presented€to€the€jury€inÏeither€the€guilt€or€penalty€phase€of€the€proceedings.€€òòAtkins€v.ÏSingletaryóó,€965€F.2d€952€(11th€Cir.€1992);€òòClozza€v.€Murrayóó,€913€F.2dÏ1092€(4th€Cir.€1990);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.Ï1989).€€Finally,€the€courts€have€considered€whether€there€was€suchÏstrong€evidence€of€aggravating€factors€that€the€mitigating€evidenceÏwould€not€have€affected€the€juryððs€determination.€€òòFitzgerald€v.ÏThompsonóó,€943€F.2d€463,€470€(4th€Cir.€1991);€òòElledge€v.€Duggeróó,Ï823€F.2d€1439€(11th€Cir.€1987).€€ÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€at€371.ÌÌà@ àò òC.€€Attorney€„€Client€RelationshipÌÌó óà àA€crucial€issue€relating€to€counselððs€performance€is€the€effect,€if€any,€ofÏdefendantððs€emphatic€instructions€not€to€prepare€for€or€present€mitigating€proof€inÏthe€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€This€appears€to€be€an€issue€of€first€impression€inÏTennessee.€€Ìà àAt€the€heart€of€the€issue€is€whether€counsel€should€totally€disregard€theÏclientððs€desires€as€to€how€the€defense€should€be€conducted.€€Obviously,€there€areÏtimes€when€counsel€should€not€follow€the€demands€of€the€client.€€For€example,€aÏlawyer€should€not€fabricate€evidence€at€the€request€of€the€client.€€This€is€clearlyÏillegal€and€unethical€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„503;€Sup.€Ct.€Rules,ÏRule€8,€Code€of€Prof.€Resp.,€DR€7„102(6).€€However,€a€clientððs€request€not€toÏpresent€certain€kinds€of€proof€would€not€necessarily€result€in€counselððs€committingÏa€crime€or€unethical€conduct.à àA€criminal€prosecution€is€directed€against€theÏdefendant,€not€counsel.€€It€is€in€fact€the€defendantððs€case,€not€counselððs.€€TheÏpurpose€of€a€defense€lawyer€is€to€assist€a€defendant€in€making€a€defense€and€toÏrepresent€the€defendant€before€the€court.€€òòState€v.€Franklinóó,€714€S.W.2d€252,€262Ï(Tenn.€1986).€€Although€a€client€may€conduct€his€or€her€own€defense€ultimately€toÏhis€or€her€detriment,€that€choice€must€be€honored€out€of€ð ðthat€respect€for€theÏindividual€which€is€the€lifeblood€of€the€law.ðð€€òòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,Ï834,€95€S.Ct.€2525,€2541,€45€L.Ed.2d€562€(1975).€€Furthermore,€the€authority€toÏmake€decisions€generally€belongs€to€the€client€and,€if€made€within€the€frameworkÏof€the€law,€such€decisions€are€binding€on€counsel.€€Sup.€Ct.€Rules,€Rule€8,€Code€ofÍProf.€Resp.,€EC€7„7.€€Ìà àOther€jurisdictions€have€confronted€the€issue€of€a€defendantððs€right€to€directÏhow€a€defense€should€be€conducted.€€In€òòState€v.€Alióó,€329€N.C.€394,€407€S.E.2d€183Ï(1991),€the€court€found€no€constitutional€violation€when€counsel€complied€with€theÏwishes€of€the€defendant€in€accepting€a€juror€when€counsel€suggested€otherwise.€ÏThe€court€found€that€the€attorney„client€relationship€is€one€based€upon€principlesÏof€agency€as€opposed€to€guardian€and€ward.€€òòAlióó,€407€S.E.2d€at€189;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòPeople€v.€Wilkersonóó,€123€Ill.App.3d€527,€463€N.E.2d€139€(1984).Ìà àWe€likewise€find€that€the€attorney„client€relationship€is€primarily€one€ofÏagency.€€When€a€competent€defendant€knowingly€and€voluntarily€chooses€a€lawfulÏcourse€of€conduct,€counsel€is€ordinarily€bound€by€that€decision.€€If€the€defense€isÏprejudiced€because€of€a€defendantððs€choice,€a€defendant€should€not€later€beÏheard€to€complain€as€to€the€course€the€defendant€chose.€€òòDukes€v.€Stateóó,€578ÏS.W.2d€659€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978);€òòState€ex€rel.€Lea€v.€Brownóó,€166€Tenn.€669,Ï64€S.W.2d€841€(1933).Ìà àHaving€concluded€that€counsel€is€ordinarily€bound€by€the€lawful€choices€ofÏthe€client,€we€now€turn€to€the€specific€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€ÌÌà@ àò òD.€€Failure€to€Investigate€Mitigating€Proof€ÌÌó óà àCounsel€was€hampered€in€their€efforts€to€do€a€pre„trial€investigation€inÏpreparation€of€presenting€mitigating€evidence€during€a€potential€sentencing€phaseÍof€the€trial.€€This€was€primarily€because€of€petitionerððs€adamant€instructions€not€toÏinvolve€his€family€nor€present€mitigating€evidence€in€the€event€of€a€first€degreeÏmurder€conviction.ÌÌà àPetitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€would€have€discovered€the€followingÏinformation€if€they€had€conducted€an€adequate€investigation€for€the€sentencingÏphase€of€trial:ÌÓÓà8 àZagorski€was€born€and€raised€in€Tecumseh,€Michigan,€a€small€townÏoutside€Detroit.€€Zagorskiððs€mother€and€father€were€both€of€PolishÏdescent.€€Zagorskiððs€mother€had€only€a€seventh€grade€education€andÏhad€suffered€a€brain€injury€when€she€was€one€and€a€half€years€old.€ÏShe€apparently€suffered€brain€damage€and€was€very€difficult€to€dealÏwith€in€a€lot€of€different€ways.ÌÌà8 àZagorskiððs€father€worked€in€a€low€level€job€at€Tecumseh€Engines.€ÏThe€family€never€owned€a€car,€and€they€had€a€small€house€inÏTecumseh.€€They€were€a€lower€income€family.€€Zagorski€had€few€ifÏany€friends€growing€up.€€Zagorskiððs€mother€was€very€immature€andÏmistreated€Zagorski.€Zagorskiððs€father€spent€little€time€with€him.€ÏGrowing€up,€Zagorski€developed€a€stutter€and€was€embarrassed€toÏspeak€outside€the€home.ÌÌà8 àZagorski€is€illiterate,€having€never€learned€to€read€or€write.€€ZagorskiÏhad€a€learning€disability.€€Zagorski€never€received€any€type€of€tutorsÏor€corrective€classes€growing€up.€€Zagorski€was€a€very€poor€student,Ïnever€graduated€from€high€school€and€was€continuously€absent.€ÏZagorski€became€involved€with€alcohol€and€drugs€at€a€very€earlyÏage.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€failure€to€fully€investigate€a€defendantððs€background€in€preparation€for€aÏpossible€death€penalty€sentencing€hearing€is€ordinarily€below€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€107ÏS.Ct.€837,€93€L.Ed.€2d€934€(1987);€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363€(Tenn.€1996).€ÍHowever,€in€this€case€the€petitioner€had€explicitly€instructed€counsel€not€to€conferÏwith€his€family€and€not€to€oppose€the€death€penalty.€€Nevertheless,€counsel€didÏconfer€with€petitionerððs€mother.€€Furthermore,€counsel€had€secured€the€services€ofÏDr.€Bursten,€a€forensic€psychiatrist.€€As€a€result€of€Dr.€Burstenððs€examination€ofÏpetitioner€approximately€one€week€before€trial,€Dr.€Bursten€told€counsel€he€couldÏnot€help€by€testifying€and€would€have€to€testify€that€petitioner€could€be€a€ð ðmeanÏperson.ðð€€The€decision€not€to€use€such€testimony€is€certainly€understandable€and€aÏstrategic€choice.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€528.€€à àMost€importantly,€weÏneed€not€reach€the€issue€of€whether€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€fullyÏinvestigate€defendantððs€background€if€the€petitioner€does€not€make€a€sufficientÏshowing€of€prejudice.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.Ct.€atÏ2069;€òòFelde€v.€Butleróó,€817€F.2d€281€(5th€Cir.€1987).€€There€were€two€murders.€€TheÏjury€found€two€aggravating€circumstances€in€support€of€the€death€penalty;€namely,Ï(1)€the€murders€were€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€robbery,€and€(2)€theÏmurders€were€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€they€involved€torture€orÏdepravity€of€mind.€€Petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€prejudice€for€two€reasons.€ÏFirstly,€there€is€no€showing€that€petitioner€would€have€allowed€the€introduction€ofÏsuch€evidence€even€if€it€were€available.€€Petitioner€was€always€insistent€not€toÏinvolve€his€family.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€anything€to€theÏcontrary.€€Secondly,€petitioner€has€not€shown€a€reasonable€probability€of€aÏdifferent€result€had€the€evidence€been€introduced.€€While€many€people€haveÏunhappy€childhoods,€few€commit€brutal€murders.€€òòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€755€S.W.2d€atÏ827.€€Considering€the€nature€of€the€background€œinformation›€as€compared€to€theÍstrong€aggravating€factors,€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€prejudice.€€òòStricklandóó,€466ÏU.S.€at€697,€104€S.Ct.€at€2069;€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€371.€€ÌÌà@ àò òE.€€Failure€to€Present€Mitigating€Proofó óÌÌà àClosely€related€to€the€alleged€failure€to€òòinvestigateóó€mitigating€evidence€isÏpetitionerððs€allegation€that€counsel€was€ineffective€due€to€their€failure€to€òòpresentóóÏany€mitigating€evidence€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€As€a€general€ruleÏthe€failure€to€present€relevant€mitigating€evidence€would€constitute€a€deficientÏperformance€by€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€371.€€However,€theÏfailure€to€introduce€mitigating€evidence€does€not€necessarily€indicate€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€òòBurger€v.€Kempóó,€483€U.S.€776,€107€S.Ct.€3114,€97€L.Ed.2dÏ638€(1987);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417€(Tenn.1989).Ìà àIn€this€instance€trial€counsel€was€faced€with€adamant€instructions€from€aÏcompetent€client€not€to€present€mitigating€evidence.€€In€view€of€counselððsÏexplanations€to€petitioner€of€the€ramifications€of€his€decision,€the€competence€ofÏthe€petitioner€and€his€knowing€and€voluntary€request€that€no€mitigating€proof€beÏpresented,€counsel€was€not€deficient€in€following€petitionerððs€request.€€It€is€notÏoutside€the€range€of€competent€œÌÌÌattorney›€actions€to€fail€to€present€mitigating€evidence€when€the€defendantÏadamantly€endorses€that€position.€€Linda€E.€Carter,€òòMaintaining€Systemic€IntegrityÍIn€Capital€Cases:€The€Use€of€Court„€Appointed€Counsel€to€Present€MitigatingÏEvidence€When€the€Defendant€Advocates€Death,€óó55€TÔ€)ôÔENNÔ€)XÔ.€L.€œRÔ€)ôÔEVÔ€)XÔ.›€95,€140€(1987).€ÏTo€satisfy€the€Constitution,€counsel€must€function€as€an€advocate€for€theÏdefendant,€as€opposed€to€a€mere€friend€of€the€court.€€€òòUnited€States€v.€Cronicóó,€466ÏU.S.€648,€104€S.Ct.€2039,€80€L.Ed.2d€657€(1984).€€Ìà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€the€right€of€a€mentallyÏcompetent€defendant€to€forego€appellate€review.€€òòDemosthenes€v.€Baalóó,€495€U.S.Ï731,€110€S.Ct.€2223,€109€L.Ed.2d€762€(1990);€òòWhitmore€v.€Arkansasóó,€495€U.S.Ï149,€110€S.Ct.€1717,€109€L.Ed.2d€135€(1990);€òòGilmore€v.€Utahóó,€429€U.S.€1012,€97ÏS.Ct.€436,€50€L.Ed.2d€632€(1976).€€If€a€competent€defendant€is€able€to€waive€theÏright€of€appellate€review€of€a€death€sentence,€we€see€no€reason€why€a€competentÏdefendant€may€not€also€waive€the€right€to€present€mitigating€evidence.€€òòSingletonÏv.€Lockhartóó,€962€F.2d€1315,€1322€(8th€Cir.€1992).€€Counsel€is€not€ineffective€at€theÏsentencing€phase€of€a€capital€murder€trial€when€counsel€follows€the€defendantððsÏrequest€not€to€fight€the€death€penalty.€€òòAutry€v.€McKaskleóó,€727€F.2d€358€(5th€Cir.Ï1984);€òòClark€v.€Stateóó,€613€So.2d€412€(Fla.€1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€114€S.Ct.€114Ï(1993).€€Ìà àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€petitioner€was€competent€when€heÏmade€the€request€to€counsel€not€to€present€mitigating€proof.€€The€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€this€finding.€€In€light€of€petitionerððs€knowing€and€voluntaryÏrequest€that€counsel€not€present€any€mitigating€proof,€we€find€counsel€was€notÏineffective€by€failing€to€present€mitigating€proof.€€òòSingleton€v.€Lockhartóó,€962€F.2d€atÏ1322.€€Ìà àFurthermore,€as€previously€stated,€petitioner€has€not€shown€prejudice.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.Ct.€at€2069;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938ÏS.W.2d€at€371.€€There€has€not€been€a€showing€of€a€reasonable€probability€that€theÏsuggested€mitigating€circumstances€would€have€altered€the€outcome€of€theÏproceeding.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€699„700.€€Ì̛̜à@ àò òF.€€Informing€Client€of€Consequences€of€Actions€Ìó óÌà àPetitioner€next€contends€he€was€not€adequately€informed€as€to€mitigationÏproof.€€Certainly,€a€meaningful€discussion€with€the€client€is€the€ð ðcornerstone€ofÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€€òòMartin€v.€Maggioóó,€711€F.2d€1273,€1280€(5th€Cir.Ï1983)€(citing€òòGaines€v.€Hopperóó,€575€F.2d€1147,€1149„50€(5th€Cir.€1978)).€ÏHowever,€the€record€does€not€support€petitionerððs€contention.€€Petitioner€wasÏproperly€advised€by€counsel€at€all€stages€of€the€proceedings.€€PetitionerÏunderstood€the€ramifications€of€his€actions.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òG.ó ó€ò òFailure€to€Request€Competency€Hearingó óÌÌà àPetitioner€contends€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€request€a€competencyÏhearing€regarding€his€decision€to€forego€mitigating€proof.€€Petitioner€had€beenÏfound€competent€by€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute.€€He€was€also€foundÏto€be€competent€by€Dr.€Bursten,€the€psychiatrist€retained€by€petitionerððs€counsel.€ÍDr.€Burstenððs€findings€were€based€upon€an€examination€approximately€one€weekÏbefore€trial.€€Counsel€had€no€problem€communicating€with€petitioner.€€In€short,Ïthere€is€no€showing€that€a€competency€hearing€would€have€led€to€a€contraryÏfinding.€€Counsel€was€not€deficient€in€failing€to€seek€a€further€competency€hearing,Ïnor€has€any€prejudice€been€demonstrated.€€òòFelde€v.€Butleróó,€817€F.2d€at€283.€€ÌÌà@ àò òH.€€Failure€to€Follow€Advisory€Ethics€Opinionó óÌÌà àPetitioner€argues€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€follow€theÏsuggestions€of€an€Advisory€Ethics€Opinion.€€Ìà àBeing€concerned€about€the€petitionerððs€request€that€they€not€present€anyÏmitigating€proof€or€argue€for€a€life€sentence€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€trial€counselÏsecured€an€advisory€opinion.€€Advisory€Ethics€Opinion€84„A„255€stated€thatÏalthough€counselððs€beliefs€and€duties€must€yield€to€the€beliefs€and€rights€of€theÏclient,€counsel€was€not€required€to€advocate€the€legal€choices€on€behalf€of€theÏclient.€€Yet,€the€opinion€stated€ð ð[c]ounsel€is€ethically€obligated€to€follow€the€law€andÏto€do€nothing€in€opposition€to€the€clientððs€moral€and€legal€choices.ðð€€The€opinionÏconcluded:ÌÓÓà8 àCounsel€should€fully€inform€the€accused€of€his€legal€rights€to€conductÏa€defense€of€his€choice€as€guaranteed€by€the€Constitution.€€TheÏaccused€should€be€fully€advised€by€counsel€that€his€rights€andÏinterests€are€in€conflict€with€counselððs€moral€beliefs€and€ethicalÏresponsibilities.€€In€[the]€event€the€accused€maintains€his€instanceÏ[sic]€on€no€actions€or€arguments€on€his€behalf€against€the€deathÏpenalty€being€imposed,€then€counsel€should€advise€the€accused€thatÏa€motion€to€withdraw€from€those€portions€of€the€trial€will€be€filed€withÏthe€court.€€The€consequences€of€this€action€should€be€fully€explainedÍto€the€accused.€€The€court€should€be€fully€informed€of€the€conflictsÏbetween€counsel€and€the€accused.€€Counsel€should€seek€anÏadjudication€that€the€accused€is€competent€to€represent€himselfÏduring€the€voir€dire€examination€of€prospective€jurors€and€the€penaltyÏstages€of€the€trial€or€any€other€portion€of€the€trial€where€the€conflict€isÏimminent.€€Counsel€should€move€the€court€to€withdraw€form€[sic]Ïrepresentation€during€the€portion€of€the€trial€where€the€conflict€isÏmanifested.ÌÌÓÓà àTrial€counsel€believed€that€petitioner€was€aware€of€the€seriousness€of€theÏproceedings€and€appreciated€the€ramifications€of€his€decision.€€The€evidenceÏsupports€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€petitioner€was€competent€to€stand€trial,€aid€inÏhis€defense€and€to€have€input€into€the€decision€making€process.€€There€is€nothingÏin€the€record€to€suggest€otherwise.€€Ìà àCounsel€chose€not€to€move€the€court€for€permission€to€withdraw€during€theÏpenalty€phase.€€They€felt€obligated€to€represent€petitioner€rather€than€abandoningÏhim.€€Although€petitioner€did€not€want€counsel€to€do€anything,€they€were€able€toÏconvince€him€to€allow€them€to€make€an€argument€on€his€behalf.€€Neither€the€stateÏnor€the€petitioner€put€on€any€proof€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Ìà àWe€do€not€find€that€the€failure€of€counsel€to€move€to€withdraw€fromÏrepresentation€was€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Petitioner€had€agreed€toÏallow€counsel€to€make€a€closing€argument.€€Counsel€followed€the€lawful€directivesÏof€a€competent€client.€€A€request€to€withdraw€would€have€been€to€the€detriment€ofÏpetitioner.€€Counsel€acted€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneysÏin€criminal€practice.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€ÌÌÌà@ àò òI.€€Final€Argumentó óÌÌà àPetitioner€argues€that€trial€counsel€should€have€argued€to€the€jury€theÏvictimsðð€criminal€activity€of€selling€drugs,€the€petitionerððs€youth,€and€petitionerððs€lackÏof€a€violent€criminal€history.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€counsel€was€notÏineffective€for€failing€to€argue€these€mitigating€circumstances.€€Specifically,€theÏpost„conviction€court€found€that€the€jury€already€knew€that€the€case€revolvedÏaround€a€drug€deal€and€that€the€petitionerððs€age€(27€or€28€years€old)€would€haveÏbeen€unlikely€to€have€any€effect€upon€the€jury.€€The€court€further€found€that€ifÏcounsel€had€opened€the€door€with€the€petitionerððs€nonviolent€criminal€history,€theÏstate€would€have€countered€with€a€damaging€videotape€of€the€petitioner€during€anÏinterview€with€the€media€in€Ohio.€€In€that€videotape€the€petitioner€apparentlyÏindicated€he€did€not€care€about€the€family€of€the€special€deputy€he€shot€at€the€timeÏof€his€capture.€€Since€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€ofÏthe€trial€court,€petitioner€has€not€shown€that€the€results€of€the€proceedings€wouldÏhave€been€any€different€if€counsel€had€argued€these€factors.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068.€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€denied€trial€counselððs€request€that€it€instruct€the€jury€that€theyÏcould€consider€as€mitigating€circumstances€the€victimsðð€participation€in€a€drugÏtransaction,€the€petitionerððs€lack€of€a€prior€record€of€violent€criminal€activity,€and€theÏpetitionerððs€youth.€€At€the€same€time,€the€trial€court€ruled:ÌÓÓÌà8 àIððm€going€to€give€the€defense€great€leeway€as€to€whether€or€not€theyÏwould€go€far€afield.€€You€would€feel€free€to€object.€€It€would€not€beÏdiscourteous,€and€Iððd€rule€on€it€at€that€time,€but€I€do€not€want€to€limitÏthem€in€their€argument€in€a€case€like€this.ÌÓÓÌà àTrial€counsel€believed€that€because€the€trial€court€was€not€going€to€chargeÏthe€jury€on€the€mitigating€factors,€trial€counsel€could€not€argue€them€to€the€jury.€ÏTherefore,€trial€counselððs€final€argument€was€basically€a€plea€for€mercy.€€Under€theÏcircumstances€the€plea€for€mercy€did€not€constitute€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòDarden€v.€Wainwrightóó,€477€U.S.€168,€106€S.Ct.€2464,€91€L.Ed.€2dÏ144€(1986).€Ì̛̜à@ àò òòòDENIAL€OF€FUNDS€FOR€EXPERTSóóÌÌà@ àA.€€Contentions€of€the€Partiesó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€denied€him€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€by€denying€his€motion€requesting€funds€for€a€private€investigator€and€aÏballistics€expert.€€The€petitioner€further€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€byÏfailing€to€request€a€pathologist,€criminologist,€medical€experts€and/or€a€forensicÏexpert.€€It€is€the€petitionerððs€contention€that€experts€and€investigators€would€haveÏinsured€that€an€adequate€record€was€developed€on€the€issues€presented€to,€andÏdecided€by,€the€jury.€€à àThe€state€responds€that€complaints€about€the€trialÏcourtððs€denial€of€expert€funds€should€have€been€raised€in€an€interlocutory€appealÍor€on€direct€appeal,€and€thus,€the€issue€is€waived.€€Regardless,€the€state€arguesÏthat€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€courtððsÏrulings.€€As€to€counselððs€failure€to€request€additional€experts,€the€state€submits€thatÏcounsel€requested€the€appropriate€expert€services€and€would€not€have€prevailedÏin€further€requests.€€Moreover,€the€state€submits€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€that€this€failure€resulted€in€any€prejudice.€€Ìà@ àò òB.€€Need€for€Expert€ServicesÌó óÌà àThe€decision€of€whether€to€authorize€investigative€or€expert€services€liesÏwithin€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,Ï261€(Tenn.1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€513€œU.S.€›1086,€115€S.Ct.€743,€130€L.Ed.2d€644Ï(1995);€òòState€v.€OððGuinnóó,€709€S.W.2d€561,€568€(Tenn.)€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€479€U.S.€871,Ï107€S.Ct.€244,€93€L.Ed.2d€169€(1986).€€The€right€to€these€services€exists€only€uponÏa€showing€of€a€particularized€need.€€òòState€v.€Shepherdóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,€904Ï(Tenn.1995);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€179„80€(Tenn.1991).€€"TheÏdefendant€must€show€that€a€substantial€need€exists€requiring€the€assistance€ofÏstate€paid€supporting€services€and€that€his€defense€cannot€be€fully€developedÏwithout€such€professional€assistance."€òòState€ÌÌv.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192€(Tenn.1992),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€510€U.S.€1064,€114ÏS.Ct.€740,€126€L.Ed.2d€702€(1994).ÌÌà0 àà àò òà@ àC.€€FactsÌó óÌà àIn€the€present€case,€trial€counsel€requested€funds€to€hire€a€psychiatrist,€aÏballistics€expert,€and€a€private€investigator.€€The€trial€court€granted€funds€for€aÏpsychiatrist€but€denied€the€other€requests.€€The€ballistics€expert€was€requestedÏbecause€the€defense€wanted€to€show€that€the€location€of€the€spent€cartridges€wasÏinconsistent€with€the€victims€being€killed€in€Robertson€County.€€After€the€request€forÏa€ballistics€expert€was€denied,€trial€counsel€went€to€Fort€Campbell,€Kentucky,€andÏasked€Colonel€John€Oliver€to€run€tests€as€to€the€trajectory€of€the€spent€shells.€€Col.ÏOliver€did€so€and€testified€at€trial€that€the€weapon€would€not€have€ejected€theÏshells€in€the€pattern€demonstrated€by€the€stateððs€proof.Ìà àWhen€the€trial€court€denied€their€motion€for€an€investigator,€trial€counsel€didÏtheir€own€investigation€based€on€the€discovery€provided€by€the€state.€€ThisÏincluded€information€provided€by€Sheriff€Emery,€who€traveled€to€several€statesÏgathering€information.€€Moreover,€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€counsel€testifiedÏthat€while€it€was€a€hardship,€they€did€travel€to€the€tri„state€area€where€the€petitionerÏhad€been€captured.€€They€also€traveled€to€Hickman€County€and€interviewedÏwitnesses€in€furtherance€of€their€investigation.ÌÌà@ àò òD.€€Waiver€and€PrejudiceÌÌà àó óWe€first€note€that€the€issue€relating€to€the€private€investigator€and€ballisticsÏexpert€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€waived€pursuantÏto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705Í(Tenn.€1995),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€òò€€€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€€€óó,€116€S.Ct.€1685,€134€L.Ed.2d€787€(1996).Ìà àFurthermore,€petitioner€has€demonstrated€no€prejudice€as€a€result€of€theÏdenial€of€funds€for€the€various€expert€witnesses.€€No€experts€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Without€such€evidence€we€are€left€to€speculate€as€to€whetherÏsuch€expert€proof€would€have€been€beneficial€to€petitioner.€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912ÏS.W.2d€689,€698€(Tenn.€1995).€€Specifically,€there€is€no€showing€as€to€what€theÏtestimony€of€a€ballistics€expert,€pathologist,€criminologist,€medical€expert€and/orÏforensic€expert€would€be.€€There€is€also€no€showing€as€to€what€significantÏinformation€a€private€investigator€would€have€discovered€that€was€not€known€byÏdefense€counsel€as€a€result€of€their€own€investigation.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌòòà@ àò òWITHHOLDING€EXCULPATORY€EVIDENCEó óóóÌò òÌà@ àA.€€Contentions€of€the€PartiesÌó óÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€state€failed€to€provide€potentiallyÏexculpatory€evidence€to€the€defense€in€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,Ï83€S.Ct.€1194,€10€L.Ed.2d€215€(1963).€€The€petitioner€contends€that€trial€counselÏwas€hampered€by€the€prosecutionððs€failure€to€hand€over€certain€reports€with€theÏnames€of€other€persons€who€might€have€knowledge€of€the€murders.Ìà àThe€state€argues€that€the€post„conviction€court€properly€held€that€theÏpetitioner€failed€to€demonstrate€that€this€evidence€would€have€created€aÍreasonable€probability€of€a€different€result€at€his€trial.€€The€state€further€submits€thatÏsince€one€of€the€documents€was€not€given€to€the€prosecuting€office€until€eightÏyears€after€the€trial,€the€post„conviction€court€properly€held€that€the€document€wasÏnot€known€to€the€prosecution€at€the€time€of€trial.ÌÌà@ àò òB.€€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóóó óÌÌà àIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€anyÏ"suppression€by€the€prosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€an€accused€uponÏrequest€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€toÏpunishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution."€€373ÏU.S.€at€87,€83€S.Ct.€at€1196„97.€€The€duty€to€disclose€extends€to€all€"favorableÏinformation"€regardless€of€whether€the€evidence€is€admissible€at€trial.€€òòState€v.ÏMarshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232„33€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€€òòBranch€v.€Stateóó,€4ÏTenn.€Crim.€App.€164,€168,€469€S.W.2d€533,€536€(1969).€€In€òòUnited€States€v.ÏBagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€676,€105€S.Ct.€3375,€3380,€87€L.Ed.2d€481€(1985),€theÏSupreme€Court€held€that€both€exculpatory€and€impeachment€evidence€fall€underÏthe€òòBradyóó€rule.Ìà àBefore€an€accused€is€entitled€to€relief€under€this€theory,€he€must€establishÏseveral€prerequisites:€(a)€the€prosecution€must€have€suppressed€the€evidence;€(b)Ïthe€evidence€suppressed€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€and€(c)€theÏevidence€must€have€been€material.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€atÏ674„75,€105€S.€Ct.€at€3379„80;€€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€atÍ1196„97;€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€390€(Tenn.€1995).€€Evidence€isÏconsidered€material€only€if€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€the€evidenceÏbeen€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€results€of€the€proceeding€would€have€beenÏdifferent.€€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€€115€S.Ct.€1555,€131€L.Ed.2d€490€(1995);ÏòòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€390.ò òÌÌà@ àC.€€The€Exculpatory€Documentsó óÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€presented€two€documents€thatÏwere€not€provided€to€defense€counsel€before€trial.€€The€first€document€is€anÏinvestigative€report€prepared€by€Jeff€Long,€an€investigator€for€the€District€AttorneyððsÏoffice€in€the€Seventeenth€Judicial€Circuit.€€The€report€contains€names€of€variousÏindividuals€with€possible€knowledge€of€the€murders€in€this€case,€and€those€namesÏwere€not€provided€to€the€petitionerððs€counsel.€€According€to€the€cover€letter€datedÏSeptember€1,€1983,€this€investigative€report€was€sent€to€District€Attorney€GeneralÏLawrence€Ray€Whitley€of€the€Ninth€Judicial€Circuit,€the€prosecutor€in€this€case.Ìà àThe€second€document€is€a€letter€dated€September€29,€1983,€to€InvestigatorÏJeff€Long€in€the€Seventeenth€Judicial€Circuit€from€an€assistant€district€attorney€inÏthe€Twenty„first€Judicial€Circuit.€€The€letter€stated€that€the€father€of€a€local€residentÏhad€been€contacted€by€individuals€in€Texas€and€was€ð ðoffered€the€job€of€killingÏsomeone,€for€a€substantial€sum€of€money.ðð€€The€local€resident€indicated€that€herÏfather€turned€the€job€down;€however,€she€felt€certain€that€it€was€ð ðthe€Jimmy€Porter€„ÏDale€Dotson€circumstance.ðð€€This€letter€was€retained€in€the€files€in€the€SeventeenthÍJudicial€Circuit€and€not€given€to€the€prosecuting€District€Attorneyððs€office€in€theÏNinth€Judicial€Circuit€until€years€after€the€trial.Ìà àIn€denying€relief,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€these€materials€wouldÏnot€have€altered€the€outcome€of€the€case.ÌÌà@ àò òD.€€RulingÌó óÌà àCertainly,€it€is€regrettable€that€defense€counsel€was€unaware€of€theseÏdocuments.€€As€stated€in€petitionerððs€brief,€these€documents€ð ðcontained€names€asÏwell€as€other€information€which€would€have€been€useful€to€Zagorskiððs€trial€counselÏin€investigating€the€murders.ðð€€However,€the€crucial€issue€is€whether€theseÏœdocuments€areÌð ðfavorableðð›€and€ð ðmaterial.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€at€674„75,€105€S.Ct.Ïat€3379„80.€€There€was€no€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€theseÏdocuments€led€or€would€have€led€to€ð ðfavorableðð€information.€€òòSeeóó€œòòFoster›€v.€œStateóó,€òò€€€€€óóÏS.W.2d€òò€€€€€óó(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€›œFurthermore,›€in€order€for€petitioner€to€get€reliefÏthere€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€that,€had€this€evidence€been€disclosed€toÏthe€defense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòState€v.ÏEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€390.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€this€material€would€not€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€InÏshort,€there€is€no€showing€that€the€failure€to€disclose€this€information€ð ðunderminesÏconfidence€in€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ðð€€òòKylesóó,€514€U.S.€at€òò€€€€€óó,€115€S.Ct.€at€1566;ÏòòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€390.Ìà àThe€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€prove€a€constitutional€violation€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€389;€òòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€874ÏS.W.2d€602,€610€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€This€he€has€failed€to€do.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌÌà àWe€find€no€reversible€error;€therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏAFFIRMED.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌ