ÿWPCH …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe B²Ïv~ßvÓ] D30 0@c AO£Æò 0D¸ D/ü B+˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- áâDãäå[æEçè[éÓ€óÔ¡¨ 3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌDecember€30,1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ ŠÔÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€$&#A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœNOVEMBER›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœFRANK€E.€ADAMS,›à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ01C01„9609„CR„00401›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àœAppellant,›à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœDAVIDSON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJ.€RANDALL€WYATT,€JR.ó ó›Ìò òœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœAppellee.›à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Post„Conviction)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œDAVIDSON€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœWILLIAM€C.€ROBERTS,€JR.›à àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌSuite€1502,€Parkway€Towersà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌNashville,€TN€37219Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJANIS€L.€TURNERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKATRIN€MILLERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€!°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€!ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Petitioner€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€was€convicted€by€a€jury€on€February€14,€1991,€of€felonyÏmurder€and€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery.€€He€was€sentenced€to€lifeÏimprisonment€for€the€count€of€felony€murder€and€ten€(10)€years€for€each€count€ofÏaggravated€robbery,€all€to€be€served€consecutively€for€an€effective€sentence€ofÏlife€plus€twenty€(20)€years.€€His€motion€for€new€trial€was€denied€on€March€15,Ï1991.€€This€Court€affirmed€his€convictions€on€October€29,€œ1992,›€and€hisÏapplication€for€appeal€to€our€supreme€court€was€denied€on€June€28,€1993.€ÏòòState€v.€Adamsóó,€859€S.W.2d€359€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€Petitioner€filed€a€œòòproóó€òòseóó›€petition€for€œpost„conviction›€reliefÏon€October€21,€1993.€€ÌÌà àWith€the€assistance€of€counsel,€the€Petitioner€filed€an€amended€petition€onÏMay€31,€1995.€€In€that€petition,€the€Petitioner€alleged€that€counsel€at€trial€and€onÏappeal€rendered€ineffective€assistance€for€the€following€reasons:€(1)€That€trialÏcounsel€failed€to€investigate€the€whereabouts€of€the€murder€weapon;€(2)€thatÏtrial€counsel€failed€to€offer€testimony€regarding€when€the€Petitioner€was€arrested;Ï(3)€that€œtrial€counsel›€failed€to€œmeet›€œregularly€with›€the€Petitioner€and€inform€himÍabout€pretrial€investigations;€(4)€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€impeach€the€co„defendant€at€trial€regarding€his€drug€use.€€The€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiaryÏhearing€on€the€petition€on€July€5,€1995.€€The€trial€court€denied€œpost„conviction›Ïœrelief›€in€an€order€containing€extensive€findings€of€fact€filed€on€July€17,€1995.€€AfterÏa€brief€hearing€for€additional€testimony€from€counsel,€the€trial€court€issued€aÏsupplemental€order€affirming€its€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€which€was€enteredÏon€July€27,€1995.€€The€Petitioner€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€May€13,€1996.€€InÏthis€appeal,€the€Petitioner€argues€that€(1)€Trial€counsel€rendered€ineffectiveÏassistance;€and€(2)€that€the€trial€court€violated€the€Petitionerððs€constitutional€rightsÏby€use€of€an€invalid€jury€instruction.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àAs€a€threshold€matter,€the€State€argues€that€this€appeal€should€beÏdismissed€because€the€Petitioner€did€not€timely€file€his€notice€of€appeal.€€€TheÏState€cites€Rule€4(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€whichÏrequires€that€the€notice€of€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€3€ð ðshall€be€filed€with€andÏreceived€by€the€clerk€of€the€court€within€30€days€after€the€œdate›€of€entry€ofÏjudgment.ðð€€€The€trial€court€issued€its€final€order€on€July€27,€1995€and€theÏPetitioner€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€on€May€13,€1996.€€However,€Rule€4(a)€alsoÏprovides€that€the€filing€of€a€notice€of€appeal€ð ðmay€be€waived€in€the€interest€ofÏjustice.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a).€€While€the€failure€to€file€the€requisite€notice€ofÏappeal€rests€upon€the€appellant,€œwe€believe€it›€is€in€the€interest€of€justice€that€theÍrequirement€be€waived€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Scalesóó,€767€S.W.2d€157Ï(Tenn.€1989).ÌÌà àIn€the€Petitionerððs€first€issue,€he€argues€that€trial€counsel€renderedÏineffective€assistance,€thus€violating€his€right€to€competent€representation€asÏguaranteed€by€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€In€thisÏappeal,€he€specifically€argues€that€counsel€failed€to€œinvestigate›€various€aspectsÏof€his€case€œadequately€and›€that€counsel€failed€to€œattack›€the€credibility€of€the€co„defendant€in€his€œcase€adequately.›€€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€counsel€failed€toÏinvestigate€a€witness€who€saw€how€the€Petitioner€was€arrested€as€it€related€toÏa€suppression€issue€prior€to€trial.€€He€stated€that€counsel€only€informed€him€thatÏhis€statements€would€not€be€suppressed,€but€did€not€elaborate€on€his€case.€ÏHe€testified€that€counsel€did€not€interview€two€of€three€witnesses€who€saw€himÏbeing€arrested.€€The€Petitioner€stated€that€counsel€told€him€the€witnesses€wereÏirrelevant.€€The€Petitioner€œsaid€he€met›€with€counsel,€Karl€Dean,€less€than€tenÏtimes€and€met€with€the€investigator€once.€€The€Petitioner€testified€that€counselÏprovided€him€with€the€indictment,€but€did€not€provide€information€about€theÏsuppression€hearing€or€œthe›€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€Petitioner€admitted€that€heÏdiscussed€the€direction€of€his€case€with€counsel.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€stated€that€his€first€attorney€was€Ross€Alderman,€who€leftÏhis€position.€€Mike€Engle€was€then€assigned€to€the€Petitioner,€who€requested€aÏdifferent€attorney.€€Karl€Dean€and€Laura€Dykes€then€represented€the€PetitionerÏthrough€trial.€€The€Petitioner€testified€that€they€did€not€inform€him€regarding€theÏevidence€in€his€case.€€The€Petitioner€also€stated€that€defense€counsel€allowedÏan€in„court€identification€of€him€and€that€counsel€did€not€explain€why€a€pretrialÏlineup€had€not€been€done.€€He€contended€that€counsel€did€not€adequatelyÏcross„examine€the€witness€regarding€the€identification.€€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€stated€that€counsel€did€not€effectively€challenge€inconsistentÏtestimony€regarding€the€details€of€the€robberies.€€He€also€testified€that€counselÏdid€not€investigate€or€impeach€the€co„defendant,€Mr.€Crowellððs,€credibility€byÏcross„examining€him€about€prior€drug€use.€€The€Petitioner€stated€that€trial€counselÏdid€not€introduce€diagrams€of€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€He€stated€that€counselÏintended€to€investigate€the€scene€but€that€he€did€not€know€if€they€did.€€He€statedÏthat€it€would€have€been€helpful€if€counsel€prepared€their€own€diagrams€of€theÏscene.€€He€stated€that€counsel€never€attempted€to€locate€the€gun€used€in€theÏoffenses.€€He€testified€that€the€co„defendant€was€œtelling€others›€while€in€jail€thatÏhe€was€going€to€put€the€blame€on€the€Petitioner.€€The€Petitioner€stated€that€oneÏinmate€testified.€€€The€Petitioner€also€testified€that€there€was€a€problem€with€theÍjury€instructions€regarding€the€reasonable€doubt€standard€and€that€he€did€notÏdiscuss€with€counsel€the€contents€œof€the€motion›€for€new€trial.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€Petitioner€stated€that€he€did€not€rememberÏtestifying€at€the€suppression€hearing€although€documents€presented€to€himÏindicated€that€he€testified.€€He€stated€that€he€met€with€Ross€Alderman€twice,Ïœand€Mike›€Engle€four€times.€€He€admitted€that€he€met€with€all€counsel€whoÏrepresented€him€a€total€of€seventeen€to€eighteen€times,€œin€addition€to€court›Ïappearances.€€He€agreed€that€counsel€filed€a€number€of€motions€on€his€behalf.€ÏThe€Petitioner€did€not€request€that€Mr.€Dean€be€removed€from€his€case.€ÏCounsel€discussed€with€the€Petitioner€whether€he€should€testify€at€trial.€€TheÏPetitioner€thought€that€counsel€should€have€highlighted€that€fact€that€he€wasÏfound€with€a€substantial€amount€of€coins€on€his€person,€but€that€the€moneyÏtaken€in€the€robbery€was€only€œbills€and›€no€coins.€€He€testified€that€counselÏshould€have€highlighted€the€œco„defendantððs›€drug€use,€although€it€was€theÏStateððs€theory€that€the€robberies€were€perpetrated€to€obtain€money€for€drugs.€ÏHe€stated€that€he€told€counsel€to€whom€the€gun€used€in€the€robberies€was€sold,Ïbut€that€he€did€not€attempt€to€contact€that€person€himself.€€€ÌÌà àOn€redirect,€the€Petitioner€testified€that€Jeffrey€DeVasher,€who€representedÏhim€on€appeal,€did€not€meet€with€him,€nor€did€he€raise€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÍas€an€issue.€€Also,€he€felt€that€trial€counsel€did€not€follow€up€on€finding€theÏperson€with€the€gun,€nor€did€counsel€adequately€try€to€locate€a€witness€whoÏheard€the€co„defendant€bragging€about€the€crime.ÌÌà àKarl€Dean€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€He€stated€that€heÏbegan€working€in€the€Davidson€County€Public€Defenderððs€office€in€1983€andÏwas€elected€œPublic›€Defender€in€1990.€He€estimated€that€he€had€been€involvedÏin€about€one€hundred€criminal€jury€trials€and€that€approximately€half€wereÏhomicide€trials.€€Ms.€Dykes€had€been€in€the€office€approximately€three€yearsÏwhen€they€represented€the€Petitioner.€€He€spent€approximately€twenty„eight€(28)Ïhours€preparing€for€the€Petitionerððs€trial.€€The€investigator€was€thorough€andÏattempted€to€interview€all€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses,€succeeded€with€a€few,€andÏfollowed€up€with€inmates€in€the€jail€regarding€the€co„defendantððs€statements.ÌÌà àHe€attempted€to€investigate€the€location€of€the€murder€weapon,€but€couldÏnot€verify€the€Petitionerððs€claim€because€he€could€not€talk€with€the€co„defendant.€ÏAlso,€the€Petitionerððs€knowledge€of€the€murder€weaponððs€location€was€notÏrelevant€to€the€issue€of€his€state€of€mind€which€was€the€theory€presented€at€trialÏthat€he€was€not€the€shooter€and€unaware€that€a€robbery€was€going€to€takeÏplace.€€He€filed€numerous€motions€on€behalf€of€the€Petitioner€and€treated€it€as€aÍmajor€trial.€€Mr.€Dean€and€Ms.€Dykes€both€went€to€the€crime€scene.€€He€testifiedÏthat€the€Petitioner€was€present€and€that€he€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Dean€stated€that€they€investigated€andÏinterviewed€Mr.€Zimmerman,€œa€convenience›€store€employee€who€was€presentÏduring€the€robbery€and€cross„examined€him€regarding€the€facts€of€the€case.€ÏDefense€counsel€also€interviewed€Lisa€Cantrell,€who€was€present€when€theÏPetitioner€was€arrested,€but€could€not€recall€what€efforts€they€undertook€toÏinterview€her€parents.€€Mr.€Dean€did€not€recall€anything€regarding€the€PetitionerððsÏmother€as€a€possible€impeachment€witness€against€a€witness€for€the€State.€ÏHe€clarified€that€his€office€spent€twenty„eight€hours€pretrial€and€over€fourteenÏduring€the€trial€on€the€Petitionerððs€case.€€He€noted€that€the€Petitioner€neverÏcomplained€that€defense€counsel€was€not€meeting€with€him€enough.€€Mr.€DeanÏwas€aware€that€the€Petitioner€and€the€co„defendant€Crowell€used€drugs€andÏthat€this€issue€came€out€at€trial.€€He€had€no€correspondence€from€the€PetitionerÏregarding€any€complaints€about€his€representation.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€conducted€a€brief€supplementary€hearing€to€clarify€Mr.ÏDeanððs€testimony€regarding€the€number€of€trials€with€which€he€had€beenÏinvolved.€€He€testified€that€he€had€worked€on€twenty„seven€homicide€trials,€butÍthat€œthe€one„hundred›€total€overestimated€the€actual€number€œof›€all€œtrials›œ.€›€œHe›€couldÏœnot,€however,›€say€with€certainty€how€many€on€which€he€had€worked.ÌÌà àœIn€a€post„conviction€proceeding€under€the€Act€applicable€to€this€case,€€theÏpetitioner€must€prove€the€allegations€in€the€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2d€689,€(Tenn.€1995);€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911ÏS.W.2d€334,€341€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€€€In€appellate€review€of€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€unless€theÏevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849ÏS.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.Ï1990).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€denied€the€Petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€anÏorder€containing€extensive€findings€of€fact.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€Mr.ÏDean€adequately€investigated€the€location€of€the€murder€weapon€whenÏconsidering€the€defenseððs€theory€about€the€Petitionerððs€involvement€in€the€crime.€ÏThe€trial€court€considered€that€the€murder€weapon€was€ð ðnot€a€critical€element€forÏthe€petitionerððs€defense.ðð€€The€trial€court€also€addressed€the€PetitionerððsÏcontention€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€investigate€the€case€adequately.€€Mr.ÏDean€testified€that€their€investigator€conducted€a€thorough€investigation,€and€thatÏthey€explored€the€statements€made€by€the€co„defendant€and€investigated€theÍcrime€scene.€€The€office€spent€twenty„eight€hours€or€more€on€the€case.€ÏRegarding€Mr.€Deanððs€lack€of€interest€in€the€case,€the€trial€court€cited€fifteenÏmotions€made€to€the€court€on€the€Petitionerððs€behalf.€€The€trial€court€concludedÏthat€the€issue€was€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€noted€that€defense€counsel€met€with€the€PetitionerÏbetween€ten€and€seventeen€times,€and€on€the€day€before€the€suppressionÏhearing€and€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€court€also€noted€that€the€PetitionerÏnever€complained€regarding€the€frequency€of€the€meetings.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€counselððs€failure€to€interview€Lisa€CantrellððsÏparents€did€not€overcome€the€presumption€that€Mr.€Deanððs€decision€was€trialÏstrategy.€€The€trial€judge€also€noted€that€evidence€refuted€the€claim€that€theÏPetitioner€was€not€present€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€Also,€the€court€foundÏthat€counsel€legitimately€did€not€introduce€evidence€of€the€co„defendant€CrowellððsÏdrug€use€because€he€felt€there€had€been€sufficient€testimony€presented€by€theÏState.€€The€court€found€the€challenge€to€the€representation€on€appeal€to€beÏmeritless.€€In€its€conclusion,€the€trial€court€found€that€Mr.€Dean€and€Ms.€DykesÏhad€significant€trial€experience€and€that€they€were€well„prepared€for€the€trial.€€AsÏa€result,€their€representation€was€well€within€the€necessary€range€ofÏcompetence€for€criminal€defense€attorneys.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€petition.€€InÏdetermining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€the€court€mustÏdecide€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€at€trial,€aÏpetitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counsel€made€errors€so€seriousÏthat€he€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€SixthÏAmendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€the€petitionerÏresulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466ÏU.S.€668,€687,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849ÏS.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.Ï1990).€€To€satisfy€the€second€prong€the€petitioner€must€show€a€reasonableÏprobability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€haveÏhad€reasonable€doubt€regarding€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€ÏThis€reasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÏoutcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€court€should€not€use€theÏbenefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€shouldÍbe€judged€at€the€time€they€were€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746.ÌÌ›à àAfter€a€careful€consideration€of€the€record,€we€cannot€conclude€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€PetitionerÏreceived€competent€representation€from€the€attorneys€involved€in€the€preparationÏand€trying€of€his€case.€Indeed,€the€trial€judge€was€in€a€far€better€position€toÏassess€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€€Furthermore,€as€the€trial€court€concluded,Ïthere€is€not€œsufficient€evidence›€that€the€decisions€or€lack€of€action€complained€ofÏby€the€Petitioner€constituted€error.€€Therefore,€we€agree€that€the€€trial€courtÏproperly€denied€the€petition.ÌÌà àAs€his€final€issue€in€this€appeal,€the€Petitioner€contends€that€the€œinstruction›Ïsubmitted€to€the€jury€regarding€reasonable€doubt€was€constitutionally€insufficientÏand€a€violation€of€due€process.€€At€the€outset,€we€note€that€the€Petitioner€did€notÏaddress€this€issue€until€this€appeal.€€Although€he€briefly€alluded€to€the€issueÏduring€his€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€neither€the€original€œòòproóó€òòseóó›Ïpetition€nor€the€amended€petition€contained€this€issue.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€address€the€issue€in€its€order€nor€has€the€Petitioner€alleged€any€reasonÏwhy€a€waiver€would€not€apply.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).€ÍHowever,€even€if€we€were€to€address€the€issue,€we€would€conclude€that€it€hadÏno€merit.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€contends€that€the€jury€instruction€that€was€issued€misstatesÏthe€necessary€standard€of€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We€note€that€theÏPetitioner€has€not€included€the€record€containing€the€jury€instructions,€however,€heÏalleges€that€the€instruction€stated€that:€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓReasonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€an€investigation€of€allÏthe€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability,€after€such€investigation,€to€let€theÏmind€rest€easily€as€to€the€certainty€of€guilt.€€Reasonable€doubt€doesÏnot€mean€a€captious,€possible,€or€imaginary€doubt.€€Absolute€certaintyÏof€guilt€is€not€demanded€by€the€law€to€convict€of€any€criminal€charge,Ïbut€moral€certainty€is€required,€and€this€certainty€is€required€as€to€everyÏelement€of€proof€necessary€to€constitute€the€offense.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€recently€affirmed€and€incorporated€inÏits€opinion€excerpts€of€this€Courtððs€opinion€regarding€the€identical€language€forÏthe€reasonable€doubt€instruction€and€concluding€that€no€due€process€violationÏoccurred.€€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€520„21(Tenn.€1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Sextonóó,€917€S.W.2d€263€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,€885ÏS.W.2d€364€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòTerry€Shannon€Kimery€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.ÏNo.€03C01„9512„CC„00412,€Greene€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App,€Knoxville,€Jan.Ï28,€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997).€€Therefore,€we€conclude€thatÏthis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÓ  ÓÌœ›ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE›