ÿWPC)$ æ²~õ¯Y¡øÎĶZ®Y Š<´¹m˜´‚kt8v„Eƒ-‡rùÎÄ AY»…¢l` »Gx ´¦i˜LöWpÊWËk«L“²41§Üaý¾¿jñþÇ(ÌÄŸí˜\{E!átÿ¡U’·hÒ)Îs™Ç.<ûBCÐ#ßÓ$;,F…DOº –<[f8*_©É.ÿh‹ŠØŠ€ôž?"ºxBš-Úy³çàÞC*q™Ø#ì¢ôÏn±T5¼Ê¥;—<€yzR4<5¶‰¶7¢¨DIéœÙŸËnzu¸&8s]\–ÕÝñýS•Cùñ<Üži¯âZùè›Ä Õ‘oJÒx"ßëšêŠÿ¬dXíóLß_W‚Àýä6ãuA cRé.×àj†À)¾#ÓBL¶UÆÁ",3ÿ§…æ [.$æ+ jªs«³Ñ|)ü:}ÇT¯ÜM™IÔ°Ï‚qÝ]òœÇ$Ñ`ìÀ ª4R<-.Ðiê)…áb·yS6Æs Š¾îììvµ™Ø1ø}îƒ6µ©Év½vm/‹Ên‡‡¡(zºèÂ{žÛ—$î9mŸq¨¯Y @¥}ôÿ@»N`ÿODC¥¿¿¸rÛ"yM#Òà þ掫vb#É\ %% U N+ 0ˆy U#N 0ÑO ^ z, Ò¦ wx 4|  Ÿ Æ¡ ÆgÆ-Æó m¹NÐ 0ÅÒ 0D—EÛ 0³Ý 0­ 0§= 0¡ä 0›… 0•   1uµ 72**›\U>÷75Kllllllllllb······················· 1e¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 0ë$$$$ B  0¤, D5Ð D-! 0K2!2! AS}!ÆÐ! 0¤–" 0D:# A«~#˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó6v$2î  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt J‰13|x Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) ‘Ý ƒRU»$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§Œò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€hearing€combined€two€post„conviction€petitions,€one€relating€to€a€later€case€involving€the€petitionerððsÐ ° Ðconviction€for€attempted€murder€of€the€petitionerððs€wife,€and€this€case.€€The€decision€to€dismiss€the€post„convictionÐ qÁ Ðpetition€in€the€second€case€was€affirmed€by€this€Court€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòJames€David€Alder€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M2003„02766„Ð 2‚ ÐCCA„R3„PC,€2004€WL€2309137€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€Oct.€13,€2004).€€€€ô\  `&Times New Roman -Ý ƒRU»$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§Œò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€a€related€argument,€the€petitioner€claims€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€have€a€hearing€in€accordance€withÐ ° ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€609€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€the€petitionerððs€prior€convictions€for€impeachmentÐ qÁ Ðpurposes.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€admitted€that€he€did€not€remember€why€there€was€no€such€hearingÐ 2‚ Ðheld€but€that€he€was€unaware€of€how€he€could€exclude€the€burglary€and€aggravated€burglary€convictions€if€the€petitionerÐ óC Ðtestified.€€The€transcript€of€the€trial€indicates€that€trial€counsel€discussed€the€possibility€of€a€Tennessee€Rule€of€EvidenceÐ ´ Ð609€hearing,€but€that€the€trial€court€wanted€to€wait€to€have€the€hearing€until€the€petitioner€decided€whether€he€was€goingÐ uÅ Ðto€testify€at€trial.€€Presumably,€once€the€petitioner€decided€not€to€testify,€no€hearing€was€necessary.€€ AÝ ƒRU»$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§Œò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€fact,€the€petitioner€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€was€prepared€to€tell€the€jury€that€he€andÐ ° Ðthe€victim€ð ðsmoked€a€jointðð€the€day€of€the€incident.€€- ù- ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|G2U»$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€•Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§Œò»»Ô d(|3þÝ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€•Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3þÝ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€•Å»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€•Å»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼•Å»»»ÔÑ8€ÌûXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î~z•ÅÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼•Å»îî~z #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€September€22,€2004Ð öF ÐÔ‡XÌûX»¼•ÅÔÌò òÔ#†¼•Å»XXÌû #ÔJAMES€DAVID€ALDER€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XÌûX»¼•ÅÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Franklin€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€12714€€€€€Buddy€D.€Perry,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„02767„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€December€16,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X1ºXXXÌûÔThe€petitioner,€James€David€Alder,€was€found€guilty€by€a€jury€of€aggravated€assault,€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô,Ð V¦  Ðand€unlawful€possession€of€a€weapon.€€As€a€result,€he€received€an€effective€sentence€of€twenty€(20)Ð ? Ðyears€as€a€multiple€offender.€€The€judgments€were€affirmed€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€DavidÐ (x ÐAlderóó,€No.€M2000„01804„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€1285945€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€Oct.Ð a Ð25,€2001).€€In€this€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€€for€various€reasons€his€trialÐ úJ Ðcounsel€was€ineffective.€€For€the€following€reasons,€we€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€post„convictionÐ ã3 Ðpetition.€€Ô#†XÌûXXX1º¨#ÔÔ‡X1ºXXXÌûÔÔ#†¼lT »XX1º~#ÔÔ‡X1ºX »¼lTÔÐ Ì ÐÔ#†XÌûXXX1º#ÔÔ#†¼•Å»XXÌûF#ÔÔ‡XÌûX»¼•ÅÔÓœÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€Affirmed.Ð žî Ðó óÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼•Å»àXÌûÀ#ÔÔ‡XÌûX.¼•ÅÔJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòThomas€T.Ð qÁ ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ôóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð Zª ÐÌMickey€Hall,€Winchester,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€James€David€Alder.Ð ,| ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Richard€H.€Ô_ÔDunavantÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð þN ÐJ.€Michael€Taylor,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Steve€Strain,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€Ð ç 7  Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ð! ! ÐÌÔ#†¼•Å»XXÌû #ÔÔ‡XÌûX»¼•ÅÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÓ^ Óà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼•Å»XXÌûB #ÔÔ‡XÌûX»¼•ÅÔÐ ‹$Û$ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼•Å»XXÌûü #ÔÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡¼lT »»¼•ÅÔà@ÃÃ!ìàóóó óà@@ÈÈ!ìàÔ€X1ºX »¼lTÔòòFactual€BackgroundóóˆÐ ^&®!& ÐÌà  àIn€the€summer€of€1998,€the€petitionerððs€then€wife,€Casey€Alder€(now€Casey€Davidson),€leftÐ 0(€#( Ðhim.€€She€spent€a€few€days€at€the€Ô_ÔSequatchieÔ_Ô€County€home€of€the€victim,€Marie€Austin.€€On€July€16,Ð )i$) Ð1998,€after€Ms.€Davidson€left€the€Austin€residence€to€live€with€her€mother,€the€petitioner€came€toÐ *R%* Ðthe€home€of€Ms.€Austin,€who€was€talking€on€the€telephone€at€the€time€with€a€€friend.€€Upon€seeingÐ ë*;&+ Ðthe€petitioner,€Ms.€Austin€instructed€her€friend€to€call€911€if€anything€happened.€€The€petitionerÐ Ô+$', Ðâ âstuck€his€head€inside€the€door€asked€where€his€wife€was.€€When€Ms.€Austin€told€the€petitioner€hisÐ ½, (-ý Ðwife€was€Ô_Ônot€present,€he€kicked€the€door€open,€entered,€and€put€a€shotgun€up€to€the€Ms.€AustinððsÐ ° Ðhead€threatening€to€kill€her.€Ð ™é Ðâ âà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àAfter€hanging€up€the€phone,€Ms.€Austin€showed€the€petitioner€a€note€that€his€wife€hadÐ k» Ðwritten.€€In€it,€Ms.€Davidson€stated€that€she€was€going€to€her€motherððs€house.€€The€petitioner€pressedÐ T¤ Ðthe€shotgun€against€Ms.€Austinððs€stomach€and€ordered€her€to€telephone€Ms.€Davidson.€€When€Ms.Ð =  ÐDavidson€came€to€the€phone,€Ms.€Austin€asked€her€to€come€back€to€the€victimððs€house.€€TheÐ & v Ðpetitioner€held€the€shotgun€to€Ms.€Austinððs€stomach€during€the€phone€call.€€Even€though€Ms.Ð  _ ÐDavidson€sensed€that€the€petitioner€was€there€and€asked€whether€he€had€a€gun,€Ms.€Austin€neverÐ ø H Ðacknowledged€the€petitionerððs€armed€presence.€€The€petitioner€told€Ms.€Austin€that€when€his€wifeÐ á 1  Ðarrived€he€planned€to€shoot€Ms.€Austin€so€that€his€wife€could€watch€her€die.€€The€petitioner€said€heÐ Ê   Ðalso€intended€to€shoot€himself.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àThe€police€arrived€after€the€petitioner€had€held€Ms.€Austin€at€gunpoint€for€approximately€25Ð …Õ  Ðto€30€minutes.€€An€officer€entered€the€house€and€Ms.€Austin€fled€into€the€rear€of€the€house€where€herÐ n¾  Ðyoung€daughter€was€sleeping.€€The€petitioner€was€subdued€and€the€officer€who€entered€the€residenceÐ W§  Ðmanaged€to€wrestled€the€shotgun€away€from€the€petitioner€and€hand€it€to€another€officer.€€TheÐ @ Ðshotgun€proved€to€be€loaded,€and€the€officers€found€six€more€twelve„gauge€shells€in€the€petitionerððsÐ )y Ðpocket.Ð b ÐÌà  àThe€trial€of€the€matter€took€place€in€Franklin€County,€where€a€jury€convicted€the€petitionerÐ ä4 Ðof€aggravated€assault,€kidnapping,€and€unlawful€possession€of€a€weapon.€€The€trial€court€sentencedÐ Í Ðthe€petitioner€to€an€effective€sentence€of€twenty€(20)€years€as€a€multiple€offender.€€Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àThis€Court€affirmed€the€petitionerððs€convictions€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€DavidÐ ˆØ ÐAlderóó,€No.€M2000„01804„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€1285945€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Oct.Ð qÁ Ð25,€2001).€€The€petitioner€subsequently€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€allegingÐ Zª Ðvarious€inconsistencies€at€trial€that€he€contended€justified€relief.€€The€petitioner€was€appointedÐ C“ Ðcounsel€and€filed€an€amended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ,| Ðcounsel€at€trial.€€A€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€September€24,€2003.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð e ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€as€to€his€version€of€the€events€andÐ ç 7 Ðraised€questions€as€to€whether€his€trial€attorney€had€adequately€prepared€for€and€made€sound€tacticalÐ Ð!   Ðdecisions€throughout€the€trial.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€had€been€out€hunting€and€entered€Ms.Ð ¹" ! ÐAustinððs€residence€to€inquire€about€some€of€his€belongings€that€were€missing€after€his€wife€movedÐ ¢#ò" Ðout.€€The€petitioner€admitted€that€an€argument€ensued,€but€he€denied€kidnapping€Ms.€Austin.€€TheÐ ‹$Û# Ðpetitioner€testified€that€his€trial€counsel€convinced€him€not€to€testify€on€his€own€behalf.€€Along€Ô_ÔthoseÐ t%Ä $ Ðsame€lines,€the€petitioner€claimed€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€request€a€hearing€in€accordance€withÐ ]&­!% ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€609€to€determine€whether€the€petitionerððs€prior€convictions€could€beÐ F'–"& Ðused€to€impeach€his€testimony.€€The€petitioner€also€alleged€that€his€trial€counsel€met€with€him€onlyÐ ° Ða€few€times€and€that€each€meeting€was€short.€€The€petitioner€stated€that€his€trial€counsel€refused€toÐ ™é Ðpresent€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€mental€health€problems€and€€that€trial€counselððs€cross„Ð ‚Ò Ðexamination€of€witnesses€was€inadequate.€€Ð k» ÐÌà  àThe€State€argued€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€trial€counsel€had€provided€effectiveÐ =  Ðcounsel€to€the€petitioner.€€The€State€contended€that€the€petitionerððs€fate€could€have€potentially€beenÐ & v Ðworse€had€the€evidence€of€his€mental€history€been€introduced,€or€if€he€had€testified€on€his€ownÐ  _ Ðbehalf.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€been€practicing€law€since€1986,€criminal€law€exclusivelyÐ ø H Ðsince€1992,€had€participated€in€over€100€trials€and€was€certified€in€Tennessee€for€appointment€toÐ á 1  Ðcapital€cases.€€The€State€also€introduced€a€letter€written€by€the€petitioner€after€his€trial€to€his€trialÐ Ê   Ðcounsel,€which€stated:Ð ³  ÐÌà8  à[Ô_ÔY]ouÔ_Ô€are€a€good€lawyer.€.€.€.€€I€wonððt€[sic]€you€to€know€that€I€am€not€mad€at€youÐ …Õ  Ðcause€[sic]€you€did€a€good€job€so€thank€you€and€take€care€and€keep€on€doing€goodÐ n¾  Ðwork€you€are€doing€and€if€I€ever€need€a€lawyer€you€would€be€the€one€I€would€wonððtÐ W§  Ð[sic]€to€take€my€case.Ð@Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€for€post„convictionÐ b Ðrelief.€€On€appeal,€the€petitioner€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petition.€€Ð ûK ÐÌòòÓ  ÓPost„Conviction€Standard€of€ReviewóóÐ Í ÐÓð'ÓÌÔ#†XÌûXXX1ºl #ÔÔ‡"XÌûXXXÌûÔà  àTo€sustain€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€a€defendant€must€prove€his€or€her€factualÐ Ÿï Ðallegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€at€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð ˆØ Ð30„110(f);€òòÔ_ÔMomonÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€156€(Tenn.€1999).€€The€post„conviction€courtððs€findingsÐ qÁ Ðof€fact€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,Ð Zª Ð6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€During€our€review€of€the€issue€raised,€we€will€afford€thoseÐ C“ Ðfindings€of€fact€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€this€court€is€bound€by€the€courtððs€findings€unlessÐ ,| Ðthe€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2dÐ e Ð572,€578€(Tenn.€1997);€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€138,€147€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1997).€€This€CourtÐ þN Ðmay€not€Ô_ÔreweighÔ_Ô€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence,€nor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ ç 7 Ðpost„conviction€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔHoneycuttÔ_Ôóó,€54€S.W.3d€762,€766€(Tenn.€2001).€All€questionsÐ Ð!   Ðconcerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€theÐ ¹" ! Ðfactual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€to€be€resolved€by€the€trial€judge,€not€the€appellate€courts.€Ð ¢#ò" ÐòòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔMomonÔ_Ôóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€156;€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€578„79.€€Ô#†XÌûXX"XÌûj(#ÔÔ‡"XÌûXXXÌûÔHowever,€the€post„convictionÐ ‹$Û# Ðcourtððs€conclusions€of€law€are€reviewed€under€a€purely€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€standard€with€no€presumption€ofÐ t%Ä $ Ðcorrectness.€€òòSeeóó€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).Ô#†XÌûXX"XÌûn/#ÔÔ‡X1ºXXXÌûÔ€€Ð ]&­!% ÐÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓIneffective€Assistance€of€CounselóóÐ *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* ÐÓî0Óà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Both€the€SixthÐ ° Ðâ âAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÐ ™é Ðguarantee€a€criminal€defendant€the€right€to€representation€by€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461;Ð ‚Ò ÐòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€When€a€petitioner€seeks€post„conviction€reliefÐ k» Ðon€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€(a)Ð T¤ Ðthe€services€rendered€by€trial€counsel€were€deficient€and€(b)€that€the€deficient€performance€wasÐ =  Ðprejudicial.€€òòSeeóó€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2d€551,€558€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1996).€€In€order€toÐ & v Ðdemonstrate€deficient€performance,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€adviceÐ  _ Ðgiven€was€below€ð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxteróó,€523Ð ø H ÐS.W.2d€at€936.€€In€order€to€demonstrate€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€there€is€a€reasonableÐ á 1  Ðprobability€that,€but€for€counselððs€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€haveÐ Ê   Ðbeen€different.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694€(1984).€€ð ðBecause€a€petitioner€mustÐ ³  Ðestablish€both€prongs€of€the€test€to€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€failure€toÐ œì  Ðprove€either€deficient€performance€or€resulting€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€reliefÐ …Õ  Ðon€the€claim.ðð€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€580.Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àAs€noted€above,€this€Court€will€afford€the€post„conviction€courtððs€factual€findings€aÐ @ Ðpresumption€of€correctness,€rendering€them€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€record€preponderatesÐ )y Ðagainst€the€courtððs€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€578.€However,€our€supreme€court€has€ð ðdetermined€that€issuesÐ b Ðof€deficient€performance€by€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€are€mixed€questions€ofÐ ûK Ðlaw€and€fact€.€.€.€;€thus,€[appellate]€review€of€[these€issues]€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóóðð€with€no€presumption€ofÐ ä4 Ðcorrectness.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.Ð Í ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€on€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€toÐ Ÿï Ðthe€benefit€of€hindsight.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔAdkinsÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€1994).€€This€Court€mayÐ ˆØ Ðnot€second„guess€a€reasonably„based€trial€strategy,€and€we€cannot€grant€relief€based€on€a€sound,€butÐ qÁ Ðunsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€However,€suchÐ Zª Ðdeference€to€the€tactical€decisions€of€counsel€applies€only€if€counsel€makes€those€decisions€afterÐ C“ Ðadequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð ,| Ð1992).€€Ð e ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€complains€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€failedÐ ç 7 Ðto:€(1)€adequately€prepare€a€defense€by€meeting€with€the€petitioner€only€a€handful€of€times;€(2)Ð Ð!   Ðensure€that€the€petitionerððs€version€of€events€and€his€history€of€mental€illness€was€introduced€asÐ ¹" ! Ðpromised€during€opening€statements;€(3)€allow€the€petitioner€to€testify€by€convincing€him€that€heÐ ¢#ò" Ðshould€not€testify;€(4)€ensure€that€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€in€accordance€with€Tennessee€RuleÐ ‹$Û# Ðof€Evidence€609€to€determine€if€the€petitionerððs€previous€convictions€could€be€used€to€impeach€hisÐ t%Ä $ Ðtestimony;€(5)€adequately€cross„examine€witnesses€regarding€discrepancies€in€their€testimony;€andÐ ]&­!% Ð(6)€provide€proof€of€the€history€of€petitionerððs€mental€illness.€€The€State€counters€that€the€recordÐ F'–"& Ðsupports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€trial€counsel€provided€effective€representation.Ð /(#' ÐÌòòÓ  ÓInadequate€preparationóóÐ *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* ÐÔ_ÔÓCÓà  àThe€petitioner€asserted€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€his€trial€attorney€met€with€him€atÐ ° Ðâ âthe€jail€a€few€times€in€the€booking€room€prior€to€trial.€€He€further€claimed€that€the€meetings€wereÐ ™é Ðshort€and€were€not€focused€on€developing€a€defense.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€he€intended€to€hireÐ ‚Ò Ðhis€own€attorney,€but€ð ðdidnððt€have€timeðð€and,€the€day€of€trial€ð ðwas€told€.€.€.€[he]€couldnððtðð€by€theÐ k» Ðjudge.€€However,€other€evidence€reveals€that€trial€counsel€or€colleagues€from€his€office€met€with€orÐ T¤ Ðtelephoned€the€petitioner€no€less€than€fourteen€times€to€discuss€his€two€ongoing€criminal€cases.€€TheÐ =  Ðpetitioner€met€with€both€trial€counsel,€another€attorney€from€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€and€anÐ & v Ðinvestigator€concerning€the€facts€of€the€case€and€possible€defenses.€€The€defense€team€also€obtainedÐ  _ Ðand€reviewed€the€petitionerððs€mental€health€records.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€trial€counselððsÐ ø H Ðpreparation€was€more€than€adequate€stating,€ð ðI€donððt€see€how€in€this€case€any€additional€meetingsÐ á 1  Ðor€longer€meetings€would€have€made€any€difference€in€regard€to€the€case.ðð€€Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€in€his€brief€that€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€set€forth€a€three„partÐ œì  Ðð ðstandard€of€preparationðð€in€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€W.S.2d€at€930,€of€which€the€petitionerððs€trialÐ …Õ  Ðcounsel€failed€to€meet€the€first€part:€ð ðCounsel€should€confer€with€his€client€without€delay€and€asÐ n¾  Ðoften€as€necessary.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€932„33.€€The€petitioner€made€this€same€argument€in€his€post„Ð W§  Ðconviction€appeal€from€the€attempted€second€degree€murder€conviction.€€This€Court€discounted€theÐ @ Ðpetitionerððs€argument€therein,€stating:Ð )y ÐÌà8  à[W]e€do€not€see€this€partial€quote€from€òòBaxteróó€as€the€controlling€standard.€€Rather,Ð ûK Ðthe€clear€standard€in€Tennessee€for€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€including€claimsÐ ä4 Ðof€inadequate€preparation,€is€the€two€part€deficiency€and€prejudice€standard€ofÐ Í ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€and€òòBurns,óó€6.€S.W.3d€at€461.€€Ð¶Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAlderóó,€2004€WL€2309137,€at€*3.€€The€same€analysis€applies€herein.€€After€applying€an€objectiveÐ ˆØ Ðstandard€of€reasonableness,€we€conclude€that€there€was€no€deficient€representation€based€on€theÐ qÁ Ðevidence€presented€as€to€the€quantity€and€quality€of€attorney/client€meetings.€€Moreover,€we€agreeÐ Zª Ðwith€the€trial€court€that€the€petitioner€was€in€no€way€prejudiced€by€the€number€or€length€of€theÐ C“ Ðattorney„client€meetings.€€Thus,€we€determine€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€prove€by€clear€andÐ ,| Ðconvincing€evidence€that€his€trial€attorney€provided€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€due€toÐ e Ðinadequate€trial€preparation.€€€€Ð þN ÐÌòòÓ  ÓPersuasion€of€Petitioner€Not€to€TestifyóóÐ Ð!   ÐÌÓPÓà  àThe€petitioner€next€argues€that€because€trial€counsel€failed€to€call€him€to€testify€on€his€ownÐ ¢#ò" Ðbehalf,€trial€counselððs€representation€was€ineffective.€€The€petitioner€maintains€that€only€he€couldÐ ‹$Û# Ðpresent€his€version€of€what€happened€during€the€time€he€was€in€the€victimððs€residence.€€TheÐ t%Ä $ Ðpetitioner€testified€that€only€he€could€give€an€account€of€his€relationship€with€the€victim€and€that€hisÐ ]&­!% Ðtestimony€would€refute€the€proof€offered€by€the€State.€€Ð F'–"& ÐÌà  àThe€State€noted€that€the€petitioner€testified€before€the€trial€court€regarding€his€decision€notÐ )h$( Ðto€testify€and€essentially€assured€the€court€that€his€decision€was€voluntary.€€The€State€also€presentedÐ *Q%) Ðtestimony€that€trial€counsel€never€coerced€the€petitioner€not€to€testify,€but€rather€advised€him€thatÐ ê*:&* Ðdoing€so€would€likely€do€more€harm€than€good€considering€the€circumstances.€€The€evidence€revealsÐ Ó+#'+ Ðthat€had€the€petitioner€testified,€it€would€have€likely€opened€the€door€to€his€impeachment€throughÐ ° Ðprior€convictions€of€burglary€and€aggravated€burglary.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Furthermore,€trial€counsel€testified€that€heÐ ™é Ðwas€concerned€about€the€possibility€of€the€petitionerððs€testimony€concerning€drug€use,׃$××Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€priorÐ ‚Ò Ðconvictions,€and€his€generally€ð ðobtuseðð€demeanor.€€Ð k» ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€agreed€with€the€State€that€trial€counselððs€tactical€decision€to€advise€his€clientÐ =  Ðnot€to€take€the€witness€stand€was€based€on€sound€judgment,€stating:Ð & v ÐÌà8  àYou€know,€that€certainly€gets€down€to€credibility€but€I€think€I€can€draw€theÐ ø H Ðconclusions,€having€tried€these€cases,€that€the€jury€would€have€almost€out€of€handÐ á 1  Ðrejected€his€credibility€.€.€.€.ÐÊ  Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àBoth€the€State€and€the€petitioner€rely€on€òòState€v.€Zimmermenóó,€823€S.W.2d€220,€227€(Tenn.Ð œì  ÐCrim.€App.€1991),€which€stated€in€part,€ð ðthe€failure€of€a€defense€attorney€to€call€the€defendant€isÐ …Õ  Ðoften€a€key€factor€on€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance.ðð€€While€we€agree€with€that€statement€of€theÐ n¾  Ðlaw€in€òòZimmermanóó,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€the€facts€in€òòZimmermanóó€are€distinguishable€fromÐ W§  Ðthe€case€herein.€€In€òòZimmermanóó,€the€defense€counsel€planned€a€defense€where€the€defendant€wouldÐ @ Ðtestify,€informed€the€jury€to€such€a€strategy,€then€failed€to€actually€call€the€defendant€to€the€stand.€Ð )y ÐThis€Court€found€defense€counselððs€representation€in€òòZimmermanóó€ineffective€based€on€hisÐ b Ðð ðperemptory€abandonment€of€the€pre„established€and€reasonably€sound€defense€strategy.€.€.€.ðð€€òòóó823Ð ûK ÐS.W.2d€at€224.€€In€the€case€herein,€trial€counsel€advised€the€petitioner€from€the€outset€not€to€take€theÐ ä4 Ðstand€as€a€trial€strategy.€€Trial€counselððs€decision€does€not€amount€to€deficient€representation.€Ð Í ÐFurther,€the€petitioner€failed€to€demonstrate€that€prejudice€resulted€from€trial€counselððs€advice.Ð ¶ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓPromise€of€Defense€in€Opening€Statementóó€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓC^Óà  àThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€trial€counsel€made€promises€to€the€jury€during€openingÐ Zª Ðstatements€that€they€would€hear€the€petitionerððs€version€of€the€events€and€that€the€defense€wouldÐ C“ Ðpresent€an€insanity€defense€and€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€present€such€evidenceÐ ,| Ðas€promised.€€The€State€argues€that€the€petitioner€was€not€prejudiced€by€trial€counselððs€actions.€€Ð e ÐÌà  àThe€record€reveals€that€during€opening€statements,€trial€counsel€informed€the€jury€that€ð ðthereÐ ç 7 Ðmay€be€some€proof€coming€outðð€that,€on€the€day€of€the€incident,€the€petitioner€had€been€hunting€forÐ Ð!   Ða€snake€to€make€a€belt,€that€he€stopped€by€the€victimððs€residence,€and€that€an€argument€developedÐ ¹" ! Ðwhen€the€petitioner€saw€some€of€his€possessions€at€the€residence.€€Trial€counsel€also€told€the€juryÐ ° Ðthat€some€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€would€testify€to€the€petitionerððs€bizarre€behavior,€that€theÐ ™é Ðpetitioner€attempted€suicide€in€jail,€that€the€petitioner€was€taken€to€ð ðMocassin€Bend,ðð€and€that€theÐ ‚Ò Ðpetitioner€was€not€taking€his€medication€at€the€time€of€the€incident.€€Ð k» ÐÌà  àIn€support€of€his€argument€that€trial€counselððs€statements€amounted€to€ineffective€assistanceÐ =  Ðof€counsel,€the€petitioner€again€relies€on€òòZimmermanóó.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€he€was€prejudicedÐ & v Ðby€trial€counselððs€failure€to€provide€the€ð ðpromised€defensesðð€to€the€jury.€€Again,€this€case€isÐ  _ Ðdistinguishable€from€òòZimmermanóó.€€In€òòZimmermanóó,€defense€counsel€promised€in€opening€statementsÐ ø H Ðthat€the€defendant€would€testify€and€that€a€mental€health€professional€would€testify€favorably€for€theÐ á 1  Ðdefense.€€823€S.W.2d€at€221„22.€€Even€though€neither€the€defendant€nor€the€mental€healthÐ Ê   Ðprofessional€ultimately€testified,€this€Court€did€not€proclaim€that€such€action€in€and€of€itself€wasÐ ³  Ðsufficient€for€granting€a€new€trial€but€rather€part€of€a€larger€course€of€conduct€that€necessitated€a€newÐ œì  Ðtrial.€€òòId.óó€at€226„28.€€In€the€case€herein,€trial€counsel€did€not€promise€witnesses€that€did€not€appear.€Ð …Õ  ÐIn€fact,€trial€counsel€was€able€to€introduce€much€of€what€he€promised€to€the€jury€during€openingÐ n¾  Ðstatements€through€the€cross„examination€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses.€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ W§  Ðconcluded€that€trial€counselððs€statements€were€a€ð ðlawyering€issueðð€and€the€facts€presented€a€situationÐ @ Ðwhere€ð ðstirring€the€mixðð€might€well€be€the€best€strategy.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€throughÐ )y Ðclear€and€convincing€evidence€that€trial€counselððs€actions€rose€to€the€level€of€deficient€representationÐ b Ðor€prejudiced€the€petitioner.€€Ð ûK ÐÌÓ  ÓòòInadequate€Cross„examination€of€WitnessesóóÐ Í ÐÌÓÍjÓà  àNext,€the€petitioner€claims€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€properly€cross„examine€the€testimonyÐ Ÿï Ðof€one€of€the€key€witnesses,€Officer€Lockhart.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€argues€that€trial€counselÐ ˆØ Ðfailed€to€point€out€that€there€were€discrepancies€between€Officer€Lockhartððs€preliminary€hearingÐ qÁ Ðtestimony€and€trial€testimony.€€The€evidence€at€trial€reveals€that€Officer€Lockhart€testified€that€uponÐ Zª Ðhis€arrival€to€the€victimððs€residence,€he€saw€two€people€inside.€€Officer€Lockhart€then€testified€thatÐ C“ Ðhe€burst€through€the€door€without€knocking€and€saved€the€victim.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€OfficerÐ ,| ÐLockhart€testified€at€the€preliminary€hearing€that€he€knocked€on€the€door€prior€to€entering€theÐ e Ðvictimððs€residence€and€that€Officer€Lockhartððs€preliminary€hearing€testimony€was€consistent€withÐ þN Ðthe€petitionerððs€version€of€the€events.€Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€note€that€there€is€no€transcript€from€the€preliminary€hearing€in€the€record€onÐ ¹" ! Ðappeal.€It€is€the€duty€of€the€petitioner€to€prepare€an€adequate€record€for€appellate€review.€Tenn.€R.Ð ¢#ò" ÐApp.€P.€24(b).€€ð ðWhen€a€party€seeks€appellate€review€there€is€a€duty€to€prepare€a€record€whichÐ ‹$Û# Ðconveys€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€the€issues€formingÐ t%Ä $ Ðthe€basis€of€the€appeal.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560€(Tenn.€1993).€€Further,€the€petitionerÐ ]&­!% Ðhas€failed€to€cite€authority€in€support€of€this€argument.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€R.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€Ct.Ð F'–"& ÐCrim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€This€issue€is€waived.€€€Ð /(#' ÐÌòòÓ  ÓHistory€of€Mental€IllnessóóÐ *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* ÐÓqrÓà  àThe€petitioner€next€asserts€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€that€he€failed€to€furtherÐ ° Ðâ âinvestigate€and€utilize€a€mental€condition€defense€at€trial.€€The€evidence€shows€that€during€openingÐ ™é Ðstatements€at€the€trial,€trial€counsel€raised€the€issue€of€the€petitionerððs€mental€health€problems.€Ð ‚Ò ÐDuring€closing€arguments,€the€State€reminded€the€jury€that€the€defense€had€presented€no€evidenceÐ k» Ðin€support€of€the€alleged€mental€illness.€€During€his€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€theÐ T¤ Ðpetitioner€claimed€that€he€repeatedly€asked€trial€counsel€to€inform€the€jury€of€his€history€of€mentalÐ =  Ðillness.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€he€suffered€from€mental€illness€since€ð ðthe€middle€ðð70sðð€and€hadÐ & v Ða€record€of€ð ðsuicide€attempts,€overdoses,€and€stuff€like€that.ðð€€There€is€evidence€in€the€recordÐ  _ Ðindicating€that€the€petitioner€has€had€contact€with€mental€health€professionals€sporadically€sinceÐ ø H Ð1992.€€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€State€presented€evidence€that€the€petitionerððs€medicalÐ ³  Ðrecords€did€not€support€a€claim€of€mental€illness€that€would€have€amounted€to€a€defense€to€hisÐ œì  Ðactions.€€The€State€pointed€out€that€the€petitioner€had€an€in„patient€mental€health€evaluation€after€hisÐ …Õ  Ðarrest€and€was€declared€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Trial€counsel€claimed€that€he€thoroughly€reviewedÐ n¾  Ðthe€petitionerððs€medical€records€and€made€the€tactical€decision€not€to€introduce€them€at€trial.€€TrialÐ W§  Ðcounsel€felt€that€even€though€some€of€the€information€regarding€the€petitionerððs€mental€conditionÐ @ Ðwould€have€been€favorable,€the€records€also€contained€information€which€would€have€beenÐ )y Ðdetrimental€to€the€petitionerððs€case.€€In€particular,€trial€counsel€was€concerned€about€the€multipleÐ b Ðreferences€to€the€source€of€the€petitionerððs€mental€health€problems€as€poly„substance€abuse,€anti„Ð ûK Ðsocial€behavior€and€ð ðmalingeringðð€mental€illness.€€The€mental€health€records€also€would€haveÐ ä4 Ðrevealed€the€petitionerððs€habitual€drug€use€to€the€jury.€€The€petitioner€was€first€diagnosed€withÐ Í Ðmental€illness€in€1992,€but€that€diagnosis€was€attributed€to€malingering.€€The€petitioner€had€twoÐ ¶ Ðsuicide€attempts,€both€occurring€while€he€was€in€jail€for€other€crimes.€€The€petitioner€had€alsoÐ Ÿï Ðthreatened€his€wife€with€a€knife€in€1998.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€determined€that€the€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€mental€health€wasÐ Zª Ðmore€detrimental€to€his€defense€than€helpful,€stating:Ð C“ ÐÌà8  à[H]eððs€complaining€that€his€mental€health€was€not€called€to€the€attention€of€the€jury,Ð e Ðbecause€no€doctors€were€called€to€provide€that.€€Well,€I€think€the€record€speaks€forÐ þN Ðitself€on€that€issue.€€I€think€the€detriment,€if€you€go€back€to€this€standard€of€whetherÐ ç 7 Ðthe€deficiency€would€prejudice€the€defense,€certainly€no€prejudice€by€not€doing€thatÐ Ð!   Ðin€this€particular€case.€€In€fact,€it€probably€benefits€him€that€that€proof€was€notÐ ¹" ! Ðoffered.€€Ð¢#ò"Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€claims€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€meets€at€leastÐ t%Ä $ Ðtwo€prongs€of€the€three„prong€guideline€suggested€by€this€Court€in€òòÔ_ÔWilcoxsonÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€22€S.W.3dÐ ]&­!% Ð289€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1999),€which€states:Ð F'–"& ÐÌà8  àWhere€counsel€(1)€makes€some€exploration€of€the€mental€history€of€the€appellant€butÐ )h$( Ðfails€to€take€an€obvious€and€easily€available€step€which€would€have€made€such€aÐ *Q%) Ðâ âdefense€viable,€(2)€does€not€produce€reasonable€tactical€reasons€for€not€pursuingÐ ê*:&* Ðfurther€investigation,€and€(3)€raises€no€other€plausible€defense,€courts€may€findÐ ° Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ЙéÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌòòId.óó€at€315€(citing€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9801„CR„00018,€1998€WL€899362,€at€*22€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð k» ÐApp.€at€Nashville,€Dec.€28,€1998))€(holding€counselððs€failure€to€raise€issue€of€defendantððs€claim€ofÐ T¤ Ðdiminished€capacity€was€not€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel).€€However,€we€determine€that€theÐ =  Ðpetitioner€failed€to€prove€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€meet€any€ofÐ & v Ðthe€òòÔ_ÔWilcoxsonÔ_Ôóó€requirements.€€The€record€shows€that€trial€counsel€thoroughly€investigated€theÐ  _ Ðpetitionerððs€mental€history€and€concluded€after€that€review€that€introducing€those€records€would€notÐ ø H Ðbe€beneficial€to€the€petitioner.€€The€petitionerððs€mental€health€diagnoses€of€malingering,€poly„Ð á 1  Ðsubstance€abuse,€and€anti„social€behavior€would€not€have€been€particularly€beneficial€to€his€defense.€Ð Ê   ÐWe€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€trial€counselððs€failure€to€presentÐ ³  Ðadditional€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€mental€history€either€rose€to€the€level€of€deficientÐ œì  Ðrepresentation€or€prejudiced€the€petitioner.€€€€Ð …Õ  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓConclusionóóÐ W§  ÐÓ‹‰ÓÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€individually€addressed€each€of€the€petitionerððs€complaints€withÐ )y Ðthe€representation€and€found€that€none€of€them€had€merit,€ultimately€determining€that€trial€counselÐ b Ðprovided€constitutionally€adequate€representation.€€The€record€fully€supports€that€finding.Ð ûK ÐAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.€Ð ä4 ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ#†XÌûXXX1º²0#ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ‡X1ºXXXÌûÔÔ_ÔÌÔ#†XÌûXXX1ºšŒ#ÔÔ‡X1ºXXXÌûÔÌÔ#†XÌûXXX1ºíŒ#ÔÔ‡X1ºXXXÌûÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÔ#†XÌûXXX1º0#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð qÁ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE