WPC $9>:iZLt2 [?D??zLwr%`z $G~6S9>q {sd$ t".$E?@\MVƖxI2wiՌ`$tuX|&i+pvq!@&H6.\Fbp7_oonW񥣤"vl4S<9ű %$yy$҈Nc<f(7G'x_"(fGv%~:xlT<͟ItroHLmASO|6swe3Wg鬪`zfP6t41uC HK!'H.BuK2ܳ>`:%G^epqI:UHk.{*H* X?tkN: V Y$"y)}twb#\ % 0D# 0g UN N= 1u? z . 72 z2  ^ ~  PwN4E m 0cIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIbQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ 0YYYY BDD 0a D3 D-8 0Kee AS 0 AmHP LaserJet 40500($$   1  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) 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.wpti) 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.wptJ+ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5yG*0k1'3|xU(;3$2#  0  .3  0   - -(|G2w$ !.8\Mdd8         0   d(|3ǀ$ !.8\Mdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_XYE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ǀ$ !.8\Mdd8     X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\Mdd8     _   \M8XXdd8@ttP\MINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#\MP #Ԉ &    @  @` September26,2000 L XX\M #\MXX#SLATERBELCHERv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXX\M  J @@ PostConvictionAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforBlountCounty  J @@No.C8931,C8997D.KellyThomas,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E199902287CCAR3PC   October10,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     #\MXц#XX.\MJosephM.Tipton,J.,concurring. P #\MXX#XX\M#\MXXь#  XX\M  Iconcurintheresultsreachedandmostofthereasoninginthemajorityopinion.However, (x IdisagreewithitsconclusionthatunderStatev.Huddleston,924S.W.2d666(Tenn.1996), d interrogatingofficersinTennesseedonothaveadutytoaskclarifyingquestionswhenthedefendant P makesanequivocalrequestforanattorney. <   IbelievethatweareboundbyStatev.Stephenson,878S.W.2d530,548(Tenn.1994),  whichholds,inpart,thatunderarticleI,section9oftheTennesseeConstitutionanequivocalrequest  limitsfurtherpoliceinterrogationtotheissueofclarifyingthedesireforcounsel.InHuddleston,the  defendantraisedtheissueandoursupremecourtresolvedtheissuesolelywithrespecttotheFifth  AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.NeitherStephensonnortheTennesseeconstitutional t requirementswereatissue.Icannotignorebindingprecedentorinferthatthecourtoverruleditself ` inHuddlestonwithoutmentioningeitherStephensonortheTennesseeConstitution.Inthisrespect, L  IrelyuponmyanalysisoftheequivocalrequestforcounselissueinTennesseeprovidedinmy 8!  concurringopinioninStatev.JohnM.Ake,WilliamsonCounty,No.01C019603CC00094(Tenn. $"t! Crim.App.June6,1997)app.denied(Tenn.3/9/98). #`"   Ontheotherhand,Iagreewiththemajorityopinionthattherecordreflectsthatcounselmade $8 $ areasonablestrategicdecisiontoallowthepetitionersrecordedstatementintoevidence.Thus,the %$!% petitionerdidnotreceivetheineffectiveassistanceofcounsel. &"&    `     h     ___________________________________ )$)    `     h     JOSEPHM.TIPTON,JUDGE