ÿWPCõ –’õn+¡ü Ë*N[;ÚÏÄh~™Ûz5€ì!| Kr­#è;.”±Ñ5%öý¥2.OívfÊ&ŸHÏ ¢ÏíhP—%’ÖÝ•^•>ÑÐÔvA_àðrÛ–F=lRçW†¥ÁÄ_Ê) FóÕöD#âRÙß~*xKïIì¶oF^ãt¯Ä'B@AÛ&Š­á}Žw’nÌæ“ñæð …ö‰ª¬·è…µÝScØÔ"¸­Á|YfE¤<(Ï2ŸÀoÃ]R£FŸ:ÌUƒEØÃt´¶‹•"T»TÀ%•1Ä0Dg‘|¯´)-S–6ÆKQîä,Õàr?=m¥ãËöÅk”ÉÛÔ~¢ŒãÊ8ÚÀ›”0Ž/·›B>e¸²ùYA$?Þ!:m8L‹ÃƒBõŠDâ=:0îé rdœZßíD̉õŒÛÄjħYºHdô0>ó7l±RkIéØø6ŽÍ>T€ƒ;|0£Ð:볩îÑ)C|f‘Ö\òlÆŸ;\ò\KDì³2Ö)-ðdWöÃ$Öc”ÓüÙIŸ¥¹V“Ý0wÇŽÓø–ÉêŧöQ£/xÙÍ„zc¨Þðl-åú¤uP$Š,Q i ‡ô‹’EIÑaPGM"ü4æ_Ž£b#Á\ % UN# 0ˆq UNù ^ G wS zW ÒÑ 4£ · Æ mÈ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1•÷NŒ 0DŽÒEèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèbêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêê 0ëòòòò BÝÝ 0¤ú D3ž D-Ñ 0Kþþ ASIÆœ 0¤b 0D A«J˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular‰’J+â  ˜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.wptyG*¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ‹Ý ƒR·´$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôë­ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€acknowledge€that€the€opinion€in€òòÔ_ÔHuddlestonÔ_Ôóó€does€not€mention€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1994);€which€held€that€both€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€9€of€theÐ tÄ ÐTennessee€Constitution€require€interrogating€officers€to€clarify€an€equivocal€request€for€an€attorney.€€Nothing€inÐ 8ˆ ÐòòStephensonóó€however€suggests€that€the€state€constitution€offers€any€broader€protections€in€this€area€than€does€the€federalÐ üL Ðconstitution.€€Indeed,€it€appears€that€the€courtððs€holding€in€òòStephensonóó€is€based€on€its€interpretation€of€òòMichigan€v.Ð À ÐJacksonóó,€475€U.S.€625€(1986);€that€the€Fifthòòóó€Amendment€requires€clarification€of€an€equivocal€request€for€an€attorney.€Ð „Ô ÐAny€notion€that€òòJacksonóó€should€be€read€in€this€way€was€dispelled€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòDavis€v.€UnitedÐ H ˜ ÐStatesóó,€512€U.S.€452€(1994).€€In€òòDavisóó€the€Court€held€that€the€Fifth€Amendment€does€not€place€a€burden€on€police€toÐ  \ Ðclarify€an€equivocal€request€for€an€attorney€before€continuing€interrogation.€€Thus,€we€believe€that€following€òòDavisóó€andÐ Ð  ÐòòÔ_ÔHuddlestonÔ_Ôóó,€neither€the€federal€nor€state€constitutions€require€officers€to€stop€interrogating€a€suspect€in€order€to€clarifyÐ ” ä  Ðan€unequivocal€request€for€an€attorney.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ 8 Ñ- ù-(|G2·´$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Lu»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôë­ò»»Ô d(|3Ç$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Lu»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ç$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Lu»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Lu»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Lu»»»ÔÑ8€9XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€¯’Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îIdLuÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Lu»îîId#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àSeptember€26,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X9X»¼LuÔÌò òÔ#†¼Lu»XX9)#ÔSLATER€Ô_ÔBELCHERÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X9X»¼LuÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òPost„Conviction€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔBlountÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C„8931,€C„8997€€€€€€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02287„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐOctober€10,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X9XXX9ÔA€jury€convicted€the€petitioner,€Slater€Ô_ÔBelcherÔ_Ô,€of€first€degree€murder.€ò òó óThe€petitioner€challenged€hisÐ xÈ  Ðconviction€and€sentence€on€direct€appeal,€and€this€court€affirmed€both.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Slater€Ô_ÔBelcherÔ_Ôóó,Ð d´ ÐNo.€03C01„9608„CC„00299,€1997€WL€749392,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Nov.€26,Ð P  Ð1997).€€In€his€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€alleged€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,Ð <Œ Ðbut€this€court€declined€to€rule€on€the€merits€of€that€claim,€as€the€claim€was€not€properly€before€theÐ (x Ðcourt.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€the€petitionerððs€request€for€permission€toÐ d Ðappeal.€€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€€Thereafter,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€under€theÐ P Ðcircumstances,€the€proper€forum€for€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€ò òó óThe€trial€court€heldÐ ì< Ðhearings€on€three€different€dates€to€determine€the€merits€of€the€petitionerððs€claim€and€ultimatelyÐ Ø( Ðdenied€his€petition.€ò òó ó€The€petitioner€files€this€appeal€challenging€the€trial€courtððs€determination.€€AfterÐ Ä Ða€complete€review€of€the€record€in€this€case,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ô#†X9XXX91#ÔÔ#†¼Lu»XX9¿#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼LuÔÐ ° ÐÓ%ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Lu»àX9D #ÔÔ‡X9X.¼LuÔJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòóó€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,Ð `° Ðjoined€and€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€filed€a€concurring€opinion.Ð L œ ÐÌKevin€W.€Shepherd,€Ô_ÔMaryvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€appellant,€Slater€Ô_ÔBelcherÔ_Ô.Ð $"t! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Peter€M.Ð ü#L# ÐÔ_ÔCoughlanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Mike€Flynn,€District€Attorney€General;€and€JerryÐ è$8 $ ÐCunningham,€Assistant€District€Attorney€for€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÓú ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Lu»XX9) #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼LuÔÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Lu»XX9Æ#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼LuÔÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡X9XXX9Ôà@!ìàFactual€Backgroundóóó óˆÐ „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€wife,€Denise€Ô_ÔBelcherÔ_Ô,€was€having€an€affair€with€the€victim,€Larry€Wyatt,€whoÐ \+¬&+ Ðwas€also€the€petitionerððs€best€friend.€€ò òó óThe€petitioner€and€his€wife€lived€in€an€apartment€complex€thatÐ H,˜', Ðthey€managed.ò òó ó€€Joan€Ô_ÔHuietÔ_Ô,€a€friend€of€the€Ô_ÔBelchersÔ_Ô,€also€lived€in€this€apartment€complex.€ò òó ó€Ms.€Ô_ÔHuietÔ_ÔÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôand€Mr.€Wyatt€had€been€previously€romantically€involved€and€were€still€friends€at€the€time€of€hisÐ ° Ðdeath.ò ò€ó ó€Ms.€Huietððs€boyfriend€and€occasional€houseguest,€David€Allen,€was€visiting€Ms.€Huiet€onÐ œì Ðthe€evening€of€Mr.€Wyattððs€death.€ò òó óÐ ŒÜ Ðà  àThese€individualsðð€testimony€about€the€events€that€transpired€on€the€evening€of€Mr.€WyattððsÐ xÈ Ðdeath€is€conflicting.€€However,€it€appears€that€at€some€point€before€the€murder,€the€petitioner€learnedÐ d´ Ðof€his€wifeððs€affair€with€his€best€friend€from€both€Ms.€Huietò òó ó€and€Mr.€Allen€ò òó óand€that€Ms.€Huiet€hadÐ P   Ðinformed€Ms.€Belcher€that€the€petitioner€now€knew€of€the€affair.ò ò€ó ó€On€February€26,€1995,€theÐ < Œ Ðpetitioner€returned€to€his€apartment€and€€discovered€that€his€wife€was€not€at€their€apartment,€but€wasÐ , | Ðinstead€at€Mr.€Wyattððs€home.ò ò€ó ó€The€petitioner,€who€was€visibly€upset,€put€away€a€gun€on€a€high€shelfÐ  h Ðso€that€he€would€not€be€tempted€to€ð ðblow€his€brains€out.ðð€ò òó óAt€the€petitionerððs€request,€Ms.€Huiet€thenÐ  X  Ðcalled€Mr.€Wyattððs€apartment€and€informed€Mr.€Wyatt€and€Ms.€Belcher€that€the€petitioner€was€onÐ ô D  Ðhis€way€to€the€Belchersðð€apartment.ò òó ó€€The€petitioner€then€moved€his€car€so€as€to€conceal€his€presenceÐ à0  Ðat€his€apartment.€ò òó ó€€Ms.€Belcher€and€Mr.€Wyatt€decided€to€go€to€the€Belchersðð€apartment€€to€discussÐ Ì  Ðthe€matter€with€the€petitioner.ò òó óÐ ¸  Ðà  àWhen€the€two€arrived€at€the€Belchersðð€apartment€complex,€the€petitioner€argued€with€themÐ ¤ô  Ðand€hit€his€wife€on€her€upper€arm€with€a€large€stick.€€ò òó óMs.€Belcher€testified€that€she€then€fled.€Ð à  Ðò òó óHowever,€Ms.€Huiet€testified€that€Ms.€Belcher€fled€after€Mr.€Wyatt€was€shot€and€that€Ms.€BelcherÐ |Ì Ðtold€her€that€ð ðHe€shot€him.ððò òó ó€€After€the€shooting,€the€petitioner€then€asked€Mr.€Allen,€Ms.€HuietððsÐ h¸ Ðboyfriend€who€was€asleep€at€Ms.€Huietððs€apartment,€to€help€him€move€the€body.ò òó ó€€Mr.€Allen€and€theÐ T¤ Ðpetitioner€then€carried€Mr.€Wyattððs€body€€and€placed€it€in€Mr.€Wyattððs€car.€ò òó ó€€The€petitioner€then€droveÐ @ Ðto€a€nearby€ice€cream€parlor€where€the€petitioner€had€instructed€Mr.€Allen€to€meet€him.€ò òó ó€Upon€theirÐ ,| Ðarrival€at€the€ice€cream€parlor,€the€petitioner€handed€Mr.€Allen€the€victimððs€baseball€cap€and€a€gunÐ h Ðwrapped€in€a€towel€and€instructed€Mr.€Allen€to€dispose€of€these€items.ò ò€ó ó€Shortly€after€Mr.€AllenÐ T Ðdisposed€of€the€items,€he€alerted€the€police€of€the€homicide.€ò òó ó€Shortly€thereafter,€the€police€arrestedÐ ôD Ðthe€petitioner.€ò òó óÐ à0 Ðà  àAt€trial,€the€petitioner€did€not€testify.ò òó ó€However,€the€prosecution€introduced€the€recordedÐ Ì Ðstatement€that€he€made€to€the€police€shortly€after€his€arrest€and€played€it€for€the€jury.€ò ò€ó óIn€hisÐ ¸ Ðstatement,€the€petitioner€stated€that€he€encountered€Mr.€Wyatt€in€the€hallway€of€his€apartmentÐ ¨ø Ðbuilding€and€that€Mr.€Wyatt€slapped€him.ò òó ó€The€petitioner,€in€turn,€went€to€get€a€gun€to€scare€Mr.Ð ”ä ÐWyatt.ò òó ó€€The€gun€accidentally€went€off€and€shot€Mr.€Wyatt.ò òó ó€€The€petitioner€attempted€to€take€Mr.Ð €Ð ÐWyatt€to€the€hospital,€but€abandoned€that€attempt€when€he€realized€that€Mr.€Wyatt€was€dead.ò òó óÐ l ¼ Ðà  àThe€petitioner€was€tried€and€convicted€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòSlater€Belcheróó,€1997€WLÐ X!¨ Ð74932,€at€*1.€€On€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€challenged,€òòinter€aliaóó,€€the€effectiveness€of€his€trialÐ D"”  Ðcounsel.€€òòId.óó€€This€court€affirmed€the€lower€court,€stating€that€the€appropriate€forum€for€challengingÐ 0#€! Ðthe€effectiveness€of€counsel€was€a€post„conviction€petition€for€review,€as€opposed€to€direct€appeal.€Ð $l" ÐòòId.óó€at€*5„*6.€€The€petitioner€then€filed€a€post„conviction€petition,€which€the€trial€court€denied.ò òó ó€€In€theÐ %X # Ðinstant€appeal,€the€petitioner€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petition,€claiming€that€his€trialÐ ô%D!$ Ðcounsel€ineffectively€represented€him€in€four€respects:€(1)€trial€counsel€failed€to€file€any€pre„trialÐ à&0"% Ðmotions;€(2)€trial€counsel€failed€to€effectively€cross„examine€several€state€witnesses;€(3)€trial€counselÐ Ì'#& Ðfailed€to€prepare€a€stateððs€witness,€although€they€had€an€opportunity€to€do€so;€and€(4)€trial€counselÐ ¸($' Ðâ âfailed€to€present€a€theory€of€the€case€to€the€jury.Ð ¤)ô$( Ðà  àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€find€that€the€petitionerððs€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ° Ðtrial€counsel€are€without€merit,€as€the€petitioner€failed€to€demonstrate€that€his€trial€counselððsÐ œì Ðrepresentation€was€deficient€and€prejudicial.Ð ˆØ Ðâ âòòò òÓ  ÓPost„Conviction€Standard€of€Reviewó óóóÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ_'Óà  àIn€analyzing€the€issue€raised,€we€first€note€that€a€petitioner€bringing€a€post„conviction€petitionÐ L œ Ðfor€relief€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€asserted€in€the€petition€by€clear€and€convincingÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f)€(1997);€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.Ð $ t ÐCrim.€App.€1998).€€ð ðEvidence€is€clear€and€convincing€when€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubtÐ  ` Ðabout€the€correctness€of€the€conclusions€drawn€from€the€evidence."€€òòHicksóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€245€(citingÐ ü L  ÐòòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€n.3€(Tenn.€1992)).€€Furthermore,€the€appellateÐ è 8  Ðcourt€is€bound€by€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact,€unless€the€record€preponderates€against€thoseÐ Ô$  Ðfindings.€€òòHicksóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€245.Ð À  ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓEffectiveness€of€Assistance€of€Counselóóó óÐ „Ô  ÐÌÓl+Óà  àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ \¬ Ðcounsel,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€(a)€the€services€rendered€by€trial€counselÐ H˜ Ðwere€deficient€and€(b)€that€the€deficient€performance€was€prejudicial.€€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ð551,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€order€to€demonstrate€deficient€performance,€the€petitionerÐ  p Ðmust€show€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€was€below€"the€range€of€competenceÐ  \ Ðdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€InÐ øH Ðorder€to€demonstrate€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,Ð ä4 Ðbut€for€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€Ð Ð  ÐòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2068,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€Ð ¼  Ð"Because€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test€to€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÐ ¨ø Ðassistance€of€counsel,€failure€to€prove€either€deficient€performance€or€resulting€prejudice€providesÐ ”ä Ða€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€claim."€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€580€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð €Ð Ð"Moreover,€on€appeal,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€and€will€not€beÐ l¼ Ðdisturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them."€€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,Ð X ¨ Ð911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€"The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€theÐ D!” Ðevidence€preponderated€against€those€findings."€€òòId.óóÐ 0"€  Ðà  àOn€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€ofÐ #l! Ðhindsight.€€This€Court€may€not€second-guess€a€reasonably€based€trial€strategy,€and€we€cannot€grantÐ $X" Ðrelief€based€on€a€sound,€but€unsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€course€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðproceedings.€€òòAdkinsóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€347.€€However,€such€deference€to€the€tactical€decisions€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðcounsel€applies€only€if€counsel€makes€those€decisions€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€Ð Ì&"% ÐòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òA.€€Failure€to€File€Pre„Trial€Motionsó óóóÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓØ5Óà  àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€his€trial€counselððs€assistance€was€ineffective€because€his€trialÐ ° Ðcounsel€failed€to€file€any€pre„trial€motions,€specifically€(1)€discovery€motions;€(2)€a€motion€toÐ œì Ðsuppress€the€tape„recorded€statement€that€the€petitioner€made€to€the€police;€(3)€a€motion€to€requestÐ ˆØ Ðan€investigator€to€aid€in€the€preparation€of€the€case;€(4)€a€motion€to€request€a€psychologist€to€assistÐ tÄ Ðin€the€preparation€of€the€case€and€testify€as€to€the€petitionerððs€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€victimððsÐ `° Ðdeath;€and€(5)€a€motion€to€appoint€a€ballistics€expert€to€explain€the€trajectory€of€the€bullet€as€itÐ L œ Ðentered€the€victimððs€body.Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àFirst,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€as€they€failed€to€file€any€pre„Ð $ t Ðtrial€motions,€including€any€motions€for€discovery.€€However,€the€petitionerððs€trial€counselÐ  ` Ðparticipated€in€an€extensive€pre„trial€discovery€conference€with€the€prosecution,€in€which€trialÐ ü L  Ðcounsel€received€all€discoverable€material€that€they€were€entitled€to€receive,€as€well€as€severalÐ è 8  Ðwitness€statements€that€they€were€not€entitled€to€receive€until€closer€to€the€trial€date.ò òó ó€Therefore,Ð Ô$  Ðbecause€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€received€everything€that€they€were€entitled€to€receive€pursuantÐ À  Ðto€any€discovery€motion,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€his€counselððsÐ ¬ü  Ðdecision€not€to€file€any€discovery€motions.€€€òòSeeóó€òòAnthony€Cole€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01-9711-CC-00445,Ð ˜è  Ð1998€WL€725793,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€October€19,€1998)€(holding€that€a€petitionerÐ „Ô  Ðwas€not€prejudiced€by€his€trial€counselððs€decision€not€to€file€any€pre„trial€motions€because€counselÐ pÀ Ðparticipated€in€an€extensive€pre„trial€conference).Ð \¬ Ðòòóóà  àSecond,€the€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€should€have€moved€to€suppress€the€tape„Ð H˜ Ðrecorded€statement€that€he€made€to€the€police€after€his€arrest.€€The€petitioner€asserts€that€theÐ 4„ Ðstatement€was€made€without€a€knowing€and€voluntary€waiver€of€his€rights€to€remain€silent€and€toÐ  p Ðconsultation€with€an€attorney.€€As€support€for€this€assertion,€the€petitioner€cites€to€the€fact€that€afterÐ  \ Ðbeing€Mirandized,€he€asserted€his€right€to€remain€silent,€which€was€not€scrupulously€honored.€Ð øH ÐInstead,€the€police€officers€questioned€him€once€he€was€brought€to€the€station€house.€€However,€€theÐ ä4 Ðinterrogating€officer€testified€at€trial€that€after€the€petitioner€reached€the€police€station,€he€indicatedÐ Ð  Ðthat€he€was€willing€to€talk€to€the€police€about€the€events€of€the€night€in€question.ò òó ó€Although€aÐ ¼  Ðdefendantððs€invocation€of€his€right€to€remain€silent€must€be€scrupulously€honored,€the€defendantÐ ¨ø Ðwaives€that€right€if€he€initiates€conversation€with€the€police€after€he€has€invoked€his€right€to€remainÐ ”ä Ðsilent.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989).€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€implicitlyÐ €Ð Ðfound€the€officerððs€testimony€to€be€credible,€thereby€finding€that€the€petitioner€waived€his€right€toÐ l¼ Ðremain€silent.€€In€its€order€denying€the€petitionerððs€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€determinedÐ X ¨ Ðthat€a€motion€to€suppress€the€evidence€would€not€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€case.€€Therefore,Ð D!” Ðthe€trial€court€implicitly€ruled€that€the€petitionerððs€rights€were€not€violated,€and€therefore€a€motionÐ 0"€  Ðto€suppress€would€have€been€unsuccessful.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€thisÐ #l! Ðground.Ð $X" Ðà  àAdditionally,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€the€police€violated€his€right€to€consult€with€anÐ ô$D # Ðattorney€because€he€made€an€equivocal€request€for€an€attorney.€He€cites€to€an€excerpt€of€his€tape„Ð à%0!$ Ðrecorded€statement€in€support€of€this€assertion.€€In€the€excerpt,€the€interrogating€officer€repeatedlyÐ Ì&"% Ðasks€the€petitioner€if€he€understands€his€rights€and€if€he€wishes€to€talk€about€the€incident.€€TheÐ ¸'#& Ðpetitioner,€who€is€extremely€emotional,€eventually€responds€that€he€does€understand€his€rights,€agreesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€talk€to€the€interrogating€officer,€and€makes€an€equivocal€request€for€an€attorney,€stating,€ð ðIÐ )à$( Ðunderstand€what€you€told€me,€but€do€I€need,€do€I€need,€should€I€have€my€lawyer€here?€€I€donððt€know.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐI,€I€donððt€know.ððÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€petitioner€claims€that€this€was€not€a€knowing€waiver€of€his€rights,€as€he€had€never€beforeÐ ° Ðbeen€interrogated€by€police€and€was€unfamiliar€with€the€criminal€justice€system.€€He€claims€that€theÐ œì Ðinterrogating€officer€had€a€duty€to€clarify€whether€the€petitioner€was€requesting€an€attorney.€Ð ˆØ ÐHowever,€per€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666€(Tenn.€1996),€interrogating€officers€do€not€haveÐ tÄ Ða€duty€to€ask€clarifying€questions€when€the€defendant€makes€an€equivocal€request€for€an€attorney.€Ð `° ÐòòId.óó€at€669׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€suppression€of€his€statement€on€these€grounds.€Ð L œ ÐMoreover,€counsel€made€a€strategic€decision€to€allow€the€recorded€statement€to€be€admitted€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðevidence€at€trial,€as€it€would€serve€to€communicate€the€petitionerððs€emotional€state€and€version€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€events€without€subjecting€him€to€cross„examination.€€As€stated€òòsupraóó,€this€court€will€not€second„Ð  ` Ðguess€a€reasonable€trial€strategy,€and€after€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€counselððsÐ ü L  Ðstrategic€decision€was€reasonable.€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€has€not€established€that€the€failure€ofÐ è 8  Ðcounsel€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€constituted€deficient€performance.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òB.€€Failure€to€Obtain€Expert€Servicesó óóóÐ ˜è  ÐÌÓËOÓà  àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€in€their€failure€to€hire€an€investigatorÐ pÀ Ðto€assist€with€the€preparation€of€his€case.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€a€private€investigator€hadÐ \¬ Ðoffered€his€services€to€him,€requiring€payment€only€if€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€less€that€firstÐ H˜ Ðdegree€murder.€ò òó ó€€The€petitioner€further€alleges€that€he€conveyed€this€offer€to€defense€counsel,€whoÐ 4„ Ðdeclined€the€offer,€and€that€the€services€of€an€investigator€would€have€been€extremely€helpful€inÐ  p Ðreconciling€the€conflicting€statements€of€the€witnesses.ò ò€ó ó€During€the€post€conviction€hearing,€the€leadÐ  \ Ðdefense€attorney€testified€that€while€he€was€aware€that€this€investigator€had€offered€his€services€toÐ üL Ðthe€petitioner,€the€petitioner€never€requested€that€his€counsel€hire€the€investigator,€and€he€was€underÐ è8 Ðthe€impression€that€the€petitionerððs€family€was€considering€hiring€the€investigator.€ò òó ó€€Additionally,€theÐ Ô$ Ðlead€counsel€also€testified€that€he€did€not€believe€that€he€could€show€the€requisite€need€to€obtain€aÐ À Ðcourt„€appointed€investigator.€ò ò€€ó óWhile€the€witnessesðð€statements€were€conflicting,€the€post„convictionÐ ¬ü Ðcourt€found€that€all€of€the€witnesses€were€cooperative€and€spoke€to€the€petitionerððs€counsel€willingly.€Ð œì Ðò òó óThe€petitioner€has€failed€to€allege€what€information€could€have€been€obtained€through€an€investigatorÐ ˆØ Ðthat€his€counsel€did€€not€obtain.€€Thus,€he€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€his€counselððs€failure€to€seekÐ tÄ Ðan€investigatorððs€services€constituted€deficient€performance€or€prejudiced€him€in€any€way.Ð ` ° Ðà  àFourth,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€his€counselððs€representation€was€ineffective€because€theyÐ L!œ Ðfailed€to€request€a€psychologistððs€assistance€in€evaluating€the€mental€state€of€the€petitioner.€Ð 8"ˆ  ÐSpecifically,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€a€psychologist€could€have€helped€to€determine€whether€theÐ ° Ðpetitioner€acted€with€premeditation,€in€self„defense,€or€had€a€diminished€mental€capacity.€€€However,Ð œì Ðdefense€counsel€both€testified€that€because€they€did€not€believe€that€the€petitioner€was€insane€andÐ ˆØ Ðbecause€the€petitioner€indicated€that€he€understood€the€charges€against€him,€they€did€not€believe€thatÐ tÄ Ðhis€mental€health€was€an€issue.€ò ò€ó ó€Furthermore,€counsel€testified€that€the€petitioner€refused€to€speakÐ `° Ðwith€them€about€the€events€that€transpired€on€the€night€in€question,€thus€giving€them€no€informationÐ P   Ðupon€which€to€negate€a€theory€of€premeditation€or€to€base€a€theory€of€self„defense.ò ò€ó ó€At€the€post„Ð < Œ Ðconviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€failed€to€introduce€the€testimony€of€any€mental€health€expert€thatÐ , | Ðmight€have€been€helpful€in€the€defense€of€this€case.€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€hisÐ  h Ðburden€of€establishing€deficient€representation€or€resulting€prejudice€with€regard€to€counselððs€failureÐ  T  Ðto€utilize€the€services€of€a€psychologist.Ð ð @  Ðà  àFinally,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€his€counselððs€representation€was€ineffective€because€theyÐ Ü,  Ðfailed€to€move€to€have€a€ballistics€expert€appointed€to€testify€regarding€the€peculiar€trajectory€of€theÐ È  Ðbullet€that€killed€the€victim.€€However,€the€petitioner€failed€to€introduce€the€testimony€of€a€ballisticsÐ ´  Ðexpert€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€and€has€thus€failed€to€prove€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€thisÐ  ð  Ðregard€or€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€this€omission.Ð ŒÜ  ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òC.€€Effectiveness€of€Cross„Examinationsó óóóÐ P  ÐÌÓË_Óà  àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€his€counsel€ineffectively€represented€him€because€counselÐ (x Ðfailed€to€conduct€thorough€cross„examinations€of€several€state€witnesses.€€Specifically,€the€petitionerÐ d Ðcontends€that€his€defense€counselððs€cross„examination€was€deficient€because€counsel€declined€toÐ P Ðcross„examine€two€witnesses€at€all€and€briefly€cross„examined€the€remaining€witnesses.Ð ì< Ðà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€defense€counsel€should€have€inquired€about€the€friendship€thatÐ Ø( Ðdeveloped€between€the€petitioner€and€the€lead€detective€during€the€cross„examination€of€thatÐ Ä Ðdetective.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€counsel€was€aware€that€this€friendship€had€developed€and€thatÐ ° Ðcounsel€should€have€exposed€the€friendship€on€cross„examination€to€show€that€the€petitioner€mayÐ œì Ðhave€let€his€guard€down€when€around€the€detective,€believing€him€to€be€a€friend.€However,€theÐ ˆØ Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€prove€that€he€actually€did€let€his€guard€down€as€a€result€of€this€friendship€orÐ tÄ Ðhow€he€was€prejudiced€by€counselððs€failure€to€cross„examine€the€detective€on€this€point.€€Ð ` ° Ðà  àAdditionally,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€his€counsel€should€have€more€thoroughly€cross„Ð L!œ Ðexamined€this€detective€regarding€the€fact€that€a€very€small€amount€of€methamphetamine€was€foundÐ 8"ˆ  Ðon€the€victimððs€person,€indicating€that€the€victim€could€have€been€acting€aggressively€at€the€time€ofÐ $#t! Ðhis€death.€€However,€the€amount€of€methamphetamine€found€on€the€victim€is€equivalent€to€theÐ $`" Ðamount€found€in€diet€pills,€and€the€drug€was€found€accompanied€by€vitamin€powder,€a€point€that€theÐ ü$L # Ðprosecutor€brought€up€on€redirect.€ò òó ó€Therefore,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€that€defenseÐ è%8!$ Ðcounselððs€cross„examination€of€this€witness€was€deficient.Ð Ô&$"% Ðà  àWith€regard€to€counselððs€cross„examination€of€the€other€witnesses,€the€petitioner€has€failedÐ À'#& Ðto€establish€what€information€counsel€should€have€elicited€on€cross„examination€that€was€notÐ ¬(ü#' Ðelicited.€€Therefore,€the€issue€has€no€merit.Ð ˜)è$( ÐÌÐ p+À&* Ðѯ’Ñâ âÑ 8 XÑâ âÑ  ÑÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓD.€€Failure€to€Prepare€a€Stateððs€Witnessó óóóÐ ˆØ ÐÌÓøiÓà  àThe€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€seize€the€opportunity€of€preparing€stateÐ `° Ðwitness€Denise€Belcher.€€However,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€was€prejudicedÐ L œ Ðby€this€lack€of€preparation.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Ms.€Belcher€stated€that€she€testifiedÐ 8 ˆ Ðtruthfully€at€trial€and€that€while€she€would€have€framed€her€answers€differently€if€she€had€beenÐ $ t Ðprepared€by€defense€counsel,€she€would€not€have€changed€her€testimony.€ò òó ó€Therefore,€the€petitionerÐ  ` Ðhas€failed€to€meet€his€burden,€and€the€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ü L  ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òE.€€€Failure€to€Develop€and€Present€a€Theory€of€the€Case€to€the€Juryó óóóÐ À  ÐÌÓmÓà  àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€counsel€ineffectively€represented€him€because€they€failed€toÐ ˜è  Ðdevelop€and€present€a€theory€of€his€case€to€the€jury.€€At€trial,€defense€counsel€relied€on€the€argumentÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€prosecution€had€not€proven€that€the€petitioner€was€guilty€of€murder€beyond€a€reasonableÐ pÀ Ðdoubt,€because€the€state€had€failed€to€reconcile€the€testimony€of€its€witnesses.ò ò€ó ó€The€petitioner€assertsÐ \¬ Ðthat€his€defense€counsel€was€deficient€in€not€exploring€the€possible€theory€of€self„defense,€the€theoryÐ Lœ Ðthat€Ms.€Belcher€committed€the€murder,€the€theory€that€Ms.€Huiet€committed€the€murder,€or€theÐ 8ˆ Ðtheory€that€Mr.€Allen€was€involved€in€the€murder.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€defense€counselÐ $t Ðtestified€that€they€could€not€establish€any€of€these€theories€of€the€case€because€the€petitioner€refusedÐ ` Ðto€discuss€the€specifics€of€his€case,€thus€leaving€them€with€no€information€upon€which€to€base€anyÐ üL Ðsuch€theory.ò ò€ó ó€€The€petitioner€does€not€dispute€that€he€would€not€discuss€the€case€with€his€counsel,Ð è8 Ðinsisting€that€he€does€not€remember€the€events€at€issue.€€ò òó óThus,€presented€with€an€uncooperativeÐ Ø( Ðwitness€and€irreconcilable€testimony,€defense€counsel€decided€that€the€only€theory€that€they€couldÐ Ä Ðpresent€to€the€jury€was€that€the€prosecution€had€not€met€its€burden.€ò ò€ó ó€€Based€on€these€facts,€we€findÐ ° Ðthat€this€was€an€acceptable€trial€strategy€and€therefore€did€not€result€in€deficient€representation.Ð  ð Ðà  àIn€light€of€the€above€considerations,€we€hold€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€hisÐ ŒÜ Ðcounselððs€representation€was€ineffective.Ð xÈ ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òConclusionó óóóÐ <"Œ  ÐÌÓ uÓà  àFor€the€forgoing€reasons,€we€find€that€none€of€the€petitionerððs€allegations€merit€relief.€Ð $d" ÐAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.Ð %P # ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àÔ#†X9XXX9U#ÔÔ#†¼Lu»XX9$#ÔÔ€X9X»¼LuÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð œ)ì$( Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE