ÿWPC2 …U.V %„bŠ 0JŽØn­è 0T• 0(éU: w@K 4‹ 0 ™Ÿ 0D8 U:| 0^¶ 0h 0r| 0|î 0†j 0ð 1u€ 0dõ BYB)vDCŸU*â  AMâa D3CfvâÜ 0@¾þ:ÿ¾9µ÷ƒ¬¤/Ó8å )#yF& ¿'v~Ê(vÓH* 0T0 AOo0ƾ0 0D„1 D/È1 B÷1<þ6X9`(CourierX ù2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x¢!«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular !E‘!’!E“!”!E•!–!D—!˜!D™!Ó€Ô¡¨ (I(24$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€XÙXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2, 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% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ØÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌOctober€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó""""'ÿÿdxd \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ ØÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€petitioner's€claim€was€filed€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€PostÏConviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995.€€Accordingly,€we€apply€the€law€as€it€existed€atÏthe€time€his€petition€was€filed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€40„30„101€to€„124Ï(1990€and€Supp.€1994)€(repealed€1995).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÷Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€state€argues€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€point€this€court€to€relevantÏportions€of€the€transcript€to€illustrate€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€its€absence€inÏthe€proceedings€below.€€What€the€state€fails€to€address€is€how€the€petitioner€is€toÏaccomplish€what€it€proposes€in€absence€of€these€documents€in€the€record.Ì 0Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPetitioner€was€not€represented€in€the€proceedings€below€by€the€sameÏcounsel€who€represents€him€before€this€court.Ì ´Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€petitioner€alleges€this€is€his€second€post„conviction€petition,€the€firstÏhaving€been€dismissed€because€it€was€filed€prior€to€the€conclusion€of€his€directÏappeal.€€Thus,€this€is€the€first€time€his€claims€have€been€considered€on€theirÏmerits.Ì «Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€petitioner€apparently€had€a€copy€of€the€trial€transcript.€€His€òòpro€seóóÏpetitions€contain€specific€references€to€the€transcript.€€Likewise,€his€counselÏadmitted€at€the€hearing€he€had€reviewed€the€record€of€the€prior€proceedings.Ì yÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝNot€only€did€the€petitioner€fail€to€present€evidence€on€this€claim,€theÏclaim€is€based€upon€an€erroneous€assumption€of€law.€€See€discussion€of€formerÏCode€section€39„6„1710,€òòinfraóó.Ì šÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€closely€related€issue€was€previously€determined€on€direct€appeal.€ÏThis€court€held€the€trial€court€correctly€ruled€for€the€state€in€allowing€evidence€ofÏthe€prior€conviction€for€impeachment€purposes.€€òòOtha€Bomaróó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€InÏlight€of€this€ruling,€it€requires€sheer€conjecture€to€say€that€absent€trial€counsel'sÏallowing€the€petitioner€to€testify€about€the€prior€conviction,€the€state€would€haveÏforegone€the€opportunity€to€impeach€the€petitioner€on€this€point.Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝHowever,€the€petitioner€presented€evidence€on€the€issue€of€whetherÏappellate€counsel€failed€to€investigate€the€possible€side€effects€from€hisÏprescription€medications.€€He€also€alleged€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€direct€appeal.€€However,Ïeven€though€the€petitioner€did€not€present€evidence€on€the€latter€issue,€post„conviction€counsel€clearly€anticipated€the€trial€court€would€review€the€recordÏand€argued€the€insufficiency€of€the€evidence€would€be€revealed€in€the€record.€ÏWe€discuss€both€of€these€issues€òòinfraóó.€Ì .Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝElsewhere€in€his€petition,€the€petitioner€raised€the€issue€ofÏineffectiveness€of€appellate€counsel€in€failing€to€present€this€issue€on€appeal.€ÏWhile€this€could€arguably€be€construed€as€an€attempt€to€rebut€the€presumptionÏof€waiver,€neither€the€lower€court€nor€this€court€has€been€presented€with€such€anÏargument,€and€we€decline€to€make€the€petitioner's€case€for€him.Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€additional€edification€for€our€holding,€we€point€out€that€trial€counselÏtestified€the€court€had€not€enhanced€the€defendant's€sentence€by€five€yearsÏbecause€of€the€court's€uncertainty€as€to€whether€section€39„6„1710€survived€theÏenactment€of€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€€Trial€counsel's€testimony€onÏthis€point€was€uncontroverted€by€the€petitioner's€evidence,€who€presented€noÏevidence€whatsoever€to€rebut€trial€counsel's€testimony€and€did€not€cross„examine€trial€counsel€about€her€assertion€in€this€regard.€€The€court€could€haveÏproperly€relied€on€trial€counsel's€testimony€in€lieu€of€the€record.€€Ì oÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€correctness€of€the€trial€court's€determinations€on€theseÏissues€is€not€directly€raised€on€appeal,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€court's€findings.€Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝCounsel€did€not€argue€for€review€of€the€record€on€any€other€issue.ÌPtPtHHÚ(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(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔßR€()%A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌó óÌà@ àAUGUST€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òOTHA€BOMAR,à àà à€à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€01C01„9607„CR„00325Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à€ó ó€€€à à)à àHonorable€Walter€C.ÏKurtz,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à à(Post€Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJENNIFER€L.€SMITH€(on€appeal)à àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà0 àà àà àà0 àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€92547ÌNashville,€TN€€37209à àà àà àà àPETER€M.€COUGHLANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌSTEPHEN€F.€WOOD,€JR.€(at€hearing)à àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ424€Church€St.,€Ste.€2000à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌNashville,€TN€€37219Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON€IIIÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKYMBERLY€HAASÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Ave.€North,€Ste.€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€IN€PART,€REMANDEDó óÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÑ€+ÑÇÑ7€òXXdðXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÑ7€ â! XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€appellant,€Otha€Bomar,€appeals€the€Davidson€CountyÏCriminal€Court's€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Bomar€isÏpresently€serving€a€20„year€sentence€for€second€degree€murder.€€òòState€v.€OthaÏBomaróó,€No.€01C01„9203„CC„00065€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€10,Ï1992),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€his€amended€petition,€Bomar€allegedÏhis€conviction€was€infirm€in€numerous€respects.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€lowerÏcourt€found€all€of€his€claims€without€merit.€€In€his€appeal€to€this€court,€BomarÏraises€two€issues.ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà0 à1.à0 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€his€petition€whereÏthe€state€failed€to€file€a€response€to€the€petition€or€thoseÏparts€of€the€record€material€to€the€issues€raised€by€theÏpetition€as€required€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„30„114(a)€and€(b).ÌÌà0 à2.à0 àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€include€findings€ofÏfact€and€conclusions€of€law€on€each€issue€presented€in€itsÏorder€dismissing€the€petition,€contrary€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„30„118(b).ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓOn€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€part,€reverse€in€part,€andÏremand€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àThe€pertinent€facts€are€these.€€The€petitioner€filed€his€post„conviction€action€on€March€6,€1995,× ƒ, ××  ×€and€counsel€was€appointed.€€TheÍpetitioner€filed€two€òòpro€seóó€petitions,€and€his€counsel€filed€an€amended€petition.€ÏContrary€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„104(b),€the€documentsÏsupporting€the€petitioner's€allegations,€particularly€the€record€of€trial€and€directÏappeal,€were€not€attached€to€these€three€petitions.€€Moreover,€no€excuse€wasÏoffered€by€petitioner€or€his€counsel€for€failure€to€attach€the€necessaryÏdocuments.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„104(b)€(1990)€(repealed€1995).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€district€attorney€general€failed€to€file€an€answer€to€the€petition,Ïcontrary€to€the€requirement€of€former€Code€section€40„30„114(a).€€Likewise,€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€failed€to€file€the€records€or€transcripts€which€wereÏmaterial€to€the€petitioner's€allegations€pursuant€to€former€Code€section€œ40„30„114(b),€as€required€where€the€petitioner€has€not€filed€these€documents.›ÌÌà àà àNotwithstanding€the€petitioner's€and€the€state's€collective€failure€toÏfile€the€records€pertaining€to€the€trial€and€direct€appeal€and€the€state's€failure€toÏfile€a€responsive€pleading,€this€matter€came€on€for€hearing€in€the€DavidsonÏCounty€Criminal€Court.€€At€the€beginning€of€the€hearing,€counsel€for€theÏpetitioner€notified€the€court€the€district€attorney€general€had€filed€neither€aÏresponsive€pleading€nor€the€record€of€the€prior€proceedings.€€The€courtÏcommented€the€petitioner€was€not€entitled€to€a€default€judgment€and€the€hearingÏwould€proceed€as€scheduled.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€general€informedÏthe€court,€"The€record€was€sent€to€the€trial€court€pursuant€to€an€order€preparedÏby€the€[p]etitioner's€attorney,"€although€the€court€commented€the€record€had€notÍbeen€received€by€the€clerk.€€€The€petitioner's€counsel€voiced€no€furtherÏobjection,€and€the€hearing€proceeded.€€In€his€summation,€petitioner's€counselÏreferred€to€a€review€of€the€entire€record€as€necessary€to€determine€one€of€theÏissues.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€court€made€specific€findings€of€factÏon€two€of€the€twelve€issues€presented€and€summarily€found€the€other€tenÏ"without€merit"€without€further€elaboration€or€a€review€of€the€trial€record.€ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àFirst,€we€must€determine€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissingÏthe€petitioner's€claims€in€the€absence€of€a€responsive€pleading€from€the€stateÏand€those€parts€of€the€record€material€to€the€issues€raised€by€the€petition.€€TheÏpetitioner€argues€this€was€fatal€error€because€the€district€attorney's€duties€inÏresponding€to€the€petition€and€filing€the€appropriate€documents€were€mandatoryÏunder€former€Code€section€40„30„114.ÌÌòòState's€Failure€to€File€Responsive€PleadingóóÌ€€à àà àAs€to€the€state's€failure€to€file€a€responsive€pleading,€the€petitionerÏalleges€prejudice€from€the€state's€inaction€because€his€counsel€"was€forced€toÏproceed€with€his€proof€without€any€advance€notice€of€the€[s]tate's€position€on€aÏsingle€ground€asserted€in€[the]€post„conviction€petition,"€and€crucial€documentsÏwere€not€available€"to€assist€the€trial€court€at€hearing€and€in€dispos[ing€of€theÏmatter,€and]€to€facilitate€assignment€of€error€by€appellate€counsel€and€review€byÏthis€court."€€In€a€cursory€argument€unsupported€by€citation€to€authority,€the€stateÍclaims€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€thought€at€the€time€of€hearing€theÏstate€had€filed€a€response,€and€in€any€event,€the€petitioner€has€not€alleged€orÏestablished€actual€prejudice€resulting€from€the€state's€oversight.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àà àWe€agree€with€the€state€that€the€petitioner€has€shown€no€prejudiceÏfrom€the€state's€failure€to€file€a€responsive€pleading.€€Petitioner's€counselÏbrought€the€matter€to€the€court's€attention,€but€voiced€no€objection,€announcingÏinstead,€"We're€ready€to€proceed."€€While€we€in€no€way€condone€the€state'sÏdereliction€of€its€statutory€duty,€petitioner€effectively€waived€the€objection€he€nowÏvoices€by€failing€to€object€at€the€hearing.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Additionally,€we€do€not€œsee›€how€theÏpetitioner€has€been€prejudiced€by€the€district€attorney€general's€failure€toÏrespond.€€òòSeeò òóó€ó óòòTonia€Lee€Davenport€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9307„CC„00151,€slipÏop.€at€11„12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Feb.€8,€1995);€òòcfóó.€òòLairron€Rawson€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€01C01„9307„CC„00244,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏJune€2,€1994)€(petitioner€not€entitled€to€relief€based€upon€state's€failure€to€fileÏanswer€in€timely€fashion€absent€showing€of€prejudice).€€As€such,€this€issue€isÏwithout€merit.Ìò òÌòòó óState's€Failure€to€File€Trial€RecordóóÌà àà àNext,€we€must€address€whether€the€petitioner€was€prejudiced€byÏthe€state's€failure€to€fulfill€its€statutory€obligation€to€file€the€relevant€portions€ofÏthe€trial€record.€€We€are€initially€wary€of€the€state's€argument€the€defendant€wasÏnot€prejudiced€by€the€district€attorney€general's€failure€to€file€the€trial€record.€ÏThis€petitioner€is€serving€a€twenty„year€prison€term.€€State€law€allows€him€theÏright€to€have€constitutional€claims€adjudicated€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.× ƒ0 ××  ×€ÏWithout€a€review€of€the€trial€transcript,€some€of€the€petitioner's€claims€of€allegedÏconstitutional€error€may€not€receive€full€consideration€on€their€respective€merits.€€€ÏWhile€the€petitioner€and€his€counsel€should€have€filed€these€documents,× ƒ1 ××  ×€theÏultimate€responsibility€fell€with€the€district€attorney€general.€€òòCompareóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„104(b)€(1990)€(repealed€1995)€(duties€of€petitioner)€òòwithóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„114(b)€(1990)€(repealed€1995)€(duties€of€districtÏattorney€general).€€The€state€argues€the€trial€court€could€remember€whatÏtranspired€at€trial,€and€therefore,€the€record€was€unnecessary.€€What€the€stateÏfails€to€address,€however,€is€how€this€court€is€to€fulfill€its€obligation€of€reviewingÏthe€lower€court's€actions€in€the€absence€of€the€trial€record.€€Nevertheless,€weÏfind€all€but€one€of€the€petitioner's€claims€were€properly€adjudicated€without€theÍtrial€record,€and€as€such,€the€state's€failure€to€file€the€trial€record€requiresÏreversal€and€remand€only€for€consideration€of€that€one€claim.ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€whether€the€petitioner€has€been€prejudiced€by€theÏstate's€failure€to€file€the€trial€record,€we€have€considered€whether€the€petitioner'sÏclaims€are€proper€subjects€for€relief€in€post„conviction€proceedings,€whether€hisÏallegations,€if€true,€would€entitle€him€to€relief,€and€whether€the€record€of€priorÏproceedings€is€necessary€for€an€accurate€determination.€€Where€theseÏquestions€cannot€be€answered€affirmatively,€we€perceive€no€prejudice€to€theÏpetitioner€from€the€district€attorney€general's€failure€to€file€the€relevant€portionsÏof€the€record,€with€the€exception€of€the€last€issue€discussed.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€allegations€are€numerous.€€We€have€categorizedÏthem€€by€our€disposition.ÌÌòòà àIssue€previously€determinedóóÌà àà àOne€of€the€petitioner's€issues€is€whether€his€statement€to€the€policeÏwas€voluntary€despite€the€fact€he€was€on€prescription€medication€at€the€time€heÏgave€it.€€The€petitioner's€prescription€consumption€was€extensively€explored€atÏthe€hearing,€although€the€issue€as€it€relates€to€suppression€of€the€statement€wasÏpreviously€determined€in€the€petitioner's€direct€appeal.€€It€is€not€a€proper€subjectÏfor€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„112(a)€(1990)Ï(repealed€1995).€€Thus,€this€claim€was€not€a€proper€one€for€post„convictionÍrelief,€and€the€absence€of€the€record€is€of€no€consequence.ÌÌòòà àIssues€on€which€petitioner€failed€to€present€evidenceóóÌà àà àDespite€raising€numerous€allegations€of€ineffectiveness€ofÏcounsel,€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€evidence€on€many€of€them:€(a)€failing€toÏfile€a€motion€attacking€the€indictment,× ƒ2 ××  ×€(b)€failing€to€develop€proof€at€trialÏnegating€the€element€of€intent,€(c)€failing€to€frame€special€requests€forÏinstructions€regarding€the€petitioner's€use€of€prescription€medications€asÏnegating€intent€and€giving€rise€to€diminished€capacity,€and€(d)€allowing€theÏpetitioner€to€testify€about€a€prior€conviction€during€direct€exam,€thereby€waivingÏthe€issue€of€the€conviction's€admissibility.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€The€petitioner€did€not€establish€thatÏtrial€counsel€failed€to€take€these€actions€as€a€result€of€unpreparedness,Ïincompetence,€or€other€such€reasons€which€would€support€a€finding€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€As€to€those€claims,€he€did€not€carry€theÏburden€of€proof.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983)€(petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€his€post„conviction€allegations€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence).€The€petitioner€has€not€explained,€and€we€failÍto€see,€how€the€trial€record€would€be€illustrative€of€these€claims,€particularly€inÏthe€absence€of€trial€counsel€addressing€these€issues€during€his€testimony€at€theÏevidentiary€hearing.€€The€petitioner€has€accordingly€failed€to€demonstrateÏprejudice€from€the€absence€of€the€record.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€appellateÏcounsel€is€general€and€sweeping.€€Near€the€end€of€a€twelve€page€amendedÏpetition,€he€merely€alleges,€"The€petitioner€was€denied€effective€assistance€ofÏappellate€counsel€by€the€failure€of€appointed€appellate€counsel€to€brief€andÏargue,€or€submit€a€supplemental€brief,€concerning€the€foregoing€issues."€€ForÏthe€most€part,€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€evidence€supporting€this€broadÏallegation.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€By€failing€to€substantiate€those€issues€through€supportingÏevidence,€or€at€least€present€argument€with€reference€to€the€record€heÏapparently€anticipated€would€be€filed,€the€petitioner€failed€to€carry€his€burden€ofÏproof.€€As€such,€the€lower€court€properly€disposed€of€these€claims€withoutÏreference€to€the€record.€€The€petitioner€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€court's€action.ÌÌòòà àIssue€waived€by€failing€to€raise€it€in€earlier€proceedingsóóÌà àà àThe€petitioner€claims€he€has€suffered€constitutional€injury€in€thatÏthe€convicting€evidence€was€insufficient€to€prove€his€guilt€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€No€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€was€raised€on€directÏappeal.€€The€question€of€whether€challenges€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÏare€not€proper€subjects€for€post„conviction€review€is€a€subject€of€some€debate€inÏthis€state.€€òòCompare,€e.g.óó,€òòRhoden€v.€Stateóó,€816€S.W.2d€56,€61€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1991)€(sufficiency€question€not€proper€subject€of€post„conviction€review)€òòwithóóÏòòJohn€Wayne€Slate€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9201„CR„00014€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€Apr.€27,€1994)€(sufficiency€of€evidence€review€is€proper€on€post„conviction€review€under€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.€Ct.€2781Ï(1979)),€òòperm.€app.€denied€concurring€in€results€onlyóó€(Tenn.€1994)).€€In€the€caseÏat€bar,€the€petitioner€did€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€hisÏdirect€appeal.€€Under€the€post„conviction€law€applicable€to€this€case,€an€issueÏwhich€could€have€been€but€was€not€raised€in€an€earlier€proceeding,€i.e.€a€directÏappeal,€is€presumed€to€have€been€waived€for€purposes€of€post„convictionÏscrutiny.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(1990)€(repealed€1995).€€In€this€case,Ïthe€petitioner€made€no€direct€allegation€why€his€claim€was€not€waived€by€hisÏfailure€to€pursue€it€on€direct€appeal.€€Accordingly,€he€has€not€overcome€theÏpresumption€this€claim€is€waived.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Thus,€the€record€is€not€dispositive.ÌÌòòà àIssues€based€upon€erroneous€interpretations€of€lawóóÌà àà àThe€petitioner€claims€he€was€impermissibly€convicted€andÏsentenced€to€an€additional€five€years€based€upon€the€use€of€a€firearm€during€theÏcommission€of€a€felony,€per€former€Code€section€39„6„1710.€€(The€petitionerÏincorrectly€cites€to€section€39„6„11710,€a€non„existent€Code€section€under€priorÏlaw.)€€He€claims€òòState€v.€Bottenfieldóó,€692€S.W.2d€447€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985),Ïstruck€section€39„6„1710€in€all€cases€arising€on€or€after€July€1,€1982.€€TheÏpetitioner€misapprends€òòBottenfieldóó,€which€struck€òòonlyóó€subsection€(a)(2)€of€39„6„1710,€which€had€to€do€with€suspension,€deferment,€withholding€or€parole€of€theÏfive€year€sentence€enhancement€of€39„6„1710.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€William€F.ÏComeróó,€No.€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€17,€1984).€€Similarly,€theÏpetitioner€also€claims€he€should€not€have€received€an€additional€five€yearÏsentence€for€use€of€a€firearm€because€the€jury€had€been€allowed€to€infer€maliceÏfrom€his€use€of€a€firearm,€thereby€making€it€an€essential€element€of€the€offenseÏof€second€degree€murder.€€This€argument€has€been€rejected€by€this€court.€€òòStateÏv.€Chamblessóó,€682€S.W.2d€227,€232„33€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€Clearly,€theseÏallegations€are€based€upon€erroneous€assumptions€of€law€and€do€not€warrantÏrelief.€€Any€issue€of€fact€which€might€be€illustrated€in€the€record€would€beÏirrelevant,€as€these€are€strictly€legal€issues.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Thus,€the€court€did€not€err€inÍdetermining€these€issues€in€the€absence€of€the€record.ÌÌòòà àOther€claims€which€were€appropriately€considered€without€the€recordóóÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€claimed€the€jury€was€improperly€instructedÏregarding€possible€punishments€he€faced€if€convicted.€€The€lower€court€foundÏthat€even€if€the€jury€had€been€instructed€as€the€petitioner€alleged,€any€error€wasÏharmless€because€it€informed€the€jury€the€petitioner€would€face€a€greaterÏsentence€than€the€law€actually€provided€for€the€offenses€on€which€the€jury€wasÏinstructed.€€As€such,€the€petitioner€had€not€established€that€he€was€harmed€byÏthe€instruction€or€that€this€it€would€change€the€result€of€the€jury's€finding€of€guilt.€ÏBy€assuming€the€petitioner's€allegation€of€defective€instructions€was€true,€theÏcourt€avoided€the€need€to€refer€to€the€trial€record.€€The€petitioner€is€hardly€in€aÏposition€to€complain.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€record€was€notÏnecessary€for€determination€of€this€issue.€€As€such,€the€court€did€not€err€in€rulingÏwithout€the€record.ÌÌà àà àLikewise,€the€petitioner's€allegation€of€ineffective€assistanceÏarising€from€trial€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€absence€of€such€instructions€isÏcapable€of€determination€without€the€record.€€The€court€did€not€err€in€dismissingÏthis€claim€without€review€of€the€record.ÌÌà àà àThe€allegations€which€consumed€much€of€the€testimony€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing€related€to€the€alleged€ineffectiveness€of€trial€counsel€inÏfailing€to€call€an€expert€to€testify€at€the€suppression€hearing€regarding€the€sideÏeffects€of€Prednisone,€one€of€the€prescription€medications€the€petitioner€wasÏtaking€when€he€gave€his€statement€to€law€enforcement,€and€the€ineffectivenessÏof€appellate€counsel€in€failing€to€research€these€side€effects€and€presentÏadditional€evidence€during€the€appellate€process.€€Trial€and€appellate€counselÏwere€thoroughly€examined€about€these€issues€at€the€hearing.€€The€court€foundÏcounsel€had€rendered€effective€assistance.€€These€claims€are€easily€andÏappropriately€determined€without€the€trial€record,€in€that€abundant€testimonyÏwas€offered€at€the€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòMarcellous€Bond€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9412„CC„00274,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€June€7,€1995)€(eitherÏtestimony€of€trial€counsel€or€the€record€of€prior€proceedings€is€necessary€toÏdetermine€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€€The€petition€made€no€showing€that€the€trial€record€would€be€furtherÏillustrative€on€this€particular€issue.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€As€such,€the€petitioner's€claim€the€recordÏwas€necessary€for€consideration€of€these€issues€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌòòà àRemaining€issueóóÌà àà àThe€final€claim€raised€by€the€petitioner's€pleadings€is€whetherÏappellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence€on€appeal.€€The€petitioner€failed€to€question€appellateÏcounsel€about€his€failure€to€raise€the€sufficiency€question;€however,€theÏpetitioner's€counsel€argued€in€his€summation€that€the€record€would€reflect€theÏinsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€€His€statements€clearly€indicate€heÏanticipated€the€record€would€be€reviewed€on€the€sufficiency€issue.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€A€review€ofÏthe€evidence€is€necessary€in€order€to€determine€the€underlying€question€forÏdetermining€whether€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective.€€In€this€case,€the€recordÏof€this€proceeding€fails€to€reflect€that€the€lower€court€reviewed€the€convictingÏevidence€prior€to€making€its€ruling.€€To€be€sure,€the€record€supports€a€contraryÏconclusion.€€As€a€result,€we€must€reverse€and€remand€the€matter€in€part€for€aÏdetermination€based€upon€a€review€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial.€€OnÏremand,€the€sole€question€to€be€answered€by€the€trial€court€is€whether€appellateÏcounsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€convictingÏevidence€on€direct€appeal.ÌÌà àà àIn€summary,€despite€the€district€attorney€general's€failure€to€file€theÏrecord,€which€we€in€no€way€condone,€the€petitioner€raised€only€one€claim€whichÏmet€the€threshold€requirements€for€compelling€consideration€in€conjunction€withÏthe€record€of€prior€proceedings.€€The€lower€court's€determination€of€that€loneÏissue€is€reversed€and€remanded€for€consideration€in€conjunction€with€theÍevidence.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€petitioner€claims€the€trial€court€committedÏreversible€error€by€failing€to€make€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€in€itsÏorder€of€dismissal.€€The€state€has€chosen€not€to€respond€to€this€argument€in€itsÏbrief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(b)€(requiring€appellee€to€include€argument€in€itsÏbrief€on€the€issues€before€the€court).ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€is€correct€that€the€trial€court€is€required€to€makeÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€in€its€order€adjudicating€the€issuesÏpresented.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b)€(1990)€(repealed€1995).€€TheÏfailure€to€do€so,€however,€does€not€necessarily€mandate€reversal.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòState€v.€Higginsóó,€729€S.W.2d€288€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,Ï680€S.W.2d€487€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€In€this€case,€the€court€made€oralÏfindings€on€some€of€the€issues,€which€were€incorporated€by€reference€by€theÏdismissal€order.€€This€procedure€is€not€inappropriate.€€òòHigginsóó,€729€S.W.2d€atÏ290„91.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€find€it€troublesome,€however,€that€the€trial€court€summarilyÏdismissed€many€of€the€petitioner's€claims,€stating€without€elaboration€they€wereÏ"without€merit."€€Such€action€deprives€this€court€of€the€opportunity€to€examineÏthe€reasons€behind€the€trial€court's€determination.€€However,€as€we€haveÍdiscussed€above,€most€of€the€petitioner's€claims€were€previously€determined,Ïwaived,€or€otherwise€not€properly€before€the€court€for€disposition.€€Any€failure€toÏmake€findings€as€to€those€claims€was€harmless€error.ÌÌà àà àThere€are€two€claims€which€warrant€further€scrutiny.€€First,€the€Ïpetitioner€presented€proof€regarding€whether€appellate€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏin€failing€to€investigate€his€medication€side€effects€and€to€present€evidence€onÏthis€issue€in€the€appellate€process.€€Although€the€court€did€not€specificallyÏaddress€this€claim,€he€found€the€petitioner€failed€to€carry€the€burden€of€proof€asÏto€òòtrial€counsel'sóó€alleged€ineffectiveness€in€challenging€the€voluntariness€of€theÏstatement€because€of€medication€side€effects.€€€The€petitioner's€evidence€on€theÏissue€of€ineffectiveness€of€both€trial€and€appellate€counsel€in€this€regardÏconsisted€of€introduction€of€an€excerpt€from€the€òòPhysicians'€Desk€ReferenceóóÏdetailing€the€drug€Prednisone,€the€testimony€of€trial€and€appellate€counsel.€€HeÏdid€not€offer€any€expert€evidence€that€he€actually€suffered€the€side€effects,€andÏin€fact,€trial€counsel€testified€the€petitioner's€treating€physician€would€haveÏtestified€the€petitioner€had€not€suffered€any€side€effects.€€In€explaining€why€heÏdid€not€pursue€this€matter,€appellate€counsel€correctly€testified€that€this€court€isÏone€of€appellate€review,€and€as€such,€is€limited€to€consideration€of€matters€ofÏrecord.€€Further,€appellate€counsel€was€bound€by€the€action€or€inaction€of€trialÏcounsel€in€this€regard.€€We€find€there€is€only€one€conclusion€that€could€be€drawnÏfrom€this€evidence,€particularly€in€light€of€the€lower€court's€finding€the€evidenceÏwas€insufficient€as€to€the€companion€claim€against€trial€counsel€„„€the€petitionerÍhas€failed€to€establish€ineffectiveness€of€appellate€counsel.€€Thus,€the€trial€courtÏreached€the€correct€conclusion.€€As€such,€the€court's€failure€to€make€findings,Ïthough€error,€is€harmless€and€does€not€require€reversal.ÌÌà àà àThe€second€issue€on€which€the€lower€court€failed€to€make€findingsÏwhich€warrants€further€scrutiny€is€whether€the€appellate€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏfor€failing€to€raise€the€question€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€on€direct€appeal.€€InÏlight€of€our€remand€for€consideration€of€that€issue€on€the€evidence,€we€direct€theÏcourt€on€remand€to€memorialize€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€inÏaccord€with€former€Code€section€40„35„118(b).ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part,Ïand€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOSEPH€H.€WALKER,€III,€SPECIAL€€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ