ÿWPC‰# NÌõ‚…×2Ã8ý¾,ñË{#À¬s§´µçz/&!Ã=ýɦ¥‚&gø®øÍç6Ah’Á²ŽÃ…åuÄWÑÈ#Vt¾$-áÜ*õ§r¼z-NjŒgØýÐä%=‘ËÌÞ=“Ò&y.@õUL9Üõx»k3ÇbƒœŠàrLÖ“b­isnÖ´á~%>ðú¤þSs13]R߂☳7ŽbØyª 32´ê{Z|¢ãMþ<ù™–TX#ÇP,®ëå²ûî"Ë;ý<ûínävÞ•@øQÎÇ!‘Xš‘¥6Ÿò娪H¨TZÔÝþÝ:†žÇЮèÍŒ¡Ä‡½<áE¿úKbßH1ÂtŠPî'áv¿F"¬c¥cЈs=ä°§|öY¿–oJù²ÚW¡oî+í “¨ÕºB.®Jk K±”L¢/§Âç=æ‚ùîµÊZódÝ– åYZç-€ë!Ò¯- ï†yC…Ë—Ž<Ñb‘êBîæKš0Hh r.K÷ÈÉÍ}¸#ùcR£²åòž„ˆ‰ƒø2}4x÷tè@%rpy3­EiAÌ3"ÎÊÍ øÅ¢á\K¼¥}Í%5¢÷”w^…ÛYó³ê7Ý“[2ž÷ÊOÄ\ˇ£Àð>ty&oE_b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ Ï™ Æh Æ.Æôƺ 0D€NÄFÆ E!Ž#A±±Šòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòb|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0ë„„„„ Boo 0¤Œ D50 D-e 0K’ ’ ASÝ Æ0! 0¤ö! 0Dš" A«Þ"˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»´œ1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ~‰/ê:i¢×+00 ˜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.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ÅÝ ƒRk$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKuehlððs€blood,€by€contrast,€tested€negative€for€drugs€and€alcohol.€€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó <Ý ƒRk$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„218€provides€in€pertinent€part€that€ð ð[a]ggravated€vehicular€homicideÐ ° Ðis€vehicular€homicide,€as€defined€in€ðð€39„13„213(a)(2),€where€.€.€.€[t]here€was€at€the€time€of€the€offense€twenty„Ð qÁ Ðhundredths€of€one€percent€(.20%),€or€more,€by€weight€of€alcohol€in€the€defendantððs€blood€and€the€defendant€has€one€(1)Ð 2‚ Ðprior€conviction€for€.€.€.€[d]riving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„218(a)(3)€(1997€&Ð óC Ð2003).€Vehicular€homicide€is€defined€as€ð ðthe€reckless€killing€of€another€by€the€operation€of€an€automobile€.€.€.€(1)€[a]sÐ ´ Ðthe€proximate€result€of€conduct€creating€a€substantial€risk€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury€to€a€person;€or€(2)€[a]s€theÐ uÅ Ðproximate€result€of€the€driverððs€intoxication€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„213(a)€(1997€&€2003).€€ Ý ƒRk$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€petitionerððs€first€trial€ended€in€a€mistrial,€apparently€due€to€a€comment€made€by€one€of€the€StateððsÐ ° Ðwitnesses. „Ý ƒRk$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€issue€in€òòFarneróó€was€ð ðwhether€Tennessee€law€recognizes€a€co„perpetrator€rule€which€bars€the€defendantððsÐ ° Ðconvictions€for€criminally€negligent€homicide€on€the€basis€that€the€victims€were€co„participants€in€the€drag€race.ðð€€66Ð qÁ ÐS.W.3d€at€191.€€The€court€concluded€that€there€was€no€such€co„perpetrator€rule€in€Tennessee,€but€reversed€theÐ 2‚ Ðconvictions€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial€due€to€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€issue€an€instruction€on€proximate€cause€inÐ óC Ðconnection€with€the€instructions€on€criminally€negligent€homicide,€noting€that€the€trial€court€provided€the€jury€with€anÐ ´ Ðinstruction€on€proximate€result€in€conjunction€with€the€instructions€on€vehicular€homicide,€but€that€ð ðno€similarÐ uÅ Ðinstructions€were€given€as€to€criminally€negligent€homicide,€nor€was€the€jury€referred€to€the€instructions€on€proximateÐ 6 † ‘ Ðresult€previously€given.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€204€n.14.€€ 7Ý ƒRk$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶äò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€opinion€has€been€withdrawn€and€superseded€by€òòState€v.€Chester€Wayne€Waltersóó,€No.€M2003„03019„CCA„Ð ° ÐR3„CD,€2004€WL€2726034€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€30,€2004). McLinFarnerBlakely P.J.ChismZadie DUIKuelh&reconstructionistLetnerGroseRuanetend[ed n]otTidwellHellard t]herecusedApprendiTeagueMackeySchriroSummerlinaggravatorsfactfindersPetschldiminishe[d S.W.a]ggravatedt]hered]riving a]sKuehl- ù-(|G2k$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¶äò»»Ô d(|3@µ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3@µ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Á»»»ÔÑ8€ÛXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îwÁÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Á»îîw#ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€à @ àà @` àSeptember€14,€2004Ð öF ÐÔ‡XÛX»¼ÁÔÌò òÔ#†¼Á»XXÛ1#ÔDONALD€BRANCHòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XÛX»¼ÁÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„26612€€€€€€J.€C.€McLin,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„03042„CCA„R3„PC€€„€Filed€December€21,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Donald€Branch,€appeals€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€from€hisÐ V¦  Ðaggravated€vehicular€homicide€convictions,€arguing€that€trial€and€appellate€counsel€were€ineffectiveÐ ? Ðfor€failing€to€cite€reported€criminal€law€cases€when€arguing€for€a€jury€instruction€on€proximateÐ (x Ðcausation€and€that€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€supplement€his€appellate€brief€withÐ a ÐòòState€v.€Farneróó,€66€S.W.3d€188Ô#†¼Á»XXÛ #ÔÔ‡XÛX»¼ÁÔ€(Tenn.€2001),€and€for€failing€to€raise€as€an€issue€on€direct€appeal€theÐ úJ Ðtrial€judgeððs€refusal€to€recuse€himself.€€While€the€post„conviction€appeal€was€pending,€the€petitionerÐ ã3 Ðsought€and€received€permission€to€raise€as€an€additional€issue€the€impact€of€the€United€StatesÐ Ì ÐSupreme€Courtððs€òòBlakely€v.€Washingtonóó€opinion€on€the€sentencing€in€his€case.€€Having€thoroughlyÐ µ Ðreviewed€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€not€met€his€burden€of€demonstrating€eitherÐ žî Ða€deficiency€in€counselððs€representation€or€€resulting€prejudice€to€his€case.€€We€further€conclude€thatÐ ‡× ÐòòBlakelyóó€does€not€apply€retroactively€to€cases€on€collateral€appeal.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€post„Ð pÀ Ðconviction€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition.€Ð Y© ÐÔ#†¼Á»XXÛõ#ÔÔ‡XÛX»¼ÁÔÓ¾ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ +{ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Á»àXÛ¼ #ÔÔ‡XÛX.¼ÁÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.,óó€and€òòNormaÐ þN ÐMcGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ç 7  ÐÌLance€R.€Chism,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Donald€Branch.Ð ¹" " ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ‹$Û$ ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Stephanie€Johnson,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ t%Ä % ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ô#†¼Á»XXÛˆ #ÔÔ‡XÛX»¼ÁԀР]&­!& ÐÓY ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Á»XXÛ #ÔÔ‡XÛX»¼ÁÔÐ /(#( ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Á»XXÛ‘#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÛX»¼ÁÔÌà@¥¥(ìàò òòòFACTSóóó óˆÐ *R%* ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€jury€of€two€counts€ofÐ Õ+%', Ðaggravated€vehicular€homicide,€a€Class€A€felony,€and€one€count€of€driving€while€license€revoked,Ð ¾,(- Ða€Class€B€misdemeanor,€and€was€sentenced,€respectively,€to€consecutive€terms€of€twenty„four€years;Ð §-÷(.ý ÐÔ_Ôtwenty„four€years,€six€months;€and€six€months,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€forty„nine€years€in€theÐ ° ÐDepartment€of€Correction.€€òòState€v.€Donald€W.€Branchóó,€No.€W1999„00506„CCA„R3„CD,€2002€WLÐ ™é Ð1558485,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€4,€2002),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€May€28,€2002).€€OnÐ ‚Ò Ðdirect€appeal,€this€court€affirmed€the€convictions€but€reduced€one€of€the€aggravated€vehicularÐ k» Ðhomicide€sentences€by€six€months,€for€a€total€effective€sentence€of€forty„eight€years,€six€months€inÐ T¤ Ðconfinement.€€òòId.Ð =  ÐÌà  àóóThe€petitionerððs€convictions€stemmed€from€his€May€30,€1997,€alcohol„related€collision€withÐ  _ Ða€green€Saturn€at€the€intersection€of€Highway€64€and€Houston€Levy€and€Canada€Roads€in€ShelbyÐ ø H ÐCounty,€which€resulted€in€the€deaths€of€the€occupants€of€the€Saturn,€Stephanie€Kuehl€and€her€six„Ð á 1  Ðmonth„old€daughter,€Zadie.€€òòId.óó€at€*2.€€At€approximately€5:30€p.m.€that€afternoon,€the€defendant€wasÐ Ê   Ðspeeding€westbound€in€his€vehicle€on€four„lane€Highway€64,€hurrying€to€arrive€on€time€for€hisÐ ³  Ðweekend€service€at€the€penal€farm€for€a€prior€DUI€conviction,€when€he€struck€Kuehlððs€vehicle€as€sheÐ œì  Ðwas€crossing€the€highway€from€Houston€Levy€to€Canada€Road.€€òòId.óó€at€**2„3,€*9.€€Upon€his€arrivalÐ …Õ  Ðat€the€hospital,€the€petitionerððs€blood€alcohol€level€was€.22.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòId.óó€at€*6.€€In€addition,€the€testimonyÐ n¾  Ðof€other€motorists€who€saw€the€petitionerððs€vehicle€just€prior€to€the€fatal€wreck€established€that€heÐ W§  Ðwas€driving€recklessly,€weaving€in€and€out€of€traffic,€coming€up€close€behind€vehicles,€passing€inÐ @ Ðthe€left€turn€lane,€and€traveling€well€in€excess€of€the€posted€55„mile„per„hour€speed€limit,€atÐ )y Ðestimated€speeds€ranging€from€80€to€100€miles€per€hour.€€òòId.óó€at€**2„4.€€Ð b ÐÌà  àFurther€evidence€in€support€of€the€convictions€was€provided€by€a€University€of€TennesseeÐ ä4 ÐProfessor€of€Civil€Engineering,€who€testified€the€petitioner€was€driving€approximately€80€miles€perÐ Í Ðhour€at€the€time€of€impact,€and€by€an€accident€reconstructionist€òòóóemployed€by€the€Michigan€StateÐ ¶ ÐPolice,€who€offered€the€following€findings€and€conclusions€summarized€in€the€direct€appeal€opinion:€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[The€petitionerððs]€vehicle€was€traveling€a€minimum€speed€of€76€milesÐ qÁ Ðper€hour€(112€feet/second)€upon€impact€with€the€victimsðð€vehicle;€theÐ Zª Ðvictims€were€traveling€at€approximately€17€miles€per€hour€at€impact;Ð C“ Ðno€pre„impact€skid€marks€were€created€by€[the€petitionerððs]€vehicle;Ð ,| Ðthe€intersection€is€visible€from€at€least€760€feet€when€travelingÐ e Ðwestward;€if€[the€petitionerððs]€vehicle€had€been€traveling€at€70€milesÐ þN Ðper€hour,€it€would€have€missed€impacting€the€victimsðð€vehicle€by€57Ð ç 7 Ðfeet;€if€[the€petitioner]€had€begun€to€apply€his€brakes€at€the€pointÐ Ð!   Ðwhen€the€intersection€was€visible,€it€would€have€taken€4.67€secondsÐ ¹" ! Ðto€stop;€and€the€angle€of€impact€with€the€victimsðð€vehicle€was€107Ð ¢#ò" Ðdegrees€(in€other€words,€[the€petitionerððs]€vehicle€was€turned€slightlyÐ ‹$Û# Ðto€the€right€on€impact).€Ðt%Ä $` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€*7.Ð F'–"& Ðâ âÐ /(#' Ðà  àThe€petitionerððs€trial€strategy€included€an€attempt€to€show€that€the€accident€resulted€not€fromÐ ° Ðâ âhis€reckless€or€impaired€driving,€but€instead€from€òòóóKuehlððs€negligence€in€crossing€the€highway€inÐ ™é Ðfront€of€his€oncoming€vehicle.€€In€support,€he€relied€on€the€testimony€of€two€witnesses:€a€driver€whoÐ ‚Ò Ðwas€traveling€in€the€right€westbound€lane€of€Highway€64€and€preparing€to€turn€right€onto€CanadaÐ k» ÐRoad€at€the€time€of€the€wreck,€who€testified€that€Kuehl€came€to€a€ð ðrolling€stopðð€at€the€stop€sign€onÐ T¤ ÐHouston€Levy€before€starting€across€the€highway,€and€a€driver€who€was€adjacent€to€Kuehl€onÐ =  ÐHouston€Levy€waiting€to€turn€left,€who€testified€he€saw€the€petitionerððs€vehicle€approaching€fromÐ & v Ðthe€east€ð ðvery€fastðð€as€Kuehl€began€to€cross€the€highway€and€uttered€the€words,€ð ðOh€no,€donððt€doÐ  _ Ðthatðð€when€he€saw€her€continue€across.€€òòId.óó€at€**3„4.€€In€accordance€with€this€strategy,€trial€counselÐ ø H Ðproposed€that€a€special€instruction€be€given€in€conjunction€with€the€ð ðproximate€resultðð€language€ofÐ á 1  Ðthe€aggravated€vehicular€homicide€statute,€in€order€that€the€jury€might€ð ðconsider€whether€[Kuehlððs]Ð Ê   Ðbehavior€constituted€a€ððsuperceding€intervening€cause.ðððð€€òòId.óó€at€*15.€€Specifically,€counsel€requestedÐ ³  Ðthat€the€jury€be€instructed€that€it€must€find€that€the€petitionerððs€actions€were€the€ð ðproximate€causeÐ œì  Ðof€the€result,ðð€or,€in€the€alternative,€that€the€petitionerððs€actions€ð ðconstituted€the€proximate€cause€ofÐ …Õ  Ðthe€killing(s).ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€denied€the€request,€and€the€petitioner€unsuccessfully€raised,€as€anÐ n¾  Ðissue€on€direct€appeal,€the€denial€to€give€the€requested€instruction.€€òòId.óó€at€**15„16.€€The€trial€courtÐ W§  Ðhad€instructed€the€jury€on€a€motoristððs€duty€to€stop€at€a€stop€sign€before€proceeding€with€cautionÐ @ Ðthrough€an€intersection,€and€to€yield€the€right„of„way€to€a€vehicle€traveling€on€a€through€highway.€Ð )y ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€July€19,€2002,€followed€byÐ ûK Ðseveral€amended€petitions€after€post„conviction€counsel€was€appointed.€€In€both€his€òòpro€seóó€andÐ ä4 Ðamended€petitions,€the€petitioner€alleged€numerous€instances€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð Í ÐHowever,€on€appeal€to€this€court€he€confines€himself€to€arguing€that€trial€and€appellate€counsel€wereÐ ¶ Ðineffective€for€not€citing€reported€criminal€law€cases€when€arguing€for€the€instruction€on€proximateÐ Ÿï Ðcausation;€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€supplementing€his€appellate€brief€with€òòState€v.Ð ˆØ ÐFarneróó,€66€S.W.3d€188€(Tenn.€2001),€which€was€released€during€the€pendency€of€the€appeal;€andÐ qÁ Ðappellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€raising€the€issue€of€the€trial€judgeððs€failure€to€recuse€himselfÐ Zª Ðon€direct€appeal.€€Accordingly,€we€will€limit€our€summary€of€the€fairly€lengthy€evidentiary€hearingÐ C“ Ðto€the€testimony€and€arguments€relating€to€those€three€allegations.€Ð ,| ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€was€represented€both€at€trial€and€on€appeal€by€the€Shelby€County€PublicÐ þN ÐDefenderððs€Office.€€Appellate€counsel€testified€at€the€September€25,€2003,€evidentiary€hearing€thatÐ ç 7 Ðhe€had€been€licensed€to€practice€law€since€1978€and€had€been€practicing€as€an€appellate€attorney€forÐ Ð!   Ðover€twenty€years.€€He€testified€he€read€ð ðevery€ounceðð€of€the€trial€transcript,€researched€every€issueÐ ¹" ! Ðâ âraised€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€and€relied€on€his€experience€as€an€appellate€attorney€toÐ ¢#ò" Ðdetermine€which€issues€to€raise€on€appeal.€€His€decision€not€to€raise€the€recusal€issue€was€one€ofÐ ° Ðstrategy,€based€on€his€belief€that€it€did€not€have€any€real€merit.€€€€€€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àAppellate€counsel€agreed€that€the€jury€instruction€on€proximate€causation€was€one€of€the€keyÐ k» Ðissues€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€He€acknowledged€he€cited€civil€cases€in€his€appellate€brief€in€supportÐ T¤ Ðof€his€argument€on€that€issue,€and€he€did€not€cite€the€reported€criminal€cases€of€òòLetner€v.€Stateóó,€299Ð =  ÐS.W.€1049€(Tenn.€1927);€òòCopeland€v.€Stateóó,€285€S.€W.€565€(Tenn.€1926);€òòState€v.€Groseóó,€982€S.W.2dÐ & v Ð349€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€or€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€Ð  _ ÐòòóóHowever,€he€did€not€think€that€those€cases,€all€of€which€he€had€read€ð ðat€one€time€or€another,ðð€wereÐ ø H Ðon€point,€as€they€addressed€the€concept€of€superceding€and€intervening€causes€in€general€homicideÐ á 1  Ðcases€and€not€the€specific€issue€of€whether€proximate€cause€was€the€appropriate€test€to€be€appliedÐ Ê   Ðin€a€vehicular€homicide€case.€€As€for€not€supplementing€his€brief€with€a€discussion€of€the€òòFarneróóÐ ³  Ðopinion,€appellate€counsel€testified€he€assumed€ð ðthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€actually€read€theÐ œì  ÐSupreme€Court€opinions€as€they€come€out.ðð€€Furthermore,€although€he€found€the€case€relevant€in€itsÐ …Õ  Ðdefinition€of€intervening€and€superceding€causes,€he€did€not€think€it€was€ð ðon€all€fours€with€regardÐ n¾  Ðto€whether€Vehicular€Homicide€required€proximate€causation.ððÐ W§  ÐÌà  àJunior€trial€counsel€testified€he€had€been€licensed€for€seven€years,€had€participated€in€overÐ )y Ðtwenty€criminal€trials,€and€had€handled€ð ðthousandsðð€of€criminal€cases€during€his€years€with€theÐ b Ðpublic€defenderððs€office€and€in€his€current€private€practice,€which€consisted€of€approximately€95%Ð ûK Ðcriminal€defense€work.€€He€said€he€and€senior€trial€counsel€did€not€believe€the€pattern€juryÐ ä4 Ðinstruction€on€proximate€result€adequately€defined€ð ðproximate€result€versus€proximate€causeðð€and,Ð Í Ðfor€that€reason,€had€argued€at€length€for€an€instruction€that€ð ðtend[ed]€more€towards€the€civilÐ ¶ Ðstandard.ðð€€Junior€trial€counsel€testified€he€thoroughly€researched€the€issue,€but€was€simply€unableÐ Ÿï Ðto€find€much€case€law€in€support€of€their€argument:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWhat€I€can€recall€is€that€from€the€beginning€on€this€case,€IððmÐ Zª Ðpretty€sure€there€wasnððt€a€lot€of€authority€on€Aggravated€VehicularÐ C“ ÐHomicide€and€very€little€as€to€this€issue€on€Vehicular€Homicide,€theÐ ,| Ðmore€„€„€frankly€more€common€crime€in€Tennessee.€€There€was€someÐ e Ðspeculation€about€whether€this€was€the€first€Aggravated€VehicularÐ þN ÐHomicide€case€in€Tennessee€that€went€to€trial€after€they€passed€thatÐ ç 7 Ðstatute.€€We€spoke€with€„„€I€know€that€we€conferred€with€[appellateÐ Ð!   Ðcounsel]€from€the€beginning€about€how€the€case€law€works€on€this,Ð ¹" ! Ðhad€done€some€research€and€didnððt€find€anything€that€was€clearly€onÐ ¢#ò" Ðpoint€for€this€crime€and€that€issue.€Ð‹$Û#` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAnd€as€to€those€cases,€I€donððt€believe€those€were€all€evenÐ ]&­!% ÐVehicular€Homicide€cases€that€you€cited.€€But€Iððm€not€familiar€withÐ F'–"& Ðthem€word€by€word.€€Iððm€not€going€to€pretend€that€I€am.€€But€I€knowÐ /(#' Ðthat€we€looked€at€that€issue€extensively€and€tried€to€find€somethingÐ )h$( Ðclearly€on€point€and€did€not.€Ð*Q%)` x` x Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* Ðà  àAlthough€junior€trial€counsel€was€unsure€how€many€hours€he€spent€researching€the€specificÐ ° Ðâ âissue€of€proximate€cause,€he€testified€that€the€total€time€he€spent€on€the€case,€which€he€recorded€onÐ ™é Ðthe€file€jacket,€eventually€covered€six,€full€legal„sized€pages.€€He€said€that€both€he€and€senior€trialÐ ‚Ò Ðcounsel€met€regularly€with€the€petitioner€and€kept€him€fully€informed€on€the€case,€including€theÐ k» Ðcharges€he€was€facing,€the€elements€of€the€offenses,€and€their€defense€strategy.€Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àSenior€trial€counsel€testified€she€was€admitted€to€the€bar€in€1991€and€had€tried€ð ðprobably€atÐ & v Ðleast€100ðð€cases,€with€20€to€25€before€a€jury,€during€the€eight€years€she€had€worked€in€the€PublicÐ  _ ÐDefenderððs€Office.€€Junior€trial€counsel€researched€the€proximate€cause€issue,€and€they€discussed€itÐ ø H Ðwith€appellate€counsel.€€They€could€not€find€any€cases€on€point€and,€€therefore,€believed€their€caseÐ á 1  Ðwas€one€of€first€impression,€presenting€issues€that€had€not€been€litigated€before.€€Senior€trial€counselÐ Ê   Ðtestified€she€established€a€good€rapport€with€the€petitioner,€whom€she€described€as€ð ðveryÐ ³  Ðcooperative,ðð€and€ð ðone€of€the€easiest€clients€that€[she]€ever€worked€with.ðð€€She€said€she€and€juniorÐ œì  Ðtrial€counsel€worked€diligently€on€the€case,€met€with€the€petitioner€regularly,€and€explained,€amongÐ …Õ  Ðother€things,€the€charges,€the€elements€of€the€offense,€the€proof€against€him,€and€the€punishment€heÐ n¾  Ðfaced€if€convicted.€€Ð W§  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€junior€trial€counsel€failed€to€keep€him€sufficiently€informed€aboutÐ )y Ðð ð[his]€trial€and€about€what€[he]€was€facing€in€trial,ðð€claiming€he€had€ð ð[n]ot€reallyðð€understood€thatÐ b Ðhe€had€been€indicted€for€aggravated€vehicular€homicide€or€the€elements€of€the€offense.€€He€furtherÐ ûK Ðclaimed€that€he€was€not€informed€of€the€potential€penalty€for€the€crime.€€However,€he€acknowledgedÐ ä4 Ðhe€had€read€the€indictment,€and€he€and€counsel€talked€about€the€elements€of€the€offense€before€theÐ Í Ðstart€of€the€second€trial.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€addition,€he€testified€he€had€a€sentencing€chart€and,€therefore,€knewÐ ¶ Ðwhat€the€range€of€punishment€was€for€a€Range€I€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€A€felony.€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àOn€December€19,€2003,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€an€order€denying€the€petition,Ð qÁ Ðfinding€that€the€petitioner€had€not€met€his€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clear€and€convincingÐ Zª Ðevidence.€€With€respect€to€the€specific€allegations€relevant€to€this€appeal,€the€court€found€that€theyÐ C“ Ðinvolved€matters€of€trial€tactics€and€trial€strategy€which€were€subject€to€counselððs€professionalÐ ,| Ðjudgment.€€The€post„conviction€court€resolved€all€issues€of€credibility€in€favor€of€trial€and€appellateÐ e Ðcounsel.Ð þN ÐÌà@ôô&ìàò òòòANALYSISˆÐ Ð!   ÐÌóóó óà@‚ ‚ ìàò òI.€Post„Conviction€Standard€of€ReviewˆÐ ¤#ô" Ðà@ìì*ìàó óˆÌà  àThe€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ w%Ç $ Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-110(f)€(2003).€€When€an€evidentiaryÐ `&°!% Ðhearing€is€held€in€the€post„conviction€setting,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€court€are€conclusiveÐ I'™"& Ðon€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,Ð 2(‚#' Ð500€(Tenn.€1996).€€Where€appellate€review€involves€purely€factual€issues,€the€appellate€court€shouldÐ )k$( Ðnot€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð ° ÐHowever,€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€of€the€case€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó,€with€noÐ ™é Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€òòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,€96€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€issues€ofÐ ‚Ò Ðdeficient€performance€of€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€are€mixed€questions€of€lawÐ k» Ðand€fact€and,€thus,€subject€to€òòde€novoóó€review€by€the€appellate€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3dÐ T¤ Ð453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).Ð =  ÐÌà@Ü Ü ìàò òII.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óˆÐ  _ ÐÌà  àTo€succeed€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burdenÐ â 2  Ðof€showing€both€that€his€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€and€that€counselððs€deficientÐ Ë   Ðperformance€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€the€proceeding,€in€that€the€result€of€his€trial€was€unreliableÐ ´  Ðor€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.Ð í  ÐCt.€2052,€2064,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð †Ö  ÐApp.€1997)€(noting€that€the€same€standard€for€determining€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€isÐ o¿  Ðapplied€in€federal€cases€also€applies€in€Tennessee).Ð X¨  ÐÌà  àThe€deficient€performance€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€that€ð ðcounselððs€acts€orÐ *z Ðomissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailingÐ c Ðprofessional€norms.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð üL Ðat€688,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065,€and€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975)).€€The€prejudiceÐ å5 Ðprong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€a€ð ðreasonable€probabilityðð€that€the€outcome€of€theÐ Î Ðproceeding€would€have€been€different€had€it€not€been€for€counselððs€deficiencies€in€performance.€€Ð · ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€When€analyzing€a€petitionerððs€allegations€ofÐ  ð Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€reviewing€court€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€theÐ ‰Ù Ðconduct€of€counsel€falls€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance,€òòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466Ð r ÐU.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€not€second-guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€madeÐ [« Ðby€trial€counsel€unless€those€choices€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóóÐ D” ÐòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).Ð -} ÐÌà  àBecause€both€prongs€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test€must€be€satisfied€before€a€petitioner€can€succeedÐ ÿO Ðon€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€a€failure€to€show€either€deficient€performance€orÐ è 8 Ðresulting€prejudice€results€in€a€failure€to€establish€the€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€580.€Ð Ñ!!  ÐCourts,€therefore,€need€not€approach€the€test€in€a€specific€order,€or€even€ð ðaddress€both€componentsÐ º" ! Ðof€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€on€one.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,Ð £#ó" Ð104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370€(stating€that€ð ðfailure€to€prove€either€deficiencyÐ Œ$Ü# Ðor€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffective€assistance€claimðð).Ð u%Å $ ÐÌà@§ § ìàò òIII.€€Petitionerððs€Specific€Allegations€of€Ineffective€Assistance€ˆÐ G'—"& ÐÌà@À À ìàA.€€Failure€to€Cite€Reported€Criminal€Law€CasesˆÐ )k$( ÐÌà  àó óThe€petitioner€argues€that€both€trial€and€appellate€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€citeÐ ï*?&* Ðreported€criminal€law€cases€when€arguing€for€a€jury€instruction€on€proximate€cause.€€He€contendsÐ Ø+('+ Ðthat€by€focusing€on€the€ð ðproximate€resultðð€language€of€the€vehicular€homicide€statute,€counselÐ ° Ðð ðmissed€the€larger,€more€overriding€issue€of€causation€and€its€role€in€general€homicide€cases.ððÐ ™é ÐAccording€to€the€petitioner,€had€counsel€cited€to€the€ð ðwealth€of€reported€[criminal]€casesðð€thatÐ ‚Ò Ðdiscuss€proximate€and€intervening€cause€in€the€context€of€a€homicide€case,€the€trial€court€ð ðwouldÐ k» Ðhave€had€tangible,€controlling€case„law€to€rely€on€in€giving€a€more€thorough€proximate€causeÐ T¤ Ðinstruction.ðð€€In€support,€he€notes€this€courtððs€observation€in€the€direct€appeal€opinion€that€ð ðthe€legalÐ =  Ðauthority€cited€in€Defendantððs€brief€to€support€his€argument€fails€to€contain€an€opinion€from€thisÐ & v ÐCourt€on€this€specific€issueðð€and€that€ð ðthe€majority€of€the€opinions€cited€by€Defendant€concern€civilÐ  _ Ðmatters,ðð€òòDonald€W.€Branchóó,€2002€WL€1558485,€at€*16,€as€well€as€the€trial€courtððs€statement€toÐ ø H Ðdefense€counsel€that€it€would€issue€the€proposed€instruction€if€counsel€could€find€a€case€that€said€theÐ á 1  Ðinstruction€was€the€correct€one€and€that€it€should€be€issued.€€The€State€argues,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€theÐ Ê   Ðpost„conviction€court€properly€found€that€counselððs€choice€of€cases€to€cite€was€based€on€adequateÐ ³  Ðand€informed€research€and€therefore€entitled€to€deference€by€the€reviewing€court.€€We€agree€withÐ œì  Ðthe€State.€€Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àThe€record€establishes€that€the€petitioner€was€represented€both€at€trial€and€on€appeal€byÐ W§  Ðexperienced€defense€attorneys€who€engaged€in€extensive€preparation€for€the€case,€which€includedÐ @ Ðthorough€research€on€the€proximate€cause€issue.€€Both€junior€and€senior€trial€counsel€testified€thatÐ )y Ðjunior€trial€counsel€thoroughly€researched€the€issue,€and€that€they€both€consulted€extensively€withÐ b Ðappellate€counsel€on€the€topic.€€Despite€their€research,€they€were€unable€to€find€any€reported€criminalÐ ûK Ðcases€that€were€on€point€and,€therefore,€were€forced€to€rely€on€civil€cases€for€their€argument.€Ð ä4 ÐAppellate€counsel€was€also€unable€to€find€any€reported€criminal€law€cases€in€support€of€his€position,Ð Í Ðand€believed€that€the€four€reported€cases€cited€by€post„conviction€counsel€that€addressed€interveningÐ ¶ Ðand€superceding€causes€in€homicide€cases€were€too€general€to€be€helpful€on€the€specific€issue€in€theirÐ Ÿï Ðcase.€€He€explained€his€reasoning:€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àSo€my€task€on€appeal€was€to€try€to€convince€the€Court€that€inÐ Zª Ðfact€proximate€cause€was€the€test€and€was€the€meaning€behind€theÐ C“ Ðstatute€involved.€€And€actually,€there€were€no€cases€in€Tennessee€thatÐ ,| Ðaddressed€that€specific€issue€in€a€Vehicular€Homicide€context,€at€leastÐ e Ðnot€since€the€enactment€of€the€statute€in€the€1989€Criminal€Code€thatÐ þN Ðaddressed€that€particular€concept.Ðç 7` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àSo€.€.€.€my€number€one€battle€was€not€whether€intervening€andÐ ¹" ! Ðsuperseding€causes€were€a€concept€of€the€law€applicable€to€proximateÐ ¢#ò" Ðcause€but€whether€or€not€proximate€cause€was€applicable€to€VehicularÐ ‹$Û# ÐHomicide€in€the€context€of€the€Vehicular€Homicide€statute.€€So€thereÐ t%Ä $ Ðwas€no€case€on€that.€€Actually,€the€only€case€on€that€was€against€me,Ð ]&­!% Ðan€unreported€case€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€So€I€foundÐ F'–"& Ðsome€descending€[sic]€opinions€in€some€courts€and€some€otherÐ /(#' Ðarguments€to€make€on€behalf€of€the€concept€that€proximate€cause€wasÐ )h$( Ðthe€true€test.€€But€as€far€as€explaining€what€„„€if€proximate€cause€wasÐ *Q%) Ðâ âthe€true€test,€if€I€had€proven€point€A,€point€B€the€concept€ofÐ ê*:&* Ðsuperseding€and€intervening€causes,€I€cited€civil€cases€.€.€.€for€thatÐ ° Ðconcept.€Ð™é` x` x Ðâ âÌà  àIn€addition€to€failing€to€show€any€deficiency€on€counselððs€part€for€failing€to€cite€reportedÐ k» Ðcriminal€law€opinions€in€support€of€the€proposed€jury€instruction,€the€petitioner€has€also€failed€toÐ T¤ Ðshow€that€counselððs€alleged€deficiency€in€this€respect€prejudiced€his€case.€€None€of€the€four€casesÐ =  Ðcited€by€post„conviction€counsel€addresses€the€issue€of€proximate€cause€versus€proximate€result€inÐ & v Ðan€aggravated€vehicular€homicide€case;€thus,€they€would€not€have€satisfied€the€trial€courtððs€requestÐ  _ Ðfor€an€opinion€that€specifically€supported€counselððs€proposed€jury€instruction€in€the€context€of€theirÐ ø H Ðcase.€€€We€further€note€this€courtððs€observation€that€the€petitionerððs€brief€failed€to€contain€an€opinionÐ á 1  Ðfrom€this€court€ð ðon€this€òòspecific€óóissueðð€òòóówas€made€only€after€we€had€applied€the€reasoning€of€òòStateÐ Ê   Ðv.€Bobby€Weaveróó,€No.€02C01„9307„CC„00143,€1995€WL€568420€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€27,Ð ³  Ð1995),òòóó€and€concluded€that€the€jury€instruction€issued€by€the€trial€court€ð ðsufficiently€informed€the€juryÐ œì  Ðof€the€definition€of€proximate€result€as€it€relates€to€vehicular€homicide,ðð€including€ð ðthe€effect€of€theÐ …Õ  Ðexistence€of€an€independent,€intervening€cause.ðð€€òòDonald€W.€Branchóó,€2002€WL€1558485,€at€*16Ð n¾  Ð(emphasis€added).Ð W§  ÐÌà@û û ìàò òB.€€Failure€to€Supplement€Appellate€Brief€with€òòFarneróóó ó€ò òCaseˆÐ )y ÐÌà  àó óThe€petitioner€next€contends€that€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€supplementÐ ÿO Ðhis€brief€with€òòState€v.€Farneróó,€66€S.W.3d€188€(Tenn.€2001),€which€was€filed€approximately€threeÐ è8 Ðweeks€before€this€courtððs€direct€appeal€opinion€in€the€instant€case€was€released.€€Although€heÐ Ñ! Ðacknowledges€that€the€òòFarneróó€court€approved€the€same€instruction€on€causation€that€the€trial€courtÐ º  Ðissued€in€the€instant€case,€he€asserts€€that€the€case€was€òòóóð ðvitalðð€because€of€its€ð ðthorough€discussionÐ £ó Ðof€proximate€causation,ðð€and€argues€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€cite€it€for€theÐ ŒÜ Ðproposition€that€causation€is€an€essential€element€to€every€homicide.Ð uÅ ÐÌà  àAs€with€the€previous€allegation,€the€post„conviction€court€attributed€appellate€counselððsÐ G— Ðdecision€not€to€supplement€his€brief€with€the€òòFarneróó€case€as€one€of€strategy,€subject€to€deference€byÐ 0€ Ðthe€reviewing€court.€€Again,€the€record€supports€the€findings€and€conclusions€of€the€post„convictionÐ i Ðcourt.€€Appellate€counselððs€testimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€established€that€he€thoroughlyÐ  R Ðresearched€and€analyzed€the€proximate€cause€issue,€read€the€òòFarneróó€case€when€it€was€released,€andÐ ë ; Ðdetermined€from€his€experience€that,€although€relevant€in€its€definition€of€superceding€andÐ Ô!$  Ðintervening€causes,€it€was€not€ð ðon€all€foursðð€with€the€issue€in€his€case.€€Notwithstanding€post„Ð ½" ! Ðconviction€counselððs€assertion€to€the€contrary,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€appellateÐ ¦#ö" Ðcounsel€incorrectly€read€the€òòFarneróó€case€or€misunderstood€its€holding.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р$ß# Їà@ ìàò òC.€€Failure€to€Raise€Recusal€Issue€on€AppealˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àó óThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€raise€the€trialÐ „Ô Ðjudgeððs€refusal€to€recuse€himself€as€an€issue€on€direct€appeal.€€Trial€counsel€originally€filed€a€motionÐ m½ Ðfor€recusal€based€on€the€trial€judgeððs€comments€at€the€petitionerððs€bond€hearing.€€These€commentsÐ V¦ Ðoccurred€as€defense€counsel€was€arguing€for€a€reduction€in€the€petitionerððs€bond€and€reminded€theÐ ?  Ðtrial€judge€that€the€petitioner€was€ð ðpresumed€innocentðð€of€the€charges.€€The€trial€judge€respondedÐ ( x Ðby€stating€that€the€defendant€was€presumed€innocent€at€trial,€but€he€was€under€no€obligation€toÐ  a Ðpresume€the€defendant€innocent€when€considering€his€request€for€a€reduction€in€bond.€€At€a€laterÐ ú J Ðpoint€in€the€hearing,€the€trial€judge€also€stated€that€if€it€were€his€job€to€analyze€the€petitionerððsÐ ã 3  Ðcharacter€at€that€point,€he€would€say€that€he€was€an€ð ðout„of„control€drunk€who€cares€nothing€aboutÐ Ì   Ðthe€law€or€other€people€around€him.ððÐ µ  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€judgeððs€statements€ð ðwould€cause€the€trial€courtððs€Ð ‡×  Ðimpartiality€to€be€questioned€under€an€objective€standardðð€and€that€appellate€counsel€should€haveÐ pÀ  Ðpursued€the€issue€on€appeal.€€However,€ð ð[t]he€determination€of€which€issues€to€present€on€appealÐ Y©  Ðis€a€matter€of€counselððs€discretion.ðð€€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€491€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð B’ Ð1984).€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€appellate€counsel€fully€and€adequately€explained€his€reasons€forÐ +{ Ðnot€raising€the€recusal€issue:€Ð d ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWell,€at€the€time€I€looked€at€that€issue€and€I€researched€it,Ð æ6 Ðlooked€at€the€odds€of€reversal€and€the€law€applicable€thereto,€andÐ Ï Ðdidnððt€really€find€it€to€have€any€merit.€€I€did€not€think€I€could€succeed€Ð ¸ Ðin€the€Appellate€Court€with€claiming€that€the€Judge€should€haveÐ ¡ñ Ðrecused€himself.€€So€I€didnððt€raise€that€on€appeal.ЊÚ` x` x ÐÌAppellate€counselððs€decision€not€to€raise€the€issue€of€recusal€was€obviously€the€result€of€extensiveÐ \¬ Ðexperience,€preparation,€and€research.€€In€summary,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÐ E• Ðmeet€his€burden€of€demonstrating€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€either€at€trialÐ .~ Ðor€on€appeal.€Ð g ÐÌà@  ìàò òIV.€€Impact€of€òòBlakelyóó€on€Petitionerððs€Sentence€ó óˆÐ é 9 ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€that€òòBlakely€v.€Washingtonóó,€542€U.S.€__,124€S.€Ct.€2531€(2004),€inÐ ¼" ! Ðwhich€the€òòóóUnited€States€Supreme€Court,€applying€the€rule€in€òòApprendi€v.€New€Jerseyóó,€530€U.S.€466,Ð ¥#õ" Ð120€S.€Ct.€2348,€147€L.€Ed.€2d€435€(2000),€held€that€the€Sixth€Amendment€prohibits€a€defendantððsÐ Ž$Þ# Ðsentence€from€being€increased€beyond€the€presumptive€statutory€maximum€based€on€facts€whichÐ w%Ç $ Ðhave€neither€been€found€by€a€jury€nor€admitted€by€the€defendant,€applies€retroactively€to€invalidateÐ `&°!% Ðthe€enhanced€and€consecutive€sentences€imposed€in€his€case.€€Noting€that€a€panel€of€this€courtÐ I'™"& Ðâ ârecently€concluded€that€ð ðòòBlakelyóó€.€.€.€establishes€a€new€rule€in€this€state,ðð€òòState€v.€Chester€WayneÐ 2(‚#' ÐWaltersóó,€No.€M2003„03019„CCA„R3„CD,€2004€WL€2246196€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€4,€2004),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€theÐ ° Ðâ âpetitioner€argues€that,€under€the€test€€announced€in€òòTeague€v.€Laneóó,€489€U.S.€288,€109€S.€Ct.€1060,Ð ™é Ð103€L.€Ed.€2d€334€(1989),€òòBlakelyóó€is€a€new€ð ðwatershed€rule€of€criminal€procedure,ðð€requiringÐ ‚Ò Ðretroactive€application.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€Ð k» Ðà  àÌà  àUnder€òòTeagueóó,€an€exception€to€the€general€rule€against€the€retroactivity€of€new€proceduralÐ =  Ðrules€applies€in€cases€which€involve€ð ðwatershed€rules€of€criminal€procedure,ðð€or€ð ðthose€newÐ & v Ðprocedures€without€which€the€likelihood€of€an€accurate€conviction€is€seriously€diminished.ðð€€òòóó489Ð  _ ÐU.S.€at€311„13,€109€S.€Ct.€at€1076„77€(Brennan,€J.,€dissenting)€(citing€òòMackey€v.€United€Statesóó,€401Ð ø H ÐU.S.€667,€692,€91€S.€Ct.€1160,€1180,€28€L.€Ed.€2d€404€(1971)).€€€The€òòTeagueóó€Court,€recognizing€thatÐ á 1  Ðthe€exception€was€a€narrow€one,€wrote:€Ð Ê   ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àBecause€we€operate€from€the€premise€that€such€proceduresÐ œì  Ðwould€be€so€central€to€an€accurate€determination€of€innocence€orÐ …Õ  Ðguilt,€we€believe€it€unlikely€that€many€such€components€of€basic€dueÐ n¾  Ðprocess€have€yet€to€emerge.€€We€are€also€of€the€view€that€such€rulesÐ W§  Ðare€ð ðbest€illustrated€by€recalling€the€classic€grounds€from€the€issuanceÐ @ Ðof€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€„„€that€the€proceeding€was€dominated€byÐ )y Ðmob€violence;€that€the€prosecutor€knowingly€made€use€of€perjuredÐ b Ðtestimony;€or€that€the€conviction€was€based€on€a€confession€extortedÐ ûK Ðfrom€the€defendant€by€brutal€methods.ððÐä4` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó,€489€U.€S.€at€313,€109€S.€Ct.€at€1077€(quoting€òòRose€v.€Lundyóó,€455€U.S.€509,€544,€102€S.€Ct.€1198,Ð ¶ Ð1216„1217,€71€L.€Ed.€2d€379€(1982)€(Stevens,€J.€,€dissenting)).€€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€not€yet€specifically€addressed€the€retroactiveÐ qÁ Ðapplication€of€òòBlakelyóó.€€However,€in€òòSchriro€v.€Summerlinóó,€__€U.S.€__,€124€S.€Ct.€2519,€2526,€159Ð Zª ÐL.€Ed.€2d€442€(2004),€the€Court€held€that€òòRing€v.€Arizonaóó,€536€U.S.€584,€122€S.€Ct.€2428,€153€L.€Ed.Ð C“ Ð2d€556€(2002),€which€applied€the€rule€in€òòApprendióó€to€require€that€a€jury,€rather€than€a€trial€judge,Ð ,| Ðfind€the€existence€of€aggravators€necessary€to€impose€the€death€penalty,€was€not€a€watershed€ruleÐ e Ðof€criminal€procedure€and€therefore€did€not€apply€retroactively€to€cases€already€final€on€directÐ þN Ðreview.€€Noting€that€ð ðfor€every€argument€why€juries€are€more€accurate€factfinders€[than€judges],Ð ç 7 Ðthere€is€another€why€they€are€less€accurate,ðð€the€Court€concluded€that€the€evidence€was€simply€ð ðtooÐ Ð!   Ðequivocalðð€to€support€the€conclusion€that€a€trial€judgeððs,€rather€than€a€juryððs,€finding€of€death€penaltyÐ ¹" ! Ðaggravators€seriously€diminished€the€accuracy€of€the€proceeding.€€òòSchriroóó,€__€U.S.€at€__,€124€S.€Ct.Ð ¢#ò" Ðat€2525.€€Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌà  àOther€jurisdictions€which€have€addressed€the€issue€have€declined€to€apply€òòBlakelyóóÐ ]&­!% Ðretroactively€to€cases€that€are€final€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòóó€òòIn€re€Deanóó,€375€F.3d€1287,€1290€(11th€Cir.Ð F'–"& Ð2004)€(ð ðBecause€òòBlakelyóó,€like€òòRingóó,€is€based€on€an€extension€of€òòApprendióó,€Dean€cannot€show€thatÐ /(#' Ðthe€Supreme€Court€has€made€that€decision€retroactive€to€cases€already€final€on€direct€review.ðð)òòóó;Ð )h$( ÐòòMcBride€v.€Stateóó,€884€So.€2d€476,€478€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€òòóó2004)€(ð ðWe€further€hold€that€òòBlakelyóóÐ ° Ðdoes€not€apply€retroactively€to€cases€on€collateral€review.ðð);òòóó€òòState€v.€Petschlóó,€__€N.€W.2d€__,€2004Ð ™é ÐWL€2663594,€at€*7€(Minn.€Ct.€App.€2004)€(ð ðòòBlakelyóó€has€the€same€procedural€effect€as€òòApprendióó,Ð ‚Ò Ðincreasing€the€accuracy€of€the€sentence€but€not€the€conviction.€€Because€the€òòBlakelyóó€rule€does€notÐ k» Ðimprove€the€accuracy€or€fairness€of€a€trial,€we€conclude€that€it€is€not€a€watershed€rule€subject€toÐ T¤ Ðretroactive€application€on€collateral€review.ðð).Ð =  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner,€while€acknowledging€the€holding€in€òòSchriroóó,€argues€that€òòBlakelyóó€should€applyÐ  _ Ðretroactively€to€his€case€because€unlike€in€òòSchriroóó,€where€the€Arizona€trial€judge€was€alreadyÐ ø H Ðrequired€to€find€the€existence€of€aggravating€factors€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€his€trial€judge€wasÐ á 1  Ðpermitted€to€find€the€existence€of€the€factors€used€to€enhance€his€sentence€by€a€preponderance€of€theÐ Ê   Ðevidence.€However,€even€with€the€different€standards€applied,€we€are€still€unable€to€conclude€thatÐ ³  Ðthe€judgeððs€finding€of€enhancement€factors€ð ðòòseriouslyóó€diminishe[d]€accuracy.ðð€€òòSchriroóó,€__€U.S.€atÐ œì  Ð__,€124€S.€Ct.€at€2525.€€Therefore,€like€other€jurisdictions,€we€decline€to€find€€òòBlakelyóó€retroactivelyÐ …Õ  Ðapplicable€to€cases€on€collateral€appeal.€€Ð n¾  ÐÌà@GG%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONˆÐ @ ÐÌóóó óà  àFollowing€our€review,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€he€wasÐ d Ðdenied€the€effective€assistance€of€trial€or€appellate€counsel.€€We€further€conclude€that€òòBlakelyóó€shouldÐ ýM Ðnot€be€retroactively€applied€to€cases€which€have€already€become€final€on€direct€appeal.€€Accordingly,Ð æ6 Ðwe€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition.€€€Ð Ï ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ŠÚ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE