ÿWPC86 ɰ ¦žÙ™×Ú üMæŽÔ—úû+ºP@™Â -=°HäÔÙ8}à,’·$0пP-©IŸ=ɶg׿— [Z"®0*N`D:ä'cX6˜v†pdórÛì‚7¨:b«#%…!{]Õì‚!&>ÔÞ'¬Í¿äà4eˆÒ*à}Ä:¡xmyð±ê £ÖòŸ§¾ ³!ÆO"â.’ dÝûöT8g¡ 1õ‚á|f¸`+u{Y\ÏsIgûJ \&ÿ¯ŸšÑ0PîPömS7L›¸h ü3ýUª7èË${¾Ìèô*¼\¯ŸKŒûlŽ´k†¤á•É7a‚çâügv×Ù4>ÊÉ}AÌ÷­#>ó Ié\ð|u·P³SÚƒ-ãøWÉû3\‡ˆÖvƒuP2ß BLlªW˜È%ª¦^Àj/>©K~N6>ÐAŸŒæ}¹ž­ž_0òÀQ$}9­æ’Íçx„‘~‚éÞÊO5]¿tUá 5#—Ö$K,ÇFu‹ÁuèÞÁñ¬Ôo\ÂJߥ Ò4é&±÷$þh Jßs~T¾…̓XtãÔˆu|°GRW5N„ò^t¤\Ødöfj‡iÝ|¨¾3ˆüÓ”‘#Éî %· N½ 0ˆ¿ U NG UN• • zã Ò] z/Ò©N{{Æ}ÆCÆ ÆÏÏN• z—ÒNããã zåÒ__E1N333 z5Ò¯N zƒÒýNÏÏÏÏ zÑÒKNb z'Ò¡Nsss zuÒïNÁÁÁ zÃÒ=N zÒ‹N]]] z_ÒÙN« « « z­ Ò'!Nù!ù!ù! zû!Òu"NG# 0ëI#I#I# z4$ B®$ÒË$ 0¤% D5A& D-v& 0K£&Nî& ASð&ÆC' 0¤ ( 0D­( A«ñ(ñ(ñ( zœ)Ò*Nè*è*è* zê*Òd+N6,6,6, z8,Ò²,N„-„-„- z†-Ò.NÒ.Ò.Ò. zÔ.ÒN/N 0 0 0 z"0Òœ0Nn1n1n1 zp1Òê1N¼2¼2¼2 z¾2Ò83^ 4w444.4=4 m?4¢V4U @ø5˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜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.wptLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt!˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt&˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt,˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt- ù-2˜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.wpt7˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt<˜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.wptA˜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.wptF˜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.wptK˜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.wptP˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(|G2Çú$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû½ò»»ÔW˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT dC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(|3G‚$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G‚$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J}»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKe˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptj˜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.wpto˜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.wptt˜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.wpty˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt~˜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.wptƒ˜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.wptˆ˜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.wpt9©x/Ï óbï.YTê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ BaumgartnerTiptonCochranFindleyNichols H]er CrimWhitsettfirst first P.J.difference[sBullingtonaffirmanceStricklandAdkinsHoneycuttClennyTsanasrebuttable(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€J}»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼J}»»»ÔÑ8€YXXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼J}»»¼J}Ôà@ttìàÔ‡îQaJ}ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼J}»îîQa+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€22,€2003Ð üL ÐÔ‡XYX»¼J}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼J}»XXY=#ÔCAROLYN€DIANE€BROWN€òòóóv.€STATE€OF€TEòòNNESSóóEEÔ‡XYX»¼J}Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€38264€€€Richard€L.€Baumgartner,€Judge€Ð æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„02760„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐNovember€24,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Carolyn€Diane€Brown,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€InÐ xÈ  Ðaddition€to€a€challenge€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€sheÐ d´ Ðwas€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Ð P  ÐÓäÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ (x ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼J}»àXY¸#ÔÔ‡XYX.¼J}ÔGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€joined.Ð P ÐòòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó,€J.,€not€participating.€Ô#†¼J}»XXYÜ#ÔÔ‡XYX»¼J}ÔÐ ì< ÐÌMartha€L.€Cochran,€for€the€appellant,€Carolyn€Diane€Brown.Ð Ä ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€David€H.€Findley,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð œì ÐRandall€E.€Nichols,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Fred€Bright,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð ˆØ Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð tÄ ÐÓ­ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼J}»XXYÉ#ÔÐ L œ ÐÓ  ÓÌÔ€XYX»¼J}Ôà  àOn€February€3,€1988,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€sentenced€toÐ J"š! Ðlife€imprisonment.€€On€direct€appeal,€Judge€Lyle€Reid,€writing€on€behalf€of€our€court,€summarizedÐ 6#†" Ðthe€relevant€facts€as€follows:€€Ð "$r# ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€offense€was€committed€in€the€residence€occupied€until€several€days€priorÐ ú%J!% Ðthereto€by€[the€petitioner]€and€Gaines,€who€had€lived€together€for€several€years€exceptÐ æ&6"& Ðfor€intermittent€separations€and€who€were€the€parents€of€a€four„year„old€child.€Ð Ò'"#' ÐBecause€of€a€domestic€quarrel,€[the€petitioner]€left€the€residence€with€all€her€personalÐ ¾($( Ðbelongings,€about€a€week€before€the€shooting€which€occurred€near€noon€on€Saturday.€Ð ª)ú$) ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àLate€Friday€night€at€a€hotel€bar€Gaines€encountered€the€victim,€whom€he€hadÐ ‚+Ò&+ Ðknown€as€a€child€when€they€were€neighbors€for€several€years.€€The€victim€told€GainesÐ n,¾', Ðshe€had€no€place€to€spend€the€night€and€asked€if€she€could€go€home€with€him.€Ð Z-ª(-ý ÐÔ_ÔGaines,€who€described€their€relationship€as€"like€brother€and€sister,"€assented.€€TheyÐ ° Ðwatched€television,€had€some€drinks€and€went€to€bed€about€5:00€A.M.,€Gaines€in€hisÐ œì Ðbedroom€and€the€victim€on€a€couch€in€the€living€room€in€Gaines'€t„shirt€covered€withÐ ˆØ Ðhis€coat.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àEarly€Saturday€morning€Gaines€was€awakened€by€Appellant€knocking€on€theÐ L œ Ðdoor.€€When€he€opened€the€door€he€told€[the€petitioner]€€there€was€a€woman€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðhouse€and€explained€that€she€was€a€friend,€"like€a€sister."€[The€petitioner]€walked€toÐ $ t Ðthe€couch€where€the€victim€still€was€asleep,€removed€the€coat€and€observed€that€sheÐ  ` Ðwas€naked€except€for€the€short€shirt.€[The€petitioner]€expressed€outrage,€insisted€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€victim€leave€immediately€and€tried€unsuccessfully€to€awaken€her.€€[TheÐ è 8  Ðpetitioner]€and€Gaines,€scuffling€and€quarreling€about€the€victim's€presence,€lockedÐ Ô$  Ðthemselves€in€the€bedroom€and€after€consummating€two€acts€of€sexual€intercourseÐ À  Ðslept€together€until€late€in€the€morning,€when€the€quarrel€continued€with€the€victimÐ ¬ü  Ðparticipating€by€calling€[the€petitioner]€bad€names€to€Gaines'€amusement.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àGaines€and€[the€petitioner]€drove€to€a€market€to€buy€food€for€breakfast.€Ð pÀ ÐWhile€Gaines€was€inside€the€market€[the€petitioner]€€placed€inside€her€purse€a€pistolÐ \¬ Ðwhich€Gaines€had€left€in€the€vehicle.€€When€they€returned€to€the€residence,€GainesÐ H˜ Ðprepared€the€food€and€he€and€the€victim€ate€but€[the€petitioner]€sat€in€the€living€roomÐ 4„ Ðcrying€and€shaking,€with€the€pistol€openly€displayed€nearby.€€Gaines€and€the€victimÐ  p Ðcontinued€to€make€sport€of€[the€petitioner's]€emotional€reaction€to€the€victim'sÐ  \ Ðpresence€throughout€the€meal€and€afterwards€as€Gaines€put€away€the€dishes€and€theÐ øH Ðvictim€returned€to€the€living€room.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à[The€petitioner]€picked€up€the€pistol€and€fired€two€shots,€one€through€theÐ ¼  Ðvictim's€heart€and€the€other€within€about€a€foot€of€Gaines'€head.€€She€continued€toÐ ¨ø Ðpoint€the€weapon€at€Gaines€for€several€minutes€as€he€tried€to€hide€behind€theÐ ”ä Ðrefrigerator.€€She€then€unloaded€the€weapon.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThere€were€no€significant€difference[s]€between€the€account€of€the€killingÐ X ¨ Ðgiven€by€Gaines€at€the€trial€and€by€[the€petitioner]€in€her€statement€to€the€police.€€SheÐ D!” Ðstated€she€intended€to€shoot€both€Gaines€and€the€victim.€€She€also€stated€she€wasÐ 0"€  Ðsorry€"I€did€it"€but€she€was€not€sorry€"she's€gone."Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Carolyn€Diane€Brownóó,€No.€1195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Jan.€19,€1989).Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIn€the€direct€appeal,€the€primary€issue€was€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€supportÐ Ì&"% Ðmurder€in€the€first€degree.€€The€petitioner€argued€that€the€proof€offered€at€trial€established€onlyÐ ¸'#& Ðvoluntary€manslaughter,€i.e.,€a€killing€committed€upon€a€sudden€heat€or€passion.€€òòóóBecause,€however,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthe€petitioner€had€discovered€the€presence€of€the€victim€at€her€residence€several€hours€before€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âshooting€and€there€was€little€or€no€additional€provocation,€this€court€found€the€evidence€to€beÐ |*Ì%) Ðsufficient.€€òòId.óó€€After€our€affirmance€of€the€conviction,€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€theÐ ° Ðsupreme€court€was€denied€on€May€8,€1989.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€1989,€the€petitioner€filed€a€pro€se€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Counsel€wasÐ tÄ Ðappointed€and€the€petition€was€amended.€€In€1994,€there€were€evidentiary€hearings€as€to€the€claimÐ `° Ðof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€One€complaint€was€that€the€diminished€capacity€of€the€petitionerÐ L œ Ðwas€inadequately€developed€by€trial€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 8 ˆ ÐApp.€1994).€€In€1997,€there€was€a€hearing€on€the€claim€of€insufficient€evidence€and€the€accuracy€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€premeditation€and€deliberation€instructions.€€An€additional€issue€pertained€to€the€propriety€ofÐ  ` Ðsequential€consideration€by€the€jury€of€the€first€degree€murder€charge€and€the€lesser€offenses.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAt€the€initial€evidentiary€hearing€in€1994,€the€petitioner€testified€that€she€had€beenÐ Ô$  Ðpsychologically€tested€and€diagnosed€with€borderline€intelligence€and€a€dependent€personality.€€SheÐ À  Ðrecalled€that€trial€counsel€had€visited€her€one€or€more€times€in€jail€and€approximately€five€times€inÐ ¬ü  Ðhis€office€in€advance€of€the€trial.€€It€was€her€assessment€that€she€had€not€adequately€discussed€herÐ ˜è  Ðcase€with€trial€counsel€and,€because€it€was€her€first€time€in€court,€she€felt€unprepared€for€trial.€€TheÐ „Ô  Ðpetitioner€complained€that€she€did€not€understand€the€distinctions€between€first€degree€murder,Ð pÀ Ðsecond€degree€murder,€and€voluntary€manslaughter.€€It€was€her€further€belief€that€an€emotionalÐ \¬ Ðoutburst€by€a€member€of€the€victim's€family€during€trial€counsel's€final€argument€had€an€adverseÐ H˜ Ðeffect€on€the€trial.€€On€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€acknowledged€that€her€trial€counsel€had€beenÐ 4„ Ðsuccessful€in€gaining€a€reduction€in€bail€from€$50,000.00€to€$5,000.00€and,€at€least€temporarily,Ð  p Ðpersuading€an€assistant€district€attorney€to€reduce€the€charge€to€voluntary€manslaughter.€€She€alsoÐ  \ Ðremarked€that€trial€counsel€was€the€"first€person€that€[she€had]€seen"€after€her€arrest.€€The€petitionerÐ øH Ðrecalled€that€after€her€indictment,€trial€counsel€had€attempted€to€negotiate€a€plea€agreement;€at€oneÐ ä4 Ðpoint,€she€had€authorized€him€to€offer€a€plea€of€guilt€to€second€degree€murder€and€acknowledged€atÐ Ð  Ðthe€hearing€that€the€state€had€declined€the€proposal€because€of€opposition€by€the€victim's€family.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðpetitioner€also€remembered€that€the€trial€of€her€case€had€been€postponed€by€trial€counsel€on€moreÐ ¨ø Ðthan€one€occasion€so€that€he€could€gain€a€sufficient€amount€of€time€for€preparation.€€Upon€being€readÐ ”ä Ðportions€of€the€transcript€of€the€trial,€the€petitioner€conceded€that€the€victim's€brother,€after€theÐ €Ð Ðaudible€emotional€outburst€in€the€presence€of€the€jury,€was€ordered€by€the€trial€judge€to€leave€theÐ l¼ Ðcourtroom.€€The€petitioner€also€confirmed€that€the€trial€judge€had€provided€curative€instructions€andÐ X ¨ Ðthat€both€the€trial€judge€and€the€assistant€district€attorney€had€apologized€to€the€jury.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel,€who€had€practiced€criminal€defense€law€almost€exclusively,€testified€that€heÐ #l! Ðmet€with€the€petitioner€while€she€was€incarcerated€on€either€four€or€five€occasions€and,€after€herÐ $X" Ðpretrial€release,€met€with€her€in€his€office€between€eight€and€eleven€times.€€He€described€his€meetingsÐ ô$D # Ðas€lengthy€"due€to€the€inability€of€total€understanding€that€[the€petitioner]€had."€€Trial€counselÐ à%0!$ Ðrecalled€arranging€treatment€by€a€clinical€psychologist,€Dr.€William€H.€Daniel,€who€subsequentlyÐ Ì&"% Ðtestified€at€trial€that,€in€his€opinion,€the€petitioner€intended€no€harm€to€the€victim.€€By€agreeing€to€aÐ ¸'#& Ðwaiver€of€the€preliminary€hearing,€trial€counsel€explained€that€he€was€able€to€arrange€a€reduction€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbond€and€a€pretrial€release€without€any€cost€to€the€petitioner.€€He€stated€that€while€the€petitionerÐ )à$( Ðadmitted€shooting€the€victim,€the€defense€theory€was€that€her€mental€state€precluded€a€first€degreeÐ |*Ì%) Ðmurder€conviction€and€that€the€petitioner's€state€of€emotion€was€such€as€to€warrant€nothing€more€thanÐ h+¸&* Ða€conviction€for€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Trial€counsel€confirmed€that€the€state€was€unwilling€toÐ ° Ðaccept€a€guilty€plea€to€anything€less€than€first€degree€murder.€€It€was€his€belief€that€the€state€hadÐ œì Ðafforded€full€discovery,€that€he€had€adequately€investigated€the€crime€scene,€and€that€he€hadÐ ˆØ Ðconducted€a€number€of€interviews€with€the€petitioner's€boyfriend,€James€Gaines,€the€primary€stateÐ tÄ Ðwitness.€€He€specifically€recalled€having€prepared€the€petitioner€for€the€state's€cross„examinationÐ `° Ðduring€their€last€three€or€four€meetings.€Trial€counsel€stated€that€he€had€inspected€the€pistol€used€inÐ L œ Ðthe€shooting€and€had€observed€each€of€the€two€spent€cartridges.€€He€also€recalled€preparing€a€blackÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€white€diagram€of€the€crime€scene€and€drafting€special€requests€for€instructions€which€wereÐ $ t Ðaccepted€by€the€trial€court€and€provided€to€the€jury.€€Trial€counsel€recalled€that€when€the€victim'sÐ  ` Ðbrother€interrupted€his€closing€argument,€he€considered€asking€for€a€mistrial€but,€upon€observing€theÐ ü L  Ðfaces€of€several€jurors€expressing€"disgust€about€the€outburst,€.€.€.€thought€perhaps€as€a€tacticalÐ è 8  Ðdecision€that€.€.€.€if€[he]€went€on€with€[his]€arguments€then€that€jury€.€.€.€may€possibly€[be]€moreÐ Ô$  Ðlenient."€€Trial€counsel€described€the€petitioner's€demeanor€as€"bordering€on€hysterical"€during€theÐ À  Ðcourse€of€the€trial,€crying€"from€the€beginning."€€When€she€became€particularly€emotional€at€oneÐ ¬ü  Ðpoint€in€the€trial,€trial€counsel€had€asked€for€a€recess€and€the€trial€court€granted€a€continuance€untilÐ ˜è  Ðthe€following€day.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€trial€counsel€acknowledged€that€although€he€had€represented€othersÐ \¬ Ðcharged€with€first€degree€murder,€those€cases€had€resulted€in€plea€agreements€and€this€was€his€firstÐ H˜ Ðtrial€for€such€a€charge.€€€Trial€counsel€noted€that€he€had€consulted€with€several€other€criminal€defenseÐ 4„ Ðattorneys€in€the€Knoxville€area,€receiving€assistance€in€selecting€an€expert€and€in€conducting€his€legalÐ  p Ðresearch.€€He€also€acknowledged€that€he€had€attempted€to€gain€suppression€of€the€statement€theÐ  \ Ðpetitioner€had€made€to€police,€which€he€described€as€"very€damaging,"€but€was€unsuccessful.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€1994€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€ruled€from€the€bench€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€petitioner€had€not€been€deprived€of€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€court€concluded€thatÐ ¼  Ðthe€emotional€outburst€by€members€of€the€victim's€family€prior€to€deliberations€by€the€jury€tendedÐ ¨ø Ðto€benefit€rather€than€prejudice€the€petitioner.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€trial€counsel€wasÐ ”ä Ðfully€and€completely€prepared,€had€consulted€with€an€expert€in€psychology,€and€had€otherwiseÐ €Ð Ðperformed€capably€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€2002,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€a€memorandum€opinion€and€order€denying€reliefÐ D!” Ðon€the€other€grounds.€€The€court€concluded€that€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992),€aÐ 0"€  Ðdecision€rendered€by€our€supreme€court€some€four€years€after€the€trial€in€this€case,€had€not€createdÐ #l! Ða€new€constitutional€rule€with€retroactive€application€and€that€a€new€trial€was€not€warranted€on€thatÐ $X" Ðbasis.€€In€that€case,€the€high€court€invalidated€the€jury€instruction€stating€that€premeditation€andÐ ô$D # Ðdeliberation€could€be€formed€in€an€instant.€€In€support€of€that€determination,€the€post„convictionÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€cited€òòMiller€v.€Stateóó,€54€S.W.3d€743€(2001),€wherein€our€supreme€court€confirmed€severalÐ Ì&"% Ðopinions€from€this€court€that€òòBrownóó€had€not€announced€a€new€state€constitutional€rule,€was€notÐ ¸'#& Ðretroactive,€and€could€not€be€applied€to€preserve€a€challenge€to€the€jury€instructions€that€had€beenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwaived€for€the€failure€to€object€during€trial€and€on€appeal.€€The€post„conviction€court€also€ruled€thatÐ )à$( Ðthe€claim€regarding€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€had€been€previously€determined€on€the€directÐ |*Ì%) Ðappeal.€€As€to€the€final€issue,€it€concluded€that€any€argument€by€the€petitioner€that€the€instructionsÐ h+¸&* Ðat€trial€were€erroneous€because€the€jury€was€to€sequentially€consider€first€degree€murder,€then€secondÐ ° Ðdegree€murder,€then€voluntary€manslaughter,€did€not€present€a€constitutional€basis€for€relief€and€didÐ œì Ðnot€conflict€with€law.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àÌà  àà@ÍÍ*ìàIˆÐ `° Ðà  àIn€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€first€argues€that€she€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€ofÐ L œ Ðcounsel.€€She€specifically€complains€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€fully€develop€the€diminished€capacityÐ 8 ˆ Ðissue,€failed€to€fully€prepare€for€trial,€failed€to€move€for€a€mistrial,€and,€on€direct€appeal,€failed€toÐ $ t Ðallege€as€a€ground€for€relief€the€denial€of€the€motion€to€suppress.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àInitially,€under€the€version€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€in€effect€at€the€time€of€theÐ è 8  Ðfiling€of€this€petition,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€in€the€petition€by€aÐ Ô$  Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€€1978).€Ð À  ÐWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€heÐ ¬ü  Ðmust€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€were€below€ð ðthe€range€ofÐ ˜è  Ðcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.Ð „Ô  Ð1975).€€Second,€he€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€ð ðactually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€the€defense.ðð€Ð pÀ ÐòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693€(1984).€€Should€the€petitioner€fail€to€establish€eitherÐ \¬ Ðfactor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€Our€supreme€court€described€the€standard€of€review€as€follows:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà ` àBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€a€failure€to€proveÐ  p Ðeither€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€theÐ  \ Ðineffective€assistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€not€address€the€components€in€anyÐ øH Ðparticular€order€or€even€address€both€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showingÐ ä4 Ðof€one€component.òòÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àOn€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€ofÐ €Ð Ðhindsight,€may€not€second-guess€a€reasonably€based€trial€strategy,€and€cannot€criticize€a€sound,€butÐ l¼ Ðunsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Such€deference€to€the€tactical€decisions€of€counsel,Ð D!” Ðhowever,€applies€only€if€the€choices€are€made€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.Ð 0"€  ÐStateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àClaims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€regarded€as€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact.€Ð ô$D # ÐòòState€v.€Honeycuttóó,€54€S.W.3d€762,€766-67€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.Ð à%0!$ Ð1999).€€On€appeal,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€post„conviction€court€are€conclusive€and€will€notÐ Ì&"% Ðbe€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€€òòBrooks€v.Ð ¸'#& ÐStateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Ô‡XYXXXYÔThe€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðweight€and€value€to€be€afforded€their€testimony€are€questions€to€be€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€òòBatesÐ )à$( Ðv.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€615€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€When€reviewing€the€application€of€law€to€thoseÐ |*Ì%) Ðfactual€findings,€however,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó,€and€the€trial€court's€conclusions€of€law€are€givenÐ h+¸&* Ðno€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€457-58€(Tenn.€2001);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateÐ ° Ðv.€Englandóó,€19€S.W.3d€762,€766€(Tenn.€2000).Ô#†XYXXXYÿP#ÔÐ œì ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€has€criticized€trial€counsel€because,€in€her€words,€he€failed€to€fully€develop€theÐ tÄ Ðissue€of€diminished€capacity€in€relation€to€the€premeditation,€deliberation,€and€heat€of€passion€issues.€Ð `° ÐShe€claims€that€it€was€not€enough€for€trial€counsel€to€merely€establish€her€borderline€intelligence,Ð L œ Ðdependent€personality,€and€lack€of€criminal€intent€through€Dr.€Daniel,€the€psychologist.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€suggest€precisely€how€trial€counsel€could€have€furtherÐ  ` Ðdeveloped€Dr.€Daniel's€testimony.€€Among€other€things,€Dr.€Daniel€testified€at€trial€that€becauseÐ ü L  Ðpetitioner€depended€upon€her€boyfriend,€Gaines,€completely,€she€felt€like€"her€whole€world"€wasÐ è 8  Ðdisintegrating€or€falling€apart€in€front€of€her.€€Because€Dr.€Daniel€was€not€called€as€a€witness€at€theÐ Ô$  Ðevidentiary€hearing,€this€court€is€left€to€speculate€on€how€trial€counsel€might€have€more€effectivelyÐ À  Ðquestioned€Dr.€Daniel.€€In€consequence,€it€is€our€view€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€herÐ ¬ü  Ðburden€of€proof€on€this€particular€claim.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€has€also€failed€to€establish€that€trial€counsel€was€not€competent€or€that€his€trialÐ pÀ Ðpreparation€was€insufficient.€€A€mere€allegation€that€trial€counsel€had€practiced€law€for€only€fourÐ \¬ Ðyears€at€the€time€of€the€trial€and€had€not€previously€represented€a€defendant€in€the€trial€of€a€firstÐ H˜ Ðdegree€murder€case€is€not€enough.€€The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€actually€show€how€furtherÐ 4„ Ðpreparation€might€have€produced€a€different€result€or€how€lack€of€prior€experience€hampered€theÐ  p Ðdefense.€€In€this€instance,€no€new€witnesses€were€presented€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€and€nothingÐ  \ Ðin€the€record€suggests€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€invest€an€adequate€amount€of€time€in€hisÐ øH Ðpreparations€or€otherwise€failed€in€his€responsibilities€as€an€advocate€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àFurther,€trial€counsel's€decision€not€to€request€a€mistrial€qualified€as€a€tactical€decision.€€AtÐ ¼  Ðthe€evidentiary€hearing,€trial€counsel€explained€that€he€observed€the€jurors'€reaction€to€the€outburst€Ð ¨ø Ðof€the€victim's€brother€during€the€final€argument.€€It€was€his€assessment€that€the€jurors€hadÐ ”ä Ðcollectively€disapproved€of€the€comments€made€in€the€courtroom€which,€in€his€opinion,€was€the€basisÐ €Ð Ðof€a€hope€for€leniency€in€the€verdict.€€Trial€counsel's€testimony€was€fully€accredited€by€the€post„Ð l¼ Ðconviction€court€and€the€evidence€offered€by€the€petitioner€did€not€preponderate€against€that€finding.€Ð X ¨ ÐMoreover,€trial€counsel€presented€the€mistrial€issue€on€direct€appeal.€€Although€the€failure€of€trialÐ D!” Ðcounsel€to€request€a€mistrial€at€the€time€of€the€outburst€resulted€in€a€procedural€waiver€of€the€issueÐ 0"€  Ðas€a€potential€ground€for€relief,€this€court€nevertheless€ruled€on€the€merits:€€"Considering€the€wholeÐ #l! Ðrecord,€the€spectator's€acts,€more€probably€than€not,€did€not€affect€the€verdict€of€the€jury."€€òòCarolynÐ $X" ÐDiane€Brownóó,€No.€1195.€€€€Ð ô$D # ЀÌà  àFinally,€the€failure€to€appeal€the€denial€of€the€motion€to€suppress€is€not€a€basis€for€relief.€€AtÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€suppression€hearing,€the€trial€court€accredited€the€testimony€of€the€officer€who€took€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpetitioner's€statement,€who€stated€that€he€had€advised€the€petitioner€of€her€constitutional€rights€and€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðbelieved€that€she€had€fully€comprehended€the€content€of€the€waiver€form€before€affixing€herÐ )à$( Ðsignature.€€While€the€petitioner€claimed€to€have€been€coerced€into€providing€the€statement€basedÐ |*Ì%) Ðupon€promises€of€help,€she€was€unable€to€produce€any€proof€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€whichÐ h+¸&* Ðcorroborated€that€claim.€€òòóóUnder€these€circumstances,€it€is€unlikely€that€an€appeal€of€the€denial€of€theÐ ° Ðmotion€to€suppress€would€have€been€successful.Ð œì ÐÌà@®®)ìàIIˆÐ tÄ Ðà  àThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€the€evidence€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€wasÐ `° Ðinsufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€€In€support€of€that€argument,€the€petitioner€cites€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ð L œ Ð836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992),€where€our€supreme€court€ruled€that€the€instruction€provided€in€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðcase,€that€premeditation€and€deliberation€could€be€formed€in€an€instant,€was€erroneous.€€While€theÐ $ t Ðpetitioner€acknowledges€that€òòBrownóó€has€not€been€given€retroactive€application€and€that€her€trial€€took€Ð  ` Ðplace€well€before€the€supreme€court€decision,€she€argues€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€eitherÐ ü L  Ðdeliberation€or€an€intention€to€kill.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€the€trial€of€this€case,€the€trial€court€provided€the€same€instructions€that€were€later€deemedÐ À  Ðerroneous€in€òòBrownóó:€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àPremeditation€means€that€the€intent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€killing.€Ð „Ô  ÐSuch€intent€or€design€to€kill€may€be€concerned€and€deliberately€formed€in€an€instant.€Ð pÀ ÐIt€is€not€necessary€that€the€purpose€to€kill€pre„exist€in€the€mind€of€the€accused€for€anyÐ \¬ Ðdefinite€period€of€time.€€It€is€sufficient€that€it€preceded€the€act,€however€short€theÐ H˜ Ðinterval.€€Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThis€claim€for€relief€must€fail€for€two€reasons.€€First,€this€claim€was€raised€and€rejected€onÐ  \ Ðdirect€appeal.€€Under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€a€claim€which€has€been€previouslyÐ øH Ðdetermined€cannot€be€a€basis€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(1982)Ð ä4 Ð("A€ground€for€relief€is€'previously€determined'€if€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€theÐ Ð  Ðmerits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing.").€€Second,€even€if€òòBrownóó€were€applied€retroactively,€the€elementsÐ ¼  Ðof€deliberation€and€premeditation€were€adequately€established€by€the€significant€period€of€time€thatÐ ¨ø Ðelapsed€between€the€discovery€of€the€victim€at€the€residence€and€the€fatal€shots.€€Although€theÐ ”ä Ðpetitioner€clearly€reacted€to€the€circumstances€in€an€emotional€way,€she€afterward€had€sexualÐ €Ð Ðrelations€with€her€boyfriend,€slept,€drove€to€the€market,€took€possession€of€a€weapon,€and€stated€anÐ l¼ Ðintention€to€shoot€the€victim€well€before€the€commission€of€the€act.€€Under€these€circumstances,€theÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€was€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€that€the€petitioner€had€the€opportunity€to€consider€herÐ D!” Ðalternatives€before€committing€the€crime.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà@)ìàIIIˆÐ $X" Ðà  àAs€her€final€issue,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€instructions€to€the€jury€precludedÐ ô$D # Ðconsideration€of€lesser€included€offenses€until€the€jury€had€acquitted€the€petitioner€on€the€greaterÐ à%0!$ Ðoffenses.€€In€making€this€argument,€the€petitioner€concedes€that€the€trial€court€provided€a€charge€inÐ Ì&"% Ðcompliance€with€the€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions.€€Nevertheless,€she€argues€that€the€juryÐ ¸'#& Ðshould€have€been€instructed€that€if€it€could€not€agree€on€the€applicability€of€the€greater€offense,€itÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcould€have€also€considered€second€degree€murder€or€voluntary€manslaughter€or€any€other€lesserÐ )à$( Ðcrime.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThis€claim€does€not€warrant€relief.€€Initially,€under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€aÐ ° Ðground€for€relief€is€forever€waived€if€"the€petitioner€knowingly€and€understandingly€failed€to€presentÐ œì Ð[the€issue]€for€determination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€which€theÐ ˆØ Ðground€could€have€been€presented."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1)€(1982).€€"There€is€aÐ tÄ Ðrebuttable€presumption€that€a€ground€for€relief€not€raised€in€any€such€proceeding€which€was€held€wasÐ `° Ðwaived."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(2)€(1982).€€As€indicated€in€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€a€waiver€isÐ L œ Ðdetermined€upon€an€objective€basis€"under€which€a€petitioner€is€bound€by€the€action€or€inaction€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðhis€attorney."€€911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1996).€€Additionally,€this€court€has€expressly€approved€Ð $ t Ðof€similar€jury€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rutherfordóó,€876€S.W.2d€118,€119€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ð  ` ÐIn€òòRutherfordóó,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€it€could€only€consider€the€lesser€includedÐ ü L  Ðoffenses€after€finding€that€the€defendant€is€not€guilty€of€the€greater€offense.€€òòId.óó€€This€court€found€noÐ è 8  Ðerror€in€the€instructions.€€òòId.óó€at€120.€€The€petitioner€is€not,€therefore,€entitled€to€relief.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE