ÿWPC… Õ¹g¸×™v´l_¼¶df‹¸À‡BnÅìQÖhö‚¥-¯ðÝšTÊŽæ±.*T5ä[ÚÕPÐæõ™€¦G3WÉÃv\õØíïôÕDðÊg][ô¯ô¬ï_Ù[nFij‹ßÚ,†UƹQ®2óP¦dxv´ƒ¤DÆÃÚý³€öÒêºîÁÎ>v±g 'ýøFpš§Ÿj(Ü ¦0ó'z^úpú#â)èwÔÞM—_ùÉö²·ª@?6¡Š…U™ÃÈçí.*téx}×ZS;ãZžD~³¤+í¼ ?_ðWÜ,}¡ ßeƒ_4½ Uü%eËØŽgaǶbpV$è}Ñ%ôÎÀÉäeð°´A¤ˆ×}ÊФ_°«Î¬¢4Q'Wå‡Þ`úwGê±Eœ¯FR ¹gÖæ`èžfyœÐ]Ù ‡+i¡l‘¥Œ/‘+‘-¿¼Æ˜ÿ²îÌBçW‘«ò+ïfŠÉä§éíW{â£~drÄÝZ›=”­’Ýã6<Š×¯6èëvðBÍR€33€¢ÜkVaÆ™¦Ätš(/ÂEÑŒ0 °¢Xoï²M£Òìƒ2¿`Ÿ‚öÖ-ÓÌ[ gËy¦ÃC@3µZR@3ç%"×úÿb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz Б Æa Æ' Æí Ƴ 0DyN½U@¿UNÿEM6O>…¯Ãrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 0ë‚‚‚‚ Bmm 0¤Š D3. D-a 0KŽŽ ASÙÆ, 0¤ò 0D– A«Ú˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»Zp -s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo†) ¡bkô5¦ ˜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 ÆÝ ƒRO]$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€date€stamp€on€this€petition€is€smudged,€and€consequently€illegible.€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman (ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ,Ý ƒRO]$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€petitioner€later€dropped€these€allegations,€in€part€because€the€trial€transcript€reveals€that€the€jury€wasÐ ° Ðinstructed€as€to€lesser„included€offenses.€ 4Ý ƒRO]$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€victim€was€apparently€known€by€several€names,€including€Desaron€Taylor€and€Deron€Cathey.€€òòSeeóó€òòClarkóó,Ð ° Ð1998€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€446,€at€*2€n.1.€€ ¥Ý ƒRO]$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€post„conviction€courtððs€order€denying€relief€was€entered€on€October€29,€2001.€€The€technical€recordÐ ° Ðcontains€a€December€10,€2001,€òòpro€seóó€ð ðMotion€for€Correction€or€Modification€of€the€Record€on€Appealðð€requesting€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€post„conviction€court€modify€the€record€to€include€Felix€Lockettððs€death€certificate,€which€had€improperly€beenÐ 8ˆ Ðexcluded.€€Attached€to€the€motion€is€the€petitionerððs€affidavit€stating€that€Lockett€had€been€scheduled€to€testify€at€hisÐ üL Ðevidentiary€hearing€on€June€28,€2001,€that€the€hearing€had€been€continued€and€rescheduled€for€October€25,€2001,€andÐ À Ðthat€on€August€17,€2001,€the€petitioner€had€forwarded€a€copy€of€Lockettððs€death€certificate€to€the€court€clerk.€€AlsoÐ „Ô Ðincluded€is€a€certified€mail€receipt€dated€August€17,€2001,€and€a€copy€of€Felix€Lockettððs€death€certificate,€which€lists€hisÐ H ˜ Ðdate€of€death€as€March€27,€1999.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€however,€the€petitioner€made€no€mention€of€having€mailedÐ  \ Ðthe€death€certificate€to€the€court€clerk,€in€spite€of€the€fact€that€his€testimony€occurred€after€the€post„conviction€courtððsÐ Ð  Ðruling€on€the€admissibility€of€the€affidavit.€€ - ù-(|G2O]$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÝ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôáò»»Ô d(|3G‘$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÝ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G‘$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÝ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÝ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼VÝ»»»ÔÑ8€ÑXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îJÜVÝÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼VÝ»îîJÜ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€May€8,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XÑX»¼VÝÔÌò òÔ#†¼VÝ»XXÑ#ÔJOHNNY€O.€CLARKòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XÑX»¼VÝÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„20669€€€€€€John€P.€Colton,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„02856„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€August€8,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€from€hisÐ xÈ  Ðconviction€for€first€degree€murder,€contending€that:€(1)€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€trialÐ d´ Ðcounsel;€(2)€the€post„conviction€court€erred€by€refusing€to€admit€the€affidavit€of€a€deceased€potentialÐ P  Ðdefense€witness€into€evidence€at€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing;€and€(3)€the€post„convictionÐ <Œ Ðcourt€and€post„conviction€counsel€erred€by€their€failure€to€comply€with€provisions€of€the€Post„Ð (x ÐConviction€Procedure€Act€and€Supreme€Court€Rule€28.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„Ð d Ðconviction€court€denying€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.Ô#†¼VÝ»XXÑ‹#ÔÔ‡XÑX»¼VÝÔÐ P ÐÓ³ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼VÝ»àXÑò#ÔÔ‡XÑX.¼VÝÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòJerry€L.Ð ° ÐSmith,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌJeff€Mueller,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Johnny€O.€Clark.Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€David€H.€Findley,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð L œ ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Tom€Hoover,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ 8!ˆ  ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $"t! ÐÓ¤ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼VÝ»XXÑÓ#ÔÔ‡XÑX»¼VÝÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼VÝ»XXÑl #ÔÔ€XÑX»¼VÝÔò òòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓFACTSÐ Ô%$!% Ðóóó óÌÓû Óòòóóà  àThe€petitioner,€Johnny€O.€Clark,€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€in€the€Shelby€CountyÐ ¬'ü"' ÐCriminal€Court€in€February€1997,€and€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€His€conviction€was€affirmedÐ ˜(è#( Ðon€direct€appeal€to€this€court,€and€his€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ „)Ô$) ÐCourt€was€denied.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Johnny€O.€Clarkóó,€No.€02C01„9708„CR„00307,€1998€Crim.€App.Ð p*À%* ÐLEXIS€446€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€14,€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€directÐ \+¬&+ Ðappeal€opinion€provides€the€following€synopsis€of€the€evidence€at€the€petitionerððs€trial:€Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àOn€the€evening€of€March€14,€1995,€a€host€of€people,€includingÐ ° Ðfamily,€acquaintances,€and€others€gathered€at€the€3171€Nathan€StreetÐ œì Ðresidence€of€Betty€Clark.€€Included€in€this€group€was€nineteen€yearÐ ˆØ Ðold,€Deron€Cathey,€the€victim€in€this€case.€€As€was€customary,€Mrs.Ð tÄ ÐClark€allowed€various€people€to€spend€the€night€at€her€home.€€.€.€.€OnÐ `° Ðthis€particular€evening,€Jerrekcha€Clark,€Mrs.€Clarkððs€granddaughter,Ð L œ Ðand€her€boyfriend,€Robert€Patterson,€went€to€sleep€in€the€living€room;€Ð 8 ˆ ÐMrs.€Clark€and€Eric€Johnson,€Jerrekchaððs€nine€year€old€son,€wereÐ $ t Ðsleeping€in€the€front€bedroom;€Mose€Dire,€a€family€friend,€and€[theÐ  ` Ðvictim]€occupied€the€middle€bedroom;€and€Felix€Lockett,€ð ðan€oldÐ ü L  Ðguy,ðð€and€Tony€Valentine,€the€appellantððs€€brother,€retired€to€the€rearÐ è 8  Ðbedroom.€€Betty€Clark€is€the€mother€of€the€appellant.€€Although€theÐ Ô$  Ðappellant€usually€stayed€at€his€motherððs€house,€he€had€been€absentÐ À  Ðfrom€the€residence€for€the€past€three€days.Ьü ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAt€approximately€3:15€a.m.,€on€March€15,€Tony€ValentineÐ „Ô  Ðwas€awakened€by€the€appellant€and€Mose€Dire€in€the€kitchen.€.€.€.Ð pÀ ÐValentine€confronted€the€appellant€in€the€kitchen€and€asked€him€toÐ \¬ Ðleave€the€home€because€of€previous€altercations€with€[the€victim].€.Ð H˜ Ð.€.€.Valentine€then€escorted€the€apparently€angry€appellant€to€the€frontÐ 4„ Ðdoor€of€the€residence€and€locked€the€door.Ð p` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àSometime€later€that€morning,€around€5:00€a.m.,€the€appellantÐ øH Ðreturned€to€his€motherððs€house€and€began€knocking€on€the€front€door.€Ð ä4 ÐJerrekcha€and€Mrs.€Clark€were€awakened€by€the€noise.€€Mrs.€ClarkÐ Ð  Ðtold€Valentine€to€let€the€appellant€in€the€house.€.€.€.€The€appellantÐ ¼  Ðaccompanied€Valentine€to€the€rear€bedroom€where€he€told€his€brother,Ð ¨ø Ðð ðIððm€going€to€sleep€in€my€bed.ðð€€At€this€time,€Valentine€noticed€that,Ð ”ä Ðalthough€Mose€Dire€was€asleep€in€the€middle€room,€[the€victim]€wasÐ €Ð Ðawake€and€sitting€on€the€bed.€€Valentine€then€went€back€to€sleep.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àShortly€thereafter,€the€sleeping€residents€were€awakened€byÐ D!” Ðthe€sound€of€gunfire.€€Valentine€awoke€to€find€the€appellant€ð ðbentÐ 0"€  Ðover€and€shooting€[the€victim].ðð€€Mose€Dire€observed€[the€victim]Ð #l! Ðlaying€[sic]€across€the€bed€with€his€hands€raised€palm€up€in€the€air.Ð $X" Ð[The€victim]€was€not€armed€with€a€weapon€and€begged€the€appellant,Ð ô$D # Ðð ð[P]lease€donððt€do€this.ðð€€After€firing€multiple€gunshots€at€theÐ à%0!$ Ðunarmed€[victim],€the€appellant€ran€out€the€front€door€of€the€house.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÐ ` x` x ÐòòId.óó€at€**1„4€(footnotes€omitted).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àShortly€after€being€transported€to€the€hospital,€the€victim€died€from€his€injuries.€€òòId.óó€at€*5.€AÐ |*Ì%) Ðpolice€officer,€responding€to€the€shooting€and€standing€on€the€houseððs€front€porch€at€6:15€a.m.,Ð h+¸&* Ðspotted€the€petitioner,€who€was€subsequently€placed€under€arrest,€emerging€from€between€twoÐ ° Ðhouses.€€òòId.óó€€Investigating€officers€found€no€weapons€in€the€home,€and€all€the€witnesses€who€wereÐ œì Ðpresent€at€the€scene€testified€that€no€weapons€were€kept€in€the€residence.€€òòId.óó€€The€petitioner€testifiedÐ ˆØ Ðat€trial,€however,€that€the€victim€was€a€drug€dealer€who€sold€drugs€out€of€his€motherððs€home,€and€thatÐ tÄ Ða€number€of€weapons€were€hidden€in€the€residence.€€òòId.óó€at€*7.€€He€said€that€he€was€reaching€in€hisÐ `° Ðdrawer€for€cologne€when€the€victim€approached€and€asked€if€he€was€ready€for€his€ð ðððass€whooping.ððððÐ L œ ÐòòId.óó€at€*6.€€The€petitioner€said€that€he€just€looked€at€the€victim,€and€the€victim€then€walked€off€ð ðððtoÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€right€where€guns€are€kept€there€in€the€house.ðððð€€òòId.óó€€When€the€petitioner€looked€up€after€puttingÐ $ t Ðhis€cologne€back€in€the€drawer,€the€victim€was€ð ðððcoming€toward€[him].ðððð€€òòId.óó€€The€petitioner€said€thatÐ  ` Ðhe€was€scared,€and€shot€the€victim€as€he€was€coming€toward€him.€òòóó€He€admitted€he€had€bought€theÐ ü L  Ðgun€he€used€in€the€shooting,€a€.38€revolver,€earlier€that€evening€from€a€man€on€the€street.€òòId.óó€€TheÐ è 8  Ðpetitionerððs€mother,€testifying€on€his€behalf,€confirmed€that€the€petitioner€and€the€victim€had€beenÐ Ô$  Ðarguing€for€about€a€month,€and€said€that€the€victim€had€told€her€he€was€going€to€kill€the€petitioner.Ð À  ÐòòId.óó€at€*3€n.3.Ð ¬ü  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àÐ ` x` x Ðà  àOn€December€4,€1998,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€se€óópetition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ð „Ô  Ðalleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€On€January€26,€1999,Ð pÀ Ðthe€post„conviction€court€appointed€counsel€for€the€petitioner.€€Subsequently,€he€filed€an€amendedÐ \¬ Ðòòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€asserting€that€his€case€had€been€continued€for€over€twoÐ H˜ Ðyears€and€that€his€post„conviction€counsel€had€failed,€despite€his€repeated€requests,€to€amend€hisÐ 4„ Ðpetition€to€include€allegations€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€charge€the€jury€on€lesser„included€offensesÐ  p Ðand€issued€unconstitutional€instructions€on€reasonable€doubt.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€petitioner€additionally€allegedÐ  \ Ðthat€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€adequately€investigate€and€prepare€the€case,€failed€to€communicateÐ øH Ðwith€the€petitioner,€failed€to€file€appropriate€pretrial€motions,€failed€to€make€timely€and€necessaryÐ ä4 Ðobjections€at€trial,€and€failed€to€call€defense€witnesses€to€impeach€the€testimony€of€the€StateððsÐ Ð  Ðwitnesses.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àAt€the€June€28,€2001,€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€his€trial€counselÐ ”ä Ðmet€with€him€only€three€or€four€times€in€the€four€months€immediately€preceding€his€trial,€and€onlyÐ €Ð Ðone€or€two€additional€times.€€The€petitioner€made€a€number€of€complaints€against€his€trial€counsel.€Ð l¼ ÐHe€said€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€prepare€him€for€his€cross„examination€testimony,€failed€toÐ X ¨ Ðadequately€investigate€the€case,€and€never€told€him€of€having€talked€to€any€of€the€individuals€whoÐ D!” Ðwere€present€in€the€house€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€primary€complaint€was€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€obtain€the€statement€ofÐ $X" ÐFelix€Lockett,€whom€the€petitioner€claimed€would€have€corroborated€that€he€shot€the€victim€in€self„Ð ô$D # Ðdefense.€€He€testified€that€Lockett,€who€was€renting€a€room€from€the€petitionerððs€€mother€at€the€timeÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€shooting,€was€the€only€individual,€besides€the€victim€and€the€petitioner,€present€in€the€roomÐ Ì&"% Ðwhere€the€shooting€occurred.€€The€petitioner€believed€that€Lockett€was€admitted€to€the€hospitalÐ ° Ðapproximately€three€weeks€prior€to€the€trial,€and€said€that€he€had€subsequently€died.€€Although€heÐ œì Ðtold€trial€counsel€that€Lockett€would€support€his€account€of€the€shooting,€trial€counsel€failed€to€secureÐ ˆØ Ðhis€testimony,€in€spite€of€the€nearly€two€years€that€elapsed€from€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€arrestÐ tÄ Ðuntil€the€trial.€€The€petitioner€admitted€on€cross„examination,€however,€that€Lockett€was€not€underÐ `° Ðany€disability€during€the€months€that€elapsed€between€the€shooting€and€his€admittance€to€the€hospital.€Ð L œ ÐHe€said€that€he€thought€he€had€first€learned€that€Lockett€was€in€the€hospital€at€some€point€during€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrial.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€identified€a€typewritten€document€entitled€ð ðSworn€Testimony€of€Felix€LockettððÐ ü L  Ðas€Lockettððs€affidavit€containing€his€sworn€testimony€of€the€events€that€transpired€the€morning€of€theÐ è 8  Ðshooting,€and€agreed€that€it€provided€a€different€account€from€that€given€by€the€Stateððs€witnesses€atÐ Ô$  Ðtrial.€€He€said€that€the€affidavit€was€prepared€by€someone€acting€on€his€behalf,€who€contacted€LockettÐ À  Ðbefore€his€death,€obtained€the€affidavit,€and€provided€it€to€the€petitioner.€€Post„conviction€counselÐ ¬ü  Ðsought€to€have€the€affidavit€admitted€into€evidence€at€the€hearing,€but€the€post„conviction€courtÐ ˜è  Ðdenied€the€request,€ruling€that€a€proper€foundation€for€its€admittance€had€not€been€laid.€Ð „Ô  ÐConsequently,€the€affidavit€was€marked€as€an€exhibit€for€identification€purposes€only.Ð pÀ ÐÌ€€à  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€was€a€graduate€of€The€University€of€Memphis€School€of€Law,Ð H˜ Ðand€had€been€licensed€to€practice€law€for€twenty„two€years.€€He€was€currently€a€judicial€magistrate,Ð 4„ Ða€post€to€which€he€had€been€appointed€two€to€two€and€a€half€years€prior€to€the€date€of€the€evidentiaryÐ  p Ðhearing.€€He€had€spent€eighteen€years€with€the€public€defenderððs€office,€and€most€of€his€practice€overÐ  \ Ðthe€years€had€consisted€of€criminal€defense€work.€€He€was€a€member€of€the€public€defenderððs€capitalÐ øH Ðdefense€team€at€the€time€he€was€appointed€to€represent€the€petitioner,€although€the€petitionerððs€wasÐ ä4 Ðnot€a€capital€case.€€He€estimated€that€he€had€handled€about€eight€capital€cases€and€twenty€to€thirtyÐ Ð  Ðfirst€degree€murder€cases€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€trial.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€said€he€had€attempted€to€locate€and€interview€every€individual€who€was€in€theÐ ”ä Ðhouse€at€the€time€of€the€shooting,€including€Felix€Lockett.€€His€efforts€to€find€Lockett,€whichÐ €Ð Ðultimately€proved€unsuccessful,€included€making€at€least€two€personal€visits€to€the€house,€sendingÐ l¼ Ðinvestigators€to€the€house€on€other€occasions,€talking€with€members€of€the€household€and€theÐ X ¨ Ðcommunity,€and€twice€issuing€subpoenas€for€Lockett.€€Trial€counsel€said€he€thought€the€State€hadÐ D!” Ðalso€tried€to€subpoena€Lockett€at€least€once.€€Although€others€in€the€community€were€unable€toÐ 0"€  Ðprovide€Lockettððs€whereabouts,€trial€counsel€learned€from€them€that€Lockett€was€elderly,€and€ð ðmayÐ #l! Ðhave€had€some€problem€with€his€mental€thinking€at€that€time.ðð€€His€understanding€was€that€LockettÐ $X" Ðhad€suffered€a€head€injury€and€was€in€a€hospital€somewhere.€€€However,€he€did€not€know€the€nameÐ ô$D # Ðor€location€of€the€facility,€and€did€not€think€he€had€sent€investigators€to€ascertain€in€which€hospitalÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€witness€might€have€been.€€His€recollection€was€that€the€information€he€had€received€aboutÐ Ì&"% ÐLockettððs€mental€condition€had€led€him€to€believe€that€he€would€not€make€a€good€witness€at€trial.€Ð ¸'#& ÐHe€said€that€he€had€kept€the€petitioner€fully€informed€of€everything€that€happened€in€the€case,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðincluding€the€situation€with€Lockett.€€The€petitioner€wanted€to€go€forward€with€the€trial€rather€thanÐ )à$( Ðseek€another€continuance.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€their€theory€of€defense,€which€the€petitioner€had€approved,€wasÐ ° Ðto€show€that€the€victim€was€a€ð ðthreatening€person,€a€young€thug,ðð€whom€the€petitioner€shot€in€self„Ð œì Ðdefense.€€He€said€that€he€explained€the€petitionerððs€Fifth€Amendment€rights,€including€his€right€toÐ ˆØ Ðchoose€whether€he€wanted€to€testify€in€his€own€behalf.€€The€petitioner€had€wanted€to€testify,€and€theÐ tÄ Ðdecision€to€do€so€had€been€his.€€Counsel€had€prepared€the€petitioner€by€having€him€go€through€hisÐ `° Ðtestimony€during€rehearsals€at€which€trial€counsel€played€the€role€of€both€prosecutor€and€defenseÐ L œ Ðattorney.€€Trial€counsel€said€he€believed€that€they€had€put€on€ð ða€pretty€good€case,ðð€as€evidenced€byÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€fact€that€ð ð[t]he€jury€came€back€twice€and€it€appeared€that€they€may€have€been€hung.ðð€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€thought€he€had€received€LockettððsÐ ü L  Ðstatement€as€part€of€the€discovery€provided€by€the€State,€but€that€he€did€not€have€his€case€file,€andÐ è 8  Ðthus€could€not€recall€what€information€the€statement€contained.€€Regardless,€he€did€not€believeÐ Ô$  ÐLockettððs€testimony€would€have€made€any€difference€to€the€outcome€of€the€trial.Ð À  ÐÌà  àOn€October€29,€2001,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€an€order€denying€the€petition€for€post„Ð ˜è  Ðconviction€relief,€finding€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proving€that€he€was€deniedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€Specifically,€the€court€found€that€trial€counsel€adequatelyÐ pÀ Ðinvestigated€and€prepared€the€case,€including€the€possibility€of€calling€Lockett€as€a€witness,€and€thatÐ \¬ Ðhis€performance€fell€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€criminal€attorneys.€€The€post„Ð H˜ Ðconviction€court€further€found€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€show€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€delayÐ 4„ Ðin€his€post„conviction€hearing,€or€by€post„conviction€counselððs€failure€to€amend€his€òòpro€se€óópetitionÐ  p Ðfor€post„conviction€relief.€Ð  \ ÐÌà@òò&ìàò òòòANALYSISóóó óˆÐ ä4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌà@i i ìàò òI.€€Post„Conviction€Standard€of€ReviewˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àó óThe€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clear€andÐ ”ä Ðconvincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€When€an€evidentiary€hearing€is€held€Ð €Ð Ðin€the€post„conviction€setting,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unlessÐ l¼ Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);Ð X ¨ ÐòòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996).€€Where€appellate€review€involves€purely€factualÐ D!” Ðissues,€the€appellate€court€should€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997).€€However,€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€the€factsÐ #l! Ðof€the€case€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€òòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,€96Ð $X" Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€The€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€which€€presents€mixed€questions€of€factÐ ô$D # Ðand€law,€is€reviewed€òòde€óónovo,€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€given€only€to€the€post„convictionÐ à%0!$ Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001);€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€atÐ Ì&"% Ð461.ò òòòÐ ¸'#& ÐÌÐ  )à$( Ðà@Ä Ä ìàóóII.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àó óThe€petitioner€first€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€receivedÐ ˆØ Ðthe€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€To€establish€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€theÐ tÄ Ðpetitioner€has€the€burden€to€show€both€that€trial€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€thatÐ `° Ðcounselððs€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€the€proceeding.€€òòÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔStrickland€v.Ð L œ ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998)€(noting€thatÐ $ t Ðsame€standard€for€determining€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€is€applied€in€federal€cases€alsoÐ  ` Ðapplies€in€Tennessee).òòóó€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€is€a€two„prong€test:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFirst,€the€defendant€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€wasÐ Ô$  Ðdeficient.€€This€requires€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€seriousÐ À  Ðthat€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Second,€the€defendant€mustÐ ˜è  Ðshow€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€ThisÐ „Ô  Ðrequires€showing€that€counselððs€errors€were€so€serious€as€to€depriveÐ pÀ Ðthe€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€result€is€reliable.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌòòóó466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€deficient€performance€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€that€ð ðcounselððs€acts€orÐ  \ Ðomissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailingÐ øH Ðprofessional€norms.ðð€òòóó€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð ä4 Ðat€688,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065,€and€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975)).€€When€analyzingÐ Ð  Ða€petitionerððs€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€court€must€indulge€in€a€strongÐ ¼  Ðpresumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€fell€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance,Ð ¨ø Ðòòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€not€second„guess€the€tactical€andÐ ”ä Ðstrategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€they€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequateÐ €Ð Ðpreparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€prejudice€prong€of€the€test€isÐ l¼ Ðsatisfied€by€showing€a€reasonable€probability,€òòi.eóó.,€a€ð ðprobability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidenceÐ X ¨ Ðin€the€outcome,ðð€that€ð ðbut€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€wouldÐ D!” Ðhave€been€different.ðð€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.Ô#†XÑXXXÑ)R#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔòòóóÐ 0"€  ÐÌÔ#†XÑXXXÑù\#ÔÔ‡XÑXXXÑÔà  àBecause€both€prongs€of€the€test€must€be€satisfied,€a€failure€to€show€either€deficientÐ $X" Ðperformance€or€resulting€prejudice€results€in€a€failure€to€establish€the€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960Ð ô$D # ÐS.W.2d€572,€580€(Tenn.€1997)òòóó.€€For€this€reason,€courts€need€not€approach€the€òòStricklandóó€test€in€aÐ à%0!$ Ðspecific€order€or€even€ð ðaddress€both€components€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficientÐ Ì&"% Ðshowing€on€one.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370Ð ¸'#& Ð(stating€that€ð ðfailure€to€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€reliefÐ ¤(ô#' Ðon€the€ineffective€assistance€claimðð).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àThe€petitioner€contends€on€appeal€that€Ô#†XÑXXXÑW]#Ôtrial€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistance€by€(1)Ð ° Ðâ âfailing€to€move€for€a€mistrial,€based€on€the€prosecutorððs€ð ðobvious€misconductðð€during€voir€dire€andÐ œì Ðthe€improper€victim€impact€testimony€he€elicited€from€the€victimððs€mother;€(2)€failing€to€call€aÐ ˆØ Ðpotential€defense€witness,€Jack€Wafford,€whose€testimony€would€have€supported€the€petitionerððsÐ tÄ Ðclaim€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor€in€the€encounter;€and€(3)€failing€to€obtain€LockettððsÐ `° Ðtestimony€at€trial€or€preserve€his€statement€by€deposition€before€his€death.€€We€will€now€review€theseÐ L œ Ðclaims.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@[[ìàò òA.€€Failure€to€Move€for€a€Mistrialó óˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€first€argues€that€trial€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistance€for€failing€toÐ è 8  Ðmove€for€a€mistrial€in€response€to€allegedly€improper€comments€made€by€the€prosecutor€during€voirÐ Ô$  Ðdire€and€the€allegedly€improper€victim€impact€testimony€offered€by€the€victimððs€mother.€€The€StateÐ À  Ðargues€that€the€petitioner€has€waived€the€issue€by€his€failure€to€present€evidence€on€this€claim€at€theÐ ¬ü  Ðevidentiary€hearing.€We€agree.€The€petitioner€not€only€failed€to€present€any€evidence€in€support€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthis€claim,€but€also€failed€to€raise€it€as€an€issue€before€the€post„conviction€court.€€Factual€issues€notÐ „Ô  Ðpresented€to€the€post„conviction€court€cannot€be€raised€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð pÀ ÐApp.€P.€36(a);òòóó€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€902€(Tenn.€1990).€€Even€if€not€waived,€the€petitionerÐ \¬ Ðwould€not€be€entitled€to€relief€on€this€claim.€€The€transcripts€of€the€trial€and€the€motion€for€a€new€trialÐ H˜ Ðreveal€that€trial€counsel€not€only€raised€timely€objections€at€trial€to€the€allegedly€improper€voir€direÐ 4„ Ðand€victim€impact€testimony,€but€also€raised€these€issues€as€grounds€for€relief€at€the€hearing€on€theÐ  p Ðmotion€for€a€new€trial.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà@K K ìàò òB.€€Failure€to€Call€Jack€Wafford€as€Witness€at€Trialó óˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àDuring€the€presentation€of€the€defense€proof€at€trial,€trial€counsel€requested€in€a€benchÐ ¼  Ðhearing€that€he€be€allowed€to€present€the€testimony€of€Jack€Wafford,€whom,€he€said,€was€a€cousinÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€petitionerððs,€and€whom€he€believed€would€testify€that€the€victim€had€showed€him€a€gun€beforeÐ ”ä Ðthe€shooting,€saying,€ð ðIs€this€(sic)€for€your€cousin?ðð€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€Wafford€would€beÐ €Ð Ðallowed€to€testify€for€the€limited€purpose€of€establishing€that€the€victim€was€the€first€aggressor.€€ò òÐ l¼ Ðó óHowever,€the€following€day,€before€Wafford€was€called€to€the€stand,€the€prosecutor€informed€theÐ X ¨ Ðtrial€court€that€he€believed€a€tape€recording€existed€of€the€defenseððs€interview€with€the€witness,€basedÐ D!” Ðon€the€fact€that€Wafford€had€told€him€the€previous€week€that€his€interview€had€been€taped.€€TheÐ 0"€  Ðprosecutor€told€the€court€that€he€had€asked€trial€counsel€for€a€copy€of€the€tape€recording€the€previousÐ #l! Ðafternoon,€but€that€trial€counsel€had€been€unable€to€find€it,€and€he€was€therefore€requesting€that€theÐ $X" Ðwitness€be€prevented€from€testifying.€€In€response,€trial€counsel€informed€the€court€that€he€had€talkedÐ ô$D # Ðto€his€investigator,€who€had€told€him€that€the€interview€had€not€been€recorded,€but€that,€regardless,Ð à%0!$ Ðhe€would€not€be€calling€the€witness€to€testify.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€now€argues,€for€the€first€time€on€appeal,€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfailing€to€call€Wafford€as€a€witness€at€his€trial.€€According€to€his€argument,€trial€counselððs€deficiencyÐ )à$( Ðin€failing€to€provide€the€òòJencksóó€material€required€for€Wafford€to€take€the€stand,€òòóóð ðseverelyÐ |*Ì%) Ðcompromisedðð€his€claim€of€self„defense,€since€without€Wafford€or€Lockett,€his€only€defenseÐ h+¸&* Ðconsisted€of€the€testimony€of€himself€and€his€mother,€both€of€whom€the€jury€could€consider€biased.€Ð ° ÐÌà  àAs€with€the€previous€claim,€the€petitioner€did€not€raise€this€allegation€in€his€original€orÐ ˆØ Ðamended€petitions,€did€not€present€any€evidence€on€it€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€and€did€not€argueÐ tÄ Ðit€as€an€issue€before€the€post„conviction€court.€€Ô‡XÑXXXÑÔA€petition€based€on€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ `° Ðis€a€single€ground€for€relief,€therefore€all€factual€allegations€must€be€presented€in€one€claim.€€òòSeeóó€Ð L œ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(d)€(1997).Ô#†XÑXXXÑßs#Ô€€Thus,€we€agree€with€the€State€that,€as€with€his€first€claim,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthis€issue€has€been€waived.€€ð ðIssues€not€presented€in€a€post„conviction€petition€and€raised€for€the€firstÐ $ t Ðtime€on€appeal€are€waived.ðð€òòState€v.€David€Thomas€Barronóó,€No.€W1999„01134„CCA„R3„PC,€2000Ð  ` ÐTenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€513,€at€*8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€30,€2000).€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àEven€if€not€waived,€the€petitioner€would€not€be€entitled€to€relief€on€this€claim,€since€heÐ Ô$  Ðcannot€show€either€a€deficiency€in€counselððs€performance€or€a€resulting€prejudice€to€his€case.€Ð À  ÐAlthough€he€alleges€that€counsel€was€deficient€for€failing€to€provide€òòJencksóó€material,€he€hasÐ ¬ü  Ðpresented€no€proof€that€a€tape€recording€ever€existed€of€Waffordððs€interview€with€trial€counselððsÐ ˜è  Ðinvestigator€which€he€faults€trial€counsel€for€losing.€€Nor€has€he€shown€a€reasonable€probability€thatÐ „Ô  ÐWaffordððs€testimony€would€have€altered€the€outcome€of€his€trial.€€Although€trial€counsel€hadÐ pÀ Ðinformed€the€trial€court€of€what€he€expected€the€witnessððs€testimony€would€be,€the€petitioner€did€notÐ \¬ Ðpresent€Wafford€as€a€witness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€Without€proof€of€the€testimony€WaffordÐ H˜ Ðactually€would€have€offered€at€trial,€the€petitioner€cannot€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€his€failureÐ 4„ Ðto€appear€as€a€witness.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð  p ÐMoreover,€even€assuming€Wafford€had€testified€at€trial€in€accordance€with€trial€counselððsÐ  \ Ðexpectations,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€jury€would€have€viewed€him,€the€petitionerððs€cousin,€asÐ øH Ðthe€ð ðobjective€witnessðð€the€petitioner€envisions€him€to€be,€or€that€his€testimony,€the€victim€showedÐ ä4 Ðhim€a€gun€before€the€shooting,€would€have€altered€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà@Ö Ö ìàò òC.€€Failure€to€Obtain€Lockettððs€Testimony€ˆÐ ¨ø Ðó óÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€trial€counsel€provided€ineffective€assistance€by€his€failure€toÐ €Ð Ðobtain€Lockettððs€testimony€before€his€death.€€The€post„conviction€court€found,€however,€that€trialÐ l¼ Ðcounsel€adequately€prepared€and€investigated€the€case,€including€the€possibility€of€calling€LockettÐ X ¨ Ðas€a€witness,€and€the€record€supports€this€finding.€€Trial€counselððs€testimony€reveals€that€he€madeÐ D!” Ðreasonable€efforts€to€locate€and€interview€Lockett€prior€to€trial.€€In€addition€to€having€LockettÐ 0"€  Ðsubpoenaed€twice,€trial€counsel€and€investigators€from€his€office€made€several€visits€to€the€home,Ð #l! Ðseeking€information€from€residents€of€the€house€and€the€community.€€In€spite€of€their€efforts,€theyÐ $X" Ðwere€unable€to€ascertain€Lockettððs€whereabouts.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€asserts€that,€given€the€frail€state€of€Lockettððs€health,€trial€counsel€should€haveÐ Ì&"% Ðpreserved€his€testimony€by€deposition€for€use€in€post„trial€proceedings.€€However,€there€was€noÐ ¸'#& Ðevidence€that€trial€counsel€knew€where€Lockett€could€be€reached€or€that€his€physical€health€was€frail.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐMoreover,€trial€counsel€explained€that€the€information€he€had€received€about€Lockettððs€advanced€ageÐ )à$( Ðand€mental€condition€had€led€him€to€believe€that€his€testimony€would€not€be€helpful€to€the€defense.Ð |*Ì%) ÐIn€addition,€his€recollection€was€that€the€petitionerððs€brother,€Tony€Valentine,€had€placed€Lockett€inÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€bathroom€at€the€time€the€shooting€occurred,€where€he€could€not€have€been€a€witness€to€the€event.€Ð ° ÐIn€light€of€this€evidence,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated€that€trial€counselÐ œì Ðprovided€ineffective€assistance€by€his€failure€to€obtain€Lockettððs€testimony€before€his€death.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€record€supports€the€finding€of€the€post„conviction€court€that€theÐ `° Ðpetitioner€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proving€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€by€clear€andÐ L œ Ðconvincing€evidence.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@š š ìàò òIII.€€Failure€to€Consider€Lockettððs€Affidavit€as€EvidenceˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àó óThe€petitioner€next€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€by€its€failure€to€considerÐ è 8  ÐLockettððs€affidavit€in€determining€the€merits€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€arguing€thatÐ Ô$  Ðits€failure€to€do€so€ð ðresulted€in€substantial€abridgement€of€[his]€right€to€a€fair€and€unbiased€hearing.ððÐ À  ÐAsserting€that€affidavits€are€ð ðinherently€trustworthy,ðð€he€argues€that€the€€post„conviction€court€shouldÐ ¬ü  Ðhave€either€considered€the€Lockett€affidavit€as€submitted,€or€granted€leave€so€that€his€post„convictionÐ ˜è  Ðcounsel€could€establish€the€proper€foundation€for€its€admittance€as€substantive€proof.€€The€StateÐ „Ô  Ðcontends€that€any€error€in€failing€to€consider€the€affidavit€was€harmless,€arguing€that€it€provides€noÐ pÀ Ðsupport€for€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€Lockettððs€testimony€would€have€altered€the€outcome€of€theÐ \¬ Ðtrial.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€affidavit€at€issue,€dated€January€13,€1998,€purporting€to€be€signed€by€ð ðFelix€Lockettðð€andÐ  p Ðnotarized€by€ð ðN.Y.€Spragginsðð€reads,€in€pertinent€part:€Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAfter€Tony€Valentine€let€[the€petitioner]€into€the€home€Tony€went€toÐ ä4 Ðbed.€€[The€petitioner]€went€to€bed.€€While€[the€petitioner]€was€lyingÐ Ð  Ðin€bed€another€occupant€of€the€house€named€Desaron€Taylor׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¼  Ðapproached€[the€petitioner]€and€said€ð ðO€D€I€have€got€a€pistol€and€I€amÐ ¨ø Ðgoing€to€kill€you€right€there€in€the€bed€where€you€are€laying.ðð€Ð”ä` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€about€a€minute„and„a„half€[the€petitioner]€got€up€out€of€bed€andÐ l¼ Ðsaid:€ð ðWell€since€you€are€going€to€kill€me€we€might€as€well€get€it€overÐ X ¨ Ðwith€nowðð.€[sic]€At€that€moment€[the€petitioner]€shot€[the€victim].Ð D!” ÐAfter€shooting€[the€victim],€[the€petitioner]€went€outside€and€waitedÐ 0"€  Ðfor€the€police€to€arrive.€€When€the€police€arrived€[the€petitioner]Ð #l! Ðimmediately€surrendered.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€admission€of€evidence€generally€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€andÐ à%0!$ Ðwill€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Edisonóó,€9Ð Ì&"% ÐS.W.3d€75,€77€(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€743€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€ruling€theÐ ¸'#& Ðaffidavit€inadmissible,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€a€proper€foundation€for€its€admittanceÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhad€not€been€laid,€as€there€was€no€proof€of€the€circumstances€under€which€it€had€been€taken€orÐ ° Ðwhether€the€witness€was,€in€fact,€dead€or€otherwise€unavailable€to€testify€at€the€hearing.€€We€find€noÐ œì Ðabuse€of€discretion€in€the€courtððs€ruling€in€this€matter.€€The€petitionerððs€testimony€was€the€onlyÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€to€show€that€the€witness€was€deceased,€and€post„Ð tÄ Ðconviction€counsel€did€not€request€a€continuance€in€order€to€obtain€proof€of€the€witnessððs€death.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `° ÐWith€regard€to€the€circumstances€under€which€the€affidavit€had€been€made,€the€petitioner€testifiedÐ L œ Ðonly€that€ð ðfrom€what€[he]€underst[oo]d,ðð€it€had€been€prepared€by€someone€on€his€behalf,€either€ð ðO.Ð 8 ˆ ÐZ.€Eversðð€or€ð ðReggie,€the€man€own€[sic]€the€funeral€home€in€East€Memphis.ðð€€We€note€further€thatÐ $ t Ðthe€affidavit,€which€does€not€bear€the€seal€of€a€notary€public,€recites€that€it€was€executed€on€JanuaryÐ  ` Ð13,€1998,€nearly€eleven€months€before€the€first€òòpro€seóó€petition€was€filed€on€December€4,€1998.€Ð ü L  ÐAlthough€the€petitioner€asserts€on€appeal€that€ð ð[a]ffidavits€are€deemed€so€inherently€trustworthy€thatÐ è 8  Ðadversarial€testing€would€add€little€to€their€reliability,ðð€the€lack€of€proof€as€to€how€this€documentÐ Ô$  Ðcame€to€exist€and€to€bear€a€shaky€and€difficult€to€read€signature€of€what€appears€to€be€ð ðFelix€LockettððÐ À  Ðrequires€an€unwarranted€bending€of€the€rules€of€evidence€for€it€to€be€utilized€in€any€fashion.€€UnderÐ ¬ü  Ðthese€circumstances,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€post„conviction€court€abused€its€discretion€inÐ ˜è  Ðrefusing€to€consider€the€document€as€evidence€at€the€hearing.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€even€if€a€proper€foundation€for€its€admittance€hadÐ \¬ Ðbeen€laid,€the€affidavit€does€not€support€the€petitionerððs€contention€that€Lockettððs€testimony€wouldÐ H˜ Ðhave€altered€the€outcome€of€his€trial.€€As€the€State€points€out,€instead€of€corroborating€the€petitionerððsÐ 4„ Ðtrial€testimony,€the€account€of€the€shooting€provided€in€the€affidavit€contradicts€many€of€the€detailsÐ  p Ðthat€the€petitioner€provided€at€trial,€including€what€the€petitioner€was€doing€when€confronted€by€theÐ  \ Ðvictim,€and€how€he€reacted€afterwards.€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€post„convictionÐ øH Ðrelief€on€this€issue.Ð ä4 ÐÌà@R R ìàò òIV.€€Compliance€with€Rules€of€Post„Conviction€Procedureó óˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àAs€his€final€issue,€the€petitioner€contends€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€failure€of€hisÐ ”ä Ðappointed€post„conviction€counsel€and€the€post„conviction€court€to€comply€with€various€provisionsÐ €Ð Ðof€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Actòò€óóand€Supreme€Court€Rule€28.€€Specifically,€he€contends€thatÐ l¼ Ðthe€post„conviction€court€failed€to€hold€the€evidentiary€hearing€within€the€time€limits€established€byÐ X ¨ Ðthe€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€and€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€28,€and€that€his€post„Ð D!” Ðconviction€counsel€failed€to€amend€his€òòpro€se€óópetition€within€thirty€days€or€certify€that€the€petitionÐ 0"€  Ðwould€not€be€amended,€as€required€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„207(b)(2),€andÐ ° Ðfailed€to€certify€that€he€adequately€investigated€the€case€and€raised€all€legitimate€grounds€for€post„Ð œì Ðconviction€relief,€as€required€by€Supreme€Court€Rule€28,€ðð€6(C)(3).€€He€also€argues€that€his€post„Ð ˆØ Ðconviction€counsel€was€deficient€for€failing€to€file€a€copy€of€€Lockettððs€death€certificate,€failing€toÐ tÄ Ðquestion€trial€counsel€about€his€failure€to€comply€with€òòJencksóó,€and€failing€to€file€his€closing€argumentÐ `° Ðwith€the€post„conviction€court.€The€petitioner€asks€that€his€case€be€remanded€to€the€post„convictionÐ L œ Ðcourt€with€instructions€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€the€Tennessee€Legislature€and€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€regarding€post„conviction€proceedings.€€The€State€responds€by€arguingÐ $ t Ðthat€the€petitioner€has€no€constitutional€or€statutory€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€aÐ  ` Ðpost„conviction€proceeding,€and€that€the€petitioner€has€not€shown€any€prejudice€resulting€from€theÐ ü L  Ðdelay€in€his€case.€€We€agree€with€the€State.€€Ð è 8  Ðà  àÌà  àSection€40„30„209(a)€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€and€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ À  ÐRule€28,€Section€8€provide€that€the€post„conviction€court€shall€enter€an€order€setting€a€hearing€withinÐ ¬ü  Ðthirty€days€of€the€filing€of€the€Stateððs€response€to€the€petition,€and€that€the€evidentiary€hearing€shallÐ ˜è  Ðbe€held€within€four€calendar€months€of€the€entry€of€the€courtððs€order.€€The€Post„ConvictionÐ „Ô  ÐProcedure€Act€further€provides€that€the€deadline€ð ðmay€be€extended€only€by€order€of€the€court€basedÐ pÀ Ðupon€a€finding€that€unforeseeable€circumstances€render€a€continuance€a€manifest€necessity.€€SuchÐ \¬ Ðextension€shall€not€exceed€sixty€(60)€days.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„209(a)€(1997).€€The€StateððsÐ H˜ Ðresponse€to€the€petition€was€filed€on€February€10,€2000.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€Ð 4„ Ðwhy€the€hearing€was€delayed€beyond€the€four„month€period€specified.€€However,€in€a€recent€case,Ð  p Ðthis€court€concluded€that€a€delay€in€holding€an€evidentiary€hearing€does€not€entitle€a€petitioner€toÐ  \ Ðpost„conviction€relief:Ð øH ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAssuming€that€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€comply€withÐ Ð  Ðthe€time€limits€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Rule€of€the€Supreme€Court€28,Ð ¼  ÐSection€8,€this€would€not€entitle€Petitioner€to€be€granted€post„Ð ¨ø Ðconviction€relief.€€Generally,€statutory€provisions€requiring€that€an€actÐ ”ä Ðbe€done€within€a€specified€period€of€time€are€directory,€rather€thanÐ €Ð Ðmandatory.€€In€the€post„conviction€setting,€there€is€no€indication€at€allÐ l¼ Ðthat€the€legislature,€or€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€intended€for€aÐ X ¨ Ðpetitioner€to€be€granted€post„conviction€relief€simply€because€of€non„Ð D!” Ðcompliance€of€performing€an€act€within€a€certain€time€limit.€€Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌòòGeorge€Thurman€Haynie,€Jr.€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M2001„01522„CCA„R3„PC,€2001€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð $X" ÐLEXIS€1007,€at€**19„20€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€26,€2002)€(citations€omitted),€òòapp.€for€perm.€toÐ ô$D # Ðappeal€filedóó€(Tenn.€June€13,€2002).€òòóó€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€petitioner€was€notÐ à%0!$ Ðprejudiced€by€the€delay€in€his€evidentiary€hearing.€€We€agree,€and€conclude€that€he€is€neither€entitledÐ Ì&"% Ðto€post„conviction€relief€nor€a€new€evidentiary€hearing.Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€evidentiary€hearing€because€of€post„Ð )à$( Ðconviction€counselððs€deficient€performance,€including€his€failure€to€certify€that€€he€reviewed€the€post„Ð |*Ì%) Ðconviction€petition€and€investigated€all€possible€constitutional€violations.€€The€law€is€well„Ð h+¸&* Ðestablished,€however,€that€a€petitioner€has€no€statutory€or€constitutional€right€to€the€effectiveÐ ° Ðassistance€of€post„conviction€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€712€(Tenn.€1995);Ð œì ÐòòWayford€Demonbreun,€Jr.€v.€Stateóó,€No.01C01„9711„CR„00539,€1999€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€851,Ð ˆØ Ðat€*13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€19,€1999).€€In€òòDemonbreunóó,€this€court€rejected€a€petitionerððs€similarÐ tÄ Ðclaim€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€new€evidentiary€hearing€because€of€the€failure€of€his€post„convictionÐ `° Ðcounsel€to€file€certification,€finding€that€it€was€ð ðakin€to€alleging€that€he€received€ineffectiveÐ L œ Ðassistance€from€his€post„conviction€counsel€because€the€attorney€failed€to€file€the€requiredÐ 8 ˆ Ðcertification.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€a€new€evidentiary€hearing€or€post„Ð $ t Ðconviction€relief€based€on€the€alleged€deficiencies€in€post„conviction€counselððs€performance.€Ð  ` ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àBased€on€the€foregoing€authorities€and€reasoning,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€orderÐ À  Ðdismissing€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE