ÿWPCi ì…»YÅ€3ˆ3ˆTr8P”2e¯˜RJ‰S£#ƒK¡aû~pÖ¼Ïý _ôL XŽULcÖæÞgæd°Èí'yp9hóòXß±d{–KD]MoT˜îzÝÅïÑ=tÀât:ïó%— Vkârï$\,· ¬ôNŠN„@_õ%“˜üÑþÚ|›ZÅSútøTìZ‰œ|üŽõõ§¦XQ¶lŽ@ƒÍS¹1ó  Gbà]‚;˜´ìÊ20ŽeA»!ö±õ/T.Þš~¿o“XÉ-*(Yˆš/(ÉïëKO:qÌÓ6Ù:åêÚs³u]‘œK~@&/"A·(|ôüüeËЃxj·ý8MÖ,ýi'÷!­’Y禽w?>s ý©¿É ™’ºýîRëFÈÌŽëî“ÓÝ$à¼Ðëú@õØ×:·âëÔ³ets|6J.äG»m¥ÞJ}è¹gÁ:ÿë c0Ž Q àNqÉCU>ªŽè 0nv 0<ä· 0µ× D+Œ A¡· @ X ob @ ï où °† "6"X 0Þz"X"z"œ 0D¾UJ"L"nUNˆÞ"f"ˆ"ª"ÌÌ"î""2"TTT"v"˜"ºººº"Ü"þ"  "B"d"†† B-¨ BÕò 0š#ÉœUNe %³M¹(½Nå^ çwó4÷  m E$ô\  `‹&Times New Roman'  AOCUSER0AOCUSER .   <ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔ<ÿÿ:Footnote Ref ­Ý ƒä)ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€8XúÉXX8XÔÔ€XúÉXX8XúÉÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓÈÓ(2ä$©©Ý ƒ6˜!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€8XúÉXX8XÔÔ€XúÉXX8XúÉÔÝ  Ý'dxd›&Draw Object <<=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK  ÿWPC°°º iœ K51ÿÿÿ3%)+-51d ~ -  ÿWPC°°º iœ K51ÿÿÿ3%)+-51d ~ - ¦Ý ƒüâ$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€8XúÉXX8XÔÔ€XúÉXX8XúÉÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X€ö XXXúÉÔÔ‡ô׿ ò XX€öÔAlthough€the€transcript€of€the€trial€is€not€included€in€the€record€on€appeal,€this€court€may€take€judicialÐ ° Ðnotice€of€its€own€records€on€file.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(c);€òòJames€William€Dash€v.€Howard€W.€Carlton,€Wardenóó,Ð qÁ ÐNo.€E2001„02867„CCA„R3„PC€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Sept.€11,€2002).€€Ô#†ôÃ$ò òô׿Å#ÔÔ#†XúÉXòôÃ$ä#Ô Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ(Ž(3üâ$¤¤Ý ƒ6˜!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€8XúÉXX8XÔÔ€XúÉXX8XúÉÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó³˜kIA`‹2WP TypographicSymbols Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular CRENSHAWHargrovePolidoroFreemon TBIClennyColdwellStricklandAdkinsHoneycuttHarbisonLangfordAmust uncontrovertedDominyEstradaRenneEfrenArellanoa]ctingt]hisMomonBurkhartBlackmonVermilyeGroseclosethat thatMurffE]verySpurlockviolativeGiglioNapueBlantonAlejandroGillilandHutchison EvidCaldararoToombsEdginOsepczuk"post-conviction Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ)Hairline d  d#|x(r˜$¡¡Ô..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€8XøµXX8XÔÔ€XøµXX8XøµÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular8X“‘1î  J‰1PagesÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ;Ñ#€ÜîXÿÿd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ ƒ6˜!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€8XúÉXX8XÔÔ€XúÉXX8XúÉÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓ   ÓÓ  ÓÖ€ÿÿÖÑÈÑÓ0°ìpÈ xÐ (#°œX0ÓÔ€¼Bq»XXúÉÔÑ€B£yÑÑ8€úÉXXdædÈ8ÑàQhhìàÔ€îÍ<BqÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐàQgg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ€¼Bq»îîÍ<ÔˆÐ Ï ÐÓ  ÓÓH.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ì…X(#HÓAugust€11,€2004€SessionÐ î> ÐÔ€XúÉX»¼BqÔÌÔ€¼Bq»XXúÉÔò òORLANDO€CRENSHAW€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ€XúÉX»¼BqÔó óÐ à0 ÐÌò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Lawrence€CountyÐ Ò " ÐNo.€23646€€€€€€Stella€Hargrove,€JudgeÐ ¸  ÐÌÌÓÓÔ-  ÔÔ€ôÃ$òXXúÉÔó óߟ€ k[W$â€~œ KpÀ°°@ÿ0 Àdd` œ KEjœ Kœ KÓj2 –ŸßÔ-  ÔÔ€XúÉXòôÃ$Ôò òÌÓÓÌNo.€M2004„00045„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€16,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ _¯  ÐÌÓÓÔ-  ÔÔ€ôÃ$òXXúÉÔó óߟ€ k[W$â€~œ KpÀ°°@ÿ0 Àdd` œ KE+œ Kœ KÓ+2 –ŸßÔ-  ÔÔ€XúÉXòôÃ$Ôò òÌÓÓó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Orlando€Crenshaw,€convicted€of€attempted€first€degree€murder,€appeals€the€post„Ð  p  Ðconviction€court's€denial€of€his€petition€for€relief.€€He€asserts€that€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ V Ðfailing€to€provide€jury€instructions€on€the€appropriate€lesser€included€offenses€and€that€hisÐ ì< Ðcounsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€raise€the€issue€on€direct€appeal;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ Ò" Ðby€failing€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€òòMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152€(Tenn.€1999),€andÐ ¸ Ðthat€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€adequately€prepare€him€to€testify€at€trial;€(3)Ð žî Ðthat€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€the€offense€occurred€before€the€return€of€the€indictment;€(4)€thatÐ „Ô Ðthe€state€engaged€in€prosecutorial€misconduct€by€using€false€statements€to€secure€the€indictmentÐ jº Ðand€soliciting€false€testimony€at€trial;€(5)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€providing€a€misleading€juryÐ P  Ðinstruction€on€the€issue€of€criminal€responsibility€and€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failingÐ 6† Ðto€present€the€issue€as€a€ground€for€relief€on€direct€appeal;€(6)€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failingÐ l Ðto€provide€a€limiting€instruction€with€regard€to€certain€of€the€evidence;€(7)€that€he€was€denied€theÐ R Ðright€to€a€fair€trial€because€the€same€jury€pool€used€in€the€trial€of€his€co„defendant€was€used€forÐ è8 Ðhis€trial€and€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€the€jury€pool;€(8)€that€he€wasÐ Î Ðdenied€the€right€to€a€fair€trial€because€of€a€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963);Ð ´ Ðand€(9)€that€the€state€denied€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€by€utilizing€mutually€exclusive€theories€in€hisÐ šê Ðtrial€and€that€of€his€co„defendant.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€in€this€opinion,€the€judgment€of€theÐ € Ð  Ðpost„conviction€court€is€reversed,€the€conviction€is€set€aside,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€for€a€newÐ f!¶! Ðtrial.Ð L"œ" ÐÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Reversed€and€Remandedó óÐ $h$ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogleóó€andÐ ä%4!& ÐòòRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ê&"' ÐÌWilliam€J.€Eledge,€Lawrenceburg,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Orlando€Crenshaw.Ð –(æ#) ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ b*²%+ ÐGeneral;€and€Jim€White,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€ofÐ H+˜&, ÐTennessee.Ð .,~'- ÐÓ  ÓÐ -d(. ÐÔ_ÔÑ€Ñò òOPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ XÓÓ  ÓOn€September€1,€1999,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€attempted€first€degree€murderÐ |Ì Ðrelated€to€the€shooting€and€beating€of€Angelo€Wilson,€a€confidential€informant€for€the€police.€Ð b² ÐThe€trial€court€imposed€a€Range€I€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€and€a€$40,000€fine.€€This€courtÐ H˜ Ðaffirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Crenshawóó,€64€S.W.3d€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).Ð . ~ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€opinion€of€this€court€on€direct€appeal€summarized€the€pertinent€facts.€€At€trial,€theÐ ú J Ðvictim€testified€that€he€had€bought€drugs€from€the€petitioner€while€working€as€a€paid€confidentialÐ à 0 Ðinformant€and€that€the€transactions€were€recorded€on€audiotape.€€The€petitioner€was€charged€withÐ Æ   Ðdrug€offenses€as€a€result€of€the€recorded€purchases.òòóó€€As€a€part€of€the€pretrial€discovery€process,Ð ¬ ü  Ðthe€petitioner€received€copies€of€the€tape€recordings.€€òòóóThe€victim€stated€that€he€heard€theÐ ’â  Ðpetitioner€remark€that€if€he€found€out€the€identity€of€the€informant,€he€would€either€kill€him€orÐ xÈ  Ðhave€him€killed.€€òòóóLater,€a€copy€of€an€audiotape€featuring€the€victim€buying€drugs€from€theÐ ^®  Ðpetitioner€was€sent€to€the€victim's€residence.Ð D”  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€ÑOn€September€9,€1998,€the€victim€encountered€his€friend,€Butch€Osepczuk,€and€askedÐ ` ÐOsepczuk€for€a€ride€to€work.€€òòóóOsepczuk€then€telephoned€Terry€Polidoro,€who€agreed€to€transportÐ öF Ðthe€victim€to€his€place€of€employment.€€òòóóAlong€the€way,€Polidoro€stopped€the€car,€told€the€victimÐ Ü, Ðthat€he€and€Osepczuk€had€to€"make€a€deal,"€and€asked€the€victim€to€wait€beside€the€road.òòóó€€TheÐ Â Ðtwo€men€then€drove€away€in€the€car.€€When€they€returned€in€the€car,€Osepczuk€said,€"Come€on.Ð ¨ø ÐLet's€go.€We're€ready."€€òòIdóó€at€379.€€As€the€victim€approached€the€car,€however,€Osepczuk€beganÐ ŽÞ Ðto€shoot,€striking€the€victim€in€his€right€leg.€€òòóóWhen€the€victim€ran€into€a€soybean€field,€he€fell€andÐ tÄ ÐOsepczuk€and€Polidoro,€who€had€followed€him,€beat€him.€€òòóóAccording€to€the€victim,€Osepczuk€hitÐ Zª Ðhim€in€the€head€with€a€long€gun€and€Polidoro€struck€him€with€a€board.€€òòóóIt€was€only€when€theÐ @ Ðvictim€pretended€to€be€dead€that€his€assailants€left.€€òòóóThe€victim,€whose€injuries€included€sevenÐ &v Ðgunshot€wounds€and€various€other€injuries€from€being€struck€with€the€gun€and€the€board,€wasÐ  \ Ðable€to€summon€help€from€a€nearby€residence.òòóóÐ òB ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓTelephone€records€established€that€on€the€date€of€the€offense,€a€telephone€call€was€placedÐ ¾ Ðfrom€the€motel€where€Osepczuk€was€staying€to€the€residence€of€the€petitioner's€aunt.€€òòóóOn€the€dayÐ ¤ô Ðfollowing€the€offense,€the€petitioner€met€with€Osepczuk€at€the€residence€of€Jennie€Douglas.€€AtÐ Š Ú Ð12:13€p.m.€that€day,€a€telephone€call€was€placed€to€the€petitioner's€residence€from€the€residenceÐ p!À  Ðof€Genevieve€Smith.€€òòóóOsepczuk€was€arrested€at€Ms.€Smith's€residence€two€hours€later.€€òòÐ V"¦! ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓóóDaniel€Freemon,€an€attorney€who€represented€the€petitioner€on€the€drug€charges,€wasÐ "$r# Ðcalled€as€a€witness€at€trial€to€establish€that€he€had€delivered€copies€of€the€audiotape€recordings€toÐ %X $ Ðthe€petitioner€three€months€before€the€offense.€€òòóóStephen€R.€Perry,€Osepczuk's€stepfather,€testifiedÐ î%>!% Ðthat€the€petitioner€told€him€that€he€had€identified€the€victim's€voice€on€the€audiotapes€and€askedÐ Ô&$"& Ðhim€if€he€knew€someone€"who€would€take€care€of€the€victim."€€òòIdóó€at€381.€€Gary€Claude€WhiteÐ º' #' Ðrevealed€that€the€petitioner€offered€him€$10,000€to€murder€the€victim,€explaining€that€the€victimÐ  (ð#( Ðwas€an€undercover€agent.€€òòóóWhite€admitted,€however,€that€he€had€given€conflicting€statements€toÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€police€as€to€when€the€petitioner€made€the€offer.òòóóÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âÓ XÓÐ R+¢&+ ÐÑ Ñâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑ  ÑÓ XÓThe€petitioner€filed€a€timely€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging€that€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðâ âerred€by€failing€to€instruct€on€certain€lesser€included€offenses,€that€the€prosecution€failed€toÐ –æ Ðprove€that€the€offense€occurred€before€the€return€of€the€indictment,€that€the€prosecution€solicitedÐ |Ì Ðand€presented€false€testimony€at€trial,€that€the€trial€court's€instruction€on€criminal€responsibilityÐ b² Ðwas€misleading,€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€provide€a€necessary€limiting€instruction,€that€trialÐ H˜ Ðcounsel€unilaterally€denied€him€the€right€to€testify,€and€that€he€had€been€denied€the€effectiveÐ . ~ Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€The€post„conviction€court€appointed€counsel€and€the€petition€wasÐ  d Ðamended€to€include€additional€grounds€for€relief:€€that€the€petitioner€was€denied€the€right€to€a€fairÐ ú J Ðand€impartial€jury,€that€the€state€violated€the€requirements€of€òòBradyóó,€that€the€state€violated€hisÐ à 0 Ðright€to€a€fair€trial€by€utilizing€"mutually€exclusive"€theories€at€his€trial€and€at€Osepczuk's€trial,Ð Æ   Ðand€that€the€state€violated€the€petitioner's€right€to€a€fair€trial€by€using€false€testimony€to€secureÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€indictment.Ð ’â  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓAt€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€trial€counsel€testifiedÐ ^®  Ðthat€he€met€with€the€petitioner,€who€was€in€jail,€approximately€six€times€prior€to€trial.€€TrialÐ D”  Ðcounsel€recalled€that€he€had€asked€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser€includedÐ *z  Ðoffenses€of€facilitation€of€attempted€first€degree€murder,€attempted€second€degree€murder,Ð ` Ðfacilitation€of€attempted€second€degree€murder,€aggravated€assault,€and€facilitation€of€aggravatedÐ öF Ðassault.€€He€testified€that€the€trial€court€instructed€only€on€facilitation€of€attempted€first€degreeÐ Ü, Ðmurder€as€a€lesser€included€offense.€€Trial€counsel€remembered€that€Ben€Jordan,€the€boyfriend€ofÐ Â Ðthe€victim's€mother,€took€an€audiotape€from€his€pocket€while€testifying€at€trial€but€the€recordedÐ ¨ø Ðcontents€were€never€played€to€the€jury€and€the€tape€was€not€admitted€into€evidence.€€TrialÐ ŽÞ Ðcounsel€explained€that€he€did€not€ask€for€a€limiting€instruction€because€the€contents€of€the€tapeÐ tÄ Ðwere€not€disclosed€to€the€jury€and€because€"a€limiting€instruction€can€be€an€exclamation€point."€Ð Zª ÐHe€was€unable€to€remember€whether€the€trial€court€provided€a€limiting€instruction€with€regard€toÐ @ Ðtestimony€about€the€defendant's€history€of€illegal€drug€activity.Ð &v ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€ÑTrial€counsel€recalled€that€after€several€hours€of€deliberations,€the€jury€reported€that€theyÐ òB Ðwere€deadlocked€at€eleven€to€one.€€The€trial€court€allowed€the€jury€to€break€for€the€evening,Ð Ø( Ðdirecting€them€to€return€the€next€morning€to€deliberate€further.€€Trial€counsel€acknowledged€thatÐ ¾ Ðthe€trial€court€had€incorrectly€instructed€the€jury€that€the€state€was€only€required€to€prove€by€aÐ ¤ô Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€crime€occurred€before€the€return€of€the€indictment.€€HeÐ Š Ú Ðcontended,€however,€that€the€date€of€the€crime€was€not€an€issue€at€trial,€implying€that€the€mistakeÐ p!À  Ðwas€inconsequential.€€Trial€counsel€explained€that€while€the€same€jury€pool€was€used€for€both€theÐ V"¦! Ðpetitioner's€and€Osepczuk's€trials,€none€of€the€jurors€who€served€on€Osepczuk's€panel€were€calledÐ <#Œ" Ðfor€jury€selection€in€the€petitioner's€case.€€During€cross„examination,€trial€counsel€testified€thatÐ "$r# Ðeven€though€the€state€had€an€open€file€discovery€policy,€the€tape€produced€by€Jordan€was€notÐ %X $ Ðprovided€to€him€prior€to€trial.Ð î%>!% ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€ÑTBI€Agent€Wayne€Wesson,€who€presented€the€case€against€the€petitioner€to€the€grandÐ º' #' Ðjury,€testified€that€he€interviewed€Attorney€Freemon,€who€had€represented€the€petitioner€in€hisÐ  (ð#( Ðdrug€cases.€€He€recalled€that€Freemon€gave€him€a€written€history€of€the€petitioner's€cases,€whichÐ †)Ö$) Ðindicated€that€the€petitioner€had€received€an€audiotape€recording€of€the€drug€transaction€on€JuneÐ l*¼%* Ð3,€1998,€and€had€returned€the€tape€to€Freemon€on€the€following€day.€€Agent€Wesson€confirmedÐ R+¢&+ Ðthat€Stephen€Perry€gave€a€statement€to€the€police€indicating€that€the€petitioner€had€shown€him€anÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑB£yÑâ BâÑ8€úÉXXdæXXdæ8ÑÑÑÑÑâ BâÑÑÑÑâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑ  Ñaudiotape€in€March€or€April€of€1998,€several€months€before€the€shooting.€€Agent€WessonÐ ° Ðrecalled€that€Perry€could€not€recall€the€exact€month€that€he€had€seen€the€tape€in€the€petitioner'sÐ –æ Ðpossession.€€The€officer€testified€that€when€he€presented€the€case€to€the€grand€jury,€he€did€notÐ |Ì Ðrefer€to€any€dates€and€simply€stated€that€he€had€talked€to€three€witnesses,€each€of€whom€had€beenÐ b² Ðasked€by€the€petitioner€to€"take€care€of"€the€victim.€€All€three€of€the€witnesses€testified€at€theÐ H˜ Ðpetitioner's€trial.€€During€cross„examination,€Agent€Wesson€testified€that€he€had€not€directlyÐ . ~ Ðparticipated€in€the€investigation€of€the€drug€cases€involving€the€petitioner.Ð  d ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€was€not€informed€by€his€counsel€of€either€the€trial€strategyÐ à 0 Ðor€any€proposed€jury€instructions.€€He€complained€that€he€received€no€help€from€his€counsel€inÐ Æ   Ðpreparation€for€his€trial€testimony.€€The€petitioner€stated€that€at€the€time€of€his€trial,€he€had€notÐ ¬ ü  Ðbeen€convicted€of€any€felony€offenses€or€any€crimes€involving€dishonesty€but€was€neverthelessÐ ’â  Ðnot€called€as€a€witness.€€He€also€pointed€out€that€he€was€not€asked€to€waive€his€right€to€testify.€Ð xÈ  ÐThe€petitioner€complained€that€the€indictment€was€not€read€to€the€jury€and€claimed€that€none€ofÐ ^®  Ðthe€witnesses€testified€that€the€crime€occurred€before€the€return€of€the€indictment.€€He€insistedÐ D”  Ðthat€the€state€knowingly€solicited€false€testimony€when€it€allowed€Stephen€Perry€to€testify€thatÐ *z  Ðthe€petitioner€had€approached€him€with€a€tape€in€March€or€April€when€the€state€was€fully€awareÐ ` Ðthat€the€petitioner€had€not€received€the€tapes€from€Attorney€Freemon€until€June€of€the€same€year.€Ð öF ÐThe€petitioner€also€complained€that€while€his€trial€counsel€asked€the€trial€court€to€give€a€limitingÐ Ü, Ðinstruction€as€to€his€role€in€the€drug€offenses,€no€instruction€was€given.Ð Â ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€ÑIn€an€extensive€order,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€relief,€concluding€that€there€wereÐ ŽÞ Ðinstructions€on€the€appropriate€lesser€included€offenses€and€that€trial€counsel's€failure€to€raise€theÐ tÄ Ðissue€on€direct€appeal€was€a€"tactical€trial€maneuver."€€As€to€the€petitioner's€claim€that€his€trialÐ Zª Ðcounsel€failed€to€prepare€him€to€testify€at€trial,€the€post„conviction€court€ruled€that€both€trialÐ @ Ðcounsel€and€the€petitioner€were€"well€prepared€for€trial."€€The€post„conviction€court€also€foundÐ &v Ðthat€the€petitioner€had€waived€any€claim€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€the€crime€occurredÐ  \ Ðbefore€the€finding€of€the€indictment€or€that€the€indictment€was€not€read€to€the€jury€by€failing€toÐ òB Ðpresent€these€issues€on€direct€appeal.€€The€post„conviction€court€concluded€that€"no€falseÐ Ø( Ðtestimony€was€solicited€by€the€State€from€Steve€Perry,€either€at€trial,€or€relative€to€the€grand€juryÐ ¾ Ðpresentment."€€With€regard€to€the€petitioner's€complaint€that€the€criminal€responsibilityÐ ¤ô Ðinstruction€was€misleading,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€relief,€observing€that€it€had€chargedÐ Š Ú Ðthe€pattern€instruction€and€that€the€"appropriate€[jury]€instructions"€were€provided.€€The€post„Ð p!À  Ðconviction€court€also€observed€that€even€though€the€same€jury€venire€was€used€for€the€trials€ofÐ V"¦! Ðthe€petitioner€and€Osepczuk,€different€panels€were€called€for€each€trial.€€The€court€ruled€that€theÐ <#Œ" Ðstate€had€not€used€mutually€exclusive€theories€in€the€separate€trials€of€the€petitioner€andÐ "$r# ÐOsepczuk€and€concluded€that€the€petitioner€was€not€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð %X $ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIn€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€provide€juryÐ Ô&$"& Ðinstructions€on€the€appropriate€lesser€included€offenses,€by€giving€a€misleading€instruction€onÐ º' #' Ðcriminal€responsibility,€and€by€failing€to€provide€a€limiting€instruction€with€regard€to€testimonyÐ  (ð#( Ðabout€the€his€prior€drug€involvement.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðoffense€occurred€before€the€return€of€the€indictment,€engaged€in€prosecutorial€misconduct€byÐ l*¼%* Ðusing€false€statements€to€secure€the€indictment,€denied€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€by€utilizingÐ R+¢&+ Ðmutually€exclusive€theories€in€the€trials€of€him€and€his€co„defendant,€and€violated€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑÑâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑ  Ñrequirements€of€òòBradyóó€by€withholding€exculpatory€evidence.€€The€petitioner€further€contendsÐ ° Ðthat€he€was€denied€the€right€to€a€fair€trial€because€of€a€mixing€of€the€jury€pools€and€argues€that€heÐ –æ Ðwas€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð |Ì ÐÐ b² ÐUnder€our€statutory€law,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€in€hisÐ H˜ Ðpost„conviction€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-110(f)Ð . ~ Ð(2003).€€Evidence€is€clear€and€convincing€when€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€theÐ  d Ðaccuracy€of€the€conclusions€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245Ð ú J Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€On€appeal,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€post„conviction€court€areÐ à 0 Ðconclusive€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderatesÐ Æ   Ðagainst€them.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€burden€is€onÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€petitioner€to€show€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€those€findings.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,Ð ’â  Ð576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€the€weight€andÐ xÈ  Ðvalue€to€be€afforded€their€testimony€are€questions€to€be€resolved€by€the€post„conviction€court.Ð ^®  ÐòòBates€v.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€615€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ð D”  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ  ÓIÐ ` ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€first€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€provide€instructions€toÐ öF Ðthe€jury€on€the€appropriate€lesser€included€offenses.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÐ Ü, Ðcharged€attempted€second€degree€murder,€facilitation€of€attempted€second€degree€murder,Ð Â Ðreckless€endangerment,€facilitation€of€reckless€endangerment,€and€solicitation€of€first€degreeÐ ¨ø Ðmurder.€€The€state€submits€that€waiver€applies€because€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€the€issue€asÐ ŽÞ Ða€ground€for€relief€on€direct€appeal.Ð tÄ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„106€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð @ ÐÑ€ÑÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX(#BÓ(g)€€A€ground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitioner€personally€or€through€anÐ &v Ðattorney€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€ofÐ  \ Ðcompetent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€been€presented€unless:Ð òB Ð(1)€€The€claim€for€relief€is€based€upon€a€constitutional€right€not€recognizedÐ Ø( Ðas€existing€at€the€time€of€trial€if€either€the€federal€or€state€constitution€requiresÐ ¾ Ðretroactive€application€of€that€right;€orÐ ¤ô Ð(2)€€The€failure€to€present€the€ground€was€the€result€of€state€action€inÐ Š Ú Ðviolation€of€the€federal€or€state€constitution.Ð p!À  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°‹XÐ EÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€XÔ XXXúÉÔ'Ô€XúÉX XXÔ Ô€40„30„106(g)€(2003).Ð V"¦! ÐÌÓ XÓBecause€the€petitioner€did€not,€in€fact,€cite€the€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€and€failedÐ $$t# Ðto€present€the€issue€on€direct€appeal,€waiver€applies.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€òòStateÐ  %Z $ Ðv.€Coldwellóó,€671€S.W.2d€459,€465€(Tenn.€1998).òòÐ ð%@!% ÐÓ XÓóóÌÓ XÓIn€a€related€claim,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€toÐ ¼' #' Ðchallenge€the€trial€court's€failure€to€instruct€on€the€lesser€included€offenses€in€a€motion€for€newÐ ¢(ò#( Ðtrial€or€on€direct€appeal.€€The€state€contends€that€trial€counsel's€failure€to€challenge€the€ruling€ofÐ ˆ)Ø$) Ðthe€trial€court€qualifies€as€a€tactical€decision.€€In€the€alternative,€the€state€submits€that€becauseÐ n*¾%* Ðthe€failure€to€instruct€on€the€suggested€lesser€included€offenses€was€harmless€beyond€aÐ T+¤&+ Ðreasonable€doubt,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief.Ð :,Š', ÐÑÑâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑ  ÑÐ ° ÐÑ€ÑTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€filed€a€written€request€seeking€instructions€on€facilitation€ofÐ –æ Ðattempted€first€degree€murder,€attempted€second€degree€murder,€and€aggravated€assault.€€WhileÐ |Ì Ðcounsel€could€not€recall€if€he€had€"followed„up"€on€his€written€request,€he€did€remember€that€theÐ b² Ðonly€lesser€included€offense€charged€to€the€jury€was€facilitation€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€Ð H˜ ÐTrial€counsel€was€not€questioned€about€his€failure€to€present€the€issue€in€either€the€motion€forÐ . ~ Ðnew€trial€or€on€direct€appeal.Ð  d ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€post„conviction€court€denied€relief,€observing€that€"trial€counsel€was€satisfied€withÐ à 0 Ð[the€single]€lesser€offense."€€The€court€characterized€trial€counsel's€failure€to€challenge€theÐ Æ   Ðpropriety€of€the€instructions€as€a€"tactical€trial€maneuver."€€The€post„conviction€court€also€ruledÐ ¬ ü  Ðthat€the€"evidence€.€.€.€was€overwhelming€as€to€the€solicitation,€planning€and€premeditation€of€theÐ ’â  Ðmurder€of€[the€victim],€the€informant€in€Petitioner's€multiple€drug€cases„resulting€in€grave,€life„Ð xÈ  Ðthreatening€injuries€to€[the€victim],€when€he€was€shot€numerous€times,€beaten€and€clearly€left€forÐ ^®  Ðdead€in€a€soybean€field."Ð D”  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ` Ðcounsel,€he€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€were€below€"theÐ öF Ðrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2dÐ Ü, Ð930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€he€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€"actually€had€an€adverseÐ Â Ðeffect€on€the€defense."€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693€(1984).€€The€error€must€beÐ ¨ø Ðso€serious€as€to€render€an€unreliable€result.€€òòId.óó€at€687.€€It€is€not€necessary,€however,€that€absentÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€deficiency,€the€trial€would€have€resulted€in€an€acquittal.€€òòId.óó€at€695.€€Should€the€petitioner€failÐ tÄ Ðto€establish€either€factor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€Our€supreme€court€described€the€standard€ofÐ Zª Ðreview€as€follows:Ð @ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX(#BÓBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€a€failure€toÐ  \ Ðprove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€onÐ òB Ðthe€ineffective€assistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€not€address€the€componentsÐ Ø( Ðin€any€particular€order€or€even€address€both€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficientÐ ¾ Ðshowing€of€one€component.òòÐ ¤ô ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°‹XÐ EÓÌGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).Ð p!À  ÐÌÓ XÓOn€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefitÐ <#Œ" Ðof€hindsight,€may€not€second-guess€a€reasonably€based€trial€strategy,€and€cannot€criticize€aÐ "$r# Ðsound,€but€unsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.Ð %X $ ÐStateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Such€deference€to€the€tactical€decisions€ofÐ î%>!% Ðcounsel,€however,€applies€only€if€the€choices€are€made€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð º' #' ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓClaims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€regarded€as€mixed€questions€of€law€andÐ †)Ö$) Ðfact.€€òòState€v.€Honeycuttóó,€54€S.W.3d€762,€766-67€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,Ð l*¼%* Ð461€(Tenn.€1999).€€When€reviewing€the€application€of€law€to€the€post„conviction€court's€factualÐ R+¢&+ Ðfindings,€our€review€is€de€novo,€and€the€post„conviction€court's€conclusions€of€law€are€given€noÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑÑâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑ  Ñpresumption€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).Ð –æ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIn€order€to€prevail€on€his€claim€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€cite€as€errorÐ b² Ðthe€trial€court's€failure€to€provide€an€instruction€on€the€lesser€included€offenses€of€attemptedÐ H˜ Ðsecond€degree€murder,€facilitation€of€attempted€second€degree€murder,€aggravated€assault,Ð . ~ Ðfacilitation€of€aggravated€assault,€and€solicitation€of€first€degree€murder,€the€petitioner€must€notÐ  d Ðonly€establish€that€his€counsel€was€deficient€by€failing€to€present€the€issue€but€he€must€alsoÐ ú J Ðdemonstrate€that€he€was€prejudiced€as€a€result.€€To€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€theÐ à 0 Ðomission€of€the€lesser€included€issue€on€appeal,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€there€is€aÐ Æ   Ðreasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€his€direct€appeal€would€have€been€different€had€counselÐ ¬ ü  Ðargued€that€the€failure€to€instruct€on€the€lesser€included€offenses€was€erroneous.€€In€other€words,Ð ’â  Ðhe€must€establish€that€this€court€would€likely€have€reversed€his€conviction€in€the€original€appealÐ xÈ  Ðand€remanded€for€a€new€trial.Ð ^®  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€initial€inquiry€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€otherÐ *z  Ðlesser€included€offenses.€€Whether€a€given€offense€should€be€submitted€to€the€jury€as€a€lesserÐ ` Ðincluded€offense€is€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact.€€òòState€v.€Rushóó,€50€S.W.3d€424,€427€(Tenn.Ð öF Ð2001)€(citing€òòState€v.€Smileyóó,€38€S.W.3d€521€(Tenn.€2001)).€€The€standard€of€review€for€mixedÐ Ü, Ðquestions€of€law€and€fact€is€de€novo€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð Â ÐBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€461.€€The€trial€court€has€a€duty€"to€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€law€applicableÐ ¨ø Ðto€the€facts€of€a€case."€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.€1986);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.Ð ŽÞ ÐCrim.€P.€30.Ð tÄ ÐÐ Zª ÐÑ€ÑThe€trial€court€has€a€duty€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€a€lesser€included€offense€if:€(1)Ð @ ÐReasonable€minds€could€accept€the€offense€as€lesser€included;€and€(2)€the€evidence€is€legallyÐ &v Ðsufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€included€offense.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469;€òòseeÐ  \ Ðalsoóó€òòState€v.€Langfordóó,€994€S.W.2d€126,€128€(Tenn.€1999).€€Moreover,€our€supreme€court€hasÐ òB Ðheld€that€trial€courts€"must€provide€an€instruction€on€a€lesser„included€offense€supported€by€theÐ Ø( Ðevidence€even€if€such€instruction€is€not€consistent€with€the€theory€of€the€State€or€of€the€defense.€Ð ¾ ÐThe€evidence,€not€the€parties,€controls€whether€an€instruction€is€required."€€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€69Ð ¤ô ÐS.W.3d€181,€188€(Tenn.€2002).€€Our€high€court€observed€that€the€"jury€is€not€required€to€believeÐ Š Ú Ðany€evidence€offered€by€the€State,"€and€held€that€the€authority€of€the€jury€to€convict€on€a€lesserÐ p!À  Ðincluded€offense€may€not€be€taken€away,€even€when€proof€supporting€the€element€distinguishingÐ V"¦! Ðthe€greater€offense€from€the€lesser€offense€is€uncontroverted.€€òòId.óó€at€189.Ð <#Œ" ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIn€òòBurnsóó,€our€supreme€court€adopted€a€modified€version€of€the€Model€Penal€Code€inÐ %X $ Ðorder€to€determine€what€constitutes€a€lesser€included€offense:Ð î%>!% ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX(#BÓAn€offense€is€a€lesser€included€offense€if:Ð Ô&$"& Ð(a)€all€of€its€statutory€elements€are€included€within€the€statutory€elements€of€theÐ º' #' Ðoffense€charged;€orÐ  (ð#( Ð(b)€it€fails€to€meet€the€definition€in€part€(a)€only€in€the€respect€that€it€contains€aÐ †)Ö$) Ðstatutory€element€or€elements€establishingÐ l*¼%* Ðâ â(1)€a€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€of€culpability;€and/orÐ R+¢&+ ÐÑÑâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑ  Ñ(2)€a€less€serious€harm€or€risk€of€harm€to€the€same€person,€property€or€publicÐ ° Ðâ âinterest,€orÐ –æ ÐÑ€Ñ(c)€it€consists€ofÐ |Ì Ð(1)€facilitation€of€the€offense€charged€or€of€an€offense€that€otherwise€meets€theÐ b² Ðdefinition€of€lesser€included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b);€orÐ H˜ Ð(2)€an€attempt€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€that€otherwise€meetsÐ . ~ Ðthe€definition€of€lesser€included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b);€orÐ  d Ð(3)€solicitation€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€that€otherwise€meetsÐ ú J Ðthe€definition€of€lesser€included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b).Ð à 0 ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°‹XÐ EÓ6€S.W.3d€at€466-67.Ð Æ   ÐÌÓ XÓÑ€ÑUnder€part€(a)€of€the€òòBurnsóó€test,€attempted€second€degree€murder€would€be€a€lesserÐ ’â  Ðincluded€offense€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€Under€part€(c),€facilitation€of€attemptedÐ xÈ  Ðsecond€degree€murder€would€be€a€lesser€included€offense€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€òòId.óó€Ð ^®  ÐWith€regard€to€aggravated€assault,€however,€our€courts€have€repeatedly€held€that€aggravatedÐ D”  Ðassault€is€not€a€lesser€included€offense€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Trustyóó,€919Ð *z  ÐS.W.2d€305,€311-312€(Tenn.€1996),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€byóó€òòState€v.€Dominyóó,€6€S.W.3dÐ ` Ð472,€475€(Tenn.€1999);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòRandall€Carver€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M2002-02891-CCA-R3-CO€(Tenn.Ð öF ÐCrim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€May€16,€2003);€òòState€v.€Mario€C.€Estradaóó,€No.Ð Ü, ÐM2002-00585-CCA-R3-CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Mar.€14,€2003),€òòperm.€app.Ð Â Ðgrantedóó,€No.€M2002-00585-SC-R11-CD€(Tenn.€June€30,€2003);€òòState€v.€Renne€Efren€Arellanoóó,Ð ¨ø ÐNo.€M2002-00380-CCA-R3-CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Feb.€26,€2003),€òòperm.€app.Ð ŽÞ Ðgrantedóó,€No.€M2002-00380-SC-R11-CD€(Tenn.€June€30,€2003);€òòState€v.€Randall€Whiteóó,€No.Ð tÄ ÐM2000-01492-CCA-R3-CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Mar.€27,€2002);€òòState€v.€JoshuaÐ Zª ÐLee€Williamsóó,€No.€W2000-01435-CCA-R3-CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€June€27,€2001);Ð @ ÐòòState€v.€Christopher€Todd€Brownóó,€No.€M1999-00691-CCA-R3-CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÐ &v ÐNashville,€Mar.€9,€2000).€€Similarly,€facilitation€of€aggravated€assault€would€not€be€a€lesserÐ  \ Ðincluded€offense€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.Ð òB ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€on€solicitation€ofÐ ¾ Ðfirst€degree€murder€as€a€lesser€included€offense€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€Under€part€(c)Ð ¤ô Ðof€òòBurnsóó,€solicitation€"to€commit€the€charged€offense€or€any€lesser€included€offense"€is€generallyÐ Š Ú Ðrecognized€as€a€lesser€included€offense.€€Here,€however,€the€charged€offense€was€attempted€firstÐ p!À  Ðdegree€murder.€€To€determine€whether€solicitation€of€first€degree€murder€is€a€lesser€includedÐ V"¦! Ðoffense€of€attempted€first€degree€murder,€an€examination€of€the€relevant€statutory€definitions€isÐ <#Œ" Ðnecessary.Ð "$r# ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIn€this€case,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€attempted€first€degree€murder€under€a€theoryÐ î%>!% Ðthat€he€was€criminally€responsible€for€the€conduct€of€Osepczuk€and€Polidoro.€€As€it€applies€toÐ Ô&$"& Ðthese€circumstances,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„402€provides€that€"[a]€person€isÐ º' #' Ðcriminally€responsible€for€an€offense€committed€by€the€conduct€of€another€if€.€.€.€[a]cting€withÐ  (ð#( Ðintent€to€promote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€or€to€benefit€in€the€proceeds€or€resultsÐ †)Ö$) Ðof€the€offense,€the€person€solicits,€directs,€aids,€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€theÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âoffense."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(a)(2).€€Attempt€is€defined€as€follows:Ð R+¢&+ ÐÑ   Ñâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑ  ÑÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX(#BÓ(a)€A€person€commits€criminal€attempt€who,€acting€with€the€kind€ofÐ ° Ðâ âculpability€otherwise€required€for€the€offense:Ð –æ ÐÑ€Ñ(1)€Intentionally€engages€in€action€or€causes€a€result€that€would€constituteÐ |Ì Ðan€offense€if€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€were€as€the€personÐ b² Ðbelieves€them€to€be;Ð H˜ Ð(2)€Acts€with€intent€to€cause€a€result€that€is€an€element€of€the€offense,€andÐ . ~ Ðbelieves€the€conduct€will€cause€the€result€without€further€conduct€on€the€person'sÐ  d Ðpart;€orÐ ú J Ð(3)€Acts€with€intent€to€complete€a€course€of€action€or€cause€a€result€thatÐ à 0 Ðwould€constitute€the€offense,€under€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€conduct€asÐ Æ   Ðthe€person€believes€them€to€be,€and€the€conduct€constitutes€a€substantial€stepÐ ¬ ü  Ðtoward€the€commission€of€the€offense.Ð ’â  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°‹XÐ EÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(a).€€As€to€solicitation,€our€code€provides€thatÐ xÈ  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX(#BÓà ` àWhoever,€by€means€of€oral,€written€or€electronic€communication,€directlyÐ ^®  Ðor€through€another,€intentionally€commands,€requests€or€hires€another€to€commit€aÐ D”  Ðcriminal€offense,€or€attempts€to€command,€request€or€hire€another€to€commit€aÐ *z  Ðcriminal€offense,€with€the€intent€that€the€criminal€offense€be€committed,€is€guiltyÐ ` Ðof€the€offense€of€solicitation.Ð öF ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°‹XÐ EÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„102(a).€€The€evidence€will€support€a€conviction€under€a€theory€ofÐ Ü, Ðcriminal€responsibility€if€it€establishes€the€defendant€solicits€another€to€commit€the€offense.€€òòSeeóóÐ Â ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„402(a)(2).€€Under€these€circumstances,€solicitation€of€first€degreeÐ ¨ø Ðmurder€is€a€lesser€included€offense€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌÓ XÓThe€fact€that€dual€convictions€for€solicitation€of€first€degree€murder€and€attempted€firstÐ Zª Ðdegree€murder€are€prohibited€by€statute€supports€our€conclusion.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„Ð @ Ð106(a).€€Finally,€our€legislature€has€provided€for€a€less€severe€punishment€for€solicitation€of€firstÐ &v Ðdegree€murder,€which€is€designated€a€Class€B€felony€while€attempted€first€degree€murder€isÐ  \ Ðdesignated€a€Class€A€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„117.€€In€òòState€v.€Kathy€Ballóó,€No.Ð òB Ð03C01-9512-CC-00387€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Oct.€31,€1997),€this€court€ruled€thatÐ Ø( Ð"[t]his€statutory€classification€demonstrates€that€solicitation€of€first€degree€murder€is€a€lesserÐ ¾ Ðgrade€or€class€of€attempted€first€degree€murder."€€While€òòBallóó€was€decided€prior€to€òòBurnsóó,€theÐ ¤ô Ðreasoning€is€applicable.Ð Š Ú ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€ÑOur€next€inquiry€is€whether€the€evidence€in€this€case€warranted€instructions€onÐ V"¦! Ðsolicitation€of€first€degree€murder,€attempted€second€degree€murder,€and€facilitation€of€attemptedÐ <#Œ" Ðsecond€degree€murder.€€The€proof€at€trial€established€that€the€petitioner€had€been€charged€with€aÐ "$r# Ðnumber€of€drug€offenses€as€a€result€of€purchases€made€by€the€victim,€who€was€acting€as€aÐ %X $ Ðconfidential€informant.€€The€petitioner€received€copies€of€the€audiotapes€of€the€transactions€inÐ î%>!% Ðthe€discovery€process€of€the€drug€cases.€€He€played€the€tapes€for€several€individuals,€andÐ Ô&$"& Ðexpressed€a€desire€to€have€the€victim€"taken€care€of."€€Telephone€records€showed€that€theÐ º' #' Ðpetitioner€was€in€contact€with€Osepczuk€both€before€and€after€Osepczuk€and€Polidoro€shot€theÐ  (ð#( Ðvictim,€beat€him,€and€left€him€for€dead.€€The€petitioner's€defense€was€that€he€had€not€participatedÐ †)Ö$) Ðin€the€crimes.Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ ÐÑ   Ñâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑ  ÑThe€proof€at€trial€was€that€Osepczuk€and€Polidoro€attacked€the€victim€at€the€petitioner'sÐ ° Ðâ ârequest.€€Thus,€an€instruction€on€solicitation€of€first€degree€murder€was€warranted.€BecauseÐ –æ Ðattempted€second€degree€murder€is€a€lesser€included€offense€under€part€(a)€of€the€òòBurnsóó€test,€theÐ |Ì Ðproof€of€the€greater€offense€necessarily€proved€the€lesser€offense.€€In€consequence,€an€instructionÐ b² Ðon€attempted€second€degree€murder€would€have€been€appropriate.€€With€regard€to€facilitation€ofÐ H˜ Ðattempted€second€degree€murder,€the€jury€could€have€determined€from€the€evidence€that€theÐ . ~ Ðpetitioner€provided€no€more€than€"substantial€assistance,"€in€the€words€of€the€statute,€toÐ  d ÐOsepczuk€and€Polidoro€in€the€attempt€on€the€victim's€life.Ð ú J ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓBecause€the€proof€at€trial€justified€instructions€on€solicitation€of€first€degree€murder,Ð Æ   Ðattempted€second€degree€murder,€and€facilitation€of€attempted€second€degree€murder,€it€is€ourÐ ¬ ü  Ðview€that€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€the€jury€on€those€offenses.€€Counsel€candidlyÐ ’â  Ðadmitted€that€although€he€filed€a€written€request€seeking€instructions€on€the€lesser€includedÐ xÈ  Ðoffenses,€he€failed€to€follow€up€on€the€request.€€He€failed€to€make€any€objection€to€the€juryÐ ^®  Ðinstructions.€€There€was€simply€no€proof€that€trial€counsel€chose€not€to€raise€the€issue€for€tacticalÐ D”  Ðreasons.€€In€our€view,€there€was€no€reasonable€explanation€for€the€omission.€€In€that€regard,€theÐ *z  Ðevidence€preponderates€against€the€finding€of€the€trial€court.€€The€failure€of€trial€counsel€toÐ ` Ðpresent€the€issue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€or€on€direct€appeal€qualifies€as€a€deficiency€inÐ öF Ðperformance.Ð Ü, ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€ ÑOur€next€inquiry€is€whether€the€oversight€can€be€classified€as€harmless€error.€€If€so,€thenÐ ¨ø Ðthe€failure€of€the€petitioner's€counsel€to€present€the€issue€on€direct€appeal€did€not€result€in€anyÐ ŽÞ Ðprejudice.€€In€òòAllenòòóó,€óóour€high€court€concluded€that€when€the€trial€court€improperly€fails€toÐ tÄ Ðinstruct€on€a€lesser€included€offense,€the€error€is€constitutional€in€nature,€based€upon€theÐ Zª Ðfundamental€right€to€a€jury.€€The€inquiry€is€the€same€as€for€other€constitutional€errors:€whether€itÐ @ Ðappears€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€òòAllenóó,Ð &v Ð69€S.W.3d€at€191.€€In€making€this€determination,€"a€reviewing€court€should€conduct€a€thoroughÐ  \ Ðexamination€of€the€record,€including€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€the€defendant's€theory€ofÐ òB Ðdefense,€and€the€verdict€returned€by€the€jury."€€òòId.óóÐ Ø( ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓAs€indicated,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€His€defenseÐ ¤ô Ðwas€that€he€was€not€involved€in€the€crime€at€all.€€That€the€petitioner€had€asked€others€to€"takeÐ Š Ú Ðcare€of"€the€victim€and€had€spoken€with€Osepczuk€immediately€before€and€after€the€crime€wasÐ p!À  Ðcircumstantial€evidence€of€his€guilt.€€In€addition,€there€was€proof€that€the€petitioner€had€offeredÐ V"¦! ÐGary€White€$10,000€to€"do€the€victim€in."€€Because€the€evidence€established€that€Osepczuk€andÐ <#Œ" ÐPolidoro,€after€a€discussion€with€the€petitioner,€drove€the€victim€into€a€secluded€area,€attackedÐ "$r# Ðand€shot€him,€and€stopped€only€when€he€pretended€to€be€dead,€it€is€our€view€the€evidence€ofÐ %X $ Ðpremeditation€was€so€overwhelming€that€the€trial€court's€failure€to€instruct€on€the€offenses€ofÐ î%>!% Ðattempted€second€degree€murder€and€facilitation€of€attempted€second€degree€murder,€evenÐ Ô&$"& Ðthough€erroneous,€can€be€classified€as€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð º' #' ÐRichmondóó,€90€S.W.3d€648,€662€(Tenn.€2002).€€In€consequence,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÐ  (ð#( Ðestablish€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€trial€counsel's€failure€to€present€the€issue€as€a€ground€forÐ †)Ö$) Ðrelief€on€appeal.Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÓ XÓÐ R+¢&+ ÐÑ Ñâ  âÑÑÑÑâ  âÑ  ÑÓ XÓÑ€!ÑThe€same€cannot€be€said€with€regard€to€the€trial€court's€failure€to€provide€an€instructionÐ ° Ðâ âon€solicitation€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€post„conviction€court€observed€that€the€"evidence€inÐ –æ Ðthe€case€was€overwhelming€as€to€the€òòsolicitationóó,€planning€and€premeditation€of€the€murder€ofÐ |Ì Ð[the€victim]."€€The€state's€theory,€which€was€supported€entirely€by€circumstantial€proof,€was€thatÐ b² Ðthe€petitioner€asked€Osepczuk€and€Polidoro€to€kill€the€victim.€€Under€these€circumstances,€aÐ H˜ Ðproperly€instructed€jury€would€likely€have€convicted€the€petitioner€of€solicitation€of€first€degreeÐ . ~ Ðmurder.€€òòSeeóó€òòRichmondóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€662.€€The€failure€to€instruct€on€that€offense€cannot,Ð  d Ðtherefore,€be€classified€as€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòAllenóó,€69€S.W.3d€at€191.Ð ú J ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIn€òòState€v.€Zimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€220,€225€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€this€courtÐ Æ   Ðobserved€that€the€petitioner€need€not€establish€that,€absent€the€deficiency€in€counsel'sÐ ¬ ü  Ðperformance,€he€would€have€been€acquitted.€€We€held€that€"[a]€reasonable€probability€of€beingÐ ’â  Ðfound€guilty€of€a€lesser€charge,€or€a€shorter€sentence,€satisfies€the€second€prong€in€òòStricklandóó."€Ð xÈ  ÐòòId.óó€€Because€the€trial€court's€failure€to€instruct€on€solicitation€of€first€degree€murder€was€notÐ ^®  Ðharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€the€petitioner€has€established€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€hisÐ D”  Ðcounsel's€failure€to€present€the€issue€in€a€motion€for€new€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€€He€is,Ð *z  Ðtherefore,€entitled€to€a€new€trial.€€The€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€reversed,€theÐ ` Ðconviction€is€set€aside,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial.Ð öF ÐÓ XÓÌÓ  ÓIIÐ Â ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€next€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÐ ¨ø Ðadequately€prepare€him€to€testify€at€trial.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversibleÐ ŽÞ Ðerror€by€failing€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€òòMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€157€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1999).€€The€state€submits€that€trial€counsel€was€not€deficient€and€that€the€ruling€in€òòMomonóó€doesÐ Zª Ðnot€apply€because€the€petitioner's€trial€occurred€prior€to€that€decision.Ð @ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€"ÑAs€indicated,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€claim€by€clear€and€convincingÐ  \ Ðevidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„110(f)€(2003).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÐ òB Ðassistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€must€establish€that€his€trial€counsel's€performance€wasÐ Ø( Ðdeficient€and€that,€but€for€the€deficiency,€the€outcome€of€his€trial€would€have€been€different.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¾ ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€693.Ð ¤ô ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€petitioner€complained€that€he€met€with€trial€counsel€only€five€or€six€times€prior€toÐ p!À  Ðtrial€and€that€they€never€discussed€his€right€to€testify.€€He€pointed€out€that€he€had€no€priorÐ V"¦! Ðconvictions€that€could€have€been€used€to€impeach€his€testimony.€€The€petitioner€did€not€contendÐ <#Œ" Ðthat€trial€counsel€deprived€him€of€the€right€to€testify€or€that€he€wanted€to€testify€at€trial.€Ð "$r# ÐAlthough€trial€counsel€confirmed€that€he€met€with€the€petitioner€five€or€six€times€prior€to€theÐ %X $ Ðtrial,€he€was€not€otherwise€questioned€during€the€post„conviction€hearing€about€the€petitioner'sÐ î%>!% Ðfailure€to€testify€at€his€trial.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓAfter€observing€that€trial€counsel€was€afforded€open€file€discovery€by€the€state,€the€post„Ð  (ð#( Ðconviction€court€determined€that€trial€counsel€was€thoroughly€prepared€for€trial€and€that€he€hadÐ †)Ö$) Ðadequately€prepared€the€petitioner€for€trial.€€It€found€that€trial€counsel€met€with€the€petitioner€aÐ l*¼%* Ðsufficient€number€of€times€and€that€he€acquired€other€information€from€Agent€Wesson€andÐ R+¢&+ ÐAttorney€Freemon,€the€petitioner's€attorney€in€the€drug€cases.€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑ ! " Ñâ !âÑÑÑÑâ "!âÑÑÑÑâ "âÑ  Ñconcluded€that€because€the€trial€in€this€case€predated€the€ruling€in€òòMomonóó,€that€ruling€did€notÐ ° Ðapply€to€the€petitioner.Ð –æ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIt€is€well€established€that€a€criminal€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€give€testimonyÐ b² Ðunder€both€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.€€òòSeeóó€òòMomonóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€157.€€Article€I,€sectionÐ H˜ Ð9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€has€been€interpreted€to€require€that€Ô€XÔ XXXúÉÔAÔ€XúÉX XXÔ Ôin€all€criminal€prosecutionsÐ . ~ Ðthe€accused€has€the€right€to€testify€as€a€witness€in€his€own€behalf€and€to€be€represented€byÐ  f Ðcounsel.Ô€XÔ XXXúÉÔ@Ô€XúÉX XXÔ Ô€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€v.€Burkhartóó,€541€S.W.2d€365,€371€(Tenn.€1976)).€€In€òòRock€v.Ð ü L ÐArkansasóó,€483€U.S.€44,€50€(1987),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€declared€that€the€right€of€aÐ ä 4 Ðcriminal€defendant€to€testify€in€his€own€behalf€was€essential€to€the€due€process€of€law.€€BecauseÐ Ê   Ðthe€right€to€testify€is€fundamental,€it€may€only€be€waived€by€the€defendant.€€òòMomonóó,€18€S.W.3dÐ °  Ðat€161€(citing€òòJones€v.€Barnesóó,€463€U.S.€745€(1983);€òòState€v.€Blackmonóó,€984€S.W.2d€589,€591Ð –æ  Ð(Tenn.€1998);€òòVermilye€v.€Stateóó,€754€S.W.2d€82,€88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)).€€Prior€to€ourÐ |Ì  Ðsupreme€court's€holding€in€òòMomonóó,€a€petitioner's€claim€that€his€counsel€prevented€him€fromÐ b²  Ðtestifying€in€his€own€behalf€was€treated€like€any€other€ground€asserted€for€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÐ H˜  Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòShone€King€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01-9709-CR-00408€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð .~  ÐApp.,€at€Nashville,€Dec.€30,€1998).Ð d ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIn€our€view,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€thatÐ à0 Ðhis€trial€counsel€did€not€adequately€prepare€him€to€testify.€€Notably,€the€petitioner€did€not€claimÐ Æ Ðat€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€wanted€to€testify€at€trial€and€was€denied€the€right€to€do€so€byÐ ¬ü Ðhis€trial€counsel.€€He€also€did€not€suggest€what€trial€counsel€should€have€done€differently€duringÐ ’â Ðhis€trial€preparation.€€Further,€trial€counsel€was€not€questioned€at€all€as€to€the€reasons€theÐ xÈ Ðpetitioner€was€not€offered€as€a€witness€at€trial.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€petitioner€is€notÐ ^® Ðentitled€to€relief€on€this€ground.Ð D” ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIn€a€related€complaint,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€comply€withÐ ` Ðthe€requirements€of€òòMomon€v.€Stateóó.€€In€òòMomonóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€as€a€proceduralÐ öF Ðsafeguard,€the€waiver€of€the€defendant's€right€to€testify€should€be€attained€through€a€voir€dire€ofÐ Ü, Ðthe€defendant€in€open€court.€€òòóó18€S.W.3d€at€162.€€Our€high€court€observed,€however,€that€"neitherÐ Â Ðthe€right€to€testify€discussed€herein,€nor€the€procedural€protections€adopted€to€preserve€that€rightÐ ¨ø Ðare€new€constitutional€rules€which€must€be€retroactively€applied."€€òòId.óó€at€162-63.€€Moreover,€ourÐ Ž Þ Ðhigh€court€stated€that€the€safeguards€announced€in€òòMomonóó€were€prophylactic€in€nature€and€notÐ t!Ä  Ðconstitutionally€required.€€òòId.óó€€The€petitioner's€trial€occurred€in€September€of€1999,€two€monthsÐ Z"ª! Ðbefore€our€supreme€court's€decision€in€òòMomonóó.€€Because€a€voir€dire€of€the€defendant€regardingÐ @#" Ðhis€waiver€of€the€right€to€testify€was€not€required€at€that€time,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€toÐ &$v# Ðrelief€on€this€ground.Ð  %\ $ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ  ÓIIIÐ Ø&("& ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€the€offense€occurred€beforeÐ ¾'#' Ðthe€return€of€the€indictment.€€He€also€complains€that€the€indictment€was€not€read€to€the€jury.€€TheÐ ¤(ô#( Ðstate€submits€that€because€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€the€issue€as€a€ground€for€relief€on€directÐ Š)Ú$) Ðappeal,€waiver€applies.Ð p*À%* Ðâ âÓ XÓÐ V+¦&+ ÐÓ XÓAs€indicated,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„106€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€asÐ ° Ðâ âfollows:Ð –æ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX(#BÓ(g)€€A€ground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitioner€personally€or€through€anÐ |Ì Ðattorney€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€ofÐ b² Ðcompetent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€been€presented€unless:Ð H˜ Ð(1)€€The€claim€for€relief€is€based€upon€a€constitutional€right€not€recognizedÐ . ~ Ðas€existing€at€the€time€of€trial€if€either€the€federal€or€state€constitution€requiresÐ  d Ðretroactive€application€of€that€right;€orÐ ú J Ð(2)€€The€failure€to€present€the€ground€was€the€result€of€state€action€inÐ à 0 Ðviolation€of€the€federal€or€state€constitution.Ð Æ   ÐÓ XÓÑ€%ÑÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°‹XÐ EÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€XÔ XXXúÉÔ'Ô€XúÉX XXÔ Ô€40„30„106(g)€(2003).€€Here,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€post„convictionÐ ¬ ü  Ðcourt€should€have€granted€relief€because€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€the€offense€occurred€beforeÐ ”ä  Ðthe€return€of€the€indictment€and€that€the€indictment€was€not€read€to€the€jury.€€Neither€claim€isÐ zÊ  Ðbased€upon€a€new€constitutional€right.€€Nor€was€the€failure€to€timely€present€the€issue€the€resultÐ `°  Ðof€state€action.€€The€claims€could€have€been€presented€on€direct€appeal.€€Because€the€petitionerÐ F–  Ðdid€not€cite€the€issues€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€and€failed€to€present€the€issues€on€direct€appeal,Ð ,|  Ðwaiver€applies.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€òòColdwellóó,€671€S.W.2d€at€465.€Ð b ÐÌÓ XÓMoreover,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€the€merits€of€the€issue.€€Trial€counselÐ Þ. Ðtestified€that€he€could€not€remember€if€any€witness€was€specifically€asked€whether€the€offenseÐ Ä Ðoccurred€before€the€return€of€the€indictment.€€His€notes€indicated€that€the€indictment€was€read€toÐ ªú Ðthe€jury€but€he€had€no€specific€recollection€of€the€reading.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€theÐ à Ðindictment€was€not€read€to€the€jury€and€he€could€not€remember€whether€any€witness€was€askedÐ vÆ Ðwhether€the€offense€occurred€before€the€return€of€the€indictment.Ð \¬ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓWith€regard€to€the€petitioner's€claim€that€the€state€failed€to€prove€that€the€offenseÐ (x Ðoccurred€before€the€indictment,€the€post„conviction€court€ruled€that€the€issue€had€been€waived.€Ð ^ ÐWith€regard€to€his€claim€that€the€indictment€was€not€read€to€the€jury,€the€court€concluded€that€theÐ ôD Ðclaim€was€"utterly€absurd,"€observing€that€the€petitioner€did€not€have€the€entire€trial€transcript.Ð Ú* ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€&ÑTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39-11-201€provides€that€the€state€must€prove€beyondÐ ¦ö Ða€reasonable€doubt€that€the€"offense€was€committed€prior€to€the€return€of€the€formal€charge."€Ð Œ Ü ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€XÔ XXXúÉÔ'Ô€XúÉX XXÔ Ô€39„11„201(a)(4).€€In€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€53€S.W.3d€264,€279€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð r!  Ð2000),€this€court€made€the€following€observations€with€regard€to€this€requirement:Ð Z"ª! ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX(#BÓGranted,€this€is€an€easy€matter€to€prove.€.€.€.€[The]€reading€of€the€indictment€to€theÐ &$v# Ðjury,€coupled€with€evidence€of€when€the€offense€was€committed,€would€establishÐ  %\ $ Ðthat€the€offense€was€committed€prior€to€the€return€of€the€indictment.€Also,€theÐ ò%B!% ÐState€could€merely€ask€an€appropriate€witness€whether€the€actions€of€theÐ Ø&("& Ðdefendant€constituting€the€offense€occurred€before€the€defendant€was€chargedÐ ¾'#' Ðwith€that€offense.€This€would€satisfy€the€requirements€of€the€statute€as€well.Ð ¤(ô#( ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°‹XÐ EÓÌà  àòòóóThis€court€concluded€that€while€it€was€"obvious"€the€crimes€were€committed€before€theÐ p*À%* Ðâ âdefendant€was€indicted,€reversal€was€required€because€there€was€"no€evidence€that€theÐ V+¦&+ ÐÑ %&Ñâ %âÑÑÑÑâ &%âÑÑÑÑâ &âÑ  Ñindictment€was€ever€read€to€the€jury€or€shown€to€the€jury,€and€no€witness€was€asked€whether€theÐ ° Ðoffense€occurred€prior€to€the€return€of€the€indictment."€€òòId.óó€at€279-280.Ð –æ Ðâ âÌÓ XÓÑ€'ÑInitially,€the€post„conviction€court€correctly€observed€that€the€transcript€offered€as€anÐ b² Ðexhibit€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€is€not€a€record€of€the€entire€trial.€€The€record€offered€by€post„Ð H˜ Ðconviction€counsel€consists€of€two€abstracts€from€the€original€trial€transcript.€€The€abstractsÐ . ~ Ðcontain€only€the€voir€dire€of€the€jury€pool,€the€jury€instructions,€and€the€return€of€the€verdict.€Ð  d ÐWithout€the€entire€transcript,€adequate€review€of€this€issue€is€impossible.€€It€is€the€duty€of€theÐ ú J Ðappellant€to€prepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurate,€and€complete€account€of€whatÐ à 0 Ðtranspired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€issues€which€form€the€basis€of€the€appeal.€€Tenn.Ð Æ   ÐR.€App.€P.€24(b);€òòGroseclose€v.€Stateóó,€615€S.W.2d€142€(Tenn.€1983);€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737€S.W.2dÐ ¬ ü  Ð556,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€the€absence€of€an€adequate€record€on€appeal,€this€courtÐ ’â  Ðmust€presume€that€the€rulings€of€the€post„conviction€court€were€correct.€€òòState€v.€Keenóó,€996Ð xÈ  ÐS.W.2d€842€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999);€òòVermilye€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€226,€230€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ^®  ÐApp.€1979).€€Similarly,€the€transcript€submitted€on€direct€appeal€does€not€include€a€transcriptionÐ D”  Ðof€the€proceedings€conducted€on€the€first€day€of€the€petitioner's€trial,€noting€that€that€portion€ofÐ *z  Ðthe€trial€"was€not€requested€and€is€not€a€part€of€this€transcript."׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€transcript€begins€with€theÐ ` Ðproceedings€from€the€second€day€of€trial.€€Because€the€record€does€not€affirmatively€indicateÐ öF Ðotherwise,€our€duty€is€to€presume€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€ofÐ Ü, Ðthe€post„conviction€court.Ô‡X€ö XXXúÉÔ€€òòSeeóó€òòMurff€v.€Stateóó,€221€Tenn.€111,€425€S.W.2d€286,€289€(1968)Ð Â Ð("[E]very€presumption€must€be€in€favor€of€the€regularity€of€the€proceedings€and€the€validity€ofÐ ¬ü Ðthe€orders€and€judgment€in€the€lower€court,€except€where€the€record€affirmatively€showsÐ –æ Ðotherwise.").Ð €Ð ÐÔ#†XúÉX XX€öJ÷#ÔÓ XÓÌÓ  ÓIVÐ P  ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€next€asserts€that€the€state€engaged€in€prosecutorial€misconduct€byÐ 6† Ðknowingly€soliciting€testimony€at€trial€that€it€knew€to€be€false€and€by€failing€to€correct€theÐ l Ðinformation.€€He€also€contends€that€the€state€engaged€in€prosecutorial€misconduct€by€usingÐ R Ðmaterially€false€information€to€obtain€the€indictment€in€this€case.€€Other€than€citing€the€ruling€ofÐ è8 Ðthe€post„conviction€court,€the€state€has€failed€to€specifically€address€this€claim.Ð Î ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€petitioner's€claim€that€the€state€solicited€testimony€it€knew€to€be€false€is€based€uponÐ š ê Ðthe€testimony€of€Stephen€Perry.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€Agent€Wesson€testified€that€he€tookÐ €!Ð  Ða€statement€from€Perry€approximately€one€week€after€the€offense.€€In€the€statement,€PerryÐ f"¶! Ðindicated€that€in€March€or€April€of€1998,€he€had€spoken€with€the€petitioner€about€the€audiotapesÐ L#œ" Ðthe€petitioner€had€received€during€the€discovery€process€in€his€drug€cases.€€Perry€providedÐ 2$‚# Ðvirtually€identical€testimony€at€trial.€€Attorney€Freemon€provided€a€statement€to€Agent€WessonÐ %h $ Ðwherein€he€indicated€that€the€audiotapes€were€not€given€to€the€petitioner€until€June€of€1998.€€HeÐ þ%N!% Ðalso€gave€Agent€Wesson€a€document€prepared€during€his€representation€of€the€petitioner€whichÐ ä&4"& Ðcorroborated€that€date.€€In€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€because€Attorney€FreemonÐ Ê'#' Ðindicated€that€the€petitioner€did€not€receive€the€tapes€until€June,€Perry's€assertion€that€he€hadÐ °($( ÐÑ'Ñâ 'âÑÑÑÑâ 'âÑ  Ñspoken€to€the€petitioner€about€the€tapes€in€March€or€April€was€false€and€that€the€state€had€a€dutyÐ ° Ðto€"correct"€Perry's€testimony.Ð –æ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIn€òòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€874€S.W.2d€602,€617€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€this€court€held€thatÐ b² Ð"it€is€a€well„established€principle€of€law€that€the€state's€knowing€use€of€false€testimony€to€convictÐ H˜ Ðan€accused€is€violative€of€the€right€to€a€fair€and€impartial€trial."€€"When€a€state€witness€answersÐ . ~ Ðquestions€on€either€direct€or€cross€examination€falsely,€the€district€attorney€general,€or€hisÐ  d Ðassistant,€has€an€affirmative€duty€to€correct€the€false€testimony."€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòGiglio€v.€UnitedÐ ú J ÐStatesóó,€405€U.S.€150€(1972);€òòNapue€v.€Illinoisóó,€360€U.S.€264€(1959);€òòBlanton€v.€Blackburnóó,€494Ð à 0 ÐF.€Supp.€895,€900€(M.D.€La.€1980);€òòHall€v.€Stateóó,€650€P.2d€893,€896€(Okla.€Crim.€App.€1982)).Ð Æ   ÐÐ ¬ ü  ÐIn€this€case,€there€was€a€factual€discrepancy€in€the€time€frames€provided€by€Perry€andÐ ’â  ÐAttorney€Freemon.€€This€was,€in€the€context€of€the€entire€trial,€a€difference€in€recollection€ratherÐ xÈ  Ðthan€false€testimony.€€In€the€statement€he€provided€to€Agent€Wesson,€Perry€stated€that€heÐ ^®  Ðbelieved€that€he€had€spoken€with€the€petitioner€about€the€tapes€in€March€or€April€but€that€he€wasÐ D”  Ðunsure€of€the€precise€time.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€Agent€Wesson€reiterated€that€Perry€wasÐ *z  Ðunsure€of€the€exact€month€in€which€he€had€spoken€to€petitioner€but€he€was€certain€that€it€wasÐ ` Ðprior€to€the€crime.€€This€is€not€necessarily€in€conflict€with€the€testimony€and€documentationÐ öF Ðprovided€by€Attorney€Freemon,€which€established€that€the€petitioner€received€the€tapes€in€June,Ð Ü, Ðsome€three€months€prior€to€the€crime.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€prosecution€was€under€noÐ Â Ðduty€to€correct€Perry's€testimony.€€The€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð ¨ø ÐÐ ŽÞ ÐIn€a€related€claim,€the€petitioner€complains€that€the€state€used€false€evidence€to€obtain€theÐ tÄ Ðindictment.€€The€claim€is€based€upon€the€statement€provided€to€Agent€Wesson€by€Perry.€€At€theÐ Zª Ðevidentiary€hearing,€Agent€Wesson€testified€that€Perry's€statement€was€not€given€to€the€grandÐ @ Ðjury.€€He€stated€that€he€made€notes€from€the€statement€and€informed€the€grand€jurors€that€theÐ &v Ðpetitioner€had€spoken€to€Perry€about€the€tapes€and€the€victim's€role€in€his€prosecution.€Ð  \ ÐAccording€to€the€officer,€he€did€not€make€any€reference€to€the€date€on€which€the€conversationÐ òB Ðoccurred€other€than€saying€that€it€occurred€prior€to€the€crime.€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ Ø( Ðimplicitly€accredited€the€testimony€of€Agent€Wesson€in€its€order€denying€relief.€€In€our€view,€theÐ ¾ Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€post„conviction€court's€finding€that€the€state€did€notÐ ¤ô Ðuse€false€testimony€at€trial€or€during€the€grand€jury€proceeding.Ð Š Ú ÐÓ XÓÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓVÐ %X $ ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€providing€a€misleading€criminalÐ î%>!% Ðresponsibility€instruction€to€the€jury.€€In€response,€the€state€argues€that€waiver€applies€becauseÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€issue€was€not€presented€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„106(g)€(2003).Ð º' #' ÐÐ  (ð#( ÐThe€petitioner€has€failed€to€cite€any€authority€for€his€assertion€that€the€instruction€wasÐ †)Ö$) Ðerror.€€"Issues€which€are€not€supported€by€argument,€citation€to€authorities,€or€appropriateÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âreferences€to€the€record€will€be€treated€as€waived€in€this€court."€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b);Ð R+¢&+ Ðòòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€òòState€v.€Hammonsóó,€737€S.W.2d€549,€552€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ° Ð1987).€€For€this€reason,€the€issue€has€been€waivedÐ –æ Ðâ âÐ |Ì ÐMoreover,€the€record€establishes€that€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€in€accordance€withÐ b² ÐTennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instruction€3.01.€€In€òòState€v.€Alejandro€Riveraóó,€No.Ð H˜ ÐE2002-00491-CCA-R3-CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Dec.€1,€2003),€this€courtÐ . ~ Ðspecifically€approved€of€the€content€of€the€charge€as€given.€òòóó€Further,€while€the€petitionerÐ  d Ðcorrectly€points€out€that€the€last€paragraph€of€the€instruction€provided€by€the€trial€court€did€notÐ ú J Ðmake€reference€to€an€applicable€mental€state,€the€paragraph€immediately€preceding€it€does:Ð à 0 ÐÐ Æ   Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€defendant€is€criminally€responsible€for€an€offenseÐ ¬ ü  Ðcommitted€by€the€conduct€of€another,€if,€acting€with€the€intent€toÐ ’â  Ðpromote€or€assist€the€commission€of€the€offense,€or€to€benefit€inÐ xÈ  Ðthe€proceeds€or€results€of€the€offense,€the€defendant€solicits,Ð ^®  Ðdirects,€aids,€or€attempts€to€aid€another€person€to€commit€theÐ D”  Ðoffense.Ð*z ` x` x ÐÓ XÓNotwithstanding€waiver,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð ` ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€petitioner€also€asserts€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÐ Ü, Ðobject€to€the€instruction€at€trial€and€for€failing€to€present€it€as€a€ground€for€relief€on€direct€appeal,Ð Â Ðthe€instruction€was€an€appropriate€statement€of€the€law.€€Trial€counsel,€therefore,€was€notÐ ¨ø Ðineffective€for€failing€to€lodge€an€objection.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌÓ  ÓVIÐ Zª ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€give€a€limitingÐ @ Ðinstruction€regarding€his€history€of€selling€drugs€and€claims€that€an€affidavit€by€juror€MarthaÐ &v ÐJones€establishes€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€omission.€€The€state€argues€that€the€issue€wasÐ  \ Ðpreviously€determined€and€that€the€petitioner€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€present€it€onÐ òB Ðdirect€appeal.Ð Ø( ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€+ÑUnder€the€Post-Conviction€Procedure€Act,€a€claim€which€has€been€previously€determinedÐ ¤ô Ðcannot€be€a€basis€for€post-conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-106(h)€(2003).€€"AÐ Š Ú Ðground€for€relief€is€previously€determined€if€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€theÐ p!À  Ðmerits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing."€€òòId.óóÐ V"¦! ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓTrial€counsel€sought€the€introduction€of€Jones'€affidavit€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€forÐ "$r# Ðnew€trial€as€support€for€his€claim€that€the€jury€had€been€exposed€to€extraneous€prejudicialÐ %X $ Ðinformation.€€òòCrenshawóó,€64€S.W.3d€at€691.€€The€trial€court€refused€to€consider€the€affidavit€andÐ î%>!% Ðdenied€relief.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€court€ruled€that€the€affidavit€failed€to€establish€that€the€juryÐ Ô&$"& Ðwas€exposed€to€extraneous,€prejudicial€information.€€òòId.óó€at€693„94.€€While€this€ruling€does€notÐ º' #' Ðqualify€as€a€previous€determination€of€the€petitioner's€claim€that€Jones'€affidavit€is€proof€that€heÐ  (ð#( Ðwas€prejudiced€by€the€absence€of€a€limiting€instruction€regarding€his€involvement€in€the€sale€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðdrugs,€waiver€would€nevertheless€apply€based€upon€the€petitioner's€failure€to€present€the€issue€onÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âdirect€appeal€of€the€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„106(g)€(2003).€€In€addition,€theÐ R+¢&+ ÐÑ+Ñâ +âÑÑÑÑâ +âÑ  Ñpetitioner€has€waived€our€consideration€of€this€issue€by€failing€to€cite€authority€and€by€failing€toÐ ° Ðinclude€the€trial€transcript€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b),€27(a)(7).€Ð –æ Ðâ âÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€,ÑFurther,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€the€merits€of€the€issue.€€The€post„Ð b² Ðconviction€court€ruled€that€the€drug€charges,€and€particularly€the€victim's€involvement€in€theÐ H˜ Ðinvestigation,€were€the€motive€for€the€attempted€murder€of€the€victim.€€It€determined€thatÐ . ~ Ðtestimony€regarding€the€charges€was€admissible€to€establish€motive.€€Audiotapes€of€the€drugÐ  d Ðtransactions€confirmed€that€the€victim€was€working€as€an€informant.€€As€to€the€petitioner's€claimÐ ú J Ðthat€the€trial€court€erroneously€failed€to€provide€a€limiting€instruction€regarding€this€testimony,Ð à 0 Ðthe€post„conviction€court€ruled€that€"the€appropriate€instructions€were€given."Ð Æ   ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓIn€our€view,€evidence€of€the€drug€charges€against€the€petitioner€was€relevant€andÐ ’â  Ðadmissible€to€give€context€to€the€crime.€€In€òòState€v.€Gillilandóó,€22€S.W.3d€266,€272€(Tenn.€2000),Ð xÈ  Ðour€supreme€court€held€that€"contextual€background€evidence,€which€contains€proof€of€otherÐ ^®  Ðcrimes,€wrongs,€or€acts,€may€be€offered€as€an€'other€purpose'€under€[Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ D”  ÐEvidence]€404(b)€when€exclusion€of€that€evidence€would€create€a€chronological€or€conceptualÐ *z  Ðvoid€in€the€presentation€of€the€case€and€that€void€would€likely€result€in€significant€jury€confusionÐ ` Ðconcerning€the€material€issues€or€evidence€in€the€case."€€In€addition,€this€evidence€wasÐ öF Ðadmissible€to€establish€the€petitioner's€motive€for€the€offense,€a€permissible€purpose€under€theÐ Ü, Ðrule.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBunch€v.€Stateóó,€605€S.W.2d€227,€229€(Tenn.€1980).Ð Â ÐÐ ¨ø ÐÓ XÓà  àThe€transcript€of€the€trial€establishes€that€during€the€victim's€testimony,€the€evidence€wasÐ ŽÞ Ðadmitted€to€establish€motive.€€The€petitioner's€trial€counsel€asked€for€a€limiting€instruction€butÐ tÄ Ðstated€that€he€"[did€not]€want€it€at€this€point."€€Trial€counsel€made€no€other€request€for€a€limitingÐ Zª Ðinstruction€and€the€trial€court€did€not€provide€one.€€While€a€limiting€instruction€confining€theÐ @ Ðjury's€consideration€of€this€evidence€to€the€permissible€purposes€would€have€been€helpful,€it€isÐ &v Ðour€view€that€the€error,€if€any,€was€harmless.€€As€indicated,€the€evidence€was€relevant.€€TheÐ  \ Ðrecord€establishes€that€the€state€offered€the€evidence€for€a€permissible€purpose.€€In€addition,€theÐ òB Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€the€failure€to€provide€a€limiting€instruction€resulted€inÐ Ø( Ðprejudice.Ð ¾ ÐÌÓ XÓAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€introduced€Jones'€affidavit€as€proof€that€he€hadÐ Š Ú Ðsuffered€prejudice€as€a€result€of€the€omission.€€Initially,€the€trial€court€refused€to€admit€theÐ p!À  Ðaffidavit€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial,€explaining€that€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ V"¦! ÐEvidence€permit€the€admission€of€juror€affidavits€only€under€limited€circumstances,€none€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðwhich€existed€at€the€time.€€As€indicated,€this€court€ruled€on€direct€appeal€that€the€affidavit€failedÐ "$r# Ðto€establish€that€the€jury€was€exposed€to€extraneous,€prejudicial€information€and€was,€therefore,Ð %X $ Ðinadmissible.€€òòCrenshawóó,€64€S.W.3d€at€693„94.Ð î%>!% ÐÐ Ô&$"& ÐNow,€the€petitioner€seeks€to€use€Jones'€affidavit€to€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€theÐ º' #' Ðomission€of€a€limiting€instruction.€€The€problem€is€that€the€affidavit€is€not€admissible€for€thisÐ  (ð#( Ðpurpose.€€òòSeeóó€òòHutchison€v.€Stateóó,€118€S.W.3d€720,€740€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2003).€€TheÐ †)Ö$) Ðadmissibility€of€juror€affidavits€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€606,€which€providesÐ l*¼%* Ðin€pertinent€part€as€follows:Ð R+¢&+ ÐÓ XÓÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑ,Ñâ ,âÑÑÑÑâ ,âÑ  ÑÑ€-ÑÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX(#BÓà ` àUpon€an€inquiry€into€the€validity€of€a€verdict€or€indictment,€a€juror€mayÐ ° Ðnot€testify€as€to€any€matter€or€statement€occurring€during€the€course€of€the€jury'sÐ –æ Ðdeliberations€or€to€the€effect€of€anything€upon€any€juror's€mind€or€emotions€asÐ |Ì Ðinfluencing€that€juror€to€assent€to€or€dissent€from€the€verdict€or€indictment€orÐ b² Ðconcerning€the€juror's€mental€processes,€except€that€a€juror€may€testify€on€theÐ H˜ Ðquestion€of€whether€extraneous€prejudicial€information€was€improperly€brought€toÐ . ~ Ðthe€jury's€attention,€whether€any€outside€influence€was€improperly€brought€to€bearÐ  d Ðupon€any€juror,€or€whether€the€jurors€agreed€in€advance€to€be€bound€by€a€quotientÐ ú J Ðor€gambling€verdict€without€further€discussion;€nor€may€a€juror's€affidavit€orÐ à 0 Ðevidence€of€any€statement€by€the€juror€concerning€a€matter€about€which€the€jurorÐ Æ   Ðwould€be€precluded€from€testifying€be€received€for€these€purposes.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°‹XÐ EÓÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€606(b).€€The€rule€expressly€prohibits€the€introduction€of€juror€affidavits€toÐ xÈ  Ðestablish€"the€effect€of€anything€upon€any€juror's€mind€or€emotions€as€influencing€that€juror€toÐ ^®  Ðassent€to€or€dissent€from€the€verdict€or€indictment."€€òòId.óó€€There€are€only€three€exceptions€to€theÐ D”  Ðgeneral€rule€of€exclusion:€a€juror€may€testify€as€to€(1)€whether€extraneous€prejudicial€informationÐ *z  Ðwas€improperly€brought€to€the€jury's€attention,€(2)€whether€any€outside€influence€was€improperlyÐ ` Ðbrought€to€bear€upon€any€juror,€or€(3)€whether€the€jurors€agreed€in€advance€to€be€bound€by€aÐ öF Ðquotient€or€gambling€verdict€without€further€discussion.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòCaldararo€v.€VanderbiltÐ Ü, ÐUniv.óó,€794€S.W.2d€738,€742€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€As€was€already€determined€by€this€court€onÐ Â Ðdirect€appeal,€juror€Jones'€affidavit€is€insufficient€to€establish€that€the€jury€was€exposed€toÐ ¨ø Ðextraneous,€prejudicial€information.€€òòCrenshawóó,€64€S.W.3d€at€693„94.€€The€petitioner€does€notÐ ŽÞ Ðallege€that€outside€influence€was€brought€to€bear€on€any€juror€nor€does€he€claim€that€the€juryÐ tÄ Ðagreed€to€be€bound€by€a€gambling€verdict.€€Instead,€he€seeks€to€use€the€affidavit€to€prove€theÐ Zª Ðeffect€that€the€absence€of€the€limiting€instruction€had€upon€the€jury;€a€purpose€which€is€expresslyÐ @ Ðprohibited.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€580-81€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Workmanóó,€111Ð &v ÐS.W.3d€10,€21€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2002).€€Under€these€circumstances,€it€is€our€view€that€theÐ  \ Ðpetitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð òB ÐÌÓ  ÓVIIÐ ¾ ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€next€asserts€that€he€was€denied€the€right€to€a€fair€trial€because€the€sameÐ ¤ô Ðjury€pool€used€in€the€trial€of€Osepczuk€was€utilized€for€his€trial.€€The€state€submits€that€theÐ Š Ú Ðpetitioner€has€waived€our€consideration€of€this€issue€by€failing€to€present€it€as€a€ground€for€reliefÐ p!À  Ðon€direct€appeal€and€by€failing€to€cite€authority€for€his€position.Ð V"¦! ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓThe€petitioner€does€not€allege€that€any€of€the€jurors€from€Osepczuk's€trial,€which€wasÐ "$r# Ðconducted€first,€were€called€to€serve€for€the€petitioner's€trial.€€He€does€not€assert€that€the€juryÐ %X $ Ðempaneled€for€his€trial€did€not€represent€a€fair€cross„section€of€the€community.€€òòSeeóó€òòTaylor€v.Ð î%>!% ÐLouisianaóó,€419€U.S.€522,€538€(1975);€òòState€v.€Nelsonóó,€603€S.W.2d€158,€161€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ô&$"& Ð1980).€€Further,€he€has€offered€no€proof€to€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€procedure€usedÐ º' #' Ðto€select€the€venire.€€Finally,€he€has€not€alleged€any€juror€bias.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòToombs€v.€Stateóó,Ð  (ð#( Ð197€Tenn.€229,€270€S.W.2d€649,€651€(1954);€òòDurham€v.€Stateóó,€182€Tenn.€577,€188€S.W.2d€555,Ð †)Ö$) Ð557€(1945).€€The€post„conviction€court€acknowledged€that€the€same€jury€pool€was€used€for€theÐ l*¼%* Ðtrials€of€both€the€petitioner€and€Osepczuk€but€noted€that€care€was€taken€to€ensure€that€differentÐ R+¢&+ Ðpanels€were€called€for€each€trial.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑ-Ñâ -âÑÑÑÑâ -âÑ  Ñagainst€the€ruling€of€the€post„conviction€court€that€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€thisÐ ° Ðground.Ð –æ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ  ÓVIIIÐ b² ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€next€contends€that€the€state€failed€to€produce€exculpatory€evidence€asÐ H˜ Ðrequired€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€€The€state€argues€that€the€petitioner€hasÐ . ~ Ðwaived€the€issue€by€failing€to€present€it€on€direct€appeal€and€by€failing€to€provide€citation€toÐ  d Ðauthorities.Ð ú J ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€/ÑThe€petitioner's€claim€relates€to€the€production€of€an€audiotape€during€the€testimony€ofÐ Æ   Ðstate€witness€Ben€Jordan.€€At€trial,€Jordan,€the€boyfriend€of€the€victim's€mother,€testified€that€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðpetitioner€had€given€him€an€audiotape€and€directed€him€to€give€it€to€the€victim's€mother.€€JordanÐ ’â  Ðthen€removed€the€tape€from€his€pocket€and€handed€it€to€the€prosecutor.€€At€the€post„convictionÐ xÈ  Ðhearing,€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€was€surprised€by€the€production€of€the€tape€and€that€he€hadÐ ^®  Ðnot€been€provided€a€copy€of€the€tape€prior€to€trial.€€He€recalled€that€the€state€had€granted€himÐ D”  Ðopen€file€discovery€and€that€he€had€listened€to€all€of€the€tapes€in€the€possession€of€the€state.€€TrialÐ *z  Ðcounsel€remembered€that€the€trial€court€sustained€his€objection€to€the€admission€of€the€tape€andÐ ` Ðthat€the€tape€was€not€played€for€the€jury.€€During€a€break,€trial€counsel€listened€to€the€tape€andÐ öF Ðutilized€its€contents€during€the€cross„examination€of€Jordan.€€He€explained€that€he€did€not€ask€forÐ Ü, Ða€limiting€instruction€because€the€tape€was€not€played€for€the€jury.Ð Â ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓAgent€Wesson€testified€that€during€his€initial€interview€with€Jordan,€Jordan€informed€himÐ ŽÞ Ðthat€the€petitioner€had€given€him€an€audiotape€and€asked€him€to€give€it€to€the€victim's€mother.€Ð tÄ ÐAccording€to€the€officer,€Jordan€indicated€that€he€either€did€not€have€the€tape€or€that€the€tape€wasÐ Zª Ðunavailable.€€Agent€Wesson€stated€that€he€tried€on€a€second€occasion€to€acquire€the€tape€fromÐ @ ÐJordan€but€was€unsuccessful.€€Agent€Wesson€explained,€however,€that€there€were€several€tapesÐ &v Ðinvolved€in€the€prosecution€of€the€petitioner's€drug€cases€and€that€all€of€the€tapes€in€the€state'sÐ  \ Ðpossession€were€provided€to€Attorney€Freemon.Ð òB ÐÐ Ø( ÐAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€the€jury€reacted€with€surprise€whenÐ ¾ ÐJordan€produced€the€tape€and€that€trial€counsel€"didn't€do€anything€to€correct€that."€€He€claimedÐ ¤ô Ðthat€the€tape€might€have€been€helpful€to€his€defense€because€the€content€might€not€have€includedÐ Š Ú Ðhis€voice.€€It€was€the€petitioner's€belief€that€the€state€should€have€"run€into"€the€tape€during€theÐ p!À  Ðinvestigation.Ð V"¦! ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓBefore€this€court€may€find€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBradyóó,€the€following€elementsÐ "$r# Ðmust€be€established:Ð %X $ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ ¨ýÓÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓB+` °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX(#BÓ1.à ` àThe€defendant€must€have€requested€the€information€(unless€the€evidence€isÐ Ô&$"& Ðobviously€exculpatory,€in€which€case€the€State€is€bound€to€release€theÐ º' #' Ðinformation€whether€requested€or€not);Ð  (ð#( ÐÑ€0Ñ2.à ` àthe€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;Ð †)Ö$) Ð3.à ` àthe€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€andÐ l*¼%* Ð4.€à ` àthe€information€must€have€been€material.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÓ ¨ýÓÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` °‹XÐ EÓòòÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÑ /0Ñâ /âÑÑÑÑâ 0/âÑÑÑÑâ 0âÑ  ÑState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€390€(Tenn.€1995)€(as€amended€on€rehearing).€€In€this€case,€trialÐ ° Ðcounsel€filed€a€motion€for€discovery.€€There€is€no€proof,€however,€that€the€state€suppressed€theÐ –æ Ðtape.€€The€proof€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€was€that€the€tape€remained€in€the€possession€of€JordanÐ |Ì Ðuntil€he€testified€at€the€petitioner's€trial.€€Further,€there€is€no€indication€that€the€information€wasÐ b² Ðmaterial€or€that€it€was€favorable€to€the€accused.€€The€petitioner€did€not€offer€the€tape€as€anÐ H˜ Ðexhibit€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð . ~ Ð1990).€€In€our€view,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€the€state€violated€the€requirementsÐ  d Ðof€òòBradyóó.€€Similarly,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€trial€counsel'sÐ ú J Ðperformance€with€regard€to€the€tape.Ð à 0 ÐÌÓ  ÓIXÐ ¬ ü  ÐÓ XÓÓ  ÓAs€his€final€issue,€the€petitioner€contends€that€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€was€violated€becauseÐ ’â  Ðthe€state€used€mutually€exclusive€theories€and€different€evidence€in€his€trial€and€in€that€of€his€co„Ð xÈ  Ðdefendant.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€petitioner€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€present€it€as€aÐ ^®  Ðground€for€relief€on€direct€appeal.Ð D”  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓÑ€1ÑTrial€counsel€testified€that€the€state's€theory€of€the€case€was€that€the€petitioner€solicitedÐ ` ÐOsepczuk€and€Polidoro€to€kill€the€victim.€€He€stated€that€he€attended€Osepczuk's€trial€and€noÐ öF Ðmention€was€made€of€the€petitioner.€€He€recalled€that€the€state€did€not€produce€any€evidence€thatÐ Ü, Ðthe€petitioner€asked€Osepczuk€to€kill€the€victim.€€Agent€Wesson€explained€that€no€proof€that€theÐ Â Ðpetitioner€solicited€the€murder€of€the€victim€was€presented€at€Osepczuk's€trial€because€the€directÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€of€Osepczuk's€guilt€was€overwhelming€without€any€reference€to€the€petitioner.€€TheÐ ŽÞ Ðpetitioner,€who€did€not€attend€Osepczuk's€trial,€testified€that€he€had€obtained€a€copy€of€thisÐ tÄ Ðcourt's€opinion€in€Osepczuk's€direct€appeal€and€that€it€established€that€the€state€used€a€differentÐ Zª Ðtheory€at€Osepczuk's€trial.€€The€post„conviction€court€ruled€that€the€state€did€not€use€factuallyÐ @ Ðinconsistent€theories€in€the€two€trials.Ð &v ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓAs€indicated,€it€was€the€state's€theory€at€the€petitioner's€trial€that€the€petitioner€solicitedÐ òB Ðthe€murder€of€the€victim.€€This€court's€opinion€in€the€direct€appeal€of€Osepczuk's€convictionÐ Ø( Ðestablishes€that€no€mention€was€made€of€the€petitioner€or€his€soliciting€the€murder€of€the€victim.€Ð ¾ ÐòòState€v.€Osepczukóó,€No.€M1999-00846-CCA-R3-CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Feb.€1,Ð ¤ô Ð2001).€€Nevertheless,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€the€state€presented€factuallyÐ Š Ú Ðinconsistent€theories€and€evidence€at€his€and€Osepczuk's€separate€trials.€€The€evidence€offered€atÐ p!À  Ðeach€trial€as€to€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€attempt€on€the€victim's€life€was€identical.€€AtÐ V"¦! Ðthe€petitioner's€trial,€the€state€also€offered€evidence€additional€evidence€not€offered€at€Osepczuk'sÐ <#Œ" Ðtrial€to€connect€the€petitioner€to€the€crime.€€In€our€view,€this€does€not€qualify€as€inconsistent.€Ð "$r# ÐThe€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð %X $ ÐÓ XÓÌÌÌÌÌÌâ âÐ R+¢&+ ÐÑ1Ñâ 1âÑÑÑÑâ 1âÑ  ÑÓ XÓBecause€trial€counsel€performed€deficiently€by€failing€to€present€as€a€ground€for€relief€onÐ ° Ðâ âdirect€appeal€the€trial€court's€failure€to€instruct€on€solicitation€of€first€degree€murder€as€a€lesserÐ –æ Ðincluded€offense€and€because€the€petitioner€has€established€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€theÐ |Ì Ðdeficiency,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€must€be€reversed,€the€conviction€must€beÐ b² Ðset€aside,€and€the€cause€must€be€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€€On€remand,€all€lesser€includedÐ H˜ Ðoffenses,€as€warranted€by€the€evidence,€should€be€included€in€the€instructions€to€the€jury.Ð . ~ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ hÓ___________________________________€Ð ú J ÐGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE