WPC0 9ny=7Q6|VXbiUĮ$Qzӏ;@ ]%wJ&mUهI#fI`4CLmPt' ^pW:@.㬬Iȴ17hɝDBcxu-ae@rAYl\8:LƒR}OM d6QԮ],N1 0vG 0` 0`! 0`}! 0`! 0`=" 08" 0" 02# 0# 0:$ 0Y% 0_h% 0 % 0j& 0;( B*) D/) D+* 0C* D/+ 0+ 06, 0, 0:. 0^<. 0<. 1e.U6;/U>q/U*/b/:////// 0 1u-0 7200 B0\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,Mp<1 ~/:i+003|xU*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7=(X7  ?J%2A`Arial?  SI\  `&Times New RomanS7>(X7&  d d<)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7@(X7  ?J%2A`Arial?  SI\  `&Times New RomanS7>(X7<)2dxd0KS.SampleKH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial- - 0#Xd# K SDU_183#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Si) d !USUS.,  _  @hhXXL6~INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#XoX[#$XXoԈ # @ AssignedonBriefsAugust3,2004 F #XoX$ #$XXo@*@ _DONAVAN_ԀEDWARDDANIELv.STATEOFTENNESSEE   f #XoX$#XXo@, ,  #XoX#DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Weakley_ԀCounty 7  @* * No.CR342003WilliamB._Acree_,Jr.,Judge ! q @*AV) ` dE<` A߈ /  @  No.W200302511CCAR3PCFiledSeptember27,_2004_Ԉ (  AV) ` dE<` A      Petitioner,_Donavan_ԀEdwardDaniel,filedaprosepetitionforpostconvictionreliefalleging,as   amended,thathistrialcounselprovidedineffectiveassistanceofcounselbyfailing(1)toraisethe  legalityofPetitionersdetentionasanissueinhismotiontosuppress;(2)todemonstratea v particularizedneedforexpertservicesandtimelypresenttheaffidavitoftheproposedexperttothe _ trialcourt;and(3)torequestamistrialorcurativeinstructionwhentwoprospectivejurorsstated H duringvoirdirethattheywerefamiliarwithPetitionersjuvenilerecordandfamilybackground. 1 Followinganevidentiaryhearing,thepostconvictioncourtdeniedPetitionersrequestforpost j convictionrelief.Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,weaffirmthejudgmentofthepost S convictioncourt. < @ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed   ThomasT.Woodall,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,_P.J._,and  NormaMcGeeOgle,J.,joined. z KentF._Gearin_,Martin,Tennessee(onappeal)andJosephP._Atnip_,DistrictPublicDefender;and L  ColinJohnson,AssistantPublicDefender(attrial)fortheappellant,_Donavan_ԀEdwardDaniel. 5!  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichelleChapman_McIntire_,AssistantAttorney #W" General;ThomasA.Thomas,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andAllen_Strawbridge_,AssistantDistrict #@# AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,theStateofTennessee. $) $ @55' OPINION  &!&  @jj#I.Background  ~(#(   Followingajurytrial,Petitionerwasconvictedofonecountoffirstdegreepremeditated Q*%* murderofClarenceJones,onecountoffirstdegreefelonymurderof_Tamakia_ԀThomas,onecount :+&+ ofespeciallyaggravatedrobberyandonecountofpossessionofmarijuanawiththeintenttosell. #,s', ThejurysentencedPetitionertolifeimprisonmentforthepremeditatedmurderconvictionandlife  -\(- imprisonmentwithoutthepossibilityofparoleforthefelonymurderconviction.Followinga -E). L6~ L8oXXdd8K L  sentencinghearing,thetrialcourtsentencedPetitionertotwentyyearsfortheespeciallyaggravated  robberyconvictionandoneyearforthepossessionconviction,andorderedthesentencestobe  servedconcurrently.Petitionerwasajuvenileatthetimetheoffenseswerecommitted.    Onappeal,thisCourtupheldthesufficiencyoftheevidencesupportingPetitioners T premeditatedandfelonyfirstdegreemurderconvictions.Statev._Donavan_ԀEdwardDaniel,No. =  W200000981CCAR3CD,2001WL1690196,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,Dec.28,2001), & v perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.2002).Petitioneralsoappealedtheadmissibilityofhisstatements  _ madeafterhisarrestandthetrialcourtsdenialofPetitionersmotionforexpertservices.Id.  H   Onappeal,Petitionerarguedthatthestatementsmadeduringhisinitialinterviewswere    inadmissiblebecausethepolicedidnothaveprobablecausetodetainhim,hisconfessionwas   obtainedwithoutaknowingandvoluntarywaiverofhisMirandarights,andhisstatementswere   notvoluntarilymadebecauseofthelackofsleepandfoodduringtheinterrogationprocess.Because   Petitionerraisedtheissueconcerningthelegalityofhisinitialdetentionforthefirsttimeonappeal, n  thisissuewaswaived.Id.at*6.TheevidencepresentedduringPetitionerssuppressionhearing W  thatpertainstoPetitionersremainingtwoissueswassummarizedbythisCourtasfollows: @ 8   ` Thedefendant'smotherbroughthimtothepolicestationforquestioning b betweeneightandteno'clockp.m.thedayafterthemurderswerecommitted.The K defendantwasnotasuspectatthistime.However,thepolicehadreceived 4 informationindicatingthatthedefendantwasthelastpersontoseethevictimsalive.  Thedefendantdidnotmakeanyincriminatingstatementsduringthefirstinterview  withpoliceandreturnedhomewithhismother.Afterverifyingthatthedefendant  hadliedaboutwhattimehearrivedhomethenightofthemurders,thepoliceasked  thedefendant'smothertobringhimbacktothestation.Thedefendantandhis q motherreturnedtothestation.Ataroundmidnight,thedefendantgaveanother Z writtenstatement,whichwasnotincriminating.Theinterviewingofficerdidnot C _Mirandize_Ԁthedefendantpriortohimmakingthestatement.Aroundoneo'clock ,| a.m.,thedefendantwas_Mirandized_Ԁandquestionedagainbytwootherofficers.This e questioninglasteduntilabouttwothirtya.m.,whenthedefendant'smotheraskedif N theycouldgohomeandgetsomerest.Theofficersindicatedthatthedefendantwas  7 freetogobutrequestedthattheybeallowedtosearchhisresidence.Thedefendant's !   mothergaveherpermissionforthesearch,andtheofficersfollowedherandthe " ! defendanthome.#"   8   ` Atthedefendant'sresidence,theofficersdidnotpermitthedefendanttoenter t% $ hishomebecauseofthepossibilitythathemightcontaminatethescene.Atleastone ]&!% officerremainedoutsidewiththedefendantatalltimes.Hewasnotpermittedtolie F'"& downinhismother'scartorestbecausetheofficerswereafraidthathemighttryto /(#' leave.Therefore,thedefendantalternatelysatandlaiddownonthesidewalkandthe )h$( hoodofhismother'scar.Atsomepointbeforedawn,theofficersdecidedtocallthe *Q%) crimescenevantoconductamorethoroughsearchforevidence.Whiletheywaited *:&* forthevantoarrive,oneoftheofficerssearchedanearbydumpsterandfoundabag +#'+ ofmarijuanaandsomeclothinginside.Theofficerimmediatelyconfrontedthe  defendantwithwhathehadfound.Atfirst,thedefendantdeniedanyknowledge  abouttheitemsthatwerefoundbutlateradmitted,aftertalkingwithhismother,that  hehadplacedthemarijuanainthe_dumpster_.Thedefendantsaidthatthevictim, k ClarenceJones,had"frontedhim"themarijuanabutcontinuedtodenyinvolvement T inthemurders.=    8   ` Whiletheywaitedforthecrimescenevantoarrive,thedefendantandan  _ officer,CaptainMoore,discussedtheseriousnessofthecrimesandthepossible  H punishments.CaptainMooreadvisedthedefendantthatitwouldbeinhisbest  1  interesttocooperatewiththeinvestigatingofficers.Afterthecrimescenevan    arrived,thedefendant'sarmsweretestedforgunresidueandhisshoesweretaken   totestwhatappearedtobebloodsplatteronthem.Oncetheofficerswereapprized   ofthebloodsplatterevidenceandidentifiedaring,foundinthebagofmarijuana,   belongingtothevictim,thedefendantwashandcuffedandtoldthathewasbeing n  placedunderarrestforpossessionofmarijuana.Atthispoint,thedefendant W  confessedtothemurders.Thedefendant'smotherwasnotifiedthatthedefendant @ wasbeingtakenintocustody,andajuvenileofficerwascalledtothescene.At )y aroundeighto'clocka.m.,thedefendantwastransportedtothepolicestation.Once b there,thedefendantwasgivenMirandawarningsagainandsignedawrittenwaiver K beforegivingawrittenconfession.4   8   ` Thedefendant'sallegationsconcerningthepromisesofleniencywere  disputedatthesuppressionhearing.CaptainMoorewasaskedifhetoldthe  defendantthathewouldgetthedeathpenaltyifhedidnotcooperatewithpolice.  CaptainMoorerespondedthathedidnotrecallevermentioningthedeathpenalty q tothedefendant.Headmitted,however,toadvisingthedefendantthat"thiswasa Z crimethatcouldlandhiminjailforalotofyears"andthatitwouldbetohisbenefit C tocooperatewiththepolice.CaptainMoorefurtheradmittedthatduringthe ,| discussionwiththedefendantconcerningpossiblepunishments,hewasnotaware e thatthedeathpenaltywasnotavailableasapunishmentforjuveniledefendants. N CaptainMooresaidthatthejuvenileofficeradvisedhimofsuchafterhis  7 conversationwiththedefendantbutcontinuedtomaintainthatthedeathpenaltywas !   neverdiscussedwiththedefendant." !   8   ` Thedefendantandhismotherbothtestifiedandrelatedtheirversionofhow $# theeventstranspired.Thedefendantsaidhehadsleptuntilnoontheday% R %RI/hewas t% $ questionedbutallegedthathewasstillverytiredduringthelatenight/earlymorning ]&!% questioning.HealsotestifiedthatCaptainMooretoldhimifhecooperatedby F'"& confessingtothecrimes,hemightnotgetthedeathpenalty.Thedefendantsaidthat /(#' thisconversationoccurredinhismother'sbedroomafterCaptainMoore )h$( accompaniedhimtothebathroom,andthatnooneelsewaspresentatthetime.The *Q%) defendantfurtherallegedthatafterCaptainMooreplacedhandcuffsonhimand *:&* placedhiminthebackofapolicecar,hetoldthedefendantthatitwashislast +#'+ chancetotalk.HesaidthatCaptainMoorethenaskedifhewantedtotake"alittle  walktotalk."ThedefendanttestifiedthathebelievedtheCaptaintobesayingthat  itwashislastchancetoavoidthedeathpenalty.Thedefendantclaimedthathe  confessedtothemurdersbecauseofhisphysicalexhaustionandfearofthedeath k penalty.T   8   ` Thedefendant'smotherverifiedthatthedefendantwasquestionedoffandon & v fromsometimearoundnineo'clockp.m.untilthenextmorningwhenhewasarrested  _ andtakenintopolicecustody.Shetestifiedthatthedefendantwasverytiredandthat  H sherequestedseveraltimesthathebeallowedtosleeponthecouch.Shesaidthat  1  theofficerswouldnotletthedefendantliedowninhercareventhoughshehadthe    keysandthereweretwocarsparkedbehindit.ShedidnothearCaptainMoore   mentionthedeathpenalty.    Id.at*68. n    Baseduponareviewoftherecord,apanelofthisCourtconcludedthattheevidencedidnot @ preponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatPetitionerknowinglyandvoluntarilywaivedhis )y Mirandarightsandthathisstatementswerevoluntarilymade.Id.at*9-XXo. b   #XoX-E8#Priortotrial,Petitionerfiledanexpartemotionrequestingtheappointmentofamitigation   expertattheStatesexpense.Petitionerdidnotpresenttheaffidavitoftheproposedexpertduring  thehearing.ThetrialcourtdeniedPetitionersmotionbecauseitconcludedthatthecourtdidnot  havetheauthoritytoappointsuchanexpertinanoncapitalcase.Onappeal,thisCourtobserved w thatexpertservicesareavailabletoanindigentdefendantinbothcapitalandnoncapitalcases.Id. ` at10(citingStatev.Barnett,909S.W.2d423(Tenn.1995)).Thecourtconcluded,however,that I PetitionerfailedtomeettheBarnettrequirementsbyfailingtoshowaparticularizedneedforthe 2 servicesofanexpertandthattheserviceswouldassistinthepreparationandconductofhistrial. k Id.at11. T  @00II.PostConvictionHearing  '   Petitionerstrialcounseltestifiedthatheonlyraisedtheissueofthevoluntarinessof !  Petitionersconfessioninthemotiontosuppressbecause,inhisopinion,Petitionersdetention "! beforeheconfessedwaslawful.Petitionerdidnotmakeanyincriminatingstatementsduringhis |#" firsttwointerviews,andhisconfessionwasmadeafterthepolicearrestedPetitionerforpossession e$# ofacontrolledsubstance.CounselconcededthatPetitionerwasincustodialdetentionduringthe N% $ consensualsearchofhismothershousebutsaidthatPetitionervoluntarilyapproachedoneofthe 7&!% policeofficersafterhewasarrestedandtoldhimthathehadsomethingtosay.Counselagreedthat  'p"& itmighthavebeenprudenttoincludetheissueofanunlawfuldetentionwithinhismotionto  (Y#' suppress. (B$(   PetitionerscounselsaidthathecontactedDr.FrankEinsteinasapotentialexpertwitness *&* onDecember2,1999.Counselbelievedthathediscussedhisownpersonalobservationsabout +&+ DefendantandhisbackgroundwithDr.EinsteinandsentDr.Einsteinacopyofthemental  evaluationperformedbytheWestTennesseeMentalHealthInstitute.Dr.Einsteinprovidedan  affidavitoutlininghisqualifications,thescopeofhisservices,andhisfees.Dr.Einsteinstatedin  theaffidavitthatoneofthegoalsofhisengagementwouldbetoidentifyanymitigatingfactorsthat k couldbepresentedtothejuryduringPetitionerssentencinghearing.Dr.Einsteinsaffidavit, T however,wasnotfiledwiththecourtuntilSeptember6,2000. =    CounseladmittedthathedidnothaveDr.Einsteinsaffidavitatthetimetheexpartehearing  _ onPetitionersmotionforexpertserviceswasheld.Hestatedthathehadtriedtoidentifya  H particularizedneedforDr.Einsteinsservicespriortotheexpartehearingbutwasunabletodoso.  1  Instead,counseltoldthetrialcourtthatDr.Einsteinsserviceswerenecessarytomakesurethathe    didnotmissanythingthatmightbeusefulasamitigatingfactorduringsentencing.Inanyevent,   counselexplainedthatDr.Einsteinsaffidavitdidnotaddresstheissueofaparticularizedneed.     CounselsaidthatherecollectedthetwojurorsstatementsaboutPetitionerduringvoirdire. n  Prospectivejuror_Kilgas_ԀsaidthatsheworkedfortheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServicesin W  DresdenandhadworkedwithPetitionerandhisfamilybothbeforeandaftertheoffenseswere @ committed.Prospectivejuror_Cianfarani_ԀtoldthetrialcourtthatshehadbeenPetitionersjuvenile )y probationofficeratonetime.TheexchangebetweentheStateandtheprospectivejurorswasbrief, b andthetrialcourtpromptlyexcusedbothjurorsforcause.Counselsaidthathedidnotrequesta K mistrialoraskforanytypeofcurativeinstructionbecausehedidnotwanttodrawundueattention 4 tothejurorscomments.Counselestimatedthathehadspentmanyhourspreparingforand  defendingPetitionerscase.HestatedthathewouldnothaveapproachedPetitionerscaseany  differently.    Petitionertestifiedthathemetwithhistrialcounselthreeorfourtimespriortotrial,andthat q eachvisitlastedapproximatelytwentytothirtyminutes. Z   Basedupontheevidencebeforeit,thepostconvictioncourtfoundthatPetitionerhadfailed ,| toshowbyclearandconvincingevidencethathistrialcounselsconductwasdeficientanddenied e Petitionerpostconvictionrelief.AstoPetitionerssuppressionissue,thepostconvictioncourt N foundthatPetitionerfailedtoestablishprejudicebyshowingthattheresultofthesuppression  7 hearingwouldhavebeenanydifferenthadcounselraisedanissueastothelegalityofPetitioners !   detention. " !  @III.StandardofReview  $#   Apetitionerseekingpostconvictionreliefmustestablishhisallegationsbyclearand ^&!% convincingevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f)(1997).However,thetrialcourts G'"& applicationofthelawtothefactsisrevieweddenovo,withoutapresumptionofcorrectness.Fields 0(#' v.State,40S.W.3d450,458(Tenn.2001).Aclaimthatcounselrenderedineffectiveassistanceis )i$( amixedquestionoffactandlawandthereforealsosubjecttodenovoreview.Id.;Statev._Burns,_ *R%) 6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999). *;&*  +$'+   Whenapetitionerseekspostconvictionreliefonthebasisofineffectiveassistanceof  counsel,hemustestablishthatcounselsperformancefellbelow therangeofcompetence  demandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).In  addition,hemustshowthatcounselsineffectiveperformanceactuallyadverselyimpactedhis k defense.Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,693,104S.Ct.2052,2067,80L.Ed.2d674 T (1984).Inreviewingcounselsperformance,thedistortionsofhindsightmustbeavoided,andthis =  Courtwillnotsecondguesscounselsdecisionsregardingtrialstrategiesandtactics._Hellard_Ԁv. & v State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982).Thereviewingcourt,therefore,shouldnotconcludethata  _ particularactoromissionbycounselisunreasonablemerelybecausethestrategywasunsuccessful.  H Strickland,466U.S.at689,104S.Ct.at2065.Rather,counselsallegederrorsshouldbejudged  1  fromcounselsperspectiveatthepointoftimetheyweremadeinlightofallthefactsand    circumstancesatthattime.Strickland,466U.S.at690,104S.Ct.at2066.     ApetitionermustsatisfybothprongsoftheStricklandtestbeforeheorshemayprevailon   aclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.SeeHenleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,580(Tenn.1997). n  Thatis,apetitionermustnotonlyshowthathiscounselsperformancefellbelowacceptable W  standards,butthatsuchperformancewasprejudicialtothepetitioner.Id.Failuretosatisfyeither @ prongwillresultinthedenialofrelief.Id.Accordingly,thisCourtneednotaddressoneofthe )y componentsifthepetitionerfailstoestablishtheother.Strickland,466U.S.at697,104S.Ct.at b 2069. K  @$IV.Analysis   A.MotiontoSuppress    PetitionerarguesthathistrialcounselwasdeficientfornotraisingthelegalityofPetitioners r detentioninhismotiontosuppressandthat,hadhedoneso,Petitionerssubsequentconfession [ wouldhavebeeninadmissibleasthefruitofthatunlawfulseizure.Thepostconvictioncourtfound D thatevenassumingarguendothatPetitionersinitialdetentionwasunlawful,Petitionersconfession -} wouldnothavebeensuppressediftheissuehadbeenraised. f   Inprovidingeffectiveassistance, [_d]efense_Ԁcounselmustconductappropriate  8 investigations,bothfactualandlegal,andmustasserttheminatimelymanner.Statev._Nichols_, !!  90S.W.3d576,587(Tenn.2002)(_qouting_Baxter,523S.W.2dat932,935).Ifdefensecounselhas " ! madeadequateinvestigation,wemaynotsecondguesscounselsstrategicortacticalchoices. #" _Hellard_,629S.W.2dat9.PetitionerscounseltestifiedthathediscussedPetitionersconfession $# withhimandcouldnotconcludeunderthefactspresentedtohimthattheconfessionwasmadeas u% $ aresultofanunlawfuldetention.Hechose,therefore,tochallengethevoluntarinessofPetitioners ^&!% confessioninhismotiontosuppress.Thefactthatthisdefenseultimatelyprovedunsuccessfulon G'"& appealdoesnotbyitselfsupportafindingofdeficiencyinperformance.SeeThompsonv.State,958 0(#' S.W.2d156,165(Tenn.Crim.App.1997). )i$(   Basedonourreview,wecannotconcludethattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthepost *;&* convictioncourtsfindingthatPetitionerwouldnothavebeensuccessfulhadheraisedtheissueof +$'+ anunlawfuldetention.Petitionerarguesthathisinitialquestioningrepresentedanunlawfulseizure  becausehewasnotfreetoleavethepolicestationandcouldnotrefusetoanswertheofficers  questions.Noteveryinteractionbetweenapoliceofficerandacitizen,however,risestothelevel  ofaseizure.SeeTerryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,88S.Ct.1868(1968).Underappropriatecircumstances k andinanappropriatemanner,apoliceofficermayquestionapersonforthepurposesof T investigationeventhoughtheofficerdoesnotatthattimehaveprobablecausetomakeanarrest. =  Id.at19n.16,88S.Ctat1878n.16. Onlywhentheofficer,bymeansofphysicalforceorshow & v ofauthority,hasinsomewayrestrainedthelibertyofacitizenmayweconcludethataseizurehas  _ occurred.Statev.Daniel,12S.W.3d420,424(Tenn.2000).  H   ThepoliceaskedPetitionertocometothepolicestationforquestioningwhentheylearned    thathewasthelastpersontoseethevictimsalive.Petitionerarrivedatthepolicestationforthetwo   questioningsessionsonhisownvolitionandaccompaniedbyhismother.Uponhismothers   request,Petitionerwaspermittedtoleavethestationafterhecompletedhisfirstwrittenstatement.   Petitionerwasaskedtoreturntothestationaftercertaindiscrepanciesinhisfirststatementwere n  detected.Afterhegavehissecondwrittenstatement,PetitionerwasreadhisMirandarightsand W  thenquestionedagain.Onappeal,thisCourtconcludedthatthepoliceofficerscompliedwiththe @ MirandarequirementsandthatPetitionerknowinglywaivedthoserights.Daniel,2001WL )y 1690196,at*9. b   Petitionerdoesnotdisputetheconsensualnatureoftheensuingsearch.Afterheadmitted 4 thatthemarijuanafoundinthedumpsterwashis,Petitionerwasplacedunderarrest.Withoutany  promptingfromthepolice,Petitionerthenconfessedtotheotheroffenses.Theevidencedoesnot  preponderateagainstthepostconvictioncourtsfindingsthatPetitionerfailedtoestablishthathe  wasprejudicedbyhiscounselsdecisionnottoquestionthelegalityofhisdetentionduringthe  consensualsearchofhismothershouse.Petitionerisnotentitledtoreliefonthisissue. q B.ExpertServices C   Petitionerarguesthathiscounselprovidedineffectiveassistancewhenhefailedtosupport e hismotionforexpertserviceswithDr.Einsteinsaffidavit.Petitionercontendsthatitisreasonable N toconcludethatthetrialcourtwouldhavegrantedPetitionersmotionifPetitionerhadpresented  7 Dr.Einsteinsaffidavit.Thetrialcourt,however,deniedPetitionersmotionbecauseitdidnot !   believethatithadtheauthoritytoauthorizeamitigationexpertatthestatesexpenseinanon " ! capitalcase.Underthetrialcourtsanalysis,Dr.Einsteinsaffidavitwouldnothavebeenhelpful #" onewayortheother. $#   PetitionerscounselsaidthathewasawarepriortotrialthatPetitionerhadusedalcoholand ]&!% drugssincehewasaboutfifteenyearsoldandthatPetitionersmotherandgrandmotherhadbeen F'"& diagnosedwithbipolardisorder.Counselstated,however,thatthementalevaluationperformedby /(#' theWestTennesseeMentalHealthInstitutedidnotshowthatPetitionerhadanydispositiontoward )h$( bipolardisorder.CounselsaidthathewasabletoplacebeforethejurythefactthatPetitionerhad *Q%) beentakingdrugsanddrinkingalcoholalldaypriortothecommissionoftheoffenses.Although *:&* Petitionerpointedoutthathewasahighschooldropout,hedoesnotsayhowthatfactor +#'+ demonstratesaparticularizedneedforamitigationexpert.Petitionercompletedhis_G.E.D._Ԁandwas  scheduledtoentercollegeinthefall.Basedonthefactssurroundingthecase,counseltestifiedthat  hedidnotknowofaparticularizedneedthatwouldjustifytheemploymentofanexpert.    Petitionerdidnotofferanyevidenceatthepostconvictionhearinginsupportofa T particularizedneedforanexpertwitness,otherthanDr.Einsteinsaffidavit.ThisCourthasalready =  concludedonappealthatDr.EinsteinsaffidavitdoesnotsupportPetitionersparticularizedneed & v foranexpertwitnessundertheBarnettrequirements.Daniel,2001WL16901096,at*11.  _ Petitioner,therefore,failedtosetforthanyproofofprejudiceassuminghiscounselhadrendered  H ineffectiveassistancewithregardtohisrequestforanexpert.Petitionerisnotentitledtoreliefon  1  thisissue.    C.VoirDire     Petitionerarguesthathistrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtorequestacurative n  instructionoramistrialwhentwooftheprospectivejurorsstatedthattheywerefamiliarwith W  Petitioner.Thetwojurorswerepromptlyexcusedforcause.Trialcounseltestifiedthathechose @ toremainsilentinordernottocallundueattentiontotheremarks.Thepostconvictioncourt )y accreditedtrialcounselstestimonyonthisissueanddeclinedtosecondguesshistrialtactics.In b addition,thepostconvictioncourtfoundthatPetitionerhadnotshownthathewasprejudicedby K theremarks. 4   Commentsfromaprospectivejurorinresponsetoquestionsduringvoirdirethatare  unfavorabletothedefendantarenotgroundsforamistrialabsentevidenceshowingthatthejury  whichheardthecasewasprejudicedorbiasedbythecomments.Statev.Brown,795S.W.2d689  (Tenn.Crim.App.1990)(citingStatev._Porterfield_,746S.W.2d441(Tenn.1988)).Theevidence q doesnotpreponderateagainstthepostconvictioncourtsfindingthatPetitionerfailedtoshowthat Z counselsresponsetothesituationwasdeficientorthatthecomplainedofcommentsprejudicedor C biasedthejury.Petitionerisnotentitledtoreliefonthisissue. ,| @GG% CONCLUSION  N   Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,weaffirmthejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourt. !!     `     h     ___________________________________ #"    `     h     THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE