ÿWPCˆ œÚìñºl×B‰üHà$H–%‚!€C!~±™~å¬ó$Ô©šÏöd6V!˜ò²Éu[‡¯j&ÄöÂÔÂÎrM‚ø›æb{´ºX§øä\M¥¿@-6õ%Cú­LSÒ((¯LG'Ua p¹JÝŸŽÖ˃÷Nï¨aPÈ+ú\×.ý[þ»}ÍL;Fhµ“4•±2‘œ5ò'2<à"Û¼g6Zc»@Žîw<¨ Æ»z8P‡ÃÈkgí<µi¿ž¹Ó¯êå–fþACó2ÌÎþPÇhùÔdùpi:;-ÑÛ“ú—v†@+Ì —ókœ[gº×—ý(áÖô}í0ÒÚ-g˜L±”™*muŠ½²úÊ™zé¯"I–$¡¼!¤³OY£ >‡zÍ&üüâZE™nX#ˆ8c½ËlOÛGa>"ƒh\rBqí‡çEUW`DÆ2wFÇapGLÙì!š ’TsÙaX.^ÌC$‡Z6®íwÌõ´ rÖ€$ÀÑò‹ËÛa™¸epµÌ;b*ðÎîÕÎy¬x˜ìdµ’⯹‡ @¥ Ü`pb‡vG«¸øtOD u00‘ E{5ö‚t )¹­ /EøŠüØ–‹PM€—ÂJvS°Mˆ[q‹Í˜b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U N‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1>÷N5 0D77E{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{b}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} 0ë………… Bpp 0¤ D31 D-d 0K‘‘ ASÜÆ/ 0¤õ 0D™ A«Ý˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»Ęœ)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular•jW)hš¥ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 4Ý ƒR½-$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëuò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€also€rely€on€a€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€for€our€review,€which€the€Defendant€included€in€theÐ ° Ðrecord€as€an€exhibit€to€the€post„conviction€hearing.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2½-$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôëuò»»Ô d(|3Çt$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çt$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼D»»»ÔÑ8€±XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îY¬î»¼DÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼D»îîY¬ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€26,€2000Ð üL ÐÔ‡X±X»¼DÔÌò òÔ#†¼D»XX±#ÔJOSEPH€Ô_ÔLEBRONÔ_Ô€DERRICKòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X±X»¼DÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€222369€€€€€€Stephen€M.€Ô_ÔBevilÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@ááìàNo.€E1999„02646„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€28,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€was€convicted€by€a€Hamilton€County€jury€of€second€degree€murder€and€wasÐ xÈ  Ðsentenced€to€twenty„years€incarceration.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€his€conviction€andÐ d´ Ðsentence,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€permission€to€appeal.€€The€DefendantÐ P  Ðsubsequently€filed€a€post„conviction€petition,€alleging€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€effectiveÐ <Œ Ðassistance€of€counsel€and€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€The€post„conviction€court€denied€post„convictionÐ (x Ðrelief.€€We€conclude€that€the€Defendant€was€denied€neither€his€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counselÐ d Ðat€trial€nor€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€trial€court€denying€post„Ð P Ðconviction€relief.Ð ì< ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Rightà0 @ à;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ° ÐÓ}ÓÌòòÔ#†¼D»àX±»#ÔÔ‡X±X.¼DÔRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€andÐ ˆØ ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williamsóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌMike€A.€Little,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Joseph€Ô_ÔLebronÔ_Ô€Derrick.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Patricia€C.€Ô_ÔKussmanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð $"t! ÐWilliam€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Barry€A.€Steelman,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ #`" ÐGeneral;€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼D»XX±0 #ÔÔ‡X±X»¼DԈРÔ%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼D»XX±_ #ÔÔ€X±X»¼DÔÔ‡ X±XXX±Ôà  àOn€June€28,€1995,€a€Hamilton€County€jury€found€the€Defendant,€Joseph€Ô_ÔLebronÔ_Ô€Derrick,Ð ¬'ü"' Ðguilty€of€second€degree€murder.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€toÐ ˜(è#( Ðtwenty„years€incarceration.€€€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€the€Defendantððs€conviction€andÐ „)Ô$) Ðsentence,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€denied€permission€to€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€JosephóóÐ p*À%* ÐòòÔ_ÔLebronÔ_Ô€Derrickóó,€No.€03C01„9601„CR„00036,€1997€WL€148563€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.Ð \+¬&+ Ð1,€1997).Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àThe€Defendant€subsequently€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€in€which€heÐ ° Ðalleged€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€his€right€to€a€fairÐ œì Ðtrial.€€The€trial€court€appointed€counsel€to€represent€the€Defendant€in€his€post„convictionÐ ˆØ Ðproceedings,€and€the€Defendant€filed€an€amended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€DefendantÐ tÄ Ðnext€filed€a€motion€requesting€the€recusal€of€the€judge€handling€his€case,€and€the€trial€court€grantedÐ `° Ðthe€motion.€€The€trial€court€then€conducted€a€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€after€which€itÐ L œ Ðdenied€post„conviction€relief.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€arguing€(1)€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial,€and€(2)€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€a€fairÐ $ t Ðtrial.€€Finding€no€error€in€the€record€before€us,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€post„Ð  ` Ðconviction€relief.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€direct€appeal,€this€Court€summarized€the€facts€of€this€case€as€follows:Ð Ô$  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€[Defendant]€and€the€victim€were€patrons€at€a€nightclub€in€ChattanoogaÐ À  Ðthe€night€of€the€incident,€June€11,€1994.€€The€two€became€involved€in€an€altercation.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€bouncers€at€the€club€separated€the€two€men,€and€they€made€the€[Defendant]€leaveÐ ˜è  Ðthe€club.€€The€victim€soon€decided€to€leave€the€club€as€well.€€The€[Defendant]€wasÐ „Ô  Ðwaiting€outside€the€club.€€The€[Defendant]€either€was€handed€a€gun€or€picked€one€upÐ pÀ Ðoff€of€the€ground,€and€began€chasing€the€victim€through€a€parking€area€whileÐ \¬ Ðshooting€at€him.€€The€victim€was€shot€and€killed€in€the€parking€area.€€TheÐ H˜ Ð[Defendant]€left€the€scene€in€a€car,€and€he€turned€himself€in€when€he€heard€his€nameÐ 4„ Ðin€connection€with€the€victimððs€death€on€the€television.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐòòId.óó€at€*1.Ð  \ Ðà  àÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€Defendant€summarized€the€errors€that€he€believed€his€trialÐ ä4 Ðattorney€had€made.€€He€first€complained€that€the€time€which€he€spent€with€his€attorney€prior€to€trialÐ Ð  Ðwas€insufficient.€€He€testified€that€he€met€with€him€approximately€five€times€prior€to€trial.€€He€statedÐ ¼  Ðthat€each€meeting€lasted€approximately€forty€minutes€to€one€hour€and€that€he€was€able€toÐ ¨ø Ðcommunicate€with€his€attorney€during€these€meetings.€€However,€the€Defendant€complained€that€heÐ ”ä Ðhad€to€wait€fifteen€to€twenty€minutes€in€his€attorneyððs€waiting€room€prior€to€each€meeting€and€thatÐ €Ð Ðduring€each€meeting,€he€was€asked€to€recount€his€version€of€the€events€on€the€night€of€the€crime.€€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€alleged€that€his€attorney€did€not€properly€communicate€with€him€priorÐ D!” Ðto€trial.€€He€claimed€that€counsel€never€provided€him€a€copy€of€his€indictment€and€never€discussedÐ 0"€  Ðthe€indictment€with€him.€€The€Defendant€further€claimed€that€his€attorney€failed€to€inform€him€of€theÐ #l! Ðpotential€range€of€punishment€for€first€degree€murder€or€any€lesser„included€offenses,€with€theÐ $X" Ðexception€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€his€attorney€did€discuss€some€trialÐ ô$D # Ðstrategy€with€him,€but€allowed€him€no€input.€He€testified€that€the€only€items€of€evidence€obtainedÐ à%0!$ Ðthrough€discovery€that€his€attorney€shared€with€him€were€the€victimððs€autopsy€report€and€informationÐ Ì&"% Ðconcerning€gun€shells€found€at€the€crime€scene.€€In€addition,€the€Defendant€complained€that€counselÐ ¸'#& Ðdid€not€show€him€a€video€tape€of€the€crime€scene€prior€to€trial.€€He€stated€that€had€counsel€done€so,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðhe€could€have€pointed€out€that€certain€blood€stains€on€the€concrete€in€the€parking€lot€where€theÐ )à$( Ðshooting€occurred€may€have€been€oil€spots;€however,€the€Defendant€presented€no€evidence€to€supportÐ |*Ì%) Ðthis€contention.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àAccording€to€the€Defendant,€his€attorney€should€have€filed€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppressÐ ° Ðevidence€of€the€shells€found€at€the€scene.Ô#†X±XX X±Ý #ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±Ô€€The€Defendant€testified€that€four€spent€gun€shells€wereÐ œì Ðfound€at€the€crime€scene€and€that€only€two€of€the€shells€ð ðmatch[ed]€each€other.ðð€€He€asserted€that€forÐ ˆØ Ðthis€reason,€his€attorney€should€have€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€evidence€of€all€the€shells.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€admitted€that€his€attorney€did€conduct€some€pretrial€investigation,€but€claimedÐ L œ Ðthat€the€investigation€was€insufficient.€€The€Defendant€reported€that€he€provided€counsel€with€a€listÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€witnesses,€but€he€stated€that€counsel€could€not€locate€them.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€heÐ $ t Ðtherefore€brought€three€witnesses€to€his€attorneyððs€office.€€He€recalled€that€the€attorney€spentÐ  ` Ðapproximately€thirty€minutes€interviewing€each€witness.€€In€addition,€the€Defendant€complained€thatÐ ü L  Ðhis€attorney€allowed€him€no€input€in€deciding€which€witnesses€to€call€at€trial€and€Ô#†X±XX X±"#ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±Ôdid€not€discuss€withÐ è 8  Ðhim€three€motions€filed€by€the€State€to€add€witnesses.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€his€attorney€also€failed€to€effectively€represent€him€during€juryÐ ¬ü  Ðselection.€€The€Defendant€maintained€that€he€saw€a€potential€juror€smile€and€wave€at€the€victimððsÐ ˜è  Ðmother€during€voir€dire.€€The€Defendant€claimed€that€he€requested€that€the€woman€be€taken€off€theÐ „Ô  Ðpanel,€but€that€counsel€chose€not€to€remove€her.€€The€Defendant€also€complained€that€counsel€didÐ pÀ Ðnot€request€that€the€jury€be€sequestered.Ð \¬ ЀÌà  à€With€regard€to€his€representation€at€trial,€the€Defendant€alleged€numerous€errors€by€hisÐ 4„ Ðattorney.€€First,€the€Defendant€stated€that€trial€counsel€should€have€objected€to€testimony€concerningÐ  p Ðthe€victimððs€autopsy€on€the€basis€that€the€doctor€testifying€did€not€actually€conduct€the€autopsy€andÐ  \ Ðon€the€basis€of€the€doctorððs€qualifications.€€The€Defendant€next€complained€that€trial€counselÐ øH Ðobjected€only€four€times€during€the€course€of€a€two„day€trial.€€He€also€reported€that€at€the€end€of€theÐ ä4 Ðfirst€day€of€trial,€his€attorney€was€not€prepared€to€proceed€with€the€defense€proof,€so€court€wasÐ Ð  Ðadjourned€at€three€oððclock€p.m.€€The€Defendant€further€alleged€that€his€attorney€failed€to€effectivelyÐ ¼  Ðcross„examine€State€witnesses€and€failed€to€bring€out€inconsistencies€in€their€testimony.€€TheÐ ¨ø ÐDefendant€stated€that€counsel€failed€to€call€a€crucial€witness,€Robert€Morgan,€whom€he€maintainedÐ ”ä Ðwould€have€testified€that€the€Defendant€and€the€victim€were€put€out€of€the€bar€at€the€same€time€onÐ €Ð Ðthe€night€of€the€shooting.€€In€addition,€he€testified€that€his€attorney€did€not€call€any€witnesses€who,Ð l¼ Ðcontrary€to€testimony€by€State€witnesses,€would€have€testified€that€the€Defendant€did€not€shoot€theÐ X ¨ Ðvictim€after€the€victim€was€lying€on€the€ground.€€Finally,€the€Defendant€complained€that€counselÐ D!” Ðfailed€to€challenge€the€integrity€of€the€crime€scene€and€failed€to€object€to€testimony€by€a€detectiveÐ 0"€  Ðabout€the€velocity€of€blood€droplets€found€at€the€scene.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€found€fault€with€his€attorneyððs€representation€during€post„trialÐ ô$D # Ðproceedings€in€his€case.€€He€claimed€that€counsel€failed€to€file€a€motion€regarding€mitigating€factorsÐ à%0!$ Ðprior€to€the€sentencing€hearing€and€failed€to€object€at€the€sentencing€hearing€to€the€trial€courtððs€useÐ Ì&"% Ðof€prior€misdemeanor€convictions€as€enhancement€factors.€€The€Defendant€also€claimed€that€hisÐ ¸'#& Ðattorney€did€not€object€to€an€inappropriate€comment€by€the€trial€judge€at€the€sentencing€hearing€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdid€not€introduce€the€comment€as€an€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Additionally,€he€complainedÐ )à$( Ðâ âthat€his€attorney€failed€to€include€as€an€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€the€fact€that€the€jury€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðallowed€to€view€a€video€tape€of€the€crime€scene€twice;€the€Defendant€admitted,€however,€that€counselÐ ° Ðdid€object€at€trial€to€allowing€the€jury€to€see€the€tape€twice.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àFinally,€with€regard€to€his€claim€that€he€did€not€receive€a€fair€trial,€the€Defendant€pointed€outÐ tÄ Ða€comment€made€by€the€trial€judge€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€comment,€which€is€included€inÐ `° Ðthe€record€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€was€made€by€the€judge€at€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing.€€TheÐ L œ Ðtrial€judge€stated,€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà8  àà ` àI€think€it€really€is€tragic€because€in€this€situation,€Ms.€Slater€has€lost€a€son,€aÐ $ t Ðyoung€man,€a€fine€young€man€and€now€Mr.€Derrick€who€probably€isnððt€all€that€badÐ  ` Ða€person€has€just€wasted€his€life€or€a€large€part€of€his€life€because€somebody€handedÐ ü L  Ðhim€a€gun.€€If€it€had€remained€a€fist€fight€Mr.€Timothy€Slater€would€still€be€alive€andÐ è 8  ÐMr.€Joseph€Lebron€Derrick€wouldnððt€be€in€court.€òòSomehow€or€another€young€males,Ð Ô$  Ðespecially€young€black€males€have€got€to€realize€that€you€donððt€have€to€prove€youððreÐ À  Ða€man€by€killing€somebodyóó.€.€.€.€[Y]ou€waste€your€life€when€you€do€that.Ьü Ð Ð  Ð(Emphasis€added.)Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àEddie€Jacks,€an€investigator€for€the€Public€Defenderððs€office€at€the€time€of€the€DefendantððsÐ pÀ Ðtrial,€also€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€He€revealed€that€he€assisted€trial€counsel€with€theÐ \¬ ÐDefendantððs€case€and€stated€that€he€and€the€attorney€ð ðspent€a€great€deal€of€timeðð€working€togetherÐ H˜ Ðon€the€case.€€Jacks€maintained€that€he€interviewed€some€defense€witnesses€and€all€of€the€StateððsÐ 4„ Ðwitnesses,€with€the€exception€of€one€witness€who€refused€to€talk€to€him.€€Jacks€recalled€that€noneÐ  p Ðof€the€witnesses€provided€information€that€corroborated€the€Defendantððs€version€of€the€events€on€theÐ  \ Ðnight€of€the€crime.€€Jacks€reported€that€he€taped€all€witness€interviews€and€later€played€the€tapes€forÐ øH Ðthe€Defendantððs€attorney,€who€was€visually€impaired.€€Jacks€also€reported€that€he€went€to€the€crimeÐ ä4 Ðscene,€interviewed€an€employee€of€the€bar,€obtained€witness€names,€and€attempted€to€find€theÐ Ð  Ðwitnesses,€whom€he€ultimately€was€unable€to€contact.€€He€testified€that€he€interviewed€RobertÐ ¼  ÐMorgan,€but€could€not€remember€the€details€of€their€conversation.€€However,€he€stated,€ð ðI€do€recallÐ ¨ø Ðthat€no€witnesses€that€I€talked€to€would€corroborate€.€.€.€[the€Defendantððs]€theory€of€the€case€.€.€.€[T]heÐ ”ä Ðstories€didnððt€match€up.ðð€€Jacks€testified€that€on€the€day€of€trial,€he€was€trying€to€find€witnessesÐ €Ð Ðwhose€names€the€defense€had€just€received€from€the€Defendant.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€trial€counsel€also€responded€to€the€Defendantððs€allegations€at€the€post„Ð D!” Ðconviction€hearing.€€He€testified€that€he€had€been€practicing€law€since€1980€and€that€he€had€workedÐ 0"€  Ðat€the€Public€Defenderððs€office€since€1989.€€He€stated€that€he€had€tried€numerous€first€degree€murderÐ #l! Ðcases€prior€to€defending€the€Defendant.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àContrary€to€the€Defendantððs€testimony,€the€attorney€maintained€that€an€investigator€from€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðoffice€gave€the€Defendant€a€copy€of€his€indictment€at€the€arraignment.€€He€emphasized€that€it€hadÐ Ì&"% Ðbeen€a€practice€of€his€office€since€July€of€1992€for€an€investigator€to€show€each€defendant€a€copy€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðhis€or€her€indictment€at€the€arraignment.€€He€also€testified€that€during€his€first€meeting€with€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐDefendant,€he€explained€to€the€Defendant€that€he€was€charged€with€first€degree€murder€and€that€theÐ )à$( Ðpenalty€for€the€offense€is€life€imprisonment.€€The€attorney€reported€that€he€also€ð ðexplained€all€lesserÐ |*Ì%) Ðincluded€offenses€along€with€the€ranges€of€punishment€.€.€.€and€the€defenses,€the€defense€of€selfÐ h+¸&* Ðdefense,€and€inquired€as€to€his€prior€records€and€attempted€to€establish€a€range€of€punishment€[inÐ ° Ðorder€to]€tell€him€what€he€was€looking€at€regarding€punishment€if€he€was€convicted.ðð€€He€stated€thatÐ œì Ðhe€followed€this€procedure€with€each€defendant€he€represented.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àCounsel€testified€that€during€their€initial€interview,€he€listened€to€the€Defendantððs€version€ofÐ `° Ðthe€events€at€issue€and€obtained€as€many€witness€names€as€possible€from€the€Defendant.€€€He€recalledÐ L œ Ðthat€initially,€the€Defendant€did€not€have€the€names€of€all€witnesses.€€He€reported€that€he€had€to€callÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€Defendant€more€than€once€to€remind€him€that€they€needed€witness€names.€€Counsel€stated€thatÐ $ t Ðthe€Defendant€did€bring€three€witnesses€to€his€office,€whom€he€interviewed€and€whom€he€called€atÐ  ` Ðtrial.€€However,€he€maintained€that€the€Defendant€did€not€come€up€with€the€names€of€all€possibleÐ ü L  Ðwitnesses€until€the€day€of€trial,€forcing€Eddie€Jacks€to€attempt€to€locate€some€witnesses€on€that€day.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àCounsel€testified€that€he€may€have€asked€the€Defendant€more€than€once€to€share€his€versionÐ À  Ðof€the€shooting€so€that€he€could€develop€a€clear€understanding€of€the€Defendantððs€version€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðevents€in€order€to€compare€it€to€information€received€in€discovery.€€With€regard€to€items€receivedÐ ˜è  Ðin€discovery,€the€attorney€stated€that€the€defense€ð ðreceived€pretty€much€an€open€fileðð€in€theÐ „Ô  ÐDefendantððs€case.€€He€testified€that€he€went€to€the€attorney€generalððs€office€prior€to€trial€to€reviewÐ pÀ Ðpictures€and€a€video€tape;€he€stated€that€because€he€is€visually€impaired,€an€assistant€at€the€attorneyÐ \¬ Ðgeneralððs€office€described€both€the€pictures€and€the€video€footage€to€him.€€He€reported€that€all€writtenÐ H˜ Ðdocuments€received€in€discovery€were€taped€on€an€audio€tape€for€his€review.€€Counsel€also€recalledÐ 4„ Ðthat€he€also€visited€the€crime€scene€prior€to€trial.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€attorney€stated€that€he€did€not€file€a€motion€to€suppress€evidence€regardingÐ øH Ðshells€found€in€the€parking€lot€that€were€not€fired€from€the€Defendantððs€gun€because€he€ð ðwanted€theÐ ä4 Ðjury€to€know€that€there€were€shells€already€in€the€parking€lot€before€this€alleged€incident€.€.€.€.ðð€inÐ Ð  Ðorder€to€create€reasonable€doubt€as€to€whether€the€Defendant€had€fired€all€of€the€bullets.€€He€stated,Ð ¼  Ðð ðI€think€that€had€I€moved€to€suppress€[evidence€of€the€shells]€.€.€.€it€would€have€been€moreÐ ¨ø Ðdetrimental€to€[the€Defendant]€than€helpful.ðð€€In€addition,€counsel€testified€that€he€ð ðdidnððt€feel€it€wasÐ ”ä Ðrelevant€to€attack€the€integrity€of€the€crime€sceneðð€in€this€case.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àCounsel€further€testified€that€he€elected€not€to€play€for€the€jury€a€911€tape€made€on€the€nightÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€shooting.€€He€explained€that€the€911€caller,€apparently€a€patron€or€employee€of€the€bar€whereÐ D!” Ðthe€altercation€between€the€Defendant€and€the€victim€began,€stated€that€no€weapons€were€involvedÐ 0"€  Ðin€the€dispute.€€He€stated€that€this€contradicted€testimony€by€other€defense€witnesses€who€testifiedÐ #l! Ðthat€the€victim€hit€the€Defendant€with€a€beer€bottle€during€their€fight.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€Defendantððs€allegations€concerning€jury€selection,€counsel€testified,€Ð à%0!$ Ðà8  àI€donððt€independently€recall€[the€Defendant]€having€a€problem€with€a€potential€jurorÐ Ì&"% Ðbut€I€know€that€my€practice€in€that€regard€is€anytime€[sic]€a€defendant€insists€in€[sic]Ð ¸'#& Ðstriking€a€juror€I€do€because€itððs€their€jury.€€Sometimes€I€will€ask€them€why€do€theyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwant€to€strike€them€and€I€will€give€the€defendant€my€view€as€to€why€we€maybeÐ )à$( Ðâ âshould€keep€them,€then€if€the€defendant€says€strike€anyway€I€strike€them,€if€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðdefendant€says€Iððll€leave€it€up€to€you€then€I€use€my€best€judgment.€.€.€.€That€is€whatÐ ° ÐI€did€in€this€case.ÐœìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌà  àConcerning€the€sequestration€of€the€jury,€the€attorney€testified,€ð ðI€seem€absolutely€sure€IÐ tÄ Ðfollowed€my€custom€[in€the€Defendantððs€case],€itððs€my€custom€to€always€ask€the€defendant€if€theyÐ `° Ðwant€a€jury€sequestered€or€not€especially€in€a€first€degree€murder€case.ðð€€He€further€testified€that€theÐ L œ ÐDefendant€did€not€express€any€concern€about€the€news€coverage€of€his€case.€€€€€€€€€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€attorney€testified€that€he€stipulated€the€qualifications€of€Dr.€King,€whoÐ  ` Ðtestified€concerning€the€victimððs€autopsy,€and€chose€not€to€object€to€King€testifying€about€the€autopsyÐ ü L  Ðbecause€he€believed€Kingððs€testimony€helped€the€defense€more€than€testimony€by€the€doctor€whoÐ è 8  Ðactually€performed€the€autopsy€would€have€helped.€€He€maintained€that€King€ð ðwas€a€Stateððs€witnessÐ Ô$  Ðthat€.€.€.€at€worse€was€not€going€to€hurt€[the€defense]€and€at€best€might€.€.€.€help[]ðð€the€defense.€€HeÐ À  Ðalso€recalled€that€Kingððs€testimony€was€consistent€with€the€autopsy€report.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àÔ#†X±XX X±F&#ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±ÔCounsel€stated€that€he€did€not€object€to€blood€droplet€evidence€because€he€did€not€have€aÐ „Ô  Ðproper€ground€upon€which€to€object.€€He€stated,€ð ðItððs€my€personal€theory€that€if€I€object€and€IððmÐ pÀ Ðoverruled€that€hurts€my€client.ðð€€He€also€explained€that€the€defense€was€not€contesting€the€fact€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€Defendant€shot€the€victim,€but€rather€that€they€were€attempting€to€establish€that€the€DefendantÐ H˜ Ðhad€acted€in€self„defense.€€However,€he€reported€that€the€defense€was€unable€to€find€any€witnessesÐ 4„ Ðto€support€the€Defendantððs€claim€that€he€had€acted€in€self„defense.€€The€attorney€further€reported€thatÐ  p Ðthe€defense€could€not€find€one€witness€who€recalled€seeing€the€Defendant€pick€up€from€the€groundÐ  \ Ðthe€gun€with€which€he€shot€the€victim,€as€the€Defendant€claimed€he€had€done.Ð øH ÐÌà  àCounsel€was€also€questioned€about€a€memorandum€which€the€State€claimed€to€have€obtainedÐ Ð  Ðfrom€the€Defendantððs€defense€file€concerning€a€potential€witness€named€ð ðCurnice.ðð€€TheÐ ¼  Ðmemorandum,€entered€into€evidence€as€an€exhibit€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€states,€ð ðCurniceÐ ¨ø Ðcould€be€an€important€witness€to€substantiate€the€theory€that€Derrick€did€not€mean€to€kill€the€victim.ðð€Ð ”ä ÐAccording€to€the€memorandum,€Curnice€would€have€testified€that€the€Defendant€and€the€victimÐ €Ð Ðfought€only€inside€the€bar,€that€the€Defendant€had€a€black€eye,€that€he€did€not€see€anyone€hand€theÐ l¼ ÐDefendant€a€gun,€and€that€the€Defendant€was€ð ðjust€shooting€at€the€victim€to€scare€him.ðð€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðmemorandum€also€stated€that€Curnice€was€unwilling€to€testify€in€court.€€In€response€to€questioning,Ð D!” Ðthe€attorney€reported€that€he€did€not€recall€the€memorandum.€€He€admitted€that,€hypothetically,Ð 0"€  ÐCurnice€may€have€provided€helpful€testimony€for€the€defense.€€However,€he€pointed€out€thatÐ #l! Ðaccording€to€the€memorandum,€Curniceððs€full€name€was€unknown,€and€there€was€no€indication€inÐ $X" Ðthe€memorandum€of€how€to€contact€him.€Ô#†X±XX X±[#ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±ÔÐ ô$D # ЀÌà  àCounsel€testified€that€he€was€not€prepared€to€proceed€with€proof€for€the€defense€after€the€firstÐ Ì&"% Ðday€of€trial€because€Eddie€Jacks€was€still€searching€for€the€witnesses€whose€names€the€DefendantÐ ¸'#& Ðhad€supplied€on€the€day€of€trial.€€Ô#†X±XX X±*d#ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±ÔHe€confirmed€the€Defendantððs€testimony€that€he€spent€at€least€thirtyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðminutes€with€each€of€the€defense€witnesses€who€were€located€before€trial.€€He€also€testified€that€heÐ )à$( Ðlistened€to€a€tape€of€Robert€Morganððs€interview€with€Eddie€Jacks€and€a€tape€of€his€statement€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðpolice.€€According€to€the€Defendantððs€attorney,€although€Morgan€said€that€the€Defendant€and€theÐ h+¸&* Ðvictim€were€put€out€of€the€bar€at€the€same€time€on€the€night€of€the€shooting,€as€the€DefendantÐ ° Ðcontended,€Morgan€also€stated€that€after€the€Defendant€left€the€bar,€someone€handed€him€a€gun.€€TheÐ œì Ðattorney€maintained€that€he€opted€not€to€call€Morgan€as€a€witness€because€Morganððs€statement€thatÐ ˆØ Ðsomeone€handed€the€Defendant€a€gun€contradicted€the€Defendantððs€contention€that€he€found€the€gunÐ tÄ Ðon€the€ground.€€He€concluded,€ð ðThe€bad€outweighed€the€good,€in€my€opinion€.€.€.€.ððÐ `° ÐÌà  àCounsel€stated€that€the€Defendant€made€an€informed€decision€to€testify.€€He€explained,€ð ð[I]nÐ 8 ˆ Ðmost€self€defense€cases€itððs€important€for€a€defendant€to€testify.€€In€this€case€it€was€crucial€becauseÐ $ t Ð[the€Defendant]€was€the€only€one€that€could€describe€the€fight€outside€in€the€street€and€the€gunÐ  ` Ðappearing€in€the€street€which€[the€Defendant]€assumed€came€from€[the€victim].ððÔ#†X±XX X±œe#ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±ÔÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àFinally,€counsel€addressed€the€Defendantððs€allegations€concerning€the€sentencing€hearing.€Ð Ô$  ÐHe€stated€that€he€made€arguments€about€possible€mitigating€and€enhancement€factors€at€the€hearing.€Ð À  ÐHe€recalled€the€judgeððs€comment€that€ð ðyoung€males,€especially€young€black€males€have€got€to€realizeÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€you€donððt€have€to€prove€youððre€a€man€by€killing€somebody.ðð€€Although€he€characterized€theÐ ˜è  Ðcomment€as€ð ðinsensitive,ðð€the€attorney€said€that€he€did€not€object€to€the€comment€because€he€did€notÐ „Ô  Ðð ðknow€that€you€can€object€to€what€a€judge€says.ðð€€He€reported€that€he€did€not€raise€the€issue€of€theÐ pÀ Ðjudgeððs€comment€on€appeal€because€he€ð ðdidnððt€think€it€was€importantðð;€he€explained,€Ð \¬ Ðà8  àWhat€I€really€think€.€.€.€is€back€at€that€time€before€and€possibly€even€at€this€time€backÐ H˜ Ðbefore€the€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€we€had€five€years€that€were€tacked€on€toÐ 4„ Ða€sentence€if€a€firearm€was€used€in€the€commission€of€a€felony,€any€felony,€and€itððsÐ  p Ðmy€personal€feeling€.€.€.€that€judges€often€still€tack€that€on,€thatððs€why€I€think€[theÐ  \ ÐDefendant]€got€[twenty]€years€instead€of€[fifteen€years]€because€of€the€way€theÐ øH Ðfirearm€was€used€in€the€commission€of€the€offense.€.€.€.€€I€donððt€think€that€judgesÐ ä4 Ðpunish€defendants€too€much€for€[a]€misdemeanor€record.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€the€attorney€was€questioned€about€a€remark€that€he€made€during€aÐ ¨ø Ðjury„out€hearing€at€trial,€which€the€Defendant€pointed€out€in€his€initial€post„conviction€petition.€Ð ”ä ÐDuring€the€jury„out€hearing,€counsel€stated,€ð ðSorry€about€these€dates,€Judge,€Iððm€trying€too€manyÐ €Ð Ðcases.ðð€€€When€questioned€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€about€the€comment,€counsel€responded,€Ð l¼ Ðà8  àI€donððt€recall€saying€that.€€If€I€said€it€it€wasnððt€an€excuse€or€it€wasnððt€to€be€used€as€anÐ X ¨ Ðexcuse€like€Iððve€not€put€enough€effort€in€this€case€because€.€.€.€I€listened€to€everyÐ D!” Ðscrap€of€evidence€there€was€.€.€.€.€€I€brought€out€favorable€stuff€for€[the€Defendant],Ð 0"€  ÐI€cross€examined€the€witnesses€on€many€inconsistencies€if€not€each€and€every€one,Ð #l! Ðso€I€think€itððs€pretty€obvious€I€was€well€prepared€from€the€discovery€to€try€this€case.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐCounsel€also€stated€that€he€may€have€made€the€statement€in€jest.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€Defendantððs€attorney€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€he€did€not€impeachÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€credibility€of€one€or€two€State€witnesses€on€the€basis€that€they€were€friends€with€the€victim.€€HeÐ ¸'#& Ðstated€that€he€did€not€challenge€police€officers€concerning€blood€spots€found€in€the€parking€lot€whereÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€shooting€occurred€because€he€had€no€evidence€indicating€that€the€spots€were€anything€other€thanÐ )à$( Ðblood€spots.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  ÓI.€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELÐ ° ÐÓÁxÓà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€he€should€be€granted€post„conviction€relief€because€he€receivedÐ œì Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€In€order€to€obtain€post„conviction€relief,€a€petitioner€mustÐ ˆØ Ðshow€that€his€or€her€conviction€or€sentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgment€of€aÐ tÄ Ðconstitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203.€€The€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€provingÐ `° Ðfactual€allegations€in€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòId.óó€ððÐ L œ Ð40„30„210(f).€€A€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€afforded€the€weight€of€the€jury€and€areÐ 8 ˆ Ðconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòHenleyÐ $ t Ðv.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997).€€However,€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€application€of€theÐ  ` Ðlaw€to€the€facts€of€a€particular€case€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,€96€(Tenn.€1998).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€right€of€a€criminally€accused€to€representation€is€guaranteed€by€both€the€SixthÐ Ô$  ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ð À  ÐòòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€Ð ¬ü  ÐThis€right€to€representation€includes€the€right€to€ð ðreasonably€effectiveðð€assistance.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3dÐ ˜è  Ðat€461.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€isÐ „Ô  Ða€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact,€and,€as€such,€is€subject€to€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review.€€òòId.óóÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whetherÐ H˜ Ðthe€advice€given€or€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demandedÐ 4„ Ðof€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€onÐ  p Ða€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€ð ðcounselððs€representationÐ  \ Ðfell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness,ðð€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€688Ð øH Ð(1984),€and€that€this€performance€prejudiced€the€defense,€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliableÐ ä4 Ðresult.€€òòId.óó€at€687òòóó;€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.1993).€€To€satisfy€the€requirementÐ Ð  Ðof€prejudice,€a€petitioner€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonableÐ ¼  Ðerror,€the€fact€finder€would€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regarding€the€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,Ð ¨ø Ð466€U.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÐ ”ä Ðoutcome.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€694;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWhen€evaluating€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,€the€reviewing€court€should€judgeÐ X ¨ Ðthe€attorneyððs€performance€within€the€context€of€the€case€as€a€whole,€taking€into€account€all€relevantÐ D!” Ðcircumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690òòóó;€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€753€S.W.2d€148,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 0"€  ÐApp.€1988).€€The€reviewing€court€must€evaluate€the€questionable€conduct€from€the€attorneyððsÐ #l! Ðperspective€at€the€time.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,Ð $X" Ð629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€€In€doing€so,€the€reviewing€court€must€be€highly€deferential€andÐ ô$D # Ðð ðshould€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðreasonable€professional€assistance.ðð€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462.€€Counsel€should€not€be€deemed€to€haveÐ Ì&"% Ðbeen€ineffective€merely€because€a€different€procedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€differentÐ ¸'#& Ðresult.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,€279„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€post„conviction€judge€in€this€case€madeÐ |*Ì%) Ðextensive€findings,€including€the€following:Ð h+¸&* Ðà8  àà ` àOf€course€you€[have]€got€to€start€from€the€proposition€that€this€wasnððt€a€caseÐ ° Ðwhere€there€were€[sic]€some€question€as€to€the€identity€of€the€assailant.€€From€theÐ œì Ðvery€beginning,€as€[the€Defendantððs€attorney]€pointed€out,€.€.€.€there€was€no€questionÐ ˆØ Ðas€to€whether€or€not€[the€Defendant]€shot€[the€victim]€in€this€case,€and€the€onlyÐ tÄ Ðquestion€was€to€what€degree€of€homicide€this€shooting€would€have€been,€.€.€.Ð `° Ð[counsel]€[]€sort€of€was€boxed€into€his€defenses,€he€didnððt€have€a€lot€of€choice€as€toÐ L œ Ðwhat€his€defenses€would€have€been.€€And,€so,€he€chose€to€rely€on€the€defense€of€selfÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefense€and€not€only€self€defense€by€possibly€a€reduction€from€first€degree€murderÐ $ t Ðto€voluntary€manslaughter€which€looking€at€the€proof€before€the€jury€was€a€goodÐ  ` Ðdecision€and,€so,€doing€that€tried€to€bring€out€those€strong€points€to€the€defense€asÐ ü L  Ðopposed€to€the€negative€points€.€.€.€Mr.€Jacks€testified€that€he€interviewed€everyÐ è 8  ÐStateððs€witnesses€[sic].€€[The€attorney€and€Jacks]€interviewed€the[]€witnesses€that€[theÐ Ô$  ÐDefendant]€brought€into€[the€attorneyððs]€office€and€every€witness€that€he€told€themÐ À  Ðabout€that€they€could€find€they€interviewed€and€they€could€not€find€any€of€theseÐ ¬ü  Ðwitnesses€that€would€corroborate€[the€Defendantððs]€theory€of€the€case.Иè Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAs€a€matter€of€fact,€some€of€the€witnesses€may€have€given€some€testimonyÐ „Ô  Ðthat€might€have€been€helpful€to€[the€Defendant]€but€by€the€same€token€they€wouldÐ pÀ Ðhave€also€given€testimony€that€would€have€been€damaging€to€[the€Defendant],€so€thatÐ \¬ Ðput€[the€Defendantððs€attorney]€on€the€horns€of€a€dilemma.€.€.€.€€And€he€had€to€makeÐ H˜ Ða€[judgment]€call€and€he€opted€not€to€risk€the€more€damaging€testimony€.€.€.€.€€Ð4„Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àSo€those€are€judgment€calls€and€the€Court€finds€that€there€was€noÐ  p Ðineffectiveness€on€[the€attorneyððs]€part€by€making€the€[judgment]€calls€that€he€did€inÐ  \ Ðlight€of€the€evidence€that€he€had€to€work€with.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€judge€also€found€that€trial€counsel€and€Jacks€were€forced€to€seek€certainÐ Ð  Ðwitnesses€on€the€day€of€trial€because€the€Defendant€failed€to€provide€them€information€about€theÐ ¼  Ðwitnesses€until€that€day.€€The€trial€judge€concluded€that€the€Defendantððs€attorney,€ð ð[i]n€an€effort€toÐ ¨ø Ðfully€representðð€the€Defendant,Ô#†X±XX X±°k#ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±Ô€tried€to€locate€the€witnesses€on€the€day€of€trial€to€determine€ð ðif€in€factÐ ”ä Ðthey€did€have€testimony€that€would€have€been€beneficial€to€[the€Defendant].ððÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€judge€also€concluded,Ð X ¨ Ðà8  àà ` àI€donððt€find€any€significance€on€[sic]€the€fact€of€[trial€counselððs]€statement,Ð D!” Ðð ðJudge,€Iððve€got€too€many€cases,ðð€because€the€public€defender€does€have€a€lot€ofÐ 0"€  Ðcases,€they€had€a€lot€of€cases€at€that€time,€theyððve€got€a€lot€of€cases€now,€but€myÐ #l! Ðobservation€is€that€Iððve€not€seen€it€effect€[sic]€in€anyway€[sic]€the€effectiveness€[of]Ð $X" Ðthe€public€defenderððs€office€.€.€.€.€€They€do€a€very€good€job,€theyððve€got€investigatorsÐ ô$D # Ðthat€go€out€and€talk€to€these€people,€and€Iððm€sure€that€was€a€comment€made€by€[trialÐ à%0!$ Ðcounsel]€in€the€trial€in€the€heat€of€battle,€an€off„the„cuff€statement€that€certainly€thisÐ Ì&"% ÐCourt€doesnððt€find€had€any€direct€bearing€on€his€effectiveness€as€a€lawyer.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐÓÓÓÓà  àConcerning€counselððs€choice€of€defense€witnesses€and€his€cross„examination€of€StateÐ ° Ðwitnesses,€the€post„conviction€judge€stated,Ð œì ÐÓX›ÓÓÓà8  àRobert€.€.€.€Morgan,€the€witness€who€may€have€said€that€he€was€not€trying€to€kill€himÐ ˆØ Ðor€whatever,€he€saw€him,€they€were€both€kicked€out€the€club€at€the€same€time,€someÐ tÄ Ðof€his€testimony€would€have€.€.€.€possibly€.€.€.€called€for€a€conclusion€on€his€part€soÐ `° Ðit€may€not€be€admissible,€but€[trial€counsel]€said€he€didnððt€call€him€as€a€witnessÐ L œ Ðbecause€there€again€it€was€a€judgment€call€because€he€said€he€would€have€had€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðweapon,€so€thereððs€one€of€the€things€he€was€trying€to€avoid.Ð$ tÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àFailure€to€cross€examine€the€witnesses€as€to€bias€and€friendship,€sometimesÐ  ` Ðthat€can€help€you€and€sometimes€it€can€hurt€as€a€trial€lawyer,€and€again,€itððs€aÐ ü L  Ðjudgment€call€as€to€how€far€you€go€in€trying€to€make€that€point.€€Other€times€if€youÐ è 8  Ðquestion€a€witness€about€[being]€a€friend€of€the€victim€.€.€.€,€thatððs€all€that€needs€to€beÐ Ô$  Ðdone€because€sometimes€it€plants€a€seed€in€the€jurorððs€mind€that€well,€maybe€theseÐ À  Ðare€close€friends€and€maybe€they€do€have€a€reason.€€So€the€.€.€.€extent€of€that€crossÐ ¬ü  Ðexamination€as€to€bias€is€again€something€thatððs€left€up€to€the€individual.Иè Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àI€donððt€think€that€these€things€that€[trial€counsel]€is€alleged€to€have€done€orÐ „Ô  Ðneglected€to€do,€maybe€they€should€have€been€done€differently,€maybe€anotherÐ pÀ Ðattorney€would€have€done€them€differently€but€when€I€look€a€the€overall€proof€in€thisÐ \¬ Ðcase€and,€of€course,€[trial€counsel]€did,€this€Court€feels€like€[he]€did€do€a€good€jobÐ H˜ Ð[by]€getting€this€charge€reduced€from€first€degree€murder€to€second€degree€murderÐ 4„ Ðand€I€think€[the€Defendantððs]€primary€complaint€is€not€that€[trial€counsel]€didnððt€doÐ  p Ðan€effective€job,€but€basically€heððs€more€dissatisfied€with€the€juryððs€verdict€than€[hisÐ  \ Ðattorneyððs]€performance€.€.€.€€I€think€if€the€jury€had€come€back€with€a€verdict€ofÐ øH Ðvoluntary€manslaughter€rather€than€second€degree€murder€that€he€wouldnððt€have€hadÐ ä4 Ðany€complaint€and€we€wouldnððt€be€here€today€hearing€this€post€conviction.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÓ8œÓÌÓÓà  àIn€conclusion,€the€post„conviction€judge€stated,Ð ”ä Ðà8  àà ` àIn€looking€at€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€.€.€.€in€this€particular€case€I€donððtÐ €Ð Ðfind€that€[the€Defendant]€has€shown€that€[his€attorney]€acted€ineffectively€or€that€hisÐ l¼ Ðeffectiveness€wasnððt€within€the€range,€normal€range€of€competence€demanded€byÐ X ¨ Ðattorneys€in€criminal€cases,€and€that€even€if€.€.€.€things€.€.€.€should€have€been€doneÐ D!” Ðdifferently€thereððs€no€showing€that€more€probably€than€not€those€things€would€haveÐ 0"€  Ðaffected€the€outcome€of€the€case.€€Ð#l!Ð Ð  ÐÓ¦ÓÓä«ÓÌÓô¨ÓÓÓà  àHaving€thoroughly€reviewed€the€record€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€Defendant€receivedÐ ô$D # Ðthe€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€As€stated€above,€the€trial€court€found€that€trial€counselððsÐ à%0!$ Ðperformance€was€within€the€normal€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases,Ð Ì&"% Ðand€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¸'#& Ðfindings.€€After€considering€the€evidence€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ ¤(ô#' Ðapparently€accredited€trial€counselððs€testimony€over€that€of€the€Defendant.€€Other€complaints€by€theÐ )à$( ÐDefendant€concern€strategic€decisions€by€his€attorney,€which€we€may€not€second„guess€on€appeal.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐòòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9Ô#†X±XX X±‡–#ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±Ô.€€We€thus€conclude€that€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€show€that€hisÐ h+¸&* Ðattorneyððs€performance€ð ðfell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð ° Ðat€688.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€show€prejudice€resulting€from€his€counselððs€allegedÐ tÄ Ðerrors.€€As€the€trial€court€noted€in€its€findings,€neither€the€Defendant€nor€his€attorney€was€able€toÐ `° Ðlocate€any€witnesses€that€could€corroborate€the€Defendantððs€theory€of€the€case.€€Considering€allÐ L œ Ðrelevant€circumstances€and€viewing€counselððs€conduct€from€his€perspective€at€the€time€of€trial,€weÐ 8 ˆ Ðconclude€that€the€Defendant€was€not€denied€his€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.Ð $ t ÐÌÓ  ÓII.€€RIGHT€TO€FAIR€TRIAL€Ð ü L  ÐÌÓQ°Óà  àThe€Defendant€next€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€and€due€process.€€HeÐ Ô$  Ðbases€this€claim€solely€on€the€trial€judgeððs€comment€at€his€sentencing€hearing€that€ð ðyoung€males,Ð À  Ðespecially€young€black€males€have€got€to€realize€that€you€donððt€have€to€prove€youððre€a€man€by€killingÐ ¬ü  Ðsomebody.ðð€€Ð ˜è  ЀÌà  àThe€post„conviction€judge€addressed€the€Defendantððs€complaints€about€the€sentencingÐ pÀ Ðhearing€as€follows:Ð \¬ Ðà8  àà ` àAs€to€the€sentencing€and€Judge€Meyerððs€remark,€Iððm€looking€at€that€remarkÐ H˜ Ðin€that€somehow€or€another€young€males,€and€especially€young€black€males,€that€wasÐ 4„ Ðsort€of€an€aside€that€he€made,€just€a€statement€commenting€on€society€in€general€andÐ  p Ðthe€number€of€shootings€that€occur€particularly€among€young€males,€and€the€fact€thatÐ  \ Ðwhen€he€said€especially€young€black€males€going€back€over€the€records€there€are€aÐ øH Ðlot€of€needless€deaths€in€the€black€community€because€people€do€carry€guns,€.€.€.€soÐ ä4 ÐI€donððt€think€heððs€commenting€to€the€extent€that€at€least€in€this€Courtððs€opinion€thatÐ Ð  Ðthat€statement€certainly€would€have€effected€[sic]€his€sentencing€in€this€case€becauseÐ ¼  Ðthe€sentence€was€what€would€[now]€be€the€presumptive€sentence€in€a€second€degreeÐ ¨ø Ðmurder€case.€€It€was€20€years€which€is€the€mid€range€between€15€to€25€which€is€nowÐ ”ä Ðthe€presumptive€sentence,€although€at€that€time€it€wasnððt€the€presumptive€sentence,Ð €Ð Ðthe€Court€did€find€enhancement€factors€that€outweigh€the€mitigating€factors€so€I€donððtÐ l¼ Ðfind€that€the€sentence€is€excessive€in€light€of€the€nature€of€the€case,€and€.€.€.€[the]Ð X ¨ Ðsentence€doesnððt€appear€to€be€based€on€any€kind€of€bias€or€prejudice€or€inflammatory€Ð D!” Ð.€.€.€feeling.€€It€think€itððs€just€a€statement€better€left€unsaid€but€it€certainly€doesnððtÐ 0"€  Ðappear€to€this€Court€that€that€statement€in€anyway€[sic]€had€any€affect€[sic]€on€theÐ #l! Ðsentence€.€.€.€.€[T]he€things€that€the€judges€have€to€consider,€of€course,€are€theÐ $X" Ðenhancement€factors€as€well€as€the€mitigating€factors€and€the€nature€of€the€case.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€direct€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court,€concluding€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âa€twenty„year€sentence€ð ðis€proper€in€this€case€where€there€are€three€enhancing€factors€and€twoÐ ¸'#& Ðmitigating€factors.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€*€5.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€three€enhancement€factors€applied€in€this€case€were€that€theÐ ° Ðâ âDefendant€has€a€previous€history€of€criminal€behaviorÔ#†X±XX X±Ï¬#ÔÔ‡ X±XXX±Ô,€that€the€Defendant€used€a€firearm€in€theÐ œì Ðcommission€of€the€offense,€and€that€Defendant€did€not€hesitate€to€commit€the€crime€when€the€riskÐ ˆØ Ðto€human€life€was€high.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€*4;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(9),€(10).€€The€trial€courtÐ tÄ Ðfound€as€mitigating€factors€that€the€Defendant€lacked€substantial€judgment€in€committing€the€offenseÐ `° Ðbecause€of€his€youth€and€that€he€was€supporting€his€child.€€òòSeeóó€òòJoseph€Lebron€Derrickóó,€1997€WLÐ L œ Ð148563,€at€*4;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(6),€(13).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓ!©ÓÌÓÓà  àThe€trial€judgeððs€statement€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€though€arguably€inappropriate,€does€notÐ ü L  Ðappear€to€have€affected€the€Defendantððs€sentence.€€As€the€post„conviction€court€concluded,€the€trialÐ è 8  Ðjudge€appeared€to€be€ð ðcommenting€on€society€in€general,ðð€rather€than€on€the€Defendantððs€specificÐ Ô$  Ðactions.€€More€importantly,€however,€as€this€Court€concluded€on€direct€appeal,€the€trial€judge€reliedÐ À  Ðon€appropriate€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€sentencing€the€Defendant€and€imposed€aÐ ¬ü  Ðproper€sentence.€€The€implication€by€the€Defendant€that€the€trial€court€relied€on€an€improper€factorÐ ˜è  Ðin€sentencing€him€and€that€the€trial€court€was€biased€against€him€during€the€course€of€the€trial€isÐ „Ô  Ðpurely€speculative.€€We€therefore€find€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.Ð pÀ ÐÓf¿ÓÌÔ#†X±XX X±±¼#Ôà  àAccordingly,€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€post„conviction€relief.Ð 4„ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¼  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE