ÿWPCÜ  Ò§°•€¯ÕÏD+β“²à²æW‚áB¥#²B¥‚5hςΔ«0OtýqèÞÝ0R~¾ycÂ÷Œ$©ÐAüß¼A¹‡g×%zá‘3ÖrL%ò”“Òœ5“ï[±ÎÒ™9ÃZÈ™ÉRÞå£Z T—\^qïÙê…Šb)7ž™³Eqq–‰+ƒ ŸénI8`¯ú?¥U´fàÕµšƒî¶Ìà7?õL€­ÚÉ(ä”´X.E¬[ãÄpþ”—[eø¹IÊÂÅ>õ¼?LTì1 S×WFÒÎS} H¨ˆdA/*Û½-QD‘D¶[Rkvšž¨þÖQy u¯RZ í›j>¥Ò/Í_§|E³ÆèxÎÎA_” &XŽ °ÒØ€yë8±ÚA£]ËtÃ9Q2áɪn{£J‹Î–‰ƒGZobUñˆ!Ånוéø-_6äVkÙY«Ù¤È3Ë*Q!#틊u½yW"hºh›±Ü3Ði*}‹xœÔ\Üç»»[ðü rø÷mC/‘è™o†¯î§,‚‹âÍWÝOý~/ |¢åT-púÖžãIpè9‘ÖWý7¼z–”i¶€Q*eº–X—¿ ʪ…ççÞù4¿t­&U>øHº¹1bQÄf]{] 6VŽgb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz Æ‘ ÆWÆÆãÆ© 0DoN³ÒµU@‡EÇÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉbÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑ 0ëÙÙÙÙ BÄÄ 0¤á D3… D-¸ 0Kåå AS0ƃ 0¤I 0Dí A«1 ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0» o+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo†)L È¦ ˜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 ¼Ý ƒR@„$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔVarious€other€claims€are€alleged€in€petitionerððs€òòpro€seóó€petition,€but€petitionerððs€Second€Amended€Petition€forÐ ° ÐPost„Conviction€Relief,€dated€November€30,€1999,€presents,€as€the€sole€ground€for€relief,€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ tÄ Ðcounsel€at€the€sentencing€phase,€based€on€the€failure€of€trial€counsel€to€develop€and€present€certain€mitigating€evidence.€Ð 8ˆ ÐIn€his€brief,€petitioner€asserts€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€introduce€evidence€at€his€trial€of€a€mental€condition€thatÐ üL Ðwould€have€negated€an€element€of€the€offense,€supposedly,€the€intent€to€commit€the€crime.€€This€allegation€is€nowhereÐ À Ðsupported€by€argument,€citation,€or€reference€to€the€record.€€This€€issue€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€Ð „Ô ÐEven€if€not€waived,€nothing€in€the€psychological€report€of€Dr.€Parr€indicates€that€the€petitioner€has,€or€has€ever€had,€aÐ H ˜ Ðmental€condition€that€would€preclude€his€forming€the€intent€to€shoot€the€victim.€€€€€€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÈÝ ƒR@„$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€a€preliminary€matter,€we€note€that€the€State€asserts€for€the€first€time€on€appeal€that€the€petitionerððs€claimÐ ° Ðis€time„barred.€€Rule€49(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€in€effect€at€the€time€of€this€petition,€provides,Ð tÄ Ðin€pertinent€part,€the€following:Ð 8ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€petitions€for€post€conviction€relief€or€other€papers€are€prepared€by€or€on€behalfÐ À Ðof€a€pro€se€litigant€incarcerated€in€a€correctional€facility,€filing€shall€be€timely€if€theÐ „Ô Ðpapers€are€delivered€to€the€appropriate€individual€at€the€correctional€facility€withinÐ H ˜ Ðthe€time€fixed€for€filing.€Ð \` x` x ÐÌAccording€to€the€record,€judgment€was€final€in€this€cause€on€June€1,€1998;€thereafter,€petitioner€had€one€year€to€timelyÐ ” ä  Ðfile€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202€(1997).€The€petition€was€filed€in€the€ShelbyÐ X ¨  ÐCounty€Criminal€Court€Clerkððs€Office€on€June€17,€1999.€€We€are€unable€to€determine€from€the€record€before€us€whetherÐ  l  Ðthe€petition€was€delivered€to€ð ðthe€appropriate€individual€at€the€correctional€facility€within€the€time€fixed€for€filing.ðð€€òòSeeóóÐ à 0  ÐòòNeely€v.€Stateóó,€34€S.W.3d€879,€880€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€issue€was€not€raisedÐ ¤ô  Ðbefore€the€post„conviction€court,€and€the€hearing€on€the€merits€was€held€on€June€12,€2000,€without€discussion€ofÐ h¸  Ðtimeliness.€€Given€fair€notice,€the€petitioner€might€have€been€able€to€produce€the€necessary€documentation€to€show€aÐ ,|  Ðtimely€filing€from€prison.€€Accordingly,€we€will€consider€the€petition€on€its€merits.(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman  - ù-(|G2@„$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôá=ò»»Ô d(|3‡s$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡s$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼K»»»ÔÑ8€iXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î@$KÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼K»îî@$ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€11,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XiX»¼KÔÌò òÔ#†¼K»XXi#ÔJAMES€DUMASòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XiX»¼KÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P21475€€€€€€L.€Terry€Lafferty,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„01814„CCA„R3„PC€€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Filed€August€9,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  Óò òó óThe€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€claiming€that€he€had€received€ineffectiveÐ xÈ  Ðassistance€of€counsel€during€the€sentencing€hearing€following€his€trial€in€which€he€was€convicted€ofÐ d´ Ðsecond€degree€murder.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€trial€counsel€should€have€presented€evidence€ofÐ P  Ðhis€youth€and€mental€condition.€€The€petitioner€appealed€after€being€denied€relief€by€the€post„Ð <Œ Ðconviction€court.€€Based€upon€our€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð (x ÐÓÕÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼K»àXi#ÔÔ‡XiX.¼KÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòJerry€L.Ð Ø( ÐSmith,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌRobert€Little€(on€appeal)€and€John€E.€Finklea€(at€trial),€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€JamesÐ œì ÐDumas.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Kim€R.Ð `° ÐHelper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Daniel€R.Ð L œ ÐWoody,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓ·ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼K»XXiæ#ÔÔ‡XiX»¼KÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼K»XXiâ #ÔÔ€XiX»¼KÔò òòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓBACKGROUNDó óóóÐ è$8 $ ÐÓq Óà  àThe€petitioner,€James€Dumas,€is€presently€serving€a€twenty„five„year€sentence€in€theÐ Ô%$!% ÐTennessee€Department€of€Correction€for€second€degree€murder.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€petitionerÐ À&"& Ðchallenges€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€the€Criminal€Court€for€ShelbyÐ ¬'ü"' ÐCounty.€€The€petitioner€presents€one€issue€for€our€review:€€whether€he€was€denied€his€constitutionalÐ ˜(è#( Ðâ âright€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Petitionerððs€assertion€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€isÐ „)Ô$)ý Ðbased€on€the€performance€of€counsel€at€his€sentencing€hearing.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Specifically,€petitioner€argues€thatÐ ° Ðâ âcounsel€failed€to€present€mitigating€evidence€that:€€(a)€because€of€his€youth,€petitioner€lackedÐ œì Ðsubstantial€judgment€in€committing€the€offense€(mitigating€factor€(6));€(b)€petitioner€suffered€fromÐ ˆØ Ða€mental€condition€that€significantly€reduced€his€culpability€for€the€offense€(mitigating€factor€(8));Ð tÄ Ðand€(c)€because€of€his€borderline€intellectual€functioning€and€mild€visual€motor€processing€deficits,Ð `° Ðpetitioner€lacked€insight€and€judgment€(mitigating€factor€(13)).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð L œ Ð113(6),€(8),€and€(13).€€Following€a€hearing€at€which€both€the€petitioner€and€trial€counsel€testified,€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpost„conviction€court€issued€its€order€denying€relief.€€We€have€reviewed€the€entire€record€and€affirmÐ $ t Ðthe€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.׃°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  ` ÐÌà@¥¥(ìàòòò òFACTSó óóóˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€procedural€history€of€this€case€is€lengthy.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€murder€wasÐ À  Ðcommitted€on€May€12,€1993,€when€the€defendant€was€three€months€shy€of€his€eighteenth€birthday.€Ð ¬ü  ÐFollowing€a€jury€trial€at€which€he€was€represented€by€retained€counsel,€petitioner€was€convicted€ofÐ ˜è  Ðfirst€degree€murder€on€June€23,€1994,€and€sentenced€to€life€in€prison.€€He€appealed€the€conviction,Ð „Ô  Ðand€this€court€determined€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€first€degreeÐ pÀ Ðmurder€but€did€support€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder.€€We€remanded€the€case€to€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðcourt€for€resentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€Dumasóó,€No.€02C01„9502„CR„00031,€1995€WL€580931Ð H˜ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€4,€1995).€€After€a€sentencing€hearing€following€the€remand,€the€petitionerÐ 4„ Ðwas€ordered€to€serve€the€maximum€sentence€of€twenty„five€years€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€forÐ ° Ðsecond€degree€murder.€€He€appealed€that€sentence.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€was€affirmed€byÐ œì Ðthis€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€Dumasóó,€No.€02C01„9610„CR„00368,€1997€WL€584287€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ˆØ ÐApp.€Sept.€19,€1997),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€June€1,€1998).€€Petitioner€then€filed€a€petitionÐ tÄ Ðfor€post„conviction€relief,€and€a€hearing€was€held€at€which€he€was€represented€by€appointed€counsel.€Ð `° ÐRelief€was€denied,€and€the€petitioner€appealed.€€It€is€the€denial€of€relief€that€is€the€subject€of€thisÐ L œ Ðappeal.ò òó óÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€facts€of€this€case,€as€set€out€in€òòState€v.€James€Dumasóó,€1995€WL€580931,€at€*1,€areÐ  ` Ðuncontroverted:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€evidence€adduced€at€trial,€in€the€light€most€favorable€toÐ Ô$  Ðthe€State,€revealed€that€at€about€9:00€p.m.€on€the€evening€of€May€12,Ð À  Ð1993,€James€Henry€Ballard€was€walking€down€Sun€Crest€Avenue€inÐ ¬ü  ÐMemphis€when€he€saw€the€victimððs€white€Mustang€parked€near€theÐ ˜è  Ðside€of€Sun€Crest€Drive.€€The€appellant€was€standing€at€the€driverððsÐ „Ô  Ðside€door€of€the€car.€€Ballard€kept€walking€toward€and€then€past€theÐ pÀ ÐMustang,€and€was€approximately€thirty€to€forty€feet€past€the€car€whenÐ \¬ Ðhe€heard€someone€say,€ð ðdrop€it€off,ðð€followed€by€a€gunshot.€€WhenÐ H˜ ÐBallard€turned€around,€he€saw€the€Mustang€automobile€being€drivenÐ 4„ Ðdown€the€street.€€The€appellant€was€standing€in€the€middle€of€theÐ  p Ðstreet€holding€a€pistol.€€The€appellant€put€the€pistol€in€his€pocket,Ð  \ Ðlooked€around,€and€took€off€running.€€Ballard€testified€that€heÐ øH Ðcontinued€walking€in€the€same€direction€that€the€Mustang€had€taken,Ð ä4 Ðand€upon€topping€a€hill,€he€saw€that€the€Mustang€had€crashed€into€aÐ Ð  Ðtree.€€It€was€later€discovered€that€the€sole€occupant€of€the€MustangÐ ¼  Ðwas€the€victim,€and€that€he€had€sustained€a€fatal€gunshot€wound€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðchest.€€A€twenty„dollar€bill€was€found€in€the€front€floorboard€of€theÐ ”ä Ðautomobile.€€€Ð€Ð` x` x ÐÌThe€evidence€further€showed€that€the€victim,€a€cocaine€addict,€was€a€regular€customer€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðpetitionerððs.€€This€court€described€the€case€as€one€that€might€be€called€ð ððða€drug€deal€gone€bad.ðððð€òòId.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àóóAlthough€the€petitioner€did€not€testify€at€his€trial,€he€had€maintained€that€he€was€not€even€onÐ #l! Ðthe€street€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€Two€alibi€witnesses€testified€on€his€behalf,€one€petitionerððsÐ $X" Ðbrother.€€At€his€April€3,€1996,€sentencing€hearing,€the€petitioner€still€vigorously€maintained€hisÐ ô$D # Ðcomplete€innocence:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àYour€Honor,€I€will€be€back€in€court€again€on€appeal€on€my€second„Ð ¸'#& Ðdegree€murder€because€I€didnððt€kill€nobody.€€So€you„all€will€see€meÐ ¤(ô#' Ðagain€on€„„€on€„„€Iððm€going€to€appeal€this,€whatever€you€sentence€me,Ð )à$( ÐJudge,€and€Iððll€be€back€again.€€Before€itððs€all€over€with,€I€believe€IððmÐ |*Ì%) Ðgoing€to€„„€Iððm€going€to€beat€all€of€it€because€I€didnððt€kill€nobody.Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà  àSome€four€years€after€this€statement,€the€petitioner€testified€to€the€following€at€his€post„Ð ° Ðconviction€hearing,€admitting€for€the€first€time€that€he€had€killed€the€victim:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€You€are€telling€the€Court€something€different€now€than€you€did€atÐ tÄ Ðthat€time;€is€that€correct?Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes,€sir.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€What€are€you€saying€now€about€what€happened?Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€You€know,€that€at€first€I€was€saying€I€didnððt€have€nothing€to€doÐ è 8  Ðwith€it,€you€know.€€I€pleaded€not€guilty€to€the€case.€€I€pleaded€notÐ Ô$  Ðguilty€to€the€case.€€I€said€I€didnððt€have€nothing€to€do€with€[it].€€OverÐ À  Ðthe€years€I€sat€and€thought€about€it€and€came€to€my€senses,€you€know.€Ð ¬ü  ÐThe€only€way€I€can€get€some€forgiveness€for€this€is€admitting€to€it,Ð ˜è  Ðyou€know.Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.€€And€did€you€in€fact€kill€this€man?Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA.€€Yes,€sir.€€I€killed€„€„€yeah.€Ð4„` x` x Ðò òÓ  ÓÌòòANALYSISÐ  \ ÐÌóóI.€€Standard€of€ReviewÐ ä4 ÐÌÓ‹*Óó óà  àThe€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clear€andÐ ¼  Ðconvincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€When€an€evidentiary€hearing€is€held€Ð ¨ø Ðin€the€post„conviction€setting,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unlessÐ ”ä Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð €Ð ÐWhere€appellate€review€involves€purely€factual€issues,€the€appellate€court€should€not€reweigh€orÐ l¼ Ðreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997).€€However,€reviewÐ X ¨ Ðof€a€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€of€the€case€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó,€with€no€presumption€ofÐ D!” Ðcorrectness.€€òòSeeóó€òòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,€96€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€issues€of€deficient€performanceÐ 0"€  Ðof€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€are€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact€and,€thus,Ð #l! Ðsubject€to€òòde€novoóó€review€by€the€appellate€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.Ð $X" Ð1999).Ð ô$D # ÐÌÐ  Ì&"% Ðà@’ ’ ìàò òII.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló ó€€€ò òˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àó óPetitioner€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€that€he€failed€to€present€anyÐ ŒÜ Ðmitigating€factors€at€petitionerððs€sentencing€hearing€following€the€remand€of€his€case.€€It€is€theÐ xÈ Ðpetitionerððs€contention€that€had€his€counsel€presented€mitigating€factors€based€on€the€psychologicalÐ d´ Ðreport€of€Dr.€Parr€and€on€petitionerððs€age,€he€would€have€received€a€lesser€sentence.Ð P   ÐÌà@ááìàò òA.€€Applicable€StandardˆÐ ( x ÐÌà  àó óÔ‡XiXXXiÔIn€order€to€determine€the€competence€of€counsel,€Tennessee€courts€have€applied€standardsÐ  P  Ðdeveloped€in€federal€case€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)òòóóÐ ì <  Ð(noting€that€the€same€standard€for€determining€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€is€applied€inÐ Ø(  Ðfederal€cases€also€applies€in€Tennessee).€€The€U.S.€Supreme€Court€articulated€the€standard€inÐ Ä  ÐòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984),€which€is€widelyÐ °  Ðaccepted€as€the€appropriate€standard€for€all€claims€of€a€convicted€petitioner€that€counselððs€assistanceÐ œì  Ðwas€defective.€€The€standard€is€firmly€grounded€in€the€belief€that€counsel€plays€a€role€that€is€ð ðcriticalÐ ˆØ  Ðto€the€ability€of€the€adversarial€system€to€produce€just€results.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€685,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2063.€TheÐ tÄ ÐòòStricklandóó€standard€is€a€two„prong€test:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFirst,€the€defendant€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€wasÐ 8ˆ Ðdeficient.€€This€requires€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€seriousÐ $t Ðthat€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€theÐ ` Ðdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Second,€the€defendant€mustÐ üL Ðshow€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€ThisÐ è8 Ðrequires€showing€that€counselððs€errors€were€so€serious€as€to€depriveÐ Ô$ Ðthe€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€result€is€reliable.ÐÀ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€€The€òòStricklandóó€Court€further€explained€the€meaning€of€ð ðdeficientÐ ˜è Ðperformanceðð€in€the€first€prong€of€the€test€in€the€following€way:Ð „Ô ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€any€case€presenting€an€ineffectiveness€claim,€the€performanceÐ \ ¬ Ðinquiry€must€be€whether€counselððs€assistance€was€reasonableÐ H!˜ Ðconsidering€all€the€circumstances.€.€.€.€No€particular€set€of€detailedÐ 4"„  Ðrules€for€counselððs€conduct€can€satisfactorily€take€account€of€theÐ  #p! Ðvariety€of€circumstances€faced€by€defense€counsel€or€the€range€ofÐ  $\" Ðlegitimate€decisions€regarding€how€best€to€represent€a€criminalÐ ø$H # Ðdefendant.Ðä%4!$` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€688„89,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065.€€Petitioner€must€therefore,€establish€that€ð ðthe€advice€given€or€theÐ ¼' #& Ðservice€rendered€was€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases[.]ðð€Ð ¨(ø#' ÐòòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð ”)ä$( Ðâ âÐ €*Ð%) Ðà  à€As€for€the€prejudice€prong€of€the€test,€the€òòStricklandóó€Court€stated:€€ð ðThe€defendant€mustÐ ° Ðâ âshow€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€ofÐ œì Ðthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€toÐ ˆØ Ðundermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòóó466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòOverton€v.Ð tÄ ÐStateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1994)€(holding€that€petitioner€failed€to€establish€that€ð ðthere€is€aÐ `° Ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€the€outcome€of€the€proceedings€would€have€beenÐ L œ Ðdifferentðð).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àòòóóCourts€need€not€approach€the€òòStricklandóó€test€in€a€specific€order€or€even€ð ðaddress€bothÐ  ` Ðcomponents€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€on€one.ðð€€466€U.S.€at€697,Ð ü L  Ð104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996)€(stating€that€ð ðfailureÐ è 8  Ðto€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffectiveÐ Ô$  Ðassistance€claimðð).Ð À  ÐÌà  à€The€reviewing€court€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€fallsÐ ˜è  Ðwithin€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance,€òòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.Ð „Ô  Ðat€2066,€and€may€not€second„guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unlessÐ pÀ Ðthose€choices€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2dÐ \¬ Ð4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€The€fact€that€a€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense€does€not€alone€supportÐ H˜ Ðthe€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€165€(Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐCrim.€App.€1997)òòóó.€€Finally,€a€person€charged€with€a€criminal€offense€is€not€entitled€to€perfectÐ  p Ðrepresentation.€€òòSeeóó€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,€796€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)òòóó.€Ð  \ ÐÌà@WWìàò òB.€€Performance€of€CounselˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àó óIn€the€first€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test,€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€wasÐ ¼  Ðdeficient€in€that€it€fell€below€the€level€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€Here,Ð ¨ø Ðthe€petitioner€contends€that,€by€failing€to€rely€on€the€psychological€report€of€Dr.€Parr€or€theÐ ”ä Ðpetitionerððs€age€as€bases€for€asserting€mitigating€factors€at€petitionerððs€sentencing€hearing,€theÐ €Ð Ðperformance€of€his€trial€counsel€fell€below€that€level€of€competence€to€which€the€petitioner€wasÐ l¼ Ðconstitutionally€entitled.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€record€shows€that€trial€counsel€has€been€licensed€to€practice€law€in€Tennessee€sinceÐ 0"€  Ð1967.€€His€practice€has€included€criminal€cases€since€the€beginning€of€his€career,€and€such€cases€nowÐ #l! Ðconstitute€a€sizable€portion€of€his€practice.€€He€represented€the€petitioner€from€the€time€of€his€arrestÐ $X" Ðthrough€his€first€appeal,€an€appeal€that€resulted€in€a€reduction€of€petitionerððs€conviction€from€firstÐ ô$D # Ðdegree€murder€to€second€degree€murder.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€psychological€report€referred€to€by€the€parties€was€a€report€prepared€and€signed€by€Dr.Ð ¸'#& ÐRobert€M.€Parr,€clinical€psychologist,€and€Mr.€Perry€Adams,€psychological€examiner,€that€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrequested€by€the€Memphis€and€Shelby€County€Juvenile€Court.€€The€report€was€based€on€a€clinicalÐ )à$( Ðinterview,€the€verbal€tasks€of€the€Wechsler€Adult€Intelligence€Scaleð!ðRevised,€the€Bender€Visual„Ð |*Ì%) ÐMotor€Gestalt€Test,€and€the€Rorschach€Test.€€It€is€dated€May€25,€1993,€thirteen€days€after€the€murder.€Ð h+¸&* ÐThe€report€was€apparently€part€of€the€petitionerððs€juvenile€record,€which€was€made€a€Stateððs€exhibitÐ ° Ðat€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€report€was€also€made€an€exhibit€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€psychological€report€reviewed€the€background€of€the€petitioner,€noting€that€petitionerÐ tÄ Ðhad€approximately€eight€other€juvenile€complaints€against€him.€€At€the€time€of€his€arrest,€he€wasÐ `° Ðliving€with€his€mother.€€He€had€seven€sisters€and€three€brothers€and€had€no€contact€with€his€father,Ð L œ Ðwho€apparently€lived€somewhere€outside€Memphis.€€According€to€the€report,€the€petitioner€deniedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€he€had€any€knowledge€of€the€crime.€€Petitioner€admitted€that€he€had€previous€arrests€forÐ $ t Ðð ðshoplifting,€assault€charge,€weapon€on€school€property€and€a€burglary€charge€which€I€beat.ðð€€TheÐ  ` Ðreport€described€the€petitioner€as€6'€4"€tall,€weighing€235€pounds,€neat€and€clean€in€appearance€andÐ ü L  Ðin€seeming€good€health.€€He€was€further€described€as€polite€and€cooperative.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àTwo€instances€of€prior€mental€health€treatment€were€reported€by€petitioner.€€One€was€a€six„Ð À  Ðweek€stay€at€St.€Joseph€Hospital€in€1988€where€he€was€sent€ð ðbecause€[he]€had€a€spell€one€day.ðð€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðother€was€in€1990€when€he€and€his€sister€were€involved€in€outpatient€therapy€at€Frayser€MentalÐ ˜è  ÐHealth€Center€ð ðfor€family€problems€about€getting€along.ðð€€Petitioner€told€his€examiners€that€he€hadÐ „Ô  Ðhad€no€other€mental€health€treatment€since€the€outpatient,€group€therapy€sessions€in€1990.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àPetitionerððs€mental€status€was€described€in€the€following€paragraph€of€the€report:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àHe€did€not€appear€to€be€excessively€anxious€or€threatened€in€theÐ  p Ðtesting€situation,€and€he€maintained€a€relaxed€physical€postureÐ  \ Ðthroughout.€€He€was€typically€spontaneous€in€his€verbal€interactions,Ð øH Ðand€he€had€no€difficulty€making€and€keeping€direct€eye€contact€withÐ ä4 Ðthe€examiner.€€There€were€no€speech€abnormalities,€and€verbalÐ Ð  Ðexpressions€were€generally€relevant,€clear€and€coherent.€€No€looseÐ ¼  Ðassociations€were€observed.€€Additionally,€he€was€oriented€as€to€time,Ð ¨ø Ðperson€and€place,€and€there€has€reportedly€been€no€history€ofÐ ”ä Ðdelusions€or€hallucinations.€€The€examiner€noted€no€evidence€ofÐ €Ð Ðsignificant€distress€or€disturbance€during€this€evaluation.€€Insight€andÐ l¼ Ðjudgment€are€judged€to€be€mild€to€moderately€lacking€due€toÐ X ¨ Ðborderline€intellectual€functioning.€ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€Bender€Visual„Motor€Gestalt€Test€showed€scoreable€errors€in€ð ðdistortion€of€shape.€€ThisÐ #l! Ðis€indicative€of€mild€visual€motor€processing€deficits.ðð€€The€report€further€assessed€the€petitionerððsÐ $X" Ðpersonality:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€personality€assessment€gives€no€evidence€of€an€overt€or€psychoticÐ Ì&"% Ðprocess,€and€reality€testing€appears€to€be€adequate.€€The€psychologicalÐ ¸'#& Ðdata€shows€that€this€individual€has€very€poor€impulse€control€and€isÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtypically€attracted€to€novelty€and€excitement.€€He€has€a€great€deal€ofÐ )à$( Ðdifficulty€in€delaying€gratification€and€frequently€acts€with€very€littleÐ |*Ì%) Ðconsideration€of€consequences.€€He€also€finds€it€difficult€to€acceptÐ h+¸&* Ðresponsibility€for€problems€in€his€life€and€will€rationalizeÐ ° Ðshortcomings€and€failures€by€blaming€people€and€events€that€heÐ œì Ðcannot€control.€€He€will€likely€impress€others€as€being€moody€andÐ ˆØ Ðirritable,€and€the€protocol€suggests€rather€intense€feelings€of€angerÐ tÄ Ðwhich€may€be€expressed€overtly€in€occasional€emotional€outbursts.€Ð `° ÐHe€reveals€a€moderately€high€potential€for€acting€out€and€using€poorÐ L œ Ðjudgment.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà  àIn€conclusion,€the€examiners€determined€that€the€petitionerððs€assessment€ð ðfailed€to€revealÐ  ` Ðserious€psychopathologyðð€or€any€reason€to€assume€that€ð ðhe€is€committable€to€an€institution€for€theÐ ü L  Ðmentally€retarded€or€psychologically€disturbed.ððÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€testified€that,€although€he€had€no€directÐ À  Ðrecollection€of€reading€this€report,€he€was€convinced,€based€on€his€years€of€practice€and€habit,€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðhe€would€not€have€allowed€the€report€to€be€admitted€as€evidence€at€the€sentencing€hearing€withoutÐ ˜è  Ðhaving€reviewed€it€because,€ð ðI€wouldnððt€have€just€said,€okay,€go€ahead€and€introduce€it.€€I€just€donððtÐ „Ô  Ðdo€that.ðð€€The€fact€that€trial€counsel€caught€misstatements€concerning€the€juvenile€record€of€theÐ pÀ Ðpetitioner€supports€this€contention.€€Counsel€testified€that,€in€deciding€not€to€rely€on€theÐ \¬ Ðpsychological€report,€he€ð ðmade€a€judgment€call.€€If€it€was€in€there€and€I€saw€it,€there€were€things€inÐ H˜ Ðthere€I€would€probably€not€want€the€Court€to€see.€.€.€.€I€think€it€would€be€a€judgment€call€becauseÐ 4„ Ðsome€of€the€things€in€there€were€not€helpful€for€us.ððÐ  p ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€petitionerððs€assertion€that€defense€counsel€also€failed€to€argue€his€age€as€aÐ øH Ðmitigating€factor,€we€note€that€defense€counsel€did,€in€fact,€mention€the€age€of€petitioner€at€theÐ ä4 Ðsentencing€hearing.€€In€requesting€the€minimum€sentence€for€petitioner,€defense€counsel€noted,€ð ðThisÐ Ð  Ðis€a€young€man[,]ðð€possibly€hoping€for€some€sympathy€for€his€client.€€Nevertheless,€to€argue€thatÐ ¼  Ðpetitionerððs€youth€was€a€mitigating€factor,€defense€counsel€would€have€had€to€show€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€did€not€ð ðappreciate€the€nature€of€his€conduct.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€908€S.W.2d€410,€413Ð ”ä Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Given€the€fact€that€the€petitioner€continued€to€claim€at€the€sentencingÐ €Ð Ðhearing€that€he€had€no€involvement€in€the€shooting€whatsoever,€arguing€to€the€sentencing€court€thatÐ l¼ Ðthe€petitionerððs€youth€affected€his€judgment€in€committing€a€crime€he€denied€committing€would€haveÐ X ¨ Ðbeen€at€best€an€incongruous€argument.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€determined€the€following:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Trial€counsel]€testified€that€he€may€have€decided€not€to€utilize€Dr.Ð ô$D # ÐParrððs€psychological€report€due€to€both€positive€and€negative€factorsÐ à%0!$ Ðpresent€in€the€report.€€A€review€of€the€report€would€support€suchÐ Ì&"% Ðdecision.€€This€is€a€judgment€call€on€the€part€of€the€attorney€to€argueÐ ¸'#& Ðsuch€as€the€petitionerððs€lack€of€good€judgment€and€limited€intellectualÐ ¤(ô#' Ðability.€€This€is€especially€true€in€this€case,€since€at€trial€and€theÐ )à$( Ðsentencing€hearing,€the€petitioner€strongly€insisted€that€he€had€nothingÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€do€with€the€killing€of€the€victim.€€This€Court€refuses€to€secondÐ h+¸&* Ðguess€defense€counselððs€decision€regarding€what€proof€to€submit€atÐ ° Ðthe€sentencing€hearing€in€this€cause.Ô#†XiXXXi­2#ÔÔ‡XiXXXiÔМì` x` x Ðà  àÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€post„conviction€court€that€the€decision€not€to€rely€on€either€theÐ tÄ Ðpsychological€report€of€Dr.€Parr€or€the€petitionerððs€age€as€mitigating€factors€was€well€within€theÐ `° Ðrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€representing€defendants€in€criminal€cases.€€BecauseÐ L œ Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€meet€the€first€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test,€we€conclude€that€the€post„Ð 8 ˆ Ðconviction€court€did€not€err€in€denying€relief€to€petitioner.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà@îîìàò òC.€€Prejudice€to€Defenseó óˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àEven€if€€we€were€to€determine€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€the€petitioner€wouldÐ Ô$  Ðstill€be€required€to€show€prejudice,€that€is,€that,€had€he€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€theÐ À  Ðoutcome€of€the€sentencing€hearing€would€have€been€different.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€sentencing€court€found€no€mitigating€factors€and€defense€argued€for€none.€Ð „Ô  ÐThe€sentencing€court€specifically€asked€if€there€were€any€mitigating€circumstances€defense€wishedÐ pÀ Ðit€to€consider€or€if€the€testimony€of€the€petitioner€would€be€the€only€evidence€offered.€€After€theÐ \¬ Ðpetitioner€testified,€the€sentencing€court€asked,€ð ðOkay.€€Thatððs€your€mitigation,€[trial€counsel]?ðð€Ð H˜ ÐTrial€counsel€replied,€ð ðYes,€sir.ðð€€During€this€testimony€that€presented€an€opportunity€for€theÐ 4„ Ðpetitioner€to€speak€in€his€own€behalf,€petitioner€was€asked€by€the€State€if€he€had€any€remorse€aboutÐ  p Ðthe€killing.€€Petitioner€answered,€ð ðI€didnððt€kill€nobody.€€I€donððt€know€what€youððre€talking€about.ððÐ  \ ÐÌà  àWithout€any€mitigating€evidence€other€than€the€testimony€of€the€petitioner,€the€sentencingÐ ä4 Ðcourt€found€three€enhancement€factors€to€support€a€maximum€sentence:€enhancement€factor€(1),Ð Ð  Ðbased€on€the€petitionerððs€previous€history€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior;€factor€(9),Ð ¼  Ðbased€on€the€petitionerððs€use€of€a€firearm€in€committing€the€murder;€and€factor€(10),€based€on€theÐ ¨ø Ðpetitionerððs€lack€of€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€where€evidence€showed€that€the€shootingÐ ”ä Ðwas€in€a€residential€community€and€at€least€two€bystanders€might€have€been€harmed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð €Ð ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€(9),€and€(10).€€This€court€determined€that€the€trial€court€properly€appliedÐ l¼ Ðeach€of€these€enhancement€factors.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€Dumasóó,€Ô#†XiXXXiÁm#ÔNo.€02C01„9610„CR„00368,€1997Ð X ¨ ÐWL€584287,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€19,€1997),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€June€1,€1998).Ô‡XiXXXiԀРD!” ÐÌà  àPetitioner€here€asserts€that€his€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€argue€for€the€application€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€following€mitigating€factors:€€Ô#†XiXXXi¢y#Ô(a)€because€of€his€youth,€petitioner€lacked€substantial€judgment€inÐ $X" Ðcommitting€the€offense€(mitigating€factor€(6));€(b)€petitioner€suffered€from€a€mental€condition€thatÐ ô$D # Ðsignificantly€reduced€his€culpability€for€the€offense€(mitigating€factor€(8));€and€(c)€because€of€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðborderline€intellectual€functioning€and€mild€visual€motor€processing€deficits,€petitioner€lackedÐ Ì&"% Ðinsight€and€judgment€(mitigating€factor€(13)).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(6),€(8),€and€(13).Ô‡XiXXXiԀР¸'#& ÐAs€to€factor€(6),€evidence€indicated€that€the€petitioner€was€almost€eighteen€years€old€and€was€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðstreetwise€criminal.€€As€to€factor€(8),€the€psychological€report€specifically€excluded€any€mentalÐ )à$( Ðdisorder.€€As€to€the€ð ðcatch„allðð€factor€(13),€nothing€in€the€record€or€testimony€of€trial€counselÐ |*Ì%) Ðindicates€that€the€petitioner€was€not€fully€able€to€understand€all€aspects€of€his€case.€€In€fact,€counselÐ h+¸&* Ðtestified€that€the€petitioner€€ð ð[could]€understand€better€than€most,€as€I€call€them,€juveniles.€€HeÐ ° Ðunderstood€the€process€very€well,€above€what€most€of€them€would€have€come€close€to.ðð€€WhileÐ œì Ðpetitionerððs€verbal€IQ€score€of€73€is€considered€borderline,€there€was€no€proof€that€petitioner€was€notÐ ˆØ Ðin€full€command€of€his€situation.€€Further,€there€was€no€proof€offered€that€petitionerððs€mild€visualÐ tÄ Ðmotor€deficits€had€any€relevance€to€this€case.€€None€of€the€suggested€mitigating€factors€would€haveÐ `° Ðbeen€applicable.€€Therefore,€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€theÐ L œ Ðoutcome€of€the€sentencing€hearing€would€have€been€different.€€All€three€enhancement€factors€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðproperly€applied,€and€the€weight€to€be€given€those€factors€rested€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÐ $ t Ðsentencing€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€854€S.W.2d€116,€123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that,€even€had€the€performance€of€counsel€been€deficientð"ðand€we€haveÐ è 8  Ðdetermined€that€it€was€notð"ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€show€prejudice.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONóóˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àó óHaving€reviewed€the€entire€record,€we€conclude€that€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burdenÐ „Ô  Ðof€proving€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€We,€therefore,€affirmÐ pÀ Ðthe€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€in€denying€his€petition€for€relief.€€ò òó óÐ \¬ Ðà@ÓÓ*ìàò òó ó€ˆÐ H˜ ÐÔ#†XiXXXiË|#ÔÌà@ìì*ìàò òó óˆÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE