ÿWPCÁ >«é•f²Ð´o.gŸåѨãÐà§ñâïjáGˆP¶*^Û€}p½nrê  ¼Åª¡÷ù#Ö 0䌋g¸0#8m‰ÃΓÓR*í¾ñAjàcÃ?Û¹]n«*•FôV?½KB']#«Ð{ω)=¡]] I:w8fe–Ç>ùꔿ=ŽeLWhDú~ßäB¾#f½ ÚÔúj •梒ñ0Övá²ÜéY;=3ü®Žã†h¨„`½B\í™O}zCÍK$c'}Þ T>þ‹›n•SÎäH÷ ˜þ´a,Áç¤jÞïšû]È›Oxo¸¼¼ü8^Az+×Ï'ºÔ;8µ„æLð¿h”<&_ûi¶w¹iëóžùtäÕ1ï\,Ž\bOmÏâÓëñ azÑ~@°Q¯2Ðõ€rì3p{YùÆœÖ gHѲÅàK+7ŒÏd ­ Ù.û¯ˆ¾ìÙz§«®zÇBKÍGë-H¡¾yůߴñòư?f‰l\7-ÙÛÓxѨZ™U«"{½©ÕÜÑË6=g/ Ræ¢YÜ[Ú_£©O~ñb %\Nb 0ˆdU*Nì”: zÎ ÒH z Ò” ^ f wr 4v Š Æ™ Æ_ Æ%Æë±N³ mµ#ÁÌE 0DUNÓU @!aŽw¹Š¾¾H^tŠ           b¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ 0ë¾¾¾¾ B©© 0¤Æ D3j D- 0KÊÊ ASÆh 0¤. 0DÒ A«»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ŠÝ ƒRi:$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€For€a€full€recitation€of€the€facts€underlying€the€petitionerððs€convictions,€see€òòBryan€R.€Hanley€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ð ° Ð01C01„9508„CC„00266,€1997€WL€469430,€at€**1„3€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€August€15,€1997).˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt°p+ ÖJ~'¢Ø+003|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  Ñ ° Ñ „Ý ƒRi:$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€proof€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€indicated€that€the€petitioner€drove€Tannerððs€mail€truck€to€a€location€not€farÐ ° Ðfrom€Ô_ÔBucksnortÔ_Ô€Road€and,€at€that€location,€abandoned€both€the€truck€and€Tannerððs€body. ¯Ý ƒRi:$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€victim€died€as€the€result€of€shotgun€wounds. Ñ ! ' ib014r200ib014r20 .    Ñ ° Ñ Ñ ° Ñ Ñ ° Ñ Ñ ° Ñ Ñ ° Ñ- ù-(|G2i:$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôº]ò»»Ô d(|3¿e$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿e$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡î ¤î»»ÔÑ€OYÑÑ€ OYÑÑ€OYÑÑ€!OYÑÑ€"OYÑÑ€#OYÑÑ8€M XXdì»»d8ÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†»5»îî ¤‹#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMay€15,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XM X»»5ÔÌò òÔ#†»5»XXM .#ÔBRYAN€HANLEYòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XM X»»5Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€as€of€Right€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔHickmanÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„5053C„I€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02182„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€November€16,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Bryan€Hanley,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€Ô_ÔHickmanÔ_Ô€County€Circuit€Court€of€oneÐ xÈ  Ðcount€of€first€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€theft€of€property€over€$1000.€€The€petitioner€wasÐ d´ Ðsentenced€to€life€imprisonment€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€for€the€murder€convictionÐ P  Ðand€to€three€years€incarceration€for€the€theft€conviction,€with€the€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€Ð <Œ ÐSubsequently,€the€petitioner€filed€a€post„conviction€petition€alleging€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ (x Ðcounsel.€€The€post„conviction€court€denied€the€petition€and€the€petitioner€appeals.€€Upon€review€ofÐ d Ðthe€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð P ÐÓôÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†»5»àXM ¢#ÔÔ‡XM X.»5ÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€andòò€JohnÐ ° ÐEverett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌMelanie€Ô_ÔTottyÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔCagleÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔCentervilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Bryan€Hanley.Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð L œ ÐRonald€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Derek€K.€Smith,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð 8!ˆ  Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $"t! ÐÓÚÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†»5»XXM #ÔÔ‡XM X»»5ÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†»5»XXM 2 #ÔÔ‡XM X»»5ÔÓ  Óà0  àà ° àà@ì(#(#àò òòòI.€€Factual€Backgroundóóó óÔ#†»5»XXM #ÔÔ€XM X»»5ԈРÔ%$!% Ðà  àà ` àOn€November€1,€1994,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€in€the€Ô_ÔHickmanÔ_Ô€County€CriminalÐ À&"& ÐCourt€of€the€first€degree€murder€of€Timothy€Tanner€and€of€the€theft€of€over€$1000€worth€of€propertyÐ ¬'ü"' Ðfrom€Tannerððs€mail€truck.€€At€trial,€the€primary€evidence€against€the€petitioner€was€the€testimony€ofÐ ˜(è#( Ðhis€co„defendant€and€half„brother,€John€David€Walker.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Subsequent€to€his€convictions,€the€petitionerÐ „)Ô$) Ðfiled€a€pro€se€post„conviction€petition€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€several€otherÐ p*À%*ý  ÐÔ_Ôgrounds€for€relief.€€Upon€reviewing€the€petition,€the€post„conviction€court€ruled€that€ineffectiveÐ ° Ðassistance€of€counsel€was€the€only€viable€ground€for€relief€alleged€in€the€petition.€€Accordingly,€theÐ œì Ðpost„conviction€court€appointed€counsel€to€represent€the€petitioner€and€to€file€an€amended€petitionÐ ˆØ Ðfurthering€the€petitionerððs€arguments€concerning€the€ineffectiveness€of€his€trial€counsel.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€June€15,€2000,€a€post„conviction€hearing€was€held€where€the€petitioner€presentedÐ L œ Ðproof€of€the€ineffective€assistance€of€his€trial€counsel.€€The€petitioner€alleged€that€his€trial€counsel,Ð 8 ˆ ÐDale€Quillen,€was€ineffective€on€the€following€grounds:€(1)€Quillen€did€not€disclose€to€the€petitionerÐ $ t Ðthe€full€financial€relationship€between€Quillen€and€Michael€Flanagan,€the€attorney€for€the€petitionerððsÐ  ` Ðco„defendant,€John€David€Walker,€thereby€nullifying€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€conflict„free€counsel;Ð ü L  Ð(2)€Quillen€and€Flanagan€engaged€in€joint€representation€of€the€petitioner€and€Walker€to€theÐ è 8  Ðdetriment€of€the€petitioner;€(3)€Quillen€failed€to€challenge€the€factual€allegations€in€the€applicationÐ Ô$  Ðfor€a€search€warrant€and€affidavit€which€led€to€the€presentation€of€certain€scientific€evidence€at€trial;Ð À  Ðand€(4)€Quillen€failed€to€adequately€investigate€the€case€prior€to€trial.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that,€at€their€initial€meeting,Ð „Ô  ÐQuillen€and€Flanagan€both€came€to€the€Hickman€County€Jail€and€spoke€with€the€petitioner€andÐ pÀ ÐWalker.€€They€decided€that€Quillen€would€represent€the€petitioner€for€a€fee€of€twenty„five€thousandÐ \¬ Ðdollars€($25,000)€and€Flanagan€would€represent€Walker€for€the€same€amount,€for€a€total€of€fiftyÐ H˜ Ðthousand€dollars€($50,000).€€Additionally,€the€petitioner€adduced€proof€of€Quillenððs€representationÐ 4„ Ðof€both€the€petitioner€and€Walker€at€the€arraignment€and€the€existence€of€several€identical€motionsÐ  p Ðwhich€were€filed€by€Quillen€and€Flanagan.€€€à À àà  àÐ  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€initial€meeting,€Quillen€and€Flanagan€disclosed€to€the€petitioner€that€FlanaganÐ ä4 Ðwas€ð ðassociatedðð€with€Quillen€in€that€they€shared€office€space.€€Quillen€testified€that€he€thoroughlyÐ Ð  Ðapprised€the€petitioner€of€the€potential€conflict€of€interest€due€to€his€representation€of€the€petitionerÐ ¼  Ðand€Flanaganððs€representation€of€Walker.€€Quillen€maintained€that€the€petitioner€was€satisfied€withÐ ¨ø Ðthe€terms€of€representation.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àEvidence€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€revealed€that€Quillen€and€Flanagan€did€indeedÐ l¼ Ðshare€the€same€office€space,€including€the€same€secretary.€€Additionally,€Flanagan€explained€that€heÐ X ¨ Ðwas€an€ð ðindependent€contractorðð€with€Quillen.€€Quillen€paid€Flanagan€a€bi„weekly€salary€of€twoÐ D!” Ðthousand€dollars€($2,000)€in€addition€to€a€bonus€of€twenty€percent€(20%)€of€any€fees€he€earned€for€Ð 0"€  Ðthe€firm.€€Nonetheless,€both€Quillen€and€Flanagan€testified€that€they€did€not€share€any€informationÐ #l! Ðregarding€the€case,€specifically€noting€that€Quillen€learned€from€the€State,€not€Flanagan,€that€WalkerÐ $X" Ðwould€testify€against€the€petitioner€at€trial.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€also€argued€that€Quillen€did€not€adequately€challenge€the€veracity€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€affidavit€underlying€the€warrant€authorizing€the€authorities€to€search€his€truck€for€evidence€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcrimes.€€He€maintains€that€several€people€had€informed€Postal€Inspector€William€L.€Stinson,€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdrafter€of€the€affidavit,€of€the€petitionerððs€whereabouts€between€4:30€p.m.€and€7:45€p.m.€the€nightÐ )à$( Ðof€the€murder;€however,€in€the€affidavit,€Stinson€averred€that€the€petitionerððs€whereabouts€during€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðtime€frame€were€unknown.€€The€petitioner€argues€that€Quillen€was€ineffective€in€not€presenting€thisÐ h+¸&* ÐÑOYÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñevidence€to€challenge€the€search€warrant.Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€petitioner€complains€that€Quillen€inadequately€investigated€the€case.€Ð ˆØ ÐSpecifically,€the€petitioner€contends€that€Quillen€should€have€pursued€the€testimony€of€WilliamÐ tÄ ÐWise,€a€witness€who€saw€someone€who€did€not€match€the€petitionerððs€description€driving€a€mailÐ `° Ðtruck€similar€to€the€victimððs€near€the€location€where€the€victimððs€body€was€found.€€After€consideringÐ L œ Ðthe€proof,€the€post„conviction€court€issued€an€order€denying€the€petition€for€relief.€€It€is€from€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðruling€that€the€petitioner€now€appeals.Ð $ t ÐÌà@éé$ìàòòò òII.€€Analysisóóó óˆÐ ü L  Ðà  àà ` àIn€order€to€be€entitled€to€relief,€the€petitioner€must€prove€all€factual€allegationsÐ è 8  Ðcontained€in€his€post„conviction€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð Ô$  Ð30„210(f)€(1997).€€This€court€has€explained€that€ð ð[e]vidence€is€clear€and€convincing€when€there€isÐ À  Ðno€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€the€correctness€of€the€conclusions€drawn€from€the€evidence.ðð€Ð ¬ü  ÐòòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€The€post„conviction€court€mustÐ ˜è  Ðdetermine€witness€credibility€as€well€as€the€weight€and€value€to€be€accorded€their€testimony.€€òòBlackÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Accordingly,€appellate€courts€will€grantÐ pÀ Ðthe€findings€made€by€the€post„conviction€court€at€a€hearing€after€observing€witnesses€testify€andÐ \¬ Ðconsidering€conflicting€testimony€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€€òòBratton€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€754,€756Ð H˜ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€this€court€will€review€the€post„conviction€courtððs€factual€findings€de€novoÐ  \ Ðwith€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001);€òòÔ‡XM XXXM Ôsee€alsoóóÔ#†XM XXXM Â*#Ô€òòBurnsÐ øH Ðv.€Stateóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€That€is€to€say,€we€will€uphold€the€post„conviction€courtððsÐ ä4 Ðfactual€determinations€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€such€findings.€€òòFieldsóó,€40€S.W.3dÐ Ð  Ðat€458.€€However,€we€will€conduct€a€purely€de€novo€review€of€the€post„conviction€courtððsÐ ¼  Ðð ðconclusions€of€law.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ‡XM XXXM ÔIn€order€to€demonstrate€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€must€satisfyÐ €Ð Ða€two„pronged€test:€first,€the€petitioner€must€prove€that€the€performance€of€counsel€was€deficient,Ð l¼ Ðand,€second,€he€must€prove€that€such€deficiency€prejudiced€him€by€creating€a€reasonable€probabilityÐ X ¨ Ðthat€the€result€of€his€trial€is€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€were€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.Ð D!” ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984).Ô#†XM XXXM ó,#ÔÔ‡XM XXXM Ô€€If€the€petitioner€fails€to€prove€oneÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€prongs€of€the€test,€this€court€need€not€analyze€further€because€the€petitioner€has€then€not€metÐ #l! Ðhis€burden.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.€€In€connection€with€this€issueÔ#†XM XXXM N/#ÔÔ‡XM XXXM Ô,€we€note€that€this€court€mustÐ $X" Ðdecide€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€required€of€attorneys€inÐ ô$D # Ðcriminal€casesÔ#†XM XXXM ™0#ÔÔ‡XM XXXM Ô€in€evaluating€whether€or€not€counselððs€performance€was€deficientÔ#†XM XXXM ”1#ÔÔ‡XM XXXM Ô.€€òòBaxter€v.Ô#†XM XXXM 2#ÔÔ‡XM XXXM Ô€Roseóó,Ð à%0!$ Ð523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Ô#†XM XXXM k2#ÔÔ‡XM XXXM ÔTenn.€1975).Ô#†XM XXXM à2#ÔÔ‡XM XXXM Ô€Ô#†XM XXXM .3#ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà@ccìàA.€€Conflict€of€InterestˆÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àAs€they€are€so€closely€related,€we€will€address€together€the€first€two€issues€presentedÐ )à$( Ðby€the€petitioner.€€The€petitioner€essentially€argues€that€Quillen€operated€as€his€counsel€whileÐ |*Ì%) Ðlaboring€under€a€conflict€of€interest€and€did€so€to€the€petitionerððs€detriment,€thereby€performingÐ h+¸&* ÐÑ OYÑâ  âѰ°Ñâ  âÑ  Ñineffectively.€Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àð ðClearly,€the€right€of€an€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution€to€conflict„freeÐ ˆØ Ðrepresentation€of€counsel€is€inherent€in€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÐ tÄ ÐArticle€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ðð€€òòState€v.€John€W.€Waldenóó,€No.€37,€1988€WL€69538,Ð `° Ðat€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€July€8,€1988).€€€€However,€this€court€has€recognized€that€ð ð[a]nÐ L œ Ðactual€conflict,€rather€than€the€mere€possibility,€must€be€established€prior€to€any€removal€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðwithdrawal€of€counsel.ðð€€òòState€v.€Parrottóó,€919€S.W.2d€60,€61€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€We€note€thatÐ $ t Ðð ð[a]n€ððactual€conflict€of€interestðð€usually€involves€one€attorney€representing€two€or€more€persons€withÐ  ` Ðdiverse€interests.€€In€essence,€it€is€where€an€attorney€is€placed€in€a€position€of€divided€loyalties.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐòòKevin€Burns€v.€Stateóó,€No.€W2000„02871„CCA„R9„PD,€2001€WL€912817,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð è 8  Ðat€Jackson,€August€9,€2001)€(citing€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€925€S.W.2d€548,€552„553€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ô$  Ð1995));€òòÔ‡XM XXXM Ôsee€alsoÔ#†XM XXXM :#Ôóó€òòClinard€v.€Blackwoodóó,€46€S.W.3d€177€(Tenn.€2001).€€Regardless,€ð ðeven€when€aÐ À  Ðconflict€of€interest€is€created€by€joint€representation,€a€defendant€may€waive€his€right€to€conflict„freeÐ ¬ü  Ðrepresentation.ðð€€òòState€v.€Tyrice€Porteróó,€No.€11,€1987€WL€18072,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,Ð ˜è  ÐOctober€7,€1987).€€In€sum,€ð ða€Defendant€will€not€be€deprived€of€his€retained€counsel€of€choice€in€aÐ „Ô  Ðsituation€presenting€a€conflict€of€interest€where€the€Defendant€knowingly€and€intelligently€affirmsÐ pÀ Ðhis€choice.ðð€€òòParrottóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€61.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€noted€ð ða€court€confronted€with€and€alerted€toÐ 4„ Ðpossible€conflicts€of€interest€must€take€adequate€steps€to€ascertain€whether€the€conflicts€warrantÐ  p Ðseparate€counsel.ðð€€òòWheat€v.€United€Statesóó,€486€U.S.€153,€160,€108€S.€Ct.€1692,€1697€(1988).€Ð  \ ÐAdditionally,€Ô‡XM XXXM ÔTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€44(c)€provides:Ð øH Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhenever€two€or€more€defendants€have€been€jointly€charged€pursuantÐ ä4 Ðto€Rule€8(b)€or€have€been€joined€for€trial€pursuant€to€Rule€13,€and€areÐ Ð  Ðrepresented€by€the€same€retained€or€assigned€counsel€or€by€retainedÐ ¼  Ðor€assigned€counsel€who€are€associated€in€the€practice€of€law,€theÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€shall€promptly€inquire€with€respect€to€such€joint€representationÐ ”ä Ðand€shall€personally€advise€each€defendant€of€the€right€to€the€effectiveÐ €Ð Ðassistance€of€counsel,€including€separate€representation.€€Unless€itÐ l¼ Ðappears€that€there€is€good€cause€to€believe€no€conflict€of€interest€isÐ X ¨ Ðlikely€to€arise,€the€court€shall€take€such€measures€as€may€beÐ D!” Ðappropriate€to€protect€each€defendantððs€right€to€counsel.Ô#†XM XXXM õ>#Ô€Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐòòÔ‡XM XXXM ÔSee€alsoóóÔ#†XM XXXM C#Ô€òòState€v.€Ray€Edward€Polkóó,€No.€1194,€1991€WL€188885,€at€*8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ #l! ÐKnoxville,€September€26,€1991).€€It€is€quite€clear€that€Quillen€and€Flanagan€were€ð ðassociated€in€theÐ $X" Ðpractice€of€lawðð€at€the€time€that€they€represented€the€petitioner€and€Walker,€respectively.€€Therefore,Ð ô$D # Ðin€order€to€satisfy€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€44(c),€the€trial€court€must€comply€with€the€test€adopted€in€òòPolkóó,Ð à%0!$ ÐNo.€1194,€1991€WL€188885,€at€*9€(alterations€in€original)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Garciaóó,€517€F.2dÐ Ì&"% Ð272,€278€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1975):Ð ¸'#& Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ‡XM XXXM Ô[T]he€...€[trial]€court€should€address€each€defendant€personally€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðforthrightly€advise€him€of€the€potential€dangers€of€representation€byÐ )à$( Ðcounsel€with€a€conflict€of€interest.€€The€defendant€must€be€at€libertyÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€question€the€[trial]€court€as€to€the€nature€and€consequences€of€hisÐ h+¸&* ÐÑOYÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  Ñlegal€representation.€€Most€significantly,€the€court€should€seek€toÐ ° Ðelicit€a€narrative€response€from€each€defendant€that€he€has€beenÐ œì Ðadvised€of€his€right€to€effective€[conflict-free]€representation,€that€heÐ ˆØ Ðunderstands€the€details€of€his€attorney's€possible€conflict€of€interestÐ tÄ Ðand€the€potential€perils€of€such€a€conflict,€that€he€has€discussed€theÐ `° Ðmatter€with€his€attorney€or€if€he€wishes€with€outside€counsel,€and€thatÐ L œ Ðhe€voluntarily€waives€his€Sixth€Amendment€protections.Ô#†XM XXXM F#ÔÐ8 ˆ` x` x ÐòòÔ‡XM XXXM ÔSee€alsoóóÔ#†XM XXXM yJ#Ô€òòHoward€Clifton€Kirby€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9303„CR„00074,€1994€WL€525086,€at€*6€(Tenn.Ð $ t ÐCrim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€September€28,€1994).€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issue€of€Quillenððs€conflict€of€interest€was€raised€by€the€State€in€a€disqualificationÐ è 8  Ðhearing€approximately€one€year€prior€to€trial.€€After€hearing€the€proof,€then€trial€judge€Cornelia€ClarkÐ Ô$  Ðfound€that€although€a€potential€conflict€of€interest€existed,€the€co„defendants€had€executed€validÐ À  Ðwaivers€of€their€right€to€conflict„free€counsel.€€Moreover,€at€the€hearing,€both€the€petitioner€andÐ ¬ü  ÐWalker€asserted€that€they€had€been€informed€of€the€dangers€of€joint€representation€and€wished€toÐ ˜è  Ðproceed€with€their€chosen€counsel.€It€is€clear€from€the€transcript€of€the€disqualification€hearing€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€petitioner€ð ðwas€[thoroughly]€made€aware€of€the€dangers€of€joint€representation,€the€implicationsÐ pÀ Ðit€held€for€his€plea€bargaining€position,€[and]€the€straight„jacket€into€which€it€thrust€his€attorney.ðð€Ð \¬ ÐòòKirbyóó,€No.€03C01„9303„CR„00074,€1994€WL€525086,€at€*6òòóóÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€in€the€order€denying€the€Stateððs€motion€to€disqualify€the€petitionerððsÐ  p Ðcounsel,€which€order€was€expressly€adopted€by€the€post„conviction€court€in€its€ruling,€Judge€ClarkÐ  \ Ðnoted€that€Ð øH Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ‡XM XXXM Ô[Quillenððs€and€Flanaganððs]€statements€in€open€court€indicate€.€.€.€thatÐ ä4 Ðthey€are€associated€with€one€another€in€the€practice€of€law€in€the€sameÐ Ð  Ðfirm.€€Each€has€been€retained€to€represent€co„defendants,€who€areÐ ¼  Ðboth€charged€with€first€degree€murder,€felony€murder,€and€theft€ofÐ ¨ø Ðproperty.€€The€lawyers€have€further€stated€in€open€court€that€they€haveÐ ”ä Ðbeen€sensitive€to€the€potential€for€conflict€of€interest€since€theÐ €Ð Ðbeginning€of€the€representation,€have€exchanged€no€information€withÐ l¼ Ðone€another,€and€will€continue€to€exercise€independent€judgment€inÐ X ¨ Ðthe€representation€of€their€co„defendant€clients.€€ÐD!”` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€Ð0"€ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€this€case,€the€Court€has€on€two€occasions€examined€the€defendantsÐ #l! Ðunder€oath€in€open€court€about€their€right€to€effective€assistance€ofÐ $X" Ðcounsel,€including€separate€representation.€€The€Court€has€furtherÐ ô$D # Ðaddressed€the€defendants€concerning€the€written€waivers€they€haveÐ à%0!$ Ðexecuted.€€Through€the€course€of€discussions€defendants€have€beenÐ Ì&"% Ðmade€aware€of€the€prospect€that€the€State€may€be€planning€to€treatÐ ¸'#& Ðtheir€cases€differently,€and€may€in€fact€be€seeking€to€bargain€with€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsolicit€the€testimony€of€one€co„defendant€against€the€other€as€the€caseÐ )à$( Ðprogresses.€€It€is€clear€that€a€potential€conflict€of€interest€exists,€but€allÐ |*Ì%) Ðparties€are€fully€aware€of€that€potential.Ðh+¸&*` x` x ÐÑ!OYÑâ !âѰ°Ñâ !âÑ  Ñà  àà ` à.€.€.€Ð ° Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[B]oth€defendants€have€been€fully€advised€of€the€consequences€[ofÐ œì Ðjoint€representation]€by€their€counsel€and€by€the€Court,€and€the€courtÐ ˆØ Ðfinds€that€their€waivers€[of€the€right€to€conflict„free€counsel]€areÐ tÄ Ðknowing€and€voluntary.€€Ô#†XM XXXM îP#ÔÐ`°` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àReviewing€all€of€the€evidence€from€the€trial€and€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€post„Ð 8 ˆ Ðconviction€court€concluded€thatÐ $ t Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ‡XM XXXM Ô€there€is€very€little,€if€any,€additional€evidence€at€this€post€trial€stageÐ  ` Ðthat€supports€any€more€of€a€conflict€exist€now€than€at€the€time€of€theÐ ü L  Ð[order€denying€the€disqualification€of€petitionerððs€counsel].€.€.€.€Ð è 8  ÐConflict(s)€and€all,€Mr.€Quillen€was€the€petitionerððs€counsel€of€choiceÐ Ô$  Ðand€the€petitioner€went€into€this€prosecution€with€his€eyes€wide€openÐ À  Ðto€that€fact.€€The€Court€should€not€overrule€the€informed€decision€ofÐ ¬ü  Ða€defendant€who€knowingly€and€intelligently€waives€the€conflict€andÐ ˜è  Ðagrees€to€accept€the€consequences.Ð„Ô ` x` x Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€Ð pÀ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€conflict€of€interest€was€one€imposed€on€Quillen€by€the€petitionerÐ \¬ Ðand€this€is€not€the€kind€of€conflict€that€would€render€hisÐ H˜ Ðrepresentation€constitutionally€infirmed€and€require€relief€under€theÐ 4„ ÐòòStricklandóó€inquiry.€€Ð p` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFurthermore,€there€is€no€evidence€that€even€if€Quillen€had€abandonedÐ øH Ðrepresentation€of€the€petitioner€that€the€result€of€the€trial€would€haveÐ ä4 Ðbeen€different.€€Indeed€it€is€reasonable€to€believe€that€the€State€wouldÐ Ð  Ðstill€present€Walkerððs€testimony€and€the€jury€would€have€accreditedÐ ¼  Ðhis€testimony€and€convicted€the€petitioner.€€There€is€no€evidence€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€Quillenððs€representationÐ ”ä Ðthat€a€finder€of€fact€would€have€had€a€reasonable€doubt€regarding€theÐ €Ð Ðpetitionerððs€guilt.€€Ô#†XM XXXM ×Z#Ô€Ðl¼` x` x ÐWe€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions.€€We€conclude€that€Ð X ¨ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àthe€record€[has]€establish[ed]€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatÐ D!” Ð(a)€the€trial€court€advised€that€defendant€of€his€right€to€conflict„freeÐ 0"€  Ðrepresentation,€(b)€the€defendant€was€aware€of€his€right€to€separateÐ #l! Ðcounsel,€(c)€the€defendant€was€aware€that€an€actual€conflict€of€interestÐ $X" Ðexisted,€and€(d)€the€defendant€realized€and€appreciated€the€impact€thatÐ ô$D # Ðthe€conflict€would€have€upon€his€defense€if€he€opted€for€jointÐ à%0!$ Ðrepresentation.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐòòPolkóó,€No.€1194,€1991€WL€188885,€at€*10.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€òòSeeóó€òòRobert€Lloyd€WigginsÐ ¸'#& Ðv.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9605„CC„00191,€1997€WL€124253,€at€*12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,Ð ¤(ô#' ÐMarch€20,€1997);€òòÔ‡XM XXXM Ôsee€alsoóóÔ#†XM XXXM f#Ô€òòAntonio€Chaney€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9807„CR„00223,€1999€WL€504513,Ð )à$( Ðat€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€July€16,€1999).€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà0  àà ° àà@ìì*ì(#(#àˆÐ h+¸&* ÐÑ"OYÑâ "âѰ°Ñâ "âÑ  Ñà@ðð!ìàB.€€Search€WarrantˆÐ ° Ðà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€Quillen€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€challenge€theÐ œì Ðfactual€allegations€in€the€application€for€a€search€warrant€and€the€accompanying€affidavit.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðpetitioner€claims€that€this€failure€led€to€the€dismissal€of€the€motion€to€suppress€and,€ultimately,€toÐ tÄ Ðthe€presentation€of€certain€scientific€evidence€at€trial.€€Particularly,€the€petitioner€contends€thatÐ `° ÐQuillen€should€have€argued€that,€in€Inspector€Stinsonððs€affidavit€underlying€the€search€warrant,Ð L œ ÐInspector€Stinson€incorrectly€noted€that€the€petitionerððs€whereabouts€between€4:30€p.m.€and€7:45Ð 8 ˆ Ðp.m.€the€day€of€the€murder€were€unknown.€€We€note€that€the€record€reflects€that€Quillen€didÐ $ t Ðchallenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€search€warrant;€however,€he€did€not€raise€the€specific€facts€of€whichÐ  ` Ðthe€petitioner€complains.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€raised€a€complaint€as€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€factsÐ Ô$  Ðunderlying€the€search€warrant.€€This€court€concluded€that€Ð À  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[t]he€sufficiency€of€the€search€warrant€is€therefore€to€be€determinedÐ ¬ü  Ðby€the€federal€standard,€which€is€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€testÐ ˜è  Ðfor€probable€cause.Ð„Ô ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€.€ÐpÀ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€subject€affidavit€is€detailed€and€in€proper€form.€€It€contains€aÐ \¬ Ðthorough€chronological€account€of€events€and€allegations,€and€anÐ H˜ Ðexplanation€of€the€corroboration€of€many€of€those€points.€€TheÐ 4„ Ðsources€are€sufficiently€defined.€€In€summary,€it€contains€ampleÐ  p Ðappropriate€information€to€allow€the€issuing€judge€to€make€theÐ  \ Ðnecessary€neutral€and€detached€determinations€as€to€credibility€andÐ øH Ðreliability.€€Probable€cause€is€well€established.Ðä4` x` x ÐòòBryan€R.€Hanley€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00266,€1997€WL€469430,€at€**4„5€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€at€Nashville,€August€15,€1997).€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€light€of€this€determination,€we€note€that€the€contested€portion€of€the€affidavitÐ ”ä Ðconstitutes€only€a€small€portion€of€the€detailed€account€underlying€the€search€warrant.€€òòCf.óó€òòJohnnyÐ €Ð ÐRutherford€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E1999„00932„CCA„R3„PC,€2000€WL€246411,€at€**10„11€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð l¼ ÐApp.€at€Knoxville,€March€6,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2000);€òòBrett€Allen€Patterson€v.Ð X ¨ ÐStateóó,€No.€01C01„9805„CC„00221,€1999€WL€701455,€at€**7„9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,Ð D!” ÐSeptember€10,€1999).€€Moreover,€we€also€note€that€the€testimony€describing€the€petitionerððsÐ 0"€  Ðwhereabouts€to€Inspector€Stinson€is€somewhat€inconsistent.€€For€example,€in€the€deposition€of€aÐ #l! Ðformer€co„employee€of€the€petitioner,€Ron€Powers,€which€deposition€was€admitted€into€evidence€atÐ $X" Ðthe€post„conviction€hearing,€Powers€contends€that€the€petitioner€did€not€leave€work€until€6:00€or€6:30Ð ô$D # Ðp.m.€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€€The€petitionerððs€father€alleged€that,€on€the€day€of€the€offense,€theÐ à%0!$ Ðpetitioner€was€at€his€house€at€6:00€p.m.€€The€petitionerððs€mother€speculated€that€the€petitioner€visitedÐ Ì&"% Ðat€5:30€p.m.€€Therefore,€Inspector€Stinsonððs€statement€regarding€the€uncertainty€surrounding€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpetitionerððs€whereabouts€during€the€time€frame€in€question€is€well„founded.€€The€petitioner€has€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdemonstrated€either€a€deficiency€in€Quillenððs€performance€on€this€issue€or€that€he€experienced€aÐ )à$( Ðdetriment€to€his€defense€as€a€result€of€that€deficiency.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€also€without€merit.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐÑ#OYÑâ #âѰ°Ñâ #âÑ  Ñà@WW"ìàC.€€InvestigationˆÐ ° Ðà  àà ` àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€Quillen€was€ineffective€because€he€inadequatelyÐ œì Ðinvestigated€the€petitionerððs€case€in€the€following€respects:€(1)€he€failed€to€locate€and€interviewÐ ˆØ ÐWilliam€Wise,€a€person€who€saw€someone€driving€a€mail€truck€in€the€area€where€the€victimððs€bodyÐ tÄ Ðwas€found€and€who€described€that€person€in€a€manner€inconsistent€with€the€petitioner;€(2)€he€failedÐ `° Ðto€effectively€communicate€with€the€petitioner€as€to€the€scientific€evidence€that€was€provided€by€theÐ L œ ÐState;€and€(3)€he€failed€to€interview€Walker,€the€Stateððs€key€witness.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€maintains€that€Quillen€should€have€interviewed€Wise€concerningÐ  ` ÐWiseððs€description€of€a€person€driving€a€mail€truck€on€Bucksnort€Road.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€petitioner€contends€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€description€indicates€that€the€person€described€was€wearing€a€disguise€and€there€was€no€testimonyÐ è 8  Ðthat€the€petitioner€wore€a€disguise€during€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€Accordingly,€the€petitionerÐ Ô$  Ðargues,€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€someone€other€than€the€petitioner€committed€the€chargedÐ À  Ðoffenses.€€Quillenððs€son,€Kenneth€Quillen,€did€Quillenððs€investigative€work€on€the€petitionerððs€case.€Ð ¬ü  ÐHe€described€Wiseððs€description€as€ð ðgoofyðð€and€concluded€that€interviewing€Wise€would€not€haveÐ ˜è  Ðbeem€helpful.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€the€testimony€would€have€exonerated€him.€€However,€theÐ „Ô  Ðpetitioner€did€not€present€the€testimony€of€Wise€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€This€court€may€notÐ pÀ Ðspeculate€as€to€the€content€of€a€witnessðð€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€Ô‡XM XXXM ÔòòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.Ð \¬ ÐCrim.€App.€1990).Ô#†XM XXXM a€#Ô€The€petitioner€has€not€met€his€burden€of€demonstrating€ineffective€assistance€orÐ H˜ Ðprejudice€in€this€instance.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€Quillen€did€not€adequately€review€the€scientificÐ  \ Ðevidence€with€him€prior€to€trial.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€most€of€the€scientific€evidence€wasÐ øH Ðinconclusive€and€did€not€connect€him€to€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€Regardless€of€theÐ ä4 Ðpetitionerððs€contentions,€the€record€reflects€that€Quillen€thoroughly€cross„examined€TennesseeÐ Ð  ÐBureau€of€Investigation€forensic€scientist€Audrey€Shaw€regarding€some€of€the€lab€results€andÐ ¼  Ðsuggested€alternatives€other€than€the€petitionerððs€guilt€for€the€presence€of€the€shotgun€buffer€materialÐ ¨ø Ðpolypropylene€which€was€found€near€the€victimððs€body€and€in€the€petitionerððs€truck.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€petitionerÐ ”ä Ðalso€argues€that€the€lab€results€of€the€materials€from€the€crime€scene€did€not€reveal€the€presence€ofÐ €Ð Ðhairs,€fibers,€or€tire€tracks€matching€the€petitioner€or€his€truck,€thereby€proving€that€he€could€not€haveÐ l¼ Ðbeen€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€However,€Walker€testified€at€trial€that,€subsequent€to€the€murder€andÐ X ¨ Ðtheft,€the€petitioner€destroyed€his€tires€and€bought€new€ones€and€the€petitioner€also€pressure€cleanedÐ D!” Ðhis€truck,€thus€providing€an€explanation€for€the€test€results.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrateÐ 0"€  Ðprejudice.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€petitioner€argues€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€interviewÐ ô$D # ÐWalker€prior€to€trial.€€Flanagan,€Walkerððs€attorney,€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€thatÐ à%0!$ ÐWalker€would€not€have€talked€to€Quillen€if€Quillen€had€pursued€an€interview.€€Moreover,€theÐ Ì&"% Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€present€specific€evidence€to€establish€how€interviewing€Walker€prior€to€trialÐ ° Ðwould€have€changed€the€proceedings.€€This€courtððs€opinion€on€direct€appeal€notes€that,€ð ð[i]n€hisÐ œì Ðcross„examination€of€Walker,€appellantððs€skilled€attorney€[Quillen]€vigorously€challenged€theÐ ˆØ Ðtruthfulness€of€Walkerððs€testimony€on€direct.€€The€inconsistencies€between€Walkerððs€testimonyÐ tÄ Ðbefore€the€federal€grand€jury€and€at€trial€were€emphasized.ðð€€òòHanleyóó,€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00266,Ð `° Ð1997€WL€469430,€at€*5.€€Accordingly,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€that€he€was€prejudiced€byÐ L œ Ðcounselððs€failure€to€interview€Walker€prior€to€trial.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@MM"ìàòòò òIII.€€ConclusionˆÐ  ` Ðà  àà ` àóóó óFinding€no€reversible€error,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð ü L  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌà  àà ` àÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE