WPC :xnjl͎1g⼩ h_y/ƌ TdgoBQm_|gRQ~5f3t=ortjy4@B\60±G\~29h& szoC]x~D"J_䷙@DoRXX|]A# Or @j257`Z}Gݼ?Fj+hUQXk9Lkְh7mK2ޏ:Zl7{Ljl2]WU ) GB9N\Aƭ&G=[J-c̘ e y4b]ÄG/;_Ȝ7%K.wsgFMm-oJնdnZeBM4EUq_,r]nG5i, d_J>Ò R!b#\ % ^ # 0/ U;N w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1U>N5'77E^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^b``````````````````````````` h z    0Dx 0 B4 0 D3 D- 0K ASG 0` 0D AHHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0Ӳ-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularPH,:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5\  `&Times New Roman  R$      2    _ԀTrialcounselindicatedthathedidnotlearnthatthepetitionerhadbeenpresentatthesceneofthecrimeuntil  afterthetrial. - -7421-37421-47421-57421-67421-7 R$      1    _ԀThisindividualwasnotacodefendant. (#$  0  (|G2$ !.8Ydd8         0   d * R$      3    _ԀWhilemotiveisnotanelementneededtobeproveninordertosupportaconvictionformurder,jurorsoften  requiresuchexplanatoryproofbeforetheywillconvictanaccusedofthisoffense.Wealsonotethattheassailants t identitymustbeproveninamurdercase,andthisCourthasobservedthatmotivemaybehelpfulinprovingidentity. 8 SeeStatev.FrankieE._Casteel_,No.E199900076CCAR3CD,2001Tenn._Crim_.App.LEXIS248,at*31(Tenn._Crim_. L App.atKnoxville,Apr.5,2001).(|3$ !.8Ydd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Ydd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ydd8     _   Y81XXdd8@tt@YINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#Y@ #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsOctober17,2001 L X1XY #YXX1!#MARIOHAWKINSv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX1XY  J  PostConvictionAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.95D2368SteveDozier,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M200002901CCAR3CDFiledJuly31,_2002_   AV) ` dE<` A       X1XXX1  Afterajuvenilecourttransferredthepetitionerscase,aDavidsonCountygrandjuryindicted   thepetitionerononecountoffirstdegreemurder. Followingajurytrial,thepetitionerstood x  convictedofthisoffenseandforthisconvictionreceivedalifesentence. Thereafterhe d unsuccessfullysoughtreliefthroughadirectappeal.SeeStatev.MarioHawkins,No.01C019701 P CR00014,1998Tenn._Crim_.App.LEXIS685,at*2,*21(Tenn._Crim_.App.atNashville,July2, < 1998).Subsequently,hefiledaprosepetitionforpostconvictionreliefandwasappointedcounsel. (x  Counselfiledanamendedpetitionallegingineffectiveassistanceoftrialcounsel. Afterconducting d ahearingonthismatter,thetrialcourtdeniedthepetitionerthereliefrequested. Throughthisappeal T thepetitionercontinuestoassertthattrialcounselprovidedineffectiveassistancebyfailingto D adequatelyinvestigatethepetitionersmentalhealthandutilizethisinformationasadefensetothe 0 firstdegreemurdercharge.However,afterreviewingthisassertion,wefindittolackmerit.We,  therefore,affirmthetrialcourtsdenialofthepostconvictionpetition.#X1XX X1##YXX1#X1XY   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisAffirmed.     #YX1 #X1X.YJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,_P.J._,andDavid h H.Welles,J.,joined. T  DwightE.Scott,Nashville,Tennessee,forappellant,MarioHawkins. ,"|! PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;_T.E._ԀWilliams,III,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; $T# VictorS.Johnson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andKimberlyHaas,AssistantDistrictAttorney $@ $ General,forappellee,StateofTennessee. %,!%  @@OO& OPINION #YXX1 #X1XY '#' #YXX1#X1XY   X1XXX1@!FactualBackground  )$)   Inordertoaddresstheissueraised,afactualbackgroundisneededfromboththepetitioners d+&+ trialandfromhispostconvictionpetitionhearing.Withrespecttotheproofattrial,thisCourt P,', summarizedtheevidenceasfollowsinhandlingthepetitionersdirectappeal:S-(<-( S#X1XX X1d#X1XXX1 -(-     8  #X1XXX1^#X1XXX1Atapproximately6:30p.m.onJanuary11,1995,MetroPolicefoundfifteenyearold  Cedric_Mosley_Ԁlayingfacedowninapoolofbloodonasidewalknearthe  CumberlandViewhousingprojectinNorthNashville.Thevictimwastransported  toahospitalwherehediedearlythenextmorningasa resultofshotgunwoundsto t theheadandrighthip,theprimarycontributorbeingshotgunpelletwoundinjuries ` tothebrain.Earlierthatafternoon,around5:00p.m.,thevictimandLamont L  McDonaldhadbeeninvolvedinaheatedargumentover agirl.Theargument 8  subsidedandMcDonaldleftupsetovertheencounter.Shortlybefore6:30p.m., $ t McDonaldandthreeassociates,lateridentifiedastheappellant,LamontJohnson,  ` andKevinWalker,returnedtotheCumberlandViewhousingprojecttolookfor  L  _Mosley_.Asaresultoftheconductwhichfollowed,allfourmenweresubsequently  8  indictedforthefirstdegreemurderofCedric_Mosley_. $   Attrial,theStatepresentedthetestimonyofcodefendantsKevinWalkerand   Lamont% I #X1XXX1#%IxX1XXX1ԀJohnson.AlsotestifyingasmaterialwitnessesfortheStatewereRodney   Walker,OtisStewart,andMarioGray.BothRodneyWalkerandKevinWalker   observedtheinitialencounterbetween_Mosley_ԀandMcDonald.Fifteenyearold p RodneyWalkertestifiedthatneither_Mosley_ԀnorMcDonaldwasarmedwitha \ weapon.Hestatedthatthealtercationwasmerelyverbal,involvingsomeswearing, H but,nophysicalinteraction.NineteenyearoldKevinWalker,acodefendant, 4 testifiedthathealsowitnessedtheargument.Duringthealtercation,KevinWalker  p remainedinMcDonalds1995greenFordTaurus.Althoughhedidnotseeeither  \ partyarmedwithaweaponduringtheinitialencounter,hestatedthat,shortlyafter H thisconfrontation,heobservedCedric_Mosley_Ԁwithagun.Aftertheargument 4 subsided,LamontMcDonaldandKevinWalkerlefttheareainMcDonaldscar.    KevinWalkertestifiedthat,whenMcDonaldreturnedtothecar,hewasveryangry.  McDonaldpagedLamontJohnson.Johnsontestifiedthat,duringhistelephone  conversationwithMcDonald,McDonaldsounded upsetand furious.McDonald  thenproceededtoahouseonDouglasStreetinEastNashville,laterdeterminedto l bethehomeoftheappellant,% J #X1XXX1#%J?X1XXX1ԀwherethetwoyoungmenjoinedLamontJohnson. X  Shortlythereafter,theappellantreturnedtohishomeonDouglasStreet.Johnson, D! McDonald,andtheappellantengagedinabriefdiscussion,afterwhich,thefourmen 0"  lefttheappellantshousearmedwithtwotwelvegaugeshotgunsandone.32caliber #l! handgun.McDonaldwasarmedwiththehandgun,whiletheappellantandJohnson $X" eachwereinpossessionofasawedoffshotgun. $D #  ThegroupproceededtoabirthdaypartyforJohnsonsyoungersister,wheretheyate &"% birthdaycakeandicecream.TheweaponsremainedinMcDonaldsvehicle.The '#& groupthenleftthepartyandheadedtowardCumberlandViewhousingproject. (#' Walkertestifiedthat,althoughheneverheardanyconversationaboutwhattheothers )$( intendedtodo,hewasundertheimpressionthattheyplannedtoscaresomebody, |*%) namelyCedric_Mosley_.McDonaldinformedtheothersthathe% K #X1XXX1#%K.#X1XXX1Ԁbelievedthat_Mosley_ h+&* wouldbeintheareaof25thAvenueNorth,becausethatiswherehelikedto hang  out.McDonaldparkedhiscaron26thAvenueNorth.McDonald,Johnson,andthe  appellantexitedthevehicle,eacharmedwithaweapon.Walkerremainedinthe  vehiclewiththedoorslocked.Outsidethecar,Johnsonpositionedhimselfbehinda t tree,whileMcDonaldandtheappellantbeganlookingforthevictim. `  McDonaldandtheappellantencounteredCedric_Mosley_,whowastalkingwithOtis 8  StewartandMarioGray.McDonaldhadhisweaponpointedat_Mosley_._Mosley_Ԁand $ t hiscompanionswerenotarmed.McDonaldand_Mosley_Ԁarguedbriefly.Stewart  ` testifiedthat_Mosley_ԀbeggedhimtotellMcDonald,hiscousin,to quitandleavehim  L  alone.StewartbeggedMcDonaldtoputthegundown,butherefused.McDonald  8  thenfiredhisweaponintotheair._Mosley_ԀagaintoldMcDonaldtoleavehimalone. $  _Mosley_ԀandStewartbeganrunning.LamontJohnson,whoremainedhidingbehind   atree,testifiedthattheappellantthenfiredhisshotgun,hitting_Mosley_Ԁintheupper   body.Theappellantfiredagain,hitting_Mosley_,whohadthenfallentotheground,   asecondtime.Theappellantplaceda sluginhis% L #X1XXX1o##%L*X1XXX1shotgunandstatedthat he   wantedtoputthisinthemf.Allthreeshotsfiredbytheappellantstruckthe p helpless_Mosley_.While_Mosley_Ԁlaywoundedonthepavement,theappellant, \ Johnson,andMcDonaldranbacktoMcDonaldsvehicle. H  `  Onceinthecar,McDonaldstatedtotheothers, Hesnotdead,hesnotdead....  p Man,Ivegottomakesurehesdead,youknow.Thegroupthendrovebacktothe  \ appellantsresidence.UponarrivingattheappellantsEastNashvilleresidence,the H appellantunloadedtheweaponsfromthevehicleandinformedhismotherthat he 4 hadsmokedhimamf.    Attheappellantstrial,OtisStewart,RodneyWalker,andMarioGray,thethreenon  accompliceeyewitnesses,testifiedthattheindividualthathadshot_Mosley_Ԁthree  timeswithashotgunwaswearingablackandpurple_Fila_Ԁcoatwiththehoodpulled  overhishead.Theproofrevealedthattheappellantwaswearinga_Fila_Ԁcoatonthe l nightof% M #X1XXX1 +#%M0X1XXX1themurderandthatneitherJohnsonnorMcDonaldwerewearingsucha X  coat.Moreover,MarioGray,whileonthestand,identifiedtheappellantasthe D! shooter. 0"   Baseduponthisevidence,thejuryreturnedaguiltyverdictofpremeditatedfirst $X" degreemurder.$D #   Id.at*2*7. 3&!$   Athispostconvictionhearingthepetitionerpresentedtestimonyfromhisformercounsel, ($& hismother,andhimself.Formercounselstatedthathehadbeenawarethatthepetitionerhadaprior )$' historyinjuvenilecourt. Theattorneyexplainedthathehadpursuedanidentitydefensebecausehe *%( hadreasontobelievethattheonlyindividualswhowouldidentifythepetitionerwerethepetitioners u+&) codefendants. Formercounseladdedthatoneoftheseindividuals wasaverybadwitnessforthe  Stateandthatcounselhadessentiallydestroyedthiswitnesscredibilityoncrossexamination.   Furthermore,thoughcounselacknowledgedthatanotherofthecodefendantshadmadeagood,  straightforwardStatewitness,counselstilldidnotthinkthattheStatewouldbeabletosufficiently x corroboratethecodefendantsaccountsofthecrime. However,counselrecalledthattheStateslast d witness,O Q#  1      ׀whohadbeenpresentattheshootingbuthadneverbeforebeenabletoidentifythe P  petitionerastheshooter,wasattrialabletoidentifythepetitionerastheshooter.Accordingtotrial <  counselthewitnessalsoadmittedthatthelightinghadbeenbadthatnight,thattheassailantsface ( x hadbeencovered,andthathe(thiswitness)hadnotpreviouslytoldanyonethathecouldidentify  d thepetitionerastheshooter. Nevertheless,thewitnessclaimedthathecouldidentifythepetitioner  P  byheight. Counselindicatedthatsuchastatementwas ridiculousunlesstheheightsinvolvedwere  <  extreme. ,     Concerningthepetitionerssocialandmedicalhistory,trialcounselacknowledgedthathe Z  couldnotrecallwhetherhehadreviewedthepetitionersjuvenileandschoolrecordspriortotrial F  butstatedthathehadbeenawarethatthepetitionerwasnotintelligent. Becauseofthis,counsel 2 indicatedthathehadoccasionallyneededtoexplainsometopicstothepetitioneroverandover "r again.However,counselfoundthepetitionertobe fairlystreetsmartwithsomeconcept ofwhat ^ [was]goingon. Whilecounselcouldnotrecallaskingthepetitionersmotheraboutthepetitioners J mentalcondition,counselindicatedthatshehadnotbroughtthisissuetohisattention. Trialcounsel 6 alsoreadfromanadministrativereportreflectingthatthepetitionerhada severepersonality " disorder,andthewitnessacknowledgedthathehadbeenunawareofthis. Nevertheless,counsel  maintainedthathedidnot thinkthejurywouldhaveboughtadefensebasedonthis. Hefurther  opinedthatthistypeofdefensemighthaveopenedthedoortoevidenceharmfultothepetitioner  suchasthepetitionersjuvenilehistoryinvolvingrobberyandassaults. Additionally,counselwas  concernedthattheStatemighthavecalledthepetitionersmothertotestifyandelicitedproof z favorabletotheprosecutionfromher. Formercounselalsosawdangerinmakingthejuryawarethat f thepetitionerwasimpulsiveandhadpreviouslyexperiencedhomicidalideation. Thoughcounsel V ultimatelyacknowledgedthatsuchhistorycouldhavebeenusedtonegatethedeliberationelement F applicableinfirstdegreemurdercasesatthattime,hemaintainedthathedidnotthinkthatthis 2  knowledgewouldhavecausedhimtodeviatefromtheidentitydefensepresented. Underquestioning !n bythetrialcourt,formercounselconcludedbystating, Idontfaultthat[thepetitioner]hadsome  "Z mentalissues.Ijustdontthinkthattheyrosetothepointofbeingexculpatoryinnature.  "F    Thepetitionernextcalledhismother. Thiswitnesstestifiedthatthepetitionerhadproblems t% " beforethefamilyhadmovedtoNashville;thatheaccidentallyhurtotherchildrenwhenplayingwith `&!# them;andthatshehadbeenunawarethatthepetitionerreceivedsupplementalsecurityincome L'"$ benefitsbecausehesufferedfromaseverepersonalitydisorder. Shehadbelievedthatthebenefits 8(#% weregiventohimbecausehewas slow. Sheaddedthattrialcounselhadneveraskedherabout $)t$& thepetitionerspsychologicalproblemsbutthattheattorneyhadbeenawarethatthepetitioner  receiveddisabilitybenefitssincethesecheckspaidfortheattorneysservices. Hertestimonyalso  providedvaryingdetailsaboutthepetitionersbehavior.Forexample,sherelatedthatthepetitioner  waseasilyangered;wouldwalkawayandtalktohimselfwhenangry;couldnotcontrolhisimpulses; t hashithisbrother;buthasnotactedviolentlyonimpulseasfarassheknew.  `   Finally,thepetitionertestifiedonhisownbehalf.Headmittedthathehadjuvenilerobbery  . andassaultcharges. Regardinghisschoolhistory,heacknowledgedthathehadfoughtatevery   institutionhehadattended,includingthelast,whichwassaidtobe aschoolforchildrenwhohave   behavioralproblems. Headdedthathehadbroughtaguntoschoolandhadreceivednumerous    suspensions. Thereafterthepetitionerstatedthathehadtroublecontrollinghisanger. Concerning   thevictiminthiscase,thepetitionertestifiedthathehadnotknownhimandhadnoreasontohave z  shothim. Atthepostconvictionhearingthepetitionerclaimedtohavebeenfrustratedandstressed f  aroundthetimeoftheoffensebecauseofthethenrecentdeathofhisgrandmother,theshooting R  deathsoftwoofhisfriends,andadrivebyshootingintovariousfamilycarsandhishome. The >  petitioneralsotestifiedthatatthetimeoftheoffensehehadbeenundertheinfluenceofbeer,liquor, *z marijuana,andcocaine. Withrespecttohismentalhealthhistory,thepetitioneraverredthathehad f beenawareofhislearningdisabilitybutthathehadnotknownaboutanyoftheabovereferenced R psychologicalproblems. Healsoindicatedthattrialcounselhadnotaskedifhehadbeen > psychologicallyevaluated. Regardingotherconversationswithcounsel,thepetitioneradmittedthat * hehadoriginallydeniedbeingtheshooterbuthadconfessedtocounselapproximatelyoneweek  thereafter. Q#  2      #X1XXX11#X1XXX1ԀFurthermore,thepetitionerstatedthathehadunderstoodsomeaspectsofthediscussion  ofhisdefensewithtrialcounsel,butthepetitionercouldnotrecallwhichpartshehadnot  understood.     Attheconclusionofthisproof,thetrialcourttookthematterunderadvisement.Througha  \ subsequentlyfiledorder,thetrialcourtdeniedthepetition.  H  #X1XXX1Q# X1XXX1    PostConvictionStandardofReview v   gS  Inanalyzingthisappeal,wefirstnotethatapetitionerbringingapost-convictionpetition "D bearstheburdenofprovingtheallegationsassertedinthepetitionbyclearandconvincingevidence. #0 SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f).Moreover,thetrialcourtsfindingsoffact areconclusive $  onappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment._Tidwell_Ԁv.State,922S.W.2d %!! 497,500(Tenn.1996);Campbellv.State,904S.W.2d594,596(Tenn.1995);Cooperv.State,849 &!" S.W.2d744,746(Tenn.1993). '"#    ($$ IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel       Asabovenoted,thepetitionerclaimsthatformercounselprovidedineffectiveassistanceby .~ failingtoinvestigatethepetitionersmentalhistoryandbyfailingtousethishistoryinanattempt j tonegatethepremeditationanddeliberationelementsrequiredtoprovefirstdegreemurderatthe  V timeofthepetitionerstrial. Whenapetitionerseekspost-convictionreliefonthebasisofineffective  B assistance,thepetitionermustprove that(a)theservicesrenderedbytrialcounselweredeficient  . and(b)thedeficientperformancewasprejudicial.Powersv.State,942S.W.2d551,558(Tenn.   _Crim_.App.1996).Tosatisfythedeficientperformanceprongofthistest,thepetitionermust   establishthattheservicerenderedortheadvicegivenwasbelow therangeofcompetence    demandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).   Furthermore,todemonstratetheprejudicerequired,thepetitioner mustshowthatthereisa z  reasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselsdeficientperformance, theresultoftheproceeding f  wouldhavebeendifferent._Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668,694,104S.Ct.2052,2068, R  80L.Ed.2d674(1984). Becauseapetitionermustestablishbothprongsofthetesttoprevailon >  aclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,failuretoproveeitherdeficientperformanceorresulting *z prejudiceprovidesasufficientbasistodenyreliefontheclaim.Henleyv.State,960S.W.2d572, f 580(Tenn.1997).Infact, acourtneednotaddressthecomponentsinanyparticularorderoreven R addressbothifthe[petitioner]makesaninsufficientshowingofonecomponent.Id.#X1XX X1   Turningtotheinstantcase,thepetitionercorrectlypointsoutthat,e#X1XXX1_# X1XXX1ffectiveJuly1,1995,the l statelegislatureamendedTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913202(a)(1),inpart,byomitting X theword deliberatetherefrom.See#X1XX X1@`#X1XXX1Tenn.CodeAnn.3913202(Supp.1995)(notationoutlining D amendment).#X1XXX1Wa# X1XXX1OnthesameeffectivedateTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913201(b)was 0 deletedfromourcode.See#X1XX X1a#X1XXX1Tenn.CodeAnn.3913201(1997)(SentencingCommission l Comments).#X1XXX1b# X1XXX1Aportionofthissubsectionhadprovidedthedefinitionofadeliberateactasbeing X  #X1XX X1[c#X1XXX1oneperformedwithacoolpurpose.#X1XXX1 d#X1XXX1ԀTenn.CodeAnn.3913201(b)(Supp.1994).#X1XXX1td#X1XXX1Sincethis D offensewascommittedinJanuaryof1995,thepriorstatuteappliedtothiscrime;therefore,the 0 pertinentportionofthisstatutedefinedfirstdegreemurderas [_a]#X1XXX1d#X1XXX1n_Ԁintentional,premeditatedand  deliberatekillingofanother.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913202(a)(1)(Supp.1994)(emphasisadded).   Inaddition,weobservethatprecedentprovidesthat #X1XXX1f#X1XXX1premeditationrequiresproofofaprevious ! intenttokill,whiledeliberationrequiresproofofacoolpurposethatincludessomeperiodof " reflectionduringwhichthemindisfreefrompassionandexcitement.Statev.Bush,942S.W.2d |#  489,501(Tenn.1997);seealso,e.g.,Statev.Brown,836S.W.2d530,53940(Tenn.1992). h$!   Beyondthisbackground,thepetitionerpointstoanattorneys dutytomakereasonable &6"# investigationsortomakeareasonabledecisionthatmakesparticularinvestigationsunnecessary. '"#$ _Strickland_,466U.S.at691,104S.Ct.at2066.However,thisCourtisalsomindfulthatwearenot ($%  tosecondguesstacticalandstrategicalchoicespertainingtodefensemattersormeasureadefense )$& attorneysrepresentationby2020hindsightindecidingineffectiveassistanceofcounselmatters. *%' Cooper,849S.W.2dat746. +&( Ї  Decliningtoemploysuchhindsight,wefindthatthepetitionerhasfailedtoprovehis  contentionsbyclearandconvincingevidence.Morespecifically,wedeterminethatthepetitioner  hasnotshownthatcounselrendereddeficientperformancebyelectingnottoassertadefensebased  onthepetitionersmentalhistoryorthatprejudiceresultedfromtrialcounselsallegedfailures.#X1XXX1Vg#X1XXX1ԀIn t viewofthelatter,weneednotevenreachtheissueofwhethercounselshouldhavemorethoroughly ` investigatedthepetitionersmentalhistory.#X1XXX1m#X1XXX1 L    Attheoutsetofouranalysis,weobservethatformercounselbroughtmuchexperienceto   bearuponthehandlingofthiscase.Hehadpracticedlawsince1968withcriminalcasescomprising   aroundsixtypercentofhiscaseload. Inaddition,heagreedthathislegalcareerhadincluded     extensivecontactwithjuveniledelinquents,andbythetimeofthehearing,hehadbecomea   juvenilecourtreferee. Beyondthis,counselstatedthathehadbeeninvolvedwithothermurdercases z  inbothjuvenileandcriminalcourtsandhadhandledjurytrials. Asabovenoted,counselbelieved j  thatattackingtheStatesidentificationofthepetitionerwasthebestdefenseforthepetitioner. Z    Infindingaswedo,weremainmindfuloftheweaknessesinvolvedinthedefensepursued ( attrial.Forexample,codefendantsofthepetitioneridentifiedhimastheassailant.Othersindicated  thattheshooterhadworna_Fila_Ԁcoat,andwitnessestestifiedthatthepetitionerworea_Fila_Ԁcoat.   However,trialcounselagreed thattheStateswitnesseswerenotexactlychoirboys,and,assuch,  manyweresubjecttocrossexaminationattackingtheircredibility. Regardingtheco  defendants/accomplicestestimony,counselhadbelievedthattheStatewouldlacksufficient x corroborationthereof.Weobservethatthecorroborativeevidencespecificallyreferencedbythis d Courtinaffirmingtheconvictionondirectappealwastheaforementionedincourtidentificationby P anonaccomplice.#X1XXX1o# X1XXX1SeeMarioHawkins,1998Tenn._Crim_.App.LEXIS685,at*11*12.#X1XX X1v#X1XXX1ԀYetthis < appearstohavebeenunanticipatedbyboththeStateandthedefense.Assuch,thissituation (x classicallyrepresentsthetypeinwhichwearenottoutilize 2020hindsight.#X1XXX1w#X1XXX1Furthermore,the d StatearguablyexperiencedsomedifficultysupplyingthejurywithamotiveW Q#  3      ׀explainingwhythe P petitionerwouldhaveshotandkilledthevictimsincenothingindicatedthatthepetitionerhadany < previouscontactwithhim. Apparently,theStatesargumentwaseitherthatthepetitionerhadfired ( theshotsatacodefendantwhowasalsopresentatthecrimesceneandwhohadpreviouslyfought   withthevictimorthatthepetitionerhadsimplywantedtoshootsomeone. Withthiscombination ! ofproblems,trialcounselbelieveditbestnottoassisttheStatebyadmittingthatthepetitionerhad " beenpresentandhadfiredtheshots.Assertionofamentaldefensesuchasthatsuggestedbythe #  petitionerwouldhavenecessitatedsuchanadmission.#X1XXX1x#X1XXX1Ԁ x$!  %!"   Whenspecificallyaskedaboutthepotentialuseofadefensebasedonthepetitionersmental  healthhistory,trialcounselacknowledgedthatitwouldhavebeenpossibletoassertthisdefense  basedupontheinformationcounselhadlearnedatthepostconvictionhearing.Nevertheless,he  remainedadamantinhisopinionthatsuchadefensehadlittlelikelihoodofsuccess.Beyondthe t dangersofadmittingthepetitionersparticipationinthecrime,counselhadfoundjurieshighly ` skepticalofmentaldefenses. Furthermore,hepointedtootherpotentialpitfallsaccompanyingsuch L  adefensehere.Forexample,hadcounselattemptedtonegatetheabovedefinedelementof 8  deliberationbyassertingthatthepetitionerhadexperiencedproblemswithcurtailingviolent $ t impulses,counselfearedopeninga Pandorasboxcontainingthepetitionersjuvenilehistoryof  ` aggravatedassault,aggravatedrobbery,violenceatschool,etc.Inaddition,petitionersprevious  L  allegedhomicidal_ideations_Ԁmayhaveprovenharmful. Therewasevenapossibilitythatthe  8  petitionersmothermighthaveprovideddamagingtestimonyifshehadbeencalledasaresultof $  assertingthistypeofdefense.Finally,manyofthefactsinthiscasecouldbeinterpretedasreflecting   premeditationanddeliberation.Morespecifically,thepetitionerandhiscodefendantscametogether   atthepetitionershouse,leftitarmed,spenttimeatachildsbirthdayparty,andthereaftersought   outthevictim.#X1XXX1|#X1XXX1ԀShortlyafterfindinghim,thepetitionershotthevictimmultipletimesthoughthe   petitionerhadnodirectpriorconflictwiththevictim.#X1XXX1#X1XXX1 p   Insum,adefendantisnotentitledto perfectrepresentation._Vermilye_Ԁv.State,754S.W.2d > 82,85(Tenn._Crim_.App.1987).Ourreviewleadsustoconcludethatrationalsupportexistforthe * defensetheorypursuedbytrialcounselandthatthementaldefenseurgedbythepetitionerisplagued  withproblemsofitsown.#X1XXX1#X1XXX1Underthefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase,presentingasuccessful  defensewouldlikelyhavebeendifficult.Attheleast,weremainunpersuadedthattheresultofthe  trialwouldhavebeendifferentbutforcounselsallegeddeficientperformance.See,e.g., Cooperv.  State,847S.W.2d521,52328(Tenn._Crim_.App.1992).Sincethepetitionerhasfailedtoprove z eitherdeficientperformanceofcounseloractualprejudicefromtheallegeddeficiencieswefindthe f trialjudgeactedproperlyindenyingthepostconvictionpetition. R    Conclusion      Fortheforegoingreasonswefindthatthepetitionersallegationdoesnotmeritrelief. N" Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED. #   S#X1XXX1LJ# X1XXX1 `    #X1XX X1 ##YXX13#X1XY   `     h     ___________________________________ '"#    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE