ÿWPCõ 1„Ô ¨€ÓûÜo§ûA=„z®ó•ѮDŽŽûP»ú ˜f¨ö‹áêÑGè•´tV¿§T$üºÿÚev¥f¶ë‡b_ÁIjŠéê1[#+TîÅŽáRÜÈ ù²=ô4DøÍH‡El]'½¼#šySX;ÞCª¢ª.?KÒ€)øÝž›^ŠRÃõï59| ÐW"Åâ?²W/G‹ÃÜo(Zô¹Ôk<@1pÛÝL‚AF#Ö×iS¸s@.E¸­€ôÛÕ„ï7q^jD5­ê‰gH•Iv;d2ãá'M¯TýNSH (ÜÞì­$[1ë¦J6 ì3UÈËb %\U@b 0ˆ¢U"N*UNxUNÆÓ zç Òa ^ 3 w? 4C W Æf Æ, Æò Ƹ ~N€ m‚#Á™EZJ\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 0D¦bêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêêê 0ëòòòò BÝÝ 0¤ú D3ž D-Ñ 0Kþþ ASIÆœ 0¤b 0D A«J»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ÉÝ ƒR,$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amends.€V€&€XIV;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðððð€8€&€9. ˜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.wptù}†-s üPH,xe3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 @Ý ƒR,$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô¾åòòô¾åÔBoth€lawyers€testified€that€they€did€not€remember€their€analyses€regarding€a€jury€instruction€on€aggravatedÐ ° Ðassault.€€We€cannot,€therefore,€characterize€the€omission€of€this€instruction€as€a€ð ðtactical€decision.ðð€€Nevertheless,€evenÐ tÄ Ðif€the€Defendantððs€trial€lawyers€erred€in€failing€to€request€this€instruction,€the€Defendant€has€not€demonstrated€aÐ 8ˆ Ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€the€alleged€error,€the€jury€would€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regarding€the€DefendantððsÐ üL Ðguilt€of€first€degree€murder.€€That€is,€the€omission€of€a€jury€instruction€on€aggravated€assault€in€this€case€does€notÐ À Ðundermine€our€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€the€Defendantððs€trial.€€Accordingly,€this€allegation€of€ineffective€assistanceÐ „Ô Ðof€counsel€is€without€merit.Ð H ˜ ÐÔ#†ô¾åòòô¾å~#Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2,$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾åò»»Ô d(|3ÿt$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿt$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Í»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Í»»»ÔÑ8€^!XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î<ÍÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Í»îî< #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€1,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X^!X»¼ÍÔÌò òÔ#†¼Í»XX^! #ÔANTHONY€HODGES€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X^!X»¼ÍÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96„A„317€€€€€€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„03068„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€December€4,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Defendant,€Anthony€Hodges,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€first€degree€felony€murder€andÐ xÈ  Ðaggravated€child€abuse.€€He€was€sentenced€to€concurrent€sentences€of€life€without€parole€and€twenty„Ð d´ Ðfive€years,€respectively,€to€be€served€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€Defendantððs€convictionsÐ P  Ðand€sentences€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€7€S.W.3d€609€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð <Œ Ð1998).€€The€Defendant€subsequently€petitioned€for€post„conviction€relief,€which€the€trial€courtÐ (x Ðdenied.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals,€alleging€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€atÐ d Ðtrial€and€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€by€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€onÐ P Ðsecond€degree€murder;€by€the€Stateððs€employment€of€inconsistent€theories€of€guilt€at€his€and€his€co„Ð ì< Ðdefendantððs€separate€trials;€and€by€the€denial€of€his€right€to€testify.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÐ Ø( Ðtrial€court.Ð Ä ÐÓ³ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Í»àX^!Š#ÔÔ‡X^!X.¼ÍÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó€andÐ tÄ ÐòòAlan€E.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌDwight€E.€Scott,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Anthony€Hodges.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð #`" ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Bernard€F.€Ô_ÔMcEvoyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ü#L# ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓÑ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Í»XX^! #ÔòòóóÔ‡X^!X»¼ÍÔÐ À&"& ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÔ#†¼Í»XX^!6 #ÔÔ€X^!X»¼ÍÔòòÔ‡X^!XXX^!ÔóóÌÓÓà  àThe€Defendantððs€convictions€arose€out€of€the€death€of€twenty„eight„month„old€Ô_ÔMiyoshiÔ_ÔÐ „)Ô$) ÐRichardson,€who€was€killed€by€intentional€blows€to€her€head€and€torso.Ô#†X^!XXX^!Í #ÔÔ‡X^!XXX^!Ô€€The€Defendant€was€marriedÐ p*À%* Ðto€the€victimððs€mother,€Ô_ÔKenaÔ_Ô€Hodges.€€The€proof€established€that€either€the€Defendant€or€Ô_ÔKenaÔ_ÔÐ \+¬&+ ÐHodges€inflicted€the€fatal€blows.€€On€the€day€of€the€victimððs€death,€Ô_ÔKenaÔ_Ô€Hodges€left€her€in€theÐ H,˜', ÐDefendantððs€care€for€the€day.€€During€the€day,€the€Defendant€called€Ô_ÔKenaÔ_Ô€with€questions€about€theÐ 4-„(-ý÷ ÐÔ_Ôchildððs€condition.€€However,€no€medical€attention€was€obtained€until€after€the€child€had€died.€€At€theÐ ° ÐDefendantððs€trial,€the€State€proceeded€on€the€alternate€theories€that€the€Defendant€was€guilty€becauseÐ œì Ðhe€inflicted€the€fatal€blows€himself,€or€that€Kena€Hodges€inflicted€the€fatal€blows€and€the€DefendantÐ ˆØ Ðwas€guilty€because€he€was€criminally€responsible€for€her€actions.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€contends€on€appeal€that€his€trial€attorneys,€Mr.€Richard€Tennent€and€Mr.€KarlÐ L œ ÐDean,€were€ineffective€in€their€representation€of€him€prior€to€and€at€trial€in€the€following€respects:Ð 8 ˆ Ðà0  àà ° àà0(#(#à1.€€Mr.€Tennent€conceded€the€Defendantððs€guilt€during€closing€argument;Ð$ t(#(# Ðà  à2.€€Their€investigation€and€presentation€of€mitigation€evidence€was€inadequate;Ð  ` Ðà  à3.€€They€failed€to€investigate€the€qualifications€of€one€of€the€Stateððs€expert€witnesses;Ð ü L  Ðà  à4.€€They€failed€to€object€to€a€leading€question€by€the€prosecutor;Ð è 8  Ðà  à5.€€They€failed€to€challenge€the€constitutionality€of€Tennesseeððs€child€abuse€statutes;Ð Ô$  Ðà  à6.€€They€failed€to€request€a€jury€instruction€on€aggravated€assault;Ð À  Ðà  à7.€€They€failed€to€object€to€improper€closing€arguments€by€the€State;€andÐ ¬ü  Ðà  à8.€€They€failed€to€request€a€sequestered€jury.Ð ˜è  ÐIn€support€of€these€allegations,€the€Defendant€called€attorneys€Tennent€and€Dean€at€the€post„Ð „Ô  Ðconviction€hearing€and€introduced€portions€of€Mr.€Tennentððs€closing€argument.€€€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà  àMr.€Tennent€testified€thatÐ 4„ Ðà  àà8 ` à[t]he€defense€theory€was€that€Mr.€Hodges€didnððt€inflict€any€injuries€onÐ  p Ðthe€child,€that€Kena€Hodges€brutally€beat€the€child,€that€he€did€notÐ  \ Ðknow€how€badly[sic]€these€injuries€were.€€And€that€he€did,€in€fact,Ð øH Ðtake€action€to€deal€with€it.€€His€actions€were€insufficient,€of€course,Ð ä4 Ðbut€he€did€call€Kena,€relating€to€the€mother€of€the€child€that€the€childÐ Ð  Ðwas€sick€.€.€.€seemed€to€be€in€some€form€of€distress.€€And€I€believe€weÐ ¼  Ðput€on€witnesses€from€the€day€care€center€where€Kena€worked,€whereÐ ¨ø ÐKena€was,€basically,€telling€him€itððs€no€big€deal,€donððt€worry€about€it,Ð ”ä Ðsomething€to€that€effect.€€So€our€position€was€that€he€just€had€no€ideaÐ €Ð Ðof€how€bad€this€was,€that€he€had€not€encouraged,€in€any€way,€shape,Ð l¼ Ðor€form,€the€abuse€that€Kena€had€applied€to€the€child,€that€it€wasÐ X ¨ Ðentirely€her€action.€€And€he€had€no€reason€to€know€until€it€was€tooÐ D!” Ðlate€how€bad€this€was.Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌMr.€Tennent€acknowledged€that,€during€closing€argument,€he€told€the€jury€that€his€client€had€lied€toÐ $X" Ðthe€police€about€what€Kena€Hodges€had€done€the€night€before€Miyoshi€died,€that€the€Defendant€wasÐ ô$D # Ða€ð ðcowardðð€for€not€stopping€Kena€from€beating€the€child,€and€that€he€was€ð ðspinelessðð€for€not€savingÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€childððs€life.€€Mr.€Tennent€conceded€that€his€closing€argument€was,€in€part,€ð ðtactically,€not€a€goodÐ Ì&"% Ðdecision,€in€retrospect.ðð€€He€explained€his€argument€as€being€intended€to€maintain€credibility€withÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€jury,€not€to€concede€the€Defendantððs€guilt.€€In€response€to€the€Defendantððs€questions€about€Mr.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐTennentððs€closing€argument,€Mr.€Dean€explained€that€ð ðthis€was€a€difficult€caseðð€and€that€Mr.€TennentÐ )à$( Ðð ðdid€the€best€he€could€under€the€situation.ððÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àWith€respect€to€mitigation€evidence,€Mr.€Tennent€explained€that€Dr.€Jill€Blair€prepared€aÐ ° Ðpsychological€assessment€on€behalf€of€the€defense,€but€that€it€ð ðwas€very€negative.ðð€€Accordingly,€theÐ œì ÐDefendantððs€trial€lawyers€did€not€introduce€any€psychological€evidence.€€They€did€introduce€proofÐ ˆØ Ðthrough€some€of€the€Defendantððs€neighbors€that€the€Defendant€ð ðseemed€to€love€his€daughter.ðð€Ð tÄ ÐSomeone€from€the€Sheriffððs€Department€testified€that€the€Defendant€was€a€good€inmate.€€FamilyÐ `° Ðmembers€were€not€available€because€they€had€purchased€non„refundable€tickets;€when€the€trial€wasÐ L œ Ðcontinued,€they€were€unable€to€purchase€replacement€tickets.€€Attorneys€Tennent€and€Dean€did€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðput€on€proof€about€the€Defendantððs€past€experience€as€a€preacher€because,€according€to€Mr.€Tennent,Ð $ t Ðthe€Defendant€ð ðwas€sort€of€a€ð!ð€€in€simple€terms€ðða€fallen€preacher.ðððð€€Mr.€Tennent€testified€that€theyÐ  ` Ðð ðthought€that€[they]€could€open€a€real€can€of€worms€getting€into€some€negative€events€in€his€pastÐ ü L  Ðhistory,ðð€including€some€prior€convictions.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€State€called€Susan€Patricia€Starling€as€an€expert€at€the€Defendantððs€trial€to€testify€aboutÐ À  ÐShaken€Baby€Syndrome.€€Mr.€Tennent€explained€that€he€did€not€challenge€her€qualifications€becauseÐ ¬ü  Ðit€was€his€ð ðnormal€tactical€decisionðð€to€not€challenge€an€expert€witness€who€was€likely€to€be€acceptedÐ ˜è  Ðas€an€expert€by€the€court.€€It€was€his€opinion€that€Ms.€Starling€was€such€a€witness,€and€he€did€notÐ „Ô  Ðwant€ð ðto€act€like€a€litigious€fool€in€front€of€the€Jury.ððÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€a€jury€instruction€on€aggravated€assault,€Mr.€Tennent€and€Mr.€Dean€bothÐ H˜ Ðtestified€that€they€did€not€recall€why€they€did€not€request€that€instruction.€€With€respect€to€requestingÐ 4„ ÐÔ#†X^!XXX^!#ÔÔ‡X^!XXX^!Ôa€sequestered€jury,€Mr.€Tennent€testified€that€it€was€his€opinion€that€they€could€get€a€jury€untaintedÐ  p Ðby€the€media,€and€that€ð ðsequestration€would€be€more€prejudicial€than€helpful.ððÔ#†X^!XXX^!Å)#ÔÔ‡X^!XXX^!ÔÐ  \ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€and€stated€that,€contrary€to€the€Defendantððs€request,€Mr.€Tennent€didÐ ä4 Ðnot€make€contact€with€several€of€the€Defendantððs€ð ðcolleagues.ðð€€These€colleagues€did€not€testify€atÐ Ð  Ðthe€post„conviction€hearing,€however.€€The€record€therefore€contains€no€proof€as€to€how€Mr.Ð ¼  ÐTennentððs€failure€to€contact€these€people€prejudiced€the€Defendant.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€there€was€nothing€in€his€past€that€he€wanted€to€be€kept€from€aÐ €Ð Ðjury.€€He€explained€that€he€told€Mr.€Tennent€ð ðrepeatedlyðð€that€he€wanted€to€testify€on€his€own€behalfÐ l¼ Ðat€trial€and€stated€that€he€would€have€testified€at€the€trial€that€he€had€never€been€involved€in€anyÐ X ¨ Ðphysical€abuse€of€Miyoshi,€that€he€would€have€called€an€ambulance€if€he€had€realized€how€seriouslyÐ D!” Ðthe€child€was€hurt,€and€that€he€was€ð ðnot€responsible€for€what€her€mother€did€to€her€that€day.ðð€€OnÐ 0"€  Ðcross„examination€the€Defendant€admitted€to€two€prior€felony€convictions€for€burglary€and€arson;Ð #l! Ðhe€also€admitted€that€he€had€been€charged€in€the€past€with€criminal€trespass€regarding€a€residenceÐ $X" Ðand€domestic€assault.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€introduced€no€proof€at€the€hearing€as€to€why€trial€counsel€did€not€object€to€Ð Ì&"% Ða€specific€question€asked€by€the€State€during€its€direct€examination€of€the€medical€examiner€whoÐ ¸'#& Ðperformed€the€autopsy€on€the€victim.€€This€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðaccordingly,€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(ð ðThe€petitioner€shall€have€the€burdenÐ )à$( Ðof€proving€the€allegations€of€fact€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð)€€Similarly,€the€DefendantÐ |*Ì%) Ðintroduced€no€proof€as€to€why€trial€counsel€did€not€challenge€the€constitutionality€of€TennesseeððsÐ h+¸&* Ðchild€abuse€statutes.€€In€addition€to€being€therefore€waived,€this€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ° Ðcounsel€is€without€merit.€€A€challenge€to€these€statutes€was€raised€in€conjunction€with€the€caseÐ œì Ðagainst€the€Defendantððs€co„defendant,€Kena€Hodges.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€found€the€statutesÐ ˆØ Ðto€be€constitutional.€€òò€Seeóó€òòState€v.€Kena€Hodgesóó,€No.€01C01„9804„CR„00170,€1999€Tenn.€Crim.Ð tÄ ÐApp.€LEXIS€866,€at€*31„34€(Nashville,€Aug.€11,€1999).€€Finally,€the€Defendant€introduced€no€proofÐ `° Ðregarding€his€trial€lawyersðð€failure€to€object€to€certain€portions€of€the€Stateððs€closing€arguments.€€ThisÐ L œ Ðissue€is,€accordingly,€waived.Ô#†X^!XXX^!Ö*#ÔÔ‡X^!XXX^!ÔÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€analyzing€the€Defendantððs€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€trial€court€foundÐ  ` Ðas€follows:Ð ü L  Ðà  àà8 ` àThe€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€attorney€who€handled€thisÐ è 8  Ðmatter,€Mr.€Richard€Tennent,€performed€his€duties€in€a€diligent€andÐ Ô$  Ðcompetent€manner.€€Additionally,€the€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€co„Ð À  Ðcounsel€Karl€Dean€is€a€very€experienced€trial€attorney€who€has€triedÐ ¬ü  Ðmany€first€degree€murder€cases€prior€to€this€case.€€The€Court€is€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðopinion€that€the€trial€attorneys€in€this€matter,€Richard€Tennent€andÐ „Ô  ÐKarl€Dean,€performed€their€duties€in€an€appropriate€and€competentÐ pÀ Ðmanner.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌAccordingly,€the€trial€court€found€the€Defendantððs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€to€be€Ô#†X^!XXX^!U6#ÔÔ‡X^!XXX^!ÔÐ 4„ Ðð ðwithout€merit.ðð€€The€trial€court€also€denied€relief€on€the€Defendantððs€claims€of€due€processÐ  p Ðviolations.Ð  \ ÐÌÔ#†X^!XXX^!e:#ÔÔ‡X^!XXX^!Ôà  àTo€sustain€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€a€defendant€must€prove€his€or€her€factualÐ ä4 Ðallegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€at€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð Ð  Ð30„210(f);€òòMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€156€(Tenn.€1999).€€Upon€review,€this€Court€will€notÐ ¼  Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€below;€all€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€theÐ ¨ø Ðweight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€to€beÐ ”ä Ðresolved€by€the€trial€judge,€not€the€appellate€courts.€€òòSeeóó€òòMomonóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€156;€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,Ð €Ð Ð960€S.W.2d€572,€578„79€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€trial€judgeððs€findings€of€fact€on€a€petition€for€post„Ð l¼ Ðconviction€relief€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict€and€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòMomonóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€156;€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2dÐ D!” Ðat€578„79.€€Ô#†X^!XXX^!X;#ÔÔ‡X^!XXX^!ÔÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àBoth€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€theÐ $X" ÐTennessee€Constitution€guarantee€a€defendant€the€right€to€representation€by€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð ô$D # ÐBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ThisÐ à%0!$ Ðright€to€counsel€includes€the€right€to€effective€counsel.€€€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð Ì&"% Ð668,€686€(1984)Ô#†X^!XXX^!@#ÔÔ‡X^!XXX^!Ô;€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461;€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936Ô#†X^!XXX^!nB#ÔÔ‡X^!XXX^!Ôòòóó.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àTo€determine€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€the€court€must€decideÐ )à$( Ðwhether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðcriminal€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936;€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð h+¸&* ÐApp.€1998).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€or€her€counsel€was€ineffective€at€trial,€a€defendant€bearsÐ ° Ðthe€burden€of€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€he€or€she€was€not€functioning€asÐ œì Ðcounsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudicedÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687òòóó;Ð tÄ ÐòòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461;€òòHicksóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€245.òòóó€€To€satisfy€the€second€prong,€the€defendant€mustÐ `° Ðshow€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€haveÐ L œ Ðhad€reasonable€doubt€regarding€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694„95.€€ThisÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€694;€òòseeÐ $ t Ðalsoóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994);€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€13€S.W.3d€742,€750€(Tenn.Ð  ` ÐCrim.€App.€1999).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€Court€should€not€use€the€benefit€of€hindsight€toÐ Ô$  Ðsecond„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€1982);€òòOwensóó,€13€S.W.3d€at€749.€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€should€be€judged€at€the€time€theyÐ ¬ü  Ðwere€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòHicksóó,€983Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.2d€at€246.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àÔ#†X^!XXX^!ïB#ÔÔ‡X^!XXX^!ÔWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€Defendant€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counselÐ \¬ Ðat€trial.€€Those€actions€of€trial€counsel€of€which€the€Defendant€complains€and€about€which€heÐ H˜ Ðadduced€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€were€based€on€tactical€decisions€made€in€the€midst€ofÐ 4„ Ðpreparing€for€and€conducting€a€difficult€first€degree€murder€trial.׃×Ý ƒ-#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€While€Mr.€Tennent€may€haveÐ  p Ðconceded€òòinóó€òòretrospectóó€that€he€might€have€done€some€things€differently,€this€Court€does€not€reviewÐ  \ Ðtactical€decisions€through€the€lens€of€hindsight.€€The€Defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€by€clearÐ øH Ðand€convincing€evidence€that€either€or€both€of€his€trial€lawyersðð€performance€fell€below€the€standardÐ ä4 Ðof€competence€demanded€by€the€law.€Accordingly,€the€Defendant€is€entitled€to€no€relief€on€this€basis.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€his€constitutional€rights€to€due€process׃°×Ý ƒ-#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€were€violated€whenÐ ¨ø Ðthe€trial€court€failed€to€issue€a€jury€instruction€on€the€lesser„included€offense€of€second€degreeÐ ”ä Ðmurder.€€The€Defendant€is€correct€in€that€second€degree€murder€is€currently€recognized€as€a€lesser„Ð €Ð Ðincluded€offense€of€first€degree€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Elyóó,€48€S.W.3d€710,€721„22€(Tenn.Ð l¼ Ð2001).€€However,€at€the€time€the€Defendant€was€tried€in€January€1997,€Tennessee€jurisprudence€didÐ X ¨ Ðnot€consider€second€degree€murder€to€be€a€lesser„included€offense€of€first€degree€felony€murder.€€òòSee,Ð D!” Ðe.g.óó€òòState€v.€Gilliamóó,€901€S.W.2d€385,€390„91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Tennesseeððs€analysis€ofÐ 0"€  Ðlesser„included€offenses€was€revised€on€November€8,€1999,€with€the€filing€of€our€supreme€courtððsÐ ° Ðopinion€in€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453€(Tenn.€1999).€€Indeed,€òòElyóó€relied€upon€òòBurnsóó€in€determiningÐ œì Ðthat,€henceforward,€second€degree€murder€is€a€lesser„included€offense€of€first€degree€felony€murder.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Elyóó,€48€S.W.3d€at€721„22.€€While€òòBurnsóó€has€been€given€retroactive€effect€to€cases€in€theÐ tÄ Ðdirect€appellate€ð ðpipelineðð€at€the€time€òòBurnsóó€was€decided,€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Stokesóó,€24€S.W.3d€303,Ð `° Ð305€(Tenn.€2000),€the€Defendantððs€direct€appeal€had€concluded€by€the€time€òòBurnsóó€was€decided:€theÐ L œ Ðsupreme€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€from€this€Courtððs€decisionÐ 8 ˆ Ðdenying€his€direct€appeal€on€September€13,€1999.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€7€S.W.3d€at€609.€€òòBurnsóó€hasÐ $ t Ðnot€been€given€retroactive€application€in€post„conviction€cases€where€the€direct€appeal€wasÐ  ` Ðconcluded€prior€to€òòBurnsóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòJames€Richard€Bishop€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E2000„01725„CCA„R3„PC,€2001Ð ü L  ÐTenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€513,€at€*23„24€(Knoxville,€April€25,€2001).€€Accordingly,€we€hold€thatÐ è 8  ÐòòBurnsóó€does€not€offer€a€constitutional€claim€for€relief€cognizant€within€a€post„conviction€proceedingÐ Ô$  Ðwhere€the€defendantððs€direct€appeal€was€concluded€prior€to€the€filing€of€òòBurnsóó.€€€€€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€Defendantððs€argument€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€jury€instruction€on€secondÐ ˜è  Ðdegree€murder€under€the€law€as€it€then€existed€and€based€on€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial,€thatÐ „Ô  Ðargument€was€available€for€pursuit€on€direct€appeal,€and€is€therefore€waived€in€the€context€of€thisÐ pÀ Ðproceeding.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€argues€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€because€the€State€arguedÐ 4„ Ðinconsistent€theories€of€criminal€liability€at€the€separate€trials€of€him€and€his€co„defendant,€KenaÐ  p ÐHodges.€€òòóóThe€trial€court€found€that€this€issue€was€waived€as€having€been€available€on€direct€appeal,Ð  \ Ðand€as€having€been€ð ðpreviously€addressedðð€by€the€trial€court.€€The€Defendant€does€not€take€issue€inÐ øH Ðhis€brief€with€the€trial€courtððs€reasons€for€denying€this€claim€for€relief;€he€simply€repeats€theÐ ä4 Ðargument€he€makes€in€his€Second€Amended€Petition€in€favor€of€this€claim.€€We€are€unable€toÐ Ð  Ðdetermine€from€the€record€before€us€whether€or€not€Kena€Hodgesðð€trial€was€conducted€within€theÐ ¼  Ðtime€frame€available€to€the€Defendant€for€inclusion€of€this€alleged€error€in€his€direct€appeal.€€It€is€theÐ ¨ø Ðappellantððs€duty€to€prepare€an€adequate€record€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€ð ðIn€theÐ ”ä Ðabsence€of€an€adequate€record€on€appeal,€this€court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€wereÐ €Ð Ðsupported€by€sufficient€evidence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ð l¼ ÐThe€trial€court€denied€relief€on€this€basis,€and€we€affirm€that€decision.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€contends€that€his€constitutional€rights€were€violated€because€hisÐ 0"€  Ðattorneys€refused€to€allow€him€to€testify€at€trial.€€The€Defendant€testified€at€his€post„convictionÐ #l! Ðhearing€that€€he€ð ðrepeatedlyðð€told€Mr.€Tennent€that€he€wanted€to€testify.€€He€stated€that€he€was€ð ðleftÐ $X" Ðwith€the€impressionðð€that€he€was€going€to€testify€until€his€lawyer€told€the€trial€judge€that€the€defenseÐ ô$D # Ðwas€resting€its€case.€€The€Defendant€testified€that€he€ð ðasked€[Mr.€Tennent]€at€that€point,€.€.€.€what€areÐ à%0!$ Ðyou€doing?€€Where€did€you€„„€I€thought€you€were€going€to€let€me€testify.€€Whatððs€going€on?ðð€Ð Ì&"% ÐAccording€to€the€Defendant,€Mr.€Tennent€responded€by€telling€him€to€ð ðbe€cool.ððÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àMr.€Tennent€testified€that€he€and€Mr.€Dean€explained€to€the€Defendant€the€advantages€andÐ )à$( Ðdisadvantages€of€testifying.€€Mr.€Tennent€advised€the€Defendant€not€to€testify€because€ð ðhis€demeanorÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€describing€the€events€was€always€remorselessðð€and€expressed€ð ðan€attitude€that€[he]€thought€wouldÐ h+¸&* Ðbe€devastating€in€front€of€a€Jury.ðð€€Mr.€Tennent€further€testified€that€the€Defendant€ð ðdid€not€expressÐ ° Ðany€strong€desire€to€testify.ðð€€Mr.€Tennent€stated€unequivocally€that€it€was€the€Defendantððs€decisionÐ œì Ðnot€to€testify.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€did€not€credit€the€Defendantððs€testimony€that€his€attorneys€violated€his€rightÐ `° Ðto€testify.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€in€this€regard,€andÐ L œ Ðwe€therefore€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€relief€on€this€basis.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.à  àÐ  ` ÐÔ#†X^!XXX^!«K#ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE