ÿWPCï! …# VUNa %¯ 04µw@é4) = L 0JT 0Tž 0^ò 0hP 0x¸ 0D0 0rt 0|æ U:b 0†œ 0" AM² 1uÿ Bt 0d‘$õy=’Ï_îv~MU>ËU * B)3 D3\DC AMÒ 0XvÓw AOJ Æ™ 0D_! D/£! BÒ!˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX( ƒ•$¡¡Ñ  Ñ l¤emnopDqrsDtDuÓ€Úƒç"3|x€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(((3ÑÖ$¤¤Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô, øð AZ"Arial Regular2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òOctober€3,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Ô€'ôÔ€Ô€(ÔFor€post„conviction€cases€filed€after€May€10,€1995,€the€standard€of€proof€required€of€petitionersÏis€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„210(f).Ì 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€The€record€reflects€that€evidentiary€objections€by€the€codefendant€were€also€attributable€to€theÏpetitioner.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€In€pertinent€part,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(c)€(1982)€(now€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(c)€(1990€andÏSupp.€1996)),€states:€ð ðIn€the€sentencing€proceeding,€evidence€may€be€presented€as€to€any€matter€thatÏthe€court€deems€relevant€to€the€punishment€and€may€include,€but€not€be€limited€to,€the€nature€andÏcircumstances€of€the€crime;€the€defendantððs€character,€background€history,€and€physical€condition;€anyÏevidence€tending€to€establish€or€rebut€the€aggravating€circumstances€enumerated€in€subsection€(i);€andÏany€evidence€tending€to€establish€or€rebut€any€mitigating€factors€.€.€.€.ððÌ UÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€€As€noted€by€the€parties,€the€post„conviction€courtððs€ruling€in€this€case€preceded€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòOwensóó.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ ° ÒÒ X ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ ° ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€(ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€^(XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑœßR€!+A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€JANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌOLEN€EDDIE€HUTCHISON,€€€€à à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9601„CC„00033Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àCampbell€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€J.€Curwood€Witt,€Judge€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌChristopher€Van€Riperà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ300€Market€Street,€Suite€200à àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌClinton,€TN€37716„0506à àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€P.€CauleyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€Paul€PhillipsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€10Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntsville,€TN€37756„00010Ì€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àand€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€O.€RipleyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€323Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJacksboro,€TN€37757„0323ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner,€Olen€Eddie€Hutchison,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€CampbellÏCounty€Criminal€Courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€He€was€convicted€in€1991€for€the€firstÏdegree€murder€of€Hugh€Huddleston€and€received€the€death€penalty.€€He€was€also€convictedÏof€conspiracy€to€take€a€life€and€solicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murder€for€which€heÏreceived€a€total€sentence€of€twenty„two€years.€€The€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmedÏon€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Hutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€òò€€€€€€óóU.S.€òò€€€€€Ïóó,€116€S.€Ct.€137€(1995).€€We€affirm€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€filed€this€post„conviction€petition€on€May€4,€1995.€€An€evidentiaryÏhearing€was€held€on€September€27,€1995,€and€the€trial€court€made€its€determinations.€€TheÍpetitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€relief,€generally€claiming€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓÓ  ÓÓ` °‚X˜XÓà8 à(1)€The€petitioner€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€asÏguaranteed€by€the€Sixth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution.ÌÌà8 à(2)€The€petitioner€was€denied€the€due€process€of€law€asÏguaranteed€by€the€Fifth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€by€prosecutorial€misconduct€through€theÏintroduction€of€inadmissable€evidence€and€arguments€thereonÏconcerning€the€petitionerððs€participation€in€illegal€activities€forÏwhich€he€had€not€been€charged.ÌÌà8 à(3)€The€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€enter€a€written€order€orÏmemorandum€on€all€grounds€presented€in€the€petition€and€inÏfailing€to€state€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€with€regard€toÏeach€ground€as€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„118(b).ÌÌà8 à(4)€The€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grant€the€petitioner€funds€toÏretain€expert€services.Ìà8 àà8 àÌà8 à(5)€The€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€the€petitioner€aÏcontinuance.ÌÌà8 à(6)€The€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€order€the€state€to€prepare€andÏfile€transcripts€of€the€arguments€of€counsel€during€the€guilt€andÏsentencing€phases€of€the€petitionerððs€trial.ÌÌà8 à(7)€The€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€find€that€the€cumulative€effectÏof€the€errors€at€trial€and€on€appeal€violated€the€petitionerððs€rightsÏunder€the€Fifth,€Sixth,€Eighth,€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution.ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓIn€response,€the€state€contends€that€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€that€the€issue€concerning€the€admissibility€of€evidence€of€illegal€activity€wasÍpreviously€determined,€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€enter€a€written€memorandum€of€law€doesÏnot€warrant€a€reversal€of€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petition,€that€the€petitioner€did€notÏdemonstrate€a€need€for€expert€services€which€would€warrant€court„ordered€funding,€that€theÏtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€a€third€continuance,€that€the€state€had€in€factÏfiled€the€record€and€transcript€of€the€direct€appeal€of€the€case,€and€that€the€errors€did€notÏcumulatively€prevent€the€petitioner€from€receiving€a€fair€and€impartial€trial.ÌÌà àThe€supreme€courtððs€direct€appeal€opinion€provides€the€following€synopsis€ofÏthe€evidence€presented€at€the€petitionerððs€trial:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àThe€record€establishes€that€the€victim€in€this€case,€HughÏHuddleston,€died€by€drowning€while€on€a€fishing€trip€at€Norris€LakeÏin€Campbell€County.€€The€Stateððs€evidence€showed€that€defendantÏHutchison€and€several€other€men€had€conspired€to€kill€HuddlestonÏin€order€to€collect€à àalmost€$800,000€in€life€insurance€proceedsÏand€other€benefits.ÌÌà8 àà àHuddleston,€a€bachelor€in€his€mid„forties,€had€what€wasÏdescribed€by€witnesses€as€a€father„son€relationship€withÏHutchisonððs€co„defendant,€Chip€Gaylor.€€In€1984,€HuddlestonÏmade€Gaylor,€then€19,€the€sole€beneficiary€of€his€will,€under€whichÏ95%€of€the€estate€would€not€pass€to€Gaylor€immediately€but€wouldÏbe€held€in€trust€for€distribution€to€him€at€the€ages€of€25€and€30.€ÏHuddleston€also€made€Gaylor€the€beneficiary€of€an€insuranceÏpolicy€and€other€of€his€employment€benefits,€all€of€which€amountedÏto€over€$289,000€in€value.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€chief€prosecution€witness€was€Richard€Miller,€one€of€theÏconspirators€and€an€acquaintance€of€the€defendant€and€of€GaylorÏand€Huddleston.€€He€told€how,€during€the€year€beforeÏHuddlestonððs€death,€he,€the€defendant,€and€Gaylor,€then€26,€wereÏsitting€around€talking€when€the€defendant€mentioned€ð ðhow€muchÍmoney€he€could€make€if€he€took€insurance€out€on€somebody€andÏthen€had€them€killed.ðð€€Gaylor€remarked€that€he€would€pay€theÏdefendant€$100,000€to€kill€someone€but€that€his€ð ðinsurance€policyððÏwas€not€good€until€he€was€30.€€The€defendant€responded€œthat€that›Ïwas€too€long€to€wait.ÌÌà8 àà àAbout€a€week€later,€the€defendant€asked€Gaylor€to€haveÏHuddleston€sign€some€ð ðinsurance€papersðð€under€the€pretense€of€aÏtax€write„off.€€According€to€Miller,€Huddleston€would€do€almostÏanything€Gaylor€asked.€€Huddleston€signed€the€papers,€and€thatÏevening€Miller€and€Gaylor€returned€them€to€the€defendant,€whoÏindicated€that€he€would€get€back€in€touch€with€them.€€ShortlyÏafterward,€the€defendant€had€Gaylor€get€Huddlestonððs€signatureÏon€a€promissory€note€representing€a€fictitious€debt€of€$25,000€toÏdefendant.€€The€insurance€policy€was€to€be€security€for€the€allegedÏdebt.€€At€Gaylorððs€prompting,€Huddleston€signed€the€note€inÏMillerððs€presence,€and€Gaylor€witnessed€his€signature.€€Two€otherÏmen,€M.C.€Curnutt€(an€insurance€agent€and€an€alleged€co„conspirator)€and€Charles€Boruff,€also€signed€as€witnesses€after€theÏnoteððs€execution.€€The€defendant€also€informed€Gaylor€that€a€nurseÏwould€be€coming€to€perform€a€physical€examination€onÏHuddleston.€€The€examination€was€performed,€and€an€insuranceÏpolicy€was€issued€on€Huddlestonððs€life€with€$250,000€coverage€„„Ï$500,000€in€the€event€of€accidental€death.€€The€defendant€was€theÏsole€beneficiary€of€this€policy€and€furnished€the€money€with€whichÏthe€premiums€were€paid.ÌÌà8 àà àOnce€the€ð ðpaper€workðð€had€been€done,€the€defendantÏoffered€Gaylor€$10,000€to€kill€Huddleston.€€Gaylor€declinedÏbecause€he€had€an€obvious€motive.€€When€Miller€also€refused€toÏkill€Huddleston,€the€defendant€said€he€would€get€someone€else.€ÏThe€defendant€then€spoke€with€Phil€Varnadore,€one€of€his€ð ðmen,ððÏwho€agreed€to€ð ðget€his€boys€to€do€itðð€for€$25,000€to€$50,000.€€AfterÏinitially€discussing€killing€Huddleston€on€a€hunting€trip,€theÏdefendant€and€Varnadore€decided€to€drown€him€during€a€fishingÏtrip,€since€Huddleston€could€not€swim.€€Wilbur€Hatmaker€wasÏdesignated€to€be€the€killer.€€Hatmaker€and€Miller€scouted€outÏlocations€for€the€drowning€on€Norris€Lake,€and€eventually€aÏsuitable€spot€was€located.€€Hatmaker€instructed€Miller€to€haveÏHuddleston€there€by€8:00€p.m.€the€next€evening.ÌÌà8 àà àGaylor€arranged€a€fishing€trip€with€Huddleston€for€that€day,Ïbut€only€Miller€showed€up.€€The€two€men€went€to€Norris€Lake€andÏrented€a€pontoon€boat.€€Sometime€after€dark,€Hatmaker€and€JohnÏRollyson€appeared€in€a€separate€boat.€€Acting€on€the€pretenseÏthey€were€friends€of€Miller,€the€two€joined€Huddleston€and€Miller€inÏfishing€from€the€pontoon€boat.€€According€to€plan,€Miller€left€to€getÏbait€in€another€boat€he€had€brought€on€the€trip.€€Rollyson€testifiedÏthat€after€Miller€left,€Hatmaker€pushed€the€victim€into€the€water€andÏwiped€the€boat€with€a€rag.€€Hatmaker€had€promised€RollysonÏ$12,500€for€the€killing,€to€be€paid€in€90€days.€€(The€insuranceÏpolicy€provided€for€payment€in€90€days).€€When€Miller€returned€toÏthe€boat,€Huddleston€was€gone,€as€were€Hatmaker€and€Rollyson.€ÏMiller€reported€Huddlestonððs€disappearance€and€his€body€wasÏdiscovered€later€that€day€in€15€feet€of€water.€€There€were€noÏobvious€signs€of€violence€on€the€body,€but€the€pathologist€laterÏnoted€a€deep€bruise€in€the€victimððs€scalp€behind€his€right€ear,Ïwhich€was€apparently€caused€by€a€blunt€object€„„€possibly€fromÏstriking€his€head€on€the€boat,€or€being€struck€by€a€boat€paddle€or€aÏfist.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€defendant€and€Gaylor€filed€claims€to€collect€theÏinsurance.€€When€the€company€refused€to€pay€because€of€theÏdistrict€attorneyððs€investigation€into€the€circumstances€of€theÏvictimððs€death,€Gaylor€sued€the€insurance€company€in€federalÏcourt,€claiming€that€Hutchison€was€responsible€for€HuddlestonððsÏdeath€and€should€not€be€awarded€the€insurance€proceeds.€ÏHutchison€then€filed€a€cross„claim€in€the€federal€suit.ÌÌà8 àà àWhile€the€defendant€was€incarcerated€on€these€charges,€heÏwrote€several€letters€to€Miller€and€Varnadore€communicating€withÏthem€about€the€case€and€tacitly€urging€them€to€keep€quiet.€€TheseÏletters€were€produced€at€trial.€€The€defendantððs€cell€mate,€KeithÏWilson,€who€had€forwarded€some€of€defendantððs€letters€to€Miller,Ïtestified€that€the€defendant€had€told€him€that€the€others€involvedÏð ðknew€better€than€to€say€anythingðð€and€that€ð ð[i]f€they€did,€they€wouldÏend€up€the€same€way€as€the€other€guy.ðð€€The€defendant€hadÏremarked€that€he€had€the€money€to€get€something€done€from€jailÏand€ð ðall€he€had€to€do€[was]€make€a€phone€call.ðð€€He€also€said€thatÍð ðas€long€as€everybody€kept€their€mouth€shut,€then€they€would€beÏfound€not„guilty,€they€couldnððt€prove€nothing.ððÌÌà8 àà àThe€defendant€maintained€that€the€$25,000€loan€andÏsubsequent€use€of€the€insurance€policy€as€collateral€had€been€aÏlegitimate€business€deal€between€Huddleston€and€the€defendant,Ïwho€had€loaned€money€to€the€victim€in€the€past.€€The€defendant,Ïwho€testified,€maintained€his€innocence€of€any€involvement€inÏHuddlestonððs€death.€ÌÌÓÓòòHutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€164„66€(footnote€omitted).Ìà@ àÌÓ ` °ÜS` ˜X Óà@ àò òPOST„CONVICTION€EVIDENTIARY€HEARINGó óÌÓ  Óà àAt€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€metÏwith€his€attorneys€only€six€times€before€trial.€€He€stated€that€his€counsel€failed€to€call€a€witnessÏwho€was€present€when€the€loan€was€made€by€the€petitioner€to€the€victim€and€a€witness€whoÏwas€present€when€the€promissory€note€was€signed€by€a€state€witness.€€He€claimed€theseÏwitnesses€would€have€discounted€the€stateððs€claim€that€the€petitioner€did€not€lend€the€victimÏmoney€and€that€the€victim€signed€the€promissory€note€at€the€petitionerððs€home.€€He€alsoÏstated€that€counsel€had€failed€to€call€three€character€witnesses€provided€by€the€petitionerÏduring€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€However,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€these€witnessesÏwere€merely€business€associates€and€he€did€not€know€what€they€would€say.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€next€cited€counselððs€failure€to€investigate€his€physical€conditionÏand€health€even€though€the€petitioner€had€sustained€numerous€injuries€due€to€automobileÏand€work€accidents.€€He€testified€that€he€had€been€given€the€drug€Talwin€while€he€wasÍincarcerated€and€stated€that€the€drug€had€prevented€him€from€interacting€effectively€with€hisÏattorneys.€€He€then€testified€that€counsel€had€not€included€issues€concerning€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€and€a€constructive€amendment€to€the€indictment€which€he€had€requested€beÏincluded€in€his€appeal.€€He€also€complained€that€his€counsel€had€referred€to€his€business€ofÏloaning€money€as€ð ðloan€sharkingðð€numerous€times€during€the€trial.€€ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€his€testimony€concerning€theÏnumber€of€times€he€met€with€counsel€was€purely€from€memory.€€He€stated€that€the€strategy€ofÏhis€lawyers€had€been€that€no€murder€had€been€committed€and€that€the€petitioner€had€notÏparticipated€in€any€conspiracy.€€Though€he€complained€about€the€effects€of€the€drug€givenÏhim€while€he€was€incarcerated,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€throughout€all€the€accidents€heÏhad€previously€described,€he€had€always€been€able€to€conduct€his€affairs€in€a€normalÏmanner.€€Counsel€for€the€state€then€asked€the€petitioner€a€series€of€questions€concerning€aÏseries€of€dates€he€had€met€with€his€counsel,€and€the€petitioner€stated€that€he€could€notÏremember€specific€dates.ÌÌà àOn€redirect€examination,€the€petitioner€described€a€speech€disorder€of€stutteringÏthat€he€had€experienced€in€his€childhood,€but€he€stated€that€he€had€never€undergone€anyÏpsychological€or€neurological€testing€for€the€disorder.€€He€again€testified€that€counsel€hadÏfailed€to€call€an€important€witness€who€would€have€testified€concerning€the€loan€made€to€theÍvictim.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€testimony€concerning€his€involvement€with€drug€traffickingÏand€other€illegal€activities€was€untrue.ÌÌà àOne€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorneys€was€called€as€a€witness.€€He€stated€that€heÏhad€been€practicing€law€since€1979,€but€that€the€petitionerððs€case€was€the€first€capital€case€inÏwhich€he€had€been€involved€that€went€to€trial.€€He€testified€that€he€had€met€with€the€petitionerÏon€numerous€occasions€before€trial.€€He€said€that€he€had€been€a€candidate€for€publicÏdefender€at€the€time€and€that€he€ð ðdid€what€I€thought€I€was€supposed€to€do,ðð€but€in€retrospect€ð ðIÏdonððt€think€I€knew€what€I€was€doing.ðð€€He€stated€that€he€should€have€requested€the€services€ofÏa€sentencing€consultant€and€a€psychiatrist€before€trial,€but€he€acknowledged€that€he€had€notÏbeen€made€aware€of€the€petitionerððs€speech€disorder€or€history€of€work€and€automobileÏaccidents.€€He€testified€that€he€became€aware€sometime€during€the€trial€that€the€petitioner€hadÏbeen€taking€medication.€€ÌÌà àWhen€questioned€concerning€trial€preparation,€counsel€stated€that€he€hadÏstudied€manuals€on€capital€case€defense€and€jury€selection€and€that€he€had€been€involved€inÏa€very€limited€capacity€in€the€representation€of€a€capital€defendant€before€this€case€but€thatÏthe€case€had€been€settled.€€He€testified€that€an€investigator€had€been€hired€in€the€petitionerððsÏcase€and€that€someone€other€than€himself€had€spoken€to€the€person€whom€the€petitionerÏclaimed€was€present€at€the€loan€transaction.€€He€recalled€that€some€people€the€petitionerÏrequested€be€called€as€witnesses€were€not€called.ÌÌà àWhen€questioned€concerning€whether€he€would€object€to€testimony€concerningÏpurported€illegal€activities€in€which€the€petitioner€was€involved,€counsel€stated,€ð ðWhatever€theÏrecord€says.€€I€can€only€tell€you€that€it€would€be€„„€it€would€be€as€natural€for€me€to€object€to€thatÏas€it€would€be€to€appear€for€court.ðð€€He€admitted€that€he€believed€evidence€of€other€bad€actsÏof€the€petitioner€had€been€ð ðvery€damning€to€his€case.ððÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€counsel€testified€that€he€did€not€know€if€a€sentencingÏconsultant€or€a€psychiatrist€would€have€changed€the€verdict€in€the€case.€€He€also€testified€thatÏthe€petitioner€had€seemed€to€understand€the€trial€proceedings€and€that€counsel€had€neverÏhad€an€indication€that€the€petitioner€suffered€from€any€type€of€physical,€mental,€or€emotionalÏdisability.€€Counsel€stated€that€he€and€co„counsel€had€developed€the€strategy€that€theÏpetitioner€had€not€committed€the€crime€and€had€not€been€involved€in€a€conspiracy€of€anyÏkind.€€He€testified€that€the€issues€that€they€had€felt€had€the€best€likelihood€of€succeeding€onÏappeal€had€been€chosen€and€that€the€appellate€brief€had€been€in€excess€of€one€hundredÏpages.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€then€considered€the€petitionerððs€motion€concerning€expertòòÏóóservices,€noting€that€the€motion€had€been€received€only€that€day,€and€the€motion€wasÏoverruled.€€The€court€also€overruled€the€petitionerððs€motion€for€a€continuance.€€Presenting€noÏevidence,€the€state€then€moved€to€dismiss€the€petitionerððs€petition.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€evidence€concerning€uncharged€illegal€activity€ofÏthe€petitioner€had€been€objected€to€and€ruled€upon€numerous€times€both€pretrial€and€duringÏtrial.€€It€recalled€having€found€that€part€of€the€conspiracy€charged€had€involved€the€illegal€saleÏof€drugs€and€also€stated€that€this€issue€had€also€been€determined€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court.€€In€concluding€that€the€petitioner€had€received€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€the€trial€court€stated€that€counsel€ð ðhad€never€missed€a€beatðð€and€that€counsel€was€inÏð ðthe€high€rangeðð€of€competence.€€Though€it€did€not€make€specific€determinations€regardingÏthe€petitionerððs€other€issues,€the€trial€court€stated€that€all€other€claims€had€been€previouslyÏdecided€and€properly€appealed.€€ÌÌà àIn€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€determinations,€we€are€guided€by€certain€rules.€€TheÏburden€was€on€the€petitioner€at€the€hearing€to€prove€his€case€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.× ƒ" ××  ×€€On€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€are€conclusive€unless€the€evidence€of€recordÏpreponderates€against€its€determinations.€€òòTurner€v.€Stateóó,€698€S.W.2d€90,€91€(Tenn.€1985).€ÏThe€burden€now€rests€upon€the€petitioner€to€illustrate€how€the€record€preponderates€againstÏthe€judgment.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€EFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€trial€attorneys€were€ineffective€for€failing€toÏobject€to€or€limit€the€introduction€of€inadmissible€evidence€concerning€the€petitionerððsÏparticipation€in€illegal€activities€for€which€he€had€not€been€charged,€for€failing€to€object€toÏerroneous€reasonable€doubt€instructions,€for€lacking€the€experience€and€knowledgeÏnecessary€for€representation€in€death€penalty€cases,€for€failing€to€consult€with€the€petitioner€atÏcrucial€stages€of€the€proceedings,€for€failing€to€request€expert€and€investigative€services,€andÏfor€failing€to€question€prospective€jurors€adequately€regarding€their€ability€to€consider€a€lifeÏsentence€in€light€of€the€applicable€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances.€€We€hold€thatÏthe€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÌÌà àUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏis€made,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counselððs€performance€wasÏdeficient€and€(2)€that€the€deficiency€rendered€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€theÏtrial€was€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466ÏU.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984).€€In€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.Ï1975),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€decided€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€generalÏstandard€of€whether€services€rendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€range€of€competence€was€to€beÏmeasured€by€the€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,€491€F.2d€687€(6thÏCir.€1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197€(D.C.€Cir.€1973),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€444ÏU.S.€944€(1979).€€Also,€in€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment€of€attorneyÍperformance€requires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,Ïto€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€theÏconduct€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,Ï104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(Counselððs€conductÏwill€not€be€measured€by€ð ð20„20€hindsight.ðð).ÌÌò òÓ  ÓA.ó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€counsel€failed€to€file,€or€to€obtain€rulings€on,€pretrialÏmotions€to€limit€the€stateððs€presentation€of€evidence€concerning€uncharged€illegal€conduct€ofÏthe€petitioner€and€failed€to€object€to€its€admission€at€trial.€€He€cites€instances€where€the€stateÏwas€allowed€to€make€reference€to€or€elicit€testimony€concerning€the€uncharged€illegal€activityÏof€the€petitioner.€€However,€we€conclude€that€counsel€did,€in€fact,€object€to€evidenceÏconcerning€prior€bad€acts€of€the€petitioner.€€ÌIn€most,€if€not€all€of€the€instances,€the€petitionerððs€counsel€attempted€to€object€to€harmfulÏtestimony,€even€though€the€trial€court€had€concluded€that€all€evidence€proved€to€be€inÏfurtherance€of€a€conspiracy,€such€as€illegal€drug€activity,€was€admissible.€ÌÌà àGenerally,€the€petitionerððs€complaints€about€the€stateððs€use€of€illegal€conductÏevidence€relates€to€the€following€trial€events.€€In€its€opening€statement,€the€state€referred€toÏthe€petitionerððs€relationship€to€the€codefendant€as€ð ða€man€with€whom€he€was€associated€inÏthe€selling€of€drugs.ðð€€State€witness€Keith€Miller€referred€to€the€petitionerððs€money€as€ð ðdrugÍmoney.ðð€€State€witness€Rick€Miller€testified€concerning€a€personal€computer€owned€by€theÏvictim€which€had€been€sold€by€the€codefendant€to€the€petitioner,€and€Miller€detailed€hisÏinvolvement€with€the€petitioner€in€illegal€drug€activity.€€State€witness€Bobby€Joe€HiggsÏidentified€check€stubs€which€had€been€confiscated€from€the€defendantððs€home,€and€laterÏtestimony€described€the€checks€as€payments€for€drugs.€€State€witness€Phillip€Varnadore€alsoÏtestified€concerning€illegal€drug€activity€of€the€petitioner.€€In€closing€argument,€the€stateÏreferred€to€the€petitioner€as€a€ð ðdrug€lordðð€and€ð ðringleaderðð€and€theorized€that€figures€from€aÏnotebook€confiscated€from€the€petitionerððs€home€were€actually€calculations€of€returns€theÏpetitioner€could€ð ðmake€on€his€drug€investments.ððÌÌ€à àFirst,€we€note€that€defense€counselððs€actions€to€block€or€limit€use€of€prior€bad€actÏevidence€began€pretrial.€€At€a€February€1990€motion€hearing,€counsel€for€codefendant€GaylorÏmoved€that€any€evidence€that€would€be€brought€before€the€jury€under€Rules€608€or€609,ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.,€be€provided€to€the€defendant€ten€days€prior€to€trial.€€The€trial€court€set€a€dateÏrequiring€the€stateððs€response,€and€when€the€state€failed€to€file€the€information,€counsel€forÏthe€codefendant€and€counsel€for€the€defendant€jointly€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€anyÏevidence€that€would€be€brought€in€under€these€rules.€€The€court€ruled€that€if€the€state€gaveÏadequate€notice€two€weeks€before€the€trial€date€of€January€7,€1991,€the€evidence€would€beÏadmissible.Ìà àà àÌà àIn€March€1990,€counsel€for€the€petitioner€filed€a€pretrial€motion€requesting€thatÏthe€state€provide€the€petitioner€notice€of€its€intent€to€introduce€any€evidence€of€prior€crimes,Ïwrongs,€or€acts€pursuant€to€Rule€404(b),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.,€that€were€allegedly€committed€by€theÏpetitioner.€€The€state€responded€that€it€intended€to€introduce€evidence€that€the€defendant€andÏhis€codefendants€were€involved€in€a€conspiracy€involving€the€illegal€sale€of€controlledÏsubstances,€as€well€as€insurance€fraud.€€At€that€time,€the€state€intended€to€use€the€evidenceÏas€proof€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan,€proof€of€motive,€proof€of€intent,€and€rebuttal€of€accidentÏin€this€case.Ìà àà àÌ€à àIn€September€1990,€the€petitioner€filed€a€motion€requesting€that€the€court€orderÏthe€state€to€provide€the€defendant€with€written€notice€of€any€impeaching€conduct€of€theÏpetitioner€prior€to€trial€pursuant€to€Rule€608(b)(3),€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€In€October€1990,€theÏpetitioner€requested€a€ruling€before€trial€that,€among€other€things,€prohibited€the€state€ð ðfromÏreferring€to€the€accusedððs€prior€or€other€criminal€behavior€or€implying€that€the€same€existsÏunless€and€until€it€is€properly€introduced€into€evidence.ðð€€Each€of€these€pretrial€motions€wasÏapparently€intended€to€limit€introduction€of€uncharged€illegal€activities.ÌÌà àAs€for€the€instances€cited€by€the€petitioner€where€the€state€elicited€unchargedÏillegal€acts,€before€Rick€Millerððs€testimony,€codefendant€Gaylorððs€counsel€moved€that€MillerÏnot€be€allowed€to€make€any€reference€to€the€uncharged€illegal€activities€of€either€of€theÍcodefendants€unless€he€had€specific€knowledge€of€such€conduct.× ƒ# ××  ×€€The€court€ruled€that€itÏwould€stop€the€witness€if€he€were€asked€a€question€about€something€of€which€he€had€noÏpersonal€knowledge,€but€again€concluded€that€any€evidence€that€would€support€the€theory€ofÏa€conspiracy€would€be€admissible.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€counsel€did€not€object€to€Millerððs€testimony€before€it€was€heard,Ïbut€at€a€subsequent€jury„out€hearing,€counsel€objected€to€the€witnessðð€testimony€concerning€aÏdiscussion€between€the€codefendant€and€the€defendant,€claiming€that€it€was€beingÏintroduced€as€co„conspirator€hearsay€before€it€had€been€determined€that€a€conspiracyÏexisted.€€The€objection€was€overruled€on€grounds€that€a€trial€court€may€allow€co„conspiratorÏhearsay€to€be€introduced€before€it€makes€a€determination€that€a€conspiracy€exists€if€theÏhearsay€is€evidence€of€the€conspiracy€and€is€corroborated€at€a€later€time.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€counsel€also€moved€to€supress€certain€evidence€admittedÏthrough€witness€Bobby€Joe€Higgs,€a€detective€with€the€Anderson€County€SheriffððsÏDepartment.€€He€testified€that€he€had€gone€to€the€petitionerððs€home€with€a€search€warrant€andÏhad€confiscated€numerous€check€stubs€and€a€notebook€which€contained€insurance€papers.€ÏThese€stubs€were€later€identified€by€witness€and€co„conspirator€Phillip€Varnadore€asÏpayments€for€drugs.€€Before€trial,€however,€counsel€for€the€petitioner€had€filed€a€motion€toÍsuppress€all€evidence€seized€from€the€petitionerððs€residence€due€to€a€violation€of€theÏpetitionerððs€Fourth€Amendment€rights€under€the€United€Stateððs€Constitution.€€The€motion€wasÏoverruled.ÌÌà àBefore€Varnadore€testified,€defense€counsel€objected€to€certain€letters€written€byÏthe€petitioner€to€Varnadore€on€the€basis€that€they€had€only€been€provided€to€defense€counselÏthe€weekend€before€the€trial.€€The€letters€were€incriminating€as€they€discussed€certain€moneyÏpaid€to€individuals€for€drugs.€€The€objection€was€overruled,€and€the€letters€were€admitted€andÏread€to€the€jury.ÌÌ€à àOn€numerous€occasions€during€opening€and€closing€argument,€the€stateÏreferred€to€the€conspiracy€of€all€the€codefendants€and€their€involvement€in€illegal€drug€activityÏin€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy.€€However,€given€that€the€court€had€already€concluded€thatÏevidence€of€acts€in€furtherance€of€the€conspiracy€was€admissible,€any€objection€to€theÏargument€would€have€been€fruitless.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€next€claims€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€eliciting€evidenceÏof€the€petitionerððs€illegal€activities.€€He€refers€to€the€cross„examination€of€state€witness€RickyÏMiller€wherein€counsel€purportedly€elicited€testimony€that€the€petitioner€had€loaned€theÏwitness€money€for€a€boat€but€that€there€had€been€an€agreement€that€after€the€witness€had€theÏboat€for€awhile,€ð ðit€was€to€be€burned€and€[the€witness€would]€collect€the€insurance€on€theÍboat.ðð€€However,€the€record€reveals€that€the€testimony€of€Miller€concerning€the€proposedÏinsurance€scam€was€not€elicited€by€counsel.€€Rather,€this€testimony€appeared€to€be€a€surpriseÏto€counsel€as€shown€by€his€next€question€to€Miller,€ð ðYou€just€want€to€add€that€to€yourÏtestimony€today.ðð€€Counsel€was€apparently€attempting€to€impeach€Millerððs€testimony€byÏshowing€that€he€owed€the€petitioner€money€when€this€comment€was€made€by€the€witness.€Ì€Ìà àThe€petitioner€also€faults€counsel€for€eliciting€testimony€from€the€petitionerÏconcerning€two€revocations€of€a€security€clearance€the€petitioner€had€experienced€whileÏpreviously€employed.€€However,€testimony€concerning€the€security€clearance€was€actuallyÏelicited€to€show€that€the€petitioner€had€maintained€a€ð ðQðð€clearance€for€nine€years€and€sixÏmonths€while€employed€by€Martin„Marietta.€€The€petitioner€explained€that€a€ð ðQðð€clearanceÏmeans€that€a€person€has€an€ð ðunblemished€record,€no€drugs,€no€felonies,€pretty€much€anÏupright€person.ðð€€He€admitted€that€his€clearance€had€been€revoked€twice€for€an€arson€chargeÏand€a€football€board,€but€stated€that€after€an€investigation,€he€was€found€not€guilty€of€theÏcharges€and€his€clearance€was€reinstated.ÌÌ€à àCounsel€also€questioned€the€petitioner€about€illegal€drug€activity€in€an€apparentÏeffort€to€rebut€all€prior€testimony€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€concerning€illegal€drug€activity.€€TheÏpetitioner€emphatically€denied€any€participation€in€illegal€drug€activity,€but€the€state€used€thisÏtestimony€to€argue€that€the€petitioner€had€ð ðopened€the€doorðð€to€cross„examination€on€thisÏsubject.ÌÌà à€The€petitioner€also€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€theÏcross„examination€of€the€petitioner.€€This€is€not€supported€by€the€record.€€Before€cross„examination,€the€state€argued€that€it€should€be€able€to€cross„examine€the€petitionerÏconcerning€pending€charges€of€fraudulent€credit€card€use,€the€possession€of€illegal€drugs,Ïand€receiving€and€concealing€stolen€property.€€The€state€argued€that€the€prior€bad€actsÏshould€be€admissible€to€impeach€the€petitioner€and€that€evidence€of€drug€activity€should€beÏallowed€because€the€petitioner€had€earlier€denied€any€illegal€drug€activity.€€The€state€thenÏargued€that€part€of€its€case€was€that€the€codefendants€conspired€and€associated€in€partÏbecause€of€the€drug€transactions€between€them.€€Counsel€for€the€petitioner€objected€to€thisÏcross„examination€based€upon€the€fact€that€the€alleged€conduct€concerning€the€credit€cardÏand€stolen€property€occurred€after€the€offense€on€trial€occurred.€€Counsel€also€objected€to€theÏprejudicial€effect€of€any€testimony€concerning€drug€activity.€€The€court€overruled€counselððsÏobjections€and€held€that€cross„examination€concerning€these€activities€was€admissible.€ÏThus,€the€record€reflects€that€counsel€did€object.ÌÌà àLast,€the€petitioner€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€toÏinadmissible€evidence€and€improper€argument€made€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial,Ïprimarily€dealing€with€the€stateððs€claim€of€the€petitionerððs€illegal€drug€activity.€€The€complaintÏabout€evidence€relates€to€the€state€relying€in€the€sentencing€phase€on€the€evidenceÍpresented€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€which€included€the€evidence€of€illegal€drug€activity.€ÏThis€evidence€is€also€at€the€root€of€the€arguments€about€which€the€petitioner€now€complains.ÌÌà àDuring€argument,€in€response€to€the€petitionerððs€argument€that€he€had€noÏhistory€of€prior€criminal€activity,€the€prosecutor€stated€that€the€record€was€ð ðchock€full€ofÏcriminal€activity.ðð€€In€response€to€the€petitionerððs€argument€that€he€was€a€skilled€worker,€theÏprosecutor€commented€that€because€the€petitioner€was€a€skilled€worker,€it€was€not€necessaryÏfor€him€to€sell€drugs€to€make€a€living.€€The€prosecutor€also€referred€to€the€petitioner€as€theÏringleader€in€the€conspiracy€to€sell€drugs€and€commit€murder€for€hire.€€He€stated€that€it€hadÏbeen€Rick€Millerððs€testimony€that€the€insurance€proceeds€that€were€the€goal€of€the€crimeÏwould€be€used€by€the€petitioner€to€invest€in€more€drugs.€€The€petitioner€asserts€that€this€lastÏremark€was€a€misstatement€of€the€evidence€and€that€all€of€the€remarks€were€not€properÏsubjects€for€consideration€by€the€jury€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(c)€(1982).× ƒ$ ××  ×ÌÌà àAs€a€starting€point,€we€note€that€trial€counsel€was€not€questioned€at€theÏevidentiary€hearing€about€the€closing€arguments€in€the€sentencing€phase.€€The€recordÏcontains€no€indication€of€the€circumstances€or€counselððs€thinking€at€the€time€of€the€argumentÍthat€would€shed€any€light€on€the€lack€of€objections.€€With€the€burden€being€upon€the€petitionerÏto€prove€his€claims,€we€will€not€presume€deficient€performance€by€counsel€from€such€lack€ofÏevidence.€€Rather,€it€would€only€be€the€most€egregious€error€from€which€we€could€concludeÏthat€no€competent€lawyer€would€forego€objection€that€would€allow€us€to€conclude€that€failureÏto€object€was€not€a€legitimate€tactic.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Ogleóó,€666€S.W.2d€58,€60„61€(Tenn.Ï1984).€€ÌÌà àIn€òòCozzolino€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.€2d€765€(Tenn.€1979),€over€the€defendantððsÏobjections,€the€state€introduced€in€the€sentencing€phase€evidence€of€statements€by€theÏdefendant€in€which€he€admitted€committing€a€number€of€armed€robberies€during€the€intervalÏbetween€the€murder€for€which€he€was€on€trial€and€his€arrest.€€In€holding€that€the€admission€ofÏthe€statements€was€error,€our€supreme€court€dealt€with€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2404(c),€a€provisionÏalmost€identical€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(c)€(1982):ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àOn€its€face€section€(c)€would€seem€to€permit€the€introduction€ofÏevidence€ð ðrelevant€to€the€punishmentðð€in€addition€to€that€ð ðtendingÏto€establish€or€rebut€the€aggravating€circumstancesðð€or€ð ðtending€toÏestablish€or€rebut€any€mitigating€factors.ðð€€However,€thisÏinterpretation€is€one€that€we€cannot€accept.€€When€the€statute€isÏconsidered€as€a€whole,€it€is€clear€that€the€only€issues€that€the€juryÏmay€properly€consider€in€reaching€a€decision€on€the€sentence€toÏbe€imposed€are€whether€the€State€has€established€one€or€more€ofÏthe€aggravating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and,€ifÏso,€whether€any€mitigating€factors€have€been€shown€that€wouldÏoutweigh€those€aggravating€circumstances.€€Any€evidence€thatÏdoes€not€go€to€the€proof€of€one€or€the€other€of€those€issues€isÏirrelevant€to€the€juryððs€deliberation.€€We€cannot€believe€that€theÏlegislature€intended€that€irrelevant€evidence€be€placed€before€theÏjury,€fraught€as€such€a€procedure€would€be€with€the€ððsubstantialÍrisk€that€[the€death€penalty]€would€be€inflicted€in€an€arbitrary€andÏcapricious€manner,ðð€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€188,€96€S.ÏCt.€2909,€2932,€49€L.Ed.2d€859€(1976),€i.e.,€on€the€basis€of€factorsÏother€than€those€deemed€by€the€legislature€to€be€properÏpredicates€for€the€sentencing€determination.€€We€think€that€a€betterÏinterpretation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2404(c),€and€one€more€in€keepingÏwith€both€the€sense€of€the€entire€statute€and€the€mandate€of€theÏUnited€Supreme€Court,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòLockettÏv.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€98€S.€Ct.€2945,€57€L.Ed.2d€973€(1978),€isÏthat€evidence€is€relevant€to€the€punishment,€and€thus€admissible,Ïonly€if€it€is€relevant€to€an€aggravating€circumstance,€or€to€aÏmitigating€factor€raised€by€the€defendant.ÌÌòòCozzolinoóó,€584€S.W.2d€at€767„68.ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àIn€the€present€case,€the€petitioner€relied€upon€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(1),€that€ð ðtheÏdefendant€has€no€significant€history€of€prior€criminal€activity,ðð€as€a€mitigating€circumstance.€ÏThe€prosecutorððs€comment€that€the€record€was€ð ðchock€full€of€criminal€activityðð€was€relevant€toÏrebut€the€use€of€this€mitigator.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€offered€as€a€nonstatutory€mitigator€that€he€was€a€skilled€workerÏand€could€ð ðbe€counted€upon€to€do€a€good€job€for€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.ðð€ÏThe€prosecutorððs€response€that€it€was€not€necessary€for€the€petitioner€to€sell€drugs€becauseÏhe€was€a€skilled€worker€does€not€actually€rebut€this€mitigator.€€However,€even€if€we€were€toÏconclude€that€the€response€was€improper,€we€cannot€conclude€that€counselððs€failure€to€objectÏto€it€was€deficient€performance€that€materially€prejudiced€the€petitioner,€given€the€substantialÏevidence€of€illegal€drug€activity€that€was€already€before€the€jury.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€also€faults€counsel€for€failing€to€object€to€the€stateððs€argument€thatÏhe€was€using€the€insurance€proceeds€from€the€murder€for€hire€to€invest€in€drugs,€referring€toÏRick€Millerððs€testimony.€€The€petitioner€states€that€Miller€did€not€so€testify€and€he€argues€that€itÏwas€prosecutorial€misconduct€to€argue€this€unproven€claim€of€criminal€intent,€particularly€as€aÏreason€for€imposing€the€death€penalty.€€First,€although€the€record€reflects€that€evidence€ofÏreinvestment€of€the€insurance€proceeds€was€not€introduced€through€Rick€Miller,€it€doesÏcontain€evidence€of€handwritten€notations€on€insurance€forms€which,€according€to€the€state,Ïwere€calculations€of€money€that€could€be€made€if€the€petitioner€reinvested€the€insuranceÏproceeds€in€drug€activity.€€In€this€sense,€although€Miller€was€not€the€source,€there€remainedÏan€evidentiary€basis€for€the€stateððs€argument.ÌÌà àWhat€is€less€clear€is€whether€the€stateððs€position€about€the€petitionerððs€drugÏdealings,€specifically€about€investing€insurance€proceeds€into€the€illegal€drug€business,€wasÏimproperly€argued€in€the€context€of€reasons€to€impose€the€death€penalty,€as€opposed€toÏrebuttal€to€the€petitionerððs€claim€of€a€lack€of€criminal€history.€€In€the€stateððs€closing€argument,Ïthe€prosecutor€presented€an€item€by€item€rebuttal€to€the€petitionerððs€and€codefendantððsÏclaimed€points€in€mitigation.€ÌÌà àHowever,€this€rebuttal€argument€was€followed€by€the€stateððs€concludingÏremarks,€which€included€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà àMr.€Hutchison,€he€who€puts€together€a€murder€for€hire,€€is€aÏparticularly€evil€force.€€He€is€one€with€a€wicked€and€depraved€heartÏwho€would€end€a€life€for€money.€€From€the€evidence€in€this€case,€itÏis€clear€that€it€was€greed,€greed€on€the€part€of€both€[theÏcodefendant]€and€Hutchison.€€Greed€for€money;€money€to€party,Ïmoney€to€pamper€girlfriends€that€they€swapped€around,€money€toÏinvest€in€drugs€that€could€be€distributed€in€larger€quantities,€toÏmore€customers,€destroy€more€young€people,€but€making€you€asÏthe€ringleader€of€this€an€even€greater€return€on€your€investment.€€ÌÌà8 àà àYou€remember€Rick€Millerððs€testimony€that€not€only€did€Mr.ÏHutchison€intend€to€collect€this€five€hundred€thousand€dollars€fromÏthe€death€of€Hugh€Huddleston,€but€he€intended€to€Ìœ›à8 àincrease€that€even€more€by€investing€it€in€drugs.€€And€indeed,€atÏthe€very€time€that€the€money€wouldððve€come€in,€he€was€engaged€inÏcocaine€trafficking.€€ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€defendant€contends€that€this€argument€was€an€attempt€by€the€state€to€get€the€jury€toÏimpose€the€death€penalty€because€of€the€drug€trafficking,€not€any€statutorily€requiredÏaggravating€circumstances.€€ÌÌà àWe€tend€to€agree€that€the€reference€to€the€petitionerððs€intent€to€invest€the€crimeÏproceeds€into€more€drugs€that€would€ð ðdestroy€more€young€peopleðð€has€the€potential€to€focusÏthe€jury€unduly€on€concerns€about€the€petitionerððs€drug€dealings.€€However,€in€reviewing€theÏcomplete€closing€remarks,€we€believe€that€the€major€thrust€of€the€stateððs€comments€focusedÏconsideration€on€the€petitionerððs€financial€motives€for€the€murder.€€Obviously,€the€nature€andÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€murder,€particularly€the€financial€reasons€that€motivated€it,Ïwere€relevant€to€the€aggravating€circumstance€regarding€murder€for€remuneration€that€wasÏpresented€to€the€jury.€€In€this€sense,€to€the€extent€that€the€evidence€supported€a€conclusionÍthat€a€major€reason€for€the€killing€was€to€have€funds€to€invest€in€drug€trafficking,€theÏprosecutorððs€argument€was€proper.€€Otherwise,€we€believe€that€the€ð ðoffendingðð€reference€wasÏnot€sufficiently€significant€that€the€failure€to€object€was€deficient€performance€that€prejudicedÏthe€petitioner.ÌÌà àIn€sum,€from€our€review€of€the€trial€record,€we€conclude€that€counsel€did,€in€fact,Ïmake€a€diligent€effort€to€exclude€from€the€evidence€testimony€concerning€uncharged€illegalÏacts€despite€the€fact€that€most,€if€not€all,€the€evidence€had€been€deemed€admissible.€ÏCounselððs€performance€did€not€constitute€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓB.ó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€next€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€objecting€to€theÏreasonable€doubt€jury€instruction€at€both€the€guilt€and€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€TheÏinstruction€given€during€the€guilt€phase€reads€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àReasonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€an€investigation€ofÏall€the€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability€after€such€investigation,€toÏlet€the€mind€rest€€easily€as€to€the€certainty€of€guilt.€€ReasonableÏdoubt€does€not€mean€a€captious,€possible,€or€imaginary€doubt.€ÏAbsolute€certainty€of€guilt€is€not€demanded€by€the€law€to€convict€ofÏany€criminal€charge,€but€moral€certainty€is€required€and€thisÏcertainty€is€required€as€to€every€proposition€of€proof€requisite€toÏconstitute€the€offense.€€ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓA€similar€instruction€was€given€at€the€penalty€phase:€€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àThe€burden€of€proof€is€upon€the€State€to€prove€any€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstance€or€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonableÍdoubt€and€to€a€moral€certainty.€€Reasonable€doubt€is€that€doubtÏengendered€by€an€investigation€of€all€the€proof€in€the€case€and€anÏinability,€after€such€investigation,€to€let€the€mind€rest€easily€uponÏthe€certainty€of€your€verdict.€€Reasonable€doubt€does€not€mean€aÏdoubt€that€may€arise€from€possibility.€€Absolute€certainty€is€notÏdemanded€by€the€law,€but€moral€certainty€is€required€and€thisÏcertainty€is€required€as€to€every€proposition€of€proof€requisite€toÏconstitute€the€verdict.€ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€asserts€that€counsel€should€have€objected€to€these€instructions€because€theÏlinking€of€the€phrase€ð ðreasonable€doubtðð€to€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€is€unconstitutional,€citingÏòòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€864€F.€Supp.€686€(M.D.€Tenn.€1994),€in€support€of€his€claim.€€ÌÌà àOn€numerous€occasions,€Tennessee€courts€have€held€that€the€identical€orÏsimilar€instructions€were€consistent€with€constitutional€principles.€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€€v.€Nicholsóó,Ï877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.1994);€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,€885€S.W.2d€364,€365€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1994).€€We€do€not€believe€that€counselððs€failure€to€object€constituted€deficientÏperformance.€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓC.ó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€claims€that€trial€counsel€lacked€the€experience€and€knowledgeÏnecessary€for€effective€representation€in€a€death€penalty€case€and€failed€to€investigate€andÏpresent€evidence€to€demonstrate€aspects€of€his€character,€background,€and€mental€state.€ÏHowever,€other€than€referring€to€his€other€claims€about€the€ineffectiveness€of€counsel,€theÍpetitioner€does€not€demonstrate€that€counsel€was€inexperienced€and€unknowing€and€that€thisÏinexperience€prejudiced€him.€ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€only€one€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified.€ÏHe€stated€that€he€had€been€practicing€law€for€twelve€years€at€the€time€of€this€trial€and€that€heÏhad€previously€worked€on€another€capital€case€that€had€settled€before€trial.€€WhenÏquestioned€about€the€petitionerððs€background,€counsel€stated€that€he€had€not€been€aware€ofÏthe€petitionerððs€stuttering€problem€nor€any€head€injuries€resulting€from€automobile€accidents.€ÏHe€acknowledged€that€he€had€known€that€the€petitioner€had€been€placed€on€pain€medicationÏduring€the€pendency€of€the€case,€but€he€denied€having€any€indication€that€the€petitioner€wasÏnot€comprehending€what€was€being€said€to€him.€Ì€Ìà àCounsel€also€stated€that€one€of€the€witnesses€the€petitioner€wanted€to€call,€MikeÏBell,€had€been€interviewed€by€co„counsel€for€approximately€three€hours.€€He€acknowledgedÏthat€Bell€had€not€been€called€as€a€witness€and€that€he€had€no€recollection€as€to€why€theÏwitness€had€not€been€called.€€As€for€other€witnesses€who€would€have€vouched€for€theÏpetitionerððs€character,€counsel€testified€that€during€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial,€he€had€putÏon€numerous€character€witnesses€who€testified€concerning€the€petitionerððs€background.ÌÌà àWhen€a€petitioner€contends€that€counsel€failed€to€present€witnesses€in€supportÏof€his€defense,€these€witnesses€should€be€presented€by€the€petitioner€at€the€evidentiaryÍhearing.€€By€presenting€them,€the€petitioner€can€establish€that€the€failure€to€have€a€knownÏwitness€testify€resulted€in€the€denial€of€evidence€material€to€the€petitioner.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,Ï794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€ÌÌà àHowever,€in€this€case,€the€petitioner€did€not€present€Mr.€Bell€or€any€otherÏwitness€that€he€would€have€his€trial€counsel€introduce€on€his€behalf.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€the€trial€court€had€insufficient€evidence€to€determine€either€if€the€failure€to€callÏa€witness€was€deficient€performance€by€trial€counsel€or€if€such€failure€constituted€materialÏprejudice€to€the€petitionerððs€cause.€€Accordingly,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€the€trialÏcounselððs€claimed€failures€amounted€to€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€à àà à€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓD.ó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€consult€with€theÏpetitioner€throughout€the€proceedings.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€met€with€counsel€onlyÏsix€times€before€trial.€€However,€the€fee€claims€of€counsel€reveal€that€one€attorney€met€withÏthe€petitioner€twenty€times€and€the€other€attorney€met€with€him€seven€times.€€NumerousÏtelephone€calls€were€also€made€to€the€petitioner.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€he€could€not€effectively€interact€with€his€attorneysÏbecause€he€was€given€pain€medication€every€four€hours€while€he€was€incarcerated.€ÏHowever,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€he€had€been€able€to€provide€counsel€with€a€witness€listÍand€specific€details€concerning€his€relationship€with€the€co„conspirators€and€the€alleged€loanÏtransaction€between€him€and€the€victim.€€The€trial€record€reflects€that€the€jury€was€providedÏwith€a€detailed€explanation€of€the€petitionerððs€version€of€the€events.€€Undeniably,€this€recordÏcould€not€have€been€created€if€counsel€had€not€consulted€extensively€with€the€petitioner.€ÏCounselððs€performance€was€not€deficient€in€this€regard.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€counsel€failed€to€discuss€with€him€the€issues€thatÏwould€be€raised€on€appeal.€€However,€counsel€testified€that€he€and€co„counsel€had€met€withÏthe€petitioner€to€discuss€the€appeal€and€that€they€had€talked€in€a€general€manner.€€He€statedÏthat€they€had€used€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€as€a€backdrop€for€the€issues.€€The€trial€courtÏobviously€accredited€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel.ÌÌà àAs€for€specific€issues€to€be€raised€on€appeal,€counsel€stated€that€he€and€co„counsel€had€chosen€only€the€issues€that€they€felt€had€the€best€chance€of€succeeding.€€HeÏalso€stated€that€their€brief€had€been€in€excess€of€one€hundred€pages.€We€also€note€that€theÏpetitioner€fails€to€identify€in€his€brief€any€substantive€issue€that€should€have€been€raised€butÏwas€not.€ÌÌà àAn€advocate€is€not€required€to€raise€every€issue€contained€in€the€motion€for€aÏnew€trial€or€requested€by€the€accused.€€òòJones€v.€Barnesóó,€463€U.S.€745,€750„51,€103€S.€Ct.Ï3308,€3312€(1983);€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€491€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€TheÍdetermination€of€which€issues€to€present€on€appeal€is€ð ða€matter€which€addresses€itself€to€theÏprofessional€judgment€and€sound€discretion€of€the€appellate€counsel.ðð€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849ÏS.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993).€€Counselððs€performance€was€not€deficient€in€selectingÏappropriate€issues€for€appeal.€à àà à€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓE.ó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€secure€expertÏservices.€€Although€trial€counsel€testified€that€in€retrospect,€he€would€have€used€the€servicesÏof€a€sentencing€consultant€and€a€psychiatrist,€he€acknowledged€that€he€presented€severalÏwitnesses€who€testified€about€the€petitionerððs€background.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€know€ifÏthe€use€of€experts€would€have€changed€the€verdict€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àThe€record€reveals€that€an€investigator€was€employed€by€counsel€and€thatÏbetween€counsel€and€the€investigator,€more€than€one€hundred€and€eighty„eight€hours€wereÏspent€in€investigation.€€At€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€seven€witnesses€were€extensivelyÏquestioned€concerning€the€petitionerððs€background€and€character.€€Thus,€many€of€theÏparticulars€about€the€petitionerððs€background€and€character€that€he€claims€would€have€beenÏshown€by€expert€testimony€were€in€fact€proven€by€other€witnesses.€€ÌÌà àWe€recognize€that€background€and€character€are€considered€relevant€to€aÏcapital€sentencing€determination€ð ðbecause€of€the€belief,€long€held€by€this€society,€thatÍdefendants€who€commit€criminal€acts€that€are€attributable€to€a€disadvantaged€background,€orÏto€emotional€and€mental€problems,€may€be€less€culpable€than€defendants€who€have€no€suchÏexcuse.ðð€€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€545,€107€S.€Ct.€837,€841€(1987)€(OððConnor,€J.,Ïconcurring).€€Also,€we€recognize€that€mental€condition€experts€can€be€important€to€aid€jurorsÏto€make€sensible€and€educated€determinations€about€an€accusedððs€mental€condition€that€isÏrelevant€to€the€issues€on€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòAke€v.€Oklahomaóó,€470€U.S.€68,€80„81,€105€S.€Ct.€1087,Ï1094„95€(1985).€However,€this€does€not€mean€that€counsel€will€be€performing€deficiently,€òòperóóÏòòseóó,€by€electing€to€use€lay€instead€of€expert€witnesses.€€We€will€not€fault€the€attorneysðð€relianceÏin€this€case€upon€lay€witnesses€to€show€the€petitionerððs€background,€positive€qualities,€andÏrehabilitation€attempts.€€According€to€counsel,€the€petitioner€had€never€indicated€that€heÏsuffered€from€any€type€of€physical,€mental€or€emotional€disability€that€would€have€warrantedÏthe€services€of€a€psychiatrist.€€Also,€the€investigation€of€the€petitionerððs€background€byÏcounsel€and€the€investigator€was€shown€to€be€extensive.€€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓF.ó óÌÓ  Óà àLast,€the€petitioner€claims€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€questionÏprospective€jurors€adequately€about€their€ability€to€consider€a€life€sentence€if€an€aggravatingÏcircumstance€was€found.€€However,€trial€counsel€was€not€questioned€at€the€evidentiaryÏhearing€about€voir€dire.€€And€the€petitioner€gives€no€explanation€as€to€how€counsel€couldÏhave€more€effectively€questioned€the€jurors.ÌÌà àThe€trial€record€reveals€that€the€jury€voir€dire€was€extensive.€€Prospective€jurorsÏwere€questioned€repeatedly€by€the€trial€court,€the€state,€counsel,€and€counsel€for€theÏcodefendant€regarding€their€ability€to€consider€life€or€death€if€the€defendants€were€foundÏguilty€of€murder.€€They€were€also€asked€if€they€would€be€able€to€follow€the€law.€€We€see€noÏevident€indication€that€the€jury€was€less€than€fair€or€impartial€or€that€counselððs€jury€selectionÏactivities€constituted€deficient€performance.€€There€is€no€merit€to€this€issue.Ìà àà àÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€EVIDENCE€CONCERNING€UNCHARGED€ILLEGAL€ACTIVITIESó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€claims€that€he€was€denied€due€process€of€law€by€the€misconductÏof€the€state€in€its€introduction€of€inadmissible€evidence€and€improper€arguments€concerningÏthe€petitionerððs€participation€in€illegal€activities€for€which€he€had€not€been€charged.€ÏSpecifically,€he€asserts€that€testimony€was€elicited€from€witnesses€concerning€the€petitionerððsÏillegal€drug€activity€and€concealment€of€stolen€property.€€He€also€contests€the€stateððsÏarguments€made€at€both€phases€of€the€trial€in€which€the€prosecutor€repeatedly€referred€toÏillegal€drug€activity€of€the€petitioner.ÌÌà àAs€we€have€previously€acknowledged,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€state€couldÏquestion€the€petitioner€and€other€named€co„conspirators€in€this€case€concerning€the€drugÏrelationship€between€them.€€We€agree€that€the€testimony€concerning€illegal€drug€activityÏwould€be€admissible€because€the€conspiracy€to€commit€murder€was€linked€to€the€priorÏrelationship€among€the€co„conspirators€based€upon€their€involvement€in€the€drug€business.€ÍTherefore,€the€stateððs€introduction€of€evidence€and€related€argument€concerning€this€activityÏwas€not€improper.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òIII.€€TRIAL€COURTððS€FAILURE€TO€MAKE€WRITTEN€FINDINGS€OF€FACTó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€enter€a€written€order€orÏmemorandum€on€all€grounds€presented€in€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€stateÏconcedes€that€the€trial€court€should€have€addressed€each€claim€made€by€the€petitioner,€but€itÏdoes€not€agree€that€the€failure€to€do€so€warrants€reversal€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.ÌÌà àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„118(b),€the€trial€court€must€set€forth€all€groundsÏpresented€and€state€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€with€regard€to€each€ground.€ÏHowever,€even€if€a€trial€court€fails€to€comply€with€this€duty,€a€reversal€is€not€warranted€if€theÏrecord€reflects€the€reasons€for€the€trial€courtððs€actions.€€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€at€489.€ÏIn€òòSwansonóó,€this€court€stated€that€the€primary€intent€of€the€statute€was€ð ðto€facilitate€appellateÏreview€of€the€lower€courtððs€proceedings€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€€If€the€record€contains€the€reasons€for€theÏtrial€courtððs€action€ð ðsufficient€to€effectuate€meaningful€appellate€review,ðð€then€we€mayÏconsider€the€issues,€even€though€there€has€not€been€full€compliance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„118(b).€€òòId.óó€€Such€a€record€exists€in€this€case€and€a€remand€for€further€findings€isÏunnecessary.€ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€FUNDS€TO€RETAIN€EXPERT€SERVICESó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€grant€him€funds€toÏretain€expert€services.€€The€petitioner€requested€authorization€for€the€following€investigativeÏand€expert€services:€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à1.€€Marjorie€Fargo,€Senior€Trial€Consultant€and€President€of€JuryÏServices€„€funds€in€the€amount€of€$3,000€for€jury€investigation.ÌÌà8 à2.€€Frank€H.€Einstein,€Ph.D.,€sentencing€consultant€and€mitigationÏspecialist€„€funds€in€the€amount€of€$9,000€to€conduct€an€analysis€ofÏthe€proof€submitted€at€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.ÌÌà8 à3.€€Charles€T.€Kenny,€Kenny€and€Associates€„€funds€in€the€amountÏof€$2,000€to€compile€census€data€and€perform€a€statical€analysis€toÏresolve€any€issues€concerning€the€composition€of€the€jury€panelÏand€ultimate€venire.ÌÌà8 à4.€€Dr.€Peter€Young,€clinical€psychologist€„€funds€in€the€amount€ofÏ$6,000€to€evaluate€the€petitioner€to€determine€his€level€ofÏpsychological€functioning€and€ability€at€the€time€of€the€offense.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThe€trial€court€reserved€ruling€on€the€petitionerððs€motion€pending€his€presentation€of€proof.€€InÏits€written€order€entered€September€27,€1995,€the€court€concluded€that€the€petitionerððs€proofÏdid€not€establish€that€the€requested€expert€services€were€required€to€prove€a€constitutionalÏinfringement,€that€the€services€could€only€assist€in€searching€for€possible€constitutionalÏinfringements,€and€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€demonstrate€a€need€for€the€requestedÏservices.€ÌÌà àIn€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923€(Tenn.€1995),€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€ruled€that€the€òòexóó€òòparteóó€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„14„207(b),€which€provides€for€theÏauthorization€of€expert€services,€are€to€apply€in€post„conviction€capital€cases.€€908€S.W.2d€atÍ928.× ƒ% ××  ×€€The€court€held€that€to€obtain€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing,€a€capital€post„conviction€petitionerÏmust€submit€a€written€motion€to€the€trial€court€alleging€why€state„funded€services€areÏnecessary€to€ensure€due€process€is€afforded€under€the€particular€facts€and€circumstances€ofÏthe€case.€€òòId.óó€€The€motion€must€also€include€the€following:€ð ð(a)€the€name€of€the€proposedÏexpert€or€service;€(b)€how,€when€and€where€the€examination€is€to€be€conducted€or€theÏservices€are€to€be€performed;€(c)€the€cost€of€the€evaluation€and€report€thereof;€and€(d)€the€costÏof€any€other€necessary€services,€such€as€court€appearances.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€Rule€13€ðð€(2)(B)(10).ÌÌà àHowever,€the€court€cautioned€that€its€application€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„14„207(b)€toÏpost„conviction€capital€cases€ð ðshould€not€be€interpreted€as€a€ððblank€checkðð€requiring€trialÏjudges€to€hold€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearings€and€authorize€funds€in€every€case.ðð€€òòOwensóó,€908€S.W.2d€atÏ928.€€In€order€to€receive€state€funding€of€expert€services,€the€petitioner€must€demonstrate€thatÏthe€ð ðservices€are€necessary€to€ensure€the€protection€of€the€petitionerððs€constitutional€rights.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€€As€the€court€explained,€ð ða€petitioner€must€demonstrate€by€specific€factual€proof€that€theÏservices€of€an€expert€or€an€investigator€are€necessary€to€establish€a€ground€for€post„conviction€relief,€and€that€the€petitioner€is€unable€to€establish€that€ground€for€post„convictionÏrelief€by€any€other€available€evidence.ðð€€òòId.óóÌÌà àThe€discretion€to€grant€a€request€for€expert€services€rests€with€the€trial€court€andÏits€decision€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€unless€there€is€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€261€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€the€written€motionÏsubmitted€by€the€petitioner,€he€failed€to€specify€by€factual€proof€that€the€services€of€an€expertÏor€investigator€were€necessary€to€establish€a€ground€for€post„conviction€relief€and€that€he€wasÏunable€to€establish€such€ground€by€other€available€evidence.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€courtÏacted€within€its€discretion€in€denying€the€€requested€services.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓV.€€DENIAL€OF€A€CONTINUANCEó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€a€continuance.€ÏThe€record€reveals€that€counsel€for€the€petitioner€was€appointed€on€May€11,€1995.€€TheÏrecord€indicates€that€the€evidentiary€hearing€was€originally€scheduled€for€September€14,Ï1995,€but€a€continuance€was€granted.€€The€petitioner€requested€a€second€continuance€onÏSeptember€8,€1995,€and€renewed€the€request€on€September€27,€the€date€of€the€hearing.€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€argued€to€the€trial€court€that€additional€time€was€needed€in€orderÏto€receive€a€response€concerning€the€open€records€request€made€concerning€files€pertainingÏto€this€case,€a€decision€rendered€on€his€Petition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari€pending€in€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€concerning€jury€instructions€in€this€case,€and€a€decision€pending€inÏthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€the€matters€of€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó€and€òòHouse€v.€StateóóÏconcerning€the€availability€of€expert€services.€€He€further€averred€that€additional€time€wasÍneeded€for€investigation.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€request,€concluding€that€the€continuanceÏwas€neither€appropriate€nor€required.ÌÌà àThe€decision€whether€to€grant€a€continuance€rests€within€the€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court.€€òòState€v.€Morganóó,€825€S.W.2d€113,€117€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€denial€of€aÏcontinuance€will€not€be€disturbed€ð ðunless€it€appears€upon€the€face€of€the€record€that€the€trialÏjudge€abused€his€discretion€and€prejudice€enured€to€the€accused€as€a€direct€result€of€the€trialÏjudgeððs€ruling.ðð€€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€257€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€ÌÌà àIn€May€1995,€the€petitioner,€with€the€assistance€of€counsel€from€the€CapitalÏCase€Resource€Center,€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Counsel€wasÏimmediately€appointed€to€represent€the€petitioner.€€Amendments€to€the€petition€were€filed,Ïand€the€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€September€27,€1995.€€Thus,€counsel€had€access€toÏthe€records€in€this€case€for€a€substantial€time.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€he€has€been€prejudiced€in€anyÏmanner.€€It€is€undisputed€that€a€continuance€may€be€granted€for€the€purpose€of€securing€theÏpresence€of€identifiable€witnesses€if€the€witnessesðð€testimony€is€material€and€admissible.€ÏHowever,€in€this€case,€the€petitioner€sought€a€continuance€to€await€the€decisions€of€otherÏcourts€and€to€gather€information€which,€at€the€time€of€the€motion,€was€largely€unknown€and€ofÍspeculative€value.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€discretion€by€denying€theÏmotion€for€a€continuance.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓVI.€€TRANSCRIPT€OF€THE€ARGUMENTS€OF€COUNSEL€AT€TRIALó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€order€the€state€toÏprepare€and€file€transcripts€of€the€arguments€of€counsel€during€the€guilt€and€sentencingÏphases€of€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€However,€the€state€asserts€that€the€record€does€not€supportÏthis€claim.ÌÌà àIn€anticipation€of€this€proceeding,€the€state€filed€a€copy€of€the€record€as€it€existedÏon€direct€appeal.€€At€a€September€8,€1995,€motion€hearing,€counsel€for€the€petitioner€movedÏthat€he€be€allowed€to€supplement€the€record€with€tapes€of€the€opening€and€closing€argumentsÏof€the€state€at€both€the€guilt€and€penalty€phases€of€the€trial.€€The€trial€court€offered€to€provideÏcopies€of€the€tape€but€stated€that€the€clerkððs€office€might€not€be€able€to€get€the€tapesÏtranscribed€in€time.€€Counsel€for€the€petitioner€then€offered€to€have€the€tapes€transcribed,Ïadmitting€that€after€listening€to€them,€he€might€not€want€them€transcribed.€€Ultimately,€theÏtranscripts€were€entered€into€evidence€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€complains€that€the€transcription€burden€was€wrongly€placed€uponÏhim€instead€of€the€state.€€We€essentially€agree€with€him€in€that€the€district€attorney€general€isÏobligated€to€file€records€or€transcripts€that€are€material€to€the€issues€raised€in€a€post„conviction€petition.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„114(b).€€However,€the€petitioner€appeared€to€haveÏaccepted€the€burden,€and€in€any€event,€he€has€shown€no€harm€to€his€case€arising€from€whatÏoccurred.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓVII.€€CUMULATIVE€ERRORSó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€œthe€cumulative›€effect€of€all€errors€of€a€constitutionalÏdimension€at€trial€and€on€appeal€œwarrant€him€relief.›€€However,€because€we€have€concludedÏthat€no€individual€constitutional€error€exists,€there€is€no€œimproper›€cumulative€impact€upon€theÏpetitioner.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€records€of€the€petitionerððs€original€trial,Ïdirect€appeal€and€post„conviction€proceeding,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððsÏdeterminations€in€this€case€were€œcorrect.›€€The€judgment€is€affirmed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judgeà àà àà àà àÌà àà àÌÌà àà àÌÌà àà à€ÌÌà àà à€€€€€ÌÌà àà àÌÌà àà àÌÌà àà àÌÌà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€€€Ì€ÌÌÌÌà@ à