ÿWPCŽ! "&&ì$u ÜmN²23Š’»Ýj¸ع<"¡„ã¤z{kWâÝ^zªßDŽô>¼¬Záä÷÷T9¬uˆÃr¸gÝ:Cm/owR ˆK‹sq\œùÔRßúˆMè3×vݲz  ¢ÌV“…¡Å4‡·z *þÒÎ\]ü#&õí8x!¼Ê%È÷ä‚Ç FNéáѶàÔÜÃUÕO+_}0èo{#Ìñëеã3Û?=<ÅR¬×_äÀ_«JŸŒ¦)*þ}i$^xyÁúc­Óÿý9úØû:_ý|óbh, ÛäúÁ5ŽÂo™ (p/\EEô:нF„YGìà»5Ë`µ‰}Øknc‚\c^úðfÛ5ÊÜÆ†nÅEÕårs[Ô«óGŠh& ]4±z;|Õ5i¶e£u†²JU‚—ìJ¿|ì¿S'9I¯¸)ûŒJÀ³Ó9±5¢c”lšƒñ5?pXè2, *¸GM1.20mL D·µ'H^$þSJûcNóu¯bÇ%:Q@q×Ñ]K©ÍJoRñ´1k‡ñmÚbS.ß[óÏy?µ¥oUøZÛäK5ÑƈǴŸ×KÒ¢‹Vd©uŽÅ¬&BÀƒpLýe=¨¸«b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë N±N³ zµÒ/EÑ 0Dê!.OÞOA-Gnfµfb 0뉉‰‰ Btt 0¤‘ D55 D-j 0K—— ASâÆ5 0¤û 0DŸ A«ã ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»„¨’+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*˜C䤟 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt Ñ û Ñ ÇÝ ƒRxÔ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€exhibited€to€the€post„conviction€evidentiaryÐ ° Ðhearing.€€The€transcript€reflects€that€counsel€orally€raised€the€three€ð ðamendedðð€grounds€during€the€December€8€argument,Ð tÄ Ðand€the€trial€court€denied€these€and€all€other€grounds.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRxÔ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÔ‡X 1Xòôî¥ÔÔ#†ôî¥òXX 1#Ôó óWe€must€also€comment€that€the€record€on€the€direct€appeal€contains€a€transcript€of€the€prosecutorððs€finalÐ ° Ðargument,€but€it€omits€his€opening€argument€and€defense€counselððs€argument.€€We€have€no€way€of€knowing€whether€theÐ tÄ Ðcomplained€of€comments€during€the€stateððs€final€argument€might€in€some€way€be€responsive€to€the€defenseððs€precedingÐ 8ˆ Ðargument.€In€order€to€assure€full€appellate€review,€the€better€approach€would€be€for€the€appellant€to€present€a€transcriptÐ üL Ðof€all€of€the€arguments€before€the€jury.€ öÝ ƒRxÔ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€following€synopsis€of€the€trial€testimony€was€extracted€from€our€direct€appeal€opinion,€we€haveÐ ° Ðalso€examined€the€transcript€of€the€trial€proceedings€archived€with€the€direct€appeal€record€in€this€court.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€StateÐ tÄ Ðex€rel.€Ô_ÔWilkersonÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔBomarÔ_Ôóó,€213€Tenn.€499,€505,€376€S.W.2d€451,€453€(1964)€(court€may€take€notice€of€its€records€inÐ 8ˆ Ðan€earlier€proceeding€in€the€same€case).€€The€petitioner€failed€to€make€the€trial€transcript€an€exhibit€at€the€evidentiaryÐ üL Ðhearing. ÔÝ ƒRxÔ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔApparently,€the€petitioner€intended€to€refer€to€the€lack€of€sequestration€of€the€jury. 7Ý ƒRxÔ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAccording€to€Allen€Johnson,€the€ð ðbreak„upðð€was€precipitated€by€the€petitioner€discovering€Ms.€Ô_ÔMurdockÔ_Ô€ð ðwithÐ ° Ðanother€man.ðð =Ý ƒRxÔ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€direct€appeal€record€does€not€contain€both€of€the€stateððs€final€arguments.€€We€are€at€a€loss€to€discern€whenÐ ° Ðor€how€the€state€exploited€the€ð ðgapðð€in€the€tape. \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ \Ñ\R3Ø' Letter\Ñ- ù-(|G2xÔ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€A»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôî¥ò»»Ô d(|3„$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€A»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3„$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€A»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€A»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼A»»»ÔÑ8€ 1XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€³/ÑÑ€ ³/Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îHAÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼A»îîH.#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€30,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X 1X»¼AÔÌò òÔ#†¼A»XX 1C#ÔKENNETH€Ô_ÔMacARTHURÔ_Ô€JOHNSONòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEE€òòóóÔ‡X 1X»¼AÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hawkins€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€7775€€€€€€€James€E.€Ô_ÔBecknerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„00068„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€Ô_Ô18,Ô_Ô€2001Ð ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓAggrieved€of€his€second€degree€murder€conviction,€the€petitioner€seeks€post„conviction€relief,€whichÐ xÈ  Ðwas€denied€by€the€lower€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€On€appeal,€the€petitioner€presents€severalÐ d´ Ðissues€of€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€affirm€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.Ð P  ÐÓ0ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ (x ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼A»àX 1å#ÔÔ‡X 1X.¼AÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€andÐ P ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ì< ÐÌR.€Russell€Mattocks,€District€Public€Defender,€for€the€Appellant,€Kenneth€MacArthur€Johnson.Ð Ä ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Ô_ÔAngeleÔ_Ô€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð œì ÐC.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Doug€Ô_ÔGodbeeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ˆØ ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð tÄ ÐÓÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼A»XX 1B#ÔÔ‡X 1X»¼AÔÐ L œ ÐòòóóÔ#†¼A»XX 1† #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X 1X»¼AÔà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àFollowing€a€jury€trial€in€the€Hawkins€County€Criminal€Court,€the€petitioner,€KennethÐ $"t! ÐMacArthur€Johnson,€was€convicted€of€the€second€degree€murder€of€his€wife,€Phyllis€Johnson.€€HisÐ #`" Ðconviction€and€25„year€sentence€were€affirmed€on€appeal.€€òòSee€State€v.€Kenneth€MacArthur€Johnsonóó,Ð ü#L# ÐNo.€03C01„9901„CR„00009€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€12,€1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóóÐ è$8 $ Ð(Tenn.€2000).€€The€petitioner€then€filed€a€timely€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€which€the€trialÐ Ô%$!% Ðcourt€denied€after€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€On€appeal€of€the€denial€of€his€petition,€the€petitioner€raisesÐ À&"& Ðthe€following€issues€of€the€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€and€appellate€counsel:Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  à1.€€Trial€counselððs€lack€of€preparation,€including:Ð „)Ô$) Ðà  àà ` àa.€€trial€counselððs€failure€to€interview€possible€defense€witnesses,Ð p*À%* Ðà  àà ` àb.€€the€failure€to€file€pretrial€motions,Ð \+¬&+ Ðà  àà ` àc.€€the€failure€of€the€petitionerððs€original€trial€counsel€to€Ð H,˜', Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àprepare€the€case€due€to€his€being€distracted€by€his€Ð 4-„(-ý  ÐÔ_Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àpolitical€campaign€for€the€office€of€county€executive,€andÐ ° Ðà  àà ` àd.€€the€failure€of€counsel€to€meet€with€and€advise€the€Ð œì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àpetitioner;Ð ˆØ Ðà  à2.€€Trial€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€playing€a€tape€of€a€911€call€to€the€jury€andÐ tÄ Ðà  à€€€€€à0 ` àappellate€counselððs€failure€to€take€steps€to€assure€appellate€review€ofÐ`°` (#` (# Ðà  à€€€€€à0 ` àthe€911€tape€issue;ÐL œ` (#` (# Ðà  à3.€€Trial€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€testimony€of€a€Tennessee€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  à€€€€€à0 ` àBureau€of€Investigation€(TBI)€agent€who,€during€his€testimony,€revealedÐ$ t` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àthe€results€of€a€previously€undisclosed€gunshot€residue€test;Ð  ` Ðà  à4.€€Trial€counselððs€failure€to€object€to,€and€preserve€for€appeal,€instances€of€prosecutorial€Ð ü L  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à0 ` àmisconduct,€including:Ðè 8 ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àa.€€the€stateððs€use€of€the€TBI€report,€andÐ Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àb.€€The€stateððs€final€argument€of€points€not€based€on€the€evidence;€Ð À  Ðà  à5.€€Trial€counselððs€failure€to€raise€certain€issues€in€a€timely€motion€for€new€trial€and€otherwiseÐ ¬ü  Ðà  à€€€€€à0 ` àto€preserve€issues€for€appellate€review.€€€Ð˜è ` (#` (# ÐÌBecause€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€relief€is€supported€in€the€record,€we€affirm€that€courtððsÐ pÀ Ðjudgment.Ð \¬ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Background.Ð 4„ ÐÌó óA.€€The€Petitionerððs€Trial.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  \ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àOn€October€31,€1997,€in€the€sitting€room€of€the€marital€home,€the€petitioner€fatallyÐ ä4 Ðshot€his€wife€of€28€years€during€or€following€an€argument.€€Although€their€adult€son,€Allen,€was€onÐ Ð  Ðthe€premises,€there€were€no€witnesses€to€the€shooting.€€After€the€shooting,€the€petitioner€called€forÐ ¼  ÐAllen€and€asked€him€to€talk€to€the€911€operator€who€was€on€the€kitchen€telephone.€€As€Allen€passedÐ ¨ø Ðthrough€the€sitting€room€and€discovered€that€his€mother€had€an€abdominal€gunshot€wound,€he€heardÐ ”ä Ðher€say,€ð ðHe€shot€me.ðð€€òòKenneth€MacArthur€Johnsonóó,€slip€op.€at€4.€€While€waiting€for€help€to€arrive,Ð €Ð ÐAllen€overheard€his€parents€conversing.€€The€petitioner€said,€ð ðChub,€I€love€you,€and€I€didnððt€meanÐ l¼ Ðto€do€it.ðð€€The€victim€replied,€ð ðI€know€you€didnððt.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€victim€died€after€medical€personnel€arrived.€€Later,€the€petitioner€gave€aÐ 0"€  Ðstatement€to€the€police€in€which€he€said€that€he€was€leaving€home€to€get€a€beer,€and€as€he€wasÐ #l! Ðpicking€up€a€pistol€to€take€with€him,€his€wife€grabbed€his€arm€and€caused€the€gun€to€discharge.€€òòIdóó.Ð $X" ÐThe€petitioner€likewise€maintained€at€trial€that€the€shooting€was€an€accident,€although€he€testifiedÐ ô$D # Ðthat€he€could€not€remember€the€events€immediately€following€the€shooting.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àà ` àAt€trial,€the€petitionerððs€former€daughter„in„law,€Crystal€Murdock,€testified€that€sheÐ ° Ðwent€to€the€petitionerððs€and€the€victimððs€home€in€1996€after€hearing€them€argue€during€a€telephoneÐ œì Ðcall.€€After€arriving€at€the€home,€she€saw€the€petitioner€with€a€pistol€and€heard€him€tell€the€victim€thatÐ ˆØ Ðhe€would€kill€her€unless€she€stopped€accusing€him€of€seeing€another€woman.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€2„3.€€Ð tÄ Ðà  àà ` àDeborah€Heck€testified€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€that€she€was€the€victimððs€best€friendÐ `° Ðand€that,€in€August€1997,€the€petitioner€consulted€with€Heck€about€his€marital€problems.€€During€theÐ L œ Ðconversation,€the€petitioner€asked€rhetorically€if€it€would€not€be€better€for€everyone€if€he€killed€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðwife.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€3.€€Heck€further€testified€that€four€days€before€the€shooting,€the€victim,€in€anÐ $ t Ðupset€and€agitated€state,€called€Heck€and€said€that€the€petitioner€the€previous€evening€had€threatenedÐ  ` Ðto€kill€the€victim€and€had€pointed€a€gun€at€her€head.€òò€Idóó.Ð ü L  Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àB.€€The€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Petitionerððs€Conviction.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€direct€appeal€of€the€conviction€and€sentence,€this€court€not€only€found€theÐ ¬ü  Ðconvicting€evidence€to€be€sufficient€and€the€sentence€to€be€supported€by€the€record,€but€we€alsoÐ ˜è  Ðaddressed€a€number€of€other€issues.€€We€considered€whether€the€trial€court€had€violated€the€hearsayÐ „Ô  Ðrule€in€allowing€Deborah€Heck€to€testify€about€the€victimððs€statements€to€her€four€days€before€theÐ pÀ Ðvictimððs€death.€€òòSee€idóó.,€slip€op.€at€7.€€We€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ \¬ Ðadmitting€the€statements€via€the€excited€utterance€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð H˜ Ð803(2).€€Next,€because€the€petitioner€failed€to€cite€supporting€authority,€we€determined€that€theÐ 4„ Ðpetitioner€had€waived€his€apparent€claims€that€Crystal€Murdockððs€testimony€should€have€beenÐ  p Ðexcluded€based€upon€the€provisions€of€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€402,€403,€and€404.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð  \ ÐR.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€10(b).€Waiver€aside,€however,€we€determined€that€the€trial€court€acted€within€itsÐ øH Ðdiscretion€in€admitting€this€evidence.€€òòKenneth€MacArthur€Johnsonóó,€slip€op.€at€10„11.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€next€rejected€as€waived€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admittingÐ ¼  Ðthe€911€tape€into€evidence.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€11.€€The€petitioner€failed€to€cite€relevant€authority,€toÐ ¨ø Ðproperly€refer€to€the€appellate€record,€to€make€a€timely€objection€at€trial,€to€state€in€the€motion€forÐ ”ä Ðnew€trial€a€specific€basis€for€excluding€the€evidence,€and€to€include€in€the€direct€appeal€record€theÐ €Ð Ðtranscript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€the€911€tape€itself.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€11„12.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€also€rejected€as€waived€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÐ D!” Ðsequestering€the€trial€jury.€€The€petitioner€failed€to€move€the€trial€court€for€jury€sequestration,€toÐ 0"€  Ðinclude€the€claim€in€a€timely€motion€for€new€trial,€and€on€appeal€failed€to€cite€authority€to€specificÐ #l! Ðportions€of€the€record.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àAdditionally,€we€rejected€as€waived€the€petitionerððs€direct€appeal€claims€that€he€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðbeen€victimized€by€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€Specifically,€he€claimed€that€the€state€had€prejudicedÐ Ì&"% Ðhim€by€not€disclosing€in€discovery€that€it€had€performed€gunshot€residue€tests€on€the€victimððs€handsÐ ¸'#& Ðand€that€in€final€argument€the€state€argued€outside€the€record€by€positing€that€the€defendant€lingeredÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaround€his€dying€wife€as€a€means€of€preventing€her€from€talking€about€the€shooting.€€Neither€claimÐ )à$( Ðwas€benefitted€by€a€contemporaneous€objection,€and€neither€claim€was€timely€presented€in€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðmotion€for€new€trial.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€14.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àWe€pointed€out€in€our€earlier€opinion€that€an€amendment€to€the€motion€for€new€trialÐ ° Ðwas€belatedly€filed.€€The€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€held€on€December€8,€1998.€TheÐ œì Ðwritten€amendment€was€filed€on€December€17,€1998.€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(b)€(amendments€toÐ ˆØ Ðmotion€for€new€trial€shall€be€allowed€ð ðliberally€until€the€day€of€the€hearing€of€the€motion€for€newÐ tÄ Ðtrialðð).€€The€written€amendment€added€the€claims€that€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€sequestering€theÐ `° Ðð ðwitnesses,ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€(2)€the€failure€of€the€state€to€disclose€the€testing€of€the€victimððs€hands€for€gunshotÐ L œ Ðresidue,€and€(3)€the€stateððs€final€argument€that€the€defendant€tried€to€prevent€the€victim€from€talkingÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€the€police€was€not€based€on€evidence€admitted€at€trial.€€In€his€brief€in€the€direct€appeal€of€theÐ $ t Ðconviction,€the€petitioner€asserted€that€he€had€orally€raised€these€claims€made€during€the€DecemberÐ  ` Ð8,€1998€hearing€and€that€the€trial€court€had€overruled€all€claims€for€a€new€trial,€including€the€newlyÐ ü L  Ðadded€claims.€The€record,€however,€contained€no€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€newÐ è 8  Ðtrial,€and€the€order€overruling€the€motion€did€not€articulate€whether€the€motion€and€ruling€embracedÐ Ô$  Ðthe€claims€added€by€amendment.€òò€Seeóó€òòKenneth€MacArthur€Johnsonóó,€slip€op.€at€12„13,€n.7.€€To€theÐ À  Ðextent€that€our€disposition€via€waiver€of€the€three€claims€for€a€new€trial€raised€by€ð ðamendmentðð€wereÐ ¬ü  Ðbased€upon€failure€to€timely€present€the€claims€in€a€motion€for€new€trial,€we€were€referring€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðapparently€tardy€amendment€to€the€motion.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àC.€€The€Post„Conviction€Hearing.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€his€original€attorney,Ð 4„ ÐHeiskell€Winstead,€had€a€reputation€as€being€an€experienced,€effective€criminal€trial€attorney.€€Mr.Ð  p ÐWinstead,€however,€withdrew€from€the€case€several€months€after€the€preliminary€hearing€becauseÐ  \ Ðof€his€election€to€the€post€of€Hawkins€County€Executive.€Mr.€Winstead€proposed€that€JohnÐ øH ÐAnderson,€a€lawyer€in€Mr.€Winsteadððs€office,€take€over€the€case,€and€the€petitioner€agreed.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðpetitioner€thereafter€met€with€Mr.€Anderson€every€week€or€two.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€told€Mr.€Anderson€that€the€petitionerððs€son,€Allen,€andÐ ¨ø ÐAllenððs€girlfriend,€Michelle€Webb,€had€heard€Crystal€Murdockððs€threat€to€retaliate€against€theÐ ”ä Ðpetitioner€because€of€the€petitionerððs€role€in€precipitating€Crystalððs€and€Allenððs€divorce.€€TheÐ €Ð Ðpetitioner€stated€that€counsel€neither€interviewed€Michelle€Webb€nor€subpoenaed€her€to€testify€atÐ l¼ Ðtrial.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€testified€that€the€redacted€version€of€the€911€tape€ð ðimplied€that€[he]Ð 0"€  Ðdidnððt€try€to€help€[his]€wife€get€medical€assistance.ðð€€During€an€exchange€with€the€trial€courtÐ #l! Ðconcerning€the€petitionerððs€complaint€about€the€911€tape,€however,€post„conviction€counsel€raisedÐ $X" Ða€different€concern.€€He€explained€that€the€court€removed€a€tape€segment€€that€spanned€a€few€minutesÐ ô$D # Ðin€real€time.€€This€segment€covered€the€time€between€the€petitioner€laying€down€the€phone€and€theÐ à%0!$ Ðpetitionerððs€son€taking€it€and€conversing€with€the€911€operator.€€Apparently,€the€trial€court€deniedÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€petitionerððs€pretrial€oral€motion€to€exclude€the€911€recording;€however,€the€court€redacted€theÐ ° Ðtape€by€removing€the€segment€spanning€the€time€when€the€Johnson€phone€was€idle,€because€thisÐ œì Ðsegment€revealed€a€conversation€between€911€operators€who€discussed€the€call€and€made€remarksÐ ˆØ Ðabout€the€caller€shooting€his€wife.€€The€petitioner€now€complains€that€the€redacted€tape€played€to€theÐ tÄ Ðjury€revealed€no€lapse€of€time€between€the€petitioner€leaving€the€phone€and€his€son€picking€it€up.€Ð `° ÐPost„conviction€counsel€stated€that€the€tape€presented€in€this€form€belied€the€petitionerððs€claim€that,Ð L œ Ðbefore€Allen€took€the€phone,€Allen€overheard€the€petitioner€and€the€victim€remarking€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpetitioner€did€not€mean€to€shoot€the€victim.€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€further€testified€that€he€told€Mr.€Anderson€that€he€had€witnesses€whoÐ ü L  Ðcould€testify€that€Deborah€Heck€and€the€victim€were€not€friends€and€that€the€victim€was€not€speakingÐ è 8  Ðto€Heck.€€The€petitioner€stated€that€Mr.€Anderson€failed€to€interview€and€subpoena€any€of€theseÐ Ô$  Ðwitnesses.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAllen€Johnson€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€several€months€after€hisÐ ˜è  Ðmotherððs€death,€he€was€involved€in€a€court€action€with€his€ex„wife,€Crystal€Murdock,€concerningÐ „Ô  Ðtheir€minor€child.€€Following€this€court€action,€Ms.€Murdock€threatened€to€do€whatever€she€couldÐ pÀ Ðto€see€that€the€petitioner€went€to€jail€because€of€his€role€in€breaking€up€Crystalððs€marriage€to€Allen.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ ÐAllen€Johnson€testified€that€both€he€and€his€girlfriend,€Michelle€Webb,€heard€the€threat.€€à Ð àÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€introduced€the€911€tape€and€theÐ  p Ðtranscript€of€the€December€8,€1998€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€transcript€of€that€hearingÐ  \ Ðreflects€that€Mr.€Anderson€orally€ð ðamendedðð€the€motion€for€new€trial€by€adding€the€issues€of€juryÐ øH Ðsequestration,€the€failure€of€discovery€to€reveal€the€gunshot€residue€test€on€the€victimððs€hands,€andÐ ä4 Ðthe€stateððs€argument€that€the€petitioner€believes€went€beyond€the€evidence€in€the€case.€€The€trial€courtÐ Ð  Ðoverruled€all€claims€for€a€new€trial,€including€the€new€claims€presented€orally€on€December€8,€1998.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€state€called€Attorneys€Heiskell€Winstead€and€JohnÐ ”ä ÐAnderson€as€witnesses.€€Mr.€Winstead€testified€that€he€had€acquired€extensive€experience€in€tryingÐ €Ð Ðcriminal€cases,€including€seventeen€years€as€district€attorney€general€and€sixteen€years€as€a€criminalÐ l¼ Ðdefense€attorney,€before€being€elected€to€the€post€of€Hawkins€County€Executive.€€The€election€causedÐ X ¨ Ðhim€to€withdraw€as€counsel€of€record€for€the€defendant,€but€the€petitioner€agreed€for€Mr.€WinsteadððsÐ D!” Ðassociate,€Mr.€Anderson,€to€assume€responsibilities€for€the€case.€€€Mr.€Winstead€testified€that€Mr.Ð 0"€  ÐAnderson€was€himself€an€experienced€criminal€defense€lawyer.€€Mr.€Winstead€met€extensively€withÐ #l! Ðthe€petitioner€and€Mr.€Anderson€and€helped€them€prepare€pretrial€motions€and€prepare€the€case€forÐ $X" Ðtrial.€€During€jury€selection€and€the€remainder€of€the€trial,€Mr.€Winstead€sat€behind€the€defense€tableÐ ô$D # Ðto€consult€with€and€advise€Mr.€Anderson.€€€Mr.€Winstead€testified€that€before€trial€he€referred€theÐ à%0!$ Ðpetitioner€to€mental€health€counseling€because€the€petitioner€struggled€emotionally€in€the€wake€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðhis€wifeððs€death.€€Mr.€Winstead€testified€essentially€that€the€petitioner€presented€no€mental€healthÐ ¸'#& Ðissues€of€incompetency,€insanity€or€diminished€capacity€that€existed€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€HeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðstated€that€the€defense€learned€about€three€weeks€before€trial€that€the€TBI€had€performed€gunshotÐ ° Ðresidue€tests€on€the€victim.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àJohn€Anderson€testified€that€he€had€thirteen€years€of€trial€experience€and€had€workedÐ tÄ Ðon€a€number€of€murder€cases.€He€stated€that€he€filed€a€pretrial€motion€to€exclude€the€911€tape€butÐ `° Ðthat,€in€lieu€of€granting€the€motion,€the€trial€court€redacted€the€tape€to€remove€the€911€operatorsððÐ L œ Ðconversation.€€Mr.€Anderson€indicated€that€he€could€not€foresee€that€the€removal€of€the€ð ðgapðð€in€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtape€would€be€exploited€by€the€state€during€closing€argument.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€At€the€time€of€redaction,€he€agreedÐ $ t Ðthat€removal€of€the€911€operatorsðð€conversation€would€benefit€the€petitioner.€€He€believed€that€theÐ  ` Ðpetitioner€would€be€prejudiced€by€the€jury€hearing€this€conversation.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Anderson€further€testified€that€he€knew€about€Crystal€Murdockððs€motive€toÐ Ô$  Ðimplicate€the€petitioner€in€the€victimððs€death€and€believed€that€he€had€exploited€this€motive€duringÐ À  Ðcross„examination.€€He€did€not€call€Michelle€Webb,€Allen€Johnsonððs€girlfriend,€€as€a€witness€to€Ms.Ð ¬ü  ÐMurdockððs€threats.€€After€interviewing€her,€he€thought€her€testimony€could€be€disingenuous,€andÐ ˜è  Ðafter€discussing€the€issue€with€Mr.€Winstead,€he€elected€not€to€present€to€the€jury€a€ð ðswearingÐ „Ô  Ðcontestðð€between€Allen€Johnsonððs€ex„wife€and€his€girlfriend.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àAccording€to€Mr.€Anderson,€the€written€amendment€to€the€motion€for€new€trialÐ H˜ Ðinadvertently€sought€a€sequestration€of€ð ðwitnesses.ðð€€€The€intended€claim€was€for€sequestration€ofÐ 4„ Ðthe€jury,€and€sequestration€of€the€jury€was€argued€before€the€court€as€a€basis€for€new€trial€onÐ  p ÐDecember€8,€1998.€€Mr.€Anderson€discerned€that€when€the€jury€returned€to€the€courtroom€followingÐ  \ Ðtheir€deliberations€in€the€case,€ð ðit€was€like€a€temperature€change.ðð€€He€felt€that€perhaps€the€jury€hadÐ øH Ðbeen€externally€influenced,€but€he€acknowledged€that€ð ðit€was€nothing€you€could€put€your€finger€on.ðð€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àConcerning€the€gunshot€residue€test,€Mr.€Anderson,€testifying€conversely€to€Mr.Ð ¼  ÐWinstead,€said€that€the€defense€had€no€knowledge€prior€to€trial€that€residue€from€the€victimððs€handsÐ ¨ø Ðhad€been€tested.€€€At€trial,€the€TBI€agent€testified€that€the€test€on€both€the€defendantððs€and€theÐ ”ä Ðvictimððs€hands€were€inconclusive€and€that€the€chemical€levels€on€both€sets€of€hands€were€ð ðidentical.ðð€Ð €Ð ÐBecause€he€wanted€to€establish€that€the€victim€had€both€hands€on€the€gun,€Mr.€Anderson€ð ðdidnððtÐ l¼ Ðobject€to€the€testimony€because,€basically,€we€were€using€the€witnessððs€testimony€to€our€advantageÐ X ¨ Ðat€the€point€in€time€when€he€said€that€the€results€were€identical.ðð€€Mr.€Anderson€believed€that€theÐ D!” Ðagentððs€testimony€helped€more€than€it€hurt€the€defense.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àRegarding€the€911€tape,€Mr.€Anderson€acknowledged€that,€in€retrospect,€the€absenceÐ $X" Ðof€a€lapse€of€real€time€on€the€tape€could€have€prejudiced€the€defendant;€however,€he€did€notÐ ô$D # Ðremember€whether€the€state€actually€exploited€this€issue€in€its€final€argument.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Anderson€opted€not€to€seek€expert€assistance€in€the€case.€€Specifically,€he€sawÐ ¸'#& Ðno€basis€for€obtaining€a€psychological€or€a€ð ðmemoryðð€expert.€€He€declined€to€put€the€petitionerððsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcharacter€into€evidence€via€character€witnesses€because€he€believed€that€the€state€was€prepared€toÐ ° Ðrebut€with€negative€character€testimony.€€à À àÐ œì ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Anderson€did€not€recall€if€the€petitionerððs€work€records€reflected€that€theÐ tÄ Ðpetitioner€was€at€work€on€the€evening€before€the€victim€made€her€morning€phone€call€to€Ms.€Heck.€Ð `° Ðà  àÌÓ  ÓD.€€The€Post„conviction€Courtððs€Findings.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÓ cÓÌà  àà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€lower€court€made€extensive€findings.€€€It€found€thatÐ  ` Ðboth€Mr.€Winstead€and€Mr.€Anderson€were€experienced,€competent€criminal€defense€attorneys.€€TheÐ ü L  Ðjudge€stated€that€he€elected€at€trial€to€redact€the€911€tape€in€order€to€purge€the€operatorsððÐ è 8  Ðconversation,€but€he€found€that€it€was€ð ðpure[]€speculationðð€to€say€that€omitting€the€time€frameÐ Ô$  Ðdiscredited€the€petitionerððs€claim€about€his€conversation€with€the€victim.€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ À  Ðfurther€found€that€the€stateððs€trial€witnesses€were€fully€cross„examined€and€that€there€was€noÐ ¬ü  Ðindication€that€the€petitioner€had€psychological€problems€that€would€serve€as€a€basis€forÐ ˜è  Ðpsychological€testing€or€expert€testimony.€€With€regard€to€the€allegation€that€the€petitioner€may€haveÐ „Ô  Ðbeen€working€on€the€night€that€he€made€the€threats€against€the€victim€that€were€reported€by€her€toÐ pÀ ÐMs.€Heck,€the€post„conviction€court€noted€that€no€employment€records€were€offered€in€the€post„Ð \¬ Ðconviction€hearing€to€establish€that€the€petitioner€was€away€from€home€on€that€night.€€The€lowerÐ H˜ Ðcourt€further€determined€that€the€issues€on€which€appellate€review€was€waived€ð ðdonððt€matter.ððÐ 4„ ÐSpecifically,€the€court€held€that€there€was€no€basis€for€jury€sequestration;€the€court€stressed€that€itÐ  p Ðwould€not€have€granted€a€motion€to€sequester€the€jury.€€Furthermore,€the€court€determined€that,€ifÐ  \ Ðany€prosecutorial€misconduct€occurred,€the€petitioner€was€not€prejudiced€by€it.€€In€sum,€the€courtÐ øH Ðdetermined€that€the€petitioner€had€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€and€denied€post„Ð ä4 Ðconviction€relief.€à ¸ àà  àà h àÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óò òII.€€Governing€Law.Ð ¨ø ÐÌó óA.€€Post„conviction€Relief.Ð €Ð ÐÓ  Óà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€or€her€allegations€byÐ X ¨ Ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€On€appeal,€the€appellateÐ D!” Ðcourt€accords€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€these€findings€areÐ 0"€  Ðconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ð572,€578„79€(Tenn.€1997);€òòBates€v.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€615,€631€(Tenn.€Crim.€App€1997).€€By€contrastÐ $X" Ðthe€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law€receive€no€deference€or€presumption€of€correctness€on€appeal.€Ð ô$D # ÐòòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€453€(Tenn.€2001).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌÓ  Ób.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counsel.Ð ¸'#& ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€petitioner€argues€that€he€was€hampered€by€the€ineffective€assistance€Ð )à$( Ðof€trial€and€appellate€counsel.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€concluded€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€providedÐ ° Ðconstitutionally€effective€representation.€€Accordingly,€this€court€must€determine€whether€theÐ œì Ðevidence€preponderates€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€(1)€that€counselððs€performanceÐ ˆØ Ðwas€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases,€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€and€(2)€that€any€deficient€performance€did€not€prejudice€theÐ `° Ðpetitioner,€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„79,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064„2069€(1984);€€€òòseeÐ L œ Ðalso€Powers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2d€551,€557€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Courts€need€not€address€theseÐ 8 ˆ Ðcomponents€in€any€particular€order€or€even€address€both€if€the€petitioner€fails€to€meet€his€burden€withÐ $ t Ðrespect€to€one.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€580€(Tenn.€1998).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€evaluating€counselððs€performance,€this€court€should€not€examine€every€allegedlyÐ è 8  Ðdeficient€act€or€omission€in€isolation,€but€rather€in€the€context€of€the€case€as€a€whole.€€òòState€v.Ð Ô$  ÐMitchellóó,€753€S.W.2d€148,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€primary€concern€of€the€court€shouldÐ À  Ðbe€the€fundamental€fairness€of€the€proceeding€whose€result€is€being€challenged.€€òòId.óó€(citationÐ ¬ü  Ðomitted).€€Therefore,€this€court€should€not€second„guess€tactical€and€strategic€decisions€by€defenseÐ ˜è  Ðcounsel.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579.€€Instead,€this€court€must€reconstruct€the€circumstances€ofÐ „Ô  Ðcounselððs€challenged€conduct€and€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time.€€òòId.;óó€Ð pÀ Ðòòsee€also€Irick€v.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€643,€652€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àHowever,€this€courtððs€deference€to€counselððs€tactical€decisions€will€depend€uponÐ 4„ Ðcounselððs€adequate€investigation€of€defense€options.€€òòBurger€v.€Kempóó,€483€U.S.€776,€794,€107€S.€Ct.Ð  p Ð3114,€3126€(1987).€€That€having€been€said,€one€court€has€observed:Ð  \ ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒJudges€wisely€defer€to€òòtrueóó€tactical€choices€„€that€is€to€say,€to€choicesÐ ä4 Ðbetween€alternatives€that€each€have€the€potential€for€both€benefit€andÐ Ð  Ðloss.€€We€are€in€a€poor€position€to€judge,€on€the€cold€record,€theÐ ¼  Ðquality€of€such€a€choice,€made€as€it€is€in€the€fine„grained€texture€andÐ ¨ø Ðnuance€of€the€particular€proceeding.Ð ”ä ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòProfit€v.€Waldronóó,€831€F.2d€1245,€1249€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1987)€(emphasis€added).€€Accordingly,€assumingÐ l¼ Ðadequate€investigation,€the€fact€that€a€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense€does€not€aloneÐ X ¨ Ðsupport€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòJerry€Whiteside€Dickerson€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ð D!” Ð03C01„9710„CR„00472€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€16,€1998),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð 0"€  Ð1999);€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€165€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)òòóó.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€sum,€a€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€perfect€representation,€only€constitutionallyÐ ô$D # Ðadequate€representation.€€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,€796€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð à%0!$ ÐAccordingly,€ð ðin€considering€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€ðð[w]e€address€not€what€isÐ Ì&"% Ðprudent€or€appropriate,€but€only€what€is€constitutionally€compelled.ðððð€òòBurgeróó,€483€U.S.€at€794,€107Ð ¸'#& ÐS.Ct.€at€3126.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€if€the€petitioner€establishes€that€counselððs€performance€was€not€within€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðrequisite€range€of€competence,€he€must€also€demonstrate€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different€but€for€the€defective€performance€of€counsel.€€òòHenleyóó,€960Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€at€580.€€The€prejudice€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test€ð ðcontinues€to€be€the€primary€hurdle€to€beÐ œì Ðcleared€in€Sixth€Amendment€assistance€of€counsel€cases,ðð€but€ð ð[t]his€obstacle€.€.€.€is€notÐ ˆØ Ðinsurmountable.ðð€€òòProfitóó,€831€F.2d€at€1251.€€A€courtÐ tÄ ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òð ðmust€consider€the€totality€of€the€evidence€before€the€judge€or€jury.€Ð L œ ÐSome€of€the€factual€findings€will€have€been€unaffected€by€the€errors,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€factual€findings€that€were€affected€will€have€been€affected€inÐ $ t Ðdifferent€ways.€€Some€errors€will€have€had€a€pervasive€effect€on€theÐ  ` Ðinferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,€altering€the€entireÐ ü L  Ðevidentiary€picture,€and€some€will€have€had€an€isolated,€trivial€effectÐ è 8  Ð.€.€.€.ððÐ Ô$  ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€580€(quoting€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at696„97,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069).€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àð ðWhen€a€petitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€discover,€interview,€or€presentÐ ˜è  Ðwitnesses€.€.€.€,€these€witnesses€should€be€presented€by€the€[post„conviction]€petitioner€at€theÐ „Ô  Ðevidentiary€hearing.ðð€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1990).€€If€he€fails€toÐ pÀ Ðdo€so,€he€generally€fails€to€establish€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòId.óó€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ \¬ Ðmay€not€speculate€ð ðon€the€question€of€.€€.€€.€what€a€witnessððs€testimony€might€have€been€ifÐ H˜ Ðintroducedðð€at€trial.€€òòId.óó;òò€see€also€Wade€v.€Stateóó,€914€S.W.2d€97,€102€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Ð 4„ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÑ€¯jÑà  àà ` à€€€€€€€€€€€ò òIII.€€Disposition€of€Appellate€Post„conviction€Issues.ó óÐ  \ ÐÌà  àà ` à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€A.€€Trial€Counselððs€Failure€to€Prepare€the€Case.Ð è8 ÐÌ€€à0  àà0` (#(#àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€limits€his€claims€of€trial€counselððs€lack€of€preparation€to€ÐÀ` (#` (# Ðthe€following€issues:€(1)€the€failure€to€interview€possible€defense€witnesses;€(2)€the€failure€to€fileÐ ¬ü Ðpretrial€motions€to€address€the€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b)€aspect€of€Crystal€MurdockððsÐ ˜è Ðtestimony€and€to€request€state€funds€for€psychiatric€expert€services;€(3)€Mr.€Winsteadððs€inattentionÐ „Ô Ðto€the€petitionerððs€defense€brought€about€by€his€involvement€in€a€political€campaign;€and€(4)€theÐ pÀ Ðfailure€of€counsel€to€meet€with€and€advise€the€petitioner.€€We€will€address€these€issues€in€turn.Ð \ ¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€complaints€on€appeal€about€counselððs€failure€to€interview€witnessesÐ 4"„  Ðemanate€from€the€petitionerððs€beliefs€that€Mr.€Anderson€neglected€to€interview€Michelle€Webb,€aÐ  #p! Ðprospective€defense€witness,€that€he€failed€to€call€witnesses€to€impeach€by€fact€contradiction€Ms.Ð  $\" ÐHeckððs€testimony,€that€he€failed€to€use€character€witness,€and€that€he€should€have€consulted€with€theÐ ø$H # Ðpetitionerððs€post„shooting€psychiatric€therapist,€as€well€as€other€potential€psychiatric€witnesses.€€Ð ä%4!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€reflects,€however,€that€Mr.€Anderson€interviewed€Michelle€Webb€andÐ ¼' #& Ðdiscussed€the€possible€use€of€her€testimony€with€Mr.€Winstead.€€Mr.€Anderson€articulated€tacticalÐ ¨(ø#' Ðreasons€for€not€calling€Ms.€Webb€and€expressed€his€misgivings€about€the€profit€in€her€prospectiveÐ ”)ä$( Ðtestimony.€€The€post„conviction€court€apparently€accredited€Mr.€Andersonððs€account€of€his€handlingÐ €*Ð%) Ðof€the€issue,€and€we€note€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€Ms.€Webb€in€the€post„convictionÐ l+¼&* Ðproceeding.€€We€cannot€speculate€how€she€may€have€actually€testified€at€trial,€and€for€this€reason,Ð ° Ðwe€have€no€basis€to€discredit€Mr.€Andersonððs€asserted€misgivings€about€her€testimony.€€òòSeeÐ œì ÐThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòWadeóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€102.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðpetitioner€has€shown€neither€that€counsel€deficiently€performed€in€not€presenting€Ms.€Webb€as€aÐ tÄ Ðwitness€nor€that€the€petitioner€was€prejudiced€by€the€omission.€òò€See€Thompsonóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€164.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àLikewise,€the€petitioner€did€not€present€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€the€witnesses€heÐ 8 ˆ Ðclaims€could€have€contradicted€Ms.€Heckððs€claim€of€friendship€with€the€victim€and€did€not€presentÐ $ t Ðany€persons€who€could€have€served€as€character€witnesses€at€trial.€€Thus,€he€has€failed€to€showÐ  ` Ðineffective€assistance€in€trial€counselððs€not€using€these€witnesses€at€trial.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€claims€that€counsel€should€have€consulted€the€petitionerððs€treatingÐ Ô$  Ðtherapist€and€other€potential€psychiatric€witnesses€are€also€unavailing.€€The€trial€and€post„convictionÐ À  Ðrecords€are€simply€devoid€of€any€proof€that€psychiatric€evidence,€if€admissible,€would€have€beenÐ ¬ü  Ðhelpful€to€the€defense.€The€only€references€in€the€evidence€to€the€petitionerððs€mental€health€wereÐ ˜è  Ðdescriptions€of€his€receiving€outpatient€treatment€to€assist€him€in€coping€with€his€wifeððs€death.€€Mr.Ð „Ô  ÐWinstead€referred€the€petitioner€for€this€treatment€because€he€recognized€that€the€petitioner€wasÐ pÀ Ðstruggling€emotionally.€€Mr.€Winstead€detected€no€basis€for€conferring€with€the€therapist€or€seekingÐ \¬ Ðthe€help€of€any€other€consulting€mental€health€expert.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€anyÐ H˜ Ðproof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€psychiatric€testimony€would€have€been€useful.€òòSee€Id.óó€atÐ 4„ Ð163„64.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€the€petitioner€claims€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€file€pretrial€motions€to€seek€stateÐ øH Ðfunding€for€expert€psychiatric€services€and€to€challenge€via€evidence€Rule€404(b)€Crystal€MurdockððsÐ ä4 Ðtestimony.€€The€first€issue€is€related€to€the€subject€of€the€preceding€paragraph.€As€we€noted,€theÐ Ð  Ðpetitioner€failed€to€establish€any€basis€for€a€psychiatric€evaluation€or€expert€testimony.€€A€criminalÐ ¼  Ðdefendant€cannot€claim€entitlement€to€funding€for€such€expert€services€unless€he€is€indigent€andÐ ¨ø Ðshows€a€ð ðparticularized€need.ðð€€òòSee€óó€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€13,€ðð€6€(in€cases€in€which€the€defendant€òòisÐ ”ä Ðentitled€to€appointed€counselóó,€court€authorized€to€grant€state€funds€for€expert€services€if€ð ðnecessaryÐ €Ð Ðto€ensure€that€the€constitutional€rights€of€the€defendant€are€properly€protectedðð)òò;€State€v.€Scottóó,€33Ð l¼ ÐS.W.3d€746,€753€(Tenn.€2000)€(ð ðThe€obligation€of€a€court€to€afford€an€òòindigentóó€defendant€the€benefitÐ X ¨ Ðof€expert€assistance€does€not€arise€unless€the€defendant€makes€a€threshold€showing€of€aÐ D!” Ðððparticularized€needðð€for€the€expert€assistance.ðð)€(emphasis€added);€€òòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,Ð 0"€  Ð101€(Tenn.€1998)€(before€òòindigentóó€criminal€defendant€may€obtain€state€funds€for€a€psychiatric€expert,Ð #l! Ðhe€must€demonstrate€a€particularized€need).€€Having€failed€to€establish€these€predicates,€theÐ $X" Ðpetitioner€has€not€shown€that€his€trial€counsel€deficiently€performed€by€not€seeking€funding€forÐ ô$D # Ðexpert€services.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€now€review€the€claim€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€move€pretrialÐ ¸'#& Ðto€exclude€the€testimony€of€Crystal€Murdock€via€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€404(b).€€The€stateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcalled€Ms.€Murdock€to€testify€about€the€1996€incident€in€which€she€witnessed€the€petitioner€threatenÐ )à$( Ðthe€victim€with€a€gun.€€Contrary€to€the€petitionerððs€assertion€in€his€brief€that€Mr.€Anderson€filed€noÐ |*Ì%) Ðmotion€to€exclude€this€testimony,€the€transcript€of€the€trial€reflects€that,€prior€to€Ms.€MurdockÐ h+¸&* Ðtestifying,€Mr.€Anderson€objected€in€a€side„bar€conference€out€of€the€hearing€of€the€jury€that€theÐ ° Ðtestimony€would€implicate€the€petitioner€in€ð ða€prior€bad€actðð€and€should€be€disallowed.€€The€trialÐ œì Ðcourt€overruled€the€objection.€€In€òòKenneth€MacArthur€Johnsonóó,€we€concluded€that€the€trial€courtÐ ˆØ Ðacted€within€its€discretion€in€overruling€the€petitionerððs€motion€to€exclude€Ms.€Murdockððs€testimony.Ð tÄ ÐInasmuch€as€the€petitioner€raised€this€issue€at€trial€and€we€concluded€on€direct€appeal€that€the€trialÐ `° Ðcourt€did€not€act€erroneously,€the€petitioner€has€not€been€prejudiced€by€Mr.€Andersonððs€appellateÐ L œ Ðdefaultsòòóó€which€could€have€served€as€a€basis€for€merely€rejecting€this€direct€appellate€claim€on€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðbasis€of€waiver.€€Simply€put,€the€lack€of€merit€in€the€underlying€claim€equates€to€a€lack€of€prejudiceÐ $ t Ðfor€purposes€of€securing€post„conviction€relief.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€last€issues€of€deficient€trial€preparations€are€the€related€claims€thatÐ è 8  Ðboth€lawyers€neglected€to€meet€with€and€advise€the€petitioner€and€that€Mr.€Winstead,€because€ofÐ Ô$  Ðpolitical€distractions,€was€inattentive€to€the€defense€while€he€served€as€counsel€of€record.€€TheÐ À  Ðpetitioner,€in€testifying€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€did€nothing€more€than€make€these€charges.€Ð ¬ü  ÐHe€failed€to€articulate€specific€ways€in€which€counselsðð€advice€and€consultations€were€deficient.€€HeÐ ˜è  Ðadmitted€that€he€met€regularly€with€counsel,€and€the€lawyersðð€post„conviction€testimonies€evinceÐ „Ô  Ðfrequent€pretrial€communications€and€meetings€with€the€petitioner.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€has€failedÐ pÀ Ðto€show€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€his€attorneys€failed€to€attend€to€the€petitionerððs€case,Ð \¬ Ðwhether€or€not€the€perceived€reason€for€the€alleged€inattention€was€the€advancement€of€Mr.Ð H˜ ÐWinsteadððs€political€career.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àB.€€Trial€Counselððs€Failure€to€Object€to€Playing€a€Tape€of€a€911€CallÐ  \ Ðà  àà ` à€to€the€Jury€and€Appellate€Counselððs€Failure€to€Take€Steps€to€AssureÐ øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ à€€€€€Appellate€Review€of€the€911€Tape€Issue.Ð ä4 ÐÌÌà  àà ` àFirst,€we€are€constrained€to€say€that€trial€counsel€did€object€to€the€use€of€the€911€tape.€Ð ¨ø ÐThe€record€reflects€that€he€made€an€oral,€pretrial€motion€to€exclude€the€tape,€and€the€trial€court€heldÐ ”ä Ða€hearing.€€Thus,€the€petitionerððs€post„conviction€claim€that€no€objection€was€made€is€not€supportedÐ €Ð Ðin€the€record,€and€therefore,€this€claim€fails.€€That€said,€we€acknowledge€that€the€pretrial€motion€wasÐ l¼ Ðinarticulate€in€stating€a€basis€for€exclusion€other€than€that€the€petitioner€would€be€prejudiced€by€theÐ X ¨ Ðevidence,€but€in€the€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€petitioner€still€has€failed€to€advance€or€theorizeÐ D!” Ða€basis€for€exclusion.€We€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€carry€his€post„conviction€burdenÐ 0"€  Ðof€proof€on€the€issue.€€For€that€reason,€the€post„conviction€court€properly€denied€this€post„convictionÐ #l! Ðclaim€as€presented.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner,€however,€presents€the€911€tape€issue€again€in€the€portion€of€his€briefÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€addresses€the€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel.€€€As€we€have€noted€in€the€portion€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðthis€opinion€describing€this€courtððs€disposition€of€the€petitionerððs€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€waivedÐ ¸'#& Ðappellate€review€of€the€911€tape€issue€because€of€various€shortcomings€of€appellate€counsel.€òòSeeÐ ¤(ô#' ÐKenneth€MacArthur€Johnsonóó,€slip.€at€11„12.€Predictably,€the€petitioner€asserts€in€his€post„convictionÐ )à$( Ðpetition€that€the€waiver€amounts€to€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel;€however,€heÐ |*Ì%) Ðarticulates€no€reason€why€an€appellate€review€of€the€merits€of€the€911€tape€issue€would€have€resultedÐ h+¸&* Ðin€a€reversal€other€than€to€assert€that€the€use€of€the€redacted€tape€with€the€time€frame€missing€gaveÐ ° Ðthe€jury€an€inaccurate€impression€that€there€was€no€time€for€the€defendant€and€the€victim€to€discussÐ œì Ðthe€unintentional€nature€of€the€shooting.€This€was€not€the€nature€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€and€directÐ ˆØ Ðappeal€claim€about€the€911€tape.€€òòSee€idóó.,€slip€op.€at€11€(ð ðThe€defendant€claims€that€the€tapeððsÐ tÄ Ðemotional€impact€was€so€prejudicial€as€to€outweigh€its€probative€effect.ðð).€Thus,€the€post„convictionÐ `° Ðissue€actually€presented€is€thatòò€óócounsel€failed€to€identify€and€present€the€òòtime„gap€óóissue€to€òòbothóó€theÐ L œ Ðtrial€and€the€appellate€courts.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€his€post„conviction€hearing€testimony,€Mr.€Anderson€acknowledged€that€the€failureÐ  ` Ðto€inform€the€jury€that€a€segment€of€time€was€missing€from€the€tape€may€have€prejudiced€theÐ ü L  Ðpetitioner;€however,€he€also€testified€that€he€believed€that€the€expurgation€of€the€911€operatorsððÐ è 8  Ðconversation€was€so€vitally€important€that€redaction€was€an€obvious€advantage.€€That€aside,€he€didÐ Ô$  Ðnot€foresee€the€possible€effect€of€the€loss€of€the€time€segment.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` à€The€petitioner€claims€that€he€was€€prejudiced€because€the€loss€of€the€time€intervalÐ ˜è  Ðbelied€the€defense€claim€that,€during€the€interlude€between€the€petitioner€and€Allen€Johnson€talkingÐ „Ô  Ðsequentially€with€the€911€operator,€the€petitioner€told€the€victim€ð!ð€and€the€victim€acknowledged€ð!ðÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€shooting€was€unintentional.€€The€post„conviction€court€concluded€that€it€was€ð ðpure[]Ð \¬ Ðspeculationðð€to€say€that€the€jury€derived€this€meaning€from€the€use€of€the€redacted€tape.€€ToÐ H˜ Ðdetermine€whether€the€redacted€tape€reasonably€resulted€in€the€inference€asserted€by€the€petitioner,Ð 4„ Ðwe€have€examined€Allen€Johnsonððs€and€the€petitionerððs€trial€testimony.€€Allen€Johnson€testified€thatÐ  p Ðwhen€he€heard€the€shot€and€his€father€called€him€into€the€house,€he€saw€the€victim€sitting€on€theÐ  \ Ðcouch.€€The€victim€said€to€Allen,€ð ðHe€shot€me.ðð€€Allen€Johnson€then€testified,€ð ðAnd€dad€grabbed€meÐ øH Ðand€took€me€back€in€the€kitchen€back€there€to€a€phone.€€And€I€got€on€the€phone€and€started€talkingÐ ä4 Ðto€911.ðð€Allen€Johnson€testified€that,€afterward,€the€petitioner€ð ðbrought€[him]€the€cordless€phone,Ð Ð  Ð.€.€.€and€then€[Allen€Johnson]€went€back€into€the€living€room,ðð€where€the€victim€was€saying€she€wasÐ ¼  Ðin€pain€and€was€about€to€die.€€Then,€with€Allen€Johnson€holding€the€cordless€phone€and€standing€onÐ ¨ø Ðthe€other€side€of€the€living€room€from€his€parents,€the€petitioner€said,€ð ðChub,€I€love€you,€and€I€didnððtÐ ”ä Ðmean€[to]€do€it.ðð€€€The€victim€responded,€ð ðI€know€you€didnððt.ðð€€€On€cross„examination,€AllenÐ €Ð ÐJohnson€testified€that€he€was€òòtalking€on€the€telephone€to€the€911€operatoróó€when€the€victim€told€theÐ l¼ Ðpetitioner€that€she€knew€he€did€not€mean€to€shoot€her.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€did€notÐ X ¨ Ðremember€the€events€that€transpired€after€the€gun€discharged.€€Thus,€the€sole€account€of€theÐ D!” Ðdiscussion€between€the€petitioner€and€the€victim€was€rendered€by€Allen€Johnson,€and€he€testified€thatÐ 0"€  Ðthe€discussion€occurred,€not€in€the€interval€between€the€petitioner€and€himself€talking€to€911,€butÐ #l! Ðòòafteróó€he€assumed€control€of€the€conversation€with€the€911€operator.€€With€this€proof€in€evidence,Ð $X" Ðthere€is€no€palpable€inference€from€the€redacted€tape€that€there€was€no€time€for€this€conversationÐ ô$D # Ðbetween€the€petitioner€and€the€victim.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€claimed€prejudice€is€speculative,€andÐ ¸'#& Ðmoreover,€the€danger€of€prejudice€was€not€foreseeable.€€Not€only€has€no€prejudice€been€shown,€butÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€counsel€deficientlyÐ )à$( Ðperformed€by€not€raising€the€ð ðtime€gapðð€issue€at€trial€or€on€appeal.€Ð |*Ì%) ЀÐ h+¸&* Ðѯj Ñâ âÑû°Ñâ âÑ  Ñà  àà ` à€€€€€€€€€€C.€€The€Failure€to€Object€to€the€TBI€Agentððs€Testimony.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€claims€Mr.€Anderson€ineffectively€assisted€him€by€not€objecting€whenÐ ˆØ Ðthe€stateððs€TBI€witness€testified€that€he€had€performed€gunshot€residue€tests€on€samples€from€theÐ tÄ Ðvictimððs€hands.€€The€stateððs€prior€discovery€response€indicated€that€residue€from€the€victimððs€handsÐ `° Ðhad€not€been€tested.€€The€petitioner€posits€that€counsel€should€have€objected€to€this€testimonyÐ L œ Ðconcerning€the€test€until€he€had€reviewed€the€results€of€the€test.€€Mr.€Anderson,€however,€testifiedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat,€although€he€was€surprised€by€the€news€that€the€test€had€been€performed,€he€was€happy€for€theÐ $ t Ðjury€to€know€that€the€residue€on€the€defendantððs€hands€was€ð ðidenticalðð€to€that€on€the€victimððs€hands.€Ð  ` ÐHe€believed€this€information€advanced€the€defense€theory€that€the€victim€put€her€hands€on€the€gunÐ ü L  Ðand€caused€it€to€discharge.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€though€Mr.€Andersonððs€failure€to€object€cannot€be€lauded€as€a€chosen€trial€tacticÐ À  Ðin€view€of€the€fact€that€he€apparently€did€not€know€the€results€of€the€test€when€he€allowed€the€agentÐ ¬ü  Ðto€testify€unimpeded€to€the€results,€we€must€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€shown€no€prejudice€asÐ ˜è  Ða€result€of€the€failure€to€object€and€to€review€the€test€results€prior€to€disclosure€to€the€jury.€€The€testÐ „Ô  Ðresults€were€consistent€with€the€petitionerððs€theory€of€accidental€shooting,€and€we€agree€with€Mr.Ð pÀ ÐAndersonððs€assessment€that€the€evidence€helped€the€petitioner€more€than€it€hurt€him.€€Hence,€on€thisÐ \¬ Ðissue,€the€prejudice€prong€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€has€not€been€satisfied.€€€Moreover,€theÐ H˜ Ðpetitioner€offered€no€proof€in€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€further€analysis€of€the€residue€samplingÐ 4„ Ðwould€have€been€exculpatory.Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àD.€€The€Failure€to€Object€to,€and€Preserve€for€Appeal,€Instances€ofÐ øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Prosecutorial€Misconduct.à p àà È à€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€claims€that€he€is€aggrieved€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€becauseÐ ¼  Ðtrial€counsel€failed€to€object€to€two€incidents€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€otherwise€failed€to€takeÐ ¨ø Ðsteps€to€assure€appellate€review€of€the€misconduct€issues.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€ð ð[t]he€test€to€be€applied€in€reviewing€a€claim€of€prosecutorialÐ l¼ Ðmisconduct€is€ððwhether€the€improper€conduct€could€have€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendant.ðððð€€òòBrimmer€v.€Stateóó,€29€S.W.3d€497,€527€(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215Ð D!” ÐTenn.€338,€339,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965)).€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€first€issue€is€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€TBI€agentððs€testimony€about€theÐ $X" Ðgunshot€residue€test€on€the€victimððs€hands€and€his€failure€to€construct€a€record€that€would€supply€thisÐ ô$D # Ðcourt€with€a€basis€for€reviewing€the€issue€on€direct€appeal.€As€we€have€concluded€in€the€precedingÐ à%0!$ Ðsection,€however,€the€petitioner€has€demonstrated€no€prejudice€from€counselððs€failure€to€present€thisÐ Ì&"% Ðissue€to€the€trial€court€or€to€this€court.€In€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€argues€that,€if€counsel€hadÐ ¸'#& Ðattempted€to€forestall€the€trial€when€the€report€was€disclosed,€he€could€have€obtained€independentÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtesting€of€the€gunshot€residue.€€He€had€the€burden,€however,€of€establishing€his€post„convictionÐ )à$( Ðclaims€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€and€as€we€have€noted,€he€failed€to€show€at€the€evidentiaryÐ |*Ì%) Ðhearing€what€an€independent€test€would€have€revealed.€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àWe€therefore€discern€no€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€despite€the€issue€ofÐ ° Ðð ðsurpriseðð€not€having€been€reviewed€by€any€court.€€In€other€words,€because€the€post„convictionÐ œì Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€prejudice,€he€has€established€ineffective€assistance€of€neither€trialÐ ˆØ Ðnor€appellate€counsel.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` à€Next,€the€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€and€appellate€counsel€failed€to€preserve€theÐ L œ Ðissue€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€concerning€the€stateððs€closing€argument€that€the€petitionerÐ 8 ˆ Ðobstructed€the€call€for€medical€help€for€the€victim,€that€the€victim€herself€called€911€and€went€toÐ $ t Ðretrieve€a€towel€to€stem€the€bleeding,€and€that€the€petitioner€shielded€the€victim€from€emergency€orÐ  ` Ðlaw€enforcement€personnel€as€a€means€of€preventing€her€from€describing€the€shooting.€€TheÐ ü L  Ðpetitioner€asserts€that€there€is€no€evidence€to€support€these€claims.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€courts€have€afforded€wide€latitude€to€counsel€in€arguing€cases€to€the€jury.€€òòStateÐ À  Ðv.€Cribbsóó,€967€S.W.2d€773,€783€(Tenn.€1998).€€Although€arguments€must€be€temperate,€relevant€toÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€material€issues,€and€predicated€on€the€evidence,€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€967€S.W.2d€726,€736€(Tenn.Ð ˜è  Ð1998),€both€the€prosecution€and€the€defense€must€be€allowed€to€argue€not€only€the€facts€in€evidence,Ð „Ô  Ðbut€also€any€reasonable€inferences€therefrom.€€òòRussell€v.€Stateóó,€532€S.W.2d€268,€271€(Tenn.€1976).€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€argument€bespoke€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence.€Ð H˜ ÐThe€photographs€introduced€at€trial€showed€blood€drops€on€the€floor€through€the€house€and€on€a€lightÐ 4„ Ðswitch€near€a€door€leading€into€or€toward€the€bathroom.€€The€911€tape€revealed€that€the€petitionerÐ  p Ðcould€not€or€would€not€recite€his€address€for€the€911€operator,€even€though€he€was€able€to€recite€itÐ  \ Ðon€cross„examination.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àAdditionally,€the€petitioner€himself€helped€to€foster€the€prosecutorððs€argument€when,Ð Ð  Ðduring€cross„examination,€he€repeatedly€stated€that€he€did€not€remember€the€events€that€followed€theÐ ¼  Ðshooting,€including€whether€the€victim€went€ð ðbleeding€from€the€couch,€where€she€was€shot€into€theÐ ¨ø Ðbathroom,€turning€on€the€light,€finding€something€to€put€on€her€to€stop€the€bleeding.ðð€€When€askedÐ ”ä Ðif€he€ð ðdidnððt€help€her,ðð€the€petitioner€testified,€ð ðI€donððt€know.ðð€€The€prosecutor€said,€ð ðYou€didnððt€helpÐ €Ð Ðher.€You€didnððt€even€call€911€right€away,€did€you?ðð€€The€petitioner€replied,€ð ðI€donððt€know.ðð€€TheÐ l¼ Ðpetitioner€also€testified€that€he€did€not€remember€whether€he€had€stayed€close€to€the€victim€when€theÐ X ¨ Ðmedical€team€arrived€in€order€to€prevent€her€from€telling€what€happened.€From€this€record,€weÐ D!” Ðcannot€say€that€the€prosecutor€had€no€basis€for€his€argument.Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌà  àà ` àBecause€in€our€view,€no€prosecutorial€misconduct€occurred€during€the€stateððs€finalÐ $X" Ðargument,€the€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€both€trial€and€appellate€counsel€fail.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó óÐ ô$D # Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÐ à%0!$ Ðòòóóà  àà ` àE.€€The€Failure€to€Raise€Certain€Issues€in€a€Timely€Motion€for€New€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` à€€€€€€Trial€and€to€Otherwise€Preserve€Issues€for€Appellate€Review.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€section€I(B)€of€this€opinion€we€recounted€that,€in€òòKenneth€MacArthur€Johnsonóó,€weÐ tÄ Ðcited€the€appellantððs€waiver€as€a€basis€for€rejecting€the€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admittingÐ `° Ðthe€911€tape,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€sequestering€the€jury,€and€that€the€state€was€guilty€of€trialÐ L œ Ðmisconduct€through€using€the€TBI€gunshot€residue€report€and€arguing€outside€the€evidence.€€òòSeeÐ 8 ˆ ÐKenneth€MacArthur€Johnsonóó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€We€also€cited€waiver€as€an€alternative€basis€for€rejectingÐ $ t Ðthe€challenge€to€Crystal€Murdockððs€testimony.€€òòSee€id.óó,€slip€op.€at€4.€€We€also€noted€in€section€I(B)Ð  ` Ðthat€one€of€the€bases€for€appellate€review€waiver€was€the€apparently€belated€filing€of€amendmentsÐ ü L  Ðto€the€motion€for€new€trial€which€raised€the€sequestration€and€prosecutorial€misconduct€issues.€òòSeeÐ è 8  Ðid.óó,€slip€op.€at€5„6.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€foregoing€subsections€of€this€section€III,€we€have€disposed€of€the€claims€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel€when€we€addressed€the€performance€of€trial€counsel€onÐ ˜è  Ðthe€specific€issues€of€the€admissibility€of€Crystal€Murdockððs€testimony€and€of€the€911€tape€and€theÐ „Ô  Ðissue€of€€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€€We€have€yet€to€address€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€Mr.€Anderson,Ð pÀ Ðas€trial€and€appellate€counsel,€failed€to€raise€the€issue€of€sequestration€in€a€timely€amendment€to€theÐ \¬ Ðmotion€for€new€trial€and,€therefore,€failed€to€preserve€it€for€appellate€review.€€We€address€that€issueÐ H˜ Ðnow.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„18„116€provides:Ð  \ ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒIn€all€criminal€prosecutions,€except€those€in€which€a€death€sentenceÐ ä4 Ðmay€be€rendered,€jurors€shall€only€be€sequestered€on€the€judgeððsÐ Ð  Ðmotion€or€on€the€motion€of€the€counsel€for€the€defendant€or€theÐ ¼  Ðdistrict€attorney€general,€which€shall€prohibit€the€jurors€fromÐ ¨ø Ðseparating€at€times€when€they€are€not€engaged€upon€the€actual€trial€orÐ ”ä Ðdeliberation€of€the€case.€€The€party€making€the€motion€to€sequesterÐ €Ð Ðshall€be€unknown€to€the€jury.Ð l¼ ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„116€(1997).€€The€statute€reflects€a€right€to€a€sequestered€jury€that€isÐ D!” Ðgrounded€in€Article€I,€sections€6,€8,€and€9€of€the€state€constitution.€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€915€S.W.2d€1,€2Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòLong€v.€State,óó€132€Tenn.€649,€179€S.W.€315€(1915).€€As€the€statuteÐ #l! Ðindicates,€however,€the€right€may€be€waived€by€the€defendant€who€fails€to€move€for€sequestration.€Ð $X" ÐòòSeeóó€€òòJonesóó,€915€S.W.2d€at€2€(failing€to€raise€sequestration€issue€at€trial€equates€to€waiver).€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€ruling€on€this€issue€following€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trialÐ Ì&"% Ðjudge€indicated€that€he€would€not€have€granted€a€defense€motion€for€sequestration€because€there€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðno€issue€of€notoriety€or€other€basis€for€sequestering€the€jury.€€We€need€not€decide€whether€the€claimÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€a€sequestered€jury€is€absolute€and€does€not€emanate€from€any€facts€or€circumstances€that€wouldÐ )à$( Ðâ âjustify€the€sequestration;€our€review€of€the€record€of€the€trial€indicates€that€the€petitioner€took€noÐ |*Ì%) Ðsteps€to€have€the€jury€sequestered.€€Thus,€he€had€waived€the€issue€long€before€he€began€drafting€aÐ ° Ðmotion€for€a€new€trial.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àOf€course,€that€determination€does€not€end€our€inquiry.€€€The€petitioner€asserts€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€failure€to€present€the€issue€of€sequestration€and€preserve€it€for€appellate€review€is€ineffectiveÐ `° Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€Assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€the€failure€to€move€for€sequestration€is€deficientÐ L œ Ðperformance€of€trial€counsel,€we€nevertheless€discern€no€prejudice€to€the€petitioner.€€At€the€post„Ð 8 ˆ Ðconviction€evidentiary€hearing,€Mr.€Anderson€testified€that€he€noticed€a€ð ðtemperature€changeðð€in€theÐ $ t Ðjury€when€they€returned€to€the€courtroom€after€their€deliberation,€as€if€they€ð ðhad€outside€influence.ðð€Ð  ` ÐHe€was€unable,€however,€to€articulate€any€basis€for€this€perception,€and€moreover,€the€petitioner€hasÐ ü L  Ðshown€neither€an€instance€of€outside€influence€nor€any€other€basis€for€concluding€that€he€wasÐ è 8  Ðprejudiced€at€trial€because€the€jury€was€not€sequestered.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establishÐ Ô$  Ðthe€prejudice€prong€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€concluded€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€prejudice€as€an€elementÐ ˜è  Ðof€his€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€we€need€not€determine€whether€trial€counselÐ „Ô  Ðeffectively€amended€the€motion€for€new€trial€by€tendering€oral€amendments€during€his€argument€onÐ pÀ Ðthe€motion€and€reducing€the€same€to€writing€a€few€days€later.€€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€IV.€€Conclusion.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€reviewed€all€of€the€petitionerððs€claims€for€post„conviction€relief€and€findingÐ  \ Ðthat€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€claims,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÐ øH Ðcourt.€Ð ä4 ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ ”ä ÐÌ