ÿWPCe< ×!¡Q¢~q¿id?ñ% ðÉ}{¿kd´b.ƒ*F«½—ž'¿¯A †Õ1©¸­[Ø*©ø×´/²Š5VªG“Ýéežç¥ý1ç:· Ô™¥w( „"á³ÚëYÊ8ÃPÛ›aéÓ&©{’·ù¤ZK£Ùg%KIîW5ݪ'~ç«<ÜÃÌׂ—\` î[oA‘eNY@ÃWTÔ°ìè«U,^¥c|Ü@Љæü1ÆÁptA ß±ÐÈ@V凸PfžÖxD™9ÞŠó(oèå;–±½Ý€KyN‡–ùØVÐß ž|¨@BD–4xÌÇGÚÿŽU·_ô a¹ª¬Üë€ã9$`No\zBâa™)5ûe”ŠÆÇc¸¼ŠÚhgsDÌRoý7LðÛ6 ~ÏŸ©nÔ<{`ÊáΜY1jø…¢ñºù=$+®¥lk@™Z#ökz¸ËÐEšäµYËÊ¡Å+ÿíf‘×.sÙ'žØnÛ¦bÅ_hÔ¶ @yšiþ—þ÷ÜtksØ Š’2×`Å|è6øãÅ>¾S"oÊq#·½-¬ýe+p#NÇY¤ŠD}Á3Üõ]_Û\IKÅÚ‚M„Ï ú( 0¦™ Žû“œ C«yE#ÉÒ %› N¡ 0ˆ£ U-N+ UNy U@Ç zÒ zSÒÍNŸU>¡ÆßÆ¥ÆkÆ1è÷Nß záÒ[N-U@/ 0Do z³Ò-NÿEN'è, zÒŽN``2b z”Ò Nà à à à zâ Ò\!N."b0"0"0" z8"Ò²"N„#„#„# z†#Ò$NÒ$Ò$Ò$ zÔ$ÒN%N & & & z"&Òœ&Nn'n'n' zp'Òê'N¼(¼(¼( z¾(Ò8)N * * * z *Ò†*NX+ 0ëZ+Z+Z+ zE, B¿,ÒÜ, 0¤®- D3R. D-…. 0K².Ný. ASÿ.ÆR/ 0¤0 0D¼0 A«111 z«1Ò%2N÷2÷2÷2 zù2Òs3NE4E4E4 zG4ÒÁ4N“5“5“5 z•5Ò6Ná6á6á6 zã6Ò]7N/8/8/8 z18Ò«8N}9}9}9 z9Òù9NË:Ë:Ë: zÍ:ÒG;^ <w%<4)<=<L< mN<˜\\IB01S01\CLERK4NASÒV,,,,ÒV0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptô\  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 RODRICKEllsworthJohsonBinkley t]heSewellHoneycuttClennyStricklandAdkinsHarbisonLangford uncontrovertedc]ourtroomTakeitaColdwellFlemming TeelSandstromPhippsT.P.I P.J.i f]ort]hisTidwellOvertonHellardc]onductO]verwhelming MoseCuxart O]urDarnellf]romVickievicitm I]t˜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(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt Ý ƒRr$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·,ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€the€petitioner€utilizes€a€different€spelling€of€his€first€name€in€his€post„conviction€petition€from€thatÐ ° Ðused€in€the€direct€appeal. ÞÝ ƒRr$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·,ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€the€purposes€of€our€review,€we€are€combining€the€claim,€raised€as€Ground€III€in€the€òòpro€seóó€post„convictionÐ ° Ðpetition,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€instructing€as€to€facilitation€and,€in€the€second€amended€petition,€that€appellateÐ qÁ Ðcounsel€was€ineffective€for€not€raising€this€issue€on€direct€appeal.!˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt (Ý ƒRr$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·,ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€we€have€stated,€the€petitioner€asserted€an€alibi€defense€at€trial,€denying€that€he€had€been€at€the€victimððsÐ ° Ðapartment€at€the€time€of€the€attack.&˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt,˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt- ù-2˜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.wpt7˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt<˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptA˜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.wptF˜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.wptK˜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.wptP˜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(|G2r$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€š»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·,ò»»ÔW˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT dC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(|3¿$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€š»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¿$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€š»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKe˜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.wptj˜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.wpto˜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.wptt˜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.wpty˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt~˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptƒ˜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.wptˆ˜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»Š"/Ï ¦ƒ‡.úIê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€š»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼š»»»ÔÑ8€Ì/XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îd¶î»¼šÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼š»îîd¶ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€March€11,€2003Ð öF ÐÔ‡XÌ/X»¼šÔÌò òÔ#†¼š»XXÌ/#ÔRODRICK€JOHNSON€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XÌ/X»¼šÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98„A„87€€€€€€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„01212„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€September€2,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Rodrick€Johnson,€appeals€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ð V¦  Ðasserting€that:€€(1)€the€post„conviction€court€erred€by€failing€to€make€findings€and€conclusions€as€toÐ ? Ðeach€issue;€(2)€the€jury€instructions€provided€by€the€trial€court€lowered€the€State's€burden€of€proof;Ð (x Ð(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€instructing€as€to€the€lesser„included€offense€of€facilitation;€and€(4)€heÐ a Ðwas€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€on€appeal.€€We€affirm€the€order€of€the€post„convictionÐ úJ Ðcourt€dismissing€the€petition.Ð ã3 ÐÓ¹ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ µ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼š»àXÌ/#ÔÔ‡XÌ/X.¼šÔAlan€E.€Glennóó,€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.,€óóandòò€Joe€G.Ð ˆØ ÐRiley,€J.,óó€òòóójoined.€€òòóóÐ qÁ ÐÌRodrick€Johnson,€Only,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se€(on€appeal),€and€Ellsworth€D.€Ware,€III,€Nashville,Ð C“ ÐTennessee€(at€trial),€for€the€appellant,€Rodrick€Johnson.Ð ,| ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Thomas€E.€Williams,€III,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ þN ÐGeneral;€Victor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Dan€Hamm,€Assistant€DistrictÐ ç 7  ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ð! ! ÐÓÙÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼š»XXÌ/#ÔÔ‡XÌ/X»¼šÔÐ ¢#ò# ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àIn€November€of€1998,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder€and€sentencedÐ u%Å % Ðto€confinement€for€twenty„one€years.€€This€court€affirmed€the€conviction€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ ^&®!& Ðv.€Roderick€Johnsonóó,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€No.€M1999„00605„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1717542,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð G'—"' ÐNov.€17,€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Apr.€24,€2001).Ô#†¼š»XXÌ/! #ÔÔ‡XÌ/X»¼šÔ€€The€conviction€resulted€from€theÐ 0(€#( Ðstabbing€death€of€William€Edwin€Binkley,€as€the€opinion€of€this€court€set€out€on€direct€appeal:Ð )i$) ÐÐ *R%*ý ÐÔ_ÔÔ#†¼š»XXÌ/§ #Ôà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ€XÌ/X»¼šÔà ¸ àOn€October€24,€1997,€between€8:30€and€9:00€p.m.,€DerrickÐ ° Ðand€Amanda€Barrett€returned€home€from€an€evening€of€shopping.Ð ™é ÐThey€passed€a€vehicle€parked€in€the€apartment€complex's€parking€lotÐ ‚Ò Ðwith€its€windows€rolled€down,€and€they€noticed€an€African-AmericanÐ k» Ðinfant€restrained€in€an€infant€seat€in€the€vehicle's€back€seat.€€AfterÐ T¤ Ðapproximately€30€minutes€passed,€they€grew€concerned€for€theÐ =  Ðinfant's€well-being,€and€Derrick€Barrett€wrote€down€the€vehicle'sÐ & v Ðlicense€plate€number.€Amanda€Barrett€phoned€911€to€report€theÐ  _ Ðabandoned€child.€€Subsequent€to€Amanda€Barrett's€phone€call€to€911,Ð ø H ÐDerrick€Barrett€witnessed€two€African-American€males€run€out€of€anÐ á 1  Ðapartment,€get€into€the€vehicle,€and€drive€away.€€The€police€checkedÐ Ê   Ðthe€license€number€that€Derrick€Barrett€copied€and€determined€[theÐ ³  Ðpetitioner]€to€be€the€owner€of€the€vehicle.Мì ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWhile€[the€petitioner's]€vehicle€was€in€the€parking€lot,Ð n¾  Ðnumerous€witnesses€testified€as€to€a€commotion€occurring€in€[theÐ W§  Ðvictim's]€second€floor€apartment.€€Witnesses€reported€hearing€theÐ @ Ðsounds€of€threats,€pleading,€and€fighting€for€approximately€an€hour.€Ð )y ÐOne€witness€heard€someone€yell,€"where's€my€money?"€€AnotherÐ b Ðwitness€heard€someone€say,€"where's€the€dope?"€Although€severalÐ ûK Ðresidents€phoned€911€throughout€the€ordeal,€they€were€told€thatÐ ä4 Ðofficers€were€not€available.€€Accordingly,€a€resident€phoned€theÐ Í Ðvictim's€mother,€Francis€Hampton,€and€informed€her€that€her€son€wasÐ ¶ Ðin€peril.€€Hampton€arrived€within€10€minutes€of€the€phone€call,Ð Ÿï Ðknocked€on€the€victim's€locked€door,€and€demanded€entry.€€SheÐ ˆØ Ðwalked€back€down€the€steps€to€meet€the€apartment€manager€toÐ qÁ Ðprocure€a€key€to€the€victim's€door.€€Suddenly,€two€African-AmericanÐ Zª Ðmales€exited€the€victim's€apartment,€walked€directly€by€her€on€theÐ C“ Ðsteps,€and€ran€to€their€vehicle.€€At€trial,€Hampton€identified€[theÐ ,| Ðpetitionerððs]€brother,€the€co-defendant,€but€was€unable€to€identify€theÐ e Ðother€male€because€he€wore€a€hat€down€over€his€face.ÐþN` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àHampton€entered€the€victim's€apartment€and€found€him€lyingÐ Ð!   Ðon€the€floor€in€a€pool€of€his€own€blood.€€He€was€transported€toÐ ¹" ! ÐVanderbilt€Hospital€by€emergency€personnel€and€died€three€daysÐ ¢#ò" Ðlater.€€It€was€subsequently€determined€that€his€death€resulted€fromÐ ‹$Û# Ðbeing€beaten€and€stabbed€41€times.Ðt%Ä $` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€*1.Ð F'–"& ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€note€that€the€petitioner€did€not€file€a€notice€of€appeal€within€the€statutoryÐ )h$( Ðlimitations€period.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€4(a)€requiresÐ *Q%) Ðthat€a€notice€of€appeal€must€"be€filed€with€and€received€by€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€within€30€daysÐ ê*:&* Ðafter€the€date€of€entry€of€the€judgment€appealed€from."€€The€deadline€for€the€filing€of€the€notice€ofÐ Ó+#'+ Ðappeal€was€March€28,€2002,€and€the€petitioner€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€on€May€2,€2002.€€The€timelyÐ ° Ðfiling€of€a€notice€of€appeal€is€not,€however,€a€prerequisite€to€the€jurisdiction€of€this€court.€€TheÐ ™é Ðrequirement€may€be€waived€in€the€interest€of€justice.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.€Scalesóó,€767€S.W.2d€157,€158Ð ‚Ò Ð(Tenn.€1989).€€Here,€the€record€establishes€that€the€attorney€who€was€appointed€to€represent€theÐ k» Ðpetitioner€in€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€file€either€a€notice€of€appeal€or€a€motion€to€withdrawÐ T¤ Ðas€counsel€after€the€dismissal€of€the€petition€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€13,Ð =  Ððð€1(i).€€The€petitioner€asserts€that€he€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€notice€of€appeal€immediately€upon€learning€thatÐ & v Ðthe€dismissal€of€his€petition€had€not€been€appealed.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€thatÐ  _ Ðthe€interest€of€justice€requires€that€the€timely€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal€be€waived.Ð ø H ÐÌÓ  Óò òI.€€Completeness€of€Findings€and€Conclusions€by€the€Post„Conviction€CourtÐ Ê   ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€petitionerððs€first€claim€on€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€did€not€make€findings€of€fact€andÐ žî  Ðconclusions€of€law€as€to€each€issue€raised;€and,€therefore,€this€court€should€reverse€the€order€ofÐ ‡×  Ðdismissal€of€the€post„conviction€petition€and€remand€for€a€determination€as€to€each€issue.€InÐ pÀ  Ðreviewing€this€issue,€we€first€will€set€out€the€complicated€course€of€this€matter€through€both€post„Ð Y©  Ðconviction€hearings€and€the€difficulty€in€identifying€exactly€which€issues€were€to€be€determined€byÐ B’ Ðthe€court.Ð +{ ÐÌà@rr#ìàò òòòPro€Se€óóPetitionó óˆÐ ýM ÐÌà  àTÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ôhe€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€bearing€a€clerkððs€stamp€of€May€7,€2001,€set€outÐ Ð  Ðthe€following€claims,€which€we€denominate€as€did€the€petitioner.Ð ¹  ÐÌà@Ø Ø ìàGround€I€ð!ð€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counselˆà  àÐ ‹Û ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to:€€(A)€seek€a€mistrial€because€of€introduction€of€aÐ ]­ Ðð ðdying€declarationðð€of€the€victim;€(B)€request€an€instruction€as€to€the€weight€to€be€given€such€aÐ F– Ðdeclaration;€(C)€raise€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€or€on€appeal€the€courtððs€failure€to€properly€instructÐ / Ðas€to€the€declaration;€(D)€raise€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€or€on€appeal€that€the€instructions€as€to€theÐ h Ðburden€of€proof€were€misleading;€(E)€object€to€or€raise€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€or€on€appeal€thatÐ  Q Ðthe€trial€courtððs€instruction€as€to€criminal€responsibility€was€erroneous;€and€(F)€object€to€or€raise€inÐ ê : Ðthe€motion€for€new€trial€or€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€allowed€ð ðirrelevant€and€prejudicial€bloodÐ Ó!#  Ðevidence€to€be€introduced€in€trial.ððÐ ¼" ! ÐÌà@T T ìàGround€II€ð!ð€Trial€Court€Errors€as€to€Instructions€GivenˆÐ Ž$Þ# ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€was€denied€a€fair€trial€because€of€an€erroneous€ð ðburden€of€proofðð€juryÐ `&°!% Ðinstruction€and€an€erroneous€criminal€responsibility€instruction,€the€latter€having€the€effect€ofÐ I'™"& Ðdirecting€a€verdict€against€him.€€Ð 2(‚#' ÐÌÌà@j j ìàGround€III€ð!ð€€Trial€Court€Errors€as€to€Instructions€Not€GivenˆÐ í*=&* ÐÐ Ö+&'+ Ðà  àThe€trial€court€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€facilitation€and€ð ðall€lesser€included€offenses.ðð€Ð ° ÐÌà  àà@B B ìàò òFirst€Amended€Petition€Filed€by€Appointed€Counseló óˆÐ ‚Ò ÐÌà  àAppointed€counsel€filed€an€amended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€July€12,€2001,Ð U¥ Ðclaiming€that€the€trial€court€erred€(1)€by€admitting€the€victimððs€statement€to€his€mother€as€a€dyingÐ > Ž Ðdeclaration;€(2)€by€ð ðover„relianceðð€upon€circumstantial€evidence;€(3)€by€refusing€to€instruct€as€toÐ ' w Ðfacilitation€of€felony€murder;€and€(4)€in€sentencing€the€petitioner€to€twenty„one€years.€€Thus,€allÐ  ` Ðerrors€raised€by€post„conviction€counsel€in€the€amended€petition€were€as€to€actions€or€inactions€byÐ ù I Ðthe€trial€court.€€No€claims€were€made€in€the€first€amended€petition€as€to€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ â 2  Ðcounsel.€Ð Ë   ÐÌà@””ìàò òFirst€Evidentiary€Hearingó óˆÐ í  ÐÌà  àAt€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€September€19,€2001,€at€which€trial€counsel€testified,€theÐ pÀ  Ðpetitioner€stated€to€the€post„conviction€court€that€he€did€not€agree€with€the€issues€his€appointed€post„Ð Y©  Ðconviction€counsel€had€presented€in€the€amended€petition€and€had€wished€to€retain€the€claims€ofÐ B’ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€set€out€as€Grounds€I€and€III€in€the€òòpro€seóó€petition,€as€well€asÐ +{ Ðð ðanother€ground€.€.€.€about€the€jury€instruction.ððÔ#†XÌ/X XXu‡–$#ÔÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ô€€The€post„conviction€court€continued€the€matter€toÐ d Ðallow€the€petitioner€and€post„conviction€counsel€to€work€out€which€issues€were€to€be€argued,Ð ýM Ðadvising€the€petitioner€that€the€claims€set€out€in€his€òòpro€seóó€petition€had€not€been€waived.Ð æ6 ÐÌà@º º ìàò òSecond€Amended€Petition€Filed€by€Counseló óˆÐ ¸ ÐÌà  àThe€record€on€appeal€does€not€include€a€copy€of€this€pleading,€which€is€described€by€theÐ ‹Û Ðpetitioner,€in€a€subsequent€òòpro€se€óómotion€filed€in€January€2002,€as€having€raised€only€ð ðthe€claim€ofÐ tÄ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ððòòóóÐ ]­ ÐÌà@IIìàò òòòPro€Se€óóMotion€to€Preserve€ClaimsˆÐ / ÐÌà  àó óAfter€the€first€evidentiary€hearing€and€apparently€because€of€dissatisfaction€with€counselððsÐ  S Ðsecond€amended€petitionÔ#†XÌ/X XXu‡2#ÔÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ô,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€se€óómotion€in€January€2002€asking€that€ð ðGroundsÐ ì < ÐII€and€IIIðð€of€his€òòpro€se€óópost„conviction€petition€be€preserved.€€Thus,€the€status€of€the€contentionsÐ Õ!%  Ðat€that€point€appeared€to€be€that€the€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€raised€in€the€òòpro€seóóÐ ¾"! Ðpetition€had€been€replaced€by€those€set€out€in€counselððs€second€amended€petition,€and€that€GroundsÐ §#÷" ÐII€and€III,€which€the€petitioner€himself€first€had€raised,€still€were€being€pressed.Ð $à# ÐÌà@00ìàò òSecond€Evidentiary€Hearingó óˆÐ b&²!% ÐÌà  àOn€February€6,€2002,€a€second€evidentiary€hearing€was€held,€with€both€trial€counsel€and€theÐ 5(…#' Ðpetitioner€testifying.€€At€the€hearing,€post„conviction€counsel€questioned€trial€counsel€and€both€heÐ )n$( Ðand€the€petitioner€argued€the€claims€set€out€in€the€various€post„conviction€pleadings.€€Subsequently,Ð *W%) Ðin€this€opinion,€we€will€set€out€the€testimony€and€arguments.Ð ð*@&* ÐÐ Ù+)'+ Ðà  àò òó óÔ#†XÌ/X XXu‡ 6#ÔAs€his€first€issue€on€appeal,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€court€made€findings€of€fact€andÐ ° Ðconclusions€of€law€only€as€to€the€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€but€not€as€to€theÐ ™é Ðadditional€claims€he€had€raised€in€the€original€òòpro€seóó€petition.€€Thus,€according€to€the€petitionerððsÐ ‚Ò Ðargument,€the€order€dismissing€the€post„conviction€petition€should€be€reversed€and€the€matterÐ k» Ðremanded€for€findings€and€conclusions€as€to€all€issues.Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àAs€we€understand€the€various€pleadings€and€the€arguments€at€the€post„conviction€hearings,Ð & v Ðthere€was€substantial€overlap€of€the€petitionerððs€arguments€and€those€of€post„conviction€counsel.€Ð  _ ÐThe€petitionerððs€complaints,€set€out€as€Grounds€II€and€III€in€his€òòpro€seóó€petition,€were€alleged€errorsÐ ø H Ðof€the€trial€court,€that€the€court€erred€in€its€instructions€by€use€of€the€phrase,€ð ðor€either€of€them,ððÐ á 1  Ðwhen€instructing€as€to€second€degree€murder;€in€its€instructions€as€to€criminal€responsibility;€and€inÐ Ê   Ðnot€instructing€the€jury€as€to€facilitation.€€The€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€complaints,€made€byÐ ³  Ðpost„conviction€counsel€in€the€second€amended€petition,€and€as€explained€by€the€petitioner€in€hisÐ œì  Ðbrief,€were€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€not€raising€as€issues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€courtÐ …Õ  Ðerred€both€in€concluding€that€the€victimððs€statement€to€his€mother€was€a€dying€declaration€and€byÐ n¾  Ðnot€instructing€the€jury€as€to€facilitation.€€In€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€the€post„Ð W§  Ðconviction€court€expressed€the€primary€issues€as€being€that€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€in€notÐ @ Ðraising€the€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instructions€to€separately€consider€ð ðthe€culpabilityÐ )y Ðof€each€defendantðð€and€by€not€instructing€as€to€facilitation.€As€to€the€two€claims,€the€post„convictionÐ b Ðcourt€determined€in€its€written€findings€and€conclusions€that€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€as€toÐ ûK Ðthese€matters€but€did€not€determine€whether€the€court€itself,€then€acting€as€the€trial€court,€erred€asÐ ä4 Ðto€the€same€matters.€€Additionally,€the€post„conviction€court€stated€in€its€findings€that€other€claimsÐ Í Ðraised€in€the€various€pre„hearing€pleadings€filed€by€the€petitioner€and€his€counsel,€includingÐ ¶ Ðadmission€of€the€victimððs€statement€as€a€dying€declaration,€ð ðover€reliance€by€the€jury€onÐ Ÿï Ðcircumstantial€evidence,ðð€and€the€propriety€of€the€petitionerððs€sentence,€ð ðwere€not€emphasized€orÐ ˆØ Ðargued€at€the€hearing.ðð€€The€court€determined€that€the€ð ðpetitionerððs€remaining€claims€which€areÐ qÁ Ðraised€in€his€petitions€are€without€merit.ððÐ Zª ÐÌà  àThe€responsibility€of€the€post„conviction€court€as€to€making€written€findings€and€conclusions€Ð ,| Ѐis€set€out€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„211(b),€which€provides:Ð e ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àUpon€the€final€disposition€of€every€petition,€the€court€shall€enter€aÐ ç 7 Ðfinal€order,€and€except€where€proceedings€for€delayed€appeal€areÐ Ð!   Ðallowed,€shall€set€forth€in€the€order€or€a€written€memorandum€of€theÐ ¹" ! Ðcase€all€grounds€presented,€and€shall€state€the€findings€of€fact€andÐ ¢#ò" Ðconclusions€of€law€with€regard€to€each€such€ground.€Ð‹$Û#` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€make€findings€as€to€Grounds€IIÐ ]&­!% Ðand€III,€which€he€had€raised€in€his€òòpro€seóó€petition,€these€being,€as€we€have€stated,€that€the€trial€courtÐ F'–"& Ðhad€erred€in€its€jury€instructions€as€to€its€use€of€the€phrase€ð ðor€either€of€them;ðð€in€its€charge€as€toÐ /(#' Ðcriminal€responsibility;€and€in€not€instructing€as€to€facilitation.€€While€it€is€correct€that€the€post„Ð )h$( Ðconviction€court€did€not€make€express€findings€and€conclusions€as€to€the€specific€claims€set€out€inÐ *Q%) ÐGrounds€II€and€III,€it€was€not€entirely€clear,€as€we€view€the€post„conviction€hearings,€that€theÐ ê*:&* Ðpetitioner€intended€that€some€of€the€same€claims€be€presented€as€both€errors€of€the€trial€court€andÐ Ó+#'+ Ðof€appellate€counsel.€€We€note€that€the€post„conviction€court€did€rule€on€the€claims€of€error€in€theÐ ° Ðinstructions€to€the€jury.€€However,€this€was€done€in€the€context€of€whether€trial€counsel€wasÐ ™é Ðineffective€and€not€as€to€whether€the€trial€court€also€had€erred€in€this€regard.€Ð ‚Ò Ðà  àÌòòà  àóóThis€court€determined,€in€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),Ð T¤ Ðòòóóthat€"the€failure€of€the€trial€judge€to€abide€by€the€requirement€does€not€always€mandate€a€reversalÐ =  Ðof€the€trial€court's€judgment."€€In€fact,€since€the€purpose€of€the€requirement€for€written€findings€andÐ & v Ðconclusions€as€to€each€issue€is€to€facilitate€appellate€review€of€the€post„conviction€court's€decision,Ð  _ Ðreversal€is€not€required€even€though€the€trial€court€did€not€so€rule€when€the€record€is€otherwiseÐ ø H Ðadequate€for€review.€òòóó€In€the€present€appeal,€the€issues€which€the€òòóópetitioner€argues€that€the€post„Ð á 1  Ðconviction€court€did€not€consider€are€matters€as€to€which€the€record€is€sufficient€for€this€court€toÐ Ê   Ðmake€determinations.€€Accordingly,€we€respectfully€disagree€that€this€matter€must€be€remanded€forÐ ³  Ðadditional€findings€and€conclusions€by€the€post„conviction€court,€and€Ô‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ôò òó ónow€will€consider€theÐ œì  Ðremaining€issues€raised€on€appeal.ò òó óÔ#†XÌ/X XXu‡‡R#Ôà h àòòÐ …Õ  ÐÌÓ  Óóóò òII.€€Jury€InstructionsÐ W§  ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€instructions€as€to€second€degree€murderÐ +{ Ðand€criminal€responsibility,€thus€denying€his€ð ðright€to€a€fair€trial€by€lowering€the€Stateððs€burdenÐ d Ðneeded€to€convict.ðð€€€The€specific€complaint€as€to€the€instructions€for€second€degree€murder€is€theÐ ýM Ðuse€of€the€phrase,€ð ðor€either€of€them,ðð€as€in€the€sentence€ð ð[f]or€you€to€find€the€defendants,€or€eitherÐ æ6 Ðof€them,€guilty€of€this€offense,€the€State€must€have€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€.€.€.€that€theÐ Ï Ðdefendants,€or€either€of€them,€unlawfully€killed€the€alleged€victim;€and€[]€that€the€defendants,€orÐ ¸ Ðeither€of€them,€acted€intentionally[.]ðð€Ð ¡ñ ÐÌà  àAs€to€this€claim,€the€post„conviction€court€concluded€that€ð ðthe€jury€instruction€regarding€theÐ sà Ðjury€giving€separate€consideration€to€each€defendant€fairly€directs€the€jury€to€consider€eachÐ \¬ Ðdefendant€on€the€facts€and€circumstances€that€apply€to€that€particular€defendant,ðð€and€that€ð ð[t]heÐ E• Ðverdict€obviously€indicates€that€the€jury,€in€fact,€followed€the€Court's€instruction€and€returnedÐ .~ Ðdifferent€verdicts€as€to€each€defendant.ððÐ g ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€argument€includes€no€authorities€agreeing€with€his€interpretation€of€thisÐ é 9 Ðlanguage.€€In€fact,€his€parsing€of€the€instructions€ignores€several€matters.€€First,€the€instructions€asÐ Ò!"  Ðto€first€degree€murder€concluded€with€the€same€language€which€the€petitioner€criticizes€as€to€theÐ »" ! Ðinstruction€for€second€degree€murder,€that€if€the€jury€found€the€defendants,€ð ðor€either€of€them,ðð€notÐ ¤#ô" Ðguilty€of€first€degree€murder,€or€had€ð ða€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€guilt€of€either€of€the€defendantsÐ $Ý# Ðas€to€this€offense,ðð€the€jury€was€to€ð ðacquit€that€defendant€of€this€offenseðð€and€consider€ð ðthatÐ v%Æ $ Ðdefendantððs€guilt€or€innocence€of€second€degree€murder[.]ðð€€Obviously,€the€jury€heeded€thisÐ _&¯!% Ðinstruction,€for€it€convicted€the€petitioner€of€second€degree€murder,€although€convicting€hisÐ H'˜"& Ðcodefendant€of€first€degree€murder.€€While€the€petitioner€acknowledges€that€the€trial€court€instructedÐ 1(#' Ðthe€jury€that€it€was€to€ð ðgive€separate€consideration€as€to€each€defendant,ðð€he€argues€that€ð ð[t]hisÐ )j$( Ðinstruction€was€not€only€inconsistent€with,€but€nullified€by,€the€courtððs€repeated€use€of€the€phraseÐ *S%) Ðððor€either€of€themðð€throughout€the€instructions€when€defining€the€Stateððs€requisite€burden€of€proofÐ ì*<&* Ðneeded€to€convict.ðð€€We€respectfully€disagree€with€this€argument,€which€we€believe€to€be€pureÐ Õ+%'+ Ðspeculation.€€Jury€instructions€must€be€reviewed€in€the€context€of€the€overall€charge€rather€than€inÐ ° Ðisolation,€as€the€petitioner€has€done.€€òòSeeóó€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.€510,€527,€99€S.€Ct.€2450,Ð ™é Ð2461€(1979);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Phippsóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€142€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€A€charge€isÐ ‚Ò Ðprejudicial€error€"if€it€fails€to€fairly€submit€the€legal€issues€or€if€it€misleads€the€jury€as€to€theÐ k» Ðapplicable€law."€€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346,€352€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€instructions€of€whichÐ T¤ Ðthe€petitioner€complains€do€neither.Ð =  ÐÌà  àIt€is€clear€from€the€differing€verdicts€that€the€jury€gave€separate€consideration€to€the€chargesÐ  _ Ðagainst€each€defendant.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€record€fully€supports€the€determinationÐ ø H Ðof€the€trial€court€that€this€claim€is€without€merit.Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€instructions€as€to€criminal€responsibility€wereÐ ³  Ðerroneous.€€He€asserts€that€the€phrase,€a€defendant€is€criminally€responsible€for€an€offense€committedÐ œì  Ðby€another€if,€with€intent€to€promote€or€assist€the€offense,€he€ð ðsolicits,€directs,€aids€or€attempts€to€aidÐ …Õ  Ðanother€person€to€commit€the€offense,ðð€is€inconsistent€with€and€nullifies€the€instruction€that€beforeÐ n¾  Ða€jury€can€find€a€defendant€criminally€responsible€it€first€must€determine€ð ðthat€all€of€the€essentialÐ W§  Ðelements€of€said€offense€[have]€been€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€According€to€theÐ @ Ðpetitionerððs€analysis,€as€we€understand€it,€the€result€of€these€instructions€was€that€the€State€wasÐ )y Ðrequired€to€prove€only€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€but€not€that€the€petitioner€acted€with€theÐ b Ðintent€to€promote€or€assist€the€offense.Ð ûK ÐÌà  àAgain,€the€petitioner€has€cited€no€authorities€which€support€this€argument.€€We€believe€thatÐ Í Ða€commonsense€reading€of€this€instruction€simply€is€that€a€defendant€cannot€be€criminallyÐ ¶ Ðresponsible€for€an€offense€committed€by€another€unless€the€State€first€has€proven€beyond€aÐ Ÿï Ðreasonable€doubt€the€elements€of€the€offense.€If€the€jury€determines€that€the€defendant,€acting€toÐ ˆØ Ðpromote€or€assist€in€the€commission€of€the€offense,€or€to€benefit€in€its€proceeds€or€results,€solicited,Ð qÁ Ðdirected,€aided,€or€attempted€to€aid€another€to€commit€the€offense,€then€the€defendant€is€criminallyÐ Zª Ðresponsible€for€the€offense.€We€respectfully€disagree€with€the€claims€that€the€language€isÐ C“ Ðcontradictory€or€confusing.€Accordingly,€we€concur€with€the€determination€of€the€post„convictionÐ ,| Ðcourt€that€this€claim€is€without€merit.à À àÐ e Ðà  àÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselÐ ç 7 ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àIn€his€remaining€claim,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€ofÐ »" ! Ðcounsel€on€appeal,€because€counsel€did€not€raise€as€issues€on€appeal:€€(1)€the€trial€court's€erroneousÐ ¤#ô" Ðadmission€of€the€victim's€dying€declaration€to€his€mother€and€(2)€the€trial€court's€failure€to€provideÐ $Ý# Ða€jury€instruction€on€the€lesser„included€offense€of€facilitation€of€first€degree€murder.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€StateÐ v%Æ $ Ðasserts€that€because€neither€issue€would€have€been€meritorious,€counsel€was€not€ineffective€forÐ _&¯!% Ðfailing€to€present€them€on€direct€appeal.Ð H'˜"& ÐÐ 1(#' Ðà  àThe€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clear€andÐ ° Ðconvincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€When€an€evidentiary€hearing€is€held€Ð ™é Ðin€the€post„conviction€setting,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unlessÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð k» ÐWhere€appellate€review€involves€purely€factual€issues,€the€appellate€court€should€not€reweigh€orÐ T¤ Ðreevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997).€€However,€reviewÐ =  Ðof€a€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€of€the€case€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó,€with€no€presumption€ofÐ & v Ðcorrectness.€€òòSeeóó€òòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,€96€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€issues€of€deficientÐ  _ Ðperformance€of€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€are€mixed€questions€of€law€and€factÐ ø H Ðand,€thus,€subject€to€òòde€novoóó€review€by€the€appellate€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461Ð á 1  Ð(Tenn.€1999).Ô‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/ÔÐ Ê   ÐÌà  àÔ#†XÌ/X XXu‡”s#ÔÔ‡XÌ/XXXÌ/ÔIn€order€to€determine€the€competence€of€counsel,€Tennessee€courts€have€applied€standardsÐ œì  Ðdeveloped€in€federal€case€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)òòóóÐ …Õ  Ð(noting€that€the€same€standard€for€determining€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€is€applied€inÐ n¾  Ðfederal€cases€also€applies€in€Tennessee).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€articulated€the€standardÐ W§  Ðin€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984),€which€isÐ @ Ðwidely€accepted€as€the€appropriate€standard€for€all€claims€of€a€convicted€petitioner€that€counselððsÐ )y Ðassistance€was€defective.€€The€standard€is€firmly€grounded€in€the€belief€that€counsel€plays€a€role€thatÐ b Ðis€ð ðcritical€to€the€ability€of€the€adversarial€system€to€produce€just€results.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€685,€104€S.€Ct.€atÐ ûK Ð2063.€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€is€a€two„prong€test:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFirst,€the€defendant€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€wasÐ ¶ Ðdeficient.€€This€requires€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€seriousÐ Ÿï Ðthat€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Second,€the€defendant€mustÐ qÁ Ðshow€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€ThisÐ Zª Ðrequires€showing€that€counselððs€errors€were€so€serious€as€to€depriveÐ C“ Ðthe€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€result€is€reliable.Ð,|` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€€The€òòStricklandóó€Court€further€explained€the€meaning€of€ð ðdeficientÐ þN Ðperformanceðð€in€the€first€prong€of€the€test€in€the€following€way:Ð ç 7 ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€any€case€presenting€an€ineffectiveness€claim,€the€performanceÐ ¹" ! Ðinquiry€must€be€whether€counselððs€assistance€was€reasonableÐ ¢#ò" Ðconsidering€all€the€circumstances.€.€.€.€€No€particular€set€of€detailedÐ ‹$Û# Ðrules€for€counselððs€conduct€can€satisfactorily€take€account€of€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðvariety€of€circumstances€faced€by€defense€counsel€or€the€range€ofÐ ]&­!% Ðlegitimate€decisions€regarding€how€best€to€represent€a€criminalÐ F'–"& Ðdefendant.Ð/(#'` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€688„89,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065.€€The€petitioner€must€establish€ð ðthat€counselððs€representation€fellÐ *Q%) Ðbelow€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòHouse€v.Ð ê*:&* ÐStateóó,€44€S.W.3d€508,€515€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)).Ð Ó+#'+ Їà  à€As€for€the€prejudice€prong€of€the€test,€the€òòStricklandóó€Court€stated:€ð ðThe€defendant€must€showÐ ° Ðthat€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€theÐ ™é Ðproceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€toÐ ‚Ò Ðundermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòóó466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòOverton€v.Ð k» ÐStateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1994)€(concluding€that€petitioner€failed€to€establish€that€ð ðthere€is€aÐ T¤ Ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€the€outcome€of€the€proceedings€would€haveÐ =  Ðbeen€differentðð).Ð & v ÐÌà  àòòóóCourts€need€not€approach€the€òòStricklandóó€test€in€a€specific€order€or€even€ð ðaddress€bothÐ ø H Ðcomponents€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€on€one.ðð€€466€U.S.€at€697,Ð á 1  Ð104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370€(stating€that€ð ðfailure€to€prove€either€deficiencyÐ Ê   Ðor€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffective€assistance€claimðð).Ð ³  ÐÌà  àBy€statute€in€Tennessee,€the€petitioner€at€a€post„conviction€relief€hearing€has€the€burden€ofÐ …Õ  Ðproving€the€allegations€of€fact€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„Ð n¾  Ð210(f)€(1997).€€We€note€that€when€post„conviction€proceedings€have€included€a€full€evidentiaryÐ W§  Ðhearing,€as€was€true€in€this€case,€the€trial€judgeððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€givenÐ @ Ðthe€effect€and€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€this€court€is€ð ðbound€by€the€trial€judgeððs€findings€of€factÐ )y Ðunless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€judgmentÐ b Ðentered€in€the€cause.ðð€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)òòóó.€€The€reviewingÐ ûK Ðcourt€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€falls€within€the€range€ofÐ ä4 Ðreasonable€professional€assistance,€òòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€notÐ Í Ðsecond„guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€those€choices€wereÐ ¶ Ðuninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð Ÿï ÐThe€fact€that€a€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense€does€not€alone€support€the€claim€ofÐ ˆØ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€165€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð qÁ Ð1997)òòóó.€€Finally,€a€person€charged€with€a€criminal€offense€is€not€entitled€to€perfect€representation.€Ð Zª ÐòòSeeóó€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,€796€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€As€explained€in€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,Ð C“ Ð6€S.W.3d€453,€462€(Tenn.€1999),€ð ð[c]onduct€that€is€unreasonable€under€the€facts€of€one€case€mayÐ ,| Ðbe€perfectly€reasonable€under€the€facts€of€another.ððÔ#†XÌ/XXXÌ/øs#ÔÐ e ÐÌÌÌà@LL ìàò òA.€€Dying€Declarationó óˆÐ ¹" ! ÐÌà  à€As€to€the€victim's€ð ðdying€declaration,ðð€counsel,€who€represented€the€petitioner€both€at€trialÐ Œ$Ü# Ðand€on€appeal,€testified€that€he€had€practiced€law€for€over€thirty€years€and€had€tried€"severalÐ u%Å $ Ðhundred"€murder€cases€at€the€time€of€the€petitioner's€trial.€€He€said€that€although€he€could€not€recallÐ ^&®!% Ðwho€had€actually€entered€the€objection,€either€he€or€counsel€for€the€codefendant€had€objected€at€trialÐ G'—"& Ðwhen€the€State€tried€to€introduce€through€witness€Francis€Hampton,€the€victim's€mother,€a€statementÐ 0(€#' Ðmade€by€the€victim€shortly€before€his€death.€€He€recalled€that€Ms.€Hampton€testified€that€when€sheÐ )i$( Ðasked€the€victim€what€had€happened€in€the€apartment,€the€victim€replied,€"I€didn't€owe€them€anyÐ *R%) Ðmoney."€€Counsel€believed€that€the€trial€court€had€correctly€ruled€that€the€statement€was€admissibleÐ ë*;&* Ðunder€the€dying€declaration€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€and€that,€in€context,€the€testimony€was€notÐ Ô+$'+ Ðparticularly€damaging€to€the€petitioner.€€Counsel€explained€that€the€victim's€statement€did€not€in€anyÐ ° Ðway€identify€the€petitioner,€and€no€evidence€was€offered€at€trial€that€the€victim€owed€the€petitionerÐ ™é Ðmoney.€€He€recalled€that€the€codefendant€testified€at€trial€that€the€victim€owed€him€money.€€CounselÐ ‚Ò Ðstated€that€he€chose€not€to€raise€the€issue€on€direct€appeal€because€he€"tried€to€only€raise€issues€thatÐ k» Ð[he]€thought€had€some€degree€of€being€successful.€.€.€.€[and€he]€felt€that€it€was€not€a€valid€issue."Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àWe€have€reviewed€the€trial€transcript€and€note€that€counsel€for€both€the€petitioner€and€hisÐ & v Ðcodefendant€objected€to€the€statement€of€the€victim€to€his€mother,€ð ðMomma,€I€didnððt€owe€them€anyÐ  _ Ðmoney.€€I€didnððt€owe€them€any€money,ðð€arguing€that€it€was€not€a€dying€declaration.€€However,€theÐ ø H Ðtrial€court€ruled€that€this€statement€was€admissible€as€a€dying€declaration.€€Trial€counsel€for€RobertÐ á 1  ÐJohnson,€the€codefendant,€raised€the€issue€on€direct€appeal,€but€this€court€agreed€with€the€trialÐ Ê   Ðcourtððs€determination€that€the€statement€was€a€dying€declaration:€Ð ³  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àGiven€the€facts,€[the€victimððs]€belief€that€his€death€was€imminent€canÐ …Õ  Ðbe€readily€inferred.€€Since€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€court'sÐ n¾  Ðconclusion€that€the€victim€was€aware€of€his€impending€death€at€theÐ W§  Ðtime€he€made€the€statement€to€his€mother,€we€cannot€say€that€theÐ @ Ðevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€conclusion€that€[theÐ )y Ðvictimððs]€statement€was€a€dying€declaration.€€Hence,€it€wasÐ b Ðadmissible€under€the€hearsay€exception€for€dying€declaration,€Tenn.Ð ûK ÐR.€Evid.€804(b)(2),€and€the€trial€court€did€not€err.€€Defendant€is€notÐ ä4 Ðentitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.ÐÍ` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Robert€Earl€Johnsonóó,€No.€M2000„01647„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€1180524,€at€*12€(Tenn.Ð Ÿï ÐCrim.€App.€Oct.€8,€2001),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Apr.€1,€2002).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAs€to€this€claim,€the€post„conviction€court€determined€that€trial€counsel€properly€exercisedÐ Zª Ðhis€discretion€in€deciding€that€the€ð ðdying€declarationðð€claim€would€have€been€unsuccessful€onÐ C“ Ðappeal,€and€that€he€should€raise€only€those€issues€which€he€believed€might€be€successful.€€We€agreeÐ ,| Ðand€conclude€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€fact€trial€counselÐ e Ðdid€not€raise€on€direct€appeal€a€claim€which€was€without€merit.Ð þN ÐÌà@¾ ¾ ìàò òB.€€Jury€Instructionó ó€ò òas€to€Facilitationó óˆÐ Ð!   ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€petitioner's€second€allegation,€counsel€testified€that€while€he€could€not€specificallyÐ ¥#õ" Ðrecall€requesting€an€instruction€on€facilitation,€it€was€his€standard€practice€to€make€such€a€requestÐ Ž$Þ# Ðwhen€the€crime€involved€more€than€one€participant€and€where€his€client€was€charged€under€aÐ w%Ç $ Ðcriminal€responsibility€theory.€€Counsel,€who€relied€on€an€alibi€defense€at€trial,€stated€that€he€did€notÐ `&°!% Ðraise€as€an€issue€on€direct€appeal€the€fact€that€the€trial€court€had€not€instructed€the€jury€as€toÐ I'™"& Ðfacilitation€because€"in€looking€back€on€the€facts€of€this€case€.€.€.€it€would€have€almost€been€.€.€.Ð 2(‚#' Ðfrivolous."€€He€did,€however,€acknowledge€that€he€ð ðcould€have€overlooked€it€as€a€matter€ofÐ )k$( Ðoversight.€€But€.€.€.€I€didn't€leave€the€[c]ourtroom€thinking€that€there€had€been€an€error€made€by€[theÐ *T%) Ðtrial€court]€charging€or€refusing€to€charge€facilitation.ðð€€It€was€his€opinion€that€the€petitioner€ð ðwasÐ í*=&* Ðextremely€fortunate€in€receiving€second€degree€murder€rather€than€first€degree€murder.ððÐ Ö+&'+ Їà  àThe€post„conviction€court€denied€relief€as€to€this€claim€in€a€general€manner,€finding€thatÐ ° Ðcounsel€was€not€ineffective€but€was€ð ða€very€experienced€and€competent€trial€attorney€whoseÐ ™é Ðrepresentation€of€[the€petitioner]€was€well€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€criminalÐ ‚Ò Ðdefense€attorneys.ðð€€Further,€the€post„conviction€court€accredited€the€testimony€that€the€petitionerÐ k» Ðð ðwas€very€fortunate€to€not€be€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€under€the€facts€of€this€case.ððÐ T¤ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€and€appeal€of€this€matter€straddled€the€decision€of€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.Ð & v ÐBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453€(Tenn.€1999),€the€trial€occurring€in€1999€before€the€release€of€òòBurnsóó€andÐ  _ Ðappellate€counsel€filing€the€petitionerððs€brief€on€direct€appeal€after€its€release.€€The€court€explainedÐ ø H Ðin€òòBurnsóó€ð ðthat€facilitation€[is]€a€lesser„included€offense€of€criminal€responsibility€for€first„degreeÐ á 1  Ðmurder.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€470.€€While€the€jury€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€was€instructed€as€to€criminalÐ Ê   Ðresponsibility,€it€was€not€instructed€as€to€facilitation.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€explained€in€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€77€S.W.3d€132,€134€(Tenn.€2002),€theÐ …Õ  Ðresponsibility€of€the€trial€court€to€instruct€as€to€lesser„included€offenses€and€the€process€to€utilize€inÐ n¾  Ðdetermining€which€such€offenses€must€be€in€the€charge€to€the€jury:Ð W§  Ðà  àà ` àÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[I]t€is€the€duty€of€the€trial€judge€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€the€law€of€aÐ )y Ðlesser-included€offense€if€he€or€she€determines€that:€€(1)€reasonableÐ b Ðminds€could€accept€the€offense€as€lesser-included;€and€(2)€theÐ ûK Ðevidence€is€legally€sufficient€to€support€a€conviction€for€theÐ ä4 Ðlesser-included€offense.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€469€(Tenn.Ð Í Ð1999).€€The€judge€shall€instruct€the€jury€on€all€lesser-includedÐ ¶ Ðoffenses€notwithstanding€a€request€from€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ÿï ÐAnn.€ðð€40-18-110(b)€(1997€Repl.).ЈØ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€(footnote€omitted).Ð Zª ÐÌà  àÔ‡ XÌ/XXXÌ/ÔThe€question€of€whether€a€given€offense€should€be€submitted€to€the€jury€as€a€lesser„includedÐ ,| Ðoffense€is€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact.€€òòState€v.€Rushóó,€50€S.W.3d€424,€427€(Tenn.€2001)€(citingÐ e ÐòòState€v.€Smileyóó,€38€S.W.3d€521€(Tenn.€2001)).€€The€standard€of€review€for€mixed€questions€of€lawÐ þN Ðand€fact€is€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.Ô#†XÌ/XX XÌ/p«#ÔÐ ç 7 ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„11„403(a)€provides,€in€relevant€part,€as€to€criminalÐ ¹" ! Ðresponsibility€for€facilitation€of€a€felony:Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àA€person€is€criminally€responsible€for€the€facilitation€of€aÐ t%Ä $ Ðfelony€if,€knowing€that€another€intends€to€commit€a€specific€felony,Ð ]&­!% Ðbut€without€the€intent€required€for€criminal€responsibility€under€ðð€39„Ð F'–"& Ð11„402(2),€the€person€knowingly€furnishes€substantial€assistance€inÐ /(#' Ðthe€commission€of€the€felony.Ð)h$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ *Q%) Ðà  àOur€supreme€court€explained,€in€Ô‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/ÔòòState€v.€AllenóóÔ#†XÌ/X XXu‡x°#ÔÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ô,€69€S.W.3d€181€(Tenn.€2002),€Ô#†XÌ/X XXu‡Î°#Ôthat€reversibleÐ ° Ðerror€occurred€from€the€juryððs€not€having€been€instructed€as€to€facilitation€because,€based€on€theÐ ™é Ðevidence,€the€jury€reasonably€could€have€determined€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€this€offense:Ð ‚Ò Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/ÔThe€proof€in€this€case€showed€that€Allen€stood€silently€in€theÐ T¤ Ðdoorway€of€the€market€as€his€accomplice€robbed€the€clerk€atÐ =  Ðgunpoint.€€Allen€displayed€no€weapon€and€took€no€property€from€theÐ & v Ðvictim.€€There€was€no€evidence€that€he€received€any€proceeds€of€theÐ  _ Ðrobbery.€€The€jury€could€have€reasonably€concluded€that€Allen€didÐ ø H Ðnot€share€the€intent€of€his€accomplice€even€though€he€knowinglyÐ á 1  Ðfurnished€substantial€assistance€by€blocking€the€door.€€Furthermore,Ð Ê   Ðconsistent€with€the€general€rule,€the€proof€of€aggravated€robbery€inÐ ³  Ðthis€case€necessarily€proved€robbery.€€Therefore,€evidence€existedÐ œì  Ðthat€reasonable€minds€could€accept€as€to€the€offense€of€facilitation€ofÐ …Õ  Ðrobbery.€Ðn¾ ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€188€(footnote€omitted).Ð @ ÐÌÔ#†XÌ/X XXu‡n²#Ôà  àLikewise,€inÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ô€òòState€v.€Richmondóó,€Ô#†XÌ/X XXu‡Œ¶#ÔÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ô90€S.W.3d€648Ô#†XÌ/X XXu‡è¶#ÔÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ô€(Tenn.€2002),€the€court€explained€thatÐ b Ðoverwhelming€proof€as€to€the€greater€offense€does€not€obviate€the€necessity€to€instruct€as€to€lesserÐ ûK Ðoffenses:Ð ä4 ÐÌÔ#†XÌ/X XXu‡7·#ÔÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ôà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[O]verwhelming€evidence€established€defendant€Richmond'sÐ ¶ Ðparticipation€in€the€robbery€of€Mose€Cuxart€and€attempted€robbery€ofÐ Ÿï ÐCharles€Stephen€Earls.€Likewise,€evidence€was€overwhelming€andÐ ˆØ Ðuncontroverted€that€deadly€weapons€were€involved.Ô#†XÌ/X XXu‡M¸#Ô€€In€proving€theÐ qÁ Ðgreater€offenses,€the€State€necessarily€proved€the€lesser„includedÐ Zª Ðoffenses.€€Therefore,€a€jury€òòcouldóó€have€convicted€the€defendant€of€theÐ C“ Ðlesser„included€offenses€of€robbery€and€attempted€robbery.€€As€such,Ð ,| Ðit€was€error€for€the€trial€court€not€to€charge€the€lesser„includedÐ e Ðoffenses€of€robbery€and€attempted€robbery.ÐþN` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€662„63.Ð Ð!   ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€court€additionally€explained€that€the€fact€that€lesser€offenses€should€have€beenÐ ¢#ò" Ðcharged,€but€were€not,€does€not€necessarily€require€a€reversal€of€the€conviction:Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[O]Ô‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ôur€determination€whether€this€error€was€harmless€beyond€aÐ ]&­!% Ðreasonable€doubt€hinges€upon€what€a€reasonable€jury€òòwouldóó€haveÐ F'–"& Ðdone€in€light€of€the€evidence€produced€at€trial.€€We€hold€that€noÐ /(#' Ðreasonable€jury€would€have€convicted€the€defendant€on€theÐ )h$( Ðlesser-included€offenses€of€robbery€and€attempted€robbery€instead€ofÐ *Q%) Ðthe€charged€offenses€due€to€the€uncontroverted€and€overwhelmingÐ ê*:&* Ðevidence€establishing€the€use€of€deadly€weapons€and€his€directÐ Ó+#'+ Ðparticipation€in€the€offenses.€€Any€error€was€harmless€beyond€aÐ ° Ðreasonable€doubt.Ô#†XÌ/X XXu‡â¼#ÔЙé` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€663.Ð k» ÐÌà  àTo€assess€the€petitionerððs€claim€in€the€present€appeal€that€his€conviction€should€be€reversedÐ =  Ðbecause€the€court€did€not€instruct€as€to€facilitation€and€appellate€counsel€did€not€raise€this€as€an€issueÐ & v Ðon€appeal,€we€will€review€the€evidence.Ð  _ ÐÌà  àòòóóÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/ÔChristopher€Michael€Darnell,€the€victimððs€next„door€neighbor€at€the€apartment€complex,Ð á 1  Ðtestified€that€on€October€24,€1997,€the€day€of€the€crime,€he€heard€a€knock€on€the€door,€lookedÐ Ê   Ðoutside,€and€saw€two€men€first€standing€in€front€of€the€victimððs€apartment€and€then€going€inside.€Ð ³  ÐHe€continued,€ð ðAnd€after€that,€all€chaos€broke€loose.€€There€was€yelling€and€all€types€of€commotionÐ œì  Ðand€fighting.ðð€€Darnell€described€what€happened€next:Ð …Õ  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àA€lot€of€fighting,€stuff€breaking,€a€lot€of€throwing€around,Ð W§  Ðyelling.€€[The€victim]€was€almost€thrown€ð!ð€thrown€through€my€wall,Ð @ Ðnumerous€times.€€All€through€this,€I€just€keep€hearing,€ð ðWhereððs€myÐ )y Ðmoney?€€I€want€my€money.ððÐb` x` x ÐÌà  àDarnell€said€that€the€demands€for€money€were€ð ð[f]rom€the€other€individuals,ðð€not€from€theÐ ä4 Ðvictim.€€He€estimated€that€the€commotion€lasted€for€ð ðapproximately€an€hour.ðð€€When€he€and€his€wifeÐ Í Ðheard€someone€say,€ð ðIððm€going€to€shoot€you,ðð€they€got€into€a€corner€behind€some€furniture.€€He€saidÐ ¶ Ðthat€ð ðafter€all€the€fighting€and€stuff€got€done,ðð€the€two€men€stayed€in€the€victimððs€apartment€forÐ Ÿï Ðfifteen€to€twenty€minutes.€€Heather€Darnell€testified€that€she€heard€the€men€ð ðasking€where€theirÐ ˆØ Ðmoney€was,€and€that€if€he€didnððt€give€them€their€money,€they€were€going€to€shoot€him.ððÐ qÁ ÐÌà  àVickie€Miller,€another€of€the€victimððs€neighbors,€said€that,€on€the€evening€of€the€crime,€sheÐ C“ Ðhad€been€in€her€apartment€with€her€sister€and€grandchild.€€About€9:30€p.m.,€she€saw€two€African„Ð ,| ÐAmerican€men€in€the€yard€in€front€of€her€apartment.€€The€men€then€went€up€the€stairs€to€twoÐ e Ðapartments,€one€of€which€was€the€victimððs.€€Her€mother,€who€lived€in€the€apartment€just€below€thatÐ þN Ðof€the€victim,€called€and€asked€her€to€come.€€While€at€her€motherððs€apartment,€Miller€ð ðheard€[theÐ ç 7 Ðvictim]€screaming€for€his€life,ðð€saying,€ð ðOh,€God,€help€me.€€Theyððre€killing€me.€€Oh,€God,€help€me.ððÐ Ð!   ÐShe€arrived€at€her€motherððs€apartment€at€9:55€p.m.€and€ð ðkept€calling€and€calling€and€callingðð€9„1„1,Ð ¹" ! Ðbut€was€told€ð ðthey€didnððt€have€enough€officersðð€to€respond.€€At€10:15€p.m.,€she€called€the€victimððsÐ ¢#ò" Ðmother€at€her€job€and€ð ðtold€her€she€needed€to€come€home,€because€someone€was€killing€[theÐ ‹$Û# Ðvictim].ðð€€It€took€the€victimððs€mother€about€ten€minutes€to€arrive.€€The€apartment€manager€beganÐ t%Ä $ Ðbeating€on€the€door€of€the€victimððs€apartment,€and€the€same€two€men€left€the€apartment.€€MillerÐ ]&­!% Ðdescribed€what€she€saw€as€she€entered€the€apartment€with€the€victimððs€mother:Ð F'–"& ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€living€room€was€all€tore€up,€things€turned€over,€just€tore€down,Ð )h$( Ðjust€demolished.€€Blood€was€everywhere.€€I€know€that.€€And€we€wentÐ *Q%) Ðinto€the€ð!ð€which€would€be€the€bedroom,€but€he€had€made€that€theÐ ê*:&* Ðliving€room.€€And€[the€victim]€was€laying€[sic]€on€the€floor,€againstÐ Ó+#'+ Ðthe€wall.€€And€he€ð!ð€the€only€thing€he€told€me€was€cover€me€up€beforeÐ ° ÐI€go€into€a€coma.Йé` x` x ÐÌà  àFrancis€Hampton,€the€victimððs€mother,€testified€that€after€the€two€men€had€left,€she€went€toÐ k» Ðthe€victimððs€apartment,€entered€through€the€unlocked€front€door,€and€found€him€on€the€floor€in€theÐ T¤ Ðback€bedroom€ð ðin€like€a€fetal€position.ðð€€The€victim€was€very€bloody€and€spoke€to€her,€ð ðMomma,Ð =  ÐI€didnððt€owe€them€any€money.€€I€didnððt€owe€them€any€money.ððÐ & v ÐÌà  àOfficer€George€Bouton,€of€the€Metro€Police€Department,€said€that€he€had€been€called€to€theÐ ø H Ðvictimððs€apartment€to€take€photographs€the€evening€of€October€24,€1997,€arriving€at€approximatelyÐ á 1  Ð11:15€p.m.€€He€described€the€apartment€as€being€ð ðin€disarray.€€It€appeared€that€there€had€been€someÐ Ê   Ðtype€of€struggle€that€had€occurred€there.ðð€€He€said€ð ðthere€was€blood€from€the€front€door,€pretty€muchÐ ³  Ðthroughout€the€apartment.ðð€€We€have€reviewed€the€photographs€of€the€apartment,€which€were€trialÐ œì  Ðexhibits,€and€they€show€smashed€furniture,€broken€glass,€blood€smeared€on€the€walls,€and€blood€onÐ …Õ  Ðthe€carpet€and€sofa.Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àDr.€John€E.€Gerber,€a€forensic€pathologist,€testified€as€to€the€autopsy€results€of€the€victim.Ð @ ÐHe€said€the€victim€had€died€as€the€result€of€what€were€estimated€to€be€forty„one€stab€wounds€to€theÐ )y Ðhead,€torso,€arms,€and€legs.€€Of€these,€the€wounds€to€the€right€lateral€chest,€the€mid„portion€of€theÐ b Ðback,€and€the€left€lateral€back€would€have€been€fatal.€€The€victim€had€incision€wounds€in€additionÐ ûK Ðto€the€Ô#†XÌ/X XXu‡jÁ#ÔÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ôforty„one€stab€wounds.€€Dr.€Gerber€said,€ð ðItððs€very€likely€more€than€one€weapon€was€used.ðð€Ô#†XÌ/X XXu‡¬Ö#ÔÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/ÔÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àBy€the€petitionerððs€view€of€the€evidence,€a€facilitation€instruction€was€required€because€ð ðtheÐ ¶ Ðevidence€adduced€by€the€State€would€suggest€only€that€[the€petitioner]€either€drove,€or€loaned€theÐ Ÿï Ðvehicle€to,€[the€petitionerððs]€brother.ðð€€Additionally,€he€asserts€that€ð ð[t]he€Stateððs€sole€argumentÐ ˆØ Ðagainst€[the€petitioner]€was€that€[he]€was€there.ðð€€We€respectfully€disagree€with€the€petitionerððs€viewÐ qÁ Ðof€the€evidence€presented€at€trial.€Ô#†XÌ/X XXu‡R×#ÔÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ô€In€brief,€the€Stateððs€proof€was€that€the€petitioner€and€hisÐ Zª Ðcodefendant€both€entered€and€left€the€victimððs€apartment€together.׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XÌ/X XXu‡ÑÙ#ÔÔ‡Xu‡ XXXÌ/Ô€€During€the€approximately€thirty„Ð C“ Ðminute€period€that€they€were€inside,€the€victim€was€stabbed€at€least€forty„one€times,€very€likely€withÐ ,| Ðtwo€weapons,€and€sustained€additional€uncounted€incision€wounds.€€Three€of€the€stab€wounds€wereÐ e Ðfatal.€€The€victim€was€thrown€against€the€walls€of€his€apartment€and€was€shouting,€ð ðòòTheyððreóó€killingÐ þN Ðme.ðð€€Witnesses€heard€the€attackers€asking€ð ðwhere€òòtheiróó€money€wasðð€and€telling€the€victim€ð ðòòtheyóóÐ ç 7 Ðwere€going€to€shoot€him.ðð€€Given€the€length€of€time€and€the€savagery€of€the€attack€throughout€theÐ Ð!   Ðvictimððs€apartment€and€the€shouts€of€the€victim€and€his€assailants€showing€that€the€victim€was€beingÐ ¹" ! Ðattacked€by€more€than€one€person,€we€conclude€that,€based€upon€the€proof€presented€at€trial,€aÐ ¢#ò" Ðreasonable€jury€would€not€have€determined€that€the€petitioner€was€guilty€merely€of€facilitation.€€InÐ ‹$Û# Ðfact,€the€evidence€was€overwhelming€that€the€petitioner€actively€participated€in€the€lengthy€andÐ t%Ä $ Ðbrutal€attack€on€the€victim.€€Accordingly,€even€if€the€trial€court€should€have€instructed€as€toÐ ]&­!% Ðfacilitation,€as€the€petitioner€contends,€the€error€was€harmless€and,€as€such,€does€not€entitle€him€toÐ F'–"& Ðpost„conviction€relief.€€Likewise,€as€to€the€variant€of€this€claim,€that€appellate€counsel€wasÐ /(#' Ðineffective€for€not€raising€on€appeal€that€the€jury€should€have€been€instructed€on€facilitation,€theÐ )h$( Ðrecord€supports€the€determination€of€the€post„conviction€court€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€prove€thatÐ ° Ðhe€was€prejudiced€€as€a€result.€Thus,€as€to€his€claims€that€both€the€trial€court€and€counsel€erred€as€toÐ ™é Ða€facilitation€instruction€not€being€given,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€heÐ ‚Ò Ðis€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief.Ô#†XÌ/X XXu‡ÿÚ#ÔÐ k» Ðà  àà ` ààH` ` ` àˆÌà@GG%ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ =  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€authorities€and€reasoning,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððsÐ  ` Ðdismissal€of€the€petition.Ð ù I ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à________________________________________Ð ´  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGEÐ í  Ðà  à