ÿWPC  àˆÇöµÍ…¦ú÷ vìõKq>X»L²‚¦–†óö¾™½Euk Ìf_.M˜9ÊAÿÅæÕ@‚é%@¦›¶,ºú£(#¡}Q ÊÜŸàjmV‹¡ðÔÛq>m"_6—¾‚絈zµEøïFöé!‹¯'ù%¼LiØ…ý¯¶I2×!K!jG÷vO¶©%ùR×ôIÔ[íÒS•û‰³í¥Uí÷2}’DÎß ùÍ„~ÎJ°óoºŸÇæÂ³{RS©ÚÑCíDV©W$ù¦|ðÇߌt½¿RR^¶2Ët’Q%FçFÛ}™š´ßòLGºwY³L)ÅV)˜¹=î&W¾^=­%ÿÕªxØ\žÑØ»hŒ¦¿àc¬XÀ© c&•ŽgÄl:Dqu“µç.ÈЗ×éÿõrE=Ž¥CVpª\^Áã“™Ã8d„Ý»©?°ý¤ùàéÐÒ¸çù“kM&¨¸: ¹ ž*îFÚÄ×.)ÜEn‹µ0"m䟺_õü‡ÑG“† *îïÛ&ô4L”ÒŒ ­ú'_е¯ÚG㺽@Èß{¿ðP©Š¾ž¹¤ÙLÚiIª$ÕÂȺf9tÓ¢Eý¨¾ï_©^³Ÿb`’„gå‚y¹þÉ×2S)# >U>I %‡ 0íUBz4¼Ðn­ßU:ŒfÆ,"4w@V–(¬U:Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô AQ Æ_ 0D% 0Di 0D­ ­ D/ñ B B= D3Z ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpin~<$3|xð «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ Û eÜ Ý Þ ß Dà á Dâ bä Ó€ð  Ñ t Ñ Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X,ËXXXÔÔ€(9XX,ËÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X,ËX(9ÔÐ  ÐÌò òOctober€30,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôgƒôXX,ËÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€«þXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝñÛ ñ›ñÛ ññÛ ñ›ñÛ ñѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ X,ËXXXÔÑ7€ ,Ë XXdæXXdÈ7Ñœñâ ñÑ€ÏY Ññâ ññä ñ›ñä ññð ññä ñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrßñä ññð ññð ññð ññð ññä ñ›ñä ññð ññð ññð ññð ñ›ñð ññð ññð ññð ñ›ñð ññð ñßt€(>.*jxÁÿyÿ` `€€@Eá` ttx$ð Ôtß›ñð ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ÒÒ&DàAT€JACKSONà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€APRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓROYCE€LEE€ð ðDINOðð€LANEà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ðà ¸ àà  à€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€02C01„9604„CC„00133Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellant,à h à€€à À à)Ð ü  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àDyer€CountyÐ êâ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ÐÈ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Joe€G.€Riley,€JudgeÐ ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h à€€€à À à)à  à€(Post„Conviction)Ð ‚z  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellee.à h àà À à)Ð NF Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð ø ÐÌVanedda€Prince€€à  àà h àà À àà  àCharles€W.€BursonÐ ÌÄ ÐP.O.€Box€26à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ²ª ÐUnion€City,€TN€38281à h àà À àà  àà p àandà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ ˜ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àClinton€J.€MorganÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà Ð àà (# àÐ JB Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àC.€Phillip€BivensÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJames€E.€LanierÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à113€S.€Mill€Ave.Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.O.€Box€EÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDyersburg,€TN€38024Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639/ ÐÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner,€Royce€Lee€ð ðDinoðð€Lane,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€DyerÏCounty€Circuit€Courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€after€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€TheÏpetitioner€is€presently€in€the€Department€of€Correction€serving€an€effective€sentence€ofÏtwenty„six€years€for€his€1991€convictions€for€second€degree€murder,€criminally€negligentÏhomicide€and€unlawful€possession€of€a€firearm€during€the€commission€of€the€secondÏdegree€murder.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏtrial€counsel,€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€because€the€jury€was€allowed€toÏsee€him€in€shackles,€and€that€the€reasonable€doubt€jury€instruction€allowed€the€jury€toÏconvict€him€based€on€a€lower€standard€of€proof€than€is€constitutionally€required.€€WeÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€1991,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder,€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide€and€unlawful€possession€of€a€firearm€during€the€second€degreeÏmurder.€€The€petitioner€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€consecutiveÏsentences€of€twenty„two€years,€two€years€and€two€years,€respectively.€€This€courtÏaffirmed€his€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Royce€Lee€ð ðDinoðð€Laneóó,€No.€02„C„01„9102„CR„00011,Ð  %˜" ÐDyer€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€29,€1992),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€May€26,€1992)Ð l'd $ Ð(concurring€in€results€only).€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€April€20,€1995,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„convictionÐ Ð,È%* Ðrelief.€€Counsel€was€appointed,€and€the€petition€was€amended.€€The€petition€alleges€thatÏthe€petitioner€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€because€counselÏfailed€to€conduct€a€prompt€investigation€of€the€facts€and€interview€and€subpoenaÏwitnesses.€€It€alleges€that€counsel€was€ineffective€because€when€he€learned€that€theÏpreliminary€hearing€tape€was€inaudible,€he€failed€to€secure€for€impeachment€purposesÏthe€testimony€of€Darren€Devault,€a€newspaper€reporter€who€was€present€at€theÐ ˜706 Ðpreliminary€hearing.€€The€petition€alleges€that€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€moveÏto€withdraw€as€petitionerððs€counsel€in€order€to€testify€as€a€witness€to€the€preliminaryÏhearing€testimony.€€The€petition€claims€that€trial€and€appellate€counsel€were€ineffectiveÏfor€failing€to€preserve€and€to€raise€on€appeal€the€issue€of€whether€the€petitioner€wasÏdenied€due€process€of€law€by€being€exposed€to€the€jury€while€wearing€shackles.€€TheÏpetition€alleges€that€the€reasonable€doubt€instruction€allowed€the€jury€to€convict€himÏbased€on€a€lesser€standard€of€proof€than€constitutionally€required.€€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Marty€Taylor€testified€that€he€sat€as€a€jurorÏon€the€petitionerððs€case.€€He€stated€that€he€saw€the€petitioner€in€shackles€but€he€couldÏnot€remember€the€time€or€the€duration€that€the€petitioner€was€in€the€shackles.€€He€saidÏthat€he€did€not€know€why€the€petitioner€was€in€shackles€but€that€it€had€no€bearing€on€hisÏdecision€as€to€the€petitionerððs€guilt€or€innocence.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€believe€thatÏthe€shackles€were€discussed€during€deliberations.€€He€did€not€recall€the€trial€courtÏasking€him€whether€he€saw€the€petitioner€in€shackles.ÌÌà ¸ àGloria€Brady,€a€juror€on€the€petitionerððs€case,€testified€that€she€believedÏthat€she€saw€the€petitioner€in€shackles.€€She€did€not€recall€the€trial€court€discussing€theÏshackles€with€the€jury.€€She€said€that€the€shackles€would€not€have€affected€her€decisionÏrelative€to€the€petitionerððs€guilt€or€innocence.€€She€stated€that€the€shackles€were€notÏmentioned€during€deliberation.ÌÌà ¸ àLisa€Wheeler€testified€that€she€was€working€as€a€convenience€store€clerkÏin€Finley,€Tennessee,€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€She€stated€that€she€remembered€aÏblack€man€coming€into€the€store€at€night€asking€for€directions€to€return€to€Forrest€StreetÏin€Dyersburg.€€She€said€that€the€man€was€drunk€and€disoriented.€€She€said€that€theÏâ âmanððs€pants€were€torn€and€his€hands€and€arm€had€blood€on€them.€€She€testified€thatÐ À5¸.4 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññâ ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññâ ññÛ ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñÛ ñthe€petitionerððs€attorney€did€not€contact€her€about€the€incident.€€She€stated€that€sheÏñâ ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññâ ññÛ ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñÛ ñreceived€a€letter€from€the€petitioner€in€1994€asking€her€about€the€incident.€€Ìâ âÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Ms.€Wheeler€testified€that€she€could€not€state€forÏsure€that€the€petitioner€was€the€person€she€saw€that€night.€€On€redirect€examination,Ïshe€stated€that€she€connected€the€incident€to€the€petitioner€after€reading€about€theÏoffenses€in€the€paper.€€She€said€that€she€did€not€report€the€incident.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€could€not€recall€specificallyÏwhether€the€jurors€saw€the€petitioner€wearing€shackles€or€whether€he€objected.€€He€saidÏthat€the€trial€court€ordinarily€placed€a€box€around€defense€table€to€shield€from€the€juryððsÏview€shackles€worn€by€a€defendant.€€The€petitionerððs€counsel€testified€that€he€and€hisÏinvestigator€met€with€the€petitioner€many€times€before€trial.€€He€said€that€he€called€asÏdefense€witnesses€all€of€the€people€requested€by€the€petitioner.€€He€said€that€he€wouldÏnot€have€hesitated€to€contact€other€witnesses€had€the€petitioner€notified€him€of€theirÏexistence.€€He€said€that€the€petitioner€told€him€that€he€had€stopped€at€a€convenienceÏstore€for€directions.€€Counsel€could€not€remember€whether€he€had€contacted€anyoneÏfrom€the€store,€but€he€conceded€that€he€did€not€interview€anyone€that€worked€for€aÏstore.€€ÌÌà ¸ àCounsel€testified€that€the€petitioner€told€him€that€he€had€sustained€anÏinjury€to€his€hand€during€a€fight€with€Michael€Holder,€the€victim€of€the€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide.€€He€said€that€he€reviewed€the€petitionerððs€medical€records.€€HeÏconceded€that€he€did€not€depose€the€petitionerððs€treating€physician,€although€theÏmedical€evidence€could€have€corroborated€the€petitionerððs€testimony€that€he€had€beenÏinjured€in€a€fight€with€Holder€and€that€the€petitioner€acted€in€self„defense.€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àRegarding€the€preliminary€hearing€tape,€the€petitionerððs€counsel€testifiedÏâ âthat€at€trial,€Bernard€Cork€testified€that€he€had€heard€a€hostile€conversation€between€theÏpetitioner€and€Edward€Dennis,€the€second€degree€murder€victim,€and€that€the€petitionerÏtold€Dennis€before€shooting€him,€ð ðYouððre€going€to€get€it,€you€punk.ðð€€He€said€that€CorkÏwas€a€key€state€witness€because€he€was€the€only€eyewitness€of€the€shooting€of€Dennis.€ÏCounsel€testified€that€he€intended€to€introduce€the€preliminary€hearing€tape€forÏimpeachment€purposes€to€show€that€Cork€had€made€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€atÏthe€preliminary€hearing€that€he€had€not€heard€any€of€the€conversation€between€theÏpetitioner€and€Dennis.€€He€said€that€he€learned€that€the€tape€was€inaudible,€and€he€triedÏto€subpoena€Darren€Devault,€a€news€reporter€who€was€present€at€the€preliminaryÏhearing.€€He€said€that€Devault€had€told€the€petitioner€that€he€remembered€CorkÏtestifying€at€the€preliminary€hearing€that€he€had€not€heard€any€of€the€conversation.€€HeÏstated€that€when€he€contacted€Devault,€Devault€agreed€to€come€to€court€and€to€testifyÏaccordingly.€€Counsel€testified€that€Devault€did€not€testify€at€trial€because€he€invoked€hisÏreporter€privilege€and€the€procedure€for€obtaining€his€testimony€was€not€followed.€€HeÏsaid€that€given€Devaultððs€cooperation,€he€did€not€believe€it€necessary€to€follow€theÏstatutory€requirements€for€securing€testimony€of€a€news€reporter.€€He€stated€that€he€didÏnot€consider€withdrawing€as€the€petitionerððs€counsel€in€order€to€testify€on€his€behalf.€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àRelative€to€the€petitionerððs€medical€records,€counsel€testified€that€heÏquestioned€the€petitioner€on€direct€examination€about€his€injuries.€€The€petitionerÏtestified€that€on€the€night€of€the€offenses,€he€had€been€in€a€fight€with€Holder€and€hadÏbroken€his€hand€when€he€hit€Holder€on€the€head.€€He€said€that€he€broke€two€knucklesÏand€dislocated€a€knuckle,€requiring€that€he€wear€a€cast€for€five€weeks.€€The€petitionerÏwas€not€cross„examined€about€his€injuries.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€remembered€wearing€shackles€in€front€ofÏthe€jury,€but€he€could€not€recall€at€what€point€it€occurred.€€He€conceded€that€it€was€notÐ Œ7„06 Ðthe€entire€trial.€€He€stated€that€counsel€told€him€to€keep€his€feet€still€while€he€wasÏwearing€the€shackles.€€He€said€that€there€was€no€box€around€the€table€where€he€wasÏsitting.€€The€petitioner€acknowledged€that€the€two€jurors€who€saw€him€in€shackles€statedÏthat€it€did€not€have€any€effect€on€their€guilty€verdict.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€stated€that€he€told€his€counsel€that€he€had€gone€to€aÏconvenience€store€after€shooting€Holder.€€He€conceded€that€he€had€told€counsel€that€heÏdid€not€know€the€name€or€the€exact€location€of€the€store€because€he€was€lost€andÏupset.€€He€said€that€he€told€counsel€that€he€had€asked€for€directions€to€get€back€toÏDyersburg€to€Forrest€Street.€€He€stated€that€he€gave€to€counsel€the€directions€that€wereÏgiven€to€him€by€the€female€clerk€at€the€store.€€He€believed€that€the€store€could€beÏlocated€by€following€the€directions€in€reverse€order.€€The€petitioner€could€not€rememberÏthe€exact€directions€given€to€him€by€the€clerk€and€he€could€not€find€the€store€again.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€learned€of€the€name€of€the€store€approximately€three€years€after€trial€whenÏchurch€members€visited€him€in€jail.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€gave€his€counsel€theÏñÛ ñœñÛ ñnamesñÛ ñ›ñÛ ñ€of€the€witnesses€that€were€called€to€testify€in€his€behalf.€€Regarding€his€injuries,Ïthe€petitioner€testified€that€he€told€his€counsel€about€the€injury€to€his€hand€and€that€heÏhad€been€treated€ñÛ ñœñÛ ñatñÛ ñ›ñÛ ñ€Dyersburg€Hospital.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àLyman€Ingram,€the€prosecutor€at€the€petitionerððs€trial,€testified€that€he€didÏnot€remember€much€about€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€He€conceded€that€it€was€possible€thatÏthe€jury€saw€the€petitioner€in€shackles€when€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€because€theÏpetitioner€was€probably€shackled€during€deliberations.€€He€did€not€remember€whetherÏan€objection€was€made€regarding€the€petitioner€wearing€shackles.€€He€stated€that€theÏtrial€court€was€generally€very€conscientious€about€the€issue€of€the€jury€seeing€aÏdefendant€wearing€shackles.Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññâ ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññâ ññÛ ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÛ ñà ¸ àWanda€Pachall,€a€court€reporter€testified€that€she€recorded€the€trialÏâ âproceedings.€€A€portion€of€the€tape€was€played€for€the€court€relative€to€the€polling€of€theÏjurors€regarding€whether€they€saw€the€petitioner€in€shackles.€€The€tape€reflects€that€theÏpetitioner€was€wearing€shackles€during€jury€deliberations.€€During€jury€deliberations,€theÏjury€returned€to€the€courtroom€to€ask€a€question.€€After€the€jury€left€the€courtroom,€theÏpetitionerððs€counsel€advised€the€trial€court€that€the€petitioner€was€wearing€shackles€inÏthe€presence€of€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€responded€that€the€issue€would€be€dealt€withÏafter€the€jury€rendered€its€verdict.€€The€tape€shows€that€following€the€rendering€and€theÏacceptance€of€the€verdict,€the€trial€court€asked€the€jurors€under€oath€whether€they€hadÏseen€the€petitioner€wearing€shackles.€€Initially,€no€jurors€responded€affirmatively.€€WhenÏindividually€questioned,€Juror€Mark€Fair€answered€ð ðYes,ðð€but€stated€that€neither€he€norÏany€other€juror€discussed€it€during€deliberations.€€The€juror€stated€that€seeing€theÏpetitioner€in€shackles€did€not€affect€his€decision€that€the€petitioner€was€guilty€of€theÏcrimes.€€Jurors€Taylor€and€Brady€responded€negatively€when€asked€by€the€courtÏwhether€they€saw€the€petitioner€in€shackles.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€post„convictionÏrelief.€€It€concluded€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€show€that€he€was€entitled€to€post„¼conviction€relief€based€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€It€determinedÏthat€the€petitioner€advised€counsel€that€he€had€been€to€a€convenience€store,€but€theÏpetitioner€did€not€know€the€name€of€the€store€or€where€the€store€was€located.€€The€trialÏcourt€held€that€counsel€could€not€be€faulted€for€failing€to€discover€a€potential€witness.€€ItÏdetermined€that€counselððs€performance€was€not€deficient€given€the€fact€that€he€calledÏapproximately€fifteen€witnesses€to€testify€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner€and€called€allÏpotential€witnesses€suggested€by€the€petitioner.€€ÌÌà ¸ àRelative€to€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€for€failing€toÏintroduce€the€medical€records,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€toÐ Œ7„06 Ðestablish€prejudice€because€other€proof€was€introduced€regarding€his€hand€injury.€€ItÏdetermined€that€the€petitioner€testified€at€trial€that€he€had€broken€his€hand€during€a€fightÏwith€the€victim,€and€the€petitionerððs€testimony€was€not€contradicted.€€The€trial€court€heldÏthat€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€establish€prejudice€as€a€result€of€trial€counselððs€failure€toÏobtain€the€testimony€of€the€news€reporter.€€It€determined€that€the€petitioner€did€not€showÏthat€the€news€reporterððs€testimony€would€have€impeached€Corkððs€testimony.€€It€also€heldÏthat€counsel€was€not€deficient€for€not€moving€to€withdraw€as€counsel.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€also€held€that€the€petitioner€was€not€entitled€to€post„¼conviction€relief€based€on€his€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€and€appellateÏcounsel€for€failing€to€raise€on€appeal€the€claim€that€the€petitionerððs€due€process€rightsÏwere€violated€when€the€jury€saw€him€wearing€shackles.€€It€found€that€while€the€jury€wasÏdeliberating,€leg€restraints€were€placed€on€the€petitioner.€€It€determined€that€the€juryÏreturned€to€the€courtroom€to€ask€a€question,€and€unknown€to€the€court,€the€shacklesÏremained€on€the€petitioner.€€The€court€stated€that€when€asked€under€oath,€one€jurorÏstated€that€she€had€seen€the€petitioner€in€shackles€but€that€it€was€not€discussed€duringÏdeliberations€and€that€it€had€no€effect€on€her€guilty€verdict.€€The€court€held€thatÏappellate€counsel€was€not€deficient€for€failing€to€raise€the€issue€on€appeal€because€theÏpetitioner€had€failed€to€show€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€issue€would€have€hadÏmerit€on€appeal.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€court€denied€post„conviction€relief€based€on€the€petitionerððs€claim€thatÏthe€reasonable€doubt€jury€instruction€violated€his€due€process€rights.€€It€held€that€theÏreasonable€doubt€jury€instruction€was€a€proper€statement€of€the€law.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@Dàò òI.€€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ ô3ì,2 Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€He€argues€that€counsel€provided€ineffective€ñÛ ñœñÛ ñassistanceñÛ ñ›ñÛ ñ€by€(1)€failing€to€secureÐ ˜706 Ðthe€testimony€of€a€news€reporter€after€learning€that€the€preliminary€hearing€tape€wasÏinaudible€and€failing€to€withdraw€as€counsel€to€testify€on€the€petitionerððs€behalf,€(2)Ïfailing€to€investigate€and€present€evidence€that€on€the€night€of€the€shootings,€theÏpetitioner€stopped€at€a€convenience€store€to€ask€for€directions,€and€(3)€failing€toÏinvestigate€and€to€present€medical€proof€of€the€petitionerððs€injury€to€his€hand€and€armÏthat€occurred€during€an€altercation€with€the€victim.€€The€state€responds€that€theÏpetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€either€deficient€performance€or€prejudice.€€We€agree.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€burden€was€on€the€petitioner€in€the€trial€court€to€prove€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€the€factual€allegations€that€would€entitle€him€to€relief.€ÏòòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€On€appeal,€we€areÐ ø Ðbound€by€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.Ð ˜ ÐCrim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà ¸ àIn€this€respect,€when€a€claim€is€made€of€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€under€the€Sixth€Amendment,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€thatÏcounsel's€performance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€termsÏof€rendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.Ð ,)$"& ÐCt.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€368„72,€113€S.€Ct.€838,Ð ø*ð#( Ð842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied,€as€well,€to€the€right€toÐ Ä,¼%* Ðcounsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772Ð .ˆ', ÐS.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.€1989).€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÐ ô3ì,2 Ðdecided€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€servicesÏrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÐ Œ7„06 Ðcases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€range€of€competence€was€to€be€measured€byÏthe€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,€491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.Ð ÔÌ Ð1974),€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202„04€(D.C.€Cir.€1973).€€Also,Ð   ˜ Ðin€reviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requiresÏthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstructÏthe€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounsel's€perspective€at€the€time."€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòseeóóÐ ÐÈ  ÐòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(counsel's€conduct€will€not€be€measuredÐ œ”  Ðby€"20„20€hindsight").€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€evenÏhurt€the€defense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.€€DeferenceÏis€made€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€based€uponÏadequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9;€òòDeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€at€1201.€Ð ÌÄ ÐÌà ¸ àRelative€to€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€for€failing€toÏinvestigate€and€present€evidence€that€the€petitioner€stopped€at€a€convenience€store€onÏthe€night€of€the€offenses€to€ask€for€directions,€we€hold€that€counselððs€performance€wasÏnot€deficient.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€counsel€cannot€be€faultedÏfor€failing€to€locate€a€potential€witness€when€the€petitioner€could€not€remember€theÏname€of€the€store,€the€location€of€the€store,€or€the€directions€to€the€store.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àRelative€to€the€remaining€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€weÏneed€not€determine€whether€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€because€theÏpetitioner€failed€to€establish€prejudice.€€The€approach€to€the€issue€of€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€does€not€have€to€start€with€an€analysis€of€an€attorney's€conduct.€ÏIf€prejudice€is€not€shown,€we€need€not€seek€to€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegationsÏabout€deficient€performance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€At€theÐ ô3ì,2 Ðpost„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€did€not€establish€that€either€the€news€reporterððsÏtestimony€or€the€petitionerððs€counselððs€testimony€would€have€impeached€CorkððsÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑÏY ÑÑtÜÑÑ  Ñœtestimony›€given€at€trial.€€Thus,€no€prejudice€has€been€shown.€€The€petitioner€also€failedÏto€establish€prejudice€from€counselððs€failure€to€introduce€medical€evidence€of€his€injuriesÏbecause€evidence€of€his€injuries€was€introduced€through€other€means,€and€theÏevidence€was€not€contradicted.€€We€conclude€that€the€petitioner€did€not€receive€theÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@¥¥"Dàò òII.€€DUE€PROCESS€VIOLATIONó óˆÐ ÐÈ  Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€holding€that€theÏexposure€of€the€petitioner€to€the€jury€while€wearing€leg€restraints€violated€his€dueÏprocess€rights.€€We€note€that€the€issue€as€raised€by€the€petitioner€on€appeal€is€subjectÏto€waiver€because€it€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1)Ð   Ð(repealed€1995);€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995).€€However,€theÐ ØÐ Ðpetitioner€raised€the€claim€in€his€petition€as€one€relating€to€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏappellate€counsel€for€failing€to€raise€the€issue,€and€the€trial€court€addressed€the€issue€asÏsuch.€€Therefore,€we€will€also€address€the€issue€as€a€claim€relating€to€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€appellate€counsel.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€òòWillocks€v.€Stateóó,€546€S.W.2d€819€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976),€this€courtÐ  %˜" Ðheld€that€there€is€a€legal€presumption€against€the€necessity€of€in„court€physical€restraintÏand€that€the€burden€falls€on€the€state€to€make€a€clear€showing€of€the€necessity€for€suchÏrestraint.€€òòIdóó.€at€821„22.€€Shackling€is€considered€inherently€prejudicial€to€the€defendantÐ +ü#( ÐñÛ ñœñÛ ñunless€there€is€a€clear€showing€of€œnecessity.ñÜ ñ€€òòñÜ ññÝ ñIdóóñÝ ññÞ ñ.€at€822.ñÞ ññÝ ññÜ ñóóñÜ ññÝ ñ›€€In€this€respect,ñÛ ñ›ñÛ ñ€the€trial€ñÛ ñœñÛ ñcourtÐ Ð,È%* Ð(1)ñÛ ñ›ñÛ ñ€should€conduct€a€ñÛ ñœñÛ ñhearing,€(2)ñÛ ñ›ñÛ ñ€must€state€upon€the€record€its€reasons€for€orderingÏphysical€ñÛ ñœñÛ ñrestraints,€andñÛ ñ›ñÛ ñ€ñÛ ñœñÛ ñ(ñÙ ñ3ñÙ ññÙ ñ2ñÙ ñ)ñÚ ñ›€the›€trial›€courtñÚ ññÛ ñ›ñÛ ñ€must€give€adequate€instructions€that€the€restraint€of€theÏdefendant€should€in€no€way€affect€their€decision.€€€œòòIdóó.ñà ñ€€ñà ññá ñ›€ñá ññâ ñ›ñâ ññß ñat›€822.›€ñß ññá ñ›€ñá ñShackles›€must€be€the€leastÐ 42,+0 Ðdrastic€security€measure€reasonably€to€suffice.€€òòIdóó.€€Constitutional€harmless€errorÐ 4ø,2 Ðanalysis€applies€when€a€defendantððs€due€process€rights€are€violated€by€the€use€of€in„¼court€physical€restraints.€€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€832€S.W.2d€577,€582€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ˜706 Ð1991).Ð d9\28 Їà ¸ àInitially,€we€note€that€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€counsel€was€only€made€awareÏof€one€juror€who€acknowledged€seeing€shackles.€€That€juror€stated€that€it€was€notÏdiscussed€during€deliberations€and€had€no€effect€upon€his€individual€verdict.€€OurÏassessment€of€counselððs€conduct€should€not€be€viewed€in€hindsight€in€terms€of€thereÏnow€being€three€jurors€who€say€they€saw€leg€restraints€on€the€petitioner.€€Given€whatÏwas€known€to€counsel€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€we€do€not€believe€it€was€deficientÏperformance€not€to€pursue€this€issue€on€appeal.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€this€respect,€we€also€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€theÏpetitioner€failed€to€show€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€issue€would€have€had€merit€onÏappeal.€€The€shackling€of€the€petitioner€in€the€presence€of€jurors€occurred€only€for€aÏshort€period€of€time€while€the€jury€was€deliberating.€€When€the€jury€returned€to€theÏcourtroom€to€ask€a€question,€one€to€three€jurors€saw€the€petitioner€wearing€legÏrestraints.€€However,€each€juror€stated€under€oath€that€the€physical€restraints€were€notÏdiscussed€during€jury€deliberation,€and€each€juror€said€that€the€shackling€did€not€affectÏhis€or€her€individual€decision€regarding€the€guilt€of€the€petitioner.€€Under€all€of€theÏcircumstances€existing€at€the€time€of€the€trial€and€presently,€we€conclude€that€the€jurorÏor€jurors€viewing€the€petitioner€shackled€for€a€short€period€of€time€while€the€jury€wasÏdeliberating€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We€conclude€that€the€petitionerÏdid€not€receive€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€by€counselððs€failure€to€raise€theÏissue€on€appeal.ÌÌò òà@z z DàIII.€€REASONABLE€DOUBT€JURY€INSTRUCTIONˆÐ .ˆ', Ðó óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€the€reasonable€doubt€instruction€given€by€theÐ h0`). Ðtrial€court€allowed€the€jury€to€convict€him€based€upon€less€proof€than€constitutionallyÏrequired.€€The€trial€court€gave€the€following€reasonable€doubt€instruction€at€theÏpetitionerððs€trial:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àThe€state€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€guilt€ofÏthe€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€œthisñã ñÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðñã ñ›Ïâ âburden€never€shifts€but€remains€on€the€state€throughoutÐ d9\28 Ðthe€trial€of€the€case.€€The€defendant€is€not€required€toÏprove€his€innocence.Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÌà8 ¸ àà  àReasonable€doubt€is€that€doubt€engendered€byÏan€investigation€of€all€the€proof€in€the€case€and€anÏinability,€after€such€investigation,€to€let€the€mind€restÏeasily€as€to€the€certainty€of€guilt.€€Reasonable€doubtÏdoes€not€mean€a€captious,€possible,€or€imaginary€doubt.€ÏAbsolute€certainty€of€guilt€is€not€demanded€by€the€law€toÏconvict€of€any€criminal€charge,€but€moral€certainty€isÏrequired€as€to€every€proposition€requisite€to€constituteÏthe€offense.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓòòSeeóó€T.P.I.€„€Crim.€2.03€(3d€ed.).€€This€is€a€correct€statement€of€the€burden€of€proofÐ ¶®  Ðrequired€for€criminal€trials€in€Tennessee.€€òòSeeóó€òòHardin€v.€Stateóó,€210€Tenn.€116,€355Ð ‚z  ÐS.W.2d€105€(1962);€òòNichols€v.€Stateóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.Ð NF ÐSextonóó,€917€S.W.2d€263,€266€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,€885€S.W.2dÐ  Ð364,€366€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Therefore,€the€instruction€was€properly€given,€andÏthe€use€of€the€instruction€did€not€violate€the€petitionerððs€due€process€rights.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ®$¦! Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ * #' ÐDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€ÌòòÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ª-¢&+ ÐWilliam€M.€Barker,€Special€Judge€à  à