ÿWPC6+ t0Ôœþ£íì_×VúŸ!yx·–çì]×À¬m$^ÕU˜ú@‹—¤ÝçnV©C„êN®«¿D"0ÑŸ5|m‰ýð=¢×¾Ãu˜ÝÕŠ%g9¤+5;|§\ÝkŠéJì‹•à¸ä>a…¸]ÒþõX wÌbY^äR#¥"²d £¼Ö`ìU'L€õu<GAš C9ˆä,–ŽÁæ;Š~¡¬ÚŽ={‚W&_yܸtc–ùzwxÙƒ,É@t¥2%öîB/ÚÒáâ'~ÜÀ2U`>¼Žú 0nˆ 0<ö 0á2U, 0Œ? D+Ë A¡ö @ — o¡ @ . o8 U7JÅ  $' 0µKÆ 0µÆ 0µ{ 0(0 AQX©"½"ß   B) 0CFt‰BýP? )# 0¸% B-º& Bç&' 0 š'#É®'U Nw* %Å*MË*(Ï*N÷*^ ù*w+4 ++ m+ô\  `‹&Times New Roman'  AOCUSER0AOCUSER .   <ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔ<ÿÿ:Footnote Ref8µô ÿÿ6Block TextÑ  ÑÓ X ÓÔA€ $‹ShrutiAÔÓ ° ÓÓ ° ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"` ` ¸ hÀpÈ x,ÓÓÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓYO°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#YÓÓÓÔS€ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ X Ó $‹Shruti.// ÿÿ,TitleÑ  ÑÔ€îîîÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€XXXÔ'dxd›&Draw Object <<=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK  ÿWPC°°º iœ K51ÿÿÿ3%)+-51d ~ -  ÿWPC°°º iœ K51ÿÿÿ3%)+-51d ~ -³˜kIA`‹2WP TypographicSymbols Ö€Ö Ý ƒ€Ù)ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  ÝÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÓÈÓÌ߀WGCz hx p€ €@X@ÿE°xxÌxÌ x˜Ìßâ °±°±°(#°(#â°â °±°±°±°±â°â °±°±°±°±â°â °(#°(#°±°±âÔ€¼A½»XXå!ÔÔ€Xå!X»¼A½Ô(2€Ù$©©Ý ƒ&Ìy!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2€Ù$¢¢Ý ƒ&Ìy!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  Ý(2€Ù$££Ý ƒ&Ìy!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$””Cþÿ<< cÿÿ Ý ƒ€Ù"ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  ÝÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÓ  Ó„Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú„Ð  Ð Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñÿÿa7421_3ÿÿa7421_4 d(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó jÝ ƒ&Ìy!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÓ ÈÓÓ XÓÓ  ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÔ€¼A½»XXå!Ôòòò…òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÿÿƒ&ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ôËøò¤¼A½ÔóóThe€record€before€us€in€the€present€case€does€not€show€the€post„conviction€courtÔ€ôâòòôËøÔ=Ô€ôËøòòôâÔs€treatment€of€the€post„Ð ° Ðconviction€claim.€€€The€only€explanation€of€the€procedural€posture€of€the€petitionerÔ€ôâòòôËøÔ=Ô€ôËøòòôâÔs€case€is€the€following€statement€byÐ qÁ Ðthe€supreme€court€in€its€opinion:€€Ô€ôâòòôËøÔÔ_ÔAÔ€ôËøòòôâÔWeÔ_Ô€granted€LewisÔ€ôâòòôËøÔ=Ô€ôËøòòôâÔ€application€for€review€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€and€Tenn.€R.Ð 2‚ ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€52(b)€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clauses€of€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÐ óC ÐConstitutions€bar€multiple€convictions€for€aggravated€arson€of€a€single€structure€containing€several€apartment€units.Ô€ôâòòôËøÔ@Ô€ôËøòòôâԀР² ÐòòLewisóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€738.€€The€post„conviction€courtÔ€ôâòòôËøÔ=Ô€ôËøòòôâÔs€written€opinion€and€order€denying€relief,€which€is€before€us,Ð sà Ðrecites€that€after€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed,€the€petitioner€sought€and€was€granted€a€delayed€appealÐ 4 „ Ðto€the€supreme€court.ÔÈ» ó CÔÔ€Xå!XòôËøÔ 8Ý ƒ&Ìy!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÓ ÈÓÓ XÓÓ  ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÔ€¼A½»XXå!Ôòòò…òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÿÿƒ&ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ôËøò¤¼A½Ôóó€€In€formulating€this€materiality€standard,€the€òòÔ_ÔBagleyÔ_Ô€óóCourt€explained€that€it€was€adopting€the€definition€ofÐ ° ÐÔ€ôâòòôËøÔÔ_ÔAÔ€ôËøòòôâÔreasonableÔ_Ô€probabilityÔ€ôâòòôËøÔ@Ô€ôËøòòôâÔ€that€was€articulated€in€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€v.€Washingtonóó€in€the€context€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ o¿ Ðcounsel€claims.€€òòÔ_ÔBagleyÔ_Ôóó,€473€U.S.€at€682,€105€S.€Ct.€at€3383.ÔÈøH0€ÔÔ€Xå!XòôËøÔ FÝ ƒ&Ìy!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÓ ÈÓÓ XÓÓ  ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÔ€¼A½»XXå!Ôòòò…òÚ  Ú3Ú  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÿÿƒ&ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ôËøò¤¼A½Ôóó€€The€post„conviction€court€never€specifically€addressed€the€perjury€claim,€although€it€is€evident€from€theÐ ° Ðmemorandum€and€order€denying€post„conviction€relief€that€the€court€understood€that€the€petitioner€was€arguing€thatÐ o¿ ÐBishopÔ€ôâòòôËøÔ=Ô€ôËøòòôâÔs€testimony€was€perjured.ÔÈöF.~ÔÔ€Xå!XòôËøÔ Ý ƒ&Ìy!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÓ ÈÓÓ XÓÓ  ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÔ€¼A½»XXå!Ôòòò…òÚ  Ú4Ú  Úó…óÝ‚ÿÿÿƒ&ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ôËøò¤¼A½ÔóóThe€post€conviction€court€did€not€directly€address€this€issue.ÔÈxȰÔÔ€Xå!XòôËøÔ(Á2_$¤¤Ý ƒ&Ìy!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€å!XXXå!ÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó)Hairline d  d#|x(rÌy$¡¡Ô..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xä±XX(XÔÔ€Xä±XX(Xä±Ô˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(Xµ\/Ï lk.ê:i¢×+00ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ&Ìy!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€(Xå!XX(XÔÔ€Xå!XX(Xå!ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓ   ÓÓ  ÓÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÔ€îØ îXXå!ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿÁÝÝ  ÝIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE݃ÿÿÁ݌Р° ÐŒÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€Xå!XîîØ ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ0°ìpÈ xÐ (#°œX0ÓÔ€îØ îXXå!ÔàQgg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ€¼A½»îîØ ÔˆÐ Ï ÐÓ  ÓÓH.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ì…X(#HÓApril€22,€2003€SessionÐ î> ÐÔ€Xå!X»¼A½ÔÌÔ€¼A½»XXå!Ôò òROGER€DALE€LEWIS€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ€Xå!X»¼A½Ôó óÐ à0 ÐÌò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ Ò " ÐNo.€9552€€€€€€Jane€Ô_ÔWheatcraftÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ ¸  ÐÌÌÓÓÔ-  ÔÔ€ôËøòXXå!Ôó óߟ€ k[W$â€~œ KpÀ°°@ÿ0 Àdd` œ KEjœ Kœ KÓj2 –ŸßÔ-  ÔÔ€Xå!XòôËøÔò òÌÓÓÌNo.€M2002„02439„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€October€28,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ _¯  ÐÌÓÓÔ-  ÔÔ€ôËøòXXå!Ôó óߟ€ k[W$â€~œ KpÀ°°@ÿ0 Àdd` œ KE+œ Kœ KÓ+2 –ŸßÔ-  ÔÔ€Xå!XòôËøÔò òÌÓÓó óÌÓ  ÓRoger€Dale€Lewis,€the€petitioner,€appeals€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÐ  p  Ðby€the€Sumner€County€Criminal€Court.€€Through€his€petition,€the€petitioner€sought€to€collaterallyÐ V Ðattack€his€aggravated€arson€conviction€on€the€grounds€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€andÐ ì< Ðdue€process€violations€in€the€nature€of€suppression€of€exculpatory€evidence€and€prosecutorialÐ Ò" Ðmisconduct.€€After€consideration€of€the€entire€record,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹ÔsÐ ¸ Ðdisposition.Ð  ð ÐÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ l¼ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€andÐ 8ˆ ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð n ÐÌThomas€Edward€Nelson,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Roger€Dale€Lewis.Ð ê: ÐÌMichael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Kathy€D.€Ô_ÔAslingerÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€LawrenceÐ ¶ ÐRay€Whitley,€District€Attorney€General;€and€C.€Wayne€Hyatt,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ œì ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ‚ Ò  ÐÓ  ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ N"ž" ÐÓ °ÓÓ  ÓÓE.` °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°°ŒX(#EÓÓÓÌÓÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓE.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` °ŒX(#EÓThe€procedural€history€of€this€Sumner€County€post„conviction€case€is€ratherÐ %P % Ðconvoluted;€fortunately,€however,€the€underlying€facts€are€relatively€straightforward.€€TheÐ æ%6!& Ðpetitioner€stands€convicted€of€one€count€of€aggravated€arson€for€which€he€received€an€effectiveÐ Ì&"' Ðsentence€of€21€yearsÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ô€imprisonment,€as€a€Range€I€offender€with€a€30€percent€release€eligibilityÐ ²'#( Ðdate.€€Evidently,€the€petitioner€is€currently€on€parole€from€that€sentence.€€Ð š(ê#) ÐÑ€ÑÑ€ÑÐ €)Ð$* ÐThe€circumstances€leading€to€the€petitionerÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€conviction€are€set€forth€in€òòState€v.Ð f*¶%+ ÐRoger€Lewisóó,€No.€01C01„9404„CR„00135€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€12,€1995).Ð N+ž&, ÐÓ °ÓÔ€X30 XXXå!ÔÐ 4,„'- ÐÑ Ñâ âÖ€ÿÿÖâ âÑÈÑÑÑâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓ XÓÔ€X30 X XX30ÔÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ  ÓÓ9"` ` ¸ hÀpÈ x°°ŒX(#9ÓÓÓÝ  ÝÓÓÝ‚ÿÿÿKÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xå!X XX30ÔIn€May€1992,€appellant€Lewis€was€asked€to€move€out€of€hisÐ ° Ðapartment€because€he€had€not€paid€the€rent.€€He€threatenedÐ –æ Ðretaliation€against€the€landlord.€€On€June€5,€1992,€the€CherylÐ |Ì ÐApartments,€located€in€Hendersonville,€Tennessee€burned€in€anÐ b² Ðarson€fire.݃ÿÿK$݌РH˜ ÐŒÑ  ÑÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ  ÓÓ! °°ŒX(#` ` ‰X!ÓÓÓÔ€X30 XXXå!ÔÓ XÓÝ  ÝÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ9"` ` ¸ hÀpÈ x°°ŒX(#9ÓÓÓÔ€Xå!X XX30ÔÌÓÓà ¸ àLewis€had€been€in€his€apartment€on€June€4,€1992,€in€theÐ ú J Ðprocess€of€moving€items€out€of€the€dwelling.€€On€June€5,€at€aboutÐ à 0 Ð3:00€a.m.,€Lewis€was€in€the€vicinity€of€the€apartment.€€At€aboutÐ Æ   Ð3:15€a.m.€the€residents€of€the€apartment€directly€below€Lewis'Ð ¬ ü  Ðapartment€heard€ð ðstomping€noisesðð€emanating€from€upstairs.Ð ’â  ÐShortly€after€that,€one€of€the€residents€saw€Lewisðð€car€being€drivenÐ xÈ  Ðaway€from€the€apartment€complex.€€Then€the€fire€alarm€soundedÐ ^®  Ðand€the€fire€department€arrived€at€the€complex€at€3:36€a.m.Ð D”  ÐAlthough€all€of€the€tenants€were€evacuated€safely,€there€wasÐ *z  Ðextensive€damage;€and€the€entire€top€of€the€Cheryl€Apartments€wasÐ ` Ðengulfed€in€flames.€€Five€apartments€were€destroyed.Ð öF ÐÓ XÓÑ€ÑÐ Ü, ÐThe€evidence€showed€that€Lewis€returned€to€his€newÐ Â Ðresidence€at€about€4:00€a.m.€on€June€5,€1992,€and€made€twoÐ ¨ø Ðtelephone€calls€to€two€different€nurses€who€apparently€wereÐ ŽÞ Ðworking€late€on€their€shifts.€€One€of€the€nurses€thought€that€it€wasÐ tÄ Ðodd€that€Lewis€mentioned€gasoline€several€times€during€theÐ Zª Ðconversation.Ð @ ÐÓ XÓÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%† ÔÌÓ XÓAfter€an€investigation,€the€fire€marshal€determined€that€anÐ  \ Ðaccelerant€was€used€to€start€the€fire.€€The€fire€began€in€the€livingÐ òB Ðroom€of€Lewis'€apartment€in€the€floor€area.€€The€electricity€hadÐ Ø( Ðbeen€disconnected€in€the€apartment,€and€there€was€no€wiring€in€theÐ ¾ Ðarea€where€the€fire€started.€€The€fire€was€not€an€accident,€but€theÐ ¤ô Ðinvestigators€could€not€positively€determine€the€type€of€accelerantÐ Š Ú Ðthat€was€used.Ð p!À  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓDuring€the€investigation€which€lasted€for€several€months,Ð <#Œ" ÐLewis€was€interviewed€and€reinterviewed€by€the€fire€marshal€orÐ "$r# Ðother€authorities.€€Lewis€made€several€inconsistent€statementsÐ %X $ Ðabout€where€he€had€been€on€the€night€in€question.€€Some€of€hisÐ î%>!% Ðalibi€witnesses,€particularly€the€nurses,€did€not€corroborate€his€timeÐ Ô&$"& Ðframe€of€reference€so€as€to€eliminate€him€as€a€suspect.€€LewisÐ º' #' Ðclaimed€that€he€had€lost€many€items€in€the€fire€in€his€apartmentÐ  (ð#( Ðwhen€in€fact€he€had€not.€€In€October€1992,€authorities€searchedÐ †)Ö$) ÐÑÑâ âÑÑÑÑâ âÑ  ÑLewisðð€new€residence€and€discovered€many€items€such€as€coins,Ð ° Ðcookware,€and€electronic€equipment€which€he€had€claimed€wereÐ –æ Ðlost€in€the€fire.€€Additionally,€a€plastic€jug€was€seized€from€LewisððÐ |Ì Ðcar€during€the€investigation.€€A€forensic€scientist€tested€the€jug€andÐ b² Ðconcluded€that€it€had€containedÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†€"Ô€gasoline.Ð H˜ ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓOne€of€the€prosecutionððs€witnesses,€Ernest€Bishop,€testifiedÐ  d Ðthat€he€was€in€the€Sumner€County€Jail€and€was€Lewisðð€cell€mate.Ð ú J ÐBishop€testified€that€he€heard€Lewis€say€that€he€had€moved€someÐ à 0 Ðof€his€possessions€out€of€his€apartment,€picked€up€a€gallon€jug€ofÐ Æ   Ðgasoline,€poured€gasoline€in€the€ceiling,€and€then€lit€his€lighterÐ ¬ ü  Ðwhich€started€the€fire.€€According€to€the€prosecutionððs€theory,Ð ’â  Ðhowever,€Lewis€had€planned€to€leave€the€gasoline€in€the€ceiling€soÐ xÈ  Ðthat€when€the€electricity€was€reconnected,€a€fire€would€start€whenÐ ^®  Ðsomeone€turned€on€the€lights.€€Apparently€Lewis€made€a€stupid,Ð D”  Ðand€potentially€deadly,€mistake.€€When€he€flicked€his€lighter€soÐ *z  Ðthat€he€could€see€the€way€out€of€the€apartment,€the€gas€that€he€hadÐ ` Ðspilled€on€the€floor€caught€fire.Ð öF ÐÐ Ü, ÐA€detective€interviewed€Lewis€and€pointed€out€that€theÐ Â Ðtime€frames€for€his€alibi€did€not€coincide.€€During€one€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðconversations,€according€to€the€detective,€ð ðthe€defendant€becameÐ ŽÞ Ðvery€emotional€to€the€point€of€crying€and€told€me€that€the€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðwas€so€great€that€he€might€as€well€plead€guilty.ðð€€Apparently€LewisÐ Zª Ðrepeated€this€to€the€detective€several€times€during€the€course€of€theÐ @ Ðinterview.Ð &v ÐÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` ` ‰XBÓÌòòId.,€óóslip€op.€at€2„4.Ð òB ÐÌÓ °ÓThe€jury€that€heard€this€evidence€convicted€the€petitioner€of€five€counts€ofÐ ¾ Ðaggravated€arson€„„€one€conviction€for€each€of€the€five€apartments€destroyed€in€the€fire.€€The€trialÐ ¤ô Ðcourt€imposed€an€effective€sentence€of€thirty€years.€€Aggrieved€by€his€convictions€and€sentence,Ð Š Ú Ðthe€petitioner€appealed.€€The€petitionerððs€convictions€and€sentence€were€affirmed€by€our€court€onÐ p!À  ÐJanuary€12,€1995.€€òòState€v.€Roger€Lewisóó,€No.€01C01„9404„CR„00135€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð V"¦! ÐNashville,€Jan.€12,€1995).€€The€supreme€court€denied€permission€to€appeal€on€November€12,Ð <#Œ" Ð1995.Ð "$r# ÐÓ °ÓÌÑ€ l<` ÑÓ °ÓOn€February€13,€1996,€the€petitioner€then€embarked€upon€a€collateral€attack€of€hisÐ î%>!% Ðconvictions€and€sentence€by€filing€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€In€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€958Ð Ô&$"& Ðâ âS.W.2d€736€(Tenn.€1997),€the€post„conviction€appeal,€the€supreme€court€reversed€four€of€theÐ º' #' Ðpetitionerððs€aggravated€arson€convictions€as€barred€by€double€jeopardy€and€remanded€forÐ ° Ðresentencing€on€the€remaining€conviction.€€òòIdóó.€at€739„40.Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝòòÑÈÑ׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×Ý‚ÿÿÿ¥.ectrÝÝ  ÝóóÐ –æ Ðâ âÐ |Ì ÐEvidently,€upon€remand,€the€petitioner€received€a€21„year€sentence.€€ThatÐ b² Ðsentence€was€appealed€and€affirmed€by€our€court,€òòState€v.€Roger€Dale€Lewisóó,€No.€M1998„00543„Ð H˜ ÐCCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€30,€1999),€and€by€the€supreme€court,€òòState€v.Ð . ~ ÐLewisóó,€44€S.W.3d€501€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€latter€part€of€2001€then€saw€a€revival€of€post„Ð  d Ðconviction€proceedings.€€Two€amendments€to€the€petition€were€filed,€and€hearings€were€held€inÐ ú J ÐMarch€and€May€of€2002€on€the€petitionerððs€claims.€€On€August€30,€2002,€the€post„convictionÐ à 0 Ðcourt€dismissed€the€petition€by€written€Memorandum€Opinion€and€Order.€€From€that€dismissal,Ð Æ   Ðthe€petitioner€has€appealed,€and€the€matter€is€before€us€on€review€of€the€disposition€of€the€post„Ð ¬ ü  Ðconviction€claims.Ð ’â  ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓPetitioners€seeking€post-conviction€relief€must€prove€their€allegations€by€ð ðclearÐ ^®  Ðand€convincing€evidence.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f)€(1997).€€ð ðEvidence€is€clear€andÐ D”  Ðconvincing€when€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€the€correctness€of€the€conclusionsÐ *z  Ðdrawn€from€the€evidence.ðð€€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998)€(citingÐ ` ÐòòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€n.3€(Tenn.€1992)).€€An€appellate€court€is€boundÐ öF Ðby€a€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€unless€the€facts€of€record€preponderate€against€those€findings.€Ð Ü, ÐòòIdóó.€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€given€the€testimony€ofÐ Â Ðwitnesses€are€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBates€v.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€615,€613€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¨ø Ð1997).Ð ŽÞ ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ  Óò òI.€€òòIneffective€Assistance€of€Counsel.Ð Zª ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ  Óó óóóThe€petitioner€first€insists€that€his€trial€counsel€provided€constitutionallyÐ &v Ðineffective€representation€and€that€the€post„conviction€court€incorrectly€found€that€trial€counselÐ  \ Ðwas€ð ðcompetent,€prepared€and€effective.ðð€Ð òB ÐÐ Ø( ÐWhen€seeking€post-conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ¾ Ðcounsel,€a€petitioner€must€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€fell€below€ð ðtheÐ ¤ô Ðrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,Ð Š Ú Ð936€(Tenn.€1975).€€He€or€she€must€also€show€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€forÐ p!À  Ðcounsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.Ð V"¦! ÐòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2067€(1984);€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).€€Both€of€the€above€prongs€must€be€established€for€a€petitioner€toÐ –æ Ðbe€entitled€to€relief.€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370.Ð |Ì ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓGenerally,€a€petitioner€may€not€obtain€relief€based€upon€a€sound,€thoughÐ H˜ Ðunsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911Ð . ~ ÐS.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€ð ðThe€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€orÐ  d Ðhurt€the€defense,€does€not,€standing€alone,€establish€unreasonable€representation.ðð€€òòGoadóó,€938Ð ú J ÐS.W.2d€at€369.€€However,€this€deference€to€the€tactical€decisions€of€counsel€only€applies€to€thoseÐ à 0 Ðchoices€made€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528Ð Æ   Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð ¬ ü  ÐÐ ’â  ÐDuring€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearings€in€this€case,€only€two€witnessesÐ xÈ  Ðtestified:€the€petitioner€and€former€trial€counsel.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€borrowed€$3,000Ð ^®  Ðfrom€his€parents€to€retain€trial€counsel€to€represent€him€on€the€aggravated€arson€charges.€Ð D”  ÐPetitioner€said€that€at€a€later€time,€counselððs€secretary€contacted€his€mother€and€requested€anÐ *z  Ðadditional€$1,000€for€an€arson€expert.Ð ` ÐÐ öF ÐRegarding€pretrial€preparation,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€only€met€brieflyÐ Ü, Ðwith€trial€counsel€twice€and€that€they€ð ðtalked€on€the€phone€a€couple€of€times.ðð€€The€petitioner,Ð Â Ðhowever,€admitted€that€he€was€working€out€of€town€most€of€the€time€while€the€charges€wereÐ ¨ø Ðpending.€€The€petitioner€said€that€trial€counsel€encouraged€him€not€to€worry€about€the€caseÐ ŽÞ Ðbecause€ð ðthey€donððt€have€any€evidence.ðð€€The€petitioner€suggested€that€counsel€misled€him€aboutÐ tÄ Ðhis€trial€date.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€received€a€notice€that€his€case€had€been€set€for€trialÐ Zª Ðin€late€February€1993.€€Based€on€communications€from€counselððs€office,€the€petitioner€said€thatÐ @ Ðhe€believed€that€the€trial€would€be€continued€until€May€or€June€because€of€scheduling€conflicts.€Ð &v ÐThen,€according€to€the€petitioner,€on€March€2,€1993,€he€was€contacted€in€Louisiana,€where€heÐ  \ Ðwas€working,€and€told€to€come€back€to€Tennessee€because€the€case€was€set€for€trial€on€March€9,Ð òB Ð1993.Ð Ø( ÐÐ ¾ ÐThe€petitioner€did€not€recall€seeing€any€of€the€stateððs€discovery€until€the€trialÐ ¤ô Ðbegan.€€He€claimed€that€trial€counsel€told€him€about€a€fire€investigator,€but€the€petitioner€saidÐ Š Ú Ðthat€he€never€met€the€investigator.€€At€trial,€the€petitioner€offered€no€expert€witnesses€regardingÐ p!À  Ðthe€fire.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€provided€witness€names€to€counsel,€including€an€ð ðalibiððÐ V"¦! Ðwitness,€Carol€Hoard.€€Ms.€Hoard€was€a€clerk€at€the€Dodge€Store€in€Hendersonville;€the€store€is€Ð <#Œ" Ðapproximately€a€four„minute€drive€from€the€Cheryl€Apartments.€€When€the€police€interviewedÐ "$r# Ðthe€apartment€manager,€Karen€Evans,€she€reported€seeing€the€petitionerððs€automobile€leaving€theÐ %X $ Ðapartment€parking€lot€between€3:15€and€3:20€a.m.€€At€approximately€3:30€a.m.,€other€apartmentÐ î%>!% Ðresidents€alerted€Ms.€Evans€about€the€fire,€and€Ms.€Evans€called€the€Hendersonville€policeÐ Ô&$"& Ðdepartment€at€3:34€a.m.€to€report€the€fire.€€Through€Carol€Hoard,€the€petitioner€maintained€thatÐ º' #' Ðhe€could€prove€that€he€was€buying€beer€and€potato€chips€at€the€Dodge€Store€shortly€before€3:00Ð  (ð#( Ða.m.€and€talked€to€Ms.€Hoard€for€eight€to€ten€minutes.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓThe€petitioner€testified€that€his€attorney€failed€to€investigate€his€alibi.€€TheÐ –æ Ðpetitioner€said€that€his€attorney€told€him€that€it€would€be€improper€to€try€to€question€Ms.€HoardÐ |Ì Ðbecause€she€was€listed€as€a€witness€for€the€state€and€that,€for€similar€reasons,€the€attorney€couldÐ b² Ðnot€go€to€the€Dodge€Store.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€after€trial,€he€learned€that€counsel€had,€inÐ H˜ Ðfact,€filed€an€alibi€notice,€but€the€alibi€witness€named€was€Kim€Stevens,€not€Ms.€Hoard.€€To€theÐ . ~ Ðpetitionerððs€knowledge,€his€attorney€never€met€with€any€defense€witnesses.€€As€events€developedÐ  d Ðat€trial,€the€state€did€not€call€Ms.€Hoard€to€testify,€and€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€had€beenÐ ú J Ðunable€to€locate€her€since€the€trial.€€Shortly€after€the€juryððs€guilty€verdicts,€the€petitioner€relievedÐ à 0 Ðtrial€counsel€from€further€representation.Ð Æ   ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓThe€petitioner€sharply€criticized€counselððs€performance€involving€Ernest€Bishop,Ð ’â  Ðwho€testified€about€the€petitionerððs€inculpatory€statements€made€to€Bishop€while€the€two€menÐ xÈ  Ðwere€cell€mates€in€the€Sumner€County€jail.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€when€he€was€taken€intoÐ ^®  Ðcustody€after€the€guilty€verdict,€he€learned€from€inmates€and€deputy€jailers€that€Bishop€was€aÐ D”  Ðð ðjailhouse€snitchðð€who€frequently€testified€for€the€state.€€The€petitioner€said€that€one€deputyÐ *z  Ðremarked,€ð ðWeððll€have€to€build€another€jail€to€find€a€room€to€put€[Bishop]€where€[he]€hasnððtÐ ` Ðtestified€against€somebody.ðð€€The€petitioner€also€said€that€later€on,€further€investigation€revealedÐ öF Ðthat,€prior€to€and€after€the€petitionerððs€trial,€Bishop€had€been€a€witness€in€a€federal€drugÐ Ü, Ðprosecution,€had€testified€in€another€trial€in€exchange€for€sentencing€leniency,€and€had€testifiedÐ Â Ðin€Kentucky€that€a€cell€mate€had€confessed€to€murdering€a€deputy€sheriff.Ð ¨ø ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€knew€nothing€about€Bishop€until€his€attorneyÐ tÄ Ðhanded€him€a€ð ðmug€sheetðð€in€court€and€told€the€petitioner€that€Bishop€was€going€to€testify€aboutÐ Zª Ðstatements€the€petitioner€had€made€to€Bishop€in€jail.€€The€petitioner€said€that€he€told€trial€counselÐ @ Ðthat€he€did€not€know€Bishop.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€trial€counselððs€efforts€to€impeachÐ &v ÐBishopððs€testimony€were€ineffective.€€The€petitioner€said€that€trial€counsel€had€not€investigatedÐ  \ ÐBishopððs€prior€record€and€that€when€the€petitioner€told€counsel€to€check€Bishopððs€criminal€recordÐ òB Ðthrough€the€National€Crime€Information€Center€(NCIC),€counsel€replied€that€they€could€not€getÐ Ø( Ðthat€information.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€trial€counsel€only€asked€Bishop€about€a€pendingÐ ¾ Ðcharge€in€Texas,€whereas€an€investigation€subsequent€to€the€petitionerððs€conviction€uncoveredÐ ¤ô Ðevidence€that€Bishop€had€an€extensive€criminal€history€and€that€he€used€numerous€aliases,€falseÐ Š Ú Ðsocial€security€numbers,€and€false€dates€of€birth.Ð p!À  ÐÐ V"¦! ÐThe€last€matter€that€the€petitioner€covered€in€his€post„conviction€testimony€wasÐ <#Œ" Ðtrial€counselððs€failure€to€secure€various€tape€recordings.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€one€suchÐ "$r# Ðtape€recording€was€played,€in€part,€for€the€jury.€€That€tape€recorded€the€petitioner€leaving€aÐ %X $ Ðmessage€on€Kim€Stevensðð€answering€machine.€€In€the€message,€the€petitioner€told€Stevens€thatÐ î%>!% Ðthere€had€been€a€police€problem,€that€he€had€given€her€name€to€an€investigating€officer,Ð Ô&$"& ÐDetective€Coarsey,€and€that€she€needed€to€call€the€petitioner€before€she€spoke€with€the€police.€Ð º' #' ÐAnother€tape€recording€that€the€petitioner€testified€should€have€been,€but€was€not,€played€for€theÐ  (ð#( Ðjury€was€of€a€conversation€between€the€petitioner€and€his€former€girlfriend.€€The€girlfriendÐ †)Ö$) Ðtestified€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€that€she€had€spoken€with€the€petitioner€twice€after€the€fire€andÐ ° Ðthat€he€had€mentioned€gasoline€several€times.€€The€petitioner€said€that€there€was€a€tapedÐ –æ Ðconversation€with€the€former€girlfriend€during€which€he€denied€being€involved€in€the€apartmentÐ |Ì Ðfire.Ð b² ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓThe€petitionerððs€former€counsel€testified€and€disputed€many€of€the€post„Ð . ~ Ðconviction€claims.€Counsel€began€by€testifying€that€his€fee€to€represent€the€petitioner€wasÐ  d Ð$4,000,€not€$3,000.€€Counsel€recalled€that€he€did€speak€with€an€arson€expert€about€the€case€butÐ ú J Ðthat€the€expert€provided€no€useful€information€to€offer€at€trial.€€As€for€witnesses€who€were€theÐ à 0 Ðpetitionerððs€family€members,€counsel€explained€that€because€they€were€character€witnesses,€notÐ Æ   Ðfact€witnesses,€he€had€no€reason€to€meet€with€them€pretrial.€€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÐ ’â  ÐCounsel€also€remembered€that€he€listened€to€tapes€made€available€by€the€state.€Ð xÈ  ÐHe€testified€that€he€heard€nothing€useful€on€the€tapes;€consequently,€he€did€not€request€that€theÐ ^®  Ðtapes€be€duplicated.€€Counsel€denied€telling€the€petitioner€that€the€defense€could€not€interviewÐ D”  Ðstate€witnesses€and€denied€telling€the€petitioner€not€to€worry€about€the€case€because€the€state€hadÐ *z  Ðno€evidence.€€Counsel€listed€his€concerns€for€the€case€as€being€the€witness€who€saw€the€petitionerÐ ` Ðleaving€the€apartment€parking€lot,€the€evidence€about€the€petitionerððs€animosity€toward€theÐ öF Ðapartment€complex,€and€the€police€recovery€of€items€of€the€petitionerððs€property€that€allegedlyÐ Ü, Ðhad€been€destroyed€in€the€fire.€€The€theory€of€defense,€counsel€testified,€was€factual,€premised€onÐ Â Ðthe€arguments€that€the€petitioner€did€not€have€sufficient€time€to€commit€the€arson,€that€BishopððsÐ ¨ø Ðtestimony€did€not€make€sense,€and€that€the€state€was€unable€to€prove€that€an€accelerant€was€usedÐ ŽÞ Ðto€start€the€fire.Ð tÄ ÐÐ Zª ÐRegarding€the€petitionerððs€alibi€witness,€Carol€Hoard,€counsel€testified€that€heÐ @ Ðtried€but€was€unable€to€locate€her.€€Even€so,€counsel€explained€that€the€state€had€agreed€that€theÐ &v Ðpetitioner€was€at€the€Dodge€Store€at€2:59€or€3:00€a.m.€€Counsel€also€pointed€out€that€he€arguedÐ  \ Ðthe€petitionerððs€alibi€theory€of€defense€to€the€jury;€he€said€that€he€went€into€detail€with€the€juryÐ òB Ðthat€the€petitioner€could€not€have€committed€the€arson€even€if€he€left€the€Dodge€Store€at€3:00Ð Ø( Ða.m.€because€it€would€have€taken€him€much€longer€than€fifteen€to€twenty€minutes€to€drive€to€theÐ ¾ Ðapartment,€set€up€and€ignite€the€fire,€and€be€seen€driving€away€at€3:15€or€3:20€a.m.Ð ¤ô ÐÐ Š Ú ÐTrial€counsel€was€asked€about€the€alibi€notice€actually€filed,€which€identified€KimÐ p!À  ÐStevens€as€an€alibi€witness.€€He€explained€that€the€notice€was€based€on€the€petitionerÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€claim€thatÐ V"¦! Ðat€3:30€a.m.€on€the€morning€of€the€fire,€the€petitioner€was€talking€on€the€telephone€with€Ms.Ð >#Ž" ÐStevens,€who€worked€at€the€Portland€Hospital.€€When,€however,€trial€counsel€later€interviewedÐ $$t# ÐMs.€Stevens,€she€denied€speaking€with€the€petitioner€at€3:30€a.m.€€Moreover,€trial€counselÐ  %Z $ Ðrecalled€that€the€police€had€interviewed€Ms.€Stevens,€and€she€advised€the€police€„„€and€laterÐ ð%@!% Ðtestified€for€the€state€at€trial€„„€that€the€petitioner€called€her€at€about€4:20€a.m.€that€morning.Ð Ö&&"& ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓTrial€counsel€admitted€that€he€did€not€independently€investigate€BishopÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹ÔsÐ ¢(ò#( Ðbackground,€but€counsel€did€recall€offering€a€jail€photograph€of€Bishop€at€trial€so€the€jury€couldÐ Š)Ú$) Ðcompare€his€appearance€in€the€photograph€with€his€appearance€when€testifying.€€Trial€counselÐ ° Ðtestified€that€Ô€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹Ô[a]fter€looking€at€and€listening€to€what€[Bishop]€said€and€looking€like€he€did,€I€feltÐ –æ ÐI€could€discredit€the€testimony€enough€for€the€jury.Ô€X‹XXXå!Ô@Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ô€€Nevertheless,€counsel€submitted€that€it€wasÐ ~Î Ða€mistake€on€his€part€not€to€have€obtained€a€NCIC€report€on€Bishop,€and€counsel€acknowledgedÐ f¶ Ðthat€inasmuch€as€Bishop€was€evasive€and€lied€about€his€prior€convictions,€his€credibility€couldÐ Lœ Ðhave€been€further€attacked€with€an€NCIC€criminal€history€report.€€Counsel€was€uncertainÐ 2 ‚ Ðwhether€further€impeachment€of€Bishop€would€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.Ð  h ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓBased€on€the€evidence€and€testimony,€the€post„conviction€court€examined€bothÐ ä 4 Ðprongs€of€òòStrickland€óóand€concluded€that€the€petitioner€had€not€demonstrated€that€he€receivedÐ Ê   Ðconstitutionally€ineffective€representation.€€The€post„conviction€court€clearly€articulated€itsÐ °  Ðfindings,€which€are€supported€by€the€record€and€from€which€we€quote:Ð –æ  ÐÓ X°ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ9"` ` ¸ hÀpÈ x°°ŒX(#9ÓÐ |Ì  ÐTrial€counsel€filed€a€pre„trial€Discovery€Motion,€a€MotionÐ b²  Ðto€Suppress€and€a€Notice€of€Alibi.€€Counsel€testified€at€the€Post„Ð H˜  ÐConviction€hearing€that€he€interviewed€every€single€witness€heÐ .~  Ðcould€find.€€The€testimony€of€the€witnesses€did€not€corroborate€theÐ d Ðstory€Petitioner€had€told€the€police€about€his€whereabouts€at€theÐ úJ Ðtime€of€the€fire.€[CounselÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs]€failure€to€call€said€witnesses€was€notÐ à0 Ðerror.€€The€Petitioner€criticizes€counsel€for€not€interviewing€theÐ È Ðclerk€at€the€Dodge€Store,€who€apparently€disappeared€shortly€afterÐ ®þ Ðthe€incident.€€There€was€no€harm€in€his€failure€to€interview€theÐ ”ä Ðclerk,€however,€since€the€State€stipulated€that€the€Defendant€was€atÐ zÊ Ðthe€Dodge€Store,€four€(4)€minutes€from€Cheryl€Apartments,€at€3:00Ð `° Ða.m.€€Also€harmful€to€the€PetitionerÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€case€was€testimony€of€anÐ F– Ðeyewitness€who€saw€PetitionerÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€car€leaving€the€Cheryl€ApartmentsÐ .~ Ðat€the€time€the€fire€was€discovered.€€The€main€defense€asserted,Ð f Ðquite€properly,€by€the€defense€attorney€was€that€there€was€simplyÐ üL Ðnot€enough€time€for€the€Defendant€to€have€left€the€store,€gone€toÐ â2 Ðthe€apartment€and€started€the€fire.€€The€timeline€was€the€criticalÐ È Ðelement€of€the€defense€case€and€it€was€placed€squarely€before€theÐ ®þ Ðjury€which€decided€against€the€Petitioner.Ð ” ä ÐÓ °XÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` ` ‰XBÓÐ z!Ê  ÐRegarding€how€trial€counsel€handled€cross„examination€of€Bishop,€the€post„Ð `"°! Ðconviction€court€focused€on€the€petitionerÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€failure€to€prove€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStricklandóó.€€ItÐ F#–" Ðis€undisputed€that€trial€counsel€attacked€BishopÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€credibility.€€No€doubt,€BishopÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€NCIC€reportÐ .$~# Ðcould€have€proven€helpful€in€that€endeavor€but€not€to€the€extent€required€to€establish€aÐ %f $ Ðreasonable€probability€that€but€for€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÐ ü%L!% Ðwould€have€been€different.€€Even€without€BishopÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€testimony,€the€state,€for€instance,€hadÐ â&2"& Ðeyewitness€testimony,€which€was€not€discredited,€placing€the€petitionerÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€car€leaving€theÐ Ê'#' Ðapartment€complex€at€3:15€a.m.Ð ²($( ÐÓ °ÓÐ ˜)è$) ÐÓ °ÓOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€directs€our€attention€to€trial€counselÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€retainer€fee,€whichÐ ° Ðthe€petitioner€characterizes€as€Ô€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹ÔnominalÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô@Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ô€and,€therefore,€suggestive€that€trial€counsel€did€notÐ ˜è Ðanticipate€taking€the€case€to€trial.€€The€petitioner€also€renews€his€complaints€about€trial€counselÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹ÔsÐ €Ð Ðpreparedness,€failure€to€locate€alibi€witness€Carol€Hoard,€naming€the€wrong€alibi€witness€in€theÐ h¸ Ðnotice€that€was€filed,€and€investigation€of€BishopÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€background.€€None€of€the€petitionerÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€ratherÐ Nž Ðcursory€arguments€convinces€us€that€we€should€reverse€the€post„conviction€courtÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€dismissal€ofÐ 6 † Ðhis€petition.€€It€is€evident€from€the€record€that€the€petitionerÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€time€line€defense€was€prepared€andÐ  n Ðpresented€to€the€jury€that€convicted€him.€€The€petitioner€does€not€argue€that€a€different€defenseÐ  V Ðtheory€should€have€been€investigated€or€pursued.€€Ð ì < ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ  Óò òII.€€òòBrady€Claim.ó óóóÐ ¸   ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€challenges€the€stateÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€failure€to€disclose€to€trial€counsel€BishopÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹ÔsÐ „Ô  ÐNCIC€report€and€BishopÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€reputation€as€a€Ô€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹Ôjail€house€snitch.Ô€X‹XXXå!Ô@Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ô€Ð l¼  ÐÐ T¤  ÐIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.€1194€(1963),€the€United€StatesÐ :Š  ÐSupreme€Court€held€that€the€prosecution€has€a€constitutional€duty€to€furnish€an€accused€withÐ  p Ðexculpatory€evidence€pertaining€to€either€the€accusedÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€guilt€or€innocence€and€the€punishmentÐ V Ðthat€may€be€imposed.€€Failure€to€reveal€exculpatory€evidence€violates€due€process€when€theÐ î> Ðevidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€punishment,€irrespective€of€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€theÐ Ô$ Ðprosecution.€€òòIdóó.€at€87,€83€S.€Ct.€at€1196-97.Ð º  ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓDecisions€subsequent€to€òòBradóóy€have€established€that€to€prove€a€due€processÐ †Ö Ðviolation,€the€defendant€must€show€that€the€information€was€requested€(unless€the€evidence€isÐ l¼ Ðobviously€exculpatory,€in€which€case€the€state€is€bound€to€release€the€information€whetherÐ R¢ Ðrequested€or€not),€that€the€state€suppressed€the€information,€that€the€information€was€favorable€toÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€accused,€and€that€the€information€was€material.€€òòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389-90Ð n Ð(Tenn.€1995);€òòsee€Strickler€v.€Greeneóó,€527€U.S.€263,€281„82,€119€S.€Ct.€1936,€1948€(1999)Ð T Ð(Ô€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹ÔThere€are€three€components€of€a€true€òòBradyóó€violation:€€The€evidence€at€issue€must€be€favorableÐ ê: Ðto€the€accused,€either€because€it€is€exculpatory,€or€because€it€is€impeaching;€that€evidence€mustÐ Ò" Ðhave€been€suppressed€by€the€State,€either€willfully€or€inadvertently;€and€prejudice€must€haveÐ ¸ Ðensued.ðð).€€The€suppressed€information€is€considered€Ô€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹Ômaterialðð€if€there€is€a€Ô€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹ÔreasonableÐ ž î Ðprobability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÐ †!Ö  Ðwould€have€been€different.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€682,€105€S.€Ct.€3375,€3383Ð l"¼! Ð(1985).€€A€Ô€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹Ôreasonable€probability,ðð€the€Supreme€Court€has€explained,€is€a€probability€sufficientÐ R#¢" Ðto€Ô€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹Ôundermine[€]€confidence€in€the€outcomeðð€of€the€trial.€€òòIdóó.,€105€S.€Ct.€at€3383.Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  Ýòò׃×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×Ý‚ÿÿÿô‘ÐcoÝÝ  ÝóóÐ :$Š# Ðâ âÓ °ÓÐ "%r $ ÐÓ °ÓOur€review€of€the€post„conviction€courtððs€memorandum€opinion€convinces€us€thatÐ ° Ðâ âthe€post„conviction€court€implicitly€found€that€the€first€two€requirements€were€demonstrated.€Ð –æ ÐTrial€counsel€testified,€without€contradiction,€that€pretrial€he€filed€a€request€for€the€state€toÐ |Ì Ðproduce€all€exculpatory€òòBradyóó€material.€€The€state,€however,€according€to€trial€counsel€did€notÐ b² Ðturn€over€information€about€Bishopððs€extensive€prior€criminal€history,€his€aliases,€or€hisÐ H˜ Ðreputation€as€a€Ô€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹Ôjail€house€snitch.ðð€€The€state€has€offered€no€explanation€why€the€information€wasÐ . ~ Ðnot€provided€to€the€defense,€but€inasmuch€as€the€prosecutionððs€good€faith€or€bad€faith€isÐ  f Ðirrelevant€to€a€claim€that€exculpatory€evidence€was€suppressed,€no€significance€attaches€to€theÐ ü L Ðstateððs€silence€on€this€point.Ð â 2 ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓAlthough€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€comment€on€the€favorable€quality€ofÐ ® þ  Ðthe€information€that€was€withheld,€it€appears€self„evident€to€us€that€the€third€requirement€hasÐ ”ä  Ðbeen€met.€€Impeachment€evidence€is€treated€no€differently€than€other€evidence€in€terms€ofÐ zÊ  Ðexculpatory€significance.€€ð ðImpeachment€evidence,€.€.€.€as€well€as€exculpatory€evidence,€fallsÐ `°  Ðwithin€the€òòBradyóó€rule.ðð€€òòBagleyóó,€473€U.S.€at€675,€105€S.€Ct.€at€3380.€€Impeachment€evidence€isÐ F–  Ðð ðððevidence€favorable€to€an€accused,ðð€.€.€.€so€that,€if€disclosed€and€used€effectively,€it€may€makeÐ ,|  Ðthe€difference€between€conviction€and€acquittal.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€105€S.€Ct.€at€3380.€€In€this€case,€theÐ b Ðinformation€about€Bishop€is€imbued€with€impeachment€value;€consequently,€it€qualifies€asÐ øH Ðevidence€ð ðfavorableðð€to€the€defendant.€€The€final€step€is€to€determine€if€this€favorable€evidence€isÐ Þ. ÐÔ€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹Ômaterial,ðð€such€that€its€suppression€violated€due€process.Ð Ä ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓThe€post„conviction€court€did€address€the€materiality€requirement:Ð ’â Ѐ€Ð xÈ ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ9"` ` ¸ hÀpÈ x°°ŒX(#9ÓThere€have€been€cases€.€.€.€where€failure€to€supply€the€defense€withÐ ^® Ðprior€criminal€histories€of€stateððs€witnesses€has€required€reversal.€Ð D” ÐIn€those€cases,€however,€the€cases€usually€turned€on€the€testimonyÐ *z Ðof€those€witnesses.€€That€is€not€true€in€the€case€at€bar.€€The€StateÐ ` Ðhad€a€great€deal€of€both€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence€againstÐ öF Ðthis€Petitioner.€€Ernest€Bishop€was€not€a€significant€part€of€theÐ Ü, ÐStateððs€case.€€Further,€the€jury€knew€he€was€incarcerated€and€thereÐ Â Ðwere€charges€pending€in€another€jurisdiction.€.€.€.€€Bishop€appearsÐ ¨ø Ðfrom€the€record€to€have€played€a€minor€role€in€this€case€and€failureÐ Ž Þ Ðby€the€State€to€provide€an€NCIC€report€does€not€in€and€of€itselfÐ t!Ä  Ðwarrant€reversal€of€this€conviction.Ð Z"ª! ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` ` ‰XBÓÌOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€contests€the€courtððs€statement€that€Bishop€was€not€a€significant€part€ofÐ &$v# Ðthe€stateððs€case.€€That€argument,€however,€is€not€dispositive.Ð  %\ $ ÐÌÓ °ÓThe€ð ðmaterialityðð€of€suppressed,€favorable€evidence€was€discussed€at€length€inÐ Ø&("& ÐòòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€115€S.€Ct.€1555€(1995),€and€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€38€S.W.3d€52Ð ¾'#' Ð(Tenn.€2001).€€Four€aspects€are€highlighted€in€those€cases.€€First,€materiality€does€not€demand€aÐ ¤(ô#( Ðshowing€by€a€preponderance€that€the€suppressed€evidence€would€have€resulted€in€the€defendantððsÐ Š)Ú$) Ðacquittal.€€òòKylesóó,€514€U.S.€at€434,€115€S.€Ct.€at€1566;€òòJohnsonóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€58.€€Second,Ð ° Ðmateriality€is€not€an€evidence€sufficiency€test.€€òòKylesóó,€514€U.S.€at€434,€115€S.€Ct.€at€1566;Ð –æ ÐòòJohnsonóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€58.€€Third,€once€constitutional€error€has€been€found,€there€is€no€need€forÐ |Ì Ðfurther€harmless-error€review.€€òòKylesóó,€514€U.S.€at€435,€115€S.€Ct.€at€1566;€òòJohnsonóó,€38€S.W.3d€atÐ b² Ð63.€€Last,€the€ð ðsuppressed€evidence€[is€to€be]€considered€collectively,€not€item€by€itemðð€to€gaugeÐ H˜ Ðmateriality.€€òòKylesóó,€514€U.S.€at€436,€115€S.€Ct.€at€1567.€€Plainly€stated,€establishing€materialityÐ . ~ Ðrequires€a€ð ðshowing€that€the€favorable€evidence€could€reasonably€be€taken€to€put€the€whole€caseÐ  d Ðin€such€a€different€light€as€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€verdict.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€435,€115€S.€Ct.€atÐ ú J Ð1566;€òòsee€Johnsonóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€58.Ð à 0 ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓThe€petitioner€in€this€case€fails€to€enlighten€us€how€further€impeachment€ofÐ ¬ ü  ÐBishop€would€have€put€the€whole€case€in€such€a€different€light€as€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÐ ’â  Ðjuryððs€verdict.€The€petitioner€lambasts€the€state€for€engaging€in€ð ðtreachery,ðð€but€the€prosecutionÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹ÔsÐ xÈ  Ðgood€faith€or€bad€faith€is€irrelevant,€as€we€previously€noted.€€The€petitioner€also€argues€at€oneÐ `°  Ðpoint€that€there€should€be€a€òòper€seóó€conviction„reversal€rule€if€the€prosecution€fails€to€fullyÐ F–  Ðdisclose€the€prior€criminal€history€of€its€witnesses.€€The€Supreme€Court,€however,€rejected€anÐ ,|  Ðautomatic€reversal€rule€in€òòBagleyóó,€473€U.S.€at€676„77,€105€S.€Ct.€at€3380„81,€and€Tennessee€hasÐ b Ðnot€adopted€such€an€approach.Ð øH ÐÐ Þ. ÐWe€disagree€with€the€post„conviction€court€that€Bishop€was€not€a€ð ðsignificantÐ Ä Ðpartðð€of€the€stateððs€case,€but€we€also€are€not€convinced€that€Bishopððs€testimony€was€essential€toÐ ªú Ðthe€stateððs€case.€€Even€without€Bishopððs€testimony,€the€state€had€a€strong€case€against€theÐ à Ðpetitioner.€€The€fire€originated€in€the€petitionerððs€apartment€from€which€he€was€being€evicted€forÐ vÆ Ðnonpayment€of€rent.€€Shortly€before€the€fire€started,€residents€in€the€apartment€below€theÐ \¬ Ðpetitionerððs€apartment€heard€ð ðstomping€noisesðð€upstairs.€€The€petitionerððs€automobile€was€seenÐ B’ Ðleaving€the€parking€lot€of€the€apartment€complex€between€3:15€and€3:20€a.m.€€The€fire€wasÐ (x Ðdiscovered€at€approximately€3:30€a.m.,€and€the€police€were€notified€at€3:34€a.m.€€A€plastic€jugÐ ^ Ðthat€had€contained€gasoline€was€confiscated€from€the€petitionerððs€automobile,€and€whileÐ ôD Ðexecuting€a€warrant€to€search€the€petitionerððs€new€residence,€the€police€discovered€many€itemsÐ Ú* Ðthat€the€petitioner€had€alleged€were€destroyed€in€the€fire.Ð À ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓMoreover,€we€have€reviewed€Bishopððs€testimony€at€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€TheÐ Œ Ü Ðstate€brought€out€that€Bishop€was€awaiting€a€sentencing€hearing€on€theft€and€false€police€reportÐ r!  Ðconvictions.€€Bishop€was€patently€evasive€on€cross„examination€when€asked€to€name€his€priorÐ X"¨! Ðfelony€convictions.€€He€responded,€ð ðIÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôm€not€exactly€sureðð€and€ð ðWell,€IÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôm€not€for€sure€what.ðð€Ð >#Ž" ÐWhen€trial€counsel€asked€the€more€pointed€question,€ð ðHave€you€ever€been€in€the€last€10€yearsÐ &$v# Ðconvicted€of€a€felony,ðð€Bishop€replied,€ð ðLast€10€years,€I€donÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôt€think€so.€€IÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôm€not€sure.ðð€€SimplyÐ  %\ $ Ðstated,€it€is€highly€unlikely€that€the€petitionerððs€jury€was€favorably€impressed€with€BishopððsÐ ô%D!% Ðhonesty€or€reliability.Ð Ú&*"& ÐÐ À'#' ÐBased€upon€the€strength€of€the€stateððs€case€and€Bishopððs€evident€mendacity,Ð ¦(ö#( Ðconfidence€in€the€juryððs€verdict€is€not€undermined.€€The€failure€to€establish€the€ð ðmaterialityðð€ofÐ Œ)Ü$) Ðthe€favorable€evidence€thus€defeats€the€petitionerððs€due€process€claim€premised€on€theÐ ° Ðprosecutionððs€suppression€of€exculpatory€evidence.Ð –æ ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€òòProsecutorial€Misconduct.ó óóóÐ b² ÐÓ °ÓÓ  ÓÐ H˜ ÐAs€we€understand€the€petitionerððs€final€complaint,€he€insists€that€Bishop€gaveÐ . ~ Ðperjured€testimony€and€that€the€state€failed€in€its€duty€to€correct€that€testimony.€€The€petitionerððsÐ  d Ðclaim€is€based€on€the€following€exchange€between€trial€counsel€and€Bishop€during€crossÐ ú J Ðexamination:Ð à 0 ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ ¨ýÓÓ ÓÓ °ÓÓ9"¸ ` ¸ hÀpÈ x°°ŒX(#9ÓQ.à ¸ àHave€you€ever€worked€for€the€police€before€in€the€past,Ð ¬ ü  Ðgiven€them€information€thatððs€helped€you€out€in€some€ofÐ ’â  Ðthe€sentencing,€some€of€the€things€you€donððt€remember€youÐ xÈ  Ðdid?Ð ^®  ÐÓ ¨ýÓÓ °ÓÓ6"` ` ¸ hÀpÈ x¸ ` ‰X6ÓÌÓ ¨ýÓÓ °ÓÓ6"¸ ` ¸ hÀpÈ x` ` ‰X6ÓA.à ¸ àNo,€sir.Ð *z  ÐÓ ¨ýÓÓ °ÓÓ6"` ` ¸ hÀpÈ x¸ ` ‰X6ÓÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` ` ‰XBÓThe€petitioner€supports€his€allegation€that€Bishop€perjured€himself€by€reference€to€a€1994€federalÐ öF Ðappellate€unpublished€disposition€in€which€Bishopððs€name€appears€and€in€which€he€is€describedÐ Ü, Ðas€a€government€witness€and€prison€inmate€who€gave€testimony€that€the€appealing€defendant€hadÐ Â Ðthreatened€his€life.€€òòSee€United€States€v.€Johnsonóó,€16€F.3d€1222€(6th€Cir.€1994)€(unpublishedÐ ¨ø Ðdisposition).€€As€we€shall€explain,€the€petitionerÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô=Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ôs€claim€must€be€rejected.Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  Ýòò׃ ×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òÚ  Ú3Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×Ý‚ÿÿÿǽ€allÝÝ  ÝóóÐ ŽÞ ÐÓ °ÓÐ vÆ ÐIt€is€settled€that€the€state€may€not€present€false€testimony€and€that€the€state€has€anÐ \¬ Ðaffirmative€duty€to€correct€false€testimony€presented€by€state€witnesses.€€òòSee€State€v.€Spurlockóó,Ð B’ Ð874€S.W.2d€602,€617€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€To€obtain€a€new€trial,€the€defendant€mustÐ (x Ðdemonstrate€that€the€state€presented€false€testimony,€that€the€state€knew€the€testimony€was€false,Ð ^ Ðand€that€the€testimony€was€material.€€òòState€v.€Curetonóó,€38€S.W.3d€64,€74„75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ð ôD Ðòòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2000).€€A€different€measure€of€materiality,€however,€applies€in€thatÐ Ú* Ðcontext,€and€the€inquiry€becomes€whether€there€is€any€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€falseÐ À Ðtestimony€could€have€affected€the€judgment€of€the€jury.€€òòSee€Giglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.Ð ¦ö Ð150,€154,€92€S.€Ct.€763,€766€(1972).Ð Œ Ü ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓIf€a€witness€has€received€or€been€promised€government„supplied€benefits€or€someÐ X"¨! Ðfavorable€consideration€in€exchange€for€testifying€against€a€defendant,€that€information€isÐ >#Ž" Ðexculpatory€in€its€tendency€to€impeach€the€witnessðð€credibility€and€motive€for€testifying.€€òòGiglioóó,€Ð $$t# Ð405€U.S.€at€154„155,€92€S.€Ct.€at€766;€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€101€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð  %Z $ ÐBishop€testified€in€his€direct€testimony€about€the€reason€he€contacted€Detective€Coarsey€to€offerÐ ð%@!% Ðinformation€about€the€petitionerððs€statements:€ð ðWell,€I€thought€about€my€daughter€almost€gotÐ ° Ðburned€up€one€time.€€Thatððs€when€I€went€to€talk€to€somebody.ðð€€Bishop,€also,€was€asked€on€directÐ –æ Ðexamination€about€and€denied€having€been€promised€anything€in€return€for€his€testimony.€€ThenÐ |Ì Ðon€cross„examination,€trial€counsel€asked€if€Bishop€had€ever€previously€worked€for€the€policeÐ b² Ðand€provided€information€that€benefitted€him€in€sentencing.€€These€questions,€we€note,€areÐ H˜ Ðdirected€at€two€different€issues:€(1)€Bishopððs€past€ð ðworkingðð€relationship€with€the€police,€notÐ . ~ Ðinvolving€testimony€as€witness,€and€(2)€Bishopððs€testimony€at€the€petitionerððs€trial.Ð  d ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓWe€find€no€evidence€in€the€record€before€us€that€Bishop€worked€with€lawÐ à 0 Ðenforcement€prior€to€the€petitionerððs€trial€or€that€based€on€information€he€provided,€he€receivedÐ Æ   Ðsome€sentencing€consideration.€€The€only€enlightenment€we€discern€from€the€unpublishedÐ ¬ ü  Ðdisposition€in€òòJohnsonóó€is€that€Bishop,€a€prison€inmate€at€the€time,€testified€that€Johnson,€who€wasÐ ’â  Ðcharged€with€conspiracy€and€distribution€of€cocaine,€had€threatened€his€life.€€We€find€noÐ xÈ  Ðsuggestion€in€the€unpublished€disposition€that€Bishop€received€any€benefit€or€consideration€inÐ ^®  Ðexchange€for€testifying€against€Johnson.€€Similarly,€we€have€reviewed€an€NCIC€report€on€BishopÐ D”  Ðthat€the€petitioner€filed€as€a€post„conviction€exhibit.€€That€report€contains€no€information€aboutÐ *z  Ðany€ð ðdealsðð€or€preferential€treatment€that€Bishop€may€have€received€from€law€enforcement€in€theÐ ` Ðpast.Ð öF ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓWhether€Bishop€was€promised€or€received€any€consideration€for€his€testimonyÐ Â Ðagainst€the€petitioner,€however,€is€more€complicated.€€We€begin€with€what€the€record€before€usÐ ¨ø Ðdoes€and€does€not€reveal.€€Included€as€a€post„conviction€exhibit€in€this€case€is€a€transcript€of€theÐ ŽÞ ÐNovember€19,€1993€hearing€on€the€petitionerððs€new€trial€motion.€€At€that€hearing,€severalÐ tÄ Ðaffidavits€were€offered€and€accepted€by€the€trial€court€without€objection.€€Of€interest€to€theÐ Zª Ðpresent€inquiry€are€(a)€the€affidavit€of€€Bishopððs€defense€attorney,€who€represented€him€on€theÐ @ ÐTennessee€charges€pending€at€the€time€Bishop€testified€against€the€petitioner,€and€(b)€theÐ &v Ðaffidavit€of€a€prosecuting€attorney€in€Waco,€Texas,€who€had€been€assigned€to€prosecute€BishopÐ  \ Ðon€Texas€charges€also€pending€when€Bishop€testified€for€the€state€at€the€petitionerððs€trial.Ð òB ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓThe€state€submitted€the€affidavit€of€Bishopððs€defense€attorney.€€The€affidavitÐ ¾ Ðstates€that€Bishop€pleaded€guilty€in€Sumner€County€on€January€12,€1993€to€theft€over€$1,000,Ð ¤ô Ðfiling€a€false€police€report,€and€failure€to€appear.€€The€affidavit€also€recites€that€Bishop€wasÐ Š Ú Ðsentenced€on€March€26,€1993,€at€which€time€he€was€sentenced€to€time€served,€which€wasÐ p!À  Ðapproximately€seven€months.€€Defense€counsel€states€in€the€affidavit€that€at€the€time€Bishop€wasÐ V"¦! Ðsentenced,€there€was€a€ð ðholdðð€on€him€from€Texas€such€that€it€was€expected€that€Bishop€would€beÐ <#Œ" Ðextradited€to€Texas.€€The€concluding€paragraph€recites,Ð "$r# ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ9"` ` ¸ hÀpÈ x°°ŒX(#9ÓThat€the€defendant€testified€on€behalf€of€the€State€in€a€case€styledÐ î%>!% ÐòòState€v.€Lewisóó€on€March€9,€1993.€€There€was€no€agreement€or€dealÐ Ô&$"& Ðbetween€the€defendant€and€the€State€of€Tennessee€with€regard€toÐ º' #' Ðthe€length€or€type€of€sentence€he€would€receive€if€he€testified€forÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€State.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` ` ‰XBÓÌÓ °ÓThe€petitionerððs€counsel€at€the€new€trial€motion€hearing€submitted€the€affidavit€ofÐ –æ Ðthe€Texas€Assistant€District€Attorney€General€assigned€to€Bishopððs€charges.€€Prosecution€counselÐ |Ì Ðaffirmed€in€the€affidavit€that€while€Bishop€was€incarcerated€in€Sumner€County,€a€ð ðholdðð€wasÐ b² Ðplaced€on€him€to€ensure€his€appearance€in€a€Waco,€Texas€criminal€court.€€According€to€theÐ H˜ Ðaffidavit,€the€Sumner€County€Sheriffððs€Department€requested€that€the€hold€be€lifted€becauseÐ . ~ ÐBishop€needed€to€be€hospitalized,€which€evidently€could€not€occur€unless€the€hold€was€removed.€Ð  d ÐThe€Texas€Assistant€District€Attorney€General€honored€the€request.€€The€next€paragraph€of€theÐ ú J Ðaffidavit€states,Ð à 0 ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ9"` ` ¸ hÀpÈ x°°ŒX(#9ÓÌ4.€€Later,€I€was€informed€that€Mr.€Bishop€had€testified€in€a€case€inÐ ¬ ü  ÐState€court,€Sumner€County,€Tennessee,€and€that€because€of€hisÐ ’â  Ðtestimony,€Tennessee€was€either€going€to€dismiss€the€TennesseeÐ xÈ  Ðcharges€against€him,€or€place€Bishop€on€probation.Ð ^®  ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` ` ‰XBÓÌThe€affidavit€concludes€that€after€the€hold€was€lifted€and€the€Tennessee€charges€ð ðdisposed€of,ððÐ *z  ÐBishop€absconded€the€jurisdiction€and€did€not€surrender€in€Texas.Ð ` ÐÌÓ °ÓAt€the€hearing€to€consider€the€new€trial€motion,€the€parties€represented€to€the€trialÐ Ü, Ðcourt€that,€despite€their€earnest€efforts,€Bishop€could€not€be€located.€€The€trial€court€was€notÐ Â Ðpersuaded€that€the€Texas€affidavit€demonstrated€that€Bishop€had€been€promised€early€release€inÐ ¨ø ÐTennessee€in€exchange€for€his€testimony,€and€the€court€rejected€that€ground€for€a€new€trial.€€OnÐ ŽÞ Ðdirect€appeal,€our€court€ruled€that€the€issue€whether€Bishop€had€received€special€consideration€inÐ tÄ Ðexchange€for€his€testimony€had€been€waived€as€not€supported€by€fact€or€legal€authority.€€òòRogerÐ Zª ÐLewisóó,€No.€01C01„9404„CR„00135,€slip€op.€at€6.Ð @ ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓAs€previously€indicated,€the€affidavits€resurface€as€post„conviction€exhibits.€€AlsoÐ  \ Ðappearing€as€post„conviction€exhibits€are€certified€copies€of€Bishopððs€Tennessee€plea€agreement,Ð òB Ða€motion€to€continue€Bishopððs€sentencing,€an€agreed€order€continuing€the€sentencing€hearing,Ð Ø( Ðand€the€judgments€of€conviction.€€From€these€pleadings€we€discern€that€Bishopððs€plea€agreement,Ð ¾ Ðòòwhich€was€accepted€prior€to€the€petitionerððs€trialóó,€provided€that€he€would€plead€guilty€to€threeÐ ¤ô Ðcharges,€that€he€would€be€treated€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender,€that€the€length€of€his€sentencesÐ Š Ú Ðwould€be€determined€by€the€trial€court,€and€the€ð ðstate€[would]€ask€for€defendant€to€serve€8Ð p!À  Ðmonths.ðð€€The€motion€to€continue€sentencing€was€filed€by€Bishopððs€counsel€on€February€22,Ð V"¦! Ð1993,€prior€to€the€petitionerððs€trial,€and€an€agreed€order€was€entered€the€following€day.€€AsÐ <#Œ" Ðgrounds€for€continuing€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€motion€recites€that€Bishop€would€be€testifyingÐ "$r# Ðfor€the€state€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€and€that€Bishopððs€Ô€X‹XXXå!ÔAÔ€Xå!XXX‹Ôcooperation€and€truthful€testimony€.€.€.Ð %X $ Ðshould€be€a€factor€to€be€considered€by€the€Court€at€[Bishopððs]€sentencing€hearing.ðð€€The€motionÐ ð%@!% Ðfurther€states€that€the€state€agreed€to€the€continuance.€€Bishop€was€sentenced€on€March€26,€1993,Ð Ö&&"& Ðand€the€judgments€reflect€that€he€was€given€sentencing€credit€for€approximately€six€monthsÐ ¼' #' Ðpretrial€confinement€and€was€placed€on€supervised€probation,€effective€immediately.Ð ¢(ò#( ÐÓ °ÓÐ ˆ)Ø$) ÐÓ °ÓIn€addition€to€the€foregoing€exhibits,€the€petitioner€introduced,€without€objectionÐ ° Ðor€authentication,€a€video€tape€of€purported€trial€testimony€given€by€Bishop€in€1998€as€aÐ –æ Ðprosecution€witness€in€a€Kentucky€homicide€case.€€We€have€reviewed€that€video€tape,€and€on€theÐ |Ì Ðtape€a€person€identified€as€Ernest€Bishop€is€cross„examined€at€length€about€his€prior€convictions,Ð b² Ðaliases,€and€testimony€in€other€cases.€€Bishop€was€questioned€about€testifying€in€other€cases,€andÐ H˜ Ðhe€admitted€testifying,€òòinter€aliaóó,€at€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€Bishop€hesitated€when€asked€if€thatÐ . ~ Ðtestimony€was€part€of€a€ð ðdeal.ðð€€He€responded€that€ð ðthey€helped€me€get€probation.ðð€€Bishop€also,Ð  d Ðhowever,€adamantly€insisted€that€he€did€not€make€a€ð ðdealðð€before€he€testified€in€the€petitionerððsÐ ú J Ðcase;€rather,€Bishop€explained€that€he€was€ð ðhopingðð€that€he€would€ð ðget€somethingðð€for€hisÐ à 0 Ðtestimony.Ð Æ   ÐÐ ¬ ü  ÐFrom€the€record,€the€obvious€first€question€is€whether€this€claim€has€beenÐ ’â  Ðð ðpreviously€determinedðð€such€that€post„conviction€review€is€inappropriate.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð xÈ  ÐÔ€X‹XXXå!Ô'Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ô€40„30„206(f)€(1997).€€Post„conviction€proceedings€may€not€be€employed€to€raise,€relitigate€orÐ ^®  Ðreview€questions€decided€and€disposed€of€in€a€direct€appeal€from€a€conviction,€and€Code€sectionÐ F–  Ð40„30„206(h)€addresses€the€concept€of€previous€determination.Ð ,|  ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓ9"` ` ¸ hÀpÈ x°°ŒX(#9ÓA€ground€for€relief€is€previously€determined€if€a€court€ofÐ øH Ðcompetent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fairÐ Þ. Ðhearing.€€A€full€and€fair€hearing€has€occurred€where€the€petitionerÐ Ä Ðis€afforded€the€opportunity€to€call€witnesses€and€otherwise€presentÐ ªú Ðevidence,€regardless€of€whether€the€petitioner€actually€introducedÐ à Ðany€evidence.Ð vÆ ÐÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` ` ‰XBÓòòÌIdóó.€Ô€X‹XXXå!Ô'Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ô€40-30-206(h)€(1997).€€Here,€the€petitioner€presented€the€issue€whether€Bishop€wasÐ B’ Ðpromised€or€received€any€consideration€for€his€testimony€against€the€petitioner€as€a€ground€forÐ *z Ðrelief€in€both€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€€The€trial€court€accepted€evidenceÐ ` Ðfrom€the€parties€on€this€issue€and€rejected€it.€€We€find€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€theÐ öF Ðpetitioner€was€denied€ð ða€full€and€fair€hearing.ðð€€That€Bishop€could€not€be€located€did€not€depriveÐ Ü, Ðthe€petitioner€of€the€opportunity€to€litigate€the€issue.€€We€note€that€the€petitioner€could€haveÐ Â Ðintroduced€the€pleadings€related€to€Bishopððs€plea€agreement€and€sentencing,€which€predated€theÐ ¨ø ÐNovember€19,€1993€hearing€on€the€petitionerððs€new€trial€motion.€€The€petitioner€also€could€haveÐ Ž Þ Ðsubpoenaed€members€of€the€prosecution€team€regarding€any€promises€made€to€Bishop.€€TheÐ t!Ä  Ðpetitioner€waived€the€issue€on€direct€appeal,€thereby€rendering€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€final.€Ð Z"ª! ÐAccordingly,€in€our€view€this€issue€has€been€previously€determined€by€the€original€trial€court€andÐ @#" Ðis€not€subject€to€further€review€by€this€court.Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÝ  Ýòò׃!×Ý ƒÿÿÝò…òÚ  Ú4Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×Ý‚ÿÿÿõe€UnÝÝ  ÝóóÐ &$v# ÐÌÓ °ÓEven€if€this€issue€were€properly€before€us,€however,€we€would€reject€it€based€onÐ ò%B!% Ðthe€petitionerððs€failure€to€provide€the€requisite€clear€and€convincing€evidence€to€support€it.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ø&("& ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€X‹XXXå!Ô'Ô€Xå!XXX‹Ô€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€The€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated,€in€the€firstÐ ¾'#' Ðinstance,€that€Bishop€perjured€himself€when€he€denied€having€been€promised€anything€inÐ ° Ðexchange€for€his€testimony.€€There€is€a€significant€difference€between€a€promise€to€the€witness€ofÐ –æ Ðfavorable€treatment€and€a€witnessðð€unilateral€expectation€or€hope€of€later€favorable€treatment.€Ð |Ì ÐòòSee€State€v.€Gregory€Robinsonóó,€W2001„01299„CCA„R3„DD,€slip€op.€at€24€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð b² ÐJackson,€Aug.€13,€2003).€€(ð ðWhile€[the€witness]€may€have€hoped€that€his€testimony€would€resultÐ H˜ Ðin€favorable€treatment,€the€record€does€not€establish€that€an€agreement€existed€between€the€stateÐ . ~ Ðand€[the€witness]€at€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€trial.€.€.€.€Furthermore,€the€fact€that€[the€witness]Ð  d Ðlater€pled€guilty€to€a€lesser€charge€of€facilitation€of€the€offenses€does€not€establish€the€existenceÐ ú J Ðof€a€prior€agreementðð).Ð à 0 ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓIn€the€present€case,€it€was€Bishop€„„€not€the€prosecutor€„„€who€filed€the€motion€toÐ ¬ ü  Ðcontinue€his€Tennessee€sentencing€hearing€until€after€he€testified€in€the€petitionerððs€case.€Ð ’â  ÐBishop,€in€other€words,€was€promoting€his€cooperation€and€truthful€testimony€as€positive€factorsÐ xÈ  Ðfor€the€sentencing€court€to€take€into€consideration.€€Bishopððs€Tennessee€counsel€gave€an€affidavitÐ ^®  Ðdenying€that€there€was€any€agreement€or€deal€for€consideration€in€exchange€for€BishopððsÐ D”  Ðtestimony.€€That€assertion€is€by€no€means€inconsistent€with€the€statement€in€the€Texas€affidavitÐ *z  Ðthat€Tennessee€was€going€to€help€Bishop€because€of€his€testimony.€€In€his€purported€video€tapedÐ ` Ðtestimony,€Bishop€maintained€that€he€was€ð ðhopingðð€to€ð ðget€somethingðð€for€his€testimony€againstÐ öF Ðthe€petitioner.€€That€statement,€likewise,€does€not€contradict€his€testimony€at€the€petitionerððs€trialÐ Ü, Ðthat€he€was€not€promised€anything€in€exchange€for€his€testimony.€€Neither€the€state€nor€theÐ Â Ðpetitionerððs€trial€counsel€inquired€whether€Bishop€òòexpected€óóthat€his€testimony€would€improve€hisÐ ¨ø Ðlot€in€life€notwithstanding€the€absence€of€a€formal€agreement€with€the€state.€€Ð ŽÞ ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ °ÓConsequently,€even€if€this€claim€were€appropriate€for€post„convictionÐ Zª Ðconsideration,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€Bishop€perjured€himself€during€theÐ @ Ðpetitionerððs€trial,€which€also€disposes€of€any€due€process€claim€that€the€state€sanctioned€perjury.Ð &v ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ  Óò òIV.€òòConclusion.ó óóóÐ òB ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ  ÓOur€exhaustive€review€of€this€record€convinces€us€that€the€petitioner€was€notÐ ¾ Ðdenied€constitutionally€effective€of€assistance€of€counsel€and€was€not€convicted€in€violation€ofÐ ¤ô Ðdue€process€on€the€grounds€of€suppression€of€exculpatory€evidence€or€perjured€testimonyÐ Š Ú Ðsolicited€by€the€state.€€We,€therefore,€affirm€the€denial€of€the€petitionerððs€request€for€post„Ð p!À  Ðconviction€relief.€Ð V"¦! ÐÓ °ÓÌÓ hÓÐ "$r# Ð___________________________________Ð %X $ ÐJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ î%>!% ÐÓ hÓÓ  Ó