ÿWPCí …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0J¬ 0Tö 0DJ 0^Ž bì 0hô \ 0rd 0|Ö bR 0†Z 0à 1up 0då bIbQ BYU>vU*´B)ÞDC D3J AM}íÊ 0@·v~÷vÓu AOHÆ— 0D] D/¡ BИHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ DU‘D’U“D”D•U–D—U˜Ó€Úƒç"3|x£((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô- ù-2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ- ù-- ù- d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ãÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òDecember€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€'Ôò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÚXXdðdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€ÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌœÌNOVEMBER›€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌœÌÌALLEN€GARY€LORDà àà àà àó ó)ò ò›Ìœaka€GARY€ALLEN€LORD,›à àà àœó ó)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€œ03C01„9610„CR„00384›Ìà àœAppellant,›à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€œHamilton›€CountyÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€œHon.€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€›€JudgeÌò òœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó ó›à àà àœà à)›€Ìò òœà àà à€à àó ó›à àà àà àœ)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)›à àà àà àœÌà à›à àà àà àœà àà àÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:›à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌœÌNeal€L.€Thompsonà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ615€Lindsay€Street,€Suite€150à àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌChattanooga,€TN€37403Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Cox,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àYolanda€MitchellÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCourts€Building,€Suite€300Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402Ì›à àà àà àœà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌ›Ìà àà àà àœÌÌÌ›ÌOPINION€FILED:€_______________________ÌÌÌò òœAFFIRMEDÌÌó ó›Ìò òœPAUL›€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òœÌÌO›€P€I€N€I€O€œNó óÌÑ7€ÚXXdðXXdð7ÑØØÑ€ÑÓ  ÓÌà àThe€appellant,€Allen€Gary€Lord,€alias€Gary€Allen€Lord,€appeals€the€denialÏof€his€request€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€appellant€was€convicted€in€MarchÏ1993€of€second€degree€murder€and€abuse€of€a€corpse.€€He€was€sentenced€toÏconsecutive€sentences€of€twenty„two€years€for€murder€and€six€years,€as€a€careerÏoffender,€for€abuse€of€a€corpse.€€On€direct€appeal€this€Court€affirmed€hisÏconvictions.€€In€1996,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€the€request€for€relief.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€presents€four€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€hisÏattorney€was€ineffective€during€the€guilt€phase€of€his€trial;€(2)€whether€hisÏattorney€was€ineffective€during€his€sentencing€hearing;€(3)€whether€theÏappellant€was€improperly€classified€as€a€career€offender€because€theÏsentencing€statute€is€unconstitutionally€vague;€and€(4)€whether€the€reasonableÏdoubt€jury€instruction€is€unconstitutional.€€€We€affirm.ÌÌà àIn€his€first€issue,€the€appellant€asserts€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€atÏthe€guilt€phase€of€his€trial.€€His€argument€is€threefold:€that€his€attorney€failed€toÏresearch€the€law€regarding€the€abuse€of€a€corpse€charge,€failed€to€show€theÏviolent€past€of€the€victim,€and€failed€to€call€as€a€witness€the€police€officer€theÏvictim€had€kidnapped.€ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€the€appellantððs€attorney€was€not€ineffective€at€theÏguilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€First,€the€state€asserts€that€the€appellantððs€attorneyÏresearched€the€law€and€discussed€with€the€coroner€his€findings.€€Therefore,€theÏstate€maintains€that€the€appellantððs€attorney€investigated€the€issue€ð ðto€theÏfurthest€possible€extent.ðð€€Second,€the€state€contends€that€the€appellantððsÏattorney€elicited€ð ðmost€of€the€victimððs€past€behavior€and€crimes€through€theÏvictimððs€girlfriend,ðð€and€also€brought€out€that€the€victim€had€spent€a€substantialÏamount€of€time€in€prison.€€Finally,€the€state€asserts€that€the€appellantððs€attorneyÏchose€not€to€call€the€police€officer€as€a€witness€because€he€did€not€believe€thatÏÑ € ÑÑ  Ñthe€officer€would€be€a€favorable€witness€for€the€appellant€and€because€heÏbelieved€that€the€victimððs€girlfriendððs€version€of€the€facts€were€more€favorable€toÏthe€appellantððs€case€than€the€officerððs€version€would€have€been.ÌÌà àTo€be€granted€relief€on€the€ground€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€anÏappellant€must€establish€that€the€advice€given€or€the€services€rendered€were€notÏwithin€the€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€and€that,€but€forÍcounselððs€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€his€or€her€trial€would€have€beenÏdifferent.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€(1984).€€€In€Tennessee,€theÏappropriate€test€is€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ÌÌà àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€petitioners€bear€the€burden€of€provingÏtheir€allegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794ÏS.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,Ï195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Furthermore,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€inÏpost„conviction€hearings€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899Ï(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);ÏòòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).ÌÌà àBased€upon€the€record€before€us,€the€appellantððs€trial€attorney€attemptedÏto€accomplish€what€the€appellant€now€complains€about€in€his€brief.€€It€appearsÏthat€the€appellantððs€trial€attorney€prepared€the€best€defense€strategy€for€theÏappellant€that€he€could,€given€the€facts€of€the€case.€€This€Court€finds€that€theÏappellant€has€failed€to€carry€the€burden€of€establishing€that€his€attorney€wasÏÑ€Ñineffective.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€post„convictionÏcourtððs€findings.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€his€trial€attorney€wasÏineffective€at€the€sentencing€phase.€€He€asserts€that€his€attorney€failed€toÏintroduce€medical€records€at€sentencing€which€would€have€mitigated€hisÏsentence.€€Before€his€arrest€in€the€victimððs€death,€the€appellant€on€SeptemberÏ26,€1992€filed€a€complaint€against€police€officers€for€shooting€him.€€At€the€time,Ïthe€appellant€was€at€Erlanger€Hospital€for€treatment€of€a€cut€on€one€of€hisÏfingers.€€He€was€subsequently€arrested€because€he€was€intoxicated€andÏbecause€he€was€hostile€toward€police€officers.€€On€September€27,€1992,€theÏappellant€was€taken€to€Moccasin€Bend€Mental€Health€Institute€because€of€hisÏarrest€and€his€behavior.€€Five€days€later€he€left€Moccasin€Bend€and€that€sameÏday€gave€a€statement€to€the€police€about€the€murder.€€ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€the€appellantððs€trial€attorney€was€not€ineffective€atÏthe€sentencing€phase.€€€In€its€brief,€the€state€asserts€that€appellantððs€trial€attorneyÏdid€review€the€medical€records€from€Moccasin€Bend;€and€although€he€did€notÏinterview€the€appellantððs€two€doctors,€both€doctors€at€Moccasin€Bend€indicatedÏin€their€reports€ð ðthat€Lord€presented€no€psychosis.ðð€€The€appellantððs€trial€attorneyÏmaintained€that€the€medical€records€did€not€show€a€diminished€capacity€orÏsupport€a€mitigated€sentence.€€€However,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€trialÏattorney€never€reviewed€these€medical€records€ð ðuntil€the€day€of€the€Post„Conviction€trial.ðð€€€Furthermore,€the€state€argues€that€on€direct€appeal,€this€CourtÏnoted€that€consecutive€sentencing€was€based€on€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€theÏappellant€had€an€extensive€criminal€history€and€was€a€dangerous€offender.€ÍThus,€the€state€maintains€that€had€these€medical€records€been€introduced,Ïconsecutive€sentencing€would€still€have€been€warranted.ÌÌà à€The€appellantððs€trial€attorney€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€Ïthe€appellantððs€defense€was€self„defense,€not€insanity.€€Furthermore,€this€CourtÏnoted€on€direct€appeal€that€consecutive€sentencing€was€based€on€theÏappellantððs€criminal€record€and€status€as€a€dangerous€offender.€€The€appellantÏhas€failed€to€carry€the€burden€of€proving€that€his€trial€attorney€was€deficient.€€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà à›Ìœà àIn€his€third€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðððð€40„35„108€and€117€(1990)€are€unconstitutional.€€He€contends€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ì€ðð€40„35„108(b)(2)€(1990)€is€ð ðso€vague€that€men€of€common€intelligence€mustÏnecessarily€guess€as€to€its€meaning€and€differ€as€to€its€application.ðð€€Also,€heÏchallenges€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„117(c)€(1990)€as€ambiguous€ð ðby€inferringÏthat€all€crimes€committed€prior€to€July€1,€1982,€shall€not€be€included€inÏdetermining€the€classification€of€a€defendant€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act.ðð€ÏTherefore,€the€appellantððs€argument€is€that€his€pre„1982€convictions€should€notÏhave€been€used€to€classify€him€as€a€career€offender.ÌÌà àThe€state,€however,€argues€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„108(b)(2)€isÏclear€that€ð ð[a]ll€prior€felony€convictions€including€those€occurring€prior€toÏNovember€1,€1989,€are€includedðð€in€calculating€whether€a€defendant€is€a€careerÍoffender.€€Furthermore,€the€state€in€its€brief€notes€that€this€Court€has€interpretedÏthe€statute€based€on€its€clear€meaning:€ð ðThere€appears€to€be€no€doubt€that€theÏlegislature€intended€to€permit€consideration€of€all€prior€felony€convictionsÏoccurring€during€the€defendantððs€life.ðð€€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€836€S.W.2d€130,€136Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Therefore,€the€state€maintains€that€the€language€in€theÏstatute€is€clear€and€that€the€appellant€was€properly€classified€as€a€careerÏoffender.ÌÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€state€that€the€statutes€challenged€by€the€appellantÏclearly€indicate€that€all€felony€convictions€during€a€defendantððs€lifetime€may€beÏconsidered€when€deciding€whether€to€classifiy€him€as€a€career€offender.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€term€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€inÏthe€trial€courtððs€reasonable€doubt€jury€instruction€violates€the€due€processÏprovision€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€€Although€the€state€notes€that€theÏrecord€does€not€contain€the€trial€courtððs€reasonable€doubt€jury€instruction,€itÏasserts€that€the€courts€of€this€state€have€determined€that€the€use€of€this€termÏdoes€not€render€the€reasonable€doubt€jury€instruction€unconstitutional.€€€ÌÌà àThe€record€before€us€does€not€contain€the€jury€instructions€given€at€theÏtrial.€€It€is€the€appellantððs€responsibility€to€prepare€a€record€that€includes€allÍmaterial€necessary€for€disposition€of€his€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(e);€òòseeóóÏòòState€v.€Beechóó,€744€S.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Failing€to€do€soÏresults€in€a€waiver€of€this€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€Ct.€Crim.€App.,€Rule€10(b).€€ÌÌà àTherefore,€the€judgment€of€the€court€denying€post„conviction€relief€isÏaffirmed.ÇÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________›ÌœJ.€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,›€Judgeœ