ÿWPC² ©×’+ïÆH®Î H«Î&­µz˜‡4uy€õ.þÁÀod¯Î8öÒÎß/H•z”G¸¾mºž ã¼.Å2ÅÈÛà‡#Ëã²üÈ^Gò¥©c•W"l‘ÌyùM¾¦n%Ë]½s&B*ÚB‹Ñ6X Î¥”ÁÉ)/Búèè "©@h©¾JÖ#Å™êV¶Ú¸‡Þ™4'â5^øñ‘th0£ìÿ‹#Y¾.!ã²µi|¬ SÍn«­j@‘`u)-ÄÕgð‘¶g®‡§9µp/«gâN;§á\†EΖ@¤ÃÅI+NçUW?Zª—Í ¾VÄ¢9#ým¿ç¸ÞŸEù"Y9Ëk¿A€žLŒIvY¸<%‡"ˆ›¦lðVyØm(ªJ¬;ZKD+ºmºÝSÜ ó\¿ŽdUµRUôvñ® bNŽiÓ=ƒ1Y™cyûV²’ÝŠÕ>Lñ®Ç罤1Î3hÀæÃ€ÚO󋉫+Õä5û †jïHvÉ'ŽXÄð‚¡ Tå°F¨·_8(ŒÊZñ¨^ªµ%â ÑÎR @D{#è+6¦,ß„¿Ï›‘q쬅{‹À^û̈W$”ØBá­ó¤.ÊS(ö1ù„o–ÓœÒb %\Nb 0ˆdUbNì 1u: z¯Ò) zû Òu NG 72I 0c{ zÞ ÆX Æ Æä ƪÒpNB^ DwPET4Vjy m{ó’#É… 0DNÞ’çpWWF____________b¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ 0ë­­­­ B˜˜ 0¤µ D5Y D-Ž 0K»» ASÆY 0¤ 0Dà A«»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpti)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt¢€~1Ï  ~‰/ê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ éÝ ƒRòK$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôý„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOur€review€of€the€trial€transcript€reveals€that€the€defense€presented€the€testimony€of€only€five€witnesses.˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÔÝ ƒRòK$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôý„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€alleges€only€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial. ÝÝ ƒRòK$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôý„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€been€unable€to€locate€his€file€on€the€petitionerððs€case.  <Ý ƒRòK$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôý„ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€post„conviction€court€initially€appointed€Michael€Ô_ÔSchollÔ_Ô€to€represent€the€petitioner€in€seeking€post„Ð ° Ðconviction€relief.€€However,€Ô_ÔSchollÔ_Ô€was€subsequently€allowed€to€withdraw€as€counsel,€and€the€post„conviction€courtÐ qÁ Ðappointed€William€D.€Massey,€who€had€assisted€the€petitioner€in€preparing€her€pro€se€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.- ù-(|G2òK$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ü1»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôý„ò»»Ô d(|37$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ü1»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ü1»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ü1»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ü1»»»ÔÑ8€‰¿XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î/îÜ1ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼Ü1»îî/î#ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJuly€13,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿!#ÔMARIA€Ô_ÔMACLINÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ôó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„22833€€€€€€Bernie€Ô_ÔWeinmanÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„02667„CCA„R3„PC€€„€Filed€November€24,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Maria€Ô_ÔMaclinÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€by€a€Shelby€County€jury€of€second€degree€murder.€€TheÐ V¦  Ðtrial€court€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€twenty„two€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction,Ð ? Ðand€a€ten€thousand€dollar€fine€was€imposed.€€Following€an€unsuccessful€appeal€of€her€conviction,Ð (x Ðthe€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€atÐ a Ðtrial.€€The€petitioner€now€brings€this€appeal€challenging€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€herÐ úJ Ðpetition.€€After€reviewing€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„Ð ã3 Ðconviction€court.Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿µ#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ Ì ÐÓüÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ žî ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ü1»àX‰¿2#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X.¼Ü1ÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJohn€Everett€Williamsóó€andÐ qÁ ÐòòAlan€E.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Zª ÐÌC.€Michael€Robbins€and€James€Thomas,€Memphis,€Tennessee€(at€trial),€and€William€D.€Massey€andÐ ,| ÐLorna€Ô_ÔMcCluskyÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€Tennessee€(on€appeal),€for€the€appellant,€Maria€Ô_ÔMaclinÔ_Ô.Ð e ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ç 7  ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Emily€Campbell,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ Ð! ! ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€TennesseeÐ ¹" " ÐÓèÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿ #ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ ‹$Û$ ÐÌòòò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundóóó óÐ ^&®!& ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€facts€of€this€case€were€set€out€in€this€courtððs€opinion€on€direct€appeal:Ð 1(#( ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€[petitioner]€and€her€family€had€been€feuding€with€the€victim,Ð *S%* ÐGlenn€Taylor,€and€his€family€for€many€years.€€On€the€evening€ofÐ ì*<&+ ÐJanuary€26,€1996,€the€[petitioner],€the€victim,€and€members€of€eachÐ Õ+%', Ðof€their€families€attended€a€basketball€game€at€East€High€School€inÐ ¾,(- ÐMemphis.€€The€families€sat€on€opposite€sides€of€the€arena€andÐ §-÷(.ý ÐÔ_Ôgestured€to€each€other€throughout€the€game.€€At€its€conclusion,€theÐ ° Ð[petitioner]€stood€in€the€crowded€school€parking€lot€with€her€sister,Ð ™é ÐLatrice€Woods,€who€accused€Kena€ð ðSheaðð€Blakney,€the€older€sisterÐ ‚Ò Ðof€the€victim,€of€having€stolen€$100.00€from€her.€€In€response,€Ms.Ð k» ÐBlakney€accused€Ms.€Woods€of€slashing€her€tires.€€A€fist€fightÐ T¤ Ðfollowed.€€When€the€victim€saw€his€sister€fighting,€he€intervened,Ð =  Ðstriking€either€Ms.€Woods€or€the€[petitioner]€in€the€process.€€TheÐ & v Ð[petitioner]€then€drew€her€gun€and,€as€the€victim€attempted€to€flee,Ð  _ Ðshe€shot€him€twice,€killing€him.Ðø H` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Maria€Maclinóó,€No.€02C01„9710„CR„00383,€1998€WL€517839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,Ð Ê   ÐAug.€21,€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€8,€1999)Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿™ #ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€Shelby€County€jury€of€second€degree€murder.€€The€trialÐ …Õ  Ðcourt€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€twenty„two€years€incarceration,€and€a€ten€thousand€dollar€fine€wasÐ n¾  Ðimposed.€€The€petitioner€subsequently€filed€a€direct€appeal,€challenging€the€trial€courtððs€charge€toÐ W§  Ðthe€jury€and€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€This€court€affirmed€the€petitionerððs€convictionÐ @ Ðand€sentence.€€òòId.óó€€Thereafter,€the€petitioner€timely€filed€a€pro€se€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ð )y Ðalleging€numerous€grounds€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ b Ðappointed€counsel€to€represent€the€petitioner,׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€amended€petitions€were€filed,€alleging€additionalÐ ûK Ðgrounds€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€challenging€the€trial€courtððs€charge€to€the€jury.׃Ó×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àOn€April€25,€2003,€the€post„conviction€court€held€an€evidentiary€hearing€at€which€theÐ ¶ Ðpetitioner,€her€mother,€her€sister,€and€trial€counsel€testified.€€The€petitionerððs€mother,€LueTissueÐ Ÿï ÐElliott,€testified€that€she€hired€trial€counsel€to€represent€the€petitioner.€€Elliott€related€that€sheÐ ˆØ Ðattended€the€petitionerððs€meetings€with€trial€counsel€and€that€they€met€on€only€three€occasions.€Ð qÁ ÐElliott€claimed€that€the€petitioner€informed€trial€counsel€that€she€shot€the€victim€in€self„defense,€butÐ Zª Ðtrial€counsel€told€her€that€there€was€no€such€defense.Ð C“ ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€sister,€Latrice€Woods,€testified€that€she€was€also€present€at€the€meetings€withÐ e Ðtrial€counsel.€€Woods€claimed€that€the€petitioner€attempted€to€inform€trial€counsel€of€the€facts€of€theÐ þN Ðcase€and€to€discuss€possible€defenses.€€However,€when€the€petitioner€asked€if€she€could€plead€self„Ð ç 7 Ðdefense€for€coming€to€the€aid€of€Woods,€trial€counsel€replied€that€there€was€ð ðno€such€thing€as€self„Ð Ð!   Ðdefense€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.ððÐ ¹" ! ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€trial€counsel€was€retained€after€her€case€was€bound€over€to€theÐ ‹$Û# ÐShelby€County€Criminal€Court.€€Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿>#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔShe€claimed€that€prior€to€trial€she€had€only€three€meetings€with€trialÐ t%Ä $ Ðcounsel€and€that€each€meeting€lasted€only€twenty€to€twenty„five€minutes.€€The€petitioner€testifiedÐ ]&­!% Ðthat€she€informed€trial€counsel€at€the€outset€of€his€representation€that€she€shot€the€victim.€€She€toldÐ ° Ðtrial€counsel€that€on€January€26,€1996,€following€a€high€school€basketball€game,€her€sister,€LatriceÐ ™é ÐWoods,€and€the€victimððs€sister,€Kena€Lashea€Blakney,€began€fighting€in€the€schoolððs€parking€lot.€Ð ‚Ò ÐThe€victim€intervened€in€the€fight,€striking€Woods€twice.€€The€petitioner€observed€that€the€victimÐ k» Ðhad€a€gun,€so€she€ð ðpulled€[her]€gun€too,ðð€shooting€the€victim.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€she€shotÐ T¤ Ðthe€victim€because€she€feared€for€her€life€and€the€life€of€her€sister.Ð =  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€when€she€told€trial€counsel€that€she€shot€the€victim€in€self„Ð  _ Ðdefense,€trial€counsel€informed€her€that€Tennessee€did€not€have€ð ðself„defense€law.ðð€€Trial€counselÐ ø H Ðfurther€informed€her€that€the€theory€of€defense€at€trial€would€be€based€upon€the€Stateððs€lack€ofÐ á 1  Ðevidence,€including€the€lack€of€fingerprints,€ballistic€evidence,€and€gunpowder€residue.€€TheÐ Ê   Ðpetitioner€testified€that€she€relied€upon€the€advice€of€trial€counsel,€believing€his€theory€of€defenseÐ ³  Ðwas€in€her€best€interest.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€trial€counsel€never€mentioned€the€theories€ofÐ œì  Ðself„defense€or€voluntary€manslaughter.Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€at€their€final€meeting€prior€to€trial,€she€informed€trial€counsel€thatÐ W§  Ðshe€wanted€to€testify,€but€trial€counsel€told€her€that€ð ðit€would€hurt€[her]€if€[she]€testified.ðð€€Again,Ð @ Ðthe€petitioner€relied€on€the€advice€of€trial€counsel.€€The€petitioner€related€that€if€she€had€testified€atÐ )y Ðtrial,€she€would€have€informed€the€jury€that€at€the€time€of€the€shooting€she€feared€for€her€life€and€theÐ b Ðlife€of€her€sister.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€trial€counsel€did€not€visit€her€after€she€was€confinedÐ ûK Ðin€jail€between€trial€and€sentencing.€€She€further€claimed€that€she€did€not€know€that€she€had€a€rightÐ ä4 Ðto€testify€at€sentencing.Ð Í ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€no€testimony€was€presented€at€trial€that€the€victim€was€armedÐ Ÿï Ðwhen€he€struck€Woods€in€the€head.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€although€she€informed€trial€counselÐ ˆØ Ðthat€she€knew€of€several€witnesses€who€would€have€testified€to€this€fact,€trial€counsel€ð ð[acted€like]Ð qÁ Ð[w]hatever€we€have€thatððs€what€weððre€going€to€use.ðð€€According€to€the€petitioner,€trial€counsel€didÐ Zª Ðnot€speak€with€her€during€trial,€and€when€he€spoke€with€her€during€recesses€the€conversations€wereÐ C“ Ðð ðunimportant.ððÐ ,| ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€trial€counsel€informed€her€of€the€Stateððs€plea€offers€of€fifteen€andÐ þN Ðtwelve€years,€but€she€told€trial€counsel€that€she€wanted€to€proceed€to€trial€because€she€had€acted€inÐ ç 7 Ðself„defense.€€The€petitioner€explained€that€she€believed€that€trial€counsel€would€present€a€theory€ofÐ Ð!   Ðself„defense;€however,€trial€counsel€failed€to€do€so.€€When€the€petitioner€told€trial€counsel€that€sheÐ ¹" ! Ðwas€upset€that€he€had€not€presented€the€theory€of€self„defense,€trial€counsel€acted€ð ðnonchalant.ðð€€TheÐ ¢#ò" Ðpetitioner€claimed€that€she€had€no€knowledge€of€criminal€procedure,€stating€thatÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿•#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô€she€had€beenÐ ‹$Û# Ðarrested€on€only€one€prior€occasion€for€forgery€and€had€pled€guilty€to€that€charge.€Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿-#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ t%Ä $ ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€his€practice€was€limited€to€criminal€lawÐ F'–"& Ðand€that€he€had€previously€represented€defendants€in€murder€trials.€€Trial€counsel€was€unable€toÐ /(#' Ðrecall€the€number€of€times€he€met€with€the€petitioner;€however,€he€denied€meeting€with€her€on€onlyÐ )h$( Ðthree€occasions,€estimating€that€they€met€twenty€times.€€Trial€counsel€recalled€that€the€petitionerððsÐ *Q%) Ðmother€and€sister€were€present€at€several€of€the€meetings.€€Trial€counsel€estimated€that€he€spent€tenÐ ê*:&* Ðhours€on€the€petitionerððs€case,€claiming,€ð ðI€didnððt€stay€awake€nights€worrying€about€it,€but€I€did€asÐ Ó+#'+ Ðmuch€as€I€could€do€on€this€case.ðð€€Trial€counsel€also€met€and€interviewed€six€witnesses€whom€heÐ ° Ðsubsequently€called€to€testify€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner.€€According€to€trial€counsel,€all€six€witnessesÐ ™é Ðtestified€that€they€did€not€observe€the€petitioner€with€a€gun€on€the€night€of€the€shooting.€€Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿»-#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ ‚Ò ÐÌà  àÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿M2#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔTrial€counsel€denied€telling€the€petitioner€that€ð ðthere€was€no€such€thing€as€self„defense€inÐ T¤ ÐTennessee,ðð€but€explained€that€defending€oneððs€sister€did€not€constitute€self„defense.€€Trial€counselÐ =  Ðrelated€that€he€did€not€believe€that€self„defense€was€a€viable€defense€because€the€jury€would€notÐ & v Ðlikely€believe€that€the€petitioner€was€placed€in€fear€by€the€fifteen„year„old€victim€whom€she€shot€inÐ  _ Ðthe€back.€€He€further€related€that€defense€of€another€was€not€an€option€because€the€petitioner€deniedÐ ø H Ðshooting€the€victim.€€Trial€counsel€explained€that€he€had€never€presented€a€theory€based€upon€theÐ á 1  Ðdefense€of€others€and€chose€not€to€in€the€petitionerððs€case.Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€the€petitioner€wanted€to€go€to€trial€and€rejected€the€Stateððs€initialÐ œì  Ðplea€offer€of€a€fifteen„year€sentence€and€a€subsequent€offer€of€twelve€years.€€According€to€trialÐ …Õ  Ðcounsel,€the€petitioner€agreed€to€pursue€a€theory€based€upon€the€Stateððs€inability€to€prove€its€case.€Ð n¾  ÐThe€victim€claimed,€ð ðeven€if€I€did€shoot€[the€victim],€the€State€canððt€pro[ve]€it.€€They€didnððt€find€theÐ W§  Ðweapon.€.€.€.€[T]hey€didnððt€take€any€fingerprints,€didnððt€do€a€lot€of€different€stuff€.€.€.€.ðð€€Trial€counselÐ @ Ðstated,€ð ð[S]ome€of€that€stuff€was€true,€.€.€.€the€police€were€lax€in€their€investigation€.€.€.€,€and€thatððsÐ )y Ðthe€theory€that€we€presented€at€trial.ðð€€At€trial,€trial€counsel€emphasized€the€Stateððs€lack€ofÐ b Ðfingerprint€and€ballistic€evidence€and€its€failure€to€test€the€petitionerððs€hands€for€gunshot€residue.€Ð ûK ÐHe€also€attempted€to€discredit€the€content€of€the€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses€to€ð ðput€someÐ ä4 Ðdoubt€in€the€juryððs€mind.ððÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿±2#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ Í ÐÌà  àÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿Â:#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔTrial€counsel€denied€telling€the€petitioner€that€she€did€not€have€the€right€to€testify€at€trial.€Ð Ÿï ÐHe€claimed€that€he€told€the€petitioner€that€she€had€an€absolute€right€to€testify,€but€she€did€not€wantÐ ˆØ Ðto€testify.€€Trial€counsel€acknowledged€that€if€the€petitioner€had€testified,€he€would€have€argued€thatÐ qÁ Ðshe€shot€the€victim€in€defense€of€her€sister€or€in€the€heat€of€passion.Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿&;#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ Zª ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€trial€counsel€acknowledged€that€the€petitioner€subsequently€informedÐ ,| Ðhim€that€she€had€shot€the€victim€after€she€observed€the€victim€assaulting€Woods€with€a€gun.€€TheÐ e Ðpetitioner€informed€trial€counsel€that€at€the€time€of€the€shooting€she€feared€for€her€life€and€the€lifeÐ þN Ðof€her€sister.€€TÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿=#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ôrial€counsel€conceded€that€the€State€presented€the€testimony€of€witnesses€whoÐ ç 7 Ðclaimed€that€the€petitioner€shot€the€victim;€however,€trial€counsel€disagreed€that€the€State€presentedÐ Ð!   Ðoverwhelming€evidence€that€ð ðput€[the€petitioner]€in€possession€of€a€weapon.ðð€€Trial€counsel€notedÐ ¹" ! Ðthat€the€State€also€presented€the€testimony€of€witnesses€who€claimed€that€they€did€not€observe€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðpetitioner€with€a€weapon.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€he€considered€presenting€evidence€of€voluntaryÐ ‹$Û# Ðmanslaughter,€but€the€petitioner€denied€shooting€the€victim€and€wanted€to€proceed€on€the€theory€thatÐ t%Ä $ Ðthe€State€had€failed€to€prove€its€case.€€Trial€counsel€noted€that€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€onÐ ]&­!% Ðvoluntary€manslaughter€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€second€degree€murder.€Ð F'–"& ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€conceded€that€because€the€petitionerððs€trial€was€in€1997,€he€was€unable€to€recallÐ )h$( Ðâ âmeeting€with€the€petitioner€between€conviction€and€sentencing;€however,€he€explained€that€it€wouldÐ *Q%) Ðhave€been€normal€procedure€to€meet€with€her€twice€to€inform€her€of€what€to€expect€at€sentencing.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° Ðâ âTrial€counsel€was€also€unable€to€recall€advising€the€petitioner€of€her€right€to€testify€at€sentencing.€Ð ™é ÐHowever,€he€noted€that€the€petitioner€made€a€statement€to€the€trial€court€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€Ð ‚Ò ÐAccording€to€trial€counsel,€the€trial€court€asked€the€petitioner€if€she€had€anything€to€say€before€heÐ k» Ðpronounced€sentence,€and€the€petitioner€told€the€trial€court€that€the€State€had€failed€to€prove€that€sheÐ T¤ Ðshot€the€victim.€€Trial€counsel€claimed€that€he€had€been€unaware€that€the€petitioner€had€wanted€toÐ =  Ðmake€a€statement€to€the€trial€court.Ð & v ÐÌà  àIn€rebuttal,€the€petitioner€testified€that€in€the€days€following€the€shooting€she€provided€theÐ ø H Ðpolice€with€two€statements€in€which€she€claimed€that€she€had€shot€the€victim€in€self„defense€andÐ á 1  Ðdefense€of€her€sister.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€trial€counsel€was€the€one€who€advised€her€that€theÐ Ê   ÐState€would€be€unable€to€prove€she€shot€the€victim.Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿ñ>#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ ³  ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€testimony,€the€post„conviction€court€took€the€matter€underÐ …Õ  Ðadvisement.€€Subsequently,€the€post„conviction€court€held€two€additional€hearings€on€the€matter.€Ð n¾  ÐAt€a€hearing€on€June€5,€2003,€Janet€Shipman,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€who€prosecutedÐ W§  Ðthe€instant€case,€testified€that€she€and€trial€counsel€discussed€the€case€on€many€occasions.€€SheÐ @ Ðrelated€that€trial€counsel€visited€her€office€several€times€to€discuss€plea€offers,€review€the€case€file,Ð )y Ðand€learn€of€the€Stateððs€witnesses.€€Shipman€recalled€that€the€petitioner€had€given€two€statementsÐ b Ðto€the€police,€which€statements€were€made€available€to€trial€counsel.€€Shipman€testified€that€the€StateÐ ûK Ðdid€not€enter€the€statements€into€evidence€at€trial€because€they€were€ð ðself„servingðð€andÐ ä4 Ðð ðcontradictory.ððÐ Í ÐÌà  àShipman€testified€that€prior€to€sentencing,€trial€counsel€filed€a€notice€of€mitigating€factorsÐ Ÿï Ðon€behalf€of€the€petitioner.€€In€the€notice,€trial€counsel€noted€the€applicability€of€several€factorsÐ ˆØ Ðwhich€were€based€upon€the€petitionerððs€shooting€the€victim€in€order€to€defend€her€sister.€€ShipmanÐ qÁ Ðrelated€that€although€trial€counsel€had€been€under€no€duty€to€disclose€his€theory€of€defense,€sheÐ Zª Ðbelieved€that€€he€had€indicated€that€he€would€pursue€a€theory€of€defense€of€others.€€According€toÐ C“ ÐShipman,€trial€counsel€had€attempted€to€have€the€State€admit€that€the€victim€was€holding€a€gun€atÐ ,| Ðthe€time€of€the€shooting.€€Shipman€recalled€that€at€trial,€trial€counsel€presented€the€theory€of€defenseÐ e Ðof€another€and€attempted€to€discredit€the€Stateððs€evidence€by€noting€inconsistencies€in€the€testimonyÐ þN Ðof€the€Stateððs€witnesses.€€Trial€counsel€also€argued€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€that€the€petitioner€shotÐ ç 7 Ðthe€victim€in€order€to€defend€her€sister.€€Shipman€recalled€that€although€the€petitioner€did€not€testifyÐ Ð!   Ðat€trial,€she€did€make€a€statement€to€the€trial€court€at€sentencing.Ð ¹" ! ÐÌà  àJane€Sturdivant€testified€at€the€same€hearing€that€she€assisted€trial€counsel€in€defending€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðpetitioner€at€trial.€€She€related€that€on€the€morning€of€trial,€trial€counsel€asked€for€her€assistance€atÐ t%Ä $ Ðtrial.€€When€Sturdivant€inquired€as€to€the€theory€of€defense,€trial€counsel€responded€that€he€hadÐ ]&­!% Ðseveral€theories€of€defense,€including€presenting€the€theory€of€defense€of€others€and€challenging€theÐ F'–"& ÐStateððs€lack€of€evidence.€€In€order€to€determine€how€to€proceed€on€defense,€trial€counsel€waivedÐ /(#' Ðopening€statement€and€allowed€the€State€to€present€its€case„in„chief.€€Sturdivant€was€unable€to€recallÐ )h$( Ðwhich€theory€of€defense€trial€counsel€pursued,€but€claimed€that€there€was€nothing€unusual€in€trialÐ ° Ðcounselððs€representation€of€the€petitioner.Ð ™é ÐÌà  àLueTissue€Elliott€was€recalled€to€testify€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner.€€She€testified€that€at€theÐ k» Ðclose€of€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief,€she€attended€a€meeting€between€trial€counsel€and€the€petitioner.€Ð T¤ ÐAccording€to€Elliott,€trial€counsel€commented,€ð ð[W]ow,€they€didnððt€use€those€statement[s].€€We€gotÐ =  Ðit€made.ðð€€On€cross„examination,€Elliott€acknowledged€that€trial€counsel€was€surprised€that€the€StateÐ & v Ðdid€not€introduce€the€petitionerððs€statements.€€However,€she€claimed€that€trial€counsel€failed€toÐ  _ Ðexplain€why€the€Stateððs€failure€to€use€the€statements€was€ð ða€good€thing.ðð€€Elliott€furtherÐ ø H Ðacknowledged€that€no€defense€witness€testified€that€they€had€observed€the€petitioner€shoot€theÐ á 1  Ðvictim.Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àThe€final€hearing€on€this€matter€was€held€on€July€10,€2003.€€At€that€hearing,€trial€counselÐ œì  Ðtestified€that€since€his€previous€testimony€in€this€matter€he€had€reviewed€the€petitionerððs€case€file.€Ð …Õ  ÐHe€recalled€that€at€trial€there€were€two€possible€theories€of€defense.€€The€first€approach€was€to€argueÐ n¾  Ðthat€the€State€had€not€proven€that€the€petitioner€shot€the€victim.€€This€theory€was€based€upon€theÐ W§  ÐStateððs€lack€of€fingerprint€and€ballistic€evidence.€€The€second€approach€was€to€present€the€theory€ofÐ @ Ðdefense€of€others€by€arguing€that€the€petitioner€shot€the€victim€to€protect€Woods.€€Trial€counselÐ )y Ðexplained€that€before€choosing€the€theory€with€which€to€proceed,€he€waived€opening€statement€andÐ b Ðwaited€to€see€the€evidence€presented€by€the€State.€€When€the€State€chose€not€to€introduce€theÐ ûK Ðpetitionerððs€statements€in€which€she€told€police€that€she€had€shot€the€victim,€trial€counsel€believedÐ ä4 Ðthat€the€State€had€failed€to€prove€its€case,€and€he€made€the€tactical€decision€to€proceed€with€thatÐ Í Ðtheory€of€defense.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€he€presented€the€testimony€of€six€witnesses€whoÐ ¶ Ðtestified€that€they€had€not€observed€the€petitioner€with€a€gun€nor€had€they€observed€the€petitionerÐ Ÿï Ðshoot€the€victim.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€cross„examination,€trial€counsel€conceded€that€the€petitionerððs€statements€toÐ ˆØ Ðthe€police€raised€the€issue€that€the€petitioner€acted€in€defense€of€another.Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿îH#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ qÁ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€testimony,€the€post„conviction€court€again€took€the€matter€underÐ C“ Ðadvisement.€€On€October€8,€2003,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€an€order€denying€the€petition,Ð ,| Ðfinding,Ð e ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[T]he€trial€attorney€adequately€investigated€this€case.€€HeÐ ç 7 Ðinterviewed€all€the€defense€witnesses€prior€to€trial,€met€on€numerousÐ Ð!   Ðoccasions€with€his€client€and€met€with€the€prosecution€on€severalÐ ¹" ! Ðoccasions€in€an€attempt€to€persuade€them€that€the€victim€had€a€gunÐ ¢#ò" Ðand€to€get€the€most€favorable€guilty€plea.Ћ$Û#` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€Court€further€finds€that€the€defense€attorney€developed€aÐ ]&­!% Ðtrial€strategy€that€he€felt€would€be€the€most€effective€for€his€client.€Ð F'–"& ÐHe€was€of€the€opinion€that€under€the€facts€of€this€case€self„defense€orÐ /(#' Ðthe€defense€o[f]€another€was€not€a€viable€defense.€€He€felt€from€hisÐ )h$( Ðinvestigation€that€the€State€could€not€carry€its€burden€of€proof€and€itÐ ° Ðappears€that€the€attorneyððs€advice€to€his€client€not€to€testify€wasÐ ™é Ðsound€advice€considering€the€entire€strategy€and€the€defendantððsÐ ‚Ò Ðprevious€statement[s]€to€the€police.€€The€Court€further€finds€that€theÐ k» Ðattorney€consulted€with€his€client€concerning€the€trial€strategy€andÐ T¤ Ðshe€was€in€full€agreement.Ð= ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€.Ð _` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€Court€does€not€find€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ á 1  Ðbecause€in€hindsight€another€trial€strategy€may€have€been€moreÐ Ê   Ðeffective€than€the€one€utilized.Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿1`#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ԁг ` x` x ÐÌThe€petitioner€now€brings€this€appeal€challenging€the€denial€of€her€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿%h#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ …Õ  ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òII.€€Analysisóóó óÐ W§  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àIn€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€grounds€raisedÐ *z Ðin€the€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„110(f)€(2003).€Ð c Ðð ðEvidence€is€clear€and€convincing€when€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€the€correctnessÐ üL Ðof€the€conclusions€drawn€from€the€evidence.ðð€€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð å5 ÐApp.€1998)€(citing€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€n.3€(Tenn.€1992))Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿ðh#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô.€€IssuesÐ Î Ðregarding€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€accorded€their€testimony,€and€theÐ · Ðfactual€questions€raised€by€the€evidence€adduced€at€trial€are€to€be€resolved€by€the€post„convictionÐ  ð Ðcourt€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€579€(Tenn.€1997).€€Therefore,€we€affordÐ ‰Ù Ðthe€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€with€such€findings€beingÐ r Ðconclusive€on€appeal€absent€a€showing€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€thoseÐ [« Ðfindings.€€òòId.óó€at€578.òòòòóóóóÐ D” ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€a€òòóóclaim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€presents€a€mixed€question€of€law€andÐ f Ðfact€subject€to€de€novo€review.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€òòóóAs€such,€the€post„Ð ÿO Ðconviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€correctness€unless€the€evidenceÐ è 8 Ðpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).€€However,Ð Ñ!!  Ða€post„conviction€courtððs€conclusions€of€law,€such€as€whether€counselððs€performance€was€deficientÐ º" ! Ðor€whether€that€deficiency€was€prejudicial,€are€subject€to€a€purely€de€novo€review€with€noÐ £#ó" Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòId.óóÐ Œ$Ü# ÐÌà  àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ^&®!% Ðcounsel,€ð ðthe€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€both€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficientÐ G'—"& Ðand€that€the€deficiency€prejudiced€the€defense.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)Ð 0(€#' Ð(citing€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984)).Ð )i$( ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€a€failureÐ ë*;&* Ðto€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€toÐ Ô+$'+ Ðdeny€relief€on€the€ineffective€assistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€needÐ ° Ðnot€address€the€components€in€any€particular€order€or€even€addressÐ ™é Ðboth€if€the€[petitioner]€makes€an€insufficient€showing€of€oneÐ ‚Ò Ðcomponent.Ðk»` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€370òòóó.€Ð =  ÐÌà  àTo€establish€constitutionally€deficient€performance,€the€petitioner€must€demonstrate€thatÐ  _ Ðcounselððs€representation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð ø H Ðat€687„88,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064;€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€must€show€thatÐ á 1  Ðcounselððs€performance€was€not€within€ð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÐ Ê   Ðcases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€On€appeal,€this€court€will€neitherÐ ³  Ðsecond€guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€decisions€of€defense€counsel,€nor€measure€the€representationÐ œì  Ðby€ð ð20„20€hindsight.ðð€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993).€€To€establish€prejudice,Ð …Õ  Ðthe€petitioner€must€show€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessionalÐ n¾  Ðerrors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€aÐ W§  Ðprobability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ÓÓðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104Ð @ ÐS.€Ct.€at€2068;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòDean€v.€Stateóó,€59€S.W.3d€663,€667€(Tenn.€2001).Ð )y ÐÌà  àÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿Òk#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€first€contends€that€trial€counsel€rendered€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ûK Ðcounsel€by€failing€to€proceed€on€the€theories€of€self„defense€and€defense€of€another€and€by€failingÐ ä4 Ðto€present€evidence€of€the€lesser„included€offense€of€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Specifically,€theÐ Í Ðpetitioner€argues€that€in€light€of€the€ð ðoverwhelmingðð€evidence€presented€by€the€State€at€trial€that€theÐ ¶ Ðpetitioner€shot€the€victim,€ð ðit€[was]€patently€unreasonable€as€a€matter€of€law€for€trial€defense€counselÐ Ÿï Ðto€have€maintained€[the]€theory€of€defense€.€.€.€that€the€prosecution€could€not€satisfy€its€burden€ofÐ ˆØ Ðproof.ðð€€According€to€the€petitioner,€the€only€viable€theories€of€defense€were€self„defense€andÐ qÁ Ðdefense€of€another.Ð Zª ÐÌà  àAs€previously€noted,€this€court€will€neither€second€guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€decisionsÐ ,| Ðof€defense€counsel,€nor€measure€the€representation€by€ð ð20„20€hindsight.ðð€€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€atÐ e Ð746.€€ð ðThus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€even€hurt€the€defense€does€not,Ð þN Ðalone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.€€Deference€is€made€for€òòsoundóó€trial€strategy.€Ð ç 7 ÐHowever,€this€deference€to€tactical€choices€only€applies€if€the€choices€are€informed€ones€based€uponÐ Ð!   Ðadequate€preparation.ðð€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿t{#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô(citingÐ ¹" ! ÐòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)).Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àIn€its€order€denying€post„conviction€relief,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€trial€counselÐ t%Ä $ Ðð ðadequately€investigated€this€caseÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿þ#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô€.€.€.€[and]€developed€a€trial€strategy€that€he€felt€would€be€the€mostÐ ]&­!% Ðeffective€for€his€client.€.€.€.€Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿Mƒ#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔThe€Court€does€not€find€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€inÐ F'–"& Ðhindsight€another€trial€strategy€may€have€been€more€effective€than€the€one€utilizedÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿ „#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô.ðð€€We€agree.Ð /(#' ÐÌà  àÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿ø„#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔAt€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€July€10,€2003,€trial€counsel€testified€that€prior€to€trial€heÐ *Q%) Ðdeveloped€two€possible€theories€of€defense:€(1)€that€the€State€had€failed€to€prove€its€case€beyond€aÐ ê*:&* Ðreasonable€doubt€and€(2)€that€the€petitioner€had€acted€in€defense€of€her€sister€when€she€shot€theÐ Ó+#'+ Ðvictim.€€Trial€counsel€explained€that€the€theory€presented€at€trial€depended€upon€the€evidenceÐ ° Ðpresented€by€the€State.€€Accordingly,€trial€counsel€waived€opening€statement€in€order€for€the€StateÐ ™é Ðto€present€its€case„in„chief.€€When€the€State€failed€to€introduce€into€evidence€the€petitionerððsÐ ‚Ò Ðstatements€to€police€in€which€she€confessed€to€shooting€the€victim,€trial€counsel€made€the€tacticalÐ k» Ðdecision€to€proceed€on€the€theory€that€the€State€had€not€met€its€burden€of€proof.€€According€to€trialÐ T¤ Ðcounsel,€the€petitioner€agreed€to€proceed€to€trial€on€that€theory€of€defense.€€As€the€State€notes,€theÐ =  Ðpetitionerððs€statement€to€the€trial€court€at€sentencing€supports€trial€counselððs€testimony.€€AtÐ & v Ðsentencing,€the€petitioner€told€the€trial€court,€ð ðI€didnððt€mean€to€do€whatever€they€say€that€I€done,€butÐ  _ Ðthey€hadnððt€proved€that€I€had€done€this,€Your€Honor,€.€.€.€because€they€didnððt€take€no€fingerprints€orÐ ø H Ðnothing€that€I€had€done€„„€to€prove€that€I€had€done€it.ðð€€Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿l…#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ á 1  ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€contrary€to€the€petitionerððs€argument€on€appeal,€the€Stateððs€evidence€at€trial,Ð ³  Ðalthough€sufficient,€was€not€ð ðoverwhelming.ðð€€The€State€lacked€fingerprint€and€ballistic€evidence,Ð œì  Ðfailed€to€test€the€petitionerððs€hands€for€gunshot€residue,€andÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿˜‹#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô€chose€not€to€introduce€the€petitionerððsÐ …Õ  Ðstatements€to€police€in€which€she€admitted€to€shooting€the€victim.€€Moreover,€trial€counsel€presentedÐ n¾  Ðthe€testimony€of€five€defense€witnesses€present€at€the€time€of€the€shooting€who€testified€that€theyÐ W§  Ðhad€not€observed€the€petitioner€with€a€gun€nor€had€they€observed€the€petitioner€shoot€the€victimÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿1#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô.Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ԀР@ ÐUnder€these€circumstances,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€trial€counselððs€strategy€was€unreasonable.€Ð )y ÐRegarding€the€petitionerððs€argument€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€present€evidence€of€voluntaryÐ b Ðmanslaughter,€we€note€that€the€jury€was€instructed€on€this€lesser„included€offense,€but€chose€toÐ ûK Ðconvict€the€petitioner€of€second€degree€murder.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ä4 ÐÌÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿H#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ôà  àNext,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€represent€the€petitioner€at€trial€in€aÐ ¶ Ðmanner€consistent€with€the€theory€of€defense.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€claims€that€€trial€counselÐ Ÿï Ð(1)€ð ðpermitted€a€witness€to€testify€to€a€hearsay€recitation€from€a€third€party€to€the€effect€that€twoÐ ˆØ Ðwomen€shot€the€deceased,€which€statement€described€the€women€to€include€the€petitionerðð;€(2)€failedÐ qÁ Ðto€object€when€a€photograph€of€the€petitionerððs€sister€was€admitted€into€evidence€and€described€asÐ Zª Ðð ða€photograph€of€the€sister€of€the€shooterðð;€(3)€questioned€State€witness€Carey€Blakney€aboutÐ C“ Ðð ðwhether€he€thought€about€trying€to€take€òòthe€gun€away€from€óó[òòthe€petitioneróó],ðð€which€question€theÐ ,| Ðpetitioner€argues€was€contrary€to€trial€counselððs€theory€of€defense€at€trial;€and€(4)€failed€to€object€toÐ e Ðthe€Stateððs€ð ðextensive€outline€of€[its]€caseðð€during€voir€dire.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€ð ð[a]ll€ofÐ þN Ðthe€above€instances€of€conduct€of€trial€defense€counsel€militate€strongly€against€the€post€convictionÐ ç 7 Ðcourtððs€finding€that€trial€defense€counsel€developed€a€trial€strategy€based€upon€adequateÐ Ð!   Ðinvestigation.ððÐ ¹" ! ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€acknowledged€that€he€did€not€object€to€MajorÐ ‹$Û# ÐSchwillððs€alleged€hearsay€testimony€or€the€admission€of€the€photograph€of€the€petitionerððs€sister.€Ð t%Ä $ ÐHowever,€he€explained€that€he€did€not€want€to€object€ð ðto€everything€Major€Schwill€was€sayingðð€andÐ ]&­!% ÐBlakney€and€the€victimððs€family€intended€to€identify€the€petitioner€as€the€person€who€shot€the€victim.€Ð F'–"& ÐTrial€counsel€also€disagreed€that€by€asking€Blakney€about€taking€the€gun€from€the€petitioner,€heÐ /(#' Ðestablished€that€the€petitioner€had€a€gun.€€Trial€counsel€asked€the€question€ð ðin€response€toÐ )h$( Ð[Blakneyððs]€testimony€that€heððd€seen€her€shoot€and€take€off€at€a€high€rate€of€speed.ððÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿k‘#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô€€Regarding€theÐ *Q%) ÐStateððs€comments€during€voir€dire,€trial€counsel€believed€the€comments€were€proper€to€ensure€thatÐ ê*:&* Ðpotential€jurors€were€not€acquainted€with€the€witnesses.€€Although€the€post„conviction€court€did€notÐ Ó+#'+ Ðaddress€these€issues€individually,€the€court€found€that€counsel€did€not€render€ineffective€assistanceÐ ° Ðof€counsel€at€trial.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€that€finding.Ð ™é ÐÌà  àNext,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€ten€hours€was€a€ð ðwoefully€insufficientðð€amount€of€time€toÐ k» Ðprepare€for€a€four„day€second€degree€murder€trial.€€Although€trial€counsel€testified€at€the€firstÐ T¤ Ðevidentiary€hearing€that€he€spent€ten€hours€preparing€for€trial,€he€estimated€that€he€met€with€theÐ =  Ðpetitioner€twenty€times.€€He€testified€that€he€discussed€the€various€theories€of€defense€with€theÐ & v Ðpetitioner€and€interviewed€six€potential€witnesses.€€Janet€Shipman,€the€assistant€district€attorneyÐ  _ Ðgeneral€who€prosecuted€Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿qš#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ôthe€petitioner,€testified€that€she€and€trial€counsel€met€on€numerous€occasionsÐ ø H Ðto€discuss€the€case€and€for€trial€counsel€to€review€the€Stateððs€case€file.€€Based€upon€the€foregoing,Ð á 1  Ðwe€are€unable€to€conclude€that€trial€counsel€was€unprepared€for€trial.Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€she€was€deprived€of€her€right€to€testify€at€trial€andÐ œì  Ðsentencing.€€Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿Ÿ#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔThe€petitioner€concedes€that€she€agreed€not€to€testify€at€trial,€but€argues€Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿"¡#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ôthat€she€reliedÐ …Õ  Ðupon€the€uninformed€and€ill„founded€advice€of€trial€counsel.€€The€petitioner€alleges€that€had€sheÐ n¾  Ðtestified,€she€would€have€explained€that€she€shot€the€victim€in€self„defense€and€in€the€defense€of€herÐ W§  Ðsister.Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿°¡#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ @ ÐÌà  àIt€is€well„established€that€the€state€and€federal€constitutions€grant€a€criminal€defendant€theÐ b Ðfundamental€right€to€testify€at€trial.€€òòMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€161€(Tenn.€1999).€€TheÐ ûK Ðdecision€to€exercise€or€waive€this€right€rests€solely€with€the€accused,€not€his€attorney.€€òòId.óó€Ð ä4 Ðð ðGenerally,€a€right€that€is€fundamental€and€personal€to€the€defendant€may€only€be€waived€if€thereÐ Í Ðis€evidence€in€the€record€demonstrating€ððan€intentional€relinquishment€or€abandonment€of€a€knownÐ ¶ Ðright€or€privilege.ðððð€€òòId.óó€at€161„62€(quoting€òòJohnson€v.€Zerbstóó,€304€U.S.€458,€464,€58€S.€Ct.€1019,Ð Ÿï Ð1023€(1938)).€€A€waiver€of€this€right€may€not€be€presumed€by€a€silent€record.€€òòId.óó€at€162.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€òòMomonóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€162,€our€supreme€court€outlined€procedural€safeguards€to€ensureÐ Zª Ðthat€a€defendantððs€knowing,€voluntary,€and€intelligent€waiver€of€the€right€to€testify€would€beÐ C“ Ðreflected€on€the€record.€€However,€because€òòMomonóó€served€to€clarify€and€reiterate€the€existing€rightÐ ,| Ðto€testify,€the€procedures€adopted€therein€are€not€to€be€retroactivelyÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿£#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô€applied.€€òòId.óó€at€162„63.€Ð e ÐMoreover,€the€procedural€safeguards€are€prophylactic€in€nature€and€not€constitutionally€required.€Ð þN ÐòòId.óó€at€163.€€As€such,€ð ðthe€mere€failure€to€follow€these€guidelines€will€not€in€and€of€itself€support€aÐ ç 7 Ðclaim€for€deprivation€of€the€constitutional€right€to€testify€if€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€toÐ Ð!   Ðestablish€that€the€right€was€otherwise€personally€waived€by€the€defendant.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ ¹" ! ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€trial€was€held€in€February€1997,€two€years€prior€to€the€supreme€courtððsÐ ‹$Û# Ðdecision€in€òòMomonóó.€€Theòòóórefore,€there€was€no€requirement€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€complyÐ t%Ä $ Ðwith€the€procedures€set€forth€in€that€case.€€Nevertheless,€the€petitioner€had€the€right€to€testify€at€trial.€Ð ]&­!% ÐThis€court€has€previously€observed€that€ð ð[p]rior€to€the€supreme€courtððs€holding€in€òòMomonóó,€aÐ F'–"& Ðpetitionerððs€claim€that€his€counsel€prevented€him€from€testifying€in€his€own€behalf€was€treated€likeÐ /(#' Ðany€other€ground€asserted€for€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€€òòAllen€Dale€Cutshaw€v.Ð )h$( ÐStateóó,€No.€E2002„00438„CCA„R3„PC,€2003€WL€147025,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Jan.Ð *Q%) Ð22,€2003),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2003);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòTerrance€L.€Turner€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M2002„Ð ê*:&* Ð02429„CCA„R3„PC,€2004€WL€587636,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Mar.€25,€2004).Ð Ó+#'+ Їà  àÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿¨#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔAlthough€the€petitioner€concedes€that€she€agreed€not€to€testify€at€trial,€she€argues€that€sheÐ ° Ðrelied€upon€the€uninformed€and€ill„founded€advice€of€trial€counsel.€€We€are€unable€to€conclude€thatÐ ™é Ðtrial€counselððs€advice€was€uninformed€or€ill„founded.€€As€the€post„conviction€court€found,€ð ð[TrialÐ ‚Ò Ðcounsel]€felt€from€his€investigation€that€the€State€could€not€carry€its€burden€of€proof€and€it€appearsÐ k» Ðto€the€Court€that€the€attorneyððs€advice€to€his€client€not€to€testify€was€sound€advice€considering€theÐ T¤ Ðentire€strategy€and€the€[petitionerððs]€previous€statement[s]€to€the€police.ððÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿G¯#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1Ô€€The€evidence€does€notÐ =  Ðpreponderate€against€this€finding.Ð & v ÐÌà  àÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿:²#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔòòóóThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€she€was€deprived€of€the€right€to€testify€at€sentencing.€€WeÐ ø H Ðnote€that€the€trial€court€allowed€the€petitioner€to€make€a€statement€at€sentencing,€in€which€statementÐ á 1  Ðshe€argued€that€the€State€had€failed€to€prove€that€she€shot€the€victim.€€Nevertheless,€the€petitionerÐ Ê   Ðargues€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€meet€with€her€prior€to€sentencing€or€advise€her€that€she€had€theÐ ³  Ðright€to€testify€at€sentencing.€€Although€trial€counsel€was€unable€to€recall€meeting€with€the€petitioner,Ð œì  Ðhe€testified€that€his€normal€practice€was€to€meet€with€a€defendant€at€least€twice€prior€to€sentencing.€Ð …Õ  ÐRegardless,€the€petitioner€offered€no€proof€of€what€her€testimony€would€have€been€had€she€testifiedÐ n¾  Ðat€sentencing.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€prejudice.€Ð W§  ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ô#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿ì²#ÔÔ‡X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÐ @ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òIII.€€Conclusionóóó óÐ b ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àBased€upon€our€review,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€sheÐ å5 Ðwas€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„Ð Î Ðconviction€court.Ð · ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Ü1»XX‰¿·#ÔÔ€X‰¿X»¼Ü1ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð D” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE