ÿWPC/ …# V %a 0ígUBT 4– ª n­¹ U:f 0J  w@ê U:* 0Td 01¸ 0Dé 0^- 0h‹ 0ró e 0|m 0†é 0o 1uÿ 0dt BØU *õU.B)MDCv D3¹ AMìX9 0@‘Ñ6Pf†óì@ßv~&vÓ' AOp-Æ¿- 0D…. D/É. Bø.˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÚƒç"3|x¥«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô ‰DŠ‹ŒDŽD™šÓ€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(á(3“é$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€fvXXdÈdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òOctober€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò uÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ7ÀfvXXdÈdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Ô€&ôÔAlthough€the€trial€court€failed€to€set€forth€specific€factual€findings€with€respect€to€each€ofÏthe€petitionerððs€claimed€grounds€for€relief€as€required€under€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„118,€a€remand€is€unnecessaryÏgiven€the€state€of€the€present€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1984).€Ì ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€&ôÔThe€letters€are€not€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€&ôÔÑ7ÀÖ!XXdÈdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Aside€from€the€prosecutorial€misconduct€claims€that€the€petitioner€raised€during€hisÏdirect€appeal,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€state€gave€the€trial€court€incorrect€information€about€theÏpetitioner,€made€incorrect€statements€concerning€the€petitionerððs€financial€condition,€improperly€plannedÏto€call€the€petitionerððs€retained€attorney€as€a€witness,€failed€to€supply€the€petitioner€with€discovery,€housedÏmembers€of€the€jury,€the€victimððs€family,€and€the€state€witnesses€together,€allowed€inconsistencies€orÏhearsay€in€the€testimony€of€some€of€the€stateððs€witnesses,€seated€the€victimððs€friends€and€family€membersÏclose€to€the€jury,€called€an€ex„employee€of€the€hotel€where€the€petitioner€had€stayed€to€testify€rather€thanÏcalling€a€different€hotel€clerk,€improperly€questioned€the€defendant€about€his€financial€condition,€profferedÏexpert€testimony€on€intoxication,€credited€the€stateððs€witnesses€and€disparaged€the€defense€witnessesÏduring€its€closing€argument,€misstated€the€evidence€during€closing€argument,€misstated€the€law€duringÏclosing€argument,€prevented€the€defendant€from€receiving€a€sentencing€hearing,€and€introduced€videoÏtapes€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial.Ì 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ7ÀÖ!XXdÈdæ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Ô€&ôÔThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€appointed€counsel€was€ineffective€in€her€pretrial€workÏon€the€case€because€she€refused€to€withdraw€from€representing€him,€failed€to€secure€a€bond€hearing€andÏan€indigency€hearing,€failed€to€investigate€his€indigency€status,€failed€to€procure€expert€testimonyÏregarding€intoxication,€failed€to€adequately€prepare€to€cross„examine€the€stateððs€witnesses,€failed€toÏprovide€the€defendant€with€copies€of€proof€obtained€through€discovery,€failed€to€thoroughly€investigateÏthe€crime€scene,€failed€to€file€interlocutory€appeals,€failed€to€advise€the€defendant€about€the€attorney„client€privilege,€ordered€transcripts€of€the€pretrial€hearings€only€fifteen€days€before€trial,€failed€to€file€aÏmotion€for€a€change€of€venue,€and€failed€to€seek€recusal€of€the€trial€judge.ÌÌà àÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€at€trial€because€she€failed€toÏeffectively€cross„examine€the€stateððs€witnesses,€failed€to€request€statements€made€by€the€stateððsÏwitnesses€before€cross„examining€them,€failed€to€consult€with€the€defendant€to€see€if€he€wanted€her€toÏask€any€more€questions€of€the€stateððs€witnesses,€failed€to€request€curative€instructions€or€poll€the€jury€afterÏthe€jury€was€improperly€exposed€to€the€petitionerððs€mug€shots,€failed€to€request€other€curativeÏinstructions,€and€failed€to€object€to€the€trial€judgeððs€participation€in€the€introduction€of€a€photograph€of€theÏvictim.€€With€respect€to€his€appellate€counsel,€the€petitioner€contends€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€disclose€police€contact€with€a€witness,€failing€to€file€affidavits€of€complaint€against€the€trial€judge,Ïthe€assistant€attorney€general€and€the€court€clerk,€and€because€the€petitioner€did€not€have€adequateÏparticipation€in€the€appeal.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(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€&ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓӜـ€ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€+,)A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€OCTOBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÓÓLEN€MARTUCCI,à à€€€€€€à àà àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9412„CR„00438Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àAnderson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€James€B.€Scott,€Jr.,€Judge€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€à àà à)à à€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.€à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJ.€Michael€Clementà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ210€Charles€Seivers€Blvd.à àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌClinton,€TN€37716à àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Patrick€CauleyÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àJames€N.€RamseyÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àJan€HicksÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àAnderson€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àClinton,€TN€37716ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÑ7€ Ö¤ XXdæXXdÈ7Ñà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€œNóóó óÌ›Ìà àÌÓÓà àThe€petitioner,€Len€Martucci,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€AndersonÏCounty€Criminal€Courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€after€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€The€petitioner€has€filed€a€somewhat€rambling,€ninety„five„pageÏbrief€in€this€court€raising€a€panoply€of€issues.€€Essentially,€the€petitioner€argues€that€heÏis€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€for€the€following€reasons:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€the€trial€court€failed€to€hold€a€sentencing€hearing;ÌÌà8 à(2)€the€first€degree€murder€jury€instruction€that€was€given€atÏhis€trial€is€constitutionally€deficient€under€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ï836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992);ÌÌà8 à(3)€the€court€inadequately€charged€the€jury€on€the€stateððsÏburden€of€proof;ÌÌà8 à(4)€judicial€and€prosecutorial€misconduct€violated€his€dueÏprocess€rights;€ÌÌà8 à(5)€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel;ÌÌà8 à(6)€the€petitioner€was€denied€his€choice€of€counsel;ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓHaving€found€no€reversible€error,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.× ƒ. ××  לÌÌ›à àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€in€œDecember€1988,›Ïand€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€This€court€affirmed€his€conviction.€€òòState€v.€LenÏMartuccióó,€No.€213,€Anderson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€3,€1990),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€July€2,€1990).€€In€September€1991,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€after€appointed€counsel€failed€toÏamend€it.€€This€court€reversed€the€dismissal€and€remanded€the€case€in€order€for€theÏpetitionerððs€counsel€to€amend€the€petition.€€òòMartucci€v.€Stateóó,€872€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993).€€The€petitioner€now€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€amendedÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€the€attorney€initially€retainedÏby€the€petitioner€to€represent€him€testified€that€he€felt€compelled€to€withdraw€fromÏrepresenting€the€petitioner€because€the€attorney€believed€he€could€be€a€witness€in€theÏpetitionerððs€trial.€€He€recalled€that€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€to€determine€whether€heÏhad€material€evidence€to€offer€as€a€witness.€€Although€he€originally€believed€that€heÏwould€have€nothing€to€offer€as€a€witness€at€the€petitionerððs€trial,€he€explained€that€itÏbecame€apparent€to€him€as€the€hearing€progressed€that€he€could€not€continue€toÏrepresent€the€petitioner.€ÌÌà àThe€attorney€who€represented€the€petitioner€at€trial€and€prepared€hisÏappellate€brief€also€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€She€said€that€the€petitionerÏwas€unhappy€with€her€while€she€was€representing€him€because€she€used€herÏprofessional€judgment€instead€of€doing€everything€exactly€the€way€he€wanted€it€done.€ÏShe€said€that€she€told€the€court€about€the€petitionerððs€concerns€and€requested€that€theÏpetitioner€be€appointed€an€additional€attorney,€but€the€court€refused.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€her€investigation€of€the€petitionerððs€case,€the€petitionerððsÏtrial€attorney€testified€that€she€traveled€to€Tyler,€Texas,€and€spoke€to€a€number€ofÏpotential€witnesses€that€she€learned€about€from€the€petitioner€or€through€discovery.€ÏShe€said€that€she€also€visited€the€crime€scene€but€that€she€did€not€take€pictures€orÏmeasurements€of€the€crime€scene.€€She€said€that€she€did€not€measure€the€crime€sceneÍbecause€she€thought€the€measurements€may€have€worked€against€the€defense.€€SheÏrecalled€that€she€had€asked€one€of€the€investigating€police€officers€to€accompany€herÏto€the€crime€scene€but€that€he€had€refused€to€do€so€without€the€prosecutorððsÏpermission.€€Although€she€reviewed€all€the€physical€evidence€that€she€gained€throughÏdiscovery,€she€admitted€that€she€did€not€provide€the€defendant€with€a€copy€orÏphotograph€of€each€piece€of€evidence.€€She€said€that€she€met€with€the€petitionerÏnumerous€times€before€his€trial€and€estimated€that€she€spent€no€less€than€twenty„fiveÏor€thirty€hours€talking€to€the€petitioner€in€preparation€for€the€trial.€€ÌÌà àThe€attorney€remembered€that€during€the€petitionerððs€trial,€the€state€had€aÏbox€and€at€least€one€bag€of€evidence€that€was€visible€to€the€jury€before€it€wasÏintroduced€into€evidence.€€She€explained€that€she€and€the€petitioner€knew€that€theÏcontainers€held€items€that€had€been€seized€from€the€petitionerððs€car.€€She€said€that€sheÏthought€the€display€of€the€containers€of€evidence€that€had€not€yet€been€admitted€wasÏprejudicial€and€that€she€brought€her€concerns€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€trial€attorney€also€testified€that€she€objected€to€the€stateððsÏuse€of€mug€shots€of€the€petitioner€that€were€attached€to€a€police€report.€€She€recalledÏthat€the€trial€court€sustained€her€objection€and€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€disobeyedÏthe€trial€courtððs€instruction€by€failing€to€remove€the€photographs€from€the€report€beforeÏusing€it€to€impeach€the€petitioner.€€She€said€that€she€did€not€request€a€curativeÍinstruction€or€that€the€jury€be€polled€when€the€prosecutor€disobeyed€the€courtððsÏinstruction€because€she€did€not€want€to€draw€attention€to€the€photographs.€€She€alsoÏstated€that€she€had€no€reason€at€that€time€to€think€that€any€juror€had€seen€theÏphotographs.€€ÌÌà àThe€attorney€testified€that€she€met€with€the€petitioner€two€or€three€timesÏwhile€she€was€preparing€his€direct€appeal€and€that€she€also€had€quite€a€bit€ofÏcorrespondence€with€the€petitioner.€€She€said€that€she€reviewed€each€of€the€letters€thatÏthe€petitioner€sent€her€to€determine€whether€they€contained€anything€that€needed€to€goÏin€his€appellate€brief.€€She€explained€that€she€did€not€include€every€issue€the€petitionerÏwanted€to€raise€in€the€brief€because€some€of€the€issues€he€wanted€her€to€raise€wereÏunsupported€by€the€facts€or€law.€ÌÌà àThe€attorney€who€orally€argued€the€petitionerððs€case€testified€that€he€wasÏassigned€to€the€petitionerððs€case€after€the€appellate€brief€had€been€filed.€€He€said€thatÏhe€familiarized€himself€with€the€record€and€argued€the€issues€that€were€raised€in€theÏbrief.€€In€his€review€of€the€record,€he€did€not€find€any€issues€that€had€not€been€raisedÏthat€would€have€changed€the€outcome€of€the€appeal.€€Although€he€said€that€he€readÏcorrespondence€that€contained€the€œpetitionerððs€concerns,›€he€could€not€recall€whetherÏhe€factored€the€petitionerððs€concerns€into€his€argument.€Ì€Ìà àThe€petitioner€also€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€He€said€thatÏhe€was€dissatisfied€with€his€trial€attorneyððs€representation€of€him.€€He€said€that€heÏnever€requested€appointed€counsel€and€denied€that€he€was€indigent€at€the€time€of€trial.€ÏHe€said€that€his€trial€counsel€did€not€provide€him€with€copies€of€the€information€sheÏreceived€through€discovery.€€He€also€complained€because€she€failed€to€request€aÏcurative€instruction€when€at€least€four€members€of€the€jury€were€exposed€to€his€mugÏshots€while€he€was€being€cross„examined.€€He€said€that€she€also€failed€to€request€aÏcurative€instruction€when€he€invoked€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€while€he€was€testifyingÏand€when€a€police€officer€made€disparaging€facial€expressions€during€the€petitionerððsÏtestimony.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€admitted€that€he€had€the€opportunity€during€his€testimonyÏto€say€everything€he€wanted€to€say€about€the€shooting.€€However,€he€said€that€threeÏsuicide€letters€he€had€written€should€have€been€introduced€at€his€trial.€€He€explainedÏthat€the€three€letters€would€have€placed€a€letter€that€the€state€introduced€at€trial€inÏcontext.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€petitioner€also€stated€that€he€never€talked€to€the€attorney€who€orallyÏargued€his€direct€appeal.€€Although€the€petitioner€recalled€that€the€attorney€sent€himÏletters€regarding€when€his€case€was€to€be€argued,€the€petitioner€said€that€he€did€notÏknow€whether€the€attorney€incorporated€his€suggestions€into€the€argument.ÌÌà àIn€making€its€ruling,€the€trial€court€divided€the€petitionerððs€allegations€intoÏfour€categories:€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€errors€of€the€trial€court,€juryÏinstruction€errors,€and€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€With€respect€to€the€petitionerððsÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€petitioner€failed€toÏestablish€that€his€counsel€performed€deficiently€and€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€theÏverdict.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€petitionerððs€allegations€of€trial€court€error,€the€court€heldÏthat€some€of€the€issues€the€petitioner€raised€were€previously€determined€in€his€directÏappeal€and€that€petitioner€waived€some€issues.€€The€court€noted€that€the€recordÏsupports€the€trial€courtððs€appointment€of€counsel€even€though€no€formal€indigencyÏhearing€was€held.€€ÌÌà àThe€court€also€refused€to€grant€post„conviction€relief€based€on€allegedÏjury€instruction€errors€and€allegations€of€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€The€courtÏconcluded€that€the€jury€instruction€errors€did€not€rise€to€a€constitutional€level€so€as€toÏwarrant€post„conviction€relief.€€Relative€to€the€petitionerððs€allegations€of€prosecutorialÏmisconduct,€the€court€ruled€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€any€of€the€alleged€misconduct€and€that€some€of€the€petitionerððsÏallegations€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€had€been€previously€determined€during€hisÏdirect€appeal.€ÌÌà@ àò òI.€DENIAL€OF€SENTENCING€HEARINGÌ€à àó óThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€constitutional€rights€were€violated€by€theÏtrial€courtððs€failure€to€hold€a€sentencing€hearing.€€This€court€ruled€against€the€petitionerÏon€this€issue€during€his€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Len€Martuccióó,€slip€op.€at€12.€ÏAccordingly,€the€issue€has€been€previously€determined€and€is€not€a€proper€ground€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„311€(1990);€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2dÏ705€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€116€S.€Ct.€1685€(1996).Ñ€0ÑÇà@ àò òII.€FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER€JURY€INSTRUCTIONÌó óà à€The€petitioner€relies€on€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€543€(Tenn.Ï1992),€to€contend€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€by€the€jury€instructionsÏgiven€at€his€trial€regarding€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€However,Ïthis€court€has€refused€to€apply€òòBrownóóððs€holdings€retroactively,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòLofton€v.€Stateóó,Ï898€S.W.€2d€246,€250€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€and€we€refuse€to€do€so€in€this€case.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.€REASONABLE€DOUBT€JURY€INSTRUCTIONÌòòó óà àóóNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€reasonable€doubt€instruction€givenÏat€his€trial€violated€his€due€process€rights.€€The€trial€court€gave€the€followingÏreasonable€doubt€instruction€at€the€petitionerððs€trial:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àà àThe€burden€of€proof€rests€upon€the€state€to€establishÏthe€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€aÏfinding€of€guilt€is€not€warranted€unless€this€burden€isÏsustained.€€A€conviction€cannot€be€based€on€conjecture,Ïsuspicion€or€a€mere€belief€that€the€defendant€is€guilty€of€theÏcrime€charged.€€Each€juror€must€find€the€defendant€guiltyÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ìà àÌà8 àà àReasonable€doubt€is€not€a€mere€possible€doubtÏbecause€everything€relating€to€human€affairs€is€open€toÏsome€possible€or€imaginary€doubt.€€It€is€an€honest€doubtÏengendered€after€an€investigation€of€all€the€evidence€andÏan€inability€after€such€investigation€to€let€the€mind€rest€easilyÏas€to€the€moral€certainty€of€guilt.€€And€this€certainty€isÏrequired€as€to€every€essential€element€of€the€crime€chargedÏor€included€in€the€indictment.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓThis€is€an€adequate€statement€of€the€stateððs€burden€of€proof€for€criminal€trials€inÏTennessee.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòNichols€v.€Stateóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.ÏSextonóó,€917€S.W.2d€263,€œ266€(Tenn€Crim.€App.€1995);›€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,€885€S.W.2dÏ364,€366€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€294€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€Thus,€the€use€of€this€instruction€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€did€not€amount€to€aÏviolation€of€his€due€process€rights.Ì€òòÌà@ àò òóóÇà@ àIV.€JUDICIAL€AND€PROSECUTORIAL€MISCONDUCTÌó óà àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violatedÏthrough€judicial€and€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€Although€the€defendant€phrases€theÏissue€in€terms€of€both€judicial€and€prosecutorial€misconduct,€he€devotes€most€of€hisÏargument€to€allegations€of€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€Many€of€the€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€claims€that€the€petitioner€raises€are€not€proper€grounds€for€post„convictionÏrelief€because€they€were€previously€determined€in€his€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€LenÏMartuccióó,€slip€op.€at€10„12.€€With€respect€to€the€other€prosecutorial€misconductÏallegations,× ƒ1 ××  ×€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€prosecutorððs€actions€wereÏimproper€or€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€alleged€misconduct.ÌÌà à€€The€allegations€of€judicial€misconduct€the€petitioner€raises€relate€to€theÏtrial€judgeððs€failure€to€recuse€himself€from€presiding€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€theÏpretrial€bond€that€the€trial€court€set€and€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€give€a€curativeÏinstruction€after€the€prosecuting€attorney€disobeyed€a€court€ruling€about€removing€mugÍshots€from€a€police€report€before€the€report€was€used€to€impeach€the€petitioner.€€TheÏpetitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€any€of€these€claims.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€recused€himselfÏfrom€presiding€over€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€judgeððsÏimpartiality€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€might€reasonably€be€questioned€becauseÏthe€judge€had€personal€knowledge€of€disputed€evidentiary€facts.€€Although€the€judgeÏhad€been€subpoenaed€to€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€he€quashed€theÏsubpoena€because€he€concluded€that€the€matters€alleged€in€the€post„convictionÏpetition€could€be€addressed€by€other€witnesses€and€evidence€within€the€court€record.€ÏThe€petitioner€has€failed€to€offer€any€proof€on€this€issue€other€than€the€fact€that€theÏjudge€presided€at€his€trial.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trialÏjudge€abused€his€discretion€by€refusing€to€recuse€himself€from€presiding€over€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Ìà àThe€petitionerððs€complaints€about€excessive€pretrial€bond€are€not€properÏgrounds€for€post„conviction€relief€as€presented.€€This€court€rejected€the€petitionerððsÏclaim€that€his€bail€was€excessive€in€his€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Len€Martuccióó,€slip€op.€atÏ3.€€Moreover,€post„conviction€relief€is€only€available€when€the€abridgement€of€aÏconstitutional€right€causes€a€defendantððs€conviction€or€sentence€to€be€void€or€voidable.€ÏòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„105.€€An€excessive€pretrial€bond€does€not,€by€itself,€make€aÏdefendantððs€conviction€or€sentence€void€or€voidable€and€thus€is€not€a€basis€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petitioner€fails€to€show€both€how€his€bond€was€excessive€andÏhow€he€was€prejudiced€in€the€case€as€a€result€of€his€bond.€Ìà àÌà àAlso,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€post„convictionÏrelief€based€on€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€give€a€curative€instruction.€€The€trial€courtÏscolded€the€prosecuting€attorney€when€it€realized€that€the€report€she€handed€theÏpetitioner€to€impeach€him€had€the€petitionerððs€mug€shots€attached€to€it.€€When€theÏprosecuting€attorney€offered€to€remove€them,€the€trial€court€told€her€that€he€did€not€wantÏthem€removed€where€they€could€be€seen.€€The€trial€court€then€ordered€the€prosecutorÏto€give€it€the€report€and€to€move€on€to€something€else.€€The€record€does€not€reveal€howÏœmany›€jurors,€if€any,€actually€saw€the€photographs,€although€the€petitioner€stated€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing€that€at€least€four€jurors€could€have€seen€them.€€Under€suchÏcircumstances,€we€are€unable€to€say€that€a€curative€instruction€was€necessary.€€Thus,Ïpost„conviction€relief€on€the€issue€is€not€warranted,€because€the€trial€courtððs€failure€toÏÑ7€&àXXdæ XXdæ7Ñgive€a€curative€instruction€did€not€amount€to€a€violation€of€the€petitionerððs€constitutionalÏrights€that€would€make€his€conviction€or€sentence€void€or€voidable.ÌÌà@ àò òV.€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELÌó óà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€Under€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€is€made,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counsel'sÍperformance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€ofÏrendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104ÏS.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€368„72,€113€S.€Ct.Ï838,€842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied,€as€well,€to€the€right€toÏcounsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772ÏS.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€œ(Tenn.€1989),›€and€to€the€right€to€appellate€counsel€under€theÏFourteenth€Amendment.€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€596€(Tenn.€1995);€òòseeóóÏòòEvitts€v.€Luceyóó,€469€U.S.€387,€105€S.€Ct.€830€(1985).ÌÌà àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÏdecided€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€servicesÏrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€range€of€competence€was€to€be€measured€byÏthe€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,€491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.Ï1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202„04€(D.C.€Cir.€1973).€€Also,Ïin€reviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requiresÏthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstructÏthe€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounsel's€perspective€at€the€time."€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.ÏCt.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(counsel's€conduct€willÍnot€be€measured€by€"20„20€hindsight").€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tacticÏfailed€or€even€hurt€the€defense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance.€€Deference€is€made€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informedÏones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9;ÏòòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€at€1201.€€ÌÌà àAlso,€we€note€that€the€approach€to€the€issue€of€the€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€does€not€have€to€start€with€an€analysis€of€an€attorney's€conduct.€€If€prejudiceÏis€not€shown,€we€need€not€seek€to€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegations€aboutÏdeficient€performance.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€ÌÌà à€Although€the€petitioner€raises€numerous€claims€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel,œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›€he€has€failed€to€establish€that€his€attorneys€were€deficient€or€that€he€wasÍprejudiced€by€any€of€the€alleged€deficiencies.€€Thus,€he€is€not€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€on€this€ground.€ÌÌà@ àò òVI.€DENIAL€OF€CHOICE€OF€COUNSELÌà àó óThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violatedÏbecause€he€was€denied€his€choice€of€counsel.€€He€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏappointing€the€public€defender€to€represent€him€at€his€trial€without€holding€anÏindigency€hearing.€€The€petitionerððs€complaint€about€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€hold€anÏindigency€hearing€was€previously€determined€in€his€direct€appeal.€€òòState€œv.€Len›ÏMartuccióó,€slip€op.€at€12.€€Moreover,€the€attorney€the€petitioner€initially€retained€toÏrepresent€him€properly€withdrew€after€he€concluded€that€he€may€be€called€to€testifyÏagainst€the€petitioner.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€DR„502.€€The€petitioner€is€not€entitledÏto€post„conviction€relief€on€this€ground.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJohn€H.€Peay,€Judge€ÌòòÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€à à