ÿWPCZ6 ›¼zæ›ó%¼6 ¼Óç\â/éD¦8l{º r   &Ñ¡ŒLY÷bÃñI®°d$i QefmZ`uÅ Ot"ä)@wí&êV ußÜç–gè´Y-Ý$¯¢ž~/SÈ~Ð:€ü[éõ¤PÞ!¥É¼‚’«V»°>!‹—/W>çCFnŠ› ?Ÿ¼×»ýœ7²ûâé-C!¤Âlq™@_¨d?yÌÂ8ñ&­Rhš:ëuI)<\ôCì\¸$ú£Ùõ}EK„—sÙcµ Ék=1¸Z@Ûæ@ŽQJ1„ÏTpk¢sÄü’bk¨Å·K’ÐÞÙ6¨Í8ÃJoDX f¸ÝÀ—F3ììeÇÕðFhu‹ÌÃd·ÄR®]²~ë5|ˆ‚ƒN3 Û†ïLÒmüۦ㽄F%€³²˜³Lˆ‘š 3xf¸µIæ@u-¿Y!4«:²~º$é ïyÓu'Éyš—RòÆyº‰0W˜ÞWÎÇG…ѕ˃Ԫ †(8ÞߤçˆÓÚye¯' zDNV‚Ç°÷‚‹ÓX:Kô$l\æµr ­ÁMÑW=ÕŽeZ­Pox$kÌõ |f5;¾+)ôØ:¦k©ULe8þÇ/ÞÁìu¶‰Ù€}h¯wK#Éà %© N¯ 0ˆ± U#N9 U@‡ UNÇ zÒ zaÒÛN­U>¯ÆíƳÆyÆ??N zÒNSSS zUÒÏÏE¡N£££ z¥ÒNñññ zóÒmN???? zAÒ»Nb z—ÒNããã zåÒ_N111 z3Ò­N zÒûNÍÍÍ zÏÒI N!!! z!Ò—!Ni"i"i" zk"Òå"N·# 0ë¹#¹#¹# z¤$ B%Ò;% 0¤ & D5±& D-æ& 0K'N^' AS`'Ƴ' 0¤y( 0D) A«a)a)a) z *Ò†*NX+X+X+ zZ+ÒÔ+N¦,¦,¦, z¨,Ò"-Nô-ô-ô- zö-Òp.NB/B/B/ zD/Ò¾/N000 z’0Ò 1NÞ1Þ1Þ1 zà1ÒZ2N,3,3,3 z.3Ò¨3^ z4w†44Š4ž4­4 m¯4”Æ4˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ˜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.wptô\  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜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.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.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.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.wpt- ù-2˜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.wpt7˜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.wptA˜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.wptF˜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.wptK˜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.wptP˜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(|G2úÕ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ƒq»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¢dò»»ÔW˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT dC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(|3@¨$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ƒq»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3@¨$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ƒq»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKe˜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.wptj˜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.wpto˜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.wptt˜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.wpty˜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.wptƒ˜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.wptˆ˜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.wptà¡a1Ï  ~‰/\Pê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ColtonMarneyMcEndreekidnapping Crimviolative P.J.StricklandAdkinsHoneycuttClennykidnappedHarbisonLangford uncontroverted I]nu]ponaffirmanceBowlesÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ƒq»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ƒq»»»ÔÑ8€Ë¿XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îmÞƒqÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼ƒq»îîmÞ#ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€14,€2004Ð öF ÐÔ‡XË¿X»¼ƒqÔÌò òÔ#†¼ƒq»XXË¿1#ÔDONALD€MAYS€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XË¿X»¼ƒqÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„26606€€€€€John€P.€Colton,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„02761„CCA„R3„PC€€„€Filed€October€28,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Donald€Mays,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€Although€theÐ V¦  Ðpetitioner€bases€his€claim€on€three€grounds,€the€primary€issue€is€whether€the€petitioner€was€deniedÐ ? Ðthe€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€The€judgment€is€affirmed.€€Because€theÐ (x Ðpost„conviction€court€failed€to€address€the€issue€of€whether€counsel€were€ineffective€by€failing€toÐ a Ðchallenge€the€trial€court's€failure€to€charge€the€jury€on€certain€lesser€included€offenses,€the€cause€isÐ úJ Ðremanded€for€further€proceedings.€€Ð ã3 ÐÓ»ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmed;€Cause€Remandedó óÐ µ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ƒq»àXË¿˜#ÔÔ‡XË¿X.¼ƒqÔGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogleóó€and€òòAlanÐ ˆØ ÐE.€Glenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð qÁ ÐÌCharles€W.€Gilchrist,€Jr.,€for€the€appellant,€Donald€Mays.Ð C“ ÐÌPaul€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€andÐ e ÐStacy€McEndree,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð þN ÐÓ×ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ƒq»XXË¿#ÔÔ‡XË¿X»¼ƒqÔÐ Ð! ! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ƒq»XXË¿T #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XË¿X»¼ƒqÔà  àOn€October€5,€2000,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€especially€aggravatedÐ £#ó# Ðkidnapping€and€aggravated€robbery.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€court€set€aside€one€of€the€kidnappingÐ Œ$Ü$ Ðconvictions€but€otherwise€affirmed,€approving€consecutive€sentences€of€60€and€30€years,Ð u%Å % Ðrespectively.€€òòState€v.€Donald€Maysóó,€No.€2001„00030„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,Ð ^&®!& ÐFeb.€7,€2002).€€Application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€our€supreme€court€was€denied€on€July€1,Ð G'—"' Ð2002.€€Ð 0(€#( ÐÌà  àThe€convictions€were€based€upon€an€incident€occurring€on€June€17,€1999,€involving€theÐ *R%* Ðkidnapping€of€19„year„old€Dayton€Smith,€the€daughter€of€Viola€Taylor.€€While€the€victim€waited€inÐ ë*;&+ Ðthe€car€for€her€mother,€the€petitioner€entered€Ms.€Taylor's€vehicle,€found€the€keys€in€the€ignition,Ð Ô+$', Ðpulled€a€gun,€and€drove€away.€€There€was€evidence€that€as€the€victim€demanded€to€be€released,€theÐ ½, (- Ðpetitioner€stole€two€of€her€rings,€having€a€total€value€of€approximately€$500.00,€and€then€drove€awayÐ ¦-ö(.ý ÐÔ_Ôin€a€reckless€manner.€€When€the€petitioner€slowed€at€an€intersection,€the€victim€jumped€out€of€theÐ ° Ðvehicle,€injuring€her€arm€and€leg,€and€then€returned€to€the€Jefferson€Building.€€Ð ™é ÐÌà  àTwo€weeks€later,€the€petitioner€"rented"€the€stolen€vehicle€to€Derrick€Houston€for€$9.00€andÐ k» Ða€rock€of€cocaine.€€Houston,€after€being€stopped€by€the€police€in€West€Memphis,€Arkansas,€ledÐ T¤ Ðofficers€to€the€petitioner.€€The€victim€first€identified€the€petitioner€in€a€photographic€lineup€and€thenÐ =  Ðidentified€the€petitioner€at€trial.€€Other€evidence,€particularly€a€glove,€connected€the€petitioner€to€theÐ & v Ðcrime.€€The€victim€found€the€glove,€which€bore€the€petitioner's€surname€"Mays,"€€in€the€trunk€of€herÐ  _ Ðvehicle€one€week€before€trial.€€Neither€the€state€nor€the€defense€discovered€the€existence€of€the€gloveÐ ø H Ðuntil€the€last€day€of€the€trial.€€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àAs€indicated,€this€court€set€aside€one€of€the€two€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€convictionsÐ ³  Ðon€direct€appeal€as€violative€of€double€jeopardy€principles.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€662Ð œì  Ð(1996).€€This€court€also€concluded€that€there€was€no€variance€between€the€indictment€for€aggravatedÐ …Õ  Ðrobbery€and€the€proof€at€trial.€€The€evidence€was€found€to€be€sufficient€to€support€one€of€theÐ n¾  Ðespecially€aggravated€kidnapping€convictions€and€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction.€€€€Ð W§  ÐÌà  àIn€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€argued€that€his€trial€counsel€wasÐ )y Ðineffective€for€failing€to€(1)€adequately€investigate€the€charges,€(2)€adequately€confer€with€theÐ b Ðpetitioner,€(3)€communicate€a€plea€offer€by€the€state,€(4)€adequately€impeach€Derrick€Houston€as€aÐ ûK Ðstate€witness,€(5)€request€an€appropriate€instruction€on€identification,€(6)€file€appropriate€pretrialÐ ä4 Ðmotions,€(7)€adequately€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€and€(8)€challenge€a€faulty€chainÐ Í Ðof€custody€€regarding€the€glove.€€He€also€claimed€that€his€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failingÐ ¶ Ðto€present€on€direct€appeal€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€the€state€to€re„openÐ Ÿï Ðits€proof„in„chief€so€as€to€prove€when€the€glove€had€been€found.€€After€the€appointment€of€counsel,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€petition€was€amended€to€include€a€claim€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€preserveÐ qÁ Ðfor€appeal€the€trial€court's€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€appropriate€lesser€included€offenses.€€€Ð Zª ÐÌÌà  àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€His€trial€and€appellateÐ e Ðcounsel€were€called€as€the€other€witnesses.€€The€petitioner€complained€about€the€quality€of€hisÐ þN Ðcounsels'€performance,€both€at€trial€and€on€appeal,€arguing€primarily€that€counsel€failed€to€preserveÐ ç 7 Ðthe€issue€of€whether€the€state€should€have€been€allowed€to€re„open€its€case€to€present€the€gloveÐ Ð!   Ðwhich€the€victim€found€in€the€stolen€vehicle.€€The€petitioner€also€contended€that€his€appellateÐ ¹" ! Ðcounsel€did€not€adequately€communicate€during€the€course€of€the€appeal.€€As€to€his€trial€counsel,€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðpetitioner€asserted€that€he€was€ineffective€for€having€failed€to€list€as€a€ground€for€relief€in€the€motionÐ ‹$Û# Ðfor€new€trial€that€the€trial€judge€had€erred€by€refusing€to€charge€lesser€included€offenses€of€especiallyÐ t%Ä $ Ðaggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravated€robbery.€€He€was€also€critical€of€his€trial€counsel'sÐ ]&­!% Ðinvestigation,€particularly€his€failure€to€conduct€a€pretrial€interview€of€Derrick€Houston,€who€wasÐ F'–"& Ða€witness€for€the€state.€€The€petitioner€estimated€that€he€had€discussed€his€case€with€trial€counsel€noÐ /(#' Ðmore€than€four€or€five€times€prior€to€trial€and€a€total€of€no€more€than€eight€hours.€€On€cross„Ð )h$( Ðexamination,€the€petitioner€acknowledged€that€he€preferred€a€trial€and€did€not€want€to€consider€a€pleaÐ *Q%) Ðoffer€which€had€been€made€by€the€state,€insisting€that€he€was€"not€guilty€of€anything€in€this€case."€Ð ê*:&* ÐThe€record€suggests€that€the€state€had€made€a€fifty„year€offer€in€advance€of€the€trial.€€As€for€the€chainÐ Ó+#'+ Ðof€custody€issue,€the€petitioner€confirmed€that€he€was€unaware€of€whether€a€glove€bearing€hisÐ ° Ðsurname€was€ever€in€the€possession€of€the€state€before€it€was€presented€as€evidence.€€DerrickÐ ™é ÐHouston€was€not€called€as€a€witness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€made€extensive€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€addressingÐ T¤ Ðall€but€one€issue€and€which,€in€summary,€provided€as€follows:€Ð =  ÐÌà  àà ` à1.à ¸ àThat€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€any€lack€of€preparation€in€regard€toÐ  _ ÐDerrick€Houston,€who€appeared€as€a€state€witness€and€who€identified€the€petitioner€as€havingÐ ø H Ðprovided€him€with€the€vehicle€stolen€from€the€victim;Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àà ` à2.à ¸ àThat€prior€to€trial,€counsel€met€with€the€petitioner€a€sufficient€number€of€timesÐ ³  Ðto€develop€possible€defenses;€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àà ` à3.à ¸ àThat€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€his€handling€of€a€possible€plea€agreementÐ n¾  Ðbecause€the€petitioner,€who€maintained€his€innocence,€confirmed€that€he€had€no€intention€ofÐ W§  Ðaccepting€the€offer€tendered€by€the€state;Ð @ ÐÌà  àà ` à4.à ¸ àThat€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€having€failed€to€adequately€impeach€theÐ b Ðtestimony€of€Derrick€Houston€by€virtue€of€a€"deal"€with€the€West€Memphis€(Arkansas)€PoliceÐ ûK ÐDepartment€because€there€was€no€evidence€that€Houston€had€even€been€charged€with€a€crime€and,Ð ä4 Ðthus,€no€good€faith€basis€to€cross„examine€him€regarding€any€"deal";€Ð Í ÐÌà  àà ` à5.à ¸ àThat€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€having€failed€to€request€more€extensiveÐ Ÿï Ðinstructions€to€the€jury€on€the€issue€of€identification€because€the€instructions€were€in€accordanceÐ ˆØ Ðwith€law€and€as€extensive€as€possible;€Ð qÁ ÐÌà  àà ` à6.à ¸ àThat€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€having€failed€to€file€certain€pretrialÐ C“ Ðmotions;€Ð ,| ÐÌà  àà ` à7.à ¸ àThat€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€was€adequately€addressed€at€trial€and€onÐ þN Ðdirect€appeal;Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àà ` à8.à ¸ àThat€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€having€failed€to€challenge€the€chain€ofÐ ¹" ! Ðcustody€as€to€the€glove,€apparently€owned€by€the€petitioner€and€found€by€the€victim€in€the€trunk€ofÐ ¢#ò" Ðthe€stolen€vehicle;€andÐ ‹$Û# ÐÌà  àà ` à9.à ¸ àThat€appellate€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€having€failed€to€challenge€theÐ ]&­!% Ðpropriety€of€the€trial€court's€having€allowed€the€state€to€re„open€their€case€after€it€had€rested.Ð F'–"& ÐÌÔ‡Xÿ XXXË¿Ôà  àThe€applicable€law€is€well„settled.€€When€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€on€theÐ )h$( Ðbasis€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€theÐ *Q%) Ðadvice€given€were€below€ð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€Ð ê*:&* ÐòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€he€must€show€that€the€deficienciesÐ Ó+#'+ Ðð ðactually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€the€defense.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693Ð ° Ð(1984).€€Should€the€petitioner€fail€to€establish€either€factor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€Our€supremeÐ ™é Ðcourt€described€the€standard€of€review€as€follows:Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà8  àà ` àBecause€a€[petitioner]€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€a€failure€toÐ T¤ Ðprove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€theÐ =  Ðineffective€assistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€not€address€the€components€in€anyÐ & v Ðparticular€order€or€even€address€both€if€the€[petitioner]€makes€an€insufficient€showingÐ  _ Ðof€one€component.òòÐø HÐ Ð  ÐÌGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àOn€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€ofÐ œì  Ðhindsight,€may€not€second-guess€a€reasonably€based€trial€strategy,€and€cannot€criticize€a€sound,€butÐ …Õ  Ðunsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911Ð n¾  ÐS.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Such€deference€to€the€tactical€decisions€of€counsel,Ð W§  Ðhowever,€applies€only€if€the€choices€are€made€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.Ð @ ÐStateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð )y ÐÌà  àUnder€our€statutory€law,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€in€his€post„Ð ûK Ðconviction€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-210(f).€Ð ä4 ÐEvidence€is€clear€and€convincing€when€there€is€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€the€accuracyÐ Í Ðof€the€conclusions€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¶ Ð1998).€€Claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€regarded€as€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact.€Ð Ÿï ÐòòState€v.€Honeycuttóó,€54€S.W.3d€762,€766-67€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ Ð1999).€€On€appeal,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€post„conviction€court€are€conclusive€and€will€notÐ qÁ Ðbe€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€€òòBrooks€v.Ð Zª ÐStateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€thatÐ C“ Ðthe€evidence€preponderated€against€those€findings.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ,| ÐApp.€1978).€Ô#†XË¿X XXÿœ-#ÔÔ‡Xÿ XXXË¿Ô€The€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€afforded€their€testimonyÐ e Ðare€questions€to€be€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€òòBates€v.€Stateóó,€973€S.W.2d€615€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð þN Ð1997).€€When€reviewing€the€application€of€law€to€those€factual€findings,€however,€our€review€is€òòdeÐ ç 7 Ðnovoóó,€and€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law€are€given€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòFields€v.Ð Ð!   ÐStateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€457-58€(Tenn.€2001);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Englandóó,€19€S.W.3d€762,€766€(Tenn.Ð ¹" ! Ð2000).Ð ¢#ò" ÐÔ#†XË¿X XXÿÅ:#ÔÌà  àThe€petitioner€has€narrowed€his€claims€in€this€appeal.€€He€argues€that€trial€counsel€wasÐ t%Ä $ Ðineffective€for€having€failed€to€make€adequate€preparations€for€the€testimony€of€Derrick€Houston,Ð ]&­!% Ðfor€having€failed€to€present€written€pretrial€motions€as€to€that€issue,€and€for€having€failed€to€seek€juryÐ F'–"& Ðinstructions€on€the€lesser€included€offenses€of€aggravated€robbery€and€especially€aggravatedÐ /(#' Ðkidnapping.€€As€a€corollary€to€the€third€assertion,€the€petitioner€also€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€wasÐ )h$( Ðineffective€for€having€failed€to€list€the€lesser€included€offense€issue€as€a€ground€for€relief€in€hisÐ *Q%) Ðmotion€for€new€trial.€€He€also€complains€about€the€state€being€allowed€to€re„open€the€evidence€andÐ ê*:&* Ðchallenges€the€performance€of€his€trial€and€appellate€counsel€in€that€regard.Ð Ó+#'+ Їà  àHouston,€a€witness€for€the€state€who€resided€in€Arkansas,€testified€at€trial€that€he€"rented"Ð ° Ðthe€stolen€car€from€the€petitioner€in€exchange€for€money€and€cocaine.€€He€testified€that€he€hadÐ ™é Ðknown€the€petitioner€for€two€years€and€was€in€possession€of€the€vehicle,€accompanied€by€a€girlfriendÐ ‚Ò Ðnamed€Brenda€Robinson,€for€less€than€two€hours€before€being€arrested.€€While€Houston€admittedÐ k» Ða€prior€€conviction€for€credit€card€theft€in€1992,€he€made€a€positive€identification€of€the€petitionerÐ T¤ Ðas€the€individual€from€whom€he€had€"rented"€the€car.€€The€petitioner€could€not€help€his€trial€counselÐ =  Ðfind€Houston€prior€to€trial,€and€the€testimony€established€that€the€state€also€had€difficulty€locatingÐ & v Ðthe€witness.€€Ð  _ ÐÌà  àDuring€the€course€of€the€evidentiary€hearing,€however,€the€petitioner€was€unable€to€establishÐ á 1  Ðany€particular€act€of€neglect€as€to€his€trial€counsel's€failure€to€find€and€interview€Houston€prior€toÐ Ê   Ðtrial.€€Moreover,€even€assuming€that€trial€counsel's€performance€was€deficient€in€that€he€was€unableÐ ³  Ðto€determine€in€advance€the€full€extent€of€Houston's€testimony,€the€petitioner€was€unable€to€establishÐ œì  Ðhow€the€lack€of€a€pretrial€interview€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€It€might€have€been€helpful€toÐ …Õ  Ðthe€petitioner€had€Houston€been€called€as€a€witness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àIn€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€this€court€enumerated€theÐ @ Ðstandard€for€establishing€prejudice€by€counsel's€failure€to€subpoena€witnesses.€€To€establishÐ )y Ðprejudice,€the€petitioner€must:€"(1)€produce€the€witness€at€his€post„conviction€hearing;€(2)€show€thatÐ b Ðthrough€reasonable€investigation,€trial€counsel€could€have€located€the€witness;€and€(3)€elicit€bothÐ ûK Ðfavorable€and€material€testimony€from€the€witness."€€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,€802„03Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(citing€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€757).€€This€standard€requires€petitioners€toÐ Í Ðproduce€the€uncalled€witness€at€the€post„conviction€proceeding€so€that€courts€need€not€speculate€asÐ ¶ Ðto€the€materiality€of€the€testimony€or€credibility€of€the€missing€witness.€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€758.€Ð Ÿï ÐThe€rulings€in€òòBlackóóand€òòDentonóó€are€analogous€to€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Partly€becauseÐ ˆØ ÐHouston€was€not€called€as€a€witness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€was€unable€toÐ qÁ Ðdemonstrate€how€further€preparations€by€his€trial€counsel€might€have€been€helpful.€€There€was€noÐ Zª Ðother€proof€showing€why€the€lack€of€a€pretrial€interview€caused€prejudice€to€the€petitioner.€€ThisÐ C“ Ðissue,€therefore,€is€without€merit.€€Further,€the€petitioner€has€been€unable€to€establish€how€the€filingÐ ,| Ðof€motions€in€advance€of€trial€relative€to€Houston€or€on€any€other€issue€would€have€made€aÐ e Ðdifference€in€the€results€of€the€trial.€Ð þN ÐÌà  àMore€troubling,€however,€is€trial€counsel's€failure€to€seek€instructions€on€the€lesser€includedÐ Ð!   Ðoffenses€of€either€aggravated€robbery€or€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€and€his€subsequent€failureÐ ¹" ! Ðto€preserve€the€issue€in€a€motion€for€new€trial.€€In€the€second€amendment€to€the€petition,€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðpetitioner,€through€appointed€counsel,€asserted€that€trial€counsel€had€failed€to€present€the€issue€inÐ ‹$Û# Ðthe€motion€for€new€trial€and€that€appellate€counsel€had€not€been€advised€of€that€circumstance.€€It€isÐ t%Ä $ Ðapparent€from€the€record€that€the€lesser€included€offenses€were€not€charged.€€The€rationale€of€theÐ ]&­!% Ðtrial€court€was€that€the€evidence€did€not€warrant€the€instructions,€particularly€because€the€defenseÐ F'–"& Ðtheory€was€one€of€misidentification.€€While€it€is€the€trial€court's€responsibility€to€charge€the€offensesÐ /(#' Ðand€any€lesser€offenses,€it€is€also€the€responsibility€of€trial€counsel€to€preserve€the€issue€for€reviewÐ )h$( Ðin€the€event€the€trial€court€has€erred€in€this€regard.€€Ð *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* ÐÔ‡Xÿ XXXË¿Ôà  àÔ#†XË¿X XXÿS#ÔÔ‡ XË¿XXXË¿ÔThe€question€of€whether€a€given€offense€should€be€submitted€to€the€jury€as€a€lesser€includedÐ ° Ðâ âoffense€is€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact.€€òòState€v.€Rushóó,€50€S.W.3d€424,€427€(Tenn.€2001)€(citingÐ ™é ÐòòState€v.€Smileyóó,€38€S.W.3d€521€(Tenn.€2001)).€€The€standard€of€review€for€mixed€questions€of€lawÐ ‚Ò Ðand€fact€is€de€novo€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,Ð k» Ð461€(Tenn.€1999).Ô#†XË¿XX XË¿RS#ÔÔ‡ XË¿XXXË¿Ô€€Ô#†XË¿XX XË¿¥U#ÔÔ‡Xÿ XXXË¿ÔThe€trial€court€has€a€duty€"to€give€a€complete€charge€of€the€law€applicable€to€theÐ T¤ Ðfacts€of€a€case."€€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.€1986);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ð =  Ð30.€Ð & v ÐÌà  àIn€òòBurnsóó,€our€supreme€court€adopted€a€modified€version€of€the€Model€Penal€Code€in€orderÐ ø H Ðto€determine€what€constitutes€a€lesser€included€offense:Ð á 1  ÐÌà8  àAn€offense€is€a€lesser€included€offense€if:г Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(a)€all€of€its€statutory€elements€are€included€within€the€statutory€elements€of€theÐ œì  Ðoffense€charged;€orÐ…Õ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(b)€it€fails€to€meet€the€definition€in€part€(a)€only€in€the€respect€that€it€contains€aÐ n¾  Ðstatutory€element€or€elements€establishingÐW§ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(1)€a€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€of€culpability;€and/orÐ@Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€a€less€serious€harm€or€risk€of€harm€to€the€same€person,€property€or€public€interest,Ð )y ÐorÐbÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(c)€it€consists€ofÐûKÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(1)€facilitation€of€the€offense€charged€or€of€an€offense€that€otherwise€meets€theÐ ä4 Ðdefinition€of€lesser€included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b);€orÐÍÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€an€attempt€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€that€otherwise€meets€theÐ ¶ Ðdefinition€of€lesser€included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b);€orПïÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€solicitation€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€that€otherwise€meets€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefinition€of€lesser€included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b).ÐqÁÐ Ð  ÐÌ6€S.W.3d€at€466-67.Ô#†XË¿X XXÿéU#ÔÔ‡ XË¿XXXË¿ÔÐ C“ ÐÔ#†XË¿XX XË¿ƒ]#ÔÔ‡Xÿ XXXË¿ÔÌÔ#†XË¿X XXÿÚ]#ÔÔ‡ XË¿XXXË¿Ôà  àÔ#†XË¿XX XË¿^#ÔÔ‡Xÿ XXXË¿ÔThe€trial€court€Ô#†XË¿X XXÿk^#ÔÔ‡ XË¿XXXË¿Ôhas€a€duty€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€a€lesser€included€offense€if:€(1)€reasonableÐ e Ðminds€could€accept€the€offense€as€lesser€included;€and€(2)€the€evidence€is€legally€sufficient€toÐ þN Ðsupport€a€conviction€for€the€lesser€included€offense.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð ç 7 ÐLangfordóó,€994€S.W.2d€126,€128€(Tenn.€1999).€€Moreover,€our€supreme€court€has€held€thatÔ#†XË¿XX XË¿½^#ÔÔ‡ XË¿XXXË¿Ô€trialÐ Ð!   Ðcourts€ð ðmust€provide€an€instruction€on€a€lesser„included€offense€supported€by€the€evidence€even€ifÐ ¹" ! Ðsuch€instruction€is€not€consistent€with€the€theory€of€the€State€or€of€the€defense.€€The€evidence,€notÐ ¢#ò" Ðthe€parties,€controls€whether€an€instruction€is€required.ðð€òòóó€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€69€S.W.3d€181,€188€(Tenn.Ð ‹$Û# Ð2002).€€Our€high€court€observed€that€the€ð ðjury€is€not€required€to€believe€any€evidence€offered€by€theÐ t%Ä $ ÐState,ðð€and€held€that€the€authority€of€the€jury€to€convict€on€a€lesser„included€offense€may€not€beÐ ]&­!% Ðtaken€away,€even€when€proof€supporting€the€element€distinguishing€the€greater€offense€from€theÐ F'–"& Ðlesser€offense€is€uncontroverted.€€òòId.óó€at€189.€€Ð /(#' ÐÔ#†XË¿XX XË¿¸`#ÔÔ‡Xÿ XXXË¿ÔÌà  àHere,€the€victim€identified€the€petitioner€as€the€perpetrator€both€at€trial€and€from€a€pretrialÐ *Q%) Ðphotographic€array.€€Houston€testified€that€he€"rented"€the€stolen€vehicle€from€the€petitioner€forÐ ê*:&* Ðmoney€and€cocaine.€€While€the€primary€theory€of€defense€was€misidentification,€our€supreme€court€Ð Ó+#'+ Ðhas€held€that€an€instruction€may€be€supported€by€evidence€even€if€inconsistent€with€the€theory€ofÐ ° Ðdefense.€€òòAllenóó,€69€S.W.3d€at€188.€€Under€these€circumstances,€it€is€our€view€that€the€evidenceÐ ™é Ðwarranted€an€instruction€on€aggravated€kidnapping,€kidnaping,€robbery,€and€theft.€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àBecause€the€proof€offered€at€trial€justified€instructions€on€aggravated€kidnapping,Ð T¤ Ðkidnapping,€€robbery,€and€theft,€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€thoseÐ =  Ðoffenses.€€When€there€is€such€an€omission,€the€next€inquiry€is€whether€the€error€was€harmless.€€InÐ & v ÐòòAllenòòóó,€óóour€high€court€concluded€that€Ô#†XË¿X XXÿGd#ÔÔ‡ XË¿XXXË¿Ôwhen€the€trial€court€improperly€fails€to€instruct€on€a€lesserÐ  _ Ðincluded€offense,€the€harmless€error€inquiry€is€the€same€as€for€other€constitutional€errors:€whetherÐ ø H Ðit€appears€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trialÔ#†XË¿XX XË¿ãh#Ô.€€òòId.óó€at€191.€Ð á 1  ÐIn€making€this€determination,€ð ða€reviewing€court€should€conduct€a€thorough€examination€of€theÐ Ê   Ðrecord,€including€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€the€defendantððs€theory€of€defense,€and€the€verdictÐ ³  Ðreturned€by€the€jury.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Such€an€examination,€in€this€case,€is€hampered€by€the€post„convictionÐ œì  Ðcourt's€failure€to€address€this€issue.Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àOn€November€7,€2003,€twenty„nine€days€after€the€post„conviction€court€dismissed€theÐ W§  Ðpetitioner's€claim€in€a€detailed€order€addressing€all€grounds€except€for€the€issue€of€counsel's€failureÐ @ Ðin€regard€to€the€instructions€on€lesser€included€offenses,€the€petitioner€filed€a€pro€se€motion.€€AfterÐ )y Ðexplaining€that€they€had€been€unable€to€contact€his€post„conviction€counsel,€he€asked€the€post„Ð b Ðconviction€court€to€specifically€address€the€issue.€€Ô‡Xÿ XXXË¿ÔOn€November€9,€2003,€the€post„conviction€courtÐ ûK Ðentered€a€second€order€denying€relief.€€The€order€made€no€reference€to€the€request€for€specificÐ ä4 Ðfindings€of€fact€and,€while€the€court€provided€that€issues€are€generally€waived€when€not€raised€atÐ Í Ðtrial€or€on€direct€appeal,€there€was€no€determination€on€the€merits€of€the€lesser€included€claim.Ð ¶ ÐÌÔ#†XË¿X XXÿ8n#Ôà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„111€provides€that€"[u]pon€final€disposition€ofÐ ˆØ Ðevery€petition,€the€court€shall€enter€a€final€order,€and€.€.€.€shall€set€forth€in€the€order€or€a€writtenÐ qÁ Ðmemorandum€of€the€case€all€grounds€presented,€and€shall€state€the€findings€and€fact€and€conclusionsÐ Zª Ðof€law€with€regard€to€each€ground."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„111(b)€(2003).€€This€court€hasÐ C“ Ðconstrued€the€statute€to€mean€that€findings€of€fact€are€mandatory.€€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€1€Tenn.€Crim.Ð ,| ÐApp.€462,€445€S.W.2d€669€(1969).€€Since€the€holding€in€òòBrownóó,€this€court€has€concluded€that€underÐ e Ðcertain€circumstances,€the€failure€to€satisfy€the€requirement€may€be€harmless.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,òòóó€òòState€v.Ð þN ÐHigginsóó,€729€S.W.2d€288€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ç 7 ÐApp.€1984).€€In€òòSwansonóó,€this€court€concluded€that€the€purpose€of€the€statutory€requirement€was€toÐ Ð!   Ðfacilitate€appellate€review€and€that€reversal€was€not€required€when€the€record€included€the€post„Ð ¹" ! Ðconviction's€court€basis€for€denial€of€relief€on€a€particular€ground.€€Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àBecause€the€claim€of€the€petitioner€was€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€having€failedÐ t%Ä $ Ðto€preserve€the€lesser€included€offense€issue€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€and,€in€consequence,€theÐ ]&­!% Ðissue€was€not€presented€for€review€on€direct€appeal,€the€petition€does€allege€a€constitutionalÐ F'–"& Ðviolation.€€The€issue€has€not€been€waived€and€has€not€been€previously€determined.€€The€petitioner'sÐ /(#' Ðcomplaint€in€this€appeal€is€that€the€post„conviction€court€should€have€made€a€ruling.€€This€courtÐ )h$( Ðagrees.€€While€the€brief€of€the€state€correctly€points€out€that€the€post„conviction€court's€failure€toÐ *Q%) Ðaddress€the€issue€is€not€a€separate€ground€for€relief€from€the€judgment€of€conviction,€that€does€notÐ ê*:&* Ðoffer€a€basis€for€affirmance€on€the€narrow€issue€of€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€by€failingÐ Ó+#'+ Ðto€address€the€claim.€€Because€the€post„conviction€court€failed€to€make€findings€of€fact€regardingÐ ° Ðcounsel's€failure€to€challenge€the€trial€court's€failure€to€charge€the€jury€on€lesser€included€offenses,Ð ™é Ðthe€cause€must€be€remanded€for€hearing,€argument,€and€disposition€on€that€specific€issue.€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€petitioner's€claim€regarding€the€admission€of€the€glove,€it€is€our€view€thatÐ T¤ Ðthe€evidence€of€the€glove€was€properly€admitted€at€trial€over€the€objections€of€trial€counsel.€€"It€isÐ =  Ðwell„settled€that€permitting€additional€proof,€after€a€party€has€announced€that€proof€is€closed,€isÐ & v Ðwithin€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€unless€it€appears€that€its€action€in€regard€has€permittedÐ  _ Ðinjustice,€its€exercise€of€discretion€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal."€€òòSimpson€v.€Frontier€CommunityÐ ø H ÐCredit€Unionóó,€810€S.W.2d€147,€149€(Tenn.€1991)€(citing€òòState€v.€Bellóó,€690€S.W.2d€879,€882€(Tenn.Ð á 1  ÐCrim.€App.€1985).€€The€glove€was€not€in€the€custody€of€the€state€but€in€the€possession€of€the€victimÐ Ê   Ðwhen€it€was€discovered€in€the€trunk€of€her€vehicle€one€week€prior€to€the€trial.€€The€glove€wasÐ ³  Ðcorroborative€to€the€testimony€€of€the€victim,€who€had€made€a€positive€identification€of€the€petitionerÐ œì  Ðfrom€a€photographic€array€and€during€the€course€of€the€trial,€and€also€supported€the€identificationÐ …Õ  Ðtestimony€of€Derrick€Houston.€€The€state€and€the€defense€discovered€the€existence€of€the€glove€onÐ n¾  Ðthe€last€day€of€trial.€€At€trial,€Ms.€Smith€testified€that€after€her€car€was€returned,€she€discovered€"aÐ W§  Ðlot€of€clothes€and€stuff,"€as€if€someone€was€living€in€the€vehicle,€which€she€threw€in€the€garbage.€Ð @ ÐLater,€while€changing€a€tire,€she€found€a€work€glove€underneath€the€tire€with€"Mays"€written€on€theÐ )y Ðback.€€She€explained€that€she€did€not€think€it€was€important€until€she€heard€questions€during€the€trialÐ b Ðabout€the€presence€of€fingerprints€in€the€vehicle.€€Of€further€importance€is€that€the€petitioner€hasÐ ûK Ðfailed€to€cite€any€authority€in€his€appeal€which€would€preclude€the€admission€of€this€evidence.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðfailure€to€cite€authority€is€a€proper€basis€to€treat€the€issue€as€having€been€procedurally€barred.€€Tenn.Ð Í ÐR.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€This€issue€is€not€a€ground€for€relief.€€Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€post„conviction€court€which€shall,€in€accordanceÐ ˆØ Ðwith€the€statute,€specifically€address€whether€the€petitioner€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€ofÐ qÁ Ðcounsel€by€virtue€of€the€failure€to€challenge€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€on€appeal€the€omissionÐ Zª Ðof€lesser€included€offenses€in€the€jury€instructions.€€Ð C“ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð þN Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE