’WPCL Zū0U‹UÄsīćŪÓj™|ž"?Vˆwl–Ć%VŽ_Äs0U‹’ŁŲڟ}™ė˜ōc'ā8ź(‚FŠm}­ō¹²® ‘& H]p=ń|o…É’Ü{@^ht™'TŌ²Čž UÊxÖ膬_6+bĀ–o]sQąk¾oPØw§ė|Œ…˜gėĻżÜŚo]iRŁĄŠ×§¢S_K Œµ‹¹ļå¶ģf‘]šš…O¦*i1ožOA7āŲ;†!٦c½Ü`•žV‰'zuÖĮ*75AqÖŪ"¬Ē­ŠćxĶŁŲ×+_ń3Å-Ī÷(‰A© 0 ĮӐ>€šĪUżÖÓÓāņ¾ 7x_Qݰu/zšÖ…+~*ŒÕSa`¼—Óń˜žóŠįQķø¢hŖ}©…EbPŃk‰¤BūÆ„”Xūo@k1¶€(H1O‘É:eŁÆ\‘"@$i¶ć’pŗČÆĀs†Ž,ćöŖJ7mĒ36E)®āĪ«pm©ĄīÜé4 KņŪĮŒ¹Š«–ĒwcvѲ!Ä"iŻń2[ŌėßĮbĀmęåæö±ˆ:ČÆYd§īŠŚžß)+éē'å°cv¾†§SÆõ£ć ś{‹'°ˆ±æ¹?†ž@b#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy UN ^ O w[ z_ ŅŁ 4« æ Ī mŠ Ęē Ę­ ĘsĘ99N’U>E????????????????????????bAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 0ėIIII B44 0¤Q D3õ D-( 0KUU AS Ęó 0¤¹ 0D] A«”˜\\IB01S01\CLERK4NASŅV,,,,ŅV0»(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularpŠ—/Ļ  ˜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.wptlz/ź:i¢×+003|x’U‹’ĄĄĄLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ō\  `&Times New Roman- ł-(|G2€Š$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€”©»»dXXdé8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōØüņ»»Ō d(|3€³$££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€”©»»dXXdé8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3€³$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€”©»»dXXdé8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€”©»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŃ  ŃŌ€¼”©»»»ŌŃ8€ÄXXdé»»d8Ńą@hhģąŌ‡īzv”©ŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@gg$ģąAT€NASHVILLEŌ#†¼”©»īīzv #ԈŠ Ó# ŠÓ  Óą @ ąą @` ąAugust€12,€2003€SessionŠ öF ŠŌ‡XÄX»¼”©ŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼”©»XXÄ#ŌJESSE€Ō_ŌCLEOŌ_Ō€MINOR€b/n/f€Ō_ŌLEANNŌ_Ō€MORRISON€v.€STATE€OFŠ ļ? ŠTENNESSEEņņóóŌ‡XÄX»¼”©Ōó óŠ  P ŠĢņ ņPost„Conviction€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyŠ ś J Šą@@ųųģąNo.€97„C„2096€€€€€€Cheryl€Blackburn,€JudgeŠ ä 4 ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<”` Aߊ ¢ņ  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€M2002„02378„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€December€23,€Ō_Ō2003Ō_ŌŠ ›ė  ŠĢßA€V) °°` dE<n` Aߊ oæ  Šó óĢÓ  ÓŌ‡X.ĘXXXÄŌThe€petitioner,€Jesse€Ō_ŌCleoŌ_Ō€Minor,€entered€a€best„interest€plea€to€one€count€of€attempted€rape€of€aŠ g· Šchild.€€He€is€currently€serving€an€eight„year€sentence.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€Jesse€Ō_ŌCleoŌ_Ō€Minoróó,€No.€M1998„Š P  Š00424„CCA„R3„CD,€1999€WL€1179143€(Tenn.€Ō_ŌCrimŌ_Ō.€App.€at€Nashville,€Dec.€15,€1999).€€The€post„Š 9‰ Šconviction€petition€at€issue€herein€was€filed€by€the€petitionerššs€daughter€Ō_ŌLeannŌ_Ō€Morrison€as€nextŠ "r Šfriend.€€The€petition€alleges€that€the€petitioner€is€in€poor€health€and€suffers€from€irreversibleŠ  [ Šdementia€that€seriously€affects€his€cognitive€abilities.€€The€petitioner€attacks€his€conviction€basedŠ ōD Šupon€the€following€four€allegations:€(1)€he€was€incompetent€and€unable€to€understand€the€priorŠ Ż- Šproceedings€and€therefore€incapable€of€entering€a€voluntary€guilty€plea;€(2)€the€State€failed€toŠ Ę Šdisclose€material€exculpatory€evidence;€(3)€false€and/or€materially€misleading€statements€wereŠ Æ’ Šoffered€to€the€trial€court;€and€(4)€trial€counsel€was€ineffective.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€dismissalŠ ˜č Šof€the€post„conviction€petition.€€Š Ń ŠŌ#†XÄXXX.Ę#ŌŌ#†¼”©»XXÄš#ŌŌ‡XÄX»¼”©ŌĢÓÓĢņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óŠ <Œ ŠĢņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼”©»ąXÄź #ŌŌ‡XÄX.¼”©ŌJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņGary€R.€Wade,€Ō_ŌP.J.Ō_Ōóó,€and€ņņDavid€G.Š !_  ŠHayes,€J.óó,€joined.Š ų!H! ŠĢHal€D.€Ō_ŌHardinŌ_Ō,€Nashville,€Tennessee;€J.€G.€Mitchell,€III,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee;€and€Hugh€C.Š Ź## ŠŌ_ŌHowserŌ_Ō,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jesse€Ō_ŌCleoŌ_Ō€Minor.Š ³$ $ ŠĢPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€P.€Robin€Dixon,€Jr.,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Š …&Õ!& ŠVictor€S.€Johnson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Roger€D.€Moore,€Assistant€District€AttorneyŠ n'¾"' ŠGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Š W(§#( ŠĢĢĢĢĢÓ‰ ÓŠ Ķ-).ż ŠŌ_Ōą@@OO&ģąņ ņOPINIONó óŌ#†¼”©»XXÄø #ŌŠ ° ŠĢņņóóÓ  ÓņņŌ€XÄX»¼”©Ōą@ĆĆ!ģąFactual€BackgroundóóˆŠ Ŗś ŠĢą  ąIn€1997,€the€petitioner€was€charged€with€three€counts€of€rape€of€a€child,€two€counts€ofŠ |Ģ Šaggravated€sexual€battery,€and€one€count€of€aggravated€assault.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€Jesse€Cleo€Minoróó,€1999Š e µ ŠWL€1179143,€at€*1.€€Pursuant€to€settlement€with€the€State,€the€petitioner€entered€a€best„interest€pleaŠ N ž Šon€May€21,€1998€to€one€count€of€attempted€rape€of€a€child€and€received€an€eight„year,€Range€IŠ 7 ‡ Šsentence.€€The€remaining€charges€were€dismissed.€€During€the€plea€hearing,€the€prosecutor€statedŠ  p Šthat€if€the€case€had€gone€to€trial,€the€State€would€have€proven€that€in€August€of€1995,€StephanieŠ  Y  ŠPatton€asked€nine„year„old€A.D.€to€go€with€her€to€the€petitionerššs€business€to€do€some€painting.€Š ņ B  ŠWhen€they€arrived,€the€petitioner€and€Patton€took€A.D.€to€another€location€where€Patton€held€a€knifeŠ Ū+  Što€A.D.ššs€throat€and€ordered€her€to€do€what€the€petitioner€wanted.€€The€petitioner€then€hadŠ Ä  Špenile/vaginal€contact€with€A.D.€and€digital€penetration€of€A.D.€€A.D.€was€subsequently€forced€toŠ ­ż  Šperform€oral€sex€on€the€petitioner€while€they€watched€a€pornographic€movie.€€The€petitioner€agreedŠ –ę  Šthat€these€were€the€facts€that€the€State€would€attempt€to€prove€at€trial.€€Š Ļ  ŠĢą  ąAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€incarceration€as€the€manner€of€service€ofŠ Q” Šthe€sentence.€€ņņId.óó€€On€direct€appeal,€we€affirmed€the€conviction,€but€modified€the€sentence€toŠ :Š Šeliminate€the€requirement€of€community€supervision€for€life.€€ņņId.óó€at€*4.€€Š #s ŠĢą  ąAfter€the€guilty€plea€and€sentencing,€the€mother€of€the€minor€victim€filed€a€civil€lawsuit€inŠ õE Šthe€Davidson€County€Circuit€Court€against€the€petitioner,€his€wife,€and€Stephanie€Patton,€who€wasŠ Ž. Šthe€petitionerššs€co„defendant.€€The€lawsuit€alleged€sexual€assault€of€the€victim€and€sought€the€awardŠ Ē Šof€money€damages.€ņņSeeóó€ņņAlana€Dowell€v.€Jesse€C.€Minoróó,€No.€M2000„00378„COA„R9„CV,€2000€WLŠ ° Š489740,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€26,€2000)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€€Š ™é ŠĢą  ąņņóóOn€February€2,€2000,€the€petitioner,€by€and€through€his€š šnext€friend,šš€Leann€Morrison,€filedŠ k» Ša€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€post„conviction€court€dismissed€this€petition€as€prematurelyŠ T¤ Šfiled€because€this€Court€had€not€yet€issued€its€mandate€from€the€direct€appeal.ņņóó€€Apparently,€theŠ = Šappellant€did€not€appeal€the€dismissal.€€Š & v ŠĢņņóóą  ąOn€April€20,€2000,€the€petitioner,€through€Ms.€Morrison€as€š šnext€friend,šš€again€filed€aŠ ų!H  Špetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€State€moved€to€dismiss€the€petition,€arguing€that€the€petitionŠ į"1! Šwas€improperly€filed€through€a€š šnext€friend,šš€that€the€petitioner€was€at€that€time€incompetent€toŠ Ź#" Šmaintain€the€action,€and€that€the€statute€of€limitations€would€be€tolled€during€the€petitionerššsŠ ³$ # Šincompetency.€€Although€a€written€order€of€that€dismissal€does€not€appear€in€the€record,€the€courtŠ œ%ģ $ Šminutes€reflect€that€the€Stateššs€motion€to€dismiss€was€granted€on€June€30,€2000.€€Other€informationŠ …&Õ!% Šin€the€record€indicates€that€the€basis€for€that€dismissal€was€the€petitionerššs€š šnext€friendšš€status,Š n'¾"& Šwhich€the€trial€court€ruled€was€not€a€permissible€manner€in€which€to€bring€a€post„conviction€action.€Š W(§#' ŠAs€with€the€previous€filing,€it€appears€that€the€petitioner€did€not€appeal€the€dismissal.Š @)$( ŠĢą  ąOn€July€13,€2000,€the€petitioner€filed€a€third€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€styled€š šJesseŠ +b&* ŠC.€Minor,€individually,€and€by€and€through€counsel€Hal€D.€Hardin€v.€State€of€Tennessee.šš€€TheŠ ū+K'+ Ševidentiary€hearing€on€the€merits€of€the€petition€was€scheduled€for€October€11,€2000.€€However,€atŠ ° Šthe€outset€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€expressed€reservations€regarding€a€potential€conflict€ofŠ ™é Šinterest€in€that€the€petitionerššs€post„conviction€attorneys€also€represented€the€petitioner€and€hisŠ ‚Ņ Šfamily€members€in€defense€of€the€civil€suit.€€In€order€to€address€these€concerns,€the€trial€courtŠ k» Šappointed€an€attorney€ņņadóó€ņņlitemóó€and€ordered€an€independent€mental€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€toŠ T¤ Šdetermine€if€he€was€competent€enough€to€chose€his€own€legal€counsel€for€the€post„convictionŠ =  Šproceedings.€€Š & v Šą8  ąŠ Š Š  Šą  ąOn€October€21,€2000,€the€petitioner€filed€a€motion€to€reconsider€the€orders€appointing€theŠ ų H Šattorney€ņņadóó€ņņlitemóó€and€requiring€the€mental€evaluation.€€The€caption€of€this€pleading€styled€the€caseŠ į 1  Šš šJesse€C.€Minor,€b/n/f/€Leann€Morrison€and€by€and€through€counsel,€Hal€D.€Hardin€v.€State€ofŠ Ź   ŠTennessee.šš€€This€was€the€first€attempt€to€inject€Ms.€Morrison€as€š šnext€friendšš€into€the€third€petitionŠ ³  Šfor€post„conviction€relief.ņņ€€óóFrom€this€point€forward,€the€petitionerššs€filings€have€utilized€the€captionŠ œģ  Šadopted€in€this€motion.€€ņņóó€A€memorandum€accompanying€that€motion€complained€of€the€trial€courtššsŠ …Õ  Šš šprevious€rulingššņņóó€that€Ms.€Morrison€could€not€proceed€as€š šnext€friend.šš€€The€motion€referenced€the€Š n¾  ŠJune€30,€2000€order,€which€dismissed€the€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€As€we€haveŠ W§  Šnoted,€the€dismissal€was€not€appealed€and€apparently€became€a€final€order.€€Following€a€hearing,Š @ Šthe€court€denied€this€motion€to€reconsider€by€written€order€on€December€4,€2000.€€Š )y ŠĢņņóóą  ąThe€petitioner€filed€a€motion€in€the€lower€court€for€certification€of€an€interlocutory€appealŠ ūK Špursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€9€in€which€the€petitioner€sought€review€of€theŠ ä4 Štrial€courtššs€rulings€prohibiting€Ms.€Morrison€from€proceeding€as€the€petitionerššs€š šnext€friend,ššŠ Ķ Šappointing€the€attorney€ņņadóó€ņņlitemóó,€and€ordering€the€mental€evaluation.Š ¶ ŠĢą  ąThe€petitioner€then€filed€a€motion€for€recusal€of€the€trial€judge€raising€three€bases€for€recusal:Š ˆŲ Š(1)€the€appearance€of€partiality€due€to€the€trial€judgeššs€former€employment€in€the€district€attorneyššsŠ qĮ Šoffice;€(2)€the€appearance€of€bias€because€the€trial€judge€met€with€one€of€the€petitionerššs€potentialŠ ZŖ Šwitnesses€in€chambers€without€the€parties€or€counsel€being€present;€and€(3)€the€trial€judge€conductedŠ C“ Šan€investigation€into€the€court€records€of€the€collateral€civil€proceedings.€€Š ,| ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€denied€both€the€petition€for€interlocutory€appeal€and€the€motion€for€recusal.€Š žN ŠAs€a€result,€the€petitioner€filed€an€application€for€extraordinary€appeal€with€this€court.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.Š ē 7 ŠR.€App.€P.€10.€€We€granted€the€application€to€review€three€issues:€€(1)€Whether€a€š šnext€friendšš€mayŠ Š!   Šfile€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€behalf€of€an€incompetent€prisoner;€(2)€if€so,€may€a€trialŠ ¹" ! Šcourt,€ņņsuaóó€ņņsponteóó,€order€a€mental€evaluation€of€the€prisoner€or€conduct€other€inquiries€into€the€matterŠ ¢#ņ" Što€determine€whether€the€š šnext€friendšš€petition€was€properly€filed€on€the€prisonerššs€behalf;€and€(3)Š ‹$Ū# ŠWhether€the€trial€judge€in€this€case€properly€denied€the€petitionerššs€motion€to€recuse.€€ņņJesse€C.€MinorŠ t%Ä $ Šv.€Stateóó,€No.€M2001„00545„CCA„R10„PC,€2001€WL€1545498,€at€**1„4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atŠ ]&­!% ŠNashville,€Dec.€5,€2001).Š F'–"& ŠĢą  ąUpon€review€of€the€issues€presented€in€the€Rule€10€application,€this€Court€determined:€(1)Š )h$( Šthat€it€š šimprovidently€granted€reviewšš€of€the€issues€of€whether€a€š šnext€friendšš€may€filed€a€post„Š *Q%) Šconviction€petition€on€behalf€of€an€incompetent€prisoner€and€whether€a€post„conviction€court€mayŠ ź*:&* Šņņsuaóó€ņņsponteóó€order€a€mental€evaluation€of€the€prisoner€to€determine€whether€the€š šnext€friendšš€petitionŠ Ó+#'+ Šwas€properly€filed€because€the€issues€were€š šnot€justiciable,šš€€ņņseeóó€ņņMinor€v.€Stateóó,€2001€WL€1545498,Š ° Šat€**4„5;€(2)€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€ordering€a€mental€evaluation,€appointing€an€attorneyŠ ™é Šņņadóó€ņņlitemóó,€or€inquiring€into€competency€and€conflicting€interests;€and€(3)€the€trial€court€properlyŠ ‚Ņ Šdenied€the€motion€for€recusal.€€As€a€result€of€our€decision,€this€Court€remanded€the€case€for€aŠ k» Šdetermination€on€the€merits€of€the€post„conviction€petition.€€Š T¤ ŠĢą  ąThe€petitioner€did€not€appeal€the€decision€of€this€Court€on€the€issues€presented€in€the€RuleŠ & v Š10€application€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€11.€€The€post„conviction€trialŠ  _ Šcourt€subsequently€ordered€that€the€petition€be€set€for€a€status€hearing.€€Š ų H ŠĢą  ąOn€February€1,€2002,€a€motion€was€filed€to€set€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€for€anŠ Ź   Ševidentiary€hearing€so€that€the€trial€court€could€rule€on€the€merits€of€the€petition.€€A€second€motionŠ ³  Šwas€filed€simultaneously€requesting€that€Ms.€Morrison€be€substituted€as€š šnext€friendšš€in€the€matter.€Š œģ  ŠĢą  ąPrior€to€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€petition,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€to€determineŠ n¾  Šwhether€the€petitioner€was€mentally€competent€to€choose€and€assist€his€own€legal€counsel€in€theŠ W§  Šcase.€€As€a€result€of€the€testimony€at€this€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€petitioner€wasŠ @ Šcompetent€for€the€purpose€of€choosing€and€assisting€his€legal€counsel€in€the€preparation€of€the€post„Š )y Šconviction€petition.€€Š b ŠĢÓ  ÓņņPost„Conviction€HearingóóŠ ä4 ŠÓÅ9ÓĢą  ąAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€the€post„conviction€petition€on€May€28,€2002.€The€trialŠ ¶ Šcourt€dismissed€the€petition€after€hearing€testimony€from€various€individuals€including€trial€counsel,Š Ÿļ Šseveral€medical€personnel,€the€petitionerššs€daughter,€and€a€criminal€law€expert€who€rendered€anŠ ˆŲ Šopinion€as€to€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim.Š qĮ ŠĢą  ąThe€evidence€at€the€hearing€consisted€of€the€following.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€duringŠ C“ Šthe€course€of€his€initial€preparation,€he€obtained€the€petitionerššs€medical€history€and€discovered€thatŠ ,| Šthe€petitioner€was€diagnosed€as€impotent€four€years€prior€to€the€offense.€€As€a€result,€trial€counselŠ e Šinterviewed€the€petitionerššs€urologist,€the€petitioner,€and€the€petitionerššs€family.€€Trial€counsel€alsoŠ žN Šhired€an€investigator€to€look€at€the€backgrounds€of€any€potential€State€witnesses.€€Š ē 7 ŠĢą  ąWhen€some€of€the€family€members€expressed€their€concern€about€the€petitionerššs€mentalŠ ¹" ! Šhealth,€trial€counsel€immediately€began€to€investigate€their€claims.€€He€initially€contacted€Dr.€DavidŠ ¢#ņ" ŠMacMillan,€a€psychologist,€who€referred€him€to€Dr.€Ed€Qualls,€a€forensic€neuropsychologist.€€TrialŠ ‹$Ū# Šcounsel€asked€Dr.€Qualls€to€evaluate€the€petitioner€by€being€š šcompletely€impartial.šš€€He€informedŠ t%Ä $ ŠDr.€Qualls€that€he€did€not€want€to€bring€him€to€court€as€a€š šhired€gun.šš€€He€had€several€telephoneŠ ]&­!% Šconversations€with€Dr.€Qualls€and€specified€that€he€asked€the€doctor€for€a€determination€regardingŠ F'–"& Šthe€petitionerššs€diminished€capacity,€competency,€and€insanity.€€Trial€counsel€understood€Dr.Š /(#' ŠQuallsššs€opinion€to€be€that€the€petitioner€š šlacked€the€capacity€to€be€able€to€form€criminal€intent€forŠ )h$( Šthis€particular€act,šš€but€that€š šDr.€Qualls€said€that€he€felt€that€.€.€.€[the€petitioner]€did€at€least€have€.Š *Q%) Š.€.€periods€that€he€would€be€very,€very€aware€of€what€was€happening,€on€a€particular€day,€.€.€.€and€.Š ź*:&* Š.€.€he€may€go€into€some€periods€where€he€was€not€certainly€aware€of€everything€that€was€occurringŠ Ó+#'+ Šin€his€life.€.€.€.šš€€Dr.€Qualls€told€trial€counsel€to€ask€the€petitioner€questions€to€see€if€he€was€orientedŠ ° Šwith€respect€to€time,€place,€and€occurrence€in€order€to€ascertain€the€petitionerššs€state€of€mind€at€anyŠ ™é Šgiven€time.€€Š ‚Ņ ŠĢą  ąTrial€counsel€used€the€test€suggested€by€Dr.€Qualls€and€felt€that€there€were€š šseveralŠ T¤ Šoccasionsšš€where€the€petitioner€was€very€aware€of€what€was€going€on,€but€that€on€other€occasions,Š =  Šhe€felt€that€the€petitioner€was€not€very€aware€of€what€was€going€on€around€him.€€Despite€theŠ & v Špetitionerššs€behavior,€trial€counsel€felt€that€the€petitioner€was€able€to€assist€him€in€the€preparationŠ  _ Šof€the€defense€because€he€was€able€to€give€specific€details,€thoughts,€and€ideas.€€The€petitioner€wasŠ ų H Šable€to€relay€the€facts€surrounding€the€allegations€to€his€attorney€š šon€at€least€three€or€fourŠ į 1  Šoccasions.šš€€When€it€came€time€to€decide€whether€to€go€to€trial€or€to€plead,€the€petitioner€was€ableŠ Ź   Što€tell€his€attorney€specifically€what€he€wanted€and€why.€€Counsel€testified€that€there€was€no€doubtŠ ³  Šin€his€mind€that€the€petitioner€had€an€understanding€of€the€legal€procedures€and€the€possibleŠ œģ  Špenalties€he€faced€if€convicted€of€all€the€charges.€€At€the€time€of€the€plea,€the€petitioner€wasŠ …Õ  Šscheduled€to€have€open€heart€surgery€in€the€near€future.€€Counsel€discussed€the€possibility€of€aŠ n¾  Šcontinuance€with€the€district€attorneyššs€office,€but€got€the€impression€that€the€plea€would€beŠ W§  Šwithdrawn€if€he€made€such€a€request.€€The€petitioner€did€not€want€the€offer€withdrawn.€Š @ ŠĢą  ąCounsel€testified€that€he€discussed€the€possibility€of€a€competency€hearing€with€theŠ b Špetitioner.€€The€petitioner€stated€that€he€felt€š špulledšš€because€some€family€members€wanted€him€toŠ ūK Šgo€forward€with€a€trial,€while€others€felt€it€would€be€better€if€he€accepted€a€plea€offer.€€The€petitionerŠ ä4 Šrelayed€to€his€attorney€that€he€believed€a€jury€would€š šcrucifyšš€him€because€he€was€š šan€old,€whiteŠ Ķ Šmanšš€and€the€victim€was€a€š šsweet,€young,€black€girl.šš€€After€discussing€the€strengths€andŠ ¶ Šweaknesses€of€the€case€with€the€petitioner€and€his€family,€the€petitioner€expressed€his€desire€to€goŠ Ÿļ Šforward€with€the€plea.€€Š ˆŲ ŠĢą  ąCounsel€stated€that€he€never€gave€any€serious€consideration€to€a€competency€hearing€becauseŠ ZŖ Šboth€Dr.€Qualls€and€Dr.€MacMillan€stated€that€the€petitioner€was€competent€and€that€he€realized€theŠ C“ Šconsequences€of€what€was€occurring€in€court.€€He€also€felt€that€the€court€would€find€the€petitionerŠ ,| Šcompetent.€€Counsel€also€had€Dr.€James€Powers,€a€geriatric€specialist€at€Vanderbilt,€review€all€ofŠ e Šthe€petitionerššs€medical€records.€€Dr.€Powers€concluded€that€the€petitioner€was€competent.€€CounselŠ žN Štestified€during€cross„examination€that€nothing€occurred€during€the€guilty€plea€hearing€to€lead€himŠ ē 7 Što€believe€that€the€petitioner€did€not€understand€what€was€happening.€€Š Š!   ŠĢą  ąDr.€Qualls€testified€that€he€was€contacted€by€Dr.€MacMillan€to€perform€an€evaluation€of€theŠ ¢#ņ" Špetitioner€in€the€role€of€a€neuropsychologist.€€In€response€to€that€request,€he€prepared€a€battery€ofŠ ‹$Ū# Štests,€reviewed€the€petitionerššs€medical€records€and€performed€an€evaluation.€€In€his€opinion€theŠ t%Ä $ Špetitioner€š šsuffered€from€vascular€dementia€also€known€at€that€time€before€the€change€inŠ ]&­!% Šnomenclature€as€multi„infarct€dementiašš€and€that€š šhe€did€not€present€with€the€mental€capacity€toŠ F'–"& Šhave€planned€and€executed€the€crimes€as€presented€in€the€charges€against€him.šš€€However,€Dr.Š /(#' ŠQualls€did€not€ascertain€whether€the€petitioner€was€competent€to€enter€a€guilty€plea€or€stand€trialŠ )h$( Šbecause€he€š šwas€not€asked€to€[by€trial€counsel].šš€€Dr.€Qualls€was€angered€because€he€felt€that€trialŠ *Q%) Šā ācounselššs€testimony€was€inconsistent€with€what€actually€occurred.€€Specifically,€Dr.€Qualls€statedŠ ź*:&* Šthat€he€never€had€any€discussions€with€trial€counsel€regarding€the€petitionerššs€competency€to€standŠ ° Štrial.€€Š ™é Šā āĢą  ąOverall,€Dr.€Qualls€felt€that€the€petitionerššs€cognitive€capacity€declined€over€the€years,€butŠ k» Šthat€the€petitioner€exhibited€some€improvement€in€the€psychotic€features€that€he€exhibited€earlier.€Š T¤ ŠDr.€Qualls€felt€that€on€petitionerššs€š šbest€dayšš€he€could€understand€a€portion€of€the€very€complexŠ =  Šissue€of€the€legal€process,€but€that€his€understanding€fluctuated.€€Š & v Šą  ąĢą  ąDr.€Qualls€actually€performed€a€competency€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€on€September€9,Š ų H Š1999,€after€the€guilty€plea€and€sentencing€hearing,€but€prior€to€the€post„conviction€hearing,€andŠ į 1  Šfound€that€the€petitionerššs€ability€to€help€his€attorney€and€assist€in€his€defense€was€severelyŠ Ź   Šcompromised€and€highly€inconsistent.€€The€petitioner€understood€in€š šbroad€termsšš€the€consequencesŠ ³  Šof€the€charges€against€him,€but€did€not€understand€the€nuances€of€the€legal€proceedings.€€Dr.€QuallsŠ œģ  Šadmitted€on€cross„examination€that€he€felt€the€petitioner€was€incompetent€to€stand€trial€when€he€firstŠ …Õ  Šexamined€the€petitioner,€but€he€did€not€relay€this€information€to€trial€counsel€because€he€was€notŠ n¾  Šasked€for€his€opinion€on€competency€to€stand€trial.€€Š W§  ŠĢą  ąThe€petitioner€also€offered€the€testimony€of€Neil€Cohen,€a€professor€of€law€and€preventiveŠ )y Šmedicine,€on€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Professor€Cohen€reviewed€the€guilty€pleaŠ b Šand€the€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€and€concluded€that€there€was€š šlittle€doubtšš€in€his€mindŠ ūK Šš šthat€he€[the€petitioner]€did€receive€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.šš€€He€felt€that€there€was€š šnoŠ ä4 Šdoubt€that€competence€to€stand€trial€was€a€real€issue€that€had€to€be€addressedšš€and€that€it€wasŠ Ķ Šš šremarkablešš€that€it€was€not.€€Professor€Cohen€felt€so€strongly€about€the€issue€of€the€petitionerššsŠ ¶ Šcompetency€to€stand€trial€that€he€stated,€š šindeed,€if€I€were€tomorrow€to€teach€a€classic€illustrationŠ Ÿļ Šof€when€there€should€be€an€evaluation€for€competence,€this€would€be€the€case.šš€Š ˆŲ ŠĢą  ąDr.€Deborah€Bryant,€a€general€pediatrician€with€experience€in€forensic€pediatrics,€testifiedŠ ZŖ Šthat€she€examined€the€victim€in€November€of€1995.€€She€testified€that€in€the€parent/caretakerŠ C“ Šinterview€that€the€victimššs€mother€stated€that€she€had€not€questioned€the€victim€and€knows€of€noŠ ,| Šother€contact€other€than€the€penile/vaginal€penetration.€€Dr.€Bryant€testified€that€the€victimššs€hymenŠ e Šwas€intact€at€the€time€of€the€examination.€€Š žN ŠĢą  ąThe€assistant€district€attorney€who€prosecuted€the€case€up€until€the€date€of€the€plea€alsoŠ Š!   Štestified.€€He€indicated€that€he€provided€trial€counsel€with€all€materials€pursuant€to€š šRule€16šš€andŠ ¹" ! Šthat€if€he€had€known€that€the€victim€had€engaged€in€š šsex€for€hirešš€prior€to€the€sentencing€hearingŠ ¢#ņ" Šthat€he€probably€would€have€revealed€it€to€the€petitioner.€€Š ‹$Ū# ŠĢą  ąLeeann€Morrison,€the€petitionerššs€daughter,€testified€that€at€the€time€of€the€plea€she€wasŠ ]&­!% Šaware€of€the€petitionerššs€mental€and€physical€problems.€€She€thought€that€the€petitioner€did€not€wantŠ F'–"& Što€plead€guilty,€but€believed€that€a€jury€would€assume€that€he€committed€the€offense.€€Ms.€MorrisonŠ /(#' Šalso€testified€that€the€petitioner€told€her€that€he€could€not€take€the€stand€in€his€own€defense.€€She€wasŠ )h$( Šconcerned€about€the€petitionerššs€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing€because€she€feltŠ *Q%) Šhe€could€not€understand€what€was€taking€place.€€Š ź*:&* ŠŠ Ó+#'+ Šą  ąThe€post„conviction€petition€seeks€review€of€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether€the€petitionerŠ ° Šwas€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€because€counsel€failed€to€request€a€competency€hearingŠ ™é Šand€failed€to€properly€investigate€and€present€defenses€in€an€adequate€manner;€(2)€whether€theŠ ‚Ņ Šappellant€was€competent€to€understand€the€proceedings€and€waive€his€right€to€a€trial€by€entering€aŠ k» Šš šbest€interestšš€plea;€and€(3)€whether€the€State€failed€to€disclose€or€permit€access€to€exculpatoryŠ T¤ Ševidence€in€violation€of€ņņBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€Š =  ŠĢņņÓ  ÓPost„Conviction€Standard€of€ReviewóóŠ  _ ŠÓ‘hÓą  ąĢą  ąŌ‡XÄXXXÄŌThe€post„conviction€courtššs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidenceŠ į 1  Špreponderates€otherwise.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€During€our€reviewŠ Ź   Šof€the€issue€raised,€we€will€afford€those€findings€of€fact€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€this€CourtŠ ³  Šis€bound€by€the€post„conviction€courtššs€findings€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderatesŠ œģ  Šagainst€those€findings.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997);€ņņAlley€v.€Stateóó,€958Š …Õ  ŠS.W.2d€138,€147€(Tenn.€Crim€.€App.€1997).€This€Court€may€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence,Š n¾  Šnor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€Honeycuttóó,Š W§  Š54€S.W.3d€762,€766€(Tenn.€2001).€However,€the€post„conviction€courtššs€conclusions€of€law€areŠ @ Šreviewed€under€a€purely€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€standard€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņFields€v.€Stateóó,Š )y Š40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).Ō#†XÄXXXÄi#ŌŌ‡X.ĘXXXÄԀРb ŠĢņņÓ  ÓIneffective€Assistance€of€CounselóóŠ ä4 ŠĢÓ nÓą  ąWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post-conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€ofŠ ¶ Šcounsel,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€(a)€the€services€rendered€by€trial€counselŠ Ÿļ Šwere€deficient€and€(b)€that€the€deficient€performance€was€prejudicial.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942Š ˆŲ ŠS.W.2d€551,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€order€to€demonstrate€deficient€performance,€theŠ qĮ Špetitioner€must€show€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€was€below€š šthe€range€ofŠ ZŖ Šcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.šš€€ņņBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.Š C“ Š1975).€€In€order€to€demonstrate€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€there€is€a€reasonableŠ ,| Šprobability€that,€but€for€counselššs€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€haveŠ e Šbeen€different.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694€(1984).€€š šBecause€a€petitioner€mustŠ žN Šestablish€both€prongs€of€the€test€to€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€failure€toŠ ē 7 Šprove€either€deficient€performance€or€resulting€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€reliefŠ Š!   Šon€the€claim.šš€€ņņHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€580€(Tenn.€1997).€€Š ¹" ! ŠĢą  ąAs€noted€above,€this€Court€will€afford€the€post„conviction€courtššs€factual€findings€aŠ ‹$Ū# Špresumption€of€correctness,€rendering€them€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€record€preponderatesŠ t%Ä $ Šagainst€the€courtššs€findings.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņid.óó€at€578.€€However,€our€supreme€court€has€š šdetermined€that€issuesŠ ]&­!% Šof€deficient€performance€by€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€are€mixed€questions€ofŠ F'–"& Šlaw€and€fact€.€.€.€;€thus,€[appellate]€review€of€[these€issues]€is€de€novošš€with€no€presumption€ofŠ /(#' Šcorrectness.€€ņņŌ#†XÄXXX.ĘŠm#ŌŌ‡XÄXXXÄŌBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461Ō#†XÄXXXÄžv#Ō.Š )h$( Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąĢą  ąFurthermore,€on€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€toŠ ź*:&* Šthe€benefit€of€hindsight.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€1994).€€This€Court€mayŠ Ó+#'+ Šnot€second-guess€a€reasonably„based€trial€strategy,€and€we€cannot€grant€relief€based€on€a€sound,€butŠ ° Šunsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€the€course€of€the€proceedings.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņid.óó€€However,€suchŠ ™é Šdeference€to€the€tactical€decisions€of€counsel€applies€only€if€counsel€makes€those€decisions€afterŠ ‚Ņ Šadequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Š k» Š1992).€Š T¤ ŠĢą  ąIn€the€case€herein,€the€petitioner€argues€that€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€from€counselŠ & v Šbecause€counsel€failed€to€request€a€competency€hearing€and€failed€to€properly€investigate€andŠ  _ Špresent€available€defenses€in€an€adequate€manner.€€Š ų H ŠĢņņÓ  ÓA.€€Failure€to€Request€a€Competency€HearingóóŠ Ź   ŠÓ{ÓĢą  ąIn€regards€to€the€competency€issue,€the€petitioner€specifically€argues€that€counsel€was€onŠ œģ  Šnotice€from€the€outset€of€the€representation€that€the€petitioner€had€potential€mental€health€problems,Š …Õ  Šyet€counsel€employed€medical€personnel€to€evaluate€the€petitionerššs€competency€only€at€the€timeŠ n¾  Šof€the€commission€of€the€offense€rather€than€his€competency€to€stand€trial€and€also€failed€to€requestŠ W§  Ša€competency€hearing.€€Petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€counselššs€failure€to€request€a€competencyŠ @ Šhearing€was€a€violation€of€due€process.€€The€State€argues€that€š štrial€counsel€should€not€be€faultedŠ )y Šfor€failing€to€request€a€mental€competency€hearing€when€none€of€the€experts€that€reviewed€theŠ b Špetitionerššs€medical€history€and€files€informed€him€that€the€petitioner€was€not€competent€to€standŠ ūK Štrial.šš€ą  ąŠ ä4 ŠĢą  ąAfter€listening€to€the€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€court€determined:Š ¶ ŠĢą8  ą[T]he€case€at€bar€is€ņņnotóó€a€case€in€which€counsel€failed€to€conduct€any€investigationŠ ˆŲ Šof€the€Petitionerššs€potential€for€mental€incompetence.€€Rather,€even€thoughŠ qĮ ŠPetitionerššs€counsel€did€not€request€a€competency€hearing,€counsel€did€present€theŠ ZŖ Štestimony€of€Dr.€Qualls€at€the€sentencing€hearing€regarding€the€issue€of€theŠ C“ ŠPetitionerššs€mental€competence€.€.€.€.€€Dr.€Qualls€proffered€no€testimony€that€wouldŠ ,| Šsuggest€that€the€Petitioner€was€unable€to€effectively€assist€his€legal€counsel€inŠ e Špresenting€and€preparing€his€own€defense.ŠžNŠ Š  ŠĢą8  ą.€.€.€[Dr.€Qualls]€deliberately€failed€to€go€beyond€the€limited€purpose€for€which€heŠ Š!   Šwas€hired€to€evaluate€the€Petitioner.€€Because€trial€counsel€reasonably€relied€uponŠ ¹" ! ŠDr.€Quallsššs€evaluation€as€to€the€Petitionerššs€mental€competence€and€because€thatŠ ¢#ņ" Šreliance€on€the€opinion€of€a€neuropsychiatric€expert€is€not€unreasonable,€this€CourtŠ ‹$Ū# Šfinds€that€the€assistance€rendered€by€trial€counsel€cannot€be€deemed€inadequateŠ t%Ä $ Šwhere€the€assistance€of€the€mental€health€expert€was€intentionally€deficient.Š]&­!%Š Š  ŠĢFurther,€the€trial€court€found€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel€š šcrediblešš€and€felt€that€trial€counselššsŠ /(#' Štestimony€š šreflect[ed]€the€petitionerššs€rational€decision„making€and€ability€to€choose€betweenŠ )h$( Šalternative€selections.šš€€Š *Q%) Šā āŠ ź*:&* Šą  ąIt€is€well„established€that€subjecting€a€mentally€incompetent€defendant€to€trial€violates€hisŠ ° Šā āright€to€due€process€of€law.€€ņņDrope€v.€Missourióó,€420€U.S.€162,€171€(1975).€€The€test€applicable€underŠ ™é Šthe€federal€constitution€in€evaluating€a€defendantššs€mental€competency€to€stand€trial€was€set€forthŠ ‚Ņ Šby€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€ņņDusky€v.€United€Statesóó,€362€U.S.€402,€402€(1960),€as:€Š k» Šą8  ą€€Š T¤ Š[W]hether€he€[the€defendant]€has€sufficient€present€ability€to€consult€with€his€lawyerŠ =  Šwith€a€reasonable€degree€of€rational€understanding€„€„€and€whether€he€has€a€rationalŠ & v Šas€well€as€factual€understanding€of€the€proceedings€against€him.€Š _Š Š  ŠĢą  ąIn€other€words,€a€defendant€must€possess€the€capacity€to€understand€the€nature€and€objectŠ į 1  Šof€the€proceedings€against€him,€to€consult€with€counsel,€and€to€assist€in€preparing€his€defense.€Š Ź   ŠņņDropeóó,€420€U.S.€at€171.€€Tennessee€courts€have€adopted€this€standard.€€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€Blackóó,€815Š ³  ŠS.W.2d€166,€173„74€(Tenn.€1991);€ņņState€v.€Lemingóó,€3€S.W.3d€7,€8„9€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).ņņóóŠ œģ  ŠĢą  ąBecause€a€defendant€has€exclusive€authority€to€make€the€ultimate€decisions€about€his€caseŠ n¾  Šonce€having€been€fully€informed€of€the€rights€and€the€potential€consequences€involved,€theŠ W§  Šcompetence€of€a€criminal€defendant€is€critically€important.€€ņņZagorski€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€654,€658„Š @ Š61€(Tenn.€1998)€(affirming€a€competent€defendantššs€right€to€decline€to€present€mitigating€evidenceŠ )y Šduring€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€capital€trial).€€Consistent€with€this€rationale,€the€American€BarŠ b ŠAssociationššs€Standards€for€Criminal€Justice€provide€that€defense€counsel€should€move€forŠ ūK Ševaluation€of€a€defendantšš€s€competence€to€stand€trial€whenever€he€has€a€good€faith€doubt€as€to€theŠ ä4 Šdefendantššs€competence,€even€if€the€client€objects€to€such€a€motion€being€made.€€ABA€StandardsŠ Ķ Šfor€Criminal€Justice€šš€7„4.2(c).€Š ¶ ŠĢą  ąThus,€in€evaluating€the€petitionerššs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€herein,€we€mustŠ ˆŲ Šdetermine€whether€petitionerššs€counsel€had€reasonable€cause€to€raise€the€issue€of€competency€toŠ qĮ Šstand€trial.€€We€initially€note€that€this€is€not€a€case€in€which€counsel€failed€to€conduct€anyŠ ZŖ Šinvestigation€of€the€petitionerššs€history€of€mental€illness.€€Rather,€counsel€reviewed€recordsŠ C“ Špertaining€to€the€petitionerššs€medical€past€and€consulted€with€at€least€one€of€the€petitionerššs€doctors,Š ,| Ša€urologist,€as€a€result€of€that€review.€€Furthermore,€trial€counsel€employed€a€neuropsychologist€toŠ e Šperform€an€evaluation€on€the€petitioner€to€ascertain€his€competence€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€TheŠ žN Šrecords€reviewed€by€counsel€and€the€opinions€of€Dr.€Qualls€gave€trial€counsel€the€opinion€that€thereŠ ē 7 Šwas€š šno€doubt€that€.€.€.€[the€petitioner]€had€a€full€appreciation€for€the€consequences€of€the€criminalŠ Š!   Šcase.šš€€Counsel€testified€that€he€gave€š šno€serious€considerationšš€to€a€competency€hearing€becauseŠ ¹" ! Šthe€petitioner€was€able€to€relay€the€facts€of€the€situation,€understood€his€legal€options,€was€able€toŠ ¢#ņ" Šmake€an€informed€decision€to€enter€into€the€guilty€plea,€and€both€Dr.€Qualls€and€Dr.€MacMillan€toldŠ ‹$Ū# Šhim€that€the€petitioner€was€competent€and€realized€the€consequences€of€what€was€occurring€in€court.Š t%Ä $ ŠThe€trial€court€found€that€counselššs€š štestimony€on€this€issue€is€credible€and€reflects€the€petitionerššsŠ ]&­!% Šrational€decision„making€ability€to€choose€between€alternative€selections.šš€€Š F'–"& ŠĢą  ąš š[Q]uestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€andŠ )h$( Šresolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.šš€Š *Q%) ŠņņState€v.€Odumóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€Furthermore,€this€Court€affords€the€post„convictionŠ ź*:&* Šcourtššs€factual€findings€a€presumption€of€correctness,€rendering€them€conclusive€on€appeal€unlessŠ Ó+#'+ Šthe€record€preponderates€against€the€courtššs€findings.€€After€a€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€review,€we€conclude€that€theŠ ° Ševidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtššs€decision€that€trial€counsel€wasŠ ™é Šeffective€despite€the€failure€to€request€a€competency€hearing.€€Š ‚Ņ ŠĢņņÓ  ÓB.€€Failure€to€Properly€Investigate€and€Present€an€Adequate€DefenseóóŠ T¤ ŠÓ™šÓĢą  ąThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€properly€investigate€and€presentŠ & v Šavailable€defenses€in€an€adequate€manner.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€claims€that€trial€counsel€failedŠ  _ Što€question€potential€witnesses,€failed€to€obtain€relevant€information€in€a€timely€fashion,€and€failedŠ ų H Što€compare€the€existing€medical€records€with€the€testimony€of€the€witnesses.€€The€State€counters€thatŠ į 1  Šthe€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtššs€decision€that€trial€counsel€was€notŠ Ź   Šineffective.€€Š ³  ŠĢą  ąAfter€hearing€the€testimony€at€the€hearing€on€the€post„conviction€petition,€the€trial€courtŠ …Õ  Šfound€that€trial€counselššs€testimony€was€credible€regarding€his€investigation€and€strategic€decisionsŠ n¾  Šassociated€with€the€case.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€found€counselššs€pre„trial€performance€was€notŠ W§  Šdeficient.€€Š @ ŠĢą  ąThe€evidence€showed€that€trial€counsel€hired€a€private€investigator€to€compile€informationŠ b Šregarding€the€victim,€the€victimššs€family,€and€other€potential€witnesses.€€Trial€counsel€obtained€theŠ ūK Švictimššs€medical€records,€learned€as€much€as€he€could€about€the€co„defendant,€and€evaluated€theŠ ä4 Šš šglaring€inconsistenciesšš€in€her€statements€regarding€the€case.€€He€consulted€two€physiciansŠ Ķ Šregarding€the€petitionerššs€impotence,€interviewed€the€petitionerššs€own€urologist,€and€hired€Dr.Š ¶ ŠQualls€to€perform€a€competency€evaluation.€€Trial€counsel€relayed€to€the€petitioner€that€he€felt€theyŠ Ÿļ Šhad€a€š špersuasivešš€case€based€on€the€inconsistencies€in€the€co„defendantššs€story,€the€victimššsŠ ˆŲ Šmedical€history,€and€the€petitionerššs€lack€of€capacity€to€form€criminal€intent.€€After€discussing€theŠ qĮ Šoptions€with€the€petitioner,€the€petitioner€himself€made€the€decision€to€plead€guilty€rather€than€faceŠ ZŖ Ša€trial.€€Š C“ ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€herein€did€not€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test€in€order€to€prevail€on€a€claim€ofŠ e Šineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€ņņHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€580.€€€In€fact,€he€failed€to€satisfy€even€theŠ žN Šfirst€prong€by€showing€that€counselššs€performance€was€deficient.€€Failure€to€prove€either€prongŠ ē 7 Šprovides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief.€€ņņId.óó€€The€trial€court€afforded€great€credibility€to€theŠ Š!   Štestimony€of€trial€counsel.€€As€stated€previously,€we€give€that€determination€great€deference€onŠ ¹" ! Šappeal.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņOdumóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.€€We€also€afford€the€post„conviction€courtššs€factual€findingsŠ ¢#ņ" Ša€presumption€of€correctness,€rendering€them€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€record€preponderatesŠ ‹$Ū# Šagainst€the€courtššs€findings.€€After€a€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€review,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€recordŠ t%Ä $ Šdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtššs€decision€that€trial€counsel€was€effective€in€hisŠ ]&­!% Šinvestigation€of€the€case.€€Š F'–"& ŠĢņņÓ  ÓVoluntary€and€Knowing€Guilty€Pleaóó€Š )h$( ŠÓ  Óą  ąą ` ąĢą  ąThe€second€issue€raised€by€the€petitioner€in€this€post„conviction€appeal€questions€theŠ ź*:&* Šknowing€and€voluntary€nature€of€his€š šbest€interestšš€plea.€€The€petitioner€maintains€that€the€StateŠ Ó+#'+ Šoffered€no€proof€of€his€competency€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€and€that€the€trial€court€failed€toŠ ° Šorder€a€competency€hearing€when€it€was€put€on€notice€that€there€were€issues€regarding€theŠ ™é Špetitionerššs€competency.€The€State€argues€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialŠ ‚Ņ Šcourtššs€finding€that€the€plea€was€knowingly€and€voluntarily€entered€and,€therefore,€the€issue€isŠ k» Šwithout€merit.€€Š T¤ ŠĢą  ąWhen€evaluating€the€knowing€and€voluntary€nature€of€a€guilty€plea,€the€United€StatesŠ & v ŠSupreme€Court€has€held€that€š š[t]he€standard€was€and€remains€whether€the€plea€represents€a€voluntaryŠ  _ Šand€intelligent€choice€among€the€alternative€courses€of€action€open€to€the€defendant.šš€€ņņNorthŠ ų H ŠCarolina€v.€Alfordóó,€400€U.S.€25,€30€(1970).€€The€court€reviewing€the€voluntariness€of€a€guilty€pleaŠ į 1  Šmust€look€to€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€Turneróó,€191€S.W.2d€346,€353€(Tenn.Š Ź   ŠCrim.€App.€1995);€ņņsee€alsoóó€ņņChamberlain€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€534,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€Š ³  ŠSpecifically,€a€reviewing€court€must€consider€š šthe€relative€intelligence€of€the€defendant;€the€degreeŠ œģ  Šof€his€familiarity€with€criminal€proceedings;€whether€he€was€represented€by€competent€counsel€andŠ …Õ  Šhad€the€opportunity€to€confer€with€counsel€about€the€options€available€to€him;€the€extent€of€adviceŠ n¾  Šfrom€counsel€and€the€court€concerning€the€charges€against€him;€and€the€reasons€for€his€decision€toŠ W§  Šplead€guilty,€including€a€desire€to€avoid€a€greater€penalty€that€might€result€from€a€jury€trial.€Š @ ŠņņBlankenship€v.€Stateóó,€858€S.W.2d€897,€904€(Tenn.€1993).€€Š )y ŠĢą  ąLooking€at€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€while€trial€counsel€did€not€request€a€competencyŠ ūK Šhearing,€counsel€did€present€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Qualls€at€the€sentencing€hearing€regarding€the€issueŠ ä4 Šof€petitionerššs€competence.€€Dr.€Quallsššs€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing€was€consistent€withŠ Ķ Šthe€testimony€he€offered€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€post„conviction€petition.€€In€his€opinion,Š ¶ Šthe€petitioner€was€not€mentally€competent€to€š šformulate€the€intent,€plan€and€execute€the€actsŠ Ÿļ Šdescribed€in€the€criminal€charges€against€him.šš€€Aside€from€this€conclusion,€Dr.€Qualls€made€noŠ ˆŲ Šcomments€that€would€indicate€that€the€petitioner€was€unable€to€effectively€assist€his€counsel€inŠ qĮ Špreparing€for€trial,€standing€trial,€or€entering€a€plea.€€Trial€counsel€relied€on€Dr.€Quallsššs€assessmentŠ ZŖ Šof€the€petitioner€in€making€the€determination€as€to€whether€or€not€to€request€a€competency€hearing.€Š C“ ŠĢĢą  ąAt€the€hearing€on€the€š šbest€interestšš€guilty€plea,€petitioner€was€able€to€articulate€andŠ žN Šappropriately€respond€to€questions€asked€of€him€by€the€trial€court.€€In€denying€the€post„convictionŠ ē 7 Šrelief€based€on€the€voluntariness€of€the€guilty€plea,€the€trial€court€noted€that€there€was€no€š šbehaviorŠ Š!   Šon€behalf€of€the€petitioner€that€would€alert€the€court€that€the€petitioner€was€mentally€incompetentššŠ ¹" ! Šand€that€š špetitionerššs€responses€to€the€questions€posed€him€by€the€court€at€the€guilty€plea€proceedingŠ ¢#ņ" Šwere€appropriate€and€germane€to€the€subject€matter€at€hand.šš€€The€trial€court€went€on€to€point€outŠ ‹$Ū# Šthat€the€petitioner€did€not€respond€with€the€š šstockšš€answers€of€š šyesšš€and€š šno,šš€but€that€the€petitionerŠ t%Ä $ Šused€such€phrases€as€š šthatššs€correct,šš€š šno,€I€donššt,šš€š šI€would,šš€and€š šthatššs€right.šš€€At€the€sentencingŠ ]&­!% Šhearing€after€the€guilty€plea€when€Dr.€Qualls€indicated€that€the€petitioner€might€not€be€competent,Š F'–"& Šthe€trial€court€interrupted€the€proceedings€to€extensively€question€the€petitioner€about€hisŠ /(#' Šunderstanding€of€the€nature€of€the€criminal€charges,€his€understanding€of€the€guilty€plea,€his€abilityŠ )h$( Što€appreciate€the€consequences€of€the€proceedings€against€him,€and€his€ability€to€assist€his€legalŠ *Q%) Šcounsel€in€furtherance€of€his€own€defense.€€The€trial€court,€satisfied€with€the€petitionerššs€responses,Š ź*:&* Šproceeded€with€sentencing.€€€€€Š Ó+#'+ Їą  ąUltimately,€the€trial€court€found€that€while€š šnot€sophisticated€in€his€understanding,€theŠ ° Špetitioner€was€able€to€chose€between€alternatives€and€able€to€understand€the€consequences€of€theŠ ™é Šlegal€proceeding,šš€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€incompetent€to€stand€trial€at€theŠ ‚Ņ Štime€he€entered€his€plea,€and€that€the€various€witnesses€at€the€sentencing€hearing€and€evidentiaryŠ k» Šhearing€established€that€the€petitioner€was€able€to€consult€with€his€trial€counsel,€understand€theŠ T¤ Šproceedings,€and€assist€in€the€preparation€of€his€defense.€Š =  ŠĢą  ąIn€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€questioned€the€petitioner€extensively€in€order€to€satisfy€theŠ  _ Šrequirements€of€ņņBlankenshipóó.€€The€trial€court€also€accredited€trial€counselššs€testimony€that€theŠ ų H Špetitioner€was€competent€during€his€plea€hearing,€thus€finding€his€guilty€plea€was€entered€knowinglyŠ į 1  Šand€voluntarily.€€The€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court's€findingsŠ Ź   Šin€this€case.€Therefore,€we€conclude€that,€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€the€record€fullyŠ ³  Šsupports€the€trial€courtššs€determination€that€the€petitioner€entered€a€knowing,€intelligent€andŠ œģ  Švoluntary€guilty€plea.€This€issue€has€no€merit.€€€€Š …Õ  ŠĢņņÓ  ÓFailure€to€Disclose€Exculpatory€EvidenceóóŠ W§  ŠÓžĮÓĢą  ąFinally,€the€petitioner€argues€on€appeal€that€the€State€failed€to€disclose€information€andŠ )y Špermitted€false€testimony€to€be€introduced€at€the€sentencing€hearing€in€violation€of€ņņBrady€v.Š b ŠMarylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€the€trial€court€was€under€the€impressionŠ ūK Šthat€the€victimššs€hospitalization€rendered€her€unable€to€appear€in€court€when€the€State€knew€that€theŠ ä4 Švictim€was€hospitalized€at€the€time€of€sentencing€for€reasons€not€related€to€the€offense.€€Further,€heŠ Ķ Šargues€that€the€State€knew€that€the€victim€š šhad€been€caught€performing€oral€sex€for€money€on€someŠ ¶ Šfifteen€young€menšš€approximately€one€year€after€the€incident,€yet€did€not€disclose€the€informationŠ Ÿļ Što€the€petitioner.€€The€State€argues€that€the€victimššs€mother€indicated€in€her€deposition€that€theŠ ˆŲ Švictim€was€receiving€treatment€as€a€result€of€the€offense€and€that€š šthe€petitioner€has€not€shown€thatŠ qĮ Šthe€result€of€the€sentencing€hearing€would€have€been€different€had€trial€counsel€been€aware€of€theŠ ZŖ Šinformation€relative€to€the€alleged€promiscuous€sexual€behavior€of€the€victim.ššŠ C“ ŠĢą  ąWe€observe€at€the€outset€that€the€petitioner€waived€these€matters€by€failing€to€raise€them€onŠ e Šdirect€appeal.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„30„206(g);€ņņMinoróó,€1999€WL€1179143,€at€*1.€€We€thereforeŠ žN Šconclude€that€he€has€waived€these€contentions.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€John€L.€Goodwin,€IIIóó,€No.€M2001„Š ē 7 Š00044„CCA„R3„PC,€2002€WL€1827504,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Aug.€2,€2002).€Š Š!   ŠHowever,€we€observe€that€even€if€the€petitioner€had€not€waived€these€concerns,€he€failed€to€provideŠ ¹" ! Šthe€requisite€clear€and€convincing€evidence€supporting€them.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„30„210(f).Š ¢#ņ" ŠĢą  ąIn€ņņBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€š šsuppression€by€the€prosecution€ofŠ t%Ä $ Ševidence€favorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€materialŠ ]&­!% Šeither€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution.šš€Š F'–"& ŠņņBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87;€ņņseeóó€ņņalsoóó€ņņHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€101€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€order€toŠ /(#' Šestablish€a€due€process€violation€under€Brady,€four€prerequisites€must€be€met:Š )h$( Šą8  ą€Š Š1.€The€defendant€must€have€requested€the€information€(unless€the€evidence€isŠ ź*:&* Šobviously€exculpatory,€in€which€case€the€state€is€bound€to€release€the€information,Š Ó+#'+ Šwhether€requested€or€not);€Š ° Š2.€The€state€must€have€suppressed€the€information;€Š ™é Š3.€The€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€and€Š ‚Ņ Š4.€The€information€must€have€been€material.€Šk»Š Š  ŠŠ ŠņņState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€burden€of€proving€a€ņņBradyóó€violation€restsŠ =  Šwith€the€defendant,€and€the€violation€must€be€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€ņņId.óó€€WhenŠ & v Šdetermining€the€materiality€of€undisclosed€information,€a€reviewing€court€must€establish€whetherŠ  _ Šš šin€[the]€absence€[of€the€information,€the€defendant]€received€a€fair€trial,€understood€as€a€trialŠ ų H Šresulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€of€confidence.šš€€ņņKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€434€(1995).€€In€otherŠ į 1  Šwords,€evidence€is€considered€material€only€if€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€had€the€evidenceŠ Ź   Šbeen€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€results€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€ņņEdginóó,€902Š ³  ŠS.W.2d€at€390„91.Š œģ  ŠĢą  ąHere,€the€petitioner€complains€that€the€State€failed€to€turn€over€information€regarding€theŠ n¾  Šnature€of€the€victimššs€hospitalization€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing€and€information€regardingŠ W§  Šthe€promiscuous€behavior€of€the€victim€that€occurred€about€a€year€after€the€incident€with€theŠ @ Špetitioner.€€The€petitioner€argues€that€the€behavior€of€the€victim€goes€to€the€credibility€of€the€victim.€Š )y ŠThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€the€State€allowed€false€testimony€by€the€victimššs€mother€at€theŠ b Šsentencing€hearing€regarding€the€victimššs€hospitalization.€€The€petitioner€bases€his€argument€on€theŠ ūK Šdeposition€of€the€victimššs€mother€which€was€taken€during€the€related€civil€case€in€May€of€1999,Š ä4 Šapproximately€a€year€after€the€guilty€plea.€Š Ķ ŠĢą  ąThe€evidence€in€the€record€reveals€that€in€the€deposition,€the€mother€asserted€that€she€toldŠ Ÿļ Šthe€district€attorney€about€the€sexual€incident€and€hospitalization.€€The€petitioner€therefore€claimsŠ ˆŲ Šthat€the€information€was€made€known€to€the€State€prior€to€the€sentencing€hearing€by€the€victimššsŠ qĮ Šmother,€but€that€neither€the€District€Attorney€nor€the€detective€disclosed€this€information€to€the€courtŠ ZŖ Šor€the€petitioner.€€Š C“ ŠĢą  ąRegarding€the€hospitalization,€the€excerpt€from€the€deposition€of€the€victimššs€motherŠ e Šindicates€that€the€victim€was€receiving€treatment€for€an€incident€involving€her€stepfather€as€well€asŠ žN Šthe€š šrape.šš€€The€State€claimed€no€knowledge€of€the€sexual€promiscuity€of€the€victim.€€In€fact,€theŠ ē 7 Šassistant€district€attorney€who€prosecuted€the€case€up€until€the€date€of€the€guilty€plea€testified€at€theŠ Š!   Špost„conviction€hearing€that€he€provided€trial€counsel€with€all€material€that€was€available€to€himŠ ¹" ! Špursuant€to€ņņBradyóó.€€He€also€testified€that€had€he€known€that€the€victim€had€engaged€in€š šsex€for€hireššŠ ¢#ņ" Šprior€to€sentencing€that€he€probably€would€have€revealed€that€information€to€the€defense.Š ‹$Ū# ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€found€that€š šthe€reasons€about€why€the€victim€may€or€may€not€have€beenŠ ]&­!% Špresent€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€which€occurred€after€the€entry€of€the€guilty€plea,€are€not€relevantŠ F'–"& Što€issues€of€post„conviction€relief.šš€€Further,€in€regards€to€the€alleged€promiscuous€behavior€of€theŠ /(#' Švictim,€the€trial€court€found€that€š šthe€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€theŠ )h$( Ševidence€that€the€withheld€information,€while€favorable,€was€material€in€nature;šš€that€the€petitionerŠ *Q%) Šš šhas€failed€to€prove€the€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€sentencing€hearing€would€haveŠ ź*:&* Šbeen€different€had€his€trial€counsel€been€aware€of€the€information;šš€that€the€information€was€notŠ Ó+#'+ Šš šdirectly€exculpatory€in€nature;šš€and€that€the€evidence€would€not€have€been€persuasive€at€theŠ ° Šsentencing€hearing.€€The€trial€court€also€held€that€the€evidence€of€the€victimššs€alleged€behavior€wasŠ ™é Šnot€admissible€as€impeachment€evidence€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€412(c)€€because€it€wasŠ ‚Ņ Šnot€evidence€of€a€pattern€of€behavior€and€the€evidence€was€unfairly€prejudicial€to€the€victim.€€Š k» ŠĢą  ąAfter€a€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€review,€we€conclude€that€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€theŠ =  Šfindings€of€the€trial€court.€€The€petitioner€failed€to€show€that€the€allegedly€withheld€evidence€wasŠ & v Šmaterial€because€he€did€not€show:€(1)€that€the€State€suppressed€the€information;€(2)€that€theŠ  _ Šinformation€was€obviously€exculpatory;€(3)€that€the€information€was€favorable€to€the€petitioner;€orŠ ų H Š(4)€that€the€information€was€material€in€that€there€was€a€reasonable€probability€that€had€the€evidenceŠ į 1  Šbeen€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€results€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€Š Ź   ŠConsequently,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€Š ³  ŠĢņņÓ  ÓConclusionóóŠ …Õ  ŠĢÓ¹ćÓą  ąFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€conclude€that€none€of€the€petitionerššs€claims€merit€relief.€Š W§  ŠAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.€€Š @ Šą  ąĢĢą0  ąą0` (#(#ąą0ø ` (#` (#ąą0ø (#ø (#ąą0h(#(#ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą___________________________________€ŠūK(#(# Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE