ÿWPC qa[@õÃ./Ñ_È4 ÿÇ ù3Õ,†Ø*xB v/Õ–ýý©@ñ•±²z°Ï ø!‡Ð}ý±Ý“Ê€6±!6‚"``ç([¯‡ÙI=ÎÔfiA[mbóuý[@3{À‘rúHùëÔ*=Dx¬f é¶œŽ©—Ö;3ªñ>и{ÃBœó8W&ßc°—»<ÈŸY|:‡à+Þ•î>¦/[âð0å¯UsÞVÍ„œæm¦Ø'Iù¨ºr ž}ÿ$š³½Òf>t*Yk\ès¬#j¼:T•Lܲ:L§ RBF²@Œ}Ep¬Í_\S–ü ¸=--÷«ë ±Ö“I>Þ¦ÂJ”*%ºp¬­»[-u"¢¿m<"ÿÆ'—±h’Z¡ë ¿j ’k«À1n±™súë'#ÏÆ`Q1Šfn@'¥Úÿu¦µâS¯$Q®_q‚æFã1€ïÿpIÌ7ùkýù’÷:ä6WÁðr/õ~™ñ²î=N±Ì—Q0£² |íþì\ Œ+¥®b?(ÁVû$ñ©Ó­… Òªe ¹x½<,,‚w¡w–öElý@‡o¡Â˜ÓAàà¡VÈÊQœ˜ÝOÎ'–³¹wž„¡QE¬¼‰Ä•‹)# >UNI %— 0(U:Å 0cÿU:b 0ÆœU:bw@œ4ÜðÿdU.k (™ U:Á Á Á Á Á Á Á û û û û û û û AQˆÆÙ 0DŸ 0Dã 0D' Bk D/ˆˆ B· D3Ô˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular("Cƒ$Ô€X`XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(v(2u$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ X0TXXXÔÔ€ ôžôX X0TÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular DEEÓ€*n~<$PÔô3|x* ZÝ ƒu$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ XLMXXXÔÔ€ ôo¸ôX XLMÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€petitioner€elicited€testimony€regarding€counselððs€failure€to€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€toÐ ° Ðinstruct€on€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Counsel€also€referenced€this€alleged€error€in€his€argument€to€theÏjudge€after€the€hearing.€€However,€this€particular€claim€is€not€contained€in€the€written€petition.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„¼30„210(c)€specifically€provides€that€ð ð[p]roof€upon€the€petitionerððs€claim€or€claims€for€relief€shall€be€limited€toÏevidence€of€the€allegations€of€fact€in€the€petition.ðð€€Since€neither€the€original€pro€se€petition€nor€theÏamended€petition€filed€by€counsel€mentions€this€alleged€error,€the€post„conviction€court€was€precludedÏfrom€considering€it.%ä2¼A`ArialTT Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XoXXXÔÔ€ÉKXXoÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XoXÉKÔÐ  ÐÌò òNovember€9,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÍ ôXXoÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ƒÝ ƒnå$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ X)ÖXXXÔÔ€ ôjôX X)ÖÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Any€claim€of€error€on€part€of€the€trial€court€outside€the€scope€of€an€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ° Ðcounsel€claim€would€also€be€considered€waived€because€it€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal.€€T.C.A.€40„30„¼206(g). !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýññ›ññÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XLMXXXÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€lºXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ‡XoXXXLMÔñ*ñññßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@E ±` ttx$X°ð Õrßñññ*ññ*ññ*ñññ›ññà@k k Dàò òIN€THE€TENNESSEE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSˆÌñ*ñœßt€(>.*jxäþ` `€€@E±` ttx$<œð étß›ñ*ñÌà@ÀÀ*DàAT€JACKSONˆÌÌòòà@SS&DàóóJULY€SESSION,€1998ˆÐ `° ÐÌÌÌTHOMAS€EDWARD€MURPHY,€JR.,à  à)Ð  ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àó óPetitioner,ò òà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€C.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9710„CC„00378Ð è 8  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìó óVS.ò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€FAYETTE€COUNTYÐ À  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àà  à)€€€HONORABLE€JON€KERRY€BLACKWOODÐ ˜è  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àó óRespondent.ò òà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€ó ó(Post„Conviction:€Second€Degree€Murder)ò òÐ pÀ ÐÌòòÌóóó óÌòòÌFor€the€Petitioneróóà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòòFor€the€RespondentóóÐ P ÐÌAndrew€S.€Johnstonà h àà À àà  àà p àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ Ì Ð108€E.€Court€Squareà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ ² ÐSomerville,€TN€38068à h àà À àà  àà p àÐ ˜è Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àClinton€J.€MorganÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€SouthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óElizabeth€T.€RiceÐ ü L Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à302€Market€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àSomerville,€TN€38068„1600Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌó óÔ#†XLMXXXoù#ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÌÌÌÐ è:86;9 Ðà@,Dàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà ` àThe€petitioner€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief.€€The€petitioner€was€originally€convicted€of€the€second€degree€murder€of€his€daughterÏand€was€sentenced€to€eighteen€years€imprisonment.€€òòState€v.€Thomas€Edward€Murphy,€Jr.óó,Ð 0 € ÐNo.€02C01„9502„CC„00032€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€June€28,€1996),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó,Ð `  Ð(Tenn.,€Dec.€23,€1996).€€The€petition€filed€below€challenges€various€aspects€of€counselððsÏeffectiveness,€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€trial€court€errors.€€After€conducting€a€hearing,Ïthe€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€petitioner€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏIn€the€order€outlining€its€findings€and€conclusions,€the€trial€court€did€not€specifically€addressÏthe€other€claims€raised€in€the€petition.€€On€appeal,€however,€the€petitioner€only€raises€theÏfollowing€two€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` à1)€Whether€the€petitioner€was€denied€due€process€by€the€trial€courtððs€failure€Ï€€€€€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€lesser€charge€of€voluntary€manslaughter;€andÐ ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` à2)€Whether€the€petitioner€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àAfter€reviewing€the€record€before€the€Court,€including€the€petition€filed€below,€weÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€the€petitionerððs€post„conviction€petition.ÌÌà@JJ+Dàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ `'°"% Ðò ò1)ó óà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€the€petitioner€challenges€for€the€first€time€on€appeal€the€trialÐ @)$' Ðcourtððs€failure€to€instruct€on€the€lesser€charge,€as€well€as€counselððs€failure€to€raise€thisÏalleged€error€during€direct€appeal.€€The€petitioner€did€not€raise€these€issues€in€his€writtenÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.׃×Ý ƒCƒÝÔ€XoXXXLMÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Since€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€consider€theÐ à.0*- Ðmerits€of€these€claims,€this€Court€is€precluded€from€reviewing€them€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòButlerÐ Ä0,/ Ðv.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€902€(Tenn.€1990);€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€928€S.W.2d€453,€457€(Tenn.Ð 2à-1 ÐCrim.€App.€1996).€€Accordingly,€these€issues€have€been€waived.׃×Ý ƒCƒÝÔ€X)ÖXXX)ÖÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„206(g);Ð ° ÐT.R.A.P.€36(a).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€510€S.W.2d€83,€85€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974)€(ð ð[a]Ð ˆØ Ðpost„conviction€petition€must€necessarily€rest€upon€and€be€determined€by€the€factualÏallegations€it€containsðð).ÌÌà ` àAdditionally,€we€find€that€petitionerððs€challenge€to€counselððs€failure€to€requestÏindividual€or€sequestered€voir€dire€has€been€previously€determined.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„¼206(h).€€On€the€direct€appeal€of€his€conviction,€the€petitioner€claimed€that€a€newspaperÏarticle€discussing€this€case€which€appeared€on€the€front€page€of€a€local€newspaper€theÏmorning€the€trial€began€prejudiced€his€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€During€collective€voir€dire,Ïseveral€prospective€jurors€stated€they€read€either€the€headlines€or€the€article€that€morning.€ÏCounsel,€however,€did€not€request€individual€or€sequestered€voir€dire.€€Some€of€theseÏjurors€ultimately€served€on€the€jury€in€this€case.€€€Despite€the€fact€that€the€issue€was€raisedÏfor€the€first€time€on€direct€appeal,€this€Court€reviewed€the€merits€of€the€petitionerððs€claim.€ÏFinding€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion,€ð ðwe€[found]€that€the€jury€was€notÏprejudiced€by€collective€voir€dire€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€theÏdefendantððs€motion€for€a€mistrial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Thomas€Edward€Murphy,€Jr.óó,€No.€02C01„9502„Ð 0"€  ÐCC„00032€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€June€28,€1996).€€Accordingly,€since€a€panel€of€this€Court€hasÏalready€determined€that€the€validity€of€the€trial€in€this€case€was€not€undermined€by€the€voirÏdire€as€conducted,€any€challenge€to€counselððs€performance€in€this€instance€is€without€merit.ÌÌò ò2)ó óà ` àThe€petitioner€also€claims€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€whenÐ h+¸&* Ðhis€attorney:€1)€failed€to€hire€expert€witnesses;€2)€failed€to€adequately€impeach€a€witnessÏfor€the€state;€3)€failed€to€emphasize€an€alleged€discrepancy€in€the€stateððs€time€line€of€theÏcrime;€and€4)€failed€to€emphasize€the€apparent€differences€in€the€victimððs€clothing€betweenÏwhen€she€was€last€seen€and€found.ÌÐ °404 Ðà ` àThe€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€consisted€solely€of€the€testimony€of€theÏpetitioner€and€his€trial€counsel.€€After€hearing€the€testimony€of€both€witnesses,€the€post„¼conviction€court€entered€the€following€findings€and€conclusions:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àPetitioner€testified€that€an€expert€witness€could€have€established€thatÏthe€nine„millimeter€pistol€traced€to€him€was€not€the€murder€weapon.€€HeÏfurther€asserted€that€a€DNA€expert€could€have€testified€that€a€hair€sampleÏfound€near€the€victimððs€body€was€not€his.€€He€complained€that€counsel€didÏnot€point€out€that€the€Stateððs€pathologist€could€not€establish€the€time€of€deathÏand€that€petitioner€was€out€of€state€after€December€28.€€Notwithstanding€thisÏuncertainty,€the€State€was€allowed€to€argue€that€the€incident€took€place€onÏDecember€23.€€Petitioner€claims€counsel€was€deficient€in€bringing€to€theÏjuryððs€attention€the€numerous€inconsistent€statements€made€by€DougÏMurphy.€€He€also€testified€that€a€witness€referred€to€a€prior€arrest€ofÏpetitioner.€€He€claimed€counselððs€failure€to€seek€an€interlocutory€appeal€afterÏthe€denial€of€a€mistrial€motion€was€prejudicial.€€He€stated€he€received€a€letterÏafter€the€trial€that€brought€to€his€attention€that€the€victim€was€wearingÏdifferent€clothes€than€the€clothing€she€was€wearing€when€the€petitioner€lastÏsaw€the€victim.€€Counselððs€failure€to€point€this€out€was€prejudicial.€€He€statedÏhe€wanted€to€testify.€€Had€he€testified,€he€believed€he€could€have€shown€hisÏinnocence.€€Lastly,€he€believed€counsel€was€not€prepared.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àMs.€McCoy€Johnson€[trial€counsel]€pointed€out€that€no€expertÏconclusively€established€that€the€nine„millimeter€pistol€was€the€murderÏweapon€nor€that€the€hair€sample€was€traceable€to€the€petitioner.€€Secondly,Ïfunds€for€experts€were€limited.€€Lastly,€had€an€expert€been€able€to€prove€thatÏthe€gun€and€hair€were€traceable€to€the€petitioner,€this€information€would€haveÏto€be€revealed€to€the€State.€€Ms.€McCoy€Johnson€testified€that€she€did€pointÏout€the€fact€that€the€petitioner€was€out€of€state€after€December€28,€and€thatÏno€definite€time€was€established€for€the€time€of€death.€€She€also€pointed€outÏthe€contradictory€statements€of€Doug€Murphy.€€She€further€testified€that€anÏinterlocutory€appeal€was€inappropriate€for€a€denial€of€a€mistrial.€€She€furtherÏwas€unaware€of€any€letter€received€by€petitioner€regarding€the€victimððsÏclothing.€€She€also€stated€that€the€petitioner€was€aware€of€the€right€to€testify.€ÏAfter€his€self„serving€statement€was€read€to€the€jury€as€part€of€the€StateððsÏproof,€there€was€no€need€for€him€to€testify.€€However,€the€petitioner€made€theÏdecision€not€to€testify.€€Lastly,€she€testified€that€she€and€her€staff€wereÏadequately€prepared.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àWHEREFORE,€THE€COURT€CONCLUDES€THAT:Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à1.€Petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€any€of€these€alleged€errors€byÏcounsel€would€have€changed€the€result.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ à2.€The€Court€finds€that€petitioner€was€not€denied€effective€assistanceÏof€counsel.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€theÏallegations€in€his€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€It€hasÏlong€been€established€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€in€post„¼conviction€suits€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814Ð (:x5: ÐS.W.2d€64,€67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusionsÏof€law€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€appellate€court€finds€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€findings.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€Ð `° ÐFurthermore,€this€Court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€itsÏinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.Ð  ` ÐCrim.€App.€1990).ÌÌà ` àThe€Courtððs€review€of€the€post„conviction€courtððs€judgment€is€governed€by€severalÏwell-established€principles.€€In€order€for€the€petitioner€to€be€granted€relief€on€grounds€ofÏineffective€counsel,€he€must€establish€that€the€advice€given€or€the€services€rendered€wereÏnot€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€and€that,€butÏfor€his€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€his€trial€would€have€likely€beenÏdifferent.€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);Ð Ð  ÐòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€Furthermore,€this€Court€may€notÐ ¨ø Ðsecond-guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€thoseÏchoices€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€òòœHellard›€v.€Stateóó,€€629Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€Trial€counsel€may€not€be€deemed€ineffective€merely€becauseÏa€different€procedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,Ð $X" Ð599€S.W.2d€276€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€The€reviewing€courts€must€indulge€a€strongÏpresumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€falls€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professionalÏassistance.€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690.€Ð )à$( ÐÌà ` àThe€presumption€is€that€the€attorney€rendered€effective€assistance,€and€the€burdenÏis€on€the€petitioner€to€prove€both€that€the€assistance€was€ineffective€and€that€suchÏineffectiveness€caused€the€petitioner€to€suffer€prejudice.€€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2dÐ ð0@,0 Ð94,€104€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€a€post-conviction€proceeding,€a€petitioner's€uncorroboratedÏtestimony€is€insufficient€to€carry€this€burden€of€proof.€€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,€757Ð  4ð/4 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Similarly,€the€petitioner€cannot€demonstrate€prejudice€resultingÏfrom€counselððs€failure€to€hire€experts€to€challenge€the€physical€evidence€unless€he€canÏproduce€material€witnesses€who€would€have€testified€favorably€in€his€behalf.€€òòBlack€v.Ð (:x5: ÐStateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757„58€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð ° ÐÌà ` àThe€post-conviction€judge€resolved€conflicting€testimony€in€favor€of€the€petitioner'sÏtrial€counsel€and€found€that€he€received€adequate€representation€under€the€law.€€WeÏagree.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€preponderate€against€the€findings€andÏconclusions€of€the€post„conviction€court.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_______________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJ.€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEÌœññÐ  )à$( ÐññÔ‡X)ÖXXX)ÖÔññò òà@Æ Æ DàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌà@¼¼*DàAT€JACKSONˆÌÌà@tt'DàJULY€1998€SESSIONˆÌó óÌÌÌò òTHOMAS€EDWARD€MURPHY,€JR.ó ó,à  à)Ð 8 ˆ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€No:€€02C01„9710„CC„00378Ð , |  Ðà ` àà ¸ àPetitioner,à h àà À àà  à)Ð h  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àFayette€CountyÐ T  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ð ð@  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHon.€Jon€Kerry€Blackwood€Ð Ü,  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ È  Ðò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à h àà À àà  à)à p à(Post„Conviction:€Second€Degree€Murder)Ð ´ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p à€Ð ¨ø Ðà ` àà ¸ àRespondent.à h àà À àà  à)à p àò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ ”ä ÐÌÌà@+Dàò òJUDGMENTó óˆÐ `° ÐÌÌÓÓà ` àCame€the€Petitioner,€Thomas€Edward€Murphy,€Jr.,€by€counsel,€and€the€state,€by€theÏAttorney€General,€and€this€case€was€heard€on€the€record€on€appeal€from€the€CriminalÏCourt€of€Fayette€County;€and€upon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthere€is€no€reversible€error€in€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà ` àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,€ordered€and€adjudgedÏby€this€Court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED,€and€the€case€is€remandedÏto€the€Criminal€Court€of€Fayette€County€for€execution€of€the€judgment€of€that€court€and€forÏcollection€of€costs€accrued€below.Ìà ` àIt€appearing€that€appellant€is€indigent,€costs€of€this€appeal€will€be€paid€by€the€StateÏof€Tennessee.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPer€CuriamÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€Special€JudgeÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoe€G.€Riley,€JudgeÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àCurwood€Witt,€JudgeÌÐ  3`.2 Ðññññò òññÔ#†X)ÖXXX)ÖÞ:#ÔÔ‡X)ÖXXX)ÖÔÐ )à$( ÐÑTRY3Ø' Letter[  AØ'ÿ Legal 3Ø' Letter AØ'ÿ LegalTÑññà@‚ ‚ DàCHECK€LIST€TO€BE€COMPLETED€BY€EACH€JUDGE€UPONˆÐ ° Ðà@ºº#DàDISPOSITION€OF€EACH€CASEˆÌÌó óà@² ² DàPREPARE€IN€TRIPLICATE.€€RETAIN€ORIGINAL€AND€SENDˆÐ ŒÜ Ðà@<<%DàCOPY€TO€OTHER€JUDGES.ˆÌ____________________________________________________________________ÌÌÓ'°` ¸ ¦ü°œX'ÓCheck€one:€€€€€€Knoxville€(ò ò€ó ó)€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville€(€)€€€€€€€€€€€€Jackson€(ò òXó ó)Ð < Œ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà þ ààQ„ „ Tà€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€July€1998ˆÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà þ ààQ,Tà€€ˆÌò òTHOMAS€EDWARD€MURPHY,€JR.ó óÐ ôD  ÐÓ' °‚XV°‚X¦ü'Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà ® àññFayetteññ€Countyò òÐ è8  Ðv.Ìó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà ® àNo.€02C01„97ññ10ññ„CññññRññññññCññ„003ññññ47ññññññ78ññÐ È  Ðò òññññNATHANIEL€WALTONññññññSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEññÐ ´ ÐÌÌó óÓ'°‚X”°‚XV'Ó1.€€Date€and€from€whom€received:à ì àòò€Robert€W.€Wedemeyer€„€Special€Judge€€€€Ð à Ðóó€€Ð |Ì ÐÓ*°‚X”°‚X”„*Ó2.€€Date€and€to€whom€dispatched:à ì àòò€10„28„98€„€Judge€Joe€G.€Riley€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð h¸ ÐóóÌÓ  ÓÓ*°‚X”°‚X”„*ÓAction:€€€ò òà ¸ àAFFIRMEDÓ*°? ”üT°‚X”„*ÓÐ @ ÐÌ€€€ó óà — à(a)€ConcurÓ*°N hüT°? ”üT*Óò òÐ (x Ðó óÌ€€€€€€€à ¦ à(b)€Concur€in€results€only€Ð X ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€à ¦ à(c)€Separate€concurring€opinion€òòò òÐ à0 ÐÌó óóóà ¦ à(d)€Dissenting€opinionò ò€€€ó óÐ À  ÐÌÓ-°Ü? ÒüT°N hüT-Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à — à(e)€Other€€€Ó3°°Ü? ÒüT°Ü? ÒüT3ÓÐ  "ð  ÐÌÌcc:€€Judge€WittÌ€€€€€€Ìà 4 àññÔ#†X)ÖXXX)ÖBE#ÔññÌññ›