ÿWPC 2 9(±½ìâÙ]ÃD ~†ìO)’è8Ñ׵جCbèzi–\ZôÆTçíz}e“óL;ã&c´1å’EÄÚT°ƒÖ˜IJã&T'È_tˆHrÁIwVGH4l˜¹ bòoD¢câžöÆéå®Ö{…ñBÄ2‰ƒ§É€@\êgIV¯VŒhÁåV¨;ÝÑÕ2´ªZl2. À,.Ûö[¦YNßY–|òð"5±Òb·b']zÂÄ`¹¬â”±kÊ\|áù#èS=[Ç}˜¿ëð$”íàæ±Ñm+*,ɸL·žyÚ§„gÙØ¦×zK—Ÿ¸2sC?Q?ߺFÞž>»¾7½} ]û@\˜D.—&¡58Ú$˜Ð-¬D1৉­‚²ÓMõ›õФ3W¼k‹æ×O™Á¯Ž3ܤòPÉ_®jcSaÛŲw« –ˆ5Q¹˜uGïE!NÕÏøáà/…RRÏÝó#t{2¬ƒ q€cöÃò=N㎠^œŒ›…Ž–.gu^¾=Ûôû::/õ_ DÁ§÷m“£ƒ;!Êàƒ®ö.=È5™‰èh«DÖÚèÜdU!:¢KËpå&ª#4Ìç 1² Wï4ô-‚M.¡³b %\b 0ˆjU(Nò‡@UNÇ  z¥ Ò ½ñ ®UN/|}ÆùƿƅÆK˜N©^ «w·E»4½Ñà mâìù#Áåå妦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ 0 D½,½,½,½,½,b------------------------------------ 0 ë - - - - Bô-ô- 0¤. D3µ. D-è. 0K// AS`/Ƴ/ 0¤y0 0D1 A«a1» (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular }Ý ƒR§è$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€time€the€Defendant€shot€and€killed€Michelle,€first€degree€premeditated€murder€required€that€the€killingÐ ° Ðbe€done€intentionally€and€with€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1994).(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular †Ý ƒR§è$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€time€the€Defendant€killed€Michelle,€insanity€was€an€absolute€defense€to€a€crime€if€ð ðat€the€time€of€[theÐ ° Ðcrime],€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect,€the€person€lacked€substantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulnessÐ tÄ Ðof€the€personððs€conduct€or€to€conform€that€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(a)Ð 8ˆ Ð(1991).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€436,€440€(Tenn.€1994).€òòóó€ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ³Ý ƒR§è$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€introduction€of€this€type€of€evidence€is€frequently€Ô_ÔmischaracterizedÔ_Ô€as€a€ð ðdiminished€capacity€defense.ðð€Ð ° ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔPhippsÔ_Ôóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€143€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994). wÝ ƒR§è$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€time€the€Defendant€was€tried,€the€State€was€required€to€prove€a€defendantððs€sanity€beyond€a€reasonableÐ ° Ðdoubt€upon€the€defendant€adducing€proof€that€he€was€insane€at€the€time€of€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ð436,€440€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€Defendantððs€lawyersðð€trial€strategy€was€to€put€on€sufficient€lay€proof€of€the€DefendantððsÐ 8ˆ Ðinsanity€to€shift€the€burden€of€proof€to€the€State€to€prove€his€sanity.€€(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular rÝ ƒR§è$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€witness€identified€himself€as€Tracey€Johnson.€€For€reasons€which€are€notÐ ° Ðclear€from€the€record,€Mr.€Johnson€is€referred€to€by€the€parties€as€Tracey€Ô_ÔGossettÔ_Ô.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ŽÝ ƒR§è$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€the€same€reasons,€we€reject€the€Defendantððs€contention€that€his€attorneys€were€ineffective€for€notÐ ° Ðintroducing€into€proof€the€receipts€from€the€Defendantððs€shopping€trip€and€dinner€with€Michelle€the€night€before€herÐ tÄ Ðdeath.ªru-s Yo†) (¨k2§3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ âÝ ƒR§è$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€Court€allowed€the€filing€of€the€supplemental€record€because€we€viewed€the€trial€courtððs€order€to€be€oneÐ ° Ðwhich€corrected€a€clerical€mistake.€€Clerical€mistakes€in€the€record€and€errors€in€the€record€arising€from€oversight€orÐ tÄ Ðomission€may€be€corrected€by€a€court€at€any€time.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€36.€€˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 Ý ƒR§è$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿½ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€procedural€history€of€this€case€gives€this€court€an€opportunity€to€note€our€concerns€about€the€State€raisingÐ ° Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€defense€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€Pursuant€to€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Act,€ð ð[n]o€court€shallÐ tÄ Ðhave€jurisdiction€to€consider€a€petition€filed€afterðð€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€has€run,€absent€unique€circumstancesÐ 8ˆ Ðnot€pertinent€to€this€case.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(b)(1).€€Furthermore,€the€Act€imposes€an€affirmative€duty€onÐ üL Ðtrial€courts€to€dismiss€petitions€ð ð[i]f€it€plainly€appears€from€the€face€of€the€petition,€any€annexed€exhibits€or€the€priorÐ À Ðproceedings€in€the€case€that€the€petition€was€not€filed€.€.€.€within€the€time€set€forth€in€the€statute€of€limitations€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ „Ô Ððð€40„30„206(b).€€€€Because€the€timely€filing€of€the€petition€is€a€ð ðjurisdictionalðð€fact,€we€are€hesitant€to€consider€the€issueÐ H ˜ Ðwaived€if€not€raised€in€the€trial€court.€€In€this€case,€the€statute€of€limitations€ran€on€January€4,€2000.€€The€petition€wasÐ  \ Ðstamped€ð ðfiledððon€January€12,€2000.€€The€State€did€not€raise€an€issue€about€the€timeliness€of€the€filing€in€its€responseÐ Ð  Ðto€the€petition.€€The€record€of€the€original€hearing€on€the€petition€contains€no€reference€to€the€statute€of€limitations€issue.€Ð ” ä  ÐAt€the€commencement€of€the€hearing€on€remand,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€statute€of€limitations€issue€had€beenÐ X ¨  Ðdiscussed€prior€to€the€original€hearing€on€the€merits€of€the€petition,€and€that€the€court€determined€at€that€time€that€theÐ  l  Ðpetition€had€been€properly€and€timely€filed.€€Unfortunately,€that€discussion€was€not€included€in€the€record€brought€beforeÐ à 0  Ðthis€Court.€€On€appeal,€for€the€first€time,€the€State€contended€that€the€petition€must€be€dismissed€as€untimely.€€Given€theÐ ¤ô  Ðjurisdictional€nature€of€the€timely€filing€requirement,€it€behooves€the€State€to€raise€this€issue€at€the€trial€level€because,Ð h¸   Ðas€in€this€case,€findings€of€fact€may€become€necessary€to€determine€whether€a€petition€was,€in€fact,€filed€timely.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð ° ÐSup.€Ct.€R.€28,€ðð€2(G)€(ð ðIf€papers€required€or€permitted€to€be€filed€by€these€rules€are€prepared€by€or€on€behalf€of€a€proÐ tÄ Ðse€petitioner€incarcerated€in€a€correctional€facility€and€are€not€received€by€the€clerk€of€the€court€until€after€the€time€fixedÐ 8ˆ Ðfor€filing,€filing€shall€be€timely€if€the€papers€were€delivered€to€the€appropriate€individual€at€the€correctional€facility€withinÐ üL Ðthe€time€fixed€for€filing.ðð).€€It€becomes€apparent€that€the€date€stamped€on€the€face€of€a€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÐ À Ðis€not€necessarily€the€date€which€determines€whether€the€petition€was€timely€filed.€€Whether€a€petition€is€timely€filedÐ „Ô Ðinvolves€issues€of€fact.€€When€the€State€asserts€the€statute€of€limitations€as€a€defense,€a€petitioner€should€have€theÐ H ˜ Ðopportunity€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€issue.€€This€Court€cannot€make€findings€of€fact€and€an€assertion€of€anÐ  \ Ðuntimely€filing€made€for€the€first€time€on€appeal€may,€as€in€this€case,€require€this€Court€to€remand€the€matter€to€the€trialÐ Ð  Ðcourt€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€had€jurisdiction€to€entertain€the€petition.€€Otherwise,€in€order€to€acceptÐ ” ä  Ðthe€Stateððs€argument€on€appeal,€we€would€be€placed€in€the€position€of€having€to€assume€that€the€trial€court€exceeded€itsÐ X ¨  Ðjurisdiction,€without€giving€the€petitioner€an€opportunity€to€demonstrate€facts€establishing€jurisdiction.€€€Here,€weÐ  l  Ðconclude€that€€assumption€would€have€been€incorrect.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2§è$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿½ò»»Ô d(|3B$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3B$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€E»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼E»»»ÔÑ8€SéXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î ¤î»¼EÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼E»îî ¤#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àApril€9,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XSéX»¼EÔÌò òÔ#†¼E»XXSé!#ÔJOHN€PARKER€ROE€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XSéX»¼EÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„22397€€€€€€Joseph€B.€Dailey,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„02788„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€November€20,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€John€Parker€Roe,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder.€€HisÐ xÈ  Ðconviction€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€John€Parker€Roeóó,€No.€02C01„9702„CR„Ð d´ Ð00054,€1998€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€39€(Jackson,€Jan.€12,€1998),€òòperm.óó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.,€Jan.Ð P  Ð4,€1999).€€The€Defendant€subsequently€filed€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€that€he€receivedÐ <Œ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€courtÐ (x Ðdenied€relief.€€This€appeal€followed.€€We€affirm.Ð d ÐÓ®ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼E»àXSéŒ#ÔÔ‡XSéX.¼EÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòJamesÐ Ä ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌDouglas€A.€Ô_ÔTrantÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€John€Parker€Roe.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;Ô#†¼E»XXSé2#ÔÔ‡XSéX»¼EÔ€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð `° ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€GeneralÔ#†¼E»XXSé #ÔÔ‡XSéX»¼EÔ;Ô#†¼E»XXSéÅ #ÔÔ‡XSéX»¼EÔ€and€Amy€Ô_ÔWeirichÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ L œ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼E»XXSé #ÔÔ‡XSéX»¼EÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼E»XXSé #ÔÔ‡XSéX»¼EÔÓ  ÓÓÓÓÓà  àIn€this€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€the€Defendantððs€primaryÐ è$8 $ Ðcontention€is€that€his€trial€lawyers€were€ineffective.€€However,€he€also€claims€that€he€was€denied€dueÐ Ô%$!% Ðprocess€because€one€of€his€jailers€sat€on€the€jury€that€convicted€him,€and€that€the€State€committedÐ À&"& Ðprosecutorial€misconduct€by€failing€to€disclose€certain€information€about€a€witness€and€by€makingÐ ¬'ü"' Ðcertain€statements€during€closing€argument.€€òòóóÐ ˜(è#( ÐÌà@ªªìàò òSTATUTE€OF€LIMITATIONSó óˆÐ p*À%* Ðà  àAs€a€preliminary€matter,€we€address€the€Stateððs€contention€that€the€petition€was€filed€outsideÐ \+¬&+ Ðthe€statute€of€limitations.€€The€State€did€not€raise€an€issue€about€the€timeliness€of€the€filing€in€itsÐ H,˜', Ðresponse€to€the€petition;€rather,€the€State€raised€this€issue€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€The€StateÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôbases€its€contention€solely€on€the€filing€date€stamped€on€the€face€of€the€petition,€which€indicates€thatÐ ° Ðthe€petition€was€filed€outside€the€one„year€limitations€period.Ð œì ÐÌà  àDuring€the€oral€argument€of€this€case,€counsel€for€the€Defendant€stated€that€the€issueÐ tÄ Ðconcerning€the€filing€date€had€been€discussed€by€the€parties€in€open€court€prior€to€the€hearing€on€theÐ `° Ðpetition.€€The€Defendantððs€counsel€further€stated€that€the€trial€court€determined,€after€questioning€theÐ L œ Ðcourt€clerk,€that€the€filing€date€stamped€on€the€petition€was€incorrect€and€that€the€petition€had€in€factÐ 8 ˆ Ðbeen€timely€filed.€€Counsel€further€stated€that€the€Assistant€District€Attorney€General€whoÐ $ t Ðrepresented€the€State€in€the€post„conviction€proceedings€in€the€trial€court€agreed€that€the€petition€wasÐ  ` Ðtimely€filed.€€In€response€to€the€Defendantððs€lawyerððs€statements,€the€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ü L  Ðrepresenting€the€State€during€oral€argument€asserted€that€the€State€simply€relied€upon€the€date€whichÐ è 8  Ðwas€stamped€on€the€petition.€€At€oral€argument,€this€Court€suggested€to€the€Defendantððs€counsel€thatÐ Ô$  Ðhe€consider€seeking€to€supplement€the€record€to€reflect€that€the€petition€had€been€timely€filed.€Ð À  ÐSubsequent€thereto,€this€Court€ordered€that€the€record€be€supplemented€with€a€copy€of€the€trialÐ ¬ü  Ðcourtððs€order€dated€April€19,€2002€which€stated€that€the€trial€court€had€previously€found€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðpetition€was€ð ðreceived€by€the€Clerkððs€office€on€December€31,€1999€and€was€considered€filed€at€thatÐ „Ô  Ðtime,€that€simply€a€clerical€error€in€the€Clerkððs€office€resulting€in€the€petition€being€stamp€filedÐ pÀ ÐJanuary€12,€2000,€.€.€.€.ðð׃×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€State€subsequently€requested€this€Court€to€reconsider€the€order€allowing€the€record€toÐ 4„ Ðbe€supplemented€with€the€trial€courtððs€order.€€The€State€argued€that€our€order€made€improper€use€ofÐ  p ÐRule€36€and€improperly€allowed€the€trial€court€to€ð ðre„write€historyðð€in€this€case.€€Given€the€StateððsÐ  \ Ðinsistence€that€a€factual€dispute€remained€in€the€case,€we€granted€the€Stateððs€request€and€remandedÐ øH Ðthis€matter€to€the€trial€court€for€the€purpose€of€conducting€a€hearing€and€allowing€the€parties€toÐ ä4 Ðpresent€evidence€and€be€heard€on€the€issue€of€the€timeliness€of€the€filing€of€the€Defendantððs€petitionÐ Ð  Ðfor€post„conviction€relief.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€conducted€the€hearing€on€July€19,€2002.€€The€trial€court€subsequently€entered€Ð ”ä Ðan€order,€much€of€which€we€deem€appropriate€to€incorporate€herein:Ð €Ð Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€Court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€pursuant€to€theÐ l¼ ÐOrder€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€entered€on€May€24,€2002.€Ð X ¨ ÐThe€Petitioner€called€three€witnesses€as€well€as€introducing€fourÐ D!” Ðexhibits.Ð0"€ ` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àFirst,€the€Petitioner€called€Lasherrie€Harris,€who€is€and€was€atÐ #l! Ðthe€end€of€1999€and€in€the€beginning€of€the€year€of€2000€employed€inÐ $X" Ðthe€mailroom€which€receives€all€mail€for€the€Shelby€County€CriminalÐ ô$D # ÐCourt€Clerk.€€A€log€book€is€kept€for€all€UPS€packages€which€areÐ à%0!$ Ðreceived.€€Ms.€Harris€brought€with€her€and€a€copy€was€introduced€ofÐ Ì&"% Ða€log€entry€from€January€3,€2000,€which€showed€a€UPS€packageÐ ¸'#& Ðhaving€been€received€from€the€office€of€Douglas€A.€Trant€to€theÐ ° ÐCriminal€Court€Clerk.€€This€log€book€i[s]€kept€in€the€normal€courseÐ œì Ðof€business€and€the€entry€was€made€by€Ms.€Harris€herself.ЈØ` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€Petitioner€next€called€Joe€Warren€who€is€a€DeputyÐ tÄ ÐCriminal€Court€Clerk.€€One€of€his€responsibilities€is€maintaining€theÐ `° Ðfiles€of€this€Court€in€the€normal€course€of€business.€€He€brought€withÐ L œ Ðhim€the€file€in€this€case€which€is€Docket€Number€22397.€€Within€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðfile€were€located€four€documents€of€particular€pertinence€to€thisÐ $ t Ðhearing.€€First,€there€were€two€copies€of€a€letter€dated€December€30,Ð  ` Ð1999€from€Douglas€A.€Trant€to€the€Criminal€Court€Clerk.€€ThoseÐ ü L  Ðletters€were€cover€letters€stating€that€enclosed€with€the€letter€was€theÐ è 8  ÐPetition€for€Post€Conviction€Relief€for€filing€and€stated€that€in€theÐ Ô$  Ðabundance€of€caution€the€Petition€was€being€sent€by€two€means,€UPSÐ À  Ðand€Express€Mail,€in€order€to€insure€that€it€would€be€filed€before€theÐ ¬ü  Ðstatute€of€limitations€ran€on€January€4,€2000.Иè ` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àAlso€within€the€file€were€the€two€envelopes€from€UPS€and,Ð „Ô  Ðalso,€the€Express€Mail€envelope€which€showed€that€it€had€beenÐ pÀ Ðmailed€from€Douglas€A.€Trantððs€office€on€December€30,€1999€andÐ \¬ Ðwas€received€by€the€mailroom€on€behalf€of€the€Clerk€on€DecemberÐ H˜ Ð31,€1999€with€a€receipt€signature€by€the€addressee.Ð4„` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àPetitioner€next€called€Pat€Vincent€who€at€the€time€of€theseÐ  p Ðevents€was€head€of€operations€for€the€Criminal€Court€Clerkððs€officeÐ  \ Ðand€had€been€for€some€26€years.€€He€testified€in€the€normal€course€ofÐ øH Ðbusiness€the€Clerkððs€office€retrieved€its€mail€from€the€mailroom€atÐ ä4 Ðleast€once€and€often€twice€a€day.€€He€said€when€the€issue€of€this€filingÐ Ð  Ðarose€he€checked€into€the€matter€and€discovered€that€the€stamp€filedÐ ¼  Ðdate€on€the€Petition€of€January€12,€2000€was€a€clerical€error€and€that,Ð ¨ø Ðin€fact,€the€Petition€had€been€received€by€the€Clerk€on€December€31,Ð ”ä Ð1999€as€was€evidenced€by€the€matters€previously€referred€to€above€inÐ €Ð Ðthe€file€of€the€Criminal€Court€Clerk.Ðl¼` x` x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àThe€State€introduced€no€evidence.Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àIt€is€clear€from€the€evidence€introduced€that€the€Petitioner€notÐ D!” Ðby€one€but€two€methods€made€sure€that€his€Petition€was€timely€filedÐ 0"€  Ðand€did€so€prior€to€the€expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations€onÐ #l! ÐJanuary€4,€2000.€€The€Petition€was€addressed€to€the€Criminal€CourtÐ $X" ÐClerk€at€its€appropriate€address€and€was€received€by€the€ClerkððsÐ ô$D # Ðagent,€the€mailroom.€€If€the€mailroom€or€the€Clerk€did€not€route€it€toÐ à%0!$ Ðits€appropriate€place,€that€is€not€the€fault€of€the€Petitioner€who€didÐ Ì&"% Ðeverything€he€could€to€make€sure€that€it€was€timely€filed.€€He€sent€itÐ ¸'#& Ðto€the€appropriate€address€within€the€appropriate€period€of€limitationsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðand€the€Petition€was€received€not€once,€but€twice,€by€the€agent€of€theÐ )à$( ÐClerkððs€office€within€the€statute€of€limitations.€€To€adopt€the€StateððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðargument€that€Petitioner€would€be€responsible€for€making€sure€that€itÐ h+¸&* Ðgot€to€the€mailroom€to€the€Clerkððs€office€would€be€a€travesty€ofÐ ° Ðjustice€and€certainly€undermine€the€intent€of€the€legislature€and€theÐ œì ÐSupreme€Court€and€the€enactment€of€our€statutes€and€rules€governingÐ ˆØ Ðpost„conviction€petitions€and€their€filing.ÐtÄ` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€Court€holds,€now€for€the€third€time,€that€this€Petition€wasÐ `° Ðtimely€filed.€.€.€.ÐL œ` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àIt€is€ordered€that€the€clerical€error€of€the€filing€date€of€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐPetition€be€corrected€to€indicate€that€the€Petition€was€filed€onÐ $ t ÐDecember€31,€1999.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€36Ð `` x` x Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.€Ð ü L  ÐÌÌà  àTaking€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€the€State€arguesÐ À  Ðthat€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€his€petition€forÐ ¬ü  Ðpost„conviction€relief€was€received€by€the€clerk€on€or€before€January€4,€2000.€€The€State€contendsÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€record€does€not€establish€that€the€mailroom€was€an€ð ðagentðð€of€the€clerk;€rather,€the€evidenceÐ „Ô  Ðmerely€establishes€ð ðhabit€evidence€that€employees€of€the€clerkððs€office€routinely€went€to€theÐ pÀ Ðmailroom€at€least€once€and€maybe€twice€a€day€to€retrieve€the€mail.ððÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àWe€find€the€Stateððs€argument€unpersuasive.€€The€proof€adduced€at€the€hearing€establishedÐ 4„ Ðthat€the€mailroom€for€the€Criminal€Court€Clerkððs€office€received€an€Express€Mail€envelope€fromÐ  p Ðdefense€counsel€on€December€31,€1999€and€a€UPS€package€from€defense€counsel€on€January€3,€2000.€Ð  \ ÐTestimony€further€established€that€the€court€clerk€retrieved€its€mail€from€the€mailroom€at€least€onceÐ øH Ða€day.€€Finally,€the€director€of€operations€of€the€criminal€court€clerkððs€office€testified€that€heÐ ä4 Ðinvestigated€the€matter€and€determined€that€the€package€ð ðwas€here€timely.ðð€€A€post„convictionÐ Ð  Ðpetition€filed€by€an€attorney€is€ð ðfiled€when€it€is€received€by€the€clerk€of€court.ðð€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28,Ð ¼  Ððð€2(G).€€The€proof€contained€in€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€petition€inÐ ¨ø Ðthis€case€was€filed€timely,€and€this€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.Ô#†¼E»XXSé} #Ô׃×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€à  àÐ ”ä Їà  àÔ€XSéX»¼EÔWe€turn€now€to€the€issues€raised€by€the€Defendant€in€this€appeal.€€First,€however,€a€briefÐ ° Ðreview€of€the€facts€adduced€at€trial€will€be€helpful.Ð œì Ðò òó óÌà@¥¥(ìàò òFACTSó óˆÐ tÄ Ðà  àThe€Defendant€was€a€police€officer€with€the€Memphis€Police€Department.€€At€about€sevenÐ `° Ðoððclock€on€the€morning€of€September€16,€1994,€the€Defendant€called€fellow€officer€Carl€Fowler€andÐ L œ Ðasked€him€to€come€to€the€Defendantððs€house.€€Mr.€Fowler€testified€that€the€Defendant€told€him€overÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€phone€that€Michelle,€the€Defendantððs€wife,€had€run€off.€€When€Fowler€arrived€about€an€hourÐ $ t Ðlater,€he€noticed€that€Michelleððs€car€was€there.€€Fowler€asked€the€Defendant€where€Michelle€was,€andÐ  ` Ðthe€Defendant€replied,€ð ðItððs€worse€than€you€think.ðð€€The€Defendant€then€told€Fowler€that€he€had€shotÐ ü L  ÐMichelle€and€that€she€was€in€ð ðthe€bottoms,ðð€an€area€of€scrubland€behind€the€Defendantððs€house.€€TheÐ è 8  ÐDefendant€told€Fowler€that€he€and€Michelle€had€been€hunting€rabbits,€and€that€he€accidentally€shotÐ Ô$  Ðher€in€the€head€with€his€service€revolver.€€When€Fowler€told€the€Defendant€that€they€needed€to€callÐ À  Ðthe€police,€the€Defendant€adamantly€refused.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àMr.€Fowler€was€a€good€friend€of€the€Defendant€and€had€spent€considerable€time€with€him,Ð „Ô  Ðboth€on€and€off€the€job.€€Fowler€testified€that€he€ð ðthought€[he]€knew€[the€Defendant]€very€well,€andÐ pÀ Ðthe€person€[he]€ran€into€that€day€was€not€the€John€[heððd]€ever€met.ðð€€Fowler€explained€that€he€hadÐ \¬ Ðsmelled€an€odor€of€alcohol€on€the€Defendant.€€Fowler€testified€that,€in€his€opinion,€the€Defendant€wasÐ H˜ Ðð ðmentally€illðð€that€morning,€and€explained€that€earlier€that€week,€the€Defendant€had€told€him€that€heÐ 4„ Ðhad€heard€voices€coming€out€of€the€heating€vent.€€Fowler€described€the€Defendantððs€behavior€on€theÐ  p Ðmorning€in€question€as€ð ðweirdðð€and€ð ðstrange.ðð€€Convinced€that€the€Defendant€could€not€control€hisÐ  \ Ðown€behavior,€Mr.€Fowler€became€fearful€for€his€own€life€and€left.Ð øH ÐÌà  àMr.€Fowler€flagged€down€Deputy€William€Hughes€with€the€Shelby€County€SheriffððsÐ Ð  ÐDepartment€and€told€him€about€the€shooting.€€When€Deputy€Hughes€arrived€at€the€DefendantððsÐ ¼  Ðhouse,€he€found€the€Defendant€sitting€on€the€tailgate€of€his€truck€drinking€a€beverage.€€Hughes€askedÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Defendant€where€his€wife€was,€and€the€Defendant€replied,€ð ð[S]he€could€be€anywhere.ðð€€HughesÐ ”ä Ðnoticed€that€the€Defendant€was€perspiring€very€heavily.Ð €Ð ÐÐ l¼ Ðà  àOfficer€Anthony€Chambers€arrived€as€back„up€and€entered€the€Defendantððs€house.€€There€he€Ð ° Ðfound€Michelleððs€body€lying€on€the€bed.€€She€had€been€shot€in€the€head€and€a€towel€was€draped€overÐ œì Ðthe€wound.€€Hughes€subsequently€arrested€the€Defendant€who,€according€to€Hughes,€appearedÐ ˆØ Ðð ð[v]ery€calm.ðð€€The€Defendantððs€profuse€sweating€concerned€Hughes,€however,€and€Hughes€askedÐ tÄ Ða€paramedic€to€check€his€vital€signs.€€Paramedic€Randall€Wayne€Rhodes€testified€that€theÐ `° ÐDefendantððs€heart€rate€and€respiration€were€higher€than€normal,€and€that€he€appeared€disoriented,€orÐ L œ Ðð ðspaced€out.ðð€€The€Defendant€denied€having€taken€any€drugs€and€told€Rhodes€that€he€had€been€underÐ 8 ˆ Ða€lot€of€stress.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àSergeant€F.€B.€Roberts€arrived€on€the€scene€and€spoke€with€the€Defendant€as€he€sat€in€theÐ ü L  Ðsquad€car.€€Roberts€testified€that€the€Defendant€ð ðseemed€very€confusedðð€and€never€told€him€what€hadÐ è 8  Ðhappened.€€He€described€the€Defendantððs€conversation€as€ð ðirrational.ðð€€In€the€house,€Roberts€foundÐ Ô$  Ðan€empty€bottle€of€whiskey€and€four€bottles€of€an€over„the„counter€drug€called€ð ðMini„Thinsðð€in€theÐ À  Ðtrash.€€Other€bottles€of€Mini„Thins€containing€pills€were€found€throughout€the€house.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àLarry€Graham,€a€long€time€friend€of€the€Defendant,€visited€the€Defendant€while€he€was€in€jail.€Ð „Ô  ÐThere,€the€Defendant€told€Mr.€Graham€both€that€the€killing€had€been€accidental€and€that€he€didnððtÐ pÀ Ðknow/remember€what€had€happened.€€Graham€stated€that€the€Defendant€had€appeared€ð ðglaze„eyed,ððÐ \¬ Ðand€ð ðwasnððt€the€person€that€[he]€knew.ðð€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àDaniel€Kaltreider€testified€that€he€met€the€Defendant€through€his€cousin,€John€Barnette.€€Mr.Ð  p ÐKaltreider€attended€a€bar„b„cue€in€the€spring€of€1994€that€the€Defendant€and€Michelle€also€attended.€Ð  \ ÐThere,€he€testified,€the€Defendant€told€him€ð ðthat€he€had€a€tremendous€amount€of€rage€at€his€wife,ððÐ øH Ðand€that€he€was€going€to€kill€her.€€Kaltreider€testified€that€the€Defendant€asked€him€if€he€thought€theÐ ä4 ÐDefendant€could€ð ðget€away€with€itðð€if€the€Defendant€ð ðsaid€it€was€an€accidental€discharge.ðð€€WhenÐ Ð  ÐKaltreider€replied€no,€because€he€would€have€to€testify€against€the€Defendant,€the€Defendant€stated,Ð ¼  Ðð ðThen€Iððll€have€to€kill€you.ðð€€The€conversation€continued,€according€to€Kaltreider,€with€theÐ ¨ø ÐDefendant€stating,€ð ðWell,€Iððll€just€have€to€play€crazy€for€about€seven€„„€six€months.ðð€€€€€€€à Ð à€€€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àJohn€Barnette€had€known€the€Defendant€several€years€and€testified€that€the€DefendantððsÐ l¼ Ðmarriage€with€Michelle€was€ð ðrocky.ðð€€He€stated€that€the€Defendant€had€told€him€that€the€DefendantÐ X ¨ Ðwanted€to€divorce€Michelle€and€also€spoke€of€wanting€to€kill€her.€€The€Defendant€told€him€that€heÐ D!” Ðhad€choked€Michelle€at€one€point€and€thought€about€killing€her€then.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Barnette€testified€about€the€massive€amounts€of€Mini„Thins€thatÐ $X" Ðthe€Defendant€was€taking€in€1994.€€Barnette€testified€that€he€saw€the€Defendant€taking€ten€to€fifteenÐ ô$D # Ðof€these€tablets€at€a€time.€€He€explained€that€these€pills,€combined€with€the€Defendantððs€drinking,Ð à%0!$ Ðcaused€the€Defendant€to€develop€a€Dr.€Jekyll/Mr.€Hyde€personality.€€Barnette€testified€that€theÐ Ì&"% ÐDefendant€spoke€to€him€about€hearing€voices€and€seeing€ghosts.€€The€Defendant€became€veryÐ ¸'#& Ðparanoid€and€suspicious€about€Michelle.€€During€the€summer€of€1994,€Barnette€testified,€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐDefendantððs€conversations€became€incoherent,€irrational,€and€ð ðbizarre.ðð€€Barnette€described€theÐ )à$( ÐDefendant€as€ð ðout€of€his€headðð€and€testified€that€he€became€ð ðdeeply€concernedðð€about€the€DefendantÐ |*Ì%) Ðbecause€of€his€increasingly€irrational€behavior.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àPeter€Connelly€was€one€of€Michelleððs€teachers€at€the€college€which€Michelle€attended.€€Mr.Ð ° ÐConnelly€testified€that,€two€days€before€her€death,€Michelle€told€him€that€the€Defendant€had€abusedÐ œì Ðher€and€threatened€to€kill€her.€€She€wrote€down€her€parentsðð€phone€number€and€asked€Connelly€toÐ ˆØ Ðcall€them€if€she€did€not€show€up€for€her€next€class.€€When€Michelle€failed€to€attend€her€next€classÐ tÄ Ðon€the€morning€of€her€death,€Connelly€called€her€parents.€€Michelleððs€mother€subsequently€went€toÐ `° Ðthe€Defendantððs€house,€arriving€while€Officer€Fowler€was€there.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àExpert€testimony€established€that€Michelle€was€killed€by€a€single€gunshot€to€her€head,€firedÐ $ t Ðfrom€twelve€to€twenty„four€inches€away.€€The€bullet€was€fired€from€the€Defendantððs€police€serviceÐ  ` Ðrevolver.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àDr.€OððBrian€Cleary€Smith,€who€performed€the€autopsy€on€Michelle,€was€asked€on€cross„Ð Ô$  Ðexamination€about€ephedrine,€the€active€ingredient€in€Mini„Thins.€€Dr.€Smith€testified€that,€whenÐ À  Ðtaken€fifteen€tablets€at€a€time,€ð ðit€has€the€same€effect€as€an€overdose€of€amphetamine.€€It€can€be€anÐ ¬ü  Ðirritant€to€the€heart€and€set€up€cardiac€arrhythmia€„„€in€other€words,€irregular€heartbeat.€€It€can€alsoÐ ˜è  Ðbe€very€stimulating€to€the€central€nervous€system€of€the€brain€causing€the€person€to€act€in€anÐ „Ô  Ðirrational€manner,€to€have€hallucinations€or€to€see€things€or€feel€things€that€arenððt€there.ðð€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àElton€Douglas,€one€of€the€Defendantððs€jailers,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€Defendant.€€HeÐ H˜ Ðexplained€that€the€Defendant€was€on€suicide€watch€for€five€days€after€his€arrest.€€During€this€time,Ð 4„ Ðthe€Defendant€was€confused€and€engaged€in€incoherent€mumbling,€refusing€regular€conversation.€Ð  p ÐWhen€asked€to€compare€the€Defendantððs€behavior€during€his€first€month€in€jail€to€the€several€monthsÐ  \ Ðpreceding€trial,€Mr.€Douglas€stated,€ð ð[I]f€I€was€to€ask€him€a€question€[recently],€he€would€answer€it;Ð øH Ðwhere€then,€if€I€was€talking€to€him,€there€was€no€reply€or€no€thought€process€involved.ðð€€€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àClyde€William€Keenan€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department€also€testified€on€behalf€of€theÐ ¼  ÐDefendant.€€He€had€supervised€the€Defendant€for€approximately€two€years.€€When€called€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðscene,€he€found€the€Defendant€lying€in€the€back€of€the€squad€car,€ð ðhalf€way€on€the€seat€and€half€wayÐ ”ä Ðinto€the€floorboard.ðð€€When€the€Defendant€sat€up,€Keenan€testified,€he€had€a€ð ðwild€look€about€himððÐ €Ð Ðand€was€sweating€profusely.€€The€Defendant€asked€Keenan,€ð ð[W]hatððs€going€on?ðð€and€stated,Ð l¼ Ðð ð[E]verything€is€breaking€up.ðð€€Keenan€testified€that€he€concluded€at€the€time€that€the€Defendant€hadÐ X ¨ Ðð ðcompletely€snappedðð€and€was€mentally€ill.€€He€told€the€sheriffððs€deputies€at€the€scene€that€ð ð[t]hisÐ D!” Ðyoung€man€is€over€the€edge.ðð€€He€also€testified€that,€at€the€time,€the€Defendant€had€not€been€capableÐ 0"€  Ðof€consenting€to€a€DUI€test.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àTed€Hansom,€the€Defendantððs€first€attorney,€testified€that€he€saw€the€Defendant€when€theÐ ô$D # Ðofficers€initially€brought€him€into€the€station.€€He€stated€that€the€Defendant€was€ð ðunable€toÐ à%0!$ Ðcommunicate,ðð€ð ðnot€coherent,ðð€and€ð ðnot€oriented.ðð€€He€testified€that€the€Defendant€had€been€ð ðunableÐ Ì&"% Ðto€understand€what€was€going€on.ððÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà@  ìàò òINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ )à$( Ðà  àThe€Defendantððs€primary€complaint€about€his€trial€lawyers€is€that€they€failed€to€put€onÐ |*Ì%) Ðadequate€proof€about€his€mental€state€at€the€time€he€killed€his€wife.€€He€contends€that,€had€they€putÐ h+¸&* Ðon€physical€evidence€and€expert€testimony€about€the€effects€of€ephedrine,€he€would€have€been€ableÐ ° Ðto€successfully€defeat€the€Stateððs€proof€that€he€killed€his€wife€with€premeditation€and€deliberation.׃×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì ÐÌà  àÔ‡XSéXXXSéÔTo€sustain€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€a€defendant€must€prove€his€or€her€factualÐ tÄ Ðallegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€at€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð `° Ð30„210(f);€òòMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€156€(Tenn.€1999).€€Upon€review,€this€Court€will€notÐ L œ Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€below;€all€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðweight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€to€beÐ $ t Ðresolved€by€the€trial€judge,€not€the€appellate€courts.€€òòSeeóó€€òòMomonóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€156;€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,Ð  ` Ð960€S.W.2d€572,€578„79€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€trial€judgeððs€findings€of€fact€on€a€petition€for€post„Ð ü L  Ðconviction€relief€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict€and€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÐ è 8  Ðevidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòSeeóó€€òòMomonóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€156;€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2dÐ Ô$  Ðat€578„79.€€Ô#†XSéXXXSéùh#ÔÐ À  ÐÌà  àThe€State€sought€the€death€penalty€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€the€Defendant€was€representedÐ ˜è  Ðat€trial€by€two€lawyers,€Edward€Witt€Chandler€and€Wayne€Emmons.€€Mr.€Chandler€has€been€licensedÐ „Ô  Ðsince€1967,€practicing€primarily€in€criminal€defense.€€He€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€thatÐ pÀ Ðhe€has€handled€more€than€one€hundred€murder€trials€and€numerous€death€penalty€cases.€€Mr.Ð \¬ ÐEmmons€has€been€licensed€since€1970€and€also€focuses€on€criminal€defense.€€He,€too,€had€handledÐ H˜ Ðcapital€cases€prior€to€the€Defendantððs.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àBoth€lawyers€testified€that€they€wanted€to€pursue€a€defense€of€insanity׃×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€toÐ  \ Ðintroduce€evidence€that€the€Defendant€lacked€the€specific€intent€necessary€to€commit€premeditatedÐ øH Ðmurder,׃ ð×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€based€on€the€Defendantððs€cycle€of€drug€and€alcohol€abuse.€€When€they€filed€their€notice€toÐ ä4 Ðdo€so,€the€trial€court€ordered€the€Defendant€to€submit€to€an€evaluation€by€Dr.€Lynn€Zager.€€On€trialÐ Ð  Ðcounselððs€advice,€the€Defendant€refused€to€submit€to€this€evaluation.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€ruledÐ ¼  Ðthat€the€Defendant€could€put€on€no€expert€proof€concerning€his€mental€state€at€the€time€of€his€wifeððsÐ ¨ø Ðdeath.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€Defendant€testified€that€at€the€time€he€killed€his€wife,€heÐ l¼ Ðwas€taking€thirty€to€forty€ephedrine€tablets€a€day,€followed€by€six€Sominex€tablets€and€up€to€a€fifthÐ X ¨ Ðof€alcohol€to€sleep.€€Dr.€Jonathan€Lipman,€a€neuropharmacologist,€testified€that€one€of€the€effectsÐ D!” Ðof€chronic€abuse€of€ephedrine€is€ð ðparanoia.€€The€individual€starts€to€hallucinate€.€.€.€[and€does€not]Ð 0"€  Ðknow€that€[he€is]€hallucinating.€€[The€individual]€actually€hear[s]€.€.€.€voices.€€Typically€the€voicesÐ ° Ðcome€from€a€place€that€you€canððt€see€.€.€.€for€instance,€behind€a€door;€or€you€hear€it€through€a€wall.ðð€Ð œì ÐDr.€Lipman€testified€that€the€syndrome€resembled€ð ða€form€of€the€endogenous€condition€calledÐ ˆØ Ðschizophrenia.€€And€people€in€this€condition€become€very€frightened.€€They€believe€that€people€areÐ tÄ Ðplotting€against€them.€€They€have€the€delusion€of€persecution.€€They€donððt€sleep€because€the€drugÐ `° Ðkeeps€them€awake.ððÐ L œ ÐÌà  àDr.€Lipman€testified€that€the€amount€of€ephedrine€the€Defendant€was€taking€was€ð ðaÐ $ t Ðridiculously„large€dose.ðð€€Dr.€Lipman€was€able€to€confirm€the€dosage€consumed€by€the€DefendantÐ  ` Ðby€analyzing€the€ephedrine€content€of€a€sample€of€the€Defendantððs€hair.€€The€analysis€revealed€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€Defendant€had€a€record€high€level€of€ephedrine€in€his€system€at€the€time€he€killed€Michelle:€€soÐ è 8  Ðhigh€that€ð ðthe€lab€ha[d]€never€seen€anything€like€it.ðð€€Combining€ephedrine€with€alcohol,€accordingÐ Ô$  Ðto€Dr.€Lipman,€ð ðcan€have€the€unfortunate€effect€of€unleashing€[the€userððs]€response€to€[the]Ð À  Ðunreasonable€fear€[arising€from€the€ephedrine„induced€paranoia].ðð€€Dr.€Lipman€also€testified€that€sixÐ ¬ü  ÐSominex€tablets€a€night€was€a€ð ðcrazyðð€dose.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àWhen€Dr.€Lipman€was€asked€if,€in€his€expert€opinion,€the€Defendant€was,€at€the€time€he€shotÐ pÀ Ðhis€wife,€able€to€form€the€mental€culpability€required€to€commit€premeditated€murder,€Dr.€LipmanÐ \¬ Ðreplied,€ð ðI€believe€he€wasnððt€in€such€a€state€of€clear€consciousness€that€he€could€have€beenÐ H˜ Ðconsidered€culpable.ððÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àDr.€Pamela€Auble,€a€psychologist,€also€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€She€met€withÐ  \ Ðand€evaluated€the€Defendant€in€the€fall€of€1999,€and€reviewed€documents€prepared€by€Dr.€Lipman.€Ð øH ÐShe€was€provided€with€information€about€the€Defendantððs€use€of€ephedrine,€alcohol€and€SominexÐ ä4 Ðin€conjunction€with€her€evaluation.€€She€found€that€there€was€ð ðsignificantðð€alcohol€abuse€andÐ Ð  Ðephedrine€abuse€starting€in€the€early€1990s€and€escalating€up€until€the€time€of€the€killing.€€SheÐ ¼  Ðtestified€that€the€combined€use€of€ephedrine,€alcohol€and€Sominex€ð ðwith€[the€Defendantððs]Ð ¨ø Ðpersonality€and€the€factors€going€on€at€the€time,€would€have€affected€his€functioning.ðð€€One€of€theÐ ”ä Ðð ðfactors,ðð€she€explained,€was€sleep€deprivation,€which€aggravated€the€Defendantððs€ð ðimpairments€inÐ €Ð Ðreasoning€and€judgment€and€impulse€control.ðð€€Additional€factors€causing€psychological€stressÐ l¼ Ðincluded€the€Defendantððs€difficult€marriage,€his€dislike€of€his€job,€and€a€house€that€the€DefendantÐ X ¨ Ðwas€working€on€at€the€time.€€Dr.€Auble€testified€that,€in€her€professional€opinion,€the€Defendant€wasÐ D!” Ðnot€capable€of€forming€the€intent€required€for€premeditated€murder€due€to€his€chronic€mental€disease.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àMr.€Chandler,€one€of€the€Defendantððs€two€trial€lawyers,€testified€that€he€advised€theÐ $X" ÐDefendant€not€to€talk€to€Dr.€Zager€because€he€was€convinced€that€she€would€testify€that€theÐ ô$D # ÐDefendant€had€no€mental€illness€or€disease,€that€he€knew€what€he€was€doing€when€he€shot€Michelle,Ð à%0!$ Ðand€that€he€was€able€to€control€his€behavior.€€One€of€the€reasons€for€Mr.€Chandlerððs€decision€was€thatÐ Ì&"% ÐDr.€Zager€and€the€prosecutor€were€ð ðbig€personal€buddies,ðð€and€he€believed€that€Dr.€Zager€would€findÐ ¸'#& Ðwhatever€the€prosecutor€wanted€her€to€find€with€respect€to€the€Defendantððs€mental€state.€€Mr.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐChandler€explained€that€he€knew€Dr.€Zager€ð ðfrom€a€number€of€casesðð€and€felt€that€she€wasÐ )à$( Ðð ðextremely€biased€against€defendants.ðð€€Mr.€Chandler€testified€that€Dr.€Zagerððs€anticipated€testimonyÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€the€Defendant€was€sane€would€cause€them€to€lose€ð ðthe€best€defense€[they€had]ðð€and€ð ðwouldÐ h+¸&* Ðknock€out€the€defense.ðð€€Mr.€Chandler€stated€that€he€did€not€think€that€Dr.€Lipmanððs€testimony€would€Ð ° Ðovercome€Dr.€Zagerððs€anticipated€testimony,€and€for€that€reason,€he€decided€that€the€better€strategyÐ œì Ðwas€to€argue€to€the€trial€judge€at€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€proof€that€the€State€did€not€carry€its€burdenÐ ˆØ Ðof€proving€the€Defendant€sane.׃ ×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Mr.€Chandler€testified€that,€in€his€experience,€jurors€do€not€like€theÐ tÄ Ðinsanity€defense.€€Accordingly,€he€stated,€he€ð ðwas€trying€to€win€the€case€with€the€trial€judge.ðð€€Mr.Ð `° ÐChandler€stated€that€he€ð ðwas€absolutely€convincedðð€that€they€were€going€to€create€an€issue€of€sanityÐ L œ Ðwith€their€lay€witnesses.€€In€hindsight,€Mr.€Chandler€admitted,€his€advice€to€the€Defendant€regardingÐ 8 ˆ ÐDr.€Zager€might€have€been€a€mistake.€€However,€he€also€testified€that€ð ðthere€wasnððt€any€doubt€inÐ $ t Ð[his]€mind€at€the€time€[they]€were€doing€the€right€thing.ðð€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àMr.€Emmons€also€testified€that€the€trial€strategy€was€to€put€on€sufficient€lay€proof€of€theÐ è 8  ÐDefendantððs€insanity€to€shift€the€burden€of€proving€the€Defendantððs€sanity€to€the€State.€€He€explainedÐ Ô$  Ðthat€they€had€three€very€strong€lay€witnesses€with€which€to€accomplish€this€goal.€€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àAt€the€close€of€the€Stateððs€proof€at€the€Defendantððs€trial,€Mr.€Chandler€moved€to€acquit€theÐ ˜è  ÐDefendant€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder€on€the€grounds€that€the€State€had€not€adducedÐ „Ô  Ðsufficient€proof€that€the€Defendant€had€killed€Michelle€with€premeditation€and€deliberation,€and€onÐ pÀ Ðthe€grounds€that€the€State€had€ð ðfailed€to€prove€sanity€sufficient€enough€to€send€the€case€to€the€jury.ðð€Ð \¬ ÐThe€trial€court€overruled€the€motion.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àÔ‡ XSéXXXSéÔBoth€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€theÐ  p ÐTennessee€Constitution€guarantee€a€defendant€the€right€to€representation€by€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð  \ ÐBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ThisÐ øH Ðright€to€counsel€includes€the€right€to€effective€counsel.€€€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð ä4 Ð668,€686€(1984)Ô#†XSéXX XSé¸#ÔÔ‡ XSéXXXSéÔ;€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461;€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936Ô#†XSéXX XSéõ‘#ÔÔ‡ XSéXXXSéÔòòóó.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àTo€determine€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€the€court€must€decideÐ ¨ø Ðwhether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÐ ”ä Ðcriminal€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936;€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð €Ð ÐApp.€1998).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€or€her€counsel€was€ineffective€at€trial,€a€defendant€bearsÐ l¼ Ðthe€burden€of€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€he€or€she€was€not€functioning€asÐ X ¨ Ðcounsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudicedÐ D!” Ðthe€defendant€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687òòóó;Ð 0"€  ÐòòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461;€òòHicksóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€245.òòóó€€To€satisfy€the€second€prong,€the€defendant€mustÐ #l! Ðshow€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€haveÐ $X" Ðhad€reasonable€doubt€regarding€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694„95.€€ThisÐ ô$D # Ðâ âreasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€694;€òòseeÐ à%0!$ Ðalsoóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994);€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€13€S.W.3d€742,€750€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCrim.€App.€1999).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€Court€should€not€use€the€benefit€of€hindsight€toÐ tÄ Ðsecond„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€1982);€òòOwensóó,€13€S.W.3d€at€749.€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€should€be€judged€at€the€time€theyÐ L œ Ðwere€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòHicksóó,€983Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€at€246.Ð $ t ÐÔ#†XSéXX XSév’#ÔÌà  àIn€its€order€denying€post„conviction€relief,€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ðIt€is€this€Courtððs€opinionÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€explanations€set€forth€by€Mr.€Chandler€and€Mr.€Emmons€are€very€plausible€and€demonstrateÐ è 8  Ðthat€they€provided€outstanding€representation€to€Mr.€Roe€both€before€and€during€his€trial.€€.€.€.€[T]heÐ Ô$  Ðrepresentation€provided€by€Mr.€Chandler€and€Mr.€Emmons€was€professional€and€appropriate€in€everyÐ À  Ðregard.€€.€.€.€It€is€this€Courtððs€opinion€that€the€petitioner€in€this€cause€received€outstandingÐ ¬ü  Ðrepresentation€in€every€regard€by€his€trial€counsel.ððÐ ˜è  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÌà  àThis€Court€has€carefully€reviewed€the€transcripts€of€both€the€trial€and€the€post„convictionÐ pÀ Ðhearing.€€There€is€no€doubt€that€the€Defendantððs€trial€lawyers€provided€him€with€reasonable€andÐ \¬ Ðcompetent€representation.€€There€is€also€no€doubt€that€the€Defendantððs€trial€lawyers€deliberatelyÐ H˜ Ðchose€a€course€of€action€which€precluded€their€putting€on€the€witness€stand€two€very€powerful€expertÐ 4„ Ðwitnesses.€Defense€counsel€had€a€very€difficult€tactical€decision€to€make€about€how€best€to€presentÐ  p Ðthe€Defendantððs€defense€of€insanity€and€evidence€of€his€diminished€capacity€to€form€the€requiredÐ  \ Ðmens€rea€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€In€hindsight,€Mr.€Chandler€admitted€that€perhaps€theyÐ øH Ðchose€the€wrong€alternative.€€However,€hindsight€is€not€the€proper€lens€thorough€which€to€view€aÐ ä4 Ðclaim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€Defendantððs€trial€lawyers€made€a€strategic€decisionÐ Ð  Ðafter€a€thorough€investigation€into€the€facts€and€legal€theories,€and€after€repeated€pretrial€efforts€toÐ ¼  Ðmaintain€their€defense€while€avoiding€an€evaluation€by€Dr.€Zager.€€ð ðThe€fact€that€a€particular€strategyÐ ¨ø Ðor€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense,€does€not,€standing€alone,€establish€unreasonable€representation.ðð€Ð ”ä ÐòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996).€€While€the€Defendant€and€his€trial€lawyers€mayÐ €Ð Ðwish€that€they€had€chosen€a€different€course€of€action€following€the€Defendantððs€conviction,€thisÐ l¼ ÐCourt€is€not€inclined€to€criticize€strategic€trial€decisions€made€in€conjunction€with€the€level€of€legalÐ X ¨ Ðskill€brought€to€bear€in€this€case.€€To€do€so€would€be€to€call€into€question€almost€every€strategicÐ D!” Ðdecision€made€on€behalf€of€criminal€defendants€in€this€state.€€Post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€ofÐ 0"€  Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€aimed€at€addressing€incompetent€representation;€notÐ #l! Ðrepresentation€that€simply€fails€to€defeat€the€Stateððs€case.€€In€short,€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€proveÐ $X" Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€his€trial€lawyersðð€performance€fell€below€the€standard€ofÐ ô$D # Ðcompetence€demanded€by€our€constitutions.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€raises€as€a€separate€issue€that€his€trial€lawyers€were€ineffective€ð ðfor€notÐ ¸'#& Ðdeveloping€physical€evidence€to€support€the€abuse€of€ephedrine€with€a€hair€sample.ðð€€The€DefendantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðargues€that€his€hair€sample€was€not€tested€for€ephedrine€until€after€his€trial,€and€that€his€attorneysÐ )à$( Ðerred€in€not€having€it€analyzed€before€trial.€€However,€such€evidence€would€have€required€expertÐ |*Ì%) Ðtestimony€for€its€introduction€and€explanation.€€Such€expert€testimony€was€precluded€by€the€trialÐ h+¸&* Ðcourtððs€pretrial€order€and,€given€that€we€have€concluded€that€the€Defendantððs€trial€lawyers€were€notÐ ° Ðineffective€in€pursuing€the€strategy€that€resulted€in€that€order,€we€further€conclude€that€they€were€notÐ œì Ðineffective€in€failing€to€perform€scientific€tests€that€they€knew€they€would€not€be€able€to€introduceÐ ˆØ Ðat€trial.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€his€trial€lawyers€were€ineffective€in€allowing€one€of€hisÐ L œ Ðjailers€to€sit€on€the€jury.€€When€asked€about€this€decision,€Mr.€Chandler€testified€that€he€ð ðknew€it€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ða€little€bizarreðð€to€have€one€of€the€Defendantððs€jailers€on€the€jury,€but€he€explained€that€they€had€aÐ $ t Ðð ðworld„famousðð€jury€consultant€who€advised€keeping€that€particular€juror.€€Mr.€Chandler€testifiedÐ  ` Ðthat,€although€the€Defendant€objected€to€keeping€this€juror,€he€decided€to€follow€the€consultantððsÐ ü L  Ðadvice.€€Mr.€Emmons€also€testified€that,€based€on€the€consultantððs€advice,€that€juror€was€notÐ è 8  Ðchallenged.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAgain,€decisions€regarding€jury€challenges€are€tactical€decisions€not€subject€to€being€second„Ð ¬ü  Ðguessed€by€this€Court.€€This€claim€of€ineffective€representation€is€also€without€merit.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€complains€that€his€trial€attorneys€did€not€call€witnesses€James€HughesÐ pÀ Ðand€Tracey€Johnson׃ ×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€at€trial.€€Hughes€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€stating€that€he€had€seenÐ \¬ ÐMichelle€on€the€evening€before€her€death;€that€he€saw€no€bruises€on€her€face;€and€that€she€and€theÐ H˜ ÐDefendant€planned€to€spend€that€evening€together€shopping€and€attending€the€Defendantððs€birthdayÐ 4„ Ðparty.€€Tracey€Johnson€was€one€of€the€Defendantððs€fellow€officers€and€had€known€the€DefendantÐ  p Ðsince€high€school.€€He€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€about€the€Defendantððs€heavy€ephedrineÐ  \ Ðuse.Ð øH ÐÌà  àMr.€Chandler€testified€that€he€did€not€call€these€witnesses€because€of€concern€about€theirÐ Ð  Ðcredibility.€€He€also€stated€that€he€didnððt€think€Sgt.€Johnson€ð ðpainted€[the€Defendant]€as€a€really€niceÐ ¼  Ðguy.ðð€Mr.€Emmons€testified€that€he€didnððt€think€Hughesððs€testimony€would€have€assisted€the€defense.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€attorneysðð€decisions€not€to€call€these€witnesses€were€made€after€reviewingÐ €Ð Ðtheir€proposed€testimony€and€after€making€a€reasonable,€informed€judgment€call€that€these€witnessesÐ l¼ Ðwould€not€be€beneficial€to€the€defense.€€This€Court€will€not€second„guess€these€strategic€decisions.€Ð X ¨ ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.׃×Ý ƒ)#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð D!” ÐÌà@YY!ìàò òOTHER€ALLEGATIONSó 󀀈Ð #l! Ðà  àIn€addition€to€claiming€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€DefendantÐ  $\" Ðcontends€that€he€was€denied€due€process€because€one€of€his€jailers€sat€on€the€jury.€€Larry€Collins,€oneÐ ø$H # Ðof€the€deputy€jailers€where€the€Defendant€was€housed€pre„trial,€testified€at€the€post„convictionÐ ä%4!$ Ðhearing€that€he€had€seen€the€Defendant€in€jail€prior€to€serving€as€one€of€the€Defendantððs€jurors.€€Mr.Ð ° ÐCollins€stated€that€he€worked€on€the€floor€where€the€Defendant€was€housed€ð ða€couple€of€times.ðð€€HeÐ œì Ðalso€stated€that€his€having€seen€the€Defendant€in€jail€factored€into€his€verdict€ð ð[s]omewhat.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐHowever,€Mr.€Collins€also€testified€that€he€listened€to€and€looked€at€all€the€evidence€and€followedÐ tÄ Ðhis€oath€as€juror.€€Mr.€Collins€disclosed€his€status€as€one€of€the€Defendantððs€jailers€during€voir€dire.Ð `° ÐÌà  àWe€disagree€with€the€Defendant€that€Mr.€Collinsðð€service€as€one€of€his€jurors€violated€his€dueÐ 8 ˆ Ðprocess€rights.€€Although€Mr.€Collins€testified€that€his€prior€contact€with€the€Defendant€affected€hisÐ $ t Ðverdict€ð ðsomewhat,ðð€the€record€does€not€reflect€in€what€way€his€verdict€was€affected.€€DefenseÐ  ` Ðcounsel€hoped€that€Mr.€Collins€would€prove€a€sympathetic€juror€because€the€Defendant€had€been€onÐ ü L  Ðsuicide€watch€for€several€days€while€in€jail.€€Indeed,€we€may€speculate€that€Mr.€Collins€was€moreÐ è 8  Ðreluctant€to€convict€the€Defendant€than€other€jurors€just€as€readily€as€we€may€speculate€that€he€wasÐ Ô$  Ðmore€prone€to€convict€the€Defendant.€€However,€this€Court€cannot€find€a€€constitutional€violationÐ À  Ðbased€on€speculation.€€It€is€the€Defendantððs€burden€to€prove€his€allegations€by€clear€and€convincingÐ ¬ü  Ðevidence.€€The€Defendant€has€not€done€so.€€Nor€has€he€cited€this€Court€to€any€rule€of€law€holding€thatÐ ˜è  Ða€jailer€subsequently€serving€as€a€juror€is,€òòperóó€òòseóó,€a€due€process€violation.€€Accordingly,€we€find€thisÐ „Ô  Ðissue€to€be€without€merit.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€State€committed€prosecutorial€misconduct€during€hisÐ H˜ Ðtrial.€€He€first€contends€that€the€State€improperly€argued€ð ðmissing€witnessesðð€during€closingÐ 4„ Ðargument;€that€is,€the€State€posed€the€rhetorical€question,€ð ðWhat€witness€„„€not€lawyer€„„€what€witnessÐ  p Ðtestified€to€what€psychosis€even€is,€let€along€that€the€defendant€had€one?€„„€what€witness?ðð€€However,Ð  \ Ðthis€issue€could€have€been€raised€on€direct€appeal.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€has€been€waived.€€òòSeeóóÐ øH ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g).Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€State€committed€prosecutorial€misconduct€when€itÐ ¼  Ðfailed€to€divulge€to€him€prior€to€trial€that€Michelleððs€parents€had€signed€a€movie€contract€concerningÐ ¨ø Ðthe€case.€€The€Defendant€claims€that€this€information€was€exculpatory€and€should€have€beenÐ ”ä Ðdisclosed€pursuant€to€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€€The€Defendant€argues€that€suchÐ €Ð Ðinformation€proved€bias€on€the€part€of€Michelleððs€mother,€who€testified€at€trial,€and€therefore€wouldÐ l¼ Ðhave€been€useful€in€cross„examination.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àWe€acknowledge,€of€course,€that€the€prosecution€is€required€to€disclose€to€a€criminalÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€evidence€which€is€favorable€and€material€to€his€or€her€guilt,€including€evidence€which€mayÐ #l! Ðbe€used€to€impeach€the€Stateððs€witnesses.€€òòSee€generallyóó,€òòid.óó,€373€U.S.€at€87;€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€38Ð $X" ÐS.W.3d€52,€55„56€(Tenn.€2001).€€To€establish€a€òòBradyóó€violation,€an€aggrieved€defendant€must€proveÐ ô$D # Ðfour€things:€€(1)€that€he€or€she€requested€the€information€(unless€the€information€is€obviouslyÐ à%0!$ Ðexculpatory€ð"ð€in€which€case€the€State€must€disclose€it€whether€requested€or€not);€(2)€that€the€StateÐ Ì&"% Ðsuppressed€the€information;€(3)€that€the€information€was€favorable€to€the€defendant;€and€(4)€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðinformation€was€material.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnsonóó,€38€S.W.3d€at€56.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àHere,€the€Defendant€testified€that€he€became€aware€that€Michelleððs€parents€had€signed€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðmovie€contract€after€reviewing€a€copy€of€the€district€attorneyððs€file€in€conjunction€with€filing€hisÐ h+¸&* Ðpost„conviction€petition.€€No€copy€of€any€document€from€the€district€attorneyððs€file€was€introducedÐ ° Ðin€support€of€this€allegation.€€Even€accepting€this€testimony€at€face€value,€however,€the€DefendantððsÐ œì Ðclaim€of€a€òòBradyóó€violation€fails€because€the€information€does€not€meet€the€definition€of€ð ðmaterial.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àUnder€òòBradyóó,€withheld€evidence€is€material€ð ðonly€if€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€hadÐ `° Ðthe€evidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.ðð€Ð L œ ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Bagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€682€(1985).€€Here,€the€ð ðwithheldðð€evidence€could€have€beenÐ 8 ˆ Ðused€to€impeach€Michelleððs€mother.€€However,€Michelleððs€mother€was€not€a€key€witness€to€theÐ $ t Ðprosecution,€and€her€bias€was€already€established€by€her€relationship€to€the€victim.€€Furthermore,Ð  ` Ðalthough€Mr.€Chandler€testified€that€the€information€would€have€been€ð ðgreat€cross€examination,ðð€weÐ ü L  Ðfail€to€see€how€it€would€have€helped€the€Defendantððs€case€even€if€Michelleððs€motherððs€credibility€hadÐ è 8  Ðbeen€completely€destroyed€at€trial.€€Her€testimony€was€simply€not€that€important€to€the€Stateððs€case.€Ð Ô$  ÐAccordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€the€Defendant€has€failed€to€prove€his€allegations€by€clear€and€convincingÐ ˜è  Ðevidence,€and€we€therefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€€€€€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 4„ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ  p ÐÓº Ó