ÿWPCl= <Ź—wWÈ^JHR‘^Z³²@AûôCÈP§ÐngPíD')-“KAµwL@sܪYùwHù¦J¨¹f&Á`FŸ.†qh»¤¤aƒ[‹DLÀ fnéÇ„.²t œƒÁço„ƒ_xëÓÿ¦þžjeœSE¬šõ¨¹püèz÷ÍΤ%g ä¶a¾üln6Š@AJ'@ø¿] R™e;ïÚ~°d£fü»†˜C`«w“º.7&)£É²Å†³'DÉ „—sm9§ô¢¡ž®ñ¡t.%ÈEª[HBÏé2ùðÐ{ ¨já"Ö\PˆS«º9LÒĸóA©'ªëQMBÅEE.ô†† eÅNïžì-U5å›#m³rOû–2éq{j3oÅLH£O¾Ä™U0Å?؈†Xó RÔ?¢[lpé‰bM{:µè­©k>Dl5V²oj¢AnÍCR*¶CRÍ:ð–“e6`ˆÀ¦3qá‘€$–Ï©tT†…„¤1ë%ØZW‘qË|<+üÓ…DrðFùNtO–)®”*ØaËcè.>¥1<“‹mCü…LîoŽ–,îJêÚÂf¹Þýü•›dÁ‚(}G h˜ÂòÀzÙþÅ¢ªíOdÓEE– %4 N: 0ˆ< U3NÄ P zb ÒÜ z® Ò( Nú ú ãü z߯YÆÆåÆ«ÒqNCNEqGG z¸Ò2ENŠp’ zÒ|NNNN zPÒÊNœœœœ zžÒNêêêbì zôÒnN@@@ zBÒ¼NŽŽŽ zÒ NÜ Ü Ü zÞ ÒX!N*"*"*" z,"Ò¦"Nx#x#x# zz#Òô#NÆ$Æ$ È$ zÞ$ÒX%N*&*&*& 0ë,& z'Ò‘'Nc( Be(e( 0¤‚( D5&) D-[) 0Kˆ)ˆ) ASÓ)Æ&* 0¤ì* 0D+ A«Ô+ z,Òù,NË-Ë-Ë- zÍ-ÒG.N/// z/Ò•/Ng0g0g0 zi0Òã0Nµ1µ1µ1 z·1Ò12N333 z3Ò3NQ4Q4Q4 zS4ÒÍ4NŸ5Ÿ5Ÿ5 z¡5Ò6^ í6wù64ý67 7 m"7U>97 w7w7 0D‡7‡7‡7UNË7Š8#É£:»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularÿÿciteas((Cite as: 18 S.W.3d 152, *162)˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÙÝ ƒRŒd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþ%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€this€document€is€often€referred€to€as€ð ðthe€waiver.ðð˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5C:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt gÝ ƒRŒd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþ%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€In€his€brief,€the€appellant€explains€that€ð ðMs.€Barnett€testified€.€.€.€that€the€petitioner€had€on€occasion€providedÐ ° Ðher€with€certain€drugs,€and€further€testified€as€to€the€effects€said€drugs€had€upon€her.ðð˜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 €Ý ƒRŒd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþ%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Judge€Ô_ÔMashburnÔ_Ô€originally€presided€over€the€Ô_ÔClowersÔ_Ô€and€Woodson€cases.€€However,€upon€his€demise,€JudgeÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔWeatherfordÔ_Ô€presided€over€the€cases. fÝ ƒRŒd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþ%ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€As€we€have€noted,€at€the€time€of€the€Woodson€trial€the€petitioner€had€been€convicted€of€second€degree€murderÐ ° Ðin€the€Ô_ÔClowersÔ_Ô€case€and€the€direct€appeal€in€that€case€was€pending.€€˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt$˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt*˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt- ù-0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt5˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt:˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt?˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptD˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptI˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿÿStarPageN˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(|G2Œd$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[Õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþ%ò»»ÔT˜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 d(|3‹$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[Õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‹$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[Õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKc˜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.wpth˜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.wptm˜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.wptr˜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.wptw˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt|˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt†˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptt˜1/Ï óbï.\Pê:i¢×+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀô\  `‹&Times New RomanÿÿSDU_3(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Ó - ' ib014r200ib014r20 .   ˜\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[Õ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼[Õ»»»ÔÑ8€9XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îW¤î»¼[ÕÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼[Õ»îîW¤ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` à€Assigned€on€Briefs€January€22,€2003Ð üL ÐÔ‡X9X»¼[ÕÔÌò òÔ#†¼[Õ»XX9"#ÔòòóóJOòòSEPH€óóSHEPHERDÔ‡X9X»¼[ÕÔó ó€Ô#†¼[Õ»XX9ƒ#Ôò òv.€òòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó óóóÔ‡X9X»¼[ÕÔÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Monroe€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€97„127€and€97„128€€€€€€William€H.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„01455„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐSeptember€17,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓPrior€to€this€appeal,€the€petitioner,€Joseph€Shepherd,€was€convicted€of€involuntary€manslaughter€inÐ xÈ  Ðone€proceeding,€and,€in€a€separate€proceeding,€he€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€aggravatedÐ d´ Ðassault.€€He€is€currently€serving€a€life€sentence.€€The€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„convictionÐ P  Ðrelief€in€each€case,€raising€several€issues,€including€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€post„Ð <Œ Ðconviction€court€denied€relief€in€both€cases€and€the€petitioner€appealed.€€Upon€review€of€the€recordÐ (x Ðand€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€Ð d ÐÓFÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼[Õ»àX9ê#ÔÔ‡X9X.¼[ÕÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óóandòòÐ Ä ÐJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.,€óójoined.€Ô#†¼[Õ»XX9Ä#ÔÔ‡X9X»¼[ÕÔÐ ° ÐÌRichard€L.€Burnett,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Joseph€Shepherd.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Ô_ÔAngeleÔ_Ô€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð `° ÐJerry€N.€Ô_ÔEstesÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€William€Reedy,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð L œ Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓ•ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼[Õ»XX9â #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼[ÕÔÐ #`" ÐÌÌòòóóÔ#†¼[Õ»XX91 #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼[ÕÔÓ  Óà@ìàòòò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundó óóóÔ#†¼[Õ»XX9 #ÔÔ€X9X»¼[ÕԈРÔ%$!% Ðà  àÌà  àIn€a€previous€opinion,€this€court€briefly€summarized€the€procedural€history€of€the€petitionerððsÐ ¬'ü"' Ðcases:Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ‡X÷ XXX9ÔIn€April€1991,€a€jury€convicted€the€petitioner€of€the€felony€murder€ofÐ p*À%* ÐRoxanne€Woodson€and€the€aggravated€assault€of€law€enforcementÐ \+¬&+ Ðofficers€investigating€the€case.€€The€[petitioner]€was€sentenced€toÐ H,˜', Ðdeath€for€the€felony€murder€and€to€two„to„five€years€for€theÐ 4-„(-ýV ÐÔ_Ôaggravated€assault.€€On€May€30,€1995,€our€supreme€court€reversed€theÐ ° Ðdeath€sentence€and€remanded€the€case€for€Ô% ‡Ž ÔÔ#†X9X XX÷#ÔÔ%†ŽÔÔ‡X÷ XXX9Ôresentencing.€Ô#†X9X XX÷_#ÔòòÔ‡X÷ XXX9Ô€òòóóState€v.Ð œì ÐShepherdòòóó,Ô#†X9X XX÷²#ÔóóÔ‡X÷ XXX9Ô€902€S.W.2d€895€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€petitioner€wasÐ ˆØ Ðresentenced€to€life€imprisonment€for€his€felony€murder€conviction€onÐ tÄ ÐApril€29,€1997.€€In€a€separate€trial,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€theÐ `° Ðsecond€degree€murder€of€Kathy€Clowers€and€sentenced€to€ninety„nineÐ L œ Ðyears€imprisonment.€€This€court€reversed€the€second€degree€murderÐ 8 ˆ Ðconviction€and€remanded€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€Ô#†X9X XX÷*#ÔòòÔ‡X÷ XXX9ÔóóòòState€v.€Shepherdóóòò,Ô#†X9X XX÷L#ÔóóÔ‡X÷ XXX9ÔÐ $ t Ð862€S.W.2d€557€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€Ô#†X9X XX÷¯#ÔÐ `` x` x ÐÌòòJoseph€Shepherd€v.€Stateóó,€Ô‡X÷ XXX9ÔNos.€E1999„01279„CCA„R3„PC€and€E1999„02266„CCA„R3„PCÔ#†X9X XX÷n#Ô,€Ô‡X÷ XXX9Ô2000Ð è 8  ÐWL€1742077Ô#†X9X XX÷æ#Ô,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Nov.€28,€2000).€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àUpon€retrial€of€the€Clowers€case,€the€appellant€was€found€guilty€of€involuntary€manslaughter,Ð ¬ü  Ðand€he€received€a€sentence€of€two€to€five€years€incarceration.€€Subsequent€to€his€conviction,€theÐ ˜è  Ðpetitioner€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial.€€While€this€motion€was€pending,€our€supreme€court€remandedÐ „Ô  Ðthe€Woodson€case€for€resentencing.€€Thereafter,€the€petitioner€entered€into€an€agreement€with€theÐ pÀ ÐState€in€which€he€waived€his€right€to€appeal€the€Clowers€case€in€exchange€for€a€life€sentence€in€theÐ \¬ ÐWoodson€case.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€June€1997,€the€petitioner€filed€for€post„conviction€relief€in€both€cases.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€petitions€on€both€the€Clowers€and€Woodson€cases€were€effectively€consolidated€for€theÐ  p Ðpost„conviction€courtððs€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòShepherdóó,€Ô‡X÷ XXX9ÔNos.€E1999„01279„CCA„R3„PC€and€E1999„02266„Ð  \ ÐCCA„R3„PCÔ#†X9X XX÷q#Ô,€Ô‡X÷ XXX9Ô2000€WL€1742077Ô#†X9X XX÷þ#Ô,€at€*1.òòóó€€In€case€97„127,€the€petitioner€raised€complaints€concerningÐ øH Ðthe€Clowers€case,€and€in€case€97„128,€he€raised€complaints€regarding€the€Woodson€case.€€The€post„Ð ä4 Ðconviction€court€initially€dismissed€both€petitions€as€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€òòId.óó€Ð Ð  ÐHowever,€this€court€reversed€the€post„conviction€courtððs€ruling€as€to€the€petition€involving€theÐ ¼  ÐWoodson€case,€finding€that€the€petition€was€timely€filed.€€òòId.óó€at€*4.€€This€court€further€reversed€theÐ ¨ø Ðpost„conviction€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petition€involving€the€Clowers€case€and€remanded€for€furtherÐ ”ä Ðproceedings.€€òòId.óó€at€*5.€€Thereafter,€the€post„conviction€court€held€a€hearing€on€both€petitions,€firstÐ €Ð Ðhearing€proof€regarding€the€Clowers€case,€then€listening€to€proof€regarding€the€Woodson€case.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€first€contended€that€because€there€was€no€recordÐ D!” Ðof€a€ruling€on€his€motion€for€new€trial€in€the€Clowers€case,€the€trial€court€retained€originalÐ 0"€  Ðjurisdiction€over€the€case.€€The€State€argued€that€because€the€appellant€waived€his€right€to€appeal€inÐ #l! Ðthe€Clowers€case€in€exchange€for€a€life€sentence€in€the€Woodson€case,€the€appellant€effectivelyÐ $X" Ðwithdrew€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€Regarding€the€Clowers€case,€the€appellant€also€complained€thatÐ ô$D # Ðhis€counsel€failed€to€perfect€an€appeal€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€testimony€of€AnnÐ à%0!$ ÐBarnett€at€trial.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð Ì&"% Їà  àBased€upon€the€proof€adduced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€post„conviction€courtÐ ° Ðdenied€both€petitions.€€Specifically,€the€court€determined€that€the€petitioner€had€not€met€his€burdenÐ œì Ðof€establishing€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€any€of€the€claims€alleged€in€his€post„convictionÐ ˆØ Ðpetitions.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€petitionerÐ L œ Ðwas€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€when€his€attorney€failed€to€file€a€notice€of€appeal€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðseek€appellate€review€of€the€Clowers€conviction;€(2)€whether€the€petitioner€was€denied€hisÐ $ t Ðconstitutional€right€to€a€fair€trial€when€the€trial€court€permitted€the€State€to€present€the€testimony€ofÐ  ` ÐAnn€Barnett€at€the€Clowers€trial;€(3)€whether€the€original€trial€court€retained€jurisdiction€in€thisÐ ü L  Ðmatter,€as€the€petitionerððs€motions€for€new€trial€in€the€Clowers€case€were€never€ruled€upon€orÐ è 8  Ðotherwise€disposed€of€by€the€trial€court;€(4)€whether€the€petitionerððs€fundamental€constitutional€rightÐ Ô$  Ðto€testify€at€the€Woodson€trial€was€violated€when€his€attorneys€failed€to€allow€him€to€testify,€asÐ À  Ðrequested€by€the€petitioner;€and€(5)€whether€the€petitioner€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðcounsel€when€his€attorneys€failed€to€interview€and/or€present€certain€witnesses€and€defenses€at€trial.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà@éé$ìàòòò òII.€€Analysisóóó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÔ‡“X÷ XXX9ÔÌà  àTo€be€successful€in€his€claim€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€must€prove€all€factualÐ H˜ Ðallegations€contained€in€his€post„conviction€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€ð ðððClear€and€convincing€evidence€means€evidence€in€which€thereÐ  p Ðis€no€serious€or€substantial€doubt€about€the€correctness€of€the€conclusions€drawn€from€theÐ  \ Ðevidence.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Holderóó,€15€S.W.3d€905,€911€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999)€(quoting€òòHodges€v.€S.C.Ð øH ÐToof€&€Co.óó,€833€S.W.2d€896,€901€n.2€(Tenn.€1992)).€€Issues€regarding€the€credibility€of€witnesses,Ð ä4 Ðthe€weight€and€value€to€be€accorded€their€testimony,€and€the€factual€questions€raised€by€the€evidenceÐ Ð  Ðadduced€at€trial€are€to€be€resolved€by€the€post„conviction€court€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.Ð ¼  ÐStateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€579€(Tenn.€1997).€€Therefore,€we€afford€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findingsÐ ¨ø Ðof€fact€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€with€such€findings€being€conclusive€on€appeal€absent€a€showingÐ ”ä Ðthat€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòId.óó€at€578.Ô#†X9X X“X÷ç'#ÔÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€as€the€petitioner€has€claimed€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ X ¨ Ðcounsel€in€both€cases,€we€note€that€Ô‡“X÷ XXX9Ôa€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€a€mixed€questionÐ D!” Ðof€law€and€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3dÐ 0"€  Ð450,€458€(Tenn.€2001)€(citations€omitted),€our€supreme€court€explained€the€standard€of€review€inÐ #l! Ðcases€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel:€Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[A€post„conviction]€courtððs€òòfindings€of€factóó€underlying€a€claim€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€reviewed€on€appeal€under€a€òòdeÐ Ì&"% Ðnovoóó€standard,€accompanied€with€a€presumption€that€those€findingsÐ ¸'#& Ðare€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐHowever,€a€[post„conviction]€courtððs€òòconclusions€of€lawóó„„such€asÐ )à$( Ðwhether€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€or€whether€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðdeficiency€was€prejudicial„„are€reviewed€under€a€purely€òòde€novoóóÐ h+¸&* Ðstandard,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€given€to€the€[post„Ð ° Ðconviction]€courtððs€conclusions.Мì` x` x ÐÌà  àð ðTo€establish€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€provingÐ tÄ Ðboth€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€and€that€the€deficiency€prejudiced€the€defense.ðð€€òòGoadÐ `° Ðv.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,Ð L œ Ð104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984)).€€In€evaluating€whether€the€petitioner€has€met€this€burden,€this€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðmust€determine€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€required€ofÐ $ t Ðattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Ð  ` ÐÌÔ#†X9X X“X÷.#ÔÌà@--ìàA.€€97„127:€The€Clowers€CaseˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€revealed€that€the€petitioner€was€represented€byÐ ¬ü  Ðattorney€Charles€Corn€at€trial.€€Corn€testified€that€the€petitioner€executed€a€waiver€of€the€right€toÐ ˜è  Ðappeal€the€Clowers€case€in€exchange€for€the€State€agreeing€to€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment,Ð „Ô  Ðinstead€of€seeking€the€death€penalty,€in€the€Woodson€case.€€Corn€acknowledged€that€the€waiver€didÐ pÀ Ðnot€specifically€provide€that€the€motion€for€new€trial€in€the€Clowers€case€would€be€withdrawn.€€InÐ \¬ Ðconnection€with€this€issue,€the€following€colloquy€took€place:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Court:€And€at€that€time€the€motion€for€new€trial€in€[the€ClowersÐ  p Ðcase]€hadnððt€been€ruled€upon,€but€you€just€considered€the€waiver€ofÐ  \ Ðappeal€to€take€care€of€that.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àCorn:€I€must€have€thought€that,€Judge.€€I€donððt€remember,€but€I€mustÐ Ð  Ðhave€thought€that.м ` x` x ÐÌà  àCorn€further€explained€that€the€motion€for€new€trial€had€been€filed€to€preserve€the€petitionerððsÐ ”ä Ðright€to€appeal€even€though€the€jury€delivered€the€desired€outcome€in€the€case,€namely€an€involuntaryÐ €Ð Ðmanslaughter€conviction€instead€of€a€second€degree€murder€conviction.€€Corn€testified€that€he€didÐ l¼ Ðnot€think€the€petitioner€had€a€meritorious€appeal.€€Accordingly,€counsel€believed€that€the€StateððsÐ X ¨ Ðproposal€to€not€seek€the€death€penalty€in€the€Woodson€case€in€exchange€for€the€petitionerððs€waiverÐ D!” Ðof€the€right€to€appeal€in€the€Clowers€case€was€an€ð ðexcellent€agreement.ððÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àCorn€stated€that€there€was€no€indication€that€the€petitioner€ð ðdid€not€know€what€he€was€doingððÐ $X" Ðat€the€time€of€the€waiver.€€Additionally,€the€petitioner€did€not€appear€to€be€under€the€influence€of€anyÐ ô$D # Ðdrugs€or€intoxicants.€€Corn€maintained€that€he€would€not€have€allowed€the€petitioner€to€execute€theÐ à%0!$ Ðwaiver€if€he€had€believed€that€the€petitionerððs€mind€was€affected€by€drugs.€€Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àCorn€further€related€that€he€was€sure€that€the€waiver€of€the€petitionerððs€right€to€appeal€theÐ ° ÐClowers€case€was€announced€in€open€court.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Corn€acknowledged€that€a€letter€he€wrote€to€JudgeÐ œì Ðâ âWeatherford€indicated€that€the€petitioner€wished€to€set€aside€his€waiver€of€appeal.€€The€letter,€whichÐ ˆØ Ðwas€dated€May€2,€1997,€states€that€the€petitioner€telephoned€Corn,€asking€to€set€aside€his€waiverÐ tÄ Ðbecause€his€thinking€was€distorted€by€changes€in€his€blood€pressure€medication.€€Corn€admitted€thatÐ `° Ðhe€did€not€file€any€motions€to€try€to€set€aside€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€the€right€to€appeal€theÐ L œ ÐClowers€case.€€He€explained€that€ð ðonce€I€do€[a€plea€bargain]€I€donððt€go€back€on€it.ððÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àReed€Dixon,€the€petitionerððs€co„counsel€in€the€Woodson€case,€testified€regarding€theÐ  ` Ðcircumstances€surrounding€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€his€right€to€appeal€the€Clowers€case.€€DixonÐ ü L  Ðrecalled€that€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€his€right€to€appeal€the€Clowers€case€took€place€in€open€court.€Ð è 8  ÐDixon€clarified€that€he€did€not€recall€if€the€waiver€was€ð ðexecutedðð€in€open€court.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àDixon€stated€that€he€had€no€reservations€regarding€the€petitionerððs€ability€to€understand€theÐ ¬ü  Ðwaiver.€€Notably,€Dixon€averred€that€he€was€ð ðextremely€impressed€with€[the€petitionerððs]€intelligenceÐ ˜è  Ðand€his€grasp€of€what€was€going€on.ðð€€Dixon€also€opined€that€had€he€known€the€petitioner€wishedÐ „Ô  Ðto€set€aside€the€waiver€of€his€right€to€appeal,€he€would€have€attempted€to€dissuade€the€petitioner€fromÐ pÀ Ðsuch€action€because€of€his€concern€that€the€petitioner€would€be€sentenced€to€death€in€the€WoodsonÐ \¬ Ðcase.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€and€acknowledged€that€he€waived€hisÐ  p Ðright€to€appeal€in€the€Clowers€case.€€However,€after€executing€the€waiver€the€petitioner€contactedÐ  \ ÐCorn,€advising€Corn€that€he€wanted€to€set€aside€the€waiver€because€he€was€on€new€blood€pressureÐ øH Ðmedication€which€affected€his€thinking€at€the€time€he€signed€the€waiver.€€The€petitioner€claimed€thatÐ ä4 Ðhe€ð ðwasnððt€thinking€in€a€rational€state€of€mind.ðð€€The€petitioner€further€claimed€that€he€wanted€toÐ Ð  Ðpursue€a€direct€appeal€of€his€sentence€and€conviction€in€the€Clowers€case.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àAfter€receiving€a€copy€of€Cornððs€letter€to€Judge€Weatherford,€the€petitioner€believed€that€hisÐ ”ä Ðonly€available€avenue€for€relief€was€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€Accordingly,€the€petitioner€statedÐ €Ð Ðthat€he€filed€for€post„conviction€relief€in€June€1997€after€he€read€Cornððs€letter.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€complaints€regarding€the€Clowers€case€concern€whether€the€petitionerððsÐ D!” Ðwaiver€of€appeal€was€knowingly€and€voluntarily€made.€€The€post„conviction€court€determined€thatÐ 0"€  Ðin€the€Clowers€case,€the€petitioner€Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àalleges€various€grounds€for€relief,€all€of€which€he€abandoned„offeredÐ ô$D # Ðno€evidence€thereon„except€the€issue€of€waiver€of€appeal.€€PetitionerÐ à%0!$ Ðconcedes€that€he€signed€a€waiver€of€his€appeal,€but€that€he€was€takingÐ Ì&"% Ðâ âblood€pressure€medication€at€the€time€and€was€not€thinking€clearly.Ð ¸'#& Ð.€.€.€€The€proof€is€clear€that€petitioner€waived€his€right€to€appealÐ ° Ðknowledgeably€and€intelligently.Мì` x` x Ðâ âÌà  àAs€we€earlier€recounted,€both€Corn€and€Dixon€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€facing€aÐ tÄ Ðpossible€death€sentence€in€the€Woodson€case.€€In€fact,€the€petitioner€was€originally€sentenced€toÐ `° Ðdeath€in€the€Woodson€case,€but€this€court€remanded€the€case€for€resentencing.€€As€we€noted,€priorÐ L œ Ðto€resentencing€the€petitioner€agreed€to€forfeit€an€appeal€in€the€Clowers€case€in€exchange€for€a€lifeÐ 8 ˆ Ðsentence€in€the€Woodson€case,€thereby€avoiding€the€death€penalty.€€Furthermore,€Corn€testified€thatÐ $ t Ðthe€petitioner€did€not€have€a€meritorious€claim€for€appeal€in€the€Clowers€case€because€the€petitionerÐ  ` Ðreceived€the€most€favorable€outcome€possible,€an€involuntary€manslaughter€conviction.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àMoreover,€regarding€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€his€right€to€appeal,€we€note€that€a€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðmust€voluntarily€waive€this€right.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarter€v.€Stateóó,€102€S.W.3d€113,€119€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð À  Ð2002).€€ð ðÔ‡X÷ XXX9ÔFurther,€the€waiver€should€be€reduced€to€writing€in€a€document€signed€by€the€defendant,Ð ¬ü  Ðsubscribed€to€by€counsel,€and€clearly€reflecting€the€defendantððs€awareness€of€the€right€to€appeal€andÐ ˜è  Ðvoluntarily€waiving€it.Ô#†X9X XX÷PS#Ôðð€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(d)€(providing€that€if€a€defendant€waivesÐ „Ô  Ðthe€right€to€appeal,€the€waiver€should€be€in€writing€and€should€also€Ô‡X÷ XXX9Ôð ðclearly€reflect€that€the€defendantÐ pÀ Ðwas€aware€of€the€right€and€voluntarily€waived€itðð).Ô#†X9X XX÷IU#Ô€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€presented€no€proof,€aside€from€his€ownÐ 4„ Ðtestimony,€to€indicate€that€his€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€execution€of€the€waiver€was€adverselyÐ  p Ðaffected€by€his€medication.€€Contrarily,€Corn€and€Dixon€both€asserted€that€there€was€no€indicationÐ  \ Ðthat€the€petitioner€was€under€the€influence€at€the€time€he€executed€the€waiver.€€In€the€order€denyingÐ øH Ðthe€petition,€the€post„conviction€court€stated€that€ð ð[t]he€proof€offered€by€the€State€respecting€theÐ ä4 Ðwaiver€of€appeal€in€the€involuntary€manslaughter€case€is€fully€credited.ðð€€We€conclude€that€the€post„Ð Ð  Ðconviction€court€did€not€err€in€finding€that€the€petitioner€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€his€rightÐ ¼  Ðto€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(d);òòóó€òòCarteróó,€102€S.W.3d€at€119;€òòFloyd€Campbell€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ð ¨ø ÐM2001„00408„CCA„R3„PC,€2002€WL€970441,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€May€10,€2002),Ð ”ä Ðòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2002).€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWe€further€conclude€that€such€waiver€effectively€acted€as€an€abandonment€of€the€petitionerððsÐ X ¨ Ðmotion€for€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Holderóó,€634€S.W.2d€284,€285€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòTracyÐ D!” ÐLynn€Potter€v.€Denise€Margaret€Kriley€Potteróó,€No.€13,€1989€WL€3134,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€atÐ 0"€  ÐKnoxville,€Jan.€20,€1989).€€Additionally,€we€note€that€a€valid€waiver€of€the€right€to€appeal€serves€asÐ #l! Ða€waiver€of€many€claims,€such€as€the€petitionerððs€complaint€regarding€Ann€Barnettððs€testimony.€€òòSeeóóÐ $X" ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g)€(1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòMiller€v.€Stateóó,€54€S.W.3d€743,€747€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð ô$D # ÐFinally,€in€light€of€our€determination€that€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€his€right€to€appeal€the€ClowersÐ à%0!$ Ðcase€was€valid,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€Corn€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€seek€appellate€review€of€that€conviction.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà@ìàà@@ìàB.€€97„128:€The€Woodson€CaseˆÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àConcerning€the€Woodson€case,€the€petitioner€raised€the€issues€of€whether€he€was€denied€theÐ ° Ðâ âright€to€testify€and€whether€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€At€the€post„convictionÐ œì Ðhearing,€Corn€testified€that€he€advised€the€petitioner€not€to€testify€in€the€Woodson€case,€but€he€neverÐ ˆØ Ðinformed€the€petitioner€that€he€could€not€testify.€€Corn€opined€that€the€petitioner€was€not€a€goodÐ tÄ Ðwitness€and€would€damage€his€case.€€During€a€break€in€the€Woodson€trial€proceedings,€Corn€againÐ `° Ðadvised€the€petitioner€against€testifying€and€the€petitioner€agreed€to€not€testify.€€The€petitioner€gaveÐ L œ ÐCorn€a€written€account€of€his€version€of€events€which€was€placed€in€the€petitionerððs€file€at€CornððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðoffice.€€Corn€asserted€that€Judge€Mashburn€never€told€the€petitioner€that€he€could€not€testify.€€In€sum,Ð $ t ÐCorn€stated€that€the€petitioner€voluntarily€waived€his€right€to€testify.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àRegarding€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€counsel€did€not€adequately€investigate€the€case,€CornÐ è 8  Ðstated€that€he€interviewed€several€witnesses€that€the€petitioner€asked€him€to€interview.€€The€petitionerÐ Ô$  Ðinformed€Corn€that€these€witnesses€would€be€helpful€to€the€petitionerððs€case.€€However,€uponÐ À  Ðinterviewing€these€witnesses,€Corn€deduced€that€the€proposed€witnesses€had€nothing€butÐ ¬ü  Ðð ðspeculationðð€to€offer.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àDixon€asserted€that€prior€to€the€commencement€of€the€Woodson€case,€Judge€Mashburn€ruledÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€State€would€be€able€to€cross„examine€the€petitioner€regarding€the€Clowers€conviction.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р\¬ ÐTherefore,€defense€counsel€did€not€prepare€the€petitioner€to€testify€because€the€defense€had€noÐ H˜ Ðintention€of€calling€the€petitioner€to€the€stand.€€Regardless,€during€trial€Judge€Mashburn€reversed€hisÐ 4„ Ðearlier€ruling€and€ordered€that€the€State€would€not€be€allowed€to€cross„examine€the€petitionerÐ  p Ðregarding€the€Clowers€conviction.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àSubsequent€to€Judge€Mashburnððs€second€ruling,€the€trial€court€allowed€a€one€and€one„halfÐ ä4 Ðto€two€hour€break€in€the€proceedings€to€allow€defense€counsel€to€speak€with€the€petitioner.€€DixonÐ Ð  Ðstated€that€the€petitioner€wanted€to€testify,€but€he€agreed€not€to€after€counsel€advised€against€it.€Ð ¼  ÐDixon€explained€that€originally€the€defense€did€not€want€the€petitioner€to€testify€because€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðpossibility€that€the€jury€would€be€told€about€the€Clowers€conviction.€€Additionally,€Dixon€stated€thatÐ ”ä Ðhe€did€not€want€the€petitioner€to€testify€because€the€petitionerððs€version€of€events€ð ðdid€not€makeÐ €Ð Ðcommon€logical€senseðð€and€ð ðpast€eventsðð€of€the€petitioner€could€be€brought€in€on€cross„examination.€Ð l¼ ÐDixon€maintained€that€the€petitioner€was€not€prohibited€from€testifying,€but€the€petitioner€accededÐ X ¨ Ðto€the€advice€of€counsel€and€agreed€not€to€testify.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àBilly€Ray€Shepherd,€the€petitionerððs€brother,€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€heÐ #l! Ðwas€never€interviewed€by€defense€counsel.€€Shepherd€asserted€that€two€weeks€before€WoodsonððsÐ $X" Ðbody€was€discovered€on€his€parentsðð€property,€Shepherd€had€been€on€the€property€and€did€not€noticeÐ ô$D # Ða€grave.€€The€petitioner€was€incarcerated€in€North€Carolina€at€this€time.€€Shepherd€made€no€specificÐ à%0!$ Ðeffort€to€make€the€police€aware€of€this€fact.€€In€explanation€for€his€laxity,€Shepherd€asserted,€ð ðI€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðbusy€at€the€time€myself,€sir.ðð€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€thought€he€would€be€allowed€to€testify€at€the€Woodson€trialÐ ° Ðuntil€the€defense€rested€its€case.€€He€asserted€that€he€never€waived€his€right€to€testify;€instead,€theÐ œì Ðpetitioner€claimed€that€counsel€and€Judge€Mashburn€would€not€allow€him€to€testify.€€The€petitionerÐ ˆØ Ðconceded€that€he€never€heard€Judge€Mashburn€forbid€him€from€testifying,€but€ð ð[t]hatððs€the€way€I€tookÐ tÄ Ðit.ðð€€Additionally,€the€petitioner€maintained€that€he€asked€counsel€to€interview€several€witnesses.€Ð `° ÐThe€petitioner€asserted€that€these€witnesses€were€present€at€trial,€but€defense€counsel€would€notÐ L œ Ðpermit€them€to€testify.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIt€is€unquestionable€that€a€criminal€defendant€has€a€fundamental,€constitutional€right€to€testifyÐ  ` Ðat€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€161€(Tenn.€1999).€€This€fundamental€right€may€onlyÐ ü L  Ðbe€waived€by€the€defendant€himself.€€òòId.óó€€Ô‡X÷ XXX9Ôð ðGenerally,€a€right€that€is€fundamental€and€Ô% ‡L ÔÔ#†X9X XX÷ºs#ÔÔ%†LtÔÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†ItÔÔ‡X÷ XXX9Ôpersonal€to€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant€may€only€be€waived€if€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€demonstrating€ððan€intentionalÐ Ô$  Ðrelinquishment€or€abandonment€of€a€known€right€or€privilege.ððððÔ#†X9X XX÷gt#Ô€òòId.óó€at€161„62.€€A€waiver€of€this€rightÐ À  Ðmay€not€be€presumed€by€a€silent€record.€€òòId.óó€at€162.€€Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà  àòòMomonóó€outlined€procedural€safeguards€to€be€employed€to€ensure€that€a€defendantððs€Ô‡X÷ XXX9Ôknowing,Ð „Ô  Ðvoluntary,€and€intelligent€waiver€would€be€reflected€on€the€recordÔ#†X9X XX÷Ôv#Ô.€€òòId.óó€€However,€because€òòMomonóóÐ pÀ Ðserved€only€to€clarify€the€existing€law,€Ô‡X÷ XXX9Ôð ðthe€mere€failure€to€follow€these€guidelines€will€not€in€andÐ \¬ Ðof€itself€support€a€claim€for€deprivation€of€the€constitutional€right€to€testify€if€there€is€evidence€in€theÐ H˜ Ðrecord€to€establish€that€the€right€was€otherwise€personally€waived€by€the€defendant.ðð€Ô#†X9X XX÷Ýw#Ô€òòId.óó€at€163.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€trial€in€the€Woodson€case€occurred€prior€to€òòMomonóó.€€Therefore,€theÐ  \ Ðfailure€to€have€the€petitioner€waive€his€right€to€testify€on€the€record€is€not€determinative€of€the€issue.€Ð øH ÐThe€post„conviction€court€accredited€Cornððs€testimony€concerning€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€the€rightÐ ä4 Ðto€testify€after€being€thoroughly€apprised€of€the€dangers€of€testifying.€€òòSeeóó€òòKong€C.€Bounnam€v.Ð Ð  ÐStateóó,€No.€W2001„02603„CCA„R3„PC,€2002€WL€31852865,€at€*10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,Ð ¼  ÐDec.€20,€2002),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€2003).€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€againstÐ ¨ø Ðthis€finding.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€counsel€were€ineffective€in€failing€to€ð ðinterview€and/orÐ l¼ Ðpresent€certain€witnesses€and€defenses€at€trial.ðð€€The€petitioner€makes€no€further€mention€of€whichÐ X ¨ Ðð ðdefensesðð€counsel€failed€to€pursue.€€Thus,€we€are€precluded€from€addressing€this€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlackÐ D!” Ðv.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Additionally,€the€only€uncalled€witness€theÐ 0"€  Ðpetitioner€specifically€alleged€counsel€should€have€called€was€his€brother,€Billy€Ray€Shepherd.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àShepherd€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€was€not€interviewed€by€counsel€priorÐ ô$D # Ðto€trial.€€Shepherd€stated€that€two€weeks€prior€to€the€discovery€of€Woodsonððs€body€there€was€noÐ à%0!$ Ðgrave€at€the€location€where€the€body€was€found.€€He€also€stated€that€during€this€time€the€petitionerÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€incarcerated€in€North€Carolina.€€Shepherd€explained€that€he€did€not€contact€counsel€or€theÐ ¸'#& Ðauthorities€to€relate€this€information€because€he€was€ð ðbusy.ðð€€Dixon€testified€that€Corn€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðresponsible€for€interviewing€witnesses€prior€to€trial.€€Corn€testified€that€he€had€several€meetings€withÐ )à$( Ðâ âthe€petitionerððs€family€and€encouraged€them€to€ask€family€members€to€come€forward€if€they€had€anyÐ |*Ì%) Ðinformation€regarding€the€case.€€The€post„conviction€court€specifically€noted€that€the€testimony€ofÐ ° ÐShepherd€ð ðis€not€credited.ðð€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€establishing€byÐ tÄ Ðclear€and€convincing€evidence€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€interview€Shepherd€and€thatÐ `° Ðsuch€deficiency€prejudiced€the€petitioner.€€òòSeeóó€òòRalph€E.€Thompson,€Jr.€v.€Stateóó,€No.€Ô‡X÷ XXX9ÔE2001„00003„Ð L œ ÐCCA„R3„PCÔ#†X9X XX÷f„#Ô,€Ô‡X÷ XXX9Ô2002€WL€392820,€at€*10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€14,€2002),€òòÔ#†X9X XX÷Ô„#Ôperm.€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðappeal€deniedóó,Ô‡X÷ XXX9Ô€(Tenn.€2002).€€Ô#†X9X XX÷Ž…#ÔThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà@MM"ìàòòò òIII.€€Conclusionóóó óˆÐ ü L  Ðà  àÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE