WPC> a@ZZ̈lfbԐP^^_ 5ap\~A71)1%j Xِ֍h"6mL8#[۰W FnZ* `8.wz5%W(&t,i(&{~UKyDw 5BIPxrڗiF$"6-17{N|nsr:q~)SfXXH i:2{rwJZ'Cv]8nr I^7əjn(/L^ o$(G '^t2Z6*t'U寇W(KH!դs(Dw wW/w.PX~dpy_:@,6"(bdIvȚ*@mX=1;uEemidqۃ TKz %U6 0U+Np U> U* U@& zf  UN  UN ~ L^ Nw4E m# 0D 0UbH 0P 09 0 0 0 0 0 0p 0CD 0 0^ 02 0 0 0 0d 0)! 0@! 0)" 0" 0# 0$ 0g% 0/& 0& 0' 00s( 0<( 0( 0>) 0v) 0`Q* 0`* 0`+ 0`q+ 0+ 0`, 08- 0T- B&. 02C. 0u. D3/ D-L/ 0Ky/ 0/ AS01 01 0D}2 A2 0:l3 0Y3 0_3 0 ^4 0jh5 06 B*V8 D/8 08 D/3: 0b: 060; 0f; 0:n< 0^< 0<= 0NB=B=B=B=B= 1u= 72> AM7><6X9`(Courier New(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial( Z(Times New Roman  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular R$      1  U  Wewillidentifytheminorvictimsinthiscasebytheirinitials.(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular t R$      2  U  _TheDefendantsattorney,ChadNewton,diedpriortothepostconvictionhearing.Therefore,PublicDefender  SteveWallacetestifiedatthepostconvictionhearingregardingMr.NewtonsrepresentationoftheDefendant.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5uA-s 3j1,`43|xUHP LaserJet 40500(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..- -*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (|G2$ !.8=dd8         0  U(&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5 d,*CITE(|3a$ !.8=dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3a$ !.8=dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7i(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dh)1dxd<:zTop of For7k(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7h)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)wi)X[ZA<< c !.8=dd8     _   =8[XXdd8@tt=INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#= #Ԉ &    @  @` July24,2002SessionX[X= L  #=XX[#CLAYTONEUGENETURNERv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX[X=  J @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforSullivanCounty  J @@No.C44,490PhyllisH.Miller,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200102476CCAR3PC   October1,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     TheDefendant,ClaytonEugeneTurner,bringsthisappealfromthetrialcourtsdenialofpost x  convictionrelief.TheDefendantwasconvictedbyajuryofrapeofachild,incest,andassault.He d arguestwoissuesinthisappeal:(1)thathewasdeniedtheeffectiveassistanceofcounselattrial, P and(2)thatthetrialcourterredbydenyingtheDefendantspostconvictionrequestforthe < appointmentofexpertsinthefieldsofDNAanalysisandthetransmissionofinfectiousdiseases. (x Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. d  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtAffirmed  <   #=X[#X[X.=DavidH.Welles,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJerryL.SmithandJoeG.Riley,  JJ.,joined.  MarkHarris,Kingsport,Tennessee,fortheappellant,ClaytonEugeneTurner.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;_Angele_ԀM.Gregory,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; ` GreeleyWells,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andBarry_Staubus_,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral, L  fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. 8!  @@OO& OPINION #=XX[#X[X= #`"   #=XX[ #X[X=X[XXX[@*  OnJuly30,1997,theDefendant,ClaytonEugeneTurner,wasfoundguiltybyajuryofrape %$!% ofachild,aclassAfelony,incest,aclassCfelony,andassaultbyoffensivetouching,aclassB &"& misdemeanor.Hewassentencedto25yearsinconfinementfortherapeofachild,6yearsin '"' confinementforincesttorunconsecutivelytothe25yearsentence,and6monthsforassaulttorun (#( concurrentlyforthe25yearsentence,foraneffectivesentenceof31years.ThisCourtaffirmedthe )$) Defendantsconvictionsandsentencesondirectappeal.TheDefendantsubsequentlyfiledapetition p*%* forpostconvictionrelief.Thetrialcourt,afterconductinganevidentiaryhearing,deniedrelief.It \+&+ isfromtheorderofthetrialcourtdenyingtheDefendantpostconvictionreliefthatheappeals. H,',  4-(- _  #X[XXX[} # X[XXX[Areviewofthefactsestablishedattrialwillbehelpfultounderstandingouranalysisofthe  issuesraisedbytheDefendant.TheStatesproofattrialestablishedthatonJuly30,1996,M.K.and  R.K.,thevictimsinthiscase,werevisitingthehomeoftheirmother.  ,#  1      ׀Alsolivinginthathomewas  theDefendant,thestepfatherofthetwominorgirls.Whilethegirlswerevisitingtheirmotherand t theDefendant,M.K.,whowas12yearsoldatthetimeoftheoffense,sleptonthecouchintheliving ` room,whileR.K.,whowastenyearsold,sleptwithhermotherandtheDefendantinoneofthe L  bedrooms.EarlyonthemorningofJuly30,1996,R.K.awoketofindthatshehadbeenmovedfrom 8  hermotherssideofthebedtotheDefendantssideandherunderwearhadbeenpulleddowntoher $ t knees.TheDefendantshandwasonhernavel.R.K.immediatelyleftthebed,pulledherunderwear  ` up,andwenttothecouchwhereM.K.wassleeping.ShortlythereaftertheDefendantcameintothe  L  livingroomandtoldR.Ktoreturntothebedroom,whichR.K.did.Sometimelater,M.K.awoke  8  onthecouchtofindtheDefendantlyingbesideher.TheDefendantallowedM.K.togotothe $  bathroom,buthesoonwentintothebathroomwithher.Heremarkedthatshewas prettyandsaid    abunchofotherstuff.FinallytheDefendantleftthebathroom,andM.K.returnedtothecouch   inthelivingroom.Whileshewasattemptingtogobacktosleep,theDefendantapproachedthe   couch.Thistime,theDefendanttriedtogagM.K.withabandana.Shestruggled,andtheDefendant   offeredhertwentyfivedollarsforhercooperation.WhenM.K.refused,theDefendantplaceda p toweloverhermouth,rippedoffherunderwear,andforciblyengagedinsexualintercoursewithher. \ AsM.K.continuedtostruggle,theDefendantthreatenedtokilleveryoneinthetrailer.M.K.told H hermotherabouttherapeassoonashermotherwokeup.Hermothercalledthepolice,andM.K. 4 andR.K.weretakentothehospital.  p   Theattendingemergencyroomphysicianexaminedbothvictims.Hediscoverednosigns H thatR.K.hadbeensexuallyassaulted.However,afterperformingapelvicexaminationofM.K.,he 4 foundthattheentrancetohervaginawasbruised,hervaginawasreddened,andthereappearedto   besemeninthevaginalarea.Heconcludedthatthesefindingswereconsistentwithrecentsexual   intercourse.SubsequentDNAtestingestablishedthattheDNAextractedfromthesemenmatched  theDNAsampleobtainedfromtheDefendant.Onthedayaftertheoffensesoccurred,thepolice  locatedtheDefendantatWoodridgeHospital,amentalhealthtreatmentfacility.TheDefendantwas  takentothepolicestationwhereheadmittedtoengaginginsexualintercoursewithM.K.butdenied l havingsexualcontactwithR.K.Duringhisconfession,theDefendantstatedthathehadbeen X  sufferingfromblackoutspriortoenteringWoodridge,andhadbeenpossessedbyapersonnamed D! Jackwhohaddirectedhisactionsandforcedhimtowatchpornographicmovies.Baseduponthe 0"  proofpresentedattrial,includingtheidentificationtestimonyofeachofthevictims,DNAevidence, #l! andtheDefendantsconfession,theDefendantwasconvictedofrapeandincestwithrespecttoM.K. $X" andassaultwithrespecttoR.K. $D #   Tosustainapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,adefendantmustprovehisorherfactual &"% allegationsbyclearandconvincingevidenceatanevidentiaryhearing.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40 '#& 30210(f);Momonv.State,18S.W.3d152,156(Tenn.1999).Uponreview,thisCourtwillnot (#' reweighorreevaluatetheevidencebelow;allquestionsconcerningthecredibilityofwitnesses,the )$( weightandvaluetobegiventheirtestimony,andthefactualissuesraisedbytheevidencearetobe  resolvedbythetrialjudge,nottheappellatecourts.SeeMomon,18S.W.3dat156;Henleyv.State,  960S.W.2d572,57879(Tenn.1997).Thetrialjudgesfindingsoffactonapetitionforpost  convictionreliefareaffordedtheweightofajuryverdictandareconclusiveonappealunlessthe t evidencepreponderatesagainstthosefindings.SeeMomon,18S.W.3dat156;Henley,960S.W.2d ` at57879.#X[XX X[#X[XXX[ L    TheDefendantfirstarguesthathereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselduringthetime $ t leadinguptotrial,atthesuppressionhearing,andattrial.Hecontendsthathiscounselwas  ` ineffectivebecause:(1)counselfailedtoexplorepossiblementalormedicaldefensesinpreparation  L  fortrial,(2)counselfailedtoexplorethevictimspriorsexualhistoryinpreparationfortrial,(3)  8  counselfailedtopresentevidenceatthesuppressionhearingoftheDefendantslackofthemental $  capacitytowaivehisconstitutionalrighttoremainsilentandvoluntarilyandknowinglygivethe   policeastatement,and(4)counseldeniedtheDefendanttherighttotestifyonhisownbehalfathis   trial.     #X[XXX[$# X[XXX[BoththeSixthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,9ofthe p TennesseeConstitutionguaranteeadefendanttherighttorepresentationbycounsel.SeeStatev. \ Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999);Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).This H righttocounselincludestherighttoeffectivecounsel.SeeStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668, 4 686(1984)#X[XX X[(# X[XXX[;Burns,6S.W.3dat461;Baxter,523S.W.2dat936#X[XX X[*# X[XXX[.  p   Todeterminewhethercounselprovidedeffectiveassistanceattrial,thecourtmustdecide H whethercounselsperformancewaswithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysin 4 criminalcases.SeeBaxter,523S.W.2dat936;Hicksv.State,983S.W.2d240,245(Tenn.Crim.   App.1998).Tosucceedonaclaimthathisorhercounselwasineffectiveattrial,adefendantbears   theburdenofshowingthatcounselmadeerrorssoseriousthatheorshewasnotfunctioningas  counselasguaranteedundertheSixthAmendmentandthatthedeficientrepresentationprejudiced  thedefendantresultinginafailuretoproduceareliableresult.SeeStrickland,466U.S.at687;  Burns,6S.W.3dat461;Hicks,983S.W.2dat245.Tosatisfythesecondprong,thedefendantmust l showareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselsunreasonableerror,thefactfinderwouldhave X  hadreasonabledoubtregardingthedefendantsguilt.SeeStrickland,466U.S.at69495.This D! reasonableprobabilitymustbe sufficienttoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.Id.at694;see 0"  alsoHarrisv.State,875S.W.2d662,665(Tenn.1994);Owensv.State,13S.W.3d742,750(Tenn. #l! Crim.App.1999). $X"   Whenreviewingtrialcounselsactions,thisCourtshouldnotusethebenefitofhindsightto %0!$ secondguesstrialstrategyandcriticizecounselstactics.SeeHellardv.State,629S.W.2d4,9 &"% (Tenn.1982);Owens,13S.W.3dat749.Counselsallegederrorsshouldbejudgedatthetimethey '#& weremadeinlightofallfactsandcircumstances.SeeStrickland,466U.S.at690;Hicks,983 (#' S.W.2dat246. )$(   |*%)   #X[XX X[_+#X[XXX[TheDefendantarguesthathisattorneywasineffectivebyfailingtoexplorepossiblemental   ormedicaldefensesinpreparationfortrial.Morespecifically,theDefendantassertsthatcounsel  shouldhaveexploredthedefenseofinsanityaswellastheDefendantsclaimthathewassuffering  fromherpesatthetimeoftherape.Withrespecttothefailuretoexploreaninsanitydefense,the t recordreflectsthattheDefendantsattorneyrequested#X[XXX[94#X[XXX[Ԁandwasgrantedacourtorderedmental ` evaluationoftheDefendantforthepurposeofdetermininghismentalconditionatthetimeofthe L  rape#X[XXX[6#X[XXX[ԀandwhethertheDefendantwascompetenttostandtrial.TheexaminationoftheDefendantwas 8  performedbyCentralAppalachiaServices,whichconcludedthat $ t 8  8`   thedefendantsconditionissuchthatheiscapableofdefending  ` himselfinacourtoflaw.Inmakingthisdetermination,wefound  L  thatthedefendantunderstandsthenatureofthelegalprocess,thathe  8  understandsthechargependingagainsthimandtheconsequences $  thatcanfollow,andthathecanadvisecounselandparticipateinhis   owndefense. ` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   Aftercompletionoftheevaluation...,itisouropinionthata   defenseofinsanitycannotbesupported.Thisopinionisbasedonthe p determinationthatatthetimeofthecommissionoftheact \ constitutingtheoffense,thedefendantwasabletoappreciatethe H natureorwrongfulnessofsuchact.4` x` x Furthermore,SteveWallace,thePublicDefenderforSullivanCountywhoworkedcloselywiththe  \ AssistantPublicDefenderassignedtotheDefendantscase,testifiedthattheDefendanthadnoprior H historyofmentalillnessthatwouldalertthemtoaneedforasecondevaluation.  ,#  2      ׀ Whencounsel 4 hasnoreasontoknowofaclientsmentalproblems,theSixthAmendmentdoesnotimposea   generaldutytoexplorethedefendantsmentalcapacity.EdwardLeroyHarrisv.State,No.03C01   9311CR00381,1996Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS256,at*10n.1(Knoxville,April26,1996)(citing  Rileyv.Snyder,840F.Supp.1012,1027(D.Del.1993)).See,e.g.,UnitedStatesexrel.Riverav.  Franzen,794F.2d314,317(7thCir.1986);Clantonv.Blair,826F.2d1354,1358(4thCir.1987).  However,evenifcounselwasdeficientinnotrequestingasecondmentalevaluation,theDefendant l haspresentednoproofthatasecondmentalevaluationwouldhaveproducedanydifferentopinion X  thanthefirstevaluation.Clearly,therehasbeennoshowingofprejudice.Accordingly,thisissue D! iswithoutmerit. 0"  #X[XXX[7#X[XXX[  Withrespecttocounselsfailuretoinvestigate#X[XXX[ZB#X[XXX[theDefendantsclaimthathewassuffering $X" fromherpesatthetimeoftherapeandthereforethathisvictimwouldhavecontractedthedisease, $D # #X[XXX[B#X[XXX[PublicDefenderSteveWallacetestifiedatthepostconvictionhearingthathehadnorecollection %0!$ oftheDefendanteveralertinghimorattorneyChadNewtontohisherpesconditionandtherewas &"% nothinginthePublicDefendersfileindicatingthattheDefendanteverhadherpesorhadbeen '#& treatedforherpes.Ascounselhasnodutytoinvestigateadefendantsmentalcapacitywherehehas (#' noknowledgeofthedefendantsmentalproblems,neitherdoescounselhaveadutytoinvestigate  thepossibletransmissionofasexuallytransmitteddiseasewherehehasnoknowledgethatthe  defendantissufferingfromsuchadisease.Thetrialcourtalsonotedthatthemedicalrecordsfrom  WoodridgeHospital,wheretheDefendantwasgivenaphysicalexaminationonthemorningofthe t offenses,reflectthattheDefendantdenieditching,dryness,rashness,lesions,discoloration,orother ` skinchangesthatmightindicatethepresenceofgenitalherpes.Furthermore,thetrialcourtfound L  thattheDefendantpresentednootherproof,suchasmedicalrecordsortestimony,whichwould 8  corroboratehisassertionthathewassufferingfromgenitalherpes.Neitherhasheshownthatifhe $ t hadbeensufferingfromherpesatthetimeoftherapethathisvictimnecessarilywouldhave  ` contractedthedisease.Therefore,theDefendanthasfailedtoproveeitherdeficientperformanceof  L  counselorprejudice,andthisissueiswithoutmerit.  8    Next,theDefendantassertsthathiscounselwasineffectivebyfailingtoexplorethevictims   priorsexualconductinpreparationfortrial.WenoteattheoutsetthatTennesseeRuleofEvidence   412(c),withafewexceptions,forbidstheintroductionofevidenceofspecificinstancesofavictims   sexualbehaviorinsexoffensecases.Inhisbrief,theDefendantassertsthatthevictimspriorsexual   behaviorwasrelevantpursuanttoRule412(c)(4)(i)torebutorexplainscientificormedicalevidence p andRule412(c)(4)(ii)toproveorexplainthesourceofsemen,injury,disease,orknowledgeof \ sexualmatters.Atthepostconvictionhearing,theDefendanttestifiedthatM.K.had messedwith H hercousinafewdaysbeforetheinstantoffense.TheconducttowhichtheDefendantrefers 4 resultedinaconvictionofM.K.scousinforsexualbatterybasedonthecousinsconductin  p touchingM.K.TheDefendantmaintainsthatevidenceofthisconductisrelevanttoexplainthe  \ sourceofsemen,buthehaspresentednoproofthatthesexualbatterybytouchingofM.K.byher H cousinincludedejaculationthatwouldexplainthealternatesourceofsemen.Infact,theDefendant 4 admittedatthepostconvictionhearingthatthejuvenilecourtfoundtheincidenttobeasexual   batterybythecousinagainstM.K.AbsentproofthatM.K.hadengagedinsexualintercourse,the   sexualbatteryofM.K.byhercousinisirrelevantandinadmissibleunderTennesseeRuleof  Evidence412.#X[XXX[C#X[XXX[ThereforetheDefendanthasdemonstratednoprejudicebyhisattorneynotexploring  thevictimspriorsexualhistory,andthisissueiswithoutmerit.#X[XXX[R#X[XXX[    TheDefendantfurtherarguesthat#X[XXX[ S#X[XXX[hiscounselwasineffectivebyfailingtoraiseevidenceat X  thesuppressionhearingoftheDefendantslackofthementalcapacitytowaivehisconstitutional D! righttoremainsilentandvoluntarilyandknowinglygivethepoliceastatement#X[XXX[S#X[XXX[.TheDefendant 0"  maintainsthatevidenceofhisdiagnosisandtreatmentandthemedicationshewasprescribedduring #l! hisstayatWoodridgeHospitalimmediatelyaftertheoffenseswasrelevanttodemonstratethathe $X" lackedthementalcapacitytovoluntarilywaivehisrightagainstselfincriminationatthetimeofhis $D # confession.However,thedischargesummaryfromWoodridgeHospitaldescribestheDefendants %0!$ mentalstatusatthetimeofthedischargeasfollows: Thepatientisalert,fullyoriented.Moodand &"% affectmildlydepressedwithsomepreoccupationandconcernwithpersonalfate.Speechcoherent '#& andgoaldirected.Thoughtprocessappearslogicalwithgoodassociations.Contentwithoutany (#' obviouspsychoticelementsobjectivelyseen.Cognitivefunctionatabaseline.Thesummarydoes )$( notindicatethattheDefendantwaseithergivenanymedicationsatthetimeofhisdischargeor |*%) prescribedanymedications.EddieSims,aninvestigatorforthePublicDefendersoffice,testified h+&* atthepostconvictionhearingthatMr.NewtonsentforandreviewedtheDefendantsrecordsfrom  Woodridgeaswellashismedicalrecords.Clearlyitwasnoterrorforcounseltonotintroducethe  recordsfromWoodridgeHospitalatthesuppressionhearing.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthe  WoodridgerecordsonlyreinforcedtheconclusionthattheDefendantwasfullycapableof t knowingly,intelligently,andvoluntarilywaivinghisconstitutionalrightagainstselfincrimination ` andgivingastatementtothepolice.Andaswehavealreadynoted,Mr.Wallacetestifiedthatthere L  wasnothingelsetoindicatethattheDefendanthadanypriorhistoryofmentalillness.Moreover, 8  theDefendanthasfailedtoshowthattherewasanythingintherecordsthatcouldhavepossibly $ t benefittedhisdefense.Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  `   TheDefendantalsoarguesthathiscounselwasineffectivebydenyinghimtherighttotestify  8  onhisonbehalf.Hestatesthatheexpressedadesiretotestifyonnumerousoccasions,butthathis $  attorney,Mr.ChadNewton,wouldnotallowhimtotestify.TheDefendanttestifiedatthepost   convictionhearingthatalthoughhetoldMr.Newtonthathewantedtotestify,Mr.Newtonwould   notdiscusstheissuewithhim.Instead,Mr.Newtonsimplytoldhimwhattheyweregoingtodo.   However,theDefendantadmittedatthepostconvictionhearingthatattheendofthefirstdayof   trial,Mr.Newtontoldthecourt, Ianticipatecallingperhapsthedefendant.Thatshisoption.I p dontknowifIwouldtellhimtotestify,buthesgotarightto,andhemaywantto.... \   Inhisbrief,theDefendantcitesMomonv.State,18S.W.3d152(Tenn.1999),tosupporthis 4 argumentthathewasdeniedtherighttotestify.InMomon,oursupremecourtstatedthata  p defendantsrighttotestifyonhisorherownbehalfisfundamental,andasafundamentalright,it  \ mustbewaivedpersonallybythedefendant.Id.at161. Toensurethatdefenseattorneysinfuture H criminalcasesdonotunilaterallydeprivecriminaldefendantsofthefundamentalrighttotestify,in 4 everytrialwherethedefendantdoesnottestify,thetrialcourtshould...require[]defensecounsel   toconductahearingontherecordtoensurethatthedefendanthasmadeaknowing,intelligent,and   voluntarywaiveroftherighttotestify.Id.at162.TheDefendantconcedesinhisbriefthatthe  proceduralrequirementsofMomonwerenotyetinplaceatthetimeofhistrial,andindeed,are  expresslynotretroactive.Seeid.at16263.However,theDefendantreliesonMomon,statingthat  theabsenceofawaiverontherecordservestocorroboratehisassertionsthathewantedtotestify l andwasdeniedthatrightbyhisattorney.Wedisagree.ThefactthatnowaiveroftheDefendants X  righttotestifyappearsontherecordcannotbeusedtosupportanyargumentregardingthe D! Defendantsrighttotestifybecausethewaiverwasnotrequiredtobeontherecord,asMomonhad 0"  notyetbeendecided.However,weacknowledgethatiftheDefendantwereactuallydeniedtheright #l! totestifybyhisattorney,thatwouldestablishaconstitutionalerrorregardlessofthefactthatMomon $X" wasyettobedecided,asMomondidnotcreatenewrights,butonlyprovidedadditionalsafeguards $D # toprotectarightlongrecognized.Seeid.at163. %0!$   PublicDefenderWallacetestifiedatthepostconvictionhearingthathemetwithMr.Newton '#& andtheDefendantfortheexpresspurposeofdecidingwhethertheDefendantshouldtestify.The (#' twoattorneysadvisedtheDefendantthatinlightoftheevidenceputforthbytheState,theDNA )$( evidence,theconfessionbytheDefendanttotherapeofM.K.,andthetestimonyofthevictims, |*%) whichidentifiedtheDefendantandcorroboratedhisconfession,itwouldnotbehelpfulforthe h+&* Defendanttotestify.Mr.WallacesaidthattheDefendantagreedatthatmeetingthatitwasinhis  bestinterestnottotestify.WallacetestifiedthattheDefendantneverexpressedadesiretotestify,  andifhehaddoneso,heandMr.Newtonwouldhavecalledhimasawitness.Thetrialcourtatthe  postconvictionhearingcreditedthetestimonyofMr.WallaceoverthatoftheDefendant.Thecourt t foundthattheDefendantdidvoluntarily,intelligently,andknowinglywaivehisrighttotestifyas ` Mr.WallacesaidandthatheneverexpressedadesiretotestifytoeitherMr.WallaceorMr.Newton. L  TheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatMr.Newtondidnotdeny 8  theDefendanttherighttotestify.ThetrialcourtfoundthatMr.NewtonandMr.Wallacehelda $ t meetingtodiscusstheoptionofhavingtheDefendanttestify,andtheyallagreedthathewouldnot.  ` Thisissueiswithoutmerit.  L    Finally,theDefendantarguesthatthe#X[XXX[T#ԀtrialcourterredbydenyingtheDefendantspost $  convictionrequestfortheappointmentofexpertsinthefieldsofDNAanalysisandthetransmission   ofinfectiousdiseasesX[XXX[.Heassertsthattheexpertscouldhave resolvedthequestionofwhosesemen   wasrecoveredfromthevictimand whethertheherpescarriedby[theDefendant]hadtohavebeen   transmittedtotheallegedvictimifhehadcommittedtheoffensehewasconvictedofcommitting.   OursupremecourthaspreviouslyaddressedtheDefendantsclaiminDavisv.State,912S.W.2d p 689(Tenn.1995). [T]hestateisnotrequiredtoprovideexpertassistancetoindigentnoncapital \ postconvictionpetitioners.Id.at69697. InTennesseethereisnoruleorstatutethatentitlesa H noncapitalpostconvictionpetitionertostatefundedexpertassistance.Id.at695.Furthermore, 4  [i]ntheabsenceofaConstitutionalrighttocounsel,therecanbenoConstitutionalrighttosupport  p servicesatstateexpense.Id.at696.InaccordancewithoursupremecourtsdecisioninDavis,this  \ issueiswithoutmerit. H   #X[XXX[Qr#c  c  X[XXX[   Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialoftheDefendantspetition   forpostconvictionrelief.#X[XXX[w#X[XXX[     #X[XXX[x#c  X[XXX[#X[XXX[Yy#X[XXX[  #X[XXX[y#   `     h     ___________________________________ X     `     h     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE