ÿWPC »ÙaªÞñ4q˜V`zg¢ 1£ ÁñNsúJ­»¡ŽT•ÆuÔ¹ÉÑcÎfšãavÏòuÏï}œ6Ÿ[šíÏ@ô©•£ØÊæÑ£—ÔÛó±ò"¾ ¿ÞöôqŠSs¹G§)k'Tº—Ô„.X•>Ì’êæ½mœR­Ê\hUTniß*¾€dx©ì¯#­½Mt}Ø®dCÔÖjÒƒò/•ÿY¬Å9P0xŽt=øIð‚ðùNý[ÉÎQ(h~\À€ha,n*?o`¾•­ÎXÏÆRôÛU:D 0(~UN¦w@ô44HW 0zl 0Dæs*2¥ò×É ß ô  0D %c U:ˆ          AQ× Æ( 0Dî B2 0DOO D/““ B D3ßX, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular($¡¡(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular :E;<D=>?E@AEBÓ€Nn~<$3|xN Ñ  Ñ(*(2Œà$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó iÒ°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ ŒàÿÝÒÒà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOral€arguments€were€heard€in€Dyersburg,€Tennessee.€€Students€of€the€Lake€County,Ð ° ÐDyer€County€and€Dyersburg€school€systems€attended€at€the€invitation€of€this€Court€in€an€effortÏto€educate€them€about€our€judicial€system.€€ (Ò°ÒÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ ŒàÿÝÒÒà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€failure€of€trial€counsel€to€raise€the€issue€of€petitionerððs€competence€is€discussedÐ ° Ðunder€petitionerððs€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim.€€ èÒ8°ÒÓ  ÓÝ ƒ ŒàÿÝÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€case€of€co„defendant€Bounnam€was€pending€at€the€time€of€the€post„Ð ° Ðconviction€hearing,€petitioner€alleges€in€his€reply€brief€that€the€case€has€now€concluded.€€EvenÏif€true,€this€does€not€affect€the€correctness€of€the€post„conviction€courtððs€ruling.€€Petitioner€isÏnot€precluded€from€seeking€future€relief€if€it€is€appropriate€under€the€statute.€€ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XïXXXÔÔ€ÝXXïÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XïXÝÔÐ  ÐÌò òApril€1,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÒ¼ôXXïÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ñ  Ñ !#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñBñ›ñBñÒ°ÒÔ€XïXXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑñNññBñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð ÕrßñBññNññNññNññNññBñ›ñBññNññNññNññNñ›ñNññNñßt€(>.*jxûPþ` `€€@Eð` ttx$û°ð Ôtß›ñNñà@˜ ˜ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@””(àAT€JACKSONˆÌÌà@#àFEBRUARY€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌHECK€VAN€TRAN,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ  ` Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òNO.€02C01„9803„CR„00078ó óÐ ü L  Ðà ` àAppellant,à@÷÷-à)ˆÐ è 8  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òSHELBY€COUNTYó óÐ Î  Ðò òVS.ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆÐ º  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òHON.€WILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,Ð ¦ö  ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@÷÷-à)ˆà p àò òJUDGE€BY€DESIGNATIONó óÐ ’â  Ðà@÷÷-à)ˆÌà ` àAppellee.à@÷÷-à)ˆà p à(Post„Conviction:€€Death€Penalty)Ð d´ ÐÌÌÌÒ(ä „¸ @(#(#(Òò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:Ð üL ÐÌBROCK€MEHLERÌó ó751€Roycroft€PlaceÐ À ÐNashville,€TN€37203ÌÌò òWILLIAM€D.€MASSEYó óÐ r Ð3074€East€StreetÌMemphis,€TN€38128ò òÐ D” Ðó óÌÐ  ` Ðò òòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð üL ÐÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÐ Ô$  ÐAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌò òMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÐ ŒÜ# Ðó óSolicitor€GeneralÐ xÈ$ ÐÌò òJENNIFER€L.€SMITH€(On€Appeal)ó óÐ D”& Ðò òGLENN€R.€PRUDE€(At€Hearing)ó óÐ 0€' ÐAssistant€Attorneys€GeneralÌCordell€Hull€Building,€2nd€FloorÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌò òWILLIAM€L.€GIBBONSó óÐ š$ê- ÐDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òJOHN€W.€CAMPBELLó óÐ R'¢"0 ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌCriminal€Justice€ComplexÌSuite€301Ì201€Poplar€AvenueÌMemphis,€TN€€38103„1947ÌÐ ¼, (6 ÐÒ(ä „¸ @ìì(ÒÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ  2p-: ÐÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÐ  l:¼5C Ðó óÑ7€s]XdìXXdì7ÑÓÓÑ€rÑÑ€P¸ÑÑ€r ÑÑ€P¸ÑÑ€P¸ÑÑ€P¸Ñà@ÉÉ'àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àPetitioner,€Heck€Van€Tran,€appeals€from€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„¼conviction€relief€by€the€Criminal€Court€of€Shelby€County.€€He€was€previouslyÏconvicted€on€three€counts€of€felony€murder€and€sentenced€to€death€on€each€count.€ÏAlthough€all€three€convictions€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal,€only€one€deathÏsentence€was€affirmed.€€Petitioner€now€contends€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissingÏhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€presents€the€following€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` à1.à8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àwhether€the€original€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€inquireÐ R Ðinto€petitionerððs€competency€to€stand€trial;€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à2.à8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àwhether€the€original€trial€court€erred€in€definingÐ ´ Ðð ðreasonable€à h àdoubtðð€in€jury€instructions€during€both€œtheÐ šê Ðguilt›€and€sentencing€phases€of€the€trial;€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à3.à8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àwhether€petitionerððs€death€sentence€is€disproportionateÐ Lœ Ðpunishment€in€light€of€his€present€mental€condition;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à4.à8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àwhether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€refusingÐ þN Ðfunding€for€expert€services€for€an€investigation€of€theÏjuryððs€composition;€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à5.à8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àwhether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€denyingÐ – æ Ðpetitionerððs€request€for€inspection€of€the€prosecution€fileÏto€seek€exculpatory€evidence;€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à6.à8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àwhether€petitionerððs€execution€is€prohibited€because€heÐ .$~# Ðis€mentally€retarded;€and€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` à7.à8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àwhether€petitioner€was€deprived€of€effective€assistanceÐ à&0"& Ðof€counsel€at€his€original€trial.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÌÓÓAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€reversible€error€and€ò òAFFIRMó ó€theÐ x*È%* Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà@‚‚$àò òòòPROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóˆÐ è/8+0 ÐÌà ` àIn€June€1989,€a€Shelby€County€jury€found€petitioner€guilty€of€three€counts€ofÏfelony€murder€and€sentenced€him€to€death€on€all€three€counts.€€The€threeÏconvictions€were€affirmed€on€appeal;€however,€only€one€death€sentence€was€œÌÐ ð8@4: Ðaffirmed.›€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€other€two€deathÐ ° Ðsentences€were€set€aside€and€remanded€for€resentencing.€€òòId.€óóat€490.€€The€UnitedÐ |Ì ÐStates€Supreme€Court€denied€the€petition€for€òòwrit€of€certiorarióó.€€òòVan€Tran€v.Ð Lœ ÐTennesseeóó,€511€U.S.€1046,€114€S.Ct.€1577,€128€L.Ed.2d€220€(1994).€€Upon€remandÐ  l Ðof€the€two€successfully€challenged€sentences,€petitioner€received€two€concurrent€lifeÏsentences.€€Ìà ` àPetitioner€filed€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€March€7,€1995.€€AnÏevidentiary€hearing€was€conducted€in€October€1997.€€The€petition€was€dismissedÏby€order€entered€February€13,€1998,€and€petitioner€timely€appealed€to€this€Court.€ÏOral€arguments€were€heard€February€10,€1999.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ä4 ÐÌà@ÎÎ+àò òòòFACTSó óóóˆÐ |Ì ÐÌà ` àWe€incorporate€the€following€material€facts€as€set€forth€by€the€Supreme€CourtÏof€Tennessee€on€direct€appeal:€€ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àOn€the€afternoon€of€October€20,€1987,€Arthur€Lee,€Amy€Lee,Ïand€Kai€Yin€Chuey€were€found€dead€in€the€Jade€East€Restaurant€inÏMemphis.€€The€restaurant€had€not€yet€opened€for€business€that€day,Ïand€the€victims€had€apparently€been€inside€making€preparations€forÏthe€evening.€€Jewelry€with€a€wholesale€value€of€$25,000€had€beenÏtaken€from€the€restaurant.€€The€Stateððs€critical€proof€included:€€aÏstatement€taken€from€the€Defendant€in€which€he€admitted€hisÏinvolvement€in€the€crimes;€Defendantððs€fingerprint€on€one€of€theÏjewelry€cases€taken€during€the€robbery;€and€the€eyewitnessÏidentification€of€the€Defendant€by€a€survivor€of€the€robbery.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà ` à.€.€.€ÌÌà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€Defendant,€Heck€Van€Tran,€was€born€on€November€8,Ï1966.€€His€mother€was€Vietnamese;€and€his€father,€an€AmericanÏserviceman,€died€in€Vietnam€in€1968.€€The€Defendant€started€schoolÏwhen€he€was€six€years€old€but€stopped€when€Saigon€fell.€€In€1983€aÏCatholic€relief€agency€resettled€the€Defendant€and€his€mother€inÏMemphis.€€The€Defendant€briefly€attended€school€before€dropping€outÏin€1984.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àAfter€his€arrest€by€the€Houston,€Texas,€police,€Defendant€gaveÏa€statement€in€which€he€acknowledged€his€role€in€the€robbery€and€œÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÐ H5˜06 Ðà8 ` àmurders.›€€He€stated€that€he€had€worked€briefly€at€the€Jade€EastÏRestaurant€a€month€or€two€before€the€crimes€and€that€Mr.€Lee€hadÏfired€him€because€ð ðhe€didnððt€like€meðð€and€ð ðsaid€I€cooked€too€many€eggÏrolls.ðð€€The€Defendant€implicated€Hung€Van€Chung,€Kong€ChungÏBounnam€and€Duc€Phuoc€Doan€in€the€robbery.€€He€stated€that€theÏfour€men€entered€the€back€door€of€the€restaurant€and€he€talked€toÏArthur€Lee€ð ðfor€about€ten€minutes€before€there€was€any€shooting.ðð€ÏThe€Defendant€had€a€.22€revolver,€Bounnam€a€.44,€Chung€a€.22€andÏDoan€a€.25.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€Defendant€described€what€happened€after€the€groupÏpulled€out€their€guns:Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` àÐ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` àà8¸ ` Ð ` Ð àà  àMr.€Lee€grabbed€Namððs€[Bounnamððs]€hand€withÏthe€gun€and€elbowed€him€in€the€chest.€€Nam€fell€backÏand€hit€the€old€lady.€€The€old€lady€fell€on€me€and€whenÏshe€hit€me€it€caused€the€gun€to€go€off.€€I€donððt€knowÏwhat€I€hit€that€time.€€Mr.€Lee€then€kicked€Hung€[Chung].€ÏI€heard€Hung€Chung€shoot€one€or€two€times€and€thenÏMr.€Lee€tried€to€grab€the€gun€and€Hung€Chung€shootÏhim.€€While€Mr.€Lee€was€trying€to€get€Hung€[Chungððs]Ïgun,€I€told€him€not€to€or€I€would€have€to€hurt€him.€€HeÏturned€and€tried€to€get€my€gun€and€I€shot€him.€€He€fellÏand€was€moving€around€and€I€shot€him€in€the€faceÏsomewhere.€€Then€I€walked€thr[ough]€the€door€whereÏthey€kept€the€money€and€gold.€€I€looked€up€and€saw€theÏold€lady€roll€over.€€I€thought€she€had€something€in€herÏhand.€€I€shot€her€in€the€back€of€the€head.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àWhile€the€Defendant€was€in€the€office€collecting€the€jewelry,€heÏheard€more€shots.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€know€ð ðwho€was€shootingÏor€whatðð€or€who€had€shot€ð ðthe€young€girl,ðð€Amy€Lee.€€Upon€leaving€theÏoffice,€the€Defendant€saw€Bounnam€holding€Ging€Sam€Lee.€€TheÏDefendant€told€Bounnam€not€to€hurt€her.€€Bounnam€hit€Mrs.€Lee€onÏthe€back€of€the€head,€and€all€the€assailants€left.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àOutside€the€restaurant,€the€Defendant€discovered€thatÏBounnam€had€been€shot€in€the€left€leg€near€the€groin.€€BounnamÏclaimed€the€Defendant€had€shot€him.€€The€group€fled€in€BounnamððsÏCamaro€to€an€acquaintanceððs€apartment.€€From€there,€the€Defendant,ÏBounnam€and€Chung€drove€Chungððs€car€to€Washington,€D.C.€ÏBounnamððs€Camaro€was€left€in€Memphis.€€œDoan›€remained€inÏTennessee.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àFrom€Washington,€the€trio€drove€to€Houston,€Texas.€€Once€inÏHouston,€the€Defendant€went€to€the€Saigon€Pool€Hall€and€talked€withÏa€Vietnamese€man€about€selling€some€gold.€€The€man€took€the€goldÏand€returned€in€about€ten€minutes€with€$4,000.00.€€The€DefendantÏpaid€the€man€$200€and€divided€the€rest€three€ways.€€Later,€BounnamÏflew€to€North€Carolina€and€Chung€went€to€Dallas€with€a€friend.€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àOn€April€28,€1988,€almost€six€months€after€the€robbery,€theÏDefendant€was€arrested€in€Houston.€.€.€.€€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€468„69.€ÓÓÐ 45„06 ÐÌÐ Ì84: Ðœñ7ñ0ñ7ñ›à@ŸŸ$àò òòòSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àThe€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€on€March€7,€1995;€therefore,Ïthe€prior€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„101€òòet€seqóó.,Ð  p Ðapplies€and€not€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„¼30„201€òòet€seqóó.€€The€new€Act€only€applies€to€petitions€filed€after€May€10,€1995.€Ð ¼  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„201€Compilerððs€Notes.€€Ìà ` àPetitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€his€claims€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€under€the€prior€Act.€€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996).€Ð $t ÐFindings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,Ð ¼  Ð746€(Tenn.€1993).€€Accordingly,€we€are€bound€to€affirm€the€judgment€unless€theÏevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€òòBlackÐ T¤ Ðv.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€The€burden€of€establishingÐ  p Ðthat€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€is€on€the€petitioner.€ÏòòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€579€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð ¸ Ðà ` àAfter€the€evidentiary€hearing,€Honorable€William€H.€Williams€entered€aÏcomprehensive€30„page€Memorandum€of€Findings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Law.€ÏThis€excellent,€extensive€memorandum€addressed€each€ground€raised€by€petitionerÏas€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b).€€Ìò òòòÌó óóóà@  àò òòòTRIAL€COURTððS€FAILURE€TO€INQUIRE€INTO€COMPETENCYó óóóˆÐ Œ*Ü%* ÐÌà ` àPetitioner€contends€that€the€original€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€inquire€into€Ïhis€competency€and€trying€him€when€he€was€not€competent,€thus€violating€his€dueÏprocess€rights.€€Petitioner€failed€to€raise€this€issue€on€direct€appeal;€therefore,€it€isÏð ðwaivedðð€and€is€not€an€appropriate€ground€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ”3ä.4 ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1);€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð d5´06 ÐFurthermore,€for€reasons€hereinafter€stated,€petitioner€has€not€made€an€appropriate€œÌÐ ü8L4: Ðshowing›€that€the€trial€court€had€any€reasonable€basis€to€order€a€mental€evaluationÏand/or€declare€petitioner€incompetent€òòœsua›€sponteóó.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð |Ì Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@ö ö àò òòòREASONABLE€DOUBT€JURY€INSTRUCTIONó óóóˆÐ ä 4 ÐÌà ` àPetitioner€contends€the€trial€courtððs€definition€of€ð ðreasonable€doubtðð€wasÏconstitutionally€deficient€in€requiring€proof€to€a€ð ðmoral€certaintyðð€and€excludingÏð ðpossible€doubtðð€from€the€definition.€€This€issue€is€ð ðwaivedðð€since€it€was€not€raisedÏon€direct€appeal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1).€€Furthermore,€the€trial€courtððsÏð ðreasonable€doubtðð€jury€instruction€has€been€held€constitutional.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarter€v.Ð ¸ ÐStateóó,€958€S.W.2d€620,€626€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð ˆØ Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@ÎÎ!àò òòòDISPROPORTIONATE€SENTENCEˆÐ ì< ÐÌó óóóà ` àPetitioner€contends€his€death€sentence€is€disproportionate€and€excessiveÐ œ!ì  Ðpunishment€in€light€of€his€present€mental€condition.€€Specifically,€he€contends€he€isÏpresently€insane.€€Ìà ` àThe€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€conducted€a€proportionality€analysis€in€theÏdirect€appeal€and€concluded€that€the€death€penalty€was€ð ðneither€excessive€norÏdisproportionate.ðð€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€482.€€Therefore,€the€issue€ofÐ ˜*è%* Ðproportionality€has€been€ð ðpreviously€determinedðð€and€is€not€a€proper€ground€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a).€€Ìà ` àThe€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€prohibits€the€stateÏfrom€inflicting€the€death€penalty€upon€a€prisoner€who€is€insane.€€òòFord€v.€Wainwrightóó,€œÐ È1-2 Ðâ âÐ ”3ä.4 ÐÑP¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ7ñÑP¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ7ñ477›€U.S.€399,€410,€106€S.Ct.€2595,€91€L.Ed.2d€335€(1986);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòJordan€v.Ð ° Ðñ7ñÑP¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ7ñStateóó,€124€Tenn.€81,€87,€135€S.W.€327,€329€(1911)(discussing€common€law€rule€Ð €Ð Ðâ âthat€one€cannot€be€tried,€sentenced€or€punished€while€insane).€€However,€this€is€notÏa€proportionality€issue.€€Ìà ` àIn€spite€of€the€constitutional€prohibition€against€the€execution€of€an€insaneÏperson,€Tennessee€has€no€specific€statutory€procedure€by€which€to€address€thisÏissue€post„trial.€€Many€states€have€statutes€explicitly€requiring€the€suspension€of€theÏexecution€of€a€prisoner€who€meets€the€legal€test€for€incompetence.€€òòSeeóó€òòFord€v.Ð H˜  ÐWainwrightóó,€477€U.S.€at€408,€n.2.€€The€Tennessee€legislature€should€giveÐ h Ðconsideration€to€this€issue.€€Ìà ` àPost„conviction€relief€is€a€statutory€creation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„101Ð ° Ðòòet€seqóó.€(now€ðð€40„30„201€òòet€seq.óó).€€Neither€these€statutes€nor€any€other€statutesÐ |Ì Ðmake€provisions€to€address€such€an€issue.€€As€an€intermediate€appellate€court,€weÏare€reluctant€to€create€and€vest€jurisdiction€in€the€trial€court€and€establish€aÏprocedural€basis€to€address€this€issue.€Ìà ` àPetitioner€is€unquestionably€entitled€to€be€heard€in€some€forum€on€this€issue.€ÏIn€the€event€he€is€not€accorded€a€state€hearing,€he€can€certainly€seek€federal€relief.€ÏòòFord€v.€Wainwrightóó,€477€U.S.€at€410.Ð H#˜" Ðà ` àAccordingly,€we€leave€this€matter€to€the€determination€of€the€TennesseeÏlegislature€and/or€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee.€€ÌÌà@pp&àò òòòEXPERT€SERVICESˆÐ x*È%* ÐÌó óóóà ` àPetitioner€contends€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€failing€to€fund€hisÐ (.x). Ðrequest€for€expert€services€to€investigate€the€jury€composition€at€his€original€trial.€ÏSpecifically,€he€contends€the€jury€selection€procedures€utilized€in€Shelby€CountyÏviolated€the€ð ðfair€cross„sectionðð€requirement€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòœDuren›€v.€Missourióó,€439€U.S.€357,€99€S.Ct.€664,€58€L.Ed.2dÐ X5¨06 Ðâ â579€(1979).€€He€contends€expert€assistance€would€establish€that€college€studentsÐ (7x28 Ðand€certain€professionals€constituted€a€ð ðdistinctive€groupðð€and€wereÏunconstitutionally€excluded€by€statutory€exemptions.€€Ìâ âà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€correctly€noted€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtððsÏconclusion€on€direct€appeal€that€petitioner€failed€to€establish€a€òòprima€facieóó€violationÐ  d Ðbased€upon€statutory€exemptions€for€college€students€and€certain€professionals.€ÏThe€post„conviction€court€concluded€this€was€a€question€of€law€which€did€not€requireÏstatistical€analysis.€€Ìà ` àIn€order€to€receive€state€funding€for€expert€services€in€a€post„convictionÏproceeding,€a€petitioner€must€demonstrate€by€specific€factual€proof€that€the€servicesÏof€an€expert€are€necessary,€and€the€petitioner€is€unable€to€establish€that€ground€forÏpost„conviction€relief€by€other€available€evidence.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,Ð ¬ü Ð928€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€determination€of€the€need€for€expert€services€is€entrustedÏto€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€261Ð D” Ð(Tenn.€1994).Ìà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€correctly€concluded€that€this€was€an€issue€of€lawÏdecided€in€the€direct€appeal.€€Thus,€expert€services€would€not€be€of€assistance€toÏthe€petitioner.€€The€trial€court€did€not€abuse€œits›€discretion€in€refusing€state€funds€forÏsuch€expert€services.€€Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€œmerit.€€›ÌÌà@àò òòòINSPECTION€OF€PROSECUTION€FILEó óóóˆÐ ¤(ô#( ÐÌà ` àPetitioner€contends€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€refusing€his€request€toÏinspect€the€prosecution€file€under€the€Tennessee€Public€Records€Act,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€10„7„503.€€The€state€contends€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€10„7„503€is€inapplicableÏsince€the€state€had€a€pending€prosecution€against€one€of€petitionerððs€co„defendants,ÏKong€Chung€Bounnam.€€Ìà ` àRecords€relevant€to€a€pending€criminal€action€need€not€be€disclosed€underÏâ âthe€Tennessee€Public€Records€Act.€€òòAppman€v.€Worthingtonóó,€746€S.W.2d€165,€166€œÐ 7`28 ÐÑr ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ7ñÑr ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ7ñ(Tenn.›€1987),€òòKnoxville€News„Sentinel€v.€Huskeyóó,€982€S.W.2d€359,€361€(Tenn.Ð ° Ðâ âCrim.€App.€1998).€€Since€criminal€action€was€pending€against€petitionerððs€co„¼defendant,€petitioner€was€not€entitled€to€the€prosecution€file€under€the€Tennessee€ÌPublic€Records€Act.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð  d Ðà ` àPetitioner€contends€that€since€he€has€been€unable€to€inspect€the€prosecutionÏfile,€his€claim€of€the€prosecution€withholding€exculpatory€evidence€should€not€beÏcategorically€rejected.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194,€10Ð xÈ  ÐL.Ed.2d€215€(1963).€€As€the€post„conviction€court€correctly€noted,€petitioner€hasÏmade€no€showing€that€exculpatory€evidence€has€been€withheld.€€A€trial€court€doesÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€refusing€to€examine€the€stateððs€entire€file€to€seekÏexculpatory€evidence,€absent€more€specific€information.€€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855Ð ¬ü ÐS.W.2d€526,€541€(Tenn.€1993).€€Furthermore,€there€was€no€request€that€any€filesÏor€documents€be€placed€under€seal€for€appellate€review.€€Thus,€we€are€precludedÏfrom€considering€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gibsonóó,€973€S.W.2d€231,€244€(Tenn.Ð ` ÐCrim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Ð à0 Ðœñ8ñÌñ8ñ›à ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@ŽŽ$àò òòòMENTAL€RETARDATIONó óóóˆÐ D#”" ÐÌà ` àPetitioner€contends€that€he€is€ð ðmentally€retarded,ðð€such€that€his€execution€isÏprohibited€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203.€€The€state€contends€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ìðð€39„13„203€is€inapplicable€since€it€was€not€in€effect€on€the€date€of€the€homicide;Ïand€that,€in€any€event,€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€mental€retardation.€€Ìà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203(b)€provides€that€ð ðno€defendant€with€mentalÏretardation€at€the€time€of€committing€first€degree€murder€shall€be€sentenced€toÏdeath.ðð€€The€statute€also€provides:Ìñ8ñÑP¸ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ8ñÓÓœñ9ñÌñ9ññ9ñÐ b4²/5 ÐÑP¸ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ9ñ›à ` à(a)€As€used€in€this€section,€ð ðmental€retardationðð€means:Ìñ9ñÑP¸ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ9ñÌñ9ñÑP¸ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ9ñà ` à(1)€Significantly€subaverage€general€intellectual€functioning€as€à Ð àÐ |Ì Ðà ` àevidenced€by€a€functional€intelligence€quotient€(I.Q.)€of€seventy€(70)€€¼à ` àor€below;ÌÌà8 ` à(2)€Deficits€in€adaptive€behavior;€andÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` à(3)€The€mental€retardation€must€have€been€manifested€during€theÏdevelopmental€period,€or€by€eighteen€(18)€years€of€age.€€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203€(effective€July€1,€1990).€€òòSee€óó1990€Public€Acts,Ð ’â  ÐChapter€1038,€ðð€6.€€The€homicide€was€committed€in€October€1987.€€Ìà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€petitioner€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.ÏAndrew€Adler,€a€psychologist€who€administered€psychological€tests€to€the€petitioner.€ÏDr.€Adler€testified€that€petitionerððs€I.Q.€was€67.€€However,€the€post„conviction€courtÏfound€Dr.€Adler€misread€the€manual€relating€to€I.Q.€calculation.€€Dr.€Lynn€Zager,€aÏpsychologist€who€testified€for€the€state,€related€that€the€proper€calculation€was€72,Ïnot€67.€€Ìà ` àAs€stated,€the€post„conviction€court€found€Dr.€Adlerððs€calculation€of€67€to€beÏerroneous€and€Dr.€Zagerððs€calculation€of€72€to€be€correct.€€The€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€this€finding.€€The€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€areÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,Ð Z"ª! Ð789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990);€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€341€(Tenn.Ð &$v# ÐCrim.€App.€1995).€€Therefore,€we€need€not€reach€the€issue€as€to€whether€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203€is€applicable€to€those€who€commit€first€degree€murder€priorÏto€its€effective€date.Ì€€à ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð V+¦&+ ÐÌà@F F àò òòòINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óóóˆÐ î.>*/ ÐÌà ` àPetitioner€contends€he€was€deprived€of€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€hisÏtrial.€€Specifically,€he€contends€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€in€the€followingÏrespects:€ÌÓÓœÌâ âñ7ñ›ñ7ñÐ Ü8,4: Лà ` àà ¸ à(1)à8  àfailing€to€raise€the€issue€of€petitionerððs€competence€toÐ ° Ðâ âstand€trial;€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à(2)à8  àfailing€to€seek€suppression€of€petitionerððs€confessionÐ b² Ðbased€upon€the€denial€of€right€to€counsel€andÏpetitionerððs€inadequate€language€comprehension;Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à(3)à8  àfailing€to€request€support€services;€€Ðú JÐ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à(4)à8  àfailing€to€adequately€òòvoir€dire€óóthe€jury;ÐÆ  Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à(5)à8  àfailing€to€investigate€and€present€mitigating€evidence;Дä Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à(6)à8  àfailing€to€properly€address€the€issue€of€œdisproportionality›Ð `°  Ðof€petitionerððs€death€penalty€on€appeal;Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à(7)à8  àfailing€to€object€to€various€errors€in€the€trial€court;€andÐbÐ Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à(8)à8  àfailing€to€raise€numerous€other€issues€on€appeal.€€ÐÞ.Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓFurther,€petitioner€argues€the€cumulative€effect€of€these€various€deficienciesÏrendered€his€trial€fundamentally€unfair.€€ÌÌà@½ ½ àò òòòA.€€Appropriate€Standards€for€Effective€Assistanceó óóóˆÐ ^ Ðà ` àThis€Court€reviews€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€theÏstandards€of€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€and€òòStrickland€v.Ð ² ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€The€petitionerÐ ~!Î  Ðhas€the€burden€to€prove€that€the€attorneyððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€theÏdeficient€performance€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€defendant€so€as€to€deprive€himÏof€a€fair€trial.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòGoadÐ â&2"& Ðv.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996);€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11Ð ®(þ#( Ð(Tenn.€1994);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€at€899.€€Ð z*Ê%* Ðà ` àThe€test€in€Tennessee€to€determine€whether€counsel€provided€effectiveÏassistance€is€whether€his€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€TheÐ Þ/.+0 Ðpetitioner€must€overcome€the€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€theÏwide€range€of€acceptable€professional€assistance.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466Ð v3Æ.4 ÐU.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065;€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€138,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.€Ð B5’06 ÐœÌÐ Ú8*4: ÐÑr ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑApp.›€1997);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€929€S.W.2d€385,€389€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð ° ÐThus,€in€order€to€prove€a€deficiency,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€acts€orÏomissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessÏbased€upon€prevailing€professional€norms.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€atÐ  d Ð688,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065;€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938Ð à 0 ÐS.W.2d€at€369.Ìà ` àIn€reviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessment€.€.€.€requires€that€everyÏeffort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€theÏcircumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounsel's€perspective€at€the€time."€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104Ð Ü, ÐS.Ct.€at€2065.€€The€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense,Ïdoes€not,€standing€alone,€establish€unreasonable€representation.€However,Ïdeference€to€matters€of€strategy€and€tactical€choices€applies€only€if€those€choicesÏare€informed€ones€and€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938Ð  \ ÐS.W.2d€at€369;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982);€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€958Ð Ø( ÐS.W.2d€at€149;€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð ¤ô ÐÌà@k k àò òòòB.€€Testimony€at€Post„Conviction€HearingˆÐ <#Œ" Ðó óóóà ` àThe€following€testimony€was€elicited€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€ArthurÐ %d $ ÐQuinn€and€Manuel€Scarmoutsos€were€appointed€by€the€trial€court€to€representÏpetitioner.€€Both€were€experienced€criminal€defense€attorneys.€€Quinn€had€prior€trialÏexperience€in€a€case€where€the€state€sought€the€death€penalty,€the€defendantÏreceived€a€life€sentence,€and€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€reversed€and€foundÏdefendant€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Claytonóó,€656€S.W.2d€344Ð .`). Ð(Tenn.€1983).€€Scarmoutsos€also€had€capital€case€experience€under€a€previousÏdeath€penalty€statute.€€Ìà ` àScarmoutsos€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€petitionerððs€confession.€€He€didÏextensive€investigation€in€Texas€where€the€confession€was€given,€and€arguedÏpetitioner€did€not€intelligently€waive€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€due€to€his€limited€œÐ 7`28 ÐÐ Ü8,4: Ðcomprehension›€of€the€English€language.€€This€argument€was€rejected€at€trial€andÏon€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€471„73.€€Ð |Ì Ðà ` àBecause€of€the€devastating€proof€against€petitioner,€including€fingerprintÏevidence,€eyewitness€testimony€and€the€confession,€defense€counsel€endeavoredÏto€negotiate€a€guilty€plea.€€Although€petitioner€initially€agreed€to€testify€for€the€stateÏduring€the€trial€of€a€co„defendant,€petitioner€changed€his€mind€on€the€day€of€trial.€ÏThereafter,€petitioner€rejected€an€offer€of€three€consecutive€life€sentences.€€Ìà ` àEarly€in€the€attorney„client€relationship,€counsel€had€difficulty€communicatingÏwith€petitioner€due€to€the€language€barrier.€€However,€once€an€interpreter€wasÏsecured,€petitioner€was€able€to€understand.€€Based€on€their€extensive€dealings€withÏpetitioner,€neither€counsel€felt€competency€was€an€issue.€€Ìà ` àPrior€to€trial,€counsel€retained€the€services€of€Dr.€J.€L.€Khanna,€a€clinicalÏpsychologist.€€Based€upon€an€examination,€Dr.€Khanna€found€petitioner€to€be€belowÏthe€average€intelligence€level,€depressed€with€suicidal€ideations,€and€under€a€greatÏdeal€of€stress.€€Counsel€did€not€believe€the€findings€of€depression€and€stress€to€beÏunusual,€especially€for€a€person€facing€a€capital€murder€trial.€€There€was€noÏindication€from€Dr.€Khanna€that€petitioner€was€incompetent.€€Ìà ` àDr.€William€D.€Kenner,€a€forensic€psychiatrist,€testified€on€behalf€of€theÏpetitioner€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Dr.€Kenner€was€appointed€by€the€ProbateÏCourt€in€Davidson€County€in€1992€to€determine€whether€the€petitioner€wasÏcompetent€to€make€decisions€about€his€medical€care.€€He€determined€that€petitionerÏwas€not.€€Dr.€Kenner€was€also€retained€by€counsel€in€this€post„conviction€case€andÏperformed€an€evaluation€in€April€1997.€€At€the€time€of€the€post„conviction€hearing,ÏDr.€Kenner€believed€the€petitioner€was€suffering€from€chronic,€severe€paranoidÏschizophrenia.€€Ìà ` àDr.€Kenner€testified€that€the€onset€of€this€illness€is€preceded€by€a€prodromalÏphase€that€slowly€develops€over€a€number€of€months,€sometimes€years.€€Dr.ÏKenner,€having€read€Dr.€Khannaððs€report€of€April€1989,€stated€there€was€evidenceÏof€this€prodromal€phase€in€the€petitioner€during€his€trial€in€June€1989.€€Dr.€Kenner€œÌÐ Ð8 4: Ðalso›€testified€that€the€petitioner€showed€more€progressive€signs€of€this€prodromalÏphase€during€his€initial€processing€by€the€Department€of€Correction€in€SeptemberÏ1989.€€Ìà ` àWhen€asked€whether€he€believed€the€petitioner€was€competent€to€stand€trial,ÏDr.€Kenner€testified:€€ÌÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àI€think€there€are€some€indicators€that€would€raise€that€question.€ÏAnd€the€indicators€are€that€the€way€he€handled€himself€is€suicidalÏideation,€that€he€is€having€periods€of€confusion€that€he€attributes€to€aÏheadache.€.€.€.€€So€that€those€I€think€raise€significant€questions.€€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà ¸ àThe€other€issue€that€I€think€makes€it€very€difficult€in€this€caseÏis€that€of€language€and€culture.€€That€it€„„€these€issues€are€muchÏeasier€to€pick€up,€to€understand,€in€someone€from€the€same€cultureÏwho€is€trained€to€examine€someone€and€look€at€it.€€It€becomes€muchÏmore€difficult€when€youððre€looking€at€someone€from€a€different€cultureÏwith€a€different€mother€[tongue].€€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÓR}ÓÌDr.€Kenner€further€testified€that€in€his€mind€these€indicators€would€have€raised€aÏneed€for€further€inquiry€into€the€petitionerððs€mental€state.€€Ìà ` àDr.€Murray€Smith,€a€specialist€in€addictive€medicine,€evaluated€the€petitionerÏfor€purposes€of€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Dr.€Smith€determined€that€at€the€timeÏof€the€offense€the€petitioner€was€chemically€dependent€on€drugs€and€alcohol€datingÏback€to€when€he€was€eleven€or€twelve€years€old.€€Dr.€Smith€also€concluded€that€theÏpetitioner€had€a€sleep€disorder€and€reactive€hyperthyroidism€and€was€in€aÏð ðœhypervigilant›,€hyperactive€stateðð€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Ìà ` àDr.€Andrew€Adler,€a€counseling€psychologist,€was€qualified€as€an€expert€inÏmeasuring€language€intelligence€and€comprehension,€and€mental€retardation.€ÏBased€upon€his€psychological€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€in€February€1997,€Dr.ÏAdler€concluded€that€the€petitioner€suffered€from€paranoid€schizophrenia,€post„¼traumatic€stress€disorder,€and€mild€mental€retardation.€€He€calculated€petitionerððsÏI.Q.€at€67€but€was€cross„examined€as€to€the€accuracy€of€this€calculation.€€Ìà ` àAccording€to€Dr.€Adler,€the€petitionerððs€vocabulary€and€language€skills€at€theÏtime€of€the€evaluation€were€comparable€to€a€first€or€second€œgraderððs.›€€Dr.€AdlerÏfurther€testified€that€he€did€not€think€the€petitioner€could€have€understood€sufficientlyÏto€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waive€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€According€to€Dr.€Adler,€œÐ æ7639 ÐÐ ²95; Ðpeople›€from€Southeast€Asia€œstereotypically›€answer€in€the€affirmative€because€theyÏare€taught€to€respect€authority€and€not€to€offend€others.€€Ìà ` àThe€stateððs€witness,€Dr.€Lynn€Zager,€Clinical€Director€of€Midtown€MentalÏHealth€Center€in€Memphis,€testified€as€an€expert€in€psychology.€€Given€the€numberÏscores€Dr.€Adler€obtained€from€the€petitionerððs€I.Q.€test,€Dr.€Zager€testified€that€theÏpetitionerððs€I.Q.€was€72,€not€67.€It€appears€from€Dr.€Zagerððs€testimony€that€Dr.€AdlerÏsimply€miscalculated€the€result€based€upon€petitionerððs€number€scores.ÌÌà@&&&àò òòòC.€€Competencyó óóóˆÐ ` Ðà ` àPetitioner€contends€trial€counsel€œwñ:ñasñ:ññ;ñereñ;ñ›€ineffective€in€failing€to€raise€the€issueÏof€petitionerððs€competence€to€stand€trial.€€The€state€contends€petitioner€wasÏcompetent€and€there€was€no€reason€for€trial€counsel€to€raise€this€issue.€€Ìà ` àA€summary€of€pertinent€findings€and€conclusions€by€the€post„conviction€judgeÏas€set€forth€in€his€memorandum€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà ` à€€(1)à8 ¸ àpetitioner€had€experienced€trial€counsel€familiar€with€the€issueÐ ä4 Ðof€incompetency;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à€€(2)à8 ¸ àpetitioner€was€able€to€confer€with€his€counsel€in€a€ð ðreasonablyÐ – æ Ðintelligent€manner;ððÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à€€(3)à8 ¸ àDr.€Khanna,€an€experienced€clinical€psychologist€who€à @n àà @n àà @n àà @n àà @n àÐ H#˜" Ðevaluated€petitioner€prior€to€trial,€did€not€indicate€that€petitionerÏwas€incompetent;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à€€(4)à8 ¸ àneither€petitionerððs€mother,€his€sponsor€from€Catholic€Charities,Ð à&0"& Ðhis€friends€nor€any€other€person€raised€any€questionsÏconcerning€the€petitionerððs€mental€status€at€the€time€of€trial;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à€€(5)à8 ¸ àtrial€counsel€ð ðhad€no€reasonable€basis€to€inquire€into€theÐ x*È%* Ðmental€capacity€of€the€Petitioner€at€that€time€to€stand€trial;ðð€€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à€€(6)à8 ¸ àDr.€Kennerððs€testimony€indicates€petitioner€would€have€been€inÐ *-z(- Ðthe€prodromal€stages€of€schizophrenia€at€the€time€of€trial;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à€€(7)à8 ¸ àDr.€Kenner€testified€only€that€there€were€ð ðpossible€indicatorsððÐ Ü/,+0 Ðraising€the€issue€of€competency;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à€€(8)à8 ¸ àno€expert€testimony€indicates€that€petitioner€was€incompetentÐ Ž2Þ-3 Ðat€the€time€of€trial;Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à€€(9)à8 ¸ àð ð[œt]he›€record€does€not€show€a€scintilla€of€substantive€proof€thatÐ @506 ÐPetitioner€was€incompetent€to€stand€trial;ððÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à(10)à8 ¸ àpetitioner€was€competent€to€stand€trial;Ðò7B39¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐœÌñ7ñ›ñ7ñÐ ¾95; Лà ` à(11)à8 ¸ àpetitioner€was€not€insane€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€theÐ ° Ðmurders;€and€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` à(12)à8 ¸ àpetitionerððs€I.Q.€is€72,€not€67.Ðb²¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓpŠÓà ` àBased€upon€these€findings,€the€post„conviction€court€concluded€that€neitherÏprong€of€òòStricklandóó€had€been€met.€€Specifically,€the€court€found€that€trial€counselððsÐ ú J Ðperformance€was€not€deficient.€€Furthermore,€the€post„conviction€court€found€Ìpetitioner€was€not€prejudiced€by€trial€counselððs€performance€since€petitioner€was,Ïin€fact,€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Ìà ` àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€these€findings€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€Petitioner€has,Ïtherefore,€failed€to€establish€that€trial€counselððs€performance€was€in€any€wayÏdeficient,€or€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€their€performance.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.Ð ŽÞ ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369.€Ð ^® Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@ffàò òòòD.€€Suppression€of€Confessionó óóóˆÐ  Ðà ` àPetitioner€contends€trial€counsel€were€deficient€in€their€handling€of€the€motionÏto€suppress€his€confession.€€Specifically,€he€contends€they€were€deficient€in€failingÏto€offer€expert€proof€concerning€his€lack€of€language€comprehension€and€in€failingÏto€challenge€the€confession€based€upon€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel.€€Ìà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€found€no€deficiencies€by€trial€counsel.€ÏFurthermore,€the€court€found€no€prejudice€since€a€Sixth€Amendment€argumentÏwould€have€been€unsuccessful.Ìà ` àCounsel€pursued€a€motion€to€suppress€the€confession€at€the€trial€level€andÏon€appeal.€€On€appeal,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€specifically€noted€petitionerððsÏlanguage€difficulties,€yet€found€the€petitioner€to€have€voluntarily,€knowingly€andÏintelligently€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€471„73.€Ð ’2â-3 ÐPetitioner€has€not€shown€that€failing€to€retain€the€services€of€a€languageÏcomprehension€expert€was€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneysÏpracticing€criminal€law.€€Furthermore,€he€has€not€shown€a€reasonable€probability€œÌÐ Â95; Ðthat›€the€utilization€of€such€an€expert€would€have€led€to€suppression€of€theÏconfession.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;Ð |Ì ÐòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€Ð Lœ Ðà ` àAdditionally,€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€prejudice€due€to€the€failure€ofÏtrial€counsel€to€argue€a€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€violation.€€The€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€concluded€the€petitioner€properly€waived€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€òòStateÐ °  Ðv.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€473.€€Petitioner€has€made€no€showing€that€the€resultÐ |Ì  Ðwould€have€been€any€different€had€counsel€added€a€Sixth€Amendment€argumentÏand/or€Article€I,€ðð€9€Tennessee€Constitution€argument.€€Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@JJ#àò òòòE.€€Support€Servicesó óóóˆÐ xÈ Ðà ` àPetitioner€contends€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€in€failing€to€seek€necessaryÏexpert€services€to€challenge€the€composition€of€the€jury€pool.€€Specifically,€petitionerÏcontends€the€statutory€exemptions€for€college€students€and€certain€professionalsÏdeprived€him€of€a€fair€cross„section€of€the€community.€€This€issue€is€discussedÏpreviously€under€the€section€òòò òEXPERT€SERVICESó óóó.€€A€statistical€analysis€would€notÐ €!Ð  Ðhave€benefited€petitioner.€€For€the€same€reasons€that€the€post„conviction€court€didÏnot€err€in€refusing€such€expert€services,€trial€counsel€were€not€deficient€in€failing€toÏrequest€such€services.€€Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@åå'àò òòòF.€€òòVoir€Direóóó óˆÐ T,¤', Ðóóà ` àPetitioner€contends€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€in€the€òòvoir€direóó€of€the€jury.€Ð ,.|). ÐSpecifically,€he€contends€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€in€failing€to:€€(1)€sufficientlyÏinquire€into€the€content€of€publicity€to€which€prospective€jurors€had€been€exposed;Ï(2)€sufficiently€question€if€jurors€would€automatically€impose€the€death€penalty€uponÏa€first€degree€murder€conviction;€(3)€sufficiently€question€if€jurors€could€consider€œÌÌÐ ø8H4: ÐÑP¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñmitigating›€evidence;€and€(4)€challenge€certain€prospective€jurors€for€cause.€€TheÏpost„conviction€court€found€no€deficiency€on€the€part€of€trial€counsel.Ìà ` àLike€the€post„conviction€court,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€trial€œcounselsðð›Ïperformance€in€this€regard€was€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€Furthermore,Ð à 0 Ðpetitioner€has€not€shown€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€theÏproceeding€would€have€been€different€had€counsel€conducted€òòvoir€direóó€differently.€Ð |Ì  ÐòòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068;€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,Ð Lœ  Ð960€S.W.2d€at€579.Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@` ` àò òòòG.€€Failure€to€Present€Mitigation€Evidenceó óóóˆÐ €Ð Ðà ` àPetitioner€contends€trial€counsel€were€deficient€in€failing€to€investigate€andÏpresent€additional€mitigating€evidence.€€Specifically,€petitioner€contends€trial€counselÏshould€have€presented€additional€evidence€relating€to€his:€€(1)€Amerasian€status;€(2)Ïdysfunctional€relationship€with€his€mother;€(3)€being€fatherless€in€a€patriarchalÏsociety;€(4)€status€as€a€refugee€in€Vietnam;€and€(5)€medical€condition€in€explanationÏof€his€commission€of€the€crimes.€€Ìà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€trial€counsel€conducted€a€properÏinvestigation€and€were€not€deficient€in€presenting€mitigating€evidence€at€the€penaltyÏphase€of€trial.€€Trial€counsel€were€aware€of€petitionerððs€cultural€background€andÏsocial€history€as€a€result€of€their€investigation.€€They€presented€proof€from€severalÏwitnesses€in€the€penalty€phase,€including€an€FBI€agent€who€testified€to€petitionerððsÏcooperation€in€locating€the€co„defendants;€two€employers€who€testified€thatÏpetitioner€was€a€good€employee;€petitionerððs€Catholic€Charities€sponsor€with€whomÏpetitioner€had€lived;€Dr.€Khanna€who€testified€about€petitionerððs€life€in€Vietnam€andÏremorse€for€the€crimes;€and€petitionerððs€mother.€€Ìà ` àFurthermore,€in€conducting€its€proportionality€review,€the€TennesseeÏâ âSupreme€Court€specifically€noted€petitionerððs€cooperation€with€the€FBI,€good€œÐ 7h28 ÐÑP¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ7ñÑP¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ññ7ñemployment›€history,€lack€of€prior€criminal€involvement,€remorse€for€the€homicides,Ïâ âpersonal€history€as€a€child€of€a€Vietnamese€mother€and€an€American€father,€difficultÏchildhood€and€educational€problems.€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€482.€Ð H˜ ÐDespite€these€findings,€the€court€found€the€death€penalty€was€not€disproportionate.€Ïà ` àFirst,€we€conclude€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€post„¼conviction€courtððs€finding€that€trial€counselððs€performance€was€not€deficient.€ÏSecond,€we€conclude€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€prejudice.€€In€reaching€theÏlatter€determination€we€must:€€(1)€analyze€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€mitigatingÏevidence€not€presented;€(2)€consider€whether€substantially€similar€mitigatingÏevidence€was€presented;€and€(3)€consider€whether€there€was€such€strong€evidenceÏof€aggravating€factors€that€the€mitigating€evidence€would€not€have€affected€the€juryððsÏdetermination.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€371.€€Ð tÄ Ðà ` àThe€suggested€mitigating€evidence€related€to€petitionerððs€cultural€and€socialÏbackground€and€his€medical€condition.€€Much€of€this€evidence€is€similar€to€thatÏwhich€was€presented€to€the€jury.€€Furthermore,€considering€the€nature€andÏcircumstances€of€the€offense,€and€the€applicability€of€the€two€aggravatingÏcircumstances€of€mass€murder€and€depravity€of€mind,€we€conclude€petitioner€hasÏnot€established€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€juryððs€determination€would€haveÏbeen€different€had€this€evidence€been€presented.€€Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@11àò òòòH.€€Proportionality€of€Death€Sentenceó óóóˆÐ l*¼%* Ðà ` àPetitioner€contends€trial€counsel€were€deficient€in€failing€to€properly€presentÏthe€issue€of€proportionality€on€direct€appeal.€€The€post„conviction€court€foundÏcounsel€were€not€deficient€in€their€appellate€representation.€€Ìà ` àWe€conclude€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€prejudice€with€regard€to€this€Ìissue.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€issue€of€proportionality€andÏâ âfound€the€death€penalty€to€be€neither€excessive€nor€disproportionate.€€òòState€v.€VanÐ @506 ÐÔ& ˜ ÔTranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€482.€€Petitioner€has€not€shown€a€reasonable€probability€thatÐ ° Ðâ âthe€result€would€have€been€different€had€other€matters€been€argued€on€appeal.€€Ô'˜°ïµÔ¼à ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìâ âÌà@’’#àò òòòI.€€Failure€to€Objectó óóóˆÐ à 0 Ðà ` àPetitioner€contends€counsel€were€ineffective€in€failing€to€object€to€variousÏerrors€in€the€trial€court€and€failing€to€raise€those€issues€on€appeal.€€Specifically,€heÏcomplains€of€œcounselñ<ñððñ<ñsñ=ñððñ=ñ›œñ?ññ>ñ€ñ>ññ?ññ@ñ€ñ@ññAñ›€ñAñfailure:›€€(1)€to€insure€an€accurate€record€of€òòvoir€direóó;€(2)€toÐ P   Ðobject€to€the€lack€of€jury€admonitions€given€by€the€trial€court€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€24(f);€(3)€to€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€sympathy€argument;€(4)€to€object€to€theÏprosecutorððs€argument€minimizing€the€juryððs€sentencing€responsibilities;€(5)€to€objectÏto€the€prosecutorððs€arguing€outside€the€record;€and€(6)€to€object€to€the€prosecutorððsÏcharacterization€of€defendantððs€mitigating€evidence€as€ð ðexcuses.ðð€Ìà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€œcounselsðð›€appellate€performance€did€notÏfall€below€the€range€of€competency€of€attorneys€who€practice€criminal€law.Ìœà ` àWe›€conclude€that€petitioner€has€not€established€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏthe€result€would€have€been€different€if€trial€counsel€had€preserved€and€argued€theseÏissues.€€Petitionerððs€failure€to€establish€the€prejudice€prong€alleviates€the€necessityÏof€addressing€the€deficiency€prong.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,Ð %h $ Ð104€S.Ct.€at€2069;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370.Ð è&8"& Ðà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà@) ) àò òòòJ.€€Unconstitutionality€of€the€Death€PenaltyˆÐ L,œ', Ðó óóóà ` àPetitioner€contends€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€in€failing€to€preserve€andÐ $.t). Ðappeal€various€issues€relating€to€the€unconstitutionality€of€the€death€penalty.€ÏSpecifically,€petitioner€cites€thirteen€constitutional€deficiencies€in€the€statutes€andÏprocedures€relating€to€the€death€penalty.€€He€contends€counsel€œwere›€ineffective€inÏfailing€to€preserve€and€appeal€these€issues.€€He€acknowledges€that€prior€decisions€œÌâ âÐ  7p28 Ðin›€this€state€have€considered€and€rejected€most€of€the€grounds€but€raises€them€toÏâ âpreserve€them€for€federal€review.€€Ìà ` àOn€direct€appeal€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€found€two€aggravatingÏcircumstances€were€properly€applied.€€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€478„80.€Ð  d ÐThe€court€further€performed€a€proportionality€review€and€found€the€death€sentenceÏto€be€appropriate.€€òòIdóó.€at€482.€€The€court€also€considered€the€constitutionality€of€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðdeath€penalty€and€death€penalty€statute€and€found€no€constitutional€infirmity.€€òòIdóó.€atÐ |Ì  Ð481„82.€€Furthermore,€the€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€and€death€penaltyÏstatutes€has€consistently€been€upheld.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573,€581„Ð h Ð82€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€83„88€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.Ð è8 ÐCazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€at€268„70.€€Ð ´ Ðà ` àPetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€counsel€œwere›€deficient,€or€that€petitionerÏwas€prejudiced€in€any€manner€by€the€failure€to€raise€these€constitutional€issues.€€Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@#àò òòòK.€€Cumulative€Errorsó óóóˆÐ ° Ðà ` àFinally,€petitioner€argues€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€œcounselsðð›€deficienciesÏrendered€his€trial€fundamentally€unfair.€€We€have€reviewed€each€allegation€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€found€each€to€be€without€merit.€€We€furtherÏconclude€petitionerððs€trial€was€not€fundamentally€unfair€due€to€œcounselsðð›Ïperformance.€€Ìà ` àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€òòò òÐ „*Ô%* ÐÌà@xx(àCONCLUSIONó óóóˆÐ (.x). ÐÌà ` àAfter€a€careful€examination€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€there€is€noÏreversible€error;€therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìòòà ` àThe€sentence€of€death€shall€be€carried€out€as€provided€by€law€on€August€2,Ð d5´06 Ð1999,€unless€otherwise€ordered€by€an€appropriate€courtóó.€€Ð 07€28 ÐÐ ü8L4: ÐÓÓñAñœñAñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_____________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÐ –æ ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌó óÌ____________________________________Ìò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÐ Â  ÐÌÌÌó óÌ____________________________________Ìò òJAMES€C.€BEASLEY,€SR.,€SPECIAL€JUDGEó óÐ >Ž Ð