’WPCø @’–ßn•D°€£<_$”Ń£eEtĮīü.ĀœD<Ż?NI»Ā€v!ąS÷[/©€f€nmœ£ši0Ž©ĖiŸš˜:O*„Ć­¢ćwK2œ§Ģ!‰o:~&Ļ:ą ÉaėĶ½÷iKĄ5xēīōbęž$~2dZż.`6Žvpā™ššć÷Ļ”y¦Ō V@ŃŗäąāéžŲ©¶®żŠr– ]¦Łź+W§“]ļź…åŖāėYēõtI(…äJ>¤Wģ­E/v. Įj2•O_/¬æēąK‘©óŠüüĖ"ŠQ ¦€«Ńwqņ.Śk‰Q“r2CRźKĶ6+å&Q‹éĮ«iį8\Ʀ* /Ū|ļI8ŒóRjäe°å»’ߝ‚c“=~‰Ś.Ļ_/|UndGLh€A²ĒĒĀę(w”©A %DŽcu’ŌFå_įFqšOf!°Č#Wōóū q”Q×B™āŁa¢=ćšļ;MœŚ žŠ&}ӛw@ÜŹž~Q#\…i†m™7[śæÆ dénĘ›JŹ‰}öJo¢»BœaĶG# z§Ćy 6¾įøü•70n¬ęŅ‘ķtÕ&ēæšéÜž—ß›xœg¾ņÄĒK‡F¼y“gČd‹b %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkŅå· m¹ #ĮŠ Š ʑ ĘW Ę Ęć ć N©©©E««««««««««««««««««««««««b­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 0ėµµµµ B   0¤½ D3a D-” 0KĮĮ AS Ę_ 0¤% 0DÉ A« »¤‚n-s (`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,CU~1ŗ E%­Š3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt’U‹’ĄĄĄ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ČČ,,,,ČČ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ł-(|G26Ē$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ »»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ō±åņ»»Ō d(|3?`$££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ »»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?`$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ »»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€ »»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŌ€¼ »»»ŌŃ8€UXXdģ»»d8Ńą@ttģąŌ‡īœī»¼ ŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@kk$ģąAT€NASHVILLEŌ#†¼ »īīœ#ŌˆŠ Ö& Šą@¼ ¼ ģąAssigned€on€Briefs€May€21,€2002ˆŠ üL ŠĢą@‰ ‰ ģąņ ņŌ_ŌLONŌ_Ō€S.€WALKER€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEE€ó óˆŠ  p ŠĢŌ€XUX»¼ Ōą@  ģąņ ņDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Putnam€CountyˆŠ F – Šą@[ [ ģąNo.€96„0087€€€Leon€C.€Burns,€Jr.,€JudgeˆŠ 2 ‚ ŠĢĢą@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` dE<õ` A߈Š öF  ŠĢą@Q Q ģąNo.€M2001„01090„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€November€13,€Ō_Ō2002Ō_ŌˆŠ ńA  ŠĢßA€V) °°` dE<Č` Aßó óŠ É  ŠĢPetitioner,€Ō_ŌLonŌ_Ō€Walker,€€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€from€his€conviction€for€secondŠ Ä Šdegree€murder,€alleging€that€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Following€an€evidentiaryŠ ° Šhearing,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€relief.€€In€his€appeal€to€this€court,€Petitioner€raises€the€issueŠ œģ Šof€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€Petitioner€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel€atŠ ˆŲ Štrial.€€After€a€careful€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Š tÄ ŠĢą@ģąņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgement€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed.ó óˆŠ Lœ ŠĢņņThomas€T.€Ō_ŌWoodallŌ_Ō,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņJohn€Everett€Williams€óóandŠ $t ŠņņNorma€McGee€Ogleóó,€JJ.,€joined.Š ` ŠĢDaryl€A.€Ō_ŌColsonŌ_Ō,€Ō_ŌLivingstonŌ_Ō,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ō_ŌLonŌ_Ō€S.€Walker.Š č8 ŠĢPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Š Ą ŠWilliam€Edward€Gibson,€District€Attorney€General;€Ben€Ō_ŌFannŌ_Ō,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;Š ¬ü Šand€Ō_ŌLillieŌ_Ō€Ann€Sells,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Š ˜ č ŠĢą@66'ģąņ ņOPINIONˆŠ p"Ą! ŠĢą0  ąI.€Factual€Backgroundó óŠH$˜#(#(# ŠĢą  ąShortly€before€1:00€p.m.,€on€Saturday€afternoon,€October€14,€1995,€Jerry€and€Howard€HarpŠ  &p!% Šarrived€by€taxi€at€the€Petitionerššs€trailer.€€The€Harp€brothers€had€met€Petitioner€about€a€month€earlier.€Š  '\"& ŠBoth€Howard€and€Petitioner€were€drinking.€Around€2:00€p.m.,€€the€three€men€traveled€€to€JacksonŠ ų'H#' ŠCounty€to€purchase€more€liquor.Š ä(4$( ŠĢą  ąOn€their€way€home,€they€stopped€by€to€see€Stacy€Patzer,€a€friend€of€the€Petitionerššs.€€Ms.Š ¼* &* ŠPatzer,€too,€had€met€the€Petitioner€one€or€two€months€earlier,€but€she€did€not€know€either€of€the€HarpŠ Ø+ų&+ Šbrothers.€€Ms.€Patzer€and€Petitioner€were€only€š šdrinking€buddies,šš€and€she€was€not€romanticallyŠ ”,ä', Šattached€to€Petitioner€although€she€saw€him€frequently.€€Ms.€Patzer€invited€the€men€into€her€homeŠ €-Š(-żn ŠŌ_Ōand€joined€them€in€their€drinking.€€After€30€or€40€minutes,€the€group€decided€€to€return€to€theŠ ° ŠPetitionerššs€€trailer.€€Everyone€but€Jerry€continued€drinking€as€they€played€records€and€talked.Š œģ ŠĢą  ąAs€the€evening€progressed,€Ms.€Patzer€and€Howard€Harp€began€flirting€and€kissing,€growingŠ tÄ Šincreasingly€more€affectionate.€€By€this€time,€everyone€except€Jerry€was€intoxicated.€€€Eventually,Š `° ŠHoward€fell€asleep€or€passed€out€on€a€stool€at€the€bar€separating€the€trailerššs€kitchen€and€living€room.€Š L œ ŠWhile€he€slept,€Jerry€borrowed€Petitionerššs€car€and€took€Ms.€Patzer€back€to€her€trailer€to€feed€herŠ 8 ˆ Šdogs.€When€they€returned€after€30€or€40€minutes,€Howard€was€awake€and€eating€a€cheeseburger€thatŠ $ t Šthe€Petitioner€had€fixed€for€him.€€Howard€and€Ms.€Patzer€resumed€drinking.Š  ` ŠĢą  ąAfter€Jerry€and€Ms.€Patzer€returned,€Petitioner€called€Jerry€back€into€the€bedroom€and€askedŠ č 8  Šhim€why€his€brother€was€š šhitting€onšš€Ms.€Patzer.€€The€Petitioner€€told€Jerry€that€he€had€bought€drinksŠ Ō$  Šand€dinner€for€Ms.€Patzer,€and€been€nice€to€her.€€Jerry€reassured€the€Petitioner€that€Howard€wouldŠ Ą  Ševentually€pass€out€and€everything€would€be€fine.€€They€returned€to€the€living€room.€€Later€thatŠ ¬ü  Ševening,€Petitioner€again€called€Jerry€back€to€the€bedroom€and€showed€him€a€.38€caliber€handgunŠ ˜č  Šwhich€Petitioner€kept€in€his€bedroom,€stashed€between€the€waterbed€mattress€and€the€headboard.€Š „Ō  ŠJerry€examined€the€gun,€then€handed€it€back€to€the€Petitioner.Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąAround€9:00€p.m.,€Jerry€left€the€trailer€for€the€rest€of€the€evening.€€A€few€minutes€later,Š H˜ ŠPetitionerššs€friend,€Eric€Christensen,€stopped€by€after€his€shift€at€Waffle€House€ended.€€He€noted€thatŠ 4„ ŠHoward€and€Ms.€Patzer€were€extremely€intoxicated.€€Howard€was€drinking€beer€as€well€as€rum€andŠ  p Šcoke.€€Both€Eric€and€Benjamin€Johnson,€Petitionerššs€neighbor,€commented€that€while€PetitionerŠ  \ Šdrank€a€lot,€he€never€appeared€drunk.€€Neither€noticed€any€extreme€signs€of€intoxication€in€PetitionerŠ ųH Šthat€night.Š ä4 ŠĢą  ąWhen€Eric€arrived,€Ms.€Patzer€was€talking€on€the€telephone€and€appeared€upset.€€Howard€wasŠ ¼  Štrying€to€comfort€her,€placing€his€arm€around€her€shoulder€and€rubbing€his€head€against€hers.€Š Øų ŠPetitioner€told€Howard€€to€mind€his€own€business,€shook€his€fist,€and€said€someoneššs€going€to€getŠ ”ä Šhurt€in€five€minutes.€€Howard€got€up€and€headed€toward€the€back€of€the€trailer,€and€PetitionerŠ €Š Šfollowed€him.€€Eric,€uneasy€over€the€situation,€also€went€to€the€back.€€He€found€Howard€in€theŠ l¼ Šbathroom€and€Petitioner€in€the€bedroom.€€After€that,€Eric€left€the€trailer.Š X Ø ŠĢą  ąLater,€Petitioner€went€over€to€see€his€neighbor,€Benjamin€Johnson,€who€was€working€outside,Š 0"€  Šand€asked€Johnson€to€back€him€up€if€there€was€a€fight.€€Johnson€laughed,€but€the€Petitioner€did€notŠ #l! Šreturn€the€laughter.€€Petitioner€went€back€to€his€trailer.Š $X" ŠĢą  ąBy€approximately€10:50€p.m.,€Ms.€Patzer€was€sitting€on€a€bar€stool€on€the€living€room€sideŠ ą%0!$ Šof€the€bar,€and€Howard€was€standing€less€than€three€feet€from€Ms.€Patzer,€facing€in€her€direction.€Š Ģ&"% ŠPetitioner€was€standing€opposite€Howard€on€the€kitchen€side€of€the€bar.€€Initially,€Ms.€Patzer€statedŠ ø'#& Šthat€she€caught€a€movement€out€of€the€corner€of€her€eye,€and€she€turned€to€look€at€the€Petitioner.€Š ¤(ō#' ŠWhen€she€looked€back,€Howard€was€on€the€floor,€on€his€back€with€a€pool€of€blood€beneath€his€head.€Š )ą$( ŠAlthough€she€testified€that€there€was€no€blood€in€the€room€except€beneath€Howardššs€head,€her€slacksŠ |*Ģ%) Šwere€splattered€with€blood,€and€bits€of€brain€matter€and€blood€matted€her€hair.Š h+ø&* Š‡ą  ąMs.€Patzer€began€screaming.€€She€picked€up€the€phone€in€front€of€her€and€dialed€911.€€BeforeŠ ° Šthe€call€was€answered,€Petitioner€pressed€the€disconnect€button€on€the€receiver€and€said€they€wouldŠ œģ Šhandle€the€situation€themselves.€€Ms.€Patzer€ran€screaming€to€the€bathroom€and€locked€herself€in.€Š ˆŲ ŠPursuant€to€normal€procedure€when€an€emergency€call€is€received,€the€911€operator€called€back,€andŠ tÄ ŠMs.€Patzer€answered€the€call€on€the€bathroom€telephone.€€She€told€the€operator€that€Howard€HarpŠ `° Šhad€just€committed€suicide.Š L œ ŠĢą  ąPolice€were€dispatched€to€the€scene€and€arrived€in€approximately€two€minutes.€€Ms.€PatzerŠ $ t Šwas€still€in€the€bathroom€and€the€Petitioner€was€outside.€€At€the€scene,€officers€found€a€.38€caliberŠ  ` Šhandgun€in€the€kitchen€sink€beneath€a€Coca„Cola€cup.€€The€gun€had€one€spent€round€and€five€liveŠ ü L  Šrounds.€€The€counter€by€the€sink€was€wet.€€The€Petitioner€denied€knowing€where€the€gun€came€from,Š č 8  Šand€said€he€was€down€the€hall€when€the€shot€occurred.€€Ms.€Patzer€repeated€several€times€thatŠ Ō$  ŠHoward€had€shot€himself.Š Ą  ŠĢą  ąMs.€Patzer€and€Petitioner€were€transported€to€the€Cookeville€police€station€in€separate€cars.€Š ˜č  ŠWhile€waiting€to€be€interviewed,€Ms.€Patzer€kept€saying€that€she€couldnššt€believe€Harp€had€killedŠ „Ō  Šhimself.€€During€her€statement,€Ms.€Patzer€said€that€they€were€having€a€good€time.€€š šNext€thing€IŠ pĄ Šknow€he€[Harp]€pulled€out€a€little€gun€in€front€of€the€door€and€held€it€up€to€his€head,€laughed,€andŠ \¬ Špulled€the€trigger.ššŠ H˜ ŠĢą  ąAfter€the€interviews,€Ms.€Patzer€and€Petitioner€were€driven€back€to€Petitionerššs€trailer.€€AtŠ  p Šthe€station,€the€officers€noticed€a€spot€on€Petitionerššs€tee€shirt€which€appeared€to€be€blood.€€PetitionerŠ  \ Šsaid€the€spot€was€spaghetti€sauce€but€agreed€to€give€them€the€shirt€when€he€returned€to€the€trailer.€Š ųH ŠOfficer€Demming€waited€outside€the€trailer€for€five€minutes€before€the€Petitioner€gave€her€the€shirt.€Š ä4 Š€She€put€the€shirt€on€the€back€seat€of€the€squad€car€where€Ms.€Patzer€had€previously€sat.€€Š Š  ŠĢą  ąThe€Petitioner€and€Ms.€Patzer€spent€the€rest€of€Sunday€at€the€trailer.€€€Early€Sunday€morning,Š Øų ŠMs.€Patzer€called€her€husband,€Keith€Patzer,€who€was€in€jail€at€that€time€awaiting€trial,€and€told€himŠ ”ä Šabout€the€suicide.€€She€also€learned€that€Officer€Demming€was€the€prosecuting€officer€on€KeithššsŠ €Š Šcase.€€Ms.€Patzer€then€called€Officer€Demming€and€asked€her€if€Keith€could€be€released€for€a€fewŠ l¼ Šdays€to€help€her€through€the€second€interview.€€The€request€was€denied.€Š X Ø ŠĢą  ą€Sunday€night,€Ms.€Patzer€accompanied€the€Petitioner€to€the€home€of€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Bennis,Š 0"€  Šfriends€of€the€Petitioner,€and€spent€the€night.€€Ms.€Patzer€and€the€Petitioner€continued€to€drink€allŠ #l! Šthrough€Sunday.€€On€Monday,€the€pair€traveled€to€Jackson€County€to€purchase€liquor,€then€pickedŠ $X" Šup€Ms.€Patzerššs€employment€check€at€Shoneyššs.€€After€depositing€the€check,€they€returned€to€theŠ ō$D # ŠPetitionerššs€€trailer€just€as€Detective€Lane€pulled€up.€€He€asked€Ms.€Patzer€to€accompany€him€to€theŠ ą%0!$ Šstation€to€go€over€her€prior€statement€in€order€to€resolve€some€questions€he€had.€€During€the€secondŠ Ģ&"% Šinterview,€Ms.€Patzer€amended€her€prior€statement€and€testified€that€Petitioner€had€killed€HowardŠ ø'#& ŠHarp.€€Ms.€Patzer€stated€that€she€caught€a€glimpse€of€a€gun€in€Petitionerššs€hand.€€She€did€not€see€himŠ ¤(ō#' Špull€the€trigger,€but€testified€that€Petitioner€brought€the€gun€to€Howardššs€temple€and€shot.€€Ms.€PatzerŠ )ą$( Šexplained€that€she€was€intoxicated€and€the€Petitioner€was€the€one€who€suggested€the€idea€€thatŠ |*Ģ%) ŠHoward€had€committed€suicide,€and€she€had€simply€wanted€to€believe€it.Š h+ø&* Šą  ąPrior€to€her€amended€statement€on€Monday,€October€16,€Ms.€Patzer€maintained€that€HowardŠ ° ŠHarp€had€committed€suicide€in€numerous€statements,€both€to€the€police€officers€assigned€to€the€caseŠ œģ Šas€well€as€various€friends€and€acquaintances.€€At€trial,€Petitionerššs€sole€defense€was€based€on€theŠ ˆŲ Štheory€that€Howard€had€shot€himself€.€€Defense€counsel€introduced€medical€records€showing€thatŠ tÄ ŠHoward€had€attempted€suicide€several€times€since€he€was€fifteen€years€old,€and€all€of€the€attemptsŠ `° Šoccurred€while€Howard€was€intoxicated.€€Jerry€Harp,€Howardššs€brother,€testified€that€Howard€toldŠ L œ Šhim€on€the€morning€of€October€14,€1995,€that€he€was€going€to€kill€himself,€and€that€he€was€drinkingŠ 8 ˆ Šat€the€time.€€Petitioner€also€maintained€that€Ms.€Patzerššs€motive€for€changing€her€story€was€basedŠ $ t Šon€the€belief€that€her€husband€was€potentially€facing€significant€jail€time,€and€her€cooperation€mightŠ  ` Šinduce€leniency.€Š ü L  ŠĢą  ąAt€trial,€several€statements€made€by€Ms.€Patzer€immediately€following€the€shooting,€as€wellŠ Ō$  Šas€at€the€police€station,€in€which€she€reiterated€that€Howard€Harp€had€shot€himself€were€admitted€asŠ Ą  Šsubstantive€evidence€as€excited€utterances.€€These€statements€included€the€911€call€Ms.€Patzer€madeŠ ¬ü  Šand€the€911€call€she€received€in€response€to€her€disconnected€call.€€Defense€counsel€cross„examinedŠ ˜č  ŠMs.€Patzer€at€length€on€her€statements.€€He€then€offered€into€evidence,€as€a€prior€inconsistentŠ „Ō  Šstatement,€€her€written€statement€to€the€police€in€which€she€stated€that€Howard€Harp€killed€himself.€Š pĄ ŠThe€trial€judge€made€a€ņņsua€sponteóó€instruction€to€the€jury€that€the€statement€was€to€be€considered€forŠ \¬ Šimpeachment€purposes€only€and€not€for€the€truth€of€the€matters€contained€within€the€statement.€Š H˜ ŠDefense€counsel€did€not€object€to€the€instruction€and€did€not€offer€any€basis€for€an€exception€to€theŠ 4„ Šhearsay€rule.Š  p ŠĢņ ņą  ąII.€€Procedural€Historyó óŠ ųH ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder€on€February€14,€1997€following€a€jury€trial.€Š Š  ŠAt€the€conclusion€of€Petitionerššs€sentencing€hearing,€Petitioner€was€sentenced€to€twenty€years€€in€theŠ ¼  ŠTennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€Following€a€hearing,€Petitionerššs€motion€for€judgment€ofŠ Øų Šacquittal€and€new€trial€was€denied€on€June€13,€1997.Š ”ä ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€filed€a€Notice€of€Appeal€on€July€9,€1997.€€On€appeal,€Petitioner€raised€three€issues:€Š l¼ ŠĢ(1)€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€second€degree€murder;Š D!” Š(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€instructing€the€jury€regarding€prior€inconsistent€statements;€andŠ 0"€  Š(3)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€charged€the€jury€regarding€the€impeachment€of€a€witness.Š #l! ŠĢą  ąOn€April€16,€1999,€this€court€affirmed€the€trial€courtššs€judgment.€€ņņState€v.€Lon€S.€Walkeróó,€No.Š ō$D # Š01C01„9711„CR„00535,€ņņóó1999€WL€219629€(Tenn.€Crim.€App)€ņņperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.Š ą%0!$ ŠOctober€11,€1999).Š Ģ&"% ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€timely€challenged€his€convictions€in€a€pro€se€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€onŠ ¤(ō#' ŠFebruary€17,€2000.€He€raised€the€following€grounds€for€relief,€all€based€on€a€claim€of€ineffectiveŠ )ą$( Šassistance€of€counsel:€(1)€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€presentation€of€false€or€misleadingŠ |*Ģ%) Šinformation€and€argument€to€the€jury€on€expert€testimony;€(2)€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€StateššsŠ h+ø&* Šimproper€vouching€for€the€credibility€of€witnesses;€(3)€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€closingŠ ° Šargument€which€improperly€called€attention€to€the€Petitionerššs€decision€not€to€testify;€(4)€counselŠ œģ Šfailed€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€closing€arguments€that€improperly€diluted€the€Stateššs€burden€of€proofŠ ˆŲ Šand€undermined€the€presumption€of€evidence;€(5)€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€presentationŠ tÄ Šof€false€evidence€to€the€jury€on€gunshot€residue€and€serology;€(6)€counsel€failed€to€investigate€andŠ `° Šconsult€with€experts€concerning€the€testimony€on€gunshot€residue€and€serology;€(7)€counsel€failedŠ L œ Što€investigate€Sherry€Harp€as€to€comments€she€heard€concerning€Mr.€Harpššs€injuries;€(8)€counselŠ 8 ˆ Šfailed€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€interference€with€the€defenseššs€communication€with€prospectiveŠ $ t Šprosecution€witnesses;€(9)€counsel€failed€to€discover€that€the€State€provided€benefits€to€Stacy€PatzerŠ  ` Šin€exchange€for€her€testimony,€failed€to€object€to€her€perjured€testimony€when€she€denied€receivingŠ ü L  Šbenefits,€and€failed€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€use€of€her€perjured€testimony€in€closing€arguments;€(10)Š č 8  Šcounsel€failed€to€investigate€Ms.€Patzgerššs€family,€social€and€criminal€background;€(11)€counselŠ Ō$  Šfailed€to€conduct€a€thorough€investigation€of€the€facts€of€the€case€and€possible€defenses€and€makeŠ Ą  Šreasonable€decisions€concerning€the€investigation;€(12)€counsel€failed€to€adequately€prepare€for€trial;Š ¬ü  Š(13)€counsel€failed€to€adequately€consult€with€Petitioner€as€to€important€issues€and€decisionsŠ ˜č  Šregarding€his€defense€and€failed€to€maintain€a€proper€confidential€relationship€with€Petitioner;€(14)Š „Ō  Šcounsel€failed€to€develop€an€alternative€defense€strategy;€(15)€counsel€failed€to€retain€a€psychosocialŠ pĄ Šexpert€to€testify€as€to€Mr.€Harpššs€mental€state€and€suicidal€tendencies;€(16)€counsel€failed€toŠ \¬ Šadequately€advise€Petitioner€on€his€right€to€testify€or€not€testify;€(17)€counsel€failed€to€prepare€Mr.Š H˜ Šand€Mrs.€Bennis€for€trial;€(18)€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€trial€judgeššs€jury€instructions€on€out€ofŠ 4„ Šcourt€statements€as€well€as€the€trial€judgeššs€ņņsua€sponteóó€limiting€instruction;€(19)€counsel€failed€toŠ  p Šintroduce€proof€at€the€hearing€pertaining€to€Petitionerššs€motion€for€a€new€trial;€and€(20)€counselŠ  \ Šfailed€to€object€to€the€accuracy€of€the€trial€transcript€on€the€grounds€that€it€contains€materialŠ ųH Šomissions.€€Š ä4 ŠĢą  ąPetitionerššs€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€April€16,€2001.€€Petitionerššs€proof€consisted€ofŠ ¼  Šhis€own€testimony,€the€testimony€of€Petitionerššs€appellate€counsel,€and€two€witnesses€who€hadŠ Øų Štestified€at€trial.€€The€State€presented€the€testimony€of€Petitionerššs€trial€counsel€and€his€counselššsŠ ”ä Šinvestigator.€Š €Š ŠĢą  ąAt€the€hearing,€Petitioner€alleged€that€the€State€made€improper,€misleading,€false€andŠ X Ø Šprejudicial€statements€in€the€juryššs€presence€concerning€the€gunshot€residue€tests€and€blood€analysesŠ D!” Šperformed€on€Petitioner€and€Mr.€Harp.€€Because€counsel€did€not€object€to€the€prosecutionššsŠ 0"€  Šexamination€of€the€Stateššs€expert€witnesses€or€to€closing€arguments€on€these€evidential€issues,Š #l! ŠPetitioner€claimed€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Petitioner€also€alleged€that€theŠ $X" ŠState€improperly€vouched€for€the€credibility€of€the€Stateššs€witnesses€when€the€prosecutor€referredŠ ō$D # Što€the€š šnice€policešš€and€complimented€James€Lane€on€doing€š šan€excellent€jobšš€investigating€the€caseŠ ą%0!$ Šduring€closing€arguments,€and€that€counselššs€failure€to€object€to€these€statements€had€a€prejudicialŠ Ģ&"% Šeffect€on€Petitionerššs€trial.Š ø'#& ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€next€claimed€counsel€was€deficient€in€his€performance€because€he€did€not€objectŠ )ą$( Što€the€Stateššs€closing€arguments€which€improperly€commented€on€his€decision€not€to€testify,€and€thatŠ |*Ģ%) Šsuch€failure€was€prejudicial€to€Petitioner.€€Specifically,€Petitioner€testified€that€such€statements€asŠ h+ø&* Šš šMr.€Cameron€[trial€counsel]€admitted€it€for€him,šš€referring€to€his€counselššs€explanation€of€whyŠ ° ŠPetitioner€had€lied€about€owning€the€gun€used€in€the€shooting,€impermissibly€drew€the€juryššsŠ œģ Šattention€to€the€fact€that€Petitioner€did€not€take€the€stand.€€Petitioner€also€alleged€that€the€StateššsŠ ˆŲ Šcomment€that€š šour€victim€hasnššt€has€[sic]€an€opportunity€to€testifyšš€accomplished€the€sameŠ tÄ Šimpermissible€result.Š `° ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€alleged€that€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€introduction€of€the€results€of€aŠ 8 ˆ Šblood€residue€analysis€on€Petitionerššs€tee„shirt,€as€well€as€the€tee„shirt€itself,€on€the€grounds€that€€theŠ $ t Šanalysis€did€not€show€whose€blood€was€on€the€shirt,€or€when€or€how€the€blood€was€obtained.€Š  ` ŠPetitioner€testified€that€such€evidence€was€prejudicial€because€it€erroneously€compelled€the€jury€toŠ ü L  Šinfer€that€the€blood€was€that€of€Mr.€Harp.Š č 8  ŠĢą  ąAt€trial,€the€State€presented€evidence€concerning€the€results€of€gunshot€residue€analysesŠ Ą  Šperformed€on€Petitioner,€Ms.€Patzer€and€Howard€Harp.€€Agent€Davis,€a€forensic€scientist€with€theŠ ¬ü  ŠTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€testified€that€the€tests€performed€on€Petitioner€and€Ms.€PatzerŠ ˜č  Šshowed€no€elements€indicative€of€gunshot€residue,€while€Howard€Harpššs€test€was€inconclusive€asŠ „Ō  Što€gunshot€residue.€€Petitioner€alleged€that€his€counsel€should€have€investigated€and€secured€anŠ pĄ Šexpert€witness€to€explain€why€there€was€not€more€gunshot€residue€found€on€Mr.€Harp€sinceŠ \¬ ŠPetitioner€alleged€that€Mr.€Harp€had€committed€suicide.€€Petitioner€testified€that€he€provided€theŠ H˜ Šname€of€a€potential€expert€to€his€counsel€before€the€trial€but€counsel€did€not€call€the€witness€toŠ 4„ Štestify.Š  p ŠĢą  ąThe€Stateššs€serologist€testified€at€trial€that€the€spot€of€blood€on€the€Petitionerššs€tee„shirt€wasŠ ųH Šhuman€blood,€but€too€small€to€type.€€At€his€post„conviction€hearing,€Petitioner€testified€that€counselŠ ä4 Šshould€have€provided€the€defenseššs€own€serologist€to€explain€the€difference€between€blood€splatterŠ Š  Šand€blood€spots.€€Petitioner€claimed€that€the€fact€that€he€did€not€have€blood€splatter€on€his€clothesŠ ¼  Šsupported€his€defense€that€he€was€not€in€close€proximity€to€the€victim€when€the€shot€occurred.€€Š Øų ŠĢą  ąAnother€witness€Petitioner€alleges€should€have€been€produced€at€trial€was€Sherry€Harp,€theŠ €Š Švictimššs€sister.€€Petitioner€testified€that€counsel€failed€to€interview€Ms.€Harp€personally€although€Mr.Š l¼ ŠHarris,€Petitionerššs€investigator,€had€discussed€her€potential€testimony€prior€to€trial.€€PetitionerŠ X Ø Štestified€he€believed€Ms.€Harpššs€testimony€would€have€shown€that€the€admitting€personnel€atŠ D!” ŠErlanger€Hospital€where€Mr.€Harp€was€transported€told€her€that€they€believed€the€wound€was€causedŠ 0"€  Šby€a€suicide€attempt.Š #l! ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€claimed€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€interview€Ms.€Patzer,€the€StateššsŠ ō$D # Šonly€eye€witness,€prior€to€trial.€€Petitioner€further€alleged€€that€he€believed€the€State€had€purposivelyŠ ą%0!$ Šsecluded€Ms.€Patzer€so€that€the€defense€would€not€have€an€opportunity€to€talk€with€her,€and€that€€Ms.Š Ģ&"% ŠPatzer€received€benefits€from€the€State€in€exchange€for€her€testimony.€€He€blamed€counsel€for€notŠ ø'#& Šdiscovering€evidence€to€support€these€charges,€and€that€his€performance€was,€therefore,€ineffectiveŠ ¤(ō#' Šin€this€regard.€€Petitioner€also€claimed€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€not€objecting€to€Ms.€PatzerššsŠ )ą$( Šā ātestimony€that€she€had€not€received€any€benefit€other€than€reimbursement€for€travel€expenses.€Š |*Ģ%) ŠFinally,€Petitioner€alleged€that€counsel€inadequately€investigated€Ms.€Patzerššs€background€forŠ ° Špurposes€of€impeaching€her€credibility€as€a€witness€and€casting€doubt€on€her€truthfulness.Š œģ Šā āĢą  ąPetitioner€next€claimed€that€counsel€failed€to€properly€investigate€the€facts€of€the€case€orŠ tÄ Špossible€defenses,€as€well€as€discuss€strategic€decisions€with€Petitioner.€€Further,€Petitioner€allegedŠ `° Šthat€counsel€was€inadequately€prepared€for€trial.€€Petitioner€testified€about€his€counselššs€failure:€(1)Š L œ Što€maintain€communications€with€Petitioner,€(2)€to€timely€investigate€witnesses,€and€(3)€to€properlyŠ 8 ˆ Šprepare€witnesses€for€trial.€€In€addition,€Petitioner€charged€that€counselššs€trial€preparation€wasŠ $ t Šinadequate€because€Petitioner€believed€that€counsel€should€have€developed€an€alternative€defense.Š  ` ŠHowever,€in€his€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Petitioner€did€not€suggest€what€thatŠ ü L  Šdefense€might€have€been.Š č 8  ŠĢą  ąPetitionerššs€next€allegation€concerned€counselššs€failure€to€engage€an€expert€witness€toŠ Ą  Šconduct€a€psychosocial€autopsy€on€Mr.€Harp.€€Petitioner€testified€that€he€believed€the€expertššsŠ ¬ü  Štestimony€would€explain€Mr.€Harpššs€mental€state€on€the€day€of€the€shooting€and€his€recurringŠ ˜č  Šsuicidal€tendencies,€concluding€that€Mr.€Harp€more€likely€than€not€committed€suicide.€Š „Ō  ŠĢą  ąAlthough€Petitioner€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€made€the€decision€not€toŠ \¬ Štake€the€stand€in€his€own€defense€at€trial,€Petitioner€alleged€that,€in€retrospect,€this€decision€was€ill„Š H˜ Šadvised€because€of€the€overall€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€Š 4„ ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€alleged€that€counsel€improperly€failed€to€object€to€the€trial€judgeššs€ņņsua€sponteóóŠ  \ Šlimiting€instruction€as€well€as€the€jury€instructions€pertaining€to€the€admissibility€of€priorŠ ųH Šinconsistent€statements.€€Although€Petitioner€failed€to€preserve€the€issues€concerning€improperŠ ä4 Šinstructions€for€appeal,€this€Court€did€address€these€claims.€ņņState€v.€Lon€S.€Walkeróó,€No.€01C01„9711„Š Š  ŠCR„00535,€1999€WL€219629€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€1999).Š ¼  ŠĢą  ąAt€trial,€Counsel€introduced€Ms.€Patzerššs€written€police€statement€as€a€prior€inconsistentŠ ”ä Šstatement.€€The€trial€judge€issued€a€ņņsua€sponte€óóinstruction€to€the€jury€stating€that€the€statement€couldŠ €Š Šbe€considered€for€impeachment€purposes€only.€€At€his€post„conviction€hearing,€Petitioner€alleged€thatŠ l¼ Šthe€instruction€was€improper€because,€absent€an€objection€as€to€the€hearsay€nature€of€the€statement,Š X Ø Šthe€evidence€should€have€been€admissible€as€substantive€evidence,€and€counsel€failed€to€object€toŠ D!” Šthe€instruction€to€the€prejudice€of€Petitioner.Š 0"€  ŠĢą  ąThis€Court€concluded€that€Petitionerššs€issue€concerning€the€trial€judgeššs€ņņsua€sponteóóŠ $X" Šinstruction€was€without€merit€because€the€written€police€statement€was€actually€extrinsic€evidenceŠ ō$D # Šof€a€prior€inconsistent€statement€not€denied€by€the€witness.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€613.€€Accordingly,€thisŠ ą%0!$ ŠCourt€concluded€that€while€the€statement€should€not€have€been€admitted€into€evidence,€the€admissionŠ Ģ&"% Šwas€harmless€error.€€ņņWalkeróó,€No.€01C01„9711„CR„00535,€1999€WL€219629,€at€6.€€At€his€post„Š ø'#& Šconviction€hearing,€Petitioner€suggested€in€his€testimony€that€the€written€police€statement€may€haveŠ ¤(ō#' Šqualified€as€an€excited€utterance€under€Tenn.€Rule€803,€and€therefore€admissible€as€substantiativeŠ )ą$( Ševidence.€€Š |*Ģ%) ŠŠ h+ø&* Šą  ąPetitioner€also€argued€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€his€instructions€to€the€jury€concerning€theŠ ° Šadmissibility€of€out€of€court€statements,€and€that€counsel€was€deficient€for€failing€to€object€to€suchŠ œģ Šinstructions.€€The€instructions€addressed€only€the€juryššs€consideration€of€a€witnessššs€out€of€courtŠ ˆŲ Šstatement€for€impeachment€purposes€only,€although€some€of€the€out€of€court€statements€wereŠ tÄ Šadmitted€as€substantive€evidence.€€In€the€direct€appeal€of€Petitionerššs€conviction,€this€courtŠ `° Šconcluded€that€the€fact€that€the€instructions€could€have€been€more€detailed€did€not€render€theŠ L œ Šinstruction€improper,€and,€absent€a€special€request€for€an€additional€charge,€the€trial€court€would€notŠ 8 ˆ Šbe€held€in€error€on€this€basis.€€ņņWalkeróó,€No.€01C01„9711„CR„00535,€ņņóó1999€WL€219629,€at€6.€Š $ t ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€claimed€€that€counsel€was€deficient€for€failing€to€introduce€proof€in€the€form€of€liveŠ ü L  Štestimony€rather€than€through€affidavits€at€the€hearing€on€Petitionerššs€motion€for€a€new€trial€whichŠ č 8  Šcontained€allegations€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€remarked€that€the€testimony€of€one€ofŠ Ō$  ŠPetitionerššs€witnesses€was€rehearsed.€€Petitionerššs€appellate€counsel€testified€that€the€failure€toŠ Ą  Šintroduce€proof€on€this€issue€resulted€in€appellate€counselššs€inability€to€raise€the€issue€on€appeal.€Š ¬ü  ŠPetitioner€also€alleges€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€not€objecting€to€the€accuracy€of€the€transcript€onŠ ˜č  Šthe€grounds€that€the€record€omitted€this€remark.€€Finally,€Petitioner€claimed€that€counsel€failed€toŠ „Ō  Šobject€to€the€inaccuracy€of€the€trial€transcript€because€the€transcript€contained€material€omissions.Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€did€not€believe€that€the€testimony€by€the€Stateššs€expertŠ H˜ Šwitnesses€regarding€the€blood€spot€found€on€Petitionerššs€tee„shirt,€as€well€as€the€lack€of€gun€residueŠ 4„ Šon€Petitionerššs€hands,€harmed€Petitionerššs€defense.€€On€the€contrary,€trial€counsel€testified,€€the€lackŠ  p Šof€any€significant€amount€of€blood€on€Petitionerššs€clothing€€supported€the€defenseššs€theory€thatŠ  \ ŠPetitioner€was€not€in€the€vicinity€of€Mr.€Harp€when€the€shooting€occurred.€€€Although€a€gun€shotŠ ųH Šresidue€expert€was€identified,€counsel€testified€that€Petitioner€decided€not€to€call€the€witness€becauseŠ ä4 Šof€the€expense€involved€and€the€doubtful€value€of€the€testimony.€€Counsel€also€testified€thatŠ Š  ŠPetitioner€had€never€requested€a€serologist.€€As€far€as€securing€an€expert€witness€to€testify€as€to€theŠ ¼  Šdeceasedššs€state€of€mind,€counsel€testified€that€he€felt€that€€this€type€of€testimony,€if€he€could€findŠ Øų Šan€expert€in€this€field,€would€probably€not€be€admissible€in€court.Š ”ä ŠĢą  ąCounsel€also€testified€that€Mr.€Harris,€Petitionerššs€investigator,€interviewed€Sherry€Harp€andŠ l¼ Šattempted€to€locate€the€hospital€personnel€on€duty€the€night€Mr.€Harp€was€brought€in.€€Although€Mr.Š X Ø ŠHarris€couldnššt€locate€the€potential€witness,€counsel€said€he€believed€in€any€event€that€€this€testimonyŠ D!” Šwould€be€either€inadmissible€or€unhelpful.€€Counsel€also€testified€that€he€made€several€attempts€toŠ 0"€  Šlocate€Ms.€Patzer€before€the€trial.€€Even€though€he€could€not€interview€her€before€trial,€counselŠ #l! Štestified€that€he€believed€his€cross„examination€of€Ms.€Patzer€was€thorough€and€extensive.Š $X" ŠĢą  ąCounsel€next€testified€that€he€had€often€discussed€with€Petitioner€the€issue€of€him€testifying,Š ą%0!$ Šand€as€the€trial€preparation€unfolded,€he€felt€that€the€Stateššs€case€was€not€that€strong€againstŠ Ģ&"% ŠPetitioner€to€warrant€Petitioner€taking€the€stand.€€€Counsel€further€testified€that€he€was€concernedŠ ø'#& Šabout€Petitionerššs€drinking€habits€and€his€anger€as€a€result€of€€his€arrest€and€the€witnessesšš€testimony.€Š ¤(ō#' ŠAccordingly,€counsel€testified€that€he€believed€Petitionerššs€decision€not€to€testify€was€correct€underŠ )ą$( Šthe€facts€and€circumstances.€Š |*Ģ%) ŠŠ h+ø&* Šą  ąCounsel€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€had€visited€Petitioner€several€timesŠ ° Šwhile€Petitioner€was€in€jail€awaiting€a€bond€hearing.€€Counsel€further€testified€that€either€he€or€Mr.Š œģ ŠHarris€interviewed€all€available€witnesses,€and€that€he€met€with€and€interviewed€the€Stateššs€forensicŠ ˆŲ Šwitnesses.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Harris€testified€that€he€and€Petitioner€visited€Petitionerššs€trailer€to€reviewŠ tÄ Šthe€crime€scene.€€During€the€week€before€trial,€counsel€testified€that€Petitioner€was€in€counselššsŠ `° Šoffice€nearly€every€afternoon,€and€counsel€spent€the€entire€week,€including€the€weekend,€preparingŠ L œ Šfor€trial.Š 8 ˆ ŠĢą  ąAs€far€as€preparing€an€alternative€defense,€counsel€testified€that€he€presented€the€only€defenseŠ  ` Šthat€was€logically€possible,€a€defense€that€was€supported€by€Ms.€Patzerššs€initial€remarks.€€CounselŠ ü L  Šfurther€testified€that€he€had€developed€the€defense€used€at€trial€as€thoroughly€as€possible€throughŠ č 8  Štestimony€and€medical€records.Š Ō$  ŠĢą  ąAt€the€conclusion€of€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€Petitioner€reliefŠ ¬ü  Šin€oral€findings€and€conclusions€as€follows:€(1)€Petitioner€failed€to€present€proof€that€the€StateŠ ˜č  Šprovided€false€or€misleading€evidence€or€that€the€State€asked€irrelevant€questions€concerning€theŠ „Ō  Šgunshot€residue€and€blood€analyses,€and,€counsel,€therefore,€was€not€deficient€for€failing€to€object;Š pĄ Š(2)€Petitioner€failed€to€prove€that€counselššs€failure€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€closing€arguments€andŠ \¬ Šexamination€of€expert€witnesses€was€prejudicial,€or€that€there€would€have€been€with€reasonableŠ H˜ Šprobability€a€different€trial€conclusion€had€he€objected;€(3)€Petitioner€failed€to€prove€that€counselššsŠ 4„ Šfailure€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€comments€on€the€job€done€by€the€Cookeville€police€department€wasŠ  p Šprejudicial,€or€that€a€different€result€would€have€occurred€if€the€objections€had€been€made;€(4)Š  \ ŠPetitioner€failed€to€prove€that€the€State€directly€commented€on€Petitionerššs€decision€not€to€testify€atŠ ųH Štrial,€and€failed€to€prove,€therefore,€that€counselššs€failure€to€object€to€the€Stateššs€closing€argumentŠ ä4 Šconstituted€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel;€(5)€Petitioner€failed€to€present€proof€that€the€StateššsŠ Š  Šburden€of€proof€was€either€shifted€or€diluted,€and€that€counselššs€failure€to€object€to€any€statementsŠ ¼  Što€that€effect€was€deficient;€(6)€Even€if€counsel€was€deficient€in€not€raising€objections€to€some€of€theŠ Øų Šissues€contained€in€subparts€(1)€through€(5),€Petitioner€did€not€show€that€there€was€a€reasonableŠ ”ä Šprobability€that€the€results€would€have€been€different€had€counsel€objected;€(7)€Petitioner€failed€toŠ €Š Šprove€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€call€additional€expert€witnesses;€(8)€Petitioner€failedŠ l¼ Što€prove€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€investigating€Ms.€Harp;€(9)€Petitioner€failed€to€prove€thatŠ X Ø Šcounsel€was€deficient€in€not€interviewing€Ms.€Patzer€before€trial€and€failed€to€present€proof€thatŠ D!” Šcounsel€was€hindered€by€the€State€in€any€way;€(10)€Petitioner€failed€to€present€proof€that€the€StateŠ 0"€  Šprovided€any€benefits€to€Ms.€Patzer€other€than€statutorily€approved€reimbursement€for€travelŠ #l! Šexpenses,€and,€counsel,€therefore,€was€not€deficient€in€failing€to€investigate€this€issue;€(11)€PetitionerŠ $X" Šfailed€to€present€proof€that€Ms.€Patzerššs€testimony€was€perjured,€and€counsel,€therefore,€was€notŠ ō$D # Šdeficient€in€failing€to€investigate€this€issue;€(12)€Petitioner€failed€to€prove€€that€counsel€wasŠ ą%0!$ Šineffective€in€investigating€Ms.€Patzerššs€background;€(13)€Petitioner€failed€to€prove€that€counsel€wasŠ Ģ&"% Šdeficient€in€investigating€or€preparing€for€trial,€or€adequately€communicating€with€Petitioner€aboutŠ ø'#& Šhis€trial;€(14)€Petitioner€failed€to€present€proof€that€a€viable€alternative€defense€existed€and€thatŠ ¤(ō#' Šcounsel€was€deficient€in€developing€such€a€defense;€(15)€Petitioner€failed€to€prove€that€counsel€wasŠ )ą$( Šdeficient€for€failing€to€call€a€psychosocial€expert€to€testify€on€his€behalf;€(16)€Petitioner€failed€toŠ |*Ģ%) Šprove€that€Counselššs€advice€to€Petitioner€concerning€his€right€to€testify€at€trial€was€deficient;€(17)Š h+ø&* ŠPetitioner€failed€to€prove€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€preparing€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Bennis€for€trial;€(18)Š ° ŠPetitioner€failed€to€prove€that€there€was€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€trial€conclusion€would€haveŠ œģ Šbeen€different€if€counsel€had€objected€to€the€ņņsua€sponte€óóinstruction€or€the€jury€instructionsŠ ˆŲ Šconcerning€out€of€court€statements;€(19)€Petitioner€failed€to€prove€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€hisŠ tÄ Špreparation€of€Petitionerššs€motion€for€a€new€trial;€and€(20)€Petitioner€failed€to€prove€counsel€wasŠ `° Šdeficient€in€not€objecting€to€the€trial€transcript.Š L œ ŠĢņ ņą  ąIII.€Analysisó óŠ $ t ŠĢą  ąPetitionerššs€request€for€post„conviction€relief€is€governed€by€the€Post„Conviction€ProcedureŠ ü L  ŠAct€of€1995.€€ņņSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€40„30„201€to€„310€(1997).€€In€order€to€obtain€post„convictionŠ č 8  Šrelief,€a€petitioner€must€include€allegations€of€fact€supporting€each€claim€for€relief.€ņņId.€ó󚚀40„30„Š Ō$  Š204(e).€€At€the€hearing,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clear€andŠ Ą  Šconvincing€evidence.€€ņņIdóó.€šš€40„30„210(f).Š ¬ü  ŠĢą  ąFindings€of€fact€made€by€the€post„conviction€court€are€given€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.ņņŠ „Ō  ŠBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€Therefore,€this€Court€is€bound€byŠ pĄ Šthose€findings€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€post„conviction€courtššsŠ \¬ Šfindings.€€ņņDavis€v.€State,€óó912€S.W.2d€689,€697€(Tenn.€1995).€In€conducting€its€review,€this€CourtŠ H˜ Šmay€not€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€these€findings€nor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theŠ 4„ Štrial€judge.€€ņņState€v.€Honeycuttóó,€54€S.W.3d€762,€763€(Tenn.€2001);€ņņState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461Š  p Š(Tenn.€1999).€€In€addition,€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€valueŠ  \ Šgiven€their€testimony€are€resolved€by€the€trial€court,€and€not€this€Court.€€ņņId.óó,€at€461.€€However,€theŠ ųH Štrial€courtššs€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€is€reviewed€de€novo,€without€a€presumption€ofŠ ä4 Šcorrectness.€ņņFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).€€If€Petitioner€raises€a€claim€ofŠ Š  Šineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€claim€is€a€mixed€question€of€fact€and€law€and€therefore€alsoŠ ¼  Šsubject€to€de€novo€review.€€ņņId.€óóat€458;ņņ€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.Š Øų ŠĢą  ąTo€summarize,€Petitioner€alleges€that€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€due€toŠ €Š Šcounselššs€failure€(1)€to€object€to€certain€remarks,€questions€or€inferences€made€by€the€State€duringŠ l¼ Šthe€examination€of€witnesses€or€in€closing€arguments;€(2)€to€investigate€or€prepare€witnessesŠ X Ø Šproperly,€or€call€expert€witnesses€to€challenge€the€prosecutionššs€evidence;€(3)€to€adequately€prepareŠ D!” Šfor€trial,€develop€an€alternative€defense,€or€advise€Petitioner€adequately€about€trial€decisions,Š 0"€  Šincluding€Petitionerššs€decision€on€testifying;€(4)€to€adequately€prepare€Petitionerššs€motion€for€a€newŠ #l! Štrial;€and€(5)€to€object€to€the€correctness€of€the€trial€transcript.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€weŠ $X" Šconclude€that€Petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief.Š ō$D # ŠĢą  ą€In€order€to€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€Petitioner€must€establishŠ Ģ&"% Šthat€his€counselššs€performance€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€required€of€attorneys€in€criminalŠ ø'#& Šcases.ņņ€€Baxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Then,€if€counselššs€performance€does€notŠ ¤(ō#' Šmeet€the€required€standard€of€competence,€Petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€his€counselššsŠ )ą$( Šdeficient€performance€prejudiced€Petitioner€to€the€extent€€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€thatŠ |*Ģ%) Šthe€results€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different€but€for€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€Š h+ø&* ŠņņStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694,€L.Ed.2d€674,€104€S.Ct€(1984).€2052;€ņņButler€v.€Stateóó,Š ° Š789€S.W.2d€898,€900€(Tenn.€1990).€If€Petitioner€fails€to€establish€either€deficiency€or€prejudice,Š œģ Šrelief€will€not€be€granted.€€ņņGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).Š ˆŲ ŠĢą  ąCounselššs€performance€will€not€be€judged€in€hindsight,€and€this€Court€will€not€second„guessŠ `° Šcounselššs€decisions€regarding€trial€strategies€and€tactics.€€ņņHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.Š L œ Š1982);€ņņOwens€v.€Stateóó,€13€S.W.3d€742,€749€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€Rather,€counselššs€allegedŠ 8 ˆ Šerrors€will€be€judged€from€the€point€of€time€from€which€they€were€made€in€light€of€all€the€facts€andŠ $ t Šcircumstances€at€that€time,€and€from€the€perspective€of€counsel.€€ņņStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104Š  ` ŠS.Ct.€2052.Š ü L  ŠĢą  ąFirst,€Petitioner€contends€that€his€counsel€failed€to€object€to€certain€remarks,€comments€andŠ Ō$  Šinferences€made€by€the€State€in€either€its€examination€of€expert€witnesses€or€during€closingŠ Ą  Šarguments€when€discussing€the€results€of€the€gunshot€residue,€blood,€and€latent€fingerprint€analyses.Š ¬ü  ŠPetitioner€also€alleged€that€the€prosecutor€used€perjured€testimony€in€his€arguments€without€theŠ ˜č  Šobjection€of€Petitionerššs€counsel.€€Because€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€prosecutorššs€improperŠ „Ō  Šremarks,€the€overall€effect,€Petitioner€alleged,€was€to€shift€the€burden€of€proof€from€the€State€to€theŠ pĄ ŠPetitioner.Š \¬ ŠĢą  ąTestimony€established€that€there€was€minimal€gunshot€residue€on€Mr.€Harp,€and€what€residueŠ 4„ Šthat€was€found€was€limited€to€Mr.€Harpššs€palms.€€Although€Petitionerššs€gunshot€residue€analysis€wasŠ  p Šreturned€negative,€the€Stateššs€expert€witness€also€testified€that€very€minimal€particles€of€antimonyŠ  \ Šand€barium€were€found€on€Petitionerššs€hands.€€This€residue,€however,€was€so€minimal€that€itsŠ ųH Špresence€did€not€alter€the€testššs€conclusions,€nor€could€€the€expert€say€where€the€Petitioner€hadŠ ä4 Šacquired€such€elements.€€When€asked€why€a€person€might€not€have€gunshot€residue€on€their€hands,Š Š  Šthe€expert€witness€testified€that€washing€oneššs€hands€could€eliminate€any€residue.Š ¼  ŠĢą  ąThe€testimony€also€showed€that€Petitioner€was€alone€in€the€trailer€after€the€shooting€for€aŠ ”ä Šperiod€of€approximately€two€minutes€between€the€time€Ms.€Patzer€locked€herself€in€the€bathroomŠ €Š Šand€the€police€arrived.€€Fresh€water€puddles€were€found€around€the€sink.€€No€fingerprints€were€foundŠ l¼ Šon€the€gun,€and€Howard€Harp€was€lying€on€the€floor,€mortally€wounded.€€From€this€evidence,€theŠ X Ø ŠState€argued€that€Petitioner€might€have€washed€his€hands€at€the€sink€and€wiped€off€the€fingerprints.Š D!” ŠĢą  ąFinally,€Petitioner€argued€at€trial€that€Mr.€Harp€shot€himself,€but€the€tests€performed€on€Mr.Š #l! ŠHarp€showed€that€gunshot€residue€was€present€only€on€his€palms.€€Accordingly,€the€State€argued€thatŠ $X" ŠMr.€Harp€did€not€pull€the€trigger,€but€rather€had€thrown€up€his€hands€to€ward€off€the€shot.Š ō$D # ŠĢą  ąThe€post„conviction€court€concluded,€after€a€review€of€the€record,€that€the€Stateššs€proposedŠ Ģ&"% Šinferences€were€reasonably€drawn€from€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€and€Petitioner€did€not€presentŠ ø'#& Šclear€and€convincing€evidence€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€to€support€his€claim€that€suchŠ ¤(ō#' Šinferences€were€improper,€or€that€the€inferences,€when€taken€together,€either€shifted€or€diluted€theŠ )ą$( ŠStateššs€burden€of€proof.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€even€if€some€of€the€inferences€orŠ |*Ģ%) Šquestions€to€witnesses€strayed€beyond€the€permissible€limit,€Petitioner€did€not€show€that€his€defenseŠ h+ø&* Šwas€prejudiced,€or€that€the€trial€results€would€have€been€any€different,€absent€the€objectionableŠ ° Šarguments.Š œģ ŠĢą  ąProvided€that€the€evidence€meets€the€general€rules€governing€relevance,€the€State€mayŠ tÄ Šintroduce€expert€testimony€if€the€expert€has€knowledge€that€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€factŠ `° Što€determine€a€fact€or€understand€the€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702;€ņņState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679,Š L œ Š689€(Tenn.€1997)€ņņcert.€deniedóó€524€U.S.€941,€118€S.Ct.€2348,€141€L.Ed.2d€718€(1998).€€WhileŠ 8 ˆ Štestifying,€the€expert€witness€may€form€an€opinion€or€inference€based€on€the€underlying€facts,€andŠ $ t Šthe€jury€is€free€to€agree€or€disagree€with€the€inferences€and€theories€proposed€by€the€Stateššs€expertŠ  ` Šwitnesses.€€ņņSee€óóTenn.€R.€Evid€703.€Š ü L  ŠĢą  ąIn€any€litigation,€both€the€prosecution€and€the€defense€are€given€a€certain€degree€of€€latitudeŠ Ō$  Šas€they€present€their€case€to€the€jury.€€However,€this€latitude€is€not€unlimited,€and€the€trial€judge€mustŠ Ą  Šcontrol€the€actions€of€counsel€during€summation€and€examination€of€witnesses.€€ņņSmith€v.€Stateóó,€527Š ¬ü  ŠS.W.2d€737,€739€(Tenn.€1975);€ņņRussell€v.€Stateóó,€532€S.W.2d€268,€271€€(Tenn.€1976).€€While€neitherŠ ˜č  Šthe€defense€nor€the€prosecution€may€present€irrelevant€or€confusing€arguments,€counsel€may€argueŠ „Ō  Šboth€the€facts€in€the€record,€and€any€reasonable€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€such€facts.€€ņņCokerŠ pĄ Šv.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€ņņoverruled€on€other€grounds,€óó19€S.W.2d€753Š \¬ Š(Tenn.€2000).€€Based€upon€the€record,€we€concur€with€the€post„conviction€court€that€Petitioner€hasŠ H˜ Šnot€met€his€burden€of€proof€on€these€issues,€nor€shown€that€the€prosecutorššs€inferences€wereŠ 4„ Šprejudicial€to€his€case.Š  p ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€claimed€that€the€State€secluded€Ms.€Patzer€prior€to€trial€so€that€the€defense€couldŠ ųH Šnot€interview€her.€Petitioner€also€alleged€that€the€State€paid€or€extended€certain€unidentified€benefitsŠ ä4 Što€Ms.€Patzer€in€exchange€for€her€testimony,€but€the€only€benefit€shown€at€the€post„convictionŠ Š  Šhearing€was€Ms.€Patzerššs€reimbursement€for€travel€expense€which€are€statutorily€approved€for€out„of„Š ¼  Šstate€witnesses.€€ņņSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€40„17„201€through€„212.€€These€allegations€wereŠ Øų Šunsupported€by€testimony€or€other€š šclear€and€convincing€evidencešš€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€Š ”ä ŠņņSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€40„30„204(e)€and€210(f).€€Consequently,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateŠ €Š Šagainst€the€trial€courtššs€conclusions€regarding€these€allegations.Š l¼ ŠĢą  ąNext,€Petitioner€also€alleged€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€of€counselššs€failureŠ D!” Što€call€expert€witnesses€to€refute€the€prosecutionššs€evidence€on€latent€fingerprints,€gunshot€residueŠ 0"€  Šand€blood€analyses,€and€a€psychosocial€expert€to€testify€as€to€Mr.€Harpššs€mental€state€and€suicidalŠ #l! Štendencies€on€the€day€of€the€shooting.€€He€also€alleges€counsel€was€ineffective€for€not€calling€as€aŠ $X" Šwitness€the€admitting€personnel€on€call€the€night€Mr.€Harp€was€brought€into€Erlanger€Hospital.€€AtŠ ō$D # Šthe€post„conviction€hearing,€Petitioner€was€not€able€to€identify€the€name€of€the€pertinent€hospitalŠ ą%0!$ Šemployee,€and€could€only€speculate€as€to€what€the€witness€might€say.€€Moreover,€the€Petitioner€didŠ Ģ&"% Šnot€produce€any€expert€witnesses€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€to€prove€what€the€testimony€at€trialŠ ø'#& Šwould€have€been,€relying€once€again€on€speculation€as€to€how€the€testimony€might€have€helpedŠ ¤(ō#' ŠPetitionerššs€defense.Š )ą$( Šā āŠ |*Ģ%) Šą  ąIf€€Petitioner€alleges€that€counsel€failed€to€discover€or€call€witnesses€at€trial,€he€must€makeŠ ° Šā āthe€witnesses€available€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€ņņBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€757.€€Only€byŠ œģ Šproducing€witnesses€can€Petitioner€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€a€material€witnessŠ ˆŲ Šš š(a)€could€have€been€found€by€a€reasonable€investigation€and€(b)€would€have€testified€favorably€inŠ tÄ Šsupport€of€his€defense€if€called.šš€ņņId.óó€at€758.€€Without€the€production€of€any€expert€witnesses€onŠ `° ŠPetitionerššs€behalf€or€the€identification€of€the€described€hospital€personnel,€the€post„conviction€courtŠ L œ Šfound€that€the€Petitioner€did€not€present€sufficient€proof€to€support€his€claims.€€We€concur€with€theŠ 8 ˆ Špost„conviction€courtššs€findings.Š $ t ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€alleges€that€counsel€failed€to€adequately€prepare€himself€and€Petitioner€for€trial,Š ü L  Šinvestigate€Ms.€Patzerššs€background€to€challenge€her€credibility,€prepare€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Bennis€forŠ č 8  Štrial€or€to€develop€a€viable€defense€strategy.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€both€Petitioner€andŠ Ō$  Šcounsel€testified€about€the€various€steps€taken€and€decisions€made€in€preparation€for€trial.€€BasedŠ Ą  Šupon€the€testimony€and€evidence€presented,€the€post„conviction€court€found€no€proof€to€supportŠ ¬ü  ŠPetitionerššs€allegations€that€counsel€was€inadequately€prepared€for€trial€or€that€counsel€failed€toŠ ˜č  Šproperly€communicate€with€Petitioner€concerning€his€trial.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderateŠ „Ō  Šagainst€the€trial€courtššs€findings.Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€claimed€that€counselššs€advice€concerning€Petitionerššs€right€to€testify€wasŠ H˜ Šineffective€primarily€because€counsel€did€not€sufficiently€and€adequately€explain€the€consequencesŠ 4„ Šof€Petitionerššs€decision€at€the€time€of€trial,€and€Petitionerššs€decision€not€to€testify€appeared,€inŠ  p Šhindsight,€to€be€€inadvisable.Š  \ ŠĢą  ąA€defendant€has€a€fundamental€right€to€testify€at€his€trial,€and€this€right€is€personal€to€theŠ ä4 Šdefendant.€€ņņMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€161€(Tenn.€1999).€€Therefore,€only€the€defendant€canŠ Š  Švoluntarily€relinquish€this€right.€€ņņId.óó€€To€insure€that€a€defendantššs€decision€not€to€testify€is€madeŠ ¼  Šintentionally,€evidence€of€the€waiver€must€be€in€the€trial€record.€€ņņId.óó,€at€162.€€At€any€time€prior€to€theŠ Øų Šconclusion€of€proof,€defense€counsel€must€request€a€hearing,€out€of€the€presence€of€the€jury,€š štoŠ ”ä Šinquire€of€the€defendant€whether€the€defendant€has€made€a€knowing,€voluntary,€and€intelligentŠ €Š Šwaiver€of€the€right€to€testify.šš€€ņņId.óóŠ l¼ ŠĢą  ąAt€trial,€counsel€and€Petitioner€engaged€in€the€following€dialog:Š D!” ŠĢą8  ąQ:ą0` Š Š ąMay€it€please€the€Court,€I€asked€the€Court€because€I€think€itššs€required€by€theŠ #l! Šrules.€€Mr.€Walker€and€I€discussed€at€length€this€case€and€whether€or€not€heŠ $X" Šwould€testify€in€this€matter.€€He€chose€not€to.€€I€told€Mr.€Walker€we€wouldŠ ō$D # Šhave€to€put€that€on€the€record.€€Mr.€Walker,€you€and€I€have€talked€about€thatŠ ą%0!$ Šquite€a€bit.€€Weššve€talked€about€it€for€months,€havenššt€we.ŠĢ&"%` Š ` Š  ŠĢą8  ąA:ą0` Š Š ąYes,€we€have.Š¤(ō#'` Š ` Š  ŠĢą8  ąQ:ą0` Š Š ąAnd€quite€frankly,€I€told€you€what€my€recommendation€was€but€the€ultimateŠ |*Ģ%) Šdecision€was€yours.€€Is€that€correct?Šh+ø&*` Š ` Š  Šą8  ąA:ą0` Š Š ąThatššs€correct.Š°` Š ` Š  ŠĢą8  ąQ:ą0` Š Š ąAnd€you€made€that€decision€and€your€decision€was€not€to€testify.ŠˆŲ` Š ` Š  ŠĢą8  ąA:ą0` Š Š ąThatššs€correct.Š`°` Š ` Š  ŠĢą  ąThere€is€no€particular€language€that€defense€counsel€must€use€in€submitting€this€evidence,Š 8 ˆ Šbut,€generally,€counsel€must€show€š šthat€the€defendant€knows€and€understands€that:Š $ t ŠĢą8  ą(1)€the€defendant€has€the€right€not€to€testify,€and€if€the€defendant€does€not€testify,€thenŠ ü L  Šthe€jury€(or€court)€may€not€draw€any€inferences€from€the€defendantššs€failure€to€testify;Šč 8 Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(2)€the€defendant€has€the€right€to€testify€and€that€if€the€defendant€wishes€to€exerciseŠ Ą  Šthat€right,€no€one€can€prevent€the€defendant€from€testifying;Š¬ü Š Š  ŠĢą8  ą(3)€the€defendant€has€consulted€with€his€or€her€counsel€in€making€the€decisionŠ „Ō  Šwhether€or€not€to€testify;€that€the€defendant€has€been€advised€of€the€advantages€andŠ pĄ Šdisadvantages€of€testifying;€and€that€the€defendant€has€voluntarily€and€personallyŠ \¬ Šwaived€the€right€to€testify.ššŠH˜Š Š  ŠņņĢMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€162.Š  p ŠĢą  ąWhile€counsel€might€have€been€more€detailed€in€his€presentation€of€this€testimony€to€theŠ ųH Šcourt,€our€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€Petitioner€knowingly€and€willingly€decided€not€toŠ ä4 Štestify€at€his€trial.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€and€the€Petitioner€spoke€several€times€about€PetitionerššsŠ Š  Šright€to€testify€and€that€they€discussed€the€advantages€and€disadvantages€such€a€decision€entailed.€Š ¼  ŠThe€post„conviction€court€found€no€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Accordingly,€we€agree€that€theŠ Øų ŠPetitioner€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proof€on€this€allegation.Š ”ä ŠĢą  ąOn€direct€appeal€of€the€conviction,€this€Court€concluded€that€Petitionerššs€claims€concerningŠ l¼ Šthe€jury€instructions€on€admissibility€of€out€of€court€statements€and€the€trial€judgeššs€ņņsua€sponteóóŠ X Ø Šlimiting€instruction€were€harmless€error.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€Petitioner€had€failedŠ D!” Što€prove€he€was€prejudiced€by€any€alleged€deficiency€by€his€counsel€concerning€these€issues.€€WeŠ 0"€  Šagree.€€The€jury€heard€ample€testimony€concerning€the€inconsistent€statements€made€by€Ms.€PatzerŠ #l! Šimmediately€following€the€shooting,€including€her€initial€statements€made€to€the€police€and€on€theŠ $X" Š911€call.€€These€statements€were€properly€introduced€as€substantive€evidence€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.Š ō$D # ŠEvid.€802(2).€€The€written€police€statement€later€introduced€for€impeachment€purposes€merelyŠ ą%0!$ Šcorroborated€Ms.€Patzerššs€earlier€statements.€€Accordingly,€we€concur€with€the€post„convictionŠ Ģ&"% Šcourtššs€findings€that€Petitioner€has€not€shown€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€instructions€even€if€hisŠ ø'#& Šcounselššs€performance€in€not€raising€objections€was€ineffective.Š ¤(ō#' ŠĢą  ąPetitioner€alleged€in€his€brief€that€counselššs€assistance€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€raise€anŠ |*Ģ%) Šobjection€to€evidence€that€was€inconsistent€with€the€physical€evidence€at€the€crime€scene.€€PetitionerŠ h+ø&* Šrefers€to€his€post„conviction€petition,€but€the€section€identified€does€not€discuss€or€raise€this€issue,Š ° Šnor€was€the€issue€€presented€to€the€post„conviction€trial€court.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€has€beenŠ œģ Šwaived.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40„30„206(g).€Š ˆŲ ŠĢą@FF%ģąņ ņCONCLUSIONó óˆŠ `° ŠĢą  ąAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record€and€the€law€applicable€to€the€issues€raised,€we€find€thatŠ 8 ˆ Šthe€Petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€in€this€appeal.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€post„convictionŠ $ t Šcourt€is€affirmed.Š  ` ŠĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą____________________________________Š č 8  Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE