ÿWPCÊ X•¾TR ýd †$óek´ÛËidßñ·´-÷Üú½®®Ö(ödõ?aÅy/•=ò]ú1£t(p•©–zæw†ÚJBN†£‹$]ù‰,ÄT»Ó8øµãçãt k”î3Å,ûi_Ô·Ì Ç\'Ñ1¬<¶*Q£c¸Q m”Xæ­? ¥4‡»¿ß^fNu“à5‘TÇÃË›È]ð4K²'õëú=‰eÎgà™ˆ ¢÷OjÂ×gáR᪕ò/‹Wkñûñl—½ù3-Bë[·Ð¸]Ö¾o±ÝjJmI°+ñˆ?Óÿé¥C¯Ç“â´‹sVY‚1¤^÷3ðd©òDAJÏQ¤å†nn[í‡`0çº2¼±3´ˆ„ÈØ"re2éýB¼fŒwr‘ŒC”5Êv¥=bC²×\¦Ëoý¢g†Rè=kÃèûá– eòñ•(Wny·²³Åv ëÙ@æAÏu`á« é S ­EÕDÎë™ ùœvG0V·ÊÍp8’½‰S`~žúÃÈý1ðé8fPôFPLøBùBÀ»ÇWáÕI­Šc_6¡ôøñË»º.ùO* )ŒhÇøH´tôÅ©Tˆ‡X[xm F}÷,0¶÷x·çŒÂÀØ\‹b %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ ™ Æ¡ Æg Æ-ÆóóN¹¹¹E»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»b½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½ 0ëÅÅÅÅ B°° 0¤Í D5q D-¦ 0KÓÓ ASÆq 0¤7 0DÛ A«»rz—/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ~‰/ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2Ò$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Óá»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòÄò»»Ô d(|38Ä$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Óá»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|38Ä$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Óá»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Óá»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€™XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î7^î»»ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†»Óá»îî7^á#ԈРÓ# Ðà@ìàAugust€5,€2003€SessionˆÐ öF ÐÌà@ë ë ìàò òTAURYS€K.€WALLSòò€óó€v.€€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóó óˆÐ  f ÐÌÔ€X™X»»ÓáÔà@, , ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyˆÐ 7 ‡ Ðà@  ìàNo.€P„23193€€€€€€Arthur€T.€Bennett,€JudgeˆÐ ! q ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Þ` A߈Ð ß/  ÐÌà@6 6 ìàNo.€W2002„01330„CCA„R3„PC€€„€Filed€December€22,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ԈРØ(  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<«` AßÐ ¬ü  Ðó óÌPetitioner,€Taurys€K.€Walls,€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„Ð ¤ô  Ðconviction€relief.€€Petitioner€argues€that€his€confession€was€coerced€in€violation€of€the€United€StatesÐ Ý Ðand€Tennessee€constitutions.€€Additionally,€Petitioner€argues€that€he€received€ineffective€assistanceÐ vÆ Ðof€counsel€at€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€òòóóaffirm€the€judgmentÐ _¯ Ðof€the€post„conviction€court.€à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà@44ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Post„Conviction€Court€Affirmedó óˆÐ j ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Woodall,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogleóó€andÐ í= ÐòòRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ö& ÐÌMarty€B.€McAfee,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Taurys€K.€Walls.Ð ¨ø ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð zÊ ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€Julie€Mosley;€Assistant€District€Attorney€General.Ð c³ ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ 5!…  Ðà  àÌà  àPetitioner€was€convicted€in€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€of€first€degree€murder€andÐ #X" Ðsentenced€to€life€without€the€possibility€of€parole.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€PetitionerððsÐ ñ#A# Ðconviction.€€òòState€v.€Taurys€K.€Wallsóó,€No.€02C01„9601„CR„00019,€1998€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXISÐ Ú$* $ Ð1063,€1998€WL€713294€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€October€14,€1998),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóóÐ Ã%!% Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€Ð ¬&ü!& ÐÌà  àPetitioner€timely€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€appointedÐ ~(Î#( Ðcounsel€to€represent€Petitioner,€and€an€amended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed.€€AÐ g)·$) Ðsecond€amended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed.€€An€evidentiary€hearing€was€conducted.Ð P* %* ÐÌà  àPetitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€at€the€hearing.€€Gerald€Skahan€testified€that€he€representedÐ ",r', ÐPetitioner€at€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€€Mr.€Skahan€testified€that€on€direct€appeal€from€the€trialÐ  -[(- Ðcourtððs€judgment,€Petitioner€challenged€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress€a€statementÐ ô-D).ý  Ðgiven€by€Petitioner€to€the€police€following€his€arrest.€€Mr.€Skahan€testified€that€he€discussed€theÐ ° Ðstatement€with€Petitioner,€and€he€believed€that€Petitioner€was€truthful€regarding€the€circumstancesÐ ™é Ðsurrounding€the€statement.€€Petitioner€contended€that€he€was€never€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€Ð ‚Ò ÐMr.€Skahan€did€not€specifically€challenge€the€admission€of€the€statement€into€evidence€under€theÐ k» ÐSixth€Amendment,€Fourth€Amendment,€or€Rule€5€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€inÐ T¤ Ðeither€the€motion€to€suppress€or€on€direct€appeal€to€this€Court.€€Those€issues€were€discussed€in€theÐ =  Ðdissenting€opinion€however.€€Counselððs€argument€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€on€direct€appealÐ & v Ðcentered€mainly€on€òòMirandaóó€issues€under€the€Fifth€Amendment,€but€he€testified€at€the€post„Ð  _ Ðconviction€hearing€that€he€incorporated€all€of€the€constitutional€issues€surrounding€Petitionerððs€arrestÐ ø H Ðand€subsequent€confession€in€a€ð ðtotality€of€the€circumstancesðð€argument.€€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àRonald€F.€Wilkinson,€formerly€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department,€testified€that€PetitionerÐ ³  Ðwas€arrested€pursuant€to€a€warrant,€and€Mr.€Wilkinson€completed€the€arresting€papers.€€WilkinsonÐ œì  Ðtestified€that€he€did€not€know€whether€Petitioner€had€appeared€before€a€magistrate€within€48€hoursÐ …Õ  Ðof€his€arrest.€€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àSamuel€Williams€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department€acted€as€the€case€coordinator€in€theÐ @ Ðhomicide€investigation€involving€Petitioner.€€He€testified€that€Petitioner€was€arrested€on€June€16,Ð )y Ð1993.€€Williams€took€a€statement€from€Petitioner€on€June€19,€1993.€€Williams€did€not€personally€takeÐ b ÐPetitioner€to€appear€before€a€judge€after€his€arrest.€€He€testified,€however,€that€the€duties€of€hisÐ ûK Ðposition€do€not€include€escorting€defendants€to€their€arraignments.€€Williams€testified€that€he€advisedÐ ä4 ÐPetitioner€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€and€Petitioner€indicated€that€he€understood€those€rights.€Ð Í ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€Petitionerððs€confession,€this€Court€noted€the€following€in€the€opinion€in€theÐ Ÿï Ðdirect€appeal:Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ ÐÓÓ ÐÓà Ø àAt€the€hearing€on€Appellantððs€motion€to€suppress€his€statement,€SergeantÐ Zª ÐRonald€Wilkinson€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department€testified€that€Appellant€wasÐ C“ Ðarrested€on€the€afternoon€of€June€16,€1993.€€Sergeant€Wilkinson€further€testifiedÐ ,| Ðthat€he€acted€as€the€arresting€officer€on€that€day€because€Sergeant€SamuelÐ e ÐWilliams,€the€lead€officer€on€the€Ferguson€case,€was€not€on€duty.€€WilkinsonÐ þN Ðstated€that€on€June€16,€he€did€not€attempt€to€question€Appellant€respecting€theÐ ç 7 Ðincident.€€Additionally,€Sergeant€Wilkinson€averred€that€if€an€arrestee€requestedÐ Ð!   Ðan€attorney,€this€would€be€noted€in€the€arresteeððs€case€file.€€Finally,€he€stated€thatÐ ¹" ! Ðno€such€notation€existed€in€Appellantððs€file.€€Sergeant€Samuel€Williams€testifiedÐ ¢#ò" Ðthat€on€June€19,€1993,€Williams€had€Appellant€brought€into€his€office.€€WilliamsÐ ‹$Û# Ðsaid€that€he€was€ð ðsureðð€that€he€administered€Appellant€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€beforeÐ t%Ä $ Ðspeaking€with€him.€€Sergeant€Williams€then€engaged€Appellant€in€an€informalÐ ]&­!% Ðdiscussion€concerning€the€events€surrounding€Melvin€Fergusonððs€death.€€Finally,Ð F'–"& Ðwhen€Appellant€ð ðdecided€heððd€tellðð€Sergeant€Williams€what€Williams€ð ðfelt€wasÐ /(#' Ðthe€truth,ðð€Williams€asked€Appellant€if€he€would€be€willing€to€give€a€formalÐ )h$( Ðstatement.€€When€Appellant€affirmed€his€willingness€to€give€a€statement,€WilliamsÐ *Q%) Ðagain€advised€Appellant€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€A€typist€transcribed€SergeantÐ ê*:&* ÐWilliamsðð€questions€and€Appellantððs€responses.€€After€being€read€his€rights,Ð Ó+#'+ ÐAppellant€acknowledged€that€he€understood€those€rights.€€When€SergeantÐ ° ÐWilliams€had€completed€Appellantððs€interrogation,€he€asked€Appellant€to€readÐ ™é Ðover€the€statement€to€ensure€its€correctness,€to€initial€every€page,€and€to€sign€andÐ ‚Ò Ðdate€the€last€page.€€Appellant€incorrectly€dated€his€statement€ð ð6/20/93.ðð€€Ð k» ÐÌà Ø àOn€cross„examination,€Sergeant€Williams€acknowledged€that€on€the€dayÐ =  Ðthat€Appellant€was€arrested,€Appellant€informed€a€member€of€the€policeÐ & v Ðdepartment€that€he€did€not€wish€to€give€a€statement€and€that€he€knew€nothingÐ  _ Ðabout€Mr.€Fergusonððs€death.€€Sergeant€Williams€also€stated€that€he€did€not€knowÐ ø H Ðwhether€or€not€Appellant€had€requested€an€attorney;€however,€he€also€explainedÐ á 1  Ðthat€if€an€arrestee€made€such€a€request,€this€would€be€noted€in€that€personððs€caseÐ Ê   Ðfile€and€that€police€would€cease€all€questioning.€€Ð ³  ÐÌà Ø à.€.€.€.€Ð …Õ  ÐÌà Ø àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Appellant€testified€that€he€informed€police€ofÐ W§  Ðhis€whereabouts€so€that€he€could€be€picked€up€because€an€officer€had€telephonedÐ @ Ðhis€grandmother€and€stated€that€the€police€wanted€to€interrogate€AppellantÐ )y Ðregarding€a€hit„and„run€incident.€€According€to€Appellantððs€testimony,€officersÐ b Ðtransported€him€to€the€homicide€office€and€then€held€him€in€an€interview€room€forÐ ûK Ðtwo€to€three€hours.€€At€some€point,€an€officer€asked€Appellant€whether€he€wishedÐ ä4 Ðto€give€a€statement€and€Appellant€replied€that€he€would€not€do€so€until€he€hadÐ Í Ðspoken€with€a€lawyer.€€Ð ¶ ÐÌà Ø àAppellant€further€testified€that€he€was€again€brought€to€the€homicide€officeÐ ˆØ Ðthree€days€later€and€that€he€once€more€refused€to€give€a€statement€without€anÐ qÁ Ðattorney.€€Despite€this€refusal,€when€another€officer€inquired€whether€AppellantÐ Zª Ðwished€to€give€a€statement,€he€agreed€to€do€so.€€According€to€Appellant,€after€heÐ C“ Ðgave€his€statement,€he€was€shackled€to€a€bench€for€approximately€twenty€minutes.€Ð ,| ÐAn€officer€brought€Appellant€a€statement€and€directed€him€to€initial€each€page€andÐ e Ðto€sign€the€last€page.€€Appellant€alleged€that€the€statement€contained€numerousÐ þN Ðinaccuracies€but€acknowledged€that€the€signature€on€the€statement€was€his€own.€Ð ç 7 ÐFinally,€Appellant€denied€that€he€was€ever€advised€of€his€constitutional€rightsÐ Ð!   Ðbefore€giving€his€statement.€€Ð ¹" ! ÐÓ ÐqÓÓ ÐcÓÌòòIdóó.€€Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌà  àIn€this€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€post„conviction€petition,€Petitioner€arguesÐ ]&­!% Ðthat€his€rights€under€the€Fifth,€Sixth,€and€Fourth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÐ F'–"& ÐRule€5€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€were€violated.€€He€also€argues€that€his€counselÐ /(#' Ðwas€ineffective€for€failing€to€raise€certain€issues€at€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€€Ð )h$( ÐÌò òIneffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÐ ê*:&* ÐÐ Ô+$'+ Ðà  àFor€a€petitioner€to€successfully€overturn€a€conviction€based€on€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ° Ðcounsel,€the€petitioner€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€was€belowÐ ™é Ðð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2dÐ ‚Ò Ð930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€ð ðactually€had€anÐ k» Ðadverse€effect€on€the€defense.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80Ð T¤ ÐL.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€€Should€the€petitioner€fail€to€establish€either€factor,€the€petitioner€is€notÐ =  Ðentitled€to€relief.€€Our€supreme€court€described€the€standard€of€review€as€follows:Ð & v ÐÌà8  àBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€a€failure€to€prove€eitherÐ ø H Ðdeficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffectiveÐ á 1  Ðassistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€not€address€the€components€in€any€particularÐ Ê   Ðorder€or€even€address€both€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€of€oneÐ ³  Ðcomponent.€€Ðœì Ð Ð  ÐÌòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€atÐ n¾  Ð2069).€€Ð W§  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€factual€allegations€that€would€entitle€petitionerÐ )y Ðto€relief€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-110(f)€(2003).€€We€review€theÐ b Ðpost„conviction€court's€factual€findings€underlying€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€underÐ ûK Ða€òòde€novoóó€standard€with€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correct€unless€the€preponderance€ofÐ ä4 Ðthe€evidence€establishes€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€However,€theÐ Í Ðpost„conviction€court's€conclusions€of€law€are€reviewed€under€a€òòde€novoóó€standard€with€noÐ ¶ Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€457€(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€of€hindsight;€the€petitioner€may€not€second-guessÐ qÁ Ða€reasonably€based€trial€strategy;€and€the€petitioner€may€not€criticize€a€sound,€but€unsuccessful,Ð Zª Ðtactical€decision€made€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347Ð C“ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòseeóó€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Ð ,| ÐÌà  àIt€is€counselððs€responsibility€to€determine€the€issues€to€present€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Matsonóó,Ð þN Ð729€S.W.2d€281,€282€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986)€(citing€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€491€(Tenn.Ð ç 7 ÐCrim.€App.€1984)).€€This€responsibility€addresses€itself€to€the€professional€judgment€and€soundÐ Ð!   Ðdiscretion€of€appellate€counsel.€€òòPorterfield€v.€Stateóó,€897€S.W.2d€672,€678€(Tenn.€1995).€€There€isÐ ¹" ! Ðno€constitutional€requirement€that€every€conceivable€issue€be€raised€on€appeal.€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,Ð ¢#ò" Ð904€S.W.2d€594,€596„97€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€determination€of€which€issues€to€raise€is€a€tactical€orÐ ‹$Û# Ðstrategic€choice.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌÌÌÌò òFifth€Amendmentó óÐ *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ë*;&* Ðà  àPetitioner€argues€that€his€statement€should€have€been€suppressed€because€it€was€taken€inÐ ° Ðâ âviolation€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384Ð ™é ÐU.S.€436,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694€(1966).€€The€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€isÐ ‚Ò Ðtriggered€whenever€a€suspect€requests€that€counsel€be€present€during€custodial€interrogation.€€òòSeeóóÐ k» ÐòòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694€(1966);€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878Ð T¤ ÐS.W.2d€530,€544„45€(Tenn.€1994).€€When€a€defendant€clearly€requests€an€attorney€during€custodialÐ =  Ðinterrogation,€all€questioning€must€cease€until€an€attorney€is€present,€unless€the€defendantÐ & v Ðsubsequently€initiates€further€conversation€with€the€authorities.€€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,Ð  _ Ð484„85,€101€S.€Ct.€1880,€1884„85,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€378€(1981).€€Ð ø H ÐÌà  àThe€State€correctly€observes€that€this€issue€has€been€ð ðpreviously€determinedðð€by€this€CourtÐ Ê   Ðon€direct€appeal,€and€therefore,€is€not€a€proper€claim€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Tennessee€CodeÐ ³  ÐAnnotated€section€40„30„106€provides€that€a€post„conviction€court€shall€dismiss€any€portion€of€aÐ œì  Ðpost„conviction€petition€that€claims€relief€for€issues€that€have€been€waived€or€previously€determined.€Ð …Õ  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„106(f)€(2003).€€That€section€defines€ð ðpreviously€determinedðð€as€follows:Ð n¾  ÐÌÓ ÐÓÓ ÐÓA€ground€for€relief€is€previously€determined€if€a€court€of€competent€jurisdictionÐ @ Ðhas€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing.€€A€full€and€fair€hearing€hasÐ )y Ðoccurred€where€the€petitioner€is€afforded€the€opportunity€to€call€witnesses€andÐ b Ðotherwise€present€evidence,€regardless€of€whether€the€petitioner€actuallyÐ ûK Ðintroduced€any€evidence.€€Ð ä4 ÐÓ ÐFBÓÓ Ð8BÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„106(h)€(2003).€€Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àFollowing€a€suppression€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€Petitionerððs€statement€wasÐ ˆØ Ðvoluntarily€given.€€The€trial€court€found€that€ð ðððno€coercion,€no€violence,€and€no€threats€were€givenÐ qÁ Ðor€made€to€the€defendant.ðððð€€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€concluded€that€the€evidence€did€notÐ Zª Ðpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings€and€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€ruling.€€Citing€òòState€v.Ð C“ ÐElrodóó,€721€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986),€this€Court€held€that€ð ð[a]lthough€AppellantÐ ,| Ðsigned€no€explicit€written€waiver,€a€waiver€properly€may€be€inferred€from€the€fact€that€AppellantÐ e Ðacknowledged€understanding€his€rights€and€then€gave€a€statement€which€he€both€initialed€andÐ þN Ðsigned.ðð€€Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àPetitioner€concedes€that€counsel€argued€the€issue€at€trial€and€on€appeal,€but€argues€that€theÐ ¹" ! Ðissue€ð ðshould€be€revisited€because€it€was€not€litigated€fully€as€a€result€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ¢#ò" Ðcounsel.ðð€€In€the€order€denying€post„conviction€relief,€the€trial€court€found€that€Petitioner€had€failedÐ ‹$Û# Ðto€present€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€to€support€his€claim€that€counsel€was€ineffective€forÐ t%Ä $ Ðfailing€to€present€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€to€corroborate€the€claim€that€his€confessionÐ ]&­!% Ðwas€coerced€in€violation€of€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€We€agree.€€ð ðWhen€a€petitioner€contends€that€trialÐ F'–"& Ðcounsel€failed€to€discover,€interview,€or€present€witnesses€in€support€of€his€defense,€these€witnessesÐ /(#' Ðshould€be€presented€by€the€petitioner€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.ðð€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,Ð )h$( Ð757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.€€Ð *Q%) ÐÌò òSixth€Amendmentó óÐ Ó+#'+ Їà  àPetitioner€argues€that€he€was€denied€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel.€€Additionally,Ð ° ÐPetitioner€argues€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€raise€the€issue€in€the€motion€to€suppressÐ ™é Ðthe€statement,€in€the€motion€for€new€trial,€and€on€direct€appeal.€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àThe€State€argues€that€this€issue€was€also€previously€determined€by€this€Court€on€direct€appealÐ T¤ Ðsince€the€dissenting€opinion€addressed€the€issue,€and€the€majority€declined€to€accept€that€position.€Ð =  ÐThe€majority€of€this€Court€did€not€address€the€issue€in€the€direct€appeal.€€While€not€previouslyÐ & v Ðdetermined,€the€issue€is€waived€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„106(g)€(2003).€€ð ðA€ground€for€reliefÐ  _ Ðis€waived€if€the€petitioner€personally€or€through€an€attorney€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€inÐ ø H Ðany€proceeding€before€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€beenÐ á 1  Ðpresentedðð€unless€certain€conditions€are€present€which€are€not€applicable€in€this€case.€€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ê   ÐAnn.€ðð€40„30„106(g)€(2003).€€We€will€therefore€address€only€the€issue€of€whether€counsel€wasÐ ³  Ðineffective€for€not€raising€the€Sixth€Amendment€issue€at€trial€and€on€appeal.€€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àThe€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€attaches€when€the€adversarial€judicial€process€begins.€Ð n¾  ÐòòMichigan€v.€Jacksonóó,€475€U.S.€625,€629,€106€S.€Ct.€1404,€1407,€89€L.€Ed.€2d€631€(1986);€òòState€v.Ð W§  ÐStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€547€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€Tennessee,€the€adversarial€judicial€processÐ @ Ðbegins€upon€the€filing€of€the€formal€charge,€such€as€an€arrest€warrant,€indictment,€presentment,€orÐ )y Ðpreliminary€hearing€in€cases€where€a€warrant€was€not€obtained€prior€to€the€arrest.€€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,Ð b Ð593€S.W.2d€280,€286€(Tenn.€1980).€à h àPetitionerððs€right€to€counsel€attached€at€the€time€the€arrestÐ ûK Ðwarrant€was€issued.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIf€a€defendant€requests€counsel€after€his€arrest€pursuant€to€an€arrest€warrant,€police„initiatedÐ ¶ Ðinterrogation€is€forbidden.€€òòMichigan€v.€Jacksonóó,€475€U.S.€at€632.€€Any€subsequent€statement€by€theÐ Ÿï Ðdefendant€as€a€result€of€such€police„initiated€interrogation€must€be€suppressed€regardless€of€whetherÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€executed€a€òòMirandaóó€waiver.€€òòIdóó.€at€636.€€Ð qÁ ÐÌà  àThe€same€test€is€utilized€under€Sixth€Amendment€as€under€the€Fifth€Amendment€right€toÐ C“ Ðcounsel€discussed€above.€€òòIdóó.€€When€a€defendant€clearly€requests€an€attorney€during€custodialÐ ,| Ðinterrogation,€all€questioning€must€cease€until€an€attorney€is€present€unless€the€defendantÐ e Ðsubsequently€initiates€further€conversation€with€the€authorities.€€òòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€atÐ þN Ð484„485,€102€S.€Ct.€at€1884„85.€€Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àIn€this€appeal,€the€State€concedes€that€it€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€a€defendant€hasÐ ¹" ! Ðmade€a€knowing€and€voluntary€waiver€of€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel.€€The€State€argues,Ð ¢#ò" Ðhowever,€that€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€Petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€hisÐ ‹$Û# Ðallegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„110(f)€(2003).€€Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Petitioner€offered€into€evidence€the€transcript€of€theÐ F'–"& Ðtestimony€from€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€his€statement.€€Petitioner€did€not€testify€at€theÐ /(#' Ðpost„conviction€hearing.€€The€officers€who€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€were€notÐ )h$( Ðquestioned€about€and€did€not€testify€as€to€whether€Petitioner€requested€counsel€prior€to€giving€hisÐ *Q%) Ðstatement.€€Although€testimony€regarding€this€issue€was€elicited€at€the€suppression€hearing,€the€trialÐ ê*:&* Ðcourt€did€not€explicitly€make€a€credibility€determination€following€the€suppression€hearing€regardingÐ Ó+#'+ Ðwhether€Petitioner€had€requested€counsel€prior€to€giving€his€statement.€€By€its€ruling,€however,€theÐ ° Ðtrial€court€implicitly€found€the€officers€to€be€credible€and€Petitioner€not€credible.€€The€post„Ð ™é Ðconviction€court€determined€that€Petitioner€ð ðfailed€to€demonstrate€that€had€counsel€properly€raisedÐ ‚Ò Ða€Sixth€Amendment€claim€his€conviction€would€have€been€reversed,ðð€and€therefore,€Petitioner€failedÐ k» Ðto€show€prejudice.€€Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àPetitioner€urges€this€Court€to€adopt€the€view€of€the€dissenting€opinion€in€Petitionerððs€directÐ & v Ðappeal€from€his€conviction.€€In€his€dissenting€opinion,€Judge€Hayes€recognized€that€PetitionerððsÐ  _ ÐSixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€had€attached€at€the€time€Petitioner€gave€his€statement.€€TheÐ ø H Ðdissent€focused€on€testimony€by€Wilkinson€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€did€not€recall€whetherÐ á 1  ÐPetitioner€asked€for€an€attorney€on€the€day€of€his€arrest€and€that€ð ðhe€could€have.ðð€€It€concluded€thatÐ Ê   Ðthe€State€failed€to€establish€that€Petitioner€waived€his€right€to€counsel€prior€to€the€police„initiatedÐ ³  Ðquestioning.€€Ð œì  ÐÌà  àPetitioner€failed€to€present€any€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€had€counsel€raisedÐ n¾  Ðthe€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€issue€at€trial€and€on€appeal,€he€likely€would€have€prevailedÐ W§  Ðon€the€issue.€€Therefore,€we€need€not€address€the€issue€of€whether€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failingÐ @ Ðto€raise€a€Sixth€Amendment€issue€at€trial€or€on€appeal€because€Petitioner€has€not€established€that€theÐ )y Ðevidence€preponderates€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€that€he€was€not€prejudiced.€€Ð b ÐÌò òFourth€Amendment€and€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5(a)€ó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àPetitioner€contends€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€assert€at€trial€or€on€appeal€Ð · Ða€violation€his€Fourth€Amendment€rights.€€Petitioner€also€argues€that€he€was€detained€for€over€forty„Ð  ð Ðeight€hours€before€being€brought€before€a€magistrate€for€a€judicial€determination€of€probable€causeÐ ‰Ù Ðin€violation€of€Rule€5€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€and€the€Fourth€Amendment€toÐ r Ðthe€United€States€Constitution.€€Ð [« ÐÌà  àIn€òòGerstein€v.€Pughóó,€420€U.S.€103,€125,€95€S.€Ct.€854,€868„69,€43€L.€Ed.€2d€54€(1975),€theÐ -} ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€determined€that€the€Fourth€Amendment€required€a€prompt€judicialÐ f Ðdetermination€of€probable€cause€after€a€warrantless€arrest.€€The€Court€later€clarified€the€holding€inÐ ÿO ÐòòGersteinóó€by€stating€that€ð ðjudicial€determinations€of€probable€cause€within€48€hours€of€arrest€will,€asÐ è 8 Ða€general€matter,€comply€with€the€promptness€requirement€of€òòGersteinóó.ðð€€òòCounty€of€Riverside€v.Ð Ñ!!  ÐMcLaughlinóó,€500€U.S.€44,€56,€111€S.€Ct.€1661,€1670,€114€L.€Ed.€2d€49€(1991).€€Ð º" ! ÐÌà  àThe€State€argues€that€Petitionerððs€Fourth€Amendment€rights€were€not€violated€becauseÐ Œ$Ü# ÐPetitioner€was€arrested€pursuant€to€a€warrant,€and€therefore,€a€probable€cause€determination€hadÐ u%Å $ Ðalready€been€made€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€determined€thatÐ ^&®!% Ðthe€issuance€of€a€valid€arrest€warrant€satisfies€the€requirement€that€there€must€be€a€judicialÐ G'—"& Ðdetermination€of€probable€cause€for€extended€detention.€€òòBaker€v.€McCollanóó,€443€U.S.€137,€143,€99Ð 0(€#' ÐS.€Ct.€2689,€2694,€61€L.€Ed.€2d€433,€441€(1979);€òòsee€also€State€v.€Carteróó,€16€S.W.3d€762,€766€(Tenn.Ð )i$( Ð2000).€€Petitioner€does€not€challenge€the€validity€of€the€arrest€warrant.€€Therefore,€Petitioner€was€notÐ *R%) Ðprejudiced€by€counselððs€failure€to€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€suppression€under€the€FourthÐ ë*;&* ÐAmendment.€€Ð Ô+$'+ Їà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€5(a)€provides€that€a€person€arrested€without€a€warrantÐ ° Ðbe€taken€before€a€magistrate€without€unnecessary€delay.€€òòSee€County€of€Riverside€v.€McLaughlinóó,Ð ™é Ð500€U.S.€44,€111€S.€Ct.€1661,€114€L.€Ed.€2d€49€(1991);€òòGerstein€v.€Pughóó,€420€U.S.€103,€95€S.€Ct.Ð ‚Ò Ð854,€43€L.€Ed.€2d€54€(1975).€€The€rule€further€provides€that€ð ð[a]ny€person€arrested€except€upon€aÐ k» Ðcapias€pursuant€to€an€indictment€or€presentment€shall€be€taken€without€unnecessary€delay€before€theÐ T¤ Ðnearest€appropriate€magistrate€of€the€county€òòfrom€which€the€warrant€for€arrest€issuedóó.€.€.€.ðð€€Thus,Ð =  Ðthose€arrested€with€a€warrant€must€also€be€taken€before€a€magistrate€without€unnecessary€delay.€€Ð & v ÐÌà  àA€violation€of€Rule€5(a)€does€not€necessarily€lead€to€the€suppression€of€the€confession.€€òòSeeóóÐ ø H ÐòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€327„28€(Tenn.€1992).€€When€there€is€a€Rule€5(a)€violation,Ð á 1  Ðthe€ð ðunreasonable€delayðð€is€but€one€factor€to€be€taken€into€account€in€evaluating€the€voluntarinessÐ Ê   Ðof€the€confession.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666,€670„71€(Tenn.€1996).€€If€the€totalityÐ ³  Ðof€the€surrounding€circumstances€indicates€that€a€confession€was€voluntarily€given,€it€shall€not€beÐ œì  Ðexcluded€from€evidence€solely€because€of€the€delay€in€carrying€the€defendant€before€a€magistrate.€Ð …Õ  ÐòòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€671;€òòState€v.€Readusóó,€764€S.W.2d€770,€774€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€Ð n¾  ÐIn€determining€voluntariness€the€court€should€consider€the€defendantððs€age,€education€or€intelligenceÐ W§  Ðlevel;€previous€experience€with€the€police;€the€repeated€and€prolonged€nature€of€the€interrogation;Ð @ Ðthe€length€of€detention€prior€to€the€confession;€the€lack€of€any€advice€as€to€constitutional€rights;€theÐ )y Ðunnecessary€delay€in€bringing€the€defendant€before€the€magistrate€prior€to€the€confession;€theÐ b Ðdefendantððs€intoxication€or€ill€health€at€the€time€the€confession€was€given;€deprivation€of€food,€sleepÐ ûK Ðor€medical€attention;€any€physical€abuse;€and€threats€of€abuse.€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€671.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àApplying€those€factors,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€(1)€the€petitioner€was€not€aÐ ¶ Ðminor€and€indicated€that€he€was€able€to€read€and€understand€the€charges€against€him;€(2)€theÐ Ÿï Ðpetitioner€had€previous€experience€with€the€police€in€that€he€had€been€arrested€on€burglary€and€theftÐ ˆØ Ðcharges€only€one€month€prior€to€his€arrest€in€this€case;€(3)€the€questioning€of€the€petitioner€was€notÐ qÁ Ðunreasonably€long;€(4)€the€petitioner€was€held€for€three€days€prior€to€giving€the€incriminatingÐ Zª Ðstatement;€(5)€the€petitioner€was€repeatedly€and€adequately€advised€of€his€rights€prior€to€giving€aÐ C“ Ðformal€statement;€(6)€the€petitioner€was€not€injured,€intoxicated,€drugged€or€in€ill€health€at€the€timeÐ ,| Ðof€the€statement;€(7)€the€petitioner€was€not€deprived€of€food,€sleep,€or€medical€attention€during€hisÐ e Ðdetention;€and€(8)€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€petitioner€was€physically€abused€or€threatened€withÐ þN Ðphysical€abuse.€€The€court€concluded€that€Petitionerððs€ð ðstatements€would€likely€have€been€found€toÐ ç 7 Ðbe€voluntary€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,ðð€and€therefore€Petitioner€was€not€prejudicedÐ Ð!   Ðby€€ð ðany€ineffectiveness€on€the€part€of€trial€counsel€in€failing€to€assert€a€violation€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.Ð ¹" ! ÐP.€5(a).ðð€€Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings.€€Petitioner€has€not€established€that€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðevidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà@GG%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ /(#' ÐÌó óà  àWe€conclude€that€Petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€prejudice€resulting€from€any€of€the€allegedÐ *S%) Ðerrors.€€The€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.€€Ð ì*<&* ÐÐ Õ+%'+ Їà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE