ÿWPC ;€¹Ê7û ïØq¯‡á5£§õ‡+ž$±<ûï¸ñŠ¿@ ì›à›owl~ØÈ¢¼†¸CR¶Ïo0¾¥²µÁDÎY±¨·b¹K©ÛÐÐî^ýý¤Œ$NPAë¼3yëŒ@0JŽïe©Ù”U@3"¡zu|FAHY„ÜäŬ—BF¸²¬Ì~”ƒŽWTðÐ11z ‰´Ïi™«_©ÎžD%Á£þÝ»ƒ°¿èrK/mY  Å[›É‰Pû|BÅ¿Ðò|R²í¸y%$˜¯Tvnddûu+½˜™-3Ï`<{ÐC4ƒ|æ+ŹÃâ‹F eãr:ÜN+Ì?.¥,8Û±0ÑH‘•\/w/†‰ÙŸ¦x-ÞÈ:T-#6‹9©ýØ¿È74…y„•‘ Â(Úú¹x†hœw™æ/ØoAÄX{„&õÅqb¸¹´«eÿYQ'°{ñ)A²xšÎDLM?Â=Xó%øÃÞ—rÞ#¬S¸Àê牘P·'4 Ó¦½=-ÕT“÷߯koq¬ö÷Ð׿Ácô»¾Á7eàÖ\|¨‰ƒX<ŸæÞ“Éh#Îmzøß®}·òä+ï+ ÿ`â+q$½>9›¦ÌÁ|b %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ Ð Æ™ Æ_ Æ%ÆëëN±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ë½½½½ B¨¨ 0¤Å D5i D-ž 0KËË ASÆi 0¤/ 0DÓ A«»Lz—/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ~‰/ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2GÁ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÏÙ»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó<ò»»Ô d(|38Â$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÏÙ»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|38Â$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÏÙ»»dXXdé8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÏÙ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€…OXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î+.î»»ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†»ÏÙ»îî+.á#ԈРÓ# Ðà@ìàAugust€5,€2003€SessionˆÐ öF ÐÌà@i i ìàò òJASON€M.€Ô_ÔWEISKOPFÔ_Ôòò€óó€v.€€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóó óˆÐ  f ÐÌÔ€X…OX»»ÏÙÔà@, , ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyˆÐ 7 ‡ Ðà@**ìàNo.€P€25719€€€€€€J.€C.€Ô_ÔMcLinÔ_Ô,€JudgeˆÐ ! q ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Þ` A߈Ð ß/  ÐÌà@6 6 ìàNo.€W2002„01675„CCA„R3„PC€€„€Filed€December€22,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ԈРØ(  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<«` AßÐ ¬ü  Ðó óÌPetitioner,€Jason€M.€Ô_ÔWeiskopfÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder€and€was€sentencedÐ ¤ô  Ðto€life€imprisonment.€€This€Court€affirmed€Petitionerððs€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Jason€M.€Ô_ÔWeiskopfÔ_Ôóó,€No.Ð Ý ÐW2000„02308„CCA„RM„CD,€2000€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€787€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,Ð vÆ ÐOctober€11,€2000).€€Petitioner€timely€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Following€anÐ _¯ Ðevidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€post„conviction€relief.€€In€this€appeal,€Petitioner€raises€oneÐ H˜ Ðissue€for€our€review:€whether€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€present€evidence€ofÐ 1 ÐPetitionerððs€diminished€capacity.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÐ j Ðthe€post„conviction€court.€€Ð S ÐÌà@44ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Post„Conviction€Court€Affirmedó óˆÐ Õ% ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Woodall,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogleóó€andÐ ¨ø ÐòòRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ‘á ÐÌRobert€C.€Brooks,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jason€M.€Ô_ÔWeiskopfÔ_Ô.Ð c³ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€P.€Robin€Dixon,€Jr.,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 5!…  ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€John€Campbell,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;Ð "n! Ðand€Raymond€Ô_ÔLeponeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€€for€the€appellant,€the€State€ofÐ #W" ÐTennessee.Ð ð#@# ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ Â%!% ÐÌò òProof€at€Trialó óÐ •'å"' ÐÌà  àThe€proof€was€summarized€by€this€Court€on€direct€appeal€as€follows:Ð h)¸$) ÐÌÓ ÐÓÓ ÐÓThe€stateððs€proof€revealed€that€the€defendant€and€the€victim€were€both€employedÐ :+Š&+ Ðat€the€Ô_ÔRidgewayÔ_Ô€McDonaldððs€in€Memphis.€€On€September€13,€1994,€a€day€priorÐ #,s', Ðto€the€homicide,€the€defendant€and€the€victim€had€a€verbal€altercation€in€theÐ  -\(- Ðcooking€area.€€That€night€the€defendant€told€a€fellow€employee,€CorneliusÐ õ-E).ý ÐBuchanan,€that€he€intended€to€shoot€the€victim€the€next€morning€since€he€wasÐ ° Ðtired€of€being€called€ð ðbitches€and€Ô_ÔwhoresÔ_Ôðð€by€the€victim.€€Ð ™é ÐÌThe€next€morning€at€approximately€2:50€a.m.,€Mary€Lee,€the€opening€manager€forÐ k» ÐMcDonaldððs,€arrived€at€the€Ô_ÔRidgewayÔ_Ô€location€to€prepare€for€the€5:00€a.m.Ð T¤ Ðopening.€€Both€the€defendant€and€the€victim€were€scheduled€to€report€at€4:00€a.m.Ð =  ÐÌShortly€before€4:00€a.m.,€Ô_ÔJafusÔ_Ô€Miller,€another€employee,€heard€three€(3)€shotsÐ  _ Ðwhile€he€was€sitting€in€his€vehicle.€€He€assumed,€however,€that€they€wereÐ ø H Ðfirecrackers.€€Lee€also€heard€a€noise€about€that€time,€yet€did€not€realize€it€wasÐ á 1  Ðgunfire.€€Ð Ê   ÐÌWhen€the€employees€did€not€report€to€work€at€4:00€a.m.,€Lee€tried€to€reach€theÐ œì  Ðdefendant€by€phone€and€was€told€he€had€already€left€for€work.€€At€approximatelyÐ …Õ  Ð4:15€a.m.,€the€defendant€called€her€and€actually€arrived€at€work€at€4:22€a.m.Ð n¾  ÐÌShortly€thereafter,€Miller€discovered€the€victimððs€body€in€the€McDonaldððs€parkingÐ @ Ðlot.€€The€victim€had€been€shot€once€in€the€back€and€twice€in€the€face.€€The€autopsyÐ )y Ðreport€revealed€that€the€victim€died€as€a€result€of€these€gunshot€wounds.€€Ð b ÐÌOn€the€date€of€the€shooting€the€defendant€told€Buchanan,€ð ðI€told€you€I€was€gonnaÐ ä4 Ðkill€Ô_ÔMarqueseÔ_Ô.ðð€€Buchanan€did€not€believe€the€defendant.€€The€following€day€theÐ Í Ðdefendant€again€told€Buchanan€that€he€had€shot€the€victim.€€He€stated€that€he€hadÐ ¶ Ðwalked€up€to€the€victim€in€the€parking€lot,€shook€his€hand€and€apologized€for€theÐ Ÿï Ðprior€altercation.€€When€the€victim€turned€his€back,€the€defendant€said,€ð ðYouÐ ˆØ Ðmother€f_€_€_€_€_ðð€and€shot€the€victim€in€the€back.€€Defendant€related€that€theÐ qÁ Ðvictim€pled€for€his€life€just€prior€to€defendantððs€shooting€him€twice€in€the€face.€Ð Zª ÐThe€defendant€stated,€ð ðthe€mother€f_€_€_€_€_s€at€work€will€respect€me€now.ðð€Ð C“ ÐDefendant€further€stated€he€felt€no€guilt€as€a€result€of€the€shooting.€€Ð ,| ÐÌThe€defendant€was€interviewed€by€the€homicide€division€at€approximately€1:00Ð þN Ðp.m.€on€the€date€of€the€homicide.€€He€denied€shooting€the€victim.€€Ð ç 7 ÐÌUpon€gathering€other€information,€the€authorities€arrested€defendant€onÐ ¹" ! ÐSeptember€16,€1994.€€At€the€time€of€his€arrest€he€stated€that€he€knew€who€ð ðhadÐ ¢#ò" ÐÔ_ÔsnitchedÔ_Ô€on€him.ðð€€Upon€being€interrogated,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€shot€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðvictim€because€he€was€ð ðmessing€with€me.€€He€was€going€to€shoot€me€eventually.ðð€Ð t%Ä $ ÐHe€stated€that€he€waited€for€the€victim€to€arrive€at€McDonaldððs€prior€to€theÐ ]&­!% Ðshooting.€€He€further€conceded€that€the€victim€was€not€armed€with€a€weapon€andÐ F'–"& Ðmade€no€mention€that€the€victim€did€anything€to€him€just€prior€to€the€shooting.€Ð /(#' ÐThe€defendant€stated€he€was€simply€afraid€that€the€victim€would€eventually€shootÐ )h$( Ðhim.€€Defendant€also€took€the€authorities€to€a€Ô_ÔdumpsterÔ_Ô€where€he€had€thrown€theÐ *Q%) Ðmurder€weapon.€€The€weapon€was€recovered.Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ ÐThe€defense€proof€consisted€of€another€fellow€employee,€Morris€Robinson,€whoÐ ° Ðtestified€that€both€the€defendant€and€the€victim€had€threatened€each€other€on€priorÐ ™é Ðoccasions.€€He€further€testified€that€the€defendant€had€told€him€prior€to€trial€thatÐ ‚Ò Ðhe€thought€the€victim€was€going€for€a€gun€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.Ð k» ÐÌThe€defendant€elected€not€to€testify,€and€there€was€no€further€defense€proof.Ð =  ÐÓ Ðg ÓÓ ÐY ÓÌòòState€v.€Jason€M.€Ô_ÔWeiskopfÔ_Ôóó,€No.€02C01„9611„CR„00381,€1998€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€153€(Tenn.Ð  _ ÐCrim.€App.€at€Jackson,€February€4,€1998).€€Ð ø H ÐÌò òPost„Conviction€Hearingó óÐ Ê   ÐÌà  àDr.€Wyatt€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€a€clinical€psychologist,€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€heÐ í  Ðfirst€met€Petitioner€in€1988€after€Petitionerððs€mother€sought€treatment€for€Petitioner.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_ÔÐ †Ö  Ðcharacterized€Petitioner€at€that€time€as€defiant€ð ðto€an€extreme.ðð€€In€September€of€1994,€followingÐ o¿  ÐPetitionerððs€arrest€in€this€case,€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€requested€an€evaluation€of€Petitioner€fromÐ X¨  ÐDr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô.€€Petitioner€was€eighteen€years€old€at€that€time.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€met€with€Petitioner€on€sixÐ A‘ Ðdifferent€occasions.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€also€spoke€to€Petitionerððs€parents€and€a€therapist€who€hadÐ *z Ðpreviously€treated€Petitioner.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€administered€a€personality€test€to€Petitioner,€and€the€testÐ c Ðindicated€that€Petitioner€was€ð ðscared,ðð€ð ðdepressed,ðð€and€ð ðparanoid,ðð€but€those€conditions€were€partlyÐ üL Ðattributable€to€Petitioner€having€been€in€jail€for€one€month.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€also€interviewed€PetitionerÐ å5 Ðregarding€the€offense.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€diagnosed€Petitioner€as€having€ð ðmixed€personality€disorder€withÐ Î Ðparanoid€features,€depression,€antisocial€features,€and€.€.€.€identity€confusion.ðð€€Petitioner€told€Dr.Ð · ÐÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€that€he€began€ð ðhearing€voicesðð€following€an€incident€in€school€when€ð ðhe€was€beaten€up€byÐ  ð Ðsome€guys.ðð€€Petitioner€ð ðheard€voicesðð€telling€him€that€the€victim€in€this€case€was€going€to€hurt€him.€Ð ‰Ù ÐDr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€distinguished€Petitioner€from€diagnosed€schizophrenics€or€manic€depressive€individualsÐ r Ðwho€ð ðtruly€hear€voices.ðð€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€speculated€that€the€voices€that€Petitioner€heard€were€hisÐ [« Ðthoughts€for€which€he€denied€ownership.€€Ð D” ÐÌà  àDr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€testified€that€Petitioner€was€not€psychotic€at€the€time€of€this€offense,€but€Dr.Ð f ÐÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€observed€that€Petitioner€ð ðmay€become€psychoticðð€in€the€future.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€testified€thatÐ ÿO Ðon€the€morning€of€the€offense,€Petitioner€ð ðknew€what€he€was€doing,€in€the€sense€that€his€stressorsÐ è 8 Ðor€his€psychological€condition€wasnððt€such€that€he€was€psychotic€and€out€of€touch€with€reality.ðð€€Dr.Ð Ñ!!  ÐÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€testified,€however,€that€Petitionerððs€ð ðjudgment€was€impaired€compared€to€somebody€elseÐ º" ! Ðin€a€similar€situation.€.€.because€of€his€tendency€toward€paranoia,€suspiciousness,€[and]€strongÐ £#ó" Ðfeelings€of€inadequacy.ðð€€Petitionerððs€psychological€condition€would€cause€him€to€ð ðtake€a€situationÐ Œ$Ü# Ðand€misinterpret€it€as€being€more€threatening€to€him€than€a€typical€situation,ðð€and€Petitioner€wouldÐ u%Å $ Ðperceive€himself€as€the€victim.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€did€not€believe,€however,€that€Petitioner€was€ð ðacting€inÐ ^&®!% Ða€state€of€fearðð€on€the€day€of€the€offense.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€testified€that€Petitionerððs€judgment€was€toÐ G'—"& Ðsome€degree€impaired€by€his€personality€disorder.€€Ð 0(€#' ÐÌà  àIn€a€letter€written€to€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel,€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€stated,Ð *R%) Ðâ âÐ ë*;&* ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ ÐÓÓ ÐÓ[Petitionerððs]€responses€to€the€MMPI„2€suggest€that€[he]€has€a€chronic€history€ofÐ ° Ðâ âpsychiatric€difficulties.€€He€is€an€immature,€self€indulgent€adolescent€who€has€aÐ ™é Ðvery€poor€self„esteem€and€who€is€hypersensitive€to€the€point€of€being€suspiciousÐ ‚Ò Ðor€paranoid€about€the€actions€of€others.€€Due€to€his€present€situation,€he€isÐ k» Ðobviously€depressed€and€experiencing€a€high€degree€of€distress.€€This€is€in€partÐ T¤ Ðdue€to€his€lack€of€coping€skills.€€At€this€point€his€level€of€distress€is€such€that€heÐ =  Ðmay€have€difficulty€differentiating€his€thoughts€or€experiences€from€reality.€€HisÐ & v Ðparanoia€may€make€it€difficult€for€[him]€to€interpret€others[ðð]€actions€and€thus,€heÐ  _ Ðmight€overreact€out€of€feelings€of€fear€in€a€situation€when€a€threat€does€notÐ ø H Ðactually€exist.€.€.€.€€The€degree€of€his€distortions€and€confused€thinking€may€atÐ á 1  Ðtimes€be€at€the€point€of€being€psychotic.€.€.€.€€I€do€believe€that€his€emotionalÐ Ê   Ðcondition,€including€his€level€of€psychological€functioning€did€impair€[his]Ð ³  Ðjudgment€and€ability€to€function€at€the€time€of€the€offense.Ð œì  ÐÓ Ðj/ÓÓ Ð\/ÓÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àDr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€met€with€trial€counsel€prior€to€trial,€and€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€told€trialÐ n¾  Ðcounsel€that€in€the€course€of€his€evaluation€of€Petitioner,€he€became€aware€of€some€facts€that€mightÐ W§  Ðhurt€his€defense€if€revealed€during€cross„examination.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€testified€that€Petitioner€had€toldÐ @ Ða€friend€on€the€day€before€the€offense€that€he€planned€to€shoot€the€victim.€€Petitioner€also€attemptedÐ )y Ðto€conceal€the€weapon€after€the€shooting,€and€he€shot€the€victim€three€times€as€the€victim€wasÐ b Ðwalking€away€from€him.€€There€were€also€inconsistencies€in€Petitionerððs€statements€to€the€police€andÐ ûK Ðwhat€he€told€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àMr.€John€Ô_ÔPierottiÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€was€the€District€Attorney€General€at€the€time€of€PetitionerððsÐ ¶ Ðtrial.€€He€testified€that€after€meeting€with€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€and€reviewing€the€letter€from€Dr.Ð Ÿï ÐÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€addressing€Petitionerððs€mental€condition,€he€advised€Mr.€Tom€Henderson,€the€prosecutingÐ ˆØ Ðattorney,€that€Petitioner€might€present€a€viable€claim€of€diminished€capacity€and€requested€that€Mr.Ð qÁ ÐHenderson€inform€the€victimððs€family€of€that€possibility.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔPierottiÔ_Ô€also€testified€that€PetitionerððsÐ Zª Ðtrial€counsel€indicated€that€Petitioner€would€accept€a€guilty€plea€offer€of€thirty„five€years.€€Ð C“ ÐÌà  àPetitioner€called€Donna€Ô_ÔLevaughÔ_Ô,€a€juror€at€his€trial,€to€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€Ð e ÐThe€State€immediately€objected€to€her€testimony.€€Petitionerððs€counsel€argued€that€the€purpose€ofÐ þN Ðher€testimony€was€not€to€impeach€the€juryððs€verdict,€but€rather€that€ð ð[trial€counselððs]€failure€to€putÐ ç 7 Ðon€this€proof€[of€diminished€capacity]€might€very€well€have€made€a€difference€in€the€verdictðð€of€theÐ Ð!   Ðjury.€€Counsel€argued€that€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€606(b)€was€therefore€not€applicable.€€TheÐ ¹" ! Ðpost„conviction€court€declined€to€consider€the€jurorððs€testimony,€but€allowed€Petitioner€to€make€aÐ ¢#ò" Ðproffer€of€proof.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔLevaughÔ_Ô€testified€that€she€had€reviewed€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€letter€to€Petitionerððs€trialÐ ‹$Û# Ðcounsel€regarding€Petitionerððs€mental€condition.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔLevaughÔ_Ô€testified€that€had€that€informationÐ t%Ä $ Ðbeen€available€to€her€at€trial,€it€would€have€ð ðswayedðð€her€into€considering€the€possibility€thatÐ ]&­!% ÐPetitionerððs€actions€might€have€been€caused€by€his€mental€condition€and€the€verdict€might€have€beenÐ F'–"& Ðdifferent.€€Ð /(#' Ðà  àWe€note€that€in€order€to€receive€relief€based€on€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€aÐ )h$( Ðdefendant€must€demonstrate€that€there€is€ð ða€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððsÐ *Q%) Ðunprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€v.Ð ê*:&* ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€€However,€neither€the€trialÐ Ó+#'+ Ðcourts€nor€this€Court€require€the€testimony€of€jurors€to€make€that€determination.€€Courts€ð ðfrequentlyÐ ° Ðmake€such€determinations€without€the€benefit€of€juror€testimony€in€the€context€of€claims€ofÐ ™é Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€€òòState€v.€Grover€Donnell€Ô_ÔCowartÔ_Ôóó,€No.€E2002„02232„CCA„R3„PC,Ð ‚Ò Ð2003€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€556€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€June€27,€2003)€òòperm.€to€app.Ð k» Ðdeniedóó€(Tenn.€2003).€€The€post„conviction€court€properly€declined€to€consider€the€profferedÐ T¤ Ðtestimony.€€Ð =  ÐÌà  àMr.€Leslie€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô,€Petitionerððs€counsel€at€trial,€testified€that€he€learned€of€PetitionerððsÐ  _ Ðð ðemotional€problemsðð€from€Petitionerððs€family€members€and€subsequently€requested€a€mentalÐ ø H Ðevaluation€from€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€used€the€information€received€from€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€regardingÐ á 1  ÐPetitionerððs€mental€condition€in€an€attempt€to€negotiate€a€plea€agreement€with€the€State€prior€to€trial.€Ð Ê   ÐMr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€believed€that€a€negotiated€plea€agreement€by€which€Petitioner€would€be€convicted€ofÐ ³  Ðsecond€degree€murder€would€have€benefitted€Petitioner€because€of€the€damaging€evidence€revealedÐ œì  Ðin€the€investigation€of€the€offense,€including€evidence€that€Petitioner€said€that€he€was€going€to€killÐ …Õ  Ðthe€victim€and€boasted€about€the€killing€afterwards.€€Other€harmful€evidence€included€PetitionerððsÐ n¾  Ðconfession€to€the€police€that€he€waited€for€the€victim€to€arrive€and€shot€him€in€the€back.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_ÔÐ W§  Ðtestified€that€he€met€with€Petitioner€approximately€twelve€to€eighteen€times€outside€of€court€priorÐ @ Ðto€trial,€and€Petitioner€gave€inconsistent€versions€of€the€facts.€€Also,€the€version€of€eventsÐ )y Ðsurrounding€the€shooting€that€Petitioner€told€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€was€different€from€what€he€told€Mr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô.€Ð b ÐThose€inconsistencies€concerned€Mr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€and€affected€his€decision€not€to€call€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€as€aÐ ûK Ðwitness€for€the€defense.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€also€testified€that€he€decided€not€to€call€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€as€a€witnessÐ ä4 Ðout€of€concern€that€facts€regarding€Petitionerððs€prior€history€of€gang€involvement,€anti„socialÐ Í Ðbehavior,€and€prior€incidents€involving€weapons€would€be€revealed€during€cross„examination.€€Mr.Ð ¶ ÐÔ_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€believed€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôðð€testimony€would€be€more€harmful€than€helpful€to€Petitionerððs€case.€€Mr.Ð Ÿï ÐÔ_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€also€advised€Petitioner€not€to€testify€at€trial.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€Mr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€filed€a€ð ðNotice€Pursuant€to€Rule€12.29€(a)€and€(b),ðð€which€stated,Ð Zª Ðð ðDefendant€in€this€cause€intends€to€rely€upon€expert€testimony€pertaining€to€his€òòmens€Ô_ÔreaÔ_Ôóó€of€theÐ C“ Ðoffense€charged.ðð€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€12.2(b)€provides:Ð ,| ÐÌÓ ÐÓÓ ÐÓIf€a€defendant€intends€to€introduce€expert€testimony€relating€to€a€mental€diseaseÐ þN Ðor€defect€or€any€other€mental€condition€of€the€defendant€bearing€upon€the€issueÐ ç 7 Ðof€his€or€her€guilt,€the€defendant€shall,€within€the€time€provided€for€the€filing€ofÐ Ð!   Ðpretrial€motions€or€at€such€later€time€as€the€court€may€direct,€notify€the€districtÐ ¹" ! Ðattorney€in€writing.€.€.€.Ð ¢#ò" ÐÓ Ð¹QÓÓ Ð«QÓÌà  àMr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€testified€that€he€ð ðwanted€to€keep€that€option€openðð€of€calling€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€as€aÐ t%Ä $ Ðwitness.€€Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€Mr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€attempted€to€lessen€the€degree€of€homicide€by€presenting€testimony€thatÐ /(#' Ðthe€victim€had€threatened€Petitioner€and€Petitioner€feared€the€victim.€€Mr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_Ô€argued€that€theÐ )h$( Ðvictimððs€threats€on€the€day€before€the€shooting€constituted€adequate€provocation,€supporting€aÐ *Q%) Ðconviction€for€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ Ðà  àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€trial€counselððs€decision€not€to€offer€proof€ofÐ ° Ðdiminished€capacity€was€a€matter€of€trial€strategy.€€The€court€accredited€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔBallinÔ_ÔÐ ™é Ðthat€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôðð€testimony€at€trial€would€have€been€harmful€to€Petitioner.€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌò òIneffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÐ T¤ ÐÌà  àFor€a€petitioner€to€successfully€overturn€a€conviction€based€on€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ' w Ðcounsel,€the€petitioner€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€was€belowÐ  ` Ðð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2dÐ ù I Ð930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€ð ðactually€had€anÐ â 2  Ðadverse€effect€on€the€defense.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80Ð Ë   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 í  ÐÌÓ ÐÓÓ ÐÓBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€a€failure€to€proveÐ o¿  Ðeither€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€theÐ X¨  Ðineffective€assistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€not€address€the€components€inÐ A‘ Ðany€particular€order€or€even€address€both€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficientÐ *z Ðshowing€of€one€component.€€Ð c ÐÓ Ðã[ÓÓ ÐÕ[ÓÌòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€atÐ å5 Ð2069).€€Ð Î ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€of€hindsight;€the€petitioner€may€not€second-guessÐ  ð Ða€reasonably€based€trial€strategy;€and€the€petitioner€may€not€criticize€a€sound,€but€unsuccessful,Ð ‰Ù Ðtactical€decision€made€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòÔ_ÔAdkinsÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347Ð r Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòseeóó€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Ð [« ÐÌà  àThe€issues€of€deficient€performance€by€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€areÐ -} Ðmixed€questions€of€law€and€fact.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€We€review€theÐ f Ðtrial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€underlying€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€a€òòde€novoóóÐ ÿO Ðstandard€with€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correct€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ è 8 Ðotherwise.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€post„conviction€court'sÐ Ñ!!  Ðconclusions€of€law,€however,€are€reviewed€under€a€òòde€novoóó€standard€with€no€presumption€ofÐ º" ! Ðcorrectness.€òòIdóó.€at€457.€€Ð £#ó" ÐÌò òDiminished€Capacityó óÐ u%Å $ ÐÌà  àPetitioner€argues€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€present€expert€testimony€ofÐ H'˜"& Ðdiminished€capacity.€€Diminished€capacity€ð ðis€a€rule€of€evidence€which€allows€the€introduction€ofÐ 1(#' Ðevidence€to€negate€the€existence€of€specific€intent€when€a€defendant€is€charged€with€a€specific€intentÐ )j$( Ðcrime.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔPhippsÔ_Ôóó,€883€S.W.2d€138,€143€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€While€evidence€of€aÐ *S%) Ðdefendantððs€diminished€capacity€does€not€constitute€a€defense€capable€of€excusing€or€defeating€aÐ ì*<&* Ðcriminal€charge,€such€evidence€is€relevant€to€determining€the€defendantððs€òòmens€Ô_ÔreaÔ_Ôóó.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔGroseÔ_Ôóó,Ð Õ+%'+ Ð982€S.W.2d€349,€353€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔPhippsÔ_Ôóó,€883€S.W.2d€at€148).€€A€defendantÐ ° Ðmust€introduce€evidence,€typically€expert€testimony,€to€establish€that€the€defendant€at€the€time€ofÐ ™é Ðthe€crime€was€not€capable€of€forming€the€requisite€intent€of€the€crime€charged.€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€the€offense,€the€premeditated€first€degree€murder€statute€required€that€the€StateÐ T¤ Ðprove€that€the€killing€was€ð ðintentional,€premeditated€and€deliberate.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð =  Ð202(a)(1)€(1991).€€A€person€acts€intentionally€when€ð ðthe€personððs€conscious€objective€or€desire€[is]Ð & v Ðto€engage€in€the€conduct€or€cause€the€result.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(a).€€A€premeditated€actÐ  _ Ðis€one€ð ðdone€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€and€judgment.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d)òòóó.€Ð ø H ÐPremeditation€necessitates€ð ða€previously€formed€design€or€intent€to€kill,ðð€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844€S.W.2dÐ á 1  Ð144,€147€(Tenn.€1992)€(citations€omitted),€and€ð ðan€act€done€after€the€exercise€of€reflection€andÐ Ê   Ðjudgment€.€.€.€[meaning]€that€the€intent€to€kill€must€have€been€formed€prior€to€the€act€itself.ðð€€Tenn.Ð ³  ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(d).€€It€also€requires€that€the€accused€be€ð ðsufficiently€free€from€excitementÐ œì  Ðand€passion€as€to€be€capable€of€premeditation.ðð€òòIdóó.€€Deliberation€required€a€finding€that€theÐ …Õ  Ðdefendant€acted€with€a€ð ðcool€purposeðð€and€not€from€ð ðpassion€or€provocation.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ n¾  Ð39„13„201(b)(1)€(1991).€€Ð W§  ÐÌà  àThe€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation€are€questions€of€fact€to€be€determined€by€theÐ )y Ðjury.€€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651,€660€(Tenn.€1997).€€Although€the€jury€may€not€engage€inÐ b Ðspeculation,€it€may€infer€premeditation€from€the€manner€and€circumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòIdóó.€€OurÐ ûK Ðsupreme€court€delineated€several€circumstances€that€may€be€indicative€of€premeditation,€includingÐ ä4 Ðthe€use€of€a€deadly€weapon€upon€an€unarmed€victim,€the€fact€that€the€killing€was€particularly€cruel,Ð Í Ðdeclarations€of€the€intent€to€kill€the€victim€by€the€defendant,€the€making€of€preparations€before€theÐ ¶ Ðkilling€for€the€purpose€of€concealing€the€crime,€and€calmness€immediately€after€the€killing.€€òòSee€idóó.€Ð Ÿï ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€Petitioner€has€not€established€that€the€proof€preponderates€against€the€trialÐ qÁ Ðcourtððs€finding€that€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€exercised€sound€and€reasonably€based€trial€strategy.€Ð Zª ÐThe€proof€supports€the€conclusion€that€trial€counselððs€decision€not€to€call€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€to€testify€wasÐ C“ Ðmade€following€adequate€preparation.€€The€proof€shows€that€counsel€requested€a€psychologicalÐ ,| Ðevaluation€of€Petitioner€from€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€trial€counsel€met€with€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€prior€to€trial,€and€trialÐ e Ðcounsel€carefully€weighed€the€benefits€versus€the€harm€of€presenting€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôðð€testimony€to€theÐ þN Ðjury.€€Moreover,€although€Dr.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€stated€that€Defendantððs€judgment€and€ability€to€function€wasÐ ç 7 Ðimpaired,€he€did€not€conclude€that€Petitioner€was€incapable€of€forming€the€requisite€intent.€€Ð Ð!   ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€we€conclude€that€Petitioner€has€not€established€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðalleged€deficiency.€€There€was€sufficient€proof€at€trial€of€premeditation€and€deliberation.€€One€dayÐ ‹$Û# Ðprior€to€the€killing,€Petitioner€told€a€co„worker€that€he€intended€to€shoot€the€victim.€€There€was€proofÐ t%Ä $ Ðthat€Petitioner€waited€for€the€victim€to€arrive€at€work€before€shooting€him.€€Petitioner€used€a€deadlyÐ ]&­!% Ðweapon€against€an€unarmed€victim.€€Petitioner€also€boasted€about€the€killing€after€the€shooting.€Ð F'–"& ÐPetitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.€€Ð /(#' ÐÌà@GG%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ë*;&* Ðó óà  àPetitioner€has€not€established€that€counselððs€performance€at€trial€was€deficient€or€that€trialÐ ° Ðâ âcounselððs€decision€not€to€present€expert€testimony€of€Petitionerððs€mental€state€prejudiced€Petitioner.€Ð ™é ÐThe€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð =  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE