ÿWPC÷ 2# ÌUN× %% 0(+4Sgbv~w@† 0JÆ 0T 0^d 0h 0r* 0|œ 0† 0ž 1u. 0d£ AQ ÆX 0D 0@b 0D¢ D/æ B B2 D3O U>‚ U*À B)ê DC AMV £ v~¦ vÓ$˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡¸LË$ @ d3|x  - ù- Œ  DŽ D D ‘ U’ —e“ {e” U• Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!#-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òJune€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÙ€!ÙÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßR€./-A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌÌ›à àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÓ ` ܆XDp”X Óà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€à ààQ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ` °‡XDp”XÓà àà àà àà àà ààQ àMARCH€1998€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTEPHEN€MICHAEL€WEST,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€œ03C01›„9708„CR„00321€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellant,à à)Ìà àà à)€Union€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Honorable€John€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge,Ìò òà àó óà à)€Sitting€by€Designation€€ò òÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)Ìà àà à)€(Post„Conviction€„€Death€Penalty)Ì€€€€€€€€à àAppellee.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌRoger€W.€œDickson›à àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌLeah€M.€œGerbitz›€à àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌMiller€&€MartinÌ1000€Volunteer€Buildingà àMichael€E.€MooreÌ832€Georgia€Avenueà àSolicitor€GeneralÌChattanooga,€TN€37402Ìà àGlenn€R.€œPruden›ÌJohn€T.€œMilburn›€Rogersà àJohn€P.€œCauley›ÌRogers,€œLaughlin›,€œNunnally›,à àAssistant€Attorneys€GeneralÌHood€&€œCrum›à à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌ100€South€Main€Streetà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌœGreeneville›,€TN€37743à àÌà àWilliam€Paul€PhillipsÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àClifton€H.€SextonÌà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àP.O.€Box€10Ìà àHuntsville,€TN€37756„0010ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÓ ` ¸ pÓò òÔ  ÔÌÌÌà ààQ àÌà ààQ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó ó€ÌÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ7€vnXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ ÑÌÌÓÓà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€first€degree€premeditatedÏmurder,€one€count€of€aggravated€rape,€and€two€counts€of€aggravatedÏœkidnapping›.€He€was€sentenced€to€death.€€His€convictions€and€sentences€wereÏaffirmed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€767€S.W.2d€387Ï(Tenn.€1989).€€These€brutal€murders€were€committed€by€the€petitioner€andÏanother€individual,€Ronnie€Martin,€whose€case€was€severed.€€At€the€petitionerððsÏtrial,€his€defense€was€that€he€was€forced€by€Martin€to€engage€in€the€crimes€andÏcould€not€get€away€from€Martin€although€the€appellant€was€bigger€and€tallerÏthan€Martin€and€was€Martinððs€supervisor€at€a€fast„food€restaurant.€€The€motive€ofÏthe€crimes€was€sex€and€money.€€The€petitioner€gave€varying€accounts€of€whatÏhad€happened€and€blamed€Martin€for€the€crimes.€€The€petitioner€wasÏrepresented€at€trial€by€two€lawyers,€Mr.€McConnell€and€Mr.€McAlexander.ÌÌà àIn€1990,€the€petitioner€filed€a€post„conviction€relief€petition€allegingÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€prosecutorial€Ó` ¸ Ómisconduct€and€trial€court€errors,Ïand€challenging€the€constitutionality€of€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statute.€ÏJudge€John€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge,€held€hearings€in€September€and€OctoberÏ1996€on€the€petition.€€In€April€1997,€the€hearing€court€entered€comprehensiveÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€in€denying€relief€requested€in€the€petition.€ÏFollowing€the€appropriate€appellate€procedures,€petitioner€appealed€to€thisÏCourt.€€We€heard€oral€arguments€on€March€24,€1998.ÌÌà àThe€issues€for€review€can€best€be€summarized€as€follows:ÓÓÓ ` z <ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ ` <¬&Óà àI.€€Should€the€petitionerððs€death€sentenceÌà àbe€vacated€because€he€was€denied€effectiveÌà àassistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€à àhearing?ÌÌà àII.€€Should€the€petitionerððs€case€be€remandedÌà àfor€a€new€sentencing€hearing€because€theÌà àevidence€does€not€support€the€aggravatingÌà àcircumstance€that€the€petitionerððs€actions€wereÌà àcommitted€to€avoid€arrest€or€prosecution?ÌÌà àIII.€€Should€the€petitionerððs€convictions€be€setÌà àaside€because€the€trial€judge€did€not€chargeÌà àapplicable€lesser€offenses?ÌÌà àIV.€€Did€the€post„conviction€relief€trial€court€errÌà àregarding€petitionerððs€motion€for€defense€services?ÌÌÌÌÓ ` ¸ <¬&Óà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€which€denied€relief.ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òTHE€EVIDENTIARY€HEARINGó óÌÌÓ  ÓÓ ` ¸ <Óà àDr.€Eric€Engum,€a€clinical€psychologist,€conducted€a€two„hour€evaluationÏof€the€petitioner€in€December€1995.€€Dr.€Engum€testified€that€his€tests€did€notÏindicate€any€sign€of€brain€damage€or€any€type€of€ð ðcognitive€compromise.ðð€ÏPetitionerððs€intelligence€was€within€normal€limits.€€The€petitioner€suffers€fromÏdepression€and€mixed€personality€disorder,€both€of€which€are€of€a€long„standingÏnature.€€Dr.€Engum€stated€that€the€petitioner€was€ð ðsomewhat€unstable,€moody,Ïand€changeable.ðð€€He€had€a€poor€home€life€and€home€environment.ÌÌà àThe€psychologist€testified€that€the€results€of€the€Minnesota€Multi„PhaseÏPersonality€Inventory€indicated€that€the€petitioner€had€a€lot€of€anger€resultingÏfrom€earlier€childhood€experiences.€€Dr.€Engumððs€opinion€was€that€the€petitionerÏcould€be€submissive€and€was€functioning€at€an€emotional€level€less€than€hisÏchronological€age.€€Dr.€Engum€opined€that€the€test€results€would€haveÏsupported€the€thrust€of€the€defense€of€the€petitioner€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,Íthat€the€codefendant€dominated€and€controlled€the€petitioner€ð ðwho€was€actingÏunder€a€form€of€duress.ðð€€Dr.€Engum€concluded€that€the€petitioner€suffers€from€aÏcondition€characterized€as€extreme€emotional€disturbance.ÌÌà àDr.€Engum€compared€his€findings€to€that€of€Dr.€Bursten,€a€psychiatristÏwho€Ô  ÔÓ ` ¸ Óhad€been€used€during€the€initial€trial€of€the€petitioner.€€Dr.€Engum€describedÏhow€the€petitioner€had€told€Dr.€Bursten€that€during€the€incident€he€could€not€doÏanything€about€the€crimes€perpetrated€upon€the€victims.€€Dr.€Engum€then€statedÏthat€Dr.€Bursten€had€been€employed€during€the€initial€trial€to€conduct€a€sanityÏand€competency€evaluation,€which€was€different€from€the€neurologicalÏassessment€that€he€had€conducted.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Engum€admitted€that€in€the€twenty€cases€inÏwhich€he€had€testified€as€an€expert,€he€had€testified€for€the€defense.€€Dr.€EngumÏstated€that€the€petitioner€had€told€him€that€he€had€no€recollection€of€any€eventsÏin€his€life€before€the€age€of€ten.€€The€doctor€admitted€that€the€petitioner€had€beenÏasked€by€Dr.€Bursten€if€he€had€ever€encountered€any€abuse,€and€the€responseÏhad€been€ð ðNo.ðð€€ÌÌà àDebbie€West,€sister€of€the€petitioner,€testified€that€she€was€the€oldest€ofÏfour€siblings.€€She€stated€that€the€petitionerððs€mother€œhad€had›€an€affair€in€1961Ïand€that€the€petitioner€had€been€born€in€a€mental€institution€in€1962.€€Ms.€WestÍtestified€that€in€1964€the€petitioner€had€ð ðbeen€knocked€cross„eyedðð€by€beingÏthrown€against€the€wall€of€the€family€home.€€She€testified€that€the€petitioner€alsoÏhad€been€slapped€in€the€head€and€hit€with€shoes.€€She€said€that€the€petitionerÏhad€been€abused€throughout€his€childhood.ÌÌà àMs.€West€testified€that€her€father€has€been€an€alcoholic€since€he€was€tenÏyears€old€and€that€he€is€a€violent€man.€€She€stated€that€the€petitioner€wouldÏflinch€when€either€his€mother€or€his€father€came€toward€him.€€She€then€statedÏthat€she€had€not€spoken€with€the€petitioner€in€ten€years.ÌÌà àWhen€questioned€about€her€participation€in€the€sentencing€phase€of€herÏbrotherððs€trial,€Ms.€West€stated€that€she€had€told€Mr.€McConnell,€trial€counsel,Ïabout€the€abuse€suffered€by€the€petitioner.€€Mr.€McConnell€told€her€that€thisÏinformation€was€not€relevant€because€the€petitionerððs€parents€were€paying€hisÏfee.€€Therefore,€they€would€not€admit€to€anything.€€She€stated€that€she€wouldÏhave€testified€concerning€the€abuse€if€she€had€been€asked€about€it€when€sheÏtook€the€witness€stand.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Ms.€West€admitted€that€when€she€was€questionedÏduring€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€as€to€whether€there€was€ever€anyÏproblem€between€the€petitioner€and€the€rest€of€the€family€as€far€as€discipline,Ïshe€had€replied,€ð ðNo.ðð€€She€admitted€that€at€the€sentencing€hearing€she€hadÍtestified€that€the€petitioner€had€lived€with€her€and€that€he€had€never€beenÏinvolved€in€any€trouble€but€that€in€actuality,€the€petitioner€had€experienced€aÏproblem€with€drugs€and€alcohol.€€She€stated€that€she€had€not€informed€the€courtÏof€his€problems€or€information€concerning€abuse€at€the€sentencing€phaseÏbecause€she€was€not€asked€specific€questions.€€Also,€her€mother€was€on€theÏverge€of€a€heart€attack€at€the€initial€trial,€and€she€did€not€think€it€would€benefit€theÏpetitioner€to€tell€things€that€would€harm€her€mother.ÌÌà àThe€next€witness,€Mr.€McAlexander,€co„counsel€in€the€petitionerððs€trial,Ïwas€called,€out€of€order,€to€testify€for€the€state.€€Mr.€McAlexander€testified€that€heÏhad€been€licensed€to€practice€law€in€1986€and€that€he€had€been€contacted€byÏMr.€McConnell,€chief€counsel€in€the€petitionerððs€trial,€to€assist€him€in€the€case.€ÏHe€initially€reviewed€files€and€conducted€investigations.€€He€had€done€aÏtremendous€amount€of€research€in€preparing€motions€filed€by€the€petitioner.€€HeÏhad€met€with€the€petitionerððs€family€on€numerous€occasions€during€theÏpendency€of€the€trial€and€he€had€participated€in€everything€that€occurred€in€theÏcase€after€he€was€appointed€co„counsel.€€He€stated€that€he€had€handled€theÏmotion€for€new€trial,€the€appeal,€and€the€suppression€motion€in€the€case€byÏhimself.€€His€total€time€spent€was€547.4€hours.ÌÌà àMr.€McAlexander€testified€that€he€did€not€remember€Ms.€West,€theÏpetitionerððs€sister,€ever€alleging€that€the€petitioner€had€been€abused€duringÍchildhood.€€He€also€could€not€recall€that€the€petitioner€ever€alleged€any€type€ofÏabuse.€€He€stated€that€he€had€not€received€as€much€cooperation€from€theÏpetitionerððs€family€as€he€would€have€liked.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€McAlexander€testified€that€he€had€noÏexperience€as€a€trial€lawyer€in€defending€capital€cases.€€He€admitted€that€heÏknew€Mr.€McConnell,€like€himself,€had€never€had€any€experience€trying€a€capitalÏcase.€€He€recalled€that€Mr.€McConnell€had€experienced€difficulty€with€his€feeÏbecause€he€had€been€retained€and€that€he€had€made€the€statement€that€Mr.ÏMcAlexander,€a€court„appointed€attorney,€was€getting€paid€more€than€he€wasÏgetting€paid€as€a€retained€lawyer.ÌÌà àMr.€McAlexander€admitted€that€Mr.€McConnell€had€consulted€Dr.€BenÏBursten€regarding€a€sanity€and€competency€evaluation.€€As€a€result€of€theÏevaluation,€the€petitioner€had€attempted€to€introduce€a€duress€defense€throughÏexpert€witness€testimony.€€The€trial€court€rejected€the€request€for€expert€servicesÏbecause€Mr.€McConnell€had€earlier€objected€to€a€court„ordered€evaluation€ofÏthe€petitioner€at€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute.€€Mr.€McAlexanderÏalso€testified€that€a€suppression€hearing€concerning€inconsistent€statements€byÏthe€petitioner€had€been€conducted€and€that€he€had€requested€that€the€hearingsÏbe€transcribed.€€However,€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€the€hearings€had€not€beenÏtranscribed.ÌÌà àOn€redirect€examination,€Mr.€McAlexander€recalled€that€the€issueÏconcerning€hiring€a€defense€expert€on€the€duress€defense€was€raised€onÏappeal,€and€the€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€this€testimony€would€not€beÏadmissible€anyway.€€The€Supreme€Court€also€compared€the€transcript€of€theÏsuppression€hearing€with€that€of€the€trial€transcript€and€concluded€that€thereÏwere€no€overlooked€opportunities€for€impeachment.ÌÌà àMr.€McConnell,€chief€counsel€for€the€petitioner,€was€called€by€theÏpetitioner€to€testify.€€He€had€been€paid€$10,000€by€the€petitionerððs€family€for€hisÏrepresentation.€€In€addition,€several€thousand€dollars€were€paid€by€the€family€toÏinvestigators€and€Dr.€Bursten.€€He€admitted€that€when€he€learned€that€his€Ìco„counsel€was€paid€$20,000,€he€had€not€been€happy.€€He€also€admitted€that€atÏthe€time€of€the€trial,€he€had€never€handled€a€capital€case€involving€the€deathÏpenalty.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€requested€additional€funds€from€the€petitionerÏon€numerous€occasions€but€that€he€had€not€been€paid€these€funds.€€ÌÌà àMr.€McConnell€claimed€that€he€had€made€a€complete€investigation€intoÏthe€petitionerððs€life.€€Records€were€introduced€into€evidence€to€show€that€Mr.ÏMcConnell€had€waited€to€subpoena€the€school€records€of€the€petitioner€until€theÏsecond€day€of€the€trial.€€Counsel€admitted€having€no€recollection€of€obtainingÏany€employment€records,€birth€records,€medical€records,€or€military€records€ofÍthe€petitioner.€€He€further€admitted€that€he€ð ðwouldnððt€have€wasted€any€timeðð€onÏconducting€interviews€of€siblings€for€the€purpose€of€exploring€mitigation€themesÏbecause€the€petitioner€had€never€raised€those€issues.ÌÌà àMr.€McConnell€recalled€that€Dr.€Bursten€had€been€employed€to€conduct€aÏsanity€and€competency€evaluation.€€Mr.€McConnell€admitted€that€he€had€filed€aÏmotion€in€opposition€to€a€court„ordered€competency€evaluation.€€After€the€stateððsÏmotion€was€denied,€Mr.€McAlexander€filed€a€motion€to€obtain€expert€services€forÏa€ð ðduress€defense.ðð€€This€motion€was€denied.ÌÌà àMr.€McConnell€admitted€that€he€had€been€allowed€to€withdraw€from€thisÏcase€while€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€pending.€€His€co„counsel€was€going€toÏhandle€the€appeal,€and€Mr.€McConnellððs€practice€had€suffered€economically€asÏa€result€of€this€case.€€He€further€testified€that€his€theory€at€the€guilt€phase€of€theÏtrial€had€been€that€although€the€petitioner€was€at€the€scene€of€the€murders,€hisÏcodefendant€had€actually€committed€the€murders.€€At€the€penalty€phase,Ïcounsel€had€attempted€to€show€that€the€petitioner€was€a€veteran,€that€it€wouldÏbe€an€extreme€hardship€on€his€wife€and€new€baby€without€him,€and€that€theÏpetitioner€was€a€young€man€with€no€prior€record.€€Mr.€McConnell€stated€that€heÏhad€attempted€to€appeal€to€the€common€sense,€decency,€and€sympathy€of€theÏjury.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€personal€diaries€Mr.€McConnell€kept€during€hisÏrepresentation€of€the€petitioner€were€entered€into€evidence.€€Mr.€McConnellÏrecalled€interviewing€family€members€of€the€petitioner,€especially€theÏpetitionerððs€mother€and€one€of€his€sisters,€Deborah€Adams.€€He€testified€that€atÏno€time€during€his€interviews€with€Ms.€Adams€did€she€make€him€aware€of€anyÏabuse€suffered€by€the€petitioner€in€his€early€years.€€He€testified€that€the€familyÏhad€told€him€that€the€petitioner€had€come€from€a€happy€family.ÌÌà àMr.€McConnell€testified€that€he€had€employed€two€private€investigators€toÏcheck€out€whether€the€petitionerððs€codefendant€had€been€involved€in€a€cult.€ÏOne€of€the€investigators€had€also€attempted€to€measure€the€prejudice€in€theÏcommunity€against€the€two€alleged€perpetrators€of€the€crime.€€ÌÌà àOn€redirect€examination,€Mr.€McConnell€was€questioned€concerning€aÏpress€interview€he€had€given€about€the€case€in€his€initial€representation€duringÏwhich€he€had€mentioned€that€a€satanic€cult€might€be€involved.€€He€respondedÏthat€he€had€intended€to€show€that€it€was€the€petitionerððs€codefendant€who€mightÏhave€had€an€involvement€with€a€cult.ÌÌà àMr.€Jerry€Summers,€a€seasoned€Tennessee€attorney€who€hasÏparticipated€in€many€criminal€trials,€capital€and€œnoncapital›,€testified€that€he€hadÏbeen€asked€by€post„conviction€counsel€to€review€the€record€in€this€case.€€UponÍhis€review,€Mr.€Summersðð€opinion€was€that€counselððs€performance€in€this€caseÏfell€below€the€range€of€competence€required€of€attorneys€in€death€penaltyÏcases.€€Specifically,€he€stated€that€Ms.€Westððs€testimony€that€the€petitioner€wasÏborn€in€a€mental€institution€would€have€been€a€red€flag.€€He€stated€that€he€wouldÏcertainly€have€talked€to€others€besides€family€members€in€determining€aÏdefendantððs€background.€€Family€members€might€not€always€be€truthful€becauseÏof€embarrassment€or€shame.ÌÌà àMr.€Summersðð€opinion€was€that€the€standards€for€defending€a€deathÏpenalty€case€would€require€counsel€to€obtain€a€psychological€evaluation€otherÏthan€a€sanity€and€competency€evaluation,€especially€considering€the€facts€ofÏthis€case.€€He€opined€that€Dr.€Engumððs€report€would€have€been€extremelyÏvaluable€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€because€it€indicated€that€theÏpetitioner€suffered€from€specific€emotional€problems.€€The€report€would€haveÏsupported€certain€mitigating€factors€such€as:€€that€the€murders€were€committedÏwhile€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotionalÏdisturbance,€that€his€participation€in€the€murders€was€relatively€minor,€and€thatÏthe€defendant€acted€under€extreme€duress€and€under€the€substantialÏdomination€of€another.ÌÌà àMr.€Summers€testified€that€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€remember€anythingÏconcerning€events€in€his€life€before€the€age€of€twelve€or€thirteen€should€haveÍbeen€an€indicator€that€he€was€attempting€to€block€out€certain€events€from€thatÏtime€period.€€Mr.€Summers€would€not€have€waived€jury€instructions€on€lesserÏincluded€offenses,€as€counsel€did,€because€jurors€might€want€to€help€someoneÏif€they€think€that€person€was€less€culpable€than€someone€else.€€In€conclusion,ÏMr.€Summers€testified€that€it€was€his€opinion€that€the€attorneysðð€performance€fellÏbelow€the€range€of€competence€required€of€capital€case€attorneys€in€that€theyÏdid€not€conduct€a€proper€investigation,€did€not€conduct€thorough€interviews,€andÏdid€not€get€a€psychological€evaluation.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Summers€admitted€that€a€lawyer€could€make€aÏstrategic€decision€not€to€have€a€psychologist€examine€the€defendant€if€he€hadÏpreviously€been€examined€by€a€psychiatrist.€€However,€he€further€opined€thatÏthe€red€flags€in€this€case€would€have€led€counsel€to€further€investigation€ratherÏthan€accepting€the€petitionerððs€and€the€familyððs€word.ÌÌà àPatricia€Depew,€another€sister€of€the€petitioner,€testified€that€she€hadÏgrown€up€in€the€same€house€with€the€petitioner€as€a€child.€€She€recalledÏphysical€and€verbal€abuse€of€herself€and€the€petitioner.€€She€testified€that€theÏpetitioner€had€reacted€to€the€abuse€by€becoming€passive.€€When€questionedÏabout€whether€she€had€ever€spoken€with€petitionerððs€trial€counsel,€she€statedÏthat€she€had€just€spoken€with€her€mother€about€the€case.€€She€recalled€that€sheÏhad€attended€some€of€the€meetings€between€her€mother€and€counsel€but€thatÍcounsel€had€never€asked€her€any€questions.€€When€asked€why€she€had€not€toldÏthe€attorneys€about€the€abuse,€she€stated€that€nobody€had€asked€and€she€hadÏnot€thought€that€it€was€important.€€On€cross„examination,€Ms.€Depew€stated€thatÏshe€had€been€in€New€Mexico€the€five€years€before€the€petitionerððs€arrest.ÌÌà àRuby€West,€the€petitionerððs€aunt,€testified€that€she€had€lived€upstairs€fromÏthe€petitionerððs€apartment€when€he€was€a€child.€€She€said€that€petitionerððsÏparents€were€abusive.€€The€petitionerððs€mother€would€swear€at€him,€beat€him,Ïand€would€put€him€in€a€cold€room€with€a€mattress€wet€with€urine.€€She€recalledÏone€occasion€when€the€petitionerððs€mother€got€angry€at€him€and€threw€himÏagainst€the€wall€by€his€feet.€€She€recalled€several€incidents€of€abuse.€€She€alsoÏstated€that€the€petitionerððs€father€had€participated€in€some€of€the€abuse.€€SheÏthen€stated€that€she€had€never€been€contacted€by€petitionerððs€counsel€at€theÏtime€of€his€trial.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Ms.€West€testified€that€she€had€been€contacted€byÏher€husband,€brother€of€the€petitionerððs€father,€and€asked€if€she€would€testify€asÏto€the€abuse€the€petitioner€had€experienced€as€a€child.€€She€stated€that€at€thatÏtime€she€was€living€in€Ohio€but€had€since€moved€back€to€Tennessee.€€TheÏpetitionerððs€brother€had€approached€her€and€asked€if€she€would€be€willing€toÏtestify€as€to€the€abuse.€€She€told€him€that€she€would€rather€not€get€involved;€butÍwhen€Patty,€the€petitionerððs€sister,€came€to€see€her,€she€told€her€what€sheÏremembered.ÌÌà àMs.€West€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€reacted€to€the€abuse€byÏbecoming€very€timid€and€frightened€when€he€saw€his€parents€coming.€€SheÏstated€that€he€always€appeared€undernourished.ÌÌà àWhen€she€was€confronted€with€the€statement€that€the€petitioner€hadÏmade€at€trial€that€he€had€a€close€relationship€with€his€family€and€that€they€ð ðallÏstill€œlove[d›]€each€other€a€lot,ðð€she€stated€that€maybe€things€had€changed.€€SheÏstated€that€she€had€been€away€and€that€she€had€only€been€around€the€familyÏclosely€when€the€petitioner€was€small.ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€next€witness€was€Paul€Morrow,€an€attorney€who€hasÏbeen€actively€involved€in€capital€case€litigation€since€1989€when€he€wasÏemployed€with€the€Capital€Case€Resource€Center€of€Tennessee.€€Mr.€MorrowÏtestified€that€there€are€standards€by€which€capital€cases€are€governed€and€thatÏthey€are€contained€in€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€opinions.€€HeÏelaborated€concerning€the€differences€in€capital€case€representation€andÏexplained€that€specialized€training€is€definitely€required€before€accepting€theÏrepresentation€of€defendants€charged€with€capital€offenses.€One€of€the€primaryÏdifferences€in€death€penalty€litigation€is€that€an€individualized€sentencingÍhearing€must€be€held€which€requires€a€second€trial.€€An€attorney€must€present€toÏa€jury€the€background€of€the€defendant,€the€defendantððs€character,€and€anythingÏthat€might€permit€the€jury€to€render€a€sentence€less€than€death.€€Mr.€MorrowÏstated€that€the€investigation€should€entail€searching€and€pulling€birth€records,Ïschool€records,€medical€records,€military€records,€and€institutional€records€andÏthat€from€these€records€the€attorney€should€be€able€to€ð ðferret€outðð€someone€whoÏcould€talk€about€the€development€of€the€defendant.€€Additionally,€he€stated€thatÏextensive€interviews€needed€to€be€conducted,€starting€with€the€defendant.€€HeÏadded€that€if€abuse€is€a€factor,€however,€usually€the€defendant€is€the€worstÏperson€to€talk€to€because€he€or€she€is€usually€embarrassed€or€does€notÏunderstand€its€significance.ÌÌà àWhen€questioned€as€to€the€experience€of€counsel€in€this€particular€case,ÏMr.€Morrow€testified€that€Mr.€McAlexander€was€a€new€lawyer€and€that€Mr.ÏMcConnell€had€come€from€a€state€that€did€not€have€the€death€penalty,€soÏcounsel€should€have€at€least€contacted€other€attorneys€who€had€representedÏpersons€charged€with€capital€offenses.€€They€should€have€consulted€materialsÏthat€were€readily€available,€such€as€the€Capital€Death€Penalty€Manual€createdÏby€the€Tennessee€Association€of€Criminal€Defense€Lawyers.€€Mr.€Morrow€thenÏstated€that€counselððs€investigation€in€this€case€did€not€fall€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€death€penalty€cases.ÌÌà àMr.€Morrow€also€stated€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€not€requesting€aÏpsychological€evaluation,€at€least€for€mitigation€purposes.€€He€emphasized€theÏimportance€of€Dr.€Engumððs€psychological€report€which€would€have€led€him€toÏinvestigate€the€development€of€childhood€abuse.€€He€differed€in€Mr.€SummersððÏconclusion€that€counsel€was€most€deficient€in€the€sentencing€phase€because€itÏwas€his€opinion€that€the€psychological€evaluation€would€have€been€extremelyÏimportant€in€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€as€to€intent€and€diminished€capacity.€€InÏconclusion,€he€testified€that€the€prejudice€that€was€shown€in€this€case€was€thatÏthe€jury€did€not€hear€the€ð ðpsychological€or€lay€witnesses€that€would€have€madeÏsomewhat€comprehensible€his€actions€on€that€day€[day€of€the€murders].ðð€€OnÏcross„examination,€when€questioned€as€to€the€heinous€nature€of€the€crimes€andÏas€to€whether€any€mitigation€would€have€made€a€difference,€Mr.€Morrow€statedÏthat€mitigation€absolutely€demands€an€explanation€because€a€competentÏattorney€must€give€the€jury€at€least€something.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€concluded€his€proof,€and€then€Dr.€Ben€Bursten€testified€forÏthe€state.€€He€was€allowed€to€testify€as€an€expert€witness.€€He€had€examined€theÏpetitioner€and€conducted€a€forensic€evaluation€requested€by€counsel.€€Dr.ÏBursten€stated€that€he€had€determined€that€the€petitioner€was€competent€toÏstand€trial€and€that€he€could€not€support€an€insanity€defense.€€He€testified€thatÏduring€the€evaluation€the€petitioner€had€definitely€stated€that€there€had€been€noÏchildhood€abuse€in€his€family€life.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€not€questioned€theÍimmediate€family€about€abuse€because€they€had€told€him€that€he€was€the€mostÏlovable€of€all€the€children.€€He€stated€that€he€had€evaluated€Dr.€Engumððs€reportÏand€that€he€disagreed€that€the€evaluations€conducted€indicated€any€type€ofÏabuse.€€He€also€testified€that€he€disagreed€with€Dr.€Engum€that€the€effect€of€theÏabusecaused€extreme€emotional€disturbance.€€In€conclusion,€Dr.€Bursten€statedÏthat€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty,€he€would€not€agree€withÏDr.€Engumððs€assessment.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Bursten€testified€that€he€was€being€paid€by€theÏstate€for€his€testimony€as€an€expert€witness.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€had€noÏcontact€with€the€petitioner€since€1986.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€contacted€Mr.ÏMcConnell€to€obtain€his€permission€to€speak€with€the€district€attorney€general.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òI.ó óÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òà àó óThe€petitioner€cites€numerous€cases€for€the€contention€that€one€ofÏcounselððs€primary€duties€is€to€investigate€and€pursue€the€angles€of€defense,Ïwhether€representing€the€client€at€trial,€at€sentencing,€or€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.ÏœMelson›óó,€772€œS.W.2d›€417,€421€(Tenn.€1989);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930Ï(Tenn.€1975);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€527€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€ÏThe€petitioner€asserts€that€this€investigation€is€especially€essential€at€theÍsentencing€phase€of€a€capital€trial.€€òòCooperóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€531.€€However,€theÏpetitioner€also€acknowledges€that€ð ð[a]€fair€assessment€of€attorney€performanceÏrequires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,Ïto€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€toÏevaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€689€(1984).ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€defense€counselððs€failure€to€investigate€theÏpetitionerððs€background€fell€far€outside€the€range€of€competent€assistanceÏbecause€the€only€mitigation€proof€was€the€testimony€of€six€character€witnessesÏthat€the€petitioner€was€a€well„behaved€and€generally€liked€person.€€TheÏpetitioner€contends€that€his€attorneys€were€deficient€in€failing€to€conduct€anyÏinvestigation€into€his€background,€educational€and€emotional€condition,€andÏfamily€relationships€in€order€to€present€mitigation.€€The€petitioner€emphasizesÏthat€counsel€did€not€conduct€a€records€search.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€faults€counsel€for€conducting€interviews€of€only€his€parentsÏand€one€sister.€€None€were€questioned€concerning€possible€abuse.€€TheÏpetitioner€cites€specific€instances€of€abuse€as€reflected€in€the€post„convictionÏhearing€transcript.€€The€petitioner€also€faults€counsel€for€failing€to€have€aÏcomprehensive€psychological€examination.€€He€argues€that€the€choice€not€toÏput€on€evidence€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€hearing€cannot€be€defended€asÍtrial€strategy€because€the€record€indicates€that€counsel€completely€failed€toÏconduct€a€thorough€investigation.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€cites€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€œS.W.2d›€363€(Tenn.€1996)€andÏòòœAdkins›€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€as€two€TennesseeÏcases€which€demanded€œresentencing›€due€to€counselððs€failure€to€conduct€anÏadequate€investigation€into€the€petitionerððs€life.€€The€petitioner€then€recountedÏthe€testimony€of€Mr.€Summers€and€Mr.€Morrow.ÌÌà àThe€state€cites€òòœLockhart›€v.€œFretwell›óó,€506€U.S.€364,€369„70€(1993)€for€theÏfollowing€proposition:ÌÌÓ ` ÓÓÓà à[œA]n›€analysis€focusing€solely€on€mere€outcomeÌà àdetermination,€without€attention€to€whether€theÌà àresult€of€the€proceeding€was€fundamentallyÌà àunfair€or€unreliable,€is€defective.€€To€set€asideÌà àa€conviction€or€sentence€solely€because€theÌà àoutcome€would€have€been€different€but€forÌà àcounselððs€error€may€grant€the€defendant€aÌà àwindfall€to€which€the€law€does€not€entitle€him.ÌÌÌÌÓ ` ¸ <ÓÓÓà àThe€state€argues€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proofÏas€to€counselððs€ineffectiveness€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€state€contendsÏthat€counsel€obtained€the€petitionerððs€military€records€and€made€a€deliberateÏdecision€not€to€introduce€such€evidence€because€it€contained€informationÍshowing€that€the€petitioner€had€a€background€of€drug€and€alcohol€abuse.€€TheÏstate€argues€that€counselððs€failure€to€obtain€school€records€was€not€per€œse›Ïineffective€because€prejudice€was€not€shown€by€the€petitioner.€€The€stateÏargues€that€counselððs€failure€to€obtain€medical€records€was€not€per€œse›Ïineffective€because€the€petitioner€did€not€produce€such€records€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€which€could€have€been€introduced€at€trial.ÌÌà àRegarding€the€lack€of€a€comprehensive€psychological€evaluation,€theÏstate€argues€that€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Bursten€was€of€crucial€importance€in€thisÏcase.€€Dr.€Bursten€disagreed€with€expert€witness€Dr.€Engum€in€that€Dr.€BurstenÏwould€not€agree€that€the€petitioner€was€an€abused€child.€€When€asked€toÏassume€that€the€petitioner€had€been€abused,€Dr.€Bursten€disagreed€with€Dr.ÏEngumððs€conclusion€that€the€abuse€would€cause€extreme€emotionalÏdisturbance.€€The€state€argues€that€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€failing€toÏuncover€nonpsychological€evidence€of€abuse€because€counsel€had€never€beenÏmade€aware€of€such€abuse€during€interviews€with€the€family.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€post„conviction€courtððs€assessment€that€ð ðthere€existedÏconflicting€testimony€regarding€mitigation€evidence€that€trial€counsel€failed€toÏpresent.ðð€€We€also€agree€with€the€court€that€Dr.€Engumððs€testimony€reflected€thatÏthe€petitionerððs€evaluation€showed€no€signs€of€trauma€or€organic€brain€damage.€ÏWe€agree€with€the€post„conviction€court€that€in€light€of€this€conflicting€evidence,Íthe€petitioner€did€not€meet€his€burden€with€respect€to€the€allegation€of€ineffectiveÏcounsel€at€the€sentencing€phase.€€Regarding€all€of€the€ancillary€and€subissues,Ïafter€a€thorough€review,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€hisÏburden€of€proof€as€to€these€allegations.€€We€agree€with€the€post„convictionÏhearing€court€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€he€was€prejudiced€byÏany€acts€or€omissions€of€counsel.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€petitioner€asserts€that€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€trial,€theÏstate€failed€to€ð ðsubmit€even€a€single€piece€of€evidence€from€which€any€rationalÏtrier€of€fact€could€infer€that€the€petitioner€acted€in€order€to€avoid€prosecution.ðð€ÏThe€petitioner€asserts€that€the€post„conviction€trial€court€failed€to€address€thisÏissue€in€its€Memorandum€of€Law.€€Petitioner€argues€that€this€issue€is€not€waivedÏbecause€ð ð[œa]n›€error€which€has€affected€the€substantial€rights€of€an€accused€mayÏbe€noticed€at€any€time,€even€though€not€raised€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€orÏassigned€as€error€on€appeal,€in€the€discretion€of€the€appellate€court€whereÏnecessary€to€do€substantial€justice.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€œCrim›.€P.€52(b).ÌÌà àThe€state€asserts€that€this€claim€has€been€waived€by€the€petitionerððsÏfailure€to€present€it€at€trial€and€during€the€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„30„112(b)€(repealed€1995).€€The€state€argues€that€the€petitionerððs€attempt€toÍintroduce€the€plain€error€doctrine€into€a€post„conviction€proceeding€such€as€thisÏhas€been€specifically€rejected€by€this€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sandy€EugeneÏœWomack›óó,€No.€œ01C01›„9003„CC„00077€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp›.€at€Nashville,€July€26,Ï1990).ÌÌà àThe€state€also€argues€that€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€trial€clearlyÏsupported€this€aggravating€factor€because€it€was€established€that€theÏpetitionerððs€codefendant€was€known€to€one€of€the€victims.€€The€petitioner€and€hisÏcodefendant€were€in€the€victimððs€home€for€a€substantial€period€of€time,€theÏcodefendant€was€wearing€a€restaurant€uniform€that€would€identify€him,€and€aÏconcerted€effort€had€been€made€by€the€petitioner€and€the€codefendant€to€wipeÏfingerprints€from€the€weapons€that€had€been€handled.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€stateððs€position€on€waiver.€€The€claims€advanced€byÏthe€petitioner€could€have€been€raised€on€direct€appeal€but€were€not.€€TheÏpetitioner€has€fostered€no€basis€for€overcoming€the€waiver€provision€found€inÏthe€applicable€post„conviction€statute.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àò òIII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€petitioner€argues€that€because€the€issues€in€this€case€revolvedÏaround€his€level€of€involvement€in€the€murders,€a€second€degree€murder€chargeÍwas€indispensable.€€He€asserts€that€the€trial€court€was€required€by€law€to€instructÏthe€jury€on€the€lesser€included€offenses€of€first€degree€murder,€regardless€ofÏwhether€he€was€requested€to€do€so€or€not.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œRuane›óó,€912€S.W.2dÏ766,€782€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€petitioner€also€asserts€that€trial€counselÏwas€ineffective€for€verbally€waiving€an€instruction€for€second€degree€murder,Ïespecially€since€the€record€did€not€reflect€that€the€petitioner€himself€voluntarilyÏand€knowingly€waived€the€right€to€such€an€instruction.€€The€petitioner€arguesÏthat€this€issue€should€have€been€raised€at€the€motion€for€new€trial€or€on€appeal.€ÏAgain,€the€petitioner€cites€Rule€52(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure€in€support€of€his€nonwaiver€claim.ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€the€decision€to€forgo€instruction€on€lesser€includedÏoffenses€was€a€strategic€decision€of€counsel€and€did€not€constituteÏineffectiveness.€€The€state€cites€the€trial€record€whereby€counsel€informed€theÏcourt€that€it€was€the€defendantððs€position€that€he€did€not€wish€the€court€toÏconsider€any€lesser€included€offenses€in€his€charge.€€At€the€post„convictionÏhearing,€the€petitioner€failed€to€examine€his€attorneys€concerning€their€decisionÏto€forgo€instruction€on€lesser€included€offenses.€€The€state€asserts€that€theÏpetitionerððs€decision€to€relinquish€further€instruction€on€lesser€included€offensesÏwas€made€in€light€of€the€evidence€at€trial€and€the€defense€theory€that€theÏpetitioner€did€not€commit€the€murders.ÌÌà àThe€allegation€regarding€lesser€included€offenses€is€presented€for€theÏfirst€time€at€the€post„conviction€stage.€€A€complaint€about€failure€to€charge€aÏlesser€included€offense€is€not€a€cognizable€claim€on€post„conviction€review.€ÏOnly€constitutional€errors€can€be€grounds€for€relief,€and€normally€the€failure€toÏcharge€a€certain€offense€does€not€violate€the€constitution.€€Moreover,€theÏpetitioner€has€failed€to€rebut€the€presumption€of€waiver,€and€this€issue€is€waived.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112€(repealed€1995).€€Based€upon€this€overallÏrecord€and€the€petitionerððs€theory€of€defense€at€trial,€we€also€are€of€the€opinionÏthat,€substantively,€the€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àò òIV.ÌÌÓ  Óà àó óThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€post„conviction€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€funds€for€investigative€services.€€He€faults€the€post„conviction€court€forÏgranting€a€hearing€on€the€motion€for€expert€services€and€ordering€the€petitionerÏto€provide€the€state€a€copy€of€his€òòex€parteóó€motion.€€In€addition,€the€petitionerÏfaults€the€court€for€allowing€the€state€to€participate€in€the€hearing.€€The€petitionerÏcites€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€924€(Tenn.€1995)€for€the€proposition€thatÏpost„conviction€petitioners€are€entitled€to€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing€on€a€motion€forÏdefense€services€as€long€as€procedural€requirements€are€met.ÌÌà àThe€state€contends€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€theÏinvestigative€services€of€Mr.€Ronald€Lax€and€Ms.€Gloria€Shettles€at€a€cost€not€toÏexceed€$27,500€and€neuropsychological€services€of€Dr.€Eric€Engum€in€anÏamount€not€to€exceed€$5,000.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€trial€court€did,€in€fact,Ïgrant€an€òòex€parteóó€motion€in€part€by€ordering€payment€to€Dr.€Engum€in€theÏamount€of€$1,200.€€When€the€petitionerððs€post„conviction€counsel€filed€a€motionÏto€rehear,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€at€which€time€it€concluded€that€theÏamount€of€$1,200€payment€to€Dr.€Engum€(although€the€amount€was€laterÏincreased)€was€sufficient€and€otherwise€denied€the€petition€to€rehear.€€TheÏpetitioner€then€filed€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€10Ïof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€challenging€the€trial€courtððsÏrefusal€to€grant€funds€for€investigative€services.€€The€state€contends€that€theÏpetitioner€has€waived€any€other€claims€concerning€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing.€€TheÏRule€10€application€was€denied€by€this€Court.ÌÌà àThe€state€cites€òòOwensóó€for€the€proposition€that€its€holding€should€not€beÏinterpreted€as€a€ð ðblank€checkðð€requiring€courts€to€hold€òòex€parteóó€hearings€and€toÏÑ X Ñauthorize€funds€in€every€case.€€The€state€contends€that€the€affidavits€of€Ms.ÏShettles€and€Mr.€Lax€failed€to€demonstrate€that€professional€investigativeÏservices€were€required€in€this€case.ÌÌà àIn€òòOwensóó,€the€Supreme€Court€examined€its€cases€in€the€direct€appealÏcontext€and€found€the€principles€regarding€investigative€funds€to€be€the€same.€ÏThe€Court€found€that€in€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192€(Tenn.€1992),€aÍdefendant€has€to€show€that€a€substantial€need€exists€requiring€the€assistance€ofÏstate„paid€support€services€and€that€a€defendantððs€defense€cannot€be€fullyÏdeveloped€without€such€assistance.€€The€petitionerððs€motion€and€affidavits€failedÏto€explain€why€the€investigative€work€could€not€have€been€done€by€the€attorneysÏand€must€have€been€done€by€the€investigators.€€The€petitioner€has€not€shownÏwhy€these€professional€investigative€services€are€required.€€It€should€be€pointedÏout€that€once€an€individual€has€gone€beyond€the€trial€and€direct€appeal€level€inÏa€case,€the€state€does€not€have€to€write€a€blank€check€for€investigative€services.€ÏJust€because€a€particular€service€might€be€of€some€benefit€does€not€mean€that€itÏis€constitutionally€required.€€We€agree€that€Judge€Byers€was€correct€in€hisÏrefusal€to€grant€the€additional€expert€services€in€this€post„conviction€case.€ÏFurthermore,€we€find€no€prejudice€regarding€the€allegations€of€the€stateððsÏparticipation€in€the€òòex€parteóó€hearing.€€The€petitioner€simply€has€not€carried€hisÏburden€to€show€how€the€post„conviction€hearing€judge€committed€reversibleÏerror.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌÌÓ  Óà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€briefs,€and€arguments,€this€Court€concludesÏthat€the€decision€by€the€post„conviction€judge€denying€post„conviction€reliefÏshould€be,€and€is,€affirmed.€€The€petitionerððs€death€sentence€will€be€carried€outÏunless€stayed€by€competent€authority.€€The€petitionerððs€execution€date€is€set€forÏOctober€1,€1998.ÌÌÓ ` ¸ ÈÓÓÓÌà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€Special€Judge