ÿWPC©? Ž|ÞY5¾`,q3è¥æ9ÆÄäY,¾5[Pp® ¸]ø}«ªj.q-›ÔëÑvˆÌ%¢¹Ì.¬Q6åëÖ§{ñ[¹ý°x¹@gÈj†iÂÒv軓9ØSƒ¦w8ŒÓRü;pr^l˜þ·¥.ag“w÷/Ì^¬H•ÕFDrP ${ RjE¾–ÅdšqÎLŽ-ÒPÝúGE.ŸM¬ß% øˆ  âRgJžEó6íáì!ˆ»=ùŠ&1oh›šs00»%IØÞº$æÕt? †4Hu"žž¬#Lð8]Ç/zÓÉ䞨îcJÄ¢¬3½^4E…P¾å¾.¬]ö«duX1nAÎùXDZñVñ{Äǃò¹â¨IŽ»Îœv-?yë{tYŸ i¼¤ #ktÿ»p'µËF}–+£W:¥lUÛ+Ïæ-è÷—yÔ h.Ìe7kžQ{Ä = ´Ÿ¹8žÎ1Ø[‰•@`‘Ñ@’¥Ù`’,§#$YÓ'0–ê;W;Í5ÆÒýÉ1=¾Ü½ÑÚ@ÅЄ±eÄÑÎ|ýŒúo9î^àÌMÇ×óË9¹È~ÕØ¡,u& ’U8FÊÉÅMµÏ,Úþ0Û§Ê4²ß’¥òóUy×P3õ4q‘†ê4q#É. %÷ ^ ý 0ˆ U%N‘ wß 4ã z÷ Òq C R mT 0Uk ÆÀ ƆÆLÆ 0éØNÁ 0æÃ 0ã©EŒ 0àŽ 0Ýn 0ÚK 0×% 0Ôü 0CÐ 0× 0Ôê 0Ѿ 0Î 0Ë] 0È( 0Åð 0Àµ 0@u 0Ôµ 0щ 0ÎZ 0Ë(! 0Èó! 0Å»" 0€# 0½B$bÿ$ 00% 0<7% 0¾s% 0>1& 0vo& 0`å& 0`E' 0`¥' 0`( 0`e( 08Å( 0Òý( 02Ï) 0ü* 0:ý* 0Y7+ 0_+ 0 ï+ 0jù, 0„c. B*ç/ D/0 0„@0 D/Ä1 0Îó1 06Á2 0÷2 0:ÿ3 0^94 0<—4 1eÓ4U685U>n5U*¬5ÑÖ5 0ë§7’8 1u¨8 729 BO9l9 0¤t9 D3: D-K: 0Kx:U@Ã: AU;ÆX; 0¤< 0DÂ< A«=U N±=æÿ= 0Då>)?(??g?}?}?}?}?}?}?}?}?“?˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0»ö‹;1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularh_B0ê:i¢×+00 ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€D(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡P%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dC)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€F(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡P%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓC)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡N<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Oô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô !"# ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial ÇÝ ƒRhT$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô“|ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ#ccddÔWe€do€note,€as€did€the€post„conviction€court,€that€at€the€time€of€trial€voluntary€intoxication€was,€at€least€arguably,Ð ° ÐÔ#ddccÔnot€considered€a€defense€to€the€crime€of€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Howardóó,€693€S.W.2d€365,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð qÁ Ð1985).(|G2hT$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ˆ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô“|ò»»Ô Ñ 9 Ñ3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ti) d (|3?$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ˆ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman ^_X`Eþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ˆ »»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ÜÝ ƒRhT$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô“|ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEffective€July€1,€1995,€the€statute€was€amended€deleting€ð ðrecklessðð€from€the€definition.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ î Ñ Ñ „ Ñ Ñ „ Ñ Ñ „ ÑÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ˆ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑH°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ˆ »»»ÔÑ8€×uXXdê»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÑ€eïhÑÑ€g¿[ÑÑ€p¿[ÑÑ€S_RÑÑ€h¿[Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îŸVˆ ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ˆ »îîŸVo#ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓJune€8,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡X×uX»¼ˆ ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ˆ »XX×u]#ÔWILLIAM€GLENN€WILEYòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X×uX»¼ˆ Ôó óÐ ð@ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ë ; Ðà@@øøìàNo.€95„C„1918€€€€€€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€JudgeÐ Ö & ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<–` AßÐ —ç  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2003„00661„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€September€23,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<f` AßÐ g·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€post„conviction€court€ordered€a€new€trial€relating€to€the€petitionerððs€felony€murder€convictionÐ `°  Ðfor€which€he€was€sentenced€to€life€without€parole,€but€denied€him€relief€regarding€his€especiallyÐ Jš Ðaggravated€robbery€conviction.€€The€state€appeals,€contending€the€post„conviction€court€erred€inÐ 4„ Ðgranting€relief€based€upon€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser„Ð n Ðincluded€offense€of€felony€murder.€€The€petitioner€cross„appeals,€asserting:€(1)€he€receivedÐ X Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€trial€level;€(2)€he€is€entitled€to€relief€based€upon€the€resultsÐ òB Ðof€DNA€testing;€(3)€€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€charge€intoxication€as€a€defense;€(4)€the€trialÐ Ü, Ðcourt€erred€in€admitting€victim€impact€evidence€and€in€failing€to€properly€instruct€the€jury€duringÐ Æ Ðthe€penalty€phase;€and€(5)€the€trial€court€improperly€instructed€the€jury€regarding€the€prior€violentÐ ° Ðfelony€aggravating€circumstance.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð šê ÐÓþÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ n¾ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ˆ »àX×uÒ#ÔÔ‡X×uX.¼ˆ ÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòAlan€E.€Glenn,Ð C“ ÐJJ.óó,€joined.Ð -} ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€T.€Ryan,€Senior€Counsel;€Victor€S.Ð !Q  ÐJohnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Lisa€A.€Ô_ÔNaylorÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€forÐ ë!;! Ðthe€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Õ"%" ÐÌJodie€A.€Bell,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€William€Glenn€Wiley.Ð ©$ù$ ÐÓ/ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ˆ »XX×u^ #ÔÔ‡X×uX»¼ˆ ÔÐ }&Í!& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ˆ »XX×u #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X×uX»¼ˆ Ôà  àA€jury€convicted€the€petitioner€of€the€felony€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery€ofÐ R(¢#( ÐFrank€Andrews€for€events€occurring€on€June€6,€1995.€€The€petitioner€received€concurrent€sentencesÐ <)Œ$) Ðof€life€without€parole€and€twenty„five€years,€respectively.€€A€panel€of€this€court€upheld€theÐ &*v%* Ðpetitionerððs€convictions€and€sentences€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€William€Glenn€Wileyóó,€No.Ð +`&+ ÐM1999„02487„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€303€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€Apr.€20,€2001),Ð ú+J', Ðòòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2001).Ð ä,4(- ÐÌÐ ¸.*/ýú ÐÑeïhÑâ eâÑîHÑâ eâÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÌÓÌÌÓà  àWe€relate€the€following€facts€as€appearing€in€this€courtððs€opinion€on€direct€appeal:Ð šê ÐÓÌÌÓà8  àà ` àOn€June€6,€1995,€Metro€police€officers,€Lt.€Jim€Stevens€and€Officer€DavidÐ ? ÐCorman,€received€a€call€regarding€a€body€found€in€a€motel€room€at€the€Knights€Inn.Ð )y ÐThe€victim,€who€was€identified€as€Frank€Andrews,€had€moved€to€Nashville€to€pursueÐ  c Ðhis€career€as€a€songwriter€and€at€the€time€was€residing€at€the€Knights€Inn€Motel.Ð ý M ÐUpon€arriving,€the€officers€noticed€that€the€room€was€in€disarray€and€blood€and€glassÐ ç 7 Ðwere€found€on€the€bed.€€In€the€bathroom,€the€officers€discovered€the€body€of€theÐ Ñ ! Ðvictim.€€The€victimððs€legs€and€lower€body€were€situated€partially€in€the€bathtub€whileÐ »   Ðthe€victimððs€head€rested€face„down€in€the€commode.€€Because€both€the€toilet€and€theÐ ¥ õ  Ðvictimððs€head€were€covered€with€blood,€it€appeared€that€the€victim€had€been€struckÐ ß  Ðviolently€on€the€head.€€The€officers€observed€only€blood€in€the€commode,€and€foundÐ yÉ  Ðno€trace€of€vomit.€€The€victimððs€pockets€had€also€been€turned€inside€out.€€OfficersÐ c³  Ðfurther€discovered€a€cut€lamp€cord,€a€phone€cord,€and€a€pocketknife€in€the€bathroom.Ð M  ÐThe€lamp€cord€found€in€the€bathtub€had€been€cut€from€one€of€the€lamps€in€theÐ 7‡  Ðbedroom.€€Although€officers€retrieved€$32.50€of€bloody€money€from€the€bathtub,Ð !q Ðneither€the€victimððs€wallet€nor€money€clip€was€found€at€the€scene.Ð [Ð Ð  ÐÐ Ðà8  à€à ` àThe€[petitioner]€was€employed€as€a€groundskeeper€for€the€motel.€€On€the€dayÐ ß/ Ðof€the€murder,€the€[petitioner]€and€his€girlfriend,€who€also€worked€there€as€a€maid,Ð É Ðdisappeared€without€notice€to€their€employer€and€without€picking€up€their€paychecks.Ð ³ ÐOfficers€were€able€to€remove€fingerprints€from€a€broken€vodka€bottle€and€a€brokenÐ í Ðorange€juice€bottle€found€in€the€room.€€Upon€discovering€that€the€fingerprintsÐ ‡× Ðrecovered€matched€those€of€the€[petitioner],€police€issued€a€warrant€for€his€arrest.Ð qÁ ÐThe€[petitioner]€was€later€located€and€arrested€in€Evansville,€Indiana.Ð[«Ð Ð  ÐÐ Ðà8  à€à ` àDuring€his€arrest,€the€[petitioner]€told€officers€that€he€and€the€victim€had€beenÐ / Ðdrinking€all€day€and€ð ðjust€got€drunk.ðð€€According€to€the€[petitioner],€ð ð[the€victim]Ð i Ðsaid€that€[he€had€given]€me€forty€dollars€to€go€buy€crack€with€and€said€I€didnððt€go€getÐ S Ðthe€crack,€I€just€kept€the€money.€€Which€wasnððt€true.€.€.€Then€one€thing€lead€toÐ í= Ðanother.ðð€€The€[petitioner]€then€hit€the€victim€over€the€head€twice€with€the€vodkaÐ × ' Ðbottle€and€the€victim€fell€onto€the€bed.€€The€[petitioner]€stated€that€he€helped€theÐ Á!  Ðvictim€up€and€took€him€into€the€bathroom€so€he€could€ð ðclean€up€or€whatever.ðð€€TheÐ «"û! Ð[petitioner]€stated€that€he€then€ð ðtook€offðð€and€grabbed€the€victimððs€wallet,€whichÐ •#å" Ðcontained€$240,€on€the€way€out.€€The€[petitioner]€asserts€that€the€victim€was€stillÐ $Ï# Ðalive€and€conversant€when€he€left€the€room€and€that€he€had€no€idea€the€victim€wasÐ i%¹ $ Ðseriously€injured€when€he€left.ÐS&£!%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à€à ` àAlthough€the€victimððs€blood€alcohol€level€was€.34€at€the€time€of€death,€anÐ '(w#' Ðautopsy€revealed€that€the€victim€died€as€a€result€of€blunt€force€trauma€to€the€head€andÐ )a$( Ðnot€from€alcohol€poisoning.€€The€autopsy€also€revealed€defensive€wounds€on€theÐ û)K%) ÐÔ#cdddÔvictimððs€right€hand€and€forearm.€€The€[petitioner]€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€The€defense,Ð å*5&* ÐÔ#ddcdÔhowever,€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Charles€Harlan,€who€testified€that€theÐ Ï+'+ Ðvictimððs€death€resulted€from€acute€ethyl€alcohol€poisoning,€rather€than€from€bluntÐ ¹, (, Ðforce€trauma.òòУ-ó(-Ð Ð  ÐÑg¿[Ñâ gâÑ„îÑâ gâÑ  ÑÌId.óó€at€**€3„5.Ð ˜è ÐÓ  Óò òI.€€POST„CONVICTION€RELIEF€HEARINGó óÐ ‚Ò ÐÓ  ÓÌò òA.€€Trial€Counselððs€Testimonyó óÐ W§ ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€the€primary€defense€to€felony€murder€was€that€the€petitioner€took€theÐ , | Ðvictimððs€wallet€as€an€afterthought€and€that€the€theft€was€not€so€closely€related€to€the€homicide€toÐ  f Ðjustify€the€imposition€of€felony€murder.€€Trial€counsel€also€presented€testimony€that€the€victimððsÐ  P Ðdeath€was€caused€by€alcohol€poisoning€rather€than€the€blows€administered€by€the€petitioner.€TrialÐ ê :  Ðcounsel€recalled€the€state€presented€a€plea€offer€of€life€imprisonment;€however,€the€petitionerÐ Ô $  Ðrejected€the€offer.€€The€case€went€to€trial€in€April€1999.Ð ¾  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€the€discovery€material€received€from€the€state€included€police€reportsÐ ’â  Ðregarding€the€petitionerððs€statement€to€the€officers.€€Trial€counsel€said€he€believed€the€petitionerððsÐ |Ì  Ðstatement€was€helpful€to€the€defense.€€He€noted€the€petitionerððs€fingerprints,€which€were€found€onÐ f¶  Ðthe€broken€vodka€bottle,€supported€the€petitionerððs€statement€to€the€police.Ð P  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€his€investigation€of€the€case€adequately€prepared€him€for€trial.€€HeÐ $t Ðacknowledged€he€did€not€investigate€the€victimððs€criminal€background€and€was€unaware€of€theÐ ^ Ðvictimððs€criminal€record€involving€assaultive€behavior€in€Florida.€€Trial€counsel€stated€he€did€notÐ øH Ðbelieve€the€victimððs€prior€convictions€would€have€been€admissible€at€trial€because€the€petitioner€wasÐ â2 Ðunaware€of€the€victimððs€background€when€the€offenses€occurred.Ð Ì ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€prior€to€trial,€he€interviewed€the€petitioner,€the€petitionerððs€mother,Ð  ð Ðtwo€detectives,€and€Dr.€Harlan.€€Trial€counsel€believed€he€provided€Dr.€Harlan€with€all€necessaryÐ ŠÚ Ðmedical€records.€€Trial€counsel€explained€that€although€the€cab€driver€and€the€motel€owner€couldÐ tÄ Ðhave€been€potential€witnesses,€he€did€not€interview€them€because€he€did€not€believe€their€testimonyÐ ^® Ðwould€be€helpful€to€the€defense.€€Trial€counsel€stated€he€did€not€interview€Michelle€Sheffield,€theÐ H˜ Ðpetitionerððs€girlfriend€at€the€time€of€the€offenses,€because€either€the€petitioner€indicated€he€did€notÐ 2‚ Ðwant€him€to€interview€her,€she€would€be€unable€to€provide€favorable€information,€or€she€could€notÐ  l Ðbe€located.€€Trial€counsel€further€stated€the€prosecution€was€also€attempting€to€locate€Sheffield,€andÐ !V Ðhe€believed€Sheffield€would€have€been€a€more€favorable€witness€for€the€state.Ð ð!@  ÐÌÔ#cdddÔà  àTrial€counsel€identified€a€police€report€regarding€the€cab€driver,€Arthur€Lee€Woods,€indicatingÐ Ä#" ÐÔ#ddcdÔthe€victim€contacted€him€on€June€5,€1995,€ð ðat€approximately€13:00€hoursðð€and€requested€two€beers.€Ð ®$þ# ÐThe€petitioner€informed€trial€counsel€that€in€the€victimððs€intoxicated€condition,€he€may€haveÐ ˜%è $ Ðmistaken€the€petitioner€as€a€cab€driver€who€may€have€owed€the€victim€money.€€Trial€counsel€furtherÐ ‚&Ò!% Ðlearned€that€on€prior€occasions,€a€cab€driver€may€have€brought€either€prostitutes€or€alcohol€to€theÐ l'¼"& Ðvictimððs€motel€room.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that,€nevertheless,€the€evidence€did€not€suggest€thatÐ V(¦#' ÐWoods€was€present€when€the€offenses€occurred,€and€trial€counsel€did€not€believe€the€victimððsÐ @)$( Ðintoxication€was€a€contested€issue.Ð **z%) ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€recalled€Dr.€Harlan€testified€the€victim€died€as€a€result€of€acute€alcoholÐ þ+N'+ Ðpoisoning.€€Furthermore,€the€results€of€the€victimððs€blood€alcohol€tests€which€were€introduced€at€trialÐ è,8(, Ðindicated€the€victim€had€a€blood€alcohol€level€of€.34€percent.€€Trial€counsel€acknowledged€he€didÐ ° Ðnot€introduce€photographs€indicating€the€presence€of€alcohol€inside€the€victimððs€motel€room.Ð šê ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€stated€that€during€voir€dire,€he€did€not€object€to€several€of€the€prosecutorððsÐ n¾ Ðcomments€which€the€petitioner€now€claims€were€improper.€€Trial€counsel€explained€that€he€reservedÐ X¨ Ðhis€objections€for€matters€which€were€ð ðmoderately€significant.ðð€€Trial€counsel€stated€he€believed€theÐ B ’ Ðobjections€would€have€been€prejudicial€to€the€petitioner.Ð , | ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€he€did€not€object€to€the€introduction€of€crime€scene€photographs€of€theÐ  P Ðvictim€during€trial.€€Trial€counsel€discussed€the€introduction€of€the€photographs€with€the€prosecutorÐ ê :  Ðand€opined€that€the€state€would€be€entitled€to€introduce€the€photographs€due€to€its€theory€of€the€case.€Ð Ô $  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€stated€he€did€not€recall€learning€any€information€regarding€a€bloody€towelÐ ¨ø  Ðfound€at€the€crime€scene,€which€allegedly€had€the€petitionerððs€blood€on€it.€€Trial€counsel€also€did€notÐ ’â  Ðrecall€discussing€the€photograph€of€the€bloody€towel€with€the€petitioner.€€Trial€counsel€was€unableÐ |Ì  Ðto€recall€the€petitioner€stating€the€victim€struck€him€in€the€nose.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€had€heÐ f¶  Ðreceived€this€information,€he€would€have€considered€conducting€DNA€analysis€on€the€towel€relatingÐ P  Ðto€the€petitionerððs€self„defense€theory.Ð :Š ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€recalled€the€electrical€cord€was€one€of€ð ðthe€most€damaging€or€most€difficult€toÐ ^ Ðexplain€items€in€the€entire€case.ðð€€The€electrical€cord€was€discovered€underneath€the€victimððs€body,Ð øH Ðwas€tied€in€knots,€and€appeared€to€have€been€cut€rather€than€pulled€from€the€wall.€€Trial€counselÐ â2 Ðexplained€he€attempted€to€minimize€the€potential€impact€of€the€cord.€€Trial€counsel€stated€thatÐ Ì Ðalthough€he€could€have€alleged€that€the€victim€used€the€cord€in€an€unusual€sexual€activity,€he€did€notÐ ¶ Ðfeel€comfortable€making€this€argument.€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€he€was€aware€of€the€controversy€surrounding€Dr.€Harlan€when€heÐ tÄ Ðcalled€him€as€a€witness€at€trial.€€Trial€counsel€recalled€that€Dr.€Harlan€was€ð ðat€oddsðð€with€both€theÐ ^® ÐDavidson€County€authorities€and€Dr.€Bruce€Levy,€who€also€testified€at€trial.€€Trial€counsel€stated€heÐ H˜ Ðassumed€that€at€the€time€of€trial,€he€was€aware€of€pending€litigation€regarding€Dr.€Harlanððs€priorÐ 2‚ Ðmisidentification€of€a€corpse.€Trial€counsel€said€Dr.€Harlan€himself€objected€to€questioningÐ  l Ðconcerning€pending€litigation.€€Trial€counsel€stated€he€and€Dr.€Harlan€discussed€what€the€doctorððsÐ !V Ðdemeanor€should€be€before€the€jury,€and€trial€counsel€advised€Dr.€Harlan€against€making€offensiveÐ ð!@  Ðcomments€before€the€jury.€€Trial€counsel€further€stated€he€was€unaware€that€Dr.€Harlan€would€referÐ Ú"*! Ðto€the€victim€as€a€ð ðcommode„hugging€drunkðð€when€he€testified.€Ð Ä#" ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€stated€that€although€the€petitionerððs€statement€to€the€police€indicated€theÐ ˜%è $ Ðpetitioner€had€been€consuming€alcohol,€trial€counsel€did€not€request€an€intoxication€instruction.€Ð ‚&Ò!% ÐTrial€counsel€said€an€intoxication€instruction€may€have€impacted€the€intent€requirement€of€theÐ l'¼"& Ðunderlying€felony€of€felony€murder.€€Trial€counsel€stated€that€although€the€trial€court€chargedÐ V(¦#' Ðreckless€homicide€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€felony€murder,€the€court€did€not€charge€secondÐ @)$( Ðdegree€murder.Ð **z%) ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€the€state€filed€a€notice€of€intent€to€seek€life€without€the€possibility€ofÐ þ+N'+ Ðparole.€€One€of€the€aggravating€factors€relied€upon€by€the€state€was€the€prior€violent€felonyÐ è,8(, Ðaggravating€circumstance€based€upon€the€petitionerððs€two€robbery€convictions€in€Ohio.€€TrialÐ ° Ðcounsel€stated€he€did€not€research€Ohio€law€prior€to€trial,€explaining€that€he€must€have€assumed€OhioÐ šê Ðlaw€was€similar€to€Tennessee€law€in€which€robbery€would€be€considered€a€crime€of€violence.€€TrialÐ „Ô Ðcounsel€further€stated€he€did€not€object€at€trial€to€the€trial€courtððs€jury€instructions€classifying€theÐ n¾ Ðprior€robbery€convictions€as€crimes€of€violence.€€Trial€counsel€acknowledged€that€when€the€stateÐ X¨ Ðoffered€victim€impact€evidence€during€the€penalty€phase,€he€did€not€object,€request€a€jury„outÐ B ’ Ðhearing,€or€request€a€special€jury€instruction.Ð , | ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€stated€that€when€the€petitioner€testified€during€the€penalty€phase,€he€was€anÐ  P Ðð ðadequateðð€witness€on€direct€examination.€€However,€during€cross„examination,€the€petitionerððsÐ ê :  Ðanswers€were€ð ðsomewhat€combative.ðð€€Trial€counsel€opined€that€the€stateððs€cross„examination€of€theÐ Ô $  Ðpetitioner€was€one€of€the€primary€reasons€he€received€life€without€parole.Ð ¾  ÐÌò òB.€€Petitionerððs€Testimonyó óÐ ’â  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€during€his€first€meeting€with€trial€counsel,€trial€counsel€stated€theÐ g·  Ðpetitionerððs€actions€appeared€to€be€in€self„defense.€€The€petitioner€stated€he€and€trial€counsel€met€onÐ Q¡ Ðfour€to€six€occasions€for€a€total€of€approximately€four€hours.€€During€each€meeting,€trial€counselÐ ;‹ Ðrepresented€they€would€maintain€a€theory€of€self„defense.€€The€petitioner€stated€he€attempted€toÐ %u Ðcontact€trial€counsel€on€numerous€occasions,€but€trial€counsel€did€not€return€his€telephone€calls.€€TheÐ _ Ðpetitioner€further€stated€he€requested€that€trial€counsel€interview€the€owner€of€the€motel€and€thoseÐ ùI Ðwho€discovered€the€victimððs€body,€but€trial€counsel€did€not€adhere€to€the€request.Ð ã3 ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€he€informed€trial€counsel€that€on€the€day€of€the€offenses,€he€met€theÐ · ÐÔ#cdddÔvictim€by€the€motel€pool€where€they€began€drinking€alcohol.€€They€subsequently€went€to€the€victimððsÐ ¡ñ ÐÔ#ddcdÔroom€where€they€continued€to€consume€alcohol.€€The€victim€asked€the€petitioner€ð ðwhereððs€the€$40Ð ‹Û ÐI€give€[sic]€you€to€go€buy€some€dope?ðð€€When€the€petitioner€denied€taking€the€money,€the€victimÐ uÅ Ðasked€him€if€he€was€the€cab€driver.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€he€and€the€victim€then€argued,€andÐ _¯ Ðthe€Ô#cdddÔvictim€ð ðrushedðð€him.€€During€the€struggle,€the€petitionerððs€nose€was€struck€and€began€bleedingÔ#ddcdÔ;Ð I™ Ðthe€petitioner€then€fell€against€a€dresser.€€The€petitioner€retrieved€a€vodka€bottle€with€his€right€handÐ 3ƒ Ðwhile€attempting€to€push€the€victim€off€of€him€with€his€left€hand.€€The€petitioner€then€struck€theÐ  m Ðvictim,€who€was€unaffected€by€the€blow.€€The€petitioner€struck€the€victim€a€second€time€and€pushedÐ !W ÐÔ#cdddÔthe€victim€backwards€onto€the€bed.€€The€victim€arose€and€made€a€statement,€and€the€petitioner€helpedÐ ñ!A  ÐÔ#ddcdÔhim€to€the€bathroom.€€The€petitioner€informed€trial€counsel€that€as€he€was€leaving,€he€retrieved€theÐ Û"+! Ðvictimððs€wallet€from€the€night€stand.€€The€petitioner€then€left€the€motel€with€Sheffield€and€theÐ Å#" Ðpetitionerððs€son.Ð ¯$ÿ# ÐÌÔ#cdddÔà  àThe€petitioner€stated€he€did€not€view€the€photograph€of€the€bloody€towel€prior€to€trial,€and€heÐ ƒ&Ó!% Ðfirst€became€aware€of€the€bloody€towel€when€the€state€introduced€it€at€trial.€€The€petitioner€recalledÐ m'½"& Ðthat€upon€learning€of€the€towel,€he€informed€trial€counsel€that€his€blood€was€on€the€towel,€and€trialÐ W(§#' Ðcounsel€stated€ð ðit€did€not€matter.ðð€€On€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€acknowledged€he€did€not€tellÐ A)‘$( ÐÔ#ddcdÔeither€the€detectives€or€trial€counsel€that€he€was€struck€in€the€nose.€€The€petitioner€stated€he€only€toldÐ +*{%) Ðtrial€counsel€that€he€and€the€victim€were€ð ðfighting.ððÐ +e&* Ðâ âÐ ÿ+O'+ Ðà  àThe€petitioner€testified€he€told€trial€counsel€that€he€was€unaware€of€the€electrical€cords.€€TheÐ ° Ðâ âpetitioner€stated€that€while€he€and€the€victim€were€drinking€alcohol,€two€prostitutes€entered€the€roomÐ šê Ðand€retrieved€money.€€The€petitioner€believed€the€prostitutes€may€have€used€the€cords.Ð „Ô ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€stated€trial€counsel€never€informed€him€that€Dr.€Harlan€was€underÐ X¨ Ðinvestigation€for€the€misidentification€of€a€body.€€The€petitioner€maintains€that€if€trial€counsel€hadÐ B ’ Ðprovided€him€with€this€information,€he€could€have€instructed€trial€counsel€to€seek€another€expertÐ , | Ðwitness.€€The€petitioner€acknowledged€the€purpose€of€Dr.€Harlanððs€testimony€was€to€createÐ  f Ðreasonable€doubt€regarding€the€cause€of€the€victimððs€death.Ð  P ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€stated€trial€counsel€informed€him€that€he€would€testify;€however,€when€theÐ Ô $  Ðtrial€court€ruled€that€he€could€be€questioned€regarding€his€prior€record,€trial€counsel€advised€himÐ ¾  Ðagainst€testifying.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€he€was€previously€convicted€in€Ohio€of€two€countsÐ ¨ø  Ðof€robbery€for€driving€a€vehicle€while€another€man€committed€two€purse€snatchings.€€The€petitionerÐ ’â  Ðstated€that€had€he€testified€at€trial,€his€testimony€would€have€been€consistent€with€the€informationÐ |Ì  Ðhe€related€to€trial€counsel.€€He€would€have€informed€the€jury€that€when€he€left€the€victimððs€room,€theÐ f¶  Ðvictim€was€alive€and€was€in€the€bathroom€attempting€to€rinse€his€head€ð ðin€the€faucet€„€the€toilet.ððÐ P  ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€post„conviction€relief€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€granted€theÐ $t Ðpetitionerððs€request€for€DNA€analysis€on€the€bloody€towel€pursuant€to€the€Post„Conviction€DNAÐ ^ ÐAnalysis€Act€of€2001.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„303€(2003).€€The€results€of€the€DNA€analysisÐ øH Ðindicated€the€petitionerððs€blood€was€on€the€towel.Ð â2 ÐÌÓ  Óò òII.€POST„CONVICTION€COURTððS€FINDINGSó óÐ ¶ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€its€written€findings,€the€post„conviction€court€noted€it€was€ð ðnot€impressedðð€with€the€resultsÐ ‹Û Ðof€the€DNA€analysis€indicating€the€presence€of€the€petitionerððs€blood€on€the€towel.€€The€court€notedÐ uÅ Ðthe€attack€on€the€victim€was€ð ðextremely€violent,ðð€and€defensive€wounds€were€discovered€on€theÐ _¯ Ðvictimððs€right€hand€and€forearm.€€The€court€found€that€even€if€the€victim€struck€the€petitioner€in€hisÐ I™ Ðnose,€the€doctrine€of€self„defense€does€not€authorize€ð ðbeating€the€victim€to€death.ðð€€The€post„Ð 3ƒ Ðconviction€court€accredited€trial€counselððs€testimony€that€the€petitioner€did€not€inform€him€that€theÐ  m Ðvictim€struck€him€in€his€nose€causing€it€to€bleed.Ð !W ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€found€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€failing€to€investigate€theÐ Û"+! Ðvictimððs€prior€convictions€for€assaultive€offenses€in€Florida,€even€though€the€convictions€may€haveÐ Å#" Ðbeen€admissible€at€trial€to€establish€the€victim€as€the€first€aggressor.€€The€court€noted€the€petitionerððsÐ ¯$ÿ# Ðcontention€failed€for€the€same€reason€his€argument€regarding€allegedly€being€struck€in€the€noseÐ ™%é $ Ðfailed.Ð ƒ&Ó!% ÐÌà  àRegarding€the€petitionerððs€contention€that€his€prior€robbery€convictions€in€Ohio€were€notÐ W(§#' Ðcrimes€of€violence€and€were€improperly€used€to€support€the€(i)(2)€aggravating€factor,€the€post„Ð A)‘$( Ðconviction€court€found€robbery€was€a€crime€of€violence€in€Ohio.€€The€court€further€found€trialÐ +*{%) Ðcounsel€was€not€ineffective€in€failing€to€request€an€intoxication€instruction,€noting€the€evidence€wasÐ +e&* Ðinsufficient€to€support€such€an€instruction€and€that€intoxication€is€not€a€defense€to€felony€murder.Ð ÿ+O'+ ÐÐ é,9(, ÐÑp¿[Ñâ pâÑ„„Ñâ pâÑ  Ñà  àRegarding€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser„includedÐ ° Ðoffense€of€felony€murder,€the€post„conviction€court€noted€that€although€the€trial€court€chargedÐ šê Ðreckless€homicide€as€a€lesser„included€offense,€the€trial€court€was€of€the€opinion€that€second€degreeÐ „Ô Ðmurder€was€not€a€lesser„included€offense€of€felony€murder.€€The€post„conviction€court€further€notedÐ n¾ Ðthat€since€the€petitionerððs€trial€in€1999,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€concluded€that€secondÐ X¨ Ðdegree€murder€is€a€lesser„included€offense€of€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Elyóó,€48€S.W.3d€710,€721„Ð B ’ Ð22€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€correct€instruction€regarding€lesser„Ð , | Ðincluded€offenses€ð ðenhances€the€integrity€and€reliability€of€the€fact€finding€process€of€the€trialðð€andÐ  f Ðthat€the€failure€to€instruct€the€applicable€lesser„included€offenses€would€raise€ð ðserious€questionsÐ  P Ðabout€the€accuracy€of€guilty€verdicts€in€past€trials.ðð€€The€post„conviction€court€concluded€òòElyóó€appliedÐ ê :  Ðretroactively€and€found€that,€given€the€facts€of€the€case,€a€reasonable€juror€could€have€convicted€theÐ Ô $  Ðpetitioner€of€second€degree€murder.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€the€failure€to€charge€secondÐ ¾  Ðdegree€murder€as€a€lesser„included€offense€was€not€harmless€error.€€The€court€vacated€theÐ ¨ø  Ðpetitionerððs€felony€murder€conviction€but€denied€relief€regarding€his€especially€aggravated€robberyÐ ’â  Ðconviction.Ð |Ì  ÐÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€STANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óÐ P  ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ‡\Xèì XXX×uÔà  àThe€post„conviction€judgeððs€findings€of€fact€on€post„conviction€hearings€are€conclusive€onÐ %u Ðappeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.Ð  [ Ð1999).€€Those€findings€of€fact€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and€this€court€is€bound€byÐ ñA Ðthe€findings€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòJaco€v.€Stateóó,Ð ×' Ð120€S.W.3d€828,€830€(Tenn.€2003)òòóó.€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence,€norÐ ½  Ðsubstitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€òòState€v.€Honeycuttóó,€54€S.W.3dÐ £ó Ð762,€766€(Tenn.€2001)òòóó.€€However,€the€post„conviction€courtððs€conclusions€of€law€are€reviewed€underÐ ‰Ù Ða€purely€òòde€novoóó€standard€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458Ð o¿ Ð(Tenn.€2001).Ô#†X×uX X\XèìXm#ÔÐ U¥ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€LESSER„INCLUDED€OFFENSESó óÐ %u ÐÓªqÓÌà  àThe€state€contends€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€granting€the€petitioner€relief€due€to€theÐ úJ Ðtrial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€felony€murder.€Ð ä 4 ÐSpecifically,€the€state€maintains€the€petitioner€waived€the€issue€by€failing€to€raise€it€on€direct€appeal.€Ð Î!  ÐThe€petitioner€submits€an€exception€to€waiver€applies€because€òòElyóó€created€a€new€constitutional€ruleÐ ¸"! Ðin€recognizing€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€felony€murder€pursuant€to€òòStateÐ ¢#ò" Ðv.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453€(Tenn.€1999).Ð Œ$Ü# ÐÌà  àA€ground€for€post„conviction€relief€is€waived€ð ðif€the€petitioner€personally€or€through€anÐ `&°!% Ðattorney€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€of€competentÐ J'š"& Ðjurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€been€presented.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„106(g).€Ð 4(„#' ÐHowever,€the€claim€for€relief€is€not€waived€if€it€is€(1)€ð ðbased€upon€a€constitutional€right€notÐ )n$( Ðrecognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial,ðð€and€(2)€ð ðeither€the€federal€or€state€constitution€requiresÐ *X%) Ðretroactive€application€of€that€right.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€(g)(1).Ð ò*B&* Ðâ âÐ Ü+,'+ ÐÑS_RÑâ SâÑ9„Ñâ SâÑ  Ñà  àIn€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€467,€which€was€filed€on€November€8,€1999,€after€the€trial€of€this€case,Ð ° Ðâ âthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adopted€a€test€in€determining€lesser„included€offenses.€€Under€thisÐ šê Ðtest,€an€offense€is€a€lesser„included€offense€if:Ð „Ô ÐÌà8  à(a)€all€of€its€statutory€elements€are€included€within€the€statutory€elements€of€theÐ X¨ Ðoffense€charged;€orÐB ’Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(b)€it€fails€to€meet€the€definition€in€part€(a)€only€in€the€respect€that€it€contains€aÐ  f Ðstatutory€element€or€elements€establishingÐ PÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(1)€a€different€mental€state€indicating€a€lesser€kind€of€culpability;€and/orÐê : Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€a€less€serious€harm€or€risk€of€harm€to€the€same€person,€property€or€public€interest;Ð ¾  ÐorШø Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(c)€it€consists€of€Ð|Ì Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(1)€facilitation€of€the€offense€charged€or€of€an€offense€that€otherwise€meets€theÐ P  Ðdefinition€of€lesser„included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b);€orÐ:ŠÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€an€attempt€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€that€otherwise€meets€theÐ ^ Ðdefinition€of€lesser„included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b);€orÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  à(3)€solicitation€to€commit€the€offense€charged€or€an€offense€that€otherwise€meets€theÐ Ì Ðdefinition€of€lesser„included€offense€in€part€(a)€or€(b).жРР ÐÌòòId.óó€€In€òòElyóó,€48€S.W.3d€at€714,€which€was€filed€on€June€5,€2001,€our€state€supreme€court€concludedÐ ŠÚ Ðsecond€degree€murder,€reckless€homicide,€and€criminally€negligent€homicide€were€lesser„includedÐ tÄ Ðoffenses€of€felony€murder€under€the€òòBurnsóó€analysis.Ð ^® ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€the€instant€offenses€were€committed€in€June€1995,€felony€murder€was€ð ða€òòrecklessóóÐ 2‚ Ðkilling€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of,€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€any€.€.€.€robbery.ðð€€Tenn.Ð  l ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(2)€(Supp.€1994)€(emphasis€added).׃c×Ý ƒd#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€petitionerððs€trial€occurred€inÐ !V ÐApril€1999;€he€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€on€November€8,€1999€(the€same€date€òòBurnsóó€was€filed);€theÐ ð!@  Ðdirect€appeal€was€docketed€for€oral€argument€before€this€court€on€January€11,€2001;€this€court€filedÐ Ú"*! Ðits€opinion€on€April€20,€2001;€and€permission€to€appeal€was€denied€October€8,€2001.Ð Ä#" ÐÌà  àThis€court€has€previously€declined€to€apply€òòBurnsóó€retroactively€to€post„conviction€casesÐ ˜%è $ Ðwhere€the€direct€appeal€was€concluded€prior€to€òòBurnsóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòAnthony€Hodges€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M2001„Ð ‚&Ò!% Ð03068„CCA„R3„PC,€2002€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€1037,€at€*14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Dec.€4,€2002),Ð l'¼"& Ðòòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2004);€òòJames€Richard€Bishop€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E2000„01725„CCA„R3„PC,Ð V(¦#' Ð2001€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€513,€at€**23„24€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€July€13,€2001)òòóó.€€However,€thisÐ @)$( Ðdirect€appeal€was€not€completed€prior€to€òòBurnsóó.€€The€petitioner€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€on€the€sameÐ **z%) Ðday€in€which€òòBurnsóó€was€decided.€Ð +d&* ÐÑh¿[ Ñâ hâÑ„9Ñâ hâÑ  ÑÌà  àWe€also€note€that€this€case€involved€a€crime€committed€in€June€1995,€which€was€prior€to€theÐ šê Ðadoption€of€the€present€felony€murder€statute€which€was€at€issue€in€òòElyóó.€€òòSeeóó€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€Ð „Ô Ðch.€460,€ðððð€1,€4€(removing€ð ðrecklessðð€òòmens€reaóó€requirement€from€felony€murder€statute€for€offensesÐ n¾ Ðcommitted€on€or€after€July€1,€1995).€€The€prior€statute,€which€required€a€ð ðrecklessððòò€mens€reaóó€forÐ X¨ Ðfelony€murder,€applied€to€this€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Ô‡bXèì XXX×uÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†X×uX XbXèìUˆ#Ô€39„13„202(a)(2)€(Supp.€1994).€Ð B ’ ÐFurthermore,€at€the€time€of€trial,€the€law€was€that€second€degree€murder€was€not€a€lesser„includedÐ , | Ðoffense€of€ð ðrecklessðð€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gilliamóó,€901€S.W.2d€385,€390„91€Ô‡bXèì XXX×uÔ(Tenn.€Crim.Ð  f ÐApp.Ô#†X×uX XbXè컉#Ô€1995),€òòperm.€to€app.€not€soughtóó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ben€Millsóó,€No.€W1999„01175„CCA„R3„CD,Ð  P Ð2002€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€405,€at€*22€Ô‡bXèì XXX×uÔ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ô#†X×uX XbXèìÊŠ#Ô€May€3,€2002),€òòperm€to€app.€dismissedóóÐ ê :  Ð(Tenn.€2002).€€The€only€lesser„included€offenses€were€reckless€homicide€and€criminally€negligentÐ Ô $  Ðhomicide.€€òòGilliamóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€391.€€Thus,€by€failing€to€charge€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser„Ð ¾  Ðincluded€offense€of€felony€murder,€the€trial€court€acted€in€accordance€with€the€case€law€at€that€time.Ð ¨ø  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€an€exception€to€waiver€applies€in€that€òòElyóó€recognized€a€newÐ |Ì  Ðconstitutional€rule€which€requires€retroactivity.€€However,€the€holding€in€òòElyóó€was€based€upon€ourÐ f¶  Ðstateððs€ð ðstatutory€scheme€for€homicide€and€on€the€definition€of€lesser„included€offense€as€adoptedÐ P  Ðin€òòBurnsóó.ðð€€òòElyóó,€48€S.W.3d€at€722€n.5.€€Thus,€if€a€new€constitutional€rule€regarding€lesser„includedÐ :Š Ðoffenses€has€been€recognized,€it€must€have€been€recognized€in€òòBurnsóó.€€As€previously€noted,€theÐ $t Ðpetitionerððs€direct€appeal€was€in€the€appellate€ð ðpipelineðð€when€òòBurnsóó€was€filed.Ð ^ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€relies€upon€òòMeadows€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€748€(Tenn.€1993),€in€contendingÐ â2 Ðthat€òòElyóó€should€apply€retroactively€to€his€case.€€According€to€òòMeadowsóó,€ð ða€new€state€constitutionalÐ Ì Ðrule€is€to€be€retroactively€applied€to€a€claim€for€post„conviction€relief€if€the€new€rule€materiallyÐ ¶ Ðenhances€the€integrity€and€reliability€of€the€fact€finding€process€of€the€trial.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€755.€€StatedÐ  ð Ðanother€way,€retroactive€application€in€post„conviction€cases€is€necessary€ð ðwhen€the€old€ruleÐ ŠÚ Ðsubstantially€impairs€the€truth„finding€function€of€the€trial€and€thereby€raises€serious€questions€aboutÐ tÄ Ðthe€accuracy€of€guilty€verdicts€in€past€trials.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€754.Ð ^® ÐÌà  àIn€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€465,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€noted€the€former€definition€ofÐ 2‚ Ðð ðlesser„included€offense,ðð€which€involved€a€statutory€elements€approach,€may,€in€some€cases,Ð  l Ðdeprive€a€defendant€of€his€right€to€present€a€defense.€€òòóóFurthermore,Ð !V ÐÌà8  àa€trial€courtððs€failure€to€inform€the€jury€of€its€option€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€ofÐ Ú"*! Ðthe€lesser€offense€would€impair€the€juryððs€truth„ascertainment€function.€Ð Ä#" ÐConsequently,€neither€the€prosecution€nor€the€defense€should€be€allowed,€based€onÐ ®$þ# Ðtheir€trial€strategy,€to€preclude€the€jury€from€considering€guilt€of€a€lesser€offenseÐ ˜%è $ Ðincluded€in€the€crime€charged.€€To€permit€this€would€force€the€jury€to€make€an€ð ðallÐ ‚&Ò!% Ðor€nothingðð€choice€between€conviction€of€the€crime€charged€or€complete€acquittal,Ð l'¼"& Ðthereby€denying€the€jury€the€opportunity€to€decide€whether€the€defendant€is€guiltyÐ V(¦#' Ðof€a€lesser€included€offense€established€by€the€evidence.Ð@)$(Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€471„72€(quoting€òòState€v.€Boldenóó,€979€S.W.2d€587,€593€(Tenn.€1998)).€€Based€upon€thisÐ +d&* Ðlanguage,€we€can€only€conclude€that€òòBurnsóó€announced€a€new€ð ðconstitutional€ruleðð€that€ð ðmateriallyÐ þ+N'+ Ðenhances€the€integrity€and€reliability€of€the€fact€finding€process€of€the€trial.ðð€€òòSeeòòóóóó€òòMeadowsóó,€849Ð è,8(, ÐS.W.2d€at€755.€€Thus,€we€conclude€òòBurnsóó€should€apply€retroactively€to€this€post„conviction€case.€Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€state€maintains€this€free„standing€claim€is€waived€as€a€claim€for€post„conviction€reliefÐ „Ô Ðdue€to€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€raise€the€issue€on€direct€appeal.€€Because€the€òòBurnsóó€opinion€wasÐ n¾ Ðreleased€on€the€same€day€as€the€filing€of€notice€of€direct€appeal€in€the€present€case,€the€petitionerððsÐ X¨ Ðonly€method€of€raising€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€the€applicable€lesser„included€offensesÐ B ’ Ðpursuant€to€òòBurnsóó€would€be€under€the€plain€error€doctrine.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).€€Such€anÐ , | Ðattempt€would€be€a€futile€gesture.€€Because€the€law€regarding€lesser„included€offenses€was€unclearÐ  f Ðat€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€trial,€his€claim€would€not€have€risen€to€the€level€of€plain€error.€€òòSeeóóÐ  P ÐòòState€v.€Terryóó,€118€S.W.3d€355,€359„60€(Tenn.€2003).€€Thus,€if€the€holding€in€òòBurnsóó€did€not€applyÐ ê :  Ðretroactively€to€the€case€at€bar,€the€petitioner€would€be€placed€in€a€procedural€ð ðcatch€22.ððÐ Ô $  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€òòBurnsóó,€we€conclude€second€degree€murder€would€be€a€lesser„included€offenseÐ ¨ø  Ðof€ð ðrecklessðð€felony€murder€as€that€offense€was€defined€prior€to€July€1,€1995,€just€as€it€is€underÐ ’â  Ðfelony€murder€as€it€is€defined€for€offenses€committed€on€or€after€July€1,€1995.€€òòSeeóó€òòElyóó,€48€S.W.3dÐ |Ì  Ðat€721„22.€€In€òòElyóó,€second€degree€murder€was€found€to€be€a€lesser„included€offense€of€felony€murderÐ f¶  Ðunder€the€current€statute€based€upon€part€(b)€of€òòBurnsóó.€€òòId.óó€€The€additional€òòmens€reaóó€of€recklessnessÐ P  Ðin€the€prior€statute€would€not€eliminate€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€felonyÐ :Š Ðmurder€under€the€rationale€of€òòElyóó.€€Ô‡\Xèì XXX×uÔÐ $t ÐÌà  àIf€an€offense€is€found€to€be€a€lesser„included€offense,€the€court€must€next€ascertain€whetherÐ ôD Ðthe€evidence€justifies€a€jury€instruction€on€the€lesser„included€offense.€€òòóóòòState€v.€Bowlesóó,€52€S.W.3dÐ Ú* Ð69,€75€(Tenn.€2001)Ô#†X×uX X\Xèì=¡#ÔÔ‡\Xèì XXX×uÔ.€€To€do€so,€the€court€must€first€determine€whether€there€is€evidence€thatÐ À Ðð ðreasonable€mindsðð€could€accept€to€establish€the€lesser„included€offense.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469.€Ð ¦ö ÐThe€court€must€view€the€evidence€liberally€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€existence€of€the€lesser„Ð ŒÜ Ðincluded€offense€without€judging€its€credibility.€€òòElyóó,€48€S.W.3d€at€722;€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469.€Ð r ÐFinally,€the€court€must€determine€if€the€evidence€is€ð ðlegally€sufficientðð€to€support€a€conviction€forÐ X¨ Ðthe€lesser„included€offense.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€469.€€Ô#†X×uX X\Xè쬢#ÔÐ >Ž ÐÌÔ‡\Xèì XXX×uÔà  àHarmless€error€relating€to€the€failure€to€charge€lesser„included€offenses€must€be€shownÐ ^ Ðð ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòElyóó,€48€S.W.3d€at€727.€€The€proper€inquiry€is€ð ðwhether€it€appearsÐ ôD Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€69Ð Ú * ÐS.W.3d€181,€191€(Tenn.€2002).€€In€making€the€harmless€error€determination,€this€court€mustÐ À!  Ðð ðconduct€a€thorough€examination€of€the€record,€including€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€theÐ ¦"ö! Ðdefendantððs€theory€of€defense,€and€the€verdict€returned€by€the€jury.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ô#†X×uX X\Xèì ¥#ÔÐ Œ#Ü" ÐÌà  àSecond€degree€murder€is€a€ð ðknowing€killing€of€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð \%¬ $ Ð210(a)(1).€€Second€degree€murder€is€a€result„of„conduct€offense.€€òòState€v.€Pageóó,€81€S.W.3d€781,€783Ð F&–!% Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2002).€€One€acts€ð ðknowinglyðð€with€respect€to€a€result€of€his€conduct€when€he€isÐ 0'€"& Ðð ðaware€that€the€conduct€is€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(b).Ð (j#' ÐÌà  àIn€his€statement€to€the€police,€the€petitioner€maintained€while€he€and€the€victim€wereÐ î)>%) Ðintoxicated,€they€argued;€ð ðone€thing€led€to€anotherðð;€and€the€petitioner€struck€the€victim€over€theÐ Ø*(&* Ðhead€twice€with€a€vodka€bottle.€€The€jury€could€have€reasonably€believed€the€petitioner€was€awareÐ Â+'+ Ðthat€his€conduct€was€reasonably€certain€to€cause€the€victimððs€death.€€Thus,€a€conviction€for€secondÐ ¬,ü', Ðdegree€murder€was€supported€by€the€evidence,€and€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€second€degreeÐ ° Ðmurder€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€felony€murder€was€error.€€Furthermore,€we€are€unable€toÐ šê Ðconclude€such€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòElyóó,€48€S.W.3d€at€727€(notingÐ „Ô Ðthe€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser„included€offense€ofÐ n¾ Ðfelony€murder€when€the€defendant€participated€in€repeatedly€striking€the€victim€over€the€head€withÐ X¨ Ða€brick€resulting€in€the€victimððs€death€was€reversible€error).Ð B ’ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€the€post„conviction€court€correctly€granted€the€petitioner€reliefÐ  f Ðbased€upon€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€charge€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser„included€offense€ofÐ  P Ðfelony€murder.Ð ê :  ÐÌÌÌÓ  Óò òV.€€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€contends€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€Specifically,Ð g·  Ðhe€maintains€trial€counsel€failed€to€adequately€investigate€the€law€and€facts€of€the€case,€failed€toÐ Q¡ Ðdevelop€a€reasonable€trial€strategy,€failed€to€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€improper€statements€duringÐ ;‹ Ðvoir€dire,€failed€to€develop€issues€relating€to€the€petitionerððs€intoxication,€failed€to€object€to€theÐ %u Ðintroduction€of€photographs,€failed€to€ask€the€trial€court€to€charge€second€degree€murder€as€a€lesser„Ð _ Ðincluded€offense€of€felony€murder,€failed€to€object€to€the€stateððs€reliance€upon€the€(i)(2)€aggravatingÐ ùI ÐÔ#cdddÔcircumstance€during€the€penalty€phase,€and€failed€to€object€to€victim€impact€evidence.€€The€petitionerÐ ã3 ÐÔ#ddcdÔfurther€submits€the€cumulative€errors€regarding€trial€counselððs€deficient€performance€resulted€inÐ Í Ðprejudice.Ð · ÐÌÔ‡bXèì XXX×uÔà  àFor€a€petitioner€to€successfully€overturn€a€conviction€based€on€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ‹Û Ðcounsel,€the€petitioner€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€given€was€belowÐ qÁ Ðð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2dÐ W§ Ð930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€the€deficiencies€ð ðactually€had€anÐ = Ðadverse€effect€on€the€defense.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80Ð #s ÐL.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€€Should€the€petitioner€fail€to€establish€either€factor,€the€petitioner€is€notÐ  Y Ðentitled€to€relief.€€Our€supreme€court€described€the€standard€of€review€as€follows:Ð ï ? ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€aÐ »" ! Ðfailure€to€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficientÐ ¡#ñ" Ðbasis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffective€assistance€claim.€€Indeed,€aÐ ‡$×# Ðcourt€need€not€address€the€components€in€any€particular€order€or€evenÐ m%½ $ Ðaddress€both€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€of€oneÐ S&£!% Ðcomponent.Ð9'‰"&` x` x ÐòòÌGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€atÐ )U$( Ð2069).€€The€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€of€hindsight;€the€petitioner€may€not€second-guessÐ ë);%) Ða€reasonably€based€trial€strategy;€and€the€petitioner€may€not€criticize€a€sound,€but€unsuccessful,Ð Ñ*!&* Ðtactical€decision€made€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347Ð ·+'+ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòseeóó€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Ð ,í', Їà  àThe€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€Ð ° ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„110(f)€(2003).€€The€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€post„conviction€court€areÐ –æ Ðconclusive€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderatesÐ |Ì Ðagainst€them.€€òòSeeóóòòóó€òòJaco€v.€Stateóó,€120€S.W.3d€828,€830€(Tenn.€2003).€€Ô#†X×uX XbXèìà´#ÔÐ b² ÐÌò òA.€€Failure€to€Investigateó óÐ 2 ‚ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€first€asserts€trial€counsel€failed€to€interview€the€cab€driver,€the€motel€owner,Ð  W Ðand€Michelle€Sheffield,€the€petitionerððs€girlfriend€when€the€offenses€occurred.€€However,€theseÐ ñ A Ðwitnesses€did€not€testify€at€the€post„conviction€relief€hearing.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÐ Û +  Ðestablish€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð Å   ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€next€contends€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€investigate€the€victimððsÐ ™é  Ðbackground.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€if€trial€counsel€had€conducted€such€an€investigation,€heÐ ƒÓ  Ðwould€have€learned€of€the€victimððs€prior€assaultive€behavior€which€he€could€have€presented€at€trialÐ m½  Ðin€order€to€establish€the€victim€as€the€first€aggressor.€Ð W§  ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€the€self„defense€doctrine,Ð +{ ÐÌà8  àA€person€is€justified€in€threatening€or€using€force€against€another€person€when€andÐ ÿO Ðto€the€degree€the€person€reasonably€believes€the€force€is€immediately€necessary€toÐ é9 Ðprotect€against€the€otherððs€use€or€attempted€use€of€unlawful€force.€€The€person€mustÐ Ó# Ðhave€a€reasonable€belief€that€there€is€an€imminent€danger€of€death€or€serious€bodilyÐ ½  Ðinjury.€€The€danger€creating€the€belief€of€imminent€death€or€serious€bodily€injuryÐ §÷ Ðmust€be€real,€or€honestly€believed€to€be€real€at€the€time,€and€must€be€founded€uponÐ ‘á Ðreasonable€grounds.€.€.€.Ð{ËÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„611(a).Ð OŸ ÐÌà  àThe€victimððs€criminal€record€from€Florida,€which€was€admitted€into€evidence€at€the€post„Ð #s Ðconviction€relief€hearing,€indicates€the€victim€was€arrested€for€battery€in€February€1992,€wasÐ  ] Ðconvicted€of€the€offense€in€April€1993,€and€received€one€year€on€probation.€€In€August€1994,€theÐ ÷ G Ðvictim€was€arrested€for€battery,€and€the€charge€was€subsequently€dismissed.€€According€to€the€policeÐ á!1  Ðreports,€each€incident€involved€an€act€of€domestic€violence€committed€while€the€victim€wasÐ Ë"! Ðintoxicated.Ð µ#" ÐÌà  àThe€victimððs€prior€acts€of€violence€may€have€been€admissible€at€the€petitionerððs€trial€in€orderÐ ‰%Ù $ Ðto€establish€the€victim€as€the€first€aggressor,€even€if€the€petitioner€was€unaware€of€these€acts.€€òòSeeóóÐ s&Ã!% ÐòòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€However,€as€observed€by€the€post„Ð ]'­"& Ðconviction€court,€even€if€the€victim€initiated€the€altercation€by€striking€the€petitioner€in€the€nose,€theÐ G(—#' Ðdoctrine€of€self„defense€does€not€authorize€ð ðbeating€the€victim€to€death.ðð€€Thus,€we€conclude€theÐ 1)$( Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€prejudice.Ð *k%) ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€maintains€that€by€failing€to€conduct€an€adequate€investigation€and€failing€toÐ ï+?'+ Ðadequately€discuss€the€case€with€him,€trial€counsel€did€not€develop€a€theory€of€self„defense.€€TheÐ Ù,)(, Ðpetitioner€submits€that€if€trial€counsel€had€discussed€the€case€with€him,€trial€counsel€would€haveÐ ° Ðlearned€of€his€bloody€nose€and€the€bloody€towel.€€However,€at€the€post„conviction€relief€hearing,Ð šê Ðtrial€counsel€testified€that€during€his€investigation,€he€obtained€the€police€reports€which€included€theÐ „Ô Ðpetitionerððs€statement,€reviewed€photographs,€and€interviewed€numerous€witnesses,€including€theÐ n¾ Ðpetitioner.€€The€petitioner€stated€he€and€trial€counsel€discussed€the€events,€and€he€acknowledged€thatÐ X¨ Ðhe€did€not€inform€trial€counsel€of€his€bloody€nose.€€The€post„conviction€court€accredited€trialÐ B ’ Ðcounselððs€testimony€and€found€no€merit€to€the€petitionerððs€assertions.€€The€evidence€does€notÐ , | Ðpreponderate€against€this€finding.€€This€argument€is€without€merit.Ð  f ÐÌò òB.€€Failure€to€Develop€a€Reasonable€Trial€Strategyó óÐ ê :  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€asserts€trial€counsel€failed€to€develop€a€reasonable€trial€strategy€by€ignoringÐ ¿  Ðthe€petitionerððs€claims€of€self„defense.€€However,€the€post„conviction€court€accredited€trial€counselððsÐ ©ù  Ðtestimony€that€the€petitioner€never€informed€trial€counsel€that€the€victim€struck€him€in€the€nose.€Ð “ã  ÐTrial€counsel€chose€to€present€evidence€suggesting€the€victim€died€of€alcohol€poisoning€and€not€asÐ }Í  Ða€result€of€the€altercation,€and€that€the€theft€was€an€ð ðafterthoughtðð€insufficient€to€justify€a€felonyÐ g·  Ðmurder€conviction.€€Trial€counsel€made€a€tactical€decision€resulting€in€a€reasonably„based€trialÐ Q¡ Ðstrategy€which€may€not€be€second„guessed,€even€though€it€was€unsuccessful.€€òòSeeóó€òòAdkinsóó,€911Ð ;‹ ÐS.W.2d€at€347.€€Thus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð %u ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€submits€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€raise€ð ðreasonable€doubtððÐ ùI Ðregarding€the€electrical€cord€found€near€the€victimððs€body.€€Trial€counsel€stated€he€attempted€toÐ ã3 Ðminimize€the€impact€of€the€cord,€but€the€cord€was€one€of€the€ð ðmost€difficult€to€explain€items€in€theÐ Í Ðentire€case.ðð€€Trial€counsel€explained€that€due€to€the€composition€of€the€jury,€he€did€not€feelÐ · Ðcomfortable€arguing€that€the€victim€used€the€cord€in€an€unusual€sexual€activity.€€Due€to€the€paucityÐ ¡ñ ÐÔ#cdddÔof€evidence€in€support€of€the€petitionerððs€theory,€we€conclude€trial€counsel€made€a€reasonable€tacticalÐ ‹Û ÐÔ#ddcdÔdecision€to€refrain€from€arguing€this€theory€at€trial.€€Accordingly,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€toÐ uÅ Ðrelief€on€this€issue.Ð _¯ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€challenges€trial€counselððs€decision€to€contest€the€victimððs€cause€of€deathÐ 3ƒ Ðthrough€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Harlan.€€The€petitioner€maintains€trial€counsel€failed€to€adequatelyÐ  m Ðprepare€for€Dr.€Harlanððs€testimony,€failed€to€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€questions€regarding€pendingÐ !W Ðlitigation€against€Dr.€Harlan,€and€failed€to€prepare€the€doctor€to€act€appropriately€before€the€jury.€Ð ñ!A  ÐHowever,€trial€counsel€made€a€tactical€decision€to€contest€the€cause€of€the€victimððs€death,€a€theoryÐ Û"+! Ðwhich,€if€accepted€by€the€jury,€would€have€prevented€a€felony€murder€conviction.€As€to€trialÐ Å#" Ðcounselððs€alleged€failure€to€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€question€concerning€pending€litigation,€ourÐ ¯$ÿ# Ðexamination€of€the€record€reveals€no€such€question.€€The€prosecutor€asked€if€ð ðitððs€important€when,Ð ™%é $ Ðletððs€say,€you€have€a€disaster€where€more€than€one€person€is€killed€„€„.ðð€€Dr.€Harlan€interrupted€andÐ ƒ&Ó!% ÐÔ#ccddÔstated,€ð ð[T]hatððs€under€litigation€and€I€donððt€think€we€can€go€there.ðð€€There€was€no€further€questioningÐ m'½"& ÐÔ#ddccÔconcerning€the€issue.€€We€discern€no€deficiency€by€trial€counsel.€€Furthermore,€trial€counsel€statedÐ W(§#' Ðhe€advised€the€doctor€against€making€offensive€comments€while€testifying.€€Therefore,€the€petitionerÐ A)‘$( Ðhas€established€neither€deficiency€nor€prejudice.Ð +*{%) ÐÌò òC.€€Failure€to€Object€During€Voir€Direó óÐ ÿ+O'+ ÐÐ ê,:(, Ðà  àThe€petitioner€asserts€trial€counsel€failed€to€object€to€ð ðhighly€inflammatory,€improper€andÐ ° Ðobjectionableðð€statements€made€by€the€prosecutor€during€voir€dire.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€trialÐ šê Ðcounsel€failed€to€object€to€the€following€statements:€the€victim€was€the€ð ðmurder€victimðð€or€ð ðmyÐ „Ô Ðvictimðð;€the€wounds€on€the€victimððs€hands€were€ð ðdefensive€wounds,€wounds€that€were€incurredÐ n¾ Ðwhen€Mr.€Andrews€was€trying€to€protect€himself€from€being€stabbed€by€the€defendantðð;€the€offenseÐ X¨ Ðwas€ð ða€very€brutal€crime.€€Mr.€Andrews€did€not€go€gently€into€the€nightðð;€and€one€of€the€medicalÐ B ’ Ðexaminers€was€ð ða€good€guy€though€heððs€going€to€testify€for€the€State.€€Heððs€one€of€the€good€guys.ðð€Ð , | ÐThe€prosecutor€also€asked€the€jurors:Ð  f ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€will€all€of€you€promise€me€that€you€will€consider€that€inÐ ê :  Ðdetermining€whether€or€not€this€individual,€whose€head€wasÐ Ô $  Ðsubmerged€in€a€toilet,€whose€body€was€found€in€the€restroom€cut€toÐ ¾  Ðshreds,€whether€he€died€as€a€result€of€being€stabbed€in€the€head€withÐ ¨ø  Ða€bottle€or€whether€he€died€because€he€had€drunk€alcohol?Ð’â ` x` x ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€explained€he€did€not€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€statements€because€he€usuallyÐ f¶  Ðreserved€his€objections€for€ð ðmoderately€significantðð€matters.€€He€further€explained€he€believed€theÐ P  Ðobjections€would€have€been€prejudicial€to€the€petitioner.€€Thus,€trial€counsel€made€a€tactical€decisionÐ :Š Ðto€refrain€from€objecting.€€We€further€conclude,€in€light€of€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€that€theÐ $t Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€these€comments€prejudiced€him.€€Accordingly,€the€petitionerÐ ^ Ðis€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð øH ÐÌò òD.€€Failure€to€Develop€Issues€of€the€Petitionerððs€Intoxicationó óÐ Ì ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€develop€his€intoxicationÐ ¡ñ Ðas€a€defense€and€in€failing€to€request€an€intoxication€instruction€at€trial.€€Intoxication€is€generally€notÐ ‹Û Ða€defense;€however,€proof€of€intoxication,€whether€voluntary€or€involuntary,€is€admissible€if€suchÐ uÅ Ðevidence€is€relevant€to€negate€a€culpable€mental€state.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„503(a).€€In€hisÐ _¯ Ðstatement€to€the€police,€the€petitioner€maintained€he€was€ð ðdrunkðð€when€the€offenses€occurred.€€HisÐ I™ ÐÔ#bdddÔstatement€does€not€indicate€any€such€intoxication€was€involuntary.€€Evidence€of€voluntary€intoxicationÐ 3ƒ ÐÔ#ddbdÔcannot€negate€the€element€of€recklessness€required€to€establish€felony€murder€under€the€formerÐ  m Ðstatute.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€Christopher€Tatrowóó,€No.€03C01„9707„CR„00299,€1998€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð !W ÐLEXIS€1169,€at€*29€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Nov.€2,€1998);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„503(b).€€However,Ð ñ!A  Ðwe€do€recognize€that€voluntary€intoxication€could€negate€the€specific€intent€to€commit€the€robbery,Ð Û"+! Ðwhich€is€a€requirement€for€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Buggsóó,€995€S.W.2d€102,€107€(Tenn.€1999)Ð Å#" Ð(holding€the€actor€in€a€felony€murder€must€ð ðintend€to€commit€the€underlying€felony€at€the€time€theÐ ¯$ÿ# Ðkilling€occursðð).׃Q×Ý ƒd#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ™%é $ ÐÌà  àAlthough€trial€counsel€did€not€request€an€instruction€on€intoxication,€the€trial€court€wasÐ m'½"& Ðrequired,€whether€requested€or€not,€to€instruct€the€jury€on€intoxication€if€raised€by€the€proof.€€òòSeeóóÐ W(§#' ÐòòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Although€proof€was€presentedÐ A)‘$( Ðregarding€the€victimððs€intoxication,€the€only€evidence€suggesting€the€petitionerððs€intoxication€wasÐ ° Ðhis€statement€to€the€police.€€This€evidence€does€not€suggest€that€the€petitioner€was€incapable€ofÐ šê Ðforming€the€specific€intent€required€for€robbery.€€Furthermore,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€presentÐ „Ô Ðany€additional€evidence€which€trial€counsel€could€have€presented€at€trial€to€support€his€claim€ofÐ n¾ Ðintoxication.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€has€demonstrated€neither€deficiency€nor€prejudice.Ð X¨ ÐÌò òE.€€Failure€to€Object€to€Photographsó óÐ , | ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€submits€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€object€to€prejudicial€andÐ  Q Ðcumulative€photographs€presented€by€the€state€during€trial.€€These€photographs€were€entered€intoÐ ë ;  Ðevidence€at€the€post„conviction€relief€hearing.€€Two€exhibits€show€different€angles€of€the€victimððsÐ Õ %  ÐÔ#cdddÔhead€on€the€autopsy€table,€and€three€exhibits€show€different€angles€of€the€victimððs€body€with€his€headÐ ¿  ÐÔ#ddcdÔlying€over€the€toilet.Ð ©ù  ÐÌÔ‡bXèì XXX×uÔà  àTennessee€courts€follow€a€policy€of€liberality€in€the€admission€of€photographs€in€both€civilÐ }Í  Ðand€criminal€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978)€(citations€omitted).€Ð c³  ÐòòóóòòóóPhotographs€of€a€corpse€are€generally€admissible€in€murder€prosecutions€if€they€are€relevant€to€theÐ I™ Ðissues€at€trial,€notwithstanding€their€gruesome€character.€€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€114€S.W.3d€895,€902Ð / Ð(Tenn.€2003);€òòsee€óóTenn.€R.€Evid.€403.ò òó óÔ#†X×uX XbXèìôò#ÔÐ e ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€explained€he€did€not€object€to€the€admission€of€the€photographs€because€afterÐ å5 Ðmeeting€with€the€prosecutor,€he€believed€they€were€admissible€to€support€the€stateððs€theory€of€theÐ Ï Ðoffense.€€We€note€they€indeed€demonstrate€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€victimððs€injuries.€€TheÐ ¹  Ðphotographs€were€also€relevant€to€negate€the€petitionerððs€claim€of€self„defense,€his€claim€that€he€wasÐ £ó Ðunaware€that€the€victim€was€seriously€injured,€and€his€claim€that€the€victimððs€death€resulted€fromÐ Ý Ðalcohol€poisoning€rather€than€from€the€blows€to€his€head.€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€did€not€establishÐ wÇ Ðdeficiency€or€prejudice.Ð a± ÐÌò òF.€€Failure€to€Request€an€Instruction€on€Second€Degree€Murderó óÐ 5… ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€asserts€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€request€an€instruction€onÐ  Z Ðsecond€degree€murder€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€felony€murder.€€However,€the€petitionerððs€trialÐ ô D Ðoccurred€in€April€1999,€approximately€seven€months€prior€to€òòBurnsóó€and€more€than€two€years€priorÐ Þ!.  Ðto€òòElyóó.€€Furthermore,€at€the€time€of€trial,€second€degree€murder€was€not€a€lesser„included€offense€ofÐ È"! Ðreckless€felony€murder.€€òòSeeóó€òòGilliamóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€390„91.€€Accordingly,€this€argument€is€withoutÐ ²#" Ðmerit.Ð œ$ì# ÐÌò òG.€€Failure€to€Object€to€(i)(2)€Aggravating€Circumstanceó óÐ p&À!% ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€investigate€his€priorÐ E(•#' Ðconvictions€from€Ohio€and€in€failing€to€object€to€the€stateððs€reliance€upon€the€(i)(2)€aggravatingÐ /)$( Ðcircumstance€at€the€penalty€phase€at€the€time€of€his€trial.€€We€disagree€with€the€petitionerððsÐ *i%) Ðassertions.Ð +S&* Ðâ âÐ í+='+ Ðà  àThe€(i)(2)€aggravating€circumstance€provides€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€was€previously€convictedÐ ° Ðâ âof€one€(1)€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€whose€statutory€elements€involve€the€useÐ šê Ðof€violence€to€the€person.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(2).€€The€state€supported€thisÐ „Ô Ðcircumstance€with€evidence€that€the€petitioner€had€two€prior€robbery€convictions€in€Ohio.€€òòSeeóóÐ n¾ ÐòòWilliam€Glenn€Wileyóó,€2001€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€303,€at€*11.€€When€defense€counsel€arguedÐ X¨ Ðto€the€jury€about€the€defendantððs€testimony€concerning€the€underlying€facts€of€the€robberies,€the€stateÐ B ’ Ðobjected.€€The€state€contended€that€neither€the€state€nor€defense€counsel€could€address€the€underlyingÐ , | ÐÔ#bcddÔfacts.€€This€objection€was€understandable€inasmuch€as€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€had€ð ðconsistentlyÐ  f ÐÔ#ddbcÔheld€it€was€improper€to€introduce€evidence€regarding€the€facts€and€circumstances€underlying€a€priorÐ  P Ðviolent€felony€conviction€.€.€.€when€the€prior€conviction€on€its€face€involved€violence€to€the€person.ðð€Ð ê :  ÐòòState€v.€Odomóó,€137€S.W.3d€572,€583€(Tenn.€2004).€€We€conclude€it€was€also€reasonable€for€defenseÐ Ô $  Ðcounsel€to€assume€at€the€time€of€trial€that€the€crime€of€robbery€was€one€ð ðwhose€statutory€elementsÐ ¾  Ðinvolve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Ô‡bXèì XXX×uÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†X×uX XbXèìœ#Ô€39„13„204(i)(2).Ð ¨ø  ÐÌà  àIn€òòSimsóó,€a€case€decided€long€after€the€trial€of€this€case,€our€supreme€court€recognized€that,Ð |Ì  Ðin€spite€of€the€language€of€the€aggravator€as€set€forth€in€the€statute,€some€offenses€might€requireÐ f¶  Ðproof€of€the€circumstances€of€the€underlying€conviction€and€approved€admission€of€such€evidenceÐ P  Ðbefore€the€trial€judge.€€òòState€v.€Simsóó,€45€S.W.3d€1,€11„12€(Tenn.€2001).€€This€court€has€previouslyÐ :Š Ðconcluded,€in€light€of€òòSimsóó,€the€robbery€statute€in€Tennessee€may€or€may€not€involve€the€use€ofÐ $t Ðð ðviolence.ðð€€òòState€v.€Detrick€Coleóó,€No.€W2002„01254„CCA„R3„DD,€2003€Ô‡bXèì XXX×uÔTenn.€Crim.€App.Ô#†X×uX XbXèìÑ#Ô€LEXISÐ ^ Ð1002,€at€*52€Ô‡bXèì XXX×uÔ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ô#†X×uX XbXèìK#Ô€Nov.€24,€2003),€òòpending€review€by€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.óó€€WeÐ øH Ðagain€emphasize€that€these€appellate€cases€were€decided€after€the€trial€of€this€case.Ð â2 ÐÌà  àIn€light€of€this€background,€we€now€turn€to€the€two€Ohio€convictions€for€robbery.€€TheÐ ¶ Ðapplicable€Ohio€statute€relating€to€the€petitionerððs€convictions€provides€that€ð ð[n]o€person,€inÐ  ð Ðattempting€or€committing€a€theft€offense,€.€.€.€or€in€fleeing€immediately€after€such€attempt€or€offense,Ð ŠÚ Ðshall€use€or€threaten€the€immediate€use€of€force€against€another.ðð€€Ohio€R.C.€ðð€2911.02(A)€(1987).€Ð tÄ ÐThe€petitioner€maintains€the€elements€of€this€statute€do€not€necessarily€require€the€use€of€violence.€Ð ^® ÐThe€Ohio€legislature€categorized€robbery€as€an€ð ðoffense€of€violence.ðð€€òòSee€id.óó€ðð€2901.01(I)(1)Ð H˜ Ð(1987).€€However,€we€recognize€the€issue€is€whether€the€ð ðstatutory€elements€[of€the€Ohio€offenses]Ð 2‚ Ðinvolve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Ô‡bXèì XXX×uÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÔ#†X×uX XbXèì #Ô€39„13„204(i)(2).€€Regardless,€inÐ  l Ðlight€of€all€of€the€circumstances€confronting€trial€counsel€at€the€time€of€trial,€we€are€unable€toÐ !V Ðconclude€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient.Ð ð!@  ÐÌò òH.€€Failure€to€Object€to€Victim€Impact€Evidenceó óÐ Ä#" ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€submits€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€challenge€the€stateððs€victimÐ ™%é $ Ðimpact€evidence€as€violating€òòState€v.€Nesbittóó,€978€S.W.2d€872€(Tenn.€1998),€òòcert.€denied,óó€526€U.S.Ð ƒ&Ó!% Ð1052€(1999),€and€in€failing€to€request€a€jury€instruction€regarding€the€evidence.€€We€disagree€withÐ m'½"& Ðthe€petitionerððs€contentions.Ð W(§#' ÐÌà  àDuring€the€penalty€phase,€Betty€Andrews,€the€victimððs€mother,€testified€the€victim€was€aÐ +*{%) Ðð ðmamaððs€boyðð€who€talked€to€her€daily.€€She€explained€the€impact€of€the€victimððs€death€wasÐ +e&* Ðð ðindescribable.ðð€€As€a€result€of€his€death,€Ms.€Andrews€was€unable€to€focus€on€her€job,€and,€basedÐ ÿ+O'+ Ðupon€her€doctorððs€advice,€retired€early€which€impacted€her€financially.Ð é,9(, Їà  àBrianna€Andrews,€the€victimððs€daughter€who€was€sixteen€years€old€when€the€victim€died,Ð ° Ðdescribed€their€relationship€as€ð ðclose.ðð€€Due€to€the€victimððs€death,€she€has€been€unable€to€share€herÐ šê Ðschool€accomplishments€with€him.€€She€testified€the€pain€resulting€from€the€victimððs€death€wasÐ „Ô Ðð ðunbearableðð€and€had€not€become€easier€over€time.€€She€attempted€to€help€her€two€younger€siblingsÐ n¾ Ðdeal€with€the€loss€of€their€father.Ð X¨ ÐÌà  àVictim€impact€evidence€generally€should€be€limited€to€ð ðinformation€designed€to€show€thoseÐ , | Ðunique€characteristics€which€provide€a€brief€glimpse€into€the€life€of€the€individual€who€has€beenÐ  f Ðkilled,€the€contemporaneous€and€prospective€circumstances€surrounding€the€individualððs€death,€andÐ  P Ðhow€those€circumstances€financially,€emotionally,€psychologically€or€physically€impacted€uponÐ ê :  Ðmembers€of€the€victimððs€immediate€family.ðð€€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€891.€€Victim€impact€evidenceÐ Ô $  Ðis€inadmissible€if€the€evidence€is€so€unduly€prejudicial€as€to€render€the€trial€fundamentally€unfair€orÐ ¾  Ðits€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicial€effect.€€òòId.óó€€Although€òòNesbitóó€wasÐ ¨ø  Ða€capital€case,€the€standards€in€òòNesbitóó€have€been€applied€in€a€non„capital€case€where€the€state€soughtÐ ’â  Ðand€the€defendant€received€life€without€parole.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dondie€Tidwellóó,€No.€M2000„02628„Ð |Ì  ÐCCA„R3„CD,€2002€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€1089,€at€**44„45€Ô‡bXèì XXX×uÔ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ô#†X×uX XbXèìÓ#Ô€Dec.€18,€2002).€Ð f¶  ÐHowever,€this€court€has€also€indicated€that€victim€impact€evidence€is€ð ðclearly€admissibleðð€in€a€non„Ð P  Ðcapital€case.€€òòState€v.€Aaron€A.€Winters,€et€al.óó,€No.€02C01„9802„CR„00053,€1999€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð :Š ÐLEXIS€846,€at€*33€Ô‡bXèì XXX×uÔ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ô#†X×uX XbXèìX#Ô€Aug.€19,€1999),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2000).€Ð $t ÐRegardless,€we€conclude€the€evidence€was€admissible€under€òòNesbitóó.Ð ^ ÐÌà  àIn€order€for€the€trial€court€to€adequately€supervise€the€admission€of€victim€impact€evidenceÐ â2 Ðand€ensure€such€evidence€is€properly€limited,€the€state€must€notify€the€trial€court€of€its€intent€toÐ Ì Ðintroduce€the€evidence;€the€trial€court€must€conduct€a€jury„out€hearing€to€determine€the€admissibilityÐ ¶ Ðof€the€evidence;€and€the€trial€court€must€determine€that€evidence€of€one€or€more€aggravatingÐ  ð Ðcircumstances€is€already€present€in€the€record€prior€to€admitting€the€evidence.€€òòNesbitóó,€978€S.W.2dÐ ŠÚ Ðat€891.€€However,€this€procedure€is€not€constitutionally€mandated€but€simply€enables€adequateÐ tÄ Ðsupervision€of€the€admission€of€victim€impact€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Austinóó,€87€S.W.3d€447,€463€(Tenn.Ð ^® Ð2002),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€538€U.S.€1001€(2003).€€Furthermore,€the€jury€instruction€provided€in€òòNesbitóó€isÐ H˜ Ðmerely€a€suggestion.€€òòState€v.€Ô#cdddÔReidóó,€91€S.W.3d€247,€283€(Tenn.€2002),€òòcert.€denied,óó€___€U.S.€___,Ð 2‚ Ð124€S.€Ct.€56€(2003);€òòNesbitóó,€978€Ô#ddcdÔS.W.2d€at€892.Ð  l ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€victim€impact€evidence€was€limited€to€the€victimððs€role€as€son€andÐ ð!@  ÐÔ#cdddÔfather€and€to€the€loss€suffered€by€the€victimððs€immediate€family.€€It€was€allowable€under€òòNesbitóó.€€ThisÐ Ú"*! Ðtestimony€was€not€presented€until€the€prosecution€introduced€proof€of€the€aggravating€circumstances.€Ð Ä#" ÐÔ#ddcdÔAlthough€the€trial€court€did€not€charge€the€jury€pursuant€to€òòNesbitóó,€it€instructed€the€jury€to€refrainÐ ®$þ# Ðfrom€considering€additional€facts€and€circumstances€other€than€those€specified€in€the€twoÐ ˜%è $ Ðaggravating€circumstances€relied€upon€by€the€state.€€We€conclude€this€victim€impact€evidence€wasÐ ‚&Ò!% Ðnot€unduly€prejudicial,€and€its€probative€value€was€not€substantially€outweighed€by€its€prejudicialÐ l'¼"& Ðimpact.€€To€the€extent€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€insist€on€the€òòNesbitóó€procedures,€theÐ V(¦#' Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€prejudice.€€Thus,€this€issue€lacks€merit.Ð @)$( ÐÌò òI.€€Cumulative€Errorsó óÐ +d&* Ðâ âÐ ÿ+O'+ Ðà  àThe€petitioners€submits€the€individual€and€cumulative€errors€committed€by€trial€counselÐ ° Ðâ âresulted€in€prejudice.€€However,€we€have€concluded€none€of€the€individual€issues€raised€by€theÐ šê Ðpetitioner€constituted€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€This€argument€is€without€merit.Ð „Ô ÐÌò òÓ  ÓVI.€€DNA€ANALYSISó óÐ X¨ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€asserts€the€results€of€the€DNA€analysis€of€the€bloody€towel€alone€warrantÐ - } Ðreversal€of€his€convictions.€€The€petitioner€further€asserts€trial€counselððs€failure€to€obtain€DNAÐ  g Ðanalysis€on€the€towel€amounted€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€disagree€with€theseÐ  Q Ðcontentions.Ð ë ;  ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€the€DNA€Analysis€Act€of€2001,Ð ¿  ÐÌà8  àa€person€convicted€of€and€sentenced€for€the€commission€of€first€degree€murder€.€.€.Ð “ã  Ðmay€at€any€time,€file€a€petition€requesting€the€forensic€DNA€analysis€of€any€evidenceÐ }Í  Ðthat€is€in€the€possession€or€control€of€the€prosecution,€law€enforcement,€laboratory,Ð g·  Ðor€court,€and€that€is€related€to€the€investigation€or€prosecution€that€resulted€in€theÐ Q¡ Ðjudgment€of€conviction€and€that€may€contain€biological€evidence.Ð;‹Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„303€(2003).Ð _ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€requested€that€the€post„conviction€court€order€DNA€testing€on€a€bloody€towelÐ ã3 Ðfound€in€the€motel€room€where€the€victim€was€killed.€€The€petitioner€claimed€the€victim€struck€hisÐ Í Ðnose€causing€it€to€bleed€and€that€he€used€the€towel€to€wipe€the€blood€from€his€nose.€€The€petitionerÐ · Ðaverred€DNA€testing€would€reveal€the€presence€of€his€blood€on€the€towel€and,€thus,€support€his€self„Ð ¡ñ Ðdefense€claim.Ð ‹Û ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€granted€the€petitionerððs€request€for€DNA€analysis€pursuant€toÐ _¯ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„305€(2003),€which€provides€that€a€court€may€order€DNAÐ I™ Ðanalysis€upon€finding€that:Ð 3ƒ ÐÌà8  à(1)€A€reasonable€probability€exists€that€analysis€of€the€evidence€will€produce€DNAÐ !W Ðresults€which€would€have€rendered€the€petitionerððs€verdict€or€sentence€moreÐ ñ!A  Ðfavorable€if€the€results€had€been€available€at€the€proceeding€leading€to€the€judgmentÐ Û"+! Ðof€conviction;ÐÅ#"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(2)€The€evidence€is€still€in€existence€and€in€such€a€condition€that€DNA€analysis€mayÐ ™%é $ Ðbe€conducted;Ѓ&Ó!%Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(3)€The€evidence€was€never€previously€subjected€to€DNA€analysis,€or€was€notÐ W(§#' Ðsubjected€to€the€analysis€that€is€now€requested€which€could€resolve€an€issue€notÐ A)‘$( Ðresolved€by€previous€analysis;€andÐ+*{%)Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(4)€The€application€for€analysis€is€made€for€the€purpose€of€demonstrating€innocenceÐ ÿ+O'+ Ðand€not€to€unreasonably€delay€the€execution€of€sentence€or€administration€of€justice.Ðé,9(,Ð Ð  ЇThe€results€of€the€DNA€analysis€indicated€the€presence€of€the€petitionerððs€blood€on€the€towel.Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€mere€fact€that€a€post„conviction€court€orders€DNA€testing€does€notÐ „Ô Ðnecessarily€mandate€that€relief€from€the€conviction€or€sentence€will€be€subsequently€granted€if€theÐ n¾ Ðresults€are€favorable.€€Here,€we€agree€with€the€post„conviction€court€and€are€unable€to€conclude€theÐ X¨ Ðpresence€of€the€petitionerððs€blood€on€the€towel€would€have€resulted€in€a€more€favorable€verdict€orÐ B ’ Ðsentence.€€The€post„conviction€court€noted€it€was€unable€to€reconcile€the€petitionerððs€testimony€atÐ , | Ðthe€post„conviction€hearing€that€the€victim€assaulted€him€with€his€failure€on€all€previous€occasionsÐ  f Ðto€mention€that€the€victim€struck€Ô#cdddÔhim€in€the€nose€causing€it€to€bleed.€€Furthermore,€the€petitionerððsÐ  P Ðversion€of€the€events€is€inconsistent€Ô#ddcdÔwith€the€condition€of€the€victim€and€the€bathroom€where€theÐ ê :  Ðvictimððs€body€was€discovered.€€Finally,€even€if€the€victim€struck€the€petitionerððs€nose,€the€doctrineÐ Ô $  Ðof€self„defense€does€not€authorize€the€petitionerððs€use€of€deadly€force€in€this€situation.Ð ¾  ÐÌÔ#cdddÔà  àFurthermore,€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€failing€to€obtain€a€DNA€analysis€of€the€towelÐ ’â  ÐÔ#ddcdÔand€in€failing€to€introduce€the€results€at€trial.€€The€post„conviction€court,€specifically€accrediting€theÐ |Ì  Ðtestimony€of€trial€counsel,€found€the€petitioner€did€not€tell€trial€counsel€he€was€hit€in€the€nose.€€InÐ f¶  Ðaddition,€as€noted€above,€the€results€of€the€analysis€would€not€have€affected€the€judgment.€€Thus,Ð P  Ðthe€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€deficiency€or€prejudice.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€withoutÐ :Š Ðmerit.Ð $t ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òVII.€€REMAINING€ISSUESó óÐ â2 ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€avers€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€intoxication,€inÐ · Ðadmitting€victim€impact€evidence,€in€failing€to€instruct€the€jury€regarding€the€victim€impactÐ ¡ñ Ðevidence,€and€in€erroneously€instructing€the€jury€regarding€the€(i)(2)€aggravating€circumstance.€Ð ‹Û ÐHowever,€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€these€free„standing€claims€on€direct€appeal.€€Accordingly,Ð uÅ Ðthese€issues€are€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„106(g).Ð _¯ ÐÌà  àBased€upon€our€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð 3ƒ ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓÌÌò òòòó óóóÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________€Ð Å#" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE