ÿWPC5 ¬‹ÖäËÆìu[5‘½nX9kÍŠ|§¦Ñ™}ètÐFð½IY×-K$°÷GIæ²®_é–á¸åë\]¼°6Þ2D&‡ø³6xÙ¬"f›¨ØsŸßÜX'ÆÚ†$¶Ú“k¢-Ó¶|%¢'È ýÐ{ú5Øl Ekƒ’„œäX{K“"iY÷ïfâ°Dg;)\¦^sù-gƒBh¸Œái5ä:÷<9ß›FHqøû.ôVO ¯Ïbžy¾ˆÇ;„l²EúU\¼1ä΋Ë=™¦4'éկϽlÀ‹”Ÿ¿\X4O®Œ¤(µ4MsSï'ç€d-í®#óÒ£À Žç.Õ½pøÿ£å£X\ ±µmÀJ[ðþD2ÌÔ<@ý˜"JtŽÖ›“•æ$x~wNÌì·˜rë‡^ âk̬=Þ2a¯ƒç|ôí«Ã‘¤ RÑA¾n¬ÛýßD‡Ëfþ¯%ÎDãï<ðd.YRÞ=J¤Ûå½j–ü8Âá§À¨,Úø½Äç9¨b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U'N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U N‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1÷N  0DE[[]¸pppppppppppppppppppppb(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 0ë0000 B 0¤8 D5Ü D- 0K>> AS‰ÆÜ 0¤¢ 0DF A«Š˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»²pD+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*DØ£inÌÕ¥ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ñ ° Ñ (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR9Þ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€indictment€refers€to€the€victim€as€ð ðSayers.ðð€€Otherwise,€the€transcript€refers€to€ð ðÔ_ÔSauersÔ_Ô.ðð ®Ý ƒR9Þ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Carl€James€Ô_ÔHasingerÔ_Ôóó,€No.€03C01„9206„00224,€1993€WL€291725€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,Ð ° ÐAugust€5,€1993).€€Ô_ÔHasingerÔ_Ô€entered€pleas€of€guilt€to€first€degree€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.- ù-(|G29Þ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûýò»»Ô d(|3†$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3†$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M•»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€M•»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼M•»»»ÔÑ8€yXXdì»»d8ÑÑ€OaÑà@ttìàÔ‡îIdM•ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼M•»îîId#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€26,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XyX»¼M•ÔÌò òÔ#†¼M•»XXy$#ÔòòDAVID€Ô_ÔZIRKLEÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòóóSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XyX»¼M•Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€4783€€€€€€John€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„02605„CCA„R3„PC€Ð ¥õ  ÐOctober€4,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€County€jury€of€first€degree€murder€and€especiallyÐ xÈ  Ðaggravated€robbery.€€The€Petitioner€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment€for€the€murder€convictionÐ d´ Ðand€to€twenty„five€years€incarceration€for€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction.€€TheÐ P  ÐPetitioner€appealed,€and€the€convictions€were€affirmed€by€our€Court.€€The€Petitioner€then€filed€forÐ <Œ Ðpost„conviction€relief,€which€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€The€Petitioner€now€appeals€the€trialÐ (x Ðcourtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€arguing€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€atÐ d Ðtrial.€€Concluding€that€the€Petitioner€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÐ P Ðof€the€trial€court.Ð ì< ÐÓ ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼M•»àXy¸#ÔÔ‡XyX.¼M•ÔRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€andÐ œì ÐòòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌLinda€J.€Hamilton€Ô_ÔMowlesÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee€(on€appeal)Ô#†¼M•»XXyJ #ÔÔ‡XyX»¼M•Ô;€andÔ#†¼M•»XXy #ÔÔ‡XyX»¼M•Ô€Charles€S.€Sexton,€Knoxville,Ð `° ÐTennessee€(at€trial€and€on€appeal)Ô#†¼M•»XXyf #ÔÔ‡XyX»¼M•Ô;€for€the€Appellant,€David€Ô_ÔZirkleÔ_Ô.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Ô_ÔAngeleÔ_Ô€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð $"t! ÐAl€C.€Ô_ÔSchmutzerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Steven€R.€Hawkins,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ #`" ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÌÓ Óà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼M•»XXyý #ÔÔ‡XyX»¼M•ÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼M•»XXy5#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XyX»¼M•Ôà  àThe€Petitioner,€David€Ô_ÔZirkleÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€by€a€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€County€jury€of€first€degree€murder,Ð ¬'ü"' Ðfelony€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€trial€court€merged€the€murder€convictions€andÐ ˜(è#( Ðsentenced€the€Petitioner€to€a€life€sentence€to€be€served€consecutively€to€a€twenty„five€year€sentenceÐ „)Ô$) Ðfor€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction.€€The€Petitioner€appealed,€and€the€convictions€wereÐ p*À%* Ðaffirmed€by€our€Court.€€The€Petitioner€then€filed€for€post„conviction€relief,€which€was€denied€by€theÐ \+¬&+ Ðtrial€court.€€The€Petitioner€now€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€arguingÐ H,˜', Ðthat€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€€Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÑOaÑâ âѰ°Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_Ôà  àOn€direct€appeal,€this€Court€summarized€the€facts€of€the€underlying€case€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àCurtis€"Jack"€Owenby€befriended€the€victim,€Larry€Sayers,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€while€both€men€lived€inÐ ˆØ ÐArizona.€€After€Owenby€moved€back€to€Tennessee,€he€kept€in€touch€with€the€victimÐ tÄ Ðthrough€letters€and€phone€calls.€€In€early€April€of€1991,€the€victim€telephonedÐ `° ÐOwenby€to€say€that€he€would€be€traveling€through€Tennessee€and€planned€to€stop€forÐ L œ Ða€visit.€€On€April€5€of€that€year,€the€victim,€the€defendant€and€James€Hasinger׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 8 ˆ Ðarrived€in€a€white€Courier€pickup€truck€with€a€camper€shell€on€top.€€Owenby€had€noÐ $ t Ðprevious€acquaintanceship€with€either€the€defendant€or€Hasinger.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€four€men€spent€the€evening€drinking€beer€at€Owenby's€cabin.€€When€theyÐ è 8  Ðhad€exhausted€their€supply€of€alcohol,€Owenby€and€the€victim€went€to€buy€more.€€InÐ Ô$  Ðorder€to€pay€for€the€beer,€the€victim€took€money€from€a€pouch€that€he€wore€aroundÐ À  Ðhis€neck.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThat€night,€the€defendant€and€Hasinger€slept€in€the€truck.€€The€victim€sleptÐ „Ô  Ðinside.€€When€Owenby€left€for€work€at€around€six€the€next€morning,€the€victim€wasÐ pÀ Ðawake€but€the€defendant€and€Hasinger€were€still€asleep.€€Owenby€understood€that€theÐ \¬ Ðvictim€would€be€waiting€for€him€when€he€returned€from€work.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àWhen€Owenby€got€back€that€afternoon,€the€three€men€and€the€truck€wereÐ  p Ðgone.€€Owenby€noticed€a€spot€on€the€ground€which€he€first€thought€to€be€transmissionÐ  \ Ðfluid.€€When€the€victim€had€not€contacted€him€by€the€following€morning,€however,Ð øH ÐOwenby€re-examined€the€ground€stain€and€decided€that€it€was€either€blood€or€paint.€Ð ä4 ÐHe€then€noticed€that€the€cap€had€been€taken€off€his€well€and€that€a€crowbar€had€beenÐ Ð  Ðmoved€from€his€front€porch.€€He€also€found€the€victim's€money€pouch€on€the€ground.€Ð ¼  ÐWhen€he€saw€that€the€contents€had€been€removed,€Owenby€called€the€authorities.ШøÐ Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€878„79€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€Petitioner€and€Hasinger€were€arrested€in€Norfolk,€Virginia€when€Hasinger€tried€to€cashÐ l¼ Ðone€of€the€victimððs€checks.€€When€the€police€arrested€the€Petitioner,€he€claimed€that€he€did€not€knowÐ X ¨ ÐHasinger;€however,€the€Petitioner€had€Hasingerððs€identification€in€his€pocket.€€The€Petitioner€alsoÐ D!” Ðhad€the€keys€to€the€victimððs€truck€in€his€pocket.€€The€victimððs€body€was€found€in€a€ravine€near€theÐ 0"€  ÐPigeon€River€in€Cocke€County,€Tennessee.€€à À à€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àDetective€Brett€Johnson€testified€that€the€vehicle€was€taken€to€the€Norfolk€Police€DepartmentÐ ô$D # Ðcompound€and€sold€on€June€21,€1991.€€Everything€that€was€in€the€vehicle€was€auctioned€along€withÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€vehicle.€€Johnson€testified€that€the€police€specifically€looked€for€a€tire€tool€in€the€truck€before€itÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€auctioned€off,€but€none€was€found.€€Johnson€testified€that€he€had€examined€everything€in€theÐ ° Ðtruck€and€that€he€did€not€recall€any€blank€Social€Security€cards€or€birth€certificates.€€He€also€did€notÐ œì Ðrecall€any€maps€or€trip€tickets.€€Johnson€testified€that€the€investigator€for€the€Public€DefenderððsÐ ˆØ ÐOffice€had€inquired€about€all€of€those€items.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€Petitionerððs€trial€was€set€for€January€7,€1992.€€In€late€November€or€early€December€1991,Ð L œ Ðthe€Petitionerððs€original€lead€attorney€was€allowed€to€withdraw€by€agreement€of€the€parties.€€OnÐ 8 ˆ ÐDecember€9,€1991,€less€than€a€month€before€trial,€Edward€G.€Miller€(counsel)€was€appointed€to€aideÐ $ t ÐAlan€Feltes€(co„counsel)€in€the€Petitionerððs€case.€€Alan€Feltes€had€been€working€on€the€case€sinceÐ  ` ÐApril€1991.€€At€trial,€counsel€made€a€motion€for€a€continuance€because€he€claimed€that€he€had€notÐ ü L  Ðhad€enough€time€to€adequately€prepare€for€the€Petitionerððs€trial.€€Defense€counsel€stated,€ð ðI€think€IÐ è 8  Ðknow€a€little€bit€about€everything,€but€not€a€whole€lot€about€anything€on€the€case.ðð€€In€addition,Ð Ô$  Ðcounsel€stated,€ð ðI€donððt€think€that€the€time€Iððve€had€to€prepare€this€case€is€sufficient€to€„€„€to€provideÐ À  Ðhim€with€competent€legal€counsel€on€a€death€penalty€case.ðð€€However,€when€the€trial€courtÐ ¬ü  Ðquestioned€counsel€as€to€what€else€needed€to€be€done€that€should€have€been€done,€counsel€replied,Ð ˜è  Ðð ðI€think€basically€most€everything€has€been.ðð€€Counsel€stated€that€the€case€had€been€investigated,€butÐ „Ô  Ðhe€had€not€had€time€to€become€familiar€enough€with€the€facts.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€forÐ pÀ Ða€continuance.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àDefense€counsel€made€another€motion€for€a€continuance€based€on€the€unavailability€ofÐ 4„ Ðwitness€James€Long.€€According€to€counsel,€Long€was€released€from€the€Sevier€County€Jail€before€Ð  p Ðcounsel€was€able€to€subpoena€him.€€Counsel€stated€that€he€was€diligent€in€trying€to€find€Long.€Ð  \ ÐCounsel€argued€that€Long€was€in€an€adjacent€cell€to€Carl€Hasinger,€the€other€man€accused€ofÐ øH Ðmurdering€the€victim€in€this€case,€and€that€he€would€have€testified€that€Hasinger€told€him€that€heÐ ä4 Ðcommitted€the€murder€alone.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€stating€that€the€witness€wouldÐ Ð  Ðmerely€corroborate€a€ð ðmuch€greater€and€detailed€written€statementðð€provided€to€the€Petitioner€whichÐ ¼  Ðis€ð ðmore€exculpatory.ðð€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€noted€that€the€defense€presented€no€proof€that€heÐ ¨ø Ðcould€secure€the€attendance€of€the€witness€for€a€later€date€should€the€continuance€be€granted.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àDefense€counsel€also€made€a€motion€to€compel€discovery€for€maps€and€AutomobileÐ l¼ ÐAssociation€of€America€(AAA)€trip€tickets€which€were€in€the€victimððs€truck€when€it€was€searchedÐ X ¨ Ðin€Norfolk,€Virginia.€€Counsel€argued€that€these€items€were€requested€from€the€District€AttorneyÐ D!” ÐGeneral€ð ðon€more€than€one€occasion.ðð€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà@%ìàCONTINUANCEˆÐ $X" ÐÌà  àÔ‡ XyXXXyÔThe€Petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€counselððs€request€for€a€continuanceÐ à%0!$ Ðbased€on€the€late€appointment€of€counsel€and€counselððs€inadequate€time€to€prepare€for€trial.€Ô#†XyXX Xy.#ÔÔ‡ XyXXXyÔ€LeadÐ Ì&"% Ðdefense€counsel€was€appointed€less€than€a€month€before€the€case€was€set€for€trial€after€PetitionerððsÐ ¸'#& Ðprivate€counsel€had€been€allowed€to€withdraw€from€the€case.€€At€the€time€he€was€appointed,€counselÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwas€involved€in€numerous€criminal€cases,€including€one€first€degree€murder€case.€€However,€co„Ð )à$( Ðcounsel€had€been€working€on€this€case€since€April€1991,€when€the€Defendant€was€arrested.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€issue€of€the€denial€of€a€continuance€was€litigated€on€direct€appeal,€and€this€CourtÐ ° Ðconcluded€that€the€Petitioner€did€not€suffer€any€prejudice€because€of€the€late€appointment€of€counsel.€Ð œì ÐòòZirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€883„84.€€Therefore,€this€issue€cannot€now€be€re„litigated€before€this€Court.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòAllen€v.€Stateóó,€854€S.W.2d€873,€875€(Tenn.€1993).€Ô#†XyXX Xy4/#ÔÐ tÄ Ðà  àÌÔ‡ XyXXXyÔÓ  ÓINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELÐ L œ ÐÌÓd3Óà  àThe€Petitioner€now€argues€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€at€trial€due€to€counselððsÐ $ t Ðinadequate€time€to€prepare.€€Specifically,€the€Petitioner€argues€the€following:€(1)€that€counsel€failedÐ  ` Ðto€obtain€ð ðcrucial€evidenceðð€from€the€victimððs€truck,€(2)€that€counsel€failed€to€subpoena€a€criticalÐ ü L  Ðwitness,€(3)€that€counsel€failed€to€present€all€the€statements€made€by€Hasinger€regarding€the€murder,Ð è 8  Ðand€(4)€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€not€allowing€the€Petitioner€to€testify€at€trial.€€After€a€thoroughÐ Ô$  Ðreview€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€Petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€he€received€ineffectiveÐ À  Ðassistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€obtain€post„conviction€relief,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€his€or€her€conviction€orÐ „Ô  Ðsentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgment€of€a€constitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð pÀ Ððð€40„30„203.€€The€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€factual€allegations€in€the€petition€for€post„Ð \¬ Ðconviction€relief€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€A€post„conviction€courtððsÐ H˜ Ðfactual€findings€are€subject€to€a€òòde€novoóó€review€by€this€Court;€however,€we€must€accord€these€factualÐ 4„ Ðfindings€a€presumption€of€correctness,€which€is€overcome€only€when€a€preponderance€of€theÐ  p Ðevidence€is€contrary€to€the€post„conviction€courtððs€factual€findings.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,Ð  \ Ð456€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997)).€€A€post„convictionÐ øH Ðcourtððs€conclusions€of€law€or€of€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact,€such€as€whether€counselððsÐ ä4 Ðperformance€was€deficient€or€whether€that€deficiency€was€prejudicial,€are€subject€to€a€purely€òòde€novoóóÐ Ð  Ðreview€by€this€Court,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòId.óó€at€457.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€right€of€a€criminally€accused€to€representation€is€guaranteed€by€both€the€SixthÐ ”ä ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ð €Ð ÐòòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€Ð l¼ ÐThis€right€to€representation€includes€the€right€to€ð ðreasonably€effectiveðð€assistance.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3dÐ X ¨ Ðat€461.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€reviewing€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whetherÐ #l! Ðthe€advice€given€or€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demandedÐ $X" Ðof€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÐ ô$D # Ðassistance€of€counsel,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€ð ðcounselððs€representation€fell€below€an€objectiveÐ à%0!$ Ðstandard€of€reasonableness,ðð€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€688€(1984),€and€that€thisÐ Ì&"% Ðperformance€prejudiced€the€defense,€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòId.óó€at€687òòóó;Ð ¸'#& ÐòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.1993).€€To€satisfy€the€requirement€of€prejudice,€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpetitioner€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€factÐ )à$( Ðâ âfinder€would€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regarding€the€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐThis€reasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€694;Ð ° Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWhen€evaluating€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,€the€reviewing€court€should€judgeÐ tÄ Ðthe€attorneyððs€performance€within€the€context€of€the€case€as€a€whole,€taking€into€account€all€relevantÐ `° Ðcircumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690òòóó;€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€753€S.W.2d€148,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð L œ ÐApp.€1988).€€The€reviewing€court€must€evaluate€the€questionable€conduct€from€the€attorneyððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðperspective€at€the€time.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,Ð $ t Ð629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€€In€doing€so,€the€reviewing€court€must€be€highly€deferential€andÐ  ` Ðð ðshould€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€ofÐ ü L  Ðreasonable€professional€assistance.ðð€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462.€€Counsel€should€not€be€deemed€to€haveÐ è 8  Ðbeen€ineffective€merely€because€a€different€procedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€differentÐ Ô$  Ðresult.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,€279„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).Ð À  ÐÔ#†XyXX XyE3#ÔÔ‡ XyXXXyÔÌ€à  àThe€Petitioner€first€argues€that€counsel€did€not€secure€ð ðcrucial€evidenceðð€from€the€victimððsÐ ˜è  Ðtruck€before€it€was€sold€and€that€ð ðmany,€if€not€most,€of€the€elements€of€his€story€could€have€beenÐ „Ô  Ðsupported€by€physical€evidenceðð€that€was€in€the€truck.€€Ô#†XyXX XyyH#ÔÔ‡ XyXXXyÔSpecifically,€the€Petitioner€argues€that€theÐ pÀ Ðtruck€contained€travel€tickets€that€showed€the€victimððs€route,€documentation€of€the€PetitionerððsÐ \¬ Ðbroken€arm,€and€receipts€from€the€trip.€€According€to€the€Petitioner,€these€items€would€have€addedÐ H˜ Ðcredibility€to€his€version€of€what€happened€to€the€victim€and€would€have€shown€that€he€did€notÐ 4„ Ðdeliberately€bring€the€victim€to€Tennessee€to€kill€him.€€The€Petitioner€argues€that€the€informationÐ  p Ðabout€his€injury€would€have€shown€that€he€physically€could€not€have€lifted€a€large€rock€like€the€oneÐ  \ Ðused€to€murder€the€victim.€€Ô#†XyXX XyøI#ÔÔ‡ XyXXXyÔÐ øH ÐÌà  àThe€Petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€counsel€or€co„counsel€was€deficient€in€attempting€toÐ Ð  Ðprocure€evidence€from€the€victimððs€truck.€€According€to€Detective€Brett€Johnson,€the€victimððs€truckÐ ¼  Ðwas€accidentally€sold€along€with€all€of€its€contents.€€The€victimððs€truck€was€actually€supposed€to€beÐ ¨ø Ðturned€over€to€the€victimððs€mother.€€Co„counsel€testified€that€he€signed€an€order€authorizing€theÐ ”ä Ðrelease€of€the€truck€but€not€its€contents.€€In€addition,€there€is€evidence€that€co„counsel€and€theÐ €Ð Ðinvestigator€for€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€specifically€inquired€about€maps,€AAA€trip€tickets,Ð l¼ Ðblank€birth€certificates,€blank€Social€Security€cards,€and€a€tire€iron.€€None€of€these€items€wereÐ X ¨ Ðrecovered€from€the€truck.€€However,€a€picture€of€the€truckððs€contents€did€show€what€appeared€to€beÐ D!” Ðtravel€tickets.€€The€Petitioner€has€failed€to€show€any€deficient€performance€by€his€attorneys€in€theirÐ 0"€  Ðefforts€to€procure€evidence€from€the€victimððs€truck.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFurther,€the€Petitioner€has€failed€to€show€specifically€how€the€introduction€of€evidence€fromÐ ô$D # Ðthe€victimððs€truck€would€have€contributed€to€his€defense.€€The€Petitioner€argues€that€the€travel€ticketsÐ à%0!$ Ðwould€have€shown€that€the€victim€had€planned€a€trip€across€the€country€and€that€the€Petitioner€didÐ Ì&"% Ðnot€deliberately€bring€the€victim€to€Tennessee€in€order€to€kill€him.€€Although€the€tickets€were€notÐ ¸'#& Ðavailable€at€trial,€the€photograph€of€the€vehicleððs€contents€was€available.€€Moreover,€the€route€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðvictim€before€he€arrived€in€Tennessee€was€not€€an€issue€in€the€case.€€Although€the€tickets€might€haveÐ )à$( Ðbolstered€the€Petitionerððs€credibility,€they€would€not€have€shown€the€Petitionerððs€intent€at€the€timeÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€crime.€€Regarding€the€Petitionerððs€injury,€although€counsel€did€not€introduce€the€PetitionerððsÐ h+¸&* Ðmedical€records,€counsel€did€introduce€into€evidence€the€forty„five€pound€rock€to€show€that€it€wouldÐ ° Ðbe€difficult€for€anyone€to€lift€over€his€head.€€The€Petitionerððs€medical€records€were€not€presented€asÐ œì Ðevidence€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€therefore,€the€post„conviction€court€could€not€assess€theirÐ ˆØ Ðrelevance.€€Further,€the€Petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€the€absence€of€any€other€items€in€theÐ tÄ Ðvictimððs€truck€prejudiced€his€trial.€€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€Petitioner€next€argues€that€counsel€failed€to€subpoena€a€crucial€witness€to€testify€at€trial.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThe€Petitioner€argues€that€counsel€was€aware€or€should€have€been€aware€that€James€Long,€an€inmateÐ $ t Ðin€the€Sevier€County€Jail€along€with€Carl€Hasinger,€was€going€to€be€released€prior€to€trial.€€AccordingÐ  ` Ðto€Long,€he€and€Hasinger€were€in€adjacent€cells,€and€Hasinger€told€him€about€the€murder.€€LongÐ ü L  Ðwrote€in€one€statement€that€Hasinger€told€him€that€he€had€committed€the€murder€by€himself.€€In€thatÐ è 8  Ðsame€written€statement,€Long€said€that€he€would€be€released€from€jail€in€December€1991.€€DespiteÐ Ô$  Ðthis€statement,€a€subpoena€was€not€procured€until€January€4,€1992,€just€three€days€prior€to€the€trialÐ À  Ðand€after€Long€was€released€from€jail.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAlthough€we€agree€with€the€Petitioner€that€Long€should€have€been€subpoenaed€prior€to€hisÐ „Ô  Ðrelease€from€jail,€we€conclude€that€the€Petitioner€was€not€prejudiced€by€Longððs€absence.€Ô#†XyXX XyíL#ÔÔ‡ XyXXXyÔ€CounselÐ pÀ Ðtestified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€Longððs€testimony€was€critical€to€corroborating€theÐ \¬ ÐPetitionerððs€story.€€The€basic€content€of€Longððs€statement,€however,€was€admitted€through€theÐ H˜ Ðtestimony€of€Dale€Smith,€a€minister€to€both€the€Petitioner€and€Hasinger.€€Smith€testified€that€theÐ 4„ ÐPetitioner€brought€him€a€statement€that€had€been€written€by€Hasinger€in€which€Hasinger€admittedÐ  p Ðto€murdering€the€victim€and€stated€that€the€Petitioner€did€not€participate€in€the€crime.€€Smith€testifiedÐ  \ Ðthat€Hasinger€admitted€to€him€that€he€had€written€the€statement€and€that€no€pressure€had€been€placedÐ øH Ðon€him€to€do€so.€€In€addition,€Counsel€acknowledged€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€since€theÐ ä4 Ðtrial,€Long€had€been€injured€in€an€accident€that€caused€him€brain€damage,€rendering€him€unable€toÐ Ð  Ðtestify€in€a€new€trial.€€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€Petitioner€further€argues€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€present€all€ofÐ ”ä ÐHasingerððs€statements€regarding€the€details€of€the€victimððs€death€and€that€counsel€was€unable€toÐ €Ð Ðadequately€point€out€the€inconsistencies€in€the€statements€that€were€presented.Ô#†XyXX XyJ\#ÔÔ‡ XyXXXyÔ€€However,€the€post„Ð l¼ Ðconviction€trial€court€noted€that€evidence€of€Hasinger€making€contradictory€statements€ð ðcame€inÐ X ¨ Ðthrough€other€testimony.ðð€€We€conclude€that€counselððs€introduction€of€certain€statements€and€notÐ D!” Ðothers€was€trial€strategy€and€absent€a€showing€of€deficient€performance€by€counsel,€should€not€beÐ 0"€  Ðð ðsecond€guessedðð€by€this€Court.€€òòWilliamsóó,€599€S.W.2d€at€278„79.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Petitioner€argues€that€counsel€was€deficient€in€not€properly€advising€the€PetitionerÐ ô$D # Ðconcerning€Petitionerððs€right€to€testify€at€trial.€€The€Petitioner€now€argues€that€he€was€denied€his€rightÐ à%0!$ Ðto€testify.€€It€is€well€established€that€criminal€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€testify.€€òòMomonÐ Ì&"% Ðv.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€157€(Tenn.€1999).€€This€right€may€only€be€waived€personally€by€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendant.€€òòId.óó€at€161.€Ô#†XyXX XyÙa#ÔÔ‡ XyXXXyÔ€Counsel€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€did€not€specificallyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðremember€having€any€discussions€with€the€Petitioner€regarding€his€testifying€at€trial,€although€it€wasÐ )à$( Ðhis€custom€and€habit€to€do€so,€particularly€in€a€first€degree€murder€case.€€According€to€counsel,€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐPetitioner€would€have€testified€about€his€arm€injury€and€his€care€of€the€victim€before€their€arrival€inÐ h+¸&* ÐTennessee.€€Counsel€also€stated€that€the€trial€judge€generally€did€not€inform€defendants€of€their€rightÐ ° Ðto€testify.€€However,€the€Petitioner€acknowledged€that€he€had€been€in€court€on€a€number€of€occasionsÐ œì Ðfor€various€convictions€prior€to€this€case.€€The€state€argues€that€a€logical€inference€from€theÐ ˆØ ÐPetitionerððs€numerous€court€appearances€is€that€the€Petitioner€understood€his€constitutional€right€toÐ tÄ Ðtestify€and€knew€that€evidence€of€his€prior€convictions€would€be€admitted€if€he€testified.Ô#†XyXX Xy$f#ÔÔ‡ XyXXXyÔÐ `° ÐÌà  àOn€the€matter€of€the€Petitioner€not€testifying,€the€post„conviction€trial€court€found€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðfollowing:Ð $ t Ðà8  àà ` à[Counsel],€an€attorney€of€broad€experience€in€criminal€law,€being€PublicÐ  ` ÐDefender€for€twelve€years€or€so,€testified€that€it€is€his€practice€to€advise€the€defendantÐ ü L  Ðof€their€[sic]€right€to€testify€and€make€decisions€as€to€whether€he€will€advise€themÐ è 8  Ðthey€should€or€should€not€testify.€€He€cannot€specifically€recall€in€this€case€that€he€didÐ Ô$  Ðmake€that€specific€admonition€or€have€that€particular€discussion€with€[the€Petitioner]Ð À  Ðin€this€petition,€but€it€would€seem€logical€that€he€would€and€just€of€the€generalÐ ¬ü  Ðcustom€of€the€practice,€which€we€all€know€is€a€matter€of€fact,€that€that€is€a€part€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðduties€of€the€defense€counsel€in€advising€a€client.€€Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€went€on€to€say€that€it€understood€that€counsel€did€not€think€it€would€have€beenÐ \¬ Ðvery€wise€for€the€Petitioner€to€testify€because€of€the€likelihood€that€he€would€be€impeached€basedÐ H˜ Ðon€his€statements.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€decision€not€to€testify€at€trial€was€made€by€theÐ 4„ ÐPetitioner€and€counsel,€and€ð ðthis€after€decision€now€by€Mr.€Zirkle€that€he€wanted€to€testify€is€notÐ  p Ðconvincing.ðð€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€preponderance€of€theÐ  \ Ðevidence€is€not€contrary€to€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòFieldsóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€456.€Ð øH ÐThus,€there€was€sufficient€evidence€for€the€trial€court€to€conclude€that€the€Petitioner€was€advised€atÐ ä4 Ðtrial€by€his€attorney€concerning€his€right€to€testify€and€that€he€chose€not€to,€thus€waiving€his€right€toÐ Ð  Ðtestify.Ô#†XyXX Xyzj#ÔÔ‡ XyXXXyÔÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€all€respects€AFFIRMED.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌÌà  àÌÔ#†XyXX Xy©r#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð D!” Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE