ÿWPC0= â0GÅwNPÌ?õ|aí‹çEžWâöäôŠ¢E}­¤ÉM'\pÝ] ˜·ñ0E£íá*µ˜=qÚL}¥Ë‡’µûµ²MÂ&ÍãM1¦³\ÈÆ‰È €x°/u x[.`²qnEÁ9Åè¿JÍF€R…EYÄ=3)ØG7øGEØngu;PÛ¢yaŠ=MÚBðF5ªRõÇgUÙó]f5VÐey~–ű ~̉~ÄêÛºçÃ[Œ©^Wø¼ Ý5/ü€¬.¢ßqXÞg@PÈùs¶ÏP?NǺùÏÍÛ)vß_ g‰Gn‰ƒ³€ Þó3 ŒAJž_”ð®PYC~ÙŽªæ¾¼òêžnƒ…Y×?μ²ºÁtºãÑ;RòÁ ± }?¸$¯‰Ã>}9F„DÕç|óß«‚ËõJ†Uâ×mÓzz+õo~/¼ù͉ !xµ1 ½c¦qF§÷‡uL/¡{ml¶é ^ˆRvì­’(чúÜø‚ÍV·g©z€6 ³Ù°S€¢o‰-[|h÷ñQÛƒ†ÂÊ´‘°Þ 2­ ‡Ýâ&ÿ7±ª`çœÏg—DÁST~ký5 Ù‘¨gnÉô. ¯í*©TóC{¹b BJX# ÐU":Û % 0Dw@_4Ÿ³UHÂ7 ÃA 0ˆ 0DŒ @Ð r UF‚iÈÚ1Š É•v^ÝÔä±ÿ• ”©žG l×#±C&Bô'$6) BZ+Bw+:¹-;ó.š.1È3gÝ3 1mD5 0c±5¹6PÍ6 AQ8Æn8 0D49lx9 0Dä: 0D(; D/l; B›;¸; D3»<U:î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<î<(=˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(ñÄ$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒX°Ò Ì{ÍÎÏ{ÐÑÒPÓDÔÓ€ÞBQ‡&Ôô3|xÞ( € Z ‹0BernhardMod BT Roman -Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔThe€appellant€filed€his€post„conviction€petition€under€the€pre„1995€Post€Conviction€ProcedureÐ  ÐAct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„101€to€„124€(Repealed€1995). ¹Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ô5… ôXXÔòòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€260„61€(Tenn.€1993).(8(3Åå$¤¤Ý ƒñÄ!ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 6Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ô5… ôXXÔThe€appellant€was€also€convicted€of€aggravated€kidnapping€based€upon€the€same€criminalÐ  Ðepisode.€€The€trial€court€granted€a€judgment€of€acquittal€on€that€conviction. hÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ô5… ôXXÔMr.€Sexton€was€tried€together€with€the€appellant€for€the€crimes€against€Ms.€Smith.€€Mr.€SextonÐ  Ðwas€sentenced€to€life€in€prison€plus€a€term€of€125€years€for€his€convictions.€€His€appeal€is€not€now€beforeÏthis€Court.,–'y   ‹.BernhardMod BT Bold _Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔMr.€Childers€was€an€acquaintance€of€the€appellant.€€He€testified€at€trial€that€the€appellant€cameÐ  Ðto€his€house€on€August€1,€1983,€to€inquire€whether€he€would€purchase€automotive€parts€from€a€1979ÏCamaro.€€During€his€visit,€the€appellant€told€Mr.€Childers€that€he€had€killed€the€owner€of€the€vehicle€afterÏshe€threatened€to€charge€him€with€rape.€€The€appellant€confessed€the€details€of€the€killing€to€Mr.ÏChilders,€including€the€events€that€preceded€the€crime.€ ÐÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔThe€appellant€had€apparently€confessed€his€involvement€in€the€murder€to€Don€King. €Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔThe€appellant€was€represented€at€trial€by€attorneys€Robert€R.€Simpson€and€Joseph€M.€Tipton.€Ð  ÐMr.€Tipton€has€been€a€respected€judge€on€the€Tennessee€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€since€1990.€€He€didÏnot€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing. ¿Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔAt€the€time€of€the€evaluation,€the€appellant€claimed€that€Mr.€Sexton€was€responsible€for€theÐ  Ðdeath€of€Ms.€Smith.€€The€appellant€and€Mr.€Sexton€had€fabricated€this€false€version€of€the€crime€throughÏa€suicide€letter€that€Mr.€Sexton€had€left€in€his€jail€cell€at€the€Fort€Pillow€State€Prison.€€In€the€letter,€Mr.ÏSexton€confessed€that€he€was€the€killer€and€that€the€appellant€was€not€responsible€for€Ms.€Smithððs€death.€ÏMr.€Sextonððs€suicide€attempt€failed,€and€both€he€and€the€appellant€eventually€admitted€that€theÏinformation€in€the€letter€was€false.€ lÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔDr.€Gebrow€retained€the€services€of€a€psychologist,€Dr.€David€Mindes,€to€conduct€neurologicalÐ  Ðtesting€of€the€appellant.€€Those€results€were€included€in€the€evaluation€report€submitted€to€defenseÏcounsel€by€Dr.€Gebrow. ÓÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔDefense€witnesses€in€that€regard€included€the€appellant,€his€mother,€his€brother,€a€childhoodÐ  Ðfriend,€and€a€guidance€counselor€from€appellantððs€former€high€school.€€Additional€witnesses€for€theÏdefense€during€the€sentencing€phase€were€Dr.€Robert€Booher€and€two€correctional€officers€from€the€FortÏPillow€State€Prison. ÚÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú26Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔThe€letter€was€found€at€the€prison€facility€after€Mr.€Sexton€attempted€to€commit€suicide.€€ õÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú27Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔAs€mentioned€above,€the€State€also€introduced€appellantððs€criminal€record€as€an€adult.€€TheÐ  Ðappellant€had€a€prior€conviction€of€felony€murder,€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€joyriding.€€Also,€he€wasÏconvicted€of€assault€with€the€intent€to€commit€aggravated€kidnapping€based€upon€a€criminal€episode€thatÏoccurred€three€days€after€the€murder€of€Ms.€Smith.€€ Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔDr.€Auble€testified€that€there€were€three€reasons€why€the€rape€accusation€triggered€appellantððsÐ  Ðanger:€(1)€the€appellant€was€fearful€of€rejection€relating€back€to€the€death€of€his€father;€(2)€his€sister„in„¼law€had€accused€him€of€rape€when€he€was€a€juvenile;€and€(3)€he€had€been€involved€in€an€abusiveÏrelationship€with€his€ex„girlfriend,€Lori€Eastman€Carter.€€€ ŸÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú25Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔWe€further€note€that€portions€of€Dr.€Aubleððs€testimony€supported€the€Stateððs€theory€that€theÐ  Ðappellant€committed€the€murder€to€avoid€prosecution€for€rape.€€It€is€questionable€whether€defenseÏcounsel€would€have€used€that€information€even€if€it€had€been€available. †Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔAdditional€evidence€was€provided€by€Agent€Davenport€and€Tommy€Heflin,€a€firearms€examinerÐ  Ðfor€the€T.B.I.€€Agent€Davenport€testified€that€after€the€appellant€made€a€statement,€appellant€took€himÏand€other€officers€to€the€place€where€the€Camaro€was€hidden€and€to€where€he€had€hidden€the€vehicleððsÏlicense€plate.€€Also,€appellant€showed€the€officers€where€the€shooting€occurred€and€where€he€and€Mr.Ð B :  ÐSexton€had€submerged€the€body€in€the€quarry.€€Mr.€Heflin€testified€that,€based€upon€his€examination,€atÏleast€two€bullets€had€been€fired€from€a€rifle€with€the€same€firing€characteristics€as€Mr.€Sextonððs€rifle.€€HeÏfurther€stated€that€the€intact€metal€bullet€jacket€found€at€the€scene€had€been€fired€from€Mr.€Sextonððs€rifle.€€Ï bÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôUè ôXXÔA€plurality€of€the€Court€in€òòParkeróó€reasoned€that€when€the€defendant€has€confessed€to€theÐ  Ðcrime,€his€case€is€already€ð ðdevastated,ðð€so€that€the€codefendantððs€confession€ð ðwill€seldom,€if€ever,€be€ofÏthe€ððdevastatingðð€character€referred€to€in€òòBrutonóó,ðð€and€impeaching€the€codefendantððs€confession€onÐ „| Ðcross„examination€ð ðwould€likely€yield€small€advantage.ðð€€òòParkeróó,€442€U.S.€at€73,€99€S.Ct.€at€2139.€€ §Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔThe€Court€acknowledged€that€the€codefendantððs€confession€may€actually€enhance€theÐ  Ðreliability€of€the€defendantððs€confession,€and€increase€the€likelihood€of€a€conviction,€where€the€twoÏconfessions€are€interlocking.€€òòCruzóó,€481€U.S.€at€193,€107€S.Ct.€at€1719.€€€€€€€€ 8Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔThe€appellant€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€had€told€four€people€about€theÐ  Ðshooting,€including€Mr.€Childers,€before€he€was€questioned€by€police.€€ Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔThe€jury€also€found€that€the€defendant€had€been€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,Ð  Ðother€than€the€present€charge,€which€involve€the€use€or€threat€of€violence€to€the€person,€and€that€theÏmurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€òòId.óóÐ „| Ð(referring€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2),(5)€(1982)). d 8Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔIt€is€important€to€note€that€under€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€of€this€trial,€a€jury€could€haveÐ  Ðimposed€a€sentence€of€death€upon€finding€only€one€aggravating€circumstance€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt,€so€long€as€there€were€no€mitigating€circumstances€sufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€theÏaggravating€circumstance.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(g)€(1982).€€In€this€case,€the€jury€found€fourÏaggravating€circumstances. 0Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔJustice€Drowota€and€former€Justice€OððBrien€dissented€as€to€the€holding€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€òòSeeóó€€Ð  Ð840€S.W.2d€at€347„350€(Drowota,€J.,€dissenting). 1Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔThe€felony€murder€aggravator€has€since€been€amended€to€provide€that,€ð ð[t]he€murder€wasÐ  Ðknowingly€committed,€solicited,€directed,€or€aided€by€the€defendant,€while€the€defendant€had€aÏsubstantial€role€in€committing€or€attempting€to€commit,€or€was€fleeing€after€having€a€substantial€role€inÏcommitting€or€attempting€to€commit,€anyðð€of€the€enumerated€felonies.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„¼204(i)(7)€(Supp.€1995). Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôUè ôXXÔThere€has€been€some€question€concerning€whether€the€decision€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó€was€requiredÐ  Ðunder€the€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€provision€of€the€federal€constitution.€€Following€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€aРƾ Ðmajority€of€this€Court€has€held€that€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€decision€was€based€independently€on€Article€I,Ð „| Ðsection€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€816€(Tenn.€1994);€òòHowellóó,Ð B : Ð868€S.W.2d€at€259€n.7. Ñ  Ñ ]Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔOððBrien,€Sp.,€J.€wrote€for€the€majority,€concurred€in€by€Anderson,€C.J.,€Drowota€and€Birch,€J.J.€Ð  ÐFormer€Justice€Reid€dissented.€€òòSeeóó€òòHinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€584„88€(Reid,€J.,€dissenting).€€'#Ge37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3È$´´Ô2GeÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à ¯Ý ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔòòState€v.€Kingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241€(Tenn.€1986). FÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôUè ôXXÔUnder€the€new€post„conviction€procedure€act,€petitioners€have€the€burden€of€proving€factualÐ  Ðallegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).+,./0Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý bÝ ƒ Åå$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôUè ôXXÔSection€(b)(2)€further€provides€that€ð ð[t]here€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€a€ground€for€reliefÐ  Ðnot€raised€in€any€such€proceeding€which€was€held€was€waived.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(2).€€(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó11'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd ùÝ ƒ,¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€4XJÛXXXÔÔ€4Ü? X4XJÛÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€4XJÛX 4Ü?ÔÐ  ÐÌApril€12,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularÝ ƒñÄ!ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÝ  ݛѰÑÑ€°ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÑ7€JÛXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ=€JÛXÐXdÐd=ÓÑ€$P¨ÑœñÞññÞññÞññÔñœñÔñßr€*23<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rßñÞññÔññÔññÞñßt€*23>.*jx¯` `€€@EL` 8ttxP„(  tß›ñÞñà@‰‰ €àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@¶¶*€àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌÌÌÌTERRY€LYNN€KINGà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àò òFOR€PUBLICATIONó óÐ R J Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellant,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àœò òFILED:ñÌññÊñ€ñÊññÌññÍñ€ñÍñ€òòñÏññËñAñËññÎñprilñÎññÏññÏñAprilñÏññÎñ€ñÎññÐñ12,€1999ñÐñóó€ó ó›à H! àà  # àœñÓññÑñ`ñÑñ›ñÓññÒñÐ $  Ðà Ø àñÒññÓñ›ñÓññÒñà 0 àñÒñ›à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àKNOX€COUNTYÐ öî  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àHon.€Mary€Beth€LeibowitzРº  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellee.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNO.€03S01„9801„CR„00001Ð Ž†  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à(Post€Conviction,€Capital)Ð ZR Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð ØÐ ÐÌCharles€W.€Fels€&à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ ¤œ ÐWade€V.€Daviesà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ Š‚ ÐRitchie,€Fels€&€DillardÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àMichael€E.€MooreÐ VN Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àSolicitor€GeneralÌKenneth€F.€Irvine,€Jr.ÌEldridge,€Irvine€&€Hendricksà 8 àà  àà è àJohn€P.€CauleyÐ " ÐKnoxville,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ î"æ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àRandall€Eugene€NicholsÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ‡ ¨A XXÔÔ‡ Â|   ¨AÔà@ää-€àò òÔ#† ¨A   Â|¹ #ÔÔ#†XJÛX  ¨Aš #ÔÔ‡R ^RXXJÛÔÔ‡R«B RRR ^ÔOPINIONó óÔ#†R ^R RR«BR#ÔÔ#†XJÛXRR ^3#ԈР3,1 ÐÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð à€€€€€€€BARKER,€J.Ð  816 Ðó óÐ ö8î17g Ðà@ÙÙ-€àò òOPINIONó óˆÐ  ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àWe€granted€this€post„conviction€appeal€to€review€the€appellantððs€conviction€ofÏfelony€murder€and€the€sentence€of€death€based,€in€part,€on€the€felony€murderÏaggravating€circumstance.€€The€appellant€requests€this€Court€to€clarify€the€òòHowellóóÐ >6 Ðharmless€error€analysis€used€in€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573,€583„84€(Tenn.€1995),Ð    Ðand€to€address€whether€the€òòHowellóó€analysis€requires€a€comprehensive€review€of€Ð ÖÎ  Ðcumulative€errors€in€the€record.€€The€appellant€also€alleges€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€and€contends€that€his€case€should€have€been€severed€from€his€co„¼defendantððs€under€òòCruz€v.€New€Yorkóó,€481€U.S.€186,€107€S.Ct.€1714,€95€L.Ed.2d€162Ð :2 Ð(1987).ÌÌà Ø àFor€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€conclude€that€any€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€in€thisÐ ž– Ðcase,€for€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance,€was€harmless€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€Although€òòHowellóó€requires€us€to€review€the€record€for€factors€thatÐ 6 . Ðmay€have€influenced€the€imposition€of€the€death€sentence,׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€hold€that€such€reviewÐ "ú Ðneed€not€incorporate€a€comprehensive€analysis€of€alleged€cumulative€errors.€€We€findÏno€reversible€error€and€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals.€€€€€€€ÌÌà@§§+€àò òBACKGROUNDó óˆà @ àÐ þ*ö#( ÐÌà Ø àThe€appellantððs€criminal€history€reveals€a€pattern€of€violent€behavior€that€hasÏultimately€lead€him€to€a€position€on€death€row.€€In€this€case,€the€appellant€and€co„¼defendant€Randall€Sexton׃N×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€were€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€aggravated€robberyÐ :22+0 Ðof€Diana€K.€Smith.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€evidence€at€trial€was€that€on€July€31,€1983,€the€appellant€andÐ  ÐMs.€Smith€spent€the€afternoon€together€drinking€beer,€ingesting€hallucinogenic€drugs,Ïand€engaging€in€sexual€intercourse.€€At€some€point€during€the€day,€Ms.€Smith€accusedÏthe€appellant€of€raping€her.€€The€appellant€responded€that€ð ðhe€knew€what€he€wouldÏdo,ðð€whereupon€he€forced€Ms.€Smith€into€the€trunk€of€her€own€car€and€drove€to€Mr.ÏSextonððs€residence.€€With€Mr.€Sexton€following€in€a€separate€vehicle,€the€appellantÏdrove€Ms.€Smith€to€a€remote€location€in€Knox€County.€€The€appellant€ordered€Ms.ÏSmith€to€get€out€of€the€trunk€and€lie€on€the€ground.€€He€then€shot€her€at€close€range€inÏthe€back€of€the€head€with€Mr.€Sextonððs€high„powered€rifle.€€ÌÌà Ø àAfter€the€two€men€disposed€of€the€body,€they€took€Ms.€Smithððs€car€and€otherÏitems€that€she€had€on€her€person.€€The€body€was€discovered€several€days€later€in€theÏAsbury€quarry€in€Knox€County.€€During€the€police€investigation,€both€the€appellant€andÏMr.€Sexton€made€written€statements€to€the€police€implicating€themselves€in€the€crime.Ìà Ø àÌà Ø àAt€the€sentencing€phase€of€trial,€the€jury€sentenced€the€appellant€to€deathÏbased€upon€four€aggravating€circumstances:€€(1)€the€murder€was€committed€by€theÏappellant€while€he€was€engaged€in€committing€rape,€robbery,€larceny,€or€kidnapping€ofÏthe€victim;€(2)€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involvedÏtorture€or€depravity€of€mind;€(3)€the€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,Ïinterfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€appellant;€and€(4)Ïthe€appellant€was€previously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€presentÏcharge,€whose€statutory€elements€involve€the€use€of€violence€to€the€person.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203€(i)€(7),€(5),€(6),€and€(2)€(1982).€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìâ âà Ø àÐ (2 +0 Ðà Ø àFollowing€his€unsuccessful€direct€appeal€to€this€Court,׃(×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€appellant€filed€aÐ  Ðâ âpost„conviction€petition׃ N×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€alleging,€among€other€things,€that€he€was€convicted€andÐ ÔÌ Ðsentenced€to€death€based€in€part€on€an€invalid€felony€murder€aggravator,€that€his€trialÏcounsel€were€ineffective,€and€that€his€joint€trial€with€Mr.€Sexton€violated€òòCruz€v.€NewÐ l d ÐYorkóó.€€In€addition,€he€argued€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€new€trial€and/or€a€newÐ 80 Ðsentencing€hearing€based€upon€cumulative€errors€in€the€record.€€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€and€dismissed€appellantððsÏpost„conviction€petition.€€The€trial€court€found€a€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€based€uponÐ h` Ðappellantððs€conviction€of€felony€murder€and€the€Stateððs€use€of€the€felony€murderÏaggravating€circumstance.€€However,€the€court€determined€that€the€error€was€harmlessÏin€light€of€the€three€remaining€valid€aggravating€circumstances.€€On€the€joint€trial€issue,Ïthe€court€found€that€even€if€òòCruz€v.€New€Yorkóó€applies€retroactively,€the€joint€trial€withÐ ˜ ÐMr.€Sexton€was€harmless€error€based€upon€the€overwhelming€evidence€of€appellantððsÏguilt.€€Lastly,€the€court€found€that€the€appellant€failed€to€prove€that€his€counsel€wereÏineffective€at€trial€or€on€direct€appeal.€€The€trial€court€found€no€reversible€error€andÏheld€that€appellantððs€claim€of€cumulative€error€was€without€merit.€€€€€€€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€TheÏintermediate€appellate€court€determined,€however,€that€there€was€no€òòMiddlebrooksóóÐ ,)$"& Ðerror€because€the€underlying€felony€used€to€support€the€felony€murder€conviction€mayÏhave€differed€from€the€felonies€found€by€the€jury€to€support€the€felony€murderÏaggravator.€€The€court€noted€that€the€felony€murder€conviction€was€based€upon€theÏkidnapping€and€murder€of€Ms.€Smith.€€The€possible€underlying€felonies€listed€toÏsupport€the€felony€murder€aggravator€were€kidnapping,€rape,€larceny,€and€robbery.€€Ð (2 +0 Ðà Ø àRelying€in€part€on€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573,€583„Ð  Ð84€(Tenn.€1995),€the€intermediate€appellate€court€concluded€that€the€appellant€was€inÏa€class€of€death€eligible€offenders€demonstrably€smaller€and€more€blameworthy€thanÏthe€class€addressed€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€The€court,€therefore,€held€that€the€use€of€theÐ l d Ðfelony€murder€aggravator€was€not€error€in€this€case.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@+€àò òDISCUSSIONó óˆà @ àÐ ÐÈ  ÐÌà Ø àIn€this€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€appellant€has€the€burden€of€proving€theÏallegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Bensonóó,€973Ð @8 ÐS.W.2d€202,€207€(Tenn.€1998).׃)×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusiveÐ   Ðon€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,Ð ØÐ Ð789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.Ð ¤œ ÐCrim.€App.€1983).€€€€€€ÌÌà@HH/€àò òI.ó óˆÐ " ÐÌà Ø àThe€appellant€first€contends€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€misapplied€theÏprinciples€announced€in€òòHinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€583„84,€to€determine€that€there€was€noÐ x'p $ ÐòòMiddlebrooksóó€error.€€He€argues€that€the€court€effectively€created€a€new€non„statutoryÐ D)<"& Ðaggravating€circumstance€that€ð ðthe€accused€committed€the€murder€in€the€course€ofÏcommitting€multiple€felonies.ððÌà Ø à€Ìà Ø àIt€is€now€a€well„known€principle€that€when€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€firstÏdegree€murder€solely€on€the€basis€of€felony€murder,€the€use€of€the€felony€murderÏaggravating€circumstance€to€support€a€death€sentence,€without€more,€fails€toÐ  4-2 Ðsufficiently€narrow€the€class€of€death„eligible€offenders.€€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840Ð  ÐS.W.2d€317,€346€(Tenn.€1992).׃#×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€majority€of€the€Court€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó€based€thatÐ ÔÌ Ðdecision€upon€a€determination€that€the€felony€murder€aggravator€contains€languageÏthat€is€virtually€identical€to€the€statutory€definition€of€felony€murder.׃!F×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€€€€€Ð l d ÐÌà Ø àAt€the€time€of€the€killing€in€this€case,€the€felony€murder€aggravator€read€asÏfollows:ÌÌÓ Óà8 Ø à(7)€The€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€engaged€inÏcommitting,€or€was€an€accomplice€in€the€commission€of,€or€wasÏattempting€to€commit,€or€was€fleeing€after€committing€or€attempting€toÏcommit,€any€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,€larceny,Ïkidnapping,€aircraft€piracy,€or€unlawful€throwing,€placing€or€discharging€ofÏa€destructive€device€or€bomb.Ð Ø (#Ø (# ÐÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(7)€(1982).׃"Š×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р˜ ÐÌà Ø àIn€comparison,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„202(a)€(1982)€defined€first€degreeÏfelony€murder€as€ð ðevery€murder€...€committed€in€the€perpetration€of,€or€attempt€toÏperpetrate,€any€murder€in€the€first€degree,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,€larceny,Ïkidnapping,€aircraft€piracy,€or€the€unlawful€throwing,€placing€or€discharging€of€aÏdestructive€device€or€bomb.ðð€€€€Ìâ âÐ ,)$"& Ðà Ø àThe€duplicative€language€in€the€above€provisions€has€served€as€the€basis€forÏâ âfinding€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€in€cases€where€the€underlying€felony€used€to€support€aÐ ÔÌ Ðfelony€murder€conviction€was€also€used€to€support€the€felony€murder€aggravator.€€In€aÏcase€that€followed€òòMiddlebrooksóó,€however,€this€Court€addressed€for€the€first€timeÐ l d Ðwhether€it€was€error€to€rely€on€the€felony€murder€aggravator€when€an€additional€orÏdifferent€felony€supported€the€aggravating€circumstance,€but€was€not€the€underlyingÏfelony€for€the€felony€murder€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð ÐÈ  ÐÌà Ø àThe€defendant€in€òòHinesóó€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€based€upon€the€victimððsÐ h` Ðdeath€during€the€course€of€an€armed€robbery.€€òòId.óó€at€576.€€The€jury€sentenced€theÐ 4, Ðdefendant€to€death€based€in€part€on€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance.€€òòId.óóÐ ø Ðat€577.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€felonies€relied€upon€to€support€the€felony€murder€aggravator€wereÐ ÌÄ Ðrobbery,€larceny,€and€rape.€€òòId.óó€at€583.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˜ ÐÌà Ø àThe€Court€in€òòHinesóó€reiterated€concern€for€applying€aggravating€circumstancesÐ 0 ( Ðand€any€mitigating€circumstances€so€as€to€narrow€the€class€of€death€eligible€offendersÏin€capital€cases.€€òòId.óó€at€583.€€A€majority€of€the€Court׃%ˆ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€determined,€however,€that€whenÐ È#À  Ða€felony€not€underlying€the€felony€murder€conviction€is€used€to€support€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravator,€there€is€no€duplication,€and€hence€the€narrowing€function€isÏsufficiently€performed.€€òòId.óó€€The€majority€held€that€absent€any€duplication,€there€is€noÐ ,)$"& Ðconstitutional€prohibition€against€the€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravator€to€supportÏthe€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€for€a€felony€murder€conviction.€€òòId.óó€€Ð Ä,¼%* Ðâ  €€€€Ð .ˆ', Ðà Ø àThe€majority€in€òòHinesóó€noted€that€duplication€may€have€occurred€in€that€caseÐ  Ðâ âsince€armed€robbery€was€the€basis€for€the€felony€murder€conviction€and€was€alsoÏincluded€for€the€juryððs€consideration€of€the€felony€murder€aggravator.€€òòId.óó€€The€majority,Ð   ˜ Ðtherefore,€conducted€the€harmless€error€analysis€under€òòHowellóó€to€address€the€possibleÐ l d ÐòòMiddlebrooksóó€error.€€òòSeeóó€òòHinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€at€583„84.€€Ð 80 ÐÌà Ø àThe€appellantððs€case€is€remarkably€similar€to€the€circumstances€in€òòHinesóó.€€TheÐ ÐÈ  Ðappellant€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€based€upon€his€act€of€killing€Ms.€SmithÏduring€the€course€of€a€kidnapping.€€The€felonies€relied€upon€to€support€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€circumstance€were€kidnapping,€rape,€larceny,€and€robbery.€€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€relied€on€òòHinesóó€to€address€whether€the€use€ofÐ ÌÄ Ðthe€felony€murder€aggravator€violated€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€The€court€properly€noted€that€theÐ ˜ Ðjury€may€have€relied€on€the€felonies€of€rape,€larceny,€and€robbery€to€impose€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravator,€which€would€have€avoided€any€duplication€problem€underÏòòMiddlebrooksóó.€€However,€the€court€went€further€to€conclude€that€there€was€noÐ ü!ô ÐòòMiddlebrooksóó€error€since€the€appellant€was€engaged€in€multiple€felonies€at€the€time€heÐ È#À  Ðkilled€Ms.€Smith.€€According€to€the€court,€the€appellant€was€in€a€class€of€death„eligibleÏoffenders€smaller€and€more€blameworthy€than€the€class€at€issue€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó.Ð `'X $ ÐÌà Ø àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€appellant€is€a€deathÏeligible€offender.€€However,€to€the€extent€that€the€court€found€no€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error,Ð Ä,¼%* Ðwe€must€respectfully€disagree.€€As€discussed€in€òòHinesóó,€the€mere€fact€that€multipleÐ .ˆ', Ðfelonies€were€listed€by€the€State€to€support€the€felony€murder€aggravator€does€notÏeliminate€the€possible€duplication€error€under€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€€Where,€as€in€the€instantÐ (2 +0 Ðcase,€there€is€no€clear€showing€of€which€felonies€the€jury€considered€to€impose€theÏfelony€murder€aggravator,€we€cannot€presume€that€no€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€occurred.€€InÐ À5¸.4 Ðappellantððs€case,€the€jury€may€have€relied€on€the€kidnapping€felony€in€part€to€convictÐ Œ7„06 Ðthe€appellant€of€felony€murder€and€to€find€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance.€ÏIf€that€occurred,€then€the€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravator€is€error€underÏòòMiddlebrooksóó.€€€€€€€€à ˆ àà à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð   ˜ ÐÌà Ø àOn€the€premise€that€the€jury€improperly€relied€on€the€kidnapping€felony€atÏsentencing,€we€shall€conduct€a€òòHowellóó€harmless€error€analysis.€€The€òòHowellóó€analysisÐ ü  Ðrequires€us€to€determine€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€whether€the€appellantððs€sentenceÏwould€have€been€the€same€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€or€consideration€to€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravating€circumstance.€€868€S.W.2d€at€260„62.€€It€is€important€to€examineÏthe€entire€record€for€the€presence€of€factors€which€potentially€influenced€the€sentenceÏimposed.€€These€include,€but€are€not€limited€to,€the€number€and€strength€of€remainingÏvalid€aggravating€circumstances,€the€prosecutionððs€argument€at€sentencing,€theÏevidence€admitted€to€establish€the€felony€murder€aggravator,€and€the€nature,€quality,Ïand€strength€of€any€mitigating€evidence.€€òòId.óó€at€261.€€€€€€Ð d\ ÐÌà Ø àOur€examination€of€the€record€in€accordance€with€the€foregoing€principlesÏdemonstrates€that€the€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravator,€if€error,€was€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€remaining€three€aggravating€circumstances€wereÏproperly€applied€and€strongly€supported€by€the€evidence.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€First,€there€is€no€disputeÐ `'X $ Ðthat€the€appellant€has€prior€felonious€convictions€that€involve€violence€or€threat€ofÏviolence€to€the€person.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2)€(1982).€€In€1983,€theÐ ø*ð#( Ðappellant€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€aggravating€kidnapping€based€upon€aÏcriminal€episode€in€Grainger€County.€€Moreover,€he€was€convicted€of€assault€withÏintent€to€commit€aggravated€kidnapping€for€criminal€conduct€in€Knox€County€thatÏoccurred€only€three€days€after€the€murder€of€Ms.€Smith.€€Ð (2 +0 Їà Ø àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€(i)(2)€aggravator€was€somehow€tainted€by€theÏStateððs€introduction€of€his€juvenile€convictions€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€WeÏdisagree.€€As€this€Court€determined€on€direct€appeal,€the€introduction€of€the€juvenileÏrecords,€while€improper,€had€no€bearing€on€the€outcome€of€appellantððs€trial.€€His€priorÏconvictions€as€an€adult€reflect€complete€disregard€for€human€life€and€strongly€supportÏthe€(i)(2)€aggravator.€€The€use€of€the€juvenile€record€was€harmless,€and€the€(i)(2)Ïaggravator€was€properly€used€to€impose€the€death€sentence.€€ÌÌà Ø àSecond,€as€the€appellant€admitted€both€before€trial€and€at€the€sentencingÏhearing,€he€kidnapped€and€murdered€Ms.€Smith€to€avoid€an€allegation€and€possibleÏcharge€of€rape.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(6).€€The€evidence€at€trial€reflectedÐ ø Ðthat€the€appellant€spent€the€afternoon€with€Ms.€Smith€drinking€alcohol,€ingesting€drugs,Ïand€having€sexual€intercourse.€€At€some€point,€Ms.€Smith€asked€the€appellant€why€heÏhad€raped€her.€€There€is€no€dispute€that€appellantððs€subsequent€criminal€conductÏagainst€Ms.€Smith€was€a€reaction€to€Ms.€Smithððs€accusation.€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€appellant€nevertheless€contends€that€the€(i)(6)€aggravator€was€tainted€byÏthe€testimony€of€appellantððs€ex„girlfriend,€Lori€Eastman€Carter.€€Ms.€Carter€testifiedÏduring€the€guilt€phase€that€the€appellant€had€previously€assaulted€her€and€attemptedÏto€kill€her.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€determined€that€the€testimony€should€haveÏbeen€excluded€as€irrelevant,€but€that€any€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€The€appellant€now€claims€that€the€testimony€improperly€served€as€the€factualÏbasis€for€the€(i)(6)€aggravator.€€We€disagree.€€The€appellantððs€own€admissions€fullyÏsupport€the€aggravator€without€any€consideration€of€Ms.€Carterððs€testimony.€€ThereÏwas€no€error€in€the€juryððs€finding€of€that€aggravator.€ÌÌà Ø àThird,€the€jury€found€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€andÏcruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„Ð Œ7„06 Ð203(i)(5).€€The€appellant€argued€on€direct€appeal€and€contends€now€that€thisÏaggravator€is€invalid€because€the€trial€court€did€not€define€ð ðtorture.ðð€€In€the€directÏappeal,€this€Court€held€that€there€was€no€prejudicial€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€charge€onÏthe€(i)(5)€aggravator.€€The€appellant€offers€no€valid€reason€why€that€determinationÏshould€be€disturbed€now.€€ÌÌà Ø àAs€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€noted,€the€evidence€supports€the€juryððs€findingÏthat€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€and€cruel.€€The€appellant€kept€Ms.ÏSmith€trapped€in€the€trunk€of€her€own€car€for€at€least€forty„five€(45)€minutes€before€theÏshooting.€€After€driving€to€the€remote€wooded€area,€the€appellant€ordered€Ms.€Smith€toÏget€out€of€the€trunk€and€lie€face€down€in€the€weeds.€€The€appellant€had€the€rifle€in€hisÏpossession€and€began€placing€brush€on€top€of€Ms.€Smith.€€She€begged€him€not€toÏshoot€her€and€offered€money€to€spare€her€life.€€When€she€asked€about€her€fate,€theÏappellant€responded€that€other€guys€were€coming€to€have€sexual€intercourse€with€her.ÌÌà Ø àThe€appellant€ordered€Ms.€Smith€to€look€away€from€him€while€she€was€lying€inÏthe€weeds.€€He€then€shot€her€at€close€range€in€the€back€of€the€head.€€We€agree€withÏthe€courts€below€that€the€manner€of€Ms.€Smithððs€death€involved€severe€mental€painÏand€anxiety€as€contemplated€by€the€(i)(5)€aggravator€and€as€defined€by€this€Court€inÏòòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985).€€€€€€Ð ,)$"& ÐÌà Ø àThe€next€step€under€the€òòHowellóó€analysis€is€to€review€whether€the€prosecutionÐ Ä,¼%* Ðplaced€undue€emphasis€on€the€felony€murder€aggravator€during€the€closing€argumentÏat€sentencing.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€prosecution€referred€to€four€aggravatingÏcircumstances€during€his€closing€argument.€€He€emphasized€the€manner€in€which€theÏjury€was€to€consider€and€weigh€the€aggravating€circumstances€together€with€anyÏevidence€of€mitigation.€€In€briefly€discussing€the€aggravators,€the€prosecutionÏmentioned€the€felony€murder€aggravator€only€once€in€the€context€of€the€closingÐ Œ7„06 Ðargument.€€No€more€weight€or€emphasis€was€given€to€that€aggravator€than€was€givenÏto€the€other€three€aggravating€circumstances.ÌÌà Ø àMoreover,€aside€from€evidence€at€the€guilt€phase€of€trial,€no€additional€evidenceÏwas€submitted€by€the€prosecution€to€establish€the€felony€murder€aggravator.€€At€theÏsentencing€hearing,€the€prosecution€presented€evidence€only€of€appellantððs€previousÏconvictions€in€Grainger€County€and€Knox€County.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€theÏprosecution€did€not€rely€unduly€or€introduce€improper€evidence€concerning€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravator€at€sentencing.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà Ø àLastly,€under€òòHowellóó,€we€must€review€the€nature,€quality,€and€strength€of€anyÐ ø Ðmitigating€evidence€in€appellantððs€case.€€At€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€appellant€reliedÏon€four€mitigating€circumstances:€€(1)€the€murder€was€committed€while€the€appellantÏwas€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance;€(2)€the€victimÏwas€a€participant€in€the€appellantððs€conduct€or€consented€to€the€act;€(3)€the€appellantÏwas€only€twenty„one€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€crime;€and€(4)€the€capacity€of€theÏappellant€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€toÏthe€requirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€orÏdefect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establish€a€defense€to€the€crime€butÏwhich€substantially€affected€his€judgment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(j)(2),€(3),€(7),Ï(8)€(1982).€ÌÌà Ø àThe€appellant€emphasized€the€detrimental€effects€of€alcohol€abuse€and€mindÏaltering€drugs,€such€as€LSD€and€quaaludes.€€There€was€evidence€that€the€appellantÏhad€been€taking€those€substances€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€€Also,€the€appellantÏpresented€evidence€of€his€social€history€through€his€own€testimony€and€the€testimonyÏof€family€members,€a€childhood€friend,€and€a€guidance€counselor€from€his€former€high€Ïschool.€€The€evidence€showed€that€the€appellant€suffered€emotional€trauma€andÐ Œ7„06 Ðbecame€involved€in€excessive€drug€use€at€an€early€age,€following€the€death€of€hisÏfather.€€By€the€age€of€fourteen,€the€appellant€was€a€regular€user€of€cocaine,€valium,Ïand€alcohol.€€He€had€a€poor€academic€record€during€his€school€years€and€he€droppedÏout€of€high€school€after€failing€the€ninth€grade.ÌÌà Ø àThe€jury€considered€the€above€evidence€and€found€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÏthat€it€did€not€outweigh€the€strong€showing€of€aggravating€circumstances.€€After€ourÏindependent€review€of€the€record,€we€are€confident€that€the€weighing€of€the€mitigatingÏevidence€against€the€three€remaining€aggravators€would€have€resulted€in€the€sameÏsentence€of€death.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€appellantððs€sentence€of€death€wouldÏhave€been€the€same€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€or€consideration€to€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravator€and€affirm€the€capital€sentence.€ÌÌà@,,/€àò òII.ó óˆÐ d\ ÐÌà Ø àWe€shall€next€address€whether€the€òòHowellóó€analysis€requires€a€comprehensiveÐ " Ðreview€of€the€cumulative€effect€of€errors€in€the€record,€including€errors€that€haveÏalready€been€previously€determined,€or€waived,€on€direct€appeal.€€The€appellantÏcontends€that€there€are€numerous€ð ðharmlessðð€errors€in€the€record,€that€whenÏconsidered€cumulatively€and€in€the€context€of€òòHowellóó,€render€his€death€sentenceÐ 8)0"& Ðfundamentally€unfair€and€invalid.€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€appellant€essentially€asks€this€Court€to€conduct€a€harmless€error€analysisÏwithin€the€context€of€the€òòHowellóó€harmless€error€analysis.€€This€we€decline€to€do.€€As€weÐ h0`). Ðdiscussed€above,€the€òòHowellóó€analysis€is€conducted€in€cases€where€the€juryððsÐ 42,+0 Ðconsideration€of€the€felony€murder€aggravator€constitutes€error€under€òòMiddlebrooksóó.€Ð 4ø,2 ÐThe€crux€of€the€òòHowellóó€analysis€is€to€review€the€record€to€determine€whether€theÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðappellantððs€sentence€of€death€is€appropriate€based€upon€the€relative€strengths€andÏweaknesses€of€the€valid€aggravating€circumstances€and€any€mitigating€circumstances.€ÏWe€focus€upon€those€circumstances,€including€the€evidence€used€to€support€them,Ïand€determine€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€whether€the€sentence€would€have€been€theÏsame€had€the€jury€given€no€weight€or€consideration€to€the€felony€murder€aggravator.€€€€€ÏÌà Ø àIn€conducting€the€òòHowellóó€analysis,€courts€must€conduct€an€intensive€review€ofÐ ÐÈ  Ðthe€sentencing€phase€of€trial€to€address€the€strength€of€the€remaining€aggravatingÏcircumstances,€the€nature,€quality€and€strength€of€any€mitigating€evidence,€theÏprosecutionððs€argument€at€sentencing,€and€the€evidence€used€to€establish€the€felonyÏmurder€aggravator.€€Assignments€of€error€concerning€the€above€factors€are€certainlyÏrelevant€to€the€analysis€under€òòHowellóó.€€Ð ÌÄ ÐÌà Ø àWe€have€conducted€the€òòHowellóó€analysis€in€this€case,€addressing€the€allegedÐ d\ Ðerrors€as€to€the€remaining€aggravating€circumstances€and€other€factors€at€sentencing.€€ÏBased€upon€our€review,€we€concluded€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€appellantððsÏsentence€would€have€been€the€same€regardless€of€the€felony€murder€aggravator.€ÏThat€deliberate€process€has€been€approved€by€this€Court€in€òòHowellóó€and€òòHinesóó€toÐ ”%Œ" Ðpreserve€the€principles€of€individualized€sentencing€and€to€ensure€that€the€appellant€isÏa€death„eligible€offender.€€We€find€no€reason€to€modify€that€analysis€here.€€€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€òòHowellóó€decision€was€never€intended€to€be€a€vehicle€for€reviewing€orÐ Ä,¼%* Ðrelitigating€harmless€errors€or€errors€that€have€been€previously€determined€or€waived.€ÏParticularly,€in€post„conviction€proceedings,€courts€must€adhere€to€the€limitations€setÏforth€in€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€Under€the€Act€of€1989,€a€post„convictionÏhearing€may€extend€to€ð ðall€grounds€the€petitioner€may€have,€except€those€groundsÏwhich€the€court€finds€should€be€excluded€because€they€have€been€waived€orÏpreviously€determined.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„111€(Repealed€1995).€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà Ø àA€ground€for€relief€is€ð ðððwaivedðð€if€the€petitioner€knowingly€and€understandinglyÏfailed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€of€competentÏjurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€been€presented.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„¼30„112(b)(1).׃-×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€ground€for€relief€has€been€ð ðððpreviously€determinedðð€if€a€court€ofÐ l d Ðcompetent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a).€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà Ø àWith€those€principles€in€mind,€we€decline€to€give€comprehensive€review€to€anyÏerrors€that€were€adjudicated€on€direct€appeal€or€errors€that€the€appellant€could€have,Ïbut€did€not€raise€until€this€proceeding.€€Having€determined€that€any€sentencing€error€isÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€we€again€conclude€that€appellantððs€sentence€ofÏdeath€should€stand.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà0 Ø àà € àà@.€Ø €%Ø €%àò òIII.ó óˆÐ d\ ÐÌà Ø àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€sever€his€case€from€ÏMr.€Sextonððs€was€prejudicial€error€requiring€a€reversal€of€his€conviction€under€òòCruz€v.Ð Ô#Ì  ÐNew€Yorkóó.€€Neither€the€appellant€nor€Mr.€Sexton€testified€during€the€guilt€phase€of€trial.€Ð  %˜" ÐThe€State,€however,€introduced€into€evidence€a€written€confession€made€by€eachÏdefendant€during€the€police€investigation.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€eachÏconfession€could€be€considered€as€evidence€only€against€the€confessor.€€TheÏappellant€argues€that€the€admission€of€Mr.€Sextonððs€confession€violated€hisÏConfrontation€Clause€rights€and€constitutes€reversible€error€under€òòCruzóó.€€€€€€€€€€€Ð œ.”', ÐÌà Ø àIn€the€direct€appeal,€this€Court€upheld€the€admission€of€Mr.€Sextonððs€confessionÏbased€on€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€decisions€in€òòBruton€v.€United€Statesóó,€391Ð 4ø,2 ÐU.S.€123,€88€S.Ct.€1620,€20€L.Ed.2d€476€(1968),€and€òòParker€v.€Randolphóó,€442€U.S.Ð  Ð62,€99€S.Ct.€2132,€60€L.Ed.2d€713€(1979).€€The€well„established€rule€from€òòBrutonóó€isÐ ÔÌ Ðthat€a€defendant€is€deprived€of€his€Confrontation€Clause€rights€when€a€codefendantððsÏincriminating€confession€is€introduced€at€their€joint€trial,€even€if€the€jury€is€instructed€toÏconsider€that€confession€only€against€the€codefendant.€€In€òòParkeróó,€the€Supreme€CourtÐ 80 Ðmodified€the€reach€of€òòBrutonóó€where€multiple€defendants€in€a€joint€trial€each€have€aÐ ü  Ðconfession€that€is€introduced€into€evidence.€€The€Court€held€that€there€was€noÏConfrontation€Clause€violation€under€òòBrutonóó€if€the€defendantððs€own€confession€recitedÐ œ”  Ðessentially€the€same€facts€as€the€confession€of€the€nontestifying€codefendant.€€442ÏU.S.€at€73,€99€S.Ct.€at€2140.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€€€€€€€Ð 4, ÐÌà Ø àRelying€on€the€decision€in€òòParkeróó,€this€Court€examined€the€confessions€of€bothÐ ÌÄ Ðthe€appellant€and€Mr.€Sexton€and€determined€that€they€were€ð ðinterlocking€in€the€crucialÏfacts€of€time,€location,€felonious€activity,€and€awareness€of€the€overall€plan€or€schemeððÏof€the€killing.€€This€Court,€therefore,€held€that€there€was€no€òòBrutonóó€violation€and€thatÐ 0 ( Ðthe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€severance€motion€under€Rule€14(c)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€€ÌÌà Ø àFollowing€appellantððs€direct€appeal,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€decidedÏthe€case€of€òòCruz€v.€New€Yorkóó.€€In€òòCruzóó,€the€Court€overruled€the€ð ðinterlockingððÐ ,)$"& Ðconfession€exception€in€òòParkeróó,€reasoning€that€a€codefendantððs€confession€may€beÐ ø*ð#( Ðð ðdevastatingðð׃ˆ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€to€the€defendant€and€violative€of€the€Confrontation€Clause,€even€if€itÐ Ä,¼%* Ðoverlaps€material€facts€in€a€confession€made€by€the€defendant.€€òòCruzóó,€481€U.S.€at€193,Ð .ˆ', Ð107€S.Ct.€at€1719.€€The€Court,€therefore,€held€that€ð ðwhere€a€nontestifyingÏcodefendantððs€confession€incriminating€the€defendant€is€not€directly€admissible€againstÏthe€defendant,€...€the€Confrontation€Clause€bars€its€admission€at€their€joint€trial,€even€ifÏthe€jury€is€instructed€not€to€consider€it€against€the€defendant,€and€even€if€theÏdefendantððs€own€confession€is€admitted€against€him.ðð€€òòId.óó€€€€€€€€Ð 80 ÐÌà Ø àThe€appellant€requests€this€Court€to€apply€òòCruzóó€retroactively€and€to€hold€thatÐ ÐÈ  Ðthe€admission€of€Mr.€Sextonððs€confession€was€constitutional€error.€€Having€carefullyÏreviewed€the€progeny€of€cases€under€òòBrutonóó,€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€determineÐ h` Ðwhether€òòCruzóó€has€retroactive€application€in€this€case.€€We€are€confident€that€evenÐ 4, Ðunder€the€principles€of€òòCruzóó,€the€admission€of€Mr.€Sextonððs€confession€was€harmlessÐ ø Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSchneble€v.€Floridaóó,€405€U.S.€427,€432,€92€S.Ct.€1056,Ð ÌÄ Ð1060,€31€L.Ed.2d€340€(1972);€òòHarrington€v.€Californiaóó,€395€U.S.€250,€254,€89€S.Ct.Ð ˜ Ð1726,€1728„29,€23€L.Ed.2d€284€(1969);€òòState€v.€Porterfieldóó,€746€S.W.2d€441,€446Ð d\ Ð(Tenn.€1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€486€U.S.€1017€(1988).€€Ð 0 ( ÐÌà Ø àMr.€Sextonððs€written€confession€described€his€involvement€in€the€killing€from€theÏtime€the€appellant€arrived€at€his€residence€with€Ms.€Smith€locked€in€the€trunk€of€herÏown€car.€€In€his€confession,€Mr.€Sexton€stated€that€the€appellant€was€not€going€toÏrelease€Ms.€Smith€because€he€was€afraid€ð ðhe€would€get€in€the€same€mess€he€got€intoÏwith€Lori€[Eastman€Carter].ðð€€Mr.€Sexton€admitted€that€the€appellant€took€his€high„Ïpowered€rifle€and€that€the€two€men€drove€separately€out€to€a€rural€area€in€KnoxÏCounty.€€ÌÌà Ø àBefore€reaching€their€destination,€both€Mr.€Sextonððs€vehicle€and€the€vehicleÏdriven€by€the€appellant€ran€out€of€gasoline.€€In€his€confession,€Mr.€Sexton€stated€thatÏhe€purchased€five€(5)€dollars€of€gasoline€for€his€car€and€five€(5)€dollars€of€gasoline€in€aÐ Ä5¼.4 Ðseparate€container€for€Ms.€Smithððs€car.€€The€two€men€then€drove€a€few€miles€up€theÏroad€to€a€wooded€area€where€the€shooting€was€to€occur.€€Mr.€Sextonððs€confessionÏdescribes€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌÓE3Óà8 Ø àI€left€and€took€a€funnel€back€to€the€Publix€station€and€got€me€a€Coke.€€IÏdrove€back€down€to€the€creek€and€drove€into€the€wooded€area.€€I€saw€theÏCamaro.€€It€was€stuck.€€I€helped€[the€appellant]€get€it€unstuck.€€Terry€toldÏme€he€had€already€killed€the€girl.€€Terry€told€me€he€laid€the€girl€down€onÏher€stomach,€and€that€while€she€was€begging€for€him€not€to,€he€shot€herÏin€the€back€of€the€head.€€Terry€told€me€he€had€covered€the€body€up€withÏsome€weeds.€€€€€€€€€€€€€à 8 à€€€€Ðœ” Ø (#Ø (# ÐÓ ÓÌà Ø àHaving€carefully€reviewed€the€written€confessions€made€by€the€appellant€andÏMr.€Sexton,€we€again€note€that€they€are€substantially€similar€as€to€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€involving€the€murder.€€The€appellantððs€confession,€however,€containsÏgreater€detail€concerning€the€actual€shooting.€€His€confession€provides€in€pertinentÏpart:€€ÌÌÓ'•Óà8 Ø àI€pulled€up€in€a€wooded€area€and€got€stuck.€€I€made€the€girl€get€out€of€theÏtrunk.€€I€had€loaded€the€rifle€and€was€pointing€it€at€her.€€This€[sic]€wasÏdaylight.€€And€I€took€the€girl€over€into€some€weeds€and€made€her€layÏdown.€€She€asked€me€what€I€was€going€to€do,€if€I€was€going€to€kill€her.€€IÏsaid,€no,€some€more€guys€are€going€to€screw€you.€€I€started€covering€herÏup€with€weeds.€€I€told€her€this€was€so€she€couldnððt€be€seen.€€I€still€had€theÏgun.€€She€was€laying€facedown.€€I€picked€up€the€rifle,€held€itÏapproximately€3€feet€from€the€back€her€head€and€shot€her.€€[Mr.€Sexton]Ïwasnððt€there.€€We€got€the€[victimððs€car]€unstuck€after€[Mr.€Sexton]€cameÏback.€€We€then€went€through€her€personal€belongings.€€I€burned€herÏpictures€and€I.D.€and€panties.€€[Mr.€Sexton]€walked€over€and€looked€atÏher.€€We€started€to€leave,€but€decided€to€bury€her.€€We€started€digging€aÏgrave€next€to€the€fence,€but€the€ground€was€too€hard,€and€we€quit.€€WeÏdiscussed€what€to€do€and€decided€to€wrap€her€in€a€tent€[Mr.€Sexton]€hadÏin€the€back€of€his€car,€[sic]€weight€her€and€put€her€in€the€water.€€WeÏdecided€we€would€do€it€the€next€morning.€€€€€Ð Ø (#Ø (# ÐÓìFÓÌà Ø àIt€is€clear€that€the€admission€of€Mr.€Sextonððs€confession€into€evidence€wouldÏhave€constituted€a€òòBrutonóó€violation€under€the€rationale€of€òòCruzóó.€€Nevertheless,€theÐ 3,1 Ðmere€finding€of€a€òòBrutonóó€error€in€the€course€of€the€trial€ð ðdoes€not€automatically€requireÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðreversal€of€the€ensuing€criminal€conviction.ðð€€òòSchnebleóó,€405€U.S.€at€430,€92€S.Ct.€atÐ ¦6ž/5 Ð1059.€€In€cases€where€the€properly€admitted€evidence€of€guilt€is€overwhelming,€andÏthe€prejudicial€effect€of€the€codefendantððs€confession€is€insignificant€by€comparison,Ïthen€the€improper€admission€is€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÐ   ˜ ÐòòPorterfieldóó,€746€S.W.2d€at€446.€€Ð l d Ѐ€€€€€€€Ìà Ø àIn€this€case,€the€objective€evidence€against€the€appellant€was€overwhelming.€ÏJerry€Childers,€an€acquaintance€of€the€appellant,€testified€that€the€appellant€came€toÏhis€house€on€August€1,€1983,€to€inquire€if€he€knew€anyone€who€wanted€to€buy€partsÏfrom€a€1979€Camaro.€€Mr.€Childers€testified€that€the€appellant€confessed€to€havingÏkilled€the€woman€who€owned€the€Camaro€after€she€threatened€to€charge€him€withÏrape.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€appellant€told€Mr.€Childers€that€he€ordered€the€woman€to€get€out€of€theÐ ø Ðtrunk€of€her€own€car€and€to€lie€face€down€on€the€ground.€€The€woman€begged€theÏappellant€not€to€shoot€her€and€offered€him€money.€€The€appellant€told€Mr.€Childers€thatÏhe€told€the€woman€to€turn€away€from€him,€and€when€she€complied,€he€shot€her€in€theÏback€of€the€head.ÌÌà Ø àMr.€Childers€testified€that€a€few€days€after€talking€to€the€appellant,€he€went€toÏthe€location€where€appellant€had€said€the€shooting€occurred.€€While€walking€in€theÏarea,€he€found€an€object€with€hair€on€it.€€He€then€gave€the€information€he€had€toÏDetective€Herman€Johnson€of€the€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€Department€and€to€AgentÏDavid€Davenport€with€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€The€two€officers€metÏMr.€Childers€at€the€professed€shooting€location€and€searched€the€area,€finding€piecesÏof€bone,€hair,€and€bloodstains.€€A€later€more€thorough€search€revealed€bulletÏfragments€and€additional€bone€fragments.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€à è à€€€€€€€€€Ð \0T). Ðà Ø àThere€is€no€question€that€the€evidence€of€appellantððs€guilt€was€overwhelmingÏeven€without€consideration€of€the€two€written€confessions.€€Considering€the€aboveÏevidence,€coupled€with€appellantððs€properly€admitted€confession,€any€òòBrutonóó€error€wasÐ   ˜ Ðharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€ÌÌà@/€àò òIV.ó óˆÐ ü  ÐÌà Ø àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏat€both€the€trial€and€the€direct€appeal.€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€counsel€inÏthis€proceeding,€the€appellant€must€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€theÏadvice€given€or€services€rendered€by€his€counsel€fell€below€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€903,€936Ð ØÐ Ð(Tenn.€1975).€€He€must€also€demonstrate€prejudice€by€showing€a€reasonableÏprobability€that€but€for€counselsðð€error,€the€result€of€the€trial€proceeding€would€haveÏbeen€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€669,€687,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064,Ð < 4 Ð80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996).Ð " ÐÌà Ø àThe€appellant€first€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€abandoned€the€defense€theory€ofÏvoluntary€intoxication€after€having€introduced€it€to€the€jury€during€the€openingÏstatement.׃ˆ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Defense€counsel€Robert€Simpson€stated€during€his€opening€remarks€thatÐ 8)0"& ÐMs.€Smith€willingly€spent€time€with€the€appellant€and€appellantððs€cousin,€Don€King,€onÏâ âthe€day€of€the€killing.€€While€at€Don€Kingððs€trailer,€the€three€drank€large€quantities€ofÐ Ð,È%* Ðalcohol€and€ingested€various€mind„altering€drugs,€including€LSD€and€quaaludes.€ÏCounsel€stated€that:Ìâ âÓC›ÓÌà8 Ø àWe€think€the€proof€will€show€that€whatever€happened€to€Mrs.€Smith,€Mr.ÏKingððs€involvement€was€the€product€of€an€incredible€quantity€ofÏintoxicants.€€And€we€think€the€proof€will€show€that€he€cannot€be€heldÏlegally€responsible€for€all€of€his€actions€to€the€degree€the€State€would€askÏyou,€simply€because€of€the€vast€quantities€of€intoxicants€that€heÏconsumed.€€And€the€proof€is€going€to€be€very€clear€on€that€point.€€€€€€Ð Ø (#Ø (# ÐÓ ÓÌà Ø àDuring€the€guilt€phase€of€trial,€proof€of€appellantððs€alcohol€and€drugÏconsumption€was€admitted€into€evidence€through€the€testimony€of€Jerry€Childers׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€andÐ ‚z  Ðthe€admission€of€appellantððs€police€confession.€€Counsel€Simpson€testified€at€the€post„¼conviction€hearing€that€he€did€not€call€Don€King€to€testify€at€the€guilt€phase€because€heÏstrategized€that€Don€Kingððs€testimony€would€hurt€the€defense.׃F×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Moreover,€counselÐ æÞ Ðstated€that€he€decided€to€abandon€the€use€of€voluntary€intoxication€to€defendÏappellantððs€actions€after€the€testimony€of€appellantððs€ex„girlfriend,€Lori€Eastman€Carter.€Ï€€€€€€Ìà Ø àMs.€Carter€testified€for€the€prosecution,€over€the€objection€of€defense€counsel,Ïthat€the€appellant€had€attempted€to€kill€her€on€October€13,€1982.€€According€to€Ms.ÏCarter,€the€appellant€hit€her€with€a€slapstick€numerous€times€while€repeatedly€askingÏher€ð ðhow€it€felt€to€be€dying,€so€that€the€next€woman€he€killed€he€would€know€how€sheÏfelt.ðð€€Ms.€Carter€testified€that€the€appellant€was€sober€when€he€attacked€her€with€theÏslapstick.€€ÌÌà Ø àCounsel€Simpson€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€Ms.€CarterððsÏtestimony€was€unexpected€and€devastating€to€appellantððs€case.€€Counsel€hadÐ v/n(- Ðattempted€to€contact€Ms.€Carter€for€an€interview€before€trial,€but€was€unable€to€locateÏher.€€During€appellantððs€case€in€chief,€counsel€attempted€to€rebut€her€testimony€byÏcalling€appellantððs€cousin,€James€King,€who€testified€that€he€and€the€appellant€hadÏtaken€Ms.€Carter€to€St.€Maryððs€Hospital€for€treatment.€€In€addition,€the€defense€calledÏKaren€Greeg,€Ms.€Carterððs€sister,€who€testified€that€Ms.€Carter€could€not€be€believed,Ïeven€under€oath.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà Ø àCounsel€Simpson€testified€that€the€theory€of€voluntary€intoxication€wasÏrendered€futile€after€Ms.€Carterððs€testimony.€€Counsel€decided€to€challenge€Ms.ÏCarterððs€credibility€during€the€guilt€phase€of€trial€and€to€rely€on€the€evidence€ofÏintoxication€during€the€sentencing.ÌÌà Ø àThe€appellant€relies€on€òòState€v.€Zimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€220,€224„26€(Tenn.Ð ˜ ÐCrim.€App.€1991),€to€argue€that€the€change€in€the€defense€theory€constitutedÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€His€reliance€on€that€decision€is€misplaced.€€InÏòòZimmermanóó,€the€defense€theorized€initially€that€the€defendant€was€a€battered€andÐ ü!ô Ðabused€wife€who€had€killed€her€husband€in€self€defense.€€òòId.óó€at€224.€€OpeningÐ È#À  Ðstatements€were€made€to€the€jury€based€upon€that€theory,€and€the€defense€planned€toÏcall€the€defendant€as€a€witness.€€òòId.óó€at€224„25.€€Ð `'X $ ÐÌà Ø àDuring€the€course€of€the€trial,€however,€counsel€advised€the€defendant€to€ð ðshutÏdownðð€the€defense€and€to€decline€from€testifying.€€òòId.óó€€Zimmermanððs€counselÐ Ä,¼%* Ðapparently€reasoned€that€a€conviction€was€inevitable,€even€though€no€surprise€or€newÏevidence€had€been€presented€by€the€State.€€òòId.óó€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€heldÐ \0T). Ðthat€the€sudden€change€in€defense€strategy€constituted€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€under€the€circumstances€of€that€case.€€òòId.óó€at€224.€€The€court€particularly€notedÐ ô3ì,2 Ðthat€nothing€changed€or€transpired€during€the€course€of€trial€to€warrant€counselððsÏperemptory€abandonment€of€the€sound€defense€theory.€€òòId.óó€at€224,€226.Ð Œ7„06 Ðà Ø àIn€appellantððs€case,€Counsel€Simpson€testified€that€he€revised€the€defenseÏtheory€solely€in€response€to€the€surprise€testimony€of€Ms.€Carter.€€Counsel€objected€toÏthe€introduction€of€her€testimony,€but€was€forced€to€deal€with€it€after€the€trial€courtÏallowed€it€into€evidence.€€Although€we€acknowledge€that€defense€attorneys€shouldÏstrive€to€present€a€consistent€theory€of€defense€at€trial,€we€must€avoid€judging€theÏtactical€decisions€of€counsel€in€hindsight.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€atÐ ü  Ð2065;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€We€have€reviewed€theÐ ÐÈ  Ðcircumstances€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time€and€conclude€that€the€change€inÏstrategy€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€ineffective€assistance.€€€€€€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€in€failing€to€obtainÏthe€assistance€of€mental€health€experts€in€a€timely€fashion.€€Counsel€Simpson€testifiedÏthat€he€began€the€process€of€locating€a€mental€health€expert€on€January€9,€1985.€€AtÏthat€time,€the€trial€was€set€to€begin€on€January€21,€1985,€but€was€subsequentlyÏpostponed€to€January€23,€1985,€due€to€weather.€€Counsel€obtained€the€services€of€Dr.ÏMartin€Gebrow,€a€psychiatrist,€on€January€15,€1985,€and€the€doctor€evaluatedÏappellant€on€the€first€day€of€trial.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Counsel€subsequently€made€a€strategic€decisionÐ È#À  Ðnot€to€use€Dr.€Gebrowððs€evaluation€because€the€appellant€had€initially€lied€about€theÏcircumstances€of€the€murder׃Ê×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€because€Dr.€Gebrow€opined€that€the€appellant€wasÐ `'X $ Ðan€impulsive€person€who€enjoyed€hurting€people.€Ìâ âÐ ø*ð#( Ðà Ø àCounsel€Simpson€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€the€defense€wasÏâ âunable€to€obtain€a€second€opinion€due€to€the€time€constraints€of€trial.€€Counsel€insteadÏrelied€upon€their€own€investigation€of€the€appellant,€including€appellantððs€familialÏrelations€and€his€social€history.€€Through€the€testimony€of€appellantððs€family€andÏfriends,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€defense€presented€evidence€that€the€appellant€suffered€emotionalÐ 80 Ðtrauma€arising€from€the€death€of€his€father€when€appellant€was€eight€(8)€years€old.€ÏThe€appellant€became€involved€in€harmful€activities,€including€sniffing€gasoline€andÏalcohol€abuse,€at€an€early€age.€€By€the€age€of€fourteen€(14),€he€was€a€regular€user€ofÏalcohol,€LSD,€cocaine,€and€valium.€€His€scholastic€record€was€poor€and€he€droppedÏout€of€high€school€after€failing€the€ninth€grade.€€€€Ìà Ø àÌà Ø àDr.€Robert€Booher,€a€medical€doctor€specializing€in€ð ðaddictionology,ðð€testified€forÏthe€defense€regarding€the€harmful€effects€of€LSD€and€other€hallucinogenic€drugs.€ÏDefense€counsel€intended€to€use€Dr.€Booherððs€testimony€together€with€evidence€thatÏthe€appellant€had€taken€LSD€and€quaaludes€on€the€day€of€the€killing.€€The€evidenceÏsupported€part€of€the€defenseððs€mitigation€theory€that€the€murder€was€committed€whileÏthe€appellant€was€under€an€extreme€mental€disturbance€and€that€appellantððs€capacityÏto€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€actions€was€substantially€impaired€by€mentalÏdisease,€defect€or€intoxication.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„3„203€(j)(2),€(8)€(1982).€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€€Ìà Ø àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€mitigating€evidence€could€have€beenÏstrengthened€if€his€counsel€had€initiated€the€mental€health€evaluations€earlier€beforeÏthe€start€of€trial.€€He€relies€on€the€testimony€of€psychologist€Dr.€Pamela€Auble,€whoÏconducted€a€mental€evaluation€of€him€after€his€convictions.€€ÌÐ (2 +0 Ðà Ø àDr.€Auble€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€the€appellant€is€anÏimpulsive,€immature€person€who€has€difficulty€trusting€other€people.€€She€opined€thatÏbased€upon€appellantððs€experiences€as€a€child,€he€also€has€a€strong€sense€ofÏinsecurity€and€often€perceives€other€people€as€being€hostile€towards€him.€€ThisÏimpulsive€and€insecure€nature,€according€to€Dr.€Auble,€does€not€necessarily€lead€theÏappellant€to€act€violently.€€However,€she€opined€that€when€the€appellant€is€confrontedÏwith€a€stressful€situation,€he€is€unable€to€think€clearly€before€reacting.€€Dr.€AubleÏfurther€stated€that€appellantððs€impulsive€behavior€is€exacerbated€by€his€abuse€of€drugsÏand€alcohol.€€€€€€ÌÌà Ø àBased€upon€Dr.€Aubleððs€review€of€the€facts€in€this€case,€she€opined€that€theÏappellant€unleashed€a€lifelong€build„up€of€anger€and€hostility€when€Ms.€Smith€accusedÏhim€of€rape.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€the€appellant€probably€looked€to€Mr.€Sexton€forÐ ˜ Ðadvice€and€then€carried€out€the€killing€because€of€his€impulsive€nature€and€poorÏjudgment.€€€€€€€ÌÌ€€€€€€€à Ø àThe€trial€court€reviewed€Dr.€Aubleððs€testimony€and€determined€that€herÐ È#À  Ðevaluation€provided€little€information€in€addition€to€that€previously€discovered€by€Dr.ÏGebrow.€€The€trial€court€concluded,€therefore,€that€even€if€defense€counsel€hadÏinitiated€the€mental€health€evaluations€earlier,€there€was€no€proof€that€a€moreÏfavorable€report€would€have€been€obtained.€€We€find€no€evidence€to€preponderateÏâ âagainst€that€finding.€€Moreover,€the€record€reflects€that€counsel€presented€evidenceÐ Ä,¼%* Ðthrough€lay€witnesses€that€was€remarkably€similar€to€the€information€provided€by€Dr.ÏAuble.€€Appellantððs€counsel€were€not€ineffective€on€this€issue.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú25Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€€€Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà Ø àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€in€failing€toÏthoroughly€investigate€Ms.€Smithððs€past.€€According€to€appellant,€counsel€should€haveÏdiscovered€public€records€concerning€a€prior€false€allegation€of€rape€made€by€Ms.ÏSmith.€€ÌÌà Ø àCounsel€Simpson€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€investigatedÏMs.€Smithððs€past€and€her€involvement€with€the€appellant€before€the€killing.€€He€statedÏthat€he€did€not€rely€heavily€on€Ms.€Smithððs€past€because€he€did€not€want€the€jury€toÏfocus€on€her€as€a€victim.€€Counsel€was€aware€that€Ms.€Smith€had€lived€in€McMinnÏCounty,€but€he€had€no€information€concerning€her€prior€rape€allegation.ÌÌà Ø à€€€€We€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€prior€rape€allegationÏwould€not€have€benefited€the€appellant€at€trial.€€If€anything,€the€information€would€haveÏstrengthened€the€prosecutionððs€evidence€of€motive€against€him.€€Moreover,€Ms.ÏSmithððs€character€was€not€at€issue,€and€there€has€been€no€showing€that€information€ofÏher€prior€rape€allegation€would€have€been€admissible.€€Therefore,€we€cannot€say€thatÏdefense€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€discover€it.€ÌÌà Ø àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€ensureÏthe€recording€of€all€bench€conferences€during€trial.€€Counsel€Simpson€testified€that€heÏâ âmistakenly€believed€the€bench€conferences€were€being€recorded€throughout€the€trial.€Ð \0T). ÐOnly€a€few€of€the€numerous€bench€conversations€between€counsel€and€the€trial€judgeÏwere€preserved€for€the€record.Ìâ âÌà Ø àThe€State€concedes€that€counselsðð€failure€to€preserve€all€of€the€benchÏconferences€was€an€instance€of€deficient€performance.€€The€State€argues,€however,Ïthat€the€appellant€has€not€demonstrated€any€prejudice€as€a€result€of€the€deficiency.€ÏWe€agree.€€In€order€to€demonstrate€prejudice€here,€the€appellant€must€show€aÏreasonable€probability€that€one€or€more€of€the€unrecorded€bench€conferences€resultedÏin€an€adverse€ruling€that€constituted€reversible€error.€€The€appellant€has€not€satisfiedÏthat€burden.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà Ø àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€counsel€should€have€called€him€as€a€witnessÏat€the€pre„trial€suppression€hearing.€€Counsel€Simpson€testified€that€appellantððs€valueÏand€credibility€as€a€witness€was€seriously€undermined€by€his€violent€criminal€history.€ÏBased€upon€that€premise,€counsel€believed€that€any€benefit€from€allowing€theÏappellant€to€testify€at€the€suppression€hearing€would€have€been€outweighed€by€the€riskÏof€consequences€from€the€prosecutionððs€in„depth€cross„examination.€€Counsel€testifiedÏthat€he€wanted€to€make€the€prosecution€wait€until€trial€before€taking€a€crack€at€theÏappellant.ÌÌà Ø àAs€correctly€noted€by€both€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,Ïcounsel€made€a€tactical€decision€not€to€call€the€appellant€as€a€witness€at€theÏsuppression€hearing.€€We€will€not€second€guess€that€strategy€on€appeal€with€theÏbenefit€of€twenty„twenty€hindsight.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065;Ð \0T). ÐòòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.€€Counsel€made€a€calculated€decision,€and€there€has€beenÐ (2 +0 Ðno€showing€of€ineffectiveness.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à è à€€Ð ô3ì,2 Ðâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà Ø àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€in€failing€to€objectÏâ âto€the€admission€of€Mr.€Sextonððs€suicide€letter€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Mr.€SextonÏhad€written€the€letter€in€contemplation€of€suicide€while€he€and€the€appellant€wereÏincarcerated€at€the€Fort€Pillow€State€Prison.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú26Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€During€the€cross„examination€of€Mr.Ð l d ÐSexton€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€introduced€the€letter€into€evidence.ÌÌà Ø àMr.€Sexton€testified€that€he€had€discussed€the€contents€of€the€letter€with€theÏappellant€prior€to€writing€it,€and€that€the€appellant€had€encouraged€him€to€include€aÏstatement€that€he,€Mr.€Sexton,€was€responsible€for€Ms.€Smithððs€death,€not€theÏappellant.€€Appellantððs€counsel€relied€on€the€letter€in€his€closing€argument€toÏundermine€Mr.€Sextonððs€credibility€and€to€demonstrate€that€the€appellant€had€not€usedÏthe€letter€as€a€defense.€€Counselsðð€strategy€in€part€was€to€show€that€the€appellant€hadÏadmitted€to€the€killing€and€was€remorseful.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à @ àÐ ˜ ÐÌà Ø àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€counsel€made€a€tacticalÏdecision€to€use€the€suicide€letter,€not€only€to€attack€Mr.€Sextonððs€credibility,€but€toÏbolster€the€credibility€of€the€appellant.€€Again,€we€decline€to€second€guess€the€strategyÏchosen€by€defense€counsel.€€Counsel€knew€about€the€suicide€letter€before€trial€andÏchose€to€use€it€during€the€sentencing€phase€to€undermine€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Sexton.€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà Ø àThe€appellant€further€contends€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€toÏchallenge€on€direct€appeal€the€Stateððs€improper€use€of€a€dismissed€juvenile€chargeÏduring€the€sentencing€phase€of€trial.€€At€sentencing,€the€State€cross„examined€theÏappellant€as€to€his€criminal€conduct€as€a€juvenile.׃N×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú27Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€His€juvenile€record€revealed€twoÐ \0T). Ðarmed€robbery€convictions€and€a€dismissed€charge€of€rape.€€Appellantððs€counselÏchallenged€on€direct€appeal€the€admission€of€the€two€armed€robbery€convictions,€butÏapparently€omitted€the€Stateððs€use€of€the€dismissed€rape€charge.ÌÌà Ø àThis€Court€has€previously€held€that€there€is€no€constitutional€requirement€for€anÏattorney€to€raise€every€issue€on€appeal.€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€596„97Ð ü  Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJones€v.€Barnesóó,€463€U.S.€745,€750„51,€103€S.Ct.€3308,Ð ÐÈ  Ð3312,€77€L.Ed.2d€987€(1983).€€ð ðGenerally,€the€determination€of€which€issues€toÏpresent€on€appeal€is€a€matter€which€addresses€itself€to€the€professional€judgment€andÏsound€discretion€of€appellate€counsel.ðð€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.Ð 4, Ð1993).€€Counsel€is€given€considerable€leeway€to€decide€which€issues€will€serve€theÏappellant€best€on€appeal,€and€we€should€not€second€guess€those€decisions€here.€ÏòòCampbellóó,€904€S.W.2d€at€597.Ð ˜ ÐÌà Ø àCounsel€Simpson€testified€that€the€defense€carefully€examined€the€trial€recordÏand€listed€every€issue€that€might€have€merit€on€appeal.€€Counsel€included€a€challengeÏon€direct€appeal€to€the€Stateððs€use€of€the€armed€robbery€convictions,€and€this€CourtÏheld€that€admission€to€be€harmless€error.€€Under€those€circumstances,€we€cannot€sayÏthat€counselsðð€omission€of€the€dismissed€rape€charge€was€ineffective.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@àà+€àò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ø*ð#( ÐÌà Ø àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€any€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error€in€thisÐ œ.”', Ðcase,€for€use€of€the€felony€murder€aggravator,€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€We€have€addressed€the€concerns€of€individualized€sentencing€underÏâ âòòMiddlebrooksóó€and€òòHowellóó€and€conclude€that€the€appellant€was€properly€sentenced€toÐ 4ø,2 Ðdeath.€€Finding€no€reversible€error,€we€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court€and€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals.€Ìâ âÌà Ø àUnless€stayed€by€this€Court€or€other€appropriate€authority,€the€appellantððsÏsentence€of€death€shall€be€carried€out€as€provided€by€law€on€the€16th€day€of€August,Ï1999.ÌÓ"®Óà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à______________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICEÌÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,ÌDrowota,€Birch,€Holder,€JJ.€