ÿWPCm Ì“±Çã-‚50û8/9š.Ì`X-–yÿÇ2¸tYÕ4`™¥¦ïH”[ɦ~Ú= A3$L ÆÓÖW¯#š *ˆi¦™=”i®à¶fBå¿´*9{IÆÁßsÓfÌ-Góß÷²š+ˆ6·€É}üŠ,÷)š‘'…–¥â°`R‚p˜G„Ä«q7»áí$4*–¯J+ºº×Jl 6Ë&ðúÊ q×kF²ã*$zPÃWÈ=ùâîJIXlÞ‘²ZtråÑÊ¿Øn: 8̪à­ùòM±‹$|=àXͧÜ@"WSHZ*ôFµcieJ…¡õ‚‰•Ñ|Ó$`Íþ«ª¾“ŸØƒÈ¨IÈ6çâOÚœ«·Fè d§C&#"Säh:¢ÞªÛ;£nὊú³3:ð(e‡‹xœªÓ.‚ÅõŸÈ¥p *€üðÞèkŸ°³ªÀD~<Ñcm®î²»èŠb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹  Ð #ÁÚ Æ› Æa Æ'Æíb³N 0DV[E±é³êœÈ†UNNNNÆœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb 0ëjjjj BUU 0¤r D3 D-I 0Kvv ASÁÆ 0¤Ú 0D~ A«Â»Îxa-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,-' (%1!c쟟3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Wehby€SEPULVEDA J.Y.SepulvedaAngeleTalleyHoneycuttMcNeila]lthoughBlockburgerMiddlebrooksa]ctual˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 XÝ ƒRR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¢=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOral€argument€was€heard€in€this€case€on€May€2,€2002,€in€Sevierville,€Sevier€County,€Tennessee,€as€part€of€thisÐ ° ÐCourtððs€S.C.A.L.E.S.€(Supreme€Court€Advancing€Legal€Education€for€Students)€project.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó LÝ ƒRR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¢=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFelony€murder€also€applies€in€cases€involving€a€killing€in€connection€with€a€first€degree€murder,€arson,€rape,Ð ° Ðrobbery,€kidnapping,€aggravated€child€abuse,€or€aircraft€piracy.€€òòId.óó ßÝ ƒRR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¢=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€is€unclear€from€the€record€whether€Sepulvedaððs€family€ever€actually€contacted€the€attorney. àÝ ƒRR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¢=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€transcript€of€the€hearing€at€which€Miller€was€removed€is€not€included€in€the€record€on€appeal. ¾Ý ƒRR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¢=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSepulveda€filed€the€petition€pro€se.€€His€post„conviction€counsel,€however,€had€the€opportunity€to€amend€theÐ ° Ðpetition€and€did€not€do€so.€€òòCf.óó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(e)€(noting€that€counsel€ð ðmay€file€an€amended€petitionÐ tÄ Ðwithin€thirty€(30)€days€of€appointmentðð).(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ¼Ý ƒRR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¢=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reduced€the€conviction€of€especially€aggravated€burglary€to€aggravatedÐ ° Ðburglary.€€The€sentence€was€also€€modified.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sepulvedaóó,€No.€03C01„9402„CR„00069,€1997€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð tÄ ÐLEXIS€598€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€26,€1997).òòóó- ù-(|G2R$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¢=ò»»Ô d(|37$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ »»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ »»»ÔÑ8€[iXXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î$ ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ »îî$ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMay€2,€2002€Session€Heard€at€Ô_ÔSeviervilleÔ_ÔÐ üL ÐÔ‡X[iX»¼ ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ »XX[i"#ÔJ.€Y.€SEPULVEDA€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEó óÐ úJ ÐÌÔ‡X[iX»¼ Ôà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ  p ÐCircuit€Court€for€Jefferson€CountyÐ  \ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€15,954€€€€€€Rex€Henry€Ogle,€JudgeÔ#†¼ »XX[i¦#ÔÐ ø H ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E< ` AßÐ  \  ÐÌÔ‡X[iX»¼ Ôà@@TTìàNo.€€E1999„02766„SC„R11„PC€„€Filed€November€1,€Ô_Ô2002Ô#†¼ »XX[i7#ÔÔ_ÔÐ /  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<.` AßÐ / Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÔ‡¼ »»¼ ÔÔ€X[iX»¼ ÔIn€this€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€petitioner€alleges€that€his€pre„trial€counsel€failed€toÐ b² Ðaccompany€him€while€he€gave€statements€to€the€police€and€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€offer€theÐ Nž Ðtestimony€of€an€expert€pathologist.€€These€failures,€the€petitioner€asserts,€deprived€him€of€theÐ :Š Ðconstitutionally„grounded€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Our€review€is€guided€by€theÐ &v ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€v.€Washingtonóó,€which€requires€petitionersÐ b Ðalleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€to€prove€that€counselððs€performance€ð ðfell€below€anÐ þN Ðobjective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€the€petitioner€was€prejudiced€by€the€deficientÐ ê: Ðrepresentation.€€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€694€(1984).€€We€readily€conclude€that€pre„trial€counselððsÐ Ö& Ðrepresentation€fell€below€reasonable€standards.€€Because€we€hold,€however,€that€the€petitioner€hasÐ Â Ðfailed€to€prove€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€deficient€pre„trial€representation,€the€petitioner€is€notÐ ®þ Ðentitled€to€the€relief€sought.€€As€far€as€trial€counselððs€failure€to€offer€the€testimony€of€an€expertÐ šê Ðpathologist€is€concerned,€we€hold€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€sufficiently€articulate€this€claim€in€hisÐ †Ö Ðpost„conviction€petition.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€hear€evidence€concerning€thatÐ r  Ðclaim.€€It€results€that€the€denial€ofÔ#†X[iXXX[i[#Ô€Ô‡X[iXXX[iÔpost„conviction€relief€is€affirmed.Ô#†X[iXXX[i #Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ^!® ÐÓOÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ 6#†! ÐAffirmed€ó óÐ "$r" ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,Ð ú%J!$ ÐC.J.,€E.€Riley€Anderson,€Janice€M.€Holder,óó€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð æ&6"% ÐÌTim€S.€Moore,€Newport,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€J.€Y.€Sepulveda.Ð ¾($' Ðâ âÐ ª)ú$(ý ÐÔ_ÔPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€and€AngeleÐ ° Ðâ âM.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð œì ÐÌÓ† ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ `° ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓI.€€Facts€and€Procedural€HistoryÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓvÓà  àThe€petitioner,€J.€Y.€Sepulveda,€filed€this€post„conviction€petition€alleging€ineffectiveÐ  ` Ðassistance€of€pre„trial€and€trial€counsel€in€connection€with€his€convictions€arising€from€the€death€ofÐ ü L  Ðhis€neighbor,€Cora€Nicholson.€€A€brief€recitation€of€the€facts€upon€which€this€conviction€rests€isÐ è 8  Ðessential€to€place€the€issues€in€context.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àOn€August€6,€1991,€Nicholson€was€found€lying€on€the€floor€of€her€home.€€She€had€sufferedÐ ¬ü  Ða€severe€beating.€€The€ensuing€on„scene€police€investigation€soon€focused€on€Sepulveda,€and€theÐ ˜è  Ðofficers€asked€him€to€accompany€them€to€the€police€station€for€questioning.€€He€was€advised€of€hisÐ „Ô  Ðrights,€and,€before€leaving€the€scene€with€the€officers,€he€asked€a€family€member€to€call€a€localÐ pÀ Ðattorney.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAfter€arriving€at€the€police€station,€Sepulveda€was€seated€in€the€lobby€awaiting€the€attorneyððsÐ 4„ Ðarrival.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€waiting€for€approximately€two€hours,€he€grew€impatient,€approached€an€officer,€andÐ  p Ðasked€to€make€a€statement.€€At€that€time,€he€was€again€advised€of€his€rights.€€He€signed€a€waiver€ofÐ  \ Ðthose€rights,€and€he€gave€a€statement€to€the€police€in€which€he€admitted€that€he€and€his€brother„in„Ð øH Ðlaw,€David€Johnson,€broke€into€Nicholsonððs€home.€€Sepulveda€insisted,€however,€that€Johnson€wasÐ ä4 Ðthe€one€who€had€attacked€Nicholson.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAfter€giving€this€statement,€Sepulveda€was€arrested€for€the€burglary.€€On€September€9,€1991,Ð ¨ø Ðhe€was€indicted€on€charges€of€especially€aggravated€burglary,€theft,€and€attempted€first€degreeÐ ”ä Ðmurder.€€Ed€Miller,€the€Jefferson€County€Public€Defender,€was€appointed€to€represent€Sepulveda.€Ð €Ð ÐMiller,€who€apparently€believed€Sepulveda€might€gain€leniency€by€offering€information€aboutÐ l¼ ÐJohnson,€advised€Sepulveda€that€ð ðhe€could€best€[help]€himself€by€helping€the€state.ðð€€With€MillerððsÐ X ¨ Ðauthorization,€Sepulveda€thereafter€met€with€police€on€a€number€of€occasions€to€make€statementsÐ D!” Ðregarding€the€burglary.€€Miller,€however,€did€not€attend€any€of€these€meetings.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àNicholson€died€on€October€27,€1991.€€Shortly€thereafter,€police€contacted€Miller€andÐ $X" Ðrequested€permission€to€administer€a€polygraph€examination€to€Sepulveda;€€Miller€grantedÐ ô$D # Ðpermission.€€At€the€time,€neither€he€nor€Sepulveda€was€aware€of€Nicholsonððs€death.€€On€October€31,Ð à%0!$ Ð1991,€Sepulveda€met€with€police€for€the€polygraph€examination;€once€again,€his€counsel€was€notÐ Ì&"% Ðwith€him.€€Upon€his€arrival,€Sepulveda€was€advised€of€his€rights€and€signed€a€waiver€of€those€rights;Ð ¸'#& Ðhe€also€signed€a€second€waiver€indicating€that€he€wished€to€take€the€polygraph€exam.€€Then,€whileÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpolice€were€advising€him€about€the€procedures€for€the€polygraph,€he€spontaneously€confessed€toÐ )à$( Ðhaving€initiated€the€attack.€€He€then€signed€a€written€statement€admitting€that€it€was€he,€and€notÐ ° ÐJohnson,€who€had€beaten,€kicked,€and€choked€Nicholson.Ð œì ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€Miller€was€removed€as€Sepulvedaððs€counsel,€and€new€counsel€was€appointedÐ tÄ Ðby€the€trial€court.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Sepulveda€then€moved€to€suppress€all€of€the€statements€he€had€given€to€police.€Ð `° ÐThe€trial€court€refused€to€exclude€the€statements,€finding€that€they€were€not€taken€in€violation€ofÐ L œ ÐSepulvedaððs€constitutional€rights.€€The€court,€however,€stated:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àIn€all€candor,€the€Court€must€say€that€he€wished€that€Mr.€Miller€had€inquired€furtherÐ  ` Ðof€the€facts€and€circumstances€surrounding€the€investigation€by€the€officers.€€HeÐ ü L  Ðobviously€has€the€right€to€rely€upon€what€his€client€tells€him.€€All€of€us€who€have€everÐ è 8  Ðrepresented€people€have€that€right,€assuming€it€is€reasonable.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à.€.€.€€I€must€say,€however,€and€it€pains€this€Court€to€have€to€say€this,€that€anÐ ¬ü  Ðattorney€should€not€send€their€client€off€unattended€time€after€time,€especially€to€aÐ ˜è  Ðcritical€proceeding€like€a€polygraph€exam.€€Iððve€[represented]€cooperating€defendants;Ð „Ô  Ðall€of€us€have.€€But€I€donððt€think€that€it€rises€to€the€level€expected€of€us€under€theÐ pÀ ÐSixth€Amendment€to€send€our€clients€off€unattended€for€polygraph€examinations.€€IÐ \¬ Ðjust€donððt€ð!ð€I€just€donððt€think€thatððs€proper.ÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€case€proceeded€to€trial,€and€Sepulveda€was€convicted€of€felony€murder,€especiallyÐ  p Ðaggravated€burglary,€and€theft.€€He€received€a€life€sentence€for€the€murder;€he€also€received€sentencesÐ  \ Ðof€10€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€burglary€and€11€months,€29€days€for€the€theft.€€On€directÐ øH Ðappeal,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€convictions,€finding€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ ä4 Ðrefused€to€suppress€the€statements.€€The€intermediate€court€declined€to€consider€Sepulvedaððs€claimsÐ Ð  Ðof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€finding€such€claims€premature.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àSubsequently,€Sepulveda€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€which€he€contended€thatÐ ”ä Ðhe€had€not€been€effectively€assisted€by€counsel.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€petition,€he€asserted€that€hisÐ €Ð Ðpre„trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€accompany€him€when€he€met€with€police€to€give€hisÐ l¼ Ðstatements.€€He€also€asserted€that€his€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€neglecting€to€call€a€pathologistÐ X ¨ Ðto€testify€whether€some€other€event,€such€as€a€stroke€or€brain€hemorrhage,€might€have€proximatelyÐ D!” Ðcaused€Nicholsonððs€death.€€The€trial€court€heard€evidence€regarding€the€claim€of€ineffectiveÐ 0"€  Ðassistance€of€pre„trial€counsel,€but€it€found€that€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counselÐ #l! Ðhad€not€been€pleaded€with€sufficient€particularity€to€allow€it€to€go€forward€at€the€hearing.€€It€did,Ð $X" Ðhowever,€allow€Sepulveda€to€make€an€offer€of€proof€regarding€that€claim.€€Sepulvedaððs€post„Ð ô$D # Ðâ âconviction€counsel€made€the€following€statement€as€an€offer€of€proof:Ð à%0!$ Ðà8  à[T]he€big€thing€I€think€looking€back€at€it€is€a€pathologist€that€could€have€testified.€Ð ° Ðâ âThey€knew€.€.€.€there€would€be€inconsistencies€in€[the€State€medical€expertððs]Ð œì Ðtestimony€as€to€whether€[a€hemorrhage]€would€show€up€on€a€CAT€scan€and€only€aÐ ˆØ Ðpathologist€ð!ð€And€I€think€one€of€their€medical€experts€testified€to€that,€said€well,€IððmÐ tÄ Ðnot€a€pathologist,€I€havenððt€done€pathology€in€eighteen€or€twenty€years€and€you€needÐ `° Ða€pathologist€for€that.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€Sepulvedaððs€pre„trial€counselððsÐ $ t Ðactions€in€sending€ð ðhis€client€off€to€take€a€polygraph€exam€without€going€with€himðð€fell€below€theÐ  ` Ðstandard€of€effective€representation€required€by€the€Sixth€Amendment,€but€it€further€found€thatÐ ü L  ÐSepulveda€had€not€demonstrated€that€pre„trial€counselððs€deficient€performance€had€prejudiced€him.€Ð è 8  ÐWith€regard€to€the€actions€of€trial€counsel,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€offer€of€proof€regarding€theÐ Ô$  Ðpathologist€went€only€to€the€weight€of€the€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€medical€experts,€and€ð ðthere€is€noÐ À  Ðshowing€.€.€.€that,€even€if€it€were€offered€that€it€was€prejudicial.€.€.€.€€[I]t€went€to€the€weight€and€IÐ ¬ü  Ðthink€the€evidence€in€this€case€was€very€clear€in€the€Courtððs€mind€that€her€cause€of€death€was€thisÐ ˜è  Ðsevere€beating.ðð€€Consequently,€Sepulvedaððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€dismissed.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àSepulveda€appealed,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðcourt.€€We€granted€permission€to€appeal,€and€we€now€hold€that€while€the€representation€byÐ H˜ ÐSepulvedaððs€pre„trial€counsel€was€deficient€under€the€Sixth€Amendment,€Sepulveda€was€notÐ 4„ Ðprejudiced€by€this€deficient€performance.€€We€further€hold€that€Sepulveda€failed€to€specify€theÐ  p Ðparticulars€of€the€alleged€deficient€performance€of€trial€counsel€sufficiently€so€as€to€entitle€him€to€aÐ  \ Ðhearing€on€that€claim.€€Accordingly,€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€is€affirmed.Ð øH ÐÌÓ  ÓII.€€Standard€of€ReviewÐ Ð  ÐÌÓç5Óà  àClaims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€regarded€as€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact.€Ð ¨ø ÐòòState€v.€Honeycuttóó,€54€S.W.3d€762,€766„67€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.Ð ”ä Ð1999).€€On€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€are€entitled€to€substantial€deference€unless€theÐ €Ð Ðevidence€preponderates€against€those€findings,€and€appellate€courts€do€not€substitute€their€ownÐ l¼ Ðinferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€579€(Tenn.Ð X ¨ Ð1997).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theirÐ D!” Ðtestimony,€and€the€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€to€be€resolved€by€the€trial€judge.€€òòId.óó€Ð 0"€  ÐWhen€reviewing€the€application€of€law€to€those€factual€findings,€however,€our€review€is€de€novo,€andÐ #l! Ðthe€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law€are€given€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40Ð $X" ÐS.W.3d€450,€457„58€(Tenn.€2001);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Englandóó,€19€S.W.3d€762,€766€(Tenn.€2000).Ð ô$D # ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€€AnalysisÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÓ;Óà  àIn€criminal€prosecutions,€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€guaranteesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€ð ðthe€accused€shall€enjoy€the€right€.€.€.€to€have€the€Assistance€of€Counsel€for€his€defense.ðð€€ArticleÐ )à$( ÐI,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€a€corresponding€guarantee,€stating€in€pertinentÐ |*Ì%) Ðpart€ð ðthat€in€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€hath€the€right€to€be€heard€by€himself€and€hisÐ h+¸&* Ðcounsel.ðð€€The€right€described€in€these€constitutional€provisions€has€been€interpreted€to€ð ðencompass[]Ð ° Ðthe€right€to€ððreasonably€effectiveðð€assistance,€that€is,€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÐ œì Ðattorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€A€defendant€is€notÐ ˆØ Ðentitled€to€a€remedy€for€the€violation€of€this€right,€however,€ð ðunless€the€substandard€performance€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€attorney€negatively€affected€the€ultimate€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Garrisonóó,€40€S.W.3d€426,€429Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€2000).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€set€forth€the€analyticalÐ $ t Ðframework€by€which€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€judged.€€466€U.S.€668€(1984).€Ð  ` ÐIn€keeping€with€the€constitutional€principles€outlined€above,€the€Court€established€a€two„prongedÐ ü L  Ðanalysis,€requiring€the€defendant€to€prove€that:€€(1)€counselððs€representation€was€deficient€becauseÐ è 8  Ðit€ð ðfell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð;€and€(2)€the€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€theÐ Ô$  Ðdeficient€performance,€meaning€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððsÐ À  Ðunprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€687„88,€694.€Ð ¬ü  Ðð ðThe€benchmark€for€judging€any€claim€of€ineffectiveness€must€be€whether€counselððs€conduct€soÐ ˜è  Ðundermined€the€proper€functioning€of€the€adversarial€process€that€the€trial€cannot€be€relied€on€asÐ „Ô  Ðhaving€produced€a€just€result.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€686.€€It€is€the€defendantððs€burden€to€establish€both€prongs€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€test€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938Ð \¬ ÐS.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).Ð H˜ ÐÌÔ‡X[iXXX[iÔà  àAt€the€outset,€we€note€that€Sepulvedaððs€claims€essentially€encompass€challenges€to€threeÐ  p Ðdistinct€ð ðphasesðð€of€representation€in€this€case:€€(1)€during€Sepulvedaððs€August€6€statement,€whichÐ  \ Ðwas€made€prior€to€his€being€indicted€on€September€9,€1991;€(2)€during€the€statements€made€afterÐ øH Ðindictment,€but€before€trial,€while€he€was€being€represented€by€Miller;€and€(3)€during€his€trial.€€WithÐ ä4 Ðregard€to€the€first€of€these€three€phases,€we€must€heed€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€delineationÐ Ð  Ðof€the€scope€of€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel:Ô#†X[iXXX[imE#ÔÔ‡X[iXXX[iÔÐ ¼  ÐÌà8  àThe€Sixth€Amendment€right€.€.€.€is€offense€specific.€€It€cannot€be€invoked€once€for€allÐ ”ä Ðfuture€prosecutions,€for€it€does€not€attach€until€a€prosecution€is€commenced,€that€is,Ð €Ð Ðat€or€after€the€initiation€of€adversary€judicial€criminal€proceedings€ð!ð€whether€by€wayÐ l¼ Ðof€formal€charge,€preliminary€hearing,€indictment,€information,€or€arraignment.€€ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌòòMcNeil€v.€Wisconsinóó,€501€U.S.€171,€175€(1991)€(internal€quotations€omitted).€€Under€this€standard,Ð 0"€  Ðno€right€to€counsel€had€attached€at€the€time€of€Sepulvedaððs€August€6€statement,€for€that€statementÐ #l! Ðpreceded€his€indictment€on€September€9,€1991.€€Accordingly,€any€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ $X" Ðcounsel€in€connection€with€that€statement€may€be€dismissed€outright.€€We€address€below€theÐ ô$D # Ðremaining€claims€of:€(1)€ineffective€assistance€of€pre„trial€counsel€after€his€indictment;€and€(2)Ð à%0!$ Ðineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.Ô#†X[iXXX[iNH#ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÌÓ  ÓA.€€Pre„trial€CounselÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌÓ~MÓà  àWe€first€must€address€Sepulvedaððs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€as€to€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðstatements€he€gave€to€the€police€after€his€indictment.€€Applying€the€two€prongs€of€òòStricklandóó€toÐ h+¸&* Ðdetermine€whether€Sepulveda€was€deprived€of€the€right€to€counsel,€we€first€must€determine€whetherÐ ° Ðcounselððs€performance€was€deficient.€€In€making€that€determination,€we€note€that€both€the€originalÐ œì Ðtrial€court€and€the€post„conviction€court€agreed€that€the€representation€fell€below€what€is€requiredÐ ˆØ Ðby€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€The€charges€against€Sepulveda€were€serious;€he€was€relatively€young€andÐ tÄ Ðof€somewhat€limited€intelligence.€€Despite€these€facts,€counsel€allowed€Sepulveda€to€meetÐ `° Ðunsupervised€with€law€enforcement€on€multiple€occasions,€even€though€counsel€was€aware€thatÐ L œ Ðallowing€a€client€to€give€multiple€statements€to€police€could€seriously€jeopardize€the€clientððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðinterests.€€Moreover,€counselððs€investigation€of€the€case€appears€to€have€been€lacking.€€Had€heÐ $ t Ðmonitored€the€case€more€closely,€he€may€have€been€aware€of€Nicholsonððs€deathð!ðand€the€resultantÐ  ` Ðincrease€in€the€seriousness€of€the€caseð!ðprior€to€Sepulvedaððs€polygraph€examination.€€Under€theÐ ü L  Ðcircumstances,€we€have€little€difficulty€in€concluding€that€the€representation€offered€by€SepulvedaððsÐ è 8  Ðpre„trial€counsel€failed€to€meet€the€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€required€by€the€SixthÐ Ô$  ÐAmendment.Ð À  ÐÌà  àHaving€found€that€pre„trial€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€we€next€must€determineÐ ˜è  Ðwhether€Sepulveda€was€prejudiced€by€that€deficient€performance.€€Sepulveda€contends€that€prejudiceÐ „Ô  Ðshould€be€presumed€because€of€the€Stateððs€failure€to€inform€him€either€that€Nicholson€had€died€orÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€police€considered€him€to€be€the€principal€target€of€the€investigation.€€In€òòStricklandóó,€theÐ \¬ ÐSupreme€Courtòòóó€stated€that€prejudice€may€be€presumed€in€instances€of€ð ðstate€interference€withÐ H˜ Ðcounselððs€assistance.ðð€€466€U.S.€at€692.€€In€this€case,€however,€the€State€did€not€actively€interfereÐ 4„ Ðwith€counselððs€ability€to€represent€Sepulveda;€it€merely€declined€to€inform€counsel€of€€NicholsonððsÐ  p Ðdeath€or€of€the€nature€of€its€investigation.€€Sepulveda€has€not€demonstrated€that€counsel€would€haveÐ  \ Ðbeen€unable€to€discover€Nicholsonððs€death€through€independent€investigation,€had€he€monitored€theÐ øH Ðcase€more€closely.€€Thus,€we€are€not€persuaded€that€the€State€was€required€to€bear€the€burden€ofÐ ä4 Ðnotifying€Sepulvedaððs€counsel€of€this€occurrence.€€Likewise,€with€regard€to€Sepulvedaððs€being€theÐ Ð  Ðtarget€of€the€Stateððs€investigation,€we€observe€that€Sepulveda€faced€serious€charges€and€had€alreadyÐ ¼  Ðmade€statements€implicating€himself€in€the€burglary€of€Nicholsonððs€house.€€Under€the€circumstances,Ð ¨ø Ðit€was€perilous,€at€best,€for€his€attorney€to€assume€he€would€òònotóóbe€a€primary€target€of€the€StateððsÐ ”ä Ðinvestigation,€and€we€decline€to€hold€that€the€State€was€constitutionally€required€to€actively€discloseÐ €Ð Ðthe€status€of€that€investigation.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€prejudice€should€not€be€presumed€in€thisÐ l¼ Ðcase.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àBecause€prejudice€cannot€be€presumed€from€the€circumstances€before€us,€Sepulveda€mustÐ 0"€  Ðdemonstrate€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€his€trialÐ #l! Ðwould€have€been€different€if€his€attorney€had€not€allowed€him€to€give€statements€to€police€withoutÐ $X" Ðsupervision.€€At€the€outset,€the€State€points€out€the€difficulty€in€proving€prejudice€due€to€the€lack€ofÐ ô$D # Ðcertainty€that€counselððs€presence€would€have€prevented€Sepulveda€from€making€statements€to€policeÐ à%0!$ Ðð!ð€particularly€his€final€admission€to€beating€Nicholson.€€We€need€not€address€this€difficult€question,Ð Ì&"% Ðhowever,€for€even€if€we€assume,€òòarguendoóó,€that€he€would€not€have€given€the€statements,€weÐ ¸'#& Ðnonetheless€conclude€that€Sepulveda€has€failed€to€show€prejudice.€€Sepulveda€was€convicted€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfelony€murder,€which,€for€the€purposes€of€this€case,€requires€proof€only€that€he€participated€in€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âð ðkilling€of€another€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€or€attempt€to€perpetrate€.€.€.€burglary€[or]€theft.ðð€Ð |*Ì%) ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(2)€(1997).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€the€State€was€not€required€to€prove€that€SepulvedaÐ ° Ðâ âactually€killed€Nicholson:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àThe€.€.€.€offense€extends€both€to€the€killer€and€his€accomplices.€A€defendant€who€isÐ tÄ Ða€willing€and€active€participant€in€a€[felony]€becomes€accountable€for€all€of€theÐ `° Ðconsequences€flowing€from€the€felony€and€may€be€convicted€of€first-degree€murderÐ L œ Ðwhere€a€co-perpetrator€of€the€felony€is€the€actual€killer.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€336€(Tenn.€1992);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€756€S.W.2d€700,Ð  ` Ð703€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€Sepulvedaððs€August€6€statement,€he€voluntarily€admitted€that€he€actively€participated€inÐ Ô$  Ðthe€burglary€of€Nicholsonððs€home,€even€though€he€claimed€at€that€time€that€Johnson€was€the€one€whoÐ À  Ðattacked€Nicholson.€€Though€Sepulveda€emphasizes€that€his€October€31€admission€that€he€was€theÐ ¬ü  Ðattacker€was€more€incriminating€than€the€prior€statement,€the€August€6€statement,€standing€alone,Ð ˜è  Ðwas€plainly€sufficient€to€convince€a€jury€that€Sepulveda€was€guilty€of€felony€murder.€€Consequently,Ð „Ô  Ðwe€conclude€that€Sepulveda€has€failed€to€prove€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€his€trialÐ pÀ Ðwould€have€been€different€but€for€his€pre„trial€counselððs€ineffective€representation.€€We€hold,Ð \¬ Ðtherefore,€that€Sepulveda€has€failed€to€satisfy€the€second€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test,€and€we€rejectÐ H˜ Ðhis€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€pre„trial€counsel.Ð 4„ ÐÌÓ  ÓB.€€Trial€CounselÐ  \ ÐÌÓohÓà  àSepulveda€also€contends€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€present€evidence€regarding€hisÐ ä4 Ðtrial€counselððs€failure€to€offer€expert€testimony€of€a€pathologist€at€trial.€€The€pleading€requirementsÐ Ð  Ðfor€post„conviction€petitions€are€set€forth€in€detail€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(d)€(1997).€€InÐ ¼  Ðpertinent€part,€that€provision€states:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àThe€petition€must€contain€a€clear€and€specific€statement€of€all€grounds€upon€whichÐ €Ð Ðrelief€is€sought,€including€full€disclosure€of€the€factual€basis€of€those€grounds.€€A€bareÐ l¼ Ðallegation€that€a€constitutional€right€has€been€violated€and€mere€conclusions€of€lawÐ X ¨ Ðshall€not€be€sufficient€to€warrant€any€further€proceedings.€€Failure€to€state€a€factualÐ D!” Ðbasis€for€the€grounds€alleged€shall€result€in€immediate€dismissal€of€the€petition.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€€The€grounds€listed€in€the€petition€filed€by€Sepulveda׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€provide€only€that:Ð $X" Ðà8  àEdward€Miller€was€ineffective€in€his€representation€of€the€petitioner€at€all€stages€ofÐ ô$D # Ðhis€pretrial€[case],€including,€but€not€limited€to,€when€the€petitioner€was€arraignedÐ à%0!$ Ðand€all€other€stages€of€his€pre„trial€representation€of€the€petitioner€in€violation€of€theÐ ° ÐUnited€States€Constitution,€Amendment€6,€and€in€violation€of€Article€I,€sections€8€&Ð œì Ð9€of€the€Constitution€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Specifically,€counselððs€performanceÐ ˆØ Ðis€[insufficient],€constituting€ineffective€assistance.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌAll€of€the€supporting€facts€recited€in€the€petition€pertain€directly€to€Millerððs€pre„trial€representation.€Ð L œ ÐThe€petition€makes€no€mention€whatsoever€of€trial€counsel.€€Although€Sepulveda€claims€that€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðliberal€construction€of€the€original€post„conviction€petition€would€certainly€have€allowed€this€issueÐ $ t Ðto€have€been€discussed,ðð€he€points€to€no€language€in€the€petition€that€would€satisfy€the€statutoryÐ  ` Ðrequirement€of€a€ð ðclear€and€specific€statementðð€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€ToÐ ü L  Ðthe€contrary,€the€petition€plainly€concerns€itself€only€with€whether€Millerððs€representation€wasÐ è 8  Ðineffective.€€Consequently,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€declined€to€hear€evidenceÐ Ô$  Ðregarding€the€performance€of€trial€counsel.Ð À  ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.€€ConclusionÐ ˜è  ÐÌÓ]sÓà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€hold€that€Sepulveda€has€failed€to€prove€his€claims€ofÐ pÀ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€opinion€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ \¬ ÐAppeals,€and€Sepulvedaððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€is€dismissed.€€As€it€appears€SepulvedaÐ H˜ Ðis€indigent,€costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€State,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð 4„ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JUSTICE