ÿWPC‹ J£¤-}Ì%D/ õHF^$`¼Ë+Þ{îÀÆ—h¤=15KëR-=AÊqöž¨¡ëgñ¤7&°†æ‚–8ðdŽg䥦’èVÝ•oqKh£¿FA¢n1|høÛóüµ¶¿«h8?ãæùQsÞïõQß7Ü<Ý–:Ê ž œðf¨Ãëq§¾ÚÌõh!£˜í;Q|Æ[~,3gC RŠº~9ÂË©@ƒÃ³®n/ûîw–Ð5Œ6nÅú€YŠ÷b 8Å+:œ]dÌQC%å€PŠzºt+gèý~OåÔvä×ɽNR"0ÜPV±G{8ÀlÅ £N?ðb¡8jËÃH[cŽìÄïh>àÝŽ,…vlõMâ34šì&ûñaFÿ‚Ìe¿Ux¤ö¦ÿm1ûId2Tµy3é¯à~X7¬¼C7¼¥¦¢éÚ%×Å l|–g_É‘…ÑÓ–wféò¶ö§¥Ù3>.ó¼á‡E‰Œð÷~ûfδõäù’ˆ&¨¾>ÔýdÊ<.Ë’­wY5ò•Fþâà{$5bJ*.XþØvüâ‘0—#Á9TZ–”|ÆÍš¬JD òrå}Mû|š\C„ÑX–Âv/ÑÁÝWqúNžòSÞ·V*# LU :W %‘ 0—w@›4ÛïÔþ 0 HÒ 0 D U:^ ˜ D­ 0Dñ 0D5 !y D/šÉÅÌ©‘:ƒBÒÅŠ—!U:$$$$$$ AQ^Ư 0DuO¹ B%% B; D3X˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ B>C>DD>E>F>G>DH>I>EJ>EK>Ó€ìu[%3|xT> ÊÝ ƒ T2$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôàÉôXXÔMr.€Walton€is€now€a€Circuit€Court€judge€in€the€Nineteenth€Judicial€District.(ø(3l9$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝÑ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÿ±XXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ñ  Ñ :Ý ƒ T2$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôàÉôXXÔEvidence€of€petitionerððs€background€was€provided€by€Jeffrey€Blum.€€He€contacted€severalÐ  Ðmembers€of€the€petitionerððs€family€before€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€€€€€€€(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó Ý ƒ T2$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôàÉôXXÔThe€petition€was€filed€in€1989€and€is€governed€by€the€pre„1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€Ð  ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð40„30„101€„€124€(repealed€1995).€There€is€no€explanation€in€the€record€for€theРƾ Ðlengthy€delay€between€the€filing€of€the€petition€and€the€evidentiary€hearing€held€in€late€1995.Ô#†XŸ•XôôàÉ_#ÔÔ‡ôàÉôXXŸ•Ô(('÷ÿ dxd ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€Xÿ±XXXÔÔ€Ò(XXÿ±ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xÿ±XÒ(ÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€7,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó »Ý ƒ T2$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôàÉôXXÔÔ‡ ô†ôôôàÉÔLawyers€representing€capital€defendants€have€a€duty€to€prepare€for€both€the€guilt€phase€andÐ  Ðsentencing€phase€of€a€trial.€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370„71;€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.Ð ÐÈ Ð1989)Ô#†ôàÉôô ô†~#Ô ŸÝ ƒ l9$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôÀôXXÔFor€a€more€complete€recitation€of€the€facts,€see€this€Courtððs€opinion€in€petitionerððs€direct€appeal.€Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Zagorski›óó,€701€S.W.2d€808,€810„11€(Tenn.€1985),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó€478€U.S.€1010,€106€S.Ct.€3309,€92Рƾ ÐL.Ed.2d€722€(1986). yÝ ƒ T2$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ôàÉôXXÔòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€DR€7„101(A)(3),€which€states€that€ð ð[a]€lawyer€shall€explain€aÐ  Ðmatter€to€the€extent€reasonably€necessary€to€permit€the€client€to€make€informed€decisions€regarding€theÏrepresentation.ðð€ ÈÝ ƒ T2$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôàÉôXXÔThe€opinion€was€later€adopted€by€the€BPR€as€Formal€Ethics€Opinion€84„F„73. €Ý ƒ T2$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôàÉôXXÔOther€jurisdictions€have€adopted€similar€procedures.Ô#†XŸ•XôôàÉ`#Ô€Ô‡ôàÉôXXŸ•Ô€òòSeeóó€òòKoon›€v.€œDugger›óó,€619€So.2d€246,Ð  Ð250€(Fla.€1993);Ô#†XŸ•XôôàÉ×#ÔÔ‡ôàÉôXXŸ•Ô€òòWallace€v.€Stateóó,€893€P.2d€504,€512„13€(Okla.€œCrim›.€œApp›.€1995),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó€516€U.S.Ð îæ Ð888,€116€S.Ct.€232,€133€L.Ed.2d€160€(1995).€Ô‡ ô†ôôôàÉÔ€€Ô#†ôàÉôô ô†<#Ô ùÝ ƒ T2$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôàÉôXXÔÔ‡ ô†ôôôàÉÔòòState€v.€Melson›óó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.€1989)Ô#†ôàÉôô ô†~#Ô.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý EÝ ƒ T2$ÝÒ€°ÒÒX°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôàÉôXXÔÔ‡ ô†ôôôàÉÔCounselsðð€decision€to€remain€on€petitionerððs€case€was€in€accordance€with€EC€7„5,€whichÐ  Ðpermits€counsel€to€continue€representation€ð ðeven€though€the€client€has€elected€to€pursue€a€course€ofÏconduct€contrary€to€the€advice€of€the€lawyer,ðð€provided€the€lawyer€does€not€assist€in€illegal€conduct€orÏassert€a€frivolous€legal€position.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€EC€7„5.Ô#†ôàÉôô ô†~#Ô d Ñ € ÑüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒg!ÝÑ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÿ±XXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›Ó=€ÿ±X°XdÐd=ÓÑ€ P¨ÑñK>ñœßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rß›ñK>ñà@‰‰ €àòòIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐóóÌà@ŸŸ*€àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóˆÐ ÔÌ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌEDMUND€GEORGE€ZAGORSKI,à  à)à è àò òFOR€PUBLICATIONó ó€Ð   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 àò òFILED:€€òòDecember€œñB>ñ7ñB>ñ,›€1998óóó 󀀀Рðè  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌV.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àROBERTSON€CIRCUITРº  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ ¨   ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àHON.€JANE€W.€WHEATCRAFT,Ð Ž†  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àJUDGEÐ tl Ðà Ø àAppellee.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ZR Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€01SO1„9711„CC„00240à  # àÐ @8 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)Ð   ÐÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÐ Š‚ ÐÌSamuel€L.€Felker€&à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ VN ÐJoseph€F.€Welbornà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ < 4 ÐNashville,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àÐ "! Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àMichael€E.€MooreÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAmy€L.€Tarkingtonà ð àà H! àÐ º$²! Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àNashville,€Tennesseeà H! àà  # àÐ †&~# Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àÌÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@××*€àò òÔ‡¼j¼XXÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†Xÿ±X¼¼j£ #Ôó óˆÐ 3,1 ÐÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àBARKER,€J.Ð Æ7¾06 ÐÐ ¬8¤17 ÐÓÓò òÑ€&[ Ñà@ÙÙ-€àOPINIONó óˆÐ  ÐÌà Ø àWe€granted€this€post„conviction€appeal€to€determine€whether€there€isÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€where,€at€the€express€instruction€of€a€competent€andÏfully€informed€defendant,€defense€counsel€does€not€investigate€or€present€mitigatingÏevidence€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€a€capital€trial.€€For€the€reasons€provided€herein,Ïwe€hold€that€there€is€not.ÌÌà@§§+€àò òBACKGROUNDó óˆÐ tl ÐÌà Ø àThe€petitioner,€Edmund€Zagorski,€was€convicted€in€1984€of€the€first€degreeÏpremeditated€murders€of€John€Dale€Dotson€and€Jimmy€Porter.€€The€evidence€at€trialÏwas€that€petitioner€lured€the€two€men€into€a€wooded€area€in€Robertson€County€underÏthe€pretense€of€a€drug€deal.€€Once€there,€petitioner€shot€both€men€and€slit€theirÏthroats,€taking€a€substantial€sum€of€money€they€had€brought€to€purchase€marijuana.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð H @ ÐÌà Ø àThe€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€was€held€immediately€after€the€jury€returnedÏits€guilty€verdicts.€€Neither€the€State€nor€the€defense€offered€any€additional€proof.€€TheÏjury€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€death€based€upon€two€aggravating€circumstances:€€(1)Ïthe€murders€were€committed€by€the€defendant€while€he€was€engaged€in€committingÏrobbery€of€the€victims,€and€(2)€the€murders€were€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelÏin€that€they€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„13„203(i)(7),Ï(5)€(1982).€€€Ìâ âÐ t0l). Ðà Ø àFollowing€his€unsuccessful€direct€appeal€to€this€Court,€the€petitioner€filed€aÏâ âpost„conviction€petition€alleging,€among€other€things,€that€he€was€denied€hisÏconstitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€Petitioner€contendsÏthat€his€two€trial€lawyers€were€ineffective€in€failing€to€investigate€and€to€presentÏmitigating€evidence€during€the€sentencing€portion€of€his€trial.€€We€affirm€the€dismissalÏof€his€post„conviction€petition.€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€evidence€introduced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€was€undisputed.€ÏAlthough€the€petitioner€himself€did€not€testify,€he€introduced€the€testimony€of€JeffreyÏBlum,€a€program€specialist€with€the€Davidson€County€Public€Defenderððs€Office,€and€hisÏtwo€former€lawyers,€Larry€Wilks€and€James€Walton.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Sheriff€Ted€Emery€and€DetectiveÐ ø ÐRonnie€Perry€from€the€Robertson€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testified€for€the€State.€€€€ÌÌà Ø àBefore€trial,€petitioner€made€it€clear€to€his€counsel€that€he€wanted€to€focusÏexclusively€on€avoiding€a€first€degree€murder€conviction.€€He€unequivocally€informedÏcounsel€that€if€convicted,€he€preferred€death€instead€of€a€possible€sentence€of€life€inÏprison.€€Counsel€advised€the€petitioner€about€the€importance€of€and€the€need€toÏinvestigate€and€use€information€about€his€family€background;€however,€petitionerÏprohibited€his€attorneys€from€having€any€contact€with€his€family€or€delving€into€his€past.€ÏHe€further€instructed€counsel€that€no€mitigating€evidence€was€to€be€presented€at€theÏsentencing€phase€of€trial.€€ÌÌà Ø àDespite€petitionerððs€explicit€instructions,€counsel€took€certain€steps€toÏinvestigate€his€family€background.€€Counsel€initially€sought€funds€to€travel€to€theÏpetitionerððs€home€town€in€Michigan;€however,€they€did€not€go€because€of€his€strictÏinstructions.€€Mr.€Wilks€instead€contacted€the€petitionerððs€mother€by€telephone.€€Mrs.Ð ô3ì,2 ÐZagorski€spoke€with€a€heavy€Polish€accent€and€was€immature€and€very€childlike,Ïapparently€the€result€of€a€childhood€head€injury.€€While€she€referred€to€the€petitionerÏas€ð ðmy€boyðð€and€was€obviously€concerned€about€his€fate,€she€was€of€little€assistanceÏand€provided€no€information€that€could€be€pursued€for€mitigation.€€€€ÌÌà Ø àCounsel€also€obtained€the€services€of€an€independent€psychiatrist,€Dr.€BenÏBursten,€who€examined€the€petitioner€and€confirmed€that€he€was€both€competent€andÏineligible€for€an€insanity€defense.€€Dr.€œBursten›ððs€findings€and€proposed€testimony€wereÏnot€helpful€to€the€defense€and€counsel€chose€not€to€call€him€to€testify€at€trial.ÌÌà Ø àOn€several€occasions€during€the€trial€court€proceedings,€counsel€advisedÏpetitioner€of€his€rights€and€the€potential€consequences€of€his€decision€to€forego€anyÏinvestigation€or€use€of€his€family€background€and€other€mitigating€evidence.€€TheÏpetitioner€was€adamant€in€his€chosen€course€of€action€and€he€expressed€fullÏawareness€of€the€ramifications€of€the€death€penalty.€€€ÌÌà Ø àCounsel€testified€that€the€petitionerððs€instructions€forced€them€to€chooseÏbetween€honoring€his€wishes€and€following€their€own€professional€judgment.€€ForÏguidance€under€those€circumstances,€counsel€contacted€the€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility€(BPR).€€The€BPR€issued€an€informal€opinion׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€advising€counsel€to€fullyÐ ,)$"& Ðinform€petitioner€that€he€had€a€right€to€pursue€a€defense€of€his€choice,€but€that€hisÏchosen€defense€strategy€conflicted€with€counselððs€ethical€responsibilities.€€If€petitionerÏpersisted,€then€counsel€were€advised€that€they€should€tell€him€that€they€would€file€aÏmotion€to€withdraw€from€their€representation€and€insure€that€he€was€competent€toÏrepresent€himself€at€all€stages€of€the€trial€where€the€conflict€was€imminent.€€ÌÐ ô3ì,2 Ðà Ø àCounsel,€however,€never€considered€withdrawing€from€petitionerððs€caseÏbecause€of€their€professional€obligation€to€him.€€They€represented€him€during€theÏentire€trial€and€followed€his€chosen€defense€strategy€of€preventing€a€first€degreeÏmurder€conviction€and€foregoing€mitigating€evidence.€€ÌÌà Ø àAfter€the€guilty€verdicts€of€first€degree€murder,€counsel€again€conferred€withÏpetitioner€about€the€need€to€pursue€mitigating€evidence.€€He€directed€counsel€to€doÏnothing€and€say€nothing€at€the€sentencing€hearing€because€he€wanted€the€deathÏpenalty.€€Once€again,€counsel€explained€to€petitioner€the€possible€consequences€of€hisÏdecision.€€Although€initially€resistant,€the€petitioner€finally€allowed€his€lawyers€to€makeÏa€closing€argument€on€his€behalf€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€However,€counsel€did€notÏargue€any€mitigating€factors€in€their€closing€because€they€believed€the€trial€court€hadÏlimited€their€argument€in€that€regard.€€ÌÌà Ø àMr.€Wilks€testified€that€he€intended€to€argue€that€the€victims€were€drug€dealersÏwho€were€armed,€intoxicated,€and€dangerous.€€However,€he€believed€the€onlyÏavailable€arguments€for€the€defense€were€those€supported€by€the€evidence,€leavingÏthem€with€little€recourse€since€they€did€not€present€any€proof€at€the€sentencing€phase.€ÏThe€trial€court€refused€to€instruct€the€jury€on€three€requested€mitigating€factors:€€theÏvictimsðð€participation€in€criminal€activity,€petitionerððs€lack€of€prior€violent€convictions,Ïand€petitionerððs€youth.€€Essentially,€counselsðð€argument€during€the€sentencing€phaseÏwas€a€plea€for€mercy.ÌÌà Ø àTestimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€revealed€potential€mitigating€evidence€withÏrespect€to€the€petitionerððs€family€background€that€had€been€available€at€the€time€ofÏtrial.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€petitioner€grew€up€impoverished€in€Tecumseh,€Michigan€where€he€lived€in€aÐ ô3ì,2 Ðtenement€apartment€and€then€later€in€a€small€house.€€His€mother€was€always€critical€ofÏhim€because€she€wanted€a€daughter.€€An€aunt€helped€care€for€the€petitioner€during€hisÏchildhood€because€his€mother€was€impaired€by€a€brain€injury.€€Between€the€ages€ofÏeight€and€ten,€the€petitioner€could€not€read€or€write€and€he€developed€a€stutter.€ÏAlthough€he€suffered€from€poor€vision,€he€went€without€eye€glasses€for€over€a€year.ÌÌà Ø àPetitionerððs€father€had€little€or€no€involvement€in€his€life.€€When€petitioner€wasÏabout€fourteen€years€old,€a€man€in€his€neighborhood€took€him€under€his€wing€andÏinvolved€him€in€the€Boy€Scouts.€€Nevertheless,€the€petitioner€began€to€use€drugs€andÏalcohol€at€an€early€age.€€His€grades€in€school€were€below€average€and€he€likely€did€notÏfinish€high€school.€€He€had€minor€skirmishes€with€the€law€as€a€juvenile€and€federalÏdrug€convictions€as€an€adult;€however,€he€had€no€convictions€of€violent€crimes€prior€toÏthe€commission€of€the€murders.€ÌÌà Ø àFollowing€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€petitioner€failed€toÏprove€that€his€trial€lawyers€were€ineffective.€€The€trial€court€found€that€counselÏconducted€the€defense€at€the€sentencing€hearing€based€upon€instructions€from€theÏpetitioner,€who€was€competent€to€aid€in€his€own€defense€and€to€have€input€in€the€trialÏdecisions.€€à 0 àÐ `'X $ ÐÌà Ø àThe€trial€courtððs€decision€was€affirmed€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€TheÏintermediate€court€determined€that€counsel€were€not€ineffective€for€the€alleged€failureÏto€investigate€mitigating€evidence€because€petitioner€had€not€shown€any€resultingÏprejudice.€€As€to€the€failure€to€introduce€mitigating€evidence,€the€intermediate€courtÏconcluded€that€counsel€performed€effectively€in€carrying€out€petitionerððs€demands€afterÏinforming€petitioner€of€the€circumstances€and€the€consequences€of€his€decision.€€Ô‡ X²,XXXŸ•ÔÐ ô3ì,2 ÐÐ À5¸.4 Ðà Ø àWe€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€courts€below€and€hold€that€when€a€competentÏand€fully€informed€defendant€instructs€counsel€not€to€investigate€or€present€mitigatingÏevidence€at€trial,€counsel€will€not€later€be€adjudged€ineffective€for€following€thoseÏinstructions.Ô#†XŸ•XX X²,%3#ÔÐ ¨   ÐÌà@!€àò òEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ TL  ÐÌà Ø àTo€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€counsel€in€this€proceeding,€petitioner€mustÏprove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÔ€ X²,XXXŸ•ÔÔ‡XŸ•XX X²,Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€the€advice€given€or€services€renderedРļ Ðby€his€counsel€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€He€must€alsoÐ \T Ðdemonstrate€prejudice€by€showing€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counselsðð€error,Ïthe€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€Ô#† X²,XXXŸ•«5#ÔòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466Ð ôì ÐU.S.€668,€687,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938Ð ØÐ ÐS.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996).€€€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€trial€attorneys€were€ineffective€in€failing€toÏinvestigate€and€present€mitigating€evidence€despite€his€instructions€to€the€contrary.€€ÌGenerally,€a€defense€attorneyððs€failure€to€investigate€and€prepare€for€a€possible€capitalÏsentencing€hearing€is€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€criminal€attorneys.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€107€S.Ct.€837,€93€L.Ed.2d€934€(1987);€òòGoadóó,Ð ø+ð$( Ðâ â938€S.W.2d€at€369.׃Ê×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€there€is€no€requirement€that€counsel€present€mitigatingÐ Ø-Ð&* Ðevidence€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€trial,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€this€Court€has€emphasized€theÐ  Ðâ âimportance€of€mitigating€evidence€in€capital€cases€ð ðbecause€of€the€belief€...€thatÏdefendants€who€commit€criminal€acts€that€are€attributable€to€a€disadvantagedÏbackground,€or€to€emotional€and€mental€problems€may€be€less€culpable€thanÏdefendants€who€have€no€such€excuse.ðð€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369€(quoting€òòCaliforniaÐ ˆ€ Ðv.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€544,€107€S.Ct.€837,€841,€93€L.Ed.2d€934€(1987)).€€€Ð h`  ÐÌà Ø à€In€this€case,€petitionerððs€counsel€recognized€the€importance€of€exploring€andÏpresenting€mitigating€evidence.€€They€yielded,€however,€to€the€petitionerððs€demandsÏthat€no€evidence€be€offered€in€mitigation€upon€his€conviction€of€first€degree€murder.€ÏThe€petitioner€understood€that€he€faced€the€death€penalty,€but€he€neverthelessÏinstructed€his€attorneys€to€refrain€from€any€investigation€into€his€family€backgroundÏand€to€essentially€forego€any€defense€at€the€sentencing€phase.€ÌÌà Ø àWe€distinguish€petitionerððs€case€from€those€in€which€counsel€has€beenÏadjudged€ineffective€for€making€the€decision€not€to€investigate€or€present€mitigatingÏevidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòÔ‡XŸ•XX X²,ÔAustin€v.€Bellóó,€126€F.3d€843,€849€(6th€Cir.€1997),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó€___Ð %  ÐU.S.€___,€118€S.Ct.€1526,€140€L.Ed.2d€677€(1998)Ô#† X²,XXXŸ•t@#Ô;€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370.€€It€isÐ ì&ä" Ðundisputed€that€counselsðð€inaction€in€this€case€was€solely€and€alone€the€result€ofÏpetitionerððs€instruction€not€to€pursue€any€mitigation€evidence.€€€ÌÌà Ø àUnder€these€exceptional€circumstances,€the€critical€issue€is€whether€a€lawyer€Ïshould€follow€the€lawful€demands€of€his€client€when€those€demands€may€causeÏdetriment€to€the€clientððs€case.€€This€Court€has€adopted€the€Code€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility€to€assist€and€guide€lawyers€in€their€relationships€with€clients€and€others.€Ð 4-0 ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8.€€Generally,€the€client€has€exclusive€authority€to€makeÐ  Ðdecisions€about€his€or€her€case,€which€are€binding€upon€the€lawyer€if€made€within€theÏframework€of€the€law.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€EC€7„7.€€For€example,€in€criminal€cases,€itÏis€the€client€who€decides€what€plea€to€enter€and€whether€an€appeal€should€be€takenÏonce€he€or€she€has€been€fully€advised€by€counsel.€€òòId.óó€€€€€€€Ð ˆ€ ÐÌà Ø àCounselððs€role€in€a€criminal€case€is€to€assist€the€defendant€in€making€a€defenseÏand€to€represent€the€defendant€before€the€court.€€òòState€v.€Franklinóó,€714€S.W.2d€252,Ð (  Ð262€(Tenn.€1986).€€The€assistance€of€counsel€insures,€among€other€things,€that€theÏdefendant€is€fully€advised€of€his€or€her€rights,€the€available€defense€strategies,€and€theÏconsequences€of€pursuing€one€strategy€over€another.€€According€to€the€Code€ofÏProfessional€Responsibility,€ð ða€lawyer€should€exert€the€lawyerððs€best€efforts€to€insureÏthat€decisions€of€the€client€are€made€only€after€the€client€has€been€informed€of€relevantÏconsiderations.ðð€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€EC€7„8.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Counsel€may€even€warn€the€clientÐ h` Ðabout€harsh€consequences€that€might€result€from€pursuing€an€ill„advised,€but€legallyÏpermissible€strategy.€€òòId.óóÐ (#  ÐÌà Ø àUltimately,€however,€the€right€to€a€defense€belongs€to€the€defendant.€€òòFranklinóó,Ð è&à" Ð714€S.W.2d€at€262.€€Counsel€must€remember€that€decisions,€including€whether€toÏforego€a€legally€available€objective€because€of€non„legal€factors,€are€for€the€client€andÏnot€the€lawyer.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€EC€7„8.€€As€Justice€William€Brennan€of€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€has€stated:ÌÓÓà8 Ø à[t]he€defendant,€and€not€his€lawyer€or€the€State,€will€bear€the€personalÏconsequences€of€a€conviction.€€It€is€the€defendant,€therefore,€who€mustÏbe€free€personally€to€decide€whether€in€his€particular€case€counsel€is€toÏhis€advantage.€€And€although€he€may€conduct€his€own€defenseÐ 3,/ Ðultimately€to€his€own€detriment,€his€choice€must€be€honored€out€of€ð ðthatÏrespect€for€the€individual€which€is€the€lifeblood€of€the€law.ðð€€òòÔ‡XŸ•XX X²,ÔIllinois€v.Ð øð ÐAllenóó,€397€U.S.€337,€350„51,€90€S.Ct.€1057,€1064,€25€L.Ed.2d€353Ð êâ Ð(Brennan,€J.,€concurring).Ð Ø (#Ø (# ÐÌÓ·JÓòòFaretta€v.€Californiaóó,€422€U.S.€806,€95€S.Ct.€2525,€2541,€45€L.Ed.2d€562€(1975)Ð œ ” Ð(footnote€omitted).Ô#† X²,XXXŸ•’L#ÔÐ h ` ÐÌà Ø àWhen€a€competent€defendant€knowingly€and€voluntarily€chooses€a€lawfulÏcourse€of€action€or€defense€strategy,€counsel€is€essentially€bound€by€that€decision.€€IfÏthe€defendant€is€prejudiced€in€some€respect€by€his€own€decision,€he€should€not€laterÏbe€heard€to€complain€about€those€consequences€by€challenging€the€conduct€of€hisÏcounsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dunnóó,€453€S.W.2d€777,€779€(Tenn.€1970);€òòDukes€v.€Stateóó,€578Ð ”Œ ÐS.W.2d€659,€665€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà Ø àCounsel,€in€this€case,€reasonably€represented€the€petitioner€despite€his€chosenÏdefense€strategy.€€First,€counsel€vigorously€defended€the€petitioner€during€the€guiltÏphase€of€the€trial.€€Moreover,€counsel€spoke€to€petitionerððs€mother€and€obtained€theÏservices€of€Dr.€Bursten,€a€forensic€psychiatrist.€€Mr.€Wilks€testified€that€petitionerððsÏmother€provided€little€information€which€could€be€pursued€further.€€Dr.€BurstenÏexamined€the€petitioner€and€concluded€that€he€was€mentally€competent€and€ineligibleÏfor€any€form€of€insanity€defense.€€Dr.€Bursten€told€counsel€that€if€he€testified,€he€wouldÏexplain€that€the€petitioner€could€be€a€ð ðmean€person.ðð€€Counsel€made€a€strategicÏdecision€not€to€present€Dr.€Burstenððs€testimony€at€trial.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà Ø àFurthermore,€counsel€properly€advised€the€petitioner€of€the€need€for€mitigatingÏevidence€and€the€potentially€devastating€consequences€of€his€decision€to€forego€suchÏevidence.€€Counsel€testified€that€they€had€no€difficulty€communicating€with€theÏpetitioner€and€they€consulted€him€at€every€critical€stage€of€the€proceedings.€€PetitionerÐ ”6Œ/3 Ðwas€adamant€and€did€not€waiver€in€his€decision€after€counsel€fully€advised€him€of€hisÏrights€and€the€risks€involved.Ì€€€Ìà Ø àCounsel€had€no€reservations€about€petitionerððs€competency€to€make€decisionsÏand€to€understand€the€consequences€of€his€chosen€defense€strategy.€€Before€trial,Ïpetitionerððs€competency€to€stand€trial€and€the€feasibility€of€an€insanity€defense€wereÏevaluated€at€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute€(MTMHI).€€The€evaluatorsÏfound€the€petitioner€competent€to€assist€in€his€own€defense€and€ineligible€for€anÏinsanity€defense.€€As€stated,€Dr.€Burstenððs€separate€evaluation€also€affirmed€theÏpetitionerððs€competency.€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€record€before€us€clearly€shows€that€the€petitioner€made€an€intelligent€andÏvoluntary€decision€not€to€investigate€or€present€mitigating€evidence,€and€that€he€wasÏcompetent€to€make€that€decision.€€Counsel€fulfilled€their€role€as€advocates€for€theÏpetitioner€and€were€not€ineffective€in€abiding€by€his€informed€decision€to€forego€theÏuse€of€mitigating€evidence.€€Because€we€hold€that€counselsðð€performance€did€not€fallÏbelow€an€objective€standard€of€competence,€it€is€unnecessary€for€us€to€address€theÏissue€of€prejudice.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.Ct.€At€2069;€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2dÐ è&à" Ðat€370.€ÌÌò òà@jj'€àTHE€ETHICS€OPINIONó óˆÐ ˆ,€%( ÐÌà Ø àFinally,€it€is€appropriate€to€address€the€ethical€considerations€raised€in€FormalÏEthics€Opinion€84„F„73€of€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility.€€As€previouslyÏmentioned,€petitionerððs€counsel€sought€advice€from€the€BPR€on€how€to€represent€theÏpetitioner€given€the€unique€circumstances€in€this€case.€€The€BPR€recognized€thatÐ è5à.2 Ðpetitionerððs€defense€strategy€was€both€moral€and€legal,€but€opined€that€it€wasÏnevertheless€in€conflict€with€counselsðð€duties€as€defense€lawyers.€€The€BPRÏrecommended€to€counsel€the€following€steps€to€address€the€conflict€with€the€petitioner:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àCounsel€should€fully€inform€the€accused€of€his€legal€right€toÏconduct€a€defense€of€his€choice€as€guaranteed€by€the€Constitution.€€TheÏaccused€should€be€fully€advised€by€counsel€that€his€rights€and€interestsÏare€in€conflict€with€counselððs€moral€beliefs€and€ethical€responsibilities.€€InÏ[sic]€event€the€accused€maintains€his€insistence€on€no€actions€orÏarguments€on€his€behalf€against€the€death€penalty€being€imposed€thenÏcounsel€should€advise€the€accused€that€a€motion€to€withdraw€from€thoseÏportions€of€the€trial€will€be€filed€with€the€court.ò ò€€ó óThe€consequences€of€thisÐ 80  Ðaction€should€be€fully€explained€to€the€accused.€€The€court€should€beÏfully€informed€of€the€conflicts€between€counsel€and€the€accused.€ÏCounsel€should€seek€adjudication€that€the€accused€is€competent€toÏrepresent€himself€during€...€any€...€portion€of€the€trial€where€the€conflict€isÏimminent.€€Counsel€should€move€the€court€to€withdraw€fromÏrepresentation€during€the€portion€of€the€trial€where€the€conflict€isÏmanifested.ò ò€€ó óIn€the€event€the€court€fails€to€grant€such€motions,€theÐ ÈÀ Ðattorney€should€seek€an€immediate€review€by€the€appellate€court.Ð Ø (#Ø (# ÐÌÓa\Ó€€ÓÓòòSeeóó€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility,€Formal€Op.€84„F„73€(1984).ÓJaÓÐ ˜ ÐÌà Ø àCounsel€followed€the€BPRððs€opinion€in€part€by€informing€the€petitioner€of€hisÏrights€and€how€his€chosen€defense€strategy€conflicted€with€his€legal€interests.€ÏCounsel,€however,€chose€to€continue€their€representation€of€the€petitioner€and€neverÏinformed€the€trial€court€of€their€conflict.ÌÌà Ø àUnder€the€circumstances€in€this€case,€counsel€had€no€obligation€to€seek€toÏterminate€their€representation€of€the€petitioner.€€Withdrawal€of€counsel€is€€governed€byÏDisciplinary€Rule€2„110€of€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility,€and€in€indigentÏcriminal€cases,€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„14„205.€€Our€review€ofÏthose€provisions€reveals€that€no€grounds€existed€for€mandatory€withdrawal.€€TheÏpetitioner€never€expressed€a€desire€to€discharge€his€appointed€counsel€and€there€wasÏâ âno€evidence€that€counselsðð€services€were€meant€to€cause€harm€to€another€person€orÐ ø4ð-1 Ðthat€the€representation€would€result€in€the€violation€of€a€Disciplinary€Rule.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð  ÐSup.€Ct.€R.€8,€DR€2„110(B).€€€€Ìâ âÌà Ø àMoreover,€even€if€counsel€had€sought€to€withdraw€from€petitionerððs€case,€suchÏaction€would€have€required€permission€from€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„¼205€(1984);€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€DR€2„110(A)(1).€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„14„205€provides€that€a€court„appointed€lawyer€may€withdraw€from€representationÏonly€upon€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€good€cause.€€Although€the€circumstances€in€thisÏcase€may€have€risen€to€the€level€of€good€cause,€we€will€not€speculate€as€to€whetherÏthe€trial€court€would€have€granted€a€withdrawal€in€the€middle€of€this€capital€trial.€€€€€€ÌÌà Ø àCounsel€determined€that€the€petitionerððs€legal€interests€would€be€served€best€ifÏthey€continued€their€representation€throughout€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€We€areÏpersuaded€that€counsel€acted€both€reasonably€and€competently€in€representing€theÏpetitioner€instead€of€seeking€to€withdraw€from€his€case.׃#×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€we€are€concernedÐ H!@ Ðthat€at€no€time€did€counsel€inform€the€trial€judge€on€the€record€about€theÏcircumstances€or€their€decision€to€carry€out€the€petitionerððs€defense€strategy.€€ÌÌà Ø àIn€prospective€cases,€Ô‡XŸ•XX X²,Ôwhen€a€defendant,€against€his€counselððs€advise,€refusesÐ È(À!$ Ðto€permit€the€investigation€and€presentation€of€mitigating€evidence,€counsel€mustÏinform€the€trial€court€of€these€circumstances€on€the€record,€outside€the€presence€of€theÏjury.€€The€trial€court€must€then€take€the€following€steps€to€protect€the€defendantððsÏinterests€and€to€preserve€a€complete€record:Ìâ âÓÓÐ Ü1Ô*. ÐÑ&[ÑÑ€€ÑÑ  ÑñB>ñÑ&[ÑÑ€€ÑÑ  ÑñB>ñà8 Ø à1.€€Inform€the€defendant€of€his€right€to€present€mitigating€evidence€andÏâ âmake€a€determination€on€the€record€whether€the€defendant€understandsÏthis€right€and€the€importance€of€presenting€mitigating€evidence€in€bothÏthe€guilt€phase€and€sentencing€phase€of€trial;€Ð Ø (#Ø (# ÐÌà8 Ø à2.€€Inquire€of€both€the€defendant€and€counsel€whether€they€haveÏdiscussed€the€importance€of€mitigating€evidence,€the€risks€of€foregoingÏthe€use€of€such€evidence,€and€the€possibility€that€such€evidence€could€beÏused€to€offset€aggravating€circumstances;€andÐ Ø (#Ø (# ÐÌà8 Ø à3.€€After€being€assured€the€defendant€understands€the€importance€ofÏmitigation,€inquire€of€the€defendant€whether€he€or€she€desires€to€foregoÏthe€presentation€of€mitigating€evidence.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#† X²,XXXŸ•õj#ÔÔ‡XŸ•XX X²,Ô€Ô#† X²,XXXŸ•®p#ÔÔ‡XŸ•XX X²,Ô€ÐÐÈ Ø (#Ø (# ÐÌÓlÓÌà Ø àThis€procedure€will€insure€that€the€accused€has€intelligently€and€voluntarilyÏmade€a€decision€to€forego€mitigating€evidence.€€TriaÔ#† X²,XXXŸ•ñp#ÔÔ‡XŸ•XX X²,Ôl€judges,€however,€shall€not€inquireÐ 4, Ðof€counsel€as€to€the€content€of€any€known€mitigating€evidenceÔ#† X²,XXXŸ•ùq#ÔÔ‡XŸ•XX X²,Ô.ò ò€€ó óTo€hold€otherwise€€€Ð ø Ðwould€potentially€force€counsel€to€act€against€the€clientððs€wishes€and€would€risk€theÏdisclosure€of€privileged€or€confidential€information.ÌÌ€€€€€Ô#† X²,XXXŸ•±r#Ô€€€à@àà+€àò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ 0 ( ÐÌà Ø àWe€recognize€the€professional,€personal,€and€moral€conflicts€that€lawyersÏencounter€when€representing€a€defendant€who€chooses€to€forego€the€use€of€Ïmitigating€evidence.€€Nevertheless,€we€must€preserve€a€competent€defendantððs€right€toÏmake€the€ultimate€decisions€in€his€or€her€case€once€having€been€fully€informed€of€theÏrights€and€the€potential€consequences€involved.€€ÌÌà Ø àAccordingly,€when€a€defendant€instructs€counsel€not€to€investigate€or€presentÏmitigating€evidence,€counsel€must€follow€the€procedure€outlined€in€this€case€to€insureÏon€the€record€that€the€defendant€is€competent€and€fully€aware€of€his€rights€and€theÐ ô2ì+0 Ðpossible€consequences€of€that€decision.€€Thereafter,€counsel€will€not€be€adjudgedÏineffective€for€abiding€by€the€defendantððs€lawful€decision.€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed.€€Unless€stayed€byÏthis€Court€or€other€appropriate€authority,€the€sentence€of€death€shall€be€carried€out€asÏprovided€by€law€on€the€œñF>ñ1ñF>ññF>ñ›ñF>ñ5th›€day€of€œñG>ñMarchñG>ññH>ñAprilñH>ñ,›€1999.€ÓÓÌÌÌÌÌà 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,€JusticeÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€ÌDrowota,€Birch,€Holder,€JJ.ÌœñJ>ñÌñJ>ñ›œñJ>ñ̛̛̛ñJ>ññI>ñÌñI>ññJ>ñ›ñJ>ññI>ñ̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛ñI>ññE>ñÐ Ø6Ð/3 ÐÑ P¨ÑÑ c ÑÑ  ќԇXƒXX X¢wÔÔ‡ŠïÜ ŠXXƒÔ›à@>>$€àSUPREME€COURT,€NASHVILLEÔ#†XƒX ŠŠïÜz#ԈР ÐÌœ›ÌÌÌEDMUND€GEORGE€œZAGORSKI›,à  à)à è àÐ ˜  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 àœROBERTSON›€CIRCUIT€€Ð d \ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNO.€6052€BelowÐ JB ÐV.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð 0(  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNO.€œ01S01›„9711„CC„00240Ð   ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ üô  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àCourt€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ âÚ  Ðà Ø àAppellee.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAffirmedà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ÈÀ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ®¦  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ ”Œ  Ðœ›ÌÌà@TT,€àòòJUDGMENTóóˆÐ F> ÐÌÓÓà Ø àThis€case€was€heard€on€the€record€on€appeal€from€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals,€application€for€permission€to€appeal€having€heretofore€been€granted,€briefsÏand€argument€of€counsel;€and€upon€consideration€thereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinionÏthat€the€appellant€was€afforded€both€effective€and€competent€assistance€in€the€guiltÏand€sentencing€phases€of€œtrial.›ÌÌà Ø àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,€ordered€andÏadjudged€that€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed,€and€the€caseÏis€remanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Robertson€County€œforñ@>ñ€the€execution€of€theÏjudgment€of€this€Court€andñ@>ñ›€the€collection€of€costs€accrued€below.ÌœÌà Ø àUnless€stayed€by€this€Court€or€other€appropriate€authority,€the€sentence€ofÏdeath€shall€be€carried€out€as€provided€by€law€on€the€5th€day€of€March,€1999.Ì›Ìà Ø àIt€appearing€that€the€appellant€is€indigent,€costs€of€appeal€will€be€paid€by€theÏState€of€Tennessee.ÌÓäÓœñ?>ñÌÌñ?>ñ12/ñE>ññC>ñ14ñC>ññE>ññD>ñ07ñD>ñ/98Ô#† X¢wXXXƒ÷y#Ô›ñE>ñ›