ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT        ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Susan K. Carpenter                    Karen Freeman-Wilson
Public Defender of Indiana             Attorney General of Indiana
                            
Thomas C. Hinesley                    Andrew L. Hedges
Deputy Public Defender                Deputy Attorney General
                            Indianapolis, Indiana
Barbara S. Blackman
Deputy Public Defender
Indianapolis, Indiana

    In 1995, Christopher M. Stevens was convicted of the 1993 murder of ten-year-old Zachary Snider. In accord with the jury's recommendation, the trial court ordered the death sentence. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412 (Ind. 1997), cert. denied, 575 U.S. 1021, 119 S.Ct. 550, 142 L.Ed.2d 457 (1998). The defendant thereafter petitioned for post-conviction relief. After extensive proceedings and the presentation of evidence, the post-conviction court denied his petition. He now appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief. The factual details of the offense are detailed in our opinion on direct appeal. Id. at 416-420. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.
The defendant enumerates seven issues presented for review. We regroup them as follows: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) governmental interference with the right to counsel; (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (4) unreliability and unconstitutionality of the death sentence; (5) incomplete, unfair, and biased post-conviction relief adjudication.
    Defendants who have exhausted the direct appeal process may challenge the correctness of their convictions and sentences by filing a post-conviction petition. Langley v. State, 256 Ind. 199, 203, 267 N.E.2d 538, 540 (1971). Post-conviction proceedings are civil proceedings, and a defendant must establish his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. 2000). Because the defendant is now appealing from a negative judgment, to the extent his appeal turns on factual issues, he must convince this Court that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. See Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 597 (Ind. 2001). In other words, the defendant must convince this Court that there is no way within the law that the court below could have reached the decision it did. Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117, 1120 (Ind. 1995). We do not defer to the post-conviction court's legal conclusions, but do accept its factual findings unless they are "clearly erroneous." Ind.Trial Rule 52(A); Conner v. State, 711 N.E.2d 1238, 1245 (Ind. 1999); State v. Van Cleave, 674 N.E.2d 1293, 1295-96 (Ind. 1996), reh'g granted in part, 681 N.E.2d 181 (Ind. 1997). As we recently stated in Timberlake:
Post-conviction procedures do not afford a petitioner with a super-appeal, and not all issues are available. Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999, 1003 (Ind. 1999). Rather, subsequent collateral challenges to convictions must be based on grounds enumerated in the post-conviction rules. P-C.R. 1(1); Rouster, 705 N.E.2d at 1003. If an issue was known and available but not raised on direct appeal, it is waived. Rouster, 705 N.E.2d at 1003. If it was raised on appeal, but decided adversely, it is res judicata. Id. (citing Lowery v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1031, 1037 (Ind. 1994)). If not raised on direct appeal, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is properly presented in a post-conviction proceeding. Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d. 1208,1215, [1220] (Ind. 1998). A claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is also an appropriate issue for post-conviction review. As a general rule, however, most freestanding claims of error are not available in a post-conviction proceeding because of the doctrines of waiver and res judicata.

753 N.E.2d at 597-98. Furthermore, any "[i]ssues not raised in the petition for post-conviction relief may not be raised for the first time on post-conviction appeal." Allen v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1158, 1171 (Ind. 2001)(citing Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1(8)("All grounds for relief available to a petitioner under this rule must be raised in his original petition.")); Howard v. State, 467 N.E.2d 1, 2 (Ind. 1984)("It is well settled that issues which are not raised either at the trial level, on appeal, or in a post-conviction petition are waived.").

(2) Venue Change
    The defendant contends that he was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance when they failed to seek a second change of venue. Upon motion of defense counsel, the case was removed from Putnam County, where the crime was committed, and venued to Tippecanoe County, two counties north of Putnam County. The defendant now argues that both counties are within the Indianapolis media market, See footnote that his counsel had no strategic reason to keep the case in Tippecanoe County, and that the failure to seek a second change of venue prejudiced him by denying him his right to a trial by an impartial jury.
    The post-conviction court found that defense counsel were not ineffective for failing to make a second motion for a change of venue due to pretrial publicity. The court found that, given the inherent newsworthiness of the case, media coverage would have been prevalent anywhere and although the coverage was at times extensive it was not necessarily on the front page as it would have been in Putnam County. The court also found that Stevens failed to demonstrate prejudice as the trial record showed that every panel of the venire was carefully questioned about pretrial publicity by the court, State, and defense counsel. The evidence does not compel a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.

(3) Jury Questionnaire and Selection
    The defendant challenges his trial counsel's performance in jury selection and particularly as to the jury questionnaires submitted to prospective jurors.
He argues that his trial counsel used questionnaires that failed to address mitigation issues or to explain the meaning of "life without parole," and thus failed to ensure "that prospective jurors understood they could address future dangerousness with this sentencing option." Br. of Petitioner-Appellant at 34. We first note that the questionnaire form was not generated by counsel but prepared by the trial court and submitted to counsel for review. Trial Record at 343. Jury questionnaires are a useful tool employed by courts to facilitate and expedite sound jury selection. Their proper purpose is not to condition or indoctrinate prospective jurors with the parties' contentions, notwithstanding attempts of some counsel to the contrary. Ineffective assistance of counsel may not be based upon an alleged failure of counsel to thus misuse jury questionnaires.
The defendant further alleges that his counsel were deficient in jury selection by failing to "integrate their mitigation theory into the voir dire process," Br. of Petitioner-Appellant at 34, and to exhaust peremptory challenges. We have held that it is permissible to use voir dire to inquire into jurors' biases or tendencies to believe or disbelieve certain things about the particular line of defense. Wisehart v. State, 693 N.E.2d 23, 45-46 (Ind. 1998). The record reveals that defense counsel's voir dire questions extensively inquired regarding the jurors' openness to considering mitigating factors to prevent the imposition of the death penalty. We decline, however, to find a criminal defense attorney's performance to be deficient for failing to condition jurors as to the particular mitigation evidence anticipated in an individual case.
The post-conviction court found that trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to exhaust their peremptory challenges. The court noted that, between the two of them, the defendant's trial counsel had spent over fifty hours reviewing the completed jury questionnaires. They challenged nineteen jurors for cause, seventeen of which were granted. The court noted that they used seventeen of their twenty peremptory challenges, but for strategic reasons did not exhaust them because "what was coming up was worse." Record at 726. The court also observed that counsel successfully rehabilitated several jurors that the State challenged for cause, forcing the State to exercise peremptory challenges. The evidence does not compel a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.

(4) Victim Impact Evidence
    The defendant argues that counsel were deficient in not objecting to victim impact evidence in the State's opening statement and during its case in chief. He first urges that his counsel should have objected to the following remarks during the State's opening statement: "Zachary Snider was a typical ten-year-old. He loved to fish, play ball, ride his bicycle, and he couldn't sit still for long . . . His parents, Todd and Sandi Snider, both worked to make ends meet." Trial Record at 3648. The defendant also challenges his trial counsel's failure to object to the State's use of a picture of the Zachary Snider holding a fish. This picture was passed to the jury and was allegedly displayed by the prosecution on four other occasions during the guilt phase of the trial. Defense counsel never objected to the photograph and the defendant claims they were deficient for not objecting to this "prejudicial drumbeat of victim impact evidence." Br. of Petitioner-Appellant at 38.
    The post-conviction court found that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the introduction and use of the photograph. One of the defendant's defense attorneys testified during the post-conviction proceedings that, while he believed the use of the photograph was repetitive, he observed that it was sometimes prudent to not object so as to not draw the jury's attention to the evidence. A decision to not object to evidence when the objection may be more damaging than the evidence is within the wide range of professionally competent assistance. The trial court concluded, "Defense counsel's decision not to object to the admission of the [victim impact evidence] was a reasonable decision not to draw the jury's attention to this testimony." Record at 734. We agree. Because this represents reasonable trial strategy and because of the questionable merit of the allegedly omitted objections, the evidence does not compel a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.

(5) Loss of Right to testify
As one of his enumerated examples of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant contends that his trial counsel gave him incorrect advice, upon which he based his decision not to testify at trial. He argues that counsel's advice was based upon the presumption that the defendant's testimony could add nothing supportive of the defense's strategy to seek jury a instruction on voluntary manslaughter. The post-conviction court, however, found:
On the contrary, defense counsel were concerned about having Petitioner testify because he was an [sic] chronic liar who would have been a bad witness. Moreover, if Petitioner had testified during the guilt phase, there is a danger that he would open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence. Defense counsel's advice that Petitioner not testify was a reasonable strategic decision based on sound professional judgment.

Record at 724. We are not persuaded that the evidence compels a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.

(6) Pursuing Voluntary Manslaughter as Defense Theory
    The defendant claims that his trial counsel were ineffective for pursuing a "fundamentally flawed" approach to the case by proceeding on a theory of voluntary manslaughter. They tendered three proposed instructions that dealt with voluntary manslaughter, but these were rejected by the trial court. The defendant argues that there was no evidence in the record to support this theory, and that there was another viable defense available but not used.
The defendant urges that, if defense counsel had consulted other mental health experts, counsel "would have learned of [the defendant's] dissociative disorder, borderline personality disorder, chemical dependency, and LSD impairment at the time of the offense." Br. of Petitioner-Appellant at 42. In the post-conviction proceedings and in this appeal, the defendant's present counsel assert that the defendant was raped as a child; that at the time of the killing the defendant switched his identity with that of Zachary; that the defendant killed Zachary "because it's what he would have wanted in that molestation at age 10, to have been killed by his abuser;" and that the defendant's ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct "was disengaged when he was dissociating." Id. The defendant argues further that, even if the voluntary manslaughter defense were regarded as legitimate strategy, this would not excuse the failure to present the mental illness defense.
The post-conviction court found that counsel's decision to pursue the voluntary manslaughter strategy, while ultimately unsuccessful, did not amount to deficient performance. The court pointed out that "[a]ny appreciable evidence of sudden heat justifies an instruction on voluntary manslaughter," Roark v. State, 573 N.E.2d 881, 882 (Ind. 1991), and that sudden heat is defined as provocation arising from a variety of emotions. In the defendant's admissions of guilt to his brother, the defendant said that he "clicked" or "went off" when Zachary threatened to tell his parents about the defendant's sexual conduct. In the defendant's confession to police, he stated that he killed Zachary because he was afraid that Zachary would report him. Concluding that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel as to their strategy to pursue voluntary manslaughter instructions, the post-conviction court found that the defendant's trial attorneys "pursued the most viable defense available to them." Record at 664.
As to the failure to present a mental illness defense during the guilt phase, the post-conviction court noted that, had defense counsel done so, they would have opened the door to the admission of substantial incriminating evidence not otherwise presented during the guilt phase. Cf. Miller v. Anderson, 255 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2001). As we noted above, this included testimony that, upon the defendant's prior release from jail to probation for a previous conviction of child molesting, the defendant had declared his intent to kill his next child molesting victim to avoid returning to jail.
We conclude that the evidence as a whole does not lead unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court, and we find that defense counsel's choice of defense theory did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

7. Defense guilt phase closing argument
    The defendant contends that defense counsel were deficient in failing to present argument or tender an instruction regarding jury's authority under Art. 1, Sec. 19 of the Indiana Constitution to determine both the law and the facts. Stevens did not raise this issue in his petition for post-conviction relief. Issues not raised in the petition for post-conviction relief may not be raised for the first time on post-conviction appeal. See P-C.R. 1(8); Allen, 749 N.E.2d at 1171.

(8) Mitigation Evidence
    The defendant contends that his trial counsel were deficient during the penalty phase and sentencing hearing by failing to present sufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances. The defense presented various witnesses and evidence showing various mitigating circumstances including his parents' divorce and his living in the homes of different people while growing up, the defendant's troubled childhood including suffering childhood sexual abuse, his adolescent alcohol and drug use and diagnoses of passive personality, his depression and suicide attempts, and his poor academic performance. The defendant's post-conviction counsel, however, assembled several witnesses to testify regarding information and theories that were not employed by defense trial counsel.
    The defendant first argues that his trial lawyers unreasonably limited their penalty phase and sentencing presentations to events of his life that occurred before age 18 and that his counsel unreasonably relied upon Dr. Lennon, rather than presenting other psychological experts regarding the defendant's mental or emotional distress at the time of the killing. He argues that Dr. Lennon "was a fatal witness for the defense," noting that on cross-examination by the State, Dr. Lennon agreed with the State's theory that Zachary's murder appeared directly related to the defendant's fear of having to return to prison, and the defendant was not susceptible to traditional psychotherapy and was a serious danger to society. Br. of Petitioner-Appellant at 45. The defendant further urges that his trial counsel failed to present a reason for the defendant's crime. He argues that counsel should have presented expert evidence that, at the time of the killing, the defendant was under a mental disease or defect, with an impaired ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and conform it to the law; that he was very likely influenced by the interactive use of drugs; that his disorders were treatable with medication and intensive, individual psychotherapy; and that he would not constitute a pedophilia threat in prison.
The post-conviction court rejected these claims. The court observed that expert witness opinions suggesting that the defendant had an impaired ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct would have been strongly contradicted by the extensive evidence of the defendant's multiple attempts to kill Zachary and then carefully to take steps to cover-up the crime. The court noted that even one of the defendant's own experts at post-conviction acknowledged that the defendant could appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct when he took steps to hide Zachary's body. The post-conviction court later concluded:
Defense counsel were not ineffective for failing to investigate and prepare evidence of organic and mental impairments, including dissociative disorders, borderline personality disorders, and the effects of long-term drug use. Defense counsel's investigation of Petitioner's mental health and prior use of drugs was reasonable, . . . . Both of [defendant's trial counsel] testified that they were aware of Petitioner's prior drug abuse. Dr. Lennon was also aware of Petitioner's prior drug abuse. However, Petitioner denied having recently used drugs: he "used to do drugs, used to drink," but that he stopped drinking when he got arrested for child molesting, and "had stopped smoking marijuana awhile before that, long before that, pretty much cause my sister got killed by a guy that was high and ever since that I had, I had gone from doing it heavy to real light and then stopped." Moreover addiction counselor Needham evaluated Petitioner in January 1993 and found that Petitioner did not have a drug or alcohol problem. Thus, defense counsel's investigation was reasonable.
    Moreover, had defense counsel adopted the strategy of emphasizing Petitioner's prior drug use, this would have been inconsistent with their mitigation strategy of portraying Petitioner as the passive victim of abuse. As Dr. Lennon testified, "so much of [Petitioner's] behavior could be explained by the abuse, the neglect that he's had on top of his genetic predisposition, and then you look at all the drugs that he's been surrounded with his birth mother, and then the fact that she probably—even though she denies it, the evidence will suggest that she probably did do drugs or alcohol during pregnancy." Had defense counsel elicited evidence of Petitioner's prior use of illicit drugs, he would no longer appear to be a passive victim molded by outside forces, but would appear as someone who had actively decided to break the law. As the Seventh Circuit explained in Stewart v. Gramley, 74 F.3d 132, 136 (7th Cir. 1996), "What is brought out [during the penalty phase] that will help [a defendant] is what goes to show that he is not as "bad" a person as one might have thought from the evidence in the guilt phase of the proceeding. What is brought out that will hurt him is what goes to show that he is, indeed, as bad a person, or worse, than one might have thought from just the evidence concerning the crime." Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a mitigation strategy that could have caused the jury to think that Petitioner had a more extensive history of lawbreaking than was otherwise apparent.

Record at 675-76 (included citations to record omitted).
The post-conviction court thus found that defense counsel were aware of petitioner's past drug abuse and investigated the mental health issues through the use of Dr. Lennon. Further, the court found that presenting the petitioner's chronic drug abuse would cut against the defense strategy of portraying the petitioner as a passive victim of abuse rather than someone with an extensive history of lawbreaking. The court determined that the strategic decision to pursue this mitigation strategy over another was not ineffective assistance of counsel. We are not persuaded that the evidence in the record unavoidably points towards an opposite result.
    The defendant also contends that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective because of a statement made by counsel during the penalty phase closing argument: "I am not going to tell you that anything that happened in Chris Stevens's life explains or excuses the events of July 15th, 1993. It doesn't, and he will have to suffer the punishment for that." Trial Record at 5440. The State responds that this statement was reasonable because it reminded the jury that "recommending a sentence other than death would not mean that they were excusing [the defendant] for his actions, and would not mean that [the defendant] would escape with no punishment. Br. of Appellee at 37.
    The challenged statement was in the context of surrounding argument urging that the important part of the case before the jury was not whether the defendant committed the crime, but rather what penalty to recommend: a term of years, life imprisonment without parole, or death—any of which constitute severe punishment. Counsel's argument clearly emphasized the importance of mitigating circumstances. The challenged statement taken in context cannot reasonably be understood to have invited the jury to disregard mitigating circumstances. We decline to find deficient performance based on his claims of failure to present sufficient mitigating evidence during the penalty phase and sentencing.

(9) Life without Parole Instruction
    The defendant contends that his trial counsel were deficient for failing to tender a penalty phase instruction that would have informed the jury of the "true effect" of life without parole. Br. of Petitioner-Appellant at 50. He argues that such an instruction was needed to offset the possibility that a juror might believe that if sentenced to life without parole, the defendant could be released early. The defendant argues that such an explanation should have been provided because there had been evidence on the issue of future dangerousness and because his trial counsel allegedly provided misguided speculation during jury selection when responding to a potential juror's question concerning the meaning of life without parole. See footnote
    The post-conviction court's decision noted that it is unnecessary to instruct juries on words that are commonly understood. The court found that "'life without the possibility of parole' consists of common words that may be easily understood by persons of average understanding." Record at 733. It also found that had any such instruction been tendered it would have been refused. The post-conviction court concluded that the defendant had received effective assistance of counsel as to this claim. We agree and decline to find ineffective assistance of trial counsel on this issue.

(10) Conflict of Interest
The defendant contends that his two trial counsel disliked him and that their personal animosity toward him interfered with their duty of loyalty to their client, adversely affecting their representation of him, to his prejudice. This issue was not designated in the petition for post-conviction relief and thus may not be raised on appeal. See P-C.R. 1(8); Allen, 749 N.E.2d at 1171.

(11) Use of Stun Belt
The defendant devotes a substantial section of his brief to his claim that the sheriff's decision to place a stun belt See footnote on the defendant during trial is reversible error. This Court has recently declared that stun belts may not be used on defendants in Indiana courtrooms. Wrinkles v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1179, 1194 (Ind. 2001). To the extent that the defendant asserts this issue as an independent claim, however, this issue is procedurally defaulted because it was not raised at trial, Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162, 166 (Ind. 1997), or on direct appeal, Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999, 1003 (Ind. 1999). But because the defendant's argument also claims that his trial counsel's failure to object to the stun belt at trial constitutes prejudicial deficient performance, we will address the issue in the context of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The post-conviction court concluded that defense counsel were not ineffective for failing to raise this claim, noting that no evidence was presented that the defendant was impeded in his ability to assist his counsel, that no jurors were aware that Stevens was wearing a stun belt, and that the belt did not affect Stevens's appearance before the jury.
    The defendant asserts that while none of the jurors were aware that he was wearing a stun belt, their perception of him was still affected by the fact that he was under restraint. The defendant argues that he was harmed because wearing the belt made him appear to the jurors as emotionally withdrawn, subdued, and unusually silent, which may have influenced them to recommend the death penalty. In the post-conviction proceedings, the defendant presented the testimony of Dr. Robert Kaplan who testified that the wearing of the stun belt at trial would have inhibited the defendant's expression of emotion.
The testimony of five of his capital trial jurors and the affidavit of a sixth juror were also presented. The jurors described the defendant as emotionally withdrawn, silent, and subdued. One juror stated that he did not appear remorseful. Three jurors stated that they observed the defendant interacting with his attorneys by passing notes and whispering. The defendant recognizes that his demeanor and affect as seen by the jurors during trial was essentially the same demeanor and affect they had seen during his videotaped confession. Br. of Petitioner-Appellant at 58.
    We conclude that the evidence does not unmistakably lead to a result contrary to the post-conviction court's factual findings. From the circumstances presented in this case, we find no reasonable possibility that but for the failure of trial counsel to object to the stun belt, the results of the guilt phase, penalty phase, or sentencing would have been different.

Record at 952. We discern no error in the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to recuse.

    SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN, BOEHM and RUCKER, JJ., concur.