ÿWPC> …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xl 0J{ 0TÅ 0^ 0hw 0rß 0|Q 0†Í 0S 1uã U,X 0d„ U,è U> U*R B)| DC¥ AMè ?5v~tvÓò BÅ D3â 0@ AOUƤ 0Dj 0D® D/ò B!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Çow1² W;BÇŒ 4~È¿>(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡o„p3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJanuary€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ   ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ö~XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓòòÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€!" ;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1994óóÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓJOE€HENRY€ANGUSà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAPPELLANTà à)à àNO.€01C0l„9310„CC„00378Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àBEDFORD€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHARLES€LEE,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAPPELLEEà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌRobert€Marlowà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€1119ÌFayetteville,€TN€37334à àà àà àEugene€J.€HoneaÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àW.€Michael€McCownÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€CriglerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBedford€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àShelbyville,€TN€37160ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:________________________ÌÌÌÌÌJERRY€SCOTT,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àPursuant€to€his€pleas€of€guilty,€the€appellant,€Joe€Henry€Angus,€wasÏconvicted€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€robbery€and€one€count€of€aggravatedÏburglary.€€He€received€a€total€sentence€of€twenty€years€as€a€Range€I€standardÏoffender.€€Almost€one€year€later,€he€filed€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ïasserting€that€his€guilty€pleas€were€entered€without€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€Counsel€was€appointed,€and,€after€a€full€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trialÏcourt€denied€relief.€€The€petitioner€now€appeals€from€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€contending€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€finding€that€his€counselÏwas€effective.ÌÌà à"In€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€ÍòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€€191,€195€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1983).€€Furthermore,Ïthe€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏappellate€court€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings.€ÏòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€When€the€petitioner's€post„conviction€claim€involves€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€servicesÏrendered€by€the€attorney€were€"within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases."€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€ÏTo€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€a€petitioner€mustÏshow€that€his€or€her€counsel's€representation€fell€below€the€objective€standardÏof€òòBaxteróó€and,€additionally,€that€this€sub„standard€representation€prejudiced€theÏdefense.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064,€80ÏL.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€€As€applied€to€guilty€pleas,€the€requirement€of€prejudice€isÏestablished€when€the€petitioner€demonstrates€that,€but€for€counsel's€errors,€theÏpetitioner€would€not€have€entered€a€guilty€plea€and€would€have€insisted€onÏgoing€ÌÌÌÌto€trial.€€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1991);€citingÏòòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.Ct.€366,€370,€88€L.Ed.2d€203€(1985).€ÌÌà àThe€thrust€of€the€appellant's€complaint€is€that€neither€of€his€two€court„appointed€trial€attorneys€undertook€an€independent€investigation€of€theÏevidence€against€him,€and,€therefore,€his€guilty€plea€was€not€intelligentlyÏentered.€€While€independent€investigation€is€a€factor€in€deciding€whether€oneÏhas€received€competent€representation,€it€is€not€the€only€factor.€€The€appellant'sÏattorneys€conducted€an€adequate€investigation€and€rendered€competentÏadvice.€€As€the€trial€judge€pointed€out,€the€attorneys€had€been€furnished€all€ofÏthe€evidence€that€the€state€had€against€the€appellant.€€Furthermore,€the€trialÏattorneys€had€the€benefit€of€interviewing€their€client€who€told€them€that€certainÏvictims€of€the€crimes€could€identify€him.€€When€this€subject€was€broached€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing,€the€appellant€responded€affirmatively€that€the€victimsÏcould€identify€him€as€the€one€who€pulled€a€pistol€and€robbed€them.€€Moreover,Ïboth€of€the€appellant's€trial€attorneys€knew€that€the€appellant€had€leftÏTennessee€immediately€after€the€crime€and€that€he€was€arrested€in€Florida€withÏa€pistol,€which€was€identified€by€one€of€the€victims.€€One€of€the€attorneysÏtestified€that€she€had€talked€to€the€counsel€representing€two€of€the€appellant'sÏco„defendants€and€learned€that€both€were€planning€to€implicate€the€appellant€inÏthe€crimes.€€Additionally,€both€of€the€co„defendants'€attorneys€testified€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing€that€their€clients€had€indeed€planned€to€"roll€over€on"Ïthe€appellant,€i.e.,€€testify€against€him.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€appellant€testified€that€he€was€not€sure€what€he€signed,Ïboth€of€his€attorneys€testified€that€they€had€read€all€of€the€contents€of€the€guiltyÏplea€petition€to€the€appellant€before€he€signed€it.€€The€appellant€testified€that€heÍentered€a€guilty€plea€to€avoid€the€risk€of€a€higher€sentence€and€in€exchange€forÏthe€state's€dismissal€of€several€other€charges€of€aggravated€robbery.€€He€saidÏthat€he€understood€fully€what€he€was€doing€and€wanted€to€plead€guilty€at€theÏtime€that€he€did€so.€€When€asked€whether€it€was€only€since€he€was€in€theÏpenitentiary€that€he€decided€that€he€might€be€able€to€get€a€more€favorableÏsentence,€he€merely€responded,€"[m]y€chances€are€as€good€as€none."ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€stated€that€when€a€petitioner€pleads€guilty,€his€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€claim€is€only€relevant€to€the€degree€that€it€shows€his€pleaÏof€guilty€was€not€knowing€and€voluntary.€òòSeeóó€òòHousler€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€758,Ï760€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1988).€€The€record€here€fully€supports€the€conclusion€thatÏthe€appellant€knowingly€and€voluntarily€entered€his€guilty€plea€after€receivingÏcompetent€advice€from€his€attorneys.ÌÌà àSignificantly,€the€appellant€has€never€alleged€that€further€investigation€orÏbetter€representation€would€have€affected€his€decision€to€enter€a€guilty€plea.€€ToÏmeet€the€prejudice€requirements€of€òòStricklandóó,€a€post„conviction€petitioner€mustÏdemonstrate€his€readiness€to€forsake€the€certainty€of€a€predetermined€sentenceÏin€favor€of€the€opportunity€to€have€his€case€tried€before€a€jury.€òòSeeóó€òòMintz€v.ÏStateóó,€808€S.W.2d€€459,€462€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1990).€€The€appellant€readilyÏadmitted€his€desire€to€avoid€the€risk€of€receiving€an€even€longer€sentence€thanÏhe€was€offered.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€ofÏthe€trial€judge€that,€even€if€the€counsel€was€somehow€deficient,€the€deficiencyÍwas€of€no€significance.ÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€it€is€apparent€from€the€petition€and€the€proof€that€theÏappellant's€real€grievance€is€the€length€of€his€sentence€rather€than€the€quality€ofÏthe€representation€he€received.€€Simply€put,€he€made€a€decision€to€accept€aÏlonger€sentence€than€he€thought€he€deserved,€avoiding€the€risk€of€receiving€anÏeven€longer€sentence€and€gaining€the€assurance€that€five€other€robberyÏcharges€would€be€dismissed.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€denying€post„conviction€relief€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€SCOTT,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌ