ÿWPC[3 \# UN# %q 0(wŸU:/ w@i 4© ½ 0DÌ  0ˆ 0Ò¦ 0:x 0d²U:îP 1m> {d« 0Ä 0XÓ 0L+ {Êw {RA {¾“ÆQÆ 0cÝ 0z@ƺÆ€ 0F 0˜^ÆöZ¼ B 0D3 0@w 0L·   AQ 0Dh 0D¬ D/ð B-îJ D+8 {dc {ÊÇ 0P‘! {Rá! {¾3"Zñ" A©K# 0Kô# A?$ D3¾$ 0Lñ$ 0J=% 0T‡% 0^Û% 0h9& 0r¡& 0|' 0†' 0( 1u¥( 0d)U>~)B)¼)DCå)U*(* AOR*¡*f¤+v~ ,vÓˆ-˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡BrobeckseS.W.2d CrimCrumleyTollettCurwood WittRALDOLPH03C01GREENEBecknerWartburg appMiddlebrooks SuppLaGuardiaMooneyJonesboroughHowellEanosHAMBLEN T]he01C01ScruggsNaylorBlanfordOllerStricklandLockhartRhodenClennySheltonHarrell02C01BurkleyEvittv]oluntaryRileyDyersburgTullisLanierBarbeeBlantonHallock JurSheppeard2d, øð AZ"Arial Regular š›aœUUžUŸU a¡¢E£Ó€ìSï"(zXX8d3|x®(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóBursonBehanMillsapsBallardFortneyCaricoAstro DyleS.W.2d CrimtriersByrge AppHatchettRuffin(8(2¨$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóZ<< KY.quotesindentions for quotesÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓÓÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓÓZpp ?·2opinionsopinions text styleÓ °ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ‡X )XX XÔÔ‡X )XX X )ÔÓ °ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ‡X )XX XÔÔ‡X )XX X )Ô(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularFlanaryBlountvilleBurson HarrS.W.2dtriersByrge Crim App03C01MedlineTiptonMedlin#c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 àH¿BrobeckseS.W.2d Crim AppCrumleyTollettCurwood WittRALDOLPH03C01GREENEBecknerWartburg02C01,&-.Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó00'÷ÿ dxdBursonBehanMillsapsBallardFortneyCaricoAstro DyleS.W.2d CrimtriersByrge AppHatchettRuffinüÿP PdFlanaryBlountvilleBurson HarrS.W.2dtriersByrge Crim App03C01MedlineTiptonMedlin'ÈÈÈÈdxd(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóó^4'FÚâ$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ ÓÓ  ÓòòÔ  Ôòòò òÔ !ÔÓ ÓÓ  Óóóóóó ó((3/Q$««Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ d Ô(WÙë$ÅÅò òòòÔ  ÔÔ Ôó óóó^.!FšÐ$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ  ÓÓ ÓòòÔ  ÔÔ !ÔÓ  ÓÓ Óóó TDOCw]hereBomarH]abeas t]he&;3›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó&yúÿ  <<= 8ÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔCDEFGHIJ ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 dTTTT7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial&;UCþÿ << Gÿÿ ùÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€SÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ,"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€VÔÔ€VÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€VXÔÌÌò òJuly€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€VôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€SÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑòòÙ€ÙÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€VÔßR€WXUA1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSONÌÓ  ÓóóMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓÒ€X€ÒÓ ` <ÓCHARLES€"ACE"€BARBEE,à à*Ìà àà à*Ìà àAppellant,à à*ÌVS.à àà à*à àà à*ÌSTATE€OFÏTENNESSEE,à à*à àà à*à àAppellee.à àÓ ` hÜÓ*Ìà àà à*ÌÓ ` °œXÓà àÉC.C.A.€#€02C01„9610„CC„00372ÌÌDYER€COUNTYÌÌHon.€Joe€G.€Riley,€JudgeÌÌÓÓ(Post„Conviction)òòÉÒ/z„Ñ…ÒFor€Appellant:óóÌÓÓWilliam€K.€RandolphÌ120€North€Mill€StreetÌSuite€303ÌP.O.€Box€611ÌDyersburg,€TN€€38025„0611ÉòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌDeborah€A.€TullisÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌ450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌÓÓÓÓJames€E.€LanierÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Drawer€EÌDyersburg,€TN€€38024ÉÒÒÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÓÓÓÓÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÓÓÇÑ7€QXXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner,€Charles€"Ace"€Barbee,€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððsÏdismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€single€issue€presented€forÏour€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€counsel€was€not€ineffectiveÏfor€(1)€failing€to€file€a€motion€to€seek€a€severance€of€four€separate€counts€of€sellingÏcocaine€and€(2)€failing€to€fully€advise€the€petitioner€of€the€potential€punishment€inÏthe€event€of€a€guilty€verdict.ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€January€13,€1994,€the€petitioner€was€found€guilty€of€four€counts€ofÏselling€cocaine.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€six„year€sentence€on€each€of€the€fourÏcounts.€€Because€three€of€the€sentences€were€ordered€consecutive,€the€effectiveÏsentence€is€eighteen€years.€€This€court€affirmed€the€conviction€on€direct€appeal.€ÏòòState€v.€Charles€"Ace"€Barbeeóó,€No.€02C01„9409„CC„00191€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏJackson,€Apr.€26,€œ1995),›€òòappeal€œdeniedóó›€(Tenn.,€Sept.€11,€1995).€€The€petitionerÏfiled€this,€his€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€on€May€7,€1996.€€After€theÏappointment€of€counsel€and€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€relief.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€found€as€fact€that€defense€counsel€made€a€soundÍstrategy€decision€not€to€request€a€severance€of€the€charges.€€It€further€held€that€theÏfour€drug€sales€made€to€the€same€undercover€agent€and€under€similarÏcircumstances€over€a€œfive„week›€period€constituted€separate€offenses€committedÏunder€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€€The€trial€court€thus€found€that€a€severanceÏwould€not€have€been€warranted€and,€in€consequence,€that€the€petitioner€was€notÏprejudiced€by€defense€counsel's€failure€to€request€separate€trials.€€The€trial€courtÑ€YÑÇalso€found€that€the€petitioner,€who€had€received€a€written€plea€offer€for€concurrent,ÏRange€I€four„and„one„half„year€sentences€on€each€of€the€four€charges,€had€beenÏadequately€informed€by€his€counsel€of€the€risks€of€the€trial€and€the€potential€forÏconsecutive€sentences€as€a€Range€III€offender.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€who€insisted€that€he€was€innocent€of€the€charges,Ïtestified€that€he€never€sold€the€undercover€agent€cocaine.€€He€claimed€that€he€hadÏmerely€accommodated€the€agent€by€driving€him€to€various€locations€to€purchaseÏthe€cocaine€from€others.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€must€first€establish€that€the€services€renderedÏor€the€advise€given€was€below€"the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€heÏmust€show€that€the€deficiencies€"actually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€the€defense."€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693€(1984).€€Should€the€petitioner€fail€toÏestablish€either€factor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€Recently,€our€supreme€courtÏdescribed€the€standard€of€review€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongsÏof€the€test,€a€failure€to€prove€either€deficiency€orÍprejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€theÏineffective€assistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€notÏaddress€the€components€in€any€particular€order€or€evenÏaddress€both€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficientÏshowing€of€one€component.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àMoreover,€in€claims€of€ineffective€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitledÏto€the€benefit€of€hindsight,€may€not€second„guess€a€reasonably€based€trial€strategy,Ïand€cannot€criticize€a€sound,€but€unsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€theÏcourse€of€the€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994);€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€627€S.W.2d€139,€142„43€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€ÏSuch€deference€to€tactical€decisions€of€counsel€applies€only€if€the€choices€areÏmade€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,Ï528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€a€trial€court€at€an€evidentiary€hearing€for€Ïpost„conviction€relief€have€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict€and€will€not€be€disturbed€onÏappeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,Ï576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€toÏshow€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòId.óóÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€petitioner€first€contends€that€his€defense€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏfor€failing€to€request€a€severance€of€his€four€drug€charges.€€Because€a€severanceÏwas€not€warranted€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€cannot€fault€counsel€for€failing€toÏseek€one.€€By€the€terms€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(b)(1),€a€defendant€has€a€right€toÏhave€the€offenses€severed€"unless€the€offenses€are€part€of€a€common€scheme€orÏplan€and€the€evidence€of€one€would€be€admissible€upon€the€trial€of€the€others."€ÏWhile€severance€is€ordinarily€a€matter€which€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€of€theÏtrial€court,€that€general€rule€is€not€necessarily€applicable€in€relation€to€theÏseverance€of€offenses.€€òòState€v.€Peacockóó,€638€S.W.2d€837€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€ÌÌà àà àTo€qualify€as€"part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan"€within€the€governingÏrule,€the€offenses€must€be€so€similar€in€òòmodusóó€òòoperandióó€and€occur€within€suchÏrelatively€close€character,€time,€and€location€to€each€other€that€there€can€be€littleÏdoubt€that€the€offenses€were€committed€by€the€same€person.€€The€offenses€mustÏappear€to€constitute€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan.€€òòWebster€v.€Stateóó,€425ÏS.W.2d€799,€811€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1967).€€In€our€view,€these€offenses€qualify.€€InÏòòState€v.€Steve€Mosleyóó,€No.€01C01„9211„CC„00345€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,ÏSept.€9,€1993),€this€court€held€that€a€severance€was€not€warranted€when€the€fiveÍindicted€drug€offenses€occurred€within€a€six„week€period,€and€all€of€the€offensesÏ"involved€the€same€controlled€substance,€the€same€defendant,€the€sameÏinformants,€and€the€same€witnesses."€€œSlip›€op.€at€9.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Roger€D.ÏPulleyóó,€No.€01C01„9501„CC„00013,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,ÏSept.€20,€1995)€(severance€inappropriate€where€the€five€drug€offenses€"occurredÏwithin€eight€weeks€of€one€another€and€involved€virtually€the€same€sequence€ofÏevents,€the€same€confidential€informant,€and€the€same€established€procedure.")€€€ÏHere,€the€same€police€agent€arranged€and€completed€four€drug€buys€with€theÏpetitioner.€€The€transactions€occurred€in€the€same€œarea,›€and€the€same€substanceÏwas€involved€in€each€purchase.€€Small€amounts€of€cocaine€were€sold€each€time.€ÌÌà àà àSecondly,€the€circumstances€must€fall€within€the€exception€to€theÏgeneral€rule€prohibiting€evidence€of€other€crimes€in€that€they€are€"so€related€to€eachÏother€that€proof€of€one€tends€to€establish€the€others."€€20€Am.€Jur.€Evidence,€ðð€314Ï(1939);€òòCollard€v.€Stateóó,€526€S.W.2d€112,€114€(Tenn.€1975).€€Ìà àà àRule€404€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€is€pertinent:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(b)€Other€Crimes,€Wrongs,€or€Acts.„„Evidence€of€otherÏcrimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€theÏcharacter€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€inÏconformity€with€the€character€trait.€€It€may,€however,€beÏadmissible€for€other€purposes.€€The€conditions€whichÏmust€be€satisfied€before€allowing€such€evidence€are:ÌœÇ›Ñ  Ñœ›à8 àà8 àà à(1)€The€court€upon€request€must€hold€a€hearingÏoutside€the€jury's€presence;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(2)€The€court€must€determine€that€a€material€issueÏexists€other€than€conduct€conforming€with€the€characterÏtrait€and€must€upon€request€state€on€the€record€theÏmaterial€issue,€the€ruling,€and€the€reasons€for€admittingÏthe€evidence;€and€Ìà8 àà8 àà à(3)€The€court€€must€exclude€the€evidence€if€itsÏprobative€value€is€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.ÌœÓÓÓÓÌÌÓÓ›à àà àThe€general€rule€prohibiting€evidence€of€other€crimes€has€severalÏexceptions.€€œIf€tied€to€a€relevant€issue,€proof›€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€œmay€be›Ïone€of€œthose.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hallockóó,€875€S.W.2d€285,€289„90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993).›€€The€procedure€outlined€in€the€rule€requires€a€jury„out€hearing,€a€finding€thatÏthe€"other€act"€addresses€a€relevant€issue€such€as€a€common€scheme€or€plan,€andÏa€balancing€of€probative€value€against€unfair€prejudicial€effect.€€Factors€in€weighingÏthe€probative€value€include€the€prosecutionÔ% €( Ô's€need€for€the€evidence,€the€likelihoodÏthe€defendant€committed€the€other€crimes,€and€the€degree€of€its€relevance.€€TheÏsimilarity€of€the€acts€makes€the€probative€value€particularly€significant.€€Often,€aÏcommon€scheme€or€plan€is€used€to€prove€identity.€€Neil€P.€Cohen,€et€al.,€òòTennesseeÏLaw€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð404.11€(2d€ed.€1990).€€The€distinctive€design€in€the€commissionÏof€a€series€of€crimes€may€serve€as€a€basis€for€either€admitting€evidence€of€otherÏcrimes€or€having€consolidated€trials.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant's€version€of€events€was€that€he€never€sold€cocaine€toÍthe€undercover€agent€and€merely€drove€the€agent€to€various€locations€to€purchaseÏthe€cocaine€from€others.€€Thus,€proof€of€the€intentional€commission€of€the€otherÏcrimes€would€be€admissible€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b)€to€rebut€the€defendant'sÏclaim€that€he€was€a€mere€observer.€€In€òòState€v.€Wayne€Hymes€Richardsóó,€No.Ï03C01„9503„CR„00102,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€July€8,€1996),Ïour€court€held€severance€was€not€warranted€on€two€separate€charges€of€delivery€of€œÌÌmarijuana,›€where€the€proof€of€the€"defendant's€participation€in€each€offense€wasÏprobative€of€both€his€identity€and€his€guilty€knowledge€as€to€the€other€offense."€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€defense€counsel€testifiedÏthat€he€could€not€remember€many€of€the€details€of€the€petitioner's€case.€€He€didÏrecall€that€he€reviewed€the€petitioner's€file€before€the€hearing.€€Based€on€hisÏmemory€and€the€information€in€the€file,€he€testified€that€he€had€past€experienceÏbefore€the€same€trial€court€representing€defendants€facing€multiple€charges€forÏselling€drugs€to€a€single€undercover€police€agent.€€It€was€trial€counsel's€experienceÏthat€the€court€would€not€sever€charges€when€"the€same€officer,€same€agent,Ïbasically€the€same€facts€but€different€dates"€were€involved.€€Based€on€thisÏexperience,€he€made€the€judgment€to€not€seek€a€severance€in€the€petitioner's€case.€ÏThis€record€does€not€demonstrate€why€a€motion€to€sever€would€have€beenÏsuccessful.€€The€petitioner€was€not,€therefore,€prejudiced€by€the€failure€to€seek€aÍseverance.€€ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€counsel€also€acknowledged€that€there€was€a€notice€ofÏimpeaching€convictions€in€the€file.€€Although€the€petitioner€would€have€qualified€asÏa€Range€œIII›€offender,€the€state€had€failed€to€file€any€notice€of€enhanced€range.€€AÏdelay€in€the€proceedings€may€have€given€the€state€the€opportunity€to€rectify€thisÏapparent€oversight.€€Thus,€counsel's€decision€not€to€ask€for€a€severance€could€haveÏbeen€based€on€strategy.€€The€facts€establish€that€the€state€could€have€soughtÏenhanced€punishment€of€the€defendant€as€a€Range€III€offender;€that€the€defendantÏwas€already€eligible€for€consecutive€sentences€might€also€suggest€that€the€chancesÏof€concurrent€sentencing€were€better€in€a€consolidated€trial.€€Either€objective€mayÏhave€qualified€as€a€reasonable€trial€strategy€for€not€seeking€the€severance.€ÌœÌÌÑ ` Ñ›à@ àIIÌà àà àNext,€the€petitioner€claims€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€inform€him€ofÏthe€possible€maximum€prison€sentence€he€faced€if€he€were€found€guilty.€€TheÏpetitioner€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€explainÏthat€there€was€a€potential€that€all€four€sentences€could€be€ordered€consecutive€toÏeach€other.€€€He€testified€that€the€state€offered€him€a€sentence€of€four€and€one€halfÍyears€for€each€drug€charge€to€be€run€concurrently€with€each€other.€€The€petitionerÏclaimed€that€because€the€maximum€sentence€for€his€range€was€six€years,€it€was€hisÏunderstanding€that€he€was€only€risking€another€one€and€a€half€years€by€demandingÏa€trial;€had€he€known€that€there€was€a€potential€maximum€of€twenty„four€years'Ïincarceration,€he€would€have€never€gone€to€trial€and€would€have€taken€the€pleaÏagreement.ÌÌà àà àDefense€counsel€testified€that€while€he€could€not€remember€manyÏdetails€of€the€petitioner's€case,€it€was€his€practice€to€always€explain€the€terms€of€theÏplea€agreement,€including€consecutive€sentences,€to€a€client;€he€felt€sure€he€hadÏdone€so€in€the€petitioner's€case.€€The€petitioner€rejected€the€offer.€€The€petitionerÏhad€a€lengthy€criminal€history€which€included€a€1977€misdemeanor€conviction€forÏpossession€of€marijuana,€a€1981€drug€conviction,€three€1984€convictions€forÏdiazepam€and€marijuana,€two€1989€convictions€for€attempting€to€sell€cocaine,€andÏtwo€1989€convictions€for€selling€cocaine.€€The€trial€court€accredited€the€testimony€ofÏdefense€counsel€and€ruled€that€the€petitioner,€because€of€his€familiarity€with€theÏcriminal€justice€system,€clearly€understood€the€meaning€of€consecutive€sentences.€€ÌÌà àà àWhether€defense€counsel€fully€explained€the€plea€agreement€to€theÏpetitioner€is€a€question€of€fact.€€Here€the€trial€court€found€that€defense€counsel€œÌÌadequately›€explained€the€consequences.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€finding€of€the€trial€court.€€Ì€€à àà àÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€Judge€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge€ÌÌÓÓÌà àà à