ÿWPCÐ! …# VU>a %Ÿ 0 ¥UB® 4ð  n­ U:À ú w@ 0MB 0D 0JÓ 0T 0^q 0hÏ 0r7 0|© 0†% 0« 1u; 0d° BU61U.gU*•B)¿ D3èDC AM^ 0@«{ëff'Ìçóv~ÚvÓX AO+ Æz 0D@! D/„! B³!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(á·$¡¡Ñ  ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ7€¿ÆXXdð XXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|x«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular DD   Ó€(ý(3Íê$¤¤Ý ƒ·!ÝÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ7€®6XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò qÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌJanuaryÏ16,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ôÔÔ€(Ô€We€note€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€set€forth€the€relevant€facts€in€the€Statement€of€theÏFacts€portion€of€his€brief.€€Instead,€he€discusses€the€relevant€facts€in€the€Argument€section.€€ThisÏprocedure€does€not€comply€with€the€T.R.A.P.€27(a)(6).Ì ÝÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€(ÔÔ€(ôÔFor€post„conviction€petitions€filed€on€or€after€May€10,€1995,€petitioners€have€theÏburden€of€proving€factual€allegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„210(f).ÌPtPtHHÚ(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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÔ€(ÔÑ7€ ¼Š XXdæXXdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ќـ€ÙßR€,.+A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›€à8 àà@ àÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MAY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓTHOMAS€KEITH€BATTLE,à à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9510„CR„00335Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Hon.€Thomas€H.€Shriver,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€à à)à à€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌGregory€D.€Smithà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌOne€Public€Square,€Suite€321à àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àCharlotte€H.€Rappuhn€and€Lisa€A.€NaylorÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€Generals€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àJon€SeaborgÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àWashington€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌÌÓÓà àóóThe€petitioner,€Thomas€Keith€Battle,€appeals€as€of€right€from€theÏjudgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€of€Davidson€County€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Pursuant€to€an€agreement,€the€petitioner€entered€guilty€pleas€onÏJune€20,€1989,€to€(1)€possession€of€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substance,€cocaine,€forÏresale€on€March€12,€1987,€(2)€possession€of€less€than€one„half€ounce€of€a€Schedule€VIÏcontrolled€substance,€marijuana,€for€resale€on€December€21,€1987,€and€(3)Ïpossession€of€thirty€grams€or€more€of€a€substance€containing€cocaine€for€resale€onÏOctober€19,€1988.€€The€trial€court€imposed€concurrent€sentences€of€four,€one€andÏtwelve€years,€respectively.€€The€petitioner€is€currently€serving€his€sentences€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€He€asserts€on€appeal€that€because€he€received€theÍineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€did€not€knowingly€and€voluntarily€enter€his€guiltyÏpleas.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àOn€November€26,€1991,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief,€alleging€that€trial€counsel€(1)€incorrectly€advised€him€to€plead€guilty€to€a€felonyÏrather€than€a€misdemeanor€charge€of€possession€of€marijuana€for€resale,€(2)Ïinadequately€prepared€for€a€suppression€hearing€relating€to€the€charge€of€possessionÏof€cocaine€for€resale,€and€(3)€jointly€represented€the€petitioner€and€a€codefendantÏdespite€a€conflict€of€interest€in€trial€counselððs€representation€against€the€charge€ofÏpossession€of€thirty€grams€or€more€of€cocaine€for€resale.€€ÌÌà àTwo€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearings€were€conducted€in€this€case.€ÏThe€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€did€not€testify€at€either€post„conviction€evidentiaryÏhearing.€€The€record€reflects€that€trial€counsel€suffered€from€a€terminal€illness€duringÏhis€representation€of€the€petitioner€and€died€before€the€hearings€took€place.ÌÌà àThe€first€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€took€place€on€September€3,Ï1993.€€Two€witnesses€testified€for€the€state.€€Mark€Beveridge,€an€assistant€districtÏattorney€who€prosecuted€the€petitioner,€testified€that€the€petitioner€committed€theÏcrimes€of€possession€of€one„half€ounce€of€marijuana€and€thirty€grams€or€more€ofÏcocaine€for€resale€while€on€bond€and€thus€faced€a€minimum€sentence€of€thirty„fiveÍyears€and€a€two„hundred„thousand„dollar€fine€if€convicted€of€possession€of€cocaine€forÏresale.€€He€stated€that€he€and€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€engaged€in€informalÏdiscovery€transactions€and€ultimately€agreed€to€a€reduced€sentence€of€twelve€years€forÏthe€conviction€of€possession€of€thirty€grams€or€more€of€cocaine€for€resale.€€In€hisÏopinion,€the€petitioner€understood€the€guilty€plea€proceedings,€and€no€conflict€ofÏinterest€existed€because€the€petitioner€was€guilty.€€Beveridge€also€asserted€that€trialÏcounselððs€ill€health€did€not€detrimentally€affect€his€representation€of€the€petitioner.€ÏAssistant€District€Attorney€Cheryl€Blackburn€also€testified€that€trial€counsel€adequatelyÏrepresented€the€petitioner.€ÌÌà àAt€the€second€evidentiary€hearing,€Assistant€United€States€DistrictÏAttorney€Van€Vincent,€who€prosecuted€the€petitioner€for€drug€violations€under€federalÏlaw,€testified€that€he€initially€filed€a€notice€of€sentence€enhancement€in€the€federal€caseÏbased€on€the€petitionerððs€three€convictions€in€state€court.€€He€detailed€his€research€ofÏthese€convictions€and€explained€his€reasons€for€believing€them€to€be€invalid€forÏenhancement€purposes.€€He€stated€that€he€moved€to€withdraw€the€notice€of€sentenceÏenhancement€after€conducting€his€own€research.€€Instead€of€granting€the€motion€toÏwithdraw€the€notice€of€sentence€enhancement,€the€district€court€ruled€that€theÏconvictions€were€invalid€to€enhance€the€petitionerððs€sentence.€€Vincent€also€testifiedÏthat€he€had€heard€from€others€that€trial€counselððs€illness€had€affected€hisÏrepresentation.€€€€ÌÌà àVincent€first€testified€about€counselððs€errors€relating€to€the€petitionerððsÏconviction€for€possession€of€marijuana€for€resell.€€He€explained€that€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„6„417(a)(1)(F)(iii),€(b)(1)›€and€œ(b)(2)›€provided€that€the€offense€was€classified€as€aÏmisdemeanor,€absent€any€enhancement€for€prior€convictions,€œwhere€one„half›€ounce€orÏless€of€marijuana€was€involved.€€He€said€that€his€search€of€the€petitionerððs€recordÏrevealed€that€the€three€state€convictions€were€his€first€drug€convictions.€€Although€theÏmaximum€penalty€for€a€first€offense€simple€possession€conviction€was€a€Class€AÏmisdemeanor,€the€petitioner€pled€guilty€to€a€Class€E€felony.€€Vincent€also€testified€thatÏhe€believed€that€the€petitioner€entered€guilty€pleas€in€order€to€avoid€a€greaterÏpunishment€on€the€possession€of€marijuana€for€resale€charge€due€to€the€fact€that€theÏpetitioner€previously€committed€the€crime€of€possession€of€cocaine€for€resale€and€thus,Ïenhancement€would€apply€if€he€had€not€entered€his€guilty€pleas€at€the€same€time.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€petitionerððs€conviction€for€possession€of€cocaine€forÏresale€on€March€12,€1987,€Vincent€stated€that€after€a€suppression€hearing€theÏpetitionerððs€counsel€filed€a€petition€to€rehear.€€In€the€petition,€trial€counsel€asserted€thatÏhe€was€not€prepared€due€to€pressing€business€and€that€a€material€witness€was€notÏavailable€when€the€hearing€was€conducted.ÌÌà àVincent€also€testified€regarding€the€petitionerððs€conviction€of€feloniousÏpossession€of€thirty€grams€or€more€of€a€substance€containing€cocaine.€€He€stated€thatÏthe€petitioner€and€his€codefendant,€Diane€Johnson,€were€both€represented€by€trialÏcounsel€in€the€cocaine€cases€and€that€Johnson€had€made€a€statement€to€the€policeÏthat€the€cocaine€found€in€the€apartment€where€she€and€the€petitioner€lived€belonged€toÏher.€€Vincent€stated€that€trial€counsel€did€not€request€any€discovery€regarding€theÏcodefendantððs€statement€and€that€in€his€opinion€these€circumstances€presented€aÏconflict€of€interest.€€In€his€search€of€the€petitionerððs€records,€Vincent€noticed€that€the€trialÏcourt€merely€asked€counsel€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing€whether€he€had€a€conflict€ofÏinterest€and€that€counsel€responded€that€he€did€not.€€Vincent€testified€that€the€trial€courtÏshould€have€advised€each€defendant€of€their€right€to€separate€representation€pursuantÏto€òòState€v.€Ray€Edward€Polkóó,€No.€1194,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept€26,Ï1991),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€Mar.€16,€1992)€(publication€not€recommended)€and€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€44(c).€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€recall€finding€a€waiver€of€conflict€of€interestÏsigned€by€the€petitioner€when€he€reviewed€the€state€records.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€introduced€several€exhibits€at€the€post„convictionÏevidentiary€hearing.€€A€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€showed€that€the€petitionerÏentered€guilty€pleas€pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement.€€Before€entering€the€pleas,€theÏpetitioner€stated€that€he€understood€the€nature€of€his€pleas€and€that€his€counsel€hadÏexplained€the€plea€agreement€to€him.€€The€trial€court€informed€the€petitioner€that€aÍsentence€for€a€conviction€of€possession€of€marijuana€for€resale€ranged€from€one€to€fiveÏyears€in€the€penitentiary€and€a€fine€up€to€five€thousand€dollars.€€At€the€plea€hearing,€theÏstate€said€that€it€would€have€presented€evidence€at€trial€that€the€offense€involved€fiveÏgrams€of€marijuana€and€that€the€petitioner€had€eight€hundred€dollars€in€hisÏpossession.€€The€trial€court€also€advised€the€petitioner€that€his€convictions€could€laterÏbe€used€to€enhance€subsequent€convictions.€€Pursuant€to€the€plea€agreement,€twoÏadditional€counts€of€simple€possession€of€cocaine€and€marijuana€against€the€petitionerÏand€a€count€for€possession€of€thirty€grams€or€more€of€cocaine€against€the€petitionerððsÏcodefendant€were€dismissed.€€The€trial€court€accepted€the€petitionerððs€guilty€pleas€andÏset€a€sentencing€hearing€for€June€30.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€also€introduced€as€an€exhibit€a€petition€to€enter€plea€ofÏguilty€that€was€signed€by€the€petitioner,€acknowledging€his€waiver€of€his€constitutionalÏrights.€€The€petition€also€stated€that€trial€counsel€advised€the€petitioner€that€the€lawÏprovided€a€range€of€punishment€of€one€to€five€years€and€one€to€three€years€for€aÏRange€I€offender€if€convicted€of€possession€of€marijuana€for€resale.ÌÌà àThe€transcript€of€a€preliminary€hearing€relating€to€the€charge€ofÏpossession€of€marijuana€for€resale€reflects€that€trial€counsel€was€successful€in€havingÏthe€charge€of€possession€of€cocaine€for€resale€dismissed€at€an€earlier€preliminaryÏhearing€due€to€a€lack€of€probable€cause€but€that€the€petitioner€was€subsequentlyÍindicted€through€the€grand€jury€process.€€It€also€shows€that€three€witnesses€in€additionÏto€the€petitioner€testified€that€the€marijuana€did€not€belong€to€the€petitioner.€€At€theÏpreliminary€hearing,€the€petitioner€also€conceded€that€he€had€been€caught€four€timesÏin€the€last€two€years€with€marijuana.€€He€claimed,€however,€that€his€brother€wasÏarrested€several€times€while€using€his€driverððs€license€and€that€he€had€no€convictionsÏother€than€those€for€which€he€entered€guilty€pleas.€€€€Ì€€€€€Ìà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€petitioner€was€given€correct€advice€regarding€the€charge€of€possessionÏof€marijuana€for€resale€conviction.€€It€found€that€the€petitionerððs€sentence€was€properlyÏenhanced€to€a€felony€because€enhancement€due€to€prior€convictions€was€ð ðbased€onÏthe€date€of€the€offense,€not€the€date€of€the€convictions.ðð€€The€trial€court€further€decidedÏthat€the€convictions€resulted€from€a€plea€bargain€that€did€not€treat€the€petitioner€as€aÏsecond€or€third€offender€because€his€guilty€pleas€to€the€three€offenses€were€entered€atÏthe€same€time.€€It€also€stated€that€even€if€the€petitionerððs€allegations€were€accurate,€theÏpetitioner€was€not€required€to€serve€any€additional€time€because€the€sentences€wereÏto€be€served€concurrently,€and€thus,€any€error€was€harmless.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€conviction€for€possession€of€cocaine€for€resale,€the€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€petitioner€did€not€receive€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÑ€/ÑÇbecause€several€requests€for€discovery,€both€formally€and€informally,€were€made€byÏtrial€counsel,€implying€that€trial€counsel€had€sufficient€information€at€the€suppressionÏhearing.€€It€decided€that€trial€counsel€was€thoroughly€prepared€and€effectivelyÏrepresented€the€petitioner€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€also€concluded€that€trial€counsel€properly€represented€bothÏthe€petitioner€and€his€codefendant€against€the€charges€of€possession€of€thirty€grams€orÏmore€of€cocaine.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€although€it€arguably€should€have€inquiredÏfurther€into€the€possible€conflict€of€interest,€trial€counselððs€statement€that€no€conflictÏexisted€and€that€he€had€discussed€the€matter€with€the€petitioner€was€sufficient.€€ItÏspecifically€mentioned€as€factors€in€its€decision€the€fact€that€the€charges€against€theÏpetitionerððs€codefendant€were€dismissed€and€the€exceptional€representation€of€trialÏcounsel€in€other€cases€before€the€court.€€The€trial€court€also€decided€that€theÏcodefendantððs€claim€that€the€cocaine€was€hers€was€clearly€a€lie€because€the€cocaineÏwas€found€in€a€safe€containing€materials€belonging€to€the€petitioner.€€In€its€opinion,€anyÏpossible€conflict€was€best€termed€a€ð ðreverse€conflictðð€in€that€the€codefendant€was€tryingÏto€exonerate€the€petitioner,€not€implicate€him.€€For€these€reasons,€the€trial€courtÏdecided€that€the€petitionerððs€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€involuntaryÏguilty€plea€were€without€merit.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€challenges€each€conviction€based€on€claims€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€caused€him€to€enter€guilty€pleas€unknowinglyÏand€involuntarily.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Under€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€is€made,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counsel'sÏperformance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€ofÏrendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104ÏS.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€368„72,€113€S.€Ct.Ï838,€842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied,€as€well,€to€the€right€toÏcounsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772ÏS.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.€œ1989).›€€ÌÌà àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÏdecided€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€servicesÏrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€range€of€competence€was€to€be€measured€byÏthe€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,€491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.Ï1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202„04€(D.C.€Cir.€1973).€€Also,Ïin€reviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requiresÍthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstructÏthe€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounsel's€perspective€at€the€time."€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.ÏCt.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(counsel's€conduct€willÏnot€be€measured€by€"20„20€hindsight").€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tacticÏfailed€or€even€hurt€the€defense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance.€€Deference€is€made€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informedÏones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9;€òòDeCosteróó,Ï487€F.2d€at€1201.€€ÌÌà àAlso,€we€note€that€the€approach€to€the€issue€of€the€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€does€not€have€to€start€with€an€analysis€of€an€attorney's€conduct.€€If€prejudiceÏis€not€shown,€we€need€not€seek€to€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegations€aboutÏdeficient€performance.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.ÌÌà àThe€burden€was€on€the€petitioner€in€the€trial€court€to€prove€his€allegationsÏthat€would€entitle€him€to€relief€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,Ï756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€On€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€unless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€thoseÍfindings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€this€respect,Ïthe€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€how€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€judgment€entered.€€òòIdóó.€€€€€€€à àÌÌà@ à€ò òòòI.€€Possession€of€Marijuana€for€Resaleó óóóÌà àIn€his€first€claim,€the€petitioner€argues€that€his€conviction€for€possession€ofÏmarijuana€for€resale€should€be€overturned€or€modified€to€a€misdemeanor€because€hisÏtrial€counsel€incorrectly€advised€him€to€plead€guilty€to€a€felony€when€the€offense€wasÏappropriately€classified€as€a€misdemeanor.€€On€appeal,€he€claims€that€his€only€priorÏoffense€was€the€possession€of€cocaine€for€resale€for€which€he€simultaneously€enteredÏa€guilty€plea.€€The€petitioner€further€asserts€that€the€prior€offense€does€not€qualify€as€aÏprior€conviction€for€enhancement€purposes€because€the€guilty€pleas€were€entered€atÏthe€same€time.€€The€state€counters€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€but€for€trialÏcounselððs€errors,€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€toÏtrial.€€We€agree€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden.ÌÌà àIf€a€petitioner€seeks€to€vacate€convictions€based€upon€his€guilty€pleas€onÏthe€ground€that€the€pleas€resulted€from€improper€legal€advice,€the€petitioner€must€showÏ(1)€that€the€advice€given€was€deficient€and€(2)€ð ðthat€there€is€a€reasonable€probabilityÏthat,€but€for€counselððs€errorððs,€he€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€haveÏinsisted€on€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€58„59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€370Í(1985).€€Also,€the€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court€on€post„conviction€hearings€areÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€ÏòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€record€on€appeal€does€not€contain€theÏindictment€and€the€judgment€of€conviction€relating€to€the€offense€of€possession€ofÏmarijuana€for€resale.€€It€is€difficult,€therefore,€to€analyze€fully€the€validity€of€theÏpetitionerððs€claims.€€€ÌÌà àWe€are€able€to€determine€from€the€record€before€us€that€the€petitionerÏwas€indicted€for€possession€of€marijuana€for€resale,€but€the€record€does€not€indicateÏwhether€the€indictment€alleged€that€the€amount€of€marijuana€involved€was€one„halfÏounce€or€less€or€that€the€offense€was€the€petitionerððs€first€offense.€€However,€theÏtranscript€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€reveals€that€the€stateððs€proof€would€have€shownÏthat€the€petitioner€possessed€five€grams€of€marijuana€at€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€Further,Ïa€copy€of€the€defendantððs€prior€record€as€supplied€by€the€state€pursuant€to€a€discoveryÏrequest€shows€that€the€petitioner€had€at€least€one€conviction€for€possession€of€aÏcontrolled€substance€on€October€13,€1987.€€Once€again,€the€judgment€of€conviction€isÏnot€included€in€the€record.€€During€the€guilty€plea€proceedings,€the€petitionerððs€trialÏcounsel€advised€the€petitioner€that€the€sentence€for€a€conviction€of€possession€ofÏmarijuana€for€resale€ranged€from€one€to€five€years.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„6„417(a)(1)(F)(i)›Í(Supp.€1987).€€Trial€counsel€also€told€the€petitioner€that€he€could€be€sentenced€to€oneÏto€three€years€as€a€Range€I€offender.€€ÌÌà àIf€the€indictment€alleged€a€felony€offense€of€possession€of€marijuana€forÏresale,€the€advice€given€the€petitioner€was€not€deficient.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„6„417(a)(1)(F)(i)›€(Supp.€1987).€€Although€five€grams€of€marijuana€would€not€haveÏsupported€a€felony€conviction,€the€petitioner€could€have€entered€a€guilty€plea€toÏpossession€of€not€less€than€one„half€ounce€nor€more€than€ten€pounds€of€marijuana,Ïthus€waiving€any€objections€to€the€sentence€he€received.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mahleróó,€735ÏS.W.2d€226,€228€(Tenn.€1987).€€Thus,€advice€of€trial€counsel€that€the€sentence€forÏfelonious€possession€of€marijuana€ranged€from€one€to€five€years€would€not€have€beenÏdeficient.€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€because€the€petitioner€possessed€only€five€grams€ofÏmarijuana,€the€provisions€dealing€with€the€distribution€of€marijuana€not€in€excess€ofÏone„half€ounce€would€have€applied.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€œ39„6„417(a)(1)(F)(iii),€„417(b)(1)„(2)›Ï(Supp.€1987).€€Pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„6„417(b)(1)€(Supp.€1987),€the€sentence€for€aÏfirst€conviction€of€possession€of€one„half€ounce€or€less€of€marijuana€was€elevenÏmonths€and€twenty„nine€days,€a€misdemeanor.€€Had€the€petitionerððs€violation€been€hisÏsecond,€the€conviction€would€have€been€classified€as€a€misdemeanor€with€a€sentenceÏranging€from€one€to€two€years.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„6„417(b)(2)€(Supp.€1987).€€A€third€orÍsubsequent€offense€was€classified€as€a€felony€with€a€sentencing€range€of€two€to€threeÏyears.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„6„417(b)(2)€(Supp.€1987).€€From€the€record€before€us,€though,Ïwe€are€unable€to€ascertain€whether€the€advice€given€by€trial€counsel€was€in€factÏdeficient.€€It€is€the€burden€of€the€petitioner,€however,€to€demonstrate€how€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€judgment€entered.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€755.€€TheÏpetitioner€has€failed€to€meet€that€burden.ÌÌà àAssuming€that€the€petitioner€received€deficient€advice,€the€petitioner€mustÏalso€establish€that€he€was€prejudiced.€€He€alleges€that€he€was€prejudiced€because€heÏreceived€an€additional€one„day€period€of€incarceration€by€receiving€a€felony€asÏopposed€to€a€misdemeanor€sentence€and€because€greater€weight€is€placed€on€felonyÏconvictions€for€sentencing€enhancement€purposes€when€subsequently€convicted€ofÏother€crimes.€€The€state€counters€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€demonstrate€any€prejudiceÏbecause€he€was€not€incarcerated€for€a€longer€period€due€to€the€fact€that€the€sentencesÏwere€to€be€served€concurrently.€€The€state€also€asserts€that€the€petitioner€would€beÏclassified€as€a€Range€II€offender€if€subsequently€convicted€of€other€crimes€despite€theÏfelony€conviction€for€possession€of€marijuana€for€resale€due€to€the€two€other€felonyÏconvictions€to€which€he€entered€guilty€pleas.€€ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€petitioner€that€the€difference€between€a€felony€andÏmisdemeanor€conviction€is€significant.€€However,€he€has€not€established€that€he€wouldÍnot€have€pled€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€a€trial.€€The€petitioner€did€not€testify€atÏthe€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing.€€Further,€the€petitioner€entered€his€guilty€pleaÏto€a€felony€offense€of€possession€of€marijuana€for€resale€pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement.€ÏThe€amount€of€marijuana€possessed€is€a€factual€determination€similar€to€sentencingÏranges,€and€thus,€a€defendant€may€waive€the€right€to€challenge€the€sentence€byÏknowingly€and€voluntarily€entering€a€guilty€plea.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mahleróó,€735€S.W.2d€atÏ228.€€Also,€the€plea€agreement€provided€a€sentence€of€two€years€above€the€minimumÏfor€his€conviction€of€possession€of€thirty€grams€or€more€of€cocaine€although€theÏsentencing€range€was€ten€to€thirty„five€years.€€Two€counts€of€simple€possession€wereÏalso€dismissed€pursuant€to€the€plea€agreement.€€These€circumstances€do€not€supportÏa€showing€of€prejudice.€€Regardless€of€whether€the€petitioner€received€deficient€adviceÏfrom€trial€counsel,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€but€for€trial€counselððs€erroneousÏadvice€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€TheÏpetitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€ground.€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòII.€€Possession€of€Cocaine€for€Resaleóóó óÌà àThe€petitioner€also€alleges€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failingÏto€be€prepared€for€a€key€suppression€hearing.€€He€relies€solely€on€trial€counselððsÏpetition€to€rehear€in€which€trial€counsel€stated€that€he€was€not€prepared€for€the€hearingÏand€that€a€material€witness€was€not€available.€€The€state€asserts€that€the€petitioner€hasÏfailed€to€show€how€he€was€prejudiced€because€he€did€not€identify€the€material€witnessÍor€describe€how€his€or€her€testimony€would€have€changed€the€result.€€We€concludeÏthat€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€he€suffered€any€prejudice.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€trial€counsel€was€thoroughly€prepared€and€wasÏan€extremely€effective€lawyer.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings.€€In€fact,€trial€counsel€was€able€to€obtain€a€dismissal€of€the€possessionÏof€cocaine€charges€at€an€earlier€preliminary€hearing.€€The€petitioner€presented€noÏevidence€to€establish€that€the€testimony€of€the€witness€who€was€not€called€would€haveÏchanged€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€Therefore,€his€bald€assertion€that€trial€counselððsÏadmission€of€inadequate€preparation€is€insufficient€to€mandate€post„conviction€relief.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òIII.€€Possession€of€Thirty€Grams€or€More€of€Cocaine€for€ResaleÌà àó óóóThe€petitioner€claims€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€toÏinform€the€petitioner€of€the€potential€for€conflicts€of€interest€when€simultaneouslyÏrepresenting€himself€and€a€codefendant.€€He€also€asserts€that€an€actual€conflict€ofÏinterest€arose€following€his€codefendantððs€admission€of€ownership€of€the€cocaine€andÏthe€dismissal€of€charges€against€the€codefendant.€€The€state€argues€that€the€petitionerÏhas€failed€to€demonstrate€how€the€alleged€deficient€performance€by€counsel€causedÏhim€to€be€prejudiced.€€We€agree€that€no€prejudice€has€been€shown.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€decided€that€the€mandates€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€44(c)€andÏòòState€v.€Ray€Edward€Polkóó€were€not€complied€with€completely€because€it€relied€solelyÏon€trial€counselððs€assertion€that€there€was€no€conflict€of€interest€and€that€he€hadÏdiscussed€the€matter€with€the€petitioner.€€However,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏpetitioner€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€error.€€Finding€the€codefendantððs€assertion€ofÏownership€to€be€a€lie,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€a€conflict€of€interest€did€not€existÏbecause€the€codefendant€was€attempting€to€take€the€blame€for€the€charges€rather€thanÏimplicate€the€petitioner.€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€made€by€theÏtrial€court.€€The€record€establishes€that€although€the€trial€court€did€not€specificallyÏinquire€about€joint€representation€or€advise€the€petitioner€of€his€right€of€separateÏrepresentation,€trial€counsel€discussed€these€matters€with€the€petitioner.€€In€addition,Ïthe€codefendant€was€claiming€that€the€cocaine€belonged€to€her€in€an€attempt€toÏextricate€the€petitioner.€€The€petitioner€ultimately€pled€guilty€to€possession€of€thirtyÏgrams€or€more€of€cocaine,€a€Class€X€felony€with€a€possible€Range€I€sentence€of€ten€toÏthirty„five€years,€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„109(a)€(Supp.€1987),€and€received€a€sentence€ofÏtwelve€years.€€Likewise,€two€counts€of€simple€possession€against€the€petitioner€wereÏdismissed€pursuant€to€the€guilty€plea.€€No€additional€evidence€was€presented€toÏestablish€prejudice€to€the€petitioner.€€For€these€reasons,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏmeet€his€burden.€€€€Ì€€òòò òÌóóó óà àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€that€the€petitionerððs€trialÏcounsel€performed€competently€and€that€the€petitioner€knowingly€and€voluntarilyÏentered€his€guilty€pleas€are€amply€supported€by€the€record.€€Therefore,€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌòòÌóó_____________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judgeà à