ÿWPC* 1UB¾ %U.4nXD 04œ4Ð 1mä 0cQw@´ô 0Jü 0TF 0^š 0hø 0r` 0|Ò 0†N 0Ô 1ud 0dÙ 0@= D3} B° U6Í B) DC, AMo 2¼ AQî Æ? 0D 0DI D/ B¼v~ÙvÓW<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|XL«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Óäzz! #*e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³¹$´´Ô2*eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à 89:;£<E=E>E?P@AÓ€2 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("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd* &Cþÿ << Gÿÿ (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMarch€27,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÑ X ÑÑ7€BhXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€*ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓ  Óà@ àFEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òLEWIS€BOLERJACK,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€ó ó€ò ò02C01„9603„CC„00093ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àGIBSON€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€WIL€V.€DORAN,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Post„Conviction)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òTHOMAS€T.€WOODALLó óà àò òà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONó óÌ203€Murrell€St.à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€1075ÌDickson,€TN€€37056„1075ò òà àà àà àà àSARAH€M.€BRANCHó óà àà à€€€€€€€€€Ïà à(On€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àCounsel€for€the€StateÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìò òTOM€W.€CRIDERó óà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌDistrict€Public€DefenderÌ107€South€Court€Squareà àà àà àà àò òCLAYBURN€PEEBLESó óÌTrenton,€TN€€38382à àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ(at€trial€and€of€counsel€on€appeal)à àà à110€S.€College€St.,€Suite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTrenton,€TN€€38382Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,ÌJudgeÑ Ü ÑÓ  ÓÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner€pled€guilty€in€December€1987€to€the€first„degree€murderÏof€his€wife€and€received€a€life€sentence.€€He€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€inÏJune€of€1990.€€The€petition€was€dismissed€without€a€hearing€and€the€petitionerÏappealed.€€This€Court€remanded€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€and€a€hearing€was€heldÏon€August€30,€1995.€€The€petition€was€subsequently€dismissed€and€the€petitionerÏnow€appeals€that€dismissal.€€He€claims€that€the€petition€should€not€have€beenÏdismissed€because€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€prior€to€entering€hisÏguilty€plea.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€to€first„degreeÏmurder€had€he€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Specifically,€he€alleges€thatÍhis€counsel€failed€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress,€failed€to€file€a€motion€for€a€change€ofÏvenue,€failed€to€explore€the€defense€of€self„defense,€failed€to€adequately€consult€withÏhim,€and€failed€to€adequately€investigate€his€case.€€He€also€alleges€that€his€guiltyÏplea€was€entered€involuntarily€because€of€his€fear€of€the€death€penalty,€because€hisÏcounsel€allegedly€misinformed€him€as€to€the€amount€of€time€he€would€have€to€serveÏbefore€being€eligible€for€parole,€and€because€his€counsel€allegedly€told€him€he€mustÏagree€to€everything€the€judge€said€at€the€time€of€the€plea€regardless€of€whether€heÏagreed€or€not.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€find€no€merit€to€any€of€theseÏallegations€and,€therefore,€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€petitionerððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððsÏrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ablenessðð€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚selððs€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708ÏS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àà àTo€satisfy€the€requirement€of€prejudice,€he€would€have€had€toÏdemonstrate€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€coun‚selððs€errors,€he€would€notÏhave€pled€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockartóó,€474ÏU.S.€52,€59€(1985);€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€first€claims€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€because€heÏfailed€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€the€testimony€of€Holt€Shoaf.€€At€the€post„convictionÏhearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€prior€to€the€death€of€the€victim,€he€went€to€seeÏShoaf,€an€attorney€in€Milan.€€While€in€the€lobby€of€Shoafððs€office,€the€petitioner€askedÏwho€would€own€his€house€if€something€happened€to€his€wife.€€At€the€time€he€askedÏthis€question,€Shoafððs€secretary€and€another€client€were€present.€€The€petitionerÏtestified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€his€counsel€should€have€filed€a€motion€toÏsuppress€Shoafððs€testimony€on€the€basis€of€attorney„client€privilege.€€Dwight€Hawks,Ïthe€petitionerððs€defense€counsel,€testified€at€the€hearing€that€he€had€done€extensiveÏresearch€on€the€subject€and€decided€that€the€privilege,€if€one€at€all,€had€beenÏdestroyed€by€the€presence€of€a€third€person.ÌÌà àà àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€ð ðthe€information€underÏconsideration€was€conveyed€to€Attorney€Holt€Shoaf€in€the€presence€of€a€third€partyÍand€in€view€of€the€fact€that€it€could€have€been€construed€as€being€a€statement€ofÏintention€to€commit€a€future€crime,€it€was€thus€not€privileged.ðð€€We€accept€this€findingÏof€fact€because€nothing€in€the€record€preponderates€against€it.€€We€also€accept€theÏcourtððs€conclusion€of€law€with€regard€to€€the€attorney„client€privilege.€€The€presenceÏof€a€third€person€destroys€the€privilege.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmith€County€Educ.€Assððn€v.€Andersonóó,Ï676€S.W.2d€328,€333€(Tenn.€1984).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€next€contends€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€becauseÏhe€did€not€file€a€motion€for€a€change€of€venue.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€the€deathÏof€his€wife€had€generated€some€publicity€in€his€county€and€that€some€articles€hadÏappeared€in€the€local€newspaper.€€Mr.€Hawks€testified€that€he€had€explored€thisÏsubject€thoroughly€and€determined€that€such€a€motion€was€unlikely€to€be€granted,€butÏthat€in€any€case,€such€a€motion€may€not€have€been€in€the€petitionerððs€best€interest.€ÏMr.€Hawks€testified€that€had€the€motion€been€granted,€the€trial€would€likely€have€beenÏmoved€to€nearby€Crockett€County,€which€has€a€reputation€for€imposing€the€deathÏpenalty.€€Additionally,€Mr.€Hawks€testified€that€Crockett€County€has€a€smallerÏpopulation€of€people€of€the€same€race€as€the€petitioner.€€He€further€testified€that€heÏfelt€like€the€petitioner€would€fare€better€in€Gibson€County€where€the€petitioner€wasÏknown,€where€he€(Mr.€Hawks)€was€familiar,€and€where€the€jury€pool€was€moreÏfamiliar€as€well.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€Mr.€Hawksðð€decision€not€to€seekÍa€change€of€venue€was€a€strategic€one€that€he€made€based€on€the€factors€listedÏabove.€€We€agree.€€ð ðAllegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€relating€toÏmatters€of€trial€strategy€or€tactics€do€not€provide€a€basis€for€post„conviction€relief.ðð€ÏòòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€374,€378€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€notÏexploring€the€defense€of€self„defense.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Mr.€HawksÏtestified€that€he€and€the€petitioner€had€discussed€the€possibility€of€using€self„defenseÏas€a€defense€to€the€first„degree€murder€charge.€€However,€Mr.€Hawks€determinedÏthat€a€jury€would€not€likely€believe€this€defense€because€the€victim€had€been€shot€inÏher€left€shoulder€with€a€shot€gun.€€Mr.€Hawks€testified€that€he€tried€to€perform€aÏreenactment€of€the€victimððs€death,€but€that€the€physical€evidence€was€inconsistentÏwith€a€weapon€struggle€as€the€petitioner€had€suggested.€€Furthermore,€the€entryÏwound€on€the€victim€was€large€and€there€was€no€presence€of€powder,€an€indicationÏthat€the€victim€had€not€been€shot€at€close€range.€€Mr.€Hawks€also€testified€that€theÏevidence€showed€that€after€she€was€shot,€the€victim€tried€to€escape€by€running€downÏthe€street.€€The€evidence€further€showed€that€the€petitioner€then€shot€his€wife€aÏsecond€time€with€a€second€weapon.€€The€post„conviction€court€concluded€that€ð ðMr.ÏHawks€was€correct€in€assuming€that€the€likelihood€of€convincing€an€impartial€jury€thatÍsuch€a€wound€was€administered€in€self„defense€was€remote.ðð€€We€agree€with€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding;€Mr.€Hawks€fully€investigated€the€theory€of€self„defense.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€next€alleges€that€Mr.€Hawks€failed€to€adequately€consultÏwith€him€and€failed€to€adequately€investigate€his€case.€€He€specifically€alleges€œthatÏMr.›€Hawks€failed€to€conduct€forensic€tests€on€the€victimððs€wounds€and€that€he€failed€toÏinterview€potential€witnesses.€€From€the€record€of€the€post„conviction€hearing,€it€isÏclear€that€Mr.€Hawks€spent€an€extraordinary€amount€of€time€working€on€this€case.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€had€numerous€conferences€with€the€petitioner.€€Additionally,€Mr.ÏHawks€employed€the€services€of€a€law€professor€at€the€University€of€Memphis€SchoolÏof€Law€as€well€as€the€services€of€Beth€Bates,€a€lawyer€in€Mr.€Hawksðð€office.€€It€is€quiteÏobvious€that€Mr.€Hawks€devoted€more€than€adequate€time€to€the€petitionerððs€case.ÌÌà àà àAs€for€the€alleged€lack€of€forensic€testing,€the€post„conviction€courtÏfound€that€while€no€independent€experts€were€hired€to€study€the€victimððs€wounds,Ïthere€was€no€need€to€do€so€because€other€evidence€sufficiently€demonstrated€thatÏthe€petitioner€had€intentionally€shot€the€victim.€€We€find€nothing€in€the€record€thatÏpreponderates€against€this€finding€by€the€court.€€As€for€the€alleged€failure€to€interviewÏwitnesses,€Mr.€Hawks€testified€that€all€witnesses€were€spoken€to€by€someone€whoÍwas€working€on€the€case€with€him.€€Regardless,€in€order€for€the€petitioner€to€prevailÏon€this€issue,€he€must€have€presented€these€witnesses€at€his€post„convictionÏhearing.€€No€court€can€be€expected€to€guess€what€a€witnessðð€testimony€may€haveÏbeen€had€he€or€she€testified.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757„58€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€These€issues€are€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitionerððs€final€contention€is€that€his€counsel€erroneouslyÏinformed€him€about€the€amount€of€time€he€would€have€to€serve€before€he€could€beÏeligible€for€parole.€€He€further€complains€that€his€counsel€instructed€him€at€the€entryÏof€the€guilty€plea€to€agree€with€everything€that€the€judge€said€regardless€of€whetherÏhe€agreed€or€not.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€hadÏthought€he€would€only€have€to€serve€twelve€to€fifteen€years€before€becoming€eligibleÏfor€parole.€€€However,€Mr.€Hawks€testified€that€he€had€called€the€parole€board€andÏthat€he€remembered€being€told€that€the€petitioner€would€have€to€serve€betweenÏtwenty„six€and€thirty„three€years€before€being€eligible€for€parole.€€He€further€testifiedÏthat€he€had€relayed€these€numbers€to€the€petitioner.€€The€post„conviction€court€foundÏthat€Mr.€Hawks€and€the€trial€judge€who€accepted€the€petitionerððs€plea€fairly€andÏaccurately€advised€the€petitioner€of€the€ramifications€of€accepting€a€life€sentence.€ÏAgain,€we€find€nothing€in€the€record€to€preponderate€against€this€finding.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€whether€the€petitioner€was€not€given€an€opportunity€to€give€hisÏown€answers€at€the€guilty€plea,€the€post„conviction€court€found€no€merit€to€thisÏargument.€€The€guilty€plea€transcript€reveals€that€the€petitioner€was€read€all€his€rightsÏand€given€an€opportunity€to€respond.€€Additionally,€the€petitioner€was€asked€twiceÏabout€his€satisfaction€with€Mr.€Hawksðð€representation,€and€each€time€the€petitionerÏsaid€he€was€satisfied.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€petitionerððs€plea€wasÏentered€knowingly,€voluntarily,€and€intelligently,€and€with€full€and€completeÏunderstanding€of€his€rights.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àTherefore,€after€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€theÏpetitioner€did€not€receive€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€thus€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€court€œbelow.›ÌÓÓÌ€€€€€Ìœòò›à àà àà àà àœà àà àà à›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œ€€€€óó›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€œà àJOHN›€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌœÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌœòòÌÌ›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œ€€›€œóó€›ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œ€€›€óó€€€ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€Judge€€ÌÌà àà àà0 àà0 à€€Ì€