ÿWPCU …#†VUNÜ %* 0(0bX4`tU.ƒ 0J± 0Tû 0^O 0h­ 0r 0|‡ 0† 0‰ 1u U,Ž 0dº U, U>J B)ˆ DC± AMô JAv~‹ B vÓ& D3ù 0@, AOlÆ» 0D 0DÅ D/  B8˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0ÎÙP 47F*? žP(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-3x23|x%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òFebruary€29,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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 ` ÑÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÆXXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|¤Ý` Å `€€LßÌAT€JACKSONÌÌDECEMBER€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÌÓ  ÓJERRY€BUTLER,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï02C01„9503„CC„00072Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àMADISON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€FRANKLIN€MURCHISONó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Post„Conviction)ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€MADISON€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌGEORGE€MORTON€GOOGEà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌPAMELA€J.€DREWERYà àà àà àWILLIAM€DAVID€BRIDGERSÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ227€W.€Baltimore€Streetà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌJackson,€TN€€38301à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€WOODALLÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDON€ALLENÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€€38302ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ XÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Petitioner'sÏrequest€for€post„conviction€relief€from€his€guilty€plea€to€aggravated€sexual€battery.€ÏWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àPetitioner€was€indicted€on€February€27,€1989€for€aggravated€rape€andÏaggravated€sexual€battery.€€His€trial€was€set€for€May€2,€1989.€€On€April€7,€1989,€theÏPetitioner€pleaded€guilty€to€the€second€count,€aggravated€sexual€battery,€inÏexchange€for€a€sentence€of€thirty€(30)€years€as€a€Range€II€offender€to€be€served€atÏthirty„five€(35)€percent.€€The€Petitioner€filed€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€onÏthe€grounds€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€and€that€he€didÏnot€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€enter€his€guilty€plea.€€The€trial€courtÏdenied€the€petition€stating€that€the€Petitioner€did€not€suffer€the€abridgment€of€anyÏright€guaranteed€by€the€United€States€or€Tennessee€Constitutions.ÌÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€Petitioner€first€argues€that€he€was€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€because€his€counsel:€(1)€Allowed€the€Petitioner€to€plead€toÏan€excessive€sentence;€(2)€allowed€the€trial€court€to€use€the€age€of€the€victim€to€findÍthe€offense€to€be€aggravated,€punish€the€Petitioner€outside€his€range,€justify€anÏexcessive€sentence,€and€find€that€the€"child€abuse€law"€enhanced€the€Petitioner€outÏof€the€lower€range€of€sentencing€for€aggravated€sexual€battery;€and€(3)€counsel€didÏnot€inform€the€Petitioner€of€his€possible€eligibility€to€be€sentenced€under€the€1989ÏSentencing€Act,€which€would€have€been€a€lesser€sentence.€€The€Petitioner€alsoÏargues€that€his€guilty€plea€was€not€entered€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àWe€first€address€the€Petitioner's€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims.€ÏThe€test€to€determine€whether€or€not€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial€isÏwhether€or€not€his€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€UnderÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€òòreh'góó€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984),€thereÏis€a€two„prong€test€which€places€the€burden€on€the€appellant€to€show€that€(1)€theÏrepresentation€was€deficient,€requiring€a€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€soÏserious€that€he€was€not€functioning€as€"counsel"€as€guaranteed€a€defendant€by€theÏSixth€Amendment,€and€(2)€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€the€defense€toÏthe€point€of€depriving€the€defendant€of€€a€fair€trial€with€a€reliable€result.€€466€U.S.€atÏ687.€€This€test€was€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,Í789€S.W.2d€898€(Tenn.€1990).€€To€succeed€on€his€claim,€the€appellant€must€showÏthat€there€is€a€"reasonable€probability,"€which€is€a€probability€sufficient€toÏundermine€confidence€in€the€outcome€that,€but€for€the€counsel's€unprofessionalÏerrors,€the€results€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòIdóó.€at€694.€€TheÏburden€rests€on€the€appellant€to€prove€his€allegations€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€òòLong€v.€Stateóó,€510€S.W.2d€83,€86€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€We€also€doÏnot€use€the€benefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€by€counsel€andÏcriticize€counsel's€tactics.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àIn€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52€(1985),€the€Supreme€Court€applied€theÏòòStricklandóó€two„part€standard€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims€arising€outÏof€the€plea€process.€€The€Court€in€òòHillóó€modified€the€"prejudice"€requirement€byÏstating€that€"the€defendant€must€show€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€butÏfor€counsel's€errors€he€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€onÏgoing€to€trial."€€ÌÌÓ  ÓA.ÌÓ  Óà àThe€Petitioner€first€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€becauseÏcounsel€allowed€the€Petitioner€to€plead€to€an€excessive€sentence€that€was€outsideÏthe€sentencing€range€for€which€the€Petitioner€was€eligible.€€The€Petitioner€arguesÍthat€the€prosecutor€set€out€to€have€the€Petitioner€sentenced€outside€his€range.€€HeÏargues€that€the€prosecutor's€statement€that€there€was€no€Range€I€sentence€for€theÏPetitioner's€crime€was€incorrect€and€indicative€of€the€prosecutor's€intentions.€€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€pleaded€guilty€to€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€AggravatedÏsexual€battery,€under€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€crime,€was€"unlawful€sexualÏcontact€with€a€victim€by€a€defendant€or€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€a€defendant€byÏa€victim€accompanied€by€any€of€the€circumstances€listed€in€ðð€39„2„603(a)."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„2„606(a)€(Supp.€1988).€€The€circumstance€listed€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€39„2„603€that€was€applicable€to€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€is€thatÏ"[t]he€victim€is€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„603(4)Ï(Supp.€1988).€€The€victim€in€this€case€was€twelve€(12)€years€old€at€the€time€of€theÏoffense.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€was€properly€sentenced€within€Range€II.€€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„107€states€that€an€especially€aggravated€offense€is€"aÏviolation€of€ðð€.€.€.€39„2„606€.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107(5)€(Supp.€1987).€€AÏdefendant€who€has€been€found€to€have€committed€an€especially€aggravatedÏoffense€"shall€receive€a€sentence€within€Range€II."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107(8)€(Supp.€1987).€€The€lower€end€of€a€Range€II€sentence€is€calculated€by€addingÍthe€minimum€sentence€plus€one„half€of€the€difference€between€the€minimum€andÏmaximum€sentences.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„109(b)€(Supp.€1987).€€TheÏminimum€sentence€for€sexual€battery€is€five€years€and€the€maximum€is€thirty„fiveÏyears.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„606(b)€(Supp.€1988).€€Therefore,€the€minimumÏsentence€for€aggravated€sexual€battery€when€the€victim€is€under€the€age€of€thirteenÏwas€twenty€years€under€the€1982€Act.€€The€maximum€was€thirty„five€years.€€TheÏsentencing€range€for€the€Petitioner€under€the€1982€Act€was€twenty€to€thirty„fiveÏyears.€€The€Petitioner€agreed€to€a€thirty„year€sentence.€€The€Petitioner's€sentenceÏwas€not€excessive€according€to€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time.ÌÌà àWe€cannot€conclude€that€trial€counsel€made€an€error€so€egregious€as€toÏdeny€the€Petitioner€his€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Trial€counselÏadvised€the€Petitioner€to€agree€to€a€plea€bargain€in€which€the€more€serious€count,Ïaggravated€rape,€was€dropped.€€Therefore,€the€Petitioner€was€sentenced€only€forÏthe€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€Such€advice€certainly€cannot€be€considered€error.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓB.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€second€argument€the€Petitioner€submits€is€that€trial€counsel€wasÏineffective€in€allowing€the€trial€court€to€use€the€age€of€the€victim€to€(1)€find€theÏoffense€to€be€aggravated;€(2)€punish€the€Petitioner€outside€of€his€range;€(3)€justifyÏan€excessive€sentence;€and€(4)€allow€a€finding€that€the€"child€abuse€law"€enhancedÏPetitioner€out€of€the€lower€range€of€sentencing€for€aggravated€sexual€battery.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€correctly€sentenced€the€Petitioner€within€Range€II.€€Because€ofÏthe€age€of€the€victim,€the€offense€was€automatically€considered€aggravated€sexualÏbattery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„606(a)€(Supp.€1988);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„603(4)€(Supp.€1988).€€The€trial€court€did€not€punish€the€Petitioner€out€of€his€range.€ÏBecause€of€the€offense,€the€Petitioner€was€automatically€sentenced€as€a€Range€IIÏoffender,€regardless€of€his€criminal€history.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107(8)Ï(Supp.€1987).€€The€statute€mandates€that€the€Petitioner€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€IIÏoffender.€€The€thirty„year€sentence€was€offered€by€the€State€and€accepted€by€theÏPetitioner.€€The€trial€court€did€not€set€the€sentence€using€enhancement€factors,€butÏrather€accepted€the€plea€agreement.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€did€not€use€theÏvictim's€age€to€justify€the€sentence.€€The€law€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€offense€wasÏadmittedly€very€harsh€on€defendants€who€were€guilty€of€sexual€relations€with€aÏchild€under€the€age€of€thirteen€(13).€€Because€of€the€age€of€the€victim,€the€offenseÏwas€automatically€considered€to€be€an€especially€aggravated€offense,€which€led€toÍthe€defendant€being€automatically€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender,€no€matterÏwhat€his€previous€history.€€Such€treatment€was€mandated€by€statute.ÌÌà àln€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Petitioner€was€originally€indicted€for€aggravatedÏrape€and€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€Petitioner's€trial€counsel€was€able€to€work€outÏan€agreement€with€the€State€for€the€Petitioner€to€plead€guilty€to€aggravated€sexualÏbattery,€the€State€would€dismiss€the€aggravated€rape€count,€and€the€PetitionerÏwould€be€sentenced€to€thirty€years,€which€would€be€mid„range.€€Considering€thatÏthe€Petitioner€admitted€to€the€offense€in€a€letter€to€the€victim's€mother€and€that€heÏblamed€the€occurrence€on€being€intoxicated€at€his€guilty€plea€hearing,€theÏPetitioner€received€a€good€bargain.€€We€do€not€conclude€that€the€Petitioner's€trialÏcounsel€provided€ineffective€assistance.ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓC.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Petitioner's€third€reason€for€claiming€he€received€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€is€because€his€trial€counsel€did€not€inform€him€of€the€possibility€of€beingÏsentenced€under€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989€as€opposed€to€theÏ1982€Act€that€was€in€effect€at€the€time.€€We€disagree€with€the€Petitioner's€contentionÏthat€he€should€have€been€informed€of€the€possibility€of€being€sentenced€under€theÏ1989€Act.€€ÌÌà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„117,€of€the€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act€of€1989,€reads,€"Unless€prohibited€by€the€United€States€or€TennesseeÏconstitution,€any€person€sentenced€on€or€after€November€1,€1989,€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€between€July€1,€1982€and€November€1,€1989,€shall€be€sentenced€underÏthe€provisions€of€this€chapter."€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€Petitioner€committed€the€crime€in€January€ofÏ1989.€€A€trial€date€was€set€for€May€2,€1989.€€The€Petitioner€pleaded€guilty€on€MarchÏ28,€1989.€€To€be€eligible€to€have€his€sentence€calculated€under€the€1989€Act€theÏPetitioner€must€have€been€sentenced€after€November€1,€1989.€€The€Petitioner'sÏguilty€plea€was€entered€on€March€28,€1989,€which€date€clearly€did€not€fall€after€theÏNovember€1,€1989€date.€€The€Petitioner's€trial€was€set€for€May€2,€1989.€€If€theÏPetitioner€had€been€found€guilty€at€trial€there€is€no€reason€to€believe€that€hisÍsentencing€would€have€occurred€after€November€1,€1989.€€If€the€sentencing€hadÏoccurred€before€November€1,€1989,€as€is€very€likely,€the€Petitioner€would€haveÏbeen€sentenced€under€the€1982€Act,€as€he€was€for€his€guilty€plea.€€ÌÌà àThe€failure€of€trial€counsel€to€inform€the€Petitioner€of€the€remote€possibilityÏthat€he€could€be€sentenced€under€the€1989€Act€if€his€sentencing€occurred€afterÏNovember€1,€1989,€was€not€an€error€so€serious€that€trial€counsel€was€not€acting€asÏcounsel€as€guaranteed€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.ÌÌà àTherefore,€this€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓII.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Petitioner€also€argues€that€his€guilty€plea€was€not€entered€intoÏvoluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently.€€The€Petitioner€argues€that€he€did€not€enterÏhis€plea€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€because€he€did€not€know€that€heÏwas€pleading€to€a€punishment€outside€his€range,€his€counsel€allowed€the€out€ofÏrange€sentence€to€be€imposed,€his€counsel€was€ineffective€in€allowing€the€age€ofÏthe€victim€to€be€used€as€an€aggravating€factor€three€times,€and€his€counsel€failed€toÏadvise€him€of€the€passage€of€the€1989€sentencing€act.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238€(1969),€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€the€record€must€show€that€a€guilty€plea€was€made€voluntarily,Ïunderstandingly,€and€knowingly.€€òòIdóó.€at€242.€€In€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337Ï(Tenn.€1977),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€imposed€stricter€standards€than€theÏstandards€mandated€in€òòBoykinóó:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÌÓÓà àA.€Before€accepting€a€plea€of€guilty,€the€court€must€addressÏthe€defendant€personally€in€open€court€and€inform€him€of,€andÏdetermine€that€he€understands,€the€following:ÌÌà à(1)€The€nature€of€the€charge€to€which€the€plea€is€offered,Ïand€à àthe€mandatory€minimum€penalty€provided€by€law,€if€any,Ïand€à àthe€maximum€possible€penalty€provided€by€law;€and,€ifÏà àapplicable,€that€a€different€or€additional€punishment€mayÏresult€à àby€reason€of€his€prior€convictions€or€other€factors€which€mayÏbe€à àestablished€in€the€present€action€after€the€entry€of€his€plea;Ïand€Ìà àÌà à(2)€If€the€defendant€is€not€represented€by€an€attorney,€thatÏhe€à àhas€a€right€to€be€represented€by€an€attorney€at€every€stageÏof€à àthe€proceeding€against€him,€and€if€necessary,€one€will€beÏà àappointed€to€represent€him;€and€Ìà àÌà à(3)€That€he€has€a€right€to€plead€not€guilty€or€to€persist€in€thatÏà àplea€if€it€has€already€been€made,€and,€that€he€has€the€rightÏto€à àbe€tried€by€a€jury€and€at€that€trial€has€the€right€to€theÏassistance€à àof€counsel,€the€right€to€confront€and€cross„examineÏwitnesses€à àagainst€him,€and€the€right€not€to€be€compelled€toÏincriminate€à àhimself;€and€Ìà àÌà à(4)€That€if€he€pleads€guilty,€there€will€not€be€a€further€trial€ofÏany€à àkind€except€to€determine€the€sentence€so€that€by€pleadingÏà àguilty€he€waives€the€right€to€a€trial;€and€Ìà àÌà à(5)€That€if€he€pleads€guilty,€the€court€or€the€state€may€askÏhim€à àquestions€about€the€offense€to€which€he€has€pleaded,€and€ifÏhe€à àanswers€these€questions€under€oath,€on€the€record,€and€inÏthe€à àpresence€of€counsel,€his€answers€may€later€be€used€againstÏà àhim€in€a€prosecution€for€perjury€or€false€statement,€and,Ïfurther€à àthat€upon€the€sentencing€hearing,€evidence€of€anyÏprior€à àconvictions€may€be€presented€to€the€judge€or€jury€for€theirÏà àconsideration€in€determining€punishment.Ìà àÌà àB.€The€court€shall€not€accept€a€plea€of€guilty€without€first,€byÏaddressing€the€defendant€personally€in€open€court,€determiningÏthat€the€plea€is€voluntary€and€not€the€result€of€force€or€threats€or€ofÏpromises€apart€from€a€plea€agreement.€€The€court€shall€alsoÏinquire€as€to€whether€the€defendant's€willingness€to€plead€guiltyÏresults€from€prior€discussions€between€the€District€AttorneyÏGeneral€and€the€defendant€or€his€attorney.Ìà àÌà àC.€Notwithstanding€the€acceptance€of€a€plea€of€guilty,€theÏcourt€shall€not€enter€a€judgment€upon€such€plea€without€makingÏsuch€inquiry€as€shall€satisfy€it€that€there€is€a€factual€basis€for€theÏplea.Ìà àÌà àD.€A€verbatim€record€of€the€proceedings€at€which€theÏdefendant€enters€a€plea€shall€be€made€and,€if€there€is€a€plea€ofÏguilty,€the€record€shall€include,€without€limitation,€(a)€the€court'sÏadvice€to€the€defendant,€(b)€the€inquiry€into€the€voluntariness€of€theÏplea€including€any€plea€agreement€and€into€the€defendant'sÏunderstanding€of€the€consequences€of€his€entering€a€plea€of€guilty,Ïand€(c)€the€inquiry€into€the€accuracy€of€a€guilty€plea.ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒòòIdóó.€at€341.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Nealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131€(Tenn.€1991),€our€supreme€court€stated€thatÏthe€purpose€for€these€guidelines€is€to€"seek€to€insulate€guilty€pleas€from€coercionÏand€relevant€defendant€ignorance.€€They€are€designed€to€insure€that€guilty€pleasÏare€voluntary€and€knowing."€€òòIdóó.€at€135.€€The€Petitioner's€arguments€concerningÏwhether€his€guilty€plea€was€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€made€areÏdirectly€related€to€his€arguments€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€which€weÏhave€rejected.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€stated:€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌFor€the€plea€to€be€acceptable€it€must€be€voluntary.€€That€does€notÏmean€that€the€defendant€would€want€to€plead€guilty€if€he€or€sheÏhad€the€option€available€to€go€free.€€The€option€available€is€to€go€toÏtrial,€with€its€uncertainties,€or€to€plead€guilty.€€The€knowledge€that€isÏmost€relevant€to€this€decision€of€the€accused€pertains€to€the€rightsÏthat€are€available€to€him€or€her€upon€a€trial€that€are€given€up€byÏpleading€guilty.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòIdóó.Ìà àThe€purpose€of€an€appellate€court€when€reviewing€whether€a€defendant€hasÏmade€a€voluntary,€knowing,€and€intelligent€plea€is€to€ensure€that€the€defendant€hasÏwillingly€waived€those€rights€guaranteed€him€through€the€Constitution,€that€wouldÏbe€available€to€him€if€he€went€to€trial,€with€no€hint€of€improper€coercion.€€TheÏarguments€made€concerning€this€issue€were€addressed€in€the€Petitioner'sÏchallenge€to€the€effectiveness€of€his€trial€counsel.€€We€concluded€that€these€issuesÍhad€no€merit.€€They€are€also€without€merit€when€considering€whether€the€PetitionerÏmade€a€voluntary,€knowing,€and€intelligent€guilty€plea.ÌÌà àWe€have€reviewed€the€hearing€of€the€trial€court€where€the€Petitioner€pleadedÏguilty.€€The€trial€court€was€very€clear€in€explaining€the€charge€the€Petitioner€wasÏpleading€guilty€to€and€the€maximum€and€minimum€sentence€for€the€charge.€€TheÏtrial€court€also€thoroughly€explained€the€rights€being€waived€by€the€Petitioner.€€TheÏPetitioner€replied€that€he€understood€all€this€information€and€agreed€with€theÏsynopsis€of€the€offense€as€stated€by€the€prosecutor.€€We€conclude€that€theÏPetitioner's€guilty€plea€was€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€made.ÌÌà àTherefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€Petitioner's€request€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE