ÿWPC+# …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ ˜ 1m  0c w@p 0”° 0DD 0Jˆ 0TÒ 0^& 0h„ 0rì 0|^ 0†Ú 0` 1uð 0de BÉU6æB)DCE AMˆ4Õ D3 Ó<v~ 0@vÓÍ 0w  0Š 0 ¡ 0´A 0Çõ 0Û¼ 0ï— AO†!ÆÕ! 0D›" D/ß" B#<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó©U! tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à   E  ™ ™  U  Ó€ (D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ18,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó 'ÿÿdxd ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔ€€We€discussed€the€constitutional€soundness€of€the€Hamilton€County€Community€CorrectionsÏrevocation€procedures€in€order€to€analyze€the€Stateððs€argument€that€the€petitioner€had€escaped€from€aÏpenal€institution€rather€than€violated€a€condition€of€his€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€Since€theÏCommunity€Corrections€revocation€procedure€was€not€an€issue€specifically€raised€by€the€petitioner€in€hisÏpleadings,€we€make€no€ruling€on€the€revocation€of€the€petitionerððs€Community€Corrections€sentence.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ X ÑÑ7€÷¯XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|` 81 `€€L߀›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àMAY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òKENNETH€A.€BENTLEY,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€ó ó€ò ò03C01„9510„CR„00315ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏDOUGLAS€A.€MEYER,ÌSTATE€OFÏTENNESSEE,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€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òARDENA€J.ÏGARTHà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONó óÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€ReporterÌÌò òDONNA€ROBINSON€MILLERà àà àà àDARIANÏB.€TAYLORó óÌAsst.€District€Public€Defender€à àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌ701€Cherry€St.,€Suite€300à àà àà àà à450€JamesÍRobertson€Pkwy.ÌChattanooga,€TN€€37402à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òGARY€D.€GERBITZó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òLELAND€DAVISó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€St.,€Third€Fl.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€CONVICTION€VACATEDó óÌÌÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,ÌJudgeÑ Ü ÑÓ  Óà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner€pled€guilty€on€June€15,€1994,€to€escape€from€a€penalÏinstitution€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€39„16„605€(1991).€€At€the€time€of€the€alleged€escapeÏoffense,€the€defendant€was€serving€a€ten€year€Community€Corrections€sentence€forÏprevious€drug€offenses.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€one€year€in€prison,€with€theÏsentence€to€run€consecutively€to€the€sentences€for€which€the€defendant€was€onÏCommunity€Corrections.€€The€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€onÍOctober€14,€1994,€and€amended€it€with€the€assistance€of€counsel€on€January€24,Ï1995,€alleging€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€accepting€his€guilty€plea€because€there€was€no€factual€basis€to€supportÏhis€conviction€for€escape.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€on€May€3,€1995,Ïfinding€that€the€petitioner€had€escaped€from€the€custody€of€a€Hamilton€CountyÏCommunity€Corrections€Program€employee€who€was€carrying€out€an€order€of€theÏHamilton€County€Criminal€Court.€€After€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€arguments€inÏthe€present€case,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€vacate€theÏpetitionerððs€conviction€for€escape€from€a€penal€institution.ÌÌà àà àThe€pertinent€facts€are€not€in€serious€dispute.€€Prior€to€the€petitionerððsÏalleged€escape€offense,€he€had€been€convicted€on€three€counts€of€selling€cocaineÏand€had€received€a€ten€year€sentence€to€be€served€on€Community€Corrections.€€As€aÏcondition€of€participating€in€the€Community€Corrections€Program,€the€petitionerÏsubmitted€to€random€drug€testing.€€On€February€17,€1994,€the€petitioner€failed€one€ofÏthe€random€drug€tests.€€In€response€to€the€positive€drug€test,€the€CommunityÏCorrections€Program€informed€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€of€the€petitionerððsÏfailure€to€comply€with€the€program€and€requested€a€letter€of€revocation.€€Without€aÏhearing,€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court€ordered€the€removal€of€the€petitionerÏfrom€the€Community€Corrections€Program€on€February€25,€1994.ÌÌà àà àOn€March€2,€1994,€David€Gann,€the€petitionerððs€supervisor€for€theÏCommunity€Corrections€Program,€met€with€the€petitioner€in€the€CommunityÏCorrections€office.€€Gann€informed€him€of€the€order€removing€him€from€the€program.€ÏGann€then€removed€the€electronic€bracelet€from€the€petitionerððs€ankle€and€told€himÏthat€he€would€have€to€return€to€jail€immediately.€€The€petitioner€stood€up€and€toldÏGann€that€he€could€not€return€to€jail€at€that€time€because€he€ð ðhad€business€to€takeÏcare€of.ðð€€According€to€Gann,€the€petitioner€adopted€a€defensive€position€and€Gann,Ïknowing€of€the€petitionerððs€former€prowess€as€a€prize€fighter,€allowed€the€petitioner€toÏleave€the€office.€€Upon€the€petitionerððs€departure€from€the€office,€Gann€proceeded€toÏthe€clerkððs€office€to€procure€an€arrest€warrant€for€escape.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€later€contacted€an€attorney€and€turned€himself€in€to€theÏauthorities.€€Although€the€petitionerððs€attorney€initially€believed€that€there€was€aÏquestion€about€whether€the€petitioner€had€violated€the€escape€statute,€he€eventuallyÏdecided€that€the€petitionerððs€conduct€did€constitute€escape.€€The€petitioner€informedÏhis€attorney€that€he€wanted€to€resolve€the€situation€expediently,€that€he€did€not€want€aÏtrial,€and€that€he€wanted€to€ð ðgo€ahead€and€get€this€done.ðð€€As€a€result,€the€petitionerððsÏattorney€entered€into€plea€negotiations,€and€a€plea€agreement€was€soon€reachedÏwhereby€the€petitioner€pled€guilty€to€escape€from€a€penal€institution€and€received€aÍone€year€sentence.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€complains€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€accepting€his€guilty€plea€because€there€was€no€factual€basis€toÏsupport€his€plea,€as€is€required€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11.€€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòState€v.ÏMackey,óó€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.€1977).€€Furthermore,€the€petitioner€contends€that€heÏreceived€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€his€attorney€advised€him€to€pleadÏguilty€to€escape€when€his€conduct€did€not€meet€the€statutory€definition€of€the€offense.€ÏWith€respect€to€both€claims,€then,€the€focal€point€of€the€petitionerððs€argument€is€thatÏhis€actions€on€March€2,€1994,€did€not€constitute€the€criminal€offense€of€escape€from€aÏpenal€institution€as€defined€in€T.C.A.€ðð€39„16„605€(1991).€€More€specifically,€theÏpetitioner€argues€that€because€he€was€a€participant€in€the€Community€CorrectionsÏProgram,€his€conduct€could€not€possibly€have€been€an€escape€òòfrom€a€penalÏinstitutionóó,€as€defined€in€the€escape€statute.€€On€the€contrary,€he€maintains€that€hisÏactions€could€only€be€interpreted€as€a€possible€violation€of€the€conditions€of€hisÏCommunity€Corrections€sentence.ÌÌà àà àThe€State,€on€the€other€hand,€argues€that€the€petitioner€was€actually€noÏlonger€a€participant€in€the€Community€Corrections€Program,€but€rather€was€in€theÏcustody€of€an€incarcerating€institution€when€he€departed€from€the€CommunityÍCorrections€office€on€March€2,€1994.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€the€State€reliesÏheavily€upon€two€court€orders,€one€assigning€the€petitioner€to€CommunityÏCorrections€and€one€allegedly€revoking€him€from€Community€Corrections.€€InÏDecember€of€1993,€after€the€petitionerððs€conviction€on€three€counts€of€sellingÏcocaine,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€Community€Corrections€throughÏthe€following€order:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓÌIt€now€appearing€to€the€Court€œ...›€that€the€defendant€is€aÏsuitable€candidate€for€assignment€to€the€Hamilton€CountyÏCommunity€Corrections€Program,€it€is,ÌÌà àORDERED€that€the€defendant€is€hereby€assigned€toÏthe€Hamilton€County€Community€Corrections€Program.€€It€isÏa€further€condition€of€said€assignment€that€the€defendantÏcontinue€to€comply€with€the€Courtððs€Guidelines€and€theÏRegulations€of€said€Program.€.€.€.€€The€defendant€will€beÏreleased€by€the€Workhouse€authorities€(or€Sheriff,€orÏDepartment€of€Corrections,€if€appropriate,)€to€the€HamiltonÏCounty€Community€Corrections€Program€staff.ÌÌà àShould€the€defendant€subsequently€violate€theÏCourtððs€Guidelines€or€Regulations,€òòthe€Hamilton€CountyÏCommunity€Corrections€Program€staff€is€authorized€toÏadministratively€re„transfer€the€defendant€to€theÏincarcerating€institutionóó,€and,€in€that€event,€it€is,ÌÌà àòòORDERED€that€the€incarcerating€institution€acceptÏthe€defendant€as€a€prisoneróó€to€serve€the€sentence€asÏoriginally€provided.€€òòShould€the€defendant€be€aggrievedÏthereby,€he€may€file€an€appropriate€motion€with€the€CourtÏwithin€five€(5)€days€of€the€transfer,€but€the€pendency€of€theÏmotion€shall€not€affect€his€physical€transfer€to€theÍincarcerating€institution.óó€€(emphasis€added)ÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÌÌÓÓThe€second€order€on€which€the€State€relies€was€entered€on€February€25,€1994€inÏresponse€to€the€letter€sent€by€the€Hamilton€County€Community€Corrections€ProgramÏstating€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€a€random€drug€test.€€This€order€allegedly€removedÏthe€petitioner€from€the€Community€Corrections€Program.€€It€reads€as€follows:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓÌThe€...€defendant€has€violated€the€conditions€of€theÏCommunity€Corrections€Program,€and€it€is€therefore,ÌÌà àORDERED€that€he€be€removed€from€the€program.ÌÌà àThe€Clerk€is€ordered€to€issue€a€workhouse€capias€forÏthe€arrest€of€the€defendant.ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒœÌÓÓThe›€State€contends€that€the€December€1993€order€expressly€gave€the€CommunityÏCorrections€Program€staff,€in€this€case€David€Gann,€the€authority€to€transfer€theÏpetitioner€back€to€an€incarcerating€institution€in€the€event€that€he€violated€the€terms€ofÏthe€Community€Corrections€Program.€€Furthermore,€the€February€1994€order€statesÏthat€the€petitioner€violated€the€terms€of€the€Program.€€As€a€result,€the€State€argues€thatÏwhen€Gann€removed€the€petitionerððs€monitoring€bracelet€and€informed€him€that€he€hadÏto€return€to€jail,€the€petitioner€was€no€longer€a€participant€with€the€CommunityÏCorrections€Program,€but€rather€was€in€the€custody€of€an€incarcerating€institution.€ÏAccordingly,€the€petitionerððs€departure€from€the€Community€Corrections€office€did€meetÍthe€statutory€definition€of€escape€from€a€penal€institution.ÌÌà àà àOn€May€3,€1995,€the€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€theÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€After€hearing€argument€from€counsel€and€testimonyÏfrom€both€David€Gann€and€Michael€Caputo,€the€petitionerððs€attorney€on€the€guilty€pleaÏto€escape,€the€trial€court€found€as€follows:ÌÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓœ›ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ` ÒProof€show€[sic]€that€petitioner€escaped€from€theÏcustody€of€David€Gann,€an€employee€of€theÏHamilton€County€Community€Corrections€Program,Ïwho€was€carrying€out€an€order€of€the€HonorableÏSteve€Bevil,€Criminal€Court€Judge,€who€had€orderedÏpetitioner€taken€into€custody.ÌÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓœUpon›€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€appealedÏto€this€Court.ÌÌà àà àWe€agree€with€the€petitioner€that€his€actions€on€March€2,€1994€didÏnot€constitute€the€criminal€offense€of€escape€from€a€penal€institution.€€ForÏpurposes€of€the€escape€statute,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„16„601€defines€ð ðpenal€institutionððÏas€ð ðany€institution€òòused€to€house€or€detain€óóa€person:€(A)€[c]onvicted€of€a€crime;Ïor€(B)€[w]ho€is€in€direct€or€indirect€custody€after€a€lawful€arrest.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„16„601(4)€(1991)€(emphasis€added).€€Community€Corrections,€however,€is€anÍalternative€to€incarceration€and€is€noncustodial€in€nature.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„36„102(5)€(1990);€T.C.A.€ðð€40„36„104(4)€(1990);€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„36„106(e)(1)€(1990).€€Community€Corrections€Programs€ð ðinvolve€closeÏsupervision€but€.€.€.€do€not€involve€housing€of€the€offender€in€a€jail,€workhouseÏor€community€facility.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„36„302(a)(1)€(1990).€€From€our€review€of€theÏplain€language€of€the€statutory€provisions€at€issue,€we€conclude€thatÏCommunity€Corrections€does€not€qualify€as€a€ð ðpenal€institutionðð€for€theÏpurposes€of€the€escape€statute.€€Moreover,€we€find€no€evidence€that€theÏlegislature,€in€enacting€the€Community€Corrections€Act€of€1985€and€theÏCriminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€intended€to€include€a€violation€of€theÏconditions€of€a€Community€Corrections€sentence€in€the€criminal€offense€ofÏescape€from€a€penal€institution.€€Accordingly,€from€a€review€of€the€entire€record,Ïwe€find€that€on€March€2,€1994,€the€petitioner€was€serving€a€CommunityÏCorrections€sentence€and€his€departure€from€the€Community€Corrections€officeÏdid€not€meet€the€statutory€requirements€of€the€criminal€offense€of€escape€from€aÏpenal€institution.ÌÌà àà àWe€turn€now€to€the€petitionerððs€contention€that€he€receivedÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€"In€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€petiƒtioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€in€his€[or€her]€petition€by€aÍpreponderance€of€the€evidence."€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1983).€€Fur‚thermore,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€hearingsÏ"are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏjudgment."€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àà àThis€Court€should€not€second„guess€trial€counsel's€tactical€andÏstrategic€choices€unless€those€choices€were€uninformed€because€ofÏinadequate€preparation,€òò€Hellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982),€andÏcounsel€should€not€be€deemed€to€have€been€ineffective€merely€because€aÏdifferent€procedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliamsÏv.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,€280€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€petitioner's€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€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€a€petitioner€"mustÏshow€that€counsel's€representa‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonƒableness"€and€that€this€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€aÏreasonable€probability€that€but€for€coun‚sel's€error€the€result€of€the€proceedingÍwould€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,Ï692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€case€of€a€guilty€plea,€to€satisfy€the€requirement€of€prejudice,Ïthe€petitioner€must€demonstrate€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€coun‚sel'sÏerrors,€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59€(1985);€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,Ï215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àà àThe€record€in€the€present€case€reveals€that€the€petitioner,€with€theÏassistance€of€counsel,€pled€guilty€to€an€offense€which€he€did€not€actuallyÏcommit.€€More€importantly,€the€record€indicates€that€the€primary€motivation€forÏentering€the€guilty€plea€arose€from€the€petitionerððs,€and€his€counselððs,Ïmisunderstanding€of€the€law€as€it€applied€to€the€facts€of€the€case€at€bar.€ÏPetitionerððs€counsel€initially€had€doubts€regarding€whether€the€petitioner€hadÏcommitted€the€offense€of€escape€from€a€penal€institution.€€After€speaking€withÏthe€petitionerððs€Community€Corrections€supervisor,€however,€petitionerððsÏcounsel€ð ðfelt€like€there€had€been€an€escape€from€custody.ðð€€Thus,€after€initiallyÏbelieving€that€there€was€an€issue€as€to€whether€the€petitionerððs€conductÏsatisfied€the€statutory€elements€of€escape,€petitionerððs€counsel€ð ðdecided€that€itÍwas€not€a€valid€defenseðð€and€advised€the€petitioner€regarding€his€professionalÏopinion,€resulting€in€the€petitionerððs€desire€to€resolve€the€matter€quickly€throughÏa€guilty€plea.ÌÌà àà àThe€principal€shortcoming€on€the€part€of€petitionerððs€counsel€wasÏhis€focus€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€petitioner€was€ð ðin€custodyðð€for€theÏpurposes€of€the€escape€statute,€to€the€exclusion€of€any€analysis€of€whether€theÏpetitioner€escaped€ð ðfrom€a€penal€institution.ðð€€However€petitionerððs€counselÏresolved€the€ð ðcustodyðð€issue,€it€is€clear€from€the€plain€language€of€the€escapeÏstatute€that€there€was€a€serious€question€as€to€whether€Community€CorrectionsÏqualified€as€a€ð ðpenal€institution.ðð€€With€an€adequate€review€of€the€escapeÏstatute,€petitionerððs€counsel€should€have€pursued€this€issue.€€Furthermore,Ïupon€recognition€of€this€significant€issue,€counsel€could€have€at€least€sought€toÏcertify€a€question€of€law€upon€entry€of€the€guilty€plea.€€This€course€of€actionÏwould€have€allowed€the€petitioner€to€maintain€the€benefit€of€the€minimumÏsentence€recommendation€associated€with€his€guilty€plea€while€preserving€hisÏability€to€question€the€validity€of€his€conviction€under€the€escape€statute.€€FromÏthis€record,€we€can€only€conclude€that€counselððs€misunderstanding€of€the€lawÏas€it€applied€to€the€facts€of€the€petitionerððs€case€resulted€from€the€lack€ofÏreasonable€review€of€the€applicable€statutory€provisions.€€We€therefore€find€thatÍin€allowing€the€petitioner€to€plead€guilty€to€an€offense€which€he€clearly€did€notÏcommit€because€of€an€uninformed€analysis€of€how€the€law€applied€to€the€factsÏof€the€case,€petitionerððs€counselððs€performance€was€constitutionally€deficient.ÌÌà àà àWe€recognize€that€there€is€no€proof€in€the€record€of€the€post„conviction€proceeding€to€support€the€second€prong€of€òòStricklandóó,€that€counselððsÏperformance€prejudiced€the€petitioner.€€It€appears€from€the€record€thatÏargument€from€counsel€regarding€the€interpretation€of€the€escape€statuteÏoccupied€the€vast€majority€of€time€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Amidst€theÏdebate€concerning€statutory€interpretation,€the€petitioner€offered€no€evidenceÏthat,€but€for€counselððs€error€at€the€guilty€plea€proceeding,€he€would€haveÏinsisted€on€going€to€trial.€€We€find,€however,€that€it€was€plain€error€to€convict€theÏpetitioner€of€escape€from€a€penal€institution€when€the€admitted,€unchallengedÏfacts€clearly€do€not€constitute€that€criminal€offense.€€The€record€convincinglyÏestablishes€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€relief€and,€thus,€our€consideration€ofÏcounselððs€error€at€the€guilty€plea€proceeding€is€necessary€to€do€substantialÏjustice.€€Fundamental€fairness€requires€that€the€petitionerððs€conviction€forÏescape€from€a€penal€institution€be€set€aside€and€dismissed.ÌÌà àà àHaving€resolved€this€case€upon€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistanceÍof€counsel,€we€find€it€unnecessary€to€delve€into€the€intricacies€of€the€petitionerððsÏargument€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€entering€judgment€on€the€petitionerððs€guiltyÏplea€without€a€factual€basis€to€support€it,€in€violation€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(f)Ïand€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó.€€We€note,€however,€that€given€the€purposes€of€the€òòMackeyóóÏrequirements,€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€accepting€hisÏplea€in€the€absence€of€a€factual€basis€is€actually€a€challenge€to€theÏvoluntariness€of€his€plea.€€Yet€as€our€Supreme€Court€has€often€stated,€aÏchallenge€to€the€voluntariness€of€a€guilty€plea€based€on€violation€of€òòMackeyóóÏprecepts€which€exceed€the€requirements€of€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,Ï89€S.Ct.€1709,€23€L.Ed.2d€274€(1969),€is€not€a€constitutional€claim€and€is€not,Ïtherefore,€properly€raised€in€a€post„conviction€petition.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏFrazieróó,€784€S.W.2d€927,€928€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Princeóó,€781€S.W.2d€846,Ï853€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€òòBoykinóó€court€focused€on€the€defendantððs€understandingÏof€the€right€to€trial€by€jury,€the€right€against€self„incrimination,€and€the€right€toÏconfrontation,€holding€that€it€could€not€presume€a€waiver€of€those€threeÏconstitutional€rights€from€a€silent€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòBoykinóó,€395€U.S.€at€243,€89€S.Ct.Ïat€1712.€€It€appears,€then,€that€the€ð ðfactual€basisðð€requirement€from€òòMackeyóó€hasÏsupervisory€rather€than€constitutional€roots,€and€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€by€entering€judgment€on€his€guilty€plea€without€a€proper€factualÏbasis€is€therefore€not€cognizable€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.ÌÌà àà àOur€resolution€of€the€petitionerððs€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏissue€in€his€favor€does€not€end€our€consideration€of€all€matters€brought€forth€inÏthe€present€case.€€In€analyzing€the€Stateððs€contention€that€the€petitioner€was€noÏlonger€a€participant€with€the€Community€Corrections€Program€at€the€time€of€hisÏdeparture€from€Gannððs€office€on€March€2,€1994,€we€are€implicitly€faced€with€theÏlarger€issue€of€whether€the€procedures€followed€in€Hamilton€County€for€theÏrevocation€of€a€Community€Corrections€sentence€comport€with€constitutionalÏdue€process€requirements.€€Based€on€our€review€of€the€record€in€the€case€atÏbar,€we€are€convinced€that€Hamilton€Countyððs€revocation€procedures€violateÏthe€due€process€rights€of€those€individuals€whose€Community€CorrectionsÏsentences€are€revoked.ÌÌà àà àAs€we€explained€above,€the€petitioner€was€originally€assigned€toÏthe€Hamilton€County€Community€Corrections€Program€by€order€of€the€trial€courtÏupon€his€convictions€for€three€counts€of€selling€cocaine.€€The€assigning€order,Ïentered€in€December€of€1993,€purported€to€authorize€the€CommunityÏCorrections€Program€staff€to€ð ðadministratively€re„transfer€the€defendant€to€theÏincarcerating€institutionðð€in€the€event€that€he€violated€any€of€the€conditions€ofÏhis€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€It€also€ordered€the€incarceratingÍinstitution€to€accept€the€petitioner€should€he€be€administratively€re„transferredÏby€the€Community€Corrections€Program€staff.€€The€assigning€order€providedÏfurther€that€the€petitioner€could€challenge€the€transfer€by€filing€an€appropriateÏmotion€with€the€trial€court,€but€the€challenge€would€not€affect€his€physicalÏtransfer€to€the€incarcerating€institution.ÌÌà àà àThe€removal€order,€entered€by€the€trial€court€in€response€to€theÏletter€from€the€Community€Corrections€Program€staff€informing€the€trial€courtÏthat€the€petitioner€had€failed€a€drug€test,€stated€simply€that€the€petitioner€hadÏviolated€the€conditions€of€the€program€and€ordered€his€removal€from€theÏprogram.€€The€order€did€not€specify€which€condition€the€petitioner€had€violatedÏand€did€not€contain€any€findings€other€than€the€conclusory€statement€that€theÏpetitioner€had€violated€the€conditions€of€the€program.€€No€hearing€wasÏconducted€at€any€time€prior€to€the€entry€of€the€removal€order€to€determine€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€petitionerððs€alleged€violation€of€the€conditions€ofÏthe€program.€€Nor€was€any€hearing€conducted€to€determine€if€revocation€wasÏthe€proper€response€to€the€alleged€violation.€€The€order€called€for€the€issuanceÏof€a€workhouse€capias€for€the€arrest€of€the€defendant,€but€no€capias€was€everÏissued.ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€hearing€on€the€post„conviction€petition,€the€trial€courtÏexplained€the€Community€Corrections€procedures€exemplified€by€the€aboveÏorders.ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓÌLetððs€see.€€Mr.€Heinsman,€we€might€for€the€recordÏstate€that€the€Community€Corrections€Program€inÏHamilton€County€or€in€the€Eleventh€Judicial€DistrictÏdiffers€from€nearly€every€program€in€the€state.€€InÏmost€areas€of€the€state,€somebody€is€placed€on€aÏsuspended€sentence€and€assigned€to€CommunityÏCorrections.ÌÌà àUnder€our€program,€which€has€not€beenÏchallenged,€an€individual€does€not€receive€aÏsuspended€sentence.€€He€is€just€„„€heððs€in€custodyÏand€he€receives€jail€credit€the€same,€and€our€ordersÏprovide€that€the€Community€Corrections€officers€takeÏhim€out€of€jail€and€if€he€doesnððt€obey€their€rules,€putÏhim€back€in€jail.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÌÓÓThe€trial€court€took€judicial€notice€of€the€manner€in€which€the€Hamilton€CountyÏCommunity€Corrections€Program€operates€and€found€that€the€appropriateÏprocedures€were€properly€followed€in€the€petitionerððs€case.ÌÌà àà àThe€starting€point€of€our€analysis€of€the€Hamilton€CountyÏCommunity€Corrections€Program€procedures€is,€of€course,€the€CommunityÏCorrections€Act€of€1985.€€With€regard€to€the€revocation€of€a€CommunityÍCorrections€sentence,€the€Act€provides€as€follows:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓà àÌThe€òòcourtóó€òòshallóó€also€òòpossessóó€the€power€to€revoke€theÏsentence€imposed€at€any€time€due€to€the€conduct€ofÏthe€defendant€...,€and€the€court€may€resentence€theÏdefendant€to€any€appropriate€sentencing€alternative,Ïincluding€incarceration,€for€any€period€of€time€up€toÏthe€maximum€sentence€provided€for€the€offenseÏcommitted,€less€any€time€actually€served€in€anyÏcommunity„based€alternative€to€incarceration.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(3)€(1990)€(emphasis€added).€€The€Act€provides€that€theÏpower€to€revoke€a€Community€Corrections€sentence€rests€within€the€soundÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.€€The€language€of€the€Act€is€mandatory€andÏexclusive.ÌÌà àà àHamilton€County€revocation€procedures,€however,€seeminglyÏplace€extensive€authority€with€the€Community€Corrections€Program€staff.€€FromÏthe€record€before€this€Court,€it€appears€that€the€trial€courtððs€removal€order€isÏmerely€a€perfunctory€step€in€the€process€of€revocation€determined€and€carriedÏout€almost€exclusively€by€the€Community€Corrections€Program€staff.€€ForÏinstance,€in€the€present€case€the€Community€Corrections€Program€staffÏdetermined€that€the€petitioner€had€violated€the€conditions€of€his€sentence.€€TheÏProgram€staff€then€sent€a€letter€to€the€trial€court€requesting€the€petitionerððsÍremoval€from€the€program,€which€the€trial€court€granted€in€a€conclusory,Ïsummary€fashion.€€The€Program€staff,€acting€in€accordance€with€HamiltonÏCounty€procedures,€took€it€upon€themselves€to€ð ðadministratively€re„transferðð€theÏpetitioner€to€an€incarcerating€institution.ÌÌà àà àAt€no€time€during€the€process€of€revoking€the€petitionerððsÏCommunity€Corrections€sentence€was€the€petitioner€granted€a€hearing€or€anyÏsimilar€opportunity€to€know,€question€or€challenge€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€his€alleged€violation€of€the€conditions€of€his€CommunityÏCorrections€sentence.€€Moreover,€at€no€time€during€the€revocation€process€wasÏthe€petitioner€given€the€opportunity€to€present€evidence€on€his€own€behalf,€toÏconfront€the€witnesses€testifying€against€him,€or€to€cross„examine€thoseÏwitnesses.ÌÌà àà àThe€procedures€outlined€above€do€not€comport€with€theÏprocedures€set€forth€in€the€Community€Corrections€Act€of€1985.€€In€the€firstÏplace,€the€determination€as€to€whether€an€individual€has€violated€the€conditionsÏof€a€Community€Corrections€sentence€rests€solely€with€the€trial€court.€ÏFurthermore,€the€decision€as€to€the€appropriate€action€to€take€regardingÏmodification€of€a€Community€Corrections€sentence€in€the€wake€of€a€violationÍalso€rests€solely€with€the€trial€court.€€It€goes€without€saying€that€differentÏviolations€of€the€conditions€of€a€Community€Corrections€sentence€allow€forÏdifferent€remedies.€€Depending€upon€the€circumstances€of€a€case,€an€individualÏmay€be€returned€to€an€incarcerating€institution,€or€the€conditions€of€theÏsentence€may€be€modified,€or€no€changes€whatsoever€may€be€made€to€theÏoriginal€sentence.€€Whatever€the€appropriate€remedy€to€a€violation€may€be,€theÏdecision€as€to€whether€and€how€to€modify€a€Community€Corrections€sentenceÏlies€with€the€trial€court€after€hearing€all€of€the€relevant€evidence€in€the€case.€ÏThe€Hamilton€County€procedures€vest€this€discretion€with€the€CommunityÏCorrections€Program€staff,€as€evidenced€by€the€sequence€of€events€whichÏtranspired€in€the€case€at€bar.€€From€a€review€of€the€record€before€us,€we€findÏthat€the€Hamilton€County€procedures€improperly€transfer€functions€reserved€toÏthe€trial€court€to€the€Community€Corrections€Program€staff,€in€directÏcontravention€of€the€revocation€procedures€outlined€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(3).ÌÌà àà àOf€equal€concern€is€the€lack€of€a€hearing€prior€to€the€revocation€ofÏthe€petitionerððs€Community€Corrections€sentence€and€his€transfer€back€to€anÏincarcerating€institution.€€From€the€orders€and€explanation€of€procedures€givenÏby€the€trial€court€in€the€present€case,€the€revocation€process€followed€inÍHamilton€County€simply€does€not€provide€for€a€hearing€to€determine€if€aÏviolation€of€the€conditions€of€the€Community€Corrections€sentence€occurred,Ïnor€does€it€provide€for€a€hearing€to€determine€what€modification€of€theÏCommunity€Corrections€sentence€is€appropriate€given€the€finding€of€a€violationÏof€the€conditions€of€the€sentence.€€Instead,€Hamilton€County€procedures€allowÏan€individual€five€days€to€file€a€motion€contesting€the€revocation€after€theÏtransfer€to€an€incarcerating€institution€has€already€begun,€thereby€shifting€theÏburden€to€the€prisoner€to€prove€that€he€or€she€is€entitled€to€remain€a€participantÏin€the€Community€Corrections€Program.€€We€believe€that,€by€dispensing€withÏproper€notice€and€a€hearing€both€to€determine€if€a€violation€of€the€conditions€ofÏa€Community€Corrections€sentence€occurred€and€to€decide€an€appropriateÏremedy€in€response€to€a€violation,€the€revocation€procedures€followed€inÏHamilton€County€violate€the€due€process€rights€of€those€individualsÏparticipating€in€the€Community€Corrections€Program€whose€sentences€areÏrevoked.€€òòCf.óó€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€781„782,€93€S.Ct.€1756,€1759„1760,€36€L.Ed.2d€656€(1973);€òòMorrissey€v.€Breweróó,€408€U.S.€471,€484„489,€92ÏS.Ct.€2593,€2602„2604,€33€L.Ed.2d€484€(1972).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€recent€case€of€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79€(Tenn.Ï1991),€our€Supreme€Court€held€that,€given€the€similar€nature€of€a€CommunityÍCorrections€sentence€and€probation,€the€same€principles€applicable€in€theÏrevocation€of€probation€should€apply€in€the€revocation€of€a€CommunityÏCorrections€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€83€(Tenn.€1991).€ÏMore€specifically,€the€Harkins€court€held€that€the€same€standard€of€reviewÏapplied€in€cases€of€probation€revocation,€namely€abuse€of€discretion,€applies€toÏcases€of€Community€Corrections€revocation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82.€ÏWe€agree€that€Community€Corrections€and€probation,€as€a€practical€matter,Ïclosely€resemble€each€other.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82.€€In€fact,€we€findÏthem€sufficiently€similar€in€nature€to€justify€applying€similar€revocationÏprocedures€to€both€types€of€sentences.€€òòCf.óó€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82„83.€€WeÏtherefore€conclude€that€the€procedures€used€in€the€revocation€of€a€CommunityÏCorrections€sentence€should€be€no€less€stringent€than€those€used€in€theÏrevocation€of€probation.ÌÌà àà àThe€procedures€for€the€revocation€of€probation€stem€from€the€U.S.ÏSupreme€Court€case€of€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€93€S.Ct.€1756,€36ÏL.Ed.2d€656€(1973),€and€were€codified€by€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€ActÏof€1989.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„311€provides€for€notice€and€a€hearing€at€the€earliestÏpracticable€time€after€the€arrest€of€the€defendant€for€violation€of€the€conditionsÏof€probation€to€determine€if€there€has€indeed€been€a€violation.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ððÍ40„35„311(b)€(1990).€€The€defendant€must€be€present€at€the€hearing,€is€entitledÏto€be€represented€by€counsel,€and€has€the€right€to€introduce€testimony€is€his€orÏher€own€behalf.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„311(b)€(1990).€€If€the€trial€court€finds€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€a€violation€occurred,€he€or€she€may€revokeÏprobation,€but€the€defendant€has€the€right€to€appeal€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„311(d)€(1990).€€These€general€procedures€exist€toÏinsure€that€the€loss€of€liberty€entailed€by€the€revocation€of€probation€isÏaccomplished€with€proper€regard€for€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,Ï411€U.S.€at€781„782,€93€S.Ct.€at€1759„1760;€òòPracty€v.€Stateóó,€525€S.W.2d€677,Ï682€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).€€We€conclude€that€the€use€of€similar€proceduresÏin€Community€Corrections€cases€will€insure€that€the€loss€of€liberty€entailed€byÏthe€revocation€of€a€Community€Corrections€sentence€is€also€accomplished€withÏproper€regard€for€due€process.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€out€in€the€foregoing€discussion,€we€find€thatÏthe€petitioner€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€guilty€pleaÏproceeding.€€It€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€this€violation€of€the€petitionerððsÏSixth€Amendment€right€was€caused€in€some€measure€by€the€constitutionallyÏinadequate€procedures€followed€in€Hamilton€County€for€the€revocation€of€aÏCommunity€Corrections€sentence,€principally€the€lack€of€proper€notice€and€aÍhearing€prior€to€the€revocation€to€determine€whether€a€violation€of€theÏconditions€of€the€petitionerððs€sentence€actually€occurred€and€what€modificationÏof€the€sentence€best€serves€the€purposes€of€criminal€sentencing.ÌÌà àà àFrom€a€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€deny€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€andÏhereby€vacate€the€petitionerððs€conviction€for€escape€from€a€penal€œinstitution€andÏdismiss€that€charge.›× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€Senior€Judge