ÿWPC±! …# VU:a %› 0¡w@¥ 4å ù 0H 0DP ” 0Jœ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dyU*ÝB)DC0 AMs BÀÆÝ¥£v~HvÓÆ D3™ 0@Ì AO Æ[ 0D!! D/e! B”!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ &['[([)[*[+[,[-[. e/Ó€R¦"3|x:(ø(3T$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ŸÆXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø 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< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òMayÏ29,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔOther€portions€of€counselððs€testimony€reinforce€this€conclusion.€€Counsel€testified€thatÏappellant€had€not€decided,€prior€to€entry€of€his€plea,€whether€the€shooting€was€done€in€self„defense€or€ifÏit€was€merely€an€accident.€€Understandably,€this€made€it€difficult€for€counsel€to€construct€a€definite€plan€ofÏdefense€and€rendered€testimony€from€witnesses€about€the€victimððs€character€of€questionable€relevance.€ÏBecause€there€is€proof€that€counsel€was€pursuing€appellantððs€defense,€we€cannot€say€that€counselððsÏactions€in€this€regard€were€deficient.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›œÙ€€ÙßR€#%"A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌÌà@ à€€JANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌRICHARD€DUANE€CARROLL,à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9603„CR„00139€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌGregory€D.€Smithà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌOne€Public€Squareà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€321à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àà àClinton€J.€Morganà àà àà àÌ(On€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌWilliam€A.€Dobson,€Jr.à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌ701€Cherry€StreetÌSuite€300à àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Cox,€IIIà àÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ(At€hearing)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLeland€DavisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Richard€Duane€Carroll,€appeals€as€of€right€the€denial€by€theÏHamilton€County€Criminal€Court€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€AppellantððsÏonly€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€he€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€priorÏto€entering€his€plea€of€guilty.€€Finding€no€merit€to€appellantððs€claims,€we€affirm€the€trialÏcourtððs€denial€of€relief.€Ìà àAppellant€was€indicted€for€the€first„degree€premeditated€murder€of€RonaldÏPotter.€€Apparently,€appellant€was€living€with€the€victimððs€mother€and€shot€the€victimÏlate€one€night€inside€the€trailer€where€they€were€living.€€The€victim€was€shot€onceÏbetween€the€eyes€and€appellant€fled€the€scene€in€his€van.€€Ìà àPursuant€to€a€plea€agreement,€appellant€pled€guilty€to€second€degree€murderÏon€October€4,€1994.€€The€plea€agreement€recommended€a€sentence€of€fifteen€toÏtwenty€years€with€twenty€years€being€the€maximum€sentence€that€appellant€couldÏreceive.€€The€trial€court€later€sentenced€appellant€to€the€agreed€upon€maximum€as€aÏRange€I€offender.€€Ìà àAppellant€filed€his€pro€se€post„conviction€petition€on€June€1,€1995,€alleging€theÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€After€the€appointment€of€counsel,€an€amendedÏpetition€was€filed€alleging€the€same€ground€for€relief.€€In€the€petition,€appellantÏclaimed€that€counsel€failed€to€interview€the€witnesses€he€suggested,€advised€himÍincorrectly€about€the€law€of€self„defense,€and€that€counsel€generally€failed€to€prepareÏfor€trial€or€investigate€appellantððs€case.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€appellantððsÏspecific€complaints€were€that€counsel€did€not€talk€with€him€enough€before€the€pleaÏand€that€he€failed€to€inform€him€of€the€Stateððs€proof.€€More€importantly,€he€stated€thatÏthe€crux€of€his€petition€was€that€counsel€failed€to€interview€certain€witnesses€who€hadÏinformation€concerning€the€victimððs€character.€Ìà àAfter€hearing€appellantððs€testimony€and€comparing€it€with€the€testimony€of€hisÏformer€counsel,€the€trial€court€remarked€that€a€decision€on€appellantððs€petition€restedÏupon€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€€It€recognized€that€the€Stateððs€proof€againstÏappellant€was€strong,€but€acknowledged€counselððs€willingness€to€take€appellantððsÏcase€to€trial€had€he€chosen€to€do€so.€€The€court€then€found€that€counselððs€testimonyÏwas€more€credible€and€that€counsel€provided€effective€assistance.€Ìà àIn€reviewing€the€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€renderedÏby€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€aÏclaim€of€ineffective€counsel,€an€appellant€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððs€representationÏfell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€this€performanceÏprejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694,Ï104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064,€2067„68,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2dÍ421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€The€inability€to€prove€either€prong€results€inÏfailure€of€the€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697.€€Ìà àThe€most€difficult€burden€on€an€appellant€is€demonstrating€the€prejudice€heÏhas€suffered€by€the€alleged€error.€€In€order€to€prevail€on€that€ground,€the€appellantÏmust€show€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counselððs€error€the€result€of€theÏproceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòId.óó€€€In€the€context€of€a€guilty€plea,€theÏappellant€must€show€that€but€for€counselððs€errors€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€andÏwould€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€53,€106€S.Ct.€366,Ï88€L.Ed.2d€203€(1985).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,€914€S.W.2d€97,€101€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€899€S.W.2d€648,Ï653€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àIn€order€to€sustain€his€post„conviction€petition,€the€appellant€must€prove€hisÏallegations€of€fact€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„210(f)Ï(Supp.€1996).€€Upon€review,€this€Court€cannot€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€ÏWe€give€deference€to€questions€about€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€asÏthey€are€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€Furthermore,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€onÏappeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÍòòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2d€689,€697€(Tenn.€1995)€(citations€omitted);€òòCooper€v.ÏStateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993)€(citation€omitted).Ìà àAccording€to€appellant,€his€main€contention€is€that€counsel€failed€to€interviewÏcertain€witnesses€who€could€have€provided€information€about€the€victimððs€character.€ÏThe€petition€names€five€witnesses€who€would€have€provided€such€information.€ÏAppellant€argues€that€such€information€was€highly€relevant€to€a€theory€of€self„defense.€€He€does€admit,€however,€that€these€witnesses€were€not€present€when€theÏshooting€occurred€and€could€not€have€provided€any€firsthand€accounts€of€theÏincident.Ìà àAppellantððs€counsel€from€the€guilty€plea€hearing€testified€that€appellant€didÏprovide€him€with€the€names€of€several€witnesses.€€In€particular,€he€remembered€thatÏone€visited€his€office€and€they€talked€for€about€30€to€45€minutes.€€After€theirÏconversation,€he€determined€that€the€person€had€very€little€information€that€wouldÏhave€been€helpful€to€appellant.€€Counsel€could€not€specifically€remember€whetherÏthis€person€provided€any€information€about€the€character€of€the€victim.€€Ìà àThomas€James,€one€of€the€witnesses€listed€in€the€petition€for€relief,€testified€atÏthe€evidentiary€hearing.€€James€stated€that€he€had€worked€on€construction€with€theÏappellant€and€had€visited€the€trailer€where€he€lived€on€four€or€five€occasions.€ÏHowever,€he€stated€that€he€ð ðbarely€did€know€the€people.ðð€€More€importantly,€heÏtestified€that€he€did€not€know€the€victim€and€he€was€never€at€the€trailer€when€theÍvictim€was€present.€€Jonesðð€testimony€clearly€demonstrates€that€appellant€suffered€noÏprejudice€from€counselððs€failure€to€interview€this€witness.€€Jones€simply€had€noÏinformation€benefitting€appellant.Ìà àThe€remaining€four€witnesses€named€in€the€petition€did€not€testify€at€theÏevidentiary€hearing.€€Post„conviction€counsel€explained€that€two€other€witnessesÏwere€subpoenaed,€but€failed€to€appear€at€the€hearing€and€one€other€witness€lived€inÏGeorgia€and€could€not€be€subpoenaed.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€their€unwillingnessÏto€appear€at€an€evidentiary€hearing€likely€meant€that€they€would€not€have€appearedÏat€a€trial€for€appellant.€€Ìà àWithout€the€benefit€of€the€proposed€testimony€of€the€witnesses,€we€are€unableÏto€determine€whether€appellant€suffered€any€prejudice.€€In€order€to€establishÏprejudice€from€counselððs€failure€to€interview€witnesses,€the€witnesses€must€beÏpresented€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€to€demonstrate€what€information€he€or€sheÏpossessed.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€theÏabsence€of€such€testimony,€the€trial€court€is€left€to€speculate€on€the€substance€of€theÏtestimony€and€whether€it€would€have€affected€the€outcome€of€appellantððs€case.€€òòId.óó€ÏAppellant€has€failed€to€fulfill€an€essential€element€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test€on€this€issue.€€Ìà àAs€an€aside,€we€must€question€the€relevancy€of€these€witnessesðð€proposedÏtestimony.€€Much€like€Thomas€Jones,€it€is€unlikely€that€they€would€have€possessedÏany€information€relative€to€appellantððs€proposed€self„defense€claim.€€The€trial€courtÍasked€appellant€to€describe€what€these€witnesses€would€have€said.€€AppellantÏreplied€that€they€would€have€testified€that€ð ðthe€boy€was€coming€in€and€out.ðð€€We€areÏunable€to€determine,€as€was€the€trial€court,€what€bearing€this€information€would€haveÏhad€on€appellantððs€case.€€Proof€of€such€questionable€relevance€is€not€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€that€appellant€suffered€prejudice,€i.e.€that€he€would€haveÏchosen€to€go€to€trial€in€light€of€this€information.€€€€Ìà àMoreover,€the€record€reflects€that€counsel€was€working€in€pursuit€of€appellantððsÏdefense.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€and€appellant€discussed€the€victimððs€mentalÏcondition€extensively€and€that€he€obtained€some€medical€records€pertaining€to€theÏvictimððs€mental€health.€€Merely€because€counsel€used€a€tactic€different€from€thatÏsuggested€by€appellant€in€his€defense€does€not€render€his€performance€deficient.€€ÏThe€proof€that€counsel€investigated€the€victimððs€mental€state€and€obtained€medicalÏrecords€provided€much€more€credible€information€for€appellantððs€defense€andÏsupports€the€adequacy€of€counselððs€performance.× ƒ& ××  ×€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àAppellant€also€claims€that€counsel€did€not€meet€with€him€enough€prior€to€theÏentry€of€his€plea,€nor€was€counsel€interested€in€his€version€of€the€facts.€€According€toÍappellant,€counsel€only€met€with€him€at€the€jail€twice€and€spoke€with€him€for€fifteenÏminutes€on€each€occasion.€€However,€counsel€testified€that€he€and€appellant€ð ðhad€aÏnumber€of€conversations,ðð€although€he€could€not€recall€how€many€times€he€visitedÏappellant.€€Counsel€was€aware€of€appellantððs€version€of€the€incident€because€heÏreviewed€the€statement€appellant€gave€to€police€and€then€talked€with€appellant€aboutÏits€substance.€€Furthermore,€counsel€testified€that€he€and€appellant€thoroughlyÏdiscussed€self„defense€and€the€defense€of€accident.€€The€trial€court€has€the€duty€ofÏresolving€conflicting€testimony€at€evidentiary€hearings€and€credited€counselððsÏtestimony€on€this€issue.€€Such€a€determination€is€within€the€exclusive€purview€of€theÏtrial€court€and€we€will€not€disturb€such€a€finding.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€à àÌà àAppellantððs€last€complaint€is€that€counsel€did€not€provide€him€with€anyÏinformation€about€the€Stateððs€case€against€him.€€He€testified€that€he€was€unaware€ofÏwho€the€Stateððs€witnesses€would€have€been,€he€did€not€see€the€autopsy€report€or€anyÏpolice€reports,€nor€did€he€know€if€a€weapon€was€found€on€the€victim.€€In€contrast,€theÏrecord€indicates€that€appellant€in€fact€did€possess€the€requisite€information€about€theÏStateððs€case€which€was€necessary€to€make€an€informed€decision.€€Ìà àAppellant€was€present€at€his€preliminary€hearing€during€which€he€would€haveÏheard€a€portion€of€the€Stateððs€proof.€€In€addition,€the€State€presented€the€trial€courtÏwith€a€synopsis€of€its€proof€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€At€that€hearing,€appellantÍtestified€that€he€had€read€the€indictment€and€understood€the€charges.€€Moreover,Ïappellant€had€given€a€statement€to€law€enforcement€officials€admitting€to€the€shootingÏand€professing€hatred€of€the€victim.€€This,€in€and€of€itself,€likely€constituted€a€largeÏportion€of€the€Stateððs€case.€€Contrary€to€his€contention,€it€appears€that€the€appellantÏwas€well„informed€about€the€case€against€him€and€wisely€chose€to€accept€the€pleaÏagreement€in€light€of€the€substantial€proof€possessed€by€the€State.€€AppellantððsÏtestimony€in€this€regard€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€clear€and€convincing€evidence€ofÏcounselððs€deficient€performance.€€€€Ìà àIn€sum,€appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÏthat€he€would€have€chosen€to€go€to€trial€had€it€not€been€for€the€deficient€performanceÏof€counsel.€€In€accordance€with€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€we€find€that€counsel€renderedÏeffective€assistance€and€that€appellantððs€constitutional€rights€were€not€infringed.€€WeÏaffirm€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge