ÿWPC7 2UBÌ %U.BnXR 04ª4Þò 1mú 0cgw@Ê 0J  0TT 0^¨ 0h 0rn 0|à 0†\ 0â 1ur 0dç 0@K D3‹ B¾ U6Û B) DC: AM} AQÊ Æ 0Dá 0D% D/i B˜ 1µ v~ævÓd<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X«<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 DPPUUUD Ó€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$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òApril€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(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  ÝÑ7€(XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ô›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ*ÙßR€(/'A1-j|Úÿ ` Å `€€@ÿRß›Ìà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓ  Óà@ àFEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òRONALD€COLLIER,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€ó ó€ò ò02C01„9608„CC„00284ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLAUDERDALE€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JON€KERRYÏBLACKWOOD,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 òTROY€L.€BROOKSó óà àò òà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONó óÌ127€S.€Third€St.€€€à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌClarksville,€TN€€37040Ì€€€€€(On€appeal)ò òà àà àà àà àà àDEBORAH€A.€TULLISó óà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìò òD.€MICHAEL€DUNAVANTà àó óà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌBank€of€Ripley€Building,ÌœP.O.€Box€150›à àà àà àà àà àœò òELIZABETH›€T.€RICEó óÌ€Ripley,€TN€€38063à àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€€€€(At€hearing)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òMARK€DAVIDSONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€ComplexÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRipley,€TN€€38063à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,ÌœJudge›ÌÓ  ÓÌÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner€was€indicted€on€charges€of€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€especially€aggravated€robbery,€escape,€aggravated€assault,€and€theft.€ÏOn€October€15,€1993,€without€the€benefit€of€a€plea€agreement,€the€petitioner€pledÏguilty€to€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€especially€aggravated€robbery,€andÏescape.€€The€State€dismissed€the€remaining€charges.€€After€a€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏsentenced€the€petitioner€to€œthirty€years›€for€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,Ïœthirty„seven›€years€for€the€especially€aggravated€robbery,€and€four€years€for€theÏescape.€€The€first€two€sentences€are€concurrent,€but€the€four€year€sentence€isÍconsecutive.ÌÌà àà àIn€September€œ1995,›€the€petitioner€filed€a€pro€se€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Counsel€was€appointed€and€three€amended€petitions€were€filed.€ÏAfter€a€hearing,€his€claim€for€relief€was€denied.€€It€is€from€this€denial€that€he€nowÏappeals.€€The€petitioner€first€claims€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€by€theÏmulti„count€indictment.€€He€further€claims€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€in€that€his€counsel€failed€to€file€a€written€motion€to€dismiss€a€portion€of€theÏindictment€and€that€his€counsel€failed€to€adequately€investigate€his€case.€€After€a€Ïreview€of€the€record,€we€find€no€merit€to€either€of€these€claims.€€Accordingly,€we€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÌà àà àIn€May€1993,€the€petitioner€was€an€inmate€at€Fort€Pillow€MinimumÏSecurity€Annex.€€He€had€been€assigned€to€work€as€a€parts€stock€clerk€in€the€nearbyÏhigh€security€annex€under€the€supervision€of€a€prison€employee.€€On€May€14,€theÏdefendant€struck€his€supervisor€approximately€eight€times€with€a€pipe€wrench.€€HeÏthen€ordered€the€supervisor€to€surrender€his€car€keys€and€his€clothing.€€TheÏsupervisor€did€as€instructed,€and€the€petitioner€then€tied€the€supervisorððs€hands€andÏfeet€and€left€him€bleeding€and€badly€injured.€€The€supervisor€was€able€to€free€hisÍhands€but€could€not€remove€the€restraints€on€his€feet.€€He€hopped€outside€and€yelledÏfor€help.€€Prison€guards€answered€his€call€for€help€and€alerted€prison€officials€of€theÏpetitionerððs€escape.€€The€petitioner€was€apprehended€shortly€thereafter.ÌÌà àà àAs€his€first€issue,€the€petitioner€argues€that€his€due€process€rights€wereÏviolated€by€the€multi„count€indictment.€€He€argues€that€under€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817ÏS.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991),€he€should€not€have€been€indicted€for€both€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€and€especially€aggravated€robbery€because€the€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€was€ð ðessentially€incidentalðð€to€the€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€Thus,€he€alleges,€to€convict€him€of€both€counts€is€a€violation€of€his€dueÏprocess€rights.€ÌÌà àà àHowever,€because€he€pled€guilty€to€the€charges,€he€cannot€now€directlyÏattack€the€indictment€in€his€request€for€post„conviction€relief.€€œð ð[A]›€guilty€pleaÏrepresents€a€break€in€the€chain€of€events€which€has€preceded€it€in€the€criminalÏprocess.€€When€a€criminal€defendant€has€solemnly€admitted€in€open€court€that€he€isÏin€fact€guilty€of€the€offense€with€which€he€is€charged,€he€may€not€thereafter€raiseÏindependent€claims€relating€to€the€deprivation€of€constitutional€rights€that€occurredÏprior€to€the€entry€of€the€guilty€plea.ðð€€òòTollett€v.€Hendersonóó,€411€U.S.€258,€œ267€(1973).›€ÍA€plea€that€is€entered€voluntarily,€understandingly€and€intelligently€constitutes€aÏwaiver€of€all€procedural€and€constitutional€defects€in€the€proceedings€that€may€haveÏoccurred€prior€to€the€entry€of€the€plea.€€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€œ354›€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1995).€€Thus,€the€petitioner€has€waived€this€issue€and€he€cannot€nowÏcomplain€that€the€indictment€was€defective.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€can,€however,€complain€that€his€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏfor€not€challenging€the€indictment€and€for€not€seeking€to€have€one€count€dismissedÏunder€òòAnthonyóó.€€This€is€essentially€what€the€petitioner€complains€about€in€his€secondÏissue.€€He€claims€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€because€she€failed€to€file€a€motionÏto€dismiss€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€charge.Ìà àà àÌà 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€thatÍbut€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,€the€petitioner€must€demonstrateÏa€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€coun‚selððs€errors,€he€would€not€have€pled€guiltyÏand€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59Ï(1985);€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).Ì€€€€€€€à àà àÌà àà àAt€his€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€neverÏdenied€that€the€incident€at€the€prison€had€occurred.€€He€simply€felt€that€he€should€notÏhave€been€charged€with€multiple€counts€for€the€single€episode.€€He€further€testifiedÏthat€he€was€aware€of€the€òòAnthonyóó€doctrine€and€that€he€and€his€counsel€hadÏdiscussed€the€possibility€of€dismissing€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€count.€ÏHe€also€testified€that€he€understood€what€it€meant€to€plead€guilty€and€that€it€had€beenÏhis€decision€not€to€go€to€trial.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitionerððs€trial€counsel,€Julie€Pillow,€testified€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing€that€she€and€the€petitioner€had€discussed€the€number€of€charges€on€severalÍoccasions.€€She€testified€that€she€had€planned€to€make€the€òòAnthonyóó€argument€on€theÏday€of€the€trial.€€Ultimately,€the€petitioner€decided€to€plead€guilty€on€the€day€for€whichÏthe€trial€was€set.€€Ms.€Pillow€admitted€that€her€failure€to€file€a€written€motion€may€haveÏbeen€an€oversight€on€her€part.€€However,€she€thought€the€trial€judge€would€only€ruleÏon€such€a€motion€after€hearing€the€proof€of€the€case€and€that€waiting€to€file€the€motionÏwas€not€inappropriate.€€Ms.€Pillow€also€testified€that€on€the€day€the€petitioner€enteredÏhis€plea,€she€attempted€to€work€out€the€kidnapping€and€robbery€charges,€but€that€sheÏwas€unsuccessful.€€Additionally,€she€testified€that€she€and€the€State€had€agreed€to€anÏearlier€plea€agreement€whereby€the€petitioner€would€plead€guilty€to€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€and€escape€only.€€However,€the€trial€court€judge€refused€toÏaccept€such€a€plea.€ÌÌà àà àIn€its€findings€of€fact,€the€post„conviction€court€concluded€that€Ms.€PillowÏand€the€petitioner€had€discussed€òòAnthonyóó€and€its€implications€on€numerousÏoccasions€and€that€Ms.€Pillow€was€prepared€to€argue€at€trial€that€the€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€charge€should€be€dismissed.€€The€court€then€concluded€thatÏMs.€Pillowððs€failure€to€file€an€òòAnthonyóó€motion€was€not€prejudicial€because€theÏespecially€aggravated€kidnapping€charge€would€not€have€been€dismissed.€€TheÏcourt€found€that€ð ðthe€kidnapping€did€not€begin€until€after€the€robbery€victim€had€beenÍbeaten€and€subdued.€€Thereafter,€the€petitioner€tied€up€the€victim€in€order€to€facilitateÏhis€escape.ððÌÌà àà àIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings‚,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trialÏcourt€in€hearings€ð ðare€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983).€€We€see€no€reason€to€disturb€the€courtððs€findings€of€fact.€€Furthermore,€weÏaccept€the€courtððs€conclusion€of€law€after€a€careful€application€of€the€principles€of€ÏòòAnthonyóó€to€the€facts€of€this€case.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòAnthonyóó,€two€criminal€cases€were€consolidated€in€which€eachÏdefendant€had€been€convicted€of€armed€robbery€and€aggravated€kidnapping€as€aÏresult€of€a€single€incident.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€issue€ofÏwhether€either€defendantððs€due€process€rights€had€been€violated€when€he€wasÏconvicted€of€these€two€crimes.€€The€Court€formulated€the€following€test€to€determineÏwhether€each€conviction€can€stand€on€its€own:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ \ ÒÓÓœÌ[W]hether›€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€isÏessentially€incidental€to€the€accompanying€felony€and€isÏnot,€therefore,€sufficient€to€support€a€separate€convictionÏfor€kidnapping,€or€whether€it€is€significant€enough,€in€andÍof€itself,€to€warrant€independent€œprosecution›€and€œis,›Ïtherefore,€sufficient€to€support€œsuch€a›€conviction.€.€.€.€[O]neÏmethod€of€resolving€this€question€is€to€ask€whether€theÏdefendantððs€conduct€ððsubstantially€increased€[the]€risk€ofÏharm€over€and€above€that€necessarily€present€in€the€œcrimeÏof€robbery›€itself.ðð̛̜€ÌÒ D ÒÒ \ ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓ817€S.W.2d€at€306€(citation€omitted).€€In€òòAnthonyóó,€the€Court€found€that€the€kidnappingÏconvictions€of€the€two€defendants€could€not€stand€on€their€own€because€none€of€theÏvictims€were€subjected€to€any€substantially€increased€risk€of€harm€in€addition€to€thatÏharm€which€was€necessarily€present€in€the€crime€of€robbery€itself.€€817€S.W.2d€atÏ307.€€None€of€the€victims€œwas›€in€any€way€harmed.€€In€one€case,€œthe€victims›€œwere›Ïplaced€in€a€œrestroom,›€and€in€the€other€case,€one€group€œof€victims€was›€held€inside€aÏrestaurant€while€another€group€was€detained€behind€the€restaurant.€€None€of€theseÏdetentions€increased€the€victimsðð€risk€of€harm€beyond€the€robbery€itself.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€case,€the€petitioner€repeatedly€struck€his€supervisor€onÏthe€head€with€a€pipe€wrench.€€The€petitioner€then€stole€the€supervisorððs€clothes€andÏcar€keys€before€tying€the€supervisorððs€hands€and€feet.€€The€petitioner€left€theÏsupervisor€bleeding€from€wounds€on€his€head€and€ear.€€Because€of€his€injuries,€theÏsupervisor€later€received€sixty„four€stitches.€€The€fact€that€this€victimððs€hands€and€feetÏwere€bound€certainly€substantially€increased€the€risk€of€harm€in€that€he€would€beÍunable€to€seek€assistance.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€petitionerððs€conductÏsubstantially€increased€the€risk€to€the€supervisor€beyond€that€risk€necessarily€presentÏin€the€robbery€itself.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Rollandóó,€861€S.W.2d€840€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1992)(finding€a€substantial€increase€in€risk€of€harm€where€victims€were€locked€inÏrestaurant€freezer).€€Independent€prosecution€for€especially€aggravated€kidnappingÏis€warranted€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€unnecessary€for€us€to€determine€whether€Ms.€Pillowððs€failure€to€fileÏa€motion€to€dismiss€the€especially€aggravated€kidnapping€constituted€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€since€the€petitioner€obviously€cannot€prove€the€prejudiceÏprong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test.€€The€petitioner€was€not€prejudiced€by€his€counselððsÏfailure€to€file€a€motion€because€such€a€motion€would€not€have€been€successful.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àAs€the€petitionerððs€final€argument,€he€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€wasÏineffective€because€she€failed€to€adequately€investigate€his€case.€€Specifically,€heÏalleges€that€she€failed€to€interview€a€witness€who€would€have€testified€that€theÏpetitioner€was€under€duress€when€he€escaped€from€the€prison.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€had€told€Ms.€Pillow€about€a€prisonÍdisciplinary€hearing€in€which€he€had€testified€on€behalf€of€a€fellow€inmate.€€As€a€resultÏof€this€testimony,€the€petitioner€said€he€had€been€harassed€in€the€prison€and€hadÏbeen€assigned€tasks€different€from€his€normal€work€assignments.ÌÌà àà àWilliam€Crockett,€the€inmate€that€was€involved€in€the€disciplinaryÏhearing,€testified€at€the€petitionerððs€post„conviction€hearing€that€Ms.€Pillow€neverÏcontacted€him€about€testifying€if€the€petitioner€went€to€trial.€€He€further€testified€that€ifÏshe€had,€he€would€have€told€her€about€the€problems€he€and€the€petitioner€œhad€had›€inÏregard€to€the€safety€of€their€work€at€the€prison€and€his€resulting€disciplinary€hearing.€ÏHe€further€testified€that€he€and€the€petitioner€had€been€told€to€do€their€work€or€ð ðsufferÏthe€consequences.ððÌÌà àà àMs.€Pillow€testified€that€she€and€the€petitioner€had€discussed€CrockettÏand€that€she€had€determined€that€his€testimony€would€not€support€a€defense€ofÏduress.€€She€testified€that€she€based€this€decision€on€the€facts€related€to€her€by€theÏpetitioner,€who€never€indicated€that€he€felt€he€was€in€danger€of€imminent€seriousÏbodily€injury€if€he€remained€in€prison.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€Ms.€Pillow€correctly€determinedÍthat€a€defense€of€duress€could€not€be€supported€by€Crockettððs€testimony.€€Thus,€theÏfact€that€she€did€not€interview€him€was€not€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€WeÏagree€with€this€conclusion.€€Crockettððs€testimony€would€have€added€very€little€to€theÏpetitionerððs€case.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€petitioner€was€in€any€way€prejudicedÏby€the€fact€that€Crockett€was€not€interviewed.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitionerððs€complaints€that€his€right€to€due€process€and€his€right€toÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€were€violated€are€without€merit.€€The€ruling€of€theÏcourt€below€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓœòò›à àà àà àà àà àà àœà à›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€œà àJOHN›€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌœÌÌ›ÌCONCUR:ÌœÌòòÌÌ›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌœòò›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€œJudgeÌ›