ÿWPCG …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DC AM]ªv~ÁvÓ? B D3/ 0@b AO¢Æñ 0D· D/û B*˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ?P@DABCDDEEFVGDHÓ€·‚^!3|xS2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òApril€1,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€f@XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€!" A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓLARRY€C.€CORUM,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9512„CR„00411Ìà 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 àKNOX€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€RAY€L.€JENKINSó 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)à à(Post„Conviction€Relief)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌBRANDT€DAVISà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ1707€Cove€Creekà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌKnoxville,€TN€€37919Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€T.€RYANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRANDALL€E.€NICHOLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistirct€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àZANE€SCARLETTÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€Building,€Ste.€168Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à400€Main€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37902„2405ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€„ÔOPINIONó óóóÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àAppellant€Larry€C.€Corum€appeals€from€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€On€October€7,€1993,€Appellant€pled€guilty€to€two€counts€ofÏburglary€and€one€count€of€robbery.€€Appellant€received€a€sentence€of€four€yearsÏimprisonment€for€each€count€of€burglary€and€eight€years€imprisonment€forÏrobbery.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively€for€anÏeffective€sentence€of€sixteen€years.€€On€July€12,€1994,€Appellant€filed€a€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€that€heÏinvoluntarily€entered€his€guilty€plea.€€The€post„conviction€court€dismissed€hisÏpetition,€finding€it€meritless.€€For€the€reasons€discussed€below,€we€rejectÏAppellantððs€claims€and€affirm€the€decision€of€the€post„conviction€court.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIneffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€Claimó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€in€investigating€his€case.€ÏHe€claims€that€counsel€met€with€him€only€once,€for€ten€minutes.€€Appellant€furtherÏmaintains€that€counsel€never€discussed€the€Stateððs€evidence€against€him,€hisÏalleged€confessions,€or€his€possible€defenses.€€Finally,€he€claims€that€counselÏfailed€to€conduct€discovery.ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€the€appellant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€theÏadvice€given€or€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€fell€below€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€Under€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687Ï(1984),€there€is€a€two„prong€test€which€places€the€burden€on€the€appellant€toÏshow€that€(1)€the€representation€was€deficient,€requiring€a€showing€that€counselÏmade€errors€so€serious€that€he€or€she€was€not€functioning€as€ð ðcounselðð€asÏguaranteed€a€defendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment,€and€(2)€the€deficientÏrepresentation€prejudiced€the€defense€to€the€point€of€depriving€the€appellant€of€aÏfair€trial€with€a€reliable€result.€€Prejudice€is€shown€by€demonstrating€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€€the€result€ofÏthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòId.óó€at€694.€€Under€the€òòStricklandóó€test,Ïa€reviewing€courtððs€scrutiny€ð ðmust€be€highly€deferential.€€It€is€all€too€tempting€for€aÏdefendant€to€second„guess€counselððs€assistance€after€conviction€or€adverseÏsentence.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€689.€€In€fact,€a€petitioner€challenging€his€counselððsÏrepresentation€faces€a€ð ðstrong€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€withinÏthe€wide€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€689.ÌÌà àBefore€addressing€the€substance€of€Appellantððs€claims,€we€recognizeÏthat€our€scope€of€review€is€limited.€€In€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€theÍpetitioner€must€establish€his€or€her€allegations€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(citingÏòòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)).€€Furthermore,€theÏfindings€of€fact€made€by€a€trial€judge€in€post„conviction€hearings€are€conclusiveÏon€appeal€unless€the€appellate€court€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€judgment.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌà à€Counsel€testified€at€the€hearing€on€Appellantððs€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief€that€he€met€with€Appellant€two€or€three€times€at€the€Knox€County€PenalÏFarm,€and€several€times€before€court€appearances.€€While€admitting€that€he€filedÏno€discovery€motions,€counsel€testified€that€he€did€meet€with€the€prosecutor€andÏobtained€a€copy€of€Appellantððs€confession,€a€copy€of€the€fingerprint€evidenceÏfrom€the€burglaries,€and€copies€of€the€police€reports.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€theÏrecord€that€counsel€did€not€receive€any€important€information€that€could€haveÏbeen€obtained€had€a€discovery€motion€been€filed.€€Counsel€showed€all€of€theseÏdocuments€to€Appellant€and€discussed€them€with€Appellant.€€Appellant€neverÏgave€counsel€any€information€which€would€lead€counsel€to€believe€that€a€viableÏdefense€to€the€charges€brought€against€him€could€be€constructed.€€AppellantÏhas€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€showing€that€counselððs€representation€wasÏdefective€and€in€any€way€prejudiced€him.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓInvoluntary€Plea€Claimó óÌÓ  Óà àNext,€Appellant€maintains€that€his€plea€of€guilty€was€not€voluntarily,Ïintelligently,€or€knowingly€made.€€Specifically,€he€claims€that€he€was€not€told€ofÏhis€right€against€self„incrimination€or€his€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€theÏwitnesses€against€him.€€He€also€faults€the€trial€court€for€not€fully€complying€withÏRule€11€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€which€outlinesÏinformation€required€to€be€given€to€a€defendant€pleading€guilty.€€Finally,€he€claimsÏthat€counsel€coerced€him€into€pleading€guilty€by€telling€him€that€he€would€likelyÏbe€sentenced€as€a€career€criminal€if€his€case€went€to€trial€and€he€wasÏconvicted.ÌÌà àIn€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó€the€United€State€Supreme€Court€held€that€anÏaccusedððs€guilty€plea€must€be€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€understandinglyÏentered€before€a€conviction€resting€upon€a€guilty€plea€may€comply€with€dueÏprocess.€€395€U.S.€238€(1969).€€In€òòBoykinóó,€the€Supreme€Court€stated€that€aÏguilty€plea€constituted€a€waiver€of€various€rights€and€that€it€would€not€presume€aÏwaiver€of€the€following€federal€constitutional€rights€from€a€silent€record:Ìà àÓÓ(1)à àThe€privilege€against€compulsory€self„incrimination;Ìà à(2)à àThe€right€to€trial€by€jury;€andÌà à(3)€à àThe€right€to€confront€oneððs€accusers.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€242.€€ÓÓThus,€òòBoykinóó€placed€a€premium€on€the€record€showing€sufficientÏwaiver€of€specified€rights.ÌÌà àExercising€its€supervisory€power€to€ensure€that€the€courts€of€this€StateÏafford€fairness€and€justice€to€defendants€in€criminal€cases,€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337,€341€(Tenn.€1977),€requiredÏstricter€standards€than€those€mandated€by€the€òòBoykinóó€decision.€€òòMackeyóóÏrequires€that€trial€judges,€in€accepting€pleas€of€guilty€in€criminal€cases€toÏsubstantially€adhere€to€the€following€procedure:ÌÓÓà0 àThe€court€must€address€the€defendant€in€open€court€and€inform€him€of,Ïand€determine€that€he€understands:Ìà8 àà8 à(a)€€The€nature€of€the€charges€brought€against€himÏand€the€mandatory€minimum€penalty€provided€by€law,Ïif€any,€and€the€maximum€possible€penalty;€and€that€aÏdifferent€or€additional€punishment€may€result€by€reasonÏof€prior€convictions€or€other€factors;Ìà8 àà8 à(b)€€If€he€is€not€represented€by€counsel,€that€he€has€aÏright€to€be€so€represented€and€that€if€cannot€affordÏcounsel,€counsel€will€be€appointed;Ìà8 àà8 à(c)€€That€he€has€the€right€to€plead€not€guilty,€the€right€toÏbe€tried€by€a€jury,€the€right€to€the€assistance€ofÏcounsel€at€trial,€the€right€to€confront€and€cross„examineÏwitnesses,€and€the€right€not€to€incriminate€himself;Ìà8 àà8 à(d)€€That€if€he€pleads€guilty,€that€there€will€be€no€trialÏexcept€to€determine€his€sentence;€and€Ìà àà8 à(e)€€That€if€he€pleads€guilty,€the€court€or€the€state€mayÏask€him€questions€about€the€offense€to€which€heÏpleaded,€and€that€if€he€answers€under€oath€hisÏanswers€may€later€be€used€against€him€in€aÏprosecution€for€false€statement€or€perjury,€and€thatÏprior€convictions€may€be€used€to€set€the€sentence.Ìà àà8 à(f)€€The€court€shall€not€accept€a€plea€of€guilty€withoutÏfirst,€by€addressing€the€defendant€personally€in€openÏcourt,€determining€that€the€plea€is€voluntary€and€not€theÏresult€of€force€of€threats€or€of€promises€apart€from€aÏplea€agreement.€€The€court€shall€also€inquire€as€toÍwhether€the€defendantððs€willingness€to€plead€guiltyÏresults€from€prior€discussions€between€the€DistrictÏAttorney€General€and€the€defendant€or€his€attorney.ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€341.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€òòMackeyóó€requirements€have€been€adopted€into€Rule€11€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€In€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2dÏ268,€273€(Tenn.€1987),€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€pronounced€theÏadditional€advice€requirement€that€it€must€be€made€clear€to€the€defendant€who€isÏpleading€guilty€that€the€resulting€judgment€of€conviction€may€be€used€in€aÏsubsequent€proceeding€to€enhance€his€or€her€punishment€for€subsequentÏoffenses.€€Thus,€òòBoykinóó,€òòMackeyóó,€òòMcClintockóó,€and€Rule€11€of€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Criminal€Procedure€govern€the€validity€of€guilty€plea€proceedings.ÌÌà àAs€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€noted€in€òòState€v.€Princeóó,€781ÏS.W.2d€846,€853€(Tenn.€1989),€some€of€the€mandated€òòMackeyóó€advice€is€notÏrequired€by€òòBoykinóó€but€represents€a€supervisory€pronouncement€of€the€court.€ÏThe€Court€stated€ð ðany€other€requirement€of€òòMackeyóó€in€excess€of€òòBoykinóó€is€notÏbased€upon€any€constitutional€provision,€federal€or€state.€€It€follows,€that€anyÏomissions,€not€required€in€òòBoykinóó€may€be€relied€upon€on€direct€appeal€inÏappropriate€cases€but€such€omissions€have€no€validity€on€the€first€or€anyÏsubsequent€post„conviction€proceeding.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€853.ÌÌà àFrom€the€evidence€submitted€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€it€is€not€clearÏwhether€counsel€informed€Appellant€of€his€rights.€€However,€the€trial€court,€whenÏaccepting€Appellantððs€plea,€did€advise€Appellant€of€his€right€to€trial€by€jury,€hisÏright€to€confront€and€cross„examine€the€witnesses€against€him,€and€his€rightÏagainst€self„incrimination.€€Appellant€indicated€that€he€understood€these€rightsÏwhich€he€was€waiving.€€While€it€does€appear€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€giveÏsome€of€the€supervisory,€non„constitutionally€based€instructions€required€byÏòòMackeyóó,€relief€may€be€given€in€a€post„conviction€hearing€only€if€a€conviction€isÏvoid€or€voidable€because€of€a€violation€of€a€constitutional€right.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„30„203€(Supp.€1996);€€òòPrinceóó,€781€S.W.2d€at€853.€€Therefore,€thisÏissue€has€no€merit.€€ÌÌà àIn€addition,€Appellantððs€plea€was€not€coerced.€€At€the€hearing€onÏAppellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€counsel€explained€that€AppellantÏwas€on€probation,€under€the€Community€Alternative€to€Prison€Program€(CAPP)Ïwhen€he€committed€the€current€offenses.€€Appellant€was€placed€under€theÏCAPP€program€after€pleading€guilty€to€three€counts€of€felony€theft,€burglary,€andÏtwo€counts€of€aggravated€burglary.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€talked€to€AppellantÏabout€the€possibility€of€being€sentenced€as€a€career€offender€and€how€thatÏwould€affect€his€sentence.€€Appellant€argues€that€this€information€was€coercive.€ÍIt€was€not€coercive€for€counsel€to€explain€to€Appellant€the€likely€sentencingÏrepercussions€of€his€decision€to€go€to€trial.€€These€possible€sentencingÏrepercussions€areÇsupported€by€the€record€and€Appellant€makes€no€argument€counselððs€advice€onÏthis€point€was€incorrect.€€While€this€information€may€have€led€Appellant€to€decideÏto€take€the€plea€offered€by€the€State,€that€does€not€mean€that€counsel€coercedÏhim€into€accepting€the€plea.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€Appellant€was€not€deprived€of€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€and€that€the€evidence€produced€by€Appellant€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÏpost„conviction€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE