ÿWPCä /U:¢ %Ü 0Üâw@¾4þ! 0J) 0Ts 0^Ç 0h% 0r 0|ÿ 0†{ 0 1u‘ 0d U*j B)” DC½ AM 0@M D3 BÀ ËÝ v~¨ vÓ& AQùÆJ 0D 0DT D/˜ BÇ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ ÏUÐUÑDÒDÓRÔRÕUÖÓ€âåìSï"3|xå2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd* Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ18,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò ò›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSON̜ـ*ÙßR€#A1-j|á` | `€€@ÿRß›à@ àJANUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌGREGORY€CUMMINGS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9601„CR„00020Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€L.€T.€LAFFERTY,€JudgeÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)ÌÌó óÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òWALKER€GWINNó óà àà àò òà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONó óÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ201€Poplar,€Suite€2„01à àÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àò òSARAH€M.€BRANCHó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌò òA.€C.€WHARTONó óà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€GIBBONSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òKAREN€COOKó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àThird€Floor,€Criminal€Justice€ComplexÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àOPINIONÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Gregory€Cummings,€appeals€the€denial€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€by€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court.€€The€appellantÏraises€two€related€issues€on€appeal€(1)€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€andÏ(2)€the€voluntariness€of€his€guilty€pleas,€i.e.€whether€his€guilty€pleas€were€aÏvoluntary€and€informed€choice€based€upon€advice€supplied€by€trial€counsel.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððsÏjudgment.ÌÌÌà@ àò òBACKGROUNDÌó óÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€appellant€collaterally€attacks€his€six€guilty€pleas€whichÏwere€entered€on€January€28,€1993.€€€The€judgments€entered€by€the€trial€court€Ïreflect€the€following€convictions:€aggravated€robbery,€robbery,€three€counts€ofÏattempted€first€degree€murder,€and€first€degree€murder.€€The€appellant€isÏcurrently€serving€a€life€sentence€for€these€convictions.ÌÌà àThe€facts€which€form€the€basis€for€the€six€convictions€established€that€theÏappellant€and€a€co„defendant,€the€appellantððs€brother,€committed€an€armedÍrobbery€upon€a€female€at€a€Memphis€business.€€During€the€robbery,€two€menÏarrived€to€assist€the€female.€€However,€one€was€shot€in€the€chest€and€killed,€andÏthe€other€was€shot€in€the€shoulder.€€While€in€pursuit€of€the€wounded€man,€theÏœappellant€continued€firing,›€nearly€striking€two€bystanders.€€€The€defendants€fledÏon€foot€from€the€crime€scene,€robbing€another€victim€of€her€automobile€a€shortÏdistance€away.ÌÌà àAfter€the€Grand€Jury€returned€indictments€on€the€above€offenses,€theÏState€gave€notice€of€its€intent€to€seek€the€death€penalty€against€the€appellant.€Ï(Five€witnesses€identified€the€appellant€as€the€person€who€did€the€shooting.)€ÏThe€State€refused€to€sever€the€co„defendantððs€case€and€offered€a€sentence€ofÏ25€years€for€the€co„defendant€and€an€effective€life€sentence€for€the€appellant.€ÏBoth€entered€guilty€pleas€pursuant€to€the€plea€agreement.ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€wanted€to€goÏto€trial€but€his€trial€counsel€coerced€him€into€pleading€guilty.€€Regarding€theÏineffective€assistance€claim,€the€appellant€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€toÏdiscuss€with€him€the€results€of€any€investigation,€failed€to€obtain€discovery,€andÏfailed€to€file€a€motion€to€sever€his€case€from€that€of€his€co„defendant.€€At€theÏconclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€relief€finding€theÏappellant€had€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proof.ÌÌÌà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌÌà 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,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Under€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,Ï686,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984),€there€is€a€two„prong€test€which€places€theÏburden€on€the€appellant€to€show€that€(1)€the€representation€was€deficient,Ïrequiring€a€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€he€or€she€was€notÏfunctioning€as€ð ðcounselðð€as€guaranteed€a€defendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment,Ïand€(2)€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€the€defense€to€the€point€ofÏdepriving€the€appellant€of€a€fair€trial€with€a€reliable€result.€€Prejudice€is€shown€byÏdemonstrating€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessionalÏerrors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòIdóó.€at€693,€104ÏS.Ct.€at€2068.€€This€two€part€standard€of€measuring€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€also€applies€to€claims€arising€out€of€the€plea€process.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,Ï474€U.S.€52,€57,€106€S.Ct.€366,€370€(1985).€€The€prejudice€requirement€isÏmodified€so€that€the€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probabilityÏthat,€but€for€counselððs€errors€he€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€haveÏinsisted€on€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€59,€106€S.Ct.€at€370.€€€Under€the€òòStricklandóó€test,Ía€reviewing€courtððs€scrutiny€ð ðmust€be€highly€deferential.€€It€is€all€too€tempting€forÏa€defendant€to€second„guess€counselððs€assistance€after€conviction€or€adverseÏsentence.€€.€.€œ.ðð,€òòStricklandóó,€›€466€U.S.€at€659,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065.€€In€fact,€aÏpetitioner€challenging€his€counselððs€representation€faces€a€ð ðstrong€presumptionÏthat€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€of€reasonable€professionalÏassistance.€.€.€.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065.ÌÌà àIn€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€must€establish€his€orÏher€allegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655ÏS.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(citing€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2dÏ12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)).€€Furthermore,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€aÏtrial€judge€in€post„conviction€hearings€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏappellate€court€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€ÏòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€œ1990).Ì›œÌà àFirst,›€the€appellant€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€fileÏappropriate€motions,€including€a€specific€request€for€a€motion€to€sever.€ÏFurthermore,€the€appellant€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€keep€himÏapprised€as€to€the€results€of€any€investigation.€€The€record€reflects€that€trialÏcounsel€filed€twenty„one€motions€on€behalf€of€the€appellant.€€Counsel€admittedÏthat€no€motion€for€severance€of€the€appellantððs€case€from€that€of€his€brotherððs€Ïwas€made€because€the€State€was€strongly€opposed€to€any€such€motion.€ÍMoreover,€irrespective€of€the€Stateððs€position,€there€is€nothing€before€us€thatÏeven€suggests€that€trial€counsel€would€have€been€successful€in€obtaining€theÏrequested€severance.€€The€charges€against€both€arise€from€the€same€criminalÏepisode€and€no€òòBrutonóó€claim€was€made.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€14(c)(2)(1),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€€Regarding€the€claim€of€deficient€performance,€the€post„conviction€courtÏfound:€œð ðTrial›€counsel]€has€been€practicing€law€since€1973€and€has€representedÏmany€persons€in€criminal€cases.€.€.€.€€The€proof€is€overwhelming€that€theÏpetitioner€has€failed€to€convince€this€court€that€[counsel]€violated€the€mandatesÏof€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó.€.€.€.ðð€€We€agree.€€This€claim€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€his€guilty€pleas€were€involuntary€due€toÏtrial€counselððs€ineffectiveness.€€He€argues€that€he€was€forced€into€pleadingÏguilty€because€the€ineffectiveness€of€his€counsel€left€him€with€no€otherÏalternative.€€In€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Alfordóó,€400€U.S.€25,€31,€91€S.Ct.€160,€164Ï(1970),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held,€ð ðThe€standard€was€and€remainsÏwhether€the€plea€represents€a€voluntary€and€intelligent€choice€among€theÏalternative€courses€of€action€open€to€the€defendant.ðð€€In€evaluating€the€knowingÏand€voluntary€nature€of€the€appellantððs€pleas,€this€court€must€look€to€the€totalityÏof€the€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€353€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòChamberlain€v.€Stateóó,Ï815€S.W.2d€534,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€We€may€consider€any€relevant€evidence€in€the€record€of€theÍproceedings,€including€post„conviction€proceedings.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÓÓà8 à[A]€court€charged€with€determining€whether€...€pleas€wereÏð ðvoluntaryðð€and€ð ðintelligentðð€must€look€to€various€circumstantialÏfactors,€such€as€the€relative€intelligence€of€the€defendant;€theÏdegree€of€his€familiarity€with€criminal€proceedings;€whether€he€wasÏrepresented€by€competent€counsel€and€had€the€opportunity€toÏconfer€with€counsel€about€the€options€available€to€him;€the€extentÏof€advise€from€counsel€and€the€court€concerning€the€chargesÏagainst€œÌÌÌÌÌà8 àhim;›€and€the€reasons€for€his€decision€to€plead€guilty,€including€a€œÌà8 àdesire›€to€avoid€a€greater€penalty€that€might€result€from€a€jury€trial.ÌÌÓÓòòBlankenship€v.€Stateóó,€858€S.W.2d€897,€904€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àEqually€important€to€our€review€is€an€examination€of€the€appellantððsÏresponses€to€questions€posed€by€the€trial€court€at€€the€guilty€plea€hearing€ofÏJanuary€28,€1993.€€In€òòState€v.€Nealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131€(Tenn.€1991),€our€supremeÏcourt€stated€that€the€purpose€for€providing€the€òòadvice€litneyóó,€as€required€by€òòStateÏv.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.€1977)€and€Rule€11,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€is€toÏð ðinsulate€guilty€pleas€from€coercion€and€relevant€defendant€ignorance.€€TheyÏare€designed€to€insure€that€guilty€pleas€are€voluntary€and€knowing.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€135.€ÏAt€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€the€appellant,€while€under€oath,€stated€to€theÏsentencing€court€that€he€was€neither€threatened,€forced,€nor€coerced€intoÏpleading€guilty.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€informed€the€sentencing€court€that€heÏwas€ð ðsatisfied€with€[trial€counselððs]€investigation,€preparation,€and€presentation.ðð€€ÍWe€do€not€accept€these€statements€as€hollow€expressions€which,€as€theÏappellant€argues,€should€simply€be€ignored.€€We€agree€with€the€post„convictionÏcourtððs€findings€that:€ð ðThe€evidence€is€clear€and€convincing€that€after€weighingÏall€factors,€the€petitioner€entered€pleas€of€guilty€freely€and€voluntarily.€€.€.€.ðð€€œThisÏissue›€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ì€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌ̛̜œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›œÌ›ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge