WPCN ZW0M}.-gz#1 *Qfi7LBNGATY{FTH{hmjAc!*'ntUٛUF>'9t)ˢ^MJ6sciGvC _ XQ}ܐƺ|*|Esb|Urˡa&.eAvҽI7,u9SD}텣ѝ'c+jtk HHbi2l^/'c(Ύć*/YGwUGJ2zOocgualw:pד?=knos 4Lj^\)~\='R@bݭyվU};gtqtzSYF`ϰ6;О&]QXXMjBFƓ  !O(F~*YE8Nh7:IUsR֛r]Rl3ˆF9=V b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m UN U@ ^ $   #v N799EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 0KKKK B66 0S D3 D-* 0KWW AS 0 0D_ A( (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJ~'+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(uH Z(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60 - -(|G2$ !.8 `dd8         0  XaX d(|3Ni$ !.8 `dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ni$ !.8 `dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 `dd8     _ `8aXXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @}}$ATNASHVILLE     June2000Session  XaX ` # `XXạ#WILLIAM_LAVERN_ԀDAVISv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXaX `   @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMarshallCounty   @@No.14027WilliamCharlesLee,TrialJudge   @@*AV) ` dE<K` A L  @@QQNo.M200000341CCAR3PCFiledJuly28,_2000_Ԁ A  AV) ` dE< ` A  ]    XaXXXa  Thepetitionerarguesthatinfindingthathistrialcounselwasnotineffectiveanddenyinghispost R  convictionpetition,thepetitionerappealsfromthetrialcourtsdenialofhispostconvictionpetition. 8 Hearguesthatthetrialcourterredbyfindingthathistrialcounselwasnotineffective.Thetrial  courtsorderisaffirmed.  #XaXX Xam## `XXa?#XaX `   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed   Williams,J.# `Xả#XaX. `,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWellesandSmith,JJ.,joined. L WilliamM._Haywood_,_Lewisburg_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,William_Lavern_ԀDavis. h PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter,JenniferL._Bledsoe_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral, 4 WilliamMichael_McCown_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,and_Weakley_ԀE.(Eddie)Barnard,Assistant  DistrictAttorney,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.  @55' OPINION # `XXa`#XaX `Ԉ b   # `XXa̎ #XaX ` XaXXXa  Introduction  ."~" +   Thepetitioner,WilliamL.Davis,appealsfromtheMarshallCountyCircuitCourtsorder, #J$ enteredafterahearing,denyinghispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Foundguiltyin1997ofone $0 % countoftheftover$1000,hewassentenced,asaCareerOffender,toservetwelveyearsinthe %!& DepartmentofCorrection.Henowarguesthattrialcounselwasdeficientincertainrespectsandthat &!' heisthereforeentitledtoanewtrial.Particularly,heargues: '"(  X X ,X0 4  (1)Trialcounselsfailuretoraisetheissueofthevalueofchecksstolenconstituted x(#) ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel;and^)$*4 4  0 4  (2)Trialcounselsfailuretoinvestigate,understandandproperlynotifythe D*%+ defendantoftheeffectofthenoticeofenhancementconstitutedineffective *+z&, assistanceofcounsel.,`'-4 4   X  X " X, "Aftercarefulreview,wedisagreeandaffirmtheorderdenyingthepetition. ,F(.  -,)/ _ԇ  Facts     Asgeneralbackground,in1996,thepetitionerwithhiswifeandanothercodefendantcame | toMarshallCounty,Tennesseeforthepurposeofstealing.IntheparkinglotoftheFamilyDollar b Store,thethreenoticedthatthestoremanagerhaddroppedabagasshewasleavingthestore.The H petitionersubsequentlystolethebagwhichcontained$700incashand$700inchecks.Later . ~ apprehendedandcharged,thepetitionerwenttotrialmaintaining,allthetime,hisinnocence.He  d wasconvictedofonecountoftheftover$1000andsentencedasacareeroffendertotwelveyears.  J   Thefactsmostrelevanttothisappealwereestablishedatthepostconvictionhearing.Atthis    hearing,boththepetitioner,trialcounsel,andaprosecutingattorneytestified.Trialcounselfirst    describedhismeetingsandcommunicationwiththepetitioner.Hestatedthatthroughouttheir   discussionsthepetitionerwasadamantthathewouldacceptnopleaagreementinvolving x  incarcerationandmaintainedfromtheverybeginninghisinnocence.Atvariouspointsduringthe ^  representation,counselexplainedtothepetitionerthathis innocenceclaimwasnotfoundedin D  thelaw;however,petitionerstayedfirm.Next,headdressedtheissueofthevalueofthechecks. *z  Heexplainedthathehadresearchedthematterandnotifiedhisclientthattheissue,ifraised,would ` notberesolvedintheirfavor.Asfortheenhancementissue,hestatedthathe,beforetrialandup F tothesentencinghearing,wasofthemistakenbeliefthatthepetitionerwouldbesentencedatRange , IIandnotasaCareerOffender.Hesaidthatthisbeliefstemmedfrompetitionersinsistencethat  hehadonlyfourpriorfelonyconvictions.Further,hesaidthatduringpleanegotiationthestatehad  explainedtothepetitionerthathewasaCareerOffenderandnotaRangeIIbutbothheand  petitionerremainedunconvinced.Duringthisnegotiation,hesaidthatthestateofferedsomewhere t betweenthreeandfouryearsasaRangeIoffender.Butagain,hesaid,thedefendant,notwanting Z toserveanytime,rejectedtheoffer. @   Thepetitionerfirstdescribedtheincidentleadingtotheconviction.Next,hedescribedhis  \ discussionswithdefensecounsel.Hestatedthatnodiscussionaboutthevaluationofthestolen B checksoccurred.Further,hestatedthathewasnevertoldbyeitherhisattorneyortheprosecuting ( attorneythathemightreceivetwelveyears.Infact,thepetitionerstatedthatifhehadknownthat  hewasfacingtwelveyearsthenhewouldhavetakenthestatesbestoffer.    Finally,aprosecutingattorneytestified.Herelatedthedetailsofameetingwiththe p!  petitionerandhiscounsel.Hestatedthatherememberedtellingthepetitionerthathefacedagood V"! possibilityoftwelveyears. <#"   Afterhearingthistestimony,thetrialcourtfound: %X $  X XBut,theyreallywonthavetobecausefactuallytheCourtfindstheStatesposition &$"& tobefactuallysuchthatthedefendantshouldbedeniedhisrelief. ' #' ... )$) TheCourtfindsthattobethecaseandthedefendantelectedtoproceedtotrialunder R+&+ thetheorythathewouldconvincethejurythathewasnotguiltyofanything. 8,', ...  Withregardtocounselsallegedfailuretopursuesometheoryaboutvalue,thatwas | inconsistentwithhisdefense.Thatwasatacticaldecision.Thepropertactical b decision. H ...  d Bethatasitmay,theCourtfindsthatcounselsconductfarexceededthe  0 expectationsofthatunderBaxterv.Rose.    ...   Thedefendantspetitionisrespectfullydeniedforthereasonspreviouslystated. ^   X XFromthesefindingsandthetrialcourtsdenial,thepetitionernowappeals. *z     Analysis  F r#  Thepetitioneraguesthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionbyfindingthathistrialcounsel  wasnotineffective.Heidentifiestworegardsinwhichcounselwasallegedlydeficient:   X X ,X(1)Trialcounselfailedtoraisetheissueofthevalueofthechecksstolen;and  0 4  (2)Trialcounselfailedtoinvestigate,understand,andproperlynotifythedefendant t oftheeffectofthenoticeofenhancement.Z4 4   X$ X$" X,$"Afterreviewingthisargument,wedisagree. @ #XaXX Xa # XaXXXa  ThisCourtreviewsaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselunderthestandardsofBaxter  \ v.Rose,523S.W.2d930(Tenn.1975),andStricklandv.Washington,104S.Ct.2052,80L.Ed.2d B 674(1984).Thepetitionerhastheburdentoprovethat(1)theattorneysperformancewasdeficient, ( and(2)thedeficientperformanceresultedinprejudicetothedefendantsoastodeprivehimofafair  trial.SeeStricklandv.Washington,104S.Ct.at2064;Goadv.State,938S.W.2d363,369(Tenn.  1996);Overtonv.State,874S.W.2d6,11(Tenn.1994);Butlerv.State,789S.W.2d898,899(Tenn.   1990).Todemonstrateprejudiceadefendantorpetitionermustshowthatthereisareasonable p!  probabilitythatbutforcounselserrortheresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent. V"! #XaXX Xa̽&# XaXXXa#  `X Xa # XaX  `  ThetestinTennesseeindeterminingwhethercounselprovidedeffectiveassistanceis "$r# whetherhisperformancewaswithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminal %X $ cases.SeeBaxter,523S.W.2dat936.Thepetitionermustovercomethepresumptionthatcounsels %>!% conductfallswithinthewiderangeofacceptableprofessionalassistance.SeeStrickland,104S.Ct. &$"& at2065;Alleyv.State,958S.W.2d138,149(Tenn.Crim.App.1997);Hicksv.State,983S.W.2d ' #' 240,246(Tenn.Crim.App.1998).Therefore,inordertoproveadeficiency,apetitionermustshow (#( thatcounselsactsoromissionsweresoseriousastofallbelowanobjectivestandardof )$) reasonablenessunderprevailingprofessionalnorms.SeeStrickland,104S.Ct.at2065;Henleyv. l*%* State,960S.W.2d522,579(Tenn.1997);Goad,938S.W.2dat369. R+&+ _ 8,',   Inreviewingcounselsconduct,a fairassessment...requiresthateveryeffortbemadeto  eliminatethedistortingeffectsofhindsight,toreconstructthecircumstancesofcounselschallenged  conduct,andtoevaluatetheconductfromcounselsperspectiveatthetime.See_Strickland_,104 | _S.Ct_.at2065.Thefactthataparticularstrategyortacticfailedorhurtthedefense,doesnot, b standingalone,establishunreasonablerepresentation.However,deferencetomattersofstrategyand H tacticalchoicesappliesonlyifthechoicesareinformedonesbaseduponadequatepreparation.See . ~ Goad,938S.W.2dat369;_Hellard_Ԁv.State,629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982);Alley,958S.W.2dat149;  d Cooperv.State,847S.W.2d521,528(Tenn._Crim_.App.1992).  J #XaXX Xa*# XaXXXa  Further,thepetitionersburdenofproofinallpostconvictioncasesfiledafterMay12,1995,    isoneofclearandconvincingevidence, seeTenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f),andreviewingcourts    mustindulgeastrongpresumptionthatcounselsconductfallswithintherangeofreasonableness.   Finally,thetrialjudgesfindingsoffactonpostconvictionhearingsareconclusiveonappealunless x  theevidencepreponderatesotherwise.SeeButler,789S.W.2d898,899;_Adkins_Ԁv.State,911 ^  S.W.2d334,341(Tenn._Crim_.App.1995).Thetrialcourtsfindingsoffactareaffordedtheweight D  ofajuryverdict,andthisCourtisboundbythefindingsunlesstheevidenceintherecord *z  preponderatesagainstthem.SeeHenley,960S.W.2dat578.Thatburdenlieswiththepetitioner. ` SeeId.at579. F #XaXX Xa@4# XaXXXa#  `X Xa2+# XaX  `  ValueofStolenChecks#XaXX Xa8# XaXXXa#  `X Xa+9# XaX  `  N9  Wefirstaddresscounselsallegedfailuretoraisetheissueofthevalueofthechecksstolen.  Thepetitionerarguesthathiscounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoarguethatthechecksstolenwere t improperlyvaluedat$700,theirfaceamount.Trialcounseladdressingthisissueatthepost Z convictionhearingtestifiedthathisdecisionnottochallengethevaluewasmadeafterareviewof @ therelevantcaselaw.SeeStatev.Evans,669S.W.2d708(Tenn._Crim_.App.1984).Orinother &v words,hisdecisionwasaninformed,strategic,legaldecision.Seeid.;seealso_Hellard_,629S.W.2d  \ at9.Wewillnotnowsecondguessthatdecision. B   Further,thepetitionerhasmadenoshowingthatifchallenged,thevaluationofthechecks  andinturnthejuryverdictwouldhaveprobablybeendifferent.SeeHenley,960S.W.2dat579  Forthesereasons,wefindnomeritinthisissue.     NoticeofEnhancement V"! >  Next,weaddresspetitionersargumentthatcounselsfailuretoinformhimoftheeffectof "$r# thenoticeofenhancementconstitutedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Thetrialcourtcreditedthe %X $ testimonyoftheprosecutingattorneywhostatedthatthepetitionerwasinformedthathehadagood %>!% possibilityofreceivingatwelveyearsentence.Thepetitionerhasnotdemonstratedthatthe &$"& evidencepreponderatesotherwise.Therefore,thisCourtisleftwiththetrialcourtsfindingthatthe ' #' petitionerknewhefacedtwelveyearsbutdecided,consistentwithhisinsistenceofinnocence,that (#( hewouldgototrial.Thisconclusionfurthercorrespondswithtrialcounselstestimonythatthe )$) petitionerwouldnotacceptanydealinvolvingincarceration.Therefore,thisCourtfindsno l*%* prejudice.Thisisacasewherepetitioneressentiallyasksforasecondbiteoftheapple,andwemust R+&+ nowdenyhispetition. 8,',   Conclusion   C  Forthesereasons,weaffirmtheorderofthetrialcourtdenyingthepetitionforpost b convictionrelief. H #XaXX Xa̖9## `XXa9#XaX `   `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     JUDGEJOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS x  # `XXaD#XaX `