’WPC 4# čU>ó %1 0ķ7UB$4fzn­‰U:6pw@x 0Jø 01 0D3 0Tw 0^Ė 0h) 0r‘ 0| 0† 0 1u• 0d 0@n D3® Bį U6ž U.4 U*b B)Œ AQµ Ę 0DĢ 0D D/T BƒDC  AMć„0v~“vÓ2˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHĪ<čĄ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕŠ$””Ń  ŃŃ7€'CXXdČXXdČ7ŃŃ  ŃÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#€%Ų'0*ˆ,ą.813č5@8˜:š<H? A°œXiÓ<ž6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiäzz!3|x™«<ž6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxž6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular …†{‡ˆP‰Š0e‹UŒӀ™2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō(į(3¬$¤¤Ż ƒÕŠ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ7€ŪĶXXdČdČ7ŃŃ  ŃÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#€%Ų'0*ˆ,ą.813č5@8˜:š<H? A°œXiÓŻ  Żą ` ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  Ņ""""'’’dxd d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d*+ ,-Cž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3Æ$¢¢Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó..'÷’ dxdü’P Pd((((7Border 1dd* /Cž’ << G’’ zŻ ƒ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŌ€%ŌŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŃ  ŃÓ` °˜XÓŻ  ŻŻ ƒ+"ŻŻ  ŻŌ€'ŌŌ€'ŌÓ  ÓŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€'XŌĢĢņ ņJuly€10,€1997ĢĢCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ĢŌ€'ōŌAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHŚ(’į’āłFG(üHHŚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŅ  h HD: Geneva ŅŅ  h HD: Geneva ŅŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€%ŌŃ  ŃŃ#€&&Xd#ŃŃ#€&&Xd#ŃŃ  ŃÓ` °˜XÓŻ  Ż›Ń  ŃŃ Ü ŃŅ  ŅŅ ° ŅŅ  ŅŅ X ŅŃ\R AŲ'\ŃÓÓŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŌ€'ŌŃ7€  Ž XXdęXXdČ7ќŁ€*ŁßR€01/A1-j|xżņ` Å `€€@’Rß›Ž ŽĢ€ą8 ąą@ ąIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĢą@ ąAT€JACKSONą@ ą€€€€€€€€€Ģ€ą ąą ą€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€APRIL€1997€SESSIONĢĢÓÓJOHN€L.€EARNEST,ą ąą ą)ą ąĢ€ą ąą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąAppellant,ą ąą ą)ą ąNo.€02C01„9604„CR„00114Ģą ą€€€€€ą ąą ą€€ą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ąShelby€CountyĢv.ą ąą ąą ąą ą)€€€€€€€€€Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ąHonorable€Carolyn€Wade€Blackett,€JudgeĢą ąą ąą ąą ą)ĢSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ą ą€€€ą ą)ą ą€(Post„Conviction)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)€€€€€€€€Ģą ąAppellee.ą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąĢĢņņFor€the€Appellantóó:ą ąą ąą ąą ąņņFor€the€Appelleeóó:ĢĢCraig€v.€Morton,€IIą ąą ąą ąą ąCharles€W.€BursonĢ212€Adams€Avenueą ąą ąą ąAttorney€General€of€TennesseeĢMemphis,€TN€38103ą ąą ąą ąą ąandą ąą ąą ąą ąĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąDeborah€A.€TullisĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeĻą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą450€James€Robertson€Parkwayą ąą ąĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąNashville,€TN€37243„0493ĢĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąJohn€W.€Pierotti,€Jr.Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąDistrict€Attorney€GeneralĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąandĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąRhea€CliftĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąJames€J.€Challen,€IIIĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą201€Poplar€AvenueĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąMemphis,€TN€38103ĢĢĢĢĢĢOPINION€FILED:____________________ĢĢĢAFFIRMEDĢĢJoseph€M.€TiptonĢJudgeĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢÓÓą@ ąņņņ ņO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óĢĢą ąóóThe€petitioner,€John€L.€Earnest,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€ShelbyĻCounty€Criminal€Courtššs€denying€him€post„conviction€relief€from€his€second€degreeĻmurder€conviction€and€resulting€forty„year€sentence€in€1991€upon€his€plea€of€guilty.€ĻThe€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€thatĻhe€did€not€knowingly€and€voluntarily€enter€his€guilty€plea.€€He€asserts€that€his€counselĻwas€ineffective€because€(1)€a€hearing€was€not€conducted€on€several€motions,€(2)€aĻmotion€to€compel€the€state€to€answer€the€motions€was€never€filed€by€his€counsel,€(3)Ļthe€mental€evaluation€conducted€was€incomplete,€and€(4)€his€attorney€only€sought€toĻnegotiate€a€plea€rather€than€preparing€for€trial.€€The€petitioner€also€claims€that€he€didĶnot€knowingly€and€voluntarily€enter€his€guilty€plea€because€the€trial€court€did€notĻadvise€him€that€he€was€waiving€the€right€to€appeal€his€sentence€or€that€there€would€beĻno€further€trials€of€any€kind€by€entering€a€guilty€plea.€€Initially,€we€note€failure€to€giveĻadvice€not€required€by€ņņBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€243,€89€S.€Ct.€1709,€1719Ļ(1969),€does€not,€ņņperóó€ņņseóó,€warrant€post„conviction€relief€because€the€omission€does€not,Ļby€itself,€rise€to€the€level€of€constitutional€error.€€ņņSeeóó€T.C.A.€šš€40„30„105;€ņņState€v.ĻPrinceóó,€781€S.W.2d€846,€853€(Tenn.€1989);€ņņState€v.€Nealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131,€140€(Tenn.Ļ1991).€€ĢĢą ąThe€petitioner€and€his€trial€attorney€were€the€only€witnesses€to€testify€atĻthe€post„conviction€hearing.€€Essentially,€the€petitioner€sought€to€show€that€his€trialĻcounsel€should€have€sought€suppression€of€his€written€statement€to€police€at€aĻhearing,€sought€a€mental€evaluation,€consulted€with€him€and€conducted€a€moreĻthorough€investigation,€and€should€not€have€coerced€him€into€pleading€guilty€by€tellingĻhim€that€he€could€receive€either€a€life€sentence€or€the€death€penalty.€€He€also€claimedĻthat€a€mental€evaluation€was€never€conducted€on€him€and€that€he€was€never€advisedĻthat€he€was€waiving€his€right€to€appeal.€€The€petitioner€admitted€that€trial€counselĻvisited€him€in€jail€a€lot€and€that€he€did€not€tell€his€counsel€about€any€witnesses€becauseĻhe€did€not€have€any.€€€€ĢĢą ąThe€petitionerššs€trial€counsel€testified,€at€length,€as€to€what€was€doneĻleading€up€to€the€guilty€plea,€including€advising€the€petitioner€that€he€would€waive€theĻright€to€appeal€his€sentence€by€entering€the€plea.€€She€said€that€she€visited€theĻpetitioner€several€times€in€jail€and€corresponded€by€phone€and€by€mail.€€Trial€counselĻstated€that€she€spoke€to€the€victimššs€family€and€that€at€least€three€people€witnessed€theĻdefendant€shoot€the€victim.€€She€also€stated€that€a€social€worker€conducted€a€socialĻinvestigation€on€the€petitioner,€that€a€mental€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€was€conductedĻat€Midtown€Mental€Health,€and€that€the€results€of€the€evaluation€showed€that€theĻpetitioner€was€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Trial€counsel€stated€that€she€filed€a€motion€toĻsuppress€the€petitionerššs€statement€to€police€but€did€not€proceed€to€a€hearing€becauseĻthe€petitioner€admitted€shooting€the€victim€and€because€she€was€seeking€a€reductionĻof€the€offer€of€a€forty„year€sentence€by€the€state.€€She€testified€that€she€believed€that€theĻstate€had€a€strong€case€against€the€petitioner€and€that€had€the€petitioner€gone€to€trial,Ļhe€would€have€likely€been€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€received€a€greaterĻsentence.€ĢĢą ąAfter€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€a€nine„page€orderĻthat€included€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€The€trial€court€concluded€that€trialĻcounsel€had€performed€competently€and€that€the€petitioner€knowingly€and€voluntarilyĻentered€his€plea.€€Essentially,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€petitioner€had€not€sufficientlyĻproven€his€factual€allegations.€€In€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€is€asserting€that€we€shouldĶaccept€his€testimony€and€proof€over€that€of€his€trial€counsel.€€Our€scope€of€review€is€notĻthat€broad.ĢÓÓÓ  Óą8 ąFirst,€this€Court€cannot€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence;Ļnor€can€we€substitute€our€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theĻtrial€court.€€Second,€questions€concerning€the€credibility€ofĻthe€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theirĻtestimony,€and€the€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€areĻresolved€by€the€trial€court,€not€this€Court.€€Third,€theĻappellate€has€the€burden€in€this€Court€of€illustrating€why€theĻevidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€theĻjudgment€entered€by€the€trial€judge.ĢĢÓÓņņÓ  ÓBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).ĢĢą ąIn€this€respect,€the€petitioner€fails€to€show€how€the€trial€courtššs€findingsĻare€incorrect.€€Moreover,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€of€record€does€notĻpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtššs€findings.€€In€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€andĻthe€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€ą0 ąĢĢÓӀą ąą ąņņą ąą ąą ą€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ĢĢĢĢCONCUR:ĢĢĢĢņņ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóĢDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€ĢĢĢĢņņ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ĢóóWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge€Ģ