ÿWPCœ …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 044 4h | 1m„ 0dñ wU e 0Je 0T¯ 0^ 0ha 0rÉ 0|; 0†· 0= 1uÍ U,B 0dnU,Ò BþU6B)QDCz AM½ D3 +=v~h 0@ævÓ& 0ù 0Šˆ 0  0´² 0Çf 0Û- 0ï AO÷ÆF 0D  D/P B<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X<«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó»{s  tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à0Ó€<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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco d< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ%%%%'ÿÿdxd !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMay€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€$$X„d&ÓÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÑ X Ñ›Ñ7€—‡XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€Ôœ›à àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€)+(;+'h|_` Å `€€Lß›Ìà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓ  Óà@ àDECEMBER€1995ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òCALVIN€FIGGURES,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€ó ó€ò òœ02C01›„9504„CC„00114ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àMADISON€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€FRANKLIN€MURCHISON,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 òGEORGE€MORTON€œGOOGE›à àà àà àCHARLES€W.€œBURSON›ó óÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òDANIEL€J.€TAYLORà àà àà àà àJOHN€P.€œCAULEY›ó óÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà à€à àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌ227€W.€Baltimore€St.à àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.ÌJackson,€TN€€38301à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJERRY€œWOODALL›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òDONALD€ALLENó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€2825Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€TN€€38302ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,ÌJudgeÇÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àIn€September€of€1989,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€at€a€jury€trial€ofÏpossession€with€intent€to€sell€and/or€deliver€more€than€thirty€grams€of€cocaine.€€TheÏtrial€court€sentenced€him€to€forty€years€imprisonment€at€Range€II.€€His€conviction€andÏsentence€were€affirmed€by€this€Court€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Calvin€Figguresóó,ÏC.C.A.€No.€2,€Madison€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€January€23,€1991,€at€Jackson).€ÏThe€petitioner€later€filed€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging€that€his€trial€counsel€wasÏineffective.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€November€22,€1994,€the€trial€court€deniedÏthe€petition.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€contends€that€hisÏtrial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€(1)€failing€to€discuss€with€him€the€possible€sentenceÏhe€might€receive€if€convicted€as€opposed€to€the€Stateððs€plea€offer;€(2)€failing€to€adviseÏhim€concerning€the€Stateððs€Notice€for€Enhanced€Punishment;€and,€(3)€failing€to€file€aÏMotion€for€Re„Sentencing€or€Reduction€of€Sentence.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€post„conviction€petition,€the€petitioner€testified€that€his€trial€attorney,€Ms.€Marcus€Reaves,Ïhad€brought€the€Stateððs€plea€offer€of€twenty„five€years€to€him.€€He€commented€thatÏtwenty„five€years€was€ð ða€lot€of€time.ðð€€According€to€the€petitioner,€Reaves€agreed€withÍhim€and€advised€him€not€to€accept€the€Stateððs€plea€offer.€€Based€on€his€trial€counselððsÏadvice,€the€petitioner€declined€the€Stateððs€plea€offer€and€proceeded€to€trial,€where€heÏwas€eventually€convicted€and€sentenced€to€forty€years.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€testified€further€that,€prior€to€trial,€Reaves€had€notÏdiscussed€the€possible€sentence€he€might€receive€should€he€be€convicted.€ÏFurthermore,€Reaves€did€not€advise€the€petitioner€regarding€the€Stateððs€Notice€forÏEnhanced€Punishment.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€they€never€discussed€whatÏsignificance€his€prior€convictions€would€have€at€sentencing.€€The€petitioner€testifiedÏthat€had€he€been€fully€advised€of€his€situation,€he€would€have€accepted€the€StateððsÏplea€offer€of€twenty„five€years€rather€than€proceed€to€trial.ÌÌà àà àIn€addition,€because€the€trial€court€denied€the€petitionerððs€request€for€aÏcontinuance€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€he€was€unable€to€present€testimony€fromÏcharacter€witnesses€who€were€absent€on€that€day.€€According€to€the€petitioner,ÏReaves€told€him€that€she€would€file€a€Motion€for€Re„Sentencing€so€that€he€couldÏpresent€the€testimony€of€his€absent€character€witnesses.€€Reaves,€however,€neverÏfiled€the€motion.ÌÌà àà àMarcus€Reaves€testified€that€she€had€visited€the€petitioner€to€discuss€hisÏcase€at€least€ten€times.€€On€one€of€those€visits,€she€took€the€Stateððs€plea€offer€to€theÏpetitioner.€€She€explained€that€the€sentencing€range€for€the€crime€was€ten€years€toÏlife€and,€because€of€his€prior€convictions,€his€sentencing€range€would€be€thirty„fiveÏyears€to€life€if€he€were€convicted.€€According€to€Reaves,€she€fully€discussed€theÏStateððs€Notice€for€Enhanced€Punishment€with€the€petitioner.€€She€informed€him€that,Ïbecause€of€the€Notice€for€Enhanced€Punishment,€the€State€could€mention€his€priorÏconvictions€if€he€chose€to€testify€at€trial,€and€his€prior€convictions€could€be€used€toÏenhance€his€sentencing€range€if€he€were€convicted.€€The€petitioner€stated€that€heÏwanted€to€proceed€to€trial€because€he€was€not€guilty.ÌÌà àà àOnce€the€petitioner€had€been€convicted,€the€trial€judge€set€the€date€forÏthe€sentencing€hearing€in€late€September,€1989.€€Reaves€requested€a€continuanceÏso€that€the€petitioner€could€present€additional€character€testimony€from€absentÏwitnesses.€€The€trial€judge€denied€the€request€for€a€continuance€and€sentenced€theÏpetitioner€to€forty€years,€but€informed€the€petitioner€that€he€would€entertain€a€motionÏfor€resentencing€on€October€26,€1989,€provided€that€the€petitioner€had€affidavits€fromÏthe€character€witnesses€who€were€out€of€the€state.€€According€to€Reaves,€theÏpetitioner€stated€that€he€would€procure€the€affidavits.€€Reaves€was€unable€to€file€aÍmotion€for€re„sentencing€by€October€26,€1989,€because€the€petitioner€never€acquiredÏthe€affidavits.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€testimony€in€the€hearing€on€the€post„convictionÏpetition,€the€trial€court€denied€the€petition.€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€thatÏReaves€had€advised€the€petitioner€of€the€Stateððs€plea€offer€and€of€what€hisÏsentencing€range€would€be€if€he€were€convicted.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€found€thatÏReaves€had€indeed€informed€the€petitioner€regarding€the€Stateððs€Notice€forÏEnhanced€Punishment€and€the€effect€the€notice€would€have€upon€his€trial€andÏsentence.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€stated€that€Reaves€was€not€at€fault€for€theÏpetitionerððs€failure€to€acquire€affidavits€for€his€out„of„state€character€witnesses.€ÏBased€on€all€the€evidence€presented€at€the€hearing€on€the€post„conviction€petition,Ïthe€trial€court€concluded€that€Reavesðð€performance€was€within€the€level€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ÌÌà àà à"In€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€peti‚tioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€[or€her]€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€ÏòòœMcBee›€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Fur‚thermore,€theÏfactual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€hearings€"are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÍevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment."€€òòState€v.€œBuford›óó,€666€S.W.2d€473,Ï475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€petitioner's€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€"must€show€that€counsel'sÏrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ableness"€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚sel's€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòœStrickland›€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 àFrom€our€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€can€only€conclude€that€theÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€After€hearingÏall€of€the€testimony€and€judging€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€Reaves€had€advised€the€petitioner€regarding€his€potential€sentencing€range€asÏwell€as€the€significance€of€the€Stateððs€Notice€for€Enhanced€Punishment€and€thatÍReaves€was€not€at€fault€for€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€obtain€affidavits€as€he€hadÏpromised.€€The€trial€court€was€essentially€faced€with€a€credibility€contest€and€resolvedÏthat€contest€against€the€petitioner.€€We€find€that€the€record€fully€supports€the€trialÏcourtððs€decision.€€As€a€result,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€that€his€trial€counselððs€representation€fell€below€the€level€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€out€in€the€foregoing€discussion,€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌDAVID€H.€œWELLES›,€Judge