ÿWPC¥ …# VUHa %© 0(¯w@×4 + 3 0JB 0TŒ 0^à 0h> 0r¦ 0| 0†” 0 1uª U, 0dK U,¯ U6Û B)DC: AM}U*Ê Bô+v~<vÓº D3 0@À AOÆO 0D D/Y Bˆ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 <à09Z 0Courier (W1) RegularX($¡¡  D D U VD]eDÓ€´½ 3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òMay€30,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚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  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€ý‹XdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßL€#&";+'h|` Å `€€Lß›à@ àÔ€$ÔòòIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLEóóÌà@ àAPRIL€1996€SESSIONÌÌDAVID€ROY€GOINS,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€03C01„9508„CC„00228Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà à*à àCLAIBORNE€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Lee€Asbury,€JudgeÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà à*ÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓGregory€D.€Smith€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorneyà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌOne€Public€Sq.,€Suite€321ÌClarksville,€TN€€37040à àà àà àHunt€S.€BrownÌ(on€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌSherman€Fettermanà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌP.O.€Box€386ÌTazewell,€TN€€37879à àà àà àShayne€SextonÌ(on€appeal€and€at€hearing)à àà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€455Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTazewell,€TN€€37879ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner,€David€Roy€Goins,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€issues€presented€for€our€review€are€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)à àwhether€the€petitioner€received€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àwhether€the€petitioner's€guilty€pleas€wereÏknowingly€and€voluntarily€made.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€was€indicted€for€first€degree€murder,€felony€murder,Ïespecially€aggravated€robbery€and€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€The€stateÏsought€the€death€penalty.€€After€several€days€of€trial,€a€mistrial€was€declared.€€Later,Ïthere€was€a€negotiated€plea€agreement.€€The€petitioner€entered€best€interest€pleasÏof€guilt€to€one€count€of€second€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.€€The€other€charges€were€dismissed.€€The€sentences€wereÏconsecutive€Range€I€sentences€of€twenty„five€years€each€for€an€effective€sentenceÏof€fifty€years.ÌÌà àà àJust€over€one€month€later,€the€petitioner€filed€this€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€(1)€hisÏjudgment€was€affected€at€the€plea€hearing€because€he€was€on€medication;€(2)Ïcounsel€did€not€explain€the€plea€offer€to€him€but€rather€pushed€him€into€acceptingÏthe€agreement;€(3)€he€was€misled€into€believing€that€he€was€pleading€to€one€classÏA€and€one€class€B€felony€rather€than€two€class€A€felonies;€and€that€(4)€his€counselÏtold€him€to€answer€the€questions€so€that€the€trial€court€would€accept€the€plea€elseÏhe€would€likely€get€the€death€penalty€in€a€trial.€ÌÌà àà àThe€two€attorneys€who€represented€the€defendant€at€trial€also€testifiedÏat€the€hearing.€€They€testified€to€the€hundreds€of€hours€of€preparation€they€hadÏspent€on€the€defendant's€case.€€They€related€that€there€was€no€urgency€to€acceptÏthe€state's€offer€due€to€lack€of€preparation.€€The€attorneys€also€testified€that€theÏdefendant€participated€in€many€of€the€strategic€decisions€made€prior€to€theÏbeginning€of€the€trial€and€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€had€rejected€aÏsentence€offer€of€sixty€years€before€the€offer€of€the€fifty„year€sentence.€€They€hadÏrecommended€the€plea€to€the€defendant€and€had€fully€explained€it€to€him.€€TheÏattorney€had€some€recollection€that€the€defendant€did,€in€fact,€inquire€about€theÏpossibility€of€the€state€offering€class€B€and€class€A€felonies€as€the€bargain;€theyÏrecalled€that€the€state€had€rejected€that€proposal.€€The€form€used€for€the€pleaÍagreement€does€contain€what€appears€to€be€a€handwritten€mark€by€both€the€classÏA€and€class€B€references€within€the€form.€€The€full€document,€however,€specifies€onÏthe€front€and€back€that€each€of€the€offenses€to€which€the€defendant€entered€his€bestÏinterest€pleas€of€guilt€were€class€A€crimes.€€Thus,€the€record€does€not€support€theÏclaim€of€the€petitioner€that€he€pled€to€only€one€class€A€felony.€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€did€not€file€its€findings€in€written€form€as€required€byÏstatute.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118.€€That€omission,€however,€wasÏcompletely€harmless.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏrecited€its€findings,€holding€that€the€petitioner€had€received€the€effective€assistanceÏof€counsel€and€that€his€plea€had€been€voluntarily€and€knowingly€made.€€The€record,Ïin€our€view,€supports€each€conclusion.€€ÌÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àIn€order€for€the€petitioner€to€be€granted€relief€on€grounds€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€he€must€establish€that€the€advice€given€or€the€servicesÏrendered€were€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases€and€that,€but€for€his€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€of€hisÏtrial€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€œ(1984);ÍòòBaxter›€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€This€two„part€standard,€as€it€appliesÏto€guilty€pleas,€is€met€when€the€petitioner€establishes€that,€but€for€his€counsel'sÏerrors,€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòHillÏv.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59€(1985).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderated€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2dÏ12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€Otherwise,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€courtÏare€conclusive.€€òòGraves€v.€Stateóó,€512€S.W.2d€603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€each€of€the€defense€attorneys€assigned€to€the€trial€testified€thatÏthey€were€prepared€for€trial,€that€they€fully€advised€the€petitioner€of€the€terms€of€theÏplea€agreement,€and€that€they€had€not€forced€the€defendant€to€plead€guilty.€€The€Ïtrial€court€accredited€their€testimony.€€Clearly,€the€petitioner€has€not€met€his€burdenÏof€showing€that€the€evidence€preponderates€to€the€contrary.€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àIn€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238€(1969),€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€ruled€that€defendants€should€be€advised€of€certain€of€theirÏconstitutional€rights€before€entering€pleas€of€guilt.€€Included€among€those€requiredÍwarnings€are€the€right€against€self„incrimination,€the€right€to€confront€witnesses,Ïand€the€right€to€a€trial€by€jury.€€òòIdóó.€at€243.€€The€overriding€òòBoykinóó€requirement€is€thatÏthe€guilty€plea€must€be€knowingly€and€voluntarily€made.€€òòIdóó.€at€242„44.€€In€òòState€v.ÏMackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.€1977),€our€supreme€court€established€a€procedureÏfor€trial€courts€to€follow€in€accepting€guilty€pleas.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€does€not€contend€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€follow€theÏrequired€procedure.€€Instead,€he€asserts€that€he€did€not€understand€that€he€wasÏentering€a€plea€to€two€class€A€felonies€rather€than€one€class€A€and€one€class€BÏfelony.€€He€claims€that€he€was€on€medication€at€the€time€of€the€plea;€he€argues€thatÏhis€pleas€were€neither€voluntarily€nor€knowingly€made.€€We€cannot€agree.ÌÌà àà àThe€defense€attorneys€testified€that€the€plea€agreement€was€fullyÏexplained€and€that€the€petitioner€was€"coherent,"€"sharp,"€and€"mentally€alert."€€TheÏplea€hearing€transcript€and€the€plea€form€establish€that€the€petitioner€was€fullyÏadvised€of€each€of€his€rights€as€well€as€the€particular€terms€of€the€plea€agreement.€ÏThe€record€also€shows€that€the€trial€court€had€made€the€appropriate€inquiries€aboutÏthe€voluntariness€of€the€pleas.€€There€is€no€indication€that€the€petitionerÏmisunderstood.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.ÌÌà àà à€Accordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge€