ÿWPC—  …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ Þ w@æ 01& 0DW 0J› 0Tå 0^9 0h— 0rÿ 0|q 0†í 0s 1u 0dx BÜU6ùU./ D3]U*B)º 0@ãDC# AMfn³å!›v~¡vÓ AOòÆA 0D D/K Bz ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi·‚^!3|x‡«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular stuvw[x[y[z[{[|Ó€(á(3Å$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€þYXXdÈXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier!!!!'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌò òFebruary€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+Ô€€Ô€+ôÔThe€petitioner€also€received€a€six„month,€concurrent€sentence€with€probation€forÏdriving€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€on€a€revoked€license,€but€that€case€is€not€before€us.Ò  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€(ÔÌ ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€(ôÔÔ€+ÔThe€petitionerððs€present€counsel€also€represented€him€in€the€criminal€cases.Ò  ÒÒ ° Ò€€Ò  ÒÒ X ÒÌPtPtHHÚ(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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€))Xd#ÑÑ#€))Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€+ÔÑ7€ ̪ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€/0.A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓJOHN€WESLEY€GOSS,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€œ03C01„9508„CR„00222›Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àKnox€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Hon.€Mary€Beth€Leibowitz,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€à à)à à€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌHerbert€S.€Moncierà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ775€Nations€Bank€Centerà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ550€Main€Avenueà àà àà àà àà àandÌKnoxville,€TN€37902à àà àà àHunt€S.€BrownÌ(AT€TRIAL€&€ON€APPEALà à)à àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌDavid€S.€WiglerÌ775€Nations€Bank€Centerà àà àà àRandall€E.€NicholsÌ550€Main€Avenueà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌKnoxville,€TN€37902à àà àà àà àandÌ(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àAndrew€JacksonÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37902ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€John€Wesley€Goss,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€denial€ofÏhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€by€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€County.€€He€wasÏoriginally€convicted€in€February€1994,€upon€his€guilty€pleas€pursuant€to€œan€agreement,›Ïof€three€counts€of€simple€possession€of€controlled€œsubstances,›€and€he€received€threeÏconsecutive€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€sentences€to€be€served€onÏprobation.œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›€€His€post„conviction€petition,€filed€in€January€1995,€arose€from€his€basicÏclaim€that€a€1993€state€in€rem€civil€forfeiture€of€one€hundred€eighty„seven€dollars€and€aÏpager,€based€upon€his€unlawful€possession€of€the€same€controlled€substances,Íœconstitutes›€such€punishment€as€to€bar€his€subsequent€convictions€and€sentences€asÏviolations€of€his€right€against€double€jeopardy.€€The€petitioner€also€asserts€that,€givenÏthe€double€jeopardy€bar,€(1)€his€guilty€pleas€did€not€waive€his€double€jeopardyÏprotections,€(2)€his€pleas€resulted€from€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€relative€toÏthe€double€jeopardy€claim,€and€(3)€his€plea€agreement€is€voidable€by€him€because€ofÏlack€of€consideration.€€The€trial€court€essentially€held€that€although€the€petitioner€mayÏnot€have€waived€his€right€to€claim€double€jeopardy€by€his€guilty€pleas,€Tennessee€hadÏnot€recognized€a€double€jeopardy€violation€arising€from€civil€forfeiture/criminalÏconviction€cases.€€Also,€it€concluded€that€the€petitionerððs€attorneyððs€advice€to€pleadÏguilty€under€the€agreement€did€not€result€in€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€WeÏaffirm€the€denial€of€relief.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€underlying€claim€was€based€primarily€upon€theÏreasoning€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Urseryóó,€59€F.3d€568,€576€(6th€Cir.€1995),€in€which€theÏSixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€concluded€that€a€civil€forfeiture€judgment€against€aÏdefendant€followed€by€his€criminal€conviction€for€the€same€drug„related€eventsÏconstituted€double€jeopardy.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€$405,089.23€U.S.€Currencyóó,Ï33€F.3d€1210€(9th€Cir.€1994).€€The€petitioner€asserts€that€the€Tennessee€in€remÏforfeiture€laws€are€identical€in€all€material€respects€to€the€federal€laws€and€should,Ïlikewise,€be€viewed€as€punitive€for€double€jeopardy€purposes€under€both€the€FifthÍAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€œArticle€I,›€Section€10€of€theÏConstitution€of€Tennessee.€€ÌÌà àAs€a€predicate€to€relief,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€his€guilty€pleas€do€notÏconstitute€a€waiver€of€his€right€to€void€his€convictions€through€post„convictionÏprocedures€by€now€asserting€his€protection€against€double€jeopardy.€€He€relies€uponÏòòMenna€v.€New€Yorkóó,€423€U.S.€61,€62,€96€S.€Ct.€241,€242€(1975),€in€which€the€SupremeÏCourt€stated€that€a€conviction€in€violation€of€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€could€be€setÏaside€even€if€the€conviction€was€entered€pursuant€to€a€counseled€guilty€plea.€€HeÏacknowledges€that€the€Supreme€Court€placed€some€limitations€on€its€òòMennaóó€holdingÏin€òòUnited€States€v.€Broceóó,€488€U.S.€563,€575„76,€109€S.€Ct.€757,€765„66€(1989),€but€heÏclaims€that€he€falls€within€those€limits€under€the€analysis€of€òòBroceóó€provided€in€òòOakes€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€872€F.€Supp.€817,€822„823€(E.D.€Wash.€1994)€œ(Under›€òòBroceóó,€aÏcounseled€guilty€plea€would€not€bar€a€collateral€attack€on€a€conviction€if€a€DoubleÏJeopardy€Clause€violation€were€evident€from€the€indictment€and€the€œrecord.).›ÌÌà àAlso,€the€petitioner€argues€that,€as€a€practical€matter,€he€could€not€haveÏknowingly€and€understandingly€waived€his€double€jeopardy€claim€because€none€ofÏthe€relevant€federal€cases€had€been€decided€at€the€time€of€his€guilty€pleas.€€In€thisÏsense,€the€petitioner€raises€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€as€an€alternative.€ÏThat€is,€he€asserts€that€if€the€double€jeopardy€right€in€issue€did€exist€at€the€time€of€hisÍguilty€pleas,€competent€counsel€would€not€have€advised€him€to€enter€the€guilty€pleas€inÏa€case€where€he€had€an€absolute€bar€to€further€criminal€liability.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€fact€of€the€double€jeopardy€barÏrenders€his€plea€agreement€voidable€because€of€lack€of€consideration.€€He€reasonsÏthat€although€on€its€face€the€stateððs€offer€to€reduce€felony€charges€to€misdemeanors€ifÏhe€would€plead€guilty€appears€to€be€of€valuable€consideration,€the€fact€that€all€theÏcharges€should€have€been€barred€under€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€made€theÏstateððs€offer€of€no€value.€€ÌÌà àAs€the€petitionerððs€various€arguments€suggest,€the€foundation€for€hisÏrelief€rests€solely€upon€his€double€jeopardy€claim.€€However,€after€the€present€caseÏwas€submitted€for€decision,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€reversed€the€appellateÏcourts€in€œòòUrseryóó›€and€òò$405,089.23€U.S.€Currencyóó,€holding€that€the€in€rem€civilÏforfeitures€in€issue€were€ð ðneither€œððpunishmentðð›€nor€criminal€for€purposes€of€the€DoubleÏJeopardy€Clause.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Urseryóó,€116€S.€Ct.€œ2135,›€œ2149›€(1996).€ÏSubsequently,€our€court€has€analyzed€our€state€in€rem€civil€forfeiture€laws€andÏconcluded€that€they€are€similar€in€purpose€to€the€federal€forfeiture€laws€at€issue€inÏòòUrseryóó€and€that€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€of€neither€the€state€nor€the€federalÏconstitution€is€implicated.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Grapel€Simpson€and€Linda€Sue€SimpsonÍHortonóó,€No.€02C01„9508„CC„00240,€McNairy€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€30,Ï1996);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Charles€David€Wagneróó,€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00346,€SullivanÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€18,€1996);€òòState€v.€Charles€Don€Vanceóó,€No.€03C01„9601„CC„00026,€Sevier€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€9,€1996),€òòapplic.óó€œòòfiledóó›€(Tenn.ÏSept.€19,€1996);€òòState€v.€James€C.€Bradley€and€Mickey€Elleróó,€No.€03C01„9510„CC„00318,€Monroe€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€4,€1996),€òòapplic.óó€òòfiledóó€òòasóó€òòto€œEller›óó€(Tenn.ÏNov.€4,€1996);€òòState€v.€Grapel€Simpsonóó,€No.€02C01„9508„CC„00239,€McNairy€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Aug.€2,€1996),€òòapplic.óó€œòòfiledóó›€(Sept.€30,€1996).€€Without€elaboration,€weÏagree€with€the€analyses€presented€in€these€cases.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€neither€theÏDouble€Jeopardy€Clause€of€the€state€nor€that€of€the€federal€constitution€bars€theÏdefendantððs€drug€related€convictions€after€his€property€was€subjected€to€in€rem€civilÏforfeiture.€€ÌÌà àIt€necessarily€follows€that€any€benefit€that€the€petitioner€seeks€to€obtainÏfrom€òòMennaóó€and€òòBroceóó€relative€to€limits€upon€the€application€of€waiver€to€a€guilty€pleaÏin€a€prosecution€barred€by€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€is€œnot€available.›€€Likewise,€weÏcan€find€no€indication€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€the€record€before€us.€€InÏfact,€even€if€the€double€jeopardy€claim€were€now€viable,€it€is€important€to€note€that€all€ofÏthe€decisions€upon€which€the€petitioner€relies€to€prove€the€claim€were€renderedÏanywhere€from€four€to€eighteen€months,€with€the€earlier€ones€not€directly€on€point,€afterÏhis€guilty€pleas€were€entered.€€To€hold€counsel€accountable€under€theseÍcircumstances€would€require€counsel€to€be€omniscient,€if€not€actually€prescient.€€WeÏconclude€that€the€petitioner€was€not€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà àAlso,€as€for€the€petitionerððs€claim€of€lack€of€consideration€for€his€guiltyÏplea,€it€too€has€no€merit€because€there€was€no€double€jeopardy€bar€to€the€prosecution.€ÏMoreover,€we€note€that€the€mere€fact€that€a€constitutional€claim€was€potentially€viableÏdoes€not€negate€the€value€of€the€stateððs€offer€when€it€is€considered€in€context.€€That€is,Ïœat›€the€time€of€the€pleas,€the€double€jeopardy€issue€was,€at€best,€a€growing€one€inÏcertain€isolated€cases,€neither€œcommonly›€known€to€the€general€bar€nor€well„developedÏas€a€recognized€right.€€Moreover,€plea€bargaining€may€be€viewed€favorably€by€aÏdefendant€because€of€its€reduction€of€stress€on€himself€and€his€family,€its€removal€ofÏuncertain€consequences€arising€from€a€trial,€and€its€reduction€of€actual€exposure.€€òòSeeóó,Ïòòe.g.óó,€òòMcMann€v.€Richardsonóó,€397€U.S.€759,€œ768„69,€90›€S.€Ct.€1441,€œ1447›€(1970).€€InÏthis€fashion,€we€cannot€say€that€there€was€not€consideration€existing€under€the€state€ofÏthe€law€at€the€time€of€the€guilty€pleas.€€ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCharles€Lee,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌÌ