ÿWPC×0 …U .V %„bŠ D3ŽÁn­Ñ~ 0 (†w@®4î 0 ” 0D– ÆÚ Æ  Æf Æ, Æò A©¸ 0@a B¡ D+¾ 0Ké 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0|  0†† 0  1uœ 0dB)uDCžU *á AO çZ^AQŸ^ð>NŒÉš"c$´ó&v~§(vÓ%* AOø/ 0DG0 D/‹0 Bº0<þ6X9`(CourierX ù""""'ÿÿdxd3|x"«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡ gDEDDÓ€R¦"!Ô¤TÔô(D(2Nà$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 $#›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2 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)*+,-./0 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d::::7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial $;Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÝÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔÔ€<ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€<XÔÌÌò òMay€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€<ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó TÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔThe€indictments,€written€plea€agreements€and€judgments€of€convictionÏwere€not€made€a€part€of€the€record;€therefore,€this€court€is€limited€toÏconsideration€of€the€testimony€of€the€appellant,€transcripts€of€the€plea€hearingsÏand€post„conviction€petition€in€determining€the€crimes€for€which€the€appellantÏwas€indicted€and€sentenced.€€Although€the€better€practice€is€for€theseÏdocuments€to€be€part€of€the€record,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðððð€40„30„104€(12)(b)€(1990)€(repealed€1995)€and€€40„30„114(b)€(1990)€Ï(repealed€1995),€based€on€the€other€evidence€before€us,€we€do€not€deem€thisÏabsence€critical€in€this€case.Ì GÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔThe€appellant's€participation€in€the€Community€Corrections€programÏwas€extremely€brief.€€The€plea€hearing€at€which€the€judge€sentenced€theÏappellant€to€Community€Corrections€took€place€on€November€13,€1993.€€TheÏappellant's€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€sworn€on€February€8,€1994,€atÏwhich€time€he€was€already€incarcerated€with€the€Department€of€Corrections.€Ì TÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔBy€separate€order€entered€February€23,€1994,€counsel€was€appointed€toÏassist€the€appellant€in€this€post„conviction€proceeding.Ì 4Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔThe€appellant's€testimony€on€this€point€is€contradicted€by€the€transcriptÏof€the€plea€agreement€hearing€for€the€aggravated€assault€charge,€wherein€theÏcourt,€while€explaining€the€Community€Corrections€Program,€stated,€"And€youÏknow€that€they're€very€strict€about€their€rules€and€regulations€in€[C]ommunityÏ[C]orrections.€.€.€.€Show€up€[sic]€a€dirty€drug€screen,€they're€going€to€put€you€backÏin€jail,€òòwe'll€have€a€hearing€on€itóó,€and€then€if€I€find€that€you€did€violate€theÏconditions€of€[C]ommunity€[C]orrections,€then€you'll,€as€I€say,€off€to€theÏDepartment€of€Corrections€you€go."€€(emphasis€added)Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔThe€record€reflects€the€appellant€pleaded€guilty€to€two€charges€and€noloÏcontendere€to€a€third€charge.€€The€appellant€has€raised€no€issue€on€appealÏregarding€whether€the€nolo€contendere€plea€was€knowingly€and€voluntarilyÏmade,€and€that€issue€is€deemed€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b).€€However,Ïwe€note€that€all€three€pleas€arise€from€the€same€factual€background,€and€hadÏthe€knowing€character€and€voluntariness€of€this€third€plea€been€challenged€inÏthis€appeal,€our€analysis€would€have€been€identical€to€that€discussed€herein.Ô€ÔÌ ¿Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€<Ôà àIn€òòBentleyóó€the€record€on€appeal€included€the€sentencing€order,€theÏremoval€or€revocation€order,€and€the€testimony€of€the€trial€judge€as€to€theÏrevocation€procedure€used.€€òòSeeóó€òòBentleyóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€712„13.Ì †Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔAlthough€we€are€mindful€of€the€exception€to€the€waiver€rule€that€an€issueÏmay€be€raised€notwithstanding€the€failure€to€raise€it€in€prior€proceedings€whereÏthe€right€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial€if€the€U.S.€orÏTennessee€Constitutions€require€retrospective€application€of€that€right,€we€doÏnot€believe€that€exception€is€applicable€to€the€case€at€bar.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„30„105€(1990)€(repealed).Ì ªÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔBecause€we€base€our€holding€on€this€ground,€we€express€no€opinionÏregarding€the€state's€argument€that€issues€involving€manner€of€service€ofÏsentence€are€not€cognizable€òòper€seóó€in€post„conviction€proceedings.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ€Ñò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€<ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€=>;A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌó óÌà@ àJANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òBRIAN€M.€HERMAN,à à€à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9601„CR„00035Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHamilton€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àà à)à àHonorable€Russell€C.ÏHinson,€Judge€à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌARDENA€J.€GARTHà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ11th€Judicial€DistrictÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€T.€RYANÌDONNA€ROBINSON€MILLER€(appeal)à àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€District€Public€Defenderà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌHIRAM€G.€HILL€(hearing)à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌAssistant€District€Public€Defender€Ì701€Cherry€St.,€Suite€300à àà àà àà àWILLIAM€COXÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àC.€LELAND€DAVISÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCourts€Building,€Room€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÇÑ7€BXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÓÓà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àThe€appellant,€Brian€M.€Herman,€appeals€the€Hamilton€CountyÏCriminal€Courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Herman€wasÏconvicted€of€aggravated€assault,€theft€and€possession€of€cocaine€for€resaleÏfollowing€pleas€of€guilty€and€nolo€contendere€on€these€charges.€€He€receivedÏconsecutive€sentences€totaling€15€years,€to€be€served€in€CommunityÏCorrections,€although€his€Community€Corrections€status€was€later€revoked€andÏhe€was€sent€to€the€Department€of€Corrections.€€In€his€post„conviction€petition,€heÏalleged€he€did€not€receive€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€as€a€result,Ïhis€guilty€pleas€were€not€knowingly€and€voluntarily€made.€€The€Hamilton€CountyÏCriminal€Court€found€petitioner€failed€to€prove€his€allegations€and€dismissed€hisÏpetition.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€challenges€the€ruling€below€with€respect€toÏboth€of€these€issues.€€In€addition,€he€raises€two€additional€issues,€(1)€whetherÏthe€state€waived€any€defenses€to€the€petition€by€failing€to€file€an€answer,€and€(2)Ïwhether€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€when€he€did€not€receive€a€hearingÏprior€to€revocation€of€his€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€On€review€of€theÏrecord,€we€hold€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court'sÏfindings€that€the€appellant€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€theÏtrial€level€and€that€his€guilty€pleas€were€knowingly€and€voluntarily€made,€and€weÏaffirm€the€decision€of€the€court€below€with€respect€to€those€issues.€€Additionally,Ïwe€hold€the€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€based€upon€his€claims€relating€toÏthe€state's€failure€to€file€an€answer€to€the€petition€and€the€state's€failure€toÏprovide€him€with€a€Community€Corrections€revocation€hearing.€€Accordingly,€weÍaffirm€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€the€petition.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€was€charged€with€possession€of€cocaine€for€resale,Ïtheft€of€property€valued€over€$1,000€and€aggravated€assault.× ƒ? ××  ×€€He€retainedÏLeonard€M.€Caputo€to€represent€him€in€the€proceedings€against€him.€€TheÏappellant€knew€Mr.€Caputo€and€had€retained€him€in€the€past€to€represent€himÏwith€respect€to€other€matters.€€He€paid€Mr.€Caputo€a€fee,€although€the€services€toÏbe€provided€for€that€fee€are€disputed.€€€Mr.€Caputo€testified€the€fee€was€for€hisÏservices€in€working€out€€plea€arrangements.€€€The€appellant€contends€Mr.ÏCaputo€refused€to€take€his€cases€to€trial€without€an€additional€fee,€although€theÏappellant€never€directly€denies€the€fee€he€paid€was€solely€to€resolve€the€mattersÏprior€to€trial.€€Mr.€Caputo€acknowledges€he€quoted€an€additional€fee€to€theÏappellant,€but€ultimately,€he€told€the€appellant€he€would€go€to€trial€even€thoughÏthe€fee€had€not€been€paid.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€appellant€denied€Mr.€CaputoÏtold€him€he€would€take€his€case€to€trial€without€the€additional€fee€and€says€heÏwas€told€he€could€either€plead€to€the€charges€or€go€to€trial€with€a€publicÏdefender.€€The€appellant€further€contends€Mr.€Caputo€told€him€he€would€receiveÍmaximum€sentences€if€he€was€represented€by€a€public€defender.ÌÌà àà àIn€any€event,€Mr.€Caputo€negotiated€a€plea€agreement€wherebyÏthe€appellant€pleaded€guilty€to€possession€of€cocaine€for€resale€with€an€agreedÏsentence€of€9€years€and€theft€of€property€with€an€agreed€sentence€of€3€yearsÏrunning€consecutively€to€the€9€year€sentence.€€The€appellant€requestedÏplacement€in€the€Community€Corrections€program,€and€the€sentencing€courtÏreferred€him€to€Community€Corrections€for€€consideration.€€The€appellant€wasÏinitially€denied€enrollment€in€Community€Corrections€through€the€programððsÏscreening€process;€however,€through€further€efforts€of€Attorney€Caputo,€thatÏdecision€was€reversed.€€Several€months€after€entering€his€guilty€pleas€on€theÏpossession€of€cocaine€and€theft€charges,€the€appellant€entered€a€plea€of€noloÏcontendere€to€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault€with€an€agreed€sentence€of€3Ïyears€to€be€served€consecutively€œto›€the€9€and€3€year€sentences.€€The€courtÏapproved€the€service€of€these€sentences€in€the€Community€CorrectionsÏprogram.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€was€ultimately€unsuccessful€in€the€CommunityÏCorrections€program.€€By€his€own€admission,€he€quit€going€to€work€at€the€job€toÏwhich€he€was€assigned€through€the€program,€even€though€he€knew€he€wouldÏhave€to€serve€his€sentence€in€jail€if€he€did€not€comply€with€all€the€requirementsÍof€Community€Corrections.× ƒ@ ××  ×€The€appellant€was€thereafter€sent€to€theÏDepartment€of€Corrections€to€serve€his€sentence.€€He€testified€he€was€unawareÏhe€had€the€right€to€a€hearing€until€after€the€time€for€requesting€a€hearing€hadÏexpired.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal,€the€appellant€raises€four€issues€for€ourÏconsideration:€(1)€€whether€the€state€waived€any€defenses€by€failing€to€properlyÏplead€them;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€received€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€his€guilty€pleasÏwere€voluntarily,€understandingly€and€knowingly€entered,€and€(4)€whether€hisÏdue€process€rights€were€violated€when€he€was€deprived€of€a€CommunityÏCorrections€revocation€hearing.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIó óÌÓ  Óà àà à€The€appellant€contends€he€is€entitled€to€relief€because€the€stateÏnever€filed€an€answer€to€his€petition,€as€required€by€former€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„30„114.ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€of€record€shows€that€shortly€after€the€appellant€filedÍhis€òòpro€seóó€petition,€it€was€found€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€by€Judge€DiRisioÏof€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court.€€By€Judge€DiRisioððs€order€of€FebruaryÏ28,€1994,€the€appellant€was€allowed€90€days€to€amend€his€petition,× ƒA ××  ×€and€theÏstate€was€given€30€days€after€filing€of€the€amendment€to€file€its€answer.€€NoÏamended€petition€appears€in€the€record,€which€leads€this€court€to€the€conclusionÏthe€petition€was€never€amended.€€The€state€permitted€the€appellant€to€amendÏhis€petition€orally€on€the€day€of€the€hearing,€and€for€purposes€of€our€review,€weÏhave€considered€the€oral€amendments€made€at€the€hearing.€€However,€havingÏfailed€to€file€the€required€written€amendment€(a€prerequisite€to€the€stateððsÏobligation€to€file€an€answer€under€Judge€DiRisio's€order),€the€petitioner€is€notÏentitled€to€benefit€from€the€state's€failure€to€file€an€answer.€Of€equal€significanceÏis€the€fact€the€petitioner€did€not€present€this€issue€to€the€post„conviction€court.€ÏThe€record€is€devoid€of€any€objection€by€petitioner€to€proceeding€to€hearing€inÏthe€absence€of€the€state's€answer.€€Petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€an€issueÏnot€raised€below.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a)€(party€who€caused€error€or€failed€toÏtake€action€to€prevent€error€is€not€entitled€to€appellate€relief);€òòAlonzo€Williams€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€1100€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Mar.€4,€1987)€(in€post„convictionÏproceedings,€"the€rule€is€that€questions€not€raised€by€the€pleadings€and€thenÏlitigated€in€the€trial€court€are€not€reviewable€on€appeal")€(citation€omitted),€òòperm.Ïapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€€€Additionally,€we€note€petitioner€has€shown€noÏprejudice€which€has€befallen€him€as€a€result€of€the€state's€failure€to€file€aÍresponsive€pleading.€€òòSeeóó€òòLairron€Rawson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9307„CC„00244€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€œ2,›€1994)€(petitioner€is€not€entitled€toÏrelief€based€upon€state's€failure€to€file€its€answer€timely€absent€showing€ofÏprejudice);€òòRucker€v.€Tollettóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€672,€475€S.W.2d€207€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1971).€€Thus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIIó óÌÓ  Óà àà àNext,€we€turn€to€the€issue€of€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€findingÏthat€the€appellant€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€When€a€petitionÏchallenges€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€(1)€deficient€representation€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€thatÏdeficiency.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€686,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,Ï2066„67€(1984);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€DeficientÏrepresentation€occurs€when€counsel€provides€assistance€that€falls€below€theÏrange€of€competence€demanded€of€criminal€attorneys.€€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815ÏS.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Prejudice€is€the€reasonableÏlikelihood€that,€but€for€deficient€representation,€the€outcome€of€the€proceedingÏwould€have€been€different.€€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1994).€€InÏthe€context€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims€arising€out€of€the€pleaÏprocess,€the€Supreme€Court€has€said€the€òòStricklandóó€prejudice€prong€requiresÏthe€petitioner€to€demonstrate€"a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel'sÏerrors€he€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€toÏtrial."€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€370€(1985);€òòsee€alsoóóÍòòBankstonóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€215.€€On€post„conviction€review,€there€is€a€strongÏpresumption€of€satisfactory€representation.€€òòBarr€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€462,€464Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àà àWhen€this€court€undertakes€review€of€a€lower€court's€decision€on€aÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€lower€court's€findings€of€fact€are€given€theÏweight€of€a€jury€verdict€and€are€conclusive€on€appeal€absent€a€finding€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,Ï14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€441€U.S.€947,€99€S.€Ct.€2170€(1979).€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellantððs€specific€complaints€on€appeal€with€respect€to€theÏservices€provided€by€his€retained€counsel€are€(1)€counsel€threatened€toÏwithdraw€and€have€the€public€defender€assigned€to€represent€the€appellantÏunless€he€paid€additional€attorneyððs€fees€to€take€the€matter€to€trial,€(2)€counselÏfailed€to€explain€the€Community€Corrections€program,€(3)€counsel€failed€toÏexplain€the€right€to€a€revocation€hearing€before€final€termination€of€theÏappellantððs€participation€in€the€program€for€violation€of€program€rules,€and€(4)Ïcounsel€failed€to€ensure€the€appellant€understood€he€would€serve€consecutiveÏsentences€of€15€years,€rather€than€concurrent€sentences€of€9€years.ÌÌà àà àIn€its€findings€of€fact,€the€post„conviction€court€found€the€appellantÏfailed€to€carry€the€burden€of€proof€with€respect€to€his€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€based€upon€his€attorney's€alleged€refusal€to€take€the€appellant'sÍcases€to€trial€without€additional€payment.€€The€post„conviction€court€also€foundÏagainst€the€appellant€on€his€claim€he€did€not€understand€his€sentences€wouldÏrun€consecutively,€rather€than€concurrently.€€€After€thoroughly€reviewing€theÏrecord,€we€conclude€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€post„conviction€court's€findings€on€these€issues.ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€remaining€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€„„€that€Attorney€Caputo€failed€to€explain€the€Community€CorrectionsÏprogram€and€did€not€advise€petitioner€of€the€right€to€a€hearing€prior€to€revocationÏof€a€Community€Corrections€sentence€„„€the€trial€court€failed€to€make€findings€asÏrequired€by€former€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„118(b)€(1990)Ï(repealed).€€Although€the€statute€commands€that€the€trial€court€"shall"€addressÏall€issues€in€a€final€order€with€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€òòseeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€œ40„30„118(b)›€(1990)€(repealed),€€this€court€has€held€that€suchÏfailure€will€not€warrant€reversal€if€the€record€sufficiently€reflects€the€apparentÏreasons€for€the€lower€court's€actions€so€as€to€allow€for€meaningful€appellateÏreview.€€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€òòseeÏalsoóó€òòJohnny€Eugene€Johnson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00247€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€10/10/96),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€the€case€atÏbar,€we€find€the€record€sufficiently€reflects€the€reasons€for€the€lower€court'sÏdenial€of€the€petition€on€these€two€subissues€of€the€ineffective€assistance€claim.ÌÌà àà àNo€evidence€of€record,€save€petitioner's€uncorroborated€testimony,Ísupports€his€claim€his€attorney€did€not€explain€the€Community€CorrectionsÏprogram€to€him.€€On€post„conviction€review,€the€lone€testimony€of€the€petitionerÏis€not€enough€to€carry€the€burden€of€proof€on€an€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€claim.€€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820€S.W.2d€753,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ÏIn€fact,€the€state's€evidence€included€the€testimony€of€Attorney€Caputo€that€heÏexplained€the€basic€requirements€of€the€program€to€petitioner,€including€workÏassignments,€random€drug€screens,€curfew€and€electronic€monitoring.€€TheÏrecord€further€reflects€that€the€sentencing€judge€admonished€the€appellant€toÏfollow€the€rules€of€the€Community€Corrections€program€or€he€would€be€subjectÏto€incarceration€with€the€Department€of€Corrections.€€Moreover,€the€appellant'sÏcomplaints€about€the€Community€Corrections€program€are€somewhatÏinconsistent.€€As€noted€above,€he€contended€in€his€petition€that€the€program€wasÏmuch€too€rigorous€and€intensive€for€his€liking,€but€his€testimony€at€the€hearingÏwas€that€he€quit€participating€in€the€program€because€he€was€not€being€paid€forÏhis€labor€and€this€was€unfair€to€the€relatives€who€were€having€to€support€him.€ÏClearly,€the€appellant€has€brought€forth€no€evidence€which€would€entitle€him€toÏrelief€on€this€subissue,€and€the€lower€court's€failure€to€specifically€address€it€inÏits€findings€relative€to€the€ineffective€assistance€issue€is€harmless€error.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€appellant's€allegation€of€ineffective€assistanceÏthrough€counsel's€failure€to€advise€him€of€his€right€to€a€hearing€prior€toÏrevocation€of€his€Community€Corrections€sentence,€the€appellant€testified€heÍwas€not€told€òòat€the€time€he€accepted€the€plea€agreementóó€that€he€would€not€beÏentitled€to€a€hearing€unless€he€requested€one.× ƒB ××  ×€€The€appellant's€œcounsel›€arguedÏat€the€post„conviction€hearing,€"[T]he€one€glaring€issue€here€is€that€òòwhen€Mr.€ÏHerman€was€violated€by€the€Community€Corrections€programóó,€he€was€not€madeÏaware€of€his€right€to€have€a€hearing€if€he€so€requested,€if€that€was€his€method€forÏany€redress€as€to€the€revocation€from€the€Community€Corrections€Program."€Ï(emphasis€added)€€€In€his€brief,€the€appellant€simply€contends€his€counselÏ"never"€advised€him€of€the€right€to€a€revocation€hearing.€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€before€this€court€is€insufficient€to€establish€theÏappellant's€claim.€€With€respect€to€the€first€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€analysis,€theÏappellant€must€establish€that€the€alleged€failure€of€his€counsel€to€advise€him€ofÏthe€process€for€obtaining€a€revocation€hearing€departed€from€the€standardÏgenerally€expected€of€criminal€defense€attorneys.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2dÏ930,936€(Tenn.€1975).€€€An€attorney€has€an€affirmative€obligation€to€keep€hisÏclient€informed€throughout€the€course€of€the€attorney's€representation€of€theÏclient.€€However,€we€do€not€believe€the€practitioners€of€criminal€law€in€this€stateÏhave€an€obligation€to€advise€their€clients€at€the€time€of€entry€of€a€guilty€or€noloÍcontendere€plea€of€every€possible€difficulty€they€may€face€in€their€continuingÏjourney€through€the€criminal€justice€system.€€Further,€we€decline€to€interpretÏòòStricklandóó€and€òòBaxteróó€in€a€way€that€would€impose€on€the€criminal€law€bar€anÏobligation€of€"continuing€supervision"€once€the€terms€of€the€representationÏagreement€or€appointment€have€been€completed€and€the€defendant€has€movedÏon€to€the€corrections€phase€of€the€criminal€justice€process.€€€In€this€regard,€theÏappellant€has€offered€no€evidence€that€Mr.€Caputo€was€aware€of€the€appellant'sÏsentence€revocation€or€of€the€existence€of€an€attorney/client€relationshipÏbetween€the€appellant€and€Mr.€Caputo€at€that€time.€ÌÌà àà àÌà àà àFor€these€reasons,€any€error€of€the€post„conviction€court€in€failingÏto€make€findings€of€fact€on€this€subissue€of€the€ineffective€assistance€claim€isÏharmless.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€The€issuesÏregarding€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€without€merit.ÌÌò òÓ  Ó€IIIó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€next€issue€the€appellant€presents€for€our€consideration€isÏwhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€his€guilty€pleas€were€"voluntarily,Ïunderstandingly€and€knowingly"€entered.€€When€we€review€the€entry€of€a€guiltyÏplea,€our€overriding€concern€is€whether€the€plea€was€knowingly€and€voluntarilyÏmade.€€òòWoods€v.€Stateóó,€928€S.W.2d€52,€55€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€lowerÏcourt's€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidenceÍpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€his€argument€to€this€court,€the€appellant€contends€his€guiltyÏpleas× ƒC ××  ×€were€not€knowing€and€voluntary€because€he€did€not€understand€"theÏterms€and€consequences€of€his€guilty€pleas,"€and€further,€Attorney€CaputoÏadvised€him€he€would€receive€maximum€sentences€if€he€was€represented€by€aÏpublic€defender€at€trial.€€The€post„conviction€court€foundÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[N]othing€was€developed€to€support€[the€claim€appellantððs€attorneyÏtold€him€he€would€receive€maximum€sentences€if€he€went€to€trialÏrepresented€by€the€public€defender].Ì.€.€.Ì[B]eing€ððgiven€to€the€Public€Defenderððs€officeðð€is€not€something€toÏcause€reasonable€fear€so€as€to€render€a€plea€involuntary.Ì.€.€.€Ì[Appellant]€further€complained€that€he€did€not€know€he€wasÏpleading€guilty€but€thought€he€was€pleading€no€contest.€€TheÏverbatim€record€of€the€plea€hearing[,]€now€a€part€of€the€record€inÏthis€case[,]€shows€a€lengthy€discussion€at€the€end€which€[sic]€theÏcourt€says:€"[I]f€I€accept€your€plea€of€nolo€contendre€[sic]€I'm€goingÏto€make€a€finding€of€guilty.€€I'm€going€to€find€you€are€guilty€and€it'llÏhave€the€same€effect€as€if€the€jury€heard€the€case€and€found€youÏguilty."€€[citation€omitted]€€The€record€shows€the€defendant€repliedÏ"yea."€€This€claim€then€is€without€merit.ÌÌThe€petitioner€further€complains€that€he€thought€he€was€gettingÏnine€years€sentence,€[sic]€not€15€years.€€The€record€shows€thatÏafter€making€a€finding€of€guilty€the€court€pronounced€the€followingÍ[citation€omitted]:€€"The€court€sentences€you€to€three€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Corrections.€€That€3€years€to€run€consecutive€to€theÏ3€years€in€194796€and€194796€was€to€run€consecutive€to€193049Ïwhere€you€got€nine€years€so€that€makes€nine€and€three€and€three.€ÏYou€understand€that?"€€Defendant€(petitioner€herein)€replied€"Yes,Ïsir."€€The€court€then€assigned€the€defendant€to€the€HamiltonÏCounty€Community€Correction€Program[,]€a€program€requiringÏworking€and€monitoring€by€an€electronic€device.€ÌÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓà àà àUpon€review€of€the€record,€we€do€not€find€evidence€whichÏpreponderates€against€these€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€Further,€evenÏthough€the€court€below€failed€to€make€findings€regarding€the€petitioner'sÏunderstanding€of€the€rigors€of€the€Community€Corrections€Program,€we€find€thatÏfailure€harmless€in€light€of€the€abundant€evidence€that€both€the€trial€court€andÏAttorney€Caputo€explained€the€intensive€nature€of€the€program€to€the€appellant.ÌÌà àà àThus,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€finding€ofÏthe€lower€court€that€the€appellant's€pleas€were€knowingly€and€voluntarily€made.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓIVó óÌÓ  Óà àà àFinally,€the€appellant€calls€on€this€court€to€consider€whether€hisÏdue€process€rights€were€violated€because€he€did€not€receive€a€CommunityÏCorrections€revocation€hearing.€€The€appellant€urges€this€court€to€grant€reliefÏunder€Rule€52(b)€of€the€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€the€"plain€error"€rule.€€InÏhis€brief,€the€appellant€cites€òòState€v.€Trevor€Anthony€Harperóó,€No.€03C01„9503„CR„00072€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€20,€1995),€a€case€in€which€thisÍcourt€reversed€and€remanded€a€probation€revocation€on€direct€appeal€whereÏthe€revocation€procedure€failed€to€meet€minimal€due€process€requirements.€ÏAlso€appellant€relies€upon€òòBentley€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€706€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1996),€in€which€this€court€analyzed€the€Hamilton€County€CommunityÏCorrections€revocation€process.€€By€dicta€in€òòBentleyóó€we€observed€that€theÏprocedure€was€constitutionally€deficient€in€providing€due€process€to€individualsÏwhose€Community€Corrections€sentences€were€revoked€under€that€county'sÏparticular€procedure.€€òòBentleyóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€714.€€The€appellant€now€attacksÏthe€€procedure€used€in€the€same€county,€and€while€the€same€revocationÏprocedure€may€have€been€used€in€the€case€at€bar€as€was€used€in€òòBentleyóó,€€theÏpetitioner€in€this€case€has€failed€to€include€evidence€in€the€record€on€appeal€ofÏthe€Hamilton€County€procedure€under€which€the€petitioner's€CommunityÏCorrections€Sentence€was€revoked.× ƒD ××  ×ÌÌà àà àThe€state€contends,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€€the€appellant€failed€to€take€aÏdirect€appeal€of€the€revocation€of€the€sentence€and€argues€the€appellant€hasÏwaived€relief€on€this€ground.ÌÌà àà àGiven€the€posture€of€this€case,€we€hold€that€consideration€of€theÏrevocation€issue€on€the€merits€is€precluded€by€any€one€of€three€waiver€rules.ÌÌà àà àFirst,€we€are€constrained€to€hold€that€the€record€on€appeal€doesÏnot€justify€our€review€of€the€revocation€procedure€on€the€merits.€€ð ðThe€burden€isÏon€the€appellant€to€prepare€a€record€of€the€proceedings€for€appellate€review.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€œ560„61›€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€are€precluded€fromÏconsidering€an€issue€where€the€record€does€not€contain€ð ða€complete€transcriptÏor€statement€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€issuesÏraised.ðð€€òòState€v.€Larry€D.€Swaffordóó,€No.€03C01„9502„CR„00046,€slip€op.€at€3Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€November€œ16,›€1995),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.ÏMay€6,€1996).ÌÌà àThe€revocation€issue€was€not€included€in€the€petition;€however,€theÏappellant€testified€on€re„direct€examination€as€follows:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓQ.à àWhen€you€were€told€about€the€CommunityÏCorrections€Program,€did€anybody€tell€you€if€theyÏever€tried€to€revoke€you€from€that€program,€that€youÏwould€not€be€entitled€to€a€hearing€unless€youÏrequested€one?ÌÌA.à àNo,€I€ainððt€even€know€I€was€„„€I€didnððt€know€IÏwas€going€to€have€a€hearing€until€after€I€got€in€theÏsystem.ÌÌQ.à àSo€your€time€for€hearing€had€already€passedÏby€the€time€you€realized€you€could€have€one,€is€thatÏcorrect?ÌÌA.à àYes.ÌÌQ.à àDid€anybody€ever€explain€to€you€when€youÏtook€this€plea?ÌÌA.€€à àNo.ÌÌQ.à àThatððs€all.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌThis€brief€testimony€is€the€entirety€of€evidence€in€the€record€concerning€theÏrevocation€of€the€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€Unlike€the€appellate€recordÏin€òòBentleyóó,€the€record€before€us€contains€no€proof€about€the€revocation€processÏitself,€and€neither€the€sentencing€judgment€nor€the€revocation€order€is€included.€ÏWe€cannot€even€find€that€a€hearing€was€not€held€except€by€inferring€from€theÏappellantððs€uncorroborated€testimony.€€We€are€without€sufficient€basis€in€theÏrecord€to€review€the€revocation€procedure€as€a€free„standing€due€process€issue.€ÏWe€must€presume€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€were€justified.€€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòState€v.€Charles€Embryóó,€915€S.W.2dÏ451,€456€n.4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòperm.€app.€dismissedóó€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àà àSecond,€we€observe€that€the€appellant€raised€the€CommunityÏCorrections€sentence€revocation€issue€as€a€free„standing€issue,€unrelated€to€theÏappellantððs€pre„plea€knowledge€about€Community€Corrections,€for€the€first€timeÏon€this€post„conviction€appeal.€€In€conducting€the€post„conviction€hearingÏbelow,€the€trial€court€did€not€have€the€opportunity€to€consider€the€due€processÏdeficiencies€of€the€revocation€procedure€as€now€alleged€on€appeal.€€We€areÏprecluded€from€contravening€the€province€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï36(a).ÌÌà àà àThird,€€under€€the€€relevant€provisions€of€the€Post„ConvictionÏProcedure€Act,€€a€petitioner€may€not€obtain€post„conviction€review€of€any€issueÏwhich€has€been€waived€or€previously€determined.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„111€(1990)€(repealed).€€An€issue€is€defined€as€"waived"€if€the€petitionerÏ"knowingly€and€understandingly"€failed€to€raise€it€in€prior€proceedings.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1)€(1990)€(repealed€1995).€€The€Act€imposes€aÏrebuttable€presumption€that€any€issue€not€raised€in€such€prior€proceedings€isÏwaived.× ƒE ××  ×€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„30„112(b)(2)›€(1990)€(repealed);€òòseeóó€òòMassey€v.ÏStateóó,€929€S.W.2d€399,€401€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(petitioner€who€failed€toÏtake€direct€appeal€to€challenge€alleged€due€process€denial€when€state€failed€toÏprovide€preliminary€hearing€following€arrest€on€probation€violation€warrantÏwaived€his€opportunity€to€have€issue€considered€on€merits€in€post„convictionÏproceeding);€òòRoy€Lane€v.€Stateóó,€No.€œ03C01„9403„CR„00089›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€Jan.€27,€1995)€(appellate€court€cannot€consider€due€processÏchallenge€of€post„conviction€petitioner€who€failed€to€litigate€issue€at€trial€level).€ÏMoreover,€the€plain€error€doctrine€does€not€bar€the€application€of€the€waiverÏprovisions€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€òòGary€Wayne€Thurbush€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€89„173„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€26,€1990).€€ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€interpreted€the€waiver€of€Code€section€40„30„112€toÏapply€where€the€petitioner€failed€to€prosecute€an€appeal€altogether.€€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€343€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€("A€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€may€not€be€used€as€a€substitute€for€a€direct€appeal.");ÏòòDoyle€v.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€171,€458€S.W.2d€637,€òòcert.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1970).€€Thus,€the€appellant€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€why€the€issue€hasÏnot€been€waived,€including€any€allegation€the€waiver€was€not€knowing€and€Çunderstanding.€€The€record€in€this€case€is€devoid€of€any€justification€for€theÏappellant's€failure€to€raise€this€issue€in€earlier€proceedings.€€Although€theÏappellant€presented€proof€of€the€reason€he€did€not€request€a€hearing,€heÏpresented€no€proof€of€the€reason€he€did€not€take€a€direct€appeal€of€theÏrevocation€of€his€Community€Corrections€sentence.€Moreover,€he€presented€noÏevidence€he€was€uncounseled€and/or€unaware€of€his€right€to€appeal€theÏrevocation€of€the€Community€Corrections€sentence.€€Also,€he€presented€noÏevidence€that€might€tend€to€justify€his€not€presenting€the€claim€below€in€thisÏpost„conviction€proceeding.€€€Because€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€present€theÏnecessary€evidence€to€overcome€the€presumptive€waiver€contained€in€CodeÏsection€40„30„112(b)(2),€we€are€unable€to€make€the€threshold€determination€ofÏwhether€we€may€proceed€to€the€merits€of€this€issue€at€this€late€stage.€€€Further,€inÏlight€of€the€factually€deficient€record€before€us,€we€decline€to€reach€this€issueÏunder€the€plain€error€doctrine€as€the€appellant€urges€us€to€do.€€Consequently,Ïwe€must€conclude€the€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.× ƒF ××  ×ÌÌà àà àIn€summary,€we€fail€to€find€reversible€error€in€the€appellantððs€issuesÏand€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÓÓà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÇ