ÿWPCE …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DCb] AMe B² Ïv~ÜvÓZ D3- 0@` AO Æï 0Dµ D/ù B(˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ±H²D³´µH¶·¸D¹ºÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xÃ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd- ù-€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌJune€30,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€#ÑÑ7€eXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€$&"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ01C01„9606„CC„00261›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àWARREN€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHARLES€HASTON,€JUDGEÌSHAWN€HUFFà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(POST„CONVICTION)Ìó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òCLEMENT€DALE€POTTERà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òMICAELA€BURNHAMà àà àà àCLINTON€J.€MORGANÌó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ314€West€Main€Streetà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌMcMinnville,€TN€37110à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€M.€LOCKE€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òLARRY€G.€ROSS€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àProfessional€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€410Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMcMinnville,€TN€€37110„0410ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€ °ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Petitioner€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€Petition€for€Post„conviction€relief.€€The€Petitioner€pled€guilty€to€aggravated€robbery€and€wasÏsentenced€to€eleven€(11)€years€and€six€(6)€months.€€He€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€the€grounds€that€he€had€œineffective›€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏThe€Petitioner€argues€in€this€court€that€his€trial€counsel€was€indeed€ineffectiveÏand€the€Petitioner€should€be€granted€post„conviction€relief.€€We€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€was€indicted€for€especially€aggravated€robbery€for€anÏincident€which€occurred€at€TranSouth€Financial€Services€in€McMinnville,ÏTennessee.€€Two€masked€men€walked€into€TranSouth€Financial€Services.€ÏDuring€the€robbery,€one€of€the€men€sprayed€œan›€employee€with€mace.€€SheÏbarely€recognized€that€a€gun€was€being€held€in€her€face,€because€of€the€effectÏof€the€mace.€€œJust€before›€the€men€left,€the€masked€man€maced€her€again.€€SheÏwas€in€extreme€pain€the€rest€of€the€day,€even€after€taking€a€shower.€€She€hasÏhad€emotional€problems€since€the€incident.€€ÌÌà àTwo€co„defendants€were€also€charged€following€the€incident.€€TheÏPetitioner€pled€guilty€to€aggravated€robbery€on€October€26,€1993.€€The€presentÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€on€March€1,€1995.€€The€trial€court€heldÏa€hearing€and€denied€this€petition.€€The€Petitionerððs€sole€issue€on€appeal€is€thatÏhe€was€afforded€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€his€guilty€plea.€€ÌÌà àWhen€a€conviction€results€from€a€jury€verdict,€in€determining€whetherÏcounsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€the€court€must€decide€whetherÏcounselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€ÏTo€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€at€trial,€a€petitioner€bearsÏthe€burden€of€showing€that€his€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€he€was€notÏfunctioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€that€theÏdeficient€representation€prejudiced€the€petitioner€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€aÏreliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€467ÏU.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.ÏStateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€To€satisfy€the€second€prong€theÏpetitioner€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððsÏunreasonable€error,€the€fact€finder€would€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regardingÏpetitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probability€mustÍbe€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€court€should€not€use€theÏbenefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€shouldÏbe€judged€at€the€time€they€were€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó€849€S.W.2d€at€746.ÌÌà àThis€two€part€standard€of€measuring€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏalso€applies€to€claims€arising€out€of€the€plea€process.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.Ï52€(1985).€€The€prejudice€requirement€is€modified€so€that€the€petitioner€ð ðmustÏshow€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors€heÏwould€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòId.óó€atÏ59.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€argues€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€several€reasons.€ÏHe€argues€that€his€counsel€did€not€investigate€the€case€properly,€did€not€contactÏwitnesses€or€file€pre„trial€motions,€failed€to€advise€the€Petitioner€that€his€co„defendants€might€not€be€allowed€to€testify€against€him,€and€that€the€mostÏserious€offense€that€the€Petitioner€could€have€been€convicted€of€in€any€eventÍwas€aggravated€robbery,€and€not€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€charge€forÏwhich€he€was€indicted.ÌÌà àThe€circumstances€surrounding€the€time€period€prior€to€the€PetitionerÏentering€his€plea€are€as€follows.€€The€Petitioner€admitted€that€he€was€involved€inÏthe€robbery,€but€only€that€he€drove€the€car.€€The€men€were€in€the€PetitionerððsÏgirlfriendððs€car€before€the€incident.€€A€gun€like€that€used€in€the€robbery€was€foundÏat€the€Petitionerððs€grandfatherððs€house€and€his€grandmother€said€that€he€cameÏto€visit€before€and€after€the€time€of€the€robbery.€€The€Petitioner€stated€that€theÏgun€used€in€the€robbery€was€a€toy€gun.€€There€were€witnesses,€in€addition€toÏthe€co„defendants,€who€would€have€testified€that€the€Petitioner€bragged€aboutÏspraying€the€worker€with€mace.€€At€the€time€of€the€incident,€the€Petitioner€was€onÏrelease€status€on€an€appeal€bond€for€an€assault€charge.€€That€eleven€month,Ïtwenty„nine€day€sentence€was€dismissed€as€part€of€his€plea€bargain.ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€at€the€hearing€on€the€post„convictionÏpetition.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€did€not€interview€the€Stateððs€witnessesÏbecause€he€had€access€to€their€statements€through€the€district€attorneyððs€office.€ÏSome€of€these€witnesses€also€testified€at€the€hearing.€€There€were€stipulationsÏas€to€the€testimony€of€other€witnesses.€€The€clear€proof€was€that€the€statementsÏreceived€by€counsel€contained€the€information€the€witnesses€would€haveÍtestified€to€at€a€trial.€€Counsel€also€stated€that€he€anticipated€filing€motionsÏconcerning€the€injuries€involved€in€the€incident€at€trial.€€However,€counsel€thoughtÏthat€the€motions€would€be€unsuccessful€due€to€the€fact€that€the€question€ofÏseriousness€of€injuries€was€a€jury€question.€€He€also€stated€that€relying€on€hisÏtwenty„five€(25)€years€of€experience€he€felt€confident€that€the€Petitioner€wouldÏhave€been€convicted€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€in€a€jury€trial€in€WarrenÏCounty.€€The€Petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€that€under€the€circumstances€of€theÏcase€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€he€believed€that€the€best€strategy€was€to€get€the€Petitioner€theÏsmallest€sentence€possible.€€He€believed€that€the€Petitioner€would€have€beenÏconvicted€of€a€Class€A€felony€and€sentenced€to€fifteen€(15)€to€twenty„five€(25)Ïyears€if€he€had€gone€to€trial.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€has€not€shown€that€his€attorney€was€not€properlyÏfunctioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€JudgingÏcounsel€actions€at€the€time€that€they€occurred€and€not€using€hindsight€to€judgeÏhis€actions,€we€do€not€find€that€the€Petitionerððs€counsel€œprovided›€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà àTherefore,€this€issue€has€no€merit.€€The€trial€courtððs€judgment€is€affirmed.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€Judge