ÿWPC. /# ¢U:­ %ç 0íw@ñ41ET 0J\ 0T¦ 0^ú 0hX 0rÀ 0|2 0†® 04 1uÄ 0d9 U* B)Ç DCð 0@3 D3s B¦ AMà â v~ò vÓp AQCÆ” 0DZ 0Dž D/â B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ DDDD De Ó€äzz!3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d* Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ27,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›œÙ€*ÙßR€#$A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSON€óóÌÌà@ à€€NOVEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌLARRY€HUNTER,à àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9512„CR„00386Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€CHRIS€CRAFT,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌC.€Anne€Tiptonà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ140€North€Third€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38103à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClinton€J.€MorganÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAmy€J.€WeirichÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€„€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€ComplexÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Larry€Hunter,€appeals€as€of€right€the€denial€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€by€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court.€€On€appeal,€appellantÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€did€receive€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€and€that€he€entered€his€guilty€plea€knowingly€and€voluntarily.€ÏFinding€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€we€affirm€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.Ìà àAppellant€was€indicted€for€first€degree€premeditated€murder€and€felony€murderÏfollowing€his€involvement€in€a€drug€deal€and/or€robbery€that€went€awry.€€AfterÏextensive€negotiations€with€the€district€attorney,€appellant€agreed€to€plead€guilty€toÏsecond€degree€murder€in€exchange€for€a€twenty„five€(25)€year€sentence€as€aÏstandard€offender.€€On€November€22,€1993,€the€trial€court€held€a€guilty€plea€hearingÏduring€which€the€appellant€was€questioned€about€the€waiver€of€his€constitutionalÏrights€in€accepting€the€plea.€€After€finding€that€the€plea€was€voluntary€and€knowingÏand€that€appellant€had€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€trial€courtÏaccepted€the€plea€and€appellant€began€serving€his€sentence.€€On€October€11,€1994,Ïappellant€filed€this€post„conviction€petition€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏand€that€his€guilty€plea€was€not€entered€voluntarily€or€knowingly.€€After€theÏappointment€of€counsel,€an€amended€petition€was€filed.Ìà àThe€trial€court€held€an€evidentiary€hearing€at€which€the€appellant€testified,€asÏwell€as€the€retained€attorney€who€represented€him€on€the€murder€charges.€€After€theÏevidence€was€presented,€the€trial€court€took€the€matter€under€advisement.€ÏThereafter,€it€issued€thorough€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€guilty€plea€entered€by€the€appellant€was€freely€and€voluntarilyÏmade.€€It€also€found€that€appellant€failed€to€demonstrate€that€his€counselððsÏperformance€was€deficient,€or€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€performance.€€Finally,Ïthe€trial€court€found€that€appellantððs€testimony€lacked€credibility.€€€Ìà àIn€reviewing€the€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€renderedÏby€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€aÏclaim€of€ineffective€counsel,€an€appellant€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððs€representationÏfell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€this€performanceÏprejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694,Ï104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064,€2067„68,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2dÏ421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€The€most€difficult€burden€on€an€appellant€isÏdemonstrating€the€prejudice€he€has€suffered€by€the€alleged€error.€€In€order€to€prevailÏon€that€ground,€the€appellant€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€forÏcounselððs€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòId.óó€€€In€theÍcontext€of€a€guilty€plea,€the€appellant€must€show€that€but€for€counselððs€errors€heÏwould€not€have€pled€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,Ï474€U.S.€52,€53,€106€S.Ct.€366,€88€L.Ed.2d€203€(1985).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,€914ÏS.W.2d€97,€101€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€899€S.W.2d€648,€653Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).Ìà àIn€order€to€sustain€his€post„conviction€petition,€the€appellant€must€prove€hisÏallegations€of€constitutional€violations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÏòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€In€our€review,€thisÏCourt€cannot€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€€We€give€deference€to€questionsÏabout€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€theirÏtestimony,€and€the€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€as€they€are€resolved€by€theÏtrial€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€ÏFurthermore,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912ÏS.W.2d€689,€697€(Tenn.€1995)€(citations€omitted);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,Ï746€(Tenn.€1993)€(citation€omitted).€€Ìà àAppellant€first€contends€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€because€he€failed€toÏadequately€conduct€an€independent€investigation€of€the€case.€€However,€at€the€guiltyÏplea€hearing,€appellant€told€the€trial€court€that€he€was€satisfied€with€counselððsÏinvestigation€of€the€case.€€Furthermore,€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€appellantÍtestified€that€he€did€not€know€whether€his€attorney€talked€with€any€witnesses,Ïobtained€discovery,€or€visited€the€crime€scene.€€He€also€stated€that€he€never€providedÏcounsel€with€the€names€of€any€witnesses€who€might€be€helpful.Ìà àAppellantððs€attorney,€Elbert€Edwards,€testified€that€in€preparation€for€trial,€heÏobtained€discovery,€including€the€statements€of€co„defendants,€talked€with€homicideÏdetectives,€reviewed€the€autopsy€report,€and€conducted€a€full€suppression€hearing.€ÏHe€also€stated€that€he€attempted€to€interview€appellantððs€co„defendants,€but€wasÏprevented€from€doing€so€by€their€attorneys.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Edwards€indeedÏconducted€an€investigation€and€that€it€was€sufficient.€€This€is€fully€supported€by€theÏrecord.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatÏhis€counselððs€performance€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€andÏthis€claim€must€fail.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687„88.€€€Ìà àAppellant€also€argues€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€in€his€activities€relativeÏto€an€exculpatory€affidavit€received€from€a€co„defendant.€€He€believes€counsel€failedÏto€properly€investigate€the€affidavit,€use€it€to€form€a€defense,€or€utilize€it€in€pleaÏnegotiations.€€After€co„defendant€Eric€Fair€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€first„degreeÏmurder,€he€executed€an€affidavit€favorable€to€appellant.€€It€stated€that€appellant€wasÏnot€present€at€the€scene€when€the€murder€occurred€and€that€his€earlier€statementÏimplicating€appellant€was€the€result€of€police€threats€and€coercion.€€This€affidavitÏcame€to€light€prior€to€the€entry€of€appellantððs€guilty€plea.Ìà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€Edwards€confirmed€that€he€received€the€affidavitÏprior€to€the€plea.€€He€stated€that€he€attempted€to€talk€with€co„defendant€Fair,€but€FairððsÏattorney€would€not€allow€him€to€do€so.€€Edwards€testified€that€he€did€not€rememberÏwhether€he€showed€the€affidavit€to€the€district€attorney.€€However,€in€plea€discussionsÏwith€the€district€attorney,€Edwards€distinctly€remembered€the€district€attorneyððsÏattitude€was€that€he€did€not€care€what€Fair€had€to€say.€€Furthermore,€Edwards€statedÏthat€he€zealously€pursued€the€plea€agreement€with€the€State,€making€numerousÏattempts€at€a€lower€sentence.€€Moreover,€he€stated€that€he€viewed€the€affidavit€to€beÏof€minimal€significance€in€light€of€appellantððs€statement€to€police€that€he€was€presentÏat€the€scene.€€He€further€stated€his€belief€that€the€affidavit€did€little€to€exculpateÏappellant€considering€the€theory€of€vicarious€liability€available€in€felony€murder.Ìà àCounselððs€decision€that€the€affidavit€was€of€little€value€to€appellant€was€clearlyÏa€tactical€decision.€€We€note,€as€the€trial€court€did,€that€the€affidavit€would€have€beenÏinadmissible€hearsay€at€a€jury€trial.€€Also,€it€is€unlikely€that€the€co„defendant€wouldÏhave€testified€at€a€jury€trial€when€his€counsel€would€not€even€permit€Edwards€to€talkÏwith€him.€€Furthermore,€Fair€had€given€an€earlier€statement€implicating€appellantÏwhich€could€have€been€used€to€impeach€his€testimony.€€We€must€give€deference€toÏtactical€decisions€if€they€are€informed€ones€that€are€the€result€of€adequateÏpreparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(citations€omitted).€€òòSeeóóÏòòalso€Cooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993).€€Edwards€clearlyÍconsidered€all€the€possible€avenues€available€for€use€of€Fairððs€affidavit€and€made€anÏinformed€decision€that€it€was€not€helpful€to€appellant.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àAppellant€also€contends€that€counsel€encouraged€him€to€plead€guilty€andÏpromised€him€that€his€twenty„five€(25)€year€sentence€would€later€be€reduced€to€fifteenÏ(15)€years.€€Apart€from€appellantððs€testimony€on€this€issue,€the€claim€is€factuallyÏunsupported€by€the€record.€€A€letter€from€Edwards€to€appellant€details€the€parametersÏof€the€plea€agreement,€explicitly€setting€forth€the€range€of€punishment€and€the€exactÏsentence€that€appellant€would€receive.€€Appellantððs€acknowledgment€of€this€letter€isÏreflected€by€his€signature€on€the€document.€€At€the€hearing,€Edwards€testified€that€heÏhand„delivered€the€letter€to€appellant€and€discussed€it€with€him€at€length.€€He€deniedÏmaking€any€promise€of€a€reduced€sentence€to€appellant.€€Edwards€explained€that€heÏtold€appellant€a€fifteen€(15)€year€sentence€would€be€a€good€resolution€of€the€case,Ïbut€testified€that€the€State€never€made€such€an€offer€despite€his€repeated€attempts.€ÏFinally,€the€trial€court€noted€that€appellant€failed€to€provide€any€explanation€for€howÏthis€sentence€reduction€would€occur.€€He€admitted€at€the€time€of€his€guilty€plea€that€heÏwas€aware€that€his€sentence€was€twenty„five€(25)€years.€€The€trial€court€resolved€thisÏconflicting€testimony€in€favor€of€Edwards,€specifically€finding€that€appellantððsÏtestimony€was€not€credible.€€Such€a€determination€is€within€the€exclusive€purview€ofÏthe€trial€court€and€we€will€not€disturb€such€a€finding.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,Ï755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ìà àNext,€appellant€argues€that€his€attorney€coerced€him€into€pleading€guilty€byÏtelling€him€that€he€would€receive€a€life€sentence€if€he€went€to€trial.€€He€contends€thatÏhe€did€not€know€he€could€be€found€not€guilty.€€However,€appellantððs€own€testimony€atÏthe€evidentiary€hearing€contradicted€this€claim.€€Likewise,€the€transcript€from€theÏguilty€plea€hearing€reflects€the€appellantððs€testimony€that€he€understood€his€right€to€aÏjury€trial€and€that€he€could€be€found€not€guilty.€€It€also€reflects€appellantððs€testimonyÏthat€no€one€forced€or€coerced€him€into€pleading€guilty.€€Ìà àAdditionally,€Edwards€denied€ever€telling€appellant€that€he€could€ð ðgo€to€trialÏand€get€life€or€plead€guilty€and€get€twenty„five€(25)€years.ðð€€He€stated€that€heÏdiscussed€the€Stateððs€case€against€appellant€and€explained€that€it€could€result€in€aÏconviction€of€first€degree€murder.€€He€further€explained€the€trial€process€to€appellant,Ïincluding€the€fact€that€a€jury€could€find€him€not€guilty.€€Again,€the€trial€court€resolvedÏthis€question€of€credibility€against€the€appellant€and€we€are€bound€thereby€as€it€isÏsupported€by€the€record.€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€755.Ìà àFinally,€appellant€contends€that€because€of€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€his€guilty€plea€was€not€free€or€voluntary,€nor€did€he€knowingly€andÏunderstandingly€waive€his€right€against€self„incrimination.€€The€transcript€from€theÏguilty€plea€hearing€is€contrary€to€such€a€claim.€€It€demonstrates€that€appellant€wasÏinformed€of€and€affirmatively€waived€his€constitutional€rights€in€exchange€for€the€pleaÏagreement.€€Furthermore,€his€testimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€belies€hisÍcontention€that€he€did€not€knowingly€waive€his€right€against€self„incrimination.€€At€theÏhearing,€appellant€stated€that€Edwards€explained€to€him€that€he€could€be€foundÏinnocent€at€trial€ð ðwithout€ever€opening€his€mouth.ðð€€Moreover,€when€questioned€aboutÏthe€right€against€self„incrimination€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€appellant€exhibited€anÏunderstanding€of€this€right€and€affirmatively€waived€it.€€€Again,€this€factual€issue€wasÏresolved€by€the€trial€court€and€we€are€bound€by€its€findings.€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€atÏ755.€€We€find,€as€the€trial€court€did,€that€appellant€freely€and€voluntarily€entered€aÏguilty€plea,€which€included€a€knowing€and€understanding€waiver€of€his€right€againstÏself„incrimination.Ìà àAppellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€his€attorneyððs€performance€wasÏdeficient€in€any€respect€or€that€he€would€have€proceeded€to€trial€but€for€the€advice€ofÏcounsel.€€The€trial€courtððs€findings€are€well€supported€by€the€record.€€As€a€result,€theÏdenial€of€post„conviction€relief€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge