ÿWPC.# …# VU>a %Ÿ 0 ¥UB® 4ð  n­ À w@È 0J 0MR 0DŸ 0Tã 0^7 0h• 0rý 0|o 0†ë 0q 1uU,v 0d¢ BU,#U6OU.…U*³B)Ý D3DC9 AM| 0@ɱ óºf­v~vÓ‘ AOd Ƴ 0%y! 0Dž" D/â" B#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(á-è$¡¡Ò4°ÒÒh°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€þXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiU_A 3|xÕ «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@ “ ” E• [– [— ˜ ™ š D› œ D2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(ý(3D$¤¤Ý ƒ-è!ÝÒ4°ÒÒh°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€¾iXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ä àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ1,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€&ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔ€€The€petitioner€contended€that€he€pled€guilty€to€assault€with€intent€to€commit€secondÏdegree€murder,€which€did€not€exist€in€our€statutes€at€the€time€of€the€offense€or€the€guilty€plea.€€However,€Ïwe€may€take€judicial€notice€of€the€court€records€in€the€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòDelbridge€v.€Stateóó,€742€S.W.2dÏ266,€267€(Tenn.€1987).€€Those€records€show€that€although€the€trial€judge,€at€one€point,€asked€theÏpetitioner€about€his€pleading€guilty€to€assault€with€intent€to€commit€second€degree€murder,€the€petitionerÏwas€actually€made€fully€aware,€in€substantial€detail,€of€the€offense€of€which€he€was€going€to€be,€and€was,Ïconvicted,€i.e.,€attempt€to€commit€second€degree€murder.€€Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ý3eH$¢¢Ý ƒ-è!ÝÒ4°ÒÒh°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€¾iXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€%%X„d&ÓÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€(Ô›ßL€,.+;+'h|` ´- `€€Lßà8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUNE€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÓÓWILLIAM€RAY€HUTCHINS,à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9502„CR„00029Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àSullivan€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Frank€L.ÏSlaughter,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€à à)à à(Post„conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.€à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌRaymond€C.€Conkin,€Jr.€€€€€€€€€€à àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ152€Broad€Street,€Suite€207€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àAttorney€GeneralÏof€TennesseeÌKingsport,€TN€37660€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àandÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àMichelle€L.ÏLehmann€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneral€of€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àBarry€Staubus€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_______________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌ€€€€€€ÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òÌÌÌà àà àà àà àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óà àÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€William€Ray€Hutchins,€appeals€as€of€right€from€theÏdismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€by€the€Sullivan€County€CriminalÏCourt.€€The€petitioner€was€convicted€of€attempted€second€degree€murder,€a€Class€BÏfelony,€pursuant€to€a€guilty€plea€and€received€a€sentence€of€ten€years€as€a€Range€I,Ístandard€offender€to€be€served€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€€TheÏconviction€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€William€Ray€Hutchinsóó,€No.€€03C01„9302„CR„00044,€Sullivan€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Dec.€7,€1993),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.ÏApr.€4,€1994).ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€relief€andÏthat€he€is€entitled€to€a€withdrawal€of€his€guilty€plea€and€to€a€new€trial.€€He€claims€onÏappeal€as€follows:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€concluding€that€his€claims€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€against€his€guilty€pleaÏcounsel€had€been€either€previously€determined€or€waived,ÏandÌÌà8 à(2)€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€concluding€that€he€receivedÏthe€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€his€motion€toÏwithdraw€his€guilty€plea€hearing€and€on€direct€appeal.€€Ì€€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓOriginally€tried€and€convicted€of€attempt€to€commit€first€degree€murder€and€aggravatedÏassault€in€January€of€1992,€the€petitioner€successfully€moved€for€a€new€trial.€€OnÏAugust€24,€1992,€the€first€day€of€his€new€trial,€the€petitioner€entered€a€guilty€plea€toÏattempted€second€degree€murder.€€On€August€28,€1992,€the€petitioner€filed€a€pro€seÏmotion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea.€€Counsel€was€appointed€for€the€hearing€on€theÏmotion€to€withdraw€and€continued€his€representation€of€the€petitioner€in€the€directÏappeal€to€this€court.ÌÌà àA€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€November€30,€1994.€ÏThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€is€presently€incarcerated€at€the€Northeast€RegionalÏCorrection€Center€pursuant€to€his€guilty€plea€for€assault€with€intent€to€commit€secondÏdegree€murder.€€He€said€that€he€was€initially€convicted€of€assault€with€intent€to€commitÏfirst€degree€murder€and€aggravated€assault€but€was€successful€on€his€motion€for€newÏtrial.€€He€claimed€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€on€the€part€of€his€guilty€pleaÏattorney€and€his€motion€to€withdraw€and€direct€appeal€attorney.€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€said€that€his€guilty€plea€attorney€was€ineffective€in€tellingÏhim€that€he€would€only€be€required€to€serve€thirty€percent€of€his€sentence€as€aÏstandard€offender€when,€in€fact,€the€thirty€percent€is€only€a€release€eligibility€date.€ÏHowever,€he€admitted€that€he€did€not€tell€the€trial€court€about€this€allegedÏmisrepresentation€at€his€motion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€hearing.€€He€also€claimedÏthat€he€was€not€allowed€to€take€his€medication€on€the€day€of€the€guilty€pleaÏsubmission€and€that€this€led€to€an€inability€to€think€clearly.€€However,€he€admitted€thatÏthis€issue€was€raised€on€direct€appeal.€€He€claimed€that€his€attorney€coerced€him€intoÏpleading€guilty€by€mentioning€that€his€daughter€would€testify€against€him.€€However,Ïhe€admitted€that€he€was€worried€that€his€daughter€might€say€unfavorable€things€aboutÏhim.€€ÌÌà àRegarding€his€attorney€at€the€motion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€andÏdirect€appeal,€the€petitioner€testified€that€the€attorney€was€ineffective€in€failing€toÏcommunicate€with€him.€€He€claimed€that€he€attempted€to€contact€the€attorneyÏnumerous€times€before€the€motion€hearing€but€they€only€discussed€the€case€for€aboutÏten€minutes€on€the€day€of€the€hearing.€€He€said€that€he€attempted€to€contact€theÏattorney€regarding€issues€he€wanted€raised€on€appeal€but€that€the€attorney€neverÏreturned€his€phone€calls.€€He€stated€that€if€the€attorney€had€returned€the€phone€calls,Ïhe€would€have€asked€the€attorney€to€raise€an€issue€challenging€the€existence€of€hisÏconviction€offense€under€the€law€at€the€time€of€his€guilty€plea.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€When€confronted€withÏthe€fact€that€the€issue€on€appeal€was€the€voluntariness€of€his€guilty€plea€and€asked€ifÏthere€was€anything€that€the€attorney€failed€to€raise,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€heÏraised€everything€relative€to€the€guilty€plea€issue.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€attorney€at€the€guilty€plea€submission€testified€that€heÏrepresented€the€petitioner€after€he€was€granted€a€new€trial.€€He€stated€that€he€neverÏpromised€the€petitioner€that€he€would€be€released€after€serving€thirty€percent€of€hisÏsentence.€€He€said€that€the€release€eligibility€percentages€were€discussed€in€the€pleaÍnegotiations€and€that€he€was€certain€the€parole€boardððs€role€was€also€discussed.€€HeÏstated€that€the€petitioner€understood€the€negotiations€and€even€proposed€beingÏsentenced€as€a€mitigated€offender.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€coerce€the€petitioner€intoÏpleading€guilty€with€references€to€his€daughterððs€testimony,€but€merely€informed€theÏpetitioner€that€the€state€intended€to€call€his€children€as€witnesses.€€€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€attorney€at€the€motion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€hearingÏand€the€direct€appeal€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€incarcerated€in€prison€when€heÏwas€appointed€to€his€case.€€He€admitted€that€he€did€not€telephone€the€petitioner€inÏprison,€but€denied€that€he€failed€to€keep€the€petitioner€informed.€€He€said€that€he€andÏthe€petitioner€discussed€the€case€in€some€detail€on€October€13,€1992,€and€identified€aÏletter€written€by€the€petitioner€confirming€this€call.€€He€also€identified€a€letter€written€byÏthe€petitioner€and€dated€October€31st€that€discussed€some€issues€the€petitionerÏwanted€raised€at€the€hearing.€€The€attorney€testified€that€he€addressed€each€of€theÏpetitionerððs€allegations€one€by€one€at€the€motion€to€withdraw€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€ÏIn€addition€to€this€correspondence,€the€attorney€said€that€he€and€the€petitioner€met€forÏtwenty€to€thirty€minutes€on€the€day€of€the€hearing€and€discussed€the€allegations€of€hisÏmotion.ÌÌà àThe€attorney€admitted€that€he€had€refused€a€call€from€the€petitioner€onceÏwhen€he€was€in€the€middle€of€a€trial.€€He€said€that€he€may€have€failed€to€return€phoneÍcalls€on€two€or€three€occasions,€but€that€he€was€in€contact€with€the€petitionerððs€motherÏsome€seven€to€ten€times€during€the€appellate€process.€€As€for€the€petitionerððs€claimÏthat€the€attorney€failed€to€raise€several€issues€on€appeal,€the€attorney€said€that€theÏpetitioner€sent€him€two€pro€se€briefs€and€that€he€filed€one€of€them€with€the€court€ofÏcriminal€appeals€but€felt€that€nothing€in€the€brief€had€any€merit.€€He€said€that€theÏpetitioner€had€an€opportunity€to€testify€at€the€motion€hearing€and€aired€his€complaintsÏbefore€the€trial€court.€€On€cross„examination,€the€attorney€said€that€he€could€not€recallÏany€complaints€about€the€guilty€plea€attorney€misleading€the€petitioner€regarding€hisÏrelease€date.€€Ìà à€Ìà àIn€rebuttal,€the€petitioner€presented€testimony€from€his€sister,€BrendaÏHood.€€She€testified€that€she€spoke€with€the€petitionerððs€guilty€plea€attorney€after€theÏguilty€plea€submission€hearing€and€that€the€attorney€told€her€that€he€felt€that€theÏpetitioner€would€serve€thirty€percent€of€his€sentence€with€time€for€good€behavior.€€SheÏstated€that€the€attorney€did€not€mention€that€the€petitioner€could€serve€more€time€thanÏthirty€percent.€€€Ì€Ìà àIn€dismissing€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€trial€court€foundÏthat€it€was€ð ðabundantly€clearðð€that€the€petitionerððs€guilty€plea€attorney€made€noÏguarantee€that€the€petitioner€would€be€released€after€the€service€of€thirty€percent€of€hisÏsentence.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€the€issue€of€trial€counselððs€effectiveness€wasÍpreviously€litigated€on€direct€appeal€and€not€subject€to€post„conviction€review.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€that€the€petitionerððs€counsel€at€his€motion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€pleaÏand€direct€appeal€acted€competently€in€his€representation€of€the€petitioner,€concludingÏthat€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€motion€toÏwithdraw€his€guilty€plea€and€on€direct€appeal.€€ÌÌà àThe€burden€was€on€the€petitioner€in€the€trial€court€to€prove€his€factualÏallegations€that€would€entitle€him€to€relief€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÏòòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€On€appeal,€we€areÏbound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€theÏrecord€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€guilty€pleaÏsubmission€stage,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€it€had€been€previously€litigated€on€directÏappeal€and€was€not€subject€to€post„conviction€review.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€courtÏwas€asked€to€hold€counsel€to€be€ineffective,€but€it€found€ð ðno€evidence€that€counselÏwas€ineffective.ðð€€€òòHutchinsóó,€slip€op.€at€6.€€The€court€discussed€the€fact€that€theÏevidence€against€the€petitioner€was€overwhelming€and€concluded€that€the€petitionerððsÏð ðplea€was€a€voluntary€and€intelligent€choice€among€the€available€alternatives.ðð€ÏòòHutchinsóó,€slip€op.€at€7.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€correctly€concluded€that€the€petitionerððsÍclaim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€his€guilty€plea€submission€hearing€hasÏbeen€previously€determined€and€is€not€subject€to€post„conviction€review.€€T.C.A.€ððððÏ40„30„111€and€„112.€ÌÌà àRelative€to€the€petitionerððs€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€on€theÏpart€of€his€motion€hearing€and€appellate€counsel,€we€note€that€under€the€SixthÏAmendment,€when€a€claim€for€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€is€made,€theÏburden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€andÑ€0ÑÇ(2)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€of€rendering€a€reasonable€probabilityÏthat€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóóÏòòLockhart€v.€œFretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€òò€€€€óó,€113›€S.€Ct.€838,€842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóóÏstandard€has€been€applied,€as€well,€to€the€right€to€counsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€493€U.S.€874,€110€S.€Ct.€211€(1989).€€Likewise,€the€same€standard€appliesÏunder€due€process€for€counsel€on€appeal.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747Ï(Tenn.€1993);€òòEvitts€v.€Luceyóó,€469€U.S.€387,€105€S.€Ct.€830€(1985).ÌÌà àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÏdecided€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€servicesÏrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€range€of€competence€was€to€be€measured€byÏthe€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,€491€F.2d€687€(6th€Cir.Ï1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197€(D.C.€Cir.€1973),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,Ï444€U.S.€944,€100€S.€Ct.€302€(1979).€€Also,€in€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfairÏassessment€of€attorney€performance€requires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminateÏthe€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counselððsÏchallenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððs€perspective€at€theÏtime.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.ÍStateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(counselððs€conduct€will€not€be€measured€by€ð ð20„20€hindsightðð).€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€even€hurt€theÏdefense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.€€Deference€is€madeÏto€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequateÏpreparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9;€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487ÏF.2d€at€1201.ÌÌà àAlso,€we€note€that€the€approach€to€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€does€not€have€to€start€with€an€analysis€of€an€attorneyððs€conduct.€€If€prejudiceÏis€not€shown,€we€need€not€seek€to€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegations€aboutÏdeficient€performance.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€claims€that€his€motion€hearing€and€appellate€counsel€wasÏineffective€in€failing€to€communicate€with€him€and€keep€him€informed€of€the€progressÏof€his€case.€€However,€this€claim€was€refuted€by€the€attorneyððs€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€discussed€the€petitionerððs€motion€with€him€at€least€threeÏtimes€in€the€month€preceding€the€hearing€and€that€he€kept€in€touch€with€the€petitionerÏand€his€mother€throughout€the€appellate€process.€€Furthermore,€letters€written€by€theÏpetitioner€confirming€conversations€with€the€attorney€refute€the€petitionerððs€claim€thatÏthe€attorney€failed€to€communicate€with€him.€€The€petitioner€also€complains€that€theÏattorney€was€ineffective€in€pursuing€his€appeal.€€He€claims€that€the€attorney€failed€toÍraise€issues€on€appeal€that€he€urged€should€be€raised.€€The€attorney€testified€that€heÏfiled€the€petitionerððs€pro€se€brief€on€appeal€but€felt€that€none€of€the€issues€were€of€anyÏmerit.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€the€attorney€raisedÏall€issues€surrounding€the€guilty€plea,€acknowledging€that€the€voluntariness€of€theÏguilty€plea€was€the€predominant€basis€for€his€appeal.€€We€conclude€that€the€petitionerÏhas€not€shown€how€he€was€prejudiced€by€any€of€the€alleged€errors€of€counsel.€€TheÏtrial€court€found€that€the€petitioner€was€afforded€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏWe€find€nothing€in€the€record€that€would€sway€us€to€disagree€with€that€finding.Ì€€€€Ìà àThe€record€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings€and€conclusions.€€TheÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€(not€participating)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€ÌJerry€Scott,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€ÌJ.S.€Daniel,€Special€Judgeà à