ÿWPCÌ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ U>9U*wB)¡DCÊ B  AM*wÑ’v~cvÓá D3´ 0@ç AO'Æv 0D< D/€ B¯˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- dePfghi[jEklÓ€xz!3|xx((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òNovember€12,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ýà àÔ€ ôÔÔ€!ÔAs€part€of€Appellantððs€claim€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€€allegesÏà0 àthat€his€guilty€plea€was€not€knowingly,€intelligently,€and€voluntarily€entered€because€counselÏforced€him€to€plea€guilty.€€Upon€a€review€of€the€record,€it€does€appear€that€the€presiding€judge€atÏthe€guilty€plea€hearing€failed€to€give€some€of€the€supervisory,€non„constitutional€instructionsÏrequired€by€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.€1977),€when€a€plea€of€guilty€is€entered.€ÏHowever,€relief€may€be€given€in€a€post„conviction€hearing€only€if€a€conviction€is€void€or€voidableÏbecause€of€a€violation€of€a€constitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203€(Supp.€1996).€ÏTherefore,€this€issue€has€no€merit.Ô€ ÔÔ€ XÔÌPtPt HHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op 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  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€!ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¶TXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌJUNE€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓDAVID€IVY,€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9509„CR„00277ÌÙ€€ÙßL€%&#;+'h|æ` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€W.€FREDÏAXLEYó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Post„Conviction€Relief)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌWILLIAM€W.€NOWLINà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌSuite€3201€„€100€N.€Main€Bldg.à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRENEE€F.€VIDELEFSKYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€M.€LAMMEY,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓòòÔ€!„Ôò òOPINIONóóó óÔ€!ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àAppellant€David€Ivy€appeals€from€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€On€January€12,€1993,€Appellant€entered€a€negotiated€plea€ofÏguilty€to€six€indictments:€three€counts€of€aggravated€assault,€possession€withÏintent€to€sell€a€controlled€substance,€second„degree€murder,€and€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.€€Appellant€agreed€to€a€thirty„four€(34)€year€sentenceÏ(twenty„five€(25)€years€for€the€six€indictments,€to€run€concurrently€with€aÏconviction€for€attempted€escape,€and€nine€(9)€years€to€be€served€consecutivelyÏfor€two€previous€convictions€of€aggravated€assault).€€On€November€24,€1993,ÏAppellant€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Counsel€was€appointed€for€Appellant,€and€evidentiaryÏhearings€were€held€on€July€7,€1994€and€February€16,€1995.€€The€post„convictionÏcourt€dismissed€the€petition,€finding€that€it€was€without€merit.€€For€the€reasonsÏdiscussed€below,€we€reject€Appellantððs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€and€affirm€the€decision€of€the€post„conviction€court.ÌÌà àAppellant€challenges€counselððs€representation€in€four€respects.€€HeÏasserts€that€counsel€was€ineffective€because€counsel€failed€to€adequatelyÏinvestigate€the€case,€to€hold€sufficient€meetings€with€Appellant,€to€furnishÍAppellant€with€any€pre„trial€motions€or€pleadings,€and€to€properly€formulate€anÏadequate€trial€strategy.× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€Appellant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€adviceÏgiven€or€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€fell€below€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€aÏpetitioner€must€show€that€his€or€her€counselððs€representation€fell€below€theÏobjective€standard€of€reasonableness€articulated€in€òòBaxteróó€and,€additionally,€thatÏthis€sub„standard€representation€prejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€(1984).€€Prejudice€is€shown€by€demonstrating€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€€the€result€ofÏthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòId.óó€at€694.€€€€€ÌÌà àBefore€addressing€the€substance€of€Appellantððs€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€we€recognize€that€our€scope€of€review€is€limited.€ÏFindings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€judge€in€post„conviction€hearings€areÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€appellate€court€finds€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(citing€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1978)).€€ÌÌà àAppellant€first€alleges€that€counsel€failed€to€fully€and€properly€investigateÏthe€case.€€From€the€testimony€counsel€gave€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€onÏFebruary€16,€1995,€it€is€obvious€that€counsel€did€not€violate€the€standards€ofÏòòBaxteróó€and€òòStricklandóó€in€his€investigation€of€the€charges€against€his€client.€€òòSeeóóÏòòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€930;€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€668.€€Counsel€testified€as€to€theÏdetails€of€the€charges€brought€by€the€State,€mentioning€names€of€witnessesÏwhom€he€expected€to€testify.€€Counsel€also€contacted€all€of€the€witnesses€ofÏwhich€Appellant€informed€him,€and€the€witnesses€were€subpoenaed.€€It€isÏapparent€the€court€below€accredited€trial€counselððs€testimony€on€this€point€andÏthe€record€supports€that€conclusion.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrateÏdeficient€performance€of€counsel.ÌÌà àNext,€Appellant€claims€that€counselððs€performance€was€constitutionallyÏdeficient€because€the€attorney€allegedly€failed€to€conduct€adequate€meetingsÏwith€Appellant.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€met€with€Appellant€several€times€in€jail.€ÏIn€addition,€counsel€met€with€Appellant€before€each€of€Appellantððs€numerousÏcourt€dates.€€Counsel€also€spoke€with€Appellant€over€the€phone€wheneverÏAppellant€wanted€an€update€on€the€status€of€his€case.€€Finally,€counselÏmaintained€communication€with€Appellant€by€sending€members€of€his€office€toÏthe€jail€to€obtain€any€new€information€from€Appellant€and€to€check€on€locatingÏpossible€defense€witnsses.€€Again,€it€is€apparent€the€trial€judge€accredited€trialÏcounselððs€testimony€regarding€his€communications€with€Appellant.€€AppellantÏhas€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proof€with€respect€to€this€allegation.ÌÌà àAppellant€also€alleges€that€counselððs€performance€was€ineffectiveÏbecause€he€failed€to€provide€Appellant€with€any€pre„trial€motions€or€pleadings.€ÏCounsel€testified€that€he€did€in€fact€file€several€motions€on€behalf€of€Appellant.€ÏThere€was€no€testimony€to€indicate€whether€or€not€counsel€furnished€these€toÏAppellant.€€However,€counsel€did€discuss€trial€strategy€and€all€possibleÏdefenses€with€Appellant€€and€kept€Appellant€up€to€date€on€the€status€of€hisÏcase.€€Appellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€showing€that€counselððsÏperformance€in€keeping€Appellant€apprised€of€the€status€of€the€case€wasÏdeficient.ÌÌà àAnother€ground€of€counselððs€alleged€ineffectiveness€relates€to€counselððsÏformulation€of€a€trial€strategy.€€After€considering€the€weight€of€the€evidenceÏagainst€Appellant€on€each€of€the€charges€against€him,€Appellantððs€prior€criminalÏhistory,€and€Appellantððs€exposure€to€imprisonment,€counsel€decided€that€it€wasÏbest€for€Appellant€to€accept€the€Stateððs€offer€of€twenty„five€years€for€all€sixÏindictments.€€As€for€the€cocaine€possession€charge,€counsel€believed€that€theÏState€had€a€strong€case.€€Appellant€had€been€pulled€over€by€the€police€forÏspeeding€and€was€arrested€when€police€discovered€an€outstanding€aggravatedÏassault€warrant€for€Appellantððs€arrest.€€Upon€towing€and€taking€inventory€of€theÏcontents€of€the€automobile,€the€police€discovered€fourteen€grams€of€cocaine.€ÏCounsel€did€not€believe€that€there€was€a€viable€defense€to€this€charge.€ÏCounsel€testified€that€the€aggravated€assault€charges€were€substantial€sinceÏthere€were€four€eyewitnesses€for€the€prosecution.€€As€for€the€murder€in€the€firstÏdegree€charge,€which€was€later€dropped€to€second€degree€murder€as€part€of€theÏStateððs€negotiated€plea,€the€State€had€one€witness€to€testify€that€Appellant€shotÏthe€victim€and€another€who€put€Appellant€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€CounselÏtestified€that€the€murder€charge€was€potentially€defensible€since€the€StateððsÏwitnesses€were€impeachable€and€another€eyewitness€stated€that€AppellantÏwas€not€the€gunman.€€However,€at€the€time€of€Appellantððs€plea,€AppellantÏfaced€eleven€years€in€prison€for€two€aggravated€assault€convictions,€and€aÍplea€of€guilty€to€escape.€€It€was€counselððs€opinion€that€Appellant€faced€tooÏmuch€exposure€from€the€six€indictments€to€fight€them€all€at€trial.ÌÌà àBecause€of€Appellantððs€exposure,€counsel€advised€Appellant€to€acceptÏthe€Stateððs€plea.€€On€the€possession€charge,€Appellant€faced€twelve€to€twentyÏyears.€€On€the€three€aggravated€assault€charges,€Appellant€faced€six€to€tenÏyears€for€each€charge.€€On€the€murder€in€the€first€degree€charge,€Appellant€facedÏlife€imprisonment€or€the€death€penalty.€€Clearly,€it€was€reasonable€under€theÏcircumstances€to€advise€Appellant€to€accept€a€guilty€plea€which€resulted€in€aÏtwenty„five€year€sentence.€€This€Court€will€not€second€guess€the€reasonableÏstrategic€and€tactical€decisions€of€counsel.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9Ï(Tenn.€1982)€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1201€(D.C.Cir.Ï1973)).ÌÌà àTrial€counselððs€representation€was€well€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.Ìà àÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE