ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ4{  ž w@¦ 0Jæ 0T0 0^„ 0hâ 0rJ 0|¼ 0†8 0¾ 1uNU,à 0dïU,SU>U6½B)óDC B_ AM|U*É×óv~Ê D3HvÓ{ 0@N AOŽÆÝ 0⣠0D… D/É Bø˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓo„p3|x¦ œžŸE ¡U¢.e£¤D¥2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌAprilÏ12,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(º3 $¢¢Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€"Ô›Ñ7€¶XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€&($;+'h|` ´- `€€Lßà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌà@ àOCTOBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌRICKY€ALLAN€JOHNSON,à à*à àC.C.A.€#€01C01„9503„CC„00072Ìà àAppellant,à àà à*à àSEQUATCHIE€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€BuddyÏD.€Perry,€JudgeÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà à*ÌÌòòÌÌFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòForÏAppellee:óóÌÓÓòòProóó€òòSeóó€on€appealà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌMCRCF€Box€2000€Unit€9à àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€ReporterÌWartburg,€TN€€37887„2000Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€N.ÏSmithÌJerry€B.€Bibleà àà àà àà àCounsel€forÏthe€StateÌAttorneyà àà àà àà àà àCriminalÍJustice€DivisionÌCourthouse€Squareà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌJasper,€TN€€37347à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì(at€evidentiary€hearing)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJ.€Michael€TaylorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àFirst€American€National€BankÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ€€€Building›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDayton,€TN€€37321ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€òòproóó€òòseóó€petitioner,€Ricky€Allan€Johnson,€appealsÏthe€trial€court's€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief.€€He€claims€that€he€did€not€receive€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€at€trial€or€on€direct€appeal,€assertingÏamong€other€things,€that€his€counsel€failed€to€present€proof€atÏthe€evidentiary€hearing€and€otherwise€have€an€immunity€agreementÏenforced.€€He€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€haveÏgranted€a€judgment€of€acquittal.ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€June€8,€1988,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€ofÏfelony€murder,€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€armed€robbery.€€TheÏtrial€court€imposed€an€effective€sentence€of€seventy€years.€ÏThis€court€affirmed€the€convictions€and€sentences€on€directÏappeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€781€S.W.2d€873€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1989).€€The€supreme€court€denied€the€petitioner's€applicationÏfor€permission€to€appeal€on€November€27,€1989.ÌÌà àà àOn€October€26,€1992,€the€petitioner€filed€thisÏpetition€alleging€several€instances€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÍcounsel€and€challenging€both€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€andÏthe€excessiveness€of€the€sentences.€€The€trial€court€appointedÏcounsel€and€the€petition€was€amended.€€No€witnesses€wereÏpresented€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€Instead,€the€petitionerÏrelied€upon€portions€of€the€trial€record€in€making€his€case.€ÏThe€trial€court€denied€relief,€finding€that€the€defendant€hadÏbreached€the€agreement€and€was€not,€therefore,€entitled€toÏenforcement.ÌÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€petitioner€has€listed€numerous€instances€ofÏineffective€assistance.€€He€claims€that€he€has€not€received€aÏfull€and€fair€hearing,€as€required€by€statute,€because€his€post„conviction€counsel€"abandoned€the€issue"€by€failing€to€presentÏproof€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.ÌÌà àà àIn€order€for€the€petitioner€to€be€granted€relief€onÏgrounds€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€must€establishÏthat€the€advice€given€or€the€services€rendered€were€not€withinÏthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€casesÏand€that,€but€for€his€counsel's€deficient€performance,€theÍresult€of€his€trial€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€(1984);€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€The€same€standard€applies€to€counsel€on€appeal.€ÏòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòEvitts€v.ÏLuceyóó,€469€U.S.€387€(1985).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€theÏevidence€preponderated€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge.€ÏòòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€ÏOtherwise,€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€areÏconclusive.€€òòGraves€v.€Stateóó,€512€S.W.2d€603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1973).€€€ÌÌà àà àRecently,€our€supreme€court€addressed€the€issues€ofÏprevious€determination€and€waiver€under€the€post„conviction€act.€ÏA€full€and€fair€hearing€was€defined€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[A]€"full€and€fair€hearing"€sufficient€toÏsupport€a€finding€of€previous€determinationÏoccurs€if€òòa€petitioner€is€given€theÏopportunity€to€present€proof€and€argumentóóÏon€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€ÏWe€further€conclude€that€the€rebuttableÏpresumption€of€waiver€is€not€overcome€by€anÏallegation€that€the€petitioner€did€notÏpersonally€and€therefore,€"knowingly€andÏunderstandingly,"€waive€the€ground€forÏrelief.€€Waiver€is€to€be€determined€by€òòanÍobjective€standardóó€under€which€a€petitionerÏis€bound€by€the€action€or€inaction€of€hisÏattorney.€€ÌÌÓÓòòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€706€(Tenn.€1995)(emphasisÏadded).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€court€ruled€that€the€following€circumstances€wereÏsufficient€to€constitute€a€full€and€fair€hearing€for€previousÏdetermination€purposes:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held,€and€theÏpetitioner€was€afforded€every€opportunityÏto€present€evidence€and€argument.€€TheÏoriginal€trial€record€was€introduced€intoÏevidence,€and€the€trial€judge€determinedÏfrom€that€record,€and€the€argument€ofÏcounsel,€that€the€allegations€were€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€711.€€This€petitioner€had€the€opportunity€at€theÏevidentiary€hearing€to€support€his€claims€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€his€counsel.€€That€his€counsel€relied€upon€theÏrecord€of€the€trial€to€prove€his€claims€does€not€mean€that€heÏwas€denied€a€hearing;€that€is€not€an€unusual€tactic.€€Moreover,Ïthere€is€no€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€in€a€post„conviction€hearing.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòIdóó.€at€706.€€EvenÏif€counsel€was€ineffective€for€having€failed€to€present€proof,Ïthe€petitioner€is€bound€by€that€action.€€ÌÌ€à@ àIIÌà àà àUntil€recently,€the€rule€in€Tennessee€had€been€thatÏinformal€immunity€agreements€were€generally€unenforceable.€€òòSeeóóÏòòBruno€v.€Stateóó,€192€Tenn.€244,€240€S.W.2d€28€(1951).€€In€theÏdirect€appeal€by€the€petitioner,€this€court€relied€on€òòBrunoóó,€atÏleast€in€part,€in€determining€that€the€state€was€not€bound€byÏthe€immunity€agreement.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó€781€S.W.2d€at€879„80.€ÏIn€òòState€v.€Howingtonóó,€907€S.W.2d€403,€407„09€(Tenn.€1995),Ïhowever,€our€supreme€court€overruled€òòBrunoóó€and€its€progeny,Ïholding€"that€an€agreement€between€a€prosecutor€and€a€defendantÏis€enforceable€under€the€law€of€contracts"€unless€there€had€beenÏa€material€breach€by€the€defendant.€€The€court€made€specificÏreference€to€this€case:€"in€òòJohnsonóó,€the€trial€court€determined,Ïafter€a€hearing,€that€Johnson€had€breached€the€agreement€byÏbeing€untruthful."€€òòIdóó.€at€407,€n.7.€€Ìà àà àIn€the€opinion€rendered€on€direct€appeal,€this€courtÏruled€that€there€had€been€"a€substantial€and€materialÏmisstatement€by€the€defendant€[concerning€his€own€involvement€inÏthe€kidnapping€and€murder.]"€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€781€S.W.2d€atÏ879.€€An€issue€is€previously€determined€and€thus€unavailable€asÏa€ground€for€post„conviction€relief€"if€a€court€of€competentÍjurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fairÏhearing."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a).€€The€issue€of€whetherÏthe€immunity€agreement€was€enforceable€had€not€only€beenÏaddressed€by€this€court€on€direct€appeal,€it€was€determined€in€aÏway€consistent€with€the€holding€in€òòHowingtonóó.€€As€a€result,€theÏpetitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€ground.€€The€focusÏof€the€argument€made€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€was€on€trialÏcounsel's€failure€to€help€draft€the€immunity€agreement€in€anÏenforceable€form.€€As€part€of€the€agreement,€however,€theÏpetitioner€had€to€pass€a€polygraph€examination.€€He€did€not€doÏso.€€Counsel€could€hardly€be€faulted€for€that.€€That€clearlyÏdistinguishes€this€case€from€the€holding€in€òòHowingtonóó.€€InÏòòHowingtonóó,€the€defendant€had€faithfully€performed€hisÏobligations€under€the€agreement€and€had€provided€accurateÏinformation€to€the€state.€€Johnson,€on€the€other€hand,€hadÏfailed€to€meet€a€basic€condition€of€the€agreement€and,€inÏconsequence,€was€not€contractually€entitled€to€any€relief.ÌÌà àà àThe€remaining€allegations€of€ineffective€assistanceÏare€not€supported€by€the€proof.€€The€petitioner€has€also€failedÏto€establish€how€the€results€of€his€trial€might€have€beenÏdifferent€absent€the€claimed€deficiencies.€€Certainly,€theÍevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court's€findingÏthat€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counselÏat€trial.€€Our€own€conclusion€is€that€the€petitioner€wasÏeffectively€represented€by€counsel€on€appeal.ÌÌà@ àIIIÌà àà àFinally,€on€direct€appeal€the€petitioner€raised€theÏissue€of€whether€the€trial€court€had€erred€in€denying€his€motionÏfor€judgment€of€acquittal€on€the€armed€robbery€and€aggravatedÏkidnapping€charges.€€Otherwise,€he€did€not€challenge€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€or€the€trial€court's€denial€of€hisÏmotion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€on€the€murder€charge.€€€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€this€issue€has€most€likely€been€waived€by€theÏstandards€in€òòHouseóó,€the€petitioner€would€not€be€entitled€toÏrelief€anyway.€€This€court€reviewed€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€on€all€of€the€charges€on€direct€appeal€and€determinedÏthat€the€evidence€was€"overwhelming€to€show€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€the€defendant€was€a€participant€in€the€aggravatedÏkidnapping€...,€the€robbery€...,€and€the€cold€blooded€murder€ofÏ[the€victim]€during€the€course€of€the€commission€of€these€otherÏfelonies."€€This€court€further€concluded€that€the€jury€wasÍ"unquestionably€warranted€in€finding€the€defendant€guilty€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt€of€all€of€these€crimes."€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€must€also€hold€that€the€issue€was€previouslyÏdetermined,€as€defined€by€statute,€and€is€otherwise€withoutÏmerit.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌRobert€E.€Corlew,€III,€Special€Judge