WPC CN\.Wa奇yF*0S>pܨk 60pcq{90+#śeqӲk]tZ{ .f"pmB2!ʇ!ujf^1MQ.h1^g L2%i@J&8A!-nqz<m15"'++l/DNӲ^GQZ;^fS(q - D~4,7 0En"ߜxe:yg FhM%La1Q"KDˑ̵iW]b$b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz z  W   NU@Eb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K   AST 0m 0D AUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60T(L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularsp'0PK C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (hH  Z(Times New Roman - -(|G2$ !.8VPdd8         0  X*X d(|3$ !.8VPdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8VPdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8VPdd8     __VP8*XXdd8@HHINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @''%ATJACKSON  X*XVP #VPXX*y#  _JERE_ԀLOWELLJOSEPH,JR.v.STATEOFTENNESSEEX*XVP   @  AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDyerCounty   @ No.C9616,C97284J.StevenStafford,Judge   @*AV) ` dE<= ` A߈ >   @ No.W199900651CCAR3PCDecidedJuly19,_2000_Ԉ 3  AV) ` dE<` A O   Thepetitioner,_Jere_ԀLowellJoseph,Jr.,appealstwopostconvictioncases,claimingthatthetrial *  courterredinholdingthatthepetitionerreceivedtheeffectiveassistanceofcounselinbothcases.  Weaffirmthetrialcourt.  #VPXX*#X*XVP Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  r _Tipton_#VPX*ܹ#X*X.VP,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHayesandWilliams,JJ.,joined. > DeanP._Dedmon_,_Dyersburg_,Tennessee,attorneyforappellant,_Jere_ԀLowellJoseph,Jr.  Z PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;J.RossDyer,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;C. & Phillip_Bivens_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andGreg_Alford_,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,for   theappellee,StateofTennessee.  @55' OPINION #VPXX*܏#Ԉ T X*XVP  Thepetitioner,_Jere_ԀLowellJoseph,Jr.,appealsasofrightfromtheDyerCountyCircuit H!! Courtsdenyinghimpostconvictionreliefintwocases.ThefirstcaserelatestohisApril1996 ."~" convictionuponhisguiltypleatofeloniouspossessionofonehalformoregramsofcocaineandhis #d# resultingeightyearsentence.SeeStatev._Jere_ԀLowellJoseph,No.02C019607CC00219,Dyer #J$ County(Tenn._Crim_.App.Dec.1,1997).ThesecondcaserelatestohisFebruary1998conviction $0 % uponhisguiltypleatofailuretoappearincourtandhisresultingoneyearsentencetobeserved %!& consecutivelytohiseightyearsentence.Thecasesareconnectedonlybythefactthatthefailure &!' toappearoffenserelatestothepetitionernotappearingforhisprobationrevocationhearinginthe '"( cocainecase.Otherwise,theyinvolveseparatefactsandseparatetrialattorneys.Inbothcases,the x(#) petitionercontendsthatthetrialcourterredinconcludingthathewasnotthevictimofthe ^)$* ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Wedisagree. D*%+   UndertheSixthAmendment,whenaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselismadein ,F(. thecontextofaguiltyplea,theburdenisuponthepetitionertoshow(1)thatcounselsperformance -,)/j _wasdeficientand(2)thatthedeficiencywasprejudicialintermsoftherebeingareasonable  probabilitythat,butforcounselserrors,thepetitionerwouldnothavepleadedguiltyandwould  haveinsistedongoingtotrial.Hillv.Lockhart,464U.S.52,59,106S.Ct.366,370(1985).This | standardhasbeenapplied,aswell,tocasesinvolvingArticleI,Section9oftheTennessee b Constitution.See,e.g.,Shazelv.State,966S.W.2d414,416(Tenn.1998). H   Also,wenotethattheapproachtotheissueofineffectiveassistanceofcounseldoesnothave  d tostartwithananalysisofcounselsconduct.Ifprejudiceisnotshown,weneednotseekto  J determinethevalidityoftheallegationsaboutdeficientperformance.Stricklandv.Washington,466  0 U.S.668,697,104S.Ct.2052,2069(1984).      X*XXX*Theburdenwasonthepetitionerinthetrialcourttoprovebyclearandconvincingevidence   thefactualallegationsthatwouldentitlehimtorelief.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f).Onappeal, x  weareboundbythetrialcourt'sfindingsoffactunlessweconcludethattheevidenceintherecord ^  preponderatesagainstthosefindings.SeeBlackv.State,794S.W.2d752,755(Tenn.Crim.App. D  1990).Inthisrespect,thepetitioner,astheappellant,hastheburdenofillustratinghowtheevidence *z  preponderatesagainstthejudgmententered.Id.However,wereviewthetrialcourtsconclusion ` regardingtheeffectivenessofcounseldenovobecauseitinvolvesamixedquestionoflawandfact. F SeeStatev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999). ,   Inthecocainecase,therecordreflectsthattheprosecutionarosefromthediscoveryof  cocainebypoliceofficersinatraileratwhichthedefendantwaspresent.Althoughthetrialcourt  hadalreadyestablishedthatthepetitionerhadareasonableexpectationofprivacyinthetrailer,the t petitionersattorneyelicitedfromhimthefactthathewasinpossessionofcocaineatthetimeofthe Z search.Asforthesearch,thepoliceclaimedthatwhilestandingatthefrontdoorofthetrailer,they @ sawthroughawindowthatthepetitionerwasputtingdrugsinabathroomvent.Theyenteredthe &v trailerandfound6.8gramsofcocaine.Ultimately,pursuanttoanagreement,thepetitionerpled  \ guiltyandreservedacertifiedquestionforappealrelatingtothesearchandseizure.Hewasalso B recommendedforbootcamp,whichhedidenterandfromwhichhewasplacedonprobation. (   Thepetitionercontendsthathistrialattorneywasineffectiveforhavinghimtestifyatthe  suppressionhearingandadmittothepossessionofcocaine.Heclaimsthatthisincriminatedhim   andlefthim nootherrecoursebuttoenterapleaofguilttothechargeofwhichhewasaccused. p!  Atthepostconvictionhearing,thetrialattorneystatedthatthepetitionerwantedtoresthisdefense V"! onthefactthattherewasnopossiblewaythattheofficerscouldhaveseenhiminthebathroom <#" becausethedoorwasclosed.However,neitherpartyquestionedtheattorneyastowhyhehadthe "$r# petitionertestifyatthesuppressionhearingregardinghiscocainepossession.Wenotethatthe %X $ petitionerdidnottestifyatthepostconvictionhearing.Thetrialcourtconcludedthatalthough %>!% counselsquestioningofthepetitioneratthesuppressionhearingwas excessive,itdidnotgive &$"& risetoanyprejudice. ' #'   Weconcludefromtherecordthatthepetitionersattorneysperformancewaswithinthe )$) rangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcasesandthathisactionsdidnotprejudice l*%* thepetitioner.Thepoliceofficerswerereadytotestifytothepetitionerscocainepossession,afact R+&+ thatthedefensecouldnotrealisticallyattack.Thesoledefenseshownbytherecordtobeavailable 8,', wastheclaimofanunreasonablesearchandseizure.Tothisend,thepetitionerstestimonyatthe  suppressionhearingmadenodifferenceinhisexposuretoconviction.Moreover,nothinginthe  recordsuggeststhatthepetitionerspleabargainandguiltypleaweremotivatedinanywaybyhis | admittingatthesuppressionhearingthathepossessedcocaine.Thepetitionerreceivedtheeffective b assistanceofcounselinthecocainecase. H   Inthefailuretoappearcase,therecordreflectsthatthepetitionerfailedtoappearata  d probationrevocationhearingonNovember21,1997.Unknowntotheattorneywhowas  J representinghimintherevocationcase,thepetitionerwasrequiredtoappearincourtinTipton  0 Countyat1:00p.m.,thesametimesetfortherevocationhearing.Uponlearningthatthepetitioner    wasnotpresent,thetrialcourtdelayedthematteruntillaterintheafternoon.However,the    petitionerneverarrived,andhewasimmediatelychargedwithfailuretoappear.Subsequently,the   petitionersattorneyreceivedaletterfromthepetitionersattorneyintheTiptonCountycase x  confirmingthatthepetitionerhadbeenincourtinTiptonCounty,andtheattorneynotifiedthe ^  prosecutorsofficeofsuchfact.Ultimately,thedefendantpledguiltyandreceivedaoneyear D  sentenceasaRangeIoffenderpursuanttoapleabargain,eventhoughhewaseligibleforRangeII *z  status. `   Atthepostconvictionhearing,thepetitionersattorneyinthefailuretoappearcasetestified , thathediscussedwiththepetitioneralloftheavailableoptions,includinghisexposuretoaRange  IIsentenceandthepotentialuseoftheletterfromtheotherattorney.Hesaidthatthepetitioner  chosetoentertheguiltypleapursuanttothepleaagreement.    Thepetitionercontendsthathadhisattorney informedtheCourtandtheDistrictAttorney Z Generalsofficebywayofthefilingofdefensivepleadingsregardinghiscourtconflicts, the @ outcomeofthiscasewouldhavebeendifferent....However,thepetitionersattorneydidnotify &v theprosecutorabouttheconflictandwasabletonegotiateanagreementbywhichthepetitioner  \ wouldservelesstimethanifhewenttotrial.Thereissimplynosupportintherecordforanyclaim B thatthepetitionerreceivedtheineffectiveassistanceofcounsel. (   Inconsiderationoftheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,thejudgmentofthetrialcourt  isaffirmed.    ̀