ÿWPC¡ >‘$ºtІÀk1tÊUíõo'ü)à­Ë¯ôNúÕó(O´$׈±À‘ÄÒüf¢(Q ä0IX- Èí¿‘¦fEyáæ3ÅämÂP‡.Î#=þÉ4>n^Ñâ;‡ ¿¼ðÒQaxhjü Ÿ‘‚Nç&_oµƒ»9ö•H¯Î4óŒŽ RBŒNêI[æw¾8WÎŒJqÎ5\ÔIø¶µXÌ€üÆ’ÒqÞÃü*\U‚’ƒ+åÜfö‘„, Æ—ÃT$ÂÔkä·J¨…'‘biÃÇlãå(NG ¹+ߊ¾b+'E בÜyZ5¤¦Ô¿ôTyTunÒѠβᧂqzÞ!™9öA×wj Ç>û5é«wÜu×Cœ¦Eê‡zýc2ªÌS ÿÈ€Oø@xü(—, ÉõýKˆ ,$1:VHvÄ€´ñÜD ±UeKÃÄ«K ‰eܨ| ÜÍ ðܼ_5œIãwÏ·¿*ÈyÛteo‡ Ð|ŸK$*\®˜#>SúŒ¡È/A‰¢_TºƒùÙ¥(ÙQ®(ž†Õ0—µÞöm¼ýsM¥”¸¬’rÛ’~GÁö ”YrL¥A=mªC`#!@U>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ fÞ D "L wn r Nz ^ | ˆ mŠ 02¡ 0DÓ AQ Ëh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h B3ÆP 0  0   0D** D3n˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpitpO'3|x«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ b¨'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(â(3Ä $¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ8€˜,XXdêdê8ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóZ[\]_Cþÿ<<Cÿÿ ÁÝ ƒ[€J"ÝÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝÔ€ XŒéXXXÔÔ€ è§)çX XŒéÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ üç è§)ÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€16,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAíÔó óÔ_Ô dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(â3€J$¢¢Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ8€˜,XXdêdê8ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ý(â3€J$££Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ8€˜,XXdêdê8ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óYYYY'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ8€˜,XXdêdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XŒéXXXÔÑ8€ Œé XXdæXXdê8ÑÔ_Ôßv€_@0,j: `€€@ÿEð Žtt¨¦( WvßÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ Ð ¸ Ð àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@~~%DàAT€KNOXVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€NOVEMBER€1999€SESSIONÌÌÓÓWILLIAM€FREDRICK€LUTTRELL,€€)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellant,€à h àà À à€€)à  àNo.€03C01„9901„CR„00004€Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à€€)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)à  àHamblen€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)à  àHonorable€Ben€K.€Wexler,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h à€€à À à€€)à  à(Post„conviction)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€)Ìà ¸ àAppellee.à h àà À à€€)Ð 4, ÐÌÌÌòòò òó óFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð ÌÄ ÐÌW.€Douglas€Collinsà0  àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%àPaul€G.€SummersИ€%€% ÐPost€Office€Box€1754à h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ~v ÐMorristown,€TN€37816à h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ d\ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àClinton€J.€MorganÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€Northà x àÐ ! Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àC.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€F.€Dugger,€Jr.Ì€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ `'X $ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à109€South€Main€Street,€Suite€501Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGreeneville,€TN€37743ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÐ >:639 ЇÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóˆà0 È àÐÈ€%È€% ÐÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner,€William€Frederick€Luttrell,€appeals€as€of€right€from€theÏHamblen€County€Criminal€Courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€HeÏseeks€relief€from€his€1997€guilty€pleas€to€three€counts€of€delivery€of€less€than€one„halfÏgram€of€cocaine,€a€Class€C€felony;€one€count€of€possession€of€cocaine;€and€two€countsÏof€passing€worthless€checks.€€He€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€toÏfour€years€for€each€of€the€three€delivery€counts€and€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nineÏdays€for€each€of€the€possession€and€worthless€check€counts.€€All€six€counts€wereÏconcurrent€for€an€effective€four„year€sentence€to€be€served€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€because€his€attorney€(1)€failed€to€advise€him€properly€about€the€consequencesÏof€his€restructured€plea€agreement,€(2)€misinformed€him€about€the€amount€of€time€heÏwould€serve€before€becoming€eligible€for€release,€and€(3)€failed€to€review€the€judgmentsÏfor€their€accuracy.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€was€originally€charged€with€three€counts€of€delivering€lessÏthan€one„half€gram€of€crack€cocaine,€one€count€of€possession€of€cocaine€in€a€penalÏinstitution,€and€four€counts€of€passing€worthless€checks.€€By€a€plea€agreement,€theÏstate€reduced€the€possession€of€cocaine€in€a€penal€institution€to€possession€of€cocaine,Ïa€misdemeanor.€€The€state€also€dismissed€two€of€the€worthless€check€counts.€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€heÏhad€been€incarcerated€for€thirteen€or€fourteen€months.€€He€said€that€in€December€1997,Ïhe€entered€guilty€pleas€in€three€cases:€€three€counts€of€delivery€of€a€controlledÏsubstance,€introduction€of€a€controlled€substance€into€a€penal€institution,€and€passingÏworthless€checks.€€He€stated€that€before€the€trial€court€appointed€the€attorney€whoÏrepresented€him€on€these€charges,€he€was€represented€by€two€other€attorneys€who€hadÐ ˜706 Ðwithdrawn€because€of€a€conflict.€€He€said€he€told€his€attorney€that€he€wanted€to€go€toÏtrial,€and€he€believed€he€had€a€good€defense.€€He€said€that€he€changed€his€mindÏbecause€he€was€having€problems€in€the€county€jail€and€because€of€the€change€inÏattorneys.€€He€said€that€he€decided€to€try€for€a€plea€to€enter€the€penitentiary.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€testified€that€his€attorney€negotiated€his€sentences€down€toÏthree€years€for€the€delivery€charges€and€a€consecutive€eleven€months€and€twenty„nineÏdays€on€the€contraband€charge.€€€He€said€that€someone€at€the€jail€told€him€that€heÏneeded€a€four„year€sentence€to€get€into€the€penitentiary.€€He€said€that€on€that€sameÏday,€he€asked€his€attorney€to€get€one€more€day€added€to€his€sentence,€but€instead,€sheÏgot€him€an€extra€year.€€He€said€that€before€he€went€to€court,€his€attorney€calculated€theÏamount€of€time€that€he€would€actually€spend€incarcerated€as€fourteen€months,€includingÏtime€served.€€He€said€that€he€never€discussed€parole€with€his€attorney.€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€stated€that€when€he€got€to€the€penitentiary,€he€learned€thatÏhis€release€eligibility€date€was€in€January€1999.€€He€said€that€it€should€have€been€inÏSeptember€1998.€€He€said€that€his€printout€from€the€Department€of€Correction€listed€aÏsentence€effective€date€of€July€26,€1997€and€an€ending€date€of€November€21,€2001,Ïwhich€was€more€than€four€years.€€He€said€that€he€wrote€a€letter€to€his€attorney€askingÏher€to€correct€errors€in€the€judgments€but€that€his€sentence€stayed€the€same€until€JuneÏ1998.€€He€said€that€as€a€result,€he€was€not€considered€for€parole€at€the€proper€time.€€HeÏsaid€he€also€applied€to€the€Department€of€Correction€requesting€that€the€errors€beÏcorrected.€€He€said€that€once€it€received€the€amended€judgments,€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€did€not€correct€his€sentences€until€September€1998.€€He€said€that€by€thisÏtime,€his€early€release€date€and€his€release€eligibility€date€had€passed.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€testified€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€because€she€gotÏhim€another€year€rather€than€the€day€he€requested,€and€this€increased€the€time€that€heÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ í:Ñâ  âÑÜÜÑÑÑâ  âÑ  Ñwould€spend€incarcerated.€€He€said€he€thought€that€he€was€going€to€the€penitentiaryÏwith€a€sentence€of€three€years€and€one€day.€€He€admitted€that€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing,Ïhe€agreed€that€he€understood€he€could€serve€one€hundred€percent€of€his€sentence,€butÏhe€said€that€his€attorney€had€never€discussed€his€serving€more€than€thirty€percent.€€HeÏsaid€he€believed€that€he€would€not€serve€more€than€thirty€percent€of€his€sentence.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€if€he€had€known€that€this€was€not€true.€€TheÏpetitioner€admitted€that€he€had€agreed€to€a€four„year€sentence€at€the€guilty€pleaÏhearing.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€tell€the€trial€court€that€this€was€not€the€sentence€he€wasÏexpecting€because€he€was€relying€on€the€advice€of€his€attorney.ÌÌà ¸ àClifton€Barnes€testified€that€he€was€a€public€defender€and€that€heÏrepresented€the€petitioner€until€he€determined€that€a€conflict€existed€because€his€officeÏalso€represented€a€codefendant.€€He€said€that€the€petitioner€wanted€his€case€tried€andÏthat€the€petitioner€felt€he€had€a€good€defense.€€He€said€that€if€he€had€continued€toÏrepresent€the€petitioner,€he€would€have€taken€the€case€to€trial€because€this€was€theÏpetitionerððs€decision.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€recall€speaking€with€the€petitionerððsÏattorney€about€the€petitionerððs€case€or€generally€about€how€to€calculate€releaseÏeligibility€dates.€€He€stated€that€a€defendant€needs€a€four„year€sentence€to€be€eligibleÏfor€the€Department€of€Correction,€but€a€four„year€sentence€does€not€guaranteeÏadmittance€due€to€overcrowding.ÌÌà ¸ àJosephine€Garrett,€the€petitionerððs€mother,€testified€that€she€spoke€withÏthe€petitionerððs€attorney€about€the€amount€of€time€the€petitioner€would€serve€in€prison€ifÏhe€accepted€the€plea€offer.€€She€said€that€the€attorney€told€her€that€the€petitioner€wouldÏserve€seven€to€nine€months,€which€represented€thirty€percent€of€the€sentence€less€timeÏserved.€€Sandra€Luttrell,€the€petitionerððs€wife,€testified€that€the€petitionerððs€attorney€toldÏher€that€if€the€petitioner€accepted€the€plea,€he€would€get€no€more€than€nine€months€inÏincarceration,€including€time€served.Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€attorney€testified€that€the€state€initially€offered€theÏpetitioner€a€combined€six€or€eight„year€sentence.€€She€said€she€convinced€the€state€thatÏsome€of€the€worthless€check€counts€no€longer€had€witnesses€willing€to€give€testimony.€ÏShe€said€that€as€a€result,€the€state€dismissed€two€counts€of€passing€worthless€checks.€ÏShe€said€that€the€lowest€offer€she€received€was€three€years€for€each€count€of€delivery€ofÏa€controlled€substance.€€She€said€the€state€also€offered€to€reduce€the€petitionerððsÏcharge€of€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€in€a€penal€institution€to€simpleÏpossession.€€She€said€that€the€state€offered€sentences€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„¼nine€days€for€the€possession€count€and€the€two€worthless€check€counts.€€She€said€thatÏthe€three„year€sentences€for€the€felonies€were€to€be€served€at€thirty€percent€and€were€toÏbe€consecutive€to€the€eleven„month,€twenty„nine„day€sentences,€which€would€be€servedÏat€fifty€percent.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€she€discussed€this€offer€with€the€petitioner.€€SheÏsaid€he€told€her€that€he€was€extremely€unhappy€in€the€Hamblen€County€jail€and€believedÏthat€the€conditions€were€better€in€the€penitentiary.€€She€said€the€petitioner€told€her,€andÏshe€confirmed,€that€the€petitioner€needed€a€four„year€sentence€in€order€to€be€eligible€forÏtransfer€to€the€penitentiary.€€She€said€the€petitioner€asked€her€to€negotiate€the€additionÏof€an€extra€day€to€the€effective€three„year,€twenty„nine„day€offer.€€She€said€she€advisedÏthe€petitioner€against€this€several€times€because€she€did€not€know€how€the€penitentiaryÏwould€handle€his€charges.€€She€said€that€the€petitioner€insisted€and€that€she€asked€theÏstate€to€add€an€additional€day€to€the€offer.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€the€petitioner€received€an€offer€of€four€years€forÏthe€felony€counts€to€run€concurrently€with€the€eleven„month,€twenty„nine„day€sentencesÏand€for€the€entire€sentence€to€be€served€at€thirty€percent.€€She€stated€that€she€did€notÏrealize€at€the€time€that€the€petitioner€benefitted€from€the€restructured€offer€because€he€Ïwould€reach€his€release€eligibility€date€on€the€eleven„month,€twenty„nine„day€sentencesÐ Œ7„06 Ðafter€serving€thirty€percent€rather€than€fifty€percent€of€the€sentence.€€She€said€she€didÏnot€tell€the€petitioner€that€he€would€only€have€to€serve€eight€or€nine€months€of€the€four„¼year€sentence.€€She€said€she€did€not€use€a€calendar€or€a€calculator€to€determine€theÏamount€of€incarceration€the€petitioner€would€face€under€the€offer€before€becomingÏeligible€for€release.€€She€said€she€told€the€petitioner€the€percentage€that€he€wouldÏreceive€under€the€plea€bargain€and€that€this€percentage€was€not€guaranteed.€€She€saidÏthat€she€told€him€that€his€only€guaranteed€release€date€would€be€at€the€end€of€fourÏyears.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€she€discussed€her€concerns€about€a€possibleÏtrial€with€the€petitionerððs€mother€and€ex„wife.€€She€said€she€did€not€tell€them€that€theÏpetitioner€would€serve€eight€or€nine€months€in€jail€before€being€eligible€for€release.€€SheÏsaid€she€talked€to€them€in€general€terms€about€possible€sentences,€but€she€would€notÏhave€guaranteed€a€time€for€release.€€She€said€she€was€prepared€to€go€to€trial€on€allÏcounts,€but€the€petitioner€discovered€that€the€testimony€of€his€ex„wife€and€anotherÏwitness€was€not€going€to€be€helpful.€€She€stated€that€she€believed€that€the€petitionerÏaccepted€the€plea€due€to€the€combination€of€this€discovery€and€the€stateððs€offerÏbecoming€increasingly€better€as€the€trial€approached.€€She€said€that€she€was€presentÏwhen€the€petitioner€entered€his€guilty€pleas€and€that€he€understood€the€pleas.€€TheÏattorney€said€she€believed€that€she€negotiated€a€good€deal€for€the€defendant.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€she€did€not€look€at€the€judgments€after€theÏpetitioner€entered€his€guilty€pleas€on€November€21,€1997.€€She€said€she€received€aÏletter€with€a€postmark€of€April€22,€1998€from€the€petitioner.€€The€attorney€read€this€letterÏinto€evidence.€€It€stated€that€the€trial€court€had€entered€the€dates€for€pretrial€jail€credit€onÏthe€judgment€for€count€one€but€not€on€the€judgments€for€counts€two€and€three€of€theÏdelivery€convictions.€€In€the€letter,€the€petitioner€stated€that€if€the€pretrial€jail€credit€wasÏnot€entered€for€all€three€counts,€then€he€would€have€to€serve€a€greater€percentage€ofÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ †Ñâ  âÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal[° AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑâ  âÑ  Ñhis€four„year€sentence€before€being€eligible€for€release.€€The€petitioner€acknowledged€inÐ  Ðthe€letter€that€he€was€not€guaranteed€to€serve€only€thirty€percent€of€his€four„yearÏsentence€before€becoming€eligible€for€release.€€The€petitioner€asked€the€attorney€toÏhave€the€clerkððs€office€send€the€information€on€the€pretrial€jail€credit€for€counts€two€andÏthree€to€the€Department€of€Correction.Ì€€Ìà ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€the€better€practice€would€have€been€to€reviewÏthe€judgments€after€they€were€initially€entered€to€make€sure€they€were€complete.€€SheÏsaid€that€when€she€did€review€the€original€judgments,€they€appeared€accurate€becauseÏcount€one€contained€the€pretrial€jail€credit€dates.€€She€said€that€it€took€two€months€ofÏworking€with€the€probation€office€and€the€trial€court€to€get€the€judgments€on€counts€twoÏand€three€amended€to€include€the€dates€for€the€pretrial€jail€credits.€€She€said€theÏamended€judgments€were€entered€nunc€pro€tunc€in€order€that€they€would€be€effectiveÏfrom€the€time€the€petitioner€entered€his€plea.€€She€said€she€did€not€see€any€functionalÏdifference€between€the€original€and€the€amended€judgments,€but€apparently€theÏamendment€was€necessary€for€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€attorney€testifiedÏthat€she€was€not€aware€that€the€Department€of€Correction€would€have€considered€theÏpetitioner€for€release€around€the€time€that€she€received€the€petitionerððs€letter.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€on€November€21,€1997,€reflectsÏthat€the€petitioner€affirmed€that€he€wanted€the€court€to€approve€a€four„year€sentence€onÏeach€of€the€three€counts€of€delivering€cocaine.€€The€petitioner€agreed€that€as€a€Range€I,Ïstandard€offender,€he€had€a€release€eligibility€date€of€thirty€percent.€€The€petitioner€saidÏthat€he€understood€that€this€did€not€mean€that€he€would€be€automatically€released€afterÏserving€thirty€percent€of€his€sentence€and€that€he€could€be€required€to€serve€the€entireÏsentence.€€The€petitioner€confirmed€that€his€attorney€had€explained€the€waiver€of€rightsÏand€guilty€plea€form€that€he€signed€and€that€he€understood€them.€€He€agreed€that€heÏwas€satisfied€with€the€representation€his€attorney€provided.Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€petitioner€pled€guilty€to€a€four„year€sentenceÏon€the€delivery€charges€with€the€misdemeanor€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€The€trialÏcourt€stated€that€it€had€no€doubt€that€the€petitioner€understood€the€sentence€to€which€heÏpled€guilty.€€It€found€that€the€original€judgments€contained€no€errors€and€that€theÏpetitionerððs€true€complaint€was€with€the€Department€of€Correction.€€It€stated€that€theÏamended€judgments€removed€any€doubt€with€regard€to€the€petitionerððs€entitlement€toÏcredit€for€time€served.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€petitionerððs€attorney€effectivelyÏrepresented€him,€and€it€denied€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€a€post„conviction€case,€the€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€prove€hisÏgrounds€for€relief€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€ÏOn€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€unless€we€conclude€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755Ð ˜ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€The€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€how€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€judgment€entered.€€òòId.óó€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€orÐ 0 ( Ðreevaluate€the€evidence,€nor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€court.€ÏòòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€579€(Tenn.€1997).€€Questions€concerning€theÐ È#À  Ðcredibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€to€their€testimony€areÏresolved€by€the€trial€court,€not€this€court.€€òòId.óóÐ `'X $ ÐÌà@rrDàò òINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ ø*ð#( Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€which€caused€him€to€plead€guilty€to€a€four„year€sentence€and€deprived€him€ofÏconsideration€for€release€on€his€release€eligibility€date.€€The€state€contends€that€weÏshould€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition€because€the€petitioner€has€providedÏan€incomplete€record.€€The€state€also€argues€that€the€petitionerððs€attorney€effectivelyÏrepresented€him.ÌÐ ˜706 Ðà ¸ à€When€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€made€under€theÏSixth€Amendment,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counselððsÏperformance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€ofÏrendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.Ð 80 ÐCt.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€368„72,€113€S.€Ct.€838,Ð ü  Ð842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied€to€the€right€to€counsel€underÐ ÐÈ  ÐArticle€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,Ð œ”  Ð419€n.2€(Tenn.€1989).€€When€a€petitioner€claims€that€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏresulted€in€a€guilty€plea,€the€petitioner€must€prove€that€counsel€performed€deficientlyÏand€that€but€for€counselððs€errors,€the€petitioner€would€not€have€pled€guilty€and€wouldÏhave€insisted€upon€going€to€trial.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€464€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€370Ð ÌÄ Ð(1985).ÌÌà ¸ àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÐ 0 ( Ðheld€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,€696€(6th€Cir.Ð `'X $ Ð1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202„04€(D.C.€Cir.€1973).€€Also,Ð ,)$"& Ðin€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requiresÏthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstructÏthe€circumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòseeóóÐ \0T). ÐòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).Ð (2 +0 ÐÌà ¸ àWe€also€note€that€the€approach€to€the€issue€of€the€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€does€not€have€to€start€with€an€analysis€of€an€attorneyððs€conduct.€€If€prejudiceÐ Œ7„06 Ðis€not€shown,€we€need€not€seek€to€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegations€aboutÏdeficient€performance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.Ð ÔÌ ÐÌà@NN%Dàò òA.€€INCOMPLETE€RECORDó óˆÐ l d Ðà ¸ àThe€state€contends€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€provide€this€court€withÏa€complete€record€for€review€because€he€has€not€included€a€copy€of€the€waiver€of€rightsÏand€the€guilty€plea€form€in€the€record.€€The€state€argues€that€these€documents€wereÏacknowledged€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing€and€can€be€reasonably€presumed€to€refuteÏportions€of€the€petitionerððs€testimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€citing€òòState€v.€Bolingóó,Ð tl Ð840€S.W.2d€944,€951€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(ð ðAbsent€an€essential€part€of€the€record,Ïthis€court€must€presume€that€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€correctðð).€€The€stateÏcontends€that€the€incomplete€record€warrants€our€affirming€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€appealing€party€has€a€ð ðduty€to€prepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,Ïaccurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€the€issues€formingÏthe€basis€of€the€appeal.ðð€òòóó€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€theÐ " Ðpresent€case,€the€waiver€of€rights€and€the€guilty€plea€form€were€never€entered€intoÏevidence.€€During€its€argument€to€the€court,€the€state€requested€that€the€case€file€on€theÏdelivery€convictions€be€made€an€exhibit€because€it€contained€the€guilty€plea€form.€€TheÏpetitioner€objected€that€the€state€could€not€put€evidence€into€the€record€after€it€hadÏrested€its€case.€€The€trial€court€made€no€ruling€on€this€matter,€and€the€file€was€not€madeÏan€exhibit.€€Because€the€rights€waiver€and€the€guilty€plea€form€were€never€a€part€of€theÏrecord,€their€absence€does€not€make€the€record€on€appeal€incomplete.€€ÌÌà ¸ àNevertheless,€the€trial€court€examined€the€file€and€read€the€pertinentÏportion€of€the€forms€into€the€record:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àThe€waiver€of€rights€and€plea€of€guilty€which€[the€petitioner]Ïsigned€has€a€statement€in€here:€€I€am€pleading€guilty€to€simpleÏpossession,€.€.€.€possession€of€a€Schedule€II€[substance]€withÏthe€intent€to€deliver€it,€three€counts,€and€worthless€checks€toÐ ~8v17 ÐWalmart,€Food€City,€two€counts.€€The€sentence€I€will€receive€isÏfour€years€all€concurrent.€€And€which€he€signed.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓAlthough€the€documents€were€not€entered€into€evidence,€the€essence€of€their€relevanceÏto€this€appeal€is€before€us€through€the€trial€courtððs€statements€and€the€transcript€of€theÏguilty€plea€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòLane€v.€Stateóó,€968€S.W.2d€912,€915€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)Ð R J Ð(holding€the€absence€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€transcript€to€be€harmless€error€becauseÏthe€petitionerððs€testimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€indicated€that€his€plea€wasÏvoluntary).€€€We€decline€to€determine€the€outcome€of€the€appeal€based€upon€theÏabsence€of€these€documents.ÌÌà@ÍÍ Dàò òB.€RESTRUCTURED€PLEA€AGREEMENTó óˆÐ  Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€attorney€rendered€ineffective€assistanceÏby€failing€to€advise€him€properly€of€the€nature€and€consequences€of€the€restructuredÏplea€offer.€€He€states€that€the€original€offer€called€for€a€three„year€sentence€at€thirtyÏpercent€for€the€delivery€charges€and€a€consecutive€eleven„month,€twenty„nine„dayÏsentence€at€fifty€percent€for€the€misdemeanors.€€He€states€that€prior€to€his€plea,€he€hadÏserved€one€hundred€twenty„two€days€in€jail€and€was€close€to€retiring€the€misdemeanorÏsentence.€€He€states€that€instead€of€getting€one€day€added€to€the€three„year€sentence,Ïhis€attorney€negotiated€a€four„year€sentence€on€the€delivery€charges€with€theÏmisdemeanor€sentences€running€concurrently.€€He€argues€that€this€restructured€offerÏresulted€in€the€addition€of€just€over€one„hundred€and€nine€days€to€the€time€he€wouldÏhave€to€serve€before€becoming€eligible€for€release.€€€He€claims€that€his€attorney€neverÏadvised€him€of€this€consequence€of€the€restructured€offer€and€that€if€he€had€beenÏproperly€advised,€he€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€The€state€argues€that€theÏincrease€in€the€offer€was€at€the€petitionerððs€request,€was€understood€by€the€petitioner,Ïand€fulfilled€his€desire€to€serve€his€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€ItÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€petitioner€relief€on€this€ground.Ìâ âÐ ²6ª/5 Ðà ¸ àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„211(1)€requires€that€felony€sentences€ð ðshall€beÏâ âfor€a€term€of€years€or€months€or€life,€if€the€defendant€is€sentenced€to€the€department€ofÏcorrection€.€.€.€.ðð€€Thus,€the€petitionerððs€request€that€his€attorney€get€one€day€added€toÏthe€stateððs€offer€of€three€years€for€the€delivery€counts€in€order€for€him€to€qualify€for€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€was€impossible€to€fulfill.€€The€petitionerððs€attorney€advisedÏagainst€seeking€additional€time,€but€the€petitioner€insisted€because€he€did€not€want€toÏserve€his€sentence€in€the€local€jail.€€His€attorney€secured€the€four„year€sentence€heÏneeded€to€qualify€for€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€transcript€of€the€guilty€pleaÏhearing€shows€that€the€petitioner€knew€that€he€was€agreeing€to€a€four„year€sentence€onÏthe€delivery€counts.€€We€do€not€believe€the€petitionerððs€attorney€was€deficient€when€theÏpetitioner€insisted€upon€extra€time€against€her€advice.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòJames€Gordon€Coons,Ð ø ÐIII€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9801„CR„00014,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€6,Ð ÌÄ Ð1999)€(holding€that€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€arranging€a€plea€agreement€for€sixÏyears€and€one€day€despite€a€prior€offer€of€three€years€when€the€petitioner€insisted€uponÏthe€increase€against€the€attorneyððs€advice€in€order€to€qualify€for€the€Department€ofÏCorrection).€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€argues€that€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€if€his€attorney€hadÏadvised€him€that€a€sentence€of€four€years€at€thirty€percent€would€require€him€to€serveÏmore€time€before€arriving€at€his€release€eligibility€date€than€a€sentence€of€three€yearsÏand€one€day€also€at€thirty€percent.€€The€evidence€does€not€support€this€argument.€€TheÏpetitioner€testified€that€he€decided€to€seek€a€guilty€plea€because€he€had€changedÏattorneys€and€he€was€having€problems€in€the€local€jail.€€He€explained€that€he€wanted€toÏenter€into€a€plea€agreement€in€order€to€move€to€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€pleaÏnegotiated€by€the€petitionerððs€attorney€allowed€the€petitioner€to€achieve€this€goal.€€TheÏevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€petitionerððsÏattorney€effectively€represented€him.ÌÐ Œ7„06 Ðà@‘ ‘ Dàò òC.€€ADVICE€ON€THE€LENGTH€OF€POTENTIAL€INCARCERATIONó óˆÐ  Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€claims€that€his€attorney€misinformed€him€about€the€amountÏof€time€that€he€would€spend€incarcerated.€€He€says€his€attorney€advised€him€that€if€heÏaccepted€the€stateððs€offer,€he€would€be€incarcerated€for€fourteen€months,€whichÏincluded€his€pretrial€jail€credit.€€He€contends€that€if€he€had€known€that€this€advice€wasÏinaccurate,€he€would€have€declined€the€offer€and€gone€to€trial.€€The€state€contends€thatÏthe€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€petitioner€understood€that€hisÏthirty€percent€release€eligibility€date€was€not€guaranteed€at€the€time€he€entered€his€plea.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€attorney€testified€that€she€told€the€petitioner€that€hisÏrelease€eligibility€date€was€not€guaranteed€and€that€his€only€guaranteed€release€dateÏwould€be€at€the€end€of€the€four„year€sentence.€€Relying€upon€the€guilty€plea€hearingÏtranscript€and€the€petitionerððs€letter€to€his€attorney,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏpetitioner€understood€the€plea€agreement.€€We€note€that€the€petitionerððs€testimony€atÏthe€guilty€plea€hearing€ð ðconstitutes€a€formidable€barrierðð€to€his€claim€that€he€wasÏcoerced€into€pleading€guilty€in€that€ð ð[s]olemn€declarations€in€open€court€carry€a€strongÏpresumption€of€verity.ðð€€òòBlackledge€v.€Allisonóó,€431€U.S.€63,€75,€97€S.€Ct.€1621,€1629Ð Ô#Ì  Ð(1977).€€The€guilty€plea€hearing€transcript€reveals€that€the€petitioner€knew€that€he€could€Ïserve€more€than€thirty€percent€of€his€sentence.€€His€subsequent€letter€reaffirms€that€heÏknew€his€release€eligibility€date€was€not€guaranteed.€€The€trial€court€is€entitled€toÏaccredit€the€petitionerððs€guilty€plea€hearing€testimony€over€his€testimony€at€theÏevidentiary€hearing.€€The€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findingÏthat€the€petitionerððs€attorney€did€not€misadvise€the€petitioner€about€the€length€of€hisÏsentence.ÌÌà@$Dàò òD.€ERRORS€IN€JUDGMENTSˆÐ 4ø,2 Ðó óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€for€notÐ Ø5Ð.4 Ðdiscovering€errors€in€the€judgments€in€counts€two€and€three€of€his€delivery€convictions.€Ð ¤7œ06 ÐHe€argues€that€the€errors€in€these€judgments€were€not€corrected€until€June€1998,€andÏby€this€time,€his€release€eligibility€date€had€passed.€€The€state€argues€that€theÏpetitionerððs€attorney€is€not€responsible€for€the€Department€of€Correctionððs€unreasonableÏinterpretation€of€the€original€judgments.€€ÌÌà ¸ àWe€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€original€judgmentsÏcontained€no€errors.€€The€judgments€for€counts€two€and€three€were€concurrent€to€countÏone.€€The€judgment€for€count€one€listed€the€dates€for€the€pretrial€jail€credit.€€All€threeÏjudgments€specifically€stated€that€the€petitioner€was€to€get€credit€for€time€served.€€EvenÏif€the€petitionerððs€attorney€had€reviewed€the€judgments€as€soon€as€they€were€entered,Ïshe€could€not€have€known€that€the€Department€of€Correction€would€interpret€them€as€itÏdid.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€his€attorneyððs€failure€toÏreview€the€judgments€immediately€after€their€entry.ÌÌà ¸ àBased€on€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€the€trialÏcourtððs€denial€of€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌÌÓÓà0 ¸ àà0¸ €%¸ €%àà0h€%€%àà0Àh€%h€%àà0À€%À€%àà0p€%€%à_______________________________Ð p€%p€% Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€JudgeÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌThomas€T.€Woodall,€Judge