ÿWPCõ$ …#†VUNÜ %* 0 (04Xl 0ˆ{b 0D 0JO 0T™ 0^í 0hK 0r³ 0|% 0†¡ 0' 1u· U,, 0dX B¼ U,Ù U>U*CB)m D3–DCÉ AM  0@Y=™Öæe½Kœv~»vÓ9 AO #Æ[# 0D!$ 0De$ D/©$ BØ$˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0ºÖP _>¶ ×K&` ÚP(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡o„p @ d3|xò (8(2R$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(#Ã$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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌMarch€22,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔAlthough€the€petitioner€prefers€to€be€called€Stephanie,€for€the€purposes€of€this€opinionÏwe€will€address€the€petitioner€by€the€name€set€forth€in€the€record.Ì ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔThe€petitioner€filed€for€relief€in€habeas€corpus€form;€however,€the€trial€court€treatedÏpetitioner's€request€as€a€post„conviction€petition.€€The€trial€judge€properly€reasoned€that€he€wasÏwithout€jurisdiction€to€hear€the€habeas€corpus€petition.Ì ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔThis€Court€held€that€this€condition€did€not€constitute€banishment.€€Instead,€we€found€thatÏthe€trial€court€agreed€to€allow€the€petitioner€to€remain€on€unsupervised€probation€based€onÏpetitioner's€statement€to€the€court€that€he€was€moving€to€Alabama.€€Further,€we€agreed€with€theÏtrial€court€that€the€petitioner's€probation€was€properly€revoked€for€violating€the€laws€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee.€€These€violations€were€the€resisting€arrest€and€assault€charges.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔThis€escort€followed€counsel's€notification€from€our€clerk's€office€that€the€petitioner€wasÏto€be€in€custody€when€the€opinion€was€subsequently€released.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€told€theÏpetitioner€the€opinion€was€to€be€filed€and€that€he€did€not€know€the€disposition€of€the€case.Ô  ÔÌ ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔAt€the€hearing,€petitioner's€post„conviction€counsel€wanted€Bright€to€admit€that€he€hadÏsomehow€confused€the€probation€revocation€hearing€with€the€later€hearing€on€the€assault€chargeÏand€was,€in€fact,€not€€present€at€the€revocation€hearing.€€However,€Bright€again€remembered€that€atÏthe€assault€hearing,€the€petitioner€was€wearing€a€floral€top€and€a€yellow€mini„skirt.€€The€trial€judgeÏconfirmed€seeing€the€yellow€mini„skirt.ÌPtPtHHÚ(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(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€(ÔÑ€ ÑÑ7€ösXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€,.+;+'h|` ç `€€Lßà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓAT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓJANUARY€1996€SESSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTEPHEN€R.€MASSEY,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9506„CC„00179€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellant,à à)Ìà àà à)€Giles€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Hon.€James€L.€Weatherford,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà à)€(Post„Conviction)€€€€€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌHershell€D.€Kogerà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ135€N.€First€Street€€à àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌP.O.€Box€1148€€€€€€€ÌPulaski,€TN€€€38478à àWilliam€David€BridgersÌà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àMike€Bottoms€Ìà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àRichard€H.€DunavantÌà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àP.O.€Box€304Ìà àPulaski,€TN€€€38478ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ Ü ÑÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌà àÌÓ ` °§XÓÓÓà àTheÔ  Ô€petitioner,€Stephen€R.€Massey,× ƒ/ ××  ×€brings€this€appeal€challenging€theÏtrial€court's€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Specifically,€heÏclaims€that€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€the€failure€to€provide€petitionerÏwith€a€preliminary€hearing€on€his€probation€revocation€was€not€error,€(2)€his€dueÏprocess€and€Fourth€Amendment€rights€were€denied€when€he€was€arrestedÏpursuant€to€what€petitioner€labels€an€"unlawful€warrant,"€and€(3)€his€counselÏwas€ineffective.€€Following€our€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€€€ÌÔ  ÔÌà àThe€record€reveals€that€the€petitioner€entered€a€best€interest€plea€of€guiltyÏto€two€counts€of€sale€of€cocaine€and€received€concurrent€eight„year€sentences.€ÏòòState€v.€Masseyóó,€No.€01C01„9307„CC„00197€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€25,€1994).€ÏThe€petitioner€was€placed€on€probation€on€the€condition€that€he€pay€fines,€costsÏand€taxes.€€Further,€at€petitioner's€request,€the€trial€judge€granted€unsupervisedÏprobation€so€long€as€the€petitioner€moved€out€of€state€as€he€so€represented€toÏthe€court.€€ÌÌà àSome€months€later€the€Pulaski,€Tennessee€police€answered€aÏdisturbance€involving€the€petitioner.€€Corporal€King€telephoned€the€county€jail€toÏdetermine€whether€petitioner€had€any€outstanding€warrants€against€him.€ÏFinding€such€a€warrant,€Officer€Roberson€located€the€petitioner€and€informedÏhim€that€he€was€under€arrest.€€The€petitioner€jerked€away,€grabbed€the€officerÏand€scratched€him.€€The€petitioner€was€eventually€arrested€on€the€outstandingÏwarrant€for€probation€violation,€i.e.,€failure€to€pay€fines,€costs€and€taxes.€€AÏsecond€warrant€Ô  Ôwas€served€on€the€petitioner€alleging€that€he€had€violated€hisÏcondition€of€probation€that€he€leave€Tennessee.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏpetitioner€had€violated€his€probation.€€Petitioner€appealed€to€this€Court€and€weÍaffirmed.€€òòIdóó.€€Petitioner€then€filed€a€post„conviction€petition€which€is€the€subjectÏof€this€collateral€appeal.ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€was€notÏpresent€at€his€revocation€hearing€on€January€25,€1993.€€He€claimed€that€he€wasÏunaware€of€the€hearing€until€approximately€one€month€later€when€his€counsel,ÏStephen€Bright,€escorted€him€to€the€Giles€County€Jail.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€petitioner€attackedÏBright's€representation€claiming€that€Bright€failed€to€investigate€the€underlyingÏwarrant€for€petitioner's€initial€arrest.€€This€arrest€served€as€the€basis€forÏpetitioner's€sixteen„day€stay€in€the€Giles€County€Jail€during€which€he€had€noÏpreliminary€or€revocation€hearing.€€On€cross„examination,€the€petitionerÏadmitted€that€on€January€26,€1993,€he€had€signed€an€appellate€bond.€€However,Ïhe€denied€being€placed€in€jail€following€the€trial€judge's€revocation€of€hisÏprobation€on€January€25.ÌÌà àBright,€the€assistant€public€defender€representing€the€petitioner€at€theÏrevocation€hearing,€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€present€at€the€hearing.€ÏCounsel€specifically€recalled€speaking€with€petitioner's€probation€officer€andÏwith€the€officer€who€had€been€assaulted€by€him.€€Counsel€informed€theÏpetitioner€of€the€substance€of€the€witnesses'€testimony.€€He€told€the€petitionerÍthat€theÌÌÔ  Ôassistant€district€attorney€had€offered€a€settlement€wherein€the€petitioner€wouldÌÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôserve€six€months€in€jail.€€However,€the€petitioner€rejected€this€offer.€€ÌÔ  ÔÌà àCounsel€also€looked€into€the€petitioner's€allegations€that€the€first€warrantÏwas€"unlawful,"€and€therefore,€his€resisting€arrest€justified.€€He€stated€that€afterÏÔ  Ôresearching€the€claim,€he€learned€that€unlawful€arrest€was€not€a€valid€defense€toÏresisting€arrest.€€Further,€because€the€state€had€informed€counsel€that€itÏintended€to€use€the€petitioner's€assault€on€the€officer€as€the€basis€for€revokingÏhis€probation,€the€lawfulness€of€the€initial€arrest€became€irrelevant.€€CounselÏadded€that€he€had€spoken€with€the€petitioner€more€than€once€following€theÏhearing.€€Petitioner,€however,€never€claimed€that€he€was€not€present€at€theÏhearing.ÌÌà àJohn€Damron,€an€assistant€public€defender€in€the€same€district,€testifiedÏthat€he€had€spoken€with€the€petitioner€on€the€day€of€the€revocation€hearing.€ÏDamron€said€that€he€was€originally€assigned€to€represent€the€petitioner€but€theÏpetitioner€requested€Bright€as€counsel.ÌÌà@ àIÌà àThe€petitioner's€first€issue€is€that€the€trial€court€errantly€concluded€that€itsÍfailure€to€give€petitioner€a€preliminary€hearing€regarding€the€basis€of€hisÏrevocation€warrant€was€not€error.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€properlyÏheld€that€this€issue€is€waived€due€to€the€petitioner's€failure€to€raise€it€in€his€directÏappeal.€€We€agree.€€The€petitioner's€direct€appeal€addressed€the€issue€of€hisÏprobation€revocation.€€No€claim€was€made€that€he€had€been€denied€a€hearing.€ÏTenn.€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1)€(1990)€provides€that€"[a]€ground€forÏrelief€is€'waived'€if€the€petitioner€knowingly€and€understandingly€failed€toÏpresent€if€for€determination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€of€competentÏjurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€been€presented."€€"There€is€aÏrebuttable€presumption€that€a€ground€for€relief€not€raised€in€any€suchÏproceeding€which€was€Ô  Ôheld€was€waived."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(2).€Ï"[A]€petitioner€is€bound€by€the€action€or€inaction€of€his€attorney."€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,Ï911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995).€€If€the€petitioner€had€such€a€claim,€it€existedÏat€the€time€of€the€direct€appeal.€€We€find€nothing€in€the€record€to€rebut€theÏpresumption.ÌÌÔ  Ôà àNotwithstanding€waiver,€we€find€no€merit€to€this€claim.€€The€petitionerÏclaims€that,€under€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778€(1973),€his€due€processÏrights€were€violated€when€he€did€not€receive€a€preliminary€hearing.€€However,Ïthis€Court€has€previously€held€that€Tennessee's€statutorily€mandatedÏproceedings€"more€than€comply€with€the€mere€minimal€requirements€stated€in€...ÏòòGagnonóó."€€òòPracty€v.€Stateóó,€525€S.W.2d€677,€682€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974);€òòseeóóÍòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Terry€Lynn€Bumpusóó,€No.€89„180„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€March€1,Ï1990,€Nashville).€€This€issue€is€meritless.€€€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€petitioner€attacks€the€validity€of€the€warrant€whichÏserved€as€the€basis€for€his€initial€arrest.€€He€specifically€claims€that€his€dueÏprocess€rights€and€his€right€against€unreasonable€search€and€seizure€wereÏviolated€by€the€"unlawful€warrant."€€The€warrant€charged€him€with€failing€to€payÏfines,€court€costs,€and€taxes,€a€condition€of€his€probation.€€The€state€argues€thatÏthis€issue€is€also€waived.€€We€agree.€€The€petitioner€was€represented€byÏcounsel€at€the€revocation€hearing€and€on€appeal.€€Nothing€exists€in€the€recordÏto€rebut€the€presumption€of€waiver.€€As€cited€above,€"€a€petitioner€is€bound€byÏthe€action€or€inaction€of€his€attorney."€€òòState€v.€Houseóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€714Ï(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€waiver,€we€similarly€find€no€merit€in€this€argument.€€TheÏpetitioner€cites€òòBearden€v.€Georgiaóó,€461€U.S.€660€(1983)€in€support€of€hisÏposition€that€he€was€arrested€on€an€unlawful€warrant.€€However,€his€reasoningÏis€misguided.€€Under€òòBeardenóó,€a€court€may€not€revoke€a€defendant's€probationÏfor€failing€to€pay€fines€and€costs€until€it€has€determined€the€underlying€reason€forÏnonpayment.€€òòIdóó.€at€672.€€If€the€nonpayment€is€willful,€the€probation€may€properlyÏbe€revoked.€€òòIdóó.€€However,€if€the€nonpayment€is€due€to€an€inability€to€pay,€theÍcourt€may€not€imprison€the€defendant.€€òòIdóó.€€Because€the€petitioner€is€challengingÏthe€warrant€which€led€to€his€arrest,€the€òòBeardenóó€holding,€which€concerns€post„arrest€proceedings,€does€not€come€into€play.€€Petitioner's€probation€was€notÏrevoked€for€failure€to€pay€fines€and€costs€although€this€probation€violationÏserved€as€the€primary€basis€of€the€initial€arrest€warrant.€€ÌÌà àOur€review€turns€to€the€propriety€of€the€arrest€warrant.€€The€petitionerÏconcludes€that€because€probation€cannot€be€revoked€for€inability€to€pay,€theÏarrest€warrant,€charging€the€failure€to€pay€fines€and€costs,€cannot€be€used€as€theÏvehicle€to€bring€him€before€the€court.€€We€disagree.€€The€sole€issue€is€whetherÏthe€probation€officer€was€authorized€to€issue€the€warrant€based€on€this€specificÏprobation€violation.€€The€state€responds€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(a)Ïwhich€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àWhenever€it€shall€come€to€the€attention€of€the€trialÏjudge€that€any€defendant€who€has€been€releasedÏupon€suspension€of€sentence€has€been€guilty€of€anyÏbreach€of€the€laws€of€this€state€or€who€has€violatedÏthe€conditions€of€his€probation,€the€trial€judge€shallÏhave€the€power€to€cause€to€be€issued€under€his€handÏa€warrant€for€the€arrest€of€such€defendant€as€in€anyÏother€criminal€case.€€The€warrant€may€be€executedÏby€a€probation€officer€or€any€peace€officer€of€theÏcounty€in€which€the€probationer€is€found.€€ÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(a)€(1990).€€òòBeardenóó€does€not€restrict€theÏcommencement€of€revocation€proceedings€through€the€warrant€process.€€BeforeÍthe€matter€is€brought€before€the€court,€the€reasoning€behind€the€failure€to€pay€isÏunknown.€€The€arrest€warrant€properly€brings€the€matter€before€the€court€for€thatÏdetermination.€€Here,€the€petitioner€failed€to€pay€fines€and€costs,€a€condition€ofÏhis€probation.€€The€warrant€was€clearly€authorized€on€that€basis.€€Therefore,€theÏresulting€arrest€was€lawful.€€This€issue€is€waived€and€without€merit.€ÌÌà@ àIIIÌà àIn€his€final€issue,€the€petitioner€claims€that€he€was€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€at€his€probation€revocation€hearing.€€In€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€(1984),€the€Supreme€Court€established€a€two„prongÏanalysis€when€an€appellant€claims€that€counsel's€assistance€was€so€defectiveÏso€as€to€require€a€reversal.€€First,€the€appellant€must€show€that€counsel'sÏperformance€was€deficient€and€second,€that€the€deficient€performanceÏprejudiced€him€or€her€to€the€point€that€(s)he€was€deprived€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ687.€€As€to€the€first€prong,€to€prove€a€deficient€performance,€the€appellant€mustÏprove€that€counsel's€representation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€ofÏreasonableness.€€òòIdóó.€at€688.€€This€evaluation€must€be€accompanied€by€a€strongÏpresumption€in€the€reviewing€court€that€counsel's€conduct€falls€within€the€wideÏrange€of€acceptable€professional€assistance.€€òòIdóó.€at€689.€€To€meet€the€secondÏprong,€the€appellant€must€prove€that€(s)he€was€prejudiced€by€showing€that€thereÏwas€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel's€errors,€the€result€of€theÏproceedings€would€have€been€different.€€òòIdóó.€at€694.€€ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€our€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€appropriate€test€forÏdetermining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€isÏwhether€his€or€her€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demandedÏof€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.Ï1975).€€ÌÌà àAs€his€first€basis,€the€petitioner€claims€that€counsel€failed€to€investigateÏthe€facts€and€circumstances€surrounding€the€arrest€for€violation€of€probation.€€HeÏargues€that€an€adequate€investigation€would€have€revealed€a€defense€to€hisÏunlawful€arrest€for€nonpayment€of€fines€and€costs.€€€However,€because€we€haveÏalready€established€that€the€arrest€was€lawful,€counsel€was€not€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€discover€a€nonexistent€defense.€€Counsel€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€did€research€the€issue.€€From€his€investigation€heÏlearned€that€the€resisting€arrest€and€assault€of€an€officer€would€not€have€beenÏexcused€even€if€the€arrest€was€unlawful.€€Further,€the€petitioner's€probation€wasÏrevoked€for€these€reasons€and€not€due€to€the€nonpayment€of€fines.€€Ô  ÔThe€initialÏarrest€warrant€became€irrelevant€in€the€final€determination.€€We€conclude€thatÏpetitioner's€counsel's€performance€was€not€deficient.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner's€additional€basis€within€this€claim€is€that€his€counsel€failedÏto€adequately€inform€or€confer€with€him€regarding€the€January€25,€1993Íprobation€revocation€hearing.€€Contrary€to€the€proof,€we€note€that€the€petitionerÏcontends€he€was€not€present€at€the€hearing€at€all.€€Counsel€Bright€testified€thatÏthe€petitioner€was€present€at€the€revocation€hearing.€€Bright€even€rememberedÏthat€the€petitioner€was€wearing€lipstick,€earrings€and€a€jumpsuit.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€AfterÏinterviewing€the€witnesses,€petitioner's€probation€officer€and€the€assaultedÏpolice€officer,€Bright€informed€the€petitioner€as€to€the€nature€of€their€testimony.€ÏHe€also€spoke€with€the€petitioner€regarding€the€state's€settlement€offer€whichÏwould€have€required€him€to€serve€six€months€in€jail.€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€himself€remembered€that€the€petitioner€was€present€at€theÏhearing.€€Further,€he€accredited€Bright's€testimony€and€found€that€counsel€wasÏeffective€in€his€performance.€€We€agree€with€his€conclusion.€€The€petitioner€hasÏfailed€to€meet€his€burden€of€establishing€the€threshold€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóóÏtest.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge's€findings€of€fact€on€post„conviction€hearings€areÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòButler€v.ÏStateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899„900€(Tenn.€1990).€€This€Court€may€not€reweigh€orÏreevaluate€the€evidence,€nor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trialÍjudge.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€QuestionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€givenÏtheir€testimoÔ  Ôny€are€resolved€by€the€trial€court,€not€this€court.€€òòIdóó.€€The€burden€ofÏestablishing€that€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise€is€on€the€petitioner.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€this€burden.€€The€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€Judge