ÿWPCÎ :UB< %~U.„²nX 0P4j~ 0”† 0Dw@^ ž 0J¤ 0Tî 0^B 0h  0r 0|z 0†ö 0| 0@ D3L 1u 0dô BX AQu ÆÆ 0DŒ 0DÐ D/ BC U6` B)– DC¿ AMIO ˜Û¢v~}vÓû<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|XW «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓìSï"(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó A DB DC DD DE ™F DG H Ó€T W H22 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd* 3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJulyÏ18,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ôÔÔ€ÔòòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€1ôÔÔ€ÔòòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€4„7„104€(1991€Repl›.)€(ð ðIt€is€the€duty€of€the€members€of€the€Tennessee€highwayÏpatrol,€under€the€direction€of€the€commissioner€of€safety,€to:€(1)€Patrol€the€state€highways€and€òòenforce€allÏlawsóó€.€.€.€ðð)€(emphasis€added).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€1ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€Ô›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ*ÙßR€453A1-j|oþh` 81 `€€@ÿRß›Ìà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓ  Óà@ àMAY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òWILLIE€ED€MAYS,à àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€œ02C01›„9611„CC„00411€Ìó óà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLAKE€COUNTYó óÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.€STEVEN€STAFFORD,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellee.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Post„conviction)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òCHARLES€S.€KELLYó óà àà àà àà àò òJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌ802€Troy€Ave.à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó óœDyersburg›,€TN€€€38205„0507ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœAsst›.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏPkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àC.€PHILLIP€œBIVENS›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€EÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDyersburg,€TN€38025›Ìà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€œPEAY›,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ  ÑÓ  Óà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€selling€over€.5€grams€ofÏcocaine.€€Following€his€conviction,€he€pled€guilty€to€two€other€charges€of€selling€overÏ.5€grams€of€cocaine€in€exchange€for€concurrent€sentences€on€all€three€convictions.€ÏIn€conjunction€with€that€plea,€he€waived€his€right€to€appeal€the€initial€conviction.€€AfterÏa€hearing€in€August€1995,€he€was€sentenced€to€ten€years€on€the€initial€conviction,Ïand€ten€years,€six€months€on€each€of€the€two€subsequent€convictions.€€All€sentencesÏwere€run€concurrently.€€The€petitioner€filed€for€post„conviction€relief,€allegingÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€conjunction€with€his€trial€and€subsequent€guiltyÏpleas.€€After€a€hearing,€the€court€below€denied€relief.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà àà àIn€support€of€his€appeal,€the€petitioner€contends€that€his€two€defenseÏlawyers€were€ineffective€in€the€following€respects:ÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓœ1.›€€Failing€to€file€a€motion€to€inspect€the€substance€which€the€œStateÏclaimed›€to€be€cocaine;Ìà àà àÌœ2.›€€Failing€to€file€a€òòBradyóó€motion;Ìà àà àÌœ3.›€€Failing€to€file€timely€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€delay€in€prosecution;ÌÌœ4.›€€Failing€to€file€a€motion€for€change€of€venue;ÌÌœ5.›€€Failing€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€evidence;ÌÌœ6.›€€Failing€to€object€to€the€lack€of€jurisdiction€of€the€ð ðarresting€and€Ìœparticipating›€agents;ðð€andÌÌœ7.›€€Coercing€him€into€pleading€guilty€on€the€two€pending€charges.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓAfter€a€hearing€at€which€the€petitioner€and€one€of€his€two€defense€counsel€testified,Ïthe€court€below€œdismissed›€the€petition.€€ÌÌà àà àœInitially,›€we€note€that€ð ð[œi]n›€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€petiƒtioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence.ðð€€òòœMcBee›€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Furƒthermore,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€hearings€ð ðare€conclusive€on€appealÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€œBuford›óó,€666ÏS.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€petitionerððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððsÍrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ablenessðð€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚selððs€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòœStrickland›€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708ÏS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€To€satisfy€the€requirement€of€prejudice€onÏthe€guilty€pleas,€the€petitioner€must€demonstrate€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€forÏcoun‚selððs€errors,€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€toÏtrial.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€œLockart›óó,€474€U.S.€52,€59€(1985);€òòœBankston›€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,Ï215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àà àThis€Court€should€not€second„guess€trial€counselððs€tactical€andÏstrategic€choices€unless€those€choices€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequateÏpreparation,€òò€œHellard›€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982),€and€counsel€should€notÏbe€deemed€to€have€been€ineffective€merely€because€a€different€procedure€orÏstrategy€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,Ï280€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).ÌÌà àà àThe€petitionerððs€claims€that€his€counsel€erred€in€failing€to€file€a€pretrialÍmotion€to€inspect€the€cocaine€and/or€a€òòBrady× ƒ6 ××  ×óó€motion€arise€from€the€Stateððs€belatedÏdiscovery€that€the€cocaine€had€been€lost€or€destroyed€prior€to€trial.€€Defense€counselÏtestified€that€the€State€did€not€make€this€discovery€until€the€day€of€trial.€€The€petitionerÏreasons€that,€had€his€counsel€filed€these€motions€pretrial,€everyone€would€haveÏdiscovered€the€missing€cocaine€in€time€for€his€case€to€have€been€dismissed€onÏmotion.€€In€addressing€this€issue€the€court€below€held:ÌÓÓà àà8 àThe€œunrebutted›€testimony€indicated€that€the€State€was€notÏaware€that€the€drugs€could€not€be€produced€until€the€trialÏdate.€€Therefore,€assuming€that€this€information€could€beÏconstrued€œa›œs›€exculpatory€evidence,€the€State€did€not€haveÏany€exculpatory€evidence€in€its€possession€until€the€trialÏdate.€€The€transcript€reveals€that€the€defense€attorneysÏwere€informed€of€the€missing€evidence€as€soon€as€theÏState€became€aware€of€the€problem.ÌÌà àà8 àAssuming€that€the€petitionerððs€counsel€had€filed€a€pre„trialÏmotion€to€examine€or€weigh€the€drugs,€he€would€haveÏbeen€in€no€better€legal€position€than€he€was€on€the€day€ofÏtrial€in€requesting€a€dismissal€of€the€charge.€€The€[trial]ÏCourt€found€that€the€State€had€laid€the€proper€foundationÏto€allow€the€lab€technician€to€testify€about€her€test€results.€ÏThe€petitioner€was€allowed€to€argue€to€the€jury€the€effect€ofÏthe€Stateððs€failure€to€produce€the€drugs.€€A€pre„trial€motionÏwould€not€have€placed€the€petitioner€in€any€better€legalÏposition€than€what€he€was€on€the€day€of€trial.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌÓÓWe€agree€with€the€court€below.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€petitionerððs€contention€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€his€counselððsÏfailure€to€file€timely€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€delay€in€prosecution,€we€first€note€thatÏsuch€a€motion€was€filed,€but€was€not€filed€timely.€€However,€the€trial€court€permittedÏevidence€to€be€presented€and€the€motion€to€be€argued€in€an€offer€of€proof€on€the€dayÏof€trial.€€The€trial€court€further€issued€oral€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€withÏrespect€to€the€merits€of€the€motion,€and€denied€it.€€The€court€below€apparently€foundÏno€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€Neither€do€we.€€As€this€Court€has€previouslyÏstated:ÌÓÓà àà8 àDelay€between€the€commission€of€an€offense€and€theÏcommencement€of€adversarial€proceedings€does€notÏviolate€an€accusedððs€constitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€ÏHowever,€such€a€ððdelay€may€occur€in€such€a€manner€thatÏthe€defendantððs€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€due€process€„„€inÏcontrast€to€the€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€speedy€trial€„„€isÏviolated.ðð€.€.€.€ððWhile€there€is€no€constitutional€right€to€beÏarrested,€.€.€.€courts€have€recognized€that€an€unreasonableÏdelay€between€the€commission€of€the€offense€and€theÏarrest€may€violate€the€defendantððs€constitutional€rights€ifÏthe€delay€results€in€prejudice€to€him€or€was€part€of€aÏdeliberate,€purposeful€and€oppressive€design€for€delay.ððÌÌà àà8 àBefore€an€accused€is€entitled€to€relief€based€upon€theÏdelay€between€the€offense€and€the€initiation€of€adversarialÏproceedings,€the€accused€must€prove€that€(a)€there€was€aÏdelay,€(b)€the€accused€sustained€actual€prejudice€as€aÏdirect€and€proximate€result€of€the€delay,€and€œ(c)›€the€StateÏcaused€the€delay€in€order€to€gain€tactical€advantage€overÍor€to€harass€the€accused.€€ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€255„56€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€instant€case,€there€was€an€approximate€four€year€delay€betweenÏthe€January€1991€offense€and€the€May€1995€indictÔ% € Ôment.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€hasÏcarried€his€burden€of€proving€one€of€the€three€prongs€of€the€test€set€forth€in€òòDykesóó.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€ð ðindictments€were€not€returned€prior€to€1995€inÏorder€to€gain€further€ððintelligence€information,ðð€possibly€secure€another€buy€from€thisÏdefendant.€.€.€.€[T]he€local€District€Attorney€Generalððs€office€requested€indictmentÏinformation€in€the€spring€of€1995€from€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€[at€which€timeÏthe]€information€was€turned€over€that€resulted€in€the€particular€indictment.ðð€€The€proofÏadduced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€did€not€preponderate€against€these€findings.€ÏThus,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€that€the€State€caused€the€delay€in€order€toÏgain€a€tactical€advantage€over€him€or€to€harass€him.€€Moreover,€the€petitionerððsÏtestimony€in€support€of€the€offer€of€proof€at€trial€of€the€prejudice€he€claims€to€haveÏsuffered€as€a€result€of€the€delay€was€utterly€unconvincing.€€The€petitioner€havingÏfailed€to€satisfy€two€prongs€of€the€òòDykesóó€test,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€change€of€venue€allegation,€defense€counsel€testified€thatÍsuch€a€motion€had€been€filed€but€was€later€withdrawn€by€agreement€with€theÏpetitioner.€€Defense€counsel€further€testified€that€this€decision€had€been€tactical€andÏthat€there€had€not€been€damaging€publicity.€€We€agree€with€œthe›€court€below€that€thisÏissue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€his€trial€counsel€did€not€file€a€motionÏto€suppress€evidence.€€Defense€counsel€testified€that€ð ðthere€was€really€no€basisÏregarding€a€motion€to€suppress.ðð€€The€petitioner€has€offered€no€evidence€to€theÏcontrary.€€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€next€complains€that€his€lawyers€failed€to€object€to€the€lackÏof€jurisdiction€of€the€officers€who€participated€in€the€undercover€drug€operation.€€TheÏcourt€below€found€that€the€operation€had€been€conducted€by€members€of€the€criminalÏinvestigation€division€of€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€and€members€of€the€œ27th›ÏJudicial€District€Drug€Task€Force.€€Since€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€has€state…wide€jurisdiction,œ× ƒ7 ××  ×›€the€court€below€found€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.€€We€agree.€ÌÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€petitioner€claims€that€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€to€theÏtwo€pending€charges€but€for€the€ineffective€assistance€of€his€counsel€which€resultedÏin€the€conviction€of€the€jury„tried€offense.€€However,€as€noted€by€the€court€below,€theÏpetitioner€entered€his€guilty€pleas€in€order€to€avoid€the€possibility€of€consecutiveÏsentences€on€all€three€charges.€€The€court€below€further€noted€that€it€had€ð ðno€doubtÏthat€the€petitioner€understood€his€rights€as€well€as€the€concessions€he€was€obtainingÏfrom€the€State€by€entering€the€guilty€pleas.ðð€€Accordingly,€his€pleas€were€knowingÏand€voluntary.ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€as€set€forth€above,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€hisÏallegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€his€jury€trial.€€Therefore,€his€claimÏthat€he€was€ð ðcoercedðð€to€enter€guilty€pleas€as€the€result€of€an€unconstitutionalÏconviction€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€below€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓœÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àJOHN›€H.€œPEAY›,€JudgeÌÌœÌÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌœÌ______________________________›ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JudgeÌÌÌœÌ______________________________›ÌœTHOMAS›€T.€œWOODALL›,€œJudgeÌ›