WPC N2,[Mu˘eLj:s; m6+4YzQ:ua&6"J1])6l2~+ ey<`.l!zfTSqr5n,y s:i@ZO؈%'jGe3ϗrm3MJ>18|2 Uތ V8:N]vGO6nZo]O ;)bg0!8I3s̴}5ս <ӅDhffXryO3Fk=/LL0bO34Ҥ lv@9lht,f[tN1L$ktDn0;M?yelt,*h%# F %Q UNW 0 U:k 4  U>  w@ U:N  U:qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq B D3 0D AO? 0DT D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLhX(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(j$` ` 4XTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT,  AZ"Arial RegularuM%3|x;<( 9Z &Courier Regular )*E+,E-.D/0D18e2Ӏ,cAZ"Arial Regular  XXXX % X X   Ad FILED XX %   December10,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd j!` 4XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  11117w]Xdd7   XXXX2r *<,(j 8` `@E f ` 8ttxPX`  rߛ2@g g INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  @*ATNASHVILLE ,  @&NOVEMBER1998SESSION11JAMES11ROBERTMAJORS,SR., D *  C.C.A.#01C019804CR00172 0   11Appellant,  11   D *  SUMNERCOUNTY \  VS.   <   11  11 D *  Hon.JaneW.Wheatcraft,Judge (  STATEOFTENNESSEE,    11 D *11  (PostConviction)     11Appellee.  11   D * ` ForAppellant: <      D ForAppellee: $ DavidA.Simpson,Attorney   D JohnKnoxWalkup  113WestMainStreet     D AttorneyGeneralandReporter v Gallatin,TN37066   <      D TimothyBehan   <      D AssistantAttorneyGeneral   <      D CriminalJusticeDivision   <      D 114251111FifthAvenueNorth11   <      D Nashville,TN372430493   <      D 11SallieWade11Brown   <      D AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral   <      D 113EastMainStreet   <      D Gallatin,TN37066OPINIONFILED:__________________________AFFIRMEDGARYR.WADE,PRESIDINGJUDGE  f5,1 @33-OPINION `    Thepetitioner,11James1111RobertMajors,Sr.,appealsthetrialcourt'sdenialofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Inthisappealofright,thepetitionerclaimsthathistrialcounselwasineffectiveandthatthejudgmentofconvictionshouldbesetaside.  Wefindnoerrorandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.11 (  1111  OnDecember16,1996,thepetitionerenteredpleasofguilttostalking,falseimprisonment,assault,drivingonarevokedlicense,evadingarrest,andvandalismover$1,000.00.Asapartofthepleaagreement,thestatedidnotprosecuteindictmentcountsforaggravatedassault11and1111aggravatedkidnapping.WhileinitiallyclassifiedasaClassEfelony,thestalkingconviction11was11111111amendedfourmonthslatertocorrectlyidentifythecrimeasaClassAmisdemeanor.Theeffectivesentenceistwoyears,elevenmonthsandtwentyninedays.  Inhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief,thepetitionerclaimed,amongotherthings,thathistrialcounselhadbeenineffectiveforhavingfailedtoinitiallyrecognizethatthecountforstalkingwasamisdemeanorratherthanafelony.Heinsiststhat"hewouldhave11pursuedhis1111defense11different11ly11111111ifthe1111stalkingbeen11[a]111111misdemeanor...."11  Thetrialcourtconsideredtheseveralcountsoftheindictment,twoofwhichwereforClassBandClassCfelonies,andthendeterminedthat,despitetheerrorintheclassificationofthestalkingcharge,trialcounselhadperformedwithintheguidelinesdemandedintheprofession. 8.4 XXX X  # XXXXd#Whenapetitionerseekspostconvictionreliefonthebasisof `  ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,hemustfirstestablishthattheservicesrenderedortheadvicegivenwasbelow"therangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases."Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Second,he d mustshowthatthedeficiencies"actuallyhadanadverseeffectonthedefense."Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,693(1984).Shouldthepetitionerfailto \  establisheitherfactor,noreliefiswarranted.Astoguiltypleas,thepetitionermustestablishareasonableprobabilitythat,butfortheerrorsofhiscounsel,hewouldnothaveenteredthepleaandwouldhaveinsistedongoingtotrial.Hillv.Lockhart, ` 474U.S.52,59(1985).XXX X ,   11# XXXX#Underourstatutorylaw,thepetitionerbearstheburdenofprovinghis $ allegationsbyclearandconvincingevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.('ss'((()4030)*)310=)*+210+,+)+,-(f).-On1111appeal,thefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtareconclusiveandwillnotbedisturbedunlesstheevidencecontainedintherecordpreponderatesagainstthem.11.Rhoden "( v. "( State.., "( 816 "( S.W.2d "( 56, "( 60 "( (Tenn. "( Crim. "( App. "( 1991); "( .Brooks11v.State,756S.W.2d288,289(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).Theburdenison T$ thepetitionertoshowthattheevidencepreponderatedagainstthosefindings.Clennyv.State,576S.W.2d12,14(Tenn.Crim.App.1978). '"   Inourview,thetestimonyattheevidentiaryhearingdoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourt'sconclusionthatthepetitionerwouldhaveenteredthenegotiatedplearegardlessofwhethertheindictmentcountwasforfelonystalkingormisdemeanorstalking.Theeffectivesentenceisessentiallythesame.Infact,theultimateresultwasmarginallybetterthanthebargainthepetitionerandhistrialcounselhadmade.Inthe11conte/x/0n0t1111ofallthevariouschargesagainstthepetitioner,itwouldappearthattrialcounselperformedeffectivelyinachievinganacceptablepleaagreement.Therecordsuggeststhattheresultwould 8.4 havebeenacceptabletothepetitionerwhetherthestalkingconvictionwasamisdemeanororafelony.  Accordingly,thejudgmentisaffirmed.   <      D      L    !  T$    <      D _________________________________   <      D GaryR.Wade,PresidingJudgeCONCUR:_____________________________JohnH.Peay,Judge_____________________________JerryL.Smith,Judge