WPC 2 ZB0ZJHP LaserJet 8000 Series PSXN\  PXPX0Í ÍX0Í ÍҫXN\  PXP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularXa2PP,6 AZ"Arial RegularPXXa2PP,6 AZ"Arial Regular2PP,cAZ"Arial Regular<2PP,cAZ"Arial Regular2PP,6 AZ"Arial Regulara2PP,6 AZ"Arial Regular23|x `   X #a2PP# A'Legal @--@#PX#  #a2PP#Њ 9ddddPdd@ddddPdd@9dddd 1 dddd 1  !#2PP#FILED#<2PP# November 23, 1999 Cecil CROWS ON, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk  IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE NOVEMBER SESSION, 1999 KENNETH ROMINES, a/k/a)pppC.C.A. NO. 03C019904CR00161 RAYMOND ROMINES)  )  Appellant, ) KNOX COUNTY )ppp V.) )pppHON. RAY L. JENKINS, JUDGE STATE OF TENNESSEE,)   hhh)ppp Appellee. )ppp(POSTCONVICTION) FOR THE APPELLANT:FOR THE APPELLEE: ALBERT J. NEWMAN, JR.PAUL G. SUMMERS Suite 500 Burwell BuildingpppAttorney General & Reporter 602 South Gay Street Knoxville, TN 37902hhh ELLEN H. POLLACK ` ` ` hhhAssistant Attorney General ` ` ` hhh2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building ppp425 Fifth Avenue North  hhhNashville, TN 37243  RANDALL EUGENE NICHOLS ` ` ` hhh  District Attorney General   ZANE M. SCARLETT  Assistant District Attorney General  WILLIAM H. CRABTREE ` ` ` hhhpppAssistant District Attorney General 400 Main P.O. Box 1468 Knoxville, TN 379011468 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20 THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE #2PP# ORDER #a2PP#   The Petitioner, Kenneth Romines, a/k/a Raymond Romines, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief by the Knox County Criminal Court. We affirm pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. The record reflects that Petitioner pled guilty to eight (8) of eleven (11) aggravated robbery charges after being convicted following a jury trial on three (3) additional counts of aggravated robbery. The guilty pleas came prior to sentencing on the three convictions which resulted from the jury trial, and Petitioner received, in a negotiated plea agreement, fortytwo (42) years of total confinement on all eleven (11) convictions. At the postconviction hearing, Petitioner was the only witness to testify. He asserted that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in that he did not obtain a satisfactory negotiated plea agreement, allowed Petitioner to go to trial on a faulty indictment, and failed to file certain pretrial motions. Petitioner could not identify the motions that he wanted his trial counsel to file. Other than Petitioners assertions, there is no proof that any indictments were deficient. Regarding the trial attorneys performance on negotiating a plea agreement, Petitioner testified that he told his counsel to advise the State that he would accept a plea agreement of thirtytwo years for all eleven convictions. He stated that the next day his attorney told him that the State had withdrawn the offer and changed it to forty years. Petitioner testified that he rejected the most recent offer, and initially testified that his lawyer did not give him a reason why the State had withdrawn the thirtytwo year offer. He later testified that his attorney advised him that the offer of thirtytwo years confinement had been withdrawn because his attorney had requested a continuance of the trial. The transcript of the pretrial proceedings reflects that Petitioners trial counsel was arguing a motion for continuance because he had not had adequate time to discuss the offer of thirtytwo years with his client. The State withdrew the negotiated plea offer of thirtytwo years during the hearing on the motion for a continuance. In its order dismissing the petition, the trial court found that the Petitioner had not met his burden of proving the allegations of fact by clear and convincing evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann.  4030210(f) (1997). We have reviewed the record de novo as it pertains to the allegations made by Petitioner during the evidentiary hearing. The evidence does not preponderate against the finding of the trial judge. There is no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment apparent on the record. As this case was a proceeding in the trial court without a jury, and the judgment is not a determination of guilt, the judgment is accordingly affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. ____________________________________THOMAS T. WOODALL, Judge CONCUR: ___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge ___________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge