ÿWPCT …UBV %˜ ž¤nX´ 0P 4\ p 0”x 0D w@P 0J 0TÚ 0^. 0hŒ 0rô 0|f 0†â 0h 1uø 0dmU6ÑU* B1B)NDCw AMº3Ä: D3þí1v~ 0@œvÓÜ AO¯Æþ 0DÄ D/ B7<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXHN3|X© «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Ó·‚^!(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó • – D— ˜ ™ Dš › Dœ  Dž Ó€2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òNovemberÏ14,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ºÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔÔ€#ÔApparently,€Mr.€Roach€had€a€copy€of€the€guilty€plea/sentencing€hearing€transcript€with€himÏwhile€he€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€This€testimony,€containing€the€quotation,€was€admittedÏinto€evidence€without€objection.Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔÔ€#ÔEmphasis€added.ÌPtPt HHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X Ñ›Ñ7€®XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€#Ôà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€€ÙœßL€'(&;+'h|` 81 `€€Lß›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àSEPTEMBER€1996ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òRICKEY€SAMS,à àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€03C01„9511„CC„00368ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSULLIVAN€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€W.ÏFRED€AXLEY,ÌSTATE€OFÏTENNESSEE,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€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òSTEPHENÏWALLACEà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó óPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌÌTERRY€L.€JORDANó óà àò òà àà àà àEUGENEÏJ.€HONEAó óÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAsst.ÏAttorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€839à àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÍRobertson€Pkwy.à àBlountville,€TN€€€37617à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37243„0493Ì€€€(At€hearing€and€on€appeal)à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àGREELEY€WELLSó óÌò òRANDALL€E.€REAGANó óà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ602€Gay€St.,€Ste.€905ÌKnoxville,€TN€€€37902à àò òà àà àà àPAUL€LAYMONó óÌ€€€(On€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€526Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€€€37617Ìà 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.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÓ  ÓÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner€pled€guilty€to€two€counts€of€aggravated€rape€and€oneÏcount€of€rape.€€On€April€18,€1991,€and€pursuant€to€his€plea€agreement,€the€petitionerÏreceived€an€effective€sentence€of€twenty€years€as€a€Range€I€standard€œoffender.€€The›Ïpetitioner€subsequently€filed€for€post„conviction€relief,€which€was€denied€after€aÏhearing.€€He€now€appeals,€alleging€that€his€guilty€plea€was€not€knowingly€made€andÏthat€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€conjunction€with€his€guilty€œplea.€ÏAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€affirm€the€lower€court.›ÌÌà àà àAs€grounds€for€his€claims,€the€petitioner€argues€that€both€the€trial€courtÏand€his€lawyer€misinformed€him€about€the€actual€consequences€of€his€plea.€ÏSpecifically,€he€testified€at€the€hearing€on€his€petition€that€both€his€lawyer€and€theÏtrial€court€told€him€that€he€would€be€eligible€for€parole€after€he€had€served€six€years€ofÏhis€sentence.€€However,€at€the€time€the€petitioner€was€sentenced,€sex€offendersÏcould€not€be€released€on€parole€ð ðunless€a€psychiatrist€or€licensed€clinicalÏpsychologist€has€examined€and€evaluated€such€inmate€and€certified€that,€to€aÏreasonable€medical€certainty,€the€inmate€does€not€pose€the€likelihood€of€committingÏsexual€assaults€upon€release€from€confinement.ðð€€T.C.A.€œÌðð›€40„35„503(c)€(1990).€€Additionally,€successful€participation€and€completion€of€aÏsexual€abuse€treatment€program€for€sex€offenders€was€a€requirement€for€parole.€ÏT.C.A.€œÌðð›€41„21„235(b)€(1990).€€Thus,€the€petitioner€argues,€his€ð ðeligibilityðð€for€paroleÏrequired€not€merely€the€passage€of€time,€but€also€the€satisfaction€of€these€additionalÏprerequisites.€€Since,€he€claims,€he€was€not€told€of€these€prerequisites,€he€did€notÏmake€his€guilty€plea€ð ðknowingly.ððÌœ›à àà àWhile€the€record€does€not€contain€a€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea,€the€ÌÌpetitioner's€former€lawyer,€James€Roach,€read€into€the€record€of€the€post„conviction€ÌÓÓhearing€a€portion€of€the€transcript× ƒ) ××  ×€which€reflects€the€sentencing€judge€as€saying,€à àà8 àÌÌà àà8 àBefore€he€is€eligible€for€release,€right,€he€may€not€get€outÏthen.€€He€may€go€to€the€penitentiary€and€have€problems.€ÏThey€may€keep€him€longer€than€that,€but€he€is€eligible€forÏrelease€after€serving€that€minimum€amount€of€time.€€ItÏdoesn't€mean€that€he€is€released€automatically.€€òòHe€has€toÏgo€through€some€type€of€sexual€offender's€program€beforeÏhe€can€be€released,€in€any€event,€that€the€Department€ofÏCorrections€has€set€up,€and€is€established€by€law.óó× ƒ+ ××  ×€€ThatÍhas€to€be€approved€by€the€Department€of€CorrectionsÏbefore€he€can€be€released.ÌÌÌÓÓMoreover,€Mr.€Roach€testified€that€he€had€also€explained€to€the€petitioner€theÏrequirement€that€he€complete€a€sex€offenders€program€before€he€could€be€releasedÏon€parole.€€In€spite€of€this€information,€the€petitioner€had€not€applied€to€enter€theÏprogram€as€of€the€time€of€the€post„conviction€hearing.ÌÌà àà àð ðIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€peti‚tioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€[or€her]€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€ÏòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Fur‚thermore,€theÏfactual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€hearings€ð ðare€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,Ï475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àà àThe€court€below€found€that€œð ð[t]he›€proof€offered€by€Petitioner€is€void€ofÏany€evidence€to€support€a€claim€that€his€guilty€plea€was€coerced.€€At€the€hearing€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€Petitioner€himself€admitted€his€guilty€plea€was€made€of€his€ownÏfree€œwill.ð𛀜Accordingly,›€the€court€below€found€that€the€petitioner's€guilty€plea€wasÏconstitutionally€valid.€€However,€we€perceive€the€petitioner's€grounds€for€relief€asÍbeing€that€he€did€not€òòknowinglyóó€enter€his€guilty€plea€rather€than€that€he€did€not€enterÏhis€plea€voluntarily.€€The€court€below€did€not€make€a€specific€finding€as€to€whetherÏthe€petitioner€knew€prior€to€pleading€guilty€of€the€necessity€of€the€certification€andÏcompletion€of€the€sex€œoffenders›€program.€€Such€a€finding€was€not,€however,Ïnecessary.€ÌÌà àà àRelief€is€available€on€post„conviction€only€where€the€petitioner'sÏconstitutional€rights€have€been€violated.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„105.€€A€guilty€plea€must€passÏconstitutional€muster€in€order€to€be€valid.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòBlankenship€v.€Stateóó,€858€S.W.2d€897Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€However,€a€guilty€plea€is€not€rendered€constitutionally€infirm€becauseÏa€criminal€defendant€is€not€informed€about€œð ðthe›€details€of€his€parole€eligibility,Ïincluding€the€possibility€of€being€ineligible€for€œparole.ð𛀀òòKing€v.€Duttonóó,€17€F.3d€151,Ï154€(6th€Cir.€1994).€€Thus,€that€the€trial€court€did€not€inform€the€petitioner€moreÏspecifically€about€the€parole€eligibility€requirements€for€a€sex€offender€does€not€affordÏthe€petitioner€a€claim€for€relief€cognizable€in€this€proceeding.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòWilson€v.ÏStateóó,€899€S.W.2d€648,€652€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€in€which€we€held€that,€in€theÏcontext€of€a€similar€post„conviction€attack€on€a€sex€offender's€guilty€plea,€the€trialÏcourt€was€not€required€to€advise€the€offender€about€the€requirements€he€must€meet€inÏorder€to€be€released€on€parole.€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€second€issue,€the€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€in€conjunction€with€his€guilty€plea.€€In€reviewing€the€petitionerððsÏSixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deterƒmine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€theÏrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€aÏpetitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððs€representa‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standardÏof€reason‚ablenessðð€and€that€this€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€mustÏbe€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€coun‚selððs€error€the€result€of€the€proceedingÏwould€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,Ï694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€To€satisfyÏthe€requirement€of€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€demonstrate€a€reasonableÏprobability€that,€but€for€coun‚selððs€errors,€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€and€wouldÏhave€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59€(1985);€òòBankstonÏv.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àà àThe€court€below€found€that€the€petitioner's€lawyer€œð ðmet›€the€standardÏrequired€for€effective€assistance€of€œcounsel.ð𛀀We€agree€with€this€assessment.€€Mr.ÍRoach€correctly€advised€the€petitioner€about€his€release€eligibility€date€and€furtherÏinformed€him€of€the€necessity€of€attending€a€sex€offenders€program.€€Even€if€Mr.ÏRoach€had€not€so€informed€the€petitioner,€this€Court€has€previously€held€that€defenseÏcounsel's€failure€to€advise€a€sex€offender€that€the€program€must€be€completed€priorÏto€parole€release€eligibility€is€not€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,Ï914€S.W.2d€97,€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Defense€counsel's€failure€to€inform€aÏsex€offender€that€he€must€be€certified€in€order€to€be€eligible€for€parole€is,€likewise,€notÏineffective€assistance.€€òòId.óó€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€contends€in€his€brief€that€he€œð ðwas›€not€informed€thatÏhe€would€have€to€serve€his€entire€twenty„year€sentence€to€œexpiration.ð𛀀The€petitionerÏis€correct€that€he€was€not€so€informed,€but€we€fail€to€see€how€the€petitioner€wasÏthereby€misinformed.€€It€is€impossible€to€predict€what€the€parole€board€will€do€eachÏtime€it€considers€the€petitioner€for€release.€€If€the€petitioner€meets€the€statutory€criteriaÏfor€release,€it€is€possible€he€will€be€released€prior€to€the€expiration€of€his€sentence.€ÏAnd€while€we€are€intrigued€by€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€post„petition€hearingÏrelative€to€sex€offenders€not€being€granted€parole€whether€they€complete€the€sexÏoffenders€program€or€not,€the€petitioner€does€not€have€standing€to€raise€this€issue.€ÏHe€has€chosen€not€to€apply€for€admission€into€the€program.€€To€the€extent€his€choiceÍmakes€parole€impossible,€the€petitioner€must€look€to€himself€as€the€cause€of€hisÏcontinued€incarceration.€ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€the€judgment€below€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JudgeÌÌÔ% € Ô