ÿWPC³' …# VUNa %¯ 0ñµU:¦ w@à 4 4 05C 0Dx 0J¼ 0T 0^Z 0h¸ 0r  0|’ 0† 0œ 1u,U,¡ 0dÍU,1U>] B›U*¸B)âDC  AMNÒ› D3mU Sõ 0@H5ˆv~½vÓ; AO&Æ]& 0D#' D/g' B–'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ÉÞÍ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÔ€XíèXXXÔÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ü ý Dþ ~eÿ D  E  D  Ó€à~| 3|x (å(3± $¤¤Ý ƒÞÍ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€X­âXXXÔÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÈÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ22,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxd KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€Ó€€Ò  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àà àThe€amended€petition€reiterated€the€broad€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance,€and€it€added€several€particulars:€that€counsel€should€have€moved€toÏsuppress€the€testimony€of€the€paid€informant,€that€counsel€should€have€filed€a€pretrialÏnotice€to€use€an€entrapment€defense,€that€counsel€failed€to€show€the€appellant€theÏvideo€of€the€transaction,€and€that€counsel€failed€to€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt.Ì IÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÓ  Óà àà àThis€was€an€apparent€reference€to€Samuel€Eugene€Willie€Bartley,Ïwho,€along€with€the€appellantððs€wife,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€defense€at€trial.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  Óà àà àThe€ÓÓremaining€contentions€made€by€the€appellant€in€the€petition€orÏduring€the€hearing€have€not€been€raised€on€appeal.€€The€trial€court€addressed€eachÏand€every€contention€in€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusion.€€Our€review€reveals€that€theÏfindings€are€well€supported€by€the€record,€notwithstanding€the€appellantððs€failure€toÏspecifically€raise€the€contentions€on€appeal.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ ° Ñ›Ñ7€¶.XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßL€()';+'h|` à. `€€Lß›à@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àóóFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#03C01„9505„CR„00132Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à*à àHAMILTONÏCOUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Stephen€M.ÏBevil,€JudgeÌTERRY€LEE€SHROPSHIRE,à à*à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à à*ÌÌÌÓÓòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€AppelleeóóÌÌAubrey€L.€Harperà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌP.O.€Box€55à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&ÏReporterÌAltamount,€TN€37301à àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRuth€A.€ThompsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœWilliam€H.€Cox,€III›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àThomas€J.€EvansÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€Street€Suite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€appellant,€Terry€Lee€Shropshire,€appeals€from€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€He€maintains€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€theÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€The€issue€was€litigated€before€the€HamiltonÏCounty€Criminal€Court.€€We€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment.ÌÌà àà àIn€1992,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€conspiracy€to€possess€with€theÏintent€to€sell€or€deliver€three€hundred€grams€of€cocaine,€a€class€A€felony,€andÏsentenced€to€twenty„five€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€This€court€affirmed€theÏconviction€and€sentence€on€direct€appeal,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€deniedÏthe€appellantððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Shropshireóó,€874€S.W.2dÏ634€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1994).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€at€trial€revealed€that€two€informants,€James€McMillian€andÏGeorge€Shadwick,€discussed€a€cocaine€transaction€with€the€appellant.€€The€appellantÏmet€with€McMillian€and€Gary€Lomenick,€an€undercover€detective€with€the€ChattanoogaÏPolice€Department,€to€discuss€the€quality€and€price€of€cocaine.€€The€appellant€wasÏshown€one€kilo€of€cocaine€and€he€tested€a€portion€of€it.€€Thereafter€the€appellant€calledÏMcMillian€and€said€that€he€had€$22,000€with€which€to€purchase€cocaine.€€A€secondÏmeeting€was€arranged,€which€was€video€taped.€€The€appellant€and€a€codefendant€metÏwith€Lomenick€and€the€informants.€€The€codefendant€produced€money€and€handed€itÏto€the€appellant.€€The€appellant€threw€the€money€in€Lomenickððs€van€and€said€to€giveÏthe€ð ðstuffðð€to€the€codefendant.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€on€April€4,€1994.€€It€allegedÏthat€the€appellant€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€becauseÏcounsel€(a)€failed€to€establish€the€defense€of€entrapment,€(b)€failed€to€give€adequateÏadvice€regarding€possible€plea€bargains,€and€(c)€failed€to€adequately€prepare€for€trial.€ÍThe€petition€also€alleged€that€counsel€was€ineffective€during€sentencing€and€onÏappeal.€€The€petition€was€later€amended€with€the€assistance€of€appointed€counsel.× ƒ+ ××  ×ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€hadÏoriginally€been€represented€by€retained€counsel.€€The€State€offered€to€allow€theÏappellant€and€his€codefendant€to€plead€guilty€to€class€C€felonies.€€The€offer€wasÏterminated€by€the€State€when€the€codefendant€refused€to€accept€the€plea.€€TheÏappellant€was€thereafter€indicted€for€a€more€serious€offense,€a€class€A€felony.€€HeÏcould€no€longer€afford€retained€counsel,€and€he€received€court„appointed€counsel.€ÏCounsel€visited€the€appellant€in€jail€before€the€appellant€made€bond,€and€meetingsÏwere€also€held€in€counselððs€office.€€According€to€the€appellant,€counsel€said€that€theÏState€had€a€video€tape€of€the€drug€transaction€but€never€played€it€for€the€appellant.€€ÌÌà àà àAccording€to€the€appellant,€a€meeting€was€held€in€counselððs€office€twoÏdays€prior€to€trial.€€A€plea€bargain€was€discussed.€€The€video€tape€was€also€discussed.€ÏThe€appellant€testified€that€counsel€told€him,€ð ðThey€got€you€on€tape,€so€there€[isnððt]Ïmuch€you€can€do.ðð€€Counsel€also€asked€about€possible€defense€witnesses€for€the€firstÍtime.€€The€appellant€mentioned€ð ðthe€guy€who€brought€[the€informants]€to€his€house.ðð× ƒ, ××  ×€ÏThe€appellant€also€told€counsel€that€his€wife€could€testify€about€the€number€of€phoneÏcalls€the€informants€had€made€to€his€home€to€initiate€the€drug€deal.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€testified€that€an€entrapment€defense€was€not€discussedÏuntil€the€day€of€trial€when€counsel€discovered€that€the€Stateððs€informants€had€beenÏpaid€with€a€percentage€of€the€confiscated€drug€money.€€According€to€the€appellant,Ïcounsel€said€that€the€information€ð ðcould€blow€[the€informants]€out€of€the€water.ðð€ÏCounsel€then€talked€to€the€appellantððs€two€witnesses.€€The€appellant€said€that€heÏwanted€to€testify,€but€counsel€advised€against€it€because€of€the€appellantððs€prior€drugÏrelated€conviction.€€The€appellant€said€that€he€could€have€testified€that€his€contactsÏwith€the€informants€initially€did€not€involve€drugs.€€The€appellant€conceded,€however,Ïthat€he€thought€the€drug€transaction€was€a€way€to€make€ð ða€little€extra€moneyðð€becauseÏhe€planned€to€deliver€the€cocaine€to€someone€in€Atlanta€for€$27,000.€€The€appellantÏsaid:€ð ðI€got€[paid]€for€it,€but€yet...I€did€it€on€some€of€my€own€free€will,€but€yet...they€wasÏinvolved€too.ððÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€maintained€that€counsel€should€have€played€the€videoÏtape€of€the€transaction€for€him€to€fully€evaluate€the€Stateððs€case.€€He€conceded€that€theÏtape€ð ðhurtðð€the€defense€at€trial.€€He€also€said€that€he€had€hoped€to€plead€guilty€in€returnÍfor€a€lower€sentence€and€that€he€would€have€accepted€a€six€year€sentence.€€HeÏadmitted€that€he€did€not€know€whether€the€State€had€extended€such€an€offer€to€theÏindictment€that€charged€the€class€A€felony.ÌÌà àà àCounsel€testified€that€he€graduated€from€law€school€in€1987€and€that,€atÏthe€time€of€the€appellantððs€trial,€some€ninety„five€per€cent€of€his€practice€was€devoted€toÏcriminal€law€and€trial€practice.€€Counsel€prepared€for€the€appellantððs€case€for€twoÏmonths€or€more.€€He€originally€believed€that€the€appellant€ð ðhad€no€defenseðð€due€to€theÏvideo€tape€of€the€transaction.€€He€reviewed€the€video€tape€on€the€day€he€wasÏappointed€and€he€discussed€it€ð ðblow€by€blowðð€with€the€appellant.€€Counsel€describedÏthe€tape€as€evidence€that€ð ðdrove€the€nails€in€[the€appellantððs]€coffin.ðð€ÌÌà àà àCounsel€testified€that€he€met€with€the€appellant€several€times€before€theÏtrial.€€They€discussed€the€defense€of€entrapment.€€Counsel€also€asked€the€appellant€forÏany€witnesses€who€could€help€the€defense.€€On€the€night€before€the€trial,€the€appellantÏtold€him€about€a€witness€who€could€ð ðmiraculouslyðð€testify€that€the€Stateððs€agentsÏinitiated€the€transaction.€€Counsel€may€have€talked€to€the€witness€by€phone,€but€he€didÏnot€interview€him€in€person€until€the€morning€of€the€trial.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€alsoÏdiscovered€ð ðat€the€last€minuteðð€that€the€Stateððs€informants€had€been€paid€for€their€roleÏin€the€transaction.€€Counsel€believed€that€he€requested€a€continuance€but€it€wasÏdenied.€€He€was,€however,€given€an€opportunity€to€interview€the€informants€prior€toÏtrial.€€He€advised€the€appellant€not€to€testify€because€the€appellant€had€two€prior€drugÍrelated€convictions€that€the€State€could€use€to€rebut€an€entrapment€defense€byÏshowing€the€appellantððs€predisposition€to€commit€the€crime.€€Moreover,€he€believedÏthat€keeping€the€appellant€off€the€stand€assisted€counselððs€strategy€to€portray€theÏStateððs€informants€in€a€negative€light.ÌÌà àà àCounsel€testified€that€he€never€told€the€appellant€that€the€defense€wouldÏð ðblow€them€out€of€the€water.ðð€€To€the€contrary,€the€appellant€used€those€words€toÏadvance€his€ð ðtheoryðð€that€the€Stateððs€informants€were€not€permitted€to€cross€state€lines.€ÏThe€appellant€was€ð ðinfatuatedðð€with€this€theory,€which€was€one€counsel€did€not€pursueÏat€trial.€€Counsel€said€that€he€called€the€appellantððs€last€minute€witness,€Bartley,€andÏthe€appellantððs€wife€to€testify€at€trial.€€Finally,€counsel€said€that€the€prosecution€neverÏmade€a€plea€offer€other€than€to€allow€the€appellant€to€plead€to€the€charged€offense.€ÏCounsel€said€that€he€never€expected€the€State€to€reduce€the€charge€given€the€weightÏof€the€evidence€against€the€appellant.ÌÌà àà àIn€post„conviction€cases,€the€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€proveÏallegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,Ï289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1988);€òòVermilye€v.€Stateóó,€754ÏS.W.2d€82,€84€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1987).€€On€appeal,Ïwe€are€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€appellant€has€the€burden€ofÏillustrating€how€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment€entered.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àà àTo€establish€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€the€SixthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€a€petitioner€must€show€(a)€that€counselððsÏperformance€was€deficient€and€(b)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€ofÏrendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687Ï(1984).€€Appellate€review€of€such€an€issue€does€not€have€to€begin€with€the€attorneyððsÏconduct;€if€prejudice€is€not€shown,€we€need€not€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegationsÏabout€deficient€performance.€€òòIdóó.€at€697.€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied€asÏwell€to€the€right€to€counsel€under€Article€1,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÏòòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419,€n.2€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€493€U.S.€874€(1989).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÏdecided€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€servicesÏrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€In€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment€of€attorney€performanceÏrequires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€toÏreconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€theÏconduct€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€atÏ689;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Deference€is€made€to€trialÍstrategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequateÏpreparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€asserts€three€reasons€in€support€of€his€claimÏthat€trial€counsel€was€ineffective:€counsel€had€been€involved€in€the€case€for€only€twoÏmonths;€counsel€was€not€prepared€to€take€the€case€to€trial;€and€counsel€elected€toÏproceed€with€trial€instead€of€pursuing€a€plea€bargain€to€a€lesser€offense.€€The€appellantÏalso€asserts€that€the€State€withheld€the€identity€of€its€informants€until€the€morning€ofÏtrial,€which€further€undermined€counselððs€ability€to€try€the€case.× ƒ. ××  ×€€We€note€that€theÏappellant€has€failed€to€cite€any€authority€on€appeal€to€advance€the€first€three€of€theseÏcontentions;€they€are,€therefore,€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7).€€We€haveÏreviewed€the€issues,€notwithstanding€the€waiver,€and€we€have€concluded€that€they€areÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àWe€are€assisted€in€our€review€by€the€detailed€factual€findings€made€byÏthe€€trial€court.€€With€respect€to€counselððs€preparation,€the€court€found:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[Counsel],€on€the€day€he€was€appointed,€went€to€the€DistrictÏAttorneyððs€office€and€viewed€the€video€tape.€[Counsel]Ïdiscussed€this€video€tape€at€length€with€the€[appellant]Ïwhen€they€met€on€several€different€occasions€to€discuss€theÍtrial.€€The€Court€does€not€find€that€[counsel]€was€ineffectiveÏin€not€producing€the€video€tape€for€[the€appellant]€to€see.€€Ï[Counsel]€discussed€at€length€with€[the€appellant]€theÏcontents€of€the€video€tape.€ÌÌà àà à****ÌÌà8 àà8 à[The€appellant]€also€alleges€that€[counsel]€was€notÏadequately€prepared€for€trial.€[Counsel]€testified€at€theÏhearing€that€the€only€defense€that€he€had€in€this€case€wasÏan€entrapment€defense.€[Counsel]€had€asked€[the€appellant]Ïnumerous€times€about€any€witnesses€and€the€night€beforeÏtrial€was€informed€by€[the€appellant]€of€a€witness,€€Bartley,Ïwho€would€testify€to€the€fact€that€the€law€enforcementÏofficers€pursued€[the€appellant].€€[Counsel]€testified€that€heÏwas€prepared€to€go€to€trial€as€much€as€he€possibly€could€beÏwith€the€limited€defense€that€he€had€and€the€facts€that€heÏhad€before€him.€€The€Court€does€not€find€that€[counsel]€wasÏill€prepared€to€go€to€trial.à àà àÌÌÓÓThe€appellant€has€not€shown€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€againstÏthese€findings.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€755.€€The€trial€court€also€addressedÏcounselððs€preparation€with€regard€to€whether€the€appellant€should€have€testified€inÏsupport€of€the€entrapment€defense:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[The€appellant]€further€alleges€that€he€did€not€get€to€testify€atÏthe€trial€to€help€establish€his€entrapment€defense.€€Ï[Counsel]€was€on€the€horns€of€a€dilemma.€€To€helpÏsubstantiate€the€defense€that€[the€appellant]€was€entrappedÏby€the€law€enforcement€authorities€into€selling€or€buying€theÏcocaine,€it€would€have€helped€for€[the€appellant]€to€haveÏtestified.€[H]owever,€[the€appellant]€had€prior€convictions€inÏthe€state€of€Georgia€for€cocaine€offenses,€and€[theÏappellant],€according€to€his€testimony€of€the€hearing,€wouldÏhave€testified€before€the€jury€that€he€was€purchasing€theÏcocaine€to€make€a€profit€in€Atlanta.€€These€two€(2)Ïrevelations€to€the€jury€would€have€been€extremelyÏdetrimental€to€the€defense€case,€and€would€not€haveÍbolstered€his€entrapment€defense....This€was€a€strategicÏdecision€on€[counselððs]€part€which€was€substantiated€by€theÏproof.ÌÌÓÓAgain,€the€evidence€in€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€We€note€in€thisÏregard€that€counsel€testified€that€he€explained€the€implications€of€testifying€to€theÏappellant€before€trial.€€This€court€will€not€second€guess€a€tactical€decision.€€òòSeeóóÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.ÌÌà àà àWith€regard€to€the€appellantððs€assertion€that€counsel€should€haveÏpursued€a€plea€negotiation,€the€trial€court€found:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€only€offer€made€by€the€state€on€the€subsequent€chargeÏwas€that€[the€appellant]€plead€guilty€to€the€charge€and€relyÏupon€the€Court€to€set€the€sentence.€€There€was€noÏrecommendation€of€sentence€made€to€[the€appellant].€ÏFaced€with€the€option€of€pleading€blind€and€relying€uponÏthe€Court€to€set€the€sentence,€or€going€to€trial€and€taking€aÏchance€that€the€jury€might€find€petitioner€not€guilty,€[counsel]Ïadvised€[the€appellant]€to€go€to€trial.€[The€appellant]Ïindicated€that€he€did€not€want€to€plead,€and€that€he€did€wantÏto€go€to€trial.€€The€Court€finds€that€there€was€no€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€for€not€obtaining€a€lesser€plea,€sinceÏnone€existed.ÌÌÓÓWe€note€that€counsel€also€testified€that€the€appellant€was€convinced€that€the€StateððsÏcase€could€be€ð ðblown€out€of€the€waterðð€during€a€trial€because€the€informants€had€beenÏpaid€and€had€crossed€state€lines.€€€It€is€clear€once€again€that€the€appellant€has€notÏshown€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€Stateððs€failure€to€disclose€theÏidentity€of€its€informants€until€the€morning€of€trial€deprived€counsel€of€an€opportunity€toÏprepare€for€the€trial.€€Counsel€testified,€however,€that€he€was€given€the€opportunity€toÏinterview€the€witnesses€prior€to€trial€and€to€review€their€criminal€records.€€A€review€ofÏthe€trial€transcript€reveals€that€counsel€fully€cross€examined€the€informant€McMillian,Ïand€that€informant€Shadwick€did€not€testify.€€Counsel€elicited€information€aboutÏMcMillianððs€criminal€record€and€the€fact€that€he€was€paid€a€percentage€of€the€drugÏmoney€by€the€State.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€findings€that€counsel€was€adequately€prepared€to€try€the€case.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€