ÿWPCF …# VUNa %¯ 0Dµbùw@ 4A U d 0ˆl 0Dô D38 0Jk 0Tµ 0^ 0hg 0rÏ 0|A 0†½ 0C 1uÓ 0dHU>¬U*êB)DC= AM€&Ív~óvÓq BD 0@a AO¡Æð 0D¶ D/ú B)˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñþ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°Ò- ù- hEiUjDklEmnoDpDqÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|xz(8(3I¸$¤¤Ý ƒñþ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó****'ÿÿdxd2 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`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌAprilÏ24,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€"ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÖXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœJANUARY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœROOSEVELT€JOHN€SMITH,€à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9604„CR„00135à àÌà àJR.,›à àœà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óAppellantò ò,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€SETH€NORMANó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Post„Conviction)ò òÌó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌSHAWN€A.€TIDWELLà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ209€Tenth€Avenue,€Southà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€511ÌNashville,€TN€37203à àà àà àLISA€A.€NAYLORÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSHARON€L.€BROXÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Petitioner€appeals€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€On€September€8,€1994,€the€Petitioner€pleaded€guilty€to€sixÏcounts€of€aggravated€burglary€and€one€count€of€possession€of€cocaine€withÏintent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€As€specified€in€the€plea€agreement,€the€trial€courtÏsentenced€him€to€fifteen€years€imprisonment€for€each€aggravated€burglaryÏconviction,€all€running€concurrently,€and€to€twenty€years€for€the€drug€conviction.€ÏThe€drug€sentence€was€ordered€to€run€consecutively€to€the€burglary€sentences,Ïresulting€in€an€effective€sentence€of€thirty„five€years€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection.€€The€Petitioner€was€classified€as€a€Range€III€Persistent€Offender.€ÏHe€filed€a€òòproóó€òòse›óó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€July€11,€1995,€which€wasÏamended€with€the€assistance€of€counsel€on€October€20,€1995.€€In€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€the€Petitioner€argued€that€he€was€denied€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€at€his€guilty€plea€proceeding.€€After€conducting€anÏevidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Petitioner€had€received€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€and€denied€the€petition.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€record€contains€little€information€concerning€the€circumstancesÏof€the€offenses,€we€begin€by€setting€forth€the€relevant€facts€pertaining€to€theÏPetitionerððs€issue.€€The€Petitioner€was€charged€with€several€offenses€throughÏthree€separate€indictments.€€Indictment€number€94„B„884€charged€him€with€oneÏcount€of€aggravated€burglary€and€one€count€of€theft€of€property€valued€betweenÏone€thousand€dollars€($1,000)€and€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000).€€IndictmentÏnumber€94„B„886€charged€him€with€two€counts€of€aggravated€burglary€and€twoÏcounts€of€theft€of€property€valued€between€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000)€andÏten€thousand€dollars€($10,000).€€Indictment€number€94„B„887€charged€him€withÏthree€counts€of€aggravated€burglary€and€three€counts€of€theft€of€property€valuedÏbetween€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000)€and€ten€thousand€dollars€($10,000).€€InÏaddition,€the€Petitioner€was€charged€by€information€with€one€count€ofÏpossession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€It€appears€that€the€PetitionerÏwas€on€parole€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€commission€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà àLarry€Hoover€was€appointed€to€represent€the€Petitioner.€€HooverÏconsulted€the€Petitioner€and€began€negotiating€with€the€district€attorneyððs€office.€ÏThe€initial€offer€allowed€the€Petitioner€to€plead€guilty€to€the€aggravated€burglariesÏas€well€as€the€drug€offense€and€receive€an€effective€sentence€of€forty„five€yearsÏto€be€served€as€a€career€offender€at€sixty€percent€(60%).€€Hoover€eventuallyÏconvinced€the€assistant€district€attorney€to€offer€a€sentence€of€thirty„five€years€toÍbe€served€as€a€persistent€offender€at€forty„five€percent€(45%).€€The€PetitionerÏaccepted€this€offer€and,€on€September€8,€1994,€entered€guilty€pleas€to€sixÏcounts€of€aggravated€burglary€and€one€count€of€possession€of€cocaine€withÏintent€to€sell€or€deliver.ÌÌà àOn€July€11,€1995,€the€Petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòœse›óó€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief,€challenging€only€his€drug€conviction.€€The€petition€was€amended€with€theÏassistance€of€counsel,€but€the€amended€petition€still€challenged€only€the€drugÏconviction.€€The€Petitioner€argued€that€his€attorney€at€the€guilty€plea€proceeding,ÏLarry€Hoover,€rendered€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€two€respects.€€TheÏPetitioner€first€contended€that€his€trial€counsel€erroneously€informed€him€that€theÏsentence€for€the€drug€conviction€would€run€concurrent€with€his€sentences€forÏaggravated€burglary.€€Secondly,€he€contended€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€toÏinvestigate€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€drug€offense.€€The€trial€courtÏconducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€October€20,€1995.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€testified€in€his€own€behalf€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€HeÏstated€that€he€had€met€with€his€attorney€approximately€four€times€beforeÏpleading€guilty.€€According€to€the€Petitioner,€he€was€not€present€at€the€pleaÏnegotiations.€€His€attorney€informed€him€that,€under€the€plea€agreement,€heÏwould€receive€fifteen€year€sentences€for€the€burglaries€and€a€twenty€yearÍsentence€for€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€He€and€hisÏattorney€spent€only€five€to€ten€minutes€going€over€the€plea€agreement,€and€heÏdid€not€completely€read€it€before€signing€it.€€The€Petitioner€understood€his€effectiveÏsentence€to€be€twenty€years.€€He€stated€that€he€would€have€proceeded€to€trial€ifÏhe€had€realized€that€his€effective€sentence€was€thirty„five€years.ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€testimony€also€provided€the€only€facts€in€the€recordÏpertaining€to€the€drug€offense.€€He€testified€that€he€was€driving€a€van€whichÏwas€titled€in€the€name€of€Karen€Wills.€€There€were€apparently€other€individualsÏin€the€van.€€The€Petitioner€pulled€into€a€car€wash€and€knocked€on€the€door€of€theÏservice€booth.€€He€heard€a€voice€ask€him€to€wait€for€a€minute.€€He€waited€andÏeventually€knocked€on€the€door€again.€€According€to€the€Petitioner,€the€doorÏopened€and€a€police€officer€put€a€gun€to€his€head,€pulled€him€inside,€andÏhandcuffed€him.€€The€officer€searched€him€for€weapons€and€contraband€butÏfound€none.€€Officers€then€searched€the€van€and€found€cocaine.€€The€PetitionerÏtestified€that€he€had€not€given€consent€to€search€the€van€and€the€officers€did€notÏhave€a€warrant.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€informed€his€attorney€of€these€facts€and€stated€that€he€wasÏnot€guilty€of€the€drug€offense.€€He€maintained€that€the€drugs€belonged€toÏsomeone€else.€€He€admitted€that€he€had€committed€the€burglaries,€and€he€evenÍcooperated€with€police€officers€on€those€cases.€€He€never€made€any€suchÏadmissions€with€regard€to€the€drug€offense€though.€€In€fact,€he€testified€that€heÏwanted€to€proceed€to€trial€on€that€charge€because€he€was€innocent.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€the€Petitioner€admitted€that€he€had€been€through€aÏplea€process€before€and€was€actually€on€parole€at€the€time€of€the€burglariesÏand€drug€offense.€€He€stated€that€his€attorney€talked€with€him€about€theÏpossible€range€of€his€sentence€and€informed€him€that€he€probably€faced€aÏgreater€sentence€if€he€proceeded€to€trial.€€He€testified€further€that€he€signed€theÏguilty€plea€form€freely€and€voluntarily€and€that€he€did€not€dispute€the€factsÏsupporting€the€offenses€as€they€were€read€by€the€assistant€district€attorney€atÏthe€guilty€plea€proceeding.ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€attorney€at€the€guilty€plea€proceeding,€Larry€Hoover,€alsoÏtestified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Hoover€stated€that€he€was€licensed€inÏ1992€and€that€his€practice€was€thirty€to€forty„five€percent€(30%„45%)€criminalÏlaw.€€He€had€handled€approximately€forty€to€sixty€criminal€cases,€includingÏseven€or€eight€jury€trials.€€Hoover€recalled€that€he€met€with€the€Petitioner€fourÏtimes.€€He€discussed€the€cases€with€the€Petitioner€and€came€to€conclusion€thatÏhe€had€no€viable€defenses.€€According€to€Hoover,€he€and€the€Petitioner€came€toÏa€mutual€understanding€that€the€resolution€of€his€cases€was€more€about€theÍtime€to€be€served€rather€than€defenses.€€Given€that€the€Petitioner€had€nine€priorÏfelony€convictions,€Hooverððs€main€concern€became€a€potentially€large€effectiveÏsentence.€€Hoover€stated€that€the€Stateððs€initial€plea€offer€was€forty„five€years€atÏsixty€percent€(60%).€€He€negotiated€with€the€assistant€district€attorney€andÏreceived€an€offer€of€thirty„five€years€at€forty„five€percent€(45%).€€He€explained€theÏoffer€to€the€Petitioner,€and€the€Petitioner€understood€that€his€effective€sentenceÏwas€thirty„five€years.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Hoover€stated€that€the€number€of€sentences€atÏissue€could€have€been€confusing€to€the€Petitioner.€€In€fact,€Hoover€himself€wasÏunsure€prior€to€the€post„conviction€hearing€about€which€sentences€wereÏsupposed€to€run€concurrently€and€which€were€to€run€consecutively.€€UponÏreviewing€the€plea€agreement,€however,€it€was€clear€to€him€that€the€drugÏsentence€was€to€run€consecutive€to€the€burglary€sentences.€€He€testified€furtherÏthat€it€was€his€normal€practice€to€go€over€plea€agreements€very€carefully€withÏdefendants.ÌÌà àUpon€additional€questioning,€Hoover€admitted€that€he€was€unaware€ofÏwhat€had€occurred€at€the€preliminary€hearing€concerning€the€drug€offense.€€HeÏstated€that€he€had€not€requested€formal€discovery€with€regard€to€the€drugÏoffense.€€He€also€did€not€interview€any€of€the€police€officers€involved€in€theÍsearch€of€the€van,€nor€did€he€interview€any€of€the€other€individuals€who€were€inÏthe€van€at€the€time€of€the€search.€€Hoover€stated€that€his€main€focus€was€onÏthe€burglary€offenses€and,€more€specifically,€the€potential€sentence€associatedÏwith€those€offenses.€€Hoover€did,€however,€acquire€a€copy€of€the€lab€reportÏindicating€that€the€substance€found€in€the€van€was€cocaine.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€Hooverððs€testimony€toÏbe€credible€and€found€that€the€plea€had€been€fully€explained€to€the€Petitioner.€ÏAs€a€result,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€Petitioner€was€aware€that€he€wouldÏserve€an€effective€sentence€of€thirty„five€years€under€the€plea€agreement.€ÏAccordingly,€the€trial€court€denied€the€petition,€stating€that€Hoover€had€providedÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€Petitioner€then€appealed€to€this€Court.ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€or€not€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,Ïthe€court€must€decide€whether€or€not€counselððs€performance€was€within€theÏrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,Ï523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€wasÏineffective€at€trial,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counselÏmade€errors€so€serious€that€he€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteedÏunder€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€theÏpetitioner€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.ÍWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.ÏStateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899Ï(Tenn.€1990).€€To€satisfy€this€second€prong€the€petitioner€must€show€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finderÏwould€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regarding€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466ÏU.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermineÏconfidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€court€should€not€use€theÏbenefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€shouldÏbe€judged€at€the€time€it€was€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746.ÌÌà àThis€two€part€standard€of€measuring€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏalso€applies€to€claims€arising€out€of€the€plea€process.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.Ï52€(1985).€€The€prejudice€requirement€is€modified€so€that€the€petitioner€ð ðmustÏshow€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors€heÏwould€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòId.óó€atÏ59.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€under€the€provisions€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€ofÏ1995,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€in€the€petition€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(œSupp›.€1996).€ÏIn€addition,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unlessÏthe€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.€œBuford›óó,€666ÏS.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌÌà àWith€regard€to€the€Petitionerððs€contention€that€his€trial€counsel€erroneouslyÏinformed€him€that€the€twenty„year€drug€sentence€would€run€concurrent€with€hisÏfifteen„year€burglary€sentences,€we€believe€that€the€Petitioner€has€failed€toÏestablish€that€his€counselððs€representation€was€constitutionally€deficient.€€TheÏPetitioner€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€his€trial€counsel,€LarryÏHoover,€led€him€to€believe€that€his€drug€sentence€would€run€concurrent€with€hisÏburglary€sentences.€€Hoover,€on€the€other€hand,€testified€that€it€was€his€practiceÏto€review€the€terms€of€plea€agreements€carefully€with€defendants€and€that€theÏPetitioner€was€fully€aware€that€his€effective€sentence€was€thirty„five€years.€€AfterÏhearing€testimony€and€evaluating€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€trial€judgeÏspecifically€found€Hooverððs€testimony€to€be€persuasive.€€From€our€review€of€theÏrecord,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findingÏof€the€trial€court.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€counsel€Hooverððs€representationÍwith€regard€to€the€Petitionerððs€sentence€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€also€contends€that€Hoover€rendered€ineffective€assistanceÏby€failing€to€investigate€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€drug€offense.€€TheÏtestimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€reveals€that€Hoover€was€unaware€ofÏany€facts€pertaining€to€the€drug€offense€which€were€developed€at€the€preliminaryÏhearing.€€Hoover€did€not€request€formal€discovery€with€regard€to€the€drug€offense,Ïdid€not€interview€the€police€officers€involved€in€the€search€of€the€van,€and€did€notÏinterview€any€of€the€other€individuals€allegedly€present€at€the€time€of€theÏdiscovery€of€the€cocaine.€€It€appears€that€Hooverððs€investigation€of€the€drugÏoffense€was€limited€to€examining€the€lab€report€analyzing€the€drugs€found€in€theÏvan.€€According€to€Hoover€himself,€his€primary€focus€was€on€the€PetitionerððsÏburglary€offenses.ÌÌà àIt€is€well„established€that€defense€counsel€must€conduct€an€appropriateÏinvestigation€into€both€the€facts€and€the€law€to€determine€what€matters€ofÏdefense€can€be€developed.€€òòSee,€œe.g.óó,€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936;›ÏòòœMcBee›€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1983).›€€Furthermore,Ïour€supreme€court€recognized€in€œòòBaxteróó›€that€the€American€Bar€AssociationÏStandards€for€Criminal€Justice€provide€useful€guidance€with€regard€to€the€functionÍand€responsibilities€of€defense€counsel.€€The€American€Bar€AssociationÏstandards€explain€defense€counselððs€duty€to€investigate€with€the€followingÏlanguage:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœIt›€is€the€duty€of€the€lawyer€to€conduct€a€prompt€investigation€of€theÏcircumstances€of€the€case€and€to€explore€all€avenues€leading€to€factsÏrelevant€to€the€merits€of€the€case€and€the€penalty€in€the€event€ofÏconviction.€€The€investigation€should€always€include€efforts€to€secureÏinformation€in€the€possession€of€the€prosecution€and€law€enforcementÏauthorities.€€The€duty€to€investigate€exists€regardless€of€the€accusedððsÏadmissions€or€statements€to€the€lawyer€of€facts€constituting€guilt€or€theÏaccusedððs€stated€desire€to€plead€guilty.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒœABA›€œStandards›€for€Criminal€œJustice€ð𛀜4„4.1€(2d€ed.€Supp.€1986).›€€Applying€theÏforegoing€principles€to€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€believe€that€counsel€HooverððsÏrepresentation€was€arguably€deficient€in€that€he€failed€to€investigate€the€drugÏoffense€adequately.ÌÌà àEven€if€we€were€to€find€counsel€Hooverððs€representation€deficient,€however,Ïwe€do€not€believe€that€the€Petitioner€has€demonstrated€sufficient€prejudice€to€satisfyÏthe€second€prong€of€the€òòœStrickland›óó€standard.€€It€appears€that€the€Petitioner€arguesÏthat€he€was€prejudiced€because€a€proper€investigation€of€the€facts€surrounding€theÏdrug€offense€may€have€indicated€the€evidence€was€unconstitutionally€obtained€andÏcould€have€been€suppressed.€€We€note€that€the€prejudice€analysis€applicable€toÏthis€type€of€alleged€error€of€counsel€closely€resembles€the€prejudice€analysisÏapplicable€to€jury€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€at€59,€106€S.Ct.€atÍ370.€€As€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€explained€in€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€whetherÏsuch€an€error€prejudiced€the€defendant€by€causing€him€to€plead€guilty€oftenÏdepends€on€the€likelihood€that€a€correction€of€the€error€would€have€led€counsel€toÏchange€the€recommendation€to€plead€guilty.€€òòId.óó€€This€assessment,€in€turn,€dependsÏon€a€prediction€of€whether€the€evidence€discovered€through€a€full€investigationÏwould€have€changed€the€outcome€of€a€trial.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€suggests€that€a€more€thorough€investigation€of€theÏcircumstances€of€the€drug€offense€might€have€led€to€suppression€of€the€cocaineÏseized€from€the€van€he€was€driving.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€however,€theÏPetitioner€offered€no€evidence€to€support€this€speculation.€€Neither€the€police€officersÏinvolved€in€the€search€nor€the€other€individuals€in€the€van€were€called€to€testify.€ÏInstead,€the€only€evidence€offered€to€support€this€contention€came€from€theÏPetitioner€himself,€whose€testimony€the€trial€judge€found€to€be€unpersuasive.€€GivenÏthese€circumstances,€we€cannot€speculate€that€a€more€thorough€investigation€of€theÏdrug€offense€would€have€revealed€that€the€cocaine€was€unconstitutionally€seizedÏand,€therefore,€would€have€led€counsel€Hoover€to€change€his€recommendation€toÏplead€guilty.€€òòSeeóó€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,€914€S.W.2d€97,€102€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);ÏòòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757„58€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€As€a€result,€weÏconclude€that€the€Petitioner€has€not€carried€his€burden€of€establishing€sufficientÏprejudice€stemming€from€his€counselððs€allegedly€deficient€representation.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€in€the€discussion€above,€we€conclude€that€theÏPetitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÓ  Óà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€œRILEY›,€JUDGE