ÿWPC  …# VU:a %› 0¡w@¥ 4å ù 0H 0DP ” 0Jœ 0Tæ 0^: 0h˜ 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dyU*ÝB)DC0 AMs BÀËݨv~·vÓ5 D3 0@; AO{ÆÊ 0D D/Ô B ˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ ëDìíîïEðñòóôÓ€Úƒç"3|xÿ(ø(3Hé$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ŒXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ23,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔIn€fact,€this€particular€ground€of€ineffective€assistance€relative€to€the€necessity€defense€was€notÏincluded€in€either€the€original€or€amended€petitions.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙßR€#%"A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌÌà@ à€€SEPTEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌROGER€LEE€ACUFF,à àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9611„CR„00436€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTON€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€STEPHEN€M.€BEVIL,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌNeal€Thompsonà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ615€Lindsay€Streetà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€150à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌChattanooga,€TN€37403à àà àà àà àPeter€M.€Coughlanà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Cox,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRebecca€J.€SternÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€310Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Roger€Lee€Acuff,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€judgment€of€theÏHamilton€County€Criminal€Court€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€OnÏappeal,€appellant€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€œcounsel€andÏthat€his€guilty€plea€was€involuntary.›€€Finding€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€we€affirm€the€denial€of€relief.Ìà àOn€February€18,€1994,€while€on€trustee€status€at€a€work€release€center€inÏChattanooga,€appellant€escaped€from€his€work€detail€and€fled€to€Knoxville.€€He€wasÏrecaptured€œthirty„six›€(36)€hours€later.€€At€œthe›€œtime€of€his€escape,›€appellant€was€servingÏa€twenty„eight€(28)€year€sentence€for€second€degree€murder€and€robbery.€€He€wasÏlater€indicted€on€one€count€of€felony€escape.€€Pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement,Ïappellant€pled€guilty€to€felony€escape€with€an€agreed€sentence€of€six€(6)€years€as€aÏRange€III€persistent€offender.€€Although€the€plea€agreement€reflected€the€maximumÏsentence€œwithin€the€range€for›€the€offense,€it€permitted€appellant€to€be€sentenced€oneÏclassification€lower€than€the€career€offender€status€for€which€he€qualified.€€OnÏSeptember€15,€1994,€the€trial€court€accepted€appellantððs€guilty€plea€and€sentencedÏhim€accordingly.€€Ìà àOn€July€25,€1995,€appellant€filed€a€pro€se€post„conviction€petition€alleging€thatÏhis€plea€was€involuntary€and€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÍThe€petition€was€amended€after€the€appointment€of€counsel.€€The€trial€court€held€anÏevidentiary€hearing€on€appellantððs€claims€and€determined€them€to€be€without€merit.€€ItÏfound€that€appellant€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€and€that€his€pleaÏwas€voluntary€and€knowing.Ìà àIn€reviewing€the€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€renderedÏby€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€aÏclaim€of€ineffective€counsel,€an€appellant€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððs€representationÏfell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€this€performanceÏprejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694,Ï104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064,€2067„68,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2dÏ421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€The€inability€to€prove€either€prong€results€inÏfailure€of€the€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697.€€Ìà àThe€most€difficult€burden€on€an€appellant€is€demonstrating€the€prejudice€heÏhas€suffered€by€the€alleged€error.€€In€order€to€prevail€on€that€ground,€the€appellantÏmust€show€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counselððs€error€the€result€of€theÏproceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòId.óó€€€In€the€context€of€a€guilty€plea,€theÏappellant€must€show€that€but€for€counselððs€errors€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty€andÏwould€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€53,€106€S.Ct.€366,Í88€L.Ed.2d€203€(1985).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,€914€S.W.2d€97,€101€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995),€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€899€S.W.2d€648,€653Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòperm.óó€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).Ìà àIn€order€to€sustain€his€post„conviction€petition,€the€appellant€must€prove€hisÏallegations€of€fact€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„210(f)Ï(Supp.€1996).€€Upon€review,€this€Court€cannot€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence.€ÏWe€give€deference€to€questions€about€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence€asÏthey€are€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€Furthermore,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€are€conclusive€onÏappeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2d€689,€697€(Tenn.€1995)€(citations€omitted);€òòCooper€v.ÏStateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993)€(citation€omitted).Ìà àAppellant€first€contends€that€œhis€counsel›€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏinvestigate€the€defense€of€necessity.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€appellant€testifiedÏthat€he€escaped€from€the€work€release€center€in€order€to€help€a€pregnant€woman€heÏknew€whose€life€was€in€danger€because€she€was€being€beaten€by€her€boyfriend.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€believed€he€explained€these€circumstances€to€counsel.€€Counsel,€onÏthe€other€hand,€testified€that€appellant€merely€told€her€that€he€ð ðwas€out€on€pass€onÏtrustee€job€and€walked€off€the€jobsiteðð€and€provided€no€other€details.€€He€never€toldÍher€about€this€woman€he€intended€to€help.€€As€a€result,€she€œknew€of€no€facts€toÏsupport€a€defense€of€necessity.€€Even€had€she€been€armed€with€such€information,Ïcounsel€stated€her€doubts€about€the€utility€of€such€a€defense€under€thoseÏcircumstances.€€Crediting€counselððs€testimony,€the€trial€court€found€that€appellant€didÏnot€inform€counsel€of€any€factual€circumstances€to€support€the€defense€of€necessityÏand€she€was€not€ineffective€in€that€regard.€€The€trial€court€also€alluded€to€the€futility€ofÏthat€defense€in€appellantððs€case.Ìà àUpon€review,€we€too€are€unable€to€say€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failingÏto€investigate€a€defense€of€which€she€was€unaware.€€Of€course,€counsel€in€a€criminalÏcase€has€an€obligation€to€investigate€all€factual€and€legal€defenses.€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,Ï523€S.W.2d€930,€933€(Tenn.€1975).€€However,€where€a€client€does€not€cooperate€byÏproviding€counsel€with€pertinent€facts€and€circumstances,€counsel€cannot€beÏexpected€to€hypothesize€a€possible€defense.€€Ìà àOther€proof€in€the€record€before€us€lends€support€to€the€trial€courtððs€credibilityÏdetermination.€€Several€letters€appellant€wrote,€which€were€a€part€of€counselððs€file,Ïreflect€appellantððs€repeated€claim€that€he€merely€ð ðwalked€off€the€jobsite.ðð€€AppellantÏprovided€the€same€recitation€of€facts€in€his€original€petition.€€Appellantððs€testimony€atÏthe€evidentiary€hearing€was€the€first€mention€of€a€friend€who€needed€assistance.× ƒ& ××  ×€€AsÍa€result,€appellantððs€testimony€failed€to€provide€clear€and€convincing€proof€ofÏcounselððs€deficiency.€€€Ìà àAppellant€also€complains€that€counsel€failed€to€meet€with€him€adequately.€ÏHowever,€his€accounts€were€inconsistent€in€that€respect.€€Appellantððs€pro€se€petitionÏstated€that€he€met€with€counsel€twice€for€about€five€minutes€each.€€At€the€evidentiaryÏhearing,€he€first€testified€that€counsel€only€met€with€him€on€one€occasion€at€the€jail€forÏapproximately€five€minutes.€€Later€in€his€testimony,€appellant€stated€that€counselÏtalked€with€him€three€times€before€he€entered€his€plea.€€€Ìà àCounsel€testified€that€the€day€she€spoke€to€appellant€at€the€jail,€the€meetingÏlasted€much€longer€than€five€minutes.€€At€that€meeting,€she€discussed€appellantððsÏprior€criminal€record€and€he€acknowledged€at€least€five€prior€felonies.€€They€alsoÏdiscussed€information€he€provided€on€a€standard€questionnaire€used€by€the€publicÏdefenderððs€office.€€She€further€testified€that€she€listened€to€the€transcript€of€appellantððsÏpreliminary€hearing.€€Prior€to€entering€the€plea,€counsel€testified€that€she€and€theÏappellant€discussed€his€rights,€specifically€the€right€to€a€jury€trial€and€his€prior€recordÏfor€purposes€of€enhancement.€Ìà àAt€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€appellant€stated€that€he€was€satisfied€with€counselÏand€that€there€was€nothing€more€counsel€should€have€done€to€prepare€his€case.€ÏConsidering€appellantððs€statements€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing€and€the€testimony€atÏthe€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€determined€that€counsel€fully€and€adequatelyÍrepresented€her€client€and€that€there€was€nothing€that€she€failed€to€do.€€ThatÏdetermination€endorsed€counselððs€account€of€her€activities€and€we€must€defer€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€resolution€of€the€contradictory€testimony.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,Ï755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ìà àFinally,€appellant€alleges€that€counsel€took€advantage€of€threats€on€his€lifeÏmade€while€in€jail€by€insisting€that€appellant€plead€guilty.€€He€testified€that€whileÏconfined€in€the€Hamilton€County€Jail€numerous€inmates€threatened€his€life.€ÏAppellant€stated€that€on€one€occasion,€someone€injected€him€with€battery€acid€in€anÏattempt€to€kill€him.€€As€a€result,€he€was€interested€in€pleading€guilty€as€quickly€asÏpossible€so€that€he€would€be€returned€to€prison.€€Ìà àCounsel€testified€that€appellant€did€tell€her€he€was€dissatisfied€with€theÏconditions€at€the€Hamilton€County€Jail.€€Appellant€also€told€her€that€his€life€was€beingÏthreatened,€but€failed€to€give€any€specific€details,€such€as€being€injected€with€batteryÏacid.€€Counsel€also€stated€that€appellant€told€her€he€wanted€to€dispose€of€the€case€asÏsoon€as€possible€and€encouraged€her€to€plea€bargain€with€the€district€attorney.€ÏLetters€that€appellant€wrote€to€counsel€reflect€that€desire€and€appellant€admitted€atÏthe€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€gave€counsel€that€directive.€€The€trial€court€found€thatÏappellantððs€plea€was€voluntarily€and€knowingly€entered.€€Ìà àThe€record€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€in€this€respect.€ÏCommunications€between€appellant€and€counsel€distinctly€reflect€appellantððsÍinitiative€in€choosing€to€plead€guilty€to€the€escape€charge.€€Appellant,€familiar€with€theÏplea€process,€even€suggested€certain€mitigating€circumstances€for€counsel€to€utilizeÏin€bargaining€with€the€district€attorney.€€Appellant€never€expressed€a€desire€to€go€toÏtrial€upon€this€charge€and€counsel€made€every€effort€to€negotiate€an€acceptableÏagreement€for€the€appellant.€€Ìà àWhen€counsel€received€the€offer€from€the€assistant€district€attorney,€sheÏconveyed€it€to€appellant,€at€which€time€he€directed€her€to€make€a€specificÏcounteroffer.€€When€the€assistant€district€attorney€rejected€the€counteroffer€the€nextÏday,€appellant€decided€to€accept€the€original€offer€and€the€guilty€plea€hearing€wasÏheld€that€day.€€Little€more€than€two€weeks€elapsed€between€the€appointment€ofÏcounsel,€the€first€meeting€with€appellant,€and€the€entry€of€a€guilty€plea.€€At€the€guiltyÏplea€hearing,€appellant€stated€that€he€was€not€being€pressured€or€coerced€intoÏpleading€guilty.€€Considering€all€the€circumstances,€it€is€clear€that€appellant€wasÏeager€to€enter€a€guilty€plea.€€Our€review€of€the€transcript€from€the€guilty€plea€hearing,Ïindicates€that€appellantððs€plea€was€certainly€voluntary€and€knowing€and€that€counselÏdid€not€exert€any€undue€influence€on€appellant.Ìà àIn€sum,€appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÏthat€his€counsel€was€ineffective€or€that€his€guilty€plea€was€involuntary.€€We€affirm€theÏtrial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.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,€Judge