ÿWPCê ‚òÿßé^I¦ /„~ªù»–ebo;Ýoõßë^š×kfLÆPÃr »uÕr±ˆæÕ†ëe¨,‰çšL…Ìõ< å*=É^5À£ÁxL‘”ï8æÅ„‚í‘ä‡ÖPûþ²™Pœ+O$./ºMîÑ™´8<–_M£')%ót0Ð.g‰>OÕ+Úe÷'!ï6V”8¾bÂ7×ù”Ä>cö:Ú¬2V… CÎX¢>×:…YP·õs“ƒ¶ê;=ʬÉ^,ëlhÆ8釤rBnK@€aÂ#bä„ÿ¦%I¹HV™£Âùã¢í°+(Ã$Cá°’ÿ½ˆ«eÒÙç‡2Ãcî³ì!ËŠ ßb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ (™ ÆÁƇÆMÆNÙÙÙEÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛbÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ 0ëåååå BÐÐ 0¤í D5‘ D-Æ 0Kóó AS>Æ‘ 0¤W 0Dû A«?»Ϋ/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0 YarbroughTorrySeaborgKymberly p.c.Harkins S.W. CrimresentenceErvinGauldinBoykinMackeyRounsavilleEvattNewsomewaiveredresentencingMcBeeBufordHellardStrickland S.CtLockhartBankstonmaterisMcClintlockLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2ú`$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù¹»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôý,ò»»Ô d(|3w'$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù¹»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w'$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù¹»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ù¹»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ù¹»»»ÔÑ8€ŸŸXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î.îٹÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Ù¹»îî.î #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àDecember€10,€2002€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XŸŸX»¼Ù¹ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ù¹»XXŸŸ#ÔTERRY€L.€BAKERòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XŸŸX»¼Ù¹Ôó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€92„A„647€€€€€€Seth€Norman,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„00400„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€December€29,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€sought€post„conviction€relief€because€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€theÐ V¦  Ðresentencing€hearing€and€on€appeal.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€sentence€imposed€was€pursuantÐ ? Ðto€an€agreement.€€We€conclude€the€record€preponderates€against€such€a€finding.€€We€further€concludeÐ (x Ðthat€the€record€was€insufficient€to€show€that€the€guilty€plea€was€knowingly€and€voluntarily€entered.Ð a ÐThe€defendantððs€twenty„year€sentence€is€vacated,€and€this€cause€remanded€for€resentencing.€Ð úJ ÐÓ³ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;Ð Ì ÐJudgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Vacated€and€Remanded€for€Resentencingó óÐ ¶ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ù¹»àXŸŸ#ÔÔ‡XŸŸX.¼Ù¹ÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court.€€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó,€J.,€filed€aÐ ‰Ù Ðseparate€concurring€opinion,€in€which€òòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€joined€Ô#†¼Ù¹»XXŸŸì#ÔÔ‡XŸŸX»¼Ù¹Ô.Ô#†¼Ù¹»XXŸŸð#ÔÔ‡XŸŸX»¼Ù¹ÔÐ r ÐÌPaul€J.€Bruno,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Terry€L.€Baker.Ð D” ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Helena€Walton€Yarbrough,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ f ÐGeneral;€Victor€S.€(Torry)€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€Jon€P.€Seaborg€and€KymberlyÐ ÿO ÐL.€A.€Haas,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è 8  ÐÓ½ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ù¹»XXŸŸ3 #ÔÔ‡XŸŸX»¼Ù¹ÔÐ º" " ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Ù¹»XXŸŸh #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XŸŸX»¼Ù¹ÔÓ XÓThe€petitioner,€Terry€L.€Baker,€appeals€his€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€allegingÐ $Ý$ Ðineffectiveness€of€counsel€concerning€his€hearing€for€violation€of€his€community€correctionsÐ v%Æ % Ðsentence.€€The€petitioner€alleges€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient€in€not€insisting€on€a€sentencingÐ _&¯!& Ðhearing€and€in€his€failure€to€appeal€the€sentence€imposed.€€Originally,€the€petitioner€had,€pursuantÐ H'˜"' Ðto€a€plea€agreement,€pled€guilty€to€seven€Class€B€felonies€with€a€range€of€eight€to€twelve€years€asÐ 1(#( Ða€Range€I€offender€and€received€a€sentence€of€ten€years€on€each€count,€to€be€served€concurrently€onÐ )j$) Ðcommunity€corrections.Ð *S%* ÐÐ ì*<&+ ÐThe€warrant€seeking€violation€of€the€petitionerððs€community€corrections€status€alleged€asÐ Õ+%', Ðfollows:€(a)€a€positive€drug€test€for€marijuana€and€cocaine;€(b)€the€petitionerððs€lack€of€availabilityÐ ¾,(- Ðto€his€community€corrections€officer;€and€(c)€the€petitionerððs€plea€of€guilty€to€robbery.Ð §-÷(.ý ÐÔ_Ô‡The€violation€hearing€was€brief€and€conducted€entirely€without€any€input€from€or€dialogueÐ ° Ðwith€the€petitioner.€€Prior€to€the€petitionerððs€entry€into€the€courtroom,€his€counsel€made€the€followingÐ ™é Ðannouncement:€€ð ðYour€honor,€quite€candidly,€I€have€discussed€the€case€with€the€defendant,€he€isÐ ‚Ò Ðwilling€to€concede€the€violation€and€request€the€sentence€be€put€into€effect.ððÐ k» ÐÐ T¤ ÐAfter€the€petitionerððs€counsel€announced€ready,€the€prosecutor€proceeded€to€give€backgroundÐ =  Ðinformation€on€the€original€plea€agreement€and€recommended€a€sentence€of€twenty€years€at€35%.€Ð & v ÐCounsel€for€the€petitioner€made€no€further€statements€other€than€the€following:€ð ðYouððve€heard€theÐ  _ Ðfacts.€€Youððve€heard€the€case.€€I€have€nothing€more€to€add,€other€than€whatððs€placed€in€the€record.ððÐ ø H ÐÐ á 1  ÐThe€court€then€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€twenty€years,€to€run€consecutive€to€the€three„yearÐ Ê   Ðsentence€previously€rendered€for€the€petitionerððs€robbery€conviction.€€No€increase€in€the€releaseÐ ³  Ðeligibility€date€was€ordered.€€The€judgment€form€reflecting€the€violation€and€increased€sentence€wereÐ œì  Ðinserted€on€the€original€judgments€under€ð ðspecial€conditions.ðð€€€No€separate€judgments€for€theÐ …Õ  Ðviolation€hearing€appear€in€the€record.Ð n¾  ÐÐ W§  ÐThe€petitionerððs€post„conviction€relief€petition€alleged€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€forÐ @ Ðfailure€to€demand€a€sentencing€hearing€or€to€appeal€the€sentence€and€further€denied€any€agreementÐ )y Ðby€him€to€accept€a€twenty„year€sentence.€€During€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitionerððs€trialÐ b Ðcounsel€admitted€that€he€did€not€request€a€hearing€for€the€petitioner.€€Counsel€justified€his€failure€toÐ ûK Ðrequest€a€hearing€based€on€his€ð ðbeliefðð€that€the€petitioner€had€agreed€to€the€offer€of€a€twenty„yearÐ ä4 Ðsentence.€€The€petitioner,€at€his€post„conviction€hearing,€admitted€his€violation€but€denied€anyÐ Í Ðagreement€to€accept€a€twenty„year€sentence€or€to€waive€the€sentencing€hearing.Ð ¶ ÐÐ Ÿï ÐÓ  Óò òÓ XÓStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌÓ XÚÓÓ  ÓIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegationsÐ [« Ðin€his€[or€her]€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€in€order€to€get€relief.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ððÐ D” Ð40„30„210(f).€€We€are€required€to€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€unless€the€petitionerÐ -} Ðproves€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3rd€453,€461Ð f Ð(Tenn.€1999).Ð ÿO ЀÌIn€reviewing€the€petitionerððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,Ð Ñ!!  Ðthis€Ô_ÔCourtÔ_Ô€must€determine€whether€the€advice€given€or€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€withinÐ º" ! Ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,Ð £#ó" Ð936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€counsel,€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€thatÐ Œ$Ü# Ðcounselððs€representation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessðð€and€that€thisÐ u%Å $ Ðperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððsÐ ^&®!% Ðerror,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð G'—"& Ð668,€687„88,€692,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064„65,€2067„68,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,Ð 0(€#' Ð708€S.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).Ð )i$( ÐÐ *R%) ÐIn€the€case€of€a€guilty€plea,€to€satisfy€the€requirement€of€prejudice,€the€petitioner€mustÐ ë*;&* Ðdemonstrate€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€he€would€not€have€pled€guiltyÐ Ô+$'+ Ðand€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,Ð ° Ð370„71,€88€L.€Ed.2d€203€(1985);€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)Ð ™é ÐÐ ‚Ò ÐÓ  ÓÓ XÓò òAnalysisÐ k» ÐÌòòó óSentencing€HearingsÐ ?  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ XÓóóProbation€revocation€and€community€corrections€revocation€are€sufficiently€similar€in€natureÐ  a Ðto€justify€applying€similar€procedures€to€both€types€of€sentences.€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,Ð ú J Ð82„83€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€procedural€standards€for€revocation€of€a€community€corrections€sentenceÐ ã 3  Ðshould€be€no€less€stringent€than€those€used€in€probation€revocation.€€òòBentley€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2dÐ Ì   Ð706,€714€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€codification€of€procedures€for€revocation€of€probation€isÐ µ  Ðcontained€in€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€ðð€40„35„Ð žî  Ð311,€and€is€in€òòpara€materia€óówith€the€Tennessee€Community€Corrections€Act€of€1985,€Tenn.€CodeÐ ‡×  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„36„101€et.€seq.,€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229,€236€(Tenn.€1986).Ð pÀ  ÐÐ Y©  ÐWhen€revoking€a€community€corrections€sentence,€the€trial€court€is€empowered€to€resentenceÐ B’ Ðthe€accused.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(3).€€The€statute€does€not€permit€a€trial€court€toÐ +{ Ðarbitrarily€establish€the€length€of€the€new€sentence€or€use€the€statute€for€the€sole€purpose€ofÐ d Ðpunishing€the€accused€for€violating€the€community€corrections€provisions.€€òòState€v.€Ervinóó,€939Ð ýM ÐS.W.2d€581€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ð æ6 ÐÐ Ï ÐA€new€sentence€that€exceeds€the€original€sentence€may€be€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.Ð ¸ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(e)(4).€€However,€when€imposing€a€new€sentence,€the€trial€court€mustÐ ¡ñ Ðconduct€a€sentencing€hearing€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989.€Ð ŠÚ ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(a)€and€210(a)€„€(e);€òòErvinóó€at€583.€€These€statutory€provisions€areÐ sà Ðmandatory.€€òòState€v.€Gauldinóó,€737€S.W.2d€795,€798€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóóÐ \¬ Ð(Tenn.€1987);€òòErvinóó€at€584.Ð E• ÐÐ .~ ÐThe€record€on€appeal€reveals€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€did€not€seek€a€sentencingÐ g Ðhearing€and€further€shows€that€the€mandatory€statutory€provisions€for€resentencing€were€notÐ  P Ðfollowed.€€From€trial€counselððs€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€this€was€due€to€counselððsÐ é 9 Ðð ðbeliefðð€that€the€petitioner€had€agreed€to€the€stateððs€offer€of€a€twenty„year€sentence.€€Since€theÐ Ò!"  Ðpetitioner€was€not€questioned€at€the€time€of€the€imposition€of€the€new€sentence,€he€had€no€viableÐ »" ! Ðopportunity€to€express€assent€to€the€proposed€sentence€or€waiver€of€any€statutory€or€constitutionalÐ ¤#ô" Ðrights€available€to€him.Ð $Ý# ÐÐ v%Æ $ ÐThe€trial€court€also€found€that€the€sentence€was€pursuant€to€an€agreement.€€We€conclude€thatÐ _&¯!% Ðthe€record€preponderates€against€the€finding€of€an€agreement.€€Very€little€was€said€by€trial€counselÐ H'˜"& Ðat€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Nothing€was€said€by€the€defendant.€€Neither€the€defendant,€trial€counsel,€Ð 1(#' Ðthe€State,€nor€the€trial€judge€said€anything€that€could€remotely€suggest€the€defendant€had€reachedÐ )j$( Ðan€agreement€as€to€the€sentence.€€The€words€ð ðagreementðð,€ð ðcompromiseðð,€ð ðworked€outðð,€ð ðpursuantÐ *S%) Ðto€stateððs€recommendationsðð,€ð ðofferðð,€or€ð ðdisputeðð€appear€anywhere€in€this€record€in€order€for€us€toÐ ì*<&* Ðconclude€any€evidence€exists€that€would€support€a€finding€that€the€defendant€agreed€to€the€sentenceÐ Õ+%'+ Ðimposed.€€We€note€that€if€there€was,€in€fact,€an€agreement,€then€the€State€did€not€get€the€benefit€ofÐ ° Ðits€bargain€because€the€trial€judge€did€not€increase€the€defendantððs€release€eligibility€date€from€30%Ð ™é Ðto€35%€as€recommended€by€the€State.òòÐ ‚Ò Ðóó€Ð k» Ðò òÓ XÓÓ  Óòòó óGuilty€Pleasò òóóÐ T¤ Ðó óÓM3ÓÓ X?3ÓÐ =  ÐAn€òòóóextensive€history€of€the€admonitory€rights€required€prior€to€acceptance€of€guilty€pleas€isÐ $ t Ðcontained€in€òòState€v.€Nealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131(Tenn.€1991).€€The€analysis€therein€begins€with€òòBoykinÐ  ] Ðv.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€89€S.€Ct.€1709,€23€L.€Ed.2d€274€(1969)€and€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2dÐ ö F Ð337€(Tenn.€1977),€and€the€subsequent€treatments€by€òòRounsaville€v.€Evattóó,€733€S.W.2d€506,€(Tenn.Ð ß /  Ð1987);€òòState€v.€Newsomeóó,€778€S.W.2d€34€(Tenn.€1989);€and€òòState€v.€Frazieróó,€784€S.W.€2d€927Ð È   Ð(Tenn.€1990).à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àûÿÿdûà  àà p àüÿÿdüÐ ±  ÐÐ šê  ÐThe€mandatory€advice,€also€referred€to€as€the€ð ðprescribed€litany,ðð€to€be€given€a€defendantÐ ƒÓ  Ðprior€to€acceptance€of€a€guilty€plea€owes€its€origins€in€part€to€the€following€sources:€federalÐ l¼  Ðconstitutional€law€as€pronounced€by€the€federal€Supreme€Court,€state€constitutional€law€as€stated€byÐ U¥  Ðthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€(Rule€11),€andÐ >Ž Ðpronouncements€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€its€exercise€of€its€supervisory€authority.€€AllÐ 'w Ðof€these€parts€share€the€common€design€to€insure€that€guilty€pleas€are€voluntary€and€knowing.€€òòStateÐ ` Ðv.€Nealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131,€135€(Tenn.€1991).€€Case€law€since€òòBoykinóó€has€consistently€demandedÐ ùI Ðcomplete€adherence€to€the€full€litany€of€information€required€to€be€communicated€during€the€entryÐ â2 Ðof€guilty€pleas.€€òòBoykinóó,€395€U.S.€238,€89€S.€Ct.€1709,€23€L.€Ed.€2d€274€(1969);€òòMackeyóó,€553Ð Ë ÐS.W.2d€337€(Tenn.€1977);€òòMcClintlockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268€(Tenn.€1987);€òòPrinceóó,€781€S.W.2d€846Ð ´ Ð(Tenn.€1989);€òòNewsomóó,€778€S.W.2d€34€(Tenn.€1989);€and€òòNealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131€(Tenn.€1991).ûÿÿdûÐ í ÐüÿÿdüÐ †Ö ÐWhile€not€encouraging€departure€from€full€compliance€with€the€above€noted€requirements,Ð o¿ Ðit€has€been€held€that€substantial€compliance€shall€be€sufficient€if€the€sense€of€the€substance€of€theÐ X¨ Ðrequired€advice€is€made€clear€to€a€guilty„pleading€defendant.€€òòId.óó€at€137„38.Ð A‘ ÐÐ *z ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€Rule€11€sets€forth€explicit€directions€on€theÐ c Ðprocedure€to€be€followed€in€the€acceptance€of€guilty€pleas.€€Pertinent€parts€of€Rule€11€are€as€follows:Ð üL ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ <XÓÐ å 5 Ð(d)€Insuring€That€the€Plea€is€Voluntary.€€The€court€shall€not€accept€a€plea€of€guiltyÐ Î!  Ðor€nolo€contendere€without€ò òó ófirst,€by€addressing€the€defendant€personally€ò òó óin€openÐ ·"! Ðcourt,€determining€that€the€plea€is€voluntary€and€not€the€result€of€force€or€threats€orÐ  #ð" Ðof€promises€apart€from€a€plea€agreement.€€The€court€shall€also€inquire€as€to€whetherÐ ‰$Ù# Ðthe€defendantððs€willingness€to€plead€guilty€or€nolo€contendere€results€from€priorÐ r% $ Ðdiscussions€between€the€district€attorney€general€and€the€defendant€or€his€attorney.Ð [&«!% ÐÐ D'”"& Ð*€*€*€*€*€*Ð -(}#' ÐÓ X<]>ÓÓ XO>ÓÓ XA>ÓÐ )f$( ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ <XÓ(e)(3)€Acceptance€of€a€Plea€Agreement.€€If€the€court€accepts€the€plea€agreement,€theÐ ÿ)O%) Ðcourt€shall€inform€the€defendant€that€it€will€embody€in€the€judgment€and€sentence€theÐ è*8&* Ðdisposition€provided€for€in€the€plea€agreement.Ð Ñ+!'+ Ї*€*€*€*€*€*Ð ° ÐÐ ™é Ð(f)€Determining€Accuracy€of€Plea.€€Notwithstanding€the€acceptance€of€a€plea€ofÐ ‚Ò Ðguilty,€the€court€should€not€enter€a€judgment€upon€such€plea€without€making€suchÐ k» Ðinquiry€as€shall€satisfy€it€that€there€is€a€factual€basis€for€the€plea.Ð T¤ ÐÐ =  Ð(g)€Record€of€Proceedings.€€A€verbatim€record€of€the€proceedings€at€which€theÐ & v Ðdefendant€enters€a€plea€shall€be€made€and,€if€there€is€a€plea€of€guilty€or€noloÐ  _ Ðcontendere,€the€record€shall€include,€without€limitation,€the€courtððs€advice€to€theÐ ø H Ðdefendant,€the€inquiry€into€the€voluntariness€of€the€plea€including€any€pleaÐ á 1  Ðò òó óagreement,€and€the€inquiry€into€the€accuracy€of€a€guilty€plea.Ð Ê   ÐÓ X<žAÓÓ XAÓÓ X‚AÓÐ ³  ÐÔ_ÔIfÔ_Ô€any€omission€from€the€mandatory€advice€arises€from€a€constitutional€right€(e.g.€knowingÐ œì  Ðand€voluntary€pleas),€it€is€proper€to€raise€the€issue€by€post„conviction€relief.€€€òòNealóó€at€140.€€€òòNealóó€alsoÐ …Õ  Ðrecognizes€that€trial€counselððs€failure€to€insist€on€the€admonitory€warnings€of€Rule€11€may€itself€beÐ n¾  Ða€deprivation€of€the€constitutional€due€process€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòId.óó€at€135.€Ð W§  ÐWe€find€in€this€case€that€trial€counselððs€failure€to€insist€on€even€a€rudimentary€sentencing€hearingÐ @ Ðto€establish€the€petitionerððs€knowing€and€voluntary€submission€of€a€guilty€plea,€as€required€byÐ )y ÐòòBoykinóó€and€òòMackeyóó,€was€constitutional€error.Ð b ÐÐ ûK ÐTrial€counselððs€sole€meaningful€contribution€to€the€sentencing€hearing€was€his€request€to€theÐ ä4 Ðcourt€to€ð ðimpose€the€sentence.ðð€€Neither€before€this€or€thereafter€was€there€any€colloquy€with€theÐ Í Ðpetitioner€by€his€counsel€or€the€trial€court,€and€the€petitioner€stood€mute€while€the€new€sentence€wasÐ ¶ Ðimposed.€€The€Sentencing€Reform€Act€dispenses€with€the€sentencing€hearing€when€there€is€an€agreedÐ Ÿï Ðsentence€which€is€accepted€by€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„203(b)€„€205(d).€€At€theÐ ˆØ Ðpost„conviction€proceeding,€trial€counsel€testified€that€it€was€his€ð ðbeliefðð€that€the€petitioner€hadÐ qÁ Ðagreed€to€a€twenty„year€sentence,€but€admitted€that€the€petitioner€may€have€ð ðvacillatedðð€andÐ Zª Ðð ðwaivered.ðð€€Trial€counsel€emphasized€that€he€was€trying€to€recall€events€from€four€and€one„halfÐ C“ Ðyears€past,€implicitly€acknowledging€the€difficulty€of€exact€recall€over€a€span€of€intervening€yearsÐ ,| Ðand€events.€€This€aptly€illustrates€the€need€as€expressed€in€òòBoykinóó€for€the€trial€court€to€establish€aÐ e Ðrecord€that€the€accused€fully€understands€the€plea€and€its€consequences€to€forestall€the€ð ðspin„off€ofÐ þN Ðcollateral€proceedings€that€seek€to€probe€murky€memories.ðð€€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€244Ð ç 7 Ð(1969).€€The€failure€of€counsel€to€insist€on€a€hearing€that€would€evince€the€petitionerððs€knowing€andÐ Ð!   Ðvoluntary€accession€to€any€proposed€guilty€plea€was€deficient€under€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930Ð ¹" ! Ð(Tenn.€1975).€€Ð ¢#ò" ÐÐ ‹$Û# ÐIn€the€instant€case,€the€petitioner€must€prove€actual€prejudice€due€to€his€trial€counselððsÐ t%Ä $ Ðperformance€and,€but€for€the€ineffectiveness€of€counsel,€he€would€not€have€agreed€to€the€guilty€plea.€Ð ]&­!% ÐòòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€88€L.€Ed.€2d€203€(1985).€€When€involving€errorsÐ F'–"& Ðof€constitutional€dimension,€the€conviction€will€be€set€aside€unless€the€error€was€harmless€beyondÐ /(#' Ða€reasonable€doubt€in€light€of€the€entire€record.€€òòChapman€v.€Califóó,€386€U.S.€18,€87€S.€Ct.€824,€17Ð )h$( ÐL.€Ed.€2d€705€(1967);€òòNealóó€at€138.Ð *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔOurÔ_Ô€conclusion€that€the€plea€agreement€was€not€shown€to€be€freely€and€voluntarily€made€isÐ ° Ðâ âbolstered€by€a€lack€of€consistency€within€the€record€as€to€the€new€sentence€provisions.€€At€theÐ ™é Ðviolation€hearing,€the€state,€on€two€separate€occasions,€asked€for€the€imposition€of€a€sentence€ofÐ ‚Ò Ðtwenty€years€at€35%.€€In€announcing€the€sentence,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€twenty„year€sentenceÐ k» Ðwithout€reference€to€the€percentage€of€service.€€The€amended€judgment€forms€also€do€not€reflect€anyÐ T¤ Ðchange€from€the€standard€30%€Range€I€offender€status€of€the€original€sentence.€€The€plea€bargainÐ =  Ðannounced€by€the€state€would€have,€by€necessity,€elevated€the€petitioner€to€a€Range€II,€multipleÐ & v Ðoffender€status.Ð  _ ÐÐ ø H ÐThis€inconsistency€by€itself€might€indicate€nothing€more€than€the€trial€judgeððs€silentÐ á 1  Ðacknowledgment€of€the€prohibition€of€resentencing€into€a€higher€range€as€announced€in€òòState€v.Ð Ê   ÐPattyóó,€922€S.W.2d€102,€104€(Tenn.€1995).€€However,€combined€with€the€dearth€of€evidence€as€to€theÐ ³  Ðpetitionerððs€entry€of€a€free€and€voluntary€plea,€the€apparent€lack€of€harmonious€understanding€amongÐ œì  Ðthe€parties€further€clouds€the€issue€of€the€existence€of€a€mutually€binding€plea€agreement.€Ð …Õ  ÐÐ n¾  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔInÔ_Ô€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€entry€on€the€judgment,€it€appears€that€the€defendant€wasÐ W§  Ðsentenced€to€twenty€years€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€on€a€Class€B€felony.€€We€note€that€theÐ @ Ðmaximum€sentence€within€this€class€and€range€is€twelve€years.€€While€the€trial€courtððs€entry€mayÐ )y Ðreflect€a€structuring€of€the€seven€Class€B€offenses,€it€cannot€be€discerned€from€the€judgment€formÐ b Ðand€appears€to€be€an€improper€sentence.€€We€must€require,€for€the€purposes€of€our€review,€that€theÐ ûK Ðtrial€court,€state,€and€defendant€explicitly€set€forth€on€the€judgment€forms€the€structuring€processÐ ä4 Ðused€to€arrive€at€the€effective€total€of€time€of€sentence.€€For€purpose€of€illustration,€if€under€theÐ Í Ðinstant€facts€an€effective€twenty„year€sentence€is€the€agreement,€then€the€judgments€should€reflectÐ ¶ ÐÔ_Ôthe€structure€utilized€to€reach€that€total.€€This€procedure€will€both€accomplish€the€partiesðð€intent€andÐ Ÿï Ðobviate€the€appearance€of€an€improper€sentence.€€€We€are€not€unmindful€that€upon€resentencing,€theÐ ˆØ Ðpetitioner€may€receive€an€effective€sentence€far€in€excess€of€the€twenty€years€in€the€event€ofÐ qÁ Ðconsecutive€sentencing€within€the€proper€range€of€the€seven€Class€B€felonies.Ð Zª ÐÐ C“ ÐUpon€remand,€the€new€sentence€should€be€entered€on€separate€standard€judgment€documentsÐ ,| Ðfor€each€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€17;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„209(f);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.Ð e ÐTimothy€M.€Robertsóó,€No.€M2002„00806„CCA„R3„CD,€2003€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€230€at€*7€„Ð þN Ð*8.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€18,€2003,€at€Nashville)€The€use€of€new€judgment€forms€should€beÐ ç 7 Ðutilized€whenever€new€sentences€or€amendments€to€sentences€are€made.€€Ô_ÔÐ Ð!   ÐÐ ¹" ! ÐParenthetically,€we€note€from€the€record€that€this€case€involved,€at€the€time€of€the€originalÐ ¢#ò" Ðplea€on€the€seven€felonies,€an€ð ðunderstandingðð€that€upon€violation€of€community€corrections,€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðpetitioner€would€receive€an€increase€in€sentence€and€an€increase€in€range€to€35%.€€Although€the€stateÐ t%Ä $ Ðdoes€not€rely€on€this€in€its€brief,€we€observe€that€such€agreements€are€without€force€in€the€absenceÐ ]&­!% Ðof€a€proper€sentencing€hearing.€€€òòState€v.€Erwinóó,€939€S.W.2d€581,€583€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);Ð F'–"& ÐòòState€v.€Crookóó,€2€S.W.3d€238,€240€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€Further,€an€increase€in€range€ofÐ /(#' Ðsentence€is€specifically€not€permitted€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„36„106(e)(4)Ð )h$( Ðabsent€an€agreement.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Pattyóó,€922€S.W.2d€102,€104€(Tenn.€1995).€€We€recognize€that€inÐ *Q%) Ðthe€context€of€plea€agreements,€a€defendant€may€plead€outside€the€range€if€the€defendant€expresslyÐ ê*:&* Ðagrees€to€a€particular€offender€classification€and€the€sentence€imposed€is€within€the€statutory€limitsÐ Ó+#'+ Ðfixed€for€the€offense€of€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Mahleróó,€735€S.W.2d€226,€227€(Tenn.€1987);€òòMcConnellÐ ° Ðv.€Stateóó,€12€S.W.3d€795,€798€(Tenn.€2000).€Ð ™é ÐÐ ‚Ò Ðò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ k» ÐÌÓngÓà  àThe€petitioner€admits€his€violation€of€community€corrections€but€denies€his€agreement€to€aÐ > Ž Ðplea€bargain€at€the€resentencing€stage.€€The€record€clearly€shows€no€sentencing€hearing€wasÐ ' w Ðconducted.€€The€petitioner€now€claims€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failure€to€demand€a€hearing.€Ð  ` ÐAfter€careful€review,€we€conclude€that€the€record€does€not€establish€the€petitionerððs€agreement€toÐ ù I Ðthe€sentence€imposed.€€We,€therefore,€vacate€the€twenty„year€sentence€and€remand€for€resentencing.Ð â 2  ЀÌÌÌÌÓ X`gÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€€€€__________________________________€Ð o¿  ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€JOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE