ÿWPC 4Q\…ü¥F*ݯF(Ý"»n¢½O¹05ŸÐ6k/Ï©¾ŽÚEl¢Rsæ#„Cåì…;íîa $¬¡0Œ7<¯˜™ÿ‹an½Ó]þ*XÇ>y|~øü}eJA‘ ÔÐ #Û!®p¡íšYý‚ÞÇeßBÛM+£îm‰{Ã)ñ`…ù K¼‰ž|‰'?mVË)º[‹P½ÿe(‚Á_TKAøodŒ7ÇÿcE)rh~=Ö‹}zúnHïB}…1/v•$ÂÕŽ9´ò/è‹Ëèà$jÎŒ$‚Þ9»B)4©ÊzÝÀckó¢`…TÙÆŽEìÑSc[Ê—{мâï+8ñ»Èƒh‚!Ó‰ã­þ…>úܬf½Ë»P7gWè´X›’?’ùYç•|ù¤’QG',Nk¯¼üT_Ù_a‘¡„¥´Q‡|(|;<âÚŸ[vWg4ëÂѲò" Zå¯çÚveÑMKBÂ9Û5ÍLŸ¡®ÄºïÍ»¯{îÅaR³5'°k—ú;dI«çZû˜ kŽ—UµõÒC4kHκô’ÕšF‡FãDNнJsE+}Æ}³¶ø÷wÓx,RÎjç $É¡”¨,ÕZ )ÏŽnÏèÄBíâÒþ/ˆžâK§Ab %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ UN™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9‚ÿNU>ƒƒEÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁbÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà ËË 0DØØØØØØØØØØØØ 0ë B 0¤$ D3È D-û 0K(( ASsÆÆ 0¤Œ 0D0 A«t»¬‹/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 NKBIGSBY P.J.AAronWhitesell CrimStricklandô\  `‹&Times New Roman- ù-  Ý ƒR;œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôú ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€reflects€that,€while€the€post„conviction€court€did€make€an€oral€pronouncement€from€the€bench€onÐ ° ÐJuly€24,€2002,€this€pronouncement€was€inadequate.€€The€courtððs€comments€were€essentially€the€same€as€expressed€in€itsÐ qÁ Ðwritten€order:€€Ð 2‚ ÐÌà8  àà ` àAt€any€rate,€I€feel€that€under€the€circumstances,€that€Mr.€Bigsby€was€properly€represented.€Ð ´ ÐAnd,€again,€I€donððt€think€that€the€State€is€required€to€give€a€perfect€representation.€€If€so,€weððd€neverÐ uÅ Ðbe€able€to€get€a€case€tried€with€appointed€counsel.€€And€I€do€think€that€[trial€counsel]€was€certainlyÐ 6 † Ðcompetent€as€far€as€the€average€attorney€is€concerned.€€And€I€think€she€did€a€good€job.€€Ð÷ GÐ Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIððm€going€to€overrule€his€.€.€.€motion.€Ðy É Ð Ð  ÐÌDefense€counsel€then€requested€the€post„conviction€court€to€make€specific€findings€on€the€record.€€In€attempting€toÐ û K  Ðaddress€the€issue€of€impeachment€of€co„defendant€Martin,€the€post€„conviction€stated,€ð ðWell,€like€I€said,€Mr.€MartinÐ ¼  Ðtestified€favorably€on€some€of€the€things€as€well€as€unfavorably€on€some€on€the€things.€€And€it€kind€of€strikes€me€as€beingÐ }Í  Ðstrategy€as€much€as€anything€else.ðð€€When€pronouncing€this€finding,€the€court€did€not€comment€on€whether€trial€counselÐ >Ž  Ðadequately€investigated€Martinððs€criminal€record€or€whether€she€questioned€Martin€to€any€degree€about€his€priorÐ ÿO  Ðconvictions€at€trial.€€Rather,€the€court€simply€stated,€ð ðIððll€let€the€transcript€speak€for€itself.€€There€again,€I€think€that€weððreÐ À  Ðtalking€about€strategy,€and€that€would€be€my€ruling.ðð€€However,€during€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€court€stated,€ð ðIÐ Ñ  Ðdonððt€want€to€read€the€whole€[transcript.]ðð€These€oral€findings€are€insufficient€to€effectuate€any€meaningful€review€ofÐ B’  Ðthe€Appellantððs€ineffective€assistance€claim€on€this€or€any€other€ground.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(|G2;œ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÓÙ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôú ò»»Ô d(|3÷)$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÓÙ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3÷)$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÓÙ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ÓÙ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ÓÙ»»»ÔÑ8€šWXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î.~ÓÙÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ÓÙ»îî.~ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€12,€2003€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XšWX»¼ÓÙÔÌò òÔ#†¼ÓÙ»XXšW#ÔFRANK€ROBERT€BIGSBY€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€òòóóÔ‡XšWX»¼ÓÙÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€F„50657€€€€€€James€K.€Clayton,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02260„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€December€11,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<s` AßÐ tÄ  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X³XXXšWÔThe€Appellant,€Frank€Robert€Bigsby,€appeals€the€Rutherford€County€Circuit€Courtððs€dismissal€ofÐ l¼  Ðhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€sole€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€Bigsby€was€deniedÐ U¥  Ðthe€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€are€precluded,€however,€from€reviewing€this€issue€basedÐ >Ž Ðupon€€the€post„conviction€courtððs€failure€to€make€discernable€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,Ð 'w Ðas€required€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„30„111(b)€(2003).€€Accordingly,€this€case€isÐ ` Ðremanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ô#†XšWXX X³Æ#ÔÔ#†¼ÓÙ»XXšW‘#ÔÔ‡XšWX»¼ÓÙÔÐ ùI ÐÓºÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed€and€Remanded.ó óÐ Ë ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ÓÙ»àXšW¼#ÔÔ‡XšWX.¼ÓÙÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòóó€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó,€J.,€joined;€òòGaryÐ žî ÐR.€Wade,€P.J.,óó€filed€a€dissenting€opinionòò.óóÔ#†¼ÓÙ»XXšW—#ÔÔ‡XšWX»¼ÓÙÔÐ ‡× ÐÌBrad€W.€Hornsby€and€Aaron€S.€Guin,€Bullock,€Fly,€Hornsby,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ Y© ÐAppellant,€Frank€Robert€Bigsby.Ð B’ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€P.€RobinÐ d ÐDixon,€Jr.,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€C.€Whitesell,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€andÐ ýM ÐJohn€W.€Price,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð æ 6  ÐÔ#†¼ÓÙ»XXšW” #ÔÔ‡XšWX»¼ÓÙÔÌÓhÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ÓÙ»XXšWã #ÔÔ‡XšWX»¼ÓÙÔÐ ¡#ñ# ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ t%Ä % ÐòòóóÔ#†¼ÓÙ»XXšWV #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XšWX»¼ÓÙÔÌÔ‡ X³XXXšWÔà  àOn€November€5,€1998,€a€Rutherford€County€jury€convicted€the€Appellant€of€possession€of€Ð G'—"' Ðcocaine€with€intent€to€deliver,€a€class€B€felony.€€The€trial€judge€sentenced€the€Appellant€to€twenty„Ð 0(€#( Ðfive€years,€as€a€Range€III€persistent€offender.€€On€direct€appeal,€a€panel€of€this€court€found€that€theÐ )i$) Ðevidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€verdict€based€upon€the€testimony€of€the€co„defendant,€WillieÐ *R%* ÐMartin.€€òòState€v.€Bigsbyóó,€40€S.W.3d€87,€91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð ë*;&+ Ð2001).à0  àà ° àÐÔ+$',(#(# ÐÔ_Ôà  àOn€May€10,€2001,€the€Appellant€filed€a€fourteen„page€òòpro€se€óópetition€for€post„convictionÐ ½, (- Ðrelief.€€After€the€appointment€of€counsel,€an€amended€petition€was€filed€on€July€16,€2001.€€TheÐ ¦-ö(.ý Ðamended€petition€alleges€that€trial€counsel€rendered€ineffective€assistance€in€sixteen€ways.€€After€Ð ° Ðconducting€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€dismissed€the€petition.€€The€courtððsÐ ™é Ðorder€recites,€in€its€entirety:Ð ‚Ò ЀÌà8  àThe€court€finds€that€the€Defendant€was€properly€represented€and€that€[trial€counsel]Ð T¤ Ðdid€a€good€job.€€This€was€the€first€criminal€trial€that€[trial€counsel]€had€and€she€didÐ =  Ðdo€a€good€job.€€Every€attorney€has€to€start€somewhere.€€The€law€does€not€requireÐ & v Ðattorneys€to€be€perfect.€€Ð _Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Appellant€challenges€this€ruling,€arguing€that€he€received€ineffectiveÐ á 1  Ðassistance,€in€the€following€ways:€(1)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€co„defendantððs€testimony€Ð Ê   Ðas€being€non„responsive€to€the€prosecutorððs€question.€€The€prosecutor€asked,€ð ðWhy€did€you€comeÐ ³  Ðto€Murfreesboro?ðð€€Martin€answered,€ð ðWe€came€to€sell€drugs.ðð€€The€Appellant€argues€this€non„Ð œì  Ðresponsive€answer€was€prejudicial€as€it€placed€the€Appellant€at€the€scene€of€the€crime€with€intent.€Ð …Õ  Ð(2)€Trial€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€suggestion€that€the€Appellant€committed€statutory€rapeÐ n¾  Ðprejudiced€the€Appellant€because€it€implied€that€the€Appellant€was€morally€wrong€and€that€he€hadÐ W§  Ðcommitted€a€separate€crime.€€(3)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€inform€the€Appellant€of€the€possibility€that,Ð @ Ðif€convicted,€he€might€serve€twenty„five€years€as€a€persistent€offender.€€This€was€prejudicial€becauseÐ )y Ðit€took€away€his€ability€to€make€an€informed€decision€as€to€whether€to€accept€the€plea€offer€of€eightÐ b Ðyears,€with€service€of€only€six€months.€€(4)€Trial€counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€admission€intoÐ ûK Ðevidence€of€the€ð ðevidence€seizureðð€log,€which€could€have€misled€the€jury€into€concluding€that€theÐ ä4 ÐAppellantððs€signature€on€the€log€was€an€admission€that€he€was€in€possession€of€the€illegal€substance.€Ð Í Ð(5)€Trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigate€the€co„defendantððs€lengthy€criminal€recordÐ ¶ Ðand€use€his€thirty„six€prior€convictions€to€impeach€his€credibility.€€(6)€€Trial€counsel€failed€toÐ Ÿï Ðinterview€the€co„defendant€until€the€day€of€trial€and€failed€to€obtain€a€copy€of€Martinððs€guilty€plea,Ð ˆØ Ðwhich€implicated€the€Appellant€in€the€offense.€Ð qÁ ÐÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ C“ ÐÓjÓÌà  àTo€demonstrate€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€Appellant€must€show€(1)€deficientÐ f Ðperformance€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€the€deficiency.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð ÿO Ð668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984).€€In€this€type€of€proceeding,€ð ða€trial€court's€òòfindings€of€factóóÐ è 8 Ðunderlying€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€reviewed€on€appeal€under€a€òòÔ#†XšWXX X³ #ÔÔ‡X³XXXšWÔde€novoÐ Ñ!!  ÐÔ#†XšWXXX³ž#ÔÔ‡ X³XXXšWÔóóstandard,€accompanied€with€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correct€unless€the€preponderanceÐ º" ! Ðof€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€Tenn.€R.Ð £#ó" ÐApp.€P.€13(d);€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997)).Ð Œ$Ü# Ѐ€Ð u%Å $ Ðà  àWhen€determining€the€merits€of€a€post„conviction€petition,€the€Post„Conviction€ProcedureÐ ^&®!% ÐAct€requires€the€post„conviction€court€to€make€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ð G'—"& ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„30„111(b)€(2003)€mandates:€€€Ð 0(€#' Ðà8  àUpon€the€final€disposition€of€every€petition,€the€court€shall€enter€a€final€order,€andÐ )i$( Ðexcept€where€proceedings€for€delayed€appeal€are€allowed,€shall€set€forth€in€the€orderÐ *R%) Ðor€a€written€memorandum€of€the€case€all€grounds€presented,€and€shall€state€theÐ ë*;&* Ðfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€with€regard€to€each€such€ground.ÐÔ+$'+Ð Ð  ЇThe€use€of€the€word€ð ðshallðð€clearly€indicates€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€intended€that€the€dutyÐ ° Ðof€the€post„conviction€court€to€make€findings€of€fact€is€mandatory.€€òòSykes€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2d€254,Ð ™é Ð260€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971);€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€445€S.W.2d€669,€671€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969).€€NotÐ ‚Ò Ðonly€do€the€post„conviction€court's€findings€facilitate€appellate€review€but,€in€many€cases,€areÐ k» Ðnecessary€for€such€review.€€òòGeorge€Tate€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9108„CR„00170€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ T¤ ÐJackson,€May€20,€1992),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Sept.€14,€1992).€€In€the€absence€of€oralÐ =  Ðfindings,€the€failure€of€the€post„conviction€court€to€include€its€findings€of€facts€in€its€orderÐ & v Ðdismissing€the€petition€requires€reversal€of€the€order.€€òòState€v.€Higginsóó,€729€S.W.2d€288,€290„91Ð  _ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Moreover,€where€questions€of€law€are€presented,€negating€the€need€forÐ ø H Ðthe€finding€of€fact,€the€post„conviction€court€must€still€show€all€grounds€presented€and€theÐ á 1  Ðconclusions€with€regard€to€each€of€them.€€òòLittle€v.€Stateóó,€469€S.W.2d€537,€538€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ê   Ð1971).€€Where€the€post„conviction€court€fails€to€make€ð ða€clear€and€detailed€finding€of€fact,ðð€eitherÐ ³  Ðorally׃D×Ý ƒF#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€or€on€the€record,€the€appellate€court€is€ð ðat€a€complete€loss€to€know€the€basis€of€the€trialÐ œì  Ðjudge's€decision€and€judgment;€assignments€of€error€[now€issues]€and€appellate€review€are€seriouslyÐ …Õ  Ðfrustrated€if€not€completely€thwarted€by€lack€of€a€definitive€finding€of€fact€by€the€trial€judge.ðð€€òòDavidÐ n¾  ÐBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9507„CR„00204€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Oct.€9,€1996)€(citingÐ W§  ÐòòBrownóó,€445€S.W.2d€at€671)).Ð @ Ðà  àÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€post„conviction€court€failed€to€make€discernable€findings€ofÐ b Ðdisputed€facts€relating€to€the€Appellantððs€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€record€isÐ ûK Ðdevoid€of€several€findings€critical€to€our€review.€€These€findings€include,€but€are€not€limited€to:€(1)Ð ä4 Ðwhether€the€co„defendantððs€answer€was€non„responsive;€(2)€whether€there€was€an€improperÐ Í Ðsuggestion€at€trial€that€the€Appellant€committed€statutory€rape;€(3)€whether€the€Appellant€receivedÐ ¶ Ðadequate€plea€bargaining€advice;€(4)€whether€the€Appellantððs€signature€on€the€ð ðevidence€seizureððÐ Ÿï Ðlog,€which€was€admitted€into€evidence€without€objection,€indicated€to€the€jury€that€he€was€inÐ ˆØ Ðpossession€of€the€cocaine;€(5)€whether€trial€counsel€adequately€investigated€co„defendant€MartinððsÐ qÁ Ðcriminal€record€and€used€that€record€to€impeach€his€credibility;€(6)€whether€trial€counsel€timelyÐ ° Ðinterviewed€the€co„defendant€and€obtained€a€copy€of€his€guilty€plea;€and€(7)€whether€the€AppellantÐ ™é Ðsuffered€prejudice€as€a€result€of€any€alleged€error.€€Without€sufficient€factual€findings,€we€have€noÐ ‚Ò Ðway€of€addressing€the€merits€of€the€Appellantððs€claim.€Accordingly,€we€remand€this€case€for€entryÐ k» Ðof€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€on€all€issues€presented,€as€required€by€TennesseeÐ T¤ ÐCode€Annotated€ðð€40„30„111(b).€€Ô#†XšWXX X³ü#ÔÐ =  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ê   Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE