ÿWPCý …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ w@Þ  0J& 0Tp 0^Ä 0h" 0rŠ 0|ü 0†x 0þ 1uŽ 0dU6gU.U*ËB)õ BDC; AM~cËf. D3”v~ÇvÓE 0@ AOXƧ 0Dm D/± Bà˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|x~«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular jkDlmnDopDqrÓ€|2 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`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ YÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌDecember€4,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ%%%%'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€""Xd#ÑÑ#€""Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#Ô›Ñ7€  Æ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€FEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓAARON€WARNER€BOLTON,à à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9505„CC„00128Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àMaury€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€Jim€T.€Hamilton,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€à à)à à€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌWilliam€C.€œBarnes,€Jr.›à àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌP.O.€Box€552à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌColumbia,€TN€38402à àà àà àà àandÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àAmy€L.€TarkingtonÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àT.€Michael€BottomsÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1619Ìà àà àà àà àà àColumbia,€TN€34802ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€petitioner,€Aaron€Warner€Bolton,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€MauryÏCounty€Circuit€Courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€is€presentlyÏserving€an€effective€sentence€of€sixty„six€years€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€for€various€convictions€involving€drug€felonies,€possession€of€counterfeitÏmoney,€and€keeping€a€gambling€room€or€table.€€œHe›€contends€that€his€convictions€andÏsentences€result€from€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€direct€appeal€of€the€petitionerððs€convictions,€this€court€stated€theÏbasic€evidence€to€be€as€follows:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àà àA€confidential€informant€assisted€law€enforcementÏofficers€in€making€undercover€purchases€of€cocaine€fromÏthe€appellant.€€The€purchases€occurred€on€November€1,€3,Ïand€8,€1988.€€On€each€occasion€one„half€ounce€of€cocaineÏwas€purchased€for€$800.00.€€On€November€15,€1988,€theÏinformant€purchased€$100.00€worth€of€cocaine€from€aÏbarmaid€at€the€appellantððs€lounge.€€On€November€29,€1988,Ïan€undercover€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€agentÏpurchased€seven€ounces€of€cocaine€from€the€appellant€€forÏ$9,100.00.€€After€that€sale€was€consummated,€the€appellantÏwas€arrested.€€The€appellant€cooperated€with€the€lawÏenforcement€officers€after€his€arrest€and€provided€them€withÏaccess€to€his€residence€and€businesses.€€CounterfeitÏmoney€was€found€in€his€possession€when€he€was€arrestedÏand€additional€counterfeit€money€was€found€at€hisÏresidence.€€His€gambling€equipment€was€also€found€andÏconfiscated.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòState€v.€Warner€Boltonóó,€No.€01„C„01„9008„CC„00187,€Maury€County,€slip€op.€at€7Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€4,€1991),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Sept.€9,€1991).€€ConsecutiveÏsentences€were€affirmed€upon€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€petitioner€was€aÏð ðððprofessional€criminal,€who€had€knowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€aÏsource€of€livelihood€over€the€last€three€to€five€years€at€least.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€at€9.€€A€TennesseeÏBureau€of€Investigation€agent€testified€that€the€petitioner€said€that€he€was€gettingÏcocaine€in€quantities€of€three€to€six€pounds€at€the€time€and€that€he€was€receivingÏshipments€of€marijuana€twice€a€week.€€Also,€although€the€petitioner€claimed€that€heÏwas€only€ð ðpuffing,ðð€the€petitioner€told€the€agent€that€his€weekly€income€from€drug€salesÏhad€been€as€much€as€two€hundred€sixty„four€thousand€dollars.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€complaints€relate€to€his€trial€attorneyððs€advising€him€toÏconsent€to€searches€of€his€property,€advising€him€to€sell€real€property€during€theÏpendency€of€the€prosecution,€failing€to€file€pretrial€motions,€and€failing€to€make€certainÏtrial€objections.€€At€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€evidence€by€stipulation€orÏtestimony€was€received€from€the€petitioner,€his€father,€T.B.I.€Agent€Maxie€Gilliland,Ïassistant€district€attorneys,€the€attorney€for€the€petitionerððs€codefendant,€and€the€trialÏattorney.€€The€evidence€reflects€that€the€petitioner€was€arrested€at€a€Holiday€Inn€onÏNovember€30,€1988,€after€he€sold€seven€ounces€of€cocaine€to€an€undercover€agent€forÏnine€thousand€one€hundred€dollars.€€Law€enforcement€had€already€made€threeÏprevious€buys€of€cocaine€from€the€petitioner,€the€transactions€being€tape„recorded.€ÏMoreover,€the€petitioner€had€discussed€delivering€larger€quantities€of€cocaine€with€anÏundercover€agent.€€ÌÌà àIt€was€at€this€point,€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorney€was€summoned€toÏthe€Holiday€Inn.€€Agent€Gilliland€explained€to€the€attorney€the€nature€of€the€evidenceÏthey€had€against€the€petitioner€and€expressed€an€interest€in€having€the€petitionerÏcooperate€and€testify€regarding€other€individuals€who€were€being€investigated,€as€well.€ÏThe€attorney€was€made€aware€of€the€petitionerððs€exposure€to€maximum€sentences€as€aÏClass€X€felon€given€the€timing€and€quantity€of€the€petitionerððs€sales.€€As€the€attorneyÏput€it,€he€had€ð ðto€make€the€best€out€of€a€bad€situation.ðð€€An€assistant€district€attorneyÏarrived€in€order€to€provide€authority€for€enforcement€of€any€agreement.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€testimony€of€the€petitioner,€his€attorney,€and€Agent€GillilandÏdo€not€coincide€as€to€what€specific€offers€were€made,€it€is€œclear›€that€the€petitionerÏrefused€to€testify€against€other€people.€€The€attorney€remained€concerned€about€theÏpotential€Class€X€status€and€was€hoping€to€reach€an€understanding€that€would€benefitÏthe€petitioner.€€Agent€Gilliland€asked€about€the€petitioner€consenting€to€searches€of€hisÏplace€of€business,€home,€and€other€locations,€noting€that€they€had€enough€informationÏfor€a€search€warrant.€€Although€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€wanted€to€require€theÏagents€to€obtain€search€warrants,€his€attorney€said€that€with€the€agents€having€the€rightÏto€get€search€warrants€anyway,€they€may€go€easier€on€the€petitioner€if€he€consented.€ÏUltimately,€the€petitioner€agreed€and€consented.€€These€searches€uncoveredÏmarijuana,€counterfeit€money,€and€gambling€material.€€The€record€also€reflects€thatÏcounterfeit€money€was€found€in€the€coat€that€the€petitioner€was€wearing€when€he€wasÏarrested.€€ÌÌà àAfter€the€petitioner€was€indicted,€the€state€made€an€offer€to€settle€the€caseÏfor€twenty„five€years€and€twenty„five€thousand€dollars,€apparently€as€a€fine.€€TheÏpetitioner€testified€that€he€could€only€raise€twenty€thousand€dollars€at€that€time.€€ThenÏthe€state€raised€the€offer€to€thirty€years€and€thirty€thousand€dollars.€€The€petitionerÏclaimed€that€he€was€unable€to€raise€that€much€money.€€The€petitioner€blamed€his€lackÏof€ability€to€raise€money€on€previous€misadvice€given€by€his€attorney.€€ÌÌà àAfter€the€petitionerððs€arrest,€the€state€filed€a€complaint€to€abate€theÏpetitionerððs€place€of€business€as€a€public€nuisance€and€filed€notice€of€seizure.€€TheÏpetitioner€testified€that€his€attorney€advised€him€to€sell€the€place,€which€he€did.€ÏHowever,€according€to€the€petitioner,€he€paid€off€the€mortgage€of€some€forty„fourÏthousand€dollars,€with€personal€and€borrowed€funds,€as€part€of€the€transaction.€ÏUltimately,€the€establishment€was€seized€by€the€state,€which€the€state€then€possessedÏfree€and€clear€of€any€indebtedness.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€these€were€theÏcircumstances€that€caused€him€not€to€be€able€to€œraise€the›€money€to€meet€the€stateððsÏoffer€to€settle€the€case.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€attorney€acknowledged€that€he€advised€the€petitioner€to€makeÏan€œarmððs„length›€sale€of€the€business€because€of€the€nuisance€abatement€case,€but€heÏdenied€suggesting€that€the€petitioner€pay€off€the€mortgage€and€denied€any€knowledgeÏof€the€petitioner€doing€so.€€The€attorney€said€that€after€the€petitioner€said€that€he€hadÏtwenty€thousand€dollars€and€the€state€ultimately€went€to€thirty€thousand€dollars,€theÏpetitioner€said€he€was€tired€of€dickering€with€the€state.ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€the€case€went€to€trial.€€The€trial€attorney€acknowledged€thatÏhe€did€not€file€any€motion€to€suppress,€but€he€believed€that€there€was€no€basis€for€suchÏa€motion.€€Also,€he€acknowledged€that€there€were€occasions€in€which€he€could€haveÍobjected€during€the€trial,€but€did€not.€€He€explained€that€on€some€of€the€occasions,Ïthere€would€have€been€objections€that€would€have€only€drawn€the€juryððs€attention€toÏnegative€points.€€However,€he€also€admitted€that€œhe€did€not€object€to€the€stateÏpresenting›€€evidence€of€a€previous€drug€sale,€a€reported€stolen€gun€being€found€in€theÏpetitionerððs€house,€and€guns€being€found€in€his€car€the€day€of€the€arrest.ÌÌà àThe€codefendantððs€counsel€testified€that€he€did€not€cooperate€with€theÏauthorities€and€would€only€do€so€upon€having€an€explicit€agreement.€€He€said€œthat€the›Ïcodefendant€only€received€a€three„year€œsentence.›€€He€acknowledged,€though,€that€thisÏrelative€success€at€trial€may€have€been€because€the€petitioner€did€not€testify€againstÏthe€codefendant.ÌÌà àDuring€the€course€of€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€indicated€thatÏthe€lack€of€objections€by€the€attorney€did€not€affect€the€outcome€of€the€trial,€given€theÏoverwhelming€evidence€against€the€petitioner.€€In€its€order€overruling€the€petition,€theÏtrial€court€stated€the€following:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àThat€petitioner€was€represented€at€trial€by€retained€counselÏwho€has€extensive€experience€in€the€practice€of€criminalÏlaw,€has€demonstrated€his€expertise€in€this€field€on€manyÏoccasions,€and€is€recognized€by€members€of€the€bar€of€thisÏstate€as€a€lawyer€who€has€demonstrated€a€range€ofÏcompetence€well€above€the€average€range€of€competenceÏin€this€area€for€attorneys€practicing€criminal€law;€that€fromÏthe€proof€introduced€at€the€hearing€on€this€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€the€court€is€convinced€that€the€mattersÍcomplained€of€in€said€petition€as€being€indicative€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€were€matters€of€trialÏstrategy€and€that€the€defendant€participated€in€theÏformulation€of€said€strategy€and€took€an€active€part€in€theÏongoing€strategy€of€his€defense€in€this€case€and€was€madeÏaware€of€counselððs€intentions€and€plans€and€fully€concurredÏwith€them€at€the€time;€that€his€complaint€now€is€more€in€theÏnature€of€a€complaint€that€his€pre„trial€and€trial€strategyÏfailed€to€produce€the€desired€results;€that€failure€to€obtain€aÏdesired€result€in€any€criminal€case€does€not€amount€toÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€or€entitle€petitioner€to€anyÏrelief.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€is€made,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counsel'sÏperformance€was€deficient€and€(2)€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,€687,€104ÏS.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€369„72,€113€S.€Ct.Ï838,€842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied,€as€well,€to€the€right€toÏcounsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772ÏS.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.€1989).€€€ÌÌà 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€the€servicesÏrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÍcases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€range€of€competence€was€to€be€measured€byÏthe€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,€491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.Ï1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202„04€(D.C.€Cir.€1973).€€Also,Ïin€reviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requiresÏthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstructÑ€)ÑÇthe€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounsel's€perspective€at€the€time."€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.ÏCt.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(counsel's€conduct€willÏnot€be€measured€by€"20„20€hindsight").€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tacticÏfailed€or€even€hurt€the€defense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance.€€Deference€is€made€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informedÏones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9;ÏòòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€at€1201.€€ÌÌà àAlso,€we€note€that€the€approach€to€the€issue€of€the€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€does€not€have€to€start€with€an€analysis€of€an€attorney's€conduct.€€If€prejudiceÏis€not€shown,€we€need€not€seek€to€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegations€aboutÏdeficient€performance.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€the€result€reached€by€the€trial€court€was€correct.€€TheÏrecord€reflects€that€the€petitioner€was€confronted€with€strong€evidence€of€his€guilt€forÏserious€crimes€when€he€was€arrested.€€His€trial€attorney€was€aware€that€the€petitionerððsÏposition€was€serious.€€However,€the€petitioner€refused€to€agree€to€cooperate€and€testifyÏagainst€other€individuals€„„€a€specific€request€made€by€the€state€as€part€of€its€on„the„scene€offer.€€ÌÌà àThe€advice€by€the€attorney€that€the€petitioner€should€consent€to€theÏsearches€was€based€upon€the€belief€that€search€warrants€could€be€obtained€any€wayÏand€that€the€consent€could€help€the€petitionerððs€ultimate€position.€€The€petitioner€hasÏnot€proven€that€warrants€would€have€been€unobtainable€and€we€will€not€presume€thatÏthe€warrant€process€would€have€been€flawed.€€Likewise,€the€fact€that€the€petitionerÏapparently€received€no€ultimate€benefit€from€his€consent€does€not€alter€the€fact€that€theÏattorneyððs€advice€to€him€was€a€legitimate€position€to€take€under€difficult€circumstances.€€ÌÑ7€›ŠXXdÈ XXdæ7Ñœ›à àAs€for€the€subsequent€offers€by€the€state,€we€do€not€believe€that€theÏpetitionerððs€inability€to€meet€their€financial€requirements€was€caused€by€misadvice€byÏhis€attorney.€€The€petitionerððs€financial€arrangement€for€the€sale€of€his€property€with€noÏmortgage€resulted€from€the€petitionerððs€doings,€not€the€attorneyððs.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€as€to€the€attorneyððs€failure€to€object€to€the€introduction€of€evidenceÏregarding€such€things€as€a€œprior€drug›€sale€and€weapons,€we€note€that€the€petitionerÏhas€not€presented€any€authority€that€such€evidence€was€inadmissible€under€theÏcircumstances€in€this€case.€€In€any€event,€even€if€we€were€to€conclude€that€the€attorneyÏshould€have€objected€to€this€evidence,€we€could€not€conclude€that€the€evidenceÏaffected€the€verdict€to€the€petitionerððs€prejudice.€€The€evidence€of€the€tape„recordedÏdrug€sales,€the€counterfeit€money€found€on€the€petitionerððs€person€and€in€his€home,€theÏgambling€material€and€marijuana€found€during€the€searches€of€the€petitionerððs€homeÏand€business€establishment€was,€essentially,€unrefuted.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€has€failedÍto€show€that€his€convictions€and€sentences€resulted€from€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€ÌÌà àà0 à