ÿWPC  n>f†`˜šEªò97™2ǪñÁʶ1)8ÛDÉߊίPhŸZ "¯âÏ–RzÅsMÄçÄȾK—/†ÑçsG+ rK<ñ©ðzñàóØ6G™•­zŒõWÍ+8C˜tœ˜pKó«žæ¯O24´úùéÔ‹!výË¢.“zǧrÁpj®Ùj:}ÝœaµÀ§ù×¶6rr þµÕi£´GV«guñï°(àK^o0»8â6´Dqõâ¼ëjÞY<~EÝw…¨ù“½Ëú{¼æÞÎð¢à…ï·ßÓPüñÄ’_ëuÐ,°Ypµøn¡u~ðùļ­p‘íë Fµß©9 ¬’*ƒãa Þ%éä¶ 0þ£ù4Îþ—Ú¬[95^7Ç„òß¾§±x;í µQnºŸ•cY“iAY¢¤~òiX Š4äŨ,Ét@_fHÚ}~gæ­ˆ lÕ0UðÖ¦@1r'aTc8‚¡BÓ>xEY­ö½ÑÎÚ?ÏÄ®ók¾sº»Yï*³…ÓËÉû:›çÙܵ0†/µÄ„v†v2Èh Ûm`:™¼(¡qÜÁ¦ ô…O­gã0£»H³“À°¼T¯OCtÎÜ×t2“jÇ›Oz:Ë郼b %\^ b 0ˆnU)NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë U @±NñññEóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóbõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ 0ëýýýý Bèè 0¤ D3© D-Ü 0K   ASTƧ 0¤m 0D A«U»מ"*â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular•jW)g(`„new op3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(uHš Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2¼$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô³ò»»Ô d(|3ÿj$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿj$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ u»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ u»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ u»»»ÔÑ8€OÙXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îd uÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ u»îîd #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€17,€2000Ð üL ÐÔ‡XOÙX»¼ uÔÌò òÔ#†¼ u»XXOÙ!#ÔSHELLY€BREEDENòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XOÙX»¼ uÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€25,€502„ii€€€€€€Richard€R.€Vance,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02220„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐJanuary€2,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€second€degree€murder,€a€Class€A€felony,€and€one€count€ofÐ xÈ  Ðconspiracy€to€commit€second€degree€murder,€a€Class€B€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„12„107(a);Ð d´ Ð39„13„210.€€The€petitioner€was€sentenced€to€concurrent€sentences€of€twenty„five€(25)Ô#†¼ u»XXOÙ—#ÔÔ‡XOÙX»¼ uÔ€years€andÐ P  Ðtwelve€years€(12)Ô#†¼ u»XXOÙ]#ÔÔ‡XOÙX»¼ uÔ,€respectively.€€Ô#†¼ u»XXOÙÏ#ÔÔ‡XOÙX»¼ uÔThe€petitioner€subsequently€filed€a€petition€for€post„convictionÐ <Œ Ðrelief.€€After€a€hearing,€however,€the€petition€was€dismissed.€€The€petitioner€now€appeals€the€post„Ð (x Ðconviction€courtððs€dismissal€of€her€petition.€€In€this€appeal€the€petitioner€alleges€ineffectiveÐ d Ðassistance€of€counsel,€because€trial€counsel€allowed€her€to€plead€guilty€without€the€use€or€benefit€ofÐ P Ða€court€ordered€psychological€evaluation.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€€trialÐ ì< Ðcourtððs€dismissal€of€the€petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€€Ð Ø( ÐÓéÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3,€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ u»àXOÙ"#ÔÔ‡XOÙX.¼ uÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€Dòòavid€H.€Welles,€J.,€óóandÐ ˆØ ÐòòWilliam€B.€Ô_ÔAcreeÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌJames€D.€Hutchins,€Ô_ÔDandridgeÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Shelly€Breeden.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€R.€Stephen€Ô_ÔJobeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€AlÐ $"t! ÐC.€Ô_ÔSchmutzerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€James€Bruce€Dunn,€Assistant€District€Attorney,Ð #`" Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓb ÓÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ u»XXOÙ‘ #ÔÔ‡XOÙX»¼ uÔÐ À&"& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ u»XXOÙÈ #ÔÔ‡XOÙX»¼ uÔÓ  ÓÞd  Þ18€€Begin€opinion€hereŽÞe  ÞÔ#†¼ u»XXOÙ&#ÔÔ€XOÙX»¼ uÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔ¹Ó XÓThe€petitioner,€Shelly€Breeden,€was€indicted€on€one€count€of€first€degree€murder€and€oneÐ „)Ô$) Ðcount€of€conspiracy€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€Before€trial,€however,€the€petitioner€decided€toÐ p*À%* Ðaccept€a€guilty€plea€offer€made€by€the€District€Attorneyððs€office.€€On€May€12,€1998,€the€petitionerÐ \+¬&+ Ðplead€guilty€to€one€count€of€second€degree€murder,€a€class€A€felony,€and€one€count€of€conspiracy€toÐ H,˜', Ðcommit€second€degree€murder,€a€Class€B€felony,€for€which€she€received€concurrent€sentences€ofÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôtwenty„five€(25)Ô#†XOÙXXXOÙ¿#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔ€years€and€twelve€(12)Ô#†XOÙXXXOÙ#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔ€years,€respectively.€€Ô#†XOÙXXXOÙ×#ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„12„107(a);€39„13„Ð ° Ð210.Ô‡XOÙXXXOÙÔ€€Further,€as€part€of€the€guilty€plea€agreement,€the€petitioner€was€required€to€serve€eighty€fiveÐ œì Ð(85)€Ô#†XOÙXXXOÙv#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔpercent€of€her€sentence€before€she€is€eligible€for€release.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÓ XßÓÌà  àOn€January€1,€1998,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petition€wasÐ `° Ðdismissed€after€a€hearing.€€The€petitioner€subsequently€appealed€the€post„conviction€courtððs€dismissalÐ L œ Ðof€her€petition€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€case€is€now€properly€before€this€court.€Ð 8 ˆ Ѐ€€€€Ð $ t ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓFACTSóóó óÐ ü L  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àDuring€the€spring€of€1997,€the€petitioner€shared€a€home€with€her€boyfriend,€B.J.€Kessler,€andÐ Ô$  Ðtheir€three„year„old€son.€€During€late€spring€of€1997,€the€victim,€Amy€King,€and€the€victimððsÐ À  Ðboyfriend,€George€Pate,€moved€into€the€home€shared€by€the€petitioner,€the€petitionerððs€boyfriend,€andÐ ¬ü  Ðtheir€son.€€Sometime€during€the€summer€of€1997,€the€petitioner€and€George€Pate€became€involvedÐ ˜è  Ðin€a€romantic€relationship€while€the€petitionerððs€boyfriend€was€working€out€of€town.€€€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àPrior€to€August€1,€1997,€the€petitioner€and€her€two€co„defendants,€George€Pate€and€JoeÐ \¬ ÐMaine,€formulated€a€plan€to€kill€the€victim.€€On€or€around€August€1,€1997,€Joe€Maineððs€girlfriend,Ð H˜ ÐRebecca€Peters,€went€to€the€petitionerððs€home€to€babysit€for€the€petitioner.€€In€exchange€for€herÐ 4„ Ðservices€Mrs.€Peters€was€promised€a€motorcycle,€a€mobile€home,€and€some€money.€€Joe€MaineÐ  p Ðaccompanied€his€girlfriend€to€the€petitionerððs€home€that€evening.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àWhile€at€the€petitionerððs€home,€the€two€co„defendantððs€lured€the€victim€outside€after€tellingÐ ä4 Ðher€that€they€wanted€to€show€her€something.€€The€two€co„defendantððs€later€went€back€inside€theÐ Ð  Ðhome€without€the€victim.€€Co„defendant€Maine€had€blood€on€his€pants€when€he€returned.€€The€victimÐ ¼  Ðwas€never€talked€about€or€seen€again€after€she€left€with€the€petitionerððs€co„defendants..Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àNearly€three€weeks€after€the€victim€disappeared,€Mr.€Kessler€noticed€a€foul€odor€somewhereÐ €Ð Ðon€the€property,€which€prompted€him€to€call€the€police.€€When€the€police€conducted€an€investigation,Ð l¼ Ðthey€found€the€victimððs€body€in€a€cistern€on€the€property.€€It€was€also€discovered€that€lime€had€beenÐ X ¨ Ðpoured€on€the€victimððs€body€in€an€effort€to€hide€the€stench.€€An€autopsy€later€revealed€that€the€victimÐ D!” Ðhad€been€hit€in€the€head€with€a€blunt€object€and€stabbed€multiple€times.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àCo„defendant€Pate€and€the€petitioner€claimed€that€the€death€of€the€victim€was€an€accident.€Ð $X" ÐCo„defendant€Pate,€however,€later€changed€his€story€and€admitted€killing€the€victim.€€Co„defendantÐ ô$D # ÐMaine€also€admitted€his€part€in€the€murder.€€Both€co„defendantððs€implicated€the€petitioner€in€theÐ à%0!$ Ðcrime.€€The€petitioner€was€subsequently€charged€with€first€degree€murder€and€conspiracy€to€commitÐ Ì&"% Ðfirst€degree€murder.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àAfter€being€arrested,€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorney€entered€a€motion€for€a€court€orderedÐ )à$( Ðpsychological€evaluation€of€the€petitioner.€€After€a€hearing€on€the€petition,€the€trial€court€ordered€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðpsychological€evaluation€to€be€conducted.€€The€psychological€evaluation,€however,€was€neverÐ h+¸&* Ðconducted€because€the€petitioner€accepted€a€guilty€plea€offer€made€by€the€District€Attorneyððs€office.€Ð ° ÐThe€petitioner€pled€guilty€to€second€degree€murder€and€conspiracy€to€commit€second€degree€murder.€Ð œì ÐÔ#†XOÙXXXOÙ3#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€later€explained€that€he€recommended€that€the€petitioner€acceptÐ tÄ Ðthe€guilty€plea€offer.€€The€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€further€explained€that€especially€incriminatingÐ `° Ðevidence€was€mounting€against€the€petitioner,€and€that€he€believed€the€District€Attorneyððs€offer€wasÐ L œ Ða€good€offer.€€Further,€he€explained€that€he€believed€the€defense€that€the€petitioner€had€been€pursuingÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€destroyed€by€incriminating€evidence€that€had€surfaced.€€Ð $ t Ðà  àÌà  àAt€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€the€petitioner€told€the€trial€court€on€two€separate€occasions€thatÐ ü L  Ðshe€believed€that€it€was€in€her€best€interest€to€accept€the€guilty€plea€offer€made€by€the€DistrictÐ è 8  ÐAttorneyððs€office.€€Further,€during€the€guilty€plea€hearing€the€trial€court€asked€the€petitioner€aboutÐ Ô$  Ðthe€ð ðmental€evaluations€and€psychological€testimony€[that]€was€discussedðð€at€an€earlier€hearing.€Ð À  ÐAgain,€the€petitioner€indicated€that€she€believed€that€it€was€in€her€best€interest€to€accept€the€guiltyÐ ¬ü  Ðplea€offer€made€by€the€District€Attorneyððs€office.€€The€petitionerððs€guilty€plea€was€accepted€by€theÐ ˜è  Ðtrial€court,€and€she€was€sentenced€to€concurrent€sentences€of€twenty„five€(25)Ô#†XOÙXXXOÙÕ"#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔ€years€and€twelve€(12)Ô#†XOÙXXXOÙ¦(#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔÐ „Ô  Ðyears.€€Further,€as€part€of€the€guilty€plea€agreement,€the€petitioner€was€required€to€serve€eighty„fiveÐ pÀ Ð(85)Ô#†XOÙXXXOÙþ(#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔ€percent€of€her€sentence€before€she€is€eligible€for€release.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àOn€January€1,€1998,€the€petitioner€filed€for€post€conviction€relief.€€The€petitionerððs€petitionÐ 4„ Ðwas€dismissed€after€a€post„conviction€hearing.€€The€petitioner€subsequently€filed€this€appeal.€€€€€Ð  p ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òANALYSISÐ øH ÐÓ  ÓÌóóÔ  ÔÓ  ÓIneffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÔ ƒ+ÔÐ Ð  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€that€her€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€allowed€her€to€pleadÐ ¨ø Ðguilty€to€the€District€Attorneyððs€guilty€plea€offer€without€the€use€or€benefit€of€a€court€orderedÐ ”ä Ðpsychological€evaluation.€€We€disagree.Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  ÓòòStandard€of€ReviewóóÐ X ¨ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThis€Court€reviews€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€the€standards€of€òòBaxterÐ 0"€  Ðv.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€and€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,Ð #l! Ð80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€The€petitioner€has€the€burden€to€prove€that€(1)€the€attorneyððs€performanceÐ $X" Ðwas€deficient,€and€(2)€the€deficient€performance€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€defendant€so€as€toÐ ô$D # Ðdeprive€him€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2dÐ à%0!$ Ð363,€369€(Tenn.€1996);€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.€1994);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2dÐ Ì&"% Ð898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€test€in€Tennessee€to€determine€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€is€whetherÐ )à$( Ðhis€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐòòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€The€petitioner€must€overcome€the€presumption€that€counselððs€conductÐ h+¸&* Ðfalls€within€the€wide€range€of€acceptable€professional€assistance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104Ð ° ÐS.Ct.€at€2065;€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€462€(Tenn.€1999).€€Therefore,€in€order€to€prove€aÐ œì Ðdeficiency,€a€petitioner€must€show€ð ðthat€counselððs€acts€or€omissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€belowÐ ˆØ Ðan€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ðat€369€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€688,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065)òòóó.Ð `° Ðà  àÌà  àIn€reviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessment€.€.€.€requires€that€every€effort€be€made€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðeliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counsel's€challengedÐ $ t Ðconduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counsel's€perspective€at€the€time."€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð  ` Ðat€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065.€€The€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€hurt€the€defense,€doesÐ ü L  Ðnot,€standing€alone,€establish€unreasonable€representation.€€However,€deference€to€matters€of€strategyÐ è 8  Ðand€tactical€choices€applies€only€if€the€choices€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€Ð Ô$  ÐòòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€579€(Tenn.€1997);€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€ò òòòó óóóÐ À  ÐÓ  ÓÌòòAnalysis:€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselóóÐ ˜è  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified€at€the€petitionerððs€post„conviction€hearing.€€InÐ pÀ Ðtestimony€given€by€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel,€€he€explained€that€the€petitionerððs€original€defenseÐ \¬ Ðwas€that€the€petitioner€was€pressured€into€aiding€in€the€murder€of€the€victim€as€a€result€of€beingÐ H˜ Ðdominated€by€co„defendant€Pate.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€he€sought€the€psychological€evaluationÐ 4„ Ðto€prove€the€petitionerððs€defense,€and€toÔ#†XOÙXXXOÙÕ)#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔ€aid€in€avoiding€a€life€sentence€without€the€possibility€ofÐ  p Ðparole.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€further€testified€that€he€later€recommended€that€the€petitioner€accept€the€DistrictÐ ä4 ÐAttorneyððs€guilty€plea€offer€because€of€mounting€evidence€against€the€petitioner.€€Specifically,€trialÐ Ð  Ðcounsel€explained€that€both€of€the€petitionerððs€co„defendants€had€agreed€to€testify€about€theÐ ¼  Ðpetitionerððs€involvement€in€the€murder.€€Further,€trial€counsel€testified€about€a€letter€that€was€foundÐ ¨ø Ðthat€was€written€by€the€petitioner.€€The€contents€of€the€letter€contained€absolute€and€undyingÐ ”ä Ðdeclarations€of€the€petitionerððs€love€for€co„defendant€Pate,€suggesting€that€there€was€no€history€ofÐ €Ð Ðdomination€by€co„defendant€Pate.€€Continuing,€the€petitionerððs€letter€also€contained€material€thatÐ l¼ Ðappeared€to€link€her€to€the€crime.€€First,€the€letter€showed€what€appear€to€be€€the€petitionerððs€dislikeÐ X ¨ Ðfor€the€victim.€€Second,€the€letter€stated€that€something€that€had€been€planned€had€ð ðbetter€beÐ D!” Ðuntraceableðð€because€of€a€fear€the€petitioner€had€about€going€to€prison€and€losing€her€children.€€TrialÐ 0"€  Ðcounsel€testified€that€he€believed€that€the€testimony€of€the€petitionerððs€co„defendants€and€the€letterÐ #l! Ðeffectively€destroyed€the€petitionerððs€defense.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€also€testified€that€he€had€handledÐ à%0!$ Ðbetween€eighteen€(18)Ô#†XOÙXXXOÙ:#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔ€and€twenty€(20)Ô#†XOÙXXXOÙaA#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔ€homicide€cases€in€the€past.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€he€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðfamiliar€with€mental€defenses€and€recognized€that€the€evidence€that€was€mounting€against€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpetitioner€was€very€damaging€to€her€defense.€€Given€trial€counselððs€prior€experience€in€cases€similarÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€the€petitionerððs€and€the€evidence€against€the€petitionerÔ#†XOÙXXXOÙ³A#ÔÔ‡XOÙXXXOÙÔ,€he€believed€that€the€District€Attorneyððs€Ð )à$( Ðguilty€plea€offer€was€a€good€offer€and€that€it€was€in€the€best€interest€of€the€petitioner€to€accept€it.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€post„conviction€court€obviously€did€not€believe€that€the€petitioner€overcame€the€burdenÐ ° Ðof€proving€that€her€trial€counselððs€conduct€fell€below€the€range€of€acceptable€professional€assistance.€Ð œì ÐSpecifically,€the€post„conviction€court€held€that€ð ðconsidering€all€of€the€facts,€all€of€the€circumstances,Ð ˆØ Ð[trial€counsel]€made€an€informed€and€calculated€strategic€decision€to€abandon€the€defense€that€[theÐ tÄ Ðpetitioner]€was€dominated€by€Mr.€Pate€€and€subject€to€mental€stresses.ðð€€We€agree.Ð `° ÐÓ  ÓòòóóÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner€also€sets€forth€in€her€argument€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€heÐ 8 ˆ Ðdid€not€notify€the€trial€court€of€the€summary€of€the€petitionerððs€intake€form€at€Cherokee€HealthÐ $ t ÐSystems.€€The€record€clearly€shows,€however,€that€the€trial€court€€was€aware€of€a€mental€examinationÐ  ` Ðthat€was€to€be€conducted,€and€had€notice€from€a€prior€hearing€of€possible€mental€deficiencies€thatÐ ü L  Ðmay€have€plagued€the€defendant.€€Further,€the€post„conviction€court€also€reviewed€the€intake€form,Ð è 8  Ðbut€obviously€concluded€that€the€notes€contained€therein€did€not€show€a€mental€defect€sufficient€toÐ Ô$  Ðrender€the€petitioner€incompetent€to€enter€a€guilty€plea.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àIt€is€well€established€that€this€court€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence,€nor€substituteÐ ˜è  Ðits€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€judge.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578„79€(Tenn.Ð „Ô  Ð1997);€òòMassey€v.€Stateóó,€929€S.W.2d€399,€403€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Absent€the€finding€ofÐ pÀ Ðevidence€that€preponderates€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings,€€we€may€not€disturb€theÐ \¬ Ðpost„conviction€courtððs€findings.€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€578.€€We€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€inÐ H˜ Ðthe€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€This€collateral€issue€isÐ 4„ Ðwithout€merit.€€€€€€€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€contends€in€her€argument€that€the€she€did€not€understand€the€guilty€pleaÐ øH Ðproceedings€because€she€was€under€the€influence€of€prescribed€drugs€at€the€time€of€the€guilty€pleaÐ ä4 Ðhearing.€€The€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€testified,€however,€that€the€petitioner€appeared€to€beÐ Ð  Ðcomprehensive€when€he€saw€her€the€day€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€Trial€counsel€also€testified€thatÐ ¼  Ðhe€believed€that€the€petitioner€knew€and€understood€what€she€was€doing€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€Ð ¨ø ЀÌà  àThe€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€was€introduced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€in€anÐ €Ð Ðeffort€to€show€that€the€petitioner€was€alert€and€understood€what€was€taking€place.€€The€transcriptÐ l¼ Ðshows€clear€and€concise€answers€given€by€the€petitioner€when€questions€were€posed€to€her€by€theÐ X ¨ Ðtrial€court.€€The€guilty€plea€transcript€fails€to€support€the€petitionerððs€contention€that€she€was€unawareÐ D!” Ðof€what€was€going€on€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing€and€that€she€was€confused.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€medication€log€used€by€the€department€of€corrections€was€also€introduced€into€evidenceÐ $X" Ðat€the€post„conviction€hearing€in€an€attempt€to€disprove€the€petitionerððs€contention€that€she€was€onÐ ô$D # Ðmedication€at€the€time€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€The€pages€from€the€medication€log€containingÐ à%0!$ Ðinformation€for€the€day€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€however,€were€not€found€in€the€log€that€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðintroduced€into€evidence.€€Based€upon€the€information€that€was€present€for€the€days€set€forth€in€theÐ ¸'#& Ðlog,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€it€was€not€likely€that€the€petitioner€was€on€medication€at€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtime€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€The€post„conviction€court€also€discounted€the€petitionerððs€contentionÐ )à$( Ðâ âthat€the€medication€that€she€was€on€caused€her€to€be€unable€to€understand€the€proceedings€at€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðguilty€plea€hearing,€noting€that€there€was€no€evidence€presented€at€the€hearing€concerning€the€effectsÐ ° Ðof€the€medication€that€the€petitioner€claimed€to€be€taking.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€see€no€reason€to€disturb€the€findings€of€the€post„convictionÐ tÄ Ðcourt.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð `° ÐòòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579;€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€€€€€€Ð L œ ÐÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÐ ü L  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€post„conviction€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petitionerððs€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÐ Ô$  Ðis€affirmed.Ð À  ÐÔ#†XOÙXXXOÙwC#ÔÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE