WPC }6;^ʱiXrvEDh (sS0 _Q&wF܃chs."aOXA2Z 5twLmg_yT(;g!3_ު)Cv) Wj pܝ]:)cC9x\ c$lS9> i VPK3Vfp݄$F4r*F`Wd@tů5; mb;l"eyW6|u7#o0ћN<b#\ % 0D# 0g UN ^ = zI  w 4   KN mU@Eb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K ASY 0r 0D AZHP LaserJet 5/5M PostScript0(#$  0  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularn(  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptg(Tk13|x  RY$      1  Xy4X  _ԀX7XXXy4Thepetitionerwasoriginallychargedwithseven(7)feloniesandone(1)misdemeanor.  Theagreementrequiredthepetitionertopleadguiltytothree(3)feloniesatahighersentencing  rangethanthatforwhichhequalified.Althoughhewasoriginallychargedwithtwo(2)countsof  aggravatedkidnapping,aspartofthepleaagreement,thepetitionerwasallowedtopleadtotwo(2) v countsofthelesseroffenseofkidnapping.#Xy4XXX7#ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U(9 Z(Times New Roman - -(|G2Y$ !..8Ld d 8         0  XqX d(|3$ !..8Ld d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !..8Ld d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 Td d8     _ T@HHINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE   Xy4X T # TXXy43#  CHARLESD.BURTONv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXy4X T   y@  CriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty   @$No.97C1572   @*AV) ` dE<Q ` A߈ R   @No.M199901400CCAR3PC K  AV) ` dE<` A o   # TXXy4#Xy4X T@( ORDER # TXXy4#Xy4X TԈ h  # TXXy4 #Xy4X T# TXXy4k#Xy4X TX7XXXy4Thepetitioner,CharlesD.Burton,appealstheorderoftheDavidsonCountyCriminalCourtdenying & hispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.InMarchof1998,thepetitionerpledguiltytotwo(2)counts  of_kidnapping_Ԁandone(1)countofaggravatedassaultandwassentencedasaCareerOffenderto  consecutivetermsoffive(5)yearsforeachcount.Subsequently,thepetitionerfiledthepresent  petitionforpostconvictionrelief,alleging,interalia,thattrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailing  toinformhimthathissentenceswouldrunconsecutivelyandforfailingtoexplaintohimthe r differencebetweenconcurrentandconsecutivesentences.Afteranevidentiaryhearing,thetrial ^ courtdeniedthepetition.AfterathoroughreviewoftherecordbeforethisCourt,weaffirmthetrial J courtsjudgmentpursuanttoRule20oftheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppeals. 6   Thepetitionercontendsthattrialcounselwasineffectiveinthatcounselfailedtoinformhim "r thathissentenceswouldbeservedconsecutivelyforaneffectivesentenceoffifteen(15)years.He ^ furtherassertsthattrialcounselfailedtoexplaintohimthedifferencebetweenconcurrentsentences J andconsecutivesentences.Inthisregard,thepetitionertestifiedatthepostconvictionhearing, Ive 6 learnedofthetermconcurrentversusconsecutive,whichtheterms[sic]concurrentwasnever " broughtupinthe11monthsthatwespokeorthatItalkedto[counsel],becauseIwoulddefinitely    haveaskedforasentencetorunconcurrentratherthanconsecutive.  !!   ThisCourtreviewsaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselunderthestandardsofBaxter "" v.Rose,523S.W.2d930(Tenn.1975),and_Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668,104_S.Ct_.2052, ## 80_L.Ed_.2d674(1984).Thepetitionerhastheburdentodemonstratethat(1)hisattorneys n$$ performancewasdeficient,and(2)thedeficientperformanceresultedinprejudicetothedefendant Z% % soastodeprivehimofafairtrial._Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.at687,104_S.Ct_.at2064; F&!& Goadv.State,938S.W.2d363,369(Tenn.1996).InHillv._Lockhart_,474U.S.52,106_S.Ct_.366, 2'"' 88_L.Ed_.2d203(1985),theSupremeCourtappliedthetwo-part_Strickland_standardtoineffective (n#( assistanceofcounselclaimsarisingoutofaguiltyplea.UnderHill,apetitionerisrequiredtoshow  )Z$) thatthereisareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselserrors,hewouldnothavepledguiltyand )F%* wouldhaveinsistedongoingtotrial.474U.S.at59,106_S.Ct_.at370. *2&+   Thetrialcourtdeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnotcarriedhisburdenofprooftoestablish +', thattrialcounselwasineffectiveunderthestandardsofBaxterand_Strickland_.Weagree.Clearly, , (- theevidenceintherecorddoesnotindicatethat butforcounselsallegedfailuretoinformthe -(. petitionerregardingthemeaningofconcurrentsentences,thepetitionerwouldnothavepledguilty  andwouldhaveinsistedongoingtotrial.Evenassumingthatthepetitionerwasunawareofthe  distinctionbetweenconcurrentversusconsecutivesentencingatthetimeofhisplea,thepetitioners  owntestimonyatthepostconvictionhearingmerelyestablishesthathadheknownthedifference, t he woulddefinitelyhaveaskedforashortersentence.However,thereisnoshowingintherecord ` thatthestatewouldhaveagreedtoashortersentenceuponthepetitionersguiltyplea.Indeed,trial L  counseltestifiedatthepostconvictionhearingthatthestatespleaofferresteduponthepetitioner 8  servingafifteen(15)yearsentence.  #  1      ׀Moreover,thetranscriptoftheguiltypleahearingdemonstrates $ t thatthepetitionerfullyunderstoodthathewouldbereceivinganeffectivesentenceoffifteen(15)  ` yearsforhisconvictions.  L    Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthat,butforcounselsallegeddeficientperformance,he  8  wouldnothavepledguiltyandwouldhaveinsistedongoingtotrial.Thus,therecordsupportsthe $  trialcourtsdeterminationthatthepetitionerhasnotshownbyclearandconvincingevidencethat   hereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt   pursuanttoRule20oftheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppeals.Costsoftheappealwillbepaid   bytheStateofTennesseeasitappearsthatthepetitionerisindigent.#l! XX7ͮ#X7X l!      `     h     ____________________________________ 4    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE  p    `     h     ____________________________________      `     h     JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE      `     h     ____________________________________ l    `     h     ROBERTW._WEDEMEYER_,_JUDGE_