ÿWPCõ ˜Y†-ª©¢À7sõÁýý!Z…tì6}aœ-¥jtrÕ0• V¨XY—qAuÖó¾o¶-E`à…[Ä唸[öÙ­îâ $ã õrNLÒ¯.¸ªÒþ;!h-s${Ôdé ±OKÓ¾³[õrë;’–^m># VÕ^2–šMé¸]Å3–ÓΚifÛÿP‹K©¾ÃF\ßÕé”Ü v„¤qÊ9SÙ€úÆb5>+t¨ë‡¡Ï{ÞÊïu)¾5Ø¡Âǃìüom½3d!äœOOV•ÅJ¯°6ñ9-.®ÎŽ5”‰O±{’õíækѦ™ÐJ,«C÷'o\€Nkç¹PT2ÂÜΞ˜ŒµšOh4q× ¹ÂÓ%öï‰Öž®®­4±?û±‡ü¶Æn=ñÄ„:‚—ˆ±t+ô½jÔGûØpoجëˆÚÐþ‹p#±FÅ9~›ãöabjŒukwÏ+E*Ù&þ€Ø ׫X–_‹§n¿/¤g-oYTœÊ_éóÖÏ·¹¹è½¦…_¸… UG$ ÷£þ>‚ X®A|¯¼¤¬T^ÿ3ùs †Ô¸ê%ÿÜ4tŽÇó_Æö¬päØ:<žÍ¿+Mûûk=;Ÿ6”ƒ3%ìrBb %\^ b 0ˆnU&NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ ¹ 0DÐ Æ ÆÚ Æ  Æf U@, Nl ¯n #ÁEÞÞÞÞÞàààààààààààààààààààbèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèè 0ëðððð BÛÛ 0¤ø D5œ D-Ñ 0Kþþ ASIÆœ 0¤b 0D A«J»‡~?,s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¹b8,t®«k2¸Õ©3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  ¥Ý ƒRºÖ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·Eò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€petitionerððs€trial€in€April€1995€occurred€prior€to€the€General€Assemblyððs€revision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ° Ð40„35„201(b).€€The€current€version,€applying€only€to€trials€occurring€after€May€18,€1998,€states,€ð ðthe€judge€shall€notÐ tÄ Ðinstruct€the€jury,€nor€shall€the€attorneys€Ô_ÔbeÔ_Ô€permitted€to€comment€at€any€time€to€the€jury,€on€possible€penalties€for€theÐ 8ˆ Ðoffense€charged€nor€all€lesser„included€offenses.ðð€€òòSeeóó€1998€Public€Acts,€Chapter€1041.€€˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 - ù-(|G2ºÖ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·Eò»»Ô d(|3h$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3h$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼=»»»ÔÑ8€L!XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î,=ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼=»îî, #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€December€12,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XL!X»¼=ÔÌò òÔ#†¼=»XXL! #ÔHARRY€D.€Ô_ÔCLARDYÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XL!X»¼=Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Montgomery€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€40000044€€€€€€John€H.€Ô_ÔGasawayÔ_Ô,€III,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„01029„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€January€23,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€in€this€post„conviction€matter€was€originally€convicted€of€theft€of€property€overÐ xÈ  Ð$10,000€in€value,€a€Class€C€felony,€and€sentenced€to€15€years€imprisonment€as€a€Range€III€persistentÐ d´ Ðoffender.€€After€his€conviction€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal,€he€sought€post„conviction€relief€whichÐ P  Ðwas€denied€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€In€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€alleges€trial€counsel€wasÐ <Œ Ðineffective€for€failing€to€(1)€recommend€he€accept€the€stateððs€plea€offer,€and€(2)€challenge€anÐ (x Ðerroneous€jury€instruction€on€the€range€of€punishment.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€weÐ d Ðconclude€the€petitioner€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€based€upon€counsel's€failure€toÐ P Ðobject€to€the€erroneous€range€of€punishment€jury€charge€at€trial€and€failure€to€argue€the€error€onÐ ì< Ðdirect€appeal.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.Ð Ø( ÐÓëÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed;Ð ° ÐRemandedÔ#†¼=»XXL!›#ÔÔ‡XL!X»¼=Ôó óÐ œì ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼=»XXL!¬ #ÔÔ‡XL!X»¼=ÔòòJoe€G.€Riley,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó€and€òòJohnÐ tÄ ÐEverett€Williamsóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ô#†¼=»XXL! #ÔÔ‡XL!X»¼=ÔÐ `° ÐÔ#†¼=»XXL!9 #ÔÔ‡XL!X»¼=Ôà  àÌRobert€T.€Ô_ÔBatemanÔ_Ô,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Harry€D.€Ô_ÔClardyÔ_Ô.€€Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kim€R.€HelperÔ#†¼=»XXL! #ÔÔ‡XL!X»¼=Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€JohnÐ #`" ÐWesley€Ô_ÔCarneyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Arthur€F.€Ô_ÔBieberÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ü#L# ÐGeneral,€Ô#†¼=»XXL! #ÔÔ‡XL!X»¼=Ôfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ô#†¼=»XXL!ù #ÔÔ‡XL!X»¼=ÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÌÔ#†¼=»XXL!b#ÔÔ‡XL!X»¼=ÔÓä ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼=»XXL!º#ÔÔ‡XL!X»¼=ÔÐ ¬'ü"' ÐòòóóÔ#†¼=»XXL!#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XL!X»¼=Ôò òó óÌà  àUpon€petitionerððs€conviction€by€a€Montgomery€County€jury€of€Class€C€felony€theft€overÐ „)Ô$) Ð$10,000,€he€was€sentenced€to€15€years€as€a€Range€III€persistent€offender.€€Petitioner€conceded€he€hadÐ p*À%* Ðð ðprobably€60€to€70"€prior€felony€convictions.€€His€conviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed€by€thisÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âcourt€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harry€D.€Ô_ÔClardyÔ_Ôóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9710„CC„00457,€1998€WLÐ H,˜',ýÿ ÐÔ_Ô917803€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Dec.€22,€1998,€at€Nashville),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1999).€€HeÐ ° Ðtimely€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌÌà@ââ"ìàò òUNDERLYING€FACTSó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àWe€briefly€recite€the€facts€of€the€offense€as€garnered€from€our€opinion€in€the€direct€appeal.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐOn€October€25,€1994,€petitioner€was€seen€directing€a€tractor„trailer€truck€into€a€parking€lot€atÐ $ t ÐBellamy€Auction€in€Clarksville,€Tennessee.€€It€was€subsequently€determined€the€tractor„trailer€hadÐ  ` Ðbeen€stolen.€€There€was€testimony€indicating€the€trailer€itself€had€a€value€of€$7,000,€and€theÐ ü L  Ðmerchandise€in€it€was€valued€at€over€$47,000.€€Petitioner€had€earlier€tried€to€sell€the€merchandise€inÐ è 8  Ðthe€trailer.€€òòSeeóó€òòClardyóó,€1998€WL€917803,€at€*1„2.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAs€stated,€he€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€theft€over€$10,000,€a€Class€C€felony.€€In€addition,Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€jury€specified€the€total€value€of€the€stolen€property€was€$15,000.€€Due€to€the€petitionerððs€priorÐ ˜è  Ðconvictions,€he€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€III€persistent€offender€to€15€years.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌÌà@;;ìàò òPOST„CONVICTION€HEARINGó óˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àPrior€to€any€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€petitionerððs€counsel€argued€the€trialÐ  p Ðcourt€erroneously€instructed€the€jury€as€to€the€range€of€punishment€for€the€offense€of€theft€overÐ  \ Ð$10,000,€and€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€object.€€The€jury€charge,€as€contained€in€theÐ øH Ðtechnical€record,€reflects€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€only€as€to€the€range€of€punishment€for€aÐ ä4 Ðstandard€offender,€which€was€òò3€to€6€yearsóó,€rather€than€the€entire€range€of€òò10€to€15€yearsóó.€€It€wasÐ Ð  Ðundisputed€the€petitioner€was€subsequently€sentenced€by€the€trial€court€to€15€years€as€a€persistentÐ ¼  Ðoffender.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner's€trial€counsel€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€negotiated€a€pleaÐ €Ð Ðagreement€with€the€district€attorney's€office.€€He€had€some€uncertainty€as€to€the€exact€offer€since€hisÐ l¼ Ðfile€had€been€destroyed€by€a€tornado€that€struck€Clarksville.€€He€believed€the€agreement€was€for€sixÐ X ¨ Ðyears€but€did€not€dispute€that€it€was€for€four€years.€€He€further€stated€he€recommended€the€petitionerÐ D!” Ðaccept€the€plea€offer,€but€the€petitioner€chose€to€go€to€trial.€€Neither€the€state€nor€petitionerððs€counselÐ 0"€  Ðasked€him€why€he€made€no€objection€to€the€trial€courtððs€erroneous€jury€instruction€on€range€ofÐ #l! Ðpunishment.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€trial€counsel€advised€him€of€the€stateððs€four„year€offer,€but€counselÐ à%0!$ Ðimplicitly€recommended€he€proceed€to€trial.€€Petitioner€offered€no€testimony€concerning€the€rangeÐ Ì&"% Ðof€punishment€jury€instruction.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€found€trial€counsel€properly€conveyed€the€plea€offer€to€petitioner,Ð )à$( Ðwho€rejected€it.€€Although€the€post„conviction€court€conceded€error€with€the€range€of€punishmentÐ |*Ì%) Ðset€forth€in€the€jury€charge,€it€found€it€would€have€made€no€difference€in€the€juryððs€verdict€if€theÐ h+¸&* Ðproper€range€of€punishment€had€been€given.€€Thus,€the€post„conviction€court€found€trial€counsel€didÐ ° Ðnot€render€ineffective€assistance.€€Ð œì ÐÌÌà@  ìàò òINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€due€to€his€failure€to€(1)€recommendÐ 8 ˆ Ðacceptance€of€the€plea€offer,€and€(2)€object€to€and€raise€on€direct€appeal€the€erroneous€jury€instructionÐ $ t Ðconcerning€the€range€of€punishment.€€We€reject€petitionerððs€first€ground€for€relief,€but€we€must€agreeÐ  ` Ðthat€he€is€entitled€to€relief€on€the€second€ground.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌò òA.€€Standard€of€Reviewó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌÔ‡XL!XXXL!Ôà  àThe€trial€judge's€findings€of€fact€on€post„conviction€hearings€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unlessÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€This€courtÐ ˜è  Ðmay€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence,€nor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trialÐ „Ô  Ðjudge.€€òòState€v.€Honeycuttóó,€54€S.W.3d€762,€766€(Tenn.€2001)òòóó.€€However,€the€trial€courtððs€conclusionsÐ pÀ Ðof€law€are€reviewed€under€a€purely€òòde€novoóó€standard€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòFields€v.Ð \¬ ÐStateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).€€Ô#†XL!XXXL!Þ"#ÔÐ H˜ ÐÌò òB.€€Standards€Relating€to€Effective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÐ  p ÐÌÔ‡XL!XXXL!Ôà  àThis€court€reviews€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€the€standards€ofÐ øH ÐòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€€The€petitionerÐ ä4 Ðhas€the€burden€to€prove€that€(1)€the€attorneyððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€(2)€the€deficientÐ Ð  Ðperformance€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€petitioner€so€as€to€deprive€him€of€a€fair€trial.€€òòStricklandóó,€466Ð ¼  ÐU.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,Ð ¨ø Ð789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€In€order€to€establish€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€establish€aÐ ”ä Ðð ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÐ €Ð Ðwould€have€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermineÐ l¼ Ðconfidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€The€test€in€TennesseeÐ X ¨ Ðto€determine€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€is€whether€his€or€her€performance€wasÐ D!” Ðwithin€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Ð #l! ÐÌÔ#†XL!XXXL!6&#Ôò òC.€€Plea€Offeró óÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€testified€he€recommended€the€petitioner€acceptÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€plea€agreement.€€The€post„conviction€court€implicitly€accredited€counsel's€testimony€regardingÐ ¸'#& Ðthis€issue€and€discredited€the€petitioner's€testimony.€€Ô‡XL!XXXL!ÔThe€trial€court,€not€this€court,€determines€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcredibility€of€witnesses.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð )à$( ÐÌò òÐ h+¸&* ÐD.€€Erroneous€Jury€Instructionó óÐ ° ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€of€this€jury€trial,€the€trial€court€was€required€to€instruct€the€jury€on€the€range€ofÐ ˆØ Ðpunishment€if€requested€to€do€so.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)€(Supp.€1994)€(repealedÐ tÄ Ð1998).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€is€uncontested€that€the€trial€court€submitted€an€erroneous€jury€instruction€concerning€theÐ `° Ðrange€of€punishment.€€Ô#†XL!XXXL!L-#ÔThe€jury€instructions€are€preserved€in€the€technical€record€and€contained€theÐ L œ Ðfollowing€range€of€punishment€instruction:€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà@!ìàRange€of€PunishmentˆÐ  ` ÐÒ° 1ÒÒ°1Òà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€jury€will€not€attempt€to€fix€any€punishment€or€sentence€atÐ ü L  Ðthis€time.€€However,€for€your€information€only,€you€are€informed€thatÐ è 8  Ðthe€ranges€of€punishment€as€to€the€crimes€involved€herein€are€asÐ Ô$  Ðfollows:€€ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àòòTheft€of€Property€over€$10,000€but€less€than€$60,000óó€ð!ð€NotÐ ˜è  Ðless€than€three€(3)€nor€more€than€six€(6)€years€incarceration€and€a€fineÐ „Ô  Ðnot€to€exceed€$10,000.€€ÐpÀ` x` x Ðà  àà ` à.€.€.€.€Ð \¬ ÐÌThis€range€of€punishment€instruction€of€3€to€6€years€is€the€sentencing€range€only€for€a€Range€IÐ 4„ Ðstandard€offender.€€The€petitioner,€however,€was€subsequently€classified€at€sentencing€as€a€RangeÐ  p ÐIII€persistent€offender€and€was€subject€to€a€sentencing€range€of€10€to€15€years.€€He€was€sentenced€toÐ  \ Ðthe€maximum€sentence€of€15€years.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€precise€issue€for€our€review€is€whether€counselððs€failure€to€preserve€as€error€thisÐ Ð  Ðimproper€range€of€punishment€instruction€constituted€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€if€so,Ð ¼  Ðwhether€it€can€be€attacked€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€has€recently€addressed€this€issue€in€òòDean€v.€Stateóó,€__€S.W.3d€__,€2001Ð €Ð ÐWL€1328491€(Tenn.€Oct.€30,€2001,€at€Knoxville).€€In€deference€to€the€post„conviction€court,€we€noteÐ l¼ Ðthe€òòDeanóó€opinion€was€not€filed€until€after€the€post„conviction€courtððs€disposition.€€In€òòDeanóó,€the€trialÐ X ¨ Ðcourt,€without€objection,€improperly€instructed€the€jury€the€sentencing€range€for€attempted€secondÐ D!” Ðdegree€murder€was€3€to€10€years,€whereas€the€proper€range€was€8€to€30€years.€€òòId.óó€at€*5.€€The€juryÐ 0"€  Ðconvicted€Dean€of€attempted€second€degree€murder,€and€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€to€15€yearsÐ #l! Ðwhich€was€ð ða€sentence€greater€than€the€punishment€contemplated€by€the€jury€for€that€offense.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð $X" ÐIn€the€appeal€from€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€our€supreme€court€concluded€the€petitioner€wasÐ ô$D # Ðprejudiced€by€trial€counselððs€deficient€performance€in€failing€to€object€and€granted€post„convictionÐ à%0!$ Ðrelief.€€Ð Ì&"% Їà  àThe€instant€case€is€controlled€by€òòDeanóó.€€The€jury€convicted€the€petitioner€of€theft€of€propertyÐ ° Ðand,€for€whatever€reason,€specifically€found€its€value€to€be€$15,000,€which€was€far€less€than€theÐ œì Ð$54,000€shown€by€the€stateððs€proof.€€The€jury€was€erroneously€instructed€that€the€range€ofÐ ˆØ Ðpunishment€was€3€to€6€years€for€this€offense.€€Trial€counsel€neglected€to€object€to€this€erroneousÐ tÄ Ðinstruction€at€trial,€and€it€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€petitioner€toÐ `° Ð15€years€imprisonment€as€a€Range€III€persistent€offender,€almost€three€times€greater€than€thatÐ L œ Ðcontemplated€by€the€jury.€€We€conclude€it€was€reasonably€probable€that€had€counsel€objected€to€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðappealed€the€erroneous€jury€instruction,€the€result€would€have€been€different.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€816Ð $ t ÐS.W.2d€322,€326€(Tenn.€1991)€(holding€erroneous€jury€instruction€on€range€of€punishment€was€plainÐ  ` Ðerror€requiring€new€trial€on€issue€of€guilt€or€innocence).€€Accordingly,€the€petitioner€was€prejudicedÐ ü L  Ðby€his€trial€counselððs€deficient€performance€and€is€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àBased€on€the€above€analysis,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€andÐ „Ô  Ðremand€for€a€new€trial.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE