ÿWPCï #ÕŠž£í«Ò¸ºªŠ6xA›zsC¤.–´2ÕXI;ß󮎅ÑVÚæðjÙRÍAL”Î6¶’•¸aÇÇÃ9Ôþ ô4Ò¶¯Þˆ­|Ôð'•Ýtcj:G'µkšÂÕôs.}Qs,ô›¨nÇûpRÚûªž·1c.iKuyå¬]ÄôEh*"ƒnÇãÿæç-*»=ü¸!šò\9 Z° ”f¦Q~­…Äçû‡°QCtEÛØ±ì)@£pP½ïñ–ˆç AñËJ{BÈgf†#T3+O·Cæ®§)»³N´ã‚Ú‹ºHÕüƒ3ƒŠÐÓüó—ÇnL9 ,/9!÷·›þþjqëd\Ík2{×;©…cLFbn*¸_C}(SSõßVGP°ñaFFd²ªè]™ÿCy~ýÑ6ZªPà®XWïŸÍ˜ö'ÝÖÍ~û¹ö«…Zvß-`Lç¿(*ÄÌ¢o°˜Q>: Ê}Â$§ª`o5?ÇuÒS3®²Ä@yÏ(h.z»»8«2O+‘¬§"Sæódºƒ |É@—К æÄÝ¡?Ù7Š(£³ì†¹ùýp9[í¼®ÿ ¬V»—uié…ŒªÖ½ÀIÿqÉ­,R#ZôïA¹]Ÿëb#Á\ % AŸ# 0ˆÂ UNJ ^ ˜ w¤ z¨ Ò" " 4ô   Æ Æß Æ¥ Æk m1NHU@JU!NŠEØÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚbââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 0ëêêêê BÕÕ 0¤ò D5– D-Ë 0Køø ASCÆ– 0¤\ 0D A«D˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»X[Z‘ I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular™nS+â  ˜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.wptòK+ð £3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman (ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular - ù-(|G2žÈ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kì»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô6 ò»»Ô d(|3N$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kì»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3N$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Kì»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€_,»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼­i»»»ÔÑ8€1ìXXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î¤x­iÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼­i»îî¤x #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€September€25,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡Xæ%X»¼­iÔÌò òÔ#†¼­i»XXæ% #ÔJAMAL€COOPERòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡Xæ%X»¼­iÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„B„1069€€€€€€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00593„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€October€17,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€from€his€conviction€for€voluntaryÐ xÈ  Ðmanslaughter,€alleging€that€his€guilty€plea€was€involuntary€and€that€he€was€denied€the€effectiveÐ d´ Ðassistance€of€trial€counsel.€€€Following€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€dismissedÐ P  Ðthe€petition.€€In€a€timely€appeal€to€this€court,€the€petitioner€raises€the€issue€of€whether€the€post„Ð <Œ Ðconviction€court€erred€in€finding€that€he€received€the€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€After€aÐ (x Ðcareful€review,€we€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€€Ð d ÐÔ#†¼­i»XXæ%y#ÔÔ‡Xæ%X»¼­iÔÓ©ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼­i»àXæ%—#ÔÔ‡Xæ%X.¼­iÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó€and€òòJoe€G.Ð Ä ÐRiley,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌMike€Anderson,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Jamal€Cooper.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€VictorÐ `° ÐS.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Dan€Hamm,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€forÐ L œ Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓ4ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼­i»XXæ%c#ÔÔ‡Xæ%X»¼­iÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼­i»XXæ%ú #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xæ%X»¼­iÔà  àThe€petitioner,€Jamal€Cooper,€was€indicted€on€counts€of€first€degree€premeditated€murder,Ð è$8 $ Ðfelony€murder,€aggravated€robbery,€and€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€On€February€28,€2000,Ð Ô%$!% Ðhe€entered€a€guilty€plea€to€voluntary€manslaughter€as€a€lesser„included€offense€of€the€first€degreeÐ À&"& Ðpremeditated€murder€charge.€€As€part€of€the€plea€agreement,€the€State€agreed€to€dismiss€theÐ ¬'ü"' Ðremaining€counts€of€the€indictment,€as€well€as€a€separate€drug€charge€pending€against€the€petitioner,Ð ˜(è#( Ðand€the€petitioner€agreed€to€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€III€offender€to€fifteen€years€at€45%.€Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àDuring€the€guilty€plea€proceeding,€the€prosecutor€advised€the€trial€court€that€if€the€case€hadÐ \+¬&+ Ðgone€to€trial,€the€State€intended€to€present€proof€that€in€the€late€evening€and/or€early€morning€hoursÐ H,˜', Ðof€November€22„23,€1997,€the€victim,€riding€in€his€pickup€truck€with€three€acquaintances,Ð 4-„(-ý Ðapproached€the€petitioner€and€a€codefendant,€Kelvin€Jackson,€who€were€in€a€car€in€the€parking€lotÐ ° Ðof€a€Nashville€restaurant.€€The€victim,€who€had€earlier€arranged€to€buy€drugs€from€the€petitioner€andÐ œì ÐJackson,€wanted€to€tell€the€men€that€he€had€already€gotten€the€drugs€elsewhere.€€The€conversationÐ ˆØ Ðbecame€heated,€and€the€petitioner€and€Jackson€beat€the€victim€until€he€was€almost€unconscious,Ð tÄ Ðbefore€placing€him€in€the€trunk€of€their€vehicle.€€They€then€drove€to€a€house€on€Whiteððs€Creek€PikeÐ `° Ðto€retrieve€a€rifle€and€some€gasoline,€with€one€of€them€driving€the€vehicle€with€the€victim€inside€theÐ L œ Ðtrunk,€and€the€other€driving€the€victimððs€pickup€truck,€with€his€three€acquaintances€inside.€€In€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðwooded€area€behind€the€house,€the€petitioner€and€Jackson€beat€the€victim€again,€shot€him,€placed€himÐ $ t Ðin€his€truck,€doused€the€truck€with€gasoline,€and€set€it€afire.€€€The€burned„out€truck,€with€the€victimððsÐ  ` Ðremains€inside,€was€discovered€approximately€eleven€months€later.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€June€8,€2000,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€OnÐ Ô$  ÐSeptember€15,€2000,€with€the€assistance€of€counsel,€he€filed€an€amended€petition,€alleging€that€his€Ð À  Ðtrial€counsel€was€ineffective,€òòinter€aliaóó,€for€failing€to€inform€him€that€the€Stateððs€witnesses,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðvictimððs€companions€in€the€pickup€truck,€could€be€considered€as€accomplices,€whose€testimony€hadÐ ˜è  Ðto€be€corroborated€in€order€for€him€to€be€convicted€of€the€crimes.€€The€petitioner€further€alleged€thatÐ „Ô  Ðhis€guilty€plea€was€involuntary€because€his€mother€and€his€trial€counsel€pressured€him€into€pleadingÐ pÀ Ðguilty.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAt€his€December€13,€2000,€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€his€grandfatherÐ 4„ Ðhad€died€four€days€before€he€entered€his€plea;€for€that€reason,€he€felt€that€he€had€not€been€in€ð ðtheÐ  p Ðright€mind€to€make€a€sound€decision.ðð€€His€trial€counsel€told€him€that€he€would€receive€a€lifeÐ  \ Ðsentence€if€he€did€not€accept€the€Stateððs€offer.€€He€refused€to€sign€the€plea€agreement€when€counselÐ øH Ðfirst€brought€it€to€him,€however.€€Trial€counsel€then€went€to€get€his€mother,€who€begged€him€to€signÐ ä4 Ðthe€plea€agreement€documents.€€Although€he€still€had€not€wanted€to€sign,€he€finally€succumbed€toÐ Ð  Ðthe€pressure€of€his€mother€and€trial€counsel€to€do€so.€€The€petitioner€said€that€trial€counsel€neverÐ ¼  Ðtalked€with€him€about€what€the€State€needed€to€prove€in€order€to€obtain€convictions,€and€did€not€tellÐ ¨ø Ðhim€that€the€Stateððs€witnesses€could€be€considered€as€accomplices.€€Had€he€known€that€ð ðby€law€[he]Ð ”ä Ðcouldnððt€sustain€a€conviction,ðð€the€petitioner€said€he€would€not€have€signed€the€plea€agreement€andÐ €Ð Ðpled€guilty.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€acknowledged€that€he€told€the€trial€court,€under€oath€atÐ D!” Ðhis€guilty€plea€hearing,€that€he€had€not€been€placed€under€any€pressure€to€plead€guilty,€and€that€heÐ 0"€  Ðwas€entering€his€plea€knowingly€and€voluntarily.€€Further,€he€admitted€that€the€only€pressure€exertedÐ #l! Ðby€trial€counsel€consisted€of€counselððs€urging€that€he€accept€the€plea€in€order€to€avoid€a€life€sentence.€Ð $X" ÐHe€also€admitted€that,€as€part€of€the€plea€bargain€agreement,€the€State€had€dismissed€a€separate€drugÐ ô$D # Ðcharge€that€was€pending€against€him,€for€which€he€could€have€received€a€sentence€of€twelve€years.€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€mother,€Wanda€Key,€testified€that€on€the€day€that€the€petitioner€entered€hisÐ ¸'#& Ðplea,€she€and€trial€counsel€went€to€her€sonððs€holding€cell€and€talked€with€him€for€about€fifteenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðminutes€about€signing€the€plea€agreement.€€Key€said€that€trial€counsel€encouraged€her€son€to€pleadÐ )à$( Ðguilty.€€She€said€that€she€also€encouraged€him€to€plead€guilty,€and€that€she€thought€she€might€haveÐ |*Ì%) Ðð ðcoerced€him€a€little€bitðð€into€signing€the€agreement.€€She€admitted,€however,€that€she€thought€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€agreement€was€in€her€sonððs€best€interest,€given€his€options€at€the€time.€€She€acknowledged€thatÐ ° Ðtrial€counsel€hired€a€team€of€investigators€to€investigate€her€sonððs€case;€that€she€talked€to€themÐ œì Ðð ðfrequently,ðð€in€at€least€the€week€before€her€son€had€pled€guilty;€that€trial€counsel€stayed€in€contactÐ ˆØ Ðwith€her€and€her€family€during€that€time;€that€the€State€had€witnesses€prepared€to€testify€that€her€sonÐ tÄ Ðcommitted€the€murder;€and€that€he€faced€a€possible€life€sentence€if€convicted€of€the€crime.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€he€had€been€practicing€law€since€1982.€€He€worked€for€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐKentucky€Public€Advocacy€Office€from€1982€to€1986,€and€was€with€the€Metro€Public€DefenderððsÐ $ t ÐOffice€from€1986€to€1991.€€From€1991€until€the€time€of€the€hearing,€he€had€been€in€the€privateÐ  ` Ðpractice€of€law,€concentrating€predominantly€on€criminal€cases.€€Members€of€his€firm€wereÐ ü L  Ðconsidered€experts€in€the€field€of€criminal€law,€and€he€had€consulted€with€them€on€the€petitionerððsÐ è 8  Ðcase.€€He€said€that€the€State€characterized€the€three€witnesses€to€the€murder€as€victims,€who€had€actedÐ Ô$  Ðunder€duress,€rather€than€as€accomplices.€€He€had€hired€a€three„person€investigative€team,€whoÐ À  Ðthoroughly€investigated€and€researched€the€case.€€Based€on€their€investigation,€and€a€thorough€reviewÐ ¬ü  Ðof€the€Stateððs€evidence€in€the€case,€he€and€his€colleagues€concluded€that€whether€or€not€theseÐ ˜è  Ðwitnesses€were€accomplices€was€not€a€question€of€law,€but€instead€would€be€a€question€of€fact€forÐ „Ô  Ðthe€jury€to€determine.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€the€State€had€forensic€pathological€evidence€in€the€case,€as€wellÐ H˜ Ðas€the€testimony€of€the€three€witnesses€who€alleged€they€had€witnessed€the€petitioner€and€hisÐ 4„ Ðcodefendant€kidnap,€rob,€and€murder€the€victim.€€He€also€learned€that€the€codefendant€was€preparedÐ  p Ðto€testify€that€he€and€the€petitioner€had€been€together€with€a€gun,€that€they€had€held€the€witnessesÐ  \ Ðunder€duress,€and€that€he€was€not€sure€which€one€of€them€had€actually€shot€the€victim.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€said€that€the€petitioner€maintained,€up€until€the€week€before€trial,€that€he€hadÐ Ð  Ðnot€been€present€and€had€not€known€about€the€crime.€€Trial€counsel€had€thought€that€they€had€aÐ ¼  Ðstrong€case€for€trial.€€His€defense€strategy€was€to€attack€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses€and€to€presentÐ ¨ø Ða€quasi„alibi,€in€the€form€of€testimony€by€the€petitionerððs€girlfriend€that€the€petitionerððs€usual€routineÐ ”ä Ðwas€to€spend€Saturday€night€at€her€house,€and€then€to€attend€church€with€her€on€Sunday€morning.€Ð €Ð ÐA€week€before€trial,€however,€the€petitioner€changed€his€story,€first€admitting€to€trial€counsel€thatÐ l¼ Ðhe€had€been€involved€and€had€fired€two€shots€at€the€victim,€one€which€hit€his€finger€and€one€whichÐ X ¨ Ðmissed;€and€then€later€stating€that€his€only€role€was€to€provide€the€gun€and€to€help€dispose€of€theÐ D!” Ðbody.€€Trial€counsel€explained€that,€based€on€these€events€that€transpired€in€the€week€before€trial,€heÐ 0"€  Ðstrongly€recommended€that€the€petitioner€accept€the€plea€bargain,€as€being€in€his€best€interest.€€HeÐ #l! Ðthought€that€the€facts€in€the€case€made€for€an€either„or€situation,€in€which€the€jury€would€eitherÐ $X" Ðconvict€the€petitioner€of€first€degree€murder,€or€acquit€him€of€the€crimes.€€There€was€ð ðno€questionððÐ ô$D # Ðin€trial€counselððs€mind€that€both€sides€compromised€in€order€to€reach€a€settlement€in€the€case.€€HadÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€case€gone€to€trial€and€the€State€won€a€conviction,€the€petitioner€faced€a€life€sentence,€with€fifty„Ð Ì&"% Ðone€years€in€prison€before€he€would€have€been€eligible€for€parole.€€Trial€counsel€said€that€he€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðthoroughly€prepared€to€go€to€trial€at€the€time€that€the€petitioner€entered€his€plea€of€guilty,€and€did€notÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbelieve€that€he€had€left€undone€anything€that€should€have€been€done€in€the€case.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€the€petitioner€did€not€express€any€hesitation€about€accepting€theÐ ° Ðâ âStateððs€offer€when€he€first€presented€it€to€him,€but€that€on€the€day€that€he€was€to€enter€the€plea,€thereÐ œì Ðhad€been€ð ðgreat€reluctance€on€his€part€about€whether€to€go€forward€with€taking€the€plea.ðð€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðpetitioner€ultimately€decided€to€sign€the€plea€agreement€documents,€however,€and€did€not€hesitateÐ tÄ Ðat€all€during€his€colloquy€with€the€court€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing.Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€December€18,€2000,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€an€order€denying€the€petition.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt€found€that€trial€counsel€ð ðperformed€conscientiously€in€his€representation€of€the€petitioner,ðð€andÐ $ t Ðwas€a€ð ðvery€competent€criminal€defense€attorney€whose€representation€of€petitioner€was€well€withinÐ  ` Ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€criminal€defense€attorneys.ðð€€The€court€further€found€that€theÐ ü L  Ðpetitioner€was€sufficiently€advised€of€his€constitutional€rights,€and€voluntarily€and€knowingly€enteredÐ è 8  Ðinto€his€guilty€plea,€after€fully€discussing€the€options€available€to€him€with€his€family€and€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcounsel.€€Thereafter,€the€petitioner€filed€a€timely€appeal€to€this€court.Ð À  ЀÌà@òò&ìàòòò òANALYSISó óóóˆÐ ˜è  ÐÒe°ÒÌà  àThe€sole€issue€raised€by€the€petitioner€on€appeal€is€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€inÐ pÀ Ðfinding€that€he€received€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€Theò òó ó€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€theÐ \¬ Ðburden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„Ð H˜ Ð210(f)€(1997).€€When€an€evidentiary€hearing€is€held€in€the€post„conviction€setting,€the€findings€of€factÐ 4„ Ðmade€by€the€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€againstÐ  p Ðthose€findings.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,Ð  \ Ð500€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€post„conviction€courtððs€conclusions€of€law,€however,€are€reviewed€purely€òòdeóóÐ øH Ðòònovoóó.€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.€€The€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€presents€mixedÐ ä4 Ðquestions€of€law€and€fact€and€is€therefore€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€givenÐ Ð  Ðto€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001);Ð ¼  ÐòòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€determine€the€competence€of€counsel,€Tennessee€courts€have€applied€standardsÐ €Ð Ðdeveloped€in€federal€case€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)òòóóÐ l¼ Ð(noting€that€the€same€standard€for€determining€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€is€applied€inÐ X ¨ Ðfederal€cases€also€applies€in€Tennessee).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,Ð D!” Ðthe€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€both€that€his€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€thatÐ 0"€  Ðcounselððs€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€outcome€of€the€proceeding.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.Ð #l! ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€€The€òòStricklandóóÐ $X" Ðstandard€is€a€two„prong€test:€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àà8` !!àFirst,€the€defendant€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðdeficient.€€This€requires€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€seriousÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Second,€the€defendant€must€showÐ )à$( Ðâ âthat€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€This€requiresÐ |*Ì%) Ðshowing€that€counselððs€errors€were€so€serious€as€to€deprive€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€result€is€reliable.Мì` Ã` à Ðâ âÌòòId.óó€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.Ô‡X1ìXXXæ%ԀРtÄ ÐÌà  àThe€deficient€performance€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€that€ð ðcounselððs€acts€orÐ L œ Ðomissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailingÐ 6 † Ðprofessional€norms.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð  p Ðat€688,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065,€and€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975)).€€When€analyzingÐ  Z Ða€petitionerððs€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€court€must€indulge€in€a€strongÐ ô D  Ðpresumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€fell€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance,Ð Þ .  Ðòòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€not€second„guess€the€tactical€andÐ È  Ðstrategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€they€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequateÐ ²  Ðpreparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ì­D#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%ԀРœì  ÐÌà  àThe€prejudice€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€a€ð ðreasonable€probabilityðð€that€theÐ pÀ  Ðoutcome€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different€had€it€not€been€for€deficiencies€in€counselððsÐ Zª Ðperformance.€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€When€a€petitionerððs€ineffectiveÐ D” Ðassistance€claim€is€made€in€the€context€of€a€conviction€stemming€from€a€guilty€plea,€he€must€proveÐ .~ Ða€reasonable€probability€that€were€it€not€for€deficiencies€in€his€counselððs€performance,€he€would€notÐ h Ðhave€pled€guilty,€but€instead€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòShazel€v.€Stateóó,€966€S.W.2dÐ R Ð414,€416€(Tenn.€1998)€(citing€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€370„71,€88€L.€Ed.€2dÐ ì< Ð203€(1985)).Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ì3I#Ô€€ð ðIn€cases€involving€a€guilty€plea€or€plea€of€nolo€contendere,€the€petitioner€must€showÐ Ö& Ðððprejudiceðð€by€demonstrating€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€he€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€butÐ Ä Ðwould€have€insisted€upon€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€246€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ð ° Ðòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998)€(citing€òòHillóó,€474€U.S.€at€59,€106€S.€Ct.€at€370,€and€òòBankston€v.Ð œì ÐStateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)).€òòóóÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòóóÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%Ôà  àCourts€need€not€approach€the€òòStricklandóó€test€in€a€specific€order€or€even€ð ðaddress€bothÐ `° Ðcomponents€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€on€one.ðð€€466€U.S.€at€697,Ð Jš Ð104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370€(stating€that€ð ðfailure€to€prove€either€deficiencyÐ 4 „ Ðor€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffective€assistance€claimðð).Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ìZO#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%Ô€€òòóóÐ !n ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€petitioner€bases€his€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€on€trial€counselððs€allegedÐ ò"B! Ðfailure€to€inform€him€of€the€law€regarding€accomplice€testimony.€€He€asserts€that€had€trial€counselÐ Ü#," Ðinformed€him€that€the€Stateððs€witnesses€could€be€considered€as€accomplices,€and€that€he€could€not€beÐ Æ$ # Ðconvicted€on€their€testimony€alone,€he€would€not€have€entered€his€plea€of€guilty,€but€instead€wouldÐ °%!$ Ðhave€insisted€on€going€to€trial.Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ì‚Q#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%Ôò òó óòòóó€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€there€is€no€meritÐ š&ê!% Ðto€the€petitionerððs€claim.€à  àÔ#†Xæ%XXX1ìðS#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%Ôà@*àò òó óˆÐ „'Ô"& ÐÌà  àÔ#†Xæ%XXX1ìÇT#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%ÔA€criminal€defendant€in€Tennessee€cannot€be€convicted€solely€on€the€uncorroboratedÐ X)¨$( Ðtestimony€of€an€accomplice.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€An€accomplice€isÐ B*’%) Ðdefined€as€one€who€ð ðknowingly,€voluntarily,€and€with€common€intent€participates€with€the€principalÐ ,+|&* Ðoffender€in€the€commission€of€the€crime€alleged€in€the€charging€instrument.ðð€€òòState€v.€Griffisóó,€964Ð ,f'+ ÐS.W.2d€577,€588€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€The€test€for€determining€whether€a€witness€is€anÐ ° Ðaccomplice€is€whether€the€witness€could€be€indicted€for€the€same€offense€as€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ šê Ðv.€Green,óó€915€S.W.2d€827,€831€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€794€S.W.2d€363,€369Ð „Ô Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ìDU#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%Ôòòóó.Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ìæX#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%Ô€€If€the€evidence€shows€that€a€witnessððs€participation€in€the€crime€was€theÐ n¾ Ðresult€of€€force,€coercion,€duress,€or€undue€influence,€then€the€witness€is€not€an€accomplice.€€òòGreenóó,Ð X¨ Ð915€S.W.2d€at€831Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ì/Y#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%Ôòòóó€(citing€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€53€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972)).€Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ìfZ#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%ԀРB ’ ÐÌà  àWhen€the€evidence€is€clear€and€undisputed€that€a€witness€participated€in€the€crime,€then€theÐ  f Ðtrial€court€must€declare€the€witness€to€be€an€accomplice€as€a€matter€of€law,€and€instruct€the€jury€thatÐ  P Ðthe€witnessððs€testimony€must€be€corroborated.€€òòLawsonóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€369.òòóó€€On€the€other€hand,€whenÐ ê :  Ðthe€evidence€is€unclear,€it€becomes€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€to€determine€whether€the€witnessÐ Ô $  Ðis€an€accomplice,€and,€if€so,€whether€there€is€corroborating€evidence€to€support€the€witnessððs€Ð ¾  Ðtestimony.€€òòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòGreenóó,€915€S.W.2d€at€831„32.€€ð ðWhere€the€facts€raise€a€sufficient€question€ofÐ ¨ø  Ðduress€or€necessity€that€were€the€alleged€accomplice€on€trial,€the€trial€court€would€be€required€toÐ ’â  Ðinstruct€the€jury€on€the€defense€of€duress€or€necessity,€the€question€of€whether€a€participant€is€anÐ |Ì  Ðaccomplice€becomes€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury.ðð€€òòGreenóó,€915€S.W.2d€at€831„32€(citationsÐ f¶  Ðomitted).€ò òó óÐ P  ÐÌÒeÒÔ#†Xæ%XXX1ìöZ#Ôà  àÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%ÔThere€was€no€evidence€in€this€case€to€support€the€conclusion€that€the€witnesses€wereÐ $t Ðaccomplices€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Apparently,€they€were€never€indicted€for€the€crimes.Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ìõ_#Ô€€Ô‡X1ìXXXæ%ÔTrial€counselÐ ^ Ðtestified€that€although€he€had€ð ðsome€real€questionsðð€about€the€witnessesðð€roles€in€the€case,€the€StateÐ üL Ðhad€taken€the€position€that€they€were€victims€whose€presence€at€the€crime€scene,€and€silenceÐ æ6 Ðafterwards,€were€coerced,€and€he€was€unable€to€uncover€any€evidence€to€show€otherwise.€€Thus,€he€hadÐ Ð  Ðconcluded€that€whether€or€not€they€were€accomplices€would€be€a€question€of€fact€for€the€jury€toÐ º  Ðdetermine,€rather€than€a€question€of€law.Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ì÷`#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%Ô€€His€defense€strategy,€therefore,€had€been€to€attack€theirÐ ¤ô Ðcredibility,€and€to€present€a€quasi„alibi€for€the€petitioner,€in€the€form€of€testimony€by€his€girlfriend€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðhis€usual€routine,€and€that€his€car€had€been€in€the€repair€shop€during€the€period€in€question.Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ìfc#ÔÐ xÈ ÐÌà  àDuring€the€evidentiary€hearing,€trial€counsel€initially€testified€Ô‡X1ìXXXæ%Ôthat€he€could€not€say€withÐ Nž Ðabsolute€certainty€whether€he€had€gone€over€the€legal€issue€of€accomplice€testimony€with€theÐ <Œ Ðpetitioner.€€At€a€later€point,€however,€he€testified€that€he€òòdidóó€specifically€recall€discussing€with€theÐ & v Ðpetitioner€the€possibility€that€the€Stateððs€witnesses€could€be€considered€as€accomplices€and€theÐ !` Ðimplications€that€that€would€carry.€€Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ì:e#ÔÔ‡X1ìXXXæ%ÔFurther,€trial€counsel€testified€that€the€Ô#†Xæ%XXX1ì