ÿWPCY 1# ¾UNÉ % 0(bEw@M4¡U@°ð 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` 0dÕ AQ9 ÆŠ 0DP 0@” 0DÔ U> D/V B… B¢ D3¿ U*ò B) DCE AMˆ 3Õ v~vÓ†˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- 8 9D:D;D<U=D>U?e@AÓ€Ìqæ$3|xL*Ͼ¦ `(CG TimesScalable2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd!#,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÔ€*ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌò òAugust€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€*ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€%ŠÔÔ€*ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€öxXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€!ÙßR€-.,A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌAPRIL€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01›„9712„CR„00535Ìà àà àà àà àà àó ó)Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSCOTT€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€LEE€ASBURYó óÌò òERIC€CREEKMORE,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Post„Conviction€Relief€„€VoluntaryÏà àà àà àà àà à)à àManslaughter)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌMAX€E.€HUFFà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ115€Litton€Roadà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌOneida,€TN€€37841Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTODD€R.€KELLEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€PAUL€PHILLIPSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.€O.€Box€10Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntsville,€TN€€37756ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇÓ  Óò òòòÔ€*„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€*ŠÔÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€ ˜ê XXdðXXdì7Ñà@ àÌà àAppellant€Eric€Creekmore€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€He€presents€the€following€issue€for€review:€€whether€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€denying€Appellant's€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€basedÏupon€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ìà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÌà àOn€July€8,€1996€Appellant€pleaded€guilty€in€the€Scott€County€CriminalÏCourt€to€voluntary€manslaughter.€€He€agreed€to€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€IIIÏpersistent€offender€to€fifteen€years€incarceration€with€the€Tennessee€DepartmentÏof€Correction.€€On€November€17,€1996,€Appellant€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€This€petition€was€amended€by€appointed€counsel€on€MarchÏ26,€1997.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€dismissed€Appellant's€petition€onÏAugust€20,€1997.Ìà àSpecifically,€Appellant€alleges€the€following€deficiencies€in€defenseÏcounsel's€representation:ÓÓÌÌà8 àà0 à(1)€Failure€to€keep€confidential€the€location€of€the€knife€usedÏto€kill€Mr.€Wayne€Dolan;Ìà8 àà0 à(2)€failure€to€withdraw€from€representing€Appellant€onceÏcounsel€became€aware€that€he€could€be€a€witness€due€toÏhis€involvement€in€the€chain€of€custody€of€the€knife;Ìà8 àà0 à(3)€failure€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€Appellant'sÏstatements;Ìà0 àà0 à(4)€failure€to€insist€that€Appellant€refuse€the€State's€plea€offer€andÏopt€to€go€to€trial.ÓÓÌà àÌÌÌà@ àò òII.€€POST„CONVICTION€RELIEFó óÌà àAppellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€based€upon€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ìà àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€provingÏthe€allegations€raised€in€the€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€òòSee€also€Scott€v.€Stateóó,€936€S.W.2d€271,€272Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Moreover,€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€areÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€ÏòòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996);€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904ÏS.W.2d€594,€595„96€(Tenn.€1995);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746Ï(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà@ àò òEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óÌà àAppellant's€only€contention€on€this€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€based€upon€Appellant's€allegationÏthat€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ìà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€provides€in€part,€"In€all€criminal€prosecutions,€theÏaccused€shall€enjoy€the€right.€.€.€to€have€the€assistance€of€counsel€for€hisÏdefense."€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€6.€€Similarly,€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏguarantees€an€accused€"the€right€to€be€heard€by€himself€and€his€counsel.€.€.€"€ÏTenn.€Const.€art.€I€ðð€9.€€In€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€articulated€a€two„prong€test€for€courts€to€employ€in€evaluating€claims€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2dÏ674€(1984).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adopted€òòStricklandóó's€two„part€testÏin€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€òòStricklandóó€CourtÏbegan€its€analysis€by€noting€that€"The€benchmark€for€judging€any€claim€ofÏineffectiveness€must€be€whether€counsel's€conduct€so€undermined€the€properÏfunctioning€of€the€adversarial€process€that€the€trial€cannot€be€relied€on€as€havingÏproduced€a€just€result."€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064.€€When€a€convictedÏdefendant€challenges€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€post„convictionÏproceeding,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€€(1)€deficientÏrepresentation€of€counsel€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€that€deficiency.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2d€551,€558€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1996).€€Appellant€must€prove€that€counsel's€representation€fell€belowÍan€objective€standard€of€reasonableness.€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064.€€ThisÏCourt€is€not€required€to€consider€the€two€prongs€of€òòStricklandóó€in€any€particularÏorder.€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€156,€163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ï"Moreover,€if€the€Appellant€fails€to€establish€one€prong,€a€reviewing€court€needÏnot€consider€the€other."€€òòId.óó€€With€regard€to€counsel's€deficient€performance,€theÏproper€measure€is€that€of€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.€ÏòòId.óó€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065).€€Put€differently,€counsel's€performance€isÏrequired€to€be€"within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975);€òòHarrisóó,€947ÏS.W.2d€at€163.€€Respecting€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStricklandóó,€the€AppellantÏmust€establish€that€"there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel'sÏunprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€AÏreasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÏoutcome."€€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068.Ìà àThe€òòStricklandóó€Court€emphasized€that€"Judicial€scrutiny€of€counsel'sÏperformance€must€be€highly€deferential."€€òòId.óó€at€2065.€€"A€`fair€assessment€.€.€.Ïrequires€that€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,Ïto€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€toÏevaluate€the€conduct€from€counsel's€perspective€at€the€time.'"€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,Ï938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòStricklandóó,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065).€€TheÏmere€failure€of€a€particular€tactic€or€strategy€does€not€per€se€establishÍunreasonable€representation.€€òòId.óó€at€369.€€However,€this€Court€will€defer€toÏcounsel's€tactical€and€strategic€choices€only€where€those€choices€are€informedÏones€predicated€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369;ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).Ìà àRegarding€Appellant's€first€alleged€deficiency,€he€specifically€complainsÏthat€Attorney€Charlie€Allen,€Jr.,€rendered€inadequate€representation€by€(1)Ïdiscovering€the€location€of€the€knife€used€to€kill€the€victim;€(2)€having€the€knifeÏbrought€to€Allen's€office;€and€(3)€surrendering€the€knife€to€authorities.€€Both€theÏState€and€Appellant€agree€that€once€Attorney€Allen€was€in€possession€of€theÏknife,€he€was€both€legally€and€ethically€obliged€to€surrender€it€to€police.€ÏHowever,€Appellant€contends€that€his€attorney€performed€deficiently€by€takingÏsteps€to€procure€the€knife.€€Appellant€claims€that€by€procuring€the€weapon€andÏgiving€it€to€the€authorities,€counsel€eviscerated€any€defense€which€AppellantÏmay€have€had€and€weakened€Appellant's€bargaining€position€in€pleaÏnegotiations.Ìà àAlthough€the€Tennessee€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility€and€theÏstandards€demanded€of€criminal€defense€attorneys€are€not€necessarily€co„extensive,€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility€does€offer€guidance€as€toÏthe€appropriate€standards€of€professionalism€demanded€in€criminal€cases.€€DRÏ7„102(A)€provides€in€part,€"(A)€In€the€representation€of€a€client,€a€lawyer€shallÍnot:€€(3)€Conceal€or€knowingly€fail€to€disclose€that€which€the€lawyer€is€requiredÏby€law€to€reveal."€€DR€7„102(A)(3).Ìà àAttorney€Allen€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€AppellantÏ"probably€told€me€more€lies.€.€.€than€any€other€client€I've€ever€had."€œ›€Allen€statedÏthat€Appellant€said,€both€in€his€statements€to€police€and€in€his€initial€statementsÏto€Mr.€Allen,€that€Wayne€Dolan€had€drawn€the€knife€on€Appellant€and€thatÏAppellant€took€the€knife€from€Dolan€and€stabbed€him.€€Moreover,€Appellant€toldÏthe€police€that€after€stabbing€Dolan,€Appellant€threw€down€the€knife€before€heÏleft€the€tavern€parking€lot€where€the€stabbing€occurred.€€According€to€Mr.€Allen,Ïhe€explained€to€Appellant€that€if€the€knife€was,€in€fact,€Dolanððs,€then€locating€theÏknife€would€strengthen€Appellant's€case.€€This€prompted€Appellant€to€reveal€thatÏhe€had€hidden€the€knife€near€a€water€heater€in€Charlie€Stephens'€home€inÏKentucky.€€Mr.€Allen€telephoned€Charlie€Stephens€and€asked€him€to€look€for€aÏknife€in€his€basement€behind€the€water€heater.€€Because€of€rumors€that€theÏvictim€had€human€immunodeficiency€virus€(HIV),€Mr.€Allen€directed€Stephens€toÏwear€gloves€and€to€place€the€knife€into€a€plastic€bag€and€seal€it.€€€StephensÏcomplied€with€Attorney€Allen's€request€to€bring€the€knife€to€Allen's€office.€€Mr.ÏAllen€telephoned€Detective€Lewallen€and€told€him€to€come€and€get€the€knife.€Ìà àContradicting€Mr.€Allen's€testimony,€Appellant€stated€that€Mr.€Allen€cussedÏAppellant€and€told€Appellant€that€he€knew€that€Appellant€was€lying.€€Therefore,ÏAppellant€disclosed€the€location€of€the€knife.€Ìà àIn€its€order€dismissing€Appellant's€petition,€the€trial€court€correctly€concludedÏthat€Mr.€Allen€did€not€perform€deficiently€by€discovering€the€location€of€the€knifeÏand€by€having€it€brought€to€his€office.€€Mr.€Allen,€operating€under€informationÏgiven€him€by€Appellant€to€the€effect€that€the€weapon€was€the€victim's,€made€aÏreasonable€strategic€decision€that€turning€over€the€knife€to€authorities€wouldÏstrengthen€Appellant's€case€and€buttress€his€self„defense€theory.€€Moreover,Ïnothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€the€knife€was€somehow€crucial€to€theÏprosecution.€€Thus,€Appellant€has€failed€to€demonstrate€prejudice€from€counsel'sÏaction.Ìà àAppellant's€second€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€thatÏMr.€Allen€should€have€withdrawn€from€representing€Appellant€once€counselÏbecame€aware€that€he€potentially€could€be€a€witness€due€to€his€involvement€inÏthe€chain€of€custody€of€the€knife.€€DR€5„102(B)€provides€in€pertinent€part,€"(B)€If,Ïafter€undertaking€employment€in€contemplated€or€pending€litigation,€a€lawyerÏlearns€or€it€is€obvious€that€the€lawyer.€.€.€may€be€called€as€a€witness.€.€.€theÏlawyer€may€continue€the€representation€until€it€is€apparent€that€the€testimony€isÏor€may€be€prejudicial€to€the€client."€€DR€5„102(B).€€Attorney€Allen€testified€that€heÏwas€not€concerned€that€he€would€have€been€in€the€chain€of€custody€had€theÏcase€proceeded€to€trial€and€had€Detective€Lewallen€been€called€to€testify.ÏHence,€he€saw€no€need€to€withdraw€from€representing€Appellant.€€Moreover,€itÏis€significant€that€Mr.€Allen€discovered€the€location€of€the€knife€only€becauseÍAppellant€told€him€where€it€was€hidden.€€Ultimately,€Appellant€and€theÏprosecution€agreed€upon€a€plea€bargain,€thereby€avoiding€trial.€€Thus,€it€isÏdifficult€to€conclude€that€Appellant€was,€in€any€way,€prejudiced€by€Mr.€Allen'sÏfailure€to€withdraw.Ìà àAppellant's€third€complaint€is€that€Mr.€Allen€should€have€filed€a€motion€toÏsuppress€Appellant's€statements.€€Appellant€claims€that€he€was€intoxicated€atÏthe€time€that€he€gave€his€statement.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€AppellantÏconceded€that€the€police€administered€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings€to€him€and€that€heÏsigned€a€waiver€of€rights€form€before€giving€his€statement.€€Before€giving€hisÏstatement,€Appellant€denied€being€intoxicated.€€Detective€Randy€Lewallen€ofÏthe€Scott€County€Sheriff's€Department€testified€that€when€he€took€Appellant'sÏstatement,€Appellant€informed€Lewallen€that€he€had€been€drinking€but€was€notÏintoxicated.€€Detective€Lewallen€further€testified€that€because€AppellantÏ"appeared€to€be€on€the€verge€of€being€intoxicated,"€Lewallen€asked€AppellantÏseveral€questions€to€ensure€that€Appellant€was€thinking€clearly.€€Lewallen€thenÏwent€forward€with€the€interrogation.Ìà àMr.€Allen€explained€that€he€did€not€move€to€suppress€Appellant'sÏstatement€for€two€reasons.€€First,€according€to€Allen,€Appellant€advised€him€thatÏhe€had€been€properly€òòMirandizedóó.€€Second,€Appellant's€statement€was€helpfulÏto€the€defense€because€Appellant's€statement€indicated€that€he€stabbed€theÏvictim€in€self„defense.€€Indeed,€Allen€stated€that€had€the€case€proceeded€to€trial,Íhe€would€have€liked€for€Appellant's€statement€to€have€been€admitted€intoÏevidence.€€This€is€a€reasonable€tactical€decision,€and€we€will€not€second„guessÏit.Ìà àRegarding€Appellant's€assertion€that€he€was€intoxicated€when€he€gaveÏhis€statement,€we€emphasize€that€"[I]ntoxication€or€mental€unsoundness€is€notÏalone€sufficient€to€bar€the€introduction€of€statements€made€by€an€accused€if€theÏevidence€also€shows€the€accused€was€capable€of€understanding€his€rights."€ÏòòState€v.€Bellóó,€690€S.W.2d€879,€882€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).Ìà àAppellant's€final€complaint€is€that€Mr.€Allen€rendered€ineffective€assistanceÏby€coercing€him€into€signing€the€plea€agreement.€€Appellant€contends€that€he€didÏnot€sign€the€plea€agreement€freely,€knowingly,€and€voluntarily.€€In€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,Ï474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.Ct.€366,€369„70,€88€L.Ed.2d€203€(1985),€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€two„prong€analysis€of€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó€for€evaluating€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims€applies€toÏplea€agreements.€€In€order€to€satisfy€the€"prejudice"€prong,€the€accused€mustÏdemonstrate€"that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel's€errors,Ïhe€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial."€€òòHillÏv.€Lockhartóó,€106€S.Ct.€366,€370.Ìà àAppellant€testified€at€the€hearing€on€his€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÏthat€Mr.€Allen€neglected€to€explain€all€of€his€constitutional€rights€to€him,€but€heÏcould€not€recall€which€rights€Allen€failed€to€discuss.€€ò ò€ó óUpon€being€questioned€byÍthe€court,€Appellant€stated€that€he€recalled€the€court€advising€him€of€all€of€hisÏrights€before€he€entered€his€guilty€plea.€Ìà àAttorney€Allen€testified€that€he€and€Appellant€discussed€the€differentÏdegrees€of€homicide€and€the€various€sentencing€ranges.€€Allen€averred€that€thereÏwas€no€question€that€Appellant€understood€all€that€he€and€AppellantÏdiscussed.€There€is€adequate€proof€in€this€record€that€counsel€did€explainÏAppellant's€rights.€€Moreover,€Appellant€conceded€that€the€court€had€advisedÏhim€of€all€of€his€rights€before€he€entered€his€plea.€€Based€on€this€record,€it€is€clearÏthat€Appellant's€plea€was€entered€freely,€voluntarily,€and€knowingly.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€Appellant's€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€is€affirmed.ÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJ.€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE