ÿWPC‡ H]]x/=æájç_okrlZѱõ:ê„>~ŒXE¸”>“ Å~“a~~×gú™å¼ˆ#˱ "­ælõ]@΀Fšápe"d8ž&Q¾åëzèÿÀªÞ×á¼úID´ž»–\Õ ýê”튺Sç•Ñ]—ä˜Þ º{ÄY™Ãeß[Ÿ÷êþWöõà¥. þ&[¬^rÕ„¹&˜ãÌß¡q(cj´‰ØÇ–Ëqx{3­]+ß}ò­z÷5w_Oœ_í>BgpÙÜ4'£ü #×s2·>ïŸ U9Wzp†ÿ,gþ‹® ,$°á &s€å×Ñä>U<Úõ9Å»í‰u†à!Ä®Owzè(‡ Æ'cpZDµ¡Æ×kÒGV¤Ù‰¶f®‡¼·¿¹xbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 0D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'uíNbìdÜPE,UN.......................b|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0ë„„„„ Boo 0¤Œ D30 D-c 0K ASÛÆ. 0¤ô 0D˜ A«Ü(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÃm+â HEô*ÄÎ¥pž¥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˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 kÝ ƒR©Ð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô9± ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAdditionally,€on€the€same€date,€the€Appellant€pled€guilty€to€aggravated€assault,€violation€of€the€Motor€VehicleÐ ° ÐHabitual€Offender€Act€and€DUI.€€No€documents€relating€to€these€offenses€are€included€in€the€record.€€No€proof€wasÐ tÄ Ðdeveloped€as€to€these€offenses€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€and€the€Appellantððs€argument€of€ineffectiveness€does€notÐ 8ˆ Ðencompass€these€offenses.€€Accordingly,€any€challenge€to€those€convictions€is€waived. âÝ ƒR©Ð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô9± ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€indictment€and€the€judgment€of€conviction€reflect€different€dates€for€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€IfÐ ° Ðthe€indictment€and€the€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€are€correct,€then€the€sentencing€guidelines€under€the€prior€actÐ tÄ Ðare€applicable€and€the€Appellantððs€sentence€would€be€served€at€thirty€percent€(30%)€as€a€range€I€offender.€€If€theÐ 8ˆ Ðjudgment€form€is€correct,€then€the€Appellant,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô),€would€serve€his€sentence€atÐ üL Ðone€hundred€percent€(100%). ÒÝ ƒR©Ð$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô9± ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Appellantððs€post„conviction€petition€is€not€included€in€the€record.€€However,€the€petition€is€included€inÐ ° Ðthe€record€of€this€case€in€the€Appellantððs€original€post„conviction€appeal.€€We€are€entitled€to€take€judicial€notice€ofÐ tÄ Ðpleadings€contained€in€cases€filed€with€the€clerk€of€this€Court.(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular- ù-(|G2©Ð$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€;U»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôH¹ò»»Ô d(|3Mç$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€;U»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Mç$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€;U»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€1í»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼™»»»ÔÑ8€EuXXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î‘x™ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼™»îî‘x #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€7,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XÜeX»¼™ÔÌò òÔ#†¼™»XXÜe#ÔEDWARD€DRUMMER€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XÜeX»¼™Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€P„19504€€€€€€Arthur€T.€Bennett,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„00414„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€August€29,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌThe€Appellant,€Edward€Drummer,€appeals€from€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„convictionÐ P  Ðrelief€by€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court.€€In€September,€1997,€Drummer€pled€guilty€to€one€countÐ <Œ Ðof€aggravated€rape€and€was€sentenced€to€fifteen€years€confinement€in€the€Department€of€Correction.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р(x ÐIn€1998,€Drummer€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€challenging€the€validity€of€his€guilty€pleaÐ d Ðupon€grounds€of€(1)€voluntariness€and€(2)€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€post„convictionÐ P Ðcourt,€finding€the€claims€unsupported,€dismissed€the€petition.€€On€appeal,€Drummer€contends€thatÐ ì< Ðhe€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€After€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„Ð Ø( Ðconviction€court.Ð Ä ÐÔ#†¼™»XXÜe#ÔÔ‡XÜeX»¼™ÔÓ´ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼™»àXÜe #ÔÔ‡XÜeX.¼™ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòAlan€E.€Glennóó,Ð tÄ ÐJJ.,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌDeborah€M.€Henderson,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Edward€Drummer.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Kim€R.Ð #`" ÐHelper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Lee€Coffee,Ð ü#L# ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð è$8 $ ÐÔ#†¼™»XXÜe] #ÔÔ‡XÜeX»¼™ÔÌÌÌÓ. ÓÐ ˜(è#(ý Ðà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼™»XXÜeê #ÔÔ‡XÜeX»¼™ÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼™»XXÜew #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÜeX»¼™Ôà@ææ ìàò òProcedural€Backgroundó óˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àThis€case€presents€a€somewhat€protracted€procedural€history.€€In€November,€1998,€the€post„Ð `° Ðconviction€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€upon€the€Appellantððs€claims€contained€in€hisÐ L œ ÐFebruary,€1998,€petition.€Following€this€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€relief€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðdismissed€the€petition.€€A€òòpro€seóó€appeal€was€taken€and,€after€review,€this€court€remanded€to€the€post„Ð $ t Ðconviction€court€for€(1)€appointment€of€counsel,€(2)€supplementation€of€the€record,€and€(3)€for€aÐ  ` Ðð ðfurther€hearingðð€to€determine€the€correct€date€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€òòSeeóó€òòDrummer€v.Ð ü L  ÐStateóó,€6€S.W.3d€520€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1999)€(holding€that€indigent€inmates€who€seek€review€of€theÐ è 8  Ðdenial€of€their€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief€are€entitled€to€appointed€counsel€on€appeal).€Ð Ô$  ÐAccordingly,€this€case€is€again€before€this€court€after€apparent€compliance€with€these€directives.€€WeÐ À  Ðemphasize€ð ðapparentðð€as€the€record€does€not€reflect€that€a€hearing€was€conducted€to€correct€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdiscrepancy€relating€to€the€date€of€the€offense.€€Although€the€Appellant€asserts€in€his€brief,€ð ðOn€JuneÐ ˜è  Ð28,€1999,€appointed€counsel€entered€an€Amended€Judgement€sheet€correcting€the€date€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðcommission€of€crime€and€showing€Petitionerððs€eligibility€as€a€standard€range€I€offender,ðð€no€suchÐ pÀ Ðdocument€is€contained€in€the€record.Ð \¬ ÐÌÌà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àThe€Appellantððs€claim€of€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€and€involuntariness€of€his€guilty€plea,Ð øH Ðas€set€forth€in€his€petition,€stem€from€the€following€factual€allegations:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àPetitioner€entered€a€guilty€plea€for€a€sentence€Fifteen€(15)€years,€as€a€StandardÐ ¼  ÐOffender€(Range€I,€at€30%).€€See€Judgment€Document,€attached€hereto.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àOnce€petitioner€entered€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction,€he€was€informedÐ €Ð Ðthat€his€guilty€plea€for€fifteen€(15)€years€was€in€fact,€a€mandatory€100%€and€the€leastÐ l¼ Ðamount€of€time€to€reduce€that€100%€would€be€15%,€resulting€in€a€Release€EligibilityÐ X ¨ ÐDate€(Ô_ÔR.E.D.Ô_Ô),€of€85%,€assuming€petitioner€received€all€his€Sentence€ReductionÐ D!” ÐCredits€allowed€by€law.׃d×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÐ #l! Ðà  àAt€the€November,€1998,€evidentiary€hearing,€the€Appellant€apparently€abandoned€pursuit€ofÐ ° Ðthis€claim.€€Instead,€the€Appellant€focused€upon€the€involuntariness€of€his€guilty€plea€based€upon€trialÐ œì Ðcounselððs€overstatement€of€the€risk€of€conviction€and€ineffectiveness,€and€the€lack€of€pre„trialÐ ˆØ Ðinvestigation:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àQ.€€Well,€why€did€you€take€the€plea?ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àA.€€Well,€the€only€reason€why€I€took€the€plea€because€she€told€me€herself,€sheÐ $ t Ðsupposed€to€be€my€lawyer,€that€it€wasnððt€nothing€she€could€do€for€me.€€You€might€asÐ  ` Ðwell€go€on€and€cop€out€because€theyððre€going€to€find€you€guilty€because€it€ainððtÐ ü L  Ðnothing€I€can€do€for€you.€€Thatððs€the€only€reason€why€I€went€on€and€pleaded€for€thatÐ è 8  Ðplea€bargain€and€the€fifteen€years€at€thirty€percent.ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌÌà  àAdditionally,€the€Appellant€testified€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€thoroughly€investigate€hisÐ ˜è  Ðcase,€failed€to€develop€an€alibi€defense,€and€failed€to€contact€witnesses.€€Appellantððs€trial€counsel,Ð „Ô  Ðtestifying€at€the€hearing,€related€that€she€had€difficulty€with€the€Appellant€in€meeting€the€appointmentÐ pÀ Ðschedules€and€returning€phone€calls.€€Nonetheless,€she€met€with€him€twice€after€he€was€returned€toÐ \¬ Ðthe€jail€and€spoke€with€him€seven€times€on€the€phone.€€Counsel€testified€that€she€contacted€all€of€theÐ H˜ Ðpotential€witnesses€provided€to€her€by€the€Appellant,€however,€none€supported€an€alibi€defense.€Ð 4„ ÐMoreover,€several€of€the€witnesses€would€have€been€extremely€prejudicial€as€they€would€haveÐ  p Ðtestified€that€the€Appellant€and€the€victim€of€the€rape€had€a€ð ðviolent€relationship.ðð€€Trial€counselÐ  \ Ðstated€that€she€had€available€only€two€theories€of€defense€(1)€alibi,€which€could€not€be€supported,€andÐ øH Ð(2)€consent.€€With€regard€to€the€latter,€she€further€explained,€ð ðeven€if€we€had€been€able€to€say€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€sex€had€been€consensual,€the€injuries€she€suffered€to€the€head,€the€blood€that€was€found€at€theÐ Ð  Ðscene,€the€injuries€that€she€suffered€from€the€sexual€assault,€did€not€go€along€with€consensual€sex.ðð€Ð ¼  ÐTrial€€counsel€also€testified€that€she€was€surprised€when,€after€the€jury€had€been€selected€at€hisÐ ¨ø Ðscheduled€trial,€the€Appellant€advised€both€she€and€co„counsel€that€he€wanted€to€change€his€plea€toÐ ”ä Ðguilty.€€Finally,€trial€counsel€stated€that€both€she€and€co„counsel€advised€the€Appellant€that€he€wouldÐ €Ð Ðbe€eligible€for€parole€consideration€in€four€years€based€upon€his€classification€as€a€Range€I€standardÐ l¼ Ðoffender;€however,€they€also€advised€the€Appellant€that€it€was€unlikely€that€he€would€receive€paroleÐ X ¨ Ðwhen€first€eligible€because€of€his€conviction€as€a€sexual€offender.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,Ð D!” Ðthe€post„conviction€court€found:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  à(1)€the€Appellant€[was]€not€telling€the€truth;€(2)€the€Appellant€had€the€opportunityÐ $X" Ðwhen€Judge€Ô_ÔAxleyÔ_Ô€asked€him€if€he€was€freely€and€voluntarily€entering€his€plea,Ð ô$D # Ðwhether€he€had€any€complaints,€whether€his€lawyer€investigated€the€case,€investigatedÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€witnesses€that€he€had.€€He€indicated€that€his€lawyer€did.€€And,€his€lawyer€testifiedÐ Ì&"% Ðand€[trial€counsel]€testified€that€she€did€investigate€the€case;€.€.€.€€(3)€[trial€counsel]Ð ¸'#& Ðdid€render€effective€assistance€of€counsel€through€out€her€handling€of€the€case,€.€.€.Ð ¤(ô#' Ð[and]€that€her€representation€did€meet€the€standard€under€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó€and€otherÐ )à$( Ðcases.Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Їà  àOn€appeal,€the€Appellant€again€abandons€his€claim€of€involuntariness€and€argues€solely€thatÐ ° Ðthe€trial€court€ð ðerred€in€ruling€that€he€was€not€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€pursuant€to€theÐ œì ÐUnited€States€Constitution€and€the€Constitution€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€He€raises€three€generalÐ ˆØ Ðareas€of€ineffectiveness:€(1)€€ð ðthat€his€attorneys€failed€to€investigate€his€case€thoroughly;€(2)€that€hisÐ tÄ Ðattorneys€failed€to€discuss€his€case€with€him€and€offered€no€defense€strategy;€and€(3)€that€he€receivedÐ `° Ðinformation€from€his€counsel€that€heððd€be€eligible€for€parole€within€four€years,€if€he€accepted€theÐ L œ ÐStateððs€offer.ððÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAt€this€juncture€we€are€constrained€to€observe€that€ð ða€defendant€who€pleads€guilty€upon€theÐ  ` Ðadvice€of€counsel€may€òòonlyóó€attack€the€voluntary€and€intelligent€character€of€the€guilty€plea€byÐ ü L  Ðshowing€that€the€advice€he€received€from€counsel€was€not€within€the€standard€set€forth€in€[òòBaxterÐ è 8  Ðv.€Roseóó,€òòóó523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€and€that]€.€.€.€but€for€counselððs€errors€he€would€not€haveÐ Ô$  Ðpleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòHill€v.€Ô_ÔLockhartÔ_Ôóó,€474€U.S.€52,€56„57,€106Ð À  ÐS.€Ct.€366,€369„70€(1985)€(emphasis€added)€(citations€omitted).€€The€prejudice€requirement€of€òòHillÐ ¬ü  Ðv.€Ô_ÔLockhartÔ_Ôóó€focuses€on€whether€counselððs€constitutionally€ineffective€performance€affected€theÐ ˜è  Ðoutcome€of€the€plea€process.€€òòIdóó.€at€370.€€In€this€case,€we€find€no€causal€connection€between€theÐ „Ô  ÐAppellantððs€reasons€for€pleading€guilty€and€his€allegations€of€counselððs€deficient€performance.€€€InÐ pÀ Ðsum,€we€find€nothing€in€this€record€which€remotely€suggests€that€counselððs€alleged€deficienciesÐ \¬ Ðaffected€the€outcome€of€the€plea€process.€€Nonetheless,€we€proceed€to€examine€the€AppellantððsÐ H˜ Ðclaims€of€ineffectiveness.€€€€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àTo€succeed€in€a€challenge€for€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€Appellant€mustÐ  \ Ðdemonstrate€that€counselððs€representation€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneysÐ øH Ðin€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€Under€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð ä4 Ð668,€687,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984),€the€Appellant€must€establish€(1)€deficient€representation€andÐ Ð  Ð(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€the€deficiency.€€€In€the€context€of€a€guilty€plea,€to€satisfy€the€secondÐ ¼  Ðprong€of€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó,€the€Appellant€must€show,€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€forÐ ¨ø Ðcounselððs€errors,€he€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòHillÐ ”ä Ðv.€Ô_ÔLockhartÔ_Ôóó,€474€U.S.€at€€59,€106€S.€Ct.€at€370;€òòWalton€v.€Stateóó,€966€S.W.2d€54,€55€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð €Ð ÐApp.€1997).€€The€Appellant€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€in€his€or€her€petition€by€clearÐ l¼ Ðand€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€The€issues€of€deficientÐ X ¨ Ðperformance€by€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€are€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact.€Ð D!” ÐòòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€ð ðA€trial€courtððs€òòfindings€of€factóó€underlying€a€claimÐ 0"€  Ðof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€reviewed€on€appeal€under€a€òòde€novo€óóstandard,€accompaniedÐ #l! Ðwith€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correct€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÐ $X" Ðotherwise.ðð€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòHenleyÐ ô$D # Ðv.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997)).€€However,€òòconclusions€of€lawóó€are€reviewed€under€aÐ à%0!$ Ðpurely€òòde€novoóó€standard,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòFieldsóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€458.€€ApplyingÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€foregoing€principles,€this€court€must€determine€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÐ ¸'#& Ðpost„conviction€courtððs€finding€that€the€Appellant€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐòòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€580.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àOur€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€Appellant€has€failed€in€his€burden€of€overcomingÐ ° Ðâ âthe€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€Although€the€Appellant€identified€several€names€ofÐ œì Ðwitnesses€at€the€hearing€which€he€contends€would€have€supported€an€alibi€defense,€these€witnessesÐ ˆØ Ðwere€not€produced€at€the€hearing.€€This€court€is€not€required€to€speculate€as€to€what€the€alleged€alibiÐ tÄ Ðwitnesses€could€have€testified€to€if€produced€at€the€hearing.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€794€S.W.2d€755,€757Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1990).€€Moreover,€we€agree€with€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€that€theÐ L œ Ðproof€does€not€establish€trial€counsel€failed€to€thoroughly€conduct€pre„trial€investigation,€failed€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðdevelop€appropriate€trial€strategy,€or€improperly€advised€the€Appellant€regarding€parole€eligibility.€Ð $ t ÐÌÌÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€find€that€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€err€in€ruling€that€theÐ ˜è  ÐAppellant€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€post„convictionÐ „Ô  Ðis€affirmed.Ð pÀ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE