ÿWPCW }ÈSDˈ¡›#ß `¤ÙGÊõ pq/ (Q ©3ùˆjŽ;”ç¨*r.Ïò>ËÏ ´û–iZCXRàGŠ¸ìU¸ÎP™Né2f°¡ï"3‚Î ’F°F!Ra7Óª¡­œµh7]&Û¥X§MBxïk©9ÓÀf  Ã!°.Š„.®®+¹Hük÷*ºW±ÿEîÊÌÀËHqoܦž“Ôv„!d¦~å䆦ãÒ<ý¼1Í´`BkÑ]t·=ÅMCW1ÝÇ`J|0tŒÈnsj¶ÈŽEŒ¤)Fê´D?3îtü ÿ\‚ÄyÇ0cï#$@û½°]”oPu¶d°(– ºªª>#ÁHhgÑcž(· C›"ÔE¸ÄÉ7£´¿Ò‹eæ3Šœ‰ VEÄí¨XÂtIÌÊ\8?mê›PAŤ«Ãjç²%af™“sO–*·d±:ZïÞMëMN˜RºsYŒ¸C̹1A­~rÜôΓ|öƒŽ`§z*nÇmSraú£Éˆkðûmu¼¯Á}ö[iYŠ9ù.ÿº›…¬DCÌÐ[.sëÁ?DãÉ}'µõC-ʸ&;Ec6ã2š¿·“<Ob#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#UNéN79eAE¦ 0D¨`ììììììììììììììììììììììbLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 0ëTTTT B?? 0¤\ D3 D-3 0K`` AS«Æþ 0¤Ä 0Dh A«¬˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0»‹¥ÿ,s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular€{+ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜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.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  [Ý ƒR†`$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôˆl ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPost„conviction€counsel€advised€this€court€during€oral€argument€that€he€had€been€unable€to€locate€Ô_ÔSylbrendaÔ_ÔÐ ° ÐSmith€to€obtain€her€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó VÝ ƒR†`$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôˆl ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€petitionerððs€claims€are€such€that€we€cannot€ascertain€whether,€by€his€theory,€the€entire€Ô_ÔidnictmentÔ_Ô€isÐ ° Ðdefective€or€only€that€count€alleging€aggravated€rape.- ù-(|G2†`$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ûÔ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¼ ò»»Ô d(|3A?$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ûÔ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A?$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€..ÑÑ8€ûÔ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€þ|»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼þ|»»»ÔÑ8€ò[XXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î¸î»¼þ|ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼þ|»îî¸ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMay€8,€2002€SessionÐ X ÐÔ‡Xò[X»¼þ|ÔÌò òÔ#†¼þ|»XXò[#ÔRUSSELL€EPPERSONòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡Xò[X»¼þ|Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ  h ÐÓ*°,X°r™X°œX*Óà@@øøìàNo.€C„01„217€€€€€€Clayburn€Peeples,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„02579„CCA„R3„PCÐ ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner€appeals€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€from€his€convictions€forÐ ¶ Ðfacilitation€of€aggravated€rape,€facilitation€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€facilitation€ofÐ ¦ö Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery,€and€aggravated€burglary,€raising€three€claims:€(1)€that€he€was€deniedÐ –æ Ðthe€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel;€(2)€that€his€guilty€plea€was€involuntary;€and€(3)€that€theÐ †Ö Ðindictment€was€fatally€defective.€€We€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition.€Ð vÆ ÐÔ#†¼þ|»XXò[#ÔÔ‡Xò[X»¼þ|ÔÓšÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óÐ V¦ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼þ|»àXò[&#ÔÔ‡Xò[X.¼þ|ÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòJerry€L.Ð 6† ÐSmith,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð &v ÐÌDanny€R.€Ellis,€Jackson,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Russell€Epperson.Ð V ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€J.€Ross€Dyer,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€JamesÐ æ6 ÐG.€Woodall,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Alfred€L.€Earls,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€forÐ Ö& Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Æ  ÐÓÂÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼þ|»XXò[ñ#ÔÔ‡Xò[X»¼þ|ÔÐ ¦"ö! ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼þ|»XXò[Œ #ÔÔ€Xò[X»¼þ|Ôò òòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓFACTSÐ †$Ö# ÐÌÓ Óà r àó óóóOn€January€23,€2001,€the€petitioner,€Russell€Ray€Epperson,€pled€guilty€in€the€Madison€CountyÐ f&¶!% ÐCriminal€Court€to€facilitation€of€aggravated€rape,€a€Class€B€felony;€facilitation€of€especiallyÐ V'¦"& Ðaggravated€kidnapping,€a€Class€B€felony;€facilitation€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€a€Class€BÐ F(–#' Ðfelony;€and€aggravated€burglary,€a€Class€C€felony.€€Pursuant€to€the€terms€of€his€plea€agreement,€heÐ 6)†$( Ðwas€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€an€effective€sentence€of€twenty€years.€€€TheÐ &*v%) Ðassistant€district€attorney€general€provided€the€following€factual€account€of€the€crimes€at€the€guiltyÐ +f&* Ðplea€hearing:Ð ,V'+ Ðâ âÐ ö,F(,ýŸ ÐÓ6°,XƒX× –X°,X°r™X6Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × àYour€Honor,€the€State€would€show€at€the€trial€of€the€matter€thatÐ ° Ðâ âon€the€6òòthóó€of€September€of€1999,€the€defendant€did€enter€the€habitationÐ  ð Ðof€Lucille€Jones€under€the€guise€of€asking€for€a€glass€of€water.Ðà` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà × àWhile€in€the€home,€he€struck€her€in€the€head€with€an€objectÐ pÀ Ðbelieved€to€be€a€vase,€causing€her€to€have€serious€injuries.€€Today€sheÐ ` ° Ðis€here.€€She€still€has€problems€with€her€eye€hurting.€€She€is€losingÐ P   Ðsight€in€one€eye€as€a€result€of€that€blow.€€After€the€strike€on€the€head,Ð @  Ðshe€was€sexually€penetrated€without€her€consent.€€And€during€andÐ 0 € Ðafter€the€rape,€she€was€tied€up€with€[a]€cord€and€moved€to€another€partÐ  p  Ðof€the€residence.€€All€that€occurred€here€in€Jackson,€Madison€County.€Ð `  ÐAlso,€taken€from€her€was€her€purse€containing€about€$200.00.ÐP ` x` x ÐÌà  àOn€June€18,€2001,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€se€óópetition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus,€or,€in€theÐ à0  Ðalternative,€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€his€trial€counsel€wasÐ Ð  Ðineffective€and€his€guilty€plea€involuntary,€and€that€the€indictment€failed€to€put€him€on€notice€of€theÐ À Ðcrimes€of€which€he€was€charged.€òòóó€Post„conviction€counsel€was€appointed,€and€on€September€27,Ð ° Ð2001,€an€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€before€the€post„conviction€court.€€During€opening€argumentsÐ  ð Ðat€the€evidentiary€hearing,€post„conviction€counsel€asserted€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€wasÐ à Ðineffective,€òòinter€aliaóó,€for€failing€to€secure€an€alibi€witness€necessary€for€the€proper€defense€of€theÐ €Ð Ðcase;€that€the€petitionerððs€guilty€plea€was€involuntary€due€to€trial€counselððs€ineffective€assistance€andÐ pÀ Ðthe€fact€that€it€was€not€performed€in€open€court;€and€that€an€erroneous€date€contained€on€one€countÐ `° Ðof€the€indictment€prevented€the€petitioner€from€adequately€preparing€his€defense.Ð P  ÐÌà  àThe€first€witness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€was€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel,€who€testifiedÐ 0€ Ðthat€she€graduated€from€Rutgers€Law€School€in€1987,€and€had€been€an€assistant€public€defender€forÐ  p Ðapproximately€seven€years.€€She€said€that€her€first€contact€with€the€petitioner€occurred€when€she€wasÐ ` Ðappointed€to€represent€him€on€his€arraignment€day.€€Shortly€thereafter,€she€met€with€him€to€discussÐ P Ðhis€case€and€was€told€of€his€alibi,€that€he€was€claiming€to€have€been€in€his€motherððs€basement€withÐ ð@ Ða€woman€named€Sylbrenda€Smith€at€the€time€of€the€crime.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€she€spoke€withÐ à0 ÐSmith€by€telephone€once,€and€made€several€attempts€to€have€her€subpoenaed.€€Smith€appeared€inÐ Ð  Ðcourt€one€time,€on€a€day€in€which€the€case€was€continued€at€the€request€of€the€State.€€Trial€counselÐ À! Ðsaid€that€the€case€was€originally€set€for€trial€on€February€9,€2000,€and€that€she€did€not€recall€theÐ °"  Ðreason€for€the€continuance.€Ð  #ð! ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€said€that€Smith€was€not€present€on€January€23,€2001,€the€final€setting€for€theÐ €%Ð # Ðpetitionerððs€trial.€€She€explained€on€cross„examination€that€Smith€was€ð ðelusive,ðð€never€staying€in€oneÐ p&À!$ Ðplace€very€long,€and€making€it€difficult€for€the€investigators€from€the€public€defenderððs€office€to€keepÐ `'°"% Ðup€with€her.€€According€to€trial€counsel,€they€located€Smith€a€couple€of€times,€but€she€would€thenÐ P( #& Ðdisappear,€forcing€trial€counsel€to€send€the€investigators€back€out€to€look€for€her€again.€€AlthoughÐ @)$' Ðtrial€counsel€attempted€to€learn€Smithððs€whereabouts€from€her€family€members,€she€wasÐ 0*€%( Ðâ âunsuccessful.€€The€petitionerððs€sister,€however,€was€able€to€substantiate€the€alibi,€and€trial€counselÐ  +p&) Ðsaid€that€she€had€been€prepared€on€the€final€trial€date€to€present€the€petitionerððs€alibi€defense€withÐ ° Ðthe€testimony€of€the€sister€alone,€if€necessary.€Ð  ð Ðâ âÌà  àTrial€counsel€further€testified€that€she€filed€a€number€of€motions€in€the€case,€including€aÐ €Ð ÐNotice€of€Alibi,€a€òòBradyóó€motion,€a€Motion€in€Limine€for€the€Admissibility€of€Evidence,€a€MotionÐ pÀ Ðto€Preserve€Evidence,€a€Motion€to€Provide€Witness€Statements,€a€Motion€for€Disclosure€ofÐ ` ° ÐImpeaching€Evidence,€a€Motion€for€a€òòMorganóó€Hearing,€and€a€Motion€for€Expert€Services€to€requestÐ P   Ðòòex€parteóó€funds€for€a€DNA€expert€to€review€the€DNA€evidence€in€the€case.€€She€denied€that€she€filedÐ @  Ðthese€motions€at€the€request€of€the€petitioner,€testifying€that€he€had€wanted€to€file€other€motions€ofÐ 0 € Ðhis€own,€and€did€so.€€Trial€counsel€had€no€memory€of€whether€she€filed€a€Motion€for€a€Speedy€Trial,Ð  p  Ðbut€said€that€if€she€had,€it€would€have€been€at€the€request€of€the€petitioner.€€She€later€identified€herÐ `  Ðsignature€on€a€document€entitled€ð ðDemand€for€Speedy€Trial,ðð€which€was€filed€on€April€25,€2000,Ð P  Ðand€admitted€as€an€exhibit€at€the€hearing.€€Trial€counsel€acknowledged€that€the€document€containedÐ ð@  Ðthe€petitionerððs€name€in€the€caption,€but€the€name€of€another€defendant,€ð ðDaniel€Lee€Cole,ðð€in€theÐ à0  Ðbody.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€said€that€her€DNA€expert€concurred€in€the€findings€of€the€Tennessee€BureauÐ ° Ðof€Investigation€(ð ðTBIðð)€laboratory,€informing€her€that€he€believed€the€DNA€evidence€in€the€caseÐ  ð Ðð ðwould€be€conclusive€that€it€was€[the€petitioner]€who€committed€the€offense.ðð€€For€that€reason,€heÐ à Ðð ðcautioned€[her]ðð€that€he€could€not€take€the€stand€in€the€petitionerððs€defense.€€He€was,€however,Ð €Ð Ðprepared€to€provide€assistance€during€her€cross„examination€of€the€TBI€agent€who€performed€theÐ pÀ ÐDNA€analysis.€€She€informed€the€petitioner€of€the€expertððs€findings,€and€reviewed€with€him€theÐ `° Ðdiscovery€information€she€received€from€the€State.€€She€also€discussed€with€him€the€contradictionÐ P  Ðbetween€a€police€officerððs€affidavit€stating€that€the€victimððs€residence€had€been€ð ðbroken€in,ðð€and€theÐ @ Ðvictimððs€statement€that€she€had€opened€the€door€to€her€assailant,€as€well€as€the€victimððs€inability€atÐ 0€ Ðthe€preliminary€hearing€to€identify€the€petitioner€as€her€attacker.€€Trial€counsel€acknowledged€thatÐ  p Ðthere€was€a€police€report€that€contained€the€name€of€an€officer€who€did€not€exist.€€She€said€that€sheÐ ` Ðassumed€the€report€had€been€written€by€an€actual€police€officer,€and€that€the€name€at€the€end€of€theÐ P Ðreport€was€merely€a€typographical€error.€€In€her€view,€the€report€was€not€subject€to€impeachmentÐ ð@ Ðbecause€it€was€not€a€sworn€document.Ð à0 ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€acknowledged€that€she€had€several€trials€during€the€week€the€petitioner€pledÐ À! Ðguilty,€including€a€rape€trial€in€which€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilty.€€€She€denied€telling€theÐ °"  Ðpetitioner€that€he€could€either€plead€guilty€or€spend€the€rest€of€his€life€in€jail,€and€had€no€recollectionÐ  #ð! Ðof€having€told€him€that€the€judge€was€ð ða€very€harsh€sentencer€[sic].ðð€€She€testified€that€she€explainedÐ $à" Ðthe€range€of€punishments€the€petitioner€could€receive€if€convicted€of€the€offenses,€discussed€theÐ €%Ð # Ðevidence€for€and€against€him,€informed€him€of€the€guilty€verdict€in€her€earlier€rape€case€in€which€theÐ p&À!$ ÐDNA€evidence€had€been€on€her€side,€and€told€him€that€there€was€a€probability€that€the€DNA€evidenceÐ `'°"% Ðagainst€him€in€his€case€would€convict€him.€Ð P( #& ÐÌà  àTrial€counsel€testified€that€the€petitioner€entered€his€guilty€plea€on€the€trial€date,€after€theÐ 0*€%( ÐState€came€down€from€its€original€offer€of€forty€years€to€her€counteroffer,€which€the€petitioner€hadÐ  +p&) Ðpreviously€approved,€of€twenty€years.€€She€said€that€the€guilty€plea€hearing€was€held€in€the€juryÐ ,`'* Ðroom,€and€that€the€petitioner€was€not€allowed€to€meet€with€his€family€beforehand.€€Her€recollectionÐ ° Ðwas€that€the€petitioner€was€ð ðin€the€cage,ðð€which€we€presume€to€be€a€holding€area,€prior€to€enteringÐ  ð Ðhis€plea,€and€that€there€were€jurors€in€the€vestibule€of€the€courtroom.€€She€said€that,€when€theÐ à Ðpetitioner€decided€to€accept€the€offer,€he€was€taken€around€the€outside€of€the€courtroom€ð ðto€the€juryÐ €Ð Ðroom€to€perform€the€plea.ðð€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€before€the€petitioner€entered€his€plea,€she€fullyÐ pÀ Ðinformed€him€of€his€constitutional€rights€and€the€consequences€of€pleading€guilty€to€the€offenses.€Ð ` ° ÐShe€was€confident€that€the€petitioner€understood€the€sentence€he€was€to€receive,€as€well€as€theÐ P   Ðconstitutional€rights€he€was€waiving,€including€his€right€to€present€his€alibi€defense.€Ð @  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€met€with€trial€counsel€seven€or€eight€times,€and€with€anÐ  p  Ðinvestigator€from€her€office€four€or€five€times.€€He€said€that€he€asked€trial€counsel€to€file€six€or€sevenÐ `  Ðmotions€on€his€behalf,€but€that€she€refused€until€after€he€had€filed€some€motions€on€his€own.€She€thenÐ P  Ðfiled€the€same€motions€he€had€filed,€as€well€as€some€additional€motions€he€requested.€€The€petitionerÐ ð@  Ðalso€complained€of€trial€counselððs€failure€to€raise€what€he€thought€were€important€issues€in€the€case;Ð à0  Ðnamely,€the€police€report€written€by€a€nonexistent€officer€and€the€ð ðperjuryðð€committed€by€the€officerÐ Ð  Ðwho€stated€that€the€assailant€had€broken€the€victimððs€door€to€gain€entry€to€her€home.Ð À ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€acknowledged€that€he€read€the€guilty€plea€agreement€before€signing€it.€€HeÐ  ð Ðfurther€acknowledged€that€trial€counsel€explained€the€agreement€to€him,€and€that€he€told€the€trialÐ à Ðcourt€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing€that€he€was€satisfied€with€counselððs€representation.€€He€assertedÐ €Ð Ðhowever,€that€he€pled€guilty€ð ðmostly€out€of€fear.ðð€€The€petitioner€implied€that€he€had€felt€intimidatedÐ pÀ Ðby€the€fact€that€the€plea€was€not€taken€in€front€of€his€family€and€friends,€and€that€he€had€believed€thatÐ `° Ðtrial€counsel€would€not€exert€herself€to€defend€him€at€trial.€€He€testified€that€he€had€not€asked€for€hisÐ P  Ðfamily€to€be€present€during€his€plea€because€he€had€assumed€they€would€be€there.€€He€said€he€hadÐ @ Ðasked€trial€counsel€if€he€could€talk€to€his€family€before€entering€the€plea,€but€she€had€told€him€heÐ 0€ Ðcould€see€them€afterwards.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€testified€that€trial€counsel€told€him€that€she€did€not€like€the€jury€pool,€and€thatÐ P Ðthe€judge€presiding€over€his€case€had€been€on€a€panel€that€was€in€favor€of€putting€convicted€rapistsÐ ð@ Ðto€death.€€According€to€his€testimony,€it€ð ðreally€shook€[him]€upðð€to€learn€that€trial€counsel€did€notÐ à0 Ðthink€he€would€win€his€case.€€Trial€counsel€also€indicated€that€he€would€be€spending€a€ð ðwhole€lotÐ Ð  Ðmore€than€twenty€yearsðð€in€jail€if€he€went€to€trial,€making€a€statement€ð ðsomewhat€to€[the]€effectðð€thatÐ À! Ðhe€would€be€spending€the€rest€of€his€life€in€jail.€€Finally,€trial€counsel€had€used€the€assistant€districtÐ °"  Ðattorney€generalððs€first€name€in€addressing€a€letter€to€him,€writing,€ð ðDear€Shaun:€€Here€are€someÐ  #ð! Ðmotions€.€.€.€.€ðð€€The€petitioner€said€he€believed€such€unprofessional€familiarity€with€ð ðthe€enemyððÐ $à" Ðshowed€that€something€was€not€ð ðrightðð€with€the€situation,€and€that€it€made€him€say€(presumably€toÐ €%Ð # Ðhimself):€€ð ðWell,€if€I€donððt€take€this€[the€plea],€I€know€theyððre€going€to€give€me€the€shaft.ððÐ p&À!$ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€the€petition,€issuing€oralÐ P( #& Ðfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€from€the€bench.€€The€court€subsequently€issued€a€writtenÐ @)$' Ðorder€containing€detailed€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€In€its€written€order€denying€theÐ 0*€%( Ðpetition,€the€post„conviction€court€found,€òòinter€aliaóó:€that€the€indictment€was€adequate€to€put€theÐ  +p&) Ðpetitioner€on€notice€of€the€charges€he€would€be€called€upon€to€defend;€that€trial€counsel€ð ðwas€wellÐ ,`'* Ðpreparedðð€and€performed€ð ðwell€within€the€standards€of€those€required€in€criminal€casesðð;€and€thatÐ ° Ðthe€petitionerððs€guilty€plea€was€knowing€and€voluntary.Ð  ð ÐÌà@òò&ìàò òòòANALYSISóóó óˆÐ €Ð ÐÌà@j j ìàò òI.€€Post„Conviction€Standard€of€Reviewó óˆÐ ` ° ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€allegations€by€clear€andÐ @  Ðconvincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€When€an€evidentiary€hearing€is€held€Ð 0 € Ðin€the€post„conviction€setting,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unlessÐ  p  Ðthe€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999);Ð `  ÐòòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500€(Tenn.€1996).€€Where€appellate€review€involves€purely€factualÐ P  Ðissues,€the€appellate€court€should€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960Ð ð@  ÐS.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997).€€However,€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€the€factsÐ à0  Ðof€the€case€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòSeeóó€òòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,€96Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€The€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€which€€presents€mixed€questions€of€factÐ À Ðand€law,€is€reviewed€òòde€novoóó,€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€given€only€to€the€post„convictionÐ ° Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001);€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€atÐ  ð Ð461.ò òòòÐ à ÐÌà@Ç Ç ìàóóII.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€ˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àó óTo€establish€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€to€showÐ P  Ðboth€that€trial€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€and€that€counselððs€deficient€performanceÐ @ Ðprejudiced€the€outcome€of€the€proceeding.€€òòÔ‡ Xò[XXXò[ÔStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.Ð 0€ Ð2052,€2064,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€968€S.W.2d€900,€905€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  p Ð1997),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998)€(noting€that€same€standard€for€determining€ineffectiveÐ ` Ðassistance€of€counsel€that€is€applied€in€federal€cases€also€applies€in€Tennessee).òòóó€€The€òòStricklandóóÐ P Ðstandard€is€a€two„prong€test:Ð ð@ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFirst,€the€defendant€must€show€that€counselððs€performance€wasÐ Ð  Ðdeficient.€€This€requires€showing€that€counsel€made€errors€so€seriousÐ À! Ðthat€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€ð ðcounselðð€guaranteed€theÐ °"  Ðdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Second,€the€defendant€mustÐ  #ð! Ðshow€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€ThisÐ $à" Ðrequires€showing€that€counselððs€errors€were€so€serious€as€to€depriveÐ €%Ð # Ðthe€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€result€is€reliable.Ðp&À!$` x` x ÐÌòòóó466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.€Ð P( #& ÐÌà  àThe€deficient€performance€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€that€ð ðcounselððs€acts€orÐ 0*€%( Ðomissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€under€prevailingÐ  +p&) Ðprofessional€norms.ðð€òòóó€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð ,`'* Ðat€688,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975)).€€When€analyzing€aÐ ° Ðpetitionerððs€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€court€must€indulge€in€a€strongÐ  ð Ðpresumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€fell€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance,Ð à Ðòòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066,€and€may€not€second„guess€the€tactical€andÐ €Ð Ðstrategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€they€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequateÐ pÀ Ðpreparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àThe€prejudice€prong€of€the€test€is€satisfied€by€showing€a€reasonable€probability,€òòi.eóó.,€aÐ @  Ðð ðprobability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome,ðð€that€ð ðbut€for€counselððsÐ 0 € Ðunprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð  p  Ðat€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€When€a€petitionerððs€ineffective€assistance€claim€is€made€in€the€contextÐ `  Ðof€a€conviction€stemming€from€a€guilty€plea,€he€must€prove€a€reasonable€probability€that€were€it€notÐ P  Ðfor€deficiencies€in€his€counselððs€performance,€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty,€but€instead€would€haveÐ ð@  Ðinsisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòShazel€v.€Stateóó,€966€S.W.2d€414,€416€(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€òòHill€v.Ð à0  ÐLockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€370„71,€88€L.€Ed.2d€203€(1985)).Ô#†Xò[XX Xò[.L#ÔÔ‡Xò[XXXò[Ô€€ð ðIn€cases€involving€aÐ Ð  Ðguilty€plea€or€plea€of€nolo€contendere,€the€petitioner€must€show€ððprejudiceðð€by€demonstrating€that,Ð À Ðbut€for€counselððs€errors,€he€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€but€would€have€insisted€upon€going€toÐ ° Ðtrial.ðð€€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€983€S.W.2d€240,€246€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998)Ð  ð Ð(citing€òòHillóó,€474€U.S.€at€59,€106€S.€Ct.€at€370;€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à ÐApp.€1991)).€òòóóÐ €Ð ÐÌÔ#†Xò[XXXò[HY#ÔÔ‡ Xò[XXXò[Ôà  àBecause€both€prongs€of€the€test€must€be€satisfied,€a€failure€to€show€either€deficientÐ `° Ðperformance€or€resulting€prejudice€results€in€a€failure€to€establish€the€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenleyóó,€960Ð P  ÐS.W.2d€at€580òòóó.€€For€this€reason,€courts€need€not€approach€the€òòStricklandóó€test€in€a€specific€order€orÐ @ Ðeven€ð ðaddress€both€components€of€the€inquiry€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€onÐ 0€ Ðone.ðð€€òòóó466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370€(stating€that€ð ðfailureÐ  p Ðto€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffectiveÐ ` Ðassistance€claimðð).Ð P ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€evidence€shows€that€trial€counsel€was€deficient€for€failingÐ à0 Ðto€secure€the€appearance€of€his€alibi€witness,€failing€to€file€motions€until€requested€by€the€petitioner,Ð Ð  Ðdelaying€in€filing€a€motion€for€a€speedy€trial,€having€the€wrong€defendantððs€name€in€the€body€of€theÐ À! Ðspeedy€trial€motion,€and€failing€to€investigate€the€police€report€that€contained€the€name€of€theÐ °"  Ðnonexistent€officer€and€the€affidavit€of€the€officer€who€stated€that€the€entry€into€the€victimððs€homeÐ  #ð! Ðwas€by€force.€€He€argues€that€trial€counselððs€failure€to€ð ðactively€secureðð€his€defense,€combined€withÐ $à" Ðthe€delay€in€his€trial,€prevented€him€from€being€able€to€present€his€alibi€defense,€thereby€prejudicingÐ €%Ð # Ðthe€outcome€of€his€case.€Ð p&À!$ ÐÌà  àIn€denying€relief€on€this€claim,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€petitioner€failed€toÐ P( #& Ðshow€any€deficiency€in€trial€counselððs€representation,€or€that€he€was€in€any€way€prejudiced€byÐ @)$' Ðcounselððs€performance.€€The€record€fully€supports€these€findings.€€Trial€counselððs€testimony€indicatesÐ 0*€%( Ðthat€she€thoroughly€prepared€the€petitionerððs€case.€€She€testified€that€she€filed€a€number€of€motionsÐ  +p&) Ðon€her€own€initiative,€including€a€motion€for€expert€services.€€Additionally,€she€interviewed€all€theÐ ,`'* Ðwitnesses€in€the€case,€including€the€police€officers;€received€and€reviewed€discovery€from€the€State;Ð ° Ðdiscussed€the€evidence€with€the€petitioner;€and€fully€informed€the€petitioner€of€the€consequences€ofÐ  ð Ðpleading€guilty.€€She€also€made€every€effort€to€secure€Smithððs€appearance€at€the€petitionerððs€trial,Ð à Ðsending€investigators€out€to€search€for€her€and€speaking€with€her€family€in€an€attempt€to€determineÐ €Ð Ðher€whereabouts.Ô#†Xò[XX Xò[å[#ÔÔ‡ Xò[XXXò[Ô€€Trial€counsel€did€not€believe€there€was€anything€else€she€could€have€done€to€secureÐ pÀ ÐSmithððs€appearance,€and€the€petitioner€has€not€shown€that€there€was€anything€else€that€could€haveÐ ` ° Ðbeen€done.€€Furthermore,€as€the€State€points€out,€by€not€calling€Smith€as€a€witness€at€the€evidentiaryÐ P   Ðhearing,€the€petitioner€was€unable€to€show€what€her€testimony€would€have€been€had€she€appearedÐ @  Ðto€testify€at€his€trial.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€even€if€he€had€successfully€met€the€deficient€performance€prong€of€theÐ 0 € ÐòòStricklandóó€test,€he€would€still€be€unable€to€demonstrate€that€counselððs€deficiency€prejudiced€theÐ  p  Ðoutcome€of€his€case.Ð `  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€also€failed€to€show€how€trial€counsel€was€deficient€for€failing€to€investigateÐ ð@  Ðthe€inconsistencies€in€the€police€report€and€police€officerððs€affidavit,€which€he€believed€should€haveÐ à0  Ðbeen€raised€as€issues,€or€how€any€alleged€deficiency€in€this€regard€prejudiced€his€case,€causing€himÐ Ð  Ðto€plead€guilty€instead€of€proceeding€to€trial.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€there€was€no€question€thatÐ À Ðthe€unsworn€police€report€was€real€and€had€been€written€by€a€police€officer,€and€that€she€hadÐ ° Ðassumed€that€it€merely€contained€a€typographical€error€in€the€officerððs€name.€€She€also€testified€thatÐ  ð Ðshe€talked€to€all€the€witnesses€in€the€case,€including€the€police€officers€involved,€and€that€sheÐ à Ðdiscussed€with€the€petitioner€the€affidavit€of€the€police€officer€who€stated€that€the€victimððs€residenceÐ €Ð Ðhad€been€forcibly€entered.€€Trial€counsel€further€testified€that€she€was€fully€prepared€to€go€to€trialÐ pÀ Ðwith€the€petitionerððs€alibi€defense€at€the€time€that€he€entered€his€plea€of€guilty.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àFinally,€we€disagree€that€trial€counselððs€failure€to€file€a€motion€for€a€speedy€trial€until€AprilÐ @ Ð25,€2000,€or€the€fact€that€the€motion€contained€the€wrong€defendantððs€name€in€the€body,Ð 0€ Ðdemonstrates€any€deficiency€in€counselððs€performance.€€With€the€exception€of€the€single€instance€ofÐ  p Ðthe€wrong€defendantððs€name€in€the€body€of€the€motion,€all€of€the€other€information€in€the€ð ðDemandÐ ` Ðfor€Speedy€Trialðð€appears€to€be€correct.€€A€single€typographical€error€in€a€routine€motion€for€aÐ P Ðspeedy€trial€does€not€constitute€deficient€performance.€€Nor€can€the€petitioner€show€how€a€minorÐ ð@ Ðerror€caused€him€to€plead€guilty€when€he€otherwise€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€In€sum,Ð à0 Ðby€failing€to€show€either€a€deficiency€in€counselððs€performance€or€how€any€alleged€deficiency€causedÐ Ð  Ðhim€to€plead€guilty€instead€of€proceeding€to€trial,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€ofÐ À! Ðdemonstrating€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€The€record€fully€supportsÐ °"  Ðthe€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€in€this€regard.€Ð  #ð! ÐÌà@ssìàò òIII.€€Voluntariness€of€Guilty€PleaˆÐ €%Ð # ÐÌà  àó óThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€guilty€plea€was€involuntary€because€trial€counsel€led€him€toÐ `'°"% Ðbelieve€he€had€no€choice€but€to€plead€guilty,€and€because€the€guilty€plea€hearing€was€not€held€in€theÐ P( #& Ðcourtroom,€where€his€family€and€friends€could€have€been€witnesses.€€The€State€responds€that€aÐ ° Ðhearing€held€on€the€record€in€the€jury€room€satisfies€the€ð ðopen€courtðð€requirement€of€Tennessee€RuleÐ  ð Ðof€Criminal€Procedure€11(c),€as€well€as€the€requirements€of€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.Ð à Ð1977),€and€argues€that€the€evidence€shows€the€defendant€entered€his€plea€knowingly,€intelligently,Ð €Ð Ðand€voluntarily.€€We€agree€with€the€State.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àÔ#†Xò[XX Xò[Mg#ÔWhen€analyzing€a€guilty€plea,€we€look€to€the€federal€standard€announced€in€òòBoykin€v.Ð P   ÐAlabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€89€S.€Ct.€1709,€23€L.€Ed.€2d€274€(1969),€and€the€state€standard€set€out€inÐ @  ÐòòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.€1977).€€òòState€v.€Pettusóó,€986€S.W.2d€540,€542€(Tenn.€1999).€Ð 0 € ÐIn€òòBoykinóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€there€must€be€an€affirmative€showing€in€theÐ  p  Ðtrial€court€that€a€guilty€plea€was€voluntarily€and€knowingly€given€before€it€can€be€accepted.€òòóó€395€U.S.Ð `  Ðat€242,€89€S.€Ct.€at€1711.€€Similarly,€our€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòMackeyóó€required€anÐ P  Ðaffirmative€showing€of€a€voluntary€and€knowledgeable€guilty€plea,€namely,€that€the€defendant€hasÐ ð@  Ðbeen€made€aware€of€the€significant€consequences€of€such€a€plea.€€òòPettusóó,€986€S.W.2d€at€542.€€A€pleaÐ à0  Ðis€not€ð ðvoluntaryðð€if€it€results€from€ignorance,€misunderstanding,€coercion,€inducements,€or€threats.€Ð Ð  ÐòòBlankenship€v.€Stateóó,€858€S.W.2d€897,€904€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€court€must€determine€if€theÐ À Ðguilty€plea€is€ð ðknowingðð€by€questioning€the€defendant€to€make€sure€he€fully€understands€the€plea€andÐ ° Ðits€consequences.€€òòPettusóó,€986€S.W.2d€at€542;€òòBlankenshipóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€904.€€€à x àÐ  ð ÐÌà  àSince€the€plea€must€represent€a€voluntary€and€intelligent€choice€among€the€alternativesÐ €Ð Ðavailable€to€the€defendant,€the€trial€court€may€look€at€a€number€of€circumstantial€factors€in€makingÐ pÀ Ðthis€determination.€€òòBlankenshipóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€904.€€These€factors€include:€(1)€the€defendantððsÐ `° Ðrelative€intelligence;€(2)€his€familiarity€with€criminal€proceedings;€(3)€whether€he€was€representedÐ P  Ðby€competent€counsel€and€had€the€opportunity€to€confer€with€counsel€about€alternatives;€(4)€theÐ @ Ðadvice€of€counsel€and€the€court€about€the€charges€against€him€and€the€penalty€to€be€imposed;€and€(5)Ð 0€ Ðthe€defendantððs€reasons€for€pleading€guilty,€including€the€desire€to€avoid€a€greater€penalty€in€a€juryÐ  p Ðtrial.€€òòId.óó€at€904„05.Ð ` ÐÌà  àThe€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€reveals€that€the€trial€court€carefully€and€correctlyÐ ð@ Ðinformed€the€petitioner€at€length€of€his€constitutional€rights,€and€specifically€asked€if€he€understoodÐ à0 Ðthat€he€was€waiving€those€rights,€including€his€right€to€present€an€alibi€defense,€by€pleading€guilty.Ð Ð  ÐThe€petitioner€responded€in€the€affirmative,€testifying€under€oath€that€he€was€not€under€the€influenceÐ À! Ðof€any€narcotics,€drugs,€or€alcohol,€that€he€understood€the€full€consequences€of€his€plea,€that€noÐ °"  Ðthreats€or€coercion€had€been€brought€against€him€to€induce€him€to€accept€the€plea,€and€that€he€wasÐ  #ð! Ðentering€into€the€plea€knowingly€and€voluntarily.€€Ð $à" ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€totality€of€counselððs€alleged€deficiencies€in€performance,Ð p&À!$ Ðcombined€with€her€indication€that€he€would€be€convicted€based€on€the€DNA€evidence€if€he€went€toÐ `'°"% Ðtrial,€served€to€coerce€his€guilty€plea.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€We€have€previously€concluded€thatÐ P( #& Ðthe€petitionerððs€allegations€of€deficient€performance€on€the€part€of€trial€counsel€are€without€merit.€Ð @)$' ÐWe€conclude,€likewise,€that€there€is€no€merit€to€his€claim€that€counselððs€advice€regarding€the€risk€heÐ 0*€%( Ðstood€by€going€to€trial€served€to€coerce€his€guilty€plea.€€Trial€counselððs€DNA€expert€had€concurredÐ  +p&) Ðin€the€findings€of€the€TBI,€concluding€that€the€DNA€evidence€conclusively€linked€the€petitioner€toÐ ,`'* Ðthe€rape.€€The€State€also€had€a€witness€who€was€prepared€to€testify€that€he€had€seen€the€petitioner€inÐ ° Ðthe€vicinity€of€the€victimððs€residence€the€evening€of€the€crime.€€We€additionally€note€that,€althoughÐ  ð Ðthe€ninety„year„old€victim€was€apparently€unable€to€identify€the€petitioner€as€her€assailant€at€theÐ à Ðbeginning€of€the€preliminary€hearing,€she€responded€in€her€later€testimony€at€the€hearing€that€he€wasÐ €Ð Ðthe€man€who€entered€her€residence€and€attacked€her,€answering,€ð ðYes,€sir.€Yes,ðð€when€the€trial€courtÐ pÀ Ðsought€to€clarify€if€she€was€identifying€the€petitioner€as€the€perpetrator.€€She€added€that€theÐ ` ° Ðdefendantððs€ð ðmamaððs€nameðð€was€Juanita€Epperson€and€that€ð ð[h]eððs€the€one€done€the€dirt.ðð€€In€spiteÐ P   Ðof€all€the€evidence€against€the€petitioner,€trial€counsel€testified€that€she€had€been€prepared€to€go€toÐ @  Ðtrial,€and€stood€ready€to€try€the€petitionerððs€alibi€defense€had€he€so€desired.€€Thus,€although€theÐ 0 € Ðevidence€against€him€may€have€been€unpleasant€for€the€petitioner€to€face,€and€he€may€have€beenÐ  p  Ðunhappy€when€trial€counsel€informed€him€of€his€probability€of€being€convicted€if€he€went€to€trial,Ð `  Ðhe€was€in€no€way€coerced€by€trial€counselððs€advice€into€pleading€guilty.€Ð P  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€additionally€contends€that€his€guilty€plea€was€involuntary€because€it€was€notÐ à0  Ðheld€in€the€courtroom€in€front€of€his€family€and€friends.€€In€support,€he€cites€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ Ð  ÐCriminal€Procedure€11(c),€which€provides€that€the€trial€court,€in€the€context€of€accepting€a€guiltyÐ À Ðplea,€must€address€the€defendant€ð ðpersonally€in€open€court.ðð€€However,€as€the€State€points€out,€theÐ ° Ðpetitioner€cites€no€law€in€support€of€his€claim€that€his€plea€was€involuntary€because€it€was€taken€inÐ  ð Ðthe€jury€room,€and€there€is€nothing€in€the€rule€to€indicate€that€ð ðopen€courtðð€must€be€the€actualÐ à Ðcourtroom.€€We€find€it€sufficient€that€the€guilty€plea€hearing€was€held€with€the€trial€court,€theÐ €Ð Ðpetitioner,€his€trial€counsel,€and€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€present€and€was€transcribed€byÐ pÀ Ðthe€court€reporter.€€The€transcript€of€that€hearing€does€not€show€that€the€petitioner€raised€anyÐ `° Ðobjections€or€questions€about€the€location€of€the€hearing€or€the€manner€in€which€it€was€conducted.€Ð P  ÐWe€note€that€the€petitioner€was€36€years€old€at€the€time€of€his€pleas€of€guilty.€€The€record€does€notÐ @ Ðreflect€that€the€location€of€the€hearing€had€any€effect€on€the€petitionerððs€decision€to€plead€guilty€orÐ 0€ Ðhis€understanding€and€waiver€of€his€rights.€€We,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€record€supports€the€post„Ð  p Ðconviction€courtððs€determination€that€the€petitionerððs€guilty€plea€was€knowing€and€voluntary.Ð ` ÐÌà@ýýìàò òIV.€€Sufficiency€of€IndictmentˆÐ ð@ ÐÌà  àó óAs€his€final€issue,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€indictment€was€fatally€defective,€thereforeÐ Ð  Ðrobbing€the€trial€court€of€jurisdiction€over€his€case.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€the€indictment€wasÐ À! Ðdefective€because€one€count€contained€an€erroneous€date€of€September€5,€1998,€as€the€date€of€theÐ °"  Ðoffense,€and€because€the€indictment€failed€to€list€the€aggravating€factors€for€his€crimes.€€The€StateÐ  #ð! Ðargues€that€the€petitioner€has€waived€the€issue€by€his€failure€to€provide€citing€references€to€theÐ $à" Ðrecord,€and€even€if€not€waived,€the€post„conviction€court€correctly€found€that€the€indictment€was:Ð €%Ð # Ð(1)€adequate€to€put€the€petitioner€on€notice€of€the€charges€he€would€be€required€to€defend;€(2)Ð p&À!$ Ðsufficient€for€the€trial€court€to€enter€judgment€on€the€offense;€and€(3)€sufficient€for€the€petitioner€toÐ `'°"% Ðraise€any€double€jeopardy€claims.€Once€again,€we€agree€with€the€State.Ð P( #& ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€petitioner€included€a€copy€of€the€indictment€as€an€appendix€to€his€brief,€theÐ 0*€%( Ðindictment€itself€is€not€part€of€the€record€before€this€court.€€It€was€the€duty€of€the€petitioner€toÐ  +p&) Ðprovide€an€adequate€record€for€appellate€review.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€ð ðWhen€a€party€seeksÐ ,`'* Ðappellate€review€there€is€a€duty€to€prepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurate€and€completeÐ ° Ðaccount€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€the€issues€forming€the€basis€of€the€appeal.ðð€òòState€v.Ð  ð ÐBallardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€560€(Tenn.€1993).€€Generally,€when€the€appellate€record€is€inadequate,€theÐ à Ðappellate€court€is€precluded€from€considering€the€issue,€and€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€is€presumedÐ €Ð Ðcorrect.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Ð ` ° ÐÌà  àHowever,€utilizing€the€copy€of€the€indictment€included€within€the€petitionerððs€brief,€weÐ @  Ðconclude€that€this€claim€is€without€merit.€€Our€supreme€court€has€held€an€indictment€to€be€valid€ifÐ 0 € Ðit€ð ðprovides€sufficient€information€(1)€to€enable€the€accused€to€know€the€accusation€to€which€answerÐ  p  Ðis€required,€(2)€to€furnish€the€court€adequate€basis€for€the€entry€of€a€proper€judgment,€and€(3)€toÐ `  Ðprotect€the€accused€from€double€jeopardy.ðð€€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€954€S.W.2d€725,€727€(Tenn.€1997)Ð P  Ð(citations€omitted).€€The€exact€date€of€an€offense€need€not€be€included€in€the€indictment€unless€it€isÐ ð@  Ða€material€element€of€the€offense.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€739,€740€(Tenn.€1991).€€Moreover,Ð à0  Ðindictments€which€reference€the€relevant€statute€have€been€found€to€be€sufficient€even€though€theyÐ Ð  Ðomit€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€988€S.W.2d€145,€149€(Tenn.€1999);Ð À ÐòòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,€100€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€òòState€v.€Hammondsóó,€30€S.W.3d€294,€300€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð2000),€our€supreme€court€stated€that€ð ðindictments€which€achieve€the€overriding€purpose€of€noticeÐ  ð Ðto€the€accused€will€be€considered€sufficient€to€satisfy€both€constitutional€and€statutory€requirements.ðð€Ð à ÐÌà  àThe€indictment€charges€the€petitioner€in€Counts€1,€2,€and€3,€respectively,€with€the€aggravatedÐ pÀ Ðrape,€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€and€especially€aggravated€robbery€of€the€victim€ð ðon€or€aboutÐ `° ÐSeptember€6,€1998,ðð€and€in€Count€4€with€the€aggravated€burglary€of€her€residence,€with€the€intentÐ P  Ðto€commit€aggravated€rape€and/or€aggravated€robbery,€ð ðon€or€about€September€5,€1998.ðð€€We€noteÐ @ Ðthat€all€of€these€offenses€were€connected€and€alleged€to€have€occurred€before€the€return€of€theÐ 0€ Ðindictment€on€April€5,€1999.€€A€common€sense€explanation€of€the€differing€dates€of€the€indictmentÐ  p Ðis€that€an€error€was€made€in€setting€out€the€date€that€the€offense€in€Count€4€had€occurred,€especiallyÐ ` Ðsince€it€alleged€that€the€burglary€was€committed€to€commit€the€rape€and€robbery€alleged€in€CountsÐ P Ð1€and€3.€€The€post„conviction€petition€alleges€that€the€differing€ð ðSeptember€5ðð€date€is€ð ðsignificantÐ ð@ Ðto€the€outcome€of€petitionerððs€alibi€defense€and€the€identity€of€the€real€perpetrator.ðð€€However,€theÐ à0 Ðpetitioner€did€not€testify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€as€to€these€allegations,€and€we€note€that€heÐ Ð  Ðclaimed€to€have€an€alibi€as€to€September€6,€not€September€5.€€Accordingly,€we€fail€to€understandÐ À! Ðhow€the€defense€was€prejudiced€by€the€differing€dates.Ð °"  ÐÌà  àWe€note,€further,€that€the€petitioner€has€been€quite€active€from€the€time€of€his€arrest€both€inÐ $à" Ðfiling€his€own€motions€and€in€urging€counsel€to€file€motions.€€He€did€not€testify€as€to€whether€aÐ €%Ð # Ðpretrial€motion€had€questioned€the€date€alleged€in€Count€4€or€exactly€when€he€had€discovered€theÐ p&À!$ Ðdiscrepancy.€€We€respectfully€disagree€that€the€differing€date€caused€Count€4€to€be€fatally€defective.Ð `'°"% ÐIn€our€view,€the€indictment€was€clearly€sufficient€to€achieve€ð ðthe€overriding€purpose€of€noticeðð€toÐ P( #& Ðthe€petitioner€of€the€charges€he€would€be€called€upon€to€defend.€€As€for€the€petitionerððs€argument€thatÐ @)$' ÐCount€1€of€the€indictment,€charging€aggravated€rape,€was€invalid€for€failing€to€list€the€aggravatingÐ 0*€%( Ðâ âfactors€for€this€offense,€we€note€that€the€indictment€alleged€that€the€victim€sustained€ð ðbodily€injury,ððÐ  +p&) Ðthus€elevating€the€offense€to€aggravated€rape.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€record€fully€supportsÐ ° Ðâ âthe€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court€that€the€indictment€was€sufficient€to€notify€the€petitionerÐ  ð Ðof€the€charges€against€him€and€to€raise€a€double€jeopardy€claim,€if€necessary.ò òÐ à Ðó óÌà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONˆÐ pÀ ÐÌóóó óà  àWe€conclude€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€demonstrating€that€he€was€deniedÐ P   Ðthe€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€further€conclude€that€the€petitionerððs€guilty€plea€wasÐ @  Ðvoluntary,€and€that€the€indictment€was€not€fatally€defective.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€denial€ofÐ 0 € Ðthe€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.Ð  p  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà × àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð à0  Ðà  àà ` àà × àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE