ÿWPC˜ …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ Þ w@æ 0J& 0Tp 0^Ä 0h" 0rŠ 0|ü 0†x 0þ 1uŽ 0dU6gU.U*ËB)õDC Ba AM~dËv~/vÓ­ D3€ 0@³ AOóÆB 0D D/L B{˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÔ¡¨ 3|xÓ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ÁEÂDÃDÄÅÆDÇDÈDÉÊÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ZÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌDecember€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€"Ô›Ñ7€ ܲ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€&'$A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€NOVEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTEVEN€D.€HARRISà àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9611„CR„€00489Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Davidson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€Thomas€H.€Shriver,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à€€€à à)à à€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌHenry€R.€Allison,€IIIà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ500€Church€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌNashville,€TN€37219„2349à àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àElizabeth€B.€MarneyÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÏà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àJohn€ZimmermanÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àWashington€SquareÌà àà àà àà àà à222€2nd€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€Steven€D.€Harris,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€County€denying€him€post„conviction€relief€from€hisÏ1995€convictions€upon€guilty€pleas€for€second€degree€murder€and€attempted€firstÏdegree€murder,€Class€A€felonies.€€He€received€consecutive€fifteen„year€sentences.€ÏThe€gist€of€the€petitionerððs€claim€in€this€appeal€is€that€his€pleas€were€unknowing€andÏinvoluntary€because€of€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€induced€him€to€acceptÏthe€plea€offer.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€was€originally€charged€with€first€degree€murder€andÏattempt€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€He€was€tried,€but€a€mistrial€was€ordered€when€itÏwas€discovered€that€jurors€had€gone€to€the€scene€of€the€events€in€issue.€€On€the€dayÏselected€for€the€retrial,€the€petitioner€entered€guilty€pleas€pursuant€to€an€agreementÏwith€the€state.€€At€that€hearing,€the€state€recounted€the€facts€upon€which€the€pleas€wereÏbased.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€had€visited€his€girlfriend€who€had€a€child.€€The€victims,€IraÏPanky€and€Christopher€Holland,€who€was€supposedly€the€father€of€the€girlfriendððsÏchild,€had€arrived€to€see€the€child.€€After€a€few€words€were€spoken,€the€victims€left,€asÏdid€the€petitioner.€€The€victims€returned€later€that€evening.€€Unknown€to€the€victims,€theÏpetitioner€also€had€œreturned,›€with€a€gun.€€While€the€victims€were€standing€œunarmed›€onÏthe€œstreet›€talking€to€a€third€person,€the€petitioner€came€through€the€œbackyard›€up€to€theÏfront€sidewalk,€catching€both€victims€off€guard.€€The€petitioner€fired€shots€at€Mr.€HollandÏœand›€œthen›€gave€chase€to€Mr.€Panky.€€As€he€ran€down€the€street,€he€shot€Mr.€Panky€in€theÏback.€€Mr.€Panky€died€as€a€result€of€the€gunshot€wound.€€Mr.€Holland€was€shot€in€theÏœface›€but€œsurvived,›€œalthough€he€had›€a€lengthy€stay€in€the€hospital.€€ÌÌà àThe€specifics€of€the€petitionerððs€arguments€in€this€appeal€are€that€his€trialÏattorney€failed€to€let€him€know€that€the€sentences€were€consecutive,€failed€to€pursue€aÏcontinuance€in€order€for€the€petitioner€to€hire€new€counsel€and€failed€to€advise€theÍpetitioner€that€he€could€change€his€mind€regarding€the€agreement€anytime€during€theÏcourt€proceeding.€€At€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€testifiedÏthat€he€did€not€want€to€plead€œguilty›€but€that€his€attorney€told€him€that€the€state€would€beÏwilling€to€accept€a€guilty€plea€to€the€offenses€with€a€fifteen„year€sentence€to€beÏimposed€on€both€offenses.€€The€petitioner€said€that€he€told€his€attorney€that€he€wantedÏto€hire€new€counsel,€but€on€the€morning€of€the€retrial,€his€attorney€stated€that€such€wasÏnot€an€option€because€if€he,€the€attorney,€were€relieved,€the€trial€court€would€try€theÏpetitioner€€on€that€day€anyway.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€stated€that€he€was€unaware€through€the€whole€processÏthat€he€was€receiving€an€effective€sentence€of€thirty€years€in€the€penitentiary,€evenÏthough€he€acknowledged€that€the€guilty€plea€hearing€transcript€reflected€that€the€trialÏcourt€€explained€the€thirty„year€sentence€to€him.€€In€this€respect,€the€petitioner€testifiedÏthat€he€believed€that€after€he€signed€the€guilty€plea€petition€and€appeared€in€court,€itÏwas€too€late€for€him€to€change€his€mind.€€He€also€explained€that€he€did€not€understandÏð ðlegalese,ðð€such€as€the€meaning€of€ð ðconsecutive.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€trial€attorney€testified€that€the€state€had€originally€offeredÏto€recommend€a€twenty„five„year€sentence€subject€to€the€approval€of€the€families€of€theÏvictims€and€that€the€petitioner€was€willing€to€accept€such€an€offer.€€However,€theÏfamilies€rejected€the€reduced€sentence.€€The€attorney€stated€that€the€petitioner€andÍseveral€witnesses€were€called€to€testify€for€the€defense€at€the€first€trial.€€He€said€that€atÏthe€conclusion€of€the€proof,€a€mistrial€was€declared€when€jurors€revealed€that€they€hadÏgone€to€the€scene€of€the€crime€without€authorization.€€He€also€stated€that€after€theÏmistrial,€he€discovered€that€the€jury€was€prepared€to€return€a€verdict€of€guilt€on€the€firstÏdegree€murder€charge.€€He€stated€that€he€advised€the€petitioner€of€this€fact.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€attorney€testified€that€pending€the€second€trial,€he€was€madeÏaware€that€the€petitioner€was€seeking€to€hire€another€attorney.€€He€said€that€he€spokeÏto€the€other€attorney€and€offered€him€all€of€the€petitionerððs€files.€€However,€the€otherÏattorney€was€never€retained.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€attorney€stated€that€he€undertook€preparations€for€the€secondÏtrial.€€Also,€the€state€offered€to€settle€the€charges€for€thirty„five€years.€€The€attorney€saidÏthat€he€spoke€with€the€petitioner€several€times€about€the€offer€and€that€the€petitionerÏunderstood€what€the€offer€involved,€expressing€no€confusion€or€misunderstandingÏabout€its€terms.€€He€said€that€on€the€day€of€the€second€trial,€the€state€reduced€its€offer€toÏthirty€years€and€the€petitioner€stated€that€he€was€going€to€plead€guilty.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€signed€a€petition€to€enter€a€plea€of€guilty€that€reflected€thatÏthe€fifteen„year€sentences€were€consecutive.€€The€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€hearingÏreflects€that€the€petitioner€stated€that€he€understood€the€terms€of€the€plea€agreementÍand€that€his€trial€attorney€had€gone€over€the€œterms›€with€him.€€Further,€the€trial€courtÏspecifically€stated€that€the€sentences€totaled€thirty€years.€€The€petitioner€asked€the€trialÏcourt€about€the€effect€his€guilty€pleas€would€have€on€the€ð ðthree€strikes€and€youððre€outððÏlaw,€which€the€trial€court€explained.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€petitioner€was€notÏentitled€to€relief.€€From€the€testimony€and€the€transcript€of€the€guilty€pleas,€it€found€thatÏthe€petitioner€had€asked€some€intelligent€questions,€that€the€trial€court€explained€to€theÏpetitioner€the€various€possibilities€about€how€long€he€would€have€to€serve€on€theÏsentence,€and€that€the€petitioner€made€his€own€decision€to€plead€guilty.€€It€concludedÏthat€the€petitioner€entered€knowing€and€intelligent€guilty€pleas€and€that€there€was€noÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€discreditedÏthe€bulk€of€the€petitionerððs€testimony€as€an€attempt€to€get€out€œof€the›€prior€agreement.ÌÌà àUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€is€made,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counselððsÏperformance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984).€€In€the€context€of€aÏcomplaint€about€guilty€pleas€resulting€from€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,Ïprejudice€is€shown€by€demonstrating€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððsÏmisadvice€and€errors,€the€petitioner€would€not€have€pled€guilty€and€would€haveÍinsisted€upon€going€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€370Ï(1985);€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€the€petitionerððs€claims€were€not€proven€at€the€evidentiaryÏhearing.€€To€the€contrary,€the€record€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings€andÏconclusions.€€Primarily,€the€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€reflects€a€fullÏunderstanding€and€awareness€by€the€petitioner€of€the€particulars€of€the€pleaÏagreement,€of€his€various€trial€related€constitutional€rights,€and€of€the€fact€that€hisÏeffective€sentence€would€be€thirty€years.€€It€also€reflects€his€willingness€to€plead€guiltyÏand€his€understanding€of€the€ramifications€flowing€from€his€guilty€pleas.€€As€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€has€noted,€a€petitionerððs€testimony€at€a€guilty€plea€hearingÏð ðconstitutes€a€formidable€barrierðð€in€any€subsequent€collateral€proceeding€becauseÏð ðsolemn€declarations€in€open€court€carry€a€strong€presumption€of€verity.ðð€€òòBlackledge€v.ÏAllisonóó,€431€U.S.€63,€œ73,›€97€S.€Ct.€1621,€1629€(1977).€€Nothing€in€the€record€before€usÏdispels€the€reliability€of€the€petitionerððs€testimony€at€his€guilty€plea€hearing.€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€petitionerððs€testimony€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing€is€fullyÏconsistent€with€his€trial€attorneyððs€testimony€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€relative€to€theÏpetitionerððs€willingness€to€accept€the€plea€offer€and€understanding€of€its€ramifications.€ÏWe€see€nothing€to€reflect€that€the€attorney€misadvised€the€petitioner€or€that€deficientÍperformance€by€the€attorney€induced€the€petitioner€to€enter€guilty€pleas€that€he€wouldÏnot€have€otherwise€agreed€to€enter.€€ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€