ÿWPC: ŠY|<·X´/$¦ônr•wØã.8*¡ã®ï—Õ ­ZãVC¸´¹å™pLÔÕ_PÑ«m`#r¨dòG~¯ï%TøÀwm…VƒSɺ4­E—XD \b´1è›ò`³Ðl®Ô¤CÝ›Í>á)Èþý #-P¬ŸgÌ2œÒ½Û—Š£@ÍñE¤ÝÐ~­I3 øK2/̆Xçâ™9Òõiðbñ/løµ Eo˜9;ü›Ðz‡M“¸Lã£w¬³ßåòì]ÄZ¥>ÏhUmög²™³ÈÊ]ñô3’n™é~>i_!Y€Œ…2?ö"ÇíÒCa8{êÒ/~dâuaÈb86*éÍ¥Ï89H§Ks¬§ƒ‚"Áò@ˆ¹v°`ÑBõØ=žÈÚÐ÷ÔÞUˆÕß‘AÝËÊ×BNùæl±f bàö£ay·¶¥ÉhÚ½ÊRt¡ª— Eôäõ‡¨Wg„ý‚Ž’žµГd²â}÷•d’t2¬­^N , vC€TÐÔ§²Ëº|"ò6Ù@Ç"õŸËíW1 AÉ.õA[¦;¿×ɲ¸ß¬¹„Jº78ˆNÖÍl|¿¬¬IèY³®†tìòåsl*:l”¹gƒ¢°ú[²_x¤-ÙÞÔÂG¡`s]â%i>ïb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 0D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'NíNïïïEñU:óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóób------------------------------------ 0ë5555 B   0¤= D5á D- 0KCC ASŽÆá 0¤§ 0DK A«˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»1°p+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'\P˜ œ ˜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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-(|G2ÿ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Oå»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôðíò»»Ô d(|3‡$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Oå»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Oå»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Oå»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Oå»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îR$OåÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Oå»îîR$ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€15,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼OåÔÌò òÔ#†¼Oå»XX #ÔJ.€D.€LANDERS€òòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XX»¼OåÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Perry€€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€632,€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00319„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€November€16,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓJ.D.€Landers€appeals€from€the€Perry€County€Circuit€Courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„convictionÐ xÈ  Ðrelief.€€He€seeks€to€set€aside€his€conviction€and€guilty€plea€because€he€was€not€provided€the€effectiveÐ d´ Ðassistance€of€counsel€and€did€not€knowingly,€voluntarily€and€intelligently€enter€his€guilty€plea.€Ð P  ÐBecause€the€trial€court€properly€dismissed€the€petition,€we€affirm.Ô#†¼Oå»XX–#ÔÔ‡XX»¼OåÔÐ <Œ ÐÓ¯ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Oå»àX‘#ÔÔ‡XX.¼OåÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€andÐ ì< ÐòòJoe€G.€Riley,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌÔ_ÔDeberaÔ_Ô€Bell„Beam,€Linden,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€J.€D.€Landers.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Thomas€E.€Williams,€III,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ ˆØ ÐGeneral;€William€Edward€Gibson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Jeffrey€L.€Long,€Assistant€DistrictÐ tÄ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð `° ÐÓ0ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Oå»XX_#ÔÔ‡XX»¼OåÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Oå»XXo #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XX»¼OåÔÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€is€serving€a€ten„year€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€hisÐ #`" Ðconviction€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€He€was€originally€charged€with€one€count€of€rape,€oneÐ ü#L# Ðcount€of€incest,€and€six€counts€of€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€remaining€charges€were€dismissedÐ è$8 $ Ðupon€entry€of€his€best„interest€guilty€plea.€€Despite€this€ostensibly€favorable€outcome,€the€petitionerÐ Ô%$!% Ðclaims€that€he€had€no€choice€but€to€plead€guilty€because€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€investigate€the€caseÐ À&"& Ðand€prepare€for€trial.€€He€also€claims€that€he€was€under€the€influence€of€medication€at€the€time€heÐ ¬'ü"' Ðentered€his€plea,€is€essentially€illiterate,€and€was€coached€on€the€proper€answers€to€give€at€the€pleaÐ ˜(è#( Ðsubmission€hearing.€€Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€support€of€his€claims,€the€petitioner€offered€his€own€testimony€at€the€post„Ð \+¬&+ Ðconviction€hearing.€€His€testimony€illustrated€his€claims€in€factual€detail.€€Relative€to€his€complaintsÐ H,˜', Ðabout€the€effectiveness€of€counsel,€he€claimed€that€counsel€did€not€adequately€investigate€the€case,Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôspoke€with€him€infrequently,€communicated€with€him€through€the€defense€investigator€to€the€pointÐ ° Ðthat€he€believed€the€investigator€was€his€attorney,€coached€him€through€the€plea€submission€process,Ð œì Ðdid€not€discuss€the€case€or€theories€of€defense€with€him,€and€allowed€him€to€plead€guilty€even€thoughÐ ˆØ Ðhe€was€under€the€influence€of€prescription€medication.€€His€claims€relative€to€his€guilty€plea€wereÐ tÄ Ðthat€he€is€essentially€illiterate,€did€not€understand€what€he€was€doing,€was€under€the€influence€ofÐ `° Ðthree€Xanax€pills,€was€erroneously€advised€by€the€defense€investigator€that€his€sentence€would€beÐ L œ Ðserved€at€30€percent€release€eligibility€rather€than€85€percent,€felt€trapped€because€of€counselððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðinadequate€efforts,€and€merely€followed€in€the€prompting€given€by€counsel€in€answering€questionsÐ $ t Ðat€the€plea€submission€hearing.Ð  ` Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àLanders€offered€the€testimony€of€two€family€members€at€the€hearing.€€In€general,€theyÐ è 8  Ðclaimed€they€were€not€contacted€by€the€defense€but€would€have€cooperated€had€counsel€or€theÐ Ô$  Ðinvestigator€spoken€with€them.€€The€petitionerððs€daughter,€who€is€the€victimððs€aunt,€testified€that€theÐ À  Ðvictim€had€admitted€to€an€assistant€district€attorney€that€she€was€not€telling€the€truth,€but€the€victimÐ ¬ü  Ðreversed€her€position€after€the€assistant€asked€her€the€same€question€over€and€over.€€The€petitionerððsÐ ˜è  Ðdaughter€also€claimed€to€trust€the€petitioner€with€her€own€daughter.€€The€petitionerððs€son€claimedÐ „Ô  Ðthat€he€could€have€offered€testimony€about€familial€relations€and€possible€motives€for€accusing€theÐ pÀ Ðpetitioner,€but€he€did€not€elaborate.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àDefense€counsel€and€the€defense€investigator,€although€testifying€during€theÐ 4„ Ðpetitionerððs€case„in„chief,€contradicted€the€petitionerððs€claims.€€Their€testimony€regarding€the€levelÐ  p Ðof€assistance€provided€was€that€they€consulted€with€the€petitioner€on€many€occasions€and€coveredÐ  \ Ðmany€subjects€pertinent€to€the€case.€€The€investigator€handled€communications€regarding€factualÐ øH Ðmatters,€and€counsel€handled€communications€regarding€legal€matters.€€The€investigator€gatheredÐ ä4 Ðinformation€and€provided€it€to€the€psychiatric€evaluator.€€He€sent€letters€to€witnesses€who€theÐ Ð  Ðpetitioner€identified,€most€of€whom€were€character€witnesses.€€Although€the€letters€requested€thatÐ ¼  Ðthe€witnesses€contact€him,€he€received€no€response,€and€none€of€the€letters€were€returned€by€theÐ ¨ø Ðpostal€service.€€He€attempted€to€meet€with€the€victimððs€aunt€at€the€courthouse,€but€throughÐ ”ä Ðmiscommunication€they€missed€each€other.€€He€went€over€the€medical€reports€and€allegations€withÐ €Ð Ðthe€petitioner.€€He€investigated€a€possible€lead€that€someone€else€committed€the€crime,€but€heÐ l¼ Ðdiscovered€that€the€other€suspect€had€been€in€prison€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Counsel€testified€thatÐ X ¨ Ðalthough€the€investigator€had€more€communication€with€the€petitioner€than€he€did,€he€didÐ D!” Ðcommunicate€with€the€petitioner,€particularly€in€matters€surrounding€the€plea€agreement.€€CounselÐ 0"€  Ðspoke€with€any€potential€witnesses€who€were€in€court€on€various€dates.€€Counsel€requested€andÐ #l! Ðreceived€discovery.€€He€was€aware€of€the€petitionerððs€limited€literacy,€and€he€went€into€great€detailÐ $X" Ðto€make€sure€the€petitioner€understood€things.€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àWith€respect€to€the€guilty€plea,€both€counsel€and€the€investigator€testified€to€factsÐ Ì&"% Ðgreatly€different€from€those€illustrated€by€the€petitioner.€€Although€the€petitioner€initially€insisted€heÐ ¸'#& Ðwas€innocent,€he€later€expressed€his€desire€to€enter€into€a€settlement.€€He€told€the€investigator€thatÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhe€did€not€want€to€put€the€victim€through€an€ordeal.€€Counsel€explained€the€petitionerððs€rights,€theÐ )à$( Ðeffect€of€a€best„interest€guilty€plea,€and€sentencing€to€him,€and€he€was€satisfied€that€the€petitionerÐ |*Ì%) Ðunderstood€these€matters.€€Both€he€and€the€investigator€were€aware€that€the€petitioner€was€takingÐ h+¸&* Ðmedication,€but€neither€had€any€reason€to€believe€the€petitioner€was€impaired€on€the€date€of€his€guiltyÐ ° Ðplea.€€Counsel€claimed€that€the€petitionerððs€plea€was€knowing,€voluntary€and€intelligent,€and€heÐ œì Ðwould€not€have€allowed€the€guilty€plea€proceeding€to€continue€if€he€believed€otherwise.€€Further,€heÐ ˆØ Ðbelieved€the€judge€who€accepted€the€plea€would€have€halted€the€proceedings€had€she€believed€theÐ tÄ Ðpetitioner€was€not€entering€the€plea€freely€and€intelligently.€€Counsel€acknowledged€that€the€pleaÐ `° Ðagreement€calls€for€a€Range€I€sentence;€however,€the€petitioner€was€advised€by€the€judge€at€the€pleaÐ L œ Ðsubmission€hearing€that€he€would€have€to€serve€at€least€85€percent€of€his€sentence€before€paroleÐ 8 ˆ Ðeligibility.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àA€transcript€of€the€plea€submission€hearing€was€also€received€at€the€post„convictionÐ ü L  Ðhearing.€€It€reflects€that€the€petitioner€acknowledged€and€understood€his€rights,€was€satisfied€withÐ è 8  Ðthe€services€of€counsel,€understood€the€agreement,€and€understood€the€sentence€and€the€releaseÐ Ô$  Ðeligibility.€€The€petitioner€claimed€at€that€time€he€was€not€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€or€illegalÐ À  Ðdrugs,€and€he€had€not€taken€any€prescription€or€over„the„counter€medications.€€The€petitioner€alsoÐ ¬ü  Ðclaimed€that€there€was€nothing€wrong€with€him€that€might€affect€his€ability€to€think€or€makeÐ ˜è  Ðdecisions€for€himself.€€The€transcript€reflects€that€the€petitioner€claimed€to€be€entering€his€plea€freelyÐ „Ô  Ðand€voluntarily€and€after€consultation€with€counsel.€€Although€the€petitioner€did€not€agree€with€theÐ pÀ Ðveracity€of€the€stateððs€proof,€he€acknowledged€that€the€factual€recitation€by€the€state€would€beÐ \¬ Ðsufficient,€if€proven,€to€convict€him€and€that€it€was€in€his€best€interest€to€plead€guilty.€€The€defendantÐ H˜ Ðacknowledged€that€his€best„interest€plea€to€one€count€of€a€multiple„count€indictment€was€a€good€deal.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€receiving€the€evidence€and€written€arguments€from€the€parties,€the€post„Ð  \ Ðconviction€court€found€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€sustain€his€burden€of€proof€on€both€theÐ øH Ðineffective€assistance€and€involuntary€plea€claims.€€In€so€finding,€the€court€discredited€theÐ ä4 Ðpetitionerððs€testimony€and€accredited€that€of€trial€counsel€and€his€investigator.€€The€court€also€foundÐ Ð  Ðthat€the€family€members€who€testified€for€the€petitioner€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€proved€to€haveÐ ¼  Ðlittle€information€that€would€have€been€helpful€to€the€petitionerððs€case.€€The€post„conviction€courtÐ ¨ø Ðdenied€relief.€Ð ”ä ÐÌÔ‡X]. XXXÔà  àà ` àÔ#†XX XX].Í-#ÔThe€petitioner€then€filed€this€appeal€in€which€he€claims€error€in€the€post„convictionÐ l¼ Ðcourtððs€determination€that€he€was€afforded€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€and€that€he€knowingly,Ð X ¨ Ðvoluntarily€and€intelligently€entered€his€guilty€plea.€€In€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€petitionerÐ D!” Ðhas€the€burden€of€proving€the€claims€raised€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ 0"€  Ð40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€On€appeal,€the€lower€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€reviewed€òòde€novoóó€with€aÐ #l! Ðpresumption€of€correctness€that€may€only€be€overcome€if€the€evidence€preponderates€against€thoseÐ $X" Ðfindings.€€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458€(Tenn.€2001).Ô‡X]. XXXÔÐ ô$D # ÐÔ#†XX XX].51#ÔÌà@ÅÅ*ìàò òIó óˆÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€consider€first€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim.€€When€a€petitionerÐ ¤(ô#' Ðchallenges€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€has€the€burden€of€establishing€(1)€deficientÐ )à$( Ðrepresentation€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€that€deficiency.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð |*Ì%) Ð668,€686,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€Ð h+¸&* ÐDeficient€representation€occurs€when€counsel€provides€assistance€that€falls€below€the€range€ofÐ ° Ðcompetence€demanded€of€criminal€defense€attorneys.€€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.Ð œì ÐCrim.€App.€1991).€€Prejudice€is€the€reasonable€likelihood€that,€but€for€deficient€representation,€theÐ ˆØ Ðoutcome€of€the€proceedings€would€have€been€different.€€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1994).€€In€the€context€of€a€guilty€plea,€prejudice€is€shown€where,€but€for€counselððs€deficientÐ `° Ðperformance,€the€outcome€of€the€plea€process€would€have€been€different.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.Ð L œ Ð52,€59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€370€(1985);€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€44€S.W.3d€508,€516€(Tenn.€2001).€€Proof€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðprejudice€is€established€when€the€petitioner€demonstrates€"that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,Ð $ t Ðbut€for€counsel's€error,€he€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial."Ð  ` ÐòòHillóó,€474€U.S.€at€59,€106€S.€Ct.€at€370.€€On€review,€there€is€a€strong€presumption€of€satisfactoryÐ ü L  Ðrepresentation.€€òòBarr€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€462,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€petitioner€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proving€his€claims€ofÐ À  Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€On€our€review€of€the€record,€weÐ ¬ü  Ðare€unconvinced€that€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€The€issue€in€this€case€is€largely€one€ofÐ ˜è  Ðwitness€credibility.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€the€petitionerððs€testimony€incredible€whenÐ „Ô  Ðmeasured€against€that€of€counsel€and€the€defense€investigator.€€We€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€ofÐ pÀ Ðrecord€compels€a€different€result.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€post„conviction€court€properlyÐ \¬ Ðdenied€relief.Ð H˜ ÐÌà@žž)ìàò òIIó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitionerððs€remaining€claim€is€that€his€guilty€plea€was€not€knowingly,€voluntarilyÐ øH Ðand€intelligently€entered.€€When€reviewing€the€entry€of€a€guilty€plea,€the€overriding€concern€isÐ ä4 Ðwhether€the€plea€is€knowingly,€voluntarily€and€understandingly€made.€€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.Ð Ð  Ð238,€242„44,€89€S.€Ct.€1709,€1712€(1969).€€ð ðA€plea€is€not€ððvoluntaryðð€if€it€is€the€product€ofÐ ¼  Ðððignorance,€incomprehension,€coercion,€terror,€inducements,€[or]€subtle€or€blatant€threats.€.€.€.ðð"Ð ¨ø ÐòòBlankenship€v.€Stateóó,€858€S.W.2d€897,€904€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€òòBoykinóó,€395€U.S.€at€242-43,€89Ð ”ä ÐS.€Ct.€at€1712).€€Moreover,€a€plea€cannot€be€voluntary€if€the€defendant€is€ð ðincompetent€or€otherwiseÐ €Ð Ðnot€in€control€of€his€mental€facilitiesðð€at€the€time€it€is€entered.€€òòId.óó€at€904„05€(quoting€òòBrown€v.Ð l¼ ÐPerinióó,€718€F.2d€784,€788€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1983)).€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€post„conviction€court€found€petitioner€failed€to€sustain€his€burden€ofÐ 0"€  Ðproof€with€respect€to€his€factual€allegations€about€his€guilty€plea.€€Based€on€credible€proof€to€theÐ #l! Ðcontrary,€the€court€rejected€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€he€was€under€the€influence€of€medication€orÐ $X" Ðunable€to€understand€the€proceedings€and€make€intelligent€decisions.€€The€court€also€found€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðpetitioner€was€fully€advised€of€his€rights€and€was€able€to€understand€the€plea€agreement€into€whichÐ à%0!$ Ðhe€entered.€€Upon€review€of€the€record,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€to€the€contrary.€€WeÐ Ì&"% Ðtherefore€hold€that€the€post„conviction€court€properly€denied€relief€on€this€claim.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àBecause€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€error€in€the€lower€courtððs€dismissal€ofÐ )à$( Ðhis€post„conviction€claim,€we€affirm.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE