WPC K%QN6:g4V)]0aodbPSO~A'~+soW"k70jç1&˾0;Q{w s*d6,#惙nm<4X`0K lrjVy%P&R .9Y+ rיH Q \ևl[Xq˒:Y8ѽ٪v.tdߙ1Go$*(4,fˡ%JcFƃ_j'@nOqyw ]QºJUxؑi QRmydYA%s K}J<`#%lM[;0naϧu%ãPѽx1h/] 凷EP%}̐Z-7K[ʰ/ `;Jiښ)0aL#笽ʯc~m~se9mIs_qkz Smb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'U,NnBE-&UNU@`b 0 B 0 D5\ D- 0K AS \ 0" 0D A HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0Q-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularPH,\P:i+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|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5,cAZArial  d RF$      1  m  _Thecharginginstrumentsarenotintherecord,andonlyonejudgmentforthemurdercaseisintherecord.  Whatinformationwehaveregardingtheoriginalchargesisdiscernedfromthewrittenpleaagreement. 8 RF$      2  m  _Apparently,thepetitionerwasunwillingorunabletoarticulatetheparticularsofthecrimeinawaythatwas  helpfultothestateinprosecutingthecodefendants.  RF$      3  m  _Thepleaagreementdidnotspecifyaneighteenyearsentenceforseconddegreemurderasoneofitsterms.  Rather,itappearsthatthestateagreedtorecommendaneighteenyearsentencewiththeultimatelengthofsentence t determinationtobemadebythetrialcourt.Thecourtapparentlyfollowedthatrecommendation. # RF$      4  m  _Thereissomeevidencethatathirdattorneymayhavebrieflyrepresentedthepetitioner,butnocomplaints  wereallegedagainstthatindividual.  RF$      5  m  _mmThatorderhasbeenofsubstantialassistancetothiscourtinourappellatereviewofthecase.mm(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z(Times New Roman  - -(|G2F$ !.8Fudd8         0  m d(|3G$ !.8Fudd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Fudd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Fudd8     _   Fu8yXXdd8@ttX$FuINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#FuX$ #Ԉ &    @  @` July16,2002Session L XyXFu #FuXXy#ANTONIOM.MILLERv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXyXFu  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforRutherfordCounty  J @@No.F49501J.SteveDaniel,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200101265CCAR3PCFiledOctober15,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XyXXXyAntonioM.MillerappealsfromtheRutherfordCountyCircuitCourtsdenialofhispetitionfor x  postconvictionrelief.Millerispresentlyservinganeffectivenineteenyearsentenceforconvictions d ofseconddegreemurder,sixcountsofaggravatedburglary,andonecountoffelonydrug P possession.Heclaimsthattwoofhistrialcounselprovidedineffectiveassistance.Thelowercourt < ruledagainstthepetitioner,anduponreviewoftherecord,weaffirmthatruling.#XyXXXy##FuXXy#XyXFu (x  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.  P   #FuXyO#XyX.FuJames_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichThomasT._Woodall_ ( andAlanE.Glenn,JJ.,joined.  JohnD.Drake,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,AntonioM.Miller.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;ElizabethT.Ryan,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; t WilliamC._Whitesell_,Jr.,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andPaulA._Holcombe_,III,AssistantDistrict ` AttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. L  @@OO& OPINION #FuXXy #XyXFu $"t! #FuXXy~ #  XyXFuXyXXXy   ` Asaresultofaseriesofburglaries,thepetitionerwaschargedwithfirstdegreefelony #L# murderforakillingwhichtookplaceduringtheperpetrationofaresidentialburglaryandwith $8 $ variouscountsofaggravatedburglary.  #  1      ׀Hewasaminoratthetimeofthecrime,andhehadtwo %$!% juvenileaccomplices.Thepetitionerwaivedhisrighttoatransferhearinginjuvenilecourtaspart &"& ofapleaagreementwiththestatewhichcalledforhimtoreceiveafifteenyearsentenceona '"' seconddegreemurderconviction.Althoughitisnotentirelyclearfromtherecord,itappearsthat (#(  thepetitionerwasunabletofulfillhisendofthepleaagreementbyprovidingdetailedtestimony )$) _abouttheoffenseagainsthiscodefendants.  #  2      ׀Inaddition,oneofthecodefendantsenteredaplea   conditioneduponthecodefendantsagreementtotestifyagainstthepetitioner,andthepetitioner  garneredanewfelonychargewhileonbond.Asaresult,thepleaofferwaswithdrawn.After  furthernegotiations,thepetitionerultimatelyenteredapleaagreementincircuitcourtandwas t sentencedtoserveeighteenyearsonaconvictionofseconddegreemurder,threeyearsoneachof ` sixaggravatedburglaryconvictions,andanadditionaloneyearforthefelonydrugoffense.  #  3      ׀All L  sentenceswereimposedtorunconcurrentlyexceptforthesentenceforthedrugoffense,whichwas 8  imposedtorunconsecutively. $ t    ` Shortlythereafter,thepetitionerfiledaprosepostconvictionclaim,inwhichhe  L  madenumerousallegationsofvariousshortcomingsintheconvictionproceedings.Counselwas  8  appointed.Noamendedpetitionwasfiled,althoughtheissuespresentedforconsiderationwere $  narrowedbycounselatthehearingonthepetition.      ` Atthehearing,thepetitionercastallofhiscomplaintsintermsofthealleged   ineffectiveassistanceoftwoofhisattorneys,DickenKidwellandRobertTurner.,  #  4      ׀Mr.Kidwell   primarilyrepresentedthepetitionerinjuvenilecourtproceedings,andMr.Turnertookovershortly p afterthepetitionerscasewastransferredtocircuitcourt.ThepetitionercomplainedthatMr. \ Kidwellfailedtoinvestigatealibiwitnesses,encouragedthepetitionertowaivehisrighttoatransfer H hearingandsuppressionhearinginjuvenilecourtwithoutexplainingtheeffectsofthataction,failed 4 toadequatelyconferwiththepetitioner,failedtocommunicateapleaoffertohim,andfailedtoget  p thepleaofferinwriting.ThepetitionerclaimedthatMr.Turnerfailedtoinvestigatealibiwitnesses,  \ failedtofileamotiontosuppressthepetitionersinculpatorystatement,anddidnotfullyexplain H therightsthepetitionerwaivedinacceptingapleaagreement. 4    ` Attheconclusionoftheproof,thelowercourtaccreditedthestatesevidenceand   discreditedthatofthepetitioner,anditdismissedthepetitionersclaims.Thisappealfollowed.  Afterthecasehadbeenappealedbutbeforethebriefingprocesswascomplete,thestatemovedthis  courttoremandthecasesothatthelowercourtcouldfulfillitsdutyofmakingcompletefindings  offactandconclusionsoflawoneachgroundpresented.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030211(b) l (1997).Thiscourtgrantedthemotion,remandedthecase,andthelowercourtenteredadetailed, X  supplementalorderasrequiredbythePostConvictionProceduresAct.|  #  5      ׀Initssupplementalorder, D! thelowercourtamplifieditsfindingsregardingthepetitionerslackofcredibilityascontrastedwith 0"  thefavorablecredibilityofhisformerattorneys.ThecourtfurtherfoundthatMr.Kidwelladequately  conferredwiththepetitioner,didnotfailtoinvestigatethepetitionersproposedalibiwitnesses,  explainedthepetitionersoptionstohim,obtainedasettlementofferfromthestatecontingentupon  thepetitioneragreeingtotestifyagainsthiscodefendantsandconsentingtotransferofhiscaseto t circuitcourtforentryoftheplea,actedreasonablyinrelyingonanoralagreementwiththestate,and ` communicatedthesettlementoffertothepetitioner.ThelowercourtfoundthatMr.Turnercould L  notbefaultedforfailingtoinvestigatealibiwitnessesbecausethepetitionerdidnotadvisehimof 8  suchwitnesses,andthatMr.Turnerfullyexplainedthepleaagreementtothepetitioner.Thecourt $ t alsofoundthatthepetitionerfailedtodemonstratethemeritsofasuppressionmotion,soneitherMr.  ` KidwellnorMr.Turnercouldbefaultedforfailingtopursueone.  L     ` Whenapetitionerchallengestheeffectiveassistanceofcounsel,hehastheburden $  ofestablishing(1)deficientrepresentationand(2)prejudiceresultingfromthatdeficiency.   Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,686,104S.Ct.2052,2064(1984);Baxterv.Rose,523   S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Deficientrepresentationoccurswhencounselprovidesassistance   thatfallsbelowtherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminalcases.Bankstonv.State,   815S.W.2d213,215(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).Prejudiceisthereasonablelikelihoodthat,butfor p deficientrepresentation,theoutcomeoftheproceedingswouldhavebeendifferent.Overtonv. \ State,874S.W.2d6,11(Tenn.1994).Onreview,thereisastrongpresumptionofsatisfactory H representation.Barrv.State,910S.W.2d462,464(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).X XXXy 4 #XyX XX޵'#   ` Inpostconvictionproceedings,thepetitionerhastheburdenofprovingtheclaims V raisedbyclearandconvincingevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f)(1997).Thepost B convictioncourtsfactualfindingsarerevieweddenovowithapresumptionofcorrectnessunless . theevidencepreponderatesotherwise;however,thatcourtsconclusionsoflawreceivepurelyde  novoreviewwithnopresumptionofcorrectness.Fieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,457(Tenn.2001).     ` Inthecaseatbar,thepetitionerstestimonyconflictedinnearlyeverymaterialaspect  withthatofhisattorneys.Totheextentthatthepetitionerwasnotatoddswithhisattorneysfactual z recollectionofthecase,thecourtrejectedthenegativeconclusionsthatthepetitionerdrewfrom f thosefactsregardingtheeffectivenessoftheattorneys.Thelowercourtfoundallcontestedfactual R  issuesinfavorofthestateandconcludedthatthepetitionerhadnotbeendeprivedoftheeffective >! assistanceofcounselbyeitherMr.KidwellorMr.Turner.Uponreviewoftherecord,wecannot *"z  saythattheevidencepreponderatestothecontraryofthelowercourtsfactualdeterminations. #f! Moreover,weareunpersuadedthatthelowercourterredinitsdeterminationthatcounseleffectively $R" representedthepetitioner. $> #    ` Thus,thejudgmentofthelowercourtisaffirmed. &"%    `     `     h     ___________________________________ v*%)    `     h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE