ÿWPC‚ qM÷ÅRÔJ;ÁI–Gr ÌfÿÁ‡\¶n»ÞJ9Áù™Ý›$%ÿÛfáÈtNlè?¤ÝK…sÓÿ‘ð_ÜÚÌŸ™Ú°œ]!ÌX>‡ß]þ¿ª~µ¢[Ê(㳌”ù3jKc2IkýéÝÃ? Òªa?Ò,²–¦túðKy#œŸRû‰†ÆV«¶Û+©–ë¬ëasºž¥çw•þB è¬Ö\0 0#¸qˆÅëð¿sQ÷â„BÐwŠSç4[A‡ô;ÎçGU[ºíjz­”˜ƒÊ¦²„T½8£=› âÊën_L“ÙU».l™è—ò|)'4ðî4«ê¨ÏT£¢í^,šÇ;†~*¬ÓÅ›õg%‰Î’0ÔµÊæ…¢º ÞÄixË›Œ¯TY³(˜²„8øWº ÌÕ§ñ]h‚¾e¬Ÿ§cÓKK»G5“Θâ@‡UŸ-¼÷­ûûú¨cYÍB)±tˆÝ’ìì{•tE¥Xnxoöf©U‚Š–¡­þ*4Á!t X¢q”Æ­L:²Á°u.æ ó,ÞˆÆQGbÔkÎ$ÕmYqM«[“+á#R®Û¸{ aóq¯^Æ®•CÑ'ýr“¡ýäµéRfÌ¡WÏ3™ª ºb#É\ %% Â+ 0ˆí UNu ^ à wÏ zÓ ÒM 4 3 B mD Æ[ Æ!ÆçÆ­­NsssEuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuubwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 0ë Bjj 0¤‡ D3+ D-^ 0K‹‹ ASÖÆ) 0¤ï 0D“ A«×˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0» PATTUMTipton ErbNicholsStricklandLockhartCURWOOD WITTBoykinWallen(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularˆ¬‹/Ï  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptlk.ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2)K$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ƒ!»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®üò»»Ô d(|3þ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ƒ!»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3þ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ƒ!»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ƒ!»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ƒ!»»»ÔÑ8€Ï¿XXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îh^ƒ!ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ƒ!»îîh^ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€June€3,€2003€at€Jackson€Ð öF ÐÔ‡XÏ¿X»¼ƒ!ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ƒ!»XXÏ¿#ÔSHANNON€PATTUMòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XÏ¿X»¼ƒ!Ôó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€97„D„2450€€€€€€Seth€Norman,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02435„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€December€11,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Shannon€Pattum,€appeals€from€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Courtððs€denial€of€post„Ð V¦  Ðconviction€relief.€€He€claims€that€his€1999€conviction€for€attempt€to€commit€second€degree€murderÐ ? Ðis€the€result€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€an€unknowing,€involuntary€guilty€plea.€TheÐ (x Ðlower€court€disagreed€and€dismissed€the€petition.€€Upon€our€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€theÐ a Ðparties,€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm.Ð úJ ÐÔ#†¼ƒ!»XXÏ¿‡#ÔÔ‡XÏ¿X»¼ƒ!ÔÓ§ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ Ì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ƒ!»àXÏ¿ó#ÔÔ‡XÏ¿X.¼ƒ!ÔJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€óóJ.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó€andÐ Ÿï ÐòòDavid€G.€Hayes,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌMatthew€Mayo,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Shannon€Pattum.Ð Zª ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Renee€W.€Turner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ,| ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Renee€Erb,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ e ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð þN ÐÓÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ƒ!»XXÏ¿°#ÔÔ‡XÏ¿X»¼ƒ!ÔÐ Ð! ! ÐòòóóÔ#†¼ƒ!»XXÏ¿D #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÏ¿X»¼ƒ!ÔÌà  àà ` àThe€conviction€resulted€from€the€petitionerððs€guilty€plea€and€his€agreement€to€acceptÐ £#ó# Ða€Range€I,€eight„year€sentence,€with€submission€of€the€question€of€manner€of€service€of€the€sentenceÐ Œ$Ü$ Ðto€the€trial€court.€€The€court€ordered€incarceration€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€petitionerÐ u%Å % Ðclaims€that€his€counsel€erroneously€informed€him€that€he€was€facing€up€to€25€years€in€prison,€withÐ ^&®!& Ða€release€eligibility€of€85€percent,€on€the€charge€of€attempt€to€commit€second€degree€murder€and€thatÐ G'—"' Ðthis€misinformation,€combined€with€counselððs€lack€of€trial€preparation,€coerced€him€into€pleadingÐ 0(€#( Ðguilty.Ð )i$) ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€petitioner€testifiedÐ ë*;&+ Ðthat€counsel€sent€him€a€letter€in€which€she€informed€him€that€he€faced€a€maximum€sentence€of€25Ð Ô+$', Ðyears€for€ð ðattempted€homicide.ðð€€In€actuality,€the€petitioner,€who€was€indicted€for€attempt€to€commitÐ ½, (- Ðsecond€degree€murder,€was€facing€a€Range€I€sentence€of€eight€to€twelve€years,€with€a€releaseÐ ¦-ö(.ý ÐÔ_Ôeligibility€of€30€percent.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39-13-210€(2003)€(second€degree€murder),Ð ° Ð-12-107€(classifying€criminal€attempt€in€one€grade€lower€than€the€most€serious€crime€attempted).€Ð ™é ÐHe€testified€that€counsel€corrected€the€misinformation€on€the€day€of€trial€but€that€the€trial€judgeÐ ‚Ò Ðrefused€to€grant€a€continuance€and€required€him€to€either€plead€guilty€or€go€to€trial.€€He€posited€thatÐ k» Ðhis€lack€of€confidence€in€counsel€and€the€exigency€of€the€situation€compelled€him€to€plead€guilty.Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€also€testified€that€counsel€promised€that€he€would€be€paroled€afterÐ & v Ðserving€30€percent€of€an€eight„year€sentence€and€alleged€that€counsel€failed€to€expunge€various€arrestÐ  _ Ðrecords€in€cases€that€had€resulted€in€dismissals.€€Ð ø H ÐÌà  àà ` àTrial€counsel€testified€that€she€had€a€decadeððs€experience€in€practicing€criminal€lawÐ Ê   Ðand€that€she€prepared€extensively€to€defend€the€petitioner€at€trial.€€She€interviewed€the€only€twoÐ ³  Ðpeople€whose€names€the€petitioner€had€provided,€and€she€determined€that,€as€defense€witnesses,€theyÐ œì  Ðat€best€would€be€unhelpful€and€at€worst€would€be€detrimental.€€She€explained€that€the€letterÐ …Õ  Ðcontaining€the€erroneous€information€was€sent€to€the€petitioner€by€counselððs€paralegal€in€responseÐ n¾  Ðto€counselððs€telephone€command€to€send€a€letter€advising€the€petitioner€of€the€outstanding€plea€offerÐ W§  Ðand€the€applicable€exposure€to€punishment.€€She€admitted€that€the€information€in€the€letter€wasÐ @ Ðincorrect€but€testified€that€she€visited€the€petitioner€within€hours€of€his€receipt€of€the€letter€andÐ )y Ðimparted€correct€information€about€the€punishment€range€for€the€charged€offense.€€Counsel€testifiedÐ b Ðthat€this€conversation€occurred€approximate€five€days€before€trial€and€that€during€a€motion€hearingÐ ûK Ðconducted€four€days€before€trial,€the€petitioner€approached€her€and€said€he€wished€to€plead€guiltyÐ ä4 Ðto€a€Range€I,€eight„year€sentence.€€He€wanted€to€discuss€the€matter€with€his€wife,€and€counselÐ Í Ðarranged€for€the€petitionerððs€wife€to€meet€with€him.€€After€the€meeting,€the€petitioner€affirmed€thatÐ ¶ Ðhe€wished€to€plead€guilty.€€The€agreement€entailed€submitting€the€question€of€the€manner€of€serviceÐ Ÿï Ðof€sentence€to€the€trial€court.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€its€written€order€denying€relief,€the€post„conviction€court€held€that€the€petitionerÐ Zª Ðfully€knew€even€before€receiving€counselððs€letter€the€applicable€punishment€range€for€the€chargedÐ C“ Ðoffense€and€that,€in€any€event,€counsel€corrected€the€misinformation€before€any€harm€could€result.€Ð ,| ÐThe€court,€therefore,€discerned€no€prejudice€to€the€petitioner€as€a€result€of€the€misinforming€letter.€Ð e ÐThe€court€found€that€counsel€had€interviewed€witnesses€and€had€otherwise€adequately€prepared€forÐ þN Ðtrial.€€The€court€held€that€the€petitioner€did€not€prove€that€counsel€had€failed€to€expunge€anyÐ ç 7 Ðpreviously€dismissed€charges€prior€to€sentencing.€€Furthermore,€the€court€saw€no€prejudice€due€toÐ Ð!   Ðthe€lack€of€expunction€because€the€petitionerððs€sentence€was€not€enhanced€above€the€minimum.€€Ð ¹" ! ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Tennessee€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€authorizes€the€filing€of€a€singleÐ ‹$Û# Ðpetition,€òòsee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102(c)€(2003),€to€seek€relief€from€a€conviction€or€sentenceÐ t%Ä $ Ðthat€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgement€of€any€state€or€federal€constitutional€right,€òòid.óóÐ ]&­!% Ððð€40„30„103€(2003).€€The€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€allegations€ofÐ F'–"& Ðfact€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„30„110(f)€(2003).€€On€appeal,€a€post„convictionÐ /(#' Ðcourtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them,€and€theÐ )h$( Ðappellate€court€will€neither€re„weigh€the€evidence€nor€evaluate€the€credibility€of€witnessesòòóó;€however,Ð *Q%) Ðâ âan€appellate€courtððs€review€of€a€question€of€law€or€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact,€such€as€anÐ ê*:&* Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,€is€reviewed€òòde€novo€óówith€no€presumption€of€correctness.€Ð ° ÐòòNichols€v.€Stateóó,€90€S.W.3d€576,€586€(Tenn.€2002)€€à  à€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àTo€establish€an€abridgement€of€the€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€asÐ k» Ðguaranteed€in€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€9€of€theÐ T¤ ÐTennessee€Constitution,€the€claimant€must€show€òòboth€óóthat€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€andÐ =  Ðthat€the€deficiency€prejudiced€the€defense.€€€òòNicholsóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€586;òòóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,Ð & v Ð466€U.S.€668,€692,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2067€(1984).€€Deficient€performance€of€counsel€equates€to€ð ðactsÐ  _ Ðor€omissions€[that]€were€so€serious€that€they€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessÐ ø H Ðunder€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòNicholsóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€587.€€The€court€reviewing€counselððsÐ á 1  Ðperformance€not€only€evaluates€the€claimed€deficiency€from€counselððs€perspective€at€time€of€theÐ Ê   Ðalleged€acts€or€omissions,€but€it€also€indulges€ð ða€heavy€measure€of€deference€to€counselððsÐ ³  Ðjudgments.ðð€òò€Id.óó;€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€462€(Tenn.€1999).€To€establish€that€deficientÐ œì  Ðperformance€resulted€in€prejudice,€the€claimant€is€required€to€demonstrate€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonableÐ …Õ  Ðprobability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€haveÐ n¾  Ðbeen€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÐ W§  Ðoutcome.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€The€claimant€ð ðmust€establish€that€theÐ @ Ðdeficiency€of€counsel€was€of€such€a€degree€that€it€deprived€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial€and€calledÐ )y Ðinto€question€the€reliability€of€the€outcome.ðð€€òòNicholsóó,€90€S.W.3d€at€587.€€When€a€conviction€isÐ b Ðbased€upon€a€guilty€plea,€an€ineffective„assistance„of„counsel€claimant€must€show€that€ð ðbut€forÐ ûK Ðcounsel's€deficiency,€he€would€have€gone€to€trial€instead€of€entering€the€plea€of€guilty.ðð€€òòId.óó;€€òòHillÐ ä4 Ðv.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€370€(1985).Ð Í ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€be€constitutionally€sound,€guilty€pleas€must€be€based€upon€the€accused€beingÐ Ÿï Ðadvised€of€his€constitutional€right€against€self„incrimination,€the€right€to€confront€witnesses,€and€theÐ ˆØ Ðright€to€a€trial€by€jury.€€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€243,€89€S.€Ct.€1709€(1969).€€TheÐ qÁ Ðoverriding€concern€is€that€the€plea€be€made€knowingly€and€voluntarily.€€òòIdóó.€at€242„44,€89€S.€Ct.€atÐ Zª Ð1711„13.€€Circumstantial€factors€such€as€the€accusedððs€intelligence,€familiarity€with€criminalÐ C“ Ðproceedings,€the€participation€of€counsel,€the€extent€of€advice€imparted€by€counsel€and€the€court,€andÐ ,| Ðthe€accusedððs€rationale€for€pleading€guilty€assist€in€informing€the€court€whether€the€plea€wasÐ e Ðknowing€and€voluntary.€€òòWallen€v.€Stateóó,€863€S.W.2d€34,€38€(Tenn.€1993).Ð þN ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€establish€any€of€his€claimsÐ Ð!   Ðof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Given€counselððs€testimony,€accredited€by€the€lower€court,€theÐ ¹" ! Ðonly€demonstrated€deficiency€in€counselððs€performance€was€the€issuance€of€a€letter€containingÐ ¢#ò" Ðerroneous€information.€€This€error€was€quickly€corrected€and€clearly€caused€no€harm.€€Based€uponÐ ‹$Û# Ðcounselððs€testimony,€she€prepared€for€trial,€expunged€between€48€and€70€arrest€records,€andÐ t%Ä $ Ðadequately€informed€the€petitioner€about€his€plea€provisions,€including€the€effect€of€his€releaseÐ ]&­!% Ðeligibility€date.€€The€record€fully€supports€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.Ð F'–"& ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€notice€that€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€did€not€expressly€address€whetherÐ )h$( Ðthe€petitioner€knowingly€and€voluntarily€pleaded€guilty.€€On€the€other€hand,€we€believe€that€the€courtÐ *Q%) Ðimplicitly€and€soundly€disposed€of€that€issue.€€The€petitioner€theorized€that€ineffective€assistanceÐ ê*:&* Ðof€counsel€caused€him€to€plead€unknowingly€and€involuntarily.€€€The€post„conviction€court€foundÐ Ó+#'+ Ðno€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€we€agree€with€that€determination.€€€Accordingly,€there€isÐ ° Ðno€basis€to€support€a€claim€of€an€unknowing€and€involuntary€guilty€plea.€€The€petitioner€has€failedÐ ™é Ðto€demonstrate€that€his€plea€was€the€result€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€or€was€otherwiseÐ ‚Ò Ðinfirm.€€Ð k» Ðà  àà ` àFor€these€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.Ð T¤ Ðà  à€à ` à€Ð =  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð á 1  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE