ÿWPCb }QØdsòŒ¾|̧¢z Ä¢GÛVVð_¿|ÌÔ¶„禱&Y‰Ý&ñÂK»ªb,mô»Ò²ÅωO%5U{ÊiØ&h'Æå‘$úH¶QPVí>Ô4šÁiú=/"ׇWð¬ª;À/ὺ{¾ºÜoäÐ]>µxª¤<šôÂc„ãDYV1fàb­±²BË;:TUôª°vEaý²°Õ&ù)-›vãÑŸL ß×ñ"æ^àæ€Tì¼.’mø-‰4Lù˘ð8ðiKlmóƒbæG›õa੉¶¤=æÛF=)1m¼¨cLl”“è³à×ñZcÕ²{~Å6÷c±sÏÎ@Ï„¡ ôèÑ5µiF©,¬•òz±÷p½9NÑR>ÆŽ%Ðë, 7ÿ£6ÒÕi9ž»CP)ö×6ëÖªC÷¿ŽÑ×Z\^¸?\ÈÊüµÈmÉ_ (€ùnêÍJ7êhDÉ:Yó{”œdŒ] ŠÛ„GÕJøÂ"Ù8®ã°cëóG¸E˜M‚0Éz’ó‹¶ŽSÂS –ÿk>cFy‰rX,ºq}²wõ é%½‰„ mó=‘%b¤š˜¡ÊöØr󂪈O wpÃÛDI §×‡Fb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ  ™ Æ9 Æÿ ÆÅÆ‹‹NQQQESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSbUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 0ë]]]] BHH 0¤e D5  D-> 0Kkk AS¶Æ  0¤Ï 0Ds A«·»¡a1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularóbï.ê:i¢×+003|x ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 PENLEYBecknerGreenevilleDunavantHoneycuttLockhartBoykinLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2Aî$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôµò»»Ô d(|3?w$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?w$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€½»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼½»»»ÔÑ8€[)XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îÔ½ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼½»îîÔ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€28,€2004Ð üL ÐÔ‡X[)X»¼½ÔÌò òÔ#†¼½»XX[)##ÔKERMIT€PENLEYòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X[)X»¼½Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Greene€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€03CR078€€€€€€James€E.€Beckner,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2004„00129„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€November€1,€2004Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Kermit€Penley,€appeals€from€a€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€On€appeal,€theÐ xÈ  Ðpetitioner€alleges€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€that€his€plea€of€guilty€was€not€knowing€orÐ d´ Ðvoluntary.€€We€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€relief.Ð P  ÐÓŸÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ (x ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼½»àX[)˜#ÔÔ‡X[)X.¼½ÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó€andÐ P ÐòòDavid€H.€Welles,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ì< ÐÌDavid€L.€Leonard,€Greeneville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Kermit€Penley.Ð Ä ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Richard€H.€Dunavant,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ œì ÐGeneral;€C.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Eric€D.€Christiansen€and€Cecil€C.Ð ˆØ ÐMills,€Jr.,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð tÄ ÐÓqÓÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼½»XX[) #ÔÔ‡X[)X»¼½ÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼½»XX[)t #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X[)X»¼½ÔÓ XÓThe€petitioner€pled€guilty€to€first€degree€murder€in€exchange€for€an€agreed€sentence€of€lifeÐ #`" Ðimprisonment.€€The€petitioner€then€filed€an€action€for€post„conviction€relief.€€After€a€full€hearing,Ð ü#L# Ðthe€petition€was€denied€and€this€appeal€followed.€€The€appeal€alleges€that€the€petitioner€receivedÐ è$8 $ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€that€his€plea€was€not€knowingly€and€voluntarily€made.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÐ À&"& Ðò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓAssistance€of€Counseló óÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌÓ ÓÓ Xõ ÓOur€review€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€under€the€standards€of€òòBaxterÐ „)Ô$) Ðv.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€and€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.Ð p*À%* Ð2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€€The€petitioner€must€prove€that€(1)€the€attorneyððs€performance€wasÐ \+¬&+ Ðdeficient,€and€(2)€the€deficient€performance€resulted€in€prejudice€such€as€to€deprive€the€defendantÐ H,˜', Ðof€a€fair€trial.€€òòId.óó€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064;€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996);Ð 4-„(-ý ÐòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€If€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€is€not€proven,Ð ° Ðthen€denial€of€relief€is€justified.€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370.Ð œì ÐÐ ˆØ ÐThe€test€in€Tennessee€to€determine€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€is€whetherÐ tÄ Ðhis€or€her€performance€was€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€Ð `° ÐòòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€The€petitioner€must€overcome€the€presumption€that€counselððs€conductÐ L œ Ðfalls€within€a€wide€range€of€acceptable€professional€assistance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ð 8 ˆ ÐCt.€at€2065;€òòState€v.€Honeycuttóó,€54€S.W.3d€762,€769€(Tenn.€2001).Ð $ t ÐÐ  ` ÐThe€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€factual€allegations€justifying€relief€by€clear€andÐ ü L  Ðconvincing€evidence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€We€are€required€to€affirm€the€post„Ð è 8  Ðconviction€courtððs€findings€unless€the€petitioner€proves€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€thoseÐ Ô$  Ðfindings.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).Ð À  ÐÐ ¬ü  ÐIn€support€of€the€petition,€there€were€three€witnesses€called:€€Beatrice€Penley,€the€petitionerððsÐ ˜è  Ðmother;€T.€Wood€Smith,€one€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€co„counsel;€and€the€petitioner.€Ð „Ô  ÐÐ pÀ ÐBeatrice€Penley€testified€that€she€had€attended€all€pretrial€hearings€concerning€the€petitionerÐ \¬ Ðexcept€for€the€plea€entry.€€She€stated€that€she€was€not€notified€of€that€hearing.€€She€also€stated€thatÐ H˜ Ðshe€had€written€letters€to€two€of€the€petitionerððs€co„counsel,€due€to€an€inability€to€contact€them€byÐ 4„ Ðphone.€€Ð  p ÐÐ  \ ÐThomas€Wood€Smith€testified€that€he€was€one€of€three€co„counsel€for€the€petitioner.€€SuzanneÐ øH ÐThomas€was€appointed€first€and€served€as€lead€counsel.€€A€third€attorney,€Douglas€Payne,€served€asÐ ä4 Ðunpaid€co„counsel.€€Mr.€Smith€stated€that€he€had€difficulties€at€times€in€reaching€lead€counsel.€€HeÐ Ð  Ðstated€that€defense€counsel€obtained€the€services€of€a€mitigation€specialist€who€also€served€asÐ ¼  Ðpsychologist.€€In€addition,€the€petitioner€had€the€benefit€of€an€investigator,€a€jury€consultant,€and€aÐ ¨ø Ðcommunications€specialist.€€The€mitigation€expert€had€developed€approximately€twenty„eightÐ ”ä Ðmitigation€themes.Ð €Ð ÐÐ l¼ ÐOn€September€6,€2002,€the€State€offered€to€accept€a€plea€to€first€degree€murder€in€exchangeÐ X ¨ Ðfor€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment.€€The€petitionerððs€trial€was€set€for€September€16th.€€Counsel€forÐ D!” Ðthe€petitioner€met€with€the€petitioner€on€the€morning€of€September€6th€and€again€after€lunch€toÐ 0"€  Ðdiscuss€the€plea€offer€and€the€petitionerððs€options.€€The€petitioner€was€advised€that€if€he€accepted€theÐ #l! Ðplea€offer,€he€would€serve€a€minimum€of€fifty„one€years€before€he€was€eligible€for€release.€€Mr.Ð $X" ÐSmith€filled€out€the€Negotiated€Plea€Agreement€and€Waiver€of€Rights€„€Guilty€Plea€form.€€TheÐ ô$D # ÐNegotiated€Plea€Agreement€was€erroneously€marked€to€indicate€the€offense€as€a€Class€A€felony€andÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€classification€of€offender€as€ð ðstandard€offender.ððÐ Ì&"% ÐÐ ¸'#& ÐOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Smith€stated€that€the€petitionerððs€confession€had€been€a€problemÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€counsel€in€defense€preparation.€€He€stated€that€all€defenses€were€investigated€and€all€witnessesÐ )à$( Ðinterviewed.€€He€and€co„counsel€filed€numerous€pretrial€motions,€did€independent€research,€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðcommunicated€regularly€with€the€petitioner.€€He€stated€that€at€the€time€of€plea€entry,€the€petitionerÐ h+¸&* Ðwas€free€of€intoxicants,€was€uncoerced,€and€understood€the€consequences€of€his€acceptance.€€PriorÐ ° Ðto€this,€the€petitioner€had€undergone€a€psychological€examination€and€was€determined€competent€toÐ œì Ðstand€trial.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÐ tÄ ÐKermit€Penley€testified€that€he€thought€he€was€receiving€a€fifty„one€year€sentence€with€releaseÐ `° Ðeligibility€after€thirty€percent€service.€€He€denied€that€co„counsel€explained€that€he€would€be€servingÐ L œ Ða€minimum€of€fifty„one€years€day€for€day€and€said€he€only€learned€this€fact€when€he€arrived€atÐ 8 ˆ ÐBrushy€Mountain€prison.€€The€petitioner€stated€that€he€felt€his€attorneys€ð ðshould€have€built€a€betterÐ $ t Ðdefense.ðð€€He€also€said€that€his€counsel€should€have€visited€with€him€more.Ð  ` ÐÐ ü L  ÐOn€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€admitted€that€the€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€hadÐ è 8  Ðbeen€explained€to€him€by€the€trial€judge€during€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€He€further€admitted€that€heÐ Ô$  Ðhad€told€the€trial€judge€he€understood€the€terms€of€the€sentence.€€The€petitioner€also€had€expressedÐ À  Ðhis€satisfaction€with€his€representation€at€the€plea€hearing.Ð ¬ü  ÐÐ ˜è  ÐIn€his€order€denying€post„conviction€relief,€the€post„conviction€judge€detailed€the€steps€takenÐ „Ô  Ðby€the€petitionerððs€counsel€to€prepare€a€defense.€€The€order€recounts€the€acquisition€of€expertsÐ pÀ Ðincluding€an€investigator,€a€psychologist„mitigation€expert,€a€communications€specialist,€and€a€juryÐ \¬ Ðconsultant.€€Approximately€twenty„eight€mitigation€themes€had€been€developed.€€Witnesses€wereÐ H˜ Ðinterviewed,€and€all€possible€defenses€were€considered.€€A€plethora€of€pretrial€motions€had€been€filedÐ 4„ Ðand€heard€by€the€petitionerððs€co„counsel.€€€Ð  p ÐÐ  \ ÐIn€addressing€the€petitionerððs€complaints€of€ineffective€counsel,€the€post„conviction€judgeÐ øH Ðstated:Ð ä4 ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ XÓWhat€[the€petitioner]€said€today€was€that€his€specific€complaints€about€his€lawyersÐ Ð  Ðwere€that€they€should€have€built€a€better€defense.€€But€what€would€it€be?€€Thereððs€noÐ ¼  Ðsuggestion€as€to€what€that€mightððve€been.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌAnd€he€also€said€that€the€lawyers€should€have€come€to€see€him€more.€€Why?€€WhatÐ €Ð Ðwould€it€have€done€differently?€€What€couldððve€been€developed€that€wasnððtÐ l¼ Ðdeveloped?€€What€couldððve€been€presented€that€wasnððt€presented€in€all€these€motionÐ X ¨ Ðhearings€and€presentations€to€the€court?Ð D!” ÐÌÓ Xq'ÓÓ Xc'ÓÓ X'ÓÔ_ÔWeÔ_Ô€agree€with€the€post„conviction€judge€that€the€petitioner€received€effective€assistance€ofÐ #l! Ðcounsel.€€In€fact,€from€the€presentation€of€evidence,€it€appears€that€co„counsel€was€exemplary€in€theÐ $X" Ðthoroughness€of€their€trial€preparation.€€The€petitioner€has€presented€no€evidence€that€approaches€aÐ ô$D # Ðpreponderance€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðò òÓ XÓÓ  ÓGuilty€PleaÐ ¸'#& ÐÓK,ÓÓ X=,ÓÐ ¤(ô#' Ðó óThe€petitionerððs€second€and€concluding€issue€alleges€that€he€did€not€enter€a€knowing€andÐ )à$( Ðvoluntary€plea€of€guilty.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐConcerning€guilty€pleas€in€the€context€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€petitioner€mustÐ ° Ðestablish€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€the€petitioner€would€not€have€entered€the€plea€and€would€haveÐ œì Ðinsisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€102€S.€Ct.€366,€88€L.€Ed.€2d€203Ð ˆØ Ð(1985).Ð tÄ ÐÐ `° ÐThe€petitioner€maintains€that€he€was€misled€by€his€attorneys€to€understand€that€he€wasÐ L œ Ðreceiving€a€fifty„one€year€sentence€with€a€possibility€of€parole€after€serving€thirty€percent.€€In€supportÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€this,€the€petitioner€points€to€two€documents.€€The€Negotiated€Plea€Agreement€was€erroneouslyÐ $ t Ðmarked€as€a€Class€A€felony€and€as€a€Standard€Offender.€€The€term€of€sentence€was€ð ðLife€withÐ  ` Ðpossibility€of€parole.ðð€€The€Waiver€of€Rights€„€Plea€of€Guilty€form€identified€the€sentence€as€ð ðLifeÐ ü L  Ðin€the€Penitentiary€with€the€possibility€of€parole.ðð€€Ð è 8  ÐÐ Ô$  ÐThe€statute€provides€that€there€is€no€release€eligibility€for€parole€or€any€other€release€programÐ À  Ðon€a€life€sentence,€having€to€be€served€at€100%€less€sentence€credits€earned€and€retained,€not€toÐ ¬ü  Ðexceed€15%.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)(1),(2)€(2001).€€The€term€ð ðlife€imprisonment€with€theÐ ˜è  Ðpossibility€of€paroleðð€is€inaccurate€and€is€mistakenly€used€to€differentiate€between€the€more€severeÐ „Ô  Ðsentence€of€life€imprisonment€without€possibility€of€parole.€€More€accurately€stated,€a€sentence€ofÐ pÀ Ðlife€in€prison€entitles€the€defendant€to€be€released,€as€opposed€to€paroled,€after€serving€100%€of€sixtyÐ \¬ Ðyears€less€any€eligible€credits,€so€long€as€they€do€not€operate€to€reduce€the€sentence€by€more€thanÐ H˜ Ð15%,€or€nine€years,€which€would€result€in€a€total€sentence€of€fifty„one€years.€Ð 4„ ÐÐ  p ÐThomas€Wood€Smith,€one€of€the€petitionerððs€co„counsel,€testified€that€the€terms€of€the€pleaÐ  \ Ðagreement€and€the€length€of€the€sentence€were€made€explicitly€clear€to€the€petitioner.€€It€specificallyÐ øH Ðstressed€that€the€petitioner€would€serve€a€minimum€of€fifty„one€years€under€the€terms€of€theÐ ä4 Ðagreement.€€Mr.€Smithððs€testimony€was€accredited€and€accepted€by€the€post„conviction€judge.€€Ð Ð  ÐÐ ¼  ÐIn€addition,€the€trial€judge€thoroughly€explained€the€terms€of€the€plea€agreement€and€theÐ ¨ø Ðminimum€length€of€sentence€to€the€petitioner€during€the€òòBoykinóó€litany.€€The€petitioner,€on€twoÐ ”ä Ðoccasions,€acknowledged€his€understanding€and€his€desire€to€accept€the€proposed€sentence€and€statedÐ €Ð Ðthat€he€was€doing€so€freely€and€voluntarily.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€plea€of€guiltyÐ l¼ Ðwas€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€entered.€€We€agree.Ð X ¨ ÐÐ D!” ÐIn€conclusion,€we€hold€that€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€and€thatÐ 0"€  Ðhis€plea€of€guilty€was€freely,€voluntarily,€and€knowingly€made.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€denialÐ #l! Ðof€post„conviction€relief.€€Ð $X" ÐÐ ô$D # ÐÐ à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¸'#& Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€JOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE