ÿWPCî /U:¢ %Ü 0Üâw@¾4þ! 0 ! 0DA 0J… 0TÏ 0^# 0h 0ré 0|[ 0†× 0] 1uí 0db U*Æ B)ð B 0@6 D3v DC© AMì Î9 «v~²vÓ0 AQÆT 0D 0D^ D/¢ BÑ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ QERSDTDUVDWXDYÓ€eŒƒ*#3|xe(Ð(3Ș$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€™‡XXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd7Border 1dd* "Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÄÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òOcto…berÏ8,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€post„conviction€court€noted€that€the€appellant€faced€sentences€which€could€haveÏtotaled€190€years.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÙ€*ÙßR€#$"A1-j|…Ç` e `€€@ÿRßà@ àAUGUST€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÌGEORGE€EDWARD€RAYFORD,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9705„CR„00172Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€W.€FRED€AXLEY,€JudgeÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)ÌÌó óÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌò òRICHARD€F.€VAUGHNó óà àà àò òà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌ1928€„€100€N.€Mainà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òELIZABETH€T.€RYANó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€GIBBONSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òMS.€RHEA€CLIFTó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€ComplexÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€#301,€201€Poplar€St.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÌÇÓÓÌà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€George€Edward€Rayford,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€trialÏcourtððs€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Specifically,€theÏappellant€contends€that€he€was€deprived€of€the€ability€to€enter€intelligent€andÏvoluntary€guilty€pleas€due€to€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€After€anÏevidentiary€hearing,€the€Criminal€Court€of€Shelby€County€concluded€that€theÏappellant€failed€to€show€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€receivedÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€his€guilty€plea€hearing.€€ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððsÏdismissal€of€the€appellantððs€petition.€€ÌÌà àOn€January€31,€1989,€the€appellant€pled€guilty€to€four€counts€of€robberyÏwith€a€deadly€weapon,€two€counts€of€robbery,€and€one€count€of€unlawfulÏpossession€of€a€controlled€substance€with€the€intent€to€sell.€€Pursuant€to€a€pleaÏagreement€between€the€appellant€and€the€State,€the€trial€court€sentenced€him€toÏan€effective€sentence€of€forty€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€as€a€range€IIÏoffender.€€In€particular,€the€trial€court€imposed€sentences€of€forty€years€for€eachÏrobbery€with€a€deadly€weapon,€ten€years€for€each€robbery,€and€ten€years€forÏpossession€with€intent€to€sell.€€These€sentences€are€concurrent€but€consecutiveÍto€the€sentences€for€which€the€appellant€was€on€parole€at€the€time€these€crimesÏwere€committed.€€ÌÌà àThe€background€of€the€case€is€as€follows:€€On€March€1,€1988,€theÏappellant€was€released€on€parole€after€serving€four€years€of€a€ten€year€sentenceÏfor€two€counts€of€simple€robbery,€three€counts€of€armed€robbery,€one€count€ofÏgrand€larceny,€and€one€count€of€receiving€stolen€property.€€The€series€ofÏrobberies€to€which€the€appellant€pled€guilty€occurred€between€May€20€and€MayÏ31,€1988.€€The€appellant€was€arrested€on€June€8,€1988,€when€he€wasÏapprehended,€along€with€a€co„defendant,€for€possession€of€cocaine.€€ÌÌ€à àIn€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€appellant€argues€thatÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€caused€him€to€enter€uninformed€andÏinvoluntary€guilty€pleas.€€€Specifically,€with€regard€to€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€claim,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€initial€trial€counsel,€TommyÏJagendorf,€failed€to€inform€him€that€he€had€associated€another€attorney,€RonaldÏRiggs,€to€assist€in€his€defense.€€Second,€the€appellant€alleges€that€Mr.€Riggs€didÏnot€conduct€an€adequate€pre„trial€investigation€because€he€failed€to€interviewÏall€potential€witnesses€and€failed€to€visit€the€crime€scenes.€€Additionally,€theÏappellant€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€keep€him€informed€as€to€theÏdevelopments€in€his€cases.€ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€State€established€that€Mr.€Riggs€metÏwith€the€appellant€five€or€six€times€in€jail€to€discuss€the€charges€against€him.€ÏThe€district€attorney€had€informed€Mr.€Riggs€that€he€would€first€proceed€againstÏthe€appellant€on€the€Esquire€Cleaners€robbery€charge.€€Trial€counsel€alsoÏtestified€that€discovery€was€obtained€from€the€State€on€all€of€the€seven€chargesÏpending€against€the€appellant.€€Mr.€Riggs€further€testified€that,€because€thisÏcharge€was€the€first€case€pending€against€the€appellant,€he€concentrated€hisÏefforts€on€this€offense.€€The€Stateððs€proof€in€this€case€included€a€positiveÏidentification€of€the€appellant€by€the€victim€and€the€appellantððs€fingerprints€foundÏon€the€door€to€the€cleaners.€€Trial€counsel€attempted€to€interview€the€victim€ofÏthe€Esquire€Cleaners€robbery,€taped€an€interview€he€had€with€the€appellantÏconcerning€that€particular€robbery,€and€investigated€the€scene€of€that€particularÏcrime.€€He€further€investigated€the€appellantððs€alibis€and€found€that€none€couldÏbe€substantiated.€€Additionally,€Mr.€Riggs€obtained€the€appellantððs€elementaryÏand€high€school€records€and€had€the€appellant€evaluated€by€the€MemphisÏMental€Health€Center.€€€ÌÌà àThe€State€offered€the€appellant€an€effective€forty€year€sentence€for€allÏcharges€against€him.€€The€record€reflects€that,€if€convicted,€the€appellant€faced€aÏsentence€of€ð ðthirty„five€years€to€lifeðð€on€òòeachóó€of€the€four€aggravated€robberyÏcharges.€€Consequently,€based€on€the€overwhelming€evidence€of€theÏappellantððs€guilt€and€that€a€conviction€would€likely€occur,€Mr.€Riggs€advised€theÍappellant€that€a€forty€year€sentence€was€a€ð ðfair€settlementðð€for€all€the€cases,Ïð ðconsidering€what€was€at€risk.ðð€€The€decision€to€plead€rested€with€the€appellant.€ÏDuring€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€the€trial€court€fully€advised€the€appellant€of€hisÏrights€and€informed€him€of€the€consequences€of€his€pleas.€€Based€upon€theÏevidence€presented€to€the€trial€court€and€the€proof€shown€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€appellantððs€pleas€were€knowingÏand€voluntary.€€The€post„conviction€court€concluded€that€the€appellantððs€claimsÏof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€were€not€supported€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence.€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€we€must€determine€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing€preponderates€against€that€courtððs€findings.€€In€òòNorthÏCarolina€v.€Alfordóó,€400€U.S.€25,€31,€91€S.Ct.€160,€164€(1970),€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€held,€ð ðThe€standard€was€and€remains€whether€the€pleaÏrepresents€a€voluntary€and€intelligent€choice€among€the€alternative€courses€ofÏaction€open€to€the€defendant.ðð€€In€evaluating€the€knowing€and€voluntary€natureÏof€the€appellantððs€pleas,€this€court€must€look€to€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€ÏòòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€353€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòChamberlain€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€534,€542Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991).€€We€mayÏconsider€any€relevant€evidence€in€the€record€of€the€proceedings,€including€post„conviction€proceedings.€€òòIdóó.€€The€evidence€before€the€post„conviction€courtÍincluded€the€appellantððs€prior€record,€the€overwhelming€evidence€against€him,Ïand€the€appellantððs€exposure€to€lengthy€multiple€sentences.× ƒ% ××  ×€€Based€on€theÏtotality€of€these€circumstances,€the€post„conviction€court€concluded€that€theÏappellantððs€guilty€pleas€were€knowing€and€voluntary.ÌÌà àThe€record€also€supports€the€post„conviction€courtððs€finding€thatÏappellantððs€counsel€rendered€effective€assistance.€€As€noted€earlier,€on€appeal,Ïthis€court€is€bound€by€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€fact€unless€theÏevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,Ï912€S.W.2d€689,€697€(Tenn.€1995).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,Ï755€(Tenn.€1990).€€In€other€words,€in€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€appellantÏmust€prove€the€allegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÏòòDavisóó,€912€S.W.2d€at€697.€€Specifically,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€is€raised,€the€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€(a)€theÏservices€rendered€by€trial€counsel€were€deficient€and€(b)€the€deficientÏperformance€was€prejudicial.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104ÏS.Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993);ÏòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€With€respect€to€deficientÏperformance,€the€court€must€decide€whether€or€not€counselððs€performance€wasÏwithin€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€ÍòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€satisfy€the€prejudiceÏprong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test,€the€appellant€must€show€a€reasonable€probabilityÏthat,€but€for€counselððs€ineffective€performance,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÏwould€have€been€different.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068.€ÏAccordingly,€when€the€appellant€seeks€to€set€aside€a€guilty€plea€on€the€groundÏof€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€must€demonstrate€a€reasonableÏprobability€that,€but€for€counselððs€deficiency,€he€would€have€insisted€uponÏproceeding€to€trial.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.Ct.€366,€370€(1985);ÏòòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÏdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991);€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€883€S.W.2d€635,€637€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€Mr.€Riggs€adequately€prepared€forÏand€investigated€the€cases€against€the€appellant.€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€performance€of€counsel€was€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÏpost„conviction€court€dismissing€the€appellantððs€petition€is€affirmed.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà à€Ìà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge