ÿWPC 0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U*¹ B)ã DC AMO 6œ v~Ò AQP Æ¡ 0Dg 0D« D/ï BvÓ;˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ÜÝDÞDßDàDáVâUãÓ€ïòŒƒ*#þÿþÿþÿþÿþÿþÿ3|xò2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òSeptember€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{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  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€,ƒXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œJACKSON›Ì̜ـ*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|fJ` Å `€€@ÿRßJULY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœJOHN€C.€RHEAUME,›à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ02C01„9607„CR„00246›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àœAppellant,›à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSHELBY›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œJOSEPH€B.€BROWN,€JR.ó ó›Ìœò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœAppellee.›à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Post„Conviction)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œSHELBY€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœJAMES€A.€COHEN›à àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ200€Jefferson€Avenue,€Suite€925à àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJANIS€L.€TURNERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue,€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àALANDA€HORNEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€Complex,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Petitioner€appeals€as€of€right€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€The€Petitioner€pleaded€guilty€pursuant€to€a€pleaÏagreement€to€one€count€of€aggravated€rape€and€one€count€of€aggravatedÏrobbery.€€He€was€sentenced€to€twenty€years€incarceration€for€the€aggravatedÏrape€œand›€twelve€years€for€the€aggravated€œrobbery,›€œto›€be€served€concurrently.€€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€was€convicted€on€September€21,€1992.€€He€filed€a€òòpro€seóóÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€January€13,€1995,€within€the€three„yearÏstatute€of€limitations€applicable€to€petitions€filed€before€May€10,€1995.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(repealed€1995);€ðð€40„30„201€(Supp.€1996).€ÏCounsel€was€appointed€and€an€amended€petition€was€filed€on€May€15,€1996.€ÏThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€conducted€onÏJanuary€4th€and€24th,€1996.€€The€Petitioner€now€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denialÏof€his€petition€and€raises€two€issues:€(1)€That€he€was€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel;€and€(2)€that€he€did€not€voluntarily,€knowingly€andÏunderstandingly€waive€his€rights€when€he€entered€his€guilty€plea.€€We€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€facts€supporting€the€Petitionerððs€guilt€reveal€that€a€white€male€fittingÏthe€Petitionerððs€description€accosted€a€woman€as€she€was€leaving€her€home€inÏMemphis,€Tennessee€at€approximately€6:45€in€the€morning.€€€She€described€himÏas€a€white€male€wearing€a€ski€œmask,›€who€appeared€to€be€in€his€early€to€midÏtwenties.€€He€was€approximately€5'6"€to€5'7"€tall.€€He€wore€a€blue€baseball€capÏwith€an€insignia,€a€brown€leather€jacket,€brown€and€green€camoflauge€pants,Ïwhite€Converse€tennis€shoes,€a€brown€gun€holster€and€black€gloves.€€€ÌÌà àThe€perpetrator€had€a€silver€revolver€and€forced€the€woman€to€go€backÏinto€her€house.€€While€there,€he€rifled€her€purse€and€took€two€gasoline€creditÏcards€and€two€twenty€dollar€bills.€€He€forced€the€woman€at€gunpoint€to€walkÏthrough€every€room€in€the€house.€€€In€one€room,€he€directed€the€victim€to€getÏtelephone€cord€with€which€he€tied€her€up.€€œThe›€assailant€put€the€woman€on€theÏbed€and€put€a€pillowcase€over€her€head.€€He€fondled€her€buttocks€and€genitalsÏover€her€clothes,€then€fondled€her€breasts.€€He€allowed€the€victim€to€go€to€theÏbathroom€and€took€off€the€pillowcase€and€the€cord€around€her€hands€becauseÏshe€agreed€to€cooperate.€€He€smoked€a€cigarette.€€He€made€the€victim€take€offÏher€top€and€put€on€a€camisole€he€found€in€a€drawer.€€The€perpetrator€digitallyÏpenetrated€the€victim€anally,€had€her€perform€fellatio€twice,€and€penetrated€theÏvictim€with€his€penis€three€times.€€The€victim€œnoted›€her€clock€during€the€assault,Ïwhich€occurred€between€8:07€a.m.€and€8:17€a.m.€After€the€sexual€assault,€theÍperpetrator€instructed€the€victim€not€to€look€at€him€while€he€dressed€himself.€€HeÏthrew€a€towel€to€the€victim€and€told€her€to€pull€up€her€pants€and€get€a€shirt€forÏherself.€€At€approximately€9:30€a.m.,€€he€put€the€victim€in€œa›€storage€closet€faceÏdown€with€her€arms€and€legs€bound.€€She€remained€there€until€approximatelyÏ12:45€p.m.€€The€victim€noted€that€her€car€had€recently€been€stolen€and€recoveredÏthree€times€and€she€had€noticed€the€smell€of€smoke€and€a€body€odor€like€herÏassailantððs€in€the€car€when€it€was€returned.ÌÌà àThe€perpetrator€left€the€house€in€the€victimððs€car,€a€1991€maroon€MazdaÏProtege,€but€returned€it€later€that€morning.€€While€œthe€victimððs€neighbor€was€car›Ïpooling€his€children€to€school,€œhe€saw›€the€perpetrator€in€the€victimððs€car€as€itÏpulled€into€her€driveway.€€He€saw€the€man€leave€the€car€in€the€driveway€andÏwalk€down€the€street.€€The€neighbor€called€911€and€gave€a€description€of€theÏman€as€white,€between€5'7"€and€5'9"€tall,€with€dark€hair€and€a€slight€mustache,Ïwho€appeared€to€be€in€his€early€twenties.€€The€perpetrator€was€wearingÏcombat€type€boots,€green€pants€and€a€brown€jacket.€€Police€officers€met€theÏneighbor€at€his€home€to€investigate€the€report.€€After€leaving€his€house€andÏgoing€to€his€office,€the€neighbor€saw€the€suspect€at€a€local€supermarket.€PoliceÏofficers€were€contacted€again€and€they€arrested€the€Petitioner.€€Both€the€victimÏand€the€neighbor€identified€the€Petitioner€as€the€assailant.€€Police€officersÏrecovered€a€blue€baseball€cap,€tennis€shoes,€a€brown€leather€jacket,€darkÍbrown€gloves,€a€pair€of€camoflauge€pants,€a€sleeveless€shirt,€white€underwearÏand€a€Halloween€mask€from€a€search€of€the€Petitionerððs€home.ÌÌà àIn€the€Petitionerððs€first€issue,€he€contends€that€his€appointed€counselÏprovided€ineffective€assistance.€€He€notes€that€the€State€provided€counsel€withÏan€extensive€list€of€œwitnesses›€and€that€counsel€did€not€contact€most€of€theÏStateððs€witnesses.€€He€next€contends€that€after€counsel€received€items€from€theÏState€through€a€discovery€request,€she€merely€told€the€Petitioner€that€they€wereÏthe€materials€she€had€received.€€He€claims€that€counsel€did€not€explain€any€ofÏthe€documents€to€him.€€The€Petitioner€also€alleges€that€defense€counsel€failed€toÏdiscuss€results€of€blood€and€hair€sample€tests.€€Furthermore,€he€argues€that€heÏpleaded€guilty€only€because€defense€counsel€ð ðthreatenedðð€him€with€an€eighty„year€sentence.€€Finally,€he€contends€that€he€was€not€properly€informed€becauseÏhe€attended€only€two€court€proceedings.ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€counsel€provided€effective€assistance€at€trial,€theÏcourt€must€decide€whether€counselððs€performance€was€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523ÏS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€succeed€on€a€claim€that€his€counsel€wasÏineffective€at€trial,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€his€counselÏmade€errors€so€serious€that€he€was€not€functioning€as€counsel€as€guaranteedÍunder€the€Sixth€Amendment€and€that€the€deficient€representation€prejudiced€theÏpetitioner€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,€467€U.S.€1267€(1984);€òòCooper€v.ÏStateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899Ï(Tenn.€1990).€€To€satisfy€the€second€prong€the€petitioner€must€show€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finderÏwould€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regarding€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466ÏU.S.€at€695.€€This€reasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermineÏconfidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àWhen€reviewing€trial€counselððs€actions,€this€court€should€not€use€theÏbenefit€of€hindsight€to€second„guess€trial€strategy€and€criticize€counselððs€tactics.€ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Counselððs€alleged€errors€shouldÏbe€judged€at€the€time€they€were€made€in€light€of€all€facts€and€circumstances.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòseeóó€òòCooperóó€849€S.W.2d€at€746.ÌÌà àThis€two€part€standard€of€measuring€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏalso€applies€to€claims€arising€out€of€the€plea€process.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.Ï52€(1985).€€The€prejudice€requirement€is€modified€so€that€the€petitioner€ð ðmustÏshow€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors€heÍwould€not€have€pleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòId.óó€atÏ59.ÌÌà à€At€the€hearing€on€the€petition,€counsel€testified€that€she€requested€andÏreceived€discovery€from€the€State.€€She€met€with€the€Petitioner,€discussed€theÏmeaning€of€the€items€received€as€well€as€the€theory€of€the€case.€€She€testifiedÏthat€the€Petitioner€sent€her€a€letter€detailing€his€version€of€the€facts.€€He€claimedÏthat€he€had€a€personal€relationship€with€the€victim€and€that€they€were€involvedÏin€a€scheme€to€steal€computer€equipment€from€a€school.€€When€the€PetitionerÏbacked€out€of€the€plan,€the€victim€then€fabricated€the€charges€against€him.€ÏCounsel€attempted€to€contact€œa›€person€the€Petitioner€had€named€œin€the€letter€but›Ïcould€not€locate€anyone€with€the€name€she€was€given.€€Counsel€did€contactÏseveral€other€witnesses€the€Petitioner€gave,€but€they€were€of€no€assistance€inÏthe€case.€€Finally,€counsel€admitted€to€not€contacting€the€police€officers€listed€asÏwitnesses€for€the€State€because€ð ðthe€police€officers€donððt€want€to€talk€to€us€andÏwe€generally€donððt€contact€them.ðð€€She€did€state€that€she€contacted€persons€atÏthe€rape€crisis€center€and€the€University€of€Tennessee€toxicology€laboratory.ÌÌà àCounsel€noted€that€the€Petitioner€was€uncooperative€and€threatened€toÏwithhold€the€names€of€possible€witnesses.€€Counsel€sent€the€Petitioner€aÏlengthy€letter€that€refers€to€the€Petitionerððs€lack€of€cooperation€with€her.€€The€letterÍstated:€ð ðI€hope€that€you€will€make€an€attempt€to€try€to€help€me€defend€youÏagainst€a€case€in€which€you€are€facing€a€possible€forty€(40)€year€consecutive€toÏforty€(40)€years€sentence.€€The€stateððs€proof€is€very€strong.ðð€€The€PetitionerÏcontends€that€counsel€€misrepresented€the€possible€sentences€he€would€receiveÏif€he€went€to€trial€and€was€convicted€and€that€the€above€statement€in€counselððsÏletter€suggested€he€may€receive€an€eighty„year€sentence.€€Counsel€was€notÏasked€to€explain€the€contents€of€the€letter€on€direct€or€cross„examination€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing.€€Counsel€did€testify€that€her€calculation€of€the€sentencingÏranges€and€the€possibility€of€consecutive€sentencing€were€fifteen€to€twenty„fiveÏyears€for€aggravated€rape€as€a€range€I€offender€and€twelve€to€twenty€years€forÏthe€aggravated€robbery€as€a€range€II€œoffender.›€€Counsel€testified€that€sheÏdiscussed€with€the€Petitioner€these€potential€sentences€and€the€possibility€ofÏconsecutive€sentencing€for€an€effective€term€of€forty„five€years.€€€Furthermore,€theÏtranscript€of€the€Petitionerððs€guilty€plea€proceeding€reflects€that€he€was€awareÏthat€ð ð[e]ither€I€accept€this€[plea€agreement]€or€I€take€a€chance€of€getting€45Ïyears.ðð€€€Although€the€letter€suggests€an€eighty„year€sentence,€there€is€otherÏevidence€in€the€record€that€contradicts€the€information€in€the€letter,€namely,€thatÏcounsel€calculated€a€possible€forty„five€year€sentence€and€that€the€PetitionerÏwas€aware€of€this€when€he€entered€his€guilty€plea.€€€We€are€mindful€that€thereÏmust€be€proof€that€counsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€she€was€not€functioningÏas€counsel€as€guaranteed€under€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€atÍ687.€€There€is€evidence€that€counsel€took€measures€œto€correct€a›€prior€error€inÏcalculating€the€potential€sentence.€ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€claims€that€counsel€did€not€inform€him€of€the€forensic€testingÏthat€was€conducted€and€that€the€semen€sample€obtained€from€the€victim€did€notÏconclusively€prove€he€was€the€perpetrator.€€However,€counsel€testified€that€sheÏdiscussed€possible€DNA€analysis€with€the€Petitioner€to€confirm€the€identity€of€theÏassailant€and€also€informed€him€of€the€negative€consequences€if€he,€indeed,Ïmatched€the€sample.€€The€record€reflects€that€counsel€requested€time€to€discussÏDNA€testing€with€her€client.€€Counsel€testified€that€the€Petitioner€refused€the€test.ÌÌà àFinally,€counsel€testified€that€she€met€with€the€Petitioner€sixteen€times€inÏaddition€to€his€court€appearances.€€She€also€stated€that€she€was€prepared€toÏgo€to€trial€on€the€case€when€a€plea€agreement€was€reached€that€same€day.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€that€ð ðMs.€Brown,€counsel€for€the€defendant,€hadÏconducted€or€did€conduct€an€above„average€defense€of€this€particularÏindividual.ðð€€In€a€post„conviction€proceeding€under€the€Act€applicable€to€thisÏcase,€€the€petitioner€must€prove€the€allegations€in€the€petition€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2d€œ689›€(Tenn.€1995);ÏòòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€341€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€œIn›€appellateÍreview€of€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€areÏconclusive€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings.€ÏòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789ÏS.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€€€On€its€face,€counselððs€letter€presents€aÏpotential€sentence€that€is€in€error.€€However,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏevidence€showed€that€the€Petitioner€discussed€with€counsel€his€potentialÏsentences€that€he€was€ð ðreasonably€put€on€noticeðð€regarding€the€correct€range€ofÏsentences€to€be€imposed€if€he€went€to€trial€and€was€convicted.€€Consequently,Ïno€prejudice€œresulted€from€counselððs›€erroneous€letter.€€œThe›€court€found€thatÏcounsel€adequately€investigated€relevant€witnesses€and€noted€the€PetitionerððsÏfailure€to€cooperate€with€counsel.€€€Also,€counsel€consulted€with€the€Petitioner€onÏnumerous€occasions.€€Finally,€the€court€concluded€that€the€Petitioner€was€familiarÏwith€the€criminal€justice€system€from€his€prior€convictions€and€that€ð ð[t]he€court,Ïquite€frankly,€does€not€believe€many€of€the€assertions€given€by€the€defendantÏduring€the€course€of€these€proceedings.ðð€€We€cannot€conclude€that€the€evidenceÏpresented€by€the€Petitioner€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€ÏTherefore,€we€agree€that€the€Petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€counselððsÏperformance€fell€below€the€required€standard€or€that€he€was€prejudiced€byÏcounselððs€actions.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àNext,€the€Petitioner€asserts€that€he€did€not€voluntarily,€knowingly€orÏintelligently€enter€his€plea€of€guilty.€€œIn›€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238€(1969),Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€record€must€show€that€a€guiltyÏplea€was€made€voluntarily,€understandingly€and€knowingly.€€In€òòBoykinóó,€theÏCourt€held€that€an€entry€of€a€guilty€plea€effectively€constituted€a€waiver€of€theÏconstitutional€rights€against€compulsory€œself„incrimination,›€the€right€to€confrontÏone's€accusers,€and€the€right€to€trial€by€jury.€€òòId.óó€at€243.€€If€a€guilty€plea€is€notÏvoluntary€and€knowing,€it€has€been€entered€in€violation€of€due€process€and€is,Ïtherefore,€œinvalid.›ÌÌà àA€voluntary€plea€cannot€be€found€from€a€silent€record.€€€òòBoykinóó,€395€U.S.Ïat€242.€€Pursuant€to€its€supervisory€power,€our€supreme€court€has€imposedÏmore€stringent€standards€for€trial€courts€to€employ€when€advising€defendantsÏduring€€guilty€pleas€œto›€provide€an€adequate€record€that€will€insure€constitutionalÏcompliance.€€€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.1977).€€However,Ïpost„conviction€relief€may€œbe›€œgranted€only€if›€a€conviction€or€sentence€is€void€orÏvoidable€because€of€a€violation€of€a€constitutional€right.€€œTenn.€Code›€œAnn.›€ððÏœ40„30„105€(repealed€1995).›€€As€was€pointed€out€in€òòState€v.€Nealóó,€810€S.W.2dÏ131€(Tenn.€1991),€violation€of€the€advice€litany€required€œby›€œeither€òòMackeyóó›€orÏœTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€11€which›€is€not€linked€to€a€specifiedÍconstitutional€right€is€not€cognizable€in€a€suit€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€€òòStateÏv.€Princeóó,€781€S.W.2d€846€(Tenn.1989).€€Moreover,€€it€is€the€result,€not€the€œÌprocess,›€that€is€essential€to€a€valid€plea.€€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€834€S.W.2d€922,Ï923„24€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€critical€inquiry€is€whether€the€Petitioner€had€knowledgeÏof€certain€rights€and€waived€those€rights€knowingly€and€voluntarily,€not€whetherÏthe€trial€court€was€the€source€of€that€knowledge.ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€first€contention€regarding€his€guilty€plea€is€that€he€feltÏcoerced€into€the€plea€agreement€because€counsel€ð ðthreatenedðð€him€with€anÏeighty„year€sentence.€€Although€there€is€evidence€of€a€letter€from€counsel€thatÏsuggests€an€eighty„year€sentence,€counsel€testified€that€she€discussed€theÏappropriate€sentences€with€the€Petitioner.€€The€transcript€of€the€guilty€pleaÏproceeding€reflects€that€the€Petitioner€was€concerned€with€a€trial€in€which€ð ðI€takeÏa€chance€of€getting€45€years.ðð€€The€Petitioner€was€accurately€informed€of€theÏpossible€punishment€before€him€if€he€went€to€trial€and€he€chose€œinstead€to›€takeÏthe€€effective€sentence€of€twenty€years€pursuant€to€the€plea€agreement.€€€ÏCertainly,€the€prospect€of€serving€forty„five€years€œincarceration›€is€daunting,€but€Ïthe€option€to€go€through€a€trial€or€to€plead€guilty€does€not€constitute€coercion€that€Ïmakes€a€plea€involuntary.€òòSeeóó€òòNealóó,€810€S.W.2d€at€135.€€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àSecondly,€the€Petitioner€claims€that€he€did€not€understand€the€rights€heÏwas€surrendering€in€his€guilty€plea.€€At€the€proceeding€in€the€trial€court,€the€trialÏjudge€and€the€Petitioner€had€the€following€exchange:ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓBY€THE€COURT:ÌQ:à àDo€you€understand€that€you€have€a€right€to€plead€not€guilty€andÏgo€to€trial€before€a€jury€and€be€represented€by€your€lawyer,€cross„examine,€subpoena,€testify€on€your€own€behalf,€although€you€wouldÏnot€be€required€to,€appeal€if€you€lost,€be€represented€free€of€charge€byÏa€lawyer€on€appeal,€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€Stateððs€evidence,Ïthe€manner€in€which€they€obtained€their€evidence.Ìà àYouððre€giving€up€all€these€rights€by€pleading€guilty.€€Do€youÏunderstand€that?ÌÌA:à àNo.€I€was€informed€by€my€public€defender€that€I€would€not€beÏpleading€guilty,€that€I€would€just€be€accepting€the€time.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àAt€that€point,€the€trial€court€and€the€Petitioner€entered€into€a€lengthyÏcolloquy€explaining€that€he€was€entering€a€plea€pursuant€to€òòNorth€Carolina€v.ÏAlfordóó,€400€U.S.€25,€91€S.€Ct.€160€(1970).€€òòAlfordóó€provides€that€ð ð[a]n€individualÏaccused€of€crime€may€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€understandingly€consent€to€theÏimposition€of€a€prison€sentence€even€if€he€is€unwilling€or€unable€to€admit€hisÏparticipation€in€the€acts€constituting€the€crime.ðð€€400€U.S.€at€37;€91€S.Ct.€at€167.ÌAfter€the€trial€court€explained€the€òòAlfordóó€plea,€a€recess€was€had€in€whichÏcounsel€met€with€the€Petitioner€to€review€the€plea€agreement.€However,€theÏPetitioner€contends€that€his€answer€ð ðnoðð€was€in€response€to€whether€heÏunderstood€the€rights€he€was€relinquishing.ÌÌà àAlthough€a€review€of€the€guilty€plea€proceeding€reveals€that€the€focus€ofÏthe€extended€dialogue€regarded€the€Petitionerððs€understanding€his€òòAlfordóó€plea,Ïthe€trial€court€œdid€state€on›€the€record€the€rights€he€was€relinquishing.€€The€recordÏfrom€the€Petitioner's€guilty€plea€shows€that€the€Petitioner€was€addressedÏpersonally€in€open€court€by€the€trial€judge€and€was€advised€of€all€hisÏconstitutional€rights€as€mandated€by€òòBoykinóó.€€It€does€appear€that€the€trial€courtÏfailed€to€comply€with€the€òòMackeyóó€and€Rule€11(c)€requirements.€The€PetitionerÏargues€that€his€answer€to€the€questions€demonstrates€that€he€was€not€enteringÏinto€his€plea€knowingly,€voluntarily€and€intelligently.€€However,€after€reviewing€theÏrecord,€the€Petitioner's€statements€seem€to€stem€more€from€a€desire€to€beÏuncooperative€than€from€not€understanding.€€€The€Petitioner€later€answered€thatÏhe€freely€and€voluntarily€was€choosing€not€to€go€to€trial.€€Counsel€for€the€StateÏvoir€dired€the€Petitioner€at€length,€going€over€his€waiver€of€rights€form€and€theÏjudgment€forms€for€the€offenses.€€The€Petitioner€indicated€his€understanding€ofÏand€assent€to€the€terms€and€thus,€chose€to€proceed€with€the€guilty€plea.€€TheÏPetitioner€was€allowed€to€confer€with€counsel€to€review€the€forms€and€the€guiltyÏplea€he€signed.€€The€Petitioner€acknowledged€in€open€court€that€he€had€read,Ïunderstood€and€signed€his€waiver€of€rights€form.€€The€Petitioner€was€informedÏboth€about€the€nature€of€his€plea€and€sentences€and€œabout€the›€consequencesÍof€his€actions.€€This€is€sufficient€to€demonstrate€that€the€Petitioner€also€knowinglyÏand€intelligently€entered€his€plea.ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€that€from€anÏexamination€of€the€proof,€the€Petitioner€did€voluntarily€enter€a€guilty€plea.€ÏFurthermore,€the€trial€judge€expressly€stated€that€œthe›€Petitionerððs€credibility€wasÏextremely€lacking.€The€trial€court€found€that€œby›€assessing€the€testimony€in€theÏrecord€and€assessing€the€Petitionerððs€demeanor,€œregarding›€the€voluntariness€ofÏhis€guilty€plea,€ð ð[i]t€wasnððt€that€he€did€not€know€what€was€going€on.€€He€didnððtÏwant€to€accept€what€was€going€on.ðð€The€evidence€in€the€record€clearly€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà àTherefore,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€the€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.ÌÌÓ  Óà àÌœÓÓÇ›à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE›