ÿWPC« ~œسKĜσª_ãËÎE eJ…Q‰LT›Òœ9÷¹=„f»œÎŸIÖå T!]7Ž——GÁb_ ¸93O6sö(ëŠg¼[Õ;X!78¦@vji>øà¶2i?M, ¶¥MZR!vk—¯0Eˆó¡²vÜJ†ì)çHhXf“°^vÙ‡õåP‘©2Y²—ã(·¾q bÌÚ¬ëßÂíBRŽVñj×X œ´pñâ›ë ØÕŸÓÚ úƨå6&“v§–ò†À|º1s{!çfؓ䌞rÝÝš  ¹ »ER½¬“Á b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 0D‘ ÆÕ Æ› Æa Æ'UNíN;;a=Ežžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžb                                     0먨¨¨ B““ 0¤° D3T D-‡ 0K´´ ASÿÆR 0¤ 0D¼ A«˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»(}„)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular•jW)>¥ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular WÝ ƒR{$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôßDò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€Defendant€testified€at€the€hearing€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€that€he€ð ðcaught€a€fleeingÐ ° Ðchargeðð€while€he€was€out€on€bail€for€this€offense,€but€that€he€was€not€convicted.- ù-(|G2{$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€£ü»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôßDò»»Ô d(|3($££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€£ü»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3($¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€£ü»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€£ü»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼£ü»»»ÔÑ8€¯ÛXXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îå?£üÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼£ü»îîå? #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€25,€2000Ð X ÐÔ‡X¯ÛX»¼£üÔÌò òÔ#†¼£ü»XX¯Û#ÔÔ_ÔDAYLONÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDEMETRICÔ_Ô€ROBERTSòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X¯ÛX»¼£üÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€59299€€€€€€Ray€L.€Jenkins,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02180„CCA„R3„PCÐ ×'  ÐDecember€1,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ Ç  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€of€murder€perpetrated€in€an€attempt€to€commit€a€robbery.€€HisÐ ¶ Ðconviction€was€affirmed€on€appeal€to€this€Court,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€deniedÐ ¦ö Ðpermission€to€appeal.€€The€Defendant€subsequently€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€AfterÐ –æ Ðan€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€petition.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals€the€trialÐ †Ö Ðcourtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€arguing€that€conflicts€with€his€attorneys€prevented€theÐ vÆ Ðattorneys€from€providing€him€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€that€the€trial€court€forcedÐ f¶ Ðhim€to€proceed€to€trial€despite€those€conflicts.€€Finding€no€error€in€the€record€before€us,€we€affirmÐ V¦ Ðthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð F– ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ &v ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼£ü»àX¯ÛÝ#ÔÔ‡X¯ÛX.¼£üÔRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€andÐ V ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williamsóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð öF ÐÌBrandt€Davis,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔDaylonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDemetricÔ_Ô€Roberts.Ð Ö& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Patricia€C.€Ô_ÔKussmanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Ð ¶!  ÐRandall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General,€and€Robert€L.€Ô_ÔJolleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ¦"ö! ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð –#æ" ÐÓ ÓÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼£ü»XX¯Û5 #ÔÔ‡X¯ÛX»¼£üÔÐ f&¶!% ÐÌI.€€FACTSÐ F(–#' ÐòòóóÔ#†¼£ü»XX¯ÛÒ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¯ÛX»¼£üÔÔ‡Xà| XXX¯ÛԀР6)†$( Ðà  àIn€November€1993,€a€Knox€County€jury€convicted€the€Defendant€of€murder€perpetrated€inÐ "*r%) Ðan€attempt€to€commit€a€robbery.€€The€Defendant€appealed€the€verdict€to€this€Court,€and€we€affirmedÐ +^&* Ðthe€conviction€on€October€5,€1994.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔDaylonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDemetricÔ_Ô€Robertsóó,€No.€03C01„9403„CR„Ð ú+J'+ Ð00117,€1994€WL€540555€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Knoxville,€Oct.€5,€1994).€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÐ æ,6(, ÐCourt€denied€permission€to€appeal€on€March€6,€1995.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€Ð Ò-")-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àOn€direct€appeal,€this€Court€summarized€the€facts€underlying€the€Defendantððs€conviction€asÐ ° Ðfollows:Ð œì Ðà8  àThe€facts€in€this€case€are€straightforward€and€virtually€undisputed.€€In€the€earlyÐ ˆØ Ðmorning€hours€of€August€31,€1992,€appellant€and€three€other€males€observed€a€carÐ tÄ Ðparking€in€an€Austin„Homes€parking€lot.€€Two€men€got€out€of€the€car,€leaving€GregÐ `° ÐNorris,€the€driver,€alone.€€Appellant€and€his€three€companions€approached€the€car€onÐ L œ Ðthe€passenger€side€and€then€turned€back.€€Roberts€and€the€other€would„be€robberÐ 8 ˆ Ðapproached€the€driverððs€side.€€According€to€appellantððs€companions€and€a€witnessÐ $ t Ðwho€overheard€the€incident,€appellant,€who€had€a€gun€in€his€possession,€demandedÐ  ` Ðthat€the€victim€roll€down€his€window€and€hand€over€his€money.€€When€the€victimÐ ü L  Ðrefused€and€started€the€car€in€an€attempt€to€leave,€appellant€shot€him€in€the€head.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐòòId.óó€at€*1.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAfter€all€avenues€of€direct€appeal€were€exhausted,€the€Defendant€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€forÐ ¬ü  Ðpost„conviction€relief€on€September€13,€1995,€in€which€he€alleged€(1)€that€his€trial€counsel€wereÐ ˜è  Ðineffective€for€ð ðfailing€to€maintain€meaningful€connections€with€[him],ðð€failing€to€conduct€anÐ „Ô  Ðadequate€investigation,€and€failing€to€prepare€a€defense;€and€(2)€that€he€was€denied€due€process€whenÐ pÀ Ðthe€trial€court€declined€to€appoint€new€counsel€to€represent€him€prior€to€trial.€€Upon€the€DefendantððsÐ \¬ Ðmotion,€the€post„conviction€court€subsequently€appointed€counsel€to€represent€the€Defendant€in€hisÐ H˜ Ðpost„conviction€proceedings.€€Approximately€a€month€later,€the€Defendant€filed€a€ð ðMotion€forÐ 4„ ÐReappointment€of€Counsel,ðð€alleging€that€his€new€attorney€had€ð ðfailed€to€make€and€maintain€anyÐ  p Ðmeaningful€communicationsðð€with€him€since€his€appointment.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€next€filed€a€motion€requesting€that€the€post„conviction€judge,€the€HonorableÐ ä4 ÐRichard€Baumgartner,€recuse€himself€because€he€had€presided€over€the€Defendantððs€trial€and€hadÐ Ð  Ðdeclined€to€appoint€new€counsel€for€the€Defendant€prior€to€trial,€which€the€Defendant€contested€inÐ ¼  Ðhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Judge€Baumgartner€granted€the€Defendantððs€motion€forÐ ¨ø Ðrecusal€on€December€17,€1996.€€The€Defendant€later€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€ð ðMotion€to€Amend€Petition€forÐ ”ä ÐPost€Conviction,ðð€presenting€four€new€grounds€for€relief.€€On€November€23,€1999,€the€trial€courtÐ €Ð Ðconducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€Defendantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€after€whichÐ l¼ Ðit€denied€relief.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€was€represented€at€trial€by€two€court„appointed€attorneys,€David€Gall€andÐ 0"€  ÐAubrey€Davis.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€Defendant€testified€thatÐ #l! Ðhe€was€incarcerated€from€August€1992,€the€time€of€the€offense€in€this€case,€until€he€was€released€onÐ $X" ÐbondÔ#†X¯ÛX XXà|y #ÔÔ‡Xà| XXX¯ÛÔ€approximately€five€or€six€months€before€the€time€of€trial€in€November€1993.€€The€DefendantÐ ô$D # Ðtestified€that€Gall€and€Davis€were€appointed€to€handle€his€case€after€he€was€released€on€bond€and€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðhe€met€with€them€about€three€times€prior€to€trial.€€The€Defendant€complained€that€he€and€his€lawyersÐ Ì&"% Ðcould€not€agree€as€to€ð ðwhat€was€in€[his]€best€interestðð€and€reported€that€the€conflict€between€themÐ ¸'#& Ðprogressed€to€such€a€level€that€they€were€unable€to€communicate.€€Specifically,€the€DefendantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcomplained€that€his€attorneys€did€not€develop€a€defense€for€his€case€and€that€they€encouraged€himÐ )à$( Ðto€accept€a€plea€agreement€despite€his€desire€to€go€to€trial.€€He€also€complained€that€although€heÐ |*Ì%) Ðwished€to€testify€at€trial,€his€attorneys€advised€him€not€to€testify,€and€he€stated€that€he€eventuallyÐ h+¸&* Ðdecided€to€follow€their€advice.€€When€asked€what€his€testimony€would€have€been,€the€DefendantÐ ° Ðresponded€that€he€would€have€testified€that€he€ð ðwasnððt€the€triggerman,€that€[he]€didnððt€shootÐ œì Ðanybody.ððÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€testified€that€he€raised€the€issue€of€his€dissatisfaction€with€his€attorneys€forÐ `° Ðthe€first€time€on€the€day€of€trial.€€The€record€of€the€trial€reflects€that€the€Defendant€addressed€theÐ L œ Ðcourt€as€follows€immediately€prior€to€jury€selection:Ð 8 ˆ Ðà8  àI€just€feel€I€needð!ð€I€need€more€time€to€get€me€another€lawyer€ððcause€they€havenððt€beenÐ $ t Ðrepresenting€me€right.€€Iððve€been€out€for€three€months,€and€they€only€came€to€talk€toÐ  ` Ðme€so€many€times.€€And€when€I€did€come€to€talk€to€ððem€all€they€was€talkinðð€aboutÐ ü L  Ðwas€coppinðð€out,€and€I€ainððt€ready€to€cop€out,€you€know,€like€that.€€And€so,€therefore,Ð è 8  ÐI€feelð!ð€they€told€me€that€they€didnððt€have€no€defense€for€me€so€I€feel€that€I€need€to€getÐ Ô$  Ða€representative€who€says€he€has€some€kind€of€defense€for€me.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐThe€court€then€asked€the€Defendant€why€he€had€not€attempted€to€hire€his€own€attorney€in€the€one€andÐ ¬ü  Ða€half€years€since€his€indictment€in€this€case,€and€the€Defendant€replied€that€he€had€been€incarceratedÐ ˜è  Ðfor€most€of€the€time.€€Although€the€Defendant€did€not€have€funds€to€hire€an€attorney,€his€motherÐ „Ô  Ðinformed€the€court€that€she€could€help€him€pay€for€legal€services.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€attorneys€were€then€given€the€opportunity€to€respond€to€the€DefendantððsÐ H˜ Ðallegations.€€Davis,€an€Assistant€Public€Defender,€agreed€that€defense€counsel€had€had€ð ðdifficultyÐ 4„ Ð.€.€.€communicating€with€[the€Defendant].ðð€€He€stated€that€he€and€Gall€had€been€ð ðunable€to€get€theÐ  p Ð[D]efendant€to€adopt€what€[they]€believe[d]€to€be€a€realistic€view€of€his€case.ðð€€Davis€reported€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€Defendant€failed€to€show€up€for€three€or€four€appointments€with€his€attorneys€and€that€on€severalÐ øH Ðother€occasions,€he€refused€to€meet€with€his€attorneys€upon€their€request,€claiming€that€the€attorneysÐ ä4 Ðwere€not€ð ðrepresenting€his€best€interest.ðð€€Davis€stated€that€he€and€Gall€met€with€the€DefendantÐ Ð  Ðapproximately€three€times€prior€to€trial.€€He€recalled,€Ð ¼  Ðà8  àOn€each€of€these€occasions€the€appointments€never€lasted€more€than€an€hour€becauseÐ ¨ø Ðwhat€weððve€discovered€is€when€we€begin€discussing€the€facts€of€the€case€or€where€weÐ ”ä Ðare€on€the€case,€.€.€.€[the€Defendant]€has€on€these€occasions€decided€that€theÐ €Ð Ðdiscussion€wasnððt€going€the€way€he€wanted€it€to€and€he€would€leave€the€office.€€ThisÐ l¼ Ðoccurred€on€every€occasion€we€discussed€the€case€with€him€.€.€.€.€ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐHowever,€Davis€maintained€that€he€had€ð ða€full€command€of€what€evidence€[defense€counsel€had]Ð D!” Ðbeen€able€to€obtain€by€discovery,ðð€and€he€informed€the€court€that€defense€counsel€had€interviewedÐ 0"€  Ðwitnesses.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFollowing€Davisðð€response€to€the€Defendantððs€allegations,€the€trial€judge€requested€to€meetÐ ô$D # Ðwith€counsel€for€both€the€defense€and€the€State€in€chambers.€€When€he€returned€to€open€court,€theÐ à%0!$ Ðtrial€judge€addressed€the€Defendant€as€follows:Ð Ì&"% Ðà8  àà ` àFirst€of€all,€you€have€been€indicted€in€this€case€since€August€of€1992.€€YouððveÐ ¸'#& Ðhad€from€that€time€until€present€to€hire€a€lawyer€if€you€chose€to€do€that.€€You€wereÐ ¤(ô#' Ðincarcerated,€and€a€Motion€for€a€Bond€Reduction€was€considered€by€this€Court€andÐ )à$( Ðgranted€in€January.€€And€as€I€understand€it€then,€you€were€released€from€custody€inÐ |*Ì%) ÐJune€of€this€year,€some€almost€six€months€ago.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àYou€have€not€hired€another€lawyer€between€then€and€now.€€You€have€notÐ ° Ðcooperated€with€your€lawyers€that€are€assigned€to€represent€you€who,€by€the€way,€IÐ œì Ðknow€to€be€very€capable,€experienced€and€excellent€lawyers.ЈØÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIððm€going€to€give€you€a€choice€today,€Mr.€Roberts,€and€this€is€your€choice.€Ð tÄ ÐYour€choice€isð!ð€let€me€add€one€other€fact€to€this€mix,€and€that€is€itððs€myÐ `° Ðunderstanding€that€there€has€been,€during€this€time€that€youððve€been€released,€anotherÐ L œ Ðarrest׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€which,€of€course,€would€in€and€of€itself€be€a€condition€for€the€revocation€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðyour€bond€had€that€been€brought€to€my€attention€and€had€the€bonding€company€askedÐ $ t Ðto€be€relieved€from€your€bond€as€a€result€of€that.€€I€would€have€done€that€withoutÐ  ` Ðhesitation.€€Itððs€a€statutory€violation€authorizing€the€revocation€of€the€bond.Ðü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThis€is€your€choice:€I€will€give€you€the€opportunity€to€hire€another€lawyer.€Ð è 8  ÐBut€if€I€do€that€Iððm€going€to€take€you€into€custody€right€now€and€hold€you€in€custodyÐ Ô$  Ðuntil€this€case€is€set€for€trial.€€It€will€be€up€then€to€you€and€your€family€to€hire€aÐ À  Ðlawyer€to€represent€you€in€this€matter.Ьü Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àBut€if€you€make€that€choice€to€do€that€you€will€be€held€in€custody€until€theÐ ˜è  Ðtrial€of€this€case,€which€I€anticipate€then€I€would€set€some€time€in€early€1994,Ð „Ô  Ðprobably€in€February.ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIððm€going€to€give€you€the€opportunity.€€Iððm€going€to€give€you€a€couple€ofÐ \¬ Ðminutes€to€discuss€that€with€your€family€and€make€that€decision.€€If€not,€if€you€chooseÐ H˜ Ðto€continue€with€these€lawyers,€weððre€going€to€trial€today.Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐFollowing€these€comments,€the€Defendant€conferred€with€his€family€and€decided€to€proceed€to€trialÐ  p Ðthat€day.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Aubrey€Davis€elaborated€on€the€€statements€he€made€to€theÐ ä4 Ðcourt€on€the€day€of€trial€regarding€the€problems€between€the€Defendant€and€defense€counsel.€€HeÐ Ð  Ðtestified€that€the€Defendant€never€asked€his€defense€counsel€to€withdraw€from€the€case.€€Davis€alsoÐ ¼  Ðstated€that€despite€their€lack€of€communication€with€the€Defendant,€he€and€Gall€ð ðdid€as€muchÐ ¨ø Ðinvestigation€on€[the€Defendantððs€case]€as€.€.€.€two€people€can,€given€the€amount€of€cooperation€thatððÐ ”ä Ðthey€received€from€the€Defendant.€€According€to€Davis,€they€went€to€the€scene€of€the€crime,Ð €Ð Ðattempted€to€locate€all€witnesses,€tracked€down€certain€witnesses,€and€went€to€an€apartment€complexÐ l¼ Ðwhere€others€involved€in€the€crime€allegedly€were€staying;€he€stated€that€four€investigators€assistedÐ X ¨ Ðthem€in€the€investigation.€€He€described€their€investigation€as€ð ðvery€thorough.ðð€€Davis€testified€thatÐ D!” Ðduring€their€investigation€of€the€case,€defense€counsel€were€unable€to€locate€any€witnesses€whoÐ 0"€  Ðwould€have€helped€the€Defendantððs€case.€€He€stated,€ð ðI€cannot€honestly€say€that€[the€problemsÐ #l! Ðbetween€the€Defendant€and€defense€counsel]€affected€the€outcome€of€the€case.ððÐ $X" ÐÌà  àDavis€also€testified€that€during€the€time€he€represented€the€Defendant,€he€lived€at€the€sameÐ à%0!$ Ðapartment€complex€where€the€Defendantððs€family€lived.€€He€stated€that€he€often€encountered€theÐ Ì&"% ÐDefendant€there€and€told€the€Defendant€that€it€was€ð ðvery€importantðð€that€the€Defendant€meet€withÐ ¸'#& Ðhis€attorneys€to€discuss€the€case.€€He€reported€that€the€Defendant€often€would€not€respond€to€himÐ ¤(ô#' Ðduring€these€encounters€and€that€the€Defendant€would€sometimes€walk€away€while€Davis€wasÐ ° Ðspeaking€to€him.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€Defendantððs€desire€to€testify€at€trial,€Davis€testified€that€he€and€Gall€didÐ tÄ Ðnot€believe€the€Defendant€would€make€an€effective€witness.€€He€also€stated€that€the€Defendant€hadÐ `° Ðgiven€a€statement€to€police,€which€was€later€entered€into€evidence€at€trial,€in€which€he€admitted€toÐ L œ Ðplanning€the€robbery€with€the€other€individuals€involved€in€the€crime€and€to€stopping€at€the€victimððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðcar€with€the€intent€to€rob€him.€€Davis€explained€that€even€if€the€Defendant€did€not€actually€fire€theÐ $ t Ðgun€which€killed€the€victim,€as€the€State€contended,€the€Defendant€had€confessed€that€he€hadÐ  ` Ðparticipated€in€a€robbery€that€resulted€in€a€death.€€Thus,€there€was€no€defense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Carsonóó,Ð ü L  Ð950€S.W.2d€951,€955€n.5€(Tenn.€1997)€(stating€that€defendant€who€participates€willingly€in€a€robberyÐ è 8  Ðmay€be€convicted€of€first„degree€murder€even€if€a€co„perpetrator€of€the€felony€is€the€actual€killer).€Ð Ô$  ЀFor€these€reasons,€defense€counsel€advised€the€Defendant€not€to€testify,€but€Davis€maintained€thatÐ À  Ðthe€decision€of€whether€to€testify€was€ultimately€left€to€the€Defendant.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àFinally,€Davis€testified€about€the€plea€agreement€offers€made€to€the€Defendant€by€the€StateÐ „Ô  Ðprior€to€trial.€€He€recalled€that€the€State€first€offered€fifty€years€and€eventually€offered€ð ð25€.€.€.€on€theÐ pÀ Ðsecond„degree€and€.€.€.€offered€about€20,€asking€us€to€plead€up€in€the€range,€on€the€ag[gravated]Ð \¬ Ðrobbery.ðð€€Davis€testified€that€based€upon€their€investigation€of€the€case,€he€and€Gall€concluded€thatÐ H˜ Ðthere€was€a€ð ðvery€strong€likelihoodðð€that€the€Defendant€would€be€convicted€and€therefore€advisedÐ 4„ Ðthe€Defendant€to€accept€a€plea€agreement.€€However,€the€Defendant€refused€to€consider€any€of€theÐ  p ÐStateððs€offers.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àDavid€Gall€also€testified€at€the€hearing€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€statedÐ ä4 Ðthat€he€had€been€employed€as€an€Assistant€Public€Defender€since€1990€and€that€he€had€practiced€lawÐ Ð  Ðfor€approximately€ten€years€prior€to€that€time,€primarily€in€the€area€of€criminal€defense.€€He€testifiedÐ ¼  Ðthat€his€recollection€of€the€investigation€of€the€Defendantððs€case€and€the€pretrial€activity€in€the€caseÐ ¨ø Ðwas€basically€the€same€as€Davisðð€recollection.€€He€testified€that€the€Defendant€told€his€attorneys€hisÐ ”ä Ðversion€of€what€happened€on€the€night€of€the€murder,€but€did€not€give€them€much€other€help.€€GallÐ €Ð Ðrecalled,€ð ð[The€Defendant]€wouldnððt€stay€seated€long€enough€to€help€us.ðð€€Gall€stated€that€what€heÐ l¼ Ðcharacterized€as€the€ð ð[p]ersonality€conflictsðð€between€defense€counsel€and€the€Defendant€did€notÐ X ¨ Ðaffect€the€attorneysðð€pretrial€efforts€but€did€ð ðaffect[]€[the€Defendantððs]€ability€to€benefit€from€whatÐ D!” Ð[his€attorneys]€were€doing.ðð€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àGall€reiterated€that€he€and€Davis€ð ðvery€strenuously€tr[ied]€to€make€[the€Defendant]Ð $X" Ðunderstand€that€he€really€did€not€have€a€defense€.€.€.€and€that€it€was€in€his€best€interest€to€accept€a€pleaÐ ô$D # Ðto€a€lesser€offense.ðð€€He€stated€that€he€believed€the€Stateððs€final€settlement€offer€to€be€very€generous.€Ð à%0!$ ÐHe€added€that€had€the€Defendant€accepted€the€Stateððs€offer,€he€would€have€been€eligible€for€paroleÐ Ì&"% Ðafter€serving€thirty€percent€of€the€sentence,€rather€than€after€serving€eighty„five€percent€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðsentence.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÓ  ÓÌÐ h+¸&* ÐII.€ANALYSISÐ ° ÐÌÓRSÓà  àThe€Defendant€argues€that€he€should€be€granted€post„conviction€relief€because€he€receivedÐ ˆØ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€He€contends€that€ð ðpersonal€conflictsðð€between€his€counselÐ tÄ Ðand€him€inhibited€his€attorneys€from€representing€him€effectively€at€trial.€€In€his€brief,€he€states,€Ð `° Ðà8  àThe€issue€in€this€appeal€is€the€right€of€an€indigent€defendant€to€have€trial€counselÐ L œ Ðappointed€with€whom€there€is€no€conflict.€€The€issue€is€not€ineffectiveness€of€counselÐ 8 ˆ Ðduring€trial€or€in€trial€preparation€due€to€specific€acts€or€error€or€omission€by€trialÐ $ t Ðcounsel€which€resulted€in€the€failure€by€that€counsel€to€provide€representation€thatÐ  ` Ðmeets€the€standards€of€Baxter€v.€Rose,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐHe€further€argues€that€he€was€forced€to€proceed€to€trial€despite€this€conflict.Ð è 8  Ѐ€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àIn€order€to€obtain€post„conviction€relief,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€his€or€her€conviction€orÐ À  Ðsentence€is€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgment€of€a€constitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¬ü  Ððð€40„30„203.€€The€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€factual€allegations€in€the€petition€for€post„Ð ˜è  Ðconviction€relief€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„30„210(f).€€A€post„conviction€courtððsÐ „Ô  Ðfindings€of€fact€are€afforded€the€weight€of€the€jury€and€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidenceÐ pÀ Ðin€the€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.Ð \¬ Ð1997).€€However,€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€of€a€particular€case€isÐ H˜ Ðòòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòRuff€v.€Stateóó,€978€S.W.2d€95,€96€(Tenn.€1998).Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€ð ðordering€him€jailed€if€he€elected€toÐ  \ Ðattempt€to€obtain€his€own€private€attorney.ðð€€A€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€in€matters€concerningÐ øH Ðthe€substitution€of€counsel,€and€a€trial€courtððs€decision€concerning€such€matters€will€not€beÐ ä4 Ðoverturned€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Brannamóó,€855€S.W.2d€563,€566€(Tenn.€1993);Ð Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Gilmoreóó,€823€S.W.2d€566,€569€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€A€criminal€defendant€seeking€toÐ ¼  Ðsubstitute€counsel€must€establish€to€the€satisfaction€of€the€trial€judge€(a)€that€ð ðthe€representationÐ ¨ø Ðbeing€furnished€by€counsel€is€ineffective,€inadequate,€and€falls€below€the€range€of€competencyÐ ”ä Ðexpected€of€defense€counsel€in€criminal€prosecutions,ðð€(b)€that€ð ðthe€accused€and€appointed€counselÐ €Ð Ðhave€become€embroiled€in€an€irreconcilable€conflict,ðð€or€(c)€that€ð ðthere€has€been€a€completeÐ l¼ Ðbreakdown€in€communications€between€them.ðð€€òòGilmoreóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€568„69.€€However,€aÐ X ¨ Ðdefendant€who€willfully€refuses€to€cooperate€with€appointed€counsel€is€not€entitled€to€theÐ D!” Ðappointment€of€new€counsel.€€òòState€v.€McClennonóó,€669€S.W.2d€705,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€Ð 0"€  ÐAs€this€Court€has€reasoned,€ð ðthe€Constitution€does€not€require€that€the€court€continue€to€appointÐ #l! Ðadditional€counsel€until€one€is€appointed€with€whom€the€defendant€might€elect€to€cooperate.ðð€€òòId.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àóóIn€this€case,€the€Defendant€was€indicted€approximately€one€and€a€half€years€before€trial.€Ð à%0!$ ÐAlthough€he€had€been€incarcerated€for€the€majority€of€that€time,€he€was€released€from€custodyÐ Ì&"% Ðapproximately€six€months€before€trial€and€had€been€aware€of€his€impending€trial€date€for€some€timeÐ ¸'#& Ðprior€to€trial.€€Nevertheless,€he€did€not€inform€the€trial€court€of€any€problems€with€his€representation,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðnor€did€he€request€new€counsel€until€the€morning€of€trial.€€Moreover,€despite€his€claim€that,€with€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âhelp€of€his€family,€he€could€afford€to€hire€a€new€attorney,€he€had€no€substitute€counsel€present€withÐ |*Ì%) Ðhim€in€court.€€Had€the€trial€court€granted€the€Defendantððs€request€on€the€morning€of€trial,€aÐ ° Ðcontinuance€of€trial€obviously€would€have€been€necessary.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àAs€this€Court€has€pointed€out,€ð ðððthe€right€to€retain€counsel€of€oneððs€own€choice€is€notÐ tÄ Ðabsolute.ðððð€òòState€v.€Zylaóó,€628€S.W.2d€39,€41€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.óóÐ `° ÐòòBurtonóó,€584€F.2d€485,€489€(D.C.€Cir.€1978)).€€It€must€be€balanced€against€ð ðððthe€publicððs€interest€inÐ L œ Ðthe€dispensation€of€justice€that€is€not€unreasonably€delayed€.€.€.€.ðððð€€òòZylaóó,€628€S.W.2d€at€42€(quotingÐ 8 ˆ ÐòòBurtonóó,€584€F.2d€at€489)).€€Ð $ t Ðà8  àOnce€a€fair€and€reasonable€initial€opportunity€to€retain€counsel€has€been€provided,Ð  ` Ðand€adequate€counsel€obtained,€the€court,€mindful€of€the€accusedððs€interest€in€havingÐ ü L  Ðcounsel€in€whom€he€has€confidence,€is€free€to€deny€a€continuance€to€obtain€additionalÐ è 8  Ðcounsel€if,€upon€evaluation€of€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€it€reasonablyÐ Ô$  Ðconcludes€that€the€delay€would€be€unreasonable€in€the€context€of€the€particular€case.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐòòId.óó€(quoting€òòBurtonóó,€584€F.2d€at€490)).òòÐ ¬ü  Ðà  àÌà  àóóWe€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€abused€his€discretion€by€requiring€the€Defendant€toÐ „Ô  Ðchoose€between€proceeding€to€trial€with€his€present€counsel€and€being€incarcerated€until€such€timeÐ pÀ Ðthat€he€could€retain€new€legal€counsel€and€the€case€could€be€reset€for€trial.€€Allowing€the€DefendantÐ \¬ Ðtime€to€retain€new€counsel€and€to€prepare€for€trial€would€have€resulted€in€a€lengthy€continuance€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€case,€and€it€was€well€within€the€trial€judgeððs€discretion€to€deny€a€continuance.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€41.€€TheÐ 4„ Ðtrial€judge€also€noted€that€during€the€period€of€time€that€the€Defendant€was€on€bond€pending€trial,Ð  p Ðthe€Defendant€had€been€arrested€and€charged€with€another€crime.€€It€was€clearly€appropriate€for€theÐ  \ Ðtrial€court€to€consider€this€conduct€by€the€Defendant€in€assessing€whether€to€revoke€the€DefendantððsÐ øH Ðbond€if€he€opted€for€the€continuanceÔ#†X¯ÛX XXà|T#ÔÔ‡Xà| XXX¯ÛÔ.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àFurthermore,€although€both€the€Defendant€and€defense€counsel€testified€that€they€hadÐ ¼  Ðdifficulty€communicating,€the€trial€court€found€that€this€was€due€to€the€Defendantððs€willful€refusalÐ ¨ø Ðto€cooperate€with€his€lawyers.€€As€the€post„conviction€judge€concluded€in€his€written€order€denyingÐ ”ä Ðpost„conviction€relief,€ð ðThe€defendant€apparently€wanted€the€Court€to€use€the€Post€ConvictionÐ €Ð Ð[Procedure]€Act€to€relieve€him€of€his€failure€to€consider€settlement€or€assist€in€trial€preparation.€€TheÐ l¼ ÐPost€Conviction€[Procedure]€Act€was€not€designed€for€this€purpose€nor€can€the€defendant€takeÐ X ¨ Ðadvantage€out€of€his€own€folly.ððòòÐ D!” ÐÌà  àóóNor€do€we€conclude€that€the€Defendant€received€ineffective€representation€at€trial.òòóó€€InÐ #l! Ðreviewing€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€adviceÐ $X" Ðgiven€or€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneysÐ ô$D # Ðin€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€ð ðcounselððs€representation€fell€belowÐ Ì&"% Ðan€objective€standard€of€reasonableness,ðð€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€688€(1984),€andÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€this€performance€prejudiced€the€defense,€resulting€in€a€failure€to€produce€a€reliable€result.€€òòId.óóÐ ¤(ô#' Ðat€687òòóó;€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€747€(Tenn.1993).€€To€satisfy€the€requirement€of€prejudice,Ð )à$( Ða€petitioner€must€show€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€factÐ |*Ì%) Ðfinder€would€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regarding€the€petitionerððs€guilt.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.€Ð h+¸&* ÐThis€reasonable€probability€must€be€ð ðsufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€694;Ð ° Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662,€665€(Tenn.€1994).Ð œì ÐÌà  àWhen€evaluating€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,€the€reviewing€court€should€judgeÐ tÄ Ðthe€attorneyððs€performance€within€the€context€of€the€case€as€a€whole,€taking€into€account€all€relevantÐ `° Ðcircumstances.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690òòóó;€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€753€S.W.2d€148,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð L œ ÐApp.€1988).€€The€reviewing€court€must€evaluate€the€questionable€conduct€from€the€attorneyððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðperspective€at€the€time.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690;€òòCooperóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€746;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,Ð $ t Ð629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€€In€doing€so,€the€reviewing€court€must€be€highly€deferential€andÐ  ` Ðð ðshould€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€ofÐ ü L  Ðreasonable€professional€assistance.ðð€€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462.€€Counsel€should€not€be€deemed€to€haveÐ è 8  Ðbeen€ineffective€merely€because€a€different€procedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€differentÐ Ô$  Ðresult.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,€279„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).Ð À  ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€defense€counsel€testified€that€they€had€thoroughlyÐ ˜è  Ðinvestigated€the€Defendantððs€case,€despite€the€Defendantððs€lack€of€cooperation.€€They€stated€that€theyÐ „Ô  Ðwere€unable€to€find€any€witnesses€who€could€help€the€Defendantððs€case.€€They€also€explained€thatÐ pÀ Ðbecause€of€the€Defendantððs€statement€to€police,€in€which€he€admitted€€his€involvement€in€the€crime,Ð \¬ Ðthe€Defendant€was€left€without€a€defense.€€Finally,€they€testified€that€they€advised€the€Defendant€notÐ H˜ Ðto€testify€because€of€his€statement€to€police€and€because€they€believed€he€would€not€make€anÐ 4„ Ðeffective€witness.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€trial€attorneys€made€reasonable€strategic€decisions€in€this€case,€which€weÐ øH Ðmay€not€second„guess€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.€€We€conclude€that€the€servicesÐ ä4 Ðrendered€by€defense€counsel€were€well€ð ðwithin€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÐ Ð  Ðcriminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€The€Defendantððs€complaints€are€rooted€in€his€ownÐ ¼  Ðfailure€to€assist€his€attorneys€in€preparing€for€trial.€€Furthermore,€even€assuming€that€defense€counselÐ ¨ø Ðwere€ineffective€in€this€case,€the€Defendant€points€to€no€prejudice€resulting€from€their€allegedÐ ”ä Ðineffectiveness.€€The€Defendant€offers€no€evidence€that€would€have€assisted€him€at€trial.€€Moreover,Ð €Ð Ðthe€State€presented€extensive€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€of€guilt,€including€testimonyÐ l¼ Ðfrom€others€involved€in€the€crime€that€the€Defendant€actually€fired€the€gun,€killing€the€victim.€€WeÐ X ¨ Ðtherefore€find€no€ð ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unreasonable€error,€the€fact€finderÐ D!” Ðwould€have€had€reasonable€doubt€regarding€the€[Defendantððs]€guilt.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€AFFIRMED.€€€€€€Ð $X" ÐÔ#†X¯ÛX XXà|Ïn#ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ”*ä%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE