WPC A[TI&)5ذ~שm-8 )9" p|2_=n *To+{(%O1P/kb&yDq,iPZ-<{榧$۔}8GAfIOVtLk+ئbQluF!6zW+C <5=6Tԭ:!e 1pvge̕{m:g[︇f?-{I .A(􈴜fQ5`r;Qt2͐O(k4%(Lcݯ%KQr}E\n?9sSųpHms,hܗ/A<c[JX)ˁϲVd $4Rb(оX jܞnN1:9@xԂ;l<6mI]݊ /zc{;ubUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1 0DN;==EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGOOOOO 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K   AST 0m 0D AU(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    Ӣn,s Yo)(3|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.wptUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   - -  R'$      1    _BecausetheAppellantfailedtoincludeintherecordthepleaagreementdocumentsorthejudgmentof  convictionforms,weareunabletodeterminewhethertheAppellantseightyearsentenceswereorderedtobeserved t concurrentlyorconsecutively.(|G2'$ !.8*dd8         0   d(|3\$ !.8*dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3\$ !.8*dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8*dd8     _   *8f XXdd8@tt$m*INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#*$m #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsApril9,2002 L Xf X* #*XXf #_NAKIA_Ԁ_RUMPH_v.STATEOFTENNESSEEXf X*  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMadisonCounty  J @@No.C0144_Clayburn_Ԁ_Peeples_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200102066CCAR3PCFiledApril19,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }      Xf XXXf TheAppellant,_Nakia_Ԁ_Rumph_,appealsfromthedismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief. x  #Xf XX Xf @#In2000,_Rumph_Ԁpledguiltytotwocountsofaggravatedsexualbatteryandwassentencedtoeight d yearsimprisonmentoneachcount.Onappeal,_Rumph_Ԁchallengesthevalidityofhisguiltypleaupon P groundsof:(1)voluntarinessand(2)ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel. Xf XXXf Afterreview,weaffirmthe < judgmentoftheMadisonCountyCircuitCourtdismissingthepetition.#Xf XX Xf ##*XXf #Xf X* (x 4 Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  P   #*Xf #Xf X.*DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.WellesandJames ( _Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,JJ.,joined.  _Mechelle_ԀStory,TaylorandAssociates,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,_Nakia_Ԁ_Rumph_.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;BradenH. t _Boucek_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;JamesG.(Jerry)_Woodall_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;and ` AlfredEarls,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. L  #*XXf [ #Xf X*, @@OO& OPINION #*XXf #Xf X* #`"  FactualBackground  $8 $ #*XXf ` #  Xf X* Xf XXXf   InAugust1999,theAppellantwasindictedontwocountsofaggravatedsexualbattery.He &"& wasdeclaredindigent,andthepublicdefendersofficewasappointedtorepresenthim.Thereafter, '"' conflictsarosebetweentheAppellantandhisattorney.OnJanuary31,2000,thedaybeforetrialwas (#( tobegin,theAppellantrequestedthathisattorneybedischargedandanotherlawyerbeappointed )$) torepresenthim.ThetrialcourtrefusedtodischargetheAppellantsattorney. Laterthatsameday, p*%*  theAppellantenteredaguiltypleatotwocountsofaggravatedsexualbatteryandreceivedeight \+&+8 yearsoneachcount.M #  1      ׀ #Xf XX Xf #TheAppellantsprosepetitionforpostconvictionreliefwasfiledon   February1,2001.AftercounselwasappointedtoassisttheAppellant,anevidentiaryhearingwas  conductedonJuly24,2001.Thereafter,thepostconvictioncourtdismissedtheAppellantspetition.   Xf XXXf  Thistimelyappealfollowed.  t   ANALYSIS L    Inordertosucceedonapostconvictionclaim,theAppellantbearstheburdenofshowing, $ t byclearandconvincingevidence,theallegationssetforthinhispetition.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030  ` 210(f)(1997).TheAppellantsclaimofineffectivenessofcounselandinvoluntarinessofhisguilty  L  plea,assetforthinhispetition,stemfromthefollowingallegations:   8   8  (1)theAppellantwasintimidatedbytrialcounselandasaresultofthisintimidation   heenteredintoapleaagreementwiththeState;and    8  (2)theAppellantwasnotgiventheopportunitytoreviewhisdiscoverymaterialsand   asaresulthewasnotawareoftheevidencethatwouldhavebeenpresentedagainst p himifthematterproceededtotrial.\      Inevaluatingtheknowingandvoluntarynatureofaguiltyplea,theUnitedStatesSupreme 4 Courtheldthat,"[_t]he_Ԁstandardwasandremainswhethertheplearepresentsavoluntaryand  p intelligentchoiceamongthealternativecoursesofactionopentothedefendant."NorthCarolina  \ v._Alford_,400U.S.25,31,91S.Ct.160,164(1970).Inmakingthisdetermination,thereviewing H courtmustlooktothetotalityofthecircumstances.Statev.Turner,919S.W.2d346,353(Tenn. 4 _Crim_.App.1995);seealsoChamberlainv.State,815S.W.2d534,542(Tenn._Crim_.App.1990).   Indeed,a"courtchargedwithdeterminingwhether...pleaswere'voluntary'and'intelligent'must   looktovariouscircumstantialfactors,suchastherelativeintelligenceofthedefendant;thedegree  ofhisfamiliaritywithcriminalproceedings;whetherhewasrepresentedbycompetentcounseland  hadtheopportunitytoconferwithcounselabouttheoptionsavailabletohim;theextentofadvice  fromcounselandthecourtconcerningthechargesagainsthim;andthereasonsforhisdecisionto l pleadguilty,includingadesiretoavoidagreaterpenaltythatmightresultfromajurytrial." X  _Blankenship_Ԁv.State,858S.W.2d897,904(Tenn.1993). D!    Onceaguiltypleahasbeenentered,effectivenessofcounselisrelevantonlytotheextent #l! thatitaffectsthevoluntarinessoftheplea.Inthisrespect,suchclaimsofineffectiveassistance $X" necessarilyimplicatetheprinciplethatguiltypleasbevoluntarilyandintelligentlymade.Hillv. $D # _Lockhart_,474U.S.52,56,106S.Ct.366,369(1985)(citingNorthCarolinav._Alford_,400U.S.at %0!$ 31,91S.Ct.at164). &"%  '#&   Tosucceedinachallengeforineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,theAppellantmust  demonstratethatcounselsrepresentationfellbelowtherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneys  incriminalcases.Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Under_Strickland_Ԁv.  Washington,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct.2052,2064(1984),theAppellantmustestablish:(1) t deficientrepresentationand(2)prejudiceresultingfromthedeficiency.Inthecontextofaguilty ` plea,tosatisfythesecondprongof_Strickland_,theAppellantmustshowthat thereisareasonable L  probabilitythat,butforcounselserrors,hewouldnothavepleadedguiltyandwouldhaveinsisted 8  ongoingtotrial.Hillv._Lockhart_,474U.S.at59,106S.Ct.at370;Waltonv.State,966S.W.2d $ t 54,55(Tenn._Crim_.App.1997). h   `   Theissuesofdeficientperformancebycounselandpossibleprejudicetothedefenseare  8  mixedquestionsoflawandfact.Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999). Atrialcourts $  findingsoffactunderlyingaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselarereviewedonappealunder   adenovostandard,accompaniedwithapresumptionthatthosefindingsarecorrectunlessthe   preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Fieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,458(Tenn.2001)   (citingTenn.R.App.P.13(d));Henleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,578(Tenn.1997).However,   conclusionsoflawarereviewedunderapurelydenovostandard,withnopresumptionof p correctness.Fields,40S.W.3dat458. \    I.IntimidationbyTrialCounsel  4 )      Inthepresentcase,theAppellantfirstcontendsthathispleawasinvoluntarybecausehistrial  \ counselcoercedhimintopleadingguilty.Specifically,theAppellantcontendsthathisattorneytold H himonthedaybeforetrialwastobegin,hewasgoingto losethetrialandtobeamanaboutitand 4 takethepleaoffer.Thereafter,theAppellantrequestedthathisattorneybedischarged.Thetrial   courtdeniedthisrequest.TheAppellantsubsequentlypledguiltytotwocountsofaggravatedsexual   battery.  Ѐ    Afterreview,thepost-convictioncourtfoundtheAppellant'spleatobevoluntaryand  explaineditsreasoningasfollows: l 8  1.ThePetitionerhasfailedtodemonstratebyclearandconvincingevidencethathe D! wasinanywaydeniedarightorhadanyrightinfringedthatisguaranteedunderthe 0"  ConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesoroftheStateofTennessee.#l!   8  2.ThecourtfindsthatthePetitionermadeaknowingandvoluntaryguiltypleaand $D # thatthepleawasinnowaytheresultofpressureplaceduponhimbycounselorthe %0!$ Court.&"%   8  3.CounselsadvicetothePetitionertotaketheStatesofferwasentirelywithinthe (#' realmofcounselslegalobligationandcannotbeundueinfluence.)$(     |*%) 8  4.ThePetitionerwasfullyadvisedofallconstitutionalrightsandtheStatesplea   offerandfullyunderstoodhisactionsinpleadingguiltyandunderstoodthe  consequencesofthoseactions.   8  5.BothcounselandthecourtfullyexplainedthePetitionersrightsandtheplea ` agreementandtheconsequencesoftheplea.L    g)    TherecordindicatesthatthetrialcourtquestionedtheAppellantextensivelyastowhether $ t hispleawasmadewithknowledgeandunderstanding.Atthepostconvictionhearing,trialcounsel  ` testifiedthatshedidnotforcetheAppellanttotaketheplea,butrather,toldtheAppellantthat,in  L  herprofessionalopinion,itwashisin bestinteresttoaccepttheStatesoffer.Thepost-conviction  8  courtobviouslycreditedtrialcounselstestimonythatshedidnotplaceundueinfluenceuponthe $  Appellanttopleadguilty.Becausewedonotrevisittheissueofcredibilityonappeal,wedeferto   thepostconvictioncourt'srulinginthatregard.#Xf XX Xf 0#ԀBlackv.State,794S.W.2d752,755(Tenn._Crim_.   App.1990). Xf XXXf Weconcludethattherecordfullysupportsthefindingsofthepost-convictioncourtthat   theAppellanthasnotprovenbyclearandconvincingevidencethathisguiltypleaswere   involuntarilymade.Therefore,thisissueiswithoutmerit. p 2   II.DiscoveryMaterials H  O7(  Second,theAppellantcontendsthathedidnotreceiveeffectiveassistanceofcounsel,and  p thushispleawasnotvoluntary,becausehe didnothavegoodcommunicationswithhisattorney  \ atthetriallevelandasaresult,theAppellantwasnotadequatelyadvisedoftheevidencetobe H presentedagainsthimatatrialinthismatter.Thepost-convictioncourtconcludedthatthe 4 Appellantreceivedthecompetentassistanceofcounsel,andconsequently,enteredhisplea   knowinglyandvoluntarily,findingthat, counselobtaineddiscoveryanddiscussedtheStatescase   withthePetitioner.AnddiscussedthePetitionersoptionsandwouldhavecontinuedtofullyand  competentlyrepresentthePetitionerhadheoptedtogototrial.    Theproofdoesnotpreponderateagainstthesefindings.Trialcounseltestifiedatthepost l convictionhearingthatshewentthroughdiscoverymaterials piecebypiecewiththeAppellant, X  andthattheAppellant didnotwanthisdiscoverymaterialsinthejailbecauseofthenatureofthe D! offense;...hedidntwanttheinmatestodiscovermaterialsthatwouldimplicatehiminan 0"  aggravatedsexualbattery.Thepost-convictioncourtobviouslycreditedtrialcounselstestimony #l! thatsherevieweddiscoverymaterialswiththeAppellant,andtherefore,theAppellantwas $X" adequatelyadvisedoftheevidencetobepresentedagainsthimatatrialinthismatter.Again, $D # becausewedonotrevisittheissueofcredibilityonappeal,wedefertothepostconvictioncourt's %0!$ rulinginthatregard.#Xf XX Xf 5#ԀBlack,794S.W.2dat755. Xf XXXf  &"% 7,  Accordingly,wefindthattheAppellanthasnotprovenbyclearandconvincingevidencethat (#' trialcounselsperformancewasoutsidetherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminal )$(  cases.TheAppellantcertainlyhasfailedtoshowevidencethat butforcounselserrors,hewould |*%) _nothavepleadedguiltyandwouldhaveinsistedongoingtotrial.Insum,theAppellanthasfailed  toproveineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.   ?   CONCLUSION  t RB    Basedupontheforegoing,wefindthatthepostconvictioncourtdidnoterrinrulingthatthe L  Appellantspleawasknowingly,intelligently,andvoluntarilyenteredorthathereceivedthe 8  effectiveassistanceofcounsel.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtisaffirmed.  $ t  B#Xf XX Xf ?#   `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE