’WPCR (šĒd;Ā+1—} f‹{óŽ­™^³¬'³ü½N]|軣•*1ža„…¹˜øŁÆ…#"µ#§Ö„„Å /¦^õvåY·ųŲ†^¶ń(V­uå:K!£äN)ō¤*㟒 ڃü«x½U=BŵæĖ6Šö WS8ŗ¹tŗ+ 1É7‰V²ŌŽ»ĪśŽŹĢICÕ@8ČH^ sjüRxĶ®?ĪF±Ó ÷ŽM%ÓI0€La&ɹ=HY^…l¹kQyie³źM7,ā#€hÉ ¤4Ą°uUł%öōį÷;SūŌ ēė‚A>÷m±c‰¶*@&f‘ƒ¬1ąŽtǹ9óģŪ’Šć÷ÜpFĢų’„Ń垍²fLČŌDG5Õ°›Qciŗ[Ī֋'į šl6”ā:¾dʇ™o„Cšy]rb/Č1.ŽUžK^Āk5ŗ(%§*ćšÆōzmuĻį{‡Ø_»!¦–Fį§E!C„£d]ė?y@āꄦ źŽ?NÄŲUµ#B„± ØR­»ūx)V›-:ZŪ[ģ}Bę‹›9o»ī“žq&„!‰żÉ.orō„žtCv¾äāćĢ¢:ųvõCGH$[™ķA<8åC;Y¬gxĶj…p]}Jb#Į\ % 0D# 0ˆg UNļ N= = z? ҹ 0D‹ zĻ ŅI ^  Ę' Ęķ ƳĘyw?NC4EYEhj mlƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒb‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹ 0ė““““ B~~ 0¤› D3? D-r 0KŸŸ ASźĘ= 0¤ A«§˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ČČ,,,,ČČ0»($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó(`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó ˜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.wpt,“Š-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5üPH,  k1ą\Ŗ3|x’U‹’ĄĄĄ - ł-(|G2 ō$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€F„»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōāŻņ»»Ō d(|3G†$££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€F„»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_XYEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G†$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€F„»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€F„»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŃ  ŃŌ€¼F„»»»ŌŃ8€IXXdģ»»d8Ńą@ttģąŌ‡īG4F„ŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@kk$ģąAT€NASHVILLEŌ#†¼F„»īīG4 #ԈŠ Ö& ŠÓ  Óą @ ąą @` ąMay€15,€2002€SessionŠ üL ŠŌ‡XIX»¼F„ŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼F„»XXI#ŌOSCAR€A.€SERRANOņņóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEņņóóŌ‡XIX»¼F„Ōó óŠ śJ ŠĢą@@½½ģąņ ņ€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyŠ ś J Šą@@ųųģąNo.€99„A„109€€€€€€Cheryl€Blackburn,€JudgeŠ ę 6 ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` Aߊ Ŗś  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€M2001„02489„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€December€10,€Ō_Ō2002Ō_ŌŠ „õ  ŠĢßA€V) °°` dE<|` Aߊ }Ķ  Šó óĢÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Oscar€A.€Serrano,€appeals€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Courtššs€denial€of€hisŠ xČ  Špetition€for€post„conviction€relief€from€his€conviction€for€attempted€second€degree€murder€andŠ d“ Šsentence€of€nine€years.€€He€contends€(1)€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€becauseŠ P  Šhis€trial€attorney€failed€to€have€an€interpreter€explain€the€concept€of€waiving€his€right€to€appealŠ <Œ Šbefore€he€entered€into€a€sentencing€agreement€with€the€state;€Ō#†¼F„»XXIŠ#ŌŌ‡XIX»¼F„Ō(2)€that€as€a€result€of€his€receiving€theŠ (x Šineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€did€not€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waive€his€right€to€appeal€hisŠ d Šconviction;Ō#†¼F„»XXI÷#ŌŌ‡XIX»¼F„Ō€and€(3)€that€the€trial€court€improperly€refused€to€consider€various€other€grounds€for€hisŠ P Šreceiving€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtššs€denial€of€theŠ ģ< Špetition.Ō#†¼F„»XXIü#ŌŌ‡XIX»¼F„ŌŠ Ų( ŠŌ#†¼F„»XXI2 #ŌŌ‡XIX»¼F„ŌÓÆÓĢņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Courtó ó€ņ ņAffirmedó óŠ ° ŠĢņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼F„»ąXI‰ #ŌŌ‡XIX.¼F„ŌJoseph€M.€Ō_ŌTiptonŌ_Ō,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€ņņJamesŠ ŒÜ ŠŌ_ŌCurwoodŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌWittŌ_Ō,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Š xČ ŠĢJerry€Gonzalez,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Oscar€A.€Serrano.Š P   ŠĢPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Christine€M.€Ō_ŌLappsŌ_Ō,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Š ("x! ŠVictor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Roger€D.€Moore,€Assistant€District€AttorneyŠ #d" ŠGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Š $P# ŠÓ, ÓĢą@@OO&ģąņ ņOPINIONó óŌ#†¼F„»XXI[ #ŌŌ‡XIX»¼F„ŌŠ Ų%(!% ŠĢņņóóŌ#†¼F„»XXI #ŌÓ  ÓŌ€XIX»¼F„Ōą0  ąThe€record€reflects€that€the€petitioner€and€his€Ō_ŌcodefendantŌ_Ō€were€indicted€for€attempted€first€Š°'#'(#(# Šdegree€murder€but€convicted€by€a€jury€of€attempted€second€degree€murder.€€On€the€morning€of€theŠ œ(ģ#( Špetitionerššs€sentencing€hearing,€he€agreed€to€waive€his€right€to€appeal€his€conviction€in€return€for€theŠ ˆ)Ų$) Šstateššs€recommending€that€the€trial€court€sentence€him€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€nine€yearsŠ t*Ä%* Šin€prison.€€The€petitioner€received€a€nine„year€sentence€and€signed€the€following€written€statement:€Š `+°&+ Šā āŠ L,œ',ż ŠŌ_Ōą8  ąą8` Š Š ąņņņ ņWAIVER€OF€APPEALó óóó€I€have€been€advised€that€I€have€aŠ ° Šā āConstitutional€right€to€appeal€my€conviction€in€case€number€99„A„Š  š Š109.€€I€have€discussed€this€with€my€attorney€and€I€freely€andŠ ŒÜ Švoluntarily€waive€my€right€to€appeal€in€this€case.€€ŠxČ` x` x ŠĢThe€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€raising€various€issues€including€that€errorsŠ P   Šat€trial€denied€him€the€right€to€a€fair€trial,€that€he€did€not€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waive€his€rightŠ < Œ Što€appeal€his€conviction,€and€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€andŠ ( x Šsentencing.€€The€trial€court€appointed€an€attorney€to€represent€the€petitioner€and€file€an€amendedŠ  d Špetition.€€Š  P  ŠĢą  ąAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€was€going€to€consider€only€thoseŠ Ų(  Šissues€that€related€to€the€petitionerššs€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waiving€his€right€to€appeal€hisŠ Ä  Šconviction.€€Mary€Griffin€testified€that€she€was€an€attorney€who€often€represented€Spanish„speakingŠ °  Šdefendants.€€She€said€that€she€could€speak€Spanish€and€that€she€spoke€Spanish€with€the€petitionerššsŠ œģ  Štrial€attorney.€€She€said€the€petitionerššs€trial€attorney€seemed€proficient,€but€not€fluent,€in€speakingŠ ˆŲ  Šbasic€conversational€Spanish.€€She€said€that€there€was€a€difference€between€speaking€conversationalŠ tÄ ŠSpanish€and€discussing€legal€concepts€in€Spanish€and€that€neither€she€nor€the€petitionerššs€trialŠ `° Šattorney€was€fluent€in€Spanish€š šlegalese.šš€€On€cross„examination,€Ms.€Griffin€testified€that€at€theŠ Lœ Štime€of€the€petitionerššs€sentencing€hearing,€Luis€Bastillos€interpreted€for€the€courts.€€She€said€Mr.Š 8ˆ ŠBastillos€only€had€trouble€interpreting€for€Spanish„speaking€defendants€if€Mr.€Bastillos€and€aŠ $t Šdefendant€spoke€different€dialects€of€the€language.€€She€said€that€Mr.€Bastillos€was€a€certifiedŠ ` Šinterpreter€and€that€she€had€never€spoken€to€the€petitioner.Š üL ŠĢą  ąThrough€an€interpreter,€the€petitioner€acknowledged€that€on€the€morning€of€his€sentencingŠ Ō$ Šhearing,€his€trial€attorney€met€with€him€in€the€back€of€the€courtroom€and€told€him€about€an€offer€fromŠ Ą Šthe€state€regarding€his€sentence.€€He€said€that€his€attorney€explained€the€offer€to€him€in€Spanish€andŠ ¬ü Šthat€he€could€understand€his€attorneyššs€Spanish€a€š šlittle€bit.šš€€He€said€his€attorney€told€him€that€if€heŠ ˜č Šaccepted€the€stateššs€offer,€he€would€get€a€nine„year€sentence€at€thirty€percent€and€get€out€of€prisonŠ „Ō Šafter€serving€three€years€and€seven€months.€€He€said€his€attorney€did€not€use€an€interpreter€to€explainŠ pĄ Šthe€offer€and€did€not€explain€the€concept€of€waiving€his€right€to€appeal€his€conviction€very€well.€€HeŠ \ ¬ Šacknowledged€that€he€signed€a€document€waiving€his€right€to€appeal€and€said€he€thought€his€attorneyŠ H!˜ Štranslated€the€document€for€him.€€He€said€his€attorney€explained€the€document€but€did€not€read€it€toŠ 4"„  Šhim€word€for€word.€€He€acknowledged€that€his€attorney€told€him€that€he€would€not€be€able€to€appealŠ  #p! Šhis€case€if€he€signed€the€document.€€He€said€that€no€one€explained€his€right€to€appeal€and€that€hisŠ  $\" Šattorney€told€him€that€if€he€did€not€sign€the€document,€he€would€receive€a€twelve„year€sentence.€€HeŠ ų$H # Šsaid€his€attorney€told€him€to€say€yes€to€all€of€the€trial€courtššs€questions€at€the€sentencing€hearing.Š ä%4!$ ŠĢą  ąOn€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€was€from€El€Salvador€and€went€to€theŠ ¼' #& Šeleventh€grade€in€that€countryššs€schools.€€He€acknowledged€that€Mr.€Bastillos€translated€for€him€atŠ Ø(ų#' Šhis€trial€and€sentencing€hearing€but€said€that€he€had€trouble€understanding€Mr.€Bastillosšš€Spanish.€Š ”)ä$( ŠHe€said€he€never€told€anyone€that€he€was€having€trouble€understanding€Mr.€Bastillos€because€he€wasŠ €*Š%) Šnervous.€€He€said€he€knew€his€sentence€was€going€to€be€nine€years€at€thirty€percent€but€did€notŠ l+¼&* Šunderstand€that€his€sentencing€hearing€would€be€the€end€of€his€case.€€He€said€that€his€trial€attorneyŠ ° Šdid€not€explain€to€him€what€was€going€to€happen€and€that€he€did€not€remember€the€trial€court€tellingŠ œģ Šhim€during€the€sentencing€hearing€that€it€was€his€final€day€in€court.Š ˆŲ ŠĢą  ąJose€Saul€Molina,€the€petitionerššs€codefendant,€testified€that€on€the€morning€of€his€and€theŠ `° Špetitionerššs€sentencing€hearing,€he€and€the€petitioner€met€in€the€back€of€the€courtroom€with€his€trialŠ L œ Šattorney€and€the€petitionerššs€attorney.€€He€said€that€the€petitionerššs€attorney€explained€the€stateššsŠ 8 ˆ Šsentencing€offer€to€them€in€three€to€four€minutes€and€that€his€attorney€told€them€that€they€would€getŠ $ t Šout€of€prison€in€two€years€and€seven€months€if€they€accepted€the€offer.€€He€said€he€did€not€know€thatŠ  ` Šentering€into€the€agreement€with€the€state€meant€he€was€giving€up€his€right€to€appeal€his€case.€€HeŠ ü L  Šsaid€that€the€petitionerššs€attorney€used€Spanish€and€English€to€explain€the€stateššs€offer€and€that€if€heŠ č 8  Šhad€known€he€would€have€to€spend€more€than€two€years,€seven€months€in€prison,€he€would€not€haveŠ Ō$  Šaccepted€it.€€On€cross„examination,€he€acknowledged€that€he€received€a€letter€from€his€attorneyŠ Ą  Šbefore€the€sentencing€hearing€and€that€in€the€letter,€his€attorney€explained€the€proposed€sentencingŠ ¬ü  Šagreement€and€stated,€š šIf€you€accept,€you€will€be€eligible€for€release€after€serving€2.7€years.ššŠ ˜č  ŠĢą  ąThe€petitionerššs€retained€trial€attorney€testified€that€at€the€time€he€represented€the€petitioner,Š pĄ Šhe€had€been€licenced€to€practice€law€for€six€years€and€that€ninety„five€percent€of€his€work€involvedŠ \¬ Šcriminal€law.€€He€said€that€he€grew€up€in€Los€Angeles,€that€most€of€his€friends€spoke€Spanish,€andŠ H˜ Šthat€he€learned€the€language€from€his€friends€on€the€street.€€He€said€he€also€took€Spanish€classes€inŠ 4„ Šcollege€and€took€Spanish€grammar€classes€at€the€Tennessee€Foreign€Language€Institute.€€He€said€thatŠ  p Šthere€were€different€dialects€of€Spanish€and€that€he€had€represented€other€Spanish„speakingŠ  \ Šdefendants.Š ųH ŠĢą  ąThe€attorney€testified€that€he€met€with€the€petitioner€many€times€and€that€the€petitioner€hadŠ Š  Ša€š šgraspšš€of€the€English€language.€€He€said€that€when€he€and€the€petitioner€were€in€court,€theŠ ¼  Špetitioner€preferred€they€speak€Spanish.€€He€said,€though,€that€when€he€met€with€the€petitioner€in€jail,Š Øų Šthey€spoke€Spanish€and€English.€€He€said€that€if€he€spoke€English€to€the€petitioner€and€the€petitionerŠ ”ä Šdid€not€understand€an€English€word,€he€would€say€the€word€in€Spanish€and€explain€the€wordššsŠ €Š Šmeaning.€€He€said€that€he€tried€to€keep€his€level€of€communication€with€the€petitioner€very€simpleŠ l¼ Šand€that€he€spoke€simple€Spanish€to€the€petitioner.€Š X Ø ŠĢą  ąThe€attorney€testified€that€after€the€petitioner€was€convicted,€he€met€with€the€petitioner€fairlyŠ 0"€  Šfrequently€and€discussed€the€petitionerššs€range€of€punishment€and€enhancement€and€mitigatingŠ #l! Šfactors.€€He€said€that€although€the€state€had€not€filed€a€notice€of€enhancement€factors,€the€use€of€aŠ $X" Šdeadly€weapon€to€commit€the€offense€and€other€enhancement€factors€could€have€been€used€toŠ ō$D # Šincrease€the€petitionerššs€sentence.€€He€said€he€discussed€the€merit€of€an€appeal€with€the€petitionerŠ ą%0!$ Šbut€spent€most€of€his€time€talking€with€the€petitioner€about€the€stateššs€proof€at€the€sentencingŠ Ģ&"% Šhearing.€€He€said€that€from€the€facts€revealed€at€trial,€he€thought€the€petitioner€would€get€a€harsherŠ ø'#& Šsentence€if€the€petitioner€proceeded€with€a€sentencing€hearing.€€He€said€he€came€up€with€an€idea€toŠ ¤(ō#' Šhave€the€petitioner€waive€the€right€to€appeal€in€return€for€the€state€recommending€that€the€trial€courtŠ )ą$( Šsentence€the€petitioner€to€nine€years.€€He€said€that€he€discussed€the€idea€with€the€petitioner€and€thatŠ |*Ģ%) Šthe€petitioner€understood€the€benefit€of€the€proposed€agreement.€€He€said€that€he€approached€the€stateŠ h+ø&* Šwith€the€offer€and€that€the€state€accepted€it.€€He€said€that€on€the€morning€of€the€sentencing€hearing,Š ° Šhe€and€Mr.€Molinaššs€attorney€discussed€the€agreement€with€the€petitioner€and€Mr.€Molina.€€He€saidŠ œģ Šhe€went€over€the€written€waiver€document€with€the€petitioner€for€thirty€to€forty€minutes.€€He€said€theŠ ˆŲ Špetitioner€never€told€him€that€the€petitioner€was€confused,€did€not€understand,€or€did€not€want€toŠ tÄ Šenter€into€the€agreement€with€the€state.€€He€said€that€during€the€sentencing€hearing,€Mr.€BastillosŠ `° Štranslated€the€trial€courtššs€questions€for€the€petitioner€and€that€he€had€no€reason€to€question€Mr.Š L œ ŠBastillosšš€translation.€€He€said€he€did€not€guarantee€to€the€petitioner€that€the€petitioner€would€get€outŠ 8 ˆ Šof€prison€on€a€specific€date.Š $ t ŠĢą  ąOn€cross„examination,€the€petitionerššs€attorney€acknowledged€that€he€did€not€use€anŠ ü L  Šinterpreter€to€explain€the€agreement€to€the€petitioner€on€the€morning€of€the€sentencing€hearing.€€HeŠ č 8  Šsaid€that€he€had€no€certification€in€speaking€Spanish€legal€terms€and€that€the€trial€court€never€askedŠ Ō$  Šabout€his€Spanish„speaking€skills.€€He€said€that€when€he€explained€a€concept€to€the€petitioner€inŠ Ą  ŠSpanish,€he€would€end€the€explanation€by€asking€the€petitioner,€š šDo€you€understand?šš€€He€said€thatŠ ¬ü  Šthe€petitioner€usually€said€yes€and€that€if€the€petitioner€said€no,€he€would€try€to€explain€the€conceptŠ ˜č  Šin€English.€€He€said€he€never€asked€the€petitioner€to€explain€concepts€back€to€him€in€order€to€makeŠ „Ō  Šsure€the€petitioner€understood€them.€€He€acknowledged€telling€the€petitioner€that€if€the€petitioner€didŠ pĄ Šnot€accept€the€stateššs€offer€and€received€a€twelve„year€sentence,€the€petitioner€could€appeal€theŠ \¬ Šsentence.€Š H˜ ŠĢą  ąGerald€Burkett,€Mr.€Molinaššs€trial€attorney,€testified€that€about€four€days€before€theŠ  p Špetitionerššs€and€Mr.€Molinaššs€sentencing€hearing,€he€learned€that€the€petitionerššs€attorney€had€talkedŠ  \ Šwith€the€state€about€a€sentencing€agreement.€€He€said€that€the€state€extended€the€same€agreement€toŠ ųH ŠMr.€Molina€and€that€at€first,€Mr.€Molina€declined€the€stateššs€offer.€€He€said€that€on€the€morning€ofŠ ä4 Šthe€sentencing€hearing,€the€petitionerššs€trial€attorney€explained€the€offer€to€the€petitioner€and€Mr.Š Š  ŠMolina€and€Mr.€Molina€decided€to€accept€the€offer.€€On€cross„examination,€Mr.€Burkett€testified€thatŠ ¼  Šhe€and€the€petitionerššs€attorney€spent€about€thirty€minutes€going€over€the€sentencing€agreement€withŠ Øų Šthe€petitioner€and€Mr.€Molina.€Š ”ä ŠĢą  ąThe€state€introduced€the€petitionerššs€sentencing€hearing€transcript€into€evidence.€€TheŠ l¼ Štranscript€shows€that€Mr.€Bastillos€interpreted€for€the€trial€court€and€the€petitioner.€€During€theŠ X Ø Šhearing,€the€trial€court€asked€the€petitioner€if€he€understood€that€his€range€of€punishment€was€eightŠ D!” Što€twelve€years.€€The€trial€court€also€asked€if€he€was€agreeing€to€accept€a€nine„year€sentence€as€aŠ 0"€  ŠRange€I€offender€in€return€for€waiving€his€right€to€appeal€his€conviction€and€sentence.€€Finally,€theŠ #l! Štrial€court€asked€the€petitioner€if€the€written€waiver€had€been€translated€to€him€and€if€he€understoodŠ $X" Šthat€this€was€his€final€day€in€court.€€The€petitioner€answered€yes€to€all€of€the€trial€courtššs€questions.Š ō$D # ŠĢą  ąIn€denying€the€petitionerššs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€trial€court€noted€that€theŠ Ģ&"% Špetitionerššs€attorney€was€well„versed€in€Spanish€and€that€an€interpreter€was€always€present€with€theŠ ø'#& Špetitioner€during€court€proceedings.€€It€accredited€the€attorneyššs€testimony€over€that€of€the€petitionerŠ ¤(ō#' Šand€stated,€š šNothing€presented€in€the€evidence€suggests€that€the€petitioner€had€difficulty€appreciatingŠ )ą$( Šthe€sentencing€agreement,€the€waiver€embodied€within€it,€the€sentencing€proceedings,€and€the€trial.šš€Š |*Ģ%) ŠIn€addition,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€carefully€questioned€the€petitioner€about€waiving€his€right€toŠ h+ø&* Šappeal€his€conviction€and€advised€him€of€the€statutory€maximum€penalty€that€he€faced€if€he€did€notŠ ° Šenter€into€the€sentencing€agreement€with€the€state.€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€petitioner€did€notŠ œģ Šreceive€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€that€the€petitioner€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waivedŠ ˆŲ Šthe€right€to€appeal€his€conviction.Š tÄ Šą@ģģ*ģąˆĢÓ  Óņ ņI.€€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óŠ L œ ŠÓ  Óą  ąĢą  ąThe€petitioner€claims€that€the€trial€court€improperly€denied€his€petition€for€post„convictionŠ $ t Šrelief€because€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€when€his€trial€attorney€failed€to€useŠ  ` Šan€interpreter€to€explain€the€sentencing€agreement€to€him.€€He€contends€that€because€his€attorney€didŠ ü L  Šnot€use€an€interpreter,€he€did€not€understand€his€right€to€appeal€or€the€consequences€of€waiving€thatŠ č 8  Šright.€€The€state€contends€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€show€that€he€š šcould€not€adequatelyŠ Ō$  Šcommunicate€with€his€attorney€for€purposes€of€entering€this€agreement.šš€€We€conclude€that€the€trialŠ Ą  Šcourt€properly€found€that€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Š ¬ü  ŠĢą  ąUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€made,€theŠ „Ō  Šburden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counselššs€performance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€theŠ pĄ Šdeficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€of€rendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trialŠ \¬ Šwas€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€ņņStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,Š H˜ Š687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€ņņseeóó€ņņLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€368„72,€113€S.€Ct.€838,Š 4„ Š842„44€(1993).€€The€ņņStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied€to€the€right€to€counsel€under€article€I,Š  p Šsection€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€ņņState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.€1989).€Š  \ ŠĢą  ąIn€ņņBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€court€decided€thatŠ ä4 Šattorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€services€rendered€were€within€theŠ Š  Šrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€rangeŠ ¼  Šof€competence€was€to€be€measured€by€the€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€ņņBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,Š Øų Š491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.€1974),€and€ņņUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202-04€(D.C.€Cir.Š ”ä Š1973).€€Also,€in€reviewing€counselššs€conduct,€a€š šfair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requiresŠ €Š Šthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€theŠ l¼ Šcircumstances€of€counselššs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselššsŠ X Ø Šperspective€at€the€time.šš€€ņņStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€ņņseeóó€ņņHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629Š D!” ŠS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€even€hurt€theŠ 0"€  Šdefense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.€€Deference€is€made€to€trial€strategyŠ #l! Šor€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņHellardóó,€629Š $X" ŠS.W.2d€at€9;€ņņDeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€at€1201.Š ō$D # ŠĢą  ąIn€a€post-conviction€case,€the€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€prove€by€clear€and€convincingŠ Ģ&"% Ševidence€his€grounds€for€relief.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40-30-210(f).€€On€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€theŠ ø'#& Štrial€courtššs€findings€of€fact€unless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€againstŠ ¤(ō#' Šthose€findings.€€ņņFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€456€(Tenn.€2001).€€Because€they€relate€to€mixedŠ )ą$( Šā āquestions€of€law€and€fact,€we€review€the€trial€courtššs€conclusions€as€to€whether€counselššsŠ |*Ģ%) Šperformance€was€deficient€and€whether€that€deficiency€was€prejudicial€under€a€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€standard€withŠ ° Šno€presumption€of€correctness.€€ņņId.óó€at€457.Š œģ Šā āĢą  ąIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€believed€the€attorneyššs€testimony€that€he€could€communicate€withŠ tÄ Šthe€petitioner€and€that€he€had€no€reason€to€believe€the€petitioner€did€not€understand€the€sentencingŠ `° Šagreement.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€held€that€nothing€in€the€evidence€suggested€that€the€petitionerŠ L œ Šdid€not€understand€the€agreement.€€We€believe€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€hisŠ 8 ˆ Šattorney€rendered€deficient€performance€by€failing€to€use€an€interpreter€to€explain€the€agreementŠ $ t Šbefore€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€attorney€testified€that€he€proposed€the€agreement€to€the€petitionerŠ  ` Šbefore€he€approached€the€state€about€it€and€that€the€petitioner€understood€the€benefit€of€theŠ ü L  Šagreement.€€In€addition,€the€attorney€talked€with€the€petitioner€about€the€agreement€for€thirty€minutesŠ č 8  Šbefore€the€sentencing€hearing.€€At€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€asked€the€petitioner€if€his€attorney€hadŠ Ō$  Štranslated€the€written€waiver€to€him€and€the€petitioner€said€yes.€€Although€the€petitioner€now€claimsŠ Ą  Šthat€he€had€trouble€understanding€his€attorneyššs€Spanish,€there€is€no€evidence€that€he€told€anyoneŠ ¬ü  Šabout€the€difficulty.€€We€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated€that€he€is€entitled€to€relief.Š ˜č  ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņII.€€KNOWING€AND€VOLUNTARY€WAIVERŠ pĄ ŠĢÓ  Óą  ąó óNext,€the€petitioner€claims€that€he€did€not€knowingly€and€voluntarily€enter€into€the€sentencingŠ H˜ Šagreement€because€he€did€not€understand€his€right€to€appeal.€€The€state€contends€that€the€factsŠ 4„ Šsupport€the€trial€courtššs€finding€that€the€petitioner€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€his€right€toŠ  p Šappeal.€€We€agree€with€the€state.€€Š  \ ŠĢą  ą€A€defendant€has€the€right€to€waive€an€appeal€of€his€case.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€ex€rel.€Adams€v.€Norvellóó,Š ä4 Š448€S.W.2d€454,€455€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969).€€When€determining€whether€a€petitioner€knowinglyŠ Š  Šand€voluntarily€agreed€to€waive€his€right€to€appeal€his€conviction,€this€court€must€consider€theŠ ¼  Štotality€of€the€circumstances.€€ņņSee€generallyóó€ņņState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€353€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Š Øų Š1995)€(providing€that€in€order€to€determine€whether€a€defendant€entered€a€guilty€plea€knowingly€andŠ ”ä Švoluntarily,€this€court€considers€the€totality€of€the€circumstances).€€A€š šknowingšš€waiver€is€one€thatŠ €Š Šis€š šmade€with€full€awareness€of€both€the€nature€of€the€right€being€abandoned€and€the€consequencesŠ l¼ Šof€the€decision€to€abandon€it.šš€€ņņState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530,€544„45€(Tenn.€1994)€(citingŠ X Ø ŠņņFare€v.€Michael€C.óó,€442€U.S.€707,€99€S.€Ct.€2560€(1979);€ņņNorth€Carolina€v.€Butleróó,€441€U.S.€369,€99Š D!” ŠS.€Ct.€1755€(1979)).€€Moreover,€š šrelinquishment€of€the€right€must€be€voluntary€in€the€sense€that€itŠ 0"€  Šis€the€product€of€a€free€and€deliberate€choice€rather€than€the€product€of€intimidation,€coercion€orŠ #l! Šdeception.šš€€ņņStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€544.€€In€the€case€of€a€guilty€plea,€š šthe€record€of€acceptanceŠ $X" Šof€a€defendantššs€plea€of€guilty€must€affirmatively€demonstrate€that€his€decision€was€both€voluntaryŠ ō$D # Šand€knowledgeable,€i.e.,€that€he€has€been€made€aware€of€the€significant€consequences€of€such€a€plea;Š ą%0!$ Šotherwise,€it€will€not€amount€to€an€ššintentional€abandonment€of€a€known€right.šššš€€ņņState€v.€Mackeyóó,Š Ģ&"% Š553€S.W.2d€337,€340€(Tenn.€1977).€€As€with€a€guilty€plea,€a€trial€court€ensures€that€a€defendantŠ ø'#& Šenters€a€sentencing€agreement€knowingly€by€questioning€him€to€make€sure€that€he€understands€theŠ ¤(ō#' Šagreement€and€its€consequences.Š )ą$( Šā āŠ |*Ģ%) Šą  ąThe€petitionerššs€attorney€testified€that€he€discussed€the€sentencing€agreement€with€theŠ ° Šā āpetitioner€twice,€once€before€he€proposed€it€to€the€state€and€again€on€the€morning€of€the€sentencingŠ œģ Šhearing.€€The€attorney€also€testified€that€he€explained€the€written€waiver€to€the€petitioner€for€thirtyŠ ˆŲ Šminutes.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€his€attorney€explained€the€written€waiver,€and€he€acknowledgedŠ tÄ Šthat€the€attorney€told€him€that€if€he€signed€the€document,€he€would€not€be€able€to€appeal€his€case.€Š `° ŠAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€asked€the€petitioner€if€he€understood€that€he€was€waivingŠ L œ Šthe€right€to€appeal€his€case€and€the€petitioner€said€yes.€€When€the€trial€court€stated€š šthis€is€your€finalŠ 8 ˆ Šday€in€court€with€regard€to€this€case,šš€the€petitioner€again€said€yes.€€We€conclude€that€the€petitionerŠ $ t Šunderstood€that€by€entering€into€a€sentencing€agreement€with€the€state,€he€was€waiving€his€right€toŠ  ` Šappeal€his€conviction.€Š ü L  ŠĢą  ąWe€note€that€the€petitioner€claimed€in€his€original€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€that€hisŠ Ō$  Šwaiver€also€was€not€knowing€and€voluntary€because€his€attorney€advised€him€š šwrongfully€that€heŠ Ą  Šhad€no€issues€in€which€to€pray€on€appeal€and€that€if€he€did€not€agree€to€the€[stateššs]€offer€he€wouldŠ ¬ü  Šreceive€the€maximum€sentence€allowable.šš€€As€an€aside€to€this€claim,€the€petitionerššs€brief€notes€thatŠ ˜č  Šthe€trial€court€repeatedly€refused€his€request€for€a€trial€transcript.€€We€believe€that€a€trial€transcriptŠ „Ō  Šwould€have€been€necessary€in€order€for€the€trial€court€to€consider€whether€the€attorneyššs€adviceŠ pĄ Šregarding€no€merit€to€an€appeal€resulted€in€the€petitionerššs€receiving€the€ineffective€assistance€ofŠ \¬ Šcounsel.€€However,€the€petitioner€presented€no€proof€and€made€no€claim€at€the€post„convictionŠ H˜ Šhearing€as€to€what€his€attorney€told€him€about€the€merit€of€an€appeal€of€his€conviction.€Š 4„ ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņIII.€€OTHER€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSEL€CLAIMSó óŠ  \ ŠĢÓ  Óą  ąFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€even€if€he€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€his€rightŠ ä4 Što€appeal€his€conviction,€the€written€waiver€that€he€signed€did€not€include€his€waiving€the€right€toŠ Š  Ša€post„conviction€attack€of€his€conviction.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€courtššs€failure€to€address€hisŠ ¼  Šremaining€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims€denied€him€that€right.€€The€state€claims€the€trialŠ Øų Šcourt€properly€reviewed€only€those€issues€that€related€to€the€petitionerššs€knowingly€and€voluntarilyŠ ”ä Šwaiving€his€right€to€appeal.€€We€agree€with€the€state.Š €Š ŠĢą  ąIn€addition€to€his€claim€that€he€waived€his€right€to€appeal€his€conviction€because€his€attorneyŠ X Ø Šfailed€to€explain€the€waiver€or€its€consequences,€the€petitioner€also€raised€various€other€ineffectiveŠ D!” Šassistance€of€counsel€claims,€including€that€his€trial€attorney€failed€to€meet€with€him,€failed€toŠ 0"€  Šquestion€witnesses€at€trial,€failed€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€his€statement,€failed€to€prepare€for€trial,Š #l! Šand€failed€to€file€a€motion€for€new€trial.€€At€the€beginning€of€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trialŠ $X" Šcourt€stated€that€it€would€not€consider€those€issues€unless€it€ruled€that€the€petitionerššs€waiving€hisŠ ō$D # Šright€to€appeal€his€conviction€was€the€result€of€his€receiving€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€Š ą%0!$ ŠWhen€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€andŠ Ģ&"% Šknowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€his€right€to€appeal,€it€deemed€that€the€petitioner€had€waived€hisŠ ø'#& Šremaining€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims.€Š ¤(ō#' ŠĢą  ąThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€courtššs€ruling€denied€him€the€right€to€pursue€post„Š |*Ģ%) Šconviction€relief.€€In€support€of€his€claim,€he€cites€ņņAlicia€Shayne€Lovera€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9901„Š h+ø&* ŠCC„00030,€Sevier€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€4,€2000)€(designated€not€for€citation),€in€whichŠ ° Šthis€court€stated€that€š ša€defendant€may€not€waive€his€or€her€right€to€post„conviction€remedies€as€partŠ œģ Šof€a€plea€agreement.šš€€However,€the€petitionerššs€reliance€on€ņņLoveraóó€is€misplaced€because€in€this€case,Š ˆŲ Šthe€trial€court€heard€and€ruled€on€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Therefore,€the€petitioner€hasŠ tÄ Šnot€been€denied€the€right€to€a€post„conviction€attack€of€his€conviction.€€Instead,€the€trial€courtŠ `° Šcorrectly€limited€its€consideration€of€the€petition€to€the€voluntary€nature€of€the€waiver€to€appeal€andŠ L œ Šthe€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€regarding€the€waiver.€€If€the€appeal€was€validly€waived,€then€theŠ 8 ˆ Šissues€to€be€appealed€were€validly€waived.€€ņņSee,€e.g.óó,€ņņDonnie€Wheeler€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M1999„02453„Š $ t ŠCCA„R3„PC,€Dekalb€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€22,€2001)€(Hayes,€J.,€concurring)€(stating€thatŠ  ` Šwhen€petitioners€enter€into€a€post-trial€agreement,€effectiveness€of€counsel€is€relevant€š šonly€to€theŠ ü L  Šextent€that€it€affects€the€voluntariness€of€the€post-trial€agreement€waiving€the€Petitionersšš€rights€toŠ č 8  Šappealšš);€ņņsee€generallyóó€ņņJackie€L.€Gooch€v.€Stateóó,€No.€W2000-00032-CCA-R3-PC,€Lake€County,€slipŠ Ō$  Šop.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€24,€2000),€ņņapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Apr.€9,€2001)€(providing€that€š šonceŠ Ą  Ša€guilty€plea€has€been€entered,€effectiveness€of€counsel€is€relevant€only€to€the€extent€it€affects€theŠ ¬ü  Švoluntariness€of€the€pleašš).€€Thus,€having€properly€found€that€the€petitioner€did€not€receive€theŠ ˜č  Šineffective€assistance€of€counsel€regarding€the€waiver€and€that€he€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waivedŠ „Ō  Šhis€right€to€appeal€his€conviction,€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€consider€his€remainingŠ pĄ Šineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims.€€The€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€relief.Š \¬ ŠĢą  ąBased€upon€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Š 4„ ŠĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą____________________________________Š ä4 Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE