ÿWPC A—úg½…ŒÃkÕPR¬f Ðm½ãdÀi€æy†š8ÝPàŸ chµ>çÝ)¡o6¢ãæG²Xa@JºÍå´ú¹u³08HÇ›eÅÎS@ázÞAûEÏÞ^-ŸYJ4Ç3úUµO Æ.]”QàA\O¯ÕdH/#Ö׌÷êt\·`å)„¼Ëb Z¬’©ß-Ô Û >_êuÅÓÑa;¼.ð®Áøÿ'ï¡~H)¢·0úêœñàxkÞ‘±Ã{±ƒŠ“$‹³¶¿blº5Ê2ûù;ñ&)ºžÍZfUjšð(›,•;@§Ù7•5©þÁ ?¦®+4óÓÇ…S%àöÛ«Wwås´”hžèk1u ?}#bDŒË‰_ÄbŽ $¼Øä-ÄRaçÊ}t ð¬yhx¢„#2>ÔX¬’£êªOqo:w ²¨|â‰RXU;ÎŒ—yeæC`O¯ðìÍý9’KÍj©§ø3ž:ßúÆ‘µMTpaÓºsÐ Œë…»ñ"íqêÀLÛϼ6Óm‰É:óe={6ó,Í©.p{™~´V7,bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N; 1‡=ÄEÓ 1uÕ 72J|||||||||||||||||||||b„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„ 0댌ŒŒ Bww 0¤” D38 D-k 0K˜˜ ASãÆ6 0¤ü 0D  A«ä(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular »(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÃr9+â òK+bk2è•«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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. Ý ƒRªd$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ ôÏç ò» »ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€Appellant€challenges€the€general€sessions€courtððs€action€in€revoking€his€bond,€no€record€of€theÐ ° Ðgeneral€sessions€courtððs€proceedings€are€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€The€record€does€suggest€that€the€AppellantÐ tÄ Ðdid€not€request€indigency€status€at€the€general€sessions€level€and,€in€fact,€advised€the€court€that€he€would€retain€counsel.€Ð 8ˆ ÐIn€the€absence€of€a€record€of€the€general€sessions€court€proceedings,€we€are€required€to€presume€that€the€general€sessionsÐ üL Ðcourt€properly€applied€the€applicable€rules€of€criminal€procedure€including€waiver€of€right€to€counsel€at€the€preliminaryÐ À Ðhearing.€€Extending€this€presumption€of€correctness,€we€cannot€find€with€certainty€that€the€Appellant€did€not€waive€hisÐ „Ô Ðright€to€a€bond€revocation€hearing.€€As€such,€we€are€required€to€engage€in€speculation€as€to€this€issue.€€It€is€the€duty€ofÐ H ˜ Ðan€Appellant€to€ensure€that€the€appellate€record€contains€all€of€the€evidence€and€trial€court€records€relevant€to€the€appeal.€Ð  \ ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) - ù-(|G2ªd$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€(…»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôX9ò»»Ô d(|3è$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€(…»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3è$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€(…»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€=}»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ ¼hG»» »ÔÑ8€X-XXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡ î¶î» ¼hGÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#† ¼hG»î î¶ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€7,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡ X2ûX» ¼hGÔÌò òÔ#† ¼hG»X X2û#ÔKELVIN€A.€TAYLOR€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€òòóóÔ‡ X2ûX» ¼hGÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Weakley€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€CR61„2000€€€€€€William€B.€Acree,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„00166„CCA„R3„PC€€„€Filed€September€19,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Appellant,€Kelvin€A.€Taylor,€appeals€from€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÐ xÈ  Ðby€the€Weakley€County€Circuit€Court.€€Pursuant€to€a€negotiated€plea€agreement,€Taylor€entered€aÐ d´ Ðð ðbest€interestðð€plea€to€class€D€felony€child€abuse,€and€was€sentenced€to€six€years€in€the€DepartmentÐ P  Ðof€Correction€as€a€range€II€offender.€€In€this€collateral€attack€of€his€conviction,€Taylor€presents€twoÐ <Œ Ðissues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€general€sessions€courtððs€revocation€of€his€bond€without€aÐ (x Ðhearing€and€the€resulting€confinement€prior€to€indictment€violated€double€jeopardy€and€due€processÐ d Ðrights;€and€(2)€whether€trial€counsel€was€ineffective.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€theÐ P Ðjudgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ô#† ¼hG»X X2û–#ÔÔ‡ X2ûX» ¼hGÔÐ ì< ÐÓÇÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€affirmed.ó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#† ¼hG»à X2ûm#ÔÔ‡ X2ûX. ¼hGÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.,óó€joinedÔ#† ¼hG»X X2û> #ÔÔ‡ X2ûX» ¼hGÔ,€and€òòJoeÐ œì ÐG.€Rileyóó,€J.,€not€participating.Ð ˆØ ÐÌVanedda€Prince€Webb,€Union€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Kelvin€A.€Taylor.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€John€H.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐBledsoe,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Thomas€A.€Thomas,€District€Attorney€General,€for€theÐ $"t! ÐAppellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÔ#† ¼hG»X X2ûã #ÔÔ‡ X2ûX» ¼hGÔÌÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONÐ Ô%$!% Ðó óÔ#† ¼hG»X X2ûó #ÔÔ‡ X2ûX» ¼hGÔÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòóóÔ#† ¼hG»X X2û{ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ X2ûX» ¼hGÔà0  àOn€September€7,€1998,€Keyatia€Rush,€then€ten€months€old,€was€treated€for€a€torn€tendonЄ)Ô$)(#(# Ðjust€above€her€left€elbow€and€for€damage€to€her€collarbone.€€Further€examination€of€the€victimÐ p*À%* Ðindicated€possible€fractures€of€her€ninth€and€tenth€ribs.€€The€Appellant€had€been€babysitting€KeyatiaÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âand€two€other€children.€€The€treating€physicians€concluded€that€the€Keyatiaððs€injuries€were€the€resultÐ H,˜',ý Ðof€battered€child€syndrome.€€Following€an€investigation€by€the€Martin€Police€Department,€theÐ ° ÐAppellant€was€charged€with€aggravated€child€abuse.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àOn€September€30òòthóó,€the€Appellant€waived€a€preliminary€hearing,€and€was€bound€over€to€theÐ tÄ Ðgrand€jury.€€As€a€condition€of€bail,€he€was€to€have€no€contact€with€the€victim.€€The€Appellantððs€bondÐ `° Ðwas€revoked€by€the€general€sessions€court€on€October€5th,òòóó€for€violation€of€the€no€contact€condition.€Ð L œ ÐThe€Appellant€remained€incarcerated€until€February€3,€1999.€€On€this€date,€the€Appellant€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðreleased€on€bond,€after€being€granted€bail€by€the€Weakley€County€Circuit€Court,€following€hisÐ $ t Ðindictment€in€January€1999.€€On€May€7,€1999,€the€Appellant€entered€a€best€interest€or€òòAlford€óópleaÐ  ` Ðto€the€lesser€included€offense€of€child€abuse€of€a€child€of€six€years€of€age€or€less,€a€class€D€felony.€Ð ü L  ÐOn€May€8,€2000,€the€Appellant€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóówhich€was€amended€onÐ è 8  ÐJuly€14òòthóó.€€The€Appellant€sought€relief€alleging€numerous€grounds€which€included:€(1)€doubleÐ Ô$  Ðjeopardy€and/or€due€process€violation€based€upon€the€general€sessions€courtððs€revocation€of€his€bondÐ À  Ðwithout€a€hearing€and€(2)€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAn€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€September€15,€2000.€€The€Appellant€testified€toÐ „Ô  Ðnumerous€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€most€importantly€for€purposes€of€this€appeal,Ð pÀ Ðthat€trial€counsel€failed€to€seek€suppression€of€the€statements€given€to€the€Martin€Police€DepartmentÐ \¬ Ðand€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€€The€Appellant€testified€that€he€invoked€his€right€toÐ H˜ Ðcounsel€during€questioning€by€the€Martin€Police€Department.€The€investigator€testified€that€she€hadÐ 4„ Ðno€recollection€of€the€Appellant€asserting€his€right€to€counsel.€Additionally,€trial€counsel€testifiedÐ  p Ðthat€nothing€he€learned€from€the€Appellant€during€their€discussions€caused€him€to€believe€that€a€FifthÐ  \ ÐAmendment€violation€existed.€€The€proof€at€the€hearing€also€established€that€the€Appellant€wasÐ øH Ðinterviewed€and€administered€a€polygraph€examination€by€a€Tennessee€Bureau€of€InvestigationÐ ä4 Ðagent.€€With€regard€to€statements€to€the€TBI,€the€Appellant€contends€that€his€previous€request€forÐ Ð  Ðcounsel€to€the€Martin€Police€Department€remained€in€effect€and€applied€to€all€subsequent€policeÐ ¼  Ðinterrogations.€€Prior€to€the€statements€to€the€TBI,€the€Appellant€was€advised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rightsÐ ¨ø Ðand€signed€a€waiver€of€those€rights.€Ð ”ä ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISó óÐ X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€order€to€succeed€on€a€post„conviction€claim,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€showingÐ 0"€  Ðby€clear€and€convincing€evidence€the€allegations€set€forth€in€his€petition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð #l! Ð30„210(f)€(1997).€€When€this€court€undertakes€review€of€a€lower€courtððs€decision€on€a€petition€forÐ ° Ðpost„conviction€relief,€the€lower€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€given€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict€andÐ œì Ðare€conclusive€on€appeal€absent€a€finding€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€the€judgment.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€or€re„Ð tÄ Ðevaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€post„conviction€court.€Ð `° ÐòòId.òòóóóó€€Further,€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€be€given€theirÐ L œ Ðtestimony€are€for€resolution€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€òòId.óóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  Óò òA.€€Double€Jeopardy€and€Due€Processó óÐ  ` ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€first€issue€presented€by€the€Appellant€for€review€is:€ð ðwhether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ è 8  Ðholding€that€the€Appellant€was€not€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€where€the€Appellantððs€bondÐ Ô$  Ðwas€revoked€without€a€hearing€prior€to€his€indictment€in€violation€of€his€right€to€due€process€andÐ À  Ðhe€was€therefore€subjected€to€double€jeopardy€in€violation€of€the€Fifth€and€FourteenthÐ ¬ü  ÐAmendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€10€of€the€TennesseeÐ ˜è  ÐConstitution.ðð€€Although€the€Appellant€combines€double€jeopardy€and€due€process€into€one€issue,€Ð „Ô  Ðseparate€treatment€is€required€for€proper€legal€analysis.€€€€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà@””!ìàò ò1.€€Double€Jeopardyó óˆÐ H˜ ÐÓ€ (5h83Óò òó óÌà  àThe€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€provides€that€no€person€shall€ð ðbe€subject€for€the€sameÐ  p Ðoffence€to€be€twice€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend€V.€€This€protectionÐ  \ Ðapplies€both€to€successive€punishments€and€to€successive€prosecutions€for€the€same€criminalÐ øH Ðoffense.€€òòSeeóó€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€711,€89€S.Ct.€2073€(1969).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòWhitwellÐ ä4 Ðv.€Stateóó,€520€S.W.2d€338,€341€(Tenn.€1975);€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€912€S.W.2d€183,€185€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€1995);€òòState€v.€Carteróó,€890€S.W.2d€449,€452€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€In€this€case,€theÐ ¼  ÐAppellant€argues€that€ð ðhis€detention€in€jailðð€following€bond€revocation€ð ðconstituted€punishmentÐ ¨ø Ðfor€the€offense€for€which€he€was€charged,ðð€and€that€his€subsequent€punishment€imposedÐ ”ä Ðfollowing€his€ð ðbest€interestðð€plea€ð ðconstituted€multiple€punishments€for€the€same€offense.ðð€€Thus,Ð €Ð Ðthe€Appellant€seeks€to€apply€the€latter€standard€of€ð ðsuccessive€prosecutions€for€the€same€criminalÐ l¼ Ðoffenseðð€as€a€basis€for€violation€of€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause.€€We€find€this€argumentÐ X ¨ Ðmisplaced.€€The€Appellantððs€bond€was€revoked€based€upon€his€conduct€of€ð ðcontacting€theÐ D!” Ðvictim,ðð€which€violated€a€condition€of€release.€€The€Appellantððs€resulting€conviction€was€basedÐ 0"€  Ðupon€his€conduct€of€child€abuse.€€Clearly,€because€the€two€occurrences€were€predicated€uponÐ #l! Ðdistinct€acts€of€conduct,€double€jeopardy€principles€were€not€implicated.€€òòSeeóó€òòU.S.€v.€Dixonóó,€509Ð $X" ÐU.S.€688,€113€S.Ct.€2849€(1993).Ð ô$D # Ðà  àÌà  àMoreover,€double€jeopardy€refers€to€those€risks€ð ðtraditionally€associated€with€actionsÐ Ì&"% Ðintended€to€authorize€criminal€punishment€to€vindicate€public€justice.ðð€€òòBreed€v.€Jonesóó,€421€U.S.Ð ¸'#& Ð521,€529,€95€S.€Ct.€1778,€1786€(1975).€€Thus,€the€inquiry€is€whether€the€challenged€action€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðð ðpunitiveðð€as€opposed€to€ð ðremedial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Penningtonóó,€952€S.W.2d€420,€422.€(Tenn.€1997);Ð )à$( ÐòòState€v.€Coolidgeóó,€915€S.W.2d€820,€823€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Bail€revocation€is€notÐ |*Ì%) Ðessentially€criminal,€but€is€a€ð ðregulatory€function€rather€than€a€criminal€one.ðð€€òòPenningtonóó,€952Ð h+¸&* ÐS.W.2d€at€422€(quoting€òòUntied€States€v.€Grisantióó,€4€F.3d€173,€175€(2òòndóó€Cir.€1993)).€€Therefore,€forÐ ° Ðthese€reasons,€we€conclude€that€jeopardy€did€not€attach€as€a€result€of€the€Appellantððs€bondÐ œì Ðrevocation.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà@jj#ìàò ò2.€€Due€Processó óˆÐ `° Ðò òó óÌà  àThe€Appellant€next€contends€that€the€revocation€of€his€bond€without€a€hearing€violatesÐ 8 ˆ Ðdue€process.€€Due€process€prohibits€punitive€pre„trial€detention,€but€permits€remedial€pre„trialÐ $ t Ðdetention€provided€the€individual€is€afforded€sufficient€procedural€due€process.€€òòPenningtonóó,€952Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€at€423;€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€980€S.W.2d€414,€421€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€The€revocationÐ ü L  Ðof€the€Appellantððs€bail€was€remedial,€and€therefore,€he€only€need€be€afforded€sufficientÐ è 8  Ðprocedural€due€process.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAssuming€for€argumentððs€sake,€that€even€if€the€Appellant€was€not€afforded€sufficientÐ ¬ü  Ðprocedural€due€process,€he€nevertheless€has€no€remedy€in€this€Court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ˜è  Ð40-11-144€(1997)€states,Ð „Ô  ÐÌà0  à(a)€The€actions€by€a€trial€court€from€which€an€appeal€lies€to€the€supreme€court€or€court€ofÐ \¬ Ðcriminal€appeals€in€granting,€denying,€setting€or€altering€conditions€of€the€defendant'sÐ H˜ Ðrelease€shall€be€reviewable€in€the€manner€provided€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÐ 4„ ÐProcedure.€€Ð p(#(# Ðà0  à(b)€If€the€action€to€be€reviewed€is€that€of€a€court€from€which€an€appeal€lies€to€a€courtÐ  \ Ðinferior€to€the€supreme€court€or€court€of€criminal€appeals,€review€shall€be€sought€in€theÐ øH Ðnext€higher€court€upon€writ€of€certiorari.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€8.€€Ðä4(#(# ÐÌThe€proper€method€of€review€for€the€Appellantððs€bond€revocation€was€appeal€to€the€WeakleyÐ ¼  ÐCounty€Circuit€Court.€€€Any€other€remedy€now€lies€outside€this€Court's€jurisdiction.€€Post„Ð ¨ø Ðconviction€relief€is€available€only€to€an€abridgement€of€a€constitutional€right€arising€from€theÐ ”ä Ðconviction€process.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203€(1997).€€Issues€regarding€bail,€òòi.e.óó,€remedialÐ €Ð Ðpre„trial€detention,€€are€generally€ancillary€to€the€conviction€process€and€rarely,€if€ever,€wouldÐ l¼ Ðrequire€voiding€the€conviction.€€The€Appellantððs€claim€of€due€process€is€without€merit.Ð X ¨ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓB.€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óÐ 0"€  ÐÌÓZ8Óà  àTo€succeed€in€a€challenge€for€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€Appellant€mustÐ $X" Ðdemonstrate€that€counselððs€representation€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÐ ô$D # Ðattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€UnderÐ à%0!$ ÐòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984)€the€Appellant€mustÐ Ì&"% Ðestablish€(1)€deficient€representation€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€the€deficiency.€€In€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcontext€of€a€guilty€plea€or€òòAlfordóó€plea,€to€satisfy€the€second€prong€of€òòStricklandóó€the€AppellantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmust€show€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€but€for€counselððs€errors,€he€would€not€haveÐ )à$( Ðentered€a€plea€of€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,Ð |*Ì%) Ð59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€370€(1985);€òòWalton€v.€Stateóó,€966€S.W.2d€54,€55€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€issues€of€deficient€performanceòòóó€by€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€areÐ ° Ðmixed€questions€of€law€and€fact.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€ð ðA€trialÐ œì Ðcourtððs€òòfindings€of€fact€óóunderlying€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€are€reviewed€onÐ ˆØ Ðappeal€under€a€òòde€novo€óóstandard,€accompanied€with€a€presumption€that€those€findings€are€correctÐ tÄ Ðunless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.ðð€òòFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€458Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€2001)€(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997))Ð L œ Ð(emphasis€in€original).€€However€òòconclusions€of€law€óóare€reviewed€under€a€purely€òòde€novoÐ 8 ˆ Ðóóstandard,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòFieldsóó€40€S.W.3d€at€458€(emphasis€in€original).€Ð $ t ÐApplying€the€foregoing€principles,€we€review€òòde€novo€óóthe€post„conviction€court's€conclusion€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€Appellant€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòòòóóóóÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€his€second€issue,€the€Appellant€argues€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ Ô$  Ðcounsel€regarding€counselððs€failure€to€seek€suppression€of€his€statements€to€the€police.€€€The€post„Ð À  Ðconviction€court€found€that€the€transcript€of€the€interview€with€the€Martin€Police€Department€didÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€reflect€that€the€Appellant€invoked€his€right€to€counsel,€and€irrespective€of€the€dispute,€theÐ ˜è  ÐAppellant€made€no€admission€of€guilt.€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€AppellantððsÐ „Ô  Ðstatements€to€the€TBI€were€properly€obtained.€€The€proof€does€not€preponderate€against€theseÐ pÀ Ðfindings.€€€In€sum,€the€Appellant€has€failed€to€show€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð \¬ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ 4„ ÐÌÓÐDÓà  àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€hold€that€the€revocation€of€the€Appellantððs€bailÐ  \ Ðwithout€a€hearing€did€not€implicate€double€jeopardy.€€Pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„11„144,Ð øH Ðthe€Appellant€was€required€to€seek€relief€in€the€Weakley€County€Criminal€Court€for€anyÐ ä4 Ðprocedural€due€process€violation€resulting€from€his€bond€revocation.€€Furthermore,€we€hold€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€Appellant€has€failed€to€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€he€received€theÐ ¼  Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE