ÿWPC) pœä%R~ݶ™±=*’ÉÃY•º¸ä‚(ŒÁ:cõ>Ì«ßμp—± Å«ydliýÑDŒW=D6ÞöÿÑu⻄6c׳\×=9«ê$¾ ûòAo@3 pÎOè?&I~KiAtºo ˜GùÁzÖ\ëÙ}<Ñ h²«ogÂÉá:B|ÏFLäèÂãú™Ãâ˜Wx·È >G ÐøßÏ]Ô²|°þÃöÈf1,T)h¾Ñúxá yœÌ,I\ðÇ¿1rLû ²Yš#ÖL yW²q9þy6 ½îÈÚª¡;"a½¬?Í€×¥j;<¿×™•Š'£³17lÄ}/G´ñˆ0-ÜëD¡4옃×JÆŽ‘b#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U#N­ Õû 0DÐ zÒŽ z`ÒÚ^ ¬w¸ƼÆ‚ÆHÆ4ÔNèêùEû mýb 0ë$$$$ B 0¤, D5Ð D- 0K22 AS}ÆÐ 0¤– 0D: A«~˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ËÝ ƒR×ö$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô2ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€time€of€his€offenses€in€this€case,€the€petitioner€was€released€on€parole€from€a€sentence€of€lifeÐ ° Ðimprisonment€imposed€pursuant€to€his€prior€conviction€in€Alabama€of€first€degree€murder.€€Following€his€convictionÐ n¾ Ðof€the€instant€offenses€and€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€sentencing,€the€petitioner€returned€to€Alabama€in€order€toÐ ,| Ðresume€service€of€his€sentence€of€life€imprisonment.€€The€petitioner€filed€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€thisÐ ê: Ðcase€while€serving€his€life€sentence€in€the€Alabama€Department€of€Corrections.€€The€Bedford€County€Circuit€Court€heldÐ ¨ø Ðthe€petition€in€abeyance€until€the€petitionerððs€return€to€Tennessee€and€his€commencement€of€the€service€of€his€sentencesÐ f¶ Ðfor€these€offenses.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt·®i) Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÖJ~'¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ - ù-(|G2×ö$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô2ò»»Ô d(|3Ö‚$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ö‚$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[`»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[`»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼[`»»»ÔÑ8€%<XXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îs[`ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼[`»îîs #ԈРР ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJuly€19,€2000€SessionÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡X%<X»¼[`ÔÌò òÔ#†¼[`»XX%<#ÔTHOMAS€W.€Ô_ÔYELTONÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X%<X»¼[`Ôó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Bedford€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€6771€€€€€€William€Charles€Lee,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„00597„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€November€9,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Thomas€W.€Ô_ÔYeltonÔ_Ô,€appeals€the€denial€by€the€Bedford€County€Circuit€Court€of€hisÐ &v  Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€from€his€1992€convictions€of€fabricating€evidence,Ô#†¼[`»XX%<«#ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼[`Ô€theft€of€propertyÐ  \ Ðworth€more€than€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000),€coercion€of€a€witness,€and€harassment.€€Specifically,Ð òB Ðhe€alleges€that€he€is€entitled€to€relief€from€his€convictions€because€he€received€ineffective€assistanceÐ Ø( Ðof€counsel€during€trial€proceedings.€€The€petitioner€predicates€his€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ¾ Ðcounsel€upon€the€following€grounds:€(1)€trial€counsel€failed€to€submit€to€the€trial€court€a€motionÐ ¤ô Ðrequesting€the€severance€of€his€offenses;€(2)€trial€counsel€maintained€inadequate€contact€with€theÐ ŠÚ Ðpetitioner€during€trial€proceedings;€(3)€trial€counsel€failed€to€adequately€investigate€his€case;€and€(4)Ð pÀ Ðtrial€counsel€failed€to€adequately€advise€the€petitioner€concerning€the€waiver€of€his€right€to€appealÐ V¦ Ðhis€convictions.€€Ô#†¼[`»XX%<å#ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼[`ÔFollowing€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€partiesðð€briefs,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÐ <Œ Ðthe€post„conviction€court.Ð "r ÐÓÌÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ î> ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼[`»àX%<· #ÔÔ‡X%<X.¼[`ÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòRobertÐ º  ÐW.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð  ð ÐÌGregory€D.€Smith,€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Thomas€W.€Ô_ÔYeltonÔ_Ô.Ð l!¼! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð 8#ˆ# Ðand€Robert€G.€Ô_ÔCriglerÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $n$ ÐÓñ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼[`»XX%< #ÔòòóóÔ‡X%<X»¼[`ÔÐ ê%:!& ÐÓ  Óà@ìàò òòòI.€€Factual€Backgroundóóó óˆÐ Ð& "' Ðà  àà ` àOn€March€24,€1992,€the€petitioner,€Thomas€W.€Ô_ÔYeltonÔ_Ô,€was€tried€by€a€jury€in€theÐ ¶'#( ÐBedford€County€Circuit€Court€for€one€count€of€fabricating€evidence,€one€count€of€theft€of€propertyÐ œ(ì#) Ðworth€more€than€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000),€two€counts€of€coercion€of€a€witness,€one€count€ofÐ ‚)Ò$* Ðintentional€killing€of€an€animal,€one€count€of€false€reports,€Ô#†¼[`»XX%<#ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼[`Ôand€one€count€of€harassment.€€The€juryÐ h*¸%+ Ðacquitted€the€petitioner€of€the€offense€of€false€reports€but€otherwise€returned€verdicts€of€guilt.€€Ð N+ž&, Ðâ âÐ 4,„'-ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àà ` àOn€April€6,€1992,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€transcript€ofÐ ° Ðâ âwhich€is€included€in€the€record€in€this€post„conviction€appeal.€€Ô#†¼[`»XX%<‡#ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼[`ÔThe€transcript€reflects€that€the€trialÐ –æ Ðcourt€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€nine€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€CorrectionÐ |Ì Ðfor€the€offense€of€fabricating€evidence,€six€years€incarceration€for€the€offense€of€theft,€six€yearsÐ b² Ðincarceration€for€each€offense€of€coercion€of€a€witness,€and€nine€months€incarceration€for€the€offenseÐ H˜ Ðof€harassment.€€The€court€further€ordered€that€the€petitioner€serve€his€sentences€for€fabricatingÐ . ~ Ðevidence€and€harassment€concurrently€with€one€another€and€consecutively€to€his€sentence€for€theftÐ  d Ðof€property€and€that€he€serve€his€sentences€for€coercion€of€a€witness€concurrently€with€one€anotherÐ ú J Ðand€consecutively€to€the€other€sentences,€resulting€in€an€effective€sentence€of€twenty„one€yearsÐ à 0 Ðincarceration.Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€additionally€reflects€that€the€trial€court€didÐ ’â  Ðòònotóó€impose€a€sentence€for€the€offense€of€intentional€killing€of€an€animal€due€to€the€courtððs€concernÐ xÈ  Ðthat€the€State€had€failed€to€establish€venue€in€that€case€and€due€to€the€Stateððs€announcement€at€theÐ ^®  Ðsentencing€hearing€of€an€agreement€between€the€State€and€the€petitioner.€€Specifically,€the€StateÐ D”  Ðagreed€to€the€dismissal€with€prejudice€of€the€intentional€killing€of€an€animal€case,€and€the€petitioner,Ð *z  Ðin€return,€agreed€to€waive€his€right€to€appeal€the€remaining€convictions.€€Prior€to€sanctioning€theÐ ` Ðagreement,€the€trial€court€questioned€the€petitioner€concerning€the€agreement,€reiterating€the€termsÐ öF Ðof€the€agreement€and€ensuring€that€the€petitioner€understood€those€terms.Ô#†¼[`»XX%<{#ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼[`ÔÐ Ü, ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€in€this€appeal€contains€written€waivers€of€the€petitionerððs€right€to€appealÐ ¨ø Ðhis€convictions,€including€one€count€of€fabricating€evidence,€one€count€of€theft€of€property€worthÐ ŽÞ Ðmore€than€one€thousand€dollars€($1,000),€two€counts€of€coercion€of€a€witness,€Ô#†¼[`»XX%<#ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼[`Ôand€one€count€ofÐ tÄ ÐharassmentÔ#†¼[`»XX%<´#ÔÔ‡X%<X»¼[`Ô.€€The€written€waivers€were€filed€in€the€Bedford€County€Circuit€Court€on€the€day€of€theÐ Zª Ðsentencing€hearing€and€appear€to€have€been€signed€on€that€day€by€both€the€petitioner€and€hisÐ @ Ðattorney.Ô#†¼[`»XX%<%#ÔÔ€X%<X»¼[`ÔÐ &v ÐÌà  àà ` àNotwithstanding€the€above€waivers,€on€July€9,€1992,€the€petitioner€filed€pro€se€in€theÐ òB ÐBedford€County€Circuit€Court€a€notice€of€appeal€of€all€of€his€convictions.€€When€his€efforts€to€appealÐ Ø( Ðhis€convictions€apparently€proved€unsuccessful,€the€petitioner€filed€the€instant€petition€for€post„Ð ¾ Ðconviction€relief€in€the€same€court€on€July€16,€1993.€€The€petitioner€also€filed€a€memorandum€inÐ ¤ô Ðsupport€of€his€petition.€€Moreover,€the€post„conviction€court€appointed€counsel€who€filed€severalÐ Š Ú Ðamended€petitions.€€The€post„conviction€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€March€23,€1999.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рp!À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€He€confirmed€that€he€wasÐ <#Œ" Ðalleging€the€ineffective€assistance€of€his€trial€counsel,€whom€he€apparently€retained€upon€beingÐ "$r# Ðcharged€with€these€offenses€and€after€providing€a€confession€to€the€police.€€With€respect€to€hisÐ %X $ Ðattorneyððs€performance,€the€petitioner€recounted€that,€prior€to€his€trial,€he€was€incarcerated€in€theÐ ° ÐBedford€County€Jail,€and€his€attorney€visited€him€at€the€jail€on€only€two€occasions€for€the€soleÐ –æ Ðpurpose€of€collecting€the€attorneyððs€fee.€€The€petitioner€conceded€that€he€also€met€with€his€attorneyÐ |Ì Ðin€court€on€at€least€two€occasions€for€preliminary€proceedings€in€his€cases€and€spoke€with€hisÐ b² Ðattorney€on€the€telephone€on€at€least€three€occasions.€€The€petitioner€additionally€corresponded€withÐ H˜ Ðhis€attorney€by€mail.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€he€and€his€attorney€discussed€potential€witnessesÐ . ~ Ðin€his€cases;€however,€his€attorney€did€not€otherwise€discuss€with€him€the€evidence€in€his€cases,Ð  d Ðincluding€any€discovery€obtained€from€the€State,€nor€did€his€attorney€discuss€with€the€petitioner€anyÐ ú J Ðongoing€plea€negotiations.€€In€particular,€the€petitioner€stated€that€he€was€surprised€at€trial€by€theÐ à 0 Ðtestimony€of€the€Stateððs€principal€witness€concerning€tape€recordings€relevant€to€his€cases.Ð Æ   ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€also€asserted€that,€to€his€knowledge,€his€attorney€did€not€file€a€motionÐ ’â  Ðrequesting€discovery€or€obtain€any€discovery€from€the€State.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€alleged€thatÐ xÈ  Ðhis€attorney€neglected€to€interview€the€Stateððs€witnesses€prior€to€trial€and€neglected€to€interviewÐ ^®  Ðpotential€defense€witnesses€listed€by€the€petitioner€in€a€letter€to€his€attorney.€€The€petitioner€concededÐ D”  Ðthat€his€attorney€did€subpoena€some€of€these€potential€defense€witnesses;€however,€he€complainedÐ *z  Ðthat€none€of€the€witnesses€testified€on€his€behalf€at€trial.Ð ` ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€further€complained€that,€prior€to€his€trial,€he€asked€his€attorney€to€fileÐ Ü, Ða€motion€requesting€the€severance€of€his€offenses,€and€his€attorney€failed€to€comply€with€his€request.€Ð  ÐThe€petitioner€conceded€that€all€of€the€charged€offenses,€with€the€exception€of€one€offense,€involvedÐ ¨ø Ðthe€same€victim€and€arose€from€a€ð ðcommon€plan€or€scheme.ððÐ ŽÞ ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€petitioner€denied€that€he€waived€his€right€to€appeal€any€conviction€otherÐ Zª Ðthan€the€theft€of€property€conviction.€€The€petitioner€conceded€that€the€signatures€affixed€to€all€ofÐ @ Ðthe€waiver€of€appeal€documents€appear€to€be€his€signatures.€€However,€he€asserted€that€he€onlyÐ &v Ðrecalled€signing€one€written€waiver€of€appeal€and,€therefore,€only€acknowledged€his€signature€on€theÐ  \ Ðdocument€waiving€his€right€to€appeal€his€conviction€of€theft€of€property.€€Ð òB ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€also€admitted€that€he€was€present€at€the€sentencing€hearing€when€theÐ ¾ Ðprosecutor€announced€his€agreement€with€the€State€waiving€his€right€to€appeal€all€of€his€convictionsÐ ¤ô Ðand€that€the€trial€court€questioned€him€concerning€the€agreement.€€He€confirmed€his€familiarity€withÐ Š Ú Ðthe€criminal€justice€system,€conceding€that€he€had€previously€been€convicted€by€a€jury€in€AlabamaÐ p!À  Ðof€first€degree€murder€and€that€he€had€previously€pled€guilty€in€Bedford€County€to€arson.€Ð V"¦! ÐNevertheless,€the€petitioner€asserted€that€he€was€confused€at€the€April€6,€1992€sentencing€hearing.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€in€rebuttal€of€the€petitionerððs€allegations,Ð %X $ Ðthe€State€presented€the€testimony€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorney,€Rondle€T.€Wilson.€Mr.€WilsonÐ î%>!% Ðtestified€that,€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€trial,€he€had€been€practicing€law€for€approximately€thirty„Ð Ô&$"& Ðthree€years,€having€earned€his€license€to€practice€law€in€1959.€€According€to€Mr.€Wilson,€during€theÐ º' #' Ðcourse€of€his€career,€he€served€as€an€assistant€district€attorney€general€for€ten€or€twelve€years€andÐ  (ð#( Ðotherwise€engaged€in€private€practice.€€Approximately€twenty„five€percent€(25%)€of€his€privateÐ †)Ö$) Ðpractice€involved€criminal€cases.€€Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  àà ` àWith€respect€to€the€petitionerððs€cases,€Mr.€Wilson€confirmed€that€he€represented€theÐ ° Ðâ âpetitioner€at€trial.€€He€also€confirmed€that,€prior€to€the€petitionerððs€trial,€he€met€with€his€client€at€theÐ –æ Ðjail€on€two€occasions.€€He€also€met€with€the€petitioner€in€court€on€several€occasions€for€preliminaryÐ |Ì Ðproceedings.€€Finally,€he€spoke€with€the€petitioner€on€the€telephone€on€approximately€three€occasionsÐ b² Ðand€corresponded€with€the€petitioner€by€mail€prior€to€trial.€€Contrary€to€the€petitionerððs€testimony,Ð H˜ ÐMr.€Wilson€asserted€that€he€discussed€the€petitionerððs€case€with€him€on€all€of€these€occasions,Ð . ~ Ðincluding€Mr.€Wilsonððs€visits€to€the€Bedford€County€Jail.Ð  d ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Wilson€conceded€that€he€did€not€file€a€motion€requesting€discovery€from€theÐ à 0 ÐState.€€He€explained€that,€pursuant€to€the€local€rules€of€court€in€Bedford€County,€he€was€not€requiredÐ Æ   Ðto€file€a€formal€motion€for€discovery.€€Rather,€the€State€maintained€an€ð ðopen€fileðð€policy.€€Mr.Ð ¬ ü  ÐWilson€confirmed€that,€in€fact,€he€received€discovery€in€the€petitionerððs€cases.Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Wilson€also€testified€that€he€interviewed€the€principal€State€witnesses€at€aÐ ^®  Ðpreliminary€hearing€in€the€petitionerððs€cases€and€also€interviewed€several€additional€witnesses€onÐ D”  Ðother€occasions€prior€to€trial.€€Moreover,€Mr.€Wilson€asserted€that€he€interviewed€most€of€theÐ *z  Ðpotential€defense€witnesses€to€whom€he€was€referred€by€the€petitioner.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€callÐ ` Ðthose€witnesses€to€testify€on€the€petitionerððs€behalf€at€trial€because,€ð ð[he]€did€not€find€any€that€wouldÐ öF Ðbe€beneficial€to€[the€petitioner].ððÐ Ü, ÐÌà  àà ` àMr.€Wilson€further€testified€at€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€that,€eitherÐ ¨ø Ðprior€to€or€during€the€petitionerððs€trial,€he€became€aware€that€the€State€possessed€tape€recordingsÐ ŽÞ Ðrelating€to€the€petitionerððs€cases.€€He€could€not€recall€any€details€of€proceedings€relating€to€theseÐ tÄ Ðrecordings.€€However,€the€petitionerððs€post„conviction€counsel€conceded€that,€according€to€theÐ Zª Ðtranscript€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€proceedings,€the€State€did€not€provide€the€tape€recordings€toÐ @ Ðdefense€counsel€prior€to€trial.€€Rather,€trial€counsel€first€became€aware€of€the€tape€recordings€whenÐ &v Ðthe€Stateððs€primary€witness€testified€concerning€their€contents.€€At€that€point,€defense€counselÐ  \ Ðobjected€both€to€the€witnessesðð€testimony€and€to€the€introduction€of€the€tape€recordings.€€DefenseÐ òB Ðcounsel€argued€that€the€State€had€failed€to€comply€with€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16€and€that€the€tapeÐ Ø( Ðrecordings€were€the€result€of€an€illegal€wiretap.€€The€trial€court€sustained€defense€counselððs€Tenn.Ð ¾ ÐR.€Crim.€P.€16€objection€to€the€introduction€of€the€tape€recordings€into€evidence.€€However,€the€trialÐ ¤ô Ðcourt€disagreed€that€the€recordings€were€the€result€of€any€illegal€wiretap€and€admitted€into€evidenceÐ Š Ú Ðthe€testimony€of€the€Stateððs€witness€concerning€certain€contents€of€the€recordings.Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€to€his€failure€to€file€a€motion€for€severance€of€the€petitionerððs€offenses,€Mr.€WilsonÐ <#Œ" Ðexplained€at€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€that€the€petitioner€chose€to€forego€contestingÐ "$r# Ðthe€consolidation€of€his€offenses€because€the€petitioner€wanted€to€resolve€the€pending€charges€andÐ %X $ Ðreturn€to€Alabama€as€soon€as€possible.€€Moreover,€Mr.€Wilson€confirmed€that,€with€the€exceptionÐ î%>!% Ðof€one€offense,€all€of€the€charged€offenses€involved€the€same€victim€and€were€a€part€of€a€ð ðcommonÐ Ô&$"& Ðscheme€or€plan.ðð€€Ð º' #' ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€to€the€petitionerððs€waiver€of€his€right€to€appeal€his€convictions,€Mr.€WilsonÐ †)Ö$) Ðtestified€that€the€petitioner€entered€into€the€agreement€with€the€State€because,€again,€the€petitionerÐ l*¼%* Ðwished€to€return€to€Alabama€as€soon€as€possible.€€Specifically,€Mr.€Wilson€noted€that€the€trial€courtÐ R+¢&+ Ðwas€concerned€that€the€appropriate€venue€for€the€intentional€killing€of€an€animal€case€was€MarshallÐ 8,ˆ', ÐCounty,€and€the€court€was€inclined€to€dismiss€that€case.€€According€to€Mr.€Wilson,€the€petitionerÐ ° Ðwanted€to€avoid€the€possibility€that€the€State€would€re„indict€and€prosecute€him€for€that€offense€inÐ –æ ÐMarshall€County€and,€consequently,€delay€his€return€to€Alabama.€€Therefore,€in€return€for€the€StateððsÐ |Ì Ðagreement€to€the€dismissal€with€prejudice€of€the€intentional€killing€of€an€animal€case,€the€petitionerÐ b² Ðagreed€to€the€waiver€of€his€right€to€appeal€his€other€convictions.€€Mr.€Wilson€acknowledged€hisÐ H˜ Ðsignatures€on€the€waiver€of€appeal€documents€and€testified€that€the€other€signatures€on€the€waiverÐ . ~ Ðof€appeal€documents€appear€to€belong€to€the€petitioner.€€Mr.€Wilson€tentatively€recalled€witnessingÐ  d Ðthe€petitioner€signing€the€documents.€€He€further€observed€that€his€regular€practice€is€to€be€presentÐ ú J Ðwhen€a€client€signs€any€document€waiving€substantial€rights.Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€State€additionally€presented€at€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðtestimony€of€Robert€G.€Crigler,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€who€prosecuted€the€petitionerððsÐ ’â  Ðcases.€€Mr.€Crigler€testified€that,€at€the€petitionerððs€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€agreed€to€theÐ xÈ  Ðdismissal€with€prejudice€of€the€intentional€killing€of€an€animal€case€in€return€for€the€petitionerððsÐ ^®  Ðwaiver€of€his€right€to€appeal€his€other€convictions.€€In€accordance€with€this€agreement,€Mr.€CriglerÐ D”  Ðprovided€to€Mr.€Wilson€waiver€of€appeal€documents€for€each€remaining€conviction.€€On€the€sameÐ *z  Ðday,€Mr.€Wilson€returned€the€documents€to€Mr.€Crigler,€at€which€time€Mr.€Crigler€observed€that€theÐ ` Ðdocuments€appeared€to€have€been€signed€by€both€Mr.€Wilson€and€the€petitioner.Ð öF ÐÌà  àà ` àFollowing€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€the€court€denied€the€petitionerÐ Â Ðrelief€from€his€convictions,€finding€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€establish€by€a€preponderance€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€evidence€that€any€deficiency€in€trial€counselððs€performance€rose€to€constitutional€proportions.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà@éé$ìàò òòòII.€€Analysisó óóóˆÐ Zª Ðà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€now€challenges€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€relief.€€As€theÐ @ Ðpost„conviction€court€correctly€noted,€because€the€petitioner€filed€the€instant€petition€prior€to€theÐ &v Ðeffective€date€of€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€he€was€required€to€prove€any€factualÐ  \ Ðallegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòMcConnell€v.€Stateóó,€12€S.W.3d€795,€797Ð òB Ðn.2€(Tenn.€2000).€€Moreover,€on€appeal,€the€post„conviction€courtððs€factual€findings€are€binding€uponÐ Ø( Ðthis€court€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€156€(Tenn.Ð ¾ Ð1999);€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€578€(Tenn.€1997).€€ð ðIn€evaluating€whether€the€evidenceÐ ¤ô Ðpreponderates€against€the€.€.€.€[post„conviction]€court's€findings,€we€are€guided€by€longstanding€rulesÐ Š Ú Ðof€appellate€procedure.ðð€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€578.òòóó€€Thus,€questions€concerning€theÐ p!À  Ðcredibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€of€their€testimony€are€for€resolution€by€the€post„Ð V"¦! Ðconviction€court.òòóó€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€This€court€will€notÐ <#Œ" Ðre„weigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€of€the€post„conviction€court.€Ð "$r# ÐòòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9801„CC„00013,€1999€WL€58608,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ %X $ ÐKnoxville,€February€9,€1999).€€That€having€been€said,€this€court€reviews€de€novo€mixed€questionsÐ î%>!% Ðof€law€and€fact,€including€the€ultimate€issue€of€whether€counsel€rendered€constitutionally€ineffectiveÐ Ô&$"& Ðassistance.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).Ð º' #' ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€order€to€establish€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€contravention€of€the€SixthÐ †)Ö$) ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,Ð l*¼%* Ða€petitioner€must€demonstrate€that€(1)€his€counselððs€representation€was€deficient,€and€that€(2)€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðdeficient€performance€was€prejudicial.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„697,€104€S.€Ct.Ð 8,ˆ', Ð2052,€2064„2069€(1984);€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579„580;€òòPowers€v.€Stateóó,€942€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð551,€557€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Reviewing€courts€need€not€address€these€components€in€anyÐ –æ Ðparticular€order€or€even€address€both€if€the€petitioner€fails€to€meet€his€burden€with€respect€to€one.€Ð |Ì ÐòòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€580.Ð b² ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€order€to€demonstrate€that€his€counselððs€performance€was€deficient,€the€petitionerÐ . ~ Ðwas€required€to€show€that€counselððs€representation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessÐ  d Ðunder€prevailing€professional€norms.€òòWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€688;€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064;€òòsee€alsoóóÐ ú J ÐòòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€461„462.€€In€Tennessee,€our€supreme€court€has€interpreted€this€test€to€require€aÐ à 0 Ðshowing€that€counselððs€performance€was€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneysÐ Æ   Ðin€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€In€applying€this€test,€thisÐ ¬ ü  Ðcourt€should€refrain€from€second„guessing€tactical€and€strategic€decisions€by€defense€counsel.€Ð ’â  ÐòòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579.€€Rather,€this€court€should€defer€to€such€decisions€if€they€are€based€uponÐ xÈ  Ðadequate€preparation.€€òòBurger€v.€Kempóó,€483€U.S.€776,€794,€107€S.€Ct.€3114,€3126€(1987);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ ^®  ÐòòHolt€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9805„CC„00201,€1999€WL€729206,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,Ð D”  ÐSeptember€20,€1999).Ð *z  ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€a€reviewing€court€should€not€examine€every€allegedly€deficient€act€orÐ öF Ðomission€in€isolation,€but€rather€in€the€context€of€the€case€as€a€whole.€€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€753€S.W.2dÐ Ü, Ð148,€149€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).òòóó€€Ultimately,€the€primary€concern€of€the€court€should€be€theÐ Â Ðfundamental€fairness€of€the€trial€proceedings.€€òòId.óó€€In€other€words,€as€previously€noted,€a€petitionerÐ ¨ø Ðmust€establish€prejudicial,€as€opposed€to€merely€deficient,€performance€by€trial€counsel.€€In€orderÐ ŽÞ Ðto€establish€prejudice,€a€petitioner€must€demonstrate€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€theÐ tÄ Ðproceeding€would€have€been€different€but€for€the€defective€performance€of€counsel.€€òòHenleyóó,€960Ð Zª ÐS.W.2d€at€580.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÐ @ Ðoutcome.€€òòWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€694;€104€S.€Ct.€€at€2068.Ð &v ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€petitioner€first€contends€that€his€counsel€rendered€ineffectiveÐ òB Ðassistance€in€failing€to€file€a€motion€for€severance€of€his€offenses.€€He€argues€that€he€ð ðspecificallyÐ Ø( Ðrequested€that€his€cases€be€tried€individually,€[and]€said€request€went€ignored€by€Mr.€Wilson.ðð€Ð ¾ ÐHowever,€as€noted€previously,€Mr.€Wilson€testified€at€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€that,Ð ¤ô Ðin€fact,€the€petitioner€chose€to€forego€contesting€the€consolidation€of€his€offenses€due€to€his€desireÐ Š Ú Ðto€resolve€the€charges€expeditiously.€€Although€the€post„conviction€court€did€not€explicitly€addressÐ p!À  Ðin€its€ð ðFindings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Lawðð€counselððs€failure€to€file€a€motion€for€severance,€theÐ V"¦! Ðcourt€clearly€accredited€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Wilson.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€14(b)(1)€provides€that€Ð %X $ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[i]f€two€or€more€offenses€have€been€joined€or€consolidated€for€trial€.Ð î%>!% Ð.€.€,€the€defendant€shall€have€a€right€to€a€severance€of€the€offensesÐ Ô&$"& Ðunless€the€offenses€are€part€of€a€common€scheme€or€plan€and€theÐ º' #' Ðevidence€of€one€would€be€admissible€upon€the€trial€of€the€others.€€€Ð (ð#(` x` x ÐòòSee€alsoóó€òòSpicer€v.€Stateóó,€12€S.W.3d€438,€445€(Tenn.€2000).€€In€this€case,€both€the€petitioner€and€hisÐ †)Ö$) Ðtrial€counsel€testified€at€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€that€all€of€the€offenses€charged€byÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€State,€with€the€possible€exception€of€one€offense,€involved€the€same€victim€and€were€part€of€aÐ R+¢&+ Ðð ðcommon€scheme€or€plan,ðð€and€the€petitioner€did€not€identify€any€evidence€of€one€offense€that€wouldÐ 8,ˆ', Ðhave€been€inadmissible€upon€the€trial€of€the€others.€€As€to€the€single€charged€offense€that€was€notÐ ° Ðincluded€in€the€ð ðcommon€scheme€or€plan,ðð€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€trial€counselððsÐ –æ Ðcompliance€with€his€instructions€in€this€regard€was€objectively€unreasonable€under€prevailingÐ |Ì Ðprofessional€norms.Ð b² ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€next€contends€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€maintain€adequate€contactÐ . ~ Ðwith€him€during€trial€proceedings.€€Initially,€we€note€that€there€exists€no€minimum€number€ofÐ  d Ðmeetings€between€counsel€and€client€necessary€to€the€provision€of€constitutionally€effectiveÐ ú J Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòUnited€States€v.€Olsonóó,€846€F.2d€1103,€1108€(7òòthóó€Cir.€1988).€Ð à 0 ÐKeeping€in€mind€this€general€principle,€we€further€note€that€the€petitioner€himself€conceded€at€theÐ Æ   Ðpost„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€that,€prior€to€trial,€his€attorney€met€with€him€on€severalÐ ¬ ü  Ðoccasions,€spoke€with€him€on€the€telephone,€and€corresponded€with€him€by€mail.€€Although€theÐ ’â  Ðpetitioner€contends€that€his€attorney€did€not€discuss€his€cases€on€these€occasions,€this€contention€isÐ xÈ  Ðbelied€by€Mr.€Wilsonððs€testimony.€€As€noted€previously,€the€post„conviction€court€clearly€accreditedÐ ^®  ÐMr.€Wilsonððs€testimony.Ð D”  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€also€asserts€that,€prior€to€his€trial,€trial€counsel€failed€to€obtainÐ ` Ðdiscovery€from€the€State,€failed€to€interview€State€witnesses,€and€failed€to€interview€potential€defenseÐ öF Ðwitnesses.€€He€argues€that,€due€to€his€lack€of€preparation,€trial€counsel€failed€to€call€certain€witnessesÐ Ü, Ðto€testify€on€the€petitionerððs€behalf.€€Once€again,€however,€the€petitionerððs€contentions€areÐ Â Ðcontradicted€by€Mr.€Wilsonððs€testimony.€€We€also€note€that€the€petitioner€failed€to€present€theÐ ¨ø Ðtestimony€of€any€omitted€defense€witnesses€at€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòBlack€v.Ð ŽÞ ÐStateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€753€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòMeeks€v.€Stateóó,€M1998„00791„CCA„R3„PC,Ð tÄ Ð2000€WL€235825,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€March€3,€2000);€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ð Zª Ð03C01-9606-CR-00227,€1997€WL€547997,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€September€5,Ð @ Ð1997).Ð &v ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€further€contends€that,€due€to€his€lack€of€preparation,€trial€counsel€failedÐ òB Ðto€learn€prior€to€trial€that€the€State€possessed€certain€incriminating€tape€recordings€that€were€obtainedÐ Ø( Ðas€a€result€of€an€illegal€wiretap.€€Therefore,€trial€counsel€was€unable€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€theÐ ¾ Ðrecordings€and€any€testimony€relating€to€the€recordings.€€Yet,€as€noted€previously,€Mr.€WilsonÐ ¤ô Ðtestified€that€he€interviewed€the€Stateððs€witnesses€prior€to€trial.€€He€also€testified€that,€although€heÐ Š Ú Ðdid€not€file€a€formal€motion€for€discovery,€he€acted€in€accordance€with€the€local€rules€of€court€and,Ð p!À  Ðin€fact,€obtained€discovery€from€the€State.€€The€petitionerððs€post„conviction€counsel€effectivelyÐ V"¦! Ðconceded€that,€according€to€the€transcript€of€the€trial€proceedings,€the€State€withheld€the€tapeÐ <#Œ" Ðrecordings€from€defense€counsel€prior€to€trial.€€In€short,€the€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated€by€aÐ "$r# Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€Mr.€Wilsonððs€failure€to€obtain€the€tape€recordings€prior€to€trialÐ %X $ Ðwas€the€result€of€any€lack€of€preparation€by€Mr.€Wilson.€€Moreover,€post„conviction€counselÐ î%>!% Ðconceded€that,€upon€learning€of€the€recordings,€trial€counsel€immediately€asked€the€trial€court€toÐ Ô&$"& Ðexclude€the€recordings€and€testimony€relating€thereto,€both€citing€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16€and€arguingÐ º' #' Ðthat€the€disputed€evidence€was€the€fruit€of€an€illegal€wiretap.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€Mr.€Wilson€rendered€ineffective€assistance€inÐ l*¼%* Ðfailing€to€ensure€that€the€petitioner€understood€the€terms€of€his€agreement€with€the€State€prior€toÐ R+¢&+ Ðwaiving€his€right€to€appeal€his€convictions.€€Assuming€that€this€court€does€not€otherwise€grant€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðpetitioner€relief€from€his€convictions,€the€petitioner€effectively€requests€a€delayed€appeal.€€Tenn.Ð ° ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„120€(1993).€€However,€the€record€reflects€that,€in€fact,€Mr.€Wilson,€theÐ –æ Ðprosecutor,€and€the€trial€court€all€advised€the€petitioner€concerning€the€terms€of€his€agreement€withÐ |Ì Ðthe€State,€that€the€petitioner€fully€understood€the€terms€of€his€agreement€with€the€State,€and€that€heÐ b² Ðknowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€his€right€to€appeal€his€convictions.€€As€our€supreme€court€hasÐ H˜ Ðpreviously€observed,€ð ðthe€law€does€not€require€an€appeal€of€a€conviction€in€a€criminal€case€in€theÐ . ~ Ðevent€the€defendant,€for€reasons€satisfactory€to€himself,€desires€not€to€have€such€an€appeal.ðð€€òòCollinsÐ  d Ðv.€Stateóó,€670€S.W.2d€219,€221€(Tenn.€1984).Ð ú J ÐÌà@MM"ìàò òòòIII.€€Conclusionó óóóˆÐ Æ   Ðà  àà ` àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ^®  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE