WPC _)⋱.呵`YA hŝxnjQ# v35fA!N7Nҳ9Rqf#*'{鍆 >ӗjSٶIjo *b)Z7ӭ^@ۊAM$ՙh3C^4/ASRcT,/7 <h l#M?܂ΨI׏SQLM'^3);V娀݀c_$GyފN5D@Lzvkzfe9#F}~5<5us\j=*~ jqcmV(`{A:>3pݑs.(*aar͎e"!g4I''8O=m2H*!4ul&Wc/K,q{O2$s`?҉ uV0x|)NK^!SX1a1Fe.6*O9Eu Qm:BM,s:/-^*"HH:Ҫ,U>h 0 l 0V 0dMUH 0< 0<5 D+q A @ = oG @ o "k   06 0 0f 0( AQC3" B- B3 0C#U: %M(N w U @^ P4\p mrUN\  `&Times New Roman'  4Valued Gateway Client40Valued Gateway Client .   6, 4Heading 1XXX   6 4Heading 2   6 4Heading 3  XXX]*`0Baskerville Old Face]         S\  `&Times New RomanS *`0Baskerville Old Face<:Default Para<:Footnote Ref'dxd &Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK  WPC i K513%)+-51d~ - WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -        )..      +/4X+X/4+/4  XX/4B.` hp x (#XB/4XXWGCz hx p @X@Exxxx (#(#   (#(#XX/4E=XX/4E=(2$ .!..      +8<X+X8<+8<  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ .!..      +8<X+X8<+8<  (2$ .!..      +8<X+X8<+8<  ($ C<< c ) "..      +/4X+X/4+/4  B.` hp x (#XB  XX/4Ԅ  2  ڄ       )Hairline d  d#|x(r.$..      ]:XXƐ]:HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0,yAZ"Arial Regular+X(mK Z(Times New Roman s:) r')ung ̞U (mK Z6Times New Roman Regular .!..      +/4X+X/4+/4  _         0p x (#X0E=/4Qhh@E=INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Q%ATJACKSONE=@Ԉ    H.` hp x (#X(#HAugust2000Session > XXE=E=XX ERICYOUNGv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXXE=  0  DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMadisonCounty  " No.C99356RoyB.Morgan,Jr.,Judge   -  /4XX  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEj K Kj2 -  XX/4 No.W200000057CCAR3PCDecidedSeptember21,2000 _  -  /4XX  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE+ K K+2 -  XX/4    XpXXX%XXXXpInthisappealfromthetrialcourtsdenialofhispostconvictionpetition,thepetitionerargues  p  thathereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselandthathisguiltypleawasunknowingand V involuntarilyentered.Wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdenialofthepostconvictionpetition.#XpXX%X;# <   XXXXp Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     JohnEverettWilliams,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidG.Hayesand  James_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,JJ.,joined. j M.DianneSmothers,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheappellant,EricYoung. 6 PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;J.RossDyer,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; R JamesG._Woodall_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andAlfredLynnEarls,AssistantDistrict 8 Attorney,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.    OPINION      Introduction  L""   XThepetitioner,EricYoung,appealsfromtheMadisonCountytrialcourtsdenialofhis $h$ postconvictionpetition.Hearguesthatwhen,inSeptember1998,heenteredhisguiltypleato $N % facilitationoffirstdegreemurder,hispleawasenteredonlyasaresultofineffectiveassistance %4!& ofcounselandwasotherwisedeficientasitwasinvoluntaryandunknowinglyentered.Aftera &"' hearing,thetrialcourtdeniedhispetition.Wenowaffirm. '#(  XXXXX      &     Facts  .  Ԍ |)$* ЌXXXX  B   ԍFacts  C  '|)"  XOnSeptember30,1998,thepetitionerpledguiltytoonecountoffacilitationtocommit H+&, firstdegreemurder.Overayearlater,October7,1999,thepetitionerfiledaprosepetitionfor .,~'- postconvictionreliefassertingineffectiveassistanceofcounselandassertingthathisguiltyplea -d(. wasinvoluntaryandunknowinglyentered.Specifically,hecontendsthathistrialcounselfailed -J)/       _toproperlyinformhimoftheeffectivelengthofhissentenceandhisexpectedparoleeligibility  date.Inresponsetothispetitionandthesecharges,thetrialcourtconductedanevidentiary  hearingatwhichthepetitionerandhistrialcounseltestified. |  X XPetitionerscounsel,RamsdaleODeNeal,Jr.,testifiedthathemetwiththepetitioner H severaltimespriortothepetitionerspleadingguilty.Hestatedthatduringthesemeetings,he . ~ explainedtothepetitionerthedifferencebetweenaRangeIandRangeIIoffender,andthathe  d wassatisfiedthatthepetitionerunderstoodhisguiltyplea.Further,hetestifiedthatthedefendant  J wasneverpromisedthathewouldbeparoledinthirteenyears.Finally,hecharacterizedthe  0 evidenceagainstthepetitioner,whichincludedthetestimonyoftwocodefendantsanda    confession,asoverwhelming.     X XThepetitionertestifiedthatheonlyremembered,withcertainty,onemeetingwithhis x  counsel.Atthismeeting,thepetitionertestifiedthathiscounselstatedthatthepetitioner will ^  doaboutthirteenyearsandyoudmakeparole.Further,thepetitionerexplained,thisassurance D  wasthereasonheenteredtheguiltyplea.However,thepetitioneradmittedthathiscounseldid *z  notmakeanactualpromiseofthirteenyears. `  XXXXX      &  J  AnalysisJ  |Ԍ , ЌXXXX  B    ԍAnalysis  ]C  '    &    StatuteofLimitations   Ԍ  Ќ  B    ԍStatuteofLimitations  zC  ' X  First,weaddressthestatesargumentthatthispetitionforpostconvictionreliefwas t filedoutsidetheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsandthereforeshouldbetimebarred.Although Z itistruethatapersonincustodyunderasentenceofacourtofthisstatemustpetitionforpost @ convictionreliefwithinoneyearofthedateonwhichthejudgmentbecamefinalor &v considerationofthepetitionwillbetimebarred,andthatthispetitionwasfinallyfiledoverone  \ yearfromfinaljudgment,wewillnotnowrulethatthispetitionistimebarred.SeeTenn.Code B Ann.4030202(a).Thetrialcourtaddressedthismatteratthepostconvictionhearingand ( foundbyclearandconvincingevidencethatthepetitionercompliedwiththeapplicablestatute  oflimitations.Thestatepresentsnoargumentthatthisfindingwasinerror,andtherefore,we  willnotdisturbthatconclusion.Weaddress,asdidthetrialcourt,thispetitiononthemerits.       X&    B  XXXX  C  %XXXX݌̌    %XXX%XXpXX%X      %XXXXpt   IneffectiveAssistanceofCounselandInvoluntaryandUnknowingGuiltyPleat !  Ԍ V"! Ќ    %XXX%X%XXX%X    B  %XXX%XXpXX%X  ԍInvoluntaryandUnknowingGuiltyPlea  "C  %XXXXp'p!    Thepetitionerarguesthathistrialcounselwasineffectivebyincorrectlyadvisinghimas "$r# tohiseffectivesentenceandparoleeligibilityreleasedateandthereforehisguiltypleawas %X $ unknowingandinvoluntary.Wehavereviewedthepetitionersarguments,thetranscriptofthe %>!% postconvictionhearing,andtheguiltypleatranscript.Wefindthatthepetitionerhasnot &$"& demonstratedthatthetrialcourterredindenyinghispetition. ' #'   (#(   Wereviewineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimsarisingoutofguiltypleasunderthe   wellestablishedstandardsetoutinHillv.Lockhart,474U.S.52,106S.Ct.366,88L.Ed.2d  203(1985).InHill,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtaddressedtheissueofallegedinvoluntary | guiltypleasresultingfromerroneousornegligentadvicebytrialcounselandmergedthe b Stricklandtestforineffectiveassistancewiththetraditionalrequirementsforavalidguiltyplea. H Hill,474U.S.at59,106S.Ct.370.TheStricklandtestprovidesthat,toprevailonaclaimof . ~ ineffectivecounsel,thedefendantmustestablishthat(1)theservicesrenderedbycounselwere  d deficientand(2)he/shewasprejudicedbythedeficientperformance.SeeStricklandv.  J Washington,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct.2052,2064,80L.Ed.2d674(1984);Cooperv.State,  0 849S.W.2d744,746(Tenn.1993).Asappliedtoguiltypleas,thefirstprong,deficient    performanceremainsthesame,i.e.,counselfailedtoexercisethecustomaryskillanddiligence    thatreasonablycompetentcounselwouldprovideundersimilarcircumstances.SeeBaxterv.   Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975);Waltonv.State,966S.W.2d5455(Tenn.Crim.App. x  1997).However,theprejudicerequirementfocusesonwhethercounselsineffective ^  performanceaffectedtheoutcomeofthepleaprocess.SeeHill,474U.S.at58,106S.Ct.at D  370.Inotherwords,inordertosatisfytheprejudicerequirement,thedefendantmustshowthat *z  thereisareasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselserrors,hewouldnothavepledguiltyand ` wouldhaveinsistedongoingtotrial.Id.;seealsoWalton,966S.W.2dat55. F   Generally,the prejudiceinquirywillcloselyresembletheinquirycourtsmakein  reviewingineffectiveassistancechallengestoconvictionsobtainedthroughatrial.SeeHill,474  U.S.at59,106S.Ct.at370.Indeed,thefocusisnotonlyupontheactual errorcommittedby  counsel,butwhethercounselactedcompetentlyinthat(1)counselwouldhavechangedhis t recommendationastothepleaor(2)whethercompetentperformancewouldlikelyhavechanged Z theoutcomeofatrial.SeeHill,474U.S.at59,106S.Ct.at37071. @   Inthepresentcase,thepostconvictioncourtconcludedthattheappellantreceivedthe  \ competentassistanceofcounseland,consequently,enteredhispleaknowinglyandvoluntarily. B Atrialcourtsfindingsoffactinapostconvictionhearingareconclusiveonappealunlessthe ( evidenceintherecordpreponderatesagainstthosefindings.SeeHenleyv.State,960S.W.2d  572,57879(Tenn.1997);Clennyv.State,576S.W.2d12,14(Tenn.Crim.App.1978),cert.  denied.     Thetrialcourtinthiscaseheardthetestimonyofbothtrialcounselandthepetitionerand V"! evaluatedthetestimonyofthetwo,makingthesecertainexplicitfindings: <#"  X XTheCourtrulesthatthepetitionerhasnotcarriedhisburdenofproofandthat %X $ trialcounselsperformanceinnowayresultedinanyabridgmentofany %>!% constitutionalrightofthepetitioner. &$"& TheCourtfindsthatthedefendanthastestifiedinconsistentlyandthathis (#( testimonyisinconflictwiththeallegationsofhispetition.Specifically,the )$) petitionerstatesthathewastoldthathewouldbereleasedonparoleinthirteen  yearsbutstatesinthepetitionthatitwasbetweentenandtwelveyears.  Thedefendantdidtestifythatheknewthattherewerenoguaranteesastoany b paroledatesandthisisreflectedinthedocumentswhichweresubmittedtothe H Court.Althoughthedefendantalsostatedinhistestimonythathedidnot . ~ understandthattherewerenoguaranteesonrelease,thisisaninconsistencyinhis  d testimonyandisinconsistentwiththedocumentssubmittedtotheCourtand  J thereforeunderminesthecredibilityofthepetitionerstestimony.  0 TheCourthasreadthetranscriptanditisapparentfromthetranscriptthatthe    defendantknewthathecouldserveatleast45%of60yearswhichwasstatedat   theguiltypleaproceedingandthedefendantacknowledgedthatsuchwashis x  understandingofthepleaagreement. ^  TheCourtalsonotesfromthetranscriptthatthedefendantwasspecificallyasked *z  ifhewassatisfiedwithhisattorney,Mr.ODenealandhestatedthathewas. ` TheCourtfindsthatthereisnothingintheevidencethatdemonstratesbyclear , andconvincing[evidence]thatthepetitionerdidnotfullyunderstandtheplea  agreementandtheconsequencesofthatpleaespeciallythathemighthaveto  serveupto60yearsofhissentence.  Thedefendanthasfailedtodemonstratebyclearandconvincingproofthateven Z hadhemisunderstoodthepleaagreementastothelengthoftimehewould @ actuallyservethathewouldnothavepledguiltyandproceededtotrial. &v Specificallywhenaskedthedefendantcouldnotstateonefactthathecouldhave  \ presentedattrialinhisdefense.TheStatescasewasoverwhelmingandwould B inallreasonableprobabilityresultedinaconvictionoffirstdegreemurderanda ( minimumsentenceoflifeinprison.Thepetitionerhasfailedtodemonstrateby  anyproofthathewouldhaveinsistedonatrialinthiscase.  TheCourtfindsthattrialcounselwaseffectiveandcompetentandthepetitioner p!  enteredintothisagreementfullyawareofalltheconsequencesoftheplea V"! agreementincludingthepossibilityofservingupto60yearsinprisonandthat <#" therewerenopromisesorguaranteesastoanyparoledates. "$r# Thepetitionisthereforedenied. %>!%  X4 X3Accordingly,thetrialcourtruledthatthepetitionmustbedenied. ' #'   (#(   Afterextensivereviewoftherecord,thepetitionerclearlyhasnotdemonstratedthatthe   evidenceintherecordpreponderatesagainstthesefindings.Wenotethatthestatewithvery  strongevidencewasseekinglifewithoutthepossibilityofparoleandthatnoactualpromiseof | thirteenyearswasevermade.Further,wenotethattrialcounselacknowledgesthatregardlessof b theexactparoleeligibilitydate,thepetitionerwouldhavepledguiltyanywaybecausethe H evidenceagainsthimwasoverwhelmingandincludedaconfession.Therefore,weaffirmthe . ~ orderdenyingthepetitionerspetitionforpostconvictionrelief.  d %XXX%X      &  E  Conclusion EzE  JEԌ  0 Ќ%XXX%X  B    ԍConclusion  *FC      Accordingly,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialofthepetitionerspostconvictionpetition.    ' nE h___________________________________ ` JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE F  h%/4X%X