ÿWPC­  %|í ¯.ˆøj |š,Ò†­€O5xú±û‚>eÔ§±e%:nvÞmA½2êX<Ž˜gQ¬ho~×ð§ÏHâÓ¢$[Öõ MšAÝÎ5ÂûøâÏší}8µûé„]í¥P&ð´Ñ:|ürÕò'BŒÂˆ#,»‚¼,g÷Ç¥{㙘«'öf|Ü_ÅÍþb„ÎãÝ©Æ×@³¹ìçéê€QX‡óGlíF{1Ë90^—T?='‰æÚ>±î A »dÉc‹¿ÌCù:Ú#N}«ºµu¿FLƒ­‹íJ‚nžÓ®™y5‘°ÑM?''wÙ½>¿ÁDÛ46[àÌ[Œl .ƒ~‰gÀmm‹€Ê߸Ö"P=È»RØÅHàCa²ü…± ¥ˆÐ,Ÿa»!‹)Mzz¶–¬ˆÉ>»øиî7s>@ojK—,ŠœŠÝ'ã f¬°…Ô»<^¼™±Qkاܻî ÀQoß;! Ú…ü=ä#ƶØX›Á€PáÚJ ‰’n¯¸'?z‰Ádo.Ô”×Rˆ•Ùg¼ÌTAéÕU¼¶ 3luÀ!<³•Š£ò²¿á%·½9×~¾•½!±oõ«Á³W­™ÎU{Ò!t\Mw(QϘb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ ¹ #ÁÐ Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã ©N® 0D°êôEÞøàºØ’ššššššššššššššššššššb¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ 0몪ªª B•• 0¤² D3V D-‰ 0K¶¶ ASÆT 0¤ 0D¾ A« »Âx^+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+ Î¥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 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ûÝ ƒR-à$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àAt€the€time€of€Deanððs€trial,€the€relevant€statutory€provision€stated€that€ð ðupon€the€motion€of€either€partyÐ ° Ð.€.€.,€the€court€shall€charge€the€possible€penalties€for€the€offense€charged€and€all€lesser€included€offenses.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ tÄ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„201(b)€(1997).€€Effective€May€18,€1998,€this€statute€was€rewritten€and€now€provides€that€the€trial€courtÐ 8ˆ Ðmay€no€longer€instruct€the€jury€with€respect€to€the€possible€penalties€for€the€charged€offense€or€lesser€included€offenses.€Ð üL ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)€(Supp.€2000).€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó àÝ ƒR-à$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àAt€the€time€òòÔ_ÔOvertonÔ_Ôóó€was€convicted,€rape€was€committed€only€if€a€defendant€used€ð ðforceðð€and€a€victimÐ ° Ðð ðresisted€in€every€way€possible€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€trial€court,€however,€instructed€the€jury€that€ð ðforce€or€coercionðð€could€beÐ tÄ Ðestablished€by€the€use€of€ð ðparental,€custodial,€or€official€authority€over€a€child€less€than€fifteen€years€of€ageðð€ð!ð€a€statutoryÐ 8ˆ Ðdefinition€that€was€not€applicable€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€We€observed€that€the€error€ð ðcould€have€been€instrumentalððÐ üL Ðin€securing€the€conviction€because€the€defendant€used€his€parental€authority€and€not€physical€force€in€committing€theÐ À Ðoffenses.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔOvertonÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó€874€S.W.2d€at€11. îÝ ƒR-à$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àDean€was€indicted€for€the€offenses€of€first€degree€murder€and€attempt€to€commit€first€degree€murder. °Ý ƒR-à$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àWe€later€reaffirmed€the€rationale€in€òòCookóó€in€holding€that€a€trial€courtððs€instruction€to€the€jury€containingÐ ° Ðan€inaccurate€release€eligibility€date€for€the€charged€offense€was€reversible€error.€€òòState€v.€Meyeróó,€994€S.W.2d€129€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð1999).  öÝ ƒR-à$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àð ð[Ô_ÔI]nÔ_Ô€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€theÐ ° Ðadmission€or€exclusion€of€evidence,€òòjury€instructions€granted€or€refusedóó,€misconduct€of€jurors,€parties€or€counsel,€or€otherÐ tÄ Ðaction€committed€or€occurring€during€the€trial€of€the€case,€or€other€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€is€sought,€unless€theÐ 8ˆ Ðsame€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial;€otherwise,€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð üL ÐP.€3(e)€(emphasis€added).- ù-(|G2-à$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô­¥ò»»Ô d(|3n$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3n$¢¢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€I1XXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î\ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼»îî\ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€5,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XI1X»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXI1ó#ÔFRED€EDMOND€DEAN€A/K/A€Ô_ÔOMAWALIÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔASHANTIÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSHABAZZÔ_ԀРúJ Ðv.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XI1X»¼Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€By€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ  ^ ÐCircuit€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C40,€348€€€€€€R.€Jerry€Beck,€JudgeÐ æ 6  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1998„00135„SC„R11„PC€„€Filed€October€30,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»XXI1ò#ÔÔ€XI1X»¼Ôà  àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€the€petitioner€properly€raised€a€claim€ofÐ xÈ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding€when€it€was€based€upon€the€failureÐ d´ Ðof€defense€counsel€to€object€to€or€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€erroneous€range€of€punishment€instructionÐ P  Ðto€the€jury€on€the€offense€of€attempted€second€degree€murder.€€We€conclude€(1)€that€the€issue€ofÐ <Œ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€was€properly€raised€in€the€post„conviction€proceeding€and€(2)€thatÐ (x Ðdefense€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€or€appeal€the€erroneous€jury€instruction€fell€below€the€rangeÐ d Ðof€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€and€was€prejudicial€to€the€petitioner.€WeÐ P Ðtherefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.à È àÐ ì< ÐÌÓNÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ Ä ÐAffirmed€ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€C.J.,€óóÐ ˆØ Ðand€òòÔ_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€Janice€M.€Holderóó€andòò€William€M.€Barker,óó€JJ.,€joined.Ð t Ä ÐÌRichard€L.€Gaines,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Fred€Edmond€Dean.Ð L"œ! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Mark€E.Ð $$t# ÐDavidson,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Greeley€Wells,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Barry€Ô_ÔStaubusÔ_Ô,Ð %` $ ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü%L!% ÐÓç ÓÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ À($( Ðâ âÐ ¬)ü$)ýÿ ÐÔ_ÔÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner,€Fred€Edmond€Dean,€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder€€and€attemptedÐ ° Ðsecond€degree€murder€in€1995.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€sentenced€Dean€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€toÐ œì Ðâ âthirty€years€for€the€second€degree€murder€conviction€and€fifteen€years€for€the€attempted€secondÐ ˆØ Ðdegree€murder€conviction.€€The€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal€by€theÐ tÄ ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals,€and€this€Court€denied€permission€to€appeal.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àDean€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€July€of€1997,€which€alleged,€among€otherÐ 8 ˆ Ðgrounds,€that€Dean€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€TheÐ $ t Ðasserted€basis€for€the€claim€was€that€Deanððs€trial€and€appellate€counsel€failed€to€object€to€or€appealÐ  ` Ðthe€following€instruction€to€the€jury€with€regard€to€the€range€of€punishment€for€attempted€first€degreeÐ ü L  Ðmurder€and€its€lesser€included€offenses:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAttempt€to€Commit€First€Degree€Murder,€fifteen€to€forty€years;Ð À  ÐòòAttempt€to€Commit€Second€Degree€Murder,€three€to€ten€yearsóó;Ð ¬ü  ÐAttempt€to€Commit€Voluntary€Manslaughter;€two€to€eight€years;Ð ˜è  ÐAggravated€Assault,€three€to€ten€years;€Assault,€zero€to€eleven€monthsÐ „Ô  Ðand€twenty„nine€days;€Attempt€to€Commit€Assault,€zero€to€sixÐ pÀ Ðmonths.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌThe€petition€alleged€that€the€instruction€was€error€because€it€stated€that€the€sentencing€range€for€theÐ 4„ Ðoffense€of€attempted€second€degree€murder€€was€three€to€ten€years,€when€in€fact€it€was€eight€to€thirtyÐ  p Ðyears.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àAt€an€evidentiary€hearing,€Deanððs€trial€counsel€testified€that€he€was€unaware€that€the€rangeÐ ä4 Ðof€punishment€instruction€was€incorrect.€€Counsel€also€testified€that€he€was€unfamiliar€with€theÐ Ð  Ðdecision€in€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€in€which€this€Court€held€that€a€defendant€was€entitled€to€a€new€trial€whereÐ ¼  Ðthe€jury€was€improperly€informed€that€the€possible€penalties€for€the€charged€offense€were€lower€thanÐ ¨ø Ðthey€actually€were.€€816€S.W.2d€322,€326€(Tenn.€1991).€€Although€Deanððs€appellate€counsel€did€notÐ ”ä Ðtestify€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€it€is€clear€that€this€issue€was€not€preserved€in€the€motion€forÐ €Ð Ða€new€trial,€nor€was€it€raised€on€direct€appeal.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€post„conviction€relief€on€this€ground€after€concluding€that€theÐ D!” Ðerroneous€range€of€punishment€instruction€was€a€statutory€error€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð 0"€  Ð201(b)€and€not€a€constitutional€error€that€is€cognizable€in€post„conviction€proceedings.€€The€CourtÐ #l! Ðâ âof€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€after€concluding€that€counselððs€failure€to€objectÐ $X" Ðto€or€appeal€the€issue€violated€the€petitionerððs€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€under€theÐ ° ÐUnited€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€€€€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€resolve€this€question€and€to€clarify€what€acts€or€omissions€mayÐ tÄ Ðserve€as€the€basis€for€a€post„conviction€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Ð `° ÐÌÌà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISˆÐ $ t Ðó óÌà@))ìàòòò òPost„Conviction€Issuesóóó óˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€parties€agree€that€the€range€of€punishment€charge€to€the€jury€with€respect€to€theÐ Ô$  Ðoffense€of€attempted€second€degree€murder€was€error,€the€threshold€issue€is€whether€the€petitionerÐ À  Ðhas€raised€an€issue€that€is€cognizable€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€The€Post„ConvictionÐ ¬ü  ÐProcedure€Act€provides€that€relief€ð ðshall€be€granted€when€the€conviction€or€sentence€is€void€orÐ ˜è  Ðvoidable€because€of€the€abridgment€of€any€right€guaranteed€by€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€or€theÐ „Ô  ÐConstitution€of€the€United€States.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203€(1997).€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€determined€that€the€error€violated€a€statutoryÐ H˜ Ðright€which€is€not€a€cognizable€ground€for€post„conviction€relief€and€that€an€erroneous€juryÐ 4„ Ðinstruction€may€not€be€challenged€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€The€State€relies€upon€òòOvertonÐ  p Ðv.€Stateóó,€in€which€this€Court€affirmed€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€based€on€the€trial€courtððsÐ  \ Ðimproper€instructions€to€the€jury€with€respect€to€elements€of€the€charged€offense€of€aggravated€rape.€Ð øH Ð874€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€1994).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€particular,€the€State€notes€that€this€Court€stated€that€ð ðto€allow€everyÐ ä4 Ðerror€committed€by€the€trial€court€to€be€recast€in€a€post„conviction€petition€as€an€ineffectiveÐ Ð  Ðassistance€of€counsel€allegation€would€be€to€subvert€the€limited€purposes€of€the€post„convictionÐ ¼  Ðprocedure.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€12.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€on€the€other€hand,€argues€that€the€failure€of€defense€counsel€to€object€to€orÐ €Ð Ðappeal€the€incorrect€range€of€punishment€instruction€to€the€jury€violated€his€right€to€the€effectiveÐ l¼ Ðassistance€of€counsel€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999)€(ð ðBoth€the€€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÐ D!” ÐArticle€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€guarantee€the€criminally€accused€the€right€toÐ 0"€  Ðrepresentation€of€counsel.ðð).€€The€defendant€maintains€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctlyÐ #l! Ðdistinguished€òòOvertonóóby€finding€that€the€language€relied€upon€by€the€State€was€ð ðcautioning€againstÐ $X" Ðâ âthe€use€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€as€a€mechanism€for€bringing€otherwise€improper€issuesÐ ô$D # Ðbefore€the€post„conviction€courtsðð€and€was€not€ð ðcarving€out€a€ððfailure€to€object€to€jury€instructionsððÐ ° Ðexception€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claims.ðð€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€interpretation€of€òòOvertonóóis€correct.€€We€did€not€state€inÐ tÄ ÐòòOvertonóóthat€a€post„conviction€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim€may€never€be€based€on€trialÐ `° Ðcounselððs€failure€to€object€or€appeal€erroneous€jury€instructions.€€Nor€did€we€adopt€the€view€that€anÐ L œ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim€may€only€be€based€on€counselððs€deficient€performanceÐ 8 ˆ Ðrelative€to€a€separate€constitutional€right.€€To€the€contrary,€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€stated,Ð $ t Ðthe€ð ðabridgment€of€the€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€does€not€require€thatÐ  ` Ðcounselððs€act€or€omission€involve€a€violation€of€another€constitutional€right.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOur€decisions€following€òòOvertonóóillustrate€that€we€have€not€adopted€the€unduly€restrictiveÐ Ô$  Ðview€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€advocated€by€the€State.€€In€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€the€defendantÐ À  Ðfiled€a€post„conviction€petition€alleging€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€seek€theÐ ¬ü  Ðidentity€of€a€confidential€informant.€44€S.W.3d€508€(Tenn.€2001).€€This€Court€concluded:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWe€need€not€reach€the€issue€of€whether€the€right€to€disclosure€isÐ pÀ Ðconstitutional.€€We€are€not€presented€with€the€question€of€whetherÐ \¬ Ðnondisclosure€violated€Houseððs€constitutional€rights.€€Rather,€theÐ H˜ Ðconstitutional€claim€in€this€case€is€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ 4„ Ðbased€on€counselððs€failure€to€seek€disclosure.Ð p` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€513.€€Similarly,€in€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€we€held€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÐ øH Ðexplore€and€present€mitigating€evidence€in€the€sentencing€phase€of€a€capital€trial€and€that€theÐ ä4 Ðdeficiency€was€prejudicial€to€the€petitioner.€€938€S.W.2d€363€(Tenn.€1996).€€Our€holding€didÐ Ð  Ðòònotóórequire€a€finding€that€a€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€present€mitigating€evidenceÐ ¼  Ðseparate€and€apart€from€the€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòId.óó€at€369.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€constitutional€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€underÐ €Ð Ðthe€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€is€a€cognizable€issue€in€post„conviction€proceedingsÐ l¼ Ðirrespective€of€whether€counselððs€alleged€deficiency€implicated€a€separate€constitutional€error,€aÐ X ¨ Ðstatutory€error,€a€jury€instructional€error,€or€any€other€type€of€error€or€deficient€performance.€€AÐ D!” Ðdefendant€has€the€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€without€categoricalÐ 0"€  Ðrestrictions.€€We€therefore€hold€that€the€petitioner€properly€raised€the€issue€of€his€constitutional€rightÐ #l! Ðto€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Ð $X" ÐÌÌà  à€à@vvìàò òòòIneffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óˆÐ Ì&"% ÐóóÌà  àA€constitutional€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€reviewed€under€the€familiarÐ ¨(ø#' Ðstandards€of€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975),€and€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð ”)ä$( Ðâ â668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984).€€A€petitioner€must€establish€that€counselððsÐ €*Ð%) Ðperformance€was€deficient€and€that€the€deficiency€prejudiced€the€defense.€€òòSeeóó€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2dÐ ° Ðat€936;€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àCounsel€is€effective€if€the€advice€given€or€the€services€rendered€are€ð ðwithin€the€range€ofÐ tÄ Ðcompetence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936.€€To€prove€aÐ `° Ðdeficiency,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€acts€or€omissions€were€so€serious€as€to€fall€belowÐ L œ Ðan€objective€standard€of€ð ðreasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð 8 ˆ Ðat€688,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065.€To€prove€prejudice,€a€petitioner€must€establish€a€reasonable€probabilityÐ $ t Ðthat€but€for€counselððs€errors€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€ð ðreasonableÐ  ` Ðprobability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòóó466€U.S.€at€694,€104Ð ü L  ÐS.€Ct.€at€2068.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAlthough€we€have€never€adopted€an€exhaustive€list€of€criteria€for€counsel€to€satisfy€in€allÐ À  Ðcases,€we€have€cited€with€approval€the€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€the€American€Bar€AssociationÐ ¬ü  ÐStandards€for€the€Defense€Function.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€462.€€The€following€provisions€areÐ ˜è  Ðrelevant€in€this€case:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àCounsel€must€conduct€appropriate€investigations,€òòboth€factual€andÐ \¬ Ðlegal,€to€determine€what€matters€of€defense€can€be€developedóó.€€.€.€.Ð H˜ ÐThis€means€that€in€most€cases€a€defense€attorney,€or€his€agent,€shouldÐ 4„ Ðinterview€not€only€his€own€witnesses€but€also€those€that€theÐ  p ÐGovernment€intends€to€call,€when€they€are€accessible.€€TheÐ  \ Ðinvestigation€should€always€include€efforts€to€secure€information€inÐ øH Ðthe€possession€of€the€prosecution€and€law€enforcement€authorities.€Ð ä4 ÐòòAnd,€of€course,€the€duty€to€investigate€also€requires€adequate€legalÐ Ð  Ðresearchóó.м ` x` x ÐÌòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€at€933€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1203„04Ð ”ä Ð(D.C.€Cir.€1973))€(emphasis€added).€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€parties€agree€that€the€trial€courtððs€instruction€to€the€jury€on€the€possibleÐ X ¨ Ðpenalties€for€attempted€second€degree€murder€was€made€in€error.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð D!” Ð201(b)€(1997).€€In€our€view,€effective€counsel€must€be€aware€of€the€possible€punishments€applicableÐ 0"€  Ðto€his€or€her€client€and€must€be€informed€and€attentive€when€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€to€the€juryÐ #l! Ðembrace€such€an€obviously€critical€matter.€€Moreover,€our€decision€in€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€whichÐ $X" Ðemphasized€that€an€erroneous€range€of€punishment€instruction€similar€to€that€given€in€this€caseÐ ô$D # Ðconstitutes€reversible€error,€was€decided€òòfour€yearsóó€prior€to€the€trial€in€this€case€and€an€effectiveÐ à%0!$ Ðcounsel€should€have€been€aware€of€it.€€òòSeeóó€816€S.W.2d€322€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àDeanððs€trial€counsel€nevertheless€failed€to€notice€the€incorrect€jury€instruction,€failed€to€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaware€of€the€appropriate€ranges€of€punishment,€failed€to€object€to€the€erroneous€instruction€duringÐ )à$( Ðtrial,€and€failed€to€preserve€the€erroneous€instruction€for€appeal€by€listing€it€in€the€motion€for€a€newÐ |*Ì%) Ðtrial.€€Deanððs€appellate€counsel€likewise€failed€to€raise€the€issue€on€direct€appeal.€€All€of€theseÐ h+¸&* Ðfunctions€are€basic,€yet€essential,€for€preserving€and€raising€errors€under€our€rules€of€appellateÐ ° Ðprocedure.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€our€view,€therefore,€the€performance€of€counsel€wasÐ œì Ðdeficient€under€the€prevailing€standards€in€òòBaxteróó€and€òòStricklandóó.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àHaving€concluded€that€there€was€a€deficiency€in€the€performance€of€counsel,€the€remainingÐ `° Ðportion€of€the€òòBaxter/Stricklandóó€analysis€requires€us€to€decide€whether€the€deficiency€was€prejudicialÐ L œ Ðto€the€defense.€€To€conclude€that€prejudice€exists,€we€must€determine€that€there€is€a€reasonableÐ 8 ˆ Ðprobability€that€but€for€counselððs€errors€the€result€would€have€been€different.€€ò òÐ $ t ÐÌà  àó óApplying€this€analysis,€weò ò€ó óbelieve€that€the€deficiency€in€performanceò ò€ó ówas€prejudicial€ò òó ógivenÐ ü L  Ðthe€critical€nature€of€the€error€that€was€permitted€to€occur€without€objection€or€appeal.€€At€the€timeÐ ì <  Ðof€this€trial,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)€required€thatò ò€ó óthe€jury€know€the€range€of€punishmentÐ Ø(  Ðfor€an€offense€òòbeforeóódeciding€a€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence€for€the€offense.€€As€this€Courtò òÐ È  Ðó óobserved€in€òòCookóó:Ð ´  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€is€widely€perceived€by€those€who€observed€the€operations€of€ourÐ ŒÜ  Ðtrial€courts€in€previous€times,€when€juries€had€the€additionalÐ xÈ Ðresponsibility€of€setting€punishment,€that€often€they€seemed€to€findÐ d´ Ðguilt€of€a€crime€not€necessarily€most€strongly€suggested€by€theÐ P  Ðevidence,€but€one€the€punishment€for€which€suited€their€sense€ofÐ <Œ Ðjustice€for€the€case.€€Apparently€the€Legislature€desired€to€give€thoseÐ (x Ðcharged€with€crimes€the€option€of€making€certain€that€the€jury€knewÐ d Ðthe€punitive€consequences€of€guilty€verdicts€in€the€cases€underÐ P Ðconsideration.€.€.€.Ðì<` x` x ÐÌòòCookóó,€816€S.W.2d€at€326„27.׃d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Moreover,€we€specified€in€òòCookò òóó€ó óthat€prejudice€occurs€when€aÐ Ä Ðdefendant€ð!ð€like€Dean€ð!ð€receives€a€sentence€greater€than€the€range€of€punishment€contemplated€byÐ ´ Ðthe€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€327.€€€€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àIn€this€case€the€jury€was€told€by€the€trial€judgeò ò€ó óthat€the€applicable€range€of€punishment€forÐ xÈ Ðthe€offense€of€attempted€second€degree€murder€was€three€to€ten€years€when€in€fact€it€was€òòeight€toÐ h ¸ Ðthirty€yearsóó.€€Moreover,ò ò€ó óthe€range€applicable€to€Dean€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender€was€twelve€toÐ T!¤ Ðtwenty€years.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(b)(2)€(1997).€€The€jury€therefore€was€furnishedò òÐ D"”  Ðó ówith€substantially€inaccurate€information€that€may€have€affected€its€deliberation€when€it€consideredÐ 0#€! Ðthe€charged€offense€and€lesser€offenses.€€Indeed,€the€jury€was€told€that€the€punishment€for€attemptedÐ ° Ðsecond€degree€murder€was€identical€to€that€for€aggravated€assault€and€nearly€identical€to€that€ofÐ œì Ðattempted€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Moreover,€Dean€was€later€sentenced€by€the€trial€judgeò ò€ó óto€fifteenÐ ˆØ Ðyears€for€the€offense€of€attempted€second„€degree€murder,€òòi.e.óó,€a€sentence€greater€than€the€punishmentÐ xÈ Ðcontemplated€by€the€jury€for€that€offense.€€In€our€view,€it€is€reasonably€probable€that€had€counselÐ d´ Ðobjected€to€and€appealed€the€erroneous€jury€instruction,€the€result€would€have€been€different€and€theÐ P   Ðpetitioner€would€have€received€a€new€trial€on€the€offense€of€attempted€second€degree€murder€€underÐ < Œ Ðour€decision€in€òòCookóó.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€petitioner€was€prejudiced€by€the€deficientÐ ( x Ðperformance€of€counsel.Ð  d ÐÌÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONˆÐ Ø(  ÐÌà  àó óAfter€consideration€of€the€issues€and€applicable€law,€we€conclude€(1)€that€the€issue€ofÐ °  Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€was€properly€raised€in€the€post„conviction€proceeding€and€(2)€thatÐ œì  Ðdefense€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€or€appeal€the€erroneous€jury€instruction€fell€below€the€rangeÐ ˆØ  Ðof€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€and€was€prejudicial€to€the€petitioner.€WeÐ tÄ Ðtherefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÐ `° ÐState€of€Tennessee.ò òÐ Lœ Ðó óÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð üL Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÐ è8 ÐÌ