ÿWPCÖ/ }µ%nÉ–ÁgbP‘Ÿ'ÁÀ?ì§l7¦Ih\7-Ç ã¼¥,¼a¿ý!޵ÝViøL‰©• ]œû»õnDLæÊ•Ë.Qóå¨;ãÒØpŽt®,}| Î.ØÉ‡ª.ч5{·Jûƒ›Uˆ%)ú[ÑR«DuCF†£Dg˜èŦ~µw¦yù.H’ç\ÏÒœ…&@åì§Ÿßù\ÙÛ / Bð¦2ø!Ÿ’º÷QT[]_Ôø‡N©RkЙýŸ.ô`ÜÚ%±ˆ³`©Ê÷=sW8Þ#~ƒ• ƒÆ°ðÚ nou"µÚ—tdÞd#Ù+Þ^'i¨cD$W7i`"gü…@~YI¥Í"ÞŽQ]« Ò8–AùˆB ¼Ü«z.$ijPPÃðxfÖnÍmÄ&®©†0ø ; BuÎÚv»Ny oÔhn0À˜jv½þ6ñ¹‡ôà?VÒsÕC•kÿaâ˜EJeHZ¨W=Mì_‰N^@üõÉj i*;¿¼øAºcn Ú\Û‹•]goö¿fŸ†Ï"×ko‰k‡À°¬€Qé!:‚£ißùÿ_ûáýUÝ0¢ hþé4Ìø ÔYkdOZ÷iÞ^;Pð›†ËMäcB·ut+×s#ÁJ % 0 D 0ˆU UNÝ Ì+ UN÷ zE Ò¿ ‘ ‡™ U@ ñ`ÆQÆÆÝÆ£NiNkmÖsEIáKÐ,aü^ ] wi 4m   m’ N© « « « « À À À À À À À Ö Ö Ö b¬*¬*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´*´* 0 ëÉ*É*É*É* B´+´+ 0¤Ñ+ D3u, D-¨, 0KÕ,Õ, AS -Æs- 0¤9. 0DÝ. A«!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/!/  Ì/˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0»(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ÂÝ ƒRí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‹X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôf_ òXX‹ÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„12„102€(1997).(uHš Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt  }Ý ƒRí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‹X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôf_ òXX‹ÔIt€is€the€defendantððs€burden€to€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòBurnsóó,€6Ð ° ÐS.W.3d€at€461;€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman  çÝ ƒRí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‹X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôf_ òXX‹ÔGarrison€was€accused€of€having€embezzled€money€from€his€business€partners.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 üÝ ƒRí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‹X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ*°,X°½™X°œX*ÓÔ€ôf_ òXX‹ÔApparently,€Garrison€expected€to€receive€a€new€trial. ÌÝ ƒRí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‹X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôf_ òXX‹Ô618€S.W.2d€320,€323„24€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981). ×Ý ƒRí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‹X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôf_ òXX‹ÔThe€trial€court€omitted€this€language€because€it€found€that€Garrison€never€paid€the€initial€$500€fee€that€had€beenÐ ° Ðagreed€upon€for€the€alleged€murder„for„hire,€and€thus€there€was€no€completed€contract€of€hire€between€Garrison€and€theÐ tÄ ÐTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€agent. ÆÝ ƒRí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‹X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôf_ òXX‹ÔWe€find€the€language€of€the€statute€to€be€unambiguous.€€The€foundation€of€statutory€construction€is€to€ascertainÐ ° Ðand€give€effect€to€the€intention€and€purpose€of€the€legislature.€€òòÔ_ÔWorrallÔ_Ô€v.€Kroger€Co.óó,€545€S.W.2d€736€(Tenn.€1977).€Ð tÄ ЀThis€legislative€intent€or€purpose€is€to€be€ascertained€primarily€from€the€natural€and€ordinary€meaning€of€the€languageÐ 8ˆ Ðused,€without€forced€or€subtle€construction€that€would€limit€or€extend€the€meaning€of€the€language.€€ð ðWhere€the€languageÐ üL Ðcontained€within€the€four€corners€of€a€statute€is€plain,€clear,€and€unambiguous€and€the€enactment€is€within€legislativeÐ À Ðcompetency,€ððthe€duty€of€the€courts€is€simple€and€obvious,€namely,€to€say€sic€lex€scripta,€and€obey€it.ðððð€€òòCarson€CreekÐ „Ô ÐVacation€Resorts,€Inc.€v.€State,€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€865€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€òòMiller€v.€Childressóó,€21€Tenn.€Ð H ˜ Ð(2€Hum.)€319,€321-22€(1841)). WÝ ƒRí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‹X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôf_ òXX‹ÔAs€stated€in€the€Standards€for€Criminal€Justice€of€the€American€Bar€Association:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBecause€plea€discussions€are€usually€held€without€the€accused€being€present,€theÐ 8ˆ Ðlawyer€has€the€duty€to€communicate€fully€to€the€client€the€substance€of€theÐ üL Ðdiscussions.€.€.€.€€[T]he€client€should€be€given€sufficient€information€to€participateÐ À Ðintelligently€in€the€decision€whether€to€accept€or€reject€a€plea€proposal.€€It€isÐ „Ô Ðimportant€that€the€accused€be€informed€both€of€the€existence€and€the€content€ofÐ H ˜ Ðproposals€made€by€the€prosecutor;€the€accused,€not€the€lawyer,€has€the€right€toÐ  \ Ðdecide€whether€to€accept€or€reject€a€prosecution€proposal€.€.€.€.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌABA€Standards€for€Criminal€Justice:€€Prosecution€Function€and€Defense€Function,€std.€4„6.2€commentary€(3d€ed.€1993).€šv)â UUb)Hšê:i¢Ø+003|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ñ  Ñ Ñ ° Ñ Ì Ý ƒRí$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€X‹X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôf_ òXX‹Ôà8 ` àà ¸ àDespite€the€strong€interests€that€support€application€of€the€harmless€errorÐ ° Ðdoctrine,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€this€Court€have€consistently€held€thatÐ tÄ Ðsome€errors€defy€harmless€error€analysis€and€require€reversal.€€The€cases€in€whichÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€this€Court€have€refused€to€apply€the€harmlessÐ üL Ðerror€doctrine€involve€errors€that€are€ð ðstructural€defects€in€the€constitution€of€theÐ À Ðtrial€mechanism.ðð€€These€errors€have€an€impact€upon€ð ð[t]he€entire€conduct€of€theÐ „Ô Ðtrial€from€beginning€to€end.ðð€€€Stated€another€way,€ð ðthese€errors€deprive€defendantsÐ H ˜ Ðof€ððbasic€protectionsðð€without€which€ðða€criminal€trial€cannot€reliably€serve€itsÐ  \ Ðfunction€as€a€vehicle€for€determination€of€guilt€or€innocence€.€.€.€and€no€criminalÐ Ð  Ðpunishment€may€be€regarded€as€fundamentally€fair.ððððД ä ` x` x ÐÌòòMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€165€(Tenn.€1999)(citations€omitted).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€noted€thatÐ  l  Ðstructural€error€analysis€is€appropriate€only€in€a€ð ðvery€limited€class€of€cases,ðð€typically€where€the€error€has€compromisedÐ à 0  Ðthe€integrity€of€the€trial€process.€€òòSeeóó€€òòJohnson€v.€United€Statesóó,€520€U.S.€461,€468,€117€S.€Ct.€1544,€137€L.€Ed.€2d€€718Ð ¤ô  Ð(1997)€(citing€òòGideon€v.€Wainwrightóó,€372€U.S.€335,€83€S.€Ct.€792,€9€L.€Ed.€2d€799€(1963)€(complete€denial€of€theÐ h¸  Ðassistance€of€counsel);€òòTumey€v.€Ohioóó,€273€U.S.€510,€47€S.€Ct.€437,€71€L.€Ed.€749€(1927)€(biased€trial€judge);€òòVasquezÐ ,|  Ðv.€Hilleryóó,€474€U.S.€254,€106€S.€Ct.€617,€88€L.€Ed.€2d€598€(1986)€(racial€discrimination€in€selection€of€grand€jury);Ð ð@  ÐòòMcKaskle€v.€Wigginsóó,€465€U.S.€168,€104€S.€Ct.€944,€79€L.Ed.€2d€122€(1984)€(denial€of€self„representation€at€trial);Ð ´  ÐòòWaller€v.€Georgiaóó,€467€U.S.€39,€104€S.€Ct.€2210,€81€L.€Ed.€2d€31€(1984)€(denial€of€public€trial);€òòSullivan€v.€Louisianaóó,Ð xÈ  Ð508€U.S.€275,€113€S.€Ct.€2078,€124€L.€Ed.€2d€182€(1993)€(defective€reasonable„doubt€instruction)).Ð <Œ  Ð- ù- Ñ  Ñ(|G2í$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X/,X»»Ô d(|3Mú$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Mú$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK11Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€[Ü»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼Áÿ»»»ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€-,XXdê»»d 8ÑÑ€0@¸Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îÇÁÿÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ Ö& Ðà@00ìàJanuary€4,€2000€SessionÔ#†¼Áÿ»îîÇ#ԈРüL ÐÔ‡X‹X»¼ÁÿÔÌò òÔ#†¼Áÿ»XX‹ý#ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€JOHN€C.€GARRISONó óÐ  ^ ÐÓCÓÌÔ€X‹X»¼ÁÿÔà@/ / ìàò òAppeal€by€permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsˆÐ 4 „ Ðà@SSìàCircuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô€CountyˆÐ  p Ðà@  ìàNo.€10436€€€€€€Thomas€W.€Graham,€JudgeˆÐ  \ ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` A߈Ð Ð  ÐÌà@† † ìàNo.€E1997„00045„SC„R11„CD€„€Filed€November€22,€2000ˆÐ Ë  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÐ £ó  Ðó óÌThe€defendant,€John€C.€Garrison,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€solicitation€to€commit€first€degreeÐ žî Ðmurder.€€In€this€appeal,€he€raises€two€issues:€€(1)€whether€trial€counselððs€failure€to€communicate€aÐ ŠÚ Ðplea€bargain€offer€from€the€State€is€per€se€prejudicial€to€the€extent€necessary€to€satisfy€the€prejudiceÐ vÆ Ðprong€of€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984);€and€(2)Ð b² Ðwhether€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€when€it€failedò ò€ó óto€instruct€the€jury€that€theÐ Nž Ðð ðrequest,ðð€as€used€in€the€statutory€definition€of€the€offense€of€solicitation,€must€be€intentional.€€AfterÐ >Ž Ða€thorough€consideration€of€the€record€and€a€full€review€of€the€authorities,€we€conclude€that€trialÐ *z Ðcounselððs€failure€to€communicate€a€plea€bargain€offer€does€not€demonstrate,€alone,€prejudiceÐ f Ðsufficient€to€satisfy€the€second€prong€of€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó.€€We€conclude€alsoò ò€ó óthat€the€trial€courtððs€omissionÐ R Ðof€certain€required€language€from€the€jury€instruction€constitutes€harmless€error.€€The€judgment€ofÐ òB Ðthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is,€therefore,€reversed€and€the€case€is€dismissed.Ð Þ. ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ¶ ÐReversed€and€the€Case€Dismissedó óÐ ¢ò ÐÓx ÓÌòòAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòÔ% ‡r Ô€ò òÔ‡ X‹XàX‹Ôó óE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,Ð z!Ê  ÐFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€Janice€M.€Holder,€óóJJ.,€and€òòJohn€K.Ô%†r„ ÔÔ#†X‹Xà X‹• #Ô€Byers,€S.J.,óó€joined.òòóóÐ f"¶! ÐÌMichael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€Michael€J.€Ô_ÔFaheyÔ_Ô,€II,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€JamesÐ >$Ž# ÐMichael€Taylor,€District€Attorney€General,€and€James€W.€Pope,€III,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ *%z $ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð &f!% ÐÌGregory€P.€Isaacs,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€John€Clark€Garrison.Ð î'>#' ÐÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ²*&* ÐÑ8€‹XdìXXdê8ÑÌÌÐ v-Æ(-ý÷ ÐÔ_Ôà@üüìàI.€€Facts€and€Procedural€HistoryˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àAs€a€factual€prelude€to€our€discussion€of€the€case€under€submission,€John€C.€Garrison,€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant,€pleaded€guilty€and€was€convicted€of€two€counts€of€theft€over€$10,000.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€was€sentencedÐ tÄ Ðto€concurrent€terms€of€eight€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Garrison€was€irate€that€he€hadÐ `° Ðnot€received€probation.€€Incarcerated€during€the€pendency€of€the€appeal€of€the€eight„year€sentence,Ð L œ Ðhe€discussed€his€case€with€fellow€inmates.€€He€specifically€mentioned€the€ð ðunavailabilityðð€of€one€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€witnesses€who€had€testified€against€him€and€the€withdrawal€of€his€plea€of€guilty.€€He€intimatedÐ $ t Ðto€them€that€were€the€two€above„mentioned€events€to€occur,€there€would€be€insufficient€evidence€Ð  ` Ðto€convict€him€of€theft.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€These€discussions€included€references€to€the€possibility€of€procuring€thisÐ ü L  Ðwitnessððs€murder.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àDuring€the€course€of€these€discussions,€Garrison€engaged€in€separate€discussions€with€prisonÐ À  Ðofficials.€€He€told€them€that€he€had€been€approached€by€other€inmates€with€offers€to€arrange€theÐ ¬ü  Ðmurder€of€the€witness.€€Also€during€this€period€of€intrigue,€and€unbeknownst€to€Garrison,€some€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€discussions€were€recorded.€€One€taping€was€done€by€an€agent€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÐ „Ô  ÐInvestigation€posing€as€a€ð ðkiller€for€hire.ðð€€The€other€taping€was€accomplished€by€an€inmateÐ pÀ Ðinformant.€€The€evidence€preserved€on€the€tapes€tended€to€establish€that€Garrison€indeed€solicitedÐ \¬ Ðthe€murder€of€the€witness.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àGarrison€was€indicted€for€solicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murder,׃à×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€the€trial€was€setÐ  p Ðfor€May€15,€1995.€€He€believed€he€would€be€acquitted€and€retained€Thomas€N.€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô,€Esquire.€Ð  \ ÐÔ_ÔDePersioÔ_Ôððs€absence€from€his€office€for€the€full€month€of€March€and€a€week€in€April€1995€(apparentlyÐ øH Ðbecause€of€ð ðdepressionðð),€his€missed€appointments,€and€his€unanswered€telephone€calls€led€GarrisonÐ ä4 Ðto€suspect€that€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€had€not€properly€investigated€the€case.€€Garrison€asked€him€directly€aboutÐ Ð  Ðhis€readiness€for€trial.€€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€assured€him€that€he€was€ready.€€At€no€point€before€the€completionÐ ¼  Ðof€the€proof€did€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€reveal€that€the€State€had€offered€a€plea€agreement€of€a€ten€year€sentenceÐ ¨ø Ðas€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€theft€sentences.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAt€trial€for€solicitation€to€commit€murder,€Garrison€testified€that€he€had€engaged€in€pretenseÐ l¼ Ðwhen€he€had€discussed€hiring€a€killer€with€the€informant€and€with€the€agent.€€As€his€reason€for€theÐ X ¨ Ðpretense,€he€said€that€he€did€not€want€to€engender€the€suspicions€of€the€inmates€while€he€wasÐ D!” Ðgathering€information€to€assist€officials€in€apprehending€the€would„be€murderers.€€The€jury€rejectedÐ 0"€  Ðthis€testimony€and€convicted€Garrison€of€solicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€He€wasÐ #l! Ðsentenced€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€to€sixteen€years€imprisonment€to€be€served€consecutivelyÐ $X" Ðto€the€theft€sentences.Ð ô$D # ÐòòóóÌÐ  Ì&"% ÐÑ€!P¸ÑÑ€%OaÑà@$ìàII.€€AnalysisˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ìàA.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àPrior€to€trial,€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€approached€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€and€asked€ifÐ `° Ðsettlement€was€possible.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€general€responded€with€a€sentencing€offerÐ L œ Ðof€Range€I,€ten€years,€consecutive€to€certain€Knox€County€sentences.€€The€case,€however,€proceededÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€trial,€and€following€conviction,€the€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€sixteen€yearsð!ðsix€yearsÐ $ t Ðgreater€than€the€Stateððs€pre„trial€offer.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIt€is€clear€that€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€failed€to€communicate€this€offer€to€Garrison€before€trial.€€In€fact,€atÐ è 8  Ðthe€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€an€affidavit€by€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€was€filed€stating€the€following:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àShortly€before€trial€of€this€cause,€I€spoke€with€AssistantÐ ¬ü  ÐDistrict€Attorney€Pope€.€.€.€concerning€a€potential€plea€agreement€inÐ ˜è  Ðthis€case.€€Assistant€District€Attorney€Pope€communicated€to€me€aÐ „Ô  Ðplea€offer€of€10€years€Range€I,€standard,€if€Mr.€Garrison€pled€to€allÐ pÀ Ðcounts€of€the€indictment.€€Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAlthough€I€met€with€Mr.€Garrison€prior€to€the€trial€of€thisÐ 4„ Ðcause,€I€never€related€to€him€the€offer€given€to€me€by€AssistantÐ  p ÐDistrict€Attorney€Pope.€€Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMr.€Garrison€never€learned€of€the€Stateððs€offer€until€after€theÐ ä4 Ðtrial€of€the€matter€had€been€concluded.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌÔ_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€testified€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€that€after€he€had€informed€Garrison€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€offer,€Garrison€stated€that€he€would€not€have€accepted€it.€€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€also€testified€that€he€did€notÐ ”ä Ðbelieve€his€failure€to€inform€Garrison€of€the€offer€fell€below€the€standard€of€competence€required€ofÐ €Ð Ðattorneys€because€Garrison€had€clearly€and€consistently€maintained€the€need€to€go€to€trial€to€avoidÐ l¼ Ða€prolonged€incarceration.€€He€testified€that€he€was€confident€Garrison€would€not€have€accepted€theÐ X ¨ Ðoffer.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€overruling€Garrisonððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,€the€trial€court€observed:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWith€regard€to€the€failure€to€communicate€the€Stateððs€pleaÐ ô$D # Ðoffer,€this€Court€finds€that€the€Defendant€had€communicated€to€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðattorney€early€on€and€throughout€his€discussions€that€he€would€notÐ Ì&"% Ðnegotiate€a€plea.€€The€Court€would€further€note€that€this€particularÐ ¸'#& ÐDefendant€was€quite€familiar€with€the€plea€bargaining€process,€havingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðentered€into€many€pleas€over€the€preceding€decade,€including€fourÐ )à$( Ðâ âfelony€pleas€.€.€.€.€€It€should€be€noted€that€there€is€no€reason€to€believeÐ |*Ì%) Ðnor€proof€presented€that€this€Defendant€would€have€accepted€the€tenÐ ° Ð(10)€year€sentence€offered€by€the€State€a€few€days€before€trial.Мì` x` x Ðâ âÌà  àThus,€by€implication,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€offer€as€described€by€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€had€indeedÐ tÄ Ðbeen€made€and€that€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€had€failed€to€relate€it€to€Garrison.€€As€expressed€above,€the€trial€courtÐ `° Ðruled€that€there€was€no€reason€to€believe€that€Garrison€would€have€accepted€the€offer.€€It€is€by€reasonÐ L œ Ðof€this€finding€that€the€trial€court€concluded€that€Garrison€had€failed€to€demonstrate€prejudice.€€Thus,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€trial€court€rejected€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€TennesseeÐ ü L  ÐConstitution€guarantee€criminal€defendants€the€right€to€representation€by€counsel.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,Ð è 8  Ð6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€ð ð[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€right€to€such€representation€encompasses€the€right€toÐ Ô$  Ðððreasonably€effectiveðð€assistance,€that€is,€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÐ À  Ðcriminal€cases.ðð€€òòId.óó€(òòcitingóó€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€at€693).€€AÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€is€not€entitled€to€redress€for€a€violation€of€that€right,€however,€unless€the€substandardÐ ˜è  Ðperformance€of€the€attorney€negatively€affected€the€ultimate€judgment.€€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó,€466€U.S.€at€691„Ð „Ô  Ð92,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2067„68,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€at€696.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€adopted€a€two„prong€test€for€determiningÐ H˜ Ðwhether€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim€merits€relief:€€(1)€the€defendant€must€show€thatÐ 4„ Ðcounselððs€performance€was€deficient€because€the€ð ðrepresentation€fell€below€an€objective€standardÐ  p Ðof€reasonableness,ðð€and€(2)€the€defendant€must€show€ð ðthat€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€butÐ  \ Ðfor€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.ðð׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€466Ð øH ÐU.S.€at€687„88,€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2064„65,€2068,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€at€693„94,€698.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€legal€premise€that€counselððs€failure€to€relate€a€plea€offer€to€a€defendant€renders€counselððsò òó óÐ ¼  Ðrepresentation€deficient׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€was€established€by€this€Court€in€ò òòòó óHarris€v.€Stateóó,€875€S.W.2d€662€(Tenn.Ð ¨ø Ð1994).€€Therefore,€because€the€State€does€not€contest€the€finding€implicitly€made€by€the€trial€courtÐ ”ä Ðand€expressly€approved€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ô€failed€to€communicate€theÐ €Ð Ðplea€offer€to€Garrison,€we€find€that€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóóððs€first€prong€is€satisfied,€and€we€focus€on€the€secondÐ l¼ Ðprong.€€As€to€the€second€prong€of€the€analysis,€which€requires€a€finding€of€prejudice,€òòHarrisóó€is€notÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô.€òòóóò òÐ œì ÐÌó óà  àUnder€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóóððs€second€prong,€a€petitioner€must€demonstrate€that€counselððs€omissionÐ tÄ Ðcaused€prejudice€to€his€or€her€cause.€€Typically,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€errors€wereÐ `° Ðso€serious€as€to€deprive€the€petitioner€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whose€results€are€reliable.€€€òòId.óó;€òòHenley€v.Ð L œ ÐStateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€579„80€(Tenn.€1997).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€cases€where€counsel€did€not€convey€a€plea€bargain€offer€to€a€defendant,€however,€the€fairÐ  ` Ðtrial€standard€described€above€is€not€applicable.€€This€inapplicability€is€obviousð!ðthe€defendant€mayÐ ü L  Ðhave€received€a€fair€trial,€yet€may€have€been€prevented,€by€below„standard€conduct€of€counsel,€fromÐ è 8  Ðavoiding€trial€altogether.€€Thus,€a€fair€trial€provides€no€remedy€for€counselððs€pre„trial€failures€in€thisÐ Ô$  Ðregard.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€lieu€of€the€ð ðfair€trialðð€test€for€prejudice€arising€out€of€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€inÐ ˜è  Ðthe€plea€stage,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€established€a€different€standard.€€When€aÐ „Ô  Ðpetitioner€asserts€that€he€or€she€entered€a€plea€as€a€result€of€ineffective€assistance,€he€or€she€mustÐ pÀ Ðdemonstrate€ð ðthat€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€he€would€not€haveÐ \¬ Ðpleaded€guilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.ðð€€òòHill€v.€Ô_ÔLockhartÔ_Ôóó,€474€U.S.€52,€58,€106€S.Ð H˜ ÐCt.€366,€370,€88€L.€Ed.€2d€203€(1985).€€In€the€context€of€a€petitioner€who€seeks€to€reinstate€(ratherÐ 4„ Ðthan€withdraw)€a€plea€offer,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€heÐ  p Ðor€she€would€have€accepted€the€plea€had€it€been€properly€communicated€to€him€or€her.€€Such€aÐ  \ Ðð ðreasonable€probabilityðð€is€defined€as€a€ð ðprobability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€theÐ øH Ðoutcomeðð€of€the€proceedings.€€€òòHenleyóó,€960€S.W.2d€at€579€(quoting€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104Ð ä4 ÐS.€Ct.€at€2068,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€at€698);€€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€òòHarrisóó,€trial€counsel€failed€to€communicate€to€the€defendant€the€offer€made€by€the€State.€Ð ¨ø Ðò òó ó875€S.W.2d€at€663.€€The€defendant€went€to€trial€ignorant€of€the€Stateððs€offer€and€was€convicted.€€HeÐ ”ä Ðwas€sentenced€to€a€prison€term€far€in€excess€of€the€Ô_ÔuncommunicatedÔ_Ô€plea€offer.€€òòId.óó€€ò òó óThe€State,Ð €Ð Ðconceding€deficient€representation,€contended€that€no€prejudice€was€shown€because€the€recordÐ l¼ Ðestablished€that€the€trial€judge€would€not€haveò òó ó€accepted€the€plea€bargain€if€submitted.€€òòId.óó€at€664.€ò òó óÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€òòHarrisóó,€we€affirmed€the€finding€of€deficient€representation€and€held€that€the€defendantððsÐ 0"€  Ðignorance€of€the€plea€offer€so€undermined€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€the€prosecution€as€toÐ #l! Ðdemonstrate€sufficient€prejudice€to€satisfy€the€second€prong€of€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó.€€òòId.óó€at€665„66.€€In€the€caseÐ $X" Ðunder€submission,€however,€the€record€includes€testimony€that€when€Garrison€learned€of€the€offerÐ ô$D # Ðduring€jury€deliberations,€he€indicated€that€he€would€not€have€accepted€it,€and€the€trial€courtÐ à%0!$ Ðapparently€accredited€that€testimony.€€Thus,€there€is€no€reasonable€probability€that€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ôððs€failureÐ Ì&"% Ðto€convey€the€Stateððs€offer€affected€the€outcome€of€the€plea€process.€€Under€such€facts,€this€CourtÐ ¸'#& Ðcannot€find€that€the€prejudice€prong€has€been€satisfied,€despite€Ô_ÔDePersioÔ_Ôððs€initial€failure€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcommunicate€the€offer.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsððs€judgment€remanding€the€caseÐ )à$( Ðfor€the€resumption€of€the€plea€negotiations€is€reversed.€ò òó óÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà@ßß ìàB.€Jury€InstructionsˆÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà  àUnder€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions,€a€defendant€has€a€constitutional€rightÐ ˆØ Ðto€trial€by€jury.€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI€(ð ðIn€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€shall€enjoy€theÐ tÄ Ðright€to€a€speedy€and€public€trial,€by€an€impartial€jury€of€the€State€and€district€wherein€the€crime€shallÐ `° Ðhave€been€committed€.€.€.€.ðð);€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€6€(ð ð[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€right€of€trial€by€jury€shall€remainÐ L œ Ðinviolate,€and€no€religious€or€political€test€shall€ever€be€required€as€a€qualification€for€jurors.ðð).€€InÐ 8 ˆ ÐTennessee,€this€right€dictates€that€all€issues€of€fact€be€tried€and€determined€by€twelve€jurors.€€òòSeeóóÐ $ t ÐòòState€v.€Boboóó,€814€S.W.2d€353,€356€(Tenn.€1991);€òòWillard€v.€Stateóó,€130€S.W.2d€99€(Tenn.€1939).€Ð  ` ÐThus,€it€follows€that€a€defendant€has€a€right€to€a€correct€and€complete€charge€of€the€law,€so€that€eachÐ ü L  Ðissue€of€fact€raised€by€the€evidence€will€be€submitted€to€the€jury€on€proper€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ è 8  Ðv.€Forbesóó,€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990).Ð Ô$  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà  àGarrison€was€indicted€for€solicitation€to€commit€first€degree€murder.€€€€By€statute:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhoever,€by€means€of€oral,€written€or€electronic€communication,Ð „Ô  Ðdirectly€or€through€another,€ò òintentionally€commandsó ó,€requests€ò òorÐ pÀ Ðhiresó ó€another€to€commit€a€criminal€offense,€or€attempts€to€command,Ð `° Ðrequest€or€hire€another€to€commit€a€criminal€offense,€with€the€intentÐ P  Ðthat€the€criminal€offense€be€committed,€is€guilty€of€the€offense€ofÐ <Œ Ðsolicitation.Ð(x` x` x ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„102€(1997)€(emphasis€added).€€€The€trial€court€elided€the€jury€instructionÐ P Ðby€omitting€the€statutory€language€which€appears€above€in€bold€type.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€As€elided,€the€instructionÐ ì< Ðgiven€to€the€jury€was€as€follows:Ð Ø( ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThat€the€Defendant€.€.€.€requested€another€to€commit€the€offense€ofÐ ° Ðfirst€degree€murder€.€.€.€with€the€intent€that€the€offense€of€first€degreeÐ œì Ðmurder€be€committed.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà  àRelying€on€òòState€v.€Leeóó,׃Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€construed€the€statute€definingÐ ` ° Ðsolicitation€to€require€that€for€any€solicitation€charge,€whether€it€be€by€ð ðcommand,€request€or€hire,ððÐ L!œ Ðthe€jury€must€find€both€an€intent€that€a€criminal€offense€be€committed€by€another€and€an€intentionalÐ 8"ˆ  Ðcommunication€of€that€intent€to€another.€€It€found€that€the€jury€charge€omitted€an€instruction€that€theÐ $#t! Ðrequest€itself€be€intentional,€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€The€intermediate€appellate€courtÐ $`" Ðfound€the€error€particularly€egregious€in€view€of€the€defendantððs€theory€that€his€ð ðrequestðð€was€notÐ ü$L # Ðserious€and€held€that€the€error€required€a€new€trial.Ð è%8!$ ÐÐ Ô&$"% ÐÑ 0@¸%OaÑâ 0âÑ  Ñâ %0âѰ°Ñâ %âÑ  Ñà  àWe€agree€with€the€intermediate€appellate€court€that€the€clear€language€of€the€statute€evincesÐ ° Ða€legislative€intent€to€require€both€an€intent€to€solicit€and€an€intent€that€the€crime€solicited€beÐ œì Ðcommitted.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€conclusion€is€supported€by€the€sentencing€commission€comments,€which€state€thatÐ ˆØ Ðunder€this€section,€ð ðthe€defendant€must€intentionally€try€to€enlist€another€in€criminal€activity€andÐ tÄ Ðmust€intend€that€the€offense€be€committed.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„102,€sentencing€Ô_ÔcommððnÔ_ÔÐ `° ÐÔ_ÔcmtsÔ_Ô.€(1997).€€This€interpretation€also€furthers€the€purpose€of€a€ð ðsolicitationðð€statute,€which€is€toÐ L œ Ðpunish€those€who€sincerely€enlist€others€in€criminal€deeds.€€òòId.óóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àHaving€found€that€Garrisonððs€rights€were€violated€because€the€trial€courtððs€charge€omittedÐ  ` Ðan€essential€element€of€the€offense,€the€next€question€is€whether€the€error€requires€a€reversal€of€theÐ ü L  Ðconviction.€€The€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provide€that€a€final€judgment€ð ðshall€notÐ è 8  Ðbe€set€aside€unless,€considering€the€whole€record,€error€involving€a€substantial€right€more€probablyÐ Ô$  Ðthan€not€affected€the€judgment€or€would€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.Ð À  ÐP.€36.€€The€history€of€this€ð ðharmless€error€doctrineðð€and€its€general€application€to€constitutionalÐ ¬ü  Ðerrors€has€been€thoroughly€documented€by€this€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòÔ_ÔMomonÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152Ð ˜è  Ð(Tenn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€977€S.W.2d€101,€104€(Tenn.€1998).€€€Of€note€for€purposes€of€thisÐ „Ô  Ðcase€is€the€established€principle€that€ð ða€very€limited€class€of€errors€have€been€found€to€be€ððstructural,ððÐ pÀ Ðand€subject€to€automatic€reversal.ðð׃,°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòÔ_ÔMomonÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€at€152.€€€€At€issue€is€whether€theÐ \¬ Ðtrial€courtððs€error€in€omitting€an€essential€element€of€an€offense€from€the€jury€charge€is€structural.Ð ° ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àRecently,€in€òòÔ_ÔNederÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€addressed€this€issue€Ð ˆØ Ðunder€the€United€States€Constitution€and€determined€that€such€omissions€are€not€structural€and€thusÐ tÄ Ðare€subject€to€harmless€error€analysis.€€527€U.S.€1,€119€S.€Ct.€1827,€144€L.€Ed.€2d€35€(1999).€€TheÐ `° ÐCourt€stated:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[A]€jury€instruction€that€omits€an€element€of€the€offense€.€.€.Ð $ t Ðdiffers€markedly€from€the€constitutional€violations€we€have€found€toÐ  ` Ðdefy€harmless„error€review.€€Those€cases,€we€have€explained,€containÐ ü L  Ða€ð ðdefect€affecting€the€framework€within€which€the€trial€proceeds,Ð è 8  Ðrather€than€simply€an€error€in€the€trial€process€itself.ðð€€Such€errorsÐ Ô$  Ðð ðinfect€the€entire€trial€processðð€and€necessarily€render€a€trialÐ À  Ðfundamentally€unfair.€€Put€another€way,€these€errors€depriveÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendants€of€ð ðbasic€protectionsðð€without€which€ð ða€criminal€trialÐ ˜è  Ðcannot€reliably€serve€its€function€as€a€vehicle€for€determination€ofÐ „Ô  Ðguilt€or€innocence€.€.€.€and€no€criminal€punishment€may€be€regardedÐ pÀ Ðas€fundamentally€fair.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àUnlike€such€defects€as€the€complete€deprivation€of€counsel€orÐ 4„ Ðtrial€before€a€biased€judge,€an€instruction€that€omits€an€element€of€theÐ  p Ðoffense€does€not€necessarily€render€a€criminal€trial€fundamentallyÐ  \ Ðunfair€or€an€unreliable€vehicle€for€determining€guilt€or€innocence.ÐøH` x` x ÐòòÌId.óó€at€8„9€(citations€omitted).€€Key€to€the€Supreme€Courtððs€conclusion€that€harmless€error€analysisÐ Ð  Ðwas€appropriate€was€its€observation€that€ð ðÔ_ÔNederÔ_Ô€was€tried€before€an€impartial€judge,€under€theÐ ¼  Ðcorrect€standard€of€proof€and€with€the€assistance€of€counsel;€[and]€a€fairly€selected,€impartial€juryÐ ¨ø Ðwas€instructed€to€consider€all€of€the€evidence€and€argument€in€respect€to€Ô_ÔNederÔ_Ôððs€defense€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ ”ä Ðat€9.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àOur€Court€has€applied€a€similar€analysis€when€interpreting€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€€InÐ X ¨ ÐòòState€v.€Ô_ÔTeelÔ_Ôóó,€a€defendant€convicted€of€felony€murder€asserted€that€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instructÐ D!” Ðthe€jury€on€the€definition€of€rapeð!ðthe€felony€supporting€the€felony€murder€convictionð!ðconstitutedÐ 0"€  Ðreversible€error.€€793€S.W.2d€236,€249€(Tenn.€1990).€€Although€we€noted€at€that€time€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€lawÐ #l! Ðis€unsettled€as€to€whether€harmless€error€analysis€is€available€when€a€trial€court€fails€to€instruct€onÐ $X" Ðan€essential€element€of€an€offense,ðð€we€concluded€that€harmless€error€analysis€does€apply€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðfailure€to€define€a€separate€felony€that€is€an€essential€element€of€the€felony€with€which€the€defendantÐ à%0!$ Ðis€charged.€€òòId.óó€€On€the€other€hand,€in€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€we€concluded€that€the€trial€courtððs€decision€toÐ Ì&"% Ðsubstitute€a€juror€with€an€alternate€after€the€alternate€jurors€had€been€discharged,€the€case€had€beenÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âsubmitted,€and€deliberations€had€begun,€without€instructions€to€the€jury€to€begin€deliberations€anew,Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÑ!P¸ Ñâ !âÑ  Ñâ !âÑ  Ñwas€a€ð ð[defect]€in€the€structure€of€the€trial€mechanism€and€thus€[defies]€analysis€by€harmless€errorÐ ° Ðstandards.ðð€€814€S.W.2d€353,€356„58€(Tenn.€1991).Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€this€case,€unlike€òòBoboóó,€the€integrity€of€the€jury€as€a€fact„finding€body€was€not€disturbed.€Ð tÄ ÐRather,€as€in€òòÔ_ÔNederÔ_Ôóó€and€òòÔ_ÔTeelÔ_Ôóó,€an€impartial€jury€was€required€to€make€its€findings€pursuant€toÐ `° Ðimperfect€instructions€by€the€trial€court.€€We€do€not€find€this€type€of€error€to€be€a€defect€in€theÐ L œ Ðstructure€of€the€trial€mechanism€that€would€ð ðnecessarily€render€a€criminal€trial€fundamentally€unfairÐ 8 ˆ Ðor€an€unreliable€vehicle€for€determining€guilt€or€innocence.ðð€€Thus,€we€hold€that€harmless€errorÐ $ t Ðanalysis€is€appropriate€when€evaluating€omissions€of€an€essential€element€of€an€offense€from€the€juryÐ  ` Ðcharge.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àApplying€that€analysis€in€this€case,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€error€was€harmless€beyondÐ Ô$  Ða€reasonable€doubt.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€the€error€to€be€reversible€in€light€ofÐ À  ÐGarrisonððs€defense€that€he€was€not€sincere€when€he€requested€that€the€witness€be€murdered.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt€found€that€the€question€whether€Garrison€intentionally€engaged€in€solicitation€was€an€issueÐ ˜è  Ðfundamental€to€his€defense,€and€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€the€jury€on€this€intent€element€thusÐ „Ô  Ðundermined€the€reliability€of€the€juryððs€verdict.€€However,€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ pÀ ÐAppeals€misconstrues€the€statuteððs€two„pronged€intent€requirement.€€Garrisonððs€defense€actuallyÐ \¬ Ðfocuses€upon€the€second€prong,€the€intent€that€the€crime€solicited€actually€be€committed.€€ByÐ H˜ Ðcontending€that€he€engaged€in€the€conversations€as€a€pretext,€Garrison€was€in€essence€asserting€thatÐ 4„ Ðalthough€he€requested€that€the€witness€be€murdered,€he€never€intended€that€the€murder€actually€beÐ  p Ðcommitted.€€Garrison€never€argued€that€he€lacked€the€requisite€intent€to€engage€in€a€conversationÐ  \ Ðwith€the€undercover€agent,€and€so€the€first€intent€requirement,€the€intent€to€solicit,€effectively€hasÐ øH Ðbeen€conceded.€€Although€the€second€intent€requirement,€the€intent€that€the€crime€actually€beÐ ä4 Ðcommitted,€was€contested€at€trial,€the€jury€found€against€Garrison€on€this€point.€€Because€the€omittedÐ Ð  Ðintent€requirement€was€not€contested€at€trial€and€essentially€has€been€conceded€by€Garrison,€we€findÐ ¼  Ðthat€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€instruct€on€the€first€intent€requirement€had€no€impact€on€the€juryððsÐ ¨ø Ðverdict.€€Therefore,€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€the€judgment€ofÐ ”ä Ðconviction€must€be€affirmed.Ð €Ð ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà@||"ìàIII.€€ConclusionˆÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àAs€to€trial€counselððs€failure€to€inform€the€defendant€of€the€plea€offer€made€by€the€State,€weÐ 0"€  Ðagree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€such€conduct€satisfied€the€first€prong€of€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó.€Ð #l! ÐWe€do€not€conclude,€however,€that€such€failure,€alone,€demonstrates€prejudice€to€the€extentÐ $X" Ðnecessary€to€satisfy€the€second€(prejudice)€prong€of€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendant€has€not€proven€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€the€requirements€of€òòÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ôóó.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€issue€concerning€the€jury€instructions,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¸'#& Ðomission€of€the€statutory€language€constitutes€harmless€error.€€Thus,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÐ ¤(ô#' ÐCriminal€Appeals€is€reversed,€and€the€case€is€dismissed.Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àCosts€are€taxed€to€John€C.€Garrison.Ð ° ÐÔ‡ X‹XXX‹ÔÌÔ#†X‹XX X‹„#ÔÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð `° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JUSTICEÐ L œ ÐÓ=€Áÿ»Ð»dÐd=Ó