### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on

Briefs A ugust 14, 2002 MICHAEL A. C ARTER v. STAT E OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2000-A-183 Seth Norman, Judge

No. M2001-03065-CCA-R3-PC - Filed September 16, 2002

The petitioner originally

pled guilty to ag gravated robbery on June 1, 2000. He s ough t postconviction relief alleging he re ceived ineffective assistance of counsel which led to an involuntary guilty plea. F ollowing

a heari ng, the

trial cou rt dismisse d the petition. We af firm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed
J OE G. R ILEY , J., deliver

ed the opi nion of the

court, in which D AVID G. H AYES and N ORMA M C G EE O GLE , JJ., joined. Mike Anderson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appe llant, Michael A. Carter. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Repor

ter; David H. Find

ley , Assistan

t Attorne y General ; Victor S. Johnson, II

I, District Attorney

General; and Pamela Sue Anderson and Kathy Morante, Assistant District Attorneys Gener al, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION The petitioner con tends he received ineffective a ssistance of couns el because counsel allowe d him to enter a guilty

plea to aggravated robbe

ry afte r learning petitioner had been taking medication. He contends this rendered his guilty plea involuntary and unknowing. The petitioner's claim of involuntariness of

his plea isso closel

y connected to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that we shall treat it as one issue. We find no merit to petitioner's contentions. A. Standard of Review The judge's findings of

fact on post-conviction hearings are conclusive on appe al unless the evidence prep onderat

es oth erwise. State v. Burns , 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999). The trial court’s findings of fact are affor ded the weight of a jury

verdict, and this court is boundby the trial court’s findings unless the evidence in the rec ord preponderates against those finding s. Henley v.-2-

State , 960 S.W.2d 57 2, 578 (Te nn. 1997) ; Alley

v. State , 958 S.W.2d 138, 147 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 97). Th e burden of establishing that the evidence pre ponderates otherwise is on petitioner. Henley , 960 S.W.2d at 579

. This court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of counse l under the standards of Baxter v. Rose , 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975), and St rickla nd v. Washington , 466 U.S. 6 68, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). The petitioner has the burd en to prove that (1) the attorney ’s performance

was deficient, and (2) the deficient per formance resulted in prejudice to the petitioner so as to deprive him of a fair trial. Strickland , 466 U.S. a t 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064 ; Goad v. Sta te , 938 S.W.2d 363, 3 69 (Tenn . 1996); Butler v . State , 789 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tenn. 1990). The failure to prove either deficiency

or prejudice justifies denial of relief; therefore, the court ne ed not address the components in any par ticular order

or even a ddress both if one is insufficient. Goad , 938 S.W.2d at 370. The test in

Tennessee to determine whether counsel provided effective assistance is whethe r his or her performance

was within the

range of compe tence de manded of

attorne ys i n crimina

l cases. Baxter , 523 S.W.2d at 936. The petitioner must overcome the presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of acce ptable professional assistance. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 206 5; State v. H oneycutt , 54 S.W.3d 762, 769 (Tenn. 2001). B. Post- Convictio n Hearing Peti tion er's trial couns el was the on ly witnes s to t estify at the po st-co nvict ion h earing. Trial counsel testified she learned the petitioner had been taking Trazodone and Thora zine on the morning h e submitted his guilty plea. Neve rtheless, counsel saw no indication that petition er did no t understandwhat he was doing or was incompetent. Trial counsel additionally testified she discussed the evidence with the petitioner; she would not allow a client to ple ad guilty if the c lient did not understandthe agr eement ; she met with the petitioner seven times over a period of five day s; and she saw nothing to indicate the petitioner had any mental problems, needed a mental evaluation, or was incompetent. The po st -c on vi ct io n c ou rt ac cr ed it ed co un se l’ s t es ti mo ny tha t the petit ioner wa s “totally coherent and . . . knew what he was doing at the time [of entry of his plea].” The c ourt dismissed the petition. C. Analysis The petitioner contends he received ineffective assistanc e of counsel because trial counsel allowed him to enter

a guilty plea

after learning he was taking medication, namely, Tr

azodone and Thorazine. The petitione r offer ed no pro of at the

post-con viction he aring. Accord

ingly , the only evidence submitted at the hearing was the testimony of trial counsel who stated the petitioner was competent

and unde

rst ood the nature of his guilty plea. The petitioner failed to offer any proof-3-

regarding the eff ect, if any, the medica

tion would have on his ability to competently enter a guilty plea. Petitioner has not proven any deficiency

by trial counsel nor pr

ejudice. The evidence does not preponderate a gainst the findings of the trial court. We affirm.

___________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE