### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 27, 200 4

ROB ERT E. AL LEN v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for K nox Coun ty No. 76025 Richard Baumgar tner, Judge

No

. E 2 0 0 3 -0 1 0 7 0 -C CA -R 3 -PC F ebruary 25, 2004

Th e Pe tit ion e r, Rob e rt

E. Al le n, ple d g uil ty to ag g ra va te d a ssa ult , th re e c ounts of

do me sti c a ssa

ult , va nd a lis m, e va din g a rr e st, pu bli c int oxic a tio n a nd re c kle ss burn ing

. Th e tr ia l c ourt se nte nc e d h im to five y ear s in pr ison f

or the ag g ravated assault and eleve n months and twenty -nine da y s on eac h of the other

char g es, with the sentenc es to run concurre ntly

. The P etitioner di d not perf ect a n appea l of his sentenc e, but petitioned for post-c onviction relief on the g rounds that he wa s denied e ffe ctive assistance of counse l. Following a hearing on the post-conviction petition, the post-conviction cour t dismiss ed the pe tition. On appeal, the Petitioner c ontends th at he wa s denied e ffe ctive assistanc e of counsel fo r t h e fo l lowing r easons: (1) trial counsel f ailed to prope rly

advise him as to the po te nti a l se nte nc e s f

or a ll the c ha

rg e s c ov e re d in

the ple a a g re e me nt; a nd (2 ) tr ia l cou ns e l f a ile d to advise him of his r ight to a ppeal the se ntence imposed by the trial cour

t. Finding no err or, we aff irm the post-conviction cour

t’s dismiss al of the pe tition.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.

J . L iddell Kirk, Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Robert E. Allen.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter; Micha el Moore, Solicitor Ge nera l; Ri char d H. Dunava nt, As sis tant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Ra

nd a ll E . N ic ho ls, Di str ict At tor ne y Ge ne ra l; a

nd L e sli e Nassios, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION I. F acts

Th e tr a ns c ri pt o f t

he g uil ty ple a , w hic h is inc lud e d in the re c or d pre se ntl y be fo re us , r e ve a ls th a t t h e Pe ti ti o n e r

p le d g u il ty to s e v e r a l o f

f e n s e s

. I n th a t t

r a n s c r ip t, th e a s s is ta

n t d is tr ic t att orney stated:-2-

[Th e De fe nd a nt w ill ] be ple a din g g uil ty in t he fi rs t c ount t o a g g ra

vate d a ssa

ult , puni s h ab l e b y t hree to six y ear s as a r ang e I standard of

fende r. I n this case it’ll be five y ear s. He’ll make application for probation. He is–under the information that the state will oppose his rele ase.

I n th e se c on d c ount h e ’s ple a din g g uil ty to dom e sti c a ssa

ult , an d th a t w ou ld be 11 [months] , 29 [day s], concurre nt with the firs t count; ag ain, applying f or probation.

Th ir d c ount i s d ome sti c a ssa ult ; a g a in 1 1 [mo nth s], 2 9 [d a y s ], c o n c u r r e n t w ith the se c on d a

nd fi rs t c ounts

.
The four th count is misdemeanor va ndalism. Recommended se ntence is 11 [mon ths ], 29 [day s], c on c ur re nt w iththe oth e r c ounts

.
The fifth count is a count of f leeing , evadingarr est. Recommende d sentenc e, 11 [mon ths ], 29 [day s], c on c ur re nt w itha ll the oth e r c ounts

.
The sixt h char g e, h e’ s charg ed with public intox ication. Recommende d

se nte nc e is 3 0 d a y s, c on c ur re nt w iththe oth e r c ounts

.
The seve nth count, he’s c harg ed with domestic assa ult. Recommended

se nte nc e is 1 1 [mo nth s], 2 9 [da y s], c on c ur

re nt w itha ll the oth e r c ounts

.
Th e e ig hth

c ount, he is ch arged with r e c kle ss b ur nin g , a lso c la ss A mis de me a no r; 11 [mon ths ], 29 [day s] is the re c omm e nd e d s e nte nc e , c on c ur re nt w ith the oth e r c ounts

.
Be fore enter i n g t h e Def

endant’ s g uilty

plea, the f

ollowing e x chang e took place betwee n the trial

c ourt and the De fe nd a nt:

THE CO U RT : T h e a g r e e me n t, a s I u n d e r s ta n d it , is y o u ’ r e g o in g to be plea ding g uil ty to t he mos t se ri ou s o ff

e ns e in t he fi rs t coun t, th at bei nga g g ra vate d a ssa

ult

. Th a t’ s a c la ss C fe lony . T ota l r a ng e of punis hme nt i s th re e to 1 5 y e a rs . T hr e e to s ix

a s a ra ng e Iof fe nd e r. Th e a g re e d s e nte nc e is fiv e y e a rs , one le ss t ha n th e ma ximum , as a r ang e I

offe nder.

An d y ou ’r e g oin g to be makin g a pp lic a tio n f

or pr ob a tio n. I t is a

pr ob a ta ble of fe ns e , b ut it’ s up to me to make that de te rm inatio n, and the state ’s g oin g to o pp os e th at, ok ay ? So I

have to l oo k at a ll o f t

he thi ng s th a t I ’m

su pp os e d to take int o
acc ount and make a

deter mination. I ’ve g ot three options. I could deny

probation, order y ou to serve the sentenc e. I could orde r y ou to serve some time in custody –Of-3-

course , y ou’re in custody

now, so y ou’re alre ady serving some time–and then plac e y ou on probation. B ut Icould hold y ou up to a y ear and then put y ou on probation,

o r I c o u ld p u t y o u o n p r o b a ti o n , f in d in g th a t y o u ’ r e e n ti tl e d to d o th at, at the

se nte nc inghe a ri ng . So y ou un de rs tand

tho se a re the thr e e op tio ns

.
THE DEF ENDAN T: Yes, sir.

TH E CO UR T: B ut you

un de rs tand

it’ s my c a ll?

THE DEF ENDAN T: Yes, sir.

After this e x chang e, the State informed the trial cour t that, were the ca se to g o to trial, the evidenc e
wo uld sh owthat:
[ O] n Au gu s t2 n d at

. . . 5 : 4 6 p

. m

. t h e de fe n d an t en t er ed t h e r es i d en ce at 5 6 0 8 Do d ge Road. He be g an assa

ulting the victim. He picked up a wooden table and struck he r about t he hea d and upper body , causingbruising a nd a cut ove r her

rig ht ey e. He threatened to kill her . He ha d called twic e since this incident, threateningto kill her. They do have a child in common, Ty ler Shown. And he had assa ulted her e arlier

that day around 12:40 p.m. afte r she had alre ady signe d war rants, but they

had not bee n
serve d on him y et.

At the sentenc ing he aring , the trial court noted t hat t he pre-sente nce report showed that the De fe nd ant h a d s ix pr ior Dr ivi ngUn de r t

he I nf lue nce (“ DU I ” ) c on vic tio ns , mu lti ple pu bli c intox ication convictions, multip le driving on a re voked license convictions and thre e prior misdemeanor a ssaults. The trial court then denied the Def endant’ s reque st for probation based upon “[the Defe ndant’s] recor d, the s eriousness of the offense, the mult iple ty pes of c onduct that y ou’ve eng ag ed in” a

nd re m anded the Def

endant to the Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ction to serve the five-y ear sentenc e. The following evidenc e wa s prese nted at t h e p o s t- c o nv ic ti o n

h ear ing. T he Petitioner testified t h a th e p l e d

g u i l t y t o a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t a n d a s e r i e s o f

m i s d e m e a n o r s

. H e s t a t e d t h a th i s a t t o r

n e y, Wil liam B rown (“Counsel” ), repr esente d him at a preliminary

hear ing in g ener al sessions court a nd at his g uilty

plea hearing

. The P etitioner stated that, at the preliminary hear ing, he lear

ned that he

was c harg ed with ag g ravated assault, arson, two counts of misdemeanor dome stic violence, e vading

arr e st a nd pu bli c int oxic a tio n a

nd dis c us se d th e ple a

of fe r w ithCouns e l.

The Petitioner testified that Counsel did not advise him corre ctly reg ardinghis arson cha

rg e. He state d that Counsel told him that the State was offer ing five y ear s for the ag g ravated assault and

a dv ise d th e Pe tit ion e r t o a g re e to t hat se nte nc e

. Th e Pe tit ion e r te sti fi e d th a t Co un se l to ld h im that, if the Petitioner went to trial, the State w ould seek ten to f ifteen y ear s for the a

rson cha rg e plus five y ear s for the a g g ravated assault for a total of fif

teen to twenty y ear s. The Petitioner stated that he

a g re e d to ple a d guil ty

be c a us e he wa s “ sc a re d o f t

he a rs on c ha

rg e , g e tti ng[fi ft e e n] to [twe nty ] y e a rs ”-4-

and that he w ould not have pled gu i l t y i f h e wa s awa re that he only

fac ed one to two y ear s on the arson charg e. The Petiti oner te stified that, afte r he w as inca rce rate d, he discove red throug h his own

re se arc h th a t th e po te nti a l se nte nc e fo r a rs on wa s mu c h le ss t

ha n Co un se l ha d to ld h im.

The Petitioner also testified that Counsel imprope rly advised him reg ardingthe sentenc e that he wa s f a c ingon the c ha

rg e s ag a ins t him and his ri g ht to ap pe a l. He state d tha t Coun se l to ld h im that he would g et probation be cause he “wa s a per fec t candidate for it” a nd that he wa s elig ible for, and would g et, par ole. The Petit ioner stated that he pled guilty in relianc e on Counsel’s stateme nt that he would g et probation. The Petitioner further testified that Counsel never discussed his rig ht to appea l the sentenc e imposed upon him by the trial cour

t. The P etitioner st ated that, had he know n of hi s ri gh t to appea l, he would have appea led the trial c ourt’s dec ision reg ardingalternative

s en t en ci n g.

On cr oss-examination, the Petit ioner a dmitted that, in ex chang e for his ag ree ment to plead g uilty , two pending char g es ag ainst him, one for DU Iand one f or driving on a re voked license , wer e dis mis se d. Th e Pe tit ion e r a lso c on c e de d th a t th e a rs on c ha rg e wa s r e du c e d to re c kle ss b ur nin g in the plea a g ree ment. The Petitioner stated that the most severe char g e that he w as fa ci n g was the ag g ravated assault cha

rg e and that he re ceive d one y ear less than the ma x i m u m s en t ence for that char g e. The Petitioner stated ag ain t hat Counsel told him t hat he wa s a per fec t candidate for prob at i o n d espi te the fa ct that he wa s convicted of the following offe nses: simple assault on Dec ember

6, 1999; DUI

on Dec ember

3, 1997; DUI on May 7, 1997; assault on November 21, 1995; public intox i ca t i o n o n J uly 26, 1995; driving on a

revoke d license on O ctober 11, 1996; DUI

on Fe bruar y 14, 1995; a bad c heck violation on May 3, 1995; driving on revoke d license on January 5, 19 95 ; D UI

on Janu a ry 15 , 19 95 ; ob str

uc tin g po lic e on

Ma y 28 , 1 99 1; p ub lic int oxic a tio n o n Apr il 7, 1989; public intox ication on Aug ust 22, 1986; assault on Aug ust 25, 1986; publi c intox ication on April 16, 1984; felony

rec eiving stolen proper ty on October

1, 1982; a wea

pons offe nse on September 12, 1983; a

nd a we apons off

ense on Ma

y 10, 1984. The Petitioner also c oncede d that the prosec utor stated twice that she intended to oppose pr obation and re call ed t h at , at the sentenc ing hear ing, the judge said he wa s not an appropr iate ca ndidate for

probation.

Th e Pe tit ion e r ac kn ow le dg e d th a t he sig ne d a wa ive r o f t

ri a l by jur y a nd a n a c c e pta

nc e of his pleas of guilty

. He stated that, in the g uilty plea forms, Counsel a g ree d to make an a pplication for pr ob a tio n f

or him , b ut d id n ot gua

ra nte e that he wo uld re c e ive pr ob a tio n. Th e Pe tit ion e r s ta te d th a t, when it became appare nt he was not g oing to rec eive probation, Counsel incorre ctly advised him that his actual ser

vice time would be one y ear . The Petitioner admitted that he w as sent to prison on November 30, 2001, and had his fir st parole e ligibility hear ing in July

of 2002. Upon be ing a sked by the c ourt , th e Pe tit ion e r s ta te d th a t Co un se l to ld h im p ri or to t he se nte nc inghe a ri ngtha

t he wo uld be par oled in one y ear

.
Th e Pe tit ion e r s ta te d th a t, a ft e r t he se nte nc inghe a ri ng , he a nd Cou ns e l ne ve r d isc us se d h is rig ht to appeal the se ntence imposed upon him. The court a sked t h e P et i t i oner, “ I f y ou wer e me, would y ou have de nied pr o b ati on to y ou, looking at y our re cord? ” and the Petitioner responde d, “Ye s, sir.”-5-

Counsel testified that he was the P etitioner’s attorney in September or Aug ust of 2001 and that, with reg ard to this case , the S tate’s attorney told Counsel that she would offe r the De fenda nt five y ear s and he could apply for pr obation. Counsel stated that he re lay ed this to the Petiti oner, a nd the Pe tit ion e r de c ide d he wa nte d to tak e the de a l. Couns e l te sti fi e d th a t, i n th e de a l, t he State a lso ag ree d to dismi ss a fe lony DUI char g e ag ainst the Petitioner. Counsel stated that, at the sente ncing he ari ng , h e wa s awa

re of the Pe tit ion e r’ s e xten siv e c ri min a l histo ry and that he ne ve r p ro mis e d h im that he wa s a per fec t candidate for probation. He testified tha t he could think of no re asons that he would have told the Petitioner that he was fa cing ten to fiftee n y ear s for the a rson cha rg e since arson
never car ries that sente nce. Counsel testified that he went ove r t he ra ng e of punishment for

eac h of the ei gh t co u n t s that the Petitioner was plea ding guilty to and that he thoug ht the Petitioner was competent at the time that he sig ned the plea ag ree ment. Counsel testified that he proba bly told the Petitioner that the Petitioner would meet with the par ole boar d in approximately one y ear , but that he neve r g uara

nteed the P eti tioner that he w ould be par oled in one y ear . Counsel stated that he usually tells his clients that, “I f y ou want me to appea l this decision, y ou need to let me know now beca use I have a limit ed amount of time to file a notice of a

ppeal.” He stat ed that the Petitioner

ex p re s s edn o d es i re t o ap p ea l

. On cr o s s -e x am i n at i o n , C o u n s el agr ee d t h at t h e fe l o n y ar s o n ch ar ge
was re duced to a

misdemeanor a s a re sult of the plea a g ree ment.

At the c on c lus ion

of thi s pro of

, the po st- c on vic tio n co ur t issu e d a mem or a nd

um opi nio n in which it denied the Petitioner’ s reque st for re lief. I n that opinion the court stated:
[Th e Pe tit ion e r] r a ise s, e sse nti a lly fou r groun ds in w hic h h e c la ims that [Cou ns e l] g ave him inappropriate advice and cla ims that thi s inappropriate advice rises to the le ve l of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l e nt it lin g him

to r e lie f u

nd e r t he po stconviction statutes in eff

ect in this state.

Hi s f ir st c la im i s tha t he wa s adv ise d by [Couns e l] th a t he sh ou ld p le a d g uil ty to t his a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult c ount an d tak e a fi ve -y e a r se nte nc e , a nd the re ’s no dis pu te that the ag ree ment–offe red ag ree ment was a five-y ear sentenc e to serve a nd apply for pr o b a t i o n , w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e s t a t e w o u l d o p p o s e p r o b a t i o n a tt h e o uts e t. This offer was made in ge nera l sessions court, and it was discusse d down there

. Now, [the Petiti oner] say s that the re ason he a g ree d to take this is because he

wa s a dv ise d b y

[Couns e l] th a t if

he did no t tak e it that th e state wa s g oin g to specific ally

proce ed on the a

rson cha rg e and that he was fac ing 10 to 15 y ear s on the

arson c harg e in addition to the sentenc e in the ag g ravated assault cha rg e. [C ounsel], in hi s testimony , states that he c annot conc eive of g iving him that advice beca

use ar son, in any

form, does not c arr

y a 10- to 15-y ear

sentenc e. . . .

There fore , [P etitioner], I do not find that testimony cre dible. I f he w as g oing to a dvise y ou that y ou wer e–had e x posure f or ar son-re lated off

enses, other

than the E f e lony of burn ingpe rs on a l pr op e rt y , h e wo uld

no t ha ve a dv ise d y ou that it wa s a-6-

10- t o 15-y ear sentenc e. So I find that that testimony not to be–Ifind that testimony not to be cre dible and find that issue without merit.

Withre g a rd

to t he pr ob a tio n a

nd the pa ro le iss ue , I ’m

g oin g to de a l w iththo se jointly beca use I think they ’re related. I t’s inconce ivable that any lawy er w ho is the least bit competent would ev er p ro m ise any client any

specific result–or a s they ’re
sma rt e no ug h to kn ow , th a t th e y c a n’ t pr e dic t w hat a

jur y is g oin g to do o r n e c e ssa

ri ly wh a t a jud g e is g oin g to do

. No w, the y may have a n op ini on on what a l ikel y ou tc ome is.

But a ny body who looked at y our reco rd, [ Petitioner], and if y ou revie w the sentenc ing r eport that I

revie wed he re this morning , y ou had a re cord that started at ag e 18 and continued on an annual basis from that time until y ou wer e 36. You had six DUI convictions, multipl e assa ult convictions, other re l at ed convictions , and a fe lony ba c k in the e ig hti e s. I t’ s, a g a in, inc on c e iva ble to m e that anyon e wo uld sa y to y ou y ou are a per fec t candidate for pr obation wh en y o u ’r e pleading guilty to an offe nse for which y ou have been convicted on three prior occasions and y ou have at least 15 or 20 other

convictions on y our re cord.

. . . .
So I do not, ag ain, find that t es t i m ony cre dible. Ido not believe that [Couns e l] to ld you

–a nd he ha s te sti fi e d he re tod a y that he did no t te ll you

–y ou wo uld be g uara nteed pr obation. And, i ndeed, that’s further bolstered by

the fa ct that during the sentenc ing he aringthe state stands up and announce s that they are in oppositi on to y ou being place d on probation, and I went over in g reat de tail, a s Ialway s do, the fac t that that would be my decision t o make and what my opinions were, be ing de nial of p ro b at i on or split confinement or pr obation, and made sure you understood that that was my

decision to make, a

nd y ou indicated that y ou did.

An d th e re a so n I a sk e d y ou a bo ut t he pa ro le , w he n y ou

we re tol d a

bo ut p a ro le be ing g ra nte d in a y e a r, a g a in, a

thi ngtha t I fi nd inc on c e iva

ble tha t any lawy e r w ou ld do is gua rante e y ou when y ou’re g oing to be g iven par ole. I t makes no sense if you thought y ou wer e guar antee d probation and a perf ect c andidate f

or probation that y ou would have a

discussion about parole, be cause y ou knew you we re going to g et pr ob a tio n, a nd y ou ’v e te sti fi e d he re tod a y that that c on ve rs a tio n to ok pla c e pr ior

to t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, an d i f i tal l ege d l y t o o k p l ac e p ri o r t o t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, there is no conce ivable reason why y ou would have a di scussion about parole if y ou kn e w you were goi ng to g e t pr ob a tio n. So I fi nd that in c re dib le and

wi tho ut m e ri t with reg ard to the issue of probation and pa

role.

L a stl y , o n y our al le g a tio n tha t y ou we re no t adv ise d of your r ig ht t o a pp e a l, [C o u n s e l] c a n d id ly s a y s th a t h e c a n ’ t r e me mb e r a c o n v e r s a ti o n a b o u t a p p e al, but-7-

normally he would have that discussion with y ou once the sentenc ing he aringis over. Howeve r, I

fi n d i t u n n ec essar

y to make a f

inding of whether or not there was that dis c us sio n b e cause i n my jud g me nt t

he re wa s n o p re

jud ic e , e ve n if

y ou we re tol d there is no appea l, beca

use y ou would not have be en succ essful on appe al, and I ’m
no t–t hat’ s n ot b e inga rr og a nt o n my pa rt

.
But when y ou look at the offe nse that y ou’ve be en convic ted of, the f acts that

are in the rec ord with respe ct to the nature of that off ense, the fac t that y ou had an extensive prior criminal history in w hich y ou had not taken advanta g e of that in the

sense t hat y ou had bee n revoke d for–f rom rele ase into the c ommunity status for

su bs e qu e nt o ff

e ns e s, a nd la stl y , the fa c t th a t th is w a s a –y e t ano the r d ome sti c a ssa ult , when you’ve be en convic ted of pre vious domestic assaults, I ’m convince d that the Court of [ C ri m i n al ] Appea ls would have sustained my finding that y ou are not an appropr iate ca

ndidate fo r p ro b ati on. So, likewise, Ifind that g round to be without

me ri t.

For

all of these rea sons, [P etitioner], I do not find that y ou have e stablished by c le a r a nd c on vin c ing e vid e nc e that the re wa s any ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l, and I dismiss y our post-convic tion petition.
The Petitioner appe als two of the f indings made by the post-conviction court. First, he c ontends that Counsel failed to prope rly advise him as t o the pot ential s entenc es for all the charg es covered in the plea a g ree ment, and sec ond, he conte nds that Counsel failed to advise him of his right to appea l the sentenc e imposed by

the trial cour

t.

II. Ana lys is

I n order to obtain post-conviction relief, a petitioner m ust show that his or her c onviction or sentenc e is void or voi dable because of the a bridg ment of a c onstitut ional rig ht. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-203 ( 1997). The pe titioner bear s the burden of proving fa ctual allegations in t he petition for post-c onviction relief by clea r a n d c o nv incing evidenc e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 210(f) (1997). Upon r e v ie w , this court will not re-we igh or re- evaluate the evide nce be low; all questions concer ning the cr edibility

of witnesses, the w eig ht and value to be g iven t heir testim ony , and the factua l issues raised by the evidenc e are to be resolved by the trial judg e, not the appe llate cour ts. Momon v. S tate, 18 S.W. 3d

15 2, 15 6 (T e nn

. 19 99 ); He nle y v. State , 96 0 S.W. 2d 57 2, 57 8- 79 (T e nn . 1 99 7) . A po stc on vic tio n c ourt ’s fa c tua l f ind ing s are su

bje c t to a de no vo re vie w b y

thi s Co ur t; h ow e ve r, we mus t
acc ord these f

actua l find i n gs a presumption of cor rec tness, which is overc ome only when a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e is contra ry to the post-conviction cour t’s fac tual finding s. Fields v. State, 40 S.W .3d 450, 456 (Tenn. 2001). A post-conviction cour t’s conclusions of laware subject to a pur el y d e n o v o re view by this Court, wit h no presumption of cor rec tness. I d. at 457. The Tenne ssee Supre me Court has hel d that the issue of inef fec tive assistance of counse l is a mix ed question of law a

nd fac t and, as such, is subjec t to de novo revie w. State v. B urns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999)

.-8-

Th e ri g ht o f a

c ri min a lly

a c c us e d to re pr e se ntation i s g ua ra nte e d b y bo th t he Sixth Amendment to the United States Constituti on and Ar ticle I , section 9, of the Tenne ssee Constitution. I d.; Ba x ter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). This rig ht to repre s en t at i on includes the rig ht to “rea sonably

eff ective” assistance . Bur

ns, 6 S.W .3d at 461. I n revie wing a cla im of ineffe ctive assistance of counse l, this C ourt must determine whe ther the a dvice g iven or ser vices

re nd e re d b y

the a tto rn e y

a re wi thi n the ra

ng e of c omp e te nc e de mand e d o f atto rn e y s in c ri min a l c a se s. Bax ter, 523 S.W.2d at 936. To preva il on a claim of inef fec tive assistance of counse l, a petitioner must show that “counse l’s repr esentation f ell below an objective standard o f r easona bleness,” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S

. 6 6 8 , 688 (1984), a nd that this performa

nce pr ejudiced the defe nse, re sulting in a fa ilure to produce a re liable re sult. I d. at 687; Cooper v. State, 849 S.W.2d 74 4, 74 7 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) . T o s a tis fy the re qu ir e me nt o f p re

jud ic e , a pe tit ion e r mus t sh ow a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity tha t, b ut f or c ouns e l’ s unr e a so na

ble e rr or , th e fa c t f

ind e r would h a ve ha d r e a so na ble do ub t r e g ard ingthe pe tit ion e r’ s g uil t. Str ic kla nd , 466 U. S. at 695 . T his re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity mus t be “suff icient to unde rmine confide nce in the outcome.” I d. at 694; se e also Har ris v

. S t at e, 875 S.W .2d 662, 665 (Tenn. 1994)

.

W h en ev al u at i n g an i n ef

fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce o f co u n s el cl ai m , t h e r ev i ew i n g co u rt s h o u l d j u d ge the attorne y ’s per formanc e within the context of the case as a whole, taking into account a ll releva nt
c ir c ums tanc e s. Str ic kla

nd , 4 66 U. S. a t 69 0; S ta te v. Mit c he ll, 75 3 S. W.2 d 1 48 , 1 49 (T e nn . Cr im. App. 1988). The revie wing court must e valuate the questionable conduct f ro m t h e attorney ’s perspe ctive at the time. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690; Cooper, 849 S.W .2d at 746; Hellar d v. State, 629 S.W .2d 4, 9 (Tenn. 1982) . I n doing so, the revie wi n g court must be hig hly defe rential a

nd “should indulge a s t ro ng presumption that counsel’s c onduct fa lls withi n the wide r ang e of

rea sonable prof

essional assistance .” Burns, 6 S.W .3d at 462. Counsel should not be deeme d to have been ine ffe ctive mer ely

beca use a diff ere nt proce dure or

strateg y might have produce d a diffe rent result. Will iams v. State, 599 S.W .2d 276, 279-80 (Te nn. Crim. App. 1980).

I n case s involving a guilty plea or a p lea of

nolo contender e, the pe titioner must show pr e jud ic e by de mon str a tin g that, b ut fo r co un se l’ s er ro rs , he wo uld

no t ha ve ple a de d guil ty

bu t w ou ld have insisted upon going to trial. See Hill v. L ockhar t, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); Ba nkston v. St ate, 815 S.W .2d 213, 215 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.

A. P ot e nt ial Se nt e nc e s

The Petitioner first c ontends that Counsel failed to prope rly advise him as to the potential sentenc es t hat he was facing for all the charg es aga inst him. Specifica lly , the Petitioner contends that Couns e l to ld h im that he wa s f a c ingte n to fi ft e e n y e a rs fo r h is a rs on c ha rge i f he to ok his c a se to trial. Mistaken advice about the pot ential s entenc e that a petiti oner face s can be a proper basis to set aside a plea ag ree ment. L ebra un Thomas v. State, No. 03C01-9306-CR-00190, 1994 WL102062, at *3 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Mar. 29, 1994) , no perm. a p p

. f iled . H ow e ve r, in i ts
me mor and

um o pin ion , th e po st- c on vic tio n co ur t ac c re dit e d Coun se l’ s te sti mony that Co un se l c ou ld-9-

n o t conce ive of g iving the Petitioner a dvice that he fac ed ten to fifte en y ear s for the a rson ch ar ge beca use ar son, in a

ny form, does not c arr

y a ten to fifte en y ear

sentenc e. The post-conviction cour t found t hat t he P etitioner’s testim ony was not credible and f urther note d that if Counsel was g oing to advise the Petitioner that the Petitioner ha d exposure to additional prison time for the a rson-re lated offe nses, he would not have advised the Petitioner that the e x posure wa s a t en t o fi ft ee n y ear sentenc e. Upon our

de novo re view, we ag ree with the t rial court’s finding s and conc lude that the Petitioner failed to pr ove by clea r and convincing evidenc e that counsel’s pe rfor mance in advising h i m a s t o t h e p o t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e s f e l l b e l o w a n o b

j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d

o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s

. A c c o r d i n g l y, we c onclude that the Petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction re lief on this issue.

B. Right to Appeal

Th e Pe tit ion e r n e xt co nte nd s t hat Couns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e be c a

us e he fa ile d to a dv ise him of his rig ht to appea l the sentenc e imposed by the trial court. Althoug h the Petitioner testified that Counsel never

told him t hat he ha d a rig ht to appeal the case , Counsel testified t hat, while he did not specific ally

reme mber infor

ming the Petitioner of this rig ht, he usually tells his clients that, “I f y ou want me to appe al this de cision, y ou need to le t me know now bec ause I have a limit ed amount of time to file a notice of

appea l,” and that the Petitioner expressed no desire to a ppeal. We conc lude that the Petitioner did not prove by clea r and convincing evidenc e that Counsel was ineffec tive by fa ili ngto a dv ise him

of his ri g ht t o a

pp e a l.

Fur thermore , we ag ree with the trial court that, even if the Petitioner had satisfied this prong of the te st, the Pe tit ion e r h a s f a ile d to me e t hi s b ur de n o f e sta bli sh ingthat he wa s pre

jud ic e d by

his failure to a

ppeal. We have revie wed the se ntencing transcr ipt, and there is overwhe lming support for the de nial of the Petitioner’s r equest for probation. Since 1982, the Petitioner ha s been c onvicted of two assa

ult charg es, three DUI

char g es, four

public intox ication cha

rg es, two driving on a re voked license c harg es, one ba d chec k violation, one obstruct i n g p o l i ce violation, one f elony rec eipt of stolen proper

ty and two wea

pons offe nses. Additionally , another DUI char g e and a nother driving

on a re voked li cense char g e were dismi ssed as part of the P etitioner’s plea ag ree ment. The Petitioner ha s f a ile d to me e t hi s b ur de n o f e sta bli sh ingthat, i f h e ha d a

pp e a le d, the re is a

re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that the re sult of this case would have been differ ent. There fore , the Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this iss ue.

III. Conclusi on

I n acc ordanc e with the foreg oing authorities and reasoning , we c onclude that the Petitioner ha s f a ile d to pr ov e ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l by

c le a r a nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e , a

nd the po stconviction court did not err by finding that the Petitioner rec eived e ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel and dis mis sin g his pe tit ion . T he re fo re , w e AF F I RM the po st- c on vic tio n c ourt ’s jud g me nt.-10- ___________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE