IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 17, 2019

PRESTON JAMAR SHEPHERD v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County

No. F-74077 Royce Taylor, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2018-00945-CCA-R3-PC

___________________________________

Preston Jamar Shepherd, Petitioner, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief using 

the form provided in Appendix A of Rule 28 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. 

Petitioner checked seven of the twelve “Grounds of Petition” listed in the form, including 

ground (2), that his convictions were “based on use of coerced confession” and (9), that 

he was denied effective assistance of counsel. After ground (2), Petitioner wrote “(due to 

mental capacity),” and after ground (9), Petitioner wrote “([f]ailed to go over 

facts/evidence with [Petitioner], and properly inform).” The post-conviction court found 

that the petition failed to state a factual basis for relief and summarily dismissed the 

petition for failing to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-106(d). We 

determine that the petition stated a colorable claim, reverse the summary dismissal, and 

remand for entry of a preliminary order pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 

40-30-107(b).

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and 

Remanded

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T.

WOODALL and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Preston Jamar Shepherd, Mountain City, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia S. Lee, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Jennings H. Jones, District Attorney General; and John C. 

Zimmermann, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

02/06/2019
- 2 -

OPINION

Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner was indicted in Count 1 of case no. 74077 for Class A felony possession 

with intent to sell or deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free school zone, in 

Count 2 for Class E felony possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony 

involving the possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance, and in Count 

3 for Class D felony possession of a handgun after being convicted of a felony drug 

offense and a felony involving force. The offenses were alleged to have occurred on 

December 19, 2014. In Count 4, Petitioner was indicted for Class A felony delivery or 

sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free school zone that was alleged to have 

occurred on December 15, 2014.

On April 27, 2017, Defendant pled guilty as a standard offender to two counts of 

Class B felony possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free school zone and 

was sentenced to eight years’ incarceration in both Counts. Counts 2 and 3 were 

dismissed. The sentences were ordered to be served at 100% pursuant to Tennessee Code

Annotated section 39-17-432(c) and were ordered to be served concurrently. 

On April 10, 2018, Petitioner filed a timely pro se post-conviction relief petition,

utilizing a form substantially identical to the form provided in the Appendix to Rule 28 of 

the Rules of the Supreme Court. Petitioner checked seven of the twelve possible grounds 

for relief listed on the form, and Petitioner included handwritten notations following 

certain grounds. The seven grounds checked and Petitioner’s notations, which appear in 

parenthesis, were as follows:

(1) Conviction was based on unlawfully induced guilty plea or guilty plea 

involuntarily entered without understanding of the nature and consequences 

of the plea.

(2) Conviction was based on use of coerced confession. (due to mental 

capacity)

(3) Conviction was based on use of evidence gained pursuant to an 

unconstitutional search and seizure. (invalid warrant)

(6) Conviction was based on the unconstitutional failure of the prosecution 

to disclose to defendant evidence favorable to defendant. (Brady violation)
- 3 -

(9) Denial of effective assistance of counsel. (Failed to go over 

facts/evidence with me, and properly inform.)

(11) Illegal evidence. (Fruit of poisioness [sic] tree) 

(12) Other grounds. (U.S. v. Cronic violations) (See attached grounds)

On April 27, 2018, the post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition,

finding that Petitioner “fail[ed] to include a ‘full disclosure of the factual basis” of the 

grounds raised in the petition. The court characterized the petition as a “bare allegation” 

and found that the petition failed to state a factual basis for relief and dismissed the 

petition for failing to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-106(d). 

Analysis

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-106(d) states:

The petition must contain a clear and specific statement of all 

grounds upon which relief is sought, including full disclosure of the factual 

basis of those grounds. A bare allegation that a constitutional right has 

been violated and mere conclusions of law shall not be sufficient to warrant 

any further proceedings. Failure to state a factual basis for the grounds 

alleged shall result in immediate dismissal of the petition. If, however, the

petition was filed pro se, the judge may enter an order stating that the 

petitioner must file an amended petition that complies with this section 

within fifteen (15) days or the petition will be dismissed.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106(d). 

Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, section 5(E)(4) provides that the postconviction petition must contain “specific facts supporting each claim for relief asserted 

by [the] petitioner[.]” Petitions that do not have specific factual allegations are subject to 

summary dismissal. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 5(F)(3). 

Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, section 6(B)(2) requires that “[w]ithin thirty 

(30) days after a petition or amended petition is filed, [the post-conviction court] shall

review the petition and all documents related to the judgment and determine whether the 

petition states a colorable claim.” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 6(B)(2). Tennessee Supreme 

Court Rule 28, section 2(H) defines a “colorable claim” as “a claim, in a petition for postconviction relief, that, if taken as true, and in the light most favorable to the petitioner, 
- 4 -

would entitle the petitioner to relief under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.” Tenn. 

Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 2(H).

We review a post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of a petition for postconviction relief de novo. See Arnold v. State, 143 S.W.3d 784, 786 (Tenn. 2004). When 

determining whether a colorable claim has been presented, pro se petitions are held to a 

less rigid standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Allen v. State, 854 S.W.2d 

873, 875 (Tenn. 1993). “If the availability of relief cannot be conclusively determined 

from a pro se petition and the accompanying records, the petitioner must be given the aid 

of counsel.” Swanson v. State, 749 S.W.2d 731, 734 (Tenn. 1988) (citing Tenn. Code 

Ann. §§ 40-30-104, -107, -115). 

In this case, Petitioner claimed that he received the ineffective assistance of 

counsel because counsel “[f]ailed to go over facts/evidence with [Petitioner], and [failed] 

properly inform” Petitioner and that his convictions were “based on use of coerced 

confession” due to Petitioner’s mental capacity. Taking these two claims as true, and in 

the light most favorable to Petitioner, we determine that the petition stated a colorable 

claim. Derrick Helms v. State, No. E2017-02421-CCA-R3-PC, 2018 WL 4692462, at 

*1–2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2018). 

Conclusion

After reviewing the facts and applicable case law and statutes, we reverse the 

summary dismissal of the petition and remand the case to the post-conviction court for 

entry of a preliminary order pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-107(b).

_________________________________

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE