# FILED April 29, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL SESSION, 1999 COREY ADAMS KENNERLY, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9806- CC-00252 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) FRANKLIN COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. J. CURTIS SMI TH, STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-Convi ction)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUI T COURT OF FRANKLI N COUNTY FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : FLOY D DO N DA VIS JOHN KNOX WALKUP 201 Firs t Avenu e, N.W
. Attorney Generaland Reporter Win cheste r, TN 37 398 KIM R. HELPER Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 J. MI CHAEL TAY LOR Distri ct Attorney General STEVEN M. B LOUNT Assistant Distri ct Attorney General 1002 East Main Street Decherd, TN 37324
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE1 Although the court had app ointed counsel at that time, Defendan t filed this amended petition pro se . -2-



# OPINION

The Defe ndan t, Core y Ada ms K enne rly, app eals th e trial co urt’s denial of his petiti on for post- convicti on relief . On October 28, 1996, Defendant pleaded guilty to fir

st degree fel ony murder and especially aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sen tenced Defen dant to life imprisonment with the possibi lity

of parole f

or felon y murd er and twenty years fo r espe cially aggrava ted robb ery, to be se rved con current to his life sente nce.
On January 13, 1997, Defendant fi led a pro se petiti on for post- convicti on relief, which he later amended. 1 Followinga post-convi ction evi dentiary hearing, the trialcourt deni ed relief , and Defendant appeal ed. In thi s appeal, Defendant raisesthree assignm ents of error for re view: (1) th e trial co urt failed to com ply with Tennessee Rule of Cri minal Procedure 11(d), and as a re sult, his plea was not entered vol untaril y; (2) t he trialcourt err ed by overrul ing his moti on to dismiss his attorneys of record; and (3) he suffered t he ineffec tive assi stance of counsel becau se cou nsel failed to reques t a chang e of venu e.

I. In his half-page a rgument to thi s Court, Defendant alleges t hat the trial court “failed to advise him o f certain of his constitutional ri ghts and statutory rights, ” citi ng to Boykin v . Al abama , 395 U.S. 238 (1969), and State v. Mackey , 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn. 1977). A t horough review of the plea hear ing transc ript revea ls that Defendant ’s hearin g could perhaps ser ve as a model for

trialjudges-3-

to follow when accepting guil ty pleas. The tri al judge in thi s case placed the utmost importance on Defendant’s un derstanding of the proceedi ngs, incl uding the prote ctions affo rded by th e United States a nd Te nness ee Co nstitutions.

In his brief, Defendant speci fies onl y one right which he contendswas not but s houl d havebeen g ive n. Hestates, “The Court fai led to advise h im that he had a specifi c right

to a chan ge of ven ue . . . .” Defendant has not ci ted, nor can this Court

locate, any authori ty tendi ng to showthat thetrial court ha s a duty to inform criminal defendant s of a right to chan ge ven ue. Th erefor e, this iss ue is both waived a nd witho ut merit. We conclude that the t rial cour t properl y ensured the knowing and voluntary nature of Defendant’s pl ea.

II. In his second issue, Defendant all eges that t he trialcourt err ed by denying his motion to dismiss his attorne ys of reco rd. How ever, as th e State p oints out, Defendant has waived this i ssue by fai ling to provide any argument in hi s brief

on appea l to this Cou rt.

III. F inall y, Defendant argues t hat he suffered the inef fectiv e assistance of counsel pri or to hi s gu il ty ple a. G lea nin g hi s argumen t f rom t he statementof facts contained i n his bri ef, it appears that thi s i ssue has tw o pron gs: (1) h is counsel failed to advise hi m of his constitutionalrights, includi ng the right to plead-4-

n ot guilty and procee d to trial; and (2) his coun sel failed to inform him that hi s case could have b een mo ved to a location o ther than Fran klin or Grundy C ounty.

It is more than appar

ent from the t ranscript of the gui lty pl ea that Defendant was aware of his

constit utional rights, includi ng the right to plead not

guilty and proceed to trial. T herefo re, eve n if his counsel had been def icient in this respe ct, Defenda nt could not fulfill his burden to s how he w as prejudiced by th e deficiency. Furthermore, his pretrial counseltestified at thepo st-co nvicti on hearing that the de cision n ot to request a change of venue was made after the issue was f ull y di scuss ed wi th De fen dant prior to the pl ea. Defendant testifi ed at his plea hearing that he ha d no diss atisfaction w ith his pretrial c ounse l.

The trial judge en tered a th orough mem orandu m opin ion den ying pos tconvicti on relief. The ev idence clearly sup ports the trial judge’s find ings. Based upon a thorough readi ng of the record, the briefs of the parti es, and the l aw governing the issue s prese nted for re view, we a ffirm the jud gmen t of th e tr ial court.

____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE-5-

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

__________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR.