### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Se pte m be r 13, 200 5 S es sio n

ERIKA LOU ISE BU NKL EY PA TRIC K v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for DyerCounty Nos. C00-168A, C 01-376A, C01- 476A Lee M oore, Judge

No. W2004-02217-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled Janu ary 24, 2006

Petitioner
, E ri k a Lou i s e B u n k l eyP at ri ck
, ap p ea l s t h e p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n co u rt ’s dismissal of her pe tition for post-c onviction relief in whic h she alleg ed that her pleas of g uilt y were not voluntarily and knowing ly

enter ed into and that her trial counsel render ed ineffec tive assistancein the neg otiation

a nde ntry of he r p le a s. Af

te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f the re c or d, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the po stc on vic tio n c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3, Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

Fa nnie J . Har

ris, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Erika L ouise Bunkle y Patrick.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; J. Ros s D y e r, As sis ta nt A tto rney Gen eral ; C. Phi lli p B ive n s , D i s t

ri c t A tt o rn e y G e n e r al
, K a

r e n Wa dd e ll B urns , A ssi stant D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

On J une 12, 2000, Petitioner and Christ o p h er P atrick were indicted for f irst deg ree felony murder in c ase N o. C00-168A. Petiti o n er h ad been r elea sed on bond in that ca se whe n she wa s indicted on Octobe r 8, 2001, in ca se No. C01-376A on two counts of the sale of over 0.5 g rams of

c oc a ine , a Cla ss B fe lon y , a ndon e c ou nt o f the sa le of le ss tha n 0 .5 gra ms o f c oc a ine , a Cla ss C felony . Petitioner was also indicted on Dec ember 10, 2001, in case No. C01-476A, on one c ount of possession of over 0.5 g rams of c ocaine , a Class B f elony , and one c ount of s i m p l e p o s s es s ion of marijuana
, a C lass A m isdemeanor

. On J anuary 22, 2002, the State filed a notice of intention to seek the death penalty

in case No. C 00-168A. At the tim e of the incidents, Mr. Patrick, Petitioner’s c odefe ndant, was Petitioner’s boy friend, but the couple marrie d prior to the g u i l t yp l ea s ubmission h ea ri n g.-2-

On Ap ri l 8, 20 03 , Pe tit ion e r e nte re d in to a ne g oti a te d ple a a g re e me nt i n s e ttl e me nt o f c a se Nos. C00-168A, C01-376A, a nd C01- 4 7 6 A. P u rsuant to the plea ag ree ment, Petitioner entere d a plea of g uilty to the lesser inc luded offe nse of se cond deg ree murder in c ase N o. C00-168A, and the trial court sentenc ed her as a Rang e I standard offe nder to f ifteen y ear s. At th e p l ea submissi on he ari ng, th e State of

fe re d th e fo llo wi ng fa c tua l ba sis fo r the ple a . A t th e tim e of the inc ide nt, Petitioner and Mr. Patrick w ere caring f or the victim, two-y ea r- o l d C arlos Olden. On J anuary 9, 20 00 , Pe tit ion e r t oo k the vic tim to his g rand mothe r’ s h ou se fo r the a ft e rn oo n. Mr . Patr ic k a ndMr s. Ol de n, the vic tim ’s g rand mother, state d th a t th e vic tim wa s h e a lth y

wh e n h e wa s r e turne d to Petition er ’s car e. Mr. Patric k said that he a nd Petitioner were alone with the victim during the evening of January

9, 2000. L ate that e vening or during the ea rly morning ho u rs o f J anuary 10, 2000, Mr. Patrick said that he hear d “whipping sounds” coming from the victim’s bedroom, and that Pe tit ion e r andthe vic tim

we re a lon e in the ro om. Mr . Patr ic k th e n h e arda lou d n ois e c omp ara

ble to something hitt ing the floor. Petitioner called out to Mr. Patric k and told him that something wa s wrong with the victim. Mr. Patrick said that the victim wa s in a “c oma like state,” and he c alled 911. The victim ne ver reg ained consciousness and died the next day . The autopsy report refle cted that the vic tim

die d o f b lun t traum a to the h e a d, a ndthat th e inj urie s h a d b e e n in fl ic te d a sh ort ti me befor e medica l personnel a rrived in r esponse to the 911 c all. Mr. Patrick said th at he helpe d Petitioner fabricate a rea son for the victim’s injuries, and that he and Petitioner ag ree d to say that the victim had fallen out of his be d. Petitioner said th at his init ial statement to the police w as not truthful.
At the plea submission hearing, the State said that the charg es i n case Nos. C01-376A and C01 -4 76 A a

ro se ou t of

a se ri e s of arr a ng e d bu y s by po lic e of fi c e rs uti lizin g a

c on fi de nti a l in fo rm a nt. I n Case No. C01-376A, the State offe red a s proof in count one of t he indi ctment t hat on J uly 6, 2001, two confide ntial informants were searc hed and provided money with which to purchase dr ug s. The inf orma nts we nt t o Pe tit ion e r’ s h ome a ndtol d M r. Pa tr ic k th a t th e y wante d to buy

a n “ e ig ht b a ll” of cr ack c ocaine . Mr. Patrick told the two men that the coc aine would c ost $160.00. Petit ioner took the money from the confide ntial inf ormants, went into the bedroom and retrie ved the coc aine, a nd handed the cocaine to one of the informants. The substance purcha sed from the Patricks t ested positive f or cocaine and weig hed 1.1 g rams. I n count two, the State submitt ed that on Jul y 18, 2001, the conf idential informants re turned to Petiti oner’ s home and boug ht six rocks of cra ck coc aine,

we ighi ng 1. 0 gr a m, f

or $7 0. 00 . In c ou nt thr e e of the ind ic tme nt, the State of fe re d a s p ro of

that a
c on fi de nti a l in fo rm a nt a sk e d Pe tit ion e r f or $6 0. 00 wo rth o f c ra c k c oc a ine . Pe ti ti on er w e nt i nto another room and re turned with one rock of cocaine weig hing 0.4 g rams and took the informant’s $6 0. 00 in e xch a ng e fo r the dr ug s.

I n case No. 476A, the State of fer ed as proof that Of

fice rs J im J oy ner and Tod Thay er w ent to Petiti oner’ s and Mr. Patrick’ s residenc e to serve a capia s based on the prior sales of cocaine to the confide ntial inform ants. The of fice rs observe d in plain view a qua ntityof cr ack c ocaine on the kitchen stove, a nd a bag of marijuana and a postal scale on the coff ee table. The off

icer s also found a lar g e amount of c ash in the kitchen and on Mr. Patrick.-3-

Petitioner entere d a plea

of g uiltyto the char g ed off enses in ca se No. C01-376A and to count one of ca s e No. C01-476A. An order of nolle prose qui was ente red a s to count two of the indictment, simpl e possession of marijuana, in ca se No. C01-476A. Pursuant to the terms of the ple a ag ree ment, the t rial court sentenc ed P etitioner t o twelve y ear s for each of her Class B felony drug convictions and six y ear s for her C lass C felony drug conviction. The tria l court orde red Petitioner’ s
sen te n c e s in c a s e N o s

. C0 1

- 3 7 6 A a n d C0 1

- 4 7 6 A to b e s e r v e d c o n c u rr e n tl y w ith e a c h o th er but

consec utively

to her sente nce f

or the sec ond deg ree murder c onviction.
During the g uiltyplea submission hearing , Petitioner aff irmed that she unde rst o o d t h at by enteri n g h er pleas of g uiltyshe wa s waiving her right to trial by jury , the rig ht to confront the witnes ses ag ainst her, a nd the rig ht to subpoena witnesses to appe ar and testify on her be half. Petitioner stated that she unde rstood she wa s g iving up he r rig ht to appeal, a nd h er right of repr esentation of counsel at a trial and on appea l. Petitioner stated that she understood the r ang e of punishment that she might re ceive if tried and c onvicted of e ach c harg ed off ense. Petitioner a ffirme d that the i nformation suppl ied by the State in support of her convictions was c orre ct, and that she was voluntarily

pleading g uiltyof her

own fre e will and choice

. Petitioner stated that her attorney s had

answe red a ll of her que stions about the guilty plea submission process, a nd that she wa s satisfied wi th c ou ns e l’ s r e pr e se ntatio n. Pe tit ion e r a ff ir me d th a t sh e wa s n ot un de r the inf lue nc e of a lc oh ol, drug s, or other f

orms of medication. Petit ioner stated that she understood the leng th of her se ntence s and the r elea se elig ibilit y

dates attributed to her convic tion of eac h offe nse.

II. P os t- Co nvi c ti on H e ar ing
Petitioner filed a pe tition for post-c onviction r elief on Marc h 22, 2004 alleg ing that her ple as of g uil ty in c a se No s. C00 -1 68 A, C01 -3 76 A, a ndC01 -4 76 A w e re no t vo lun tari ly and kn ow ing ly enter ed into and that her trial counsel r ender ed inef fec tive as s i s t an ce of

counsel during the

ne g oti a tio n a nde ntry

of he r p le a s.

Petitioner said that she re tained Willi am Randolph as trial counsel when she was a rre sted on the felony murder char g e. Petitioner said that afte r the State filed its notice of intention to seek the death pe nalty , the trial court found her to be indige nt and appointed Mr. Ra ndolph to repre sent her

on the mur de r c ha

rg e a s le a d c ou ns e l. T he tr ia l c ou rt app oi nte d T od

Tay lor , a n a ssi stant p ub lic defe nder, to serve as co-c ounsel. J im Horner, the district public de fende r, wa s appointed to repr esent her on the drug char g es in c ase No. C01-476A, and Mr. Randolph was a ppointed to repre sented he r on the re maining c harg es in ca se No. C01-376A.

Pe tit ion e r sa id that sh e re c e ive d a no te fr om M r. Pa tr ic k o n A pril 7 , 2 00 3, in w hic h h e sa id that he wa s a c c e pti ng a n off e r of se ttl e me nt in co nn e c tio n with the fe lon y mur de r anddr

ug c ha rg e s, and that he w as “sor

ry .” P etitioner said that Mr. R andolph vi sited her that night at jail. He told her that the State had of

fer ed a se ttlement o f t h e ch ar ges against her, which include d a re commended

se nte nc e of

tw e nty -f ive y e ars fo r the fe lon y mur de r c ha rg e a nd e ig ht y e ars fo r e a c h o f the Cla ss B felony drug char g es. Petitioner said that she did not wa n t t o acc ept the off er be cause she wa s innocent of the felony

murder c harg e. Petitioner said that Mr. Randolph called the prose cutor a nd-4-

offe red to settle the char g es by incre asing the sentenc es for the Class B f

elony drug char g es to twelve y ear s and dec rea sing the felony murder sentenc e to fifteen y ear s, and the State a g ree d to the proposed settlement offe r. Petitioner said that Mr. Randolph told he r she would die if she did not ac cept the offe r. Mr. Randol p h ca l l ed Petitioner’s mother, and Petitioner ta lked to her a bout the offe r of settlement. Petitioner said that Mr. Tay lor disag ree d with some of t he terms of t he S tate’s of fer , but M r

. R a n d o l p h w a s t h e l e a d a t t o r n e y.

Pe tit ion e r s a id that no ne of he r atto rn e y s w a nte d to ta lk a bo ut the dr

ug c ha rg e s d uring the ir meeting s and focused i nstead on the felony murder case

. Petitioner said that Mr. Horner wa nted her to enter a plea of g uiltyto the drug char g es and provide evidenc e ag ainst Mr. Patrick, but Petitioner ref used. Petitioner said that she knew the drug charg es carrie d a sente ncing rang e of be tween e ight and twelve y ear s, but she did not understand the va rious offe nder c lassifications.

Petitioner said that she first saw the final plea a g ree ment approximately ten minutes befor e the plea submiss ion hearing. Petitioner sa id that Mr. Randolph rea d the plea a g ree ment form to her
, but she was g rog g y

from th e af

t er ef fec ts of Visteril and B enadry l which she ha d taken the nig ht be fo re . Pe tit ion e r s a id that Da rl a Ha rd in, a n L .P. N. a t the c ou nty ja il, g a ve he r s e ve ra l day s w orth of the medicine at one time w hen she was not going to be making rounds for a few day s. Petiti oner said she saved the m edicine and t ook multipl e doses, g ener ally on the wee kends. Petitioner said that she did not tell the truth when she told the trial court that she was not on medication at the time of h erp l eas u b m i s s i o n h ea ri n g.

Petitioner said that befor e the plea submissi on hearing Ms. Ha rdin wa s co n cerned that Pe tit ion e r w a s su ic ida l a ndre fe rr e d h e r t o Pathw a y s for a me nta l e va luatio n. Pe tit ion e r s a id that a doctor or psy chiatrist at Pathway s presc ribed P axil and Hy droxy zine for her, but she di d not tell her attorney s that she was taking this medicine

.
On cr oss- ex am ination, Petiti oner sa id that she met sever al times with all three of her attorney s about the felony murder and drug charg es. P etitioner said that seve ral propose d offe rs of settlement wer e d is c u s s e d b efor e April 8, 2003, and she under stood the potential sentence s contained in the State’s rec ommendations. Petitioner ag ree d that she neve r denie d that she wa s g uiltyof the drug char g es, but she denied that she used the drug char g es to gain a more f avora ble sentenc e on the felony murder c harg e. P et i t i o ner sa id that she discussed re lease elig ibilit y dates a nd consec utive sentenc ing w ith he r attorney s. On redire ct examination, Petitioner reiter ated that she acc epted the S t a t e ’ s o f f e r o f s e t t l e m e n ti n o r d e r

t o a v o i d t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y.

Fe l i ci a T ay l o r, P et i t i o n er ’s co u s i n , s ai d t h atP et i t i o n erwa s l et h ar gi c a n d d ro ws y d u r i n g a couple of her visits with Petit ioner at the county jail. Ms. Tay lor said that Petitioner told her she w as
on me dic a tio n, bu t Ms . T a y lor didno t kn ow wh a t me dic ine Pe tit ion e r w a s ta kin g . M s. Tay lor

sa id that Ms. Har din would g ive out multipl e doses of Benadry l, and P etitioner kept a bag of pills under her bunk be d.-5-

Captain L arry

B e ll, wi th the Dy e r Cou nty She ri ff ’s De pa rt me nt, te sti fi e d th a t a ll v isi tor s to t h e j a i l w e r e r e q u i r e d t o s i g n i n

. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e r e g i s t e r , M r

. R a n d o l p h v i s i t e d P e t i t i o n e r t w e n t ythree times b et we en J an uary 2003 and April 2004. Captain Bell said that random searc hes of the inmates’ ce lls were pe rformed, and no pills were ever found in Petitioner’s ce ll.

Ms. Ha rd in t e sti fi e d th a t her du tie s at the Dy e r Cou nty Jail inc lud e d r e sp on din g to s ic k c a lls
, d i s tr i b u t i n g m e d i c a t i o n s , a n d arr a n g i n g f o r i n m a t e v i s i t s t o m e d i c a l p e r s o n n e l i n t h e c o m m u n i t y. Ms. Hardin said that she wa s authorized to distribute over-the- counter medications such a s Ty lenol

a ndB e na dry l, b ut s he de nie d th a t sh e g a ve Pe tit ion e r mor e than on e B e na dry l ta ble t a t a tim e . M s. Har din said that following Petitioner’s examination at Pathway s in late Octobe r 2001, Petitioner was presc ribed Paxil , Trazodone and Hy droxy zine. Petitioner ref used to ta ke the medicine a nd executed

a re fusal of me dical services form on J anuary 18, 2002. Ms. Hardin said that she did not give Petitioner any

Be nadryl during the eve ning of April 7, 2003.

The a ffidavit of Ma

ry Bunkle y , Petitioner’s mother, wa s en t ered as an e x hibit without objection by

the S tate. I n her affida vit, Ms. Bunkley stated that Petitioner see med drug g ed or slee py when she visited her daug hter at the jail, and Ms. B unkley told Petitioner to stop taking the medicine. Ms. Bunkley

stated in her a ffidavit that Mr. Randolph called her on April 7, 2003, and told her that Pe tit ion e r h a d to ple a d g uil ty to the fe lon y mur de r ch arg e s “or sh e wa s g oin g to be e xec ute d. ” Ms. Bunkle y said that Mr. Randolph told he r that Mr. Patrick was g oing to te stify at trial that Petitioner had inflicted the injuries that led to the victim’s death. Ms. B unkley said that Mr. Randolph told her that they only had one hour

to decide w hat to do and asked he r to talk to Petiti oner. Ms. B unkley stated that Petitioner was c ry ing and upset, but she ag ree d to help “Mr. Randolph c oerc e [Petit ioner] to plead g uilty ” because she was afr aid t hat P etitioner “w ould be executed f or something she did not do.”
Mr. Randolph testified that he me t with Petit ioner f re q uently during the pende ncy

of the

c ha rg e s, a ndhe gave her hi s cel l ph on e nu mbe r s o th a t Pe tit ion e r o r h e r f a mil y me mbe rs c ou ld contac t h i m at an y t ime. Mr. Randolph said he hire d an investig ation team who inter viewed Pe tit ion e r s e ve ra l ti me s. Th e inv e sti g a tor s a lso int e rv ie we d p ot entia l mi tig a tio n w itn e sse s in prepa ration f o r t h e s en t encing phase of the trial. Mr. Randolph said that he discussed the investigation team’s prog ress re ports with Petiti oner and g ave he r copie s of his file.

M r. R an d o l p h s ai d h e a n d M r. T ay l o r f i l ed ap p ro x i m at el y

t h i rt y -o n e m o t i o n s i n cl u d i n g a reque st for a mental evaluation. Mr. R andolph, however, arra ng ed for Dr. Pamela Abule to per form a pre liminary

mental eva luation of Petitioner. Dr. Abule found no sign of sever e medical disorde r
or de fe c t in Pe tit ion e r andc on c lud e d th a t Pe tit ion e r w a s c omp e te nt t o s ta ndtr ia l. M r. Ra nd olp h s a id that he told Petitioner about Dr. Abule’s conclusions, and Petitioner laug hed and said she knew she

was a ll right. Petitioner ag ree d to withdraw the motion reque sting a mental eva luation.

Mr . Rand olp h s a id that he re vie we d th e vic tim ’s auto ps y re po rt a ndint e rv ie we d D r. O. C. Smit h conce rning his findings. Mr. Randolph sa id that the medical pr oof wa s not very favor able. I n addition, Petiti oner ha d made some c omments to other people that we re damag ing to he r ca se.-6-

Mr. Randolph said that seve ral off ers of settlement wer e discussed in the months prece ding the plea submission hearing. Initially , befor e the notice of intent to seek the de ath pena lty was filed, the S tate offere d to dismiss the felony murder char g e if Petitioner testified ag ainst Mr. Patrick. Mr. Ra nd olp h le arn e d th a t th e sa me of fe r w a s exte nd e d to Mr. Pa tr ic k, a nd Mr . Ran do lphe xpla ine d to Pe tit ion e r that “ it w ou ld b e a ra c e to the c ou rtho us e ,” a nd “ wh ic he ve r one g ot to the c ou rtho us e fi rs t . . . would g et the dea l.” Petitioner ref used to ac cept the offer

beca use she did not want to testify ag ainst Mr. Patrick, and she did not believe that Mr. Patric k would acc ept the State’s of fer

.
After Petitioner was indicted on the dr ug char g es, Mr. Randolph said that the State of fer ed to settle all of the cha

rg es with a re commended se ntence of ten y ear s on the Class B fe lony drug char g es, and a

plea o f gu i l ty

to the lesser of

fense of criminallyneg lige nt homicide with a

rec ommended sente nce of two y ea rs . The State’s of fer was c ontinge nt on Petiti oner’ s testify ing ag ainst Mr. Patrick. Mr

. R an d o l p h said that Petitioner was a g ree able to the leng th of sentenc es of fe re d b y the State bu t a g a in r e fu se d to c oo pe rate in the State ’s c a se a g a ins t Mr . Patr ic k. Th e Sta te then fil ed a notice to se ek the de ath pena lty . Mr. Randolph said that, at this point in t ime, the prosec utor told him that the State would not r ecommend less than twenty -five y ear s on anylesser included off

ense of felony murder or

ten y ear s o n t h e C lass B f elony drug char g es if Petitioner continued to ref

use to coope rate . Petitioner ref used the off

er, and Mr. Randolph said that he

c on c e ntr a te d o n p re pa

ri ng fo r t ri a l.

When he learned on April 7, 2003, that Mr. P atrick ha d ag ree d to testify ag ainst Petiti oner, Mr. Randolph i m m ed i at el y d rove to the Dy er County J ail. He sa id that he and Petitioner c alled Petitioner’s mother, and the y discussed the ramifications of Mr . Patrick’s plea ag ree ment with the State during a thre e-w ay conver sation. Mr. Randolph said that he aske d Petitioner what she wanted to do. Petiti oner sa id that she would ag ree to no mo re t h an sevente en y ear s on a lesser included

o ff en s e o f t h e f

el o n y m u rd erch ar ge a n d t en y ea rs o n t h e C l as s B fe l o n y d ru g ch ar ges i n ex ch an ge for enteri n g p le a s o f

g u il ty

. M r

. Ran d o lp h s a idth a t h e c a ll e d th e p r o s e c u to r a n d s u g g e s te d tha t Petitioner serve less time on a lesser included offe nse of the felony murder char g e in exchang e for serving maxi mum sentence s on the Class B fe l o ny drug char g es, and the State acc epted the of fer

. Mr . Rand olp h s aid that

he re vie we d th e pr op os e d s e nte nc e s a ndthe re le a se e lig ibi lit y date s w ith Pe tit ion e r at le ng th. Mr

. Ra nd olp h sa id that Pe tit ion e r un de rs too d the ir dis c us sio n a nd c or re c te d h im one time when he stated t he wr ong elig ibilit y date. Mr. Ra ndolph denied that he told Petitioner that she only had one hour

to make up her

mind.

Mr . Rand olp h s a id that he a ndMr . T a y lor re vie we d th e pr op os e d p le a a g re e me nt w ith Petitioner ag ain befor e the g uiltyplea submission hearing on April 8, 2003. Mr. Randolph said that P et i t i o n erd i d n o tap p ea r s l ee p y o r gr o ggy

o n t h e m o rn i n g o f t h e p l eas u b m i s s i o n h ea ri n g.
Mr. Taylor testified that Petitioner did not appea r to be under the influence of any drug s on Ap ri l 8, 20 03 , a ndun de rs too d th a t e nte ri ng a ple a of g uil ty wa s in he r b e st i nte re st.-7-

Mr . H orne r t e sti fi e d th a t Pe tit ion e r n e ve r s a id s he wa s n ot g uil ty of the dr ug c ha rg e s a nddid

no t e xpre ss a n int e re st in pr oc e e din g to tr ia l on the se c ha rg e s. Mr

. Ho rn e r s a id that e ve ry on e ’s fo c us , including Petitioner’ s, was on the murde r ca se.

At the conc lusion of the evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that Petitioner had voluntarily

and knowing ly

enter ed into her ple a ag ree ment, that she wa s well informed of the issues surrounding her case s, and that she understood the nature and conseque nces of her ple a. The post-conviction court further fo u n d that Petitioner failed to esta blish byclea

r and c onvincing

e vid e nc e that sh e wa s u nd e r the inf lue nc e of me dic a tio n w he n s he e nte re d int o h e r p le a . T he po stconviction court also found t hat Petitioner’s counse l rende red e ffe ctive assistanc e in the neg otiation

a n d e n tr y o f

P e t i t i o n e r ’ s p l e a

o f g u i l t y.

III. Stand ard of Review
A petitioner see king post-c onviction relief must establish his alleg ations b y cl ea r and

con v i n ci n g ev i d en ce

. T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4 0 -3 0 -2 1 0 (f )( 1 9 9 7 ). Ho we v er , t h e t ri al co u rt ’s ap p l i cation of the law to the fac ts is re viewed de novo , without a presumption of cor rec tness. Fi e lds v . S tate , 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001) . A claim that coun s el rendered ine ffe ctive assistanc e is a mix ed question of fac t and law and there fore also subject to de novo revie w. Id. ; State v. Burns , 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999)

. When a petitioner see ks post-conviction relief on the basis of inef

fec tive ass i s t ance of counsel, he must establish that counsel’s per formanc e fe ll below “the rang e of c ompetence demande d of attorne y s in criminal case s.” Ba x te r v . R os e , 5 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 6 ( T e n n

. 1 9 7 5 )

. In

a dd iti on , h e mus t sh ow that c ou ns e l’ s in effec tiv e pe rf orma nc e a c tua lly

a dv e rs e ly

imp a c te d h is defe nse. Stric kland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 693, 104 S. C t. 2052, 2067, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1 98 4) . In r e vie wi ng c ou ns e l’ s p e rf orma nc e , th e dis tortio ns of hin ds ig ht mus t be a vo ide d, a ndthi s Court will not s econd- g uess co u n s el ’s dec isions reg arding trial strateg ies and tac tics. Hellard v. State, 6 2 9 S

. W

. 2 d 4 , 9 ( T e n n

. 1 9 8 2 )

. T h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t , t h e r e f o r e , s h o u l d n o t c o n c l ud e tha t a pa rt ic ula r a c t or omi ssi on by

c ou ns e l is un re a so na

ble me re ly be c aus e the str a te g y wa s u ns uc c e ssf

ul. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. Rather, c ounsel’s alleg ed er rors should be judg ed from counse l’s perspe ctive at the point of time they wer e made in light of a l l t h e fac ts and circ umstances at that time. Id . at 690, 104 S. Ct. at 2066.
A petitioner must satisfy

both prong s of the Strickland test befor e he or she may preva il on a cla im of ineffe ctive assistance of counse l. See H enleyv. State, 960 S.W .2d 572, 580 (Tenn. 1997)

. Th a t is , a pe tit ion e r mus t no t on ly sh ow that hi s c ou ns el’ s perf orm anc e fe ll b e low a c c e pta ble standards, but that suc h perf ormanc e was pre

judicial to the petitioner. Id. Fa ilure to satisfy either prong will result in the denial of re lief. Id. Acc ording ly , this Court need n o t ad d re s s one of the components i f t he petiti oner fails to establish the other. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct . at 2069. I n case s involving a g uilty plea, the petitioner m ust show prejudice by demonstrating that, but fo r c ou ns e l’ s e rr or s, he or sh e wou ld no t ha ve ple a de d g uil ty bu t w ou ld h a ve ins ist e d o n g oin g to-8-

trial. Se e Hi ll v . Lo c k

ha rt , 474 U. S. 42, 59 , 106 S. Ct. 366 , 3 70 , 8 8 L . E d. 2d20 3 ( 19 85 ); Bankston

v . S tate , 815 S.W .2d 213, 215 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)

.
IV. Ineff ective Assistance of Counsel

A. Failure to I nvestig ate Dr ug Charg es

Pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t a ll thr e e a tto rn e y s r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l be c aus e the y faile d to inve sti g a te the dr ug c ha rg e s bef or e Pe tit ion e r en te re d he r ple a of g uil ty to the c ha rg e s. Mr. Randolph testified that he was appointed to r epre sent Petitioner on the drug char g es in ca se No. 376A, and Mr. H orner

was a ppointed to repre sent her on the possession c harg es in case No. 476A. Mr. Randolph said t hat he discusse d the drug char g es with Petitioner, including the rang e of punishment. Mr. Randolph said that Petiti oner a dmitted she was g uiltyon the dr u g char g es and

never indicated that she wanted to pr ocee d to trial on those char g es. Mr. Randolph said that Petitioner told him that “she ha d been selling drugs because t hat was the only way she had to make money beca use she lost her job at the nursing home due to” the murder c ase. Mr . Randolph testified that in Aug ust 2002, months before Petitioner e n t er ed her pleas of g uilty , Petitioner asked Mr. Randolph to ne g otiate a lower sentenc e for the f elony murder c harg e by

offe ring a hig her se ntence for the dr ug char g es.

Mr. Horne r testified that he discussed the e vidence in case No. 476A with Petitioner, and

ex p l ai n ed t o P et i t i o n ert h att h e S t at e w as m ak i n g an y p l ea agr ee m en t o n t h e f el o n y m u rd erch ar ge
c on tin g e nt o n e nte ri ng a

ple a to the dr ug c ha rg e s.
Mr. Taylor said that althoug h he w as appointed to repre sent Petitioner on both the murder

a ndthe dr ug c ha rg e s, the mur de r c ha

rg e wa s h is m a in f

oc us be c aus e it w a s sc he du le d f or tr ia l f ir st. Mr . T a y lor

a g re e d th a t li mit e d atte nti on ha d b e e n p a id t o p re pa ri ng the dr

ug c ha rg e s f or tr ia l.

Th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt fo un d th a t th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at th e e vid e nti ary he ari ng did not support a finding that Petitioner’s attorney s “failed to e valuate the evidenc e on the drug char g es.”
Rely ing on State v. Gas to n L. E dison , No. 02-C01-9109-CR-00209, 1992 WL 156032 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, July8, 1992), no perm. to appeal filed
, P e t i t i o n e r ar g u e s t h a th e r a t t o r n e ys ha d a du ty to i nv e sti g a te the dr ug c ha rg e s r e g ard le ss o f h e r a dmi ssi on of g uil t a s to the se c ha

rg e s. I n E d ison , a pane l of this Court noted that “the constitutional right to the e ffe ctive assistanc e of counsel has encompa ssed the pre- trial investigation of the fac ts and circ umstances surrounding the crime a lleg ed in the cha

rg ing instrument.” Id

. , 1 9 9 2 W L1 5 6 0 3 2 , a t* 6 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. In fulfilling this duty , counsel “ ‘should interview not only his own witnesses, but also those the [St ate] intends to call, when the y are acc essible.’” Baxter , 5 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d at9 3 3 (q u o t i n g United States v. DeCoster , 4 87 F .2 d 1 19 7, 12 03 -0 4 ( 19 73 )) . A n a c c us e d’ s a dmi ssi on of g uil t or de sir e to p le a d g uil ty d o es n o t re l ieve c ounsel of a duty to conduct pre -trial investig ation. Gaston L. Edison
, 1 9 9 2 WL 156032, at *7.-9-

Other tha n an alleg ation that her attorney s failed to a dequate ly investigate the drug char g es b ef o re s h e e n t er ed h erp l eao f gu i l t y , h o we v er , P et i t i o n erh as n o ts h o wn t h ata m o re t h ro u gh investigation would have benef itted Petitioner or provided a possible de fens e. T h e two-part Strickland

test is “applicable to ineffe ctive-a ssistance c laims arising out of the plea proce ss,” and a petitioner must establish that she was pr ejudiced by her counsel’s failure to investigate. Hi ll , 474 U.S. at 57-58, 106 S. Ct. at 370. I n the contex t of a g uilty plea, “ wher e the a lleg ed er ror of counsel is a failure to investigate or discove r potentially exculpatory

evidenc e, the de termination whethe r the

err or ‘pr ejudiced’ the [petiti oner] by causing him to plead g uilty rathe r than g o to trial will depend

on the lik e lih oo d th a t di sc overy of th e ev ide nc e wo uldha ve le d c ou ns e l to c ha ng e his

rec ommendation as to the plea . This assessment, in turn, will de pend in la rg e part on a pre diction whether the evidenc e likely

would have c hang ed the outcome of a tria l.” Id . at 59, 106 S. Ct. at 370- 371.

The e vi d en ce d o es not preponde rate ag ainst the post-conviction court’s finding that Petitioner’s attorney s did not render ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel in the investigation of her dr ug
case s. Moreove r, eve n if t h e s co p e o f counse l’s investigation of Petiti oner’ s drug char g es wa s defic ient, Petitioner has failed to show what a more thoroug h investigation would have re veale d or that Petitioner would have insisted on proc eeding to trial on the drug char g es. The post-c onviction court found:

I t also appea

rs from the te stimonyof all the parties that the of fer of settlement that [P etitioner] acce pted was an offe r to settle all of the c ases pe nding a g ainst her. He r ple a a g re e men t to fi ft e e n y e ars on a se c on d d e g re e mur de r c ha rg e ne c e ssa

ri ly inc lud e d a

ple a on the pe nd ing dr

ug c a se s. Th e ple a

of se c on d d e g re e mur de r w ith a fifte en[-]y ear

sentenc e was not available unless she did, in fac t, plead g uiltyto the drug char g es. It appea

rs to the Court, howeve r, t hat [ Petitioner] was well awa re of the fa ct that she c ould go to tria l on all of her c ases ha d she chose n to do so.

Ba s ed o n o u r r ev i ew o f t h e e v i d en ce p re s en t ed att h e e v i d en t i ar y h ea ri n g, we ca n n o tco n cl u de that Petitioner was pre

judiced by any defic iency in the extent of her attorne y s’ investig ation of the drug char g es prior to the e ntry of her pleas of g uilty

. Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this issue.

B. Coer cion During Plea Neg otiations

Pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t Mr . Rand olp h’ s r e pr e se ntatio n f e ll b e low r e a s o n a

b l es t an d ard s b e c aus e he used he r mother’ s influence to help him coerc e Petitioner into entering pleas of g uilty t o the felony murder and drug cha rge s

. M r. R andolph testified that he ha d known Ms. Bunkle y for approximately

twenty y ear s, and Ms. Bunkle y had bee n involved in Petiti oner’ s case from the be g inn ing . M r. Ra nd olp h state d that he c a lle d Ms. B un kle y wh ile he wa s wi th P e tit ion e r o n A pril 7, 2003, and that the three of the m discussed Petitioner’s options. At the end of their three -wa y
conver sation, Mr. Randolph said that he a sked Petitioner, “what will y ou do? ” Petitioner re sponded that she would “do something like sevente en [ for the felony murder char g e] plus ten or something like that [for the drug char g es].” Wit h this authorization, M r. Randolph contac ted the prosec utor and-10-

eventua lly neg otiated rec ommended sentenc es of fiftee n y ear s for the murder char g e and t welve y e ars fo r the dr

ug c ha rg e s. Mr . Rand olp h te sti fi e d th a t he didno t te ll Pe tit ion e r that sh e ha d o nly one hour to make a dec ision, and he did not tell her that she would die i f she decide d not to acce pt
a ple a a g re e me nt.
The post-c onvict ion court found that Mr. Ra ndolph did not coerc e Petitioner into entering

a p l e a o f g u i l t y. T h e p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n c o u r ta c c r e d i t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f P e t i t i o n e r ’ s a t t o r n e ys
c on c e rn ing the se qu e nc e of e ve nts wh ic h oc c ur

re d on Ap ri l 7 andAp ri l 8, 20 03 , th e re by imp lic itl y fi nd ing that Ms . B un kle y ’s te sti mon y wa s n ot c re dib le . T he po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt fo un d th a t,
[b] oth of [P etitioner’s] trial attorney s indicated that a lthough [Petitio n e r ] w a s a d v is ed of t he fact t hat s he face d execution on a death penalty case , that they did not threaten her w ith death. Trial c ounsel stated spec ifically that [P etitioner] was advised that he r
case did not l o o kg ood since he r husband ha d ag ree d to testify ag ainst her. Trial counsel indicated that on April 8, 2003, [Petit ioner] d i d n ot appea r to be unde r the influence of any

drug. M r. Tay lor stated that [Petit ioner] was cohe rent a nd understood the situation. Mr. Randolph also indicated that she understood what was h ap p en i n g.

B a se d o n o ur

re vie w, we c on c lud e that th e e vid e nc e do e s no t pr e po nd e rate a g a ins t th e po stconviction court’s finding s t h at Petitioner’s counsels’ r epre sentation did not fall below the

rea sonable standa

rd dema nded of de fense attorney s. Petiti oner is not entitled to r elief on this iss ue.

C. New F actua l Alleg ations

Petitioner raises f

or the fir st tim e on appe al seve ral ne w fa ct ual alleg ations supporting he r ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim. That is, Petitioner ar g ues that Mr. Randolph re ndere d ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel by failing to obtain a written c opy of Mr. Patrick’ s second state ment to the police. She also arg ues that Mr. Randolph failed to adequately revie w the stateme nt before

a dv isi ng Pe tit ion e r t o e nte r a ple a of g uil ty , a ndthat he imp lie d to Pe tit ion e r that sh e sh ou ld a dmi t as true the fac tual basis for he r plea s as pre sented by the State at the plea submissi on hearing w hen Petitioner believed that the fac ts were false. Petitioner also contends for the first time on appea l that Mr. Horne r r en d er ed ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel bec ause he was not pre sent at the plea submissi on hearing, and Mr. Taylor’s assistance was inef fec tive beca

use he impl icitly

advised Petitioner that she should not tell the trial court that she had inge sted Be nadryl and Visteril bef ore t h e h ea ri n g. A petition for post-convic tion relief is a sing le claim for relief under the Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t even thoug h the violation may be prove d by

multipl e ac ts or omiss i o n s on the part of counsel. Thompson v. Sta te , 958 S.W .2d 156, 161 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (citations omitted); Con e v . S tate , 9 27 S.W. 2d 57 9, 58 1- 82 (T e nn . Crim . App . 199 5)

. Th us , all fa c tua l a lle g a tio ns mus t be prese nted in one claim. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-106( d). A petiti oner may not relitigate a claim of inef

fec tive assistance of counse l “by prese nting ne w and diff

ere nt fac tual alleg ations” on-11-

appea l. Thompson
, 95 8 S.W. 2d a t 16 1; Ro ge r Cl ay ton Da v is v . S tate , No. 03C01-9902-CR-00076, 2000 WL 21307 (Tenn. Crim. App., a t Kn o x v i l le, J an. 14, 2000), perm. to appeal de nied (Tenn. Sept. 5, 2000).

I t appea rs that Petitioner’s additional fa ctual alleg ations supporting her claim of ineff ective

a ssi stanc e of

c ou ns e l, w hic h w e reno t r a ise d inhe r p e tit ion fo r po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f, are in r e sp on se to t e sti mon y

de ve lop e d at tria l. Furthe rm or e , Pe ti ti on er di d not m ake a mot ionfo r the po stconviction court to c onsider these additional fac tual alleg ations as a basis to pr ov e i n ef fe cti ve assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court did not make any finding s of fac t o n t h e factual alleg ations Petiti oner now raises. See Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 3 6(a ) ( No “ re lie f m a y be g rante d in contra vention of the provinc e of the trier of fac t.”). Conseque ntly , these issues have been waived. See Cone , 747 S.W .2d at 357.

V. G uilty Plea
Petitioner arg ues that she could not make an informed c hoice a s to whether or not to acce pt the State’s off

er of a plea ag ree ment beca

use her attorney s’ advice was ba sed primarily on Mr. Patrick’s sec ond statement to the police w hich Petitioner cont en d s wa s not reviewe d by her attorney s. Petiti oner submits that the evidenc e is clea r t hat s he alway s maintained that she wanted to pr oc e e d to tr ia l on he r c ha rg e s, a ndthat bu t f

or the “ ina de qu a te ly

pr e pa re d a dv ic e of

he r c ou ns e l”

s h e w o u l d n o th a v e e n t e r e d a p l e a o f g u i l t y.

When an ac cused e nters a plea of g uilty
, constitutional considerations mandate that the plea be volunt arily
, understanding ly and knowingly enter ed. See B oykin v . Alabama
, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S. Ct. 170 9, 17 13 , 2 3 L . E d. 2d27 4, 27 9 ( 19 69 ); State v. Mac key
, 553 S.W .2d 337 (Tenn. 1997)

. B y e nte ri ng a

ple a , th e de fe nd a nt w a ive s c e rt a in c on sti tut ion a l ri g hts inc lud ing the privi le g e a g a ins t self-inc rimination, the rig ht to a trial by jury
, and the rig ht to confront witnesses. Boy k in , 3 95 U. S. at 243, 89 S. Ct. at 1714. The defe ndant’s wa iver of the se constitutional rig hts may not be pre sumed from a silent recor d. Id. A plea c annot be voluntary if the ac cused is “inc ompetent or other wise not in c ontrol of his mental fac iliti es” at the time the plea is ente red. Bl an k e ns hip v . S tate , 858 S.W .2d 8 9 7 , 9 0 4 -0 5 (T en n

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( q u o t i n g Brown v. Perini , 718 F. 2d 784, 788 (6th Cir. 1983)). The tria l court must asce rtain if the de fendant fully understands the signific ant conse quence s of his or her plea. State v. Pe ttus , 986 S.W .2d 540, 542 (Tenn. 1977). The trial court may consider a number of fac tors including the defe ndant’s re lative intellige nce, his or he r fa mili ar ity with criminal pr oc e e din g s, wh e the r the de fe nd a nt w a s r e pr e se nte d b y c omp e te nt c ou ns e l a ndha d th e op po rtun ity to confe r with c ounsel about options, the advice g ive by counsel and the trial court about the cha rg es
a g a i n s tt h e d e f

e n d a n ta n d t h e p e n a l t y t o b e i m p o s e d
, a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s r e a s o n s f

o r p l e a d i n g g u i l t y. Bl ake ns hip , 858 S.W .2d at 904.
The post-c onviction court found that the trial court a dvised petitio n er during he r plea

su bmi ssi on he ari ng of he r ri g ht to tri a l by jury , he r ri g ht to co nf ro nt an d cr os s- e xami ne wi tne sse s,
a ndhe r rig ht a g a ins t se lf

-i nc ri min a tio n. Th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt fu rthe r f ou ndthat:-12-

Pe tit ion e r w a s q ue sti on e d c are fu lly abo ut o the r i ssu e s to make sure that sh e fu lly understood what she was doing . [P etitioner] testified under oath that she under stood the vari o u s ra n ges of punishm ent if she we re trie d and convic ted as c harg ed. [P etitioner] also stated under oath that her attorney s had answere d all of her questions that she had about her plea of g uilty

. She stated further that her attorney s had done

every thing that she had asked and ex pecte d them to do in prepa ring her c ases, a nd she was satisf

i ed co m p letely

with the way

she had be en re prese nted by both Mr. Randolph and Mr. Tay lor.
The post-c onviction court further found that P et i t ioner “ had a c lear understanding of the maxi mum consecutive se ntence s from bot h the testimony [of] trial counsel a nd from the transcript of the g uil ty p le a

. . . a n d th a t [P e ti ti o n e r ] w a s w e ll

- in f o r me d o f th e is s u e s in h e r c a s e s , and she understood fully

the nature and conse quence s of her plea.”

B a se d o n o ur

re vie w o f t he re c or d, we c on c lud e that th e e vid e nc e do e s n ot p re po nd e rate
a g a ins t th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt ’s fi nd ing that Pe tit ion e r v olu ntarily , kno wi ng ly a ndint e lli g e ntl y
e nte re d h e r p le a s o f g uil ty to a ll of the c ha

rg e d o ff e ns e s. Pe tit ion e r i s n ot e nti tle d to re lie f o n th is issue.

CO NC LU SION

Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt

.

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE