### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON

ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v
. TA B V IR GI L

Crim inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. 04-05409

No. W2006-02346-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Fe bruary 14, 2008

Da v i d G. Ha y es , J

. , s ep ar at e c o n cu rr i n g.

Ijoi n w iththe ma

jor ity , b ut wri te se pa

rate ly fo r t he fo llo wi ngre a so ns

. This case is but one of many case s from Shelby

County in whi ch a d ef

en d ant has raised befor e this court a c halleng e to the voluntarine ss of his guilt y p l ea b ased upon a plea a g ree ment which provide d that the def endant’ s state sentenc es would be serve d concur rently to the defe ndant’s outstanding or

pendingfede ral sente nce. See e .g., Lucious Allen v. State, No. W2000-02320-CCAOT -P C ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. at Jac ks on , N ov . 2 , 2 00 1) ; J os e ph T. F au lk ne r v . S tate , No. W1999- 00 22 3- CCA -R 3- PC (Te nn . Crim . App . at J a c ks on , O c t. 1 7, 20 00 ); Sta tev . B ru c eC. R e lif or d , No. W 19 99 -00 82 6-C CA -R 3-C D (T enn . C ri m. App . atJ acks on , Oc t. 2, 20 00 ); Derrick E. Means v. Sta te , No . 0 2C0 1- 97 07 -C R- 00 24 8 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. at J a c ks on , Aug . 1 3, 19 98 ); Joe Se igle v. Osc ar Mason , No. 03C01-9610-CR-00364 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, Oct. 1, 1997 ). The obvious dil e mma pr e se nte d b y

thi s p le a a g re e me nt i s th at th e State of Te nn e sse e la c ks any

a uthori ty to control a f

eder al sentenc e. The deter mination by

fede ral au t h o ri t i es as to the manner in which a fede ral sente nce is to be se rved in fe dera l c ustody in c onjunction w ith a state sentenc e is a fe dera l matter “ which ca

nnot be over

ridden by a state c ourt provision for c oncurr ent sentenc ing on a subsequently -obtained state conviction.” De rri c k E. Me an s v . S

tate , No. 02C01-9707-CR-00248 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Aug . 13, 1 9 9 8 )( ci t at ions omit ted). One United States Court of Ap pe a ls Jud g e ha s summa ri zed the pr ob le m f

ro m th e fe de ra l pe rs pe c tiv e a s f oll ow s:
State sentenc ing judg es and de fense attorney s in state proce eding s should be put on notice. F eder al pri s o n officia ls are unde r no oblig ation to, and may well re fuse to, fo llo w a re c omm e nd atio n of s tate se nte nc ingjud g e s th at a pr iso ne r b e tr ans po rt e d to a fe dera l fac ility . Moreove r, conc urre nt sentence s i m p o s ed by state judg es ar e nothing more than re commendations t o fede ral off icials. Those off

icials rema in free to turn those concur

rent sentences into consecutive sente nces by ref using to a cce pt the state pr iso ne r u

nti l com ple tio n of the state se nte nc e and re fu sin gto c re dit

the tim e the prisoner

spent in state custody

.-2-

Del Guzzi v. United States , 98 0 F .2 d 12 69 , 12 72 -7 3 (9 Cir

. 19 92 ) (N or ri s, J., c on c ur

ri ng ). I n all th of the a bove re fer ence d Shelby County case s, the federa l corr ectional facility ref used t o acc ept re turn of the de fen d an t u n t i l the state sente nces ha d been se rved; the e ffe ct of whic h resulted in the defe ndant’s state ne g otiated conc urre nt sentence s beingtransfor med into consec utive sentenc es. This, in turn, leads to the underlying issue prese nted i n this appeal, i.e ., the voluntariness of the guilty plea within the conte x t of a ne g otiated plea a g ree ment. Acknowle dg ing th e attac hment of due p ro ce s s rig hts within t he guilty plea pr ocee ding, the United States Supreme Court has observe d:
[W here ] a plea re sts in an y s i gn i fi cant deg ree on a promise or agree ment of the prosec utor, so that it can be s aid t o be part of t he inducement or consider ation, such promise m ust be fulfilled

. . . That t he breac h of agree ment was inadve rtent does not le sse n it s im

pa c t.

Sa nto be llo v . Ne w York, 404 U.S. 257, 264, 92 S. C t. 495, 499 (1971). It is appar ent i n this case that the De fe nd ant’ s guil ty ple a s we re ind uc e d in “ signif ic ant” de g re e up on

the a g re e me nt t

hat hi s st ate and fe dera l s en t en ces would run concur rently . Acc ording ly , withdrawa l of his guilty pleas a re war rante d.

I t should be emphasized, in view of the ong oing na ture of this issue, that neither the State nor d efe nse counse l should enter into any plea a g ree ment which conta ins continge ncies within the agree ment or which, by

law, ca nnot be ac hieved.

____________________________________

DAVI D G. HAY ES, J UDGE