### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 18, 200 5
AN THON Y L AM ONT SING LETON v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty

No. C48,622 P hylli s H. Miller, Judge

No. E2004-02271-CC A-R3- P C F iled Augu st 16, 2005

Petitioner, Anthony

L amont Sing le to n , a

p p e a ls f r o m t h ep ost-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-c onviction relief. In his a ppeal, Petitioner arg ues that his Alford plea s in case N o. S45,328 and ca se No. S47, 632 wer e involuntarily enter ed into, that h i s t rial counse l provided ineff ective assistance in connec tion with the negotiation and entry of hi s Alford pleas, and that the trial court improperly

appointed trial c ounsel to repr esent him in case No. 47,632. After a review of the rec ord,
we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff 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 A Y ES and J ERRY L. S MI TH , J J ., joined.

Mark D. H arris, Kingsport, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Anthony

L amont Singleton.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Rache l E. Wil lis, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral; H. Gre eley Wells, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and K ent Chitwood, Assistant Dist ri ct Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound On May 28, 2003, Petitioner entere d an Alfor d plea in ca se No. S45,328 to simple possession of mari juana , f ou rth o ff e ns e , a Cla ss Efe lon y , a ndpo sse ssi on of dr ug pa ra ph e rn a lia , a

Cla ss A mis de me a no r. Th e fa c ts s up po rt ing Pe tit ion e r’ s c on vic tio ns we re su mma ri zedby a pa ne l of thi s Cou rt in P e tit ion e r’ s d ir e c t app e a l of his se nte nc e s a s f

oll ow s: On April 11, 2001, King sport police off icer s stopped a ca

r in which [Petiti oner] was a passe ng er. The driver g ave the office rs conse nt to sear ch the c ar, a nd the offic ers found a portion of a marijuana cig are tte i n t h e front passeng er' s seat. The y then
sear ched [Petitioner] and found rolling pa pers.-2-

State v. Anthony Lamont Singleton , No. E2003-01747- CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL784884, at *1 (Te nn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Apr. 13, 2004), perm. to appeal de nied (Tenn. Sept. 7, 2004)

. On M ay 28, 2003, Petitioner also waived his rig ht to prese ntment or i ndictment by the g rand jury in c a se No . S47, 63 2 an d en te re d Alf or d ple a s to the c ha

rg e s of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult , a Cla ss C felony , evading arr est, a Class A misdemea nor, and r esisting arr est, a Class B misdemeanor, ba sed
on the inf orma tio n. Th e fa c ts s up po rt ing the se c on vic tio ns we re su mma ri zeda s f oll ow s:
On J anuary

31, 2003, King sport police off icer s responde d to a re port that a man wa s firing a gun on Dale Stre et. When they arrived at the sc ene, a

witness told them that [P etitioner] had fired the g un. The off icer s went to [P etitioner’s] ap artment and fo u n d h i ms i t t i n g o n t h e r o o f o f hi s ap ar t m en t b u i l d i n g. [ P et i t i o n er ] wa s s cr ea m i n g, was a cting violent, and swung a lar g e roc k at one of the offic ers. When the of fice r sp ray e d [Pe tit ion e r] w ith Ma c e , [Pe tit ion e r] j ump e d o ff the ro of . H e ran a lon g Da le Street until police offic ers c apture d him.

Id.

The tria l c o u r t s e n te n c e d Pe ti ti o n e r a s a Ra n g e I , s tan d ar d o f

f e n d e r , to tw o y e ar s f

o r the simple possession conviction, and eleve n m o n t hs, twenty -nine da y s for the posse ssion of drug p ar ap h e r n a l i a

c o n v i c t i o n i n c a s e N o
. S 4 5 , 3 2 8

. T h e tr i a l c o u r ts e n t e n c e d P e t i t i o n e r a s a R a n g e I, standard of

fende r, in ca se No. S47,632 to three y ear s for the a g g ravated assault convic tion, eleven
mon ths , tw e nty -n ine da y s f or thee va din g arr e st c on vic tio n, a ndsix mo nth s f or the re sis tin g arr e st conviction. The tria l court orde red Petitioner’ s sent en ce s i n caseNo. S45,328 to be serve d
consec utively

to his sentences in c ase N o. S47, 632, fo r an ef fe ct ive sentenc e of f

ive y ear s, and order ed Petitioner to serve his sentence s in confinement. A pa nel of this C o u rt upheld the trial court’s de nial of alternative sente ncing

. Id ., 2004 WL 784887, at *3.

II. P os t- Co nvi c ti on H e ar ing

At the po st- c on vic tio n he ari ng , Peti tio ne r t e sti fi e d th a t hi s tria l on the dr ug c ha rg e s in c a se No. 45,328 was se t for Monday , May 28, 2003. Petitioner said that h e fi rs t d iscussed his drug char g es with his trial counsel on the Friday befor e trial, a nd “a couple of times” on the day of his trial du ri ng the tr ia l c ou rt ’s re c e sse s. Peti ti on er t oldhis tr ia l c ou ns e l th a t he wo uldlik e to s e rv e his
se nte nc e in c ommun ity

c or re c tio ns
. Petitioner said that he did not believe that his trial counsel had be en appointed to r epre sent him in c a se No . 4 7, 63 2 b e c a us e Pe tit ion e r d id n ot c omp le te a ne w a ff ida vit of ind ig e nc y fo rm in this
c a se . Pe tit ion e r said , ho weve r, that he ha d r e c e ive d “ pa pe rs ” abo ut the c ha

rg e s f ro m th e pu bli c de fe nd e r’ s o ff

ic e in b othc a se s a

ro un d M a y

12 , 2 003, a ndwa s in fo rm e d th a t th e Sta te wo uld
re c omm e nda

se nte nc e of

thr e e y e ars fo r the a g g ra vate d a ssa ult c ha rg e a ndon e y e ar f

or the simple po sse ssi on c ha

rg e if Pe tit ion e r e nte re d p le a s o f g uil t in bo th ca se s. He sa id that hi s tria l c ou ns e l di d not expl ain what a

waiver of the rig ht to prese ntment and indictment entailed, and Petitioner thought-3-

that he wa s waiving his right to a jury trial on the ag g ravated assault char g e. Petitioner said that he did not understand that ther e wa s a possibilit y that the g rand jury

m i gh t indict him on a lesser offe nse.
Pe tit ion e r s a id that his tr ia l c ou ns e l did no t int e rv ie w a ny of Pe tit ion e r’ s w itn e sse s a nddid
no t sh ow him

the fo re ns ic re po rt

in c a se No . 4 5, 32 8 u nti l th e day of tr ial. Pe tit ion e r at f ir st ma int a ine d th a t he didno t se e the fo re ns ic re po rt un til a ft e r the ple a su bmi ssi on he ari ng . O n c ro ssexamination, however, he said that he saw the re port ea rl ier in the da y befor e the tria l court conducte d the s uppression hearing in case No. 45,328. Petitioner conce ded that the fore nsic report showed that the substanc e found in the c ar w as m arijuana , but he point ed out that the report did not contain a w eig ht for the substanc e. Petitioner interpre ted t his omission to mean that no marijuana was found. Petitioner told his trial counsel t h at h e s h o u ld not plead g uiltyif there was not any evidenc e that he ha d possessed marijuana.

Petitioner said that he wa s also pre v en t ed fr om going to trial because the c lothes that the pu bli c de fe nd e r’ s o ff

ic e pr ov ide d h im d id n ot f it. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Pe tit ion e r s a id that he did not remembe r that his ex-wife had offe red to bring him c lothes for his tria l. Petiti oner a dmitted that his girlf riend c ould have br oug ht h i m clot hes during one of he r we ekly visits t o the jail if he ha d asked he r to do so. Petitioner also said that the clothes he was wea ring when he was a

rre sted wer e at the jail.

On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Pe tit ion e r s a id that he ha d p le d g uil ty to t wo fe lon y

dr ug c ha rg e s in 1996. Petitioner said that he told the t rial court at t he plea submissi on hearing that he had r ead a nd understood t h e wa i v er of pre sentment and indictment in ca se No. 47,632, but he de nied that he understood the implications of the waiver

. Petitioner said that he was out of jail on bond, except for a brie f period of incar cer ation, betwee n April, 2001 and J anuary , 2003, when he was a rre sted on the char g es in ca se No. 47,632. Petitioner said that he did not attempt to visit his trial counsel during this ti me. Petitioner expl ained the r easons why he pled guilty to the charg es in ca se Nos. 47,632 and 45 ,3 28 a s f

oll ow s: Why ? To be hone st w ith y ou I was stressed, I was tired of sitti n[g] here, y ou know, g oin [g ] ba c k a ndfo rth to c ou rt , a ndthe n I ha d a bab y that wa s g on na [sic ] be du e in September a nd just a whole bunch of stuff I had on my

mind. I was just tired of sitti n[g] here r eally , basica lly to be honest with y ou.
I n addition, Petiti oner w as conc erne d that his e x -wife would be char g ed with possession of marijuana if she testified, a nd no one would be a vailable to look af ter their da

ug hter if both of the m we re inc arc e rate d. Pe tit ion e r s a id that he kn e w h e wo uldbe inc arc e rate d a ny way a s a r e su lt o f h is probation violation. He stated, “ I made the c hoice I

felt at that time would be the best one.”-4-

Pe tit ion e r’ s tria l c ou ns e l te sti fi e d th a t he ma de sixte e n co urt app e aranc e s in c on ne c tio n w ith
case No. 45,328 over

a two-y ear

p er i o d , and he ta lked with Petitioner about his case on eac h
oc c a sio n. Tria l cou ns e l sai d tha t he obt a ine d th e fo re ns ic re po rt in c a se no . 4 5, 32 8 f

ro m th e Sta te throug h a motion for discove ry about a y ear

befor e t he plea

submissi on hearing. T rial counse l believed he had discussed the report with Petit ioner.

Trial counse l said that Petiti oner w as ag itated on May 28, 2003, beca

use the c lothes he g ave Petitioner did not fit. Petitioner also told him for the f irst time that he had a list of witnesses w hom he wa nted to testify

at trial. As a r esult, trial counsel ora lly reque sted a continuance. The trial court did not rule on trial counsel’s moti on immediately , and a hearing was held on Petitioner’s motion to suppress the evide nce in c ase N o. 45, 328. The trial court denied both the motion for c ontinuance
a ndthe mot ion to s up pr e ss.
Trial counse l said that Petitioner thought his ex-wife, who was the driver of the ca r in which th e m ar ijuana wa s found, would not testify . His ex-wife, howe ver, a ppear ed at c ourt on May

28, 2003. Trial counse l said that she planned to testify that the marijuana

had not bee n in her c ar be fore Pe tit ion e r g ot i n th e ve hic le , a ndthat th e mari juana wa s n ot h e rs
. Trial c o u n s e l t o ldPe ti ti o n e r th a t h e c o u ldb e s e n te n c e d a s a Ra n g e I I , mu lt ip le o f

f e n d e r, beca use of his two prio r fe l o n y co n victions. The State offe red to re commend that Petitioner be sentenc ed as a

Rang e I , standard of

fende r in exchang e for

his guilty pleas in both ca ses. Further, the Sta te wo uldre c omm e nd that the tr ia l cou rt or de r Pet iti on e r’ s cur re nt se nte nc e to r

un c on c ur re ntl y wi th h is s e nte nc e s in c a se No s. 45 ,3 28 a nd47 , 6 32 . T ri a l c ou ns e l sa id that Pe tit ion e r wa s in iti a lly dis sa tis fi e d w ith the Sta te ’s off er, and tr ia l c ou ns e l to ld P e tit ion e r that he c ou ld p ro c e e d to tr ia l. Pe tit ion e r the n c ha ng e d h is m inda nda g re e d to e nte r A lf or d p le a s in bo th c a se s.
Trial c o u n s e l s a id th a t h e d is c u s s e d th e imp li c a ti o n s o f a w a iv e r o f p r e s e n tm e nt and ind ic tme nt i n c a se No . 4 7, 63 2 w ith Pe tit ion e r, a lth ou g h he c ou ld not sp e c if ic a lly re me mbe r i f h e tol d Pe tit ion e r that it wa s po ssi ble fo r the g rand jury to ind ic t hi m on a le sse r o ff e ns e . T ri a l c ou ns e l sa id he ha d the op po rtun ity to cr os s exam ine the tw o poli c e of fi c e rs inv olv e d in th e inc ide nt g ivi ng ri se to the ag g ravated assault cha rg e at a hearing on Petitioner’ s motion t o reduc e his bond.

At the conc lusion of the evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that Petitioner had fa iled to show by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that his Alford ple as we re not voluntarily and knowing ly

made, a nd that his trial counsel’s a ssistance wa s ineffe ctive. The post-conviction court fo un d th a t Pe tit ion e r w a s n ot e nti tl ed to po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f o n h is c la im that a n ir re g ula ri ty occur red in the a

ppointment of counsel in ca se No. 47,632. Acc ording ly , the post-conviction court denied Petitioner’s r equest for relief

. III. Stand ard of Review A petitioner see king post-c onviction relief m u s t est ablish his alleg ations by clea r and
c on vin c ing e vid e nc e . T e nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 30 -2 10 (f ) ( 19 97 ). Th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t in-5-

a post-conviction hearing are aff orded the weig ht of

a jury verdic t. Bl ac k

v . S tat e , 794 S.W .2d 752, 755 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) , perm. to appeal de nied (Tenn. 1990) . There fore , this Court m ay not re -w e ig h or re -e va luate the se fi nd ing s no r su bs titute its inf e re nc e s fo r that of

the tr ia l ju dg e un le ss the evidenc e in the re cord pr eponder ates a g ainst those finding s. Sta te v . H on ey c utt , 54 S.W .3d 762, 76 3 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) ; State v. Burns , 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn

. 1 9 9 9 ). I n addition, questions
conce rning the cr edibilityof witnesses a nd the weig ht and value g iven their testimony is resolved by the post-conviction court, and not this Court. Id . Howeve r, the trial c ourt’s application of the law to the fac ts is revie wed de novo, without a presumption of cor

rec tness. Fi e lds v . S tat e , 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001). A cla im that counsel rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e is a mix ed question of fac t and law a nd there fore also subject to de novo r eview. Id. ; Burns , 6 S.W .3d at 461. When a petitioner see ks post-conviction re l i ef on the basis of ineff ective a ssistance of counsel, he must establish that counsel’s p erf ormanc e fe ll below “the r ang 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 e ff e c tiv e pe rf

orma nc e a ctu all y adv e rs e ly imp a c te d h is defe nse. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 693, 104 S.Ct

. 2052, 2067, 80 L .Ed.2d 674 (1984). I n other wor ds, a petitioner must show that he or she would not have pleaded g uiltyand would have insisted on going to trial had it not been for the def iciencie s in co u n s el ’s p erformanc e. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57, 106 S. Ct. 366, 369-70, 88 L . Ed. 2d 203 (1985).

I n 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 n o t s ec o n d-g uess counse l’s decisions re g arding trial strateg ies and tac tics. Hellard v. State, 62 9 S. W.2 d 4 , 9 (T e nn . 1 98 2) . T he re vie wi ng cou rt , th erefo re , s ho uldno t c on c lud e that 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 a us e the str a te g y

wa s u ns uc c e ssf

ul. Strickland, 4 6 6 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 p er s pective at the point of time they wer e made in light of a ll the fac ts and circ umstances at that time. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct . at 2066. A petit ioner must satisfy both prong s of the Strickland test befor e he or she may preva il on a cla im of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. See H enley v. State, 960 S.W .2d 572, 580 (Tenn. 1997)

. Th a t is, a pe t i t i o n e r

m u s tn o to n l y

s h o w t h a th i s c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f o r m a n c e f

e l l b e l o w a c c e p t ab le standards, but that such pe rformance was pre judicial to t he petitioner. Id. Fa ilure to satisfy either prong will result in the denial of re lief. Id. Acc ording ly , this Cour t n ee d n o t addre ss one of the components if the pe titioner fails to es t ab lish the other. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct . at 2069.
IV. Alford Pleas

Pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t hi s A lf

or d p le a s w e re n o t

v o l u n t ari ly

or kn ow ing ly

e nte re d in to b e c a us e his trial counsel did not show him the forensic report in case N o. 45 , 3 2 8 u n til after the ple a su bmi ssi on he ari ng , a nd faile d to te ll him that the g randjury c ou ld i nd ic t hi m on a

le sse r o ff e ns e in
c a se No . 4 7, 63 2. Pe tit ion e r a lso c on te nd s th a t he wa s c oe rc e d in to e nte ri ng a n Al fo rd ple a in b oth
c a se s b e c a us e he didno t ha ve pr op e r atti re fo r t ri a l.-6-

Under what is commonly

termed a n “Alfor d plea,” a defenda nt is allowed to enter a plea of g uil t y w h e n h e o r

s h e b e l i e v e s i ti s i n t h e i r b e s ti n t e r e s tt o a c c e p ta

p l e a b ar g a i n , b u tw h i l e s t i ll maintaining the ir innocenc e. Se e Nor th C aroli na v . A lfo rd , 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167, 27 L . Ed. 2d 162 (1970). The trial court may acc ept an Alford plea only if it is satisfied that there is a fac tual basis for the ple a. See State v . W illiam , 851 S.W .2d 828, 830 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). “An individual ac cused of crime ma y

voluntarily , knowing ly

and under standing ly

consent to the imp os iti on of

a priso n sen te nc e e ve n if

he is u nw ill ing or

un able to a dmi t hi s p artic ipatio n in the a c ts constituting the c rime.” Al for d , 400 U.S. at 37, 91 S. Ct. at 167. W hether the plea is de nominated a g uilty plea, a

nolo contender e plea

or an A lford plea , there fore , constitutional considerations mandate that the plea be voluntarily , understanding ly and knowing ly

enter ed. See B oykin v

. Alabama, 39 5 U .S. 23 8, 24 3, 89 S. Ct. 17 09 , 17 13 , 23 L . E d. 2d27 4, 27 9 ( 19 69 ); State v. Neal , 810 S.W .2d 131, 134-35 (Te nn. 1991), overruled on othe r grounds by Bl an k e ns hip v . S tat e , 858 S.W .2d 89 7, 90 2 (T e nn
. 19 93 ). B y e nte ri ng a ple a , the de fe nd a nt wa ive s c e rt a in c on stitu ti on al r ights including the privileg e ag ainst self-inc rimination, the right to a trial by jury , and the right to conf ront witnesses. Boy k in , 3 95 U. S. at 24 3, 89 S. C t. a t 17 14 . T he de fe nd a nt’ s w a ive r o f the se constitutional rights may

not be pre sumed from a

silent recor d. Id. A p le a c a nn ot b e vo lun tary if the a c c us e d is “ inc omp e te nt or oth e rw ise no t in c on tr ol o f h is mental fac iliti es” at the time the plea is ente red. Bl an k e ns hip , 8 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d at 9 0 4 -0 5 (q u o t i n g Br own v . P e rin i, 71 8 F . 2 d 7 84 , 7 88 (6 Cir . 1 98 3) ). Th e tr ia l c ou rt mus t asc e rt a in i f the de fe nd a nt f ull y th understands the signific ant conseque nces of his or her ple a. State v. Pe ttus , 986 S.W .2d 540, 542 (Tenn. 1977)

. The trial court may consider a number of f

actor s including the defe ndant’s re lative intelligenc e, his familiarity with criminal proce edi n gs , whether he wa s repr esente d by

competent counsel a n d h ad the opportunity to confe r with counsel a bout his opti ons, the advice g iven by counsel a n d th e tria l c o u r t a b o u t th e c h ar g e s a g a in s t h im a n d th e p e n a lt y

to b e imp o s e d , a n d the defe ndant’s re asons for ple ading g uilty

. Bl an k e ns hip , 858 S.W .2d at 904.

Ou r C o n s t i t u t i o n al s o gu ar an t ee s t h at “n o p er s o n s h al l b e p u tt o an s we r a n y cr i m i n al ch ar ge but by prese ntment, indictment or impeachme nt.” Tenn. Const. art. I , § 14. Wit hout either a ction by the g randjury

or a writt e n w a ive r of

the c on sti tut ion a lly

e xten de d g ua

rante e , th e re c a n b e no va lid conviction. Sta te v . B ra c k e tt , 8 6 9 S

. W

. 2 d 9 3 6 , 9 3 8 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 3 )( ci t i n g State v. Morgan , 598 S.W .2d 796, 797 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979) ). Petitioner arg ues that the e x ecution of a waiver of pre s en t m en t and indi ctment does not pr e c lud e a

po st- c on vic tio n atta c k if he didno t un de rs ta ndthe me a nin g a ndramif icati on s o f h is
wa i v er
. C i t i n g Mo te n v . S tat e , 935 S.W .2d 416 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) , Petitioner arg ues that the
mere rec itation of the litany of a defe ndant’s constitutional rights or the c onsequenc es of a g uiltyplea du ri ng a g uil ty ple a su bmi ssi on he ari ng is n ot s uf fi c ie nt to sh ow that th e de fe nd a nt a de qu a te ly
c o mp r e h e n d e d w h a t r ig h ts w e r e b e in g r e li n q u ishe d. Id. , at 419-20. B ased on our revie w of the
rec ords of the g uil t y

p l eas u b m i s s i o n h ea ri n g an d t h e p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n h ea ri n g, we co n cl u d e, h o we ver, that Petitioner knowing ly and voluntarily

enter ed his Alford ple as in ca se Nos. 45,328 and 47,632.-7-

At the pl ea submiss ion hearing, the trial court informed Petitioner twice of the implications of sig ning a

waiver of prese ntment and indictment and entering a plea of g uiltybased on information. Petitioner stated that he had read the waiver form, dis cussed the waiver form with his trial counsel and under stood the rig hts he was relinquishing by signing the waiver

. As to conflicting evidenc e, the post-conviction court acc redited the testimonyof Petitioner’s trial c ounsel. Specifica lly , the post-conviction court found that Petitioner was not coe rce d into pleading g uiltybeca use of ill-fitting clothes, and that he was a war e that he could obtain clothing f or his trial from a

source other than the p u b l i c d e f e nd e r’ s o ff

ic e . T he po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt c on c lud e d th a t Pe tit ion e r kno wi ng ly e nte re d in to his pleas bec ause “ the State made an acc eptable of fer , and the Petitioner’s se n t en ces w ould be
concur rent with the sente nces he was serving at the time.”
The e vidence does no t preponde rate ag ainst the trial court’s finding s that Petiti oner understood the nature of the crimes, a nd the ra ng e of the sentenc es for the offe nses, an d t h at t rial
counse l ’s assistance during the neg otiation and entry of the plea s was ef

fec tive. Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this issue.
V. Ineff ective Assistance of Counsel
Pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t he re c e ive d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e be c a us e his tr ial co un se l f a ile d to
a dv ise him

that it w a s p os sib le that he wo uldbe ind ic te d o n a le sse r o ff e ns e if his a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult
c a se wa s h e ardby

the g randjury . Pe tit ion er als o conte nd s th a t hi s tria l c ou ns e l in a de qu a te ly investigated his case s, failed to show him the evidenc e in the case on his dr ug char g es until after

he
e nte re d h is A lf

or d p le a , a ndfaile d to pr ov ide a de qu a te c lothin g fo r h is t ri a l.
Trial counse l testified that he knew what evide nce the State would prese nt in case N o. 47,632 beca use the police office rs i nvolved i n the case t estified at Petitioner’s bond reduc tion hearing . He could not specific ally

reme mber whe ther he told Petit ioner that he could possibly be indicted on a lesser offense , but he said that hediscussed the rang e of se ntence s Petiti oner c ould rec eive if he wer e convicted of

ag g ravated ass au l t . Trial counse l said that he wa s prepa red to g o to trial on the ag g ravated assault charg e, but Petitioner said that he wanted t o enter a plea . Ba sed on our r eview of the re cord, the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the trial court’ s fi n ding that Petiti oner failed to show his trial counsel’s conduct was defic ient in the negotiation and entry of an Alford plea in case No. 47632.
Al tho ug h Pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t he didno t se e the fo re ns ic re po rt in c a se No . 4 5, 32 8 u nti l afte r he enter ed his A lford plea, his te stimony at the post-convic tion hearing and the r ecor d of the plea submission hearing do not support this contention. Prior to the plea submission hearing, trial
c ou ns e l mo ve d f

or a c on tin ua nc e be c a us e Pe tit ion e r t oldhim he ha d n ot se e n a cop y of the fo re ns ic report until t hat day . Trial counse l stated:

. . . th e fa c t th a t I

pr e se nte d h im the la

b r e po rt tod a y . I tho ug ht I ’dg iv en it to h im b e f o r e b u t ap p ar e n t l y I d o n ’ t

— h e s a y s h e o n l y g o t a c o p y o f t h e l ab r e p o r t t o d a y. I t shows only

trac e amount — ac tually

it doesn’t show anything. I t shows that they de te rm ine d th e a mou nt — the ma te ri a l to be ma

ri juana bu t to ha ve no wei g ha

ble amount. . . .-8-

Petitioner conce ded at the pos t-conviction hearing that his trial counsel showed him a c opy of the fore nsic report be fore he enter ed his ple a in c ase No. 45,328. Moreove r, Pe t i t i o n er was char g ed with simple possession of marijuana

. See Te nn
. Cod e An n. § 3 9- 17 -4 18 (a ). Th e e le me nts of a simple posses s i o n offe nse include pr oof that the de fenda nt knowingly possessed a c ontrolled substance. Id . The a mount of controlled substance posses s ed is not a statutory element of

the offe nse. Se e id . Trial counse l informed Petitioner that it was si gn i fi ca n t that the fore nsic report showed that the substanc e found in the c ar on the night of the offe nse wa s a controlled substanc e. Petitioner has not shown that he wa s prejudice d by not seeing t h e forensic re port until the day of tr ia l. Petitioner arg ues that his trial counsel ’s p erformanc e wa s deficie nt because he did not discover any

witnesses who might have assis ted P etitioner i n his defe nse. Trial counse l testified that Petitioner did not mention t hat he ha d a potential witness until the day of trial, and that wa s one of the re asons he r equeste d a continuanc e. Petitioner testified at the hearing on the motion to continue th at h e h ad n o t told his t rial counse l about any potential witnesses, bec ause “ he neve r aske d.” Petitioner did not identify the pot ential wit nesses at the continuance hearing or at the post-conviction hearing, nor

does he sug g est what testimony such witnesses mig ht have pr ovided. “When a pe titioner contends that tria l co u n s el failed to discover, intervie w, or pre sent witnesses in support of his defe nse, these w i t n esses should be pr esente d by the petitioner a t the evidentiary

hearing.” Bl ac k

v . S tat e , 794 S.W .2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). “As a g ener al rule, this i s t h e o n l y way the petitioner c an esta

blish that (a) a

materia l witness exi sted and the witness could have been discovere d but f or counsel’s neg lect in his investigation of the case ; ( b) a kn ow n w itn e ss w a s n ot i nte rv ie we d; ( c ) the failu re to d isc ov e r o r i nte rv ie w a wi tne ss i nu re d to his prejudice ; or (d) the failure to ha ve a known witness pre sent or ca ll the witness to the stand resulted in the denial of c ritical evide nce w hich inured to the pr ejudice of the petitioner.” Id . Neither the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt

no r thi s Court ca n spe c ulate on wh a t a witn e ss’ te sti mon y mig ht h a ve be e n if introduced by trial counsel. Petitioner has failed to e stablished that he wa s prejudice d. Petitioner is not entitl ed to re lief on this issue.

Petitioner contends that his trial counse l’s conduct wa s deficie nt because he did not provide Petitioner with appropriate attire f or trial. Petitioner testified that he knew that his tria l in case no. 45,328 was set f

or May 28, 2003, and that his g irlfriend could have br oug ht him clothes on one of her visits to the jail. Petitioner also conce ded that he had clothes in the jail’s property box which he ha d b e e n w e ari ng wh e n h e wa s a rr e ste d. Tria l c ou ns e l te sti fi e d th a t if the y ha d p ro c e e de d to tr ia l, he c ou ld h a ve br ou g ht a

di ffere nt s e t of

c lothe s f ro m th e pu bli c de fe nd e r’ s o ff ic e fo r P e tit ion e r t o wea r. B ased upon our review of the record, we conclude t hat P etitioner failed to show that his trial counsel’s a ssistance wa s ineffe ctive in this reg ard. VI. Appoin tm ent of Trial Cou nsel

Pe tit ion e r arg ue s that the tr ia l c ou rt faile d to pr op e rl y app oin t tr ia l c ou ns e l to re pr e se nt h im in case No. 47,632 bec ause Petitioner did not complete an aff idavit of indige ncy

form in this case.-9-

When a def

endant informs the trial court that he or she “is fina ncially unable to obtain the a ssistance of c ou ns e l, i t is the du ty of the c ou rt to co nd uc t a full a ndc omp le te he ari ng a s to the fi na nc ia l a bil ity of the ac cused to obtain the a ssistance of c ounsel, and, ther eaf ter, make a finding as to the indig ency of the acc used.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-202( b). I n connec tion with this he aring , the def endant is require d to complete an a ffidavit of indig ency form. Te nn. R. Sup. C t. 13(e).

Trial counse l testified that he re prese nted Petitioner on a number of matters. The trial court appointed trial c ounsel to repr esent Petitioner on the new cha rg es in ca se No. 47,632 “ based on the
a ff ida vit of ind ig e nc y

fi le d in c a se No . 45, 32 8. ” Pe tit ion e r doe s not co nte nd that the inf orma tio n in the af fidavit of indig ency

filed in ca se No. 45,328 is i nacc urate

. “The failure of any court to follow the provisions of [ Rule 13 of t he R ules of t he Supreme Court] shall not constitute gr ounds for re lief fr om a jud g me nt of c on vic tio n or se nte nc e .” Te nn . R. Sup. Ct. 13( e ). Pe tit ion e r is n ot e nti tle d to relief on this iss ue.
CO NC LU SION

B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g , w e 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