# FILED October 26, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT JACKSON SEPTEMBE R SESSION, 1998 ANTHONY K. GOODS, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9712-CR-00479 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. L.T. LA FFERTY STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-Convi ction)

ON APPEA L FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : A.C. WHARTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP Public Defender Attorney Generaland Reporter TONY N. BRAYTON PETER M. COUGHLAN Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 2-01 425 5th Avenu e North Memphis, TN 38103 Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 WILLIAM L . GIB BONS Distri ct Attorney General RHEA CLIFT Assistant Distri ct Attorney General Criminal Justice Complex, Sui te 301 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED IN ACCOR DANCE W ITH RULE 20 DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE-2- 

# ORDER

The Defen dant

appeal s as of

rig ht pu rsua nt to Ru le 3 of th e Tennessee Rules of Appellate Pr

ocedure from the trial cour t’s denial of h is petition for p ostconvicti on relief. In a negotiate d plea ag reeme nt, the De fendan t pleaded guilty t o s econ d deg ree m urder , attem pted s econ d deg ree m urder , espe cially aggravated robbery, and theft of property over the val ue of one thousand dollars. His effective sentence was fifty-five years to be servedas a Range III pe rsistent offender. He subsequently petiti oned for post-convicti on relief, alle ging th at his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary and t hat he rece iv ed ineffective assi stan ce of couns el. After con ducting a n eviden tiary hearin g on the postconvicti on petiti on, the trial j udge d enied the petiti oner’s cl aim. We affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.

The murder, attem pted murd er, and robbe ry convictions gre w out ofthe Defe ndan t’s perpetra tion of an a rmed ro bbery of a store in M emph is. The the ft
co nvicti on w as unrelated to the other crimes and inv

olved the t heft of an automobile.

The Defendant essenti ally ass erts that he did not under

stand the n atur e and consequences of hi s plea because hi s attorney di d no t adeq uately e xplain to him w hat forty -five pe rcent o f fifty-five ye ars ac tuall y meant as it relates to parole eligi bilit

y. The Defendant

and his former attorney were the only witnesses who testified at thehearing on t he petiti on for post-con viction relief. In its order denying the Defendant post-convicti on relief , the trialcourt found that the pr oof-3-

in the record “overwhelmingly” establ ished that the plea s of guilty were know ingly, voluntarily, and intellige ntly entere d. The c ourt furthe r found th at t he ev idence did not suppo rt the petitioner’s a llegations of ineffective a ssistanc e of coun sel. From ourreview of thi s record, the evidenceclearly supports t he findi ngs of the trialjudge. No error of l aw requiri ng a reversalof the j udgment is apparent on the record.

Neither a detail ed discussion of the fac ts nor a l engthy opini on concerning the l aw wou ld be of pre ceden tial value in this case. W e are sa tisfied that t h e result reached by the t rial court is co rrect. Based upon a thorough reading of t he record, t he briefs of

the parti es, and the l aw governing t he issues presented for review, the judgment of the trialcourt is aff irmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of

Criminal Appeal s of Tennessee.

____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

___________________________________ JOE G. RILE Y, J UDGE