FILED

October 26, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

SEPTEMBER SESSION, 1998

ANTHONY K. GOODS, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9712-CR-00479

)

Appellant, )

)

) SHELBY COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. L.T. LAFFERTY

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE

)

Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)

ON APPEAL 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 General and Reporter

TONY N. BRAYTON PETER M. COUGHLAN

Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General

201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 2-01 425 5th Avenue North

Memphis, TN 38103 Nashville, TN 37243-0493

WILLIAM L. GIBBONS

District Attorney General

RHEA CLIFT

Assistant District Attorney General

Criminal Justice Complex, Suite 301

201 Poplar Avenue

Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE W ITH RULE 20

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
-2-

ORDER

The Defendant appeals as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee

Rules of Appellate Procedure from the trial court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief. In a negotiated plea agreement, the Defendant pleaded guilty

to second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, especially

aggravated robbery, and theft of property over the value of one thousand dollars.

His effective sentence was fifty-five years to be served as a Range III persistent

offender. He subsequently petitioned for post-conviction relief, alleging that his

guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary and that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the postconviction petition, the trial judge denied the petitioner’s claim. We affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

The murder, attempted murder, and robbery convictions grew out of the

Defendant’s perpetration of an armed robbery of a store in Memphis. The theft

conviction was unrelated to the other crimes and involved the theft of an

automobile.

The Defendant essentially asserts that he did not understand the nature

and consequences of his plea because his attorney did not adequately explain

to him what forty-five percent of fifty-five years actually meant as it relates to

parole eligibility. The Defendant and his former attorney were the only witnesses

who testified at the hearing on the petition for post-conviction relief. In its order

denying the Defendant post-conviction relief, the trial court found that the proof
-3-

in the record “overwhelmingly” established that the pleas of guilty were knowingly,

voluntarily, and intelligently entered. The court further found that the evidence

did not support the petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

From our review of this record, the evidence clearly supports the findings of the

trial judge. No error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is apparent on the

record.

Neither a detailed discussion of the facts nor a lengthy opinion concerning

the law would be of precedential value in this case. W e are satisfied that the

result reached by the trial court is correct. Based upon a thorough reading of the

record, the briefs of the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for

review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of

the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

____________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

___________________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE