### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 21, 200 5 MA RK MED LEY v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Rutherford Coun ty No. F -54364 Jam es K . Clayton, Jr., Judge

No. M2005- 00295-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Augu st 11, 2005

Th e pe tit ion e r, Ma

rk Med le y , a

pp e a ls f ro m th e Ruthe rf

or d Co un ty

Cir c uit Cou rt ’s de nia l of

po stconviction re lief. I n his pe tition, and now in this appea l, he alleg es that he ente red a n involuntary g uiltyplea ba sed upon t he ineffec tive assistance of counsel. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the op i n i o n o f t he court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., joined.
R i c h ar d T

. R o n e y, M u r f

r e e s b o r o , T e n n e s s e e , f

o r t h e ap p e l l a n t , M ark

M e d l e y. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Re ne e W. Tu rn e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam C. W hitesell, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and L aure l A. Nutt, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee . OP IN ION
F acts and P roce dural Hi story On Marc h 12, 2003, the petitioner pled g uiltyto rape of a c hild, a Class A felony . The trial court imposed a twe nty -y ear sentenc e at 100% . Pur s u an t to a plea a g ree ment, the sentenc e wa s or de re d to be se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y wi th a fi ft e e n- y e ar s e nte nc e that th e pe tit ion e r h a d r e c e ntl y rec eived f or the same char g e in another county . The fa cts underlying the offe nse we re summarized a t th e ple a

he ari ng a s f

oll ow s: The fa ct s o f t h i s case are prior to the end of the school y ear

in the y ear

2002, [t he pe tit ion e r] d ig ita lly

pe ne tr a te d, c on sti tut ing ra pe of a c hil d, a n 1 1 y e ar- oldvic tim in his bed at his residence. He t h en t o l d her to re move her panties and to g et on her knees a nd video taped he r while touching her butt . . . .-2-

Th e fo llo wi ng c oll oq uy

oc c ur re d at th e ple a

he ari ng : [The court] . . . do y ou understand y ou have a rig ht to e nter a

not g uiltyplea a nd have a

jury trial in this case? [The petitioner] Yes, Your Honor.

. . . . [C ounsel]

. . . What did I tell y ou the maxi mum sentenc e

de pe nd ing on wh a t y ou r p ri or c ri min a l r e c or d w a s? [The petitioner] 60 [Cou ns e l] 60 y e ars . B ut i n lig ht of y ou r pr ior re c or d, y ou are pr ob ably

loo kin g a t a

15 to 2 5 y e ar s e nte nc e , c or re c t? [The petitioner] Yes, sir.

. . . . [C ounsel] . . . did I do every thing that y ou reque sted me to do? [The petitioner] Yes, sir.

. . . . [C ounsel] I s there an y t h ing at all that I have not done that y ou wanted me to do? [The petitioner] No, sir. [C ounsel] Are y ou satisfied wit h the way that I have handled y our ca se? [The petitioner] Completely

.

. . . . [The court] . . . y ou do understand that y ou are entering a plea of g uiltyto rape of a c hild with a 20 y ear sentenc e at 100 perc ent. And why

are y ou entering this plea , sir?-3- [The pe titioner] I fig ured it would be in the best interest on my behalf and on

behalf of the victim and the f

amily

. [Th e c ou rt ] Ok a y . F e e l li ke it i s in y ou r b e st i nte re st? [The petitioner] Yeah. [The court] Has a ny one for ced y ou or coe rce d y ou into entering this plea? [The petitioner] No, sir. [ T h e c o u r t ] Y o u ar e e n t e r i n g i tf r e e l y a n d v o l u n t ar i l y? [The petitioner] Yes, sir. [The court] You are not here under the influence of any drug s or

int oxic a nts or

a nythi ng that w ou ld c a us e y ou no t to understand w hat’s g oing on toda y , are y ou? [The petitioner] No, sir. [ T h e c o u rt ] Yo u fe el l i k e y o u fu l l y u n d er s t an d wh at y o u ar e d o i n g? [The petitioner] Yes, sir. [The court] I s this what y ou want to do? [The petitioner] Yes, sir.
On J uly 21, 2003, the petit ioner filed a petition for post-convic tion relief in which he alleg ed that he re c e ive d th e ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of

c ou ns e l a nde nte re d a n in vo lun tary ple a . A t a subsequent hea

ring on th e p eti tion, he testified that his statements at the plea hearing w ere intentional lies, uttered in fea r of his previous record and recent c onviction for child ra pe “g etting br ou g ht t o li g ht h e re , [a nd ] be c a us e [ he] di dn ’t wa nt [the c ou rt ] to r

un [the tw o s e nte nc e s] consec utive . . . .” He explained, “[counsel] t old me I could get 60 y ear s, and I believed him. And in light of 60 y ear s, I

took the 20.” The pe titioner alleg ed that, in addition to the sentenc e potential, he did not und erstand the elements of r ape, so a s to enter a knowledg eable plea. T he petitioner a verr ed that he w ould have “opted” for tria l ha d counsel adequately explained the offe nse. Howeve r, the State questioned the vera city of the pe titioner’s ig noranc e of the char g e by cross-e x amining him on the fact that he had just re cently pled g uilty to r ape of a child and had also pled g uilty as a juvenile to dig ital r ape “of a littl e g irl . . . . Same as in this case.”-4-

Th e pe tit ion e r n e xt arg ue d tha t cou ns e l did not famil iari ze him se lf wi th the fa c ts o r l a w i n relation to the case . The petitioner stated, “[T] here was no proof in ther e that ac tual penetr ation had oc c ur re d. Th e re was on ly

a state me nt .

. . . T he re wa s n o me dic a l r e po rt s. ” Ho we ve r, the Sta te elicited testimony

from the pe titioner that he pled g uiltyto this offense despite knowing that there was no phy sical or medic al evidenc e ag ainst him. Eventually , he admitt ed that his decision to plead g uiltywas ba sed upon his fea r of the jury imposing a harshe r sentence. The petitioner also a dmitted to w ri tin g a n “ apo log y ” le tte r t o th e vic ti m and di scu ssi ng the po ssi bil ity of its su pp re ssi on wi th c ou ns e l. Counsel testified that he had be en with the public defende r’s office f or “12 or 13 y ear s now” and had r epre sented “ probably over 100” sex offender s. Counsel stated, “I usually not only

inform [clients] on what the law is. But in t h es e ty pe of c ases, of tentimes I make c opies of the statutes reg arding the law a nd share it with them and go ove r it with them . .

. .” Counsel acknowle dg ed that he g ave the petitioner “a ll the options,” “talked to him about the apolog y letter,” and spoke w ith the pe tit ion e r a

bo ut the la c k o f m e dic a l e vid e nc e . Co un se l state d that the pe tit ion e r “ wa s a wa re that th is case turned on his testimony and the c hild’s testimony .” Counsel admitted that he had neve r re quested to interview the child bef ore the petitioner pled g uilty

. Howeve r, he stated that the mother and the detec tive involved in the case did interview the child and that he ha d revie wed a copy of the incide nt report. Counsel stated: We d isc us se d th e dis c re pa nc ie s in thi s re po rt fr om the of fi c e r that w ro te thi s r e po rt

. That there wer e diffe rent discr epanc ies. That at one point in time she tells somebody that there was n ’ t p e n e tr a ti o n . A n d th e n late r o n s h e te ll s s o me o n e - - th e mo th er com es bac k and say s that there w as pene tration. And we discussed that in our discussions at the jail.

. . . . We also discussed the lesser char g e of a g g ravated sexual battery

. I f the jury be lie ve d th a t the re wa s n o p e ne tr a tio n, that th a t w ou ld b e a B F e lon y a t 10 0 p e rc e nt, which would ca

rry 8 to 12 y ear s at 100 perc ent.
B e fo re de nying po st- c on vic tio n re lie f, the tr ia l c ou rt state d, “ I do ha ve a

re a l pr ob le m w ith [t he petitioner’ s] credibility . And I am s orry about t hat .

. . . But whe n y ou testify that y ou swore un de r o a th andlie d to thi s Co urt a t le a st t wi c e pr e vio us ly , I ha ve tr ou ble be lie vin g wh a t y ou state under oath here today .” The trial court then r eiterated the petitioner’ s statements at the g uiltyplea hearing, stating that suc h wer e “dia metrica lly opposed” to the a lleg ations of his petition, and denied post-conviction re lief. The pe titioner now bring s this appeal. Ana lys is-5-

I n order to succe ed on a post -convic tion claim, the petitioner bea rs the burde n of establishing the alleg ations set forth in his petition by clea r and convincing evidenc e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 11 0( f) . T o s up po rt

a c la im f or in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of

c ou ns e l, the pe tit ion e r mus t sh ow that hi s c ou ns e l’ s p e rf

orma nc e fe ll b e low the rang e of c omp e te nc e de ma nd e d of at torne y s in c ri min a l c a se s. Ba x ter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). This sh o wi n g re quires evide nce that (1) counsel’s pe rformance was de ficient a nd (2) the de ficienc y prejudice d the def

ense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. B urns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999) . To satisfy the pr e jud ic e pr on g in the c on te xt of a g uil ty ple a , t he p e tit ion e r “ mus t sh ow that th e re is a re a so na bl e pro bab il ity

that, b ut f

or c ou ns e l’ s e rr or s, he wo uldno t ha ve ple a de d g uil ty a ndwo uld have insisted on g oing to tria l.” Hill v. L ockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). The unde rly ing issues in c laims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel are rega rded a s mix ed qu e sti on s of law and fact . Bu rn s, 6 S. W.3 d at 46 1. As su c h, ou r r e vie w i s de novo with a presumption of cor

rec tness g iven to the t ri al co urt’s finding s of fa ct unless the evide nce preponde rate s otherwise. F ields v. State, 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001)

. I n th e pr e se nt cas e, mu c h o f the pe tit ion e r’ s in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of

c ou ns e l c la im i s underc ut by

his own testimonyat the post-convic tion hearing . The petitioner admitted that counsel met with him to di scuss the ca se and the possibili ty of suppre ssing his i ncriminatory letter. Furthermore , he discredited his ow n testimony and ineffe ctive assistance of counsel claim by stating that his assertions at t he plea hearing w ere lies and the re ason he ple d g uiltywas, in fa ct, bec ause he fea red his prior r ecor d would g et “br oug ht to light here ” and justify a g reater sente nce or consec utive se nte nc e s. T h e p et i t i o n er ’s re m ai n i n g ar gu m en ti s t h at co u n s el s h o u l d h av e p er fo rm ed a m o re t h o ro u gh inv e sti g a tio n. At

the po st- c on vic tio n h e ari ng , c ou ns e l a dmi tte d th a t he didno t in te rv ie w the c hil d be fo re the pe tit ion e r p le d g uil ty . O bv iou sly , th e re pr e se n t at i o n o f a c ri min a l de fe nd a nt e ntails c e rt a in ba sic du tie s. F un da me nta l to e ff e c tiv e re pr e se ntatio n o f an a c c us e d is t he d uty of a n a tto rn e y

to conduct r easona

ble investig ations, both factua l and l eg al, t o determine what matter s of def ense c an be deve loped. S ee Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91. Ordinarily , such i nvestig ations should include e ve ry e ff ort to int e rv ie w w itn e sse s, pa rt ic ula rl y the vic tim of the of

fe ns e , so a s to a de qu a te ly

a dv ise the def endant. See Ba x ter, 523 S.W.2d at 933. Howeve r, in this ca s e, b o t h t he petitioner a nd counsel possessed the fa cts underlying the offe nse. The trial court a ccr edited counse l’s testimony that he sp e c if

ic a lly dis c us se d the po te nti a l dis c re pa nc ie s in the c hil d’ s state me nts a s evi den ced in the inc ide nt r e po rt wi th the pe tit ion e r a nd that the pe tit ion e r “ wa s a wa re that thi s c a se turne d o n h is te sti mon y a ndthe c hil d’ s tes tim on y .” Mo re ov e r, the pe tit ion e r ad mit te d th a t he ple d g uil ty to this offe nse despite knowing that there was no phy sical or menta l evidence ag ainst him. Even if f ailing to inter view the victim did ex em p lify defic ient perf

ormanc e, the pe titioner must sti ll show that, but for the def iciency , “he w ould not have plead ed gu i l t yand would have ins ist e d o n g o i n g t o tr i a l

. ” H i l l , 4 7 4 U

. S

. a t5 9

. T h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a tt h e p e t i t i o n e r

r e p e a t e dly assure d the trial court at his guilty plea he aring that he was well aware of the rig hts he was f orfe iting by pleading g uilty , he wa s satisfied with the re p re s en t ation of counse l, and he wa s fre ely and-6-

voluntarily

pleading g uilty

. This Court simplycannot c onclude that the pe titioner did not understand the conse quence s of his g uiltyplea, the e lements of the of fense of ch i l d ra pe, or the potential sentenc e of this crime for whic h he had twic e bef ore ple d g uilty

. Additionally , there is no proof in the rec ord to indicate that the petitioner would not have pled g uil ty if counsel ha d interviewe d the victim. As stated, both the petitioner a nd counsel possesse d the fa c ts und e rl y ing the of fe ns e . N e ve rthe le ss, the pe tit ion e r c ho se to p le a d g uil ty in o rd e r t o a vo id consec utive sentenc ing. We c onclude that this decision was knowing ly and voluntary . This issue is without m erit. Conclusion
Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

____________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE