# FILED
July 23, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON JULY 1997 SES SION

CLARENCE WA

SHINGTON, ) ) C.C.A . No. 02C01- 9507-CR-00181 Appellant, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. CA ROLYN WA DE ) BLA CKETT, JU DGE STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) (Post-Conv iction) Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : R. PRICE HARRIS (at hearing) JOHN KNOX WALKUP 3074 East Street Attorney Gen eral & Repor ter Memphis, Tennessee 38128 SARA H M. BRA NCH CLA RENCE WASHINGTON (on appeal) Assistant Att orney Gener al Pro Se 450 James Roberts on Parkway Cold Creek Correction al Facili ty Nashvil le, Tennessee 37243- 0493 P.O. Box 1000 Henning, Tenness ee 38041 WILLIAM L. GIBBONS Distric t Attorney General PAU L F . G OO DM AN Assistant D istrict A

ttorney Gener

al RHEA CLIFT Assistant D istrict A

ttorney Gener

al Criminal J ustice Complex 201 Poplar, Ste. 301 Memphis, Tennessee 38103

OPINION FIL ED: _________________
AF FIRMED- RULE 20
JOE G. RI LEY, JUDGE2 ORDER

Pro se petitioner, Clarence Washington, appeal s the denial of post -convic tion relief. In May 1982, the peti tioner wa s convic ted of armed robbery

and habitual criminalit y. He was sentenced to tw o (2) concur rent ten year terms of impris onment. The petitioner’s

sentences were enhanced on the b asis of seven (7) guil ty pleas entered betwe en 1971 and 1977. Hi s origi nal post-conv iction petit ion was deni ed, and he appealed. This C ourt rever sed and remanded for a ne w hearing . After an evidentiar

y hearing , the post-conv iction cour t denied reli ef . We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial cour

t pursuant to R ule 20 of this Cou rt.

CASE HISTORY

This Court affirme d petitioner’s convictions on direct appeal. Clarence Washington v. State , C.C.A. No . 23, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App. fil ed February 6, 1985, at Jackson) perm. to a ppeal denied

(Tenn. 1985). In 1985, petitioner f iled his original petition for pos t convict ion relief. The t rial court appointed counsel and held an evidentiar

y hearing . In denyin g relief, thetrial cour t found the issues r

aised in the petition had been w

aived or pr

eviously determined. This

Court subseq uently rev ersed the original post-conviction court’s denial of relief and remanded f or a new evidentiary hearing to r

esolve 1) whether pet itioner rec eived effective assistance o f counsel and 2) the validi ty of his 1970 g uilty pl eas. Clarence Washington v . State , C.C.A. No . 62, Shelby Count

y (Tenn. Cr im. App. filed Jul y 26, 1989, at Jackson). P etitioner l ater amended the pe tition to include newly discovered evidence. After an evidentiary hear ing , thetri al c ourt

deni ed r eli ef.3 STA NDA RD OF REVI EW
The trial judg e's findings of fact on post-conv iction heari ngs are conc lusive on appeal unless th e evidence pr eponderates otherw ise. Butler v. State , 789 S.W.2d 898, 899-900 (Tenn. 1990) ; Adkins v. State , 911 S.W.2d 334, 354 (Tenn. Crim. A pp. 1995). The trial court’s findings of f act are afforde d the weight of a jury verdict, and this Court is bound by the trial court’s finding s unless the ev idence in the record preponderates against thos e findings. Dixon v . State , 934 S.W.2d 69, 72 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). This Court may

not rewei gh or reev

aluate the evi dence, nor subst itute its i nferences for those drawn by the tri al judge. Massey v . State , 929 S. W.2d 399, 403 (Tenn. C rim. App. 1996); Black v. State , 794 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tenn. Crim. App . 1990). Quest ions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony ar

e resolve d by the tr ial court, not this cour t. Black v. State , 794 S.W.2d at 755. The burden of establ ishing that the evidenc e preponderates ot herwise is on petitioner. Id

. After receiving evidence at the post-conviction hearing, the trial judge too k this case under adv isement. Subseq uently, the trial cour t filed extens ive, w ritten finding s of fac t and conc lusio ns of law con sisti ng of twent y-seve n (27 ) page s. Th ese e xtens ive findings have greatly

simplified our

review and justify our Rule 20 di sposition.

I. Ineffect ive A

ssistance of Counsel

Petitioner c laims that ori ginal tri al counsel depr ived him of effective assistance of counsel. Speci fically, h e argues that counsel failed t o adequately (1) investigate, prepare, or present the “correct” fact s in pre-trial motions; (2) challenge in-court identifications at the preliminary hearing; and (3) represent him at trial. The trial court in its wr itten findings

thoroughly

reviewed the serv ices rendere d by counsel and found no evidence of deficien t performance nor preju dice to petitioner as a result of th eir performance. The ev idence does not pr eponderate agai nst these finding s.4

Accordingl y, this i ssue is w ithout merit.
II. Newly D iscovered Eviden ce

Petitioner argues that he onl y recentl y receiv ed certain exculpatory

police repor

ts concerning the identificati on by wi tnesses. He a rgues these reports rev eal that the witnesses reviewed the police mug books on the same date and time; therefo re, this procedure was impermissi bly sug gestive and would ha ve led to s uppression of the identifications. He fu rther contends the prior descriptions by the victim were inconsistent with thei r trial i dentification. The t rial court conducted an ex

tensive review of “hundreds of pages

of documents” and found no new evidence w hich deprived petitioner of a fair

trial. The alleged re cently di scovered do cuments do appear to have the same date and time for each w itness noted on t he police repor ts. How ever, thei r statements clearly reflect different ti mes, and the tri al testimony indicates the y viewed the photos separately . Furthermore, petitioner has made an insufficient showing that either th e photo identificati on or the in-court identification would have been suppr essed based upon this informat ion. Likewise, there has been an insuf ficient showing that the result of the trial would have been a ny different based upon the prior description given by the witne sses . In su mma ry, th ere is no sh owing t hat s uch e viden ce wou ld lik ely ha ve changed the res ults of the tri al. See State v. Nichols , 877 S.W .2d 722 (Tenn. 199 4), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1114, 115 S.Ct. 90 9, 130 L.Ed.2d 791 (1995). This issue is without mer it.

III. Guilty Pleas

Petitioner ar

gues his pr ior guil ty plea conv ictions arevoid becaus e he was not5

advised of his right against self-incrimination. T he transcripts indicate the court f ully discussed the ramifications of ent ering the pl eas with p etitioner. The trial cour t made extensive writt en findings as to the vari ous guilty pleas entered by

petitioner. The trial court reli ed upon Blankenship v . State , 858 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1993), and found that “the eviden ce and testimony offered establish ov

erwhelming ly that ther

e was, at t he least, substant ial complianc e with the Boykin requirements.” The record clearly supports this

conclusion. This issue i s without merit.
The judgement of the tr ial court i s AFFIRME D pursuant to R ule 20 of this Cou rt.

__________________________ JOE G. RILEY , JUDGE CONCUR:

______________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

___________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE