### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d onBr ie fs O ct obe r 3, 200 7
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . BARBARA ANN BRYA NT Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Tip ton County No. 4713 Joseph Walk er, Judge

No. W2007-00287-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled April 23, 2008

I n Tipton County , Petitioner enter ed an open g uilty plea to three c ounts of vehicular homicide, one
c ount o f v e hic ula

r as sa ult and tw o co un ts of dr ivi ng wh ile int oxic a te d, wh ic h we re late r m e rg e d in to the first vehic ular homicide co n v i ction. Followinga sente ncinghear ing, the trial court se ntence d Petitioner to three c onsecutive te n-y ear sentenc es for t h e v ehicular homicides and a consec utive three -y e ar

s e n te n c e f

o r v e h ic u la r a s s a u lt

. T h is r e s u lt e d

in ane f f e c ti v e th ir

ty

- thr e e - y e ar

s e n te n ce. Petitioner was unsuccessful on a ppeal. State v. Barbara Ann Bryant , No. W2004-01245-CCA-R3- CD, 2005 WL 756252 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, A pr. 1, 2005), perm. app. de nied , ( Te nn . O c t. 3, 2005). Petitioner subsequently filed a pe tition for post-conviction relief . The pos t -c o n v i ct i on c ourt de nie d a nd dis mis se d the pe tit ion

. Af te r a tho ro ug h r e vie w o f t he re c or d, we a ff

ir m th e po stc on vic tio n c ourt ’s de c isi on ba se d u po n th e fa c t th a t Pe tit ion e r d id n ot pr e se nt the iss ue to t he po stc on vic tio n c ourt

tha t sh e no w p re se nts to t

his Court on a pp e a l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Ci r c uitCo ur t i s A ffirm e d.
J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

J. B arn e y With e ri ng ton

I V, Cov ing ton , T e nn e sse e , f or the Ap pe lla

nt, B arb ara

Ann B ryant.
Rob e r t E

. C o o p e r , Jr

. , A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Jenn if

e r L . Sm ith , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; El iza be th R ic e , D istri c t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, a

nd Wal t F re e land , A ssi sta

nt Di str ic t Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

On Octobe r 10, 2003, Petition er, whose blood alcohol conte nt was .27, ra n into a pair of motorcy cles. State v. Barbara Ann Bryant , 2005 WL 756252, at *1. Two pa sseng ers r ode on ea ch-2-

motorcy cle. Id. As a re sult of the acc ident, three of the four victims died. Id. Th e re ma ini ngvic tim had two broke n bones in his leg and his ankle w as cr ushed. He had seve ral surg erie s as a r esult of the ac cident. Id. On April 14, 2004, Petitioner pled g uilty to three c ounts of vehicular homicide base d upon intox ication, one count of vehicular assault, and two counts of dr iving while intoxicated. Id. At the conclusion of a sentenc ing hear ing, the trial court sente nced Petitioner to ten year s for e ach ve hicular homicide and thre e y ear s for the ve hicular as s au l t , al l to be serve d consec utively , resulting in an
e f f e c ti v e s e n te n c e o f th ir

ty

- thr e e y e ars. Id. The trial c ourt merg ed the dr iving while intoxicated convictions into the first vehicular homicide conviction.
Petitioner appea led her sentenc e to this Court. On appea l, she arg ued that the trial cour

t erre d in determini n g t h e l en g th of her ve hicular homicide sentenc es as ten year s and in imposing
consec utive sentenc es. Id. at *2. This Court held that the trial cour t i m p ro p er l y ap p lied one enhanc ement fa ctor but stated that the two rema ining enhanc ement fac tors supported the imposition
o f t en -y ea r sentences. Id. a t* 3

. T h i s C o u rta l s o u p h e l d t h e i mp o s i t i o no f

c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e nc e s. Id. at *4. On September

7, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition f or post-conviction relief

. I n this petiti on, she ar g ued that the tria l court er red in impo s i n g consec utive sentenc es, that her g uilty plea wa s involuntary , and that she r ece ived the inef fec tive assistance of counse l. On J anuar y 8, 2007, Petitioner filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief . I n this petiti on she also ar g ued that h e r g u i l t y p l e a

w a s i n v o l u n t ar

y.
P os t- c onv ic ti on H e ar ing The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hear ing on J anuar y 10, 2007. The Petitioner was the sole w itness at the hea ring . Petitioner testified that her first counsel, whom she reta ined, was actua lly not a lawy er. Counsel wa s then appointed by the cour t. Petiti oner me t with trial counsel and her court-a ppointed lawy er immediate ly befor e she e ntere d a p l ea
. P etitioner stated that he r reta ined counsel and trial counsel both told her that she would g et eig ht y ear s for e ach homicide and the sentenc es would run c o n cu rr en t ly . She stated that they appea led the sente nce be cause the sentenc es wer e run consec utively instead of concur rently

. She said that trial counsel “said that [she] should” g et conc urre nt sentence s, “[h] e didn’t say that I would.” Petitioner also stated that she made he r d e c isi on

to p le a d g uil ty ba se d upo n tri a l couns e l’ s adv ic e . Peti tio ne r s tate d th a t sh e ple d guil ty b e c a u s e s h e w a s gu il ty

. Pe ti ti o n e r b e li e v e d th a t b y p le a d in g g u il ty

s h e w o u ld

r e c e iv e c o ncurr ent sentenc es. She also stated that she believe d counsel was inef fec tive on appea l beca

use the tra nscript of her g uilty plea wa s not filed wit h the record on appea l. Finally , Petitioner also stated t hat she ha d a har d time ge tting in touch with trial counse l by telephone during the appeal process while she wa s in prison. I n a wr itten order f iled J anuar

y 10, 2007, the pos t-conviction court denied the pe tition for post-conviction re lief.-3- AN AL YSI S On appeal, P etitioner arg ues sol ely that trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failing to include the transcr ipt of Petitioner’s g uilty plea in the rec ord on appea l. She makes no other a rgument reg arding tr ia l c ouns e l’ s p e rf

or manc e . T he State argue s that Pe tit ion e r did no t pr e se nt thi s iss ue to t he po stconviction cour

t and, there fore , the issue may not be raised befor e thi s Court. I n the alter native, the State argue s th a t tr ia l c ouns e l w a s n ot i ne ff ectiv e fo r f

a ili ngto i nc lud e the tr ans c ri pt o f t he g uil ty plea.
The State c orre ctly asser ts that P et itioner did not include the issue of the inc lusion of the transcr ipt of the g uilty plea hearing in either of the petit ions for post-convic tion relief that we re f iled in the post-conviction cour t. We note that Petiti oner did testify at t h e p ost-conviction hea ring
re g ard ingth e failur e of

tr ia l c ouns e l to inc lud e the tr ans c ri pt o f t he g uil ty ple a . H ow e ve r, po stconviction counse l never

argu ed thi s issue as a ba sis for ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel. At the post-conviction hea

ring , post-convi c ti o n

c o u n s el stated that the or igina l petition st ated the issues a nd that he filed a

n amende d petition elaborating on the e ntry of an involuntary

g uilty plea. The ref

ore, this iss ue wa s never

prese nted for the post-conviction cour t’s deter mination. At the post-conviction hear ing, and in the petitions, the alleg ations of trial counsel’s ineffe ctiveness focuse d on the fa ct that Petitioner believed from her discussions with trial counsel that she would re ceive a shorter sentenc e and wo uld no t r e c e ive c on se c uti ve se nte nc e s. Th e po st- c on vic tio n c ourt ba se d it s r

uli ngup on

the se alleg ations. The post-convic tion court’s rulingclea rly does not ad d ress trial c ounsel’s alleg ed ine ff e c tiv e ne ss f

or fa ili ngto i nc lud e the g uil ty ple a tr ans c ri pt.
When a petiti oner raises an issue for the first time on appea l, that issue is waived. See B lack v. Blount , 938 S.W .2d 394, 403 (Tenn. 1996)

. I n addition, a petitioner may not chang e theor ies betwee n the lower

court a nd the appe llate cour

t. State v. Alder , 71 S.W. 3d 29 9, 30 3 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 2001). B eca

use Petitioner did not all ege in he r post-convic tion petitions that counsel wa s ine ff e c ti v e f o r f a i l i n g t o f i l e t h e t r an s c r i p t o f h e r g u i l t y p l e a h e ar i n g s o n d i r e c t a p p e a l , t he po stconviction cour

t did not addre ss this issue in its order , this issue is waived. We also note t hat i n the direc t appea l of this case this Court noted the lac k of a tra nscript of the guilty

plea he aring , howeve r the Court was never

theless able to a ddress the merits of Petitioner’s sente ncingissues. See State v

. Barbara Ann Bryant , 2 00 5 WL 75 62 52 , at *4 . The re fo re , it is h ig hly un lik e ly that Pe tit ion e r w ou ld preva il in showing pre

judice fr om counsel’s fa ilure to file a transcr ipt of t he guilty plea he aringon direc t appea l.
CO NC LU SION

F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e de te rm inatio n o f t

he po st- c on vic tio n c ourt

.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE