### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary 11, 200 5

LAR RY MITC HELL v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. P -27009 John P. Colt on, Jr., Judge

No. W2004-00981-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled April 25, 2005

The Appe llant, L arry

Mitchell, appea ls the judg ment of the Shelby CountyCriminal Court deny ing his pe tit ionfo r post -con vict ionre lie f. On app e a l, M itc he ll a rg ue s th a t he wa s d e nie d h is Si xth Amendment rig ht to the effe ctive assistanc e of counsel. After a review of the rec ord, we aff irm the denial of post-c onviction relief.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS and J. C. M C L IN , J J ., joined.

Kamil ah E . T urne r, Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the Ap pe lla nt, L arry

Mit c he ll.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tt orney Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; John L . B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; an d Andre Thomas, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound

Th e Ap pe lla nt i s c ur

re ntl y se rv ing a n e ff

e c tiv e tw e nty -f

ou r y e ar s e nte nc e a s a

re su lt o f h is convictions for attempted first deg ree m u rd er , espec ially ag g ravated kidnapping , two counts of

a g g ra vate d r ob be ry , a ndthe ft of pr op e rt y ov e r $ 10 ,0 00 . The se c on vic tio ns ste m f ro m th re e se pa

rate

c r i m i n a l e p i s o d e s w h i c h o c c u rr e d o n t h e d a t e s o f M a y 9 a n d M a y 1 4
, 2 0 0 1
, i n S h e l b y C o u n t y. Compelling evide nce, inc luding victim identifica t i o n of the Appe llant and fing erprint evidence
, lin ke d th e Ap pe lla nt t o th e se c ri me s. P urs uant to a ple a a g re e me nt, the Ap pe lla nt e nte re d g uil ty pleas to the a

bove off enses on Oc tober 28, 2002.-2-

I n J anuary

of 2003, the Appe llant filed a pro s e petition for post-conviction re lief alleg ing that he was de nied the ef

fec tive assistance of counse l. Following the appointment of c ounsel and the fi lin g of a n a me nd e d pe tit ion
, a n e vid e nti ary he ari ng wa s h e ld o n Jan ua ry 15 , 2 00 4. Th e po stconviction court denied re lief by written orde r of Ma

rch 25, 2004. This timely appea l followed.

Ana lys is

Th e Ap pe lla nt a

rg ue s th a t hi s tria l c ou ns e l w a s d e fi c ie nt fo r faili ng to: (1 ) p ro vid e him wi th available discovery

materia l; (2) contac t material witnesse s; ( 3) conduct a proper investigation; (4)

a dv ise him

of the e le me nts of

the of fe ns e s; and(5 ) file a mo ti on fo r s e ve ranc e of the of fe ns e s. Additionally , the Appellant c ontends that his g uilty pleas wer e not voluntary beca use trial counsel

coer ced him into pleading g uilty

.

I n o rd er t o s u cc ee d o n a p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n cl ai m , t h e A p p el l an tb ea rs t h e b u rd en o f s h o wi n g, by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, the alleg ations set forth in the petition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 110(f) (2003). To support a S ix th Amendment claim of ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel, the A p p e l l a n tm u s te s t ab l i s h t h a tc o u n s e l ’ s p e r f o r m a n c e f e l l b e l o w t h e r a n g e o f c o m p e t e n c e o f a t t o r n e ys demande d in criminal ca ses. Ba x te r v . R os e , 523 S.W .2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975) . Under Strickland v. W ashington , the Appellant must establish (1) deficient repre sentation and (2) prejudice resulting from the deficienc y

. 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct . 2052, 2064 (1984). It is unnecessa ry for a court to addre ss deficie ncy

and pre judice in any

particula r orde r, or e ven to addr ess both if the petitioner makes a n insufficient showing on either. Id . at 697, 104 S.Ct . at 2069. With a guilty plea, to satisfy the “pr ejudice” prong , the Appellant “ must show that there is a rea sonable proba

bilitythat, but for counsel’s error s, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insist ed on g oing to tria l.” Hi ll

v . Lo c k ha rt , 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S. C t. 366, 369 (1985).

The issues of de ficient pe rformance by counsel a nd p o s s i b l e p rejudice to the defe nse ar e mix ed questions of law and fa ct. State v. Burns , 6 S.W .3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999). “A tria l court’s fin din gs of f

ac t underlying a

claim of inef

fec tive assistance of counse l are revie wed on a ppeal unde r
a de novo standard, a ccompa nied with a pre sumption t hat those findin gs ar e correct unless the preponde ranc e of evidenc e is otherwise.” Fi e lds v . S tat e , 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) ; He nle y v . S tate , 960 S.W .2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997) ). Howe ver, c onclusions

o f l a w ar e r e v i e w e d u n d e r a p u r e l y de novo standard w ith no presumption of corr ectne ss. Fields , 40 S.W .3d at 458.

I. Discover y, Witnesses, and Pr etr ial In vestigation

The Appe llant contends that trial counse l failed to provide him with discovery materia l made available by

the State. Although raised as a g round for defic ient perf ormanc e, this issue was neve r develope d by

the Appellant at the post-conviction hea ring . Thus, we a re uninformed a s to what discovery materia l the Appellant is ref erring to and more importantly how this material, if provide d, would have pr oduced a

differ ent conc lusion. P roof of defic ient repr esentation by omission requires more tha n a

b ar e a ll e g a ti o n o f

s o me lo s t p o te n ti a l b e n e f it

. N o tw ith s tan d in g th e A p p e lla nt’s-3-

a sse rt ion s, tr ia l c ou ns e l te sti fi e d th a t he re vie we d all dis c ov e ry ma te ri a l and the fa c ts of the c a se wi th the Appellant on numerous occa sions. Trial counsel a lso testified that after his appointment in the

case , he re ceive d the Public Defe nder’ s entire investig ative file and, afte r re viewing various statements of witnesse s in the file, m ade additional persona l contac t with other witnesses. He f urther

e xpla ine d th a t th e State pr ov ide d “ op e n f ile ” dis c ov e ry in the c a se , a nd , th e re fo re , h e ha d a c c e ss t o the State’s witnesses throug h this source a s well. Trial c ou n s el testified that he r eviewe d the el em en t s o f t h e v ar i o u s o ff en s es wi t h t h e A p p el l an t , an d t o get h ert h eyd ev el o p ed t h e def en s e s tra t egy which wa s to be employ ed if the c ase pr ocee ded to trial. The post-c onviction court, in ac cre diting the testimony

of trial counse l, fo u n d that the Appellant’ s alleg ations of (1) f ailing to pr ovide discovery ; (2) failing to advise as to the elements of t he offenses; and (3) failing to conduct a proper inv e sti g a tio n w e re no t su pp orted by the pr oo f. Th e re c or d d oe s n ot p re po nd e rate a g a ins t th e se fi nd ing s. Th e se iss ue s a

re wi tho ut m e ri t.

II. Motion to Sever

Next, the Appellant contends that trial co u n s el was deficient be cause he failed to file a motion to s ever

the offe nses. Sever ance of off en s es i s go v er n ed byTenn. R. Crim. P. 8 and 13. Here, Ap p el lant fails to identify which off

enses should have been se vere d, whether joinder of the offe nses was pe rmissive as provided by Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(b), or how the Appe llant was pre judiced by trial co u n s el ’s fa ilure to pursue se verance. With reg ard to this alleg ation, the Appellant wa s require d to show by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e (1) that a motion t o s ev er woul d have be en g rante d and (2) that there was a rea sonable probability that the proce eding s would have c oncluded differ ently

if counsel ha d perf

ormed a s sugg ested. The Appellant cle arly has fa iled to establish either fac tor. Thus, this issue is wit h o u t m er it. Moreover , as found by the post-conviction court, the Ap pe lla nt’ s e ntry

of g uil ty ple a s to the of

fe ns e s ma de thi s is su e moo t.

III. Coerc ed Guilty P lea

F ina lly , th e Ap pe lla nt a

rg ue s th a t hi s g uil ty

ple a s w e re no t kn ow ing a nd vo lun tary be c aus e trial counsel c oerc ed him into pleading g uilty

. The Appellant asserts that when he wanted to plea d to a twenty -y ear

sentenc e and c ould not g et it, tria l c ounsel urg ed him to acc ept a twe nty -five y ear
se nte nc e . D e sc ri bin g the c ir c ums ta nc e s, he state d, “ [tr ia l c ou ns e l] ke pt te lli ng me

. . . y ou ne e d to take this twenty -five, i f y o u d o n’t y ou’re g oing to tria l and g et a hundr ed and nine ty -five y ear s.” Trial counse l’s testimonyon this iss ue differe d materia lly from that of t he Appellant. Wit h reg ard to this iss ue , th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt fo un d a s f

oll ow s:

Counsel submit s that he g ave Petitioner his honest a nd profe ssional opinion based upon the fa cts and situation prese nted, which is h i s d u t y t o the client. Counsel submits t hat upon re ceiving the first plea offe r, he communicated to Petitioner that he did not think it was in Petitioner’ s best interest to take the offe r. Prior to trial, a second ple a ag ree ment was offe red of 25-y ear s, which wa s drastica lly less than the fi rs t off e r. Cou ns e l neg oti a te d the re du c tio n of an a dd iti on a l y e ar, do wn to 2 4- y e ars

. Cou n s e l s u b m i t s t h a t h e a n d P e t i t i o n e r a g r e e d t h a t t ak i n g t h e o f f e r w a s th e be st-4-

resolution. Also, counsel describes P etitioner as “elated” and stated t hat Petitioner thanked c ounsel for “ saving him many y ear s in prison”.

. . .
Petitioner was g iven ample opportunityto express any coer cion or intimidation broug ht on by

counsel throughout the questioning process of entering the g uiltyplea. At no time did Petit ioner e x press any such coercion. There fore
, this Court finds the

c la im o f c oe rc ionis w ith ou t me ri t a ndno du e pr oc e ss v iol a tio n e xists

.
The re cord supports these finding s and the post-c onviction court’s c o n cl u s i o n that the Ap pe lla n t h a s f

a i l e d t o e s t ab l i s h t h a t h e w a s d e n i e d t h e e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l o r tha t hi s pleas of g uiltywer e unknowing ly and involuntarily

enter ed.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e affirm t he dis missal of t he petiti on for post-c onviction relief by the She lby

Cou nty Cr imi na l Co urt.

______________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGES