### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

s M ay 10, 200 6
MA RK J. M ETZ v . S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty Nos. 2004-A- 306 & 2004-A- 307 Seth Norm an, Jud ge

No. M2005- 01705-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Jun e 28, 2006

I n Dec ember

of 2004, the pe titioner pled g uiltyto at t em p t ed es p ecia lly ag g ravated robbe ry

and ag g ravated r o b bery . On May 25, 2005, the petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief

. By order

on J une 13, 2005, the post-c onviction court denie d the petition without appointing counsel or holding an evide ntiary hearing. T he petitioner appea ls a rg uing tha t the post-conviction c ou rt sh ou ld h a ve he ld a

he ari ng . T he Sta te c on c e de s th a t th e pe tit ion e r i s c or re c t. We ag re e a s w e ll. We r e ve rs e the de c isi on of the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt a ndre ma ndfo r f

urthe r p ro c e e din g s in acc ordanc e with this opinion.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s R e ve r se d and Re m ande d.
J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., joined.
Mark J. Metz , Pro Se, Nashville, Tenne ssee.
Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; B re nt C . Ch e rry , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S

. J ohnson, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and D an Ha mm, Assist ant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION The pe titioner pled g uiltyto attempted espec ially ag g ravated robbe ry

and ag g ravated robbe ry in D ece mber of 2004. He filed a pro se petition f or post-conviction relief on May 2 5 , 2 0 0 5

. He arg ued that his plea w as involuntarily , unknowing ly and unintelligently enter ed bec ause he did not understand the conseque nces of his plea. He also arg ued that he w as af forde d the ineff

ective a ssi sta nc e of

c ou ns e l. On June 13 , 20 05 , the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt dis mis se d the pe tit ion . Prior to-2-

the entry of this order, the post-conviction court did not appoint counsel for the petit ioner, a llow the petitioner a c hance to amend his petition, or conduct a n evidentiary hearing on the petitioner’s alleg ations. The petitioner timely filed a notice of appe al on J une 21, 2005.
AN AL YSI S
The petitioner arg ues that the trial court err ed in dismissing his petition without holding an evidentiary

hearing on a

ppeal. The State conce des that the pe titioner is e n t i t l ed to further proce eding s because he ha s stated a c olorable c laim.
I n Burnett v. State, 92 S.W .3d 403 (Tenn

. 2 0 0 2 ), o ur supre me court expl ained the r eview proce ss a post-conviction court must follow when revie wing a petition for post-conviction relief. I d. at 406. Fir st the post-conviction court must determine whethe r t he petitioner ha d prese nted a c olo ra ble c la im. I d. A c olo ra

ble c la im i s “ ‘a c la im that, if take n a s true , in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to the petitioner, would entitle petit i o n er to relief unde r Post-Conviction P roce dure A ct.’” I d. (quoting Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 § 2(h))

. Our supreme court stated if no color able c laim is presented, the n th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt ma y dis mis s th e pe tit ion . I d. I f it is de te rm ine d th a t a c olo ra ble c la im has bee n prese nted, then the post-conviction court may appoint counsel to a pr o se petitioner. I d. at 407. The c ourt went on to state, “ once a petitioner is aff

orded the benef

it of counsel, the trial court may evaluate t he claim and determine whether the petitioner i s entitled to relief w ithout holdi ng an evid e n ti ar y h e ar in g
. ” I d

. T h e r e f o r e , o n c e it h a s b e e n a s c e r ta in e d th a t a c o lo r ab le c la im has bee n prese nted, a post-c onviction court may not dismi ss a petition before the appointment of c ounsel and allowanc e of time to ame nd the petition. The que stion becomes whe ther the p et i t i o n er presente d a color able c laim. I n the ca se sub jud ic e , th e pe tit ion e r a lle g e d th a t he en te re d his ple a inv olu nta ri ly , u nk no wi ng ly

a ndun int e lli g e ntl y beca use his trial counsel a nd the trial court did not fullyexplain the ramifica t i o n s o f his plea. He also alleg ed that he w as af forde d ineffe ctive assist ance of counsel beca use his trial counsel did not inform the petiti oner of the s treng th of his case , encour ag ed the pe titioner to plead g uiltydespite the lack of evidenc e ag ainst petitioner, and c oerc ed the pe titioner t o p l ea d gu i l t y . We ag ree with the State that the petitioner ha s stated a colorable claim. When these claims ar e “ta ken as true , in a light most favora

ble to the petitioner,” he would be e ntitled to relief.
Whe n th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt a sc e rt a ine d th a t th e pe tit ion e r p re se nte d c olo ra ble c la ims , c ou ns e l c ou ld h a ve be e n a pp oin te d a t th a t time

. Te nn . Code An n. § 4 0- 30 -1 07 (b )( 1) (2 00 3) ; se e a lso Burnett, 92 S.W .3d at 406. Appointed counse l, or the petitioner a cting pro se, should have then bee n g ive n th irty

da y s to a me ndthe pe tit ion . T e nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 30 -1 07 (b )( 2) (2 00 3) ; se e a lso Burnett, 92 S.W .3d at 407 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-207(b) (1) ( 1997)). Appointed c ounsel would then either file an a mended pe tition or a written statement that ther e would be no a mendment to the p et i t i o n
. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-107(b) (2) ( 2003); see a lso Burne tt, 92 S.W .3d at 407 (c iti ng Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 30 -2 07 (b )( 2) (1 99 7) ). I t is un lik e ly that the po st- c on vic tio n co urt w ill be able to d ism iss the pe tit ion wi tho ut a he ari ng e ve n a ft e r a

pp oin tin g c ou ns e l a nda llo wi ng tim e to amend, be cau se we have pr eviously stated that ineff

ective a ssistance of c ounsel claims should be-3-

raised in post-conviction proce eding s beca use “it ‘is virtually

impossibl e to demonstrate prejudice a s r e qu ir e d’ wi tho ut a n e vid e nti ary he ari ng .” Sta te v. B la c kmo n, 78 S.W. 3d32 2, 32 8 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 2001) (c iting Kirby

Geor g e Wal l ac e v
. S t ate, No. 01C01-9308- CC-00275, 1994 W L 50441 (Tenn. Crim. App., a t Nashville, Sept. 15, 1994)).
CO NC LU SION
For the fore g oing r easons, we reve rse the judg ment of the post-c onviction court and rema nd for f

urther pr ocee dings in a ccor dance with this opi nion.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE