# FILED July 23, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE

AT JACKSON JUNE 19 98 SESS ION
VINCENT DELANO HA DLEY, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9710- CR-00414 ) Appe llant, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON . JOSE PH B . BRO WN , JR., STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-convi ction)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: MARK A. MESLER JOHN KNOX WALKUP 200 Jefferson Ave., Ste. 1250 Attorney General& Reporter Memphis, TN 38103 PETE R M. C OUG HLAN Asst. Attorney General 425 5t h Ave. N. 2nd Fl., Cor

dell HullBldg. Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 WILLIA M L. GIBBONS Distri ct Attor ney General KEV IN RAR DIN Asst. Dist rict At

torney General Criminal Justice Com plex, Suite 301 201 Poplar Street Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:____________________ AFFIRMED DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE-2- 

## O P I N I O N The Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder. He pleaded guil ty to t he charge pursuant to a n egotiated plea ag reeme nt and re ceived a senten ce of life imprisonmentwith the po ssibil ity of parole. In thi s post-convi ction proceeding f iled in January 1995, the Defendant contends that his g uilty plea must be set aside because it was not

ent ered vol untarily and beca use he rece ived ineffective assistance of cou nsel. A fter an e videntia ry heari ng, the trial cour t denied re lief. We affirm.

The Defe ndan t’s murder convict ion was for the kil ling of a two-year- old chil d, who died afte r a severe be ating. The Defendant gave a statement in whi ch he admitted that

he had beaten the chi ld because she had ur inated on t he couch.

At the post-convi ction hearing, the D efendant an d one of his two trial lawyers testif ied. The D efend ant cla im ed that he had pleaded guil ty because he was “scared”and “confused.” He testif ied that t he police had threatened hi m into givi ng two stateme nts , t hat

thepol icehad the n “c hang ed”his stateme nts to appear as confessions, and that he had been severely beaten by jailinmates a few days after having given hi s seco nd st atemen t. H e plead ed gu ilty appr oxima tely one year later but “took the gu ilty

plea because [he] was scared and confused.” He admitted that he had kn own he was facin g the de ath pen alty if he wen t to tr ial. He further testif ied that his

lega l rep resenta tion was in effective du e to inade quate investi gation, inadeq uate communication, insuffi cient zealousness, mi sinformati on, failure to m ove for ch ange o f venue, a nd failure to prepare a defen se strateg y.-3- Lead counsel for

the Defendant at

trialtestif ied that s he and another lawyer from the pub lic defend er’s off i ce had been ass igned t o the case , as wel l as two investigators. She testif ied that she had filed t hirty-si x motions, includi ng a motion to suppress theDefendant’s st atements. The motion to suppress was deni ed. She explained that she had concluded a change of venue would not n ecessaril y be in her client ’s best i nterest. Her records reflected twenty j ail vi sits as wel l as add itionalphone calls and correspondence wi th the Defendant . She expl aine d that, under the facts o f the case, “The re was not much strategy tha t could be had,” and that she had advised her c lient “ to try to enter

a plea rather than to go to tria l, becau se they w ere see king the d eath pe nalty aga inst him.”

In a ru ling fr

om the bench, the t rial cour t found the Defendant “not ver y cred ible . . . i n terms of hi s asserti ons” and that “performance of coun sel wa s adequ ate and rea sonab le unde r the circum stance s.” W e agree . In this postconvic tio n relie f proceeding, the Defendant had t he burden of prov ing the allegati ons in his petition by a p repond erance of the evide nce. McBe e v. State , 655 S.W.2d 191, 195 (Ten n. Crim. App . 1983). Furthermore, the factu al findi ngs of a trialcourt after an evident iary hear ing “are conclusi ve on appeal unl ess the evidence preponde rates against the judgmen t.” State v. Buford , 666 S.W.2d 473, 4 75 (Tenn
. Crim. App . 1983). In this case, up on our review o f the evidentiary hearing as well as t he transcri pts from the g uilty plea and motion to suppr ess, the Defendant has simply failed to carry hi s burden of proof as t o both of hi s alleged grounds for r

elief. The judgment below i s accordingl y affi rmed.-4- ____________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE

CONCUR:

_________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

_________________________ JOE G. RILE Y, J UDGE