### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs S ep te mb er 1, 200 9 CHRISTOP HER CA NN ON v. ST ATEOFTEN NES SEE A p p ea l f ro m th e C ircu itC o u rt fo r M a d ison C o u n ty N o. C - 08- 189 R oy B . M organ, Jr. , Judge

N o. W 2008- 02185- C C A - R 3- P C - F i l ed F ebruary 12, 2010

T he Pet i t i oner , C hr i s t opherC annon, appea l s t he M adi s on C ount y C i r cui tC our t ’ s deni al of pos t
- convi ct i on r el i ef f r om hi s open gui l t ypl eas t o aggr avate d bur gl aryand aggr avat ed a s s a u l twh i c h r e s u l t e d i n t wo t we l v e - y e a rs e n t e n c e s t o b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y . He c l a i ms trial c o u n se l r e n d e re d in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e in f

a ili n g to a d v ise h im th a t h e c o u ld p o ten tially avoi d hi s t w o cons ecut i ve tw el ve- y ears ent ence s by exer ci s i ng hi s r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al

. U pon re v iew , w e a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e p o st-c o n v ictio n c o u rt. Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3 Appeal as of R i ght ; Judg m e nt of

t he C i r c ui t C our t A f

f i r m e d C AMI LLE R. M C M ULL EN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch D AV I D H. W ELLE S and A LAN E. G LEN N , J J

. , j oi ned. J . C o lin M o rr is , J a c k s o n , T e n n e s s e e , fo r t h e P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, C h ri s to p h e r C a n n o n . R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; J ohn H

. B l eds oe, A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; J am es G

. W oodal l , D i s tr i c tAt t o r n e y Gener al ; and A l f r ed L. E ar l s , A s s i s t antD i s tr i ct A t t or ney G ener al , fort he A ppel l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON T he Pet i t i oner w as i ndi ct ed for aggr avat ed bur gl ary , a C l as s C fel on y ; agg rav at ed a ss a u lt, a C las s D f

e lo n y ; a n d a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, a C las s C f e lo n y . H e e n ter e d o p e n g u ilty pleas i n M a d iso n C ou ntyC i rcui tC ou rtt o the agg ravat ed b urgl arycharge an d the C l ass D aggr avat ed as s aul tchar ge, and t he s econd aggr avat ed as s aul t char ge w as di s m i s s ed. T he tr i al c o u r ts e n t e n c e d t h e Pe t i t i o n e ra s a Ra n g e I I I , p e r s i s t e n to f f e n d e ra n d i mp o s e d t wo con secut i ve tw el ve-y ear s entences atforty -fi ve p ercent
. T he P et i t i on er fil ed a t i m el ypro se p e t i t i o n f

o rp o s t
- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f o n J u l y9 , 2 0 0 8 , i n wh i c h h e a s s e r t e d n u me r o u s c l a i ms in c lu d in g in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l. T h e p o st-c o n v ictio n c o u rt su b se q u e n tly-2-

ap p o inted co u n sel fo r th e P eti ti o n er; h o w ev er, n o am en d m en t t o the P eti ti o n er’s o ri g inal p ro s e p e titio n w a s f

ile d . T h e S ta te f

ile d a re s p o n s e to th e p e titio n a n d a m o tio n to d is m is s . Fol l ow i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng on t he pet i t i on, t he courtent er ed a w r i t t en or der d ism iss in g th e p o st-c o n v ictio n p e tit io n o n S e p tem b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 . T h e P e tit io n e r f iled a tim e ly n o tic e o f a p p e a l. F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND P os t - C onvi ct i on H eari ng. T ria l co u n se l w a s th e o n lyw itn e ss to tes tify a t th e p o stc o n v ictio n h e a rin g o n S e p tem b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 8

. S h e tes tifie d re g a rd in g se v e ra l cla im s in th e p o stconvi ct i on pet i t i on t hatw er e noti ncl uded i n t he Pet i t i oner ’ s appea l t o this c our t
. T r i al couns el s t at ed thatthe Publ i c D efe nder ’ s O ffi ce w as appoi nt ed t o r epr es entt he Pet i t i onerand th a t th e c a se w a s o rig in a lly a ss ig n e d to a n o th e r a tto rn e y b e f o re b e in g a ss ig n e d to h e r in A p ril of 2007. T he Pet i t i onerul t i m at el y ent er ed open gui l t y pl eas t o t w o of the cha r ges , t her eby al l ow i ng t he tr i al cour t t o det erm i ne t he appr opr i at e s ent ence s . T r i al couns el s t at ed thatone o f th e th re e in d icte d o f

f e n se s w a s d ism iss e d p u rsu a n t to th e P e tit io n e r’s o p e n p lea . S h e sa id t hat s he inform ed the Pe t i t i on er of his ri gh tt o a juryt ri a l a n d th a t th e t ri al cou rthad al so i nform ed hi m of hi s r i ghtt o have a j ur y t r i al att he t i m e thathe ent er ed hi s gui l t ypl eas . T r i al co u n s e l e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e Pe t i t i o n e r a l s o h a d a f e d e r a l h a n d g u n c h a r g e a t t h e t i m e s he re p re se n ted h im o n th e sta te c h a rg e s. A lth o u g h sh e tried to h a v e th e f e d e ra l an d sta te s ent ence s s erved concurr ent l y , t he t r i al cour t i nform ed her t hati tcoul d notor derfede r al and s t at e s ent ence s t o be served concurr ent l y . T r i al couns el s t at ed t hat t he Pet i t i oneri nfor m ed her t hat he di d not w ant a j ur yt r i al

. C ons equent l y , t he Pet i t i onerent er ed open gui l t ypl eas t o o n e c o u n to f

a g g r a v a t e d b u r g l a r ya n d o n e c o u n to f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , a n d h e r e c e i v e d t wo t w el ve- y ears ent ence s t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y . She expl ai ned thats he di d notfi l e a not i ce of appe al on t he Pet i t i oner ’ s behal f bec aus e he t ol d hert hathe di d notw antt o pur s ue an appea l beca us e of the r i s k of r ece i vi ng a l onger s ent ence on appea l

. T r i al couns el s t at ed that s he metw i t h t he Pet i t i oner ag ain o n A u g us t1, 2007, and he a gai n t ol d hert hathe di d not w a n t to a pp eal his sent ence. S he di d not get t he Peti t i on er t o s i gn a w ai ver of hi s ri g h t to appea l be c a u s e t h e Pu b l i c Def e n d e r ’ s Off

i c e h a d i n f

o r me d h e r t h a t t h e y n o l o n g e rdo w ai ver s . W hen as ked i f s he bel i eved t hatt her e w as anyt hi ng el s e s he coul d have done for t he Pet i t i onerdur i ng herr epr es ent at i on, t r i al couns el r es ponded:

N o , I do n ’t th in k th e re w a s a n yth in g e lse I c o u ld h a v e d o n e . I to ld h im a t th e tim e th a t I th o u g h t g iv e n h is c rim in a l c o n v ictio n s, w h a t w a s p e n d in g in Feder al C our t , t hatactual l yw hathe ca m e outw i t h w as a fai r l y good out come, g iv e n a ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s in th is c a s e . T ria l co u n se l sa id th a t th e P e tit io n e r’s c a se w a s s e t f o r tria l an d th e ju ryw a s re a d yto-3-

be i m panel ed the dayt hathe ent er ed hi s gui l t ypl eas . She s t at ed thatt he tr i al court det erm i ned thatt he Pet i t i oner w as a R ange I I I , per s i s t ent offe nder bas ed on hi s pr i orfel ony re c o rd . S h e sa id th a t sh e e x p lain e d to th e P e tit io n e r, p rio r to h im e n te r in g h is o p e n g u ilty pl eas , t hathi s s ent ence s w oul d be det erm i ned by the t r i al cour t
. A tt he conc l us i on of the hear i ng, t he pos t
- convi ct i on cour t det erm i ned t hat t her e had “not been an yevi dence s ubm i t t ed thatw oul d s us t ai n t hi s pet i t i on. ” The courtcont i nued:

T he C our tnot ed the s enten ce gi ven thi s D efe ndantatt he t i m e on the [ o p e n ] p lea , n o ted th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt th a t w a s c o n sid e re d a n d ju stif ied , in t he C ou rt ’s op i nion, t hat s entence. T he D efen dan t w as adv i sed of his ri gh t s, i ncl udi ng, acc or di ng t o t he t es t i m onyof [tr i al couns el ] , hi s r i ghtt o appea l even t he [ope n] pl ea a nd s ent enci ng. T he j ur yw as her e as the C our tr eca l l s t he day t he pl ea w as ent er ed, and every oppor tuni t yw as aff or ded thi s D efe ndantt o go to trial. A g a in , f o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d , th e C o u rt d is m is s e s th e p e titio n f ile d

. .

. . T he or d e rd e n y i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o rp o s t
- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f was e n t e r e d o n Se p t e mbe r 19, 2008. A N A L Y S IS Post

- convi ct i on r el i ef i s onl y w arr ant ed w hen a pet i t i oner es t abl i s hes t hathi s orher c o n v i c t i o n i s v o i d o r v o i d a b l e b e c a u s e o f a n a b r i d g e me n to f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t
. T

. C. A. § 40- 30- 103 ( 2006)

. T he Tennes s ee Supr eme C our thas hel d: A pos t
- convi ct i on cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e concl us i ve on appeal unl es s t he evi dence prep o n d er at es ot herw i s e. W hen r evi ew i ng fac tual i s s ues , t he appel l at e courtw i l l notr e- w ei gh o rr e - e v a l u a t e the evi dence ; m or eover , fac tual ques t i ons i nvol v i ng t he cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es ort he w ei ghtof thei rt es t i m ony ar e mat t er s fort he tr i al cour t to resol ve. T he appe l l at e court ’ s r evi ew of a l egal i s s ue, orof a mi xed ques t i on of l aw orfac ts uch as a cl ai m of i neff ect i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l, is d e n o v o w ith n o p re s u m p tio n o f c o rr e c tn e s s . V aughn v. St at e, 202 S. W

. 3d 106, 115 ( T enn. 2006) ( i nt erna l quot at i on and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. “The pet i t i oner bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng fac tual al l egat i ons i n t he pet i t i on for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef b y clea r an d co n v incin g ev iden ce . ” Id

. (cit ing T

. C

. A

. § 4 0 -30 -11 0 (f); W i l eyv. St at e, 183 S. W

. 3d 317, 32 5 (T en n . 2 0 06) )

. E vi dence i s cons i der ed cl earand convi nci ng w hen ther e i s no s er i ous ors ubs t ant i al doubtabout the ac cur acyof the-4-

concl us i ons dr aw n fr om i t
. H i cks v. St at e, 983 S. W

. 2d 240, 245 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1998) (cit ing H o d g es v . S

. C

. T o o f & C o . , 8 3 3 S

. W

. 2 d 8 9 6 , 9 0 1 , n . 3 (T en n . 1 9 9 2 )). V aughn furt herr epea t ed w el l- sett l ed pr i nci pl es appl i cabl e t o cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l: T he r i ghtof a pe r s on acc us ed of a cr i m e t o r epr ese n tat ion bycouns el i s guar ant eed bybot h t he Si xt h A m endmentt o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and ar t i cl e I , s ect i on 9, of the Tennes s ee Const i tut i on. B ot h t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tand thi s C our t have r ecogni zed t hatt hi s r i ghtt o r epr es ent at i on encompas s es t he r i ghtt o r eas onabl y effect i ve as s i s t ance , t hati s , w i t hi n t he range o f com petence dem and ed o f at t orney s i n cri m i nal cas es. V au g h n , 2 0 2 S

. W

. 3 d at 11 6 (i n terna l qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). In o rder t o prevai l on an i neff ect i ve assi st ance of cou nsel cl ai m , t he peti t i on er m ust es t abl i s h t hat( 1) hi s l aw y er ’ s per form ance w as defi ci entand ( 2) t he def i ci entper form ance p re ju d ice d th e d e f

e n se . Id . (c iti n g S trick lan d v . W a sh in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 ( 19 84 ); B axter v. R ose, 52 3 S. W

. 2d 93 0, 93 6 ( T enn . 19 75 ))

. “[A ] fai l u re to pr ove ei t herdefi ci encyorpr ej udi ce p rov ides a s uffi ci entbas i s t o denyr el i ef on the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m . I ndeed, a co ur tneed notaddr es s t he component s i n any par t i cul ar or der oreven a ddr es s bot h i f the [pe t i t i oner ] m akes an i ns uffi ci ents how i ng of one c ompon e nt
. ” G oa d v

. St a t e , 93 8 S. W

. 2d 36 3, 37 0 ( Ten n. 19 96 ) ( c i t i ng Str i c kl a nd , 46 6 U. S. at 69 7 , 1 0 4 S

. C t. at 20 6 9 ). A pet i t i oners ucce s s ful l ydemonstr at es defi ci entper form ance w h en the cl earand convi nci ng evi dence pr oves t hathi s at t or ney ’ s conductfel l bel ow “an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r e a s on a bl e ne s s un de rpr e va i l i ng pr of e s s i on a l no r ms. ” I d. a t36 9 ( c i t i ng Str i c kl a nd , 46 6 U. S. a t 6 8 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 5 ; B a x ter , 5 2 3 S .W .2 d a t 9 3 6 ). P re ju d ice a risin g th e re f

ro m is d em o n str ated o n ce the p eti ti o n er estab li sh es “a rea so n ab le p rob ab il ity that b u t fo r co u n sel’s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , t he r es ul t of t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have been di ffe r ent
. ” I d

. at 370. “‘A rea s onabl e pr obabi l i t yi s a pr obabi l i t ys uffi ci entt o underm i ne conf i dence i n t he out come. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng St r i ckl and, 466 U

. S. at 694, 104 S. C t
. at 2068)

. I n or dert o s at i s fy the “ p rejud ice” req u ir em en t i n the c o n text o f a gu il ty p lea, a pe ti ti o n er “ m u st sho w that there is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t, bu t f o r c o u n se l’s e rro rs, h e w o u ld n o t h a v e p lea d e d g u ilty and w oul d have i ns i s t ed on goi ng t o t r i al

. ” H i l l v. L ockhart , 474 U

. S. 52, 59, 106 S. C t
. 366, 3 7 0 (1 9 8 5 ); s e e a ls o S e rr a n o v . S ta te , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 5 (T e n n . 2 0 0 4 ). In e ffe c tiv e A ss ista n c e o f C o u n se l. O n appea l , t he Pet i t i oner cl ai m s t r i al counse l r e n d e r e d i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e i n f

a i l i n g t o a d v i s e h i m t h a t h e c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l ya v o i d h i s t wo-5-

cons ecut i ve tw el ve- y ears ent ence s byexer ci sing hi s r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al

. T he Pet i t i oner as s er t s t hatt he appr opr i at e r emedyi s t o r emand hi s cas e t o t he tr i al cour tfora new t r i al on a ll ch a rg e s. In re sp o n se , the S tate c o n ten d s th a t th e trial c o u rt p ro p e rly d ism iss e d th e p o stconvi ct i on pet i t i on beca us e the Pet i t i onerfai l ed t o pr ove by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence that tr ial co u n sel’s pe rfo rm an ce w as d ef ici en t. S p ec ifi ca ll y , the S tat e a rgu es th at as the jury t ri al w as abou tt o b egin, t he P et i t i on er en t ered pleas of gu i l t y t o t w o of his fel on ycharges, and t he t hi r d fel ony char ge w as di s m i s s ed. I tcont ends t hatt he Pet i t i onerr ece i ved “a l ow er e f f e c tiv e se n ten c e th a n w h a t h e c o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d if h e h a d b e e n c o n v icte d a t trial” o f a ll th re e o f h is in d icte d o f

f e n se s. F in a lly , th e S tate a rg u e s tha t trial co u n se l tes tifie d a t th e p o stco n v ict ion h ea ri n g that sh e told the P eti ti o n er of h is ri g h t to a jury tr ial an d that the tri al co u rt a lso in f o rm e d h im o f

h is rig h t to a ju ry trial d u rin g th e g u ilty p lea c o llo q u y . W e a g re e w ith th e S ta te
. I ni t i al l y , w e not e thatt he Pet i t i oner fa il ed t o i ncl ude the tr ans cr i ptfr om hi s pl ea su b m iss io n h e a rin g a n d f a iled to in c lu d e a c o p y h is i n d ictm e n t in th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l. Itis th e d u tyo f

th e a p p e ll a n t to p ro v id e a re c o rd w h ich c o n v e y s a f a ir, ac c u ra te a n d c o m p lete a c c o u n t o f w h a t tra n sp ire d w ith re g a rd to th e iss u e s w h ich f o rm th e b a sis o f

th e a p p e a l. T en n . R

. A p p . P

. 2 4 (b); see S tat e v . T ay lor, 9 9 2 S

. W

. 2 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 4 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ). A ccor di ngl y , t hi s i s s ue coul d be tr eat ed as w ai ved. H ow ever , w e w i l l r evi ew t hi s i s s ue on i t s m er i t s bas ed on the evi dence pr es ent ed at the post

- convi ct i on hear i ng and bas ed on the under l y i ng fac t s for t he offens es as s t at ed i n t he pre s ent ence r epor t , w hi ch i s al s o i ncl uded in th e re c o rd

. W e f u rth e r n o te th a t th e P e tit io n e r o f f e re d a b so lu telyn o p ro o f d u rin g th e p o stconvi ct i on hear i ng r egar di ng couns el ’ s i neff ect i venes s . T he re cor d s how s t hatt he Pet i t i oner w as abl e t o di sm iss one of hi s t hr ee f el onychar ges byent er i ng open gui l t ypl eas t o t he a g g r a v a t e d b u r g l a r y a n d a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l tc h a r g e s , wh i c h r e s u l t e d i n s e n t e n c e s f o rt wo ch arg es ra ther tha n three ch a rg e s . T h e P eti ti o n er rec eive d the m ax im u m sen tenc e f o r a R ange I I I offe nderfort he aggr avat ed as s aul tconvi ct i on; how ever , he r ece i ved a s ent ence bel ow t he maxi m um i n hi s r ange f ort he aggr avat ed bur gl aryconvi ct i on. See T. C

. A

. § 40- 3 5 -1 1 2

. If t he Peti t i on er had proceed ed t o tri al , a j ury cou l d have fou nd him gu i ltyo f a ll three o ff en ses. W e n o te th at “[ i] n ev alua ti n g an att o rne y ’s pe rfo rm an ce , a re v iew ing co u rt m us tbe hi ghl ydefe r ent i al and s houl d i ndul ge a s t r ong pr es um pt i on t hatcouns el ’ s conduct fal l s w i t hi n t he w i de ra nge of r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal as s i s t ance . ” St at e v. B ur ns , 6 S. W

. 3d 4 5 3 , 4 6 2 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ) (cit ing S tr icklan d , 4 6 6 U

. S

. at 6 8 9 , 1 0 4 S

. C t. 2 0 5 2 ). M o reo v er, “[n ]o par t i cul ars etof d etail ed rul es forcouns el ’ s conductcan s at i s fac t or i l yt ake a ccountof the var i etyof ci r cumst ance s fac ed bydefe ns e couns el ort he r ange o f legiti m at e dec i s i ons r egar di ng how bes tt o r epr es enta cr i m i nal defe ndant

. ” St r i ckl and, 466 U

. S. at 688- 89, 104 S . C t. at 2 0 6 5 . U p o n re v iew , the P e tit io n e r h a s f a iled to e sta b lish th e f

a c tu a l alle g a tio n s in hi s pet i t i on bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence

. See V aug h n , 2 0 2 S

. W

. 3d at115.-6-

F u rth erm o re, th e re co rd su p p o rt s the p o st- co n v ict ion co u rt ’s d e term ination that co u n sel’s per form ance w as not defi ci ent
. See G oad, 938 S. W

. 2d at369. A ccor di ngl y , w e af fi r m t he ju d g m e n t o f

th e p o s t- c o n v ic tio n c o u rt
. C onc l us i on. U p o n re v iew , w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e p o st-c o n v ictio n c o u rt.

_________________________ _ _ _ ________ CA M I L L E R. M c M UL L E N, J UDGE