IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs December 7, 2011

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GREGORY DARNELL VALENTINE

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 1212-2009 Dee David Gay, Judge

No. M2010-02356-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 10, 2012

Defendant, Gregory D. Valentine, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal, without

an evidentiary hearing, of Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. After a thorough

review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a hearing on

Defendant’s motion.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right;

Judgment of the Criminal Court Reversed and Remanded

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.

WEDEMEYER and D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JJ., joined.

Jon J. Tucci, Nashville, Tennessee, for appellant, Gregory Darnell Valentine.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney

General; Lawrence Ray Whitley, District Attorney General; and Thomas Dean, Assistant

District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

From the record available, we discern that pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement,

Defendant pled guilty (as “best interest” pleas) to one count of Class B felony money

laundering, one count of Class C felony theft, one count of the Class D felony offense of

making a false report, twenty counts of Class D felony identify theft, six counts of Class E

felony criminal simulation, and one count of Class E felony forgery. From the judgments,

it appears that with a combination of consecutive and concurrent sentencing, Defendant

received an effective sentence of twelve years, eight months. The best interest guilty pleas

were entered on October 14, 2010. Defendant was represented by counsel through the entry

of his pleas. The judgments of conviction were not entered until November 3, 2010.
Defendant actually filed three pro se handwritten pleadings, and each one was

captioned as “motion to set aside plea.” These are marked filed by the trial court clerk on

October 19, 2010, October 20, 2010, and October 21, 2010. The basic allegations in all three

motions are the same, with some additional facts alleged or notarizations indicated in each

of two of the motions, which were not alleged in the other two respective motions. We will

treat these as timely filed motions to withdraw guilty pleas, as amended. Considering all

three pleadings together and in proper context, Defendant alleged that he is entitled to

withdraw his guilty pleas (1) because he was coerced to enter the guilty pleas by his attorney

using “my baby[’s] mother as a bargaining tool”; (2) because other persons identified only

as “Johnson,” “Ross,” and “Young” were supposed to be released upon his guilty pleas, and

they were not; and (3) because of somewhat vague allegations of a misunderstanding

between Defendant and the State concerning the negotiated plea agreement.

On October 26, 2010, the trial court entered an order that was a pre-printed one-page

form which also contained a summary of Defendant’s motion. It is clear that the pre-printed

order is designated for use only in the cases of pro se motions. The trial court checked the

line which provides that the pro se motion is “Denied without a hearing” and beside this

printed line, hand wrote “‘manifest injustice’ has not been shown by this defendant.”

Rule 32(f) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure states as follows:

(f) WITHDRAWAL OF GUILTY PLEA. –

(1) BEFORE SENTENCE IMPOSED. – Before sentence is imposed, the

court may grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for any fair and just

reason.

(2) AFTER SENTENCE BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT FINAL. – After

sentence is imposed but before the judgment becomes final, the court may

set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw

the plea to correct manifest injustice.

Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(f)

Defendant’s allegations are sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on his motion

to withdraw the guilty pleas. The trial court erred by summarily dismissing the motion, as

amended, without an evidentiary hearing. State v. Jerry Louis Fitzgerald, Jr., No. W2009-

02520-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 703 (Tenn. Crim. App. At Jackson,

Aug. 20, 2010).

-2-
CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court

for an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s motions in accordance with this opinion.

_________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

-3-