### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE
AT JACKSON

Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs May 4, 20 10

JO E MARVIN EL LI SON v . STATE O F TENNESSE E

A p p e a l f r o m t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r M a d i s o n C o u n t y
N o

. C

- 0 9

- 2 5 7 R o y B

. M o r g a n , J r

. , J u d g e

N o

. W 2 0 0 9

- 0 2 3 8 0

- C C A

- R 3

- P C

- F i l e d J u n e 1 8
, 2 0 1 0

T h e p etitio n er, Jo e M arv in E lliso n , ap p eals th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt’s d en ial o f h is p etitio n f o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief

, arg u in g h e receiv ed th e in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel w h ich

cau sed h im to en ter u n k n o w in g an d in v o lu n tary g u ilt y p l eas. A f ter rev iew

, w e af

f irm th e d en ial o f th e p etitio n

.

T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3 A p p e a l a s o f R i g h t ; J u d g m e n t o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t A f f i r m e d

A LA N E

. G LE N N
, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

, i n w h i c h J

. C

. M C L IN a n d D

. K E LLY

T H O M A S

, J R

. , J J

. , j o i n e d

.

J o s e p h T

. H o w e l l

, J a c k s o n , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t

, J o e M a r v i n E l l i s o n

.

R o b e r t E

. C o o p e r , J r

. , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r ; R a c h e l W e s t H a r m o n , A s s i s t a n t

A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; J a m e s G

. ( J e r r y ) W o o d a l l

, D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; a n d J o d y S

. P i c k e n s , A s s i s t a n t D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, f o r t h e a p p e l l e e , S t a t e o f T e n n e s s e e

.

O P I N I O N

F A C T S

T h e f o llo w in g acco u n t w as tak en f ro m th is co u rt’s o p in io n o n th e d irect ap p eal o f th e

p etitio n er’s m o tio n to w ith d raw h is g u ilty p leas:

O n M arch 2

, 2 0 0 9

, th e [ p etitio n er] w as ch a r g ed in a f iv e-co u n t
in d ictm en t w ith attem

p ted f irst d eg ree m

u rd er, ag g rav ated assau lt, esp ecially

ag g rav ated ro b b ery , esp ecially ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g , an d ag g rav ated rap e. T h e f a c t s f ro m th e af

f id av it o f co m

p lain t g iv in g rise to th e in d ictm en t estab lish ed th a t t h e v ictim

, P atricia C u rrie, w as at h er h o m e w atch in gtelev isio n th e ev en in g o f Ju ly 2 3

, 2 0 0 8

, aro u n d 9 : 4 5 p .m

. w h en sh e h eard a

n o ise. T h e v ictim w as startled to see th e [ p etitio n er]

, w h o m sh e k n ew as Jo e T u rn er, s t a n d in g in h er liv in g ro o m

. T h e [ p etitio n er] in itially ask ed f o r

m o n ey , b u t sh e t o ld h im sh e h ad n o n e. H e p u t a d o g ch ain aro u n d h er n eck

an d started stran g lin g h er, so sh e to ld h im th at sh e h ad m o n ey in h er b ed ro o m

. T h e [ p etitio n er] to o k th e v ictim to h er b ed ro o m an d b e g a n l o o k in g th ro u g h
h e r b elo n g in g s. S h e g av e h im tw en ty -f o u r d o llars o u t o f h er p u rse. T h e [ p etitio n er] th rew h er o n th e b ed an d started tak in g o f f h e r c l o th es. T h e [ p etitio n er] “h ad a co n d o m o n an d started stran g lin g h er till sh e p as [ sed ] o u t.”

T h e v ictim aw o k e later to f in d h er p an ts at h er an k les. T h e v ictim h elp ed th e

p o lice in d ev e l o p in g a su sp ect, an d th e [ p etitio n er] w as in clu d ed in a six -p erso n p h o to g rap h ic array t h at w as sh o w n to th e v ictim

. T h e v ictim

p o sitiv ely id en tif ied th e [ p etitio n er] as h er assailan t.

O n A p ril 1 3

, 2 0 0 9

, th e [ p e t i t i o n er] an d th e S tate en tered in to a

n eg o tiated p l e a a g reem en t w h ereb y th e attem p ted m u rd er ch arg e w as d ism issed

, an d th e [ p etitio n er] ag reed to serv e f if t e e n y ears at 6 0 % f

o r

ag g rav ated assau lt, tw en ty -f iv e y ears at 4 5 % f

o r ag g rav ated ro b b ery , tw en ty -f iv e y ears at 1 0 0 % f

o r ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g , an d tw en ty -f iv e y ears

at 1 0 0 % f

o r rap e

. T h e S tate reco m m en d ed th at all th e sen ten ces ru n

co n cu rren tly f

o r an ef f ectiv e term o f tw en ty -f

iv e y ears. A f

ter a p lea h earin g , th e trial co u rt accep ted th e n eg o tiated p lea ag reem en t an d en tered j u d g m en t

o n A p ril 1 6 , 2 0 0 9

.

O n A p ril 2 8

, 2 0 0 9

, a letter f ro m th e [ p etitio n er] to th e trial co u rt w as f iled w ith th e M ad iso n C o u n ty C ircu it C o u rt C l e r k

. In th at letter, th e [ p etitio n er] to ld th e co u rt th at h e w an ted to w ith d raw h is g u ilty p leas b ecau se h e f elt h e w as co erced b y h is atto rn ey in to a c c e p t i n g th e p lea ag reem en t, h e d id n o t f u lly u n d erstan d o r co m

p reh en d th e ag reem en t, an d h is atto rn ey acted
in ap p ro p riately an d ren d ered in ef f ectiv e assistan ce. T h e [ p etiti o n er]

su b seq u en tly f

iled a f o rm al p ro se m o tio n to w ith d raw h is g u ilty p leas. In th at

m o tio n , th e [ p etitio n er] ar g u e d t h a t h is p leas sh o u ld b e set asid e b ecau se h e

w as in n o cen t o f th e ch arg es an d a m an if est in j u stice w o u ld o ccu r if th e p leas

w ere n o t w ith d raw n

. H e also asserted th at th e p leas w e r e “a d irect resu lt o f

co ercio n ” p laced o n h im

b y h is atto rn ey

.

A t th e h earin g o n th e [ p etitio n er] ’s m o tio n , th e [ p etitio n e r ] t e s t i fi e d t h at

w h en th e trial co u rt in f

o rm ed h i m a t t h e p lea h earin g th at h is sen ten ces f o r

ag g rav ated k id n ap p in g an d rap e w ere “o u tsid e [ h is] ran g e,” h e h esitated u n til
h is atto rn ey “w h isp ered in [ h is] ear

. . . k in d o f co ercin g [ h im ] to g o ah ead o n

-2-an d sig n it.” H e claim ed th at h is atto rn ey d id n o t in f o rm h im o f th e ran g e o f

p u n ish m en t ap p licab le f

o r eac h o f h is o f

f en ses. H e said th at h is atto rn ey

assu red h im th at “[ i] t[ ] [ w as] g o in g to b e all rig h t,” an d h e assu m ed th at b ein g

an atto rn ey , “sh e k n [ ew ] w h at sh e[ ] [ w as] talk in g ab o u t.”

S tate v

. Jo e M arv in E lliso n , N o

. W2 0 0 9 -0 1 1 3 4 -C C A

- R 3

- C D

, 2 0 1 0 WL 9 6 2 9 3 6

, at * 1 -2 (T en n . C rim . A p p . M ar. 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 ).

O n S ep tem

b er 1 1

, 2 0 0 9

, w h ile th e d irect ap p eal o n t h e p etitio n er’s m o tio n to

w ith d raw h is g u ilty p leas w as p en d in g , th e p etitio n er f iled a p ro se p etitio n f

o r p o stco n v ictio n relief

. T h e S tate f

iled a resp o n se an d m o tio n to d ism iss o n S ep tem b er 1 7

, 2 0 0 9

, arg u in g th at th e issu es raised in th e p etitio n h ad b een d eterm in ed in t h e h e arin g o n th e

m o tio n to w ith d raw h is g u ilty p leas. F o llo w in g th e ap p o in tm en t o f co u n sel, th e p etitio n er f iled an am en d ed p etitio n f o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief o n O cto b er 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 . T h at sam e d ay , th e S tate f iled an o th er resp o n se an d m o tio n to d ism iss. T h e S tate’s m o tio n s to d ism iss w ere d en ied , an d a p o st-co n v ictio n ev id en tiary h earin g w as h eld o n N o v em b er 9 , 2 0 0 9

.

A t th e h earin g , th e p etitio n er ad m itted th at w h en h e en tered h is g u ilty p leas h e testif ied th at h e w as satisf

ied w ith h i s trial co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce, b u t h e n o w f elt
d if f eren tly

. H e ex p lain ed th at h e o n ly p led g u ilty b ecau se h e w as f ru strated th at h e h ad j u st

g o tten o u t o f

j ail o n an o th er sen ten ce an d w as u n d er d u ress w h en h e d ecid ed th at h e “j u st b asically w an t[ ed ] to g o ah ead o n an d g et it o v er w ith .” H e ad m itted th at h e w ro te a letter

to co u n sel ask in g h er to n eg o tiate a d eal w ith a sen ten ce o f tw en ty to th irty y ears b u t o n ly
b ecau se h e th o u g h t h e w as f acin g a lif e sen ten ce if h e w en t to trial. H is b elief th at h e f aced

a lif e sen ten ce cam e f

ro m “w atch in g th e L a w a n d O rd er s h o w s o n T V an d b y w o rd o f

m o u th ” an d b ecau se co u n sel d id n o t ex p lain in d etai l t h e ch arg es ag ain st h im an d th e

p en alties h e f

aced

.

T h e p etitio n er asserted th at co u n sel f ailed to o b t a in th e resu lts o f an y D N A tests

c o n d u cted o n a co n d o m th at w as f o u n d b eh in d th e v ictim ’s h o u se, an d th e resu lts w o u ld
h av e “red u ced th e rap e ch arg e o r p ractically b een d ism issed .” H o w ev er, h e ack n o w led g ed
th at h e h ad sex w ith th e v ictim an d th at D N A testin g w o u ld h av e co n f irm ed th at it w as h is

sem en o n th e co n d o m

. T h e p etitio n er said th at h e g av e co u n sel a list o f w itn esses, in clu d in g h is m o th er, tw o n ieces, an d a n ep h ew , w h o co u ld v e r i f y th at h e an d th e v ictim h ad a relatio n sh ip , b u t co u n sel f ailed to in terv iew h is w itn esses.

T h e p etitio n er stated th at co u n sel f ailed to o b tain a tran scrip t f ro m h is p relim in ary h earin g , w h ich w o u ld h av e sh o w ed th at th e v ictim ’s testim o n y w as in co n sisten t. H o w ev er, th e p etitio n er ad m itted th at at th e tim e h e p led g u ilty

, th e f act h e d id n o t h av e th e p relim in ary h earin g tran scrip t really d id n o t af f ect h im b ecau se h e w as at th e h earin g an d k n ew w h at w as

-3-said

.

T h e p etitio n er stated th at h e d id n o t en tirely u n d erstan d h is p lea ag reem en t an d o n ly

av erred to th e trial co u rt th at h e u n d ersto o d b ecau se co u n sel w h isp e r e d in h is ear, “‘It’s

g o n n a b e all rig h t. Y o u rem em b er w h at w e talk ed ab o u t. E v ery th in g ’s g o n n a b e all rig h t.’”

T h e p etitio n er f

elt co m p elled to p lead g u ilty b ecau se h e d id n o t th in k co u n sel w o u ld d ef en d
h im ap p ro p riately b ased o n th e t o n e o f t h e ir co n v ersatio n s an d h is k n o w led g e o f d eals

c o u n s el h ad n eg o tiated f

o r o th er p eo p le h e k n ew

. T h e p etitio n er claim ed th at h e w as n o t

g u ilty b u t ad mi t t e d t h a t h e w o u ld lie to th e j u d g e an d say h e w as g u ilty if h e th o u g h t h e

co u ld g et a b etter d eal.

B ern ice T u rn er, th e p etitio n er’s m o th er, testif ied th at sh e liv ed acro ss th e street f ro m th e v ictim an d k n ew th at th e p etitio n er h ad b een to th e v ictim ’s h o u se “p len ty o f tim es.” S h e said th at b ef

o re th e in cid en t in th is case, th e v ictim called h er h o u se sev eral tim es b ecau se sh e w an ted to see th e p etitio n er w h en h e w as released f ro m p riso n

. T u rn er said th at n o o n e f ro m co u n sel’s o f

f ice ev er in terv iew ed h er.

M au rice R ey

n o ld s, th e p etitio n er’s n ep h ew w h o liv ed w ith T u rn er, testif ied th at th e

v ictim called th ree o r f

o u r tim es f

o r th e p etitio n er, an d th e p etitio n er w en t to h er h o u se o n
tw o o ccasio n s. R ey

n o ld s said th at h e w as n o t in terv iew ed b y an y o n e f ro m co u n sel’s o f

f ice.

R ey n o ld s stated th at ev en th o u g h h e h ad th is im p o rtan t in f

o rm atio n all alo n g , h e w as n o t

g o in g to v o lu n teer it u n til h e w as su b p o en aed

.

M elissa T u rn er, th e p etitio n er’s n iece, testif ied th at sh e d id n o t h av e p erso n al
k n o w led g e o f a r e l a t io n sh ip b etw een th e p etitio n er an d th e v ictim

, b u t sh e w as p resen t at
B ern ice T u rn er’s h o u se o n e d ay w h en th e v ictim called ask in g to sp eak w ith th e p etitio n er. S h e said th at sh e h ad seen th e p etitio n er g o to th e v ictim ’s h o u se. S h e stated th at n o o n e f ro m co u n sel’s o f

f ice in terv iew ed h er b u t ad m itted th at sh e d id n o t tak e th e in itiativ e to tell

an y o n e th is im

p o rtan t in f

o rm atio n

.

T h e p etitio n er’s trial co u n sel testif ied th at sh e d id n o t sp eak w ith th e p etitio n er’s

m o th er ab o u t w h eth er th e p etitio n er an d th e v ictim h ad a sex u al relatio n sh ip b e c a u se th e

p etitio n er said th at th e f

o u n d a t i o n f

o r h er k n o w led g e w as th at “[ th e v ictim ] called all th e tim e,” w h ich w as n o t f

irsth an d k n o w led g e o f a sex u a l r e l a t i o n sh ip b etw een th e tw o

. C o u n sel stated th at sh e m ad e a n o te th at sh e co u ld talk to B ern ice T u rn er an d su b p o en a h er

p h o n e reco rd s, b u t th e p etitio n er d ecid ed h e w an ted a p lea d eal b ef o re sh e h ad th e ch an ce. C o u n sel said th at sh e w as n o t p ro v id ed th e n am es o f th e p etitio n er’s n iece an d n ep h ew as

p o ssib le w itn esses.

-4-C o u n sel testif ied th at s h e d id n o t p u rsu e th e issu e o f D N A testin g o n th e co n d o m b ecau se th e p etitio n er d ecid ed h e w an ted to p lead

, b u t sh e assu m ed th at h i s D N A w o u ld
h av e b een f

o u n d o n th e co n d o m

g iv en h is ad m issio n th at h e h ad sex w ith th e v ictim

. H er

rev iew o f th e p h y sical ev id en ce d id n o t su p p o rt th e p etitio n er’s claim o f co n sen su al sex , an d

w h en sh e q u estio n ed th e p etitio n er ab o u t th at, h e said th e v ictim ’s so n h ad “b eat h er u p .”
C o u n sel d isco v ered

, h o w ev er, th at th e v ictim ’s so n w as in carcerated in th e crim in al j u stice

cen ter o n th e d ate o f

th e in cid en t.

C o u n sel testif

ied th at th e p relim in ary h earin g w as in th e p ro cess o f b ein g tran scrib ed

w h en th e p etitio n er n o tif ied h er th at h e w an ted a p l e a , s o s h e h alted th e tran scrip tio n

. C o u n sel said th at sh e ex p lain ed th e p etitio n er’s p lea to h im

, an d h er rev iew o f h is crim in al
h isto ry in d icated th at h e actu ally d id n o t p lead o u tsid e th e ap p ro p riate ran g e.

C o u n sel su m m arized :

[ T h e p etitio n er] w as ad am an t in t h e b eg in n in g th at h e w an ted a trial. I d id

ev ery th in g I co u ld to try to acco m m o d ate h im co n cern in g a trial. H e co n tacted

m e an d w as ad am an t th at h e w an ted to p lea[ d ]

. I d id ev ery th in g I co u ld to

n eg o tiate th e b est d eal th at I co u ld f o r h im

, an d h e seem ed v ery p leased w ith
it w h en h e lef

t co u rt. It w asn ’ t u n t i l sev eral w eek s later w h en I receiv ed a letter f ro m h im say in g , “O h

, I’v e p led o u tsid e m y ran g e. I w an t 1 5 y ears,” th at
I w as ev en aw are th ere w as a p ro b lem

.

In d en y in g th e p etitio n , th e co u rt n o ted th at th ere w as a v ery th o ro u g h ex am in atio n

o f th e p etitio n er at th e g u i l ty p lea h earin g an d th at th ere w as “n o q u estio n [ ] ” th at h e

u n d ersto o d th e p leas. T h e co u rt n o ted th at th e p etitio n er raised n o q u estio n s ab o u t co u n sel’s

rep resen tatio n

. T h e co u rt co n clu d ed th at t h e p e t i t io n er en tered h is p leas f reely an d

v o lu n tarily an d th at “co u n s e l d i d n o t f all b elo w th e stan d ard req u ired in rep resen tin g [ th e

p etitio n er] .”

A N A L Y S IS

T h e p e titio n er arg u es th at h e receiv ed th e in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel, w h ich

cau sed h im

to en ter u n k n o w in g an d in v o lu n tary g u ilty p leas.

P o st-co n v ictio n relief “sh all b e g ran ted w h en th e co n v ic tio n o r sen ten ce is v o id o r

v o id ab le b ecau se o f th e ab rid g m en t o f an y rig h t g u aran teed b y th e C o n stitu tio n o f T en n e s see

o r th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e U n ited S tates.” T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § 4 0 -3 0 -1 0 3 (2 0 0 6 )

. T h e

p etitio n er b ears th e b u rd en o f p ro v in g f actu al alleg atio n s b y clear an d co n v in cin g ev id en ce. Id

. § 4 0 -3 0 -1 1 0 (f

). Wh en an ev id en tiary h earin g is h eld in th e p o st-co n v ictio n settin g , th e

-5-f

in d in g s o f f

act m ad e b y th e co u rt are c o n c l u s i v e o n ap p eal u n less th e ev id en ce

p rep o n d erates ag ain st th em

. S ee Wiley v

. S tate, 1 8 3 S .W.3 d 3 1 7

, 3 2 5 (T en n

. 2 0 0 6 ). Wh en

rev iew in g f

actu al issu es, th e ap p ellate co u rt w ill n o t rew eig h th e ev id en ce an d w ill in stead
d ef er to th e t r i a l c o u rt’s f

in d in g s as to th e cred ib ility o f w itn esses o r th e w eig h t o f th eir
testim o n y

. Id

. H o w ev er, rev iew o f a trial co u rt’s ap p licatio n o f th e law to th e f

acts o f th e

case is d e n o vo , w ith n o p resu m

p tio n o f co rrectn ess. S ee R u f f v

. S tate, 9 7 8 S .W.2 d 9 5

, 9 6 ( T en n

. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e issu e o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel, w h ich p resen ts mi x e d

q u estio n s o f f

act an d law

, is rev iew ed d e n o vo , w ith a p resu m

p tio n o f co rrectn ess g iv en o n ly

to th e p o st-c o n v i c t io n co u rt’s f in d in g s o f f

act. S ee F ield s v

. S tate, 4 0 S .W.3 d 4 5 0

, 4 5 8 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ); B u rn s v . S tate, 6 S .W.3 d 4 5 3 , 4 6 1 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ).

T h e rig h t to ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel is saf eg u a r d e d b y th e C o n stitu tio n s o f
b o th th e U n ited S tates an d th e S tate o f T en n essee. S ee U .S

. C o n st. A men d

. V I; T en n

. C o n st. art. I, § 9

. T o estab lish a claim o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel, th e p etitio n er h as th e b u rd en to sh o w b o th th at trial co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce w as d ef

icien t a n d t h at co u n sel’s
d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce p rej u d iced th e o u tco m e o f th e p ro ceed in g

. S trick lan d v

. Wash in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S

. 6 6 8

, 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ); see S tate v

. T ay lo r, 9 6 8 S .W.2 d 9 0 0

, 9 0 5 (T en n

. C r i m. A p p

. 1 9 9 7 ) (n o tin g th at sam e stan d ard f o r d eterm in in g in ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel th at is

ap p lied in f

ed eral cases also ap p lies in T en n essee). T h e S trick lan d stan d ard is a tw o -p ro n g
test:

F irst, th e d e f

en d an t m u st sh o w th at co u n sel’s p erf o rm an ce w as d ef

icien t. T h is

req u ires sh o w in g th at co u n sel m ad e erro rs so serio u s th at co u n sel w as n o t
f u n ctio n in g as th e “co u n sel” g u aran teed th e d ef en d an t b y th e S ix th

A m en d m en t. Se c o n d

, th e d ef en d an t m u st sh o w th at th e d ef

icien t p erf

o rm an ce

p rej u d iced th e d ef

en se. T h is req u ires sh o w in g th at co u n sel’s erro rs w ere so serio u s as to d ep riv e th e d ef en d an t o f a f

air trial, a trial w h o se r e s u lt is
reliab le.

Id . at 6 8 7

.

T h e d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce p ro n g o f th e test is satisf ied b y sh o w in g th at “co u n sel’s

acts o r o m issio n s w ere so serio u s as to f all b elo w an o b

j ectiv e stan d ard o f reaso n ab len ess

u n d er p rev ailin g p ro f

es s i o n a l n o rm s.” G o ad v

. S tate, 9 3 8 S .W.2 d 3 6 3

, 3 6 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 6 ) (citin g S trick lan d

, 4 6 6 U .S

. at 6 8 8 ; B ax ter v

. R o se, 5 2 3 S .W.2 d 9 3 0

, 9 3 6 (T en n

. 1 9 7 5 )).

T h e p rej u d ice p ro n g o f th e test is satisf ied b y sh o w in g a reaso n ab le p ro b ab ility

, i.e., a “p ro b ab ility su f

f i c ien t to u n d erm in e co n f id en ce in th e o u tco m e,” th at “b u t f o r co u n sel’s

u n p ro f essio n al erro rs, th e resu lt o f th e p ro ceed in g w o u ld h av e b een d if f eren t.” S trick lan d

, 4 6 6 U .S

. at 6 9 4

. “In cases in v o lv in g a g u ilty p lea o r p lea o f n o lo co n ten d ere, th e p etitio n er

m u st sh o w ‘p rej u d ice’ b y d em o n stratin g th at, b u t f o r co u n sel’s erro rs, h e w o u ld n o t h av e

-6-p lead ed g u ilty b u t w o u ld h av e in sisted u p o n g o in g to trial.” H ick s v

. S tate, 9 8 3 S .W.2 d 2 4 0

,

2 4 6 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 8 ) (citin g H ill v

. L o ck h art, 4 7 4 U .S

. 5 2

, 5 9 (1 9 8 5 ); B an k sto n v

. S tate, 8 1 5 S .W.2 d 2 1 3 , 2 1 5 (T en n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 1 )).

Wh en an aly

zin g a g u ilty p lea, w e lo o k to th e f ed eral stan d ard an n o u n ced in B o y k in

v

. A lab am a, 3 9 5 U .S

. 2 3 8 (1 9 6 9 )

, an d th e state stan d ard set o u t in S tate v

. M ack ey , 5 5 3
S .W.2 d 3 3 7 (T en n

. 1 9 7 7 ). S tate v

. P ettu s, 9 8 6 S .W.2 d 5 4 0

, 5 4 2 (T en n

. 1 9 9 9 ). In B o y k in

, th e U n ited S tates S u p rem e C o u rt h eld th at th ere m u st b e an af

f irm ativ e sh o w in g in th e trial

co u rt th at a g u ilty p lea w as v o lu n tarily an d k n o w in g ly g iv en b ef o re it can b e accep ted

. 3 9 5

U

. S

. at 2 4 2

. S im ilarly

, in M ack ey , o u r su p rem e co u rt req u ired an af f irm ativ e s h o w i n g o f

a v o lu n tary an d k n o w led g eab le g u ilty p lea, n am ely

, th at th e d ef en d an t h as b een m ad e aw are

o f th e sig n if

ican t co n seq u en ces o f

su ch a p lea. P ettu s, 9 8 6 S .W.2 d at 5 4 2

.

A p lea is n o t “v o lu n tary ” if it resu lts f ro m ig n o ran ce, m isu n d e r s t a n d in g , co ercio n , in d u cem en ts, o r th reats. B lan k en sh ip v

. S tate, 8 5 8 S .W.2 d 8 9 7

, 9 0 4 (T en n

. 1 9 9 3 ). T h e trial

co u rt m u st d eterm in e if th e g u ilty p lea is “k n o w in g ” b y q u estio n in g th e d ef en d an t to m ak e

su re h e f u lly u n d erstan d s th e p lea an d its co n seq u en ces. P ettu s, 9 8 6 S .W.2 d a t 5 4 2 ; B lan k en sh ip

, 8 5 8 S .W.2 d at 9 0 4

. B ecau s e t h e p l e a m u st rep resen t a v o lu n tary an d
in tellig en t ch o ice am o n g th e altern ativ es av ailab le to th e d ef en d an t, th e trial co u rt m ay lo o k

at a n u m b er o f circu m stan tial f

acto rs in m ak in g th is d eterm in atio n

. B lan k en sh ip

, 8 5 8
S .W.2 d at 9 0 4

. T h ese f acto rs in clu d e : (1 ) th e d ef en d an t’s relativ e in tellig en ce; (2 ) h is
f am iliarity w ith crim in al p ro ceed in g s; (3 ) w h eth er h e w as rep resen ted b y co m p eten t co u n sel

an d h ad th e o p p o rtu n ity to co n f er w ith co u n sel ab o u t altern ativ es; (4 ) th e ad v ice o f co u n sel

an d th e co u rt ab o u t th e ch arg es a g a i n s t h i m a n d th e p en alty to b e im p o sed ; an d (5 ) th e d ef en d an t’s reaso n s f

o r p lead in g g u ilty

, in clu d in g th e d esire to av o id a g reater p en alty in a j u ry trial. Id . at 9 0 4 -0 5

.

T h e p etitio n er alleg es th at co u n sel ren d ered d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce in th at sh e f

ailed

to in terv iew w itn esses w h o w o u ld h av e testif ied th at h e an d th e v ictim h ad a p rio r ro m an tic
relatio n sh ip

, f

ailed to o b tain a tran scrip t o f th e p relim in ary h earin g , an d u n d u ly in f lu en ced

an d co erced h im in to p lead in g g u ilty

. H o w ev er, co u n sel’s accred ited testim o n y f ro m th e

ev id en tiary h earin g sh o w ed th at th e p etitio n er’s m o th er’s b asis o f k n o w led g e w as n o t

su f f icien t to p ro v e h e an d th e v ictim h ad a p rio r sex u al relatio n sh ip

. E v en so , th e reaso n

co u n sel d id n o t in terv iew th e p etitio n er’s m o th er w as b ecau se th e p etitio n er d ecid ed th at h e

n o lo n g er w an ted to g o to trial an d w an ted to p lead g u ilty

. C o u n sel testif ied th at, lik ew ise,
sh e h alted th e tran scrip tio n o f th e p relim in ary h earin g w h en th e p etitio n er d ecid ed to p lead

g u ilty

. C o u n sel testif

ied th at sh e d id n o t receiv e th e n am es o f th e p etitio n er’s n iece an d

n ep h ew as p o ssib le w itn esses.

-7-With reg ard to th e k n o w in g an d v o lu n tary n atu re o f th e p etitio n er’s g u ilty p leas an d

th e p etitio n er’s co rresp o n d in g claim th a t c o u n s el co erced h im in to p lead in g g u ilty

, th e

reco rd su p p o rts th e p o st-co n v ictio n co u rt’s f in d in g th at “n o th in g p resen ted in th e ev id en ce

su g g est s t h a t [ th e p etitio n er] w as in an y w ay p ressu red o r co erced in to en terin g h is

g u ilty /b est in terest p lea[ s] .” T h e ev id en ce sh o w s th at th e p etitio n e r sen t co u n sel a letter

say in g th at h e w as try in g to av o id a trial an d ask in g h er to n eg o tiate a p lea d eal w h erein h e

w o u ld serv e b etw een tw en ty an d th irty y ears, an d th e o f f er h e receiv ed w as f

o r tw en ty -f

iv e

y ears. T h e p ercep tio n th at th e p etitio n er f aced a lif e sen ten ce if h e w en t to trial cam e f ro m h is w atch in g “L aw an d O rd er” telev isio n sh o w s an d co m m en ts h e h eard b y w o rd o f m o u th

,

n o t f ro m co u n sel. T h e tr a n s c r i p t f ro m th e g u ilty p lea co llo q u y sh o w s th at th e p etitio n er,

w h o w as n o stran g er to crim in al p ro ceed in g s, w as v ery th o ro u g h ly ap p rised o f th e sp ecif ics

o f h is p leas an d w as satisf ied w ith co u n sel’s rep resen tatio n , an d h e is n o w sim p ly w an tin g a b etter d eal.

C O N C L U S IO N

B ased o n th e f

o reg o in g au th o rities an d reaso n in g , w e co n clu d e th at th e p etitio n er h as

n o t m et h is b u rd en o f sh o w in g th at trial co u n sel w as in ef f ectiv e in h er rep resen tatio n o r th at th e p etitio n er’s g u ilty p leas w ere u n k n o w in g an d in v o lu n tary

. A cco rd in g ly

, w e af f irm th e d en ial o f th e p etitio n f

o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A L A N E

. G L E N N

, J U D G E

-8-