### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs January5, 201 0 JUST IN RAS HARD F ORREST v. STA TE OFTEN NES SEE
Direct Appeal fromthe Circuit Court forMadison Cou nty

No. C-09- 31 Roy Mor gan, Jud ge

No. W2009-00827-C CA-R3-PC - Filed April 14, 2010

T h e p e tit io n e r, Ju stin R a sh a rd F o rre st, a p p e a ls th e ju d g m e n t o f th e M a d iso n C o u n tyC irc u it C our tdeny i n g h is p eti t i on forpos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef. Pur s uantt o a negot i at ed pl ea agr eement , t he pet i t i onerpl eade d gui l t yt o aggr avat ed bur gl ary , es peci al l yaggr avat ed ki dnappi ng, and thr ee c ount s of aggr avat ed r obberyi n ca se n um ber07- 337; aggr avat ed b u rg lar ya n d th e f

t in c a se n u m b e r 0 7 -2 8 5 ; an d p o ss e ss io n o f m a riju a n a a n d e sp e c ially aggr avat ed r obberyi n 07- 286. T he tr i al cour ts ent ence d hi m t o an ef fec t i ve s ent ence of fi ft een y ear s i n t he Tennes s ee D epart m entof C or r ect i on. T he pet i t i onerfi l ed a pe t i t i on for pos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef a l l egi ng t he i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , and t he pos t

- convi ct i on co u rtd en ied h is pe ti ti o n
. O n ap p ea l, the p eti ti o n er c o n tend s that the po st- co n v ict ion co u rt err ed w hen i tdeni ed hi s pet i t i on forpost- convi ct i on r el i ef. A ft err evi ew , 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

. T enn. R
. A pp. P
. 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C i rcui t C ourt A f

f i rm ed
J

. C. M C L IN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch A LAN E. G LEN N and C AMI LLE R. M C M ULL EN , J J

. , j oi ned.
Jo se p h T . H o w e ll, Ja c k so n , T e n n e ss e e , fo r th e a p p e llan t, Ju stin R a sh a rd F o rre st.
R ober tE

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

. R os s D yer , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; J er r y W oodal l , D i s t r i ctA t t or ney G ener al ; and A l f r ed Lynn E ar l s , A s s i s t antD i s t r i ct A t t or ney G ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP IN ION Backg r ound
A M ad ison C ount y gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed t he def endantforaggr avat ed bur gl ar y, es peci al l y aggr avat ed ki dnappi ng, and t hr e e c o u n t s of aggr avat ed r obber y i n cas e num ber07-The s tate didno t recite the facts supp orting the petitioner’s guilty plea tothe court, andthus , th ey 1
are n ot inc luded in thetransc ript of the g uilty p lea he ar i ng
. I n ad dition, the petitioner agreedthat the st atemen ts c ontain edinth e in di ctments w ere “s ub st anti al lyc orre ct toth e fa ct s of

[ hi s] c as es ;” h ow ev er , copies of theindic tments are not in cludedin the rec ord on appeal. -2- 337; ag g r avat ed bur gl ar y and t hef tof m or e t han $1, 000 i n cas e num ber07- 285; and pos s es s i on of

m ar i j uana a nd t w o count s of es peci al l y aggr avat ed robbe r y i n cas e num ber07- 2 8 6

. O n Jan u ary 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , the p eti ti o n er p lead ed g u il ty to a ll co u n ts, an d the tri al co u rt s ent ence d hi m t o s er ve hi s s ent ence s concurr ent l y foran ef fect i ve f i f t een- year s ent ence , at 1 0 0 p e rc e n t, in th e T e n n e s s e e D e p a rt m e n t o f C o rr e c tio n
. D ur i ng t he pl ea s ubm i s s i on hear i ng, t he tr i al cour tand t he p eti ti onerengage d i n a col l oquy, and t he cour t advi s ed t he pet i t i onerthathe had the r i ghtt o i nt er r uptand as k foran expl anat i on i f

he di d notunder s t and anyt hi ng. T he pet i t i oners t at ed t hathe under s t ood t hat
r i ght

. T he pet i t i onerf

ur t hers t at ed t hathe w as not under t he i nf l uence of “al cohol , nar cot i cs orany ot her m i nd al t er i ng dr ugs
. ” T he pet i t i oner t es t i f i ed t hat he under s t ood t he cha r ges and
r anges of penal t i es t hathe face d foreac h cas e. T he cour ti nfor m ed t he pet i t i onert hathe had t he r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al by j ur y, an at t or ney, t o conf r ontand cr os s
- exam i ne w i t nes s es and evi dence , t o t es t i f

y, and t o appea l an uns at i s fact or y r es ul tt o a hi ghercour t

. T he pet i t i oner i ndi cat ed t hathe under s t ood hi s r i ght s and under s t ood thatby pl eadi ng gui l t y he w as w ai vi ng h is rig h ts. L ik e w is e , the p e tit io n e r te stifie d th a t h e u n d e rsto o d th a t h is c o n v ictio n s w o u ld appea ron hi s r ecor d, and cour t s coul d us e t hem t o enhanc e any f ut ur e s ent ence s
. Fi nal l y t he
cour tas ked,
O t hert han t he pl ea a gr eem enti t s el f t hatyou’ r e asking m e t o appr ove, has t her e bee n any for ce orpr es s ur e appl i ed, any t hr eat s m ade orpr om i s es m ade

. . . t o getyou t o ent eryourpl ea of gui l t y t oday?

T he pet i t i o n e r a n s wer e d , “ No, s i r
. ” Nex t , t h e t r i a l j u d g e a s k e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r i f he w as s at i s f i ed w i t h hi s at t or ney’ s r epr es ent at i on, and t he pet i t i onerr es ponded, “Y es , s i r
. ”

T he par t i es s t i pul at ed t o t he s t at em entof fact s foreac h cas e, and t he pet i t i oners t at ed t hat he r evi ew ed t he fact s and agr eed thatt hey w er e corr ect

. T he cour tr evi ew ed t he pl ea 1 agr eem entw i t h t he pet i t i oner , an d the pet i t i oneradvi s ed t he cour tt hathe under s t ood t he agr eem ent , w hi ch i ncl uded hi s con v ict ions , s ent ence s and r el eas e el i gi bi l i t y. D ur i ng t he di s cus s i on aboutt he agr eem ent , t he pet i t i oneras ked i f t he cour tw oul d r el eas e hi m t o feder al pr i s on. T he t r i al cour t advi s ed t he pet i t i oner t hat t he s t at e and t he T ennes s ee D epar t m entof C or r ect i on w o u ld d et er m i ne w het hert hey w oul d r el eas e hi m t o feder al cus t ody. A f t er ques t i oni ng t he pet i t i oner , t he tr i al cour tfound t hatt he p eti ti o nerm ade hi s pl ea f r eel y, v o lu n tar ily , an d in tellig e n tly w ith “ th e a d v ice o f c o u n se l w ith w h o m h e ’s in d ica ted h e is
s a tis fi e d .”Because the petitioner and Ter ranc e Forrest have the same last name, wewill refer to the 2 petitioner, Justin Rashard Forre st, as “the petitioner” and Terrance Forres t as “Terrance.” No disrespec t is int ended to any person de scribed or discussed herein.
-3- O n F eb rua ry 4, 2 0 0 9 , the pe ti ti o n er f il ed a p ro se p eti ti o n for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef. T he cour tappoi nt ed couns el w ho f i l ed an a m ended pet i t i on forpos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef

. T he
s t at e f i l ed a r es pons e on M ar ch 16, 2009. T he cour thel d a hea r i ng on A pr i l 13, 2009, and th e p a rt ie s p re s e n te d th e fo llo w in g e v id e n c e
. T he pet i t i onert es t i f

i ed t hathe f

i l ed a pe t i t i on forpost- co nvi ct i on r el i ef al l egi ng in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. H e fu rth e r t e stifie d th a t h e to ld th e trial ju d g e th a t h e d id
n o t un d erstan d h is p lea th e w ee k b efo re his p lea he aring ; h o w ev er, th e jud g e “ laug h ed ito ff”
a n d a g a i n a s k e d i f h e u n d e r s t o o d i t

. T h e p e t i t i o n e r s t a t e d th a th e a n d t h e j u d g e “ h a d s o me w or ds , ” and he w as r em oved f r om t he cour t r oom
. H e sai d t hat he di d not“m ean t o m i s l ead t he [ c] our t ” on J anuar y 14 w hen he t ol d t he j udge t hathe under s t ood hi s pl ea, but he f el tt hat he had t o pl ead gui l t y beca us e tr i al couns el coul d never t el l hi m anyt hi ng about hi s cas e. T he p eti ti o n er a lso said th at h e did n o t i n tend to m isl ea d the c o u rtw h en h e testi fi ed that co u n sel’s
r epr es ent at i on w as s at i s fact or y. H e expl ai ned t hathe t es t i f i ed t hathe w as s at i s f

i ed w i t h t r i al
couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on att he pl ea he ar i ng beca us e he di d n o t think h e coul d geta new l aw yer. T he p et i t i on er s ai d thathe fel tcoerced int o acce pti ng t he p l ea agreem ent be cause he di d notfeel t hathe coul d go t o t r i al w i t h hi s couns el

. A ccor di ng to the pet i t i oner , t r i al
couns el di d notknow anyt hi ng about hi s cas e and a ns w er ed t hat“s he di dn’ tknow , [ and t hey
cou l d] try t o g o to tri al w i t h it ” w hen he aske d q uest i on s.
C o n c e r n i n g c a s e n u mb e r0 7

- 3 3 7 , t h e p e t i t i o n e r t e s t i f i e d t h a tc o u n s e l g a v e h i m a packa ge cont ainin g d is cover y m at er i al s butdi d notdi s cus s t he m at er i al s w i t h hi m
. T he p e tit io n e r sa id th a t h e re a d th e m a ter ial as trial c o u n se l in stru c ted . A fte r h e re a d th e m a ter ial, t he pet i t i oneras ked tr i al couns el w hy s he di d not i nt er vi ew t he w i t nes s es w i t h w hom he had
as ked her t o s peak. T he pet i t i oner t es t i f i ed t hat he t ol d t r i al couns el t hathi s br ot herand codef endant , T er r ance For r es t , coul d t es t i f y t hathe w as notatt he sce n e and di d nothave 2
a n y th in g to d o w ith th e c a se . H e a lso tes tified th a t h is th e n g irlfrien d , M ik a l Jo y , co u ld t es t i f y i n hi s def

ens e. T he pet i t i onerdi d nott hi nk t hatt r i al counse l fi led a n o t i ce of al i bi
w i t nes s es
. H e s t at ed t hat t r i al couns el nevers poke w i t h M s
. J oy oranyone e l s e. A ccor di ng to th e p e tit io n e r, T e rra n c e a n d M s. Jo y w e re in th e c o u rtro o m d u rin g h is tria l, b u t th e y d id
n o t te s tif y
. In th e p e tit io n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief, th e p e tit io n e r alleg e d th a t trial c o u n se l d id notf i l e a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t y pl ea; how ever , t he pet i t i onert es t i f i ed t hathe di d not ask her t o d o so. H e st at ed that t ri al cou nsel t old hi m t hat a pl ea agreem ent w as i n h i s “best i nt er es t , ” buthe f

el ti tw as not i n hi s “bes t i nt er es t [ be] caus e [he ] coul d have w entt r i al and beatt hi s s t uf

f” by t el l i ng t he j ur y t hat he w as not i nvol ved. T he pet i t i oners ai d t hathe as ked-4-

tr ial co u n sel t o inv esti g ate tap es a n d v ideo s if there w ere an y
. A cc o rdin g to the p eti ti o n er, t r i al couns el di d not know w hatevi dence t hatt he s t at e had a gai ns tt he pet i t i oner
. H e s t at ed t h a t a f t e r h e r e a d t h e d i s c o v e r y p a c k e t h e l e a r n e d t h a t t h e v i c t i m s h a d i d e n t i f i ed t w o ot her peopl e i n t he cr i m e. T he pet i t i oners ai d t hathe w ant ed tr i al couns el t o “r epr es ent [ ] [ hi m ] l i ke
s he w as s uppos ed t o, and [ t hey] coul d have w ent t o tr i al

. ” H e t es t i f i ed t hat i f t r i al couns el had l ooked t h rough t he di s cover y f i l e, t hen t hey coul d have t al ked aboutt he ca s e. T he p e titio n e r s a id it w a s a s th o u g h tr ia l c o u n s e l d id n o t tr y to re p re s e n t h im

. T h e p e tit io n e r te stifie d th a t h e d id n o t d isc u ss c a se n u m b e r 0 7 -2 8 5 w ith trial c o u n se l. H ow ever , he f

ur t hert es t i f

i ed t hatt hey m et“a coupl e of t i m es ” and di s cus s ed another p o ss ib le s u sp e c t in th e c rim e . T h e p e tit io n e r sa id th a t h e tried to tell tria l c o u n se l th a t h e d id nothave a nyt hi ng t o do w i t h t he aggr avat ed bur gl ar y, buts he “j us ts att her e and l ooked at [ hi m ]

. ” He g a v e t r i a l c o u n s e l i n fo r m a t i o n a b o u tt wo wi t n e s s e s , Sh a wn Gr e e r a n d Sha ka F in ley , w h o c o u ld c o n firm th a t h e d id n o t h a v e a n y th in g to d o w ith th e b u rg lar y , b u t h e d id
n o t k n o w w h a t tr ia l c o u n s e l d id w ith th a t in fo rm a tio n
. R egar di ng cas e num ber07- 286, t he pet i t i oners t at ed t hatt r i al couns el di d not in te rv ie w a n y o n e re g a rd in g th is c a s e , a n d s h e “ c o u ld h a v e w e n t a n d ta lk e d to th e v ic tim

. . . [an d ] th e o th e r su sp e c ts.” T h e p e tit io n e r sta ted th a t h a d trial c o u n se l in ter v iew e d th e p e o p le i nvol ved i n t he cas e, “s he w oul d have [ know n] w hats he w as t al ki ng aboutand coul d have been r eady t o go t o t r i al

. ” The pet i t i oners ai d t hatt r i al couns el w ou ld h av e lear ned t hat “t her e w as [ s i c] a w hol e l ot of l i es , . . . t hem [ s i c] peopl e w as l yi ng[ , ] ” and he di d nots hoot
a ro u n d a n y o n e . T h e p e tit io n e r sa id th a t h e w a s p re se n t w h e n th e sh o o tin g to o k p lac e , b u t if t r i al couns el w oul d have i nves t i gat ed “s he w oul d have [ know n] t hat [ he] w as j us ts i t t i ng hi gh
a s C o o te r B ro w n , . . . [a n d ] c o u ld n ’t e v e n te ll y o u [h is ] n a m e .”

T h e p e tit io n e r in iti a lly tes tified th a t trial c o u n se l d id n o t ad v is e h im o f h is rig h t to a p p e a l. H o w e v e r, h e late r t e stifie d th a t trial c o u n se l to ld h im th a t h e c o u ld a p p e a l if h e lo st, and he s t at ed t hathe knew he w as goi ng t o l os e w i t h heras hi s at t or ney. T he pet i t i onerw ent on t o s ay t hatt r i al couns el t old h im thatonce he s i gned t he pl ea a gr eem enthe coul d not appea l

. T he pet i t i onerr ead s om e “l aw books ” w hi l e i ncar cer at ed and l ear ned t hat“anythi ng t hatyou do i n t he cour t r oom , you can a ppeal i t

. ” H e s ai d t hat he w ai ved t he r i ghtt o appea l beca us e he “r eal l y di dn’ t have [ a] choi ce
. . . . ” The pet i t i oneral s o s ai d t hathe f el tcoer ced
a n d p re ss u re d to a c c e p t th e p lea a g re e m e n t b e c a u se trial c o u n se l “ju st re a lly w e n t w ith
w hat ever[ s ent ence ] s he w oul d getf r om [ t he s t at e]

. . . . ” T he pet i t i oners ai d t hatw hen he
a n d th e trial ju d g e h a d “ th a t little a lterc a tio n ” th e w e e k b e fo re trial, trial c o u n se l ad v ise d h im t hatt he “‘ [ b] es tt hi ng for[ hi m ] t o do [ w as ] t o j us ts i gn fort he t i m e, j us tgeti toverw i t h. ”’ T he pet i t i on er sai d tri al cou nsel ’s adv i ce “l et [hi m ] kn ow ri gh t t here she w a sn ’t o n [his ]
s i de. ” H e w ent on t o s ay “I w as af r ai d t o go t o t r i al beca us e
. . . s he [ w as ] t he one w ho [ had] to g e t u p a n d re p re se n t m e , a n d e v e ry tim e I as k e d h e r so m e th in g , it w a s, ‘I d o n ’t k n o w . W e ll
w e ca n go t o t r i al and fi nd out and see

. ”’ T he pet i t i oners t at ed t hatw hen he f ound outt hat-5-

t he s t at e w as s eeki ng an enha nced puni s hm ent , he “s i gned fori t ” bec aus e he di d notw ant t r i al couns el t o caus e hi m t o r ece i ve a l i fe s ent ence
. H e w ant ed t o r es ear ch l egal books and
m at er i al i n pr i s on s o t hathe coul d “gett he r i ghtpaper ” an d “g et it [ done] how i t[ w as s u p p o s e d ] t o b e d o n e .”
O n cr os s
- exam i nat i on, t he pet i t i oner t es t i f i ed t hat he had be en i n cour tand pl eade d gu il ty to char ges on “num er ous occa s i ons
. ” The pet i t i oneragr eed thatw hen he ha d pr ev i o u s l y p l e a d e d g u i l t y t h e j u d g e e x p l a i n e d t h e r i g h t s t h a t h e was wai v i n g , and he under s t ood t hathe w as w ai vi ng hi s r i ght s
. T he pet i t i oners t at ed t hathe di d notunder s t and t hat he w as gi ving up his rig h t to a n app eal ; ho w ever, he ad m i t t ed thathe an sw ered “Y es, sir” w h e n t he judge asked if un derst oo d thathe w as “gi ving up [hi s] valuabl e ri gh t s” i ncl udi ng t he r i ghtt o an appea l

. T he pet i t i onerf ur t hers t at ed t hathe and tr i al couns el w ent overt he cha r ges i n t he i ndi ct m ent , butt he pet i t i oner t es t i f i ed t hat he di d notunder s t and t he
c h a rg e s. T h e p e tit io n e r sa id th a t alth o u g h h e d id n o t in ten d to m isle a d th e trial c o u rt, h is t es t i m ony att he pl ea hear i ng w as not t r ue. H e s t at ed t hathi s t es t i m ony “w as n’ tno [ s i c] l i e, b u t th e n a t th e s a m e tim e , it w a s n ’t n o [s ic ] t ru th e ith e r.”

T he pet i t i onerr eca l l ed w r i t i ng a l et t ert o A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t o rne y G ener al J ody Pi ckens

. I n t hatl et t er , t he pet i t i onert ol d G ener al Pick en s t hathe w as pr es entdur i ng t he aggr avat ed r obber y. T he pet i t i onerexpl ai ned t hathe w as att he s cene of t he rob b er y, but t her e w as “no pl an, no pl ot , ornot hi ng [ s i c] t o r ob t hes e peopl e. ” The pet i t i oners t at ed t hat he w rot e t he let t er because he w anted t he d i stri ctat t orney’s off i ce t o invest i gate hi s case f ur ther “i ns t ead of

j us tgi vi ng [ hi m ] t hatt i m e [ t hathe] w as gi ven .
. . . ” The pet i t i oner t es t i f i ed t hathe w r ot e ‘ “[ b] utal l I’m aski ng fori s a good dea l ”’ i n hi s l et t erbeca us e he
w an ted a g o o d deal fors el l i ng “dope” t o s om eone, a cr i m e w i t h w hi ch t he s t at e di d not char ge hi m
. A ccor di ng t o t he pet i t i oner , h e w ant ed a de al on w hathe di d and noton a r obber y t hathe di d notdo.
W hen as ked w her e he s t at ed i n hi s pet i t i on forpos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef t hat he had an
a lib i, th e p e tit io n e r a n sw e re d th a t h e d id n o t k n o w . H e sta ted th a t h e to ld h is a p p o in ted p o stconvi ct i on couns el about hi s foural i bi w i t nes s es , and pos t

- convi ct i on couns el s ubpoenae d t w o of t hem

. T he pet i t i onerf

ur t hers t at ed t hatpos t

- convi ct i on couns el pr obabl y coul d not fin d th e o th e r w itn e ss e s. O n re d ire c t ex a m in a tio n , h e tes ti fie d th a t h e d id n o t ad d re ss h is
a lib i w itn e ss e s in h is p e tit io n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief b e c a u s e h e w a s try in g to g e t h is pet i t i on f i l ed befor e t he deadl i ne. H e s ai d t hathe di d al l ege i nef fect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el in h is p e titio n b e c a u s e tr ia l c o u n s e l d id n o t c a ll h is w itn e s s o r i n v e s tig a te th e c a s e
. T er r ance , t he pet i t i oner ’ s br ot her , t es t i f i ed t hathe w as t he pet i t i oner ’ s co- def endant i n cas e num ber07- 337. H e pl eade d gui l t y t o aggr avat ed r obber y and es peci al l y aggr avat ed k id n a p p in g in th a t c a se
. T e rra n c e sta ted th a t th e p e tit io n e r did n o t h a v e a n y th in g to d o w ith t he ca s e. H e f

ur t her s t at ed t hat t he vi ct i m s “i dent i f i ed [ t he pet i t i oner ] , and t hey t hought[ t he-6-

pet i t i oner ] w as [him ]

. . . . ” H e s ai d t hatt hr ee w i t nes s es w er e s uppos ed t o t es t i f y att he pr el i m i nar y hear i ng, butonl y one vi ct i m , w hom he di d not know anyt hi ng about , t es t i f i ed. T er r ance s t at ed t hathe s t ood up t hr ee t i m es dur i ng t he hea r i ng t o i nfor m t he cour t t hatt he p e tit io n e r w a s n o t in v o lv e d in th e c rim e . H e fu rth e r sta ted th a t h a d c o u n se l ca lled h im to t es t i f y dur i ng t he pet i t i oner ’ s t r i al , he w oul d have t es t i f i ed t hatt he pet i t i onerw as not i nvol ved. L i kew i s e, i n hi s s t at em ent t o t he pol i ce, T er r ance s t at ed t hatt he pet i t i onerdi d not have a nyt hi ng t o do w i t h t he r obber y. A ccor di ng t o T er r ance , t r i al couns el di d noti nt er vi ew h im a b o u t th e c a s e
. O n cr os s
- exam i nat i on, T er r ance deni ed t hathe t old tr ial couns el t hathe w oul d not “t ake a l l t he r ap” f

ort he pet i t i oner
. H e s ai d t hatt he pet it ion er and anotherm an nam ed R andal l di d notgeti nvol ved i n t hi s cas e unt i l T er r ance and t he vi ct i m had a “ conf r ont at i on a t th e h o te l a n d [t h e v ic tim s ] s a id [T e rr a n c e ] r o b b e d [a v ic tim ] a n d tie d h im u p . . . .” T err ance said t hat w hat real l y h app ened w as t hat he “short ed [t he v i ct i m ] on som e drugs” and no one e l s e w as i nvol ved. T er r ance deni ed t hatt he t es t i m ony at t r i al w oul d s how t hat t h r e e me n we r e i n v o l v e d

. He ma i n t a i n e d t h a t h e wa s t h e o n l y o n e p r e s e n t i n t h e h o t e l r o o m. W hen as ked w het her he r eca l l ed hi s s t at em ent s “‘ R andal l had al r eady l ef t t he r oom , ” a nd “[ m ] e a n d Ra n d a l l b o t h wen t i n t h e r o o m , ” Te r r a n c e t h e n s t a t e d t h a t h e , Ra n d a l l , a nd t he th re e v ictim s w e re in th e ro o m
. O n re d ire c t e x a m in a tio n , T e rra n c e tes tified th a t n o th in g in h is s ta te m e n t s u g g e s te d th a t th e p e titio n e r w a s p re s e n t d u ri n g th e c ri m e
. T r i al couns el t es t i f

i ed t hat s he w as em pl oyed as a publ i c defender i n J anuar y 2008, and s he re pr es ent ed t he pet i t i oner i n hi s t hr ee c as es
. T r i al couns el s t at ed t hats he pr epar es for her cas es by m eet i ng w i t h t he cl i ent t o di s cus s t he ca s e, t he di s t r i ctat t or ney’ s of fer , and
w het her t o m odi f

y t he of ferorpr epar e fort r i al

. She f ur t hers t at ed t hatt hi s w as t he m anner i n w hi ch s he pr epar ed fort he pet i t i oner ’ s cas e. T r i al couns el s ai d t hats he m etw i t h t he pet i t i onert hr ee t i m es befor e t he pl ea a gr eem ent , and they ex ch anged s ever al l et t er s
. T he l et t er s “al l uded t o t he fa ct t hat t her e w as one par t i cul ar cas e t hat[ t he pet i t i oner ] w as i nvol ved in tha t h e said that there w ere p eo p le w h o co u ld p rov e h e w asn ’tthere , b u t [ the p eti ti o n er]
n e v e r iden ti fi ed w h o tho se p eo p le w ere o r ga v e [h er] an y w ay to g et i n tou ch w ith them .” She s t at ed t hats he di d notas k t he pet i t i onerfort hati nfor m at i on. Shor t l y af t ers he gott he i nform at i on , t he p et i t i on er deci ded t hat he w anted t o plead gu i l t y t o h i s st at e charges bec ause of hi s pendi ng feder al char ges
. She r eca l l ed t hathi s feder al char ges r es ul t ed i n t he pet i t i oner r ece i vi ng “l i ke [ t w ent y] year s ors om et hi ng. ” T r i al couns el t es t i f i ed t hataf

t ert he pet i t i oner re c e iv e d th e fe d e ra l se n ten c e , h e sa id th a t “ h e ju st w a n ted to b e d o n e w ith it an d n o t h a v e to com e bac k, j us tgo on t o t he f eder al faci l i t y. ” W hen t he pet i t i onerdeci ded t hi s , t r i al couns el began ne got i at i ng w i t h t he s t at e, and t hey agr eed thathi s s ent ence s w oul d r un concurr ent l y.
T r i al couns el r eca l l ed t hat at t he pl ea hear i ng t he t r i al j udge advi s ed t he pet i t i onerof t he r i ght s t hathe w as w ai vi ng by pl eadi ng gui l t y. She t es t i f i ed t hatt he pet i t i onernever sugg est ed thathe d i d n ot w ant t o p l ead g uil t y. A ccordi ng t o t ri al cou nsel , t he p et i t i on er “j ust-7-

w ant ed t he bes t deal he coul d get , ” and he got t he bes tdeal t hats he coul d getforhi m
. She
s t at ed t hatt he pet i t i oneragr eed t o acc eptt he dea l and neve r i ndi cat ed t o her or t he cour tt hat h e w a n ted a n y th in g d iffe re n t. S h e fu rth e r sta ted th a t h a d th e p e tit io n e r d e c id e d to g o to trial,
s h e w o u ld h a v e p re p a re d to re p re s e n t h im a t tr ia l.
O n cr os s
- exami n a t i o n , tr i a l c o u n s e l t e s t i f i ed t hatt he pet i t i onerneverm ent i oned M i kal Jo y to h e r. S h e re c a lled T e rra n c e g iv in g a sta tem e n t to th e p o lice , b u t sh e c o u ld n o t re c a ll t he spec i fi cs of the repo rt

. T ri al cou nsel st at ed thatshe did no ti nter view T err ance b ecause p riv a te c o u n se l re p re se n ted h im

. S h e fu rth e r sta ted th a t sh e n e v e r d isc u ss e d th e c a se w ith T er r ance ’ s couns el beca us e “ver y s hor t l y af t ert he s ubj ectcam e up, [ t he pet i t i oner ] i ndi cat ed t hatbeca us e of

t he f eder al char ges , he j us t w ant ed t o go ahea d and pl ead i toutas l ong as t he t w o s ent ence s coul d r un concurr ent

. ” R egar di ng t he pet i t i oner ’ s aggr avat ed bur gl ar y char ge i n cas e num ber 07- 285, s he t es t i f i ed t hat t he pet i t i oner di d not gi ve hert he nam es of Shaka F in ley o r S h a w n G re e r to in ter v iew a s p o ten tial w itn e ss e s. T ria l co u n se l sp o k e b rie fly w ith one vi ct i m i n t hatcas e and w hatt he vi ct i m t ol d her “par al l el ed w hathe had r epor t ed t o t he pol i ce. ” Tri al couns el t es t i f i ed t hats he di d not i nt er vi ew any of t he vi ct i m s and w i t nes s es in the p eti ti o n er’s esp ec ial ly ag g rav ated rob b ery ca se b ec au se the p eti ti o n er h ad told h er “ ‘I
w antt hi s overw i t h. I j us tw antt o go of f and d o m y ti m e. ”’ She s t at ed t hats he and the pet i t i onerdi s cus s ed t he i nci dent t hat occurr ed at t he C as ey Jones M ot el t he m os tbeca us e “he
s eem ed t he m os tdi s t ur bed” a boutt hat cas e. She f ur t hers t at ed t hatt he pet i t i oner“w ant ed [h e r] to u n d e rs ta n d th a t [ t h e i n c id e n t] d id n ’t g o d o w n th e w a y th e v ic tim c la im e d it d id .” B as ed on t he pet i t i oner ’ s conce r ns , s he t al ked t o t he vi ct i m w ho had cal l ed t he pol i ce. She
sa id th a t sh e h a d tw o d iffe re n t sto rie s, a n d sh e w o u ld h a v e in v e stig a ted if th e p e tit io n e r sa id th a t h e w a n te d to g o to tr ia l.
O n redi rectexam i nati on , t ri al cou nsel st at ed thatt he w ay sh e app roaches case pr epar at i on depends on w hether t he cl i ent w ant s t o go t o t r i al or r eac h a pl ea a gr eem ent

. She
s t at ed t hatbeca us e t he pet i t i oner“m ade i tver y cl ear ” t hathe di d not w ant t o go t o t r i al , s he
u s e d th e p le a a g re e m e n t a v e n u e fo r h e r d e fe n s e p re p a ra tio n
. Fol l ow i ng t he hea r i ng, t he pos t

- convi ct i on court en tered an or derdenyi ng t he pe t i t i o n e r ’ s r e q u e s t fo r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f

. Th e c o u r t m a d e f i n d i n g s o f

f actand det er m i ned t hatt he pet i t i oner“fai l ed t o carr y hi s bur den of pr oof i n t hi s m at t erby cl earand convi nci ng evi dence and t hat[ t he pet i t i oner ] di d ent erhi s gui l t y pl ea k n o w ingl y and i nt el l i gent l y and t hatt her e w as n o thing that couns el di d or di d notdo t hati n [ any w ay] af fect ed any r i ghtof

t he [ pet i t i oner ]

. ” The pet i t i onert i m el y ap p ea led the j udgm entof t he p o s t- c o n v ic tio n c o u rt

. A n a ly sis-8-

In order f

or a pet i t i on er t o succe ed o n a po st -convict i on cl ai m , t he p et i t i on er m ust pr ove t he al l egat i ons of facts etfor t h i n hi s pet i t i on by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence

. T enn. C ode A nn. § 40- 30- 110(f)

. O n appea l , t hi s cour ti s r equi r ed t o af f i r m t he pos t

- convi ct i on cou rt ’s fi nd i ng s unles s the p et i t i on er p ro v es t hat the ev i den ce prepo nd erat es agai nstt ho se fi n d in g s
. St at e v. B urns , 6 S. W

. 3d 453, 461 ( T enn. 1999)

. O urr evi ew of t he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t ’ s factual f

i ndi ngs , s uch as f

i n d ings conce r ni ng t he cr edi bi l i t y of w i t nes s es and t he
w ei gh t and value given their t est i m on y, i s de novo w ith a p resu m p ti o n that the find ing s are c o rr e c t. S e e id

. O ur r evi ew of t he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t ’ s l egal concl us i ons and appl i cat i on of l aw t o fact s i s de novo w ith o u t a p re s u m p tio n o f c o rr e c tn e s s
. F ield s v . S ta te , 40 S. W

. 3d 4 5 0 , 4 5 7 -58 (T en n
. 2 0 0 1 ).

T o es t abl i s h t he i nef

fect i ve ass i s t ance of couns el , t he pet i t i oner bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hat( 1) couns el ’ s per for m ance w as def i ci en t an d (2) t he def

i ci entper for m ance p rejud iced the d efe n se re n d ering the o u tc o m e u n reli ab le or fu n d am en tal ly u n fair. See St r i ckl and v. Was hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ); se e a lso A rn o ldv . S ta te , 143 S. W

. 3d 784, 787 ( T enn. 2004)

. D ef i ci ent per for m ance i s s how n i f couns el ’ s conduct fel l bel ow an o bje c tiv e s tand ard o f reaso n ab lene ss u n d er p rev ail ing p ro fe s s io n a l s ta n d a rd s
. St r i ckl and , 466 U .S . at 6 8 8 ; see al so B axter v. R ose , 523 S. W

. 2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 6 ( T enn. 1975) ( es t abl i s hi ng t hat
r epr es ent at i on s houl d be w i t hi n t he r ange of com pet ence dem anded of at t or neys i n cr i m i nal
c a se s). P re

ju d ice is sh o w n if, b u t fo r c o u n se l’s u n p ro fe ss io n a l er ro rs, th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility th a t th e o u tc o m e o f t h e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. St r i ckl and , 466 U

. S. at694. A fai ras s es s m entof couns el ’ s per for m ance “r equi r es t hatever y ef for tbe m ade to elim inate the d ist o rt ing effec ts o f h ind sigh t, to rec o n str u ct t h e c ir cu m stan ce s o f co u n sel’s chal l enged conduct , and t o eval uat e t he conduc tf r om couns el ’ s per s pect i ve att he t i m e. ” Id

. a t 6 8 9 ; se e a lso N ich o ls v . S ta te , 90 S. W

. 3d 576, 587 ( T enn. 2002)

. B o th d efi ci ent p e rfo rm a n c e a n d p re

ju d ice m u st b e e sta b lish e d to p ro v e in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. St r i ckl and , 466 U

. S. at697; se e a lso G o a dv . S ta te , 9 3 8 S

. W

. 2 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 0 (T en n
. 1 9 9 6 ). If ei t her el em ent of i nef

fect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el has notbeen e s t abl i s hed, a cour tneed not
a d d re s s th e o th e r e le m e n t. St r i ckl and , 466 U

. S. at697.

T h e tw o -p a rt sta n d a rd o f p ro v in g in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l als o a p p lies to cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof

t he pl ea pr oces s
. T he prej u d ice r equi r em enti s m odi f i ed s o t hatt he pet i t i onerm us ts how a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , butfort he er r or s of couns el , t he pet i t i oner w o u ld n o t h a v e p le a d e d g u ilty

. See H i l l v. L ockh art , 4 7 4 U .S . 5 2 , 5 9 (1 9 8 5 ); A dk in s v . S ta te , 911 S. W

. 2d 334, 349 ( T enn. C r i m
. A pp. 1994)

. I ti s al s o h el pf ul t o not e t hatw hen det er m i ni ng t he know i ng and vol unt ar y nat ur e of t he gui l t y pl ea, t he s t andar d i s “w het hert he pl ea r epr es ent s a vol unt ar y and i nt el l i gentchoi ce a m ong t he al t er nat i ve cour s es of act i on open t o t he def

endant

. ” Nort h C aroli na v. A l f ord , 4 0 0 U .S . 2 5 , 3 1 (1 9 7 0 ); s ee al s o St at e v. P et t us , 9 8 6 S

. W

. 2 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 2 (T en n
. 1 9 9 9 ). A p eti ti o n er’s so lem n d ec larati o n in o p en co u rt t hathi s or her pl ea i s know i ng and vol unt ar y cr eat es a for m i dabl e barr i eri n any s ubs equent-9-

c o lla te ra l p ro c e e d in g b e c a u s e th e s e d e c la ra tio n s “ c a rr y a s tr o n g p re s u m p t i o n o f v e ri ty .” B l ackl edge v

. A l l i s on , 4 3 1 U .S . 6 3 , 7 4 (1 9 7 7 ).
O n a p p e a l, th e p e tit io n e r c laim s th a t h e re c e iv e d th e in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, whi c h c a u s e d h i m t o e n t e r a n u n k n o wi n g a n d i n v o l u n t a r y g u i l t y p l e a
. Sp e c i f i c a l l y , t he defend ant cont end s t hat hi s c ou ns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve for fai l i ng t o int ervi ew w i t nesses; add res s t he i s s ues r ai s ed by hi m befor e t he pl ea hear i ng; and r evi ew , expl ai n, and d iscu ss t he dis cov ery m at eri al s.
T he pos t

- convi ct i on c o u r tf o u n d th a tth e d e f

e ndanthad ef

fect i ve r epr es ent at i on dur i ng hi s gui l t y pl ea a nd t hathe ent er ed hi s pl ea know i ngl y and vol unt ar i l y. T he cour tal s o found t hat t he pet i t i oner onl y m ade “gene r al s pecul at i ons ” r egar di ng t he vi deo and otherevi dence t hathe w ant ed tr i al couns el t o i nves t i gat e, and t her e w as “abs ol ut el y n o ev idence t hatany v ideo s o r si m il ar it em s ex ist ed

. ” T h e c o u rtfurthe r fou n d that, co n tr ary to the p eti ti o n er’s
a ss e rtio n s, th e g u ilt y p lea tra n sc rip t s h o w s th a t th e p e tit io n e r w a s w e ll a d v ise d o f th e rig h ts t hathe w as gi vi ng up by pl eadi ng gui l t y. L i kew i s e, t he cour tfound t hatt r i al couns el di s cus s ed t he fact s of

t he cas e and the cha r ges i n t he i ndi ct m entw i t h t he pet i t i oner
. T he pos t

- convi ct i on cour tdi d notas s i gn any m er i tt o t he pet i t i oner ’ s ar gum entr egar di ng t r i al
couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o us e al i bi w it n es s es and not ed t hatt he def endantonl y pr es ent ed one
w i t nes s t hathe as s er t ed hi s couns el s houl d have i nt er vi ew ed. T he pr es ent at i on of w i t nes s es att he pos t

- convi ct i on hear i ng i s gener al l y nece s s ar y t o pr ove t hatcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o pr es ent e v id e n c e re s u lte d in p re ju d ic e to th e p e titio n e r. S e e B la c kv . S ta te , 794 S. W

. 2d 752, 757 ( T enn. C r i m
. A pp. 1990)

. A l t hough t he pet i t i onerpr es ent ed Ter r a nce a s a w i t nes s att he pos t

- convi ct i on hear i ng, t he cour tacc r edi t ed tr i al couns el ’ s t es t i m ony t hats he di d notpur s ue u sing h im as a w it n ess b ec au se th e p eti ti o n er d ec ided h e w an ted to p lead g u il ty. M o reo v er, the p o st- co n v ict ion co u rtfou n d tr ial co u n sel’s test im o n y that the p eti ti o n er’s o n ly co n ce rn w as get t i ng a deal t hat w oul d al l ow hi s s t at e and f eder al s ent ence s t o r un concurr ent l y w as cr edi bl e. T r i al couns el w as i n t he pr oces s of i nt er vi ew i ng w i t nes s es , but w hen t he pet i t i oner deci ded t hath e w ant ed t o pl ead gui l t y, s he aba ndoned t hatavenue of pr epar at i on and negot i at ed t he bes tpos s i bl e dea l fort he pet i t i oner
. T hus , t he post

- convi ct i on cour tfound t hat t ri al cou nsel w as n ot defi ci ent. W e con cl ud e t hat no t hing i n t he record prepo nd erat es agai nst t he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t ’ s f i ndi ngs ; t her efor e, w e aff i r m t he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t ’ s deni al of t he def endant ’ s pet i t i on.

___________________________________ J

. C. M c L I N, J UDGE