FILED

October 30, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

JULY 1997 SESSION

WILLIAM JOSEPH HAYES, )

) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9608-CC-00351

Appellant, )

) WILLIAMSON COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. HENRY DENMARK BELL,

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE

)

Appellee. ) (Post-conviction)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

WILLIAM JOSEPH HAYES, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP

Turney Center Industrial Prison Attorney General & Reporter

Unit 4-B

Route 1, Turney Center PETER M. COUGHLAN

Only, TN 37140-9709 Asst. Attorney General

450 James Robertson Pkwy.

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

JOSEPH D. BAUGH

District Attorney General

P. O. Box 937

Franklin, TN 37065

OPINION FILED:____________________

REVERSED AND REMANDED

JOHN H. PEAY,

Judge
2

O P I N I O N

The petitioner pled guilty to one count of solicitation to commit first-degree

murder and was sentenced pursuant to a plea-bargain as a Range I standard offender

to eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Judgment was

entered on August 25, 1994. On May 3, 1996, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief

alleging that he had pled guilty as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court

below summarily dismissed the petition on the grounds that “measured against the court

record, the petition for post conviction relief is without merit.” The petitioner now appeals,

claiming that he was entitled to a hearing on his post-conviction claims. We agree and

reverse and remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing.

Upon receipt of a petition for post-conviction relief, “the court shall examine

the allegations of fact in the petition. If the facts alleged, taken as true, fail to show that

the petitioner is entitled to relief or fail to show that the claims for relief have not been

waived or previously determined, the petition shall be dismissed.” T.C.A. § 40-30-206(f)

(Supp. 1996) (emphasis added). In the instant case, the petitioner alleged that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was thereby coerced into pleading

guilty. In support of his claims, he alleged, among other things, that his attorneys failed

to represent him properly as follows:

1. Failed to enter his plea in accordance with his wishes;

2. Disregarded his suggestions for the “development of or

aggressive pursuit of any viable defenses;”

3. Refused to file a motion for psychological evaluations;

4. Refused to contact witnesses;

5. Failed to respond to repeated communications;

6. Informed him that the only responsibility to him “was not
3

a defense which shall prevail at trial, but to get [him] the

best deal (i.e., plea bargain), nor, for that matter, to have

the jury find [him] innocent, nor no verdict due to the 

insufficiency of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt t o

sustain a conviction of guilt;” and

7. Told him that his religion -- Wicca -- was on trial, not his

crime.

As a result of these failures, the petitioner contends, he “was coerced by them and their

missleading advise of prevailing in the Appellate Courts of the State of Tennessee, to

accept a plea.”

In reviewing the petitioner’s allegations, the court below examined other

matters contained in the record of the State’s case against the petitioner and decided that

the petitioner’s allegations were without merit. We commend the court below for

attempting to save the State the time, money and resources required to provide the

petitioner with a hearing. However, in doing so, the court below overlooked its statutory

duty to take as true the allegations contained in the petition, without regard to other

matters contained in the record. Taken as true, the petitioner’s allegations state a claim

for relief. Accordingly, even if every single allegation is proved false, the petitioner is

entitled to a hearing.

The judgment below is reversed and this matter is remanded for an

evidentiary hearing in accordance with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, T.C.A. 

§ 40-30-201 et. seq. (Supp. 1996).

 

_______________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
4

CONCUR:

______________________________

WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge

______________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, Judge