### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs January5, 201 0 MA RC O BU TLER

v. S TAT E OFTEN NES SEE
A p p ea l f ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. P - 24821 W . O t i s H i ggs , Jr. , Judge

N o. W 2009- 00860- C C A - R 3- P C - F i l ed M arch 12, 2010

T he Pet i t i oner , M ar co B ut l er , appea l s f r om t he Shel by C ount y C r i m i nal C our t ’ s deni al of pos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef

f r om hi s gui l t y pl eas t o f i r s t degr ee m ur der and espe ci al l y aggr avat ed robbery, a C l ass A fel on y, and his con curr ent s entences of l i fe an d tw enty- fi ve y ears , r es pect i vel y. O n appea l , t he Pet i t i oner a rgu es t hathe r ece i ved i nef fect i ve as s i s t ance of cou nsel becau se tri al cou nsel fai l ed to com m un i cat e his rel ease el i gibi l i t y d a t e. H e al so co n tend s tha t his plea w as in v o lun tari ly and u n k n o w ing ly entere d

. U p o n rev iew , w e a ffi rm th e ju d g m e n t o f t h 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 ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed
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 A LAN E. G LEN N and J. C. M C L IN , J J

. , j oi ned.
L a n c e R . C h is m , M e m p h is , 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, M a rc o B u tle r. R ober tE

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

. L ut z, A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; W i l l i am L

. G i bbons , D i s tr i ctA t t or ney G ener al ; and N i col e G er m ai n, A s s i s t ant D i s tr i ctA t t or ney G ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON
O n O ct ober26, 1999, t he Pet i t i onerent er ed gui l t y pl eas t o fi rst degr ee m ur derand e sp e c ially a g g ra v a ted ro b b e ry . O n M a rc h 2 0 , 2 0 0 1 , th e P e titio n e r file d a n u n tim e ly p o stconvi ct i on pet i t i on, w hi ch the cour tdi s m i s s ed as bei ng t i m e barr ed. T he Pet i t i onerappea l ed th e c o u rt’s d ism iss a l, c laim in g th a t th e c o u rt sh o u ld h a v e a c c e p ted th e p e tit io n a s file d w ith in t he one- years t atut e of li m it ati o n s beca us e he ga ve i tt o pr i s on aut hor i t i es form ai l i ng on O ct ober9, 2000. T hi s cour taf f i r m ed t he pos t

- convi ct i on co u rt ’s di s m i s s al

. See B ut l erv. St at e, 92 S. W

. 3d 387, 388 ( T enn. 2002)

. T he Pet i t i oneragai n appea l ed, and t he Tennes s ee Supr em e C our t , concl udi ng t hat t he Pet i t i oner had “m ade a t hr es hol d s how i ng of com pl i anceThe March 2 4, 2009 ord er an d theMarch 31, 2009 amended order deny ing p ost-con viction relief 1 are identical with the exc eption that theamende d o rder co rrectly states that the Petitioner entere d g uilty p leas to theoffen ses o f first d egree murder an d es pecially aggrav ated ro bberyonO ctober 26, 19 99. -2- w i t h T ennes see S u p rem e C our tR ul e 28 s ect i on 2( G ) , ” r ever s ed t hi s cour t ’ s j udgm entand re m a n d e d th e c a s e to th e S h e lb y C o u n ty C rim in a l C o u rt fo r a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g to det er m i ne w hethert he P et i t i oner coul d es t abl i s h by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hathe h a d c o m p lie d w ith R u le 2 8 s e c tio n 2 (G ). S e e id . a t 3 9 1

. T he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t appoi nt ed couns el fort he Pet i t i oneron Febr uar y 13, 2003. F o llo w in g a h e a rin g o n Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , the c o u rt g ra n ted th e p e tit io n to re o p e n th e p o stconvi ct i on pr ocee di ngs . O n N ovem ber 21, 2006, appoi nt ed couns el fort he Pet i t i onerf i l ed an am ended pet i t i on for pos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef , w hi ch i ncl uded t he fol l ow i ng cl ai m s : ( 1) t r i al couns el r ender ed i nef

fect i ve as s i s t ance i n fai l i ng t o pr oper l y pr epar e and i nves t i gat e hi s cas e, i n fai l i ng t o di s cus s t he cas e w i t h t he Pet i t i oner , and i n fai l i ng t o def end the Pet i t i oner ; ( 2) tr i al couns el r ender ed i nef fect i ve as s i s t ance i n err oneous l y i nfor m i ng t he Pet i t i onert hathe w oul d be el i gi bl e for par ol e af t er s er vi ng onl y t w el ve yea r s of hi s t w ent y- f

i ve- years ent ence pur s uantt o h i s p l e a a g r e e m ent ; ( 3) t he Pet i t i oner ’ s gui l t y pl eas w er e unknow i ng, i nvol unt ar y, and un in telli gen tas a r esul tof coun sel ’s i neffect i ve assi st ance regardi ng his rel ease el i gi bi l i t y; and ( 4) tr i al couns el coer ced the Pet i t i oneri nt o acc ept i ng t he pl ea a gr eem entby “undue ve r bal pr es s ur e” a nd by havi ng t he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot herencour age hi m t o acc eptt he pl ea agr eem ent
. O n M ar ch 24, 2009, t he cour t deni ed post

- convi ct i on r el i ef

. A n am ended or derdenyi ng pos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef w as ent er ed on M ar ch 31, 2009. T he Pet i t i onert hen 1 fi le d a tim e ly n o tic e o f a p p e a l.
V oi r D i re. O n O ct ober25, 1999, t he day the tr i al i n t hi s cas e w as s ett o begi n, and pr i ort o the j ur y bei ng br oughti n, t r i al couns el exhaus t i vel y exam i ned t he Pet i t i oner re g a rd in g h is de c isio n to fo rg o a n o ffe r fro m th e S tate a n d to p ro c e e d to trial. D u rin g v o ir d ire , the P e tit io n e r a c k n o w led g e d th a t h is b ro th e r, F re d e ric k B u tler, w a s p lea d in g g u ilt y to a les se r c h a rg e in e x c h a n g e fo r te stify in g a g a in st h im fo r th e S tate . H e sta ted th a t h e in iti a lly bel i eved thathi s br ot herw oul d nott es t i f y agai ns t h im

. T he Pet i t i oneral s o acknow l edged that his brot her’ s t est i m on y w ou l d be subst anti al l y the sam e as his brot her’ s st at em ent to pol i ce, w hi ch i m pl i cat ed the Pet i t i oneri n t he cr i m es forw hi ch he w as on tr i al

. H e s t at ed that he and hi s br ot herw er e cha r ged w i t h f i r s tdegr ee m ur der of

t he vi ct i m . T he Pet i t i oner ac k n o w ledg ed that if

h e w ere co n v ict ed o f fi rstd eg ree m u rde r, h e w o u ld r ec eive eit h er a li fe s ent ence ora l i fe s ent ence w i t hout par ol e. H e s ai d tr i al couns el expl ai ned t hathe w oul d be e l i g i b l e fo r p a r o l e a f

t e r t we n t y - f

i v e y e a r s , r a t h e r t h a n a f

t e r f i f t y - o n e y e a r s u n d e rt h e n e w l a w, b e c a u s e o f t h e d a te o f t h e fi rs t d e g re e m u rd e r o ffe n s e . Speci f i cal l y, dur i ng voi rdi r e, t he fol l ow i ng per t i nentexcha nge occ ur r ed:-3-

D E FE N SE C O U N SE L : I ’ ve al s o expl ai ned t o you t hat t he ot heropt i on i s l i fe. H ave I notexpl ai ned thatt o you? [P E T IT IO N E R ]: Y es, si r. D E FE N SE C O U N SE L : A nd t hati s l i fe w i t h t he pos s i bi l i t y of par ol e. O kay. I’v e e x p lain e d th a t to y o u , h a v e I n o t? [P E T IT IO N E R ]: Y es, si r. D E FE N SE C O U N SE L : A nd I ’ ve expl ai ned t o you t hatt hi s cas e fal l s undert he ol d l aw pr i or t o t he s t atus of l i fe as i t i s now . B as i cal l y you’ r e not el i gi bl e for par ol e unt i l you’ ve s er ved 5 1 year s . B utyourcas e fal l s befor e t hatcas e, be fo r e t h e c h a n g e o f t h e l a w. And b a s i c a l l y y o u ’ r e e l i g i b l e fo r p a r o l e af t er appr oxi m at el y 25 year s . Y ou under s t and t hatand I ’ ve expl ai ned t hatt o you? [P E T IT IO N E R ]: Y es, si r. D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : W e ’v e talk e d a b o u t th a t at le n g th , h a v e w e n o t? [ PE T I T I O N E R ] : W e have

. D E FE N SE C O U N SE L : O kay

. A nd you under s t and t hatyou’ ve done f i ve year s now . Y ou under s t and? [P E T IT IO N E R ]: Y es, si r. T h e P eti ti o n er fu rt h er stated d u ri n g v o ir d ir e that h e u n d erstoo d that E ri c A lexa n d er, a c o -d e fe n d a n t, w o u ld p ro b a b ly tes tify a g a in st h im a t trial a n d th a t trial c o u n se l h a d to ld h im t hatA l exande r ’ s t es t i m ony w oul d l i kel y be unfavor abl e t o hi m , es peci al l y i f i tcor r obor at ed h is b ro th e r’s tes tim o n y . T h e P e tit io n e r sta ted th a t h e w a n ted to p ro c e e d to trial d e sp ite h is acknow l edgm entof

t he af or em ent i oned fact s and cons equenc es and t hathe w as m aki ng t he deci s i on t o pr ocee d t o tr i al f r eel y and vol unt ar i l y. H e adm i t t ed t hat he had r ece i ved an of fer f r om t he St at e of

l i fe w i t h the p o ssibil i t y of par ol e, w hi ch w as t he bes ts ent ence t hathe w ou l d h ave recei ved i f conv icte d of f i rs tdeg ree m urder att ri al

. T he P et i t i on er al so ac k n o w ledg ed that h e h ad b ee n ch arg ed w ith esp ec ial ly ag g rav ated rob b ery , an d if h e w ere convi ct ed of

t hi s of fens e at tr i al , t he t r i al cour t w oul d i m pos e a se nt ence bet w een f i f t een a nd tw e n ty -fiv e y e a rs a n d w o u ld d e ter m in e w h e th e r th a t s e n ten c e w o u ld b e se rv e d c o n c u rre n tly w i t h orcons ecut i vel y t o t he s ent ence fort he f i r s tdegr ee m ur derof

fense, if al s o convi ct ed of t hatof fens e. T he Pet i t i oners ai d t hathe under s t ood t hatt her e w as a p o ssi bi l i t y t hatt he-4-

tr i al cour tw oul d or derhi s s ent ence s t o be s er ved cons ecut i vel y i f he w er e t o be convi ct ed o f b o th o ffe n s e s a t tr ia l. G u ilt y P le a H e a r in g . T h e n ext day, O ct ob er 26, 19 99 , t he P et i t i on er enter ed h is g u il ty p leas. A t th e g u il ty p lea h ea ri n g , the S tat e su m m arized the fa cts i n the P eti ti o n er’s cas e: H a d th e m a tters g o n e to trial, if Y o u r H o n o r p lea se , the sta te w o u ld h av e sh o w n as to [t h e P eti ti o n er] that o n o r ab o u t A u g u st [ 1 2 , ] 19 9 4 , o ffi ce rs of t he Sher i f

f ’ s D epar t m entr ece i ved a 911 cal l t o 7918 E as tH ol m es R oad at th e lo c a tio n o f R o a n e ’s (p h o n e tica lly ) G ro c e ry S to re w h ich is lo c a ted h e re in S h elby C o u n ty, T en n esse e, from a cit izen w h o h ad stop p ed there at t h e sto re and found t he ow ner , Char l i e Ca n t r el l , ( phonet i cal l y) an i ndi vi dual w ho ow ned and oper at ed the s t or e, l yi ng dead on the f l oorof t he s t or e nextt o t he dr i nk cool er s . O f

f i cer s f r om t he Sher i f

f ’ s D epar t m entcam e as w el l as t he M edi cal E xam i ner ’ s O f

f i ce a nd pr onounced the vi ct i m dead ther e. T he dea t h w as a r es ul tof t w o guns hot w ounds t o M r . C antr el l

. L ocat ed on t he s cene , am ong ot herthing s, w er e t w o . 380 cal i berguns hothul l s . T he sh e riff’s o ffic e rs a ss ig n e d to in v e stig a te th e c a se lo c a ted a w itn e ss , o n e D a v id E mi l y ( p h o n e t i c a l l y ) wh o a c t u a l l y c a l l e d i n t o t h e S h e r i f f ’ s De p a r t me n ts o me i nfor m at i on t hathe had s een b efo re he ac t ual l y knew

. . . w hathad gone on b e c a u s e h e h a d s e e n s o m e s u s p i c i o u s b e h a v i o r[ wh e n ] h e wa s d r i v i n g d o wn H ol m es R oad and he s aw a v eh icl e com e up, l ett w o i ndi vi dual s outof t hat vehi cl e, go i nt o t he s t or e, and a s hor t t i m e l at er s aw t he vehi cl e com e bac k and th e tw o in d iv id u a ls c a m e ru n n in g o u t o f th e sto re . O n e o f th e tw o in d iv id u a ls h a d so m e th in g in h is rig h t h a n d th a t lo o k e d to b e a sa w e d -o ff s h o tg u n a n d th e ir behavi orw as s uch thati tm ade M r . E m i l y s us pi ci ous t hats om et hi ng . . . had gone on. H e d id g e t a d e sc rip tio n o f th e a u to m o b ile inc lu d in g th e lice n se [] p late num ber

. H e gott o a l ocat i on w her e he coul d m ake a phone ca l l and di d m ake a phone cal l

. T hat l i cens e[ ] pl at e w as a M i s s i s s i ppi l i cens e[ ] pl at e r egi s t er ed t o a vehi cl e t hatm at ched the des cr i pt i on of t he one thatM r . E m i l y had s een. A b ro a d c a st w a s p u t o u t in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e M a rsh a ll C o u n ty a n d D e S o to C ount y, M i s s issi p p i [ , ] Pol i ce D epar t m ent s as w el l as t he B yhal i a Pol i ce D e p a rt m e n t.
T hes e thr ee a genci es rec o g n i zed the des cr i pt i on of t hatvehi cl e and w entt o a l ocat i on w her e one of t he of f i cer s actual l y saw the red M us t ang vehi cl e. T he off

i cer kept i t under s ur vei l l ance and cal l ed forot herof f i cer s and-5-

backup. [ T he of

f i cer ] [ d] i d fol l ow t hatvehi cl e aw ay f r om t hatl ocat i on and sto p it. T h e v e h icle w a s o c c u p ied a t th a t ti m e b y [th e P e ti ti o n e r ], b y E ric A lex a n d e r, b y F re d e ric k B u tler, a n d b y a n in d iv id u a l n a m e d K e n d a ll H o lt.
It s houl d be not ed t hat t he des cr i pt i on of t he cl ot hi ng w or n b y M r. A l exande rand [ t he Pet i t i oner ] m at ched the des cr i pt i on gi ven by M r . E m i l y as t hatbei ng t he t w o i ndi vi dual s w ho cam e r unni ng out of R oane’ s St or e w hen h e s a w t h e m . And t h a t [ t h e Pe t i t i o n e r ] was wea r i n g a r e d T- s h i r t a nd w as f ur t herdes cr i bed as havi ng hi s hai ri n dr eadl ocks

. T hatw as in factt he w ay [ t he Pet i t i oner ] w as dr es s ed and how he w as w ear i ng hi s hai r w h en arr es t ed t hats am e day.
T h e y w e re tra n sp o rte d to D e S o to C o u n ty S h e riff’s O ffic e a n d h e ld in cus t ody. T he car w as i m pounded and di d m at ch t he des cr i pt i on of t he t ype and even dow n t o t he par t i cul ar s of s om e dam age t hat M r . E m i l y had not ed. A tappr oxi m at el y ei ghto’ cl ock i n t he eve ni ng t hats am e da y , of f i cer s of t he [ Shel by C ount y] Sher i f f ’ s D epar t m enti n conj unct i on w i t h t he M i s s i s s i ppi [ o] f f i cer s , advi s ed M r . Fr eder i ck B ut l er of hi s C ons t i t ut i onal R i ght s [ at ] w hi ch tim e h e g a v e a tap e [-]re c o rd e d sta tem e n t in d ica tin g th a t h e h a d in fa c t b e e n to R oane’ s G r ocer y St or e dr i vi ng t he r ed M us t ang w hi ch he ow ned and had [ t he P e t i t i o n e r ] a n d E r i c De wa y n e Al e x a n d e rwi t h h i m wh o we r e t h e o t h e rt wo in d iv id u a ls a rr e s te d

. T hatt hey w enti n and di d com e back – and r obbed t he s t or e t her e. T hat t he st or e w a s r ob be d by t he us e of a . 38 0 a ut om a t i c ha nd gu n a s w e l l as a s aw ed of f s hot gun. A nd t he of

f i cer s t hen w ent on t o obt ai n a cons entt o s ear ch s i gned by bot h [ t he P et i t i oner ] and t hen l at erK at hy B ut l er . W entt o a l ocat i on nearby w her ei n the y r ecove r ed a . 380 cal i berhandgun, a s aw ed- of f s hot gun a s w e ll as so m e o th e r [w e a p o n s] – a D e rrin g e r a n d a .2 5 c a lib e r se m iau to m a tic p is to l th a t th e y s e iz e d a t th a t lo c a tio n . A l s o, w hen [ t he Pet i t i oner ] w as arr es t ed and t aken i nt o cus t ody .

. . he h a d o n h im so m e K en n ed y h alf-do ll ars a n d so m e S u san B

. A n tho n y d o ll ars w hi ch w er e uni que, i n t hat , ow ner s and co- w or ker s of t he s t or e r ecogni zed a s b e in g in th e c a sh re g iste r o f th e sto re a n d m a in tain e d th e re th a t h a d c o m e in t hatday w i t h so m e pur chas es m ade w i t h a num berof Susa n B

. A nt hony do l l ars . Fur t heri nt er vi ew s w er e conduct ed i ncl udi ng [ w i t h] K endal l H ol tw ho i s now dece as ed w ho i ndi cat ed thatM r . A l exande rand [ t he Pet i t i oner ] had gone i nt o t he s t or e w hi l e Fr eder i ck B ut l erhad w ai t ed out s i de i n the ca rand-6-

actual l y [ had] dr i ven the car

. L at ers om e f ur t hers t at em ent s w er e obt ai ned w h ich c o rrob o rated to v ary ing d eg ree s this sc en ario o r th e ac co u n t an d that’s how i tw as pi ece d t oget her t hat [ t he Pet i t i oner ] and M r . E r i c A l exande rw ent in t o t h e s to re w h ile M r. F re d e ri c k B u tle r d ro v e a n d a ll o f t h e m d id , in fa c t, .

. . s pl i ts om e of

t he pr ocee ds t aken i n t hatr obber y. T h at w ou l d basi cal l y be t he st at e’s proof had t he m at t er go ne t o trial. O f c o u r s e i n t h i s tr i a l , f u r t h e r t h e s t a t e ’ s p r o o f wou l d h a v e com e f r om Fr eder i ck B ut l erw ho i s pr epa r ed t o t es t i f y as t o t he r ol es of

hi m s el f and t he ot hert w o i ndi vi dual s . T h at w oul d have be en t he pr oof t hatw e w oul d have adduce d had w e gone on w i t h t he tr i al of [ t he Pet i t i oner ] and w e’ d as k couns el to s tip u la te
. D e fe n se c o u n se l s tip u late d th a t th o se w o u ld h a v e b e e n th e fa c ts h a d th e c a se p ro c e e d e d to tri al

. H e al so m ade refer ence t o his extensi ve v oirdir e of t he P et i t i on er that had o ccurr ed just p ri o r t o th e b e g in n in g o f t ri a l.
D ur i ng t he gui l t y pl ea c ol l oquy, t he tr i al cour texpl ai ned t he t er m s o f t he pl ea ag ree m en t and ex tens ively q u esti o n ed the P eti ti o n er b efo re a cc ep ti n g h is pleas o f gu il t. In r es pons e t o num er ous ques t i ons f r om t he t r i al cour t , t he P et i t i oner s t at ed t hathe under s t ood th a t h e d id n o t h a v e to p lea d g u ilt y to th e c h a rg e s o f firs t d e g r e e m u r d e r a n d e sp e c ially aggr avat ed r obber y and thathe w as ent i t l ed t o a j ur y tr i al and an a ppeal w i t h t he as s i s t ance of appoi nt ed couns el

. T he Pet i t i oners t at ed t hathe w as pl eadi ng gu il ty fre el y and vol unt ar i l y, t hatno one had f or ced hi m t o pl ead gui l t y, and thathe w as notundert he in flu e n c e o f d ru g s. H e s ta te d th a t h e d id n o t h a v e a n y c o m p lain ts re g a rd in g trial c o u n se l. T he Pet i t i oner s ai d t hat he had r ead the Pet i t i on forW ai verof T r i al by J ur y and R eques tfor A cce pt ance of

Pl ea G ui l t y befor e he s i gned i tand di d nothave a ny ques t i ons r egar di ng t he docum ent
. T he tr i al cour tacc ept ed the Pet i t i oner ’ s gui l t y pl eas and, pur s uantt o t he pl ea agr eem ent , i m pos ed a l i fe s ent ence for t he f i r s tdegr ee m ur derof

fens e and a t w ent y- f

i ve- year s ent ence fort he es peci al l y ag g rava t ed r obber y of fens e, w hi ch w er e t o be s er ved c o n c u rr e n tly

. P o s t- C o n v ic ti o n H e a r in g . T he Pet i t i oner , t he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot her , and tr i al couns el t es t i f i ed att he pos t

- convi ct i on hear i ng on J anuar y 30, 2009. T he Pet i t i onert es t i f i ed t hathe w as s i xteen at th e ti m e he w as char ged w i t h t he of fens es i n t hi s cas e. A l t hough anot her at t or ney rep r es ent ed hi m i ni t i al l y, tr i al couns el w as appoi nt ed s hor t l y befor e tr i al

. T he P et i t i on er s ai d thattri al cou nsel tri ed t o conv i nce hi m t o tes t i fy agai nsthis brot her becau se hi s br ot herw as goi ng t o t es t i f y agai ns t hi m . T r i al couns el i nfor m ed hi m on t he s econd da y of tr i al t hathe had r ece i ved an of ferf r om t he St at e of

concurr ents ent ence s of l i fe and t w ent y- f i ve yea r s . T he Pet i t i oneracknow l edged thattr i al couns el t ol d hi m t hatbeca us e the of fens e occ ur r ed i n 1994, he w oul d have t o s er ve t w ent y- f i ve year s befor e bei ng el i gi bl e for-7-

par ol e. H e al s o s ai d t hat tr i al couns el s t at ed, “[ Y ] ou done a l i t t l e over f i ve ye ars a lr eady. Y ou go outt her e and do f i ve t o s i x m o re ye ar s on yourbehavi orand you ca n getout[ on par ol e]

. ” The Pet i t i oners ai d t hathe under s t ood t hathe w oul d nothave t o s er ve “m or e than e lev e n [y e a rs] b e c a u se [h e ] h a d a lre a d y d o n e fiv e y e a rs a n d th re e m o n th s, a n d [tria l co u n se l] sa id fiv e to six m o re [y e a rs] .” T h e P e tit io n e r sa id th a t h e sp o k e w ith trial c o u n se l an d h is m ot herpr i ort o deci di ng t o pl ead gui l t y:

[ W e t al ked] [ a] boutm y s ent ence and m y br ot her [ ’ s ] s ent ence . I tw as l i ke yourbr ot her[ i s ] f

i xi ng t o geta pl ea deal s o he aut om at i c[ al l y] [ i s ] goi ng [ t o] do t i m e. [ T r i al couns el w as ] t el l i ng m y m om , expl ai n[ i ng] t o her , aboutt he se n te n c in g ra n g e a s fa r a s w h a t I sig n e d fo r, an d th a t w a s w h a t sh e talk e d to m e [a b o u t] a n d g a v e m e th e im p re ss io n to g o o n a n d sig n fo r it.
T he Pet i t i oners ai d t hathe neve rw oul d have pl eade d guil ty if h e had know n how l ong he w oul d be conf

i ned bef or e bei ng el i gi bl e forpar ol e: O nl y t hi ng I can s ay, Y our H onor , i s t hat I t r ul y fel t l i ke I w as s i gni ng fora t w ent y- f

i ve[

- ] years ent ence and w hat[ t r i al couns el ] w as t el l i ng m e w as true , that I h ad t o go outt her e and do f i ve t o s i x m or e yea r s on m y behavi or and I [ coul d] getout
. I f I knew t hat I w as s i gni ng for w hat I end[ ed] up w i t h, I w o u ld n ’t h a v e d o n e it.
T he Pet i t i oner acknow l edged t hat he under s t ood t hat he w as pl eadi ng gui l t y and that tr i al couns el di d notfor ce hi m t o pl ead gui l t y. H e s t at ed thathe r em em ber ed the day he pl eade d gui l t y and cl ai m ed t hat t he t r i al cour t di d not expl ai n how m uch t i m e he w as goi ng t o be r equi r ed t o s er ve. Peggy A nn Fl em i ng, t he P et i t i oner ’ s m ot her , t es t i f i ed t hat t r i al couns el t ol d herand h e r so n o f th e S tate ’s o ffe r: “ I h a d tw o so n s in jail a t th a t ti m e . [T ria l co u n se l] to ld m e to talk t o m y s on[ , t he Pet i t i oner ]

. H e of fer ed hi m t w ent y- f

i ve yea r [ s ] w i t h par ol e, and i f he [ t ook] t hat , [ t hen] he coul d get out [ i n] about t w el ve year [ s ]

. ” Fl em i ng s ai d t hats he enc our aged the Pet i t i onert o t ake the St at e’ s of ferbeca us e s he bel i eved i tw as i n hi s bes ti nt er es t
. She s t at ed tr i al couns el t ol d hert hatpur s uantt o t he St at e’ s of fer , t he Pet i t i onerw oul d have a “t w ent yf i v e [

- ] y e a r[ s e n t e n c e ] wi t h p a r o l e a n d h e wo u l d b e o u t [ i n ] a b o u t t we l v e y e a r [ s ] wi t h t h e t i me he [ had] al r eady .

. . s er ved. ”
T r i al couns el t es t i f

i ed t hathe w as an att or ney w i t h t he Publ i c D ef ender ’ s O f

f i ce a nd w as appoi nt ed t o r epr es entt he Pet i t i oneri n O ct ober1999. C ouns el s t at ed thatanother at t or ney i n hi s of

f i ce w as or i gi nal l y as s i gned t o t h e ca se, a n d he w as appoi nt ed ap p rox im ately o n e m o n th befo re th e P eti ti o n er p lead ed g u il ty. H e sa id tha t th e P eti ti o n er’s cas e w as s et tl ed after th e j ur y had bee n chos en buta day ort w o befor e t he pr oof w as-8-

pr es ent ed. C ouns el s t at ed thatt he Pet i t i onerpl eade d gui l t y t o f i r s t d egre e m ur derand es peci al l y aggr avat ed robbe r y and re cei ved a l i fe sent ence and a t w ent y- f i ve- years ent ence , w hi ch w er e t o be s er ved conc ur r ent l y. H e s ai d t hatt he St at e w as s eeki ng a l i fe s ent ence w i t houtpar ol e fort he f i r s tdegr ee m ur derchar ge attr i al. W h en asked i f he r eca l l ed the r eas on t he Pet i t i onerpl eade d gui l t y t o t he cha r ges , couns el s t at ed:

W el l , t he pr oof

w as – w as fai r l y s t r ong[ ; ] how ever , w e w er e i nfor m ed by t he S t at e t hat [the P et i t i on er’ s] brot her w as g oing t o be cal l ed as a w i t ness ag ains t him w h ich w as so m ethin g w e w ere n ’t– I s h o u ldn ’tsay w e w ere n ’t an ti cipa ti n g itb u t w e w ere n ’t– w e h ad tho u g h t .
. . that [t h e P etiti o n er’s b ro th e r] w a s n o t g o in g to te s tif y . C o u n se l sta ted th a t th e fa c t th a t th e P e tit io n e r’s b ro th e r w a s g o in g to te stify a g a in st h im “cha nged t he l i kel i hood of [ t he Pet i ti o n er’s] convi ct i on[

. ] ” H e s ai d he i nfor m ed the Pet i t i onert hatpur s uantt o t he pl ea a gr eem enthe w oul d be el i gi bl e for par ol e af t ers er vi ng t w ent y- f i ve yea r s , w hi ch m eantthat the par ol e boar d w oul d deci de w het herhe w oul d be r el eas ed at t hat t i m e. C ouns el s t at ed, “I w ar ned hi m t hat

. . . i f he di d t ake the l i fe s ent ence t hat

. . . gi ven the fact t hat m ur der one i s now es s ent i al l y f i f t y- one year s t hatI di dn’ tknow h o w t h e y wo u l d tr e a t h i m o r wh e t h e r t h e y wo u l d r e l e a s e h i m [ a f t e r ] t we n t y - f

i v e y e a r s . ” He al s o t ol d t he Pet i t i onert hati f he w ere t o be convi ct ed of bot h of fens es att r i al , t hen he bel i eved thatt he tr i al cour tw oul d or dert he s ent ence s t o be s erv ed cons ecut i vel y. W hen as ked i f he t ol d t he Pet i t i onert hathe w oul d be el i gi bl e forpar ol e af t er tw elve y ea rs, t r i al couns el s t at ed:

N o, I hear d hi m t es t i f

y t o t hatand I don’ t know i f he’ s t al ki ng aboutt he es peci al l y aggr avat ed r obber y agai n. I f

. . . w hatI w oul d have t ol d hi m i f he had a f i f t een[

- ] years ent ence , no par ol e s ent ence I w oul d have t ol d hi m t hathe w oul d have be en el i gi bl e for r el eas e on a no- par ol e cr i m e af t er– i f t her e w as a fifte e n [-]y e a r se n ten c e , a ss u m in g h e g o t th e fifte e n p e rc e n t g o o d [c o n d u c t] c re d it w h ich – a n d if h e b e h a v e d h im se lf th a t h e w o u ld

– I sh o u ld sa y I sa y th is to c lien ts w h o g e t fiftee n [-]y e a r, n o p a ro le se n ten c e s th a t h e w o u ld b e e lig ib le forr el eas e. B u t th at’s actu all y – I think that’s thir teen y ea rs ac tually, th ir teen y ea rs an d so m e ti m e p eriod

. I ca n ’trem em b er, or m ay b e it ’s t w elve y ea r[s]

. . . it ’s j us tundert hi r t een ye ar s . B ut t he facti s on t hi s cas e I w oul dn’ thave bother ed g o in g o v e r th a t o n a n e sp e c ially a g g ra v a ted ro b b e ry b e c a u se o f th e fa c t [th a t] i tw as r unni ng concurr ent l y w i t h t he m ur der[ s o] I w oul dn’ thave be en focus ed o n th a t s e n te n c e .-9-

C ouns el s t at ed thathe di d not coer ce t he P et i t i oneri nt o t aki ng t he St at e’ s of fer , and i tw as t he Pet i t i oner ’ s deci s i on t o pl ead gui l t y t o t h e tw o o ffens es . T r i al couns el s t at ed t hathe bel i eved thatt he Pet i t i onerdeci ded t o pl ead gui l t y t o t he of fens es beca us e he di d not l i ke the i dea of hi s br ot her t es t i f yi ng agai ns t hi m . C ouns el al s o s ai d t hathe w as pr epar ed t o tr y t he Pet i t i oner ’ s cas e an d w as pr epar ed fort he pos s i bi l i t y of havi ng t o cr os s - exam i ne the Pet i t i oner ’ s br ot her

. H e al s o s t at ed thathe t al ked t o t h e Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot heraboutt he pos s i bi l i t y of

t he Pet i t i onerhavi ng t o s er ve cons ecut i ve s ent ence s i f he w er e convi ct ed of b o th o ffe n s e s a t tr ia l.
O n cr os s -ex am inati on, couns el s t at ed t hatt he Pet i t i onerw as ar ound s i xt een or se v e n tee n y e a rs o ld w h e n h e w a s c h a rg e d w ith th e o ffe n se s in th is c a se , an d h e h a d b e e n in j ai l forapp roxi m at el y fi ve an d one-hal f year s befor e his case w ent t o tr i al

. T ri al cou nsel al so acknow l edged thatt he Pet i t i onerdi d nothave a j uveni l e r ecor d. C ouns el s t at ed t hat he had tr i ed appr oxi m at el y f

i f t een f i r s tdegr ee m ur dercas es and a l ar ge num berof s eco nd degr ee m u rd e r c a s e s a n d fe lo n y c a s e s . T r i a l c o u n s e l s a i d t h a tt h e P e t i t i o n e rd e c i d e d t o p l e a d g u i l t y a f t e r h e h a d s o me t i me t o t hi nk about t he of

fer . C ouns el s ai d t hat t he Pet i t i oner had an “a b o v e a ver age” under s t andi ng of

t he l egal s ys t em gi ven hi s “l i m i t ed expos ur e” t o i tand “s eem ed t o have a gr eatdeal m or e under s t andi ng t han m os tof [ hi s ] M V U cl i ent s . ” W hen as ked i f t he Pet i t i oner s eem ed conf

us ed abouts er vi ng a t w ent y- f i ve- years ent ence for th e es peci al l y aggr avat ed r obber y of

fen se co ncur r ent l y w i t h a l i fe s ent ence w i t h par ol e fort he f i r s tdegr ee m ur der of fens e, t r i al couns el s t at ed: “I hones t l y di dn’ t t hi nk s o at t he t i m e[ ; ] how ever , I ’ ve l i s t ened to h im tes tify a n d h e m a y
– h e m a y h a v e b e e n [c o n fu se d ] in re tro sp e c t[.]” H e a d d e d , “A ll I can t el l you i s t hatas faras hi s deci s i on t o pl ead [ gui l t y] I t hi n k h e had a r eal l y good u n d e rs ta n d in g o f w h a t th e lik e lih o o d o f h is b e in g c o n v ic te d w a s .”
O n M ar ch 31, 2009, t he cour tent er ed an a m ended or derdenyi ng pos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef

. T he pos t

- convi ct i on cour tfound t hatt he Pet i t i onerhad fai l ed t o pr ove t hatt r i al cou nsel ’s con du ctw as defi ci ent r egardi ng his com m un i ca ti on of t he P et i t i on er’ s r el ease e lig ib ility d a te
. In e ffe c tiv e A ss ista n c e o f C o u n se l. T he Pet i t i oner s peci f i cal l y cont ends that tr ia l cou nsel w as i neffect i ve in fai l i ng t o co m m un i cat e his rel ea se e lig ibi l i t y d at e. H e al so cont ends t hathe ent er ed an i nvol unt ar y and unknow i ng gui l t y pl ea a s a r es ul t
. I n r es pons e, t he St at e ar gues t hat t hi s cour t s houl d af f i r m t he deni al of

pos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef

beca us e the cour tpr oper l y det er m i ned t hatcouns el ’ s p erfo r m ance w as notdef i ci ent
. Speci f

i cal l y, t he St at e cont ends t hat t he post

- convi ct i on cour t , as w as i t s r i ght , cr edi t ed t he t es t i m ony of t r i al co u n sel an d d iscred it ed the test im o n y o f th e P eti ti o n er an d h is m o ther reg ard ing co u n sel’s com m uni cat i on of t he Pet i t i oner ’ s r el eas e el i gi bi l i t y dat e. Fi nal l y, t he St at e as s er t s t hatt he tr i al cour t ext ens i vel y i nves t i gat ed t he know i ng and vol unt ar y nat ur e of t he Pet i t i oner ’ s pl ea,-10-

and tr i al counse l’ s t es t i m ony att he pos t

- convi ct i on hear i ng es t abl i s hed t hatt he Pet i t i oner e n te re d a k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry p le a . 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 rv 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 conc l us i ve on appe al unl es s t he evi d e n c e p r e p o n d e r a t e s o t h e r wi s e . W h e n r e v i e wi n g f a c tu a l i s s u e s , t he appel l at e courtw i l l notr e - wei g h o rr e - eval uat e the evi dence ; m or eover , fac tual ques t i ons i nvol vi ng t he cr edi bi l i t yof wi tnes 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 tt o r esolv e. The appel 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 assi st ance o f cou nsel , i s de no vo w i t h n o p res um pti on of co rr ect ness. V aughn v. St at e, 202 S. W

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

. “The pet i t i onerbear s t he burde n of provi 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 ey v. St at e, 183 S. W

. 3d 317, 325 ( T enn. 2006) )

. E vi dence i s cons i d ere d clea r and convi nci ng w hen ther e i s no s er i ous o r su b st ant i al doubtaboutt he ac cur acyof the 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) ( ci t i ng H odges v. S. C

. T oof & C o. , 833 S. W

. 2d 896, 901, n. 3 ( T enn. 1992) ) , perm . t o appea l d e n i e d ( T e n n . N o v . 2 , 1 9 9 8 )

. V aughn furt herr epea t ed w el l

- s et t l ed pr i nci pl es app li ca bl 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 cri m e to r epr es ent at i on 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 art 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 t hi s C our t have r ecogni zed t hat t hi s r i ght t o r epr es ent at i on encompas s es t he r igh t t o r eas onabl yeff ect 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. 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 order t o p revai l on an ineffecti ve assi st ance o f cou nsel cl ai m , t he pet i t i on er m ust es t abl i s h t hat ( 1) hi s l aw y er ’ s per for m ance w as defi ci entand ( 2) t he def i ci entper for m ance p re ju d ice d th e d e f

e n se . Id . (citin 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.-11-

2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 (1 9 8 4 ) ; B a x te r v . R o se , 5 2 3 S .W .2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 6 (T e n n . 1 9 7 5 )). “ [ A ] f a ilu re to pr ove ei t herdefi ci encyorpr ej udi ce pr ovi des a s uffi ci en t b asis to de nyr el i ef on the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m . Ind eed, a courtneed notaddr es s t he component s i n any par t i cul aror deroreven a ddr es s bot h i f t he [pet 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 ydemonst r at es defi ci entp erf o r m ance w hen 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. at 2 0 6 5 ; B a x ter , 5 2 3 S .W .2 d a t 9 3 6 ). P reju 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 e stab 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 tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent

. ” Id. at370.

“‘ A r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y i s a pr obabi l i t y s uffi ci ent t o underm i ne confi dence in the 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 in the co n text o f a g u il ty p lea, a p eti 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 ).
W hen ana l yzi ng t he val i di t y of a gui l t y pl ea, w e foll ow t he f eder al l andm ar k cas e of B oy kin v. A l abam a, 39 5 U

. S

. 23 8, 89 S

. C t
. 17 09 (1969 ), and t he T enn essee lan d m a rk case of St at e v. M acke y, 553 S

. W

. 2 d 3 3 7 ( T enn. 1977) , s uper s eded on othergr ounds by r ul e as s t at ed i n St at e v. W i l s on, 31 S. W

. 3d 189, 193 ( T enn. 2000)

. St at e v. Pet t us , 986 S. W

. 2d 540, 542 ( T enn. 1999)

. I n B oyki n, t he U ni t ed St at es Supr em e C our t hel d t hat a t r i al cour t m ay not acc epta gui l t y pl ea unl es s t her e i s an af f i r m at i ve s how i ng t hat t he gui l t y pl ea w as “i nt el l i gent and vol unt ar y. ” 395 U

. S. at242, 89 S. C t
. at1711. W h en ac ce pt i ng a gui l t y pl ea, t he tr i al c o u rt is r e s p o n s ib le fo r “ c a n v a ss in g th e m a tter w ith th e a c c u se d to m a k e su re h e h a s a fu ll under s t andi ng of w hat t he pl ea connot es and of i t s cons equenc e. ” I d. at 244, 89 S. C t
. at1712. In M ac k ey , the T en n esse e S u p rem e C o u rt h eld t h at “the rec o rd o f ac ce p tanc e o f a d efe n d an t’ s pl ea of gui l t y m us taf

f i r m at i vel y dem o n str ate t hathi s deci s i on w as bot h vol unt ar y and know l edgea bl e, i

. e., t hathe has been m ade a w ar e of t he s i gni f

i cantcons equenc es of

s uch a pl ea; ot her w i s e, i tw i l l notam ountt o an ‘ i nt ent i onal abandonm entof a know n r i ght

. ’” 553 S. W

. 2d at340.
T he T ennes s ee Supr em e C our t has em phas i zed t hat a pl ea i s not vol unt ar y if itis the r es ul tof “‘ [ i ] gnor ance , i ncom pr ehens i on, coer ci on, t err or , i nducem ent s , [ or ] s ubt l e orbl at ant t hr eat s . . . . ’ ” B l ankens hi p v. St at e, 858 S. W

. 2d 897, 904 ( T enn. 1993) ( quot i ng B oyki n, 395 U

. S

. at 24 2 -43 , 8 9 S

. C t. at 17 1 2 ). A tr ial co u rt m u st l o o k at a n u m b er o f circum stan ti al facto rs befor e det er m i ni ng w hethera gui l t y pl ea i s vol unt ar y and i nt el l i gent
. I d. T hes e fact or s i ncl ude “t he r el at i ve i nt el l i gence o f th e def endant ; t he degr ee of

hi s fam i l i ar i t y w i t h cr i m i nal-12-

proceed i ng s; w hether he w as repr esent ed by com petent cou nsel and had t he opp ort un i t y to conf erw i t h couns el about t he opt i ons avai l abl e t o hi m ; t he ext entof advi ce f r om couns el and t he cour tconce r ni ng t he cha r ges agai ns thi m ; and t he r eas ons for hi s deci s i on t o pl ead gui l t y, i ncl udi ng a des i r e t o avoi d a gr eat erpenal t y that m ightr es ul tf r om a j ur y tr i al

. ” I d. ( ci t i ng C au d il l v. Jag o , 7 4 7 F

. 2 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 5 2 (6th C ir

. 1 9 8 4 )).
H er e, t he Pet i t i onerfai l ed t o pr ove thatt r i al couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on w as defi ci ent

. See V a u g h n , 2 0 2 S .W .3 d a t 1 1 6 . S p e c if ica lly , th e P e tit io n e r f

a iled to sh o w th a t co u n se l fa iled to c o m m u n ic a te h is re le a s e e lig ib ility d a te
. Fur t herm or e, t he P et i t i oner fai l ed t o s how t hatbut f o r tria l co u n s e l’ s m is ta k e s, h e w o u ld n o t h a v e p lea d e d g u iltya n d w o u ld h a v e p ro c e e d e d to t r i al

. See H i l l , 474 U

. S. at59, 1 0 6 S. C t

. at370; s ee a l s o Ser r ano, 133 S. W

. 3d at605. T he proof att he p ost -convict i on heari ng est abli shed thatt ri al c ou nsel dis cussed t he o ffen ses, s ent ence r anges , r el eas e el i gi bi l i t y , r i s ks o f a tr i al , and s peci fi c t erm s of hi s pl ea a gr eement w i t h t he Pet i t i oner . I n addi t i on, t r i al couns el s t r es s ed thatt he Pet i t i onercoul d have r ece i ved a s ent ence of l i fe w i t houtpar ol e had theypr ocee ded t o t r i al beca us e the P et i t i oner ’ s br ot her and A l exan der, ano t her co-defen dan t , w ou l d h ave tes t i fi ed ag a in st him

. T ri al cou nsel al so e m p h a siz e d th e p o ss ib ili ty o f c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c in g if th e P e tit io n e r w e re c o n v icte d o f b o th offe ns es at t r i al

. A l t hough t he P et i t i oner w as unfami l i arw i t h t he cr i m i nal s y s t em, t r i al couns el s t at ed thatt he Pet i t i onerhad an “ above aver age” under s t andi ng of t he l egal pr oces s compar ed t o hi s ot hercl i ent s . T he Pet i t i oneracknow l edged s t at i ng t hathe w as s at i s fi ed w ith t r i al couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on at t he t i m e he ent er ed hi s gui l t y pl eas . T he tr ans cr i ptof the gui l t ypl ea hear i ng s how s t hat the tr ial cour ti nfor m ed the Pet i t i onerthathe w oul d be s ervi ng a l i fe s ent ence undert he ol d s t atut e for t he fi r s t degr ee m ur der char ge and a s ent ence of tw enty - fi ve y ear s as a R ange I , s t andar d offe nderfort he es p ec ia l l yaggr avat ed r obberychar ge and that thes e tw o sen tenc es w o u ld b e serv ed co n cu rren tl y . A t th e p lea su b m issi o n h ea ri n g the c o u rt as ked the Pet i t i oners ever al t i m es i f he u n d ers t ood t he cons equenc es of hi s pl ea, and the Pet i t i onerr es ponded af

fi r m at i vel y . T he Pet i t i onerdi d notas k anyques t i ons aboutt he amount o f t i me t h a t h e wo u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o s e r v e p u r s u a n tt o t h e p l e a a g r e e me n t

. T h e r e c o r d s h o ws t hatt r i al couns el s poke w i t h t he Pet i t i oneraboutt he t erm s of t he pl ea agr eement , t he r i s ks of havi ng t he Pet i t i oner ’ s br ot her and A l exande rt es t i fyagai ns thi m att r i al , and the l i kel i hood of h is b e in g se n ten c e d to life w ith o u t p a ro le a n d c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c in g if h e p ro c e e d e d to trial. T he r ecor d fur t hers how s t hatt he Pet i t i onerunder s t ood t he cons eque n ce s o f h is pl ea a nd v o lu n ta ri ly en te re d h is g u ilty p le a s . B e c a u se th e e v id e n c e d o e s n o t p re p o n d e ra te a g a in st th e f in d in g s o f f

a c t o f th e p o stconvi ct i on cour t , t hi s cour ti s bound byt hos e fi ndi ngs . See V aughn, 202 S. W

. 3d at115. T he cour tdet erm i ned t hat t he t es t i m onyof tr i al couns el w as m or e cr edi bl e than the t es t i m onyof t he Pet i t i onerand hi s m ot her , as w as i t s pr er ogat i ve. See i d. W e conc l ude thatt he Pet i t i oner fai l ed t o pr ove bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence that couns el pr ovi ded i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance-13-

ort hathi s gui l t ypl eas w er e i nvol unt ary . A ccor di ngl y , t he Pet i t i oneri s not ent i t l ed t o r el i ef.
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