1 

# FILED
Sep te mb er20, 1995 Cec il Crow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk IN THE CO URT OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SH VILLE DE CE MB ER1994 SESSI ON

STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) ) AP PELLEE , )

) No. 01- C- 01- 9404- CR -0 0122 ) ) Dav ids on C ounty v . ) ) W a lt e r C. Ku rt z, Ju d ge ) ) (Ag g ra v ated Ki dnappi ng and ) M urder

Sec ond D eg re e) JAMES HOW ARD TURNER, ) ) AP PE LL AN T. )

FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: John E. H er bis on Cha rl es W . Bu rs on Atto rn ey at Law Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter 2016 E ig hth Av enue, South 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kway Nas hv il le, TN 37204 Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 (A p p e a l O n ly) Cha rl otte H. R appuhn Edw ard M . Y ar broug h Ass is tant Atto rn ey Gene ra l Atto rn ey at Law 450 J ames R ober tso n Par kway Third N ati onal F ina nci al Cen ter Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 424 C hurch Street Nas hv il le, TN 37219 Vi cto r S. J ohnso n, I II (Tr ial Onl y ) Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l W ashi ng ton S q uare, S uit e 500 Chr is ti ne A. F re eman 222 Se cond Street, Nor th Atto rn ey at Law Nas hv il le, TN 37201- 1649 Life & Cas ual ty

Tow er 401 C hurch Street John C. Z immer man Nas hv il le, TN 37219- 2310 Ass is tant Di str ict Attor ney Gene ra l (Tr ial Onl y ) W ashi ng ton S q uare, S uit e 500 222 Se cond Street, Nor th Nas hv il le, TN 37201- 1649

OPIN ION F ILED :______

_________

_________

_________

___ AFF IR ME D Joe B. J ones O P I N I O N1 The appel lan t, James How ard T ur ner , w as conv icted of two c ounts of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng and o ne c ount of acce ss or y before the factto murder i n the se cond deg re e follo w ing hi s p lea s o f

gu ilt y t o t h ese offenses . The tr ial co urt i mposed a s entenc e of confine ment for forty-fiv e ( 45) y ears i n the D epar tment of Cor re cti on i n eac h c ount. The t h re e se n t e n c e s a re t o b e se rve d co n c u rre n t ly. Four i ss ues are present ed for re v iew

. The appel lan t c ontends that : 1) [ T]he tr ial co u rter ro neous ly dec ide d tha t t he St ate h ad re butte d a presumpt ion of un cons ti tuti onal v ind icti v eness w it h re g ard to prosec uti ng att or ney s' reci si on of a pretr ial plea offer fav orabl e to the D efendant, w hic h offer w as re jected b y

the Defendantpr ior

to tr ial as a resul t of

p rio r coun sel 's prov en inef fectiveness. 2) [ T]he tr ial cour

t er ro neous ly

refused to per mit w it hdraw al of De fe n d a n t ' s p le a s o f

gu il ty. 3) [ The] appl ic ati on of T ennes see Cod e Anno tated § 40 -3 5- 117( c) to thi s D efendant of fends equal protecti on guaranti es of Ar ti cl e I, § 8 of t h e C onst it uti on of the Stat e of Tenness ee and/or the Four

teent h Amendment , § 1, t o the U nit ed St ates Con sti tuti on. 4) [ T]he s entenc e i mposed by the tr ial co urt i s e x ces si v e. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med. On D ecember

8, 1980, the Dav ids on County Grand Jur

y indi cte d the appel lan t, Sam John Pass arell a, an d Ll oy d Ear l Car ro ll , J r. , for two counts of agg ra v ated ki dnappi ng . The
v icti ms were El iz abeth R. H udson and Mo n ty Al le n Hudson

. Ms . H udson w as re lea sed unh arme d. Mr. H udso n w as mu rd e re d . On July24, 19 81, the Davidson Gran d Jury ind icted t he appe ll ant for two co u n ts of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng and one c ount of murder in the first deg re e. The st ate made an o ffer of settl ement t o the appel lan t pr ior to t ri al. I f the appel lan t entered pl eas of gu il ty

to les ser i ncl uded offenses, the sta te ag re ed to re commend that the tr ial co urt i mpose a s entenc e of two ( 2) years. The appel lan t reje cte d the offer upon the adv ic e of coun sel

. A j ur y conv icted the a ppel lan t of two c ounts of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng and one count of

m urder in the first deg re e. The ju ry se ntenc ed th e appel lan t t o l ife i n the Dep artment of Cor re cti on for murde r and c onfineme nt for forty ( 40) y ears i n the2

De p a rt m e n t o f

Co rre ct io n in ea ch co u n t o f aggra vat e d kid n a p p in g. The appel lan t mov ed th e tri al cour t for a new tr ial foll ow ing hi s c onv icti on. One o f the g roun ds w as the d enia l o f h is co nstitu tiona l right t o the ef fective assistance of

coun sel. T he trial cou rt, f inding tha t trial counse l advi sed th e ap pellan t to reject t h e p le a bargain agreem entw ithou t ade quately i nformin g him of "all the aspe cts of the case and of the risks involv ed in re

jecti ng the ple a," g ra nted the appel lan t a new tr ial

. The sta te ap peal ed th e judgme nt of

the trial court. This Court af f irmed t he trial co urt's decision t o granta new trial. Stat e v . J ames H ow ard Tur ner , D av ids on C ounty N o. 83 -2 87- III ( Tenn. C ri m. App. , Nashvill e, Au gust 7, 198 4), per. ap p. de nied (Ten n. 19 84). Defense counsel and the d is tr ict attor ney g eneral dis cus sed the s ettl ement of the three offenses follo w ing the appeal

. The di str ict attor ney g eneral made an offer

of tw enty (2 0) y ears, the mini mum puni shment for ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng . The appel lan t reje cte d the o ffer . The appel lan t t hen mov ed th e tr ial co urt t o req uire the di str ict attor ney g eneral to reinsta te th e original of fer o f se ttlem ent , tw o (2) y ears. T he trial cou rt ordered the district attor ney g eneral to rein sta te t he or ig ina l offer of two (2) ye ars. T his Cour t, hol din g thatthe trial court abu sed its discretion , rev ersed the judgme nt of the trial court. State v . Tu rner, 713 S. W .2d 3 27 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), ce rt . denied, 479 U. S. 9 33, 1 07 S. Ct . 407 , 93 L.Ed. 2d 360 (1986 ). T he a ppe llant sub sequen tly sought habe as corpu s relief in the United State s Distri ct Cou rtfor t he M idd le Di str ict of Tenness ee. The Di str ict C our t ordered the dist ri ct attor ney g eneral to rein sta te t he or ig ina l offer of settl ement un les s h e c oul d ov ercome a presumpt ion of v ind icti v eness . Turner v . Tenness ee, 664 F . Su pp. 1 113, 1126 ( M. D. Tenn. 1 9 8 7 ). T h e S i xt h Ci rc u itCo u rto f A p p e a ls a f

f ir m e d t h e Di s t ri ctCo u rt

. T u rn e r v. Tenness ee, 8 58 F .2d 1 201 (6th Cir . 1988). The Si xth Ci rc uitheld that the di str ict attor ney general w as required to reinsta te the origi nal of fer unle ss it could est ablish th at its failure to do so w as "not t he productof pro secutor ial v ind icti v eness ." 858 F .2d a t 120 9. The Uni ted S tates Supreme C our t g ra nted the w ri t of

cert iorar i. Tenness ee v . Turner , 492 U .S. 902 , 109 S.Ct. 32 08, 106 L.E d

. 2 d 55 9 (198 9). Th e Sup reme Court ent ered a sum ma ry order and re manded t he ca se to t he Si xth C ircui t for further co nsi derati on i n v iew

of it s deci si on i n Al abama v . Smi th, 490 U .S. 794, 109 S.C t. 2201, 104 L. Ed.2d 865 ( 1989)

. ThePar ham v. State, 885 S. W .2d 3 75, 3 79 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 1 199 4). 3 Si xth C ircui t i n tur n re manded the cas e to the D is tr ict C our t for re cons ide ra ti on i n v iew of Smit h. The Di str ict C our t aba ndoned the p ro sec utor ial v ind icti ven e ss anal y si s fol low ing
re mand. The cour

t hel d tha t t he appropr iat e remedy w as to req uire the Sta te t o rein sta te the orig inal of

fer of tw o (2) y ears. T urne r v . Te nne ssee, 726 F. Supp . 111 3, 11 17-1 8 (M.D. Tenn. 1989 ). The S ixth C ircui t ag re ed w it h the distr ict c our t t hat S mith di d noteffectthe
re medy

. Turner

v . Tennes see, 940 F. 2d 1000 -0 1 ( 6th C ir . 199 1)

. Howe v er , t he Si xth Circuit reinsta ted the " v indictivene s s " a nalysis. T he Sixth Circuit said that " the case [sh oul d] be retur ned t o the s tate forum w here the prosec uti on may resc ind i ts or ig ina l ple a offer onl y upon ov ercomi ng a presumpt ion of v ind ictiven e ss ." 940 F. 2d at1002. The Uni ted S tates Supreme C our t den ied ce rt iorar i. Tenness ee v . Tur ner , 502 U .S. 1050, 112 S.C t. 915 , 1 1 6 L .Ed.2d 815 (1 992)

. The di str ict c our t s ubseq uentl y

ente re d an order
re q uir ing thatthe tr ial co urt c onduct a hear ing to deter mine if the dis tr ict attor ney g eneral could ov ercom e the presum ption of v indictiveness. The tr ial co urt hel d an ev ide nti ar y hear ing pursu ant to the order of the Di str ict C our

t. The cour

t c oncl uded t hat t he di str ict attorn e y g eneral ov ercame t he presumpt ion of
v ind icti v eness . The appel lan t subs eq uentl y entered pl eas of gu il ty to the t hree offenses
as prev iou sl y

i ndi cat ed.

I.

A.

T he a ppe llant w as faced with the op tion o f plead ing not guilty , guilty , or nolo cont end ere. Plead ing no t guilty a nd going to trial w as no t a v iable o ption . Th e stat e's case 1 ag ain st the a ppel lan t was ov er w hel ming

. As prev iou sl y st ated, the appel lan t w ent to t ri al and was conv icted o f ( a) murde r in the firs t deg re e and sent enced to li fe an d ( b) two c ounts of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng and sent enced to ser v e forty y ears for

eac h c ount.See W eather ford v . Bu rs ey , 429 U .S. 545, 561, 97 S.C t. 837, 846, 51 L. Ed.2d 30, 2 43 ( 1977) ; St ate v . H odg es, 815 S.W .2d 1 51, 1 55 ( Tenn. 1991) ("[ t]here i s n o obl ig ati on on th e par

t of the Stat e to offer

any benefitor

adv antag e to the d e fe n d a n t by reason of enter ing a g uil ty

pl ea") ; St ate v . C one, 665 S. W .2d 8 7, 94 ( Tenn.) , c ert. deni ed, 467 U .S. 1 2 1 0 , 1 0 4 S

. C t

. 2 4 0 0 , 8 1 L

. E d

. 2 d 3 5 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( s t a t e ' s re fu s a l t o offe r a c c u s e d a l i fe sent ence in a capita l case did n o tc o n s titute an "im prop er or selective prosecutio n" ); Par ham v . St ate, 885 S. W .2d 3 75, 3 82 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per. app. denie d ( Tenn. 1994 ) ("t he s tate is not re q uired to eng ag e i n pl ea barg ain ing "); W il li ams v . State, 491 S.W .2d 862, 867 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1972) , cer t. deni ed (Tenn. 1973) ("t here [w as] no obl ig ati on on the part of

the St ate to of

fer any bene f it or advantage to a defend a n tb y r e a son o f his [pl eadi ng g uil ty]") ; Har ri son v . St ate, 455 S.W .2d 617, 618 (Tenn. C ri m. App. ), ce rt . den ied (Tenn. 1970)( "[t] here i s n o c ompuls ion on t he par t of t h e S tate.

. .to enter

i nto [ ple a] neg oti ati ons") . As a corol lar y to thi s rul e, the cour

ts hav e held that an accus ed does not hav e a c onst it uti onal r ig ht t o eng ag e i n pl ea barg ain ing

. Ma br y v . J ohnso n, 46 7 U .S. 504, 507, 104 S. Ct . 254 3, 25 45- 47, 8 1 L.E d .2 d 4 3 7 , 442 ( 1984) ; W eather ford, 429 U .S. at 561, 97 S. Ct . at846, 51 L .Ed. 2d at42; Sta te v . W ashi ng ton, 661 S. W .2d 9 00, 9 04 ( Tenn. Cr im. App. 1983) , c er

t. deni ed, 4 67 U .S. 1208, 104 S. Ct . 239 4, 81 L.E d.2d 351 ( 1984)

. T his rule is predicate d up on th e the orythatplea ba rg aining is part of the district attor ney g eneral' s b ro ad c harg ing di sc re ti on, n amely , i f a n d wh e n a prosec uti on i s t o be ins ti tuted , t he preci se charact er of the o ffense to charg e, an d, on ce ins ti tuted , w hether the prosec uti on s houl d be dis mis sed or the nature of the offense reduce d to a l ess er i ncl uded offense. Se e St ate v . Tur ner , 713 S.W .2d 3 27, 3 30 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied (Te nn. 198 6); W . LaFa v e & J. Isreal, Crimina l Procedu re § 20. 3 at 79 5 (198 5).
4 Al thoug h the st ate was not req uired to engag e i n pl ea barg ain ing w it h the appel lan t, 2 defense co u n se l req uest ed an offer of settl ement. The s tate subs eq uentl y made
a lt e rn a t ive o f

fe rs . Fi rs t , t h e st a t e a gre e d t o re c o m m e n d a n a ggre ga t e se n t e n c e o f twe n tyfiv e y ears i f (a) th e appel lan t ent ered a ple a of g uil ty to two c ounts of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng and one c ount of acce ss or y before the fa ctto murde r in the s econd deg re e, and ( b) the appel lan t w oul d agree to for feit t he c re ditfor t he ti me he s pent in jai l before h e
w as g ra nted a new

tr ial

. Seco nd, t he s tate ag re ed th at t he appe ll ant c oul d ple ad g uil ty to two c ounts of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng and one count of acc ess or y before the fact t o murder in the s econd deg re e w it hout a recommendati on of puni shment

. The appel lan t was not required to forfeit the jail credit h e ha d am assed if he opte d for the se cond of fer. The appel lan t w as rep re sent ed by a seas oned an d abl e defense attor ney . Cou nsel prov ide d the appel lan t w it h a c opy of the l etter

contai nin g the sta te' s alt er nati v e of fers. The appel lan t and co unsel had numerous dis cus si ons about the two of fers. C ounse l adv is ed the a ppel lan t t hat h e woul d ex pla in the rami ficat ion s of each offer , but the appell ant h ad to de term ine w hich of

fer h e w ant ed to accep t. B oth a greed t hatt he app ellantcould no t risk g oin g to tr ial g iv en th e ov er w hel ming ev ide nce of his g uil t. T he a ppe llant acce pte d the of fer t o plea d w ithou t a recom me nda tion a s to sent ence so that he c oul d recei v e c re ditfor t he ti me he ha d prev iou sl y se rv ed. In other w ords, theTh e a p p e l l a n ts t a t e d i n h i s " P e t i t i o n t o E n t e r P l e a o f G u i l ty " t h a th e w a s ente ri ng 3 a "bes t i nterestpl ea of g uil ty " to thi s o ffense. The or i g i n o f t h i s s t a n d a rd i s a s t a t e m e n tm a d e b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S up r em e 4 Court in Kerch eval v . United Sta t e s , 2 7 4 U.S. 22 0, 47 S.Ct. 58 2, 71 L.Ed . 100 9 (192 7). In K e rch e val, the C our t s tated : "Out of jus t c onsi derati on for persons ac cus ed of cr ime, cour ts are c areful th at a ple a of g uil ty sh all not be ac cept ed unl ess made volu ntar il y after proper adv ic e and w it h full understa ndi ng of the c onseq uence s." 274 U. S. a t 223 , 47 S.C t. at 58 3, 71 L.E d. at1012. W hil e thi s s tatement co nst it uted dict a bas ed upon the is sue before t h e C o u rt , it w as q uoted w it h approv al in Ma chi broda v . U nit ed St ates , 368 U .S. 487, 493, 82 S. Ct . 510 , 513 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 473, 478 (1 962)

. In Tennessee , this statementw as q uoted w it h approv al in Brooks v . St ate, 187 Tenn. 67, 7 2, 21 3 S .W .2 d 7, 9 ( 1948)

. In Stat e ex rel. Bar nes v . H enderson, 220 Tenn. 719, 727, 423 S.W .2d 4 97, 5 01 ( 1968) , our Sup reme Court, citing Brooks, said: "It is recogniz ed in this Sta te, as in a ll ju ri s d ic tions, that a pl ea of g uil ty

mustbe made v olu ntar il y and w it h full understa ndi ng of it s cons eq uence s." 553 S.W .2d 337 (Ten n. 19 77). 5 Te n n . R. C rim. P. 1 1( c) (1 ); H enderson v . M org an, 4 26 U .S. 637, 647, 96 S. Ct

. 6 225 3, 22 58, 49 L.E d.2 d 10 8, 11 5-16 (1976 ). 5 a p p e ll a n tch o s e t o ga m b le o n t h e se n t e n c e t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtm ig h tim p o s e . Ap p a re n t ly, the a ppel lan t t houg ht t hat t he tr ial co urt woul d i mpose a s entenc e i n the v ici n it y o f thir ty y ears. The c re ditfor t ime ser v ed woul d make a sent ence of t hir ty y ears more benefic ial than a twenty-fiv e y ear se ntenc e w it hout the c re dit

. The appel lan t ent ered pl eas of g uil ty to two c ounts of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng and
one c ount of acce ss or y before the factto murde r in the s econd deg re e w it hout a 3
re commendat ion of

punish ment at the submi ss ion heari ng . Later , the tr ial co urt s entenc ed the a ppel lan t t o an ag g re g ate s entenc e of forty-five yea rs a t the c oncl usi on of the
se n te n cin g he a rin g.

B.

W hen t he appe lla n t a n n o u nced his i ntent ion to enter the ple as of gu il ty , t he tr ial
c o u rtwa s re qu ire d t o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r th e p le a s we re b e in g vo lu n t a ri ly, u n d e rs t a n d in gl y, and k now ing ly

ente re d. Pu rs uant to R ule 11( c) , Tenness ee Rul es of C ri minal Procedu re ,

4 and our Supreme C our

t' s d eci si on i n S tate v . M ack ey , the tr ial co urt was re q uired to 5 p e rso n a lly ad d re ss th e ap p e lla n t in op e n co u rtan d exp la in th e fo llo wing: a) t he nat ure of the offenses to w hic h the pl eas are offered; 6Tenn. R . C ri m. P. 11( c) (1 ); se e Pi tts v . U nit ed St ates , 763 F .2d 19 7 , 200 -0 1 ( 6th 7 Cir. 1985). T enn . R. Cr im. P. 11(c)(2). 8 T enn . R. Cr im. P. 11(c)(3). 9 T enn . R. Cr im. P. 11(c)(3). 10 T enn . R. Cr im. P. 11(c)(3). 11 T enn . R. Cr im. P. 11(c)(3). 12 T enn . R. Cr im. P. 11(c)(3). 13 See B ra dy v . Uni ted Stat es, 397 U. S. 7 42, 7 48, 9 0 S. Ct .1463, 1469, 25 L .Ed. 2d 14 747 , 756 (1970 ); Johnso n v . Stat e, 83 4 S.W .2d 922 , 924 (Ten n. 19 92). T enn . R. Cr im. P. 11(c)(4). 15 T enn . R. Cr im. P. 11(c)(5). 16 6 b ) t h e m a n d a t o ry m in im u m p e n a lt y a n d t h e m a xim u m p e n a lt y p re s c ri b e d b y la w; 7
c ) h is r ig h tto be rep resen ted byan att orne y , and , if indigent, his right to ha ve c ou ns el a pp oi nt ed t o rep res en t hi m; 8 d) his r ight to plead n o tg u il ty or persist in tha t plea if such a plea was prev iously entered; 9
e ) h is ri gh tt o t ri a l b y ju ry; 10 f ) his rig ht to the assista nce o f coun sel if

the ap pellan t opt s to go to trial; 11 g) his righ tto co n f ro n t a n d cro ss -e xam in e th e st a te 's w it n e ss e s if he el e ct s t o go to trial; 12 h) hi s p ri v il eg e ag ain st compul sor y se lf-i ncr imi nati on, w hic h c oul d hav e been i n v o k e d i f

h e e l e ct s t o g o t o t r i a l , a n d t h a tt h e e n t r y o f a p l e a o f

g u i l ty c o n s t i t u t e s s e l f- 13 inc ri minat ion ; 14 i)a ple a of g uil ty

w aiv es the r ig ht t o a t ri al, and onl y a s entenc ing hear ing w il l be
co n d u ct e d fo llo wing th e su b m iss io n he a rin g; 15 j)t he tri al ju dg e could ask the appell ant q uest ion s about the of fenses to w hic h he
w as ple adi ng g uil ty , and , if the appel lan t was re q uired to ans w er the q uest ion s u nder

oath , his ans w ers c oul d l ater

be u sed ag ain st him in a prosec uti on for per jur y or fals e s tatement if h e d id n o ta n s we r t h e qu e s t io n s t ru t h f u ll y; 16 k) a different or

addi ti onal puni shmentm ay resul t by reason s o f his pr ior

co nv icti onsSta te v. M ackey, 553 S.W .2d 337 , 341 -42 (Te nn. 197 7). 17 Ma ck ey , 553 S.W .2d a t 341

. 18 Sta te v. M cClintock, 73 2 S.W .2d 268 , 273 (Ten n. 19 87). 19 Ten n. R

. C r i m. P

. 11 ( f) ; C ha mb er l ai n v . St at e, 81 5 S. W .2 d 53 4, 53 9 ( Ten n. C r i m. 20 App . 199 0); see Unite d Sta tes v. Goldberg, 862 F.2d 10 1, 10 4 (6th Cir. 198 8). Tenn. R . Ap p. P . 11( d) ; Cha mberl ain , 815 S.W .2d a t 539

. 21 Ma ck ey , 553 S.W .2d a t 341

. 22 Tenn. R . C ri m. P. 11( d) ; Cha mberl ain , 815 S.W .2d a t 539

. 23 553 S.W .2d 337 (Ten n. 19 77). 24 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S. Ct. 170 9, 23 L.Ed .2d 274 (1969 ). 25 7 or othe r factors w hic h may be e sta bli shed after the e ntr y of his pl ea; 17 l) evidence o f

any pri or conviction could be prese nte d for conside ration in det ermin ing the app ropriate pun ishm entfor the o f fense s to w hich ple as of g uilty w ere bei ng ente re d; and 18 m) the jud g ments of conv icti on fo r th e o f fenses to w hic h he w as ple adi ng g uil ty coul d be used to en hance the puni shmentfor a su bseq uent offense. 19 The tr ial co urt al so w as re q uired to dete rmi ne w hether there was a fact u a l b a sis for t he app ellant 's pleas of

g uilty, the ple as w ere be ing vo lunta rily ente red, the ap pellan t's 20 21 und erstan ding of

the ef fect of his plea s of

g uilty, and w het her the app ellant 's w illing ness

22 to pl ead g uil ty

w as due t o di sc uss ion s b etw een t he dis tr ict attor ney g eneral and t he
a p p e ll a n to r a p p e ll a n t ' s a tt o rn e y b e fo re a c c e p t in g t h e a p p e ll a n t ' s p le a s o f gu il ty. 23 T he tran script o f

t he subm ission hea ring mu st esta blish on its fa ce tha t the trial court subs tanti all y

co mpli ed w it h the mandates of R ule 11, Tenness ee R ule s o f Cr imi nal Proced ure, th e tea chings of State v. Macke y , a nd Bo y kin v . Alaba ma . How ever, these 24 25 author it ies do n ot de sc ri be th e preci se nature and extent of the col loq uy thatmustappear on th e face o f

the tra n s c ri p tb e fo re the trial court can accep t the pleas of g uilty. As this Cou rtsa id in Cha mberl ain v . St ate:

Ne i t h e r B o y k i n n o r R u l e 1 1 d e s c r i b e s t h e n a t u re and extent of th e c o lloquy

thatmustappear

on t he face o f the transcript b efore the trial ju d ge ca n acce pt th e de fend ant 's ple a. It is c le a r, how ev er , t hat t he ex pla nati ons g iv en by the tr i al j udge a nd t he i nq ui r i es h e mu s t ma k e ne ed n ota s s um e "any predet e rm ined, r it ual is ti c for m" or a "pa rt ic ula r li tany ". [si c] Nor is a "c atec his m" of the c onst it uti onal r ig hts w aiv ed by815 S.W .2d at 540 (fo otn ote s omitt ed). 26 See State v . Neal , 810 S.W .2d 131, 139 (Tenn. 199 1) ; Cha mberl ain , 815 S.W .2d 27 at 54 1. See, e.g ., Boy ki n v . Al abam a , 3 9 5 U.S. at 24 4, 89 S.C t. at 17 13, 2 3 L.E d.2d at

28 280; W il ls v . St ate, 859 S. W .2d 3 08, 3 09- 10 ( Tenn. 1993 ); M ack ey , 553 S.W .2d at 341- 42; Cha mberl ain , 815 S.W .2d at 540; Ledford v . Stat e, 708 S. W .2d 4 19, 4 20- 21 ( Tenn. Cr im. App. 1985) , per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 1986 ); St ate v . Mi ll er , 634 S.W .2d 6 15, 6 17- 18 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 1981)

. Brady v . U nit ed St ates , 3 9 7 U.S. 742, 747, n.4, 90 S. Ct . 146 3, 14 68, n .4, 25 29 L.Ed. 2d 747, 756 n.4 (197 0) ("[t] he req uirement that a pl ea of g uil ty mustbe i ntel li g ent a nd v olu ntar y to be v ali d has l ong been re cog niz ed") ; B o y ki n, 39 5 U .S. at 24 4, 89 S.C t. at 171 3, 23 L.Ed .2d at 280 (pleas of guilty mu st be " v olun tarily and und erstan dingly

ente red" ). 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L. Ed. 2d 1 62 (19 70). 30 8 the e ntr y of a g uil ty

pl ea req uired. .

. . No court can formu late a precise proce dure o r standa rd that must be us ed in e veryca se. The na ture of the offense, the p uni shmentfor t he offense, and the int ell ect ual l ev el of the d e fe n d a n t will vary f ro m ca se to ca se . Ho wever, a tri a l ju d ge shoul d as k a su ff ic ien t number of q uest ion s t o ens ure tha t t he defendant und ersta nds and apprec iat es the ef fect of hi s p lea and t he defendant is ente ri ng the ple a freel y and v olu ntar il y . .

. . 26
If the transc ri pt of

the submi ss ion heari ng does not show co mpli ance w it h R ule 11, Boy ki n, M ackey, a n d M cCl int ock , or thatthe defendant was aw are of hi s o r her r ig hts t h ro u gh o t h e r m e a n s , t h e t ra n s c ri p t wil l n o t e s t a b li s h t h a t t h e gu il ty p le a s we re vo lu n t a ri ly, 27 understa ndi ng ly , and i ntel li g entl y ente re d. W hen t his oc curs, an appe ll ate c our t mus t find that the p lea s o f gui lty

do not pass cons ti tuti onal muster , setas ide the ple as of gu il ty and sent ence s, and rema nd th e case s to the trial court for f urthe r proceed ings. 28 In t he ca se sub j udi ce, the tr ial co urt c ompli ed w it h the req uirements of Rul e 11, T enn essee Rules of

Cri min al Proced ure, Bo y kin, Mackey and McClintock. Th is Cou rt must now determ ine w het her the pleas en tered bythe ap pellan t pass con stitutio nal m uste r.

C.

T h e Un it e d S t a t e s S u p re m e Co u rth a s ru le d t h a t a gu il ty p le a m u s tb e vo lu n t a ri ly, understa ndi ng ly , and i ntel li g entl y ente re d to pass co nst it uti onal m ust er . I n N orth C aroli na 29
v . Al ford, the Supreme C our t s aid that"[t]he s tandard was and remai ns w hether the ple a 30400 U .S. at 31 , 91 S.C t. at 16 4, 27 L.E d.2d at 16 8. 31 Stat e ex

rel. Bar nes v . H enderson, 220 Tenn. 719, 727, 423 S.W .2d 4 97, 5 01 32 (196 8); see W ills v . Sta te, 859 S.W .2d 308 , 309 (Te nn. 199 3) ("to be v alid, a defend ant 's g uil ty pl ea mus t be entered freel y and v olu ntar il y "); Bl anken shi p v . Stat e, 85 8 S. W .2d 8 97, 904 ( Tenn. 1993 ) ("t he c ore req uirement of Boy ki n i s ' that no g u il ty pl ea be acc epted wit h o u ta n a f

f ir m a t ive sh o win g t h a ti twa s i n t e ll ig e n ta n d vo lu n t a ry' " ); St a t e v. Mo n t go m e ry, 840 S. W .2d 9 00, 9 03 ( Tenn. 1992 ) ("[ t]he f act s p re sent ed i n thi s c ase do notmeet the re q uirement t hat a know ing and v olu ntar y plea inc lud es the inte nti onal rel inq uis hment or abandonme n t o f know n r ig hts "); J ohnso n v . St ate, 834 S. W .2d 9 22, 9 23 ( Tenn. 1992 ) ("[ t]he d u e p ro c e s s p ro v i s i o n o f t h e fe d e ra l c o n s t i t u t i o n re q u i re s t h a tp l e a s o f g u i l ty be knowing and v olun tary"). See N orth C aroli na v . Al ford, 400 U .S. 25, 3 7- 8, 91 S.C t. 1 60, 1 67, 2 7 L.E d.2d 33 162, 171- 72 ( 1970)

. Brady , 397 U .S. at 74 9, 90 S.C t. at 14 69, 2 5 L.E d.2d at 75 7. 34 446 F.2d 61 (6th Cir. 1971 ). 35 446 F .2d a t 63. 36 Spar ks v . So w ders, 852 F.2d 882, 885 (6th Ci r. 1988); Caudi ll v. Jag o, 74 7 F .2d 37 104 6, 10 50 (6th Cir . 198 4); Brown v . Perini, 71 8 F.2d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 (6th Cir. 1983 ); Cha mberl ain , 815 S.W .2d a t 542

. 9 re present s a v olu ntar

y and int ell ig ent choi ce among the alt er nati v e courses of act ion open to th e de fend ant ." In this jurisdict io n, ou r Suprem e Court ha s said in this regard: "It is 31 recogniz ed in th is State , as in all jurisdictions, tha t a plea of g uilty mu st be m ade v olun tarily and w it h f ull unders tandi ng of it s c onseq uence s." This st andard i s a ls o appl ied w hen t he 32
acc used ple ads g uil ty

bec ause iti s i n hi s o r her bes t i nterest

. 33 In de ter mini ng w hether a pl ea of g uil ty

w as v olu n ta rily, understa ndi ng ly , and int e lli g entl y

ente re d, t his C our

t, li ke the t ri al cour

t, must cons ide r all of the rele v ant ci rc umstan ces thatex is ted w hen t he plea w as entered. In Coc hran v . N or v ell the Si xth 34 35 Circuit Court of

Appe als said tha t "a review ing cou rt m ay look to any relevant e v iden ce in the record of the proceed ing s -- inc lud ing post -c onv icti on proceed ing s -- to de ter mine the
v olu ntar ine ssof a g uil ty pl ea." I n s hor

t, w hether

an a cc used' s p lea of g uil ty w as 36
v olu ntar il y , understa ndi ng ly , and know ing ly entered is to be deter mined based upon t he tota lity of the circum stan ces. 37 I n t h e c a s e s u b ju d ic e , t h e a p p e ll a n t ' s p le a s o f gu il ty we r e vo l u n t a ri ly, understa ndi ng ly , and i ntel li g entl y ente re d. The total ity of the c ircums tanc es sur ro undi ng the e ntr y of the p lea s o f gui lty , t he hi sto ry of thi s c ase, the transc ri pt of t h e su bmis si on hea ring, and the docu me nts execute d by the a ppe llant supp ort this con clusion. The onlyThe appel lan t s tated i n the aff ida v ithe ex ecut ed and attac hed to his pro s e moti on 38 t o w i t h d ra w

h i s p l e a s : " H a d I k n o w n t h a tt h e j u d g e w a s g o i n g t o i mp o s e s u c h a s t i ff sent ence a s 4 5 y ears, w hich coun sel assure d me t hatt he judge w ould n ot be of any such int enti ons to do so , I woul d hav e nev er entere d gu ilt y

pl eas to t he herein menti oned ind icted o f

fe n ses ." (C ounse l w ho represent ed th e appel lan t atthe submi ss ion hear ing emphati cal ly

deni ed ev er

tel li ng the appel lan t t hat e it her ( a) he c o u ld w it hdraw

hi s p lea s if the sen ten ces exceede d tw ent y -f iv e y ears or (b) the trial court would not set a sen ten ce in excess of

tw ent y -f iv e y ears). Toll ett v . H enderson, 411 U. S. 2 58, 2 67, 9 3 S. Ct . 160 2,1608, 36 L .Ed. 2d 235, 243 39 (1 973) ; M cM ann v . R ic hardson, 397 U. S. 7 59, 766, 90 S.C t. 1441, 1446, 25 L. Ed.2d 763, 770 ( 1970) ; Brady

v . Uni ted Stat es, 397 U. S. 742, 748, 90 S.C t. 1463, 1468- 69, 2 5 L.E d.2d 747 , 756 (1970 ); McC ord v. Hend erson , 384 F.2d 13 5, 13 6 (6th Cir. 1 967 ); S tate v . W ilkes, 684 S. W .2d 6 63, 667 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 1984) ; Pa tterson v . St ate, 684 S. W .2d 1 10, 1 11 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 198 4); Dona ld s o n v. Rose, 52 5 S.W .2d 853 , 856 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p.), cer t. d e nie d ( Tenn. 1975 ), Ol iv er , J ., conc ur ri ng ; G ar re tt v . St ate, 534 S. W .2d 3 25, 3 28 (Tenn. C ri m. App. 1975) , c ert. deni ed ( Tenn. 1976 ); Beaty v . Nei l, 4 Tenn. Cr im. App. 86, 93, 4 67 S. W .2d 8 44, 847- 48, cer t. deni ed (Tenn. 1971) ; Littl e v . Stat e, 4 Tenn. Cr im. App. 175, 177, 469 S. W .2d 537, 538, cer t. deni ed ( Tenn. 1971 ); Tidwell v . H enderson, 2 Tenn. Cr im

. A p p . 4 1 5 , 4 1 6 -1 7 , 4 5 4 S

. W

. 2 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 6 , ce rt

. d e n ie d (T e n n . 1 9 7 0 ); I n gra m v. Hen derson, 2 Tenn. C ri m. App. 372, 379- 80, 4 54 S.W .2d 167, 170- 71, c ert. deni ed ( Tenn. 1970) ; St ate e x

rel. W y att v . H enderson, 2 Tenn. Cr im. App. 288, 295, 453 S. W .2d 4 34, 438 ( 1969) , c ert. deni ed (T e n n . 1 9 70) ; Bl and v . St ate, 2 Tenn. Cr im. App. 77, 8 1, 45 1 SW .2d 6 99, 7 01 ( 1969) , cer t. deni ed (Tenn. 1970) ; Mc Fer re n v . St ate, 1 Tenn. Cr im. App. 688 , 69 2- 93 , 44 9 S. W .2 d 72 4, 7 25
- 26 ( 19 69 ) , c er t. d en i ed ( Ten n. 1 97 0) ; S ta te e x rel. Law re nce v . H enderson, 1 Tenn. C ri m. App. 199, 210, 433 S.W .2d 9 6, 10 1, c ert. deni ed (1 968) ; St ate e x

rel. Georg e v . Hen derson, 1 Tenn. Cr im. App. 142, 152, 432 S. W .2d 4 92, 496, cer t. deni ed ( Tenn. 1968 ). 2 T enn . Crim. App . at 29 5, 45 3 S.W .2d at 438 (citations om itted ). 40 10 re ason the a ppel lan t s oug ht to hav e his ple as w it hdraw n was his di ss ati sfacti on w it h the sent ences imposed by

the tr ial court

. T his Cour t w il l now addres s the practi cal and leg al 38
e f fe cto f a p le a o f

gu il ty.

D.

T he ent ry

o f a plea of

g uilty, w hich is v olun tarily , und erstan dingly , and intelligently
e n te re d , c o n st it u te s a w a iver o f a ll p ro ce d u ra l a n d co n st it u ti o n a l d e fe ct s in th e pro ce e d in gs tha t occurred prior to the ent ry of the plea

. In State ex rel. W y att v. Henderso n, th is Court 39 sai d:
The r u l e h a s l o n g b e e n fi r ml y e s t a b l i s h e d a n d s e tt l e d that a

ple a of g uil ty , und ersta ndi ng ly and v olu ntar il y

ente re d on the adv ic e of coun sel , cons ti tutes an admi ss ion of all facts al leg ed and a w aiv er

of all n o n -j ur is dicti onal and procedu ra l defects and con st it uti onal i nfir miti es, i f any , i n any pr ior st ag e of the p ro ce e d in g. 40Ing ra m, 2 Tenn. C ri m. App. at 378- 79, 4 54 S. W .2d at 170; M cF er re n, 1 Tenn. 41 Cr im. App. at 69 2, 44 9 S. W .2d a t 726

. Ing ra m, 2 Tenn. C ri m. App. at 378- 79, 4 54 S. W .2d a t 170

. 42 Bl and, 2 Tenn. Cr im. App. at 79 -8 1, 45 1 S. W .2d a t 700 -0 1. 43 Bl and, 2 Tenn. Cr im. App. at 79 -8 1, 45 1 S. W .2d a t 700 -0 1. 44 Stat e ex

rel. Edmonds on v . H enderson, 220 Tenn. at610- 11, 4 21 S.W .2d at 63 7- 45 38. Ing ra m, 2 Tenn. Cr im. App. at 37 6- 79, 4 54 S. W .2d a t 169 -7 0; Mc Fer re n, 1 Tenn.

46 Cr im. App. at 69 2, 44 9 S. W .2d a t 725 -2 6. 11 T he app ellate co urts of

t his Sta te have held t hatsu ch issues as (a) the volunta riness of a confession , (b) an unrea sona ble sea rch and seiz ure, (c) the den ial of a prelim inary 41 42 hear ing , ( d) the syste mati c ex cl usi on of a par ti cul ar race or gender f ro m the g ra nd j ur

y that 43
re tur ned t he i ndi ctmentag ain st the a cc used, (e ) the pla ci ng of a l etter on t he face o f the 44 ind ictment ind ic ati ng the acc used' s race, and (f) the syste mati c e x cl usi on of a par ti cul ar 45 race or gende r from the pa nel of prospe ctiv e jurors are w aived when the a ccused ente rs 46 a g uil ty pl ea that passe s cons ti tuti onal must er . Of course, there are many addi ti onal i ss ues t h a tm a y b e wa ive d b y a p le a o f gu il ty. This C our

t mus t now

address the propr iety

of w it hdraw ing a pl ea of g uil ty a fte r an acc used has been s entenc ed.

E.

The w it hdraw al of a pl ea of g u ilt y is g ov er ned by R ule 32( f), Tennes see Rul es of Criminal Proce dure . Th is rule states:

Am o t i o n t o w i t h d ra w

a p l e a o f g u i l ty

m a y b e m a d e u p on a showing by the defend antof any fair and just reason only before s entenc e i s i mposed; butto cor re ct manifesti nju sti ce, the c our t after se ntenc e, bu t before the j udg ment bec omes final , mayset asid e the j udg ment of co nv icti on and per mit the defendant t o w it hdraw

hi s p lea

. The ru le creates two s tandards for det er mini ng w hether an a cc used shoul d be per mitt ed to w it hdraw

a pl ea of g uil ty

. The proper st andard to be appl ied by the tr ial co urt dep ends upon w hen th e ac cus ed fil es the mot ion to w it hdraw the ple a. W hen t he moti on i s fil edSee State v . Dav is, 823 S.W .2d 217 , 219 -20 (Te nn. Cri m. App. 199 1). 47 Capri Adu lt Cinema v . Stat e, 53 7 S.W .2d 896 , 898 (Ten n. 19 76). 48 Sw ang v . Stat e, 42 Te nn. (Cold.) 212, 2 13-1 4 (186 5). 49 Sw ang , 42 Tenn. at214- 15. 50 Dav is , 823 S.W .2d a t 220

. 51 Ray v . Stat e, 22 4 T enn . 164 , 170 , 451 S.W .2d 854 , 856 (1970 ). 52 Cap ri Adul t C ine ma, 537 S.W .2d a t 898

. 53 See Henn ing v . Sta te, 184 Ten n. 508, 511-13 , 201 S.W .2d at 669 , 670 -71 (194 7). 54 12 pr ior to the i mposi ti on of sen tenc e, t he s tandard to be appli ed is "a fair and jus t reason ." W hen the m otion is filed a f ter the impo sition of

sente nce, the s tan dard to be a pplied is "manifesti nju sti ce. " I n thi s ca se , the appel lan t fil ed th e moti on to w it hdraw hi s p lea s o f guilty af ter he was senten ced. Th e refore, th e "m anifest injust ice" sta nda rd is applicab le to t he facts i n thi s c ase. 47
(1 )

T h e t e rm " m a n ife s tin ju s t ic e " is n o t d e f in e d b y e it h e r t h e ru le o r t h e ca s e s t h a th a ve appl ied the ru le. W hether there has been "manifesti nju sti ce" must be det er mined by the trial courts and the ap pellat e cou rts on a case bycase ba sis. A trial court ma y

perm it the wi thd raw al of a plea o f

g u il t y t o prevent "m anifest inj ust ic e" w hen i t i s e sta bli shed that the p lea wa s e n te red due to ( a) "co erci on, fraud, dure ss or mistake ," (b) "fear," (c)a "gross m is re p resen tatio n" mad e by the district 48 49 attor ney g eneral, or

an a ss is tant, ( d) the dis tr ict attor ney g eneral , o r a n as si sta nt, 50
w it hhol ds m ater ial , ex cul pator y ev ide nce, w hic h i nfluenc es the e ntr y of the p lea , or

the 51 ple a of g uil ty w as not v olu ntar il y , understa ndi ng ly , or know ing ly entered. C onv ersel y , a tr ial
cour t w il l not, as a g eneral ru le, per mit the w it hdra wal o f a p lea of g uil ty

to prev ent "m anifest injust ice" when the basis of the re lie f

is predicate d up on (a) an a ccused 's "chang e of hear

t," ( b) the entr

y of the p lea to av oid harsher puni shment, or

( c)an 5 2 53
a c c u s e d ' s d is s a t is fa ct io n wit h t h e h a rs h p u n is h m e n tim p o s e d b y a t ri a l c o u rto r a ju ry. 54 The acc used has the b urden of es tabl is hin g thatthe ple a of g uil ty sh oul d beUni ted S tates v . W ashi ng ton, 341 F. 2d 277, 281 (3 rd Ci r. ), cer t. deni ed, 3 82 U .S. 55 850 , 86 S. Ct. 96, 15 L.E d.2 d 89 (1965 ). Sta te v. An derso n, 645 S .W .2d 2 51, 2 53-5 4 (Te nn. Crim. A pp. 198 2); 8A Moore's 56 Fede ra l Pract ic e § 32.09[ 1] at p.32- 87 (1 991 Rev is ion ). In Anderson thi s Cou rt sai d: "A defend antd oes nothave the un ilateral rig ht to w ithdra w a guilty plea on ce sub mitt ed where the p lea had been volu ntar il y and int ell ig entl y

made." 645 S.W .2d a t 254

. Hen nin g , 184 Tenn. a t 513 , 201 S.W .2d at 671; State v . D ra ke, 720 S.W .2d 7 98, 57 799 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 1986 ); Anderson, 645 S.W .2d a t 254

. Hen nin g , 184 Tenn. a t 513 , 201 S.W .2d a t 671 ; Drake, 720 S. W .2 d a t 799 ; 58 Anderson, 645 S.W .2d a t 254

. 13 w it hdraw n to prev ent "mani fest i nju sti ce. " I n det er mini ng w hether the acc used has 55
car ri ed th is burden, the tr ial cour t must deter mine w hether the acc used and any

w it ness es present ed to es tabl is h thi s s tandard are c re dib le.
(2 )

An ac cus ed i s n ot en ti tl ed to w it hdraw a pl ea of g uil ty

as a matter

of ri g ht. 56 W het her the accuse d sho uld be perm itted t o w ithdra w a p lea of

g uilty is a q uest ion th at is address ed to the sound di sc re ti on of t he tr ial cour t reg ardle ss of w hen t he moti on i s fil ed. 57 An ap pellat e court w ill not interfere w ith the ex ercise of this discretion unless clea r abuse appears o n the face of the re cord. 58 This C our

t mus t now

address the g ro unds rais ed bythe appel lan t for the w it hdraw al
o f h is p le a s o f

gu il ty.

F.

T he a ppe llant asse rts sev eral reaso ns w hy he sh ould be permitt ed to w ithdra w his ple as of gu il ty

. He arg ues that his m e d ic al probl ems, his l ack of understa ndi ng of the ele ments of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng , the tri al cour t' s l ack of jur is dicti on to ac cepta pl ea to
acc ess or y before the factto murde r sec ond, and the req uirement that he forfeitcredi t for time serv ed either individually or collectively rende red his plea s of

g uilty involuntary. He conclu des th at th e trial court ab used its discret ion by denying his mo tion to w ithdra w his plea s.14 (1 )

The appel lan t cont ends that he w as sufferin g from "sev eral seriou s m e dic al prob lem s, ma ny of

which in hibite d his ability to knowledgeably an d inte llig ent ly rev iew his ple a barg ain ing opti ons. " The record does not suppo rtthi s c ontent ion

. The appel lan t apparentl y suffered from hi g h bl ood press ure. This w as treated w it h medic ati on; and he w as re cei v ing thi s medi cat ion w hil e he w as confine d to the D av ids on Coun ty Jail. He also suf fered f rom a rthritis a nd bursitis in his rig ht arm a nd sh ould er. He
w as g iv en a musc le re laxant for the pai n created by thi s condi ti on. On J anuar y 18, 1993, he was re ferred to the Me tropol it an Ge neral Hos pit al for w hat was lat er di ag nosed as pne um onia and conjun ctiv itis. He was giv en m edica tion for these cond itions. The atto rn ey

w ho represent ed th e appel lan t pr ior t o a n d dur ing the submi ss ion hear ing refuted thi s c ontent ion

. The atto rn ey st ated dur ing the hear ing on t he moti on to with d ra w the pleas : "[H ]e was usual ly ok ay but not, y ou k now , noti n top co ndi ti on." Accordin g to th e att orne y , the app ellant 's conditio n w as "co mm on wi th pe ople . . .in the jail
w ho hav e be e n t h e re for a w hil e." The atto rn ey made i t c lea r that the a ppel lan t was mental ly co mpetent and had the cl ear ness of mi nd to cons ide r the offers of s ettl ement as
we ll a s e n t e r t h e p le a s o f gu il ty. The ap pe l l an t te s ti fi ed th at he w as mo ti v at ed to en te r pl ea s of g ui l tydue to his physical conditio n an d he w ant ed to leave the jail "on e way or anot her." How ever, this tes ti mony

w as in directco nflict w it h the swor n s tatement s h e made d ur ing the submi ss ion h e a rin g. T h e fo llo wing co llo quy o cc u rre d du rin g th e su b m iss io n he a rin g:

THE C OU RT: Any body broughta ny

press ure on y ou or threa ten ed you in any way to m ake you plea d guilty against y our w ill? THE D EFE ND AN T: W ell , not d irectl y , Your H onor . Hea lt h conce rns ente r into it in my min d som ewhat o f st aying w here I am. It 's j usta no te. THE C OU RT: W ell , w hat d o you mean by that ? THE D EFE ND AN T: W ell , I' v e had pneumoni a s inc e I' v e been th e re , and I' v e been si ck more tha n I w as myprev iou s t hir ty y ears, so I real ly

woul d l ik e to lea v e the re . THE C OU RT: Are you te ll ing me th at's why you're pl eadi ngSee B er ndtv. St ate, 733 S. W .2d 1 19 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . di smi ss ed 59 (Te nn. 198 7). Law re nce v . St anford, 655 S.W .2d 927, 929- 30 ( Tenn. 1983 ); St ate v . D av is , 751 60 S.W .2d 167 , 171 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p.), pe r. app. den ied (T enn . 198 8). 15 gu il ty? T HE DEFENDANT: No, Y our Hono r, that's n o tm y primary [reaso n], b ut th at is one I want ed to ex press. T HE CO UR T : W e ll , wh y a re yo u p le a d in g gu il ty? T HE DEFENDANT: Becau se I believe it's in my best inte rest at t his poi nt. T HE CO UR T : Ot h e r t h a n yo u r h e a lt h p ro b le m s t h a tyo u ' ve tal ked about, w hy

el se is i t i n your

bes t i nterest ? T HE DE FENDANT: I believe the S tate ca n prese nt evidence w hich a jury might, in my m ind, f ind me guilty beca use the y did before.
It is obv io u s that the appel lan t' s p hy si cal co ndi ti on di d noti nhi bit"hi s a bil ity to know led g eabl y

and int ell ig ently re v iew hi s p lea barg ain ing opti ons. " The ai lment s 59 outl ine d in the re cord are common. Al l of t he condi ti ons are treatabl e w it h m e d ica ti on. Mo re ov er , t he ev ide nce sug g est s t hat the m e d ica tion th e appel lan t was tak ing had no ef fect up on h is men tal facultie s. Th erefore, th is g roun d is basele ss.
(2 )
The appel lan t c ontends thathe d id not understa nd th e el ements of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng . Fi rs t, thi s i ss ue was nei ther rais ed nor

l it ig ated in the tr ial cour t. Ithas been
ra is ed for the first ti me on ap peal

. Seco nd, t he record does not suppo rtthi s g ro und. This i ss ue has been w aiv ed. A par ty may not ra is e an is sue for the first ti me i n the app ellate court. How ever, this Court w ill consid er the issue on the merits. 60 T he a ppe llant w as tried and conv icted of tw o coun ts of agg rav ate d kidna ppin g. He
w as prese nt in the courtroo m when the trial court instructed the jury on the elem ent s of

this of fense . W hen the ap pellan t ent ered the ple as of guilty , the followi ng colloquy took pla ce betw een t he appe ll ant a nd th e tr ial co urt:

T HE COURT: Mr. T urne r, have you gone ov er these charges,16 the tw o aggravated ki dnappi ng as w ell as now the amended charg e of acc ess or

y before the fact of s econd deg re e murder wit h yo u r a tt o rn e y? THE D EFE ND AN T: Y es, Y our H onor , I hav e. THE COU RT: H av e you di sc uss ed w it h hi m in deta il the facts upon w hic h the se charg es are bas ed? T HE DEFENDANT: Y es, Your Honor. THE C OU RT: I know w e'v e been throug h thi s b efore. In fact, w e'v e been throug h a w hol e tr ial before, so prob a bly the answer to some of

my question s are self-ev iden t, b u t I'm charged by law

to go through the se question s w ith y ou so w e'll g o throug h the m. S o you had no ques ti ons w hats oev er about thes e c harg es ag ain st y ou? THE D EFE ND AN T: N o, s ir , I don' t t hin k s o.
W hen th e t ria l court ask ed hi m about the fact s rela ted b y the ass is tant dis tr ict attor ney general, th e ap pellan t app lied the facts to the aggrav ate d kidna ppin g cases. This appl ic ati on s hows t hat t he appe ll ant was v ersed in the e lement s o f this offense. In t he "Pet it ion to Enter Pl ea of Gui lty ," the a ppel lan t s tated : 3. I rece ive d a copy of th e indictm entor informa tion, w hich sta tes the charg e( s)agai nstme, b efore I w as re q uired to pl ead to t he charg e( s)

. I hav e read and di sc uss ed th e i ndi ctmentor in fo rm a t io n wit h m y a tt o rn e y.

*** *** *** * 5. My l awy er h a s told me an d I understa nd th e defini ti onal ele ments of the cri me(s ) I am charg ed w it h; that is , my l awy er has ex pla ine d to me w hat t he St ate h as to prov e beyond a reaso nab le dou bt to convict a person of the of fense (s).

*** *** *** * T hus , I be l i ev e I pres en tl y u nd ers ta nd e v er

y c ha rg e ag ainst me . (emph asis add ed).
T he a ppe llant signed th e pe tition. At tach ed to the pe tition is a "Certif icate o f Defend ant 's Cou nsel ," w hic h was ex ecut e d by co unsel

. The cer

ti ficat e s tates ( a) the infor mati on conta in e d i n t h e petiti on was tr ue and acc urate a nd ( b) he h ad read and di sc uss ed th e cont ent w it h the appel lan t "i n i ts enti re ty ." The appel lan t was ask ed abou t t he pet it ion duri n g the su bmis si on hear ing

. The follo w ing co ll oq uy

oc cur re d betw een t he appe ll ant a nd th e tr ial co urt:
THE C OU RT: N ow , you hav e s ubm it te d a w ri tten peti ti on to enter a pl ea of g uil ty , and y ou s ig ned t hat p eti ti o n . Did y ou17 carefull y read t he pet it ion ? T HE DEFENDANT: Y es, Your Honor. T HE CO UR T : Go o ve r i twit h yo u r a tt o rn e y? T HE DEFENDANT: Y es, Your Honor. THE C OU RT: D id y ou unde rs tand ev er ythi ng y ou read? THE D EFE ND AN T: I bel iev e s o. THE C OU RT: Any

q uest ion s a bout it ? THE D EFE ND AN T: N o.
Thi s g ro u n d i s a l s o b a s e l e s s . Th e a p p e l l a n t a d mi tt e d c o u n s e l h a d e x p l a i ned t he elem ent s of

the of fense of agg rav ate d k id n a p p in g to him , the state had to prove these ele ments bey ond a re asona ble doubt , and he understo od the ele ments of t he offense of ag g ra v ated ki dnappi ng . T h e t ria l cour t as ked the a ppel lan t abo ut t he pet it ion and it s cont ents , and the a p p e llant sai d tha t he understo od th e al leg ati ons cont ain ed i n the peti ti on. Cou nsel ex ecut ed a cer ti ficat e s tati ng thathe cov ered th e c ontentof the p eti ti on
w it h the appel lan t i n det ail

. Mo re ov er , t he appe ll ant was abl e to rela te t h e facts to the ele ments of this offense after the a ss is tant dis tr ict attor ney general st ated w hat t he s tate
w ould prove i f

the case had g one to trial.T e n n . R. A p p . P

. 2 7 (a )( 7 ) an d (g ); T e n n . Ct

. Cr im

. A p p . Ru le 1 0 (b ); se e S t a t e v. 61 Ki ll ebrew , 760 S.W .2d 228, 233 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 1988 ); St ate v . G il ber t, 751 S. W .2d 4 54, 462 (Tenn. Cr im. App.) , per. app. denied (Tenn. 1988) ; Stat e v . Mo ore, 713 S.W .2d 670, 675- 76 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1985) , per . app. d e n ie d (T enn. 198 6). Law re nce v . St anford, 655 S. W .2d 9 27, 929- 30 (Tenn. 1983) ; Stat e v . D av is , 751

62 S.W .2d 167 , 171 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p.), pe r. app. den ied (T enn . 198 8). See State v . Hill , 847 S.W .2d 544 , 545 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 92). 63 Tenn. R

. App. P. 13( b) ; see Stat e v . Se ag ra v es, 837 S.W .2d 6 15, 617- 18 ( Tenn. 64 Cr im. App.) , per . app . den ied ( Tenn. 1992 ); Sc ale s v . W ins ton, 760 S. W .2d 9 52, 9 53 (Te nn. Ct. App. ), per. app . den ied (T enn . 198 8). 18 (3 )
The appel lan t c ontends that"[t]he t ri al cour t was arg uabl y

w it hout ju ris d icti on to accep t [his] plea as an acce ssorybefore the fact to second degree mu rder, in tha t the re is no s how ing thatany

murder took pl ace w it hin D av ids on C ounty ." Fi rs t, thi s is sue w as not l it ig ated in the t ri al cour t. Ithas been ra is ed for the first ti me on appeal

. Sec ond, the app ellantdoe s not sta te w here these facts can be foun d in the record. Th ird, the reco rd does not s uppor

t t his g ro und. This i ss ue has been w aiv ed. The appel lan t doe s n ot t ell thi s C our t w here the facts
w hic h es tabl is h tha t t he tr ial co urt did not hav e jur is dicti on of t he murde r cas e can be found in the record. Al so, a pa rty m a y n o t rais e an is sue for th e first ti me i n the appel lat e 61 court. How ever, since it ma y be a rg ued thatv enu e raises a jurisdiction al issue, and this

62 63 Cou rti s req uired to determ in e wh e th er a t ri al cour

t has j ur is dicti on of a par ti cul ar cont rov ersy , this issue w ill be co nside red on the m erits.

64 The in dictment re tur ned by the Dav ids on County

Grand Jur

y st ates thatthe murde r
w as commi tted in Dav ids on C ounty

. The transc ri pt of the pr ior tr ial is not cont ain ed i n the record. The state me nt of the facts made during the sub mission hea ring doe s not est ablish tha t the murd er o c c u rred out side of Dav idson Count y . Consequen tly , this groun d is base less as w ell.395 U.S. 711 , 89 S. Ct. 207 2, 23 L.Ed .2d 656 (1969 ). 65 395 U.S. at 71 8-19 , 89 S. Ct. at 207 7, 23 L.Ed .2d at 665 -66 (foot not e om itted ). 66 Tenn. C ode An n. § 40- 2 3 -1 0 1 (b ); see M arsh v . H enderson, 221 Tenn. 42, 424 67 S.W .2d 193 (1968 ); Stub bs v . Stat e, 21 6 T enn . 567 , 575 -76, 39 3 S.W .2d 150 , 154 (1965 ). 19 (4 )
The appel lan t c ontends thathe was enti tl ed to credi t for j ail ti me prev iou sl y se rv ed fo r t h e o f fe n s e s a ll e ge d in t h e in d ic t m e n t

. He a rg u e s t h a tt h e d e n ia l o f t h is ri gh tis vio la t ive of the D o u ble Je opardy C lau se cont ain ed i n the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on and the Tenness ee C onst it uti on. In N orth C aroli na v . Pearce the Uni ted S tates Supreme C our t hel d tha t w hen an 65
accuse d h as his or her conviction set asid e after serv ing time in jail and th e accu sed is subs eq uentl y

co nv icted o f the s ame or a le ss e r in cl uded offense, the D oubl e J eopardy Cl ause re q uires that the acc used be g iv en c re ditfor t he ti me spe nt i n j ail before the i nit ial
conv icti on was setas ide

. The C our t s aid :
W e ho ld tha t the constitu tiona l gu aran tee against mu ltiple p u n ish ments for th e s ame offense absol utel y req uires that puni s hm en t al rea dy

e x acte d mu s t be ful l y "c red i te d" in i mp os i ng s en te nc e up on a ne w c on v i cti on for the s am e of fense . If , upo n a new trial, the defend ant is acquitted , the re i s n o w ay

t he y ea rs h e s pe nti n pr i s on c an b e ret ur ne d to h i m. But if he is re conv icted, thos e y ears c an and must be retur ned
-- by subt racting them f rom whateve r new sente nce is impos ed. 66
In this j ur is dicti on, i t i s s tatut or il y req uired th at an ac cus ed be g iv en c re ditfor t ime spent in jai l pr ior

to conv icti on. 67 In t he c ontext of thi s c ase, thi s q uest ion is moot. The appel lan t sel ect ed the p lea bargain agreem entthatdid notimpa ir his rig ht to cred it for t he tim e he spen t in jail before he was conv icted fol low ing hi s p lea s o f gui lty . Mo re ov er , the tr ial cour t ordered th at t he app ellant 's sente nces b e credite d w ith the time sp entin jail. If thi s i ss ue w as not moot, the appell ant w oul d not be en ti tl ed to reli ef f ro m hi s p lea s of g uilty on th is g roun d. T he a ssistantdistrict a ttorn ey general w as no t required to ma ke an offer of settl ement. Mo re ov er , i t was per mis sibl e for the a ss is tant dis tr ict attor ney g eneral to mak e ac cept ance of the twenty-five y ear offer of settl ement c onti ng ent u pon t heSee S tate v . M ahl er , 735 S.W .2d 226 (Tenn. 1987) ; Mi ntzv . St ate, 808 S. W .2d 68 459, 462 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1990) , per . app . den ied ( T e n n . 1 9 9 1) ; Brooks v . St ate, 756 S.W .2d 288 , 291 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p.), pe r. app. den ied (T enn . 198 8). Ma hle r, 735 S.W .2d a t 228

. 69 20 appel lan t forfei ti ng hi s r ig ht t o c re ditfor t he ti me he ha d prev iou sl y se rv ed. A ple a barg ain ag re ement i s n ot a uni lat eral under tak ing on t he par

t of the st ate. The a cc u sed maybe req uired to make conc ess ion s i f he or sh e des ires to ac ceptthe of fer. In State v . Mahler the Te nne ssee Su prem e Court he ld tha t an accu sed ca n ba rg ain 68 to pl ead g uil ty

to an enh a nced ra ng e of puni shmental thoug h he does not q ual ify for sent enci ng w it hin the ran ge. If the acc used acc epts the offer and ple ads g uil ty , t he sent ence is v ali d and enforc eabl e. In t his ca se, the ri g ht t o c re ditfor c onfinement pr ior 69 to t he presentco nv icti on w as personal to the appel lan t, and he had t he r ig ht, if he wanted to ac ceptthe offer , t o w aiv e hi s r ig ht t o the credi t. In summary , the state' s offer of tw enty-fiv e y ears w as v ali d. The appel lan t was not
re q uired to ac ceptthe offer . I n fact, the appel lan t reje cte d thi s o f fe r a n d ac cept ed th e a lt e rn a t e o f

fe r. T h e o f

fe r c e rt a in ly d id n o tre n d e r t h e a p p e ll a n t ' s p le a s o f gu il ty in vo lu n t a ry.

II.
The appel lan t contend s that the tri al cour t "inc or re ctl y

appli ed the l aw

i n det er mini ng that the S tate re butte d the presumpt ion of uncon sti tuti onal prosec utor ial v ind icti v eness ." T h e st a t e a rg u e s t h a tt h is is s u e wa s wa ive d wh e n t h e a p p e ll a n te n t e re d h is p le a s o f gu il ty. T he sta t e f u rt h er argues thatthis issue can notbe raised in an ap pea l as of rig ht. In h is
re ply br ief, the appell ant ass erts thathe is entitl ed to appell ate rev iew of this iss ue pursuant to R ule 3( b) , Tennes see Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re , and R ule 37( b)(ii i) , Tennes see Rul es of Cr imi nal Procedu re .See Capri Adult Cinem a v . Stat e, 53 7 S.W .2d 896 , 899 (Ten n. 19 76) ("ord inarily 70 there c an be no appeal from a ple a of gui lty "); Ray

v. State, 224 T enn. 164, 167- 71, 4 51 S.W .2d 8 54, 8 55- 56 ( 1970) ; Mc Intur ff v . Stat e, 207 Tenn. 102, 106, 338 S. W .2d 5 61, 5 63 (1 960) ; Pa tterson v . St ate, 684 S.W .2d 110, 111 (Tenn. Cr im. App. 1984) ; Roe v . St ate, 584 S. W .2d 2 57, 259 (Tenn. Cr im. App.) , cer t. deni ed (Tenn. 1979) ; Ing ra m v . H enderson, 2 Tenn. Cr im. App. 372, 381, 454 S. W .2d 1 67, 1 71, c ert. deni ed ( Tenn. 1970 ); M cF er re n v . St ate, 1 Tenn. Cr im. App. 688, 693, 449 S.W .2d 724, 726 (1969) , cer t. deni ed ( Tenn. 197 0). 207 Tenn. at 10 6, 33 8 S. W .2d a t 563

.

71 See C ommitt ee C omments to Tenn. R . Ap p. P . 3( b) and Tenn. R . C ri m. P. 37. 72 21 A.

Pr ior to th e e n a ctmentof the Tennes see Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re and the Tenness ee R ule s of C ri minal Procedu re , an acc used, as a g eneral ru le, co uld not appeal follo w ing the entr

y of a g uil ty

pl ea. I n M cIn tur

ff v . St ate o ur

Supreme C our

t s aid : 70 [I] t is ax iomat icthatthe defendant, hav ing co nfessed jud g ment for th e fine and c ost s, had no ri g ht t o app e a l. . .bec ause no one can ap pea l eithe r in a criminal or a civ il case from a v erdict on a ple a of g uil ty

or a j udg ment bas ed u p o n c onfessi on of li abi li ty

. Therefore, t he attempted appeal was a c omplet e nul li ty and coul d by no means hav e any effectupon the s tatus of the defendant w ho had se cu re d h is rele ase as a matt er of ri g ht by tak ing adv antag e of the absol ute ri g ht prov ide d him. .

. . 71
There w ere few

ex cept ion s t o thi s c ommon l aw r ule

. As ti me prog ress e d , itw as re cog niz ed th at a li mite d r ig ht t o appea l follo w ing the ent ry of a plea o f

g uilty or nolo co nte nde re could p re ve n tt h e nece ssity of a trial w hile si mult aneous ly

protecti ng an a cc used' s r ig ht t o appel lat e rev iew of dis posi ti v e i ss ues and is sues that w ere not w aiv ed by the entr y of s uch a pl ea. W hen t he Tennes see Rul es of 72 Cr imi nal Procedu re w ere enacted i n 1978 and t he Tennes see Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re w ere enacted i n 1979, prov is ion s were made for appeal s o f r ig ht foll ow ing the entr y of a pl ea of g uil ty

or nol o c ontende re . Rule 37 (b)(2), Ten n. R. Crim. P., provides:
An appeal li es from any order or jud g ment in a crim ina l proceed ing w h e n t h e l aw prov ide s for

su ch appeal , and from any j udg ment of co nv icti on:

*** *** *** * ( 2 ) U p o n a p l e a o f g u i l ty o r n o l o c o n t e n d e re i f:See S tate v . Prest on, 759 S.W .2d 647 (Tenn. 1988) ; Stat e v . Bo w li n, 87 1 S. W .2d 73 170 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1993) ; Patt erson v . St ate, 684 S. W .2d 1 10 ( T enn. Cr im. App. 198 4). 22

(i ) defendant entered int o a ple a ag re ement un der R ule 11( e) but ex pli ci tl y

reser v ed w it h the consentof the Stat e and of the court th e rig ht to app eal a certif ied questio n of law thatis dis posi ti v e of the cas e; or (i i) defendant seeks rev iew of the s entenc e s et an d the re w as no pl ea ag re ement un der R ule 11( e) ; or (i ii ) the er ro r( s)complai ned of w ere notw aiv ed as a matter of law bythe ple a of

g uilty or nolo co nte n dere , or othe rw ise w aiv ed, a nd i f such er ro rs are apparent from the re cord of the proceed ing s a lready

had; or (iv ) defend antex plicitly reserv ed wi th th e conse nt of the cou rt t h e ri gh tt o a p p e a l a ce rt if ie d qu e s t io n o f la w t h a tis d is p o s it ive of the c ase. Rule 3(b), T enn . R. App. P., w hich is predica ted upo n Rule 37 (b), state s:

In c ri minal acti ons an appe al as o f r igh t by a de fendant l ies from any j udg ment of co nv ictio n entered by a t ri al cour

t from w hic h an appeal lies to the Supreme Cour t or Cour t of C ri minal Appeal s: ( 1) on a pl ea of not g uil ty ; and (2 ) on a ple a of g uil ty or nol o c ontende re , i f the defe n d a nt en tered i nto a pl ea ag re ement bu t ex pli ci tl y reser v ed w it h the consentof the st ate and t he tr ial co urt the ri g ht to appea l a c erti fied q uest ion of law dispo sitiv e of

the act ion, o r if the defend antseeks revi ew of his sent ence and there was no ple a a gr eem entconce rning his sent ence, or

if the i ss ues present ed for re v iew w ere notw aiv ed as a matt er

of law by the ple a of

gui lty or nolo conte ndere and if su ch iss u e s a re a p p a re n t f ro m th e re co rd o f th e pro ce e d in gs already had.
T he a ppe llant did not atte mp t to comply w ith the ma nda tory requireme nts of Rule 37(b )(2)(i ) or ( iv ), Te nn. R. Cr im. Ap p. The refore, th e question t hatthis Court mu st 73
re sol v e i s w hether

the appel lan t may

l it ig ate t his i ss ue purs uant to 3(b) , Tenn. R. App. P.,
or R ule 37( b) (2 )( ii i) , Tenn. R. C ri m. P.

B.

Befo re a n a c c used can litigate an issue on ap pea l unde r the guise of Rule 3(b), Tenn. R . Ap p. P ., or Rul e 37( b) (2 )( ii i) , Tenn. R. Cr im. P., the a cc used must est abl is h tha t (a ) the p lea of g uil ty

or nol o cont endere entered by the acc used did not re sul t in a waiv erSee Te nn. R. Cr im. P. 37(b)(2) Comm ittee Comm ent s. 74 See Uni ted Stat es v . Tay lor , 814 F .2d 1 72, 1 74 ( 5th C ir .) , c ert. deni ed, 4 84 U .S. 75 865, 108 S. Ct . 186 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 138 (1 987) ; Uni ted St a te s v. Fairchi ld, 803 F. 2d 1121 , 112 4 (11th Cir . 198 6). 684 S.W .2d 663 (Ten n. Crim. Ap p. 19 84). 76 684 S.W .2d at 667 (citation om itted ). 77 Com mitt ee Com me nt to Te nn. R. Cr im. P. 37(b)(2). 78 23 of the issue and (b) the facts sup portin g the issue are app aren t on th e face o f the reco rd memori ali z ing the proceed ing s i n the tri al cour t. T he C ommitt ee C omment ac company ing Tenn. R . C ri m. P. 37( b) (2 )( ii i)st ates thatthi s remedy "w il l appl y

in cases w here g uil t was not c ontes ted but the re cord cl ear ly re flect s an inv ali dati ng er ro r, suc h as the c lea r deni al of the right to coun sel or a co n vic t io n u nde r an inv alid stat ute . . . ." Th e object of this
reme dy is to prom ote judicial econ om y by correcting f und am ent al const itution al defects in the p ro ceedi ng s rather

than hav e the par

ti es li ti g ate the is sue in a s uitfor p ost -c onv icti on re l i e f. 74 T his Court conclu des that the app ellantmay not litigate this issue pu rsuan t to Rule 3( b) , Tenn. R. App. P., or R ule 37( b) (2 )( ii i) , Tenn. R. C ri m. P. Fi rs t, the i ss ue of prosec utor ial v ind icti v eness , w hether i t i s framed in the manner adv anced by

the appel lan t or the sta te, was waived w hen the ap pellan t ent ered the ple as of guilty to the of fense s in q uest ion

. I n St ate v . W il kes , thi s C our t s aid : 75 76
In i ts br ief, t he defendant ins is ts that thi s appeal i s p ursuantto T.R. Cr .P. Rul e 37( b) (2 )( ii i)and not 37(b) (2 )( i)

. This arg ument overlooks the fact th at a valid g uilty plea is an adm ission of all facts a lleged and is a waiv er of all non-

jur is dicti onal and procedu ra l defects and cons ti tuti onal i nfir miti es, i f any , i n any pr ior st ag e of the procee d in g. . . . R ule 37( b) (2 )( ii i)does not per mit an appe al of matters waiv ed as a matter of l aw by the guilty plea. W e thin k thatthe com mitt ee com me nts to th e rule are c or re ct. 77
Seco nd, t his rul e w as not desi g ned to remedy the ty pe of

error that has been ra is ed by the appel lan t. The tria l cour t hea rd ev ide nce, dete rmi ned t he c re dib il ity of the w it ness es tes ti fyi ng at the h ear ing , and appl ied l eg al pr inc ipl es in re achi ng i ts deci si on. This i s a far cry f rom th e c le a r d e n ia l o f a basic con stitutio nal right such as the rig ht to coun sel or a
conv icti on purs uant to a sta tute thatis obv iou sl y unc onst it uti onal

. Therefore, thi s i ss ue 78T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -112 (a) (R epl. 1 982 ). 79 T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -117 (c). 80 24 w il l not b e c onsi dered by thi s C our

t.

III .
The defendant c ontends that the sentenc e imposed by the tr ial courtw as ex ces si v e. Al thoug h the offenses i n q uest ion w ere c ommitt ed i n M arch of 1 9 8 0 , he arg ues that he shou ld have bee n sen ten ced p ursua nt to the T enn essee Cri min al Sen ten cing R eform Act of 198 9 rathe r tha n t h e pun ishm entin ef fect w hen the of

fense s w ere com mitt ed. He asserts th at th e exclusion cont aine d in T enn . Code Ann. § 40-35 -117 (c) is uncon stitutio nal. Both the 1 982 and 1989 Cr imi nal Sentenci ng R eform Acts ex cl uded ap pli cat ion of the A cts to cr imes thatoc cur re d pr ior to Jul y 1, 1982. The 1982 Actprov ide d: All person s w ho co mm it crimes on o r af ter July 1, 19 82, shall be trie d a n d s entenc ed unde r thi s c hapter

. For al l persons w ho co mm itted crim es prior to July 1, 19 82, the prior law shall appl y and shal l re main in full force and ef fect i n ev er

y respect, inc lud ing but not li mite d to sent enci ng , parole and probati on. 79
Si mil ar l ang uag e i s c ontai ned i n the 1989 Act :
For al l persons w ho c ommitt ed c ri mes p rior to Jul y 1, 1982, prior law shall ap ply and rema in in f ull force an d ef fect in every re spect, inc lud ing , butno t limited t o, s entenc ing , parole and probati on. 80
T he Com mission Comm ent s accom pan y ing this pro v ision in the 198 9 Act explain
w hy offe n se s co mmitt ed pr ior to Jul y 1, 1982, are treated differentl y than offenses commi tted after the e ffect iv e dat e of the 1982 A ct. The C ommis si on C omments sta te:

Subs ect ion ( c)prov ide s that cr imes co mmitt ed pr ior to Jul y 1, 1982 must be tri ed and sent enced under the law as i t ex is ted pr ior to that date. O ffenses thatoc cur re d pr ior to Jul y 1, 1982, w ere trea te d un de r th e v er y di fferen t i nd et er mi na te j ury sent enci ng st ru ctu re . Due to the ra dic al chang e i n s entenc ing procedu re s, the commi ss ion bel iev ed that itw as appropr iat e to re t a in p ri o r l a w a s t o t h o s e fe w ca s e s le f tin t h a tca t e go ry.
This C our

t has prev iou sl y

hel d tha t an acc used w ho commi tted an offense pr ior toSee Sta te v . H ar ri s, 678 S. W .2d 4 73, 4 76- 77 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied 81 (Tenn. 1984) ; Stat e v . Car ter , 669 S.W .2d 7 07, 7 08 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. ), per . app . den ied (Te nn. 198 4). Har ri s, 678 S. W .2d a t 476 -7 7; C arter , 669 S.W .2d a t 708

. 82 25 Jul y 1, 1982, but s entenc ed after the effect iv e dat e of the 1982 A ct w as not enti tl ed to be sent ence d pu rsuan t to the 198 2 Act. This m ean t tha t the accuse d in the se case s w ere 81 subj ectto the p re -A ct puni shment , a jur y , not the jud g e, w as to s et t he s entenc e, an d the ind eter minat e s entenc in g s ch e m e that ex is ted p ri or to the e ffect iv e dat e of the Actw as appl ic abl e. 82 The Tenn ess ee Ge neral Ass embly has the ex cl usi v e aut hor ity to desi g nate w hat condu ct is prohib it ed and the p uni shmentfor t hat c onduct. As a c oroll ar y , t he Ge neral Assem bly had the au tho rity to provide thatcrimes com mitt ed p rior to July 1, 19 82, would be e x em pte d f rom b oth the 19 82 a nd th e 19 89 Act s. Moreover, the Gen eral Assem bly did not v iol ate a ny

co nst it uti onal r ig ht g uaranteed to t he appe ll ant, o r a n y o ther c it iz en, b y exemp ting cri me s comm itted prior to July 1, 198 2, f rom b oth Acts. W hether thi s C our

t mak es an anal y si s b ased u pon t he s tr ict s cr uti ny tes t, as the appel lan t s ug g est s, or

the ra ti onal basi s tes t, as the sta te sug g est s, the re sul ts w il l be th e s a me . T h e a p p e l l a nt' s ri g h tt o D u e P ro c e s s w a s n o tv i o l a t e d b y t h e i mp o s i t i o n o f a sent ence based upon the law and puni shment that ex is ted w hen he commi tted the o ffense. T h is Co u rth a s re vie we d t h e a p p e ll a n t ' s s e n t e n c e s p u rs u a n tt o a p p li c a b le la w. These s entences are notex ces si v e g iv en th e c ircums tanc es of the offenses a nd th e e vide n ce ad d u ce d atth e se n te n cin g he a rin g. This i ss ue i s w it hout meri t.

_________ __________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ JO E B. JO NE S, J UD GE

CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

_________

___ JE RRYSC OTT, PR ESID IN G J UD GE26

_________

_________

_________

_________

___ PAU L G. SU MM ER S, J UD GE