# FILED

December 31, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON DECEMBER 1998 SESSION
ISAIAH HIGGS, * C.C.A. # 02C01-9801-CR-00021 Appellant, * SHELBY COU NTY VS. * Hon. Arthur T. B ennett, Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE, * (Post-Conviction-First Degree Murder) Appellee. *

For Appellant : For Appellee : Linda K. Parson, Attorney John Knox Walkup 511 Jackson Street Attorney General and Repor ter Corinth, MS 38834 Marvin E. Clements, J r. Assistant Attorney Gener al Cordell Hull Buildi ng, 2d Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Glen Bait y Assistant District Attorney General Criminal Justice Center, Third Floor 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:__________________________

AFFIRMED
GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE2 OPINION The petitioner, Isaiah Hig gs, appeals the trial court's denial of postconviction relief. In this appeal of right, the petitioner claims that his g uilty pleas were neither knowi ngly nor voluntar ily entered. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings to the contrary by the trial court, the judgment is affirmed.

Whil e on trial for firs t degree a nd felon y murder, a ttempte d especia lly aggravated robbery, and four counts of attempted first de gree murder, the petitioner, on May 1, 1996, entered negot iated pleas of guilt to first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery (eight years), and two counts of attempted first degree murder (fifteen years on each). A life sentence was imposed for the first degree murder. As a resul t of the plea, the state withdr ew a demand for the death penalty. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences on all four counts.
On April 9, 1997, the petition er filed this petition for post -conviction relief alleging that hi s convictions wer e based upon involuntary guilty pleas "entered without understanding t he nature and consequences of the ple as" and contending that his trial counsel w

as ineffective for the failure to adeq uately investigat e the circumstances and communicate with his client. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial cour

t determined that defense counsel had met the professional guidelines of representation and further concluded as follow s: This court is satisfied that Petitioner was made fully aware of all the consequenc es of his guilty plea an d that he entered into such plea know ingly and voluntar

ily. Petitioner testified that he had r ead the guilty pleas and that he understood all the rig hts he was givin g up by pleading guilty. Petitioner alleges that he was forced to plead guilty because threats were being made against him and his family by tw o of his co-defendants. However, when ac

cepting the guilty

plea, petitioner made no mention of any threats being made to him. Petitioner3 fully understood that he w as entering the guilty

plea freely and voluntaril

y and [through revi ew of the transcript of the submission hearing] that no one could force or compel him to enter a plea of guil ty.
In this appeal, the petitioner has withdrawn his

claim that trial counsel was ineffective but persists in his argument that the pleas were neither knowingly nor voluntarily made.In a post-conviction proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving his alleg ations by and clear and con vincing evidence.Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-210(f). On appeal, the findi ngs of the trial court ar e conclusive unless the evidence preponderates other wise. Graves v. State , 512 S.W.2d 603 (Tenn . Crim. App. 1973).

In Boykin v . Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 (1969), the United States Supreme Court ruled that defendants s hould be advised of certain c onstitutional rights before entering g uilty pleas, includi ng the right against self-incrimination, the right to confront witn esses, and the right to a t rial by jury. Id. at 243. The overriding requirement under Boykin is that the guilty plea must be knowingly and voluntarily made. Id. at 242-44. If the proof establishes that the d efendant was aware of his constitutional rights , he is entitled to no reli ef. Johnson v. State , 834 S.W.2d 922, 926 (Tenn. 1992).

In our view, the ev

idence does not preponderate agai nst the trial court's determination that the pleas were knowing ly and voluntarily made. The transcript establishes that at the guilty plea proceeding, the petitioner was advised of his full panoply of constituti onal rights. See State v. Neal , 810 S.W.2d 131 (Tenn. 1991), overruled in part by , Blankenship v. State , 858 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1993).

Accordingly, the j udgment is affirmed.4 ________________________________ Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge CONCUR:

_____________________________ Thomas T. Woodall, Judge

_____________________________ John Everett Williams, Judge