Opinion ID: 4572657
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-Conviction Appeal

Text: The Petitioner timely appealed the denial of his post-conviction petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals. He claimed that the post-conviction court erred when it concluded that he received effective assistance of counsel. Holland v. State, No. W2018-01517-CCAR3-PC, 2019 WL 1418278, at  (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 27, 2019), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Aug. 21, 2019). Additionally, he argued that “but for trial counsel’s failure to investigate (1) a coerced confession; (2) the validity of a bench warrant concerning an unrelated offense; and (3) a search warrant executed at [his] home concerning an unrelated case, he would not have entered his guilty pleas.” Id. at . The Petitioner did not raise any issues related to his concurrent state and federal sentences. The State argued that the post-conviction court properly denied the petition. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the post-conviction court, holding, in part, that the Petitioner waived the issue of the validity of the search warrant because he did not present the search warrant at the post-conviction hearing or include it -6- in the record on appeal. Id. at . The intermediate appellate court also held that, waiver notwithstanding, the testimony and evidence presented at the post-conviction hearing from Ms. Johnson and Captain Moore did not entitle the Petitioner to relief on this issue. Id. Further, the court held that the Petitioner was not entitled to relief on the claims of failure to investigate the bench warrant or the alleged coerced confession and that he “failed to establish the factual allegations in his petition by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at . Despite affirming the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition, the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded this case to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing to consider one issue: “[W]hether the Petitioner was advised of the consequences of entering a guilty plea based upon the agreement that his state sentence be served concurrently with a prior federal sentence.” Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals cited a lack of testimony at both the plea hearing and the post-conviction hearing on how the petitioner “settled his federal case, the extent to which there was coordination between federal and state counsel to resolve the matters, or whether the federal court agreed to allow the Petitioner to serve his anticipated state sentence in a federal facility.” Id. The court reasoned that although “serving a concurrent state and federal sentence is not prohibited by our law, see Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(2)(B), it has been roundly criticized by this court for its pitfalls.” Holland, 2019 WL 1418278, at  (citing Tennessee Court of Appeals case law). On remand, the court limited the hearing to the concurrent sentencing issue, but the court affirmed the post-conviction court’s denial of the Petitioner’s petition “[i]n all other respects.” Id. We accepted the State’s application for permission to appeal to this Court to address whether the Court of Criminal Appeals exceeded its authority under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 1995 (“the Act”) when it raised the concurrent sentencing issue sua sponte and remanded the case to the post-conviction court despite the fact that the issue was not raised or argued by either party at the post-conviction hearing or on appeal.