Opinion ID: 1060561
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Boykin Claim on Direct Appeal

Text: We must next determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to hear and determine, on direct appeal, the voluntariness of Wilson's pleas of guilty. In Tennessee, the right to appeal a plea of guilty entered in the trial court is severely limited to those cases which fit within one of the narrow exceptions enumerated in Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b) or Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b). See Patterson v. State, 684 S.W.2d 110, 111-12 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984). Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b) provides: (b) An appeal lies from any order or judgment in a criminal proceeding where the law provides for such appeal, and from any judgment of conviction: ... (2) Upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere if: (i) Defendant entered into a plea agreement under Rule 11(e) but explicitly reserved with the consent of the state and of the court the right to appeal a certified question of law that is dispositive of the case; or (ii) Defendant seeks review of the sentence set and there was no plea agreement under Rule 11(e); or (iii) The error(s) complained of were not waived as a matter of law by the plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or otherwise waived, and if such errors are apparent from the record of the proceedings already had; or (iv) Defendant explicitly reserved with the consent of the court the right to appeal a certified question of law that is dispositive of the case. Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b). Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b) provides: In criminal actions an appeal as of right by a defendant lies from any judgment of conviction entered by a trial court from which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals ... (2) on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, if the defendant entered into a plea agreement but explicitly reserved with the consent of the state and the trial court the right to appeal a certified question of law dispositive of the action, or if the defendant seeks review of the sentence and there was no plea agreement concerning the sentence, or if the issues presented for review were not waived as a matter of law by the plea of guilty or nolo contendere and if such issues are apparent from the record of the proceedings already had. Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b). Wilson's appeal from his pleas of guilty does not fit within any of these exceptions. His appeal does not involve a certified question and, thus, cannot be addressed under Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(i) or (iv) or under Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b)(2). It does not challenge his sentence; accordingly, his appeal is not cognizable under Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(ii) or Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b)(2). The only exception into which Wilson's appeal may fit is Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(iii), which permits an appeal after a guilty plea if [t]he error(s) complained of were not waived as a matter of law by the plea of guilty ... or otherwise waived, and if such errors are apparent from the record of the proceedings already had .... Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(iii) (emphasis added); see also Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b)(2). The advisory commission comments to the rule explain that a defendant should be permitted to appeal under Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(iii) only in cases where the record clearly reflects an invalidating error, such as the clear denial of the right to counsel or a conviction under an invalid statute, wherein it would be judicially inefficient to require a post-conviction collateral attack when the error is apparent upon the face of the existing record.  Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(iii) advisory commission comments (emphasis added). Unlike the denial of the right to counsel or conviction under an invalid statute, whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a guilty plea will rarely, if ever, be apparent from a record of the proceedings already had.... Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(iii); see Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b)(2). Such is not apparent in the record before us; Wilson's claim that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered does not fit, therefore, within the exception provided by Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(iii). See Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(iii); see also Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b)(2). Wilson nonetheless insists that under this Court's decision in State v. Mackey , [9] his claim that his guilty plea was invalid because of an alleged Boykin error was properly before the Court of Criminal Appeals. Wilson's reliance on Mackey , however, is misplaced. While Mackey did involve a direct appeal from a guilty plea on the basis of a potential Boykin error, the decision contains no discussion as to the propriety of such an appeal. Moreover, Mackey was decided on June 20, 1977, prior to the effective dates of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure (July 13, 1978) and the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure (July 1, 1979). Significantly, both Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b) and Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b) restrict the right to a direct appeal from a guilty plea to the narrow exceptions previously enumerated. It is presumed that in ratifying both of these rules, the General Assembly was aware of our decision in Mackey . See Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn.1995). Accordingly, to the extent that Mackey could be read to allow a defendant a direct appeal from a guilty plea on the basis of an alleged Boykin error, that portion of Mackey has been superseded by the rules which limit the right to a direct appeal to the exceptions enumerated in Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b) and Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b). [10] Although we have found that Wilson's appeal does not fit within any of the exceptions under Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b) or Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b) and was therefore not properly before the Court of Criminal Appeals, Wilson may yet have redress. As suggested by the comments to Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(iii), the proper forum for asserting that a plea was not knowingly or voluntarily entered in accordance with Boykin is in a post-conviction proceeding. In Tennessee, post-conviction proceedings are available to defendants whose complaint is of constitutional dimensions. See State v. McClintock, 732 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tenn.1987). A petition for post-conviction relief is an application to the court ... that seeks to have [a] conviction or sentence set aside or an appeal granted on the ground or grounds that the conviction or the sentence or the denial of an appeal violated the state or federal constitution. Tenn.R.Sup.Ct. 28, § 2(A). Relief is granted when a conviction or sentence is void or voidable because of the abridgment of any right guaranteed by the Constitution of Tennessee or the Constitution of the United States. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-203 (1997). As part of the post-conviction procedure, a defendant may be entitled to an evidentiary hearing in which the petitioner has the right to testify. See Tenn.R.Sup.Ct. 28, § 8; Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210 (1997). During such a hearing, both parties may be permitted to take affidavits or depositions in addition to having the right to call and cross examine witnesses. See Tenn.R.Sup.Ct. 28, § 8; Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-210 (1997). Whether a plea was knowing and voluntary is an issue of constitutional dimension because [t]he due process provision of the federal constitution requires that pleas of guilty be knowing and voluntary. Johnson v. State, 834 S.W.2d 922, 923 (Tenn.1992) (citing Boykin , 395 U.S. at 243, 89 S.Ct. at 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d at 279-80). As the United States Supreme Court reasoned in Boykin : [a] defendant who enters such a plea simultaneously waives several constitutional rights, including his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, his right to trial by jury, and his right to confront his accusers. For his waiver to be valid under the Due Process Clause, it must be an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. Consequently, if a defendant's guilty plea is not equally voluntary and knowing, it has been obtained in violation of due process and is therefore void. Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243 n. 5, 89 S.Ct. at 1712 n. 5, 23 L.Ed.2d. at 280 n. 5 (citations omitted). Thus, a claim such as Wilson's, which asserts that a plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered, implicates his due process rights and therefore falls squarely within the ambit of issues appropriately addressed in a post-conviction petition. Post-conviction proceedings are also the appropriate forum for challenging guilty pleas on the basis of alleged Boykin errors because, as we have previously noted, the inquiry necessary for determining whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea may not be possible from the record of the proceedings already had .... Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2)(iii); see Tenn.R.App.P. 3(b)(2). For example, when inquiring whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea, a court must determine whether the defendant actually does understand the significance and consequences of a particular decision and whether the decision is uncoerced. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 401 n.12, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 2687 n.12, 125 L.Ed.2d 321, 333 n.12 (1993)(emphasis omitted). [11] In making such a determination, courts are instructed to ensure that the defendant is fully aware of the direct consequences [of the plea], including the actual value of any commitments made to him [or her] by the court, prosecutor, or his [or her] own counsel. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1472, 25 L.Ed.2d 747, 760 (1970) (citation omitted). Moreover, in order to knowingly and voluntarily enter a plea, the plea cannot be induced by threats (or promises to discontinue improper harassment), misrepresentation (including unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises), or ... by promises that are by their nature improper as having no proper relationship to the prosecutor's business (e.g. bribes); [12] it may not be the product of [i]gnorance, incomprehension, coercion, terror, inducements, [or] subtle or blatant threats. Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242-43, 89 S.Ct. at 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d. at 279. Finally, as we have noted, the core requirement of Boykin is `that no guilty plea be accepted without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary.' Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897, 904 (Tenn.1993) (quoting Fontaine v. United States, 526 F.2d 514, 516 (6th Cir.1975)). It will be difficult, and perhaps impossible, for an intermediate court, reviewing only the record of the plea submission hearing, to make an accurate determination of the knowing and voluntary nature of a plea. Post-conviction proceedings, however, permit the development of a record to fully examine whether a defendant understood his or her rights and whether he or she voluntarily waived them by pleading guilty. Finally, we note that we have often reviewed cases involving alleged Boykin errors in a post-conviction setting. For example, in Johnson, we reasoned that a previous version of the Post Conviction Procedures Act provide[d] the procedure for attacking a constitutionally defective conviction based on a guilty plea that was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, as required by Boykin .  834 S.W.2d at 925. [13] Thus, our holding, that challenges to guilty pleas on the basis of alleged Boykin errors are properly raised in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, is not a novel proposition. [14]