Opinion ID: 4572657
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Conviction Petition and Hearing

Text: On October 17, 2016, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in the Hardeman County Circuit Court. The Petitioner raised the following issues in his petition: 1) his conviction was the result of an unlawful search and seizure, 2) his conviction was the result of an unlawful bench warrant, 3) he lacked effective assistance of counsel, 4) he had newly discovered evidence, and 5) the evidence used in the conviction was obtained illegally. He also claimed “other grounds.” In support of his claims, the Petitioner stated he was arrested based on a “fictious” bench warrant that he ultimately never received, and the search warrant in this case was defective because it was signed four to six hours after his home was searched. He also requested to have counsel appointed. The Petitioner did not raise any issues related to the voluntariness of his guilty plea or his concurrent state and federal sentences. -3- The post-conviction court concluded that the Petitioner “state[d] no specific reasons to support his petition,” and, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-106(d), the court ordered the Petitioner to submit an amended petition within fifteen days that included the necessary factual support for the requested relief. The Petitioner did not file an amended petition within the timeframe. As a result, the court dismissed his petition on January 31, 2017. Approximately one month later, the Petitioner moved the court to withdraw the dismissal and allow him to submit an amended petition based, in part, on the fact that he did not receive the court’s order directing him to amend his original petition. The court granted the motion. In the Petitioner’s first amended petition, he reiterated the same grounds for relief as stated in his pro se petition but included a lengthy factual basis to support the claims regarding the illegal search of his home, the faulty bench warrant, and the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, Ms. Shana Johnson. The Petitioner claimed that Ms. Johnson “barely spoke” to him and “never assisted [him] in any meaningful manner.” He also stated that Ms. Johnson failed to fully investigate his case and that she had conflicts of interest with the judge and assistant district attorney assigned to the case. The Petitioner did not raise any issues related to his concurrent state and federal sentences. After reviewing the first amended petition, the post-conviction court appointed counsel3 and gave the Petitioner an additional thirty days to submit a second amended petition with the assistance of counsel. In the second amended petition, filed on May 10, 2018, the Petitioner reiterated his previously-mentioned claims for relief. He also asserted new claims that his confession to law enforcement was coerced and that he did not understand the “nature and consequences of the plea.” The Petitioner did not raise any issues related to his concurrent state and federal sentences. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing, and the State’s proof consisted of testimony from Ms. Johnson, the Petitioner’s trial counsel, and Captain Greg Moore, a lead investigator assigned to the underlying case. Ms. Johnson testified regarding her plea negotiations with the State and her conversations with the Petitioner advising him of his different guilty plea options and the potential sentence associated with each offer. Captain Moore testified about the search warrant in this case and described that the initial search of the Petitioner’s residence was based on a valid warrant in an unrelated case. The 3 The Petitioner’s first appointed counsel on post-conviction was Mr. Erik Haas. With the court’s permission, Mr. Haas withdrew before the Petitioner submitted his second amended petition, and Mr. J. Colin Rosser took over as the Petitioner’s counsel. -4- Petitioner testified on his own behalf about the plea offers he received and his request of Ms. Johnson to review the search and arrest warrants in this case and an unrelated case. He believed the warrants were faulty and led to an unlawful search and arrest in this case. He also stated that he did not timely receive copies of the warrants. Ultimately, the Petitioner stated that he took the seventeen-year agreement because Ms. Johnson “said that was the best [he] could do[,] and if [he] went to trial [he] would get more than that.” On cross-examination, the State questioned the Petitioner about the various plea deals he was offered: STATE: I want to know whether you preferred seventeen [years] concurrent or fifteen [years] consecutive. PETITIONER: The Feds already ran my Fed time with the State time. It didn’t matter what you did. STATE: You didn’t have State time at that point. PETITIONER: I had Fed time. STATE: And any – but your State had not been determined at that point. PETITIONER: Whatever time I got from the State was going to be ran [sic] with the Feds no matter what. The Feds already ran it together. STATE: Sir, if you didn’t have State time at the time you made a Federal plea, how could they run it concurrently? You didn’t have a sentence at that point, did you? PETITIONER: No, but I can show you on the paper I have from the Feds. STATE: So[,] you had a seventeen year concurrent offer that was subsequently made versus a consecutive offer. Is that correct? PETITIONER: Yes, sir. -5- Outside of this colloquy, the parties made no other mention of the agreement to serve concurrent state and federal sentences. During the hearing, the Petitioner did not argue that the concurrent sentencing issue was a concomitant factor associated with any of his claims raised in his petition or that he was uninformed about the agreement to serve concurrent state and federal sentences. Additionally, there was no testimony or documentation provided at the hearing that indicated the Petitioner’s state and federal sentences were not being served concurrently. Ultimately, the post-conviction court denied the Petitioner’s post-conviction petition and determined that the Petitioner’s counsel provided adequate assistance during the plea negotiation process. Moreover, the post-conviction court concluded that the Petitioner “failed to establish the factual allegations contained in the petition by clear and convincing evidence.” The post-conviction court held that “the [Petitioner] actually understood the significance and consequences of the particular decision to plea[d] guilty and the decision was not coerced,” that “[t]he [Petitioner] was fully aware of the direct consequences of the plea, including the possibility of the sentence actually received[,]” and that he was “informed at the plea hearing of the sentence.” The post-conviction judge took note that the “plea form indicated that [the Petitioner] would be facing seventeen years at eighty-five percent (85%) [and] that these sentences would run concurrently with each other and with the federal charges.” Other than taking note of the plea form and that it indicated the concurrent state and federal sentences, the post-conviction court did not otherwise address this fact or make any specific findings or conclusions related to it.