Court Opinion

ID: 9671528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:38:25.379443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:10.499297
License: Public Domain

Dwyer, J.
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent from my colleagues in remanding this cause for an evidentiary hearing.
*451The petitioner makes certain allegations in his petition which may be summarized thusly: His attorney was ineffective.
The record reflects, as found by the trial court in its order of dismissal, that petitioner through retained counsel executed waiver forms wherein he waived the right to trial by jury and waived appeal. He executed guilty plea forms which reflect his awareness of his pleas and their consequences. As this all may be, our law is well settled that acts or non-acts of retained counsel are not imputable to the State. See Morgan v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 445 S.W.2d 477, 479. The only absolution that the law has decreed from this rule is when the representations of retained counsel make the proceedings a farce and a mockery of justice. See Scott v. United States, 334 F.2d 72, 73 (C.A. 6th), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 842, 85 S.Ct. 81, 13 L.Ed.2d 48. It appears to the author of this dissent that the allegations of fraud pertaining to petitioner’s retained counsel have been put to rest by our Supreme Court in State ex rel. Richmond v. Henderson, 222 Tenn. 597, 439 S.W.2d 263. In other words, we reiterate-there is no constitutional deprivation attributable to “State action” alleged in his petition under State v. Henderson, supra, which commands an evidentiary hearing.
The majority accurately summarized the contentions that may be found in his petition. Under the retained-counsel rule his petition must fall for lack of constitutional deprivation as required by T.C.A. sec. 40-3805. I would affirm the dismissal of the petition by the learned judge.