IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED OCTOBER 1998 SESSION December 18, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk CHAUNCEY R. GORDON, ) ) No. 01C01-9710-CC-00483 Appellant, ) ) Giles County v. ) ) Hon. Robert L. Jones, Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Joseph W. Henry, Jr. John Knox Walkup 119 South First Street Attorney General and Reporter Pulaski, TN 38478-0458 and Karen M. Yacuzzo Assistant Attorney General Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493
T. Michael Bottoms District Attorney General and Richard H. Dunavant Assistant District Attorney General Giles County Courthouse P.O. Box 304 Pulaski, TN 38478-0304
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
Joseph M. Tipton Judge OPINION
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
On January 2, 1991, the petitioner pled guilty to one count of first degree murder and
one count of second degree murder. He received an agreed sentence of life plus
twenty-five years, respectively. The petitioner now attacks the validity of that guilty
plea, arguing that the plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly made.
Upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the evidence does not
preponderate against the trial court’s findings. Thus, we affirm the dismissal of the
petition.
FACTS
In October 1989, the petitioner shot and killed his girlfriend and her
mother. A Giles County Grand Jury indicted him on two counts of first degree murder.
The district attorney’s office sought the death penalty. Through extensive negotiations,
the petitioner’s appointed counsel secured a plea agreement that allowed the petitioner
to plead guilty to one count of first degree murder and one count of second degree
murder. The petitioner received a life sentence and twenty-five years, respectively, to
run consecutively.
A. Guilty Plea Hearing
At the guilty plea hearing, the trial court addressed numerous questions to
the petitioner to ascertain whether he understood the nature of the proceedings and the
waiver of his rights. The petitioner indicated that he did understand and that the plea
was voluntary. He also expressed satisfaction with his counsel’s representation.
When the petitioner denied remembering the details of the crime itself due
to intoxication, the trial court inquired further into the circumstances surrounding the
plea. The trial court’s inquiry revealed that counsel had discussed and investigated the
2 possibility of an intoxication defense for the petitioner. Counsel’s investigation showed
that the witnesses’ testimony would controvert such a defense, not support it.
The trial court then confirmed that counsel had explained these things to
the petitioner and that he still wished to enter the plea. The petitioner indicated that he
did want to enter the plea. Thus, the trial court approved the agreement and the plea
was entered.
B. Post-Conviction Hearing
At the post-conviction hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the
petitioner’s appointed counsel at the trial level and the petitioner himself. The trial court
also received the deposition testimony of Rudy Rains, the petitioner’s Adult Basic
Education teacher, and Dr. Edward Bloser, a prison psychologist. The trial court filed a
written order of denial that included specific findings relating to each of the petitioner’s
averments.
1. Trial Counsel
The petitioner’s trial attorney acknowledged little independent recollection
of his discussions with the petitioner leading up to the plea.1 However, his testimony
indicated appropriate preparation for a case of this magnitude.
There were extensive negotiations with the district attorney’s office in
reaching the plea agreement. He recalled several meetings with the petitioner, the
petitioner’s father, and other people associated with the petitioner’s family. He also
remembered discussions with the petitioner about the death penalty aggravators, their
possible applicability, and the ramifications of proceeding to trial versus accepting a
plea agreement.
1 Tes timo ny rev ealed that th e atto rney’s origin al cas e file h ad be en los t, and mo st like ly destroyed, due to the collapse of an office building in which he was practicing.
3 The attorney recalled investigating the possibility of an intoxication
defense. The investigation revealed that the witnesses, including two Tennessee
Highway Patrol Officers and an eyewitness to one of the shootings, did not see
anything to indicate that the petitioner was significantly impaired.
The attorney testified that he felt the petitioner understood the guilty plea
proceedings. He said that if he had any reservations about the petitioner’s ability to
understand, he would have asked the trial court to be more specific, go into more detail,
and use non-legal terminology.
2. Rudy Rains
Rudy Rains, the petitioner’s Adult Basic Education teacher, testified by
deposition regarding the petitioner’s current academic abilities and intellectual
capabilities in a classroom setting. Mr. Rains characterized the petitioner as “pretty
smart” with “lots of common sense” compared to other inmates. It was his opinion that
the petitioner suffered from a learning disability in reading and reading comprehension.
However, Mr. Rains believed that if someone read the plea document to the petitioner,
he could understand it.
3. Dr. Edward Bloser
Dr. Bloser, a psychologist at the prison, testified by deposition that his
department evaluated the petitioner at the request of the educational staff. He said that
the type of evaluation requested is performed in cases of suspected limited intellectual
capacity. The results showed a below third-grade spelling ability, a sixth-grade math
ability, and overall comprehension and reading skills at a fourth-grade level. The
petitioner had a full-scale IQ score of fifty-eight. This placed him in the mildly mentally
retarded range. However, Dr. Bloser expressed deep reservations about relying on IQ
tests and characterized them as very inaccurate.
4 Although the IQ test result placed the petitioner at a level of mild mental
retardation and his comprehension level tested fairly low, Dr. Bloser did not believe that
the petitioner was mildly mentally retarded. He said that the petitioner’s IQ was higher
than the average inmate, and his ability to comprehend was at least the same as the
average inmate.
4. Chauncey Gordon
The petitioner testified that he did not understand that he was originally
charged with two counts of first degree murder and did not understand what he was
doing when he pled guilty. He testified that his attorney knew he could not read and
that the attorney read the documents to him. He said that although he did not
understand the attorney’s explanations of the documents, he signed them anyway.
The petitioner testified that he did not understand most of what the judge
said to him at the plea hearing. He said that he did not understand the judge’s
explanation of the intoxication defense. He said that he agreed with everything that
was said to him because “[i]t’s embarrassing to sit in front of a lot of people and to say .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED OCTOBER 1998 SESSION December 18, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk CHAUNCEY R. GORDON, ) ) No. 01C01-9710-CC-00483 Appellant, ) ) Giles County v. ) ) Hon. Robert L. Jones, Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Joseph W. Henry, Jr. John Knox Walkup 119 South First Street Attorney General and Reporter Pulaski, TN 38478-0458 and Karen M. Yacuzzo Assistant Attorney General Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493
T. Michael Bottoms District Attorney General and Richard H. Dunavant Assistant District Attorney General Giles County Courthouse P.O. Box 304 Pulaski, TN 38478-0304
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
Joseph M. Tipton Judge OPINION
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
On January 2, 1991, the petitioner pled guilty to one count of first degree murder and
one count of second degree murder. He received an agreed sentence of life plus
twenty-five years, respectively. The petitioner now attacks the validity of that guilty
plea, arguing that the plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly made.
Upon a complete review of the record, we conclude that the evidence does not
preponderate against the trial court’s findings. Thus, we affirm the dismissal of the
petition.
FACTS
In October 1989, the petitioner shot and killed his girlfriend and her
mother. A Giles County Grand Jury indicted him on two counts of first degree murder.
The district attorney’s office sought the death penalty. Through extensive negotiations,
the petitioner’s appointed counsel secured a plea agreement that allowed the petitioner
to plead guilty to one count of first degree murder and one count of second degree
murder. The petitioner received a life sentence and twenty-five years, respectively, to
run consecutively.
A. Guilty Plea Hearing
At the guilty plea hearing, the trial court addressed numerous questions to
the petitioner to ascertain whether he understood the nature of the proceedings and the
waiver of his rights. The petitioner indicated that he did understand and that the plea
was voluntary. He also expressed satisfaction with his counsel’s representation.
When the petitioner denied remembering the details of the crime itself due
to intoxication, the trial court inquired further into the circumstances surrounding the
plea. The trial court’s inquiry revealed that counsel had discussed and investigated the
2 possibility of an intoxication defense for the petitioner. Counsel’s investigation showed
that the witnesses’ testimony would controvert such a defense, not support it.
The trial court then confirmed that counsel had explained these things to
the petitioner and that he still wished to enter the plea. The petitioner indicated that he
did want to enter the plea. Thus, the trial court approved the agreement and the plea
was entered.
B. Post-Conviction Hearing
At the post-conviction hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the
petitioner’s appointed counsel at the trial level and the petitioner himself. The trial court
also received the deposition testimony of Rudy Rains, the petitioner’s Adult Basic
Education teacher, and Dr. Edward Bloser, a prison psychologist. The trial court filed a
written order of denial that included specific findings relating to each of the petitioner’s
averments.
1. Trial Counsel
The petitioner’s trial attorney acknowledged little independent recollection
of his discussions with the petitioner leading up to the plea.1 However, his testimony
indicated appropriate preparation for a case of this magnitude.
There were extensive negotiations with the district attorney’s office in
reaching the plea agreement. He recalled several meetings with the petitioner, the
petitioner’s father, and other people associated with the petitioner’s family. He also
remembered discussions with the petitioner about the death penalty aggravators, their
possible applicability, and the ramifications of proceeding to trial versus accepting a
plea agreement.
1 Tes timo ny rev ealed that th e atto rney’s origin al cas e file h ad be en los t, and mo st like ly destroyed, due to the collapse of an office building in which he was practicing.
3 The attorney recalled investigating the possibility of an intoxication
defense. The investigation revealed that the witnesses, including two Tennessee
Highway Patrol Officers and an eyewitness to one of the shootings, did not see
anything to indicate that the petitioner was significantly impaired.
The attorney testified that he felt the petitioner understood the guilty plea
proceedings. He said that if he had any reservations about the petitioner’s ability to
understand, he would have asked the trial court to be more specific, go into more detail,
and use non-legal terminology.
2. Rudy Rains
Rudy Rains, the petitioner’s Adult Basic Education teacher, testified by
deposition regarding the petitioner’s current academic abilities and intellectual
capabilities in a classroom setting. Mr. Rains characterized the petitioner as “pretty
smart” with “lots of common sense” compared to other inmates. It was his opinion that
the petitioner suffered from a learning disability in reading and reading comprehension.
However, Mr. Rains believed that if someone read the plea document to the petitioner,
he could understand it.
3. Dr. Edward Bloser
Dr. Bloser, a psychologist at the prison, testified by deposition that his
department evaluated the petitioner at the request of the educational staff. He said that
the type of evaluation requested is performed in cases of suspected limited intellectual
capacity. The results showed a below third-grade spelling ability, a sixth-grade math
ability, and overall comprehension and reading skills at a fourth-grade level. The
petitioner had a full-scale IQ score of fifty-eight. This placed him in the mildly mentally
retarded range. However, Dr. Bloser expressed deep reservations about relying on IQ
tests and characterized them as very inaccurate.
4 Although the IQ test result placed the petitioner at a level of mild mental
retardation and his comprehension level tested fairly low, Dr. Bloser did not believe that
the petitioner was mildly mentally retarded. He said that the petitioner’s IQ was higher
than the average inmate, and his ability to comprehend was at least the same as the
average inmate.
4. Chauncey Gordon
The petitioner testified that he did not understand that he was originally
charged with two counts of first degree murder and did not understand what he was
doing when he pled guilty. He testified that his attorney knew he could not read and
that the attorney read the documents to him. He said that although he did not
understand the attorney’s explanations of the documents, he signed them anyway.
The petitioner testified that he did not understand most of what the judge
said to him at the plea hearing. He said that he did not understand the judge’s
explanation of the intoxication defense. He said that he agreed with everything that
was said to him because “[i]t’s embarrassing to sit in front of a lot of people and to say .
. . ‘I can’t read’ or . . . ‘I don’t understand this.’”
The petitioner acknowledged that he answered the questions at the guilty
plea hearing without being prompted by his attorney. He conceded that he received
advice from a fellow inmate who convinced him that if he had gone to trial, he might not
have been convicted of first degree murder.
5. Post-Conviction Order of Denial
The trial court found the petition to be without merit. Specifically, it found
that the petitioner’s responses at the guilty plea hearing and the entire record indicate
that the petitioner “understood the nature of the charges against him and all of his rights
at the time the plea was entered.” The trial court noted that the petitioner’s testimony at
the post-conviction hearing was self-serving and not credible compared to his
5 statements at the guilty plea hearing. The trial court noted that neither Mr. Rains nor
Dr. Bloser would characterize the petitioner as mildly mentally retarded. The trial court
further noted that according to their testimony, the petitioner could understand what
someone else read to him and would have understood questions asked by the court.
The trial court concluded that the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The trial court's findings of fact on post-conviction hearings are
conclusive on appeal unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Butler v. State,
789 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tenn. 1990); Adkins v. State, 911 S.W.2d 334, 341 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1995). The burden of establishing that the evidence preponderates otherwise is
on the petitioner. Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997); Black v. State,
794 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). This court may not reweigh or
reevaluate the evidence, nor substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trial court.
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d at 579; Massey v. State, 929 S.W.2d 399, 403 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1996); Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d at 755. Questions concerning the
credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are
resolved by the trial court, not this court. Henley, 960 S.W.2d at 579; Black, 794
S.W.2d at 755.
CONCLUSION
This court has examined the entire record of this case including the
transcript of the guilty plea hearing, the post-conviction hearing transcript, and the trial
court’s order of denial. The evidence does not preponderate against the findings made
by the trial court in its thorough order of denial.
In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
6 7 _________________________ Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
_________________________ Joe G. Riley, Judge
_________________________ James Curwood W itt, Jr., Judge