Juan Walker v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: September 29, 1998
• Docket: 01C01-9708-CR-00371
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED JUNE, 1998 SESSION September 29, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk

JUAN PEREZ WALKER ) No. 01C01-9708-CR-00371 ) Appellee, ) ) Davidson Co unty vs. ) ) Honorable Thomas H. Shriver, Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) (Post-Conviction) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

THOMAS H. MILLER JOHN KNOX WALKUP (On A ppea l) Attorney General & Reporter Post Office Box 681662 Franklin, TN 37064 CLINTON J. MORGAN Counsel for the State MARTIN A. KOOPERMAN Criminal Justice Division (At the Post-Conviction Hearing) 425 Fifth Ave. No rth 603 W oodland St. Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Nashville, TN 37206 VICTO R S. JOH NSON , III District Attorney General

PAM ANDERSON Assistant District Attorney General Washington Square, Suite 500 222 2nd Ave. N. Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED: ____________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

CURWOOD W ITT JUDGE OPINION

Juan Perez W alker, the petitioner, appeals pursuant to Rule 3 of the

Tennessee Rules of Crim inal Procedure from the trial c ourt's d ismis sal of h is petition

for post-conviction relief. He contends that the trial court erred in finding that his

attorney had provided effective assistance of counsel and that he knowingly and

voluntarily entered his guilty plea.

In post-conviction proceedings, the petitioner has the burden of proving

the grounds raised in the petition by a clear and convincing evidence. Tenn. Code

Ann. § 40-30-210(f) (199 7). After a hearing, the trial co urt fou nd tha t petition er’s

counsel did “an exceptionally good job” in ha ndling th e plea a nd tha t his

representation was well within the rang e of c om pete nce d em ande d of a ttorn eys in

criminal cases und er Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975). The trial court

also found that the petitioner entered his guilty pleas with a clear understanding of

his constitutional rights and of the consequences of pleading guilty and that the pleas

were entered voluntarily. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the

applica ble law. In this instance, the petitioner has not carried his burden. The

evidence in the record is more than sufficient to support the conclusions of the trial

court.

A more length y opinion in this matter would be of no precedential

value, and no error of law which requires reversal is apparent on the record.

Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s request for post-

conviction relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal

Appeals.

__________________________ CURW OOD W ITT, Judge CONCUR:

______________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JR., Judge

______________________________ R. LEE MOORE, JR., Special Judge