IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED JANUARY SESSION, 1999 April 8, 1999
Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk ROBERT LEE SHEFFIELD, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9803-CR-00098 ) Appe llant, ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON. STEVE R. DOZIER, JUDGE STATE OF TE NNE SSE E, ) ) Appellee. ) (POST-CONVICTION)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
WILL IAM M . KALU DIS JOHN KNOX WALKUP 211 T hird Aven ue No rth Attorney General & Reporter Nashville, TN 37201 TIMOTHY BEHAN Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243
VICTO R S. JO HNS ON, III District Attorney General
JON SEABORG Assistant District Attorney General Washington Square, Suite 500 222 2nd Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201-1649
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE OPINION The Petitioner, Robe rt Lee Sh effield, app eals as o f right the D avidson Coun ty
Criminal Cour t’s dism issal of h is petitio n for po st-con viction relief. In th is app eal,
Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After
a carefu l review of the record, w e affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.
Petitioner pled guilty to weapon and drug offenses on February 6, 1997. He
filed a petition for post-conviction relief on July 31, 1997, and an amended petition
on October 8, 1997. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition,
finding that Pe titioner h ad en tered a volunta ry plea and that he had received the
effective as sistance of couns el.
In post-con viction proce eding s, the b urden is on the petition er to pro ve his
grounds for relief by clear and convincing evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-
210(f). This Court must give the findings of the trial court the w eight of a ju ry verdict,
and the judgment of the trial court will not be reversed unless the evidence contained
in the reco rd prepo nderate s agains t the finding s of fact m ade by th e trial court. State
v. Buford, 666 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983). Our supreme court has
held:
If the transcript shows that the petitioner was aware of his constitutional rights, he is not entitled to relief on the grounds that the mandated advice was not given. Also, if all the proof presented at the post-conviction hearing, includ ing the transcript of the guilty plea hearing, shows that the petitioner was aware of his constitutional rights, he is not entitled to relief.
Johns on v. State, 834 S.W .2d 922, 926 (Tenn. 199 2).
-2- In determining wheth er cou nsel p rovide d effec tive ass istanc e at trial, the court
must decide w hether counsel’s performance was within the range of competence
demanded of attorney s in crimin al cases . Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936
(Tenn. 1975). To succeed on a claim that his counsel was ineffective at trial, a
petitioner bears the burden of showing that his counsel made errors so serious that
he was not functioning as counsel as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment and
that the deficient representation prejudiced the petition er resulting in a failure to
produc e a reliable result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S . 668, 693 , 104 S. C t.
2052, 80 L. Ed . 2d 674 , reh’g denied, 467 U.S . 1267 (1 984); Coope r v. State, 849
S.W.2d 744, 74 7 (Ten n. 1993 ); Butler v. Sta te, 789 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Ten n. 1990).
To satisfy the second prong the petitioner m ust show a reaso nable p robability tha t,
but for cou nsel’s unrea sona ble erro r, the fac t finder w ould h ave ha d reas onab le
doubt regarding pe titioner’s gu ilt. Strickland, 466 U .S. at 69 5. This reaso nable
probab ility must be “sufficient to underm ine confidence in the outcom e.” Harris v.
State, 875 S.W.2d 662, 665 (T enn. 19 94) (citation omitted) . In regard to guilty pleas,
the petitioner must establish a reasonable probability that, but for the errors of
coun sel, he would no t have entered into the ple a. Adkins v. State, 911 S.W.2d 334,
349 (Ten n. Crim. App . 1994).
When review ing trial c ouns el’s actio ns, this Cour t shou ld not us e the b enefit
of hindsigh t to secon d-gues s strategy and criticize couns el’s tactics. Hellard v. State,
629 S.W .2d 4, 9 (Ten n. 198 2). Co unse l’s allege d error s sho uld be judged at the
time they we re ma de in lig ht of all facts and circums tances . Strickland, 466 U.S. at
690; see Cooper, 849 S.W.2d at 746.
-3- W e have review ed Pe titioner’s various claims and we find that Petitioner has
failed to present any evidence showing that his attorney represented him in any
manner other tha n com petently. In its Ord er den ying P etitione r’s petition for p ost-
conviction relief, the trial court found the following:
After reviewing the transc ript of the ple a, the exh ibits introduced during the hearing, and considering the testimony introduced at the hearing, this Court is of the opinion that the petition for pos t convic tion sh ould be and is hereby denied. The Court finds that based on the proof in this cause, that the petitioner was adequately advised of his rights in open court and explained those sa me righ ts by his counsel prior to the plea. The Court finds that [trial coun sel] provided more than adequate representation of the petition er. Th e petitio ner faile d to sh ow tha t coun sel’s representation fell below the standard required by Strickland v. Washington and Baxter v. Rose [citations omitted]. The proof in this cause was abundantly clear that [trial counsel] provided more th an ade quate representation including pers onal visits and phone convers ations with the pe titioner and his moth er prior to the plea being entered in this case. The petitioner was specifically asked at the time of the plea whether he was satisfied with his attorney and wheth er or no t any po ssible defenses had be en inves tigated and he gave an affirmative response.
W e agree with the trial co urt’s findings . It should be noted that Petitioner does
not argue in his brief on appea l that he wa s not adv ised of his c onstitution al rights
in open court when he pled guilty. Instead, he focuses his argument on his trial
coun sel’s alleged failure to “conduct an adequate pre-trial investigation into the fac ts
and circums tances of his case and tha t, as a result of such failure, he was coerced
into pleading guilty to offenses for wh ich he was n ot guilty.” Petitioner testified at the
hearing that he info rmed h is trial couns el of the ide ntities and locations of several
important defense witnesses. His trial counsel testified that he told Petition er, “[W ]e
can chase all the witnesses that you want to; but I don’t want you to send me after
-4- anybody except a truthful witness that will te ll your sid e of it fully,” and that Petitioner
said he did not have any witnesses like that. He further stated that Petitioner never
gave him a ny spe cific names of witnesses or any addresses where witnes ses co uld
be located. Trial counsel also noted at the hearing that there “was a prosecutorial
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 JANUARY SESSION, 1999 April 8, 1999
Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk ROBERT LEE SHEFFIELD, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9803-CR-00098 ) Appe llant, ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON. STEVE R. DOZIER, JUDGE STATE OF TE NNE SSE E, ) ) Appellee. ) (POST-CONVICTION)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
WILL IAM M . KALU DIS JOHN KNOX WALKUP 211 T hird Aven ue No rth Attorney General & Reporter Nashville, TN 37201 TIMOTHY BEHAN Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243
VICTO R S. JO HNS ON, III District Attorney General
JON SEABORG Assistant District Attorney General Washington Square, Suite 500 222 2nd Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201-1649
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE OPINION The Petitioner, Robe rt Lee Sh effield, app eals as o f right the D avidson Coun ty
Criminal Cour t’s dism issal of h is petitio n for po st-con viction relief. In th is app eal,
Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After
a carefu l review of the record, w e affirm the judgm ent of the tria l court.
Petitioner pled guilty to weapon and drug offenses on February 6, 1997. He
filed a petition for post-conviction relief on July 31, 1997, and an amended petition
on October 8, 1997. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition,
finding that Pe titioner h ad en tered a volunta ry plea and that he had received the
effective as sistance of couns el.
In post-con viction proce eding s, the b urden is on the petition er to pro ve his
grounds for relief by clear and convincing evidence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-
210(f). This Court must give the findings of the trial court the w eight of a ju ry verdict,
and the judgment of the trial court will not be reversed unless the evidence contained
in the reco rd prepo nderate s agains t the finding s of fact m ade by th e trial court. State
v. Buford, 666 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983). Our supreme court has
held:
If the transcript shows that the petitioner was aware of his constitutional rights, he is not entitled to relief on the grounds that the mandated advice was not given. Also, if all the proof presented at the post-conviction hearing, includ ing the transcript of the guilty plea hearing, shows that the petitioner was aware of his constitutional rights, he is not entitled to relief.
Johns on v. State, 834 S.W .2d 922, 926 (Tenn. 199 2).
-2- In determining wheth er cou nsel p rovide d effec tive ass istanc e at trial, the court
must decide w hether counsel’s performance was within the range of competence
demanded of attorney s in crimin al cases . Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936
(Tenn. 1975). To succeed on a claim that his counsel was ineffective at trial, a
petitioner bears the burden of showing that his counsel made errors so serious that
he was not functioning as counsel as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment and
that the deficient representation prejudiced the petition er resulting in a failure to
produc e a reliable result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S . 668, 693 , 104 S. C t.
2052, 80 L. Ed . 2d 674 , reh’g denied, 467 U.S . 1267 (1 984); Coope r v. State, 849
S.W.2d 744, 74 7 (Ten n. 1993 ); Butler v. Sta te, 789 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Ten n. 1990).
To satisfy the second prong the petitioner m ust show a reaso nable p robability tha t,
but for cou nsel’s unrea sona ble erro r, the fac t finder w ould h ave ha d reas onab le
doubt regarding pe titioner’s gu ilt. Strickland, 466 U .S. at 69 5. This reaso nable
probab ility must be “sufficient to underm ine confidence in the outcom e.” Harris v.
State, 875 S.W.2d 662, 665 (T enn. 19 94) (citation omitted) . In regard to guilty pleas,
the petitioner must establish a reasonable probability that, but for the errors of
coun sel, he would no t have entered into the ple a. Adkins v. State, 911 S.W.2d 334,
349 (Ten n. Crim. App . 1994).
When review ing trial c ouns el’s actio ns, this Cour t shou ld not us e the b enefit
of hindsigh t to secon d-gues s strategy and criticize couns el’s tactics. Hellard v. State,
629 S.W .2d 4, 9 (Ten n. 198 2). Co unse l’s allege d error s sho uld be judged at the
time they we re ma de in lig ht of all facts and circums tances . Strickland, 466 U.S. at
690; see Cooper, 849 S.W.2d at 746.
-3- W e have review ed Pe titioner’s various claims and we find that Petitioner has
failed to present any evidence showing that his attorney represented him in any
manner other tha n com petently. In its Ord er den ying P etitione r’s petition for p ost-
conviction relief, the trial court found the following:
After reviewing the transc ript of the ple a, the exh ibits introduced during the hearing, and considering the testimony introduced at the hearing, this Court is of the opinion that the petition for pos t convic tion sh ould be and is hereby denied. The Court finds that based on the proof in this cause, that the petitioner was adequately advised of his rights in open court and explained those sa me righ ts by his counsel prior to the plea. The Court finds that [trial coun sel] provided more than adequate representation of the petition er. Th e petitio ner faile d to sh ow tha t coun sel’s representation fell below the standard required by Strickland v. Washington and Baxter v. Rose [citations omitted]. The proof in this cause was abundantly clear that [trial counsel] provided more th an ade quate representation including pers onal visits and phone convers ations with the pe titioner and his moth er prior to the plea being entered in this case. The petitioner was specifically asked at the time of the plea whether he was satisfied with his attorney and wheth er or no t any po ssible defenses had be en inves tigated and he gave an affirmative response.
W e agree with the trial co urt’s findings . It should be noted that Petitioner does
not argue in his brief on appea l that he wa s not adv ised of his c onstitution al rights
in open court when he pled guilty. Instead, he focuses his argument on his trial
coun sel’s alleged failure to “conduct an adequate pre-trial investigation into the fac ts
and circums tances of his case and tha t, as a result of such failure, he was coerced
into pleading guilty to offenses for wh ich he was n ot guilty.” Petitioner testified at the
hearing that he info rmed h is trial couns el of the ide ntities and locations of several
important defense witnesses. His trial counsel testified that he told Petition er, “[W ]e
can chase all the witnesses that you want to; but I don’t want you to send me after
-4- anybody except a truthful witness that will te ll your sid e of it fully,” and that Petitioner
said he did not have any witnesses like that. He further stated that Petitioner never
gave him a ny spe cific names of witnesses or any addresses where witnes ses co uld
be located. Trial counsel also noted at the hearing that there “was a prosecutorial
eyeba ll witness to every case that we entered a plea, and alibi never entered into it.”
Petitioner also a lleges that his trial cou nsel fa iled to d iscuss his case w ith him.
Petitioner testified at the hearing that he m et with his trial counsel only once.
Howeve r, his trial counsel testified that he m et with P etitione r three times in person
and talked with him several times on the phone. He also said that he would relay
messages to Petition er by P etitione r’s mother. He estimated that he spent at least
thirty hours on Petitioner’s case. Petitioner also asserts that his trial counsel
informed him that he should plead guilty, despite Petitioner’s wish not to plead gu ilty.
Howeve r, his trial counsel testified that both he and the trial court fully informed
Petitioner of his constitutional rights be fore he pled guilty, and that if Petitioner had
voiced any disagreement with the plea then he would “[a]bsolutely not” have let
Petitione r sign the p lea form .
The trial c ourt cho se to acc redit the tes timony o f Petitioner’s trial couns el.
Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be
given the ir testimon y are reso lved by the trial court, not th is Court. See Black v.
State, 794 S .W .2d 75 2, 755 (Ten n. Crim . App. 1 990). T he evid ence conta ined in
the record does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Petitioner
receive d the e ffective a ssista nce o f coun sel.
-5- Based on all the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of
Petitione r’s petition for p ost-con viction relief.
____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , Judge
-6-