State v. Ardie Jackson

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: December 1, 2010
• Docket: 02C01-9810-CR-00318
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

AUGUST 1999 SESSION FILED Ocotober 19, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr. ARDIE JACKSON, ) Appellate Court Clerk ) Appellant, ) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9810-CR-00318 ) vs. ) Shelby County ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Hon. Terry Lafferty, Judge ) Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction) )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: CRAIG B. FLOOD, II PAUL G. SUMMERS Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter 100 N. Main, Ste. 2400 Memphis, TN 38103 CLINTON J. MORGAN Asst. Attorney General 425 Fifth Ave. North 2d Floor, Cordell Hull Bldg. Nashville, TN 37243-0493

WILLIAM L. GIBBONS District Attorney General

CAMILLE McMULLEN Asst. District Attorney General 201 Poplar Ave., Third Fl. Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:________________

AFFIRMED - RULE 20

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE OPINION

The petitioner, Ardie Jackson, filed a post-conviction petition alleging

his guilty plea to the crime of especially aggravated kidnapping was not knowingly

and voluntarily entered and that his counsel was ineffective. Following a hearing,

the trial court denied relief. In this appeal, the petitioner raises only the

voluntariness-of-plea issue. Finding no error of law requiring reversal, we affirm.

At the post-conviction hearing, the petitioner's proof established that

there had been confusion at the time of his guilty plea to the offense of especially

aggravated kidnapping as to whether serious bodily injury was required to elevate

the offense from aggravated kidnapping to especially aggravated kidnapping. The

petitioner's trial counsel candidly admitted at the post-conviction hearing that he

probably had not explained the difference between aggravated kidnapping and

especially aggravated kidnapping to the petitioner. Counsel testified, however, that

he had explained the difference between especially aggravated robbery and

especially aggravated kidnapping in that serious bodily injury was an element of the

former but not the latter. The transcript of the guilty plea hearing, which was

received as an exhibit at the post-conviction hearing, reflects that the petitioner

inquired of the court whether serious bodily injury was an element of especially

aggravated kidnapping. Although the trial judge had initially indicated otherwise, he

ultimately explained to the petitioner that serious bodily injury was not an essential

element of especially aggravated kidnapping. Thereafter, the petitioner voiced his

understanding and his willingness to go forward with the plea.

After considering all the evidence, including the testimony of the

petitioner, his trial counsel, and the transcript of the guilty plea hearing, the court

below found that the petitioner had failed to prove his allegations, and specifically,

that "[the] petitioner entered a knowing plea of guilty to the offense of especially

2 aggravated kidnapping." On appeal, the evidence of record does not preponderate

to the contrary. See, e.g., Butler v. State, 789 S.W.2d 898, 899-900 (Tenn. 1990).

Because we find no error of law requiring reversal apparent on the record, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee

Court of Criminal Appeals.

_______________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

CONCUR:

_____________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

_____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE