State v. Joseph Brown

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: March 18, 1998
• Docket: 02C01-9611-CR-00387
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JANUARY 1998 SESSION FILED March 18, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr. JOSEPH L. BROWN, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk ) No. 02-C-01-9611-CR-00387 APPELLANT, ) ) Shelby County v. ) ) Honorable Chris Craft, Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) (Post-Conviction Relief) APPELLEE. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Howard B. Manis John Knox Walkup Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 1313 425 Fifth Avenue, North Memphis, TN 38103 Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Clinton J. Morgan Counsel for the State 425 Fifth Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

William L. Gibbons District Attorney General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 3-01 Memphis, TN 38103

Daniel R. Woody Assistant District Attorney General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 3-01 Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED: ______________________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge

OPINION The appellant, Joseph L. Brown (petitioner), appeals as of right from a judgment of

the trial court dismissing his post-conviction action after an evidentiary hearing. In this

court, the petitioner contends the trial court “erred in failing to Sustain your Petitioner’s

Petition for Post Conviction Relief, and grant him a new trial in his case.” After a thorough

review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issues

presented for review, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the trial court should

be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The evidence

contained in the record does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact.

The petitioner claimed he was denied his constitutional right to the effective

assistance of counsel. He faults counsel for failing to provide him with copies of everything

contained in counsel’s file and for assuring him the parole board would release him after

he served 30 percent of his sentence.

Defense counsel testified he met with the petitioner on several occasions. Counsel

discussed the content of the petitioner’s statement, the co-defendant’s statement, and the

results of the investigation. The petitioner told another assistant public defender he would

plead guilty if the state would offer the minimum sentence. The state reduced the offer to

the minimum sentence, and the petitioner entered a plea of guilty pursuant to the plea

agreement. Counsel testified he explained the parole process to the petitioner, but he did

not tell or guarantee the petitioner he would automatically be released on parole after

serving 30 percent of his sentence.

The petitioner admitted he committed the crime. He also admitted he was pleased

with the guilty plea and sentence until he was turned down for parole. He did not seek

post-conviction relief until he met the parole board on two occasions and was denied

parole. At the post-conviction hearing, the petitioner said he understood that while a co-

defendant shot and seriously injured the victim, he could be tried for the same offense

because they committed the crime together.

_____________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

2 CONCUR:

___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE