State v. Sammartino
This text of State v. Sammartino (State v. Sammartino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
FEBRUARY 1998 SESSION FILED March 19, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk RICKY L. SAMMARTINO, ) ) No. 02-C-01-9701-CC-00040 APPELLANT, ) ) Dyer County v. ) ) Honorable Joe G. Riley, Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) (Post-Conviction Relief) APPELLEE. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
Vanedda Prince John Knox Walkup Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter P. O. Box 26 425 Fifth Avenue, North Union City, TN 38281 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Elizabeth T. Ryan Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37243-0493
C. Phillip Bivens District Attorney General P. O. Box E Dyersburg, TN 38025
OPINION FILED: ______________________________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge OPINION
The appellant, Ricky L. Sammartino (petitioner), appeals as of right from a judgment
of the trial court dismissing his post-conviction action after an evidentiary hearing. The trial
court found the petitioner was afforded the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by
the United States and Tennessee Constitutions, and his pleas of guilty passed
constitutional muster. The petitioner presents two issues for review. He contends (a) “the
trial court erred in holding that the Appellant received the effective assistance of counsel,”
and (b) “the trial court erred in holding that the Petitioner voluntarily entered a plea of
guilty.” 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 petitioner and defense counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing. Their
respective testimony conflicted as to every material issue and fact. It is evident the court
accredited the testimony of defense counsel thereby rejecting the testimony given by the
petitioner. Thus, the evidence contained in the record does not preponderate against the
findings of fact made by the trial court.
________________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Sammartino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sammartino-tenncrimapp-1998.