State v. Sherman Sanders

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: December 1, 2010
• Docket: 02C01-9701-CC-00027
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JANUARY 1998 SESSION FILED April 1, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr. SHERMAN SANDERS, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk also known as NEILTON E. SANDERS, ) No. 02-C-01-9701-CC-00027 ) APPELLANT, ) Obion County ) v. ) Honorable William B. Acree, Jr., Judge ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction Relief) ) APPELLEE. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Charles P. Roney John Knox Walkup Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter P. O. Box 542 425 Fifth Avenue, North Union City, TN 38281-0542 Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Janis L. Turner Counsel for the State 425 Fifth Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Thomas A. Thomas District Attorney General P. O. Box 218 Union City, TN 38261-0218

James T. Cannon Assistant District Attorney General P. O. Box 218 Union City, TN 38261-0218

OPINION FILED:_________________________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge

OPINION The appellant, Sherman Sanders, also known as Neilton E. Sanders (petitioner),

appeals as of right from a judgment of the trial court dismissing his post-conviction action

following an evidentiary hearing. The trial court found the petitioner was afforded the

effective assistance guaranteed by the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; and

pleas of guilty entered by the petitioner were voluntarily, understandingly, and intelligently

entered. In this court, the petitioner contends the evidence contained in the record

preponderates against the trial court’s findings of fact. 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 clearly does not

preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact.

The petitioner and the attorney who represented the petitioner testified at the

evidentiary hearing. The testimony conflicts on every material fact. Their testimony cannot

be reconciled. The trial court accredited the testimony of the attorney. The transcript of

the submission hearing supports the trial court’s findings of fact. The transcript refutes

parts of the petitioner’s testimony.

________________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

CONCUR:

____________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE