State v. Steve Turnage

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: December 1, 2010
• Docket: 02C01-9803-CR-00074
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON FILED MARCH SESSION , 1999 May 6, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk STEVE TURNAGE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9803-CR-00074 ) Appe llant, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY V. ) ) HON. CAROLYN WADE ) BLACKETT, JUDGE STATE OF TE NNE SSE E, ) ) Appellee. ) (POST -CON VICTIO N)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

ROB ERT B. GAIA JOHN KNOX WALKUP Suite 3201-100 N. Main Building Attorney General & Reporter Memphis, TN 38103 ELIZABETH T. RYAN Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashville, TN 37243

JOH N W. P IERO TTI District Attorn ey Ge neral

MICHAEL LEAVITT Assistant District Attorney General Criminal Justice Center, Suite 301 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE ORDER In this case, the Pe titioner, Steve Turn age, a ppea ls from the trial c ourt’s

dismissal of his petition for post-co nviction relief fo llowing an evidentiary hearing .

Originally charged with one (1) count of premeditated first degree

murder, one (1) count of felony murder, and one (1) count of attempted aggravated

robbery, Petitioner pled guilty to felony murde r and attemp ted aggrava ted robbery

and received sentences of life imprisonment with possibility of parole and six (6)

years, res pectively, to b e served concu rrent with e ach oth er.

Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. In the petition

and on appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and

that his guilty plea s were in voluntary. Regarding the issue of voluntariness of the

guilty pleas, Petitioner says that he did not understand th e explanation by the trial

court of his right ag ainst self-inc rimination, and tha t his moth er was n ot allowed to

discuss with him whether or not he should p lead gu ilty. Petitioner was a juvenile at

the time of the offense and the guilty plea and had been transferred to criminal court

to be tried a s an ad ult.

Trial coun sel tes tified du ring the eviden tiary hearing. His testimony was

contrary in all mate rial points to the testimony of Petitioner and P etitioner’s mother.

In a detailed mem orandum of findings of fact and c onclusions o f law, the trial court

dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court made findings of fact

contrary to Petitioner’s allegations on both issues. The trial court concluded that

Petitioner had not proven the facts alleged by clear and convincing evidenc e. W e

-2- have carefu lly reviewed the record, and the evidence does not preponderate against

the finding s of the trial co urt.

The judgm ent dism issing the petition for p ost-con viction relief was

rendered by the tr ial cou rt withou t a jury, th e judg men t is not a determination of guilt,

and the evidence does not preponderate against the finding of the trial court. There

is no error of law apparent on the record which would require a reversal of the

judgm ent of the tria l court.

It is, accordingly, ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed

in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R. WA DE, Presiding Judge

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge

-3-