Tommy Lee Kelley v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: October 13, 1999
• Docket: 01C01-9811-CR-00452
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED SEPTEMBE R SESSION, 1999 October 13, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr. TOMMY LEE KELLEY, ) Appellate Court Clerk C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9811-CR-00452 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON . J. RAND ALL W YATT, J R., STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

JENNIFER LYNN THOMPSON PAUL G. SUMMERS 715 Crescent Road Attorney General and Reporter Nashville, TN 37205 MARK E. DAVIDSON Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashville, TN 37243

VICTOR S. JOHNSON District Attorney General

BRET T. GUINN Assistant District Attorney General Washington Square, Suite 500 222 Se cond A venue N orth Nashville, TN 37201-1649

ORDER FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 20

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE ORDER

The Defendant appeals as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee

Rules of Appellate Procedure from the trial cour t’s denial of h is petition for p ost-

conviction relief. In a negotiate d plea ag reeme nt, the De fendan t pleaded guilty

to two cou nts of aggravated burglary. His agreed sentence for each conviction

was seven ye ars as a R ange II multip le offender, with the sentences to be served

concurren tly. He sub seque ntly petitione d for pos t-conviction relief, alleging that

his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary and that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the p ost-

conviction petition, the trial judge denied the Defendant’s claim. We affirm the

judgm ent of the tria l court.

The Defendant and his former attorney were the only witnesses who

testified at the hearing on the petition for post-conviction relief. In its order

denying the De fenda nt relief, th e trial court found that the Defendant was

effective ly repres ented by his trial couns el and tha t the Defe ndant’s g uilty pleas

were knowin gly, voluntar ily and intellige ntly entered. The trial court accredited

the testimony of the Defendant’s former attorney and found “no credible evidence

to support the petitioner’s assertion of deficient representation and, obviously, no

resulting prejud ice to h is decision to plead guilty.” From our review of this record,

the evidence clearly supports the findings of the trial judge. No error of law

requiring a reversa l of the judg ment is a pparen t on the rec ord. W e are satisfied

that the res ult reache d by the trial c ourt is corre ct.

-2- Based upon a thorough reading of the reco rd, the briefs of the parties, and

the law governing the issues presented for review, the judgm ent of the trial court

is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of

Tennessee.

____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

___________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

-3-