State v. Steve Turnage ( 2010 )

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-