State v. Thomas Canty ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
AUGUST SESSION, 1997 December 1, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
THOMAS E. CANTY, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9703-CR-00111
)
Appe llant, )
) SHELBY COUNTY
)
V. )
) HON. JOSEPH B. DAILEY, JUDGE
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
)
Appellee. ) (POST-C ONVIC TION)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
ROBERT C. IRBY JOHN KNOX WALKUP
4345 M allory Aven ue Eas t Attorney General & Reporter
Memphis, TN 38111
KENNETH W. RUCKER
Assistant Attorney General
2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243
JOHN W. PIEROTTI
District Attorney General
TER REL L L. HAR RIS
Assistant District Attorney General
201 Poplar Avenue, Ste. 301
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
OPINION
The Petitioner, Tho mas E. Ca nty, app eals a s of righ t from th e trial co urt’s
denial of his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. In his sole issue on appeal, the
Petitioner argues that the trial co urt erred in denying the petition . We affirm the
judgm ent of the tria l court.
On September 22, 1993, Petitioner pled guilty to seven (7) counts of
aggravated robbery, one (1) count of aggravated kidnapping, and one (1) count
of attempted especially aggravated robbery in the Criminal Court of Shelby
County. Thes e were entere d purs uant to a neg otiated plea a greem ent wh erein
he received an eight (8) year sentence for each conviction, all to run conc urren tly
with each other, exc ept for the espe cially aggravated rob bery conviction which
was ordered to be served consecutively. He received an e ffective sentence of
sixteen (16) years. Approximately two (2) years later, Petitioner filed his petition
for post-co nviction relief.
The only testimony at the evidentiary hearing was from the Petitioner and
his trial counsel. The trial cou rt entered an ord er denying the petition for post-
conviction relief after the evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing,
Petitioner testified that his trial cou nsel fa iled to obta in disco very, faile d to file
motions, failed to properly investigate the case, failed to adequately confer with
him, and failed to properly advise him as to the nature of the guilty pleas that he
ultima tely entered. The trial court specifically found in its order that near the end
of Petitioner’s testimony, Petitioner conceded that the on ly matte rs that a ctually
-2-
concerned him were that he was innoc ent of th e kidn appin g cha rge an d sho uld
not have be en allowe d to plead guilty to that offense, and that he did not fully
unders tand the nature o f consec utive sente ncing.
Trial coun sel’s testimony contradicted the Petitioner’s testimony in virtually
every aspect. The trial court specifically found from the entire record, the
transcripts of the guilty plea hearing, and all other relevant exhibits and
information, that trial counsel did an outstanding job in representing the
Petitioner. The trial court also found that Petitioner was fully aware that he would
receive consecutive sentencing for an effective sentence of sixteen (16) years,
and that the only way to receive the offer of sixteen (16) ye ars wo uld be for him
to plead guilty to the kidnapping charge. The trial court also found that at the
time Petitioner entered his guilty pleas that he had been fully inform ed of h is
rights, the natur e of his pleas, and the consequ ences there of. The cou rt
spec ifically made a finding of fact that trial counsel had provided excellent
represe ntation fully w ithin the sco pe of Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn.
1975).
The findings of fact m ade by a trial judge in p ost-conviction hea rings are
conclusive on appeal unless the appellate court finds that the evidence
preponderates against th e judgm ent. Butler v. Sta te, 789 S.W.2d 898, 899
(Tenn. 1990). This Court is satisfied that Petitioner was fully aware of the
consecu tive sentencing, and that in order to receive the sixteen (16) year offer
extended by the State that he would plead guilty to all of the charges pending
against him, including the kidnapping charge. The record clearly shows that
Petitioner entered these guilty pleas after having been fully informed of his rights,
-3-
the nature of his pleas, and the consequences thereof. The record also cle arly
show s that P etitione r did rec eive the effective assista nce o f coun sel.
According ly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying post-con viction relief.
____________________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
___________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
-4-