Juan Walker v. State ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
JUNE, 1998 SESSION
September 29, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
JUAN PEREZ WALKER ) No. 01C01-9708-CR-00371
)
Appellee, )
) Davidson Co unty
vs. )
) Honorable Thomas H. Shriver, Judge
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) (Post-Conviction)
Appellant. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
THOMAS H. MILLER JOHN KNOX WALKUP
(On A ppea l) Attorney General & Reporter
Post Office Box 681662
Franklin, TN 37064 CLINTON J. MORGAN
Counsel for the State
MARTIN A. KOOPERMAN Criminal Justice Division
(At the Post-Conviction Hearing) 425 Fifth Ave. No rth
603 W oodland St. Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Nashville, TN 37206
VICTO R S. JOH NSON , III
District Attorney General
PAM ANDERSON
Assistant District Attorney General
Washington Square, Suite 500
222 2nd Ave. N.
Nashville, TN 37201-1649
OPINION FILED: ____________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
CURWOOD W ITT
JUDGE
OPINION
Juan Perez W alker, the petitioner, appeals pursuant to Rule 3 of the
Tennessee Rules of Crim inal Procedure from the trial c ourt's d ismis sal of h is petition
for post-conviction relief. He contends that the trial court erred in finding that his
attorney had provided effective assistance of counsel and that he knowingly and
voluntarily entered his guilty plea.
In post-conviction proceedings, the petitioner has the burden of proving
the grounds raised in the petition by a clear and convincing evidence. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 40-30-210(f) (199 7). After a hearing, the trial co urt fou nd tha t petition er’s
counsel did “an exceptionally good job” in ha ndling th e plea a nd tha t his
representation was well within the rang e of c om pete nce d em ande d of a ttorn eys in
criminal cases und er Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975). The trial court
also found that the petitioner entered his guilty pleas with a clear understanding of
his constitutional rights and of the consequences of pleading guilty and that the pleas
were entered voluntarily. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the
applica ble law. In this instance, the petitioner has not carried his burden. The
evidence in the record is more than sufficient to support the conclusions of the trial
court.
A more length y opinion in this matter would be of no precedential
value, and no error of law which requires reversal is apparent on the record.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s request for post-
conviction relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal
Appeals.
__________________________
CURW OOD W ITT, Judge
CONCUR:
______________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JR., Judge
______________________________
R. LEE MOORE, JR., Special Judge
2