Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bartlett v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

November 15, 2016

CALVIN E. BARTLETT
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs October 4, 2016

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-16-16 Roy B. Morgan, Jr., Judge

         Petitioner, Calvin E. Bartlett, received an effective ten-year sentence as the result of a January 2015 plea agreement that disposed of two felonies and six misdemeanors in two different cases in the Madison County Criminal Court. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were made unintelligently. The post-conviction court denied relief, and Petitioner timely appealed. Because Petitioner failed to prove that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the decision of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

          Joseph T. Howell, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Calvin E. Bartlett.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney General, Senior Counsel; Jerry Woodall, District Attorney General; and Al Earls, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Timothy L. Easter, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Alan E. Glenn and Camille R. McMullen, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE.

         Petitioner was indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury in case number 12-69 for aggravated assault, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, tampering with evidence, aggravated burglary, theft over of property valued over $1000, cruelty to animals, and vandalism over $500. In case number 12-70, Petitioner was indicted for aggravated burglary, theft of property valued over $1000, vandalism under $500 and resisting arrest.

         On January 9, 2015, Petitioner pled guilty to the reduced charges of simple assault, aggravated criminal trespass, theft of property valued under $500, and vandalism in Case No. 12-69. Petitioner also pled guilty to aggravated burglary, theft of property valued over $1000, vandalism, and resisting arrest in Case No. 12-70. In exchange for Petitioner's plea, the agreement established that Petitioner would be sentenced as a Range II offender and that all sentences in both cases would run concurrently for an effective sentence of ten years to serve. All other charges were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.

         On January 21, 2016, Defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, followed by four amended petitions with the assistance of appointed counsel, all alleging that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his guilty pleas were made unintelligently.

         At the evidentiary hearing on the petition, Petitioner testified that he requested copies of the discovery from trial counsel but did not receive any. Petitioner maintained that had the discovery been provided, the outcome of his case would have been "a lot different" because he "would have had something to work by." Petitioner also testified that he requested to meet with trial counsel to discuss the charges in the indictment and the discovery, but trial counsel did "not really" meet with Petitioner. Petitioner intended to go to trial in Case No. 12-69, but trial counsel told him that he had to plead guilty in both cases or else the State would not approve of a plea agreement. Petitioner testified that he felt that he had no other choice but to plead guilty because trial counsel was not ready for trial. During cross-examination, Petitioner admitted that, before he pled guilty, he had a criminal record of two felony convictions and several misdemeanors. However, Petitioner contended that trial counsel did not argue for a lesser sentence based on relevant mitigating factors, such as the non-violent nature of the crimes and his criminal history.

         Trial counsel testified that he defended some pro se pre-trial motions filed by Petitioner and filed a motion for discovery. The prosecutor's office followed an open-file policy and permitted trial counsel access to everything within the case file. Trial counsel reviewed the discovery material with Petitioner and discussed the plea negotiations with him. Trial counsel recalled that the case was "pretty straightforward" and discussed potential defenses with Petitioner. Trial counsel testified that he would have been prepared to litigate the case by the time the trial date arrived.

         After the hearing, the post-conviction court entered an order denying post-conviction relief. Petitioner timely appealed to this Court. He argues that the post- conviction court erred by denying his petition for post-conviction relief because the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing established that trial counsel was ineffective for 1) failing to object to Petitioner's classification as a Range II offender, 2) failing to provide Petitioner with complete discovery, 3) failing to adequately meet with Petitioner, and 4) failing to pay ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.