Assigned on Briefs November 7, 2017
from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-15-65 Donald
H. Allen, Judge
Petitioner, Charvasea Lancaster, appeals from the Madison
County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for
post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that his
guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered
because his trial counsel was ineffective in explaining the
possible sentencing outcomes to him. Following our review, we
affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Morton Googe, District Public Defender; and Gregory D.
Gookin, Assistant District Public Defender, for the
appellant, Charvasea Lancaster.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Caitlin Smith, Assistant Attorney General; Jody S. Pickens,
District Attorney General; and Alfred Lynn Earls, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
Kelly Thomas, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which James Curwood Witt, Jr., and Robert L. Holloway, Jr.,
KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE.
2014, the Petitioner, sixteen years old at the time, entered
open guilty pleas to one count of aggravated burglary, one
count of burglary, two counts of vehicle burglary, and seven
counts of theft of property in various amounts. See State
v. Charvasea Rodshun Lancaster, No.
W2015-00936-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 6915578, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Nov. 22, 2016). The convictions arose out of a crime
spree in September and October 2013 during which the
Petitioner stole four vehicles, three lawn mowers, an ATV,
and a trailer. Id.
plea submission hearing, the trial court explained to the
Petitioner that there would be a separate sentencing hearing
where the trial court would decide the Petitioner's
sentence. The Petitioner stated that he understood this. The
trial court reviewed the range of punishments for each
offense with the Petitioner, and the Petitioner stated that
he understood them. The trial court also explained to the
Petitioner that it could order some of his sentences to be
served consecutively, and the Petitioner stated that he
a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that four of
the Petitioner's eleven sentences be served
consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twenty-two
years. The trial court also imposed over $8, 500 in
restitution to the Petitioner's victims. On delayed
appeal, this court affirmed the Petitioner's total
effective sentence. Lancaster, 2016 WL 6915578, at
*4. The Petitioner did not seek permission to appeal to our
Petitioner timely filed a pro se petition for post-conviction
relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of
his trial counsel because she had informed him that he would
receive a six-year sentence if he pled guilty. At the
post-conviction hearing, the Petitioner testified that when
he pled guilty, he had no idea he could get a sentence as
high as twenty-two years. The Petitioner explained that trial
counsel had only discussed with him a possible sentence of
"six [years] or probation or something like that."
the Petitioner admitted that trial counsel had discussed
"numbers" with him and that she told him that the
trial court could sentence him to "whatever [it]
want[ed] to give [him]." The Petitioner also admitted
that he had confessed to the offenses and that the trial
court had reviewed with him the open nature of his plea
agreement. The Petitioner further admitted that he thought
trial counsel had "fought for [him], " but the
Petitioner "felt like [trial counsel] ...