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.

Shade v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

February 27, 2018

SHAWNTE L. SHADE
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs December 20, 2017

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 107438 Scott Green, Judge.

         The Petitioner, Shawnte L. Shade, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because of the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

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

          Gerald L. Gulley, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Shawnte L. Shade.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Linda D. Kirklen, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Ta Kisha Fitzgerald, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which James Curwood Witt, Jr., and Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         On March 31, 2015, the Petitioner pled guilty to one count of especially aggravated robbery. In exchange for the Petitioner's guilty plea, the State dismissed a second count of especially aggravated robbery and recommended that the Petitioner be sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to the minimum fifteen-year sentence with service at one hundred percent pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(i).

         At the plea submission hearing, the prosecutor recommended a sentence of fifteen years "to serve . . . at [one hundred] percent." The trial court then explained that the Petitioner would be sentenced to "[fifteen] years at [one hundred] percent, with the possibility of earning [fifteen] percent off." The trial court further explained that the Petitioner would have to serve at least eighty-five percent of his sentence before he would be eligible for release.

         The trial court then reviewed the rights the Petitioner was waiving by pleading guilty. During this review, the Petitioner stated that trial counsel had reviewed the plea agreement form with him and that he was satisfied with trial counsel's representation. The trial court also stated as follows:

It's my understanding that you have agreed to receive the minimum of [fifteen] years for [the] offense; however, that is at a [one hundred] percent service rate, meaning, that you must serve at least [eighty-five] percent before you could meet with the parole board and receive good time credit off the back-end of the sentence.

         The trial court asked the Petitioner if he understood his sentence, and the ...


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.