Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs February 12, 2019
from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 40300049
Jill Bartee Ayers, Judge
Steven Padgett King, appeals the dismissal of his petition
for post-conviction relief, in which he sought application of
the rule announced in Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461
(Tenn. 2010). We reverse the judgment of the post-conviction
court and remand to the post-conviction court for a new
evidentiary hearing to determine whether Petitioner is
entitled to relief pursuant to Ward.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Court Reversed and Remanded
Gregory D. Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Steven Padgett King.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant Attorney General; John Wesley
Carney, Jr., District Attorney General; and Arthur Beiber,
Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State
T. Woodall, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
Robert W. Wedemeyer and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.
T. WOODALL, JUDGE
January 15, 2004, Petitioner pleaded guilty to especially
aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape and received an
effective 40-year sentence. During the guilty plea colloquy,
the trial court did not inform Defendant that he would be
subject to lifetime community supervision as to the
aggravated rape conviction. The judgment form did not reflect
that Defendant was sentenced to lifetime community
2015, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to correct an
illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Relying upon the Tennessee Supreme
Court's decision in Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d
461, 476 (Tenn. 2010), Petitioner alleged that he did not
agree to be sentenced to lifetime community supervision.
Following a hearing on August 19, 2016, the trial court
dismissed Petitioner's Rule 36.1 motion on the basis that
the holding in Ward did not apply retroactively, as
decided in Bush v. State, 428 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014).
The trial court entered amended judgments to reflect the
statutory requirement of lifetime community supervision.
Petitioner did not appeal from the trial court's
dismissal of his Rule 36.1 motion.
subsequently filed a pro se petition for
post-conviction relief, alleging that "his [p]lea
agreement was not knowingly nor intelligently entered because
the original judgment has now been amended to include
[c]ommunity [s]upervision for life, a punitive element that
he did not agree to when he originally accepted his plea in
2004." Steven Padgett King v. State, No.
M2017-00058-CCA-R3-PC, 2017 WL 3741408, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Aug. 30, 2017), no perm. app. filed. The
post-conviction court dismissed the petition as untimely, and
Petitioner appealed. A panel of this court reversed the
post-conviction court's order dismissing the petition as
untimely, concluding that the one-year statute of limitations
was reset by the entry of the amended judgments. Id.
We obtained the procedural history of Petitioner's Rule
36.1 proceedings from this opinion. Steven Padgett
King, 2017 WL 3741408, at *1, n.1.
remand, Petitioner was appointed post-conviction counsel. The
record does not contain an amended post-conviction petition.
The post-conviction court conducted a "status
hearing," at which Petitioner was the only witness to
testify. Petitioner testified that he would be 82 years old
when his sentence expired. He testified, "my problem
would be how to deal with community supervision for life on a
very limited income, if any income, and not be violated and
sent back to prison again because I was unable to meet the
state's restrictions on me." Petitioner testified
that he did not know that community supervision for life
would be part of his sentence. He testified, "none of
this was ever discussed with me."
written order denying relief, the post-conviction court
concluded that Petitioner failed to state a colorable claim
for relief. The court noted that the "holding in
State v. Bush [sic] is clear that the Ward
case is not retroactive and that no previous failure to
advise a defendant of community supervision for life as a
consequence of a plea will invalidate a prior plea or
sentence." The post-conviction court further concluded
that "all matters raised in the [post-conviction]