Curtis Watkins v. State of Tennessee

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON AUGUST SESSION, 1999 FILED Ocotber 21, 1999 CURTIS WATKINS, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9808-CR-00236 ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk Appe llant, ) ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. CAROLYN WADE BLACKETT, STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction) ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: DANIEL SEWARD PAUL G. SUMMERS 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 210 Attorney General and Reporter Memphis, TN 38103 PATRICIA C. KUSSMANN Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashville, TN 37243 WILLIAM GIBBONS District Attorney General JANET SHIPMAN Assistant District Attorney General Criminal Justice Complex, Suite 301 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 ORDER FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RULE 20 JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE ORDER The Petitioner, Curtis W atkins, ap peals the order of th e Shelb y Coun ty Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner pled guilty to aggravated rape in 1981 and received a sentence of twenty (20) years. In 1992, h e filed the present petition alleging that, (1) his guilty plea was involuntary becau se he w as not ad vised of his right again st self-incrimination, and (2) that he received ine ffective assistance of cou nsel. 1 The trial court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough re view of the record before this Court, we affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner argues that his guilty plea in 1981 2 was involuntary because he was not advised of his right against self-incrimination. However, at the post- conviction hearing, the Petitioner acknowledged on several occasions that he was, in fact, advised that he had a right not to testify at trial. The transcript of the guilty plea hea ring corro borates this testimony. T hus, th ere is n o factu al bas is for the Petitioner’s claim in this regard. 1 The Petitioner filed a prior petition in 1984, which was dismissed without a hearing in 1985. After the Petitioner filed his second petition in 1992, the trial court dismissed the petition on the basis that it was barred by the statute of limitations. The Petitioner appealed, claiming that he was unable to proceed with his original petition due to mental incompetence. This Court held that “mental incompetence tolls the limiting effect of T.C.A. § 40-30-102 in cases where the disability existed when the statute began to run.” Curtis Watkins v. State, C.C.A. 02C01-9209-CR-00212, 1993 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 746, at *2, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed November 3, 1993), aff’d Watkins v. State, 903 S.W.2d 302 (Tenn. 1995). The case was remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine when the petitioner regained competence. In lieu of such a hearing, the parties agreed to proceed with a determination of the petition on its merits. 2 The Petitioner testified at the post-conviction hearing that he completed his sentence for the crime of aggravated rape in 1995. -2- The Petitioner maintains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial couns el’s failure to secure scientific bloo d tests to neg ate the state’s theory that he raped the victim. Trial counsel testified at the post-conviction hearing that the forensics report indicated that no sperm or other physical evidence was found, and as a result, a blood test would not have been fruitful. Additionally, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an alibi defense. The Petitioner testified at the post-conviction hearing that, at the time the crime was committed, he was with his sister. Howeve r, trial counsel subp oena ed the petition er’s sister to testify at trial, and the petitioner conceded that his sister was prese nt in the co urtroo m on the da y of his guilty plea. According to trial counsel, the Petitioner pled guilty on the day the case was set for trial and therefore, the testimony of Petitioner’s sister was not neces sary. This Court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards of Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975), and Strickland v. W a shington, 466 U.S. 466 U.S. 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate that (1) his a ttorney ’s performance was deficie nt, and (2) the d eficien t perfor man ce res ulted in prejudice to the Defendant so as to deprive him of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.C t. at 2064; Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn . 1996). In Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), the Supreme Court applied th e two-part Strickland standard to ineffective assistance of counsel claims arising out of a guilty plea. U nder Hill, a petitioner is required to show that there is a rea sona ble probability that, but for counsel’s errors , he would no t have -3- pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. 474 U .S. at 59, 10 6 S.Ct. at 370. The trial court found that the Petitioner h ad no t dem onstra ted tha t his attorney was deficient under the standards of Baxter and Strickland. The court also found that the Petitioner was fully advised of his right against se lf- incrimination. The re cord fully su pports the trial court’s findings. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennes see Cou rt of Criminal Appeals. Costs of the appeal will be paid by the State of Tennessee as it appe ars that the Petitioner is indigent. ____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE CONCUR: ___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE ___________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE -4-