IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
NOVEMBER 1998 SESSION
December 11, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
CHRISTOPHER D. CHATMAN, )
) NO. 01C01-9710-CC-00484
Appellant, )
) ROBERTSON COUNTY No. 9918
VS. )
) HON. ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER,
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)
)
) AFFIRMED - RULE 20
ORDER
Appellant, CHRISTOPHER D. CHATMAN, appeals the denial of his petition
for post-conviction relief. On November 30, 1995, appellant pled guilty to the Class
C felony of selling cocaine and received a Range II, multiple offender sentence of
eight years. To avoid resentencing on three cases for which he was serving an
effective twelve-year sentence on Community Corrections, he admitted his
Community Corrections violation. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the eight-year
sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the twelve-year sentence for an
effective twenty-year sentence.
In July 1996, appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The petition
claimed that the plea was involuntary and without understanding of the
consequence of such a plea. It also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
Appellant’s amended petition further alleged that he understood the sentences
would be concurrent.
On August 15, 1997, an evidentiary hearing was held. On October 17, 1997,
the post-conviction court entered a written order denying relief.
According to trial counsel’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the plea
agreement was for a Range II, eight-year sentence to run consecutively to the
twelve-year Community Corrections sentence which was revoked. He discussed
the agreement with appellant as well as the possible consequences of going to trial,
which included a Range III, persistent offender conviction and resentencing on the
three Community Corrections violations. They discussed consecutive sentencing.
Counsel never told appellant that the twelve-year sentence would “eat up” the eight-
year sentence (i.e., run concurrently). Counsel’s main concern was to avoid a very
lengthy sentence for his client.
Appellant’s post-conviction hearing testimony was completely at odds with
counsel’s testimony. Appellant testified that he never saw any of the evidence
against him. He said he knew nothing about the drug case except that he had been
charged. He claimed that he had no idea what he was pleading to on November 30.
He further claimed that counsel told him the eight-year sentence would be
concurrent with the twelve-year sentence; he could do 120 days in “boot camp” and
be placed on probation; and that he would get more time if he went to trial.
However, appellant acknowledged during cross-examination that he knew he
could be re-sentenced on the Community Corrections violation and that his five prior
convictions could be considered at sentencing if he went to trial. He also testified
that he wanted to get out of jail as soon as possible and that his chief complaint is
that he received a twenty-year sentence rather than a twelve-year sentence.
A review of the record shows that the judge at the guilty plea hearing clearly
addressed each of appellant’s concerns. He clearly addressed the question of
consecutive sentencing. He gave appellant ample opportunity to express any
misunderstanding or dissatisfaction with the plea agreement or its terms.
The post-conviction judge conducted a full evidentiary hearing and placed his
findings in the record. In particular, we note that he found appellant’s testimony to
be “totally not credible.” The evidence does not preponderate against these
findings. Appellant’s claims are without merit
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee
Court of Criminal Appeals. It appearing that the appellant is indigent, costs shall be
taxed to the state.
2
So ordered. Enter:
_______________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
____________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
____________________________
L.T. LAFFERTY, SENIOR JUDGE
3