IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
SEPTEMBE R SESSION, 1998 FILED
October 26, 1998
ANTHONY K. GOODS, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9712-CR-00479
) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appe llant, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk
)
) SHELBY COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. L.T. LAFFERTY
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:
A.C. WHARTON JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
TONY N. BRAYTON PETER M. COUGHLAN
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General
201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 2-01 425 5th Avenu e North
Memphis, TN 38103 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
WILLIAM L. GIBBONS
District Attorney General
RHEA CLIFT
Assistant District Attorney General
Criminal Justice Complex, Suite 301
201 Poplar Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED IN ACCOR DANCE W ITH RULE 20
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
ORDER
The Defendant appeals as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee
Rules of Appellate Procedure from the trial cour t’s denial of h is petition for p ost-
conviction relief. In a negotiate d plea ag reeme nt, the De fendan t pleaded guilty
to secon d deg ree m urder , attem pted s econ d deg ree m urder , espe cially
aggravated robbery, and theft of property over the value of one thousand dollars.
His effective sentence was fifty-five years to be served as a Range III persistent
offender. He subsequently petitioned for post-conviction relief, alle ging th at his
guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary and that he received ineffective
assistance of couns el. After con ducting a n eviden tiary hearin g on the post-
conviction petition, the trial judge denied the petitioner’s claim. We affirm the
judgm ent of the tria l court.
The murder, attem pted murd er, and robbe ry convictions grew out of the
Defe ndan t’s perpetra tion of an a rmed ro bbery of a store in M emph is. The the ft
conviction was unrelated to the other crimes and involved the theft of an
automobile.
The Defendant essentially asserts that he did not understand the nature
and consequences of his plea because his attorney did not adeq uately e xplain
to him w hat forty -five pe rcent o f fifty-five ye ars ac tually meant as it relates to
parole eligibility. The Defendant and his former attorney were the only witnesses
who testified at the hearing on the petition for post-con viction relief. In its order
denying the Defendant post-conviction relief, the trial court found that the proof
-2-
in the record “overwhelmingly” established that the pleas of guilty were know ingly,
voluntarily, and intellige ntly entere d. The c ourt furthe r found th at the evidence
did not suppo rt the petitioner’s a llegations of ineffective a ssistanc e of coun sel.
From our review of this record, the evidence clearly supports the findings of the
trial judge. No error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is apparent on the
record.
Neither a detailed discussion of the facts nor a lengthy opinion concerning
the law wou ld be of pre ceden tial value in this case. W e are sa tisfied that the
result reached by the trial court is co rrect. Based upon a thorough reading of the
record, the briefs of the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for
review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of
the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.
____________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
___________________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
-3-