IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JUNE 1998 SESSION FILED
July 23, 1998
VINCENT DELANO HADLEY, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9710-CR-00414
) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appe llant, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk
) SHELBY COUNTY
VS. )
) HON . JOSE PH B . BRO WN , JR.,
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:
MARK A. MESLER JOHN KNOX WALKUP
200 Jefferson Ave., Ste. 1250 Attorney General & Reporter
Memphis, TN 38103
PETE R M. C OUG HLAN
Asst. Attorney General
425 5th Ave. N.
2nd Fl., Cordell Hull Bldg.
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
WILLIAM L. GIBBONS
District Attorney General
KEV IN RAR DIN
Asst. District Attorney General
Criminal Justice Com plex, Suite 301
201 Poplar Street
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
OPINION
The Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder. He pleaded guilty to the
charge pursuant to a negotiated plea ag reeme nt and re ceived a senten ce of life
imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In this post-conviction proceeding filed
in January 1995, the Defendant contends that his guilty plea must be set aside
because it was not entered voluntarily and beca use he rece ived ineffective
assistance of cou nsel. A fter an e videntia ry hearing, the trial cour t denied re lief.
We affirm.
The Defe ndan t’s murder conviction was for the killing of a two-year-old child,
who died after a severe beating. The Defendant gave a statement in which he
admitted that he had beaten the child because she had urinated on the couch.
At the post-conviction hearing, the D efendant an d one of his two trial lawyers
testified. The D efend ant cla imed that he had pleaded guilty because he was
“scared” and “confused.” He testified that the police had threatened him into giving
two statements, that the police had then “changed” his statements to appear as
confessions, and that he had been severely beaten by jail inmates a few days after
having given his second statement. He plead ed gu ilty appr oxima tely one year later
but “took the guilty plea because [he] was scared and confused.” He admitted that
he had kn own he was facin g the de ath pen alty if he wen t to trial. He further
testified that his legal representa tion was in effective du e to inade quate
investigation, inadeq uate communication, insufficient zealousness, misinformation,
failure to m ove for ch ange o f venue, a nd failure to prepare a defen se strateg y.
-2-
Lead counsel for the Defendant at trial testified that she and another lawyer
from the pub lic defend er’s office had been assigned to the case, as well as two
investigators. She testified that she had filed thirty-six motions, including a motion
to suppress the Defendant’s statements. The motion to suppress was denied. She
explained that she had concluded a change of venue would not necessarily be in
her client’s best interest. Her records reflected twenty jail visits as well as
additional phone calls and correspondence with the Defendant. She explained
that, under the facts o f the case, “The re was not much strategy tha t could be had,”
and that she had advised her client “to try to enter a plea rather than to go to tria l,
becau se they w ere see king the d eath pe nalty aga inst him.”
In a ruling from the bench, the trial court found the Defendant “not very
credible . . . in terms of his assertions” and that “performance of counsel was
adequ ate and rea sonab le unde r the circum stance s.” W e agree . In this post-
convic tion relief proceeding, the Defendant had the burden of proving the
allegations in his petition by a prepond erance of the evide nce. McBe e v. State,
655 S.W.2d 191, 195 (Ten n. Crim. App . 1983). Furthermore, the factual findings
of a trial court after an evidentiary hearing “are conclusive on appeal unless the
evidence preponde rates against the judgmen t.” State v. Buford, 666 S.W.2d 473,
475 (Tenn . Crim. App . 1983). In this case, up on our review o f the evidentiary
hearing as well as the transcripts from the guilty plea and motion to suppress, the
Defendant has simply failed to carry his burden of proof as to both of his alleged
grounds for relief. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed.
-3-
____________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
_________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
-4-