IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
JULY 1997 SESSION
October 30, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
WILLIAM JOSEPH HAYES, )
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9608-CC-00351
Appellant, )
) WILLIAMSON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. HENRY DENMARK BELL,
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Post-conviction)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
WILLIAM JOSEPH HAYES, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Turney Center Industrial Prison Attorney General & Reporter
Unit 4-B
Route 1, Turney Center PETER M. COUGHLAN
Only, TN 37140-9709 Asst. Attorney General
450 James Robertson Pkwy.
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
JOSEPH D. BAUGH
District Attorney General
P. O. Box 937
Franklin, TN 37065
OPINION FILED:____________________
REVERSED AND REMANDED
JOHN H. PEAY,
Judge
OPINION
The petitioner pled guilty to one count of solicitation to commit first-degree
murder and was sentenced pursuant to a plea-bargain as a Range I standard offender
to eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Judgment was
entered on August 25, 1994. On May 3, 1996, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief
alleging that he had pled guilty as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court
below summarily dismissed the petition on the grounds that “measured against the court
record, the petition for post conviction relief is without merit.” The petitioner now appeals,
claiming that he was entitled to a hearing on his post-conviction claims. We agree and
reverse and remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing.
Upon receipt of a petition for post-conviction relief, “the court shall examine
the allegations of fact in the petition. If the facts alleged, taken as true, fail to show that
the petitioner is entitled to relief or fail to show that the claims for relief have not been
waived or previously determined, the petition shall be dismissed.” T.C.A. § 40-30-206(f)
(Supp. 1996) (emphasis added). In the instant case, the petitioner alleged that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was thereby coerced into pleading
guilty. In support of his claims, he alleged, among other things, that his attorneys failed
to represent him properly as follows:
1. Failed to enter his plea in accordance with his wishes;
2. Disregarded his suggestions for the “development of or
aggressive pursuit of any viable defenses;”
3. Refused to file a motion for psychological evaluations;
4. Refused to contact witnesses;
5. Failed to respond to repeated communications;
6. Informed him that the only responsibility to him “was not
2
a defense which shall prevail at trial, but to get [him] the
best deal (i.e., plea bargain), nor, for that matter, to have
the jury find [him] innocent, nor no verdict due to the
insufficiency of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to
sustain a conviction of guilt;” and
7. Told him that his religion -- Wicca -- was on trial, not his
crime.
As a result of these failures, the petitioner contends, he “was coerced by them and their
missleading advise of prevailing in the Appellate Courts of the State of Tennessee, to
accept a plea.”
In reviewing the petitioner’s allegations, the court below examined other
matters contained in the record of the State’s case against the petitioner and decided that
the petitioner’s allegations were without merit. We commend the court below for
attempting to save the State the time, money and resources required to provide the
petitioner with a hearing. However, in doing so, the court below overlooked its statutory
duty to take as true the allegations contained in the petition, without regard to other
matters contained in the record. Taken as true, the petitioner’s allegations state a claim
for relief. Accordingly, even if every single allegation is proved false, the petitioner is
entitled to a hearing.
The judgment below is reversed and this matter is remanded for an
evidentiary hearing in accordance with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, T.C.A.
§ 40-30-201 et. seq. (Supp. 1996).
_______________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
3
CONCUR:
______________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge
______________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
4