IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
JULY 1997 SESSION
FILED
July 23, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
CLARENCE WASHINGTON, )
) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9507-CR-00181
Appellant, )
) SHELBY COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. CAROLYN WADE
) BLACKETT, JUDGE
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) (Post-Conviction)
Appellee. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
R. PRICE HARRIS (at hearing) JOHN KNOX WALKUP
3074 East Street Attorney General & Reporter
Memphis, Tennessee 38128
SARAH M. BRANCH
CLARENCE WASHINGTON (on appeal) Assistant Attorney General
Pro Se 450 James Robertson Parkway
Cold Creek Correctional Facility Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0493
P.O. Box 1000
Henning, Tennessee 38041 WILLIAM L. GIBBONS
District Attorney General
PAUL F. GOODMAN
Assistant District Attorney General
RHEA CLIFT
Assistant District Attorney General
Criminal Justice Complex
201 Poplar, Ste. 301
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
OPINION FILED: _________________
AFFIRMED- RULE 20
JOE G. RILEY,
JUDGE
ORDER
Pro se petitioner, Clarence Washington, appeals the denial of post-conviction
relief. In May 1982, the petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and habitual
criminality. He was sentenced to two (2) concurrent ten year terms of imprisonment.
The petitioner’s sentences were enhanced on the basis of seven (7) guilty pleas
entered between 1971 and 1977. His original post-conviction petition was denied, and
he appealed. This Court reversed and remanded for a new hearing. After an
evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief . We AFFIRM the judgment
of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of this Court.
CASE HISTORY
This Court affirmed petitioner’s convictions on direct appeal. Clarence
Washington v. State, C.C.A. No. 23, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed February 6,
1985, at Jackson) perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1985). In 1985, petitioner filed his
original petition for post conviction relief. The trial court appointed counsel and held an
evidentiary hearing. In denying relief, the trial court found the issues raised in the
petition had been waived or previously determined. This Court subsequently reversed
the original post-conviction court’s denial of relief and remanded for a new evidentiary
hearing to resolve 1) whether petitioner received effective assistance of counsel and 2)
the validity of his 1970 guilty pleas. Clarence Washington v. State, C.C.A. No. 62,
Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed July 26, 1989, at Jackson). Petitioner later
amended the petition to include newly discovered evidence. After an evidentiary
hearing, the trial court denied relief.
2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The trial judge's findings of fact on post-conviction hearings are conclusive on
appeal unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Butler v. State, 789 S.W.2d 898,
899-900 (Tenn. 1990); Adkins v. State, 911 S.W.2d 334, 354 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
The trial court’s findings of fact are afforded the weight of a jury verdict, and this Court
is bound by the trial court’s findings unless the evidence in the record preponderates
against those findings. Dixon v. State, 934 S.W.2d 69, 72 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
This Court may not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence, nor substitute its inferences for
those drawn by the trial judge. Massey v. State, 929 S.W.2d 399, 403 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1996); Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Questions
concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their
testimony are resolved by the trial court, not this court. Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d at
755. The burden of establishing that the evidence preponderates otherwise is on
petitioner. Id.
After receiving evidence at the post-conviction hearing, the trial judge took this
case under advisement. Subsequently, the trial court filed extensive, written findings of
fact and conclusions of law consisting of twenty-seven (27) pages. These extensive
findings have greatly simplified our review and justify our Rule 20 disposition.
I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Petitioner claims that original trial counsel deprived him of effective assistance of
counsel. Specifically, he argues that counsel failed to adequately (1) investigate,
prepare, or present the “correct” facts in pre-trial motions; (2) challenge in-court
identifications at the preliminary hearing; and (3) represent him at trial. The trial court in
its written findings thoroughly reviewed the services rendered by counsel and found no
evidence of deficient performance nor prejudice to petitioner as a result of their
performance. The evidence does not preponderate against these findings.
3
Accordingly, this issue is without merit.
II. Newly Discovered Evidence
Petitioner argues that he only recently received certain exculpatory police reports
concerning the identification by witnesses. He argues these reports reveal that the
witnesses reviewed the police mug books on the same date and time; therefore, this
procedure was impermissibly suggestive and would have led to suppression of the
identifications. He further contends the prior descriptions by the victim were
inconsistent with their trial identification. The trial court conducted an extensive review
of “hundreds of pages of documents” and found no new evidence which deprived
petitioner of a fair trial.
The alleged recently discovered documents do appear to have the same date
and time for each witness noted on the police reports. However, their statements
clearly reflect different times, and the trial testimony indicates they viewed the photos
separately. Furthermore, petitioner has made an insufficient showing that either the
photo identification or the in-court identification would have been suppressed based
upon this information. Likewise, there has been an insufficient showing that the result
of the trial would have been any different based upon the prior description given by the
witnesses. In summary, there is no showing that such evidence would likely have
changed the results of the trial. See State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722 (Tenn. 1994),
cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1114, 115 S.Ct. 909, 130 L.Ed.2d 791 (1995). This issue is
without merit.
III. Guilty Pleas
Petitioner argues his prior guilty plea convictions are void because he was not
4
advised of his right against self-incrimination. The transcripts indicate the court fully
discussed the ramifications of entering the pleas with petitioner. The trial court made
extensive written findings as to the various guilty pleas entered by petitioner. The trial
court relied upon Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1993), and found that
“the evidence and testimony offered establish overwhelmingly that there was, at the
least, substantial compliance with the Boykin requirements.” The record clearly
supports this conclusion. This issue is without merit.
The judgement of the trial court is AFFIRMED pursuant to Rule 20 of this Court.
__________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
______________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
___________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
5