IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
AUGUST 1999 SESSION
FILED
Ocotober 19, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
ARDIE JACKSON, ) Appellate Court Clerk
)
Appellant, ) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9810-CR-00318
)
vs. ) Shelby County
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Hon. Terry Lafferty, Judge
)
Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)
)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
CRAIG B. FLOOD, II PAUL G. SUMMERS
Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter
100 N. Main, Ste. 2400
Memphis, TN 38103 CLINTON J. MORGAN
Asst. Attorney General
425 Fifth Ave. North
2d Floor, Cordell Hull Bldg.
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
WILLIAM L. GIBBONS
District Attorney General
CAMILLE McMULLEN
Asst. District Attorney General
201 Poplar Ave., Third Fl.
Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED:________________
AFFIRMED - RULE 20
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
OPINION
The petitioner, Ardie Jackson, filed a post-conviction petition alleging
his guilty plea to the crime of especially aggravated kidnapping was not knowingly
and voluntarily entered and that his counsel was ineffective. Following a hearing,
the trial court denied relief. In this appeal, the petitioner raises only the
voluntariness-of-plea issue. Finding no error of law requiring reversal, we affirm.
At the post-conviction hearing, the petitioner's proof established that
there had been confusion at the time of his guilty plea to the offense of especially
aggravated kidnapping as to whether serious bodily injury was required to elevate
the offense from aggravated kidnapping to especially aggravated kidnapping. The
petitioner's trial counsel candidly admitted at the post-conviction hearing that he
probably had not explained the difference between aggravated kidnapping and
especially aggravated kidnapping to the petitioner. Counsel testified, however, that
he had explained the difference between especially aggravated robbery and
especially aggravated kidnapping in that serious bodily injury was an element of the
former but not the latter. The transcript of the guilty plea hearing, which was
received as an exhibit at the post-conviction hearing, reflects that the petitioner
inquired of the court whether serious bodily injury was an element of especially
aggravated kidnapping. Although the trial judge had initially indicated otherwise, he
ultimately explained to the petitioner that serious bodily injury was not an essential
element of especially aggravated kidnapping. Thereafter, the petitioner voiced his
understanding and his willingness to go forward with the plea.
After considering all the evidence, including the testimony of the
petitioner, his trial counsel, and the transcript of the guilty plea hearing, the court
below found that the petitioner had failed to prove his allegations, and specifically,
that "[the] petitioner entered a knowing plea of guilty to the offense of especially
2
aggravated kidnapping." On appeal, the evidence of record does not preponderate
to the contrary. See, e.g., Butler v. State, 789 S.W.2d 898, 899-900 (Tenn. 1990).
Because we find no error of law requiring reversal apparent on the record, the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee
Court of Criminal Appeals.
_______________________________
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
CONCUR:
_____________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
_____________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
3