ÿWPCÿJ :U>< 03zU*­ 0f× 0Z= 0Z— 0Zñ 0ZK 0Z¥ 0Zÿ 0ZY 0Z³U,  0J9 0Tƒ 0^× 0h5 0r 0| 0†‹ 0 1u¡ % 0d 0B€ 0C Æ AIË Å.Ù@)G&pÖ–ÎlÄ:þ  è"æþ$Yä'Ã=-ë/¹ë/¿¤2ôc3øW4åO6z4?v~®CvÓ,E< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman:ù ÿÿ8WP DefaultsÓ  ÓÓ ÓÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ!€!ÓÓVL` °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:VÓÓÓÔ€ÔÔ€XÔÔ  Ô< Œ 9p`(Arial<* ÿÿ:InitialStyleÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ6$ ÿÿ4Outline 3Ò ¸ ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 1Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 2Ò ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 4Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 5Ò h ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 6Ò À ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 7Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 8Ò p ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó< Œ 9p`(Geneva2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) XP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$¡¡Ý ƒÿÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóƒ 1 2 3 4 5!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ »Ó  ÓÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€ÔÔ€Ôò òFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌAugust€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÌ $òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àThe€appellant€also€raises€the€issue€of€his€eligibility€for€bailÏpending€appeal.€€This€issue€was€resolved€on€June€24,€1996,€when€this€courtÏdenied€appellantððs€motion€for€bond.€€Ì 6òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àThe€state€contends€and€we€acknowledge€that€the€appellant€failedÏto€file€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€in€this€case.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€toÏwithdraw€his€guilty€plea€on€Friday,€June€9,€1995.€€The€notice€of€appeal€was€filedÏthirty„three€days€later€on€Wednesday,€July€12.€€Rule€4(a)€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides€that€a€notice€of€appeal€must€be€filedÏwithin€thirty€days€of€the€judgment.€€However,€the€rule€also€provides€that€inÏcriminal€cases€the€thirty„day€period€is€not€jurisdictional€and€ð ðmay€be€waived€inÏthe€interest€of€justice.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a).€€In€this€instance,€we€disregard€theÏuntimely€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal€and€consider€the€case€on€its€merits.Ì òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà à€à àThe€eight€settings€on€the€settlement€docket€wereÏSeptember€29,€November€11,€December€12,€1994,€and€January€6,€February€21,Ï28,€March€14,€and€April€4,€1995.€€The€last€date€was€the€date€the€plea€wasÏentered.€€The€record€reflects€there€was€confusion€about€the€date€scheduled€forÏdetermining€the€status€of€the€plea,€the€defendant€believing€erroneously€on€AprilÏ4,€1995,€that€the€last€status€date€would€be€a€few€weeks€later.Ì òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àÔ€Ôà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€37„1„134(a)(1)(1996)Ïprovides€that€no€ð ðchild€transferred€under€the€provisions€of€this€section€[dealingÏwith€the€transfer€of€cases€from€juvenile€court€to€criminal€court]€[may]€receive€...€aÏsentence€of€death€for€the€offense€for€which€the€child€was€transferred.ðð€€òòSeeóó€alsoÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€section€39„13„208(a),€(c)(Supp.€1996);€Tenn€R.€Crim.€P.Ï12.3(b).Ì ÌòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„13„208(b)€(Supp.Ï1996)€provides€that,€when€in€a€capital€case€the€state€intends€to€seek€lifeÏimprisonment€without€possibility€of€parole,€ð ðwritten€notice€thereof€shall€be€filedÏnot€less€than€thirty€(30)€days€prior€to€trial.ðð€€If€such€notice€is€filed€ð ðlater€than€thisÏtime,€the€trial€judge€shall€grant€the€defendant€a€reasonable€continuance€of€theÏtrial.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€It€is€evident€from€the€language€of€this€subsection€that€the€stateððsÏability€to€seek€a€life€sentence€without€possibility€of€parole€was€transitory€ratherÏthan€permanent€in€nature.Ì ÄòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àà àThe€appellant€testified€he€first€received€the€terms€of€theÏoffer€in€1994.Ì ºòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àÔ€Ôà àà àThe€trial€court€did€refer€to€grounds€for€withdrawal€ofÏguilty€pleas€as€recognized€in€òòSwang€v.€Stateóó,€42€Tenn.€212€(1965)€and€òòState€v.ÏDavisóó,€823€S.W.2d€217€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€òòDavisóó€does€mention€RuleÏ32(f),€but€òòDavisóó€held€that€manifest€injustice€existed€under€Rule€32(f)€so€as€toÏsupport€the€withdrawal€of€a€guilty€plea€in€that€case€because€of€a€failure€of€theÏstate€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence€as€required€by€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373ÏU.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194€(1963).€€The€trial€court€focused€upon€issues€ofÏprosecutorial€misconduct€or€misrepresentation,€and€perhaps€the€existence€ofÏfear€that€would€vitiate€the€decision€to€plea,€rather€than€the€larger€standard€ofÏmanifest€injustice€that€Rule€32(f)€prescribes.€€òòSeeóó€section€II€of€this€opinion,Ïòòinfraóó.Ì òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àNot€only€was€Rule€32(f)€not€mentioned€in€the€trial€court,€butÏappellantððs€counsel€on€appeal€mentions€neither€Rule€32(f)€nor€Rule€11€in€hisÏbrief.Ì ÿòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà à(f)€ò òWithdrawal€of€Plea€of€Guilty€€ó óA€motion€to€withdraw€a€plea€ofÏguilty€may€be€made€upon€a€showing€by€the€defendant€of€any€fair€and€justÏreason€only€before€sentence€is€imposed;€but€to€correct€manifest€injustice,€theÏcourt€after€sentence,€but€before€the€judgment€becomes€final,€may€set€aside€theÏjudgment€of€conviction€and€permit€the€defendant€to€withdraw€his€plea.€€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€32(f).€€Ì ÞòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àFor€cases€in€which€the€ð ðany€fair€and€just€reasonðð€standard€isÏapplied,€see,€for€example,€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€645€S.W.2d€251€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1982);€òòState€v.€Dean€Allen€Trinkleóó,€No.€€03C01„9304„CR„00123€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€30,€1993),€òòperm.€app.€denied€óó(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.ÏVincent€Daughertyóó,€No.€02C01„9104„CR„00071€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏJuly€15,€1992),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Larry€Roddyóó,€No.€246Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€19,€1990);€òòState€v.€Bruce€E.€Vincent,€Jr.óó,€No.Ï18€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€January€20,€1989).Ì ÜòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ h ÒÒ ` ÒÓ  ö ÓÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àUnlike€Tennesseeððs€rule,€Rule€32€of€the€FederalÏRules€of€Criminal€Procedure€imposesÏno€time€limit€on€a€trial€courtððs€authorityÏto€permit€the€withdrawal€of€a€guilty€pleaÏto€correct€a€manifest€injustice.€TheÏfederal€rule€states:€€à àà àAÏmotion€to€withdraw€a€plea€of€guilty€orÏòònolo€contendereóó€may€be€made€onlyÏbefore€sentence€is€imposed€orÏimposition€of€sentence€is€suspended;Ïbut€to€correct€manifest€injustice€theÏcourt€after€sentence€may€set€aside€theÏjudgment€of€conviction€and€permit€theÏdefendant€to€withdraw€his€plea.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓFed.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(d).Ì OòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àFor€Tennessee€cases€in€which€the€ð ðmanifest€injusticeðð€standardÏis€considered€see,€for€example,€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€823€S.W.2d€217€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòState€v.ÏDrakeóó,€720€S.W.2d€798€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986);€òòState€v.€Haynesóó,€696€S.W.2dÏ26€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòState€v.€James€A.€Bearóó,€No.€Ï03C01„9510„CC„00301€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€9,€1996),€òòperm.€app.Ïdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1997);€òòState€v.€Michael€Leon€Chambersóó,€No.Ï01CO1„9505„CC„00143€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€20,€1996),€òòperm.Ïapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Steve€Pickettóó,€No.€01CO1„9211„CC„00344Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€2,€1994);€òòState€v.€William€Ray€Hutchinsóó,€No.€Ï03C01„9302„CR„00044€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.€7,€1993)€òòperm.€app.Ïdenied€óó(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Daniel€Leroyóó,€No.€€03C01„9206„CR„00199€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€4,€1993);€òòState€v.€Anthony€Brownóó,€No.Ï02C01„9106„CC„00130€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€March€11,€1992);€òòState€v.ÏCharles€Eugene€Laneóó,€No.€111€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.€5,€1990);ÏòòState€v.€Arthur€Harrisóó,€No.€103€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Oct.€11,€1989).Ì ¹òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àAlthough€Tennesseeððs€Rule€32(f)€imposes€time€constraintsÏabsent€in€Rule€32(d)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€both€refer€toÏthe€identical€standard€of€ð ðmanifest€injusticeðð€in€the€withdrawal€of€a€guilty€pleaÏafter€sentencing.€€Consequently,€abundant€federal€precedent€assists€ourÏinterpretation€of€the€term.€€Ì áòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àCertainly,€a€denial€of€due€process€would€also€be€ð ða€fair€and€justÏreasonðð€for€setting€aside€a€guilty€plea.Ì ¯òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà à€à àA€plea€of€guilty€must€be€made€voluntarily,€understandingly,€andÏintelligently€to€pass€constitutional€muster.€€€€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,Ï244,€89€S.Ct.€1709,€1713€(1969).€€The€essence€of€òòBoykinóó€is€the€requirementÏð ðthat€no€guilty€plea€be€accepted€without€an€affirmative€showing€that€it€wasÏintelligent€and€voluntary.ðð€€òòBoykinóó,€395€U.S.€at€€244,€89€S.Ct.€at€1713.€€€AÏreviewing€court€may€look€to€any€relevant€evidence€in€the€record€to€determine€theÏvoluntariness€of€a€plea.€€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€353€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€Ì µòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àÔ€Ôà àà àòòSeeóó€n.7,€òòsupraóó.Ì êòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àÔ€Ôà àà àòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542,€547Ï(Tenn.1984).ÌÌà àÌ îòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àÔ€Ôà àà àWe€note€the€anomaly€involved€when€the€conviction€isÏfor€second„€degree€murder€and€the€offense€charged€is€first„degree€murderÏalleged€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202(a)(4)€(Supp.€1993):€The€lesserÏgrade€of€the€offense€requires€a€higher€degree€of€scienter€(knowing€killing)€thanÏdoes€the€higher€grade€of€the€offense€(reckless€killing).€€Ì ÛòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àÔ€Ôà àà àThis€court€reviewed€a€post„conviction€challenge€to€a€guiltyÏplea€in€òòChamberlain€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€534€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€InÏòòChamberlainóó€we€acknowledged€the€obligations€placed€upon€a€trial€court€inÏTennessee,€in€receiving€a€guilty€plea,€as€articulated€in€òòBoykinóó€and€in€òòState€v.ÏMackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.€1977)€and€Rule€11€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure.€€òòChamberlainóó,€815€S.W.2d€at€538„40.€€We€concluded€inÏòòChamberlainóó€that€the€record€did€not€affirmatively€disclose€that€the€plea€wasÏvoluntarily€and€understandingly€made.€€òòIdóó.€at€540.€€However,€we€pointed€out€thatÏthis€determination€did€not€end€the€inquiry.€€Rather,€the€burden€shifted€to€theÏstate€ð ðto€prove€that€the€defendant€voluntarily,€understandingly,€and€knowinglyÏentered€the€pleas.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€540„41.€€The€attempt€to€carry€this€burden€may€beÏmade€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòIdóó.€at€541.ÌÌà àFurthermore€manifest€injustice€conceivably€embraces€the€notion€of€Ïsubstantial€compliance.€€In€òòState€v.€Nealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131€(Tenn.€1991),€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€in€a€post„conviction€attack€upon€a€guiltyÏplea€the€conviction€was€not€void€even€though,€prior€to€pleading,€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€explain€any€of€the€defendantððs€rights€except€for€his€right€to€have€a€juryÏtrial€and€to€confront€witnesses.€€òòIdóó.€at€133.€€The€court€acknowledged€that€inÏòòRounsaville€v.€Evattóó,€733€S.W.2d€506€(Tenn.€1987),€it€promulgated€strictÏcompliance€with€òòMackeyóó,€but€in€òòNealóó€the€court€elected€to€ð ðdepart€from€the€strictÏholding€of€òòRounsavilleóó.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€134.€€The€court€held€that,€although€fullÏcompliance€with€the€requirements€of€òòBoykinóó,€òòMackeyóó,€Rule€11,€and€òòState€v.ÏMcClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268€(Tenn.€1987),€is€required,€ð ðabsolutely€literalÏcompliance€with€the€advice€to€be€given€is€not€required.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€137.€€The€courtÏnoted€that€ð ðexpressing€the€sense€of€the€substance€of€the€required€advice€to€aÏguilty„pleading€defendantðð€is€substantial€compliance.€€òòIdóó.€Ìà àÌ pòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€Ôà àà àThe€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Third€Circuit€found€thatÏthe€trial€courtððs€inadvertent€failure€to€advise€a€defendant€of€the€correct€maximumÏsentence€and€the€defendantððs€resulting€confusion€created€manifest€injustice€inòòÏUnited€States€v.€Cruscoóó,€536€F.2d€21,€23„24€(3rd€Cir.€1976).€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòPilkington€v.€United€Statesóó,€315€F.2d€204,€210€(1963)€(€manifest€injusticeÏresults€when€trial€courtððs€misinformation€causes€defendant€to€plead€guilty).€€AÏWisconsin€court€has€found€that€the€failure€to€establish€a€factual€basis€isÏevidence€that€a€manifest€injustice€has€occurred.€€òòState€v.€Harringtonóó,€512ÏN.W.2d€261,€263€(Wis.€App.€1994).€€€A€similar€result€was€reached€in€òòState€v.ÏDodsonóó,€550€N.W.2d€347,€354€(Neb.€1996)€(failure€to€establish€venue€in€factualÏbasis€requires€withdrawal€of€guilty€plea).€€In€òòHicklin€v.€Stateóó,€535€P.2d€743€(Wyo.Ï1975),€the€record€did€not€demonstrate€manifest€injustice€because€no€actualÏreliance€on€the€courtððs€misstatement€was€demonstrated.ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  eskto Geneva ÒÒ  eskto Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑßD€"#5%!`|` K `€DßÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ` ,X°` ”XÓÔ€Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Ó€AT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  Óó óÌÓ  Óò òFEBRUARY,€1997€SESSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€à àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9508„CR„00263Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òANTONIO€DEMONTE€LYONS,ó óà à)à àHonorable€Thomas€H.€Shriver,€Ïà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudge€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à à(Withdrawal€of€Guilty€Plea)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌCHARLES€GALBREATHà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ211€Union€St.,€Suite€901à àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌNashville,€TN€37201ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àEUGENE€J.€HONEAÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€REEDÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Ave.€N.Ìà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€VACATED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT,€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓOPINIONÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellant,€Antonio€Demonte€Lyons,€pleaded€guilty€in€DavidsonÏCounty€Criminal€Court€to€second„degree€murder,€a€Class€A€felony,€for€which€heÏreceived€a€Range€II€sentence€of€forty€years.€€He€now€appeals€from€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€denying€his€motion€to€set€aside€his€guilty€plea.€€He€contends€thatÏthe€trial€judge€erredÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû ÓÓÓà à1.à àby€instructing€a€minor€defendant€that€he€could€beÏsentenced€to€death€if€he€did€not€plead€guilty;ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû Óà à2.à àby€finding€that€the€plea€of€guilty€was€not€influenced€by€fearÏand€misunderstanding;ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû Óà à3.à àby€finding€that€the€state€had€provided€an€accurate€factualÏbasis€to€sustain€a€conviction;€andÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû Óà à4.à àby€finding€that€the€defendant€was€adequately€representedÏby€counsel.× ƒ$ ××  ×ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÓÓThe€gravamen€of€appellantððs€complaint€is€that€the€trial€judge€abused€hisÏdiscretion€in€denying€appellantððs€motion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€and€that,€butÏfor€the€ineffectiveness€of€counsel,€he€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.× ƒ% ××  ×€€€€ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€discussed€below,€€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€in€part€and€remand€this€case€for€further€findings€and/or€proceedings.Ìà àThe€events€leading€to€appellantððs€acceptance€of€a€plea€bargain€wereÏvigorously€disputed,€and€we€must€discuss€them€in€some€detail.€€This€caseÏarose€out€of€the€death€of€thirteen„month„old€Alexandria€Gleaves,€the€daughter€ofÏappellantððs€girl€friend,€who€died€on€December€13,€1993€as€result€of€internalÍbleeding€caused€by€blunt€trauma€to€the€abdomen.€€The€appellant,€who€wasÏseventeen€years€old,€was€arrested€in€connection€with€her€death.€€He€waived€hisÏrights€in€juvenile€court€and€was€indicted€for€first„degree€murder€on€June€20,Ï1994.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€was€indigent€and€appointed€theÏpublic€defenderððs€office€to€represent€him.€ÌÌà àBetween€August,€1994,€and€April,€1995,€the€case€was€before€the€trialÏcourt€seventeen€times.€€At€least€eight€of€these€occasions€were€appearances€onÏthe€settlement€docket.× ƒ& ××  ×€€Prior€to€a€plea€agreement€being€made,€counsel€spokeÏto€Mr.€Garey€Lyons,€the€appellantððs€father,€and€encouraged€him€to€talk€to€hisÏson€about€accepting€the€plea€bargain€which€had€been€on€the€table€for€severalÏweeks.€€€The€state€had€offered€to€accept€a€plea€for€second„degree€murder€inÏexchange€for€an€agreed€Range€II€sentence€of€forty€years.€Defense€counselÏtestified€that,€although€the€appellant€had€never€admitted€his€guilt,€he€hadÏindicated€that€he€would€consider€pleading€guilty€if€the€sentence€were€reducedÏto€thirty€years.€€The€appellant€had,€however,€repeatedly€declined€the€currentÍoffer.€€Because€facilities€for€personal€interviews€were€not€available€at€theÏcourthouse,€Mr.€Lyons€sent€a€message€to€his€son€urging€him€to€plead€guilty,Ïand€the€appellant€agreed.€€€€The€trial€court€accepted€the€plea€and€imposedÏsentence€on€that€day,€April€4,€1995.ÌÌà àOn€May€3,€1995,€the€appellant,€who€had€retained€new€counsel,€filed€aÏð ðMotion€to€Withdraw€Plea€and€to€Set€this€Case€for€Trialðð.€€The€trial€court€held€anÏextensive,€nine„hour€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€motion€on€June€9,€1995.€€€GareyÏLyons,€testified€that€defense€counsel€had€told€him€that€if€his€son€insisted€onÏgoing€to€trial€he€could€receive€the€death€penalty€or€be€sentenced€to€life€withoutÏparole.€€Phylis€West,€the€Director€of€the€Employee€Assistance€Program€forÏNashvilleððs€Metropolitan€Government,€testified€that€she€was€present€at€aÏmeeting€in€which€she€believed€defense€counsel€mentioned€a€possibility€thatÏthe€case€could€not€be€won€at€trial€and€that€the€jury€could€impose€€the€deathÏpenalty.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€testified€that€he€did€not€commit€the€crime€and€pleadedÏguilty€only€because€his€father€told€him€he€should.€€He€said€that€his€attorney€hadÏmade€it€clear€that€he€could€not€win€at€trial€and€that€he€could€be€sentenced€to€lifeÏwithout€parole€or€otherwise€subject€to€a€minimum€confinement€of€€twenty„fiveÍcalendar€years.ÌÌà àPaul€Newman,€the€assistant€public€defender€who€represented€theÏappellant€during€the€plea€negotiations,€testified.€€Newman€stated€that€he€toldÏthe€appellant€and€his€father€numerous€times€that,€as€a€juvenile,€appellant€wasÏnot€eligible€for€the€death€penalty.× ƒ' ××  ×€€He€also€explained€to€them€that,€since€theÏstate€had€not€provided€the€required€notice,€the€defendant€could€not€beÏsentenced€to€life€without€parole.× ƒ( ××  ×€€€He€testified€that€he€had€carefully€explainedÏthat€if€the€appellant€were€convicted€at€trial€of€first„degree€murder€he€would€haveÏto€serve€a€minimum€of€twenty„five€years€before€he€would€be€eligible€for€parole.€ÏNewman€explained€that€the€stateððs€offer€to€agree€to€a€plea€of€guilty€to€murder€inÍthe€second€degree€upon€a€Range€II€sentence€of€40€years€had€been€conveyed€toÏthe€appellant€several€weeks€before€April,€1995.× ƒ) ××  ×€€Newman€formally€conveyedÏthe€offer€with€explanatory€information€by€letter€dated€March€1,€1995.€€On€or€aboutÏMarch€4,€1995,€Newman€met€with€the€appellant€and€the€appellantððs€father€andÏtold€the€appellant€that€he€would€not€allow€the€appellant€to€plead€guilty€if€theÏappellant€told€him€he€was€not€guilty.€€Newman€testified€that€when€he€left€thatÏmeeting,€appellantððs€father€told€him€that€the€appellant€and€his€father€wouldÏdiscuss€the€offer€and€make€a€decision.€€Newman€also€testified€that€he€fullyÏdiscussed€the€plea€with€the€appellant€who€signed€the€plea€petition€in€which€heÏwaived€his€constitutional€rights€and€agreed€to€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€IIÏoffender€prior€to€the€hearing€in€the€courtroom€on€April€4,€1995.ÌÌà àThe€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€submission€hearing€was€entered€intoÏevidence€at€the€hearing€and€is€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.€€The€record€revealsÏthat,€after€the€appellant€acknowledged€his€counsel€had€discussed€the€guiltyÏplea,€the€trial€judge,€the€assistant€district€attorney,€and€defense€counselÏengaged€in€the€following€discussion:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€Court:€à àAll€right.€€Mr.€Lyons,€uh€„„€you€are€charged€with€firstÏdegree€murder€of€„„€uh€„„€Alexandria€Gleaves€on€December€13thÍ1993.€Iððve€forgotten€.€.€.€.€the€supreme€court€did€something€aboutÏthis€„„€this€child€abuse€murder€statute.€€Is€„„€òòdoes€it€still€carry€theÏdeath€penalty€or€did€they€hold€that€it€does€not?óóÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒMr.€Newman:à àYour€Honor,€I€„„€òòitððs€my€understanding€that€itÏcarries€the€death€penalty€for€typical€first€degree€murderóó.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒòòGeneral€Statomóó:€Thatððs€my€understanding,€also€.€.€.€.€And€I€believeÏunder€the€new€statute€„„€uh€„„€you€can€have€the€death€penaltyÏunder€it,€and€it€only€has€to€be€one€incident€other€than€.€.€.€.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌThe€trial€court€then€advised€the€defendant:ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒThe€Court:€€€Okay.€€òòMr.€Lyons,€if€„„€if€you€were€convicted€of€thisÏcase,€had€a€trial,€you€could€get€the€death€penalty€or€you€could€get€aÏlife€sentence€with€no€possibility€of€parole€or€a€life€sentence€whichÏmeans€at€least€twenty„five€years€to€serve€without€„„€in€order€(sic)Ïwords,€twenty„five€years€before€you€would€be€considered€forÏparole.óó€Those€are€the€three€possibilities€if€you€were€convicted€ofÏthe€crime€youððre€charged€with€committing.€Now,€do€youÏunderstand€that?ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌà àLyons:€à àYes,€sir.ÌÌà àThe€Court:€à àMr.€„„€did€Mr.€Newman€explain€all€that€to€you?ÌÌà àLyons:€à àWhat€did€you€say?ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒThe€Court:à à€Did€Mr.€Newman€explain€all€these€possibleÏpunishments€to€you?ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌà àLyons:€à àYes,€sir.ÌÌ(Emphasis€added).€€€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€trial€judge€went€on€to€explain€the€plea€bargain€sentence€andÏrepeated€twice€that€the€appellant,€if€he€were€convicted€of€first„degree€murder,Ícould€receive€either€the€death€penalty,€life€without€parole,€or€life€in€prison.€At€noÏtime€did€the€trial€court€or€the€attorneys€state€that,€because€the€defendant€was€aÏjuvenile€and€the€state€had€not€provided€the€requisite€notice,€the€only€sentenceÏthat€could€be€imposed€in€a€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€would€be€life€inÏprison.€€The€trial€court€advised€the€appellant€of€his€constitutional€rights€asÏrequired€by€Rule€11,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€Then,€the€assistant€attorney€generalÏstated€that€the€defendant€had€caused€the€injuries€to€the€thirteen„month€oldÏvictim€while€she€was€under€his€exclusive€control€and€that€the€offense€occurredÏon€December€13,€1993,€in€Davidson€County.€€After€determining€the€number€ofÏdays€the€appellant€had€already€served,€the€trial€court€accepted€his€plea.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€withdraw€the€plea,€Ìthe€trial€court€found€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû Óà à1.à àThe€state€had€made€no€misrepresentations€and€hadÏcommitted€no€fraud€that€might€have€induced€the€plea.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû Óà à2.à àThe€only€problem€was€the€discussion€of€the€death€penaltyÏat€the€submission€hearing.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû Óà à3.à àDefense€counsel€had€informed€the€appellant€and€his€fatherÏof€the€fact€that€the€appellant€was€not€eligible€for€the€deathÏpenalty€because€he€was€a€juvenile,€and€that€€the€state€couldÏnot€seek€life€without€parole€because€it€had€not€providedÏtimely€notice.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû Óà à4.à àThe€factual€basis€for€the€plea€was€substantial.€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû Óà à5.à àThe€appellant€was€laboring€under€no€misapprehensionsÏwhen€he€pleaded€guilty€to€second„degree€murder.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû Óà à6.à àThe€appellant€had€received€effective€assistance€of€counselÏduring€the€negotiations€leading€up€to€the€acceptance€of€theÏplea.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àThe€trial€judge,€with€the€complicity€of€the€assistant€district€attorneyÏgeneral€and€with€at€least€the€acquiescence€of€defense€counsel,€stated€that€heÏessentially€viewed€the€appellantððs€motion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea€as€aÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€then€treated€the€motion€as€aÏpost„conviction€petition€and€ð ðdeniedðð€same€based€upon€the€general€findingsÏsummarized€above.€€The€trial€court€(and€trial€counsel)€made€no€reference€toÏRule€32(f)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.× ƒ* ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€appellant€on€this€appeal€seeks€to€withdraw€or€set€aside€the€guiltyÍplea€because€(1)€the€appellant€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏand/or€(2)€the€trial€court€should€have€otherwise€allowed€the€withdrawal€of€theÏplea€presumably€€based€upon€Rule€32(f),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€App.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€We€examineÏthese€two€issues€separately.€€We€reach€the€merits€of€the€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€claim€and€affirm€the€trial€judgeððs€determination€that€there€was€noÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€that€would€taint€the€guilty€plea.€€With€respect€toÏthe€general€attack€upon€the€guilty€plea,€however,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€andÏtrial€counsel€misapprehended€the€nature€of€the€proceeding,€resulting€in€aÏfailure€of€the€trial€court€to€apply€the€appropriate€standard€in€assessing€theÏappellantððs€claim.€€For€reasons€explained€below,€we€vacate€the€order€overrulingÏthe€motion€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€the€scheme€of€Rule€32(f)€and€with€the€guidance€offered€in€thisÏopinion.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€Effective€Assistance€of€Counseló ó.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€appeal€challenges€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€theÏappellant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€(1)€deficient€representation€and€(2)Íprejudice€resulting€from€that€deficiency.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ï668,€686€(1984);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€DeficientÏrepresentation€occurs€when€counsel€provides€assistance€that€falls€below€theÏrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBankston€v.ÏStateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Prejudice€is€theÏreasonable€likelihood€that,€but€for€deficient€representation,€the€outcome€of€theÏproceedings€would€have€been€different.€€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11Ï(Tenn.€1994).€€On€review,€there€is€a€strong€presumption€of€satisfactoryÏrepresentation.€€òòBarr€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€462,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€AsÏto€guilty€pleas,€the€petitioner€must€establish€a€reasonable€probability€that,€butÏfor€the€errors€of€counsel,€he€would€not€have€entered€into€the€plea.€€òòHill€v.ÏLockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106€S.€Ct.€366,€370€(1985);€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911ÏS.W.2d€334,€349€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòWilson€v.€Stateóó,€899€S.W.€2d€648,€653Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àIn€the€direct€appeal€now€before€us,€the€appellant€claims€his€trial€counselÏrendered€ineffective€assistance€in€that€he€failed€to€investigate€the€case€fully€andÏmisinformed€the€appellant€as€to€the€possibility€of€him€receiving€the€deathÏpenalty.ÌÌà àThe€complaint€about€counselððs€investigation€centers€around€counsel€notÏinterviewing€the€victimððs€mother€and€sister€prior€to€the€submission€hearing.€ÏBoth€the€victimððs€mother,€Kim€Jackson,€and€the€victimððs€sibling,€a€five„year€oldÏchild,€were€in€the€home€during€portions€of€the€general€time€frame€in€which€theÏvictim€received€€the€fatal€blows.€€The€appellant€contends€there€was€evidenceÏthat€Jackson€had€previously€abused€the€victim.€€Trial€counsel€testified€at€theÏsubmission€hearing€that€the€investigators€employed€through€his€office€hadÏbeen€unable€to€locate€these€persons€through€Jacksonððs€reputed€places€ofÏemployment€and€residence.€€Counsel€testified€he€had€received€from€the€state€aÏcopy€of€her€transcribed€statement€and€that€efforts€were€still€being€made€toÏinterview€these€witnesses€prior€to€the€trial€date.€€Neither€of€these€witnessesÏwas€presented€at€the€motion€hearing,€and€accordingly,€there€is€no€indication€inÏthe€record€that€the€testimony€of€either€would€have€influenced€the€appellant€toÏeschew€a€guilty€plea€and€go€to€trial.ÌÌà àWhen€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€is€based€upon€the€failure€toÏpresent€potential€witnesses,€their€testimony€should€be€offered€at€the€hearing€atÏwhich€counselððs€representation€is€challenged.€€In€this€manner€the€court€canÏconsider€whether€(a)€a€material€witness€existed€and€could€have€beenÏdiscovered€but€for€counselððs€neglect,€(b)€a€known€witness€was€not€interviewedÍby€counsel,€(c)€the€failure€to€discover€or€interview€a€witness€prejudiced€theÏpetitioner,€or€(d)€the€failure€to€call€certain€witnesses€denied€critical€evidence€toÏthe€prejudice€of€the€petitioner.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990).€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€putative€witnesses€did€not€testify,Ïand€we€are€precluded€from€reviewing€the€import€of€their€testimony.€€Hence,€theÏappellant€has€failed€to€show€prejudice,€assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€the€failure€toÏinterview€these€persons€prior€to€the€submission€hearing€was€deficientÏrepresentation.€€The€claim€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àNext,€the€appellant€contends€that,€but€for€his€attorney€misleading€him€intoÏbelieving€that€he€could€receive€the€death€penalty,€he€would€not€have€beenÏfrightened€into€pleading€guilty.€€The€record€does€not€support€the€appellant€inÏthis€claim.€€The€appellantððs€own€testimony€fails€to€support€that€counselÏmisinformed€the€appellant€as€to€the€applicability€of€the€death€penalty.€€TheÏessence€of€appellantððs€testimony€is€that€he€was€influenced€by€his€father€and€byÏthe€statements€of€counsel€that€disparaged€the€chances€of€avoiding€a€lifeÏsentence€at€trial.€€Ms.€Phylis€West,€who€attended€the€conference€among€theÏappellant,€appellantððs€father,€and€trial€counsel€on€March€4,€1995,€stated€whenÏasked€if€the€death€penalty€was€mentioned,€ð ðUh„„I€believe€it€was€mentioned€inÏthat€meeting,€too,€that€[counsel]€said€that„„uh„„there€was€a€possibility€that€[theÍappellant]€could€even€get€the€death€sentence.ðð€€This€somewhat€tentativeÏtestimony€was€found€by€the€trial€court€to€be€overcome€by€the€affirmativeÏassertions€by€trial€counsel€that€counsel€knew€the€appellant€was€not€eligible€forÏthe€death€penalty€and€that€he€never€told€the€appellant€that€he€could€receive€thisÏpenalty.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding,Ïand€accordingly,€this€issue€too€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€the€appellant€has€failed€to€establish€his€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.ÌÌÓ  Óà àò òII.€€Withdrawal€of€Guilty€Plea€in€General.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€overruling€hisÏmotion€to€withdraw€his€guilty€plea.€€Generally,€a€defendant€who€submits€a€guiltyÏplea€is€not€entitled€to€withdraw€the€plea€as€a€matter€of€right.€€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€919ÏS.W.2d€346,€355€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(citing€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€645€S.W.2dÏ251,€253„€254€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)€and€8A€Mooreððs€Federal€Practice€ððÏ32.09[1]€at€p.€32„€87€(1991€Revision)).€€The€decision€to€allow€the€withdrawal€of€aÏguilty€plea€is€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€and€may€not€be€overturned€onÏappeal€absent€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòHenning€v.€Stateóó,€184€Tenn.€508,€511,Í201€S.W.2d€669,€670€(1947);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€823€S.W.2d€217,€220€€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp..€1991).€€However,€the€existence€of€discretion€implies€that€there€are€limits€toÏits€exercise.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€851€S.W.2d€828,€832(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€ÏThe€record€must€contain€some€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision.€€òòGoosby€€v.€Stateóó,€917€S.W.2d€700,€705€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€ÌÌà àUnder€Tennessee€law,€a€€trial€court€may€set€aside€the€acceptance€of€aÏguilty€plea€in€three€different€circumstances.€€Rule€32(f)€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Criminal€Procedure€governs€two€situations€in€which€a€defendant€wishes€toÏwithdraw€a€guilty€plea€before€the€judgment€has€become€final.× ƒ, ××  ×€€€Post„convictionÏprocedures€found€at€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sections€40„30„201,€òòet€seqóó.,€Ïbecome€available€once€a€judgment€is€final.€€Because€the€record€in€this€caseÏdiscloses€some€confusion€with€respect€to€the€appropriate€standard,€weÏdiscuss€the€matter€in€some€detail.€€ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€rule,€a€trial€court€may€permit€the€withdrawal€of€a€guiltyÍplea€upon€a€showing€ð ðof€any€fair€and€just€reasonðð€before€it€sentences€theÏdefendant.€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(f).× ƒ- ××  ×€€€Once€the€defendant€is€sentenced,Ïhowever,€Tennesseeððs€rule€requires€that€defendants€meet€a€different€standard.€€ÏThe€rule€also€imposes€a€time€constraint.× ƒ. ××  ×€€According€to€the€rule,€a€trial€courtÏmay€permit€the€withdrawal€of€a€guilty€plea€after€sentencing€and€before€theÏjudgment€becomes€final€only€ð ðto€correct€manifest€injustice.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Í32(f).× ƒ/ ××  ×€€€Ìà àRule€32(f)€of€Tennesseeððs€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€is,€therefore,€Ïapplicable€only€until€the€judgment€has€become€final.€€Once€final,€the€judgmentÏmay€be€set€aside€pursuant€to€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„30„202(a)(Supp.€1996).€€The€Act€provides€that€a€conviction€orÏsentence€is€void€or€voidable€only€if€the€conviction€or€sentence€were€obtainedÏthrough€an€abridgment€of€a€right€guaranteed€by€the€Constitution€of€TennesseeÏor€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203(€Supp.Ï1996).€€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€ruled€that€a€guilty€plea€must€beÏvoluntarily,€understandingly,€and€intelligently€entered€to€pass€constitutionalÏmuster.€€òòBrady€€v.€United€Statesóó,€397€U.S.€742,€747,€n.€4,€90€S.Ct.€1463,€1468,€n.Í4€(1970);€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€89€S.Ct.€1709€(1969).€€€Our€supremeÏcourt€has€long€held€that€ð ða€plea€of€guilty€must€be€made€voluntarily€and€with€fullÏunderstanding€of€its€consequences.ðð€€òòState€ex€rel.€Barnes€v.€Hendersonóó,€220ÏTenn.€719,€727,€423€S.W.2d€497,€501€(1968).€€ÌÌÓ ¨ý Óà àIn€summary,€a€trial€court€may€permit€the€withdrawal€of€or€may€set€aside€a€guiltyÏpleaÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû ÓÓÓà à1.à àfor€any€fair€and€just€reason€before€the€sentence€isÏimposed;€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(f);ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû Óà à2.à àto€correct€manifest€injustice€after€sentence€but€before€theÏjudgment€becomes€final;€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(f);ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓ Pû ÓÓÓà à3.à àonce€the€judgment€is€final,€if€the€plea€was€not€enteredÏvoluntarily,€intelligently,€and€knowingly€or€was€obtainedÏthrough€the€abridgment€of€any€right€guaranteed€by€theÏUnited€States€or€Tennessee€Constitutions.€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,Ï553€S.W.2d€337,€340„341€(Tenn.1977);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„30„203.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÌà àThe€three€standards€are€neither€identical€nor€separate€and€distinct.€€TheyÏare€on€a€continuum€in€which€the€more€general€standard€includes€the€moreÏspecific.€€Immediately€after€entering€a€guilty€plea,€any€fair€and€just€reason€willÍsuffice€to€justify€the€withdrawal€of€the€plea.€€€But€by€its€express€language,€RuleÏ32(f)€contemplates€that€trial€courts€will€use€a€more€demanding€standard€once€aÏsentence€has€been€imposed.€€The€rationale€for€raising€the€hurdle€over€which€aÏdefendant€must€jump€once€sentence€is€imposed€is€based€ð ðupon€practicalÏconsiderations€important€to€the€proper€administration€of€justice.ðð€€òòKadwell€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€315€F.2d€667,€670€(9th€Cir.€1963).× ƒ0 ××  ×€€€€€€In€òòKadwellóó,€the€NinthÏCircuit€Court€of€Appeals€reasoned:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓBefore€sentencing,€the€inconvenience€to€court€and€prosecutionÏresulting€from€a€change€of€plea€is€ordinarily€slight€as€comparedÏwith€the€public€interest€in€protecting€the€right€of€the€accused€to€trialÏby€jury.€€But€if€a€plea€of€guilty€could€be€retracted€with€ease€afterÏsentence,€the€accused€might€be€encouraged€to€test€the€weight€ofÏpotential€punishment,€and€withdraw€the€plea€if€the€sentence€wereÏunexpectedly€severe.€€The€result€would€be€to€undermine€respectÏfor€the€courts€and€fritter€away€the€time€and€painstaking€effortÏdevoted€to€the€sentencing€process.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌÓÓòòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àThe€concept€of€manifest€injustice€under€Rule€32(f)€is€not€identical€to€theÏrequirements€of€constitutional€due€process.€€However,€we€agree€that€ð ðwhereÏthere€is€a€denial€of€due€process,€there€is€a€ððmanifest€injusticeðð€as€a€matter€ofÍlaw.ðð€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€823€S.W.2d€217,€220,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)(quotingÏfrom€òòUnited€States€v.€Cruscoóó,€536€F.2d€21,€26€(3rd€Cir.€1976)).× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Federal€courtsÏhave€consistently€held€that,€although€there€may€be€considerable€overlapÏbetween€the€standards,€manifest€injustice€allows€a€trial€judge€greater€latitudeÏthan€the€constitutional€requirements.€òòUnited€States€v.€Washingtonóó,€341€F.2dÏ277,€281€fn.€3€(3rd€Cir.€1965);€€òòPilkington€v.€United€Statesóó,€315€F.2d€204,€209Ï(4th€Cir.€1963).€€In€òòPilkingtonóó,€the€court€recognized€that€ð ðthe€facts€disclosed€in€aÏhearing€might€not€be€sufficient€for€the€court€to€conclude€that€the€guilty€plea€wasÏinvoluntary€and€violative€of€due€process,€yet€the€court€may€be€of€the€opinion€thatÏclear€injustice€was€done.ðð€€315€F.2d€at€209.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€we€have€found€no€Tennessee€case€that€clearly€articulates€the€Ïproposition€recognized€in€òòPilkingtonóó,€€the€concept€is€inherent€in€the€structure€ofÏRule€32€and€the€Post„Conviction€Procedures€Act.€€For€instance,€this€court,€inÏòòState€v.€Turneróó,€first€found€that€the€defendantððs€guilty€plea€satisfied€theÏrequirements€of€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€11€and€met€theÏconstitutional€standards€of€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€89€S.Ct.Ï1709(1969)€and€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Alfordóó,€400€U.S.€25,€92€S.Ct.€160€(1970).€ÍòòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€351„354(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€The€òòTurneróóÏcourt€then€turned€to€Tennessee€case€law€to€discover€those€factors€TennesseeÏcourts€have€considered€when€applying€the€manifest€injustice€standard.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ355.€€Implicit€in€this€analysis€is€a€recognition€that,€although€the€standardsÏoverlap,€a€trial€court€may,€under€some€circumstances,€€permit€the€withdrawal€ofÏa€guilty€plea€to€prevent€manifest€injustice€even€though€the€plea€meets€theÏð ðvoluntary€and€knowingðð€requirements€of€constitutional€due€process.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€moved€to€set€aside€his€guilty€plea€afterÏsentencing€but€before€the€judgment€was€final.€€The€timing€of€the€motion,Ïtherefore,€invoked€the€manifest€injustice€rule.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(f).€€The€termÏð ðmanifest€injusticeðð€is€not€defined€either€in€the€rule€or€in€those€cases€in€whichÏthe€rule€has€been€applied.€€Trial€courts€and€appellate€courts€must€determineÏwhether€manifest€injustice€exists€on€a€case€by€case€basis.€€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€919ÏS.W.2d€346,€355€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€that€a€plea€of€guilty€should€be€withdrawn€to€prevent€manifestÍinjustice.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€however,€the€trial€court€received€and€disposed€of€the€motionÏto€withdraw€the€guilty€plea€as€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„101„124€(1990)€(repealed,€effective€May€10,€1995,€Pub.€ActsÏ1995,€Ch.€207).€This€approach€was€taken€without€objection€but€in€spite€of€theÏprovisions€of€Rule€32(f)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€ÏAlthough€the€motion€to€withdraw€the€guilty€plea€did€not€mention€Rule€32(f),€theÏmotion€is€clearly€authorized€and€governed€by€the€rule.€€The€courtððsÏtransmogrification€of€the€motion€to€a€post„conviction€petition€presumably€led€toÏthe€application€of€the€rule,€described€above,€that€only€errors€of€constitutionalÏdimension€are€cognizable€.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105€(1990)€(repealed,Ïeffective€May€10,€1995,€Pub.€Acts€1995,€Ch.€207).€€As€pointed€out€above,€theÏapplicable€standard€under€Rule€32(f)€is€manifest€injustice,€a€standard€that€isÏmore€inclusive€and€less€stringent€than€constitutional€abridgement.€€The€trialÏjudge€did€not€mention€manifest€injustice€nor€Rule€32(f)€in€his€findings€andÏconclusions.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€We€are€constrained€to€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€apply€theÏless€stringent€standard€and€that€the€appellantððs€motion€was€not€properlyÏconsidered.€€Because€the€correct€standard€was€not€applied€below€andÍbecause€a€number€of€witnesses€testified,€including€defense€counsel€and€theÏappellant,€such€that€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€to€be€given€to€theirÏtestimony€could€have€been€key€issues€in€the€trial€courtððs€analysis,× ƒ4 ××  ×€we€vacateÏthe€order€denying€the€appellantððs€motion€and€remand€this€case€in€deference€toÏthe€trial€court€in€order€for€that€€court€to€enter€such€further€findings,€or€to€conductÏsuch€further€proceedings,€as€are€indicated€by€the€provisions€of€Rule€32(f)€andÏby€the€applicable€portions€of€this€opinion.€€On€remand,€the€trial€court€shallÏdetermine€whether€a€further€hearing€on€the€motion€is€necessary€in€order€to€findÏand€settle€facts€material€to€the€applicable€standard€of€manifest€injustice.€€If€noÏhearing€is€held,€the€trial€court€shall€make€its€findings€with€respect€to€manifestÏinjustice€based€upon€the€applicable€principles€of€law€and€the€hearingÏpreviously€held.ÌÌà àHaving€reviewed€the€record€and€the€briefs€thoroughly,€however,€in€theÏinterest€of€judicial€efficiency€we€offer€our€analysis€of€certain€issues€which€theÏtrial€court€confronted,€for€the€benefit€of€the€trial€court€on€remand.€€ÌÌÓ  Óa.€€Nature€of€the€Conviction€OffenseÌÓ  ÓÌà àTo€determine€whether€the€appellant€should€be€permitted€to€withdraw€hisÏguilty€plea€ð ðto€correct€manifest€injustice,ðð€a€court€must€scrutinize€carefully€theÏcircumstances€under€which€the€trial€court€accepted€the€plea.€€An€analysis€of€theÏsubmission€process€under€Rule€11(c),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€facilitates€an€inquiryÏinto€the€existence€of€manifest€injustice.€€Rule€11€and€our€supreme€courtððsÏdecisions€in€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.1977)€and€òòState€v.ÏMcClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268€(Tenn.€1987),€control€€the€acceptance€of€guiltyÏpleas€in€this€state.€€€Trial€judges€are€required€to€adhere€substantially€to€theÏprocedure€prescribed€in€the€rule.€€òòState€v.€Newsomeóó,€778€S.W.2d€34,€38Ï(Tenn.1989).€€€€A€submission€hearing€transcript€must€establish€on€its€face€thatÏthe€trial€court€substantially€complied€with€the€requirements€of€Rule€11,€òòBoykin€v.ÏAlabamaóó€and€the€teachings€of€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€at€341„42,€and€òòStateÏv.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268,€273€(Tenn.1987).€€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€atÏ352.€ÌÌà àIn€this€case€careful€attention€should€be€given€to€the€interrelatedÏapplication€of€subsections€(c)(1)€and€(f)€of€Rule€11.€€Rule€11(c)(1),€in€pertinentÏpart,€provides:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓBefore€accepting€a€plea€of€guilty€or€nolo€contendere,€the€courtÏmust€address€the€defendant€personally€in€open€court€and€informÏhim€of,€and€determine€that€he€understands,€the€following:ÌÌ(1)€the€òònatureóó€of€the€charge€òòtoóó€òòwhichóó€òòtheóó€òòpleaóó€òòisóó€òòofferedóó,€theÏmandatory€minimum€penalty€provided€by€law,€if€any,€and€theÏmaximum€possible€penalty€provided€by€law€....ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(c)(1)€(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àThis€rule€is€related€to€Rule€11(f)€which€states€that€ð ð[n]otwithstanding€theÏacceptance€of€a€plea€of€guilty,€the€court€should€not€enter€a€judgment€upon€suchÏplea€without€making€such€inquiry€as€shall€satisfy€it€that€there€is€a€factual€basisÏfor€the€plea.ðð€€This€requirement€exists€primarily€to€ensure€that€the€defendantÏpleads€guilty€with€the€understanding€ð ðthat€his€admitted€conduct€actuallyÏconstitutes€the€offense€with€which€he€is€charged€or€a€lesser€included€one.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Lordóó,€894€S.W.2d€312,€317€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àUpon€a€review€of€the€record,€one€might€fairly€ask€whether€the€appellantÏunderstood€the€elements€of€the€offense€to€which€he€was€pleading,€as€opposedÏto€the€offense€with€which€he€was€originally€charged.€€The€record€does€notÏclearly€demonstrate€that€the€appellant€was€told€by€his€counsel,€the€trial€judge,Íor€anyone€else€about€the€elements€required€for€second„degree€murder.€€WeÏnote€that€the€indictment€charges€that€the€appellant€ð ðrecklessly€did€kill€AlexandriaÏGreaves€(D.O.B.€05/22/92),€a€child€less€than€thirteen€(13)€years€of€age€andÏAlexandria€Greavesðð€death€resulted€from€aggravated€child€abuse.€€As€defined€byÏðð€39„15„402....ðð€€Thus,€the€appellant€was€not€indicted€for€first„degree€murder€viaÏpremeditation,€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€39„13„202(a)(1)€(Supp.€1996),Ïand,€although€the€plea€petition€affirmatively€shows€that€the€€appellant€read,Ïunderstood,€and€had€explained€to€him€the€elements€of€first„degree€murder,€it€isÏnot€clear€if€he€was€aware€of€any€scienter€requirements€of€either€offense,€beyondÏrecklessness€as€alleged€in€the€indictment€for€first„degree€murder.ÌÌà àSecond„degree€murder€is€the€ð ðknowingðð€killing€of€another.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€39„13„210(a)€(1990)€(amended,€effective€July€1,€1995,€Pub.€Acts.€Ch.Ï460).€€A€person€acts€knowingly€when€the€person€is€aware€of€the€nature€of€theÏconduct,€the€existence€of€the€circumstances,€or€is€aware€that€the€conduct€isÏreasonably€certain€to€cause€the€result.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(b)Ï(1990).€€There€is€no€indication€in€the€record€that€the€ð ðknowingðð€requirement€ofÍthe€offense€to€which€he€pleaded€was€articulated€to€this€appellant.€€The€trialÏcourt€did€not€address€the€issue,€nor€does€the€plea€petition€deal€specifically€withÏthe€required€elements€of€second„degree€murder,€nor€does€the€factual€basisÏoffered€under€Rule€11(f)€speak€to€the€scienter€element.€€On€the€other€hand,Ïthere€was€no€inquiry€during€the€submission€hearing€designed€to€test€theÏappellantððs€understanding€of€the€nature€of€second„degree€murder,€andÏmoreover€there€was€no€inquiry€during€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€withdraw€theÏplea€which€indicated€any€prior€misunderstanding€on€this€point.€€The€appellantÏhas€not€raised€this€issue,€and€the€failure€to€raise€it€may€well€be€because€heÏacknowledges,€tacitly€at€least,€that€he€was€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€convictionÏoffense.€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€843€S.W.2d€922,€926€(Tenn.€1992)€(failure€toÏinstruct€a€guilty„pleading€defendant€of€his€constitution€rights€entitles€theÏdefendant€to€no€relief€if€the€defendant€is€otherwise€aware€of€the€information€theÏmandated€advice€would€have€imparted).€€We€are€reluctant€to€presume€a€waiverÏof€rights€from€a€silent€record,€but€this€issue€is€not€one€of€waiver.€€Rather,€it€is€anÏissue€of€whether€there€existed€a€ð ðmeeting€of€the€mindsðð€on€the€plea€beingÏoffered€and€accepted.€€We€cannot€discern€the€appellantððs€mind€on€this€pointÏfrom€the€record€on€appeal.ÌÌà àConstitutionally,€the€beginning€point€in€a€Rule€11(c)(1)€inquiry€is€òòBoykin€v.ÍAlabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€89€S.Ct.€1709€(1969),€summarized€above,€in€which€theÏSupreme€Court€ruled€that€a€guilty€plea€in€a€criminal€case€must€be€supported€inÏthe€record€by€an€affirmative€showing€that€the€accused€pleaded€voluntarily,Ïunderstandingly,€and€knowingly.€€òòBoykinóó,€395€U.S.€at€242,€89€S.Ct.€€at€1711.€ÏLater,€the€Supreme€Court€€held€that€the€accused€did€not€act€ð ðvoluntarilyðð€whenÏhe€pleaded€guilty€to€ð ðsecond„degree€murder€without€being€informed€that€intentÏto€cause€the€death€of€his€victim€was€an€element€of€the€offense.ðð€€òòHenderson€v.ÏMorganóó,€426€U.S.€637,€638,€96€S.Ct.€2253,€2254€(1976).€€In€òòMorganóó,€the€courtÏnoted:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓThere€was€no€discussion€of€the€elements€of€theÏoffense€of€second„degree€murder,€no€indication€theÏnature€of€the€offense€had€ever€been€discussed€withÏrespondent,€and€no€reference€of€any€kind€to€theÏrequirement€of€intent€to€cause€the€death€of€the€victim.Ì€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ426€U.S.€at€642„43,€96€S.Ct.€at€2256.€€Significantly,€the€respondent€in€òòMorganóóÏtestified€at€his€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€that€ð ðhe€would€not€haveÏpleaded€guilty€if€he€had€known€that€an€intent€to€cause€the€death€of€his€victimÏwas€an€element€of€the€offense€of€second„degree€murder.ðð€€426€U.S.€at€643„44,Ï96€S.Ct.€at€2257.€€The€court€acknowledged€that€in€most€cases€it€may€beÏð ðappropriate€to€presume€that€...€defense€counsel€routinely€explain[ed]€the€natureÏof€the€offense€in€sufficient€detail€to€give€the€accused€notice€of€what€he€is€beingÏasked€to€admit,ðð€426€U.S.€at€647,€96€S.Ct.€at€2258,€but€the€Supreme€CourtÍdeclined€to€apply€such€a€presumption€in€òòMorganóó€because€the€trial€court€hadÏfound€affirmatively€as€a€fact€that€ð ðthe€element€of€intent€was€not€explained€to€theÏrespondent.ðð€€426€U.S.€at€647,€96€S.Ct.€at€2258„59.€€Based€upon€such€a€record,Ïthe€court€said€the€plea€could€not€be€voluntary€ð ðin€the€sense€that€it€constituted€anÏintelligent€admission€that€he€committed€the€offense€unless€the€defendantÏreceived€ððreal€noticeðððð€of€the€nature€of€the€conviction€offense.€€426€U.S.€€at€645,Ï96€S.Ct.€at€2257€(citations€omitted).× ƒ6 ××  ×Ìà àð ðAdequate€notice€of€the€nature€of€the€charges€is€a€constitutional€requisiteÏin€any€criminal€prosecution.ðð€€òòBryan€v.€Stateóó,€848€S.W.2d€72,€75€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1992).€€A€trial€court€need€not€explain€ð ðin€litany€fashionðð€each€element€ofÏevery€offense€to€which€an€accused€is€pleading€guilty.€€òòIdóó.€€Nor€does€a€trial€judgeÏin€a€guilty€plea€submission€hearing€have€a€duty€to€define€each€term€and€phraseÏas€he€would€for€a€jury.€€òòState€v.€Michael€Leon€Chambersóó,€No.Ï01CO1„9505„CC„00143,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€20,Ï1996).€€A€defendant,€however,€must€understand€the€nature€of€the€crime€to€whichÏhe€is€pleading€guilty€before€he€can€determine€whether€€his€actual€conduct€Ïconstitutes€that€€offense.€€A€defendant€may€become€aware€of€the€elements€ofÏthe€offense€through€allegations€in€the€indictment,€the€contents€of€the€guilty€pleaÏpetition,€or€the€statement€of€the€charges€and€the€stipulated€evidence€providedÏby€the€state€during€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€òòBryan€v.€Stateóó,€848€S.W.2d€at€75.€€ÌÌÌÌÓ  Ób.€€Maximum€Penalty€Advice.ÌÌÓ  Óà àTennessee€law€also€requires€that€the€trial€court€address€the€defendantÏpersonally€in€open€court,€inform€him€of,€and€determine€that€he€understands€theÏmandatory€minimum€and€maximum€possible€penalties€for€the€offense€to€whichÏthe€defendant€is€pleading€guilty.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(c)(1);€òòBlankenship€v.ÏStateóó,€858€S.W.2d€897,€905€(Tenn.1993);€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268,Ï273€(Tenn.1987);€€òòState€v.€Timothy€W.€Brownóó,€No.€01CO1„9211„CC„00343,€slipÏop.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€9,1994)€(Tipton,€J.,€concurring)Ï(citing€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337,€341€(Tenn.1977));€€€òòJames€CarlÏFerguson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€922,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€19,Ï1991).€€€The€failure€to€employ€the€proper€sentencing€statute€and€to€advise€theÏdefendant€accordingly€may€preclude€a€defendant€from€entering€a€knowing€andÏintelligent€plea,€€òòState€v.€Arthur€Harrisóó,€No.€103,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏJackson,€October€11,€1989),€and€a€plea€of€guilty€may€be€withdrawn€if€theÏdefendantððs€decision€to€plead€guilty€was€based€on€misinformation€about€theÏeffect€of€the€plea.€€òòHenning€v.€Stateóó,€184€Tenn.€508,€511,€201€S.W.2d€669,€670Ï(1947).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€asserts€that€he€was€misinformed€and€induced€to€plea,€inÏpart,€because€of€his€needless€fear€of€receiving€the€death€penalty.€€We€haveÍexamined€this€claim€above€from€the€perspective€of€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€but€where€the€object€to€be€focused€upon€is€the€validity€of€the€plea,€theÏeffectiveness€of€counselððs€assistance€is€but€one€facet€of€the€prism€throughÏwhich€we€view€the€object.€€Even€though€we€have€held€that€there€was€noÏineffective€assistance€that€might€otherwise€contribute€to€a€finding€of€manifestÏinjustice,€the€underlying€facts€of€the€plea€must€be€reviewed€independently€of€theÏeffective€assistance€issue.ÌÓ  Óc.€€òòMcClintockóó€Advice.ÌÓ  Óà àÌà àIn€passing,€we€invite€the€trial€court€to€consider€on€remand€whether€theÏadvice€imparted€at€the€submission€hearing€complied€with€the€requirements€setÏforth€in€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268,€273€(Tenn.€1987),€that€theÏappellant€be€advised€that€his€conviction€could€be€used€to€enhance€anyÏpunishment€for€subsequent€offenses.€€If€there€is€an€omission€of€this€advice,€theÏeffect€on€manifest€injustice€must€be€evaluated.€€òòSeeóó€òòBryanóó,€848€S.W.2d€at€75.Ìà àÌÓ  Ód.€€Procedure€on€Remand.ÌÓ  Ó€à àÌà àThe€common€and€compelling€purpose€behind€Rule€11€and€theÏadditional€requirements€imposed€by€case€law€is€ð ðto€insulate€guilty€pleas€fromÍcoercion€and€relevant€defendant€ignorance.ðð€€òòState€v.€Nealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131,Ï135€(Tenn.1991).€Ì€Ìà àIn€determining€whether€to€permit€the€withdrawal€of€a€guilty€plea,€the€SixthÏCircuit€has€held€that€district€courts€should€consider€a€number€of€factorsÏincluding:€ð ð(1)€the€delay€in€filing€the€motion€to€withdraw€the€plea;€(2)€the€reasonsÏfor€any€delay;€(3)€whether€the€defendant€has€consistently€maintained€hisÏinnocence;€and€(4)€the€circumstances€underlying€the€plea€and€the€backgroundÏof€the€defendant.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Alexanderóó,€948€F.2d€1002,€1003€(6th€Cir.Ï1991).€€€ÌÌà àTennessee€courts€have€allowed€the€withdrawal€of€guilty€pleas€to€preventÏmanifest€injustice€ð ðwhen€it€is€established€that€the€plea€was€entered€due€to€(a)Ïð ðcoercion,€fraud,€duress€or€mistake,ðð€(b)€ððfearðð,€(c)€a€ð ðgross€misrepresentationððÏmade€by€the€district€attorney€general,€or€an€assistant,€(d)€the€district€attorneyÏwithholds€material,€exculpatory€evidence€which€influences€the€entry€of€the€plea,Ïor€the€plea€was€not€voluntarily,€understandingly,€or€knowingly€entered.ðð€€òòState€v.ÏTurneróó,€919€S.W.2d€at€355€(citations€to€other€cases€omitted).€€€Courts€have€alsoÏfound€that€manifest€injustice€resulted€from€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€advise€aÏdefendant€of€the€appropriate€sentencing€range,€to€apply€the€appropriateÍsentencing€statute,€or€to€inform€a€defendant€of€the€consequences€flowing€fromÏthe€guilty€plea.€€òòState€v.€Timothy€W.€Brownóó,€No.€01CO1„9211„CC„00343€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€9,€1994);€òòState€v.€Arthur€Harrisóó,€No.€103€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Jackson,€Oct.€11,€1989).× ƒ7 ××  ×€€ÌÌà à€To€determine€whether€a€plea€is€voluntary,€intelligent€and€knowing,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€looked€to€various€circumstantial€factors,€suchÏas€the€relative€intelligence€of€the€defendant;€his€familiarity€with€criminalÏproceedings;€the€competence€of€his€counsel;€the€extent€of€advice€from€counselÏand€court,€and€the€reasons€for€the€decision€to€plead€guilty.€€òòBlankenship€v.ÏStateóó,€858€S.W.2d€897,€904€(Tenn.1993).€€€We€consider€these€factors€to€beÏequally€appropriate€in€determining€whether€the€withdrawal€of€a€guilty€plea€isÏrequired€to€correct€manifest€injustice.€€ÌÌà àWe€agree€that€a€guilty€plea€should€not€be€withdrawn€merely€because€theÏdefendant€has€had€a€change€of€heart.€€òòRay€v.€Stateóó,€224€Tenn.€164,€170,€451ÏS.W.2d€854,€856€(1970).€€Nor€should€a€defendantððs€dissatisfaction€with€anÏunexpectedly€€harsh€sentence€be€sufficient€justification€for€a€withdrawal.€€ÏòòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978);€òòState€v.€CharlesÏEugene€Laneóó,€No.€111,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.€5,€1990).€€ÌÌà àIn€summary,€the€trial€court€must€review€the€appellantððs€motion€toÏwithdraw€the€guilty€plea€under€the€manifest€injustice€standard€of€rule€32(f)€as€itÏis€amplified€in€this€opinion.€€The€review€encompasses€the€elementsÏenumerated€in€Rule€11(c),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€òòMackeyóó,€and€òòMcClintockóó,€subjectÏto€the€proviso€that€manifest€injustice€may€conceivably€exist€even€where€all€ofÏthese€elements€are€satisfied.€€If€the€trial€court€determines€that€the€existingÏevidence€is€inadequate€for€applying€the€requisite€standard,€a€further€hearingÏshould€be€ordered,€bearing€in€mind€that€ð ðððdiscretion€.€.€.€should€always€beÏexercised€in€favor€of€innocence€and€liberty.ðððð€òòHenning€v.€Stateóó,€184€Tenn.€508,Ï512,€201€S.W.2d€669,€671€(1947).€ÌÌà àHaving€offered€the€foregoing€comments€for€the€benefit€of€the€trial€court,Íwe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€on€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€but€otherwise€vacate€the€order€denying€the€appellantððs€motion,€Ïremanding€€this€case€in€order€for€the€trial€court€to€make€further€findings€and/orÏto€conduct€further€proceedings€in€accordance€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à___________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌ