ÿWPC%: … %V 0Ü\U:8 w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Õ 0Dõ 0J9 0Tƒ 0^× 0h5 0r 0| 0†‹ 0 1u¡U , 0dBU,¦U*ÒB)üDC% Bh AM…ÇÒœ™Ë5â3âj D3"­²"Î_$ 0@-&bm&!Ï(Ýð*bÍ.v~/1vÓ­2 AO€8ÆÏ8 0D•9 D/Ù9 B:X(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular GDHUIUJUKDLUMUNODPÓ€à~| Ôô$R3|x[(Ð(3-™$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€™ìXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd d€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ18,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€while€the€pleadings€before€this€court€indicate€that€theÏspelling€of€the€appellantððs€name€is€ð ðMoten,ðð€the€appellantððs€signature€on€the€òòproÏseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€reflects€the€spelling€ð ðMoton.ðð€€Moreover,€onÏdirect€appeal,€this€court€used€the€spelling€ð ðMoton.ððÌ ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellantððs€amended€petition€also€alleged€ineffective€assistance€ofÏtrial€counsel.€€However,€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€against€the€advice€of€hisÏpost„conviction€attorney,€the€appellant€stated€that€he€was€satisfied€with€hisÏrepresentation€at€all€stages€of€the€proceedings€and€ð ðdidnððt€want€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€to€be€in€this€petition.ððÌ ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€State€argues€that€the€appellantððs€alleged€ignorance€with€respect€toÏthe€waiver€of€issues€for€the€purpose€of€appeal€does€not€constitute€a€properÏground€for€post„conviction€relief.€€However,€in€òòBlankenship€v.€Stateóó,€858€S.W.2dÏ897,€905€(Tenn.€1993)(citing€òòBrady€v.€United€Statesóó,€397€U.S.€742,€755,€90ÏS.Ct.€1463,€1472€(1970)€and€òòBrown€v.€Perinióó,€718€F.2d€784,€788€(6th€Cir.Ï1983)),€our€supreme€court€observed€that€a€defendantððs€ignorance€of€the€directÏconsequences€of€his€guilty€plea€will€affect€the€constitutional€validity€of€the€pleaÏunder€òòBoykinóó.€€Thus,€to€the€extent€that€the€waiver€of€issues€for€the€purpose€ofÏappeal€is€a€direct€consequence€of€a€guilty€plea,€then€ignorance€thereof€is€aÏproper€subject€of€post„conviction€review.€€In€any€event,€we€conclude€that€theÏappellant€was€aware€of€this€consequence,€direct€or€otherwise,€when€he€enteredÏhis€guilty€pleas.Ì )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBoth€the€appellant€and€his€codefendant€claimed€that€the€other€was€theÏprincipal€participant.€€However,€the€appellant€admitted€to€the€police€that€heÏbroke€the€handle€off€the€knife€lodged€in€the€victimððs€throat.Ì `Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€appellant€only€preserved€for€appeal€the€issue€of€whetherÏthe€appellantððs€transfer€from€juvenile€court€to€criminal€court€was€proper,€thisÏcourt,€in€affirming€the€judgments€of€conviction,€also€concluded€that€theÏappellantððs€confession€was€admissible.Ì""""'ÿÿdxd £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€attorney,€Kenneth€Lawson,€was€replaced€by€Michael€Acuff€onÏMarch€9,€1994.Ì ÄÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€some€point€prior€to€the€guilty€pleas,€Dr.€Wright€interviewed€theÏappellant€because€he€had€attempted€suicide.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€trial€court€did€omit€certain€instructions€mandated€byÏòòMackeyóó€and€Rule€11.€€However,€these€omissions€do€not€rise€to€the€level€ofÏconstitutional€error€and€cannot€be€addressed€in€post„conviction€proceedings.€ÏòòNealóó,€810€S.W.2d€at€137.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOur€use€of€the€term€ð ðadvice€litanyðð€does€not€mean€that€ð ðððanyÏpredetermined€ritualistic€formðð€or€a€ððparticular€litanyðððð€is€required.€€òòChamberlainóó,Ï815€S.W.2d€at€540.Ì ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝContrary€to€the€courtððs€opinion€in€òòMasthersóó,€539€F.2d€at€726,€theÏstandard€for€determining€the€competence€of€an€accused€to€plead€guilty€is€theÏsame€standard€applied€in€determining€the€competence€of€an€accused€to€standÏtrial,€i.e.,€the€capacity€to€understand€the€nature€and€object€of€the€proceedings,Ïconsult€with€counsel,€and€assist€in€the€preparation€of€his€or€her€defense.€ÏòòGodinezóó,€113€S.Ct.€at€2686;€òòBerndtóó,€733€S.W.2d€at€123.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏBentonóó,€759€S.W.2d€427,€429€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòMackeyóó,€537€S.W.2dÏ704,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1976).Ì XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€defense€counsel€was€apparently€unsureÏwhether€the€transcript€from€the€juvenile€court€proceedings€had€been€included€inÏthe€record.€€Nevertheless,€we€assume€that€the€transcript€and€informationÏcontained€therein€were€before€the€court.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÙ€€ÙßL€#$!;+'h|` | `€€Lßà@ àDECEMBERÏSESSION,€1995Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òKEVIN€MOTENó ó,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï03C01„9504„CR„00127Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAMILTONÏCOUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€RussellÏC.€Hinson,€JudgeÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€theÏAppelleeóó:ÌÌMichael€L.€Acuffà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ3529€Brainerd€Road,€Suite€2à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌChattanooga,€TN€€37411à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àClinton€J.€MorganÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€H.€Cox€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Leland€DavisÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€DennyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCourts€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€€37402ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Kevin€Moten,× ƒ% ××  ×€appeals€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€The€appellant€is€currently€incarcerated€in€the€DepartmentÏof€Correction€pursuant€to€his€pleas€of€guilty€in€the€Criminal€Court€of€HamiltonÏCounty€to€first€degree€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€TheÏappellant€presents€the€following€two€issues€for€our€consideration:× ƒ& ××  ×€He€contendsÏthat,€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€the€trial€court€failed€to€adequately€determineÏunder€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€89€S.Ct.€1709€(1969),€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,Ï553€S.W.2d€337€(1977),€and€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(c)€that€the€appellantÏunderstood€his€constitutional€rights€and€the€consequences€of€his€guilty€pleas.€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€did€not€ascertain€that€theÏappellant€understood€his€privilege€against€compulsory€self„incrimination.€ÏAdditionally,€the€appellant€claims€that€he,€in€fact,€did€not€understand€his€right€toÏremain€silent€at€trial,€and€he€did€not€understand€that,€by€pleading€guilty,€he€wasÍwaiving€all€issues€for€the€purpose€of€appeal,€other€than€the€transfer€of€his€caseÏfrom€juvenile€court€to€criminal€court,€an€issue€he€preserved€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.ÏP.€37(b)(2).× ƒ' ××  ×€€He€argues€that,€had€he€fully€understood€his€constitutional€rightsÏand€the€consequences€of€his€guilty€pleas,€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty.ÌÌà àAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„convictionÏcourt.ÌÌà@ àòòò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundóóó óÌÌà àOn€January€15,€1991,€the€appellant€pled€guilty€to€the€December€21,Ï1989,€robbery€and€murder€of€the€manager€of€a€fast€food€restaurant.€€€On€directÏappeal,€this€court€summarized€the€facts:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€evidence,€including€the€confession€of€the€appellant,€...€showsÏthis€appellant€and€another€seventeen„year€old€planned€a€robberyÍof€the€restaurant€where€they€worked.€€The€scheme€was€to€seize€theÏmanager€outside€the€restaurant€after€working€hours€and€force€herÏto€re„enter€the€restaurant€and€open€the€safe.€€The€first€attempt€wasÏaborted€because€the€manager€did€not€follow€the€customary€routineÏwhen€leaving€the€restaurant.€€ÌÌà8 àOn€the€night€of€this€offense,€the€appellant€and€the€other€seventeen„year€old€seized€the€manager€as€planned,€forced€her€back€into€theÏrestaurant€and€made€her€open€the€safe.€€They€took€the€money€andÏthen€killed€the€manager€by€plunging€a€knife€into€her€throat.× ƒ( ××  ×ÌÓÓÌòòState€v.€Motonóó,€No.€03C01„9104„CR„00129€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€At€Knoxville),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992).€€On€appeal,€this€court€affirmed€theÏappellantððs€conviction.× ƒ) ××  ×€€òòIdóó.€€The€appellant€then€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€December€21,€1992.€€The€post„conviction€court€appointedÏcounsel€on€January€14,€1993.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€An€amended€petition€was€filed€on€January€13,Ï1994.€€An€evidentiary€hearing€was€held€on€November€16,€1994.€€The€post„conviction€court€entered€an€order€dismissing€the€appellantððs€petition€on€theÏsame€day.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€was€eighteenÏyears€old€when€he€pled€guilty€to€the€instant€offenses.€€At€the€time€of€the€offenses,Ïhe€was€in€the€eleventh€grade.€€According€to€the€appellant,€most€of€his€classesÏwere€special€education€classes,€and€he€maintained€a€ð ðCðð€average.€€HeÏconceded€that€he€had€advanced€normally€through€the€school€system€from€theÏeighth€grade€until€the€eleventh€grade.€€He€also€stated€that,€while€incarcerated,Ïhe€was€working€toward€a€GED.€€Moreover,€he€was€participating€in€coursesÏdesigned€to€teach€building€trades.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€further€testified€that,€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€he€felt€ð ð[a]Ïlittle€bit,€you€know,€out€of€control.ðð€€He€explained€that€he€didnððt€feel€in€control€ofÏhis€life€and€he€didnððt€understand€what€was€happening€at€the€hearing.€ÏSpecifically,€he€testified€that€he€didnððt€understand€his€right€to€remain€silent€atÏtrial.€€According€to€the€appellant,€he€believed€ð ðthat€whatever€[he]€knew€that€[he]Ïhad€to€tell€it€to€the€courts€or€anyone€else.ðð€€He€also€didnððt€understand€that€heÏwas€waiving€all€grounds€for€appeal€other€than€the€transfer€of€his€case€fromÏjuvenile€court€to€criminal€court.€€He€asserted€that€if€he€had€fully€understood€theÏtrial€court€at€the€guilty€plea€proceeding,€he€would€not€have€pled€guilty.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€testified€that,€at€the€time€of€his€guilty€plea,€he€wasÏaware€that€his€codefendant€had€told€the€police€that€the€appellant€was€involvedÍin€the€murder.€€Moreover,€he€was€aware€that€his€codefendant€was€willing€toÏtestify€against€the€appellant€at€trial.ÌÌà àFinally,€the€appellant€testified€that€he€had€participated€in€two€hearings€inÏjuvenile€court€prior€to€the€guilty€plea€hearing.€€He€was€assisted€by€counsel€atÏboth€hearings.€€He€did€not€testify.€€He€stated€that€he€didnððt€remember€whetherÏhis€decision€not€to€testify€was€one€he€discussed€with€counsel.€€He€then€statedÏthat,€with€respect€to€both€juvenile€court€and€criminal€court€proceedings,€he€neverÏdiscussed€with€counsel€whether€or€not€he€would€testify.€€However,€the€appellantÏalso€asserted€that€he€had€no€complaints€concerning€his€representation.€€Indeed,Ïaccording€to€the€appellantððs€post„conviction€attorney,€the€appellant€was€ð ðreallyÏadamant€about€that.ððÌÌà àThe€appellantððs€trial€counsel,€Hiram€Hill,€also€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€He€is€an€assistant€public€defender€in€Chattanooga.€€At€theÏtime€he€became€involved€in€the€instant€case,€Mr.€Hill€had€been€practicing€law€forÏtwelve€or€thirteen€years.€€He€had€represented€ð ðmany€hundredsðð€of€criminalÏdefendants.€€He€was€assisted€in€his€representation€of€the€appellant€by€co„counsel,€Donna€Miller.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€appellantððs€intelligence,€Mr.€Hill€observed€that€theÏappellant€is€ð ðsomewhat€intellectually€limited.ðð€€Yet,€he€also€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àThere€were€issues€as€to€competency€but€there€were€problems€withÏthat€thought€in€that€[the€appellant]€had€done€apparently€pretty€wellÏthroughout€school.€€I€do€realize€a€lot€of€that€was€because€hisÏmother€paid€such€close€attention€to€him€and€had€tutors€for€him€andÏthat€sort€of€thing.€€The€assertion€that€all€of€his€classes€were€specialÏed[ucation]€I€donððt€think€is€accurate.€€As€I€recall€it,€...€the€bulk€of€hisÏclasses€were€in€fact€mainstream€classes€with€some€specialÏed[ucation].€€His€grades€were€above€average€if€a€two€point€isÏaverage.€€As€I€recall,€his€grades€were€basically€Bððs€and€Cððs.€ÌÓÓÌÌà àHill€further€testified€that,€during€the€course€of€the€hearings€in€juvenileÏcourt,€ð ðMr.€Moten€was€aware€that€he€didnððt€have€to€testify€and€Iððm€sure€that€I€didÏtell€him€that€itððs€better€that€he€not€testify€...€.ðð€€On€the€day€of€the€guilty€pleaÏhearing,€the€appellant€never€indicated€to€counsel€that€he€was€experiencing€anyÏconfusion.€€Hill€stated,€ð ð[I]f€there€had€been€in€my€mind€a€question€that€Mr.€MotenÏdidnððt€understand€anything,€I€would€have€explained€it€to€him€on€the€spot€...€.ðð€€HillÏasserted€that,€prior€to€the€guilty€plea€hearing,€he€and€Ms.€Miller€spent€aÏconsiderable€amount€of€time€talking€with€the€appellant€about€his€case.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€appellant€also€submitted€the€transcriptÏof€Dr.€Fred€Wrightððs€testimony€during€the€juvenile€court€proceedings.€€Dr.€Wright,Ïa€licensed€psychologist,€was€hired€by€the€appellantððs€mother€to€evaluate€theÏappellant.€€Dr.€Wright€testified€that€he€performed€several€tests€on€the€appellant,Ïincluding€the€Wechsler€Adult€Intelligence€Scale,€the€Curtis€SentenceÏCompletion€Test,€and€the€ð ðMMPI.ðð€€He€opined€that€the€appellant€has€an€I.Q.€ofÍ75,€which€reflects€borderline€retardation.€€He€also€concluded€that€the€appellantÏhas€a€mental€age€of€ten.€€Wright€placed€the€appellant€in€the€25th€percentile€ofÏthe€population€with€respect€to€logic€and€abstract€reasoning.€€He€placed€theÏappellant€in€the€5th€percentile€of€the€population€with€respect€to€vocabulary.€ÏFinally,€he€placed€the€appellant€in€the€1st€percentile€of€the€population€withÏrespect€to€general€information€and€general€comprehension.€€Wright€assertedÏthat€the€appellant€would€be€unable€to€understand€constitutional€rights,€becauseÏthe€words€and€concepts€are€too€difficult.€€He€also€opined€that€people€of€this€levelÏof€intelligence€could€be€more€easily€manipulated.€€On€cross„examination,€WrightÏconceded€that€his€evaluation€of€the€appellant€was€inconsistent€with€theÏappellantððs€academic€record.€€According€to€Wright,€the€appellantððs€recordÏindicates€that€the€appellant€received€Aððs€and€Bððs€in€high€school.€€Moreover,ÏWright€stated€that€he€spent€no€more€than€three€hours€with€the€appellant.× ƒ, ××  ×€€AÏcolleague€also€spent€approximately€three€hours€with€the€appellant.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€court€entered€theÏfollowing€findings:ÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€main€thrust€of€the€defendantððs€complaint€is€that€he€didnððtÏunderstand€the€right€to€remain€silent€...€and€perhaps€peripherallyÏsome€other€lack€of€understanding€...ÌÌà8 àThe€petitioner€here€today€exhibited€a€good€understanding€of€theÍproceeding€going€on,€the€proceeding€here€and€seemed€to€haveÏthe€ability€to€grasp€legal€concepts.€€He,€of€course,€has€had€thisÏpenitentiary€experience€which€is€broadening€in€that€respect€and€isÏolder€but€he€showed€an€ability€to€...€When€the€Attorney€GeneralÏsuggested€that€his€education€was€matriculating€right€along,€whileÏhe€later€testified€that€he€didnððt€know€what€that€word€meant€and€IÏthink€thatððs€probably€correct,€he€grasped€well€what€the€AttorneyÏGeneral€was€asking€him.€€He€knew€that€the€Attorney€General€wasÏasking€him€if€he€were€not€moving€right€along€with€his€graduationÏfrom€one€grade€to€the€other€and€the€record€shows€that€he€did€moveÏfrom€one€grade€to€the€other,€which€doesnððt€have€a€lot€of€probativeÏvalue€in€this€age€of€social€promotion€but€it€did€show€that€he€had€aÏgrasp€of€what€the€Attorney€General€was€asking€...€and€showed€thatÏhe€had€a€good€grasp€of€the€questions.€€He€was€fairly€articulate.€€ItððsÏmy€judgment€that€he€has€the€capacity€to€understand€these€things.€€IÏthink€that€the€evidence€here€today€belies€to€some€extent€theÏtestimony€of€Dr.€Wright€...€ÌÌà8 àIt€is€my€judgment€that€he€has€a€greater€capacity€than€was€indicatedÏby€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Wright.€...€[Additionally,]€at€the€end€of€theÏcolloquy€between€[the€appellant]€and€Judge€Meyer,€which€ofÏcourse€was€mainly€from€Judge€Meyer€advising€him€of€these€rightsÏ...€Judge€Meyer€came€back€and€asked€Mr.€Moten€if€he€had€anyÏquestions€about€any€of€the€things€they€had€discussed€and€[theÏappellant]€answered€no€...€ÌÌà8 àIt€is€my€judgment€that€the€guilty€plea€was€voluntary€andÏunderstanding€and€that€there€was€a€factual€basis€for€it€...ÌÓÓÌà@ àòòò òII.€Analysisóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€does€òònotóó€contend€that€the€trial€court€at€the€guilty€pleaÏhearing€failed€to€recite€his€constitutional€rights€or€state€the€consequences€of€hisÏguilty€pleas€as€required€by€òòBoykinóó,€395€U.S.€at€242„243,€89€S.Ct.€at€1712,ÏòòMackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€at€341,€and€Rule€11,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÍNealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131,€135„137€(Tenn.€1991).× ƒ. ××  ×€€Rather€the€appellant€contendsÏthat€the€trial€court€failed€to€elicit€responses€from€the€appellant€sufficient€toÏestablish€that€the€appellantððs€pleas€of€guilty€were€knowing€and€voluntary,€i.e.Ïð ðmade€with€knowledge€of€the€ððrelevant€circumstances€and€likelyÏconsequences.ðððð€òòKing€v.€Duttonóó,€17€F.3d€151,€153€(6th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€Ïóó,€114€S.Ct.€2712€(1994).ÌÌà àIn€òòChamberlain€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€534,€540€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991),€we€observed€that€the€nature€and€extent€ofÏthe€colloquy€between€the€trial€court€and€the€defendant,€that€must€appear€on€theÏface€of€the€transcript€before€the€court€can€accept€the€defendantððs€plea,€isÏunclear.€€However,€we€have€also€held€that€ð ðthe€record€must€reflect€both€theÏadvice€litany€by€the€trial€court€òòandóó€some€affirmative€indication€that€the€defendantÏunderstood€his€rights€and€the€ramifications€of€his€guilty€plea€thereon.ðð× ƒ/ ××  ×€ÏòòGoodrum€v.€Stateóó,€No.€1196€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€At€Knoxville,€July€30,€1991),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992);€òòBeeler€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9010„CR„00265€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€At€Nashville,€September€16,€1991)€(Tipton,€J.,Ïconcurring).€€In€other€words,€the€advice€litany€alone€is€insufficient.€€We€relied€inÏòòGoodrumóó€upon€our€supreme€courtððs€comments€in€òòNealóó,€810€S.W.2d€at€131„132Ï(emphasis€added),€concerning€the€simultaneous€entry€of€guilty€pleas€by€multipleÏdefendants:ÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€substantial€compliance€if€the€entire€litany€of€rights€and€otherÏrequired€explanatory€information€is€communicated€in€open€court€...Ïin€the€presence€of€their€respective€attorneys,€so€long€as€theÏnumber€involved€is€not€so€great€as€to€make€individualÏunderstanding€unlikely;€òòand€provided€that€each€defendant€isÏaddressed€individually€to€establish€on€the€record€theÏunderstanding€and€agreement€of€each€defendantóó.ÌÓÓÌòòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268,€273€(Tenn.€1987)(ð ð[e]very€courtÏis€required€to€make€adequate€personal€inquiry€of€defendants€to€assure€theÏvalidity€of€all€necessary€waivers€...€[t]he€taking€of€criminal€pleas€cannot€beÏreduced€to€a€rote€administrative€proceedingðð).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€argues€that€his€limited€intellectual€capacity€imposed€aÏheavier€burden€upon€the€trial€court€to€investigate€the€knowing€and€voluntaryÏnature€of€the€appellantððs€pleas.€€In€support€of€this€argument,€the€appellant€citesÏòòUnited€States€v.€Masthersóó,€539€F.2d€721,€728„729€(D.C.€Cir.€1976).€€However,€inÏòòMasthersóó,€the€appellant€claimed€that€he€was€incompetent€at€the€time€his€pleaÏwas€entered.€€Thus,€in€this€case,€the€appellant€seems€to€confuse€the€issue€ofÏwhether€his€pleas€were€knowing€and€voluntary€with€the€issue€of€whether€he€wasÍcompetent€to€plead€guilty.€€Those€two€inquiries€are€not€the€same.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòGodinez€v.€Moranóó,€509€U.S.€389,€òò€€€óó,€113€S.Ct.€2680,€2687€(1993).€€In€òòGodinezóó,Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€explained:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€focus€of€a€competency€inquiry€is€the€defendantððs€mentalÏcapacity;€the€question€is€whether€he€has€the€òòabilityóó€to€understandÏthe€proceedings.€€The€purpose€of€the€ð ðknowing€and€voluntaryððÏinquiry,€by€contrast,€is€to€determine€whether€the€defendant€actuallyÏòòdoesóó€understand€the€significance€and€consequences€of€aÏparticular€decision€and€whether€the€decision€is€uncoerced.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€2687„2688€n.€12€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àAssuming€that€the€appellant€is€arguing€that€he€was€incompetent€to€enterÏhis€guilty€pleas,€defense€counsel€did€not€raise€the€issue€of€competency€at€theÏguilty€plea€hearing.€€Nevertheless,€this€court€has€observed:ÌÌÓÓà8 àWhen€it€is€believed€that€an€accused€is€incompetent€to€stand€trial€orÏwaive€his€or€her€rights,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€court€to€conduct€aÏhearing€for€the€purpose€of€inquiring€into€the€competence€of€theÏaccused,€and,€where€warranted,€ordering€a€psychiatricÏexamination€and€evaluation€of€the€accused.€€This€duty€exists€evenÏin€the€absence€of€a€motion€seeking€such€a€hearing.ÌÓÓÌòòBerndt€v.€Stateóó,€733€S.W.2d€119,€122€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€33„7„301€(a)€(1995€Supp.).€€Failure€to€order€a€hearing€when€theÏevidence€raises€a€sufficient€doubt€as€to€an€accusedððs€competence€to€stand€trialÏor€enter€a€guilty€plea€deprives€the€accused€of€due€process€of€law.€€òòUnited€StatesÏv.€Whiteóó,€887€F.2d€705,€709€(6th€Cir.€1989);€òòPate€v.€Smithóó,€637€F.2d€1068,€1071Í(6th€Cir.€1981)(citing€òòDrope€v.€Missourióó,€420€U.S.€162,€180,€95€S.Ct.€896,€908Ï(1975)€and€òòPate€v.€Robinsonóó,€383€U.S.€375,€385,€86€S.Ct.€836,€842€(1966)).Ìà8 àÌà àConsidering€the€facts€before€the€trial€court€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing,ÏòòBerndtóó,€733€S.W.2d€at€122€(citing€òòWilliams€v.€Bordenkircheróó,€696€F.2d€464,€467Ï(6th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€461€U.S.€916,€103€S.Ct.€1898€(1983)),€we€conclude€thatÏa€court€exercising€reasonable€caution€would€not€have€experienced€doubt€withÏrespect€to€the€appellantððs€competence€to€enter€guilty€pleas.€€òòIdóó.€(citing€òòPateóó,€637ÏF.2d€at€1072).× ƒ0 ××  ×€€The€only€evidence€before€the€trial€court€that€arguably€castÏdoubt€upon€the€appellantððs€competence€was€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Wright€duringÏthe€juvenile€court€proceedings.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€However,€while€Dr.€Wright€opined€that€theÏappellant€possessed€an€I.Q.€reflecting€borderline€retardation€and€a€mental€ageÏof€ÌÌÌten,€the€psychologist€conceded€that€his€conclusions€were€contradicted€by€theÏappellantððs€academic€record.€€Indeed,€other€than€Dr.€Wrightððs€testimony,€there€isÏnothing€in€the€record€that€would€have€alerted€the€trial€court€that€the€appellantððsÏlevel€of€intellectual€functioning€is€subnormal.€€For€example,€in€addition€toÏattending€high€school,€the€appellant€was€employed€at€the€time€of€the€murder.€ÏMoreover,€the€appellant€at€the€guilty€plea€hearing€exhibited€no€difficultyÏunderstanding€the€proceeding.€€The€appellant€was€responsive€to€the€courtððsÏquestions.€€The€appellant€was€also€represented€by€competent€counsel€whoÏwere€aware€of€Dr.€Wrightððs€testimony€and€had€ð ðput€in€hundreds€of€hoursÏactuallyðð€talking€to€the€appellant€about€his€case.òòÌÓÓà8 àóóThe€constitutional€obligation€to€hold€an€evidentiary€hearingÏdepends€heavily€on€the€factual€circumstances€of€each€case.€ÏNeither€the€defendantððs€medical€history,€nor€the€opinion€ofÏpsychiatric€experts,€nor€the€defendantððs€behavior€...€should€beÏviewed€in€isolation.€€These€are€merely€relevant€factors€to€beÏconsidered€in€determining€whether€an€evidentiary€hearing€isÏnecessary.€€ÌÓÓÌòòBordenkircheróó,€696€F.2d€at€466€n.1.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòClark€v.€Stateóó,€800€S.W.2d€500,Ï505„506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)(fact€that€the€appellant€had€been€declared€toÏbe€mentally€ill€in€1973€would€not€necessarily€require€further€investigation€by€theÏtrial€court,€òòsua€sponteóó,€of€the€appellantððs€mental€capacity€to€enter€pleas€of€guiltyÏin€1975).ÌòòÌà àóóFurthermore,€at€the€conclusion€of€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€appellant€was€capable€of€understanding€hisÏrights€in€the€context€of€a€guilty€plea€proceeding€and€was€capable€of€waivingÏthose€rights.€€In€reviewing€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€factual€findings€ofÏthe€trial€court€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€such€findings.€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2d€689,€697€(Tenn.€1995);ÏòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2dÏ898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€We€conclude€that€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððsÏfindings.€€ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€those€facts€already€mentioned€which€contradict€Dr.€WrightððsÏevaluation€of€the€appellantððs€mental€capacity,€the€transcript€of€the€post„conviction€proceeding€reveals€that,€while€in€prison,€the€appellant€has€workedÏtoward€a€GED€and€participated€in€vocational€courses.€€At€the€post„convictionÏproceeding,€the€appellant€exhibited€no€difficulty€in€understanding€theÏproceeding€and€testifying€in€a€fairly€articulate€manner.€€Mr.€Hill,€an€experiencedÏcriminal€trial€attorney,€testified€at€the€post„conviction€proceeding€that,€in€hisÏopinion,€the€appellant€was€competent€when€he€entered€his€guilty€pleas.€€òòSeeóóÏòòScharkley€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9003„CR„00074€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€At€Nashville,ÏDecember€12,€1990)(ð ðwhile€[the€accusedððs]€mental€development€was€indicatedÏto€be€ððslow,ðð€a€fact€recognized€by€his€attorneys,€there€is€no€indication€that€theÏappellant€was€mentally€incompetent€when€he€entered€the€plea€in€questionðð).ÌÌà àFinally,€in€the€context€of€the€above€discussion,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€elicitation€of€responses€from€the€appellant€was€sufficient€to€establish€thatÏthe€pleas€were€knowing€and€voluntary€under€òòBoykinóó,€òòMackeyóó,€and€Rule€11.€ÏòòBlankenshipóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€905€n.€7;€òòNealóó,€810€S.W.2d€at€139.€€The€trial€courtÏadvised€the€appellant€of€his€rights€and€the€consequences€of€his€guilty€pleas,Ïincluding€the€appellantððs€privilege€against€self„incrimination€and€his€waiver€ofÏgrounds€for€appeal€other€than€the€transfer€of€his€case€from€juvenile€court€toÏcriminal€court.€€While€the€court€did€not€elicit€a€response€following€his€descriptionÏof€each€individual€right,€notably€the€privilege€against€self„incrimination,€the€courtÏasked€the€appellant€whether€his€attorneys€had€spoken€with€him€ð ðoften€enoughÏand€long€enough€to€answer€any€questions€[he]€might€have.ðð€€Indeed,€the€courtÏspecifically€asked€the€appellant€if€his€attorneys€had€ð ðtalked€with€[him]€aboutÏwhether€or€not€[he]€would€take€the€stand€in€[his]€own€behalf.ðð€€When€theÏappellant€responded€affirmatively,€the€trial€court€stated,€ð ðOkay.€€And,€of€course,€IÏwould€imagine€they€would€wait€until€the€State€had€rested€their€case€before€theyÏwould€actually€make€a€decision€on€whether€or€not€you€would€testify,€and,€again,Ïthey€can€only€advise€you,€you€would€be€the€one€who€would€have€to€make€thatÏdecision.ðð€€As€mentioned€earlier,€the€court€confirmed€that€the€appellantððsÏattorneys€had€ð ðput€in€hundreds€of€hours€...€talking€to€[the€appellant].ðð€€The€trialÏcourt€established€that€the€appellant€was€satisfied€with€the€representation€he€hadÏreceived.€€Moreover,€the€court€determined€that€the€appellantððs€attorneys€hadÍspoken€with€members€of€the€appellantððs€family.€€These€family€members,€in€turn,Ïdiscussed€with€the€appellant€his€decision€to€plead€guilty.€€Finally,€the€courtÏasked€the€appellant€two€times€if€he€had€any€questions€about€the€proceeding.€ÏThe€appellant€responded€that€he€did€not.€€ÌÌà àThus,€there€was€no€error,€and€the€burden€of€proof€does€not€shift€to€theÏState€to€prove€harmless€error€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòNealóó,€810€S.W.2d€atÏ139„140.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€348€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994),€òòperm.€To€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€834ÏS.W.2d€922,€926€(Tenn.€1992)(the€supreme€court€only€required€the€State€toÏshow€òòby€clear€and€convincing€evidenceóó€that€the€pleas€were,€in€fact,€knowingÏand€voluntary).€€In€any€event,€the€entire€record€shows€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€the€pleas€were€knowing€and€voluntary.€€òòIdóó.€€In€making€thisÏdetermination,€we€may€consider€any€relevant€evidence€in€the€record€of€theÏproceedings,€including€post„conviction€proceedings.€€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€No.Ï01C01„9404„CR„00122€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€September€20,€1995),Ïòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996)(citing€òòCochran€v.€Norvellóó,€446€F.2d€61,€63Ï(6th€Cir.€1971)).ÌÌÌÓÓà8 à[A]€court€charged€with€determining€whether€...€pleas€wereÏððvoluntaryðð€and€ððintelligentðð€must€look€to€various€circumstantialÍfactors,€such€as€the€relative€intelligence€of€the€defendant;€theÏdegree€of€his€familiarity€with€criminal€proceedings;€whether€he€wasÏrepresented€by€competent€counsel€and€had€the€opportunity€toÏconfer€with€counsel€about€the€options€available€to€him;€the€extentÏof€advice€from€counsel€and€the€court€concerning€the€chargesÏagainst€him;€and€the€reasons€for€his€decision€to€plead€guilty,Ïincluding€a€desire€to€avoid€a€greater€penalty€that€might€result€fromÏa€jury€trial.ÌÓÓÌòòBlankenshipóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€904.€€Again,€we€have€concluded€that€the€transcriptÏof€the€guilty€plea€hearing€affirmatively€establishes€the€validity€of€the€appellantððsÏpleas.€€However,€even€assuming€that€it€does€not,€the€transcript€stronglyÏsuggests€that€the€pleas€were€knowing€and€voluntary.€€Additionally,€at€the€time€ofÏthe€guilty€plea€proceeding,€the€appellant€had€been€in€jail€for€approximately€oneÏyear.€€The€appellant€had€previously€participated€in€two€hearings€in€juvenileÏcourt.€€Hill€testified€that,€prior€to€those€hearings,€he€had€discussed€with€theÏappellant€the€advisability€of€testifying€in€court.€€Moreover,€he€and€Ms.€MillerÏconferred€with€their€client€ð ðon€a€very€regular€basis.ðð€€Mr.€Hill€expressed€hisÏopinion€that,€had€the€appellant€chosen€to€undergo€a€trial€by€jury,€the€StateÏwould€have€presented€a€strong€case€and€the€appellant€would€have€beenÏsubject€to€a€much€harsher€penalty.€€Finally,€the€record€contradicts€the€testimonyÏof€Dr.€Wright€concerning€the€appellantððs€intellectual€capacity.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court,€denying€the€appellantððsÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief,€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge