ÿWPC%! …# V %aUNg 0Ƶ{ 4ƒ — 0 ¦ w@° 0Dð 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0|  0†† 0  1uœ 0dU>uU*³ BÝB)úDC# AMf©³`\ D3¼v~ïvÓm 0@@ AO€ÆÏ 0D• D/Ù B!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎX(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓuM%3|xk (º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Y DZ D[ U\ D] V^ D_ D` a b Ó€(#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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ŸÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌAugustÏ20,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔMandatory€Consecutive€Sentences.€€Where€a€defendant€is€convicted€of€multiple€offensesÏfrom€one€trial€or€where€the€defendant€has€additional€sentences€not€yet€fully€served€as€the€result€of€theÏconvictions€in€the€same€or€other€court€and€the€law€requires€consecutive€sentences,€the€sentenceÏshall€be€consecutive€whether€the€judgment€explicitly€so€orders€or€not.€€This€rule€shall€apply:€ÌÌà8 à(A)€To€a€sentence€for€a€felony€committed€while€on€parole€for€a€felony.€€ÌÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(3)(A).Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÑ7€÷0XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€#ÔÙ€€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLEóóÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1998€SESSIONÌÌTERRY€L.€CHARLTON,€à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€€œ01C01›„9701„CC„00002Ìà àà àAppellant,à àà à*à àœHICKMAN›€COUNTYÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Cornelia€A.€Clark,€JudgeÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„Conviction)ÌÌà àà àAppellee.à àà à*ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌPeter€D.€œHeil›à àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌP.O.€Box€40651à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌNashville,€TN€œ€37204›à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDaryl€J.€Brand€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœCordell›€Hull€Building,€Second€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€AND€REMANDED€IN€PARTÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌà àà àThe€petitioner,€Terry€L.€Charlton,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€of€hisÏapplication€for€post„conviction€relief.€€In€this€appeal€of€right,€the€petitioner€claimsÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€by€entering€an€order€of€summary€dismissal€without€theÏappointment€of€counsel€or€the€opportunity€to€amend.€€We€must€reverse€a€portion€ofÏthe€judgment€and€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€withÏthis€opinion.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFactsó óóóÌà àà àOn€September€19,€1995,€the€petitioner€pled€guilty€in€Hickman€CountyÏto€two€counts€of€aggravated€burglary€and€two€counts€of€theft€over€$1,000.00.€€TrialÏJudge€Donald€P.€Harris€imposed€Range€II€sentences€of€six€years€on€each€countÏand€ordered€two€of€the€sentences€to€be€served€consecutively€for€an€effective€term€ofÏtwelve€years.€€The€twelve„year€term€was€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently€"with€[a]Ïsentence€[the€defendant€is]€currently€serving€[with]€TDOC"€for€a€prior€conviction€inÏCheatham€County.ÌÌà àà àOn€September€11,€1996,€the€petitioner€completed€and€mailed€thisÏpetition,€alleging€that€his€pleas€were€"involuntar[y]€...€without€understanding€theÏnature€or€consequences...."€€At€the€same€time,€the€petitioner€filed€a€motion€toÍamend€the€September€19,€1995,€order€in€Hickman€County€asking€that€theseÏsentences€also€be€served€concurrently€with€a€sentence€imposed€by€Judge€Clark€inÏWilliamson€County€some€twenty„seven€days€after€the€Hickman€County€pleaÏagreement.€€The€Williamson€County€sentence€of€twenty„one€years€had€beenÏordered€to€be€served€consecutively€to€the€Hickman€County€term.ÌÌà àà àThe€record€establishes€that€the€petitioner€was€serving€an€eighteen„year€Cheatham€County€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction€at€the€time€of€theÏHickman€County€sentence.€€After€determining€that€the€transcript€of€the€guilty€pleaÏestablished€that€Judge€Harris,€who€imposed€the€Hickman€County€sentences,€hadÏsought€clarification€before€accepting€the€plea,€Judge€Clark€denied€relief.€€In€doingÏso,€she€recited€a€portion€of€the€submission€hearing€transcript:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àJudge€Harris:€€I€cannot€run€a€sentence€concurrent€withÏthe€sentence€that€you€haven't€gotten€yet.€€It€will€be€up€toÏthat€judge€[Cornelia€A.€Clark].€€I€feel€confident€that€ifÏsomebody€tells€her€œthat€that›€was€the€agreement€downÏhere,€that€she'll€run€it€concurrent,€but€I€can't€guaranteeÏyou,€and€she€may€say€["no,€it's€consecutive"].€€I€amÏcertainly€not€going€to€try€to€say€what€Judge€Clark€will€do.ÌÌÓÓAfter€this€statement,€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€assured€the€trial€court€thatÏthe€concurrent€sentence€agreement€applied€only€to€the€Cheatham€CountyÏsentence.€€When€asked€whether€he€was€satisfied€with€that,€the€defendantÍanswered,€"Yes,€that€will€be€fine.€€Sentences€I€am€already€serving.€€I've€already€gotÏeighteen€years."€€ÌÌà àà àIn€dismissing€the€petition€and€motion,€Judge€Clark€further€observed€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThis€court€œhas›€recently€reviewed€the€videotape€of€theÏsentencing€hearing€in€Williamson€County.€€The€writtenÏand€videotape€record€is€clear.€€The€attorneys€did€reciteÏthe€prior€sentences€imposed€on€the€defendant.€ÏHowever,€no€assertion€was€made€that€any€agreementÏhad€been€entered€into€or€recommendation€made€to€runÏthe€sentence€concurrently.€€In€fact,€no€mentionÏwhatsoever€was€made€of€the€discussion€that€occurred€inÏHickman€County€one€month€earlier.€ÌÌÓÓAfter€making€reference€to€the€dismissal€of€the€post„conviction€petition,€the€trial€courtÏalso€ruled€that€the€motion€to€amend€the€Hickman€County€sentence€by€asking€forÏconcurrent€service€with€the€Williamson€County€sentence€was€not€only€untimely€butÏalso€without€merit.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€35.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€a€motion€for€reconsideration€filed€twelve€days€after€the€initial€order,Ïthe€petitioner€reasserted€that€his€guilty€plea€was€involuntary.€€He€insisted€thatÏportions€of€the€transcript€supported€his€claim€that€he€did€not€understand€that€theÏWilliamson€County€sentences€could€be€consecutive.€€Of€greater€significance,€theÍpetitioner€reiterated€his€complaint€that€the€Department€of€Correction€had€refused€toÏtreat€the€Hickman€County€sentences€as€concurrent€with€his€Cheatham€County€termÏbecause€of€a€parole€violation€on€the€latter€sentence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï32(c)(3)(A).× ƒ) ××  ×€€In€denying€the€motion€to€reconsider,€Judge€Clark€made€the€followingÏobservation:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àDuring€the€[Hickman€County]€hearing,€no€oneÏspecifically€stated€that€the€Cheatham€County€convictionsÏwere€sentences€imposed€as€a€result€of€the€paroleÏviolation.€€In€fact,€statements€made€by€petitioner€seemedÏto€indicate€that€they€were€simply€other€sentencesÏimposed.€€It€is€apparent€that€neither€...€[œJ]udge›€[Harris]Ïnor€any€attorney€knew€that€petitioner's€CheathamÏCounty€sentences€were€imposed€as€a€result€of€a€paroleÏviolation.€€However,€it€is€clear€that€the€petitioner€knew€orÏshould€have€known€his€status.€€ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€judge€cited€a€case€in€which€a€panel€of€this€court€had€ruled€that€because€itÏis€commonly€known€that€a€criminal€conviction€qualifies€as€a€ground€for€paroleÏrevocation€which,€in€turn,€requires€a€consecutive€sentence,€the€ensuing€guilty€pleaÏunder€these€circumstances€is€knowingly€and€voluntarily€entered.€€òòBailey€v.€Stateóó,Í924€S.W.2d€918€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€€Judge€Clark€ruled€that€based€upon€theÏòòBaileyóó€opinion€from€this€court,€the€petitioner€could€not€claim€ignorance€of€the€law.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBaileyóó,€the€trial€court€had€entered€a€summary€dismissal€of€a€post„conviction€petition€based€upon€the€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€byÏthe€failure€to€warn€that€a€guilty€plea€could€lead€to€revocation€of€parole€andÏconsecutive€sentencing.€€By€footnote,€the€panel€explained€that€whether€counselÏwas€aware€of€his€parole€status€was€irrelevant€because€the€petitioner€knew€orÏshould€have€known€that€he€was€on€parole€with€conditions:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWe€find€it€readily€apparent,€even€to€the€everydayÏlayman,€that€criminal€convictions€can€lead€to€paroleÏrevocation.€€We€find€it€equally€apparent€that€the€paroleÏœrevocating›€offense's€sentence€would€run€consecutivelyÏto€an€existing€paroled€sentence....€€We,€therefore,€rejectÏpetitioner's€argument€that€he€would€not€have€pled€guiltyÏhad€counsel€informed€him€of€information€he€œis€presumed›Ïto€possess.€€€€ÌÌÓÓòòBaileyóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€919.€€In€that€case,€the€panel€relied€primarily€upon€a€holdingÏin€òòSheehan€v.€Stateóó,€411€So.€2d€824,€828€(Ala.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€The€panel€alsoÏmade€reference€to€an€Arizona€case,€òòState€v.€Youngóó,€480€P.2d€345€(Ariz.€1971),Ïwhich€held€that€a€defendant€must€be€"presumed€to€be€aware"€when€entering€aÏguilty€plea,€of€the€concept€of€"separate€punishments€for€separate€crimes...."€€òòId.óó€atÏ346„47.€€In€òòBaileyóó,€there€was€no€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€theÍsupreme€court.€€€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òProcedureóóó óÌà àà àUpon€the€filing€of€a€post„conviction€petition€in€proper€form,€or€uponÏreceipt€of€an€amended€petition,€our€law€requires€trial€courts€to€subject€the€petition€toÏ"preliminary€consideration."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„30„206.€€During€thisÏpreliminary€phase,€the€trial€judge€must€examine€the€allegations€of€fact€in€theÏpetition.€€"If€the€facts€alleged,€taken€as€true,€fail€to€show€that€the€petitioner€is€entitledÏto€relief€...€the€petition€shall€be€dismissed."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(f).€€InÏòòWaite€v.€Stateóó,€948€S.W.2d€283€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€our€court€discussed€howÏto€determine,€under€the€new€Act,€whether€a€claim€is€"colorable"€or€actionable.€€If€so,Ïthe€petition€is€allowed€to€pass€beyond€the€preliminary€stage.€€This€court€relied€onÏcase€law€prior€to€the€1995€Act€to€hold€that€a€colorable€claim€is€"'one€that€allegesÏfacts€showing€that€the€conviction€resulted€from€an€abridgment€of€a€constitutionalÏright€and€which€demonstrates€that€the€ground€for€relief€was€not€previouslyÏdetermined€or€waived.'"€òòId.óó,€948€S.W.2d€at€284„85€(quoting€òòHugh€Ronald€CarmleyÏv.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9305„CR„00167,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,ÏJan.€13,€1994)).€€"The€pro€se€petitioner€must€assert€a€basic€theory€of€relief."€€òòWaiteóó,Ï948€S.W.2d€at€284€(quoting€òòLowe€v.€Stateóó,€805€S.W.2d€368,€372€(Tenn.€1991)).€ÏUnder€the€new€statute,€at€the€preliminary€stage,€the€trial€judge€is€required€toÍdetermine€"whether€it€appear[s]€beyond€doubt€that€the€[petitioner€could]€prove€noÏset€of€facts€in€support€of€his€claim€which€would€entitle€him€to€relief."€€òòWaiteóó,€948ÏS.W.2d€at€284€(second€alteration€in€original).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28(2)(H).€ÌÌà àà àThe€amended€Post„Conviction€Act€requires€trial€courts,€at€theÏpreliminary€stages,€to€first€"determine€whether€the€petitioner€is€indigent€and€in€needÏof€counsel."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(e).€€The€trial€court€"may€provide€counselÏand€allow€time€for€œan›€amendment€to€the€petition."€€òòId.óó€€Before€there€can€be€aÏpreliminary€dismissal,€however,€the€statute€requires€the€trial€court€to€assume€"asÏtrue"€the€facts€alleged€by€the€petitioner.€€ÌÌà àà àSeveral€unpublished€opinions€from€this€court€have€ruled€that€at€theÏpreliminary€stage,€the€trial€judge€is€to€assume€the€facts€alleged€in€the€petition€areÏtrue.€€No€authority€exists€for€the€trial€court€to€do€independent€fact€investigation€intoÏthe€truth€of€the€allegations.€€In€òòLoring€C.€Warner€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9610„CR„00407€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Jan.€30,€1998),€òòapp.€filed€by€petitioneróó,€Mar.Ï26,€1998,€the€trial€court€summarily€dismissed€a€pro€se€petition€after€examining€theÏrecord€of€the€prior€proceedings,€ruling€that€the€record€and€the€petition€"conclusivelyÏshow[ed]€that€[Warner€was]€not€entitled€to€relief."€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€2.€€This€courtÏreversed€on€direct€appeal€and€remanded€for€the€appointment€of€counsel,Íconcluding€that€"the€court€exceeded€its€statutory€mandate,€which€was€simply€toÏevaluate€the€petition€to€determine€whether€a€colorable€claim€was€stated,€rather€thanÏto€examine€and€adjudicate€the€factual€merits€of€the€allegations."€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€3.€€AÏsimilar€result€was€reached€in€òòGarry€E.€Collins€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9603„CR„00120Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Mar.€13,€1997).€€In€òòCollinsóó,€the€trial€court€tookÏ"judicial€notice€of€the€[qualifications€of€trial€counsel]€and€the€properly€executedÏ[w]aivers€of€the€[œd]efendant›."€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€2.€€On€appeal,€this€court€ruled€that€theÏtrial€"court€may€not€take€judicial€notice€of€the€qualifications€of€defense€counsel€andÏthe€contents€of€the€waiver€so€as€to€conclusively€determine€the€petition€has€noÏmerit."€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€3.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àAn€independent€review€of€the€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€hearing€andÏconclusive€determination€that€the€petition€was€without€merit€œare›€not€permissible.€ÏThe€preliminary€stage€is€not€the€appropriate€forum€for€adjudication€of€the€facts€ofÏthe€case.€ÌÌà àà àBy€his€claim€that€the€plea€was€neither€œknowingly€›nor€voluntarily€made,Ïthe€petitioner€has€stated€a€colorable€claim.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€hisÏsubmission€to€the€charges€was€brought€about€through€a€misapprehension€that€theÏCheatham€and€Hickman€County€sentences€would€be€concurrently€served.€€InÍsummarily€rejecting€that€claim,€Judge€Clark€followed€our€ruling€in€òòBaileyóó,€a€case€inÏwhich€this€court€may€have€overlooked€prior€opinions€from€our€supreme€court.€€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òControlling€Precedentóóó óÌà àà àThe€record€indicates€that€prosecution,€the€defense,€and€Judge€HarrisÏin€the€Hickman€County€cases€all€believed€that€sentencing€concurrent€with€theÏCheatham€County€offenses€was€permissible.€€Two€supreme€court€opinions€addressÏthis€issue€and€require€a€different€result€than€that€reached€in€òòBaileyóó.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòHenderson€v.€Stateóó,€419€S.W.2d€176€(Tenn.€1967),€our€supremeÏcourt,€through€former€Chief€Justice€Hamilton€Burnett,€ruled€that€a€plea€agreementÏwhich€included€concurrent€sentencing€for€an€offense€committed€while€theÏdefendant€was€on€parole€for€a€prior€crime,€rendered€the€plea€void:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWe€think€òòeven€ifóó€as€it€is€argued€by€the€Warden€that€òòtheÏman€should€have€knownóó€what€was€going€to€happen€andÏhis€submission,€or€what€he€agreed€to€or€had€traded€for,Ïcouldn't€work€out€like€he€thought€it€might[,]€that€òòhe€isÏentitled€to€go€back€and€have€a€€new€trialóó€as€was€orderedÏin€the€instant€case.€€ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó,€419€S.W.2d€at€178òò€óó(emphasis€added).€€Service€of€the€concurrent€sentencesÏwas€"what€[the€parties]€thought€would€happen,€and€[they]€just€[were]€not€right."€€òòId.óó€ÏOur€supreme€court€ruled€that€when€the€accused€enters€a€plea€wherein€all€partiesÍ(the€state,€the€defendant,€and€the€trial€judge)€agree€to€a€lesser€sentence€than€isÏpermissible€by€law,€"the€accused€should€be€allowed€to€withdraw€his€plea."€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àà àOur€supreme€court€reaffirmed€that€rule€in€òòState€v.€Burkhartóó,€566ÏS.W.2d€871€(Tenn.€1978).€€In€òòBurkhartóó,€an€order€authorizing€a€concurrent€sentenceÏfor€an€escape€from€incarceration€for€a€prior€crime,€which€was€legislativelyÏmandated€to€be€consecutive,€was€deemed€a€nullity€and,€if€the€concurrent€sentenceÏfor€escape€was€the€result€of€a€plea€bargain,€the€defendant€would€be€entitled€toÏwithdraw€his€plea.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€òòBaileyóó€opinion€appears€to€be€in€direct€conflict€with€bothÏòòHendersonóó€and€òòœBurkhart›óó.€€In€òòEugene€Montgomery€v.€Stateóó,€No.€œ03C01›„9507„CC„00189€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€œApp›.,€at€Knoxville,€Sept.€10,€1997),€a€panel€of€this€courtÏdeclined€to€follow€the€reasoning€of€òòBaileyóó.€€In€òòMontgomeryóó,€the€petitionerÏcomplained€that€the€"State€agreed€his€sentence€for€aggravated€assault€would€runÏconcurrently€with€a€parole€violation."€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€2.€€The€panel€followed€theÏrationale€of€òòHenderson€v.€Stateóó,€419€S.W.2d€176€(Tenn.€1967),€and€remanded€theÏcause€for€the€appointment€of€counsel€and€an€evidentiary€hearing.ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€petitioner€has€stated€a€colorable€claim.€€Thus,€theÍcause€must€be€remanded€for€the€appointment€of€counsel.€€In€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,Ï395€U.S.€238€(1969),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€defendantsÏshould€be€advised€of€certain€of€their€constitutional€rights€before€entering€pleas€ofÏguilt.€€Included€among€those€required€warnings€are€the€right€againstÏself„incrimination,€the€right€to€confront€witnesses,€and€the€right€to€a€trial€by€jury.€€òòId.óóÏat€243.€€Yet€the€overriding€òòBoykinóó€requirement€is€that€the€guilty€plea€must€beÏknowingly€and€voluntarily€made.€€òòId.óó€at€242„44.€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòWallen€v.€Stateóó,€863€S.W.2d€34,€38€(Tenn.€1993),€our€supremeÏcourt€ruled€that€several€factors€are€relevant€in€determining€whether€a€plea€isÏvoluntary€and€intelligent:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[A]€court€charged€with€determining€whether€those€pleasÏwere€"voluntary"€and€"intelligent"€must€look€to€variousÏcircumstantial€factors,€such€as€the€relative€intelligence€ofÏthe€defendant;€the€degree€of€his€familiarity€with€criminalÏproceedings;€whether€he€was€represented€by€competentÏcounsel€and€had€the€opportunity€to€confer€with€counselÏabout€the€options€available€to€him;€the€extent€of€adviceÏfrom€counsel€and€the€court€concerning€the€chargesÏagainst€him;€and€the€reasons€for€his€decision€to€pleadÏguilty,€òòincluding€a€desire€to€avoid€a€greater€penalty€thatÏmight€result€from€jury€trialóó.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌ(quoting€òòBlankenship€v.€Stateóó,€858€S.W.2d€897,€904€(Tenn.€1993)€(emphasisÏadded)€(alteration€in€original)).ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€has€alleged€he€was€advised€that€his€new€sentence€inÏHickman€County€would€be€served€concurrently€to€his€sentence€on€the€case€whichÏhad€parole€revoked.€€He€contended€the€trial€transcript€shows€that€"petitioner,€trialÏcounsel€and€the€prosecutor€agreed€to€his€sentences€being€served€concurrently€toÏthe€sentences€already€imposed€in€Cheatham€County"€and€that€he€only€agreed€to€"aÏsentence€of€12€years€to€be€served€concurrently€with€the€sentences€that€he€alreadyÏhad,€which€included€a€12€year€sentence€that€he€was€serving€in€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Correction."€€Judge€Harris€entered€judgment€reflecting€theÏsentences€would€be€concurrent,€thereby€accrediting€the€assertion€by€the€petitionerÏin€this€case.ÌÌà àà àIf€these€allegations€are€true,€the€petitioner€would€be€entitled€to€reliefÏunder€the€authority€of€both€òòBurkhartóó€and€òòHendersonóó.€€While€it€may€be€true€that€oneÏshould€realize€the€consequences€for€a€crime€committed€while€on€parole€status,Ïcommon€sense€would€also€suggest€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€rely€upon€theÏadvice€of€his€attorney,€especially€when€confirmed€by€the€trial€judge.€€In€our€view,€theÏpetitioner€should€have€been€granted€counsel,€allowed€to€amend,€and€permitted€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€If,€based€upon€the€particular€circumstances€of€this€case,€it€isÏestablished€that€the€plea€agreement€was€entered€into€under€the€collectiveÍmisunderstanding€that€the€Cheatham€County€and€Hickman€County€sentencesÏcould€and€would€be€concurrently€served,€the€plea€agreement€should€be€set€asideÏas€neither€knowingly€nor€voluntarily€made€and€the€petitioner€should€be€brought€toÏtrial€in€Hickman€County.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€cause€is€remanded€for€theÏappointment€of€counsel€and€further€proceedings.€€The€motion€seeking€a€declarationÏthat€the€Hickman€and€Williamson€County€sentences€be€served€concurrently€wasÏproperly€denied.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€œÌÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€œSpecial€Judge›ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge€