WPC& }4 ouӑ5m??SỘC3gju[˓&\W܁cl2@RIEM+y# uY%iU4X/(^[v) $ԭW~236? s<{Dċ3ӻw$׃.h$7 d8y~OrЃ(0 LMEq٫pg$h8%'ykHBMh=3 ӑJ`)-\{,(z+Nמ5ً(9!`ң^fgUN TSA~K6m٪P̈i(>sg(hu(o[5c$:b=ς.Zl ?:H c RmP$      6     _ԀWhilethepetitionerdoesnotspecificallyaddresshis_Pickett_ԀCountyand_Overton_ԀCountyconvictionsin  relationtothisissue,anillegalsentencemaybenotedatanytime.See,e.g.,Statev.Mahler,735S.W.2d226,228(Tenn. t 1987);Statev._Burkhart_,566S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.1978). RmP$      1     _ԀAtthetimeoftheplea,fouradditionalchildsexoffensechargeswere_nollied_.  RmP$      9     _ԀInsomeinstancestherecordmightreflectthatsuchwasaclericalerrortobecorrectedunderTennesseeRule  ofCriminalProcedure36.However,thatclearlyisnotthesituationhereasevidencedbytheguiltypleasubmission t hearingtranscript.J~'}.bk83|xUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,00CEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(A)(A)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#  RmP$      7     _Wecannot_phathom_ԀwhytheGeneralAssemblyincludedchildrapeinitslistoffeloniesinsubdivision(2)  subjectto15%reductioncredits,onlytoexcludeintheverynextsubdivision,childrapefromanysentencecredits.- -(|G2mP$ !.8udd8         0    d(|3m$ !.8udd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3m$ !.8udd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8udd8     _  u8_yXXdd8  @tt$uINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#u$ #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsMay15,2001 L X_yXu #uXX_y#LLOYDPAULHILLv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX_yXu  J @@ PostConvictionAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforPutnamCounty  J @@No.960546LeonC.Burns,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200001428CCAR3PCFiledAugust30,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     X_yXXX_yOnSeptember25,1998,thepetitionerenteredbestinterestpleastofourcountsofchildrape. For x  theseoffenseshereceivedconcurrentsixteenyearsentences. 򀀀 Accordingtotheannouncedpleathe d convictionsarisingoutof_Pickett_Ԁand_Overton_ԀCountiesweresettobeservedatthirtypercent while T thePutnamCountyconvictionswereatonehundredpercentwiththepotentialtobereducedto @ eightyfivepercent .Withinthestatuteoflimitationsthepetitionerfiledapostconvictionpetition ,| allegingthathispleawasnotknowinglyandvoluntarilyenteredconcerningtheconsequences h thereof. Subsequently,thetrialcourtconductedahearingandlaterdeniedthereliefsoughtinthe T petition. Itisfromthatdenialthatthepetitionerbringsthepresentappealcontinuingtomaintainthat @ hispleawasnotknowinglyandvoluntarilyentered.Afterreviewingtherecordandapplicable , _caselaw_,wefindthatthesentencesimposedareillegaland,therefore,reverseandremandthematter.#X_yXXX_y##uXX_y|#X_yXu   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisReversedand  Remanded.     #uX_y; #X_yX.uJerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichNormaMcGeeOgleandJohn d EverettWilliams,JJ.,joined. P  HarveyDouglasThomas,_Algood_,Tennessee,forappellant.LloydPaulHill. ("x! PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;ElizabethB._Marney_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; $P# BillGibson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andBen_Fann_,AssistantDistrictAttorney,forappellee,State $< $ ofTennessee. %(!%    8-(- ЇOPINION #uXX_yA #X_yXu  #uXX_yB#X_yXu  X_yXXX_y@!FactualBackground     Asabovenoted,thepetitionerenteredbestinterestguiltypleastofourcountsofchildrape ` involvingtwovictimsandarisingfromthreedifferentcounties._  #  1      _ԀForthesecrimeshereceivedfour L  concurrentsixteenyearsentences.Theannouncedagreementincourtwasthathisconvictionsbased 8  uponcrimesin_Pickett_Ԁand_Overton_ԀCountieswouldbeservedasaRangeIoffender at30percent. $ t TheannouncementfurtherprovidedthatthePutnamCountysentencesweretobeservedat 100  ` percent[butcould]bereducedto85percentbycreditsunder[TennesseeCodeAnnotated]4121  L  236.T  #  2      ׀Thelatterisalsoreflectedinthepleaagreement/waiverformwhichdenotesthepetitioners  8  punishmentas sixteenyearsat100%with15%forcreditstoserve....Additionally,ourreviewof $  the SentenceReformActof1989"portionoftherespectivejudgmentsforthe_Pickett_Ԁand_Overton_   Countyoffensesshowsthatboth Standard30%RangeIand ChildRapistweremarked.Onthe   judgmentformsforthePutnamCountyoffenses,only ChildRapisthasbeenmarked.     Turningtothepostconvictionhearing,thepetitionerprovidedtheinitialtestimony.   AccordingtothiswitnesshehadbelievedthathissixteenyearsentencesoutofPutnamCountywere p tobeservedat 100percentwithapossiblefifteenpercentreduction. Headdedthathehad \ believedthathewasreceiving thesamesentencefor30percentin_Pickett_ԀCountyand_Overton_ L County. However,heandhisattorneyaverredthattheDepartmentofCorrectionshadslatedallof 8 thesesentencestobeservedatonehundredpercent,andt hepetitionerexplainedthathehadnotbeen $t  receivinganytimeforgoodtime. Inaddition,thepetitionerstatedthattheremovalofanIndiana ` _detainer__   #  3      _Ԁhadbeenanotherconditionofhisplea,yetthe_detainer_Ԁremainedinplaceatthetimeofthe P postconvictionevidentiaryhearing. Thepetitioneraverredthattheremovalofthe_detainer_Ԁhadbeen <  theclincherinhisdecisiontoacceptthepleaagreement. Nevertheless,heacknowledgedthatno , mentionhadbeenmadeofthisconditioninthepleaagreementform. Healsoadmittedthatwhen  askedbythetrialcourtpriortoacceptinghispleaifanyonehadpromisedhim anythingotherthan   thisagreement,hisreplyhadbeen no,sir. However,heexplainedthathehadbelievedthe  dismissalofthe_detainer_Ԁwarranttohavebeenpartoftheagreementandhadreceivedassurance,  uponaskinginopencourt,thatitwouldbedone.     Becausethetrialcourthaddescribedtheaforementionedpercentagesforserviceasamatter l   totakeupwiththeDepartmentofCorrections,thetestimonyofdefenseattorneyDougThomas X! andprosecutorBen_Fann_Ԁfocusedonthe_detainer_. Inessence,Thomasstatedthat_Fann_Ԁhadassured D"  himthatthe_detainer_Ԁwouldberemoved,andhehadtaken_Fann_Ԁathisword. Thomasaddedthathe 0#! hadadvisedhisclienttotrust_Fann_Ԁandthatthisassurancehadultimatelyresultedinthepetitioners $l" acceptanceoftheplea. Thepetitionersattorneybelievedthatthelocaldistrictattorneysoffice  couldnegotiatewiththeIndianaauthoritiesandsecuretheremovalasaidtoafellowprosecutorin  Tennessee. However,though_Fann_ԀhadbelievedthatIndianawouldchoosetodismissthe_detainer_  warrantbecauseofthelengthofthepetitionerssentencehereinTennessee,thisprosecutorasserted t thatthehehadnotpromisedtheremovalofthe_detainer__  #  4      _.Heacknowledgedthathehadagreedto ` contacttheappropriateIndianaauthoritiessuggestingthedismissalandhaddoneso. Nevertheless, L  Indianadidnotelecttofollowhisrecommendation. _Fann_Ԁalsostatedthathehadbelievedthatthe <  desireforthedismissalhadbeenconnectedtothepetitionershopeforafurloughbutnotrelatedto ( x thepleaagreement. Inaddition,thiswitnessclaimed thatanyattorneyknowsthatnoneofuscan  d callsomeotherstateandtellthemtheyhavetoreleaseaholdthattheyhaveonsomebodyfora  T  violationofprobation.   @    Attheconclusionoftheproof,thetrialcourtdeniedthepetition.Indoingso,thetrialcourt ,  didnotconsidertheallegationrelativetotheserviceofthepetitionerssentencesatonehundred   percentwithoutanyreductionintimeforgoodtimecredits.Withrespecttothe_detainer_Ԁissue,the   trialcourtdidnotfindcrediblethepetitionerstestimonythatthepromisedremovalthereofwas the   clincherforhisacceptingtheplea.Tosupportthisconclusion,thetrialcourtnoted thatlittle   referencewasmadeto[the_detainer_]priortoandverylittleemphasiswasplacedonitatthetimeof x theplea. Thetrialcourtfurtheraverredthatiftheremovalofsuchhadbeenthekeytothe d agreement,thenthepetitionerlikelywouldnothaveproceededwithpleadingguiltyuponlearning P incourtatthetimeofthepleathatthe_detainer_Ԁhadnotalreadybeenremovedashehadunderstood. <  BeyondthisthetrialcourtobservedthatthepetitionerhadbeenfacingnumerousclassAfelony (x chargesforwhichthestartingpointofsentencingconsiderationswouldhavebeentwentyyears,yet d thepetitionersentiresentencebyvirtueofthispleawassixteenyears.  P   Subsequently,thetrialcourtfiledaorderregardingthepetition.Thereinthetrialjudge < assertedthathehadorderedneithertheserviceofthePutnamCountysentencesateightyfive ( percentnortheremovalofthe_detainer_. Hefurtherobservedthatthepleaformmadenomentionof  the_detainer_Ԁthoughitdidaverthatnopromiseshadbeenmadeotherthanthoseevidencedonthe  form. Thetrialcourtalsoconcludedfromthetestimonyandaletterintroducedatthehearingthat  thediscussionofthe_detainer_Ԁhadrelatedtothepossibilityofafurloughandnottotheplea. Having  madethesefindings,thetrialjudgeconcludedthatnobasisforreliefexistedanddeniedthepetition. x    PostConvictionStandardofReview P!  1  Inanalyzingtheissuesraised,wefirstnotethatanindividualbringingapost-conviction (#x! petitionbearstheburdenofprovingtheallegationsassertedinthepetitionbyclearandconvincing $d" evidence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030210(f).Moreover,thetrialcourt'sfindingsoffact are %P # conclusiveonappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment._Tidwell_Ԁv.State,922 %