WPC  Mupa̢kwaw;=Q 2}t}ɝ} rew=Sv 9T;Ok%e < 900bU\j_ea+z"BemB ڤB B3v>e}Xf!xۿV7IF.yZ<)^9#rͷɐ WO?WT ތ,3@h5>D=OWSt9GjiT 31Q$Jsy_#߹pjB߱;&wfLw;mrE>r_2T"~Veܫ&nQ~ES+SxE(^ 4 &ϋˌjOb|)@p@) )R~7k+ miUCgrk)bKU9bUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1 0DN;==ESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSbUUUUUUUUU 0:]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] 0 B 0 D3C D-v 0K ASA 0 0D A(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    .|-s PH,ʤ3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      1    _ Nopersonconvictedofasexcrimeshallbereleasedonparoleunlessapsychiatristorlicensedpsychologist  designatedasahealthserviceproviderhasexaminedandevaluatedsuchinmateandcertifiedthat,toareasonable t medicalcertainty,theinmatedoesnotposethelikelihoodofcommittingsexualassaultsuponreleasefromconfinement. 8 Theexaminationandevaluationshallbeprovidedbypsychiatristsorlicensedpsychologistsdesignatedashealthservice L providerswhoseservicesarecontractedorfundedbythedepartmentofcorrectionortheboardofparoles.Theboard  shallconsideranysuchotherevaluationbyapsychiatristorlicensedpsychologistdesignatedasahealthserviceprovider  whichmaybeprovidedbythedefendant.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035503(c).- -42Emphasis(|G2$ !.87Ldd8         0   d(|3Ge$ !.87Ldd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ge$ !.87Ldd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.87Ldd8     _   7L8k`XXdd8@tt67LINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#7L6 #Ԉ &    @  @` June18,2002Session L Xk`X7L #7LXXk`#_CLESSIE_ԀT._JACO_,JR.v.STATEOFTENNESSEEXk`X7L  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMauryCounty  J @@No.9854RobertL.Jones,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200102150CCAR3PCFiledAugust14,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }      Xk`XXXk`TheAppellant,_Clessie_ԀT._Jaco_,Jr.,appealstheMauryCountyCircuitCourtsdismissalofhis x  petitionforpostconvictionrelief.In1997,_Jaco_Ԁpledguiltytotwocountsofattemptedrape. d Followingasentencinghearing,_Jaco_,aRangeIStandardOffender,receivedtwoconsecutivesix P yearsentencestobeservedintheDepartmentofCorrection.Onappeal,_Jaco_Ԁarguesthathisguilty < pleawasinvoluntarybecausehewasnotinformedthatpriortoreleaseonparolehewouldbe (x requiredtoundergoamentalhealthevaluationpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated4035 d 503(c)(1997).Afterareviewoftherecord,wefindnoerror.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthe P postconvictioncourtdismissingthepetitionisaffirmed.#Xk`XX Xk`##7LXXk`#Xk`X7L <  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.     #7LXk`s #Xk`X.7LDavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.GlennandRobertW.  _Wedemeyer_,JJ.,joined.  JohnS._Colley_,III,Columbia,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,_Clessie_ԀT._Jaco_,Jr. ` PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;KimR. 8!  Helper,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;T.MichaelBottoms,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;Larry_Nickell_, $"t! Jr.,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. #`" #7LXXk`A #Xk`X7L @@OO& OPINION #7LXXk`~ #Xk`X7L %$!%  FactualBackground  '"' #7LXXk` #  Xk`X7L Xk`XXXk`  OnNovember10,1997,pursuanttoanegotiatedpleaagreement,theAppellantpledguilty )$) totwocountsofattemptedrape,aclassCfelony.Thereafter,hereceivedtwosixyearsentencesto p*%* beservedconsecutivelyintheDepartmentofCorrection.TheAppellantssentenceswereaffirmed \+&+ ondirectappeal.SeeStatev._Jaco_,No.01C019802CC00091(Tenn._Crim_.App.atNashville, H,', Dec.21,1998),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1999). 4-(-   TheAppellantfiledtheinstantpetitionforpostconvictionreliefonMay15,2000,  contendingthathisguiltypleawasnotknowingly,intelligently,andvoluntarilymadebecausehe  wasnotadvisedthatpriortohisreleaseonparolehewouldhavetobeevaluatedandcertifiedbya  mentalhealthprofessionalpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated4035503(c)(1997). #  1      ׀ t Followinganevidentiaryhearing,thepost-convictioncourtdeniedtheAppellantpost-conviction ` relief,findingthat: L  8  ...[_T]he_Ԁpetitionerknowingly,freely,andvoluntarilywaivedhisrightstotrialby $ t juryandenteredpleasofguiltytotwocountsofattemptedrapewithanagreedsix  ` yearsentenceoneachtorunconsecutively.... L    8   ` Thecourtfurtherfindsthatthedefendant,hiswife,andhisuncleall $  understoodthathewouldbeeligibleforparoleconsiderationandpossiblerelease   afterserving30%ofhissentence.Eventhoughtheattorneyrepresentingthe   petitioneratthetimeofhispleasbelievesthatheadvisedthepetitioneraboutthe   provisionsofTennesseeCodeAnnotated4035503(c),thecourtfindsthatthe   petitionerandmembersofhisfamilywereprobablynotadvisedaboutthatstatutory p provisionandcertainlydidnotunderstandtheconsequencesofthatprovision.The \ courtfurtherfinds,basedontheexhibitsandtestimonyinthisproceeding,thatthe H BoardofProbationandParolehasnotreleasedanysexoffenderafterservingonly 4 30%ofhissentenceunlessanappropriateprofessionalhasrenderedanopinion  p essentiallysayingthatitisphysicallyimpossiblefortheinmatetocommitafuture  \ sexualoffense.H   8   ` Thecourtfurtherfindsthatthecourtitselfatthetimeofthesentencing   hearingfailedtoconsider_T.C.A._Ԁ4035503(c)anderroneouslycommentedthatthe   defendantshouldbeeligibleforreleaseafterserving30%orlessofhissentence..  ..[N]eitherthepetitionersthenattorneynortheAssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral  correctedthecourtbycallingtothecourtsattentiontheprovisionsof_T.C.A._Ԁ40  35503(c).Thaterroneousconclusionbythetrialcourtdidnotaffectthevalidityof l thepetitionersearlierwavieroftrialbyjuryandpleaofguilty.X    8   ` Thefailuretoadvisethepetitionerthathewouldnotlikelybereleasedafter 0"  serving30%ofhissentencebecauseoftheprovisionsof_T.C.A._Ԁ4035503(c)does #l! not...invalidatethewaiveroftrialbyjury,pleaofguilty,andconvictionsthereon.$X"    $D # Thistimelyappealfollowed.     ANALYSIS     Postconvictionreliefmaybegrantedonlyifaconvictionorsentenceisvoidorvoidable t becauseofaviolationofaconstitutionalright.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030203(1997).TheDue ` ProcessClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionrequiresthatguiltypleasbeknowingandvoluntary. L  Statev.Wilson,31S.W.3d189,194(Tenn.2001);see_Boykin_Ԁv.Alabama,395U.S.238,243,89 8  S.Ct.1709,1712(1969).Inevaluatingtheknowingandvoluntarynatureofaguiltyplea,theUnited $ t StatesSupremeCourthasheld,"[_t]he_Ԁstandardwasandremainswhethertheplearepresentsa  ` voluntaryandintelligentchoiceamongthealternativecoursesofactionopentothedefendant."  L  NorthCarolinav._Alford_,400U.S.25,31,91S.Ct.160,164(1970).Theconstitutionalmandate  8  thatguiltypleasbeknowingisessentiallyfulfilledbythecourtinformingtheaccusedofhisorher $  constitutionalrightsagainstselfincrimination,toconfrontwitnesses,andtotrialbyjury._Boykin_,   395U.S.at243,89S.Ct.at1712.Anyotherrequirementinexcessof_Boykin_isnotbaseduponany   constitutionalprovision,federalorstate.Statev.Prince,781S.W.2d846,853(Tenn.1989).     ThepostconvictioncourtdeterminedthattheAppellantprovedbyclearandconvincing p evidencethathereceivederroneousadvicefromtrialcounselregardingparoleeligibility.Also,the \ sentencingcourterroneouslyadvisedtheAppellantregardingparoleeligibility.However,"aguilty H pleaisnotrenderedconstitutionallyinfirmbecauseacriminaldefendantisnotinformedaboutthe 4 detailsofhisparoleeligibility,includingthepossibilityofbeingineligibleforparole."AlanDale  p Baileyv.State,No.M200101018CCAR3PC(Tenn._Crim_.App.atNashville,Feb.8,2002),perm.  \ toappealvoluntarilydismissed,(Tenn.2002)(quoting_Rickey_Ԁ_Sams_Ԁv.State,No.03C019511CC H 00368(Tenn._Crim_.App.atKnoxville,Nov.14,1996))7  _7)_  .Asoftodate,theUnitedStatesSupreme 4 Courthas neverheldthattheUnitedStatesConstitutionrequirestheStatetofurnishadefendant   withinformationaboutparoleeligibilityinorderforthedefendantspleaofguiltytobevoluntary.   Hillv._Lockhart_,474U.S.52,56,106S.Ct.366,369(1985).Thus,inthepresentcase,the  Appellant'sclaimthatheshouldhavebeeninformedofthementalhealthevaluationrequiredby  TennesseeCodeAnnotated4035503(c)isnotaconstitutionallybasedclaim.Seeid.Asnoted  above,postconvictionreliefisonlyavailabletoaddresstheviolationofaconstitutionalright. l Therefore,theAppellantsclaimisnotcognizableinthisproceeding.7  _Id7-_  . X    Moreover,wefindnothingintherecordtosuggestthattheAppellantsguiltypleawas 0"  conditioneduponthefactthathewouldbeparoleeligibleafterserviceofthirtypercentofhis #l! sentence.See_Santobello_Ԁv.NewYork,404U.S.257,264,92S.Ct.495,499(1971)(holdingthat $X" apleamustresttoasignificantdegreeonthepromiseoragreementoftheprosecutor).The $D # gratuitousadviceofthetrialcourtandtheerroneousadviceofcounselwithregardtoparole %0!$ eligibilitywasacollateralratherthanadirectconsequenceoftheguiltypleaand,thus,didnot &"% impactthevoluntarinessoftheplea.#Xk`XX Xk`# Xk`XXXk`ԀTherefore,theissueiswithoutmerit.  '#&    CONCLUSION   1  Basedupontheforegoing,wefindthatthepostconvictioncourtdidnoterrinrulingthatthe  Appellantspleawasknowingly,intelligently,andvoluntarilymade.Accordingly,thejudgmentof t theMauryCountyCircuitCourtisaffirmed.#Xk`XX Xk`v1# `    `     h     ___________________________________  L     `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE