WPCS q_AT#Jvt8X^yУVwL#lk2QnꔱP~U>)bYy NKpzhO'<'] 3_4Iʪ+щh[Xi mlHKO}RPxja{48.SHP[P۱|M3BlRB@ʅ.3 g 2zC |]:Lzwali5ta2ѲdQq?6A|VxxP|gum")㞶9q2K";G4zڶ+j8]Ɂ[[Lyw/ L \@HHkckQΟFHn2?/o/ =cv4؞_%^InK_Qc 9)RAԵӓ?IzD{/<AU> 0 0<; 0w 0 0: 0n 0B5 0Lw 0 U, D+ C   0? B 0CUN:UN 0 0#vUN7 %M(N  ^ w4 m    & .E6 88 @  `  j bt ^b4<\  `&Times New Roman' Terrance Burnett v 8AOC, STATE OF TENNESSEE80AOC, STATE OF TENNESSEE .   67 '4Heading 1XXX      XXX<:Default Para0A .Header (#A7X` hp x (#A0A .Footer (#A7X` hp x (#A:8Page Number< :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref6  4Body Text    < :Document MapA  $TahomaAC 4$X ddCXXXA  $TahomaA  7 (X7XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  $Tahoma'dxddd u c)  ..    XXXXXXXX  _$ (#X$  * (# X*      @*(2c$ R!  ..    XXXXXXXX    $  ..    XXXXXXXX    1    _ XXAlthoughthetrialcourtcaptioneditsorderas findingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,wenotethattheorder  containsonlyconclusionsoflaw. d( $    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular((3$ R!  ..    XXXXXXXX      0  #|x(rR$  ..    X$XX$XXX$HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX12I-s ,-+00U 345678  ` 1112?\Appellants Attorney Name & Appellant's Name.?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.- -  ? R!  ..    XXXXXXXX  _       X8XXdd8  \XX  \\Q\+  @*1INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @@%ATJACKSON#\Q#Ԁ  April2,2002Session > XX\ #\XX#% ! _TERRANCE_ԀB.BURNETT%!v.% " STATEOFTENNESSEE%"YQ\  0  #\Q#XX\AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals% ) %)CԀ  [ CircuitCourtforLauderdaleCounty% * %*% + %+  A @@No.% , %,6484A% - JosephH.Walker,III,Judge%-/  ' #\XX#XX\#\XX#XX\@@*A.) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.% / W200001954SCR11PCFiledDecember30,2002%/Ԁ v  A.) ` dE<A` A B  #XXXXa#    l<`   #\XX#XX\_Terrance_ԀBurnett,appellant,pleadedguiltytotwocountsoffelonymurder,twocountsof e attemptedfirstdegreemurder,andonecountofespeciallyaggravatedburglary.Hereceived K sentencesoflifewithoutthepossibilityofparole,twentyyears,andeightyears,respectively. 1 Oneyearlater,Burnettfiledapetitionforpostconvictionreliefallegingseveralconstitutional  violationsthatheclaimedentitledhimtorelieffromtheabovejudgments.Afterhaving  appointedcounsel,thetrialcourtdismissedthepetitionwithouthavingconductedanevidentiary  hearing.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthejudgment.#\XX#XX\OnappealtothisCourt, y Burnettcontendsthatthetrialcourterredindismissinghispetitionwithoutanevidentiary _ hearing.Forthereasonsdiscussedherein,weareoftheopinionthatthetrialcourtactedina E mannerconsistentwiththeprovisionsofthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995. +{ Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtandtheCourtofCriminalAppealsisaffirmed.#\XX; #XX\ a  XXXX#\XXX #XX\  Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals - Affirmed    _Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% 2 ԀFrankF._Drowota_,III, !! C.J.,E.RileyAnderson,JaniceM.Holder,#XXX #XXX#\X #XX.\andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,%2% 3 %3Ajoined. u"" % 4 _Shana_ԀMcCoyJohnson,Somerville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Terrance_ԀBurnett.%4 A$$ % 5 %5JPaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;and  &]!& MarkE.Davidson,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. &C"'  q+&, @* @? @  _  OPINION   I.FactsandProceduralHistory |     OnOctober6,1997,Burnettwasindictedontwocountsoffelonymurder,twocountsof H attemptedfirstdegreemurder,onecountofespeciallyaggravatedburglary,andonecountof . ~ aggravatedassault.ThetrialcourtappointedcounseltorepresentBurnett,andtheStatefileda  d NoticeofIntenttoSeektheDeathPenalty.OnJanuary22,1999,asaresultofnegotiationswith  J theStateandtheadviceofcounsel,Burnettpleadedguiltytotwocountsoffelonymurder,two  0 countsofattemptedfirstdegreemurder,andonecountofespeciallyaggravatedburglary.In    exchangeforhispleas,thetrialcourtsentencedBurnetttolifeimprisonmentwithoutthe    possibilityofparole,twentyyears,andeightyears,respectively.   XXXX  OnJanuary21,2000,Burnettfiledapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Healleged:(1) ^  thathispleaswereunlawfullyinducedorinvoluntarilyenteredwithoutanunderstandingofthe D  natureandconsequencesofthepleas;(2)thathedidnotreceivetheeffectiveassistanceof *z  counsel;and(3) othergroundsnotincludedinthepetitionbutprovidedinamemorandum ` attachedthereto.Thismemorandumisasfollows: F  X X?+ ` hp x X? ` January22,1999,thelastdaybeforethetrial,thedefendantscounseland  mitigationspecialistvisitedthedefendantattheLauderdaleCounty,Tennessee  jailwithaTVandvideocassetterecordermachineandplayedatapeofthe20/20  specialherecordedthenightbeforeJanuary22.Itwasaspecialofaninmate t awaitingtheLethalInjectiononDeathRow.Theshowtalkedaboutthe Z inmate[s]lastdays,lasthours,lastmeals,andlasttimewithfamily. @  X XH.` hp x (#X H X X XB+ ` hp x X(#BAfter19monthsofleadingthedefendanton,thedefendantsdefenseteam  \ showedtheirtruedefensestrategy,usingcoercion,terror,inducement,andsubtle B orblatantthreats,theyinducedthedefendanttopleadguilty.Sothepleawasnot ( willinglyandintelligentlymadebecauseofthemethodusedtoobtainitandso  thepleaisinvoluntarybecauseitwasunlawfullyinducedwithanunqualified  DeathPenaltycasecounsel.    p!   X X X  ThetrialcourtappointedcounseltorepresentBurnettandgrantedadditionaltimewithin V"! whichtofileanamendedpetition;noamendmentwasfiled.Thecourtalsoorderedthata <#" transcriptoftheguiltypleasubmissionhearingbeprepared. "$r#   OnJuly31,2000,thetrialcourtdismissedBurnettspetitionwithoutanevidentiary %>!% hearing.Thecourtnotedthatithadthoroughlyreviewedthetranscriptoftheguiltyplea &$"& submissionhearingbeforeruling.Initsdismissalorder,thecourtmadethefollowing ' #' conclusionsoflaw:    1      ׀(1)thatthepetitionerhadbeenaccuratelyinformedbyhisattorneysand (#( knewwhathewasdoingwhenheenteredhisplea;(2)thatthepetitionercouldnothavebeen  prejudicedbyanyallegeddeficiencyoftrialcounsel;(3)thatthepetitionerknowinglyand  voluntarilypleadedguilty;and(4)thatthepetitionfailedtoallegefactssufficienttoentitlethe | petitionertorelief.Basedontheabove,thetrialcourtconcludedthattheallegationsdidnot b meritanevidentiaryhearinganddismissedthepetition. H   OnAugust8,2000,BurnettfiledanoticeofappealintheCourtofCriminalAppealsand  d shortlythereafterfiledtwoaffidavits.Onappeal,theCourtofCriminalAppealsrefusedto  J considertheaffidavitsbecausethetrialcourthadbeenwithoutjurisdictionwhentheaffidavits  0 werefiled.InconsideringwhetherBurnettwasentitledtoanevidentiaryhearing,the    intermediatecourtconcludedthathispetition containedonlybareallegationsofviolationsof    constitutionalrightsandmereconclusionsoflawwithoutpresentingfactswhich,takenastrue,   wouldcausehispleastobeunknowingandinvoluntary.Thus,theintermediatecourtaffirmed x  thetrialcourtsjudgment. ^    Onappealtothiscourt,Burnettcontendsthathewasentitledtoanevidentiaryhearing *z  becausehispetitionallegedfactssufficienttostateacolorableclaim.Therefore,heasserts,the ` trialcourterredindismissinghispetition.Wegrantedthisappealtoexaminetheprocedurefor F determiningwhenapetitionmeritsanevidentiaryhearingunderthe1995PostConviction , ProcedureAct.    II.StandardofReview      Becausetheissuebeforeusisaquestionoflaw,ourreviewisdenovo.Statev.Fields, Z 40S.W.3d450,457(Tenn.2001). @   III.Analysis   \ &  #XXXX#XXXX    '*WebeginbyreviewingtherelevantsectionsofthePostConvictionProcedureActof ( 1995.Apostconvictionproceedingiscommencedbythefilingofapetitionforpostconviction  reliefwiththeclerkofthecourtinwhichtheconvictionoccurred.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030  204(a)(1997).Thepetitionmustcontainaclearandspecificstatementofallgroundsupon   whichreliefissought,includingfulldisclosureofthefactualbasisofthosegrounds.Tenn. p!  CodeAnn.4030206(d)(1997).Abareallegationthataconstitutionalrighthasbeenviolated V"! andmereconclusionsoflawshallnotbesufficienttowarrantanyfurtherproceedings.Id. <#" Additionally,failuretostateafactualbasisforthegroundsallegedshallresultinimmediate "$r# dismissalofthepetition.Id. %X $   The1995PostConvictionProcedureActdetailsthereviewprocessthatprecedesthetrial &$"& courtsgrantingofanevidentiaryhearing.First,thetrialcourtconsidersthepetitionto ' #' determinewhetherthepetitionassertsacolorableclaim.Acolorableclaimisdefinedin (#( SupremeCourtRule282(h)as aclaimthat,iftakenastrue,inthelightmostfavorabletothe )$) petitioner,wouldentitlepetitionertoreliefunderthePostConvictionProcedureAct. l*%* Therefore,ifthefactsalleged,takenastrue,failtoshowthatthepetitionerisentitledtorelief,or R+&+ inotherwords,failtostateacolorableclaim,thepetitionshallbedismissed.SeeTenn.Code  Ann.\XXԀ#XX\2#4030206(f)(1997).ByitsrefusaltodismissBurnettspetitionatthisstage,thetrial  courtapparentlyconcludedthatthepetitionstatedacolorableclaim.\XX  #XX\3#  Progressingtothenextstageofthereviewprocess,thetrialcourtmayaffordanindigent  prosepetitionertheopportunitytohavecounselappointedandtoamendthepetition,if z  necessary.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030207(b)(1)(1997).If,afterconsultingwiththepetitioner, `  counseldeclinestoamendthepetition,writtennoticethatanamendedpetitionwillnotbefiled F  mustbeprovidedtothecourt.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030207(b)(2)(1997).Intheinstantcase, , | thisprotocolwasfollowedprecisely.Havingdeterminedthatthepetitionstatedacolorable  b  claimandwasnottherebysubjecttoimmediatedismissal,thetrialcourtappointedcounselto  H  representBurnettandallowedtimetoamendthepetition.Counselsubsequentlygavenoticethat .  noamendedpetitionwouldbefiled.     Inthefinalstageoftheprocessprecedinganevidentiaryhearing,thetrialcourtreviews   theentirerecord,includingthepetition,theStatesresponse,andanyotherfilesandrecords v  beforeit.If,onreviewingthesedocuments,thecourtdeterminesconclusivelythatthepetitioner \ isnotentitledtorelief,thepetitionshallbedismissed.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030209(a)(1997). B Afterhavingthoroughlyexaminedtherecord,whichincludedBurnettsoriginalprosepetition, (x accompanyingmemorandum,andguiltypleatranscript,thetrialcourtconcludedthatBurnett ^ wasnotentitledtorelief.Asaresult,thetrialcourtdismissedthepetitionwithouthaving D conductedanevidentiaryhearing. *   BurnettappealedtotheCourtofCriminalAppeals.Afterthenoticeofappealwasfiled,  hesoughttointroducetothecourttwoaffidavitsnotpreviouslyenteredintotherecord.The  intermediatecourtfoundthatthetrialcourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoaccepttheaffidavits.As r aconsequence,theintermediatecourtdeclinedtoconsidertheaffidavits.Andbecausethe X affidavitswerenotbeforetheintermediatecourt,theyarenotbeforeusandhavenotbeen > considered. $t   Burnettcontendsthathestatedacolorableclaimandwasentitledtoanevidentiary @ hearing.Ontheotherhand,theStatecontendsthatthepetitionwasproperlydismissedwithout  & anevidentiaryhearing.AmpleauthoritysupportstheStatescontention. !     Aspreviouslyindicated,thePostConvictionProcedureActclearlyaffordsthetrialcourt #" theauthoritytodismissapetitionwithoutholdinganevidentiaryhearing,notwithstandingthe n$# factthatthepetitionmayhavesurvivedearlierdismissal.Inthisrespect,thestatutetrackspre T% $ 1995decisionsofthisCourt.SeeSwansonv.State,749S.W.2d731,736(Tenn.1988)(holding :&!% thatwhenacolorableclaimforreliefhasbeenpresented,ahearingmaynotbenecessaryafter  'p"& thepetitionerhashadtheassistanceofcounseltoamendthepetition,bywhichthecourtmay (V#' thenfullyevaluatethemeritsoftheclaim);seealsoGablev.State,836S.W.2d558,560(Tenn. (<$( 1992)(holdingthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrindismissingthepetitionwithoutanevidentiary )"%) hearingwherethepetitionerwasgivenboththeaidofcounselandareasonableopportunityto *&* amendthepetitionandnoamendmentwasfiled).Therefore,onceapetitionerisaffordedthe +&+ 1 1 `  1  benefitofcounsel,thetrialcourtmayevaluatetheclaimanddeterminewhetherthepetitioneris  entitledtoreliefwithoutholdinganevidentiaryhearing.    Groundsforpostconvictionreliefarelimitedtosituationswhere theconvictionisvoid b orvoidablebecauseoftheabridgementofanyrightguaranteedbytheConstitutionofTennessee H ortheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030203(1997).Here,Burnett . ~ allegedthathedidnotreceivetheeffectiveassistanceofcounselbecausehistrialcounselwas  d notdeathpenaltycertifiedunderSupremeCourtRule13.Healsoallegedthathisguiltyplea  J wasinvoluntarilyandunknowinglyenteredbecausetrialcounselshowedhimavideotape  0 reflectingthefinalhoursofaninmateondeathrow,therebyinducinghimtopleadguiltyina    distraughtandemotionalstate.Takingtheseallegationsastrue,andreviewingtheminlightof    theentirerecord,thetrialcourtproperlyheldthatBurnettfailedtoassertgroundsforrelief.     InreviewingBurnettsfirstclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,thetwopronged ^  standardoutlinedinStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668(1984),applies.UnderStrickland, D  anallegationofineffectiveassistanceofcounselmustshowfirstthatcounselsperformancewas *z  deficientandsecondthatthedeficientperformanceprejudicedthedefense.Id.at69094. ` Burnettallegesthathedidnotreceivetheeffectiveassistanceofcounselbutfailstoallegeany F specificfactsestablishingdeficientperformanceorprejudicialeffectontheoutcomeofhiscase. , Thefailuretoasserttheseessentialelementsoftheclaimmandatesdismissal.    Similarly,Burnettssecondclaimthathispleawasinvoluntarilyandunknowingly  enteredmustalsofail.Hisallegationthathewasshownadeathpenaltyvideotapeontheeveof t histrial,whichinducedhimtopleadguilty,doesnotestablishgroundsforpostconvictionrelief. Z DefensecounselhadanobligationtoadviseBurnettofthepotentialconsequencesthatcould @ resultifhiscasewenttotrial.Counselchosetosatisfythisobligationbyshowingavideotape &v aboutadeathrowinmateawaitingexecution.Burnettdoesnotallegethatthevideotapewas  \ misleadingoruntrueorthathewasunlikelytofacethedeathpenaltyhadhenotpleadedguilty. B Instead,heallegesthatthevideotapesgraphicaccuracyaboutthecircumstanceshecouldface ( byrejectingthepleaofferinfluencedhisdecisiontoaccepttheofferandpleadguilty.While  counselmighthavechosenadifferentmethodofinformingBurnettaboutthepossibleoutcome  ofatrial,wedonotviewthemethodchosenasundulycoercivetotheextentthatitrendered   Burnettspleainvoluntarilyentered. p!    Weareoftheopinionthatthetrialcourtcorrectlyruledonthispetitioninaccordance <#" withboththe1995ActandpriordecisionsofthisCourt.Afterdeterminingthattheallegations "$r# oftheprosepetition,takenastrue,statedacolorableclaim,thetrialcourtappointedcounseland %X $ providedanopportunityforthepetitiontobeamended.Afterthepetitionwasnotamended,the %>!% trialcourtagainconsideredthecase,thistimereviewingnotonlythepetitionbuttheentire &$"& record.Thetrialcourtdeterminedinlightoftheentirerecordthattheallegations,takenastrue, ' #' hadnomeritandthereforedidnotwarrantanevidentiaryhearing.Accordingly,thecourt (#( dismissedthepetition.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsupheldthatjudgment,andwenow )$) affirm. `     l*%*  R+&+   IV.Conclusion          U    Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals. | BecauseitappearsBurnettisindigent,costsofthisappealaretaxedtotheappellee,theStateof b Tennessee,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. UV݌ H Ќ   =XXdd=   `     h   _______________________________  0    `     h   ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICEAXXdXXdWA      #XXXX#+#