ÿWPCÕ åïzó(úo>ª ;þGWÃñUøôß(aÄÜù½¼¨NFMª­ñ0µ‹$­Ïe*2J]Ôr›ø®‰'¿Ð*ºˆ%W %• 0í›UBˆ4ÊÞn­íU:šfÔ:"Bw@d…¤ 01) 0DZ U:ž U:Ø 0D )V U:)¹U:âââ~ AQšÆë B± 0DÎ 0D D/VV B… D3¢˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÌqæ$3|xj«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ TUVWEXYDZ[\Ó€h {Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XKXXXÔÔ€ôäÂôXXKÔÝ ƒA¤ÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7À[™XXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOver€the€stateððs€objection,€the€trial€court€allowed€the€defendant€to€submit€the€evaluationÐ  Ðreport€without€calling€the€psychologist€who€examined€the€defendant.€€For€the€purposes€of€the€competencyÏhearing,€the€report€was€hearsay.Ô€ôäÂôôôäÂÔ(á(3A¤$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€[™XXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý Ý ƒ¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X<‰XXXÔÔ€ÍqXX<‰ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X<‰XÍqÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€3,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôBË ôXX<‰ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X<‰XXXÔÔ€ÍqXX<‰ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X<‰XÍqÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€1,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôBË ôXX<‰ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular tÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡X;(XXXÔÔ‡ôÔ¡ôXX;(ÔÝ ƒìÿÝÑ @ ÑÑ7À ×XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Judge€Joe€B.€Jones€died€May€1,€1998,€and€did€not€participate€in€this€opinion.€€WeÐ  Ðacknowledge€his€faithful€service€to€this€court,€both€as€a€member€of€the€court€and€as€its€Presiding€Judge.Ô#†ôôôôÔ¡#ÔÔ‡ôÔ¡ôôôÔ!#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€[™XXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ X<‰XXXÔÑ7€ <‰ XXdæXXdÈ7Ññhñœßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrßñhñ›ñhñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrßñ\ñœñ\ññhññ\ññ\ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@~~%DàAT€KNOXVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MAY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€03C01„9609„CC„00352Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àBlount€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€Judge€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌBRANDON€WILSON,à h à€€€à À à)à  àœ(Six€counts€of€delivery›€of€one„half€gram€or€œÐ h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€more›€of€œcocaine,›€œone€count€of€possession›€of€œÐ NF Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€of€less›€than€one„half€gram€of€œcocaine›€with€the€œÐ 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€the€intent›€to€sell€or€deliver,€œand€one€count€of›€Ð  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àœ€delivery›€of€less€than€one„half€gram€of€à (# àÐ ø Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€à  àœ€cocaine)›€à È àà  àà x àà Ð àà (# àÐ æÞ Ðà ¸ àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð ˜ ÐÌRaymond€Mack€Garnerà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ d\ ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ JB Ѐ€€€€andà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ 0 ( ÐGeorge€H.€Watersà  àà h àà À àà  àMarvin€E.€Clements,€Jr.Ð ! Ѐ€€€€andà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ü!ô ÐRoland€Cowdenà  àà h àà À àà  à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà Ð àà (# àÐ â"Ú ÐAssistant€Public€Defendersà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð È#À  Ð419€High€StreetÌMaryville,€TN€37804„4912à h àà À àà  àMichael€L.€FlynnÐ ”%Œ" Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPhilip€MortonÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBlount€County€CourthouseÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à37804„5906ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌCONVICTIONS€FOR€DELIVERY€OF€COCAINE€VACATED€AND€DISMISSED;ÌCONVICTION€FOR€POSSESSION€WITH€INTENT€TO€SELL€OR€DELIVER€LESS€THANÏONE„HALF€GRAM€OF€COCAINE€VACATED€AND€CASE€REMANDEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÓÓÐ X9P28F Ðà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Brandon€Wilson,€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€convictionsÏin€the€Blount€County€Circuit€Court€upon€guilty€pleas€for€six€counts€of€delivering€one„halfÏgram€or€more€of€cocaine,€a€Class€B€felony,€one€count€of€possessing€less€than€one„halfÏgram€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver,€a€Class€C€felony,€and€one€count€ofÏdelivering€less€than€one„half€gram€of€cocaine,€a€Class€C€felony.€€For€each€of€the€ClassÏB€felonies,€the€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€ten€yearsÏin€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction€and€was€fined€two€thousand€dollars.€ÏThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€as€a€Range€II,€multiple€offender€to€six€years€inÏthe€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction€for€each€of€the€Class€C€felonies€and€finedÏthe€defendant€three€thousand€dollars€and€two€thousand€dollars,€respectively.€€TheÏsentences€are€to€be€served€concurrently.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à(1)€the€indictments€do€not€allege€the€essential€culpableÏmental€state,€ð ðknowingly,ðð€as€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€39„¼17„417;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€denying€theÏdefendantððs€motion€for€a€mental€evaluation,€therebyÏdenying€the€defendant€due€process€of€law€by€making€itsÏcompetency€determination€without€the€benefit€of€anÏevaluation;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€by€concluding€that€the€defendantÏwas€competent€to€stand€trial;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(4)€the€trial€court€erred€by€accepting€the€defendantððsÏguilty€pleas€because€the€defendant€was€incompetentÏand€did€not€enter€knowing€and€understood€pleas;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(5)€the€trial€court€erred€by€sentencing€the€defendantÏbecause€he€was€incompetent.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓWe€hold€that€the€indictments€in€the€cocaine€delivery€cases€fail€to€allege€œoffenses›€andÏthat€those€convictions€must€be€reversed€and€the€charges€dismissed.€€We€reverse€theÏconviction€for€possessing€less€than€one„half€gram€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€orÐ ˜706 Ðdeliver€and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court,€because€the€record€fails€to€establish€thatÏthe€defendant€entered€knowing€and€intelligent€guilty€pleas€pursuant€to€Tennessee€caseÏlaw,€procedural€rule€and€constitutional€œrequirements.ò ò€ñTññOñ€ñOññTñó óñTññRñCount€three€of€case€number€C„Ð   ˜ Ð8439€is€dismissed€because€it€fails€to€allege€an€offense.ñRññTñò ò›Ð   ˜ ÐÌà@èèDàI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€INDICTMENTSó óˆÐ PH Ðà ¸ àIn€his€first€issue,€the€defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏindictments.€€He€claims€that€the€indictments€are€void€because€they€fail€to€allege€theÏrequisite€mental€state€of€ð ðknowinglyðð€as€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„417(c).€€TheÏdefendant€concedes€that€he€failed€to€raise€the€issue€in€the€proceedings€below,€but€heÏargues€that€the€waiver€rule€does€not€apply€when€the€indictment€fails€to€assert€anÏessential€element€of€the€offense.€€The€state€contends€that€the€issue€has€been€waivedÏby€the€defendantððs€failure€to€raise€the€issue€before€trial€as€required€by€Rule€12(b)(2),ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€Alternatively,€the€state€asserts€that€the€indictment€correctly€chargesÏthe€offenses.ÌÌà ¸ àAs€a€general€proposition,€defenses€and€objections€based€on€defects€in€theÏindictment€must€be€raised€before€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(2);€òòState€v.€Randolphóó,Ð ì#ä  Ð692€S.W.2d€37,€40€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€If€the€defendant€fails€to€raise€the€issueÏbefore€trial,€the€issue€is€deemed€to€be€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(f);€òòseeóó€òòRhoden€v.Ð „'| $ ÐStateóó,€816€S.W.2d€56,€61€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Ð P)H"& ÐÌà ¸ àHowever,€Rule€12(b)(2)€expressly€states€that€jurisdictional€defects€or€theÏfailure€to€charge€an€offense€ð ðshall€be€noticed€by€the€court€at€any€time€during€theÏpendency€of€the€œproceedings€.€.€.€.ð𛀀If€the€indictment€does€not€charge€an€offense,€RuleÏ34,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€permits€an€arrest€of€judgment€if€ð ðfiled€within€thirty€days€of€theÏdate€[of]€the€order€of€sentence€.€.€.€.ðð€€Moreover,€our€rules€require€that€we€determineÏâ âð ðwhether€the€trial€and€appellate€court€have€jurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter,ðð€evenÐ ä5Ü.4 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñTñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñTññRñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñRñthough€the€issue€might€not€have€been€presented€as€a€ground€for€relief.€€T.R.A.P.€13(b);ÏñTñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñTññRñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑñRñòòseeóó€òòState€v.€Seagravesóó,€837€S.W.2d€615,€617„18€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà ¸ àLikewise,€the€entry€of€a€valid€guilty€plea€constitutes€an€admission€of€allÏfacts€alleged€and€a€waiver€of€procedural€and€constitutional€defects€in€the€proceedingsÏthat€occurred€before€the€entry€of€the€plea.€€On€the€other€hand,€this€court€has€concludedÏthat€a€waiver€rule€ð ðdoes€not€apply€when€the€indictment€fails€to€assert€an€essentialÏelement€of€the€offense.€€In€that€circumstance,€no€offense€has€been€charged.€€InÏconsequence,€subsequent€proceedings€are€a€nullity.ðð€€òòState€v.€Perkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2dÐ h` Ð1,€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà ¸ à€Although€the€defendants€in€òòPerkinsonóó€did€not€plead€guilty,€we€believe€thatÐ ÌÄ Ðthe€reasoning€applies€equally€to€the€situation€in€which€a€defendant€pleads€guilty€to€anÏindictment€that€does€not€allege€an€offense.€€A€lawful€accusation€is€a€jurisdictionalÏelement€without€which€there€can€be€no€prosecution.€€òòState€v.€Hughesóó,€212€Tenn.€644,Ð 0 ( М649,›€371€S.W.2d€445,€447€(Tenn.€1963).€€ð ðConviction€upon€a€charge€not€made€wouldÏbe€a€sheer€denial€of€due€process.ðð€€òòDe€Jonge€v.€Oregonóó,€299€U.S.€353,€362,€57€S.€Ct.Ð È#À  Ð255,€259€(1937).€ÌÌà ¸ àAccordingly,€we€are€not€prevented€from€reviewing€this€issue€on€appealÏwhen€the€defendant€failed€to€raise€the€issue€in€a€pretrial€motion.€€Nor€are€we€preventedÏfrom€reviewing€the€issue€when€the€defendant€did€not€raise€the€issue€in€his€motion€forÏnew€trial.€€Rule€3(e),€T.R.A.P.,€provides€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àno€issue€presented€for€review€shall€be€predicated€uponÏerror€in€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence,€juryÏinstructions€granted€or€refused,€misconduct€of€jurors,Ïparties,€or€counsel,€or€other€action€committed€orÏoccurring€during€the€trial€of€the€case,€òòor€other€groundÐ ô3ì,2 Ðupon€which€a€new€trial€is€soughtóó,€unless€the€same€wasÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðspecifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÐ ¦6ž/5 ÐÓÓÓ  Ó(Emphasis€added).€€Because€the€issue€relating€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€indictmentÏâ âwould€involve€dismissing€charges€and€not€a€new€trial,€we€may€properly€review€it.€€òòStateÐ ÔÌ Ðv.€Sowderóó,€826€S.W.2d€924,€926€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€748€S.W.2dÐ   ˜ Ð206,€207€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€416€(Tenn.Ð l d ÐCrim.€App.€1994).€€Also,€this€type€of€issue€is€plain€error€on€the€face€of€the€record.€€òòSeeóóÐ 80 ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(b).Ì€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àThe€single„count€indictments€numbered€C„9081€through€„9086€allege€thatÏthe€defendant€ð ðdid€unlawfully€deliver€a€controlled€substance,€.€.€.€Cocaine,€.€.€.€inÏviolation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated,€Section€39„17„417(c)(1),€all€of€which€is€againstÏthe€peace€and€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€Indictment€œnumberñSñedñSñ›€C„9087€isÏidentical€to€those€numbered€C„9081€through€œñUñCñUñ„9086›€except€that€it€charges€theÏdefendant€with€the€unlawful€delivery€of€less€than€one„half€gram€of€cocaine,€a€violation€ofÏT.C.A.€ðð€39„17„417(c)(2).€€Indictment€number€C„8439€contains€three€counts.€€Count€oneÏalleges€that€the€defendant€ð ðdid€unlawfully€possess€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€aÏcontrolled€substance,€.€.€.€Cocaine€.€.€.€in€an€amount€less€than€twenty„six€(26)€grams,€inÏviolation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated,€Section€39„17„417,€all€of€which€is€against€theÏpeace€and€dignity€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€Counts€two€and€three€similarly€chargeÏthe€defendant,€except€count€œtwo›€states€that€the€defendant€ð ðdid€unlawfully€sellðð€cocaineÏand€count€œthree›€states€that€the€defendant€ð ðdid€unlawfully€deliverðð€cocaine.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€entered€guilty€pleas€to€the€offenses.€€The€trial€courtÏmerged€counts€one€through€three€in€indictment€number€C„8439.€€Ultimately,€theÏdefendant€was€convicted€of€six€counts€of€delivering€one„half€gram€or€more€of€cocaine,Ïone€count€of€possessing€less€than€one„half€gram€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€orÏdeliver,€and€one€count€of€delivering€less€than€one„half€gram€of€cocaine.€€€Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„417(a)€a€person€commits€an€offense€if€he€orÏâ âshe€òòknowinglyóó€(1)€manufactures€a€controlled€substance,€(2)€delivers€a€controlledÐ ÔÌ Ðsubstance,€(3)€sells€a€controlled€substance,€or€(4)€possesses€a€controlled€substanceÏwith€the€intent€to€manufacture,€deliver€or€sell€it.€€The€defendant€argues€that€because€theÏindictments€do€not€specify€that€he€knowingly€delivered€cocaine€or€knowingly€possessedÏit€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver,€they€fail€to€state€offenses.€€The€state€responds€thatÏthe€indictments€comply€with€applicable€statutory€and€case€law€requirements.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€proper€form€of€an€indictment€is€set€forth€under€T.C.A.€ðð€40„13„202.€€ItÏstates:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àThe€indictment€must€state€the€facts€constituting€theÏoffense€in€ordinary€and€concise€language,€withoutÏprolixity€or€repetition,€in€such€a€manner€as€to€enable€aÏperson€of€common€understanding€to€know€what€isÏintended,€and€with€that€degree€of€certainty€which€willÏenable€the€court,€on€conviction,€to€pronounce€the€properÏjudgment€.€.€.€.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓIn€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€954€S.W.2d€725€(Tenn.€1997),€our€supreme€court€stated€the€following:Ð 0 ( ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àAs€for€constitutional€requirements,€the€Sixth€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution,€and€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€guarantee€to€the€accused€the€right€to€beÏinformed€of€the€nature€and€the€cause€of€the€accusation.€ÏGenerally€stated,€an€indictment€is€valid€if€it€providesÏsufficient€information€(1)€to€enable€the€accused€to€know€Ïthe€accusation€to€which€answer€is€required,€(2)€toÏfurnish€the€court€adequate€basis€for€the€entry€of€aÏproper€judgment,€and€(3)€to€protect€the€accused€fromÏdouble€jeopardy.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓòòIdóó.€at€727€(citations€omitted).€€ð ðWhen€the€indictment€fails€to€fully€state€the€crime,€allÐ Ä,¼%* Ðsubsequent€proceedings€are€void.ðð€€òòPerkinsonóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€5.€Ð .ˆ', ÐÌà ¸ àIn€òòHillóó,€our€supreme€court€addressed€the€validity€of€an€indictment€thatÐ (2 +0 Ðfailed€to€allege€the€requisite€culpable€mental€state.€€The€court€stated€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àWe€hold€that€for€offenses€which€neither€expresslyÏrequire€nor€plainly€dispense€with€the€requirement€for€aÏâ âculpable€mental€state,€an€indictment€which€fails€toÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñUñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñUññTñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñTñallege€such€mental€state€will€be€sufficient€to€supportÏñUñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñUññTñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñTñprosecution€and€conviction€for€that€offense€so€long€asÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âà8 ¸ àÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ àà8¸ x¸ xà(1)€the€language€of€the€indictment€isÏsufficient€to€meet€the€constitutionalÏrequirements€of€notice€to€the€accused€ofÏthe€charge€against€which€the€accusedÏmust€defend,€adequate€basis€for€entry€ofÏa€proper€judgment,€and€protection€fromÏdouble€jeopardy;Ð    ÐÌà8 ¸ àà8¸ x¸ xà(2)€the€form€of€the€indictment€meets€theÏrequirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„¼13„202;€andÐ    ÐÌà8 ¸ àà8¸ x¸ xà(3)€the€mental€state€can€logically€inferredÏfrom€the€conduct€alleged.Ð    ÐÌÓÓÓ  Ó954€S.W.2d€at€726„27.€€The€court€also€noted,€ð ðIn€modern€practice,€it€is€unnecessary€toÏcharge€guilty€knowledge€unless€it€is€included€in€the€statutory€definition€of€the€offense.ðð€ÏòòIdóó.€at€729.€€This€means€that€the€fact€that€the€ð ðknowingðð€mens€rea€is€specifically€stated€inÐ ÌÄ ÐT.C.A.€ðð€39„17„417€should€require€that€it€be€included€as€an€alleged€element€in€an€Ïindictment€charging€either€delivery€or€sale€of€a€controlled€substance,€or,€at€least,€wordsÏof€similar€import€should€be€used.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€state€asserts,€though,€that€each€indictmentððs€specific€reference€to€theÏviolated€statute€should€constitute€a€sufficient€allegation€of€the€mental€state€required€forÏthe€offense.€€However,€the€stateððs€position€was€rejected€by€this€court€in€òòState€v.Ð `'X $ ÐMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€which€held€that€Tennessee€lawÐ ,)$"& Ðrequired€an€indictment€to€contain€factual€allegations€relating€to€all€the€essentialÏelements€of€an€offense,€including€the€requisite€culpable€mental€state.€€òòIdóó.€at€537.€Ð Ä,¼%* ÐÌà ¸ àThe€state€also€asserts€that€the€use€of€the€word€ð ðunlawfullyðð€sufficientlyÏgave€the€defendant€notice€of€the€offenses€charged.€€The€state€acknowledges€that€thisÏcourt€held€in€òòState€v.€Nathaniel€Whiteóó,€No.€03C01„9408„CR„00277,€Sullivan€County,€slipÐ ô3ì,2 Ðop.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€7,€1995),€that€the€inclusion€of€the€term€ð ðunlawfullyðð€isÏnot€an€adequate€substitute€for€alleging€in€an€indictment€for€simple€possession€theÐ Œ7„06 Ðrequisite€mens€rea€of€knowing.€€The€indictment€in€òòWhiteóó€alleged€that€the€defendant€ð ðdidÐ  Ðunlawfully€possess€a€controlled€substance€as€classified€by€the€Tennessee€Drug€ControlÏAct,€.€.€.€approximately€.6€grams€of€Marijuana,€a€Schedule€IV€controlled€substance,€inÏviolation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„418€.€.€.€.ðð€€Slip€op.€at€4.€€This€court€held€that€the€failure€toÏspecify€the€requisite€mental€element€of€ð ðknowingðð€resulted€in€the€indictment€beingÏinvalid€and€the€trial€court€lacking€jurisdiction€to€convict€the€defendant€of€simpleÏpossession.€€òòIdóó.€at€4„5.€€The€court€stated,€ð ðððUnlawfullyðð€does€not,€in€the€ordinary€use€ofÐ ÐÈ  Ðthe€term,€connote€mental€culpability.€€One€cannot€logically€infer€that€an€accused€actingÏððunlawfullyðð€necessarily€acts€ððknowingly.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€€The€state€urges€this€court€not€to€follow€theÐ h` Ðholding€in€òòWhiteóó.€€We€believe€that€òòWhiteóó€properly€analyzes€the€issue,€and€we€likewiseÐ 4, Ðconclude€that€the€use€of€the€term€ð ðunlawfullyðð€in€an€indictment€does€not€satisfy€theÏrequirement€that€the€statutorily€required€mens€rea€be€alleged€in€the€indictment.€ÌÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€indictment€number€C„8439,€the€defendant€concedes€thatÏcount€one€of€the€indictment€alleges€conduct€from€which€the€requisite€mental€state€ofÏknowing€can€logically€be€inferred.€€In€òòMarshallóó,€this€court€held€that€an€indictment€allegingÐ ü!ô Ðthat€the€defendant€ð ðdid€possess,€with€intent€to€sellðð€necessarily€implied€that€theÏdefendantððs€conduct€was€knowing.€€870€S.W.2d€at€536.€€However,€the€defendantÏargues€that€òòMarshallóó€does€not€apply€to€this€case€because€the€counts€were€merged€intoÐ `'X $ Ðcount€two€of€the€indictment€which€alleges€that€the€defendant€ð ðdid€unlawfully€sell€.€.€.Ïcocaine€.€.€.€.ðð€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€entered€a€judgment€of€conviction€for€indictmentÏnumber€C„8439€merging€the€three€counts.€€Although€the€judgment€describes€theÏoffense€as€ð ðsale€of€cocaine,ðð€the€transcript€of€the€guilty€plea€reflects€that€the€trial€courtÏintended€to€enter€a€judgment€for€possession€of€less€than€one„half€gram€of€cocaine€withÏthe€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€When€there€is€a€conflict€between€the€courtððs€minutes€andÏthe€transcript€of€the€proceeding,€the€transcript€controls.€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€814€S.W.2dÐ Œ7„06 Ð381,€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Therefore,€the€intended€judgment€in€this€case€wasÏone€for€possession€of€less€than€one„half€gram€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliverÏit.€€As€count€one€of€the€indictment€is€identical€to€the€indictment€in€òòMarshallóó,€òòMarshallóóÐ   ˜ Ðcontrols.€€Thus,€we€hold€that€the€indictment€sufficiently€alleges€the€necessary€elementsÏrequired€for€a€conviction€for€possession€of€one„half€gram€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€toÏsell.€€Similarly,€count€two€of€the€indictment€sufficiently€alleges€the€necessary€elementsÏregarding€the€sale€of€cocaine,€particularly€that€it€be€a€knowing€sale.€€A€sale€involves€aÏbargained„for€offer€and€acceptance.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€William€(Slim)€Alexanderóó,€No.€01C01„Ð œ”  Ð9302„CR„00063,€Davidson€œCounty,€slip€op.€at€4›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€24,€1994).€€InÏthis€sense,€the€allegation€of€a€ð ðsaleðð€necessarily€includes€an€awareness€of€theÏsubstance€and€the€transaction€that€would€show,€at€least,€knowledge.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€the€other€hand,€count€three€of€indictment€number€C„8439€alleges€theÏunlawful€delivery€of€cocaine€in€terms€similar€to€the€allegations€in€indictments€numberÌC„9081€through€C„9087,€thereby€failing€to€allege€that€the€delivery€was€a€knowing€one.€ÏThe€term€ð ðdeliverðð€is€defined€as€ð ðthe€actual,€constructive,€or€attempted€transfer€from€oneÏperson€to€another€of€a€controlled€substance,€whether€or€not€there€is€an€agencyÏrelationship.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„17„402(6).€€This€definition€does€not€necessarily€include€aÏmental€state.€€Thus,€alleging€that€the€defendant€delivered€cocaine€does€not€necessarilyÏimply€that€it€was€a€knowing€delivery.€€As€a€result€of€the€omission€of€the€requisite€mentalÏstate,€count€three€of€indictment€number€C„8439€and€indictments€number€C„9081Ïthrough€œC„9087›€fail€to€state€an€offense.€€The€defendantððs€convictions€for€delivery€ofÏcocaine€must€be€vacated€and€the€charges€alleging€the€delivery€of€cocaine€must€beÏdismissed.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@DD/Dàò òˆÐ  ô3ì,2 Ðà@ DàII.€€COMPETENCY€AND€ENTRY€OF€GUILTY€PLEASˆÌó óà ¸ àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€byÐ àØ Ðdenying€his€request€for€a€mental€evaluation.€€He€argues€that€as€a€result€of€the€denial,Ïhis€due€process€rights€were€violated.€€The€defendant€also€asserts€that€the€trial€courtÏimproperly€determined€that€he€was€competent€to€stand€trial€and€competent€to€pleadÏguilty€and€improperly€accepted€the€defendantððs€guilty€pleas.€€The€defendant€argues€thatÏhis€guilty€pleas€were€not€knowing,€voluntary€and€intelligent€because€he€was€notÏcompetent€to€enter€the€pleas.€€The€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€improperlyÏsentenced€the€defendant€because€he€was€incompetent.€€The€state€responds€that€theÏtrial€court€correctly€determined€that€the€defendant€was€competent€for€purposes€of€theÏguilty€plea€and€the€sentencing.ÌÌà ¸ àAn€initial€concern€is€that€the€defendant€is€seeking€to€appeal€issues€of€hisÏcompetency€and€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€order€a€mental€evaluation€after€he€hasÏentered€guilty€pleas€that€were€accepted€by€the€trial€court.€€An€appeal€is€not€permittedÏafter€a€guilty€plea€except€under€quite€limited€circumstances,€dealing€with€certifiedÏquestions€of€law€that€are€dispositive€of€the€case,€with€review€of€the€sentences€imposed,Ïor€with€errors€apparent€from€the€record€that€were€not€waived€as€a€matter€of€law€by€theÏentry€of€the€guilty€plea€or€otherwise€waived.€€T.R.A.P.€3(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37b).€ÏHowever,€these€limitations€presuppose€that€the€guilty€plea€was€validly€entered.€€TheÏentry€of€a€guilty€plea€does€not€constitute€a€waiver€of€a€claim€on€direct€appeal€that€theÏplea€was€not€knowingly,€voluntarily€and€intelligently€made€under€constitutional€andÏprocedural€rule€requirements.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Frazieróó,€784€S.W.2d€927€(Tenn.€1990);€Ð œ.”', ÐòòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337,€339„42€(Tenn.€1977).€€Ð h0`). ÐÌà ¸ àIn€this€respect,€the€issue€of€competency€to€enter€a€valid€plea€involves€theÏquestion€of€a€defendantððs€mental€capacity€to€understand€the€proceedings,€includingÏtheir€consequences.€€òòSeeóó€òòGodinez€v.€Moranóó,€509€U.S.€389,€401€n.12,€113€S.€Ct.€2680,Ð ˜706 Ð2687„88€n.12€(1993).€€Thus,€it€also€bears€directly€on€the€validity€of€the€guilty€pleas€andÏmay€be€the€subject€of€a€direct€appeal€review.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€679€P.2dÐ ÔÌ Ð1054,€1058€(Ariz.€1984)€(rejecting€ð ðbootstrapping€argument€that€a€plea€of€guilty€can€actÏas€a€waiver€of€an€invalid€determination€of€competency€to€enter€that€very€pleaðð).€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€August€30,€1995,€one€day€before€the€defendantððs€trial€was€scheduledÏto€begin,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€a€mental€evaluation.€€The€motion€alleges€thatÏdefense€counsel€had€tried€to€explain€in€detail€the€nature€of€the€sentencing€factors€in€aÏproposed€plea€agreement,€but€the€defendant€was€unable€to€comprehend€or€makeÏrational€decisions€regarding€the€offer.€€It€states€that€the€defendant€was€unable€toÏprovide€even€minimal€assistance€to€his€counsel€in€preparing€his€defense.€€It€also€statesÏthat€the€defendant€believes€that€he€is€represented€by€new€counsel€though€no€counselÏexists€and€that€the€defendant€had€been€ill„advised€by€relatives.€€The€defendant€alsoÏfiled€a€motion€requesting€a€mental€evaluation€for€sentencing€purposes.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€next€day€after€the€jury€had€been€selected€but€before€it€was€sworn,€theÏtrial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€mental€evaluation.€€AtÏthe€hearing,€the€defendant€was€the€only€witness€to€testify.€€The€thirty„nine„year„oldÏdefendant€testified€that€he€had€been€examined€by€a€psychiatrist€approximately€eightÏyears€earlier.€€He€stated€that€he€had€lived€with€his€mother€all€his€life.€€He€said€that€heÏtook€special€education€classes€while€attending€school€but€that€he€stopped€attendingÏschool€in€the€fourth€grade.€€The€defendant€stated€that€he€could€not€read€or€write€andÏcould€barely€write€his€name.€€He€also€said€that€he€could€not€count€or€tell€time.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€did€not€know€the€minimum€age€for€a€driverððs€license€and€that€he€couldÏnot€drive.€€The€defendant€stated€that€there€were€eleven€months€in€a€year.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€œreceived›€disability€benefits€and€that€his€mother€paid€his€bills.€Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€testified€that€he€understood€that€he€had€been€charged€withÏâ âpossession€of€cocaine,€but€he€claimed€that€he€did€not€know€the€range€of€penalties€forÏthe€offenses.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€remembered€discussing€extensively€a€pleaÏagreement€with€defense€counsel€and€appearing€in€court€approximately€three€weeksÏearlier€for€the€purposes€of€entering€guilty€pleas.€€He€stated€that€he€chose€not€to€enterÏguilty€pleas€at€that€time€because€he€was€confused€and€scared.€€He€believed€that€theÏplea€offer€was€for€eight€or€nine€years,€but€he€did€not€know€how€many€charges€wereÏinvolved€in€the€plea.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€understand€how€he€could€receive€a€longerÏsentence€if€each€case€was€tried€separately€and€that€he€only€understood€that€he€wouldÏbe€placed€in€jail.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€understand€big€words€and€knew€nothingÏabout€the€legal€system.€€The€defendant€believed€that€he€could€not€make€a€decisionÏregarding€whether€he€should€enter€pleas€or€go€to€trial.€€€€€ò òÐ ÌÄ Ðà@((/Dà€ó óˆÐ ˜ Ðà ¸ àWhen€questioned€by€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€knewÏwhat€cocaine€was,€that€he€was€charged€with€selling€cocaine,€and€that€it€was€illegal€toÏsell€cocaine.€€The€defendant€initially€stated€that€he€did€not€know€what€a€jury€or€a€trialÏwas€but€then€testified€that€he€understood€that€the€jury€would€decide€whether€he€wasÏguilty€of€possessing€cocaine€and€ð ð[g]iving€his€friends€some€cocaine.ðð€€The€defendantÏsaid€that€he€believed€that€his€constitutional€rights€had€been€violated€because€there€wereÏno€African„American€jurors.€€The€defendant€also€mentioned€the€entrapment€defense€toÏdefense€counsel.€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àConcerning€his€relationship€with€defense€counsel,€the€defendant€testifiedÏthat€he€was€scared€of€defense€counsel€and€that€he€became€confused€when€defenseÏcounsel€met€with€the€district€attorney€and€the€judge.€€He€said€that€he€initially€believedÏdefense€counsel€was€working€with€the€district€attorney€because€they€were€oftenÏtogether.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€misunderstood€the€reasons€for€defense€counselððsÏmeetings€with€the€district€attorney.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€tried€to€hire€a€newÐ ˜706 Ðattorney€and€that€he€became€angry€at€defense€counsel€because€he€believed€thatÏdefense€counsel€was€interfering€with€his€attempts€to€hire€another€attorney.€€TheÏdefendant€could€not€remember€defense€counselððs€name.€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€the€defendant€acknowledged€that€he€had€pledÏguilty€to€cocaine„related€offenses€three€years€earlier,€but€he€could€not€remember€howÏlong€he€was€imprisoned.€€The€defendant€asserted€that€he€did€not€sell€cocaine€and€thatÏhe€was€forced€to€plead€guilty.€€He€claimed€that€he€did€not€know€what€was€meant€by€anÏentrapment€defense.€€On€redirect€examination,€the€defendant€stated€that€his€attorney€inÏthe€earlier€cases€had€told€him€his€best€option€was€to€plead€guilty,€but€he€said€that€he€didÏnot€understand€what€a€guilty€plea€meant€or€that€the€result€of€the€plea€would€be€that€heÏwould€serve€time€in€jail.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€then€questioned€the€defendant€again.€€The€defendantÏtestified€that€defense€counsel€told€him€that€he€should€plead€guilty.€€He€recognized€thatÏhe€had€earlier€signed€a€plea€agreement€involving€the€offenses€and€had€appeared€inÏcourt€to€enter€pleas€on€August€10,€1995,€but€he€changed€his€mind€after€talking€to€hisÏfriends€and€family.€€The€defendant€believed€that€he€had€ð ðmessed€upðð€the€agreement.€ÏHe€acknowledged€that€defense€counsel€told€him€that€he€could€receive€a€longerÏsentence€if€he€went€to€trial€and€the€jury€found€him€guilty.€€The€defendant€stated€that€heÏknew€that€twenty€years€was€greater€than€ten€and€that€he€understood€that€he€was€inÏtrouble.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€support€of€his€motion,€the€defendant€introduced€a€report€of€anÏintellectual€evaluation€of€the€defendant€on€July€18,€1986,€prepared€by€a€clinicalÏpsychologist.€€It€states€that€the€defendantððs€thought€processes€were€understandableÏand€that€he€was€able€to€provide€a€fairly€adequate€social€history.€€It€reflects€that€theÏdefendant€denied€visual€or€auditory€hallucinations€and€that€he€had€some€homicidalÐ Œ7„06 Ðthoughts€towards€his€estranged€wife€but€no€suicidal€thoughts.€€The€defendant€also€didÏnot€report€having€any€phobias.€€The€report€describes€the€defendant€as€cooperative€andÏneeding€little€extra€assistance€in€fully€understanding€task€directions.€€The€report€statesÏthat€the€defendant€was€fairly€alert€and€well„oriented€in€that€he€knew€his€birthday,€age,Ïand€present€year,€although€he€was€not€aware€of€the€month€or€the€name€of€theÏpresident.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€report€also€states€that€the€defendant€dropped€out€of€school€at€the€ageÏof€sixteen€following€an€automobile€accident.€€The€defendant€denied€having€any€form€ofÏpsychiatric€difficulty.€€The€report€reflects€that€the€defendant€reported€having€a€driverððsÏlicense€but€that€he€did€not€drive€because€he€did€not€have€a€car.€€It€also€states€that€theÏdefendant€had€a€full€scale€IQ€of€54,€placing€him€in€the€mild€mental€retardation€range.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€the€defendant€to€beÏcompetent€to€stand€trial€and€refused€to€grant€the€defendantððs€request€for€a€mentalÏevaluation.€€The€trial€court€acknowledged€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€mentalÏretardation,€was€not€very€intelligent,€and€could€not€manage€his€affairs.€€The€trial€courtÏalso€found€that€the€defendant€had€trouble€remembering€events€that€occurred€at€the€timeÏof€the€offense.€€However,€it€determined€that€the€defendantððs€condition€had€not€changedÏsince€the€evaluation€in€1986,€and€the€results€of€the€evaluation€showed€that€theÏdefendantððs€thought€processes€were€understandable€and€that€the€defendant€wasÏcapable€of€providing€his€background.€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€the€same€day€as€the€competency€hearing,€the€defendant€entered€guiltyÏpleas€for€the€offenses€charged.€€Subsequently,€the€trial€court€ordered€a€mentalÏevaluation€of€the€defendant€for€sentencing€purposes.€€Ìâ âÓ3X°¸ ƒXV”X°X` ˜X3ÓÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€defendant€testified€that€he€had€recentlyÏâ âbeen€hospitalized€on€two€occasions€to€obtain€psychiatric€treatment.€€He€said€that€heÏhad€been€hearing€voices€and€seeing€little€men,€and€he€stated€that€he€wanted€to€hurtÏhimself.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€had€been€having€the€hallucinations€forÏapproximately€one€year.€€He€stated€that€he€had€received€medication€for€theÏhallucinations,€but€that€he€had€not€been€given€the€medication€while€in€jail.€€TheÏdefendant€also€testified€that€he€had€been€addicted€to€cocaine.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€said€that€he€did€not€remember€several€things,€including€theÏname€of€his€doctor€or€lawyer.€€The€defendant€testified€that€he€remembered€beingÏconfused€about€defense€counselððs€involvement€with€the€district€attorney,€but€he€saidÏthat€he€now€knew€that€defense€counsel€was€trying€to€help€him.€€Though€the€defendantÏacknowledged€that€the€charges€against€him€related€to€possession€of€cocaine,€he€statedÏthat€he€did€not€remember€signing€a€request€for€the€acceptance€of€guilty€pleas€and€thatÏhe€did€not€remember€entering€guilty€pleas€to€more€than€one€charge.€€The€defendantÏalso€did€not€remember€meeting€with€the€probation€officer€for€the€preparation€of€theÏpresentence€report.€€The€defendant€admitted€that€he€found€buyers€in€exchange€forÏcocaine€for€his€personal€use.€€He€said€that€on€one€occasion,€Randy€Myers€gave€himÏtwenty€dollars€and€asked€the€defendant€to€get€him€cocaine,€and€the€defendantÏpurchased€cocaine€for€Myers€from€a€person€named€Harry€in€Blount€County.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€sister€also€testified€regarding€the€defendantððs€limitationsÏmentally.€€She€said€that€the€defendant€was€a€slow€learner€and€that€he€could€not€read.€ÏThe€defendantððs€sister€testified€that€the€defendantððs€mother€manages€the€defendantððsÏincome.€€She€stated€that€she€had€taken€the€defendant€for€treatment€for€his€drugÏaddiction€in€1995.€€Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àThe€results€of€the€new€psychological€evaluation€were€introduced.€€TheÏâ âreport€reflects€that€the€defendant€œhad›€received€psychiatric€treatment€and€œtook›€anti„¼psychotic€medication.€€It€states€that€the€defendant€œhad›€a€full€scale€IQ€of€50,€placing€himÏin€the€moderately€mentally€retarded€range.€€It€also€states€that€the€defendant€reportedÏthat€he€had€been€depressed€and€had€visual€and€auditory€hallucinations€that€told€him€toÏhurt€himself.€€The€report€also€states€that€the€defendant€had€some€difficultyÏunderstanding€directions€and€that€he€spoke€in€a€childlike€manner.€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€ordered€that€the€defendant€serve€concurrent€Range€IÏsentences€of€ten€years€incarceration€for€each€of€the€Class€B€felonies€and€Range€IIÏsentences€of€six€years€for€each€of€the€Class€C€felonies.€€The€trial€court€considered€theÏdefendantððs€mental€condition€in€mitigation€to€an€extent.€€The€judgments€of€convictionÏreflect€that€the€trial€court€recommended€that€the€defendant€serve€his€sentences€in€theÏspecial€needs€facility€of€the€Department€of€Correction.€€€€€Ì€Ìà@ÿÿ/Dàò òAˆÐ ü!ô Ðà ¸ àó óThe€defendant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€denied€him€aÐ Ô#Ì  Ðmental€evaluation.€€He€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€he€wasÏcompetent€for€the€purposes€of€entering€guilty€pleas€and€being€sentenced.Ìò òÌó óà ¸ àPursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„301(a),€it€is€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€toÐ +$( Ðorder€a€mental€examination€when€a€person€charged€with€a€criminal€offense€is€believedÏto€be€incompetent€to€stand€trial.€€òòState€v.€Laneóó,€689€S.W.2d€202,€204€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ¨. ', Ð1984).€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€will€not€be€reversed€absent€a€showing€that€the€trialÏcourt€abused€its€discretion.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€standard€for€determining€whether€a€defendant€is€competent€to€standÏtrial€is€set€forth€in€òòDusky€v.€United€Statesóó,€362€U.S.€402,€80€S.€Ct.€788€(1960):Ð ¤7œ06 ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ à[T]he€ð ðtest€must€be€whether€[the€defendant]€hasÏsufficient€present€ability€to€consult€with€his€lawyer€withÏa€reasonable€degree€of€rational€understanding€„„€and€Ïwhether€he€has€a€rational€as€well€as€a€factualÏunderstanding€of€the€proceedings€against€him.ððÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐòòÌÓÓÓ  ÓIdóó.€at€402,€80€S.€Ct.€at€789€(adopting€the€Solicitor€Generalððs€suggested€standard).€€TheÐ l d ÐòòDuskyóó€standard€has€been€adopted€in€Tennessee.€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€174Ð 80 Ð(Tenn.€1991);€œòòBentonóó,›€759€S.W.2d€at€429;€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€537€S.W.2d€704,€707Ð ü  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).€€In€òòMackeyóó,€this€court€stated€that:Ð ÐÈ  ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àBoth€Tennessee€decisions€and€the€federal€constitutionÏprohibit€the€trial€of€a€defendant€whose€mental€conditionÏis€such€that€he€lacks€the€capacity€to€understand€theÏnature€and€object€of€the€proceedings€against€him,€toÏconsult€with€counsel€and€to€assist€in€preparing€hisÏdefense.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌ537€S.W.2d€at€707€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà ¸ àThe€standard€is€the€same€for€determining€the€competency€of€the€accusedÏto€plead€guilty.€€òòGodinez€v.€Moranóó,€509€U.S.€389,€399,€113€S.€Ct.€2680,€2686€(1993);Ð JB МòòñVñState€vñVññWññVñ,ñVññWññXñ.€ñXñBerndtóó,›€733€S.W.2d€œ119,›€œ123€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).›€€The€burden€is€on€theÐ ! Ðdefendant€to€establish€his€incompetence€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.Ð â"Ú ÐOodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€On€appeal,€the€trial€courtððsÐ ®$¦! Ðfindings€are€conclusive€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð z&r# ÐÌà ¸ àBased€upon€the€record€before€us,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€trial€courtÏabused€its€discretion€by€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€mental€evaluation.€€First,Ïwe€note€that€the€motion€was€not€filed€until€the€day€before€trial€and€the€hearing€did€notÏoccur€until€the€day€of€trial€after€the€jury€was€selected.€€The€record€indicates€that€theÏdefendantððs€counsel€had€concerns€about€the€defendantððs€mental€condition€far€inÏadvance€of€the€trial€date,€œbut€he›€did€not€seek€an€evaluation€earlier.€€We€believe€that€theÏtrial€court€would€have€been€justified€in€denying€the€request€as€untimely.Ìâ âÐ ¦6ž/5 Ðà ¸ àIn€any€event,€the€evidence€presented€at€the€competency€hearing€did€notÏâ ânecessarily€justify€further€evaluation€for€competency€purposes.€€In€this€respect,€theÏrecord€justifies€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€defendantððs€mental€statusÏexhibited€during€the€hearing€reflected€that€his€status€had€not€changed€since€the€1986Ïintellectual€evaluation.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð 80 ÐÌà ¸ àAs€for€the€defendantððs€mental€condition,€we€do€not€believe€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€defendant€wasÏcompetent.€€The€intellectual€evaluation€submitted€by€the€defendant€reflects€that€theÏdefendant€was€mildly€mentally€retarded€and€had€thought€processes€that€wereÏunderstandable.€€The€trial€court€was€entitled€to€rely€upon€these€results€and€theÏdefendantððs€testimony,€which€indicated€a€basic€understanding€of€the€legal€proceedings,Ïthe€ability€to€consult€with€counsel,€and€the€ability€to€assist€in€defense€preparation.€€ÌÌà@üü/Dàò òBó óˆÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€asserts€that€his€guilty€pleas€were€not€knowingly,€voluntarilyÏand€understandingly€entered.€€He€relies€upon€his€claim€of€incompetence€and€alsoÏasserts€that€the€guilty€plea€procedure€violated€Rule€11,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€and€hisÏconstitutional€rights€under€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€89€S.€Ct.€1709€(1969).€Ð l'd $ ÐòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€œòòState€v.€Mackeyóó,›€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.€1977).€€We€agree€that€the€guilty€pleaÐ 8)0"& Ðproceeding€did€not€sufficiently€comply€with€constitutional€and€procedural€requirements.ÌÌà ¸ àWhen€a€defendant€pleads€guilty,€he€or€she€simultaneously€waives€severalÏconstitutional€rights,€including€the€right€against€compulsory€self„incrimination,€the€rightÏto€a€jury€trial,€and€the€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€witnesses.€€òòBoykinóó,€395€U.S.Ð 42,+0 Ðat€243,€89€S.€Ct.€at€1712;€òòMackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€at€339„40.€€Waiver,€though,€will€not€beÐ 4ø,2 Ðpresumed€from€a€silent€record.€€òòBoykinóó,€395€U.S.€at€242,€89€S.€Ct.€at€1712.€€Thus,€theÐ  Ðrecord€must€affirmatively€show€that€the€waiver€of€those€rights€was€voluntarily,€knowinglyÏand€understandingly€made.€€ÌÌà ¸ àAlso,€in€òòMackeyóó,€our€supreme€court€applied€stricter€requirements€œñ[ñthan€ñ[ñin›Ð 80 ÐòòBoykinóó€for€accepting€a€guilty€plea.€€Most€of€them€were€made€part€of€Rule€11,€Tenn.€R.Ð ü  ÐCrim.€P.,€as€follows:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àò ò(c)€Advice€to€Defendantó ó.€€Before€accepting€aÐ œ”  Ðplea€of€guilty€or€nolo€contendere,€the€court€mustÏaddress€the€defendant€personally€in€open€court€andÏinform€the€œdefendant›€of,€and€determine€that€he€or€sheÏunderstands,€the€following:Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  à(1)€the€nature€of€the€charge€to€which€the€plea€is€Ïoffered,€the€mandatory€minimum€penalty€provided€byÏlaw,€if€any,€and€the€maximum€possible€penalty€providedÏby€law;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  à(2)€if€the€defendant€is€not€represented€by€anÏattorney,€that€he€or€she€has€the€right€to€be€representedÏby€an€attorney€at€every€stage€of€the€proceeding€and,€ifÏnecessary,€one€will€be€appointed;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  à(3)€that€the€defendant€has€the€right€to€plead€notÏguilty€or€to€persist€in€that€plea€if€it€has€already€beenÏmade,€and€the€right€to€be€tried€by€a€jury€and€at€that€trialÏthe€right€to€the€assistance€of€counsel,€the€right€toÏconfront€and€cross€examine€witnesses€against€him€orÏher,€and€the€right€against€compelled€self„incrimination;€ÏandÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  à(4)€that€if€the€defendant€pleads€guilty€or€noloÏcontendere€there€will€not€be€a€further€trial€of€any€kindÏexcept€as€to€sentence€so€that€by€pleading€guilty€or€noloÏcontendere€the€defendant€waives€the€right€to€a€trial;€andÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  à(5)€that€if€the€defendant€pleads€guilty€or€noloÏcontendere,€the€court€may€ask€the€defendant€questionsÏabout€the€offense€to€which€he€or€she€has€pleaded,€andÏif€the€defendant€answers€these€questions€under€oath,Ïon€the€record,€and€in€the€presence€of€counsel,€theÏanswers€may€later€be€used€against€the€defendant€in€aÏprosecution€for€perjury€or€false€statement.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àò ò(d)€Insuring€That€the€Plea€Is€Voluntaryó ó.€€TheÐ à4Ø-3 Ðcourt€shall€not€accept€a€plea€of€guilty€or€nolo€contendereÏwithout€first,€by€addressing€the€defendant€personally€inÏopen€court,€determining€that€the€plea€is€voluntary€andÏnot€the€result€of€force€or€threats€or€of€promises€apartÐ ~8v17 Ðfrom€a€plea€agreement.€€The€court€shall€also€inquire€asÏto€whether€the€defendantððs€willingness€to€plead€guilty€orÏnolo€contendere€results€from€prior€discussions€betweenÏthe€district€attorney€general€and€the€defendant€or€theÏdefendantððs€attorney.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà ¸ àà  à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 ¸ àà  àò ò(f)€Determining€Accuracy€of€Pleaó ó.€€Notwith„Ð 80 Ðstanding€the€acceptance€of€a€plea€of€guilty,€the€courtÏshould€not€enter€a€judgment€upon€such€plea€withoutÏmaking€such€inquiry€as€shall€satisfy€it€that€there€is€aÏfactual€basis€for€the€plea.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà ¸ àThe€Advisory€Commission€Comments€to€the€rule€note€that€òòMackeyóó€alsoÐ nf Ðrequires€advice€to€a€defendant€ð ðif€applicable,€that€a€different€or€additional€punishmentÏmay€result€by€reason€of€his€prior€conviction€or€other€factors€which€may€be€established€inÏthe€present€action,ðð€and€that€ð ðupon€the€sentencing€hearing,€evidence€of€any€priorÏconvictions€may€be€presented€to€the€judge€or€jury€for€their€consideration€on€determiningÏpunishment.ðð€€553€S.W.2d€at€341.€€Moreover,€in€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268,Ð jb Ð273€(Tenn.€1987),€the€supreme€court€added€the€requirement€that€the€defendant€beÏadvised€of€and€understand€the€fact€that€the€judgment€of€conviction€resulting€from€hisÏguilty€plea€may€be€used€to€enhance€the€punishment€for€any€offense€committed€later.€€ÌÌà ¸ àAs€the€Comments€note,€Rule€11€is€substantially€the€same€as€the€federalÏrule.€€In€this€respect,€as€noted€in€the€Comments€to€the€Tennessee€rule€and€in€òòMcCarthyÐ 2)*"& Ðv.€United€Statesóó,€394€U.S.€459,€465,€89€S.€Ct.€1166,€1170€(1969),€each€rule€is€designedÐ þ*ö#( Ðto€insure€that€guilty€pleas€are€constitutionally€entered€in€terms€of€being€voluntarily€andÏunderstandingly€made€and€to€insure€that€a€complete€record€is€made€at€the€time€of€theÏplea€of€the€factors€relevant€to€the€constitutional€determinations.€€Thus,€the€proceduresÏthat€are€required€not€only€afford€fairness€and€justice€to€defendants€in€the€plea€process,Ïbut€they€produce€finality€in€criminal€proceedings€by€discouraging,€limiting,€and€enablingÏmore€expeditious€disposition€of€collateral€attacks€upon€guilty€pleas.ÌÐ ’7Š06 Ðà ¸ àGiven€these€goals,€Tennessee€requires€substantial€compliance€with€theÏprocedural€requirements.€€This€means€that€if€a€plea€is€attacked€on€direct€appeal€and€theÏrecord€does€not€affirmatively€show€at€a€minimum€substantial€compliance€with€theÏrequirements,€the€burden€is€upon€the€œstate›€to€demonstrate€that€the€error€is€harmless.€€IfÏthe€œstate›€does€not€carry€this€burden,€then€the€judgment€of€conviction€must€be€set€aside.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nealóó,€810€S.W.2d€131,€139€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ð ü  ÐÌà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€entered€his€guilty€pleas€on€the€sameÏday€as€the€competency€hearing.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€was€confrontedÏwith€a€person€who€had€been€previously€diagnosed€as€moderately€retarded.€€The€guiltyÏplea€transcript€also€reflects€that€the€defendant€exhibited€slow€understanding€of€theÏevents€that€were€occurring.€€ÌÌà ¸ àTo€its€credit,€the€trial€court€was€deliberate€and€patient€in€its€colloquy€withÏthe€defendant,€taking€pains€to€insure€that€the€defendant€understood€what€was€beingÏdiscussed.€€It€insured€that€the€defendant€understood€his€right€to€a€jury€trial€and€theÏramifications€of€his€waiving€the€right€and€that€the€defendantððs€waiver€of€the€right€to€a€juryÏœtrial€was›€knowing€and€voluntary.€€Also,€the€trial€court€explained€to€the€defendant€that€heÏhad€the€right€not€to€incriminate€himself€and€no€one€could€force€him€to€talk€at€a€trial.€€ItÏalso€verified€that€the€defendant€was€satisfied€with€his€counselððs€representation.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€also€explained€the€nature€of€the€charges€and€the€minimumÏand€maximum€sentencing€service€times€for€the€Class€B€felonies,€although€it€mistakenlyÏreferred€to€the€Class€C€felony€cases€as€carrying€a€range€of€six€to€ten€years,€not€three€toÏsix€years.€€Also,€it€did€not€advise€œthe€defendant€of›€the€range€of€fines€or€the€fact€thatÏmandatory€minimum€fines€were€involved.€€In€any€event,€the€defendant€understood€thatÏthe€state€was€agreeing€to€have€all€the€sentences€run€concurrently,€and€that€the€actualÏsentences€would€be€set€at€a€sentencing€hearing€after€the€trial€court€heard€evidenceÐ Œ7„06 Ðfrom€both€sides.€€The€trial€court€also€determined€from€the€defendant€that€no€one€hadÏthreatened€him€or€forced€him€into€pleading€guilty.€€Likewise,€it€obtained€a€generalÏagreement€from€the€stateððs€and€the€defendantððs€counsel€that€the€stateððs€witnessesÏwould€say€that€the€defendant€delivered,€sold,€or€possessed€cocaine€according€to€theÏallegations€of€each€case.€€ÌÌà ¸ àUnfortunately,€though,€the€trial€court€did€not€discuss€with€the€defendantÏthe€nature€of€the€right€against€self„incrimination€and€its€waiver€as€they€related€to€theÏguilty€plea€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Montgomeryóó,€840€S.W.2d€900,€œ903›€(Tenn.€1992)Ð h` Ð(issue€of€valid€waiver€of€right€against€self„incrimination€relates€to€the€guilty€plea€hearingÏas€œwell€asñYñ,ñYññZñ€theñZñ›€jury€trial€that€is€being€waived€by€the€defendant.)€€Also,€and€mostÏimportantly,€the€trial€court€did€not€explain€to€or€question€the€defendant€about€his€right€toÏconfront€and€cross„examine€any€witnesses€against€him.€€We€note€that€the€record€onÏappeal€contains€a€document€purportedly€signed€by€the€defendant€that€is€titled€both€aÏREQUEST€FOR€ACCEPTANCE€OF€PLEA€OF€GUILTY€and€a€PETITION€TO€WAIVEÏTRIAL€BY€JURY€AND€TO€WAIVE€AN€APPEAL.€€However,€we€do€not€believe€that€thisÏdocument€suffices€or€otherwise€reflects€harmless€error€under€the€particularÏcircumstances€in€this€case.€€The€defendantððs€counsel€refused€to€sign€the€documentÏbecause€of€his€professed€belief€that€the€defendant€was€incompetent.€€Counsel€told€theÏtrial€court€that€he€doubted€that€the€defendant€was€able€to€understand€all€that€was€goingÏon€relative€to€the€proceedings.€€The€trial€court€did€not€question€the€defendant€about€hisÏunderstanding€of€the€document.€€We€do€not€view€the€document€as€a€reliableÏreplacement€to€a€personal€colloquy€between€the€trial€court€and€the€defendant€regardingÏhis€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€witnesses€against€him.€€ÌÌà ¸ àMoreover,€the€trial€court€failed€to€advise€the€defendant€of€or€to€determineÏthat€he€understood€the€fact€that€the€eight€felony€convictions€resulting€from€his€guiltyÏpleas€could€be€used€to€enhance€his€punishment€for€any€offense€that€he€might€commitÐ Œ7„06 Ðlater.€€These€circumstances€reflect€material€omissions€in€the€required€colloquy€betweenÏthe€trial€court€and€the€defendant.€€The€burden€lies€with€the€state€to€show€that€theÏomissions€were€harmless.€€However,€the€state€does€not€address€in€its€brief€theÏdeficiencies€in€the€guilty€plea€hearing€or€the€appropriate€consequences€to€flowÏtherefrom.€€Thus,€the€defendantððs€convictions€upon€guilty€pleas€are€vacated.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€the€event€that€the€defendant€seeks€to€enter€guilty€pleas€upon€remand,Ïin€the€context€of€his€impaired€mental€condition,€it€will€be€incumbent€upon€the€trial€courtÏto€follow€the€procedural€and€constitutional€guidelines€applying€€to€the€entry€of€valid€guiltyÏpleas€in€painstaking€fashion.€€Also,€it€would€be€preferable€for€the€trial€court€to€state€forÏthe€record€that€it€accepts€the€guilty€pleas€if€it€concludes€that€they€were,€in€fact,Ïvoluntarily,€knowingly,€and€understandingly€entered.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€the€judgments€of€conviction€in€caseÏnumbers€C„9081€through€C„9087€are€vacated€and€the€cases€are€dismissed.€€TheÏjudgment€of€conviction€in€case€number€C„8439€is€vacated,€count€three€is€dismissed,Ïand€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.€€ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà V àà  àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ `'X $ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà V àà  àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòòSee€Below€×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ v/n(- ÐJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ô3ì,2 ÐóóCurwood€Witt,€Judge€Ð Ú4Ò-3 Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€