Curtis Watkins v. State of Tennessee ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
AUGUST SESSION, 1999 FILED
Ocotber 21, 1999
CURTIS WATKINS, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9808-CR-00236
) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
Appe llant, )
)
) SHELBY COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. CAROLYN WADE BLACKETT,
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CRIMINAL COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
DANIEL SEWARD PAUL G. SUMMERS
200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 210 Attorney General and Reporter
Memphis, TN 38103
PATRICIA C. KUSSMANN
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243
WILLIAM GIBBONS
District Attorney General
JANET SHIPMAN
Assistant District Attorney General
Criminal Justice Complex, Suite 301
201 Poplar Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
ORDER FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RULE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
ORDER
The Petitioner, Curtis W atkins, ap peals the order of th e Shelb y Coun ty
Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner pled
guilty to aggravated rape in 1981 and received a sentence of twenty (20) years.
In 1992, h e filed the present petition alleging that, (1) his guilty plea was
involuntary becau se he w as not ad vised of his right again st self-incrimination, and
(2) that he received ine ffective assistance of cou nsel. 1 The trial court denied the
petition after an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough re view of the record before
this Court, we affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Petitioner argues that his guilty plea in 1981 2 was involuntary because
he was not advised of his right against self-incrimination. However, at the post-
conviction hearing, the Petitioner acknowledged on several occasions that he
was, in fact, advised that he had a right not to testify at trial. The transcript of the
guilty plea hea ring corro borates this testimony. T hus, th ere is n o factu al bas is
for the Petitioner’s claim in this regard.
1
The Petitioner filed a prior petition in 1984, which was dismissed without a hearing in
1985. After the Petitioner filed his second petition in 1992, the trial court dismissed the
petition on the basis that it was barred by the statute of limitations. The Petitioner
appealed, claiming that he was unable to proceed with his original petition due to mental
incompetence. This Court held that “mental incompetence tolls the limiting effect of
T.C.A. § 40-30-102 in cases where the disability existed when the statute began to run.”
Curtis Watkins v. State, C.C.A. 02C01-9209-CR-00212, 1993 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS
746, at *2, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed November 3, 1993), aff’d Watkins v.
State, 903 S.W.2d 302 (Tenn. 1995). The case was remanded to the trial court for an
evidentiary hearing to determine when the petitioner regained competence. In lieu of
such a hearing, the parties agreed to proceed with a determination of the petition on its
merits.
2
The Petitioner testified at the post-conviction hearing that he completed his sentence
for the crime of aggravated rape in 1995.
-2-
The Petitioner maintains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
due to trial couns el’s failure to secure scientific bloo d tests to neg ate the state’s
theory that he raped the victim. Trial counsel testified at the post-conviction
hearing that the forensics report indicated that no sperm or other physical
evidence was found, and as a result, a blood test would not have been fruitful.
Additionally, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to pursue an alibi defense. The Petitioner testified at the post-conviction
hearing that, at the time the crime was committed, he was with his sister.
Howeve r, trial counsel subp oena ed the petition er’s sister to testify at trial, and the
petitioner conceded that his sister was prese nt in the co urtroo m on the da y of his
guilty plea. According to trial counsel, the Petitioner pled guilty on the day the
case was set for trial and therefore, the testimony of Petitioner’s sister was not
neces sary.
This Court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the
standards of Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975), and Strickland v.
W a shington, 466 U.S. 466 U.S. 688, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
The Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate that (1) his a ttorney ’s performance
was deficie nt, and (2) the d eficien t perfor man ce res ulted in prejudice to the
Defendant so as to deprive him of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
at 687, 104 S.C t. at 2064; Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn . 1996). In
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S. Ct. 366, 88 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1985), the Supreme
Court applied th e two-part Strickland standard to ineffective assistance of counsel
claims arising out of a guilty plea. U nder Hill, a petitioner is required to show that
there is a rea sona ble probability that, but for counsel’s errors , he would no t have
-3-
pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. 474 U .S. at 59, 10 6 S.Ct.
at 370.
The trial court found that the Petitioner h ad no t dem onstra ted tha t his
attorney was deficient under the standards of Baxter and Strickland. The court
also found that the Petitioner was fully advised of his right against se lf-
incrimination. The re cord fully su pports the trial court’s findings. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennes see Cou rt
of Criminal Appeals. Costs of the appeal will be paid by the State of Tennessee
as it appe ars that the Petitioner is indigent.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
___________________________________
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
-4-