Dortch v. State
| Decision Date | 13 November 1985 |
| Citation | 705 S.W.2d 687 |
| Parties | Jeffery DORTCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee. 705 S.W.2d 687 |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Beth Brooks, Memphis, for appellant.
W.J. Michael Cody, Atty. Gen., Ann Lacy Johns, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Edgar H. Peterson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Memphis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying post-conviction relief. The appellant, Jeffery Dortch, pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Shelby County to the offense of aggravated rape. He was sentenced to a term of twenty years in the State penitentiary as a Range I, Standard offender. On this appeal, the appellant contends that his guilty plea was involuntary and unintelligent, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no merit in the issues and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The issue alleging that the appellant's guilty plea was "uninformed, unintelligent and involuntary" is based upon a misunderstanding by the appellant of the effect of entering a guilty plea pursuant to the case of North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). In that case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that there was no constitutional error in accepting a guilty plea which contained a protestation of innocence when the defendant had intelligently concluded that his interests required entry of a guilty plea and the record before the judge contained strong evidence of actual guilt.
At the proceeding in which the appellant's guilty plea was entered and subsequently accepted by the trial court, the following colloquy between the trial judge and the appellant took place:
"THE COURT: For the record, to make sure that the guilty plea is voluntary and that you are not making it under any pressure. As I understand it from, I believe Mrs. Gardner, you are maintaining,--in fact you are pleading guilty. But, you are really maintaining that you are innocent?
A. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, Sir.
The appellant testified at the post-conviction hearing that he did not realize that he had pled guilty to the charge of aggravated rape, and would have proceeded to trial if he had known he was pleading guilty. He stated that he "went up under some kind of law called Alford vs. North Carolina," with the understanding that he was maintaining his innocence while accepting an offer by the State for incarceration. He also testified that he did not know that he had waived his right to a trial by jury. In response to the question by the trial judge, "What did you think that you were doing?", the appellant answered, "Holding time so my folks could get me another lawyer." The appellant stated that he was not under the influence of any drugs or intoxicants the day his plea was accepted.
The appellant's mother testified at the hearing that it was her understanding from having talked to her son's trial attorney that "whichever it was, guilty or not guilty, he had to do time."
The trial attorney for the appellant testified that he advised the appellant of the difference between pleading guilty and going to trial, and explained the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Albright
...the plea hearing before the trial court may accept the plea. See Alford, 400 U.S. at 37, 38 n.10, 91 S.Ct. 160 ; Dortch v. State, 705 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). No such factual basis is required for nolo contendere pleas. State v. Crowe, 168 S.W.3d 731, 747 (Tenn. 2005). Addit......
-
Wlodarz v. State
...VI controlled substance. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); Dortch v. State, 705 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tenn.Crim.App.1985).2 The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole. On September 12, 2002, the Petiti......
-
Hicks v. State
...open to the defendant." Id. The Alford or "best interests" plea has been recognized in this state. See, e.g., Dortch v. State, 705 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tenn.Crim.App.1985); State v. Williams, 851 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992). Before a Tennessee court can accept any guilty plea, the cour......
-
In re Treylynn T.
...at the plea hearing before the trial court may accept the plea. See Alford, 400 U.S. at 37, 38 n.10, 91 S.Ct. 160; Dortch v. State, 705 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985). No such factual basis is required for nolo contendere pleas. State v. Crowe, 168 S.W.3d 731, 747 (Tenn. 2005). Add......