Massengill v. State
| Decision Date | 11 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | E2022-00092-CCA-R3-PC |
| Parties | ADAM S. MASSENGILL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Assigned on Briefs September 27, 2022
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Claiborne County Nos 2018-CR-2915, 2019-CR-3162 E. Shayne Sexton, Judge
The Petitioner, Adam S. Massengill, entered a guilty plea to sixteen counts of aggravated statutory rape, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-five years' incarceration pursuant to the plea agreement. Thereafter, the Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court denied relief. The Petitioner appeals, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief.
Tenn R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed
Noah J. Patton, Tazewell, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Adam S Massengill.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jared R. Effler, District Attorney General; and Graham E. Wilson, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
Camille R. McMullen, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which James Curwood Witt, Jr. and Tom Greenholtz, JJ., joined.
Guilty Plea. On July 12, 2018, the Petitioner filed a waiver of trial by jury and a request for acceptance of a plea of guilty, stating that he wished to plead guilty to sixteen counts of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony, in exchange for an effective sentence of twenty-five years. At the July 13, 2018 plea submission hearing, the Petitioner agreed that he had waived indictment by the grand jury and that each count of aggravated statutory rape carried a two- to twelve-year prison sentence. He acknowledged that he had a right to plead not guilty and have his case tried by the court, either by a jury or the judge. He also acknowledged that he could either testify on his own behalf or not testify and that his silence could not be used against him. In addition, the Petitioner recognized that he had a right to call witnesses to testify on his behalf at trial and that he had the right to confront and cross-examine any witnesses testifying against him. He confirmed that he had a right to appeal any verdict returned against him or any ruling by the trial court that was adverse to him. When the trial court asked if he understood that he was giving up these rights by entering his guilty plea, the Petitioner replied, "Yes, sir."
The Petitioner stated that he was thirty-one years old, that he was literate, and that he had earned his bachelor's degree. He affirmed that he was not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication that could affect his ability to understand the plea process. He also stated that no one had forced him or threatened him to enter his guilty plea and that no one had made any promises to him in exchange for his guilty plea. He acknowledged that he was entering his guilty plea of his own free will.
When the trial court asked if he was satisfied with trial counsel's work on his case, the Petitioner replied, "Yes, sir." The court then asked, "Are you satisfied that your attorney has investigated the facts and researched the law to the point that he would either be ready for trial or can make the recommendation [to plead guilty] that's been made?" The Petitioner responded, "Yes, sir." The Petitioner confirmed that he had no complaints about trial counsel. Trial counsel then acknowledged that the plea procedures were technically correct and were in the Petitioner's best interest and that he had investigated the facts and researched the law to the point that he would either be ready for trial or could make the recommendation for the Petitioner to enter his guilty plea.
The Petitioner acknowledged that he was entering a guilty plea to sixteen counts of aggravated statutory rape because he was guilty of these charges. The State provided facts in support of the Petitioner's guilty plea, stating that the Petitioner had sexually penetrated the juvenile victim, B.G., sixteen times over the years 2016, 2017, and 2018, when the victim was at least thirteen years of age but less than eighteen years of age and the Petitioner was at least ten years older than the victim. The Petitioner acknowledged that the State's recitation of facts was correct, and trial counsel asserted that this factual recitation was consistent with his investigation of the case. Thereafter, the trial court found the Petitioner guilty of the sixteen counts of aggravated statutory rape and, pursuant to the parties' plea agreement, imposed an effective twenty-five-year sentence of imprisonment with release eligibility after service of thirty percent. The court also informed the Petitioner that, upon release, he was subject to the sex offender registration restrictions.
Post-Conviction. On April 10, 2019, the Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging in pertinent part that his convictions were based on an unlawfully induced guilty plea or a guilty plea involuntarily entered without understanding the nature or consequence of the plea and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
Following the appointment of counsel, the Petitioner filed an amended post-conviction petition, alleging similar claims. After the Petitioner was appointed new post-conviction counsel, he filed a second amended post-conviction petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and an unlawfully induced guilty plea.
At the evidentiary hearing, post-conviction counsel asserted that the Petitioner's case was never presented to the grand jury and that the only time the Petitioner appeared before the criminal court was to enter his guilty plea. He added that the Petitioner had been arrested around the middle of May 2018 and had entered his guilty plea approximately two months later on July 13, 2018. Post-conviction counsel argued that trial counsel was ineffective because there was "a lack of investigation" by trial counsel and "there was never any discovery, obviously nothing in the Criminal Court, no motions of any type whatsoever [filed] in this case." At this hearing, the Petitioner testified on his own behalf, and the State presented the testimony of trial counsel.
The Petitioner testified that at the time of his arrest, he worked as a mailman and worked in registration at a hospital and had no experience with the criminal justice system. He said that Detective Reagan and another detective approached him on his way home, informed him that there had been some allegations made against him, and told him he needed to answer some questions at the jail. The Petitioner said that just before going into the jail, he asked Detective Reagan for an attorney, and she replied that he did not need to worry about an attorney and that she just had to ask him a few questions. He said that he went into the interview room and answered some questions for Detective Reagan. At the conclusion of his interview, Detective Reagan called the district attorney and then arrested him.
The Petitioner stated that trial counsel represented him on these criminal charges. He met with trial counsel "[r]oughly three times" prior to entering his guilty plea, and these meetings were held in the back room of the courthouse or at the jail and lasted thirty to forty-five minutes each. During these meetings, trial counsel gave him a "huge stack" of cell phone records that included every text message that he had sent for the past six months. The Petitioner said that within the first two weeks of his representation, trial counsel began "pressing [him] to sign a plea deal[.]" Although the Petitioner asked trial counsel for additional discovery, which would have included all of the evidence the State had against him, trial counsel told him he "would try to get it, but he didn't know if he could." Even though the Petitioner was adamant about getting additional discovery, trial counsel made "light of it" or acted "like we couldn't really do anything about that part of it," which was "shocking" to the Petitioner.
The Petitioner said that trial counsel informed him that he could receive "up to 80 some years if [he] went to trial" and that there was a possibility the State would bring new charges against him. He stated that other than his cell phone records, he reviewed no materials in the State's possession.
The Petitioner said that two to four weeks after his arrest, the State made a plea offer of twenty-five years, and trial counsel advised him to accept it. At the time, he was "in shock from all this" and was unable to "stay in regular contact with [his] family." He said that trial counsel advised him to accept the State's plea offer because he "could get more time if [he] didn't take it." Trial counsel was unable to tell him how long he had to accept this offer. The Petitioner informed trial counsel that he did not believe the State's offer "was a fair punishment" for his charges. Although the Petitioner acknowledged that he did not ask trial counsel to take his case to trial, he claimed that trial counsel had him "scared to death" about proceeding to trial. The Petitioner said he did not want to put his family through the stress of trial and did not want the details of the case "in the public eye." He said he was trying to "mitigate everything" because he did not know "how everything went [regarding criminal cases][,]" was "still in . . . shock" about what had happened, and was "just scared." The Petitioner said he believed that trial counsel "wanted [his...
To continue reading
Request your trial