Mitchell v. State
Decision Date | 02 April 1974 |
Citation | 512 S.W.2d 661 |
Parties | Gabble (Gabriel) MITCHELL, Plaintiff-in-Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant-in-Error. |
Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Max E. Stults, Hendersonville, Clifford E. Maness, Gallatin, David S. Field, Nashville (on appeal), for plaintiff in error.
David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., William C. Koch, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, O'Brien Price, Dist. Atty. Gen., Springfield, F. Dulin Kelly, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Hendersonville, for defendant in error.
In this case, petitioner appeals from dismissal of a post-conviction petition after an evidentiary hearing. The post-conviction petition was dismissed on June 14th, 1973. The trial court allowed the statutory period within which to appeal the case. T.C.A. Sec. 27--111 requires that the bill of exceptions be filed within thirty (30) days from the entry of the order or action of the court which occasioned the filing of said bill of exceptions, unless within the aforesaid thirty (30) day period, the trial judge extends the time for filing said bill of exceptions, which may be extended for a total of ninety (90) days from the date of final judgment. The 1970 amendment to said such statute empowers this court to order the filing of the bill of exceptions notwithstanding the foregoing time limitations, so as to give the appellate court jurisdiction to consider the same. The bill of exceptions was not signed and filed until July 31st, 1973, which was 17 days late. No cause is set forth in the record for the dilatory filing of the bill of exceptions.
We think this case clearly falls within the reasoning and ruling of our Supreme Court in Dailey v. State, 225 Tenn. 472, 470 S.W.2d 608, in which it was said:
The orderly administration of justice, and the duty of this court on appellate review mandates we avoid burdening the trial courts with the probability of considering repetitive, unnecessary post-conviction petitions and is adequate cause to warrant our invoking the provisions of Chapter 475 of the Public Acts of 1970 on our own motion. Dailey v. State, supra; Mosley v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 477 S.W.2d 246. By the provisions of T.C.A. Sec. 40--3808, a petition for habeas corpus and a post-conviction procedure petition are held to be pari causa when the relief and procedure authorized by the Post-Conviction Procedure Act appears adequate and appropriate. While these actions may be considered to be civil actions for procedural purposes, the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Benett, 365 U.S. 708, 81 S.Ct. 895, 6 L.Ed.2d 39, has stated unequivocally, Though Smith v. Bennett, supra, dealt with the requirement of paying filing fees for habeas corpus proceedings, we consider the above comment to be equally applicable to a case such as we have here.
It appears that petitioner was originally indicted for first degree murder and for felonious assault with intent to commit first degree murder. On the day of the trial, petitioner entered guilty pleas on the two charges and accepted the State's recommendation of not less than ten nor more than fifteen years on a second degree murder charge, and a three to ten year sentence on the other charge which was fixed to run concurrently.
Shortly thereafter he filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief contending he was denied counsel during custodial interrogation which resulted in a signed confession; he was pressured into pleading guilty as a result of his confession; that his attorney and the court led him to believe that his conviction would be certain if he went to trial; that he committed the homicide in his own self-defense; and was convicted under the wrong Code Section.
Counsel was appointed to represent petitioner after which an amended petition was filed which incorporated the original petition and alleged in substance that the guilty plea entered by petitioner was not voluntarily, intelligently or freely made, but was the product of fear generated by the circumstances set out in the petition. The evidence offered at the hearing was the testimony of petitioner; the testimony of his retained trial counsel; the transcript of the guilty plea proceedings, including the waiver of rights, the statement of petitioner to the police officers, subpoenas on behalf of the petitioner, his signed guilty plea, and waiver of appeal.
At the conclusion of the post-conviction hearing the trial judge made a full and comprehensive finding of fact in which he found petitioner was fully informed of his constitutional rights at the guilty plea proceedings and that he knowingly and with the advice and protection of his own paid counsel entered into the guilty pleas, waiving those constitutional rights. We have reviewed this record and studied the transcript of the guilty plea proceedings including the exhibits which were offered in evidence and hold that it substantially sustains the trial court's finding of fact. The findings of the trial court upon questions of fact are conclusive unless this court finds evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watkins v. State
...In this jurisdiction, such proceedings have variously been referred to as quasi civil or quasi criminal. In Mitchell v. State, 512 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tenn.Cr.App.1974), the Court of Criminal Appeals held a petition for habeas corpus and a post-conviction petition to be pari causa when the rel......
-
Boswell v. State
...of fact by the trial judge is conclusive unless this court finds the evidence preponderates against the judgment. Mitchell v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 512 S.W.2d 661. We concur with the trial judge's finding. The likelihood of defendant being again placed in jeopardy by prosecution for the same......
-
State v. Foulks
...of fact are conclusive unless the appellate court finds the evidence preponderates against the lower courts judgment. Mitchell v. State, 512 S.W.2d 661, (Tenn.Cr.App.1974). THE EVIDENCE: We find the evidence in this case to be more than ample to support the trial court's judgment. On Januar......
-
Bryant v. State
...in the interest of justice by the court on its own motion.' (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 610. To the same effect see: Mitchell v. State, 512 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn.Cr.App.1974); Mosley v. State, 477 S.W.2d 246 In the instant case, the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted the Daile......