James Howard Hurtch v. State of Tennessee, M2016-00539-CCA-R3-PC

Background

James Howard Hurtch was indicted for multiple burglaries and thefts; after a jury convicted him on two charges, he waived appeal and pleaded guilty to remaining counts, resulting in an effective Range III persistent-offender sentence of 15 years at 45%.
The plea resolved charges in two case numbers, including a burglary later brought by criminal information; the trial court conducted a plea colloquy confirming Hurtch’s understanding of rights waived and his Range III status.
Hurtch filed a pro se post-conviction petition, later amended, raising ineffective-assistance claims and arguing his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing.
He alleged counsel failed to explain appellate-waiver consequences, failed to challenge Range III classification, did not realize two jury convictions went unsentenced, and misrepresented fingerprint evidence at the plea hearing.
At the post-conviction hearing both Hurtch and trial counsel testified; the trial court credited counsel’s testimony that he reviewed discovery, discussed Range III status, and explained the plea; the court denied relief, finding the plea knowing and voluntary.
On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, concluding Hurtch failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice and that the plea colloquy demonstrated a voluntary, intelligent plea.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hurtch)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for inadequate explanation of Range III status	Counsel did not adequately explain Range III and Hurtch was confused; would not have pled if fully informed	Counsel met repeatedly, reviewed notice of enhanced punishment, and explained Range III classification	Denied — court accredited counsel; no deficient performance or prejudice
Whether counsel failed to preserve or explain appellate/sentencing rights	Hurtch claimed he didn’t understand waiver of appeal and thought jury convictions were unsentenced	Counsel and plea colloquy show Hurtch waived rights knowingly and was informed; plea covered all charges	Denied — plea colloquy and testimony show Hurtch understood waivers
Whether counsel misrepresented fingerprint evidence at plea hearing	Hurtch alleged counsel falsely said fingerprints tied him to the second burglary, inducing plea	Counsel said he accurately summarized state proof; post-conviction court summarized print evidence supporting State’s recitation	Denied — record supports state’s factual recitation; no prejudice shown
Whether the guilty plea was involuntary/unknowing	Hurtch contended fear/confusion and counsel’s conduct forced plea; would have proceeded to trial otherwise	State pointed to thorough colloquy, Hurtch’s admissions he pled to avoid up to 45 years, and counsel’s preparation	Denied — plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; Hurtch failed to show he would have gone to trial

Key Cases Cited

Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (post-conviction factual findings are conclusive unless evidence preponderates otherwise)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice in guilty-plea context requires showing would have gone to trial)
Mackey v. State, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn. 1977) (plea must be voluntary, intelligent, and knowing; record must show awareness of consequences)
Lane v. State, 316 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2010) (standards for reviewing validity of guilty plea)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (counsel’s performance judged under objective standard; failure to prove either prong of Strickland is sufficient)
Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to counsel’s strategic choices when informed and prepared)
Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1993) (plea involuntariness factors include ignorance, coercion, or inducements)