State of Tennessee v. Travis Dewayne Gipson, E2015-01273-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Travis Dewayne Gipson pled guilty (June 2, 2014) to two counts of delivery of > .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone in exchange for concurrent 20-year sentences, 12 years at 100%; a third Blount County charge (and its mandatory consecutive exposure) was dismissed as part of the plea.
Nine days later Gipson moved to withdraw his pleas, alleging coercion, conflict of interest within the public defender’s office, and ineffective assistance; he later filed a pro se motion claiming counsel collusion with the prosecutor.
At the withdrawal hearing, prosecutor explained Gipson faced up to 40 years at 100% in Blount and additional exposure in Knox County if convicted at trial; trial counsel had reviewed videos/photos and attended another informant-based trial where the informant was credited.
Gipson testified counsel pressured him to accept the plea, told him he would not have an appeal if he went to trial, and that he was not in the right frame of mind during the Rule 11 colloquy.
Trial counsel denied telling Gipson he would forfeit appeals, described thorough preparation, and said Gipson accepted after reviewing evidence and calling family; competency and plea-colloquy transcripts supported voluntariness.
The trial court found no conflict of interest or manifest injustice, credited counsel, found Gipson competent, and denied the motion; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Gipson's Argument	State's/Prosecution's Argument	Held
Whether Gipson established "manifest injustice" warranting plea withdrawal	Plea was coerced, involuntary, entered without effective counsel; conflict within public defender’s office required different counsel	Plea was knowing, voluntary, and resulted from reasonable advice and global negotiation that benefited Gipson	Denied — no manifest injustice shown; plea was knowing and voluntary
Whether a conflict of interest in public defender’s office deprived Gipson of effective assistance	Heated exchange with original counsel created an office-wide conflict; private counsel appointment for one case showed a conflict	No proof of an actual conflict affecting trial counsel; public defender transition explained innocently; no prejudice shown	Denied — record did not demonstrate an actual conflict or resulting prejudice
Whether trial counsel’s statements about appeals rendered plea unknowing/involuntary	Counsel told Gipson he would have no appeal if he went to trial, which coerced acceptance and impaired voluntariness	Trial counsel denied making such statements; court implicitly credited counsel; Gipson answered plea colloquy questions and was competent	Denied — court credited counsel; plea colloquy and competency evaluation support voluntariness
Whether negotiating all three cases together was improper given private counsel in one case	Joint negotiation coerced Gipson to plead to avoid mandatory consecutive exposure; separate counsel should have negotiated	Dismissal of one charge was part of the favorable global resolution; no evidence negotiations were improper or prejudicial	Denied — record shows a beneficial global plea and no impropriety proven

Key Cases Cited

State v. Crowe, 168 S.W.3d 731 (Tenn. 2005) (standards and examples for withdrawing guilty pleas to correct manifest injustice)
State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review of plea-withdrawal denials)
State v. Mellon, 118 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. 2003) (standards for plea withdrawal)
State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion principles)
State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. 2007) (consideration of relevant factors in plea-withdrawal decisions)
State v. McClintock, 732 S.W.2d 268 (Tenn. 1987) (Rule 11 and plea-acceptance procedures)
State v. Mackey, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn. 1977) (plea-acceptance rules)
State v. Nagele, 353 S.W.3d 112 (Tenn. 2011) (when court’s failure to advise of sentencing consequences can constitute manifest injustice)
Ray v. State, 451 S.W.2d 854 (Tenn. 1970) (plea withdrawal not warranted by mere change of heart)
Clenny v. State, 576 S.W.2d 12 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978) (satisfaction of plea withdrawal standards; harsh sentence alone insufficient)
State v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 346 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (courts must assess circumstances when determining manifest injustice)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence can invalidate a plea if it influenced entry of plea)