Tonnie Jelks v. State of Tennessee
W2016-02078-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Petitioner Tonnie Jelks pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea to attempted aggravated robbery (10 years, 45% release eligibility) and assault (11 months, 29 days), sentences concurrent. He later filed a timely post-conviction petition asserting his plea was not knowing and voluntary and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Trial counsel reviewed reports, a CVS surveillance video (could not identify Jelks), and photographs but did not obtain outstanding DNA results or investigate medical records before the plea; counsel said he planned to seek an extension but the Petitioner insisted on pleading that day.
- Discovery included a TOMIS report (photocopy in the State’s response to a pro se bond motion) listing seven prior felony convictions; counsel discussed possible enhanced/offender classifications with Jelks.
- Petitioner alleged counsel misadvised him about offender classification (career vs. persistent), failed to explain elements and lesser-included offenses, failed to challenge a suggestive “show-up” identification, and failed to investigate serious-bodily-injury proof; Petitioner also argued the State failed to file the § 40-35-202(a) enhancement notice at least ten days before plea.
- The post-conviction court accredited trial counsel’s testimony, found many of Petitioner’s assertions inconsistent or lacking credibility, concluded the plea colloquy showed a voluntary, knowing plea, and dismissed the petition. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Jelks' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel misadvised as to offender classification (career vs persistent) | Counsel told Jelks he could be a career offender, inducing plea | Counsel’s advice was reasonable given prior convictions; any misadvice caused no prejudice | Held: Even if counsel erred, Jelks failed to show prejudice; no relief |
| Counsel failed to investigate victim injuries/serious bodily injury element | Failure to obtain medical records/DNA deprived Jelks of leverage and could have negated aggravated element | Investigation was curtailed by Jelks’ insistence to plead; success at trial could have produced equal or greater sentencing exposure | Held: No prejudice shown; claim fails |
| Counsel failed to explain elements and lesser-included offenses | Jelks says counsel did not explain charges or lesser-includeds; plea was uninformed | Counsel testified he explained elements; trial court accredited counsel and plea colloquy reflects understanding | Held: Counsel not shown deficient; plea was voluntary and knowing |
| Counsel failed to challenge suggestive show-up identification | Identification procedure was highly suggestive and unchallenged, undermining plea decision | Investigation cut short by Jelks’ decision to plead; even if unchallenged, overwhelming proof negates prejudice | Held: No prejudice shown; claim fails |
| State failed to file § 40-35-202(a) enhancement notice ≥10 days before plea | Absence of formal 10-day notice rendered plea uninformed about enhanced sentencing risk | Petitioner had constructive notice (TOMIS photocopy in State’s response); State substantially complied; no prejudice | Held: Substantial compliance/constructive notice; no prejudice; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (plea must be voluntary and intelligent)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (statements at plea colloquy carry strong presumption of truth in collateral proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Strickland applied to guilty-plea context)
- State v. Adams, 788 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn.) (ten-day enhancement-notice purpose and prejudice requirement)
- State v. Mackey, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn.) (Tennessee standard for knowing, voluntary pleas)