Bailey v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Calvert v. State

    342 S.W.3d 477 (Tenn. 2011)   Cited 154 times
    Concluding that failure to inform the petitioner of lifetime supervision requirement resulted in prejudice when the petitioner testified that it would have made a difference in his plea

    The intermediate appellate court held that defense counsel's failure to advise Defendant of the community supervision requirement was not deficient because "counsel's silence regarding `the various consequences of being convicted of a sex offense' does not amount to deficient performance." Id. at *5 (quoting Bailey v. State, No. M2001-01018-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 215657, at *3 (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb. 8, 2002)). The Court of Criminal Appeals also credited the post-conviction court's finding that Lead Counsel had testified that Defendant's primary concern in accepting the plea agreement was avoiding a long period of incarceration.

  2. Englebert v. State

    No. M2018-00189-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 1, 2018)

    While the Petitioner testified that he would not have entered the pleas if he had known the nature of the charge of aggravated robbery, "[t]his testimony ... does not ipso facto establish that he would not have pleaded guilty but for counsel's ... performance." Alan Dale Bailey v. State, No. M2001-01018-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 215657, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 8, 2002) (deferring to the lower court's determination that the petitioner was not a credible witness). "[T]he probability that the petitioner might have received a more severe penalty following a trial may, in a proper case, serve as an indicator that the petitioner nevertheless would have pleaded guilty had he known all the relevant facts."

  3. Huskins v. State

    No. E2007-02627-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Sep. 3, 2008)

    However, "a guilty plea is not rendered constitutionally infirm because a criminal defendant is not informed about `the details of his parole eligibility, including the possibility of being ineligible for parole.'" Alan Dale Bailey v. State, No. M2001-01018-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn.Crim.App., Nashville, Feb. 8, 2002), perm. app. granted (May 28, 2002), voluntary dismissal granted (July 11, 2002) (quoting Rickey Sams v. State, No. 03C01-9511-CC-00368, slip op. at 5 (Tenn.Crim.App., Knoxville, Nov. 14, 1996)). In this case, the petitioner's claims regarding visitation privileges and parole eligibility status are not constitution-based claims and, as a result, would not be cognizable in a post-conviction proceeding.

  4. Studdard v. State

    No. W2004-00500-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Sep. 27, 2006)   Cited 2 times
    Denying post-conviction relief when counsel correctly informed the petitioner of his parole eligibility date but failed to inform the petitioner about the requirements he must complete prior to being paroled

    Further, this Court has previously determined that defense counsel's failure to advise a criminal defendant about the details of his parole eligibility, including informing the defendant of a sex offender that the program must be completed prior to parole release eligibility is not ineffective assistance of counsel. See e.g., Wade v. State, 914 S.W.2d 97, 104 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1995); Alan Dale Bailey v. State, No. M2001-01018-CCA-R3-PC, 2020 WL 215657 (Tenn.Crim.App., at Nashville, Feb. 8, 2002), perm. app. granted (Tenn. May 28, 2002), app. dismissed (Jul. 11, 2002); Rickey Sams v. State, No. 03C01-9511-CC-00368, 1996 WL 663884 (Tenn.Crim.App., at Knoxville, Nov. 14, 1996), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 3, 1997).

  5. JACO v. STATE

    No. M2001-02150-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 14, 2002)

    However, "a guilty plea is not rendered constitutionally infirm because a criminal defendant is not informed about the details of his parole eligibility, including the possibility of being ineligible for parole." Alan Dale Bailey v. State, No. M2001-01018-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn.Crim.App. at Nashville, Feb. 8, 2002), perm. to appeal voluntarily dismissed, (Tenn. 2002) (quoting Rickey Sams v. State, No. 03C01-9511-CC-00368 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Knoxville, Nov. 14, 1996)). As of to date, the United States Supreme Court has "never held that the United States Constitution requires the State to furnish a defendant with information about parole eligibility in order for the defendant's plea of guilty to be voluntary."