Andre D. Banks v. State of Tennessee

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2004-02146-CCA-R3-PC

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; July 19, 2005; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reviewed Andre D. Banks' appeal following the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. Banks argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for allegedly guaranteeing him admission to a boot camp program for which he was statutorily ineligible. The court found that trial counsel did not guarantee boot camp but mentioned it as a possibility based on the judge’s recommendation. Additionally, during the plea colloquy, Banks confirmed his understanding of the charges and the implications of his pleas. The court affirmed the post-conviction court's decision, concluding that Banks' claims were not substantiated by the evidence. 

Banks had been indicted on two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft, later pleading guilty to one count of aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and theft, receiving concurrent sentences. He filed for post-conviction relief after a hearing, where he testified that counsel had suggested he would qualify for boot camp if he pled guilty. Despite believing he had a strong case for trial due to the operability of the weapon used and his personal circumstances, the court upheld the denial of relief, emphasizing that Banks pled voluntarily and understood the consequences.

During cross-examination, the petitioner described limited interactions with his counsel: one meeting in jail, one after he posted bond, and another on the court date. He was informed that two witnesses had identified him as the perpetrator and expressed his intention to plead guilty that day, having been told by counsel that he would be eligible for boot camp if he did so. The petitioner admitted that the trial court had recommended boot camp in the plea agreement, but he claimed he was unaware he was pleading to aggravated robbery and did not wish to admit to that charge.

Counsel, who had thirty-three years of legal experience and had represented the petitioner since childhood, confirmed that two witnesses identified the petitioner and noted his confession. He maintained regular communication with the petitioner and his family and believed that pleading guilty was the best option given the petitioner’s juvenile record and the charges. After the petitioner decided to plead guilty, both the district attorney and the trial court agreed to recommend boot camp. However, counsel later acknowledged he was mistaken about the petitioner’s eligibility for boot camp due to the violent nature of the crime.

When questioned about any guarantees made to the petitioner regarding boot camp, counsel stated that he typically only guarantees to provide every legal remedy available and cannot promise outcomes controlled by others, such as the Department of Corrections. He emphasized that he had not guaranteed boot camp but indicated there was a good chance for it based on the trial judge's recommendation. He also clarified that an aggravated robbery charge does not automatically disqualify someone from boot camp if the weapon is inoperable.

The petitioner’s sister corroborated that she heard counsel claim he would secure boot camp for the petitioner during the court proceedings. Ultimately, the post-conviction court found that counsel had provided adequate assistance and had discussed the case, potential sentences, and the uncertainty around receiving boot camp with the petitioner. The court denied the petition based on these findings.

A plea hearing is essential for ensuring the defendant comprehends their rights and the implications of their plea. The petitioner failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to support his claims, as mandated by Tennessee law. The court determined that the petitioner knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea, fully understanding its significance and consequences, without coercion. On appeal, the petitioner argued ineffective assistance of counsel, asserting that had counsel not been ineffective, he would have opted for a trial instead of a guilty plea. Under the Sixth Amendment, the petitioner must demonstrate both deficient performance by counsel and that this deficiency prejudiced the trial's outcome. The court referenced the need for a fair evaluation of counsel's performance without hindsight bias and noted that the petitioner must prove allegations by clear and convincing evidence.

The petitioner’s primary argument on appeal was that counsel incorrectly informed him about eligibility for a boot camp program, which he was statutorily ineligible for. However, the post-conviction court found counsel's statements were not guarantees but rather a reasonable possibility based on the circumstances. The court concluded that there was no evidence contradicting the counsel’s testimony and noted that the petitioner admitted to understanding the charges and entering the plea voluntarily during the plea colloquy. Thus, the court affirmed the post-conviction court’s denial of relief, agreeing that counsel's assistance was not ineffective and that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily.