Larry Sneed v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01C01-9803-CC-00117

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; May 12, 1999; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Larry Sneed appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the trial court, which rescinded a prior decision to expunge his criminal record. He argues that he was unaware of the charges against him when he entered his guilty plea. Sneed had previously pled guilty to multiple counts of passing worthless checks, theft, and vandalism in 1994. After his initial post-conviction petition was dismissed, he appealed, leading the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee to remand the case for written findings regarding his understanding of the charges. 

Upon remand, the post-conviction court found the issues moot since Sneed had completed his sentence and was no longer incarcerated. It initially issued an expungement order but later rescinded it, stating that Tennessee law does not permit the expungement of convictions that have not been reversed or dismissed. The court's decision was affirmed by the appellate court. Thus, the appeal primarily revolves around the legitimacy of the expungement order and whether Sneed understood the nature of the charges when he pled guilty.

The Post Conviction Judgment was sent back to the trial court to issue a written order of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court determined there was no reversible error in the guilty pleas and convictions for case numbers 7749, 7940, and 8165, thus denying the expungement of these records. The Petitioner contended that the trial court mistakenly rescinded its expungement order, referencing Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101(a)(1), which allows for expungement under specific circumstances, none of which applied to the Petitioner’s convictions. The court concluded it had jurisdiction to rescind the order, as it had not yet become final; the expungement order was issued on February 17, 1998, and rescinded on March 6, 1998.

Additionally, the Petitioner argued that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he understood the charges against him. The court found that the Petitioner had been adequately advised about the charges and his rights, including the right to a jury trial and the right to counsel. He was represented by counsel during plea negotiations and signed a Petition to Plead Guilty, affirming that he understood the terms and was entering the plea voluntarily. Despite the Trial Court's failure to inform him that the convictions could enhance future punishments, the overall record indicated that the Petitioner knowingly entered his plea without constitutional violations. As a result, the post-conviction petition was denied. The only conviction specifically contested by the Petitioner was for theft, and during the first post-conviction hearing, he expressed confusion about the nature of the charge he pleaded guilty to.

Petitioner was indicted for unlawfully obtaining over $1,000 in cash from First Farmers Merchants Bank without effective consent, intending to deprive the bank of the property, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 39-14-103. During the guilty plea hearing, the court confirmed Petitioner’s understanding of the theft charge, classified as a Class D felony. Petitioner admitted to being guilty and acknowledged discussing the charges with his attorney. The court found sufficient proof that Petitioner understood the charges and freely chose to plead guilty. The appellate review confirmed that the trial court's findings were not against the weight of the evidence, affirming the judgment of the trial court. Judges Woodall, Welles, and Smith concurred.