Opinion

William Carl Godfrey v. State of Tennessee

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
Filed: Jul 18, 2022
Status: Published
On the bench: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 11.5%

stating that the same standard for ineffective assistance of counsel applies in both federal and Tennessee cases

How later courts described this case

stating that the same standard for ineffective assistance of counsel applies in both federal and Tennessee cases

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE 07/18/2022

AT NASHVILLE

May 10, 2022 Session

WILLIAM CARL GODFREY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sumner County

Nos. 2020-CR-318, 2019-CR-277 Dee David Gay, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2021-00768-CCA-R3-PC

___________________________________

Petitioner, William Carl Godfrey, initially agreed to plead guilty to domestic aggravated

assault, resisting arrest, and vandalism under $1000. During the plea submission hearing,

Petitioner stated that he was not guilty. The State then offered to accept a plea of “no

contest,” and after discussion with trial counsel and the trial court, Petitioner accepted the

no contest plea. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years’ probation. On

appeal, Petitioner argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that his

plea was unknowing and involuntary. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of

the post-conviction court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.

WEDEMEYER and JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., JJ., joined.

Cayley J. Turrin, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Carl Godfrey.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Richard D. Douglas, Senior

Assistant Attorney General; Ray Whitley, District Attorney General; and Kathryn Brown

Walker, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Plea Submission Hearing

At the plea submission hearing, the trial court asked Petitioner a series of questions

about trial counsel’s representation and Petitioner’s understanding of the guilty plea. It

explained Petitioner’s rights and that the plea meant that Petitioner was relinquishing those

rights. The following exchange then occurred:

THE COURT: Do you have any questions?

[PETITIONER]: Just about do I have to register like domestic --

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: You’re going to be given a notice that possession of a

firearm after this -- after you enter this plea would be a violation of federal

law, and that’s what these documents are giving you notice of.

THE COURT: Basically you’re signing that you got notice that you know

you cannot possess a firearm or it’s a violation of the law. Also, you’ll be

given a form that you bring to the first appointment with probation where

you agree to dispossess yourself of any weapons and show proof of that by

having it notarized.

The State then presented the following factual basis for the plea:

[O]n November 24th of 2018, officers responded to a domestic call in

Hendersonville, and they spoke with the wife of [Petitioner, Heather

Godfrey,] who said that there was an argument about a firearm, that

[Petitioner] did have a firearm and he was making threats -- not directly to

her, but he was making threats to other people. She said that she tried to get

the gun away from him and couldn’t do that, and then she ran and locked

herself in a bedroom because she was afraid of what he might do.

The police attempted to arrest him, gave him commands, which he did

not comply with initially, and they had to -- they were eventually able to

detain him and put him in the police patrol car, but he kicked the window

causing damage.

The trial court asked Petitioner if he was “guilty of these crimes[,]” and Petitioner

said, “No.” The following exchange then occurred:

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: You and I have gone over the facts that the State has

to prove and the proof that the State would present; correct?

[PETITIONER]: Correct.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: Based on the State’s proof, it’s my advice to you that

you would be convicted of aggravated domestic assault.

-2-

[PETITIONER]: I was protecting my family. That’s all I’m saying.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: Do you want to enter this plea?

[PETITIONER]: Yes.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: Do you understand that based on the facts and the

State’s proof, that you would be found guilty of aggravated domestic assault?

Do you understand that?

[PETITIONER]: Yes.

....

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: Okay. And do you agree that you would be found

guilty of the charge of resisting arrest?

[PETITIONER]: Yes.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: And do you agree that based on the State’s proof you

would be found guilty of the charge of vandalism as charged?

[PETITIONER]: Yes.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: And do you want to enter this plea as charged?

[PETITIONER]: Yes.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: Okay.

THE COURT: [Petitioner], I don’t want to butt in here, and [trial counsel]

has done an excellent job in representing you and getting you through this,

but I notice that you’re upset and I don’t want you to be upset. We don’t

want to force you to do anything. What seems to be the situation?

[PETITIONER]: I called the authorities that night and it turned it into this.

THE COURT: Sometimes that happens. If you want to set your case for trial,

you can do that. Your attorney is very experienced and has given you advice.

I’ll do what you want to do, but you’re going to have to tell me what you

want to do.

-3-

[PETITIONER]: I’m trying to tell the truth.

At this point, the State offered to accept a plea of no contest in lieu of a guilty plea.

Trial counsel explained to Petitioner:

The State would accept a no contest. Do you understand that? The

State would accept a plea of no contest for these charges; that is, that you’re

not contesting that you would be found guilty of something or that you have

exposure. It has the same effect as a guilty plea, but you wouldn’t be

pleading guilty; you would be not contesting the State’s proof as regards to

these charges.

The trial court also explained the no contest plea:

THE COURT: [Petitioner], this means that you really don’t contest the facts

here and the difference is that this plea cannot be used against you in a civil

matter. Do you understand? Do you enter a no contest plea to these facts?

[PETITIONER]: (Witness nods.)

THE COURT: Alright, sir. I accept your no contest plea and impose this

sentence. I wish you well.

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to an effective

six-year sentence with a thirty percent release eligibility,1 which was suspended to

probation. Approximately eleven months later, the trial court issued two violation of

probation warrants, which stated that Petitioner violated the conditions of probation by

testing positive for marijuana and by “harassing and intimidating his former defense

attorney[.]”2

Petitioner filed a timely pro se Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and an amended

petition through counsel.

The judgment forms do not appear in the record, but the trial court explained the sentence at the

plea submission hearing.

The probation violation warrants appear in the record. The transcript of the post-conviction

hearing reflects that there was a hearing on the probation violations in May 2020, and that the trial court

released Petitioner on his own recognizance on June 5, 2020.

-4-

Post-Conviction Hearing

Petitioner testified that, prior to the offenses in the present case, he had convictions

for vandalism and possession of marijuana. He said that he first retained trial counsel about

a week after the offenses. Petitioner recalled explaining to trial counsel:

I called 911 about my phone missing because the last time I recalled the

sheriff stopped [] at my house and dropped off my drunk neighbor I kicked

off the property. . . . I told [trial counsel] the whole context of the 911 call

and the 911 dispatcher not deescalating the situation but threatening to send

police over for domestic aggravated assault. . . . About my wife getting

scared because of the person on the other line threatening to bring the police

over with lethal force.

Petitioner stated that he never went over discovery with trial counsel except for a

“brief report” from the police. He said that he asked trial counsel to subpoena the 911 call

recording but that trial counsel did not obtain it and did not say why. Petitioner said that,

prior to the plea submission hearing, no one had explained what a “no contest” plea was.

The following exchange occurred:

THE COURT: Do you remember me explaining it to you?

[PETITIONER]: Not offhand. I mean, I was –

THE COURT: I mean, you were here close as I am to you. I explained it to

you. Were you under the influence?

[PETITIONER]: No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. So then I go through a whole list of things on a

colloquy for a guilty plea and I explained it to you. You never asked a

question, did you? I explained it to you. You never asked a question.

[PETITIONER]: I think what my understanding was is that I entered a not

guilty.

THE COURT: No, sir. No, sir. That’s not what’s borne out here. You did

not enter a guilty plea. That’s correct. You entered a no contest plea. It has

the same effect as a guilty plea or a guilty verdict. It has the same context

but it cannot be used against you in a civil matter. You didn’t -- don’t

remember me telling you that?

-5-

[PETITIONER]: Yeah, you told me that, but I don’t know if I really

understood it.

Petitioner testified that trial counsel never explained that it would be a violation of

state law for him to own a firearm after he pled no contest. He said that trial counsel never

explained that his no contest plea would “show up” as a guilty plea on his record. Petitioner

explained that he would not have pled no contest if he knew there would be a felony

conviction on his record. He stated that he first realized the implications of the no contest

plea when he lost his job because the conviction “was on [his] background.”

Petitioner recalled that he felt “forced” to accept the no contest plea and that he did

not believe he was guilty of aggravated assault. When asked if he indicated “with head

movements that [he] agreed with the procedure of the court[,]” Petitioner replied, “More

like I was nervous and intimidated.”

Petitioner said that trial counsel’s opinion that he would be convicted by a jury

influenced his decision to take a plea. He stated that he did not know that the plea he

entered could be used in the future to increase the punishment against him for any other

offenses.

On cross-examination, Petitioner testified that, the night of the offenses, he only had

one beer and that he was the one who called 911. Petitioner then read from the transcript

of the 911 call where he talked about the sheriff’s deputies allegedly taking his wallet:

So why were they here? So get the f*ck out here and get them here and return

my sh*t because this was never supposed to be on anyone’s accord -- this

was not even done on my property. They robbed me. So basically when they

come back, I’m just going to pump them full of a gut of buckshot. Okay?

Alright.

Petitioner explained that he was asking the 911 dispatcher to send a deputy back to his

residence “so I can at least have him provide me with some help to find my wallet.”

Petitioner agreed that he felt pressured to take a plea, yet he also said that he thought

the no contest plea meant “not guilty.” Petitioner recalled that he was facing “some years”

in jail time and instead received probation. He explained that he said he had no questions

for the trial court regarding the plea because he was “answering under distress.” He said

that he was unaware that violating the terms of his probation could result in jail time. The

State then listed several of Petitioner’s prior convictions, and Petitioner said that he did not

remember them.

-6-

Following a break, the post-conviction court examined Petitioner. Petitioner

testified that he graduated with an Associate’s degree in Science with a 3.85 grade point

average (GPA). Petitioner explained that he never called the police for a “domestic

aggravated assault,” so the 911 recording could have helped him at trial. The post-

conviction court read portions of the 911 call where Petitioner referred to the sheriff’s

deputies as “n*****s” and was continually swearing. The post-conviction court repeatedly

asked Petitioner, “Can you tell me how that’s going to help you?” The court asked, “Does

that sound like somebody that’s under control? Does that sound like something you want

to present to the jury?” The court then stated, “So basically when [the deputies] come back,

[‘]I’m just going to pump them full of a gut of buckshot.[’] You still want the jury to hear

this? You don’t, do you? It’s not going to help you one bit, is it?” When Petitioner did

not answer the court, it stated, “You’re not answering. So I assume you mean yes.” The

trial court continued to read portions of the plea submission hearing transcript, and after

each of Petitioner’s statements in the transcript, the post-conviction court stopped reading

to ask if Petitioner had lied under oath at the plea submission hearing. Petitioner explained

each time that he lied because he was feeling “threatened” or “pressured” or “in distress.”

Trial counsel testified that, if Petitioner had wanted to go to trial and could not afford

the extra cost, he would have “tried the case at a loss.” He said that the State’s proof against

Petitioner was strong and that he told Petitioner he believed he would be convicted. Trial

counsel recalled that the State finally offered a probated sentence so that Petitioner could

get assistance with his drinking problem. He explained, “[I]t’s my memory that Mrs.

Godfrey wanted him to get help, thought that the structure of probation would give him

some help with his drinking, with his anger control.” Trial counsel recalled that, when the

State made an offer of probation, Petitioner “expressed an interest” in working on his

drinking and anger issues while on probation. He said that Petitioner never appeared to be

under duress to take a plea offer. He recalled that the first time he heard concerns from

Petitioner about taking the plea offer was during the plea submission hearing when

Petitioner said he was not guilty.

Trial counsel said that he did not seek the 911 call recording because, “to be quite

frank, I didn’t want the State getting ahold of it. If I would have gotten it, there’s a

possibility the State would have gotten it. I didn’t want that to happen[.]” Trial counsel

explained:

I knew from talking to [Petitioner] what kind of shape he was in during the

incident, and I knew what kind of things were being talked about, shotguns

and shooting people in the stomach and paranoia and talking about booby

traps with shotgun shells. You know, none of that was going to help. . . . It

would have convicted him of felony assault.

-7-

Trial counsel explained to Petitioner that the way the sheriff’s deputies responded

to his 911 call saved Petitioner’s life. He stated:

[A]t the time I think [Petitioner and Mrs. Godfrey] were appreciative of it.

Because 911 gets a call and somebody’s on the phone talking about [“]I’m

going to shoot the sheriff’s deputies in the stomach with a belly full of

buckshot,[”] most of the times if that happens, they don’t respond to the scene

willing to talk to the people that much. But that’s not the way these deputies

acted on this night. They responded and showed, I thought, great restraint

and humanity in dealing with this gentleman in not hurting him.

Trial counsel said that the proof showed Petitioner was “very intoxicated” during

the incident. He stated, “I’ve been doing this for [twenty] years and I don’t think I’ve ever

had anybody that . . . seemed as threatening to me as this gentleman did. His paranoia is

almost overwhelming.”

Trial counsel recalled that Petitioner came to his office about two months after the

plea to ask about filing a post-conviction petition. Petitioner told trial counsel at that

meeting that he was upset he could no longer have weapons. Trial counsel recalled, “The

first time post plea that he came by the office, that’s what it was all about, guns. I can’t

have a gun anymore; I can’t even have a bow and arrow. That stands out. I remember

that.” Trial counsel told Petitioner he would need a different attorney to file a post-

conviction petition.

Trial counsel recalled that, “some months later [Petitioner] came back to my

office[,] and he was quite aggressive and made me concerned for what he might do, what

he might do while I was there, what he might do while I was not there with my assistant

there.” He said that he called the District Attorney General’s office and Petitioner’s

probation officer at that point to report that Petitioner was “threatening or harassing” him.

Trial counsel testified that he did not make any errors in Petitioner’s case. He

explained, “[W]hat happened was he figured out that he wasn’t going to be able to have

any guns anymore and wasn’t going to be around guns. This is all about guns. This is

about guns. He wants guns.”

On cross-examination, trial counsel said that Petitioner never requested he subpoena

the 911 call recording. Trial counsel stated that he believed Petitioner would have been

convicted of aggravated assault for putting the victim in fear, in this case, Mrs. Godfrey.

He explained that he spoke to Mrs. Godfrey and that she told him she had been afraid of

Petitioner on the night of the incident. He said that he did not want Mrs. Godfrey to testify

at a trial about her fear of Petitioner or about Petitioner’s intoxicated state on the night of

-8-

the incident. Trial counsel said that Petitioner received a copy of everything in discovery

that trial counsel received.

Trial counsel recalled that, during the first post-plea meeting with Petitioner, he did

not discuss the option of withdrawing Petitioner’s no contest plea. Trial counsel said that,

when he called the District Attorney General and Petitioner’s probation officer regarding

Petitioner’s threatening behavior, trial counsel was no longer representing Petitioner and

had no duty to maintain confidentiality of events that happened at that point. He explained,

“[I]f [Petitioner] comes to my office or my house after I’m through representing him and

threatens me, he has no expectation of confidentiality or attorney-client relationship at that

point.” The following exchange occurred:

[PC COUNSEL]: So before the probation violations when he would come

and see you, did you still consider the communications confidential?

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this. Were you his attorney then, [trial

counsel]?

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: No, Your Honor.

[PC COUNSEL]: Did you formally withdraw?

THE COURT: There was nothing pending.

[TRIAL COUNSEL]: My representation ended when the plea was entered.

THE COURT: There was nothing pending at that time, ma’am.

[PC COUNSEL]: Well, Judge, if he came to the office to ask questions about

his case, [trial counsel] would still have to answer questions about the

matters. He would still have some form of representation in my opinion.

THE COURT: I disagree with you.

[PC COUNSEL]: Yes, Judge. I’ll move on.

Heather Godfrey testified that she had been married to Petitioner for eleven years

and that he never put her in fear of bodily injury or death. She said she had never been

afraid of Petitioner. Mrs. Godfrey reviewed the transcript of the 911 call from the night of

the incident. She noted that Petitioner stated on the call, “I’m going to kill you now[,]”

and said that that statement was directed at the deputies. Mrs. Godfrey explained that,

-9-

when she was pleading with Petitioner on the call to put down his weapon, she did so

because she did not want law enforcement to hurt him. She said that, when she said she

was scared on the recording, she feared for Petitioner’s safety. She explained that she

locked herself and her dog in the back room for safety in case the deputies started shooting.

Mrs. Godfrey testified that she never told trial counsel she had been afraid of Petitioner.

She said she never told trial counsel that Petitioner had a drinking problem or an anger

problem.

Mrs. Godfrey said that, when she and Petitioner met with trial counsel, Petitioner

asked trial counsel for the 911 recording or transcript. She recalled that trial counsel did

not respond to that request and did not express concern about the State having access to the

911 call. Mrs. Godfrey said that trial counsel told them a jury trial would cost $10,000,

and she said that she and Petitioner did not have that much money. She said that, because

they did not have the $10,000, she and Petitioner felt like they had no choice but to accept

a plea offer.

Mrs. Godfrey stated that, when they were discussing whether Petitioner would be

convicted, trial counsel asked her, “Well, did you lock yourself in a room?” Mrs. Godfrey

responded, “yes,” and trial counsel said, “Well, there you go.” Mrs. Godfrey explained, “I

mean, it [seemed] that I don’t get to even say what actually happened. So reading [the 911

transcript] -- if I’m cut off on that, and I can’t explain the situation, then, yeah, he doesn’t

have a very good chance.” She said that, if given the chance to read the 911 transcript and

explain what had happened, she would have been able to help Petitioner’s defense.

On cross-examination, the following exchange occurred:

[THE STATE]: [Y]ou had said that when [Petitioner] was heard on the [911]

recording saying I will kill you, he wasn’t talking about you; is that right?

[MRS.GODFREY]: Right.

[THE STATE]: Okay. I’d like for you to read then line 12 and forward.

[MRS. GODFREY]: (As read): “MRS. GODFREY: Okay. They can hear

you.” “MALE VOICE: Well, I’ll kill them.” “MRS. GODFREY: Okay.”

“MALE VOICE: I’m going to kill you now.”

[THE STATE]: You can stop there. . . So he, in fact, made two different

statements [--]

[MRS. GODFREY]: Yes.

- 10 -

[THE STATE]: right? One, Well, I’ll kill them; two, I’m going to kill you

now; is that correct?

[MRS.GODFREY]: He may have said that, but that’s not what he meant and

I --

THE COURT: How do you know, ma’am? You can’t say what somebody

else meant. You’re just spinning everything the way you want it to be. He

said, I’m going to kill you now. Did he say that?

[MRS. GODFREY]: If it says so, but I don’t think he was saying –

THE COURT: Okay. Was he talking to you?

[MRS. GODFREY]: He was talking to the phone just as he did there, well,

I’ll kill them.

THE COURT: And then he says, I’m going to kill you now. Who is the only

one around him?

[MRS. GODFREY]: There’s also the person on the phone, not just me.

THE COURT: Okay. Who’s the only one around him?

[MRS. GODFREY]: Me.

Upon questioning by the post-conviction court, Mrs. Godfrey testified that

Petitioner “says all sorts of horrible words” when he gets upset or distressed. She said that

Petitioner had been to therapy for PTSD. She agreed that Petitioner’s conduct on the night

of the incident was “extreme.”

The post-conviction court made oral findings at the hearing. It credited the

testimony of trial counsel and found that Petitioner and Mrs. Godfrey were not credible. It

said that Petitioner and Mrs. Godfrey “minimize in every way that they can what happened

here and what [Petitioner] did.” The post-conviction court stated:

Now, we have an issue because one month after your arrest . . . for two

different [probation] violations, you file this petition for post-conviction

relief. That affects your credibility here. You didn’t have any problem until

after you were arrested. You might talk about it, but -- and I don’t believe

- 11 -

that you say that you didn’t know what probation meant. A man of your

intelligence would definitely know.

The post-conviction court found that trial counsel “showed discernment and a

strategy” that “it would be a disaster for this [911] tape to fall into the hands of the State.”

It found that trial counsel met with and consulted both Petitioner and Mrs. Godfrey about

the incident and that trial counsel “went over the elements of the crimes, the punishment

for the crimes, and the evidence to be used against him, and that there was no offer than

jail time.” The post-conviction court found that Petitioner “got upset” during the plea

submission hearing because “[i]t’s just like him to want his own way and get upset with

some things that are not real important in the big scheme of things.” It found “that that is

a flaw in the attitude of [Petitioner] and nothing else[.]” The court found that trial counsel

properly assisted Petitioner during the plea submission hearing and that Petitioner

understood the terms of the no contest plea. The post-conviction court stated that it thought

Petitioner had assented aloud but that the transcript reflected that Petitioner nodded in

assent.

The post-conviction court found that trial counsel’s representation was not deficient.

It stated that trial counsel “helped [Petitioner] go through that plea, and it was definitely in

[Petitioner’s] best interest.”

Regarding Petitioner’s claim that his plea was involuntary and unknowing, the post-

conviction court found that Petitioner understood the plea and answered questions

appropriately during the hearing. It stated:

You’re [forty-two] years old. You’re intelligent. I’m not going to accept an

explanation from you that you didn’t know what you were doing; that you

didn’t know what probation was; that you didn’t know about the guns after

we talked about it with you in court and went over it with you and you signed

two documents. . . stating that from that point on you could not own or

possess a firearm.

The post-conviction court found that Petitioner’s plea was knowing and voluntary. It

denied the post-conviction petition.

Order Denying Post-Conviction Relief

In its written order denying post-conviction relief, the court detailed its oral findings

and additionally found that the proof against Petitioner was very strong and that trial

counsel had spoken to “virtually all the witnesses” involved in the incident. It found that

- 12 -

trial counsel adequately explained Petitioner’s options, thoroughly investigated

Petitioner’s case, and did not pressure Petitioner to accepting a plea offer.

The post-conviction court found that Petitioner’s plea was knowing and voluntary

and stated that trial counsel redirected Petitioner during the plea submission hearing when

Petitioner focused on irrelevant issues. It stated that trial counsel “helped [P]etitioner to

focus on the facts and not extraneous issues[.]”

Petitioner now timely appeals.

Analysis

On appeal, Petitioner argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel

and that his plea was unknowing and involuntary.

In order to prevail on a petition for post-conviction relief, a petitioner must prove

all factual allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Jaco v. State, 120 S.W.3d 828,

830 (Tenn. 2003). Post-conviction relief cases often present mixed questions of law and

fact. See Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001). As such, we review a trial

court’s findings of fact under a de novo standard with a presumption that those findings

are correct unless otherwise proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (citing Tenn.

R. App. P. 13(d); Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997)). The trial court’s

conclusions of law and application of the law to factual findings are reviewed de novo with

no presumption of correctness. Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450, 457 (Tenn. 2015).

When reviewing the trial court’s findings of fact, this court does not reweigh the

evidence or “substitute [its] own inferences for those drawn by the trial court.” Fields, 40

S.W.3d at 456. Additionally, “questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the

weight and value to be given their testimony, and the factual issues raised by the evidence

are to be resolved by the [post-conviction court].” Id. (citing Henley, 960 S.W.2d at 579);