My unconstitutional ever-increasing sentence

When I was coerced into entering a guilty plea my custodial sentence was supposed to be 17-years at 85%. In other words, I could reduce my sentence by 15% by earning good-behavioral and program credits, which meant I would only have to do 14 1/2 years. Then after I entered the plea prison officials told me I would have to 100%, day for day, of my 17-year sentence, which effectively added 2 1/2 years to my custodial sentence.

I filed several unsuccessful legal challenges in both the state and federal courts arguing: (1) that my attorney was ineffective for providing me inaccurate sentencing information, and the court violated my constitutional right by allowing my sentence to be increased violating my pela agreement.

At the court's hearing on such, the court and my attorney explained that I was told my sentence was 100%, which was true. Further, my attorney explained at the evidentiary hearing that prior to the entry of the plea he was only focused on the first of three cases, and his advice was based on such, which was also true.

Hence, my first case was based on one class "B" offense, and the sentence for such was described by the state statute as a 100% sentence, that could be reduced by up to 15% with good behavior and program credits. Hence, both the court and my attorney were correct in part - they did say my sentence was 100%. However, they were also wrong in part - because no one every explained prior my entering the plea that since my conviction included class "A" offenses I would not be able to receive the 15% reduction and I would have to do 100% of my 17-year sentence, day for day.

I was not the only one to suffer this fate! This happened to numerous individuals. It was a common practice in the early 2000s for attorneys representing those with sex charges to tell their clients their sentence would be an 85% sentence to help coerce them into enter a guilty plea. Then once the convicted defendant was in prison, they would find out their sentence is actually at 100%, day for day.

This is similar to Tennessee's common practice at that time of not telling defendant that they were being sentences to an additional sentence of Community Supervision for Life prior to entering a plea. Then at some point prior to the defendant completing their custodial sentence the court would allow the state to file amended judgments adding this additional sentence. It wasn't till 2010, fifteen years after this practice had started that the Tennessee's Supreme Court ruled it to be unconstitutional. However, even then, after the court ruled that these sentences were unconstitutional the court decided they would only fix such if it occurred after 2010, for all those that this occurred to prior to that would just have to live with it.

Now, the state legislator in 2020 seemed to correct the past common practice of the early 2000s were Tennessee defense attorneys and the state would coerce defendants with sex charges into entering pleas under the false pretense that they could reduce their sentence by 15% when in fact they would have to do 100% of said sentence when the legislation clarified in their sentencing notes that all such sentences prior to July 1, 2007 could earn the 15% reduction.

Unfortunately, by the time I learned about this I had already completed my full 17-year sentence. During the extra 2 1/2 years I did unconstitutionally in hell, me and my family suffered immensely. For example, I would wake up frequently from the burning acid reflux in my throat due to the prison's medical provider refusing to give me medication for such. I suffered for over a year with a inguinal hernia, were over five inches of my intestine hung down, because the prison medical provider refused to provide treatment for such. My aunt died, and my mother battled dementia which she died from just four months prior to my release.

All the above demonstrates what happens in plea proceedings concerning those with sex offenses when there is no transparency, defense attorneys and prosecutors work together to get convictions with no concern for the defendant, the constitution, and there are no limitations or checks and balances, and afterwards the courts refuse to uphold the U.S. Constitutional.