Three months shy of five years ago, a Cosby man was brought to tears when he was given a tough 30-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to five counts aggravated sexual battery.

On Friday, Earl Marion Grindstaff's plea for post-conviction relief was granted when the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his convictions and sent the case back for a trial. The supreme court, in a ruling which overturns previous holdings by both the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals and Circuit Judge Ben W. Hooper II, found that Grindstaff was inadequately represented by counsel and that inadequate representation had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the case.

Grindstaff, who was represented by Newport attorney Brad Davidson in pursuing his appeal, has contended since the day he entered his plea that he never expected to be sent to a state prison. He claims that he was assured by his trial attorney, Assistant District Public Defender Keith Haas, that he would likely receive a term of probation or in the Community Corrections Program because of his previous clean record.

Both Judge Hooper and the state court of criminal appeals found that Grindstaff was mistakenly told that he was eligible for an alternative sentence, although state law specifically forbids probation or Community Corrections for the crimes to which the defendant pled guilty, but they ruled that he was informed that prison time was a possibility. That, the appeals court ruled, was enough to support his conviction and 30-year prison term.

13 page opinion

But, in a 13-page opinion handed down on Friday, the supreme court pointedly disagreed. The unanimous opinion, written by Justice Gary Wade and joined by Chief Justice Janice M. Holder and justices Cornelia A. Clark, William C. Koch Jr., and Sharon G. Lee, sends Grindstaff's case back to Judge Hooper for trial on the original charges, essentially returning the defendant to a plea of not guilty.

"In our view, the record demonstrates a reasonable probability that, if trial counsel had adequately researched the applicable law and informed [Grindstaff] that alternative sentencing was not available, he would not have entered an open plea of guilt to the several counts in the indictment," Justice Wade wrote.

At issue in the case is whether Grindstaff received "effective assistance of counsel" when he entered guilty pleas before Judge Hooper on February 15, 2005. A unanimous three-judge appeals court panel ruled in August 2008 that he probably did not, but that his counsel's "deficient performance" did not affect Grindstaff's right to a fair hearing in the case.

Grindstaff sentence

Judge Hooper sentenced Grindstaff to a total effective sentence of 30 years, 100 percent of which must be served before the defendant is eligible for parole.

Grindstaff claims he was told by attorney Haas that he would likely receive probation or another form of alternative sentencing in the case.

Grindstaff alleges that Haas was ineffective because he failed to completely explain the consequences of accepting the state's proposed plea-bargain.

The defendant alleges that he was not told that if he accepted the state's proposed plea agreement, he would be ineligible for probation or some other form of alternative sentence and would be required to serve 100 percent of the sentence in the case.

Grindstaff pled guilty to five counts of sexual battery on February 15, 2005. The defendant is alleged to have had "improper sexual contact" with a girl less than 13 years old on five occasions between December 2003 and February 2004.

Plea negotiations continue

As the plea negotiations continued, prosecutors learned that additional allegations against Grindstaff involving another young female victim had surfaced and the state was prepared to submit charges to the grand jury if it was not satisfied with the sentence he received" on the first set of charges.

Grindstaff testified that Haas assured him that he would "fight for a lifetime of probation." The defendant alleges that he was told he would be eligible for probation or Community Corrections when, in fact, state law requires that defendants who are convicted of the crimes to which Grindstaff pled guilty could not, under any circumstances, receive probation.

Both the appeals court and the supreme court observed that neither the state nor the judge in the case made any comments informing Grindstaff that he must serve his sentence in prison and was not eligible for probation.

Attorney Haas testified during the hearing before Judge Hooper in the case that he notified Grindstaff verbally and in writing that he could be facing a substantial amount of jail time, especially if the sentence was more than eight years, and that the state would be arguing for a prison sentence in the case.

Ultimately, the defendant entered guilty pleas to five counts of aggravated sexual battery, with all sentencing decisions left up to Judge Hooper.

After the sentencing hearing, Judge Hooper handed down consecutive sentences of ten years on each of the five counts, with three of the concurrent sentences served consecutively to the remaining two, for a net sentence of 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.

Both the appeals court panel and the state supreme court found that neither defense counsel, prosecutors, nor the judge told the defendant that, under Tennessee law, he would not be eligible for parole and would be required to serve his complete sentence.

The appeals court found that attorney Haas's performance in representing Grindstaff was "deficient," but that it did not prejudice his case.

Supreme Court disagrees

But the supreme court disagreed and sent the case back for a trial or further proceedings.

"Trial counsel, who submitted mitigating evidence and argued at the sentencing hearing for imposition of an alternative sentence, obviously did not know that the crimes to which [Grindstaff] had pled guilty precluded any consideration of probation or Community Corrections," Justice Wade wrote.

"Neither did the trial court nor the assistant district attorney general who prosecuted the case make any statements at either the submission hearing or the sentencing hearing to clarify the misconception," the opinion continues.

The supreme court concluded that several factors, including the fact that Grindstaff had planned a trip on his job as a trucker for the day after his sentencing hearing, indicated that he fully expected probation and that his case was prejudiced because no one told him that a prison sentence was mandatory and must be served in full.

Wife's testimony

The high court also cited the testimony of Grindstaff's wife and son in support of his belief.

"At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel, still not cognizant of the fact that the nature of the convictions precluded an alternative sentence, corroborated [Grindstaff's] claim that his rejection of prior [plea-bargain] offers by the state, all of which demanded a period of confinement, were based upon his hope to avoid a sentence of incarceration," Justice Wade wrote.

"While on bail throughout the period of time from his arrest until his sentencing hearing, [he] continued to make deliveries by truck throughout the region; this supports his testimony that he had scheduled another out-of-state delivery on the day following the sentencing hearing in anticipation of an alternative sentence. On at least two occasions during this period of time [Grindstaff] turned down offers by the state which demanded at least eight years of confinement in prison," the opinion continues.

"Under these circumstances, [he] is entitled to post-conviction relief," the court concluded.