 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wallen3/17/1999
on regarding his medication nor has he cited legal authority to support his claim. Rule 10, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. The defendant has filailed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion on the part of ghe the trial court . . In consequence, this issue has no merit.
V.
The defendant also complains that he was incompetent to represent himself at trial because he suffers from a "50% brain condition that requires strong medication." During the sentencing hearing, the defendant concluded in retrospect that he had been incompetent to represent himself at trial because of his prescription medication. The trial court observed as follows:
"[The defendant] says he was drunk during the course of the trial. ... The defendant did ask that Mr. Mattocks not represent him although he could assist as elbow counsel, and he asked that he represent himself. I asked the defendant a lot of questions to determine his competence. ... [The defendant] demonstrated at all times a clear mind and ability to represent self during the trial of the cause."
Counsel representing the defendant in this appeal has conceded that the record contains no evidence to support the "brain condition" alleged by the defendant. The findings of the trial court also dispel the defendant's contention that he was under the influence of medication. Thus, the issue has no merit.
VI.
The defendant maintains that he was prejudiced because the trial court permitted him only nineteen days to prepare for trial. Our legislature has provided that " very person accused of any crime ... shall be entitled to fourteen (14) full days ... after arrest and the return of the indictment ... before being tried for such offense." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-105. That statutory requirement was met in this case. The defendant did not request a continuance before trial and cannot now complain that his rights were violated because the trial was commenced as scheduled. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a). More importantly, the defendant has not demonstrated how he was prejudiced by the relatively short duration between the indictment and the trial.
VII.
Lastly, the defendant argues that he was hampered in his defense because the District Attorney General's office refused to provide him with information on jury selection and subpoenas. This issue was not included in the defendant's motion for new trial. Typically, an issue not included as a ground for relief in the motion for new trial is considered waived. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e). Nevertheless, the defendant would not prevail on the merits of the claim. We are aware of no duty on the part of the District Attorney General to provide jury selection information or subpoena information to a pro se defendant. The defendant does not allege any irregularities in the jury selection process at his trial nor does he indicate that there were witnesses essential to his defense whose presence he was unable to secure.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge
CONCUR: David H. Welles, Judge Thomas T. Woodall, Judge
|