 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reid v. State3/29/2004
y that evening. Defendant claimed his only interests centered on drugs and females.
On cross-examination, Defendant explained that, even though he had not done anything wrong, he ran from the police because he feared for his life. The Chattanooga police had recently killed one of his friends, and Defendant believed that the police might kill him too. With regard to the victims' testimony that Defendant carried a gun, he claimed that all three witnesses were either lying or must have confused him with someone else. Defendant claimed that he was far too busy running away to recall anything about the shooting incident, except for hearing gunshots.
State v. Anthony Reid, No. E2000-02619-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 818205, at *1-7 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, July 20, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 27, 2001).
In his amended petition for post-conviction relief, the Petitioner alleged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. The Petitioner also alleged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal when his trial counsel, William J. Brown ("Counsel"), failed to raise the issue of the sufficiency of the convicting evidence on direct appeal following the Petitioner's convictions. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief, and the Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. The Petitioner alleges that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner avers that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel because Counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence on direct appeal. Further, the Petitioner urges this Court to hold that "in all criminal appeals as of right that if the issue of sufficiency of the evidence is not presented to the appellate court, it is per se ineffective assistance of counsel."
The following evidence was presented at the post-conviction hearing. The Petitioner testified that, after his conviction but before his appeal, Counsel spoke with him only one time. The Petitioner explained that he raised "about 10 issues" that he really wanted Counsel to pursue on direct appeal when they spoke. The Petitioner stated that Counsel only raised three of these issues. The Petitioner recounted that he wrote Counsel a letter after he "had gone through the appeal to the Court of Appeals" asking him to raise several additional issues including: (1) whether evidence presented was sufficient to support a conviction; (2) whether it was possible to be convicted of first degree murder while one of the co-defendants was convicted of criminally negligent homicide; (3) whether he could be convicted of first degree murder if the victim died because he was "unplugged" in the Intensive Care Unit; (4) whether charges could be brought against a witness, Massengill, for false statements made while testifying; (5) whether the witnesses were allowed to talk with each other and to the prosecutor after the proceedings started but before the witnesses testified; (6) what could be done about inconsistent statements made by other witnesses who testified; (7) whether the use of inmates for the photo line-up violated his rights; and (8) whether money and property missing from evidence affected the Petitioner's credibility at trial or prevented Counsel from effectively cross-examining witnesses at trial. The Petitioner explained that, while he wrote the letter to Counsel after he "had gone through the appeal to the Court of Appeals," he had expressed to Counsel his desire to raise these issues on appeal prior to Counsel filing the notice of appeal.
The Petitioner testifie
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|