 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reid v. State3/29/2004
d that, after he was convicted, he mostly communicated with Counsel through letters because he "couldn't really get on the phone too much because it was a maximum security lock-down." The Petitioner stated that he did not have an opportunity to discuss his appeal with Counsel in person before Counsel filed the appellate brief.
The Petitioner testified that he asked Counsel to file a motion for a change of venue and the trial court denied the motion, but that Counsel did not raise this issue on appeal. The Petitioner testified that, in his petition for post-conviction relief, he raised the issue that the make-up of the jury violated his equal protection rights because there was not a representative mix of white people and black people on the jury. The Petitioner explained that he wanted a "half and half jury" made up equally of black people and white people, however, when the post-conviction court asked if he remembered how many black people were on the jury, the Petitioner stated, "I think . . . it probably was just one or two." The Petitioner acknowledged that the issue of the jury's make-up was not raised on appeal, nor was it addressed in his letter to Counsel, but stated that either Counsel or Scott Kanavos, the Petitioner's attorney before Counsel, had filed a motion regarding the make-up of the jury. On cross-examination, the Petitioner explained that, while he testified that there may have been one or two black jurors in the jury panel, he was not sure if there were any at all. When asked if he remembered the State striking any potential jurors who were black during voir dire, the Petitioner stated that he could not remember that happening.
The Petitioner testified that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses, including negligent homicide and facilitation, although he admitted that he "didn't recall at all" the jury instructions from his trial. When asked by the post-conviction court how the allegation that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses made it into the post-conviction petition, the Petitioner explained, "I kind of figured that if they had convicted me of second degree murder that facilitation or criminally negligent homicide wasn't mentioned to them."
The Petitioner testified that he did not believe he received effective assistance of counsel. He explained that after the conviction, he spoke with Counsel only one time and that the conversation only lasted five minutes. The Petitioner stated that after the notice of appeal was filed his only interactions with Counsel were through written correspondence. The Petitioner explained that he made it clear to Counsel that he wanted the sufficiency of the convicting evidence issue raised on appeal.
The Petitioner testified that Counsel did raise the issue of the sufficiency of the convicting evidence in the motion for new trial, but that the motion was denied. The State then read the following portion of this Court's opinion on direct appeal which addressed the sufficiency of the convicting evidence:
During the trial, the State made out a strong case against Defendant, presenting substantial proof from which the jury could determine that Defendant was guilty of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant claimed that he was not directly involved in the robbery or the shooting, yet three eyewitnesses testified that he was present with a gun and that he actively participated in the robbery. One of the eyewitnesses actually observed Defendant shoot the victim who subsequently died. Defendant claimed that these eyewitnesses either committed perjury or mistakenly confused him with someone else, yet presented no
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.
|
|