Bailey v. State10/19/2001
Assigned on Briefs September 27, 2000
A Sullivan County jury convicted the petitioner of one count of second degree murder involving the death of his son. For this offense the petitioner received a sentence of twenty years as a Range I, standard offender, and a $50,000 fine. He unsuccessfully brought a direct appeal challenging both his conviction and sentence. Subsequently, he filed a pro se post-conviction petition and was appointed counsel from the public defender's office. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court took this matter under advisement and later issued a detailed order dismissing the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner requested that his appointed attorney withdraw from the case and that he be allowed to bring his appeal pro se. The trial court granted this motion, and the petitioner now brings this appeal raising three issues. More specifically, he asserts that (1) the jury instructions, when viewed overall, effectively denied him "a fair trial and a reliable verdict;" (2) the State engaged in misconduct and denied him a fair trial by withholding exculpatory material; and (3) the prosecuting officer made the result of the petitioner's trial unreliable because the officer perjured himself. After reviewing these issues, we find that all have been waived and/or lack merit. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court is Affirmed.
Jerry L. Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Joseph M. Tipton and James Curwood Witt, Jr., JJ., joined.
OPINION
Factual Background
In deciding the petitioner's case on direct appeal, this Court summarized the facts as follows:
The defendant, a truck driver, fell from a flatbed trailer and injured his spine. The defendant subsequently underwent disc replacement surgery in 1992. He was prescribed a variety of drugs following surgery including Prozac, an anti-depressant, Orudus, a muscle relaxer and pain reliever, Zantac, a digestive aid, Darvocet, a pain reliever, and Valium, an anti-anxiety drug.
On June 8, 1994, the defendant visited his doctor and refilled his prescriptions. He subsequently went to visit his mother who was ill. While visiting his mother, the defendant took each of the aforementioned drugs. When the defendant arrived home later that afternoon, he took an additional dose of Darvocet, Valium, and Zantac tablets. He also began drinking bourbon whiskey.
Prior to the evening of June 8th, it was evident the defendant and his youngest son, Justin, the victim in this case, did not get along. The victim's step-sister testified the defendant did not like Justin, and the defendant had threatened to "blow his [Justin's] brains out" a few days before Justin was murdered. On other occasions, the defendant had threatened Justin, physically assaulted him, and destroyed Justin's stereo. Jason, the defendant's oldest son, told the jury his father had threatened Justin in the past. The defendant told Justin, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of this world."
On the evening in question, the defendant recounted to his sons, Jason and Justin, an incident which upset the defendant. The defendant and Justin encountered the defendant's father-in-law in a grocery store. The defendant and his father-in-law argued over fifty dollars the defendant and his wife owed to the father-in-law. Justin walked away from the argument. This angered the defendant because he wanted Justin to stand by his side and protect him because his physical condition would not permit him to defend himself. The defendant expressed ange
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|