 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bondurant3/20/1998
t look at a list of money paid to Denise, her immunity agreement, her certified convictions in Tennessee and Alabama, or her juvenile record. He was aware of the worthless checks used for impeachment of Denise Bondurant in the Dugger case; however, he was not interested in those because he did not want to question her regarding her testimony in the Dugger case, even though he acknowledged that the door would not have been opened to the facts of the Dugger case if he had impeached Denise with these materials.
White was not instructed to investigate in preparation for the sentencing hearing. Colley talked to the defendant and his parents before and during the trial about the defendant's life, his drinking habits, his work ethic, and his family life, but it was not for the purpose of having them testify, and he admitted that these conversations were not with the idea that he was going to use the information at sentencing.
Colley testified he was not planning on going to the sentencing stage because he was confident enough about the trial. Other than talking to the defendant's mother while the jury was deliberating in the guilt phase, Colley testified that he did not do anything to prepare for the sentencing hearing.
John Colley was admitted to the bar in October 1986 and practiced law with his father. Prior to Nickell becoming unavailable, John Colley assisted his father on this case, including research on a motion to dismiss based on a speedy trial issue. John Colley filed the memorandum in support of a marital privilege motion and the motion to suppress. The weekend before trial, John Colley started working on his cross-examination of the state's expert witness, Dr. Bass, and he worked on the motion to suppress, which was argued that Monday morning.
During November and December of 1991, John Colley's calendar was filled with court appearances, appointments, and depositions, and he only joined Jerry Colley in this trial when he was not scheduled to be somewhere else. He admitted that he could not afford to neglect the firm's other business by working too much on this case. John Colley was not aware of and did not participate in any preparation for the sentencing hearing. He remembered having at least one conversation with Massey, who said he had a lengthy list of mitigating factors that would apply to the defendant; however, this information was never pursued.
Massey talked on the phone with Jerry Colley about this case and offered information that could be used in mitigation. However, Colley said he did not feel like he was going to get to sentencing, that he was going for an acquittal. The public defender's office did fax some information about sentencing to the Colleys' office while the jury was out in the guilt phase. However, Colley never asked prior to trial for information regarding mitigating proof or regarding what needed to be done at the sentencing hearing.
In denying the motion for new trial, the trial court made the following findings on this issue:
The Court has examined each and every instance cited by Defendant and disagrees with Defendant that he received ineffective assistance in any manner. Defendant was represented by one of the most experienced and talented defense attorneys in this State. It was his theory of the case, joined in by the Defendant that their best defense lay in casting reasonable doubt on the State[']s case. They worked at that theory throughout the trial and most of the incidents now raised as constituting ineffective assistance of counsel result from that trial strategy. The Court finds this issue to be without merit and it is overruled.
A. Commencement of Representation.
<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|