Dave’s Weekly criminal case law review January 26, 2015
no. 001
CD which reversed the Defendant’s convictions because the State had not properly elected the offenses for which it sought those convictions.2
Covering opinions and orders issued from January 20, 2015 to January 23, 2015. •
§ Diversion (Eligibility of certain offenses): Offenders of the Drug-Free School Zone Act are eligible for judicial diversion. State v. Shanice Dycus, No. M2012-02297-SCR11-CD. The Defendant pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school along with other charges.3 The trial court found that the offense violating the Drug-Free School Zone Act was eligible for judicial diversion but denied diversion for the Defendant. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court holding that the trial court failed to consider and weigh on the record all the relevant factors in denying judicial diversion although it did agree that the Defendant’s school zone offense was eligible for diversion. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal. It found that the plain language of the Drug-Free School Zone Act does not prohibit diversion and that a person granted judicial diversion is not sentenced nor is a judgment of guilt entered against her. Therefore, a person pleading guilty to the Drug-Free School Zone Act
Supreme Court of the United States ___ § Prison officials can’t stop inmates from growing a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. Holt, a.k.a. Muhammad v. Hobbs, Director of Arkansas Department of Correction, et al, No. 136827.1 § The Court heard oral arguments appealing the decision of United States v. Dennys Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2013). Mr. Rodriguez is asking the Court to adopt a bright line rule stating that “a traffic stop concludes when the tasks related to the reason for the stop are complete.” (Here’s a link to the ScotusBlog page on the case.) • The Tennessee Supreme Court ___ § The State’s application is granted to review State v. Qualls, W2013-01440-CCA-R3-
1
3
Click on the underlined cases to be directed to the opinion. Editor’s note: The editor was defense counsel at trial but did not participate in the intermediate appeal.
Although the Defendant pled guilty to multiple counts, the only count of significance to this issue is her guilty plea for possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver in a school zone.
2
www.PorkAndProcedure.com
•
twitter:
@PorkNProcedure
To receive The Review, email PorkNProcedure@gmail.com, or tweet at it.
-1-
Dave’s Weekly criminal case law review January 26, 2015
no. 001
is eligible to be considered for judicial diversion.4 A hollow victory for the Defendant, though. After a de novo review, the Court found that the trial court correctly denied judicial diversion and reinstated that court’s judgments.
court reversed and remanded because, although the trial court had conducted hearings on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, the ineffectiveness of trial counsel had not been presented and, therefore, had not been waived. - D. Stowers porknprocedure@gmail.com
• The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals ___ § Post-Conviction Procedure (Dismissals without hearings): The trial court’s summary dismissal of the Petitioner’s pro se petition for post-conviction relief is reversed because the Petitioner presented a colorable claim for relief. Gregory Valentine v. State, No. M2014-00977-CCA-R3-PC. The Petitioner entered a best interest guilty plea and received an effective sentence of 12 years and 8 months in which he was to serve 32 months of that sentence in incarceration. After his plea, the Petitioner filed 3 pro se motions to withdraw his guilty plea which were overruled after a hearing by the trial court because no manifest injustice existed. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied by the trial court because it found that the allegations of an invalid guilty plea and ineffectiveness of counsel had been previously raised and considered at a hearing to withdraw his guilty plea. The appellate 4
The Court also held that the Court of Criminal Appeals applied an incorrect standard in determining that the trial court
had not properly considered the Defendant a good candidate for judicial diversion.
www.PorkAndProcedure.com
•
twitter:
@PorkNProcedure
To receive The Review, email PorkNProcedure@gmail.com, or tweet at it.
-2-