Opinion FlashOctober 7, 2002Volume 8 — Number 176 Following this index are summaries of each case, including its name, first paragraph, author's name, and the names of attorneys for the parties of each opinion. This Issue (IN THIS ORDER):
TBA members can get the full-text versions of these opinions three ways detailed below. All methods require a TBA username and password. If you have forgotten your password, you can look it up on-line at http://www.tba.org/getpassword.mgi . If you are a TBA member, but do not have a username and password, you can receive one online at http://www.tba.org/signup.mgi. Here's how you can obtain full-text version. Click the URL at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This option will allow you to download the original document. Howard H. Vogel HAROLD WAYNE NICHOLS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Court:TSC Attorneys: Ardena J. Garth, District Public Defender, and Mary Ann Green, Assistant Public Defender, Chattanooga, Tennessee; Donald E. Dawson, Post-Conviction Defender, and Catherine Y. Brockenborough, Assistant Post-Conviction Defender, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Harold Wayne Nichols. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Gordon W. Smith, Associate Solicitor General; Gill Robert Geldreich, Assistant Attorney General; William H. Cox, III, District Attorney General; and C. Leland Davis, C. Caldwell Huckabay, and Glenn R. Pruden, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. David M. Eldridge and Jeanne L. Wiggins, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Amicus Curiae, The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and The Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Judge: ANDERSON First Paragraph: The petitioner, Harold Wayne Nichols, filed post-conviction petitions seeking relief from his conviction for felony murder, his sentence of death, and his numerous convictions for aggravated rape, first degree burglary, and larceny upon the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as other legal grounds. After conducting several evidentiary hearings, the trial court denied relief as to the felony murder conviction and sentence of death, but granted partial relief by ordering new sentencing hearings as to the remaining convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the trial court erred by allowing the petitioner to assert his right against self-incrimination during the post-conviction proceedings, yet upheld the trial court's judgment in all other respects. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude: (1) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel based on the failure to investigate and challenge his confessions as false; (2) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel based on the failure to challenge the legality of his arrest; (3) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial based on the failure to present additional mitigating evidence; (4) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial based on the failure to object to misconduct by the prosecution; (5) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial based on the failure to request mitigating instructions; (6) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial based on the failure to raise issues regarding the constitutionality of capital punishment; (7) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial based on the failure to object to the discovery of notes prepared by a defense psychologist on self-incrimination grounds; (8) that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not err in refusing to remand the case for additional DNA testing; (9) that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by addressing the issue of whether the petitioner had a right against self-incrimination in this post-conviction proceeding but the error had no effect on the outcome; and (10) that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous and cumulative error did not require the reversal of the petitioner's convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/nicholshw_opn.wpd HAROLD WAYNE NICHOLS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Court:TSC BIRCH CONCURRING AND DISSENTING http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/nicholshw_condis.wpd STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TOMMY HENRY Court:TCCA Attorneys: Joseph F. Harrison, Assistant Public Defender, Blountville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Tommy Lee Henry. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; P. Robin Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; H. Greeley Wells, Jr., District Attorney General; and Joseph Eugene Perrin, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: WEDEMEYER First Paragraph: The Sullivan County Grand Jury charged the Defendant with one count of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver and with two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. The Defendant subsequently entered an Alford plea to one count of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance and to one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for each offense and ordered that the sentences run consecutively. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the Defendant serve his sentence for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance in the county jail followed by service of his sentence for possession of drug paraphernalia on supervised probation. The Defendant appeals the denial of alternative sentencing with regard to his sentence for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. Finding no error in the record before us, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/henrytl.wpd PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL! GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION! JOIN THE TENNESSEE BAR ASSOCIATION! SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH! UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT! But if you must, visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba.org/op-flash.mgi Home • Contact Us • PageFinder • What's New • Help |
|
© Copyright 2002 Tennessee Bar Association
|