QUINCY D. SCOTT v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content

QUINCY D. SCOTT v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Oct 8, 2024

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Quincy D. Scott, Henning, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Abigal H. Rinard, Assistant Attorney General; Stephen Hatchett, District Attorney General; Shari Tayloe and Dorothy Cherry, Assistant District Attorney Generals, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): EASTER

In 2016, Petitioner, Quincy D. Scott, was convicted by a McMinn County jury of aggravated robbery, for which he received a sentence of seventeen years’ incarceration as a Range II, multiple offender at eighty-five percent to be served consecutively to sentences for convictions in other counties. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied review. Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief, alleging the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following a bifurcated hearing only on Petitioner’s appellate counsel claim, the post-conviction court granted a delayed appeal, finding that Petitioner had received the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. A panel of this Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the post-conviction court had failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. On remand, the post-conviction court again heard Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as well as his trial counsel claims. The post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel ineffectively cross- examined the State’s witnesses, that trial counsel failed to file motions to suppress several pieces of evidence, that trial counsel failed to appeal the general sessions court’s bind over of his charges to the grand jury, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that newly discovered evidence proves his actual innocence, and that appellate counsel failed to file a reply brief on appeal.1 After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Attachments: