DEARICK STOKES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content

DEARICK STOKES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Nov 1, 2019

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

James E. Thomas (at hearing) and Vicki M. Carriker (on appeal), Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Dearick Stokes.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Robert Wade Wilson, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Gavin Smith, Leslie Byrd, and Stephanie Johnson, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WILLIAMS

The Petitioner, Dearick Stokes, was denied post-conviction relief from his convictions for felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery and his effective life sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) interview and subpoena four eyewitnesses who identified another individual as being present at the crime scene; (2) investigate and adequately cross-examine a police officer regarding the crime scene; (3) investigate or present rebuttal witnesses concerning admissions allegedly made by the Petitioner; (4) obtain and review the victim’s cellular phone records; (5) investigate and discuss the case with the Petitioner; and (6) properly investigate a witness for the State and request Jencks material relative to him. The Petitioner additionally contends that either the State committed a Brady violation by failing to provide a witness’s supplemental statement to trial counsel or, if it was provided, counsel’s failure to use it during cross-examination was ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because appellate counsel should have asserted on direct appeal that the trial court (1) improperly denied his motion for a mistrial due to juror intimidation, and (2) committed plain error by allowing a witness to testify as to how he discovered the Petitioner’s real name. After a thorough review of the record, we discern no error and affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Attachments: