HENRY LEE JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content

HENRY LEE JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Mar 2, 2022

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Justyna Garbaczewska Scalpone, Post-Conviction Defender; Deborah Y. Drew, Deputy Post-Conviction Defender; Andrew L. Harris and Kelly A. Gleason, Assistant Post- Conviction Defenders, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Henry Lee Jones.

Attorneys 2: Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General; Cody N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Steve Jones, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): EASTER

Henry Lee Jones, Petitioner, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief with the assistance of the Office of the Post-Conviction Defender (“OPCD”). The post-conviction court determined that the petition stated a colorable claim and appointed the OPCD to represent Petitioner. Shortly thereafter, the effects of COVID-19 began to impact and impede the day-to-day operations of parts of the Tennessee court system. The OPCD, citing the voluminous record and inability to fully investigate potential claims because of the impact of COVID-19, sought several extensions of time in which to file an amended petition. Seven months after the OPCD was appointed to represent Petitioner, the post- conviction court removed the OPCD from representation and appointed private counsel to represent Petitioner without notice or a hearing. The OPCD sought an extraordinary appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 10 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Court granted the application and directed the parties to address the following issues: (1) “whether the post-conviction court abused its discretion in removing the [OPCD] as counsel of record;” and (2) “whether the [OPCD] has the authority to act as counsel of record for [Petitioner] in this Court.” After review, we determine that the OPCD had the authority to appeal the removal and that the post-conviction court improperly removed the OPCD from the case. As a result, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: