LEONARD ALLEN, a.k.a. Lenny Allen v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 23, 2014

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Jason Chaffin, Nashville, Tennessee for the petitioner, Leonard Allen.

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Cailtin E.D. Smith, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General; and Dan Hamm, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): SMITH

On January 3, 2003 the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner, Leonard Allen, for especially aggravated robbery. Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of the charged offense. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to twenty years of incarceration. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition to plead guilty to aggravated robbery in the same case. The trial court, upon agreement of the parties, vacated the conviction for especially aggravated robbery and accepted a plea agreement to aggravated robbery with a sentence of ten years at thirty percent with credit for time served and the balance of the sentence to be served on probation. Petitioner appealed, challenging various aspects of his original conviction as well as the guilty plea. See State v. Leonard Allen, No. M2007-02581-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 1344462 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, April 5, 2011), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. July 14, 2011). On direct appeal, this Court invalidated the plea agreement, finding, among other things, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the plea agreement where Petitioner had already filed a notice of appeal. This Court then reinstated Petitioner’s conviction for especially aggravated robbery. On remand, the trial court reinstated the accompanying twenty-year sentence. Subsequently, Petitioner sought post-conviction relief in which he argued, inter alia, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court entered an order denying Petitioner relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief based on ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court denying the petition for relief.