KHALFANI MARION v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Chandra Williams on Nov 20, 2015

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Carlissa Andranette Shaw, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Khalfani Marion.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Jeffrey D. Zentner, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Bryce Hulon Phillips, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): PAGE

Petitioner, Khalfani Marion, was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony. After merger of the four counts of aggravated robbery into two counts of aggravated robbery, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of twenty years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and nine years for each aggravated robbery conviction. Following petitioner?s unsuccessful direct appeal, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief. Appealing therefrom, petitioner raises eight instances of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) whether trial counsel reasonably investigated petitioner?s case; (2) whether trial counsel erred in failing to file a motion to sever petitioner?s case from his codefendants; (3) whether trial counsel erred by failing to have petitioner sentenced under the 1989 Sentencing Act as written prior to the 2005 amendments; (4) whether trial counsel failed to object to the trial court?s decision not to instruct the jury on facilitation; (5) whether trial counsel erred by failing to introduce evidence of petitioner?s mental health history; (6) whether trial counsel failed to advise petitioner of the State?s plea offer and sentence exposure; (7) whether trial counsel failed to impeach the State?s witnesses on their identification of petitioner; and (8) whether trial counsel erred in failing to present mitigating evidence at the sentencing hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Attachments: