QUANTEL TAYLOR v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Amelia Ferrell Knisely on May 31, 2016

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Justin P. Jones, Brownsville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Quantel Taylor.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Senior Counsel, Garry G. Brown, District Attorney General; and Hillary Lawler Parham, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WOODALL

Petitioner, Quantel Taylor, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court. See Taylor v. State, 443 S.W.3d 80 (Tenn. 2014). In his post-conviction petition, Petitioner alleged, in part, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview his three co-defendants. Petitioner subpoenaed the co-defendants to testify at the post-conviction hearing. The post-conviction court granted the State's motion to quash subpoenas for the co- defendants, who were incarcerated. A panel of this court concluded that the post- conviction court erred, but held that the error was harmless under the circumstances. Quantel Taylor v. State, No. W2012-00760-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL 6228151 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, April 29, 2013). Our supreme court reversed the decision of this court, holding that the post-conviction court committed prejudicial error by granting the State's motion to quash because the post-conviction court applied an incorrect legal standard. Taylor, 443 S.W.3d at 86. The court remanded the case for reconsideration of the motion to quash under the proper standard. On remand, the post-conviction court denied the State?s motion to quash, and all three co-defendants were subpoenaed for an evidentiary hearing. Two of Petitioner's co-defendants, Allen and Bricco, refused to take the stand. The third co-defendant, Spivey, took the stand and refused to testify. The post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief. Petitioner appealed. We conclude that he has failed to establish that he is entitled to post-conviction relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.