Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville
Assigned on Briefs November 18, 2014
On Remand April 13, 2015
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 10-2275 Steven Wayne Sword, Judge
J. Liddell Kirk, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the petitioner, Jerry Rommell Gray.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Jeffrey D. Zentner, Assistant Attorney General; Mike Flynn, District Attorney General; and Kevin Allen, Assistant District Attorney General, for the respondent, State of Tennessee.
Timothy L. Easter, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Everett Williams and Robert W. Wedemeyer, JJ., joined.
OPINION ON REMAND
TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE
This matter is before this Court on remand from the supreme court following Petitioner's appeal of the post-conviction court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief and our subsequent opinion reversing and remanding the judgment of the post-conviction court. This Court examined the convoluted procedural posture of this case in our original opinion. See Jerry Rommell Gray v. State, No. E2014-00849-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 6876184, at *1-3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2014), perm. app. granted (Tenn. Apr. 13, 2015).
The Petitioner was convicted of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery on February 24, 2010. A premature notice of appeal was filed before the sentencing hearing. An untimely motion for new trial was filed after the judgments became final. The trial court did not hear the untimely motion.
On direct appeal, this Court reviewed the issues presented by Petitioner in the untimely motion for new trial and on appeal for plain error only, with the exception of the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding no plain error, we affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Jerry Rommell Gray, 2012 WL 2870264, at *1.
Petitioner then filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief for his convictions for which he received a life sentence plus fifteen years. Petitioner claimed that his petition was untimely filed but asserted that a new rule of constitutional law, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial misconduct mandated relief.
After Petitioner filed his original pro se petition for post-conviction relief, the post-conviction court appointed counsel and an amended petition was filed. In the amended petition, Petitioner asserted that trial counsel was ineffective for filing a premature notice of appeal and for filing an untimely motion for new trial. Petitioner complained that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel ...