Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bobo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

November 16, 2016

DARYL BOBO
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs August 16, 2016 at Knoxville

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 11-03987 Chris B. Craft, Judge

         The Petitioner, Daryl Bobo, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective (1) in failing to adequately explain to him the terms of a plea offer made by the State; (2) in failing to adequately meet with and prepare him for trial; and (3) for failing to adequately cross-examine the State's witnesses. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

          Sharon Fortner, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Daryl Bobo.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Caitlin Smith, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Melanie Headley Cox, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which James Curwood Witt, Jr., and Norma McGee Ogle, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The Petitioner was convicted in 2013 of possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free school zone and possession with intent to sell 0.5 ounces or more of marijuana in a drug-free school zone and received a total effective sentence of sixty years' incarceration. See State v. Daryl Bobo, No. W2013-02008-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 3954066, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 13, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2014). The evidence at trial established that the Petitioner was seen by a Memphis Police Department (MPD) detective talking to two other men and conducting what appeared to be a "hand-to-hand" drug transaction with one of the men. Id. As the detective approached the men, the Petitioner "began walking away from the other two men" and went out of his way to avoid the detective. Id. Eventually, the Petitioner entered a nearby Burger King restaurant. Id.

         Two other MPD officers followed the Petitioner inside the Burger King. Bobo, 2014 WL 3954066, at *2. The officers saw the Petitioner "immediately" enter the restroom and followed him. Id. Once inside the restroom, the officers saw the Petitioner pull "a black plastic bag" out from one of his pockets "while standing at a urinal." Id. Fearing that the Petitioner was about to dispose of evidence, the officers seized the Petitioner and the bag. Id. The bag contained thirty-seven "baggies" of marijuana, weighing in total 33.5 grams, and six rocks of crack cocaine, weighing in total 1.2 grams. Id. at *2-3. The evidence also established that the Burger King was approximately 700 feet from a nearby high school. Id. Based upon the foregoing, the jury convicted the Petitioner of the offenses listed above. Id. at *3.

         A panel of this court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions on direct appeal and our supreme court declined to review that decision. Bobo, 2014 WL 3954066, at *1. On March 3, 2015, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging numerous constitutional violations, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Shortly thereafter, the Petitioner filed a pro se amended petition for post-conviction relief, specifically alleging that trial counsel "failed to adequately investigate [his] case" and "failed to adequately confer with [him] about the effect that going to trial would have on [his] sentencing."

         An attorney was appointed to represent the Petitioner, and she filed a second amended petition for post-conviction relief. The second amended petition alleged several instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, including that trial counsel failed to file a suppression motion, failed to "properly investigate, " failed to "review [the] Petitioner's legal rights before he made the decision to go to trial" and to sufficiently inform him of the "consequences [of] choosing to go to trial, " and failed to "properly communicate with [the] Petitioner and prepare him for trial."

         The Petitioner testified at the post-conviction hearing that he and his trial counsel "stayed arguing" about his case. The Petitioner claimed that he would discuss his case with trial counsel and ask trial counsel to investigate certain things or file specific motions but that trial counsel would later say that "he didn't remember anything" about those discussions. The Petitioner also claimed that trial counsel would only meet with him at his court dates or the day before his court dates. According to the Petitioner, trial counsel never met with him while he was in jail, never discussed trial strategy or possible defenses with him, never discussed the sentencing range he faced if ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.