Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville
Assigned on Briefs December 20, 2016
from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 106730, 105064,
106729, 106731 Steven Wayne Sword, Judge
Petitioner, Billy Richard Hicks, appeals the post-conviction
court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief
in which he challenged his convictions for driving under the
influence ("DUI"), tenth offense; violation of the
motor vehicle habitual offender ("MVHO") statute;
driving on a revoked license, second or subsequent
conviction; and criminal impersonation. On appeal, the
Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective in
failing to show the video of the Petitioner's performance
on the field sobriety tests to the Petitioner prior to trial.
We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Liddell Kirk, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Billy
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee
W. Turner, Senior Counsel; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney
General; and Kenneth F. Irvine, Jr., Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Everett Williams, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J. and James Curwood Witt, Jr.,
EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
an officer stopped him for driving without a seatbelt on
November 6, 2008, the Petitioner was convicted of DUI, tenth
offense; violation of the MVHO statute; driving on a revoked
license, second or subsequent conviction; and criminal
impersonation. See State v. William Richard Hicks,
No. E2012-00063-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 5677351, at *1 (Tenn.
Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn.
Apr. 9, 2014). The evidence presented at trial as summarized
by this court on direct appeal was as follows:
The events resulting in these convictions occurred on the
early morning of November 6, 2008, when the defendant was
stopped for driving without a seatbelt and was unable to
produce a driver's license. He provided to the officer a
false name, date of birth, and social security number.
Detecting an odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath,
the officer directed that the defendant perform three
different field sobriety tests, two of which the defendant,
who had refused to submit to a blood alcohol test, failed.
Subsequently, it was determined that the defendant's
driver's license had been revoked and that on November
13, 2001, he had been declared a habitual motor vehicle
to the beginning of the trial, the Petitioner stated that he
had not yet viewed the video of the stop, and trial counsel
acknowledged that he had been unable to show the video to the
Petitioner because his computer equipment malfunctioned. The
Petitioner stated that trial counsel briefly reviewed the
State's discovery with him for approximately forty-five
minutes. Trial counsel stated that he had reviewed the
State's discovery and was prepared to proceed with the
portion of the video of the Petitioner's stop depicting
his performance on the field sobriety tests was presented at
trial during the testimony of the arresting officer.
Following the arresting officer's testimony, trial
counsel announced that the Petitioner wished to view the
video recording and said that trial counsel was unable to
play the video recording for the Petitioner at the jail. The
trial court recessed for lunch to allow the Petitioner the
opportunity to view the video. Following the recess, the
trial court ...