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.

Armstrong v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

April 6, 2017

DEMETRIUS ARMSTRONG
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs January 5, 2017

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Gibson County No. 9495 Clayburn Peeples, Judge.

         The Petitioner, Demetrius Armstrong, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Gibson County Circuit Court. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

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

          Christie Hopper, Jackson, Tennessee, for the Petitioner, Demetrius Armstrong.

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

          Camille R. McMullen, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Everett Williams and Alan E. Glenn, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE.

         On November 12, 2013, the Petitioner was indicted for two counts of rape, aggravated statutory rape, domestic assault, and child abuse and neglect. On July 14, 2014, the Petitioner pled guilty to one count of attempted rape and, pursuant to a plea agreement, the State dismissed the remaining four counts. As a Range I, Standard Offender, the Petitioner received a sentence of eight years' incarceration at thirty percent.

         Guilty Plea Hearing. At the July 14, 2014 guilty plea hearing, the State summarized the underlying facts as follows:

. . . [O]n August 18th[, ] Humboldt Police investigated an alleged rape from 815 North 23rd Street. The investigation revealed that this man, the [Petitioner, ] was the boyfriend of a lady and had had sex with her 17 year old daughter. The 17 year old daughter suffered from cerebral palsy and was really nonverbal. Although there's a difference of opinion as to what her mental functioning was, physically she couldn't communicate beyond the level of a two or three year old is what the evaluation revealed. This [Petitioner] gave a statement to police admitting that he had had what he described as consensual sex with the victim, so we're dealing with a potential rape based on lack of consent because of her inability to give consent and a potential aggravated statutory rape based on the age differences in the parties.

         When asked by the trial court if the State's recitation of the facts was correct, the Petitioner responded, "That's what on the paper; yes, sir." The court explained to the Petitioner the rights he would waive by pleading guilty, including his right to a jury trial, his right to confront witnesses, and his right to an appeal. The Petitioner indicated that he understood these rights and his plea agreement and that he was satisfied with his representation by trial counsel. The trial court also confirmed that the Petitioner understood he would be required to comply with the Tennessee Sexual Offender's Registry as well as community supervision for life. Upon concluding that the Petitioner's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, the trial court accepted the Petitioner's guilty plea.

         Two days later, on July 16, 2014, the Petitioner filed a pro se "Motion for Correction or Reduction of Sentence or Post[-]Conviction Relief" requesting that the trial court transfer him to a different institution with a treatment program for sex offenders. The Petitioner also filed a September 23, 2014 letter requesting the appointment of counsel to assist him in filing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and requesting a new trial. After the appointment of counsel, an amended petition, which incorporated the Petitioner's prior pro se filings, was filed on October 8, 2015. The amended petition alleged, inter alia, that the State failed to provide exculpatory DNA evidence and that, if he had known about the absence of DNA evidence against him, he would not have entered into the plea agreement.

         Post-Conviction ...


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.