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.

State v. Baker

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

April 26, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
TIMOTHY LAMAR BAKER

          March 21, 2017 Session at Lincoln Memorial University [1]

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County Nos. C-22508, C-23660 Tammy M. Harrington, Judge

         The defendant, Timothy Lamar Baker, appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea arguing that he provided fair and just reasons in support of his motion and that the trial court failed to engage in the proper analysis. After our review of the record, briefs and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

          Robert White, Maryville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Timothy Lamar Baker.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Courtney N. Orr, Assistant Attorney General; Mike L. Flynn, District Attorney General; and Matthew Dunn, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          J. Ross Dyer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Everett Williams and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          J. ROSS DYER, JUDGE

         Facts and Procedural History

         The Blount County Grand Jury indicted the defendant in case number C-22508 with one count of delivery of a schedule II controlled substance in a drug-free zone and in case number C-23660 with one count of sale or delivery of a schedule II controlled substance and one count of sale or delivery of a schedule IV controlled substance. The indictment in case number C-22508 was later amended to remove the drug-free zone enhancement. On November 9, 2015, the defendant pled guilty to all counts as charged in the indictments. As part of the negotiated plea agreement, the parties asked for sentencing to be delayed until January 2016, and the State informed the trial court that the parties would likely have an agreement on sentencing at that time; however, "if there are further problems, the understanding is that at that time we would be requesting sentencing from the Court."

         On December 28, 2015, the State filed a motion requesting revocation of the defendant's bond because he was arrested on December 14, 2015, and subsequently charged with possession of 0.5 or more grams of cocaine, driving under the influence, and two counts of simple possession. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's bond on March 1, 2016.

         On March 4, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea because "the State no longer wants to continue with the [sentencing] agreement." After a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's motion. Subsequently, on June 2, 2015, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II offender to 10 years for delivery of a schedule II controlled substance in case number C-22508 and 10 years for sale or delivery of a schedule II controlled substance and eight years for sale or delivery of a schedule IV controlled substance in case number C-23660. The trial court also ordered the sentences in the two cases to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of 20 years. This timely appeal followed.

         Analysis

         On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he "presented multiple fair and just reasons" in support of his motion. He also argues that the trial court "failed to engage in the appropriate required analysis." After reviewing the record in light of the factors in State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 446 (Tenn. 2010), we conclude that, while the trial court erred in not analyzing all the Phelps factors, ...


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.