Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Roseman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

May 23, 2017


          Assigned on Briefs April 26, 2017 at Knoxville

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marshall County No. 15-CR-87-PCR Franklin L. Russell, Judge

         The Petitioner, Emmett Lamon Roseman, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2013 Marshall County Circuit Court convictions of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, sale of 0.5 grams or more of crack cocaine, delivery of 0.5 grams or more of crack cocaine, and three counts of failure to appear, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty years. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

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

          Wesley Hall (on appeal), Unionville, Tennessee, and Brian Belden (at hearing), Shelbyville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Emmett Lamon Roseman.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Senior Counsel; Robert J. Carter, District Attorney General; and Weakley E. Barnard, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Robert L. Holloway, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., and Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., JJ., joined.



         Factual and Procedural Background

         Plea Acceptance Hearing

         At the plea acceptance hearing, the State provided a factual basis for the Petitioner's guilty pleas. The Petitioner acknowledged that he signed five documents, which constituted his petitions to plead guilty. The Petitioner stated that he understood everything in each document. For each charge, the trial court explained to the Petitioner the potential sentence he might receive based upon potential range classifications. The trial court explained:

And so I don't know what's going to happen at your sentencing hearing. Okay. I'm going to follow the law, but I don't know what's going to happen. If I don't know, General Barnard can't tell you, or your attorney, what's going to happen. If I don't know, your attorney can't tell you what's going to happen, because it's just up in the air.

         During questioning by the trial court, the Petitioner indicated that he understood that he was pleading "open" and acknowledged that no one had made promises to him about what was going to happen at the sentencing hearing.


         At the Petitioner's sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years in the Department of Correction. State v. Emmett Lamon Roseman, No. M2013-02150-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 4071937, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 19, 2014), no perm app. filed. On direct appeal, this court summarized the relevant facts from the Petitioner's sentencing hearing, as follows:

[T]he presentence report, which was introduced at the sentencing hearing, reflects that on January 12, 2011, members of the 17th Judicial District Drug Task Force and detectives with the Lewisburg Police Department utilized the services of a confidential informant (CI). The CI purchased $60 worth of marijuana from the [Petitioner] in the parking lot of an apartment building on Haynes Street in Lewisburg. After the transaction, the [Petitioner] returned to an apartment on the top left side of the building. The agents and detectives watched the building for one or two hours and noticed several individuals arrive and leave from the [Petitioner's] apartment. One of the individuals, who was stopped by Agent Brad Martin, possessed a small bag of marijuana. Officer Tim Miller decided to approach the apartment and perform a "knock-and-talk." He walked up the stairs, looked through the blinds, and saw the [Petitioner] and a young female in the living room. When Officer Miller knocked on the closed door, he saw the female grab a Ziploc bag from the couch and run toward the rear of the apartment. The bag appeared to contain a large amount of marijuana. The [Petitioner] answered the door, and Officer Miller walked down the hall where the female had gone. He noticed a light on in the bathroom off the hall. An empty Ziploc bag was lying on the floor and approximately three ounces of marijuana was floating on the water inside the toilet. The agents performed a consensual search of the [Petitioner] and found $450 of suspected illegal drug proceeds, including $60 from the controlled buy. A subsequent consensual search of the residence revealed two sets of digital scales in the master bedroom. The [Petitioner] spoke with the agents and acknowledged ownership of the marijuana and scales.
The presentence report further reflects that on October 19, 2011, Agent Brad Martin and Officer Tim Miller met with a CI, who told them that the [Petitioner] and Whitney Green were involved in the illegal distribution of cocaine. At approximately 7:04 p.m., the CI called Green and asked to buy $100 worth of crack cocaine. Around 7:21 p.m., Green sent the CI a text message, instructing him to meet her at Kris's Store. The [Petitioner] and Green arrived at the store in a red Ford Focus. The CI approached the car and had a "hand-to-hand exchange" with the [Petitioner]. Afterward, the CI rendezvoused with the agents and relinquished a small, white, plastic bag containing crack cocaine.
The presentence report also reflects that the [Petitioner] had two prior misdemeanor convictions for failure to appear; three convictions of assault; eight convictions of selling marijuana; four convictions of possessing marijuana; one conviction of disorderly conduct; and two convictions of possessing drug paraphernalia.
Renee Howell, a probation officer, testified that she prepared the [Petitioner's] presentence report. She stated that the [Petitioner] previously had probationary sentences revoked on at least two occasions. She also stated that the [Petitioner] was on probation when he committed the three failure to appear ...

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.