Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville
Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos. 236894,
278379 Don W. Poole, Judge
Petitioner, Randall Turner, filed a motion to reopen his
post-conviction petition in which he challenged his guilty
pleas to first degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, and two
counts of aggravated robbery and his effective sentence of
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The
post-conviction court denied the motion, and the Petitioner
subsequently filed two motions to rehear, both of which the
post-conviction court denied. The Petitioner filed a notice
of appeal pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Upon reviewing the record and the
applicable law, we dismiss the appeal.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
Randall Turner, Henning, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Courtney N. Orr, Assistant Attorney General; and Neal
Pinkston, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State
Everett Williams, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Robert W. Wedemeyer, J.,
EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE.
2001, the Petitioner pled guilty to first degree murder,
aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of aggravated robbery
and received an effective sentence of life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole. In June 2001, the
Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction
relief. Following the appointment of counsel and the filing
of an amended petition, the Petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss his petition, asserting that he no longer wished to
pursue post-conviction relief. On February 6, 2003, the
post-conviction court dismissed the petition.
2010, the Petitioner filed a pro se "Motion to Vacate
Convictions, " which the trial court denied. On appeal,
this court considered the motion as a post-conviction relief
petition and held that the petition was untimely. See
Randall Turner v. State, No. E2011-00110-CCA-R3-PC, 2011
WL 2416927, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 13, 2011). The
Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
which the habeas corpus court denied, and this court affirmed
the habeas corpus court's judgment on appeal. See
Randall Turner v. Bruce Westbrooks, Warden, No.
E2012-00093-CCA-R3-HC, 2012 WL 5258266, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Oct. 24, 2012).
December 2012, the Petitioner filed a "Petition" in
which he alleged that he was actually innocent of the
offenses and that he was coerced into pleading guilty as a
result of trial counsel's conspiring with state
officials. Randall Turner v. State, No.
E2013-01515-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 1018213, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Mar. 17, 2014). He also sought recusal of the judge
presiding over the post-conviction court. Id. The
post-conviction court entered an order denying the recusal
request and dismissing the petition. Id. The
Petitioner filed multiple other pleadings, including a motion
to reconsider. Id. The post-conviction court filed a
subsequent order considering the Petitioner's pleadings
as petitions for post-conviction relief and denied the
petitions as untimely. Id. at *2. On appeal, this
court affirmed the dismissal of the petitions, concluding
that the post-conviction petitions, which contained
substantially the same issues as the 2010 petition, were
Petitioner subsequently filed a post-conviction petition in
which he sought DNA testing of evidence pursuant to the
Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. Randall Turner
v. State, No. E2013-01565-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 1369903, at
*1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 7, 2014). The post-conviction
denied the petition, and this court affirmed the
post-conviction court's judgment on appeal. Id.
1, 2016, the Petitioner filed a "Motion to Re-Open
Post-Conviction Petition to Correct Manifest Injustice."
The Petitioner argued that trial counsel, the State, and the
trial court conspired to compel his guilty pleas by
postponing decisions on his motion to suppress evidence and
his motion to dismiss and that the pleas resulted in a
sentence that violated the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. The Petitioner also argued that he was
effectively deprived of counsel due to trial counsel's
failure to inform the trial court that the Petitioner filed a
malpractice action against trial counsel. On June 6, 2016,
the post-conviction court entered an order in which it
considered the Petitioner's motion as a ...