Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville
MARQUIS D. HENDRICKS
STATE OF TENNESSEE
Assigned on Briefs: June 27, 2017.
from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 105618 Steven
Wayne Sword, Judge
Petitioner, Marquis D. Hendricks, was convicted of first
degree murder, attempted first degree murder, possession of
cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of cocaine with
intent to sell, and simple possession of marijuana. The
Petitioner received an effective sentence of life in prison
for the convictions. The Petitioner filed a petition for
post-conviction relief arguing that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to argue
and request jury instructions on the statutory defenses of
duress and necessity. Following a hearing, the
post-conviction court found that there was no deficient
performance by trial counsel because the facts did not
support either statutory defense and denied the petition.
After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the
post-conviction court's denial of relief.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Liddell Kirk, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Marquis D. Hendricks.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Robert
W. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General; Charme Allen, District
Attorney General; and Kevin Allen, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
L. Holloway, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., and Camille R. McMullen, JJ.,
L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE.
and Procedural History
County jury found the Petitioner guilty of first degree
murder, attempted first degree murder, possession of cocaine
with intent to deliver, possession of cocaine with intent to
sell, and simple possession of marijuana, and the trial court
imposed a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee
Department of Correction. See State v. Marquis Dashawn
Hendricks, E2013-00346-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 1330184, at *3
(Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 3, 2014), perm. app. denied
(Tenn. Sept. 18, 2014). On direct appeal, this court
summarized the facts, as follows:
The facts giving rise to [the Petitioner]'s indictment
and ultimate convictions arose from events that took place in
Knoxville between November 12 and 13, 2012.
Nathaniel Bolding and Keith Hammock, brothers-in-law, lived
in Lake City at the time of the incidents. Mr. Bolding, his
wife, and two children shared a home in Lake City with his
mother-in-law, Mr. Hammock, and Mr. Hammock's daughter.
Mr. Hammock and Mr. Bolding were also good friends with a
penchant for partying, drinking, and drug use. Mr. Bolding
first established a relationship with [the Petitioner] when
he lived at the Lonsdale housing project in Knoxville before
moving to Lake City. In order to purchase crack cocaine from
[the Petitioner], Mr. Bolding renewed his relationship with
[the Petitioner] several weeks prior to the incidents that
took place in November of 2012.
At some point between the evening of November 12 and the
morning of November 13, 2012, Mr. Hammock and Mr. Bolding
went from Lake City to Knoxville several times to purchase
drugs from [the Petitioner]. During one of the transactions,
both Mr. Hammock and Mr. Bolding were shot as they were
driving away from the purchase place. Mr. Hammock died as a
result of his wounds. Mr. Bolding was shot in the right arm.
As a result of a police investigation, [the Petitioner] was
indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury in February of 2013
for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder,
delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine while employing a
deadly weapon, possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine
with intent to sell, and possession of more than one-half
ounce but not more than ten pounds of marijuana with intent
to sell. The case proceeded to trial.
At trial, Nathaniel Bolding testified. At the time of trial,
he was twenty-nine years old and lived and worked at a
rehabilitation center in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Bolding
recalled his relationship with his deceased brother-in-law,
Mr. Hammock. He explained that the two men were good friends
but that they were not good influences on each other because
they partied, drank, and used drugs together.
About two weeks prior to Mr. Hammock's death, Mr. Bolding
took Mr. Hammock to [the Petitioner]'s apartment to buy
Mr. Bolding recalled that the day prior to Mr. Hammock's
death, Mr. Hammock traded [the Petitioner] a television worth
$2, 000 for $100 worth of crack cocaine. According to Mr.
Bolding, [the Petitioner] only gave them fifty dollars[']
worth of crack cocaine. Mr. Bolding and Mr. Hammock smoked
the crack cocaine.
On the day of Mr. Hammock's death, Mr. Hammock pawned a
pressure washer for cash. The men bought a bottle of tequila
with the money. Subsequently, the men went to [the
Petitioner]'s apartment where Mr. Hammock gave [the
Petitioner] $100 so that he could get his television back
from [the Petitioner]. [The Petitioner] informed Mr. Hammock
that the television was at Chris Page's house. When Mr.
Bolding and Mr. Hammock went to Mr. Page's house, they
did not find the television.
At some point that same day, Mr. Hammock and Mr. Bolding
bought $80 of crack cocaine from [the Petitioner]. The men
returned to Lake City where they sat around a fire and smoked
crack cocaine and marijuana. The marijuana was purchased from
Chris Page earlier that same day. The men eventually ran out
of crack cocaine so they decided to drive to Knoxville to
purchase more crack cocaine. Mr. Hammock called [the
Petitioner]. The men went back to Knoxville around 10:30 p.m.
They bought another $80 worth of crack cocaine and smoked it
on the way back to Lake City.
Desperate for more drugs, the men decided to return to
Knoxville once more to purchase crack cocaine from [the
Petitioner]. According to Mr. Bolding, the men had
approximately thirty dollars between the two of them. They
arrived on Texas Avenue at around 1:30 a.m. [The Petitioner]
sold them more crack cocaine. The men returned to Lake City
where they smoked the crack cocaine and drank the rest of the
tequila. While they were drinking and using drugs, Mr.
Hammock became agitated as he thought about the television
that he lost to [the Petitioner]. The more upset Mr. Hammock
became, the more he wanted to return to Knoxville.
At some point during the night or early morning, Mr. Bolding
stated that the two men left Lake City again to go to the
meth[a]done clinic in Knoxville. When they left town, Mr.
Bolding drove the car because Mr. Hammock was too intoxicated
to drive. The men decided that they would purchase more crack
cocaine from [the Petitioner] and if [the Petitioner] did not
return the television to Mr. Hammock[, ] they would drive off
without paying for the drugs.
As the men approached [the Petitioner]'s apartment in
their car, [the Petitioner] came out to meet the car. [The
Petitioner] leaned over and handed the drugs to Mr. Hammock,
in the passenger seat. When Mr. Hammock asked [the
Petitioner] for his television, [the Petitioner] told him
that he did not have the television. Mr. Hammock instructed
Mr. Bolding to drive away. As they drove away, [the