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.

Hendricks v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

July 26, 2017

MARQUIS D. HENDRICKS
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs: June 27, 2017.

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 105618 Steven Wayne Sword, Judge

         The 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.

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

          J. 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.

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

          OPINION.

          ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE.

         Factual and Procedural History

         A Knox 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 crack cocaine.
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 Petitioner] ...

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.