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.

Nabi v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

April 9, 2018

STEVEN TYLER NABI
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2017

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for Robertson County Nos. 74CC2-2013-630, 74CC2-2013-635 William R. Goodman, III, Judge.

         Petitioner, Steven Tyler Nabi, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately prepare for trial, failing to properly cross-examine the State's witnesses at trial, and failing to pursue the issues of the State's lack of DNA evidence and defense of a third party. Petitioner entered guilty pleas following the State's presentation of its evidence at trial. Petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered because he was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the plea acceptance hearing, the trial court failed to properly advise him under Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Petitioner did not understand that his sentence would be served at 85 percent. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded

          William F. Kroeger, Springfield, Tennessee, for the appellant, Steven Tyler Nabi.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ruth Anne Thompson, Senior Counsel; John Wesley Carney, Jr., District Attorney General; and Jason White, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

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

          OPINION

          THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE.

         Procedural history

         Petitioner was indicted by the Robertson County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated robbery in case number 2013-CR-630 and one count each of aggravated robbery, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault in case number 2013-CR-635. A jury trial began in case number 2013-CR-630. Following the State's proof at trial, Petitioner entered guilty pleas to two counts of aggravated robbery, one under each case number, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court ordered Petitioner to serve two twelve-year concurrent sentences.

         Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, in which he asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective and his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. After appointment of counsel, Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, alleging as grounds for relief that: 1) his trial counsel failed to properly cross-examine the State's witnesses; 2) his trial counsel coerced him into entering guilty pleas by advising him that he would receive 30 years' incarceration if he did not accept the negotiated plea agreement; 3) his trial counsel failed to properly prepare for trial; 4) his trial counsel failed to reply to his letters and met with him on only two occasions prior to trial; 5) his trial counsel failed to "push the issue" of the State's lack of DNA evidence; 6) his trial counsel failed to raise the issue of self-defense of a third party; 7) his trial counsel failed to properly attack the credibility of the witnesses; 8) he was coerced by trial counsel to enter guilty pleas; 9) he was in a "trance" or in "shock" during the guilty plea hearing and did not understand the plea colloquy; 9) he was under the influence of marijuana when he entered his guilty pleas; and 10) he would not have entered guilty pleas if his trial counsel had effectively cross-examined the State's witnesses.

         Notably, Petitioner did not assert in either his pro se petition or his amended petition that the trial court failed to adhere to all of the procedural requirements of Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting his guilty pleas. Petitioner asserts on appeal that the trial court failed to explain the maximum possible punishment and failed to inquire about the voluntariness of Petitioner's pleas. Petitioner also argues that the trial court failed to advise Petitioner that evidence of his prior convictions may be considered at sentencing. Petitioner did argue these grounds for relief at the post-conviction hearing without any objection by the State that they were not included in the post-conviction petition as amended.

         In Tennessee, to ensure that guilty pleas are voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered, Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 sets forth, in part, the requirements for guilty pleas.

(1) Advising and Questioning the Defendant. - Before accepting a guilty plea or nolo contendere plea, the court shall address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that he or she understands, the following:
(A) The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered;
(B) the maximum possible penalty and any mandatory minimum penalty;
(C) if the defendant is not represented by an attorney, the right to be represented by counsel - and if necessary have the court appoint counsel - at trial and ...

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.