Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville
Session March 27, 2018
from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 102203, 103020G.
Scott Green, Judge
Petitioner, Quincy Moutry, appeals the post-conviction
court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief
in which he challenged his convictions for carjacking,
aggravated robbery, and possession of a firearm with the
intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous
felony and his effective twenty-seven-year sentence. On
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel at trial. Upon reviewing the record and
the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
M. Wojcik (on appeal) and Mary Ward (at hearing), Knoxville,
Tennessee, for the appellant, Quincy Moutry.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Courtney N. Orr, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen,
District Attorney General; and Takisha Fitzgerald, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
Everett Williams, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Robert L. Holloway, Jr., and J. Ross Dyer, JJ., joined.
EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner's convictions stem from his participation in a
carjacking. The Petitioner was charged through a presentment,
which stated that the offenses occurred on March 13, 2008.
See State v. Quincy D. Moutry, No.
E2011-02531-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 3105616, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. June 17, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov.
13, 2013). After the jury was sworn on the day of trial, the
prosecutor informed the trial court that she believed the
State previously had filed a motion to amend the indictment
to change the offense date to March 4, 2008, and that the
trial court had not yet ruled on the motion. Id.
Trial counsel stated that he had not been served with an
amendment and objected to the amendment. Id. In
response to questioning by the trial court, trial counsel
stated that he did not file a notice of an alibi defense and
maintained that the Petitioner was in custody on March 13,
the offense date listed in the presentment. Id. The
prosecutor responded that based upon the discovery provided
to the defense, the defense was on notice that the offense
date was March 4. Id. The trial court permitted the
amendment, allowing the charges to be read as "a day in
victim testified at trial that on the day of the offenses,
she and the Petitioner arranged to meet at a nearby Burger
King parking lot after the Petitioner called her and stated
that he recently had broken up with his girlfriend.
Id. at *2. When the victim arrived, the Petitioner
exited a Dodge Durango and entered the victim's car.
Id. The Petitioner exchanged text messages with
someone and exited the victim's car. Id. Another
man came from the Durango, entered the victim's car, and
pointed a gun at her. Id. She tried to flee as the
man was attempting to cock the gun. Id. Another
individual came from the direction of the Durango and began
pistol-whipping the victim in an attempt to force her back
inside her car. Id. The men fled in the victim's
car after seeing someone exit Burger King. Id.
victim called the Petitioner and then 9-1-1. Id. She
then called the Petitioner again and was speaking to him when
the police arrived at Burger King. Id. Officers
located the victim's abandoned car near the scene.
Id. A copy of the victim's cellular phone
records and a printout of the 9-1-1 calls on March 4, 2008,
were entered into evidence. Id. The victim later
identified the Petitioner in a photographic array that she
signed and dated March 14, 2008. Id. On
cross-examination, the victim testified that she believed she
met with the detective and viewed the photographic arrays on
the day following the offenses. Id.
subsequently initiated a traffic stop of the Durango.
Id. at *3. A passenger exited the vehicle and fled,
evading arrest. Id. The officers located the
Petitioner's cellular phone inside the Durango, and
records established that the cellular phone had been used to
call the victim just prior to the offenses. Id.
March 5, 2008, at approximately 1:00 a.m., the Petitioner
called the police and reported that his Durango was missing.
Id. When Officer Darrell Sexton went to the
Petitioner's residence, the Petitioner refused to allow
Officer Sexton inside the residence and spoke to him through
a security door. Id. The Petitioner maintained that
he allowed a friend to borrow the vehicle but that the friend
failed to return it. Id. The Petitioner stated that
his cellular phone was still inside the vehicle. Id.
Officer Sexton testified that the Petitioner's clothes
were "consistent" with the clothes of the person
who had evaded arrest earlier in the evening. Id.
Joshua Shaffer interviewed the Petitioner about the offenses
after the victim identified him in the photographic array.
Id. Although the Petitioner admitted to knowing the
victim, he denied participating in the offenses. Id.
On cross-examination, Officer Shaffer testified that the
Petitioner was arrested on March 10, 2008, on an unrelated
charge and remained in custody until ...