Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs March 21, 2018
from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. CR-160292
Joseph Woodruff, Judge
Petitioner, Joseph Kantrell Norris, appeals from the denial
of post-conviction relief by the Williamson County Circuit
Court. In this appeal, he argues that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. Upon our review, we affirm the
judgment of the post-conviction court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Matthew J. Crigger, Brentwood, Tennessee for the Petitioner,
Joseph Kantrell Norris.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee
W. Turner, Senior Counsel; Kim R. Helper, District Attorney
General; and Terry Wood, Assistant District Attorney General,
for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Camille R. McMullen, J., delivered the opinion of the court,
in which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Norma McGee Ogle, J.,
CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JUDGE
December 23, 2011, the homes of Sharon Perkins and Tory
Dunlap were burglarized and robbed by four armed men.
State v. Joseph Kantrell Norris, No.
M2014-00857-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 3486968, *1-2 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Dec. 16, 2014), no perm. app. filed. Two weeks
prior to the offenses, the Petitioner inquired as to where
Dunlap lived. He had heard Dunlap had cash and wanted to rob
him. On the day of the offense, the Petitioner returned and
again inquired about Dunlap, who apparently lived behind the
home of the resident to whom the Petitioner made inquiry. An
hour after being advised of the general area where Dunlap
lived, gunshots rang out from Dunlap's house. The four
men went to Perkins' home first, who lived adjacent to
Dunlap. Even though Perkins told the men they had the wrong
house, the men forced Perkins and her guests to go to
Dunlap's home. The men held Perkins and her guests
confined in the living room and took their purses and cell
phones. When Dunlap ultimately arrived at his home, he was
shot twice in the leg. Deangelo Miller, a co-defendant, later
testified that it was the Petitioner's idea to rob
Dunlap, that the Petitioner gave him a .25 caliber gun, and
that the Petitioner directed the men during the commission of
the offenses. Finally, the Petitioner told Miller later that
night, "I fired [Dunlap] up[, ]" and divided the
marijuana taken from Dunlap's home between the men.
Id. at *2.
Petitioner was subsequently indicted of and plead guilty to
various counts of attempted second degree murder, especially
aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated burglary,
aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery,
and reckless endangerment. The Petitioner agreed to plead
guilty as a Range II offender. With consecutive alignment,
the trial court imposed a within range total effective
sentence of 140 years. The Petitioner appealed, arguing that
the sentence was excessive. After review, this court
concluded that the sentence was reasonable and affirmed the
trial court's judgments. In doing so, we reasoned as
Having reviewed the record before us, we conclude that the
trial court clearly stated on the record its reasons for
imposing the sentences imposed, and all of [the
Petitioner's] sentences are within the appropriate
ranges. The trial court found three applicable enhancement
factors and no applicable mitigating factors. The record
reflects that the trial court considered the purposes and
principles of the Sentencing Act. Therefore, the trial
court's imposition of the maximum sentences is presumed
. . . .
In the instant case, the trial court found two statutory
factors, either of which alone would be sufficient to support
the imposition of consecutive sentencing. The trial court
found that [the Petitioner] was an offender whose record of
criminal activity was extensive and that [the Petitioner] is
a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no
regard for human life and no hesitation about committing a
crime in which the risk to human life is high. With regard to
the court's finding that [the Petitioner] was a
"dangerous offender, " the trial court further
found that consecutive sentences were reasonably related to
the severity of the offenses committed and were necessary to
protect the public from further criminal conduct by ...