Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs May 7, 2019
from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2010-C-2743
Cheryl A. Blackburn, Judge
Yogonda Abdula Corley, appeals from the post-conviction
court's denial of his petition for post-conviction
relief. Petitioner contends that his trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance by failing to develop a record at
trial that was adequate for appellate review. Having reviewed
the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the
denial of post-conviction relief.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Umerley, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Yogonda
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; David
H. Findley, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk,
District Attorney General; and Tammy Meade, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
T. Woodall, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
James Curwood Witt, Jr. and D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., JJ.,
T. WOODALL, JUDGE.
was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual battery
and three counts of rape of a child against the victim T.S.,
and he was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual
battery and four counts of rape of a child against the victim
M.M. State v. Yogonda Abdula Corley, No.
M2013-00464-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 12653830 (Tenn. Crim. App.
Feb. 26, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 26,
2014). Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of
six counts of rape of a child, four counts of aggravated
sexual battery, and one count of attempted aggravated sexual
battery. Id. Following a sentencing hearing,
Petitioner was ordered to serve a total effective sentence of
75 years' incarceration. Id.
proof presented at trial was summarized by a panel of this
court on direct appeal. Id. The two victims, T.S.
and M.M., are cousins. They were both 12 years old at the
time of trial. Both victims testified about several instances
of sexual abuse and rape by Petitioner.
direct appeal, Petitioner asserted multiple claims of plain
error. Petitioner argued on appeal that it was plain error
for the trial court: 1) to admit into evidence a recording
and transcript of statements by Petitioner obtained by the
use of a body wire worn by the mother of one of the victims;
2) to admit into evidence Petitioner's statements to the
police following his arrest; 3) to admit into evidence the
opinion testimony by a nurse practitioner that the
victims' statements were consistent with their medical
examinations; and 4) not to sever the offenses against the
two victims. A panel of this court determined that plain
error was not justified for any of those claims. Id.
subsequently sought post-conviction relief, alleging that he
was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial.