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.

Gossett v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

December 30, 2019

MARCHELLO GOSSETT
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs November 5, 2019

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for Tipton County No. 8083 Joe H. Walker, III, Judge.

         A Tipton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Marchello Gossett, of one count of possession with intent to deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine and two counts of felony possession of a handgun. On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions. State v. Marchello Karlando Gossett, No. W2015-02414-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 1163683, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, March 28, 2017) perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 18, 2017). The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.

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

          Monica A. Timmerman, Bartlett, Tennessee, for the appellant, Marchello Gossett.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney General; Mark E. Davidson, District Attorney General; and Sean G. Hord, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

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

          OPINION

          ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE.

         I. Facts

         The underlying case for this appeal arises from a controlled drug buy between the Petitioner and a confidential informant on May 14, 2013, and the execution of a search warrant at the Petitioner's residence that same afternoon. Based on evidence found during the search, a Tipton County grand jury indicted the Petitioner, in case number 7824, for one count of simple possession of marijuana; one count of simple possession of codeine; two counts of felony possession of a handgun; one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver; one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, having been convicted previously of three class B felonies; and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia.

         On April 3, 2014, the trial began. After voir dire, but before the jury was sworn, the State requested ruling on a Rule 404(b) motion regarding prior acts by the Petitioner. We provide the following summary of the 404(b) hearing from this court's opinion in the direct appeal as follows:

         The State argued:

[T]here was a search warrant executed at 7673 Richardson Landing in Drummonds in Tipton County by the Tipton County Sheriff's Office and that it was based on a controlled buy which happened, according to the search warrant, within 72 hours of the execution on May 14, which was in the afternoon of May 14, 2013.
At the execution of the search warrant there was found to be buy money from the sale of $70 worth of cocaine, which actually was analyzed by the TBI lab to be 0.25 grams. There was some text messaging back and forth on that day of May 14 between [the [Petitioner]] and the undercover person, who was [the confidential informant] and the purchase was made actually that morning. And on the execution of the search warrant the very prerecorded $70 in miscellaneous currency, which will be described, was found under [the [Petitioner]] while he was asleep on the bed.
So we have the situation in this case, obviously the important element as far as the State is concerned, and certainly the [Petitioner], is how this cocaine, which was obtained on the execution of the search warrant, was possessed. Was it simple possession? Was it possession with intent?
And the officer who is available to testify would testify regarding the purchase which was in the morning of May 14, 2013, for which he has actually the pre-recorded money used in that purchase which was found under [the [Petitioner]]. He can testify about his observance of the transaction on a video which was obtained as ...

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.