Brewer v. State

Decision Date24 August 1970
PartiesJohn D. BREWER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Tennessee, Respondent.
CourtTennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

J. Travis Price, Springfield, for petitioner.

David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., C. Hayes Cooney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, O'Brien Price, Dist. Atty. Gen., Springfield, for respondent.

OPINION

WALKER, Presiding Judge.

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge found Brewer's petition for post-conviction relief without merit and he has appealed to this court. He challenges as void his conviction for murder in the first degree and sentence to thirty-five years and one day.

Brewer contends that he was denied the effective representation of counsel by his two retained attorneys. When a defendant is represented by privately-retained counsel, state action is not involved and the action or nonaction of such counsel is imputed to the defendant and not to the state. Morgan v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 445 S.W.2d 477.

Nevertheless we have considered all of the testimony in this hearing as well as the transcript of the original trial made an exhibit to this proceeding. The petitioner had excellent representation by competent attorneys, at least one of whom was employed before his preliminary hearing. They joined in a petition for a mental examination for the petitioner, had photographs made of the scene, interviewed all of the witnesses whose names were furnished by Brewer and consulted with him at length six to ten times in the preparation of the case. They had six to nine months for preparation.

The transcript of the original trial shows that Brewer was well represented by skilled counsel. Their decisions of trial strategy were those of trained and competent attorneys experienced and active in trial practice. The trial judge instructed the jury on all of the degrees of homicide and on self-defense. There is no merit in petitioner's claim that his counsel were ineffective.

He says that he was tricked by one of his attorneys into signing a blank piece of paper which later was filed as a waiver of appeal; that he did not in fact waive an appeal.

The trial judge found that he voluntarily signed a formal waiver with the advice of his attorney. The proof abundantly sustains his finding. One of the attorneys talked with Brewer three times about an appeal, at some of which times the petitioner's brother was present. Brewer did not call his brother as a witness.

The waiver was on a mimeographed form obtained from the clerk's office and the proof showed that it was not changed after the petitioner signed it.

The petitioner charges that the district attorney general inflamed the jury against him in his argument. A post-conviction petition cannot be employed as a substitute for an appeal, or to review or correct errors of law or fact allegedly committed by a court of competent jurisdiction. See State ex rel. Ingram v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 676, 423 S.W.2d 479. Further, the proof does not show any objectionable argument.

The petitioner contends that his arrest was unlawful and violated his rights as delineated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

In this proceeding the petitioner testified that after shooting Frank Jones, the deceased, he ran out in the street, saw the police, waved them down and told them that he had shot Jones; that he just got in the police car; that they asked for his gun and took him to jail.

One of the officers testified that he asked the petitioner, 'What's going on?' when the petitioner waved them down; that the petitioner told them he did not mean to shoot the boy. These statements were spontaneous ones not made in response to custodial interrogation. Volunteered statements of this kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by the holding in Miranda.

Moreover, at his trial he did not object to the statements but inquired...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 14 Noviembre 1979
    ...Pa. 626, 646 n.3, 394 A.2d 497, 507 (1978), Cert. denied, 440 U.S. 966, 99 S.Ct. 1515, 59 L.Ed.2d 781 (1979); Brewer v. State, 4 Tenn.Ct.Cr.App. 265, 270, 470 S.W.2d 47, 49 (1970); Watson v. Black, 239 S.E.2d 664, 668 (W.Va.1977); State v. Shears, 68 Wis.2d 217, 259-60, 229 N.W.2d 103, 124 ......
  • Irvin v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 27 Septiembre 1978
    ...v. State, 52 Wis.2d 144, 187 N.W.2d 800 (1971). Cf., Commonwealth v. Johnson, 428 Pa. 210, 236 A.2d 805 (1968); and Brewer v. State, 4 Tenn.Cr.App. 265, 470 S.W.2d 47 (1970). While a trial court has the power in its discretion to appoint substitute counsel, its refusal to do so is not error......
  • Arnold v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee. Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
    • 5 Febrero 2020
    ...*FN1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 14, 2011)[;] McCarver v. State, 2010 WL 596344 at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2010); Brewer v. State, 470 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970).Because the Petitioner failed to raise prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal, his attempt to raise that as a grou......
  • Arnold v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee. Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
    • 5 Febrero 2020
    ...at *FN1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 14, 2011)[;] McCarver v. State, 2010 WL 596344 at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2010); Brewer v. State, 470 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970).Because the Petitioner failed to raise prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal, his attempt to raise that as a g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT