Russell v. State
Decision Date | 23 June 2022 |
Docket Number | M2021-00774-CCA-R3-PC |
Parties | HENRY RUSSELL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE |
Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Assigned on Briefs June 21, 2022
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2007-C-2066 Monte Watkins, Judge
The petitioner, Henry Russell, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2012 Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convictions of three counts of rape and three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, arguing that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm.
Tenn R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed.
Nathan Cate, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Henry Russell.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter Katharine K. Decker, Assistant Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Roger D. Moore, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
The Davidson County Grand Jury charged the defendant with three counts of rape and three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure for offenses committed against the foster daughter of his girlfriend. A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the defendant as charged, and the trial court merged the convictions for statutory rape by an authority figure into the convictions for rape and imposed a total effective sentence of 30 years' incarceration, to be served at 100 percent by operation of law. The petitioner appealed, and this court affirmed both the convictions and the accompanying sentence. See State v. Henry Wayne Russell, M2013-00166-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 1704953 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Apr. 29, 2014). Our supreme court denied the petitioner's application for permission to appeal but designated the opinion as "Not For Citation" on April 10, 2015. This court summarized the evidence in our analysis of the sufficiency of the convicting evidence:
Id., 2014 WL 1704953, at *11-12.
On January 25, 2016, the pro se petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other things, that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following the appointment of counsel, the petitioner filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief that further refined his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
At the evidentiary hearing, the petitioner testified that he was represented by another attorney when the charges were first levied in this case in 2007 and that trial counsel took over his case in 2011. The petitioner said that he did not meet with trial counsel at any point from the time trial counsel was assigned to his case until the trial. He claimed that he met with trial counsel's investigator one time and maintained that he did not ever speak with either the investigator or trial counsel himself at any court date "other than trial." The petitioner said that trial counsel did not review the discovery materials with him but acknowledged that his first attorney had provided him with a copy of the discovery materials. He also admitted that he had reviewed the victim's recorded statements with his first attorney. The petitioner said that he "was really unsure" what trial strategy trial counsel intended to employ.
The petitioner testified that the State made plea offers while he was represented by his first attorney and that that attorney had "said he would reserve the right for us to go back and explore it." The petitioner said that he told trial counsel "about a possible offer, and he said that he would get with the DA and ask them about it." The petitioner claimed that trial counsel told him that the State "would offer me [12] years, but I would do [18] months after getting released from federal custody" and that he told trial counsel that "I would consider taking it." The petitioner said that when trial counsel approached the State, however, "he said that they could no longer give me that plea because it was against Tennessee law." As a result, the petitioner had no opportunity to "accept the plea." At that point,
During cross-examination, the petitioner conceded that he was in federal custody until 2011, when he "was returned to state custody" and held in the Davidson County Jail. He admitted that trial counsel spoke with him in person at the jail two times "at most." The petitioner said that, if given the chance, he would have accepted the plea offer initially made by the State.
Trial counsel testified that he began representing the petitioner "some time in 2011." Initially, most of their communication occurred by mail because the petitioner "was in federal custody and he was being housed in Yazoo City, Mississippi." With regard to plea negotiations trial counsel recalled that "there had been an offer and it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial