State v. Carter
Decision Date | 08 March 2016 |
Docket Number | No. M2014-01532-CCA-R3-CD,M2014-01532-CCA-R3-CD |
Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TIMOTHY DAMON CARTER |
Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Timothy Damon Carter, of theft of property valued over $60,000 and of being a felon in possession of a handgun. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to a total effective sentence of thirty years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it determined that he had forfeited his right to counsel; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle; (3) the trial court erred when it determined that the State had not committed a Brady violation; (4) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for theft of property valued over $60,000; (5) the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence a business record and an out-of-court statement pursuant to hearsay exceptions; (6) the trial court erred when it declined to bifurcate the felon in possession of a weapon charge; and (7) the trial court erred when it limited the Defendant's ability to call witnesses to testify. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T. WOODALL, P.J. and ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., joined.
Manuel B. Russ, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Timothy Damon Carter.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Clark B. Thornton, Senior Counsel; Glenn S. Funk, District Attorney General; Bret Gunn, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINIONThis case arises from the theft of a comic book collection from a residence in La Vergne, Tennessee in April 2010. The Defendant was identified as a suspect in the theft when he sold or attempted to sell some of the comic books at area stores. During the investigation, law enforcement officers went to the Defendant's apartment and, upon seeing the stolen comic books in the backseat of a vehicle registered to the Defendant, impounded his vehicle to the police department. After obtaining a search warrant, law enforcement officers searched the Defendant's vehicle and recovered a handgun. The Defendant was later arrested, and a Davidson County grand jury indicted him in November 2010 for theft of stolen property valued less than $60,000 and for being a felon in possession of a weapon. In April 2012, the State filed a superseding indictment for theft of property valued at more than $60,000 and for being a felon in possession of a weapon.
At his arraignment on January 15, 2011, the Defendant was declared indigent by the trial court and Jessamine Grice with the District Public Defender's Office was appointed as counsel. Ms. Grice was later removed from the case, and the trial court appointed Graham Prichard as counsel. Mr. Prichard made an oral motion to withdraw, and the trial court granted his motion and appointed Paul Walwyn as counsel. The record contains little documentation regarding the bases for the removal of Ms. Grice and Mr. Prichard. In subsequent orders, however, the trial court noted that the Defendant had "difficulties" with both of these attorneys. On August 19, 2011, Mr. Walwyn filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. The trial court denied Mr. Walwyn's motion after a hearing. On November 18, 2011, Mr. Walwyn filed a second motion to withdraw as counsel, which the trial court took under advisement after a hearing. On January 5, 2012, the trial court issued an order denying Mr. Walwyn's second motion to withdraw as counsel.
The Defendant subsequently filed several motions and requests pro se, including a "Motion Requiring Counsel to Withdraw & Appointing Replacement Counsel," in which he requested that Mr. Walwyn be removed from his case. On May 2, 2012, Mr. Walwyn filed a third motion to withdraw as counsel, and on May 16, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on the motion, during which the following statements were made:
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted Mr. Walwyn's motion and appointed Jack Byrd as counsel. At a subsequent hearing on July 27, 2012, Mr. Byrd advised the trial court that he needed to be relieved from the case, based on his conversations with the Defendant. Mr. Byrd told the trial court that it was also the Defendant's wish that Mr. Byrd be relieved from representation. Addressing the Defendant, the trial court admonished him to cooperate with Mr. Byrd, his fourth attorney, and stated that Mr. Byrd would remain on the case.
In a hearing on September 4, 2012, the issue of Mr. Byrd's representation of the Defendant was addressed again. The trial court noted that, during the hearing, the Defendant left the courtroom voluntarily. Mr. Byrd advised the trial court that the Defendant would not cooperate with Mr. Byrd's preparation for trial. Mr. Byrd stated: Mr. Byrd stated that the Defendant did participate in video conferences with Mr. Byrd. The trial court, noting that the Defendant had turned his back to the trial court during his arraignment, acknowledged that the Defendant did not "always want to participate in the process."
On September 11, 2012, Mr. Byrd filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the motion and issued an order stating the following:
Mr. Byrd subsequently filed numerous motions in limine on the Defendant's behalf. On October 16, 2012, Mr. Byrd filed a second motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial