State v. Parnell
| Decision Date | 19 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. W2019-00247-CCA-R3-CD,W2019-00247-CCA-R3-CD |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. REGINALD PARNELL |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County
On March 24, 2015, a Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant-Appellant, Reginald Parnell, for two counts of aggravated assault. On May 21, 2018, the day he was set for trial, the Defendant accepted a plea agreement and entered an Alford plea to each count of aggravated assault in exchange for a concurrent term of three years' probation.1 On June 15, 2018, represented by newly retained counsel, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon our review, we affirm.
CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, P.J., and ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., joined.
Robert L. Sirianni, Winter Park, Florida, for the Defendant-Appellant, Reginald Parnell.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Clark B. Thornton, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Holly Brewer Palmer, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINIONOver the course of the proceedings in this case, the Defendant has been represented by three different counsel. He was represented by first counsel from the case inception through the first settlement offer, second counsel up to and including the entry of the guilty plea, and third counsel for the withdrawal of his guilty plea and the hearing on the same.
At a November 8, 2016 report date, the State conveyed an offer to settle the Defendant's case. First counsel advised the court that the State had spoken to the witnesses, who were "on board" and "ready to proceed." First counsel then advised the court that it wanted to voir dire the Defendant regarding his decision concerning the offer. During this voir dire, the Defendant acknowledged that first counsel advised him of the State's offer, that it was for six-months on a misdemeanor assault, and that he would receive judicial diversion upon the court's approval. Asked his decision on the offer, the Defendant replied, "Yeah, could I have a little time to think about it?" The court obliged and reset the matter for a few weeks. On July 31, 2017, first counsel filed a motion to withdraw from representing the Defendant based on a conflict, which was granted by the trial court on September 1, 2017. On the same day, an order allowing for the substitution of second counsel was entered.
On May 21, 2018, under the advice of second counsel, the Defendant entered a guilty plea to the offenses as charged in exchange for three years "upfront" probation. He was also ordered to have no contact with Angelica Griffin or Gregory Griffin and cause no harm to Skyler Butler, who is the Defendant's cousin. The State presented the facts supporting the Defendant's guilty plea as follows:
Second counsel stipulated to these facts, but he stated, "[H]ad the matter gone to trial [he] would have maintained a different tact[.]" During the plea colloquy with the trial court, the Defendant expressed his confusion regarding the type of guilty plea he was entering and wanted second counsel to clarify. Second counsel explained that they had discussed entering an Alford plea, and the trial court further clarified that this meant that the Defendant was pleading guilty to the offenses as charged, that this was a "best-interest" guilty plea, and that the Defendant was "not necessarily admitting that [he] did it." The Defendant acknowledged that he understood, and second counsel subsequently wrote on the guilty plea form, "Alford v. N.C.." The trial court reviewed the Defendant's constitutional rights with him and the Defendant acknowledged that he understood. The trial court subsequently accepted the Defendant's plea of guilty and sentenced him accordingly.
Represented by newly retained third counsel, on June 15, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing in pertinent part, as follows:
[The Defendant] was expecting to go to trial. The information and events that occurred on his trial date led him to believe that he would be going to jail for up to 6 years or accepting upfront probation. It was his understanding that he had to make this choice immediately. [The Defendant] did not have sufficient time to think through his known options and was unaware of all of his options. Therefore, [the Defendant] did not knowingly and voluntarily enter a guilty plea.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty plea on November 19, 2018. The Defendant testified and confirmed that he had been previously represented by first counsel, who had to withdraw because of a conflict. Although he was uncertain of the exact date, he hired second counsel sometime thereafter and a trial date had already been set. A trusted friend recommended second counsel to the Defendant, and their first meeting was at the location of the alleged offense, the parking lot of Ruth's Chris Steak House. As part of his payment to second counsel, the Defendant believed second counsel would investigate and obtain videotape footage from a wine and liquor store in the same parking lot as Ruth's Chris, a Regions Bank a quarter of a mile away, and Bank of America. Even if the cameras did not capture the actual event, the Defendant believed the footage to be important to what occurred after the events. The Defendant claimed that second counsel failed to investigate and obtain the videos. The Defendant never received the videos and was unaware if they had been subpoenaed.
The Defendant told second counsel his version of everything that happened on the day of the offense, and he provided him with the names of potential witnesses. TheDefendant informed second counsel about a civil lawsuit that he had filed against Gregory Griffin over an employment issue, which he believed was the reason the criminal charges were brought against him. The Defendant said the victims were trying to "bribe [him] into dropping [his] civil case[.]" He did not know Angelica Griffin before the incident, but he later found out that she was Gregory Griffin's sister and that she told the Defendant's aunt that they would drop the criminal charges if the Defendant dropped the civil lawsuit. The Defendant said that he provided all of this information to trial counsel. He also said that no investigator contacted any of these witnesses on his behalf. He said trial counsel "didn't do anything for [him] basically."
The Defendant stated that Skylar Butler was "supposedly" around the restaurant parking lot with Gregory Griffin on the night of the offense. He described Skylar Butler as "[l]ike a little sister to [him][,]" and he said he helped raise her. Skylar Butler had an "on and off relationship" with Gregory Griffin, and they had a child together. The Defendant was unaware of any reports from an investigator regarding this child. He testified that second counsel told him that the information about the civil lawsuit could help him with a jury and that the videos from the restaurant would prove his innocence. The Defendant testified that he called second counsel the Friday before his trial to discuss when his trial would begin and which witnesses he needed to bring with him. He said second counsel told him "That [he] need[ed] to bring the rest of [his] money in or [he would] be locked up." The Defendant stated that Skylar Butler told him that she did not want to testify, and he believed that his case would be dismissed.
The Defendant said that when he came to court the Monday morning of his trial, "everything was just thrown on [him] within 20 minutes." He believed that his trial would start on a Wednesday, and "Monday and Tuesday would be prep for the trial." The Defendant had limited involvement with the criminal justice system and was unaware how a trial was conducted. When he came to court on Monday morning, second counsel told him that he would have to make a decision. Second counsel told him that he did not "have a shot" because the State had six witnesses while he only had four witnesses. The Defendant's witnesses included his mother, his fiancée, his aunt, and his brother.
When the Defendant initially explained his theory of his case to second counsel, second counsel told him that there were "loopholes" that could help him out at trial. However, on the day of trial, second counsel told the Defendant that he should not go to trial. Second counsel also told the Defendant that he would not have to worry about the felony charge on his record because the Defendant was self-employed. Contrary to this advice, the Defendant said the felony conviction had affected his business. He agreed that the trial court went through his rights with him when he pled guilty. On cross-exam...
To continue reading
Request your trial