 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel v. State9/23/2003
a. Background
Petitioner was indicted on thirteen counts of statutory rape, sexual battery and rape stemming from allegations by various members of the girls' basketball team that Petitioner coached during the summer. After he was indicted, Petitioner fled the state and was apprehended approximately six months later. Following his return to Tennessee to stand trial, Petitioner was convicted of flight to avoid prosecution, but the jury could not reach a verdict as to the sexual offense charges. A second trial commenced later that summer. During the selection of the jury, a recess was called to explore the possibility of a plea settlement. After negotiations, Petitioner pled guilty to five counts of statutory rape, two counts of sexual battery and one count of rape with an effective sentence of nine years. This sentence was substantially less than the potential sentence Petitioner faced if he proceeded to trial and less than the twelve-year effective sentence initially offered by the State. In addition, the State agreed not to prosecute Petitioner's father, mother, former wife and daughter for perjury and/or for aiding Petitioner while he was a fugitive.
b. Post-conviction Hearing
Petitioner initially filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging, among numerous other issues, (1) that his guilty plea was not entered into voluntarily or knowingly but was instead a product of duress and coercion prompted by the State's threat to prosecute his family if he did not plead guilty; (2) that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during the interval between the first and second trial and during the plea negotiations; and (3) that the prosecution failed to turn over exculpatory evidence during the period between the first trial and the second trial.
In support of his petition, Petitioner testified that he only talked with his counsel one time between the conclusion of his first trial and the commencement of the second trial. When he arrived at the courthouse, Petitioner said that he had every expectation that the trial would begin. In the middle of jury selection, a recess was called, and Petitioner, along with his father, mother and former wife, met with Petitioner's counsel in a separate room. On the table were several documents which appeared to be warrants containing the names of Petitioner's family members. Although Petitioner was aware during his first trial that his family was vulnerable to prosecution for their assistance to him while he was absent from the state, the State had not pursued the filing of charges. Petitioner said that his counsel assured him that the family had not done anything wrong, so Petitioner was surprised to find out that arrest warrants had actually been prepared.
Petitioner said that the plea negotiations lasted only about fifteen minutes and included an agreement by the State not to press charges against his family. Petitioner testified that during the plea negotiations, his only concern was his family's potential arrests, although he admitted that the family members told Petitioner not to base his decision on what might or might not happen to them. Petitioner denied that trial counsel had discussed the additional incriminating evidence the State had gathered against him between the first and second trials. Specifically, Petitioner denied that his counsel told him that James McDonald, the friend who sheltered Petitioner during part of the time he was a fugitive, was prepared to testify for the State that Petitioner had acquired a tattoo below the waist for the sole purpose of confusing the victims on identification. Petitioner also denied that his counsel told him that Mr. McDonald had i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|