Alfred Grizzell v. State
This text of Alfred Grizzell v. State (Alfred Grizzell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED July 23, 1998 ALFRED E. GRIZZELL, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9709-CR-00409 Cecil W. Crowson Appellant, ) Appellate Court Clerk ) DAVIDSON COUNTY VS. ) (No. B-7976 & B-7977 Below) ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) The Hon. Seth Norman ) Appellee. ) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20 ) (Denial of Post-Conviction Relief)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state's motion to affirm the judgment
of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The
petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and
opposes the state’s motion.
From a review of the record, the pleadings, and this Court’s previous
opinions, it is clear that the trial court properly granted the state’s motion to dismiss.
Specifically, all but one of the issues presented in this appeal have been previously
determined, see T.C.A. § 40-30-206(h). Moreover, the appellant’s remaining issue in
which he claims that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to raise certain issues on
direct appeal is also without merit. The issues which the petitioner claims appellate
counsel should have raised on direct appeal were raised by the petitioner in a pro se
supplemental brief. This Court considered the issues in the supplemental brief and held
that they were without merit. See State v. Alfred Eugene Grizzell, No. 85-56-III, Slip Op.
at 12 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 27, 1985), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn. Nov.
25, 1985). In order to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, a petitioner must show
that the deficiencies of counsel "actually had an adverse effect on the defense." Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2067 (1984). Here, the petitioner has
failed to show prejudice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. The petitioner
being indigent, costs are taxed to the state.
_____________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
_____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Alfred Grizzell v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfred-grizzell-v-state-tenncrimapp-1998.