John C. Crim v. State of Tennessee-Concurring in part and dissenting in part

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

John C. Crim v. State of Tennessee-Concurring in part and dissenting in part

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedApril 13, 2015

DocketM2014-00948-CCA-R3-PC

StatusPublished

This text of John C. Crim v. State of Tennessee-Concurring in part and dissenting in part (John C. Crim v. State of Tennessee-Concurring in part and dissenting in part) 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.

Bluebook

John C. Crim v. State of Tennessee-Concurring in part and dissenting in part, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 11, 2015

JOHN C. CRIM v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Wilson County No. 08CR567 David Earl Durham, Judge

No. M2014-00948-CCA-R3-PC - Filed April 13, 2015

T HOMAS T. W OODALL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion which affirms part of the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of the post-conviction petition. A colorable claim was made in the pro se petition. The post-conviction court clearly erred by summarily dismissing the petition. I conclude that upon remand under these circumstances the interests of justice dictate that the entire pro se petition must be considered by the post-conviction court. It may be that some of Petitioner’s claims have been waived or previously determined - but that should be determined after a full hearing. This court should not sanction a rush to judgment when a trial court has erred as in this case. Accordingly, I would respectfully reverse the order of the post-conviction court without affirming any portion of it.

_______________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 11, 2015

JOHN C. CRIM v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Wilson County No. 08CR567 David Earl Durham, Judge

No. M2014-00948-CCA-R3-PC - Filed April 13, 2015

T HOMAS T. W OODALL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion which affirms part of the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of the post-conviction petition. A colorable claim was made in the pro se petition. The post-conviction court clearly erred by summarily dismissing the petition. I conclude that upon remand under these circumstances the interests of justice dictate that the entire pro se petition must be considered by the post-conviction court. It may be that some of Petitioner’s claims have been waived or previously determined - but that should be determined after a full hearing. This court should not sanction a rush to judgment when a trial court has erred as in this case. Accordingly, I would respectfully reverse the order of the post-conviction court without affirming any portion of it.

_______________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

John C. Crim v. State of Tennessee-Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-c-crim-v-state-of-tennessee-concurring-in-par-tenncrimapp-2015.