State v. Marcus McCrary

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedDecember 1, 2010
Docket02C01-9701-CR-00002
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Marcus McCrary (State v. Marcus McCrary) 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
State v. Marcus McCrary, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

MAY 1997 SESSION FILED July 2, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk MARCUS McCRARY, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9701-CR-00002 Appellant, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. W. FRED AXLEY, STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-conviction)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

RICHARD F. VAUGHN CHARLES W. BURSON 1928 - 100 N. Main Attorney General & Reporter Memphis, TN 38103 DEBORAH A. TULLIS Asst. Attorney General 450 James Robertson Pkwy. Nashville, TN 37243-0493

WILLIAM L. GIBBONS District Attorney General

ALANDA HORNE Asst. District Attorney General 201 Poplar Ave. -- 3rd Floor Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED -- RULE 20

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge OPINION

The petitioner pled guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter for which

he received a plea bargained sentence of six years to be served consecutively to a prior

sentence. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance

of counsel, and that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he

thought his six year sentence was going to be served concurrently with the prior

sentence. After a hearing, the court below denied relief finding “no substantial evidence

that [the petitioner’s lawyer] failed to consult with and advise [him] with a reasonable

exercise of professional discretion” and that her “performance fell well within the

acceptable range of competency for lawyers in criminal cases.” The court below further

found that the petitioner’s guilty plea “was knowingly made and that adequate measures

were employed to assure the protection of [his] constitutionally guaranteed rights.” Upon

our review of the record, we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the

lower court’s findings. Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed in accordance with

Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

_________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________ GARY R. WADE, Judge

______________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, Judge

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Marcus McCrary, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-marcus-mccrary-tenncrimapp-2010.