State v. Roy McGriff

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedDecember 1, 2010
Docket01C01-9709-CR-00426
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Roy McGriff (State v. Roy McGriff) 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. Roy McGriff, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED OCTOBER 1998 SESSION November 4, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) NO. 01C01-9709-CR-00426 Appellee, ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. CHERYL BLACKBURN, ROY DALE McGRIFF, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

ROBERT J. MENDES (AT HEARING) JOHN KNOX WALKUP Cummins Station, Ste. 507 Attorney General and Reporter 209 Tenth Avenue, South Nashville, TN 37203 CLINTON J. MORGAN Assistant Attorney General Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor PETER D. HEIL (ON APPEAL) 425 Fifth Avenue North P. O. Box 40651 Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Nashville, TN 37204 VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III District Attorney General

MARY CAMPBELL GRADY MOORE Assistant Dist. Attorneys General Washington Square, Ste. 500 222 Second Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED:

AFFIRMED

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE OPINION

The defendant, Roy Dale McGriff, appeals the trial court’s order denying his

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

I.

On the date defendant was scheduled for jury trial, defendant pled guilty to

attempted robbery and two counts of resisting arrest. Pursuant to the plea

agreement, he received concurrent sentences of four years for attempted robbery

and six months for each offense of resisting arrest. Although the defendant stated

he was not guilty of the offenses, he stated it was in his best interest to enter the

guilty plea. The defendant was extensively questioned by the trial court concerning

his plea.

Approximately one week after the plea, defendant filed a motion to withdraw

the guilty plea. He alleged he was not competent to enter the plea and

subsequently amended the motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel led to

At the hearing on his motion, the defendant testified as to his dissatisfaction

with the failure of his counsel to provide him with certain written documents. No

further testimony was offered by the defendant relating to his motion to withdraw the

guilty plea, and counsel stated he was relying upon the written motion.

The trial court noted that the guilty plea was voluntarily entered on the

morning of trial with everyone prepared to go to trial. In fact, the jury was present

awaiting to begin the trial. The trial court concluded that defendant had not proven

withdrawal of the guilty plea was necessary to correct a “manifest injustice.”

II.

A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea “to correct manifest injustice...after

sentence, but before the judgment becomes final...” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(f). Upon

entering a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which the defendant waived his right to appeal, the judgment became final on the date of entry of the

plea. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37. Therefore, the motion to withdraw the guilty plea

was untimely since it was filed after the judgment became final. See State v.

Quentin L. Hall, C.C.A. No. 02C01-9802-CR-00040, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim.

App. filed August 28, 1998, at Jackson). The only avenue available to a defendant

in such a situation is through post-conviction proceedings. See Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 40-30-201 et seq.

Even if the motion were timely, we would grant no relief. A motion to

withdraw a guilty plea addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial court and

will not be disturbed on appeal except upon a showing of an abuse of that

discretion. State v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 346, 355 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). The

defendant presented no evidence to support his allegation of a manifest injustice.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

____________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

____________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

____________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

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

Related

State v. Turner
919 S.W.2d 346 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Roy McGriff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roy-mcgriff-tenncrimapp-2010.