06/28/2022 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 21, 2022 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RASHAUD DEAVON WATSON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 63CC1-2018-CR-659 Robert Bateman, Judge ___________________________________ No. M2021-01354-CCA-R3-PC ___________________________________ The petitioner, Rashaud Deavon Watson, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel and entered a voluntary and intelligent plea. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed J. ROSS DYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ., joined. Wayne Clemons, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Rashaud Deavon Watson. Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Robert J. Nash, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Facts and Procedural History The petitioner was indicted by a Montgomery County grand jury for first-degree murder. On December 19, 2019, the petitioner agreed to plead guilty to the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder in exchange for a sentence of twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On July 13, 2020, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. After the appointment of counsel, the petitioner filed an amended petition for post- conviction relief, alleging trial counsel was ineffective and his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered. A hearing was held on October 6, 2021. At the hearing, the petitioner testified that trial counsel was appointed to represent him at some point after the petitioner’s preliminary hearing. While there is no testimony concerning the precise date of trial counsel’s appointment, the petitioner first complained about trial counsel in a letter to the public defender’s office dated October 5, 2018. In his letter, the petitioner stated that trial counsel was not “a fit for [his] case” and requested a new attorney be assigned. The petitioner also filed several motions with the trial court asking for trial counsel to be removed from his case. The record, however, does not speak to whether those motions were heard and/or how they were disposed of by the trial court. The petitioner also claimed trial counsel only met with him twice and never discussed trial strategy with him. According to the petitioner, he requested a copy of the State’s discovery and a copy of the transcript from his preliminary hearing, but trial counsel only provided him with a copy of the ballistics report. Initially, the petitioner rejected the State’s offer of second-degree murder with a sentence of twenty years in prison. Therefore, the petitioner’s case was set for trial on January 27, 2020, with a pre-trial hearing set for December 16, 2019. Prior to the pre-trial hearing, trial counsel provided the petitioner with a letter outlining “certain information” about his case, including trial counsel’s investigative efforts, the terms of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals