If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Defendant's Attorney: Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Hannah-Catherine Lackey, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Description: Knoxville, Tennessee pro se appellate without a lawyer used the State of Tennessee seeking a writ of habeas corpus.


In June 1988, the Petitioner pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to armed robbery and burglary and was sentenced as a Range II, especially aggravated offender to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and ten years, respectively. See Dan E. Durell v. State, No. E2019-01393-CCA-R3-HC, 2020 WL 2612028, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 22, 2020) (citing State v. Daniel Durrell, No. 1213, 1989 WL 75727 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 11, 1989), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2021). The trial court ordered his "concurrent sentences in this case [to] be served consecutively to the sentence imposed . . . by the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida." Daniel Durrell, No. 1213, 1989 WL 75727, at *5. On May 22, 2020, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Knox County Criminal Court arguing that the State had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that his convictions violated double jeopardy, and that the trial court relied upon "'improper, inaccurate, and mistaken information'" during sentencing. Dan E. Durell, No. E2019-01393-CCA-R3-HC, 2020 WL 2612028, at *1. The

1

habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of attaching copies of the original judgments to the petition and failing to state a colorable claim. Id. The Petitioner appealed the dismissal, and this court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. Id. at *2.

Subsequently, on September 10, 2021, the Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner again argued that the State had violated Brady by failing to supply him with the trial transcripts from the federal and Florida cases that were based upon the same criminal offenses as his Tennessee convictions and that the trial court relied on misinformation presented by the State during the sentencing hearing. The Petitioner appeared to have abandoned his double jeopardy claim. The Petitioner requested the habeas corpus court to set aside the Petitioner's sentences; resentence the Petitioner as a Range I, standard offender; and order the Range I sentences to be served concurrently to the thirty-five-year federal sentence he received.

In an affidavit accompanying the petition, the Petitioner averred that he was "in the custody of the State of Tennessee, but housed in a federal protective custody unit for his own safety and security." The Petitioner asserted that due to being housed in the federal protective custody unit, he was "unable to follow [the statutory] place of application for writ requirements." The Petitioner maintained that he was being "illegally restrained" by his Tennessee sentences. The Petitioner stated that he had been unaware that he was required to attach copies of his original judgments to his petition but that after obtaining a copy of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-107, he was attaching copies of pages 84 and 85 of the sentencing hearing transcript and page 162 of the minute book. The Petitioner did not explain why he was unable to attach copies of the original judgments.

On September 15, 2021, the habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner is not currently in the custody of the State of Tennessee; the Petitioner failed to attach copies of the original judgments, as required by law; and the Petitioner failed to file his petition in the trial court closest to him as required by law. The habeas corpus court further concluded that the Petitioner failed to allege that he is being illegally restrained. It is from this ruling that the Petitioner appeals.

Outcome: Based upon the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgment summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: