State v. Myron Garmon ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 02C01-9611-CR-00437
January 12, 1998
Appellee, * SHELBY COUNTY
VS. * Hon. James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
MYRON GARMON, * (Aggravated Sexual Battery)
Appellate C ourt Clerk
Appellant. *
For Appellant: For Appellee:
Tony N. Brayton John Knox Walkup
Assistant Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 2-01
Memphis, TN 38103 Timothy F. Behan
(on appeal) Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Leslie Mozingo Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Assistant Public Defender
201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 2-01 David Henry
Memphis, TN 38103 Assistant District Attorney General
(at trial) 201 Poplar Avenue, Third Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Of Counsel:
A.C. Wharton
Shelby County Public Defender
OPINION FILED:__________________________
AFFIRMED
GARY R. WADE, JUDGE
OPINION
The defendant, Myron Garmon, was convicted of one count of
aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed a twelve-year sentence to be
served consecutively to sentences imposed in the State of Arkansas. In this appeal
of right, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to corroborate his
confession; he also argues that the trial court should have sustained the defendant's
motion to dismiss for the state's failure to try the case within one-hundred-eighty
days from his request for trial.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In June of 1994, the defendant, a resident of Jonesboro, Arkansas,
took his two sons and the six-year-old female victim to Libertyland in Memphis.
During the visit, the defendant touched the vaginal area of the victim. On June 27,
1994, at the Methodist Hospital in Jonesboro, a medical examination revealed no
signs of trauma to the victim.
The victim, who was wearing a dress at the time, recalled riding a
horse on the merry-go-round when she received a "bad touch" from the person
entrusted to care for her. She used a diagram to point out that she had been
touched in the vaginal area. The victim could not remember, however, who had
touched her. Lieutenant B.J. Smith of the Jonesboro Police Department in
Arkansas questioned the defendant on January 20, 1995, several months after the
incident. The defendant identified the victim only as Brandy and recalled that her
mother had been killed in a car wreck. He acknowledged that Brandy lived in
Arkansas but that the incident had occurred in Memphis. The defendant confessed
to police that he attempted to fondle the victim but quit when she objected.
2
According to Lieutenant Smith, the defendant explained that "my desires got the
best of me."
At trial, the victim's father, Darrell Parker, acknowledged that the
victim's mother had been killed in a car accident between the time of the offense
and the interrogation of the defendant by the police.
There was only one defense witness called to testify. The defendant's
son, James Garmon, an eighth grader, recalled the trip to Libertyland with his older
brother Joe, the young victim, and the defendant. James could not recall a time
during the entire day that the defendant was alone with the victim. On cross-
examination, however, the witness did acknowledge that there were times during the
course of the day when he was outside of the view of the victim.
I
The defendant claims that the state was unable to offer enough
evidence to prove that a crime had been committed. He argues that no witness
linked the defendant with the victim, that the hospital records did not substantiate
any unlawful touching, and that the victim was unable to identify her assailant.
The corpus delicti of a crime requires a showing that (1) a certain
result has been produced, and (2) the result was created through a criminal agency.
Ashby v. State, 139 S.W. 872 (Tenn. 1911); State v. Ervin, 731 S.W.2d 70 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1986). Whether the state has sufficiently established the corpus delicti is
primarily a jury question. Williams v. State, 552 S.W.2d 772 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1977). All elements of the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial
evidence. Clancy v. State, 521 S.W.2d 780 (Tenn. 1975). Only slight evidence of
3
the corpus delicti is necessary to corroborate a confession and thus sustain a
conviction. Ricketts v. State, 241 S.W.2d 604 (Tenn. 1951). Corroborative findings
made in the course of the investigation in addition to the confession may be
sufficient to support the conviction. Ervin, 731 S.W.2d at 72.
In our view, the state met its burden of proof as to the corpus delicti.
See State v. Wayne Dillard Carver, No. 1152 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Aug.
1, 1988). This crime occurred in the summer of 1994 when the victim was six years
old. Witnesses were able to establish that the defendant had taken his two sons
and the victim to a theme park in Memphis during that time. There was a merry-go-
round in the theme park. While the victim could not identify her assailant, the
defendant acknowledged having fondled a young girl from Jonesboro, Tennessee,
whose first name matched that of the victim. The state was able to corroborate the
identity of the victim and the defendant by establishing that the victim's mother had
been killed in a car accident during the fall of 1994, a fact that the defendant had
acknowledged in his police interview. "A confession may sustain a conviction where
there is other evidence sufficient to show the commission of the crime by someone."
Taylor v. State, 479 S.W.2d 659, 661-62 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1972). Here, the
victim's testimony that she received a "bad touch," coupled with all of the other
evidence, is sufficient corroboration of the defendant's confession. Id. The
corroborative evidence necessary to support the corpus delicti need not be sufficient
in and of itself but only support "the essential facts ... to justify a jury inference of
their truth." Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93 (1954). The state has satisfied
that standard.
II
The defendant next complains that on October 2, 1995, he filed a
4
request for trial under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-31-101, the Interstate Compact on
Detainers. The request was received by the authorities in Shelby County on either
October 7 or 17.1 A trial was set on March 11, 1996, but was continued because the
state desired to amend its notice of intent to seek an enhanced punishment and
provide notice of prior convictions to be utilized for impeachment purposes. See
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(a)2 and Rule 609(a)(3),3 Tenn. R. Evid. The trial was
rescheduled for April 15, 1996, some 196 days after the defendant signed a
document requesting a trial in accordance with the terms of the compact. The
defendant argues that the delay beyond one hundred eighty days was neither
necessary nor reasonable and that the trial court erred by refusing to enter an order
of dismissal.
The state insists that there is nothing in the record other than the
assertions of defense counsel to indicate that the defendant made a request for trial
on October 2, 1995. It claims that the failure on the part of the defendant to include
1
The re cord co ntains co nflicting inform ation abo ut when the state re ceived th e reque st.
2
Notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment--Statement of enhancement and
mitigating factors.-- (a) If the district attorney general believes that a defendant should be sentenced
as a multiple, persistent or career offender, the district attorney general shall file a statement thereof
with the co urt and d efense couns el not less th an ten (1 0) days be fore trial or ac ceptan ce of a g uilty
plea; provided, that notice may be waived by the defendant in writing with the consent of the district
attorney ge neral and the cour t accep ting the plea . Such s tatem ent, which shall not be mad e know n to
the jury determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant on the primary offense, must set forth the
nature of the prior felony convictions, the dates of the convictions and the identity of the courts of the
convictions. The original or certified copy of the court record of any prior felony conviction, bearing the
same name as that by which the defendant is charged in the primary offense, is prima facie evidence
that th e def end ant n am ed th erein is the sam e as t he de fend ant b efor e the cour t, and is prim a fac ie
evidenc e of the fa cts set ou t therein.
3
(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the
witness has been con victed of a crime ma y be admitted if the following procedures and conditions are
satisfied:
***
(3) If the witness to be impeached is the accused in a criminal prosecution, the State must give the
accused reasonable written notice of the impeaching conviction before trial, and the court upon
requ est m ust d eterm ine th at the conv iction 's pro bative value on cr edibilit y outw eighs its un fair
prejudicial effect on the substantive issues. The court may rule on the admissibility of such proof prior
to the trial but in any event shall rule prior to the testimony of the accused. If the court makes a final
dete rm inatio n tha t suc h pro of is a dm issib le for im pea chm ent p urpo ses , the a ccu sed need not a ctua lly
testify at the trial to later challenge the propriety of the determination.
5
adequate information on this issue served as a waiver for appellate purposes. See
Rule 24(b), Tenn. R. App. P.; State v. Draper, 800 S.W.2d 489, 493 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1990). The assistant district attorney general, while acknowledging that the
request for a trial was dated October 2, asserted that the request was not received
until October 17, 1995.
The trial court pointed out that regardless of the date utilized to
measure the one hundred eighty days, all Shelby County courts were closed on
April 5, 1996, a state holiday, and the entire week beginning Monday, April 8 for the
spring session of the Tennessee Judicial Conference. The trial began on the
following Monday. While implying that the delay was necessary, the trial judge ruled
that the one hundred eighty days was mainly a guideline and that the state had
acted in good faith in attempting to set a trial as early as possible.
The primary purpose of the Interstate Compact is to provide an
expedient, orderly disposition of the out-of-state charge upon which a detainer is
based. Dillon v. State, 844 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn. 1992). The compact seeks to
ensure that detainers are filed only when substantial grounds exist for bringing the
prisoner to trial in another jurisdiction. State v. Hill, 875 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1993). The compact procedure results in only a temporary transfer to the
receiving state. State ex rel. Young v. Rose, 670 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1984).
The provisions of the Interstate Compact on Detainers are to be
construed liberally in favor of prisoners it was intended to benefit. State v. Gipson,
670 S.W.2d 637 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). The provisions of the compact are,
however, statutory rights, not fundamental, constitutional, or jurisdictional. Grizzell
6
v. Tennessee, 601 F. Supp. 230 (M.D. Tenn. 1984). Failure to comply with the one-
hundred-eighty-day time limit does not automatically require a dismissal of the
indictment if a continuance beyond that period is necessary or reasonable. Gipson,
670 S.W.2d at 639. This court has held that a crowded docket was not a necessary
or reasonable ground for continuance and set aside the indictment. Id. Negligence
on the part of the state does not constitute good cause for delay. See State v.
Green, 680 S.W.2d 474 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984), overruled on other grounds, State
v. Moore, 774 S.W.2d 590 (Tenn. 1989). A continuance granted ex parte has no
tolling effect. Dillon, 844 S.W.2d at 142.
The compact between the states provides in part as follows:
Whenever a person has entered upon a term of
imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a
party state, and whenever during the continuance of the
term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party
state any untried indictment, information or complaint on
the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against
the prisoner, the person shall be brought to trial within
one hundred eighty days after having caused to be
delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate
court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction, written
notice of the place of the person's imprisonment and
request for a final disposition to be made of the
indictment, information or complaint; provided, that for
good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or the
prisoner's counsel being present, the court having
jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or
reasonable continuance.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-31-101, art. III (a) (emphasis added).
By our calculations, the one hundred eighty days would have expired
by March 30, 1996, if the time is calculated from the defendant's claimed date of his
request for trial. The plain terms of the compact, however, require a trial within "one
hundred eighty days after having caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer
and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction written notice of the
7
person's imprisonment and request for a final disposition...." Our supreme court has
held that the one-hundred-eighty day period does not begin to run until the state and
the court have received the petition. State v. Moore, 774 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tenn.
1989).
The record suggests the state received the petition on either October
7, 1995, or October 17, 1995. Regardless of which day the state received the
petition, the defendant is not entitled to relief.
If the petition was received on October 17, 1995, the trial should have
begun on April 14, 1996, in order to comply with the one hundred eighty-day
limitation. Because, however, April 14 was a Sunday, and the trial was commenced
on Monday, April 15, the rule was not violated. In United States v. Johnson, 953
F.2d 1167 (9th Cir. 1992), the state argued that because the one-hundred-eightieth
day fell on a Sunday, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allowed for timely
commencement of the trial on Monday. The Ninth Circuit agreed: "States party to
the Interstate Detainers Act have used local time computing provisions analogous to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(a) to extend the 180 day limit when the 180th day is a Saturday,
Sunday, or legal holiday." Id. at 1172 (footnote omitted). Accordingly, we look to
Tenn. R. Crim. P. 45(a) for guidance:
Time.--(a) Computation.--In computing any period of time
the day of the act or event from which the designated
period of time begins to run shall not be included. The
last day of the period so computed shall be included
unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, ... in
which event the period runs until the end of the next day
which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday ....
Even if the state had received the petition ten days earlier, the
defendant could not prevail. A failure to object to the date for a trial set beyond the
8
one-hundred-eighty-day period precluded an application for discharge under the
compact. State v. Suarez, 681 S.W.2d 584 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984), overruled on
other grounds, State v. Moore, 774 S.W.2d 590 (Tenn. 1989).4 In Suarez, the
defendant raised the issue for the first time on direct appeal of his armed robbery
convictions. The court rejected his claim:
[W]e hold that the defendant's failure to object to the trial
date at the time it was set or during the remainder of the
180-day period resulted in waiver of his rights under
Article III of the Interstate Compact on Detainers.
Suarez, 681 S.W.2d at 586. Here, defense counsel from all appearances agreed to
reschedule the trial and did not mention the violation of the Interstate Compact on
Detainers until after the time for compliance had passed. That would constitute a
waiver. Id. Federal law governs the interpretation of the Interstate Compact on
Detainers Act. Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981). The federal courts have held
that rights under the compact can be waived. Kowalak v. United States, 645 F.2d
534 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Brown v. Wolfe, 706 F.2d 902, 903-04 (9th Cir. 1983).
Moreover, it would appear that the trial had been set for March 11,
1996, well within the one-hundred eighty-day period and was continued for good
and necessary reasons, much to the benefit of the defendant, when the state filed
its March 6, 1996, notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment and utilize prior
convictions for impeachment purposes. That there was no criminal court in Shelby
County from April 5 through April 14, 1996, indicates a good faith effort on all
involved to meet the primary purpose of the compact; that is, to provide an
expedient, orderly disposition of state charges outside of Arkansas.
4
In Suarez, the court s tated the "1 80-day 'sta tute of lim itations' is trigger ed whe n the inm ate
delivers his request ... to his captors." 681 S.W.2d at 586. That portion of Suarez was over ruled in
Moore , where the court ruled that the time period did not commence until "the date on which
Tennesse e received notice ...." 774 S.W.2d at 593. The portion of Suarez discussing waiver,
how ever , is still th e law toda y.
9
In pretrial argument, defense counsel acknowledged that the
continuance, due to an amended notice to include a 1973 Kansas conviction,
ultimately benefitted the defendant. It allowed her time to determine that the
conviction had been overturned on appeal and thus limit the sentence to a Range I.
Defense counsel made this further comment:
I am obligated, of course, to present all the law that I feel
is against my position, and that because of ... necessary
delays--the fact that there were no courts open last
week--the Friday before that was a holiday--and that all
the delays--all the continuances, with the exception of
from March 11 until today was based on the state; that it
appears from my reading of the law that we are still
within our one hundred eighty days.
(Emphasis added). The defense then conceded that it had sought a delay from
January 9 through February 1, 1996. The speedy trial provisions of the Act are
tolled by delay "occasioned by the defendant." Dillon, 844 S.W.2d at 142 (citations
omitted). Typically, delays at the hands of the defendant would fall into the category
of reasonable and necessary. See State v. Tyson, 603 S.W.2d 748 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1980); Dillon, 844 S.W.2d at 142.
We hold that the record is inadequate for us to determine that the time
began to run before October 17, 1995; if it did, the trial was timely commenced. It is
the obligation of the appellant to provide an adequate record for the disposition of an
issue on appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). In this instance, we cannot accurately
assess the number of days without further documentation from the trial court as to
when the request was received. Had the notice been received on October 7, 1995,
we would have nevertheless concluded that the continuance of the trial from the
March 11, 1996, setting was reasonable and necessary and much to the benefit of
the defendant. Certainly, the purposes of the compact were not abridged by the
developments in this case.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
10
________________________________
Gary R. Wade, Judge
CONCUR:
_____________________________
David G. Hayes, Judge
_____________________________
Joe G. Riley, Judge
11