Appellate panel hears challenge to denial of continuance and sentencing in Frazier retrial

An appellate panel heard argument in the criminal appeal of Mr. Frazier focused on two central issues: whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to allow retained counsel to prepare, and whether the court misapplied enhancement factors when imposing a maximum sentence.

Appellant's counsel argued the denial of a continuance violated the Sixth Amendment right to retained counsel of choice because Mr. Frazier had secured Logan and Thompson (Lister Logan appeared with Mr. Hewitt via video) roughly three weeks before the scheduled retrial and the case had been pending since July 2012. Counsel summarized the case history: the defendant was initially tried in January 2016, convicted of first‑degree murder, the conviction was reversed and remanded on July 1, 2019, and Mr. Frazier was released on May 26, 2020 after pretrial supervision, GPS monitoring and bond arrangements. Defense counsel told the court the new lawyers told the trial judge they could be ready in “three to six months” and that forcing a trial on short notice effectively denied the defendant his choice of retained counsel. Defense counsel said the trial court’s stance was, in effect, “You can show up in two weeks and try a murder case, or We are not moving this trial date,” and argued that, given the age of the case and the defendant’s time on bond, the 6th Amendment required a continuance.

On sentencing, the defense argued the trial court failed to acknowledge the sentencing statute in effect at the time of the offense (T.C.A. § 40‑35‑210 as discussed at argument), and improperly applied or overweighed enhancement factors—specifically possession/employment of a firearm and a leadership role—when it imposed the maximum term. Counsel said the record did not support finding Mr. Frazier brought a firearm to the incident and that there was no clear testimony establishing a leadership role beyond the allegation he was the shooter. Counsel asked the court to reverse for a new trial or, in the alternative, remand for resentencing.

Abigail Hornsby, arguing for the State, said the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying a last‑minute continuance. Hornsby noted the trial had been on the calendar for about five months, that the State and trial counsel represented they were ready to go in April 2021, and that the court had repeatedly told the parties the case would be tried on that date. She told the panel, “The trial court here properly exercised its discretion when it denied the defendant's last minute request for a continuance,” and argued the defendant had not timely informed the court he was attempting to secure private counsel and had a pattern of seeking new counsel near trial dates. Hornsby also said the COVID backlog and a constrained courtroom schedule made rescheduling difficult.

On sentencing, Hornsby defended the enhancement findings. She argued the record supports the possession/employment enhancement (possession or employment of a firearm) and that the criminal‑history enhancement alone would permit the court to impose the maximum sentence. Hornsby told the panel that witnesses did not explicitly say Mr. Frazier never had a gun and that the trial court made credibility determinations the record could support. She urged the court to affirm conviction and sentence.

During questioning, the panel probed hypotheticals about when a retained counsel substitution must be accommodated (for example, whether the right is absolute after a jury has been sworn), the relevance of prior trial transcripts to preparing for a retrial, and the degree to which a defendant’s pattern of last‑minute counsel requests affects the trial court’s discretion. Defense counsel cited Unger v. Sarafite to caution against a “myopic insistence upon an expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay” that could render the right to counsel illusory; the State emphasized docket management, fairness to other litigants and practical scheduling constraints.

The panel did not announce a decision at argument. No formal ruling was recorded in the oral argument transcript provided.