Appellate panel hears challenge to Davenport convictions and late notice of appeal
Loading...
Summary
At oral argument, defense counsel urged reversal of an attempted second-degree murder conviction as inconsistent with other homicide convictions and asked the court to excuse a roughly 250-day late notice of appeal; the state urged affirmance, saying the evidence is sufficient and the record lacks a justification for the delay.
Joe White, an attorney from the Cumberland County Bar, told the appellate panel that the jury reached legally inconsistent verdicts in the case of Mr. Davenport and asked the court to reverse the attempted second-degree murder conviction. "He fires through a wooden door 7 times," White said, "He kills 1 person, injures 2." White argued the jury convicted Davenport of offenses reflecting different mens rea — recklessness and adequate provocation on one count and specific intent on another — which he said is incompatible under precedents the defense cited.
The court's bench pressed the defense on timeliness. A judge noted the notice of appeal appears to have been filed about 250 days late and questioned why a timely motion for a new trial was not in the record to toll the appeal period. White acknowledged the record contains no written proof that an earlier motion was filed but said defense counsel had operated under the belief that a "placeholder" motion or oral motion existed and that delays obtaining a voluminous transcript from a three-day murder trial contributed to the timing.
Garrett Ward, arguing on behalf of the State, told the court the convictions should be upheld. "This court must uphold the verdicts against Mr. Davenport," Ward said, arguing the evidence is sufficient on each count when examined separately. Ward emphasized the absence of an affidavit or other record evidence explaining the delay and pointed to case law the court uses to decide whether to excuse late appeals.
The bench and counsel debated precedent. Defense counsel relied on State v. Kimbrough to challenge the coexistence of recklessness and specific intent, while the court cited Davis and Wiggins and explained that appellate review typically evaluates each conviction on its own sufficiency rather than vacating verdicts for perceived inconsistency. Judges also discussed Manning and Rockwell when assessing whether the interest of justice warranted waiving the timely filing requirement.
During argument, a judge questioned the state's apparent voluntary-manslaughter theory for a count involving a person named Florence Easterly and asked what specific provocation supported that count; the State suggested the jury may have considered alleged theft and the presence of a sword but acknowledged it was speculative to peer into the jury's reasoning.
White used his rebuttal time to press a separate sentencing argument, saying the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences and labeling Davenport a "dangerous offender" without properly applying the Wilkerson factors required under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(a).
No ruling was announced from the bench at the conclusion of argument; the court thanked counsel and called the next case.
