Appellate panel hears challenge to Markelle Nolan’s drug conviction over evidence and counsel fitness
Loading...
Summary
An appellate panel at the University of Memphis Law School heard arguments in State v. Markelle Nolan, where defense counsel urged reversal for insufficient evidence that Nolan knew drugs in a borrowed car and argued trial counsel’s alleged incapacity and later disbarment warranted a new trial; the court took the case under advisement.
A three-judge panel heard oral argument in State of Tennessee v. Markelle Nolan on an appeal that challenges both the legal sufficiency of evidence linking Nolan to methamphetamine found in the trunk of a borrowed car and whether his trial lawyer provided constitutionally effective representation.
Bridal Wingerter, a public defender from the appellate division representing Nolan, told the panel the appeal raises two issues: “the legal sufficiency of the evidence and the other is the ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” She described a Jackson traffic stop and a trunk search that produced two plastic baggies of methamphetamine and stressed that Nolan was driving a vehicle belonging to his stepfather and had a 12-year-old passenger in the front seat. Wingerter argued the state relied mainly on the fact Nolan was driving the car and on allegedly “sketchy” pre-stop behavior—facts she said are insufficient as a matter of law to prove Nolan knew the contraband was in the trunk.
Wingerter also emphasized trial-counsel problems documented in the record, including a pretrial motion in which counsel stated he was not mentally fit to proceed and, later, counsel’s disbarment. She said the trial court did not take testimony or develop proof on the issues at a new-trial or suppression hearing and urged the panel to reverse or, at minimum, remand for a new trial with effective counsel: “we would ask that you reverse and either vacate the conviction for lack of sufficient evidence or at the very least remand for a new trial with effective assistance of counsel.”
Arguing for the State, Benjamin Marker summarized the stop and evidence seen by the jury, including body- and dash-camera footage and laboratory testing. Marker said officers recovered two baggies that ‘‘looked like candy sweethearts’’ and that testing showed the substance was methamphetamine; he told the panel it was “just under 300 grams of methamphetamine.” Marker acknowledged the case was not overwhelming but urged the court to apply the sufficiency standard and affirm the convictions, arguing the jury could rationally infer guilt from the totality of circumstances, including the defendant’s control of the vehicle and his conduct before and during the stop.
The judges pressed both sides on the central tension in nonexclusive-possession cases: what affirmative links (beyond driving the vehicle) permit a factfinder to infer a defendant’s knowledge of contraband hidden in a trunk. One judge asked plainly, “What affirmative links do we have in this case that show knowledge?” Counsel debated whether quantity alone can supply the necessary link and whether the record contains the suppression- or evidentiary-development that would be needed to substantiate ineffective-assistance or suppression claims.
The panel did not issue a decision. Presiding judge Robert Wedemeyer thanked counsel and said the court would take the case under advisement and issue a written opinion at a later date.
