State of Tennessee v. Arzell A. Harmon
E2016-00551-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- Defendant Arzell A. Harmon pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree murder and, per a plea agreement, received a ten-year Range I sentence with the trial court to determine manner of service.
- Facts in the presentence report: Harmon participated in a scheme that led to the victim being lured to a location, was involved in an assault where he took a gun and fired multiple shots that seriously injured the victim (including loss of a testicle), and attempted a further shot that malfunctioned.
- At sentencing the State opposed probation based on offense severity and Harmon’s misdemeanor record; the victim described permanent injuries and trauma.
- The trial court denied probation and ordered the ten-year sentence to be served in confinement.
- Harmon filed a pro se Rule 35 motion seeking reduction or split confinement, arguing overpunishment and asking for conversion to aggravated assault or lesser service; the trial court summarily denied the motion.
- On appeal Harmon argued the Rule 35 denial was an abuse of discretion and alternatively argued the court should have treated his Rule 35 motion as a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Harmon’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Harmon’s Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence | Harmon asked for reduced or split confinement, claiming overpunishment, rehabilitation, and that confinement was unnecessary | Trial court properly denied Rule 35 motion because Harmon presented no evidence of changed circumstances and offense severity justified confinement | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion — record lacked proof warranting sentence modification under Rule 35 |
| Whether the trial court should have converted Harmon’s Rule 35 motion into a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel | Harmon urged conversion to post-conviction proceedings (citing Archer) to raise ineffective-assistance claims for the first time | State: Harmon did not raise ineffectiveness in the Rule 35 motion; new claims cannot be raised first on appeal; conversion was not warranted | Denial affirmed: Archer inapplicable because Harmon’s Rule 35 motion did not present claims cognizable only in post-conviction proceedings; appellate court will not consider new issues first raised on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 772 (Tenn. 2006) (standard: appellate review of Rule 35 denial is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Edenfield, 299 S.W.3d 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009) (Rule 35 denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Howell v. State, 185 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. 2006) (definition of abuse of discretion: incorrect legal standard or illogical/unreasonable decision causing injustice)
- Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. 1993) (court may treat a habeas or other filing as a post-conviction petition when relief is available only under post-conviction statutes)
- State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W.2d 136 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (appellate courts generally will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal)