State of Tennessee v. Ebony Marshall, W2015-01835-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Ebony Marshall pleaded open guilty to two counts of robbery (May 25 and Sept 10, 2013) and was sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to 12 and 13 years, to run consecutively (effective 25 years).
Marshall filed pro se motions and appeals while represented at various times; the appellate court stayed an earlier appeal pending resolution of his motion to withdraw guilty pleas.
Marshall moved to withdraw his guilty pleas after sentencing, arguing he did not understand exposure to consecutive sentences and that pleas were involuntary or the product of improper proceedings.
At the withdrawal hearing, defense counsel testified he had explained sentencing exposure, discussed consecutive sentencing as a possibility, and provided written communications; the guilty plea transcript showed Marshall acknowledged counsel had explained the plea and voiced satisfaction.
The trial court denied the motion to withdraw, finding Marshall knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and that the motion was an attempt to manipulate the system because of dissatisfaction with the resulting sentence.
On sentencing review, the trial court applied enhancement for extensive criminal history, allowed limited mitigation for drug addiction, and found statutory grounds for consecutive sentences based principally on an extensive record of criminal activity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion denying motion to withdraw guilty pleas	Marshall argued plea involuntary, uninformed about consecutive sentencing, Boykin/Mackey defects	Trial court and State argued plea was knowing, voluntary, counsel advised, plea colloquy adequate; no manifest injustice shown	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; plea found knowing and voluntary and not manifestly unjust
Whether trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences	Marshall argued court failed to properly state reasons/consider statutory sentencing principles	State argued statutory criteria met; consecutive sentences appropriate given extensive criminal history	Affirmed — consecutive sentences upheld based on extensive record of criminal activity; court abused no discretion despite not fully supporting "professional criminal" factor
Whether sentencing lengths were excessive/unsupported by findings	Marshall argued enhancements unsupported; sentence greater than deserved	State argued enhancements supported by record (long criminal history); mitigation considered	Affirmed — mid‑range sentences supported by enhancement (prior convictions) and mitigation (drug addiction) considered properly
Whether Marshall was denied due process/self-representation (motions not ruled on)	Marshall claimed court failed to rule on suppression/dismiss motions and denied pro se rights, forcing plea	Record shows Marshall was allowed to proceed pro se on pretrial motions, hearings occurred and relief granted; appellate record need not include transcripts of pretrial matters	Claims rejected on record; procedural and constitutional challenges more appropriate for post-conviction review

Key Cases Cited

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (plea colloquy and waiver of constitutional rights principles)
State v. Mackey, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn. 1977) (requirements for court inquiry into voluntariness of guilty plea)
State v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 346 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (standard for withdrawing guilty plea to correct "manifest injustice")
State v. Crowe, 168 S.W.3d 731 (Tenn. 2005) (involuntary plea and ineffective assistance as grounds for withdrawal)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentencing)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (standard for imposition of consecutive sentences)
State v. Wilson, 31 S.W.3d 189 (Tenn. 2000) (limits on raising voluntariness of plea on direct appeal; some challenges reserved for post-conviction)