Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze v. State of Tennessee
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Judge Kyle A. Hixson
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal appeal from post-conviction court's denial of relief for actual innocence
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Criminal appeal by Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze challenging post-conviction court's denial of relief despite State's admission of actual innocence in their convictions for their infant son's death from abusive head trauma. Multiple procedural and substantive issues raised regarding the sufficiency of new scientific evidence and the post-conviction court's burden analysis.
Excerpt
The Petitioners, Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze, seek post-conviction relief from their respective convictions related to their infant son's death in 2000 from abusive head trauma ("AHT"). The post-conviction court afforded the Petitioners an evidentiary hearing at which they presented purported "new scientific evidence" through various experts in an effort to establish their actual innocence. The State, through the Office of the District Attorney General for the Twentieth Judicial District ("District Attorney"), admitted the facts asserted by the Petitioners and agreed that the Petitioners were actually innocent of these offenses. Nonetheless, the post-conviction court determined that the Petitioners had failed to carry their burden of producing clear and convincing proof to establish their actual innocence, a determination which the Petitioners now challenge. On appeal, the State, through the Office of the Attorney General and Reporter ("Attorney General"), contends that the Petitioners failed to prove their actual innocence based on new scientific evidence, instead proffering only new opinions on previously presented evidence, which supports the post-conviction court's denial of relief. In addition to the underlying substantive merits of their actual innocence claims, the Petitioners also raise certain procedural issues: (1) whether review of Mr. Maze's appeal, which began as a motion to reopen his prior post-conviction petition, is permissive or an appeal as of right; (2) whether Mrs. Maze's petition for post-conviction relief, her first, is time-barred; (3) whether the State improperly changed its position on appeal in violation of due process, judicial estoppel, and waiver; (4) whether the post-conviction court's ruling infringed upon prosecutorial discretion and violated the party-presentation principle; (5) whether the post-conviction court erred by denying Mrs. Maze relief without independent review of her actual innocence claim; and (6) whether this cas
Similar Rulings
In 2015, a Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jabriel Linzy, of first-degree murder,attempted first-degree murder, and employment of a firearm during the commission of adangerous felony. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for the first degree murderconviction, fifteen years for the attempted first degree murder conviction, and six years forthe conviction of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Thetrial court ordered that the two shorter sentences be served consecutively to each other butconcurrently with the life sentence. The Petitioner appealed his convictions, and this courtaffirmed. State v. Linzy, No. E2016-01052-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 3575871, at 1 (Tenn.Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017). The Petitioner fileda petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court grantedpost-conviction relief, concluding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object toinadmissible social media evidence in conjunction with not eliciting testimony about thePetitioner's prior conflict with the victim and that trial counsel's performance prejudicedthe Petitioner. On appeal, the State contends that the post-conviction court erred becausetrial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision when failing to object to the social mediaevidence and because the Petitioner cannot show that trial counsel's performanceprejudiced him. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.
In a post-conviction relief proceeding, an applicant is entitled to notice that his application may be summarily dismissed.
Petitioner, Adam Moates, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.