Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Patrick Jayson Reeners

TENNCRIMAPPMay 7, 2018No. M2016-02184-CCA-R3-CD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal from trial court denial of motion to withdraw guilty pleas

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas for public intoxication, disorderly conduct, and telephone harassment, finding no fair and just reason to allow withdrawal.

Excerpt

The Defendant, Patrick Jayson Reeners, pleaded guilty to public intoxication and disorderly conduct and received concurrent thirty day sentences. In a separate case, he pleaded guilty to telephone harassment and received a probation sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. After the entry of his guilty pleas and sentencing, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas "made under life threatening needed medical attention." The trial court denied the motion after a hearing. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred when it did not find a "fair and just reason" to allow the Defendant to withdraw his pleas. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Patrick Jayson Reeners was charged with public intoxication, disorderly conduct, and telephone harassment. He pleaded guilty to all charges and received jail time for the first two offenses and probation for the telephone harassment. After being sentenced, Reeners tried to take back his guilty pleas, claiming he made them because he desperately needed medical attention and felt his life was threatened. **What the Court Decided:** Both the trial court and appeals court rejected Reeners' request to withdraw his guilty pleas. The appeals court found there was no fair and just reason to allow him to take back his admissions of guilt. The court upheld his original sentences. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While this is a criminal case rather than an employment dispute, it highlights an important principle: once you make legal agreements or admissions, courts are very reluctant to let you undo them later. In workplace situations, this could apply to settlements, plea agreements for workplace-related charges, or signed admissions during disciplinary proceedings. Workers should carefully consider any legal documents before signing and seek help if they feel pressured or coerced.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

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.