Court of Criminal Appeals Opinions

Format: 09/26/2016
Format: 09/26/2016
01C01-9505-CC-00131
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
Putnam County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/17/96
03C01-9503-CR-00071
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Roane County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/16/96
03C01-9503-CR-00071
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Roane County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/16/96
03C01-9502-CR-00034
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Mayo L. Mashburn
Bradley County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/12/96
03C01-9406-CR-00242
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Knox County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/12/96
03C01-9406-CR-00242
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner
Knox County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/12/96
03C01-9501-CR-00027
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Hamilton County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/11/96
03C01-9501-CR-00004
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner
Hancock County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/11/96
01C01-9503-CC-00063
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
Marshall County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/11/96
01C01-9411-CC-00391
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
Marshall County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/11/96
01C01-9408-CC-00286
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Maury County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/11/96
01C01-9404-CR-00154
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
Davidson County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/11/96
Jack Layne Benson vs. State
M1999-01649-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
The petitioner, Jack Layne Benson, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Convicted in 1996 of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, and sentenced to consecutive terms of life and 24 years, the petitioner contended that he was entitled to post-conviction relief on the grounds that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. In this appeal, the petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately communicate, for failing to adequately investigate, and for failing to obtain a transcript of the preliminary hearing. The petitioner argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to present additional issues on direct appeal. Because the petitioner has been unable to establish both deficiency in the performance of his counsel and prejudice in consequence thereof, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bedford County Court of Criminal Appeals 01/10/96