State v. Allen

1

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RYAN MONROE ALLEN

No. E2022-00437-CCA-R3-CD

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

July 12, 2023

Assigned on Briefs March 28, 2023

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 110400 G. Scott Green, Judge

The pro se Defendant, Ryan Monroe Allen, appeals his jury convictions for second degree murder and abuse of a corpse, and his resulting effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues as follows: (1) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to continue or, in the alternative, to proceed pro se that was made at the start of trial, thus, forcing the Defendant to proceed to trial with an attorney who had a conflict of interest; (2) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant's prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), and the prosecutor explicitly defied the trial court's pretrial 404(b) ruling during opening statements (3) the trial court erred by failing to address pretrial the Defendant's motion to dismiss the abuse of a corpse charge due to insufficient proof of venue or, in the alternative, to sever the two offenses; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the Defendant's convictions; (5) the trial court erred by not excusing a juror who indicated that she might have known the spouse of someone who assisted with the investigation; (6) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion for a mistrial made because the State failed to disclose prior to trial that two witnesses were going to testify to having seen certain evidence in the Defendant's residence; (7) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to recuse made on the ground that the trial court was holding court proceedings without the Defendant present and was biased against the Defendant; (8) the Defendant's sentence was out-of-range and illegal because he was not provided with the State's notice of its intention to seek enhanced punishment; (9) the State's case was based on perjured and recanted testimony; and (10) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by suppressing certain pieces of evidence. Following our review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tenn R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

Ryan Monroe Allen, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se (on appeal and on motion for new trial); Joshua D. Hedrick (elbow counsel on motion for new trial); and Keith E. Lowe (at trial) Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Ronald L. Coleman, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Leslie Nassios, Molly T. Martin, and Hector I. Sanchez, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

KYLE A. HIXSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., and JILL BARTEE AYERS, JJ., joined.

OPINION

KYLE A. HIXSON, JUDGE

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The charges in this case arose after Kelly^[1] Shae Cozart ("the victim") was bludgeoned to death in June 2015. Several days after the victim's murder, her body was discovered in Ballplay Creek in Monroe County. The body had been wrapped in bedsheets and a large trash bag, secured by electrical cords. Cell phone records showed frequent contact between the Defendant and the victim around the presumed time of her death, placed them both near the Knoxville residence where the Defendant resided, and confirmed that the victim's cell phone last connected to a cellular network near that residence. The victim's blood was later discovered in the room rented by the Defendant at that Knox County residence. On April 25, 2017, a Knox County grand jury returned a two-count presentment against the Defendant, charging him with the first degree premeditated murder of the victim and the abuse of her corpse. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202, -17-312(a)(1).

A. Pretrial Proceedings

Counsel was appointed for the indigent Defendant. On August 4, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the abuse of a corpse charge for lack of venue or, in the alternative, for the murder and abuse of a corpse counts to be severed. Noting that the victim's body was found in Monroe County and that the only connection to Knox County was the presence of the victim's blood in the Defendant's room, the Defendant argued that there was "no evidence, whatsoever, that the [] victim's corpse was abused in Knox County." In the alternative, the Defendant requested for the charges to be severed, alleging that a joint trial would "likely cause significant prejudice."

On August 23, 2017, the Defendant's first attorney was permitted to withdraw, and defense counsel^[2] was appointed. Thereafter, on December 1, 2017, defense counsel filed a motion to continue the trial, seeking additional time to review discovery materials. That motion was granted.

On January 12, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to proceed pro se, wherein he sought "standby" counsel and for defense counsel to be removed. In the motion, the Defendant noted that he had a 2014 associate's degree from Indiana University "with strengths in Arbitration and Ethics" and that he was "familiar with criminal procedure and courtroom conduct." According to a minute entry for that same day, the Defendant was present, with the assistance of counsel, and his motion to proceed pro se "came on for hearing." The trial court, "[h]aving heard the proof" and "arguments of counsel," held the motion in abeyance.

On January 31, 2018, the State filed its first notice seeking enhanced punishment. The notice listed an Indiana conviction in case number 45G03-0905-FB-00041 for auto theft on September 25, 2009, for which the Defendant received a three-year sentence, and an Indiana conviction in case number 45G03-0801-FC-00007 for robbery on May 29, 2018, for which he received a five-year sentence.

On March 1, 2018, defense counsel filed another motion to continue. Defense counsel requested more time to review additional, voluminous discovery that had recently been received and noted that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation ("TBI") lab report for testing samples collected at the victim's residence at 1700 Virginia Avenue had not yet been received. A minute entry for the following day reflected that the motion to continue was granted. According to a minute entry on March 23, 2018, "the [D]efendant's oral motion to continue trial date came on for hearing[,]" and the trial court granted the motion. The minute entry continued, "Defendant's (pro-se) Motion For Defendant To Proceed 'Pro-Se' came on for hearing," and after the trial court "heard the proof" and "arguments of counsel," the motion was withdrawn.

On April 25, 2018, the trial court heard a motion for bond reduction. At the outset of that hearing, the trial court informed the Defendant that it had read his letter,^[3] which the trial court noted that either the Defendant himself or defense counsel had put "on the docket." Replying to the contents of that letter, the trial court told the Defendant that it did "not conduct proceedings in any defendant's absence" and that "[t]he only thing . . . ever done in [the] courtroom without a defendant being present [was] picking another date, and that [was] only if that person's lawyer sa[id] that they're fine to do that without their client being present." The trial court reassured the Defendant that no proceedings were "going on behind [his] back," and the Defendant, in response, thanked the trial court for its acknowledgment.

On June 7, 2018, the State filed an amended notice seeking enhanced punishment. The amended notice added an Indiana conviction in case number 45G03-0801-FC-00005 for robbery on May 29, 2018, for which the Defendant received a five-year sentence.

On June 22, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion requesting a hearing pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) to determine the admissibility of any alleged prior bad acts committed by the Defendant that the State sought to introduce at trial. The Defendant proceeded to a jury trial that was held June 25 to June 28 of 2018.

B. Trial Proceedings

1. Motions

The morning of trial, June 25, 2018, the trial court asked whether the Defendant was "dressed out."^[4] Defense counsel replied that "they attempted to dress him out" but that the Defendant said he wanted to talk to defense counsel first. Defense counsel relayed that during that conversation, the Defendant made counsel aware that he wanted counsel to move for a continuance or, in the alternative, the Defendant wanted to proceed pro se. The trial court said it was "tired of playing games with" the Defendant and asked for the Defendant to be brought into the courtroom.

Once the Defendant was in the courtroom, defense counsel repeated that the Defendant desired a continuance. When the trial court asked on what grounds, defense counsel said he would let the Defendant address the court because the Defendant also desired, in the alternative, to proceed pro se. The trial court said, "No, you're his attorney of record until such time as this [c]ourt relieves you." Defense counsel then attempted to explain why the Defendant wanted a continuance: "[I]f I were to put it succinctly[,] he believes that he has not seen enough of his discovery to be ready to go today. He has concerns that some of the discovery that came in later, he does not fully understand or has not fully seen." Defense counsel continued,

And I think he believes that we have a conflict, . . . but I guess I'll let him speak as to whether or not he thinks we have a conflict....He needs more time for him to lay eyes on more discovery to understand it and comprehend it and be ready

...