State v. Hodge

1

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CASEY DEWAYNE HODGE

No. E2022-00303-CCA-R3-CD

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

August 24, 2023

Session March 28, 2023

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 118310 Steven Wayne Sword, Judge

Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the defendant, Casey DeWayne Hodge, appeals one certified question of law related to the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss in which he alleged a speedy trial violation and two certified questions of law related to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress in which he challenged the constitutionality of a traffic stop. Discerning no error, we affirm. We remand for entry of judgments on Counts 2 and 3 reflecting that the charges were dismissed in accordance with the plea agreement.

Tenn R. App. P. 3; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed Remanded

Eric Lutton, District Public Defender; and Jonathan Harwell (on appeal), Chelsea Harris, and Christopher Martin (at trial), Assistant Public Defenders, for the appellant, Casey DeWayne Hodge.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Jonathan H. Wardle, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Robert Debusk and Greg Eshbaugh, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

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

OPINION

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

Following a traffic stop on June 1, 2019, the defendant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant ("DUI") and the failure to drive within a single lane of traffic in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-123.

On December 9, 2020, the Knox County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging the defendant with DUI per se, DUI, and the failure to drive within a single lane of traffic.

The defendant appeared before the trial court for arraignment on January 13, 2021. The trial court appointed counsel to represent the defendant and scheduled a status hearing for February 25, 2021. During the February 25 hearing, the defendant, through counsel, announced that he had received discovery and planned to file additional discovery requests, and he requested that the case be scheduled for a status hearing in 30 days. The State did not object but suggested that a status hearing in 45 to 60 days would be "more realistic." The defendant announced that he did not object to a 45-day continuance, and the trial court scheduled a status hearing for April 23. The State questioned whether the defendant intended to address "this motion," and the trial court stated that no motions were pending. The defendant explained that he filed a pro se "motion to dismiss" while the case was pending before the grand jury and that another judge ruled on the motion. The defendant stated that as a result, he did not plan to address the motion.

During the April 23 status hearing, the defendant requested a scheduling order and a trial date, and the State announced that a plea deadline was likely unnecessary because prior attempts to negotiate a plea agreement had been unsuccessful. Due to the crowded trial calendar, the trial court expressed hesitancy about setting the case for trial without knowing whether the case would actually proceed to trial. The trial court stated that if it set the case for trial, it also would "cut off" plea negotiations. The trial court offered to reset the case for 30 days to allow the parties to negotiate. The defendant requested that the trial court reset the case 30 days for a plea deadline to allow the defendant to discuss "pretrial litigation" and discovery issues with the State. The trial court set a plea deadline for June 10 and stated that it would set the case for trial if no agreement had been reached.

During the June 10 hearing, the trial court scheduled the trial for February 22, 2022, and a hearing on any motions for August 19, 2021. The defendant offered no objection to the trial date. The record does not include any information regarding the August 19 hearing.

On October 27, 2021, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that his right to a speedy trial had been violated, and a motion to suppress, arguing that the police officer lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. The defendant alleged in the motion to dismiss that the delay was not due to his actions but was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the State's failure to provide video footage of the traffic stop from the police cruiser in a timely manner while the case was pending in the general sessions court. The defendant argued that the delay was primarily the result of bureaucratic indifference and was avoidable. He asserted that his pro se motion to dismiss filed in November 2020 was a formal demand for a speedy trial. He alleged that as a result of the delay, he suffered "overwhelming anxiety" and "severe emotion[al] and psychological distress," lost wages due to missing work, incurred litigation costs, and lost contact with a witness who was with him during the evening prior to his arrest and could have attested to his sobriety.

During a hearing on October 29, 2021, the defendant requested that the motions be heard in December when the officers were available to testify and to allow the State time to file a response. The trial court set a hearing for December 14, 2021.

The State filed responses to both motions on November 15, 2021. The State maintained that the officer who conducted the traffic stop formed sufficient probable cause or reasonable suspicion based upon the observations and report of another officer. With regard to the speedy trial claim, the State acknowledged that the case was "forcibly reset" due to the COVID-19 pandemic from April 2020 until August 2020 and asserted that the defendant either requested or acquiesced in almost all of the delays unrelated to COVID-19. The State set forth the following timeline of the proceedings in the general sessions court:

June 10, 2019

The defendant was arraigned, and the case was reset to August 19 after the defendant requested appointed counsel.

August 19, 2019

The defendant agreed to a continuance, and the matter was reset for November 12, 2019.

November 12, 2019

The matter was reset to January 21, 2020, “awaiting the video in this matter.” On November 13, 2019, the State requested the incar videos of the officers.

January 21, 2020

The matter was “reset by agreement” to February 24.

February 24, 2020

“[T]he State agreed to a reset to allow the defense time to review videos and to either plead or set the matter for a preliminary hearing on April 6th, 2020.” Per the defendant's motion, he retained private counsel in March 2020. Resets related to COVID-19 occurred until August 10, 2020.

August 10, 2020

“[T]he State agreed to a reset to October 5th, 2020[,] to allow the defense more time to review the videos and discuss a potential plea resolution.”

October 5, 2020

A preliminary hearing was scheduled, but both parties agreed to continue the hearing until October 30. October 30, 2020 The defendant agreed to bind the matter over to the grand jury without a preliminary hearing.

The State maintained that the defendant did not assert his right to a speedy trial, that even if his pro se filing was an assertion of his right to a speedy trial, his actions thereafter "diluted his assertion and show that [he] did not sincerely want a speedy trial," and that he failed to establish prejudice.

An evidentiary hearing on both motions was held in the trial court on December 14, 2021. The State presented Officer Travis Harvey and Sergeant Samuel Henard with the Knoxville Police Department ("KPD") as witnesses in support of the State's claim that the traffic stop was constitutional. The defendant testified in support of his speedy trial claim.

Sergeant Henard, who had been a KPD officer for 18 years, testified that on the evening of June 1, 2019, he dropped off his police cruiser and retrieved another vehicle for a special event on the following morning. The vehicle was half police car and half taxi and was used for special events and not for patrol purposes. While traveling from downtown toward South Knoxville, Sergeant Henard began driving behind a black Nissan car, and he testified that the car was swerving in the roadway and crossing the double yellow center line. While on Sevier Avenue, Sergeant Henard saw the car go "all the way across the double yellow line in the other lane." He attempted to activate the lights on his vehicle, but the lights were not operational. He stated that he flashed his lights in an effort to stop the car because he believed the car would strike another vehicle, but his efforts were unsuccessful. He requested the assistance of an on-duty officer through the radio dispatch.

Sergeant Henard testified that he followed the car for approximately five miles and seven to ten minutes before another officer arrived and that he observed the car swerve and cross the center line multiple times. Sergeant Henard updated his location through the radio dispatch until Officer Travis Harvey arrived, and Sergeant Henard affirmed that he stopped the car with Officer Harvey's assistance.

Sergeant Henard approached the car and observed a beer bottle on the back floorboard of the car. While Officer Harvey was verifying the defendant's information, Sergeant Henard spoke with the defendant and informed him of the reason for the stop. Sergeant Henard asked the defendant if he would be willing to take field sobriety tests, but the defendant "wouldn't say yes. He wouldn't say no. He was just saying, if there's not a problem here, I'm...