NASHVILLE CRIMINAL LAWYERS Researching, writing and arguing
QUILLEN, FLANAGAN & QUILLEN criminal appeals in Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee
HOME PAGE
PRACTICE AREAS
ATTORNEY PROFILES
CONTACT ATTORNEY
TN DUI LAWS
TN DUI ARREST
RESTRICTED LICENSE
SEX OFFENSES
CRIMINAL APPEALS
RESOURCES
brief-writing and persuasive oral argument. We prosecute appeals
in the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, the Tennessee
Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
We also pursue post conviction relief (PCR) for our clients. PCR
entails reading transcripts, investigating the facts of the case, filing
a petition, a hearing with witnesses, and often, a further appeal to
the Court of Criminal Appeals.
OFFICE I-40 Exit 204
95 White Bridge Road
Suite 208
Nashville, TN 37205
(615) 356-1580
(615) 356-2567 FAX
accepts Visa, Mastercard,
Discover and American Express
a "motion to dismiss" iis properly called
a "motion to suppress." A successful
motion challenging illegal, unconsti-
tutional police conduct may well require
dismissal of the case with prejudice.
(The exclusionary rule prohibits the
District Attorney from using the illegally
obtained evidence at trial.) If the trial
judge overrules such a motion and the
case is appealed, the issue may be
revisited in the appeal.
HOME PAGE
PRACTICE AREAS
ATTORNEY PROFILES
CONTACT ATTORNEY
TN DUI LAWS
TN DUI ARREST
RESTRICTED LICENSE
SEX OFFENSES
CRIMINAL APPEALS
RESOURCES
for 40 years. The following is a summary of our successes:
vehicle stop that is not based on an articulable suspicion of wrongdoing.
These cases are particularly relevant to DUI and drug cases.
(Tenn.Crim.App. 2002) The facts set forth in
the search warrant affidavit did not support a
reasonable inference that drugs would be
located at a Smyrna residence. The affidavit
did not indicate the amount of drugs involved,
a past history of drugs, or extensive
investigation, nor did the affidavit set forth
specific allegations to establish a connection
between the drug sales and the Smyrna
residence. There was only a conclusory
statement that the defendant's boyfriend
stored drugs and cask in a Smyrna residence.
The information set forth in the warrant did not
establish probable cause to search the
Smyrna residence and the Court could not
uphold, a search of a citizen's home on such a
dearth of specific facts. Kenneth Quillen for
the appellant.
(6th Cir. 2001) where the accused was charged
with four counts of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute methamphetamine,
amphetamine, and cocaine, and one count of
carrying firearm in commission of drug
trafficking moved to suppress evidence. The
United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Thomas A. Higgins, J.,
granted motion. Government appealed. The
Court of Appeals, Holschuh, District Judge, held
defendant had standing to challenge search of
rental car, even though he was not authorized
driver; and (4) police officer did not have
reasonable suspicion supporting continued
detention of defendant after purpose of traffic
stop was completed. Victory for client and
Attorney Michael Flanagan.
00236, 1999 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 146,
Opinion Filed February 19, 1999. Tennessee
law prohibited general warrants, and required
search warrants to describe with particularity
the place to be searched, thus defendant was
entitled to suppression of evidence discovered
as a result of such a general warrant. Michael
Flanagan.
App. 1999) where the accused was convicted
in the Dickson County Circuit Court of
possessing cocaine and marijuana for
resale. Defendant appealed. The Court of
Criminal Appeals held that: (1) failing to signal
lane change did not violate the traffic code or
justify vehicle stop, and (2) driving on the
white line after making a lane change did not
provide police officer with reasonable
suspicion that the defendant was either drunk
or tired. Conviction vacated; reversed and
remanded. The Court held that the fact that
defendant was driving in a manner that an
officer deemed “improper” when the driving
was not erratic or haphazard and did not
create a dangerous situation did not warrant a
stop of the vehicle by the police officer.
Michael Flanagan for the appellant.
HOME PAGE
PRACTICE AREAS
ATTORNEY PROFILES
CONTACT ATTORNEY
TN DUI LAWS
TN DUI ARREST
RESTRICTED LICENSE
SEX OFFENSES
CRIMINAL APPEALS
RESOURCES
00127, 1996 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 291
where the CCA held a search warrant was
required to particularly describe the place to
be searched, and evidence seized on a
warrant that failed to so describe defendants’
rural residence on a gravel road was properly
suppressed. Victory for the defense. Michael
Flanagan and Dale Quillen
02-C-01-9504-CC-00102 or (Tennessee
Court of Criminal Appeals 1995 filed May 7,
1991 whereby a police officer who stopped
defendant solely on a radio report of a drunk
driver and did not see defendant engage in
activity that gave rise to a reasonable,
articulable suspicion, there was an insufficient
factual basis to support the investigatory
vehicle stop. (driving under the
influence). Michael Flanagan, Dale Quillen.
(Tenn.Crim.App. 1997) where in a drug
prosecution, the Humphreys County Trial
Judge entered judgment suppressing evidence
seized by law enforcement officers.
Prosecution appealed. The appellate court
held that: (1) officer's testimony that he saw
silhouette in window of residence to be
searched was not sufficient exigent
circumstance to justify officers' failure to
comply with "knock and announce" rule
when executing search warrant; (2) stale
information that transient visitor to house had
previously been involved with crystal
methamphetamine provided officers with
reasonable and articulable facts to detain and
frisk visitor to determine if he was armed, but
did not justify officers' warrantless search of
his person, his billfold, and his truck; and (3)
affidavit's allegations about visitor's prior
involvement in cocaine and methamphetamine
activity were too stale to state probable cause
for issuance of search warrant for visitor's own
residence. Victory for defense..
00219, filed October 14, 1993, where
Defendant’s motion to suppress was
properly sustained where an airport search
was conducted based upon information from a
confidential informant and the State failed
to show the basis of the informant’s knowledge
or his credibility.
State v. Dixon, C.C.A. No. 01C01-9205-CC-
00176, Filed January 28, 1993, where
Defendant’s conviction for possessing
marijuana for resale could not be sustained
where prejudicial error existed in the denial of
his motion to suppress evidence illegally
seized from his pickup truck.
Supreme Court 1992) where Defendant was
convicted of forgery and other charges after
trial in the Nashville Criminal Court. Defendant
appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals
reversed on ground that motion to suppress
evidence should have been granted. State
appealed. The Tennessee Supreme Court
held that: (1) homeowner did not consent to
entry and search of home without warrant, and
(2) search warrant was obtained partly on
basis of statements made by homeowner
during detective's unconstitutional entry so as
to preclude application of independent source
doctrine as exception to exclusionary rule. Win
for Dale Quillen
(Tenn.Crim.App.1992) where Defendant was
convicted in Dickson County of manufacturing
marijuana and possession of marijuana.
Defendant appealed. OVERVIEW: Results of
search warrant were properly suppressed
where affidavit to magistrate set forth facts that
established probable cause for warrant to
issue, but failed to state facts that demon-
strated reliability of the informant or reliability
of his information. Win for Michael J. Flanagan.
1983) where Defendant was convicted in the
Criminal Court, Sumner County of concealing
stolen property, and the Court of Appeals
reversed trial court's denial of motion to
suppress. On State's appeal, the Tennessee
Supreme Court held that impoundment of
defendant's car was wrongful, and, therefore,
subsequent inventory search was without
legal justification. Defense wins.
App. 1981) where the accused was convicted
in the Circuit Court, Robertson County of
manufacturing marijuana and possession of
marijuana for purpose of resale, and he
appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals held
that where there was nothing in affidavit from
which one could find that alleged criminal
activity was currently taking place, affidavit in
support of search warrant was insufficient
and search warrant was fatally defective.
Defense wins.
Criminal Court County., of possession of controlled substance, heroin, for purpose of resale, and
they appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and dismissed convictions, and State
appealed. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that:two circumstances that authorize impeachment
of affidavit sufficient on its face are when false statement is made with intent to deceive court, whether
material or immaterial to issue of probable cause, and when false statement, essential to
establishment of probable cause, is recklessly made, and (3) officer affiant's admittedly false
statement that informant had supplied him with narcotic information in past that was at all times correct
was essential to establishment of probable cause, and was recklessly made, thus authorizing
impeachment of search warrant affidavit sufficient on its face and suppression of evidence obtained
thereunder. Victory for the defense. This a case of the Nashville Police getting caught lying
under oath. Win for client and Dale Quillen.
R3-CD, Court of Criminal Appeals of
Tennessee at Nashville, 2004 Tenn. Crim.
App. LEXIS 125. A probation violation
warrant against client based on a homicide
charge was dismissed; the circumstantial proof
of defendant’s involvement in the crime was
insufficient to conclude that he killed the
victim and thus violated his probation.
Michael J. Flanagan wins again..
Crim.App. 2002) where Defendant convicted
for theft of property valued in excess of
$10,000 and forgery. Two concurrent three
year sentences were imposed with
incarceration for one year followed by two
years of community corrections. Restitution
was not ordered until the appellant's
sentenced had expired. Defendant appealed
the judge’s order setting the amount of
restitution on the ground that the court lacked
jurisdiction. The Attorney General conceded
that the restitution order in this case was
entered following the expiration of the
appellant's sentence and is therefore in
contravention of T.C.A. 40-35-304(g)(2). The
Court of Criminal Appeals agreed and
reversed the order of restitution. Kenneth
Quillen wins for appellant.
CC-00568, 1999 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 852,
Filed August 19, 1999 where the defendant’s
conviction for the Class D felony of evading
arrest was reversed because evidence did not
support conviction. The case was remanded
for a new trial because lower court erred in
failing to instruct jury regarding lesser included
offenses. Client and Michael J. Flanagan win.
1990) where Defendant was convicted in
Dickson County of felonious possession of
marijuana, and he appealed. The Court of
Criminal Appeals concluded that notice was
insufficient and vacated sentence. On appeal,
the Tennessee Supreme Court held that
State's notice of intent to seek enhanced
sentence was wholly inadequate to advise that
Range II sentence was sought and was
misleading, thus requiring resentencing.
Judgment affirmed and case remanded for
resentencing. Defense wins.
(Tenn.Crim.App. 1994) where Defendant was
entitled to a reduction in confinement time
where a trial judge had denied probation
solely based on the offense involved, but the
offense was one for which probation was a
statutorily available sentencing alternative.
(Tenn.Crim.App. 1985) where Defendant was
convicted of being habitual drug offender in
Montgomery County and appealed. Held:
prior convictions for simple possession
of controlled substances could not be
utilized to convict defendant of being
habitual drug offender. Reversed.
2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 895, Filed
October 25, 2002. The trial judge erred in
failing to instruct jury on lesser-included
offenses of assault, and, under circumstances,
appellate court could not say beyond a
reasonable doubt that jury would not have
convicted defendant of one of those variations.
Michael J. Flanagan, for the appellant.
Crim.App. 1999) where the accused was
charged with fist degree murder and found
guilty of second degree murder. The trial judge
denied attorney’s motion for a jury instruction
on the lesser included offense of voluntary
manslaughter. The Court of Criminal Appeals
reversed and remanded for a new trial. Dale
and Kenneth Quillen at trial and on briefs; oral
argument: Michael Flanagan. Read brief.
CC-00558, 1999 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 152,
Opinion Filed February 18, 1999. The Court
held that a previous DUI (driving under the
influence) conviction could not be used to
enhance the punishment for a subsequent DUI
conviction, unless the record of his first
conviction affirmatively demonstrated that
defendant was represented by counsel or
waived his right to counsel. Michael J.
Flanagan for the Appellant.
9803-CR-00130 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1999) where
Defendant’s convictions for two counts of
delivery of cocaine in excess of .5 grams and
three counts of delivery of cocaine in excess
of 26 grams were invalid where State merely
presented corroborative evidence that
defendant admitted he dealt drugs. Evidence
insufficient to support conviction. Dismissed.
Michael J. Flanagan, Dale M. Quillen.
01-C-01-9308-CC-00262 (Aggravated
Rape) where Defendant was wrongfully
convicted of sexual abuse of a minor where the
trial court failed to require the State to elect
which particular offense it sought to prosecute.
The victim testified in conclusory fashion as to
three incidents of abuse. Dale Quillen at trial
and Michael Flanagan on app.eal
01C01-9406-CC-00193, Tenn. Crim. App.
LEXIS 657, Filed August 4, 1995 where
Defendant, charged with DUI / Driving under
the influence was denied a fair trial because
jury was permitted to view a portion of a
videotape not introduced into evidence that
showed officer stopping another erratically
driver vehicle without charging that driver with
an offense. Reversed.
1996) where the State appealed from order of
the Criminal Court, Hickman County, denying
its motion to attach cash appearance bond
posted by defendant's father. The intermediate
appellate court reversed, and defendant filed
Rule 11 application. The Tennessee Supreme
Court held that cash bond deposited by
defendant's parents to ensure defendant's
appearance in court may not be attached to
cover fines and costs incurred by defendant in
connection with prosecution. Court of Criminal
Appeals reversed; trial court judgment
reinstated. The Supreme Court held the State’
s motion to attach the cash appearance bond
posted by defendant’s parents in order to
cover defendant’s fines and fees properly was
denied; the contract provided payment was
due only if defendant did not appear for no
other purpose. Dale Quillen, Michael J.
Flanagan, Nashville, Tennessee.
01C01-9610-CC-00431 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1998)
App. LEXIS 2369, March 20, 1984. MICHAEL
J. FLANAGAN, Nashville, Tennessee.
(Tenn.Crim.App. 1979) where the accused was
convicted in the Nashville Criminal Court of
selling a schedule II controlled substance,
cocaine, and he appealed. The appellate
court held that error in admitting testimony
concerning an alleged agreement by
defendant to supply a narcotics agent with
cocaine on a regular basis in future, testimony
which allowed jury to infer to defendant's
prejudice that subsequent sales occurred over
a longer period of time than actual proof would
have indicated, could not have affected verdict
in view of overwhelming evidence of guilt, but it
could have affected punishment assessed
and, hence, required a modification of
judgment to reflect a correction of
sentence to minimum provided by law in
event state did not desire a remand on issue
of punishment. Judgment modified and
otherwise affirmed.
(Tenn.Crim.App. 1981) where the accused was
convicted in the Nashville Criminal Court of
second-degree burglary and grand larceny
and of being an habitual criminal. Held: proof
that the defendant was an habitual criminal
was insufficient, but since the State was
entitled to introduce, and the trial judge
improperly sustained the defendant's objection
to, testimony which would have shown that at
least one of the defendant's convictions in
federal court was for an act which, if committed
in Tennessee, would have constituted one of
the specified offenses under the habitual
criminal statute, a remand was necessary for a
retrial on the issue of habitual criminality.
Affirmed in part, set aside in part, and
remanded.