Rashad Dewayne Seay, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Syllabus
A Wilson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Rashad Dewayne Seay, Jr., of two counts of the sale of .5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of eighteen years for each offense. The Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the court summarily dismissed as untimely. On appeal, we reversed the summary dismissal. Rashad Dewayne Seay, Jr. v. State, No. M2017-01128-CCA-R3-PC, 2018 WL 3203442, at 1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, June 29, 2018), no perm. app. filed. On remand, the post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing after which it filed a written order denying the Petitioner relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure the Petitioner was present during the jury instructions, failing to ensure that the jury was properly instructed, failing to adequately investigate and prepare an identification expert, and failing to inform the Petitioner of the consequences of withdrawing his direct appeal. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that although offenses of two employees need not be identical, the offenses must be comparable
- noting that the plaintiff must attack the defendant’s reason as a pretext in order to prevail at the final stage of the analysis
- noting that a plaintiff can show an employer’s stated reason for an adverse action is not the real reason for the action by demonstrating that similarly situated employees were treated differently
- “adopting the approach taken by” Dartmouth, and Smith whereby plaintiff must identify specific instances where nonhandi-capped persons with similar performance, qualifications and conduct were treated differently
- distinguishing plaintiff's knowing violation of company rule from proffered comparators' misunderstanding of rule in finding no pretext based on disparate treatment
- upholding summary judgment for defendant in employment discrimination case, where plaintiff provided no evidence to support a finding of pretext
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.