Ricardo Antonio Demling v. State of Tennessee

Syllabus

The petitioner, Ricardo Antonio Demling, was convicted by a jury of theft of property valued between $10,000 and $60,000, for his involvement in stealing two utility trailer vehicles (UTVs), and sentenced to fifteen years as a Range III persistent offender to be served consecutively to any unexpired sentences.1 He now appeals from the denial of postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on the following grounds: (1) upon receipt of the State's amended discovery response containing a statement by the petitioner and the name Christopher Brown, the alleged owner of a UTV, trial counsel's failure to move to dismiss the charge, failure to suppress the statement by the petitioner, and failure to file a motion to continue the trial (2) failure to interview and secure the testimony of Christopher Brown (3) failure to file a motion based on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912, 916 (Tenn. 1999), concerning the alleged destruction of a dash cam recording of the instant traffic stop (4) failure to file a speedy trial motion to dismiss based on the sixty-seven month delay between the date of the alleged crime and the date of the arrest and (5) failure to file a motion to dismiss based upon the sixteen month delay between the date of the arrest and the trial.2 Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.