ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Tennessee

2026Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690 ; State v. Mitchell, 753 S.W.2d 148, 149 (Tenn. Crim.

2025Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690 ; State v. Mitchell, 753 S.W.2d 148, 149 (Tenn. Crim.

2025To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “a petitioner must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn. 1996)). 8 When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the reviewing court should judge the attorney’s performance within the context of the case as a whole, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2022To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “a petitioner must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn. 1996)). 6 When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the reviewing court should judge the attorney’s performance within the context of the case as a whole, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2025See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 . -6- As an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires the Petitioner to prove both prongs of Strickland, the Petitioner’s failure to establish deficiency is sufficient for the court to deny relief.

2023To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 ). 10 When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the reviewing court should judge the attorney’s performance within the context of the case as a whole, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2026Id. (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975)). “[A] failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim.

2021App. 1982), but the burden of proof on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim lies with the proponent, in this case the defendant, see Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975).

2022A trial court’s findings of fact relative to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim are binding on appeal, and this court must defer to them “unless the evidence in the record preponderates against those findings.” Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997); see Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 456-57 (Tenn. 2001).

2021A trial court’s findings of fact relative to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim are binding on appeal, and this court must defer to them “unless the evidence in the record preponderates against those findings.” Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997); see Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 456-57 (Tenn. 2001).

2014Ed. 2d 348 (2013) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ); see also Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 462 (“[A] reviewing court must be highly deferential and should indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.”). -4- The second part of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim-prejudice-requires a petitioner to prove “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

2002As explained in State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 462 (Tenn. 1999), “[c]onduct that is unreasonable under the facts of one case may be perfectly reasonable under the facts of another.” If a petitioner pleads guilty and then asserts an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, there are additional requirements that the petitioner must prove in order to be entitled to relief.

2025In sum, “[w]hen an omitted issue is without merit, the petitioner cannot prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Id. at 887-88 (citing United States v. Dixon, 1 F.3d 1080, 1083 (10th Cir. 1993)).

2025In sum, “[w]hen an omitted issue is without merit, the petitioner cannot prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Id. at 887-88 (citing United States v. Dixon, 1 F.3d 1080, 1083 (10th Cir. 1993)).

2025In sum, “[w]hen an omitted issue is without merit, the petitioner cannot prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Id. at 887-88 (citing United States v. Dixon, 1 F.3d 1080, 1083 (10th Cir. 1993)).

2025As previously stated, “[w]hen an omitted issue is without merit, the petitioner cannot prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Carpenter, 126 S.W.3d at 887-88 .

2014Vaughn, 202 S.W.3d at 116 (internal quotations and citations omitted). -9- In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the petitioner must establish that (1) his lawyer’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

2014Vaughn, 202 S.W.3d at 116 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). -13- In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the petitioner must establish that (1) his lawyer’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

2026As such, “[t]he deprivation of effective assistance of counsel is a constitutional claim cognizable under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.” Howard v. State, 604 S.W.3d 53 , 57 (Tenn. 2020) (quoting Moore v. State, 485 S.W.3d 411, 418 (Tenn. 2016)). - 14 - “Appellate review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact that this Court reviews de novo.” Phillips v. State, 647 S.W.3d 389 , 400 (Tenn. 2022) (citing Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282, 294 (Tenn. 2009)).

2026“Appellate review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact that this Court reviews de novo.” Phillips v. State, 647 S.W.3d 389 , 400 (Tenn. 2022) (citing Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282, 294 (Tenn. 2009)).

2026See State v. Melson, 772 S.W.2d 417 , 419 n.2 (Tenn. 1989). -6- A petitioner must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test in order to prevail in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

2026See State v. Melson, 772 S.W.2d 417 , 419 n.2 (Tenn. 1989). -10- A petitioner must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test in order to prevail in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

2025Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see Lockart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 368-72 (1993).

2025Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see Lockart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 368-72 (1993).

2025To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “a petitioner must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 369 (Tenn. 1996)). 8 When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the reviewing court should judge the attorney’s performance within the context of the case as a whole, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2023To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tenn. 2001) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 ). 10 When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the reviewing court should judge the attorney’s performance within the context of the case as a whole, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2022A trial court’s findings of fact relative to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim are binding on appeal, and this court must defer to them “unless the evidence in the record preponderates against those findings.” Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997); see Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 456-57 (Tenn. 2001).

2021A trial court’s findings of fact relative to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim are binding on appeal, and this court must defer to them “unless the evidence in the record preponderates against those findings.” Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Tenn. 1997); see Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 456-57 (Tenn. 2001).

2025Although a defendant may raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a motion for new trial or on direct appeal, this court has repeatedly cautioned that “the practice . . . is fraught with peril since it is virtually impossible to demonstrate prejudice as required without an evidentiary hearing.” State v. Blackmon, 78 S.W.3d 322, 328 (Tenn. Crim.

2016This is so because, “once the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim have been addressed on direct appeal, the issue may not be revisited in a post-conviction proceeding.” Id. (citing Bobby Allen Joyner v. State, No. 03C01-9807-CR-00260, 1999 WL 3188832 , at *2 (Tenn. Crim.

2021A Brady claim in a post-conviction proceeding is “governed by the same prejudice standard as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571, 599 (Tenn. Crim.

2021A Brady claim in a post-conviction proceeding is “governed by the same prejudice standard as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571, 599 (Tenn. Crim.

2026“For purposes of proving an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, proof of deficient representation by omission requires more than a speculative showing of a lost potential benefit.” Owens, 13 S.W.3d at 756 .

2026For purposes of proving an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, proof of deficient representation by omission requires more than a speculative showing of a lost potential benefit.” Owens v. State, 13 S.W.3d 742, 756 (Tenn. Crim.

2022See Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim.

2020See Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tenn. Crim.

2026When, as here, the petitioner challenges a guilty plea via an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the petitioner must establish that “counsel’s constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process” by establishing “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); Calvert v. State, 342 S.W.3d 477, 485-86 (Tenn. 2011); Hicks, 983 S.W.2d at 246 . -4- Here, the post-conviction court found that Counsel provided competent representation to P

2016Id. (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975)). “[A] failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim.

2017The petitioner must show that “the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to 6 “The „materiality‟ aspect of a Brady claim is governed by the same prejudice standard as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Cauthern, 145 S.W.3d at 598 (citing Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682 ). - 18 - put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Irick v. State, 973 S.W.2d 643, 657 (Tenn. Crim.

2012As this Court has observed, “the ‘materiality’ aspect of a Brady claim is governed by the same prejudice standard as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim; that is, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different.” Cauthern, 145 S.W.3d at 598 -99 (citing Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682 ).

2011Id. at *6 (citations omitted); see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690 ; Hellard, 629 S.W.2d at 9 .

2010Id. at *6 (citations omitted); see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690 ; Hellard, 629 S.W.2d at 9 .

2026“As a general matter, appellate courts must defer to a post-conviction court’s findings with regard to witness credibility, the weight and value of witness testimony, and the resolution of factual issues presented by the evidence.” Id. (citing Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152, 156 (Tenn. 1999)). - 23 - To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the petitioner must establish that (1) his lawyer’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

2019Here, in contrast to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim cognizable under the Sixth Amendment, the Petitioner appears to raise a free-standing constitutional claim that trial counsel denied the Petitioner of his fundamental right to testify as “guaranteed both by Article 1, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution and by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tenn. 1999).

2021We reiterate that “[t]he better practice is to make an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a post-conviction proceeding.” Mosley, 200 S.W.3d at 628 .

2013See Mosley, 200 S.W.3d at 628 (“The better practice is to make an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a post-conviction proceeding.”).

2021See Cone v. State, 927 S.W.2d 579, 581-82 (Tenn. Crim.

2020See Cone v. State, 927 S.W.2d 579, 581-82 (Tenn. Crim.

2026Phillips v. State, 647 S.W.3d 389 , 400 (Tenn. 2022) (citing Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282, 294 (Tenn. 2009)); Kendrick, 454 S.W.3d at 457 .

2026Phillips v. State, 647 S.W.3d 389 , 400 (Tenn. 2022) (citing Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282, 294 (Tenn. 2009)); Kendrick, 454 S.W.3d at 457 .

2024The Tennessee Supreme Court has recently held that when a petitioner raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress, Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), defines the proper standard for prejudice.

2022We note that the Tennessee Supreme Court has recently held that when a petitioner raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to -8- file a motion to suppress, Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), defines the proper standard for prejudice.

2026When, as here, the petitioner challenges a guilty plea via an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the petitioner must establish that “counsel’s constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process” by establishing “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); Calvert v. State, 342 S.W.3d 477, 485-86 (Tenn. 2011); Hicks, 983 S.W.2d at 246 . -4- Here, the post-conviction court found that Counsel provided competent representation to P

2013Of course, within the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the Petitioner must also demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsel’s deficient performance; that is, a reasonable probability that “but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, ‘he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’” Id. (quoting Hill, 474 U.S. at 59 ).

2026When, as here, the petitioner challenges a guilty plea via an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the petitioner must establish that “counsel’s constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process” by establishing “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); Calvert v. State, 342 S.W.3d 477, 485-86 (Tenn. 2011); Hicks, 983 S.W.2d at 246 . -4- Here, the post-conviction court found that Counsel provided competent representation to P

2022Moore v. State, 485 S.W.3d 411, 419 (Tenn. 2016); Mobley v. State, 397 S.W.3d 70, 80 (Tenn. 2013) (citing Calvert, 342 S.W.3d at 485 ). - 13 - In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the petitioner must establish that (1) his lawyer’s performance was deficient and (2) this deficient performance prejudiced the defense.