ineffective assistance claim in Tennessee

2026“Because a petitioner must establish both prongs of the test, a failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim.” Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 370 (Tenn. 1996).

2026Henley, 960 S.W.2d at 580 . “[F]ailure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim.” Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 370 (Tenn. 1996).

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.

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.

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.

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.

2012Courts need not approach the Strickland test in a specific order or even “address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” 466 U.S. at 697 ; see also Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 (stating that “failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim”). -4- We note that when post-conviction proceedings have included a full evidentiary hearing, as was true in this case, the trial judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are given the effect and weight of a jury verdict, and this

2002Ed. 2d at 699 ; see also Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 (stating that “failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim”). -10- When post-conviction proceedings have included a full evidentiary hearing, as was true in this case, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the post-conviction court are given the effect and weight of a jury verdict, and, as previously noted, this court is “bound by the trial judge’s findings of fact unless we conclude that the evidence contained in the record preponderates against the judg

2005See Shazel v. State, 966 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Tenn. 1998).

2005See Shazel v. State, 966 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Tenn. 1998).

2026In assessing an attorney’s performance, we “must be highly deferential and should indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 462 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ).

2022“Because a petitioner must establish both prongs of the test, a failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim.” Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 . - 10 - In assessing an attorney’s performance, we “must be highly deferential and should indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 462 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ).

2017Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508, 516 (Tenn. 2001). - 10 - Courts need not approach the Strickland test in a specific order or even “address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” 466 U.S. at 697 ; see also Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 (stating that “failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim”).

2015Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508, 516 (Tenn. 2001). -4- Courts need not approach the Strickland test in a specific order or even “address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” 466 U.S. at 697 ; see also Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 (stating that “failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim”).

2012A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” 466 U.S. at 694; see also Overton v. State, 874 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn. 1994) (concluding that petitioner failed to establish that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different”). -17- Courts need not approach the Strickland test in a specific order or even “address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” 466 U.S. at 697; see also Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 (stating that “failure to pr

2006A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S. Ct. at 2068 ; see also Overton v. State, 874 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn. 1994) (concluding that petitioner failed to establish that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different”). -5- Courts need not approach the Strickland test in a specific order or even “address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S. Ct. at 2069 ; see also Goad, 938

2026Henley, 960 S.W.2d at 580 . “[F]ailure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim.” Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 370 (Tenn. 1996).

2026Henley, 960 S.W.2d at 580 . “[F]ailure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim.” Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 370 (Tenn. 1996).

2020Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 368-72 (1993). “[F]ailure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim.” Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 370 (Tenn. 1996).

2018Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 368-72 (1993). “[F]ailure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim.” Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363, 370 (Tenn. 1996).

2017Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508, 516 (Tenn. 2001). - 10 - Courts need not approach the Strickland test in a specific order or even “address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” 466 U.S. at 697 ; see also Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 (stating that “failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim”).

2015Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508, 516 (Tenn. 2001). -4- Courts need not approach the Strickland test in a specific order or even “address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” 466 U.S. at 697 ; see also Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 (stating that “failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim”).

2011See Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879, 887-88 (Tenn. 2004) (“When an omitted issue is without merit, the petitioner cannot prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”).

2011Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879, 886 (Tenn. 2004). “[A] failure to prove either deficiency or prejudice provides a sufficient basis to deny relief on the ineffective assistance claim.

2008Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576, 586 (Tenn. 2002).

2008Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576, 586 (Tenn. 2002).

2026To succeed on an ineffective-assistance claim arising from counsel’s failure to seek suppression of evidence under the Fourth Amendment, the Petitioner bears the burden of proving that: “(1) a suppression motion would have been meritorious; (2) counsel’s failure to file such motion was objectively unreasonable; and (3) but for counsel’s objectively unreasonable omission, there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence.” Phillips, 647 S.W.3d at 404 (citations omitted). - 18 - The search warrant directed to Facebook is not included in t

2024To demonstrate prejudice on an ineffective assistance claim stemming from a suppression issue, “a petitioner is required to prove that he has a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim and that there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had the evidence complained of been excluded.” Phillips v. State, 647 S.W.3d 389 , 403 (Tenn. 2022) (citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)).

2024Our supreme court held that the case was governed by Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), in which the United States Supreme Court considered an ineffective assistance claim predicated upon trial counsel’s failure to file a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress.

2024To demonstrate prejudice on an ineffective assistance claim stemming from a suppression issue, “a petitioner is required to prove that he has a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim and that there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had the evidence complained of been excluded.” Phillips v. State, 647 S.W.3d 389 , 403 (Tenn. 2022) (citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)).

2021Defense counsel argued that it was her reading of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act and the rules of the supreme court, despite the decades of case law to the contrary, that if the defendant did not raise the issue in her motion for new trial, it could be deemed waived in any future post-conviction proceeding.4 To state it plainly, “the failure to raise an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal does not bar the claim in later collateral proceedings.” Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571, 604-05 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003)).

2004A similar point was made recently in Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 , 123 S.Ct. 1690 , 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003), wherein the Supreme Court held that the failure to raise an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal does not bar the claim in later collateral proceedings.

2012However, the standard for an ineffective assistance claim in the context of a guilty plea requires a showing of “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, [the Petitioner] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Calvert, 342 S.W.3d at 486 .

2011Indeed, a court need not address the components in any particular order or even address both if the defendant makes an insufficient showing of one component.” Calvert, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 439, at *22 (internal quotation omitted).

2022Id. (quoting Holder v. Palmer, 588 F.3d 328, 339 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted)).

2021See Terry Lynn King v. State, No. 03C01-9601-CR- 00024, 1997 WL 416389 , at *15 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 14, 1997), aff’d, 989 S.W.2d - 56 - 319 (Tenn. 1999) (stating that a petitioner suffered no prejudice in an ineffective assistance claim where the evidence he wanted his trial counsel to investigate was not admissible in court); Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 . “[A]n accused is entitled to present evidence implicating others in the crime.” State v. Powers, 101 S.W.3d 383, 394 (Tenn. 2003). “[T]he Rules of Evidence govern admissibility of evidence implicating someone other than the defendant.” State

2021See Terry Lynn King v. State, No. 03C01-9601-CR- 00024, 1997 WL 416389 , at *15 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 14, 1997), aff’d, 989 S.W.2d - 56 - 319 (Tenn. 1999) (stating that a petitioner suffered no prejudice in an ineffective assistance claim where the evidence he wanted his trial counsel to investigate was not admissible in court); Goad, 938 S.W.2d at 370 . “[A]n accused is entitled to present evidence implicating others in the crime.” State v. Powers, 101 S.W.3d 383, 394 (Tenn. 2003). “[T]he Rules of Evidence govern admissibility of evidence implicating someone other than the defendant.” State

2021Defense counsel argued that it was her reading of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act and the rules of the supreme court, despite the decades of case law to the contrary, that if the defendant did not raise the issue in her motion for new trial, it could be deemed waived in any future post-conviction proceeding.4 To state it plainly, “the failure to raise an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal does not bar the claim in later collateral proceedings.” Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571, 604-05 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003)).