Alisha Glisson v. Debra Johnson, 705 F. App'x 361

Background

In 2006, Alisha Glisson was convicted by a Tennessee jury of felony murder and related offenses for her role in a planned robbery of Randy St. Laurent that culminated in his death; she was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment.
Facts at trial: Glisson admitted in a videotaped police interview that she knew the men planned to rob St. Laurent’s apartment, may have called them throughout the night, drove to meet them, and directed them to St. Laurent’s building; co-defendants Henry and Warner testified that Glisson helped plan the robbery, provided apartment information, and spoke to them by phone during the events.
One co-defendant, David Sullivan, pled guilty to second-degree murder and, at his plea, the State read facts into the record that implicated Glisson; Sullivan was not called by Glisson’s trial counsel.
Glisson rejected a 15-year plea, proceeded to trial without presenting witnesses, and was convicted; Tennessee state courts rejected her direct appeal (insufficiency of the evidence) and post-conviction ineffective-assistance claims.
In post-conviction proceedings Glisson argued counsel was ineffective for not interviewing or calling Sullivan; counsel testified she investigated Sullivan, concluded his plea and testimony were problematic for Glisson, and made a strategic decision not to call him.
The federal district court denied habeas relief; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, addressing (1) sufficiency of the evidence and (2) ineffective assistance for failure to interview/call Sullivan.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for felony murder	Glisson: evidence was insufficient to prove she intended to aid the attempted aggravated robbery that led to the murder.	State: Glisson’s own admissions plus accomplice testimony and other witness statements provided enough evidence to infer intent and participation.	Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, rational juror could find requisite intent; accomplice testimony was corroborated.
Reliance on accomplice testimony	Glisson: conviction improperly based solely on uncorroborated accomplices (Henry, Warner).	State: other independent evidence (videotaped interview, Runion testimony, phone-call inferences) corroborated accomplices.	Affirmed: Tennessee rule requires only slight corroboration, which existed here.
Ineffective assistance — failure to interview/call Sullivan	Glisson: counsel unreasonably failed to interview or call Sullivan, who would have taken responsibility and helped her defense.	State: counsel investigated Sullivan, learned his plea testimony and background could harm Glisson, and made a reasonable strategic decision not to call him.	Affirmed: counsel’s investigation and strategic judgment were reasonable under Strickland; no deficient performance shown.
Standard of review on federal habeas	Glisson: requests de novo review for some claims (state court may not have addressed them).	State: deference due; but outcome same under either review.	Affirmed: even under de novo or deferential review, claims fail.

Key Cases Cited

Coleman v. Johnson, 132 S. Ct. 2060 (2012) (habeas review requires doubly deferential standard: deference to jury factfinding and to state-court adjudication)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (Jackson sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel’s duty to investigate; strategic decisions about investigation entitled to deference)
Towns v. Smith, 395 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 2005) (counsel deficient where he acknowledged need to interview a witness but did not)
English v. Romanowski, 602 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2010) (addressing counsel’s failure to investigate and to follow through on promised witness testimony)
Griffin v. Warden, Md. Corr. Adjustment Ctr., 970 F.2d 1355 (4th Cir. 1992) (counsel ineffective where no tactical decision justified failure to interview or call alibi witness)
State v. Shaw, 37 S.W.3d 900 (Tenn. 2001) (Tennessee rule that conviction may not be based solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony)
State v. Griffis, 964 S.W.2d 577 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (even slight independent evidence is sufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony)