Alvertis Boyd v. State of Tennessee, W2014-00404-CCA-R3-PC

Boyd was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery for an incident at a Circle K (July 30, 2007) and sentenced as a repeat violent offender to life imprisonment; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
At trial the store clerk testified Boyd raised his shirt to reveal a small .380 handgun, then opened the register; an eyewitness identified Boyd in a photo lineup; Boyd admitted taking money but testified he was unarmed.
Police recovered Circle K surveillance footage, but the original recording was later lost and was not admitted at trial; detectives testified the video was misplaced.
Boyd told trial counsel the surveillance video was exculpatory (would show he was unarmed) and said he had viewed it with detectives; counsel did not file a pretrial motion to dismiss or for remedy based on the lost video but cross-examined about the missing tape and argued its absence in closing.
In post-conviction proceedings Boyd argued counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss or obtain a remedy for the lost video; the post-conviction court found Boyd’s claim that the video was exculpatory not credible and denied relief.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding counsel’s performance reasonable under Strickland and that Boyd failed to show prejudice or that the trial was fundamentally unfair without the video.

Issue	Boyd's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss or obtain a remedy when the surveillance video was lost	Counsel should have filed a motion (e.g., to dismiss or for relief) because the lost video was exculpatory and its absence denied a fair trial	Counsel reasonably declined to move because the video was unavailable, other strong evidence (victim ID, Boyd’s admission) made dismissal unlikely, and counsel challenged the missing tape at trial	Denied. Court held counsel’s conduct was within reasonable professional norms and Boyd failed to prove prejudice or that the trial was fundamentally unfair; post-conviction relief was properly denied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Merriman, 410 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 2013) (framework for addressing State’s failure to preserve evidence)
State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999) (factors to consider when evidence is lost or destroyed)
Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (appellate review deferential to trial court credibility findings)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (post-conviction evidentiary principles)
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review for post-conviction factual findings)
House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. 2001) (objective standard of reasonableness for counsel performance)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (competence standard for criminal counsel)
Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to counsel’s strategic choices)