Antoine Cardet Smith v. State of Tennessee, M2017-00060-CCA-R3-PC

Antoine Cardet Smith was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery after a store clerk identified him in a photographic lineup and surveillance video showed the perpetrator; DNA from items at the scene showed a minor contributor matching Smith and a major contributor of an unknown male.
Smith was sentenced to 11 years and 6 months; his conviction was previously affirmed on direct appeal.
Smith filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on: inadequate investigation (failure to locate/call alibi witnesses, insufficient challenge to identification/weapon evidence), undisclosed conflict of interest, and failure to strike a juror whose answers allegedly disclosed law‑enforcement ties.
Trial counsel testified she was appointed in August 2012, reviewed discovery, contacted experts, pursued an identification/weapon-challenge strategy, located one alibi witness who could not fix the date, and did not participate in civil matters at her prior firm.
The post-conviction court denied relief; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding Smith failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice, failed to show an actual conflict of interest, and that the juror issue was previously determined and non‑prejudicial.

Issue	Smith's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Counsel failed to investigate/call alibi witnesses and challenge evidence	Smith: counsel did not adequately investigate or present alibi testimony and did not sufficiently contest identification/weapon use	State: counsel investigated, located an alibi witness who could not fix the date; strategy to attack identification/weapon was reasonable; Smith did not prove prejudice	Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice shown
Undisclosed conflict of interest	Smith: counsel overlapped briefly at firm defending the lead detective in Smith’s civil suit, creating an adverse conflict	State: counsel had left the firm before representation and did not handle civil matters; no actual conflict established	Denied — no actual conflict or adverse effect shown
Failure to strike juror / mistrial	Smith: juror disclosures (employment at sheriff’s office) prejudiced jury; counsel should have sought mistrial/curative action	State: defense elicited the information; no evidence jury was biased; issue raised on direct appeal and remains previously determined	Denied — no prejudice; issue previously adjudicated
Failure to adequately challenge key trial evidence (sufficiency attack)	Smith: in one-sentence claim, counsel failed to challenge evidence adequately	State: this effectively attacks sufficiency of the evidence and is procedurally improper and waived for lack of analysis	Denied — waived / not cognizable in post-conviction relief

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (post-conviction factual findings accorded deference; mixed questions reviewed de novo)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (deficient performance measured against objective professional norms)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (actual conflict standard for relief when counsel represents multiple interests)
Netters v. State, 957 S.W.2d 844 (potential conflicts do not automatically warrant relief)