Antonio Howard v. State of Tennessee, 604 S.W.3d 53

Antonio Howard was convicted by a jury of multiple violent crimes and sentenced to an effective 124-year term.
Trial counsel admitted he failed to file a written motion for new trial within the 30-day rule, resulting in waiver of several issues for plenary appellate review.
Howard pursued a direct appeal (raising some issues); the Court of Criminal Appeals held the untimely motion waived other issues and reviewed only sufficiency and sentencing.
Howard filed a post-conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to timely file the motion; the trial court found deficiency but no prejudice and denied relief.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, applying Wallace v. State to presume prejudice and ordering a delayed appeal.
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review, overruled Wallace, held Strickland governs (no presumption), found no actual prejudice on the record, and reinstated the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s failure to file a timely motion for new trial is presumptively prejudicial	Howard: Counsel’s failure waived plenary appellate review of meritorious issues; under Wallace prejudice is presumed when the defendant intended to file a motion for new trial	State: No presumption where the defendant received a meaningful, if circumscribed, direct appeal; Strickland requires proof of actual prejudice	Tennessee Supreme Court: Overruled Wallace; no automatic presumption. Apply Strickland; petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.
Appropriate remedy (delayed appeal vs. post-conviction relief)	Howard: Delayed appeal is proper because counsel’s omission prevented full appellate scrutiny	State: Delayed appeal is not appropriate where an appeal was in fact filed and meaningful review occurred; post-conviction courts should evaluate actual prejudice	Court: Reversed CCA’s grant of a delayed appeal; directed Strickland analysis in post-conviction process and affirmed denial of relief.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (identifying narrow circumstances where prejudice may be presumed)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (presumption of prejudice where counsel’s deficient performance deprived defendant of an appeal he would have taken)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (Cronic presumption applies only where counsel’s failure is complete)
Wallace v. State, 121 S.W.3d 652 (Tenn. 2003) (former Tennessee precedent holding untimely motion for new trial presumptively prejudicial; expressly overruled)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (distinguishing complete denial of appellate counsel from ineffective assistance on appeal)
Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (extending Flores-Ortega’s presumption to cases regardless of signed appeal waivers)