Arturo Jaimes-Garcia v. State of Tennessee, M2015-02109-CCA-R3-PC

Jaimes-Garcia convicted in Davidson County of conspiracy to sell 300+ grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school and related offenses, receiving an effective eighteen-year sentence at 100% service.
Post-conviction petition filed July 27, 2011 alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
Trial evidence centered on three cocaine transactions with a confidential informant; route near Paragon Mills Elementary School disputed.
Drug quantities: 55.5 g (first buy), 248.9 g (second), 502.9 g (third); cocaine found in apartments C-3 and D-8.
Plea offer: fifteen years at 30% service contingent on all codefendants pleading guilty; offer not accepted due to codefendants’ positions; issues on appeal included a motion for a new trial and notice of appeal.
Post-conviction court denied relief and affirmed the judgments; this court affirmed, reviewing for ineffective assistance under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel’s performance deficient on plea negotiations?	Jaimes-Garcia argues counsel failed to obtain an independent plea.	Jaimes-Garcia contends counsel acquiesced to an all-or-nothing plea.	No deficient performance; plea offer unavailable; record supports trial strategy.
Did trial counsel’s investigation/preparation and advice about testifying amount to deficiency?	Jaimes-Garcia asserts counsel failed to investigate and warn about testifying.	Jaimes-Garcia alleges inadequate preparation and misadvice about testifying.	No deficiency; strategy focused on challenging drug-free zone evidence; testimony decisions discussed with petitioner.
Did trial/appellate counsel properly preserve issues for appeal?	Jaimes-Garcia claims errors were not adequately preserved due to procedural issues.	State contends appellate review proceeded on preserved issues and plain-error review.	No prejudice; appellate review addressed sufficiency and plain-error issues; inadequate preservation did not change outcome.
Was appellate counsel ineffective for failing to secure plenary review?	Appellate counsel failed to obtain plenary review due to untimely notice.	Timeliness issues limited review; counsel acted within appellate discretion.	No prejudice; record showed issues reviewed on merits; no relief would likely have resulted from plenary review.

State v. Strickland, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (Strickland applied to Tennessee post-conviction)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (failure to prove either Strickland prong suffices to deny relief)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (standard for attorney competence in criminal cases)
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (applies Strickland to Tennessee ineffective-assistance claims)