Billy Richard Hicks v. State of Tennessee, E2016-01437-CCA-R3-PC

Hicks was stopped Nov. 6, 2008, for a seatbelt violation; he gave false identification, smelled of alcohol, refused a blood test, and failed field sobriety tests shown on video.
A portion of the traffic-stop video (showing the field sobriety tests and statements about hip/leg problems) was admitted at trial; defense counsel did not show the recording to Hicks before trial due to alleged equipment problems.
During trial the court recessed for lunch so Hicks could view the video; after viewing, defense recalled the arresting officer and questioned him about Hicks’s statements regarding hip/leg issues and the officer’s failure to adjust tests.
Hicks was convicted on multiple counts (including DUI, tenth offense, MVHO violation, driving on revoked license, criminal impersonation) and received consecutive sentences producing an effective 12-year term across consolidated trials.
On post-conviction review Hicks claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not showing the video pretrial; he did not testify at the post-conviction hearing and offered no testimony from trial counsel.
The post-conviction court denied relief for lack of proof of deficient performance or prejudice; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to show Hicks the stop/video before trial	Hicks: counsel erred by not showing the video pretrial, which deprived him of an opportunity to prepare and prejudiced his defense	State: even if counsel erred, Hicks suffered no prejudice — he viewed the video during trial and no additional evidence or defenses would have resulted	Court affirmed denial: Hicks failed to prove counsel’s deficiency (no testimony) and failed to show prejudice; viewing during trial and absence of evidence of a different result defeated relief

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard in post-conviction proceedings)
Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461 (Tenn. 2010) (deference to post-conviction factual findings; petitioner burden)
Felts v. State, 354 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2011) (presumption of reasonable professional judgment; review of counsel strategy)
Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. 2008) (right to reasonably effective assistance of counsel)