Brian Dunkley v. State of Tennessee, M2016-00961-CCA-R3-PC

Background

Brian Dunkley was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder for plotting to kill his wife; conviction relied heavily on testimony of co-conspirator Stephanie Frame and numerous text messages.
Frame’s two cell phones (a T‑mobile G‑1 and a “shadow” phone) contained substantive incriminating texts; law enforcement extracted data and later returned one phone to Frame’s mother. Dunkley admitted deleting many texts from his own phone.
Trial counsel pursued motions to suppress/dismiss on destruction-of-evidence grounds (State v. Ferguson) and Rule 404 grounds, but motions were denied or stricken after the G‑1 phone became available to defense. Counsel did not advise Dunkley to accept a plea and did not press certain suppression or standing challenges.
At trial, evidence included Frame’s testimony, text-message content from her phones, service-provider records, and witness testimony tying Dunkley to the plot; Dunkley was later sentenced to 25 years.
Dunkley filed a post‑conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance for (1) failing to advise regarding pleas, (2) inadequate Ferguson litigation, (3) failure to challenge warrants/subpoenas, and (4) not presenting alibi/location evidence; the post‑conviction court denied relief and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Dunkley’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Plea bargaining: counsel failed to advise/seek time to consider plea	Counsel did not explain strength of case or recommend plea; Dunkley would have accepted a 15‑yr plea	No formal offer was made; any plea would have required victim and co‑defendants’ approval	Counsel’s failure to advise was deficient, but Dunkley failed to show prejudice because no reasonable probability the plea would have been presented to court (contingent third‑party approvals)
Ferguson/destruction of evidence: counsel failed to litigate lost-phone issue	G‑1 phone might have contained an app or data showing message fabrication; suppression could have altered outcome	Defense obtained the G‑1 phone before trial; no evidence the phone contained exculpatory data that was destroyed	No deficient performance shown (issue was raised and phone obtained); no prejudice because no proof of missing exculpatory data
Search warrants/subpoenas for phone records: counsel failed to challenge legality	Judicial subpoenas for Dunkley’s records were insufficiently particular	Subpoenas complied with statute; even if not, State could have obtained new subpoenas; records were of marginal value	No prejudice shown—records only confirmed contact and were cumulative of Frame’s phone data
Failure to present location/alibi evidence (not calling girlfriend)	Counsel should have called Ms. Williams‑Dunkley to show Dunkley was in Goodlettsville, not circling hospital	Witness had credibility problems and calling her would have opened damaging collateral evidence	Trial strategy to exclude her was reasonable; Dunkley failed to show prejudice (no post‑conviction witness testimony to prove what she would say)
Cumulative error	Combined errors denied a fair trial	Only one deficiency (limited to plea advice); other claims lacked merit or prejudice	Cumulative‑error claim rejected because multiple prejudicial errors were not shown

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (prejudice in plea context requires showing reasonable probability plea would have been entered, not withdrawn, and accepted by court)
State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999) (framework for loss/destruction of evidence and duty to preserve)
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (clear‑and‑convincing standard for post‑conviction fact findings)
Nesbit v. State, 452 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 2014) (counsel’s duty to communicate and analyze plea offers)