Brian Gauldin v. State of Tennessee
W2016-00607-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Brian Gauldin sold drugs to a confidential informant in Dec. 2010; transactions occurred within 1,000 feet of Scott Street Park, a registered city park.
- Lab tests ultimately reported .55 g and .39 g of cocaine; indictment charged multiple drug-sales counts in a drug-free zone; two counts were nol-prossed and a jury convicted Gauldin of two counts (one ≥ .5 g, one < .5 g).
- Gauldin was sentenced as a Range III, Persistent Offender to an effective 20-year term; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Gauldin filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel in four respects: (1) failing to present current photos to show the site was a vacant lot, (2) failing to call an expert to rebut changes in TBI lab report weights, (3) failing to advise him he would be sentenced as a Range III Persistent Offender, and (4) failing to challenge the jury’s racial composition.
- At the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel testified he confirmed the park’s official status with city officials, received and discussed prior counsel’s letter about Range III status, advised Gauldin about a 6-year plea offer, and accepted the TBI agent’s explanation for report differences; the court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Gauldin’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to present current photos to show site was not a park | Photos would show site was a vacant lot and negate drug-free zone element | Counsel investigated, confirmed Scott Street Park was a registered city park; photos used were accurate | Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice; park status established |
| Failure to present expert to rebut TBI report discrepancies | An expert would have rebutted State’s changed weight figures and undermined prosecutions | TBI agent explained loss/rounding and reporting-policy change; counsel found no need for rebuttal expert | Denied — explanation adequate; no deficient performance shown |
| Failure to advise about Range III, Persistent Offender status | Would have pled guilty if he knew Range III exposure | Counsel and trial court repeatedly advised Gauldin; prior counsel’s letter documenting Range III status was given to Gauldin; Gauldin rejected a 6-year offer twice | Denied — counsel informed client; claim not credible and no prejudice shown |
| Failure to challenge racial composition of jury (fair-cross-section) | Jury underrepresented African Americans; counsel should have objected | No statistical or procedural proof of underrepresentation or systematic exclusion; no evidence counsel was ineffective | Denied — petitioner failed to satisfy Duren factors or show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (standard of review for post-conviction factual findings)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (ineffective-assistance test and deference to counsel strategy)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (presumption that counsel’s conduct is reasonable)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1979) (fair-cross-section jury test)
- Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (U.S. 2010) (reaffirming Duren and methods for measuring underrepresentation)
- Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (post-conviction burden to show prejudice from trial omissions)