Brian Keith Good v. State of Tennessee, E2015-01736-CCA-R3-PC

Background

In 2008 a jury convicted Brian Keith Good of criminally negligent homicide, attempted aggravated robbery, and unlawful possession of a deadly weapon arising from a 2005 shooting; convictions later merged on double jeopardy grounds, yielding a 21-year effective sentence.
Key factual dispute: whether the Branche brothers (Anthony and Joshua) were armed and fired during the incident; co-defendant Gregg Nutter testified inconsistently and ultimately implicated Good as shooter; Good testified Nutter was the shooter.
At trial Joshua Branche testified there were no guns; Anthony Branche did not testify. State evidence included a shotgun and shell wadding linking a shotgun taken from a third party’s home to the scene.
Post-conviction petition alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) failing to obtain Joshua Branche’s “third” statement (that Anthony fired a gun), (2) failing to call Anthony Branche as a defense witness, and (3) failing to secure Mark Tolley (a jailhouse witness) to testify that Nutter admitted shooting the victim.
At the post-conviction hearing trial counsel testified he knew of conflicting statements and Anthony’s criminal history, considered Anthony a “wild card,” and made a strategic choice not to call Anthony; counsel impeached Joshua with prior statements and testimony; Tolley refused to testify at trial.
The post-conviction court denied relief, finding counsel’s choices strategic and that the petitioner failed to prove prejudice; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Good's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Failure to discover Joshua’s third statement	Trial counsel should have obtained and used Joshua’s August 15 statement that Anthony fired a gun; omission was deficient	Counsel knew of the affidavit’s content and impeached Joshua with other prior statements; failure not prejudicial	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown
Failure to call Anthony Branche	Anthony would have testified he saw a man with glasses (matching Nutter) shoot victim and that Anthony fired; his testimony would exculpate Good	Anthony lacked credibility and was a prosecutorial “wild card”; calling him posed risk; strategic to highlight State’s failure to call him	No ineffective assistance; trial counsel’s decision was tactical and reasonable
Failure to call Mark Tolley	Tolley would have testified Nutter admitted shooting the victim; counsel should have subpoenaed him	Tolley declined to testify; counsel’s investigator interviewed him; petitioner failed to show how Tolley’s testimony would alter result	No ineffective assistance; petitioner did not prove prejudice or present Tolley at post-conviction hearing
Overall ineffective-assistance claim	Cumulative failures undermined confidence in verdict	Petitioner failed to prove deficient performance and, critically, prejudice	Affirmed denial of post-conviction relief

Key Cases Cited

Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (standard of review for post-conviction factual findings and legal questions)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (objective standard for counsel performance under Strickland)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (counsel effectiveness principles applied in Tennessee)
Lane v. State, 316 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard in post-conviction proceedings)
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (clarifying proof standard for post-conviction claims)
Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009) (burden of proof in post-conviction proceedings)
Felts v. State, 354 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2011) (review scope for mixed questions of law and fact)
Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (petitioner must ordinarily present missing witness at post-conviction hearing to show prejudice)