Bryiant C. Overton v. State of Tennessee
M2016-00783-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Bryiant C. Overton was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, attempted first-degree murder, and conspiracy; effective 48-year sentence; prior direct appeal resulted in one resentencing.
- The crimes arose from a drug-buy gone wrong in which the victim (Darice Brown) was shot multiple times and robbed.
- Post-conviction petition (pro se, then amended) alleged multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, including failure to obtain/use the preliminary hearing transcript to impeach the victim and failure to request proper jury instructions on aggravated kidnapping.
- At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified he sought a transcript but the preliminary hearing audio was largely inaudible and untranscribable; he used detailed notes to cross-examine and declined to move for a new preliminary hearing after a co-defendant’s similar motion was denied.
- The post-conviction court denied relief; Overton appealed, raising claims about counsel’s performance, post-conviction counsel’s effectiveness, and improper questioning at the post-conviction hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel failed to obtain/use preliminary hearing transcript to impeach victim | Overton: counsel withdrew/requested transcript and failed to use prior inconsistent testimony to impeach the victim, prejudicing defense | State: trial counsel tried to obtain transcript but recording was inaudible; counsel used notes and cross-examined vigorously; no prejudice shown | Denied — petitioner failed to prove deficiency or prejudice; court’s factual findings upheld |
| Failure to pursue audio enhancement of preliminary hearing recording (raised on appeal) | Overton: an audio specialist could have recovered recording to aid impeachment | State: issue waived because not raised below; petitioner offered CD only on appeal and no hearing evidence | Waived — cannot consider claim first raised on appeal |
| Failure to request proper jury instruction on aggravated kidnapping (White/Cecil/Anthony) | Overton: counsel should have requested instructions protecting against double convictions or clarifying substantial interference element | State: conviction and proceedings predated White; White not retroactive; alternative Anthony claim not raised below | Denied — White not applicable retroactively; no prejudice shown; Anthony argument waived if not raised below |
| Counsel’s communication of plea offers and sentencing expectations | Overton: trial counsel inadequately communicated plea offers and likely outcomes | State: issue waived because not raised in post-conviction petition | Waived — not raised below, cannot be considered on appeal |
| Ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel / improper post-conviction questioning about offense facts (Rule 28) | Overton: post-conviction counsel ineffective; prosecutor impermissibly questioned him about offense facts contrary to Rule 28 | State: no constitutional right to effective post-conviction counsel; petitioner had full hearing; Rule 28 argument raised first in reply brief | Denied/Waived — no relief for post-conviction counsel claim; Rule 28 challenge waived for being raised too late |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- White v. State, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (requires jury instruction defining substantial interference for kidnapping-related offenses)
- Cecil v. State, 409 S.W.3d 599 (Tenn. 2013) (explains need for proper instruction so appellate sufficiency review protects due process)
- Anthony v. State, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991) (prior framework for analyzing dual convictions for kidnapping and accompanying felony)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (standards for post-conviction factual findings and appellate review)