Cedric Mims v. State of Tennessee, W2016-00418-CCA-R3-PC

Cedric Mims and co-defendant Allen Craft participated in an armed robbery at Phillips Sundry in Memphis on December 3, 2011; Ronald Ellington was killed and others were shot. Mims was convicted of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, attempted voluntary manslaughter, and firearm-related offenses and received an effective life sentence.
Mims claimed he acted under duress: an older gang member, Melvin Bridgewater, armed and threatened to kill him if he did not participate; Mims was 15 at the time.
At trial Mims testified and his statement describing fear of Bridgewater was admitted; trial counsel pursued a duress defense and chose not to seek severance or call a duress expert.
On post-conviction review Mims argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to develop more evidence for duress, including obtaining an expert, and for not contesting elements of the State’s proof.
The post-conviction court denied relief, finding Mims failed to show counsel was deficient or that any deficiency prejudiced him; the appellate court affirmed, citing petitioner’s failure to produce evidence (including no expert) to support the claim and that the record already contained duress-related statements.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present sufficient evidence to support a duress defense	Trial counsel should have developed more evidence (including an expert) to establish duress elements (present, imminent threat; continuous threat; inability to withdraw safely)	Petitioner failed to produce evidence at the post-conviction hearing to show deficiency or prejudice; existing record contained Mims’s duress statements	Denied — no deficient performance shown and no prejudice; petitioner failed to present evidence (no expert or witnesses) to support claim
Whether counsel was ineffective for not contesting elements of the State’s proof	Counsel should have disputed elements of the State’s case more actively	Petitioner bears burden to prove ineffective assistance with evidence; he did not meet it	Denied — petitioner failed to show prejudice or provide supporting evidence

Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461 (Tenn. 2010) (post-conviction factual-findings standard)
Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (ineffective assistance legal standard and mixed-review rule)
Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. 2008) (right to reasonably effective counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
Finch v. State, 226 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn. 2007) (review and deference in ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Honeycutt, 54 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2001) (definition of reasonable probability for prejudice)
Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (petitioner must present missing witnesses at post-conviction hearing)
Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689 (Tenn. 1995) (indigent petitioners must still show what expert testimony would provide)