Cedric Watkins v. State of Tennessee
M2016-00681-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Mar 20, 2017Background
- Cedric Watkins was convicted in 2013 of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life; conviction rested on eyewitness testimony, jail-call recordings, and statements attributed to Watkins and associates.
- Watkins filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (and appellate counsel re: Rule 11); amended petition alleged failures to investigate, prepare Watkins to testify, call witnesses (Clifford Parrish, Lashona Wooten), impeach/develop Deborah Cox, and object to alleged hearsay; also alleged counsel fell asleep at trial.
- At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel (retained ~3 weeks before the second trial) testified he met Watkins multiple times, reviewed the first-trial transcript, investigated witnesses, made strategic decisions not to call Wooten based on demeanor, developed Cox’s testimony as allowed, and advised Watkins about testifying; he denied sleeping in court.
- Witnesses: Parrish testified Littlejohn told him she committed the murder but had not informed defense; Wooten (Lashona) had testified at the first trial but was not called at the second; Cox testified she relayed Littlejohn’s statement and was interviewed by defense; Watkins testified he was unprepared and would have testified differently.
- The post-conviction court accredited trial counsel’s testimony, found counsel’s investigation and preparation adequate, rejected the hearsay objection claim, and denied relief; the court granted a delayed supreme-court appeal for Watkins based on appellate counsel’s Rule 11 omission; Watkins timely appealed the denial of post-conviction relief to this court.
Issues
| Issue | Watkins' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inadequate investigation and witness preparation | Counsel didn’t sufficiently investigate, didn’t locate Parrish, and didn’t prepare Watkins to testify | Counsel thoroughly investigated, met with Watkins, reviewed first-trial transcript, and made informed strategic choices | Post-conviction court accredited counsel; no deficiency shown |
| Failure to call favorable witnesses (Parrish, Wooten) | Failure to call Parrish and Wooten deprived defense of exculpatory testimony | Counsel never knew of Parrish pretrial; Wooten was a strategic liability based on demeanor | Court credited counsel’s strategic decision and lack of knowledge of Parrish; no relief |
| Failure to impeach/develop Cox’s inconsistent statements and object to hearsay | Counsel should have impeached Cox with prior testimony and objected to Detective Wall’s hearsay | Counsel was limited by trial-court evidentiary rulings; detective’s testimony described investigative actions, not substantive hearsay | Court found counsel’s efforts reasonable and no evidentiary error in detective’s testimony |
| Counsel’s courtroom performance (fell asleep) | Counsel fell asleep and failed in advocacy | Counsel denied it; witness testimony conflicted; court found counsel credible | Court accredited counsel and rejected the sleeping claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test of deficient performance and prejudice)
- Tidwell v. State, 922 S.W.2d 497 (Tenn. 1996) (post-conviction factual findings are conclusive unless evidence preponderates otherwise)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (appellate court should not reweigh factual findings from post-conviction hearings)
- Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95 (Tenn. 1998) (de novo review of legal conclusions; no presumption of correctness)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (ineffective-assistance claims present mixed questions reviewed de novo, with factual findings presumed correct)
- State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (standards for assessing ineffective assistance under Strickland)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (performance prong requires showing counsel’s conduct fell below objective professional norms)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (framework for evaluating counsel performance under Tennessee law)
- Hellard v. State, 629 S.W.2d 4 (Tenn. 1982) (trial strategy choices are protected unless uninformed due to inadequate preparation)
- State v. Taylor, 968 S.W.2d 900 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (applies Strickland standard in Tennessee practice)