Charles Bradford Stewart v. State of Tennessee
M2015-02449-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Charles Bradford Stewart was convicted by jury of vehicular assault (and merged reckless aggravated assault) after a 2010 trial; original sentence was 12 years with split confinement, later reversed on sentencing and resentenced to 12 years incarceration.
- Stewart filed a timely post-conviction petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (failure to move to suppress blood/toxicology evidence, failure to obtain/offer witnesses and experts, withdrawal of a pro se motion for new trial, and failure to raise issues on appeal).
- At the post-conviction hearing only Stewart and his trial counsel testified; no exhibits or third‑party witnesses (e.g., toxicologist, paramedic, Crash Report authors, Ms. Leeman) were produced.
- The post‑conviction court granted relief, adopting verbatim the petitioner’s proposed findings and concluding numerous Strickland deficiencies warranted a new trial.
- The State appealed, arguing Stewart failed to show prejudice and failed to present competent evidence to support the post‑conviction court’s factual conclusions.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the post‑conviction grant, holding Stewart did not prove prejudice on the asserted Strickland claims and that the trial evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stewart) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel failed to move to suppress/exclude TBI toxicology evidence and failed to secure blood sample for testing | The destroyed blood and chain‑of‑custody problems would have led to suppression under Ferguson and dismissal of the vehicular assault indictment | Stewart produced no proof at the hearing showing what a suppression motion would have revealed or that suppression would have been granted; Ferguson may not apply to this blood test context | Denied — no competent proof of prejudice; petitioner failed to show suppression would have been granted or altered outcome |
| Failure to present/call witnesses or expert witnesses (toxicology, paramedic, accident participants) | Counsel’s failure to subpoena or present witnesses and experts prevented impeachment of State evidence and would have created reasonable doubt | Stewart did not call those witnesses or present experts at the post‑conviction hearing, so his claims rest on speculation rather than proof of prejudice | Denied — absent testimony or expert proof at the hearing, prejudice not shown |
| Failure to use or admit exculpatory documentary evidence (traffic crash report) and alleged misstatements in closing | Using the crash report to impeach Officer Caver and avoiding misstatements in closing would have undermined intoxication/recklessness findings | No documentary evidence or trial transcript omissions show trial counsel’s performance changed the verdict; trial counsel impeached chain‑of‑custody at trial and closing was not shown deficient on record review | Denied — post‑conviction court’s factual conclusions unsupported; review of record does not show prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance on appeal (withdrawing pro se motion for new trial; failing to raise issues) | Withdrawal of the pro se motion and not raising issues on appeal deprived Stewart of plenary review and preserved claims; appellate counsel conceded procedural bars instead of pressing merits | Stewart failed to introduce the withdrawn motion or show what issues it contained; sufficiency challenge could be raised and review of trial record shows evidence sufficient to support convictions | Denied — no proof of prejudice from withdrawal; conviction affirmed as supported by trial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (benchmarks for adequate criminal defense performance in Tennessee)
- State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999) (balancing test for lost or destroyed evidence and remedies)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (importance of disclosure and adversary development of facts)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)