Charzelle Lamontez Swafford v. State of Tennessee
M2017-00082-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Aug 14, 2017Background
- Charzelle Lamontez Swafford was convicted after a Nashville apartment shooting of first-degree murder, four counts of attempted first-degree murder, and employing a firearm; effective sentence: life plus 56 years. Convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate/raise diminished capacity, inadequate cross-examination, poor communication, a sleeping juror, and failure to preserve a suppression issue for appeal). Counsel was appointed and amended the petition; the State did not object to an oral amendment concerning the suppression issue.
- At the post-conviction hearing, petitioner testified he had ADHD and other mental-health problems, claimed a juror slept during trial, and said counsel failed to pursue a diminished-capacity defense or psychological testing.
- Trial counsel testified he met often with petitioner, pursued discovery and pretrial motions (including a motion to suppress cell-site data), had a mental-health evaluation done but concluded mental-health defenses were not promising, and admitted he mistakenly omitted the suppression issue from the motion for new trial.
- The post-conviction court credited trial counsel’s testimony, found petitioner’s juror-sleeping claim uncorroborated and not credible, found no deficient investigation or communication, and concluded petitioner failed to prove prejudice from counsel’s omission of the suppression issue.
- This court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding petitioner failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sleeping juror | A juror slept during trial; counsel failed to notify the court, tainting verdict | No proof; trial counsel would have alerted court; petitioner’s testimony uncorroborated | Denied — petitioner’s testimony discredited; trial record shows no sleeping juror affecting deliberations |
| Failure to preserve suppression issue on appeal | Counsel failed to include motion to suppress cell-site data in motion for new trial, forfeiting appellate review | Omission was a mistake but petitioner cannot show prejudice; suppression denial was correct under existing law | Denied — counsel’s omission acknowledged but petitioner failed to show reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Failure to investigate/raise mental‑health/diminished capacity | Counsel did not request adequate psychological testing or pursue diminished-capacity defense | Counsel ordered evaluation, reviewed results, and strategically declined to pursue mental‑health defense | Denied — record shows adequate investigation and strategic decision; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑prong ineffective assistance test of deficient performance and prejudice)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (standards for evaluating post‑conviction claims and counsel performance)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to tactical decisions within wide range of reasonable assistance)
- Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (burden of proof in post‑conviction proceedings)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (prejudice inquiry: whether counsel’s errors rendered outcome unreliable)