Christopher Cunningham v. State of Tennessee
W2016-00222-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- In 2013 a Madison County jury convicted Christopher Cunningham of one count of aggravated burglary and two counts of aggravated robbery; effective sentence 22 years (two consecutive 11-year robbery sentences; 5 years concurrent for burglary).
- Victims Dr. Anyanwu and contractor Lorenzo Amador testified they were robbed at gunpoint in Dr. Anyanwu’s kitchen; both identified Cunningham at trial.
- Cunningham appealed; this Court affirmed convictions and sentence on direct appeal; Tennessee Supreme Court denied review.
- Cunningham filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging trial and appellate counsel were ineffective (failure to investigate and present witnesses, failure to advise re: plea and right to testify, failure to raise double jeopardy), and challenged consecutive sentencing and release classification.
- At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing counsel testified to multiple jail meetings, disclosure of discovery, discussion of plea offers, advising about the right to testify (petitioner waived and confirmed), and that no alibi witness was provided by petitioner; petitioner failed to call proposed witnesses at the hearing.
- The post-conviction court denied relief, finding counsel’s performance was within professional norms and petitioner failed to prove prejudice; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial) | Counsel failed to prepare, investigate witnesses (Ms. Douglas, mother), explain plea consequences, and advise re: right to testify | Counsel met repeatedly, provided discovery, discussed plea offers and testimony decision; petitioner offered no specific missing-witness testimony | Denied — petitioner failed to prove prejudice or identify witnesses/testimony that would have altered outcome |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (appeal) | Counsel failed to raise double jeopardy claim on appeal | Counsel argued sufficiency and sentencing; believed no double jeopardy because there were two victims and two takings | Denied — petitioner waived or failed to support claim; no prejudice shown |
| Double jeopardy (substantive) | Two aggravated robbery convictions violate double jeopardy because theft was one transaction | Petitioner argued only one theft; State argued unit of prosecution is number of takings and there were two separate takings | Denied — robberies involved two independent takings; no double jeopardy violation |
| Plea/advice on plea offers | Counsel failed to properly explain plea offers, so petitioner may have rejected beneficial offers | Counsel reviewed offers multiple times; petitioner refused offers because he wanted greater release eligibility and believed identity could not be proved | Denied — petitioner testified he would not plead guilty to something he did not do; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Lane v. State, 316 S.W.3d 555 (definition of clear and convincing evidence in post-conviction context)
- Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854 (failure to call known witness requires presenting witness at post-conviction hearing)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (ineffective assistance review and standards)
- State v. Franklin, 130 S.W.3d 789 (unit of prosecution for robbery is number of takings, not number of victims)