Christopher Lee Richardson v. State of Tennessee
M2016-00793-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | May 9, 2017Background
- Christopher Lee Richardson was convicted by a Bedford County jury of attempted theft (property $1,000–$10,000), disorderly conduct, possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance with intent to sell/deliver, resisting arrest, possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, and promotion of methamphetamine manufacture; effective sentence 12 years; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- The attempted-theft charge arose from surveillance showing Richardson pushing a shopping cart full of unpaid merchandise toward an exterior door of Walmart on Jan. 8–9, 2012; asset-protection counted the items at $1,505.85; he did not exit the store with the cart.
- Other convictions stemmed from a Feb. 23, 2012 incident at a Rite Aid involving an unsuccessful pseudoephedrine purchase and related events.
- Richardson filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on three grounds: (1) counsel failed to excuse a juror (Crystal Adams) at Richardson’s request; (2) counsel changed trial strategy without informing him; and (3) counsel prevented him from testifying.
- At the evidentiary hearing counsel testified she discussed strikes with Richardson, he wanted Adams kept, she advised Richardson not to testify (and a Momon hearing confirmed his decision not to testify), and she had not secretly changed strategy; Adams testified she could be fair and was unaware of Richardson’s criminal history.
- The post-conviction court rejected Richardson’s claims; this appeal affirms that denial, concluding counsel’s performance was reasonable and Richardson was not prejudiced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to use peremptory challenge on juror Adams | Richardson: Counsel refused to strike Adams despite his request; Adams knew him and husband was owed money, creating bias | State/Counsel: Richardson wanted Adams kept; counsel had strikes available, Adams denied bias, trial court found her fair | Counsel not ineffective; no clear/convincing evidence of bias or deficient performance |
| Change in trial strategy without notice | Richardson: Counsel changed the planned defense at trial (unclear specifics) | State/Counsel: No change; mention of addiction as alternate explanation was informed tactical choice and reduced exposure | No ineffective assistance; strategy was informed and not shown to prejudice Richardson |
| Preventing Richardson from testifying | Richardson: Counsel forbade or pressured him not to testify | State/Counsel: Counsel advised against testifying due to lengthy criminal history; Momon hearing shows Richardson chose not to testify | No ineffective assistance; decision to decline testimony was Richardson’s and counsel’s advice was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Strickland two‑prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (procedure and waiver regarding defendant’s right to testify)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (standard for competence of counsel)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to counsel’s tactical decisions)
- House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. 2001) (requirement that strategic choices be informed and based on adequate preparation)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (objective reasonableness standard for counsel)
- Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (counsel need not be perfect; only constitutionally adequate representation)
- Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (context for structural vs. trial-specific counsel failures)