Clarence Nesbit v. State of Tennessee
452 S.W.3d 779
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- In 1995 a Shelby County jury convicted Clarence Nesbit of first-degree premeditated murder for killing Miriam Cannon and sentenced him to death; convictions were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- Nesbit sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for inadequate investigation/preparation, failure to present witnesses and expert proof (mental deficits, rebuttal to torture/satanic allegations), and failure to timely convey a 25-year plea offer.
- The post-conviction court granted a new sentencing hearing but denied a new trial; the Court of Criminal Appeals majority affirmed; one judge dissented urging a new trial.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the Strickland prejudice/deficiency standard and related plea-negotiation decisions (Frye, Lafler) and held Nesbit failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a reasonable probability the guilt-phase outcome would differ but preserved a new sentencing hearing.
- The court relied on credibility findings (jurors and trial/post-conviction courts), inconsistencies in proffered alibi/mitigation witness testimony, lack of diminished-capacity proof sufficient to negate intent, and absence of proof Nesbit would have accepted the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Nesbit's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance at guilt phase (investigation/witnesses) | Trial counsel failed to investigate and call witnesses who would have shown affectionate relationship, rebut premeditation and satanic/torture insinuations | Counsel’s investigation was reasonable; proffered witnesses were inconsistent or not credible; omissions not prejudicial | No relief as to guilt: defendant failed to show a reasonable probability of different verdict |
| Failure to develop/present mental-impairment (diminished capacity) evidence | Counsel should have obtained neuropsych testing (low IQ, adaptability deficits) to negate specific intent | Proffered expert did not show a mental disease/defect that would negate intent; evidence would not likely alter verdict | No prejudice shown for guilt phase; such proof may be relevant at resentencing |
| Opening door / failure to rebut satanic or torture inferences | Counsel failed to file motions in limine, rebut rumors, or present witnesses to refute satanic/torture implications | Satanic reference was limited to impeachment; no substantive proof offered; rebuttal would not likely change outcome | No prejudice: jury instruction and limited impeachment use minimized impact; not outcome-determinative |
| Failure to timely convey 25-year plea offer | Counsel delayed communicating plea; Nesbit’s deficits meant he would have accepted if timely and properly advised | Nesbit presented no clear, credible proof he would have accepted earlier; prosecutor later revoked offer | No relief on plea claim: defendant failed to show he would have accepted the plea, so no prejudice under Lafler/Hill/Frye |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (reasonable effective assistance standard for counsel)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (remedy for deficient counsel during plea negotiations requires showing defendant would have accepted plea and court would have imposed lesser penalty)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (duty to communicate plea offers and Strickland standard applies to plea bargaining)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in plea context)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (counsel’s duty to investigate and the adversarial testing function)
- State v. Nesbit, 978 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. 1998) (prior direct appeal decision in this case)