Clyde Green v. State of Tennessee
E2016--01847-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- Clyde Green pled guilty to multiple offenses arising from a robbery that resulted in two murders: facilitation of first-degree premeditated murder (merged into felony murder), facilitation of felony murder (two counts), especially aggravated robbery, conspiracy and possession offenses related to cocaine, and maintaining a drug-involved dwelling. He received an effective 22-year sentence (concurrent; especially aggravated robbery at 100%).
- As part of the plea, Green was required to testify truthfully at trials of co-defendants; the State presented stipulated facts that Green drove co-defendants to the scene, witnessed armed co-defendants shoot victims, and helped package stolen cocaine after the crime.
- Post-conviction, Green alleged ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), claiming counsel failed to explain criminal responsibility and lesser-included offenses, failed to advise or allow him to proceed to trial on certain counts (notably drug/maintaining-a-dwelling), did not explain consecutive sentencing exposure, and that his ninth-grade education and learning disability prevented a voluntary, knowing plea.
- At the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel testified he extensively met with Green, provided relevant case law, explained criminal responsibility, and recommended accepting the State’s package plea; counsel believed trial conviction risk (including felony murder) was high and the package offer was in Green’s best interest.
- The post-conviction court credited counsel’s testimony over Green’s, found counsel’s preparation and explanations adequate, and concluded Green’s pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered; the court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel failed to explain criminal responsibility and lesser-included offenses | Counsel didn’t adequately explain criminal responsibility or lesser-included offenses, so plea was unknowing | Counsel explained law and provided case law; Green understood criminal responsibility | Denied — court credited counsel; no deficient performance shown |
| Whether counsel should have advised to proceed to trial on drug/maintaining-dwelling counts | Counsel should have taken maintaining-dwelling (and drug counts) to trial because acquittal was possible | Plea was a package deal; counsel explained evidence and risk and reasonably advised plea | Denied — no deficiency; package plea meant counts could not be split |
| Whether counsel coerced or prevented Green from electing trial | Green testified he didn’t want to plead and was forced to plead | Green was informed he could go to trial; record shows he knowingly accepted plea | Denied — no convincing proof counsel forced plea |
| Whether counsel failed to inform about consecutive sentencing exposure causing prejudice | Counsel failed to explain possible consecutive sentencing exposure | Sentencing under plea produced concurrent terms; Green was not prejudiced | Denied — no prejudice shown; concurrent sentences imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent choice)
- State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (counsel’s duty to investigate and reasonableness standard)
- Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review of post-conviction findings)
- Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009) (post-conviction proof requirements)
- Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2004) (post-conviction relief principles)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (competence standard for counsel)
- Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1993) (factors for assessing voluntariness of a guilty plea)