Cordell L. Butler v. State of Tennessee
M2015-01708-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- Petitioner Cordell L. Butler pleaded guilty to conspiracy to sell >50g hydromorphone and possession of >50g hydromorphone (Class A felonies) in exchange for dismissal of a weapons charge and school‑zone enhancement. Plea provided concurrent 20‑year sentences as an especially mitigated offender with parole eligibility after serving 20%.
- At the plea hearing Butler acknowledged understanding the plea, waived rights, denied coercion, and stated satisfaction with counsel. State recited facts: Butler transported coconspirators and was arrested at a Greyhound station with ~4,815 Dilaudid pills.
- Butler filed a post‑conviction petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective, that pleas were not knowing/voluntary, that counsel coerced him (threatening loss of plea offers if he sought suppression), failed to pursue a suppression motion, misrepresented parole prospects (promised 2‑year release), and did not review wiretap CDs with him.
- At the post‑conviction hearing Butler testified counsel was overworked, discussed plea offers briefly, and that he felt pressured into pleading; he admitted he lied at the plea hearing about feeling threatened and conceded he chose to plead guilty.
- Trial counsel (4 years’ experience, formerly public defender) testified he met Butler many times, reviewed and provided relevant discovery, warned that suppression would be an uphill battle and that the State might withdraw offers if a suppression motion were filed, negotiated plea options (15 years @30% or 20 years @20%), and never guaranteed parole or a two‑year release.
- The post‑conviction court credited trial counsel, found counsel not ineffective and Butler’s pleas knowing and voluntary, and denied relief; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Butler's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to file motion to suppress | Counsel refused to file suppression despite weak probable cause at preliminary hearing; Butler would have insisted on suppression/trial | Counsel discussed suppression, advised it was unlikely to succeed and that filing would risk revocation of plea offers; Butler accepted plea after informed advice | Denied — counsel’s strategy was reasonable, court accredited counsel’s testimony |
| Coercion through threat to withdraw plea offers | Butler says State (through counsel) coerced him by threatening to rescind offers if he sought suppression | State/counsel contend they warned truthfully that filing suppression risked losing offers; no improper coercion | Denied — plea was voluntary; warnings about risk do not equal coercion |
| Misadvice re: parole/release guarantee | Butler contends counsel promised automatic release in ~2 years if he took 20 @20% | Counsel denies any guarantee, states he explained parole timing is uncertain and factors affect release | Denied — no proven promise; court credited counsel |
| Failure to review discovery (wiretap CDs) | Butler claims he could not play/listen to CDs and counsel didn’t meaningfully review them with him | Counsel provided relevant discovery, discussed the key calls and takedown, and explained the evidence’s weaknesses and strengths | Denied — court found Butler was provided and advised on material discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice in plea context requires showing defendant would have insisted on trial)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (solemn in‑court plea statements carry strong presumption of verity)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent; certain rights are waived)
- Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1993) (factors for evaluating whether plea is knowing and voluntary)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (ineffective assistance framework in Tennessee)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (standard for competent representation)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (post‑conviction fact‑finding and deference to trial court credibility determinations)