Corey Cortez Abernathy v. State of Tennessee
E2016-01258-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 10, 2017Background
- In 2012 Corey Cortez Abernathy pled guilty to burglary of an automobile and theft of property and received concurrent two-year sentences.
- Before pleading, Abernathy complained about counsel and asked for new counsel; the trial court offered replacement but Abernathy elected to proceed with appointed counsel and accept the plea.
- The State’s factual proffer included video of a burglary and recovery of a laptop later found in a friend’s residence in a backpack; Abernathy had earlier disclaimed ownership of the backpack when questioned by police.
- Abernathy filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress the laptop evidence and that his plea was involuntary.
- At the post-conviction hearing counsel testified she reviewed discovery and the video with Abernathy, advised that a plea was advisable given prior convictions and that Abernathy likely lacked standing to challenge the search of the backpack found in another’s residence.
- The post-conviction court denied relief, finding counsel not deficient and Abernathy suffered no prejudice because he disclaimed ownership and had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpack or residence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress the laptop recovered from a backpack in a friend’s residence | Abernathy: counsel should have moved to suppress because the seizure was illegal and he had an expectation of privacy | State: Abernathy disclaimed ownership and lacked standing; counsel reasonably concluded suppression would fail | Counsel not ineffective; no deficiency or prejudice because Abernathy lacked reasonable expectation of privacy |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss based on allegedly insufficient video ID | Abernathy: video did not clearly identify him; dismissal/motion should have been filed | State: video plus other evidence was sufficient; motion to dismiss inappropriate | Counsel not deficient; failure to move to dismiss was reasonable and not prejudicial |
| Whether Abernathy’s plea was involuntary due to counsel’s alleged deficiencies | Abernathy: would not have pled if advised of Fourth Amendment grounds | State: Abernathy knowingly and voluntarily pled after consultation and understanding risks | Plea voluntary and intelligent; no prejudice from counsel’s conduct |
| Whether counsel had a conflict requiring withdrawal | Abernathy: counsel sought withdrawal but remained, implying conflict | State: no conflict shown; Abernathy declined appointment of new counsel and chose to proceed | No conflict; counsel’s performance acceptable and petitioner chose to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (standard for assessing counsel competence in Tennessee)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (deference to post-conviction fact findings)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (strategic choices entitled to deference)
- Miller v. State, 520 S.W.2d 729 (no standing when person disclaims interest in searched property)
- House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508 (counsel deficient only if performance falls below objective standard)