Daryl Bobo v. State of Tennessee, W2016-00477-CCA-R3-PC

Daryl Bobo was convicted by a jury (2013) of possession with intent to sell cocaine and marijuana within a drug-free school zone and received an effective 60-year sentence.
At trial officers observed what they believed was a hand-to-hand transaction; Bobo entered a Burger King restroom where officers recovered baggies of marijuana and crack cocaine; the Burger King was ~700 feet from a high school.
Bobo appealed; convictions were affirmed and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied review. He then filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; counsel was later appointed and a second amended petition was filed.
Key post-conviction allegations: counsel failed to (1) convey/adequately explain the State’s plea offer, (2) investigate and prepare for trial, and (3) properly cross-examine State witnesses.
At the post-conviction hearing Bobo claimed counsel told him the State’s 25-year offer would be served at 35% and failed to prepare or investigate; trial counsel testified he conveyed the 25-year offer to be served at 100%, met with Bobo numerous times, reviewed discovery with him, filed pretrial motions, and pursued surveillance and suppression avenues.
The post-conviction court credited trial counsel’s testimony, found Bobo’s claims (including that he feigned confusion at the plea colloquy) not proven by clear and convincing evidence, and denied relief; this appeal affirmed the denial.

Issue	Bobo's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to explain plea terms	Counsel failed to tell Bobo the State’s offer was 25 years at 100%; counsel told him 25 years at 35%, causing Bobo to reject plea	Counsel conveyed a 25-year offer to be served at 100% and never told Bobo it was 35%	Court credited counsel; no relief (no deficient performance proven)
Ineffective assistance — inadequate investigation/ preparation	Counsel rarely met, didn’t provide discovery, didn’t investigate surveillance, didn’t explain sentencing exposure	Counsel met frequently (including in jail), reviewed discovery with Bobo, attempted to obtain surveillance, measured school distance, filed motions	Court found evidence did not preponderate against counsel’s testimony; no relief
Ineffective assistance — failure to file/move to suppress	(Implicit in investigation claim) Counsel failed to file suppression or pursue motions	Counsel filed pretrial motions including a suppression motion but no hearing occurred because counsel saw no basis	Court accepted counsel’s testimony and denied relief
Failure to adequately cross-examine State witnesses	Bobo contends counsel’s cross-examination was deficient	State notes issue was not raised below or at the post-conviction hearing	Issue waived on appeal; no relief

Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009) (recognizing constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in Tennessee)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1993) (clarifying prejudice inquiry under Strickland)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (discussing counsel-related Sixth Amendment issues)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (failure to prove either Strickland prong is sufficient to deny relief)
Melson v. State, 772 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1989) (applying Strickland standard under Tennessee Constitution)
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review for post-conviction factual findings and mixed questions of law and fact)