David Alan Hunter v. State of Tennessee
E2015-02177-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- Petitioner David Alan Hunter (15 at arrest) was convicted by jury of first-degree felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery for the March 16, 2008 killing of a taxi driver; he received an effective life sentence. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- The State’s case included: the petitioner’s confession to Detective Kilgore, an eyewitness identification, a latent fingerprint matching the petitioner on the taxi, phone records tying the fare call to the petitioner’s mother’s cellphone, and physical evidence (a .38 bullet). The petitioner testified at trial that another man (Dewayne Johnson) committed the crime.
- In post-conviction proceedings Hunter alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, principally that counsel (1) failed to adequately explain and advocate for a plea agreement (second-degree murder ~20–25 years) and (2) failed to convey a formal plea offer on the eve of trial, and (3) did not spend sufficient time advising him prior to trial.
- Trial counsel testified he discussed a possible plea and advised the petitioner, but later acknowledged he had misremembered some testimony about a written offer; the prosecutor testified the State never extended a formal written plea offer because the petitioner asserted innocence.
- The post-conviction court found counsel’s performance was deficient for not correcting the petitioner’s and his mother’s misunderstandings or more forcefully advising acceptance of a plea, but concluded Hunter failed to prove prejudice because (a) there was no formal State offer to convey and (b) the petitioner likely would have rejected any offer given his and his mother’s insistence on innocence.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: there was insufficient proof of a formal plea offer and insufficient evidence that, but for counsel’s conduct, the petitioner would have accepted a plea that produced a lesser sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hunter) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convey/explain a plea offer and advise acceptance | Counsel failed to convey a formal plea offer and did not adequately explain benefits; Hunter would have accepted a plea | No formal plea offer was ever extended by the State; counsel did discuss plea possibilities and Hunter (and his mother) rejected offers | No relief — record supports that no formal offer existed and Hunter did not prove he would have accepted one |
| Whether counsel’s limited pretrial contact prejudiced Hunter’s ability to make a knowing decision whether to plead | Insufficient meetings and explanation left Hunter (a juvenile) without proper guidance to decide about plea vs trial | Counsel met with Hunter multiple times, engaged the mother, and Hunter deferred to mother’s advice; any additional guidance would not have changed outcome | No relief — petitioner failed to show prejudice from any communication shortcomings |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (Standards for prejudice when a plea offer is rejected because of counsel’s errors)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn.) (Counsel performance standard under Strickland)
- Finch v. State, 226 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn.) (Counsel must render reasonably effective assistance)
- Nesbit v. State, 452 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn.) (Elements required to show prejudice when a plea is rejected)
- Lane v. State, 316 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn.) (clear and convincing evidence standard for post-conviction)