David Andrew Oliver v. State of Tennessee, E2016-02244-CCA-R3-PC

David Andrew Oliver was convicted by a Knox County jury of rape of a child and sentenced to 25 years.
The State introduced a recorded statement in which Oliver admitted sexual penetration and an apology letter he wrote to the victim.
Trial counsel moved to suppress the statement (denied) and challenged the victim’s credibility at trial; no other witness could directly explain Oliver’s confession.
Oliver and counsel discussed whether he should testify; counsel advised against it after preparation, mock examination, and consultation with the family.
At trial the court conducted a Momon inquiry confirming Oliver knew his right to testify and that the decision was his; Oliver chose not to testify.
On post-conviction, Oliver argued ineffective assistance because counsel failed to strongly advise him to testify to explain/rebut the confession; the post-conviction court denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for advising Oliver not to testify	Oliver: counsel should have strongly advised him to testify so he could explain his allegedly coerced/conflicted confession and rebut the victim	State: counsel’s advice followed investigation, preparation, Momon inquiry, and reasonable strategy to avoid harmful cross-examination and prior-conviction impeachment	Counsel was not deficient; trial strategy was reasonable and decision remained Oliver’s to make

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient-performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (right to reasonably effective counsel; investigation duty)
Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (court must ensure defendant understands right to testify and that decision is personal)
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (standard for reviewing post-conviction factual findings)
Felts v. State, 354 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2011) (deference to strategic choices after thorough investigation)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (competence standard for counsel in criminal cases)