David Chardwick Wooten v. State of Tennessee, M2015-01141-CCA-R3-PC

Petitioner David Wooten was convicted in Davidson County of two counts of aggravated sexual battery (two concurrent 10-year sentences at 100%); convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
Allegations: victim (daughter) said Wooten touched her under her clothing on multiple occasions as a child; a recorded controlled call captured Wooten admitting he touched the victim’s vagina “on the top” but denying penetration.
Wooten previously faced a Robertson County trial on similar allegations that resulted in conviction on lesser misdemeanors; several witnesses (including Mark Brant, babysitters Becky Cassinova and Heather Hesson, and Rocky Isabell) testified in the earlier trial.
Post-conviction petition alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at the Davidson County trial for (1) failing to call certain favorable witnesses (Brant, Cassinova) and (2) failing to adequately question Rocky Isabell to rebut Travis Belcher’s testimony about sleeping/custody arrangements.
Trial counsel explained strategic reasons for witness choices (concern that Brant had become aligned with prosecution, babysitter testimony timing issues, and belief that such testimony was not outcome-determinative); the post-conviction court found counsel’s performance was not deficient and denied relief.
Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, emphasizing standards for ineffective assistance (Strickland/Baxter) and that petitioner failed to show deficient performance or prejudice by clear and convincing evidence.

Issue	Wooten's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Failure to call babysitter Becky Cassinova (and related babysitter testimony)	Cassinova would have corroborated normal father–daughter interactions and undermined the victim’s credibility	Trial counsel called Heather Hesson at trial; testimony covered relevant periods and was not damaging; omission of Cassinova not shown to be prejudicial	Denied — petitioner failed to show counsel deficiency or prejudice; post-conviction court’s findings upheld
Failure to call Mark Brant (grandfather)	Brant gave favorable testimony in Robertson County and would have aided Wooten at Davidson County trial	Counsel made a strategic decision not to call Brant because Brant’s loyalty shifted toward the victim and risked eliciting corroborative character/opinion testimony favorable to prosecution	Denied — strategy was reasonable; no deficient performance or prejudice shown
Inadequate cross-examination / failure to exploit Rocky Isabell testimony to rebut Travis Belcher	More thorough questioning would have shown simultaneous custody/sleeping arrangements that rebut Belcher’s version and undercut victim’s opportunity to be abused	Trial record already contained evidence of overlapping attendance; Isabell’s post-conviction elaboration lacked credibility and petitioner could have raised issues at trial	Denied — petitioner failed to prove prejudice; controlled-call admission remained significant

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance + prejudice)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (Tennessee ineffective assistance standard)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (reasonable probability test and counsel decision deference)
Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009) (burden of proof in post-conviction proceedings)
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate review of post-conviction factual findings)
Hellard v. State, 629 S.W.2d 4 (Tenn. 1982) (deference to counsel’s trial strategy)
Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (witnesses not presented at post-conviction hearing cannot be presumed helpful)
Adkins v. State, 911 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn.) (courts defer to reasonable strategic choices)
Cooper v. State, 847 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn.) (same)