David Dwight Hester v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01351-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- David Dwight Hester pleaded guilty (after withdrawing an earlier plea) to initiation of meth manufacture and two counts of aggravated child neglect; agreed effective sentence 25 years at 30% release eligibility.
- Facts: officers observed meth production activity tied to an apartment; Hester and co-defendant Kayla Howell were found with meth, paraphernalia, and two children (ages 7 and 12) who witnessed portions of the cook.
- Hester admitted involvement in making meth and that the children were present for parts of the process; some charges were nolle prossed as part of plea negotiations.
- Post-conviction petition alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on (1) failure to challenge alleged duplicative/dualist indictments charging both aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect in the same counts, and (2) erroneous sentencing advice—specifically, that Hester would have to receive the same sentence as his co-defendant and might be sentenced to 100% release eligibility.
- The post-conviction court credited trial counsel’s testimony, found counsel’s performance not deficient or not prejudicial, and denied relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Hester's Argument | State/Trial Counsel's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike or specify counts that allegedly charged both aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect (duplicitous indictments) | Indictments were duplicitous—each count alleged two distinct offenses (abuse and neglect), risking jury unanimity and requiring dismissal or specification | Counsel saw no issue in indictment wording; record shows plea to aggravated child neglect counts and no trial occurred so jury-unanimity risk never materialized; any pretrial dismissal would likely result in re-presentation to grand jury | No relief — petitioner failed to show prejudice or deficient performance; issue was not outcome-determinative |
| Whether counsel misadvised Hester that he was required to receive same sentence as co-defendant (coercing plea) | Counsel told Hester he would have to get the same treatment as co-defendant and therefore accept an offer that effectively produced ~15 years served | Counsel denied advising that equality was required; he said State sought similar effective exposure but plea decisions rest with State/Court; record shows Hester accepted a better package (25 yrs at 30%) | No relief — court credited counsel; Hester received a better practical outcome than co-defendant at the time |
| Whether counsel told Hester he risked being sentenced at 100% release eligibility (causing plea) | Counsel warned Hester he could be sentenced at 100% and that threat induced plea | Counsel denied giving that advice except hypothetically; plea hearings and record reflect the State agreed to 30% eligibility and Hester expressly waived sentencing hearing | No relief — no deficient performance or prejudice shown; the record reflects agreement to 30% and Hester’s knowing, voluntary plea |
| Whether petitioner showed prejudice under Hill/Strickland such that he would have gone to trial but for counsel's alleged errors | Hester asserts he would have insisted on trial absent bad advice/errors | State argues strong case against Hester (confessions, witness testimony, physical evidence) and no reasonable probability of different result | No relief — petitioner did not meet the burden to show reasonable probability he would have proceeded to trial and obtained a better result |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland to guilty-plea context; petitioner must show he would have gone to trial but for counsel's errors)
- Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450 (post-conviction burden and standards under Tennessee law)
- Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (clarifies post-conviction proof and standards)
- Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (discusses clear-and-convincing standard for post-conviction findings)
- Frazier v. State, 303 S.W.3d 674 (appellate review standard for post-conviction factual findings)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (counsel performance standards and deference to tactical choices)