Delshun Jones v. State of Tennessee
W2020-00994-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 9, 2021Background
- Victim Samuel Wilkes was shot outside an Easter Sunday birthday party on April 8, 2012; multiple attendees later testified that Jones confessed to shooting the victim and bragged about firing five shots.
- Cell‑phone records showed calls between Jones and the victim shortly before the shooting; a former cellmate (Carl Allen) testified Jones admitted the shooting while incarcerated.
- A jury convicted Jones of first‑degree premeditated murder; he received a life sentence and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Jones filed a timely post‑conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and several erroneous jury‑instruction and evidentiary issues (failure to move timely to suppress cell records, failure to request a corroboration instruction, flawed premeditation instruction, nondisclosure/Deal with witness Allen, and other requested jury instructions).
- At an evidentiary hearing trial counsel (37 years’ experience) testified and Jones testified; the post‑conviction court found counsel’s performance not deficient or non‑prejudicial and found Jones produced no proof of a prosecution deal with Allen; the court denied relief.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, rejecting Jones’s claims and concluding the record supported the post‑conviction court’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Jones's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to request corroboration instruction for defendant’s out‑of‑court statements | Trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a special instruction that the jury must require corroboration of Jones’s statements | Trial counsel’s omission did not prejudice Jones because independent evidence corroborated the statements and jury was properly instructed on weighing statements | Even if deficient, no prejudice: conviction supported by other evidence; affirm denial of relief |
| Failure to file timely motion to suppress cell‑phone records | Counsel ineffective for not timely suppressing cell‑phone evidence and for not asking jury to be told records were unlawfully obtained | Counsel made an oral suppression motion; the issue was litigated and records were only used to show call timing/direction; no legal basis for an instruction on admissibility to the jury | No deficient performance or prejudice; admission of records did not undermine verdict; affirm |
| Challenge to premeditation jury instruction | Instruction misstated law and misled jury regarding passion/excitement defense | Instruction, read as whole, correctly explained premeditation and that prior formed intent is not erased by passion; follows pattern instructions and precedent | Instruction proper when viewed in entirety; claim fails |
| Nondisclosure / alleged deal with witness Carl Allen (due process/Brady argument) | State failed to disclose a deal or understanding with Allen in exchange for testimony, denying fair trial | Jones presented no proof an agreement existed; Allen testified he hoped for leniency but that prosecutors said no deal existed; issue could have been raised earlier and is waived | Waived or unsupported by evidence; post‑conviction court’s denial affirmed |
| Miscellaneous jury‑instruction requests (cell‑phone admissibility, that Jones was excluded from Crawford proceedings, hearsay on crime‑stopper tip) | Jones says jurors should have been instructed on these matters to evaluate evidence properly | No legal basis for such jury instructions; admissibility and hearsay are legal matters for the court, not jury; Jones shows no prejudice or authority | No basis to grant requested instructions; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1993) (prejudice inquiry in ineffective assistance context)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (post‑conviction factual findings entitled to deference)
- Frausto v. State, 463 S.W.3d 469 (Tenn. 2015) (confession cannot alone support conviction; need corroboration)
- Bishop v. State, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014) (modified trustworthiness standard for corroboration of admissions)
- Moore v. State, 485 S.W.3d 411 (Tenn. 2016) (prejudice inquiry in ineffective‑assistance claim mirrors harmless‑error direct‑appeal analysis)
- Rimmer v. State, 250 S.W.3d 12 (Tenn. 2008) (jury instructions must be reviewed in their entirety)
- James v. State, 315 S.W.3d 440 (Tenn. 2010) (jury charges must fairly submit the law applicable to the facts)
- Harbison v. State, 704 S.W.2d 314 (Tenn. 1986) (trial court must give a complete charge of law applicable to the case)