Demariceo Chalmers v. State of Tennessee, W2015-02235-CCA-R3-PC

Victim Tina Nelson was shot and killed after two men approached her car at a red light on October 11, 2009; Chalmers was arrested minutes later and made a statement admitting participation in an attempted robbery but denying intent to kill.
Evidence at trial: eyewitness identifications (including Mr. Churchill), a spent .45 casing and a bullet slug matching a .45 recovered from the red SUV where Chalmers was found, blood and DNA linking Chalmers to items in the SUV and to the exterior driver’s door, and an autopsy showing a chest entry wound and a graze on the victim’s finger.
Chalmers testified he intended only to rob, that a struggle over the gun occurred, and that the gun discharged during that struggle; he owned the gun recovered from the SUV and had blood on his clothing.
Jury convicted Chalmers of attempted aggravated robbery and first-degree felony murder; convictions were upheld on direct appeal.
Post-conviction petition alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to send the gunshot-residue (GSR) sample taken from the victim’s hands to the TBI for testing; petitioner argued GSR results could have supported his struggle/abandonment defense.
At the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel testified the decision not to pursue testing was tactical (arguing failure to test was preferable to risking adverse test results); the post-conviction court denied relief and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not having the victim’s GSR sample tested	Chalmers: testing could have shown residue on victim’s hands supporting a struggle and attempted abandonment, undermining mens rea for murder	State/Counsel: no proof of likely test results; testing could equally have been harmful; choice was tactical and reasonable	Counsel’s decision was a reasonable tactical choice; petitioner failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice; deny relief

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. 2001) (requirement that tactical choices be informed and based on adequate preparation)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (standard for objectively reasonable counsel performance)
Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to counsel’s strategic choices)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (competence standard for counsel in criminal cases)
Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. 1990) (petitioner must show actual prejudice from counsel’s omission)