Dennis Cedric Woodard, Jr. v. State of Tennessee, M2015-02002-CCA-R3-ECN

Background

On April 13, 2001, Scott Shafer was fatally shot; evidence linked a .40 caliber pistol found on Woodard to the shell casing and bullet recovered at the scene. Witness LaShawn Nunnally identified Woodard as the shooter; Woodard admitted writing a jail letter soliciting harm to Nunnally. Woodard maintained he did not shoot Shafer and pointed to Jermaine Hill as the shooter.
Woodard was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life. He pursued direct appeal (affirmed) and later filed post-conviction and coram nobis petitions alleging, principally, ineffective assistance of trial counsel and an undisclosed conflict of interest.
Key factual complaints: (1) trial counsel failed to investigate/present experts on mental health and intoxication; (2) counsel failed to call or investigate potential exculpatory witnesses (Brooke Whitaker, Evette McGee); (3) counsel previously represented prosecution witness Henry (Henry) Young and failed to disclose or withdraw for the conflict.
Lower courts initially dismissed some petitions as untimely; this Court ordered an evidentiary hearing and review on the merits. At the hearing, trial counsel testified he had investigated, reviewed records, and that his prior representation of Young had ended before Young was placed on the State’s supplemental witness list.
The post-conviction court credited counsel’s testimony, found no actual conflict of interest, and concluded Woodard failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice; the coram nobis court likewise denied relief. This appeal affirms both denials.

Issues

Issue	Woodard's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/present mental-health or intoxication experts	Counsel failed to pursue experts or adequate investigation; those defenses could have negated premeditation or reduced culpability	Counsel investigated, reviewed records, pursued a not-guilty strategy (claiming Woodard was not the shooter); mental-health/intoxication evidence would have cut both ways or was irrelevant to innocence	Denied — no deficient performance shown; no prejudice established because Woodard insisted on an innocence defense and presented no expert at post-conviction to prove outcome would differ
Failure to challenge admission of jail letter soliciting harm	Counsel should have objected to admission or required handwriting proof	Woodard admitted authorship at trial; counsel reasonably declined objections or expert proof	Denied — counsel not ineffective; Woodard admitted writing the letter and offered no contrary proof at hearing
Conflict of interest — counsel previously represented State witness Henry Young	Prior representation created an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance and was concealed from Woodard	Representation of Young ended before Young became a State witness; no confidential information bearing on the case was obtained; no benefit to Young for testifying; trial court was informed	Denied — no actual conflict; Cuyler standard not met; counsel’s prior representation did not adversely affect performance
Coram nobis — newly discovered evidence of conflict or concealment	Counsel concealed prior representation; if Woodard had known he would have accepted plea or demanded new counsel	Prior representation is not newly discovered evidence under coram nobis; no proof counsel obtained adverse, impeaching information; trial outcome unaffected	Denied — previous representation not the sort of newly discovered evidence that would have changed the judgment

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (actual conflict standard for Sixth Amendment claims)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (deference to post-conviction fact findings)
Vasques v. State, 221 S.W.3d 514 (Tenn. 2007) (coram nobis standard and review of newly discovered evidence)
Thompson v. State, 768 S.W.2d 239 (Tenn. 1989) (right to counsel unfettered by conflicting interests)