Dominique Dantwan Simons v. State of Tennessee, M2017-00165-CCA-R3-PC

In 2010 Simons pled guilty to Class B felony possession with intent to sell (≥ .5 g cocaine) and received an eight-year sentence with one year confinement and probation; he had 364 days pretrial credit.
Facts supporting the plea: fugitive task force entered a co-defendant’s apartment, found narcotics manufacturing items and 245.7 g of cocaine divided into four bags; four men were present.
Simons later filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance: counsel failed to file motions to reduce bond (after a failure-to-appear), to suppress (challenging the consensual search), and to dismiss, and that counsel failed to explain actual vs. constructive possession, rendering his plea unknowing and involuntary.
At the post-conviction hearing Simons testified about limited communication and that counsel did not adequately explain constructive possession; trial counsel testified he met Simons multiple times, moved successfully to reduce the initial bond, and believed Simons lacked standing to challenge the apartment search.
The post-conviction court denied relief, finding counsel’s actions reasonable, the plea colloquy adequate, and no prejudice shown; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to move to reduce bond after FTA and bond increase	Simons: counsel should have sought another bond reduction (bond raised to $200,000)	State/record: counsel previously obtained a reduction; Simons absconded, so another reduction was unlikely	Denied — no deficiency or prejudice; motion unlikely to succeed given FTA conduct
Failure to file motion to suppress evidence from apartment search	Simons: counsel did not explain guest standing and should have challenged the search	Counsel: believed Simons lacked standing; a co-resident’s suppression motion was denied	Denied — petitioner failed to prove deficient performance or likely successful suppression
Failure to file motion to dismiss	Simons: counsel should have filed a dismissal motion (no specifics)	State: no facts shown to support a dismissal motion; claim speculative and waived on appeal for lack of briefing	Denied and waived — no evidence or argument to show deficiency
Plea was involuntary because counsel did not explain actual vs constructive possession	Simons: would not have pled if he understood the difference	State: plea colloquy was proper; record shows counsel discussed possession; circumstantial evidence could support constructive possession	Denied — plea was knowing and voluntary; no prejudice shown because constructive possession evidence was sufficient

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (plea must be voluntary and intelligent; court must canvass defendant)
State v. Mackey, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn. 1977) (state standard for plea voluntariness)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (statements at plea colloquy carry strong presumption of truth in collateral review)
Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1993) (factors for evaluating voluntariness of plea)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (standards for assessing counsel performance in post-conviction proceedings)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (counsel performance measured against objective reasonableness)
State v. Edmondson, 231 S.W.3d 925 (Tenn. 2007) (definition of actual possession)
State v. Bigsby, 40 S.W.3d 87 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (presence and association alone may be insufficient to prove possession)