Donnie Davenport v. State of Tennessee
E2016-00760-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- Donnie Davenport was convicted by a jury of promotion of the manufacture of methamphetamine and received a 12-year Range III sentence. Post-conviction relief was denied and this appeal followed.
- Davenport raised three ineffective-assistance claims: (1) counsel failed to meet/prepare before trial, (2) counsel failed to file a motion to suppress the search/evidence, and (3) counsel failed to advise Davenport that his prior convictions could be used to impeach him if he testified.
- Trial counsel did not file a motion for new trial or timely notice of appeal; the court later granted a delayed appeal. This court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
- At the post-conviction hearing, the petitioner testified to minimal meetings and lack of advice; counsel produced a letter and fee petition showing multiple pretrial conferences and that he advised Davenport to accept a plea because of his extensive criminal history.
- Counsel testified he reviewed the search warrant materials and concluded no meritorious suppression motion existed and that he warned Davenport about impeachment from prior convictions; the trial court found counsel credible and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Davenport's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel failed to meet/prepare pretrial | Counsel met only briefly; inadequate preparation | Counsel met multiple times; records and fee petition show several conferences | Denied — trial court credited counsel; no preponderance of contrary evidence |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing a suppression motion | Counsel asked but counsel refused to file; search should have been challenged | Counsel reviewed warrant and concluded suppression would fail; decision was reasonable | Denied — petitioner failed to show deficient performance or prejudice |
| Whether counsel failed to advise that prior felonies could be used to impeach if petitioner testified | Davenport says he was not warned and would not have testified otherwise | Counsel warned him (letter and testimony); Momon advisement occurred at trial | Denied — court credited counsel and documentary evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance—performance and prejudice)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1993) (prejudice inquiry under Strickland)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (post-conviction fact findings binding unless record preponderates)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review for post-conviction courts)
- Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (trial court advisement regarding defendant's right to testify)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (competence standard for counsel's performance)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (failure to prove either Strickland prong is sufficient to deny relief)
- Melson v. State, 772 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1989) (application of Strickland under Tennessee Constitution)