Elza Evans, III v. State of Tennessee
M2016-02332-CCA-R3-PC
Tenn. Crim. App.Aug 21, 2017Background
- Evans and co-defendants were convicted after a joint trial for aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping; Evans received effectively two consecutive life sentences without parole.
- At trial co-defendant Gregory Mathis (who had prior violent convictions) ultimately did not testify; defense counsel unsuccessfully sought to use Mathis’s letters and sought severance.
- Evans claimed at the post-conviction hearing that trial counsel was ineffective for poor preparation (including failure to interview Mathis), deficient jury selection (no Batson challenge), weak cross-examination, failure to call Mathis or Evans as witnesses, and for appellate omissions (missing transcripts).
- Trial counsel testified he reviewed discovery, met multiple times with Evans, attempted to interview Mathis but was rebuffed by Mathis’s counsel, pursued a facilitation defense when Mathis declined to testify, and acknowledged procedural errors (e.g., failing to authenticate a Mathis letter).
- The post-conviction court credited trial counsel’s account, found no deficient performance or resulting prejudice on the claims presented, and denied relief; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial preparation / failure to interview Mathis & severance | Evans: counsel failed to interview Mathis, authenticate Mathis letters, and timely move/sever, which prejudiced defense | State/Post-conviction court: counsel tried to interview Mathis but was barred by Mathis’s counsel; defense strategy adjusted when Mathis invoked Fifth | Counsel not deficient; no prejudice — contact barred and severance unlikely to change outcome |
| Jury selection / Batson challenge | Evans: counsel should have objected to all-white jury and raised Batson | State: record shows African-American venirepersons were excused by various parties; no proof of purposeful discrimination | No deficient performance shown; Batson claim not proved on post-conviction review |
| Cross-examination of witnesses | Evans: counsel failed to exploit inconsistencies (gun safeties, witnesses who didn’t see Evans armed) and did not adequately impeach Sams | State: alleged inconsistent police report not in record; counsel cross-examined on safety and obtained favorable testimony from Sams on lack of planning knowledge | No deficiency or, if any, no prejudice given strong trial evidence |
| Failure to call witnesses / appellate record omissions | Evans: counsel failed to call Mathis or prepare Evans to testify; appellate counsel failed to include key transcripts, impairing appeal | State: Mathis waived testimony (Fifth) during jury-out proceeding; Evans’s failure-to-testify claim waived below; appellate omissions did not obviously alter issues reviewed | No deficient performance on calling Mathis (Fifth Amendment); other claims waived or not shown to have affected outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits racially motivated peremptory challenges)
- Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (procedures for jury-out hearings regarding witness choices)
- Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (clear-and-convincing standard for post-conviction proof)