Emmanuel Bibb Houston v. State of Tennessee
M2016-00467-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Petitioner Emmanuel Bibb Houston was convicted by a Bedford County jury (2013) of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery for a violent May 2012 attack; convictions produced a 23-year effective sentence.
- Evidence at trial: petitioner entered victim’s home armed with a baseball bat, struck and hogtied the victim (serious injury followed), TV taken and later found in defendants’ vehicle, and petitioner made inculpatory statements to police.
- Petitioner timely filed for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate, failure to review/challenge a recorded statement, failure to seek investigator funds, and cumulative error).
- At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified about limited meetings, review of discovery, efforts to impeach witnesses, a missed audio CD, and his inability/choice not to obtain court-funded investigator; co-defendant and other witnesses offered limited impeachment or mitigating material.
- The post-conviction court denied relief after detailed factual findings (petitioner failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice); Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability of a different result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate / hire investigator | Counsel failed to seek funds or adequately investigate witnesses; an investigator would have found impeachment evidence that could have changed outcome | Counsel reviewed discovery, met petitioner multiple times, spoke with co‑defense counsel, and did what was reasonably possible without guaranteed need for an investigator | Denied — petitioner showed no specific evidence an investigator would have uncovered that would have changed the verdict (no prejudice) |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to review/challenge recorded statement (Brady/statement issues) | Counsel missed an audio recording of petitioner’s pretrial statement and failed to challenge its admissibility or raise it on appeal; this sealed petitioner’s fate | The recording was not shown to be constitutionally tainted or inadmissible, and petitioner did not show how earlier review would have altered trial outcome | Denied — no showing the recording’s earlier review/objection would have produced a different result (no prejudice) |
| Cumulative error / constructive denial of counsel | Multiple alleged errors (investigation, preparation, comments about being appointed vs retained) together deprived petitioner of effective assistance | Counsel made reasonable tactical decisions after preparation; alleged miscues did not cumulatively undermine confidence in verdict | Denied — record did not support that counsel’s acts/omissions cumulatively resulted in ineffective assistance |
| Prejudice from appellate delay (failure to timely file appeal paperwork) | Appellate counsel failed to timely file required papers, prejudicing petitioner’s appellate rights | Post-conviction court granted delayed Rule 11 appeal; Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed and denied; any prejudice cured | Denied — remedied by delayed appeal; no ongoing prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (standard for attorney competence in criminal cases)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (post-conviction factual findings entitled to deference)
- Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2015) (strong presumption counsel rendered adequate assistance; petitioner bears burden to overcome)