Gdongalay P. Berry v. State of Tennessee
366 S.W.3d 160
Tenn. Crim. App.2011Background
- Berry was convicted of two counts each of first-degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and especially aggravated kidnapping, resulting in a death sentence with additional 50-year term; post-conviction relief petition filed with 65 grounds; evidentiary hearing focused on five primary issues; the post-conviction court granted a new capital-sentencing hearing but denied trial relief on other grounds; the State appealed the new sentencing hearing ruling; this Court affirmed the post-conviction court’s decision.
- The direct-appeal record summarized the murders and the co-defendant Davis’s involvement; the State’s evidence included weaponry, victim identification, and statements by Berry consistent with planning a robbery and murder; the trial court imposed the death sentence and consecutive terms for other felonies.
- During post-conviction proceedings, Berry’s counsel pursued five core issues: speedy trial right, ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violation, inconsistent trial theories, and the invalid prior murder conviction used for aggravation; the court treated other grounds as waived.
- The post-conviction court found a Brady violation not supported by materiality; it found the Dickerson murder conviction (vacated) invalid for aggravation and could not be harmless; it ordered a new sentencing hearing; the State appealed this order.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court’s judgment and concluded no trial-error warranted reversal, but agreed the Dickerson conviction invalidated the aggravator requiring a new sentencing hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial claim viability | Berry asserts delay violated Sixth Amendment | State prevails; delay previously determined not error | Claim previously determined; no error found |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Berry claims multiple attorneys were ineffective | No proven prejudice from counsel’s conduct | No ineffective-assistance relief; no prejudice shown |
| Brady disclosure | State suppressed Cartwright records favoring Berry | Records not material or not within state control | No Brady violation; records not material |
| Inconsistent theories | State pursued inconsistent theories against Berry | Inconsistencies insignificant; theories remained same | No due-process violation; theories not constitutive of error |
| Sentencing—Dickerson aggravator | Vacated Dickerson conviction used for aggravation tainted sentencing | Harmless error analysis supports harmlessness | Dickerson conviction invalidates aggravator; new sentencing hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. State, 141 S.W.3d 549 (Tenn. 2004) (direct-appeal summary of murders and aggravating factors; prior rulings upheld death penalty)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) ( Four-factor speedy-trial test (length, reason, assertion, prejudice))
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance, prejudice required for IAC relief)
- Bagley v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality for Brady violations; reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Howell v. State, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993) (harmless-error framework for aggravating factors in capital sentencing)
- Teague v. State, 772 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988) (harmless-error and factors in capital sentencing)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (impeachment and bias considerations for witnesses; juvenile records scope)