Henry Zillon Felts v. State of Tennessee, 354 S.W.3d 266

Felts was convicted at a two-day trial of aggravated burglary and attempted first degree murder for a May 5, 2003 incident at his ex-wife’s home involving her and her friend, Miller; the jury rejected lesser offenses of attempted second degree murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter.
Trial defense focused exclusively on self-defense, arguing Petitioner’s entry and shooting were in response to Miller’s attack with a baseball bat, and challenged the burglary element by noting Petitioner paid rent and lived there.
Petitioner’s post-conviction petition claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging counsel failed to pursue the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter and promised the jury Petitioner would testify, which was not fulfilled.
The post-conviction court granted relief, finding deficient performance and prejudice, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding trial counsel was not deficient for pursuing a single self-defense theory and for changing strategy to exclude Petitioner’s testimony, thus reinstating the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did trial counsel err by not pursuing attempted voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense?	Felts	State	No deficiency; strategic choice reasonable
Did counsel promise the jury Petitioner would testify and then advise him not to testify, violating Zimmerman?	Felts	State	Not deficient; strategy changed due to trial developments
Whether the standard of review requires reversal for ineffective assistance given the alleged deficiencies?	Felts	State	No prejudice shown; no reversal required

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (reasonable competence; not all strategic decisions defective)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (context for evaluating trial strategy and reasonableness)
Hellard v. State, 629 S.W.2d 4 (Tenn. 1982) (deference to counsel; avoid hindsight)
Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (prejudice and performance analysis; deference to strategy)
Zimmerman v. State, 823 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (promises to testify; impact on strategy and relief)
Butler v. State, 789 S.W.2d 898 (Tenn. 1990) (voir dire promises and decisions not to testify; tactical decisions not inherently deficient)
State v. Layton, 855 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1988) (defense strategy choices; not second-guessable without abuse of discretion)