James Hoover v. State of Tennessee
W2016-01695-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Hoover pleaded no contest to vehicular homicide (reduced to Class B) and vehicular assault (Class D) arising from a July 6, 2013 head-on collision that killed a passenger. The agreed sentence was 12 years (10 + 2 consecutive), to be served at 30%.
- State evidence: Hoover’s blood tested .26/.27 BAC and contained THC; vehicle data showed Hoover’s car at least 71 mph in the wrong (northbound) lane; other driver had no alcohol. Multiple witness statements supported State’s theory.
- Hoover claimed memory loss and long-term injuries from the accident and later filed a timely post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel caused an unknowing and involuntary plea.
- At the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel testified he reviewed discovery (2–4 hours), used an investigator, reviewed vehicle records, was aware of an initial blood-sample labeling irregularity later remedied by State retesting, and advised that the plea was a favorable resolution given prior DUIs and exposure to a Class A felony sentence.
- The post-conviction court found counsel’s performance adequate, Hoover’s plea knowing and voluntary, and that Hoover failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice by clear and convincing evidence.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding (1) counsel was not deficient for failing to suppress or further litigate the blood evidence or for the investigation performed, and (2) Hoover did not show he would have insisted on trial but for any alleged errors nor that his mental state rendered the plea involuntary.
Issues
| Issue | Hoover's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — inadequate investigation/consultation | Counsel failed to adequately consult and review evidence with Hoover, preventing meaningful participation in his defense | Counsel reviewed discovery, used an investigator, met with Hoover, and made informed strategic choices; investigation was sufficient | Counsel’s investigation and consultation were adequate; no deficient performance shown |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to move to suppress blood evidence | Counsel should have moved to suppress blood test because of initial labeling irregularity | State retested and confirmed blood identity and BAC; suppression would likely fail; counsel not deficient for declining suppression motion | Failure to pursue suppression not deficient given State’s remedial testing and strength of evidence |
| Prejudice from counsel’s conduct (plea-vs-trial) | But for counsel’s errors, Hoover would have gone to trial | Plea gave a substantially reduced, concrete sentence; conviction exposure at trial was far greater; no reasonable probability Hoover would have insisted on trial | No prejudice: Hoover failed to show he would have pleaded differently or that outcome likely would change |
| Voluntariness of plea — mental state/memory loss | Hoover’s injuries and memory loss from the crash meant plea was not knowing or voluntary | Hoover was medically released months before plea hearing; plea colloquy showed understanding; no evidence of incompetency | Plea was knowing and voluntary; Hoover’s lack of memory of the accident did not invalidate the plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for claims arising from guilty pleas)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (standard for voluntariness and intelligence of a guilty plea)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (a defendant’s solemn in-court plea carries a strong presumption of verity)
- Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (trial court resolves credibility and factual disputes in post-conviction proceedings)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate standard of review for post-conviction factual findings)