James L. Dowell, III v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01364-CCA-R3-PC
Tenn. Crim. App.Jul 5, 2017Background
- December 10, 2008: robbery at Ace Market; employee Lindergh Thompson was shot and killed; Dowell was indicted with co-defendants for felony murder and related charges. After a hung jury at trial one, Dowell was convicted of first-degree felony murder at a second trial and sentenced to life. His direct appeal was denied.
- Prosecution evidence included surveillance video placing Dowell at the store, co-defendant testimony describing a planned robbery, fingerprints/DNA and gunshot-residue linking items in a co‑defendant’s car to Dowell, and testimony that another shooter (Antonio Harris or a co-defendant) fired the fatal shots.
- At trial the defense sought to call Antonio Harris to show Dowell withdrew or refused participation (withdrawal/duress theory). The court ruled that if Harris testified, the State could cross-examine him about prior joint robberies and related gang associations (prior-bad-act evidence). Defense ultimately did not call Harris; Dowell did not testify at the second trial.
- Dowell filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on: inadequate communication/preparation; failure to call Harris (destroying the duress/withdrawal defense); and failure to convey a plea offer. An evidentiary hearing heard testimony from Dowell and his trial counsel.
- The post-conviction court credited trial counsel’s testimony (frequent meetings, discussed strategy, advised against calling Harris after the court’s ruling and observing Harris’s demeanor, and encouraged Dowell to accept a 20‑year offer). The court denied relief; this Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Dowell's Argument | State/Trial Counsel's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel failed to adequately meet with and communicate case details/strategy | Dowell said few and brief meetings (total ~1.5 hours), lacked knowledge of strategy and was not adequately informed | Counsel testified to many meetings (30–50 before trial one; ~30 between trials), reviewed discovery and strategy; court credited counsel | Denied — petitioner failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice; trial court’s credibility findings affirmed |
| Whether counsel erred by not calling Antonio Harris (duress/withdrawal defense) | Dowell argued Harris was the only witness to establish duress/withdrawal and counsel’s refusal left "no defense" | Counsel argued Harris’s testimony would open prejudicial prior-bad-act and gang evidence; Harris’s last‑minute availability and demeanor made calling him inadvisable; counsel advised Dowell to testify but Dowell declined | Denied — counsel’s choice was a reasonable, informed tactical decision; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel failed to convey a plea offer | Dowell claimed he was never told of a 20‑year offer and would have accepted it | Counsel testified he communicated and encouraged acceptance of a 20‑year offer after the first trial; petitioner also acknowledged awareness of initial offer in parts of his testimony | Denied — post-conviction court credited counsel; petitioner failed to prove nondisclosure or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1993) (prejudice inquiry under Strickland)
- Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009) (Tennessee recognition of right to effective counsel and post‑conviction standards)
- Melson v. State, 772 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1989) (application of Strickland under Tennessee Constitution)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate review of post‑conviction factual findings and credibility determinations)