James McKinley Cunningham v. State of Tennessee, M2017-00348-CCA-R3-PC

In 1997 petitioner James McKinley Cunningham shot and killed his father, disposed of the body, fled the state, was convicted of first-degree murder by a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment; direct appeal affirmed and Tennessee Supreme Court denied review.
Petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition in April 2002 (timely under the prison mailbox rule); counsel was appointed the same year but the matter sat, and an amended petition raising ineffective-assistance claims was filed in April 2015.
The amended petition alleged trial counsel failed to communicate or pursue a plea offer (petitioner says he wanted to plead and was willing to accept second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter); petitioner did not contest guilt at the post-conviction hearing.
Testimony: pretrial counsel said he offered voluntary manslaughter for six years to the State; a handwritten note referenced a possible second-degree murder offer for twenty years; trial counsel recalled vague courtroom discussion but no formal offer communicated to petitioner and admitted he should have pressed plea discussions; the Assistant DA testified no formal written offer was in the file and stated the State did not extend a plea offer.
The post-conviction court found no clear evidence the State made a formal offer that defense counsel failed to convey, and denied relief; petitioner appealed.

Issue	Petitioner's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective in plea negotiations (failure to communicate/seek plea)	Cunningham: counsel never told him of a State offer and failed to negotiate; he would have accepted a plea rather than risk trial	State: no formal plea offer was extended; not obligated to bargain; counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to convey an offer that never existed	Court: No ineffective assistance — petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the State actually extended a plea offer that counsel failed to convey; counsel not ineffective
Whether the State bore responsibility for failing to negotiate	Cunningham: argues State should bear some responsibility for lack of plea talks	State: prosecutors are not required to reach agreements or make offers	Court: Agreed with State — prosecution has no obligation to make or accept plea offers; absence of offer defeats the claim

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applying Strickland to plea negotiations)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (duty to communicate formal plea offers)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (prejudice standard for lost plea opportunities)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (defining prejudice inquiry)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (Tennessee standard for effective assistance)
Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to tactical decisions; prejudice standard)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (standards for post-conviction factual review)
Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (post-conviction proof standard)
Nesbit v. State, 452 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 2014) (requirements for plea-negotiation ineffective-assistance claims)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (no need to address both Strickland prongs if one fails)