James Mellon v. State of Tennessee, E2016-02040-CCA-R3-PC

Background

James Mellon participated in a robbery on August 24, 1997; the victim, Robert Loveday, was shot and killed by a co-defendant (Anthony “T-Bone” Jones). Mellon admitted involvement in the robbery but denied intent to kill.
Mellon originally pled guilty and received a death sentence after the State withdrew a recommendation when he declined to testify against co-defendants; that conviction was later reversed because the guilty plea was not voluntary.
On retrial, Mellon was convicted of first-degree (felony) murder and especially aggravated robbery and received life for murder and 25 years for robbery; he filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Mellon claimed counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to bolster a “fairness and consistency” defense, (2) not calling purportedly helpful witnesses (e.g., Edward Beeler, Amanda Burnae, Mellon's sister), and (3) failing to present comparative evidence about co-defendants’ treatment and roles.
Trial counsel testified she investigated extensively, hired a private investigator and expert, filed numerous pretrial motions, pursued mitigation, sought to avoid the death penalty, and pursued a strategy of arguing proportionality/fairness to obtain lesser offenses or lesser punishment.
The post-conviction court credited counsel’s testimony, found the evidence against Mellon overwhelming, and denied relief; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Mellon’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel was deficient for not presenting proof to support the "fairness and consistency" defense	Counsel failed to present evidence proving comparative treatment or roles of co-defendants	Counsel’s strategy was reasonable, informed, and supported by pretrial work; no deficient performance	Not deficient; strategy was reasonable and counsel prepared and pursued it
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to call alleged impeachment/witnesses (Beeler, Burnae, sister)	Counsel ignored requests to interview/call witnesses who would impeach damaging testimony	Mellon failed to produce those witnesses at the post-conviction hearing to show prejudice; counsel attempted to contact witnesses	No relief—petitioner did not prove prejudice or that counsel’s contacts were inadequate
Whether counsel’s failure to present proof of co-defendants’ treatment prejudiced Mellon	Absence of comparative proof undermined the fairness argument and affected outcome	Evidence against Mellon was overwhelming; even better proof would not likely change result	No prejudice—overwhelming evidence and Mellon failed to show reasonable probability of different outcome
Whether counsel improperly prevented Mellon from testifying	Mellon contends counsel discouraged him from testifying and did not adequately consult	Counsel advised against testifying based on lack of remorse and risk; decision ultimately Mellon’s	No ineffective assistance—court credited counsel that decision was Mellon's after advice

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficiency and prejudice)
Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009) (post-conviction burden and standards)
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (deference to trial court findings; review standards)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (Strickland application in Tennessee)
State v. Melson, 772 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1989) (Strickland standard applied to Tennessee Constitution)
Hellard v. State, 629 S.W.2d 4 (Tenn. 1982) (deference to informed strategic choices)
Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (need to present witness at evidentiary hearing to prove prejudice from counsel’s failure to call or interview them)