Jeffrey King v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01224-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jun 28, 2017Background
- Jeffrey King was charged in multiple Tennessee counties with large-scale marijuana distribution, money laundering, and related offenses; extensive wiretapping authorized by the Davidson County court produced evidence used against him.
- King entered conditional guilty pleas resolving cases across counties for an effective 40-year sentence (served at 100%), reserving nine certified questions of law concerning the legality of the wiretaps.
- The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, limiting its review to certain dispositive wiretap issues and declining to address several certified questions it found nondispositive.
- King petitioned for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (primarily that lead counsel misadvised him about certified-question review and waived key wiretap arguments on appeal) and that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary.
- At the evidentiary hearing, Sumner (lead) counsel, Davidson counsel, Rutherford counsel, and King testified. Trial court credited counsel’s testimony that King was informed of risks, participated in strategy, and that counsel made reasonable strategic choices; the court denied relief.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: counsel’s performance was within reasonable professional norms, King’s pleas were knowing and voluntary, and King failed to show prejudice from any alleged deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing and voluntary due to counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness | King: counsel’s ineffective advice about certified questions induced him to accept plea he would otherwise have declined | State: King was fully advised, participated, and chose plea to avoid extreme exposure; plea colloquy and record confirm voluntariness | Plea was knowing and voluntary; no relief granted |
| Whether counsel was ineffective in preparing/explaining certified questions | King: counsel drafted questions she knew were non-dispositive and misled him about appellate consideration | State: counsel warned King of procedural risks, discussed strategy, and did not promise success | Counsel not ineffective; King was advised of risks; no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel waived King’s strongest probable-cause argument (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-304(c)(2)) on appeal | King: counsel narrowed argument (focusing on § 40-6-304(c)(4) in reply), causing appellate court not to consider (c)(2) — prejudice | State: narrowing was a reasonable strategic response to the State’s brief; issues were briefed initially | Strategic narrowing was reasonable; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Whether subsequent wiretaps were fruits of poisonous tree such that suppression warranted | King: initial authorizations lacked required nexus/necessity so downstream interceptions were tainted | State: appellate review found no reversible error on the dispositive wiretap matters; other issues were nondispositive | Court previously affirmed on direct appeal; post-conviction relief denied as King failed to show counsel error or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice inquiry for ineffective assistance in guilty-plea context focuses on whether defendant would have gone to trial)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1977) (solemn statements at plea hearing carry strong presumption of verity)
- Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1993) (factors for determining whether plea is knowing and voluntary)
- State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988) (appellate court determines whether a certified question is dispositive)