Jeffrey King v. State of Tennessee
M2016-02166-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- Jeffrey King pleaded guilty to multiple drug, money-laundering, and firearms offenses across Davidson, Sumner, and Rutherford counties and received an effective 40-year sentence to be served at 100% after a global plea.
- King reserved nine certified questions of law about the legality of extensive wiretap surveillance (initial applications, necessity, nexus between phones and target crimes, extensions, and whether later taps were fruits of the poisonous tree).
- The trial courts denied suppression motions; King accepted the plea to preserve certified questions for appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed convictions, finding many certified questions non-dispositive and addressing only limited wiretap issues.
- King filed post-conviction petitions claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (primarily against lead “Sumner counsel”) and that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because counsel misadvised him about the certified-question process and narrowed appellate arguments.
- The post-conviction court credited Sumner counsel’s testimony that she thoroughly advised King, that certified questions carried procedural risk, and that she made reasonable strategic choices in briefing; it denied relief.
- On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding counsel’s performance was within reasonable professional norms and King’s plea was knowing and voluntary; he failed to show prejudice under Strickland/Hill standards.
Issues
| Issue | King’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary given counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness | King: Plea involuntary because counsel pressured him into a global plea by promising review of dispositive certified questions and misstating appellate risks | State: Plea was voluntary; counsel fully advised risks/benefits and King knowingly waived trial rights | Held: Plea was knowing and voluntary; post-conviction court credibility findings affirmed |
| Whether counsel was ineffective in advising/drafting certified questions (failing to warn they might not be deemed dispositive) | King: Sumner counsel knew some questions were not dispositive but still pressed them, misinforming King and inducing plea | State: Counsel advised King of procedural hazards and the possibility appellate court would decline to rule; strategy reasonable | Held: No ineffective assistance; counsel adequately advised and made informed strategic choices |
| Whether counsel waived or narrowed key probable-cause arguments on appeal (Tenn. Code Ann. §40-6-304(c)(2)/(c)(4)) | King: Counsel improperly narrowed appellate argument (focus on (c)(4) in reply), leading to appellate court not addressing strongest grounds | State: Counsel fully briefed all prongs initially and reasonably focused reply to the State’s response; tactical choice | Held: No ineffectiveness; tactical narrowing was reasonable and insufficient to show prejudice |
| Whether subsequent wiretaps were fruits of a prior illegal intercept (poisonous tree) and whether counsel failed to preserve or argue this | King: Later interceptions tainted because initial applications lacked statutory/constitutional basis; counsel failed to press certain statutory arguments | State: Issues were litigated; appellate court limited review on non-dispositive questions; counsel’s choices reasonable | Held: Court rejected claim of ineffective assistance on these grounds; appellate outcome did not establish counsel’s performance as deficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice inquiry in guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (constitutional requirement that guilty pleas be knowing, voluntary, intelligent)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (a defendant’s solemn statements at plea hearing carry strong presumption of truth)
- State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988) (appellate court decides whether a certified question is dispositive)
- House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. 2001) (ineffective-assistance standard in Tennessee)
- Melson v. State, 772 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn.) (ineffective-assistance framework in Tennessee)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn.) (competence standard for criminal counsel)