Jeffrey S. Petty v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01488-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- Petty was convicted by a Dickson County jury of first-degree felony murder and arson; sentenced to life plus five years consecutively.
- Victim found shot in a trailer that had been set on fire; Petty admitted planning a robbery and said co-defendant Dotson shot the victim and Petty set the fire.
- Petty filed a pro se post-conviction petition; counsel appointed and filed amended petitions challenging trial counsel’s effectiveness.
- At the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel testified about (1) a sequestered juror who spoke briefly with a waitress about an ink pen and was then questioned and excused, (2) a search of Petty’s car that produced a Walmart receipt for shotgun shells, and (3) the contents of the motion for new trial.
- Trial counsel said Petty consented to the car search and that the co-defendant would have revealed the Walmart purchase; Petty disputed consent and claimed the car was searched after arrest.
- The post-conviction court denied relief; Petty appealed, arguing ineffective assistance based on (1) failure to move for mistrial for juror misconduct, (2) failure to move to suppress car evidence, and (3) failure to include grounds in the new-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Petty's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct / mistrial | Trial counsel should have moved for mistrial after juror spoke to a waitress (possible outside influence) | The juror’s talk was limited (ink pen), court questioned and excused juror; no prejudice | No ineffective assistance — counsel reasonably relied on court questioning; juror excused and no improper influence shown |
| Failure to move to suppress car evidence | Counsel should have moved to suppress Walmart receipt/findings from car (no consent) | Counsel testified Petty consented; co-defendant would have revealed purchase anyway; no viable suppression basis shown | No ineffective assistance — post-conviction court accredited counsel’s testimony of consent and tactical decision was reasonable |
| Incomplete motion for new trial | Motion omitted grounds that should have been raised (e.g., suppression denial) | Petty offered no specifics or proof of prejudice; co-counsel who drafted motion not called; tactical deference applies | No ineffective assistance — Petty failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (standards for post-conviction review and ineffective assistance analysis)
- Frazier v. State, 303 S.W.3d 674 (Tenn. 2010) (appellate standards for mixed questions of law and fact)
- Felts v. State, 354 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2011) (post-conviction burden and review principles)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (counsel competence standard)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (prejudice standard and review guidance)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to trial strategy)
- House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. 2001) (strategic decisions must be informed and based on adequate preparation)