Jermaine Burdette v. State of Tennessee
W2015-02400-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- Jermaine Burdette pleaded "best interest" guilty in 2011 to three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and three counts of aggravated robbery; trial court later sentenced him to an effective 111 years at 100%.
- Plea followed disclosure of overwhelming physical evidence (duct-tape prints, DNA on a ski mask, recovered items) and victims with severe injuries, including burns from boiling water.
- Burdette later filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, an unknowing/involuntary plea, and a Brady violation based on an officer’s identification that surfaced the day before trial.
- At the post-conviction hearing Burdette testified his counsel failed to explain charges, sentencing exposure, and defenses (including that kidnapping might have been incidental to robbery); counsel and prosecutor testified defense was weak given physical evidence.
- The post-conviction court found counsel effective, Burdette not credible, and that Burdette’s failure to accept responsibility at sentencing produced the maximum sentence; the court denied relief and Burdette appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance in plea counseling | Burdette: counsel failed to explain charges, sentencing range, or viable defenses; would have taken plea offer but for counsel | State: counsel negotiated, advised based on overwhelming DNA/fingerprint evidence; strategy reasonable | Denied — court found counsel competent and Burdette not credible |
| Guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily entered | Burdette: plea was not knowing/voluntary due to inadequate explanation and pressure from counsel | State: plea colloquy shows Burdette understood rights, sentence exposure, and chose plea given evidence | Denied — plea found knowing and voluntary |
| Failure to advise kidnapping might be incidental to robbery | Burdette: counsel failed to explain White-type incidental-kidnapping defense | State: White post-dated plea and facts show kidnappings exceeded incidental conduct (binding, beating, boiling water) | Denied — counsel not ineffective on this point |
| Brady violation for late officer ID | Burdette: prosecution suppressed exculpatory/impeaching ID evidence revealed day before trial | State: officer ID arose day of trial, not in State’s possession earlier, and was not favorable/exculpatory | Denied — no Brady violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in plea cases)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (standards for voluntary, intelligent guilty plea)
- State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (analysis of when kidnapping is incidental to accompanying felony)
- Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. 2001) (definition and materiality standards for Brady-type evidence)