John Moffitt v. State of Tennessee
W2017-02487-CCA-R3-PC
Tenn. Crim. App.Sep 18, 2017Background
- John Moffitt was convicted by a jury of reckless aggravated assault for cutting Stephen Phelps with a pocketknife during an argument; sentenced to four years.
- At trial witnesses testified Moffitt pulled a pocketknife, swung at Phelps, and Phelps sustained an arm injury; Moffitt claimed self‑defense, saying Phelps struck him with a tripod. The pocketknife was found on Moffitt at arrest.
- On direct appeal this court affirmed the conviction; petition for permission to appeal was denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court.
- Moffitt filed a post‑conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds (failure to object to officer testimony, inadequate impeachment and discovery handling, failure to pursue DNA/video/tripod evidence, not testifying at sentencing, waiver of new‑trial hearing, and jury‑instruction issues).
- At the post‑conviction hearing counsel explained strategic reasons for his choices (suppression motion success, review of open file discovery, concerns about harmful cross‑examination at sentencing, belief knife was a deadly weapon, and that jury was instructed on self‑defense and lesser‑included offenses).
- The post‑conviction court denied relief; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding Moffitt failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel failed to object to detective testifying Moffitt said "Come on in. I know why you’re here." | Moffitt: statement was suppressed and counsel should have objected | State/Counsel: suppression covered responses to questioning, not that admission; testimony was observation, not elicited suppressed statements | Held: No deficiency or prejudice; statement was not within suppression order and harmless in context |
| Counsel failed to request instruction highlighting changes between preliminary hearing and trial testimony | Moffitt: jury should have been instructed about witness inconsistency | Counsel: trial counsel impeached with preliminary hearing tape; credibility is for jury to decide | Held: No ineffective assistance; jury instructed on credibility and it would be improper to single out a witness |
| Counsel failed to pursue/examine physical evidence (tripod, handcuffs, police video, DNA) and mishandled discovery | Moffitt: such evidence could have supported self‑defense or undermined prosecution | Counsel: open file discovery was provided; testing/video was impractical or unlikely to help; no proof such evidence existed or would help | Held: No relief; petitioner offered only speculation and failed to show deficient performance or prejudice |
| Counsel’s choices at sentencing and waiving new‑trial hearing were ineffective | Moffitt: counsel should have presented Moffitt’s health/age testimony at sentencing and insisted on oral argument on new trial | Counsel: mitigating factors were in PSI and trial record; calling Moffitt risked harmful cross; waiver was strategic and appellate review covered issues | Held: Strategic decisions were reasonable; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (standard of competence for counsel in criminal cases)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to counsel's tactical choices)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (objective reasonableness standard for counsel)
- Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (trial court resolves credibility; appellate courts defer)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review for post‑conviction factual findings)