Joletta Summers v. State of Tennessee
W2016-02157-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- Joletta Summers and co-defendant/husband Antonio Jackson were tried jointly for second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony; jury convicted Summers of voluntary manslaughter, attempted voluntary manslaughter (lesser-included) and employment of a firearm; effective sentence nine years.
- Evidence: a street confrontation after their son fought another teen; shots fired near Summers and Jackson; witnesses conflicted as to who fired; Jackson gave an initial statement implicating Summers but later denied at trial; low GSR on Jackson, none on Summers; Summers did not testify.
- Trial counsel referenced in opening an inculpatory police statement by Summers (suggesting self-defense) that the State ultimately did not introduce; counsel shifted theory in closing to argue lack of proof of possession.
- Post-conviction petition raised ineffective-assistance claims: (1) mentioning an unintroduced statement in opening, (2) inadequate severance advocacy, (3) failure to object to prosecutor’s closing remarks, (4) untimely motion for new trial (seeking delayed appeal), and (5) failure to raise on appeal that jury instructions did not specify the predicate dangerous felony.
- Post-conviction court denied relief; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding counsel’s choices were reasonable tactical decisions and Summers failed to show prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening statement referenced an unintroduced inculpatory police statement | Summers: counsel deficient for previewing her statement (self-defense) then abandoning it when it was not admitted, harming credibility | State: counsel reasonably previewed anticipated evidence to "take the sting out" and adapted strategy when proof differed | Held: No deficient performance or prejudice; tactical change justified by trial developments |
| Failure to adequately pursue severance from Jackson | Summers: counsel should have filed a written motion, argued separately, and renewed motion when Jackson’s statement surfaced | State: counsel joined co-defendant’s motion; severance not required because Jackson testified (no Bruton violation) | Held: No deficiency or prejudice; Rule 14 and Bruton analysis support denial of relief |
| Failure to object to prosecutor’s closing argument | Summers: counsel ineffective for failing to object to allegedly improper remarks ("smoke screen," praising officer, disparaging defense) | State: counsel made tactical choice not to object; comments not so inflammatory as to affect outcome | Held: No deficient performance or prejudice; statements not reversible error |
| Untimely motion for new trial / delayed appeal | Summers: counsel’s one-day-late filing was presumptively prejudicial under Wallace, warranting delayed appeal | State: appellate court reviewed issues beyond sufficiency on direct appeal, so Summers was not denied full appellate review | Held: No prejudice; because appellate court addressed merits, delayed appeal not warranted |
| Jury instruction failing to specify predicate dangerous felony | Summers: trial court’s instruction allowed non-unanimous verdict or a non-dangerous predicate; counsel ineffective for not raising on appeal | State: jury had already convicted Summers of (attempted) manslaughter; instruction read in context and any error harmless | Held: No plain error; counsel not deficient and Summers not prejudiced |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong standard)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (admission of non-testifying codefendant’s statement and Confrontation Clause)
- Wallace v. State, 121 S.W.3d 652 (Tenn. 2003) (failure to file timely motion for new trial can be presumptively prejudicial)
- Felts v. State, 354 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2011) (permitting tactical abandonment of a promised theory when proofs change)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions)
- State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008) (prosecutorial closing argument and prejudice standard)