Linda Anne Dunavant v. State of Tennessee, W2021-00454-CCA-R3-PC

Linda Anne Dunavant was convicted of aggravated assault, two counts of first‑degree felony murder, aggravated child neglect, and aggravated arson after pouring lighter fluid on and igniting a loveseat; her house burned and her two young grandchildren died.
Dunavant filed a pro se post‑conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (counsel should not have allowed her to testify, failed to cross‑examine, failed to challenge witness observations); counsel was appointed and then filed a notice that no amended petition would be filed.
At the evidentiary hearing Dunavant testified she set the fire to “spook” intoxicated/coercive men in the home to protect her grandchildren, that she had been abused and raped by those men, and that trial counsel failed to present witnesses, records, and other evidence to show her trauma and motive and to portray her sympathetically.
Trial counsel testified Dunavant’s defense was that she intended only to get one man off the couch (not to commit arson), that an expert fire investigator testified, and that Dunavant chose to testify; counsel cross‑examined State witnesses including the boyfriend.
The post‑conviction court denied relief; the court of criminal appeals affirmed, holding Dunavant waived the specific ineffective‑assistance claim for failing to present it in the petition or at the hearing (and briefly addressed an untimely notice of appeal, waiving the two‑day delay in the interest of justice).

Issue	Dunavant’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to develop and present evidence of abuse/trauma and motive and to portray Dunavant sympathetically	Counsel failed to elicit records, witnesses, and photos showing long‑term abuse and sexual assault; better presentation would have supported her defense that she only intended to “spook” the man	Claim is waived because Dunavant did not raise this specific theory in her post‑conviction petition or present evidence of it at the post‑conviction hearing	Waived: court affirmed denial of relief because the specific claim was not presented to the post‑conviction court under T.C.A. §40‑30‑106(g)
Whether Dunavant’s untimely notice of appeal (filed 32 days after entry) divests the court of jurisdiction	Dunavant did not supply a reason or proof of mailing but did not contest waiver request	State argued the appeal should be dismissed as untimely; requested no waiver	Court waived the two‑day delay in the interest of justice and reached the merits (but still affirmed on waiver of the substantive claim)

State v. Rockwell, 280 S.W.3d 212 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (discusses when waiver of untimely appeal may be appropriate in the interest of justice)
Crittenden v. State, 978 S.W.2d 929 (Tenn. 1998) (timeliness rules for appeals and circumstances permitting waiver)
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (defines clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard in post‑conviction proceedings)
Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for post‑conviction: de novo for mixed questions, factual findings conclusive)
Felts v. State, 354 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2011) (post‑conviction review principles for legal and factual issues)
Calvert v. State, 342 S.W.3d 477 (Tenn. 2011) (post‑conviction standards and appellate review guidance)
Honeycutt v. State, 54 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2001) (reserving credibility and weight of evidence to the post‑conviction court)
Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461 (Tenn. 2010) (post‑conviction factual findings are conclusive unless the evidence preponderates against them)
Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (issues raised first on appeal and not presented below are waived)