Mansour Bin El Amin v. State of Tennessee
M2016-00048-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- Mansour Bin El Amin was tried for aggravated burglary and theft (>$1,000 but < $10,000); acquitted of burglary but convicted of theft and sentenced as a Range II offender to 7.5 years. Direct appeal affirmed.
- Stolen items recovered from a vehicle and a trash bag; one of the Petitioner’s fingerprints was found on the bag; other fingerprints (Robinson) also identified on that bag.
- Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for poor communication, inadequate investigation, failure to present a meaningful defense (including third‑party culpability/alibi witnesses), and failure to press a sufficiency challenge to reduce the theft value. He also sought funds for a private investigator.
- At the post‑conviction hearing the Petitioner was the sole witness; many claimed witnesses (Hamptons, Evelyn Banks, Robinson) did not testify and some claims were not pled in the petition. Petitioner acknowledged prior convictions and that trial counsel raised insufficiency on direct appeal.
- The post‑conviction court denied relief and denied funds for a private investigator; this appeal followed. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance: poor communication/contact | Trial counsel met rarely, didn’t answer letters/calls; failed to consult on strategy | Claims waived (not pled) and insufficiently developed; no proof of prejudice | Waived and not proven; denial of relief affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance: failure to locate/call alleged alibi/third‑party witnesses (Hamptons, Evelyn Banks, Robinson) | These witnesses would have provided alibi/pointed to others and undermined value/possession elements | Waived if not pleaded; petitioner failed to present those witnesses at post‑conviction hearing so benefit speculative | Waived or unsupported; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Ineffective assistance: failure to challenge sufficiency/value of theft | Counsel did not adequately argue value/constructive possession | Trial counsel did challenge sufficiency/value on direct appeal; record contradicts claim | Claim refuted by record (counsel raised sufficiency on appeal); no relief |
| Request for funds for private investigator | Needed to locate witnesses crucial to petitioner’s case | Denial proper under Tenn. Supreme Court Rule 13 and controlling precedent; petitioner’s brief failed to develop the issue | Waived for failure to brief; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (applies Strickland in Tennessee; burden on petitioner to prove both prongs)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (ineffective assistance is a mixed question of law and fact)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (post‑conviction fact findings entitled to deference; standards of review)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (credibility and weight of testimony are for the post‑conviction court)
- Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard in Tennessee)