Mario Green v. State of Tennessee, W2012-01099-CCA-R3-PC

Mario Green was tried separately for a December 2003 killing and convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of second-degree murder; the convictions were merged and he received a 20-year sentence. His direct appeal was denied.
Facts at trial: Green and co-defendant Dimecos Jones confronted the victim in an apartment complex; shots were fired, the victim died of a gunshot to the head, and Jones was found in possession of a .357 revolver that forensics linked to some recovered fragments.
Key eyewitnesses placed Green at the scene, described threats, guns on the parties, and saw Jones shoot the victim; one witness (Christen Williams) had pending charges and testified against Green.
Post-conviction petition alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on three main deficiencies: inadequate consultation, insufficient investigation, and failure to present mitigating evidence at sentencing.
At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel (experienced criminal specialist) testified about his preparation and use of an investigator; the post-conviction court found counsel acted within reasonable professional standards and that there was no prejudice from any alleged lapses.
On appeal, Green focused on trial counsel’s failure to explain criminal responsibility (that Green could be convicted for Jones’s act) before jury selection and argued he might have accepted a plea instead of going to trial.

Issue	Green's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Green pretrial that he could be convicted under a theory of criminal responsibility (and thus whether Green was prejudiced)	Counsel failed to inform Green about criminal responsibility; had he known, he might not have proceeded to trial (implying he would have accepted a plea)	Counsel reasonably prepared and advised; no evidence a plea offer existed or that Green would have accepted one; any omission did not prejudice the outcome	Affirmed: Green failed to prove prejudice — no clear & convincing evidence he would have accepted a plea or that trial result would have been different; court declined to decide deficiency prong because prejudice not shown

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (standard for reasonably effective counsel under Tennessee law)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (applying Strickland in Tennessee and discussing burden)
Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. 2008) (standard of review for post-conviction factual findings and ineffective assistance)
Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (post-conviction proof standard and deference to trial court credibility findings)
Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (defining deficient performance standard)
State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426 (Tenn. 2000) (prejudice in plea-reinstatement claims requires proof petitioner would have accepted plea)
State v. Honeycutt, 54 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2001) (deference to tactical choices of counsel)