Michael Clark v. State of Tennessee, W2016-01013-CCA-R3-PC

Background

Michael Clark was indicted for second-degree murder (Antonio Redmond) and attempted second-degree murder (Marcus Hall). He was convicted of attempted second-degree murder in the first trial; a mistrial was declared as to the murder count. At retrial on the murder count he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Sentences: 20 years (attempted murder, multiple offender) + 15 years (manslaughter, persistent offender), ordered consecutively.
Clark filed a single pro se post-conviction petition challenging both trials, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (first and second trial counsel) for failures including deficient advice about impeachment (Rule 609), failure to call witnesses (Lieutenant Wilson, family), failure to cross-examine a witness (Callie Redmond), failure to convey plea offers, and failure to challenge sentencing.
The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing, heard testimony from Clark, both trial attorneys, Lieutenant Wilson, and others, and denied relief, finding counsel’s decisions were strategic or non-prejudicial and some proposed testimony likely inadmissible hearsay.
On appeal, the State argued (and the court considered) that claims targeting the first-trial counsel were time-barred because Clark filed one petition for two separate trial judgments; the Tennessee Post-Conviction statute requires separate petitions and a one-year limitations period from the final appellate action on each conviction.
The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Clark’s claims relating to the first trial for lack of jurisdiction (untimely) and affirmed denial of post-conviction relief on the remaining claims challenging second-trial counsel, holding counsel’s choices were reasonable and Clark failed to show prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Single petition covering two trials	Clark sought relief for both trials in one petition; argues ineffective assistance spanning both trials	State: Petitions for separate trial judgments must be filed separately; first-trial claims untimely (statute of limitations expired)	First-trial claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 and § 40-30-104(c)
Failure to call Lieutenant Wilson	Clark: Wilson would have testified police had reports that two armed men threatened Clark/family, supporting self-defense	State/second counsel: Wilson’s testimony would likely be hearsay or cumulative; trial testimony (Combs) already supported self-defense; strategic decision not to call him	No deficient performance; decision reasonable trial strategy; no prejudice shown
Failure to cross-examine Callie Redmond about investigator statement	Clark: Her statement to investigator that DA said Hall may have shot victim would undermine State’s ID theory	State/second counsel: The investigator statement was hearsay and inadmissible; cross-examining about it would be unproductive and potentially prejudicial	No deficient performance; likely inadmissible hearsay; no relief granted
Failure to advise about impeachment by prior conviction / opening the door (Rule 609) and plea-offer communication	Clark: First counsel failed to properly warn that testifying could allow impeachment with prior aggravated-assault conviction; also alleged late notice of 20-year plea offer	State/post-conviction court: Clark’s first-trial claims are time-barred; record shows counsel discussed Rule 609 issues and plea negotiations; Clark’s testimony opened door to impeachment	First-trial claims dismissed (untimely). For impeachment advice, post-conviction court found no deficient performance or prejudice; counsel likely discussed limits and Momon hearing occurred; no relief on preserved claims

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (limitation on judicial factfinding to enhance sentences under Sixth Amendment)
Jaco v. State, 120 S.W.3d 828 (Tenn. 2003) (post-conviction standard: proof by clear and convincing evidence)
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (post-conviction mixed questions of law and fact; appellate review deference to trial court findings)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (effective assistance standard; credibility and factual determinations for trial court)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (defining deficient performance under Tennessee law)
Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (due-process tolling of post-conviction statute of limitations in certain circumstances)
Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (examples of circumstances warranting tolling when counsel’s representation prevented filing)
Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2015) (appellate review standards for post-conviction factual findings)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (competence standard for counsel in criminal cases)
Granderson v. State, 197 S.W.3d 782 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006) (deference to reasonable trial strategy; not second-guessing counsel)