Michael D. Boone v. State of Tennessee
M2015-01200-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Aug 18, 2016Background
- In 2009 police executed a search warrant at an apartment and found 6.5 grams of cocaine base and 20.9 grams of marijuana; Boone and a co-defendant were arrested and charged with possession with intent to sell.
- Boone pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated agreement: effective 24-year sentence (Range III) for cocaine, concurrent six-year career-offender sentence for marijuana, and reservation of a certified question of law as to a denied suppression motion.
- The certified question (probable cause for the warrant) was later rejected on appeal; Boone then filed a timely post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that his pleas were not knowing/voluntary.
- At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing trial counsel testified he met Boone multiple times, discussed plea options, corrected an earlier partly inaccurate letter about offers, and advised risks of trial; Boone testified counsel pressured/threatened him and misstated potential exposure (e.g., "60 years").
- The post-conviction court accredited trial counsel’s testimony, found Boone’s testimony not credible, concluded Boone’s plea was voluntary and informed, and denied relief; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boone’s guilty pleas were involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel | Boone: counsel misinformed/coerced him (threats about 60-year exposure, pressured to accept plea), so plea was not knowing or voluntary | State: counsel adequately advised Boone, met repeatedly, corrected earlier letter, Boone knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty and swore under oath he understood | Denied — post-conviction court accredited counsel, Boone’s testimony not credible; plea upheld as knowing and voluntary |
| Whether counsel’s mistaken May letter (omitting one offer variant) and delayed correction constituted deficient performance causing prejudice | Boone: erroneous letter and 3-month delay prevented informed decision | State: counsel corrected the error, fully reviewed the final offer before plea, and Boone had time and explanation before pleading | Denied — court found correction and discussions cured any initial error; no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel’s statements about risk of additional charges or co-defendant testimony rendered plea involuntary | Boone: counsel told him State would definitely indict further and co-defendant would testify, coercing plea | State: counsel testified he warned of risks but did not definitively promise new charges; warning was permissible advice of risk | Denied — warnings deemed non-coercive risk advice; no clear evidence of threats |
| Whether suppression issue (illegal search) warranted relief independent of counsel claims | Boone: search warrant lacked probable cause, so conviction infirm | State: suppression was litigated and affirmed on direct appeal | Denied — suppression challenge previously rejected; no new basis for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (plea voluntariness tested by whether defendant made voluntary, intelligent choice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland prejudice standard applied to guilty-plea context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. 1993) (factors for assessing voluntariness of pleas)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (attorney competence standard)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (mixed questions of law and fact in ineffective-assistance claims)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (appellate standard for post-conviction factual findings)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (deference to trial courts on witness credibility)
- Walton v. State, 966 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (prejudice inquiry for plea challenges)
- Turner v. State, 919 S.W.2d 346 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (totality-of-circumstances test for plea voluntariness)
- Chamberlain v. State, 815 S.W.2d 534 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (considerations in evaluating plea voluntariness)
- Adkins v. State, 911 S.W.2d 334 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (deference to trial strategy absent inadequate preparation)
- Cooper v. State, 847 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) (tactical decisions reviewed for adequacy of preparation)