Michael Goodrum v. State of Tennessee
M2016-00684-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Goodrum was convicted after a second jury trial (first resulted in a hung jury) for possession with intent to sell ≥ .5 g cocaine within 1,000 feet of a park and of a school; mandatory 15‑year sentence was imposed and affirmed on direct appeal.
- Police executed a search warrant at 504 E. 9th St. after a controlled buy; officers found a 1.7‑gram rock of crack cocaine beneath Goodrum’s chest/stomach area as they rolled him over during the search.
- Multiple occupants were present; other contraband was found on other persons/locations in the house and others were charged for those items. Officers measured and confirmed the residence lay within 1,000 feet of a park and College Hill School.
- Goodrum filed a timely pro se post‑conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate, prepare, communicate, and improperly advising about testifying); counsel had been appointed, provided discovery, negotiated plea offers, and advised against testifying based on prior inconsistent testimony.
- At the post‑conviction evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified to investigating the case, consulting witnesses, communicating with Goodrum (letters, meetings, phone calls), attempting mitigation/plea negotiations, and explaining the risks of testifying; Goodrum disputed the quality/frequency of communication and denied receiving some offers.
- The post‑conviction court denied relief, finding counsel’s performance adequate, that many complained‑of tactical choices were reasonable, and that Goodrum failed to prove prejudice by clear and convincing evidence; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — inadequate pretrial investigation | Goodrum: counsel failed to promptly and adequately investigate, identify witnesses, and explore defenses | State/Goodrum’s counsel: counsel conducted thorough investigation, interviewed officers, and pursued reasonable leads; some witnesses would be harmful | Denied — trial counsel’s investigation was adequate and Goodrum failed to prove prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to prepare/present defense | Goodrum: counsel did not prepare witnesses or present character/mitigation evidence at trial | State: counsel made strategic choices (e.g., not present certain witnesses to avoid impeachment); mitigation not relevant to guilt phase; counsel negotiated diversion/plea offers | Denied — choices were reasonable strategy; no reasonable probability of a different result |
| Ineffective assistance — poor communication with client | Goodrum: limited meetings/contacts; was “left in the dark” and misunderstood plea offers and testifying risks | State: counsel met multiple times, provided discovery, letters explaining plea/testimony risks, and discussed decisions; client made tactical choices | Denied — record supports adequate communication; court credited counsel’s testimony |
| Counsel’s advice re: testifying | Goodrum: counsel caused him not to testify and failed to provide transcript or adequate advice | Counsel/State: counsel advised against testifying to avoid damaging impeachment based on prior inconsistent testimony; court conducted Momon colloquy confirming defendant’s choice | Denied — advice was reasonable and Goodrum knowingly waived testimony; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (post‑conviction factual findings afforded deference)
- Bates v. State, 973 S.W.2d 615 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (post‑conviction findings treated like jury verdict)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (standard for attorney competence in Tennessee)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (applying Strickland standard in Tennessee)
- Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2015) (presumption counsel provided adequate assistance)
- Adkins v. State, 911 S.W.2d 334 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (courts will not second‑guess reasonable tactical decisions)
- Cooper v. State, 847 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) (deference to tactical decisions only if counsel adequately prepared)