Phillip Alexander McWilliams v. State of Tennessee
E2017-00275-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- McWilliams was indicted for aggravated domestic assault, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and possession of drug paraphernalia after pointing a firearm at the victim and firing a shot inside a house; he pled guilty to the first two charges in April 2014 in exchange for dismissal of the paraphernalia count and an effective 10-year sentence with one year incarceration and probation.
- McWilliams filed a timely pro se post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; counsel was appointed and McWilliams amended his petition to allege deficient communication and inadequate investigation, including failure to pursue a mental-health defense.
- At the evidentiary hearing, McWilliams testified counsel had limited contact, did not review video evidence with him, and failed to investigate mental-health issues; counsel testified he met with witnesses, negotiated a plea, did not see a viable insanity or other mental-health defense based on his interactions, and believed conviction was likely.
- Post-plea mental-health evaluations obtained after the plea diagnosed McWilliams with conditions including dissociative amnesia and depressive disorder, but these assessments postdated counsel’s representation.
- The post-conviction court found counsel may have communicated poorly but ‘‘knew all there was to know’’ about the case and denied relief; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding McWilliams failed to show deficient performance or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | McWilliams’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s communication was deficient | Counsel failed to visit/correspond during three months in jail and thus violated RPC 1.4 | Counsel met several times, communicated plea offer, and provided necessary information | Communication not deficient; no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel failed to investigate / obtain discovery | Counsel did not file for discovery or sufficiently investigate | Counsel interviewed available witnesses and believed he had received discovery; formal motion not required if discovery provided | No deficient performance shown regarding discovery |
| Whether counsel failed to investigate or present a mental-health defense | Counsel should have pursued mental-health defenses given later diagnoses (dissociative amnesia, depressive disorder) | At the time counsel had no indication petitioner met insanity/diminished-capacity criteria; evaluations postdated plea and cannot retroactively show deficiency | No deficiency or prejudice: petitioner failed to present expert proof of what such an investigation would have produced |
| Whether petitioner demonstrated prejudice from counsel’s alleged failures | But for counsel’s errors petitioner would have proceeded to trial or obtained a better outcome | Petitioner accepted a negotiated plea; no reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial or obtained a different result | Prejudice not shown; guilty plea stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (in guilty-plea context, petitioner must show he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on trial but for counsel’s errors)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (prejudice inquiry asks whether result is unreliable or proceeding fundamentally unfair)
- State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to tactical decisions if made after adequate preparation)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (standard for proving ineffective assistance under Tennessee law)
- Brimmer v. State, 29 S.W.3d 497 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (petitioners must present expert testimony at post-conviction hearing to show prejudice from failure to investigate mental-health defense)