Quinzell Lawon Grasty v. State of Tennessee, E2015-02075-CCA-R3-PC

Background

Petitioner Quinzell Grasty was convicted (first‑degree felony murder, second‑degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary) for the April 16, 2009 home invasion killing of Steven Coyle and sentenced to life; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
At trial the State introduced two recorded statements by Grasty: an April 27 confession describing a sawed‑off shotgun concealed in a black backpack, and a May 6 statement recanting aspects of the confession.
A black backpack later turned over to police contained DNA from multiple contributors; TBI testing could not exclude Grasty or co‑defendant Trammel Poindexter as contributors.
The State used a modified shotgun (demonstrative) to show how a sawed‑off shotgun could fit in the backpack; the trial court limited it to demonstrative use and instructed the jury accordingly.
After verdict a newspaper article about the case was found in/near the jury box; the bailiff testified it belonged to him. Post‑trial issues included alleged Miranda/request‑for‑counsel and chain‑of‑custody problems, a newspaper juror contact concern, alleged counsel conflict with Petitioner’s stepfather, and appellate counsel omissions.
The post‑conviction court denied relief on all ineffective‑assistance and related claims; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that denial.

Issues

Issue	Grasty's Argument	State/Defense Argument	Held
Trial counsel failed to exclude April 27 statement for invoked counsel/Miranda	Grasty says he invoked right to counsel and counsel should have suppressed the first statement	Police gave Miranda warnings; Grasty equivocated then waived; trial counsel litigated seizure/probable‑cause (Dunaway) at suppression	No deficient performance or prejudice — invocation was equivocal; suppression would not have succeeded
Failure to move to redact gang references from statement	Gang references were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; should have been redacted under Rule 404(b)	Matter was raised on direct appeal; counsel objected under Rule 403; appellate court found waiver of 404(b) argument and probative value > prejudice	No prejudice shown; direct‑appeal analysis would defeat claim if raised now
Failure to object to demonstrative shotgun	Counsel should have objected under Rule 403 to use of modified TBI shotgun demonstration	Trial court admitted demonstrative evidence within discretion and instructed jury it was not the murder weapon	No deficient performance; admission was within discretion and harmless with instruction
Stipulation to chain of custody of backpack / failure to subpoena finder	Counsel stipulated; should have challenged late discovery and contamination risk; subpoena Gloria Eldridge	Police observed backpack at scene; family later turned it over; TBI testing linked DNA; no evidence of contamination; Petitioner failed to call the finder at evidentiary hearing	Counsel’s performance not shown prejudicial; petitioner failed to present the alleged witness to prove a better result
Failure to have court question jurors about newspaper found in jury box	Newspaper with Petitioner’s picture and story could have prejudiced jurors; counsel should have pursued juror interviews	Bailiff testified he owned the paper; no evidence jurors saw it; investigator efforts were made; petitioner did not produce jurors or bailiff at post‑conviction hearing	No prejudice shown; insufficient proof jurors were exposed or affected
Conflict of interest between trial counsel and Petitioner’s stepfather	Prior bad dealings with stepfather created a conflict affecting representation	Record shows disagreement but no evidence counsel lacked independent professional judgment; counsel withdrew after trial but before new trial motion	No actual conflict shown; claim denied
Appellate counsel failed to include suppression transcript in record	Omitted transcript prejudiced appellate review of suppression denial	Court of Criminal Appeals addressed suppression with available record and found no reversible error; transcript would not change result	No prejudice; omission not dispositive
Appellate counsel failed to raise sufficiency of the evidence on appeal	Sufficiency of evidence (esp. underlying felony/identity) warranted appellate challenge	Sufficiency was litigated in the new‑trial motion; evidence (statements, DNA, corroboration) was sufficient; appellate counsel reasonably limited issues	No deficient performance or prejudice — omitted issue was not meritorious enough to change result

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation warnings and right to counsel)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (once suspect makes an unequivocal request for counsel interrogation must cease)
Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879 (appellate counsel not required to raise every issue; issue selection reviewed for reasonableness)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. standard for ineffective assistance review; deference to trial court findings)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. ineffective assistance principles)
Hellard v. State, 629 S.W.2d 4 (deference to counsel strategic choices)