Raymond Buford v. State of Tennessee, W2016-00514-CCA-R3-PC

Raymond Buford was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder for stabbing his wife multiple times on Feb. 14–15, 2009; jury sentenced him to life. He admitted to stabbing her. Conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Defense at trial advanced diminished capacity; forensic psychologist Dr. Hutson testified Buford was competent to stand trial but had diminished capacity at the time of the offense due to situational stress, alcohol, and depression.
During trial the victim’s sister, Sherri Holpe, testified for the State about the events and was later recalled by defense to lay foundation regarding the hostile environment before the killing.
On cross after the recall, the State sought to elicit and successfully obtained admission of additional Rule 404(b) prior-bad-act evidence from Holpe (two incidents she witnessed: gun pointed at victim’s head and hot-tub altercation), which defense counsel had not anticipated and immediately objected to.
Buford filed for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance: (1) counsel was ineffective for recalling Holpe knowing she would present unelicited prior-bad-act evidence, and (2) counsel failed adequately to research and present the diminished-capacity defense. The post-conviction court denied relief; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for recalling Holpe, leading to admission of new 404(b) evidence	Buford: counsel knew Holpe would offer prior-bad-act evidence and so recall was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial	State: counsel reasonably recalled Holpe to lay foundation for diminished-capacity defense; counsel did not know Holpe would change/offer prior-act testimony; immediate objections were lodged	Denied — counsel made a reasonable tactical decision; could not have foreseen Holpe’s change; no deficient performance or prejudice shown
Whether counsel inadequately researched and prepared diminished-capacity defense (including expert testimony tension: competence v. diminished capacity)	Buford: counsel failed to properly research/present diminished-capacity theory; expert testimony that Buford was competent yet diminished-capacity could have confused jury	State: claim waived for failure to raise in petitions/hearing; trial record shows vigorous preparation and multiple attorneys assisted	Denied — claim largely waived; on merits no deficient performance or prejudice shown

Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (standards for post-conviction review and ineffective assistance framework)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (application of Strickland in Tennessee; addressing standards for deficient performance and prejudice)
Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009) (burden of proof and standards for post-conviction proceedings)
Lane v. State, 316 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2010) (standard for clear and convincing evidence in post-conviction proceedings)
Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (clarifying clear-and-convincing standard)
Felts v. State, 354 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2011) (appellate standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact in post-conviction claims)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (attorney competence standard in Tennessee)
Rickman v. State, 972 S.W.2d 687 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (post-conviction issues not raised in petition generally forfeited)