Ricco Williams v. State of Tennessee
W2016-02602-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Ricco Williams and accomplices entered a family home, assaulted occupants, and stole money/jewelry; Williams was convicted of multiple offenses including especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault.
- On direct appeal and Supreme Court review some convictions were affirmed, others remanded or reversed in light of legal developments (e.g., White and Cecil). Counts related to convictions ten and eleven were later dismissed or remanded.
- Williams filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel on multiple grounds (failure to seek fingerprint testing or suppress evidence, failure to move for mistrial after juror comments, advising against direct plea negotiations, and failure to move to dismiss indictment counts).
- At the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel testified he met multiple times with Williams, investigated, negotiated plea offers, advised against an alibi based on the wife’s likely harmful testimony, and declined suppression/fingerprint motions because there was no legal or evidentiary basis.
- The post-conviction court credited trial counsel, found his performance not deficient, and denied relief; this appeal challenges that denial. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Williams’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to request fingerprint testing | Counsel should have requested prints on wallet, tire iron, magazine, handkerchief to rebut circumstantial ties | Investigators found no usable prints and counsel reasonably declined testing | No deficiency or prejudice — testing was unnecessary because no prints were available |
| Failure to move to suppress evidence | Counsel should have challenged chain of custody/crime‑scene handling to exclude evidence | Counsel investigated and found no legal basis to suppress; post‑conviction court credited him | No deficiency — no legal basis shown for suppression and petitioner presented no supporting evidence |
| Failure to move for mistrial after juror comments | Two potential jurors said they recognized Williams from incarceration; counsel should've sought mistrial | Court excused those jurors, gave curative instruction, and counsel reasonably believed it did not influence outcome | No prejudice — jurors excused, curative instruction given, appellate review found no constitutional error |
| Advising against direct plea negotiations with State | Williams wanted to negotiate directly; counsel prevented it, denying him plea opportunities | Counsel continued negotiations, informed Williams of offers, and properly advised against direct contact to avoid use of statements | No deficiency or prejudice — counsel negotiated and kept Williams informed |
| Failure to move to dismiss indictment counts with alleged inaccuracies | Counsel should've moved to dismiss counts referencing incorrect prior convictions | Counts were later dismissed or remanded on appeal; petitioner failed to show prejudice at trial | No prejudice — petitioner did not preserve or prove a viable defect requiring dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard — deficient performance and prejudice)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (competence standard and deference to counsel strategy)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (ineffective assistance framework applied in Tennessee)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (counsel’s duty to investigate and reasonableness of decisions)
- White v. State, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (jury instruction issue cited in procedural history)