Rickey Allen Hickman v. State of Tennessee
M2016-00489-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- Petitioner Rickey Allen Hickman was convicted by a Marshall County jury of one count of rape of a child and three counts of aggravated sexual battery based primarily on his granddaughter K.C.'s testimony; total effective sentence 47 years; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Victim (born 2003) testified to three incidents of inappropriate touching by Hickman between 2009–2010; DCS interview and live monitored interview corroborated her disclosures; no physical forensic evidence or rape kit; some testimony inconsistencies on cross-examination.
- Hickman’s trial counsel pursued a strategy of attacking the victim’s credibility and presenting Hickman and his wife as alibi/supporting witnesses; counsel declined to pursue an alternative theory that another man (referred to as "Mitch") committed the abuse because counsel had no evidence linking Mitch to the acts.
- Hickman filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present a defense blaming another person; he also challenged sufficiency of the evidence.
- At the post-conviction hearing counsel testified about his investigation, efforts to contact witnesses, viewing the DCS interview, and his strategic decision not to implicate Mitch; the post-conviction court found counsel’s performance was not deficient and denied relief.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, concluding Hickman failed to show counsel performed unreasonably or that any alleged deficiency prejudiced the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | State/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a defense blaming another person ("Mitch") | Counsel was ineffective for discrediting the victim’s identity evidence instead of arguing someone else committed the abuse | Counsel reasonably declined to pursue the Mitch theory because there was no evidence linking Mitch to the offenses; strategy to attack credibility was defensible | Denied — counsel’s performance was within reasonable professional norms and no prejudice shown |
| Whether any alleged counsel deficiency prejudiced the trial result | Failure to present alternate-perpetrator theory deprived Hickman of a meaningful defense and could have changed the verdict | No reasonable probability of a different result; jury credited the victim; absence of supporting evidence for alternative theory | Denied — Petitioner failed to satisfy Strickland prejudice prong |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (standard for competence of counsel in Tennessee)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to tactical decisions of counsel)
- House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. 2001) (reasonableness standard for counsel performance)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (ineffective assistance review framework)
- Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (trial court factfinding and credibility determinations in post-conviction proceedings)