Robert Kizer v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01215-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Apr 5, 2017Background
- Robert Kizer pleaded guilty in 2009 to two separate cocaine-sale charges (Stewart and Houston counties) and received consecutive six-year sentences to run on Community Corrections (twelve years total).
- Multiple probation-violation warrants followed; Community Corrections was later revoked and Kizer served incarceration.
- Kizer filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel: counsel lacked legal authority to represent him at the Houston County plea and had a conflict of interest.
- Trial counsel (Taylor) had earlier withdrawn from the Houston County trial because he had previously represented a confidential informant; when the case did not go to trial, he “stood in” at the guilty-plea hearing with the Houston County attorney’s permission.
- At the plea hearing Kizer affirmed understanding the plea and consecutive sentences, but at the post-conviction hearing he claimed he did not consent to counsel standing in and was coerced to accept the joint plea to avoid a longer sentence.
- The post-conviction court credited counsel’s testimony, found no actual conflict or prejudice, and denied relief; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Kizer's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel had an actual conflict of interest | Counsel had a conflict from prior representation of the informant that adversely affected representation | No actual conflict; prior representation posed only a potential conflict and did not affect the plea | No actual conflict; no adverse effect on counsel’s performance; claim fails |
| Whether counsel had legal authority to represent Kizer at the Houston County plea | Houston County attorney could not delegate a dispositional/plea decision to another attorney without Kizer’s permission | Counsel was authorized to "stand in" and there is no authority showing forfeiture of Kizer’s rights | Counsel properly stood in with the Houston attorney’s assent; no prejudice shown |
| Whether the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary | Kizer says he didn’t understand he was pleading to the Houston charge or that sentences ran consecutively | Kizer affirmed understanding at plea hearing; counsel explained plea and consequences | Plea was knowing and voluntary; trial court’s colloquy and counsel’s explanations were credited |
| Prejudice from counsel’s conduct | Kizer argues he would have gone to trial in Houston County but for counsel’s actions | State: no showing of reasonable probability of different outcome; Kizer’s own plea answers are presumed truthful | No prejudice proven under Strickland; post-conviction relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (actual conflict of interest standard requiring adverse effect on counsel’s performance)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1977) (statements at plea hearing are presumed truthful)
- State v. White, 114 S.W.3d 469 (Tenn. 2003) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel principles and conflict guidance)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (competence standard for counsel in Tennessee)
- Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (credibility determinations and plea colloquy review)