Ronald Curry v. State of Tennessee
W2016-02158-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Ronald Curry (age 21 at offense) pled guilty to rape of a child and received a 25-year sentence to be served at 100% after the State summarized proof including the victim’s testimony, Curry’s confession, and DNA from the fetus identifying him as the father.
- At the plea hearing Curry acknowledged understanding his rights, affirmed the plea was voluntary, and the trial court canvassed him and allowed private consultation with counsel and his mother before accepting the plea.
- Curry later filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to evaluate/produce mental-health evidence; failure to investigate/present evidence of innocence) and coercion into pleading guilty.
- At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, Curry testified counsel visited jail once, pressured him to plead, and failed to investigate witnesses; family members offered general criticism but no expert or contrary witnesses.
- Trial counsel testified he obtained a mental-health evaluation (found Curry competent), conducted investigation, advised plea because the State’s case was strong, and conferred with Curry and his family; counsel also had another experienced attorney advise Curry.
- The post-conviction court denied relief, finding no proof of counsel’s deficient performance or prejudice and that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Curry's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to obtain/produce expert on mental defects | Counsel failed to secure an educational/mental-retardation specialist and did not investigate mental-health issues | Counsel obtained a mental-health evaluation showing competency; no expert presented at post-conviction to contradict evaluation or show prejudice | Denied — petitioner failed to show deficient performance or prejudice (no contrary expert produced) |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/present proof of actual innocence | Counsel did not investigate or present witnesses/evidence showing Curry’s innocence | State had strong evidence (victim, confession, DNA); petitioner produced no witnesses or evidence at post-conviction hearing | Denied — petitioner offered no evidence of innocence; no prejudice shown |
| Coerced/unknowing plea | Counsel coerced and pressured Curry to plead; Curry did not understand consequences | Trial court canvassed Curry fully; Curry consulted with counsel and family and affirmed plea was voluntary and understood rights | Denied — plea was knowing and voluntary based on plea colloquy and post-conviction findings |
| Burden of proof on post-conviction claims | (implicit) Post-conviction should demonstrate deficiencies and prejudice | Post-conviction court and State: petitioner must prove claims by clear and convincing evidence and normally must present witnesses at hearing | Held for State — petitioner failed to meet clear-and-convincing burden and failed to present necessary witnesses/evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (relief for guilty-plea ineffective assistance requires showing reasonable probability petitioner would not have pled)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (plea must be intelligent and voluntary; court must canvass defendant)
- State v. Mackey, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn. standard for plea validity)
- Blankenship v. State, 858 S.W.2d 897 (factors relevant to voluntariness of plea)
- Powers v. State, 942 S.W.2d 551 (factors for determining knowing and voluntary plea)
- Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854 (post-conviction proof requirement to present omitted witnesses at hearing)
- Lane v. State, 316 S.W.3d 555 (clear-and-convincing standard discussion)
- Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (authority on proving prejudice from failure to call witnesses)