Russell Brown v. State of Tennessee, E2016-00437-CCA-R3-PC

Background

Russell Brown was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated arson for stabbing a friend 19 times in a motel and setting the bed on fire; concurrent sentences: life and 20 years.
Brown testified at trial that the killing occurred after the victim began nonconsensual anal intercourse; Brown asserted voluntary intoxication and self-defense; expert Dr. Ledbetter testified for defense on lack of capacity to premeditate; State presented a rebuttal forensic psychiatrist.
Brown filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate/subpoena witnesses, inadequate preparation, conflict of interest from prior representation of the victim by junior counsel, and being forced to testify).
At the evidentiary hearing, senior and junior trial counsel testified they investigated the case, retained Dr. Ledbetter, prepared Brown for testimony and expert examinations, discussed risks of testifying, and were unaware junior counsel had previously represented the victim until post-conviction proceedings.
The post-conviction court credited defense counsel’s testimony, found their performance reasonable and strategic under difficult facts, and denied relief; this Court affirmed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to subpoena witnesses about victim's violent nature	Brown: counsel should have called party witnesses to support self-defense instruction	State: counsel investigated; Brown did not present those witnesses at post-conviction so their testimony is speculative	Denied — petitioner failed to show prejudice or elicit the witnesses' testimony
Failure to adequately prepare Brown to testify / forced to testify	Brown: counsel pressured him to testify last-minute and did not prepare him for State expert	State: counsel discussed pros/cons, prepared Brown for direct and cross, and encouraged testimony because of intoxication defense and reciprocal discovery issues	Denied — court credited counsel’s testimony that Brown was prepared and advised
Conflict of interest from junior counsel's prior representation of victim	Brown: prior representation created an undisclosed conflict and affected trial performance	State: counsel and office were unaware of prior representation before post-conviction; petitioner did not raise it earlier with persuasive proof	Denied — no evidence counsel acted under conflict or that performance was deficient
Cumulative error and overall deficient performance	Brown: multiple alleged errors deprived him of a fair trial	State: counsel conducted a thorough investigation, retained experts, and reasonably pursued self-defense and intoxication strategies	Denied — no deficiency or prejudice shown; performance found professionally reasonable

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Tidwell v. State, 922 S.W.2d 497 (Tenn. 1996) (post-conviction fact findings are conclusive unless preponderance of evidence shows otherwise)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (appellate court should not reweigh factual evidence)
Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95 (Tenn. 1998) (de novo review of law applied to facts)
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (mixed questions in ineffective assistance review)
Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (standard for ineffective assistance review)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (objective standard of reasonableness for counsel performance)
Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (petitioner must present testimony at post-conviction hearing to prove omitted witnesses would have helped)
State v. Taylor, 968 S.W.2d 900 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (same ineffective assistance standard applies in Tennessee)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (early Tennessee precedent on counsel effectiveness)