Stephen Nathan Clark, II v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01209-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- Stephen Nathan Clark II was indicted in two Davidson County cases for large-quantity drug offenses (conspiracy and possession with intent to sell cocaine and marijuana in a drug-free school zone) and pled guilty to counts charging possession/conspiracy with 26+ grams of cocaine.
- He agreed to an aggregate sentence of 13 years as a multiple offender, resolving both cases.
- Before plea counsel was appointed, retained counsel filed a suppression motion which was denied after a hearing.
- At the post-conviction hearing Clark alleged ineffective assistance of appointed trial counsel (poor communication, failure to review discovery, pressure to accept plea) and that his pleas were involuntary.
- Trial counsel testified she met Clark multiple times, reviewed discovery and the suppression ruling, negotiated a better plea (13 years vs prior 15-year offer), and was prepared to try the case.
- The post-conviction court credited counsel, found Clark failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice, and held his pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — communication/preparation | Clark: counsel visited infrequently, failed to review discovery or prepare defenses, pressured him into pleading. | State: counsel met multiple times, reviewed discovery and suppression ruling, negotiated improved plea, and prepared for trial. | Court: No ineffective assistance; trial court credited counsel and Clark failed to show prejudice. |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to pursue suppression appeal | Clark: counsel didn’t advise or pursue appealing the suppression denial. | State: counsel reviewed the motion and denial, explained interlocutory appeal was untimely. | Court: No deficiency; counsel’s actions reasonable and no prejudice shown. |
| Voluntariness/knowing nature of plea | Clark: plea was coerced by counsel’s pressure and inadequate advice. | State: plea colloquy and counsel’s testimony show Clark understood consequences and chose to plead; plea was negotiated to a better offer. | Court: Pleas were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; post-conviction relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance — performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in plea context — would defendant have gone to trial)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (standard for knowing and voluntary guilty plea)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (solemn in-court plea statements create strong presumption of verity)
- Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings in post-conviction proceedings)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (post-conviction procedures and review standards)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review for post-conviction factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel and counsel-performance deference)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (competence standard for criminal defense counsel)
- House v. State, 44 S.W.3d 508 (Tenn. 2001) (objective reasonableness standard and deference to tactical choices)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (ineffective assistance evaluation — necessity of showing counsel’s representation fell below objective standard)