Terrell Loverson v. State of Tennessee, W2015-01381-CCA-R3-PC

In February 2010 petitioner Terrell Loverson was involved in a mall gang fight; a uniformed, unarmed security guard (Marques Rainey) subdued and then released Loverson, who immediately fired one 9mm shot that killed the guard. Loverson fled and was later arrested.
At trial the jury convicted Loverson of second-degree murder, assault by provocative contact, and resisting arrest; he received an effective 25-year sentence.
Trial counsel requested a self-defense jury instruction; the trial court denied it, and denied a new-trial motion raising the same issue.
On direct appeal this Court affirmed the convictions.
Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition arguing appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising on direct appeal the trial court’s denial of the requested self-defense instruction; the post-conviction court denied relief and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the trial court’s denial of a self-defense instruction on direct appeal	Loverson: appellate counsel should have argued the trial court erred by refusing a self-defense instruction	State: the evidence did not fairly raise self-defense, so the instruction was not warranted and appellate counsel reasonably omitted the issue	Court affirmed: appellate counsel effective; evidence did not fairly raise self-defense and omission was not prejudicial

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Carpenter v. State, 126 S.W.3d 879 (Tenn. 2004) (standard for appellate ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013) (sufficient evidence to fairly raise defense is less than preponderance standard)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (appellate review and fact-finding principles in post-conviction proceedings)
King v. State, 989 S.W.2d 319 (Tenn. 1999) (appellate counsel not required to raise every conceivable issue)
State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2009) (defendant’s right to correct and complete jury instructions)