Timothy Allen Johnson v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01462-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Mar 9, 2017Background
- Timothy Allen Johnson was tried for sale of cocaine (in a school zone), tampering with evidence, and resisting arrest; pleaded guilty to resisting arrest (six months) and was convicted by a jury of tampering with evidence and sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to 12 years (concurrent). A separate retrial later produced a sale conviction.
- Incident: undercover detectives in an unmarked car conducted a buy-bust. After Johnson produced a bag of crack, he gave $30 worth to an undercover detective, then attempted to put the remaining bag and contents into his mouth when takedown began; officers subdued him but he ingested the remainder.
- Post-conviction petition (timely, pro se, later amended) alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, asserting (1) counsel failed to pursue or request a jury instruction on entrapment and (2) counsel failed to contest that the 12-year sentence was overly punitive.
- Trial counsel testified at the post-conviction hearing that he had met Johnson multiple times, discussed prior convictions and sentencing exposure, replaced prior counsel, believed the facts did not support entrapment (so gave no notice/request), and that sentencing options were limited by Johnson’s criminal history though he sought alternative sentencing.
- The post-conviction court credited trial counsel’s testimony, found counsel’s performance was not deficient, and held Johnson failed to prove prejudice by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not pursuing entrapment | Johnson: counsel should have asserted/ given notice of entrapment and requested instruction | State/counsel: facts did not support entrapment; tactical choice after investigation | Denied — counsel reasonably concluded entrapment defense was unsupported and no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not arguing the sentence was overly punitive | Johnson: counsel failed to adequately advocate against a 12-year Range III sentence | State/counsel: sentencing options limited by extensive prior record; counsel sought alternative sentencing | Denied — counsel argued mitigation; limited options meant no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (performance must be within range of competence demanded of criminal counsel)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (post-conviction factual findings entitled to deference like a jury verdict)
- Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450 (strong presumption counsel provided adequate assistance; petitioner bears burden to overcome it)