Timothy Baxter v. State of Tennessee
W2016-00563-CCA-R3-PC
Tenn. Crim. App.Aug 31, 2017Background
- Timothy Baxter was convicted of felony failure to appear after missing a June 13, 2011 circuit-court appearance; a capias issued and the State prosecuted on an indictment.
- At the May 9, 2011 arraignment the court appointed counsel and set the next date (June 13); testimony and transcripts showed the court announced the return date, though Baxter testified he did not hear it.
- Baxter claimed he was not served a criminal summons or otherwise notified after indictment and that the clerk’s office sent a courtesy letter to the wrong address; the clerk testified that in Madison County judges order capiases (not criminal summonses) when a defendant fails to appear.
- Baxter alleged at post-conviction that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to subpoena witnesses Baxter requested (including a co-defendant and clerk records), (2) not proving the clerk failed to issue a summons, and (3) being intimidated by the trial court and failing to act aggressively.
- At the post-conviction hearing trial counsel explained strategic reasons for not calling certain witnesses, acknowledged no summons was required as a matter of local practice, and denied being intimidated; the post-conviction court found Baxter failed to prove ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Baxter's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not subpoenaing witnesses Baxter requested | Counsel failed to subpoena proposed witnesses (e.g., co-defendant, bondsman, clerk) and thus deprived Baxter of exculpatory testimony | Baxter did not present those witnesses at the evidentiary hearing; counsel made a strategic choice not to call them | Denied — Baxter failed to prove prejudice or present the proposed witnesses; counsel’s choices deemed strategic |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not proving the clerk’s office failed to issue a criminal summons | Counsel should have shown clerk failed to issue required summons after indictment, undermining failure-to-appear prosecution | Clerk testified local practice is to issue capias/scire facias; summons not required; no legal duty shown | Denied — Baxter did not show counsel performed deficiently or that a summons was required; no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel was intimidated by the trial judge, impairing representation | Counsel was allegedly timid, failed to object, and failed to exercise jury strikes | Counsel denied intimidation, testified he was not hampered and handled motions routinely; rulings were ordinary | Denied — trial court credited counsel; no clear-and-convincing proof of deficient performance or prejudice |
| Overall claim of ineffective assistance under Strickland/State law | Cumulative omissions and omissions caused an unfair trial and 6-year sentence | Evidence and testimony do not show deficient performance or reasonable probability of different outcome | Denied — post-conviction court’s factual findings upheld; legal Strickland standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (prejudice inquiry under Strickland)
- Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009) (post-conviction burden and ineffective assistance framework)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (deference to post-conviction court findings; review standards)