Tut Mayal Tut v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01673-CCA-R3-PC
Tenn. Crim. App.Aug 15, 2017Background
- Petitioner Tut Mayal Tut (15 at the time) was charged in juvenile court with two counts each of especially aggravated kidnapping and robbery and four counts of aggravated rape for a violent, sustained assault and sexual abuse of two male victims on March 17, 2012.
- Juvenile court held a multi-day transfer hearing; despite presentation of alibi witnesses for Petitioner, the court transferred the case to criminal court and set bond. Petitioner pled guilty in criminal court to the charged offenses in exchange for an effective 30-year sentence to be served at 100% and lifetime sex-offender supervision.
- Petitioner later filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by juvenile counsel at the transfer hearing and by trial counsel during plea proceedings (including alleged failures to present mitigation, to provide discovery, to explain appeal rights, bond status, and the true effect of a 100% sentence).
- The post-conviction court held evidentiary hearings, credited counsel’s testimony that reasonable strategic choices were made (alibi strategy in juvenile court; review of discovery and plea discussions in criminal court), and found Petitioner failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland/Hill standards.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: juvenile counsel’s focus on rebutting probable cause via alibi was reasonable given lack of favorable mitigation witnesses and the weight of the evidence; trial counsel properly advised Petitioner about the 100% sentence and reviewed discovery despite technical issues, and Petitioner failed to show prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of juvenile counsel at transfer hearing | Juvenile counsel failed to develop/introduce mitigating proof (school, family, DCS, psychological eval) and poorly prepared alibi witnesses; better preparation would have kept the case in juvenile court | Counsel reasonably pursued an alibi to rebut probable cause; mitigating witnesses were unavailable or unfavorable; evidence of prior offenses and the heinous nature of the crimes supported transfer | Denied — counsel’s strategy was reasonable and Petitioner failed to show additional investigation would have prevented transfer |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel re: discovery (codefendants’ statements) | Trial counsel did not provide or play recorded statements for Petitioner, preventing full evaluation of defense and plea choice | Counsel reviewed the contents with Petitioner despite technical playback problems; discovery was provided and discussed | Denied — court credited counsel that Petitioner knew the statements’ contents and Petitioner showed no prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel re: bond and ability to consult family | Trial counsel misinformed Petitioner that bond was "frozen," preventing bond posting and meaningful family consultation before plea | Counsel and prior counsel had discussed bond; no showing that family could have posted bond or that being out would have changed the plea decision | Denied — Petitioner failed to show prejudice from any bond confusion |
| Involuntary/unknowing plea based on sentencing misunderstanding | Petitioner relied on counsel’s statements that he would serve much less (e.g., early release) and would have gone to trial had he known the sentence would be 100% and effectively longer | Plea petition and sworn plea colloquy reflected Petitioner was told the sentence would be 30 years at 100%; counsel credibly testified he explained 100% service | Denied — solemn statements in open court and plea petition create strong presumption of verity; Petitioner failed to prove he would have insisted on trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (solemn declarations at plea hearing create strong presumption of verity)
- Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn.) (prejudice inquiry language)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn.) (reasonable-performance standard and deference to tactical choices)
- Felts v. State, 354 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn.) (strategic choices after thorough investigation are virtually unchallengeable)