Tyler James Schaeffer v. State of Tennessee, E2016-01614-CCA-R3-PC

Tyler James Schaeffer caused a head-on crash (while texting and with controlled substances in his system) that killed two and injured eleven; he faced multiple state charges and a separate federal indictment for robberies.
Federally, Schaeffer pled guilty and received a 100-year sentence. State charges were resolved by a negotiated plea (two counts vehicular homicide, other related counts) resulting in an effective 40-year state sentence stated to run concurrently with the federal sentence.
Schaeffer later filed a timely post-conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to obtain a mental-health expert, failure to move for change of venue, inadequate investigation of witnesses, and incorrect advice about concurrent state–federal sentencing) and alleged his plea was involuntary.
At the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel conceded limited coordination with federal counsel and that he told Schaeffer the state sentence would run concurrent with the federal sentence; the plea paperwork also stated concurrency in bold.
The post-conviction court denied relief; on appeal the State conceded error on the sentencing-advice issue, and the Court of Criminal Appeals majority held counsel was ineffective for assuring concurrent state–federal sentences without verifying federal acceptance and remanded for relief.

Issue	Schaeffer's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Counsel failed to advise that state sentence might not be concurrent with federal sentence	Trial counsel told him sentences would run concurrently; he relied on that to accept the plea	Conceded ineffective assistance on this point; argued concurrency language in judgments reflected intent	Held counsel deficient and prejudice shown; plea induced by an unfulfillable promise — relief ordered/remand
Failure to retain a mental-health expert	Counsel should have obtained evaluation for alleged brain injury to aid defense/plea decision	No evidence showing what an expert would have concluded or how it would help	Held no relief — petitioner failed to prove what expert evidence would show or prejudice
Failure to move for change of venue	Pretrial publicity made county unfair; counsel discussed venue but never filed motion	Trial counsel reasonably deferred filing until jury selection; tactical decision	Held no relief — tactical choice; petitioner failed to show prejudice from not moving
Failure to investigate/present identified witnesses	Counsel did not interview mother or party witness identified by petitioner	Petitioner failed to call those witnesses at the post-conviction hearing or show what they would have said	Held no relief — petitioner did not prove material witnesses and resultant prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard for counsel errors inducing guilty pleas)
State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to counsel tactical decisions and standard for assessing counsel performance)
Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2007) (state court discussion of problems with promised concurrency between state and federal sentences)
Taylor v. Sawyer, 284 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2002) (state judges’ concurrent-sentence recommendations are not binding on federal authorities)
Del Guzzi v. United States, 980 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1992) (concurrence noting federal officials need not honor state recommendations for concurrency)