Vernica Shabree Calloway, AKA Vernica S. Ward, AKA Vernica Jackson v. State of Tennessee, M2016-02576-CCA-R3-PC

Vernica Calloway was convicted by a Davidson County jury of aggravated child neglect and reckless aggravated assault for injuries to a newborn who suffered hypoxic brain injury; she received an effective 25-year sentence.
The State’s medical proof (neonatologists and pediatric child‑maltreatment expert Dr. Reece) concluded the injury was hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy occurring at or around birth; defense argued timing/causation were uncertain.
Calloway had prior investigations/charges relating to deaths of other children; the trial court limited what the State could disclose to its experts about those deaths and admitted evidence that Calloway concealed her pregnancy.
Defense retained neonatologist Dr. Jeffrey Pietz to rebut medical causation, but Pietz purportedly expanded or changed his opinions shortly before trial; defense elected not to call him at trial.
Calloway filed a post‑conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance based on trial counsel’s expert strategy (failure to secure/prepare a child‑abuse expert and failure to call Pietz). The post‑conviction court denied relief; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to retain/call a child‑abuse/neglect expert	Calloway: counsel knew State would present Dr. Reece but failed to hire a child‑abuse expert to rebut him	State: petitioner failed to show an available favorable expert or that calling one would have altered the outcome; counsel pursued a reasonable medical‑causation strategy	Denied — petitioner failed to prove deficiency or prejudice; no expert presented at post‑conviction hearing to establish prejudice
Whether counsel was ineffective in hiring/preparing Dr. Pietz and then not calling him	Calloway: counsel mishandled Pietz, who changed his opinions and was not properly prepared or presented	State: counsel reasonably investigated, used Pietz’s report, and made a tactical decision not to call him when he offered last‑minute/new opinions that could harm credibility	Denied — trial counsel credibly explained strategic reasons for not calling Pietz; petitioner failed to show prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. 2008) (post‑conviction claim for failure to call witness requires presenting that witness at evidentiary hearing)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (objective standard for counsel performance)
Finch v. State, 226 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn. 2007) (counsel must render reasonably effective assistance; substantial defenses cannot be denied by counsel incompetence)
State v. Ward, 138 S.W.3d 245 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (discussing limits on expert reliance on the “rule of three” in child death cases)