Walter Lee Hicks v. State of Tennessee, M2016-01050-CCA-R3-PC

Background

On August 20, 2012, Trooper John Judge stopped Walter Lee Hicks for speeding; Hicks gave false identity information and could not produce a license or rental contract.
Trooper Judge attempted to arrest Hicks; Hicks fled on foot, got into the rental car while the trooper was partly in the vehicle, and drove off; the trooper fired at the car during the ensuing chase.
Hicks was charged with aggravated assault, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, driving on a revoked license, speeding, and making a false report; convicted of lesser-included assault, evading, reckless endangerment, driving on revoked license, speeding, and false report; received a 17-year sentence.
On direct appeal this court affirmed convictions but remanded for corrected judgments merging misdemeanor assault into felony reckless endangerment. Perm. app. denied.
Hicks sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not play the trooper’s dash-cam video in its entirety at trial; trial counsel testified the omitted portion contained the trooper’s post-arrest recounting and might hurt the defense. Co-counsel said Hicks agreed to omit the post-arrest segment; Hicks testified he was not consulted.
The post-conviction court found counsel made an informed tactical decision, the omitted footage largely showed officer chatter and post-arrest activity not involving Hicks, the proof against Hicks was overwhelming, and counsel’s conduct was not deficient or prejudicial. The court denied relief; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Hicks's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not playing the entire dash-cam video	Counsel failed to play the whole video and did not adequately consult Hicks; omission prejudiced the defense	Counsel made a reasonable, informed tactical decision to omit post-arrest footage that emphasized the trooper’s version and could hurt the defense; no reasonable probability of a different result	Court affirmed denial of post-conviction relief: counsel’s choice was a strategic, informed decision and Hicks failed to show deficient performance or prejudice
Whether appellate issues were waived by inadequate briefing	(Argued in post-conviction proceedings) counsel’s failures entitled Hicks to relief	Hicks’s brief on appeal misstated issues and omitted facts; Rule 10(b) waiver applies	Court noted Hicks’s inadequate appellate brief would waive issues but nonetheless ruled on the merits and denied relief

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 focuses on confidence in outcome)
Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2009) (post-conviction burden and standards of review)
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (deference to trial court’s factual findings in post-conviction proceedings)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (failure to prove either Strickland prong defeats ineffective assistance claim)
Hellard v. State, 629 S.W.2d 4 (Tenn. 1982) (deference to informed strategic choices of trial counsel)
State v. Melson, 772 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1989) (application of Strickland standard under Tennessee Constitution)