Wesley Jones v. State of Tennessee
W2015-01481-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Aug 11, 2016Background
- Wesley Jones was convicted of first-degree murder for the manual strangulation death of Glenda Kimball; his DNA was found under the victim’s fingernails and he was the last person seen with her.
- At police contact the day after the body was found Jones accompanied officers to the station, signed Miranda waivers, gave written statements, and consented (and a warrant was obtained) to DNA sampling; he was released the same day.
- At trial TBI testing found no semen on multiple swabs; Orchid Cellmark testing produced a DNA profile from material under the victim’s fingernails matching Jones.
- Jones filed a post-conviction petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move to suppress, challenge DNA testimony, retain a defense DNA expert, advise regarding impeachment by prior convictions, develop a third‑party defense, call impeachment witnesses, seek in‑camera review of a witness’s medical records, request mistrials, and cumulative error).
- Jones also sought post‑conviction DNA testing of various untested items and funding to consult/produce DNA experts; the post‑conviction court denied relief and denied the DNA testing requests.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland and concluding mandatory DNA testing was not warranted under the Post‑Conviction DNA Analysis Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to move to suppress police statements/DNA | Jones: his transport, shackling/handcuffing, and detention were effectively an arrest making statements and DNA involuntary | State: encounter was voluntary; Miranda warnings given; Jones cooperated and was released; probable cause supported DNA warrant | Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; totality shows voluntary encounter; suppression unlikely |
| 2. Failure to object to DNA expert testimony / Confrontation/Hearsay | Jones: Orchid Cellmark witness used “we” and did not personally do all testing; Bullcoming-type Confrontation claim; trial counsel should have objected; post‑conviction counsel sought funds to bring witness | State: trial witness who prepared report testified and was cross-examined; post‑conviction showed no proof she did not conduct analytic work; funding not required in non‑capital cases | Court: No basis shown for Confrontation or hearsay relief; counsel not deficient; court properly denied travel funding |
| 3. Failure to retain a defense DNA expert / request testing | Jones: a defense expert could have identified third‑party DNA, challenged State testing, or put profiles in CODIS | State: TBI/Orchid testing yielded Jones’s DNA under fingernails; other swabs lacked semen/DNA or were unlikely to yield profiles; no proof undiscovered favorable DNA existed | Court: Counsel reasonably relied on State experts; Jones produced no proof testing would have helped; no deficient performance or prejudice; DNA testing request denied under Act |
| 4. Advice re: impeachment by prior convictions / decision not to testify | Jones: counsel failed to advise he could be impeached only by conviction and date (not underlying facts), so he refused to testify | State: counsel advised consequences; trial strategy reasonable given multiple convictions and credibility issues; testimony might have been harmful and subject to impeachment | Court: Credited counsel; no deficient performance or prejudice; decision not to testify reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1993) (prejudice inquiry under Strickland)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (Confrontation Clause and analyst testimony)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (standard of review for post‑conviction factual findings)
- Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011) (standards for post‑conviction DNA testing under the Act)
- Davis v. State, 912 S.W.2d 689 (Tenn. 1995) (limits on state‑funded expert assistance in non‑capital post‑conviction proceedings)
- Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. 2008) (deference to reasonable trial strategy and law on calling witnesses)