Zachary Carlisle v. State of Tennessee, W2016-01357-CCA-R3-PC

Carlisle was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony for a fatal drug‑deal shooting; trial court imposed consecutive 15‑year sentences (30 years total). Appellate review affirmed.
After conviction, Carlisle filed a pro se and then amended post‑conviction petition alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial vindictiveness.
The main ineffective‑assistance claim accepted by the court was trial counsel’s failure to timely file a motion for new trial; counsel admitted the deadline was missed due to a personal family crisis and an office/home search.
Carlisle argued the late filing foreclosed appellate review of multiple issues and sought a delayed appeal; he also claimed the State’s later indictment on the firearm charge after plea negotiations raised a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness.
The post‑conviction court found trial counsel credible, determined the failure to file the motion was deficient but not prejudicial, rejected Carlisle’s credibility, and found no prosecutorial vindictiveness. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to timely file motion for new trial	Carlisle: counsel’s missed filing waived issues on appeal and prejudiced him; seeks delayed appeal	State: counsel’s error did not prejudice outcome; appellate counsel raised plain‑error claims	Court: counsel’s omission was deficient but Carlisle failed to show prejudice; no relief granted
Prejudice from waived appellate issues	Carlisle: multiple unspecified issues were foreclosed and would have succeeded on appeal	State: appellant did not identify issues or show likely success on appeal	Court: Carlisle did not show reasonable probability of a different outcome; plain‑error review covered key claims
Prosecutorial vindictiveness for seeking firearm indictment after plea rejection	Carlisle: seeking additional charge after he rejected plea creates rebuttable presumption of vindictiveness	State: action was proper prosecutorial discretion; issue waived on direct appeal	Court: claim waived and meritless; no presumption arises pre‑trial under Bordenkircher; no clear evidence of vindictiveness
Credibility of witnesses / weight of evidence	Carlisle: asserted witnesses (e.g., jailhouse witness issues) would have supported post‑trial relief	State: pointed to trial evidence and witness credibility favoring conviction	Court: post‑conviction court credited trial counsel and State; found Carlisle not credible

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (plea negotiation threats and pre‑trial additional charges do not create presumption of vindictiveness)
Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (prosecutorial charging discretion and limits on equal protection challenges)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (prejudice inquiry for ineffective assistance evaluates whether result is unreliable)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. standard for effective assistance of counsel)
State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (deference to tactical decisions within reasonable professional norms)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (post‑conviction review standards on counsel performance)
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (standard of review for post‑conviction findings)