Bradley Mitchell West, Jr. appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Bedford County Circuit Court, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's failure to locate and interview a potential witness. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirms the lower court's judgment, noting that West did not provide a copy of his conviction judgment or a transcript of his guilty plea hearing. The record indicates that West pled guilty in May 2011 to aggravated burglary, receiving a four-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. The factual basis for the plea involved West attempting to break into his grandmother's house, after being seen by his great-aunt using a stick to open a latch on the porch. The police were called when West attempted to disable the security alarm and fled but was apprehended nearby.
During the post-conviction hearing, West's grandmother, Veda Reed, testified she did not believe a burglary occurred because her doors were locked and the alarm was armed upon her return. She stated she had not spoken to trial counsel about the case, initially claiming she hadn’t communicated with police but later admitted to discussing the incident with an officer. Reed testified that West had previously lived with her but had been kicked out after stealing from her. On the day of the offense, he returned to collect clothing and was found rummaging through her garage. Reed, concerned about West's return, had asked his great-aunt to watch her house while she was away.
Ms. Reed testified that she was instructed by the Petitioner’s great-aunt to call the police while at the doctor’s office. Trial counsel stated at the post-conviction hearing that he did not interview Ms. Reed because she was not present during the alleged burglary. Instead, he had his investigator interview the great-aunt, who witnessed the Petitioner using a stick to open a door latch. Trial counsel believed the great-aunt provided a detailed account and determined that Ms. Reed's testimony would not aid in the Petitioner’s defense against the aggravated burglary charge. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, ruling that trial counsel was not ineffective for not interviewing Ms. Reed, considering her testimony lacking credibility and primarily aimed at helping her grandson. The court noted there was no evidence the Petitioner requested such an interview or would have chosen to go to trial based on Ms. Reed’s testimony. The Petitioner argued that his guilty plea was involuntary due to lack of knowledge about Ms. Reed’s exculpatory testimony, attributing this to trial counsel's ineffectiveness. The State countered that there was no evidence suggesting the Petitioner would have opted for trial had he known of her potential testimony, which would not have been materially beneficial. The burden is on the petitioner to substantiate claims in post-conviction proceedings by clear and convincing evidence. The appellate review will uphold the trial court's factual findings unless evidence strongly contradicts them. The court examines the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimonies. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel require the petitioner to demonstrate both deficient performance and resulting prejudice, with the standard established by Strickland v. Washington necessitating a showing that the outcome would have differed but for counsel’s shortcomings.
The Strickland standard applies to the right to counsel under the Tennessee Constitution, specifically concerning the voluntariness of guilty pleas. To meet the second prong of Strickland, a petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's errors, they would have opted for a trial instead of pleading guilty. In this case, the petitioner failed to provide evidence that they would have chosen to go to trial had counsel interviewed a witness, Ms. Reed, who was deemed not credible and not present during the offense. Instead, trial counsel's investigator spoke with a credible witness, the petitioner’s great-aunt, who observed the petitioner attempting to commit the offense. Consequently, the post-conviction court’s decision to dismiss the petition was affirmed, with the judgment upheld by Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
