Scotty Lee Myers v. State of Tennessee

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2011-00883-CCA-R3-PC

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; February 8, 2012; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Scotty Lee Myers was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the post-conviction court denied. Myers appealed this decision, but the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

At trial, evidence revealed that the victim, Pamela Lane, a recovering methamphetamine addict with bipolar disorder and a history of self-harm, went missing after informing her mother to report her disappearance if she did not make contact. The last person to see her was Myers, with whom she was romantically involved. Following her disappearance, Myers was arrested in Florida on unrelated charges, during which two pistols were found in his truck. He allegedly claimed to officers that the victim shot herself in his laundry room, but he later admitted to disposing of her body in a garbage can, which he buried in a graveyard.

Investigations uncovered blood spatter in the laundry room, with indications that the crime scene had been cleaned, and a section of carpet missing from his garage was found inside the garbage can with the victim’s body. An autopsy confirmed the cause of death as a gunshot wound, ruled a homicide rather than a suicide, with the bullet entering the left side of her face.

The victim was shot in the back of the head, with the bullet found near her neck. Testing confirmed that one of the petitioner’s pistols was the weapon used. At the time of her death, the petitioner was under investigation for embezzlement, and the victim had been subpoenaed to testify against him. The petitioner claimed the victim intended to refuse to testify. He asserted they were romantically involved, and both were aware of each other's troubled backgrounds, including the victim's drug use and mental health issues.

On May 4, 2007, the petitioner picked up the victim from Singleton's house, and they consumed alcohol with friends at the petitioner's home. An argument erupted between the petitioner and the victim after their guests left. The victim was found in the laundry room holding a pistol under her chin. During their argument, the gun discharged while the petitioner attempted to wrest it from her, after which he disposed of her body in a garbage can and cleaned the scene without contacting authorities. A friend, Cochran, testified that although she witnessed arguments between them, they never escalated physically, and the victim did not express any intent to harm herself.

The petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-three years. He later filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, particularly asserting that evidence was improperly manufactured and that blood spatter analysis was flawed. Although the post-conviction court appointed counsel for him, no amended petition was filed. At the hearing, the appointed counsel argued that trial issues were not adequately addressed in the original trial and appeal. The petitioner's trial counsel, who had reviewed extensive forensic evidence, expressed concerns about the trial's handling of blood spatter evidence and noted that the petitioner’s post-shooting behavior could be interpreted as inconsistent with suicide. Only trial counsel provided testimony during the post-conviction hearing, despite having co-counsel.

Trial counsel acknowledged disagreements with the petitioner regarding case strategy, particularly concerning venue and pretrial publicity, which the counsel deemed manageable during voir dire. The petitioner expressed significant concerns about his defense, including specific conversations where he revealed suicidal thoughts after the victim's self-inflicted gunshot wound but ultimately chose not to follow through. Counsel admitted to unprofessional conduct in questioning the petitioner’s suicidal ideation, citing a desire for the petitioner to be prepared for potential jury skepticism.

Counsel decided against hiring a fingerprint expert, as no prints were found on the murder weapon, and viewed the absence of fingerprints as not undermining the suicide claim. The decision to forgo a blood spatter expert was based on the evidence being compromised due to the petitioner cleaning the crime scene. The petitioner had filed pro se motions to remove counsel, feeling neglected after being told he should have committed suicide, which the trial court did not address, leading him to seek the recusal of the judge, a motion that was also denied.

The petitioner believed that counsel was overwhelmed and unable to effectively represent him, expressing frustration with the judicial system for his conviction in a case he felt was unjust. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, noting the petitioner’s vague claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found that the petitioner's testimony largely reiterated his version of events without introducing new evidence. It clarified that the sufficiency of evidence is not valid grounds for post-conviction relief. The trial court recognized issues with the petitioner's behavior post-shooting, which contradicted his claim of suicide. Although the petitioner objected to personal comments made by his trial counsel, the court determined he failed to demonstrate how these comments impacted counsel's effectiveness. Consequently, the post-conviction court denied relief. 

On appeal, the petitioner contested this ruling. The court highlighted that in post-conviction settings, there is a statutory right to counsel to ensure all potential grounds for relief are adequately addressed. The appointed counsel was tasked with reviewing the petition and potentially filing an amended one, but failed to do so or notify the court of this decision, despite the petitioner's vague complaints. It was noted that petitioners do not have a right to effective assistance of counsel in these proceedings. The petitioner received a fair hearing, with due process rights upheld.

To succeed in post-conviction claims, petitioners must prove their allegations by clear and convincing evidence, defined as evidence leaving no substantial doubt about its conclusions. The post-conviction court is responsible for determining witness credibility and the weight of testimony. Its factual findings receive substantial deference unless contradicted by the evidence. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims involve mixed law and fact questions, with factual findings reviewed with a presumption of correctness. Petitioners must prove both deficient performance and resultant prejudice to their defense to succeed in such claims.

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that the attorney's performance fell below the standard of competence required in criminal cases and that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different but for the attorney's errors. Both elements must be satisfied; failure to prove either results in denial of the claim. The court is not obligated to address both elements if one is inadequately demonstrated. In this case, the petitioner asserted a troubled relationship with trial counsel, specifically referencing a harmful comment made by counsel and the failure to hire expert witnesses to challenge the prosecution's forensic evidence. However, the post-conviction court found trial counsel's testimony credible, clarifying that the comment was made in the context of discussing the petitioner's potential testimony, and no evidence suggested that this impacted counsel's performance. Additionally, the court deemed the petitioner's complaints about the lack of expert witnesses unfounded. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proving ineffective assistance, affirming the post-conviction court's judgment.