Alisha J. Glisson v. State of Tennessee

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2010-01483-CCA-R3-PC

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; August 30, 2011; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Alisha J. Glisson appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from her felony murder, aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery convictions, resulting in a life sentence. The main issue on appeal is the alleged ineffectiveness of her trial counsel for failing to subpoena her co-defendant, Sullivan, who did not testify. The appeal was reviewed by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's judgment.

The background of the case reveals that Glisson was indicted alongside three accomplices for a robbery that led to the victim's death. Evidence presented during the trial indicated that Glisson and her co-defendants planned to rob the victim, St. Laurent, while he was out with Glisson. Although she was romantically involved with Sullivan, he did not testify, whereas the other co-defendants did, providing conflicting accounts about Glisson's involvement and intentions regarding the robbery plan. Testimony indicated that Glisson communicated with her co-defendants during the events leading up to the robbery. Despite her claims of wanting to withdraw from the plan, the court found sufficient evidence to support her convictions. The appeal was ultimately denied, upholding the original convictions and sentences.

Following an unsuccessful robbery attempt, the plan shifted to robbing the victim directly. The witness indicated she searched for a co-defendant named Henry that evening. A video of her interview was presented as evidence during the trial. The petitioner, Alisha J. Glisson, appealed her convictions and sentence, which were upheld on direct appeal. She subsequently filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 

At the post-conviction hearing, David Sullivan, who pled guilty to the victim's second-degree murder, stated he was never contacted by any lawyer regarding testifying for Glisson but would have been willing to do so. He detailed discussions among co-defendants about a robbery that he orchestrated under the guise of a drug deal, asserting that Glisson provided information on the victim's whereabouts. Sullivan admitted that the robbery stemmed from his plan and that the victim's death resulted from his actions. 

Glisson testified that she initially had a public defender but later hired a new attorney for better representation. She believed the new counsel would enhance her defense by retaining the public defender in a secondary role due to his familiarity with her case. They engaged a private investigator to communicate with Sullivan, aiming to have him testify in her favor, but Glisson expressed that her counsel was opposed to having Sullivan at her trial, fearing he might harm their case.

The Petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with her attorney but trusted her expertise. On trial day, the Petitioner anticipated testifying against co-defendants but learned the State intended to use them against her. She declined a 15-year plea deal for second-degree murder, wanting her day in court after four years in jail. The Petitioner admitted to planning a drug deal on the night of the offense but claimed uncertainty about knowing a robbery was planned, despite acknowledging discussions about it in her apartment.

Counsel, with 20 years of criminal defense experience, was retained by a friend and worked alongside a public defender. She was unaware of the Petitioner’s dissatisfaction and noted concerns about a co-defendant, Sullivan, who pled guilty quickly due to military issues. Counsel aimed to distance the Petitioner from the co-defendants, emphasizing her lesser role in the crimes, as Sullivan was deemed problematic.

The Petitioner was offered a plea for facilitation but resisted due to her belief in her innocence regarding the victim's death, struggling to understand felony murder and criminal responsibility. Counsel believed their trial strategy was sound and successfully excluded phone records, but the post-conviction court found that her choice not to call Sullivan as a witness was a tactical decision to improve the Petitioner’s image and avoid corroborating the State’s case. The court upheld that Counsel's strategic decision was justified given her experience.

The petitioner argues that the post-conviction court incorrectly denied relief, while the State contends the court's decision was appropriate. Post-conviction relief is granted only if a petitioner proves their conviction is void or voidable due to a constitutional rights violation, as outlined in T.C.A. 40-30-103 (2006). The Tennessee Supreme Court dictates that findings of fact by a post-conviction court are conclusive unless the evidence strongly contradicts them, and appellate courts do not re-evaluate evidence but can review legal issues de novo.

The burden of proof lies with the petitioner, who must establish claims by clear and convincing evidence, a standard indicating no serious doubt about the evidence's accuracy. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel require the petitioner to show both deficient performance by their lawyer and resulting prejudice. A court may deny such claims if either element is not proven, and it may choose not to address both if one is insufficiently demonstrated.

Deficient performance is determined by whether the attorney's actions fell below acceptable professional standards, while prejudice is shown if the petitioner can demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different without the attorney's errors. The petitioner in this case did not establish either deficiency or prejudice, as the trial counsel's strategy involved distancing the petitioner from potentially negative co-defendants. Counsel made an informed decision not to call a specific witness deemed harmful to the petitioner’s case. The judge concluded that the petitioner’s issues stemmed from a lack of understanding of legal concepts rather than ineffective legal representation. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction relief.