Jamie Bailey v. State of Tennessee

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2008-00983-CCA-R3-PC

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; April 29, 2010; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jamie Bailey appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition for three first-degree murder convictions, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his guilty pleas unknowing and involuntary. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirms the lower court's decision. In April 2002, Bailey was indicted for the murder of his estranged girlfriend and two men he believed had affairs with her, following the events of October 9, 2001, when he shot them and then himself. After a competency ruling, Bailey entered best interest guilty pleas in exchange for three concurrent life sentences on April 15, 2004. During the guilty plea hearing, the prosecution outlined the evidence that would have been presented at trial, including statements from a surviving victim, Mr. Bizzle, who identified Bailey as the shooter, and details of the murders of both Mr. Cryts and Ms. Clark. The court noted that ballistic evidence linked the weapon Bailey used to both the murders and his suicide attempt.

The petitioner, in connection with his guilty pleas, sought to challenge the trial court's competency determination through a certified question of law. However, the appeal was dismissed as the question was deemed non-dispositive, and the supreme court denied his request for further appeal. The petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief on May 17, 2007, which he later amended on February 20, 2008, citing ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specific allegations included counsel's absence during his interview with Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) officers, failure to request an audiotape of the interview, not seeking a preliminary hearing, and neglecting to file for a change of venue.

At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the petitioner asserted that he would not have pled guilty had counsel not assured him of success regarding the certified question of law. He testified that his TBI interview occurred shortly after his arrest, during which trial counsel was absent and did not obtain a record of the interview or a copy of the evidence against him until 30 months post-arrest. The petitioner expressed frustration over not having a preliminary hearing and uncertainty about whether a change of venue was pursued. He noted that his counsel was absent during a court appearance, which led him to expedite his decision to plead guilty. The petitioner acknowledged that his competency was a significant issue, as he had been initially evaluated as incompetent due to retrograde amnesia, though the trial court later deemed him competent. He claimed counsel's belief in a favorable appellate outcome influenced his decision to plead guilty. During cross-examination, the petitioner recalled that counsel had filed a motion to dismiss after the indictment, but he could not remember discussions regarding the evidence against him during that hearing.

The petitioner believed that the absence of his legal counsel negatively impacted his case but recognized that he had previously denied any knowledge of the crimes during an interview. He confirmed his understanding of the charges, the State's evidence, potential penalties, and the implications of pleading guilty, assuring the trial court of his comprehension and satisfaction with his counsel's representation. Despite counsel's belief that a certified question of law might favor the petitioner, counsel had substantial experience, including recognition of the petitioner's incompetency to stand trial due to amnesia. A mental evaluation indicated that an insanity defense was unsupported. Counsel focused on the competency hearing rather than a preliminary hearing, believing the State had strong evidence against the petitioner, including eyewitness testimony and ballistics linking him to the crime. Counsel did not discuss the case in detail to avoid implanting false memories due to the petitioner’s condition. He acknowledged filing motions, including one for change of venue, and expressed confidence in the competency issue, although the petitioner’s physicians later contradicted this. The post-conviction court ultimately denied the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, determining he did not meet the burden of proof.

Post-conviction relief is available when a conviction or sentence is declared void or voidable due to a violation of rights under the Tennessee or U.S. Constitutions, as per Tenn. Code Ann. 40-30-103 (2006). The petitioner must prove their claims by clear and convincing evidence, and findings of fact from evidentiary hearings are conclusive unless contradicted by the evidence. Appellate courts defer to trial courts regarding witness credibility and testimony weight but review legal applications de novo without a correctness presumption. The ineffective assistance of counsel claims undergo a similar de novo review for legal standards, with factual findings receiving a presumption of correctness. 

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that the counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial, following the two-prong Strickland v. Washington standard. Deficient performance is defined as a failure to meet an objective standard of reasonableness, while prejudice requires showing that the outcome would likely have been different absent counsel's errors. In cases involving guilty pleas, the petitioner must indicate a reasonable probability that they would have opted for a trial instead of pleading guilty had counsel performed adequately.

The petitioner alleges ineffective assistance due to trial counsel's failure to attend an interview with the TBI, not obtaining a recording or transcript of the interview, not requesting a preliminary hearing, not moving for a change of venue, and misadvising him regarding the success of an appeal related to competency issues. Regarding the failure to attend the TBI interview, both the petitioner and trial counsel testified that counsel was unaware of the interview until it had already occurred.

Trial counsel informed the prosecutor about the inappropriateness of introducing any statements from the petitioner made after counsel's appointment, indicating a readiness to suppress such statements if necessary. The petitioner did not assert that he would have avoided a guilty plea had counsel been present or recorded the interview, admitting that his statement merely denied knowledge of the crimes. Consequently, the post-conviction court found no deficiency or resulting prejudice from counsel's absence or failure to obtain the interview.

The petitioner claimed trial counsel was deficient for not requesting a preliminary hearing, asserting this led him to plead guilty without knowing the evidence against him. However, he acknowledged awareness of the evidence at the time of his plea. Counsel rationalized his choice to focus on the competency hearing instead, citing the State's open discovery policy and the petitioner's mental incompetence. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice from the lack of a preliminary hearing.

Regarding the failure to file a motion for change in venue, the petitioner argued this deficiency prejudiced his case, claiming he would not have pled guilty if he had known the trial would occur in another county. However, he did not definitively state he would have avoided the plea and merely expressed uncertainty about whether counsel filed the motion. Additionally, no evidence suggested a need for a venue change, and trial counsel indicated he intended to file such a motion had the petitioner not pled guilty. Thus, the court found no deficiency or prejudice in this claim.

Finally, the petitioner contended that trial counsel inadequately advised him on a certified question of law, believing the appellate court would favorably address the competency issue, which influenced his decision to plead guilty. Nonetheless, the petitioner failed to prove any deficiency in counsel's advice or that such advice led to his guilty plea. Trial counsel asserted he had researched the issue and felt confident based on strong case law, supporting the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to relief on this basis.

The petitioner claimed that his trial counsel's statements led him to believe that his appeal regarding a competency issue would be successful, which he argued resulted in his guilty pleas being involuntary and unknowing. Trial counsel confirmed that while he thought the appellate court might hear the issue, he did not guarantee a favorable outcome. The petitioner acknowledged that the trial court had warned him about the potential failure of his certified question of law and the inability to withdraw his pleas if unsuccessful.

In evaluating the validity of the guilty pleas, the court referenced federal and Tennessee standards requiring an affirmative showing that guilty pleas are voluntary and knowing. A plea is deemed involuntary if made under ignorance, misunderstanding, or coercion. The trial court must ensure the defendant fully understands the plea and its consequences. Factors considered include the defendant's intelligence, familiarity with criminal procedures, representation by competent counsel, and reasons for pleading guilty.

The transcript from the guilty plea hearing indicated that the trial court properly informed the petitioner of his rights, and the petitioner confirmed that he understood the plea agreement, was not under the influence of any substances affecting his comprehension, and was satisfied with his counsel's representation. He acknowledged the risk of the appellate courts rejecting his certified question of law.

Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner’s guilty pleas were made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, affirming the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief based on a lack of evidence for ineffective counsel or involuntary pleas.