Keith Dale Thomas was convicted of first-degree murder and possession of a deadly weapon with intent, receiving a life sentence plus two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Following his conviction, Thomas filed for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance from both his trial and appellate counsel. The post-conviction court denied his petition, leading to this appeal, which was ultimately affirmed.
The factual background reveals that on June 10, 1996, Thomas and the victim were married. That evening, he called the victim's sister to check on her, leading to the discovery that the victim, who was pregnant, was found alive but critically injured in their home. Upon police arrival, evidence included a shotgun found in the crawl space and a shotgun shell matching the murder weapon discovered in Thomas's vehicle. Notably, a family photograph with an X over the victim's face was also found, indicating possible motive. Witnesses established a timeline, noting that the victim had left work shortly before Thomas's inquiries about her whereabouts. Furthermore, Thomas's girlfriend at the time testified about their relationship and denied seeing him after 1:15 p.m. on the day of the murder.
The appeal was reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, which upheld the post-conviction court's decision, with the judgment affirmed by Judges Ogle, Wade, and Glenn.
Following the victim's death, the petitioner denied being married to the victim at that time. Inmate Kevin Washington, who had a criminal history including forgery and theft, testified that the petitioner had given him checks in exchange for clothes and shotguns before the murder. After the murder, while incarcerated together, the petitioner claimed he committed the "perfect crime" and described how he killed the victim. He also sought a check written by Fouse on the day of the murder to support a potential alibi. Barbara Perry, a Cato's store employee, recalled seeing the petitioner, Fouse, and a child shortly before closing, but could not specify the date. The petitioner was ultimately convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and possession of a deadly weapon, receiving a life sentence with the possibility of parole for the murder and two years for the weapon charge, to be served consecutively.
The petitioner later filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleged that his trial attorney failed to thoroughly question Washington about his criminal history, did not interview the petitioner’s son, did not obtain a check related to the murder, failed to gather daycare records to establish the victim's time of death, and neglected to file pretrial motions. Additionally, he argued that appellate counsel was ineffective for only addressing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. During the post-conviction hearing, the prosecuting assistant district attorney revealed that Washington had contacted their office with information about the murder while facing multiple forgery charges, although he was promised nothing in exchange for his testimony. The prosecutor noted discrepancies regarding Washington's criminal record, particularly concerning California convictions, which were not substantiated by certified copies. Furthermore, the prosecutor did not inquire whether the murder weapon was one of the shotguns sold to the petitioner by Washington.
The prosecutor acknowledged that Washington's significant criminal history impacted his credibility, prompting the prosecution to distance itself from Washington's testimony. The prosecutor claimed that the case could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt without relying on Washington's statements. Washington was called to testify to provide information disclosed by the petitioner during their incarceration, which could only have been known by the actual perpetrator. After the petitioner's conviction, Washington sent a letter recanting his testimony, citing unmet promises by the State. However, he later claimed that a second letter recanting the first was written by another inmate, Tommy Warren, and insisted he had not read it. Washington maintained he did not lie during the trial.
The prosecutor stated that the District Attorney General's office had an open-file policy for discovery. The petitioner's trial counsel testified that he thoroughly prepared for the trial, maintained good communication with the petitioner, and hired an investigator to examine Washington's criminal background, which he shared with the petitioner. Trial counsel expressed that he was not caught off guard by any evidence presented at trial, indicating that he deemed there was no need for pretrial motions. He noted that Washington had denied any California convictions, and he did not challenge this claim at trial, believing Washington's credibility was already compromised.
Trial counsel claimed he never heard that the petitioner's son indicated someone else committed the murder and did not interview the child, relying instead on family reports that the child would not discuss the incident. Although trial counsel tried to establish an alibi defense, the alibi witness, Fouse, refuted the claim of being with the petitioner during the murder. Trial counsel denied that the petitioner requested him to obtain a check allegedly written by Fouse on the murder day or records from a daycare center related to the time of the victim's pickup.
Conversely, the petitioner asserted he did ask trial counsel to obtain both the check and daycare records, admitting that even if the check existed, it would not definitively establish his alibi. The petitioner claimed he and post-conviction counsel sought the check, but the electronic records had been destroyed, while he believed the daycare maintained records electronically for at least a year.
The petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that his trial attorney failed to investigate the potential exculpatory evidence regarding a co-defendant, Washington, and did not utilize testing on his clothing for gunpowder, blood, or tissue. He denied prior acquaintance with Washington and denied purchasing shotguns from him. The petitioner also expressed dissatisfaction with his appellate counsel, stating they never met in person and that the counsel did not inquire about issues he wished to raise on appeal, despite the petitioner communicating his concerns in writing.
During the post-conviction hearing, Thomas R. Warren, Jr., an inmate serving a lengthy sentence, testified that Washington approached him for legal advice on how to compel the state to honor a deal for favorable treatment in exchange for false testimony against the petitioner and others. Warren indicated that Washington later sought to recant his testimony but denied any benefits for his assistance.
The post-conviction court ultimately denied the petition for relief, determining that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel by clear and convincing evidence. The petitioner is now appealing this decision, which requires him to prove all factual claims in his petition with clear and convincing evidence, as defined under Tennessee law. The court treats the findings of fact from the post-conviction court as conclusive unless the evidence contradicts those findings. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve both legal and factual determinations, with the burden on the petitioner to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced his defense.
To evaluate the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court must assess whether the performance of the counsel met the required professional standards in criminal cases. The petitioner must prove both deficiency in counsel's performance and resulting prejudice; failure to establish either prong can result in denial of relief. The petitioner alleges several deficiencies by trial counsel, including inadequate questioning of a witness with a criminal history, failure to interview the petitioner's son, and not obtaining certain evidence and records, as well as a claim against appellate counsel for not raising additional issues on appeal.
The court notes that the witness’s criminal history was known to the jury, and thus, the failure to further question him did not demonstrate prejudice. The petitioner did not present his son as a witness during the post-conviction hearing, preventing any speculation on the potential benefits of such testimony. The petitioner also failed to prove the existence or potential benefit of the check and daycare records he claims counsel should have obtained. Additionally, the petitioner conceded that he was not prejudiced by the lack of pretrial motions filed by counsel.
Regarding appellate counsel, the court emphasizes that counsel is not obligated to raise every possible issue on appeal, as the choice of which issues to present falls within the counsel's discretion. The petitioner did not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from appellate counsel's performance. Consequently, the court found no errors and upheld the judgment of the post-conviction court.
