Damien M. Jackson v. State of Tennessee

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2003-00952-CCA-R3-PC

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; June 25, 2004; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Damien M. Jackson appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief from convictions for two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of attempted second-degree murder. His sentence amounts to forty-nine years in total. Jackson alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his lawyers improperly focused on a "lesser included" offense defense instead of pursuing a not guilty plea. He also argues the post-conviction judge erred by not ruling on all claims and dismissing his ineffective counsel claims regarding the defense strategy and sentencing evidence. After thorough review, the court finds Jackson did not prove ineffective counsel, affirming the lower court's judgment. The factual background includes an incident where Jackson shot into a party, resulting in one death and several injuries, with evidence linking him to the crime through witness accounts and ballistics.

The petitioner sought to pursue various defense strategies, including claims related to drug sales, gang violence, and the loaning of a weapon to an individual named Thomas. Although he expressed a desire to testify about his coerced confession, he ultimately agreed with his co-counsels not to take the stand. He provided his attorneys with a witness list that included an alibi witness, but none of these witnesses were called during the trial or sentencing. Initially represented by a public defender, the case saw increased involvement from an assistant public defender, who confirmed that discovery and investigations were conducted, including a mental evaluation of the petitioner. While the petitioner had initially favored a not guilty plea, he later consented to a lesser included defense shortly before trial, which rendered the alibi witnesses irrelevant to his state of mind. The assistant public defender noted that potential witnesses for sentencing were interviewed, but none offered mitigating evidence. The post-conviction court found the testimony of the co-counsels credible, concluding that the petitioner did not demonstrate deficient representation or prove any resulting prejudice. Consequently, the petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed. The court referenced the standards for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Baxter v. Rose and Strickland v. Washington, emphasizing the petitioner’s burden to show both deficiency in counsel's performance and resulting prejudice.

Relief is denied if the petitioner fails to prove either deficiency of counsel or resulting prejudice. The court may address these components in any order and does not need to consider both if one is insufficient. To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed absent counsel's errors, which must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Findings of fact by the post-conviction court are conclusive unless the evidence strongly contradicts them. Courts must provide written findings of fact and conclusions of law for each claim in post-conviction petitions, but failure to do so may not warrant reversal if oral findings were made. 

In this case, the petitioner claimed the post-conviction court did not adequately address his allegation regarding the failure to rebut enhancement evidence at sentencing. However, he failed to present any evidence at the hearing to support this claim, and his counsel testified that potential witnesses were considered but deemed unhelpful. Generally, the petitioner must present such witnesses during the evidentiary hearing to establish claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner’s failure to do so leaves his claims unsubstantiated. 

The petitioner also alleged that co-counsels pursued a defense strategy against his wishes. However, both co-counsels testified that the petitioner initially insisted on a not guilty plea but later agreed to their strategy. The post-conviction court found their testimony credible, and the evidence did not contradict this. Consequently, the strategy was deemed sound and agreed upon by the petitioner. 

Overall, the petitioner did not provide evidence of counsel's ineffectiveness or that the chosen defense strategy was pursued without his consent. The post-conviction court's judgment is affirmed.