Eddie Dean Hall pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and received concurrent life sentences without parole, without taking a direct appeal. He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily. The trial court denied his petition, and Hall appealed the decision.
The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appeal focused solely on Hall's claims regarding his trial counsel's performance in the Cocke County case, as a related claim had been previously adjudicated. Hall had filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in 1997, which was followed by the appointment of counsel and subsequent motions to remove counsel due to perceived inadequacies. An evidentiary hearing was held in September 2001, where Hall testified that he felt his co-defendant set him up and mentioned concerns regarding his trial counsel's experience and availability to interview potential witnesses.
The court reviewed the proceedings, including Hall's interactions with his trial counsel, Susanna Laws Thomas, and found no basis to overturn the trial court's ruling on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Petitioner claimed he would not have accepted a guilty plea if his trial counsel, Ms. Thomas, had not informed him that the District Attorney General Al Schmutzer was biased against him and would pursue the death penalty if he did not plead guilty. He stated that if counsel had found exculpatory evidence, he would have opted for a trial. During meetings, Ms. Thomas allegedly failed to discuss potential witnesses or other evidence. Petitioner maintained his innocence regarding the victim's death.
The guilty plea hearing transcript indicated that the trial court asked Petitioner if he had been coerced into the plea, to which he affirmed he had not been forced. However, at the post-conviction hearing, he asserted he had felt compelled to plead guilty.
Witness Alvin Dean Shaver recounted an incident on November 25 or 26, 1995, where he and Petitioner went to retrieve money from Harry Lillard, leading to an altercation where Shaver accidentally shot Lillard. While en route to the hospital, Shaver, in a panic, shot Lillard again and they subsequently abandoned him. Shaver, convicted of Lillard's murder, expressed dissatisfaction that his trial counsel did not facilitate communication with Petitioner’s counsel to clarify the events.
Shaver also recalled speaking to detectives shortly after the incident, falsely claiming he had not met Lillard or seen Petitioner with a gun. He later wrote letters to his wife denying involvement in the homicide, suggesting he might plead guilty to protect her. He noted awareness that his wife could be cooperating with authorities.
Susanna Laws Thomas, an assistant public defender qualified to handle death penalty cases, represented the Petitioner in the Cocke County case. She met with the Petitioner on April 19, 1996, to discuss the State's discovery response and later prepared a memo on October 30, 1996, indicating that she and assistant public defender Dennis Campbell would manage the case. Ms. Thomas met with the Petitioner four times at Northeastern Correctional Facility and at the Cocke County Jail post-arrest. On her second visit, she was accompanied by Mike Walcher from the Greene County Public Defender’s Office.
On November 20, 1996, Ms. Thomas discussed a plea agreement with the Petitioner. She testified that the Petitioner provided a list of potential witnesses, all of whom were included as potential State witnesses in the State's discovery response. Ms. Thomas attempted to contact all listed witnesses, successfully speaking to most, including Joanne Bowlin, who could confirm the Petitioner’s alibi during Thanksgiving of the homicide. Other witnesses included Troy Hall, Wade Shults, Walter Allen, and family members, although Ms. Thomas did not confirm information with Petitioner’s mother.
Ms. Thomas noted that neighbor Tony Valez heard shots and saw a car but could not identify the occupants. In her investigation, she also spoke to Teddy Campbell regarding an unusual gun linked to the case. At the time of the plea agreement, the Petitioner was suspected of first-degree murder in Greene County, where significant physical evidence existed. The two cases were interconnected, involving a home invasion and the theft of firearms from a victim who was a gun collector. The State posited that Petitioner and an accomplice, Mr. Shaver, killed a potential informant, Harry Lillard, to eliminate evidence against them.
Ms. Thomas communicated with Mr. Shaver’s attorney, who indicated that Shaver was negotiating a deal to testify against the Petitioner. She believed that DeeDee Shaver would provide incriminating testimony, stating she witnessed the Petitioner shoot Lillard. Ms. Thomas assessed the likelihood of resolving both cases without a death sentence as low and informed the Petitioner accordingly. A videotape intended to elicit an incriminating statement from Mr. Shaver was made but not shown to the Petitioner.
Petitioner testified during rebuttal that Ms. Thomas informed him about a videotape related to his case but never provided it. On the offense date, he heard a gunshot and saw Mr. Shaver leaning over Mr. Lillard, who had been shot in the neck. Mr. Shaver claimed it was an accident, saying he shot Mr. Lillard when he tried to pull a gun. Petitioner drove Mr. Lillard to the hospital and later returned Mr. Shaver to his car at his insistence. Ms. Thomas, the defense attorney, stated that the case was not ready for trial at the plea hearing and had done no mitigation work. She investigated possible defenses, including accidental shooting and alibi, and conveyed to Petitioner that he could be found criminally responsible for Mr. Shaver's actions. Ms. Thomas advised Petitioner about going to trial, but the decision to plead guilty was ultimately his, based on their best understanding at the time. The trial court denied post-conviction relief, finding Mr. Shaver not credible and determining that counsel had met with Petitioner multiple times and interviewed nearly all witnesses. The court concluded that counsel performed competently, did not force Petitioner to plead guilty, and properly investigated the case. Following a hearing, the court appointed new counsel for Petitioner for his appeal, which led to a pro se motion alleging a lack of a written order on the denial of post-conviction relief. The court then issued a written order dismissing the petition, stating that the witnesses for Petitioner had little credibility and that Ms. Thomas had acted diligently and competently. The court affirmed that Petitioner entered his pleas freely and voluntarily, being aware of their consequences and acknowledging his guilt.
Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the denial of post-conviction relief, asserting inadequate representation by attorney Keith Haas due to his absence during the post-conviction hearing. The trial court, in a September 18, 2002 order, set aside the previous denial and scheduled a new post-conviction hearing, acknowledging attorney Jason Randolph's competence but criticizing Haas for failing to file a timely written order denying relief. The court found no unfairness in Haas perfecting an appeal despite not representing the Petitioner in the post-conviction proceedings.
A notice of appeal was filed on August 15, 2002, but under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(d), it was treated as filed on September 12, 2002, the date the written order dismissing the post-conviction petition was entered. Consequently, the trial court lost jurisdiction post-filing and the September 18, 2002 order granting a new hearing was deemed void. The review was thus confined to the evidentiary hearing conducted on September 18, 2001.
In post-conviction proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner, who must establish claims by clear and convincing evidence. The trial judge's factual findings are upheld on appeal unless the evidence strongly suggests otherwise, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly or voluntarily due to counsel's failure to interview witnesses and investigate mitigating evidence, with the review standard based on Baxter v. Rose and Strickland v. Washington precedents.
The petitioner must demonstrate two elements for ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) the attorney's performance was deficient, and (2) this deficiency resulted in prejudice that deprived the petitioner of a fair trial. A failure to prove either element warrants denial of relief, allowing the court to address the components in any order. To establish prejudice, the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that, absent the attorney's errors, the trial outcome would have differed, which undermines confidence in the result. In cases involving guilty pleas, the petitioner must prove that, but for the counsel's deficiencies, they would have chosen to go to trial instead of pleading guilty.
The trial court found Ms. Thomas's testimony credible, stating that the petitioner and his witnesses lacked credibility. The record shows that Ms. Thomas adequately investigated the case, interviewed potential witnesses, and kept the petitioner informed, meeting with him multiple times. She advised the petitioner about the trial's potential outcomes, including the possibility of a death sentence, and clarified that the decision to plead or go to trial was ultimately his. The court concluded that the petitioner received competent legal advice and that he knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. Additionally, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he would have opted for a trial if not for the alleged errors by counsel. Consequently, the trial court's findings were upheld, and the petitioner is denied relief in this appeal. The judgment is affirmed.
