Jeffrey E. Dunlap v. State of Tennessee

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2001-00189-CCA-R3-PC

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; October 16, 2001; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jeffrey E. Dunlap appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Knox County, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial for burglary, for which he was sentenced to 12 years as a career offender. The court, led by Judge Ray L. Jenkins, affirmed the trial court's judgment on October 16, 2001.

Dunlap was arrested after being observed inside a pharmacy with another man, following a report of a broken window. Officer Kenneth Robertson pursued and apprehended Dunlap, while the accomplice escaped. Dunlap claimed his conviction was flawed due to misleading testimony from the victim, Ronnie Ridenour, who he alleged was involved in illegal drug distribution and a fencing operation, suggesting a consensual exchange rather than a robbery.

In his post-conviction petition filed on May 18, 1999, Dunlap raised over 25 grounds for relief, emphasizing ineffective assistance of counsel. He testified that his trial attorney met with him only a few times, failed to inform him of his own testimony in advance, did not call several requested witnesses, neglected to present evidence at sentencing, and did not object to the admission of certain evidence. Dunlap contended his attorney failed to investigate Ridenour's background adequately.

Trial counsel countered that he had engaged with Dunlap extensively and presented a defense framed around a drug deal gone awry. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming the judgment against Dunlap.

Trial counsel indicated that only the victims, the petitioner, and co-defendant McBee were present at the pharmacy during the offense. He acknowledged the petitioner had suggested potential witnesses, but claimed that after contacting them, their testimonies were not beneficial to the defense. Counsel noted that both Ridenours, who testified at trial, had significant criminal records, which were highlighted during the trial. He estimated dedicating 72.3 hours out of court and 25.1 hours in court to the case and recalled that McBee did not testify. The defense theory presented was that McBee had attempted to resolve an issue regarding bad cocaine purchased from Ridenour, which ultimately led to the incident. The trial court found trial counsel's testimony credible and ruled that the petitioner failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, the post-conviction relief was denied. In the appeal, the petitioner claimed that evidence presented conflicted with the trial court's findings, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The state, however, contended that the petition for post-conviction relief was filed late, noting that it was submitted one year and 30 days after the supreme court denied permission to appeal. The court emphasized that the one-year filing period is part of the right to petition and must be established by the petitioner. The limitations period begins upon the supreme court's opinion filing, and failure to comply would result in dismissal. The court concluded that the statute of limitations barred consideration of the ineffective assistance claim and suggested that even if considered, the petitioner likely would not have succeeded on the merits.

To obtain post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate two key elements: first, that the attorney's performance fell below the standard of competence expected in criminal cases, and second, that these deficiencies adversely affected the defense. Failure to prove either element results in denial of relief. The court may choose not to address both elements if the petitioner fails to establish one sufficiently. Moreover, petitioners cannot benefit from hindsight, critique reasonable trial strategies, or question sound tactical decisions made by counsel, provided those decisions were made after adequate preparation. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish claims by clear and convincing evidence. On appeal, trial court findings are conclusive unless the evidence significantly contradicts them. In this case, the trial court found the testimony of trial counsel credible and determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate any prejudice. The absence of witnesses to suggest a different trial outcome further supported the ruling, leading to the affirmation of the judgment.