Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Jeffrey Hankins
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02C01-9709-CC-00355
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; September 22, 1998; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
On October 13, 1993, Jeffery J. Hankins was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of using a weapon during a felony, and pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. His conviction for using a weapon was later reversed on appeal. Hankins filed for post-conviction relief on March 25, 1996, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied his petition after an evidentiary hearing, leading to this appeal. Hankins argued that his trial counsel, Russell Larson, was ineffective for failing to: 1) fully investigate the case, 2) prepare adequately for trial, 3) interview potential defense witnesses, 4) interview state witnesses, and 5) provide him with copies of discovered documents. However, the court found that Larson had filed multiple pre-trial motions, provided Hankins with discovery documents, and met with him frequently to discuss the case. Larson believed interviewing state witnesses would be redundant since he had their preliminary hearing testimonies. Though Hankins suggested potential defense witnesses, Larson could not locate them based on their nicknames and concluded they would not provide favorable testimony. Regarding the cocaine charge, after Hankins confessed ownership of the drugs, Larson chose to pursue a plea bargain, which Hankins accepted, acknowledging his understanding of the rights he was waiving. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the effectiveness of Larson’s representation. Larson advised the defendant against testifying during the robbery trial due to the defendant's insistence that the incident was merely an assault. Testifying could have led to a conviction based solely on the taking of property, as state witnesses were ready to confirm that an automobile and a black leather jacket were stolen, and medical evidence indicated that two victims were pistol whipped. The trial court found that the witnesses mentioned in the petition did not testify at the hearing. In the appeal of the defendant's post-conviction petition denial, it was noted that the trial court's factual findings are treated as conclusive unless contradicted by evidence. Since the petition was filed after May 10, 1995, the defendant must prove his claims by clear and convincing evidence. The court applies standards from previous cases regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring the petitioner to demonstrate both deficient performance and resultant prejudice. The defendant did not present any witnesses to support his claims and failed to meet his burden. The court found that trial counsel had adequately prepared and made informed tactical decisions. The defendant's guilty plea to the drug charge, based on counsel's advice, did not show evidence of error or that he would have opted for a jury trial instead. The trial court concluded that the defendant's claims lacked specificity and failed to prove either deficiency in counsel's performance or resulting prejudice. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.