David E. Campbell v. State of Tennessee
Docket: 01C01-9209-CR-00266
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; October 4, 1995; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
David E. Campbell, the appellant, pled guilty to second-degree murder in January 1988 and received a forty-two-year sentence. He later filed a post-conviction relief petition claiming ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and ultimately denied the petition. Campbell appealed this decision. During the hearing, Campbell argued that his plea was not voluntary due to his attorney's ineffectiveness, but provided insufficient evidence to support his claims. His former attorney testified that he worked diligently on Campbell's case, recalling extensive preparation leading up to the trial and efforts to sever Campbell's case from that of his co-defendant, who received a life sentence plus fifteen years. The attorney noted numerous meetings with Campbell, despite finding him a challenging client. The record indicated that the attorney performed a thorough investigation, filed motions, and negotiated the guilty plea while addressing Campbell's incriminating statements to law enforcement. The court found that, although Campbell had limited literacy skills, he demonstrated understanding and was not ignorant of the proceedings. The attorney's testimony highlighted that he acted in Campbell's best interest throughout the case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the post-conviction relief petition. Counsel expressed concern that the co-defendant might seek a harsh sentence for Campbell in retaliation. Campbell alleged that his trial attorney failed to preserve a suppression issue for appeal under Rule 37 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a defendant to appeal a guilty plea if a certified question of law is reserved. During the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified that the suppression issue was not dispositive and believed the trial judge was correct in denying the motion to suppress. The trial court found that the state had sufficient independent evidence to support the co-defendant's testimony had the case gone to trial. The trial judge credited the attorney's testimony over Campbell’s, concluding that Campbell did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or involuntary plea by a preponderance of the evidence. The judge ruled that Campbell was not pressured into pleading guilty and that his case did not meet the requirements for a Rule 37 appeal. The standards for ineffective assistance, as outlined in Strickland v. Washington, require the appellant to show both deficient representation and resulting prejudice affecting the trial's reliability. The burden of proof remains with the appellant in post-conviction matters. The trial court's findings are conclusive unless opposed by preponderant evidence. The hearing judge favored the attorney's testimony, leading to the affirmation of the dismissal of Campbell's claims.