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.
Jimmy Dale Smith v. State of Tennessee
Citation: Not availableDocket: M1999-00952-CCA-R3-PC
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; November 30, 2010; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Jimmy Dale Smith was convicted of two counts of aggravated kidnapping in 1990, with the conviction affirmed by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in 1995. Smith subsequently filed a post-conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, arguing that his appellate counsel failed to substantiate his claims regarding ineffective trial counsel in a motion for a new trial. The post-conviction court denied his petition, leading to the current appeal. The Court concluded that the matter of trial counsel's effectiveness had been previously determined during the motion for a new trial, as Smith had the opportunity for a full and fair hearing. Under Tennessee law, issues that have been previously adjudicated cannot be relitigated in post-conviction proceedings. However, the issue of appellate counsel's effectiveness was considered anew since it was raised for the first time in the post-conviction petition. In assessing the effectiveness of counsel, the Court cited the established standard requiring the petitioner to demonstrate both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. At the post-conviction hearing, Smith expressed a desire to represent himself on appeal, but the Court noted that the quality of his pro se submissions was lacking, leading to the conclusion that appellate counsel would have been ineffective had she followed Smith's wishes. Ultimately, the Court found no evidence of prejudice resulting from appellate counsel's performance, affirming the trial court's judgment and determining that costs of the appeal are to be borne by the state due to Smith's indigent status.