Narrative Opinion Summary
The concurring opinion by Judge Joseph M. Tipton in the post-conviction appeal of Alicia Shayne Lovera against the State of Tennessee addresses the standard of review for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge Tipton agrees with the majority's decision but disputes its interpretation regarding the review standard. He advocates for maintaining the precedent set by Janow v. State, which gives trial court findings in post-conviction cases the weight of a jury verdict. This contrasts with the majority's reliance on State v. Brenda Anne Burns, which suggests a de novo review approach. Judge Tipton emphasizes the importance of adhering to the supreme court's directive that requires determining whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's conclusion on ineffective assistance claims. His opinion underscores the significance of upholding traditional review standards in post-conviction cases to ensure consistency and respect for established jurisprudence.
Legal Issues Addressed
Precedent and De Novo Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The judge contests the majority's use of de novo review based on State v. Brenda Anne Burns, advocating for adherence to longstanding jurisprudence.
Reasoning: He argues that the majority's reliance on State v. Brenda Anne Burns to apply a de novo review is unwarranted and does not reflect the long-standing jurisprudence in this area.
Standard of Review for Ineffective Assistance of Counselsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judge Tipton argues for the continued application of the standard set in Janow v. State, which treats trial court findings as equivalent to a jury verdict in post-conviction cases.
Reasoning: He asserts that the precedent established in Janow v. State, which treats trial court findings in post-conviction cases as having the weight of a jury verdict, should continue to apply.