Jerry Neal Carpenter v. State of Tennessee

Summary

This concurring opinion addresses Jerry Neal Carpenter’s claim that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses. Chief Justice Frank F. Drowota concludes that counsel’s decision was reasonable under the law applicable at the time of the appeal and agrees that Carpenter failed to establish deficient performance.

Holdings

1. Carpenter failed to establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because he did not establish deficient performance.
2. Any legal confusion would have weighed against, rather than in favor of, finding counsel's decision reasonable; however, the concurrence concludes that the law was clear under King at the relevant time.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Carpenter established deficient performance or prejudice sufficient to support an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim.
2. Whether appellate counsel's decision not to challenge the trial court's refusal to instruct on lesser-included offenses was reasonable under the law existing at the time of the appeal.

Disposition

other