TBA Law Blog

TBA Law Blog

Supreme Court: Failure to File Timely Motion Doesn’t Require Presumption of Prejudice

Posted by: Kate Prince on Jul 16, 2020

In Antonio Howard v State, a unanimous opinion released today, the Tennessee Supreme Court determined that when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, trial counsel’s failure to file a timely motion for new trial does not require a presumption of prejudice. Today’s decision overruled the court’s previous holding in Wallace v. State that, when a defendant indicates a desire to appeal, trial counsel’s failure to file a timely motion for new trial is presumptively prejudicial. It explained that, while a presumption of prejudice is appropriate for claims involving the complete denial of an appeal, the petitioner in this case—as well as the petitioner in Wallace—received meaningful review on direct appeal and complained of waiver of only certain issues. The court concluded that, because the petitioner was not completely denied a direct appeal, the post-conviction court appropriately required him to demonstrate actual prejudice. Further, the court found no error in the post-conviction court’s conclusion that Howard was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s deficiency. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstated the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief.

Law-Related Blogs AND PODCASTS

Check out other law-related blogs and podcasts generated from the Tennessee legal community or of interest to the Tennessee lawyers.