Kadarick Lucas v. State of Tennessee

In 2015, a Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jabriel Linzy, of first-degree murder,attempted first-degree murder, and employment of a firearm during the commission of adangerous felony. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for the first degree murderconviction, fifteen years for the attempted first degree murder conviction, and six years forthe conviction of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Thetrial court ordered that the two shorter sentences be served consecutively to each other butconcurrently with the life sentence. The Petitioner appealed his convictions, and this courtaffirmed. State v. Linzy, No. E2016-01052-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 3575871, at 1 (Tenn.Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017). The Petitioner fileda petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court grantedpost-conviction relief, concluding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object toinadmissible social media evidence in conjunction with not eliciting testimony about thePetitioner's prior conflict with the victim and that trial counsel's performance prejudicedthe Petitioner. On appeal, the State contends that the post-conviction court erred becausetrial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision when failing to object to the social mediaevidence and because the Petitioner cannot show that trial counsel's performanceprejudiced him. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.

Criminal law—Ineffective assistance of counsel—When defense counsel fails to request that the trial court waive court costs on behalf of a defendant who has previously been found to be indigent, a determination of prejudice in an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel analysis depends on whether the facts and circumstances presented by the defendant establish that there is a reasonable probability that the trial court would have granted the request to waive court costs had one been made—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and cause remanded.

ASSAAD, 23 I&N Dec. 553 (BIA 2003) ID 3487 (PDF) (1) Case law of the United States Supreme Court holding, in the context of criminal proceedings, that there can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel where there is no constitutional right to counsel does not require withdrawal from Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), aff’d, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988), finding a right to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings, where the United States Courts of Appeals have recognized that a respondent has a Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair immigration hearing, which may be denied if counsel prevents the respondent from meaningfully presenting his or her case. (2) The respondent did not establish that his former counsel’s failure to file a timely appeal constituted sufficient prejudice to warrant consideration of his late appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.