Fields v. State

OPINION BARKER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ANDERSON, C.J., and DROWOTA, BIRCH, and HOLDER, JJ„ joined.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether our decision in State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn.1999), changed the standard by which appellate courts review denials of post-conviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The [*453] Court of Criminal Appeals in this case affirmed the denial of the appellant’s post-conviction petition, although it expressed concern that this Court inadvertently changed the standard of appellate review in Bums to require a de novo review of a trial court’s factual findings regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. While we reaffirm that such claims are mixed questions of law and fact subject to de novo review, we emphasize that Bums did not change the standard of review in this context. Consistent with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, our language in Burns meant only that a trial court’s findings -of fact be reviewed de novo, with a presumption that those findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. A trial court’s conclusions of law are also reviewed under a de novo standard, although the trial court’s legal conclusions are accorded no deference or presumption of correctness on appeal. Because the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly applied the appropriate standard of review in this case, the judgment of that court is affirmed, and the appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief is dismissed.

BACKGROUND The facts originally giving rise to this case occurred on October 22, 1994, when the appellant, Mr. Jehiel Fields, shot and killed Ms. Odessa Rouser. Earlier that afternoon, Ms. Rouser approached the appellant and offered to trade a marijuana cigarette and ten dollars for a rock of crack cocaine. The appellant agreed, but upon later discovering that the cigarette had been laced with PCP, he became angry and confronted Ms. Rouser at her house. During this confrontation, the appellant apparently assaulted Ms. Rouser, and in response, she stabbed him with a knitting needle. Although the appellant left Ms. Rouser’s house after his stabbing, he attended a party later that evening at a nearby house in the same neighborhood. Sometime during this party, the appellant returned to Ms. Rouser’s house, kicked open her front door, and shot her three times with a Raven .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol.