Howard Lee Coleman v. State of Tennessee

The Appellant, Howard Lee Coleman, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. Coleman was convicted of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery and was sentenced by the jury to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He also received a concurrent sentence of twenty years for his especially aggravated robbery conviction. Coleman filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in 2001, alleging multiple deficiencies underlying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, including the failure to perfect a direct appeal of his convictions. After the appointment of counsel, the post-conviction court heard evidence on all the allegations and granted a Rule 3 delayed appeal to this court. The remaining post-conviction issues were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal, which was subsequently denied. Following the denial of second tier review, Coleman, proceeding pro se, filed an amended post-conviction petition in 2005. The attorney appointed to represent Coleman in his post-conviction challenge was the same attorney appointed to him in the direct appeal of the case. The postconviction court subsequently denied post-conviction relief. On appeal, Coleman argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to properly investigate and prepare the case. Following review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed with regard to all allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. However, plain error review of the record reveals an actual conflict of interest in that counsel appointed to perfect the direct appeal was also appointed to represent the Appellant in the amended portion of the post-conviction proceeding. Because the
record is silent with regard to the conflict of interest issue, we vacate the judgment and remand for a determination of whether the Appellant was informed of the conflict and, after full disclosure, consented to the representation of appointed post-conviction counsel for purposes of the amended proceedings. If waiver is found, the post-conviction court shall enter an order accordingly and reinstate the original judgment. However, if the court finds that no waiver occurred, the court shall appoint new post-conviction counsel for the limited purpose of allowing Coleman to amend his postconviction petition to include any issues which resulted from the unsuccessful delayed appeal. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 § (9)(D)(b)(3)(a).