Henry Epps v. State of Tennessee

Henry Epps, Petitioner, entered a best interest plea to six counts of sexual exploitation of a minor; the remaining nine counts of sexual exploitation of a minor were dismissed per the negotiated plea agreement. Petitioner received an effective sentence of eight years with release eligibility after service of 100% of the sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Petitioner filed an original and an amended petition for post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. This court reversed and remanded for a new post-conviction hearing and for entry of an order that contained specific findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to all issues raised. At the second post-conviction hearing, the post-conviction court admitted numerous affidavits and reports from Petitioner’s forensic expert and the State’s forensic expert. The post-conviction court then denied relief in an order. On appeal, Petitioner alleges that trial counsel’s performance was deficient because he “failed to consult with or inform [Petitioner] as to whether [Petitioner]’s expert would be used at trial” and “unilaterally discarded [Petitioner]’s defense, allowing him no say as to whether the case would proceed to a trial that would have presumably consisted of a jury hearing testimony from each side’s competing experts.” Petitioner asserts that he would have proceeded to trial absent trial counsel’s deficient performance. He also contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty because he “did not have a meaningful opportunity to confer with trial counsel about alternatives[,]” that “trial counsel . . . unilaterally deprived [Petitioner] of the option to choose trial[,]” and that Petitioner “had no prior experience with criminal proceedings, which would have weighed in favor of a finding that [Petitioner]’s plea was not voluntary, intelligent, or knowing.” After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm.