William Boatwright v. State of Tennessee - concurring in part and dissenting in part

I concur with the majority opinion in its analysis that Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner’s counsel failed to raise specific issues regarding the lack of sufficient evidence to sustain two convictions, and the issues had merit. However, I disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion as to the relief to which Petitioner is entitled. This is a unique post-conviction case. I am unable to recall ever before reviewing an appeal wherein the petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief because, following a thorough review of the evidence at trial taken in the light most favorable to the State, it is clearly shown that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions of especially aggravated robbery of one victim and aggravated robbery of another victim. Petitioner’s counsel failed to make the appropriate argument for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case and failed to argue the issue in the direct appeal to this court. That failure established deficient performance. The review of the evidence at trial, the result of which is stated above, clearly established prejudice to Petitioner as a result of counsel’s deficient performance. Reversing the judgment of the post-conviction court is appropriate. However, remanding the matter to the trial court for Petitioner to have the opportunity to file a motion for new trial denies Petitioner the relief to which he is entitled. As will be discussed herein, it may also be in violation of Petitioner’s constitutional rights to be protected from double jeopardy.