Opinion ID: 1060400
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-trial Counsel

Text: We first must address Sepulveda’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as to the statements he gave to the police after his indictment. Applying the two prongs of Strickland to -5- determine whether Sepulveda was deprived of the right to counsel, we first must determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient. In making that determination, we note that both the original trial court and the post-conviction court agreed that the representation fell below what is required by the Sixth Amendment. The charges against Sepulveda were serious; he was relatively young and of somewhat limited intelligence. Despite these facts, counsel allowed Sepulveda to meet unsupervised with law enforcement on multiple occasions, even though counsel was aware that allowing a client to give multiple statements to police could seriously jeopardize the client’s interests. Moreover, counsel’s investigation of the case appears to have been lacking. Had he monitored the case more closely, he may have been aware of Nicholson’s death–and the resultant increase in the seriousness of the case–prior to Sepulveda’s polygraph examination. Under the circumstances, we have little difficulty in concluding that the representation offered by Sepulveda’s pre-trial counsel failed to meet the objective standard of reasonableness required by the Sixth Amendment. Having found that pre-trial counsel’s performance was deficient, we next must determine whether Sepulveda was prejudiced by that deficient performance. Sepulveda contends that prejudice should be presumed because of the State’s failure to inform him either that Nicholson had died or that the police considered him to be the principal target of the investigation. In Strickland, the Supreme Court stated that prejudice may be presumed in instances of “state interference with counsel’s assistance.” 466 U.S. at 692. In this case, however, the State did not actively interfere with counsel’s ability to represent Sepulveda; it merely declined to inform counsel of Nicholson’s death or of the nature of its investigation. Sepulveda has not demonstrated that counsel would have been unable to discover Nicholson’s death through independent investigation, had he monitored the case more closely. Thus, we are not persuaded that the State was required to bear the burden of notifying Sepulveda’s counsel of this occurrence. Likewise, with regard to Sepulveda’s being the target of the State’s investigation, we observe that Sepulveda faced serious charges and had already made statements implicating himself in the burglary of Nicholson’s house. Under the circumstances, it was perilous, at best, for his attorney to assume he would not be a primary target of the State’s investigation, and we decline to hold that the State was constitutionally required to actively disclose the status of that investigation. Accordingly, we hold that prejudice should not be presumed in this case. Because prejudice cannot be presumed from the circumstances before us, Sepulveda must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different if his attorney had not allowed him to give statements to police without supervision. At the outset, the State points out the difficulty in proving prejudice due to the lack of certainty that counsel’s presence would have prevented Sepulveda from making statements to police – particularly his final admission to beating Nicholson. We need not address this difficult question, however, for even if we assume, arguendo, that he would not have given the statements, we nonetheless conclude that Sepulveda has failed to show prejudice. Sepulveda was convicted of felony murder, which, for the purposes of this case, requires proof only that he participated in the “killing of another committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate . . . burglary [or] theft.” -6- Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(2) (1997).5 Thus, the State was not required to prove that Sepulveda actually killed Nicholson: The . . . offense extends both to the killer and his accomplices. A defendant who is a willing and active participant in a [felony] becomes accountable for all of the consequences flowing from the felony and may be convicted of first-degree murder where a co-perpetrator of the felony is the actual killer. State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317, 336 (Tenn. 1992); see also State v. Brown, 756 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). In Sepulveda’s August 6 statement, he voluntarily admitted that he actively participated in the burglary of Nicholson’s home, even though he claimed at that time that Johnson was the one who attacked Nicholson. Though Sepulveda emphasizes that his October 31 admission that he was the attacker was more incriminating than the prior statement, the August 6 statement, standing alone, was plainly sufficient to convince a jury that Sepulveda was guilty of felony murder. Consequently, we conclude that Sepulveda has failed to prove a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different but for his pre-trial counsel’s ineffective representation. We hold, therefore, that Sepulveda has failed to satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test, and we reject his claim of ineffective assistance of pre-trial counsel.