David Neal Davis v. State of Tennessee

Petitioner, David Neal Davis, was indicted by the Rutherford County Grand Jury on four counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery. The trial ended in a mistrial. Petitioner was subsequently charged in a superseding indictment with two counts of rape of a child, eight counts of aggravated sexual battery, solicitation of a minor, and attempted aggravated sexual battery. Petitioner was convicted of rape of a child, attempted rape of a child, seven counts of aggravated sexual battery, two counts of child abuse, and one count of attempted solicitation of a minor. See State v. David Neal Davis, No. M2009-00691-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 1631828 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 19, 2011), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Aug. 31, 2011). He was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty years. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Id. at *1. Among other things, Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a lengthy post-conviction hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, finding that Petitioner failed to show clear and convincing evidence that he received ineffective assistance of counsel or that he was otherwise entitled to post-conviction relief. Petitioner appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court improperly denied relief where trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) requesting a mistrial; (2) failing to adequately investigate the case, including failing to call certain witnesses at trial; (3) failing to request mental health records of the victim; (4) failing to use the prior recorded statement of the victim at trial; (5) failing to object to testimony regarding evidence of other crimes not charged in the indictment; (6) failing to properly cross-examine the mother of the victim; and (7) failing to object to the State’s usage of the video interview of Petitioner. Additionally, Petitioner complains that the post-conviction court improperly determined that one of Petitioner’s issues was not proper for post-conviction relief and that the cumulative effect of all the errors at trial did not violate Petitioner’s rights. After a thorough review of the record, we determine Petitioner failed to establish that he is entitled to post-conviction relief. Consequently, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.