Marterious O'Neal v. State of Tennessee

The Petitioner, Marterious O’Neal, was originally convicted of two counts of felony murder, eight counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment. He filed for post-conviction relief, alleging various grounds of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel including (1) trial counsel’s failure to file a motion under Rule 608 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence to impeach a witness for the State, (2) appellate counsel’s failure to include the transcript of the motion to suppress on direct appeal; and (3) appellate counsel’s failure to withdraw from representation in compliance with Rule 14 of the Tennessee Supreme Court thereby depriving the Petitioner of a timely application to appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Following a two-day evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court granted a delayed appeal upon finding that appellate counsel had failed to withdraw in compliance with Rule 14, thereby depriving the Petitioner of the ability to file a timely Rule 11 appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. In the same order, the post-conviction court determined that whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a Rule 608 motion had been previously determined by this court and that the Petitioner had failed to establish prejudice with respect to appellate counsel’s failure to include the motion to suppress transcript on direct appeal. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends, and we agree, that the post-conviction court erred in determining that the Rule 608 issue had been previously determined and in granting a delayed appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. With respect to the remaining issues, the Petitioner also contends that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Although appellate counsel failed to withdraw in accordance with Rule 14, we conclude that appellate counsel filed a timely application for permission to appeal from the Petitioner’s convictions in this case. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the order of the post-conviction court to the extent that it grants the Petitioner a delayed appeal. We also conclude that because the Petitioner’s Rule 608 claim challenges trial counsel’s failure to file the motion rather than the trial court’s denial of the same, this issue has not been previously determined by this court. Nevertheless, the Petitioner failed to establish that trial counsel’s decision in not filing a Rule 608 motion 03/25/2026 - 2 - prior to trial was ineffective. Finally, we conclude that trial counsel’s failure to include the transcript of the motion to suppress on direct appeal was deficient; however, the Petitioner failed to establish prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.