Henley v. State

• Decision Date: 15 December 1997
• Citation: Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997)
• Parties: Steve HENLEY, Appellee, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellant.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 572

960 S.W.2d 572

Steve HENLEY, Appellee, v.STATE of Tennessee, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Tennessee at Nashville.

Dec. 15, 1997.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1998.

John Knox Walkup, Attorney General and Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, John H. Baker, III, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tom P. Thompson, District Attorney General, John Wooten, Assistant District Attorney General, Hartsville, for Appellant.

Jack E. Seaman, Lyell, Seaman & Shelton, Paul S. Davidson, Stokes & Bartholomew, Nashville, for Appellee.

OPINION

DROWOTA, Justice.

In this post conviction proceeding, the trial court denied relief on all grounds alleged, and specifically found that the petitioner, Steve Henley, had been afforded his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial.The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the evidence preponderated against the trial court's denial of relief with respect to the sentencing phase, and concluded that Henley had been denied his right to effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel had failed to adequately investigate and prepare witnesses to testify on Henley's behalf and had failed to adequately investigate Henley's mental condition and request that he undergo a mental evaluation.Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Henley's sentence of death and ordered a new sentencing hearing.Thereafter, we granted the State permission to appeal to determine whether the intermediate court erred in concluding that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that Henley was afforded his right to effective assistance of counsel at sentencing.After carefully reviewing the record, we have determined that the evidence supports the trial court's finding.Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals ordering a new sentencing hearing is reversed, and the trial court's decision denying the petition for post conviction relief on all grounds alleged is reinstated.¹

BACKGROUND

In 1986, the petitioner was convicted of aggravated arson and two counts of first degree premeditated murder for the killings of Fred and Edna Stafford, an elderly couple who were close neighbors to Henley's grandmother.According to the testimony of his co-defendant, Terry Flatt, the petitioner ordered both victims inside their home, shot them multiple times, and set their house on fire.The proof introduced at trial to establish the defendant's guilt was summarized by this Court on direct appeal as follows:

[T]he evidence showed that Fred and Edna Stafford lived on Pine Lick Creek Road in Jackson County, just a short distance from the farm, owned by Henley's family, where his grandmother lived.On the day of the Staffords' death Henley had visited his grandmother and obtained some mechanical parts for some work he was doing.Flatt was with him.Earlier in the day they had been driving about, tending to business affairs of Henley's.During that time they had consumed some beer and also had taken some drugs, referred to in the record as Dilaudids.According to Flatt, as they passed the Staffords' residence Henley commented, 'there was some people that lived on that road that owed his grandmother or grandfather some money, and they done him wrong, his grandparents wrong years before, and he was going to stop and see about collecting some money off them.'Henley let Flatt out of the truck just before he reached his grandmother's house.When he returned five or ten minutes later he had a .22 rifle with him.They stopped fifty or seventy-five yards up the road where Henley loaded some more shells into the rifle.He also filled a plastic jug with gasoline from a five-gallon can he had in the back of the truck.They proceeded on toward the Stafford residence.When they reached there Mr. and Mrs. Stafford were standing on the left-hand side of the road looking at a small bridge where some construction work had recently been done, Henley stopped the truck, jumped out and told them, 'I want your money, if you don't give it to me this man in the truck here, he's going to kill me.'He then directed them to go to the house.Mr. Stafford said, 'Steve, if you want money or something, I got $80, maybe $100, you can have it.'He forced them on to the house at gunpoint and told Flatt to bring the .22 rifle as he followed behind them.When they got within 20 or 30 feet of the house he told Flatt to give him the rifle and go back to the truck and get the plastic jug of gasoline.Flatt did as directed.As he reached the porch he saw Henley begin to shoot.He first shot Mr. Stafford then turned and shot Mrs. Stafford a time or two.While she was laying on the floor moaning and groaning he threw the rifle to Flatt, took out his pistol and shot her again with the pistol.He told Flatt to pour out some of the gas.Flatt endeavored to do as he was told and poured out a small amount.When he could not finish Henley took the container of gas from him and finished pouring it out.He then directed Flatt to light it.When Flatt said he could not he struck the match and as the flames went up they ran to the truck.

The house burned to the ground.The bodies of the Staffords were found in the ashes.All that remained of Mr. Stafford's body was part of the right leg and the trunk area.The body of Mrs. Stafford was similarly burned.It was determined that Mr. Stafford died from a gunshot wound to the chest with the bullet passing through his heart.Mrs. Stafford's death was caused by burns and inhalation of noxious gases from the fire.It was the opinion of the medical examiner that Mrs. Stafford lived a minute or longer after the fire began.

State v. Henley, 774 S.W.2d 908, 912(Tenn.1989).

At trial Henley maintained his innocence and attempted to discredit the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of co-defendant Flatt which was crucial to the State's case.The defense showed that by testifying, Flatt had gained the benefit of a plea bargain agreement, pursuant to which, Flatt had been allowed to plead guilty to two counts of second degree murder, two counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated arson.Flatt was sentenced as a Range I offender to twenty-five years for each of the murders, ten years for each of the robberies, and ten years for the arson, all to run concurrently for an effective sentence of twenty-five years.

Testifying in his own defense, Henley adamantly denied all knowledge of and involvement in the murders and arson.Henley acknowledged that he had spent the day in the company of Flatt, and he admitted that he had drank some beer.However, Henley flatly denied that he was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.Henley said he did not like to drink beer and had never abused drugs.Henley testified that it was Flatt who was intoxicated and under the influence of the drug referred to in the record as Dilaudid.Henley said that he dropped Flatt off before arriving at his grandmother's house because of Flatt's intoxicated condition.Flatt left the truck with Henley's .22 gauge rifle planning to hunt rabbits.Henley said he proceeded to his grandmother's house and remained there for about forty-five minutes to an hour.Henley picked Flatt up when he left, but had no knowledge of Flatt's activities during the intervening time frame.Henley claimed that he did not see the fire at the Staffords' home and was not aware of their deaths until the next day.On cross-examination, Henley admitted that he previously had pleaded guilty to transporting stolen goods in interstate commerce.In addition, Henley admitted that he owed a substantial farming debt near the time of the killings and had filed for bankruptcy.

The defense called other witnesses during the guilt phase to corroborate Henley's testimony about his activities on the day of the murders and to provide background information about Henley's life.Henley's grandmother testified that around the time of the murders, Henley arrived at her home alone and stayed there for forty to forty-five minutes.On cross-examination, she admitted that she had seen Henley with the .22 rifle on Saturday before the Staffords were murdered on Wednesday.

After the jury convicted Henley of two counts of premeditated murder and arson, the case proceeded to sentencing.The State relied upon the proof it had presented at the guilt phase.

The defense offered further proof, first calling Henley's mother, who, in the presence of the jury said, "I want to talk to you Mr. Reneau."Defense counsel, J.H. Reneau, III, requested and was granted a short recess.He exited the courtroom with Dorothy Henley.When the sentencing hearing resumed, she did not take the stand, and the jury was not given an explanation for her failure to testify.Instead, the defense recalled Bertha Henley, the petitioner's seventy-five-year-old grandmother who testified that Henley, along with his parents, had lived in her household from the time he was born until he was two years old.In addition, Henley had spent every weekend and summer vacation thereafter in her home until he completed high school.She said that Henley had a very close relationship with his grandfather, and that, from a very young age, Henley had helped his grandfather with farm work.She described Henley as a "good child" who "minded" her well and who "always loved" her.Henley married when he was eighteen-years-old, and had two children, Gregg and Leanne.Even after his marriage, however, Henley's close relationship with his grandparents continued.Though he and his family moved from Tennessee to Maryland, Henley returned to Tennessee when his grandfather was diagnosed with cancer in May of 1976 and lived with his family in a trailer across from his grandparents' home so that he could help his grandfather with the farm work.After his grandfather died of cancer in July of 1976, Henley began working on the family farm full...