ALGIE LAVELL McCLURE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Brittany Sims on Jun 2, 2014

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Lloyd A. Levitt, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Algie Lavell McClure.

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Clarence E. Lutz, Senior Counsel; William H. Cox, III, District Attorney General; and Brian Finlay and Boyd Patterson, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): THOMAS

The Petitioner, Algie Lavell McClure, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his jury convictions for first degree murder, reckless endangerment, and aggravated burglary. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the following ways: (1) by counsel’s “opening the door” during his cross-examination of Kenya Houston to prejudicial testimony of the Petitioner’s violent nature; (2) by counsel’s failing to obtain Latasha Hinton’s medical records showing her intoxication at the time of the shooting to impeach her identification of the Petitioner as the shooter; (3) by counsel’s failing to present all law enforcement officers and accompanying reports as evidence that Ms. Hinton initially identified two, unknown black males as the perpetrators; (4) by counsel’s failing to call an expert witness to challenge Ms. Hinton’s identification of the Petitioner and to discredit the jailhouse informants; (5) by counsel’s failing to adequately impeach several witnesses with the specifics of their prior criminal records; (6) by counsel’s failing to review the jail records to verify the location of the jailhouse informant, Kordell Butler, at the time the Petitioner allegedly confessed to him; (7) by counsel’s failing to interview the State’s witnesses; (8) by counsel’s failing to object to the State’s improper closing argument; and (9) “in the manner that was presented” at the post-conviction hearings as testified to by the various witnesses.1 Following our review, we affirm the denial of relief.

Attachments: