Sutton v. Colson, No. 12-6310 (6th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseIn 1993, a Tennessee jury convicted Sutton of premeditated first degree murder and felonious burning of personal property. Sutton’s trial counsel represented him through direct appeal, and filed a petition for post-conviction relief. In 2000, Sutton dismissed his trial counsel. New counsel amended his petition, raising ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims for the first time. The state trial court denied relief. Sutton was appointed new counsel for his federal habeas petition, which included new claims that his trial counsel failed to object to jury-selection procedures and to use of a “moral certainty” standard in jury instructions regarding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court denied the petition, finding the newly raised claims procedurally defaulted and that Sutton did not show “cause” for the default and “prejudice” from the error, or that a manifest miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. Days later, the Supreme Court heard argument in Martinez v. Ryan, ultimately holding that ineffective assistance by post-conviction counsel can establish “cause” to excuse procedural default of an ineffective assistance at trial claim where state procedural law prohibits defendants from raising such claims on direct appeal and requires they be raised in post-conviction proceedings. The district court found Martinez inapplicable because Tennessee’s procedural law does not prohibit ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. While appeal was pending, the Supreme Court considered Trevino v. Thaler, and held that the rule also applies where state procedural law permits defendants to raise ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal, but makes it highly unlikely that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise such a claim. The Sixth Circuit remanded, holding that the Trevino ruling applies to Tennessee decisions.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.