Tennessee appeals court hears post-conviction claim over counsel’s choice not to retain expert, objections in 2015 murder conviction

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting in Jackson during its September docket, heard argument in the post‑conviction appeal of Quadarius Bufford, who was convicted in 2015 of first‑degree murder and related child‑abuse counts. Petitioner’s counsel told the court the main grounds are ineffective assistance of counsel: failure to retain a medical expert, failure to object to references at trial that defense counsel says suggested sexual abuse, and failure to raise alleged prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal.

The issues matter because they bear on whether Bufford is entitled to a new evidentiary review of his claims and on practical questions about funding experts in noncapital post‑conviction proceedings. “My name is Cynthia Chandler with Chandler Law Firm over in Medina, Tennessee. I am the court appointed counsel for Quadarius Bufford,” Chandler told the panel, arguing that trial counsel’s decisions deprived the defendant of a full and fair post‑conviction hearing.

Chandler told the court trial counsel consulted Dr. Lisa Piercy, a locally known medical expert, who preliminarily told counsel the medical records supported an accidental explanation for the child’s injuries. Chandler said trial counsel did not call Dr. Piercy at trial or at the post‑conviction hearing because she would not sign a confidentiality nondisclosure agreement and because post‑conviction counsel was denied funding for an expert under the Administrative Office of the Courts’ funding rules. According to Chandler, the state presented three medical experts at trial and the defense had no expert testimony other than the defendant’s statement.

The state, represented by Ronald Coleman, argued the Court should affirm the denial of post‑conviction relief. Coleman told the panel that ineffective‑assistance claims were raised and litigated in the motion for a new trial and, under controlling authority and Tennessee statutory limits on successive petitions, many of these claims have been previously determined or waived. “If this court chooses to take judicial notice and it was fully flushed out and ruled upon by the trial court at the motion for new trial, then the petitioner is not entitled to a second bite of the apple,” Coleman said.

Judges pressed both sides on law and record history. The panel noted the direct‑appeal opinion references argument of ineffective assistance at the motion for new trial and asked whether that proceeding would preclude bringing the same claim in post‑conviction. The state cited Strickland standards and Tennessee Code provisions as grounds for treating the ineffective‑assistance claim as previously determined; defense counsel argued the record did not include a full and fair hearing on the specific expert‑retention issue and so the claim remains cognizable in post‑conviction.

On the trial record Chandler pointed to prosecutorial statements during closing argument — which she quoted in court — as particularly prejudicial. She told the panel the prosecutor called the defendant “a lying baby killer” and argued, “if you have a not guilty verdict, you are telling Braden Taylor’s family that his life meant nothing.” Chandler said counsel did not object to repeated references and that the absence of an expert left the defense unable to rebut the state’s medical testimony.

The state responded that trial counsel made a strategic choice not to press objections during the prosecutor’s closing and that trial counsel testified at the post‑conviction hearing that the decision was deliberate: to let the prosecutor’s rhetoric play against him while counsel maintained a calm demeanor for the jury. The post‑conviction court accredited that testimony, the state said, and Coleman argued the petitioner therefore failed to establish deficient performance or resulting prejudice under Strickland.

The panel also addressed the funding question raised by defense counsel. Chandler told the court that the Administrative Office of the Courts would not provide funding for an expert in a noncapital post‑conviction matter, leaving indigent petitioners unable to present expert proof in many cases. The state acknowledged the practical difficulty but told the court that Supreme Court precedent and current funding rules permit denial of expert funds in noncapital proceedings.

After extended questioning, the court invited supplemental briefing to resolve whether the ineffective‑assistance claims were previously determined at the motion for new trial. The court set a schedule for additional filings: the state was offered a short window to file (the court suggested September 22) and the petitioner to reply (the court set October 6). The court did not issue a ruling on the merits at the hearing.

The matter remains under submission pending the supplemental briefs the court ordered.