Tennessee appellate panel hears Armstrong’s challenge to warrant, argues ineffective assistance claim

Bridal Armstrong asked a Tennessee appellate panel on Monday to reverse a post-conviction denial and grant a new trial, arguing his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to move to suppress a weapon seized after execution of a search warrant the appellant—9s team says was deficient.

Jessica Butler of the Appellate Division of the Public Defender—9s Conference, arguing for Armstrong, told the court the case "is a post conviction appeal stemming from Mr. Armstrong's conviction on 2 counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and 1 count of possession of a prohibited weapon." Butler said the evidence at the post-conviction hearing shows a discrepancy between the multi-page warrant in the record and the single-page copy—or photograph of a copy—that was left with Armstrong, and that the copy he received does not show the time the warrant was issued.

The timing on the warrant, Butler said, is material under Tennessee procedure and controlling state decisions: without a time on the copy left with the defendant, "we don't have that assurance that the warrant was first issued and then executed and not the other way around." Butler argued that under applicable Tennessee precedent a missing time can trigger exclusion of evidence, and she asked the court to find counsel—9s failure to file a suppression motion was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial.

General Spangler, appearing for the state, urged the panel to affirm. Spangler argued the post-conviction court complied with statutory requirements and properly made credibility findings that the petitioner had not proved his factual allegations by clear and convincing evidence. The state also emphasized that the copy of the warrant admitted in the record contains a date and time and that the post-conviction record lacked testimony from the officers who executed the warrant. Spangler added, "these officers had the right to be where they were when they saw this weapon in plain view," and that the plain-view observation would have supported the seizure even if there were a technical defect in the warrant copies.

Butler responded that the post-conviction record showed only two witnesses at the hearing'156 trial counsel and Mr. Armstrong'156 and that the available photographic exhibit of the copy left with Armstrong is a single page with only a judge—9s signature and a date visible; the time is not readable. Butler relied on state case law she said supports exclusion where material warrant information is missing or inconsistent among copies.

The appellate panel questioned the parties about whether the post-conviction court—9s written and oral findings satisfied the statute requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law and whether the petitioner had presented sufficient evidence at the post-conviction hearing to support a suppression motion. Counsel for both sides discussed whether the judge—9s written order and bench remarks constituted adequate factfinding and whether any missing detail in the copy left with Armstrong was explained by the existence of full triplicate copies in the record.

No final ruling was announced at argument. The court noted the briefs and arguments were well presented and said it would take the matter under advisement.

Background and procedural posture: Armstrong was convicted at trial and received a 15-year sentence. On appeal and in post-conviction proceedings, he raised multiple claims; this oral argument focused on the claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress evidence seized after execution of the warrant. The parties disputed (1) whether the copy left with Armstrong omitted the time of issuance in a way that would be fatal under Tennessee law and (2) whether officers were lawfully present and observed the weapon in plain view.

What—9s next: The appellate panel took the case under advisement after oral argument; no decision was announced at the hearing.