Background
Tywaun Deeds shot his girlfriend, J.S., in the neck while their one-year-old child was in the room. J.S. survived with severe permanent injuries. Deeds testified that the gun discharged accidentally, but the jury convicted him of attempted second degree murder, two crime-of-violence counts, and misdemeanor child abuse. He received a twenty-two-year prison sentence.
After his direct appeal failed, Deeds sought postconviction relief under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c). He alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence concerning his PTSD and for failing to retain a second DNA expert to test the firearm. The postconviction court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Assuming without deciding that counsel performed deficiently, the division held that Deeds had not alleged facts showing a reasonable probability that either proposed expert investigation would have changed the trial result.
Deeds did not allege facts showing that PTSD evidence could have supported an impaired-mental-condition defense or negated the knowing mental state for attempted second degree murder. His assertions were particularly speculative given evidence of prior domestic violence and a threat to kill J.S. His changed military-discharge status was not newly discovered evidence likely to produce an acquittal. Nor did he explain how another DNA expert could obtain materially different results from the inconclusive, multi-contributor DNA evidence already presented regarding a gun both parties had used.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 35(c) ineffective-assistance claim may be summarily denied when its prejudice allegations are conclusory or speculative.
- A PTSD diagnosis alone does not show that the defendant could not form the required culpable mental state.
- A defendant challenging counsel’s expert strategy must explain how the proposed expert evidence would probably have altered the outcome.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the factual specificity required to obtain a postconviction hearing. A defendant must connect the omitted investigation or expert testimony to a viable defense and a reasonably probable different verdict, rather than merely identify evidence that might have been explored.