Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, four counts of aggravated rape. The trial court sentenced Defendant to forty years on each of the aggravated rape convictions and structured service of the sentences to result in an effective term of eighty years. The judgment orders designated Defendant a "Multiple 35% Range 2" offender but did not designate Defendant as a "Multiple Rapist." The court of criminal appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence. Defendant then filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the trial court did not have authority to sentence him as a "Multiple 35% Range 2" offender. The habeas corpus court denied relief. The court of criminal appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted habeas corpus relief, holding that Defendant's four sentences for his four aggravated rape convictions were illegal because each of the judgment orders indicated that Defendant was eligible for early release on parole (by the designation "Multiple 35% Range 2" offender) instead of indicating that he must serve his entire sentence (by the designation "Multiple Rapist") in direct contravention of Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-523. Remanded for the entry of amended judgment orders reflecting Defendant's status as a "Multiple Rapist." View "Cantrell v. Easterling" on Justia Law

Defendant Gary Wade was convicted of aggravated burglary, theft of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, and theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. The trial court classified Wade as a career offender. On appeal, the court of criminal appeals found (1) that the conviction for theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000 violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and was therefore dismissed; (2) that, if properly convicted of the remaining offenses, the defendant qualified as a persistent rather than a career offender; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for aggravated burglary and theft of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. The State appealed. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the judgment of the appellate court with regard to two of the convictions, holding that the evidence presented at trial warrants reinstatement of the convictions for aggravated burglary and theft of property with a value of $10,000 or more but less tan $60,000; and (2) affirmed the appellate court's determination that Wade qualifies as a persistent rather than career offender. Remanded. View "Tennessee v. Sisk" on Justia Law

Defendant Cedric Johnson was charged with committing an aggravated robbery and was separately charged with initiating a false police report. Within one month of being indicted for initiating a false police report, Defendant pled guilty to the offense. The trial record revealed that Defendant's car was used in the robbery, and in order to thwart discovery by the police, Defendant reported the car as stolen. The grand jury indicted Defendant for aggravated robbery. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the robbery indictment, arguing that he had already been prosecuted for filing the false report in connection with the robbery. The trial court granted Defendant's motion, and the State appealed. The issue before the Supreme Court pertained to offenses arising from the same criminal episode. In the Defendant's case, the Court found that the two offenses were not part of the same episode, and therefore, the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's dismissal of the robbery charge. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.