Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

With regard to criminal offenses, the circumstances surrounding the offense are often critical in determining both how a defendant is charged and how a defendant is sentenced if he or she is convicted. In many cases, the events occur in a particular order or in a particular way that makes the difference in whether or not the defendant is subjected to much more serious punishment than the defendant would be absent the particular circumstances. For an example, look to State v. White, a case that recently came before the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

In White, an issue arose as to whether or not the victim suffered serious bodily injury during the commission of a robbery. If the victim did suffer such injury during the commission of the offense, the defendant would be facing a Class B felony charge of especially aggravated robbery which carries a thirty year maximum prison turn. However, if the victim did not suffer the injury during the commission of the offense, the defendant would be looking at the Class C felony charge of aggravated robbery, which carries a fifteen year maximum prison term. The difference in this case was thus a possible fifteen year prison sentence increase.

Continue reading "Circumstances are Key in Criminal Cases" »

In what is a somewhat bizarre case, the Tennessee Supreme Court will decide soon what type of speech qualifies as a request for an attorney. A defendant is constitutionally guaranteed the right to an attorney but in order to exercise that right, the defendant must make a clear and unequivocal request for an attorney so that law enforcement officials know that an attorney is being requested. In State v. Turner, the Tennessee Supreme Court will take a look at just how clear and unequivocal that request has to be.

In Turner, the defendant was arrested for murder and robbery and taken into custody. While in custody, he gave a statement to police admitting his involvement in the crimes. However, defendant apparently made several different statements indicating his desire for a Tennessee criminal defense attorney during the interrogation process, which seemed to indicate that he was asserting his Miranda right to counsel and did not wish to proceed further into the process without an attorney. The defendant made statements such as “Are you my lawyer?”; “How quick will my lawyer get here?”; Will my lawyer get here today?”; Do I need to get a lawyer?”; and “Get me a lawyer.”

Continue reading "Request for an Attorney Must be Unequivocal" »

One of the most difficult things about the practice of law is that the law is constantly evolving. Even laws that have been worded exactly the same way for hundreds of years are always being reinterpreted and laws that seem to have plain meaning can be a source of controversy when they are applied to complicated or novel factual scenarios. Some such controversies make their way to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which has several notable criminal cases on its upcoming docket.

One case, styled State v. Swift presents an interesting fact situation that calls for an interpretation of Tennessee’s aggravated robbery statute. The issue presented in this case is whether the evidence is sufficient to justify convicting the defendant of aggravated robbery where the violence or intimidation occurred after the taking that constituted the robbery was complete. If the evidence is insufficient, the defendant seems likely to be convicted of theft and aggravated assault, which could potentially result in a much lower sentence for the defendant than would the aggravated robbery charge.

Continue reading "Tennessee Supreme Court Has Several Criminal Cases On the Docket" »

Many of our previous blogs have discussed mitigating factors that may be useful to defendants in the sentencing phase of their criminal trials and this one continues that trend. The fact that the defendant played a minor role in the offense for which he or she was convicted is a useful mitigating factor recognized by the State of Tennessee that may serve to reduce the defendant’s sentence. To make use of this factor, the defendant simply needs to prove that he or she was convicted of an offense in which he or she played a minor role as compared to others who may have played a more significant role in the offense. Basically, the defendant is saying that other people were more responsible for, or played a bigger part in, the commission of the offense than the defendant.

A good example of this is provided by a botched robbery attempt that occurred in Conroe, Texas recently. The robbery was initially scheduled to be a four-man operation, but all four did not participate. The suspected getaway driver, exhibiting the kind of calm under pressure that most only dream of, was found by police sleeping soundly a couple of blocks from the jewelry store that was the target of the robbery attempt. Evidence in the car reportedly linked him to the robbery. His services, however, were not needed as the other participants failed to disable the alarm and were apprehended before they could execute the burglary.

Continue reading "Mitigating Factors: Minor Role in the Offense" »

Bucking the long-standing tradition of teenage girls asking their parents for money when they needed some, a couple of young girls, one age twelve and the other about fourteen or fifteen, decided to “ask” the bank instead. The two girls walked into an Ohio bank earlier this month around 3 p.m., apparently unarmed, and gave the bank teller a note (which may or may not have been written in bubble letters with hearts dotting the letter “i”) demanding money. The bank teller complied and the girls fled the scene with an unidentified amount of money. Thus far, the girls have been able to avoid an extensive search by law enforcement officials.

While the age of the bank robbers is notable from a publicity standpoint, it is also relevant from a criminal law standpoint. In Tennessee, sentences are determined by starting at the presumptive sentence for a given offense and then using mitigating or enhancement factors to increase or decrease the sentence as warranted. One statutory mitigating factor that can be used to decrease a sentence reads thus: “the defendant, because of youth or old age, lacked substantial judgment in committing the offense.”

Continue reading "Young Girls Suspected in Bank Robbery" »

A Panama City man recently took desperate measures to avoid the wrath of his wife, telling the police that he had been robbed in order to avoid having to tell her he had spent too much money. The man apparently called police and reported that he had just been attacked outside a store by a person dressed in black who made off with one hundred dollars of the man’s money (at least his story wasn’t generic).

Unfortunately for the man, the surveillance tapes from the store at which he had just finished shopping showed him leaving the store and sitting in his car for a little while before coming back into the store to make the phone call, proving that he had not actually been robbed. The man admitted to police that he had concocted the story in order to avoid having to tell his wife that he had actually spent the money. He was arrested and charged with filing a false report.

Continue reading "Man Lies About Robbery Out of Fear of Wife" »

For whatever reason, carjacking offenses seem to be frequenting the headlines as of late. A carjacking recently dominated the news in East Tennessee when it was the first act allegedly committed by the defendants in the Christian-Newsom murders in Knoxville in order to kidnap the victims. More recently, the daughter of Tennessee Senator Bob Corker was the victim of a carjacking while traveling to her family’s apartment in the Washington D.C. area. She apparently stopped at an intersection when she was approached by someone, dragged from her Chevy Tahoe, and thrown to the ground. The suspects then drove off in the Tahoe, but it was found later that night and the suspects were arrested.

Carjacking is appropriately classified under the “robbery” offenses in Tennessee’s criminal code. It is defined as the intentional or knowing taking of a motor vehicle from the possession of another by the use of force, intimidation, or a deadly weapon. Throwing someone to the ground and stealing their car would thus fall clearly within the language of the statute.

Continue reading "Senator's Daughter Victim of Carjacking" »

Bell-ringers from the Salvation Army are synonymous with Christmas and one can find them in front of virtually any major storefront this time of year, donating their time and effort in an attempt to raise money to help the less fortunate. Apparently one of the less fortunate decided to help themselves last Saturday evening, to the money that is. A 44 year-old man named Shawn Krieger of Toledo, Ohio pushed a Salvation Army bell-ringer down last Saturday and absconded with her kettle of donations. The man, obviously filled to the brim with the holiday spirit, remarked “I can’t stand you and your bell-ringing. I hate Christmas,” before getting away with an estimated $500. He was later arrested and charged with robbery.

While there is nothing illegal about not being in the Christmas spirit, there is something very illegal about robbery. Robbery in Tennessee is defined as “the intentional or knowing theft of property from the person of another by violence or putting the person in fear.” Clearly the man’s thievery of the Salvation Army’s money kettle would apply since he pushed the bell-ringer to the ground before taking her kettle. Robbery is a Class C felony in Tennessee, punishable by three to fifteen years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Robbery committed under the circumstances described above may also subject the offender to receiving a stocking full of coal.

Continue reading "How the Grinch Stole...Money from the Salvation Army" »

Everyone has heard the old adage “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight,” but until recently no one had offered a satisfactory answer as to what should be brought instead. Clearly the person heading to the gun fight does not have a gun, or they would not have contemplated bringing a knife initially. Luckily for all unarmed gunfighters, the brilliant employees at the appropriately-named Einstein Brothers Bagels in Orlando, Florida have provided a definitive answer. When two would-be robbers walked into Einstein Brothers armed with a shotgun early yesterday morning, one of the employees pushed a bagel cart at the robbers. Sensing impending doom at the sight of the cart full of assorted bagels screaming toward them, the robbers fled.

For whatever reason, armed robbery seems to be popping up with increasing frequency in both the local and national headlines. Armed robbery is classified as aggravated robbery in Tennessee under T.C.A. section 39-13-402, which upgrades a robbery charge to aggravated robbery if a deadly weapon or the appearance or threat of a deadly weapon is used, or if the victim suffers serious bodily injury. Even though a shotgun is clearly no match for a bagel cart, it is still considered a deadly weapon in Tennessee. Thus, the crime detailed above would have been an aggravated robbery in Tennessee had the robbers followed through with their apparent plan to rob the store.

Continue reading "Bagel Cart Fends Off Robbery Attempt" »