Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

DNA evidence is a critical component of some criminal investigations, and it is an essential component of most criminal investigations that take place on many popular network television shows. The acquisition of DNA evidence is often key in many criminal cases because the composition of the DNA in an individual is a combination of the DNA of that individual’s parents, and, unless that person has an identical twin, his or her DNA is unique. Thus, DNA evidence has been used not only to prove that persons were guilty of crimes but also that many individuals who were wrongly convicted in the past were actually innocent all along. Despite the advances DNA technology has offered to the world of criminal investigation, it is often not a foolproof method for determining whether someone committed a crime. The Tennessee Supreme Court has a case on its upcoming docket in which it will hear an issue regarding the strength of DNA evidence.

In the upcoming case styled State v. Lewter, the Tennessee Supreme Court will decide if the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of burglary and theft where the only evidence linking the defendant to the offense was a shirt that was left behind which contained skin cells matching the defendant’s DNA. The defendant was obviously convicted of the offenses based on this evidence at the trial court level or he would not have appealed. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court ruled that DNA is not like a fingerprint or blood sample in that its presence alone cannot prove that the defendant was present at the time of the theft and overturned the conviction. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, and the case now comes before the state’s highest court.

Continue reading "DNA Evidence Issue to be Reviewed" »

The Tennessee Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could significantly expand the scope of the crime of theft in the state. In a case styled State v. Butler, the defendants are charged with theft of services for allegedly underreporting their income in order to obtain cheaper public housing. The trial court dismissed the indictment based on the fact that the public housing obtained by the defendants does not fall within the definition of “services” under the theft of services statute.

The Tennessee Code Annotated defines “services” for the purposes of theft of services in T.C.A. section 39-11-106(35). The term “services”:
“includes labor, skill, professional service, transportation, telephone, mail, gas, electricity, steam, water, cable television or other public services, accommodations in hotels, restaurants or elsewhere, admissions to exhibitions, use of vehicles or other movable property, and any other activity or product considered in the ordinary course of business to be a service, regardless of whether it is listed in this subdivision (35) or a specific statute exists covering the same or similar conduct”

Continue reading "State's Highest Court to Hear Theft of Services Case" »

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" »

Anyone who has ever been to the hospital knows that the wait times can be extremely long, making for a frustrating experience. Twenty-eight year-old Mindy Jones of Del City, Oklahoma was experiencing that same frustration early Friday morning when she decided she had had enough and was ready to go home. Unfortunately for Ms. Jones, she did not have a vehicle at the hospital because she was there awaiting a blood test after being arrested for DUI following a hit-and-run. Ms. Jones, operating on “no car, no problem” philosophy, refused to be deterred and decided that she would just grab a spare ambulance from the hospital parking lot and drive herself home. After leading police on a fifty-mile chase from the hospital to her home, she politely parked the ambulance in her driveway before being arrested. Her deep remorse became evident when, upon being arrested in her driveway, she told reporters that she “had the ambulance and had a pretty good time driving it.”

Ms. Jones will obviously face a variety of charges, but one that is not often dealt with is the offense of joyriding. Joyriding is the unauthorized use of automobiles or other vehicles and is chargeable any time a person “takes another's automobile, airplane, motorcycle, bicycle, boat or other vehicle without the consent of the owner and the person does not have the intent to deprive the owner thereof.” The lack of intent to deprive the owner of the vehicle is included in the definition to distinguish the offense of joyriding from the offense of theft, which is where someone takes another’s vehicle with the intent to deprive them of that vehicle permanently.

Continue reading "Woman, Tired of Waiting at Hospital, Steals an Ambulance to Drive Home" »

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" »

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" »

Few things are more annoying in life than when you go to all the trouble to break into a house so you can have a nice shower and then the residents come home early and ruin it. A man from Clearwater, Florida found himself in this situation recently, and when asked by the residents what he was doing in the home, the man gave the first reasonable answer that popped into his head: President Obama let him in. Presidents generally get a lot of blame and credit for things that are not their fault, but it is highly unlikely that President Obama makes a habit of going around letting burglars into peoples’ homes, especially considering that he has had security issues to worry about at his own home as of late. The wisecracks didn’t stop there, however; the man seemingly fancied himself somewhat of a stand-up comedian, telling police that “the Yellow Brick Road brought him to Crestview.” Hilarity ensued.

Burglary in Tennessee of a habitation is considered aggravated burglary and is a Class C felony, punishable by up to fifteen years in prison and a fine not to exceed $10,000. A “habitation” under Tennessee law is basically any building that is designed or adapted to provide overnight accommodations for a person.

Continue reading "Burglar Tells Residents Obama Let Him In" »

Any successful restaurant owner knows that the key to forming a stable base of repeat customers is calling the police on your patrons when they refuse to pay gratuity for bad service. At least that was the strategy employed by an employee of a Bethlehem, Pennsylvania pub recently who called the cops on two patrons who paid the entirety of their bill minus the added gratuity because they said their service was subpar. They were charged with theft of $16 since the gratuity was part of the bill.

In Tennessee, anyone who refused to pay an added gratuity in the same manner could technically be charged with theft of $500 or less under the Tennessee statute, since taking food and services of the restaurant without paying for it in its entirety does technically meet the requirements of the theft statute that a person knowingly obtain or exercise control over a person’s property without that person’s consent (in this case without paying for it). Theft in East Tennessee of $500 or less is a Class A Misdemeanor, punishable by up to eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail and a $2500 fine.

Continue reading "Couple Arrested for Refusing to Tip at Restaurant" »

The hits keep on coming for the University of Tennessee football team, especially off the field. Just last week the team was faced with the distraction of having three players charged with attempted armed robbery which resulted in two of them being dismissed from the team and the third suspended from participating in team activities. Now this week it has been discovered that freshman safety Nyshier Oliver was arrested for shoplifting about five hours before Tennessee kicked off against Memphis on November 7th. Apparently he was spotted putting a shirt that costs about $100 in a shopping bag without paying for it at a department store in West Town Mall which led to the arrest. He has been charged with shoplifting.

Shoplifting is basically punished as theft of property in Tennessee. A person is guilty of shoplifting when, with intent to deprive a merchant of the stated price of the merchandise, that person knowingly does any of the following:

1. Conceals the merchandise;


2. Removes, takes possession of, or causes the removal of merchandise;


3. Alters, transfers or removes any price marking, or any other marking which aids in determining value affixed to the merchandise;


4. Transfers the merchandise from one container to another; or


5. Causes the cash register or other sales recording device to reflect less than the merchant's stated price for the merchandise.

Continue reading "Legal Woes Continue for Tennessee Football Team" »

One of the biggest keys to orchestrating a proper burglary would seem to be having a good disguise. For example, a burglar may wear a Bill Clinton mask while breaking into a house in order to pin the crime on the former president rather than themselves. Almost anything can be used to hide a face during a criminal activity, and almost anything has, including ski masks, underwear, paper bags, and cardboard boxes. The most important characteristics of a good disguise are twofold. First, it is important that the disguise makes it so that people cannot recognize you (hence the “disguise” element). Second, it must be easy to dispose of after the commission of the crime to avoid leaving a trail of evidence. Two clever criminals from Iowa recently neglected these two important factors in coming up with their disguise, facilitating their arrest for burglary.

The expression, “It’s written all over your face,” is often used to describe someone who looks guilty or whose face gives away the truth in some fashion. This phrase has taken on new meaning after the two burglars mentioned above decided to disguise themselves during a burglary attempt by coloring their faces with permanent markers. Shockingly, this disguise proved ineffective. Not only did the permanent marker fail to hide their facial features, but the burglars were more than likely the only two people riding around town with permanent marker all over their faces. Such a disguise clearly fails both of the important disguise-choosing criteria discussed above and was woefully ineffective at helping the criminals evade authorities. Police pulled over a car matching the description given by the victims some time after the burglary, saw the two men sitting inside with marker all over their faces, and arrested them. They were charged with burglary.

Continue reading "Men Use Permanent Marker to Create Burglary Disguise" »

Three University of Tennessee football players have been charged in connection with an attempted robbery that allegedly took place on Cumberland Avenue early Thursday morning. Janzen Jackson, Nu’Keese Richardson, and Mike Edwards have been identified as three of the suspects who were arrested in connection with the incident. The victims were apparently sitting in a vehicle at a Pilot gas station on Cumberland Avenue during the wee hours of Thursday morning when two males in hooded sweatshirts approached the car and demanded that the victims hand over everything they have. One of the males was also in possession of what appeared to be a handgun. The third male then came over and told the other two suspects that they needed to leave. A search of the surrounding area eventually uncovered the vehicle used by the suspects in the commission of the offense. A search of the vehicle’s contents uncovered two black hooded sweatshirts, marijuana paraphernalia, and a black pellet gun. The suspects were taken back to the site of the attempted robbery and identified by the victims. They have been charged with attempted aggravated robbery.

Aggravated robbery is a Class B felony in Tennessee, punished by up to thirty years in prison. A robbery is considered “aggravated” when the victim suffers serious bodily injury, the robbery is accomplished with a deadly weapon, or the robbery is accomplished with some item used or fashioned to lead the victim to believe it is a deadly weapon. In this case, it is clearly the latter condition that upgrades the robbery charge to aggravated robbery. The pellet gun was used in such a manner that the victim(s) believed it was a real gun and thus a deadly weapon. It is worth noting that this criterion can apply even where no type of gun is used at all. In fact, merely poking a finger through one’s shirt would qualify as aggravated robbery if it led the victim to believe the robber had a gun.

Continue reading "Three Vols Charged with Attempted Aggravated Robbery" »

In the wake of one of the worst recessions in American history, families simply do not have the discretionary income they once had. Pretty much everyone is feeling the crunch of not having the discretionary income necessary to afford certain luxuries. Take, for example, Trista Lathern, a Texas woman who recently became an entrepreneur of sorts in order to raise money to buy breast implants. Not having the money to buy them immediately, Mrs. Lathern did what any reasonable American would do and came up with a business model. However, that model consisted of an illegal scam in which she pretended to have cancer in order to get donations from sympathizers with which she intended to buy the breast implants.

Mrs. Lathern went as far as shaving her head under the pretense of undergoing chemotherapy and collected over $10,000 at a cancer benefit stages on her behalf. Unfortunately for Mrs. Lathern she will not be allowed to keep those donations, but there is a chance that, hearing of Mrs. Lathern’s touching story, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice will be willing to donate food, clothing, and shelter to her for about a half-decade or so. She has been charged with theft by deception, a felony in Texas.

Continue reading "Woman Fakes Cancer to Raise Money for Breast Implants" »

The 2007 murders of two college students in Knoxville, known to some as the Chipman Street Murders, have captured the attention of many Tennesseans. In addition, they have produced some of the most high-profile criminal trials in the East Tennessee area in quite some time. One of the most recent developments in this series of trials is that the judge has ruled that Lemaricus Davidson, one of the defendants accused of the murders, has until Monday to decide whether or not he wants to testify in his own defense. While Davidson seems to want to do so, it may be problematic for him because his taking the stand will allow the prosecution to question him about a Tennessee aggravated robbery charge that was levied against him in 2001. Ultimately, the decision is up to Davidson, as the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a defendant’s right to testify is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant’s right to testify by giving the defendant the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses in the defendant’s favor. Clearly this would give the defendant the right to call witnesses to the stand, and the defendant can be such a witness. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law has been found to give the defendant the right to testify on his own behalf, as this right is an essential part of the adversarial system. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause has been further construed to apply these rights to the states, so that the right to testify is guaranteed in both state and federal court.

Continue reading "Defendant in Chipman Street Murders Mulls Decision to Testify" »

A Tennessee man recently learned the hard way that you cannot evade authorities by hiding in a tree. According to WBIR.com, the man had entered a convenience store and stuffed several beers in his clothes before walking out. When the man was confronted in the parking lot by an employee, he pulled out what appeared to be a gun and escaped. Upon searching the area in response to an armed robbery call, the police found their suspect camouflaged among the branches of a nearby tree.

Near the man, they also found beer and a BB gun, leading to the logical conclusion that this was indeed the man who had robbed the convenience store. When confronted with this evidence, the fact that he was hiding in a tree, and the fact that two witnesses placed him at the scene, the man gave the police a series of fake aliases in order to attempt to avoid prosecution. Police were able to see through the ruse, however, and have identified the suspect’s real name. His attempt at assuming a fake identity resulted in his being charged with criminal impersonation in Knoxville.

Continue reading "Suspect Trees Himself, Gives Fake Identification Info" »

The subject of animals can be very divisive in modern day society. Some people treat them like family members and genuinely love and care for them as such; others view them as annoyances and entertain murderous thoughts when they are woken up at four in the morning by their neighbor’s dog deafeningly deterring some random disturbance in the night; still others simply don’t care one way or the other about animals. And then there are always those whose love for animals is based on how much their body parts would bring on the black market.

While that last category of animal appreciator may seem unusual, it is exactly the mindset of two teens arrested recently in Florida for allegedly going on a killing spree involving almost twenty horses. The teen was charged with armed burglary, animal cruelty, killing a registered breed horse, and breaking a fence. According to the article, the teen was among those who were butchering live horses statewide in an effort to sell the horses’ meat on the black market. According to AOL News, the meat sells for as much as $40 per pound, at least in part because some people believe horse meat can cure diseases like cancer and AIDS.

In Tennessee, intentionally killing an animal is basically treated as theft of property and punished according to the value of the animal if the killing of the animal is not justified. Under the Tennessee statute, one is only justified in killing an animal upon the reasonable belief that the animal is creating an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to that person, another person, or an animal owned by that person. Thus, killing an animal as described in the article above would be a criminal act in Tennessee, punished in the same manner as theft in Tennessee. Theft of Property ranges from a Class A Misdemeanor charge if the property is valued at less than $500 to a Class B Felony if the property is valued at $60,000 or more under T.C.A. section 39-14-105.

Continue reading "Intentional Killing of Animals in Tennessee" »

By way of introduction, I discuss in this entry the General Assembly’s express purposes in enacting the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act.

The Reform Act is the end result of comprehensive penal and sentencing reform legislation enacted in 1989 to address inconsistencies found in the penal code. Addressing these inconsistencies, the General Assembly set standards for crime classification and sentencing methodology. Principles underlying this unifying approach were also codified (or re-codified) in TCA 40-35-102 to ensure fairness and justice in sentencing procedures. Five principles are discussed below:

First, every defendant is to be punished by a sentence he or she justly deserves in relation to the seriousness of the offense. As will be seen, violent crimes like homicide and aggravated assault generally carry more severe consequences than other crimes. Furthermore, the seriousness of theft and vandalism offenses depends on the value of the property stolen or destroyed.

Second, defendants are assured fair and consistent treatment by eliminating unjustified disparities in sentencing and by providing a fair sense of predictability. In pursuit of this goal, the legislature examined the crimes in Tennessee and ranked them according to the perceived seriousness of each defense. The General Assembly created 5 classes of felonies (A through E) with each class carrying a defined prison and fine range. For example, the prison range for a Class E felony is one to 6 years, whereas the prison range for a Class A felony is 15 to 60 years. The General Assembly also created 3 separate ranges for misdemeanors.

Third, the goal of punishment is to prevent crime and promote respect for the law. Accordingly, sentences should provide an effective deterrent to those who are likely to violate the law, restrain defendants with lengthy criminal histories, encourage rehabilitation through alternative sentencing and correctional programs, and encouraging restitution to victims where appropriate.

Continue reading "Criminal Sentencing in Tennessee: Purposes of the Reform Act" »

Driving off without paying for gas is a serious offense in Tennessee. Not only can you lose your license, but you can be put in jail and be required to pay fines. Probation, restitution and license restoration fees may also be involved. Moreover, a gasoline theft conviction goes on your permanent public record, risking your reputation and job opportunities.

What is gasoline theft? Gasoline theft is treated under the law as any other theft crime in that punishment is meted out based upon the value of the product stolen. Since in the typical case a tank of gas is less than $500, gasoline theft is usually charged as a Class A misdemeanor, carrying a prison sentence of no more than a year and/or up to a $2,500 fine.

As a theft crime, a person who is charged with gasoline theft also has available to him/her certain “affirmative” defenses. An affirmative defense is when you admit to certain factual allegations but assert other facts that constitute a legally recognizable excuse or justification for your actions actions. Self defense in a murder case is an example of an affirmative defense.

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for gasoline theft that you either:

• acted under an honest claim of right to the property involved,


• acted in the honest belief that you had the right to obtain or exercise control over the gasoline, or


• obtained or exercised control over property honestly believing that the owner, if present, would have consented to you taking the gasoline.

Continue reading "Gasoline Theft and Affirmative Defenses" »

According to the Knoxville Police Department, there were 109 home invasion robberies last year within the Knoxville city limits. There have already been 60 home-invasion robberies since January of this year.

The KPD insists that these numbers don’t mean that there is an epidemic of violent robberies in Knoxville. A spokesman for the KPD indicated that, since 2003, only 3 people have died and “several others” have been injured during the course of a home invasion.

He also indicated that most home invasions are usually fueled by the illegal drug trade. “In nearly every single incident, the facts of the investigation have indicated that there had been some kind of prior [illicit] business dealing between the suspects and the victims, or that it was family related. It’s very rare to have a complete stranger home invasion.”

Nevertheless, homeowners and tenants in Tennessee generally have the right to defend themselves against home invaders.

Under Tennessee law, a person can use deadly force to protect against someone who unlawfully and forcibly enters his or her home, without having the duty to retreat, if he or she has a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. (The danger creating the belief of imminent bodily injury must also be real or honestly believed to be real at the time of the invasion, and the belief of danger must be founded upon reasonable grounds.)

Continue reading "Home Invasions in Tennessee" »

Contributing to the delinquency of a person under the age of 18 is a crime in Tennessee and is punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a $2,500 fine. Additionally, if vandalism is involved, the defendant may be responsible for the costs of repair and restoration.

To be found guilty of the crime, the state must prove that the defendant contributed to or encouraged delinquency, a delinquent act, or unruly behavior of a child. A delinquent act is conduct that amounts to a crime under state law, federal law, or local ordinance. On the other hand, unruly behavior consists of habitual truancy, disobedience to parents, commission of crimes only applicable to children (such as underage drinking), and running away from home.

Examples of contributing to the delinquency of a minor include encouraging or enabling a child to:

• Watch sexually explicit materials (pornography);


• Smoke cigarettes or otherwise use tobacco products;


• Drink alcohol;


• Sell or use controlled substances like marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, and prescription drugs;


• Skip school; and


• Theft.

Continue reading "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor in Tennessee" »

Shoplifting is a “theft of property” offense in Tennessee. Under the Tennessee Code, a person commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent.

Sentencing for shoplifting depends on the value of the merchandise that was allegedly stolen. If the value of the property was $500 or less, the crime is classified as a Class A misdemeanor. This means that, if convicted, you could be facing up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Theft of property for merchandise valued over $500 is a felony and carries much stiffer penalties.

To be convicted of shoplifting, however, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. Thus, in addition to the other elements of the crime, the state must prove that you intended to deprive the owner of merchandise. Under this requirement, a person is not guilty of shoplifting if he or she accidentally walked out of the store with merchandise. To deprive means to withhold property from the owner permanently or for such a period of time as to substantially diminish the value or enjoyment of the property to the owner. Accordingly, the state will likely need more evidence than the fact that you were caught with store merchandise.

While facing criminal charges for shoplifting can be a frightening and intimidating experience, you need to know that you are innocent until proven guilty. What this means is that it is the state’s initial responsibility to come forth with sufficient evidence to charge and convict you of a theft crime. The mere accusation of shoplifting is not enough.

Continue reading "What is Considered a Shoplifting Offense in Tennessee? " »

In designating carjacking as a more serious crime than theft and robbery in Tennessee, the General Assembly recognized that carjacking is usually committed by someone who tries to flee from the scene of another crime and that such action creates a substantial risk of harm to the public. Consequently, carjacking is a Class B felony, which carries a prison sentence between 8 and thirty years and a fine not to exceed $25,000.

Under Tennessee’s criminal code, carjacking is “the intentional or knowing taking of a motor vehicle from the possession of another by use of either,

• A deadly weapon, or


• Force or intimidation.”

A deadly weapon typically means a firearm but can also include any object that is designed, made or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, such as a club, knife or an automobile.

Deadly weapons seem serious enough, but defendants can also be on the hook simply for sneaking up on someone, pushing her out of the way, and taking her vehicle. This conduct falls under the rubric of force and intimidation. All that is required is that the victim be placed in fear.

Continue reading "Carjacking Crimes in Tennessee" »

If race or ethnicity is a factor in determining the target of a Tennessee theft crime, the state may well “throw the book” at the defendant by arguing for sentence enhancement and alleging a civil rights intimidation offense. The facts of the case, State v. Lamar, provide an illustration.

On May 23, 2007, in Hamilton County, Franklin Lamar (defendant) and two others hatched a plan to rob a single Hispanic woman who lived down the road from where the defendant lived. According to Mr. Lamar’s testimony, he and an accomplice were “talking about these little Mexicans up the street…[and] that they be having a lot of money on them whatever.” They walked up to the woman’s home, pushed in the door, and stole the victim’s piggy bank containing approximately $100 in change. A detective said that it was common for Hispanic people to be specifically targeted for robbery in Hamilton County.

Mr. Lamar was caught hiding in a trash can, charged with robbery and civil rights intimidation, and subsequently convicted. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge rejected alternative sentencing, which would have limited the defendant’s sentence to probation. Instead, the court enhanced the defendant’s sentence upon a finding that he specifically targeted an ethnic group for the commission of robbery. Consequently, Mr. Lamar received four years in prison for the robbery conviction and two years to be served concurrently with his civil rights intimidation conviction.

State v. Lamar illustrates how a judge can enhance the defendant’s sentence based on who he selects as a victim and the reasons for that selection. Under T.C.A. § 40-35-114(17), if appropriate for the offense and if not already an essential element of the offense, the court is required to consider as a sentence enhancement factor whether the defendant selected the victim because of the defendant's belief or perception regarding race or ethnicity. Since victim selection based on race or ethnicity is not an element of a theft offense in Tennessee, the judge had the power to increase Mr. Lamar’s sentence.

State v. Lamar also shows how racial targeting is a stand-alone crime in Tennessee pursuant to T.C.A. § 39-17-309. This law makes it a felony to injure or coerce another person with the intent to intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee. The rights considered in this law are the rights to be free from fear, intimidation, harassment and bodily injury caused by the activities of groups and individuals.

If you have been charged with a criminal civil rights violation and/or robbery in Tennessee, don’t settle for inexperience; call the skilled and experienced Knoxville criminal defense attorneys at Baker Associates for a free and thorough consultation.

Damage to personal property is often thought of as a cause of action in civil litigation. If someone destroys property, they should have to pay for it. But what about the criminal side of it? Can criminal sanctions be brought against someone who destroys property? Under certain conditions: yes. TCA § 39-14-408 lays out the standards for criminal vandalism.

Under TCA § 39-14-408, a person may be charged with criminal vandalism if they knowingly or intentionally damage the personal or real property of another. “Another” can mean a private individual, the state, the United States, or a city or town. The person against whom the vandalism occurs in not important; the important factor in vandalism cases is that this destruction takes place when the accused knows that they do not have the owner’s effective consent to damage or destroy the property. Therefore, negligent or reckless damage to the property of another will likely not rise to the level of vandalism. The statute is clear that the accused must either knowingly or intentionally caused the damage without the owner’s consent.

The damage caused may include destroying, polluting, or contaminating property, or tampering with the property in such a way as to cause pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third party.

Often times, vandalism charges may be compounded with a number of other charges, including trespass and burglary. The trespass and burglary charges in Tennessee will relate to the entry on the property, while the vandalism charge will relate to the actual damage caused.

If convicted of vandalism, the punishment is the same as that for theft (TCA § 39-14-105). If the value of the damage is less than $500, it will be a Class A misdemeanor; $500-$1,000 is a Class E felony; $1,000-$10,000 is a Class D felony; $10,000-$60,000 is a Class C felony; and more than $60,000 is a class B felony.

If you are facing any of the charges mentioned above, then it may be in your best interest to contact a skilled Pigeon Forge criminal defense attorney. Call Baker Associates today for a free evaluation.

The criminal defense attorneys at Baker Associates near Knoxville, Tennessee, have successfully represented many individuals charged with property crimes, including Joyriding.

Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-14-106 states that a person commits Class A misdemeanor Joyriding who takes another person's automobile, airplane, motorcycle, bicycle, boat, or other vehicle without the consent of the owner and the person does not have the intent to deprive the owner thereof, i.e., the person takes or "borrows" the vehicle without permission but without the intent to keep it forever, as in a theft.
Joyriding, a Class A misdemeanor, is punishable up to eleven months, twenty-nine days in jail and a fine up to $2,500.

If you or a loved one has been charged with Felony Theft of an automobile, or the lesser offense of Joyriding in Knoxville or Sevierville, Tennessee, contact our criminal defense attorneys today for your free initial consultation.

Source: T.C.A. § 39-14-106.

The criminal defense attorneys at Baker Associates have successfully represented individuals charged with theft offenses in Tennessee. In Tennessee, offenses such as embezzlement, false pretense, fraudulent conversion, larceny, and receiving or concealing stolen property are consolidated under the offense of Theft. Theft offenses include Theft of Property, Theft of Services, Joyriding, Extortion, Forgery, Criminal Simulation, Hindering Secured Creditors, Fraud in Insolvency, and Worthless Checks.

According to Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-14-104, a person commits
Theft of Services who:
(1) Intentionally obtains services by deception, fraud, coercion, false pretense or any other means to avoid payment for the services;
(2) Having control over the disposition of services to others, knowingly diverts those services to the person's own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled thereto; or
(3) Knowingly absconds from establishments where compensation for services is ordinarily paid immediately upon the rendering of them, including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, and restaurants, without payment or bona fide offer to pay.

The penalty for Theft of Services depends upon the monetary value of the services:
(1) Class A Misdemeanor if the value of the services obtained is five hundred dollars ($500) or less, punishable by a maximum penalty of eleven months and twenty-nine days and a fine up to $2,500.00.
(2) Class E Felony if the value of the services obtained is more than five hundred dollars ($500) but less than one thousand dollars ($1000), punishable by one (1) to (6) years and a fine up to $3,000;
(3) Class D Felony if the value of the services obtained is more than one thousand dollars ($1000) but less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), punishable by two (2) to twelve (12) years and a fine up to $5,000;
(4) Class C Felony if the value of the services obtained is more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) but less than sixty thousand dollars ($60,000), punishable by three (3) to fifteen (15) years and a fine up to $10,000;
(5) Class B Felony if the value of the services obtained is sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) or more, punishable by eight (8) to thirty (30) years and a fine up to $25,000.

Theft of Services:
To be found guilty of the offense of Theft of Services, the State of Tennessee must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(A)(1) That the defendant obtained services;
(2) That these services were obtained either by deception, fraud, coercion, false pretense or by any other means to avoid payment for these services; and
(3) That the defendant acted intentionally.
-or-
(B)(1) That the defendant had control over the disposition of services to others; and
(2) That the defendant diverted those services to his/her own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled thereto; and
(3) That the defendant acted knowingly.
-or-
(C)(1) That the defendant absconded from an establishment where compensation for services is ordinarily paid immediately upon the rendering of these services; and
(2) That the defendant absconded without payment or a bona fide offer to pay; and
(3) That the defendant acted knowingly.

If you have been charged with "skipping out" on a restaurant or hotel bill in Pigeon Forge, splicing cable services from your neighbor in Knoxville, re-routing electrical services in Sevierville, or a similar Theft of Services offense, contact Baker Associates today for a FREE initial consultation.

Our attorneys have successfully represented individuals charged with misdemeanor and felony theft charges.

Sources: T.C.A. §§ 39-14-101, 39-14-104, 39-14-105, 40-35-111; T.P.I. Crim. 11.02.

As gas prices increase across the country, drivers in Tennessee should be mindful that in Tennessee, a person convicted of theft can lose the privilege to drive if the theft involved pumping gasoline at a gas station into the person's vehicle and driving away without paying for it. If you forgot to "Pay at the Pump," contact our Tennessee theft attorneys for a free case consultation. It is important to note that out-of-state drivers are not immune from the driver license suspension. Courts in Tennessee can suspend out-of-state licensed drivers non-resident driving privileges and will propmtly notify the resident's state licensing officials upon suspension.

In addition to the fine and imprisonment authorized by law for the particular theft offense, a judge may suspend the driver license of a first-time offender for up to six months. For second offenders and subsequent offenders, the license suspension is mandatory. For second offenders, the judge shall suspend the person's driver license for a six-month period. Repeat offenders, if convicted of three or more theft offenses for a gasoline drive-off, will have their driver license suspended for one year. For purposes of driver license suspension, there is no distinction between misdemeanor or felony theft of gasoline; all persons convicted of "drive off" gasoline theft are subject to driver license suspension.

If you have been charged with theft in connection with a gasoline "drive off" or other theft offense, contact our experienced Tennessee criminal defense attorneys. Our office has successfully represented individuals charged with misdemeanor and felony theft offenses.

In addition to Fradulent Use of a Credit Card, it is an offense in Tennessee to falsely report a credit or debit card as lost, stolen, or mislaid. Our theft attorneys in Tennessee represent people who have been charged with Reporting of Credit or Debit Card Lost, Stolen, or Mislaid, as well as Fradulent Use of a Credit Card, Forgery, and Theft.

According to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-119, any person who reports or attempts to report a credit or debit card as being lost, stolen, or mislaid knowing the report to be false violates the law, and any person who, with intent to defraud, uses a credit or debit card or information from such card, which has previously been reported lost, stolen, or mislaid violates the law.

If you have been charged with false Reporting of Credit or Debit Card Lost, Stolen, or Mislaid, or with Fraudulent Use of a Credit Card, contact one of our attorneys in Sevierville or Knoxville, Tennessee.