Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

One of the great things about baseball is that you can play it anywhere. All you need is a bat and something to use it on and you can play baseball in some form. A good example of this is provided by a Georgia man who walked into Lilburn, Georgia Wal-Mart on Wednesday, grabbed a baseball bat and smashed up twenty-nine flat screen televisions. He was reportedly arrested soon after he had finished teeing off on the televisions and authorities are still trying to discover his motive. The televisions are reportedly valued at over $22,000.

Under Tennessee law, the man would most likely be charged with vandalism, which can be charged against “[a]ny person who knowingly causes damage to or the destruction of any real or personal property of another or of the state, the United States, any county, city, or town knowing that the person does not have the owner's effective consent.” The destruction of Wal-Mart’s televisions with Wal-Mart’s baseball seems to clearly qualify.

Under Tennessee’s vandalism statute, vandalism is punished like theft. This basically means that the value of the property is determined according to either the fair market value of the property, or, if the fair market value cannot be determined, the cost of replacing the property. Once the value of the property is determined, the amount of value of such property that was lost due to damage or destruction of the property is determined. The offense is then graded according to the amount of property damage that occurred under the same grading system as theft. This is found in T.C.A. section 39-14-105 and classifies theft offenses according to the value of the property obtained, with the harshest possible penalty being a Class B felony for thefts over $60,000. In the case discussed above, the man would likely be looking at a Class C felony because the property’s value is between $10,000 and $60,000. A Class C felony is punishable by up to fifteen years in prison.

Source: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/1008898.html

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" »

On June 15, a West Hills neighborhood was blocked off by police officers after Knoxville City Councilwoman, Barbara Pelot, reported to the police that she had found a suspicious ticking device in her yard. A bomb squad arrived on the scene and after approximately thirty minutes, they determined that the device was not a bomb, but instead some elaborate prank.

The Knoxville News Sentinel reported Pelot as saying that several neighbors had complained beforehand of broken mailboxes, uprooted trees and plants, and landscaping rocks thrown into the streets. Pelot also indicated that there have been no more incidents of vandalism since the fake bomb prank.

As any resident can attest, the events that transpired in the West Hills neighborhood are common incidents one can expect when living in the cities and suburbs of East Tennessee. But vandalism is no laughing matter. If caught, charged and convicted, you could be facing either a high misdemeanor charge or a felony, depending on the amount of damage caused or the cost incurred as a result of the vandalism. In either case, you could be facing jail time and steep fines.

Continue reading "Vandalism Culminates in Bomb Threat in Knoxville Neighborhood" »

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.