State of Tennessee v. Eddie Leroy Rowlett-concurring in part and dissenting in part

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

State of Tennessee v. Eddie Leroy Rowlett-concurring in part and dissenting in part

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedFebruary 26, 2013

DocketM2011-00485-CCA-R3-CD

StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. Eddie Leroy Rowlett-concurring in part and dissenting in part (State of Tennessee v. Eddie Leroy Rowlett-concurring in part and dissenting in part) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Tennessee v. Eddie Leroy Rowlett-concurring in part and dissenting in part, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 23, 2012

STATE OF TENNESSEE V. EDDIE LEROY ROWLETT

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Stewart County No. 4-1967-CR-08 Larry Wallace, Judge

No. M2011-00485-CCA-R3-CD - Filed February 26, 2013

JEFFREY S. BIVINS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault. The majority concludes that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of serious bodily injury to Deputy Saltkill. Nowhere in the Defendant’s brief does he even mention the issue of the sufficiency of the proof as to serious bodily injury. As the majority points out, the “crux of the Defendant’s sufficiency argument is that the State failed to prove that he did not act in self-defense.” Indeed, I submit that, not only is it the “crux” of his argument, it is his only argument. The Defendant’s entire argument on the sufficiency issue is comprised of only one paragraph that consumes less than one-half of a page of the Defendant’s brief. The only citation in the paragraph is to the seminal case Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), regarding the general standard of appellate review on sufficiency issues. Moreover, the only reference to the proof was with regard to the issue of self defense. Under these circumstances, the Defendant clearly has failed to support any argument on the sufficiency of the evidence as to the issue of serious bodily injury “with argument, citation to relevant authorities, or any references to the appellate record.” See Tenn. R. App. P. 27. Accordingly, I would find that the Defendant has waived any sufficiency argument with regard to the issue of serious bodily injury.

Likewise, for the same reasons, with regard to the majority’s decision to address the sufficiency of the evidence as to the conviction for resisting arrest, I would hold that the Defendant has waived that issue. Therefore, I concur in the result reached by the majority on this issue.

I concur with the majority opinion on all other issues. For these reasons, I would affirm the judgments of the trial court in all respects.

_________________________________ JEFFREY S. BIVINS, JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 23, 2012

STATE OF TENNESSEE V. EDDIE LEROY ROWLETT

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Stewart County No. 4-1967-CR-08 Larry Wallace, Judge

No. M2011-00485-CCA-R3-CD - Filed February 26, 2013

JEFFREY S. BIVINS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault. The majority concludes that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of serious bodily injury to Deputy Saltkill. Nowhere in the Defendant’s brief does he even mention the issue of the sufficiency of the proof as to serious bodily injury. As the majority points out, the “crux of the Defendant’s sufficiency argument is that the State failed to prove that he did not act in self-defense.” Indeed, I submit that, not only is it the “crux” of his argument, it is his only argument. The Defendant’s entire argument on the sufficiency issue is comprised of only one paragraph that consumes less than one-half of a page of the Defendant’s brief. The only citation in the paragraph is to the seminal case Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), regarding the general standard of appellate review on sufficiency issues. Moreover, the only reference to the proof was with regard to the issue of self defense. Under these circumstances, the Defendant clearly has failed to support any argument on the sufficiency of the evidence as to the issue of serious bodily injury “with argument, citation to relevant authorities, or any references to the appellate record.” See Tenn. R. App. P. 27. Accordingly, I would find that the Defendant has waived any sufficiency argument with regard to the issue of serious bodily injury.

Likewise, for the same reasons, with regard to the majority’s decision to address the sufficiency of the evidence as to the conviction for resisting arrest, I would hold that the Defendant has waived that issue. Therefore, I concur in the result reached by the majority on this issue.

I concur with the majority opinion on all other issues. For these reasons, I would affirm the judgments of the trial court in all respects.

_________________________________ JEFFREY S. BIVINS, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Tennessee v. Eddie Leroy Rowlett-concurring in part and dissenting in part, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-eddie-leroy-rowlett-concurrin-tenncrimapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack