State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. - Concurring

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. - Concurring

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedMay 31, 2001

DocketM1999-00803-CCA-R3-DD

StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. - Concurring (State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. - Concurring) 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. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 13, 2001 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAUL DENNIS REID, JR.

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County NO . 97-C-1834

NO . M1999-00803-CCA-R3-DD - FILED MAY 31, 2001

James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., concurring.

I fully concur in Judge Hayes’s thorough, incisive opinion. With respect to a portion of the analysis of the especially aggravated robbery sentencing issues, I concur merely in the results.

I agree that the length of the especially aggravated robbery sentence is warranted; however, I would have concluded that the trial court’s imposition of the maximum sentence is supported by the use of enhancement factor (16), that “the crime was committed under circumstances under which the potential for bodily injury to a victim was great.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-114(16) (Supp. 2000). As this court has noted, members of the court have adopted different positions relative to the application of factor (16). In the present case, Judge Hayes adheres to the position he adopted in State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 452-53 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995), which leads him to conclude that factor 16 is inapplicable to enhance the sentence for the especially aggravated robbery of Steve Hampton.

I respectfully subscribe to a different view of this issue. See State v. Eunyce Marie Saunders, No. E1998-00230-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, June 8, 2000) (Witt, J., dissenting and concurring). I agree that factor (16) is inapplicable to Hampton, the victim of the especially aggravated robbery. His bodily injury is obviously an element of the offense.

I conclude that factor (16) should enhance this offense, however, because (1) Sarah Jackson was killed and was consequently a “victim” of the robbery of Mr. Hampton, see Eunyce Marie Saunders, separate op. at 4 (Witt, J., dissenting and concurring), and (2) “the defendant’s offending conduct posed a great risk of bodily injury to [her as] the victim.” Id., separate op. at 5.

In all other respects, I fully concur. _____________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-2-

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 March 13, 2001 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAUL DENNIS REID, JR.

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County NO . 97-C-1834

NO . M1999-00803-CCA-R3-DD - FILED MAY 31, 2001

James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., concurring.

I fully concur in Judge Hayes’s thorough, incisive opinion. With respect to a portion of the analysis of the especially aggravated robbery sentencing issues, I concur merely in the results.

I agree that the length of the especially aggravated robbery sentence is warranted; however, I would have concluded that the trial court’s imposition of the maximum sentence is supported by the use of enhancement factor (16), that “the crime was committed under circumstances under which the potential for bodily injury to a victim was great.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-114(16) (Supp. 2000). As this court has noted, members of the court have adopted different positions relative to the application of factor (16). In the present case, Judge Hayes adheres to the position he adopted in State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 452-53 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995), which leads him to conclude that factor 16 is inapplicable to enhance the sentence for the especially aggravated robbery of Steve Hampton.

I respectfully subscribe to a different view of this issue. See State v. Eunyce Marie Saunders, No. E1998-00230-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, June 8, 2000) (Witt, J., dissenting and concurring). I agree that factor (16) is inapplicable to Hampton, the victim of the especially aggravated robbery. His bodily injury is obviously an element of the offense.

I conclude that factor (16) should enhance this offense, however, because (1) Sarah Jackson was killed and was consequently a “victim” of the robbery of Mr. Hampton, see Eunyce Marie Saunders, separate op. at 4 (Witt, J., dissenting and concurring), and (2) “the defendant’s offending conduct posed a great risk of bodily injury to [her as] the victim.” Id., separate op. at 5.

In all other respects, I fully concur. _____________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-paul-dennis-reid-jr-concurrin-tenncrimapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack