Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Carter

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

August 27, 2014

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
RODREGUS CARTER

Assigned on Briefs April 1, 2014.

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 11-03453 James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge.

Zipporah C. Williams, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Rodregus Carter.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; J. Ross Dyer, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Jose Leon, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Jerry L. Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Norma McGee Ogle and D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., JJ., joined.

OPINION

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE.

Factual Background

Maxine Harris owned a home in Shelby County which was being rented by Miranda Jefferson. Ms. Harris drove by the rental property on January 17, 2001. When she approached the residence, she noticed that both of the side doors were open and that the air conditioning unit was missing from the side of the house. Ms. Harris stopped to investigate. When she entered the home, she noticed that Ms. Jefferson's dog was missing. There was flour, sugar, and oil all over the floor of the residence. Clothes were strewn about the residence and a big screen television and a second air conditioning unit were also missing. The inside was basically ransacked. Ms. Harris quickly called Ms. Jefferson to notify her that the home had been broken into.

When Ms. Jefferson arrived at the residence, she confirmed that the following items were missing from the residence: a big screen television; stereo equipment; two air conditioners; her dog; and some of her clothing.[1] Ms. Jefferson had left the home the day before. When she left, the house was locked and her dog was in the back yard. Ms. Jefferson and Ms. Harris were the only people with keys to the residence.

During the investigation, Appellant was developed as a suspect. At the time, Appellant was living a few blocks to the west of Ms. Jefferson's residence. Officer Malcolm Smith went to the home and was invited in by the owner. Appellant was present in the home. When Officer Smith asked Appellant if he knew why he was there, Appellant stated it was probably because he "took a radio and TV out of a house on Glankler." At that point, Appellant was taken into custody.

When Officer Smith and Appellant arrived at the police station, Detective Michael Warren asked Appellant if he could read and write. Appellant replied in the affirmative. At that point, Detective Warren read the advice of rights form to Appellant and had Appellant read the form back to him out loud. Appellant later informed the officer taking the statement that he could not read. Appellant then gave a written statement during which he admitted to taking part in the burglary and theft of the residence on Glankler. Appellant stated that Ronnie Beasley entered the residence through one of the windows and then handed Appellant a television and some stereo equipment. Mr. Beasley kept the television, and Appellant kept the stereo. Appellant eventually sold the stereo equipment on the street for twenty dollars. After the statement was typed, Appellant was given the chance to review the statement. Appellant initialed each question and answer and then signed the statement.

As a result of his statement, Appellant was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated burglary and one count of theft of property valued over $1, 000. Appellant filed a motion to suppress his statement prior to trial. The motion was denied by the trial court.

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of the charges as stated in the indictment. The trial court held a separate sentencing hearing, during which Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of thirteen years. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He now challenges: (1)the denial of the motion to suppress; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence; (3) the trial court's admission of testimony by victim Miranda ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.