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. Layhew

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

January 13, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
JEFFERY GORDON LAYHEW

          Assigned on Briefs November 8, 2016

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County Nos. 2015-C-1731, 2016-I-135 Amanda McClendon, Judge

         The Defendant, Jeffrey Gordon Layhew, pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and Driving Under the Influence ("DUI"), offenses which took place on different dates. For the leaving the scene of an accident conviction, the trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served at 100%. For the DUI conviction, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served at 100%. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of two years, at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it sentenced him to serve maximum consecutive misdemeanor sentences and when it failed to set a specific amount for his restitution. The State agrees and asks this Court to remand the case to the trial court for resentencing. After review, we agree with the parties that the trial court erred when it failed to make findings to support consecutive sentences and when it did not set a specific amount for restitution. Accordingly, we vacate the Defendant's sentences and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

         Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Vacated and Remanded

          Joshua D. Arters, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jeffery Gordon Layhew.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Counsel; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Kyle S. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Robert W. Wedemeyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Alan E. Glenn, J., joined.

          OPINION

          ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE

         I. Facts

          This case arises from the Defendant hitting a bicycle ridden by Floyd Cassista, the victim, at approximately 6:00 p.m. on December 14, 2014. While the Defendant was on bail for this offense, he was arrested on two separate occasions for DUI. Also while on bail, the Defendant was subject to having an alcohol ankle monitoring device, SCRAM, on his ankle. He cut the SCRAM alcohol monitor off his ankle on two separate occasions.

         A. Procedural History and Guilty Plea Hearing

         The record shows that the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant in case number 2015-C-1731, for leaving the scene of an accident on or about December 13, 2014. The indictment alleged that the Defendant:

Was the driver of a motor vehicle, and was involved in an accident which resulted in the injury of Floyd Cassista, and further charges that this accident occurred upon the premises of a shopping center, trailer park, apartment complex, or other premises generally frequented by the public at large, a street, alley or public road or highway of the State of Tennessee, and further charges that [the Defendant] unlawfully did leave he scene of this accident without first fulfilling the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated § 55-10-103, to wit: give his name, and address, and the registration number of the motor vehicle he was driving, and render reasonable assistance to any person injured in the accident, all in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated § 55-10-101, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.

         On August 13, 2015, the trial court entered an order to increase bail. The order stated that the Defendant would be subject to wearing a SCRAM, which is an ankle monitoring alcohol device.

         On January 4, 2016, the Defendant's probation officer filed an affidavit swearing that the Defendant had cut off his SCRAM monitor. The Defendant told the officer that he had done so by accident, so she replaced the monitor. He then cut it off a second time, telling her that it was bothering him. The officer stated in the affidavit that the Defendant had removed his monitor twice "within a couple of weeks." In response the trial court revoked the Defendant's bond.

         On February 10, 2016, the Defendant agreed to allow the District Attorney to proceed against him by criminal information only on the charge that he committed DUI on April 2, 2015. The Criminal Information identifies the case number of that charge as 2016-I-135.

          On March 10, 2016, the Defendant pleaded guilty in case number 2015-C-1731 to leaving the scene of an accident, a Class A misdemeanor, and agreed to allow the trial court to determine his sentence. On that same date, the Defendant entered a plea of guilty in case number 2016-I-135 to DUI, a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant again agreed to allow the trial court to determine his sentence.

         At the sentencing hearing, the State entered a presentence report. The report indicated that the Defendant had also been arrested for DUI on another occasion and had a probation violation related to that conviction in January 2016. The victim, Floyd Cassista, III, testified about the circumstances surrounding the Defendant's conviction for leaving the scene of an accident. He said that he was injured when the Defendant, who was driving a Ford F-150, hit him while he was riding a bicycle home from work. Mr. Cassista said that, as a result of the accident, he suffered broken ribs, road burn, a traumatic injury, and was missing a portion of his left ear. He was hospitalized for more than three weeks. Mr. Cassista said he still was suffering the effects of ...


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.