Assigned on Briefs September 7, 2016
from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. 14-469 Donald
H. Allen, Judge
Madison County jury found the Defendant, Tracey McQuinn
Taylor, guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery and one
count of felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court
sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twelve years for
each count of aggravated robbery to be served consecutively
to a four year sentence for the felon in possession of a
firearm conviction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the
evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that
his sentence is excessive. After review, we affirm the trial
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit
Kortney D. Simmons, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Tracey McQuinn Taylor.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Caitlin Smith, Assistant Attorney General; Jerry Woodall,
District Attorney General; and Brian M. Gilliam, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
W. Wedemeyer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Norma McGee Ogle and D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., JJ., joined.
W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE
case arises from a robbery of two victims, Justiss Williamson
and Demarcus Cook, on May 11, 2014, in Jackson, Tennessee. A
Madison County grand jury indicted the Defendant for two
counts of aggravated robbery and one count of felon in
possession of a firearm. At trial, the parties presented the
following evidence: Justiss Williamson testified that, on May
11, 2014, he was visiting his cousin, T.C.,  in Jackson,
Tennessee. While there, he and another cousin, Demarcus Cook,
contacted a friend, Tahj Transou, to arrange to meet and buy
some marijuana. Tahj Transou did not sell marijuana but knew
someone who did.
Williamson testified that Tahj Transou arrived in a four-door
white car with four or five other males. Mr. Williamson and
Mr. Cook went outside at approximately 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. to
buy and smoke the marijuana. Mr. Williamson purchased a
blunt, and the group stood around outside the car smoking the
marijuana. At some point, the Defendant, who wore his hair in
dreadlocks, stepped around from behind the vehicle
brandishing a handgun. He pointed the gun at Mr.
Williamson's head and demanded, "Give me everything
you got." Mr. Williamson, who was shocked, gave the
Defendant the "Polo" hat he had been wearing
because the Defendant had a gun pointed at him. Mr.
Williamson observed Mr. Cook give the Defendant his lip balm,
lighter, and wallet. Mr. Williamson recalled that the others,
except for Tahj Transou, stood around laughing as the
Defendant robbed Mr. Williamson and Mr. Cook.
Williamson testified that, after taking their personal items,
the Defendant ordered Mr. Williamson and Mr. Cook to
"get on the back of the car." Everyone else present
got inside the car, and the driver drove the car around the
corner. Mr. Williamson and Mr. Cook were then allowed to get
off the car trunk, and the car drove away. Mr. Williamson and
Mr. Cook walked back to T.C's residence where they
contacted the police. Mr. Williamson estimated that the
robbery took approximately fifteen minutes and that he was on
the trunk of the car for approximately two minutes. He
confirmed that, although he had smoked marijuana, he sobered
up when the Defendant produced the gun and that the marijuana
did not cloud his ability to understand the events or
identify the perpetrator. He described his clarity as his
"adrenaline kick[ing] in."
cross-examination, Mr. Williamson confirmed that he had never
seen the Defendant before the night of the robbery. Mr.
Williamson agreed that he did not contact the police until an
hour after the robbery. He explained that once he walked back
to T.C.'s house, he was unsure of what to do at first. He
woke up T.C. and told him what had happened and then woke up
his aunt and uncle before calling the police.
redirect examination, Mr. Williamson agreed that he had
identified the Defendant in a photographic lineup at the
police station. He stated that upon seeing the
Defendant's photograph he knew "exactly" who
the Defendant was, and at trial he remained certain that the
Defendant perpetrated this robbery.
Cook testified that Mr. Williamson had arranged to purchase
the marijuana and that Mr. Cook did not know any of the
people who came to the residence to sell the marijuana. Mr.
Cook accompanied Mr. Williamson outside to meet the men
because he did not think it safe for Mr. Williamson to go
alone. Mr. Williamson bought a blunt from the men, lit the
blunt, and then passed it around. After finishing the blunt,
the Defendant walked around from behind the car with a gun
and ordered Mr. Williamson and Mr. Cook to empty their
pockets. When asked if he saw the person in the courtroom who
approached him with a gun, Mr. Cook responded that he was not
sure. He explained that, because he was "so mad" at
that time, he did not "really get a good look at his
face." Mr. Cook described the perpetrator as a black
male who wore his hair in dreadlocks and had a
"grill." He said the perpetrator held a gray chrome
.380 caliber handgun.
Cook testified that he gave the robber his dog tag, necklace,
phone, wallet, Carmex, and body oil. Mr. Cook had $95.00
dollars in his wallet. Next, the man ordered Mr. Cook and Mr.
Williamson on to the trunk of the car while the other men
laughed. The two men rode on the trunk of the car for a short
distance before they were "dropped [ ] off." Mr.
Cook and Mr. Williamson then returned to T.C.'s house.
After returning to the house, Mr. Cook called his mother who
instructed him to call the police.
Cook confirmed that he had identified the Defendant as the
perpetrator in a photographic lineup. At trial, however, he
stated that he did not know if he "picked the right
person." He explained that his brother had died the
night before trial and his mind was "still jumping back
and forth." He agreed that his memory of the events was
probably better at the time of the photographic lineup than
at the time of trial.
cross-examination, Mr. Cook agreed that he had contacted the
Defendant's attorney and told the attorney that he was
unsure of his identification. He explained that he did so
because he wanted to avoid going to trial. He said that he
believed he could have "handled it" himself. He
said that he knew the Defendant ...