 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Peek5/3/2000
The defendant was convicted of fourteen felonies, consisting of various rape, robbery, and burglary charges arising from complaints of five victims. He received an effective sentence of ninety-nine years. Appealing these convictions, he alleged, inter alia, that the trial court should have severed the offenses, rather than allowing all five to be tried in a single trial; that blood, saliva, and hair samples should have been suppressed; that he should not have been shackled during the trial, and that his sentence was improper. Of these assignments, we find error in the trial court's allowing the complaints of all five victims to be tried in a single trial, and in the court's not following the required procedures before shackling the defendant during the trial. The errors were harmless and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court is Affirmed
Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Hayes, J., and Walker, Sp .J., joined.
OPINION
The defendant, Michael Anderson Peek, was convicted in the Hamilton County Criminal Court of four counts of aggravated rape, one count of attempted aggravated rape, three counts of rape, one count of aggravated robbery, two counts of robbery, and three counts of aggravated burglary for a total of fourteen felony convictions involving five victims. The defendant received an effective sentence of ninety-nine years. In this appeal, the defendant presents eight issues for review:
I. Whether the trial court erred by denying a defense motion to sever the offenses;
II. Whether the trial court erred by denying a defense motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant for defendant's blood, saliva, and hair;
III. Whether the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to wear a leg shackle during the trial;
IV. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Rebecca Adams for identification purposes;
V. Whether the trial court erred in allowing Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Agent Joe Minor to testify as an expert regarding DNA testing and interpretation;
VI. Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred during opening statement;
VII. Whether the trial court erred in denying a defense motion for change of venue;
VIII.Whether the trial court erred as to the length and manner of service of the sentence imposed.
Based upon our review, we conclude that the complaints of each victim should have been tried separately and that the required procedures were not followed before restraining the defendant during trial. However, these errors were harmless, and we therefore affirm the convictions and sentences in this case.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The defendant was indicted on October 30, 1996, for fourteen felonies against five victims, three living in apartment complexes in the East Brainerd area of Chattanooga and two living in houses in the East Lake area of Chattanooga. All complaints involving all five victims were tried in one trial which lasted a week. The following chart is illustrative of the indictments, convictions, and sentences:
1. Victim: T.P.
Indictment: No. 213109 for aggravated rape on 1/11/95 Conviction Aggravated Rape Sentence: 25 years for Class A felony, concurrent with No. 213107
Indictment:No. 213108 for aggravated robbery on 1/11/95 Conviction:Aggravated Robbery Sentence: 12 years for Class B felony, concurrent with No. 213107
Indictment:No. 213107 for aggravated burglary on 1/11/95 Conviction:Aggravated Burglary Se
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|