State v. Burgess
| Citation | 532 S.W.3d 372 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. E2015–02213–CCA–R3–CD,E2015–02213–CCA–R3–CD |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee v. William Charles BURGESS |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Tennessee. Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee |
A. Philip Lomonaco, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Charles Burgess.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Robert W. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Amanda Cox and Nathaniel Ogle, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.
The Defendant, William Charles Burgess, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of one count of preventing or obstructing an arrest and two counts of obstructing or preventing service of process, Class B misdemeanors. See T.C.A. § 39–16–602 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six months, with all but ten days suspended to supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Because the Defendant's conduct did not constitute a criminal offense, we reverse the judgments of the trial court, vacate the Defendant's convictions, and dismiss the charges.
This case arises from an October 24, 2013 incident in which Knox County Sheriff's deputies conducted a warrantless entry into the Defendant's mother's home in order to arrest the Defendant for evading civil process related to a delinquent credit card account. The Defendant hid in a basement crawl space and refused to emerge, at which point deputies ordered a police dog to attack the Defendant and shocked him multiple times with a Taser.
The trial testimony established that the Defendant was the owner of an optical lens business and worked part-time for his brother as a commercial landscaper. Both businesses were located at the Defendant's mother's house, and the Defendant had a workshop in his mother's basement.
Knox County Sheriff's Deputy Chuck Bowers testified that he had worked for the sheriff's office in the civil warrants division for twenty-seven years, that he had previously served the Defendant with a civil warrant, and that he attempted to serve the Defendant in the present case.
Deputy Bowers identified a civil warrant issued against the Defendant and said Discover Bank was the plaintiff. Deputy Bowers stated that in order to serve the Defendant, Deputy Bowers needed to hand him a copy of the warrant.
Deputy Bowers testified that beginning in early September 2013, he attempted to serve the Defendant between twenty-two and twenty-four times. Deputy Bowers said that he went to the Defendant's house multiple times, that no one answered when he knocked, and that he left a business card. Deputy Bowers stated that on one occasion, he heard an unknown person moving in the house, that Deputy Bowers identified himself, that the person hid and did not open the door, and that Deputy Bowers left. Deputy Bowers said that on another occasion, he spoke with the Defendant's wife and that she was unwilling to accept service on the Defendant's behalf. Deputy Bowers said that he had to have the Defendant's permission to leave the civil warrant with someone at the Defendant's house. Deputy Bowers said that he could not obtain the Defendant's permission to leave the warrant with his wife.
Deputy Bowers testified that he went to the Defendant's mother's house on multiple occasions and that he spoke to the Defendant's parents. Deputy Bowers said that on one occasion, the Defendant's mother told him that the Defendant had just left, that the Defendant's mother called the Defendant and asked him to return, and that he refused. Deputy Bowers stated that the Defendant told his mother to tell Deputy Bowers to get off the Defendant's property because he was trespassing.
Deputy Bowers testified that generally, if he had difficulty serving a civil warrant because he could not find the person, he returned the warrant unserved after thirty and sixty days and that the plaintiff would have to re-file "for us to keep trying it." He said that the only circumstances in which he would serve the warrant by leaving it with a third party was if he spoke to the named defendant on the telephone and obtained permission to leave the warrant with a designated agent. He denied ever leaving a warrant in the screen door of a house. He said that in twenty-seven years, he had never had as much difficulty serving someone as he did the Defendant.
Deputy Bowers testified that on September 18, he parked at the end of the Defendant's driveway, stood outside, and began walking up the driveway when he heard a truck's engine start. Deputy Bowers stated that the truck began coming down the driveway, that the truck came "right at [him]," and that when the truck came within arm's reach, Deputy Bowers drew his gun. Deputy Bowers said that he did not know if the truck was going to hit him and that when he drew his gun, the truck swerved into the yard, crossed the curb onto the road, and "fled the scene." He said that two people were in the truck, that he could not identify the Defendant as the driver, and that he did not take any legal action.
Deputy Bowers identified a list documenting the twenty-four times he attempted to serve the Defendant. He also identified a photograph of the Defendant's lawn. The photograph showed tire tracks on a grassy space connecting a roadside curb and a wooded area. Deputy Bowers said that the line of a driveway was present in the photograph and identified where his vehicle had been parked, where he was standing, and where the truck began to swerve into the grass. He stated that the tire tracks came from "the vehicle that was coming at me."
Deputy Bowers testified that after the incident with the truck, he was cautious in attempting to serve the Defendant and sometimes asked other deputies to accompany him. He stated that his subsequent attempts were unsuccessful. He said that when he could not contact a defendant, he returned "the process not to be found."
Deputy Bowers testified that on October 24, 2013, he went to the Defendant's mother's house, that he parked at a restaurant beside the house, and that he thought he saw the Defendant walking across the driveway. Deputy Bowers said that he pulled into the driveway and that an employee of a business in the house told him the Defendant was inside. Deputy Bowers stated that he watched the house and that he requested backup. He said that Sergeant Jenkins arrived first and that other deputies joined them, including a K–9 deputy and his dog.
Deputy Bowers testified that Sergeant Jenkins was his supervisor and that once she arrived, he "sat back" while Sergeant Jenkins spoke with the Defendant's mother. Deputy Bowers said that he entered the front door, went downstairs into the basement, and returned outside to search for the Defendant. Deputy Bowers denied opening drawers or searching in small spaces. He said that other deputies went inside the house. He said that he believed the Defendant had "evaded," obstructed, and prevented service.
On cross-examination, Deputy Bowers testified that he was persistent in his attempt to serve the Defendant and that generally, he did not have to try twenty times to serve someone. He denied being frustrated by the Defendant and said that he drove past the Defendant's house daily because it was on his way to work.
Relative to the September 18 incident, Deputy Bowers testified that he began walking up the driveway before the truck appeared, that he saw two individuals in the truck, and that he told every deputy who accompanied him after the incident that the Defendant had attempted to run over him. Deputy Bowers denied that every deputy who responded on October 24 thought the Defendant had attempted to run over Deputy Bowers and that the September 18 incident was "general conversation" among the department. Deputy Bowers acknowledged that Sergeant Jenkins and his supervisors knew about the September 18 incident. He said relative to the September 18 incident that he "had a pretty good feeling" the Defendant was driving the truck and that on September 18, he was holding his radio and was dressed in uniform.
Deputy Bowers testified that his uniform consisted of a t-shirt with the sheriff's office logo, a badge worn on his belt, a gun, and a radio. Deputy Bowers disagreed that the Defendant did not try to hit him with his truck. Relative to the Defendant's swerving the truck away from him, Deputy Bowers said that if someone drew a weapon at him, he would have swerved as well. Deputy Bowers agreed that he believed the Defendant was trying to avoid being served that day and that later in the day, he spoke to the Defendant's mother at the Defendant's workplace. Deputy Bowers said that he stood close enough to hear the Defendant tell his mother to tell Deputy Bowers to leave because he was trespassing. Deputy Bowers denied that the Defendant's mother told him the Defendant would return at 5:00 p.m. Deputy Bowers denied telling an employee at the Defendant's workplace that he had to use the restroom and walking away. Deputy Bowers denied telling another employee at the Defendant's workplace, "[Y]ou better tell [the Defendant] that he better let me serve him or I'm going to get him[.]" Deputy Bowers thought that he spoke to the Defendant's father on September 18 and denied that he spoke to the Defendant.
Deputy Bowers testified that he requested backup on his radio or by calling his supervisor. He said that generally, when a deputy called for backup, everyone responded. Deputy Bowers believed he spoke to the Defendant's wife before the September 18 incident but was uncertain. Deputy Bowers did not know what Tennessee Civil Procedure Rule 4 stated about methods of service. Deputy Bowers agreed that the Defendant's wife was a person of suitable age and discretion with whom ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Al Mutory
...substance when evidence insufficient to meet statutory definition of imitation controlled substance); State v. Burgess , 532 S.W.3d 372, 393–94 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017) (vacating conviction for obstructing service of process and arrest where evidence insufficient to support conviction); Stat......
-
In re P. G.
...defendant's wife told police that her husband refused to come to the door to speak to the officers. See State v. Burgess, 532 S.W.3d 372, 392 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017) (involving several attempts at service). Mother undisputedly engaged in similar conduct in this case. Thus, the undisputed ev......
-
In re Francis P., E2016–02493–COA–R3–PT
... ... The child's mother later filed a motion seeking to dismiss Tony P.'s petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. By oral motion, Jon F. joined with the mother in seeking ... ...
-
State v. Baker, W2018-00732-CCA-R3-CD
...generally does not constitute using force as contemplated by the preventing or obstructing an arrest statute." State v. Burgess, 532 S.W.3d 372, 393 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017) (citing State v. Corder, 854 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) (concluding that a defendant's not moving and dir......