Arrington v. State
| Decision Date | 28 December 1976 |
| Citation | 548 S.W.2d 319 |
| Parties | Edward Earl ARRINGTON and Charles Odysseus Barrett, Appellants, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Bruce E. Kelley, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Dan H. Bell, Memphis, for appellants.
R. A. Ashley, Jr., Atty. Gen., John F. Southworth, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, James W. Harrison and David E. Bales, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Memphis, for appellee.
The appellants, Arrington and Barrett, appeal from their convictions for the offense of robbery with a deadly weapon charged in three separate indictments which were consolidated for trial. The jury found both appellants guilty in all three cases and assessed punishment at confinement for twelve and one-half years in the State Penitentiary for each offense. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently.
There are five assignments of error which are outlined: (1) the evidence preponderates against the verdict of the court and in favor of the appellants; (2) the court erred in charging the jury as to Tennessee Code Sections, relating to parole eligibility and good and honor time credits; (3) the court erred in overruling the Motion to Suppress Evidence obtained as a result of an illegal arrest and search, filed on behalf of the codefendant, Charles Barrett, Jr., which motion the appellant, Edward Earl Arrington, joined in and noted his exceptions to the court's ruling; (4) the court erred in overruling appellant Arrington's Motion for Severance, based on his desire to accept the guilty plea recommendation of the State; and (5) the court erred in allowing, over appellant Arringtion's objection, the testimony of Captain J. H. Dowling, a State's witness who was not listed on the indictment. The appellant Barrett adopts Arrington's first three assignments of error which are consistent with his motion for a new trial.
We will, in view of the first assignment of error, summarize the evidence as found from our review of this record.
The robberies occurred in the early morning hours of November 23, 1974, at the intersection of Thomas and Arrington Streets located in the City of Memphis. The three victims, Walter Wilson and Marjorie and Curtis Jackson, had been out socializing earlier in the evening. When Walter Wilson drove up to Marjorie's house to let her out, a black male dressed in a blue Levi jacket came from across the street, cursed Wilson, reached through the open car window and struck him two or three times. A second male black placed and object that looked like a rifle or a pistol into the back seat of Wilson's car and ordered Curtis and Marjorie to get out. This black struck Curtis in the head which caused him to black out. Marjorie, as she was alighting, was struck on the back with something she described as a metal object. She testified that one of the assailants was wearing a blue Levi jacket and one an orange and green coat. The robber wearing the orange and green jacket made Mr. Wilson put his hands on the car and took his money after striking Wilson on the side of the head and then striking him in the eye. The assailants took from Wilson his billfold which contained $91.30, his social security card, driver's license and other papers. They took from Curtis Jackson his billfold, some change, keys and a cigarette lighter. They took from Marjorie Jackson some of her papers and ten dollars in cash. A third black male who participated in these robberies was wearing a blue windbreaker jacket.
Curtis had his landlady make a prompt complaint to the police when he fled the scene and entered his home only half a block away. A call reporting the robberies while they were in progress had previously been made to the police by an unidentified observer.
The arresting officers were within a block and a half of the scene when the report of the robberies was broadcast and they immediately headed their squad car to that location. A few seconds later they noticed a car coming from the vicinity with the dome light on and a male black in the rear taking off his coat. There were two other black males in the front seat. When the police officers blocked the progress of this car, the male black in the back appeared to be stuffing something under the seat. As one of the officers approached the car, he noticed a tire iron on the back seat. When the men were ordered from the car, a second broadcast informed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goosby v. State
...(Tenn.Crim.App.), cert. denied, (Tenn.1978) (best practice is to grant severance when co-defendant pleads guilty); Arrington v. State, 548 S.W.2d 319 (Tenn.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, (Tenn.1977) (denial of motion to sever upheld where defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice); Hoskins v.......
-
State v. Bush
...See McBee v. State, 213 Tenn. 15, 372 S.W.2d 173 (1963); Houston v. State, 567 S.W.2d 485, 486 (Tenn.Cr.App.1978); Arrington v. State, 548 S.W.2d 319 (Tenn.Cr.App.). The defendant says that the State failed to prove that the offense occurred in Sevier County. Two officers testified that the......
-
State v. Martin
...to be summoned for the State. This section is directory only. Houston v. State, 567 S.W.2d 485 (Tenn.Cr.App.1978); Arrington v. State, 548 S.W.2d 319 (Tenn.Cr.App.1976). We further note that the appellant has shown no prejudice by the failure of the State to list the witnesses on the indict......
-
Bishop v. State
...complies with the statute which is directory and not mandatory. McBee v. State, 213 Tenn. 15, 372 S.W.2d 173 (1963); Arrington v. State, 548 S.W.2d 319 (Tenn.Cr.App.1976). The purpose of this statute is to make known to the defendant the names of witnesses who will be called to testify so t......