State v. Eady
| Decision Date | 14 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | M2021-00388-CCA-R3-CD |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DAVID WAYNE EADY |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Session Heard at Austin Peay State University [1] April 12, 2022
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2018-B-952 Cheryl A. Blackburn, Judge
Defendant David Wayne Eady, was convicted by a jury of eleven counts of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a repeat violent offender and imposed eleven concurrent sentences of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court ran the life imprisonment sentences concurrently with a fifteen-year sentence for the attempted aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, Defendant contends 1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever the offenses; 2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress his statements; 3) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to disqualify the District Attorney General's Office, 4) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery as charged in count eight of the indictment; and 5) his convictions for aggravated robbery as charged in counts one and two of the indictment violate Double Jeopardy as a matter of plain error. Because the facts and circumstances support only one conviction for aggravated robbery as charged in counts one and two, we merge the two counts, and remand for entry of amended judgments in counts one and two reflecting the merger. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Tenn R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Modified in Part.
Jeffrey A. DeVasher, Assistant Public Defender (on appeal), Jared Mollenkoff, Julie Bigsby, Assistant Public Defenders (at trial), Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, David Wayne Eady.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Richard D. Douglas, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Glenn Funk, District Attorney General; and Megan King, Joey Clifton, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
This case involves eleven aggravated robberies committed in various convenience stores located throughout Davidson County during the month of November 2017. Defendant was originally indicted with seven counts of aggravated robbery on March 18, 2018. The State sought a superseding indictment on May 7, 2018, charging Defendant with twelve counts of aggravated robbery. Less than one month after the indictment, the State filed a notice of Defendant's status as a repeat violent offender for purposes of sentencing. The notice relied on five prior convictions for aggravated robbery.
Defendant filed a motion to suppress his statement to two detectives made after he was arrested for driving on a revoked license. The suppression motion alleged that Defendant's statement was involuntary because he was under the influence of heroin and that his statement was the product of police coercion and a violation of his due process rights under the federal and state constitutions.
Defendant also filed a motion to sever the offenses under Rule 14(b)(1) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. He argued that joinder of the offenses was improper because the crimes were not part of the same criminal episode and proof of one count was not admissible in a trial of the other counts. The State argued that joinder of the offenses was proper under permissive joinder Rule 8, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The trial court held a bifurcated hearing on October 17, and 29 2018, to litigate the suppression motion and the severance motion. The State admitted into evidence a chart of the twelve charged offenses based on the information provided in the police incident reports, an aerial map identifying the locations and dates of the offenses, a collection of surveillance footage screenshots of the robber, Defendant's rights waiver document, a DVD recording of the Defendant's police interview before (Part I) and after a smoke break (Part II) and a transcript of both interviews, and both an audio recording and transcript of the smoke break.
At the first hearing held on October 17, 2018, Officer John Stanfield of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department ("MNPD") testified that on December 11, 2017, he pulled over a gold 2001 Toyota Camry for an expired license plate in the vicinity of Glenrose and Nolensville in South Nashville. At the time of the stop, Officer Stanfield was aware that the Camry was a vehicle of interest in an ongoing investigation by detectives in the Midtown Precinct. Therefore, Officer Stanfield requested backup for the stop. Defendant was driving the Camry and had passengers. There were outstanding warrants for the passengers. Officer Stanfield did not search the Camry and he could not recall whether the back-up officers searched Defendant's Camry during the stop.
When Officer Stanfield frisked Defendant for weapons, he found 0.1 gram of heroin in Defendant's jeans which Officer Stanfield turned over to the property room. Officer Stanfield denied that Defendant turned over any syringes during the stop. He explained that had he found any syringes, he would have collected them and they would have been listed on the property room sheet but then the syringes would have been photocopied and disposed of because it is not safe to keep syringes in the property room as evidence.
Officer Stanfield did not recall Defendant slurring his speech, having glassy or bloodshot eyes, or being slow in responding to his questions. He did not observe Defendant "swallowing a lot" or "sweating." He added that Defendant was appropriately dressed for the weather. Because it was daylight, Officer Stanfield testified that he would have noticed if Defendant's eyes were dilated. Based on his observations, he did not ask Defendant whether he was intoxicated and did not have Defendant perform any field sobriety tests. Officer Stanfield placed Defendant under arrest and transported him to the Midtown Precinct to speak with the detectives. On redirect examination, Officer Stanfield stated that he would have had Defendant perform a series of field sobriety tests had he believed Defendant to be under the influence.
On cross-examination, Officer Stanfield testified that his "face to face" interaction with Defendant before and after his interview, was "a matter of minutes, not a matter of hours." Officer Stanfield confirmed that he transported Defendant to the downtown booking station after the interview. He could not recall whether Defendant was charged with having an expired tag. Officer Stanfield was not involved in the robbery investigations and did not observe or participate in Defendant's interview at the Midtown Precinct. He learned of the alert on Defendant's car from the Midtown Precinct the morning of the arrest.
Jonathan McGowen, a detective in the Midtown Hills Precinct of the MNPD testified that in November and December 2017, he was investigating a string of aggravated robberies of commercial businesses. Defendant was developed as a suspect when his car was observed in the parking lot of the November 24 robbery at the Delta Express/Mapco at 440 Harding Place by the surveillance camera of a family medical clinic located next door.[2]
Detective McGowen responded to the November 24 robbery and observed that the description of the robbery was similar to the ones he was already investigating. During his investigation, he reviewed footage from the surveillance camera of the medical clinic next to the gas station and saw a late model gold Toyota Camry pull up to the store minutes before the robbery. Both the initial driver and the passenger exited the Camry. The driver put on a hoodie and entered the gas station and the passenger sat down in the driver seat. The car had a sticker on the back, two hurricane style rims on the right side of the Camry, and a paint blemish on the center of the hood. The driver side front hubcap was missing. The video showed the driver exit the store and get into the passenger side of the Camry. The Camry was seen fleeing the scene westbound toward Interstate 65.
Detective McGowan was alerted to another robbery in the Nolensville Pike corridor the next day. Consequently, while patrolling the area near the corner of Nolensville Pike and Tanksley Avenue, Detective McGowan observed a gold Toyota Camry matching the description of the vehicle he had seen from the surveillance video of the robbery the day prior. Detective McGowan saw Defendant standing at the rear of another gold Toyota Camry which was broken down. Defendant then removed the license plate from the working Camry and put it on the broken-down Camry. Detective McGowan testified that there was another man seated in the working Camry. He approached the two men, identified himself and spoke with Defendant and another man named Richard Black. Detective McGowan called for police assistance to run a search on Defendant and Mr. Black because he did not have his computer.
Defendant explained that he was switching license plates because he was making payments on the broken-down Camry which belonged to a family member. Detective McGowan testified that the Camry occupied by Defendant and Mr. Black matched the distinctive features of the gold Camry seen at the robbery on November 24. According to Detective McGowan, Defendant matched the physical description of the robber of the November 24 robbery while Mr. Black matched...
To continue reading
Request your trial