STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DESTINY DIAMOND BAXTER AND ANTHONY WAYNE SHEFFIELD - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DESTINY DIAMOND BAXTER AND ANTHONY WAYNE SHEFFIELD

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 13, 2025

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Ronald G. Freemon, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellant, Destiny Diamond Baxter.

Attorneys 2: William C. Barnes, Jr., Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellant, Anthony Wayne Sheffield.

Attorneys 3: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Lacy E. Wilber, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Brent Cooper, District Attorney General; and Pamela S. Anderson and Jonathan Davis, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): GREENHOLTZ

A Maury County jury convicted Destiny Diamond Baxter and Anthony Wayne Sheffield of first degree premeditated murder, attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, two counts of felony murder, and abuse of a corpse. Defendant Sheffield was also convicted of possessing a firearm with a prior conviction for a crime of violence and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The jury determined that both Defendants should serve life in prison without the possibility of parole for the homicide offenses. As for the remaining convictions, the trial court sentenced Defendant Baxter to an additional twenty-two years and sentenced Defendant Sheffield to a further thirty-five years. On appeal, both Defendants challenge whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support their convictions. Defendant Sheffield also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the Defendants’ cases and admitting photographs of the homicide victim into evidence during the jury’s sentencing phase. Further, Defendant Sheffield argues that the trial court improperly sentenced him for the other convictions by failing to consider the risk and needs assessment, miscalculating the range, and imposing consecutive sentences beyond his life term. Upon our review, we conclude that a harmless error exists in failing to issue a limiting instruction as requested by Defendant Sheffield, and we also remand the judgments for correction of clerical errors. However, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

Attachments: