STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GARY ROLLINS - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Azya Thornton on Apr 23, 2025

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Julia Trant, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Gary Len Rollins, Sr.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Richard D. Douglas, Senior Assistant Atorney General; Charme P. Alen, District Atorney General; and Ashley McDermot and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): EASTER

Gary Rollins, Defendant, was charged with one count of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery ni September of 2020. At hte conclusion of the first trial, the jury found Defendant not guilty of rape of a child but could not reach a verdict on the lesser-included offenses of rape of a child. The jury could not reach a verdict on either count of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court granted a mistrial for the remaining lesser-included offenses of rape of a child and the two counts of aggravated sexual battery. In a second trial on the same presentment, Defendant was again tried for rape of a child. The jury found Defendant guilty of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. At sentencing, Defendant challenged the rape of a child conviction for the first time on the basis that it violated double jeopardy. The trial court agreed, entering a judgment for the lesser-included ofense of atempted rape of a child. The trial court sentenced Defendant ot twenty years for the attempted rape of a child conviction and fifteen years for each aggravated sexual battery conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for a total effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior bad act ni violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), that his second trial for rape of a child violated his right against double jeopardy, and that the trial court had no authority to modify the conviction on the jeopardy-barred offense to attempted rape of a child. Because the Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have been convicted of the attempted rape of a child absent the presence of the charge of rape of a child and because the trial court did not abuse its direction by allowing the State ot introduce evidence of a prior bad act, we affirm the convictions.

Attachments: