STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSEPH H. ADKINS a/k/a JOSEPH H. MORRISON - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSEPH H. ADKINS a/k/a JOSEPH H. MORRISON

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Apr 17, 2014

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Ricky A.W. Curtis, Blountville, Tennessee (at trial); and Gregory W. Francisco, Kingsport, Tennessee (at motion for new trial hearing and on appeal), for the appellant, Joseph H. Adkins a/k/a Joseph H. Morrison.

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Kyle Hixson, Assistant Attorney General; Barry Staubus, District Attorney General; and William B. Harper, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): THOMAS

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Joseph H. Adkins a/k/a Joseph H. Morrison, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder; first degree felony murder; aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; and three counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-102, -13-202, -14-403. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction into the premeditated murder conviction and imposed a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six years for each of the remaining convictions and ordered all of the sentences to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of life plus twenty-four years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s pro se motion to remove appointed trial counsel; (2) that the trial court erred by not allowing the Defendant to crossexamine a witness about a prior instance where the witness allegedly lied under oath; (3) that the trial court improperly allowed the admission of hearsay evidence at trial; (4) that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight; (5) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction for first degree premeditated murder; (6) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions for two of the aggravated assault charges; (7) that the trial court erred by correcting a “typographical error” on the jury’s verdict form; and (8) that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. Following 1 our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: