STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EDWIN ALFONSO REEVES - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EDWIN ALFONSO REEVES

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jan 25, 2022

Head Comment: CORRECTION: Page 1, line 14 and 15, "criminally negligent and homicide possession..." was changed to "criminally negligent homicide and possession..."

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: J. Liddell Kirk, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Edwin Alfonso Reeves.

Attorneys 2: Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Edwin Alan Groves, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; Charme Allen, District Attorney General; Jordan Murray and Kenneth Irvine, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): MONTGOMERY

The Defendant, Edwin Alfonso Reeves, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of Count I, criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony; and Count II, possession with the intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance in a drug-free zone, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-212 (2018) (criminally negligent homicide); 39-17- 417(a)(4), (c)(2)(A) (2018) (subsequently amended) (possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance); 39-17-432 (b)(1)(B) (establishing drug-free zones) (2018) (subsequently amended). The Defendant also pleaded guilty to Count III, possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance in a drug-free zone. The court sentenced the Defendant to serve two years for criminally negligent homicide, four years for one possession conviction, and three years for the other possession conviction. The court imposed the sentences consecutively to each other, for an effective nine-year sentence, to be served consecutively to a sentence the Defendant was serving at the time of sentencing. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions in Counts I and II of criminally negligent homicide and possession of a Schedule II drug, and that the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: