STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JUSTIN DARNAY GRAVES - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JUSTIN DARNAY GRAVES

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Apr 27, 2023

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: George Morton Googe, District Public Defender, M. Todd Ridley (on appeal), Joshua L. Phillips (at trial) Assistant District Public Defenders, for the Defendant-Appellant, Justin Darnay Graves.

Attorneys 2: Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Katharine K. Decker, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jody S. Pickens, District Attorney General; and Bradley F. Champhine, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): MCMULLEN

The Defendant-Appellant, Justin Darnay Graves, was convicted as charged by a Madison County jury of simple possession of cocaine, felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of drug paraphernalia, for which he received an effective sentence of six years’ plus eleven months and twenty-nine days’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to several unrelated convictions including case numbers 20-330 (sale and delivery of heroin), 20-331 (sale and delivery of heroin and sale and delivery of methamphetamine), 20-332 (sale and delivery of heroin and sale and delivery of methamphetamine),1 20-334 (possession of drugs; traffic offense; introduction of contraband into a penal facility; driving without a license; tampering with evidence), 2 and 20-335 (leaving the scene of accident resulting in death), two of which were committed while the Appellant was released on bond. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-111(b). Prior to trial, the Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop which formed the basis of his convictions. As grounds for the motion to suppress, the Appellant argued that “the amount of time between the initial traffic stop and the arrival of the [canine] unit [was] unreasonable” and in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Constitution of Tennessee. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. In this appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress and the trial court’s imposition of partially consecutive sentencing. Because the State failed to establish that the otherwise lawful traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged in time and scope, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court, vacate the judgments, and dismiss the case.

Attachments: