STATE OF TENNESSEE v. FRANCISCO JAVIER ANCONA - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Aug 14, 2012

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Dawn Deaner, District Public Defender; Jeffrey A. DeVasher (on appeal) and J. Michael Engle (at trial), Assistant District Public Defenders, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Francisco Javier Ancona.

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Clark B. Thornton, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General; and Robert Elliot McGuire and Janice Norman, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): TIPTON

The Defendant, Francisco Javier Ancona, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder, attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and employing a handgun during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202, 39-13-403, 39-14-403, 39-13-102, 39-17-1324(b) (2010). He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree felony murder conviction, fifteen years for the attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction to be served concurrently with the first degree murder conviction, nine years for the aggravated burglary conviction to be served consecutively to the first degree murder conviction but concurrently with the aggravated assault conviction, nine years for the aggravated assault conviction to be served consecutively to the first degree murder conviction but concurrently with the aggravated burglary conviction, and nine years for employing a handgun during the commission of a dangerous felony conviction to be served consecutively to the aggravated burglary conviction, resulting in an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus eighteen years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for attempted especially aggravated robbery; (2) the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements of the Defendant’s co-defendants into evidence at the trial; (3) the trial court erred by failing to redact a statement made by a co-defendant to the police from a telephone recording played at the trial; (4) the trial court erred by allowing the State to amend the indictment to include a greater offense than originally charged; (5) the trial court erred by allowing separate convictions for attempted especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary; and (6) the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Attachments: