STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ALLAN POPE - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Oct 5, 2012

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Dan R. Smith, Johnson City, Tennessee (on appeal); Ricky A. W. Curtis and Teresa Murray Smith, Blountville, Tennessee (at trial) for the appellant, Allan Pope.

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Lacy Wilber, Assistant Attorney General; H. Greeley Wells, Jr., District Attorney General; and Barry P. Staubus, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): PAGE

In presentments by a Sullivan County Grand Jury, appellant, Allan Pope, was charged with four counts of theft of services more than $1,000 but less than $10,000; one count of official misconduct; one count of using public equipment for private purposes; and one count of theft of services more than $10,000 but less than $60,000. A jury found appellant not guilty of all counts of theft of services more than $1,000 but less than $10,000. He was found guilty of the remaining counts. The trial court imposed a one-year suspended sentence for official misconduct and a three-year suspended sentence for theft of services more than $10,000 but less than $60,000 and placed appellant on probation for six years. On 1 appeal, appellant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal or motion for new trial; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for official misconduct; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for private use of county equipment; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft of services more than $10,000 but less than $60,000, and; (5) whether the trial court erred in ordering restitution. Upon review of the record, we agree with appellant and conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions for official misconduct and private use of public property, therefore we reverse the judgments of conviction and dismiss those counts of the indictment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court on theft of services more than $10,000 but less than $60,000 and remand the matter for entry of judgments consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: