STATE OF TENNESSEE V. JEFFREY KRISTOPHER KING and KASEY LYNN KING - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Sep 27, 2013

Head Comment: CORRECTION: On page 2 the opinion has been changed from listing Tom P. Thompson as the District Attorney for Sumner County to listing L. Ray Whitley as the District Attorney for Sumner County.

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Kimberly S. Hodde, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jeffrey Kristopher King.

Attorneys 2:

Jeremy Parham, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Kasey Lynn King.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel Harmon, Assistant Attorney General; William Whitesell (Rutherford County), Victor S. Johnson III (Davidson County), and L. Ray Whitley (Sumner County), District Attorneys General; and John C. Zimmermann, Senior Assistant District Attorney General; for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): BIVINS

Jeffrey King (“Defendant J. King”) entered conditional guilty pleas in Rutherford County to one count of conspiracy to sell over seventy pounds of marijuana and one count of possessing over seventy pounds of marijuana; to several counts of felony marijuana offenses and several counts of money-laundering offenses in Davidson County; and to several counts of felony marijuana offenses, several counts of money-laundering offenses, and one count of a felony firearm offense in Sumner County. Kasey King (“Defendant K. King”) (collectively “the Defendants”) entered conditional guilty pleas in Davidson County to two counts of felony marijuana offenses and two counts of money-laundering offenses; and to one count of a felony firearm offense and two counts of felony marijuana offenses in Sumner County. These conditional guilty pleas were entered after the trial courts denied the Defendants’ motions to suppress evidence gleaned from wiretaps on several telephones. Each of the Defendants reserved certified questions of law regarding the legality of the wiretaps and timely appealed. This Court ordered that the appeals be consolidated. We now consider the Defendants’ certified questions of law and hold that the trial courts did not err in denying the Defendants’ motions to suppress. Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to no relief from their pleas of guilt. Therefore, we affirm the trial courts’ judgments and the Defendants’ convictions.

Attachments: