STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ABDUJUAN M. NAPPER - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Amelia Ferrell Knisely on Jan 21, 2016

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Samuel Knolton, Jr. (on appeal and motion to withdraw guilty pleas), Allen Thompson (at sentencing hearing), and Julie Bratton-Reyes (at guilty plea hearing), Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Abdujuan M. Napper.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Clark B. Thornton, Senior Counsel; John W. Carney, District Attorney General; and Helen Young, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): MONTGOMERY

The Defendant, Abdujuan M. Napper, appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court?s order revoking his probation in case numbers 41100355 and 41100356 for his convictions for possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and misdemeanor vandalism and ordering him to serve the remainder of his effective sentence of three years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days in confinement. The Defendant also appeals the trial court?s sentencing determinations in related case numbers 41200773 and 41200884. The Defendant pleaded guilty in case number 41200773 to possession with the intent to sell 0.5 ounce or more of marijuana and received a three-year sentence. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement and imposed consecutive service to the sentences in case numbers 41100355 and 41100356. The Defendant also pleaded guilty in case number 41200884 to unlawful possession of a firearm and to misdemeanor domestic assault. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years for the weapon-related conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the assault-related conviction. The court ordered the sentences be served consecutively to the sentence in case number 41200733, for an effective sentence of thirteen years. The Defendant later sought to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Defendant contends that trial court erred by (1) failing to consider the appropriate purposes and principles of sentencing and (2) denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.