STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GARRICK GRAHAM - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Amelia Ferrell Knisely on Mar 8, 2016

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

L. Dudley Senter, III, Bristol, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Garrick Graham.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Nicholas W. Spangler, Assistant Attorney General; Barry P. Staubus, District Attorney General; Lesley Foglia and Kent Chitwood, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WOODALL

Defendant, Garrick Graham, and his Co-Defendant, Bashan Murchison, were convicted of numerous drug offenses by a Sullivan County Jury. Specifically, Defendant Graham was convicted of three counts of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine (counts 1,3,5), three counts of sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine (counts 2, 4, 6), delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a recreation center (count 7), sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a recreation center (count 8), facilitation of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 of a school (count 9), facilitation of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 10), facilitation of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a daycare (count 11), facilitation of sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a daycare (count 12), delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine (count 13), facilitation of sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine (count 14), conspiracy to sell more than 26 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 21) and conspiracy to deliver more than 26 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 22). The trial court merged counts 1 and 2, counts 3 and 4, counts 5 and 6, counts 7 and 8, counts 9 and 10, counts 11 and 12, counts 13 and 14, and counts 21 and 22. Defendant Graham received twelve-year sentences for the resulting convictions in counts 1, 3, 7, 9, and 13. He received a six-year sentence for count 11, and a 25-year sentence for count 21. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences for counts 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, and 21 to be served consecutively to concurrent sentences in counts 7 and 9 for an effective 37-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant Graham raises the following issues: (1) the trial court erred by denying Defendant Graham?s motion for severance of offenses; (2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant Graham?s motion for election of theories and/or bill of particulars; (3) the trial court erred in denying Defendant Graham?s Batson challenge; (4) the trial court erred in denying Defendant Graham?s request to determine the competency of the CI; (5) whether the evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to support Defendant?s Graham?s conspiracy convictions; and (6) whether the trial court correctly sentenced Defendant Graham. Defendant Murchison also filed an appeal which is addressed in a separate opinion of this court. Following our review of the ? parties? briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.