STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHAEL LEBRON BRANHAM - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Chandra Williams on Jul 27, 2016

Head Comment: Corrections are as follows: (1) Page 5, first paragraph, fourth line "[sic]" is inserted between "swing" and "open." (2) Page 14, second paragraph, second line comma deleted between "Const." and "amend." (3) Page 20, last paragraph, last line "Gray v. State, 538 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn. 1976)" inserted after "sentences"

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Andrew W. Childress, Chattanooga, Tennessee (at trial); and Donna Miller, Chattanooga, Tennessee (at motion for new trial hearing and on appeal), for the appellant, Michael Lebron Branham.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Nicholas W. Spangler, Assistant Attorney General; M. Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General; and Lance Pope and David Schmidt, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): THOMAS

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Michael Lebron Branham, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; coercion of a witness, a Class D felony; aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-102(a)(1)(A)(iii), -13-402(a)(1), -14-403, -16-507, -17-1324(b)(1). The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-nine years. On appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that this case should be remanded for a new trial because one of the prosecutors had previously represented the Defendant in an unrelated matter; (2) that the indictments for aggravated burglary and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony should be dismissed due to alleged vindictive prosecution; (3) that the trial court erred in not severing the coercion of a witness charge from the other offenses; (4) that the Defendant?s convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy as those offenses “were incidental to the aggravated robbery”; (5) that the State failed to make a proper election of offenses with respect to the coercion of a witness charge; (6) that the trial court erred in setting the length of the Defendant?s sentences; and (7) that the trial court erred in imposing partial consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.