STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GEORGE JOSEPH RAUDENBUSH, III - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Suzanne Craig Robertson on Jun 6, 2017

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Gerald L. Gulley, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee (on appeal) and C. Richard Hughes, Jr., District Public Defender; Donald Leon Shahan and Abby Burke, Assistant Public Defenders, (at trial) for the appellant, George Joseph Raudenbush, III.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Counsel; Stephen Davis Crump, District Attorney General; and Paul Rush, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WOODALL

In his first trial, Defendant, George Joseph Raudenbush, III, was convicted of driving on a suspended license, violating the financial responsibility law, speeding, felony evading arrest, misdemeanor evading arrest, assault, and reckless endangerment. The trial court merged the misdemeanor evading arrest conviction into the felony evading arrest conviction and imposed an effective four-year sentence. On appeal, this court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial because the trial court denied Defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by requiring him to proceed pro se at trial. State v. George Joseph Raudenbush, III, No. E2012-02287-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 62372011 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 3, 2013). In his second trial, the subject of this appeal, Defendant was convicted of driving on a suspended license, violating the financial responsibility law, speeding, felony evading arrest, misdemeanor evading arrest, assault, and reckless endangerment. The trial court again imposed an effective four-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in overruling Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) whether the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for felony evading arrest and assault; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion for a change of venue; and (4) whether there was juror misconduct. Defendant is not entitled to relief on the issues presented. However, the trial court failed to merge the conviction for misdemeanor evading arrest with the conviction for felony evading arrest. We therefore remand the convictions for merger. In all other respects the judgments are affirmed.

Attachments: