IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

April 14, 2015 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM THOMAS UMFLEET

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardin County

No. 9697 C. Creed McGinley, Judge

No. W2014-00024-CCA-R3-CD - Filed September 16, 2015

The defendant, William Thomas Umfleet, appeals his Hardin County Circuit Court jury 

conviction of first degree premeditated murder, claiming that the evidence was 

insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T.

WOODALL, P.J., and NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., joined.

Robert Thomas, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Thomas Umfleet.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Assistant 

Attorney General; Hansel J. McAdams, District Attorney General; and Beth Boswell-Hall 

and James E. Williams, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of 

Tennessee.

OPINION

The Hardin County Circuit Court Grand Jury charged the defendant with 

one count of first degree premeditated murder for the death of the victim, Thomas 

Michael “Doodle” Dickson, in Savannah.

The evidence adduced at the defendant‟s August 2013 trial established that 

the defendant had previously purchased drugs from the victim and that the two men often 

consumed drugs together in the victim‟s home.

On May 5, 2012, the victim telephoned the Huddle House in Savannah to 

order breakfast at 2:35 a.m. Shortly thereafter, the defendant telephoned the victim and 
-2-

asked the victim to pick him up. The victim picked up his food from the Huddle House 

at 2:52 a.m., and he told a waitress there that she should tell anyone who called to “ask if 

he had come and picked up his food, that he had already picked it up . . . and that he had 

already left the Huddle House.” At some point, the victim picked up the defendant, and 

the two men went to the victim‟s residence, where they consumed drugs and alcohol. 

Toxicology results from the victim‟s autopsy showed that the victim‟s blood alcohol level 

was .06 percent and that his blood contained diazepam, alprazolam, cocaine, methadone, 

dihydrocodeine, hydrocodone, and hydromorphone.

At approximately 4:00 a.m., Cindy Davis saw a man she later identified as 

the defendant walking along the road near St. John‟s Baptist Church. The defendant‟s 

cellular telephone records established that he telephoned Joey Hinson from a picnic 

bench on Graham Street after 4:00 a.m. Lori Ann Davis, a friend of both the defendant 

and the victim, saw the defendant walking along Handy Street sometime between 4:00 

a.m. and 5:00 a.m., and the defendant did not speak to her even after she called his name, 

which unnerved her. Ms. Davis later saw the defendant standing beside a picnic table on 

Graham Street.

When Brandi Jennings, an employee of the Quik Mart, reported for her 

5:30 a.m. shift on May 5, 2012, she saw a man she later identified as Joey Hinson sitting 

on a milk crate outside the store talking on a cellular telephone. Ms. Jennings also saw a 

man she later identified as the defendant pacing in front of the Walgreen‟s “across the 

road on a cell phone.” The two men “met up in the [Quik Mart] parking lot not too long 

after.” The defendant “had a bag or a satchel or something slung over his shoulder” and 

he wore a sling. He “put the bag in a garbage can at the gas pumps,” and then the men 

came into the store. After the men left the store at 6:18 a.m., the defendant retrieved the 

bag from the garbage can and walked in the direction of the liquor store.

Colton Blake Hudson saw the defendant at the home of Mr. Hudson‟s 

mother, Darlene Hottiman, sometime between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on May 5, 2012. 

Mr. Hudson allowed the defendant to come into the house to wash his hands at the 

kitchen sink, but, because Ms. Hottiman was not home, Mr. Hudson did not allow the 

defendant to stay inside the house after Mr. Hudson left. He did allow the defendant to 

remain on the porch. Later that same day, Mr. Hudson found “a shiny silver watch” lying 

next to the sink in Ms. Hottiman‟s kitchen that had not been there earlier in the day. Mr. 

Hudson gave the watch to his boyfriend. Later, after they overheard Savannah Police 

Department Investigator Tim Keen talking about a watch while he was in a local jewelry 

store, Mr. Hudson and his boyfriend gave the watch to Investigator Keen.

The defendant and Mr. Hinson arrived at the residence that Robert 

“Weedy” White shared with his elderly mother sometime between 10:00 a.m. and noon 
-3-

on May 5, 2012. The defendant‟s brown checked shirt “was wet because it was hot and 

he was sweating profusely,” so he hung the shirt on Mr. White‟s mailbox to dry. The 

defendant and Mr. Hinson both walked around to the side of Mr. White‟s house. After 

Mr. White told police officers about his interaction with the defendant and Mr. Hinson on 

May 5, 2012, investigators went to the side of the house and discovered a yellow Dollar 

General bag and a pair of gloves that did not belong to Mr. White inside the trash can 

located there.

Oren Hancock and Pam Lester, with whom the defendant had been living, 

went to the victim‟s house at approximately 11:30 a.m., and they found the house 

“eerily” quiet. Ms. Lester knocked on the victim‟s door but got no answer. Mr. Hancock 

and Ms. Lester then drove to Mr. White‟s house, where they saw Mr. Hinson and the 

defendant. They then drove Mr. Hinson and the defendant to the home of Sonia “Punk” 

Price. The defendant left his brown checked shirt inside Mr. Hancock‟s vehicle, and Mr. 

Hancock later gave the shirt to the police.

On the afternoon of May 5, 2012, the victim‟s neighbor, Max Walker, 

walked to the victim‟s house to deliver a meal of leftovers to the victim. Kenny Wesson, 

who was standing in the victim‟s driveway, told Mr. Walker, “„I‟ve hollered all 

throughout the house and he‟s not in there. He‟s not here.‟” Mr. Walker then noticed 

that the victim‟s front door had been “broken open” and that the victim‟s dog, a 

pitbull/Rottweiler mix that was known to be vicious to strangers and protective of the 

victim, was loose rather than confined, as was generally the victim‟s custom. Mr. Walker 

stepped toward the victim‟s house, stuck his head in the door, and “hollered” for the 

victim. When he received no response, Mr. Walker stepped into the house to let the 

victim‟s dog inside, and he observed the victim‟s body lying in the hallway. Mr. Walker 

then returned to his own house to telephone 9-1-1.

Savannah Police Department Officer Wesley Murphy responded to Mr. 

Walker‟s 9-1-1 call. He first encountered the victim‟s dog, which became aggressive and 

drove the officer back into his cruiser. Mr. Walker, who was familiar with the dog, was 

able to contain the dog so that officers could go inside the victim‟s home. Inside, officers

found the victim‟s body lying in the hallway; a hammer was protruding from the back of 

the victim‟s head. Blood spatter covered the walls, and papers were strewn throughout 

the house, including the area nearest the victim‟s body. The victim‟s pockets had been 

turned out.

Crime scene investigators from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation 

(“TBI”) took photographs, measurements, and video, and collected evidence from the 

scene. In particular, investigators observed shoe tracks in several areas, some on papers 

that were very near the victim‟s body, and collected those. Investigators also collected a 
-4-

hammer from the front door area of the victim‟s home and a hammer from the victim‟s 

head. The evidence collected from the scene was sent to the TBI laboratory for testing.

Testing of the items collected from the victim‟s house yielded few 

identifiable fingerprints, none of which belonged to the defendant. Deoxyribonucleic 

acid (“DNA”) testing of those items collected during the investigation also yielded few 

results. The defendant‟s brown checked shirt tested positive for the presence of blood,

and DNA testing established that “that particular item was a mixture of genetic material 

from at least two individuals; the major contributor to the profile . . . was [the defendant] 

. . . . [a]nd the minor contributor” was the victim. Testing on the gloves collected from 

Mr. White‟s residence indicated the presence of blood but failed to indicate the presence 

of human DNA. Testing on the Dollar General bag collected from the White residence

tested positive for the presence of blood and human DNA, but the DNA was insufficient 

or too degraded to yield a profile.

TBI Agent and Forensic Scientist Miranda Gaddes compared the shoe 

impressions discovered inside the victim‟s residence with the shoes collected from the 

defendant, Mr. Walker, and the officers and medical personnel who responded to the 

scene. In total, 16 of the 25 impressions or partial impressions were consistent with the 

black Skecher‟s Shape Up shoes collected from the defendant, including some that were 

discovered near the victim‟s body and the murder weapon. None of the shoe impressions 

came from the shoes worn by the victim or from the shoes worn by Mr. Walker.

Doctor Thomas Deering, who conducted an autopsy of the victim, 

determined that the cause of the victim‟s death was “multiple modality trauma.” The 

victim suffered seven stab wounds to the left neck, including an “injury to the left 

c[a]rotid artery” and “an incised wound to the anterior laryngeal cartilage, the voice box.” 

“[A] very large laceration to the left posterior aspect of the” victim‟s head evinced 

“blows to the head that have ripped through the scalp, that have severely fractured the 

skull and have intruded into the cranial cavity and actually struck the brain and lacerated 

the brain.” The victim‟s “skull [was] obviously fractured,” and his brain could be seen 

through the “gaping” hole, exposing “open lacerations” to the brain. Other autopsy 

findings indicated that the victim was alive when some of the blows were struck to the 

brain itself. Additionally, the right side of the victim‟s head bore “multiple scrapes and 

bruises,” and he had “bilateral periorbital hemorrhages; two black eyes.” “[B]ruises to 

the multiple strap muscles of the neck” and a fractured hyoid bone indicated the 

possibility of manual strangulation. The victim also suffered multiple “scrapes and 

bruises to the lower extremities, the legs, particularly around the knees” and to “[t]he left 

forearm, the right upper arm, his lower belly area, the lower abdomen, and the right 

middle chest.”
-5-

While the police were at the victim‟s residence investigating, Darlene 

Hottiman arrived on the scene and communicated to Investigator Keen that the defendant 

had threatened the victim‟s life in the days before the murder. The defendant told Ms. 

Hottiman “that he had got some bad drugs from [the victim] [that] made him sick.” The 

defendant said that he “„ought to kill the son of a b****‟” before saying, “„I will kill the 

son of a b****.‟” Based upon this information, Investigator Keen telephoned the 

defendant and asked if he would agree to speak to the police. The defendant agreed and 

asked for a ride to the police station.

During his May 5, 2012 interview, the defendant told TBI Agent Terry 

Dicus that he and the victim were “associates, . . . not necessarily friends. They were 

drug associates, that every time he would get high with [the victim, the victim] would 

start agitating him. He was agitating, annoying, arrogant.” The defendant said that “he 

had called [the victim] the night before. [The victim] had picked him up, they went to the 

Huddle House, then they went over to his house and they both used drugs.” He said that 

they “smoked crack and shot up some dope” and that “he purchased $150 worth of K4 

Dilaudid from [the victim].” He told Agent Dicus that “that morning [the victim] made 

him mad, so he left and went . . . to go to the next place to get drugs.” The defendant said 

that he left the victim‟s residence at 5:00 a.m. and that the victim was alive when he left. 

Agent Dicus collected the clothing that the defendant was wearing: “a Stone Cold Steve 

Austin shirt, black in color, a pair of blue jean shorts, a black belt, and black Skechers 

Shape Up tennis shoes.” The defendant told Agent Dicus that he had been wearing the 

same clothes when he was with the victim.

In a later interview, the defendant provided the following description of his 

whereabouts on the morning of May 5, 2012:

He went from [the victim‟s residence], across the field to . . . 

the area of St. John‟s Baptist Church. He went from there, 

from that area up to Darlene Hottiman‟s where he had . . . a 

bag of some CD‟s and other things behind her house. He 

picked that up.

Then he walked back across . . . the highway to a 

picnic table at Daryl and Mary‟s house. He stayed at the 

picnic table until 5:35 when Joey Hinson called him and said, 

„Hey, let‟s go. I got a wad of money. Let‟s go get some 

drugs.‟

He left the picnic table and went back south to Quik 

Mart and met up with Mr. Hinson. They went from Qui[]k 
-6-

Mart to Punky Price‟s house, Sonia Price, and went to her 

house.

They left there and went to . . . Weedy White‟s house.

The defendant also told Agent Dicus that it was possible that a small amount of the 

victim‟s blood might be on his clothing, explaining, “„We, you know – we shoot dope, 

we do needles. And sometimes, you know, I may have come across and his blood got on 

me somehow.‟” During that same interview, Agent Dicus asked the defendant if he had 

worn gloves while inside the victim‟s house. The defendant denied having done so. 

Immediately following that interview, Mr. White‟s daughter, Brandy Henderson, saw the 

defendant come into her grandmother‟s yard “bent down . . . walking fast . . . between” 

two vehicles in a manner that made it appear that he was trying to avoid being seen. “He 

went straight to the garbage can at the side of the house.” At that point, Ms. Henderson 

stepped outside and saw the defendant “[a]t the corner of the house with his hand on the 

garbage can.”

A few days later, Candace Smith was sitting in her truck smoking a 

cigarette when the defendant approached her and asked for a cigarette. As they talked, 

the defendant asked, “„How does it feel talking to a murderer?‟”

During a May 14 interview with Agent Dicus, the defendant “said that he 

had been . . . thinking about it, and somebody could have c[o]me over to the house and 

waited on [the defendant] to leave and as soon as [the defendant] left, you know, . . . they 

jumped out and got ahold of” the victim. The defendant also told Agent Dicus that he 

had heard another individual threaten to bash the victim‟s head in. Additionally, the 

defendant said that he had used a claw hammer from the victim‟s residence to help the 

victim repair his door. The defendant denied having ever gone anywhere inside the 

victim‟s house other than the living room and kitchen. He specifically denied having 

been in the area where the victim‟s body was found.

In an interview conducted on the following day, Agent Dicus confronted 

the defendant with the results of the forensic testing conducted by the TBI. When 

confronted with the results of shoe impression comparisons, the defendant again denied 

going into the area near the victim‟s body. The defendant insisted that the victim was 

alive when he left the victim‟s house. When confronted with the DNA results showing a 

mixture of his and the victim‟s blood on his shirt, the defendant denied ever having 

shared a needle with the victim and maintained that the presence of the victim‟s blood on 

his shirt was “inexplicable.”

Following his arrest, the defendant was incarcerated in the Hardin County 
-7-

Jail, and during his incarceration, he shared a cell with Matthew Moody. The defendant 

told Mr. Moody that the victim “had ripped him off on some pills” and that “he had 

planned it out and went over there to get even with” the victim. The defendant told Mr. 

Moody that when he first arrived at the victim‟s house on the night of the murder, the two 

men “sat on the couch and got high together, shot up. And later on, sometime that night, 

he had wrapped hi[m]self up in something, hit him in the head with a hammer and 

bludgeoned him.” The defendant also told Mr. Moody that he stabbed the victim and that 

he had checked the victim‟s pockets in an effort to recover the $150 he had paid the 

victim for the counterfeit drugs. The defendant expressed concern because although he 

had worn gloves during the offense, he could not recall whether he wore gloves when he 

checked the victim‟s pockets. The defendant told Mr. Moody that “[h]e buried 

everything after he was done” and that he had gone to the Shell Station because “he 

wanted to make sure that he was seen on camera wearing the clothes . . . he had on earlier 

that day.”

The defendant also confessed his crime to fellow inmate Gregory Gray, 

telling Mr. Gray that the victim “owed him money and he collected” by “bludgeoning” 

the victim “[w]ith a hammer.” The defendant told Mr. Gray that he had worn gloves 

during the offense and that the authorities had “found the wrong gloves.” The defendant 

bragged that although he made shoe prints around the victim‟s body, he had done so 

using “Skechers women‟s shoes.” The defendant said “that he cleaned up the crime with 

acetone” and that his clothing had been “washed with acetone” because “acetone would 

take care of anything.” The defendant told Mr. Gray that he did not believe that he would 

be convicted “[b]ecause it was the perfect crime.”

Based upon the proof presented, the jury convicted the defendant as 

charged of first degree murder. The trial court approved the verdict as 13th juror and 

imposed the automatic sentence of life imprisonment.

Following the denial of his timely motion for new trial, the defendant filed 

a timely notice of appeal. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the 

convicting evidence, claiming that the State failed to establish the necessary element of 

premeditation, that the State failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator, and that the 

testimony of Messrs. Moody and Gray was not credible.1

We review the defendant‟s claim of insufficient evidence mindful that our 

standard of review is whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the 

 

1

The defendant‟s claims that the trial court should have either vacated the jury‟s verdict in its 

role as 13th juror or granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal are actually challenges to the 

sufficiency of the convicting evidence.
-8-

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 

307, 319 (1979); State v. Winters, 137 S.W.3d 641, 654 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). This 

standard applies to findings of guilt based upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, 

or a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 

370, 379 (Tenn. 2011).

When examining the sufficiency of the evidence, this court should neither 

re-weigh the evidence nor substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact. Id. 

Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the 

evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of 

fact. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Significantly, this court must 

afford the State the strongest legitimate view of the evidence contained in the record as 

well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. 

Id.

As charged in this case, “[f]irst degree murder is . . . [a] premeditated and 

intentional killing of another.” T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a).

Premeditation

Code section 39-13-202 explains:

As used in subdivision (a)(1), “premeditation” is an act done 

after the exercise of reflection and judgment.

“Premeditation” means that the intent to kill must have been 

formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the 

purpose to kill preexist in the mind of the accused for any 

definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the 

time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully 

considered in order to determine whether the accused was 

sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable 

of premeditation.

T.C.A. § 39-13-202(d). Noting that “[p]roof of premeditation is inherently 

circumstantial,” this court has observed that “[t]he trier of fact cannot speculate what was 

in the killer‟s mind, so the existence of premeditation must be determined from the 

defendant‟s conduct in light of the circumstances surrounding the crime.” State v. Gann, 

251 S.W.3d 446, 455 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). Thus, in evaluating the sufficiency of 

proof of premeditation, the appellate court may look to the circumstances surrounding the 

killing, see, e.g., State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Coulter, 67 

S.W.3d 3, 72 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001), including “the use of a deadly weapon upon an 
-9-

unarmed victim; the particular cruelty of the killing; declarations by the defendant of an 

intent to kill; evidence of procurement of a weapon; preparations before the killing for 

concealment of the crime[;] and calmness immediately after the killing.” Bland, 958 

S.W.2d at 660.

In this case, just days after the defendant threatened to kill him, the victim 

was stabbed seven times, bludgeoned with a hammer, and possibly strangled. Doctor 

Deering explained that the victim was struck repeatedly with the hammer, even after one 

blow broke the victim‟s skull open, exposing his brain. Some of the blows to the victim‟s 

brain occurred while the victim was still alive. The evidence indicated that the victim 

was unarmed. Shortly after the victim‟s murder, the defendant was seen walking around, 

and he did not appear to be agitated. The defendant told Messrs. Moody and Gray that he 

had planned the victim‟s murder as retaliation for selling him steroid pills instead of 

narcotics and that he had been careful to avoid leaving any forensic evidence of his guilt. 

This evidence overwhelmingly supports the jury‟s finding that the victim‟s murder was 

premeditated.

Identity

The defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence on 

grounds that the autopsy showed that the victim was alive when the defendant left the 

victim‟s residence at 4:00 a.m. on May 5, 2012. He also claims that the lack of DNA 

evidence does not support a conclusion that he killed the victim. At bottom, these claims 

are a challenge to the State‟s proof of the defendant‟s identity as the perpetrator.

At trial, Doctor Deering described the victim‟s stomach contents as “500 

milliliters or a half a liter of tan chime” and “portions of partially digested food,” 

including “recognizable carrots, kernels of corn, onions, pea pod shells, and peas.” The 

defendant asserts on appeal that this testimony established that the victim consumed 

another meal after eating the breakfast items that he picked up from the Huddle House. 

He argues that “[i]t stands to reason that this meal was consumed after the [d]efendant 

departed from the residence, which would indicate that the victim was alive and well 

when the [d]efendant last saw him.” Although the jury, in its province as fact finder, 

could have made such an inference, we are not permitted on appeal to substitute any 

inference for those conclusions made by the jury. See Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d at 379.

Additionally, the defendant contends that the lack of DNA evidence 

indicates his innocence. He argues that given the gruesome nature of the crime 

committed against the victim, “the fact that there would be such small traces of blood 

and/or human DNA on only two items of [the defendant‟s] clothing defies logical 

reasoning if it is to be believed that the [d]efendant committed this crime.” Again, we 
-10-

decline the defendant‟s invitation to re-weigh the evidence presented or substitute our 

own factual conclusions for those drawn by the jury. See id. The evidence presented 

established that the victim picked the defendant up sometime after 2:30 a.m. on May 5, 

2012, and was never seen alive again. Shoe impressions from the victim‟s residence, 

including those discovered nearest the victim‟s body, matched the shoes worn by the 

defendant, despite that the defendant maintained that he had never gone into that area of 

the victim‟s house. The defendant threatened the victim‟s life just days before the 

murder, and then he confessed the murder to two different Hardin County Jail inmates. 

The defendant told Messrs. Gray and Moody, on different occasions, that he had planned 

the victim‟s murder as retaliation for the victim‟s selling him counterfeit narcotics. He 

explained in detail how he had gone to great lengths to avoid leaving any forensic 

evidence behind. In spite of the defendant‟s efforts, forensic testing revealed a small 

amount of the victim‟s blood on the defendant‟s shirt. Additionally, after Agent Dicus 

asked the defendant whether the defendant had worn gloves while at the victim‟s 

residence, the defendant went immediately to the trashcan outside Mr. White‟s residence 

where the police had discovered a pair of gloves. This evidence was sufficient to support 

the jury‟s conclusion that the defendant murdered the victim.

Witness Credibility

Finally, the defendant asserts that the testimony of Messrs. Gray and 

Moody was “not credible given the conflicts present therein and their self-serving 

motives in offering said testimony.” The determination of witness credibility lies 

squarely within the province of the jury, and, in this case, the jury clearly accredited the 

testimony of these two witnesses. This court is not free to revisit this conclusion.

In sum, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the 

defendant‟s conviction of the first degree premeditated murder of the victim. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

__________________________________

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE