FILED

March 15, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

JANUARY 1999 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9804-CR-00164

)

Appellee ) SULLIVAN COUNTY

)

v. ) HON. R. JERRY BECK, JUDGE

)

JOHN PERRY ROBERTS, ) (Sentencing)

)

Defendant/Appellant )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Terry L. Jordan John Knox Walkup

Assistant Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter

2nd Judicial District

Office of the Public Defender Ellen H. Pollack

P.O. Box 839 Assistant Attorney General

Blountville, TN 37617 Criminal Justice Division

425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243

OPINION FILED 

AFFIRMED

JOHN K. BYERS

SENIOR JUDGE
-2-

O P I N I O N

The defendant entered nolo contendere pleas in case number S39,082 to two

counts of reckless endangerment, for which he was sentenced to serve two one

year sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant also entered nolo

contendere pleas to three counts of reckless endangerment, for which he was

sentenced to serve one year each to be served concurrently but consecutive to the

sentences in case number S39,082. He also entered a nolo contendere plea to

reckless aggravated assault, for which he was sentenced to serve three years. This

sentence was to run concurrent to the other sentences and consecutive to the

sentences in case number S39,082 for an aggregate sentence of four years.

The trial judge denied the defendant’s application for probation or alternative

sentencing.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The evidence presented by the State by way of stipulation and testimony

shows as follows:

On June 5, 1996, Angela McHan and Sharon Warren . . . were in Ms.

McHan’s vehicle which was sparked in Autumn Chase Apartments in Sullivan

County. Ms. McHan [who was a friend of defendant’s estranged wife], was

backing the vehicle out of the parking space when the Defendant, John

Roberts, pulled up behind them. Mr. Roberts attempted to keep them from

leaving, but Ms. McHan managed to get her car out and around the

Defendant.

She drove out of the apartment complex and Mr. Roberts followed

them. They headed down West Stone Drive in Sullivan County, and then Ms.

McHan made a u-turn and headed east. Mr. Roberts turned at the same

location and continued following them. While traveling on West Stone Drive

to an area east of 181, Mr. Roberts went to the left side of the vehicle. He cut

in front or cut into Ms. McHan’s lane, she had to slam on her brakes to keep

Mr. Roberts from hitting her vehicle.

She slowed down to put distance between them. Mr. Roberts pulled

into the far right of the road and began driving very slow. As Ms. McHan

caught up with him, she went to the left lane to speed up and passed him. 

Mr. Roberts then sped up and caught up with her. He pulled along side Ms.

McHan’s vehicle and once again swerved back into Ms. McHan’s lane

causing her to have to slam on the brakes again to keep from being hit.
-3-

On July 28, 1996, the Defendant and Linda Roberts, the defendant’s

estranged wife, and Jonathan Roberts, the couple’s son, Jody Day and

Loretta Dotson, were at a cemetery. 

They had met for decoration day. At some point, the defendant

pushed his wife, grabbed their son, and put him in his car. 

The defendant got into the car with his two and a half year old son and

started to take off. The defendant, at some time before this, had kidnapped

the couple’s son.

Mrs. Linda Roberts requested the defendant to stop and got onto the

hood of the car. At this point, Mr. Roberts started driving around the

graveyard with her on the hood of the car. Ms. Jody Day and Loretta Dotson

got into another vehicle and came up behind the Defendant.

The Defendant stopped the car momentarily and requested that Linda

Roberts get off the car and she responded that she would not get off the car

without her child. At this point, Ms. Jody Day, the driver of the other car, and

Loretta Dotson pulled in front of his car and attempted to block it. The

Defendant made contact with their car and they were in danger of going over

a steep embankment.

After that, the Defendant got his car around their car and went out on

the interstate. Mrs. Roberts was on the hood of the car which reached

speeds of eight, ninety, and a hundred miles an hour. The son did not have a

seat belt on during this time.

Shortly after they left the cemetery, Linda Roberts was able to pull

herself inside the car with the help of the Defendant. And the rest of the

chase took place with her inside the car.

The trial court acknowledged that the defendant had a somewhat different

version of the facts. The defendant did not testify in the plea entry hearing or in the

sentencing hearing. His view of the facts was submitted in the statement given by

him to a police officer in a pre-sentence report which stated:

The appellant acknowledged he drove his vehicle from the cemetery

with his son in it because he saw a gun in the vehicle of Mrs. Roberts’

relatives. When he drove away Mrs. Roberts jumped on the hood of his

vehicle and Mrs. Roberts’ relatives in the other vehicle rammed his vehicle as

he went around them. At that time, one of the relatives had the gun and

threatened to shoot the appellant. So, the appellant proceeded onto the

highway with the other vehicle behind with gun shots being fired from the

vehicle. The appellant grabbed Mrs. Robert from the hood of the vehicle and

pulled her inside, and then, did the speeding pursuit begin. 

At the alternative sentencing/probation hearing, Mrs. Roberts testified

she heard a noise while she was on the hood of the appellant’s vehicle, and

she had testified at the preliminary hearing in this matter that she heard

something go bang, bang and understood why the appellant did not stop

because he was afraid he would be shot. Again at the preliminary hearing,

Mrs. Roberts stated she understood her relatives were shooting at the

appellant and that someone was shooting as the appellant left the graveyard. 

In another statement at the preliminary hearing, Mrs. Roberts said she heard

something go bang, bang. 
-4-

The defendant and his wife divorced sometime after this occurrence.

In reaching a conclusion of whether to grant probation or alternative

sentencing, the trial court reviewed the defendant’s past history. The history

included a misdemeanor theft conviction in Florida and many traffic convictions in

the Kingsport area, mostly speeding offenses. In addition, the defendant was

convicted of “telephone harassment” and sentenced to serve 11 months and 29

days, for which it appears he was placed on probation. Also, the defendant was

convicted of criminal trespass and was given a 30 day suspended sentence.

In reaching the judgment, the trial judge considered favorable factors for the

defendant, which in truth are few. He also considered unfavorable factors and

concluded that the nature of this offense, which placed the life of his wife and child

in obvious peril, was so enormous that probation or alternative sentencing was not

justified.

We find the record supports this finding and shows the trial judge did not

abuse his discretion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. It appearing that

the defendant is indigent, costs of the appeal are taxed to the State.

 

John K. Byers, Senior Judge

CONCUR:

 

James Curwood Witt, Jr., Judge

 

Norma McGee Ogle, Judge