### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE
AT NASHVILL E
Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs Marc h 2 4, 2 01 0

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DUANTEZ CORNELL J ENKI NS

D irect A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim in a l C o u rt f o r D a v id so n C o u n ty
N o . 2 0 0 8 -C -2 4 8 5 M o n te W a tkin s, J u d g e

N o . M 2 0 0 9 -0 0 7 8 8 -C C A -R 3 -C D - F iled N o v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 1 0

D ef en d an t, D u an tez C o rn ell Jen k in s, w as in d icted f o r p o ssessio n , w ith in a sch o o l zo n e, an d

w ith in ten t to sell o r d eliv er tw en ty -six (2 6 ) g ram s o r m o re o f a su b stan ce co n t a i n in g

co cain e. In th e sam e in d ictm en t, R o b ert L ee A rch ib ald

, Jr. (A rch ib ald ), w as in d icted f o r th e

s a me o f f e n se, in ad d itio n to tw o o th er ch arg es. A ll ch arg es w ere th e resu lt o f ev id en ce seized p u rsu an t to a search w arran t. D ef en d an t f iled a m o tio n to su p p ress all th e ev id en ce

s e i z e d w h i c h f

o rm s th e b asis o f th e ch arg es ag ain st h im

. T h e trial co u rt en tered an o rd e r
g ran tin g th e m o tio n an d d ism issed th e ch arg es ag ain st D ef en d an t. T h e S tate ap p eals. B ased

u p o n th e reco rd an d b rief s o f th e p arties, w e af

f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e trial co u rt.

T en n . R . A p p . P . 3 A p p ea l a s o f R ig h t; J u d g m en t o f

th e C rim in a l C o u rt A f

f irm ed

T H O M A S T

. W O O D A L L , J., d eliv ered th e o p in io n o f th e C o u rt, in w h ich J E R R Y L

. S M IT H an d

R O B E R T W. W E D E M E Y E R , JJ., j o in ed

.

R o b ert E

. C o o p er, Jr., A tto rn ey G en eral an d R ep o rter; B en j am in A

. B all, A ssistan t A tto rn ey G en eral; V icto r S . (T o rry ) Jo h n so n , III, D istrict A tto rn ey G en eral; an d H u g h A m m erm an , A ssistan t D istrict A tto rn ey G en eral, f

o r th e ap p ellan t, th e S tate o f T en n essee.

M ark E . C h ap m an , N ash v ille, T en n essee, f o r ap p ellee, D u an tez C o rn ell Jen k in s.

O P IN IO N

B ased u p o n an af

f id av it s w o r n to b y D etectiv e M ich ael Wilso n o f th e M etro
N ash v ille P o lice D ep artm en t, a search w arran t w as issu ed o n M ay 2 3 , 2 0 0 8

, au th o rizin g a search o f th e ap artm en t lo cate d a t 5 A U n iv ersity C o u rt in N ash v ille, an d o f all p erso n s
p resen t at th at lo catio n

. T h e w arran t w as ex ecu ted o n M ay 2 8

, 2 0 0 8

. D ef en d an t an d
A rch ib ald w ere p resen t d u r i n g t h e search an d th e seizu re o f th e ev id en ce, an d b o th w ere

su b seq u en tly in d icted

. A rch ib ald f iled a m o tio n to su p p ress th e ev id en ce as ag ain st h im

.F o llo w in g a h earin g , th e trial co u rt en tere d a n o rd er o n F eb ru ary 1 2

, 2 0 0 9

, g ran tin g

A rch ib ald ’s m o tio n to su p p ress, b ased u p o n th e f ailu re o f th e o f

f icer’s af f id av it to estab lish

p ro b ab le cau se to j u stif

y th e issu an ce o f th e search w arran t. A p p r o x im ately th ree w eek s l a t e r o n M a rch 4

, 2 0 0 9

, D ef en d an t f iled a m o tio n to su p p ress th e ev id en ce as to h is c a s e , b ased u p o n th e sam e th eo ry u p o n w h ich th e trial co u rt h ad g ran ted A rch ib ald ’s m o tio n to

su p p ress th e ev id en ce. A h earin g w a s h e ld in th e trial co u rt o n M arch 1 1

, 2 0 0 9

, o n D ef en d an t’s m o tio n to su p p ress, at w h ich D ef en d a n t t e s t if

ied an d co u n sel f

o r th e p arties

p ro v id ed arg u m en ts to th e trial co u rt. O n M arch 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 , th e trial co u rt en tered an o rd er
g ran tin g D ef

en d an t’s m o tio n to su p p ress b ased u p o n th e sam e reaso n s th at cau sed th e co u rt

to g ran t A rch ib ald ’s m o tio n to su p p ress, th at is, a lack o f p ro b ab le cau se in th e af f id av it to j u stif y issu an ce o f

th e search w arran t.

In sep arate ap p ea ls, th e S tate ap p ealed each o rd er b y th e trial co u rt w h ich g ran ted

D ef en d an t’s an d A rch ib ald ’s sep arate m o tio n s to su p p ress. T h e S tate f iled its ap p ellan t’s
b rief in th e ca s e su b ju d ice o n O cto b er 2 3

, 2 0 0 9

. Wh ile th e S tate co n tested D ef en d an t’s

stan d in g to ch allen g e th e search w arra n t a t t h e t r ial co u rt lev el, o n ap p eal, th e S tate h as ab an d o n ed th at assertio n an d o n ly raises th e issu e th at th e af f id av it d o es, in f

act, estab lish

p ro b ab le cau se to issu e th e search w arran t, an d th e trial co u rt erred b y g ran tin g D ef en d an t’s

m o tio n to su p p ress.

O n F eb ru ary 1 2

, 2 0 1 0

, th is C o u rt af f irm ed th e trial co u rt’s o rd er g ran tin g A rch ib ald ’s

m o tio n to su p p ress ev id en ce b ased u p o n th e af f id av it’s f ailu re to estab lish p ro b ab le cau se. T h e S tate’s ap p licatio n to ap p eal w as d en ied b y o u r su p rem e co u rt o n A u g u st 2 5

, 2 0 1 0

. S ta te v. R o b e r t L e e A rch ib a ld

, Jr.

, N o

. M 2 0 0 9 -0 0 5 4 5 -C C A -R 3 -C D

, 2 0 1 0 WL 5 2 1 0 3 0 (T en n . C rim . A p p . at N ash v ille, F eb . 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 (p erm . to ap p . d en ied A u g . 2 5 , 2 0 1 0 ).

D e f en d an t f iled a m o tio n to su p p ress th e ev id en ce b ased u p o n th e g ro u n d t h a t t h e af f id av it f iled in su p p o rt o f th e search w arran t f ailed to estab lish p ro b ab le cau se to j u stif y issu an ce o f th e w a r ran t. T h e trial co u rt h ad alread y g ran ted

, f o r th e sam e reaso n , co

d e f e n d a n t A rch ib ald ’s m o tio n to su p p ress ev id en ce seized d u rin g ex ecu tio n o f th e sam e search w arran t. T h e trial co u rt g ran ted D ef en d an t’s m o tio n to su p p ress f o r th e sam e leg al

c o n clu sio n th at it h ad g ran ted co -d ef en d an t A rch ib ald ’s m o tio n to su p p ress. In s e p a r a t e
ap p eals th e S tate ap p ealed b o th o rd ers o f th e trial co u rt. Wh ile th is C o u rt af f irm ed th e trial

co u rt’s o r d er in A rch ib ald ’s case b ased o n a d if f eren t d ef ect in th e af

f id av it, th e leg al

reaso n in g th at th e af

f id av it f ailed to estab lish p r o b a b le cau se w as th e sam e as th e trial

co u rt’s leg al reaso n in g

.

A rch ib ald ’s case an d D ef en d an t’s case in v o lv e t h e sam e search

, th e sam e af f id av it

an d search w arran t, an d th e sam e issu e at th e t r i al co u rt an d o n ap p eal. We see n o reaso n

-2-to reach a co n clu sio n d if f eren t f ro m th e o n e reach ed in S ta te v. A rch ib a ld

. A cco rd in g ly

, th e S tate is n o t en titled to relief in th is ap p eal.

C O N C L U S IO N

F o r th e reaso n s stated h erein

, th e j u d g m en t o f th e trial co u rt g ran tin g D ef en d an t’s

m o tio n to su p p ress ev id en ce an d d ism issin g th e ch arg es ag ain st D ef en d an t is af

f irm ed

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________

_ _ _ _ _ T H O M A S T . WO O D A L L , JU D G E

-3-