IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs May 3, 2016

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTHONY JACKSON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 1205596 Lee V. Coffee, Judge

___________________________________

No. W2015-01403-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 2, 2016

___________________________________

The defendant, Anthony Jackson, was indicted for attempted first degree premeditated 

murder, employing a firearm with intent to commit a felony, and convicted felon in 

possession of a firearm. After trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of the lesserincluded offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter, employing a firearm with intent to 

commit a felony, and convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court 

subsequently held a sentencing hearing and imposed sentences of twelve years for 

attempted voluntary manslaughter, fifteen years for employing a firearm with intent to 

commit a felony, and fifteen years for convicted felon in possession of a firearm with all 

sentences to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of forty-two years. On 

appeal, the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his 

convictions, and the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we 

affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed

J. ROSS DYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E. GLENN and 

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.

Paul K. Guibao, Memphis, Tennessee (on appeal) and Mark Mesler, Memphis, 

Tennessee (at trial and at motion for new trial), for the appellant, Anthony Jackson.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; M. Todd Ridley, Assistant 

Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Ann Schiller, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
- 2 -

OPINION

Factual Background

On the afternoon of June 5, 2012, the victim, Eronia Neal, was standing outside 

DJ‟s Grocery with a friend, known to the victim as “Black.” According to the victim, the 

defendant, who the victim only knew by his nickname -- “Amp,” approached them and 

the two began to argue with Black about a debt he allegedly owed the defendant. While 

the discussion was heated, it ended without incident. The victim testified that he was not 

a part of the argument between the defendant and Black and had no knowledge of the 

debt Black owed the defendant. While the victim was familiar with the defendant from 

around the neighborhood, he testified that he never had a problem with the defendant.

Later that evening, the victim was still outside of DJ‟s Grocery when the 

defendant approached him and started arguing with the victim about Black‟s debt. As it 

did earlier in that day, the discussion became heated. In response, the victim told the 

defendant “Whatever y‟all got going on, I don‟t have nothing to do with it. Just, you 

ain‟t going to sit up here and talk crazy to me.” After the victim made these statements, 

the defendant left the store front and walked to his car. 

Within moments, the defendant returned to the store. As he approached, the 

victim heard one of the defendant‟s friends say, “You ain‟t got to do that.” The 

defendant then approached the victim, produced a gun from under his shirt, and shot the 

victim in the leg. After the first shot, the victim fled into the store hoping to escape 

through the backdoor. However, the defendant pursued him announcing his intent to 

collect Black‟s debt from the victim and his intent to kill the victim. According to the 

victim, the defendant fired at least two more shots once they were inside the store. 

Finally, at the urging of his friends, the defendant fled the location.

Memphis Police Officer Dominique McCraven testified that she was involved in 

the investigation of the shooting at DJ‟s Grocery. Officer McCraven was dispatched to 

the hospital to interview the victim. During the interview, the victim told Officer 

McCraven that the defendant shot him in the leg after asking him about Black. Then, as 

the victim fled into the store, the defendant pursued him firing at least two more shots.

Officer Milton Gonzalez with the Memphis Police Department‟s Project Safe 

Neighborhoods Unit testified that he was tasked with trying to identify and locate the 

defendant. According to Officer Gonzalez, the victim had described the defendant as an

“older male black between forty and fifty, street name of Amp.” From another source, 

Officer Gonzalez also learned that the perpetrator‟s last name was Jackson. Though he 

was unable to find anyone with the street name Amp in the police database, Officer 
- 3 -

Gonzalez did determine that the defendant, who was in the database as Anthony Jackson,

matched the description provided by the victim.

Officer Gonzalez provided the defendant‟s name to Officer Jonathon Clapp who, 

in turn, prepared a photospread containing the defendant‟s picture and five other similar 

looking individuals. When Officer Clapp showed the photospread to the victim, he 

identified the defendant stating, “This is Amp, who shot me in the leg.”

In addition to the live testimony, the State also introduced a video recording of the 

incident that was captured by the stores security camera.

At the conclusion of Officer Clapp‟s testimony, the State rested. After moving for 

acquittal, which the trial court denied, the defendant rested without presenting proof. The 

jury subsequently found the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of attempted 

voluntary manslaughter, employing a firearm with the intent to commit a felony, and 

being a felon in possession of a firearm.

At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the presentence report and certified copies of

the defendant‟s nine prior felony and two prior misdemeanor convictions were entered 

into evidence. After reviewing the evidence presented at trial and during the sentencing 

hearing and the arguments of the parties, the trial court sentenced the defendant to twelve 

years for attempted voluntary manslaughter, fifteen years for employing a firearm during 

the commission of a felony, and fifteen years for felon in possession of a firearm as a 

Career Offender. The trial court also found the defendant to be an offender with an 

extensive criminal history and a dangerous offender. Therefore, the trial court ordered 

the defendant‟s sentences to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of fortytwo years to be served with the Tennessee Department of Correction.

This appeal followed. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was 

insufficient to justify a rational trier of fact finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The 

defendant further argues the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. The State 

responds that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant‟s convictions, and the 

trial court properly sentenced the defendant. We agree with the State and affirm the 

judgment of the trial court. 

Analysis

Sufficiency of the Evidence

The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, arguing that 

the testimony of the victim was inconsistent. The State responds that it is the purview of 
- 4 -

the jury, not the appellate court, to weigh and decide issues of credibility. And, therefore, 

by finding the defendant guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter, the jury resolved 

those issues in favor of the State. We agree with the State.

In considering this issue, we apply the rule that where sufficiency of the 

convicting evidence is challenged, the relevant question of the reviewing court is 

“whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also Tenn. R. App. 

P. 13(e) (“Findings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury shall be 

set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact of guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt.”); State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185, 190–92 (Tenn. 1992); 

State v. Anderson, 835 S.W.2d 600, 604 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).

All questions involving the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be 

given the evidence, and all factual issues are resolved by the trier of fact. See State v. 

Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “A guilty verdict by the jury, 

approved by the trial judge, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and 

resolves all conflicts in favor of the theory of the State.” State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 

476 (Tenn. 1973). Our supreme court stated the rationale for this rule:

{ "pageset": "S53

This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and the 

jury see the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony and observe their 

demeanor on the stand. Thus the trial judge and jury are the primary 

instrumentality of justice to determine the weight and credibility to be 

given to the testimony of witnesses. In the trial forum alone is there human 

atmosphere and the totality of the evidence cannot be reproduced with a 

written record in this Court.

Bolin v. State, 219 Tenn. 4, 11, 405 S.W.2d 768, 771 (1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 212 

Tenn. 464, 370 S.W.2d 523 (1963)). “A jury conviction removes the presumption of 

innocence with which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so 

that on appeal a convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is 

insufficient.” State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982).

Voluntary manslaughter is “the intentional or knowing killing of another in a state 

of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act 

in an irrational manner.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39–13–211(a). “A person commits criminal 

attempt who, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the offense”:
- 5 -

(1) Intentionally engages in action or causes a result that would constitute 

an offense, if the circumstances surrounding the conduct were as the person 

believes them to be;

(2) Acts with intent to cause a result that is an element of the offense, and 

believes the conduct will cause the result without further conduct on the 

person‟s part; or

(3) Acts with intent to complete a course of action or cause a result that 

would constitute the offense, under the circumstances surrounding the 

conduct as the person believes them to be, and the conduct constitutes a 

substantial step toward the commission of the offense.

Id. 39-12-101(a). The jury is responsible for reviewing the evidence to determine whether 

it supports a finding of adequate provocation. State v. Williams, 38 S.W.3d 532, 539 

(Tenn. 2001).

In the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that on the afternoon 

of June 5, 2012, the defendant had words with the victim‟s friend, Black, over a debt 

Black allegedly owed the defendant. Though he was present when the argument took 

place, the victim was not involved in the argument and was unaware of the debt which 

was the subject of the argument. While that heated discussion ended without incident, 

the defendant returned to the scene later that evening and confronted the victim about 

Black‟s debt. The victim testified that the discussion became heated, but he considered it 

over when the victim walked away. However, both the testimony of the victim and the 

video from the store‟s security camera reveal that the defendant returned moments later 

and shot the unarmed victim in the leg. When the victim attempted to escape into the 

store, the defendant pursued him firing two more shots at the victim. Additionally, the 

victim testified that, as the defendant was shooting, he stated that he was going to make 

the victim pay Black‟s debt and threatened to kill the victim.

The jury, by finding the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, accepted this 

evidence and disregarded the defendant‟s attempt to characterize the victim as not 

credible. Concerning the defendant‟s claim that the testimony of the victim was too 

inconsistent for a rational trier of fact to have reconciled the testimony, we note that 

though there were some inconsistencies in the victim‟s testimony concerning how long he 

has known the defendant and how well he knows the defendant, the victim‟s testimony 

was not as inconsistent as the defendant suggests and, furthermore, the video evidence 

from the store‟s security camera corroborates the victim‟s testimony. Additionally, any 

inconsistency in the witness‟s testimony was resolved by the jury as the trier of fact, as 

was its province. Accordingly, the defendant is not entitled to any relief as to this issue.
- 6 -

Sentencing

The defendant also complains that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive 

sentences. More specifically, the defendant argues that the trial court erroneously found 

him to be a dangerous offender and that after doing so also failed to make the appropriate 

findings that the extended sentence was necessary to protect the public against further 

criminal conduct by the defendant and that the sentence reasonably related to the severity 

of the offenses committed. The State responds that the trial court acted well within its 

discretion in ordering consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we 

agree with the State and affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

When the record establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the 

appropriate range that reflects a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our 

Sentencing Act,” this court reviews the trial court‟s sentencing decision under an abuse of 

discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 

707 (Tenn. 2012). A finding of abuse of discretion “„reflects that the trial court‟s logic 

and reasoning was improper when viewed in light of the factual circumstances and 

relevant legal principles involved in a particular case.‟” State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553, 

555 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999)). “[A] trial 

court‟s misapplication of an enhancement or mitigating factor does not remove the 

presumption of reasonableness from its sentencing determination.” Id. at 709. Moreover, 

under those circumstances, this court may not disturb the sentence even if it had preferred 

a different result. See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008).

In determining the proper sentence, the trial court must consider: (1) the evidence, 

if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence report; (3) the 

principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) the nature and 

characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) evidence and information offered by 

the parties on the mitigating and enhancement factors set out in Tennessee Code 

Annotated sections 40-35-113 and –114; (6) any statistical information provided by the 

administrative office of the courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in 

Tennessee; and (7) any statement the defendant made in the defendant‟s own behalf 

about sentencing. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40–35–210; State v. Taylor, 63 S.W.3d 400, 

411 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). The trial court must also consider the potential or lack of 

potential for rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant in determining the sentence 

alternative or length of a term to be imposed. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103 (2010).

To facilitate meaningful appellate review, the trial court must state on the record 

the factors it considered and the reasons for imposing the sentence chosen. Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 40-35-210(e) (2010); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706. However, “[m]ere inadequacy in 

the articulation of the reasons for imposing a particular sentence . . . should not negate the 
- 7 -

presumption [of reasonableness].” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705–06. The party challenging the 

sentence on appeal bears the burden of establishing that the sentence was improper. Tenn. 

Code Ann. § 40-35-401(e) (2010), Sentencing Comm‟n Cmts.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has expanded the standard of review in Bise to trial 

courts‟ decisions regarding consecutive sentencing. State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 

859 (Tenn. 2013). “So long as a trial court properly articulates reasons for ordering 

consecutive sentences, thereby providing a basis for meaningful appellate review, the 

sentences will be presumed reasonable and, absent an abuse of discretion, upheld on 

appeal.” Id. at 862 (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705). 

However, when the trial court “fails to provide adequate reasons on the record for 

imposing consecutive sentences, the appellate court should neither presume that the 

consecutive sentences are reasonable nor defer to the trial court‟s exercise of its 

discretionary authority.” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 863–64. In such situations, this court 

may “(1) conduct a de novo review to determine whether there is an adequate basis for 

imposing consecutive sentences; or (2) remand for the trial court to consider the requisite 

factors in determining whether to impose consecutive sentences.” Id. at 864 (citing Bise,

380 S.W.3d at 705 & n.41).

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115 sets forth seven different situations 

in which a trial court may impose consecutive sentencing, including when “[t]he 

defendant is a dangerous offender whose behavior indicates little or no regard for human 

life, and no hesitation about committing a crime in which the risk to human life is 

high[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(4); see Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d at 936. Before a 

trial court may impose consecutive sentences on the basis that a defendant is a dangerous

offender, the trial court must also find “that an extended sentence is necessary to protect 

the public against further criminal conduct by the defendant and that the consecutive

sentences must reasonably relate to the severity of the offenses committed.” Wilkerson,

905 S.W.2d at 939. In order to limit the use of the “dangerous offender” category to cases 

where it is warranted, our supreme court has stated that the trial court must make specific 

findings about “particular facts” which show that the Wilkerson factors apply to the 

defendant. State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 461 (Tenn. 1999).

In support of its determination that the defendant is a dangerous offender, the trial 

court first noted that the defendant fired several shots inside a public place where people 

other than the victim were present – the victim‟s friends, the defendant‟s friends, the 

store‟s clerk, and a female patron of the store. Additionally, the trial court found that the 

circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense are aggravated and, therefore, 

the aggregate length of the sentence reasonably relates to the severity of the offenses. 

Finally, relying on the defendant‟s extensive criminal history, the trial court also 

determined that consecutive terms were necessary to “protect the community from further 
- 8 -

acts of violence” from the defendant. As found by the trial court, the defendant‟s 

criminal history consists of prior convictions in 1985 for assault with intent to commit 

murder, robbery with a deadly weapon, and assault with intent to commit robbery; a 1997 

misdemeanor conviction for drug possession; 2003 convictions for two counts of 

aggravated robbery, three counts of kidnapping, and one misdemeanor conviction for 

drug possession; and a 2008 conviction for attempted aggravated robbery.

Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did, in fact, properly articulate 

its basis for imposing consecutive sentences and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. 

Thus, the defendant is not entitled to relief on this claim.

Finally, while not challenged by the defendant on appeal, we note that the trial 

court also correctly found that the defendant‟s record of criminal activity is extensive. 

This factor alone supports consecutive sentencing. “This factor has been interpreted to 

include not only the convictions presently before the sentencing court but also prior 

offenses.” State v. Palmer, 10 S.W.3d 638, 647-49 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). As noted 

above, the defendant‟s prior record consists of conviction for nine violent felonies and 

two misdemeanors and spans his adult life. In the present case, the defendant was 

convicted of three additional felony offenses. Therefore, he had a total of twelve felony 

offenses all of which are violent in nature, and he is an offender with an extensive 

criminal history. See State v. Cummings, 868 S.W.2d 661, 667 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1992)(Consecutive sentencing upheld where a defendant with no criminal history was 

convicted of eight offenses in a single trial based on a finding that his record of criminal 

activity was extensive).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgments of the 

trial court.

____________________________________

J. ROSS DYER, JUDGE