Court Opinion

ID: 9943643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 22:10:10.364447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:39.434810
License: Public Domain

02/23/2024
         IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                          AT NASHVILLE
                              Assigned on Briefs February 21, 2024

                STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ERIC DESHAWN WEBB

                      Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County
                         No. 273081 Christopher Sockwell, Judge

                                  No. M2022-01235-CCA-R3-CD

The defendant, Eric DeShawn Webb, appeals the Maury County Circuit Court’s partial
denial of his motion to reduce his sentence filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal
Procedure 35, and imposition of an effective 10-year sentence for his guilty-pleaded
convictions of aggravated rioting and aggravated assault. Discerning no error, we affirm.

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

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which TOM
GREENHOLTZ and MATTHEW J. WILSON, JJ., joined.

William C. Barnes, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellant, Eric DeShawn Webb.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Caroline Weldon, Assistant Attorney
General; Brent Cooper, District Attorney General; and Pam Anderson, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

                                                OPINION

              The Maury County Grand Jury charged the defendant with one count of
aggravated rioting and one count of aggravated assault for events occurring on January 30,
2019, in the Maury County jail and resulting in injuries to Correctional Officer Don Tilley.
The defendant entered an open plea, pleading guilty as charged with the court to determine
the sentence. The State provided the following recitation of facts at the plea submission
hearing:

1
         The defendant’s brief indicates that he is appealing the total effective sentence imposed in this case
and case 27888. His notice of appeal, however, appeals only the judgment in this case, and the record does
not include a technical record, transcripts, or judgments for case 27888. Accordingly, we will consider the
issue only as it relates to this case.
              [O]n January 30th of 2019, the defendant was housed as an
              inmate in the Maury County Jail here in Maury County. He
              had recently been upgraded to a more secure section of the jail
              as a result of certain disciplinary write-ups that had been done
              by [O]fficer Don Tilley.

                      On this particular occasion, January 20th, there were a
              number of inmates that had been in the main room for
              recreation. When time came for the inmates to return to their
              cells, various members of the group refused to do so and a riot
              ensued.

                     The defendant engaged in that riot and, along with other
              individuals, began attacking, specifically, Officer Don Tilley.
              As a result of the attack by [the defendant] and other
              individuals, Officer Tilley sustained serious bodily injury.

                     He received a cut to the mouth area which resulted in
              stitches and a permanent scar. He also received a fracture to a
              portion of his leg. It was confirmed by an MRI. That injury
              resulted in him being absent from his work duties for,
              approximately, a month and not being able to put weight on
              that knee. It did ultimately heal, however.

                      Also, the defendant had a disciplinary hearing relating
              to this incident. And during that reported disciplinary hearing,
              he did confirm that part of the reason for the attack on Officer
              Tilley, specifically, was the result of the write-ups that had
              caused him to be in maximum security.

              On July 18, 2022, the trial court held a joint sentencing hearing for this case
and case number 27888. We will recite only the facts related to this case. The State
exhibited the defendant’s presentence report to the hearing.

               Correctional Officer Don Tilley testified that on January 30, 2019, inmates
who were housed in a maximum-security area “refus[ed] to go up” to their cells at the end
of a one-hour recreation time and were “actively doing everything they could not to return
to their cells” despite officers’ asking them to move to their cells “several times.” The
correctional officers “exited the area to get more resources to devise a plan,” and when
they reentered the area, “[o]ne officer began to get into a verbal altercation with one
                                             -2-
inmate.” When that inmate “did a chest bump on that officer, . . . I proceeded to spray that
inmate. That inmate then turned and started to physically fight me.” The defendant then
attacked Officer Tilley “from behind along with three other inmates.” Officer Tilley “was
knocked down . . . approximately seven” times. He sustained several injuries that required
him to miss a substantial amount of work and caused him to suffer permanent effects.

               Officer Tilley testified that since he returned to work, the defendant
threatened him several times. Once, the defendant told Officer Tilley that “once he was
released from jail . . . ‘Man, I’m gonna smoke you.’” On another occasion, the defendant
“indicated that I needed to watch my back when I’m walking around Columbia come
September when he gets out.” In another incident, the defendant “indicated over [the]
intercom, ‘We broke your leg once. We’ll break your neck the next time.’” The defendant
has continued to receive disciplinary write-ups since the riot. Officer Tilley explained that
the defendant’s behavior toward him has “a major impact” on officer safety in the jail,
noting that “[i]t makes the jail not safe at times.” He also said that “disruptive inmates”
cause “stress . . . on new employees” at the facility.

              During cross-examination, Officer Tilley testified that his primary injury was
to his leg from where his knee kept “hitting the floor” as he was repeatedly “knocked
down.” He said that the defendant last threatened him “about three months ago.” On
redirect examination, Officer Tilley said that the defendant threatened him on March 24,
2019, and December 12, 2020, and that both incidents were recorded in incident reports.

               The defendant testified that at the time of the hearing, he had been detained
at the Maury County jail for three years and nine months. He said that some time prior to
the riot, Officer Tilley “said a racial slur to me” and that the defendant had “been holding
a grudge” toward the officer. He said that the cells were designed to house two men but
that four to five men were being held in each cell. In his cell, the toilet was leaking on the
floor, and officers had just assigned a fifth man to his cell. He explained that when the
inmates refused to leave the recreation area “[w]e was trying to protest” the conditions and
overcrowding; “[W]e wanted to talk to a lieutenant or a sergeant.”

              The defendant said that he had “apologized to Officer Tilley several times.”
He said that he also had “been trying to get help. I’ve been taking classes, GED classes,
trying to get my life right.” He acknowledged that he had been kicked out of the GED
classes because of an altercation with another inmate. The defendant denied threatening
Officer Tilley but acknowledged, “I’ll say things I’m not supposed to say.”

              During cross-examination, the defendant acknowledged that his prior
criminal history included a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and convictions
                                             -3-
as a minor for aggravated robbery and unauthorized use of a vehicle. He also
acknowledged that he had been cited for multiple disciplinary infractions while at the
Maury County jail. On redirect examination, the defendant said that he had not had many
disciplinary write-ups since 2021 because he was “try[ing] to work on myself” and “trying
to get help.”

               At the close of evidence, the trial court determined that the maximum
sentence was necessary to deter the defendant’s violent behavior. The court found that as
related to the aggravated assault, Officer Tilley “was not interacting with [the defendant]”
when the defendant attacked him “from behind” and that the defendant “continued to hit
him from behind and continued to hit him in the head and neck area” while the officer
“tried to retreat.” The court further found that Officer Tilley “fell forward next to the wall
where he could have fallen easily or . . . could have been struck into bars, into the wall,
whatever it might be. That was an extremely dangerous situation that [the defendant] has
not been able to recognize as being a danger to those around him.” The court sentenced
the defendant as a Range II offender to four years for the aggravated rioting conviction and
10 years for the aggravated assault conviction. In imposing consecutive sentences, the
court noted that the defendant attacked Officer Tilley while the officer was “trying to get
away” and that it was “pretty egregious, . . . one of the worst forms of violence that I can
think of.” The court also considered that the defendant made threatening and intimidating
statements after the incident, stating, “This [c]ourt cannot condone that and, in fact,
condemns it at the highest level.” The court continued: “What this [c]ourt is probably more
afraid of than anything is that those violent ways will continue if he got out in public.” The
court also aligned the sentences consecutively to a six-year sentence in case 27888.

              On August 10, 2022, the defendant moved for a reduction of his sentence
pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, arguing that the sentence “is
excessive and improper in length, range, and manner of service” and that consecutive
alignment “was also improper.” After a hearing on the motion, the trial court reclassified
the defendant as a Range I offender for the aggravated assault, Class C felony conviction
and resentenced him to six years on that conviction. The court declined to further reduce
the sentence or change the consecutive alignment of the sentences, resulting in an effective
10-year sentence.

                 The defendant timely appealed,2 reasserting his argument that the sentence

2
        The defendant’s notice of appeal, filed September 1, 2022, is timely as it relates to the trial court’s
ruling on the motion to reduce his sentence. The ruling occurred on August 17, 2022. Because a motion
to reduce a sentence does not toll the 30-day limitation on the notice of appeal, see Tenn. R. App. P. 4(c)
(excluding a motion to reduce a sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 from those

                                                     -4-
was excessive and that consecutive alignment was improper. The State argues that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence.

               Criminal Procedure Rule 35 permits a trial court to “reduce a sentence upon
motion filed within 120 days after the date the sentence is imposed.” Tenn. R. Crim. P.
35(a). Our supreme court has adopted an abuse of discretion standard of review for
sentencing and has prescribed “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range sentencing
decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing
Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. Irick, 861 S.W.2d
375, 376 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to appellate
review of a Rule 35 ruling prior to the adoption of the abuse of discretion standard for
general sentencing review articulated in Bise). The application of the purposes and
principles of sentencing involves a consideration of “[t]he potential or lack of potential for
the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant. . . in determining the sentence alternative
or length of a term to be imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(5). Trial courts are “required
under the 2005 amendments to ‘place on the record, either orally or in writing, what
enhancement or mitigating factors were considered, if any, as well as the reasons for the
sentence, in order to ensure fair and consistent sentencing.’” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698-99
(quoting T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e)). Under the holding in Bise, “[a] sentence should be upheld
so long as it is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the sentence
is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” Id. at 709-
10.

              The standard of review adopted in Bise “applies similarly” to the imposition
of consecutive sentences, “giving deference to the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary
authority to impose consecutive sentences if it has provided reasons on the record
establishing at least one of the seven grounds listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section
40-35-115(b).” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013). In State v. Wilkerson,
our supreme court held that the trial court must find that consecutive sentences are
reasonably related to the severity of the offenses committed and are necessary to protect
the public from further criminal conduct before utilizing the “dangerous offender” category
to impose consecutive sentencing, see State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 937-39 (Tenn.
1995), and “[t]he adoption of the abuse of discretion standard with the presumption of
reasonableness has not eliminated this requirement,” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 863.

motions that toll the time for filing a notice of appeal), we note that an appeal of his original sentence would
have been untimely, see id. 4(a) (requiring the notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days “after the date of
entry of the judgment appealed from”) see also id. 3(a) (providing for an appeal as of right from an adverse
ruling on a Rule 35 motion).
                                                      -5-
               As a Range II offender, the defendant was subject to a sentencing range of
two to four years for aggravated rioting, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-303(b),
40-35-112(b)(5). As a Range I offender, the defendant was subject to a sentencing range
of three to six years for aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See id. §§ 39-13-
102(e)(1)(A)(ii), 40-35-112(a)(3). Because the trial court properly articulated its reasons
for imposing the within-range sentences at the original sentencing hearing, the court did
not abuse its discretion in declining to further reduce the defendant’s sentences.

               We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining
to reconsider the consecutive alignment of the sentences. Although not explicitly stated in
its original findings, the trial court implicitly found that the defendant was a dangerous
offender when it repeatedly stated its concern that the defendant attacked Officer Tilley
from behind and continued to attack while the officer tried to retreat. Again, although not
explicitly stated, the trial court made sufficient findings to satisfy the Wilkerson factors.
The court emphasized the “egregious” nature of the defendant’s conduct, noting that it was
“one of the worst forms of violence.” The court also expressed grave concern that the
defendant’s violent behavior posed a danger to society. In our view, these findings were
sufficient to support the original imposition of consecutive sentencing, and the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by declining to reconsider that ruling. The defendant has failed
to show that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the interests of justice
did not require a modification of the original sentence.

              Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

                                                   __________________________________
                                                   JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

                                             -6-