Court Opinion

ID: 9945810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 16:14:14.976664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:10.668935
License: Public Domain

02/28/2024
            IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                              AT JACKSON
                              Assigned on Briefs January 3, 2024

               STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GEMEYAL STROWDER

                    Appeal from the Circuit Court for McNairy County
                         No. 4913     J. Weber McCraw, Judge
                        ___________________________________

                               No. W2023-00936-CCA-R3-CD
                           ___________________________________

The defendant, Gemeyal Strowder, entered an open plea to aggravated robbery, and the
trial court imposed a sentence of eighteen years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department
of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court failed to consider applicable
mitigating factors. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

J. ROSS DYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR.,
and MATTHEW J. WILSON, JJ., joined.

Jamie L. Davis, Adamsville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Gemeyal Strowder.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Ronald L. Coleman, Senior Assistant
Attorney General; Mark Davidson, District Attorney General; and Lisa Miller, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

                                               OPINION

                                   Facts and Procedural History

       On April 27, 2023, the defendant entered an open plea to aggravated robbery (count
one), with sentencing to be determined by the trial court.1 The facts underlying the plea,
as explained by the State, were as follows:

        1
          The defendant was also indicted for aggravated assault (count two), possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon (count three), and theft under $1,000 (count four), but those charges were dismissed as part
of the plea deal.
        [O]n May 18th of 2022, McNairy County dispatch gave county unit
the call for an armed robbery in progress at the Ramer Quick Stop located at
4453 Highway 57 West in Ramer. Dispatch advised a black male wearing a
mask had come in the store with a firearm asking the store clerk for all the
money. Dispatch then advised the male subject got into a car with a female
driver and left the scene traveling north on Friendship Road. Deputy Davine
was traveling on New Bethel Road toward Friendship Road when she passed
a vehicle similar to that description, turned around, initiated a traffic stop of
that vehicle in front of an address of 2975 New Bethel Road. She noticed
the vehicle was driven by a female with the opposite being a black male. She
ordered the black male subject out of the car and told him to show her his
hands. He complied, and explained to him that he was detained as she was
investigating an incident that just happened at the Ramer Quick Stop.

        During a pat[-]down of the male to make sure he did not have any
weapons for her safety, approximately nine hundred thirty-five dollars cash
was stuffed in his right front pants pocket. She secured the money. She then
asked the female driver to exit the vehicle, which she also complied, female
identified as Christy Barnes, and the male identified as the defendant [].
During this time, Deputy Hawkins went to the Ramer Quick Stop to speak
with the store clerk. He spoke with Ms. Dorothy Switzer. She advised that
the black male was wearing a mask came into the store, held a gun across the
counter at her and stated “give me all of it.” Ms. Switzer did give all the cash
in the cash register to the male. Sergeant Gilbert then arrived on the scene
and he Mirandized [the defendant] to which he stated he understood his
rights. While speaking with Sergeant Gilbert, [the defendant] did admit to
going to the Quick Stop with a firearm and asking for all the money. He
stated that Ms. Barnes did not know what was going on – did not know he
was going to rob the store. Sergeant Gilbert also Mirandized Ms. Barnes to
which she stated she understood her rights. Ms. Barnes stated that she did
not know what [the defendant] had done, that he had just asked her to drop
him off to use the restroom. At that time a search of the vehicle was
conducted. During the search a black mask was found in the console along
with a 9 mm pistol in the passenger floorboard. While searching Ms. Barnes’
property, a glass pipe, scale, and grinder was found. All these items were
placed into evidence. The vehicle was towed, and [the defendant] was
charged as he was indicted. After he was arrested and then incarcerated, [the
defendant] did make several phone calls the State believes were
incriminating as well, that we would plan to use if we went forth to trial,
specifically those being on 05/18 of 2022 when whoever he was talking to
                                      -2-
       says “Man, which way did y’all go” and he said, “I went on Friendship
       Road,” one on 05/19/22 he says “I didn’t do this s**t” – “I did this s**t and
       got away. It’s just the MF that was driving ain’t no driver,” 05/19/22 also
       talks about the times and thinks he was set up. 05/19/22 also he talked about
       the money was going to change the situation, he was going to buy whoever
       he was talking to a ring. Also, on 05/19/22 he’s talking about why he got an
       agg[ravated] assault charge and says, “It’s my word against theirs. They got
       me on camera but they don’t got me on camera.” 05/19/22 also talking to
       someone, says “I didn’t shoot anybody. I just had a gun.” Also, on 05/19/22
       says “I’m still thinking about how I got caught. That s**t just got weird but
       if I had just listened to you, if I had went through Ramer, I’d be straight.”
       And all those calls were provided to Counsel in discovery as well.

       During the sentencing hearing, the State introduced into evidence the presentence
report, certified copies of three prior aggravated robberies, and a written victim impact
statement. The defendant also provided an allocution statement, apologizing for his actions
and stating that he was angry at the time of the of the offense because his grandmother had
recently passed away.

       In sentencing the defendant, the trial court stated it considered the evidence
presented during the guilty plea hearing and the sentencing hearing including, the
presentence report, the defendant’s statement, and the arguments of counsel. In reviewing
the appropriate and applicable enhancement factors, the trial court found enhancement
factors (1), the defendant has a previous history of criminal convictions or criminal
behavior, in addition to those necessary to establish the appropriate range, and (8) the
defendant, before trial or sentencing, failed to comply with the conditions of a sentence
involving release into the community. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(1), (8). The trial
court did not find any applicable mitigating factors. At the conclusion of the sentencing
hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II offender to eighteen years’
incarceration at 100%.

                                         Analysis

       On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in “failing to consider
mitigating factors without cause.” The State submits the trial court properly sentenced the
defendant. We agree with the State.

       In determining an appropriate sentence, a trial court must consider the following
factors: (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)
                                           -3-
evidence and information offered by the parties on mitigating and enhancement factors; (6)
any statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to
sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any statement the defendant
makes on his own behalf as to sentencing; and (8) the potential for rehabilitation. Tenn.
Code Ann. §§ 40-35-103(5), -113, -114, -210(b). In addition, “[t]he sentence imposed
should be the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence
is imposed.” Id. § 40-35-103(4).

       Pursuant to the 2005 amendments, the Sentencing Act abandoned the statutory
presumptive minimum sentence and rendered enhancement factors advisory only. See
Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-114, -210(c). Although the application of the factors is
advisory, a court shall consider “[e]vidence and information offered by the parties on the
mitigating and enhancement factors set out in §§ 40-35-113 and 40-35-114.” Id. § 40-35-
210(b)(5). The trial court must also place on the record “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.” Id. § 40-35-210(e).

        When an accused challenges the length and manner of service of a sentence, this
Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing determination under an abuse of discretion
standard accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682,
707 (Tenn. 2012). If a trial court misapplies an enhancing or mitigating factor in passing
sentence, said error will not remove the presumption of reasonableness from its sentencing
determination. Id. at 709. This Court will uphold the trial court’s sentencing decision “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.
Moreover, under such circumstances, appellate courts may not disturb the sentence even if
we had preferred a different result. See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008).
The party challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court has the burden of establishing
that the sentence is erroneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.;
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).

       The defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to consider the defendant’s
“truthfulness, candor, cooperative nature, and his willingness to accept punishment.” He
submits the trial court failed to place on the record any reasoning why the mitigating factors
argued by the defendant were not considered when deciding the length of the defendant’s
sentence. When discussing mitigating factors, the trial court noted

       [w]ith regard to mitigating factors, there are no statutory mitigating factors,
       although Counsel argued for reasons why the sentence should be within the
       low range of the sentencing options.

                                            -4-
Although the defendant requested mitigating factor (13) based on the defendant’s
truthfulness, candor, and willingness to accept punishment, the trial court did not articulate
findings on the record to explain why factor (13) was inapplicable. While the trial court
should have made more specific findings regarding its denial of this mitigating factor, any
error was harmless in light of the existing enhancement factors, particularly that the
defendant was on probation at the time the offense was committed and that the defendant
had a history of criminal behavior in addition to the felonies used to establish his sentencing
range. Furthermore, the “misapplication of an enhancement factor or mitigating factor
does not invalidate the sentence imposed unless the trial court wholly departed from the
1989 Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706.

       Here, the defendant was convicted of a Class B felony, aggravated robbery and, as
a Range II offender, was facing a sentence of not less than twelve nor more than twenty
years in prison. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112(b)(2). The trial court imposed an applicable
within-range sentence after properly considering the evidence adduced at the guilty plea
and sentencing hearings, the presentence report, the principles of sentencing, the parties’
arguments, the nature and characteristics of the crime, the potential for rehabilitation, and
the evidence of enhancement and mitigating factors. Id. §§ 40-35-103(5), -114, -210(b).
Accordingly, the defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

                                         Conclusion

       For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                               ____________________________________
                                               J. ROSS DYER, JUDGE

                                             -5-