State of Tennessee v. Allan Wayne Bradberry, M2016-00501-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Allan Wayne Bradberry was convicted after a jury trial of 33 sexual offenses (including 25 counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, statutory rape by an authority figure, incest, sexual exploitation, and rape) for sexual acts and images involving his 13‑year‑old daughter in July 2013.
Victim testified the sexual activity occurred during custodial visits in July 2013 and identified 24 images and 2 videos taken of her; she also described a forced anal assault during that period.
Forensic examiner recovered the images/videos from the defendant’s computer and used file timestamps and EXIF/metadata to identify dates (July 1, 2, 3, 7, 26, 29, 2013) and devices that created each file.
Defendant gave a written statement admitting sexual activity and photos but later testified at trial denying the conduct and recanting signing the statement; the jury convicted nonetheless.
Defendant moved at the close of the State’s proof to require the State to elect which offense supported each charged count; the trial court denied the motion. The court sentenced within range, grouping offenses by date and imposing partial consecutive sentences for an effective 84‑year term.

Issue	State's Argument	Bradberry's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not requiring the State to elect a single offense for each count when multiple acts occurred on the same dates	State tied each indicted count to a specific image/video and presented victim and forensic testimony identifying the exhibit and its date; prosecutor effectively elected during closing	Election required because multiple acts on same date could produce non‑unanimous verdicts	No reversible error: no unindicted offenses were introduced; State adequately connected each count to a particular image/date and cured any instructional lapse via closing argument (election unnecessary)
Whether partial consecutive sentencing producing an 84‑year aggregate sentence was excessive/abuse of discretion	Trial court properly exercised discretion, found statutory criteria for consecutive service (extensive criminal record and multiple sexual offenses against a minor), grouped convictions by date to limit exposure	Aggregate sentence greater than deserved; not the least severe measure required by statute	Affirmed: within‑range sentences; record supports findings for consecutive sentencing and trial court limited exposure by grouping same‑date convictions

State v. Brown, 992 S.W.2d 389 (Tenn. 1999) (unanimity requirement and election doctrine when multiple offenses are proven)
Shelton v. State, 851 S.W.2d 134 (Tenn. 1993) (discussing jury unanimity principles)
Tidwell v. State, 922 S.W.2d 497 (Tenn. 1996) (unanimity and election framework)
Burlison v. State, 501 S.W.2d 801 (Tenn. 1973) (trial court duty to require State to elect when unindicted offenses are introduced)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness for within‑range sentences)
State v. Black, 924 S.W.2d 912 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (statutory grounds for consecutive sentencing)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (application of abuse of discretion standard to consecutive sentences)