State of Tennessee v. Brandon Cardell Coman, Jr., W2020-01684-CCA-R3-CD

Background

In June 2019 the victim, Fleming Ivory, met Christina Clark‑Smith and arranged to meet at the Quality Inn in Jackson; Clark‑Smith texted the defendant the victim’s room number shortly before the incident.
At ~1:52 a.m. a man later identified as Brandon Coman forced into the hotel room, brandished a handgun, ordered the victim to give over his phone, wallet and car keys, and threatened to kill him; Clark‑Smith used the victim’s phone to send a cash transfer.
The victim identified Coman from surveillance photos and Facebook pictures showing a distinctive tattoo; hotel surveillance, jail call/video records, and data extracted from Coman’s seized phones (texts, photos, a Cash App transfer screenshot) linked Coman to planning the robbery.
Coman was arrested, tried by jury, convicted of aggravated robbery, and sentenced to 12 years; he filed a motion for new trial (challenging sufficiency and sentencing) and then appealed pro se.
On appeal Coman argued (only) that the evidence was insufficient, the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing facts outside the record, and the trial court erred by denying suppression of cellphone evidence obtained via warrants.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: it found the evidence adequate for conviction and rejected review of the prosecutorial‑misconduct and suppression claims because they were waived or the record was inadequate for plain‑error review.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Coman's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support aggravated robbery conviction	Evidence (surveillance, victim ID, texts planning the robbery, Cash App transfer, phone photos) establishes robbery with a deadly weapon beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence was insufficient (time‑stamp discrepancies between surveillance and phone records; lack of direct proof the phone seized was the victim’s)	Affirmed conviction: viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational juror could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutorial misconduct (arguing facts outside the record)	Issue waived because not raised in motion for new trial; record lacks closing arguments so plain‑error review unavailable	Prosecutor argued recorded jail calls implicated Coman and asserted the blue iPhone recovered belonged to the victim despite no direct proof	Waived. Plain‑error review denied because the appellate record does not contain necessary materials (e.g., closing argument transcript) to ‘‘clearly establish’’ the alleged error.
Suppression of cellphone evidence (warrants defective for omission of a.m./p.m. time)	Issue waived for failure to raise in motion for new trial; even if considered, record lacks suppression hearing rulings for plain‑error review	Warrant defects (time omitted as a.m./p.m.) rendered searches invalid and evidence should have been suppressed	Waived. Plain‑error review unavailable because the record does not contain suppression‑hearing proceedings or rulings.
Waiver / Plain‑error review standard	Appellate review limited where appellant failed to preserve issues in motion for new trial; plain error is narrow and requires a fully developed record	Seeks relief despite preservation failures	Court declined plain‑error relief: appellant failed to produce a record that ‘‘clearly establish[es]’’ the alleged trial‑court occurrences; thus appellate relief not warranted.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (appellate sufficiency review guidance)
State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978) (jury credibility and weight of evidence determinations)
State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. 2010) (plain‑error review factors)
State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000) (plain‑error framework)
State v. Fayne, 451 S.W.3d 362 (Tenn. 2014) (plain‑error requires especially egregious error)
State v. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d 349 (Tenn. 2007) (each plain‑error factor must be shown)
State v. Richardson, 875 S.W.2d 671 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate review limited to record; appellant bears burden to provide adequate record)
State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1993) (defendant’s burden to prepare adequate appellate record)
Dearborne v. State, 575 S.W.2d 259 (Tenn. 1978) (appellate courts may only review what is included in the record)