State of Tennessee v. Christopher Scottie Itzol-Deleon
537 S.W.3d 434
| Tenn. | 2017Background
- Victim (then a child) testified the defendant, her stepfather, climbed into bed behind her, pulled down her pants, rubbed his penis against her buttocks and between her legs, and at least partially penetrated her genital area while she watched a movie. Jury convicted defendant of one count of attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, four counts of aggravated sexual battery, and three counts of rape of a child. Trial sentence aggregated to 40 years.
- On direct appeal the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed convictions but merged the attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery conviction (Count One) into one rape-of-a-child conviction (Count Three) under State v. Barney, and reduced sentences to an effective 25 years. The State obtained permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether to overrule Barney and (2) whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in merging the two convictions.
- The Supreme Court expressly overruled Barney to the extent it used a due-process analysis and held that double jeopardy principles govern whether multiple sexual-offense convictions arise from a single act.
- Applying a Watkins double-jeopardy framework and a non‑exclusive list of factors (temporal and spatial proximity, body areas contacted, intervening events, defendant’s intent, whether contacts were incidental or deliberate, etc.), the Court concluded the two convictions at issue arose from the same act/transaction and that attempt-to-commit aggravated sexual battery (a lesser-included offense) must merge into the rape-of-a-child conviction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barney should remain controlling law for multiple sexual-offense convictions | Barney should remain; its multi-factor approach permits separate convictions | Opposed to applying Barney’s due-process framework; Watkins/White require double jeopardy analysis | Court overruled Barney to the extent it used a separate due-process test; double jeopardy governs such cases |
| Whether conviction for attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery must merge with rape-of-a-child conviction arising from same episode | The acts were distinct; convictions may stand separately | The contacts were part of a single, continuous assault and therefore same act/transaction | Court held the contacts occurred simultaneously as a single continuous assault; lesser offense merges into greater (rape-of-a-child) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barney, 986 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. 1999) (previous multi-factor, due-process approach to multiple sexual-offense convictions)
- State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012) (framework for double jeopardy analysis distinguishing unit-of-prosecution and multiple-description claims)
- State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (overruled Anthony and rejected separate due-process test for appellate review)
- State v. Phillips, 924 S.W.2d 662 (Tenn. 1996) (unit-of-prosecution factors for determining distinct sexual assaults)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-act/transaction inquiry for double jeopardy analysis)