State of Tennessee v. Derious Grandberry, W2019-01872-CCA-R3-CD

Background

On Sept. 14, 2016, the victim was approached outside his home by two men; one (identified at trial as Grandberry) approached from the front and brandished what appeared to be a gun, demanded property, took the victim’s license and cash, and the men drove off in the victim’s vehicle.
The victim identified Grandberry in a photographic lineup a few days later; initial in‑court identification required prompting but the victim ultimately pointed to Grandberry in the courtroom.
The stolen vehicle was recovered running about 0.8 mile from an address associated with Grandberry; a partial palm print on the vehicle matched the defendant.
The jury convicted Grandberry of carjacking and aggravated robbery but acquitted him of the count charging employment of a firearm.
The trial court sentenced Grandberry as a Range II offender to concurrent 20‑year terms for each conviction.
On appeal Grandberry challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence/identity, (2) the trial court’s failure to act as the thirteenth juror, (3) admissibility of the prior photographic identification, and (4) imposition of the maximum sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence (identity for carjacking & aggravated robbery)	Evidence (victim’s photo ID, in‑court ID, vehicle found near defendant, palm print match) proved identity beyond reasonable doubt	Identity not proven; victim inconsistent and unreliable; evidence largely circumstantial	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Trial court as thirteenth juror	Defendant failed to develop argument or cite legal standard; issue waived	Trial judge failed to weigh evidence and act as mandatory thirteenth juror under Rule 33(d)	Waived for inadequate briefing; no review on merits
Admissibility of prior photographic identification	Objections at trial were different; appellate challenge (that prior ID was hearsay because in‑court ID was initially uncertain) was not raised below and thus waived	Photographic lineup admission was hearsay and improper because witness initially failed to identify in court and prior ID could not be tested by cross‑examination	Waived; court declined plain‑error review
Sentencing / application of firearm enhancement; imposition of max term	Record and presentence report support Range II max within statutory range; enhancement (prior convictions and possession/employment of firearm) supported by preponderance	Only prior convictions applicable; court erred by relying on firearm enhancement despite acquittal on firearm count; court treated max as default	Affirmed: 20 years within range and presumptively reasonable; trial court may consider facts proven by preponderance (even for conduct underlying acquitted charge) when applying enhancements

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Stephens, 521 S.W.3d 718 (frame for identifying statutory elements and sufficiency review)
State v. Bell, 512 S.W.3d 167 (identity is an essential element and is a jury question)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (circumstantial evidence can support conviction; same standard as direct evidence)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (presumption of reasonableness for within‑range sentences and standard for appellate review of sentencing)
State v. Winfield, 23 S.W.3d 279 (trial court may apply enhancement factors based on facts proven by preponderance even if defendant was acquitted of related charge)
State v. Carter, 896 S.W.2d 119 (trial judge’s duty to act as thirteenth juror under Rule 33(d))