State of Tennessee v. Dewayne D. Fleming
M2015-01774-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | May 23, 2017Background
- Defendant Dewayne D. Fleming was tried by jury for aggravated burglary; two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping; aggravated rape; and two counts of aggravated robbery arising from a June 12, 2012 home invasion in which the husband was tied, kicked, and robbed and the wife was repeatedly raped.
- Co‑defendant Mitchell Beverly testified for the State as an accomplice; Beverly’s testimony implicated Fleming in the invasion and theft and said Fleming kicked the husband. DNA from the rape matched co‑defendant Emonnie Branch.
- Other evidence placed Fleming at the co‑defendants’ apartment before and after the offense, showed stolen property (including a cracked TV) at the apartment, and established use of Merritt’s car in which three people rode with the TVs in the backseat.
- A jury convicted Fleming on all counts; the trial court sentenced him to an effective 62 years by imposing partial consecutive sentences after finding him a dangerous offender and noting he was on probation.
- Fleming appealed, arguing (1) insufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony; (2) erroneous jury instructions on unindicted theories and culpability; (3) due process violation because detention was incidental to other felonies (White issue); and (4) abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Fleming's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/corroboration of accomplice (Beverly) testimony | Totality of record (victim descriptions, presence at apartment, cracked TV, pawn records, phone/location evidence) fairly tends to connect Fleming to crimes | Only Beverly’s testimony implicates Fleming; uncorroborated accomplice testimony cannot support conviction | Corroboration was sufficient; convictions upheld under Jackson standard |
| Jury instructions: charging unindicted alternative elements (aggravating factors and mental culpability) | Any instructional error was harmless; prosecution argued the indicted theory (use of weapon) and evidence supported that theory | Jury was charged on alternative elements not in indictment and on reckless culpability for rape, lowering State’s burden | Errors in instruction were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions stand |
| Due process re: kidnapping incidental to rape/robbery (State v. White) | Restraints (tying husband, prolonged confinement, preventing assistance, movement through home) exceeded incidental confinement and supported separate kidnapping convictions | Restraint was incidental to robbery/rape; kidnapping convictions violate due process under White | Jury instruction followed White and evidence supported kidnapping as more than incidental; convictions upheld |
| Consecutive sentencing (dangerous offender finding) | Trial court made Wilkerson findings and also could rely on defendant being on probation; consecutive sentences reasonably related and necessary to protect public | Finding as "dangerous offender" and consecutive sentencing were an abuse of discretion | Court found no abuse of discretion; consecutive sentences affirmed (alternative statutory ground: on probation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (kidnapping convictions require proof that confinement/removal is greater than incidental to accompanying felony)
- State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797 (Tenn. 1994) (accomplice‑corroboration rule)
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and presumption of reasonableness for within‑range sentences)
- State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (consecutive sentencing review and Wilkerson requirements)
- State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (requirements for consecutive sentences when relying on dangerous‑offender classification)