State of Tennessee v. Frederic Jermaine Armstrong, W2016-01944-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Frederic Jermaine Armstrong, incarcerated for second-degree murder, was charged with aggravated assault for beating Correctional Officer Timothy Boyd at Whiteville Correctional Facility; a jury convicted him. A jury initially also returned a criminal-gang enhancement, which was later vacated following State v. Bonds.
Incident: Officer Boyd wrote Armstrong up for failing to tuck his shirt; surveillance video and eyewitness (Officer Brown) evidence showed Armstrong struck Boyd roughly 30+ times to the face, causing multiple facial fractures and serious injuries requiring surgeries and ongoing impairment.
Investigators tracked Armstrong on video from the scene to his cell, recovered a bloody T‑shirt and bloodstains in his cell, and photographed injuries/abrasions on Armstrong’s right hand consistent with an offensive assault.
At sentencing the gang enhancement initially elevated the conviction to Class B with a 12-year sentence; after Bonds the enhancement was vacated and the conviction was reduced to a Class C felony with a six-year sentence at 30% (top of range), to run consecutively to an existing 25‑year sentence.
Armstrong appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of the evidence to support aggravated assault and (2) the length and manner (maximum within range and consecutive service) of his sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated assault	The State: video ID, cell evidence (bloody shirt, blood on wall), eyewitness account, medical proof of serious bodily injury, and defendant’s hand injuries support conviction.	Armstrong: general claim that evidence was insufficient; did not develop a detailed attack on elements.	Affirmed — reasonable-view evidence supports identity, intent, and that the attack caused serious bodily injury.
Sentence excessive / improperly used prior murder conviction	The State: sentence within range, court properly applied enhancement factors (serious injury, no hesitation, prior convictions) and exercised discretion.	Armstrong: sentence excessive; trial court allegedly double-counted the second-degree murder conviction as an enhancement.	Affirmed — trial court permissibly applied enhancement factors; prior murder did not constitute impermissible double-counting because other convictions existed.
Consecutive sentencing and denial of probation	The State: consecutive sentence appropriate because defendant is a dangerous offender with long record; probation unsuitable given brutality and custody status.	Armstrong: challenges the extent of the sentence and alternative sentencing denial.	Affirmed — court made Wilkerson findings for dangerous-offender consecutive service, considered sentencing principles, and reasonably denied probation.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118 (Tenn. Crim. App.) (invalidating gang enhancement statute as applied)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (sentencing review standards)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (consecutive sentencing review and required findings)
Wilkerson v. State, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (requirements when imposing consecutive sentences on dangerous offenders)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency principles)