State of Tennessee v. Gregory Maurice Marlin, M2016-01376-CCA-R3-CD

On March 24, 2013, Deputy Garcia Jordan observed a gold Chevrolet Caprice speeding and attempted to stop it; the driver fled at high speed and ignored police signals.
The Caprice skidded into the front yards near a Buckingham Lane residence registered to Austin Smith; the driver failed to enter the driveway and the vehicle left tire tracks across wet yard areas.
Deputy Jordan saw the driver exit the Caprice, look directly at him from about 15–20 yards, close the door, and run into the backyard; Jordan identified the driver in court as Gregory Marlin, whom he had known for years.
The Caprice’s tag was registered to Marlin’s cousin (Austin Smith); Smith testified he did not authorize use of the car and that its ignition worked without a key.
Marlin stipulated to being a habitual motor vehicle offender; a jury convicted him of evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, evading arrest on foot, and operating a motor vehicle while declared a habitual traffic offender.
At sentencing the trial court applied three enhancement factors, imposed maximum-range sentences for the felonies, ordered consecutive service, later merged the two evading convictions, yielding an effective four-year term. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for identity	State: Deputy Jordan positively identified Marlin as the driver after observing him exit the vehicle at close range; circumstantial links (vehicle registered to cousin, parked at cousin’s house) support conviction	Marlin: Identification unreliable; Deputy Jordan could not identify driver while vehicle was moving and testimony conflicted about distance/lighting	Court: Evidence (direct ID plus circumstantial facts) was sufficient; jury could credit Jordan’s testimony and convict
Sufficiency for habitual offender driving	State: Marlin stipulated to habitual offender status and was identified as the vehicle operator	Marlin: Challenges identification facts	Court: Conviction supported by stipulation and ID evidence
Length of sentence / maximum imposition	State: Sentencing within statutory range; enhancements and consecutive factors supported by record	Marlin: Trial court abused discretion by imposing maximum sentences and consecutive terms; overcrowding argument cited	Court: Sentences within range and supported by enhancement findings and statutory bases for consecutive sentences; no abuse of discretion
Consecutive sentencing	State: Defendant’s extensive criminal history and commission of offenses while on probation/bail warrant consecutive terms	Marlin: Consecutive sentences excessive	Court: Consecutive sentence proper under T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b) given extensive record and probation/bail status

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence in criminal convictions)
State v. Radley, 29 S.W.3d 532 (one credible identification witness can support conviction)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (appellate review of within-range sentence: abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (standard for reviewing consecutive sentences and presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (jury verdict accredits State’s witnesses and resolves conflicts in prosecution’s favor)
State v. Strickland, 885 S.W.2d 85 (identity is a jury question after weighing all evidence)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (trial court need not reduce sentence from maximum even if mitigating factors exist)
State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698 (consecutive sentencing guided by principles that sentence be justly deserved and no greater than deserved)