State of Tennessee v. Hollis Fisk, Jr.
M2015-01552-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Aug 2, 2016Background
- On May 25, 2014, after a dispute about $20 allegedly borrowed by a friend, Hollis Fisk, Jr. (Defendant) confronted victim Will Dunlap outside a Walmart; Defendant and accomplices escorted Dunlap to a car, demanded he empty his pockets, took items from his wallet, and detained him in the backseat before driving to a remote area where Dunlap was struck and fled.
- Dunlap testified he surrendered his wallet because he was afraid; Defendant kept the removed items (license, social security card, $1) and threatened to come to Dunlap’s home if the money was not repaid.
- Video surveillance corroborated movements in and out of the store and that Dunlap left in a vehicle with Defendant; one alleged accomplice (Bradley) later died and did not testify.
- Defendant was convicted by a jury of robbery (Class C felony), false imprisonment (lesser included of aggravated kidnapping, misdemeanor), and assault (misdemeanor).
- The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II offender to eight years for robbery (within the 6–10 year range), concurrent misdemeanor terms, ordered restitution, and denied alternative (probation/split) sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Fisk's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery (intent to steal; put victim in fear) | Evidence showed intent to deprive (took items and kept them) and intimidation/threats that induced submission | Evidence was insufficient because only nominal items were taken and victim did not actively resist or flee | Court affirmed: a rational jury could find intent to steal and that Defendant put victim in fear; conviction upheld |
| Sentence length (within-range eight years for Class C, Range II) | Within-range sentence supported by Defendant’s prior criminal history (enhancement) and sentencing factors | Eight years is excessive given minor value of property and relatively mild facts | Court affirmed: trial court considered statutory factors and properly applied enhancement; sentence reasonable |
| Denial of alternative sentence (probation/split confinement) | Confinement needed to protect society, deter, and prevent depreciation of offense seriousness given repeated prior offenses | Defendant eligible and argued for split/probation given mainly old convictions and nominal loss | Court affirmed: Defendant not a "favorable candidate" (not especially mitigated/standard); trial court reasonably found confinement necessary and denial proper |
| Admissibility/weight of evidence (video and witnesses) | Video and witness testimony supported State’s chronology and jury credibility findings | Defense presented alibi/explanation (different account from driver and passengers) and highlighted inconsistencies | Court deferred to jury credibility determinations and accepted reasonable inferences for the State |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (review for sufficiency of evidence standard) (establishes whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002) (appellate deference to jury credibility findings in sufficiency review)
- State v. Dotson, 254 S.W.3d 378 (Tenn. 2008) (defining "fear" element of robbery and when legal presumption of fear arises)
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentencing)
- State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (criteria for appellate review of sentencing; presumption of reasonableness when trial court follows statutory factors)