State of Tennessee v. Montreal Portis Robinson
W2016-01949-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Defendant Montreal Portis Robinson and co-defendant were accused of robbing Matthew Leonard and Chad Roaten during a drug transaction; one count (against Roaten) was reduced to robbery before trial.
- Victims followed the defendants to a park; Leonard was forced into the defendants’ vehicle where a gun was placed to his head and money taken; Roaten was blocked from exiting his car and had money, phone, knife, and keys taken.
- Roaten identified Robinson from a photographic array and at trial; Leonard could not identify Robinson from the array but identified him in court and testified he was certain.
- Jury convicted Robinson of aggravated robbery (Leonard) and robbery (Roaten); trial court sentenced him to 8 years and 3 years, to run consecutively for an effective 11-year term.
- On appeal Robinson challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence as to identity for the aggravated robbery and (2) the imposition of consecutive sentences based on his criminal history and juvenile adjudications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence for aggravated robbery | State: Identification by Roaten plus Leonard’s in-court ID and surrounding evidence suffice to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt | Robinson: Leonard’s failure to identify in photographic array undermines sufficiency of proof of identity | Court: Evidence (Roaten’s array and in-court IDs, Leonard’s in-court ID, circumstantial proof) was sufficient; conviction affirmed |
| Consecutive sentencing | State: Defendant’s juvenile adjudications, prior weapon conviction, and pattern of criminal activity justify consecutive sentences under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b) | Robinson: Adult record consists only of misdemeanors and juvenile offenses were remote; consecutive sentences inappropriate | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; consecutive sentences justified by extensive criminal activity and juvenile adjudications; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010) (circumstantial evidence can establish offense)
- State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (State need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis in circumstantial cases)
- State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn. 1999) (requirements when imposing consecutive sentences as a dangerous offender)
- State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (consecutive sentencing standards for dangerous offender)
- Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1966) (deference to jury on witness credibility)