State of Tennessee v. Willie Lee Hughes, Jr., M2015-01207-CCA-R3-CD

On August 18, 2011, Maria Jaimes was robbed at knifepoint; items taken included her cell phone, iPod, and handbag.
Police used the stolen phone’s signal to locate a grey Chevrolet Blazer in north Nashville; officers contacted occupants at 1806 Elizabeth Road.
Defendant Willie Lee Hughes initially denied involvement but, after two interviews with BPD Detective James Colvin (one at the scene, one at the station after Miranda warnings), ultimately confessed and led police to the phone and iPod.
Defendant was indicted for aggravated robbery (Williamson County case I-CR105947) and, after he failed to appear for a scheduled trial, was later charged with and pled guilty to failure to appear (case I-CR126935).
A jury convicted Hughes of aggravated robbery; the trial court sentenced him as a Range III persistent offender to 25 years; he received four years for failure to appear, to run consecutively.
On appeal Hughes argued (1) his statements to Detective Colvin should have been excluded under Tenn. R. Evid. 410 as plea-discussion statements and (2) the court erred in classifying him as a persistent offender for sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hughes)	Held
Admissibility of post-arrest/confession statements under Tenn. R. Evid. 410	Statements were obtained during routine investigation and not plea negotiations; Rule 410 does not apply.	Statements were made in the course of plea discussions or under an officer who acted with apparent authority to negotiate pleas, thus inadmissible under Rule 410.	Court held statements occurred during preliminary investigation and not plea negotiations; Rule 410 inapplicable, evidence admissible.
Sentencing: classification as Range III persistent offender	Presentence report showed five prior felony convictions within class or higher; facilitation-of-aggravated-robbery convictions do not merge under the 24-hour rule because aggravated robbery includes threatened bodily injury.	Two prior facilitation convictions (same date) should merge under the 24-hour rule because facilitation statute lacks an independent threatened-bodily-injury element.	Court held aggravated-robbery element (threatened bodily injury) imports into facilitation convictions, so the two priors do not merge; classification as persistent offender and within-range sentences affirmed.

State v. Hinton, 42 S.W.3d 113 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (sets two-prong test for Rule 410 plea-discussion exclusion and distinguishes plea negotiations from preliminary investigation)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (adopts abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing and presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (explains facilitation requires proof of the underlying felony and its elements)
United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir.) (federal authority cited for subjective/reasonable expectation test in plea-negotiation context)
United States v. Swidan, 689 F. Supp. 726 (E.D. Mich. 1988) (discussed by defendant for apparent-authority theory but not adopted by court)