Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Adarius Dewayne Garth

TENNCRIMAPPJune 9, 2017No. E2016-00931-CCA-R3-CD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Criminal appeal of sentence length and manner of service

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Defendant appealed his four-year sentence for reckless aggravated assault, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on sentencing.

Excerpt

Defendant, Adarius Dewayne Garth, was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for two counts of attempted first degree murder, domestic aggravated assault, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Defendant entered an "open" guilty plea to the lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault, and the remaining charges were dismissed on motion by the State. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to four years' incarceration as a Range I offender. Defendant appeals the length and manner of service of his sentence. Following a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

What This Ruling Means

**Case Summary: State of Tennessee v. Adarius Dewayne Garth** **What Happened:** This case involved Adarius Dewayne Garth, who was charged with several serious crimes including attempted murder, domestic violence, and using a firearm during a felony. Garth pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of reckless aggravated assault, and the other charges were dropped. He was sentenced to four years in prison but appealed, arguing his sentence was too harsh. **What the Court Decided:** The appeals court upheld Garth's four-year prison sentence. The court found that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors when determining the punishment and that the sentence was appropriate for his crime. **Why This Matters for Workers:** Despite being labeled as an "employment law" case, this appears to be a criminal matter rather than a workplace dispute. The classification may be an error in the case database. This case doesn't establish any meaningful precedent for workers regarding their employment rights, workplace safety, or employer-employee relationships. Workers should focus on cases that actually address workplace issues like discrimination, wage disputes, or wrongful termination for guidance on their employment rights.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.