State of Tennessee v. Johnny Lorenzo Wade
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal from trial court conviction and sentencing; appellate affirmation
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's conviction and sentencing of Johnny Lorenzo Wade for multiple serious felonies including first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, aggravated robbery, attempted murder, and aggravated assault, rejecting all eight appellate arguments challenging sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing.
Excerpt
The Defendant, Johnny Lorenzo Wade, was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree premeditated murder two counts of first degree felony murder two counts of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony one count of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony and one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-101, -13-102, -13-202, -13-403. The trial court merged one of the first degree felony murder convictions into the first degree premeditated murder conviction and the aggravated assault conviction into the attempted first degree murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of life imprisonment plus forty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends (1)that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions (2) that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion alleging that the seizure of his cell phone was illegal (3) that the trial court erred by admitting a video taken from his cell phone because it was not relevant and its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (4) that the trial court erred in admitting the statement of a co-defendant under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (5) that the trial court erred by allowing a witness to identify an item of evidence without personal knowledge of the item (6) that the trial court erred in allowing an employee of the Defendant's cell phone provider to testify as an expert witness on the operation of the provider's cellular network (7) that the trial court erred in allowing a police investigator to testify as a lay witness about "the plotting and pinging of the Defendant's cellular telephone records" and (8) that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing partial consecutive sentences because such sentences "were excessive." Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Defendant, Montrell Reid, appeals from his guilty-pleaded convictions for harassment and stalking, both Class A misdemeanors. Under the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days for each count, with the sentences to be served consecutively and the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. At sentencing, the trial court denied Defendant's request for probation and ordered that he serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation. Following our review, we affirm the trial court's judgments as to the denial of probation, but we remand for a determination of the percentage of service pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-302(d).
The Madison County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Andre Davis, Jr., for one count each of harassment and aggravated stalking. A jury found Defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed an effective two-year sentence. Defendant appeals and argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
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.