Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Dinnie Merel Robertson

TENNCRIMAPPSeptember 12, 2018No. M2016-02409-CCA-R3-CD
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Retaliation

Excerpt

The Appellant, Dinnie Merel Robertson, was convicted in the Lawrence County Circuit Court in case number 31906 of two counts of felony vandalism, carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment. Subsequently, he pled guilty in the Lawrence County Circuit Court in case number 33049 to two counts of retaliation for past action. The Appellant received an effective four-year sentence in case number 31906 and an effective two-year sentence in case number 33049 to be served consecutively as ten months in confinement followed by supervised probation. The Appellant then was convicted in the Lawrence County Circuit Court in case number 33414 of selling one-half gram or more of methamphetamine and selling Clonazepam and received an effective ten-year sentence to be served in confinement and consecutively to the effective six-year sentence. The trial court also revoked the Appellant's probation in case numbers 31906 and 33049 and ordered that he serve his sentences in those cases in confinement. In this consolidated appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions in case number 33414, that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve his effective ten-year sentence in that case consecutively to his prior sentences, and that the trial court erred by denying his request for probation. He also contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation in case numbers 31906 and 33049 and ordering that he serve those sentences in confinement. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the case for correction of the judgments.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Case Summary: State of Tennessee v. Robertson** **What happened:** This case involved Dinnie Merel Robertson, who was convicted of multiple crimes including vandalism, carrying a firearm with intent, and reckless endangerment in one case. In a separate case, Robertson pleaded guilty to two counts of retaliation for past action. He received prison sentences totaling six years across both cases. **What the court decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings (remanded it). The specific reasoning for this decision is not detailed in the available excerpt, but appeals courts typically do this when they find errors that need to be corrected or when additional proceedings are required. **Why this matters for workers:** While this appears to be a criminal case rather than a typical employment dispute, the retaliation charges are significant for workers. This case demonstrates that retaliation - taking revenge against someone for their past actions or reports - is taken seriously by the legal system. Workers should know that if they report workplace violations or participate in investigations, laws exist to protect them from retaliation. Employers or individuals who engage in retaliatory behavior can face serious legal consequences, including criminal charges in severe cases.

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

Browse more:Retaliation cases

Browse Related

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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.