Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Steven Michael Odom

TENNCRIMAPPMarch 12, 2019No. W2018-00634-CCA-R3-CD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

The Defendant, Steven Michael Odom, appeals his jury convictions for aggravated burglary and theft of property $500 or more but less than $1,000. The Defendant alleges that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his jury convictions, challenging the evidence establishing his entry into a habitation and his criminal responsibility for the actions of his co-defendant and (2) that the trial court's refusal to play for the jury the portion of the Defendant's police interview during which the Defendant stated adamantly that he was telling the truth was error. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that the Defendant's issues do not entitle him to relief. However, we find plain error because the trial court failed to apply the amended theft grading statute at sentencing. Accordingly, we vacate the two-year, Class E felony sentence for the Defendant's theft conviction, and the case is remanded for entry of a modified judgment reflecting an eleven-month and twenty-nine-day sentence for a Class A misdemeanor conviction of theft of property valued at $1,000 or less. Furthermore, upon remand, it shall be notated on all three judgment forms, including the Defendant's guilty plea to felon in possession of a weapon offense, the concurrent nature of the Defendant's various sentences. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involved Steven Michael Odom, who was convicted by a jury for aggravated burglary and theft of property worth between $500 and $1,000. Odom appealed his convictions, arguing that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he entered someone's home illegally or that he should be held responsible for what his co-defendant (partner in crime) did. He also claimed the trial court made an error by not allowing the jury to hear part of his police interview. **What the court decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings (remanded). The excerpt provided doesn't include the full reasoning or final outcome of the appeal. **Why this matters for workers:** Despite being labeled as an "employment law" case, this appears to be a criminal case about burglary and theft rather than a workplace dispute. The classification may be an error in the case database. This case doesn't establish any meaningful precedent or guidance for workers regarding their employment rights, workplace protections, or employer-employee relationships. Workers looking for employment law guidance should focus on cases that actually involve workplace issues like wages, discrimination, or working conditions.

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.