Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Anterrio Chambers

TENNCRIMAPPApril 15, 2019No. W2018-01423-CCA-R3-CD
Defendant WinAnterrio Chambers

Case Details

Judge(s)
Presiding Judge John Everett Williams
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals; affirmance of trial court judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Appellate court affirmed the trial court's conviction and 31-year sentence, rejecting the defendant's challenges to sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions on lesser-included offenses, and consecutive sentencing.

Excerpt

The Defendant, Anterrio Chambers, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony. He received an effective thirty-one-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the trial court's failure to charge misdemeanor reckless endangerment as a lesser-included offense of attempted first degree murder, and the trial court's imposition of partial consecutive sentences. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

What This Ruling Means

**Important Note: This case appears to be mislabeled as an employment law matter.** **What Happened:** This was actually a criminal case, not an employment law dispute. Anterrio Chambers was convicted of serious violent crimes including attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and using a firearm during these crimes. He was sentenced to 31 years in prison and appealed his conviction. **What the Court Decided:** The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Chambers' conviction and 31-year sentence. The court rejected his arguments that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, that the jury should have been given different instruction options, and that his sentences shouldn't run consecutively. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case doesn't actually provide guidance for workers since it's a criminal matter, not an employment law case. It appears to have been incorrectly categorized. Workers looking for employment law guidance should focus on cases that actually involve workplace disputes, discrimination, wages, benefits, or other job-related legal issues. This case deals with criminal charges unrelated to workplace rights or employer-employee relationships.

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.