Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Alexander

TENNCRIMAPPMay 14, 2019No. W2018-00442-CCA-R3-CD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge J. Ross Dyer
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

A Hardin County jury convicted the defendant of two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm (counts 1 and 2), possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver (count 3), possession of unlawful drug paraphernalia (count 4), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony (count 5). On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions in counts 3 and 5 and asserts the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the inference of casual exchange pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-419. Upon our review of the record, we conclude sufficient evidence exists to support the defendant's convictions and the defendant failed to preserve the jury instruction issue for appeal. In reviewing the sentencing determinations of the trial court, however, we note several errors in the completion of the judgment forms for counts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Specifically, there are clerical errors in the felony classifications as marked in counts 1, 2, and 3 (in count 1, the trial court incorrectly classified the conviction as a Class C felony rather than a Class B felony in count 2, the trial court incorrectly classified the conviction as a Class E felony rather than a Class C felony and in count 3, the trial court incorrectly classified the conviction as a Class C felony rather than a Class B felony). Additionally, in merging the defendant's convictions in counts 1 and 2, the trial court failed to impose a sentence for the merged conviction of count 2. Finally, in count 4, the trial court incorrectly sentenced the defendant for a misdemeanor conviction rather than the felony for which he was found guilty, warranting a new sentencing hearing on the same. Consequently, we remand the case to the trial court for sentencing as to counts 2 and 4 and the entry of corrected and completed judgment forms as to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4.

What This Ruling Means

This case involves a criminal prosecution, not an employment law dispute. Jonathan Alexander was charged with multiple criminal offenses including illegal firearm possession, drug possession with intent to distribute, drug paraphernalia possession, and using a firearm during a dangerous felony. A jury in Hardin County convicted him on all charges. Alexander appealed his convictions, arguing there wasn't enough evidence to support the drug distribution and firearm-during-felony charges. He also claimed the trial court made an error, though the excerpt cuts off before explaining what that error was. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. **This case doesn't apply to workers or employment issues.** Despite being categorized as "employment law," this is actually a criminal case about drug and weapons charges. Workers looking for information about employment rights, workplace protections, or job-related legal issues should focus on cases that actually involve employer-employee disputes, such as wage theft, discrimination, wrongful termination, or workplace safety violations. This criminal case wouldn't provide any guidance for employment-related situations.

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.