State of Tennessee v. Marvin Stinnett
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Judge Alan E. Glenn
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Appeal from criminal conviction; appellate affirmation of trial court judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Defendant Marvin Stinnett's conviction appeal was denied and the trial court's judgment was affirmed. The appellate court rejected Stinnett's sufficiency of the evidence challenges across multiple felony counts.
Excerpt
The Defendant, Marvin Stinnett, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, three counts of aggravated assault, one count of reckless endangerment and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received an effective sentence of thirty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions for attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
What This Ruling Means
Court Ruling Summary: State of Tennessee v. Marvin Stinnett
What Happened:
This case involved Marvin Stinnett, who was convicted of multiple serious crimes including attempted murder, aggravated assault, and illegal firearm possession. Stinnett was sentenced to 30 years in prison by a Shelby County jury. He then appealed his conviction, arguing that there wasn't enough evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict on the various charges against him.
What the Court Decided:
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Stinnett's appeal and upheld his original conviction. The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision on all counts. Stinnett's 30-year prison sentence remains in effect.
Why This Matters for Workers:
While this appears to be a criminal case rather than a traditional employment law dispute, it's important to note that this case doesn't establish any new workplace protections or employment rights. Workers should be aware that serious criminal conduct, especially involving violence or weapons, will result in criminal prosecution and can lead to lengthy prison sentences, regardless of any employment context.
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 3 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.