Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. LaDarius Berry

TENNCRIMAPPMarch 26, 2020No. W2019-00310-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 Shelby County grand jury indicted the defendant, LaDarius Berry, for attempted second degree murder (count 1), aggravated assault (count 2), employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony (count 3), and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon (count 4). After trial, a jury convicted the defendant as charged in counts 2, 3, and 4 and found him guilty of thelesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter in count 1. The trial court merged the defendant's convictions in counts 1 and 2 and imposed an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the sentencing imposed by the trial court. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but remand the case for the specific purposes of entry of amended judgments as to counts 1 and 2 to reflect the non-merger of the offenses as well as the determination by the trial court as to whether the sentences in counts 1 and 2 should be served consecutively or concurrently.

What This Ruling Means

**Important Note: This appears to be a criminal case, not an employment law case.** **What happened:** LaDarius Berry was charged with serious violent crimes including attempted murder, aggravated assault, using a firearm during a dangerous felony, and reckless endangerment. A jury found him guilty on most charges, though they convicted him of the lesser charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter instead of attempted second degree murder. **What the court decided:** The case was remanded, meaning it was sent back to a lower court for further proceedings. The excerpt doesn't provide the complete reasoning, but remands typically occur when there are legal errors that need to be corrected or additional proceedings that must take place. **Why this matters for workers:** Based on the available information, this criminal case does not appear to have direct implications for employment law or worker rights. The case involves serious criminal charges rather than workplace disputes, discrimination, wages, or other employment-related issues. Workers should note that this case would not affect their rights in the workplace or establish any employment-related legal precedents. *Note: The case classification as "employment law" appears to be incorrect based on the criminal charges described.*

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.