State of Tennessee v. Humberto Morales, Mario Garcia Flores, and Keyona Martina Newell
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Judge John Everett Williams
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals; affirmed trial court judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences of three defendants for aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, theft, and conspiracy, rejecting all appellate challenges including sufficiency of evidence, vehicle stop constitutionality, discovery disclosure timing, cell phone evidence admission, mistrial motion, and accomplice instruction arguments.
Excerpt
The Defendants, Humberto Morales, Mario Garcia Flores, and Keyona Martina Newell, (collectively "the Defendants") were convicted of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated burglary, theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. Mr. Flores also was convicted of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. After merging various convictions, the trial court ordered Mr. Morales to serve an effective sentence of forty-eight years, Mr. Flores to serve an effective sentence of thirty years, and Ms. Newell to serve an effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the Defendants, either collectively or individually, challenge: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions (2) the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress based upon the constitutionality of the stop of the vehicle in which some of the perpetrators fled the scene (3) the trial court's denial of a continuance based upon the State's late disclosure of discovery materials (4) the trial court's decision to admit expert testimony of evidence extracted from the perpetrators' cell phones (5) the trial court's denial of Mr. Morales's motion for mistrial after Ms. Newell's counsel questioned a witness about evidence that the trial court previously ruled to be inadmissible (6) the trial court's failure to issue an accomplice instruction and (7) the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Defendant, Montrell Reid, appeals from his guilty-pleaded convictions for harassment and stalking, both Class A misdemeanors. Under the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days for each count, with the sentences to be served consecutively and the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. At sentencing, the trial court denied Defendant's request for probation and ordered that he serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation. Following our review, we affirm the trial court's judgments as to the denial of probation, but we remand for a determination of the percentage of service pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-302(d).
The Madison County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Andre Davis, Jr., for one count each of harassment and aggravated stalking. A jury found Defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed an effective two-year sentence. Defendant appeals and argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
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.