Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Jackson Chapman North

TENNCRIMAPPJuly 30, 2021No. M2020-00221-CCA-R3-CD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Robert H. Montgomery
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

The Defendant, Jackson Chapman North, pleaded guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to two counts of vandalism valued at $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, vandalism valued at more than $1,000 but less than $2,500, a Class E felony, vandalism valued at $1,000 or less, a Class A misdemeanor, and unlawful possession of a weapon, a Class C misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-408 (2018) (vandalism) 39-14-105 (2018) (grading) 39-17-1307 (2018) (unlawful weapon possession). The trial court ordered partial consecutive service and imposed an effective six-year sentence, with four years, sixty days in confinement and the remainder on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the Defendant's sentence, but as a matter of plain error, we reverse the trial court's restitution order and remand the case for proper restitution determinations.

What This Ruling Means

Based on the excerpt provided, this appears to be a criminal case rather than an employment law dispute. **What happened:** Jackson Chapman North was charged with multiple criminal offenses including several counts of vandalism (property damage) of varying amounts and unlawful weapon possession. The case was heard in Bedford County Circuit Court in Tennessee. **What the court decided:** Chapman North pleaded guilty to all charges, which included two felony vandalism counts for damage between $2,500-$10,000 and $1,000-$2,500 respectively, plus a misdemeanor vandalism charge for damage under $1,000, and unlawful weapon possession. **Why this matters for workers:** This case doesn't appear to directly relate to employment law or workplace issues. The excerpt suggests this was a criminal matter involving property damage and weapons charges. Without more context about how this connects to employment law, it's unclear what workplace implications this ruling might have. Workers should note that criminal convictions can affect employment opportunities, as many employers conduct background checks. However, the specific employment law relevance of this case isn't apparent from the information provided. *Note: The excerpt appears incomplete and may not contain the full employment law 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 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.