State of Tennessee v. Jerica Elizabeth Taylor

01/03/2018 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 17, 2017 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JERICA ELIZABETH TAYLOR Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2015-B-937 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge No. M2016-02578-CCA-R3-CD The Defendant, Jerica Elizabeth Taylor, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-402 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to eleven years’ confinement at 85% service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction, (2) the trial court improperly limited her cross- examination of the victim, (3) the photograph lineup was improperly admitted as evidence, and (4) the trial court erred during sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined. Anne M. Davenport, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jerica Elizabeth Taylor. Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Alexander C. Vey, Assistant Attorney General; Glenn Funk, District Attorney General; and Megan King, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION This case relates to the December 14, 2014 robbery of William Majano. At the trial, the victim, a native of El Salvador, testified with the aid of a certified court interpreter that he had lived in Davidson County for eleven or twelve years. The victim said that he had known the Defendant as Jessica and for about three months at the time of the robbery. He said that they met in September 2014, when the Defendant offered him roadside assistance when his truck tire “blew up.” The victim said that they “hit it off,” that they talked for a few minutes, and that he gave her his cell phone number when she asked for it. The victim said that the Defendant called him about four days later, that he picked up the Defendant at a location she determined, that they engaged in sexual intercourse, and that he drove the Defendant to her sister’s apartment. The victim said that although the Defendant never asked for money, he gave her $50 cash because she stated she needed money for her young child. He said that they met two weeks later, that they engaged in sexual intercourse, and that he gave her money, although she never stated she was a prostitute. The victim testified that on December 14, 2014, the Defendant sent him a text message requesting a ride and that he picked her up at an apartment complex around 2:30 or 3:00 p.m. He said that the victim was alone in a parking lot and that she told him to park his truck. He said that she entered the truck, that he asked her where she wanted to go, and that she told him to wait ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals