State of Tennessee v. Robert L. Adams

The defendant, Robert Lee Adams, fled justice while the jury was deliberating numerous charges against him stemming from his participation in a drug-related shooting in 2007. The jury found the defendant guilty of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony; especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, a Class D felony. The defendant was sentenced in absentia to an effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus twenty years. The defendant’s trial counsel filed a timely motion for new trial. In response, the State moved to dismiss the defendant’s motion on the grounds that the defendant had abandoned his right to proceed by absconding from the court’s jurisdiction. After a hearing held while the defendant was still in absentia, the trial court dismissed the defendant’s motion for a new trialpursuantto the fugitive disentitlement doctrine and allowed the defendant’s trialcounsel to withdraw soon thereafter. Weeks later, the defendant was returned to custody, filed a pro se notice of appeal, and was appointed new counsel. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred by dismissing his motion for a new trial; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (3) the trial court erred by denying his trial counsel’s motion for a continuance; and (4) the trial court applied improper enhancement factors when it sentenced him for his conspiracy and aggravated robbery convictions. The State argues that we must dismiss the defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds that he was a fugitive from justice but that, nonetheless, we have jurisdiction to review his appeal now that he has been returned to custody. The absence of a motion for new trial, however, limits our appellate review to considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and his sentencing. After thorough review, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the defendant’s convictions and thatthe trial court committed no error in sentencing the defendant for conspiracy to commit kidnapping. While we conclude that the trial court may have erroneously applied one of the several enhancement factors it used when it sentenced the defendant for aggravated robbery, in light of the applicable sentencing principles, remaining enhancement factors, and the particular facts of this case, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.