Nashville, Tenn. - Today, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued a decision in State of Tennessee v. Pervis Tyrone Payne affirming the trial court’s modification of Payne’s death sentences but vacating the trial court’s decision to order that Payne’s sentences be served concurrently instead of consecutively.
In 1987, Pervis Tyrone Payne killed Charisse Christopher and her two-year-old daughter, Lacie, and severely injured Charisse’s three-year-old son, Nicholas. Payne was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Charisse and Lacie and received two death sentences.
When a defendant gets more than one sentence, judges can order them to be served consecutively, meaning they are served one after the other, or concurrently, meaning they are all served at the same time. In the event that Payne’s two death sentences were later converted to life sentences, the judge ordered them to be served consecutively. Consecutive sentences would lengthen the time before Payne would be eligible for parole.
Over thirty years later, in 2021, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a statute that provided a procedure for certain death-sentenced prisoners to have a court determine whether they are intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty. Payne sought relief under that statute and was found intellectually disabled.
After determining that Payne is intellectually disabled, the trial court vacated his death sentences and replaced them with life sentences. The trial court also reconsidered whether the sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that Payne’s sentences should be served concurrently rather than consecutively. This change meant that Payne would be eligible for parole in 2026, thirty years earlier than if the sentences were consecutive. The State of Tennessee appealed.
On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s decision to replace Payne’s death sentences with life sentences but disagreed with its decision to run the sentences concurrently. The Court explained that a trial court can modify a final criminal judgment only if a statute grants it the authority to do so. Because a statute granted the court authority to replace Payne’s death sentences with life sentences following his intellectual disability determination, the Court upheld that portion of the trial court’s decision. But because no statute allowed the trial court to alter the consecutive alignment of Payne’s sentences, the Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to realign Payne’s sentences and vacated that part of the trial court’s judgment.
To read the Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Sarah K. Campbell, click here.
