State of Tennessee v. Tyrone Bohanna

Appellant, Tyrone Bohanna, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury in a multi-count indictment with co-defendant Brandon Harris in March of 2010. Appellant was indicted for especially aggravated robbery, attempted second degree murder, two counts of employing a firearm during a felony, aggravated burglary, and three counts of aggravated assault. Following a lengthy jury trial, Appellant was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, reckless endangerment as a lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, and three counts of aggravated assault. Appellant was acquitted of one of the firearms charges. At a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that Appellant was a career offender. As a result, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence for each offense and ordered consecutive sentencing after finding that Appellant had an extensive criminal history and was a dangerous offender. Appellant received a total effective sentence of 120 years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial which the trial court denied. On appeal, Appellant seeks resolution of the following issues: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the admission of evidence pursuant to the forfeiture by wrongdoing provision of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6); (3) the admission of recordings of telephone calls made by Appellant from jail; (4) the determination by the trial court to hold court on Sunday; (5) the denial of Appellant’s motions for mistrial; (6) the admission of the testimony of Donovan Hensley; and (7) the imposition of consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude: (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence including Appellant’s telephone calls, hearsay statements of Antonio Hawkins, and testimony from Donovan Hensley; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.